FinnBol responds to Muke

I dont think our yugo friend is defending the USSR's grip to power.

Nigga do you really expect me to watch all of that?

Stop promoting yourself

Fucking hell, pride ego, dumb idiots who didnt understand what the were doing fucking ruined the greatest opportunity for full cybernetic communism. This makes me so angry and upset. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

W O K E
O
K
E

That's basically the same the debates the Soviets had after collectivization. I'd argue that the products being sold are not produced to exchange, they are produced to be sold for use. There is no profit-motive whatsoever, and the law of value exists but doesn't determine production in the USSR. I'd say that commodities are being produced in the USSR but not under the law of value or for exchange even. If we follow Marx own words in Kapital (which Muke hasn't read btw) it is quite clear that commodity production is something more than just production for market exchange. We also have Engels historical works which lay out how commodity production existed prior to capitalism, from which we can deduct this conclusion as well.

t. Marx

DotP is not an economic system. It can be capitalist or socialist.

I know. I was just pointing out that FB's claim is wrong. Marx does talk about a specific transitionairy phase between communism (low and high together as a super catagory) and capitalism.

Wait, what?

I think he makes his best point at the end of the video. If you don't like the USSR, just say it. Just because it was socialism, doesn't mean you have to like it. That's awfully spooked and ideologically driven. You don't need to come up with some elaborate selective reading of Marx to make mental gymnastics to say it wasn't socialist, or ride the semantics train into the abyss - that like Lolberts who make insanely elaborate schemes to label every failed capitalist economy as not real capitalism.

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm
>The value form of products therefore already contains in embryo the whole capitalist form of production, the antagonism between capitalists and wage-workers, the industrial reserve army, crises. To seek to abolish the capitalist form of production by establishing "true value" {D. K. G. 78} is therefore tantamount to attempting to abolish Catholicism by establishing the "true" Pope, or to set up a society in which at last the producers control their product, by consistently carrying into life an economic category which is the most comprehensive expression of the enslavement of the producers by their own product.

Ah yes, that famed equal value in money-capital. Is that socialist money-capital, then? You sound like a Lassallean.

Yes, but that phase isn't it's own mode of production though?

Stop saving the version with the fedbook commentary.

I think leftcoms would argue that it is not a market, because a market implies exchange. Instead, you must view the payment in labour vouchers as a rationing product. If we were to accept that the USSR's payment functions identical (ignoring the ability to give money away) then the USSR doesn't have a market, and as such has no commodity production. Its just rationing based on work, not production by individuals for sale in a market. Hence its not a commodity.

No thats why its called transitionairy. Its a transition between two things, so its not a mode of its own.

I think FinnBol just phrased it very badly. I think what he wanted to say is that Marx did not necessarily imply or insist that the DotP could never ever expand onto the lower phase. He sees the DotP covering both the transitional phase and the lower phase, whereas Muke out of his own dogmatism wants to have a clear cut between those two. That's what FinnBol means by "inventing a third stage". But I agree he could have been more smoothly there.

It seems to me that if marx says "in this thing the same principle prevail as in this other thing" then it means that thing A is not thing B, so socialist production with rationing based on work is not commodity production, it just has the same principles. Why else would marx differentiate between then?

The DotP is defacto capitalist. Where there is a working class, there is capitalism. The aim of the DotP is transforming the social relations of production. Where the DotP succeeds in abolishing the capital relation, there is no more class explicitly characterized by its prospensity to perform wage labour within the confines of the capitalist mode of production; there are now individuals, in a material human community, AKA communism. The DotP ends where communism (or call it socialism, w/e) begins; there is no more proletarian subject-class anymore.

You are mixing a lot of stuff together. First off there is a difference between operating and determining. If the law of value was determining production in the USSR, it would have looked quite differently than it did look. Second off the quote of Engels is exactly what I mentioned earlier about the existence of commodities before capitalism. You do realize that Engels talks about exchange value, right?
Literally didn't exist in the USSR.

TFW a single Japanese Marxist's text is what helped Xexizy realize that the USSR was just Taylorist capitalism: marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm.

In an ideal world. As long as socialism is competing with capitalism, the DotP or the state in general can not be discarded. That's utopian. Stop engaging in Weltanschauungsmarxismus.

That's exactly what every Marxist-Leninist is trying to say since ever. It has the same principles as commodity production, but the law of value doesn't determine production.

reminder that recent developments have all by themselves enamored the flame of actually reading marx and not the marxists and that it's no surprise muke is, like many others, precisely now turning ultra. you are completely helpeless to stop this, just as as you couldn't stop the collapse of your 20th century gunpoint social democracies. the best you could do was cull as many opponents as possible until the inevitable prevailed, but even that is no longer possible.

thecharnelhouse.org/2015/06/14/no-tears-for-tankies/

Why didn't the Soviets adopt labour vouchers?

the leftcom revolution is just around the corner!

your first mistake was thinking there can ever be such a thing as a revolution characterized by an ideology (leftcom or otherwise).

Why do you give a shit what some totally unimportant internet celebrities think about the USSR or Bordiga then?

because it's going to trigger tankies deeply (and it already does) and their terrible rebuttals will be to no effect whatsoever to the continuing growth of ultraleftism.

why do you care about the growth of ultraleftism?

...

Alright. I thought there was some other reason the growth of ultraleftism was good besides triggering tankies.

nope. it will likely produce more actually cogent and marxist material, interesting individuals and spaces for discussion of theory and so on but that's pretty inconsequential for anything but that in itself. the burying of the walking corpse that is stalinism was already in effect, but the ever nostalgic e-stalinism still needed a proper burial into the trashcan of history (even though it was already halfway in there).

This is a part of my comment on FinBol's video. Could some leftcom give me their perspective on this:

There are inevitable problems of capitalism which did not manifest themselves in the USSR. For example, periodic economic crises of overproduction is an important part of the Marxist critique of capitalism and it's a problem that is inherent to the capitalist system. How come the USSR could industrialize and show incredible economic growth during one of the worst capitalist crises ever? Another one is unemployment for the sake of having a reserve army of labour (to keep wages down), which did not exist in the USSR. Another one is the tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth and create extreme inequalities, which didn't happen in the USSR. If the USSR really was capitalist, it was a really fucking weird kind of capitalism, which somehow didn't have many of the problems Marxists previously thought were inherent to capitalism. If the USSR didn't have these problems, but was still capitalist, isn't that saying, for example, that there actually is a fix for capitalist crises of overproduction, and it is not inherent to capitalism?

I don't think I have to. I never felt urge to actual concern myself with ultras outside of this board, they are absolutely useless, impotent, ideologically driven and irrelevant. They are nothing more than a glorified hippie reading circle surrounding themselves with the aesthetics of situationists.
Literally on the grave of Garl Marks. If you were being honest of yourself, you'd realize that the only reason ultras gain traction amongst leftists that aren't drawn to anarchism is because of the bourgeois propaganda/smearing of real existing socialist societies and the fact that most pseudo-leftists still want to retain some bonus points with liberals, especially now, when le ebul alt-right is on the rise. It is not coincidence that Muke is so passionate about defending about a liberal movement like Antifa fighting ghosts, while putting on this dogmatist stance of being a "true Marxist" - which he obviously didn't come up by himself, he got a Leftcom telling him these talking points, because when you truly read Marx with no bias at all there is no indication whatsoever that you arrive at the deductions Leftcoms make.

Calling the lower stage of communism socialism is revisionism now? Come the fuck on.

Why are even having this debate then? Muke also commented on Cockshott without reading him, it's second-hand knowledge from people who also don't directly read stuff. Well, I guess that's how you get twitter-famous. But okay, I'm going into this debate, twitter-style:

Disagree. Humans can run, but aren't the fastest; our bodies can dive, but can't breathe underwater; can attack, but neither can they spit poison nor do they have claws. Humans aren't directly great at anything particular in a direct way, but they can reshape the environment to fit them, they can build different types of prosthesis that enable them to do all sorts of things, like diving or flying. Humans can learn and humans have potential radiating in all sorts of directions. Our average ability is what matters in many group activities, it is a point of reference, our precious time is a fundamental opportunity cost to activities, and to deny this is nonsense.

In the spirit of Marxism-Mukeism I didn't even bother to read the rest.

Bump. I'm offering leftcoms an opportunity to demonstrate their superior knowledge of Marxist theory here!

But at the same time they say that socialism has commodity production.

i'm not even a leftcom, but this is laughable

the "problems marxists thought were inherent to capitalism" wasn't limited to wealth concentration and existence of crises.

>the "problems marxists thought were inherent to capitalism" wasn't limited to wealth concentration and existence of crises.
I didn't mean to imply those are the only problems of capitalism (nor do I think I actually wrote that). I was using those as examples of problems (which I've been taught) are inherent to capitalism. Leftcoms must not believe that concentration of wealth, crises of overproduction and persistent unemployment in order to keep wages down are three problems that are inherent to capitalism and unfixable under capitalism then?

>thecharnelhouse.org/2015/06/14/no-tears-for-tankies/
What does that have to do with this thread?

Bourgeouis propaganda.

What's a "muke"? Is it in german?

you imply that these are the problems an economy should have in order to be "capitalist". if you can't see how batshit stupid that is. or at least dishonest.

His name is Luke.

Thats fucking ironic comming from some one that suports market socialism that basicly creates an actual party burgeoi.

So Luke is that zxzxzxcy guy. Where does Muke come in? Why the M?

how funny, he thinks i have a flag that represents my beliefs

(i'm from an ex-yugo country)

Jesus. Source?

...

...

i really don't, but i guess it was worth seeing how mad it made you

This has to be the most pathetic post anyone ever makes on an imageboard. I see it once every few days and it never feels any less pathetic to read.

No I am not. I'm saying these are problems so common to capitalism that they're usually considered inherent to capitalism. I know you can't define capitalism based on the problems that capitalism creates (you need to go deeper than that), but these problems are consequences of the capitalist mode of production. So I think some explanation of why these specific problems didn't exist in the USSR would be useful and interesting if your view is that the USSR too was capitalist.

I'm not saying any of this proves the USSR was socialist or anything. Look at what I'm saying:
A simple "No, leftcoms do not believe those problems are inherent to capitalism" would be a perfectly good answer, and it wouldn't really change anything in the discussion of whether the USSR was socialist or not. It feels like you think I'm out to prove something I'm not, or that this is some sort of gotcha question, but I'm simply trying to understand leftcoms better.

Great Video, FinnBol is awesome!

Why do people do this "fedbook commentary" thing? I've seen pictures where it's literally just repeating the punchline?? What the fuck

Oh wow I can't wait for the finnishtankie New video

Well Stalin doubled the life expectancy, did technological jump from stone age to space age, defeated fascism in the west and east and did lots of cool shit.

He did do some good things admittedly
But finbols makes out as if he was just this beautiful human being and continues to suck his dick vid after vid
Like the ones where he has the balls to imply he wasn't a dictator

Well the way I see it, we Marxist-Leninists have the historical duty to point out the successes of the USSR, because that's what's needed. You think the USSR was shit and need to confirm your bias? Well go to literally every bourgeois historian, every trot, anarchist or leftcom paper and you'll find what you need. Sure we sometimes also have our bias but that's because we are the corrective to the anti-communist mainstream. We don't need to point out potential flaws, we literally have everybody else doing it.

You are both being dishonest. His point was that if the SU was capitalist, it was certainly by any number of metrics a superior form of capitalism, and deserves praise as such.

Stop infighting you fucking morons.

That's fair, and I would defend the USSR from liberal fucks any day of the week. Its when you guys latch onto it to disparage other tendencies that bothers me personally. Not even trying to get all soft and promote "left unity" unnecessarily, however I think its safe to say we are all primarily anticapitalists first

Fucking this, never apologize for the Soviet Union.

...

did you not watch until the end of the video where he specifically mentions the DotP? and how he mentions that the DotP is everything between capitalism and higher stage communism?

No, it strengthens us.

muke is saying on twitter and discord that everything finbol spoke about was already dealt with in the original video, should be interesting to see the response

Muke just needs to debate Finbol already. Just to settle the fact Muke has never read anything beyond the introductory books to Socialism/communism and trot news papers

Finbol is a cool guy

...

And this is how the ex-commie idpoller is born. Too bad at reading theory? Collect your own little following and start calling out people for being deeply triggering and excellent.

"it went over my head, sorry"

love this show lol

How does it feel to be able to call anybody a tankie, Muke? Was the temptation too big to be able to use the boogeyman word? Was reading really that hard?

im not muke

the only people i consider tankies are the people who cite Grover Furr or type the word "anarkkkist"

You clearly don't. You just called everyone laughing at Muke ITT a tankie.

Dude Anarchopac is a fucking tumblrina. His debate against Molymeme was cool but the guy is insufferable. He doesn't want to talk to people who "misgender" him, he thinks the most important struggle for leftists is to get female CEOs and he plays the oppression olympics every fucking time including calling every Marxist a totalitarian. Into the trash he goes

He read "State and Revolution" (twice), "Critique of the Gotha Programme" and "Wage Labour and Capital" and now he thinks he's some kind of theory wizard.

Think about it, this is a guy who felt comfortable starting a youtube channel to teach people about Marxism after reading ONE (1) book (State and Revolution).

where the hell is muke's response to finbol?

...

Holy shit, please tell me this actually happens.

Is this what everyone is going to bitch about now? This is the most cancerous idpol.

now I get it, he's just a poser

Finbol is without competition the best lefty yter. No one else comes close.

If you're ML you should check out "Comrade Hakim". He's like FinnBol but better editing and more structured videos.

yeah because youreprobably grover furr tards

Agree to disagree, Finbol's lectures are more my style. Thanks for the recommendation though.

looking into it, thx

this

Source?

suprised? he doesn't read anything

You don't have to read a book to be able to judge it if you are literate.

That's pretty bad. Fucking leftcoms collect the biggest idiot following.

Muke pls…

you know what they say

youtube.com/watch?v=reKDSMvBWEY

Why would you put long ass lines like these into the video? Wrap the lines.

...

Thanks user, exactly what I needed.

I like that picture because Stalin is seizing the means of production for himself (ie the state). which is state capitalism

What do the leftcoms here think about xexizy's original video and his response to FinBol?

Muke responded
youtu.be/reKDSMvBWEY

*crickets*

youtu.be/Tw_sBRrlhAc

Roo's response is already out!

why the fuck does this guy get called "muke" anyway

Chatrooms, it was his handle

WEW

it's literally just two minutes of him telling him he's shit and to kill himself.

you are retarded

...

LMAO THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN HE TOLD HIM TO KILL HIMSELF

literally not an argument

wow this one is even worse than the last one. The last one he didn't watch the video and basically read of random counter arguments to arguments muke didn't even make. This one he just tells muke to kys.

what fucking vitriol lmao

lel
Using someone's gender identity as an argument/insult is the idpol.

.t tanko

I feel incredibly bad for Unruhe. He's a walking self-embarassment and a laughing stock to everybody and he never stops.

Don't worry. He has too little self-awareness to feel embarrassment.

...

I wonder who is behind these posts

I don't get how people take this guys two minute shitty rebuttals seriously.
I don't know how he can pretend like he's insulted that muke shat on him so hard after ranted at him on twitter.
Where does he get off comparing muke to sargon, when you can't make it past 5 minutes of a video?
How does he exist?

But seriously though what do you have against people not following norms? Does it make you feel uncomfortable? Do you get a little tingle in your pants when you see feminine markers on a male body and don't know how to respond because it forces you to recognize that you're not actually attracted to the female sex or even the female gender, but tertiary characteristics like hair and makeup that are purely cultural constructs and that makes you feel insecure about your sexuality?

This guy is so fucking childish and pathetic. Think about it: a 30+ neckbeard LARPer, who believes that making shitty youtube videos somehow helps muh noble savages of the 3rd world, tells other leftists to "unironically" kill themselves over useless arguments.

Oh WOOOO WEE!!! Another debate about whether some guys in russian praticed socialism or not!

...

saying "hey don't be a dick to x group of people for no reason" is not idpol
saying "these arguments came from x group of people and are therefore invalid" literally IS idpol
i don't know how this could be more obvious. kys dipshit.

take off that flag, yadayadayada.

Where did I say anything about people following norms? Obviously, as a flag waver for the trannyrape brigade, you have your own social norm you wish to impose. Still, keep telling yourself that others see you as attractive and are confused rather than as the apologist for sexual abuse you are.

That's all it is. Stop getting triggered over the language you faggot.

Very Rational.

All this projection, so much insecurity.

Just don't be an asshole to trannies around trannies, dude.

I ain't said shit about whoever you're talking about dumbass.

dishonest as fuck. "exclusionary of trans women partners" means "refuses to sleep with trans women", which is not a synonym for "treats shittily"

Because muke couldn't make it through State and Revolution until he got humiliated by nazis.

...

I'm getting wew'd right now, am I not?

"We've got some utterly ridiculous ideas about gender, so we made up this new identity personfying them to prevent you expressing negativity towards them in any way" - literally idpol in purest form
"Arguments from a group of people who insist that identity should come before class and from someone has openly admitted that their """abusive""" family had sufficient wealth to pay for seven years education at one of the worlds top universities are not idpol and should not be dismissed out of hand". I don't think you should be calling anyone a dipsht. Rope and tablets for you.

>>"exclusionary of trans women partners"
what the fuck do you think it means?

Alright, I missed that. I'm not sure if that definitely means romantic relationship or just associating yourself with someone at all because they're a tranny, just friendly or politically or decently in daily life or w/e, but "partner" otherwise does seem to imply an actual sexual relationship. I'll have to admit that if that's indeed the implication (seems like it is) I'm wrong here and that's retarded.

get the fuck outta here

So the thread about Muke's reply to FinnBol's arguments became the thread about "discussion" of Jason's treatment of trannies on twitter and the thread about twitter drama became the thread about the Roo's reply to him. Cool stuff.

Yeah I like doing that.

Anyways I just want to say that I think a lot of the "anti-idpol" sentiment here has devolved into thinking you shouldn't just be decent to trannies and take the minor effort of using their pronouns and shit, and in my excursions I've found that a lot of the characterizations of transfags as hysterical and demanding insane things is largely ficticious and based on a few extreme examples like [insert that one video we all know of a person with colored hair freaking out lol xd le dumb SJW *tips*], but that kind of insanity does still sometimes exist, which is sad, as we see here.

Others have pointed out your lies

It would seem so.

Doubling down on the reactionary trannyrape.

anarchopac isn't even a fucking tranny, you mongoloid. Much like pic related, another one of twitters """trannies""".

Okay. Step aside, then.

I agree

REMOVED

There are a lot of ex-righties here who don't want to give up some of their old biases and use anti-idpol as a dogwhistle for regular old bigotry. The idpol shit is a real fucking problem (and bigotry is a part of idpol) so it's important for us to keep the idea of idpol coherent. Idpol is the politicization of identiy. This includes racism and systemic racism. Fighting against, say, systemic racism is not inherently idpol, but fighting against it by inciting animosity toward white people is idpol because it involves generating political conflict. I hope that's a clear distinction.

I want all redditors shot.

When a person conflates their ideas and their person, how do you consistently reject those ideas without upsetting them? It isn't possible. Your insistence """decency""" is just a tacit method of attempting to force through acceptance of over 9000 pronouns.

That's just positing a slippery slope fallacy. Not just tranny modes of identification will forever keep spawning; new terms to identify new things will occur constantly, and cosntantly do. Is it just as totalitarian and probIematic for you to use the proper term for a newly discovered chemical element when it is discovered? Probably more than with the new hot term in the tranny persuasion, to which you'll only maybe three times in your life have to be a decent human being to by using their le prefered pronoun. It ain't hard and it ain't some path to a new Orwellian nightmare to just do that.

t. Jordan Peterson

No, you're just wanting to push contrived nonsense as something materially new. Once again, despite whatever else may be involved gender is about signalling genitals and sexual availability to each other. I reject your rubbish utterly, none of my trans friends have ever needed to specify a pronoun for me to use, as cues did the job for them. Call me a terrible person all you like, decent human beings don't try to emotionally blackmail others into co-operating with psychosis.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

If you seriously have an autistic breakdown because someone asked you to address them 'the wrong way' maybe it's you with the problem

Back you go now, idpol

why did he take it down

imo he realized he went over the line with his latest binge-drinking run

what is this absolute retardation? Do you think Marx thought that the proletariat, the "only consistently revolutionary class", especially in his own day of experiencing it, wasn't too busy surviving to focus on politics and philosophy? Did Marx somewhere say in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that the Lassaleans weren't giving enough humanities lectures to the proletariat and that any self respecting prole has to go imo academia? Are you really this brain dead?

If you needed any more proof that the crew arrayed against Unruhe are crypto liberals.

Why not? You should take people seriously - if their self-expression tells you they are self absorbed narcissists, you'd better believe it!

stop supporting this lifestylist liberal. Swear to fuck he's rebel 2.0 but much less cute

At least rebel has the excuse of being in an unhealthy relationship while also being a qt 3.14.
Muke only has the suckdem virus.

I think they got dumped.

Sweet, then Rebel can get that ass in motion and start pumpin' out videos about Kierkegaardian Neo-Marxism again.

CONTROL YOURSELVES YOU INSUFFERABLE HEDONISTS

You had me at ass in motion.

:^)

nobody actually likes rebel absurdity

even rebel absurdity doesn't like rebel absurdity

i liked him

Muke just got annihilated again
youtube.com/watch?v=-p2rZN8vTP8&ab_channel=TheFinnishBolshevik

oh boi oh boi

I'm not really sure if Finbol is super great or nah

I'm on his side in the debate between him and muke. Generally he makes pretty good arguments but sometimes he makes himself easy to misinterpret. And the editing and stuff on his videos aren't that great (pretty sure he uses windows movie maker or something) but that stuff is not that important anyway (unless you're trying to convert normies).

He elevates the debate from petty eceleb drama to make educational content. That's the halmark of a great commie youtuber.

& xexy will have none of it. Mark my words he'll try to recycle that shitty article of his for a third time IF he responds, OR just shrug him off on twitter as if he had the upper hand.

The infantile delusions of societal development:
The Patriotic Science of Soviet Historical Materialism:

make an argument

You can't skip capitalism.

Just looked up his twitter after making this post. Called it.

LEFTCOMS/XEXIZY ON SUICIDE WATCH

holy shit that was great

no one is arguing that.
So make an argument

Capitalism can be simulated

Dropped ofc

The argument is that Tsarist Russia was feudalist and since you can't skip capitalism the Soviet Union was in fact capitalist.

Good god, Xexizy didn't say anything new in his response and FinnBol didn't actually say anything new in this video. They need to just debate and get this bullshit over with.

To be fair Xexizy was like "lol, idk, gonna read out that article again" and Finbol was like "dude, I'm gonna call you out on that and make my arguments even simpler for you to understand" and then Xexizy was like:

...

So this is how he reads.

Who the fuck needs Tankies, Nazbols & Asserists anyway?

They're not out there with us in the streets. They're fucking autists that jerk off to anime all day like retards.

Fuck Stalin, fuck Mao, fuck Castro, fuck Chavez. Y'all dumbasses only made Socialism look bad in the eyes of many normal people & you know what? I prefer sheer amount normal people than all of you x100.
You're not my comrades I don't even need you. Fucking weak pieces of shit.

So in other words, communism HAS been tried?

I'm pretty sure that in most countries, Marxism-Leninism and/or Maoism is the dominant tendency among people who actually do shit (fuck nazbols and Asserists obviously).

100% this. They were a fucking superpower for decades and all they did was to sabotage all actual leftist movements and turn them into puppets for their "geopolitical" interests. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union they have lost all their power and turned into irrelevant jokes but they still act like hot shit. At least leftcoms sometimes write something interesting that anarchists can actually use but tankies? They are fucking worthless poseurs who only jack off to Soviet nostalgia all day, glorify retarded capitalists just because they are somewhat against the USA (but never against capitalism) and call everyone else liberal instead of supporting the actual people who try and do shit.

...

lol, name one fucking time this happened. They literally supported left wing movements everywhere.
The only similarity between leftcoms and anarchists is that they have literally accomplished nothing IRL. IF you're going to shit on tankies for the ussr collapsing, don't come at us with catalonia, a thing that literally lasted like 3 years and has been dead since the 1940s
they're literally letting the US build military bases all over their land.

1968 in France

wait so are leftcoms lazy armchair theorists who do nothing but read this week or are they a bunch of retards who never read? asking for a friend.

the German revolution, the Spanish Civil War. it's not difficult.

Being a tranny is just as much of a mental illness as a person who believes they would be better off blind or crippled. They need help. Forcing others to play along isn't help.

what did the tankies do here?

Yes you're fantastic managers of capitalism.

Can you cite something to back this up?

lol of course not

There is no indication that they are any different. If you think wanting to cut your dick off is healthy, then please cite a source. As it is, it's a mental illness.

How to logic?

Then how do you classify trannies?

...

Holy shit really

The difference to the amputation fetishists is that hacking up your genitals or breasts is not immediately disabling in a significant way. Having your gonads removed does tend to result in the development of osteoporosis without exogenous hormones as sex hormones regulate bone growth.

There are people that aren't fetishists that want to take body parts off. So if they only wanted to take away their nipples, would they be no longer mentally ill? I mean, maybe they were born into the wrong body and they just want a body with no nipples. Just playing devil's advocate here. I don't think transgenders don't have rights.

Medical ethics boards take a dim view of amputating healthy body parts. Even nipples. Asking for such modifications is usually considered evidence of illness in and of itself. I think you know that though, yes?

So, by that logic sex change ops are medically unethical.

Xexizy isn't responding. Coward. Do a response. We know your watching ths thread muke.

Yes, though the medical establishment has decided that for transpeople it is more harmful to leave their anatomical structures unmodified due to the psychological pathologies in this population. Ergo, it is deemed less ethical to withhold the surgery.

...

He can't respond because FinnBol knows all the material better than he does.

Just don't talk about him, his only input further on from here is going to be catty remarks on twitter we can't directly respond to.

Had the audacity to oppose the based social democrats