The Grand Leftwing Communist Conspiracy

Why are right wingers under the constant impression that leftism is promoted by the state and/or the government. It flies in the face of history and reality. Not to mention left wing violence gave us the weekend and the 8 hour workday.
Reactionaries either think that leftists are weak soyboys or violent masked revolutionaries; completely contradictory. It's like their worldview is based on pure emotion. Not to mention they shove the cultural Marxism as a justification to blame da joos. Any arguments against stuff like pic related? I was on 4/k/ and people believe this shit hook, line and sinker.
inb4 >going to 4chan

Attached: muh left wing conspiracy.png (1255x5323, 2.5M)

Other urls found in this thread:

Simply put Right wing = mental illness. They're pathologically paranoid, fuelled by half truths, infographs and circlejerks.

It's easy for us as actual leftists to break down, whenever Holla Forums invades and are inevitably BTFO'd and the ensuing autistic screeching is proof of this.

And the persistent moscinception that liberalism is on the left, when it's more right leaning.

Remember that these are the same people who think that Adorno is responsible for what they call fun when in reality he wrote a whole book REEEEEing against it. They can’t even be bothered to develop a basic understanding of the things they claim to oppose.

Attached: 347219B6-E66F-4535-8DDE-A90179ACD191.png (500x529, 89.66K)

That is a perennial fascist tactic. Nothing new here.

"The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."

Another one gets it.

There are countless. But honestly, fuck 'em. It's like talking to a wall. Let bullets do the talking when time comes.

What concrete proof and information can I use to debunk the Jewish Bolshevism/Jewish Marxism myth when debating/attempting to convert alt-righters?

don't bother, it's so firmly entrenched in their psyche that the layers of autism on top of it are impenetrable.

For me, at least, it seems that every leftist I've argued with ends up advocating for communism, with is the brink of the horseshoe. Communism DEFINITELY doesn't "fly in the face of the government."

I'm not seeing any of my liberalist homies here on Holla Forums. Mostly nazis and socialists. Radicals, whom I despise for their shortsighted impatience with the world. I think the reason why the left is shirked is this:

That the most outspoken leftists always offer enormous overhaul solutions that would heavily warp the lives of all involved.

I can't guess at your beliefs, though. Please, any lefty here, tell me what you stand for and we can engage. Enough vagary. It's time for discourse.


I won't speak for everyone, but I'll give you a basic run down.
are some of the core tenets

Go on, tell me how incrementalism has had such a massive success in the past 30 years dealing with mounting climate disaster, worsening income and wealth inequality, rampant corporate greed and state corruption.

Attached: 9a97f307c02b865e4319ff0b4244136c663139b4df706da7bf02795846180e7a.png (720x540, 733.86K)

Don't ever post here again or I'll fucking kick you in the balls.

We want to abolish capitalism and do it in the way that every other mode of production was abolished. Violent revolution. Capitalism used to be good for productive relations but it now hinders them and must be overthrown and shed off for humans to proggress.

The modern goverment that actually exists not the abstract concept of a goverment which doesn't take which class controls the state into account.

Here's one for you: to someone who is content with the capitalist system and who embodies the best function of it, who's paid fairly for their work, is there any benefit to supporting your stance? How will you motivate workers without currency to reward them? Will you pool the production of the nation on a whole and divide it evenly? How is that much better than coin compensation, which can be used to purchase exactly what one needs to live anyway?

Disagree 100% on borders. To dissolve them is to invite radical factions and leeches to your nation. Is there any benefit to this at all?

*buzzzz buzz buzz buzzzz*
Oh yeah let me know how it's going with literally ANY non-incremental nation.

What the fuck do you mean? How are you gonna compensate the ball busters when you rob them of their lifelines and force them to share their earnings evenly? Are you gonna kill anyone? I just don't see how any of this is feasible and, beyond that, why it's necessary. Basically why is capitalism "in the way," and why can't that be fixed from within?

I put the burden of proof on you guys because ultimately it's YOU who want to uproot an entire society's way of being. At this point I'm trying to figure out if it's on a whim or if you really understand the implications of what you advocate.

no one is paid fairly under capitalism, also read marx

can i suck ur dick

Talk to me baby. I'm an antibody designed for the communist mind virus. I make it hurt a little more now to make it hurt a lot less later.

The first world has a democratic vote. While often we're pidgeoned into the decision between merely two or three candidates, no single class controls the state. This sounds like a conspiracy theory except the jews are the bougies.

don't dodge the question, you smug jackass.

I have no familiarity with Marx or any communist writer honestly. I do think people are paid fairly for their work in the first world. My buddy has a municipal job, for example. He makes sure the roads are snow-free and the potholes are filled, and he makes like $25.00 an hour. How much should he make? What is a "fair wage?" A fucking rabbit leg? Six pounds of potatoes?

I love you too babe

Do you even know what the marxist definition of "bourgeois" is

So basically you have no idea what you think you're critiquing?

Attached: 95b0359b3369b488710b9bbe5b9d0a415cb0256fb7d65c053137a6a444fdd93b.jpg (600x600, 21.21K)

So what are you even arguing with? Spooks and strawmen?

Labor vouchers backed by work-hours and adjusted by danger/intellectual intensity of work

You dodged faggot.
Venezuela became communist. Venezuela sucks.
China is somewhat socialist. Not only does it suck: it has expectancy and the highest environmental impact.

I don't know what you're looking for here. In Canada, we care about the environment and live comfortably in a market economy. I don't even make a lot. I make like 12 an hour and I'm decently comfy. Are you comfy my man?

Nope, I'm completely ignorant. Even after a dialogue with you guys, I'm still ignorant. It's like you speak in codes. I can't understand what your ideal outcome is, which almost speaks for itself.

Well it isn't a single party or group of people per say, it is a bunch of competing special interest groups and lobbyists that try to aim for state control and power so that it can benefit them personally. Trump won the election and now he is giving himself tax cuts and appointing family members to head offices. That is an example of bourgies using the state to help their interests. Are the Trump bourgies and the Clinton bourgies the same? Of course not, the have contradictory interests that often conflict with each other which is why the battled each other in the spectacle of politics but in the end they are still both extremely rich and have access to power (means of production). That's is why elections exist, to give the illusion of choice when in reality you are choosing between different sectors of the ruling class.

Attached: anarchy.jpg (821x624, 91.88K)

Pic related. Also, go check >>>/marx/7602 for a quick rundown.

Speaking to your point OP, I think a reason for this is that much of what passes for leftism is pushed by the establishment or coopted by it. Bourgeois social-democracy, for instance, is typically supported by consumer goods industries (e.g. retail) and medium-to-large industrial corporations who think that it would be good if the workers weren't in such bad health and/or poorly educated then they would be able to find more qualified candidates to perform on the job and/or at lower-cost. The push for universal college education today by the democrats has not a little to do with trying to push down the "high" wages of programmers and engineers to the benefit of the Silicon Valley billionaires Hell, the whole "irony law of oligarchy" was inspired by a sociological examination of the SPD that found that many of their leaders were bourgeois or had a bourgeois origin.

As a rule, this strata of capitalists tends to prefer inflationary policies and are very much harmed by deflation and given that the state has to pay for all these nice social programs at interest these strata and the chosen political leaders of their state also prefer inflationary policy but mask this policy as being one that is essentially "pro-labor" I think perhaps it isn't too much to say that if social democracy hadn't existed it would've had to have been invented given the logical implications of universal/pluralist suffrage and trends leaning in that direction.

Other aspects include the nationalization angle, in which a particular resource or property is nationalized in order to make capitalism run in a smoother-way or to ameliorate proletarian hatred against both capitalism and its state. State-run oil companies are a good example of how this can be compatible with bourgeois-class rule; most of the land in Singapore is under state-control, and most workers lease housing from the government, and this has been cited as a factor keeping the city competitive, i.e. the state controls the rents and hence it can control one factor that inevitably pushes the price of labor power up. The state-capitalist approach to controlling capitalist contradictions was more popular when there was a combination of immense proletarian pressure and an international system based on gold that made the "helicopter money" approach of Friedman et al. very difficult in practice.

The libertarian left, though perhaps more prominent in much of the First World, is not harder to co-opt than bourgeois social democracy. And, in fact, I think lately its been a rather popular mask for spreading a kind of capitalist libertarianism with a red mask or achieving imperialist goals (see Graber's support of the Libyan bombing). Part of the appeal of using a kind of faux-radical anarchism is spreading social liberalism revolving around lifestyle and identity which can match quite well with free-wheeling neoliberal economics.

So, let's imagine a hypothetical software engineer working for some hyper-capitalist Silicon Valley mega-corp. He sees how en vogue id pol has become seemingly overnight, he sees how his employers are bringing skilled immigrants to push wages down and he's supposed sit-down and shut-up about it all. According to the same people, he also needs to pay more taxes in order to accommodate people with few or no marketable skills who earn so little that they cannot get by without government help. Not only will his taxes go towards making it so they can survive, but horror of horrors, one of the major parties now wants to send them to college on his dime! He spent so much money and effort to get that degree, what will it be worth once a flood of workers looking for higher wages also attain similar degrees? His purchasing power, though arguably high, is slowly but steadily going down. Isn't it unfair that they won't have to struggle and scrape the way he did actual level of struggle may vary?

He doesn't understand why all these changes are occurring so rapidly, and so for him it makes sense that someone comes along and proclaims that its a communist conspiracy aided and abetted by the highest-levels of government.

Attached: muhjewishbolsheviks.jpg (1423x2332, 1.15M)

At least you're honest


So basically money that can only be spent on specific things? What the fuck man

Non-transferable "money" the worth of which directly correlates with the labor-value of one's work. You can spend it on whatever you want, it just will be destroyed at the point of transaction and can't be hoarded or used to purchase means of production

Okay, a lot of idiots like you pull the "hurr they used the label, therefore they are XYZ thing" bullshit a lot, so I'm going to lay it down in very simple terms:

It does not fucking matter what ideology a country calls itself. What it does in practice is what fucking matters. Venezuela's ruling party could call its policies "Unicorn Assfuck Orgy World" and it would not fucking matter. What matters is what is done in practice, and in practice, Venezuela is just roided-out social democracy. Last I checked, 60~70% of its industry is privately run and owned. That is by definition not "communist," and no, this is not a case of "lol not real socialism" no true scotsman bullshit, because it's not a no-true-scotsman if the example LITERALLY DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION. Venezuela and countries like it are by definition social democracies. You can call it "communist" as much as you like, that does not make it so.

No shit, it's had to spend the last 100 years playing catch up with the industrial world and develop itself from being an exploited feudal backwater with shit for sanitation, life expectancy, education, etc, and did so under socialism in spite of Mao being a massive idiot and fucking things up catastrophically with the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. And if you look at its life expectancy compared to the US on a graph, it is continuing to rise to the point where it is becoming close to the US. Is China *today* socialist? Depends on who you ask, in my opinion, it's basically just authoritarian state capitalism

Here in America, the United Nations has gone on record as saying that we have pockets of the worst poverty in the first world. And if your ideology is based around just your own personal comfort, guess what, you don't actually believe in anything.

Google exists, you know.

You can repeat this man's experience with a number of petit-bourgeois and/or labor-aristocratic strata who disproportionately make up the Alt-Right. What these people generally don't understand is that as capitalism develops it leaves small-fries like them in the dust. Seeing the state as an organ of democracy they see their interest as being one of non-intervention, of going back to small-scale, old school capitalism, which is neither split between the super-rich and a mass of poverty stricken wage-slaves. But their desire to go backwards is reactionary and thus leads to reactionary politics. Thus 15 dollars an hour means less money for him and more money for the guy who cooked his pizza, and somehow, despite their complaining, the capitalists come off rather well too. This appears as not as the natural results of development/class struggle but a sinister conspiracy between the under-classes and the rich: the rich Jew/poor Nigger dichotomy is a way that this feeling is expressed.

I have to say that the rise of revisionism in the late 20th century on the surface appears to vindicate the trepidations of the reactionary right about communism except for the fact that even the worst of the revisionist states were merely on par with the bottom ranking capitalist states. They certainly weren't the worst capitalist states to ever exist. The revisionist Eastern bloc built on the accomplishments of the socialist era and for sometime were able to maintain a modern industrial developed society which compared well against the West despite their obvious short-comings, especially when one considers their lower starting-points. The conspiracy that the rightist sees behind "communism" or "leftist" (whatever these words mean to him) isn't the Jewish conspiracy that he imagines but a conspiracy of class and imperial interest aimed against the proletariat as a whole.

1989 also demonstrated that state-capitalism is only a tool in the workshop of the haute-bourgeoisie and not its actually preferred method of governance. Thus, those proles who see that much of the Left is controlled by big capital and thus turn reactionary are cutting off their noses to spite their face. The bourgeoisie has nothing to fear from a conservative project to protect its class rule and in fact a fair number of people in bourgeois circles have misgivings about liberal methods of class rule as well as the use of coopted leftism.

Don't forget that many of the same capitalists who threw in their lot with the SPD later decided to "bet on Hitler"

Attached: antireadingaktion.jpg (619x620, 39.45K)

This guy actually fucked me. What I'm wondering now, though, is why this is a problem with market economy and not just with the electoral system.

Well I came here to try to learn from the experts, but if they can't teach me, I guess I'll never understand the greatness that is communism.

I'm sorry I'm so stupid you guys, it's just that everywhere radical leftism flourishes, living quality seems to dwindle. There has to be some sort of in between.

Honestly I don't even know what I stand for when I say "I'm capitalist." I work in a small business. I work long hours. I'm happy to get paid. I want to know what would change if one of you were in charge, and if I should be ecstatic or paranoid.

instead of your boss taking away most of the value of what you do for telling you to work harder, you'd receive the full value of your labor while having equal say in how your workplace is run

that's the crux of it, everything else is secondary

Stop acting smug about your own willful ignorance and actually look things up instead of forming your opinions through strawmen and blithering on the internet. If you don't understand our basic terminology when Google and Wikipedia exist, that's a testament to your own laziness.

Except that's never happened, only Japan grew faster than the USSR over the course of the 20th century, for instance. Most of the countries where what you call "radical leftism" came to power were abysmally poor shitholes before hand and left them better off in the vast majority of cases.

Attached: Sovietgrowthvs.thewholeworld.png (596x469, 62.19K)

A comment I forgot to make about income taxes, which is the preferred method of financing "progressive" policies is that they only tax labor, which is a rather small part of the way the elite earn their wealth. So, they are typically not to upset to pay 50% of their income to the state, their incomes are very high, they have enormous quantities of wealth also, and such taxes are easily avoided if you know the right people. They fight it, of course, but high-progressive income taxes are a rather clever way of scalping the petit-bourgeois and the upper-segment of the working class for the funds needed to run the bourgeois state.

Cockshott shows how this can actually be used to support the interests of the elite with his critique of UBI:

Well thank you for that. I can at least begin to follow. In this small business, I sell the products of other peoples' labor which were sold to the shop. While I wouldn't make as much as my boss theoretically (even though in reality I do), he still had to plan the business, renovate the building, order the products etc.
It seems as though under socialism these entrepreneurial skills are seen as worthless and even damnable, when in the current system they end up being its lifeblood. What's to become of the entrepreneur? Shoot him? Give him a tilling hoe?

What I'm saying is, in my opinion, a lot of executives earned their position with dedication and hard work, and it doesn't seem fair to divide their plunder even if their share is greater than ours, since we may very well be in that position with similar dedication and a bit of intelligence.

Ok, now I KNOW this is bait.

The organizational and mental labor that the entrepreneur undertook is usually valuable. However, I think you forget that most successful entrepreneurs will usually earn their cash in two ways: 1. they will pay themselves a salary for their work, which is usually quite high 2. they will also have either total or partial control due to stock ownership of the profits made by the business as well as the market-value of the business in case they decide selling it is more profitable than running it themselves

The capitalist is compensated for his labor through his income which is typically quite large, usually much more than what his actual output is really worth but he is compensated. Typically, if he is successful, he can quit working altogether and live off the profits he makes purely as an absentee-capitalist.

The small-business owner that you mention maybe a very talented manager, designer or whatever. If he chooses not to resist socialism and hasn't committed any major crimes, he may have his skills put to use in a cooperative enterprise post-revolution during the first stage of socialism. But he will have to work just like anyone else and will not be entitled to any benefit beyond his work.

Eyyup, it's Holla Forums alright. Though at least you guys got a test-dummy to hone your debate skills against.

Attached: kay.gif (500x281, 78.89K)

What's more: I'll probably be back tomorrow to continue my search for this formless hypothetical escher-demon enigma known as communism.

Read a fucking book dumb cia cattle

Attached: 35a4f2b19b1aa83147daf8d0a7b23e53c08831262d5cc816e353afb360bbc68d.png (517x480, 151.64K)

Call it bad praxis, but randomly popping in a thread and expecting everybody to explain the basics of communist-theory A-Z, Marx to Cockshott, when at the same time we get constantly raided by people asking the same questions in bad faith is pretty stupid when the google bar is right there on the top of your browser and "Wage labour and capital" isn't even that long.

It's give and take, jackass. You don't get to act like a little punk and then expect people to believe that you're acting in good faith.

Attached: 271e04e125e902daec522d8922b0b4dd75a8edd9676795097c89d84e883fd47c.jpg (495x609, 40.84K)

Leftists don't interact with the world or people. All they are capable of is educating themselves on theory. It's why they so consistently make themselves look like retards when their ideas are held up to reality. Theory really isn't all that particularly useful if you don't know if it can even be applied to the environment you're working with. In other words, leftypol has never actually worked with homeless and the poor before. They've never been homeless. They've never had the privilege of a raw human experience. They don't truly understand the environment that they are trying to apply their theories to, and so they will will always fail.

You won't save a nation by "btfoing" right-wingers by being more well read and capable of witty remarks. This kind of behavior is repulsive to the average man.

lotta assumptions for a hired gun

Attached: cia.png (569x802, 563.16K)

You argue with strawmen a lot inside your own head without engaging with any of us, don't you

Attached: bf33fc780d3e055a47a35cfe38699608faae59a75cf5e6d804453f536340c98a.jpg (720x900, 66.59K)

What is the declining rate of profit and LTV?
What does this have to do with anything?
If what you're implying is "the homeless are beyond saving" then yes, ending institutions and putting mentally ill people back on the streets probably has a lot to do with that. This has nothing to do with the exploitation that theory works to solve.

I was explaining the "j-just read dude!" meme to that user. If you want to dispute what I've said go ahead.

can't argue against something that's preloaded with assumptions chud

Fairly decent bait

"jj-just read!" is necessary because
1) This board is not a place where Holla Forumsyps come to get spoonfed theory.
2) We haven't found a way to boil theory down to a single imageboard post which would suffice to get you needy mouthbreathers to fuck off
3) We have retards come here every day asking the same questions with the same smug tone and nobody wants to keep posting the same explanations to you

Honestly it would be a waste of time. Whenever idiots like you feign superiority by projecting shitty personality traits onto people you disagree with so that you can smugly shit on them and pat yourself on the shoulder like you're doing now, then that's a level of masturbatory idiocy that yelling over a taiwanese etch-a-sketch board isn't gonna undo.

You are one savage motherfucker

There is a big interest by corporations to keep the status quo, hence there's a large quantity of trolls and virtual activists spreading misinformation, the average cattle tends to fight against their own interests without even realizing they were deceived, moreoever, they accuse the left of doing what they are doing, creating a big confusion for those who do not follow politics constantly.

Fuck I fell for it. It sounds exactly like the kind of shit centrists usually say when they visit leftypol

Attached: HELP.png (893x599, 413.33K)

Right-wing worldviews revolve around the idea that conflicts are the result not of internal contradictions within a system of social relations but rather of nefarious plans hatched by external forces bent on corrupting their society's original purity.
The USSR during the Cold War was a convenient foe as it allowed American right-wingers to articulate their worldview around the threat posed by a real entity in the form of a competing geopolitical power. When the USSR fell, those same right-wingers lost what had given a semblance of purpose, consistency and structure to their ideology.
Some of them refused to let that happen, so they dug up the boogeyman's corpse so they could hoist it up and pretend it was still alive. That's what contemporary American anti-communists whining about "cultural Marxism" are: agitated cavemen threateningly dancing around a gruesome scarecrow of their own making.

Attached: b947bf8a0df7aaef3377e281b027dc2e8a2357b3dcd072ac1a52f1eeeeaadf1d.jpg (913x1024, 132.72K)

The guy that posted that thinks that 'the left' controls the media, government bureaucracy and The Deep State(tm).

Hilariously, what he is most afraid of in his idea of 'the left' is ultimately just different kinds/flavors of right-wingers, and look at how paranoid he is about it - these minor differences between authoritarian private-property types.

It's interesting to see this kind of schism coming from someone with a right-wing perspective. I think it's kind of a meme that gathering lefties together is a bit like hearing cats (fucking Trots, etc.), whereas we tend to have this notion that 'the right' will basically fall into line behind whatever authoritarian stronkman comes along and promises them 'the good ol' days'. Just sort of funny to see someone reverse that perspective.

In the end, I think he's right about one thing - that there will be an acceleration of political violence this decade (and next). The biosphere is eroding and its destruction cannot be stopped while maintaining global industrialized society, new fossil fuel discoveries are extremely low - not enough to sustain current consumption, climate change will force millions to migrate (or starve) this century, the global markets have been propped up by what is essentially fake money (QE + ZIRP) after the last global crash, all while the myth of progress and techno-optimism is propagated louder and more brazenly than ever before. (Look, a fucking car in space! Isn't humanity awesome?!)

Prepare yourselves, comrades.

Attached: BreadRhyme.jpeg (540x536, 95.85K)

Yeah that's what confused me about the image which is why I posted it. It honestly is pretty well written and you can tell that the dude has some brain cells maybe CIA or astroturf but damn now I sound like a tinfoil nut
A lot of his observations are correct (mass migrations and political violence) but his conclusions are fucking retarded. Muh deepstate is communist and the CIA is battling Trump even tho Trump appointed a CIA head to fill Rex Tillerson's position It's like when one slight thing in reality is different from their worldview they decide to ignore reality and and shift blame to another nefarious ideology. This is to say they fill it the blanks with some imaginary dark force that can't be explained because it's much more comforting than admitting that rich people are fucked up and they'll do everything to maintain power. I think this is why right wingers like to push the whole Illuminati/Freemason thing because it sounds like some shit straight out of a movie/vidya gaem.

Attached: conspiracy theorists.png (1435x460, 145.78K)

Indeed, there has to be a nigh-omnipotent big-bad working tirelessly against them, otherwise their failings would have to be considered their own and not the machinations of a nefarious super-group hell-bent on destroying them, (however, engendering this fear of an ever-present malicious group/entity into people's heads is a powerful tool towards gathering new, paranoid followers). Additionally, I think it is not absurd to claim that these individuals do want to become rich themselves, so they avoid demonizing the thing they see as their ideal self.

But yeah, I agree that the person who wrote this was likely more educated than the average stormnigger, but they're still retarded. 50/50 odds of fear-mongering psyop.

Attached: c1b.jpg (680x510, 49.67K)

This isn't true to the Left. This is true to anyone who spends long periods of times on any imageboard.

I'm pretty sure it was written by this guy:

Same guy