Why do leftists hate colored people?

amazing

He's not wrong. If you take all the land and means of productions, which are mostly commonly owned by the rich, and give them to the public, you are giving the poor partial ownership, which they would not have otherwise had.

Typical libtard argument. You're splitting hairs over literally nothing.

>if you do thing X (of which the official definition is giving object Y to group Z) then the poor would also benefit so that means the actual definition of thing X is anything that makes the poor benefit
Were you born retarded or did you have to work at it?

That's not what I said at all. Learn to read dumbass.

...

...

Stopped reading there

Do you live in a world where everyone can be right if they just make up their own (wrong) definitions? Are you supposed to be Holla Forums or tumblr?

I guess if I call dogs cats I can still be right since my definition of cat is any furry animal with four legs. Retard.

Liberal "intellectuals" in a nutshell.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections

I'm also not the person you were originally arguing with.

I'm not even a liberal, dude. Look at the flag.

Actually, I never mentioned anything about cats.

It ain't a social conservative board, that nonsense is incompatible with a stateless society.

The distinction between cat and dog in this case is an analogy for the distinction between liberalism and socialism. Take it slow, you'll figure it out.

I know, I was arguing like you.

Take it slow, you'll figure it out. :)

What about birds?

Cat = lumpen roommate

You confuse social liberalism with cultural liberalism.

bravo

...

LBJ took office 100 years after slavery ended. What is your point?

I love niggers

Slavery destroyed the black family unit you stupid fuck

There's nothing to refute. You don't have an argument.

Birds represent the incestuous force of the maternal superego.

first
meant for

You are the one who asserted that Molyneux was wrong and you have yet to prove it. Did you already forget? What a burnout.

And you think they sat around for 100 years being unemployed and doing nothing even though welfare wasn't really a thing until the 1930's?

Get real, faggot.

And we almost got away with it too!

14/88 HEIL STALIN

fucking checked

Of course I did. The video I posted did, in fact.

He implied that socialism is giving money to the poor. It is, in fact, giving the means of production to the public. He apparently thinks that communism is when you give all the money to the poor and socialism is when you only give some of it. By calling socialism one thing when it is in fact another, he is wrong, just like someone who calls a cat a dog when it is in fact a cat is wrong, QED.

Wrong. He implied that socialism would transfer some amount of wealth from the rich to the poor, not that Socialism is specifically designed to do so.

In the first fragment he says that any principled socialist should be giving money to the poor or else risk failing to live up to the principles of socialism.
In the second fragment he says that communism is giving all the money to the poor.

He is wrong, because neither socialism nor communism are what he claims them to be.

Are you genuinely this stupid or are you being obstinate on purpose?

Um, It's not hate. It's understanding.
They're minorities, they're…ehh, okay less well off in pretty much every way so we need to help them, makes sense right? If you see a crippled person you give them a wheelchair, if you see a child you teach it to read. We're teachers and we're helping them, y'know, get to be as well off as us.

This is how Socialists get their foot in the door as it were. There is nothing wrong with this statement.

And yeah, he said giving 'all' the money to the poor is ``kinda`` communism. Not technically wrong either since you are so determined to argue technicalities.

No, what is wrong with that statement is everything. Socialists start by saying that we want the workers to own the means of production. This is, as it were, the whole fucking point of socialism. Are you unaware of how reformists are treated here?

The second part of the first fragment,
is the most telling bit, where it becomes undeniable as to what he is saying - that socialists who are not giving money to the poor are not abiding by the principles of their philosophy. In this he is saying that the core principle of socialism is that the poor need to be given the money of the rich. If it was only a way of getting one's foot in the door, then the fact that socialists don't dedicate their lives to charity wouldn't be a problem, since that is after all not their top priority or even something they necessarily believe in. That part of the fragment, however, reveals Molyneux's preschool definition of socialism - helping the poor by transferring money from the rich to the poor, which is wrong.

It is not "kinda" communism. It is not any communism. Furthermore, kinda here is not meant to be a qualifier on the word that follows, it is a filler word that signifies hesitation. Even if we are to assume that it has lexical meaning, then his meaning would be that his definition is approximately true - that communism is, more or less, giving all the money to the poor. This is wrong.

nah

yeah ok sure thing

...

No that's not what he meant by "con artist". Now go type up another wall of text, retard. :^)

...

Oh wow some pictures with absolutely no context you sure showed me.

No they were mostly itinerant workers or indentured servants or unemployed.

Here too, the family structure was broken long before the welfare state.

Are you saying that slavery didn't break down the family unit?

I'm the one that's supposed to get real? Bitch please. All you are doing is going "Wahhh big gubamint boogeyman" and the. Refusing to except clear rebuttals to your retarded position.

How could the welfare state destroy what did not already exist?

:^)

Irrelevant after the political restructuring during new deal.

Pure bullshit, and she was relatively not racist for the time, and that's also irrelevant to the function of the institution today

True but its a problem with how welfare is structured and means tested, compounded with the racism, jim crow laws and pre-existing wealth distribution from slavery, not inherent to redistribution of wealth/resources.

(just to qualitatively demonstrate the point about pre-existing wealth distribution having a massive effect on current wealth distribution I will link you to this study: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3618720/What-s-Researchers-richest-families-Florence-remained-600-years.html
If it can last 500 years in florence it can last 150 years since slavery)

Simply getting rid of welfare will not fix the problem. I don't know what conservatives are proposing to fix this though.

Again we are not liberals and have no particular loyalty to the democrats other than then generally not being quite as batshit as the republicans atm.

Again the redistribution of resources is not inherently damaging to families, just the welfare that is given preferentially to single mothers and is means tested such that a full family would earn less than a single mother.

Second, any libertarian, ancap or anyone who claims we live in corporatism not capitalism currently must back up that stance by supporting some sort of one time redistribution of wealth to represent that fact that so much capital is accumulated by corrupt, corporatism means. Anyone who claims the current system is capitalism as its meant to function and therefore is perfect is fucking stupid or a porky and can't be argued with further, as they clearly have a fundamentally different and irreconcilable view of the world.

Thirdly the socialism we advocate is similarly supporting a one time "redistribution" of wealth and property, different to welfare, leading to a fundamentally different society with different values and incentives, which is different to welfare which simply wants to put a plaster over the wound of poverty. We want a system in which poverty is impossible.

...

kys tbh

pick one

also sage

Sorry to break it to you to capitalist piece of shit, but leftism has always been about empowering the working class white male against the rich and their pawns.

Cute.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

In drastic times (Germany was in a depression) you must do whatever you can to raise the living standards. We all know this.

Lenin's reasoning behind the New Economic Policy was that Russia was still largely feudal and needed to go through a phase of capitalism to develop into a system that could transition into socialism. When Hitler took power, Germany had been industrialized for decades.

Look, the enemy is OP.

We're on the same team. If you want to infight, it just makes OP happy.

There's a difference between the NEP and Nazi privatization. In the former case, it was to bring in foreign capital and help the economy grow. NEP didn't involve handing over state enterprises to private owners for private benefit, and Lenin would have never supported that. Hitler on the other hand was a fucking trailblazer of neoliberalism who did it all to make porkies happy.

...

...

oh look. it's another "I think I know what leftism is" thread. You're talking about democrats who in our current political climate are liberals and in the past were a rural white populist party. Not only is pointing to pre-1930's examples of the Democratic party's actions a poor argument against liberalism in the first place, but we are opposed to liberalism. lurk moar

Daily reminder that before the 50's 60's, democrat and republican positions were inverted.

Everyone in this thread: Fucking kill yourself my lads.

...

not exactly. First off the progressive movement was pretty prominent in the Democratic party in the 30s and 40s. Before that the artisan debate was less between right and left and more between rural and urban or between the less-industrialized south and more-industrialized north. I don't think there's any way to project back "left" and "right" into the American politics of the past. American politics never made that much sense to where it could be categorized that easily. That remains the case today. The two party system inevitably leads to these retarded political positions.

...

next you'll be telling me how much i should want to gas muslims for acting on the same views you righties perpetuate

The truth is, people of color really aren't as left-wing as a lot of lefties think they are. Yes, black people, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. don't vote Republican, but the central institutions for all of those groups are 1. the family unit and 2. religion. They may be very big on anti-imperialism, pro-social democracy, anti-racial profiling, etc., but as soon as it comes to radical leftists' plans to abolish or radically change the family unit, or war on religion those groups immediately turn away.

This is also why Third Worldism is a laughable philosophy: most Third Worlders are also far more loyal to their families, God(s), and nation than they are to an abstract notion of communism. We've already seen the results of the Arab Spring and elections in India (whereby Hindu fascists like Modi received overwhelming support from Mumbai's poor).

They're as spooked as anyone else. Not really a big revelation.

this is not even a suprise

Most people are extremely "left wing" if you talk to them. I don't know where you live, but everyone I talk to dislike capitalism. Some still clinge to things like market logic, but that's about it. No one really gives a shit about the "family unit", the only person I ever talked to that really cared about that was an ultra traditional christian, and a 'default' rightwinger who's dad was a rightwing politican elected to office.

There's some supposed "conservative" social views amongst the 'rabble', but they're not really tied into political thought, when you talk to them they're - a vast majority - what you would call left wing (and by US standard - socialist friendly).

This is pretty bloody self evident, even in the US, by the actual numbers of turnouts of people for people like S█████, compared to both Clinton, and Trump (neither had any following before the media blasting them everywhere).

Or Corbyn, and the massive (extreme amounts) of people flocking to him, even if he was both ignored, and if not ignored - completely slandered, by the media.

People, the "silent majority", believe in cooperation, and helping eachother. There is no "silent majority conservative/rightwing". The pro-elite, pro-establishment, and the traditional right wing, has always tried to create a false consensus in the populace. Even the completely uninformed, and totally propagandized, will still - when you talk to them - support what is absolutely economic policies and ideas that would be more akin to a state of communism. The media, is not representative, of the people, and the media tells the people that everyone else agrees with capitalism, and ayn-rand/self-help rhetoric. This does not make it true.

This has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever read on Holla Forums and I'm here since the beginning of this board.
Dude, have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, your problem is that you live in San Francisco and are extremely unaware about how people think outside your bubble?
Sorry to tell you this but the overwhelmingly majority of people in the fucking world is classcucked, spooked as fuck and conservative. Shocking, I know but it is like it is.

I don't live in the US, you fucking ameriburger faggot piece of shit. My opinion is based on discussions, comraderie and friendship between me, and people from most of Europe, Scandi, and Asia (including mainland China).

And of course, the specifics I mentioned in the posts (actual turnouts for S█████, and Corbyn who I do not put in the same category - but just to show the people's opinions) are based on actual reported numbers of people supporting those things… I could bring up local turnouts and support, for non-ameriburger and UK politicians, but I'm guessing your brain would be slowly sliding out of your ass if I did.

Okay, I live in northern Massachusetts (a very prominent "blue state) and most of the people of color in my region (Merrimack Valley/Lowell/Lawrence) are economically left-wing but very, very actually reactionary when it comes to family and religion. Most Indian and Pakistani migrants here, for example, maintain their traditional patriarchal family structure even after being here for a generation or two. Latinos overwhelmingly vote Republican, mostly because they tend to be ultra-religious and see feminism, LGBT, and so on as contradictory to their values. Most of the Lebanese here are former Phalangists so they're always far to the right.

And yet S█████ had the most turnout and support, in numbers, across all demographics (as per the DNC leaks) of any candidate (and percentage wise, far more than any republican; as the republican voter base itself is smaller), out of anyone? A vast majority of the US support policies that would be completely in tune with 'fuck the rich, share more, and support everyone' they're just never implemented? Even in the US, the majority are what would be considered "left wing" (and not the democrat party-wise). The support amongst the people for S█████ - even when ignored completely by the media - alone showed this.

Except he's right. People are class cucked as all hell, but they have overwhelmingly left-leaning sentiments whether they know it or not. Generally they don't because all they've been exposed to are American education and news programs.

I live in the American South and have for most of my life and I'm speaking from the experience of talking politics with my neighbors, coworkers, and other people that I meet. They might vote Republican, but if you talk with them about left wing stuff and not mention the S or C word they'll be nodding their head in agreement most of the time.

If you travel in a lot of place, chance you do talk mostly to other people who also have the means to travel a lot, lot of lower class people (thoses who do not have the means to travel) hold usually more conservative views. Like some faggot said in my country, "The fatherland is the first wealth of those who have nothing".
There is a divide between the high qualified, high educated cosmopolitans and the low quaified, low educated "locals".

remember not to fall for the /int/ sectarianism

And none of those S█████ voters were PoC from my region. Again, you're not American and probably know little to nothing about the political environment here.

Sanders barely won Massachusetts, despite having huge amounts of support from the academic left and NGO left which tend to be very prominent in Boston.

Also, I specifically stated that most PoC in my area do tend to favor social democratic programs. What turns them away from the radical left is all the feminism and atheism.

Sanders didn't win Massachusetts.

I assumed he did but by a very narrow margin.

Jesus christ dude, you don't have to be rich to travel. It's a lot easier to move around as someone within the Eurozone, and of course it's easier to travel out of the schengen area as a schengen citizen than it is to travel into it - from outside it, but most of Europe has a higher degree of travel available to them than Americans. It's not just a thing for the rich, and the professional class.

The people I'm referring to, were not rich. The people I know locally, in my own nation, and those I know abroad, are not wealthy. They're struggling, proletariat, working the majority of the time of the day. I'm not speaking about this as some high-class fucktard that you're trying to paint me as.

The DNC leaks showed S█████ won overall in pretty much every demographic. The only 'line' that was drawn (the "PoC don't support S█████", was a clinton campaign lie/DNC lie, to excuse the fraud they committed); was between economic classes. Overall, rich people did not support S█████. Regular people, and poor people, did. Regardless of age, "color", or gender.

In the US you do.

The point mentioned by this post is extremely important. If you just don't mention the ideological "names" for what you're suggesting, but talk about issues, both economic and social, without using any of the dogwhistle terms… you'll easily find almost everyone being a comrade. Just confused by words.

Again, you're speaking about the US as a whole, not pockets like my hometown where PoC are very, very reactionary. Why? Because they care more about Christian values and the preservation of the patriarchal nuclear family.

Fuck off back to twitter

Not to mention, Boston's Muslims are some of the biggest uncle toms you will ever meet. Of course, they're anti-Israel and against imperialist US wars in the Middle East and Asia, but most of them are hardcore free marketeers who hold to a very American kind of rugged individualism.

Why don't people sage these threads. OP thinks we're democrats, he's already a lost cause or a troll.

Really? Even when it comes to muh Jesus, muh family, muh tradishun, muh race?

Most people don't actually give a shit about any of those things. Anywhere, in any religion, and any nation. The media sure likes telling people that this is what people care the most about, though.

...

I wasn't trolling. Most people, if you actually talk to people irl (do you?) will never give a fuck about things like this.

In general people seem to go because they've been going their whole lives and know the people at their church rather than out of deep faith in Christ

In more rural areas people seem to put a greater emphasis on family if they're lucky enough to have any nearby because our states are stingy when it comes to rural assistance (if you're not a tobacco or cotton grower) and so you need to have those connections in order to get by (someone to watch the kids when you're pulling a double at walmart, a cousin to borrow some money from when you need new shoes for the kids, etc), but the majority (which increasingly means urban populations) aren't devoted to family per se

Tradition is a dying horse. I'm 28 and I have a strong feeling "tradition" for most people in the south will be a distant memory after our parents' generation goes. Capitalism has absolutely ravaged the passage of traditions between the generations and it's not going to get any better.

Just as a for-instance, my extended family is from West Virginia and when my dad would tell me about how things used to be for him growing up. It was a much more clannish mindset. You weren't, say, a citizen of Bullfinch County or Harlan township or whatever. You were a member of the McCulloughs or the Tanenbaums or the Wainwrights or 🍀🍀🍀Limericks🍀🍀🍀 or whatever. Where you lived was just incidental. Everyone learned how to play an instrument or sing and that's what they would do after supper or church or whatever. The girls would learn actual Family Recipes and stories about this or that cousin or such and such an uncle would be passed down. Evidently, some distance forebear of mine helped explore and map the state, another helped found a county, and another killed the last moose in the region.

But for me, I never met any of these people. I don't talk to my cousins or extended family very much, if at all. I never learned to sing or play an instrument or learn any of the family songs or stories. When my dad and his siblings die, poof, like dust in the wind.

Some people care in a casual or reactionary sort of way, but the majority don't give a shit. They know people or have family members that are in interracial relationships or they work in multi-racial workplaces. Racism/supremacy is still around, but it's a dying force, too, at least among non-black people. They seem like the only people still predominantly concerned with themselves as a "race," but for the majority that kind of thing would probably get you a shrug.