How do you prevent looking down on plebs

...

Focus on getting money, no? Sounds a lot better than convincing yourself you will "Save the poor americans". Can someone truly be in need of saving when they gladly endanger themselves? I think not.

What social organization is present now. Everyone is a faggot and they all are having orgies to care.
Soviets, Unions, Syndicates, and Communes are pretty similar anyways and should be implement in which every Soviet, etc. is self sufficient so it shouldn't matter if one is doing better or not. Just prevent civil unrest by poviding aid to less successful communes and reorganize it to not fail.

Admit your own plebness ad you'll release you are undeserving of the person you think you are

You can't blame them, though. Capitalism aims to degenerate class consciousness through SocJus and SocInjus Idpol. It, in fact, relies on it.

You can still see their potential, but what happens once you need scientific notation to show just how low their revolutionary consciousness is?

Socjus sucks, but how exactly does capital control it or put it into the minds of proles?

Op I was where you are 6 months ago.

Then i got in with some young communists who i suppose arnt classcucked, and it made me want to go the neoliberal path of just improving my own life even more.

Most recently an old proletariat who worked her whole life and body suffers it told me there is no point in waiting for retirement b.c when u can afford to retire u get too sick and old. That made me more interested in liberation from capital

wut
wut

Capital picks who gets the money and media attention.
On the right, ideologues.
On the left, incompetent and neurotic idpolers.

It's pretty easy if you are actually an anarchist or communist and not just a liberal pretending to be one to look radical and hip. Maybe instead of rubbing your dick to how superior you feel to them you could spend some time figuring out why they are the way they are.

My dude, so much of that stuff is funded by capitalists like the Soros, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller foundation and so on. The CIA has been spreading fake-leftism for god-knows-how-long and its probably not too different for the other major imperialist intelligence agencies.

If that isn't enough for you there's been a major shift in the past two decades where the Democratic Party has replaced the Republican Party as the new favorite party of the rich.
washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/31/tech-billionaires-like-democrats-more-than-republicans-heres-why/?utm_term=.56a34e73c3ab
nationalreview.com/article/451463/democrats-silicon-valley-rich-entrepreneurs-changing-party-working-class-image
dailywire.com/news/23724/party-rich-democrats-are-7-10-wealthiest-members-paul-bois

The richest man in America, Jeff Bezos, preferred Hillary to Trump and his first major donation his one previously redeeming quality was that he eschewed charity to a Dreamers scholarship fund after Trump's "shithole" comment.

Once the Trump years are over, actual socialists are probably going to be in for some pretty dark times but it seems many people on the Left are getting too caught up in the "fuck Drumpf xD" activism and enthusiasm to notice this.

you can't worry about class consciousness if you're too busy worrying about being a "good person" while completely removing class from the equation

i believe was making a joke in using scientific notation so they wouldn't have to type out 0.446468468416818641864

So capital flows to what is profitable, thus influencing the superstructure to promote lgbt [ a few small concessions on maternity leave etc] with no real concessions that threaten the base? Btw is the contradiction between labour and capital still irreconsileable?

Was it just good dumb luck that what is profitable also reproduces capitalism?

Btw i think schools, universities, the labor orocess do like 99% or reproducing the conditions necessary for capital to continue, the gay whopper shit is pretty marginal, and its naive to think that 'being gay' would have ever threatened capital, there is nothing dialectical about that thought

Yes, it is still irreconcilable in the sense that one side must win out, in the long-term there must be either capitalism or socialism. Socialism is the outgrowth of labor's long-term interest and the fulfillment of that interest makes it so capital cannot exist.

When ordinary people talk about "peace" between capital and labor they are usually referring to state where the capitalists make an okay profit and the workers are satisfied with their pay and working conditions. For capitalists this may mean a different thing such as merely having the workers accepting what they've been offered without facing a strike or other types of revolt/resistance.

But capitalists may make concessions in the short-term to shore up their long-term interests, or they may give with one hand with the intention of taking away with another.

Look at Obama, sure he raised the minimum wage and expanded healthcare coverage, but he also gave away trillions to his banker friends and had the FED set interest rates at super-low levels that were very pleasing to capitalist borrowers. His healthcare program was also a veiled bailout program for the medical insurance industry and punished the poor for their inability to afford insurance. It was unable to hold down premiums in the long-run as well.

This poster has it right, one of the ways that fake pro-capitalist "leftism" works today is by appealing to moral sensibilities. The Western Left is no longer about working class politics but about a certain politics of morality. Jean Bricmont has coined the term "the moral left" to describe this phenomenon.

So, we have a situation where leftists fall all over each other to welcome refugees and illegal immigrants into the labor market where they'll depress the wages of their host countries and help keep rents high. The actual benefits of immigration to the working classes of the host countries is negligible if not outright detrimental but the benefit that presents to capital is very great. We are told we are racist white supremacists if we refuse, and yet immigration helps to reify white supremacy and imperialist chauvinism, one of the proposed benefits of immigration is that it helps get native workers out of hard-labor low pay jobs like ditch digging and into management roles that help push them into the "middle class". Curious how discussions on white privilege don't go into how cheap immigrant labor can bestow economic privileges on the white middle class and white capitalists. Likewise, little discussed is the presence of white hispanics or white identifying hispanics in America's demographics and how welfare benefits go to hispanic immigrants that may have otherwise gone to Native Americans or Blacks. You wonder sometimes who are the real racists?The liberal elite or the trumptards? The answer may both but the former is no answer at all.

So, people in the bottom half of the native working classes get fed up and a portion of them vote for a Trump who is able to swing an election. It is interesting to me that how this pro-capitalist reformist left sets up the very conditions for a regressive right-wing to seize power and further grant concessions to capital such as Trump's new tax code.

This also goes into imperialism, migration offers a very convenient pre-text to loot Human Resources of Third World countries (aka "brain drain"), to host "dissident", terrorist and mafioso types that can be trained to destabilize developing countries, and can be utilized as a lever in international negotiations. The fact that millions of Syrians had been displaced by the War waged against that country by the West created very real opportunities to condemn the Assad regime in the court of public opinion. It didn't work but it did weaken the country in very real ways. Migration is an understudied weapon that is often used in the geopolitical struggle between nation states.

To put it simply these types of pseudo-leftism offer the chance to confuse opposition to the system and/or create avant-garde new solutions to the crises of capitalism.

Everyone today is familiar with what the feminist revolution of the 60s and onwards wrought–it expanded the labor force greatly by getting wives out of the home. It largely ignored the fact that many proletarian women already worked but the result was pleasing to capital even if the broken families and declining sense of social solidarity were not welcomed by most people. I'm not a reactionary here, it had its upsides, but as always the working class paid the cost.

I didn’t read this post

Moralism hides the immorality of the banal

But op was about how dumbfucking workers are.

Capital is moral/workers become inmoral? Am i dialects nao?

Because life is a valley of tears, and in the vast majority of misfortunes, it will be utterly undeserved. Materialism implies that man is shaped by his environment far more than the reverse, so even perpetrators of crimes are themselves victims of other crimes. Ultimately, to live is to die, and to work for one's own existence is martyrdom, the fundamental condition of 99% of mankind. We're all put here to suffer, and the man that harms you is no different. He, like you and I, bears a cross that we will carry until we die and upon which we will be sacrificed to Mammon.

Does it? According to who? I believe Marx uses the term materialism to refer to phenomena that are directly or indirectly observable in a methodological sense.

Most of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about politics or history or anything other than what's on TV tonight and what's beyond the next meal.

People in the first world are so inundated with propaganda, so wrapped in the spectacle, and generally kept from education that would question or examine their living situation. This is intentional. The system works better when people don't question it.

These systems are built to trap humans. One cannot simply leave the city, build a shack and work a meager farm. There is no land for us to go to. No farms for us to work on. Very little actually productive work to do, very few places to be that don't require rent, and endless entertainment is thrust upon us, from porn to video games to anime to whatever you're into - simply Google(tm) it and be entertained. Stop thinking, do what is easy, do what makes you smile.

I do look down on people who can't be bothered to educate themselves about the reality they live in, or to even read for entertainment, but at the same time I have difficulty blaming them for being the way they are. Humans are essentially just fancy monkeys. We like to think our meaty cortex makes us smarter, but we're still careening into our own extinction. We'll still eat ourselves to obesity. We'll spend most of our lives at places we hate doing tasks that do not fulfill us in any way so that we can make someone else not have to work, and we'll do this just to be able to eat and sleep with a roof over our heads. We're broken, deficient creatures and our social systems exploit that.

Don't expect Amerilards to achieve class consciousness to a large enough degree until after the dollar stops being the world reserve currency and America as we know it collapses into regional powers. Maybe after our social systems and government are as broken as our infrastructure, indeed as broken as ourselves, we may be able to create something new from the rubble.

Ok, thanks for sharing.

Well for one, most of humanity are being horribly exploited and don't have much free time. Most of humanity is not the west.
Second, most people do have interests and hobbies, it's just you don't like them or deem them important enough. Let's get serious, most of us here are keyboard warriors. Yeah I like discussion lefty philosophy and such, but I'm not really doing much more than the guy down the street finding solace in retiling his bathroom. Everyone has stupid shit they do in their free time that in the grand scheme of things makes zero difference to the outside world. Just because you view on as more intellectual doesn't mean you're somehow better than anyone else.

I spoke to someone today, a US citizen, who didn't know the US was currently involved in any wars.

This isn't the result of a separation of hobbies or interests between myself and this person. Some people, indeed more than most of us are willing to readily admit, while being horribly exploited as you have accurately pointed out, have done nothing, or almost nothing, to educate themselves about the world they inhabit or the larger systems that govern their existence. I believe this to be incredibly dangerous and non-desirable in a citizenry. At the same time, almost a fifth of my countrymen are illiterate, and another fifth can't read beyond the level of a young child.

Like I said in my original post I don't blame them entirely for being the persons that they are - we don't generally have a lot of choice over how we are raised, who are parents are, how we are educated, what our interests evolve into, the larger culture around ourselves, or any other myriad of facets of existence which create who we are.

Obviously, but having some grounding in reality is beneficial too, don't you think? Some interest in 'the outside world'? Does your ideal image of what a human should aspire to be not involve the pursuit of knowledge? I don't see that from almost anyone I come into contact with in the US. When I talk to people both younger and older than myself I hear a lot about video games and football, but the last time I had someone talk to me about a book they were reading was like two years ago, and it was about Ready Player One - a novel about a video game. Forgive my frustration but I find almost no one in meat-space that I can talk with about philosophy or political theory, and that both frustrates and terrifies me. I am indeed a keyboard warrior, as you said, because everyone I would talk to about politics or history in person with is only interested in TV shows and MMOs.

I hate to bring up Trump here because it's the liberal vogue to do so, but consider this - when a world leader lies to the population of their country and tells them that climate change is fake news and that all references to it will be removed from all scientific literature that their country produces, is that bad? Might that have a negative outcome for the people in that country?

I'm asking you the question, you reading this - is that a bad thing? Answer it in your head.

Should we criticize this world leader for being either a scientifically illiterate idiot or a greedy, malicious liar? I think so. There are dangerous ideas and policies born out of ignorance and greed that will undoubtedly do harm to the populace, and a citizenry that doesn't give a shit about anything but distractions and the spectacle, and who wouldn't be able to critically think about these problems even if they did realize they were being lied to, won't be able or willing to challenge the status quo when it fucks them. When it lies to their face. When it endangers their lives and the lives of their family and friends to appease the ownership class - all to keep the status quo. All to keep the boot of the powerful on the throats of the poor.

t.
Exploited Wageslave

Realize that Capitalism is dysgenic and this will only get worse under Capitalism

You don't. It's not a question of being a red liberal or a trve communist, it is just that humanity as a whole deserves to be looked down upon.

Keynes, who was not a communist at all, said that by the 1990s we would have had a 15 hours workweek. Yet all I see is a dystopian neoliberal landscape, an elite who pretend that everything is fine and all we need is to deregulate markets a little bit more, a whole generation of young people who are either struggling to find a place in the society despite having college degrees, or don't have time to do anything else other than work, think about work, eat and sleep.

I believe more and more that capitalism won't go away, because it is basically a genetic selection system which favors psychopathy, hypercompetitiveness, assertiveness, warmongers and greed. Those who don't have these traits can still find a place if they are subservient and can effectively reduce their cognitive dissonance by taking the maxim about eating bread "by the sweat of your brow" a bit too literally. The others, smart or not, have to perish. They don't want to reproduce anymore anyway. I think it says it all.

We are talking a lot about the next incoming recession here, but all we will see is another string of Occupy protests, then Trump and Western leaders will reinject money in the """free market""" to keep their friends afloat and everything will be in order again. If the protests get too wild, governments will use their drones and sonic weapons, and it will calm down anyone with a knack for LARPing as a 20th century revolutionary.

Personally, I only see myself becoming a jaded alcoholic like Debord (and well, I'm already one actually), unironically shill for unrestrained brutal capitalism and the replacement of human intelligence by AI like Nick Land, or commit suicide like Mark Fisher.
People deserve to be nuked, to suffocate due to climate change while being raped by Peter Thiel's bionic tentacles. I have a lot of resentment for what humanity has allowed itself to become. We are already technologically advanced enough for FALC, but we won't let it happen.
We want drama and annihilation, not peace. Feeling fine is too boring.

t. idiot

t. retard

well said user. the proles are garbage at the moment, but ultimately are the only class with a revolutionary potential. a class conscious prole should strive to organize them out of their idiocy, not delve on some self-gratifying sense of superiority and essentially do nothing (that's what anarchists are for).

if you read some works by luria, you'll understand the cognitive level the average russian prole was at in 1917. we are talking about uneducated people that couldn't even write/read and didn't possess basic abstract thinking skills. yet look what they achieved in only a few years time.

wow you sure showed me, i have unconditional optimism for the future now

read marx

Do you disagree?

I don't know how someone could look at modernity and not reach the conclusion that "most of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about politics or history".

I'm eager to try though. Please, share with us the sources of your optimism for humanity's future.

read marx

Is that an appeal to 'the material means for revolution'?

Is that an appeal to the 'dialectic course of history'?

I've read Marx. Citing him like this is as hollow as saying 'read your bible'. It's an appeal to religious reasoning, to faith. It's like saying that cosmological forces will unwavering work in such a way that will make communism inevitable, some day, some how. It goes back to Hegel's notion of perpetual progress, but I don't hold the teleological positions that Hegel did that had him arriving at this notion of perpetual, eternal progress.

So please, share with the class what you derived from Marx that gives you such optimism about humanity and how you justify that with what you see in the world today.

i don't mean read the communist manifesto, i meant read his whole body of work. after that read vaziulin and ilyenkov.

however, the fact that you think the communist unification of humanity is "optimism" or idealism shows you haven't even understood whatever little marx you've actually read.

unless you mean humanity might self-destruct before reaching socialism to begin with, which is a possibility after all

That would be my assumption, yes. That humanity is effectively destroyed before global socialism can occur.

Zizek is quoted here not-infrequently with his line about how it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is for most of us to imagine the end of capitalism. I would argue that if one reads into the reports about climate change, resource scarcity, ocean acidification, the extinction of hundreds of species every week, the necessity of massive trade-routes and fossil-powered logistics vehicles and technology for sustaining modern civilization, or any number of other issues that the world's populace will have to face in the coming decades, that one will see that industrial civilization is far from a guaranteed certainty in life - rather quite the opposite, that it is crumbling before our eyes.

You have suggested to me that I should read Marx - Might I suggest to you that you read The Limits to Growth by Dr. Dennis Meadows, or perhaps at least watch a talk or two by Dr. Kevin Anderson or Dr. James Hansen. I suggest these three because they are some of the most respected figures in their fields and are not the typical go-to for people obsessed with doom-porn, like Guy McPherson or Michael Ruppert.

I would argue that the material reality of our collective situation points me in the direction of pessimism about the future of humanity, not optimism. I'd like to be wrong, but that seems unlikely given the data.

Yeah, no. I reject being pulled into to the two extremes. "Proles" are neither the scum of the Earth, nor the "misguided" potential for a revolution. Proles are people, and as such capable of constituting intellectually and therefore politically a (the) hegemonic mass.

Except fuck your characterization of them being "idiotic," you fucktard. When I previously said that we, communists, believe in the power of the masses I did not mean this ironic/removed intellectual's POV, I meant their actual potential.

Were you secretly hoping for me joining your non-distinguishing slander?

You will not, moreover, can not, "objectively arrive at" any historical subject's consciousness. This isn't even controversial, you utter faggot.

The very fact that the Bolsheviks managed to change this is in contradiction with your kind of understanding of ">le human nature".

Read Ranciere's Ignorant Schoolmaster, you trash!

It's just the philosophical outlook of the material having primacy over the ideal. But yes, as far as I know Marx didn't say that "man is shaped more by environment than the reverse", but it seems to me to be an inevitable corollary of his his statements on how the base affects the infrastructure much more than the reverse.