ITT: we pinpoint the moment we stopped being classcucks

this is bait right

probably, but GG is still a retarded meme movement

I would describe it more as a place for leftists who happen to also be imageboard users to hang out and shitpost, but delusions of grandeur make it necessary to downgrade this place to leftist e-activism.

GG is literally "devs pls make games I like instead of games that everyone else likes I know nothing about how capitalism works that's why I support it and am part of a reformist movement for the fucking video gaming industry"

Pick one faggot. The largest share of the market are consolekids who play Call of Duty: Recycled shit 5 and Sports: Current Year. Gaymurgayte is two largely irrelevant segments screaming at each other over what flavor shilling for publishers should take and anyone who thinks it's anything more than a spectacle is a fool. Now go kill yourself or whine about how bad Holla Forums is and how no one wants to post in /grim/ because it's a shit board they haven't read enough post-left theory.

Still haven't purged yourself entirely of your Holla Forums memes I see.

Maybe if you say it again, it'll become a little more true.

It is true. I don't see how what I'm saying is anything new or controversial, unless you're someone who still actually supports GamerGate.

It's more "devs pls keep making games you want instead of games that a small minority group of vocal asshates try to force you to make." Since I've stopped paying attention to it over a year ago, I've realized that the whining of both sides is dumb.

KEK

This.

You can deny it all you want but the fact is that the gaming industry is motivated primarily by money - like every fucking industry in a capitalist society - and that's the reason why it's went in the direction it has.

They can make more profits by churning out derivative shit games with superficial liberal pandering than by making good games. So they do that. The whole idea that there's some kind of huge SJW conspiracy among the indie gaming industry is laughable. If no one was buying their games, they wouldn't be of any relevance to the industry.

When the industry wants to expand, if there isn't an audience it will create it. It's called propagada Marketing.

If to sell more GTA they have to make everyone care about it, because "sexism" they will.
The problem is, that they don't give a fuck about the aftermath of their actions. And then, if "a man takes pleasure out of X it's sexists!" and if "X doesn't have the IdPol I want it to have it is racist!".
Now, combine this with the nomenclature in Western academia, that lives off "women studies" and so on, and you'll understand why it's all about neoliberalism and its aspects in society.

The idea of an "indie gaming industry" is laughable. Indie gaming is supposed to be OUTSIDE of the industry.
But, us capitalism grows, the small are eaten by the big and so on.
On the point of "conspiracy" however, it's more about the nomenclature I talked about earlier, using critics and set media and so on, to influence public opinion in order to promote it's agenda. AKA to remain in their places, even if their places are no more needed.

It's neoliberalism.

Unfortunately, the analyses of "the philosophy of southpark" that talks about all these, is down, cause copyright.

THANX FOR THE LIBERTY, CAPITALISM!

This is like saying stormfaggotry is popular because Donald Trump is claiming the Republican nomination. Trannies are popular in mainstream but they're the tip of the sjw iceberg. Otherkin, genderfluid pansexual alphabet soups, decolonising, and other shit is unknown to anyone outside chans, tumblr, or reddit. That shit ain't popping up in AAA vidya anytime soon and the consoletards who buy games don't give a shit about it.

I've always considered myself a Progressive, but the whole "cultural marxism" nonsense spread around within GG made me finally get off my lazy ass and learn what Marxism and socialism/communism actually are. Now I have no problem considering myself a socialist.

I 100% still support GG when it comes to demanding better vidya journalism, as has always been its core tenet.

And to add to that, preventing the "muh jurnalism" responce,

See how the "people not liking the new Ghostbusters movie is sexism" is the continuation of "if you like game X you are sexist" and so on?

IT'S ABOUT FORMING PUBLIC OPINION AND DIVERTING ATTENTION!

I agree with most of your post (when I understood what the hell the point was that you're trying to make) and that it's asinine to argue that there needs to be certain politics injected into what is essentially an apolitical game being manipulated by moneyed interests who will support any given narrative that is the most marketable, but your statement that the idea that Western academia thrives off of "women's studies" is the kind of absurdity I'd expect to hear from an alt-right conspiracy retard. I go to one of the most liberal universities in the entire US, and even here women's studies hardly dominates the discourse in disciplines not related to it - and I'm a fucking philosophy major. I can't imagine how irrelevant it must be in the STEM classes.

m8, liberal values of feminism, gay rights and more recently trans issues most certainly have mass appeal and have become hot topics of conversation. And this is what the gaming industry has pandered to.

Stormfaggotry-tier shit is also popular outside of Holla Forums. See: Donald Trump supporters and the rise of neo-fascism in Europe.

Well, then you're an idiot.

The gaming industry will never not be shit again as long as we have capitalism. The idea that gaming journalism is behind this or that gaming journalism can be reformed and that this will fix the industry is SocDem-tier rhetoric, only worse, because the vidya industry is such an unimportant issue that I couldn't care less about it. Actively involving yourself in these petty consumer issues is the epitome of the late capitalist media spectacle, where there is now a marketplace of activist issues to get involved with just as there is a marketplace of commodities - all of which are ultimately supportive of capitalism in one way or another.

tbh anyone who ever pays for software in the first place is an idiot

Fair enough. I do though.

Yes nigga, and that's barely the tip of what sjws like to talk about. You start pulling out otherkin or whatever and you'll get strange looks from normies. When and if you start seeing those in mainstream media then you can call sjw shit popular. Until then it's standard liberalism because that's safe and innocuous.

When they start going off about the Jews and get a strange obsession with cuckporn give me a call, but all I can see now are paleoconservatives butthurt about immigrants and fucked by capitalism but too blind to identify the source of their ass ravaging.

found Holla Forums from either /r9k/ or Holla Forums on a 4chan communist thread.

lurked for a while, i was still a centrist-ish around that time, until i saw sabotthecat's reading thread.

eye opening moment tbh

When I was NEET with no idea of how the outside world worked, I sorta believed the e-celeb rhetoric of SJWisms permeating society and being pernicious. Once I walked into the real world and got a job and been going to school, I realize that such shit is mostly contained to the internet and in fringe, albeit overly vocal elements. Women's, Gays', Trans, &c. rights are a hot topic these days, of course, but I think they are only so because of our society's inherent want of equality and justice these days. I don't think I've seen any "internet issue" such as Holocausts or manspreading outside of the internet.

I have no idea why I'm replying to you on this issue but I'm not going to not post this.

I think everyone should adopt this. For all industries media. I care about video games in that I like playing them. But ignoring the controversies is healthy for me. Let the psuedo intellectuals and stormfags deal with that shit. Aside from some light mocking of the "issues", I've not delved into any recently. Buy shit that you like, ignore shit that you don't, move on.

Stop that, user.

Now, don't get me wrong here!
Am neither saying "All academia is shit/commies" and so on, nor "only STEM is good" and so on.

What am saying, is that, within capitalism, the system itself promotes parts of academia to create pseudo-science in order to survive.
When the market for sociology is limited, you will then create "fields" that are non existant, in order to expand the market.
And when your "field" has to "produce" you mess up with "culture" and "mass media" and so on. And that is how you have people writting essays on "Game of Thrones" or "Mario Kart".

Neoliberalism.

On the " gaming journalism" part,
I tottaly agree. It is pure SocDem reformism. So is Sanders.
But, if you expect, sudently people going full anarchy and creating new societies, you are the idiot. :^)

We live in capitalism and we have to survive in capitalism. No use being less "happy" in order to be more "revolutionary".

Can I call you now that Poland banned Communism? Or do you want them to go FullNazi first?

I'm surprised no one else has posted this yet:

Well since we seem to be in agreement for the most part:

I say that no one should pay for any software because: 1). Scarcity doesn't apply to software, which can be copied infinitely. So it has no real value in the first place. and 2). Because the vast majority of the profits are going to whoever is publishing the software. The actual devs have already been paid and have already sold their labor to a capitalist pig, so buying from companies you like doesn't actually help the people who make the product.

This is a little different in cases like Bandcamp where you pay directly to the artist/developer, though.

I think you have the story backwards.

Unless I'm mistaken - and others have said it too in this thread - the primary demographic for vidya IS the middle class white first worldist, NOT the extreme and loud SJW minority coding games in LGBTQC++, hence all the anger from the primary demographic for coming in and shitting up their commodity.

Implying value in capitalism is about scarcity.
Same with any product.

It doesn't matter if you buy or not. Everyone else will.
As long as you get money and then buy, what you buy is inconsicuential.

Buying starbucks is not different than buying Paradox.

However, you can buy what is good and not what is bad.. .. but it won't make any true difference. (like voting).

You're right for the most part(maybe all parts). This is just my own bias, at least when it comes to video games(I've never paid for any software on the computer ever, and for my phone, I've only paid for things like dictionaries and useful apps like textra); paying for them helps me to actually get use out of my purchases because of perceived value. Purchases do help companies, I would think, to gauge intent and what consumers want. I would be in whelming support of more price models like steam(constant sales) or pay what you will like bandcamp.

I'm just getting into all this stuff so I'd like to pick your brain for a bit. What would you propose as a valid alternative or method to high-budget games? Kickstarter and the like would seem like obvious ways to secure large funding for ambitious projects, but even such platforms are liable to shadowfunding form large investment firms or other companies that might take large portions of the money behind the scenes.

I came to Holla Forums around the first exodus, mainly for the promise of a Holla Forums that wasn't shit it went to shit after three months
I was a "free market will fix it" ancap of sorts until Holla Forums went full retard, shitting everywhere on Holla Forums and coopting GG while calling anyone who disagreed with then Holla Forums made me go here by curiosity, and ended learning about what leftism actually is.

They've also banned Nazi symbols, which would be odd for fascists. Are you under the impression that only fascists have tried to ban socialism?

That's exactly what it is, I honestly don't know what these "delusions of grandeur" that you see are. You aren't shitposting very well if you're getting assblasted over this shit

Oh, but isn't that the perfect "theory of two extremes" "look, we are non nazis! We are against all extremes!" excuse???

And ofcourse not.
Bourgies will use every tool in the shed to ban socialism.

Not really. The drive against fascism is an attempt to destroy a rival competing for reactionary support. They're not the same beast and it would be tactically stupid to attack paleoconservatism the same way we would attack fascism.

Then why would you assume it's fascism and not some other strain of reactionary force? To me it looks closer to red scare conservatism found in the US during the cold war than stormfaggotry or fascism.

Ok. You is correct.

Fascism is a set ideology, that is different from Nazism, libertarianims and so on.

You wanna call this strain of "Capitalism is best system, and I'll go militant to defend it" palaioconservatism? Fine.

I still think it will have the exact same effect as fascism and nazism and that, yes, it will fight with the same weapons.

It is red scare now. It will grow into fullfascist.
However, even in the red scare form, isn't it enough?
Weren't people accused as spies and even executed, during red scares?

Always.

Yes, because it's a reactionary state.

Or it will grow into something else, just as reactionary but with different rhetoric and weaknesses. You need to adjust your offense to be effective against it. We won't succeed in fighting a reactionary state that plays well with others if we treat it like a reactionary state that started a war.

Yes. Executing supposed spies is hardly unique to red scare reactionaries though.

I got interested in studying political theory at age 15 and stumbled across some Emma Goldman essays. Been a leftist for about a decade now.

So, we treat it like BEFORE it went to war.

PS. You are a good comrade after all.

I started getting into real leftism when my old anthropology professor, who was a die hard Chomsky fanboy, explained what "mode of production" was and illustrated how hierarchies work. A few quarters later, my philosophy professor did a whole section on Epicurus. Old dude was postulating the conservation of matter and energy and theorizing about the particulate nature of light while Plato was intellectually jerking it to metaphysical forms. It was clear to me that materialism was the branch of philosophy that actually got shit done. When the professor mentioned that Marx wrote his doctoral thesis about Epicurus I started reading Marx's works. I had read The Communist Manifesto decades prior but did not understand most of it. Then I found this place and started reading anarchist theory, but by then I was already a part of the Red Menace

Just so everyone can understand GG…

It's become the old "liberals vs conservatives' dichotomy that we know of in other contexts.

The SJW liberals (postmodernists) decided to invade games through media manipulation of their fundamental feminist views. The conservatives came in to battle the culture war. What this exposed was that the liberal left had some cancer that needed excising. Didn't happen since the media was already on the side of publishers and SJWs with yellow journalism.

The best thing to do would have been to cut the cancer by creating new alternatives. Some came up, but people ignored them and the publisher monopolies that fuel SJWs and the media monopoly.

The devs that are "pro-GG" are small time and the bigger ones have to focus on their job. But by the time you actually decipher what happened, the entire thing is now more of a conservative reactionary group that feels like they can use SJWism to explain all the left.

Well no shit, we're different and can't stand idpol bullshit.

The games will keep coming, but some communities have no SJWs and others are infected with their bullshit like Blizzard.

The point here is that you've got to discern from the gaming communities that are just regular gamers of all stripes and the gaming industry which creates certain types of SJWs who have better access to social and gaming capital in the form of jobs and locals like Silicon Valley where gaming is flourishing. Until the monopolies and opportunities are diversified, you'll have power groups come in, be they reactionary or reformist, that basically take over and make it work for them and outside what people actually want.

So… For me personally…

How the hell did I become a left winger?

It's pretty simple. When Obama came into office, I'd thought he'd be another FDR. Naive, I know, but I never knew about the people that pushed him into being a progressive.

I just thought "Hey, he'll know what his Dem. ancestor did and do that!"

Ohhhhh, was I ever wrong…

I was reading Paul Krugman and he was talking about this stuff and sounding real populist. Then all of a sudden, there was ONE economist that was making sense…

youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4

Richard D Wolff's "Capitalism Hits the Fan" is where my road to Marxism began.

As the economy failed, Wolff made one more that hit me like a sack of bricks about how much liberalism failed:

youtube.com/watch?v=guSdjsctrUQ

A Cure for Capitalism…

That was when I became a Marxist. I've read "Occupy the Economy" and Democracy at Work" and kept up with RDW ever since. That's been my first Marxist teacher and I'm thankful for every lesson.

KEK but, anyway.

The less popular the game, the less SJWs exploit it.

Good luck with that, as the corporate cyberpunk dystopia comes closer day by day!

Watched the bananman. Seemed pretty based 'lefty' to me, and went after the conservative establishment lots of the time. GG happened. The banana man started doing some beat down on feminist shit. Even compared them to the KK once, which I couldn't help but laughthe fact it's fucking true.

Then Sargon, browsing V and other places hadf the writing on the all that the culture was set to swing back to the right someday, maybe. Obviously, the main reason I object to it is for economic reasons. Socially I'm benerally don;t care too much, cept for when things crazy. Eventually wanted to look for a place that was socially centrist/center right while still being economically left. Any here it be.

Also lucked out and finished school before GG became a thing. Definitely some pretty ideological stuff they wanted to teach in class.

I've always seen GamerGate as analogous to Anonymous: it's not a movement per se and more of a slogan-identity, as it doesn't have any core ideology or principles and pretty much anyone can just jump in. It's what Byung-chul Han would call a "swarm".

In practice, this means the "movement" is mainly manned by clueless people and de facto led by charismatic demagogues. It's not a surprise if the whole GamerGate business revolved around personalities moreso than actual concepts.

^^^^^^^^

bunkermag.org/gulag-week-john-green-revised/

I was never one tbh

Why does leftypol equate "SJW"s and postmodernism?
Just try asking any Tumblrina who Foucault, Lacan, or Derrida is.

both my parent were Union reps.

My point is that there's a difference between neoliberals and progressives. The good thing about GG is the fact that it has exposed the fraudsters. The problem is that now the reactionaries think that we're to blame for all the left's issues.

They form identity politics and the track record of the postmodernists as going to the right is the issue.

They ignored class struggle for identity politics and most of their arguments would go into right wing cultural bolshevism.

My point is more or less that these SJWs are the middle class and have no understanding of class as we use it, only that they're individuals who think their targeted overuse of identity politics will work to undermine other class interests and pursuits of people which backfires spectacularly against them.

We share a similar story OP

Except instead of being a "proper" classcuck I was instead the "le soviet onion did nuthin wrong" sort who read no theory just the wikipedia articles and dubious sites that in hindsight were incredibly Maoist

what a profound endeavor you've been involved in!

Althusser and Žižek are Marxists and have been slammed by Chomsky among others as postmodernist. The point is, it's a meaningless term in itself and most "postmodern" philosophers adopted the name ironically or examine its metaphysical niceties through critical theory anyway.

I never was a classcuck.

Also, generally the point of postmodernism seems to be to challenge the existing structures of modernity.
Which, in of itself, does not seem like a bad notion.

I got a lot of what I'm saying from WSWS:

wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/21/dnbo-j21.html

So I'm aware that they don't like Althusser and Zizek, but I'm not really up on that battle, just pointing out that their postmodernism is what socialists are critiquing in a certain view and context.

Socialist worker also has some critiques which I'll recommend as well:

archive.is/BDPt6

GG got me to break outright with liberalism (why are you defending Gawker? They're scum) but I was some flavor of lefty long before that.

But it did crystalize how little modern liberalism had to do with either defending democratic rights or fighting for the class interests of the downtrodden.

It's not something I can make myself support based on incrementalism anymore - they've gone full idpol and embraced some of the right's worst ideas, and treating people as inferior subhumans for playing vidya and using NEET as a pejorative is part of that.

And most of gamergate doesn't have any theory behind it either - they're being treated horribly by the press but they don't get why, they'll blame the social justice movement but don't grasp the material factors behind its rise. Which is part of why I drifted away and started hanging out here.

They did worse than to ignore class. They conflated class with identitarian issues that were not class. Now idiots on both sides think that feelings are class issues and that class is an identity.

Spooky materialism coming from you.
Socioeconomic class is an identification in that one can either be freeman or slave, patrician or plebeian, lord or serf, guild-master or journeyman, in a word, oppressor or oppressed.

I mean…did you seriously forget what Marx implied by commodity fetishism, or the socio- in socioeconomic?

...

...

Triggered?

Neither can they.

So… are you? I mean, identitarianism can certainly arise around class, but that doesn't mean class is inherently an identity.

Much like busdriver is not an identity. It's something you do, not something you supposedly "are".

Class is an identity, whether you identify with one class or another. Cf: Dialectical materialism.

MAYBE it is you who are triggered??!?!1!! xDDDdx

Being white is an identity. There is nothing that all white people inherently do to qualify as while. Not a single action in common.

That does not go for classes. All proletarians work for a wage, per definition regardless of their own feelings towards what they are or even what others regard them.

...

Being white is the quality (which is absurd, white people are more pink than they are white! And Greeks/Romans are very tan).This is a strawman you're painting.

Whomever claims they are a materialist needs to punch themselves in the face and reflect on the Cartesian method.

Please tell me that this is that 30% of the time you are trolling.

Kek, this actually illustrates my point quite well; whiteness is not universal and doesn't really exist outside of the US. In europe, for example identities are much more aligned with the nation-states.

Fucking what?

inb4 "I was only pretending to be retarded."

Yes.

That's what I just said. You're literally copying me now:

— the post
youtube.com/watch?v=AMTMtWHclKo

Here you go, you nescient, illiterate fuck.

What does mind-body dualism has to do with materialism, which primarily deals with the origin and shaping of ideology?

You are confusing me slightly.

The rationalization of moral epistemology (cogito ergo sum; je pense, donc je suis) and the support of extravagant suppositions wherein one hid from the negation of negation, and never shook the foundations of pyrrhonic skepticism (equanimity and radical indifference); instead, the doctrines of metempsychosis, according to which the Geist is immortal and is reborn in both human and animal incarnations, gained more popularity and importance in both philosophy and legal policy.

I don't have any idea of how what you just wrote was a reply to what I wrote.

What does all this have to do with the (historical) materialism of Marx?

It's ideology, stupid. Hegel was correct in declaring that history happens twice, but he neglected to mention that it was first as tragedy then as farce.

What? How does this prove materialism false? I don't get it. This is really confusing me.

Also that video with dualism is really bad. There's a huge flaw in the logic.

Punch yourself in the face and consider the Cartesian method.

Could you say anything more substantive than that? Maybe give a few pointers of where you're going with this?

No they can't. The femencunt just shitposts.

I mean I get your point but is prooting consumer activism/awareness bad withing the framework of capitalism?

I'm the first one to say that GG went to some pretty awkward places but it has also some interesting peaks. Think about the $1M figure of loss that gawker announced, when was a web only boycott campaign THAT successful?

Ass and titties do, show 'em or up the bait.

Yes I get it we don't know anything to be true, solipsism and all that.

Political science is a social one and thus not an absolute one. Yes, Gödel proved that we cannot prove that mathematics apply to the natural world; does this mean that we abandon physic and chemistry just because it cannot be proven to be real?
Are you denying the overall tendency of ideology shaping itself to fit itself the power structure and materialist conditions of the time and place? What examples do you have to dispute this general tendency? If not this, what does shape ideology?

Show it bitch, I like it rough.

But that is what you're saying. Since we cannot know that language and/or ideology accurately describes the natural world, we cannot know that the natural world shapes language and/or ideology.
That's a fair point to make from an absolutely skeptical point of view.

But then we can't use physics and chemistry as math, just as language, cannot accurately be proven to describe the physical world.

The A-bomb will still kill you though, regardless of how technically we cannot know that it should.

Again, yes language comes with a lot of assumptions that we cannot know accurately reflects anything in the real world.
At some point though, we have to if we want to create any kind of model that can just come close to describe historical and ideological tendencies.

Much like physicists do when they use terms that cannot be proven to accurately describe the real world to describe the real world.

C'mon baby, put your finger up my safe space and trigger me until I shower you with male tears.

No it isn't.

"There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations."

"A 'micro-physics' of power operates; power is a strategy, and we need to decipher it in a system of relations that can be called political anatomy. Power is not a property but a strategy evident in the relations between people. Power relations operate and exist through people. They go right down into society. We need to realize that power and knowledge are related. We should think of the body politic as a series of routes and weapons by which power operates.

A history of the micro-physics of power is an element in the genealogy of the modern soul."

When we get into disciplinary power (smaller more "concrete" components of the body to be trained), the old model of power, the model of the sovereign, doesn't capture what goes on with disciplinary power. When we talk implicitly about with this classical model that power is exercised from the top-down…
When we talk about "micro-physics," that is the level at which the Newtonian model doesn't work.

Anyways, take with it what you will and keep your notions of justice; I have muh books.

Eh…
Mods just as you think I'm trolling.

I'd like to do some intersectionality with you.

I know. The whole thing dragged on for far longer than it should've, chiefly because of identitarianism.

You are.
The problem is you become boring after a while.

Disgusting amounts of self loathing for having served in the Military if I'm being honest.

A great disconnect between the picture I was sold of being in Afghanistan to help people and having kids braving a semi-active mind field every morning to sit by the wire in hopes we would throw me a water bottle.

Them a water bottle*

God, I know that feeling. When were you in?

...

I was there from 2013-2014. Spent most of my time at Bagram, but made my way around a lot of RC east doing cable monkey work.

I was never a real classcuck, since I always considered myself a socialist sympathizer. It was only when I got here, about one year ago I think, that I finally dropped my SocDem tendencies and truly understood the expression "All ills of the world stem from the profit motive." and went full socialist.

I think it's worth pointing out though that, unlike most of the board, I do think that SocDem, in the shape of the scandinavians, is a much better system than most of the world currently uses, and I will support every move that seeks to do it. Do I think that system is enough? Far from it. Do I think this incremental change is a net positive for society and its citizens? Abso-freaking-lutely.

I was in when 9/11 happened. Holy shit, it is crazy to think that Afghanistan has been occupied for that long.

Are you trying to say that what historical materialism is trying to describe is the sociological equivalent to what microphysics would be to physics.

Clearly we're talking much different scales here! Quite honestly, it mostly seems like you're hiding intellectual dishonesty behind the veil of being a beßerwisser, going as far as to say that something cannot be described on the aggregate level because it is more complex when looked at on the microscopic level. This is exactly the kind of logic that Austrian Marginalists when they want to dismiss the entire concept of macroeconomics wholesale.

Please, you seem like a nice person. You're better than this.

Have you seen her flag? She's not.

Nice.

I always had leftist sorts of views: contempt for hierarchy, disillusionment with the prevailing social order, etc.

It wasn't until I listened to the audiobook of Wage Labour and Capital while I was tearing siding off my dad's house that I realized I should learn more about this stuff. Then I thought about all of my previous jobs and how much porky was fucking me in the ass. Now I'm home, lads.

fuck off ni/gg/er

Well, yes, dialectically (the historical part) is what makes it so. However, materialism without this historical component (ie naïve realism, direct/common sense realism) is to culture what physics is to microphysics.
This is not what I'm saying. I'm trying to say that the human agent also influences this aggregate level which influences this human agen which influences this aggregate level and so on and so on…
pic related

I had a children's history encyclopedia.

It had a wonderful illustration of the storming of the Bastille.

It started there for me.

But Capital is the only mean of production in Capitalism!

That capital exists for its own sake, to reproduce the means of production, is not to say that as the level of technology improves, existing forms of social relations to become consistent and necessary. The anxious expectation that nothing will happen, that capitalism will go on indefinitely, the desperate demand to do something, to revolutionize capitalism, is a fake. The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an "I cannot do it otherwise," or it is worthless.

-to*

Was always kind of a Lefty (Anarchism, anti-statism) for as long as I can remember. Brought up in a Conservative family to have wet dreams about making assloads of money (thanks, uncle, for me overhearing your conversation about my passion in life never being able to make any with it. I just recently began to nurture it again after feeling like I had to shun it because it wouldn't make loads of precious fucking money, so fuck you) so I tried out The Cult of Stefan Molyneux and lurked and posted on his forums for a bit. Got disillusioned with Anarcho-Capitalism and began to go back to my Socialist-leaning views. Began to get sick of the idpol of my fellows Leftists who ignored class and class conflict, realized there has to be a way to save the Left from this bullshit but couldn't lie to myself and go back to the Right. Eventually decided to Google "leftypol" and here I am, my second home :3

What were you dreams and what made you disillusioned with AnCap?

I've always had a knack for writing. Short stories, essays, pretty much anything. My dream wasn't to necessarily be a writer, but anything that involved it. I feel much more comfortable writing than speaking, it's my way of kind of retreating from the world and my thoughts are a lot less cluttered.

Disillusionment came when I saw what they thought of anyone who wasn't some temporarily embarrassed millionaire, of the less fortunate, anyone but them really. I tried to pretend I didn't care about the working class, that all it takes is hard work, the usual tripe.

That's giving human beings a lot of agency.
We don't really have all that much necessarily. Even the way we "rebel" against the system, is already inherent in the ideological system itself. There's a reason liberalism didn't arise in roman antiquity and a reason we're anarchists now. We don't choose to rebel or change anything. We're just born with a will, that leads us down that path, that already exists within society.

This is precisely the point. I did not choose this language I write in, nor the metaphysical niceties its grammar, syntax, usage, and value, merely, that I use it to be; I am an English speaker so much as I relate to its subjects.

welp

Really? Holla Forumsyps are talking about us elsewhere?
Kek, nice free ads.

Yeah, it was along the lines of "you sound like one of those Holla Forums hippies."

It was a hell of a ride for a few months there.

All the keks
They really draw more people here than they'd think. They're even accusing people who say "go to leftypol" of being jewish shills because of this. Hilarious.

good camus posting, anfemposter

I don't consider it a very good quote though.
You can't will yourself into freedom; there is no such thing as ideological freedom. There is no act of rebellion outside the scope of the ideological scope inherent in society. I don't believe the quote makes sense outside of of course sounding really badass.

What society? A civilized utopia? You believe we (some use of the body narrative) are as yet free because we can merely speak? No, I (some use of the self-ideological, revolutionary theory) reject this notion that we have to always be knowing, that we should only be partial, in order that we dissent from this very void in our existence, our will to power, so to speak, before we know it.

What society?
A set of complex strategic positions of power-relations.
These differ from each other over time: What they have always had in common is that these relations of power survive the best when they are properly justified on an ideological level.

This means that through a mechanism of ideological natural selection, the beliefs that fit such a set of power-relations best win out; However, the concerete contradictions of such power-relations are also inherent in the set. Therefore, the revolution against the system is inherent in the system itself. We don't choose which kind of emancipation we want. We are born with a will, and that may guide us down a path that the ideological framework of the concrete society is already pregnant with. In this sense we may never ideologically free ourselves. We may never rebel. Not truly. That is simply beyond the radical horizon of our imaginations.

I lived very poor, like 'bread and ketchup is your meal' poor when I was a kid, and watched my single mother toil for pennies.
Then I started working too, and I was enthusiastic as fuck to help my colleagues at work because I felt solidarity with them, because I knew that they did shit that my mother did.
And they exploited me for it, made me do all the hard work and stay for 13 hours just because I was happy to help. I realized what horse shit this is, but even then I realized it wasn't the workers fault that they were pushing me most of their shit to do: They were tired, overworked, worked 12hrs every day and hardly had time for their family, they saw someone young and energetic that could lift their burden so that's why they did it.
I understood on a low level that I was not receiving the value of my labor and then I read the manifesto and started looking for a communist party. I understand almost nothing of the manifesto at the time but was fueled by idealistic thoughts and by the rhetoric of the book. I spent a good 6 months looking for a party because half the parties here are so dead that they are difficult to contact, but I found a party that was very active and very serious about it's ideology.
I contacted them and they told me how to get to the party, I talked a bit with the friendly people and left with three books, and basically from then on I was a communist. I kicked my idealist tendencies when I fully understood dialectic materialism.

So our society isn't fundamentally different from that of a bull. One provokes it too much and it stamps you out, your agency crushed, inherent will limited.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Revolutionary self theory already exists within our cognitive apparatuses.
There's no such thing, really. Philosophy is not a science in that it cannot examine what quantitative measurements are constrained on a system, but rather the qualitative ones save for when quantity is represented to quality.
This is not to say that there are no post-birth voids which one must will beyond.

Yes, there is. This is the mechanism that stamps out ideas that do not fit properly the concrete relations of power within society, thus insuring that the radical horizon of our fantasies never wander beyond what is relevant to concrete society and why we may never will anything that lies outside the archetypes inherent in society. The only way to "rebel" in this sense is to reject reality as percieved by other and thus go mad.

I suppose madness is one way of "rebeling". If I sincerily believe and am convinced that I am the Emperor of the Universe, then I might as well be. This kind of solipsism will only help those who have the power to invoke madness upon themselves at any given moment, though.

How so? Will is not something we do. There is noting to "will" beyond. We simply have a Will, and the only choice we have before us it whether we want to embrace it like Pagans, reject it like Christians or transcend it like Buddhists.

So then why is there so much dissent among people how one should frame this or that argument?
Madness borrowed its face from the mask of the beast. There are more ideas on earth than intellectuals imagine. And these ideas are more active, stronger, more resistant, more passionate than "politicians" think. We have to be there at the birth of ideas, the bursting outward of their force: not in books expressing them, but in events manifesting this force, in struggles carried on around ideas, for or against them. Ideas do not rule the world. But it is because the world has ideas (and because it constantly produces them) that it is not passively ruled by those who are its leaders or those who would like to teach it, once and for all, what it must think.
Precisely this, that will is what we are. We cannot escape it in spite of what beliefs we hold by and large by the propagation of occultist, geometric, romantic, or analytical way. The negative and empty character of this individualism had consequences which produces a reaction toward an equally arbitrary one-sided collectivism. The alternative is that individuals who prize their own liberties and who prize the liberties of other individuals, individuals who are democratic in thought and action, are the sole final warrant for the existence and endurance of democratic institutions.

Ah, yes, the framing of arguements may differ greatly and perhaps it is this that gives us the perception that we are ideologically autonomous. However the arguments "Slaves ought not toil in the service of the Masters" and the argument "Surely the wise masters ought rule those who are inferior for the good of all" are two arguments that only exist as a consequence of a material power-relation. A contradiction within society.
It is exactly this contradiction that creates both the narrative to enforce itself, albeit maybe in differing terms although this is of little consequence, and to reject, albeit also in differing terms.
Thus we never as a society venture outside of the questions that are inherent to the power-relations within it, and should we do so we would be considered mad as we reject reality as percieved by others.

I agree and this reminds me of a Francis Bacon quote: "Whosoever is delighted in solitude, is either a wild beast or a God."

I like sparring with people to test my ideas.
That is a good quote. You know your stuff, that's for sure.

Sounds like someone's got a case of the S'pposedas.

Goddamnit, Schopenhauer.