Cultural Marxism vs Actual Marxism

I would just like to give me 2 cents. The left generally believes that a utopia can be obtained through fixing the economy (giving the means of production to the working class) but the right, or at the very least fascists and natsocs, believe that the way towards a utopia is through fixing the society. And to your original question, I suppose the majority of people call it "Marxist" due to most people participating in it are Marxists themselves and strive for their version of an economic utopia at ANY means necessary, but what would I know? Me just dumb stormweenie ;)

So the Marxists are dividing the working class by race, gender, orientation, etc. so that they would unite in the long run?
How does this work?

The Spanish revolutionaries were Anarchists, though.
And there's no reason for a Marxist to support mass immigration. The first people affected by that are the workers. It drives down wages and increases ethnic tensions, which distracts from class struggle.

When the marxist revolution didnt happen in Germany the intellectuals were baffled. Instead they turned to facism. The conclusion they came to is that social issues such as race, religion, and culture was the reason and so they needed to apply marxist theory to social issues in order to bring about the revolution.

Many (But not all. Perhaps not even most.) SJWs believe that structural oppression is preventing the rise of a true class revolution. Anita Sarkeesian has spoken about the prospect of such revolution. I'm getting this from the link below. Apparently there's a video of it.

reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3t7j7y/an_interview_with_anita_sarkeesian_from_2007_is/

The lie of egalitarianism is what has deceived her and all other liberals (including the non-regressive variety). She thinks that it must be racism which is preventing more black men from going into astrophysics. Unfortunately, the truth is not so pleasant.

The Marxists want the working class to be angry, for all of them to be seen as victims against a scary boogeyman

No what he was saying is marxist need to destroy culture and people so marxism doesnt seem like a hellish nightmare or crazy as fuck

Oops. Where are my manners? Checked.

The idea of cultural Marxism is that it is barely related to actual Marxism. It takes the idea of systems of oppression based on wealth and decides that instead it's based on race and gender.

Marx was at least throughout with his ideas. You had petite bourgeois and lumpen proletariat and it was strictly about a wealth based caste system. It was about how even if you made yourself reasonably respectable from nothing you'd never get "real" respect by playing someone else's game. It was retarded fundamentally and makes bad assumptions, but the concept is thought through.

Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School decide that race, instead of just being a vector for economic inequality, is a source itself and is essentially something that supersedes wealth and other privilege despite that never being the case. Certain groups are born with an original sin and can be gouged indefinitely.

The two are inherently incompatible because the second exists solely to contradict the first. Cultural Marxism exists because the theories of Marxist revolution were disprove VERY early on and they needed to make a different system to excuse this.

pics related

They turned to Fascism as a result of nationalism and a lack of class consciousness.

But that doesn't work if the scary boogyman isn't the bourgeoisie. Otherwise it just fractures the working class.

That sounds idealist.

The traditional working class in America is basically fascist. If you want to have a leftist(I won't actually say marxist, Marx's economic theories have been proven wrong but the leftist movements of today are simply similar to marxism in several aspects) revolution you NEED the mud people to do it. You need to first destroy the historic American nation, people, and all their symbols so that they will not fight for them and instead rally behind the utopian ideals that the elite push.

This is extremely anti-materialist. Which Frankfurt School member said this?

What I'm trying to say is that the "cultural Marxists" want to working class to be more open to the ideas of regular Marxism, it can be seen as a middle man to the new Marxist utopia. We have a problem with this because of how destructive it is, the sheer fact that the left is willing to destroy everything and anything to achieve their utopia is insane tbh

Coomunism being a united ideology is a fucking joke by itself, the only thing that united people of all classes in communist regime was force.

They divide everyone to make the place collapse through revolution or if you prefer civil war. Then, those who are behind that plan take over the state in the chaos. Finally, they use that power through the state to force everyone to be slaves to the oligarchs.

They don't give a shit about people being united, the "workers unite" bullshit commies and socialists peddle is just them being useful idiots, eating the lies communist agents fed to those who were socialists in the 60s, back when the USSR was at its top, whom repeated the same things to later generations. Those behind the ideology have no problem getting rid of those hippie, kumbaya, everyone is equal idiots once they are in power. People will do what they say or they will go by the gun or die through famine. Communism is about squashing its people so they do what the top wants them to do no matter what.

Class conscience is a myth. Talmudic subversion 101. The working class did have racial conscience though.

Marxism didn't work in richer western countries like it did in Russia and all that.

So they had to think of a way to make people want Marxism by changing the culture in the target countries.
Hence cultural Marxism.

Look up, "the long march through the institutions" and the 45 goals of communism.

Cultural marxism is a KGB psyop.

"Cultural Marxism" is neomarxism. Long story short, Marx was wrong about pretty much everything. Leftists tried to adjust his theories to make sense while maintaining the framework. You can argue that this permutation takes it outside the realm of Marxism proper.

It is also argued that not is merely a tactic and rhetoric, not opposed to Marxism itself. Sort of like how the Communist manifesto sort of went against what Marx wrote elsewhere. And that is because the Communist manifesto was rhetorical and strategic, not theoretical.

So, it sort of depends. There is Marxism as theory, Marxism as process, and Marxism as goal. Is Maoism Marxist? Is third worldism Marxist? Is Leninism Marxist? All of these are strategy towards the same end of Marxism.

It didn't work in Russia either, fam.

You're missing the part that mentions the base-superstructure relationship. Without this, you just have a bunch of SJW attacking social institutions they don't like.

Blaming white men for everything wrong with the world doesn't make anyone more receptive to understanding dialectics or the Law of Value. I still don't see how this pushes an actual Marxist agenda.

Being aware of class relations is as much of a myth as class itself. It doesn't exist "objectively" because it's a sociological phenomenon.
What?

You know what I meant. It didn't become the government.

But again, I don't see how dividing people based on sexual or racial identities is useful in uniting the working class

You can't do that, that's the point. This is what liberalism tries to do.

But they’ve done so, and that’s why it fails.

Just like how libertarianism is only an economic policy, but when they pretend they’re a political ideology they have to pretend that there are social and governmental tenets, as well. But there aren’t, so they take what they want for economics, copy the phrases, paste them, and just change the nouns.

That’s why libertarianism has ZERO problem with the free and legal ownership and use of all drugs, the creation, distribution, and use of child pornography, and the lack of any and all government services, up to and including no military and no borders. It’s fucking nonsense and it doesn’t work.

Just like marxism and just like cultural marxism.

It's not just the white man, it could be anything they view as "oppressive". And most of these people obviously lean to the left,they're obviously going to be around people that read Marx and that knowledge will just spread among them. so after the destruction of the family unit and the patriarchy, they can usher a "Marxist utopia"

It's used to destroy all the opponents of the end-goal of Marxism: smart people, whites, people able to cooperate and coordinate, etc..

The goal isn't communism: it's the goal of communism. The reason communism is ever pushed and implemented: control by oligarchy of a vast slave class. Both Marxism and cultural Marxism accomplish these goals by creating the slave class and destroying the opposition.

It's really quite simple.

Marxism is a theory of history which postulates that all of history is a progression of the 'haves' vs. the 'have nots'. It reduces human conflict down to slave owner vs slave, baron vs peasants, factory owner vs laborer.

Communism is the political ideology which claims it can end this cycle of inequality by implementing a system that mandates equality. It seeks to eliminate classes and make all men equal. Too each according to his needs, to each according to his ability. Basically it means a doctor will do doctor things for the same resources that a janitor will and they will both be content to serve the community. This ignores human nature. It also ignores that men are not created equal. Not in the natural sense. Some are smarter, more handsome, stronger or just plain better workers. That's where the totalitarian state comes in. Communism can only function where a massive state forces downward pressure to enforce uniformity. That's why when a communist government runs out of money it collapses. A capitalist society picks up the pieces and keeps rolling (see stock market crashes in the late 20s).

Cultural Marxism takes the same general idea, but applies it to race and sex. History is a cycle of the 'oppressor' and the 'oppressed'. Feminists believe they are oppressed by the patriarchy. Niggers will say they are oppressed by white privilege. These two groups (and more) will combine with the idea of intersectionality. That is an unholy alliance which all claim to be oppressed by western civilization (aka white males). They seek the same goal as communism and that is to enforce equality. Since white males are superior to everyone else, this means a downward pressure to enforce uniformity. Whites are held to higher standards and have their wealth transferred away from them to lesser beings. This is justified because whites were only successful by oppressing everyone, not because they are naturally smarter. In the end, Cultural Marxism can only exist in an environment of post-scarsity. There's so much wealth that no one need worry about survival. The truth of the matter is that if you work, you eat. There's no shortage of food. This isn't the 1700s where a bad harvest means a quarter of the population starves and dies (yes, in Europe too until recently). If the West goes through a finical collapse, Cultural Marxism will die. Because when you need someone to work the fields, or take up arms to steal another's harvest so as to not starve to death, no one will have time to care about feelings.

Both system are doomed to failure. Both systems are based on a faulty premise. The incorrect premise that people are equal.

They are influenced by the communist lie. By the way, it did work in National-Socialist Germany. There were classes but they worked in tandem with the set goal of improving and benefiting the volk and the Reich.

You have to punch holes where there are none, disregarding the rest of the argument people give you, are you a Jew?

...

...

...

That is not their goal, that is the lie they peddle to the masses so they get more supporters. Are you doing this on purpose? Those at the very top who are pushing liberalism, cultural marxism do not give a rat's ass about the workers they feed that lie to everybody to take over. Jesus fucking Christ you're dense.

But Anita is using revolution in a completely different context. Her entire worldview revolves around identity politics. To her, revolution would be women and ethnic minorities violently taking power away from those evil white men. There's no concept of class.

But that's idealist and un-dialectical. You can't destroy the family unit without removing the material conditions that gave rise to it in the first place.

Giving up nationalism and destroying culture aren't the same thing, though. Regardless of whether or not they interpreted Marx correctly, the USSR didn't go around destroying Russian culture and identity.

Most Marxists are intellectuals. Especially nowadays.
Communism was invented and pushed by white people
Ad hominem

Then in what way are they Marxist?

Do you think that's what the cultural Marxists think? Do you think they care? Do you think they're rational? No, they just want to destroy beautiful things like the family unit and the patriarchy because oppression

You're assuming the goal of Marxist leaders is actually Marxism as described. It's not. They don't believe that shit because it's naïve fantasy, but they sell it to others because it facilitates their goals.

etc..

They don't seek to "divide the working class" (pro-tip: it was never united), they seek to exploit existing points of division and pit people against each other for profit, destruction of their enemies, and creation of slaves. Deracination and dysgenics via multiracialism and miscegenation; extended government power via socialism and unstable societies (terrorism, war, crime, economic hardship, fears of all those things); weakening of enemies via tax, dysgenics, active attacks, propaganda, etc.; brainwashing.

Ah, but it does help in creating the slave class and weakening their enemies. Marxism is yet another tool of these people; they aren't Marxist per-se, they merely espouse Marxism because it gives them what they want. The same way that you might claim to hate penguins because someone offered a few million dollars to you if you said it. Do you really hate penguins? Probably not. Does that matter? No. You're still claiming hatred of penguins and pushing for penguin elimination.

The difference here is that nature is the one offering the prize. It's more akin to convincing an enemy army that swords are a more effective weapon than guns. It would be even more akin if you were also a sword-merchant.

And? Do you think smart people want their opponents to be smart?

Jews, actually. Jews aren't white. Not that that's at all relevant.

Do you even know what that means? Do you honestly think people want their enemies to be cooperative and coordinated?

Did you even read my post?

It's all marxism.

They are communists. The marxist part is the end goal is about the means of production going all the way to the state. That's the only part about Marxism. The lie idiots are fed is based on Marxist ideology, those who believe the lie usually will side with the utopia Marx wrote about. The true end goal is not, it's pure Soviet Communism but they can't say that directly, do they? Otherwise their useful idiots might wake up. Stop sticking to semantics to the point you lose the sight of what is behind the lie, fucking autist.

Oh I'm laffin mate, Karl Marx was jewish you know?

The Soviets tried before things started degenerating and they realized that it was a dumb idea and stopped. Instead they used as little of functioning things (nationalism, culture, religion, etc.) that they could get away with to keep the Soviet Union from disintegrating.

They preach and facilitate Marxism. If it were not for them Marxism would not exist, let alone propagate or stick around.

weak b8 m80

"Cultural Marxism" is mostly the product of Antonio Gramsci and not the Frankfurt School. What the Frankfurt School accomplished was co-opting the academic institutions through the typical Jewish method of creating a cult-like 'intellectual' movement that is primarily about esoteric social signalling for ingroup membership. As such there was no real way to enforce a strong ideological conformity, and the now cult-like institution was susceptible to a horizontal infection from a similar carrier steeped in esoteric Marxist pap. Gramscian theory is simply more virulent for being more correct, and so was able to subvert the Left because it is a theory wrapped up in the best methods of subversion.

The tl;dr of Gramsci's theories are that "capitalist societies" (which should be read as all societies, ever) use cultural institutions to maintain power, and so the cultural institutions must be attacked to destroy the power of these "capitalist societies". Basically the idea of the Czar in the minds of the people was more powerful than the Czar's political apparatus could ever be, so you need to create a Mind Control State that ruthlessly and endlessly attacks the sacred beliefs of the people for all eternity so there can be no "cultural hegemony".

What happened in reality is that Jewish tycoons are actually smarter than Marxists and assorted Leftist scum and they deconstructed Leftist institutions over time using Gramscian methods, destroyed the power of the Left and now are the Left. Smarter Leftists realize this, but they also realize that if they didn't have the Judengeld backing them up then they'd never be able to implement the Judenlaw that they so desperately desire. This results in the perverse reality we have wherein in the minds of modern Marxist and fellow travelers Cletus the multi-generationally poor, coal mining racist is the bourgeoisie responsible for the cultural hegemony of capitalist society and Moshe the billionaire banker whose ancestors haven't had a real job since a Roman soldier forced one them to haul a waterskin a mile is the underdog proletariat trying to overthrow "the system".

And the largest human migration along with the elaborate deconstrution of traditional American values is not simply giving up nationalism

You might check out this f/Jonathan Bowden

It sounds like she's takling about class to me. "haves and have-nots."

It's possible that it's an political evolution of necessity, kind of like how some Ron Paul supporters are 200% behind Trump. Basically, they dislike capitalism insofar as it makes them seem cool on Twitter, but not so much to the point that they would chunk their third world manufactured smartphones.

As Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, and that in time religion would fall away from the people, so the same idea applies.

The Cultural Marxist conception is that people have a lot of opiates that need to go. "Gender" is a religion, race is a religion, family is a religion, et cetera. So you just need to attack everything and anything that people might believe in that would provide them comfort in their daily life or offer some kind of context for their very existence. You disallow it morally from taking place and you strip it away and you keep stripping it away until they come to the "correct" conclusion and then presumably those conclusions won't be attacked and dispriviliged in the mind of the opinion holder.

That will never happen though because it's all bullshit.

Die communist faggot

Having a classless society doesn't "mandate" equality. It makes it impossible to be unequal in terms of material wealth. Other forms of inequality are going to exist, of course. You can't force everyone to be equally good at pottery or IQ tests.

You know Communism doesn't mean everyone gets paid exactly the same, right?

Define

Correct

There is no state under communism.

Where does this meme come from

And that's incredibly stupid, but how does that make them Marxist?

No, the end goal is Communism. Marx wrote about the worker-controlled state owning the means of production as being a transition between capitalism and communism. Whether or not you think its feasible doesn't change the fact no socialist government has ever claimed to achieve a Communist society

Marx, Engels and Lenin were Atheists. Synagogues were dismantled under Lenin's leadership. Hegel and Engels were neither Jewish, nor did they have any Jewish ancestry.

Lenin's had some Jewish ancestry, but "It is likely that he was unaware of his mother's Jewish ancestry, which was only discovered by his sister Anna after his death."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

Class isn't in her vocabulary at all. Her definition of haves and have-nots probably amounts to privilege and unprivileged.

Because they want to make a Marxist society, whether or not they're "doing it right" doesn't matter, they have a goal they're trying to obtain and the only way to do so in their eyes is the destruction of all forms of "oppression" which is basically everything in their eyes

Marx didn't have an idealist view of religion, like you're suggesting. You can't just tell people not to believe in it and force it to go away. Like class, you can't remove religion without first addressing the material conditions that create and support it. He thought people turn to religion as a form of escapism to distract themselves from their material well-being. Trying to force people to be Atheists literally does nothing but make people unhappier.

Again, how is this Marxist?

...

You seem to be trapped in some sort of delusion that communism is: 1) Achievable. 2) Desirable. 3) That the pushers for it actually want (theoretical) communism.

Again, they are the creators, leaders, sustainers, and pushers of Marxism. You're just arguing semantics about "real Marxists" when it is simple and sensible enough to call the fonts of Marxism Marxist.

Not for them, and not ever in the real world. No one of sufficient intelligence on either the left or right actually believes communism is possible. The leaders of the left push it because it makes them supreme masters of the world. The right opposes it because they value things other than being masters of slaves and do not wish to be slaves or see their kin be slaves.

Judaism isn't just a religion, you weasel. They were all Jewish.

What does that have to do with anything? A pitbull doesn't need to know it's a pitbull to be violent.

She's just an example. I know from other SJWs that they think of themselves as socialists, and there's a definite fondness of Marxism there. Anything that might potentially destroy Western civilization has a strong chance of striking a chord with them.

That's what I said many times in the thread. Fuck off OP you argue like a fucking kike. I'm done trying to spoonfeed you.

No they don't. They want to keep the arrangement productive forces exactly how they are now, but with the people at the top having a wide array of ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, and gender identities.
All they want is for their in-group to have more power and representation in the structure that already exists. All that changes is what contrived oppressed group the elite "identify" with

This is idealism, not Marxism.

That's just ridicioulous, do you honestly believe that the cultural Marxists would stop at getting rid of old world """oppression""" and not continue going forward with actual Marxism, granted, their ORGINAL ""revolution"" was not based of actual Marxist principle, but now that they rid the world of the old world ""oppression"", they can form their Marxist utopia much more easily. This has been a fun thread but I feel like we're just going in circles and repeating ourselves, goodnight :—–D

Woah, woah, that is not what they want. They want the slaves to be "diverse" because "diverse" people are dumb, uncooperative, unable to unite in groups, unhealthy, weak (mentally and physically), and distracted from actually important issues.

They themselves wish to remain as they are, and get rid of their enemies.

It's not an issue I really care much about, but if I had to give you an answer, I'd say Cultural Marxism isn't meant to be reconciled with Classical Marxism.

I'd say it's a new left school of thought centered around the adaptation of historical materialism and dialectics to cultural analysis.

You're right, though, Marx probably would've hated it, primarily, I assume, because it's revoltingly idealistic.

However, I'd argue that, in spite of Marx's probable opposition to it, that while it definitely isn't a perfect fit, Cultural Marxism isn't a bad term because it's essentially a more radical, albeit more idealistic, version of Marxism.

No shit Sherlock, they were ethnically jewish.

It's because the working class will never be united. It is a fantasy. I covered that when I wrote "Marx was wrong about pretty much everything." Leftists acknowledged the fact that people never unite by class, but instead unite by nation, religion, ethnicity, etc. So their new strategy is to simply use the groups associated with the lower class (niggers, spics, etc.) to attack groups associated with bourgeois (white, male, etc.) while also attacking the culture of those associated with bourgeois. It is proxy class war.

I love when you faggots from Holla Forums come here and get destroyed.

Cultural Marxism is more of a derogatory term, not actual Marxism.

Attacking white people and other "privileged" groups isn't Marxist.

It's not simple and sensible when they're so blatantly idealists fixated on identity politics.

They weren't culturally Jewish either.

So Jews are bad, not because they do bad things, but because they're Jews?

Because that's the thing: They will NEVER run out of things to label as "oppression." I think the fact these people take "stare rape" and "manspreading" seriously is evidence enough.

Even if they are anti-capitalist, building socialism will always take the backseat and the fight against racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever will always come first.

Honestly I think you're giving them way to much foresight and credit.

But people do unite by class. The people in charge of the media, hollywood, education, etc. whether or not they're aware of it, push agendas that are aligned with their class interest. Of course workers are going to do it as well, it's happened every time there had been an attempt at socialism or anarchism.

My point wasn't "Cultural Marxism doesn't exist."
It was "Cultural Marxism contradicts actual Marxism"

Their central tenet is equality or at least material equality, which basically amounts to the same thing because biological, racial, cultural and intellectual inequality ultimately leads to material inequality.

(Material) equality between individuals, societies and nations. That is the goal of both.

You can argue that this is not the theory, but Holla Forums is only interested in the reality of it, and the reality of it are Antifas (a prime example of a good Cultural Marxist) welcoming Muhammed into the West, so he can Allahu Snackbar Whitey

As for the differences between identity and class politics, it doesn't matter.

The theory of classical marxism is the elimination of property, which in turn eliminates the need for the state, which in turn leads to a classless society that distributes assets (means of production if you want to bitch about it) via townhall meetings.

Sounds nice doesn't it?

Cultural Marxism takes this theory, but uses identity politics as its subject matter. Despite the differences, however, the end goal is the same: Global (Material) Inequality, which Marxists of all stripes consider to be the natural or authentic state of humanity.

Horseshit.

The reason why Marxist class theory has metastasized into Cultural Marxist identity politics is because the former refused to recognize the latter, and because of this blindspot, it was a flawed theory. The flaw had to be corrected, which is why you have pic related

The correction, however, turned Marxism from a "revolutionary" theory into a tool for parasitism and rent seeking.

gas chamber.

Jesus you're dense.

Just because you don't see how dividing people based on sexual or racial identities doesn't mean they don't exist. You're just pretending that those divisions don't exist so you can jerk off to your fantasy of muh united working class.

Ethnic interests faggot. They pursue their interests, which are often at odds with the goyim. That's what you leftypol fucks fail to understand. People are tribal, so it doesn't matter how nice they are. Tribal interests trump everything, including your class interests.

Fucking hell m8
Where did I say sex and race don't exist? Of course they do, I'm saying it's anti-Marxist to use sex and race as distraction issues to prevent the working class from pursuing its interests.

Then why are there working class whites who support refugee immigration? If you can be taught to go against your class interest, the same can be said about tribal interest.

You just looped.

Because of Cultural Marxism.

It's done by the same people for the same reasons they push Marxism.

I will state this as plainly as I can: Marxism is one of many tools used to bring about a desired end, not an end in and of itself.

It is simple and sensible if you aren't a genuine Marxist, which, if you have a brain, you shouldn't be. Thus, most people discussing the topic will have no trouble with it.

Did you even read the next sentence that qualified this? I explained precisely why, and communism isn't possible (ever). That, however, is besides the point, because the fact of the matter is that the right doesn't believe Marxism can happen, and the leadership of the left doesn't either. There is no major figure with power on the left who believes Marxism can actually happen; they merely say it can because saying so enhances their own position in life.

How difficult is this to comprehend?

Keep weaseling. They were ethnically Jewish, which is the important bit.

It arises from their biology, if that's what you're saying. Jews are prone to doing bad things; that's just a fact. It's not because the Talmud made them do it; it's not because their parents made them. It's because their biology makes them inclined to do it.

It was a simplification. The extended answer is that what they do: 1) enhances their position in the here and now. 2) damages people and groups they hate. 3) in some cases makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Only within race.

I'm not a working class white. I'm a very racist Flip in the Philippines, and our President Punisher is currently planning a lolcaust on our home grown Maoist vermin.

That does not invalidate the statement you were responding to. It just means that class interests are easier to subvert than racial/tribal/ethnic interests

...

A) Their masters force them.
B) Their masters reward them.
C) They're sociopaths.
D) They are more likely to give into the human tendency to conform.
E) Their brainwashing rationalizes it to make them feel good about themselves.
F) They hate themselves.
G) They hate others more than they like themselves.
H) They're suicidal.
I) Some combination of the above.

No, because "class interest" doesn't exist, while ethnic/racial/tribal interests do. You can't be taught to go against what nature has hardcoded into all life since it first appeared. Things they go against their biological interest go extinct: end of story. Literally millions of years have stopped this from being a possibility.

Show me that working class whites ahve ever supported outgroup members over ingroup members by a significant majority

I feel like this is where our interests split.

You throw and mix people of different backgrounds, race, and ethnicity, they will separate over time and it will create racial tensions. This is provided in history – history defines us and working class verse ruling class doesn't define characteristics of a nation.

Marx and Lenin would have most probably drawn their supporters from Trump voters rather than Sanders or Clinton.
Why?
We are strong and Lenin was a tough motherfucker.

Marxism runs directly counter to cultural marxism and political correctness.
The reason it's called cultural marxism is because ameritards can't into history or philosophy so they just thought
As Lenin said, "today no one has read Hegel or Marx yet everyone calls themselves a socialist!".

Also if you replace "bourgeois" with "jew", Marx was pretty much spot-on with his analysis.

That doesn't answer my question. If tribal interest is inherent, how can the people who control the media convince people to act against their own interests?

How is this different from the bourgeoisie using the media to convince workers to act against their class interests?

You know what I meant. Pushing racial or gender issues to distract from economic issues. Dividing the working class into race/gender groups instead of one united front pursuing their interests.

So they're taught through reinforcement.

So they're taught.

Because they've been taught to.

They've been taught to have others.

They don't most of the time. However, "in-group out-group" varies from case to case.
In the example always a vocal minority that supports refugee immigration.

...

*In the example I gave, it's always a vocal minority that supports refugee immigration

I don't think you understand.

With wealthier bourgeois, they might at least have the interests of their people in mind. If class divides them, they have that in common.

You have Jews, an internationalist lot who go aboard around the world, and they're not sharing the same interests of nationalism and race as those from their homeland. They're foreign and likely don't dabble in their interests of an ethnic people tied to a nation. As far as we know, Jews are far worse and bring about the destruction of these people, tied to their land – the greatest wealth – and opposed to everything of our interests.

Americans have this same sentiment. If you believe in anything to do with the Jewish Question, then you should be aware of these wars for Israel and how that escalates to conflict outside the interests of the American people.

Then help create a society that lacks the conditions needed for the Jews to exploit gentiles in the first place.

More like coerced.

WHAT???
Quoting Marx, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Under communism, everyone gets paid the same - to receive or demand more payment would create a richer, bourgeois class and that is not communism.

What is National Socialist economy?

Not really.
We've had an aristocracy for hundrwds of years - white christian men - who did not give two fucks about "these damn peasants".
Yes, the jew is an internationalist but if you eliminate all the greedy, materialistic and rich jews, and once you eliminate money - the jew is powerless.
Lenin advocated for mass inflation to weaken the bourgoisie; basically a direct, fatal attack on kikes.

And what are the interests of their people? To live free from exploitation, alienation, consumerism, and bourgeois degeneracy. To enjoy all the fruits of their labor. The very system that ensures the survival of the bourgeoisie as a class deprive everyone of these things.

Brainwashing doesn't work if the vicim knows they're being brainwashed.

That's not how that works. There is no monetary payment in Full Communism in the first place. And having more wealth than another person doesn't make them bourgeois, this is liberal propaganda. Class in Marxist terms is determined by relation to means of production, not having lots of things.

National Socialism doesn't solve anything. Yes, in an ethnostate you won't have Jews ruling over you, but nothing stops the people at the top from acting like Jews and pursuing their economic interests at the expense of everyone else.

Ask the guys in the Frankfurt School who started blending Freudian analysis with Marxian analysis.

It doesn't have to make sense, because it's just a tool with which to destroy Western civilization.

Brainwashing doesn't work if the vicim knows they're being brainwashed.

Except apolitical normies kinda are.

Holla Forums's concept of the redpill is to show people how they are being brainwashed by the media, the academia, the gov.

To live in homogeneous state, free from Tyrone and Abdullah raping their children.

Classical Marxism wants working class whites to unite with working class arabs and blacks, who are explicitly tribal, to fight the le piggy. However, the outcome is just enforced multiculturalism.

Prove it. You're just shoehorning that to make your ideas work, faggot.

The difference is that they haven't really subverted tribal interests, merely utilized normal interests and a lack of foresight.

The people they subvert merely are shortsighted or borderline sociopathic. Being charitable, they merely don't realize what the end consequences of what they support. Being uncharitable (the sociopaths), they fully know and don't care because (they believe) it doesn't affect them personally. In effect, they are a biological oddity that nature quickly snuffs out.

No, some people naturally hate themselves or come to hate themselves entirely independently of being taught to.

Now you're just reaching for things.

Explained above. In none of the examples have they been going against what nature has hardcoded in them. Either they are myopic or fucked in the head: neither indicates that Marxists have gained the power to subvert nature. They merely work with the flaws nature has left.

Or we could just get rid of Jews and their tools.

Oh, were you expecting the answer to be "communism"?

Nope. Everyone is prone to their own degeneracies. Moreover, what you propose wouldn't solve anything because it's fantasy, first off, and it secondly starts from incorrect premises.

You approach this from the wrong angle. The point isn't to not have Jews ruling over you, the point is to promote whatever is best for your race. That includes not having Jews ruling over you, but is not wholly encompassed by that. Additionally, most proposed solutions would eliminate most possibilities of traitors actually pursuing things at the expense of everyone else (which does not usually mean "muh exploitation of the workers").

Earlier, I said history defines us. It isn't defined by ruling class verse working class.

Feudal lords aren't the equivalent of the ruling class bourgeois. It's a time period grossly exaggerated by Marxists, I know, when they think of Feudalism and its hierarchal system.

I'm going to say that people don't have the same interests. Peasants only interest as a class was protection, land, and crops to sustain their family and live. That's the only actual interest that everyone can relate to, the interest of basic needs – the Feudal period had those needs in mind.

At least for the Feudal period, it had structure and a system that kept the harsh world in mind. Like I said earlier, people don't have the same interests. People are capable of war and violence, many things that can tear them apart and leave people dead without protection. That's essentially the foundation of a state, the need for protection from other coerced armies.

In that time period, I can't say the interests were nationalistic. It was lowered, tied to families and paternal interests.

Lenin's Russia wasn't too great for the working class. It had lost a good length of land, there were food shortages, and a civil war.

Hard to be nationalistic when most wouldn't ever interact with people from a different nation, let alone another race.

Blacks and Arabs are more tribal because their cultures are much more reactionary than White Western culture and lack class consciousness. This doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. Just as the bourgeoisie sets aside its tribal identity to pursue its class interests (European media covering up the Cologne incident for example) the worker aware of inherent class conflict will ally with workers other ethnic and racial groups to pursue his economic interests.
How is it enforced multiculturalism? All nations have the right to self determination. The nation ensuring its own survival is necessary for this, I think. Internationalism can't exist if nations no longer exist.

No, you're right. Powerful people would never lie to others for their own gain. That would be wrong, and in a National Socialist society, everyone is a good guy who only does what's best for the nation.

Call it what you will, but if you're getting people to consciously act against their tribal interests, you have subverted those tribal interests.

Maybe they're not consciously taught, but something harmful in their environment leads them to that thinking.

And if you have an entire generation that is myopic and fucked up in the head, can you really call healthy behavior "hardcoded in them?"

Just so some other people can take their place.
Or are you implying white people would never utilize powerful positions to pursue their own harmful agendas?

In theory, that's fine. But if whatever is best for my race comes at the expense of the White working class, it's not what's best for my race.

It sounds nice. But how long will it be until you have a generation that gets fed up with it and dismantles the anti-traitor policies you worked so hard to build? You can only prevent inevitable cultural and economic crisis for so long. They're endemic under capitalism.

Labor is entitled to all it creates, user.

So, we agree on tribalism.

As for exploitation and the ruling class, it's about class unity to a fair extent. A solution to exploitation is compromise that is fair to both working class and industrial aspirations. Nationalism isn't about proletariat vs. bourgeoisie, it's about the nation, which is composed of society, ethnicity, and land.

There are harmful things that can impact society and exploit workers, but there are ways to address that without outright doing away with classes.

Marxism is the jewish version of Sharia.

It's a system for subjugating the goyim. The economic parts and the cultural parts work together to achieve this goal.

The difference is substantial, because working with flaws is not the same as actually going against something.

The important bit, though, is that if the only problems are myopia and sociopathy the solutions are quite simple, unlike with true brainwashing to go against interests.

Which is not teaching, unless you want to define teaching so broadly and so retardedly the it encompasses any scenario in which information is gained. Who's doing the teaching then? God? Nature?

It's not the entire generation. It's not even close. If it was we'd be totally fucked. And yes, I can still call healthy behavior hardcoded in them because most genuinely want to do it and follow some form of it. The only difference between most people is how far ahead in the future they see. Their priorities remain the same, they merely act on different information.

Like who? What group of foreigners is primed to take the place of Jews?

That's not replacing Jews. Jews have ethnic interests; white traitors do not. They are not a replacement because they are merely the biological defects that exist in any group; they cannot propagate independently like Jews can.

So tell me who. The Koreans? The Mongolians?

Addressed above. Additionally, this is why I added "and their tools." Without most of what Jews use to destroy whites (nonwhites, primarily), the threat is greatly minimized. Even if they somehow manage to collapse all white civilizations everywhere, they cannot do so permanently, since there is no replacement with nonwhites. New white civilizations would just rise from the ashes, as they always have done. There is greatly reduced existential threat.

Now you're just being contradictory. What's best for whites is what's best for all whites (roughly and neglecting self-interested traitors). The worst you might be able to point to are advocates of eugenics, but even then that would be far from against the interests of the white "working class," since their best and brightest would continue on just fine.

I'm not talking about policies. I am perfectly aware how uneternal they are. I do not expect them to last forever. Genocide, however, is permanent. Raising IQ (and other traits) is relatively permanent. As stated before, possible damage from white traitors would be greatly reduced — not least because of their far lesser numbers and reduced ability to actually inflict damage.

No, they're endemic in this reality. That's never going to change, no matter how much you pretend your system which cannot exist in reality will fix it.

Nope. It owes much to what facilitates its ability to create. It owes to the society that gives it stability and protection; it owes to the manager who labors and creates the conditions necessary for intelligent work and coordination; it owes to the owner who labors to ensure financing and the ability to access equipment, creating an environment in which to labor; it likely owes (or owed) to the inventor who birthed the tools for laboring; it owes to all those who gave the materials; it owes to the creators of the tools; it owes to the farmers who create the food facilitating the labor.

Does not the manager labor to maximize the use of other labor? Does not the owner labor to provide the environment in which to labor?

Moreover, how can we call what is necessary "unjust" or "exploitative"? You are a fool to do so. The concepts peddled by Marxism are nothing but fantasies built upon corrupt morals; expecting more than reality deems you worthy of, lamenting the nature of existence.

TL;DR: Capitalism, man.

What do you mean by industrial aspirations? The factory owners? There can be no compromise between them, they have economic interests that directly contradict each other. The workers want the closest they can get to all the value they create, while the capitalist wants to pay the worker the smallest amount they can. The worker wants the shortest work day they can get, the capitalist wants the longest work day they can get. etc. You can try to find compromises between the two, but remember it's the bourgeoisie who make the laws.

Yes, that's why it's used as a method to distract from class conflict. I'm not saying love for your nation is bad, I'm saying it's bad when the ruling class exploits the peoples' love for their nation to legitimize their rule and pursue their economic interests. Whether that's war, combating leftist ideas, or promoting "class collaboration."

You can combat the effects of exploitation, but they'll keep propping up as long as capitalism exists.

Only a Marxist would want to overcome class society.

Or, more correctly, only a Marxist would believe its possible, or beneficial, to overcome class society.

You are a Marxist.

You are attempting to argue semantics, like your Jewish hero, and nobody here is interested in debating a Marxist, because Marxism failed - hence, a new approach was conceived.

Where defeated by economics, Marxists sought to move the battle to one on the field of culture, hoping they might win this battle.

They well may have, sadly, their economic theory (amongst others) continues to be shit, so they will inevitably fail.

You will inevitably fail.

Because you are a failure.

Which makes sense, given you are a Marxist - and only failures, whether or material or spiritual context, find Marxism appealing.

Oh Jew.

Oh Jew.

Oh Jew. ;^)

What do I mean by industrial aspirations?

I'm talking about factories, working environments, machinery, and motives to obtain wealth from resources. It's basically developing the land, the source of wealth tied to industry.

This is part of my problem with Marxism. It was born out of the Industrial Era, a time of new development that changed the world, and they're fixated on basically stealing machinery.

Wages aren't wealth, not to me, but it's somewhat part of it. Wealth for the working class, the nation, is based on industry and resources can provide.

Drop this kikery, though. The worker's true interests are his family and better living conditions. That can be obtained without a revolution and resolved in a court to make sure both parties involved have their necessary accommodations.

It's isn't that the worker necessarily wants less work. Of course, everyone wants less work and that's a necessary evil. Assuming you mean that the worker can work all he wanted if he had the means of production. That throws us into another matter I don't care to get into; because that brings into question whether the worker will aspire and work for the good of the nation. That's part of the balance, because you must ask whether the industrialists and factory owners will do better for the nation, and that's nationalism's problem with international capitalism and kikery. It's more of a balance between these two economic interests to make the best of it for the national interest.

This is where you need proper leadership.

This is one of the reasons communism and nationalism can't mix. It's too absorbed in economics and ignores what nationalism is at heart. It's just as economic as capitalism, in this aspect, because it's created in this own world with the sole focus of just that.

The International Proletariat don't have the same interests. You need nationalism because we're tribalists.

Let's take race-mixing for example. How is that tribalism "working with flaws" and not actually going against tribalism?

People learn things from their environment, not just other people. Nature or society can be a teacher in a metaphorical sense.

But if their view of what healthy behavior is is so deranged that it actually causes harm, healthy behavior is not hardcoded into them.

This I can agree with.

Not foreigners. People of the same race as you. But the difference is still there: they have their economic interests and you have yours. Those conflicts are in conflict, but you're not in power.

It's like you think people of the same race can't have conflicting interests.

One small group of Whites sustaining themselves on the labor of another, vastly larger group of Whites is not what's best for all or most whites. This doesn't change under National Socialism.

Take a basic econ class. Bubbles and recessions happen all the time, and lots of economics study is devoted to how to postpone them and make them less severe.

The protection enjoyed by the individual is a service that is provided. It is also labor.

Administrative labor is still labor. The manager doesn't have to own the factory to manage it efficiently.

What builds and maintains the equipment? Labor.

Intelligentsia are workers. Mental labor is still labor.

Materials gathered and processed with labor

Who labored to create the tools

Farmers are also laborers

They do. Like I said, they don't have to own it to manage it.

No, the owner buys and distributes the products of other workers' labor to make his workers' labor possible. He fills the factories with machines made and maintained by workers, processes raw materials mined or farmed or gathered by workers, uses utilities – the infrastructure for which was built and maintained by workers, and yet is entitled to all the products made in the factory because of a slip of paper that says he owns it.

Because the capitalists as a class are an unnecessary burden on the people who actually do the work necessary for civilization to survive and thrive. They don't need to exist for society to function well.

Not an argument.

class is being focused on, for example you will see the argument that all blacks belong to a disadvantaged class whereas all whites belong to a priviliged class

but the issues themselves don't matter, just breaking down the system in any and all ways possible is what matters

support any revolution no matter how minor

The industry and resources themselves don't provide wealth without labor.

It's not just better living conditions, it's the best living conditions possible. But this can't be achieved if the people who own the factories make their living by keeping as much value the worker creates as possible. Its in their economic interest to extract as much productivity from the worker at the lowest cost possible. The resolutions you make in a court are always going to be biased in favor of the people who make the laws.

That's the problem: there is no balance. Once class will always want more at the other's expense. Economic interest will always come what's best for the nation, no matter how hard you try to instill good values.
If the bourgeoisie can profit from war, there will be war. And the workers will be the ones fighting and dying in that war.
If immigration can make labor cheaper, there will be mass immigration. And the workers and their families will be the ones plagued with poverty, crime, and violence.
If the bourgeoisie can profit from raising the price of food, they will. And workers and their families will be the ones going hungry.
If the bourgeoisie can profit from raising the price of medical care, they will. And the workers and their families will be the ones without a doctor when they're sick.
If the bourgeoisie can profit from raising the rent, they will. And the workers and their families will be the ones on the street with no place to go.
This conflict is inherent to capitalism and will never go away as long as it exists. In order to preserve the capitalist system, the conflict between classes is covered up with other conflicts, whether that be between races, sexes, nations, tribes, it doesn't matter. Capitalism creates conflict by design.

How about you get out of your mom's basement and try going outside and making friends after you're done jacking off to Nechayev.
:^)

If you say so, but will the workers inherit that same economic interest to work and prosper? I'm unsure whether communism can truly bring the best available working conditions. Also, I think those working conditions can vary, factory owner or not, even if the proletariat had the means of production.

Wars aren't solely the adventure of capitalist exploits. There are other conflicts, surely economic interests involved, but it isn't the root.

Each conflict you listed can be minimized if your nation was wealthier and stronger.

That's not contradiction, that's compromise. If I cooperate with a man to build a house, I want as much money as possible, and so does he. That's not contradictory.

This Marxist understanding of society is so absurdly simplified a child might as well have made it. Do you have no concept of complex functions? No concept of distributed power, or how society actually arises?

That would fall under self-hatred, which is evidence of a biological flaw. The individual in question seeks to erase themselves from the gene pool — to not see their faces in the next generation, not even their own children. That's a genetic defect, i.e. a flaw. They are a flawed individual, thus they do not have healthy instincts. Other examples might include being forced, in which case immediate self-preservation overrides "tribalism," but "tribalism" is never truly subverted.

Congratulations, you've now made the term "teach" almost useless. You've also merely weaseled out of what you were originally implicitly claiming — that Marxists "teach" people self-hatred or the like. If mutations are teaching (they aren't), I guess you're right.

The relevant point here is that they are not immediately causing harm. Look at it from their myopic perspective: everything they do is out of normal, healthy behavior hardcoded into them by evolution. Self-preservation, more money, etc.. They do not necessarily like it, because it sets off some instincts, but they'll go along with it because in terms of immediate results they see benefit, not loss.

Then they aren't a replacement for Jews. Jews are a hostile, alien ethnic group abusing host societies for the enrichment of the ethnic group. This is not a direct analog for detrimentally self-interested individuals arising from the same society (or group, if you prefer) they abuse.

You really do have a child's view of the world, don't you? There is no such thing as "in power." Only relative power and distribution of power. And traitors are few enough in number that their power, especially stripped of tools and allies (in the Jews), is minimal compared to most others. Moreover, the interest is not economic. It is not a matter of classes or money. It is purely a matter of power and/or living. Traitors exist from the lowest scum to the highest office; they reason we talk about those at the top is because they are the most potentially damaging.

Only if they are of different ethnic groups. That is: the conflicting interests would be horizontal, not vertical as you are suggesting. To think otherwise is absurd. For any one "class" to pursue interests detrimental to the group as a whole is to ensure their own destruction and thus go against their own interests. There are no conflicting vertical interests, not in the long-term.

All whites perform some valuable function to the group, unless they are the aforementioned traitors. Something is either in the group interest or it isn't, regardless of how "exploitative" a Marxist deems it to be. I'm also not a National Socialist.

Yes, because they are a consequence of living in this universe, like I said. Marxism cannot exist in this universe.

Congratulations, then, because you've just proved the "bourgeois" doesn't actually exist.

So he labors to provide the environment conducive to laboring.

How ridiculous. You're suggesting that property doesn't exist, when it's the entire basis for resource exchange. Let's try a thought experiment: a man owns a bit of land. I'm aware this might somehow be exploitation to a Marxist, but bear with me. He cultivates the land and sells what it produces for what people are willing to give him for it and what he deems is a worthwhile price to sell. Because he produces more than he needs for himself, he gains a surplus. He becomes wealthy enough that when he dies his son inherits the money. I suppose to a Marxist this could also be oppression and we could outlaw gifts, but let's assume that willing human exchange within families is not outlawed. His son now has enough wealth that he buys some more land, which he cultivates to grow richer. When he dies his own son inherits, and he now has enough money that he can build a factory. He pays for the materials, the land, the labor to build it, and the time. Then he pays for machines. Then he offers to pay some other men from his village more money than they currently make to come to his factory and do the work he'd like done.

Show me where the oppression here is. Show me where the exploitation is. Show me how the grandson's ownership is illegitimate. Surely if the farmer can make enough money that his grandson can own a factory, the factory workers can too. Hell, they could probably pool together their own resources and build another factory where they own everything. So why don't they do that? Probably because they do not want the legal responsibility of owning something, and that such vast collective ownership is inefficient.

What of an inventor who has ideas that others are willing to give him a lot of resources for? Is that illegitimate?

And if, as you say, a setup of private ownership is not, in fact, the best way to distribute resources, how come no other system has ever come even slightly close to emulating that success?

Well, considering you just named basically everyone in existence as a worker, who exactly are these exploitative capitalists? Moreover, if they are so unnecessary, why has no civilization ever thrived without them? Why have the most successful civilizations come to power with them?

The essential difference between leftists and sensible people. We can actually point to success stories of what we advocate being implemented, but lefties can never say anything but "some boogeyman I made up and can't prove exists has just been keeping it down. That's why there's no real evidence!"

It is, actually, but nice job trying to appropriate a libertarian meme. Literally nothing about Marxism is realistic. You know the entire premise of it was based on a disproven theory of value, right?

Your entire argument hinges on a group of people you can't prove exist being absolutely and eternally in power. Do you honestly think that the "capitalists" have all the power and everyone else none at all?

If that was actually true you'd be living in the slave conditions of ancient Egypt.

Considering that history has proven it to be the most able resource distribution system, it will never not exist.

Oh look, it''s the same fucking shit.

Any marxism is a fucking lie.
The leaders exploited it like any other leaders, only they used info , their talk and their (((connections))) to do it.

Marxism is pure tyranny in reality.

The workers themselves decide what the working conditions are like. Why wouldn't they try to give themselves the best working conditions and quality of life they can?

Of course. If one area has a more hardworking population than another, it's going to be more prosperous. You can't have complete equality in every aspect of life. But you can have equality of opportunity and say in how things are run.

Even if there isn't a concrete economic incentive, there's still something to be gained from war. It doesn't happen for no reason.

Minimized, but they will definitely still be there. And unfortunately most nations aren't wealthy and strong.

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Money is a tool of production.
You need it to allocate resources better and even produce resources that are usually necessary. Why? Because it's essentially there to act as a middleman for the trade of goods. It allows you to do one thing for money and purchase something random with it. It allows you to work for services, without getting unnecessary items as payment.

money is a seductive thing for greed

But if you remove the paper currency…

basically, money is there to make your slavery seem less slave like. To make it less miserable
Other wise we'd STILL be nothing more than peasants. At least it's easier to climb with money.

...

You think that's bad? Imagine how the French felt after the revolution, with the Republicans promising them all Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity the whole time. Capitalism is a lie. The leaders exploited it like any other leaders, only they used printing presses, their Jacobin Club and (((Robespierre))) to do it.

Without the bourgeois state enforcing multiculturalism and diversity, there's no reason not to build your own White Nationalist communities.

...

Explain to me why, universally, the most successful businesses and those that are the greatest assets to their nations are not run in the manner you describe.

Explain to me why most improvement in working conditions has not come from workers "giving themselves" better ones.

Explain to me how it is unjust for people to value a man so much that they trade enough resources for what he offers that he can own a factory. Are people not entitled to give others what they deem fit? And if not them, who decides? Besides which, what, fundamentally, is the difference between owning a shirt and owning a factory, apart from scale? Why do you suddenly not become entitled to the deemed worth of your labor if you employ others? Is the farmer hiring help to tend his farm suddenly not entitled to what he and his forefathers worked for?

Why does it matter if it is the best way of distributing resources? Why should we care about a system of justice that always ends in failed systems?

Holla Forums is an unfunny meme

There are exceptions of course. Workers in cooperatives are sometimes found to be more productive. Webms related.
But I'd say generally it's because companies that pay their employees less have more money to reinvest back into production, thus making them more profitable in the long run. A worker-owned company would prioritize paying its employees well over growing the company.

But it has. That's what unions are for.

It sounds good in theory, but in reality it's hardly a voluntary, mutually-beneficial trade. In most cases, the voluntarily choice boils down between selling your labor for a pittance or starving, and being threatened with unemployment if you don't meet the production standards.

A shirt doesn't make anything. It's not a means of production. Socialists make a distinction between private and personal property.

You are entitled to the value created by your labor, but not that created by someone else's' labor. It's not difficult.

Of course he's entitled to what he works for, but so is the helping farmhand.

Because it can work and has worked in the past. The Paris Commune and the Spanish Anarchists built functioning socialism before they were destroyed by their counties' militaries. I'd also mention Enver Hoxha but there's still disagreement over whether or not Marxist-Leninist state socialism is actual socialism We see it functioning today in Chiapas and Rojava, as well as countless small communes across the world. It's a very real possibility and, some would argue, an inevitability.

It wouldn't let me post the other one because it's already posted

Holla Forums is an unfunny meme

So in other words it's a less efficient use of resources.

Wrong. It's come from technology, something that socialists do not encourage (by policies; they may claim to want it, but they always end up retarding it).

According to you only. And considering that you want to replace this with forced redistribution and getting rid of private property, you're not really in a place to talk about "voluntary, mutually beneficial trade."

Private property inevitably has people lease out that property, in any number of forms, the most pertinent of which to our conversation is allowing men to use your machines (or your land, or your resources) to produce things if they give you an agreed-upon slice of whatever money selling those things makes.

Are you serious? Starving has not been a legitimate concern in Western countries for decades. We, nowadays, have the only civilizations in history where the poor are too fat. More relevant, however, is that employers can only threaten such a thing if they have the bludgeon of nonwhite labor.

Moreover, if this system was so bad we would see more successful alternatives pop up some time, somewhere on the planet in the past seven thousand years. That we haven't is an indicator.

Neither does a machine on its own. Neither does land.

Everything is a means of production. I can use anything to create something.

They shouldn't. Such a distinction is unnecessary and retarded, since there is neither a fundamental difference between the two besides arbitrary scale nor anyone who would want to give up the idea of private property (which is literally the basis of civilization).

No, you're saying that the wealth created by you and your forefather's labor (the factory, machines, etc.) should suddenly be taken away and be given to others because apparently now they're the only ones doing any labor.

It's a retarded system of morals that works ass-backwards by saying "Well, what do I feel is fair?" instead of "What works best?"

And the farmhand gets what he agrees to. So where's the problem?

But it hasn't. The most successful civilizations have universally been ones that recognize private property and the ability to rent.

So, in other words, their non-communist adversaries were stronger and more successful? Why would I want to choose the weaker system instead of the one that makes me victorious over others?

The global superpowers?!

Ah, the leaders in the technology industry. Feared bastions of military might, able to fend off any attack against them. Centers of high art and culture, renowned the world over.

Living like chimps is a possibility, but you'd have to be a retard to live like a chimp or a communist.

Again, why should I choose the systems that exist only at the mercy of others? I'll choose success and strength, thanks, not "Look, it finally maybe worked, guys!"

When you drive a car, do you drive the safest, fastest, or most powerful? Or do you drive the mud-brick wagon your crazy neighbor finally got to stop falling to pieces?

Traditional Marxism was always rejecting cultural and ethnic segregation as either trivial or detrimental to its semi-illusionary class-struggle and was the biggest historical adversary of ethnicism which is the cornerstone of stable thriving societies.

You could argue that it was manlier and nowhere as degenerate as post-modernism and "cultural marxism" are but the later are the inevitable products of the nihilistic and deeply misanthropic sophistry "actual marxism" was.

I wouldn't call higher wages a less efficient use of resources.

Except for man-made satellites, space suits, space ships, space food, penicillin, heart and lung machines, first mass-produced personal computers, 3D holography, Cadaveric blood transfusion, Nuclear power plants, anthrax vaccines, primitive lasers, refractive surgical procedures to correct nearsightedness, the laser microphone, and several other medial and technological wonders we still use today.

We're talking about socialism, not bailouts.

The way things are going, all Western countries are going to have a ton of nonwhite labor because they're willing to work for next to nothing.

This is your brain on liberalism

Nothing creates anything on its own it needs some external force to act on it, in this case, labor.

You can get a t-shirt, cut it into strips, and make bandages, but the t-shirt would just be a raw material for your bandage-making process. It's not a means of production. Unless you somehow use the t-shit to turn a raw material into something intended for personal use, without using the t-shirt as a raw material itself.

Both the farm owner and the helper participated in the harvest. If the farm owner plowed the land, that is put into consideration as well. It's not my job to go around telling them how much crop should belong to who. If the farmer hired help in the first place it's because he thought he would profit off the assistance provided by the helper.

It works best when people get everything they work for. Employment, by definition, is a relationship in which the employer profits off the work of the employee. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.

See above

What do you mean by most successful?

I'm sure smug Norman noblemen said the same thing about republicanism when they conquered Amalfi. Not to mention the several attempts at proto-capitalist countries within the HRE that collapsed.
Even if it's by far not the most prevalent system right now, it serves your interests and the interests of humanity in general. You don't have to look much further than the rampant environmental degradation and appalling working conditions in the third world to see the unsustainability of a profit-based economy.

"Success" in what way? At what cost? South Korea was considered a major success of capitalism, it was the fastest capitalist country to industrialize in history. But at the same time, the amount of drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates skyrocketed, while fertility rates plummeted. Their country was richer, but were they happy? Do they live genuinely better lives because of capitalism?

If you're happy with an economic system that's fueled by stress and exploitation, alienates people from their work, society, and themselves, destroys the nation and environment, floods first world countries with immigrants, breeds hedonistic, consumerist culture, sparks wars and imperialism, allows 3.1 million children to starve to death with an additional 3 million dying from preventable diseases every year, and unavoidably creates poverty, massive inequality, class conflict, unemployment, bubbles, recessions, and crisis, that's fine. But there is a much better alternative and it's worthwhile to get there.

I'm heading to bed now but I'll check this thread if it's still up in the morning.

There is nothing intrinsically nationalistic about communism. Not about the ideology, their symbol, and values. The hammer and sickle, socialist star, and others are symbols of the International Proletariat, and it is shared between them. It isn't nationalistic, and it overlooks that. It's solely economic.

Assuming there will be no poverty, no war, and no state for centuries to come is absurd. I disagree that everyone has the same interest, even for the proletariat, since beyond basic needs there's more than meets the eye.

the only way someone could be confused as to how Cultural Marxism is Marxist is if they're dumb enough to actually be pro-Marxism.

tl;dr OP is retarded

Quick question if all those proto communistic societies were so successful why are they not here now?

Because it always seems like you rely on primitivism to justify these arguments. I doubt we would have organised enough to build computers or explore the earth if we had remained in those societies.

If it's producing/innovating less that's exactly what it is.

I thought the Soviets weren't real socialism/communism/Marxism/who cares. Or are they only when it's convenient? More importantly, none of that was innately due to Marxism itself, nor can Marxism be said to have spurred those developments. If you object to this, I refer you to literally every other implementation of Marxism.

So you'll, what, try to convince the factory owners to give their businesses to cooperatives?

Okay? I'm talking about a functioning ethnostate here, not a facet of how our current system fails.

Next you'll say family structures are communist.

Your lack of creativity does not prove that anything can be used to create.

As one of infinitely many examples, one can use the t-shirt to filter water for drinking, producing a product. Or refrigeration. Or fishing.

I'm talking about the guy who owns the farmland because he worked for it previously.

But that's suddenly not okay as soon as the farmer didn't work the land. Good to know. Renting out your earned wealth is oppression, even if all parties involved benefit.

Work for ≠ produce. Under every system they do get what they work for, otherwise they wouldn't work. I'll be charitable and assume you were working under a silly Marxist assumption that a laborer is entitled to everything "he" produces, in which case history has objectively proven this to be the less robust, less innovative, less successful system.

Still not seeing the problem.

Most powerful, most populous, most expansive, most inventive, most militarily successful, most advanced for the time period, etc.. Basically any measure of civilization success, Marxist-anything doesn't even appear on.

None of this changes the fact that hierarchical and property based system are overwhelmingly the best. There is not a single instance of a "true communist" society (acknowledged to be so by those such as yourself) crushing a tiny "capitalist" enclave that was a struggle to establish.

First off, I don't care about "humanity in general." Second off, it doesn't serve my interests, since my interests are: living in the most prosperous society possible, seeing my nation advance, and having my nation be as strong as possible. Your system — at best — does worse at accomplishing these than what I support, and at worst actively harms their accomplishment.

No, when I look at the third-world I see the failings of subhumans, not the "unsustainability of a profit-based economy" (which is certainly greater than any of the alternatives). How about you actually point to a white country "suffering" from the effects of "capitalism"?

In not being militarily steamrolled, for a start.

The one my nation has paid and has been willing to pay, which, as it turns out, is not a terribly high price for existing.

Probably something to do with Koreans and leftism preached there. Again, if all you can use as evidence is nonwhites under the sway of modern globalism as a "failing of capitalism" (especially while ignoring contradictory examples, such as every Western country on the planet) then you leftists are even sadder than I thought.

Their lives were shit before and marginally better afterwards, so I'd say capitalism at least hasn't hurt them. Their problem isn't capitalism though.

Only in the minds of Marxists looking at post-leftist countries.

A product of Jews, not of anything inherent in the economic system. There is nothing that stops people being connected from their work except Jewish manipulation and false expectations.

k

Jews and traitors, nothing to do with the economic system. Getting rid of a "profit-based" system wouldn't stop this, since cheap labor isn't the (only) goal.

No, that's Jews again. There is nothing inherent about that to profit-based systems.

I'm not a pacifist or anti-imperialist. If it's a just or necessary war I fully support it; I also support eradicating nonwhites and colonizing their freed land.

I don't care about millions of Africans, Indians, and other assorted nonwhites dying. Especially because their unsustainable population growth was caused by people exactly like you feeding them irresponsibly. There's a reason zoos tell you not to feed the animals. "Capitalism" caused precisely none of that. Subhumans incapable of dealing with their own problems and managing their own societies caused that. Bleeding-heart retards and malicious Jews feeding them irresponsibly caused that. Unless you are one of the few individuals able to illicitly siphon off funds from these organizations, there is no money to be made there.

No, nature does that, by virtue of not having infinite resources that are infinitely accessible. But do go keep blaming that on "capitalism." I'm sure once you get rid of it the resources will just jump into your hands.

No, Marxists do that by telling fools that they deserve more than they get for "reasons."

Combination of Jews and reality.

Reality, again. What next? Earthquakes? Firestorms? Hurricanes? Supernovas lightyears away?

Better because it aligns with your foolish moral system, but worse because it makes you weaker and stupider.

My Australia senses are tingling.

Africa definitively proves this to be the case. They live almost exactly as they did ten thousand years ago.

To be entirely fair though, they have substantially different systems to the ancestors of whites.

Baaawwww

Yes, but that alternative is not Marxism.

Also, about Chiapas: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiapas#Neoliberalism_and_the_EZLN

And Rojava: libcom.org/library/grim-reality-rojava-revolution-anarchist-eyewitness

Such success. Much Socialism

...

Your entire concept of "someone else's labour" is retarded and has been refuted countless times. You're operating under the Marx's "labour theory of value", which has more holes than Swiss cheese.

First of all, there's no such thing as "excess value" produced by labour. It doesn't exist. There is no value inherent to labour which exists separate from market principles. If I were to dig a ditch and fill it over and over, I would not be creating any value, but I would still be labouring.

The value of labour is determined by market forces and supply and demand. Labour, just like anything else, is a commodity that can be purchased and sold. How much that labour is worth depends on a whole slew of different factors, but primarily how much labour is available in that particular market. A worker sells his labour to an employer for a certain price set by the market, and the employer compensates the worker with the exact value he produces in the context of that market. If the employer were to pay the worker any more, then the employer would go out of business, as he is paying the worker more than what his labour is actually worth.

This, along with many other reasons, is why Marxism is a joke. It tries to separate the value of labour from the very system that determines that value - the free market. Just like the true value of a carton of milk is entirely unknown without a free market in place to determine it, so is the true value of labour.

The value of labour is entirely contextual, as it is fundamentally dependent on the various market forces at play. In one market, labour may be scarce and thus more valuable, while in another market (China, for example) labour is plentiful and thus cheap. This is why the only way one will increase the value of labour, is changing the context of the market within which that labour is exchanged

As an example, simply increasing minimum wage while remaining in the context of a market where labour is worth less than minimum wage will not improve living standards one bit, as the market will always compensate, be it in the form of mass-layoffs or automation.

TL:DR the entire foundation of your worldview is fundamentally flawed.

Suppose you've never heard of the famines in Ukraine, Southern Russia, Korea and China. Want to know why they didn't have any bread lines? No bread to begin with.

Wrong.

Wrong. Workers have never been the core of socialist or anarchist movements. It has always been academics and useless parasites (Lenin and Trotsky never worked a day in their lives).

Workers movements are fascist. Workers naturally unite with their nation or religion, not an abstract "workers of the world." That is intellectual mumbo jumbo.

Kill yourself. Instinct comes before ideology. They were ethnically and instinctually Jews.

...

You are operating under the false assumption that communism is possible. It isn't. It is pure ideology. Real politics is not abstract and intellectual. It is instinct and blood. Read Spengler and FP Yockey's Imperium. Fascism is our future.

Part of the tribal instinct of whites is extreme fear of social ostracism. The average white person fears social ostracism more than anything else. This is the basis for their strength when unified by will, but it is also a weakness that can be used against them. This means they can be made to go along with political correctness or whatever the media pushes, because they fear social ostracism even more than death or destruction of their society. A lot of Anglos, for example, would literally rather die than be impolite.

Here is a video that explains it fairly well though the conclusion is a bit weak.

for the summer fags

Well yeah. (((Academics and parasites))) goes without saying.

Where does the value of a commodity come from then? Utility?
If so, how can we compare the utility of say, a massage chair to that of a can of soda? How do we know a can of soda is more valuable than a massage chair if the utilities of these two things are completely different? Looking at just their utilities, how do we determine how many sodas are worth a massage chair? We can quantitatively compare the value of things, but we can't quantitatively compare things based on their utility. So value must come from somewhere.

There's a distinction between individual and social labor. Social labor works in tandem with other labor to fulfill a social need. This is what adds value. Sewing a shirt uses fabric produced by dead labor, and turns it into an item that fulfill a human need for clothing. Digging a ditch and filling it back up again doesn't create value. It's labor, but it's not social labor.

The very fact the employer makes a profit means at least one worker isn't being compensated fully for their labor, whether or not that worker directly works for that employer. Profit comes from paying a worker less than he produces.

Your conflating value with market price. It's true we don't know the value of a carton of milk before we see the exact dollar amount when its brought into the market place, but that's because exchange value is how the market determines the worth of a commodity. We don't see the work that went into producing that carton of milk, we only see its price, and conflate its price with its value.
And the labor theory of value is not wholly Marxist. Adam Smith and David Ricardo came up with it first.

I know labor is a commodity that can fluctuate in value according to classical economics. But I'm saying value is derived from labor, not the other way around.

Again, if demand and utility can't determine value, and if labor doesn't determine value, where does value come from?

Value is subjective, dumbass.

Of course it is, but it still has to come from somewhere. That doesn't answer my question.

From the subjective valuations of people.

Yes it does.

They're the same thing. If Citizen Kane wants to spend millions of dollars to buy rosebud then rosebud's value is worth millions of dollars.

One is economic warfare
The other is cultural warfare
Both are sides of the same marxist coin.

Why do you think we say capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin? Adam Smith and David Ricardo were just as retarded as Karl Marx.

...

When did I ever use classical economics or economic arguments at all, faggot?

The exchange value of rosebud is a million dollars. The intrinsic value of rosebud is determined by the amount of labor that was necessary to produce both it and its raw materials, as well as what social and human needs it fulfills.

This is idealist. The two sides of the "same marxist coin" contradict each other on theory, analytical method, practice, and goals.

no such thing as class conciseness or class war one of my best friends is a millionaire good guy. Im a working class pleb im not in some sort of unspoken pact with every other working class electrician in the world.

Which is the only value which exists.
There is no such thing as 'intrinsic value'.

Except they don't, at all.

has it ever felt strange to you that the party that claims to champion the working class is not the working class. You yourself said most marxist are intellectuals. Why arent they steel workers? Me thinks its because class warfare is a made of phenomenon by intellectual elite.

...

your only responding in ad homen and not addressing any point anyone has made. Simply calling what someone else says idealist doesn't negate it why dont you just use the term spook like the rest of your lefty friends.

In our society, social labor is organized though the exchange of the products of labor, commodities. However, the values of these commodities are only visible though their market prices.

The very fact that they take "cultural warfare" seriously completely ignores Marxist historical materialism and base-superstructure relationship. By "idealist" I mean it assumes cultural phenomena can be changed without first changing the material conditions that created them. Cultural Marxism is not Marxist.

Class is determined to relation to means of production, not occupation or level of education.

the bourgeois didnt have such a strangle hold on this civilization until the left began murdering the aristocrats and kings in the west.

The very fact that you take "class warfare" seriously over "culture warfare" shows how disconnected from reality of most peoples lives you are.
Capitalism itself does not create conflict it merely uses preexisting conflicts in society to control it. There would still be conflict between sexes, races, and nations, because these things are an integral art of human existence. Which ultimately leads us to the deepest flaw in Marxism. It looks at the history of the world and comes to the conclusion that the only motivating factor for all of history has been wealth. Nothing could be more incorrect. The accumulation of wealth in life is a how its a means to an end but not the end itself. The why in peoples lives is the end and is the thing you cannot understand or refuse to accept exists these things are religions, race, nations etc. The reason Marxism draws so many intellectuals and children of the upper class is because such a shallow and simplistic worldview makes sense to them coming from the hedonistic and shallow world they live in. To put it simply nothing could b more bourgeois then being a Marxist. Marx himself was wealth and lived a comfortable and hedonistic life that could be considered bourgeois.

communism is what an autistic persons robotic view of history would be it has no human element. If you were to take a communist and give him a care for things outside of simple wealth and turn him into a human from a robot he would be a fascist. Mussolini himself was a communist at one point. Fascism is communism with a human element.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value, moron.

fuck off /leftycuck/

The communist manifesto explicitly calls for the abolition of marriage and parenthood.

'Pure marxists' always try to brush this aside, but it is very much the core of cultural marxism.

These commodities only have value in exchange, and that value is subjective dependent upon the context in which the exchange transpires.

The commodities do not have an 'intrinsic' value unto themselves.

That's doesn't mean anything.
You're just spewing more Marxist rhetoric.

Even Marx believed in cultural warfare, if he didn't call it such.

There is no question that such is possible, and does transpire - whether 'classical' Marxists believe such or not is irrelevant, as those presently seeking to promote Marxist ideals (ie Marxists) are actively engaged in the process.

Cultural Marxism aims to (further) alter material conditions, via manipulation of cultural conditions (which often requires alteration of material conditions to initiate), such that Marxist economic theory may be more-effectively shunted upon the people.

Marxist ecomomic theory failed, miserably, in the face of competition.
Cultural Marxism is an attempt to remedy that issue, via indirectly attacking, subverting, and degrading (in the material sense as well as any) the competition, such as to create a condition wherein Marxist economic theory might be applied.

Only from a limited perspective. From a higher perspective they are complementary. Just like communism as capitalism contradict each other from a limited perspective, but are the same when seen from a larger worldview perspective.

Checked for accuracy.

Or as a Marxist might put it…

...

If marx truly believed dialectical materialism, he would not have needed.to write the Communist manifesto. There would be no need for any effort to create communism, since it would just happen due to natural material process.

But Marx did not even believe his own bullshit. He was just a Jew motivated by Jewish instincts to destroy enemy society.

Yes, which is why I know it's Engels work. Get an early edition, your hero isn't even named on the motherfucker.

Accurate, but in one context: The Jew does not seek to destroy.

This is a common misconception.

The Jew seeks to control.

Rather than destroy, the Jew seeks to subvert, manipulate, and mutate, such that what remains is his to rule.

Every culture is shaped by the conditions they're in. There is no exception. Ideas you have come from other people, or by connections made by empirical observations of the material world. Shared way of life, language, and customs work the same way.

I would agree, with the exception of class conflicts. This is inherent to capitalist structure itself. The bourgeoisie and the workers are always going to want more at the others' expense. Compromises made in court are always going to be biased towards the ones who make the laws.

Of course, but there would be no incentive to artificially escalate it, the way the media is doing now.
Not all wars have a purely economic motive. But you can't deny that most of them do. Even if there's no concrete economic motive for war, there's still something to be gained from it.

Misconception. Marxism notices that a society's arrangement of productive forces shapes the way people think, behave, and relate to each other. The accumulation of wealth for its own sake is a relatively modern concept.

I would disagree, it's what makes capitalism capitalism. But like I said, it's relatively new.

People feel the need to belong to something bigger than themselves is not because they genuinely care about religion, race, nations, etc, but because latching on to an abstract big other helps them ease the anxieties of living in alienating conditions. Removing the conditions that perpetuate this thinking is the only way to get people to actually care about their race and their nation, and not just doing it in a desperate search for meaning.

The liberal bourgeoisie control the media, Hollywood, and the educational systems, and it's in their best interest to prevent people from being exposed to any kind of socialist thought. Marx is never mentioned in economics classes, even in the most prestigious universities, and only superficially touched on in Sociology classes. The reason why Marxism draws so many intellectuals is because the only way to be exposed to him in detail is though personal interest and independent study.

Again, class is determined by relation to means of production, he wasn't bourgeois. But yes, he did make a very good income as a lawyer before he turned to writing.

Bullshit. All evidence says otherwise.

No, Jews control the media, Hollywood, and educational systems. I can guarantee you they act as and see themselves as Jews, not as "liberal bourgeoisie."

Again your theory is partially true but incorrect I have no doubt people environment has some amount of say in the type of society they will build and this directly correlates to there ability to produce in said environment. That being said environment and production is not the sole determining factor for a society. A white christian African society such as the Boar has proven to be vastly more successful then a Black pagan or even a mixed race secular society such as modern south africa. You didn't address the entire point I was trying to make though. Whats important to people is not class and it is rarely wealth. I have met few people in life whos primary concern is wealth and no people in the working class whos primary concern is wealth. There is no class war because the purpose of different peoples lives is not relative to their environment or their relationship towards the means of production a Christian fundamentalist has a singular purpose in his religion regardless of class.

Because he wasn't an economist.

This is false. But he also was not a sociologist, so even if true it would be an irrelevant point.

I would like to point out in your post you refuse to accept the idea like the robot that you are that people could genuinely care about things outside of class. I have a question for you what purpose does art serve?

Marxism is just a propaganda algorithm for killing the majority.

It's intrinsic in the sense that the value they have has to exist within themselves if it is to exist. Yes, it is subjective, but that value of a commodity can't come from anywhere but the labor used to create it.

He just said women are on the forefront of social change. Materialism doesn't mean all social change is impossible, but that the foundation of society lies on its mode of production. Attacking the culture built around the mode of production solves nothing.

I'll ask again: what Marxist ideals are they seeking to promote? All I've seen them do is try to fragment the working class by attacking perceived "oppressors" and distract workers from pursuing their class interests.

What alterations of material conditions have they done? Fucking diversity quotas? Nothing has changed.

Marxist economic theory can be in is still applied today. If these are their motives then it's completely unnecessary. Not to mention every single thing they do is counter-productive to building socialism.

OP confirmed for pleb. Cultural Marxism IS Marxism. People use the term because they want to highlight a specific aspect of it. Also kikes did a good job over the decades of sanitizing the terms Communism/Marxism so it can also be seen as a tactic that gets around this and rebrands Marxism as the destructive filth that it is in the minds of the public.

This is literally a whole bunch of drivel which showcases your entirely lack of understanding of economic principles. Value is subjective. Value is not inherent to anything, so to try and say "a massage chair is as valuable as x cans of soda" is fundamentally flawed. The only thing that can determine the value of an item is market forces. The very fact that you need to ask "where does the value of a commodity come from then?" shows how your entire worldview is flawed. There isn't a way of knowing "where the value of a commodity comes from" without the context of the market within which that commodity is being traded.
No there's not. You have just created an arbitrary distinction in an attempt to rationalise your flawed worldview. All labour is still fundamentally labour when everything else such as context has been stripped away from it. Again, context is everything. In the context of one society/market, digging and filling holes might actually be valued, while in another, it is not. In the first market, a labourer would sell their labour, i.e. dig-ditching, to an employer in exchange for monetary compensation, while in the second market, these is no demand for ditch-diggers since such a profession is not valued, and thus the labourer would not be employed anywhere. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Digging and filling ditches in one society is valued, and thus doing so will result in monetary compensation from an employer who hires such labourers, while in another society, ditch-digging is not valued and thus no such exchange takes place. Without market forces at play where any man is free to exchange his labour for monetary compensation, the true value of that man's labour is unknown.
Mate. You seriously don't understand a singe thing about economics or how a market works. The employer does not receive "excess value" in the form of profit, since, as we have already gone over, the value of a man's labour is determined by market forces, and thus value is subjective. In the context of a particular market the value that the labourer receives in compensation is the exact value of what he produces for the company employing him. If a company were to pay him more, then the company would go out of business, since in the context of that market the labour is actually worth less than what is being paid. As I have already stated, there is no value intrinsic to labour, and thus your whole assumption that an employer skims off value from the employee is flawed. An employer receives profit when a finished product is worth more than the labour needed to produce it as determined by market forces. The value of the labour put into the car does not accumulate until the "true intrinsic" value of the car has been reached. If a factory were to produce half-cars instead of full-cars, then the half-car would not be worth the sum of the labourer's "intrinsic value" needed to produce it (and as such, half the value of the labour needed to produce the full-car). The half-car would be worth no more than the scrap-materials constructed it. A half-car is not valuable, while a full-car is, and as such, we can see that the value of the item is not determined by accumulated labour value, but by market forces. The labour put into the half-car would be as worthless as if the labourers were to have dug and filled ditches, not half the value of a full car.

From this we can conclude that the employer does not "skim value" off the employees, since value was never inherent to the labour itself in the first place but determined by market forces. A half-car is not worth half the labour-value of a full car, since "labour-value" doesn't exist. Only market-value exists, and that determines both the value of the completed car, and the value of the individual worker's labour. The car is worth more than the sum of its parts. (i.e. the labour needed to produce it).

This is just a bunch of marxist nonsense. The "market price" is the value of the commodity, just in a form which allows us to understand it (i.e. numbers: "10$"). There is no distinction between "market price" and "value" since the value is determined by the market itself. You're putting the cart before the horse.
So essentially you're proving my point. There is no way of knowing the value of an item until the market is allowed to run its course. This completely refutes your entire "labour-theory of value" nonsense, since we can clearly see that the value of the carton of milk is not determined by the labour put into it, but by market principles.
The price is a representation of the value. There is no value intrinsic to labour. The price, i.e. value of the carton of milk is determined exactly the same way the price, i.e. value of the worker's labour.
But you're wrong. Value is derived from market forces. Labour is a commodity that is bought and sold, and is as much subject to market forces as a carton of milk.
Demand and utility is subjective, not objective. There is no objective standard for the demand or utility of a certain commodity. what might be utilised or valued in one market/society may not be utilised or valued in another.
Market forces. Supply and Demand.

Your own ignorance is not an excuse for your beliefs.

I used to be a full blown commie. Part of my country's party youth and everything.

Ultimately, whatever communism was, or pretended to be, that doesn't matter anymore. What matters is what they are now. If you need a better example, I like to say that the left is dead, and the left killed it.

Ultimately, the biggest strength of communism was the populist aspect. Even in the cases that the populism was a front (and with Marxism-Leninism it surely was), that gave it strength.

Communism by adopting the identity politics of the cultural Marxist camp has become a wholly intellectual ideology, completely divorced from the working class of a nation. People have spoken throughout the West that they want their rights put first, but commies have put the egalitarian/equality ideology above the basic struggle of the people vs the elites, and in that way they became the elites.

Of course naturally they'll tell you otherwise, but that's what happened.

I still have a lot of respect for certain commies, like Nestor Makhno of the Ukranian blacks. I still subscribe to the bottom up organization presented and argued for, although then again, fascism and the traditional right argue that bottom up organization is ideal as well. One need only read people like Evola or just Tolkien to understand that anarchism at it's core is simply organizing society from small communities to the larger nations.

Commies don't work like that anymore, not even on paper much less in practice.

Also, Jews.jpg

I ignored it because it's retarded. Of course people care about things outside of class. And of course they should care about things outside of class. But class is the focal point because all workers, regardless of sex, race, language, nationality, etc. have the same economic interests by virtue of being in the same class. The bourgeoisie put their race and nation aside to pursue their economic interests, and the proletariat will have to do the same if they're going to become the new ruling class.
Racial identity, national identity, and conflict would still exist in a classless society, it's naive to think otherwise. The difference is there wouldn't be an economic incentive to intentionally drive tensions between different peoples, like what the media tries to do today.

...

...

No if people care about things outside of class class takes a backseat to other issues more often then not. It also makes it so class warfare is impossible a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslims fundamentalist are not going to ever cooperate because they are both poor farmers. I have no doubt you are correct in your assertion that they have developed a parasitic class among the merchant caste or wealth of western civilization. But the way people live and want societies to function goes beyond class and until you admit that you will always be disconnected from the real working class. When you finally do come around and realize this you will be a facist or at least begin to understand them and how you lost the working class.

I think the actual DNC is the perfect representation of that. Bernie somehow managed to sell literally millions of people on socialism. But then that got shitcanned and Sarah Silverman, a wealthy Jew member of the media, screeched at them to get over it until they either yelled louder or just gave up on their party.

The thing about "the left" as a coalition is that they burned the salt of the earth working class they nominally represent. When Trump gets votes they laugh that only people who don't go to expensive colleges, or white people solely, will vote for him. This obviously alienates the white people, but it gets anyone who was on board but ISN'T white fuming mad, like Latinos for Trump and other groups.

To add to this if you were to pitch socialism or communism to working class guys where ever you are from im sure most would not care. But if you were to combine it with a number of issues the local find to be important like a communist christian British nationalist party they would start to take you seriously because you are finally taking the issues the working class care about seriously. Which basically would make you a facist

get fucked pinko

But individuals participating in the market have a limited amount of resources to spend on acquiring commodities. Yes, value is subjective, but nevertheless people prefer somethings over others. How do they, real people, determine a massage chair is more valuable than a soda?

You're just proving my point but replacing "social necessity" with "market forces." If labor serves no social purpose, it creates no value.

So you're admitting this idea that value comes from market forces exists to justify businesses making profits.

A half-car is not not something that is socially useful or fulfills human needs. Labor that goes into building half-cars is not social labor.

The reason why the car is worth more than the sum of its parts is because labor was applied to those parts to build something useful.

Exactly.

The left has become the new ruling class, and in an ironic twist, Holla Forums is more communist than them by simply opposing them.

Ultimately, you can not take the right or the left wing of politics has a whole. You must remove individual parts of it and find what is worth it to construct a society. That's what the Third Position of the early 20th century did and it gave us fascism, the closest thing to a traditional ideology since the start of this entire Jacobin shitfest with the Revolutions of the late 18th century.

And the left's chief strength IS populism. The left came to power at a time when liberal (in the Jacobin/original sense) powers were wholly ignoring the majority of their peoples to practice retarded games of free market economics. They rallied the people under them because the people were being fucked.

That's also the reason that it never took off in the USA. Whatever you can say about the founding fathers (to me they are just as bad as the French revolutionaries in the sense they started this mess), they at least had the sense to pursue a country of freemen and common law, similar to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms or the early HRE (before Salic Law took over). Through that, you OWNED your land. You OWNED your own life and became of the size of the US territory, you needn't be beholden to anyone or anything. That's why the early US worked. It was fundamentally, unlike the liberal nationalism of 19th century Europe, a bottom up organization that went from family, to communities, to counties, to states, that then united together. The US started to fall apart precisely when some states thought they could rule over others through majority, and we got the Civil War.

To go back to the point, the communism of the early days promised a similar system, even if they were fundamentally wrong on a moral level because their chief basic unit or societal organization became rooted in the local workers unions, rather than family and kin. If the NatSocs were right about anything (more than most people think, less than what the majority of Holla Forums thinks) is that blood and soil is completely and intrinsically linked to any populist movement. Your direct family and your next of kin ARE the fundamental source of societal organization throughout the West. You are free as an individual, but it is morally wrong to turn on your blood. What the NatSocs tried to do is translate that into a loyalty to the entire blood of the nation.

I don't think that will ever work. Blood and soil is something extremely local. It can't be applied to something as large as a nation. And if you can't unite a nation, you can't unite the world like the communists want.

What unites nations and peoples of said nations are loyalty and moral goodness to do what is right. It's not necessarily that I fight for my nation because of blood and race, it's that fighting for my nation is the right thing because we are united through the hierarchical system. We are all subjects to whomever stands at the top.

But that authority can not be absolute. That was the failure of, for example, monarchy.

And once again, that becomes where the leftists began to fail for anyone paying attention. Rather than the local unions becoming the authority, those than ran the unions became the authority, and in that sense they became no different from the absolute despots and the capitalist (((merchants))) that came before.

tl;dr: Shit be wack yo

cultural marxism isn't "working class vs bourgeoisie"

it's "opressed" vs "opressors" and the definition of who is in which is variable. the point isn't about who revolts against who– they don't care about that. they just want the revolt to happen so they can seize power.

This statement is flatly untrue. My alma mater had several classes devoted to central planning and other Marxist concepts.

What you could not study is post-revolution communism, as not even Marx himself could tell you how that shit works.

But the point of Marxism isn't in the ridiculous utopia that 19th century factory workers will somehow create after they give up God, disband their cultures, and share their wives. It's in the destruction of the people Marx hated: wealthy and successful whites.

Who's the idealist now?

The market price is the exchange value of the commodity.

The exchange value is the market price. The value or use value is determined by how well it fills social needs. You can't buy and sell use values, you can only exchange commodities with use values.

You're just contradicting what I'm saying without providing any evidence for it. The price of labor is determined the same way the price of labor is. But the labor put into the creation of a carton of milk is what gives it its subjective value. You can tell a sports car is more valuable than a carton of milk even without looking at the exact market prices. The sports care requires much more labor power to create.

The exchange values are, yes. But labor is not an item that fulfill a human need. It's used to create items that fulfill human needs. Labor is not a commodity, though it is treated as such under capitalism.

And the value labor provides varies on how its used and in what circumstances.

How can the value of commodities be quantitatively compared but the demands can't?

Technically market price and value are two different things. Value is subjective and differs from person to person. Some people value Louis Vuitton purses highly, but I couldn't care less about them. Market price is objective, how much you need to trade one thing for another. The Louis Vuitton bag still has the same market price for me who values it low as it does for the other person who values it highly. The only difference is that the other person will be willing to spend the market price and I would not.

The market price is tied to value, though since price comes from supply and demand, and demand is dependent upon the subjective valuations of people.

I just graduated with a B.A. in history from a liberal New England university so yeah, I haven't read more than a few chapters of Das Kapital but I've read enough Marx and Marxists to get the drift.
They do, right down to the part where he advocated proletarian gun ownership to make the seizure of the means of production easier.
Adorno et al. shouldn't even be the targets of the ire against what is called Cultural Marxism, the real problem has been the large groups of academics and members of the intelligentsia who adopt their terminology and worldview without admitting or comprehending the agenda that animates their theories. Useful idiots are the problem, not intellectuals who would be powerless without said idiots to parrot their claims.
Because "Marxist" doesn't even mean "Of or relating to the work of Karl Marx" anymore, especially among many non-Marxists, who tend to (perhaps rightly) conflate socialism, Communism, and Marxism. "Marxist" in contemporary conservative parlance means "anti-liberal," or "anti-traditional," as do socialist and Communist.
It isn't Marxism, but it may as well be, because "Marx" is a name that has been willfully associated with various anti-liberal, anti-traditional regimes, parties, and ideologies. Protip: Marx didn't advocate a vanguard party, Lenin did, but Marxism-Leninism is still considered to be a form of Marxism. Protip: Marx didn't advocate a peasant revolution in pre-industrial Asian countries, but Maoism is still considered to be a form of Marxism.

That was what I was getting at up top. There are different meanings of "Marxist" and even Marx himself went in both (communist manifesto bluntly contradicting some of his own theory for example).

But that's the thing: focusing on anything but class stalls revolution. It'll just create a new societal niche that the market can placate.

Why do you still cling to Cold War propaganda instead of actually reading what Marx had to say and coming to your own conclusions?

I'm aware of this. I always insisted our first priority needs to be combating the identity politics that have become synonymous with the left. Otherwise it will just continue to be a tool of the bourgeoisie. I've somehow managed to cling on to the little bit of hope I have left.

REMINDER: MARXISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!!!

All labor does is set a floor on the price necessary to get a return on investment, thus determines what a smart investor would pay for labor on that particular good. Below that, the labor is not worth the money. It has no tie in to value and no tie in to price other than that.

The purpose of Marxism was to destroy European society. Karl Marx's Jewish instincts in an alien culture manifested in a revolutionary ideology. That is all it was.

Again, read Spengler and read FP Yockey's Imperium.

There is no hope.

Even if there was, the communist ideology is fundamentally wrong on too many things. To begin with it is a product of the modern materialist worldview. Secondly, it ignores the family and blood kin/clan in favor of the local workers unions, and finally it attempts to encompass all the peoples of the world into a single group and instead divide them on poor vs rich.

It doesn't work. It is a fundamentally broken ideology as far as morality goes.

Anarchism with traditionalist morality is the only way to go for a leftist. Just go full Anglo-Saxon.

"Exchange value" is value. You're making arbitrary distinctions that have no basis in reality.
Again, Market value is value. You're spouting a bunch of marxist bollox at this point. What determines "social needs"? The free market. What determines the value of a good? The free market. Thus we can conclude that the "use value" and "exchange value" are exactly the same thing, since they are both dependent on the exact same system - the free market.
Price is a representation of value. There is no basis whatsoever for your arbitrary distinction between "price" and "value", so I'm discarding it entirely.
Wrong. The person buying the carton of milk is what gives it its subjective value. You're trying to claim that "subjective value" is objectively quantifiable, which is a contradiction in and of itself
A sports car is only more valuable than a carton of milk in the context of our particular market, however if you were to go to a place without paved roads where everyone is starving, what do you think people will value far more? The carton of milk, obviously. You're trying to objectively measure value, which is flawed since value is always subjective.
Define "much more labour power". How do you quantify this? How do you determine the quality or type of labour? You make no sense. How do you even compare the labour that goes into producing milk to the labour that goes into producing a sports car? They're completely different. The only thing that determines value is market forces.
Again with these arbitrary distinctions. "Exchange value" is real value, since value is subjective, and is ultimately determined by market forces. How many times do I need to repeat this?
Labour doesn't fulfill human needs? What world do you live in? Now you're just spouting nonsense. Labour is as much a commodity as anything else that is purchased and sold. When I am employed by someone, they are paying me for the labour that I provide them.
So basically you marxists have applied some abstract holiness to "labour" and raised it above all other commodities with no real justification for doing so. All you're doing right now is reinforcing the criticism that marxism is just a faith-based religion.
You're putting the cart before the horse. How something is used and in what circumstances determines the value of the labour, not the other way around.
Because demand determines the value. Without anyone to purchase an iphone, that iphone is useless. It has no inherent "value"

...

It's been a while since I moved on from my young adulthood angsty marxist phase, but that experience did leave some marks on me.
I do think that class struggle is still relevant, yet not in the way the left thinks.
As others in this thread have said, the traditional leftist theory drummed into our heads through the educational system reduces everything to a master/slave dialectic. Oppressor and oppressed.
However, there are certain shitlordy parts of Marx's writings that they gloss over.
Marx had a concept of the 'lumpenproletariat'- the class beneath the proles. Criminals, whores, activist shills, the dregs of society- basically those who have failed to integrate into society or are unwilling to, and subsist by living parasitically off of the working class.
Also, they exist in a symbiotic relationship with the capitalist ruling class.

So basically, we get two competing views of the social pyramid:
1. Two tiers - haves vs. have nots.

2. 3 tiers. 'Producers' in the middle, sandwiched between parasitic globalist elite on top and lumpen parasite underclass on the bottom.

I think there has been a shift in leftist movements, to place all importance upon the lumpenprole element. It's massive projection. Now the working class is a stereotype- the angry midwestern white male, the racist hick, the trump voter. We are told that we are the parasites by those who are bleeding us dry.

National anarchism. It's not actually as bad as it sounds.

But Marx and communism are full retard. Only complete autists fall for it.

Calling it that sounds retarded…using anarchism to describe this in general sounds retarded

Just read Evola and Ride the Tiger.

Whatever their subjective individual needs and wants are.
But I'm not proving your point at all. What I'm proving is that value is not inherent to labour itself, but is contextual, and determined by market forces. Without context, all forms of labour have no value. The market provides the context which in turn determines the value of the labour.
What I'm not saying that this "idea" exists to "justify" anything. I'm stating a blatant and objective fact for which you have no rebuttal. Let me lay this out for you.

So you are just proving my point. Value is not derived from labour, but derived from the market. If value was in fact derived from labour itself and not the market, then naturally we should conclude that the value of the half-car is exactly half the value of the full car, as half as much labour was required to produce the half car as was needed to produce the full car. This, however, is not the case as you have just stated yourself, thus the only logical conclusion is that value is subjectively derived from market forces, and thus, the value of labour itself is subject to these very same forces.
This doesn't refute anything I've said. You are just reinforcing my argument. How could a car possibly be worth "more than the sum of its parts" if value is derived from labour? Using your logic, the value of the car should be exactly the value of the labour put into producing it, but that's not the case at all. What we can conclude from this, and which you are unable to refute, is that the value of a worker's labour, which is a commodity, is determined by market forces and not inherent to the labour itself, and thus a full car is not worth the summation of all the "labour-value" put into making it, but is worth more, as determined by the market, than total labour used to produce it. If value was determined from labour, then a half-car should be worth half as much as a full car.

Thank you for proving me right

I was talking about this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

I didn't invent the term. It is simply movement to decentralization with focus on traditional values and ethnicity rather than typical leftist faggotry.

"Cultural marxism" is a something coined by a bunch of jews at tge frankfurt school well after marx died . Marx had nothing to do with "cultural marxism"

Read None Dare Call it Conspiracy and Culture of Critique, user. Identity politics is the only option in a diverse society, and the (((left))) has created a diverse society specifically so they can agitate vibrants, fags, and womyn to destroy Western Civilization.

I like Evola myself, but just saying "read X" isn't helpful to anyone. At least state his main points you think are relevant for the topic.

Also, the corollary here is that if you really want to get rid of identity politics and focus on bigger issues, you have to remove women from politics, nonwhites from the country, and kikes from the physical plane. Otherwise, pic related

Correct. Politics is not something abstract. It is real. There is no politics on paper.

And you are either with them or you are with us. Either with Western civilization or with its enemies. There is no sitting on the fence. History will force you to take a side, and neither will be the Marxist special snowflake ideological nonsense.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what ideology you use to run your peoples and nation. All ideologies can work with the right moral framework.

Pick and choose what works best for your specific country and folk, and the rest naturally follows.

Of course, this relies on an homogenous and race aware country.

Except some ideologies are technically impossible, like communism.

I disagree. If you remove the egalitarian/equality/ONE RACE HUMAN RACE aspect, it's not impossible. It's objectively inferior, but not impossible.

Of course, if you remove the aspects I named, it's not really communism anymore.

No, communism is fundamentally impossible

You are drowning in a sea of jewish nonsense. We can find communism 2000 years ago after the destruction of the temple, in the numerous jewish sects that appeared back then.
Trying to get any coherence from Boas, Freud or Marx is just running in circles like the good goyim you are.

Even then it is impossible, or at least extremely unstable. If you could somehow have communism, it would only last for a very short period of time.

What's so impossible about a decentralized society organized fundamentally around local worker's unions/councils?

A decentralised and atomised society without any form of hierarchy, government, or military is a sitting duck for foreign nations that have all of these things to invade and plunder. Any system that does not have a mechanism to defend itself is fundamentally flawed.

It is a power vacuum. There is no understanding of defense, geopolitics, trade, etc. from communism. Just magically those things are presumed to disappear. Everyone freely trades with everyone else, there are no struggle over resources, no group conflict between these various workers councils because magic.

I always get Marxists saying everything I heard about them is propoganda but when I really press them typically what they really believe is exactly what the propoganda has stated. That they need to destroy my nation, race religion and fuck my wife.

And this is because it comes from a false understanding of the cause of these to begin with. That all conflict is from "alienation" or class war or other abstract nonsense. So without capitalism there is no class war and no conflict. It is retarded.

Marxism is for children and retarded Jews with one-dimensional autistic minds.

Class is a social construct. Race is something that can be scientifically observed.

Except that isn't how it works

Decentralization =/= lack of hierarchy, it means power is local and not global.

It is the fundamentally correct mode of societal organization on a moral level. You must look first to you and yours.

Obviously I'm not advocating workers councils. The family and the clan, and then later the community around you, those are the ones that should hold the local power over themselves. Uniting as a single nation should be sporadic affairs, mostly dealing with said foreign nations trying to fuck shit up

Also

Read up on the fyrd, the Anglo-Saxon militia.

Because hierarchy. Again, decentralization =/= lack of hierarchy or central power. It merely means the central power only rarely exercises it's powers.

Early middle ages rulers, early US fed government, to give two examples.

And these no longer exist for a reason.

You need someone at the very top to make quick decisions instead of a bunch of councils with equal power if you want things to run smoothly. You need someone to make the finial decision and bring people to heel.

TOP FUCKING KEK
They killed a shitload of priests and demolished all non-historical churches.

So basically a country, then.
Why? I do not subscribe to your moral compass of "equality". Try again
Militias are generally quite ineffective in comparison to a proper army, especially ones that do not have any central command or proper training

Oy vey! Watch it moish you almost talked about us again!

But in all seriousness, they failed because they were subverted from within my foreign elements, not because the system itself failed. This is even more apparent in the US's example, but you can see several examples such as Anglo-Saxon England (that lasted up until their king died while successfully defending the second invasion in a row, which crushed their spirit to fight), the HRE (which was subverted by religious zealots and utterly separated from it's loose but united system), and even France that with it's Salic law might have been the worst of the middle ages kingdoms. France failed because of the greed of it's kings, but more so, because of the push of Enlightened idealogues thinking they could make people better than they are because MUH ILLUMINISM.

You need that position yes, but the power that it entails should not be used for pointless things such as economics or who trades with who. It should be used to keep the peace of the land and to prevent invasions.

Even smaller than. A village, a town, at most a municipal.

What equality? I've done nothing but state that equality is not a thing. The only thing people share that makes them equal is blood, and I don't share my blood with everyone. I'm only "equal" to my own folk, nobody else.

And that militia staved off the viking attacks and was successfully rallied into two wars, and only lost because they lost their king.

Also the majority of the revolutionary army of the US was a militia.

In fact, most armies throughout history were militias, constricted troops of one form or another.

So easily overrun by a greater, better organised power. Got it.
So then how is a decentralized, horizontally controlled society "the most moral" if you're not basing your worldview on the assumption that "equality" is favourable.
That doesn't sound particularly like a "decentralized society organized fundamentally around local worker's unions/councils"

Marxism everyone, assert something that isn't sound and then spin off a stupid dyssocial philosophy based on suppositions from that assumption and petty resentment.

Buddy, you retarded? He's clearly saying that tribal confederacies are his dream society, how in the blazes are you getting marxism out of that.

What the fuck are you talking about? He literally asked what's so impossible about a "decentralized society organized fundamentally around local worker's unions/councils"

He also banged on about how that wasn't what he wanted and what he did want was temporary voluntarist coalitions of clan leaders to be the government. That's a fair bit stupid too since he's trying to use feudal anglo-saxons as his model but at least he's slowly moving to sanity.

Because nobody has any business telling me or mine how to run our business other than ourselves.

Even my own countrymen.

That kind of thought is why rural people are at the mercy of the filthy urbanites.

What part of "the country comes together to defend itself" do you not understand. I'm starting to think you're being disingenuous here mate.

Because it's not? I merely stated that it's a possible model. I didn't state it was the best model, nor one I would want for myself or by folk in general.

It can still be a decentralized society if the kings de facto power is limited to just his own lands and dwellings rather than what the de jure might state he can do.

Again, early middle ages is the best model for this. Early HRE especially. Without the Salic Law "everyone is someone else's serf" business.

I maintain the question.

Lets frame this in Holla Forums speech.

Any fucking model of societal organization works if Europeans are the ones using it. Because we're both spiritually and physically superior to everyone else. It doesn't matter if it's workers councils or local powers at the community level with a basis in the traditional family unity, Europeans make everything work.

I didn't say that was stupid, I said you were stupid for projecting your anarcho-tribalism onto them

This isn't about ideology.
I have no business how you and yours run your own damn lives. Just as you have no business running mine. We're all folk trying to live and be better. That's all this is.

Ok buddy, might want to lay off the appeals to Evola in your next thread because I think you really don't understand what he was getting at.

Where have I pushed for any ideology here?

The moral mandate of volunteerism ya big goof

What does anything I said this have to do with a personal business, and how does an authoritarian or centralised society run contrary to this?
Having the "country come together", which I'm assuming is a decentralised country full of small autonomous self-governing states in the context of your argument is an incredibly inefficient and unsustainable system. Without any clear hierarchy or chain of command, and without any form of centralisation of authority and power, the country has no real way of uniting in any capacity to defend itself or mobilise. Also, what you'd end up having is some medieval clusterfuck of tiny states all with their own self-interests, constantly changing alliances and allegiances.

Then he isn't really a king, but a wealthy landowner.
Are you joking? The HRE was a fucking mess. It was full of tiny warring states who constantly changed alliances, it was choked by an inefficient and ineffective system of rule, and it continued to fall apart internally and become less centralised over time until it wasn't an empire in everything but name.

Kill yourself retard

What moral mandate? I think you're confusing me with a lolberg.

I'm saying that European society is best organized bottom to top. That's how things were before the Enlightenment and before the modernists ruined the spirituality of the European peoples.

You don't need big state apparatus to defend your country. A society whose individuals are raised in moral goodness will naturally WANT to defend their country, but it is the morally just thing to do.

The "moral mandate" of volunteerism is not acting as if your fellow countrymen should be constrained in how they run their lives. I'm not talking about things such as duty to defend their homes, duty to their family, duty to raise a family. Those are very much still obligations. Which they will want to do anyway if the society itself isn't morally decayed.

You can not constrain Men, you can only guide them. But Europeans have a tendency to approach the moral truth despite all attempts to do otherwise. It took a full 2 centuries of Jewish shit (more if you count the enlightenment period) to reach where we are now. Pathological individualism and nothing but patchwork ideologies like fascism.

Every major centralized society has tried to run the lives of their citizens in one way or another. Absolute despots, the increase in the power of the fed, the EU, the Soviets. It's all the same shit.

Again, I gave you examples that required internal subterfuge to break. They did not break from the outside.

First off, having a clear hierarchy and chain of command is not exclusive to a centralized society. The key is how and when that chain of command is called upon.

The medieval clusterfuck would have uniting forces holding it together, the most important of which is the fact that despite not being all close kinsman, everyone would still share the same general blood and culture.

Yes, there might be clusterfucks with OTHER Western/European countries no doubt. But then again, I can only raise up small amounts of shits to give for all the others as is, and that's because we have a common foe now.

Bigger is not better when it comes to a country. You need only the land of your peoples and good management of that land.

Nonsense. Any decentralization in the USA was out the window with the civil war.

And if they cannot guard from external influence, then they aren't very sustainable systems in the first place, further proving my point. Your reasoning is that if everything is just right and the cow jumps over the moon at the right angle, then it can work. That's retarded. You have the thought processes of a child, like all leftists.

Which was instigated by foreign capital interests pushing for industrialization since America was a huge untapped market for that.

And it also started because the northern states started pushing their model of society on the southern states.

My reasoning is doing what worked for thousands of years before we started buying into materialist drivel peddled by nihilistic cunts.

Hmmmm. I wonder (((what))) seems to be a theme with these three.

Also, you don't have much of an argument here. The potential corruptibility of a state does not negate the usefulness or legitimacy of the state in the first place.
You gave me an example from centuries ago of a feudal kingdom fighting off another feudal kingdom. Please give me an example that is 1. actually representative of "decentralized society organized fundamentally around local worker's unions/councils", and 2. relevant to our modern world.
If you have a clear hierarchy and chain of command, then it is not decentralised anymore, since you have created a central authority that supersedes the others and calls the shots. This is contradictory to your argument.
That's not what history showed. Medievial feudal kingdoms were in a constant state of war and power struggle. They changed alliances and allegiances constantly, and sometimes were aligned with two opposing powers at the same time. It was a massive clusterfuck in every meaning of the word.
But without a central state or authority to facilitate such a bond between the people in the context of a stable society, there's no reason these people will stay united, even with a common race and culture. There is no historical precedent to suggest such a thing.
What do you mean "other" European countries. In your own example. the HRE, there hundreds of tiny principalities and states, all of whom "German", who constantly fought each other. The only way there's any unity within a group in the face of a common foe is when there's a degree of centralisation and authority ensuring everyone sticks together, and regional fracturing doesn't occur.
The entirety of History would disagree. Small countries are absorbed/conquered by bigger countries that naturally have more resources and manpower at their disposal.
So basically an ethnostate.

I'm going to bed. I'll check back in the morning

Except it only worked that way because technology wasn't even at a level to allow any level of centralization beyond what they had. It cannot work that way now. Again, you are a childish retard.

Says who? The kikes running shit?

For example, see the Roman empire, which had a higher level of technological development and more centralization as a result. Feudalism is simply a lower stage of civilizational development, and will not be returning without some catastrophic technological rollback.

It is common sense (for anyone who is not an autistic nigger like you).

I''m not defending the commie mode of organization.

As for an example of shit that works and is decentralized, early US, as I've fucking stated

No it is not, because first off you can impose balances and checks to that authority, and secondly, a hierarchy and chain of command rooted in moral goodness does not call upon that power unless necessary. A traditional society has the spiritual component which can not be captured in modern ideological discussion because we live in a world that frames all it's arguments with the Jacobin ideals in mind. The overton window is entirely to the left.

Give me an example? The only example of a heavily divided and warring feudal kingdom at any major level was the HRE as the protestant reformation kicked into high gear.

No shit, which is why you can't maintain a united country 100% of the time, only when it matters. Otherwise groups within the nation should be free to handle their affairs as they see fit.

The HRE was largely united against outside threats, even if it at times warred with each other (often times it was just one or two major princes doing the fighting)

The French were largely decentralized until the Bourbons and the Versaille court took over. Most European kingdoms followed that model until the despotic rulers guided by Enlightenment ideology started appearing actually.

That doesn't make them better. There are more degrees of value than just if they survive.
You may lose a war and still have fought for the right side.

But even that aside, the entirety of history up until the 19th century were decentralized realms of peoples coming together whenever the OTHER decentralized realm of peoples came knocking.

Well, yeah, no shit. Blood and soil kind of implies ethnostate.

I'm sorry, are you still under the impression I'm a lefty or something?

So what you're saying is, it's the current year?

Why is that? Because they lacked tech? Because they lacked the bureaucratic states?

Can't be for lack of unity pr happiness. You had more sense of community and identity then than you do now, and most definitely could find meaning to life.

Can't be riches. Sure you might be dirt poor, but lack of central oversight means you had the change to carve out your own destiny free of others, if you so dared.

Safety? Overrated by anyone's measure, but even then, with prowling niggers, your privacy under attack, cops following their kike puppetmasters instead of the people that defend them and getting killed by niggers. You aren't any safer now.

No, I am saying that with the way technology works, it is an impossibility to recreate middle ages social structures. The power differentials inherent to current technology do not allow it. Technology is inherently centralizing.

Why? In what sense?

Also if tech is inherently centralizing to the point one ignores fundamental truths of civilization and how it organized, what's separating us from the lefties wet dreams of a one world government?

Yes. That is exactly what I said.

That is because of an correct orientation of our society. It can be changed within the current technological context of society, through fascism. What cannot be changed is that level of technology. You could try to hinder or roll back technology, but you would just end up conquered by others who didn't. You cannot roll back to feudalism because you will be conquered, just as all feudal states originally were conquered.

*an incorrect

I am not opposed to one world government. It would just need to be oriented correctly, as an Aryan Imperium with a clear and unambiguous racial hierarchy.

Nonsense.

I mean yes, it can be changed, but fascism is just plugging the hole. You're opening a window to let out the smoke while your house is burning down.

Jesus you must be American.

I don't want to share a country with Spaniards and the Dutch, much less Moors and other assorted shitskins. Let them die in their deserts, the whole lot of them.

cultural marxism is a meme buzzord. if you think its a real thing you fell a victim to the memes. cheers.

Cultural Marxism was program designed by Marxists to destroy Western values to prepare the world to embrace Marxism. The 'long march' through the cultural institutions was deemed necessary after the workers of the world failed to unite. Cultural Marxism itself was developed by hardcore Marxists at the Frankfurt school to further their globalist Marxist agenda.

The second pic is wrong. For example, Gramsci, who was one of the ones who came up with Critical Theory was a hardcore Commie.

In Communist Holla Forumsand, Yuri watches you.

But that is absolutely wrong. Cultural Marxism focuses on those of "lower privilege" which is pretty much synonymous to "lower class". The niggers are less privileged than whites because they have less money and influence, for example.
Cultural marxists are in a constant war against those members of society who they percieve as having more money and influence than others, while pretending to be allies to those with less money and influence.
Essentially, Cultural Marxism is like traditional Marxism except it gives each class a face. They seek to destroy all these faces and their underlying classes to create one uniform face.

They are waiting for the red army.

I'm reading Hegel and Marx currently.
It's incredible what he predicted.
It's also incredible how misunderstood and inverted his work has been.

The two have nothing to do with each other.
Marx simply predicted the logical end of Capitalism for it is an essentially deflationary cycle.
He wrote The Jewish Question, he criticized immigration as being a way to hinder class consciousness and lower wages, he resented social-democracy as explained in one of his latest book (Critique of the Programme of Gotha)…
But if people knew that, things wouldn't be the same at all and he'd be revered as the ultimate devil. Hopefully, the system completely spun the narrative in order to make it completely inaccessible.

It's simple: just ask any "marxist" if he has read Marx. I've tried several times and I get (un)surprising answer.

"Marxists" are anti-marx to the core.

...

Can anybody give me other sources for the funeral of Marx? Google isn't helping, and Samael Aun Weor gives me stuff about Saturn, so it isn't something my friends can digest.

Also most "experts" on marxism (doesn't matter if they are pro- or anti-marxist) only read the Communist Manifesto, if they read anything at all.

Nice choice, there is a part in it, where you find a hint what marx would say to these SJWs:

"What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it
not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of
production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on
the contrary, legal relations arise from economic ones? Have not also the socialist
sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?"

In the german original text "fair distribution" is called "gerechte Verteilung" (Gerechtigkeit = fairness, justice)

Compare the quote above to marx's "base and superstructure" model.

I guess it depends on what you define as "marxism". If you include leninism and all what came from it (especially maoism), you can find a lot of ideological parallels to the nowadays SJW: Using a theoretical model to justify their deeds and behavior (I think Hegel called this the "self-judging consciousness").

But if you only take the works of Marx and Engels you wont find much of this moralist SJW bullshit. Marx's main focus was the critical analysis which you can find in the Capital: Critique of Political Economy. He would have rejected the new left.

"It's all the capitalists fault!"

-Communist when directly stated goals backfire

Class doesn't show results in the USA. Class struggle in a heterogeneous society doesn't play because we notice groups more easily than wealth disparity.

Remember, proletarian revolution is a dog whistle, the revolutions are always well financed and organized by (((groups))) interested in stealing the nations wealth using brainwashed hordes of subverted normies and directionless zealots.

They need to be disenfranchised first though, that's why the racial angle is played up, there's no real grievances, most of the leaders are themselves children of wealth. It's why no amount of appeasement works.

The real backlash is coming from whites though, they're attacking us then mocking us for acknowledging that fact. Fascism or right wing revolution comes from left wing rebellion. A weakness of of our people is a desire for moderation, that's why the slow approach works so well on us, changing the norm is how we are subverted. The end game threatens our lives not just our collective identity which is when we fight.

People seem to assume that it's natural to jump from a perspective on economics and history (Marx's works) to a perspective on cultures and immigration, when Marx warned about immigration and about the fact that all cultures where not equals (articles from the Daily Tribune): to him, Africa and Asia are unhistoric continents where the political dogma is always changing but the state is never put into question; they all struggle for another economy for the state, another politics for the state but never for the abolition of politics and economics of the state.

((((((Marxism)))))) is INTENDED to be defiled

except its only the psychopaths intelligent enough to understand this who become the leaders.

thats a tasty redpill aint it?

It happens to work, but I do believe they thought it was their one way ticket to Kike world order.

except for that time he talked about

(((REVOLUTIONARY HOLOCAUST)))

its funny, there is NO PROOF AT ALL of hitler saying there should be a holocuast, didnt even use the jewish word itself. marx literally used the word and you can carry his flag in all 50 states with cheers from normie cucks all over.

its not a coincidence marx pioneered the word "holocuast" as a jew.

it seems they wont stop until they eugenecize all of amaleks descendants.

It is only natural given how

its all meant to be defiled you fucking normie

fucking poorfags

Part of why they're so impossible to deal with is because you have to accept their interpretation which makes you lose moral authority immediately.

Marxism is a Kafkatrap for any atooping to their level.

Bezmenov?

Don't you just love it when OP makes claims, anons totally dismantly his "arguments" since they know his own theory better than he does. Then he instantly tries to redirect the conversation, ignore whole posts becouse it doesn't fall with fewwings or just plays
dumb.
He may not be jewish but
this thread is THE definition of PILPUL and it should be displayed. OP is so brainwashed he even thinks in jewish.

In the end of the day he will go back to Holla Forums with a blog report thread how he showed them stupid natzees.
There's a reason why you've got Holla Forums. You're just a grown up picture of current SJWs who are too dense and too narcisistic to even read arguments and change their opinion if it proves them wrong.
You think like a jew and you argue like one.
Luckily jews and your kind are betas who need others and their numbers to take control.
Now step aside and see how alphas take control with Trump and purge your worthless kind from power.

Because the Jews behind it hate whites.

So many replies and everybody gets the answer wrong.

The correct answer is: because the individuals who are pushing cultural marxism are BILLIONAIRES and their aim is to oppress the population even more. Cultural marxism is not their goal, it's just part of their tactics (divide and conquer)

But race doesn't exist in the commie state.

But aren't most of these countries failed socialist states?

Communism. You quite closely described every communist system that has ever been practiced. You also seem to have some hard on over inequality. What's wrong with it?

He's making shit up about the "countless small communes", who still rent property and have to trade with others. They aren't communists in the slightest, and they usually have strict traditions and beliefs they adhere to to keep their rough and difficult style of living going. For the Materialist (Marxist/communist), it's fucking nightmarish.

And it worked.

Nations > Free cities > Communes.

No, it is not. What unites a nation is nationalism. When things start to fragment it's barely even a nation anymore. When we share no common ground it falls apart. That's the failure in many other ideologies: Letting in people who can't share any common ground or destroying the nation's own.

But it did. Germany, under National Socialism, may have been the most efficient nation ever seen. The entire structure of a nature was based on our natural biological tendencies and how a family unit was structured, and it worked amazingly.

But you aren't. You fight for the former before the latter. For King and Country. If you aren't fighting for your shared nation and group because of that, why fight at all?

But Marx advocated polygamy and he thought that simply being "Workers" was more important than culture, and he certainly had no love for Christianity.

Except for Leftism. It inevitably drives itself further and further until it dies. It is inherently a consumer, rather than a producer, and is destined to such a fate. Please, don't imagine that an ideology would be static, be realistic. Do you think that if we had a liberal-run world they'd suddenly stop finding things to bitch about? No.

Feudalism. It wasn't as decentralized, rather, there was a damn good reason for the central power (The King or the Lord of the vassals), to protect his shit and band together in times of need and keep a secure nation with borders. And that was because it was beneficial to do so. What about Communists? Their livelihood isn't at stake over it. They'd abolish the concept of money if they could. This is again, based on the idea of "You and yours", and so unless they go into that fanatical ideological trance that modern ones do where anything said against communism is bad and deserves severe punishment/summary execution, they won't care about another commune being annexed or invaded.

As for the US, they weren't communists, and they were a nation.

We've tried free cities and such things. See the greeks, for example. Guess what? They got taken over. What saved the anglosax and others is having a shitty land that nobody wanted and was hard to get to, and at that, they still got regularly destroyed.

Alot weren't. The most effective armies or parts thereof weren't conscripts. At best, they were obligated to fight in the name of their lord (Feudalism ones), most of the time, not so, they were instead actively preparing and training for it, that was, aside from ruling, their main job.

Except leftism. And I'll still go with what is most effective and in my interests, hence why your wet dream of a world that you are attached to has no value to me.

The right of kings and the extremely disproportionate power, plus Christianity. Even then, it was still a hierarchy and wasn't communal bullshit like you seem to think.

How so? They found unity in the face of enemies, sometimes, and were often inefficient because they stabbed eachother in the back to gain the upper hand over one another. Like the greeks when the macedonians/persians/romans/anyone showed up, they would be stabbing the invaders with one hand and stabbing the other greeks with the other.

No. You're a serf, boy, you best get back to plowing that field while His Lordship takes most of the harvest and leaves you with just enough to get by, because his lordship was appointed such. True, he did rule effectively and protect you, I mean, he had to, but you aren't free. Unless you think you'd be a noble, in which case everyone else is going to kill you for overstepping your bounds.

True. I think Feudalism is the best way to manage law enforcement.

Jews and their supporters are contradictory. Next on 5 O clock news, water is wet and grass is green.

I think you mean
The (((Individuals))).

How does this make them not communist though? Have you been to a commune before? They're pretty damn close to what communism is supposed to be like, except they use money to buy things from outside the community.

top kek
Read Lenin faggot

There are two traps laid in this dialogue. First of all,

And if you still insist on your utter insanity

Then we come to an easy conclusion.

Wether or not this is communism, it isn't desirable to me, for I want an efficient system that serves my interests best. Keep in mind, Communism is materialist, there is no reason that they'd want this commune style that is so inefficient and technologically retarded as compared to others. No less,

It's a shit way to live, driven on by their shared love for a tradition and usually a religion. Communism? Nowhere near.

I read Marx. It's very clear from the communists themselves that they want a mixed race society. They value being workers over their races. In the end, there is no good end to communism. You either get insanely suicidal multiculturalism and other tripe, or you get an irredeemably inefficient system of living (Which is why anything that even slightly imitates communal living got constantly destroyed, disrupted, taken over, enslaved, raided, or exterminated in all of history, until thanks to large non-communist nations putting rules on to who they can engage in slaughtering/conquering.

Classical marxists reject identity politics as divisive, and stratifying the working classes, however, even Marx himself viewed some traditional things like the family unit as oppressive.

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality. This is utter nonsense.

Marx also attacked religion as well, because it "alienates" men by causing them to project their innate good qualities and values onto a deity rather than live them out themselves. Also complete garbage.

The divide between Cultural Marxist critical theorists and Classical Marxists is a strong one however, as most "Cultural Marxists" are soft socialists and bourgeois liberals who openly despise the working class for not conforming to their dogma. However some Marxists actually aid these people by saying "Cultural Marxism does not exist/is a conspiracy theory" simply because they reject the term "Cultural Marxism" which was coined by the capitalist traditionalist think tank "the John Birch Society". Instead, they would rather you use their litany of Terms and classifications to describe these people and beliefs. Furthermore many people who describe themselves as Marxists are actually just soft socialists who don't actually read Marx but interpretive literature written by socialists. They show in word and deed that identity politics is more important than establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Further compounding the issue is the ideological progenitors of critical theory and "Cultural Marxism" that the Frankfurt neo-Marxists were classical Marxists to begin with and Classical Marxists want to claim them as their own, still. They point out minor ideological rifts between Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno and Gramsci and inconsistencies between their writings and modern Cultural Marxism(which is to be expected) to minimize their influence on the modern manifestation of critical theory. Furthermore, they shift blame to more socialist 60s philosophers like Derrida and Foucault and claim because their dialectical methods were different,completely ignoring these philosophers own marxist mentors' (such as Louis Althusser) commentaries on the works of socialists like Spinoza, who heavily influenced Frankfurt neo-Marxists and Foucault alike. While there were gaps in time to when translations of certain works became available,they delude themselves that somehow identity politics developed in a bubble and was in no way influenced by the wider continental Philosophical discussion of Marxism.

Basically, anyone who denies the links between the Frankfurt school and identity politics is a fucking moron.

Here's a better image (with claims checked, the star of solomon is fake and was only used 80 years later).

Leftists seem to have a real fucking hard time coming up with names. For themselves and their foes. Like, take 'bigot' for example. A meaningless word. It can describe so many different people and groups, but the word is applied to mean the same thing. Leftists honestly seem to think Neo nazis and simple folk who don't like niggers as the same thing. It's strange as all hell.

Except you literally were. You asked me "what's so impossible about a decentralized society organized fundamentally around local worker's unions/councils", and then proceeded to try and refute our responses.
Maybe that was functional back when America was an agrarian nation without any real enemies, but even so it resulted in civil war and attempts at secession. The problem with such a decentralised system is that individual states will happily declare their independence when everything is in their favour. Such system wouldn't even function in a modern technological society, which requires far more centralisation and complexity to function than the agrarian societies of years past.
This is just one of those catch-all phrases that don't have any substance. Define these "checks and balances" and tell me how they would allow for your imaginary society to function?
What is this even supposed to mean? What is "moral goodness" in your eyes? The "moral goodness" of a hierarchy is not just going to be known and accepted by subordinates, in fact it is most likely they will want to subvert this hierarchy. It may be "morally good" that the superior races ruler over the weaker races, however the inferior races do not care about such a moral code, and thus will happily try to overthrow it.
What are these "jacobin ideals" you are referring to, and how is my argument supporting them in any way? If you can't even properly frame your argument as to be understood in an alternative framework, then what good is it at all? No one will ever even consider it.
Feudal England and France were in constant war with each other, and different feudal lords were constantly switching allegiances and alliances with each other. There was a reason we developed the state-system in the first place, because feudal society was such a massive clusterfuck.
only when what matters? What might matter to x and y provinces might not matter to a and b provinces. With a system as decentralised as yours, there's nothing stopping one province of a "country" from simply deciding they don't give a shit about the others and ignoring whatever needs they have. What we need is a strong state with a central authority that is above individual provinces who have a certain degree of autonomy over their own interests.
And that right there is why your system is shit. A country that wars with itself can't possibly be strong or united. Some loose alliance against external foes does not mean the internal strife is negated. Why would anyone want to live in a "United" States where wars are constantly being waged between texas and New Mexico or New York and Pennsylvania?
And as we have already covered, Feudal France was a massive clusterfuck.
It objectively does. If one system triumphs over another by virtue of its qualities, then it is objectively better than the other system that failed.
>"I lost and my nation is now being raped in the ass, but at least I stayed true to muh values"
And clearly that wasn't enough after the increase in technology made centralising possible, which in turn made the state stronger. States must adapt to survive, and decentralisation is no longer conducive to survival.

lolno.

I'd also like to take the moment to point out that the actual Roman Empire fell apart when they started dividing and decentralizing leadership.

in the degenerate evil way it was intended to be YES fucking kikes have been pretty successful at fucking over our species making us ripe for takeover by a species that must look at us like how we see dogs, except without any of the empathy, at all.

Well, yeah they are made equal by economy and the state, for value necesserily creates a world of indistinction where everything is tradable, from objects to humans being objectified.
That's all the things Marx ever denounced in his work. This can only be stopped if it is acted upon on a global scale – since the market is globalized and seek global hegemony over the real life of humans.

I mean what do you not understand?

Marxism isn't an ideology or a plan.
The Spirit (Hegel's), that is the historic determinism of our becoming will make the logic of production annihilates itself, and it has already started.
You don't choose to revolt against the Capital. You just do it when you'll have enough opportunity too.

This is actually represented in Holla Forums's culture as the Happening. The Happening is not some other SHTF moment, it is the moment where modernity (and civilization) reach the ultimate point where its own inherent contradictions are too hard to handle and make it implode.
Indeed, the Happening is upon us.

Communes isn't the world for a village or township.

Not so. It is a nation because it shares culture and heritage, and the same moral and philosophical framework.

Arguable and Germany in that time had the gift of having a brilliant generation of military and industrial geniuses like Guderian or Speer. It would take a lot to make a country like that suck.

Who says I'm not fighting for King and Country?
You are applying a materialist viewpoint to things. This is not about natural law. This is about moral law. It is the morally righteous thing to follow the hierarchy when it is required of you. It is your duty as a man, it is a virtue.

The king didn't have power over anything except his immediate lands. Rather the nobles followed him because they were bound by oath to do so.

Except when they didn't and sent the Persians packing over the sea. And this was before Phillip II as well.

Most armies were composed of levies from the general population. There was a time when ever male citizen of a given nation was obligated to also be capable of fighting. It was written into some Greek cities' laws and everything, as well as Roman. And every able bodied male was part of the militia in Anglo-Saxon England (already mentioned, see the fyrd), and the same is true in the USA, even to this day.

I never stated otherwise. I merely stated an homogenous European country based around bottom up organization works every time.

What do you even define as communal I wonder. It seems you have an aversion to the idea that nations were heavily decentralized and only came together in times of crisis and war. That's how we ran shit for thousands of years, and it gave you a sense of actual belonging.

Not true in the slightest. Greeks came together many times to defend against invaders. And one such time was the Romans.

No wonder you're here arguing like this. You don't know history.

For clarification, serfdom was mostly a Frankish as well as Russian thing. Most Germanic kingdoms didn't have serfdom. I've already said Saxon England, but also early HRE, Scandinavia, etc.
You were a free citizen. Yes you were a subject to the local lord, but so what? Hierarchy is required, it's how things should be. So long as that hierarchy is respectful of both those at the bottom and those at the top.

I defended it because I'm arguing for it while also applying the idea of a racial homogenous society. Ultimately, as I stated, I believe shit will work regardless because Europeans make anything work.

First off, the states didn't just decide to say "fuck it", they were constrained into that secession by the north.
Secondly, what is it about our current technology that discourages decentralized society that unites under foreign threats? If anything, because of an increase in logistics, it would be easier to organize the nation even if that nation is normally decentralized. Of course that requires low bureaucracy and an efficient chain of command, which I think you'll agree with me is what is preferable anyway.

To begin with, we're discussing this in the idea of an homogenous country, so other races don't factor in. Secondly, "moral goodness" are those things which are objectively morally good. Virtue, bravery, self-sacrifice, righteous rage when applicable, nobility, etc, etc. I don't think I need to enumerate all the qualities of Man which qualify as morally good. I'm on Holla Forums, not reddit. These things are objective and speak for themselves.

Jacobin ideals or Jacobin frame of mind is to organize all of society's ethics and morality on natural law/materialistic observations rather than taking no account for the spiritual. To state something is good because of natural law is wholly incorrect. Natural law and moral law are fundamentally separate and should not be mixed, and the ethics of a country or peoples should be informed by the moral truth. To put it simply, it is a society of empiricists that place no value on religion. Or in other words, fedora edgelords.
You don't need to play credence to any specific religion (although I'd advise picking either Christianity or one of the many polytheistic European religions), but you should be religious regardless. Belief in something greater than you is an equal facet of what makes a Man. It's what splits us from common animals.

England and France were a very unique case because England was essentially for a very long time a subject nation, at least culturally, of France, due to the Norman invasion. Their local culture and peoples were utterly subjugated. They lost their language even. It's only later with the War of Roses and beyond that they rediscovered their own national consciousness.

pt1

Lets take a concrete example.

Lets say you're a lord on the marches of a kingdom and you're being attacked. I'm from the central lands and technically, I am not threatened. It is still my duty to call my armies and aid you.

It's that simple. Great or small, everyone has a duty. Blood and soil specifically talks of very local clan situations, but the higher ideals of duty and honor apply to everyone.

It's using those ideals and justifying why you have a duty to your fellow countrymen that you then take blood and soil and apply it nationally. It's not that you necessarily have an ancestor link to the people on the other side of your country, but duty calls you defend them anyway. Because ultimately, it's you and them against everyone else.

Holla Forums argues for this every day. We constantly say the European countries have to unite despite everyone in this continent hating each other's guts for one reason or another. Why is it so hard to bring that back down to a more local level? There is diversity worth having that runs deeper than just French, English or German,

Yes yes, blah blah, a House Divided.

That's asinine. You fight with your brothers, but you still stand together against everyone else. It's the same principle. Again, taking higher ideals and using them to propagate basic concepts of blood unity.

It worked well enough. It was mostly the wars with the English (which as I've stated before, were largely just island Frenchmen in that point in time).

Well shit, I guess then Hitler was wrong. So were the defenders of Constantinople in 1453. So were all those anti-commie rebels.
So were the Whites from the Russian Civil War, and the Dixies. And all those near eastern Hellenics and Mesopotamians that were driven out by the Arab Muslims, and so on and so on, and so on.

Understand? Might does not make right. You don't fight because you know you'll win. You fight because it's the right thing to do. You fight until you're the last man standing and you die fighting. You fight and bleed even if you know for a goddamn fact you're going to lose that day. You fight the long defeat. That is the essence of pagan Europe that passed on even into Christian Europe. Pagan courage at it's core is the belief that bravery and the fight itself has worth even if there is no victory to be had.

We've been peddling this centralization shit for two hundred years. We haven't even tried the other because kikes and elites keep subverting them.

I actually get to say my ideas haven't, and honestly wont, be tried in the modern world. It'll take a collapse for those ideas to happen, that or a space race that will allow for the creation of a new frontier. That's the other option.

pt2

i agree, but careful with marx, hes a tempting devil that can inspire much misfortune. the bastard wasnt all that consistent either. like had said, he intended for his teachings to be defiled, that the religion of the kikes.

I'm done arguing with Communists, but I found this in my image folder, and it reminded me of this thread, and seeing as this thread is still around - here, have some chum in the water.

But that's literally what was advocated. Read the fucking post. If he wanted to argue that we did have them, the reason they're fucking gone is because they sucked shit and were inefficient.

And that is nationalism.

Pure coincidence that it happened under the NSDAP during the great depression :^)

And no. Given the state of everyone else, it was openly admitted about how amazing germany was doing during the 30s. It was pretty goddamn lucrative.

Communists are Materialists, though, once again proving the same point.

It had nothing to do with the fact that he could smack the shit out of them with the other nobles backing him up, or the fact that he himself had a fair bit of power, yeah?

Ah yes, except for all the other times and the fact that, regardless, they got the shit kicked out of them repeatedly and were quite obviously inefficient. It isn't exactly useful to see a foreign invasion as a tool for gaining an upperhand over the other cities.

And these were the shit part. The padding if you will. Except under highly skilled commanders, the levies didn't do much aside from get slaughtered and form lines. Disciplined and trained forces were far more effective, and at a point, you can't do that with conscription. Which is why many standing armies, although the soldiers were payed salaries or even required to serve, still bought their own shit, for example.

And while that may be written down, that isn't true whatsoever in effect, and you damn well know it.

Except with leftism. If the entire staple of the political structure is to be a consumer, you've already fucked things up.

What? No it didn't. As for being heavily decentralized, not near as far as you are making it. They were constantly trying to one up another to gain power and wasted more and more forces on inefficient fighting, as we gradually became LESS and LESS decentralized, since you simply couldn't compete when it came to holding a nation. There is a reason that any society that was decentralized does better when centralized.

And many times they fucked it up and didn't, and ended up losing. They were, as I've said, inefficient. it was not an effective system of ruling. In the end, they got swallowed up by another nation. Their own natural talent and skills, simply, didn't work forever.

For the most part, you are a serf or a peasant, not some "free man" of your kingdom who does what he pleases. You are not free to do whatever you want, and to say so is a flat out lie.

You seem to think that going into details justifies the fact that they were inefficient and spent hundreds of years ruthlessly slaughtering one another through any means necessary. This is enough for anyone to realize it's an inferior system, when it is so inefficient, and when it lost.

communism is completely meant to be defiled.

no communist who gets anything done actually gives a fuck about the rules, communism is judaism and usury has no rules. communism is the ultimate rabbithole of lies.

Holy fucking shit, this poster is actually retarded. I can't believe what I am reading.

fuck get out of your basement once in a while and look around

I am.

False.
Ideologies must be accepted by the people to function or else who will make them work? Some ideologies are incompatible with some mind types, the mind is the brain is the genes. There never was a "blank slate".
Morality also does not get imposed from above, the people are either born with a sense of justice and fairness or not.

Why are statists so submissive and yearning to get dominated?

Are you serious? Things like compassion and empathy are innate, but morals are learned. Today's view of women, war, and homosexuality are radically different from 1– years ago. And those views are radically different from 2000 years ago. Like language and culture, morals change over time.

*100 years ago

Do morals change for the better?

I guess that's for us to determine. For instance, whether homosexuality should be equal to something as responsible and necessary like not being homosexual.

Morals tend to work if there's a negative consequence for actions. For homosexuality, compared to normal relationships, there are many negative aspects that can impact society and cause harm. Homosexuality can lead to disease, degeneracy, and a sterile life.

Most people in society always think morals change for the better, because they're growing up with today's moral standards. They're taught what their community considers right and wrong, often regardless of if they cause harm or benefit in reality.

To be fair, any sexuality can lead to an unhealthy, degenerate lifestyle. There's nothing inherent to heterosexuality that makes it less degenerate. It just doesn't have the kind of hedonistic culture surrounding it that homosexuality has.
Why should gays reproduce in the first place?

Yes, but being straight at least produces children and gives a sense of duty to that child.

Heterosexuality starts families. Sure, frivolous sex is there, but homosexuality produces nothing for new generations but disease and social confusion.

Homosexuality has become its own culture challenging heterosexuality, tbh fam. I'm certain a fair share of people calling themselves homosexuals aren't actual homosexuals.

Then why is there a lot of people who don't think morals changed for the better? Morals can go back and forth. Part of that problem is that people rejected better morals and made them worse.

Your usefulness to society isn't wholly determined by whether or not you reproduce, though having children would strengthen the incentive to build a better world for future generations.

I definitely agree. I've met someone who supposedly pretended to be bisexual all throughout highschool just to be more popular.

Someone actually tried to make this argument…

Wew lads.

Your usefulness to society is determined from their by other morals.

Here's another example. Suppose a man gets a woman pregnant? Is it such a shame to say it's immoral for him to leave the woman pregnant and not be responsible for the child? I want to make it clear that morality isn't a solution to the problem, but it makes you very conscious of it.

Your usefulness to society would drop in those terms because you made a single mother, and that tends to not produce better children.

*there

Protected heterosexual sex also serves no purpose but immediate physical pleasure.

The world has its imperfections. I'm sure no matter what I do, homosexuals will still exist and do what homosexuals do. Puritanism is trying to correct this with moral justifications. We should keep in mind, though, that morality isn't the solution to immoral behavior, it only makes you morally conscious of whether its good or bad. I only think it's better to have morals than no morals.

When I said morals go back and forth, I really think that there are times of immorality and times of morality. It repeats in history that people waver between puritanism, moral consciousness, and decadence. The thing is, decadence leads to decay. As for puritanism, nobody likes to tolerate puritanism for much longer. It's better to have a balance.

Yeah, that's true.

Although, if you're a married couple, then it's less likely you'll see less immoral protected sex. Marriage typically involves having a family. If we talked about gay marriage, that would lead to a whole other conservation and debate that I don't want to dawdle on.

Good to see that in .mp4 format. I made the thread requesting it be made and here it is. Thanks.

bump

Key word.

If you purposefully take steps to ensure the act has no purpose but pleasure, then it has no purpose but pleasure (most of the time).

Buggery and scissoring is effectively always-protected sex, that spreads diseases even more.

You are dodging the issue inherent in the difference between the two, because is destroys your attempt at tactical nihilism.

Homosexual sex has no purpose but base physical pleasure.
Heterosexual sex has the inherent purpose of producing new life, and only through purposeful action does it cease to act to that purpose.
It is, therefore, inherently less degenerate - you have to do something to make heterosexual sex fall into the realm of pure adulterated degeneracy, whereas homosexuality is inherently in that position.

Further, there are psychological ramifications that go beyond the physical.

Homosexuality is, at its core, nothing more than aberrancy - it is a mistake, a malfunctioning system.
It is a frozen laptop.
And you're effectively arguing that, hey, the screen is still on, right?
So it still works!
In no way more inhibitive toward, and/or more conflicting with, the effort to have that laptop function toward the many tasks it was designed for and/or to function in the context of the greater network of which it is a part!

… Which is obviously retarded.

because we are immune from your cancer