Post your top notch webms
Other urls found in this thread:
does anyone have the one that had boosted audio?
For some reason I found myself laughing maniacally at this
bcus it tru
he's an anarchist (an actual one).
i crie evertim :'(
For all the deep respect I have for anarchists, Chomsky included, I'm not going to stop using the term 'anarkiddies' until they drop dumb shit like this. No serious thinking person could call the Bolsheviks anti-socialists.
This faggot is basically anti-science. Not all that surprising.
that's honestly the part of this that triggers me the most. Every ideology except libertarianism, from classical liberalism (Hobbes, Locke) to Marxism (Gramsci) deals with implied consent to a government in some way. Even anarchists, I think, have some knowledge of how government exists through the consent of the governed - I think Godwin said something to the effect that government is built on the sword and public opinion. But libertarians act as if every action of the state is violent and no one would consent to its authority unless a gun was pointed at their head.
Fresh off youtube
Also, who is this based comrade?
leftypol's favorite grouchy old man, Michael Parenti
just based on me reading the wiki
wasn't the Kronstadt rebellion pretty legit stuff
I mean it sounds like they were making perfectly reasonable demands
Immediate new elections to the Soviets; the present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda for all workers and peasants before the elections.
Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant associations.
The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces; no political party should have muh privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In place of the political section, various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups; the abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
We demand that handicraft production be authorised, provided it does not utilise wage labour
Is the USA actually a third-world country?
This is great
The Bolsheviks did not at any point seriously attempt to democratize the workplace or reorganize the relations of production such that class no longer existed. If they had any interest in doing so, their actions clearly demonstrated otherwise.
Chomsky is correct in stating that the Bolsheviks were counterrevolutionary and anti-socialist. Your lack of respect for anarchists is your problem, not theirs.
Most of it is, yes. The Deep South in particular is a cesspit of poverty and ignorance. Only the Northeast and the West Coast are what could be called "First World," and they are gentrified as all hell.
Kek. This was pretty good.
Complete nonsense. Chomsky is simplifying history, omitting context entirely, in order to make a polemical point, one that sounds all too familiar coming from the right. Even leftcoms give the Bolsheviks a fairer hearing:
>If one wants to use the term at all, the ‘counter-revolution’ possible in the Russia of 1917 was that inherent in the Revolution itself, that is, in the opportunity it offered the Bolsheviks to restore a centrally-directed social order for the perpetuation of the capitalistic divorce of the workers from the means of production and the consequent restoration of Russia as a competing imperialist power.
>During the revolution, the interests of the rebelling masses and of the Bolsheviks merged to a remarkable degree. Beyond the temporary merger, there also existed a deep unity between the socialising concepts of the Bolsheviks and the consequences of the spontaneous movements. Too ‘backward’ for socialism but also too ‘advanced’ for liberal capitalism, the Revolution could end only in that consistent form of capitalism which the Bolsheviks considered a pre-condition of socialism, namely, State-capitalism.
I disagree with the label state capitalism, but the point is to refute Chomsky's assertion that the Bolsheviks were "anti-socialist counter-revolutionaries". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Then why did the Bolsheviks crush the Kronstadt rebellion? Why did the Red Army, under the leadership of Leon Trotsky, attack and decimate Mahkno's Black Guards and Free Territory? Such actions are not ones I'd expect from a radical leftist, but rather a dictatorial regime bent on suppressing and silencing any and all dissent.
watch this, anarchocuck
watch this, anarchocuck
Concerning the anarchists, this was Trotsky's reasoning:
So, the crushing of Makhno was inevitable, while Kronstadt was avoidable, and hence regrettable. Both, in his view, were necessary.
Looking at it strategically, it would have never been tolerable that the Mahknovists held the Donbass region. It was resource rich and, what's more, Ukraine's flat, open plains would have rendered the Soviets vulnerable to external intervention should the Mahknovists fall; nor could they trust Mahkno would leave them alone. There was a great deal of distrust between Mahkno, Trotsky and Lenin, which played its own part.
Kronstadt came late in the civil war when the Bolsheviks were, appearances aside, weak and vulnerable. It didn't help that the revolt came in a strategically significant location. Once the ice melted in the Petrograd harbor, that island would have become effectively impregnable – to the Soviets at least. Not so for imperialists. It was a weakness they could not allow. In a political sense, it would have also weakened the Bolshevik government. It would have encouraged other uprisings, warranted or not. Much of the circumstances of Kronstadt came from War Communism; Victor Serge argued that if the NEP had been enacted earlier the whole thing could have been avoided. The whole city was a tinderbox, not just Kronstadt, and Petrograd was the heart of the Russian revolution. This is why Trotsky acted as he did.
Was Kronstadt a mistake? Yes. Was Mahkno a mistake? No. There was going to be blood one way or the other.
Trotsky merely rationalized his untenable actions toward Mahkno and the Free Territory. Like all totalitarians, he viewed any dissidents of his regime as a threat worthy of utter annihilation. He could have instead resorted to diplomatic means with Mahkno and either broker an alliance or agreement, or annexed them as an experiment within the Soviet Union. But he didn't. He chose instead to flex the Red Army he had created and destroy them, using empty excuses of it being a "tragic necessity" like crushing the Kronstadt rebellion in order to maintain the illusion that he had any interest in the socialist cause he purported to support.
The same goes for the Krondstadt rebellion.
I appreciate your explanation and information, but I hold much antipathy toward the abysmal failures that were Lenin and Trotsky, and the Soviet experiment they utterly bungled—perhaps excessively so. I believe there were better ways of handling those events, ways for which the Bolsheviks seemed to have shown neither desire nor interest.
What happened happened. It's easy to say things could have been done differently; it's also pointless. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone of the left to use the word totalitarian, either. I'll turn to Zizek:
Appropriate that Noam "I'd vote for Clinton in a swing state" Chomsky uses it.
You got the full list?
hi every1 im new!!!!!!! holds up booger my name is ted but u can call me t3h rAt0 oF z10n!!!!!!!! lol…as u can see im very random!!!! thats why im runnin 4 prez, 2 meet random ppl like me _… im 45 years old (im young 4 my age tho!!) i like 2 watch my little pony w/ my friend katrina (im cheating if u dont like it deal w/it) its our favorite tv show!!! bcuz its SOOOO random!!!! shes random 2 of course but i want 2 meet more random ppl =) like they say the more the merrier!!!! lol…neways i hope 2 get alot of delegates here so give me lots of voteses!!!! STAAARRR WAAARRRSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ←- me bein random again _^ hehe…toodles!!!!!
love and boogers,
t3h rAt0 oF z10n
everything in this post I stole from Holla Forums
This webm is 10/10
Someone needs to make this with a transparent porky becoming more and more opaque over it.
Those people should hire a PR manager.
Zizek is a schizotypal and incoherent fraud who thinks his ramblings constitute original thoughts. Totalitarianism as a criticism can exist outside of the liberal framework, and radical leftists have every right to make such criticisms. Zizek simply ignores the anarchist part of radical leftism since it's inconvenient to his ridiculous conclusion that radical leftists (or, rather, those who purport to be ones) cannot be totalitarian, as well.
Clinton is preferable to a Trump or Cruz, hence Chomsky's statement. You act as if that discredits him whatsoever.
You lack a valid rebuttal, so you rely instead on the meme-addled shitposting that you now substitute for it in the hopes that the other retards on this board laugh and back you up.
When the revolution comes, fascist, you'll be lined up right next to the porkies and Nazis, like all the other frauds with leftist pretenses.
Stopped watching there. I have no interest in the fascistic apologetics of a pseudo-leftist. Find a better source to hide behind, bootlicker.
>Clinton is preferable to a Trump or Cruz, hence Chomsky's statement. You act as if that discredits him whatsoever.
Chomskyfags in a nutshell.
Sander or bust. No Clinton, no Trump. The left has already supported enough of neoliberalism in the last decades.
"The lesser of two evils". Once, Hitler was the lesser of two evils (them being social democracy and communism); worked out pretty well in the end.
Shouldn't you be spamming wsws articles on the board?
Chomsky is but one intellectual who I respect. I'm in no way a "Chomskyfag" because I don't engage in hero worship like bootlickers such as yourself do with the likes of Zizek and Lenin.
And you think Sanders will be particularly better? Despite all his dogwhistling speeches, his current campaign platform is disgracefully liberal with hints of social fascism. He would undoubtedly be better than any of the other major candidates running, but unless he actually intends to further a socialist transition, his legacy will be as shameful as is FDR to any radical leftist: yet another leader who saved capitalism. We don't need a president who will simply hold onto the twilight of late capitalism for fearing of the impending dark; we need one who will usher in a new dawn. Unless Sanders goes further than his campaign is promising, his function will ultimately be counterrevolutionary.
Clinton is preferable to Trump or Cruz because she will accomplish nothing and contribute less to the fascist descent than would any Republican. Her failure as a president will further reinforce the failure that is the so-called "establishment" and thus solidify the left-leaning base. A more radical candidate could then emerge and radicalize these people; the establishment option will no longer have the appeal it once did. While Sanders may be preferable to Clinton (and that's why I voted for him in the primary), there runs the risk of him saving capitalism and ultimately being a detriment to the goals of overthrowing capitalism. His only function then would be to destigmatize the "socialist" label, albeit at the cost of further legitimizing its misuse.
Do you have a worthwhile response, you fascist piece of shit, or just petty insults?
Jesus, where did I worship Zizek or Lenin?
Reminds of that one picture of a reddit post saying Sanders is a """"national""""" socialist. Are you from reddit aswell?
Doesn't depend upon Sanders, even if he wins. The working class ought to organize and make it possible.
If Hillary does that, the Republicans will have their way. There won't be a "leftist" majority if Clinton fails - because in the US, Clinton is the left, just like Sanders. They will turn to the "fascists".
And his function is not to "destigmatize" a word; what he is doing is showing that politics ought to be carried by the people themselves. In other words, people are getting involved in the politics process after a huge time period of despolitization.
Yeah you're the wsws poster.
Do you not know what social fascism is? You're more ignorant of the history and terminology of socialism and communism than I expected. No, I'm not from reddit, but that shouldn't matter. Why the fuck do you care if someone is from reddit? Are you that obsessed and insecure with being a gatekeeper for this board that you have to police its users?
Given that Sanders is currently obfuscating what socialism is, his contribution would therefore be counterrevolutionary unless he actively attempts to raise class consciousness.
I never said that Keynesian economics are socialist, you fucking retard. I am saying that Sanders will be as much a disgrace to the history of radical leftism as would FDR: we'll support a candidate who in the end actually saves capitalism rather than helps to end it. The New Deal was itself a compromise by the radical left in which we sold our goals in exchange for social-fascist relief efforts.
Except the bourgeois left, as well as many liberals, are beginning to realize that Hillary Clinton isn't a leftist or a social liberal; they are recognizing her for the neoliberal with neocon tendencies that she is. If Clinton fails, it will only reinforce that fact. Anyway, you should know (if you've been paying attention) that another financial crash is almost certainly going to happen sometime this year or early next year. I'd much prefer that to happen under a Clinton presidency and for the masses to realize that the "socialist's" policies could have prevented it than for Sanders to prevent the crash through his policies and simply have to serve through a smaller recession.
And if Sanders disappoints them, that is likely to kill what little passion he gave them.
If you support state capitalism, like Leninists and Marxist–Leninists do, then you're a fucking fascist. If you support the existence of the state, you are a fascist. Maybe you should learn what the fuck fascism is, you state cuckold, given that you appear sympathetic to it.
I don't know who the fuck you're talking about. Stop being so paranoid, faggot.
Maybe you're the ignorant one here.
And capitalism has a crisis every couple of years. Doesn't make people turn over to leftist organizations or the like. It just disrupts them.
If the american working class doesn't organize themselves, no matter how hard you want Clinton to fail, Trump would win the next election. Or someone similar to him.
You're a fascist if you ultimately support the existence of the state because statism necessarily entails some of the same principles and tenets as fascism. There is no avoiding that, hence (among other reasons) why communism is a stateless system of social organization.
Capitalist crises have always served as excellent kindling for mass radicalization. It just depends on who does the radicalizing. During both the Great Depression and Great Recession, radical leftist sentiments and numbers grew significantly. Even now, people are far more receptive to anticapitalist critiques than before precisely because of the Great Recession (which we're still in). To treat such crises as not conducive to disseminating radical leftism is to be profoundly ignorant of history.
So long as there isn't a radical leftist alternative, like what happened in this election. If an outsider, like Sanders, were to rise up from either within the Democratic Party or from without, people will flock to that person. At that point, it would be the same situation that we had this election, only now the people are far more prone to radicalization after yet another four years of a center-right corporatist (cf. Obama).
Social fascism, by the way, originated from the Comintern. You'd do well to learn what it is: en.wikipedia.org
Okay, my dear user. Where was the radical left in 2008? What did they achieve? Where is the "socialist transition"?
"social fascism" also led to the Nazis seizing power, you ignorant anarkiddie.
*unlike what happened in this election.
The irony is that scum like you are more like the manchildren in the webm, since it appears that you always get triggered by the word "statism" and can't handle any critique of that precious tool you use to implement fascism under a different name.
You tell me, "comrade". What have Leninists and Marxist–Leninists achieved? Are you going to point to China and pretend like they're an example?
since I see people unironically using the term "social fascism" a lot let me just leave this
The Comintern's ultra-leftism helped bring the Nazis to power, and I don't see why something similar couldn't happen again.
*The Comintern's ultra-leftism and the theory of "social fascism"
Where in my posts did I defend Leninism or Stalinism?
If you want to call me a paranoid user who should stop projecting, maybe you should call yourself a paranoid user who should stop projecting aswell!
Where are the anarchists? Where are the Sindicalists? Where are the Leninists?
You just proved that my assertion, which was that the crisis serves to disrupt any leftists movement was correct. Thanks!
Nazism is an example of traditional fascism. Social fascism is what people generally call "social democracy". The reason that "social democracy" is fascistic is because some of the same tenets of fascism are intrinsic to it, such as class collaboration, corporatism, and a mixed economy. They are "social" insomuch as they do not emphasize the imperialism and militarism of traditional fascist regimes, instead relying on social reforms in order to ameliorate class struggle and ensure social order.
Nazis relied on nationalism, imperialism, and militarism to sustain their system. Social fascists rely on placating the proletariat through social reforms which vaguely emulate socialist principles but which ultimately fail to improve their material conditions.
In what way did social fascism lead to the Nazis seizing power? They had no interest in leftist social reforms which promote multiculturalism and tolerance. Their goal was to expunge instances thereof. Nazis distracted the proletariat from class struggle through imperialism and contriving of an "other" for them to hate. Social fascists distract the proletariat from class struggle through identity politics and contriving of "others" for them to integrate. There was no such "social fascism" in Nazism, just fascism.
The failure was in the communist's neglect of Nazi Germany's rise and treating fascism and social fascism as exact equivalents, not its characterization of social democracy as fascist in nature. Traditional fascism is always a greater threat than social fascism, and social fascists are at least more susceptible to radical leftist solutions than are traditional fascists.
What the Comintern failed to do was taking Nazism seriously, not misidentifying fascism.
If you're arguing against me, then you obviously disagree with anarchists and side with the pseudo-leftists like Leninists and Marxist–Leninists. Your support for them is implicit in your criticism.
Fuck off, fascist.
LOL and they say that the Anarchokiddies are just a meme
Funny that a Chomskyfag literally spews a zizekian analysis of fascism word by word.
How theoretical, original and deep.
The theory of social fascism led to the Nazis seizing power. And I don't think the German Social Democrats were into identity politics and multiculturalism in fucking 1932.
Anarcho-syndicalism had some of the same principles and tenets as national syndicalism, AKA Francoism. Chomsky is a fascist.
Chomsky confirmed for fascist.
He literally wants an american Francisco Franco in the White House, and his name is Hillary Clinton
Fuck off, fascist.
I agree, explaining obvious concepts that any worthwhile radical leftist ought to know is indeed "Zizekian analysis". I try to avoid it when I'm not talking to children, though.
The failure of the Comintern to take the Nazis seriously is what contributed to them seizing power. Whether they recognized that Nazism wasn't the only type of fascism is inconsequential.
Are you saying that class collaboration, mixed economics, and corporatism are not fascist in nature?
All you have done is call everyone a fascist.
Good job with your radical theory.
It wasn't inconsequential, their view that the SPD were "social fascist" and therefore the real enemy was what caused them to fail to take the Nazi threat seriously
Every mixed economy is fascist? Then Allende was a fascist
Complete bullshit and I can only hope you aren't too retarded to know that. Characterizing others for who they are and calling them out on that hypocrisy is not something to eschew. You better believe it that I'll call fascists fascists, and when the revolution comes, I hope to make sure to crack their skulls against the pavement alongside all the rest of them.
Even if they considered the SPD social fascist and unworthy of collaboration (as Trotsky recommended), that is not a valid excuse to ignore the rise of the NSDAP. Comintern should have actively opposed both rather than neglecting the latter to fixate on the former. Alternatively, they could have temporarily collaborated with the SPD, like Trotsky advised, due to the greater threat of the Nazis. It's not surprising that they did not, however, since there was no historical antecedent for the virulent and highly aggressive fascism that was characteristic of the Nazis (and not as such a large scale) whereby they could determine their threat. Given the historical circumstances, the Comintern's choice to not collaborate with the SPD was completely reasonable, albeit temporary collaboration with them would have been preferable.
If the Comintern had opposed both in equal measure rather than fixating on the SPD, and had funded a viable alternative to both, I see no reason why Comintern's characterization of the SPD as social fascist would be consequential. What caused it to be, so to speak, was its negligence of the NSDAP; thus, it was that and not its characterization of the SPD as social fascist which ultimately caused the NSDAP to rise.
The failure was ultimately in the Comintern's negligence and failure to provide a viable alternative, not their treatment of the SPD.
Was Allende using a mixed economy to transition to socialism proper, or did he consider that "socialism" to him? If the former, then no he wasn't; if the latter, then yes he was.
When I disagreed with your opinions on the US election all you could come up with was call me a fascist.
You should stop being such a faggot and stop backpedaling
You are one edgy faggot
So if you consider a mixed economy to be socialism, then you're a fascist? Please elaborate on this
So you assume that everyone else is too retarded to simply scroll up? All three of my posts regarding the US election ( , , and ) responded in detail to your posts. The fact that I called you a fascist (which I technically didn't) pales in comparison to the bulk of my reply. So tell me, are you going to stop bullshitting or are you going to continue fixating on a word I called you like an insecure, bootlicking bitch?
How cucky of you.
I pick both. There's no contradiction.
Are you saying that a mixed economy constitutes socialism?
Your whole criticism boils down to it. Everyone that disagrees with your position is either a member of the "pseudo left", a "fascist" or a "hero worshiper".
There can't be a discussion with you. You already won all of them because you yourself proclaims the high moral ground, the high "theoretical" ground, of being against "fascists"
If you support fascist (including social fascist) policies, consider those sufficient for classifying the system "socialist" or "communist" (or some derivation thereof), and have no plan to transition that system into socialism or communism proper, then I have no interest in conversing with you. You're a fascist and cuckold to the state, you're not my comrade, and you play a counterrevolutionary role in achieving any semblance of socialism or communism, so you better believe I'm going to have antipathy toward you and what you represent.
Go find a board more tolerant of your "socialism". I hear the Not Socialists over on Holla Forums would welcome you aboard.
Ahahaha. My point is proven.
Nowhere did you offer any "transition into socialism or communism" either, faggot. And you don't know any of my positions in that regard, because that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You just keep moving the goal posts. Like a good troll.
I hear your kind is getting pretty salty over at /r/anarchism and /r/FULLCOMMUNISM.
I didn't offer any such transition because this isn't a conversation about that. This is a discussion about fascism, its nature, and who (or what) qualifies as fascist. If you want to talk about how a transition might work, or how to skip the transition altogether, I recommend going to >>649152.
If you want my opinion, then ask. Simply assuming that I have no opinion because I am saying that I have neither use nor interest in those who aren't interested in establishing socialism or communism only demonstrates that you lack basic reading comprehension skills and should fuck off immediately.
Which "goal posts" have I "moved"? Name one, stupid fuck.
Refer to >>652093: No, I'm not from reddit, but that shouldn't matter. Why the fuck do you care if someone is from reddit? Are you that obsessed and insecure with being a gatekeeper for this board that you have to police its users?
Fuck off, fascist.
I don't want your opinion, honestly. Your opinions are not a beam of light in the darkness. But mostly because your opinion boils down to "you're a fascist and I'll crush your skull someday!", like you've already stated.
You went from criticizing Zizek, talking about Sanders - to calling me a fascist. Not only calling, but somehow having prove that I indeed am one!
Then you direct me to Holla Forums, and when I direct you to reddit, you call me a fascist again!
Who cares about your "theory" anyway.
Like Lenin hat said
In other words, you don't have a rebuttal (you never did), so you have to resort to mischaracterizing my position and statements thus far in the feeble hope that other anons here are stupid enough to believe it. People can scroll up, you know?
Fuck off, fascist.
P.S. – Great webm, by the way, though I'd personally rename it to "A Summary of Zizek's Contributions to Radical Leftism".
The Spanish Civil War, a six part 6 hour documentary.
The Free Voice of Labor - The Jewish Anarchists, a very good documentary exploring the Jewish (I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but its like calling someone a white anarchist in this context) anarchist movement in the united states at its peak.
Anarchism in America, another very good documentary.
Read a book, anarchokiddie. I know, I know. Reading is inherently hierarchical and thus supports the existence of the state.
And reading is for fascists.
If I wanted to read the mediocre ramblings of someone living in an unoriginal fantasy world, I'd read the Twilight series. I prefer books written by people who aren't jokes, since they only produce punchlines like you.
He wouldn't know what to do with a fascist if one showed up at his door wearing Blackshirt.
All of his posts read like "MMMEEEEEEH MMMMEEEEEH! FUGGEN FASHHH-ISTSSSS MMMEEEEEH I HATE MY DAD MMMMMEEEEEHHH EVERYONE'S A FASCIST BUT MMMMEEEEH".
You keep repeating a word over and over again, and it loses meaning, it becomes ineffectual.
This is your first post in the thread with no "fascist" in it! You're evolving.
I've met fascists. I used to flirt with the ideology myself. And I'm not just talking about social fascists; I mean literal neo-Nazis; I would have probably qualified as a neo-Nazi fascist myself, before I departed from that sort of thinking.
Fascism is a broad-meaning term, like liberalism or socialism or communism or anarchism. Such terms can also, under certain conditions, overlap in meaning. I shouldn't have to explain such simple facts of how words work.
Just because you arbitrarily narrow its meaning, that doesn't mean your particular definition of it has any credence whatsoever. The same goes with your pathetic shitposting, as well as your cowardice toward accurately representing my posts and my position.
Fuck off, fascist. Go get triggered by words elsewhere.
You're the one who seems to be triggered.
All you do is call everyone that disagrees with your party line a "fascist".
I'm not the one fixating on the fact that another person is using the word "fascist" in a way that makes me feel upset or insecure. That's you.
People can scroll up. I've responded on multiple occasions to any semblance of substance on responses to me with substance in kind. The fact that I also call people fascists does not change that. The fact that your posts have thus far been nonsubstantive and unworthy of a substantive reply also does not change that.
You lack an argument, so you're now going to pretend everyone is stupid enough to believe your bullshit and continue to accuse me of just being some vapid and vacuous anarchokiddie whining about everyone being a fascist. It doesn't matter that basic observational evidence objectively proves otherwise. It also, apparently, doesn't matter that this same exact excuse for a point has been lobbed at my by others above (or you, multiple times) to the same ineffectual effect.
Are you going to actually scroll up and provide a substantive rebuttal, like even the Leninhat user was doing, or are you just going to project your behavior onto others and substitute shitposting for criticism? I'm done going in circles with a child whose refutations consist of "no u" and "stop calling people fascists". Go play somewhere else.
And just in case I didn't already make this crystal clear already: Seriously, fuck off. You're shitting up the board and wasting everyone's time with your puerile antics.
And rebuttal to what? That Sanders is a social fascist? That state = fascism?
There's no need to any rebuttal, you are right!
Not Holla Forums related but I still keked pretty hard.
This was my first post: . My goal was not to satisfy any "need" to prove myself. My goal was to simply express my disagreement to someone whose opinions I considered to be incorrect and to point out a simple fact that I assumed any serious radical leftist would already know. Only after other anons decided it was time to ridicule someone who dared to assert something that was not politically correct by the standards of this board did this thread begin to derail. Before then, it was a simple and substantive exchange between two individuals who disagreed with each other. Again, I encourage you to either scroll the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
I can't contribute to this thread (though I have some content which I could post) because I'm using Tor. Tough luck for you, faggot.
I didn't say that Sanders is a social fascist, though I do worry that social fascism may be his goal. Unless his current campaign platform is deliberately modest in order to get elected, I see little reason in believing that his goals are socialist whatsoever, only yet another FDR seeking to save capitalism. If I truly believed that Sanders was a social fascist with no interest in socialism or any use to the radical left, then I wouldn't have voted for him in my primary, I wouldn't be publicly advocating for him, and I wouldn't be prepared to vote for him if he's available in the general election.
The state is a threat to the full realization of socialism and communism because the intrinsic properties of the state (and, thus, statism) promotes fascism or some other form of centralized totalitarianism. The state is only useful as a tool whereby a socialist or communist revolution could quickly reorganize the relations of production, decentralize power, and dismantle the state as a tool of oppression and hierarchical organization. Treating it as a necessary part of any social order is fundamentally fascist in nature, not to mention antithetical to all three branches of radical leftism (socialism, communism, and anarchism).
The state, therefore, isn't fascist so much as it is a tool whose nature promotes qualities which are themselves characteristic of fascism (among other ideologies). The reason why I consider anyone who supports the existence of the state as either a fascist (or sympathetic to fascism), and why I consider myself a radical leftist, is precisely because of the nature of the state.
The point is that this thread is not a personal blog for your "theoretical breakthroughs".
So when I don't contribute anything substantive, I'm simply a whining anarchokiddie calling people fascists. But when I actually expound to clarify a misunderstanding, I'm told to sit down, shut up, and toe the party line.
Maybe next time, you shouldn't get triggered by someone being politically incorrect and just ignore the simple conversation that was being had. That way, you won't force yourself into a contradictory position of whining about someone who's simultaneously too vacuous and too substantive.
I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR THIS WEBM
How can you defend your country from reactionaries without a state. Last time i checked every anarchist commune have been crushed
Anyone have sources for the claims he makes in this vid?
No, he is a simple obsessive neurotic.
Not about those specific claims, but here is the source of that excerpt: youtube.com
You cared enough to reply, you pathetic bootlicking faggot.
So me, good to know.
damn i forgot about this
fucking alactricity demon
the site. fix it.
Greatest faggotry of Ideology in a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
Haven't ever seen that Zizek on Nationalism webm. Great share.
he makes breddy good arguments, SocDem has objectively less room for economic growth, obviously as a Communist i couldn't give any fucks about economic growth but still, doesn't mean he's wrong.
how is the song called?
Oh, it was, Leninist's or trots will never admit it though, same with Mahkno, if you arn't with the vanguard and want the right to self determination you are all just bandits
Oh, it was, Leninist's or trots will never admit it though, same with Mahkno, if you arn't with the vanguard and want the right to self determination you are all just bandits
It would create capitalism and was the only thing Lenin did right.
Thats not woody Guthrie, that's pete seeger.
A las barricadas
the only thing Lenin did right was die in a coma.
No, cause he died just before he could do anything about Stalin.
He even died wrong.
No, he tried to do something about stalin, stalin just kinda went and did what stalin does anyway
At first it was "Here, Stalin, have the General Secretary office to play with"
And then "Stalin, how did you take all those authorities? I have no mouth and I must scream! Trotsky! Go fix this! What do you mean you're ill?"
And then Lenin died.
it's off the charts
Care to tell me what I got wrong?
I know this feeling, i almost starved because of Holla Forums
that is a zesty webm, comrade.
Care to elaborate?
Became a paranoid wreck, didn't eat, didn't talk, never left my house, almost killed myself, then i found this place.
Glad you're fine now user!
Yeah, Holla Forums can fuck you up. Don't take the red pill kids.
Just.. don't take things to seriously and everything will be fine. Even pol.
What turned you to leftism, comrade?
What is the source of 'communist ganster gobburmant'?
I saw that me and Holla Forums were no where CLOSE to what i believe, Holla Forums showed me there's more to life then being a crazed madman. Plus i was already a russian fanboy so the communist/socialist part interested me.
You happen you also have some soviet union era stock footage?
Where's the lie though?
Then he pays taxes, and has to work for his rent and is payed for that speech, recorded by and for a company which puts its money in tax havens.
No surprises there.
A reenactment of Stalingrad
The comments left on the youtube version are cancerous, but there are a few people that get the hint.
You got a source to these? Or at least mp4 versions? I can't download them as webms.
That fucking wordfilter…
Yes you can. Just click it.
Downloading from source is better. When I download webms they become all glitchy when I play them.
The fuck is with capitalists and their fetish for Iphones?
I wonder if they realize those are made in sweatshop slave labors where most of the workers kill themselves rather than work like slaves.
IT KEEPS HAPPENING
Found the source: youtube.com
What was idpol about that? He clearly states that whites and blacks should strive for a common political future.
Yeah, but he also described how white workers were turned against "niggers" by racist populists, which is classic IDPOL.
Racism itself is idpol. It diverts away attention from class struggle. Pointing this out is common sense for a communist. Pointing it out is not idpol. Talking about idpol is not idpol…
Fucking hell, never mind.
That's the classic demonstration of how idpol works - they got white workers to worry about niggers, black workers to worry about white workers, and no one worrying about the bosses.
I did too first time I saw it.
I did too first time I saw it.
Anyone have Zizek's "z-fascism"? quick pls
These are good memes.
Someone needs to spellcheck the bottom left corner of the image
Also, some more webmums.
bad meme tbh, should be capitalists, even SJW use that "argument".
he looks like Schopenhauer in this
Where can we get improved versions of these memes?
Schopenhauer was cuter than that
it would probably take like a second to fix that in MSpaint, but I'm far too lazy to do that.
this webm is fucking addicting
Ended up finding another older music video.
Desperately searching for the one with (I think it was RDW) talking about Soviet planning and how they sat around with charts and graphs just like a regular corporate boardroom.
idk which one is it, if any
Ted Candy at School Cruz webm anyone?
this should have a "CANDY FOR BREAKFAST???!?!?!" edit
pretty sure i recognise that lecture theatre. this was at my uni
jesus, that dude was a dick.
we comen buckett
This analysis is cringy and sophomoric af. Fucking terrible.
lol what is the context? or did my dream come true and she just did a porno?
I have a feeling this is from the Honey Badgers…
cringe into a clump everytime
That first webm is disturbing af.
Kids voices creep me out though.
bump for more webbies.
This webm forgets, when porkies have to raise the price of the product, they exploit it and raise not by 1 cent they need to raise it, but by 10 times than they need. Not to mention the price rise in percentage, not value. So if 68 cents macaroni must go up to 69, it will really go up to numbers like 78. While product that costs $68, will also go up to $78 dollars. And to cover this up you make bunch of discounts on other products, while most consuming products will rise in price slowly.
Because they need to play off their economical problems and gain more profit from them, instead of remaining on the same level of income.
This is why capitalism is shit. Or at very least this is how it works in my shitty country. Nobody is honest.
kill them, tbh
If it was profitable for Wal-Mart to raise it's prices by that much it would already be doing it.
Have they driven all their competitors out of your town with their low low below cost prices yet?
Gulag yourself cunt. He was explaining why trying to raise the price of products to pay employees "more equally" was a stupid idea and that under those conditions Wal Mart would do what he described, because, UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, it would be what they would have to do to maintain profits because Capitalism is a con game.
Just start over at being a Leftist m8 you obviously fucked up somewhere and though Social Democracy works
so this was in the news
Porky got triggered.
Fight the good fight farmer man!
Finno-ugric shaming must STOP
Anyone have the videos that were removed from Brandon's channel?
source on stream?
10. Drawing up the new maps. ("I'm just so used to to the Soviet Union being this big pink blob")
9. Yakov Smirnoff is gonna be out of a job
8. We're never gonna find out what that thing on Gorbachev's head was.
7. Katarina Witt is less exotic. ("She had the taste of forbidden fruit…")
6. Labor relations
5. Is the song "Back in the USSR" gonna be changed?
4. Spy movies are gonna suck. ("Who's James bond gonna spy on now, the Guatemalans?")
3. The end of the Playboy "Girls of the USSR" issue.
2. No more bogus Soviet rock bands to make fun of. ("Remember Live Aid, that band Autograph? I rather like them…nyet!)
1. They won't be the first people in the Soviet Union to say….
LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT!
Can someone post transhumanist pepe please?
this is too good to be true
it's always been that way, AND WOT!
what's cringey is that neetsocs always walk away from this thinking that they've won.
So i was talking to some of my "friends" and one of them brought up communism and how its "bad". So i told him about what makes capitalism bad and they flipped their shit and said i was a moron for not thinking capitalism was great. So i asked them a simple question
They avoid the question every time i asked something like that. Then they told me to kill myself and started sending me Holla Forums links.
Holla Forums has fucking infected everywhere i go, it never fucking ends. So i'm planning to go back and tell them what for and i was wondering if you could give me something i could use to prove to them or at least make them think.
He's probably really proud of that one too.
"Oh man, i really showed her, by spouting memes from the internet. My friends at Holla Forums are going to like me now!"
that's the thing – if you reply, they've already won, if you don't, then you're obviously just a pussy who can't make a real response, not that people think that it's a fight not worth picking up or something too stupid to respond to.
it's basically a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. these tards can't make a real argument so they just boil it down to picking sides, semantics and memes.
kek that pic
Anyone has the FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY COMMUNISM webm?
I love how much this triggers vanguardfags
You're saying i just can't punch them in the face?
DL the whole audiobook here: mariborchan.si
goddamn do you have to be fucking stupid to not understand a simple philosopher like zizek
name of the film? I like animation.
The Little Prince
Are there any leftist YTPs out there?
That autistic boy is a qt 3.14
You can see him walking out close to Milo at the end of a video of him being kicked out of a university. Forgot which one though.
Geithner and Greenspan looking so smug.
Don't you get it, Bernie, their task to enrich porky is so much more important than what you and your band of unwashed proles think.
Gulag will be too good for them. Hang them.
omg i've loled so hard
It's like a half-rate cassetteboy
Le Holla Forums words that make us feel gud when used in poblic xD
COMMIES WATCH OUT
What's with the audio?
It was LP tier.
My fucking sides! They are broke now!
Anyone have that webm about media class called manipulate or something? Youtube link would work too.
omg that's my favorite one, I was looking for that
Do you have a youtube link?
whoever was watching this crap seminar and found this is a hero
Already posted faggot
it's good, tho
Whata cheeky buggar
Really explains a lot.
If you've ever looked at the public reviews for any work by Marx, any work with the word "socialism" in title, etc, you'll find reviews with single stars by people who clearly never read the book going on about breadlines, gulags and muh 100 gorillion, but oddly enough slightly more "obscure" works (ones not by Marx and not obviously in favor of socialism in the title) are much more highly rated. For instance, if you went by public ratings alone, one would get the impression that Engels was a much better writer than Marx.
Here's some content, bumper
I can i get you some *Sniff* Fucking fruit juice and so on and son
this faggot is worse
The cult of personality is real.
This one makes me rofl
Really makes you think, huh
Keep on commie-ing on, my komrad!
That really just makes him look cool even though the video was made to be negative propoganda
Well, Super Voltrump does explode the planet at the end