What a time to be alive comr'lads

The problem is you condemn EVERYTHING as right wing. Literally everything. I bet you couldn't name three living people that left/pol/ respects. This is typical of the far left. YOu even manage to be more obnoxious than revleft. And the other left. The feminist, BLM, deeply triggering and problematic 'liberal' left are even worse.

Not a victim complex. I am telling you exactly why the right is rising in popularity and again, you are unwilling to listen, telling me I'm full of shit. Fine. But by your standards, near 50% of Europe is full of shit and that number is only set to rise.

50%? Where did you get those numbers from?

You also probably respond to any nonwhites with similar views with "lmao wewuz wewuz wewuz mudhuts wewuz"

Austria. But what, France was 35%. Polan is 'fascist' according to this very board. The rest of eastern Europe and indeed the former soviet states in particular are heading right faster tan anyone could have imagined. This is largely down to the globalist neo-liberal agenda, part of which (mass migration) the left, yourselves included, defend. And your 'defense' of this flawed concept amounts to attacking and silencing anyone who calls bullshit on it.

You're just lashing out indiscriminately at anything vaguely referred to as "left". We have no fucking clue what tiu want from us.

No shit we're not traditionalists. If you have a problem with that you will have to fucking deal.

I defend neo-liberalism? If the problem is neo-liberalism, why the fuck do you go further to the right?

We don't defend mass migration, however we are against imperialism and wars which causes the migration in the first place.

Defending mass migration != suggesting that the problem with mass migration is not that all Arabs are hypersexual subhumans

I already know why,

it's because instead of addressing the problems inherent in capitalism, the right loves to obsess over peripheral caused by it.
It's not a secret.

What does this have to do with mocking white people? I'm a little confused.
Also, that's not true. We just realise that the mainstream is shifted incredibly to the right in comparison the movements there are out there.

I'm not lashing out. I am telling you something that some of you must have noticed. The right is growing. Part of this is the conditions of neo-liberalsim. Part of it is the 'left's' response to these genuine concerns. You bemoan the rise of the right then condemn anyone that raises concerns about immigration a bigot/fascist.

And this is fair enough. But whenever the issues around tradition come up, you steer the debate into territory familiar to only yourselves. This kind of controlling the debate again breeds resentment. You speak down to traditionalist (often not the most highly educated inn society) in your esoteric terms devised over 100 years of socialist and sociological theory.

Because the left offers no practical steps, often just dismissing the main concerns re globalisation as spooks/xenophobia. The right is offering an easy to understand response in nationalism. Then that you again deride anyone who heads down this path will just push them further down it.

anti-fa, socialist action are always deeply involved with pic related.

It's because the left is too concerned with ideological purity and appearing morally superior to offer any pragmatic solutions to people's concerns.

You must have noticed yourselves that the divide and polarisation is at levels not seen in a long time. Now ask yourselves, which sides demands have become more extreme?

Yes. Largely because of a victim complex where they lash out at an easy target with less power than themselves rather than actually trying to change the system that created the antagonism to begin with.

Regardless of how popular theya or may not be, they are being led astray by people who wish to dominate them and control them through fear and communitarianism.

So, yes. Lashing out.
You are asserting that as part of "The Left" we are automatically "SJWs". This means we will belittle you relentlessly. C'est la vie.

Globalism is inherent in capitalism. It is not ideal for capitalists, it is literally inevitable.

Creationism is also easier to understand than evolution. Just saying.
Though the alt-right is fond of using "race creationist" as a slur for anyone who thinks racialism as scientific is even a little questionable.

Antifa are European culture, not leftist dogma. Little more than stupid teenagers that want to pick fights in public. Similar to skinhead neo-Nazis that think swastika tattoos are kewl.

More importantly; which side is allowed to have more extreme demands.

This should go a long way to show you how little potential the far-right actually has for solving the problems they're frustrated with in any real way.

I've actually been careful not to say or assert this. This doesn't mean there isn't a fair whack of ideological crossover, and that more often than not you will come down on their side.

This charge could be just as easily laid at the feet of the internationalists.

So no matter what we believe, we will always be culpable for the actions and statements of people we don't even tolerate ourselves?
And we wonder why the old left is so sectarian. I probably would be too if I got called a heretic literally every time I opened my mouth.

Internationalism and globalism are not the same thing.

What do you mean? Securing borders (the main demand of 90% of the 'right' today) is extremist? This same right has, bizarrely, been more anti-war in both Syria and the Ukraine than the left.

It really is very simple. Elect nationalists who promise to secure the border. Now much larger, systemic issues MAY arise after doing this. But if so it would surely be to your benefit?

No. Union-busting governments and political repression has been a fact of life for the left for 5 decades now. Whereas the right is slightly frowned upon it only really gets into trouble if it commits terrorism.
This is because the right wing does not fundementally threaten the people in power, or power itself. Sure, it will limit capitalisms ability to expand somewhat, and thats not good for profits which is why capitalists prefer liberalism, either of the classical or social kind, but right-wing nationalism is a concept they can easily adapt to.
Democracy and worker-ownership of the workplace? Not so much.

If you speak of cooperatives or syndicalist unions you're regarded as a loon and the feds are going to infiltrate your organization immediately. And those two things are much less radical concepts that shutting down a whole border, potentially creating a clash of civilizations that may destroy Europa.

True, globalists would have been the better choice.

Maybe a left that actually listened to the concerns of the plebs instead of dismissing them would have stopped this divide growing as it has.

Open borders are a myth perpetuated to give the illusion of the migrant crisis as a literal invasion by marauding hordes.
In reality, there would be terrorist bombings with or without reasonably secure borders. With unreasonable security, the economy would implode because of sheer inaccessibility.
Only after it destabilizes the hell out of the regions it wanted to invade. It sees its victims as successfully vanquished foes.

That's not how these demagogues work–they get popular by blaming all societal issues on some scapegoat.
When shit goes wrong under their wing, the evil Other gets all of the blame. And by the time the constituency catches on, it's too late.

Okay, I am actually curious. What the fuck do you want us to even do?

Do you think every leftist clique ever attends some kind of Leftist Congress and we can just will away the social justice cult with a referendum?

Holy shit, no, globalism is the thing you have a problem with. Internatioanlism is a doctrine of international cooperation, not "world-citizenship" that globalism represents.

WE
ARE
NOT
IN
POWER

The 'right' is largely a creatio of the cultural narrative pushed by the left. The only unifying right wing issue today across most of Europe and the US is anti-immigrant sentiment. It's not like there are massive popular movements that are pro-war, pro-capitalism or pro-austerity. The one issue that gets people riled up is immigration. For many of these people this is seen as an economic concern. Something the left should be more sympathetic to.

What's the point of having borders if you're not going to enforce them?

...

pic related.

The right did this? Remember we're talking about the masses, not the elect. Please show me where the right (again, the masses. PNAC is not what I am looking for) called to invade Iraq? Cause as I remember it the protests against Iraq were the largest ever seen. And lets not forget it was a fabian 'socialist' who engineered the whole thing.

Anti-immigrant sentiment was rising before Trump and Farage became big news. They may be cynically exploiting a concern but the actual concern is legitimate.

The right plays with the same spook.

It's not ideological purity to be against shoehorning in things and calling them socialist when they aren't.

We have one.
It's called kill capitalism.

If only…

Stop speaking down to people about their concerns over immigration. Stop attacking as bigots anyone who raises these issues. Stop basing your entire politic of opposing 'fascists'.

Yes. I absolutely agree with this. I hold of course that the right wing has arisen from economical hardship and frustration with the neoliberal governments or Europe.

One thing that unites the right-wing is of course anti-immigration; another is loyalty and submission towards the concept of the nation-state; therefore, while their concern is perfectly legitimate, their solution is not one that will change any of the underlying problems of what they're frustrated with; hierarchical and exploitative society itself.

A clash of civilizations could mean the end of Europe. I am not interested in that as a European.

I fail to see how that was related. Merkel who is a right wing austerity fetishist outright violated her own agreements to let the most refugees in.

The status quo is capitalist, and capitalism is…leftist?
I am not talking ideologically, either. Maintaining the economy is seen as morally imperative because of fears of collapse without constant growth. That is how badly the system fucks us.

Maybe in the UK, but Trump's exacerbating concerns that aren't even real. Illegals contribute more to society than most of the rich.

Do you know what globalization is?

I will send you a hundred dollars in PayPal if you can find one post without a shitposting flag that is doing this.

Are you seriously implying that the Iraq war was made up by fucking socialists?
Liberals are not socialists.
Liberals are not left-wing.

Liberals are our oldest and most dangerous enemies, whether they are classical liberals or social liberals. To conflate one with the other is a grave mistake.

I meant globalists would have been the better choice of words.

More energy and ink is spent by the 'left' attacking right wing values and positions than attacking the third way political elite who've ran the show since the 90s. Bush, not entirely third way but left office hated by everyone, so hardly a right wing folk hero. This fixation with shutting down the right is what has led to the extreme polarisation.

This is because liberals are not really that different from populists.

I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well or if you are choosing to ignore the point.

neo-liberalism requires mass migration. Leftists attack anyone who opposes mass migration. You are doing the neo-liberals dirty work for them. Instead of them being held to account and asked to justify mass migration, the topic is shut down by cries of 'racism' from the self-proclaimed left.

What? There are as many leftist critiques of the status quo as there are of fascists.

Sure thing. How?

I disagree.

By this you mean Europe closes borders so the migrant crisis legally and technically becomes an invasion?

First all, again, you're conflating us with our oldest primary enemy; liberals.

we are not in power.

Yet, of course we must also oppose those who seek to take our personal liberties away and wish to subjugate us through a authoritarian state.
The whole point of opposing capitalism for many of us comes with the opposition to the hierarchy that is inherent in capitalism; why, then, would we accept statist hierarchy?

Why would we agree to solutions that would cause a clash of civilizations that would potentially ruin Europe cuturally and financially?

No, leftists attack anyone who uses "mass migration" as an excuse to screech about how the niggers are all going to rape us to death.

Name a european hard-right movement that is not nationalist.
You see a lot of AnCaps running around? I sure don't, and I live in Europe.

I mean that we shut down the border so a lot of very desperate people with nothing to lose and nowhere to go have no other option than to resort to violence. At that stage, integration would become impossible, and we're standing with a horde at the borders of Europe, one that cannot be split equally amongst the countries and integrated due to low numbers, but will attacked in a unified and relatively centralized manner.

If we want to protect Europe from invasion, shutting down the borders is the last thing we want to do.
Sure, we need a reasonable pan-european solution, but the right wing will lead us to ruin.

Revolution or Reformism.
Take your pick

Did you read it? That's a snapshot from Frontex, so is 100% legit. It clearly states that easing visa requirements saw an increase tenfold in migration. That's because before the relaxation, the borders of the 'west balkan route' were secured. ie. border guards and passport checks. Once visa requirements were dropped these guards were moved on. And illegal immigration skyrocketed. Now that Macedonia has said enough is enough, the west balkan route is slowed. But never fear, the EU is already looking at another four nations to relax visa requirements for, opening up whole new routes.

I'd suspect as much of Trump's support is due to his opponent as his wall. Clinton is of course the epitome of Blairesque 'third way-ism'.

Europe is being invaded by other Europeans?

Clinton is plain unlikable because she's unusually prolific as a formal crook.

NO. But you're not seriously going to deny that Blair was Fabian or that they are international socialists? Simply pointing out that the old terminology isn't that clear-cut. Is there such a thing as right wing socialism? If not, how does leftypol see Blair's 'third way' shit?

THey used to be no? At least comparatively, they were at the turn of the 19th century the ones, in the uk at least, arguing for equality.

Except they appeal to left-populism?

...

Socialists want to end capitalism. Nobody in the west that holds a position of power is a socialist. Your definition of the left is warped by propaganda.

I disagreed with this bit

A government should fear its people.

Funny, I'd argue that the apparent (at least in the public perception) left-wing SNP are more authoritarian than UKIP.

Here's on to consider. Africa will more than double in population over the next 35 years. The ME won't be far behind. These people will have as much right to come as those escaping war zones and poverty today. Europe is already the most densely populated continent on earth. Do you see a time when you'd say enough is enough? I know you people don't put much weight in cultural values or tradition. Maybe you will when the European ones are replaced with something a little more islamic.

How about the Fabians?

Oh, you were refering to Blair.
Well, in anarchism we have something called "form" and "content".
Essentially it can be understood as "name/label" and "merits".

Now, the "form" of Blair is as a socialist. However, if we analyze his content, it shows that he does not support cooperatives or syndicalist unions, something that is pretty central to socialism; thus it must be concluded that despite the fact that he uses the "socialist" label, he's not a socialist in praxis.

Liberal equality. The one where only obidient servants are truly free. Max Stirner writes a very good criticism about the difference between liberal equality, which essentially means interchancability, versus actually equality, which means equality of oppotunity and association.

The whole point of nationalism is that you conflate the people with the will of the state, forming into this conglomerate called the "nation" whose will does not actually exist in reality.

UKIP is first of all both an out-lier and they have extremely dodgy views on what rights a company has in relation to their workers, essentially wishing to increase authority of the boss in the work-place, which certainly, when considering how important having a job is an how much time we send there, is a form of authoritarianism, not towards the state in this chase, but towards the corporate unit.

An end to Western interventionism would go a long way to end a lot of these struggles. Until then the authoritarian hard-liner approach where we simply shut down and create a conflict between Europe and islam (exactly what ISIS wants by the way), is the only one we can be sure will create an absolute collapse of the West. Terrorism is cheap and easy. We cannot defend ourselves.

Do they support democracy and worker's ownership of the workplace?

If not, they're not socialists.
At best, they're social liberals.

Again, our oldest enemy, from even before the fash menace.

Nominally socialist. In reality they're a bunch of bourgeois intellectuals who would rather collaborate with the ruling class in the name social solidarity.

...

It seems that BLM and MoveOn learned that you can expect facists to play fair once they have enough power, so you'd better hit them first and hit them hard.

wew lad

I follow what you're saying here. Though could some of Blair's policy not have been considered kinda socialist? Minimum wage for example? I mean the Labour manifesto for the year he was elected states clearly that labour is 'a democratic socialist party'. Unless I've confused myself again.

This I don't follow. I take it spookman meant something different from the norm by 'equality of opportunity and association'? Cause to my mind any party with liberal in its name still endorses both of these.

Ever seen Swordfish?

I agree with you on us staying the fuck out. I've been an active hands of syria (GOOD LUCK BASED ASSAD) goon since 2011. But I don't think you can look at the situation without putting some blame at the feet of Islam. The 'lefts' apologism for Islam is another wedge between right and left.

I don't get the animosity between the left and liberals. It's something I hadn't even seen before left/pol/. I think a lot of 'liberal' values on the individual and personal freedom, especially freedom of speech are pretty important and worth fighting for.

Not just gradualists?

Not who you replied to, but BLM was anti-fascist in its inception?

I mean, I like a minimum wage, it's a good step to protect the worker but it is in of itself not socialism, even though I as a socialist like the policy.
Socialism is really about ending wages.
Rather than wages, we want ownership of the workplace and a share of the profits made from the sale of the product we would produce. The difference might seem arbitrary, but it has a lot to do both with control, power and of course how much your are rewarded for hard work.

If we are to explain it in terms that are not needlessly complicated you could say that liberals want the same hierarchy as many others, they just want people to have "equal" access to it, as long as they obey the rules of the system and perpetuate the system itself.

An example would be to allow women to be kings rather than abolish monarchy itself.

Another would be to get a black president rather than allow different communities, including black ones, self-determination. This happened with president Obama, who by the way did nothing to end the marginalized circumstances that black people experience in America.

Stirner, as a critic of liberalism, realized that the only equality there can ever be is the end of hierarchy and thus equality of oppotunity based on merits alone.

I forgot to address this.
Of course. As a socialist I am very much against organized and hierarchical religions (especially the ones with what Nietzsche called "slave morality") but I think that it was the West's destabilization of Iraq that played the biggest role in creating ISIS and radicalizing a lot of individuals who otherwise would perhaps just had been slightly conservative.

They're still vehement supporters and defenders of both the state and and the capitalist system.
It is bourgeois individualism, the one where it's all for them and none for us.

Sure, they're better than monarchists.
They're still our primary opposition.

Heading out so will just respond briefly for now.

As to &

I see your point about liberals but would tend to agree, at least as things stand, a state is necessary. For all it and capitalism's ills, let's say they were to disappear overnight. Do you really think the average African would wake up in a better situation tomorrow morning? I'd argue that for many in Africa and the ME, things would get a whole lot shittier real fast.

as to

Sure, ISIS is the most recent iteration of a dangerous ideology and was without doubt created in part by us (google Camp Bucca). They are however a modern verion of a deeper issue, one that cannot be blamed solely on the western imperials. Look into the Muslim Brotherhood, their founder, ideology and 'project'. This is the same group daddy Assad fought back in the day and are in actuality the driving force behind a lot of the ME shit we see today. They are the acceptable face of political islamism, much larger, richer and more powerful than ISIS, and are experts in operating within the framework of western liberal democracy. The culture clash you fear may be inevitable.

A lot of what keeps the 3rd world poor is the fact that the bourgeoisie want their natural resources for dirt-cheap, so they either invade the place or support corrupt dictators who will grant them access and rights to these resources for dirt cheap. The EU also gives substidies to europeans goods sold in Africa, so european wares are cheaper than local African, meaning that local African industry and agriculture cannot compete.

Without capitalism, these antagonisms disappear, and there's a lot to indicate that indeed, things for them would get a lot better. They are poor because a few porkies need to be rich.

Let us hope it is not. Wahabism as a serious movement started in the 19th century, a period that was also marked by Western interventionism.
Let us hope that it's not too late to un-fuck the middle-east.

Culture changes with the material circumstances, Look at Afghanistan before the Taliban

dangerousminds.net/comments/it_didnt_always_suck_to_be_a_woman_in_afghanistan

Putting black bags over women and fucking goats isn´t inherent in their DNA, It took a extremist religious terror group funded by the worlds only superpower to change the 70's Afghanistan to the Afghanistan of today. This also means that with the right material circumstances we can go back to that.

Germany has taken in an estimated 2-3 million legal and illegal refugees since last year, the overwhelming majority of them are not Muslims and many come from the Horn of Africa and Arab countries not threatened by war or violence.

The third world is exploding population wise, the immigration crisis will only get worse until EU borders are clamped down which IS the solution (and is already taking place in many EU states), if you say we will just have forced open borders and let these people in to make them feel welcome/assimilate you are just making the problem worse and encouraging more to make the journey.

The more volume of people from the third world you import the more Racism and inter-religious conflict and pro-nationalist sentiment from the native population you will produce.

I used to live in Leicester I saw it first hand, fresh off the boat Poles, Pakistanis, Indians and even christian blacks (mostly Nigerians and Zimbabweans) were some of the most racist/homophobic people I ever knew. Hence why when I see Unite against fascism and anti-fa marches with "refugees welcome signs" I just cringe, they have literally no idea

...

lol
LOL
LOL

Yeah, but its been exploding for a while, in some ways its making up for the rise proportion of global population taken up by Europeans at the turn of the century. There are some dissident demographers who think that many Third World countries are aging and birth-rates are falling a lot faster then most people believe.

That combination of young population+high birth rate is part of what has made super-exploitation in the developing world possible. The difference between the Third World and the West is that they don't have the safety net to care for an aging population and costs keep going up as they adopt Western-style consumerist lifestyles.

I wonder if it has a tie-in with the homophobia and racism, not saying that its not cultural, but older people are less likely to change their beliefs than older ones, and they were brought up in a conservative generation that saw post-colonialism fail miserably. We might not notice that fact since the refugees are on average younger than the average Westerner.

...

tbh fam closing borders as a solution will only verify "niggers lol" as legitimate dogma

the US has pretty tight borders despite myths to the contrary and immigrants are still a common scapegoat

This is how I feel everyday.Fuck.

I require condiments to assess the truth of the above statement.

In a weird way I think he's saying they're mostly not Islamists because all Muslims are actually terrorists

I think it's very unlikely that there will be another war. A war between whom? Between the neo-fascists coming into power in Europe, and probably soon in America, and the limp-dicked Social Democrats and liberals who let them get into office? Between them and the handful of irrelevant leftist groups? Maybe there will be wars in the sense of imperialistic domination of whatever sham of autonomy the third world has gotten since the end of the golden age of imperialism, or maybe nationalistic struggles between the various fascist countries and their rival fascist countries or their rival capitalist ones, but none of these are really wars that anything good can come out of. Unless you're an accelerationist retard.

The end of capitalism is coming. This is just the beginning of what's going to replace it.

NIHILIST DEATH SQUADS

WORLDWIDE GULAGS NOW