I am furious at Holla Forums

kek

Stfu anti science loser

The anti-gmo argument is basically

and since the intelligent users on the board, regardless of what blend of socialism they are, understand how important technology is towards socialism, we call the anti-gmo retards out

We can't grow our way out of the population crisis, comrade.

But what if the technology is being used for profit and not to help people? You just said porky controls it, so why is it still good?

probably that jews control everything and that brown people are lesser or something

They control more than most realize.

Furious is a strong word. Maybe disappointed?

So are most factories in the world producing for profit rather than use. The answer is to abolish profit motive, not go full primitivist.

'everything' still falls under that category.

jews being prominent in business sectors =/= jewish conspiracy to puppet the white races into extinction or something, please go back to Holla Forums friend

Jews/Israel control some things. Is that a controversial statement?

Any group looking to exploit another group will want to divide that group along sectarian lines, so that they don't realize they're being exploited and unite to banish the exploiters.

please stop using marxism to try to justify your bigotry

Not an argument.

We can't bleedheart our way out of incoming food shortages. Porky will destroy food when shit comes down, climate change will make things harder to manage. Turning back on science is not an option anymore.

Not an argument is not an argument.

It is an irrelevant statement unless you're pushing nazi ideology.

We should focus on reducing population growth more than genetically engineering food.

Porky comes in many forms, but Abraham was a desert pimp, and hid gang were the original bourgeois.

Bakunin, an anarcho-communist not a Nazi, also saw how conspiracies among groups, including conspiracies among Jews enabled by their speaking of a different language, allow groups to exploit the unaware.

stop posting anytime
Holla Forumstards go home

I've never posted on Holla Forums ! Yahweh is a demon and the religions that worship him are cults!

It doesn't matter, that's where you should be right now. Fuck off.

Free Gaia!

Prophet Mani please go.

never understood why the left and right defend those who would sell their souls to satan for a nickel just based on their genetic heritage.
bad people come from all corners of the globe and theyll do anything to gain and retain control over you.

Nice post, comrade!

hey now, that's not fair. I'm perfectly willing to describe things beyond Labour leftism.
So long as it's the Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti.

Thanks for the tip.

With or without the Jews' rule, the iron hand of capital still prevails.

There are other forms of power besides capital.

like nuclear?

Like ideological, religious. Does a cult leader have power because of his power or because of people's beliefs about him?

Does a cult leader have power because of his capital….

I meant to say.

nah, but money is influence, and he can use that to gain other methods of influence.

social capital is real and must be nationalized tbh.

It all comes down to getting people to do things for you. Bribing with money is one way, but there are other ways.

How to nationalize social capital?

are you a succubus?

I'm MGTOW

It is a mystery.
But in a very genuine sense it would probably be interesting to analyse social capital as essentially a real, genuine form of capital in the post-fordist world. Since you have the absolute insanity of things like a "personal brand" for example, and genuine attempts to leverage this into financial success.

Of course one ad-hoc way to "nationalise" social capital would be to act in the most repressive way possible to internet-based personal branding exercises by cutting off finance or even creating new civil offences, leaving only those desired by the state (i.e. of politicians, benevolent trade union leaders, and so on, who may lie about who they are to achieve social ends.), and those who existed during fordism in place. Not an ideal solution of course, but a fun one to imagine.

Damn you Marxists really are crazy!

um no sweaty x

Aren't you basically Marxists by ballot box?

Wait SocDems are Keynesians!? LOL

No they're Keynsians.

Fuck I mixed them up with DemSoc I think.

Thats the problem. Everyone mixes up DemSocs and SuccDems.

He was talking about nationalizing capital earlier. Is that really want Keynesians want exactly? Don't they just want the government to intervene in the economy to keep growth stable?

Yeah what is he even doing on this board?

No it isn't, he's clearly confused.

nah i drive the train until the marxists cut my head off.

yes

it's what socdems want (to a certain degree, in certain key sectors or basically wherever the state feels like), keynesianism is just an overall style of economic management, or even more than that just a set of economic theories that don't even have to strictly be followed if you believe them.
plenty of nationalised organisations existed even throughout the period where neoclassical economics was completely dominant, for example. even though politicians believed they were inherently inefficient based on economic dogma, they weren't always sold off because it would be politically or strategically risky.
nearly all socdems are keynesians but not all keynesians are socdems.

that's a long story that probably isn't any fun to tell.
so instead this:
RECRUITING FOR SOCDEM GANG

nationalisation is a key component of social democracy.
notionally social democratic parties that don't believe in nationalisation are like "communist" parties that only actually care about idpol issues. they've got the branding down but the head is empty.

u wot m8?

Back to your original point about nationalizing social capital by criminalizing self-promotion, wouldn't this in effect criminalize all religion and even things like a band of musicians promoting themselves? This seems like an awfully extreme position for a SocDem to take, which is probably why I confused you for a DemSoc.

I've never met a DemSoc that's taken that kind of position.

In theory yes if you took it to "it's logical conclusion", indeed it could presumably be extended to the point where everyone has to wear a niqab.
Implicitly the main thing that would be targeted would be internet promotion. Hence "leaving only… those who existed during fordism" (which neatly died before the internet, and was also the economic paradigm most conducive to social democracy.) Although with that said, if you believe the "Personal branding" tendency was merely accelerated by the internet rather than outright created by it, this solution falls flat.

There are some things worth considering here. The first is that it won't happen, so it's mostly just drawing out that authoritarian line of thought to see where it goes. The second is that the restoration of Social Democracy is in itself quite an extreme position to take, when viewing it through the lens of "actual social democracy" instead of just social-neoliberalism. (i.e. a little higher state spending, a little extra nationalisation, but no commitment to full employment, anti-trade union laws on the books, etc.) Third extreme positions are partially why i'm here, since on a spiritual level I believe we live in the worst of all possible worlds, so if something I said was magically implemented by a genie (say, social democracy with human faces banned) I could at least say "Well, I got to see the end of neoliberalism.")

What's fun is meeting so-called DemSocs with more moderate economic views.

But SocDems don't want to nationalize all capital, right, only the capital necessary to achieve certain goals, like full-employment and steady growth, right?

essentially.

the absolute state of Holla Forums

bump

...

sorry

I knew this OP has antisemitism before even scrolling down. Why are poltards so goddamn predictable?