Holla Forums eternally btfo
Holla Forums eternally btfo
Did he ever had a debate with a proper Marxist-Leninist who doesn't use the no tru socialism fallacy? That would set him straight.
not an argument
Holy shit, my sides. Truly the greatest modern philosopher. The future work of philosophy will just be footnotes to Molymeme thought.
He had a debate with well-known intellectual and orthodox Marxist Lauren Southern.
This picture is not an argument.
What the fuck is this argument even making? Since when was there a socialist State that said “that wasn’t real socialism, THIS is real socialism.” All Marxist states followed the Soviet Model
Ummm no sweetie, the Soviet Union was State Capitalism
Great, so you get his point.
Rain dances do work, all that don't aren't real rain dances but drought dances.
Blaming capitalism for the crimes of the rich is like blaming knifeism for stabbings.
capitalism isn't a physical object that can be held in the hand. not an argument
Angstreich is what every communist should strive to be, I've watched every debate I now he has been in, he flows trough Marx and Lenin, he has the power of the dialectics.
We need to achieve this
And trees are made up of forests.
In what year did real capitalism appear, did it appear everywhere at once, did it fully takeover instantly everywhere it was present?
This Anna Karerina principle -all things having to be right to have socialism, while only one thing having to be wrong to have capitalism- is some Lacanian shit, it's always -1.
Are you new to the English speaking internet or simply not aware of the hypocritical whining of libertarians and their "That wasn't real capitalism, it was crony capitalism" shtick?
I've been there long enough to know that that's how nerds do politics, they talk about words, they have theory, they have arguments… they have their little semantic universes which they mistake for the big bad world.
capitalism gradually developed out of mercantalism
it was forcefully imposed over time, hence why you have colonialism and transitory revolutions like in France
of course not, no system is fully implemented all at once.
the fuck are you on about now
I feel like you must be confused, any conversation that has devolved into "not real x" has at least one idiot involved in it. Lolberts have no theory but they're goaded on by various American thinktanks.
Someone claiming "not real capitalism" is being a moron, ask them about Somalia and they melt and start ranting about muh niggers
Someone claiming "not real socialism" is usually being asked by a disingenuous brainlet to defend something they may not actually defend, although it is almost as lazy as "not real capitalism"
This seems to contradict all I have been previously told by marxists, that being that capitalism means private ownership of the means of production, which is either there or not, hence why places with public ownership are still condemned as capitalist.
Nowadays nearly all political discussions that aren't immediate are a semantic tug-of-war. Take the countless discussions about x being racist or not, America being a free country or not, the soviet union being communist or not, corporate crime being capitalism or not, drunken sex being rape or not… it's not about the things themselves, it's about how they're named. The only way of winning such discussions is acquiring domination for your own semantics, with the feminists being the most skilled combatants.
Non materialists get the fuck out of here.
The feminists are a spent force, as are the alt-right and their affiliated groups. Since the identity politics misadventure seems to be well and truly spent for at least a decade it should be interesting to see how the Americans react to the next recession.
They seem to be a spend force because they have already won so totally that they are now the realm within which this tug-of-war takes place instead of a mere combatant.
Calling a woman mean names is now defined as misogyn.y, a pathological hatred of women. Just imagine if calling a white person mean names was defined as candorphobia, a pathological fear of whites, and that this disease of the mind was identified to infect every piece of media and literature that portrayed a white person in a bad manner. The alt-righters who use the term anti-w.hite, and whom are mocked for it, are very mild in their politicization of language and it's appliance compared to the SJW-newspeak which is now taken for granted.
I'm not scottish
I'm from norway
I don't even meet the basic requirements of being a scot
So when is there mercantilism and when is there capitalism?
Why does the clarity of difference that exists between socialism and capitalism not exist between mercantilism and capitalism?
mercantilism came first, and over time capital accumulation led to the development of capitalist firms which operated differently and replaced the mercantilist system over time.
because mercantilism is just capitalism 0.5. Socialism aims to overthrow capitalism.
What actually defines capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and production for exchange. If we leave out the latter, then it would justify market "socialism".
This is what the alt-right think because they are unable to fully comprehend the utter inevitability of their destruction, in reality the feminists became a laughing stock towards the end of 2014 and entered decline throughout 2015. The constant propaganda making them to be some sort of power is spread by the alt-right as they exist in codependency, with no other group thinking about SJWs or feminists anymore unless it is in the context of the alt-rights existence. It's inevitable that they'll be destroyed, it's Hegelian dialectics.
As says private ownership of the means of production and production for exchange already existed during the mercantilist period, even before that, and mercantilism is still practiced to this very day by pretty much every country.
Like I said before, the theory of history as a sequence of stages isn't truly held then, there are simply the many ways of doing it wrong, which exist on a continuum and the one way of doing it right, which perfection places it outside this continuum.
I have to ask then, if the modes of production/stages of history never existed in a sequence with radical breaks, then why do you think it to be possible for your desired mode of production/stage of history to be exempt from this ambiguity?
no it didn't. you're projecting modern concepts of property ownership and economics onto the past.
what country on earth is still mercantilist, enlighten me.
Not the one you are responding to, but capitalism is characterized by generalized commodity production (using the marxist definition of a commodity) as well as private ownership of the means of production.
It is what you deny because you are only capable of perceiving feminism as the viral laughing stocks with feminist tattooed on their foreheads. As soon as it wins and takes over, it settles down and disappears from your sight. That all universities are now dominated by SJW's, you don't see because they are no longer SJW's raging at universities, they are the universities themselves. That their newspeak has become common parlor you don't see, because its commonness makes it no longer identifiable as feminist.
It's like being convinced that the banks have lost because everyone hates Martin Skhreli and Ayn Rand being a mercilessly mocked meme-philosopher.
Alt-right conspiracy theory, up there with the Frankfurt school and cultural Marxism
Because they've become irrelevant
Okay now this can actually be proven so I'll take you up on some examples of this.
O N E
D O L L A R
I'm guessing you're referring to the feudal conception of property, which is odd since marxists mock anarcho-capitalism for practically being feudalism.
Are you at least getting my point about the inherent Lack in the politics of definition?
J U S T
Then don't use the Soviet rain dance.
Capitalism has a more specific definition than that and any society that meets the criteria described in that definition is capitalist.
Mercantilism is a stage of capitalism that preceded industrial capitalism. Capitalism, in all its forms cannot be pinned to a specific date but rather a time frame where it begins to take shape.
feudal concepts of property are different from capitalist justifications for property. When marxists call ancaps neofeudalists the point they're making is that ancapistan in practice would resemble the same hierarchical social system that existed under feudalism, not that ancapism is literally feudalism.
But this is off-topic, because my main point is that mercantilism operated differently from capitalism only because mercantilism predated industrialization and did not operate under the same laws of commodity production and exchange that capitalism does. This doesn't mean mercantilism is different or opposed to capitalism, only that the productive forces at the time were not advanced enough to sustain a large-scale capitalist economy. Other anons spelled it out already here
didn't mean to reply to you
I forgot that all the diversity committees, SJW's in top positions, school administrations that bend over to them, gender studies, queer studies, women's studies, critical theory courses and its overflowing from the confines of universities are all just as made up as the figure of Herbert Marcuse. All are lies produced in a big white pyramid which houses the ministry of the alt-right.
As irrelevant as the frontiersmen, from which we can then conclude that the great American west has returned to it's status before the American conquest…
I've already done so; m.isogyny, once an obscure term for a pathological hatred of women is now a term for anything mean said to a woman or against the mores of feminism, while keeping the original connotation. Another example being the numerous "phobia's" like xenophobia and islamophobia.
Confirmed for not knowing what mercantilism is or how the Chinese economy operates.
I would kek all the way through
What are you even talking about? Nobody gives a shit about basket weaving degrees you maniac, it's a scam. Not to mention all those words have been in use for years, you're only betraying how young you are saying otherwise.
alright user, since you're such an expert go ahead and show us how modern china is in any way mercantilist.
So you agree with Molyneux, good to know
I'm talking about the SJW-take over of universities, which your post exemplifies, it has set the standard so much that it isn't even discernible to you anymore, inconceivable beyond it's most explicit appearance in the form of a degree.
My point exactly, it has become so embedded that it is unrecognizable as the ideology it is.
It subsidizes exports whilst heavily taxing imports.
that's not mercantilism that's standard procedure for capitalist countries trying to grow their industry.
zizek says more slurs so he wins
Let's call it neomercantilism then, like neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
Nigger you are some teenager telling me words that have been in use since you were shitting your nappies are the result of something that has happened in the last few years.
Spoilers: The reason you think this way is because you only started paying attention recently
Most profound philosopher since Aristotle.
Well to be fair it isn’t hard to be a better philosopher then Aristotle.
Here you go, now remove this meme from your brain and never use it again.
It even works retroactively, they could include an opposition to feminism in the meaning of brain tumor and people like you would be telling me that this isn't SJW-newspeak at all, because our knowledge of brain tumors precedes SJW's by centuries.
Now where did I claim that SJW's simply evolved out of emo's during the 2012 planetary alignment?
Well good thing it's not real then.
Yeah stay BTFO. Expect to see those graphs the next time you try bullshitting. Everyone is free to read the thread and the only person you're kidding is yourself.
Scotland is an arbitrary boundary. Anywhere can be proclaimed to be Scotland if one so desires.
I'm pretty sure common ownership of means of production, abolition of the market, abolition of wage labor and production for use fits the definition of socialism as the lower stage of communism quite well.
What exactly are these graphs?
Explain to me how the (often mandatory) SJW courses like women's studies, queer studies, critical theory, colonial theory, positions of SJW's at the top of the administrations, SJW enforced diversity policies and SJW enforced transgender ideology do not constitute a take over.
How far would they have to go for you to consider it a take over?
I repeat, where did I claim that SJW's simply appeared during the early 2010's?
Thanks, my dude
So you're saying the USSR was capitalist, since they were still buying shit in a market with money they earned from working x hours at a state-run enterprise
what fucking college did you go to. Those courses can easily be avoided if you choose to do so.
define SJW and cite numbers that prove this is true.
"enforced diversity" is usually just liberals doing half-assed measures to stop racism. Nowhere in the west will you just be handed a Bachelors for being black or latino.
trans people are less than 1% of the population and they have almost no political capital. A bunch of token gestures by liberals to help these people does not constitute a government enforced ideology.
Stop changing the fucking subject. You've been blown the fuck out and you know full well and now you're being a weaselly little fuck and trying to reframe the conversation as "Oh, you were talking about the widespread widely accepted definition of SJW's? I actually meant something completely different to the common definition used all over the internet, teehee"
So you're actually upset not about what has recently happened, but you're angry at the "SJW's" (note: not the SJW's everyone knows, but a new one that you're free to redefine at any point) who have existed in some various form throughout a hundred or so years. Kill yourself you fucking brainlet.
Which amusingly brings me back to
t. the guy being a massive fucking autist deliberately reframing the conversation as "SJWs from 1900" instead of "SJWs as the entire world knows them"
Guys, guys, guys. I've got it. Molymeme vs Unruhe. Who wins?
The person who made the video couldn't even make the text scroll at the same speed Molyneux was talking, just embarrassing.
It's funny that right-wing cucks are so threatened and unable to respond to socialism that they've needed to try and force a meme so they don't need to think about it.
Let me guess, right; Holla Forums will claim this wasn't true scotland.
It would be like watching two special needs children having a slap fight.
There wasn't any market allocation. Such claims need to be proven. The worker gets a compensation for his respective quality and quantity of labor which he can spend on means of consumption.
Following your logic, capitalism has not only always existed, Marx was also shilling for capitalism in the Critique of the Gotha Program.
if it's a fight to the death, humanity wins.
I think its safe to say that isn't True Scotland
Angstreich is an honest debater, Molyneux is a sophist. it wouldn't work. For someone who says "not an argument" so much, it's ironic that his audience can't see 90% of his videos are just him begging the question, and nitpicking.
anytime he debates with someone halfway intelligent, he'll just nitpick the most tangential things until you've forgotten what the argument was. Sometimes he'll even misdirect and ask you about your parents and try to establish you had abusive parents. and when the time is out, he'll say he proved his position. If you try to get back on topic, he'll say you're violating the NAP, it's his show, and he'll actually disconnect you if you go on.
If you're not intelligent, or even an obsequious fan of him, he'll still try and humiliate you and nitpick shit, because he loves feeling smarter. I remember a fan of his asked why he doesn't try a more friendly style of content, and he immediately opened with "You think you're smarter than me?" and tried to make him contradict himself. it was textbook abusive, and Stephan doesn't care, because he doesn't understand social interaction. it's why he still doesn't understand why it's uncouth to have a meltdown about a $1 donation, it's why he thinks being a dick to a fan is "healthy male assertiveness", and why he tries to argue everyone who dislikes him was abused as a child.
That won't work with Angstreich. He doubles down on the claim that has been made, he did the same with Academic Agent who also tried to derail the discussion all the time. However, the difference is that Academic Agent is idiotic enough to dig himself deeper into shit, while I would expect Molyneux to just end the call: "My show, my rules. Get fucked."
He did that before multpile times everytime he was cornered, and the comments under video were always like "HOLY SHIT LEFTARDS BTFO".
I never held the conversation under the assumption that people here were so ignorant of SJW ideology that they believe it to be a spontaneous development of the early 2010's. This assumption of knowledge was apparently wrong, as my statement that there has been a process of framing that which goes against SJW pietisms as phobia's, and that this is now so embedded that it is no longer recognised as such could only be answered by a graph exemplifying that this indeed isn't simply a fad consisting irrelevant tumblrina's, as I have been saying all along.
I'm vehemently opposed to the SJW take over of universities and I'm not under the delusion that this happened spontaneously. You seem to have this strange idea that a new term implies a spontaneity of origin and process.
Examine your own logic for a moment: you are claiming that an ideological grouping is not reframing language when said ideological grouping uses language also used by their predecessors that in their time did not yet go by the name of said ideological grouping.
This would mean that if, let's say, the alt-right included communists under the meaning of vermin, that this is not reframing of language because their predecessors who were not called alt-right also called communists vermin.
MFW people are still buthurt
He also sperged out on his forum at a philosophy student who read his book on universally preferable behaviour and debunked it, this guy didn't use any personal attacks or statements whatsoever. Molyneux then claimed the guy was condescending towards him (because exposing logical errors in the arguments of the self-proclaimed greatest philosopher of all time is indeed a massive blow to his ego) and went on a rant how you should never take into consideration anyone who doesn't have your best interests at heart says.
The logic of anarcho-narcissism is ironclad. If you win an argument with molyneux you are hurting his feelings, which means you don't have his best interest at heart, which means you didn't win the argument because winning it requires having it's best interest at heart which requires you to accept the validity of his arguments.
1.) He says the law of value exists, but doesn't determine production, which is for use
2.) He is talking about agricultural cooperatives only
How will he ever recover?
The world isn't black and white. What Stalin says here is correct. Name examples where the law of value did determine production in the USSR. The first quote is out of context again, as he is referring to agricultural cooperatives which sold their produce to the state to fixed prices.
Dementia at 50 is pretty early