The new socialists tell us all the old ideologies have failed, that we need to adopt our ideas to present-day conditions and forget the past. But the issue isn't about whether we need to apply 19th century ideas into a modern context or not. In truth, we need to look back further.

Although not necessarily the first socialist state (it was predated by Pharonic Egypt and democratic Athens) with the wisdom of Viracocha the people of Tawantinsuyu possessed an understanding of Socialism more dialectically advanced than any society seen before or since. The evidence is simply irrefutable, the Inka model is the only one capable of standing the test of time, far outliving the Paris Commune or ML as a successful DoTP. it simply goes without saying that only an incestual vanguard engaged in fervent Inti-worship can possibly hope to free the proletariat from the shackles of capital in this day and age.

Our duty as revolutionaries today if we are ever to safeguard the working class from reactionary forces like smallpox and Spanish people is to spread the immortal, scientific doctrine of Four-Corners Socialism. The ONLY real theory proven to be capable of building a lasting socialist legacy.

Other urls found in this thread:


Reading material on Incan 'Socialism'? Thanks
(No offence with the quotations).

The state did lots of things and the people got welfare from the state, just like marx described it.






Imperialist diseases*

Okay, there's one I keep trying to upload but it just… doesn't work. So instead I'm putting up a mediafire link:


¡Socialismo con características peruanas!

I'll never understand why when South America was getting independence in the early and mid 1800's Bolivia and Peru didn't become one single nation and revived the Inca empire.

They were combined for a little while.


Too bad Bolívar was a dumb asshole.

So it's just inca succdems? Literally /afuckingrose/?

The incas were the maximum expression of tankism, but I dont consider ML leftist, so the incas werent socialist. They are a good example (maybe the only one) of a marketless complex and immense society (that didnt even develop a writing system). It has to be studied and it can teach us a lot for sure.

There were 2 instances when that happened, but both times it was stopped by the eternal chilean (+internal traitors) No wonder no one likes Chile, they are the Poles of South America.

Prehistoric gift economies isn't socialism.

The Incas weren’t prehistoric.


what's leftypol opinion on bolivar anyway?, i think he was kind of crazy
t. colombian

Come again?

>slaves building da peeruhmids

It was a planned economy. It's not what we as socialists/communists strive for, but it demonstrates a functional state bureaucracy (the socialist States of the 20th century lacked a functional bureaucracy, being in a constant state of emergency) can manage an immensely complex society and yeild greater prosperity than a market economy with more advanced technology (Europe at the time)


I honestly don't know a who lot about him. He's kind of briefly touched on in Burgerschool, but it's pretty much just "South America was colonized by the Evil Spanish and Portuguese, and Bolivar helped throw them out, and then the United States instituted the Monroe Doctrine to ensure their independence from the Evil Europeans, but despite everything being great South America didn't prosper like North America did–for some reason."

Hey, could you not?

I'm black, I can meme that sort of thing.

I didn't learn shit about Bolivar
And learning about colonialism is good, Europe is glorified for it's accomplishments as much as colonialism is criticized (perhaps even moreso) in school. Your just a pol moron

Fuck off, all South Americans should be burned alive and have their families raped beforehand. No matter how great and socialist they were once, they cucked for the white man, fuck them and fuck you op.

It was a "palace economy", which though not something we want to replicate in whole today, does offer a fascinating source of insight into features we may wish to imitate, much like primitive stone-age communism or state capitalist Bolshevism:

Colonialism by whoever aside, I've actually heard some arguments that the reason South America failed to prosper like North America was because it enacted the smallholder farmer-soldier-citizen meme that Thomas Jefferson espoused, while the USA's economy shifted toward centrally banked capitalism that was better suited to surf the wave when the industrial revolution hit.

We're all niggerfaggots here, bitch.

I think that last paragraph was sarcastic.

I didn't say that it wasn't, faggot.

take that back

we spaniards are proud moors, not wh*Teoid scum


The Spanish destroyed the Inka because they were on the verge of making anime real.


Slaves didn't build pyramids in Egypt, skilled workers did. Also the slavery Egypt had was more like a Gulag for prisoners of war but better conditions. They had a guidline for how to treat slaves and the slaves only had to work for a certain amount of time then were free.


Pyramids were built by the first working class according to modern scholars.

They didn't have writing. That's almost the exact definition of prehistoric.

This doesn't really prove anything. Primitive communism working despite disease, deprivation, etc. If anything, communism is human nature.

Top eurocentric, comrade.

Counting isn't the same as written word.

Shouldnt have had a civil war then.

Written accounts by the Spanish suggest that they were also used for historical events and literature. Hell, there were dedicated universities for learning how to interpret and “write” using quippus. Their methods of recording information seem completely alien to us, but they are far from primitive.

just stop already
they weren't a space faring civilisation

>for some reason.
And let me guess, this reason isn't any of the complex, well-researched economic and political theories you'd encounter being discussed among academics, but the racial theories of some 19 year old simpleton who thinks he's smarter than he really is because he noticed what he perceives to be the biases of a historiography centered on "evil europeans" vs everyone else?

You are doing the same thing that Stephan Molyneux did with his historically inaccurate "The Fall of the Roman Empire" where he equated the Roman Empire to a "welfare state".

It is entirely worth noting that the Pilgrims actually set out to repay the natives for the corn that they had taken from the abandoned houses and from the graves. But could you blame people who were on the verge of starvation?


They did have quipu, not that they were able to keep much information with it.

inca cola is pretty nice

Not white enough skin for ya taste, amirite?

Famrade isn't saying nothing wacky or untrue. Western and Inka civilizations were completely different. The quipu is just one of the Inka arts that has been lost in time because of the european conquest, suppression of culture, and elitism inherent to inka culture. Only priests and high ranking officials knew how to record information in quipus which is why the art wasn't widespread and was lost in time eventually. They definitely weren't a prehistoric culture, whatever criteria you use to define a prehistoric culture.

And now your next line will be 'but they didn't invent the wheel!'


This. At best we can only draw a similarity between the mita system, and what later would become the centrally planned command economy we saw in Soviet states. Pretty sure the people employed through mita had no say over what should be built - making it far closer to what's usually called "state capitalism" than to actual socialism.

That's not to say the Inca were miles ahead of any European civilization though.

also this

It was socialism, although not utopian socialism. They used their version of kulaks mostly for unwilling labor, is all.


Jesus Christ, how many times I've encountered this talking point from Holla Forumsyps regarding non-white societies throughout history online…

For real though, we should really address "The Incan Question".

Well that's monarchism for you