From my experience in the debate, these people are hardly irredeemable. Most are alienated, sexually frustrated young men who are only attracted to right-wing ideology because of how repelling neoliberalism is. With the right approach and arguments, it's actually incredibly easy to show to them that Marxism-Leninism alone offers solutions to their problems.
Tbh, this should be done more, just like you said. Imo, it ends up being easier conving far righties, conservatives, etc into socialism than it is a liberal or a centrist
Good job I guess. Always nice having more leftists
They're told by both neoliberals and crypto-fascists like Jordan Peterson that neoliberalism is left-wing "neo-Marxism" or "cultural Marxism". Once you discredit that, their entire ideological paradigm falls apart.
I don't know about conservatives, but I think far righters are indeed easier to talk into socialism rather than liberals given they're less likely to reject "extremism" on principle.
I'm not trying to say horseshoe is true, but mostly alienation.
You sounded like a mousy spic. You didn't convert anyone, especially with your (poorly argued) ☭TANKIE☭ revisionist history. Even I could have done a better job defending dprk but your primitive ape spic brain had to keep on resorting to "and you are lynching Negros" line of argumentation. Why are spics so repugnant? lmao @ yer lyfe
You are the reason Poe's law was invented.
Spics are disgusting
Convert implies you turned one thing into something different. Burning Jews doesn't mean you're not a socialist.
every time someone links a 4/pol/ thread here it's even worse than I think it will be literally everyone on that board is a child or a boomer
Eh it depends, you have to approach them differently. Like it is often quite easy to get people to agree with worker self management, and building from that is a good way to get centre-right and centrist types over. I mean if you tell them "well you are just owning the place you work", it appeals to the muh american dream bollocks; playing to the sensibilities of "Muh sweat off muh brow". That is where you hook them in with that lovely trotskyite anti-state analysis, perhaps throw in Catalonia or Chipas or maybe even Yugoslavia.
Or a redditor.
Exactly, also as MaoistHoxhaist put it, "far right wingers are being blinded, while liberals blind themselves"
Well most leftists think that debate is useless (at least against fascism or whatever), that it only gives the fascists grounds to advertise their ideology at best, and at worst letting them "ostensibly" defeat leftists in debates using sophistry. We did have the Sargon / Muke+Badmouse debate (didn't watch it though), but they are rare indeed.
Personally I kind of agree that debates aren't very useful in determining truth or getting to change peoples minds. But I also think the leftist attitude basically makes you look like one of the memeball images "when your ideology is so shit that you can never debate for it in fear of losing". I think a lot of rising right-wing ideology was promoted through winning arguments against liberals, you see this with the AIDS skrillex meme, the recent Peterson vs Feminist Woman thing and a quadrillion other examples. Of course when the other side makes bad arguments and constantly BTFOs itself while your side is the calm and rational one, your side is going to look correct and attractive to outsiders. But this brings us back to the sophistry point, if debates really are ultimately just about verbal Autism Level and "tricks", then the leftist attitude of avoidance is perhaps correct. Theoretically, you can simply make use of the same tools and be better at it, but I would say the left is always at a disadvantage for reasons such as Americans not knowing what communism actually is, and you having to damage control Stalin and Pol Pot for 10 hours.
Interestingly enough it's almost like the IBS phenomena agrees with the idea that debates are a meme, in the sense that it basically stopped the theme of "find the truth with logical arguments between each other" that is usually the core of debates with this "Internet Wrestling" that is just meant for entertainment.
Also, the post you are quoting was obviously being ironic. You should learn to follow IDs, he was arguing against you the whole thread long. Sorry to ruin your hopes.
pls stahp Thats going to catch up to you Rest was decent.
Pearls before swine.
Wasn't it you alone against them?
shut up liberal. not only is the DPRK socialist, but because it is so hated by the MSM, contrarian poltards have a natural attraction to it. the DPRK should be a major point of propaganda towards impressionable polaks.
Dprk belongs to us, not you, they're isolationist ethno nationalists
No one knows enough about DPRK to know what the fuck it is, and neither do you. The place is a black hole for intel. Don't get ahead of yourself, is my point. It could backfire.
pol pot was hated too. doesnt make them socialist tbh, fam
Just because he wasn't socialism doesn't make him bad either through.
no thank you
Talk about single-issueness.
Count me out, tovarish. And dont even think about banning me, BO.
why don't you organize it, then? set up a discord, make a /gen/ thread, collect a repository for arguments that work, tally successes, support each other when hair tearing begins, sharped each other's skills quietly away from rightwing eyes, ect. the only way we'll do this more often is if we do it together. individualist evangelizing isn't really a viable strategy. we'd need to be something spooky and coordinated, like JIDF or something
TIL caucasoids are primitive ape people You niggers are really fucking stupid, you know that, right?
No, but I don't see any reason to defend him aside from making sure the capitalist don't skew the historical record. Sorry, but I think destroying the means of production is shit praxis.
I'm ten minutes in and this Joachim guy is the biggest pompous propaganda gobbling faggot. I don't know how you kept your composure, OP, but good job!
Yeah OP had patience here. That guy doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith a lot of time.
Well done OP. I enjoyed your relaxed and happy demeanor the whole time.
This guy wants suck carls dick, he's mimicking him so hard
How do I do that?
Read Kim Jong Il
45:10 "Basically what you're arguing for is the DMV running everything."
NAZDMV GANG when?
I'm pretty sure he was being ironic, are you autistic OP?
Hey it seems like you have a good theoretical base, don't be afraid to speak with conviction.
W H Y ?
Any major chan board where fashfags outnumber you isn't the right place. I have tried to convince self proclaimed alt-rightists on other places but haven't changed any yet because no one wants to devate them because their annoyingness of how they carry their arguments. Maybe I helped stopped people sitting on the fense though. I had seen several liberals approach me for sources to be educated about leftism and the problems with capitalism though.
this is torture
you got rekt my dude If you go on again try to talk more about economics and don’t bother defending the DPRK
I commend you for your endurance. Because it is a fucking slog.
You did really meh my dude and didn’t shit on there retarded opinions , they said so many shitty propoganda lines that I’m surprised u didn’t jump on their shit
Yeah and it was a disaster.
The only way to debate right-wingers and liberals is to double down on their sophistry, they will always try to weasel out of what's being discussed, and most leftists make the mistake of going down that path, letting their opponents dominate the conversation. This is because most leftist ideologies, especially Marxism, claim to explain the entire world in a holistic way, therefore, socialists feel the need to address every point that's said against them instead of just admitting that this is beside the topic or that they simply don't know much about this. Like, when Sargon hammers home his idea of a nuclear family saving the West, quoting Engels isn't enough and you can't just handwave everything away with some form of vulgar dialectical materialism, which becomes unscientific once it's unfalsifiable, and you do loose the argument when your opponent quotes statistics and studies about, let's say, criminal behavior in relation to the familial background. A good example of how not to do it would be the debate Contrapoints had with Sargon.
So basically, the best way to do this is how Jack Angstreich completely and utterly annihilated Academic Agent. Don't let them derail the topic, stay on it, and be stoic. Don't defend yourself, and, if you have to, keep repeating your argument over and over until the person actually addresses it or admits ignorance about it. You really have to get into the mindset a conscious tank would have. Jack was a T-34 grinding Academic Agent beneath his chains. This is also similar to what Molyneux does, except he is so openly dishonest that people keep calling him out on it, but it's actually quite an efficient tactic.
I was listening to this but I think you could have done some things better, like completely denying that there is malnutrition in the DPRK is a bit silly, rather I would argue that they are sanctioned from oil imports so they can't produce fertilizer and only 18% of the land is actually arable. There is a statistic that shows how the fertilizer imports from the USSR go hand-in-hand with North Korean food production output.
The Nazi however was a complete fucking scumbag, he told you to read the New York Times as evidence Stalin killed 60 million people, does he know what the New York Times also says about fascism and antisemitism? Another instance is where he pretends that you don't know how academia works but says a few minutes later that academia is run by communist. He also gishgallops all the time, jumping back and forth between Venezuela, Stalin and the DPRK in a single sentence.
Listened to some of that guys other videos Utter fucking stupidity but their demeanor is all they have going for them. Their was a sargonite liberalist being a pedantic autistic debate guy vs a Richard Spencer head and the sargon guy was very autistic about very small differences and it was clear he wasn’t well versed in history or capitalism. And he still had better arguments than the ethnotard but he was losing the optics debate big time.
Still if someone is losing a debate to a self claimed liberalist they are not worth our time as opponents because they are true idiots and do not have an audience . Make your own dumb YouTube argument channel don’t visit these idiots
The host just renamed the video
Ah yes, our most learned faction and the best ambassadors we have to offer.
unironically this, ☭TANKIE☭s are ardent enough to convince even if they don't know much. But in a debate with alt-retards being convincing and ardent is all you really need.
nah, they get caught in the weeds shilling for long dead dictators instead of talking about economics.
I'm not a ☭TANKIE☭ but you did a good job OP, anyone who watched that debate with an open mind would recognize you were making better arguments.
This seriously displays the problem with debating these people your opponent pretty much relied purely on sophistry, argumentum ad populum, snarky jokes, and easily debunkable anti-communist propaganda.
The second you repudiate USSR, 100 gorrilion and gulags, you lose. Learn to be a Stalinist in the streets, even if it's not what you are in the sheets.
I would critically defend some of what the USSR did, while reminding them what life under the Tsars was like. I definitely wouldn’t engage in classic tanky denialism, particularly in regards to the DPRK. Those talking points are cringe inducing, and are not taken seriously anywhere outside of Holla Forums.
Remind people that DRPK is not the aggressor.
You're not required to defend Dengist China, and Pol Pot (unless you're a Blanquist).
as of right now, no they're not.
I assume you are referring to sanctions? Those sanctions began in the 2000s after North Korea withdrew from the NPT and began developing nuclear weapons. Many of the early sanctions were mutually agreed upon consequences for non-compliance with peaceful nuclear power cooperation agreements.
It’s odd to me that ☭TANKIE☭s defend the nork’s nuclear program, especially since they were rebuffed by both the USSR and China when they asked for help developing nuclear weapons. Obviously both the PRC and the USSR understood the value of nuclear non-proliferation. Yet somehow today if you oppose the Kim’s nuclear program, tankys will label you as some sort of liberal.
Because most of these things aren't about who is right, it's about Jerry Springer tier discourse that's more meant to entertain than inform. That's not to say you can't use it for propaganda purposes, but you have to be wellspoken. It's not for everyone.
Not referring to that. I'm talking about the fact that NK is willing to ramp down its nuclear program if the U.S. stops flying bombers over its country. Fuck, even Noam Chomsky was talking about this. It's not just a ☭TANKIE☭ talking point.
Yeah, after the Bush called them part of the axis of evil and started invading countries left and right. Duh.
There is no way the US would ramp down nukes because the DPRK does, lmao, how fucking naive are you
I doubt it. The perfidious Kim’s have agreed to stop developing nuclear weapons several times, but it has always just be a stalling tactic. Their goal is obviously to protect their dynasty by obtaining nuclear sovereignt. This is understandable, but undersireable for the rest of the world. As more countries aquire nuclear weapons, the probability of both further proliferation and global thermonuclear increases.
You completely misread my comment.
you are off by a few decades
Yeah because the USSR fell and China turned capitalist, wtf are you even talking about. They made a deal with Clinton in the 90s and retreated from that once Bush started warmongering, this is deal you were whining about
I can post a source if you really want it.
And every time they've stopped, the U.S. proves it's not in good faith, so what do you expect? They've had missiles pointed at the country for decades, and it's never stopped. Also, every time the U.S. has opened a line of communication with the DPRK, it has eased tensions. They've refused to even do that, when there have been opportunities.
It's only their goal because the west won't allow them sovereignty in general.
When you have the rest of world wanting to have nukes to protect itself from the U.S., no it isn't.
Let's organize a leftypol Google hangout and YouTube channel! We can have different deviations debate each other, ☭TANKIE☭s vs. anarchists, maoists vs. hoxhaists, trotskyist vs. stalinist, or we could just discuss current events from a non-sectarian position.
Wow a civil war. I guess the Yankees were the aggressors then
As long as it doesn't become le interent blood sports, I'd be willing. Fuck, why even debates? Just a place where you can converse and share differing viewpoints to educate would be preferable to me.
The thing is IRL leftist orgs are always echo chambers of their respective ideology. The internet allows us to actually have honest standoffs between them.
Bush only started warmongering because they were continuing to secretly enrich in uranium in defiance of agreements.
Debating with fascists is pointless. They don't have a coherent theory or system of values that can be argued with using logic. You can debate a libertarian, even a theologian, but not a fascist because sophistry and emotional appeals are everything they have. You can successfully disprove a thousand infographics and not once will the fascist's view be threatened because it is not rooted in anything material. Since the fascist has nothing but vague mysticism and gut feels to defend, he can endlessly dance from point to point and throw out empty sophistry while you are forced to come up with rational counterarguments until you inevitably give up, or join him in a shouting match of slogans (that you will probably lose).
Debating fascists means accepting their rules and legitimizing them at little gain, as converting a fascist using logic is a crapshoot.
Standoffs don't have to be debates, though. I've at least have had discussions with people about our differing viewpoints that I wouldn't call a debate because they aren't rhetoric ridden shit flinging contests.
You engage with them with ideological critique. Refuse to go into the whole racial intelligence bullshit altogether. All they will have left are dumb conspiracy theories about Jews. That's how you make them feel threatened.
Your belief that anyone can get swayed by nothing but rational argumentation is embarrassingly idealist.
No one is suggesting we engage fascists using "logic." There are other modes of debate.
Some of those comments.
Well put. Watching that debate was 3 hours of pure nonstop withering away of AA.
We need to master our sophistry and get good at debates just in case this shit gets popular and we are forced in to it but while lagging behind in debating power. We should have discussions on how leftists should portray themselves in debates, classify different debating strategies and adversary stereotypes and the different goals of socialists in participating in debates.
I don't understand how people can literally flip flop from Not Socialism to Marxism … seems rather strange. But nonetheless cool I guess
I did not claim that. There are other ways to sway, convert and agitate fascists. But in an organized debate where the point in the first place is to provide rational argumentation for one's position, one is a priori disadvantaged against fascist sophistry. History proves that.
So we should either avoid this kind of debate altogether and focus on other venues of agitation, or like said develop our own sophistry and meme arsenal to have an upper hand in vapid shouting matches.
This is rather true, we shouldn't defend something we can't get any info on.
In my experience there are two kinds of Nat Socs: 1. Deluded proles who actually believe in socialism and admire Hitler and/or the NDSAP because they notice liberal capitalist media and wealth Jews bag on them all the time for good reason 2. Racist capitalists usually hailing from the petit-bourgeoisie We'll probably never convince the latter group unless they fall into utter destitution and therefore start thinking like the former group but there can and should be efforts to convince the first group.
I think the best approach is a non-academic, worker propaganda.
Avoid arguing when tired. That's one suggestion of mine, I almost always argue when tired and I always look back in shame at my lacklustered manner of debate. Think before hitting enter. Double time in, and never. Ever. Do a video/call/physical debate when not in a clear mind. I also hate myself how I always get in a debate when I'm exhausted after work but that's beside the point
I honestly feel like anybody who flip flops that hard can be convinced of anything. I can understand being a republican or lazze-faire capitalist and then start reading. But this is something different.
Sooo, has anyone been infiltrating Holla Forums discords? Why does Holla Forums like discord so much anyway?
A lot of gamers use it and its pretty private compared to public imageboards
It always seemed kind of childish to me because it was made for video games, correct me if I'm wrong, and I haven't played video games since I was 15
I'm not going to pretend like there isn't a pretty large gap in the ideologies but that annoying right-winger pointed out a superficial similarity like the fact that Marxism-Leninism rejects corporate globalism.
Maybe someone that flips that easily wouldn't be a great communist party member but as a potential sympathizer in the general public and workforce? I'd say not only would that be okay but we need more of those.
True, but at the same time I wouldn't trust them thats all I'm saying
We’d convert 60% of the far right already if we just told them you don’t have to be an SJW in order to be a Marxist. Crypto fasc retards like Asserites are created because these types of young men feel too alienated by idpol radlibs to fully commit to Marxism and don’t want to flegellate themselves to be a part of it. All we have to do is just ramp up the “fuck idpol” attitude and let Holla Forums and other places know we aren’t the radlibs they see on their own echo chamber, InfoWars, and Twitter in order to convert them. We’ve got to be sure not to accidentally accommodate their own reactionarianism in our efforts to be anti-SJW, however. We shouldn’t alter what we believe to accommodate them.
It's baffling how Holla Forums bends over backwards to appease some interner nazi larpers when many "idpol sjws" are potential comrades or outright call themselves marxists. This place has some weird priorities.
People respect honest enemies more than false friends tbh most “SJWs” are not comrades but in fact liberal LARPers. Many of them have been exposed to Marxist and communist ideas for sometime, if they haven’t turned yet they probably aren’t going to.
Internet Nazi LARPers are alienated young men and wholeheartedly reject the establishment. SJWs are closet neoliberals so they can use a leftist disguise to reproduce the ruling ideology.
but what about the intersectional marxists
Maybe high-profile system SJWs, but the common tumblrite is just as well a marginalized victim of constant torture chamber treatment. Many of them hold socialist views and are informed about economic inequality, they just need a push in the right direction. Trump's presidency is also radicalizing them against the establishment.
Then we have actual socialists who are instantly condemned by Holla Forums for recognizing any injustices beyond economical because Holla Forums has Holla Forums guilt.
Intersectionality has nothing to do with Marxism, it investigates a completely different thing. I guess you can be an intersectional Marxist the same way you can be a Marxist who likes mozzarella or whatever.
Well, true, but personally I can't stand the fact that you always walk on eggshells with these people. Any wrong word gets you completely discarded by them as a sexist racist transphobic TERF or whatever. I've been banned permanently from every single leftist subreddit for as much as calling a Trump an "idiot".
At least with Holla Forumsyps I can say whatever the fuck I want.
Ok so I like how Joe is just BTFOing this metal man fag on absolutely everything but does it look bad that we are all youngfags with cringe voices? Myself included
You serious? Face it, these people just want a provocative image to slap their liberal ideology into and communism is the one they have decided is for them. We can still convert them and alt fighters alike, we just have to empty both their heads of the idpol spooks.
this Jeff guy sucks
A lot of us are ex-right wingers/fascists and still feel slighted by how the idpol obsessed leftists gave us the middle finger speaking for myself at least Not to say we shouldn't try to help idpolers and liberals but some people got different priorities plus we know their arguments and rhetoric all too well
Speaking for myself, I was never a rightist—liberals and post-modernists just got too annoying for even a baby leftist myself to handle. Maybe it’s different for most of you guys since Obama and his centrist neoliberal comrades abroad was the only president you were really politically aware under.
I remember the Bush years very well and even then the Left of that time, for its all its flaws, genuinely made an effort to be popular and appeal to workers—not just shouting down any criticism as ‘racist’. The left used to have the reputation in those years of being against war, the oligarchs and the big companies but now it’s for it if will help any minority achieve slightly greater representation.
It was probably inevitably that the post-Cold War liberal left would turn out like this tho. There’s a reason Obama succeeded Bush.
Str*asserites are created when #1 from , deluded proles who believe in Socialism, read a book and realize Hitler's Socialism was doomed to fail because Hitler was a traitor to the party and to the Socialist cause. One of the biggest appeals to Nazi Germany is the economic element, even if it was corporatist, it still maintained a foothold in Europe with the entire world against them. Many deluded proles see this as the result of Socialist policies. Many Nazis are civic nationalists and don't actually want to kill all black people, in fact some have supported brown nationalist anti-globalist movements every time they pop up. These nazis are Str*sserites who haven't read Str*sser yet.
I think your success at conversion would depend on the level of knowledge of the person you are targeting; targeting the first group is probably the right approach but most of the people you will have an meaningful chance with are people without genuine convictions and typically possess a shallow knowledge base. Many people who are part of "Nazi" spaces are basically just anti-liberals who see liberal idpol targeting them or their loved ones and think "alright then, two can at at that game" and have almost no connection to anything more substantial.
I could make so many shitposts about this video, I don't even know where to begin
Problem being the need for a master.
Neoliberalism doesn't exist. It's a catch all term that is worse than cultural marxism, which atleast has actual substance instead of "like everything that happens today and is somehow all the same monocausal thing.
user it is a common term just used to describe the synthesis of chicago and austrian economics prominent since hte 1980s.
That's a motte-and-bailey argument. Using that line of logic, the illuminati exists because celebrities wearing triangle shaped jewelry exist
Neoliberalism is blamed for incels and hypersexuality, for SJW's and gamergaters, for any government lowering its spending and for welfare states… implying there's a conspiracy underlying all of it. Neoliberalism is what's to blame everything that happens today and everything that happens today is neoliberalism.
Except triangle shaped jewelfry doesn't define the illuminati, whereas deregulation policies to favour the free market is the very core of neoliberalism.
There is no conspiracy as there is no concerted effort to make things turn to shit, but what you have are policies being enacted that affect people's lives which have not only material, but also psychological and ideological consequences.
So are a some things wrongly blamed on Neoliberalism? Perhaps. Does that means Neoliberalism doesn't exist? Absolutely not. Or else Holla Forums blaming Jews for everything means Jews aren't real.
I wish I was good at arguing.
Holla Forums calls SJWs "neo-liberals" or "neoliberal" because of the meaning "liberal" has in the anglosphere and the seeming fact that they're new. the same word is used differently by different people. that doesn't mean it has no meaning. and nobody calls it a conspiracy. it's an ideology.
Thanks to everyone who contributed with constructive criticism. Having listened to it, I realized I was way too defensive and disorganized. I should have had a pen and paper with me just so they wouldn't be able to bait me from one topic to the other, without finishing my point.
I managed to convince them that it's only fair to have another debate, where they'll be defending their ideology (fascist class collaborationsim) from my criticisms.
My general points would be:
-Class collaborationism is pure utopianism
-The opposing interests of conflicting classes can never be reconciled.
-Historically, class collaborationism has only served as a lubricant for exploitation and anti-worker domestic policy.
Anything else I should add?
This one will be 1v1, but after that there will be multiple people. Anyone who is well-read and good and speaking (unlike me) is welcome to join.
Neoliberalism is, in many leftists' viewpoints, the catering to left-wing thought while still containing right wing policies. Socdems enforcing leftist policies and eventually privatizing stuff again would be an example of neoliberalism. Liberalism is just a general reference to capitalism, provided you aren't right wing and think liberals are somehow leftist.
shilling for DPRK (and to a lesser extent Stalin) looks like historical revisionism to 99% of people, so you should avoid that in the future
But DPRK and Stalin did a lot of very good things for themselves and their country.
I would make these points:
1. Bad things that rightists complain about under capitalism are the way they are because they are the logical conclusion of capitalism. Here are some examples:
A) Central Banks are logical outgrowth of capitalism, the US went more than 100 years without a central bank and the result was thousands of bank failures and financial instability while many European countries went decades without financial crises of the US-type because they had effective central banks. "Usurious" relations in regards to the provision of money are inevitable. Bonds help governments finance their budgets and reflect investor confidence in both the national government and its currency. Currency speculators and the existence of a pure fiat currency based on public money unworkable or very difficult under capitalism. It was only successfully tried under Lincoln's government during the Civil War and even then it was accompanied by widespread inflation.
B) When it comes to the whole usury+big banks Jews come in later cocktail of memes, here is a good way to respond to it. Respond simply as Marx did, expecting people to lend good money for nothing under capitalism is a fantasy. Likewise, drive home the point that every capitalist is really a money capitalist, industry, farming, retail etc. is just the activity that comes in-between that allows them to realize a better than average profit. Interest rates only lay down a base-line of profit, Marx defined profit of enterprise as the average rate of profit-interest. If the rate of profit falls below the rate of interest then the industrial capitalists will transform themselves into money-capitalists–this actually happened after the Volcker shock when interest rates jumped to 20%.
C) Point out that mass migration and free-trade are logical consequences of capitalism. Immigration is a tool to keep down wages and enforce labor discipline (while also attracting skilled labor). Likewise, "free trade" in an absolute form has probably never existed but it is largely in the interests of the dominant share of the capitalist class globally for it to exist. Much like destroying the FED or breaking up the banks the effect of just banning these things on national pretexts under capitalism would probably merely be to just stem the tide. They would inevitably come back because thing are the way they are because this development has served capitalist interests.You can put it very simply, do we have these things because they serve capitalist interests or because of some conspiratorial cabal working to undermine the white race? Use Occam's razor here, which one sounds simpler.
2) How would a nationalist capitalist utopia work? Would this entail immigration? A central bank? Would there be immigration? How would competing nationalisms solve their problems? Are the current nationalists movements part of a wider international force? Where does the line stop? What makes the current dream of fascist/nationalist internationalism any different than today's order except that its an edgier version of what goes on in diplomatic and government circles.
3) If they pull the "national socialism" card ask them to define Not Socialism and to point to a real historical example of it. Hitler and all the other cats that have actually held power under such regimes are easily identifiable as capitalist states. If they have some special snowflake definition of socialism then ask how it differs from communism? More than likely they'll end up admitting there's a place for capitalists in their order and so they are easy to ridicule. Most of the Alt-Right are just edgy capitalists so I don't think you'll really have to use this third part.
This guy is a huge fag. That debate with destiny proved that, and I hate destiny with a passion. youtu.be/fPZ1jY9M8xQ
Quit throwing pearls at swine. It's pointless.
They should try to get FinnBol on. He could BTFO them on the DPRK.
hey congrats you gave their fascism a red coat of paint.
Gee, it's almost like no has got the time to talk to dishonest af retards arguing in bad faith.
these fags haven't read the Green Book
can a socdem or ancom go on next time
Full video is now loaded. The debate starts at 1:50:30 and goes on until 4:40:00 ish or so.
I'm bored of debating the right tbh, it's all the same rehashed arguments. I would be willing to go again if someone else from here agrees to join me.
Join me for the next debate then. If you're the same Titoposter who posts about SFRY, you have good knowledge of how market socialism works. It would work better at convincing people than shilling for a centrally planned economy, which most people can't even imagine existing in a Western country.
Fuuuuuck. Why would you do this to yourself. Just arguing with these people in the comments makes me want to kill myself.
I hope that by exposing some logical inconsistencies in the "alt" right-wing worldview, I can convince proles on the right to go left. Out of the thousands of people who watched that stream, I'm sure it worked on at least a couple.
I mean, I can respect that. But all the "hurrr why did he only ask questions in response. the left can't debate." comments make me want to strangle their collective throat. None of these people argue in good faith at all. Maybe I'm asking too much from the right, though. I don't know.
That's part of his whole shtick. The channel owner himself doesn't care about whatever people talk about and screams at people all the fucking time
That's not how the spectacle works
Oh also. Get a better microphone and try to talk more slowly. Talking fast makes you sound unsure about your own positions.
No offense, but even a child could win against Tonka. That guy is legitimately the most retarded person in the "bloodsports" community. I haven't listened to it yet, though I did listen to the last one. The fact that you would put up with their shit for 3 hours is pretty commendable so I give you an A for effort.
I hate youtube
Sounds like a nazi.
Do you happen to be an ex alt-righter? If not I don't see the point in continuing. Many ex-nazis including myself abandoned our right wing views after all the trump dicksucking on Holla Forums. I think its fair to say that if the alt-righters haven't seen the light by now they are a lost cause.
Wew I'm surprised you were able to put up with that for that long. I didn't watch it completely and mostly jumped around but at least you seem to be arguing in good faith and not just parroting capitalist propaganda.
Traditionalist right-winger here
I started surfing this board last week and I’ve already learned a lot about leftism. I’m not interested in accepting the world view but I am interested in history and I want to get inside the minds of modern Marxists.
I was surprised that Marxists do not at all identify with progressives even though it seems to me there is a ton of overlap. It seems like they’ve just replaced bougoiuse with “white people” and proletariat with “non white people” in an attempt to have a sort of racial/class based revolution to usher in a sort of leftist social/economic structure.
I’m actually more repulsed to leftism after learning about it here. I’ve been on a history binge researching the Lennin’s Revolution and how that entire time-period played out.
I think a certain personality type is attracted to Marxism, and a certain personality type attracted to a far-right fashy type of ideology. I think there are biological factors at play here and I’m not sure how much debating could convince right-wing people to come to Marxism.
You guys should do more debates though. You need to breed some debaters or public figures to represent your beliefs so we can get an actual dialogue going here. Marxist twitter accounts aren’t cutting it, and this shit is really entertaining
To be honest, I see the possibility of a civil war in the future as both of our sides continue to grow. Or maybe we find a compromise, or just simply Balkanize. Either way, I’m happy to get out of the current system in the next 50 years
Likewise, I’ve been posting here for around 18 months.
If I can speak in their defense, these gommies may be genocidal utopians, but they sure do know their books. This is a fantastic place to discuss Hobbes, Burke, Aristotle, etc. I recommend reading Marx btw. I guarantee you will find some of his critiques of the social effects of capitalism convincing.
Ill advised. This place may have an intermittent heir of respectability, but we are still on Holla Forums. I suggest you delete this post.
If Jordan Peterson is a crypto-fascist then Alex Jones is the second coming of Hitler.
Can’t tell if you’re joking but that is Brittany venti
Read the communist manifesto in college but didn’t really get it at the time
I’ve skimmed over marx’s Criticisms of capitalism, and of course he’s not totally wrong. But I am not at all interested in Marxist economics
That being said, our current system is going to fail. The current system is not really capitalism or socialism, it’s some sort of weird Frankenstein train wreck where it’s being raped by globalists. It’s not really any particular system, it’s just the globalist’s play-thing.
I’m fine with the competition aspect of capitalism, but this corporatist tyranny has become fucking absurd. There obviously needs to be some sort of protectionism involved with capitalism, or a full-blown libertarian economic system I would be fine with too
And yes I do think communism ends up being a genocidal eutopia, but I can see why people would be attracted to it
wew. I’ve been duped. Passing Traps should be illegal.
A gommie would reply (I guess they are all asleep?) that our current predicament is inevitable because of the nature of the beast. The political economy is a holistic approach, neither government or the economy exists in a vaccum.
Venti ain’t a trap, she’s a living goddess
I think we are coming to a point where absolutely anything could happen. It’s nearly impossible to tell. When the system collapses, everybody will rush in and try to implement a new one.
It’s going to be a wild ride.
It's classic plato vs aristotle. You people want a structured ordered universe that tap dances to the whim of an authoritarian God that invests His power in a civil authority - even to such point where difference in opinion is merely "biological factors at play". Another string in Plato's lute.
To some degree
I don’t think the difference of one opinion is due to biology, but I find it interesting that most Marxists and most fascists have a similar aesthetic to them no matter what country or time period they are in.
Leftism seems to disregard any biological difference and seems to be surprised when people don’t immediately run to leftism right when they are exposed to it. They must be some sort of corrupt immoral swine to not become an evangelist of Marxism upon first exposure!!!
Is it possible we just want to live in different worlds and peacefully co-exist away from each other. Leftists want a Marxist structure and rightists want a hierarchy/evolian structure.
In the future I think it’s possible we separate and one nation becomes a Marxist multi cultural nation and the other an ethno-centric right wing nation
I've thought about this too recently and I'm not sure how it can be reconciled.
I don’t think they can, and it is somewhat scary
In this way, I can kind of see libertarianism being the solution. People can just create their own communities and govern themselves how they would like.
But then libertarianism brings on so many problems, I’m not sure it’s possible in today’s world.
you haven't lurked here long enough
How is that not true
t. V.I. Lenin
Nah we call them neolibs because thats what they support economically speaking. Hillary clinton is the archetype. Not at all socially democratic, not that capital reformists are particularly interesting to socialists and such.
Patchwork political system like the holy roman empire
You did pretty well 3v1. What's your twitter homie
Could be wiring in the brain. Some people are more attracted to x than to y, that's what I've noticed over the years. You can debate all you want or lay down facts but I do think most people will not change their side, unless shit hits the fan and people have to join a side just to save their own skin. Like the other user I'm also a traditionalist right-winger, yet I browse here time to time simply out of interest for history.
I do also agree that people here should debate a lot more, it's pretty interesting and it might bring benefit to both sides.
Hold on one sec here Mr. Lenin, what exactly do socialists mean when it comes to equality? And why does it matter when men aren't born equal?
If men aren't born equal, thus it's justified how some men are richer than others?
some men may be better than other men, but not 300x times better.
Yes, they fucking are.
That's why some men die in the ditch, and some men lead 10000 men to battle.
You got any pics of Bill Gates leading 10000 men into battle?
Lenin responds: Could've taken a few seconds to google the full article before posting.
Hey, Mr. Lenin, you hold the same view as the liberals.
Why are you critical of them?
And if men are born are stronger and smarter than others, what gives that they can't belong to another class than others?
He owns a huge company that competes with other companies every second. It might not a violent battle where people are shooting each other in the head but it is a battle still. Currently Microsoft has 124 thousand employees all over the world. Sure he's not the only figure that is on the top of Microsoft but that is to be expected with something that huge.
lol no actually.
Unless you're going to conflate employment with being drafted, which is fucking hilarious if you are, not a lot of leg to stand on.
How is it? You're the one that just made the statement, back it up.
Because being physically stronger than someone or smarter doesn't necessitate being a borg? It's the property, dum dum.
A lot of poltards neurosis comes from their sexual frustration and insecurity about their masculinity, which informs their reactionary politics. Also many of these guys come from fatherless homes, and they blame the left's and neolibs war on the nuclear and trad family, and traditional values for the fact that they grew up in unstable single mother homes.
They have enough self awareness to know that as equality increases, they'll be rendered even more sexually irrelevant since women naturally have preferences for men with higher status than they do, and the pool of men with more resources or status than average wage slave woman is decreasing. Most poltards fall under the economically disenfranchised category.
Evo psych denialism and belief the everything can be a social construct under a capitalist patriarchal system is like the left's owns version of climate change denialism for right wingers . Countless of studies have shown that women sexual desires aren't as egalitarian as one would think, even in times of great prosperity and increasing equality when women no longer fear starvation if they do not acquire mates with better resources. No amount of of social engineering by socialists will change that. As long as the left continue to pretend that hypergamy is a social construct and not something that has guided sexual/mate selection for millions of years, even in more egalitarian hunter gatherer societies, then you'll continue to have problems recruiting "redpilled" right wing men. And the socialist left won't ever abandon their egalitarian project because they'd much rather attract young feminist leaning women to the movement than right wing and reactionary men. There's nothing wrong with having a blind spot, most movements have them. But you have to be aware them.
nigga, no one cares about your state issued waifu quest.
This, unironically. The female question will doom the current socialist movement.
meh, i almost agreed with the first paragraph but after that it becomes apparent you’re a retard. its always hilarious when people just say “countless studies have shown” and then neglect to provide even one of those “studies”.
i think that having no friends and being lonely in combination with poor socioeconomic status can make anyone reactionary or angry. they’ll blame women for the fact that they can’t get a girlfriend and so they’ll become misogynists (which further decreases the likelihood they’ll get a gf) or they’ll blame the jews for the reason why their life sucks, etc. it’s all a fucking scam and a means of distracting them from the real problem, which is capitalism and how it alienates and isolates us and gives us depression and mental illness from lack of socialization. porky is who wants you to blame other proles.
another thing about this is that a lotta so-called “leftists” (or edgy liberals who think they’re leftists) are quick to become belligerent and scream at and shut out anyone who disagrees or is uneducated on a topic instead of engaging in a conversation more politely or civilly. this further drives a lot of vulnerable young guys away from leftist topics because they feel like they’re not wanted or that those types of people are way too common in leftist circles. and they are. angry liberal idpol retards are making it worse for themselves by being so aggressive towards people sympathetic or willing to learn because they think leftism is some secret elite club.
There are plenty of other studies I could link, but I'm on my phone.
Also, you should read Angela Nagle, a fellow a Marxist, Jacobin contributor, and mascot for leftypol material socialism. She agrees with what I said.
Not an argument m8
I'm not, I'm saying that business is also a form of competition.
So? Getting parking space is competition. I don't suddenly become Napoleon because of that.
Yeah, you don't lurk here often, do you?
No, I usually lurk on Chapo
My fucking God what a fucking mess. You did good lad but your mistake was giving these retards the time of day. The Tonka channel is just a shitty youtube version of an obnoxious talk show, their whole point is to talk shit, interrupt and gang up on whoever goes in alone. It was good that you tried to argue in good faith but a shame as well because they lacked both the integrity and brain cells to engage with anything you said.
The fucking bakery argument. How dense are they that they don't understand that the shop won't be opened by an individual entrepreneur but by an interested collective? How fucking hard is it to understand? Even if it would an individual who opens it, he will not have control over it as private property, and if so many people love this bread, then obviously people would be interested to open another one and use the recipe.
If you don't give gibs to people who make fundamental science and usable research, then they will stop doing it.
And how fucking hard it is to understand how hard it is to make 10 people agreeing on the construction of a shop? It's much easier to convince people to invest money, or to lend money to a bank and to pay workers. If you want to wait until ten people agree on how it should work, you are not going to see many shops.
Chapo being an offshoot of twitter culture is for hot takes among a group that mostly agree with each other already, that being demsoccs. No real debate or theory discussion happens there. Not that leftypol is significantly better but there is a broader range of discussion.
Hypergamy. Women will just double down on discriminating men on other traits like attractiveness, alpha personality traits or their status within their communist society. I mean, I don't think even socialism in the USSR could get rid of hierarchy and you had corrupt high ranking officers with multiple wives/mistresses. A society without a hierarchy has never existed. As a man, you can't get away from hierarchy, even if you abolish capitalism.
Yeah I agree.I got banned for that reason. I was interrupting their echo chamber.
Come back when you know what you're talking about
That's the plan. If you're a Chad you should be an anarcho-feminist because you know women will flock to you by their own will instead of being bought and used like commodities by capitalists, unlike some other cryptoreactionaries *cough*Proudhon*cough*
I don't think women sleeping with who they want is a big issue tbh Most people don't have too hard of a time getting laid and married eventually. This hypergamy shit is the ad-hoc defensive psychology of /r9k/ so those little pukes never have to introspect. If the only way you can have sex is through some form of coercion, whether that be monetary or relying on Olde social norms like arranged marriages, your methods aren't worth preserving.
20 years ago, it was the case.
Now many young people would rather avoid marriage and having kid. This is a problem.
To have a good society, you need above remplacement rate fertility and a hig investment in kids. This way, and only this way you can have behaving, law abiding, productive member of society whit low crime and lot of money for everyone. A high investment in kids mean marriage.
Except marriage rates and birth rates is decreasing, loneliness is increasing, and no. of sex partners millenials have had compared to previous generation is on the downward trend. We have less sex than even the generation before the boomers. It also happens to be that millennial women are now financial on equal footing with millennial men, which is a first. Whilst communists like yourselves will say that this is all caused by the inhumanity of capitalism(doesn't explain why unequal societies like those in Africa have high birth rates), I think that egalitarianism has also contributed to these tends. So if societies with the most equality beteeen the sexes fail to have replacement birthrates, then there's something clearly wrong with the assumption that egalitarianism is intrinsically good for society.
Also, I don't think egalitarianism is the cause of all of this, but it is a contributing factor. Alienation caused by neoliberalism has also contributed to the breakdown between communities and the gender. But we can't ignorev the extreme correlations.
young people are marrying less because they don't have the time or money to commit, not because of the nefarious hypergamous chad stealing all the spooky sluts for his harem
for marriage to be an attractive option you need a) for children to be a good investment or b) have a lot of leisure time, neither is true for most of working and middle class in today's peak capitalism
the only hierarchy it has to do is unsurprisingly the class hierarchy
In what sense are you using egalitarianism? The aversion to family raising and atomization of individuals IS due to alienation and the increasingly unbearable pressures of our economy. Raising kids and meeting other people can be really expensive these days and we hardly have time for either. I assume you mean social progressivism but again, I don't think that eliminating coercive elements in society is bad when the trade off is some virgin making less effort to have sex.
and there you go, 0 to neocon real fucking fast
If production is tailored to meet social need instead of increasing profits do we really need a feverishly increasing population at all times? This seems like capitalist realism.
I love when radical revolutionaries like these folks trot out the same imperialist apologism that little dweebs like Shapiro espouse. They deserve Trump.
Time? We have as much time as any other generation.
Money? Aren't we in the richest nation ever? It just happen than many young people fall in the education trap and borrow a quarter of million to study dance therapy.
Also, controlling the border is evil and nationalist and ugly, booo. This is why good people support the jobs going to China, millions and millions of immigrants living in the housing market and working in the job market and we have unstable, low paid jobs with high housing price.
In top of that, we are formatted by Holywood to reject devotion and commitment in favor of immediate pleasure.
Except rich northern European countries with great social safety nets also face these problems. Germany surpassed Japan in 2015 as the country with the lowest birthrates, despite the fact that Germany has pretty great social safety nets, and workers rights, and the average German is well in middle class.
I'm not too sure about Chad stealing all the women, but I've noticed an unwillingness for women to marry an average guy, even if they believe in egalitarianism once they have a wage above a certain threshold. As more women make as much or more thankful average man, they will feel less compelled to marry. As the average wage of women rises, marriage rates fall. Hypergamy.
There will always be crisis so you need to gain in population numbers when you can.
What sort of crisis? Be specific.
And unsurprisingly, people here are taxed to death.
Hans and Anders, why don't you have kids?
I passed peak ideology but I still want to post this Zizek
Young people are not the recipient of all this wealth and no, young people haven't had to work this much to afford so little since the pre-union era. Real wages have barely increased while purchasing power remains stagnant. No one has money to buy a home or start a family or do anything other than remain at the job that will cover their health insurance and try to pay off their debt. Which for all your mockery DOES increase total lifetime earnings by a significant amount, even the humanities degrees. In fact the only degrees that don't pay back are the education ones, as if we didn't shit on teachers enough. The jews are not conspiring to keep you a virgin. I'll agree that Hollywood puts out trite kitsch but that's just a symptom.
We already agree that wage labor has a dispiriting effect on human relations. If you can find something thar isolates "egalitarianism" (define what you mean by this shit) from the material conditions then I'll consider it. My guess is that's impossible though. Because you can't separate social relations from material relations, hence Marxism.
Mickey mouses studies are a real issue for today's America and back then, the cost (and quality) of live was much lower.
The cost of living was lower relative to the wages which had more purchasing power. We live more opulently but production has also gotten much cheaper on the producer's end. Our real purchasing power has remained low however. This is obviously in thr capitalist's best interest. A bachelor's degree adds over 2 million in lifetime earnings. Which is a good deal more than anyone's education costs in loans plus interest. Fuck off with this boomer rhetoric.
Nope, I never agreed with anything about labour being degrading for human relations. I think it has nothing to do with work, but everything to with the fact that women are attracted men with higher status than themselves It's apart of sexual dimophism which important in attraction for women.
I didn't say work either, I said wage labor. I must have mistaken you for conceding to at least part of the Marxist explanation, as I'll call it. But the study you linked is inextricably linked to capitalist production and wage labor which is what is under critique as a degrading force in relationships. Whatever you think egalitarianism is needs to be defined and made distinct as a force independent from the mode of production it exists in. From my view, I can't see that as being fruitful.
I'm not seeing a problem with this.
Yeah pretty much where this line of argument is going is that women need to be coerced in some fashion into having sex with unlikable guys due to their threat of going berserk or something.
How do you not realize they’re being ironic?
both videos combied have a total of 14k views. This shit is absolutely irelevant
Sexual capitalism and sexual free market. Chad bourgeoisie vs. Robot alienated workers. Polygamy vs. Monogamy which is the evolutionary trait that led humanity to become as intelligent as it is in the current year.
Oh shit it randomly becomes two vs one half way through, are internet debates always this fucked?
Oh fuck they just tagged in a third this insane I am sorry for posting three times.
It's shitshow my friend
I suppose the thread isn't archived somewhere?
The "sargonite" is somehow dumber than the ethno nationalist.
It's not that clear cut. while Germany has a low birthrate, that of France is near replacement level, and the French wellfare state is more generous, and they work fewer hours. IIRC Sweden also has decent birthrates.
The thing about Japan and Germany is that though they are nominal welfare states, they have both chipped away tremendously at the lower end of the pyramid. Mini jobs and freeters are not the foundation of a stable family life.
I'll stand with you famalam…
… on second thought, maybe not. Three hours of spastic autism is a bit much.
For people who do this shit, they are right that you need to stop doing "read __" or "Marx said ___"; you really do need to present arguments as your own.
Damn OP you sound like a fag. I enjoyed watching you send them into meltdown mode tho
National socialism is left wing. It doesn't take much to push a moderate lefty authoritarian to communism.
Imagine believing this. Maybe you could say turd position, but not left wing
Wow, antifa are the real fascists after all!
Isn't it funny how these people, who try to be Nazis, would have probably all been gassed under Hitler? Like, defending Walmart, billionaires, fucking Bill Gates…
Also, never debate 1vs3 or 1vs4.
Look at how drastically the number of Marxists and fascists fluctuated in different countries during the 20th century, from total fringe to total mainstream to total fringe again. A genetic explanation does not work to explain change for such a low number of generations.
Hitler the inventor of privatization didn't have much of an issue with billionaires
Alright actually listened to this, the host of this who completely lost his shit was an absolute fucking cringey cuck.
You could absolutely BTFO the right in these discussions if you make the topic about economics and…
==R E A D C O C K S H O T T=
The majority of them can't be converted because they don't actually have any beliefs to begin with. They see politics as a pissing contest to be as edgy and contrarian as possible and don't think their actions have real consequences since they spend too much time on the Internet.
I stopped visiting Holla Forums a long ass time ago. That place is toxic. Nothing but hateful and sociopathic inbreds who spout racist, violent, and even murderous rhetoric 24/7. You shouldn't argue with them.