Holla Forums recovery

One of the reasons why I was a stormfag for awhile is because I actually appreciate some of the ideas of Socialism, but wanted to idolize some socialist regime that wasn't the Soviet union or China since I was raised by boomers who constantly reinforced that they were evil, but never really explained why . Basically, socialism "done right". So I chose NutSac Germany for awhile. But I figured out that wasn't for me since I don't have any real values aside from the basics like honesty and working hard, and I have no religion. and I'm le 56 percent

So tell me, what do you think of the USSR, of China, and of Juche? At first I fled to NutSac because it was the "red pill" since it is, or at least it was very unpopular and politically incorrect. But now I don't really know what to think of Socialist countries in general, just how much "information" is really boomer propaganda.

Other urls found in this thread:


Get back to Holla Forums.

Working hard is not popular around here, since Marx's idea of utopia is that even if you don't work, you get to eat, and many argument against capitalism around here boils to if you don't work, you starve.

People here are lazy piece of shit who want a state to take care of them.


But Holla Forums will tell me to come here for not blindly supporting Nazi Germany, and suggesting that the above mentioned countries might not be so bad.

I don't understand how you can disagree with this if you're not a disgusting parasite NEET

It's "Get back to Holla Forums".

Maybe you should review those viewpoints then because China and DRPK ARE bad. Don't let the ☭TANKIE☭s tell you otherwise, China in particular is depressing.

Modern Russia is not so bad though, it's chillax.

Uh, from the start of history, everyone works and they get to eat.

Money doesn't grow on trees.

I might just be a brainlet, but I thought one of the main ideas of socialism was "he who does not work neither shall he eat"

Nope, Marx didn't work and he shilled for the abolition of work and free gibs i.e. post-scarcity.

The USSR shills for honest work, but the USSR is not socialist either way, it's state capitalist.


So Holla Forums doesn't advocate for honest work? Just want gibs?

Holla Forums literally believes that the unemployed are the proles and that the fact capitalism forces you to work in order to eat means slavery.

Also free healthcare and free education and all that.

If what you say is even remotely true, Holla Forums doesn't seem socialist at all. If Holla Forums tells me to go away, and this board is full of NEETs, where am I to go?

Be your own man, dude.

Or post on both boards until you find someone closer to your ideology.

But working hard i.e. shilling for strength is definitely more Holla Forums than here.

That's exactly what I'm going to do. I won't let myself be memed into supporting another ideology or defunct regime that contradicts the kind of man I am. Not Socialism might not be as bad as some say, but it's extremely far from perfect, or even serviceable. It doesn't deserve idolization.

Are you both just pretending to be retarded?


By the way, I'm a complete newfag here. All the filters put on the variations of the term n ational socialism made me smile.

Does it? It's just dirty socialism.

it's funny because one wordfilter breaks the board though.

I mean dirty censorship*

It's just my pathetic history with the ideology that makes it humorous. The word filter does show obvious biases.

Well, there's nothing else to be said here, just think for yourself.

What do you want explained?

Explain on why I'm "pretending to be retarded"?

Why would you say >we just want gibs? Or "literally believes that the unemployed are the proles and that the fact capitalism forces you to work in order to eat means slavery"?

Because that's what I read on this board?

Do you not admit you want free healthcare, free education, free food? And that you count the unemployed as a the proletariat?

Yes, we want "free" stuff. Yes, unemployed are technically proles. Do the unemployed control the means of production? no.

Only if you're unemployed against your will. I'm willing to bet that most of you aren't.

So you admit it.

Nobody cares who control the means of production.

Great, you own a factory, watch how quickly you ruin it by making bad business decision.

Well, yes. Do you not? In a perfect utopia that would be nice, no? Is it realistic in our current society? No. But we as humans should strive towards a future where it might be possible.

No, I don't.

Those who don't work do not deserve anything.

Your utopia is a place for the lazy, a stagnated society of fat slobs.

What you think is not what we mean. When someone works for a wage they are creating surplus value. Capitalism means that value is taken as profit by the bourgeoisie. Socialism means the works own the means of production, which is why this matters. Surplus value would be directed into the national treasury where it would pay for things such as healthcare

report and stop replying.

What I mean is you want free shit?

You say yes, is that not what I mean?

The fact who owns the means of production doesn't matter, free food and shit are readily available in capitalism, just nobody want it because it spreads laziness and decadence.

Sage is not a downvote, leddit scum.

Well, I'm done here, you're dumb as fuck.

Welfare exists.
Charity exist.
Free soup at church exist.


What's wrong with going to church?

And yet… people still starve… hmm

The fact free food exists doesn't mean people can't starve.

If they can't work, they starve, that's all.

Socialism means everyone WILL work. Have no arms? We'll find a way for you to earn a living.

And bankrupt themselves by inventing a shitload of useless jobs i.e. the USSR.

Cool place before it turned revisionist, maybe a bit too hard on industrializing for the sake of industrializing. Also banning computers was retarded and so was Lysenkoism
Mao was a retard but pretty good at waging bonobo warfare. Modern china is hyper-capitalist with a strong oligarchic state to keep the population under control
Nazism with slanted eyes and less expensionist drift. Fucking retarded
Lets throw in some more for the hell of it
Pretty based, holds out very well for their situation. Castro and che did very little wrong. They did a good job at sustainability. They should try to modernize a bit but at the same time I do get that them opening their population up to the internet puts them at a disadvantage because the US internet spy agencies have a total workforce probably about the entire population of Cuba. They will get flooded with propaganda and cyber attacks.
Concerned. They are doing some interesting things but they also do some A-grade stupid shit
My comrades in the desert. Secular, democratic, socialistic, not a puppet for any state, give a giant middle finger to Turkey and get support from both the US and Russia, making them somewhat non-dependent on one superpower over the other. Them and Iran should be the major political powers in the middle east.

Stalinist states have their problems and some are worse than others, but the USSR did a lot right and I wish it didnt collapse, despite their faults. Russia is 1000x times worse for the russians and the world.

The russians and chinese might miss Stalin and Mao, but they don't miss the USSR and Mao China.

The russians actually do miss the USSR. The chinese dont miss maoist china because maoism was fucking retarded and still is. But modern china is not any fun either.

They miss Stalin, no parties in modern Russia want to take Russia back into the USSR, and that's including the communist party.

They want to include back all the satelittle states though, because they feel it's their right or some shit.


Nobody even desire Soviet-style economy though.

Not even the Stalin era soviet-style economy.

Then why does >50% of the russian population say they wish the USSR hadnt dissolved?

Because they want the territories back?

Daily reminder that the USSR back in their times have become much more liberal than Stalin era.

But for the time the Soviet Union was incredibly progressive you idiot. You're putting our morality over 1940's morality. Women had equal rights all "races" people had equal rights.

Compare Stalin era civil rights of Women to America and the West where they didn't even get equal pay

Why do you keep dragging stalin back into this? Post-stalin it was still a soviet-style economy. Everybody had work, there was less poverty than there is now, etc.

They should be at home working in cottage industry and raising the next generation of New Men.

here, try this:

I have a semi-related situation here. I'm a race-realist and White Nationalist. By that I mean that I recognize that there are different intelligence and aptitude levels for different tasks between different races and I believe that Whites should have their own countries. That said, is there any left-wing ideology that I might be interested in? NazBol seems interesting. Obviously ideologies that can only function post-scarcity are useless in the present so only currently viable ideologies please.
inb4 notorious Holla Forums reading list spam
Just recommend me an ideology with perhaps some of your comments and I can look up any reading myself, thank you.

Does that mean most people on this board want all the races to mingle into one mocha race? Why? Wouldn't that get rid of the biological specialization that evolution has endowed us with? Seems a waste of natural gifts.

Nazbol is a meme, ideology isn't just something you pick out of a grocery store or by reading wikipedia articles. Go read some political and philosophy books


Literally none of that race shit is real and it's easily explained by the material conditions of these people. Le Asian people are better at maths because their genes say so instead of their upbringing and strict parental upbringing compared to the West
Muh white ppl deserve special land for simply being white

Hello polyp
Rosa Luxembourg is a million times more the man and better comrade then you ever will. Read Engels

This entire thread unironically needs BO to clean shit up every since we got back on google you fucking pol faggots have been posting shit here. Here's a tip

The comedy writes itself. I hope this is bait.

Spelt her name wrong but whatever.

Please stop perpetuating the Holla Forums stereotpe.
But science literally shows that humans from genetically distinct populations exhibit different traits. For example West Africans are better sprinters and East Africans are better long-distance runners. If you mix them together you get mediocre sprinters and mediocre runners. Hypothetically what if, at some point in the future we needed sprinters to fill some niche and we'd mixed away all the Usain Bolt DNA. Now instead of running style there are also other differences which we probably have more realistic a use fore, such as spacial reasoning or caloric efficiency or height (smaller people are more efficient for space travel) or basically any trait.

oh get off it, nobody could care less about race, even if every last person on earth became a khaki colored person, absolutely nothing would change in terms of capitalism and economics. You might as well rant about how socialists want every sport to turn into ultimate frisbee

She was a """leader""" and party member while sailors and workers (men) were manning barricades and getting killed by freikorps.

Sure but genetically we would lose unique traits that might prove useful in the future.

Contributed to Marxist theory and turned more people Red then any dumbfuck nazbol or Asserist ever did. Also Helped manage a fucking Revolution and died for it.

If you have no leadership your revolution is little more then a Riot. Yeah Stalin was shit cause he personally didn't rush Nazi machine guns and execute Hitler himself

But a population has a distribution of traits, some africans are shit runners, some are average and some are good. Now you could argue that the curve is shifted a bit compared to other populations. but if you combined the west and east African populations in your example, you would end up with a group twice as big, so even if the average running ability shifted a bit, the larger amount of overall people, would mean that enough people would be at the high end of the curve so that overall, the amount of top runners didn't really change that much.

Like what? race mixing doesn't 'lose' traits, its not like if you have a bucket of red paint and a bucket of blue paint, and you mix them you have purple and you can never get back to the original color - its a probability, like shuffling a deck of cards. The reason skin color looks to be averaged out is because multiple genes control skin color

What is Gene editing?
What is muh genetic traits not even existing to the extend you're pushing beyond simple shit like how tall you are or what Colour your skin is.

Anyway Blacks would be better then subhuman Wh*tes
Taller,Stronger less cancer and sunburn, more fertile seed for impregnating and larger dicks for increased pleasure. The Black man is superior face it pol

I mean just look at all the White serial killers and incest going on, it's obvious white people have a mental condition that draws them to shoot up innocent school children and Meth. I mean it's not material conditions exist or anything.

Great, you own a factory, watch how quickly you ruin it by making bad business decision.

Removing the 8 hour day and increasing it up to 10 is true Socialism because more work = more Socialism

Nazbol was litterally started as satire by left wing punks.

Also im pretty sure they are just nationalist, not racialist. And they definately do not believe in american race catagories.

There are no seperated races like america sees them. There is only a massive population of humans over a larger distance. People at the far ends are more distinct from each other but its a blend going to the middle.

The traits and genetic mutations that cause these changes are still present. You don't lose them. The first generation might be heterozygotic for those traits but after a few generations good sprinters will appear again. No human population is hyper-specialised because human populations have always and still are constantly mixing.

Then we would be better off using genetic editing or, I dunno, technology? Not sure what scenario you can imagine where we would need lots of people who can glass-cannon 100 meters in 10 seconds once a day?


Forgot this one
Same ones: Genetic editing and stuff.

also making short people is easy as fuck, there is dwarves and if you dont want dwarves you can just damage the thing between your joints, thats already how we treat people with growth deficiencies who will grow too large.

On the first quote, I have just realised something: today we live in what are starting to call an emerging "post-materialist consumerist society": in that people under 30 buy far less THINGS. We have a generation of people who are doing the experiencing, and not just buying goods. Perhaps the reason the millennials are maoists is because they are starting to live their lives in a manner that Marx hoped for mankind. Kinda weird to think of it.

So much for Holla Forums.

When you can't argue, you ban them.

This board is an abomination of chan culture.

And they say Karl Marx isn't bourgeois, he sure thinks like a bourgeois piece of shit.

Yes, enjoy yourself more, read more, eat more, grow fatter instead of working.

No, there's no joy in working, only joy in reading, dancing and watching theater i.e. being a hedonist piece of shit.

You can enjoy working but we shouldn't all work like mad to give everyone a new iPhone or new TV every year. That's simply unnecessary and still in Capitalist mode thinking. As it stands now we can produce everything we need at a faction of the manpower and time we use now

Just imagine working only like one day a week or something like that and spending the rest of your time reading,writing and talking with friends,watching films,playing music,playing sport etc. That's something good to aim for. If you want the new phone model every year cause "gotta get it since it's NEWER!!!" then join the Capitalist line.

The more people work the less they spend living, I would be fine with devoting some of my time working on a farm if we got all ample time off.

Fuck messed up

here ya go

Working is living.

When you work you live.

The more spend time on hedonist activities, the more you lose yourself, yes, even reading.

He's not saying that you redditor nerd.

Except he does.

He thinks to consume entertainment is to live, what a little bourgeois faggot.

Nope work is work, true life is all that stuff he mentioned
When you work you waste life, now work can help build character but I'll rather spend 6/10's of my life with friends and enjoying life then 6/10's of it in a factory so I can get a new Socialism™ tv every year
The more you work in a shitty factory to produce more shitty Iphones the more you actually live life.
pls we all want to work less and we work way more for surplus profit, rather then "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"


Admittedly my Stirner knowledge is barebones at best but if you're a communist for the reason of we got rid of the shitty leech boss so we get x amounts of more money and more iphones you should potentially read Max Stirner since he seems more about self interest in a collectivist view. Please educate me though Egoists I'm sure I said something wrong about his philosophy (maybe?)

No, work is living.

Your "true life" are but hedonist dreams, and you will end up a sad faggot with no career or future.

Can't you read your own Marx?
Because working is not expressing your life, no, consuming entertainment is.

wtf I love Indian sweatshops now, they live the most
I will live my life as much as I can, I enjoy seeing the theater (yes even now I love the live plays. Such emotion) and you can break your back working for Apple. We'll see who gets the most of out of life me or you when I spent much more of my time playing instruments,writing and thinking

They certainly do live more than you.
We will see, when we get old and look back.

Remember these words, remember them.

Indian Sweatshop workers live more then me cause they work more, lol okay
Alright just don't regret spending more time at work then with your children or grandkids cause you spent more time hammering phones at work then bonding with your children or making/writing music,seeing plays,reading books,enjoying nature,having lunch with friends,learning new ways to make food,eating new and fascinating foods.
Ask any old person now their regrets and they'll say working too long

They will have a career, a family and even grandkids in the first place.

Unlike you, who ravel in hedonism, instead.

Lazy old person, yes, while the successful old persons still want to work in their downtime.

Yet they won't see them, or bond or educate them
Wouldn't it be a shame to you're logic if I had a long term Hippie gf :D. Also I would have time too see,teach and educate any children or maybe even grandchildren we would have.
lol keep believing that, when you're old and 95+ you''ll think why the hell didn't i spend more time doing the things i like then slaving away in a capitalist factory so we a slight new iPhone every year.
Keep being a good porky worker,we should totally raise the retirement year to 100 get rid of weekends and public holidays as well so we can keep more old people working cause Christmas and family dinners aren't living. Waiting till Lunch or knock off time is real living

It's these same working people who bond and educate future workers, and it's what grow them into actual successful person.

While you and your gf enjoy in mindless hedonism.

But just wait and see I guess, we will see who look back and regret.

Where do you get that from?

That was Lenin, and at first it was Paul, but it does correspond to Marx's idea of lower communism. To each according to his contribution. Higher communism would function like a library, where you indeed just take what you need as long as long it isn't burdensome. Which it shouldn't be if it's just what you need.

I get that from Marx.

He said this:
Of course, working to have more is not expressing your own life!

Who lives more? Matrix tier robot slave worker who has no holidays or weekends off the retirement year is 100 (most people don't live too) and works 12 hours a day since the age of 14
Or a person who works once a week and gets resources allocated to him according to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and see's regular plays,orchestral performances and is writing a book?

I think you're response will be quite telling if you pick the former.

The former, because he works more thus he lives more.

Unlike the other, who lives by consuming entertainment and get resources allocated to him due to his "needs".

So i guess pic related is the pinacle of a good childhood then?

Actually you're just a brainlet.
t. resident ultra-reactionary

no, a child is entitled to a parent's care.

No person who defends fag-right and other progressive bullshit should call himself a reactionary, it's a too good a word for that.

But user, working is living, what kind of parents would deny the fullest living experience for their children?
Thoses children are better of mining than consuming entertainment

I was a stormfag bc fuck jews

Children ought to be properly raised and educated so they can work.

And here it is, they always come out of the woodwork.
>"I was"

I think you are a digusting ass progressive who calls himself a nazi for hipster cred.

No, you aren't an alt-lite or alt-right.

You are a dirty communist faggot.

>Wanting to abolish democracy, dismantle the legacy of enlightenment, and restore absolutism, manorialism and vassalage AKA feudalism
No you faggot. It's just not possible to be an absolutist reactionary and a capitalist.

Also I like namefagging as a nazi because it triggers ideology-addled American MAGAtard manchildren
Such as (you)

No, faggot, it's entirely possible to be reactionary and a capitalist.

You just don't have to define capitalism like a faggot communism does.

So exactly like this: digusting ass progressive who calls himself a nazi for hipster cred.

Enlighten us about what capitalism means then…

good goy


What do you think about the fact that the Maoist LLCO advocates for a white ethnostate in Appalachia?


Inb4 reeeeeeeeeeee

Wew how did that happen OP? Mind sharing?

>[kap-i-tl-iz-uh m]

Polite sage due to not contributing to the discussion

It is like clockwork, except we do not accept that definition, faggot.

Whether or not you accept that definition doesn't matter at all. Your perception of the world doesn't change objective material reality.

We sure are seeing a lot of brainlets lately.

The objective reality remains once there is property and trading, capitalism will form.

Capitalism should have formed 10.000 years ago, then

It did though, money just accelerates it.

Inb4 ya gotta have industrial revolution to have capitalism

even hitler would hate you, brainlet

Are you telling us your parents had no problem with Nazis then?

He can, but he's dead so who cares?

If you enjoy working for the sake of working and living for the sake of living then you are a supreme hedonist! People that partake in purely entertainment pleasures without any productive usefullness are much LESS hedonistic than you, because they don't enjoy life in itself, they need something more to keep them going.

You find joy in working therefore you're a hedonist.

You find pleasurable/rewarding to have a career and a family and you seek to avoid sadness, therefore you're a hedonist.

>working to have more is not expressing your own life!
You value working to acquire more material goods therefore you are a hedonist.

Don't pretend you are not a hedonist of the highest order. A true non-hedonist doesn't care about his own happiness or life but sacrifices them for what he deems worthy and that necessarily means living a life of great suffering and sadness.

If enjoying working is hedonist then there's finally a good hedonist.

Capital is a social relationship. If I own a bread-making machine and make bread with it, that machine is not capital, nor is the bread or the flour used to make said bread. If somebody else own that bread-making machine and pays me to operate it, then the machine is capital, the flour is capital, I myself am capital, and the bread is a commodity. Capitalism is an economy where capital dominates - it has nothing to do with markets, which far predate it.

Except back then you have ancient firms that have slaves or peasants that make cakes and sell them.

Let alone guilds and merchants that deal in weapons and armors.

You honestly think mass production did not exist in the old age?

Oh, capital did exist, but it did not dominate society and the economy in the way it does now. Most people lived their lives outside of the impositions of capital, and political power was mainly in the hands of the nobility, not the emerging bourgeoise. Capital predates capitalism.

This is the nonsense I'm talking about, as long as capital exists, there is capitalism.

You speak as if capitalism is a mode of society, when it's an economic system where people trade capital.

The idea that the economy is separate from society is another form of liberalism. The two are far too deeply intertwined.

If you are a hedonist then you are a slave to your senses. If you are a natural hedonist that instinctively enjoys life (and work) in itself without any need of extraneous pleasures then you are the ultimate slave.

At least hedonistic leftists want to try to improve this world but hedonistic rightists just enjoy this shitty world as it is and that's why you people need to be enslaved and tortured in Gulags and toil until you beg for your deaths and after it continue to be tortured even more so until your deaths. That will make you reevaluate your "working is living" and "living in itself is good" mentality.