Holy shit Holla Forums, you guys really created a living dumbass
I suggest you guys get serious and stop the shitposting, except for this one of course
Holy shit Holla Forums, you guys really created a living dumbass
I suggest you guys get serious and stop the shitposting, except for this one of course
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
I can only imagine what thought process he went through to arrive at that.
NO BULLY MUKE
haha yeah, a "Leninist" could not be a libertarian. I feel bad for anarchist. First the Right tries to appropriate their language and now dumbasses from the Marxist left who only use the word "libertarian" because it "sounds so cool" take it.
I'm not a Leninist either but holy shit they just such a fucking idiot calling himself a "Leninist".
he deserves all the ridicule he can get tbh. He's a muh privileged Brit who has all the time in the world to read but only accomplishes to repeat what he hears others say. For a socialist, he has a meme understanding of things. He's lazy.
I thought those fascists had taught him a lesson
100
its so obvious he's never really read anything lol
...
I know you may take issue with some of this, but there Marxists that have been referred to as libertarian. Namely those that mixed with anarchists which created tendencies like left-communism, council communists, autonamists, etc.
BUT a fucking "libertarian Leninist" is the most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard.
please change the image to that as it would be stronger
...
I knew you were going to say this, but "libertarian Leninist" is still more fucking retarded.
...
multi-party socialist states >>>> one-party socialist states
If I said "name a leftcom", probably the first one that popped into your head would be Bordiga right?
He's referred to by many as an ultra-Leninist and that quote is by him
State power has its roots in the relations of production is everything.
A "libertarian" or "authoritarian" ideology is not the cause of the state or "statism"
This sentence is not grammatically coherent.
...
Whoops! You're right, meant:
...
Meaning who controls the production.
Meaning who gets to vote on the laws controlling production.
Meaning how democratic the society is.
Meaning how anti-authoritarian the society is.
No
The workers vote, and production is "regulated" according to the requirements of capitalist production.
Communism isn't "democratic", as politics won't exist, and management becomes the same as any other labor, so there isn't necessarily a democratic process for everything, but you would probably call it "libertarian".
I assumed you weren't talking about capitalism.
In what way? Will people not have a say in the society? Will disagreements disappear?
There is no state after capitalism…
Politics is the sphere of management of society from above necessitated by the lethal contradictions within that society
So, what? Politics is limited to representative democracy?
Are we trying to be at all materialistic and trying to figure out from present movement what mode of production is possible from here, or are we just sketching out Utopian societies around our platitudes?
No, its limited to the capitalism
Are you actually going to elaborate on why only some societies are actually possible, or are you just trying to sound superior?
politics occurs in every society in existence where more than one person holds power.
I literally just said its based on how we relate to each other in the production process.
People don't "hold power" in any meaningful way in communism, so its irrelevant.
That says nothing about why states are incompatible with socialism.
People hold equal amounts of power. Are you serious? Do you think people will be incapable of disagreeing or otherwise think some method of mediating disagreements is unnecessary?
The state arises out of class contradiction, when classes disappear, so does the state.
>the shit someone says who read marx
kys tbh fgt
What?
you're not a marxist and you don't know shit, you pretentious little faggot
that's what
care to elaborate?
yeah, why you be the one elaborating and actually giving full citation when you can just shitpost away, as you always and constantly do, and then ask others to go in depth on why you're a faggot
i'm not willing putting any more effort into this than you do, cunt
[citation needed]
exactly, dipshit
You won't even explain what you think I said that was wrong?
*what I said that you think is wrong?
because it's what you said, not marx, which authority you plead to
Right, I'm asking what I said that you have a problem with…
just make it quick
>>>/kys/
...
and again, wrong, not pretending, i'm sorry
sometimes i make the mistake of giving faggots like you too much credit in thinking the shit you're pulling is elaborate trolling and not just you shitting over the place while you're losing it
see
Wait, are you referring to
?
Because I explicitly said that was Bordiga
hence also the pasta background…
So I know everyone jokes about literally everyone on this board having low-functioning autism on this board but jesus christ is that actually true?
IT'S A FUCKING JOKE.
It wasnt even in the video just the comments.
Fml you guys.
no, you're full of shit. I remember you calling yourself a "libertarian Leninist" in your other video where you addressed the YouTube changes going on and then you came on here defending your identification.
This isn't your first time.
youtube.com
Kill yourself you "libertarian Leninist socialist"
...
Yea dude I'm making fun of myself from that video. Although for the record I still think there are grounds for using the libertarian prefix, but it got such a backlash and it's literally just a label so not even important I decided it wasnt worth it.
riiiiiiight
btw it isn't a prefix you imbecile.
and no, there's no ground.
A Leninist cannot be libertarian
Well you convinced me good job.
R u stupid?
Do you know what libertarian even means?
...
You're referring to libertarian in the economic and political sense, most likely as related to anarchism. This would by all means clash with Leninism.
However I am referring to it in the social sense, which does not clash with a political and economic ideology such as Leninism but rather extends to it.
By this I mean for example I believe people should be able to take drugs if they so choose, but I wouldnt have to be a Leninist to believe this, nor would I have to believe this to be a Leninist.
There is no fucking "social sense" by the way you mean it. There is absolutely no new thing that you're saying. It is as stupid as saying "socially leftist" or "economically leftist". It's stupid and there's already a term for what you're describing and it isn't "libertarian"
I pity the anarchists who have to deal with stupidity from people appropriating their terms.
I'm a Leninist anarchist.
No, I'm not using Leninist in a political or economic sense, but I am just using it in a social sense to mean that we should hold a disciplined conduct and try hard to be organized like Lenin.
Ok well there is because I just told you what it is.
People just want an excuse to shit on you really. You're not terribly popular around here.
No, you're making shit up.
If all you ever read was Lenin, of course you wouldn't know anything.
I'm not a libertarian, but this is just stupid.
He honestly deserves it.
Muke didn't invent social liberalism
>en.wikipedia.org
Did you read the previous posts?
I said that what he was describing is nothing new. It's call cultural liberalism, and I've told him this before in the other thread he made back then.
What I meant there is that he is reinventing libertarianism to mean cultural liberalism just because he's a child and it "sounds cool" to him
I never even said it was anything new.
And would you seriously prefer I call myself a Culturual Liberal Leninist? Oh boy that wont get misunderstood at all.
I chose Libertarian because these cultural liberal views are things their ideology already has built in along side their free market economics. This isnt just me chosing labels for literally no reason.
why do you feel the need to put every descriptive position that applies to you in your little presentative title?
Btw, calling yourself a socialist is already extremely misunderstood. It's better to just throw it all in and educate people.
Now you're conflating libertarianism with neoliberalism.
Also, culutral liberalism dates back to the Enlightenment and its a myth that neoliberals are really culturally liberal. They think votes should be had to decide and that's it. But ppl for the whole "wee lmao" shit
Why cant I? Isnt that the point of a label?
Also ok yea you're right there libertarianism shouldnt be used to describe neo-liberalism, but it still makes sense, assuming you ignore the fact that neo-liberals want you a slave to your employer in every aspect of life anyway.
Not really.
Also most socialists are culturally liberal to begin with, so it's extremely unnecessary. You don't need to put every label you can conceive of in front of your main ideology. It begins to sound like a card game.
Most Socialists here are sure. Take a trip to r/FULLCOMMUNISM and you might see find otherwise.
I get that having a shit tonne of extra things in your ideology gets obnoxious, which is why I made that joke on my video's comments. I dont even normally say I'm a Libertarian Leninist, I only really did in that Youtube cencorship video where I was talking about the term anyway, and in that comment I was making a joke in.
Well stop doing it or I'll keep shitting on you for it
literally worse than anarkiddies
pls no bully
muke's sense of humor is underrated
I think he got stumped by that guy t on twitter the other day when t called his Venus fly trap a means of production.
Too bad his delivery is shit. Deadpan is well suited to his humor, but he constantly sounds like he has a cold.
You're using windows 10. You're already screwed.
It's for torrenting. But it does jack shit to prevent you from getting a copyright notice from your ISP.
I told you, I told you about e-celebs my dudes. We wuz personality cultists n shiet.
=🍀🍀🍀)
...
oi your smiley is looking a little celti m8
...
This isnt about culture though.
I'm just saying you can advocate worker ownership of the means of production while also advocating for or against things that only directly effect an indivisual and no one else, and the best example of this is drug useage but there are ofc other things too.
surprise: nothing only directly affects an individual and no one else. Drug usage means purchasing from predators who will spend your money buying more drugs to sell to other kids. All actions have consequences.
You might as well be saying "there's ethical consumption under capitalism" or "workers choose to work". And you know as well as I do that that's false.
"economic freedom" "social freedom"
Can you explain to me what the difference is between these two in a way that doesn't overlap at all in any important way? If not, they're inseparable.
That's only because drugs are illegal in the first place. That's like arguing a CEO deserves his surplus value because of 'risk'.
Corporations in Amsterdam and thugs on the street are both "predators". I specifically used the word for the reason that it can be applied to both.
Do I really need to make it clear I'm against corperations too though? Come on dude.