R: 239 / I: 75
"Daniel Vorcaro é economista, empresário, ex-banqueiro e criminoso brasileiro. (Wikipedia)"
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>17216
/brg/ - Brazil General
EDIÇÃO BANCO MESTRE"Daniel Vorcaro é economista, empresário, ex-banqueiro e criminoso brasileiro. (Wikipedia)"
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>17216
R: 128 / I: 71
I draw on occasion, mainly my OC Zhenya (aspiring femboy with black hair, when he transforms it's pink) and sometimes Dina (his tomboy classmate and first real friend in this bitch of a conservative school)
This is an art trade thread, so exchange doodles or full-blown drawings, or just share what you've drawn, even though this is more of a personal art dump :>
Art Trade Thread v2.0
/leftypol/ has been nuked Edition (Remade the thread because of it)I draw on occasion, mainly my OC Zhenya (aspiring femboy with black hair, when he transforms it's pink) and sometimes Dina (his tomboy classmate and first real friend in this bitch of a conservative school)
This is an art trade thread, so exchange doodles or full-blown drawings, or just share what you've drawn, even though this is more of a personal art dump :>
R: 237 / I: 47
El thread con más copas del mundo™
Ahora que tenemos nuestro propio board, es hora de tener nuestro propio hilo también.
Bienvenidos.
/arg/ - Argentina General
SANTUCHO EDITIONEl thread con más copas del mundo™
Ahora que tenemos nuestro propio board, es hora de tener nuestro propio hilo también.
Bienvenidos.
R: 14 / I: 5
Are normies really THAT trans/homophobic?
Looking online, it might seem that way. But maybe it's just a couple percent of mentally ill sadists who scream louder than everyone else? As I recall from school (I've been NEET for a long time now and don't have any relevant personal experience), only 30% of students were bullies; the rest either did nothing or indulged them, but without much motivation.
R: 272 / I: 67
que con todo y todo Estados Unidos no ha parado de intentar meter las narices en el país y me esta empezando a cansar y mas si en el 2030 planean poner otro titere de mierda en especial si es el puto de Salinas Pliego que planea ser literalmente un Milei Whitexican.
Alguien seguia la campaña de Manzo?
Que opinan de Morena en pleno 2025?
Que nos queda por hacer?
Mexico Gral
No encontré el hilo anterior así que hago uno nuevo porque es necesarioque con todo y todo Estados Unidos no ha parado de intentar meter las narices en el país y me esta empezando a cansar y mas si en el 2030 planean poner otro titere de mierda en especial si es el puto de Salinas Pliego que planea ser literalmente un Milei Whitexican.
Alguien seguia la campaña de Manzo?
Que opinan de Morena en pleno 2025?
Que nos queda por hacer?
R: 572 / I: 185
Gonna start off with a recommendation to watch The King and the Mockingbird the 1980 version especially, absolutely comrade-pilled movie.
Good torrent sites (massive pop-up warning, put on an adblocker):
https://kimcartoon.li/CartoonList
https://rarbg.to/torrents.php?category=movies
https://rarbg.to/torrents.php?category=2;18;41;49
Western Animation
A general for "western" animations/cartoons.Gonna start off with a recommendation to watch The King and the Mockingbird the 1980 version especially, absolutely comrade-pilled movie.
Good torrent sites (massive pop-up warning, put on an adblocker):
https://kimcartoon.li/CartoonList
https://rarbg.to/torrents.php?category=movies
https://rarbg.to/torrents.php?category=2;18;41;49
R: 0 / I: 0
hey people
haven't got access to weed (trying to quit) or any other drugs really, other than household shit. i take 100mg of zoloft daily (sertraline) and would like to avoid dying to seratonin sickness but i want to get high/have a psychadelic experience. ideally WITHOUT dying or going to the ER or some other life ruining shit. any ideas you guys
hey people
haven't got access to weed (trying to quit) or any other drugs really, other than household shit. i take 100mg of zoloft daily (sertraline) and would like to avoid dying to seratonin sickness but i want to get high/have a psychadelic experience. ideally WITHOUT dying or going to the ER or some other life ruining shit. any ideas you guys
R: 13 / I: 7
Picrel is Warehouse which is actually korean, not japanese, but I think manhwa is close enough to manga
Doesn't have to be explicit, can be full of yearning as well.
/y/ Yaoi general
Recommend good yaoi for mePicrel is Warehouse which is actually korean, not japanese, but I think manhwa is close enough to manga
Doesn't have to be explicit, can be full of yearning as well.
R: 1 / I: 0
acne
Any other FTMS struggling/struggled with acne? I started accutane a while ago and it’s been working alright, still got some acne scars tho. Skincare rarely has good results on me, needing suggestions
R: 326 / I: 644 (sticky)
PDF/EPUB post outage thread
drop them PDFs, we will rebuild edition
R: 33 / I: 4
While we agree that LGBTQ people should be free to live their lives under socialism, unfortunately this hasn't been the case for all socialist govs.
Past reactionary behaviours/ policies have also emerged in certain so-called Socialist orgs like the ACP who use the USSRs past homophobia to justify their bigotry.
As a result, I think it's important that we assemble resources to ensure that future/ existing parties, platforms and orgs don't repeat the same mistakes.
Any recs?
Quotes and examples of pro-LGBTQ policies in Socialist Govs are also welcome.
Socialist Queer theory/ Reading List
Trying to put together a reading list for Queer Socialist Theory/ Trans Liberation.While we agree that LGBTQ people should be free to live their lives under socialism, unfortunately this hasn't been the case for all socialist govs.
Past reactionary behaviours/ policies have also emerged in certain so-called Socialist orgs like the ACP who use the USSRs past homophobia to justify their bigotry.
As a result, I think it's important that we assemble resources to ensure that future/ existing parties, platforms and orgs don't repeat the same mistakes.
Any recs?
Quotes and examples of pro-LGBTQ policies in Socialist Govs are also welcome.
R: 19 / I: 5
Personal opinion is if the Queens want the crown, they need to carry the sword.
Should conscription include women?
What breaks or bends if women get drafted? Does the 'protect women' instinct finally die? Would shared foxholes bond the or poison everything?Personal opinion is if the Queens want the crown, they need to carry the sword.
R: 564 / I: 342
(Draw or showcase new Alunya art)
Draw Alunya 3
Alunya Art thread(Draw or showcase new Alunya art)
R: 7 / I: 0
The left-communist term encompasses Italian Left-Communism – which is split between the ideas of the ICP and of the ICT –, what ever the fuck the zionist ICC is, Council Communism, the ideas of the Situationist International, and Communization Theory (which itself is split between the various interpretations of what communization is.)
Arguably, appelism (the ideas of Tiqqun and the Invisible Committee) can also be included but it seems like they are more focused on alienation rather than communism, at least that's the impression I got after finishing reading Bloom Theory. Also, their French counterparts are dicks.
What is /dead/'s opinions in the Left-Communism?
For those who are unaware, left-communism is an umbrella term that emerged from the left-opposition in the 3rd International.The left-communist term encompasses Italian Left-Communism – which is split between the ideas of the ICP and of the ICT –, what ever the fuck the zionist ICC is, Council Communism, the ideas of the Situationist International, and Communization Theory (which itself is split between the various interpretations of what communization is.)
Arguably, appelism (the ideas of Tiqqun and the Invisible Committee) can also be included but it seems like they are more focused on alienation rather than communism, at least that's the impression I got after finishing reading Bloom Theory. Also, their French counterparts are dicks.
R: 16 / I: 5
Is it cringe to take names from anime? I want to go by the last name Rozen because my current one isn't gender-neutral, and taking a female surname is illegal (for some reason, it doesn't apply to first names, only last names and patronymics).
Is it cringe to take names from anime? I want to go by the last name Rozen because my current one isn't gender-neutral, and taking a female surname is illegal (for some reason, it doesn't apply to first names, only last names and patronymics).
R: 1 / I: 0
Beyond being oddly reductive of anarchy can be, I believe anarchy between people and in certain spaces can occur, albeit temporarily or unsustainably. Moments like people meeting someone new at a bar, kids playing, friends talking, parties, queer events, and so on. All these places and situations have the potential to be in anarchy, but of course not every single instance of those occurrences IS anarchy. The overarching social dynamics of age, maturity, condescending speech and whatnot would invalidate this "state of anarchy".
For as difficult as it may seem, it would seem rather interesting for someone to capture these brief moments of "anarchy" in life. People do it unintentionally everyday, but something focused with that in mind seems like it could yield some more interesting results. Thoughts?
Capturing Anarchy
Assuming a definition of anarchy as a state of being where there are no vertical hierarchies between individuals, it's safe to presume that it's quite a common occurrence in daily life. We look for anarchy, and try to create those moments in our lives and the people and relations around us. This is not denying the overall superimposed political hierarchy inherent in the state and government, and you could argue for that reason no "anarchy" may happen inside a state.Beyond being oddly reductive of anarchy can be, I believe anarchy between people and in certain spaces can occur, albeit temporarily or unsustainably. Moments like people meeting someone new at a bar, kids playing, friends talking, parties, queer events, and so on. All these places and situations have the potential to be in anarchy, but of course not every single instance of those occurrences IS anarchy. The overarching social dynamics of age, maturity, condescending speech and whatnot would invalidate this "state of anarchy".
For as difficult as it may seem, it would seem rather interesting for someone to capture these brief moments of "anarchy" in life. People do it unintentionally everyday, but something focused with that in mind seems like it could yield some more interesting results. Thoughts?
R: 202 / I: 86
HILO LATINOAMERICANO
EDICION MURO PROPIO
Terminamos el año con una victoria mas de los socialdemocratas en Uruguay y con Pepe Mujica en modo espectro alentando a los jovenes a militar
¡A Darle con Todo!
Para luego buscarlo en el catálogo:
Latinoamérica, Latin America, LATAM, /lat/, latinoamérica, latino américa, hispanoamerica, /ñ/
HILO LATINOAMERICANO
EDICION MURO PROPIO
Terminamos el año con una victoria mas de los socialdemocratas en Uruguay y con Pepe Mujica en modo espectro alentando a los jovenes a militar
¡A Darle con Todo!
Para luego buscarlo en el catálogo:
Latinoamérica, Latin America, LATAM, /lat/, latinoamérica, latino américa, hispanoamerica, /ñ/
R: 561 / I: 556 (sticky)
Here you can see an array of ancient and modern screenshots, that stem from the wonderful civilization of narcomania that inhabited the place once known as 420chan, a place that is promised to return one day.
Our unique collection of historical screenshots tells the story of human relations with psychoactive substances.
[WARNING: Some screenshots might contain NSFW content, viewer discretion is advised.]
420chan Culture Museum
Come and visit this thread! Users of leftypol, siberia, for the 420chan Culture Museum.Here you can see an array of ancient and modern screenshots, that stem from the wonderful civilization of narcomania that inhabited the place once known as 420chan, a place that is promised to return one day.
Our unique collection of historical screenshots tells the story of human relations with psychoactive substances.
[WARNING: Some screenshots might contain NSFW content, viewer discretion is advised.]
R: 13 / I: 1
Im gonna be honest and this isnt ragebait
I use the sharty, while being a bisexual trans woman, whos also a leftist obviously.
I honestly just like soyjaks, ive been hyperfixating on them for a while now, i kinda just ignore the transphobia and laugh at the jaks.
I dont participate in raids or doxxing other trans people of course
Im not self hating or anything either dont get me wrong. I love being trans and i love being a tankie.
Im gonna be honest and this isnt ragebait
I use the sharty, while being a bisexual trans woman, whos also a leftist obviously.
I honestly just like soyjaks, ive been hyperfixating on them for a while now, i kinda just ignore the transphobia and laugh at the jaks.
I dont participate in raids or doxxing other trans people of course
Im not self hating or anything either dont get me wrong. I love being trans and i love being a tankie.
R: 66 / I: 10
Back then, GamerGate was the start of something fresh, something edgy, something that was actually rebellious against both the bourgeois moralisms stifling the internet and the feminist hegemony that no western male could escape from. It was an escape valve, in other words.
But of course, I was wrong as GamerGate later on mestatized into being another wing of the current right-wing hegemonic ChudIntern. Indeed, GamerGate was merely an exercise in online reactionary activism, but we should actually try to analyse it as opposed to dismissing it as chuds being chuds.
It’s won’t give you the kind of analysis that has probably been done to death here, such as the alienation of young men, the rise of white upper-class female idpol and the HR-style managerial culture that preceded online censorship and SJWs’ political correctness, journos forming email groups as part of a coordinated attack on the median gamer, the MSM’s double standards towards female-exclusive spaces vs treating male-only spaces (such as gaming) pathologically, etc…
This is a good summary of the event from a gamergater’s POV: https://wolfsheadonline.com/how-wikipedia-and-molly-white-rewrote-the-history-of-gamergate/
Instead, I’ll say this: The rise of the gooner chuds that you see today is a product of GamerGate, itself being downstream from the left’s rejection of sex-positivity and and pathologisation of any form of assertive male heterosexuality to heed the demands of the feminist bourgeoise that held a stranglehold on the left.
Obviously the online right isn’t really sex-positive as much as being pro-sexual hierarchy and has been the case within the western right since the days of the Nazis and even before then (e.g., Annunzio’s enterprise in Fiume). It’s just that their vision of sexuality makes enough space for male heterosexuality to attract young men (the most revolutionary demographic) into their fold. The left’s response? It’s either dumb Puritanism as shown by puriteens who think Euphoria (that show starring Sydney Sweeney) is rape culture, or bastardised “trad Marxism” about banning porn and prosties cuz muh exploitation even tho Chinese games nowadays are heavily gooned out + the Soviet bloc was lax on non-commercial erotica (hence why post-collapse Eastern Europe became a thriving heaven for porn). The modern left thought that selling out on the 1970s sex positivity to appease radfems was worth it despite handing the right a victory. I mean, remember that time Reddit’s r/socialism mods went apeshit over catgirl anime edits even tho it was done a female leftist member and it was just SFW anime girls but with cat ears edited on them? Yh, that’s the level of discourse you’re dealing with when it comes to sex-negative leftists.
Of course, there’s the issue of ageism, and ohh boy is that big. There’s this attitude among both the centre and the left where young men are often infantilised as being lost sheeple or stigmatised over their age in ways that would be alienating if done to other demographics, so the end result is young men flocking to the right precisely because they don’t think they will have any stakes in the left. Seniors are supposed to help youths who are proven to be determined to fight for the revolution, not throw’ em away for violating some HR-mandated code. It’s one thing to maintain decorum in conversations and being opposed to extremism, but you won’t get far if you try to overpolice on every little convo your members have.
What’s the takeaway from me then? The left rejecting sex-positivity and embracing ageism were its two biggest mistakes that cost them an entire generation.
P.S.: It’s one thing to oppose sexual hierarchies that devalue humans, it’s another to devalue the body and the Eros in and of themselves. The left shouldn’t necessarily embrace prostitution, but it also shouldn’t embrace sex-negativity either. I would personally suggest reviving the free sex movement because, if sex does become widely available under a secular sex positive society, then obviously prostitutes and porn studios and pimps would be out of business. That’s why Marx often noted how traditionalist marital moralism coexisted with prostitution, with or without its prohibition. But I’m open for other suggestions.
Again, can’t say if it’s said already or not, but I do think those points need to be hammered home as it seems that the left prior to the Gaza genocide was struggling to remain relevant, especially as Big tech right figures like Musk and Thiel were pumping a shit ton of dollars to aid the remnants of the alt-right to carve their mockingbird network out of it; their work has paid off in the form of the current unholy MAGA and alt-right and neocon nexus that I’d like to call “white neoconservatism with Enoch Powell characteristics”, with Australia’s and Canada’s brightest minds Drew Pavlou and Captive_Dreamer starting out differently only to end up being rabid racist neocons.
So yh: Sex-negativity and Ageism are bad things, folks.
GamerGate: A retrospective
Not sure if this is the right place, but since this is the gaming tab, I say why not?Back then, GamerGate was the start of something fresh, something edgy, something that was actually rebellious against both the bourgeois moralisms stifling the internet and the feminist hegemony that no western male could escape from. It was an escape valve, in other words.
But of course, I was wrong as GamerGate later on mestatized into being another wing of the current right-wing hegemonic ChudIntern. Indeed, GamerGate was merely an exercise in online reactionary activism, but we should actually try to analyse it as opposed to dismissing it as chuds being chuds.
It’s won’t give you the kind of analysis that has probably been done to death here, such as the alienation of young men, the rise of white upper-class female idpol and the HR-style managerial culture that preceded online censorship and SJWs’ political correctness, journos forming email groups as part of a coordinated attack on the median gamer, the MSM’s double standards towards female-exclusive spaces vs treating male-only spaces (such as gaming) pathologically, etc…
This is a good summary of the event from a gamergater’s POV: https://wolfsheadonline.com/how-wikipedia-and-molly-white-rewrote-the-history-of-gamergate/
Instead, I’ll say this: The rise of the gooner chuds that you see today is a product of GamerGate, itself being downstream from the left’s rejection of sex-positivity and and pathologisation of any form of assertive male heterosexuality to heed the demands of the feminist bourgeoise that held a stranglehold on the left.
Obviously the online right isn’t really sex-positive as much as being pro-sexual hierarchy and has been the case within the western right since the days of the Nazis and even before then (e.g., Annunzio’s enterprise in Fiume). It’s just that their vision of sexuality makes enough space for male heterosexuality to attract young men (the most revolutionary demographic) into their fold. The left’s response? It’s either dumb Puritanism as shown by puriteens who think Euphoria (that show starring Sydney Sweeney) is rape culture, or bastardised “trad Marxism” about banning porn and prosties cuz muh exploitation even tho Chinese games nowadays are heavily gooned out + the Soviet bloc was lax on non-commercial erotica (hence why post-collapse Eastern Europe became a thriving heaven for porn). The modern left thought that selling out on the 1970s sex positivity to appease radfems was worth it despite handing the right a victory. I mean, remember that time Reddit’s r/socialism mods went apeshit over catgirl anime edits even tho it was done a female leftist member and it was just SFW anime girls but with cat ears edited on them? Yh, that’s the level of discourse you’re dealing with when it comes to sex-negative leftists.
Of course, there’s the issue of ageism, and ohh boy is that big. There’s this attitude among both the centre and the left where young men are often infantilised as being lost sheeple or stigmatised over their age in ways that would be alienating if done to other demographics, so the end result is young men flocking to the right precisely because they don’t think they will have any stakes in the left. Seniors are supposed to help youths who are proven to be determined to fight for the revolution, not throw’ em away for violating some HR-mandated code. It’s one thing to maintain decorum in conversations and being opposed to extremism, but you won’t get far if you try to overpolice on every little convo your members have.
What’s the takeaway from me then? The left rejecting sex-positivity and embracing ageism were its two biggest mistakes that cost them an entire generation.
P.S.: It’s one thing to oppose sexual hierarchies that devalue humans, it’s another to devalue the body and the Eros in and of themselves. The left shouldn’t necessarily embrace prostitution, but it also shouldn’t embrace sex-negativity either. I would personally suggest reviving the free sex movement because, if sex does become widely available under a secular sex positive society, then obviously prostitutes and porn studios and pimps would be out of business. That’s why Marx often noted how traditionalist marital moralism coexisted with prostitution, with or without its prohibition. But I’m open for other suggestions.
Again, can’t say if it’s said already or not, but I do think those points need to be hammered home as it seems that the left prior to the Gaza genocide was struggling to remain relevant, especially as Big tech right figures like Musk and Thiel were pumping a shit ton of dollars to aid the remnants of the alt-right to carve their mockingbird network out of it; their work has paid off in the form of the current unholy MAGA and alt-right and neocon nexus that I’d like to call “white neoconservatism with Enoch Powell characteristics”, with Australia’s and Canada’s brightest minds Drew Pavlou and Captive_Dreamer starting out differently only to end up being rabid racist neocons.
So yh: Sex-negativity and Ageism are bad things, folks.
R: 97 / I: 10
Does leftypol play minecraft? I have no friends and wanted to start a new lan world
Does leftypol play minecraft? I have no friends and wanted to start a new lan world
R: 25 / I: 2
Marxism has no reality at all in the West. Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology. To begin, what is Marxism? Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills. Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies. Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive. But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development. This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science. Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object. But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself. And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject. Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable. To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society. Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class. Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular. He created a science that ceased to be above its object. For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself. Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along. “Communism is the riddle of history solved.” Why the need for class consciousness? This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind. In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat. Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself. Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object. Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society. This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality. Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues. But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it. The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society. How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge: The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism. According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat. The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme. In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch. But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being. In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge. In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being. If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge. If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’ Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’ The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity. This is exactly why @conceptualjames places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality. Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness. This Western Marxism has its origins in the neo-Kantian György Lukács, whose seminal work “History and Class Consciousness” was written to resolve the problem the subject/object distinction posed for the Marxist concept of society, class & history. In order to begin, Lukács engaged in an egregious form of revisionism; blaming for Marxism’s commitment to natural realism Fredrich Engels and his "dialectics of nature."23 To Lukács, when Marx referred to objective material reality, he was merely opposing society as a supra-individual horizon of meaning to individual subjectivity. It did not include objective natural reality, which Lukács brackets as irrelevant to Marxism. Society was ‘objective,’ and consciousness was ‘subjective.’ Their dialectical interaction, for Lukács, was the basis of history itself. But the material reality outside of social mediation (nature) was irrelevant to, and outside this dialectic, outside history. The reason I mention Lukács is because Western Marxism was founded on the false view that he resolved the problem of ‘subject/object’ distinction for Marxism. But he did nothing of that sort, he just changed the definition of objectivity to exclude objective reality itself. Here, objectivity is just the reified totality of social relations, denied of active subjective responsibility. This obviously contradicts Marx’s materialism, for which objectivity does include nature, not just society as some purely transcendental horizon. Without including nature in the definition of material reality, then class-consciousness consists in dissolving all society, in all its objectivity, into a pure subjective self-consciousness. For Lukács, the proletarian class is the first ‘subject-object’ which does exactly this. This is a gross perversion of Marxism, and it is easy to see the lineage of the Lukácsian view in the Frankfurt School, the New Left, ‘postmodern academia,’ gender studies in Wokeism as a whole. But is Lukácsian Western Marxism really to blame? In fact, when Lukács decided to reject Engels, he was just compromising with institutional modern realism. Engels ‘dialectics of nature’ was too ‘metaphysical’ because it saw something ‘human’ in reality. In other words, the opposite of a metaphysical distrust in reality! In other words, James Lindsay is a fucking moron when he blames wokeism’s metaphysical distrust in reality on Marxism. In actual fact, the distrust in reality is the very basis of bourgeois modernity. It can be thought as the entire premise of the Age of Enlightenment itself In the realm of science: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in our conventions, intuitions, religious beliefs, and sensibilities about the nature of reality. Reality is a pure OUTSIDE only accessed by cold, indifferent, impersonal inquiry. In the realm of politics: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in traditional sovereign authority, regarding it as unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical. Sovereigns must be legitimated by some explicitly abstract constitutional or democratic procedure. Wokeness is just the applying it to the realm of culture, where the unwritten norms of civilization secretly disguise relationships of injustice, oppression, and marginalization - by virtue of not being premised by expressly consensual, rational, etc. consciousness. In bourgeois modernity, only what is in the sphere of explicit responsibility of conscious subjects can be ‘trusted.’ Any recognition of humanity in reality itself is no different than a superstition: Reality is arbitrary, meaningless, and malign. Only institutions are Good. The madness of bourgeois capitalism, which alienates mankind from its material being, is the true culprit behind the Woke phenomena, NOT Marxism. All Lukács did was make Marxism compatible with bourgeois institutions. The original problem is the bourgeoisie itself. The Gnostic, occultist, and alchemical origins of the bourgeois enlightenment are abundantly clear. Lindsay accuses of Marxism, what is in fact THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERALISM! Marxism is the exact OPPOSITE of this bourgeois conceit of knowledge (gnosis), formalism, and wokeness In Marxism, the highest aim of knowledge is to give way to reality. This entails a great trust in material being - anything of importance arrived at by knowledge, is already reconciled within material reality itself. The paradox is that this ‘giving way’ is a necessary act of consciousness. Lukács’ response to this paradox revised Marxism itself. But even if Lukács were to be rejected, the problem remains. Furthermore, what is really the problem with Lukács’s revision, anyway? Exploring that reveals the way to a better solution. As we have shown, the idea of communism as a pure subjective self-consciousness, is based on the notion that objectivity is just reified social relations. This naturally begs the question of what the content of these social relations consists in, as so far they are only pure form Marxism is historical materialism, and Communism is just the practical application of historical materialism, via the class-conscious (historical-materialism conscious) proletariat, to society itself. But what does that say about the nature of society in the first place? It means society is an indescribable ‘totality’ of individual mental states, opinions, and beliefs, - the objectivity of social relationships, is merely a result of the subjective mind ‘reifying’ segments of the totality and treating them as external realities in themselves. Thus here, society has no real determinate content - it is a pure ‘Kantian Thing-in-Itself,’ a mere totality of individual relations that only asserts its existence negatively, via the reification (‘objectivization’) of its constituent parts. This means that material relations of production are rooted in reified mental states, not material reality. Consciousness of them (plus action) would dissolve them. Material society is then defined by ‘that which subjective consciousness has not yet assumed responsibility for!’ Having rejected any specific form of being as *necessarily* material, including nature, it is only upon failing to render the Totality fully transparent that consciousness may renunciate its aspiration to dissolve everything in itself. Totality is the Lukácsian sublime. The Totality of individual relations in the form of History, or Society, constitutes a type of absolute objectivity which is not merely a reification - but the free, continuous and holistic content of every possible experience, mental state, and subjectivity. A totality cannot assume self-consciousness, since it cannot be confined to any one self. So that is simply the end of Scientific Socialism: The only thing that can really be known about society, is that nothing at all can be known. This is no more knowledge than Kant’s Thing. Subject-Object distinction reemerges, only now between a subjective self-consciousness (in the form of Party, institutions, etc) rendering transparent and assuming responsibility for all determinations of society and the Totality of relations as the supremely impenetrable object. So we are back to square one, and none wiser in answering: 1. To what extent is society (including all relations of production) itself objective? 2. To what extent is Communism merely a subjective consciousness? These are the most fundamental questions of Western Marxism I place special emphasis on Western Marxism, since these questions are obvious within the framework of the experience of Marxism-Leninism. There, the question of the objectivity of society, and Communism, were answered practically: In the Soviet Avant-Garde and in the GPCR. Both of these events ran upon the objective limits of their underlying aspirations, and the wisdom of Marxism-Leninism - whether in Socialism in One Country or in Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up - defined itself in relation to that experience. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is defined within the context of countries where the question of society and the individual is resolved in the concrete bonds of civilization, bonds which were never questioned even at the height of revolutionary experimentation. In the comparatively atomized West, it is not at all clear to people to what extent society is objective, or to what extent ideas are subjective, even outside Marxist theory. Modern Western thinking doubts absolutely everything about society, even the definition of gender. The very distinction between subject and object itself is not at all clear in Western society, which is extremely sensitive to algorithmically-driven shifts in culture. Even scientific consensus is (rightfully) called into question, while expert opinion disguises itself as fact. In contrast to Lukács notion of reification, the real problem with the subject-object distinction cannot but appear to be rooted in the notion of objective Being implied by it, as totally purified of human quality. Despite that in reality, all objects appear somehow tainted by it When the thinking consciousness is entirely divided from reality, as pure spirit, soul, mind, or cogito - what remains of reality is completely meaningless, and devoid of any moral, historical, spiritual, or human significance. How could that square with Marx’s view bellow? Marxists as early as Plekhanov have also opted for regressing into Spinozism as a means to resolve the problem, where subject and object collapse into the supreme Substance. In this way thinking consciousness is the mere attribute of Substance: the most fundamental form of Being. Soviet Philosopher Ilyenkov, goes so far as to draw out speculative cosmological implications of this view, according to which thought arises as a necessary attribute of matter to prevent the heat death of the universe, by initiating a conscious cosmic catastrophe to reset it. The problem with Spinozism is not the view that mind and matter (‘subject and object’) share reality, but in the notion of reality as ‘Substance:’ a metaphysical view of the object already united with its subjective determinations. Substance thus has no stake in its attributes. This is just one of the ways of ‘resolving’ the problem by denying it all together: Substance is mere objectivity given Form by the mind. Substance is treated as supreme, antecedent, and given, but it is the repository of a dogmatic subjective determination, not true objectivity. The Marxist-Spinozist view cannot ground the origins of proletarian consciousness, Marxism, and the Communist party in reality - it represses its own origins, and pretends these arise in perfect continuity with the self-same Substance, effectively gaslighting itself. This view does not arise from any necessary procedure of thought, experience, or relation to the world. It is a metaphysical view that does not pay for itself in any way - it is an insight that cannot itself be reproduced materially, a pure dogmatism of the mind. There never comes the decisive gesture of Marx of renouncing knowledge to suspend it back into Being - Substance is the conceit of a knowledge that already inheres in Being, perfectly continuous with the intellect which at no point runs upon the limit of its pretentions. In practice, it becomes a type of ideological hubris, asserting the unreality and meaninglessness of every actually substantive bond of civilization, in favor of a supreme ‘Substance’ that has neither any skin of its own in the game, nor any reality outside a calcified intellect. More importantly, it renders Scientific Socialism into a metaphysical dogma, incapable of deriving concrete knowledge of concrete social reality. No specificity of societal objectivity is possible - everything is just ‘capitalism’ permeating the whole of its ‘attributes.’ It is obvious that if ‘everything’ is objective, then nothing in particular is, including society itself. The extent of society’s objectivity is the extent it is continuous with a dogma of the mind. It is no wonder Spinoza is the favorite thinker of pseudo-Marxist academia! Spinozism is categorically incompatible with Marxism for no other reason than that its foundations make impossible insight into laws governing historical development, and the particular qualitative character of societies. It could not possibly constitute any class-consciousness. Specifically, it cannot afford any recognition of the objectivity of contradictions (such as the class struggle). In the stead of the objectivity of class struggle lies a pure subjectivist ‘will to immanence,’ a notion of communism as antisocial as Lukácsian “self-consciousness.” The scholastic concept Substance does not resolve the object-subject distinction (the principal theoretical problem of Western Marxism), but only conceals it. For the 100+ years Western Marxism has confused it with Marx’s materialism, Marxism was condemned metaphysical languish. It suffices only to recall Marx’s own apt view of Spinoza: A metaphysically disguised objectivity which excludes the objectivity of man, and therefore the socius relevant for Marx’s own materialism. Marxism succeeded in overcoming metaphysics, but only within a limited scope of practice. That is namely in the investigations of Marx in Capital, the writings of Fredrich Engels and the concrete historical experience of Marxism-Leninism. Marx and Engels failed to fully transmit their theoretical genius. Lenin alone inherited it, and gave it practical reality. The genius of Marxism survived as the genius of world-historical statesmen and civilizations, but its original spark of consciousness was lost. Marxism-Leninism emerged as a type of phronesis, whose advanced outlook was established by the context of the concrete historical experience of Communism. Not strictly a matter of theoretical intellect, but also a type of advanced sensibility based on practical reality. Marx’s Promethean gesture acquired objective reality and history exclusively outside the West, where objectivity of society was not metaphysical question, but a given reality. And the problem of metaphysics permeated the whole of Western thinking, not just Western Marxism. For Marxism to be meaningful in the West, it cannot ignore this problem, for when it does, it always remains trapped within it anyway, inevitably regressing materialist objectivity from practical Scientific Socialism into the scholastic Kantian or Spinozist frame. In the case of Kantianism (as in Lukács), proletarian objectivity dissolves in the subjectivism of social-dem institutions. In Spinozism, it becomes an intellectual conceit devoid of skin in the game. Revisionism, opportunism, and defeatism are the certain conclusion of both. The object in the form of ‘capitalism’ - whether as Thing or Substance - becomes so overwhelming and insurmountable, that the comparative weakness of Marxist subjectivity takes in. The paranoiac spectre of ‘fascism’ reflects a consciousness always in retreat before its object. And hardly anything could affirm that paranoia more than the fact that the thinker who finally initiated the revolution that would emancipate the Western mind from bourgeois metaphysics once and for all, is nearly equally infamous for their affiliation to German Nazism. Originally a student of Husserl and the phenomenological school, Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook. Heidegger elects to orient thought to an origin more fundamental than can be contained within the frame of the reductionist ‘res cogitans/'extensa’ or ‘subject/object’ distinction, and that is toward Being as such. This is the beginning of what is popularly called ontology. For Heidegger, Being as such pre-exists the classification, categorization, utilization, etc. of particular beings by thought. It is the ‘Being of beings’ - the more fundamental ground by which particular beings are given to us - whether in experience, contemplation, or practice. He calls the difference between Being & beings the Ontological Difference. Every relation to beings, is based on a fundamental horizon of Being as such. When a specific horizon acquires historical dominance, it is metaphysical - imposing upon Being a specific relation by thought. The view of the thinking being is set on a foundation far less metaphysically loaded than the Cartesian Subject: as Dasein, a being for which there is a question or openness of Being. Dasein embodies the very discontinuity of Being that justifies the Ontological Difference. The problem with the subject-object distinction is that it can only regard beings as objects for a given subject. This makes for a notion of objectivity that is a priori idealist. The notion of Subject also implies a specific view of objects as mere utilities for its realization. Subject, moreover, defined as res cogita, is thought itself taken as its own real object. This implies an alienation of thought from reality, foreclosing its scandalous incipience in Being. This notion is the final conclusion of idealism; for Heidegger metaphysics as such. Marx already accomplished the rejection of the culmination of idealist philosophy, especially in his early writings. But the incipient materialist language he made use of (man, class, mode of production, etc.), later fell victim to inevitably metaphysical conceptualizations. Some of these Concepts were involved in the first breakdown of European Marxism itself. The changing nature of capitalist production & role of the proletariat ceased to neatly conform to their Concept, and this was used by Social Democracy to justify its revisionism. Western Marxism, with its conceptualist orthodoxy, became infiltrated by metaphysics, so it is natural that only a Western thinker entirely outside Marxism - and even entirely opposed to it politically - could initiate the emancipation of Western thought from metaphysics. Heidegger may have been beset by various idealistic and politically objectionable peculiarities, but these do not define his primary historical significance. His primary significance lies in setting all thought on a basis which asserts its posteriority in the face of Being. The concept of Dasein helps resolve the fundamental problem of Marxist theory: The Subject/Object paradox and its methodological individualism. For the first time, society, classes, and civilizations can be acknowledged as real in a manner consistent with the materialist view. Dasein does not necessarily afford contemplation exclusive significance in its overall issue of Being, so it is not just another concept of the subject: Not simply cognition, but practically being-in-the-world, facing the constitutive disjuncture with Being in its very Being. This overall phenomenological orientation permits thought to acknowledge reality without preemptively attempting to assume the consequences or implications it has for the thinking being. Whatever consequences or implications there may be, they begin with being, not thought. It is undoubtedly possible that Dasein can be conceived exclusively as an individual, but unlike the concept of the Subject, it is not necessarily so. Being as such is a common well-spring that cuts across individuated ‘subjects,’ and is the staging ground of any shared reality. Moreover, without acknowledging the incipience of thought from more fundamental Being, Marxist materialism becomes an absurdity: Materiality becomes identical to the thought of materiality (like Substance), and thus an idea! In this way, materialism easily becomes idealism. Dasein is constitutively a being already thrown in a world, a world not only not of its choosing, but whose givenness, in the form of beings, cannot be pre-emptively defined by thoughts, ideas or concepts. It rather rests upon a relation to Being as such, which can only be uncovered. The real individual is thus set against a background within which their very individuated identity is subordinated to a more fundamental horizon of Being. Dasein, in its incipience, knows no distinction between individuals, or itself and others. It is not even a collective Typically, Marxists try to resolve antinomy of sociality (either the sum-total of individual subjects or a collective subject individuals are part of) by just grotesquely defining it as a ‘complex’ of relationships between individuals, too numerous to ground in anything definite. The concept of Dasein, properly speaking, does not necessarily even imply individuated identity, let alone a grouping of individuals - but a more fundamental and antecedent background from which individuals acquire distinction, place and identity within a world. The simultaneous quality of being open to Being, while also itself Being, implies Dasein as an incipience of thought that goes from the question of a subject faced with its object, to a quality of the ‘object’ itself, as originally discontinuous with regard to itself. A Dasein is already immersed within a world, and is a grounded existence while simultaneously corresponding to an openness of Being at issue with, or at least discontinuous with that existence. Yet said Being is nothing more than the very Being of Dasein itself. This ontological difference (between a world of beings and Being as such) is not antagonistic, since Being merely discloses itself, implying not that it is at odds with the world, only given privileged significance in the way it reveals itself to Dasein, in contrast to beings. Particular beings acquire definition in their use, or general significance, but their real meaning is always metonymic, always referring to something more fundamental than themselves: Being as such is thus also the ultimate horizon of meaningfulness to which beings are referred. The definition of a Dasein itself, lies at the point in which it faces the threshold beyond which it cannot cross, simultaneously defining the whole of what it is. Typically understood as a person’s death, but more importantly that within which Dasein may recognize its finitude. That is necessarily beyond any particular being; even individual ego. Being as such grounds the finitude of Dasein, and meaningfulness arises not simply in the physical death of a person, but in Being itself, so far as it sets upon the limits of its disclosure to a given Dasein. Heidegger’s shortcoming lies in the ambiguity of Dasein. While Dasein is thrown into a given community, as an established horizon of being, it acquires an authentic relationship to Being only through the exercise of individual will, where it comes to acknowledge its finitude. Yet at the same time, the community is the very ground of Dasein, since ones relation toward others constitutes a given conventionally established horizon of being. What remains ambiguous is the antisocial status of the Being which discloses itself to Dasein. Experiencing finitude is necessarily individual, yet the status of the finitude of Being itself is not clear. This is heightened by the fact that for Heidegger, every determinacy of Being is metaphysical, closing the Ontological difference by reducing Being to a particular being. Though, Heidegger does not make clear how it is community acquires singularity of being, he grounds phenomenological Being the site of its conceivability, freeing it from the methodological individualism of intersubjectivity: and that is his principal achievement for Marxism. As shown, without the aid of Heidegger, Marxism inevitably regresses into metaphysics. But paradoxically, Heidegger’s understanding of metaphysics is the very chief defect of his outlook, not only condemning it to stagnation on his part, but placing it at risk of idealism. Heidegger makes no distinction, in his understanding of metaphysics, between Being in the specificity of its determination, and Being in the specificity of its understanding within the history of philosophy. He extends the label ‘metaphysics’ beyond the realm of thought. For him, metaphysics is an actuality. Thus, industrial capitalist modernity is itself the result of metaphysics and it is implied: a consequence of the history of philosophy. Obviously from an elementary Marxist, or even commonsense perspective, he gets the whole thing backwards. To understand how Being itself acquires a specific determination, it suffices to return to the ontological difference between Being and particular beings. Heidegger situates this difference at the core of Dasein’s existential turmoil, for which Being is always at issue. This quandary, while not identical, at least parallels that of Kant, for whom the transcendental subject is likewise situated between the antinomies. So it suffices to ‘in parallel’ look to Hegel for the solution, and transpose the difference as a difference of Being itself. That is to say, the ontological difference should change the operative notion of Being in the first place, from its one-sided conception mired in the stillness of thought, to an understanding of Being as itself contradiction, difference, etc. in sum, a dialectical union of contraries. Thus Being as such acquires determinacy as an absolute ontological union of opposites, transposing the difference at the core of Dasein to a feature of Being itself. That there exists Dasein in the first place should change something about our understanding of Being itself. Yet in contrast to Hegel, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that thought comprises the essential element in the contradiction at the heart of Being - The misstep of phenomenological Hegelians from Kojeve to Žižek, who regressed from Heidegger’s original achievement. The important conclusion is that ontology - taken not as a philosophical contemplation, but the real threshold by which mankind relates to Being as such - is itself actively suspended and itself reproduced within material reality, as the formative ground of all thought. This threshold lies not in the limits of philosophy, but in the limits of man’s existence itself, itself suspended in temporal history. Such a limit lies not in the threshold of man’s mastery over nature, but the limit by which man lives, relates to others and to things. Such a limit is not preempted by any philosophy, idea, or consciousness, but the genuine limit of man’s existence in relation to the whole of Being, conditioned not necessarily by physical limitation, but by the limit of the absolute contradiction which forms meaning itself. This can be understood as the contradiction between the givenness of being and Being as such, or between the determinate norms of civilization and their unity in a state authority, a specific frame of past and future, particular and universal, many and one, etc. Heidegger (at least in his early years) could not see that Dasein is not just a being for whom there is a question of Being - but also a being for whom that question is already resolved in a specific way. Heidegger assumed that resolution was necessarily metaphysical. While true for the history of philosophy, it is not true for living and real mankind, for whom the contradiction between the determinacy of Being and an appreciation for the ontological, is the very content of the latter. It is what gives Being itself meaning! The absolute contradiction is a contradiction of incipience, between determination and origins. The contingency of Dasein is not simply a matter of choice, as Heidegger thought, but in a determination whose ‘reason’ is only clear retroactively, like a wavefunction collapse. A civilization is the way it is, not because it is physically impossible for it to be any other way, but precisely because it is physically possible. Only by assuming one determination against a background of many, can a higher reason participate in the development of a people. Western Marxism, before it engages in ‘historical materialist’ analysis, projects a vulgar metaphysical view (rejected by Marx & Engels) of humanity, according to which mankind dwells at the precipice of physical extinction. Thus, everything about society is reduced to survival. Hence, class struggle ultimately reduces to the Rational Choice Individual, and one group merely finds itself disadvantaged with regard to others, on account of being unable to fulfill the desires, or restricting the choices of individuals. What is problematic about this is clear It clearly contrasts with the Marxist view of class struggle, which situates class antagonism within a single division of labor, as a contradiction at the core of being itself - giving it ontological significance, rather than a result of clashing individuals. Understanding any given civilization, is simply a matter of understanding the mode of production. The problem is they never bother to ask exactly what is being produced in the first place. They begin and end with the individual, effectively arriving at no real knowledge at all. The problem of course is that the individual is situated within a more fundamental horizon by which they relate to others, to things, etc. This jibber-jabber is well-known to ‘Marxists,’ but precisely what is meant by it, at the objective material level they never make clear. A mode of production is the mode by which something is reproduced; that something can’t just be the individual. For a mode of production to be general, it must itself have a general object, otherwise the entire concept becomes completely useless. To begin, this object - which is really the specific Being of Dasein - must be a specific logic of reproduction. You could call it a unit of civilization, or a division of labor. Marxoids have devoted an eternity of soliloquies to Capital as a logic of reproduction. Capital, whose logic is standardization, abstraction, and utilitarianism is not a specific logic, but an empty universalism, which concludes with modern American ‘civilisation,’ and now a mere extension of Church of Cartesian metaphysics (govt, financial institutions etc). M-C-M’ is merely the form of reproduction of the modern European polity; the abstraction of the commodity form corresponding to the abstraction of the state. Capital is not an autonomous process, but a civilizational quandary. A deeper object has precedence over it. In a sense, Heidegger is right that ontology here possesses primacy. Before there was capitalism, there was a more fundamental way European civilization came to relate to Being as a whole. That is not to say the latter is arbitrary - on the contrary, it is world-historical. The point is that in contrast to the vulgar materialist view, all of mankind’s ‘metaphysical,’ spiritual, cultural, scientific, etc. questions, aspirations, fears and dreams were bound up with the development of capitalism, reflecting their highest relation to Being as such. To know a logic of reproduction, is to know what is most sacred, fundamental, and ontological for a given people. No abstract, mechanical geometrical, or arithmetic conception of physical production suffices to produce knowledge of any given mode of production. It is clear that Heidegger, though providing the foundation for a Marxism freed from metaphysics, hardly allows us to go this far with the concept of Dasein. But at the very least, with the help of Hegel, it is possible to grasp ontological difference as a feature of Being itself That is the second most important step to arriving at a true conception of the objectivity of society, after Heidegger’s phenomenological turn itself. That is because it establishes Being as a specific contradiction, thus having some kind of finitude beyond individual death. This does not yet tell us anything particular about any specific Dasein. For that to be possible, it is necessary to take a fundamental step beyond Heidegger and beyond the West itself. Heidegger gave us an escape from metaphysics - but not a perspective already outside of it. It was Aleksandr Dugin who accomplished the particularization of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, thus allowing for it to be put to work in productive, even practical ways. And he does this by returning to the beginning of metaphysics according to Heidegger - in Logos Logos is the first forgetting of Being, in the form of Being as the identity of difference. Whereas Heidegger identifies Being with Time, Heraclitus identified Being as change and constant flux, and thus an identity of difference itself. The beginning of Western philosophy. Dugin, rather than languish in the melodrama of the long forgetting of Being, employs Logos as a productive concept: As the logic of a given civilization’s existence, defining its particular Dasein, or ontology. This analysis is only superficially idealist, but not necessarily. Dugin claims to reject materialism as a whole. Yet only his language is metaphysical: what he describes is nothing other than the metaphysically-concealed communal being which is the premise of any application of Scientific Socialism. The kernel of his thinking is materialist. Logos is the revealed form of Dasein, cleansing Heidegger of any traces of potential subjectivism and, in a properly Hegelian manner, transposing the ontological difference itself into a determinate object. Active geopolitical analysis can then replace impotent contemplation. Dugin offers Space as a proper counterpart to Heideggerean Time, because he does not mind being ‘metaphysical,’ in the sense of grounding Being in specificity. But from a materialist perspective, going from the general to the particular is the opposite of metaphysical. Dugin is necessary for Marxism, because without specifying the communal being which is the premise of Scientific Socialism, it not only regresses into metaphysics (and cannot draw any particular insights), it becomes a cheap extension of American unipolar liberalism. Dugin may give expression to this social being in an overtly metaphysical way, but that is just halloween dressing. The important thing is that he delimits it as the very ground of thought itself, fulfilling the logic of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, beginning from the particular. Socialism in One Country reflected the precise logic that universal Communism can only be built up within a determinate communal being, not a vain pretension to the entire world, but a concrete, grounded relationship between a specific party and a specific country. Dugin’s geopolitical orientation allows for an understanding of the objectivity of civilizations beyond the formalism of statehood - states only exist to the extent that they can reflect the underlying logos of a civilization, reflected in its geography. For Dugin, the logos acquires particularity (beyond the mere identity of difference) where it establishes a particular logic relating one to many, identity and difference, being and becoming, stasis and flux, universal and particular, central authority and local community, etc Logos is stamped by a particular logic of how it relates to its own incipience, how it excludes nothingness, how a people relate to their own constitutive origins, by what means they relate to a universality, what specific limit defines their existence. The logos of civilization easily translates in Marxist terms into a specific logic of communal reproduction, which itself would mean nothing without acknowledging the primacy of ‘ontology’ - at least taken to mean the way in which mankind reproduces the conditions of Form. With Dugin, knowledge can only be derived from the ground-up: every metaphysical, noetic, even psychological assumption is suspended and imperiled phenomenally - not a single conceit of the mind can be idle in the investigation of civilizations and geopolitics. What accounts for a great deal of Dugin’s mysticism is the phenomenalization of the active intellect, which must cross beyond itself and into its real material premises, where only a language of the sublime can suffice to give expression to its objective limitations. Importantly, these limitations are put to work for Dugin - the limits of metaphysics are immanent limits of logos itself, thus enabling a positive a positive analysis and investigation of different civilizations, rather than just understanding them in terms of their differences. This brings us to what is by far the most important contribution of Dugin, and which permits him to be characterized as a true metaphysical materialist, going beyond even Heidegger - and that is in Dugin’s concept of Chaos, the true the phenomenal form of material being. Whereas Heidegger understands in Heraclitus the beginning of Being’s oblivion, Dugin identifies at the precise incipience of Logos a dark counterpart to it - that is chaos. Chaos is not randomness, nor meaninglessness. It is really the antecedent density of material being. In contrast to the exclusive principle of Logos, based on differentiation, identity - which defines itself in contrast to the void of nothingness - chaos is an inclusive principle. It is a dark shadow of logos, corresponding to Being that it has forgotten, but which follows it. Whereas Chaos is ‘Nothing’ to the Logos (or the intellect), it is in reality something. What is this if not a precise materialist view, which asserts the primacy and antecedence of a reality which cannot ever be reduced to any product of the mind? As an inclusive principle, Logos is included within Chaos, as one of its possibilities. This reflects the history of the ‘Asiatic’ Empires, which never seem to annihilate any aspect of their being (including the conquered), but only include, and aggregate in a higher form. Chaos is a type of index of Dasein’s development, which cannot be conditioned by the forms of Being it gives rise to. It is the inert density, and eternity of material being faced by the intellect, which extends infinitely into the past, assailing its development into one Whole. This bears an obvious similarity to Solovyov’s Sophiology, which identifies the feminine divine wisdom as a fourth hypostasis of the trinity. Sophia is the Whole body of universal humanity - the infinite past of infinite divine wisdom of the accumulated history of all mankind. It is in this way that Dugin renders any Heideggerean accusation of metaphysics superfluous - for Being as such is always remembered in the positive concept of Chaos, which always subsumes Logos - a kind of parallel to the Russian relationship to European modernity. Chaos affirms that every Logos, every revealed form of Dasein or communal being, is haunted by a more fundamental material ground of existence, which has given rise to it as one of its many possibilities. This tension between Logos and Chaos is the real absolute contradiction. Translated in materialist terms, civilizations acquire objectivity not because of some static metaphysical quality (like genes), but because their determination reflects an active dialectic at the heart of material being itself. Objectivity is that which realizes a contradiction. The dialectic in question concerns the incipience of what Ilyenkov called the ‘thinking consciousness’ - which is really more like Dasein - from its opposite in material being. This contradiction is itself real (and the only real thing), and not just an illusion of our finitude. For Dugin, the concept of Chaos is reflects the inert reality of that contradiction, accumulated in all its forms, unaltered but inclusive of all possibilities. This makes for a materialism surprisingly similar to the Spinozist kind, rendering Logos a kind of attribute of Chaos… The proper counterpart of the concept of Chaos is the Lacanian ‘non-all.’ Because it precedes differentiation itself, it is ‘all,’ only, not ‘all’ as the sum-total of beings. It is ‘everything,’ but reflects the incompleteness of ‘everything’ by not to be any one form of it. The problem of the concept of Chaos and by extension Dugin’s notion of Logos is that it is still too metaphysical. It is one-sided materialism, where chaos is never truly, absolutely, and fully, imperiled in its determinations. This gives rise to a type of ‘pluralism’ in Dugin. The pluralism of different Dasein, and different Logos, is Dugin’s greatest achievement, but also his greatest weakness: Because it is undercut by an unconditionally singular concept of Chaos, which is the condition of this pluralism. Somewhat similar to Spinoza’s Substance. Dugin escapes too easily the fact of a world-historical and global ‘ontological division of labor’ by humanity. It is hardly conceivable to understand Russian logos, without also including its relation and response to the European kind. The common fate of humanity is inescapable. While Dugin is right to reject globalism, with its imposition of one ontic vision of humanity, without a shared humanity, the internal reality and development of different civilizations lose their own ground of meaning. Certainty of ones fate is certain impossibility. By this it is meant that, while a given civilization can certainly come to appreciate and acknowledge its ‘logos,’ it cannot confuse this as the final horizon of Being itself - at minimum, it must rather regard any new disclosure of Being as capable of including it. Because of this, a civilization cannot recognize its own humanity without recognizing the humanity of others - since, at the level of incipient Dasein - ones own particular Being is actively suspended in the future oriented phenomenal disclosure, known only retroactively. What this means is that at least on a minimal level, all civilizations of mankind share a single ontological plane, and even historical rationality (Hegel), on account of this necessary mutual recognition on the basis of openness of fate. While Dasein can be particularized, its constitutive lack of certain knowledge about what will enter its own phenomenal horizon is universal, and the same good faith a Dasein must constitutively afford for itself that it is human, it must afford for other civilizations. This is all that humanism in Marxism amounts to: not a specific ontic view of the human elevated above reality, but a recognition of the human as that to which every knowledge returns: Only the return of an outlook, thought, etc. to its real premises, reconciles it as a being. Within Marxism-Leninism (and originally consistent with Marx), lies a sophianic view of knowledge, which is neither scholastic nor based in technological domination. Persons like Stalin and Mao had the sage-like quality of knowledge in the form of wisdom. This type of knowledge does not elevate itself above its object, but is like the Hegelian absolute knowledge, corresponding to it absolutely. In this view, knowledge of civilization does not give rise to the occasion of ‘changing’ it by premising it on the basis of consciousness. To know a thing does not always mean to possess mastery of it - to know a thing also corresponds to insight into the limit by which that thing is a necessary and rational existence. This is true for nature in the era of ecology, but it is even more true for civilizations. Communist consciousness does NOT entail the voluntary transformation of society. It entails knowledge in the form of wisdom, of the laws guiding the development of society, and this consciousness intervenes in reality only at the site of the latter’s objective contradictions. The organic development of communal being, and society, is not premised by voluntary consciousness - but by the generational wisdom that allows people to make sense of their place in the world, and their relations toward others. No ‘conscious’ conceit could possibly replace that. Societies and civilizations change - but they do not change according to the whims of consciousness. They change according to what organically makes sense to people, in ways that are compatible with their living being, and their specific logic of reproduction. The application of ‘human rights’ to the sphere of culture, is the highpoint of madness of bourgeois civilization, which is beginning to consume its own human premises. No interiority of grounded life, with its own internal logical and rational development is any longer possible. Wokeness has nothing to do with the Marxist outlook. You can BULLSHIT all you want by referencing academic bullshit. In China, there is no wokeness. In the Soviet Union, there was no wokeness. Their cultural reforms they did have had NOTHING in common with it. A logic of reproduction develops on its own terms, and only in ways that are compatible with the reproduction of units of civilization itself. Hierarchy of respect, family life, and culture all reflect objective wisdoms about what human life is, passed through generations. They are wisdoms because of what they encompass in scale: You can make up your own retarded LGBT identity from scratch. But it is not tested before the wealth of possibilities, outcomes, and experiences of a human life compatible with a civilization shared by others. The significance of Communism intervenes not in the need to create a new community, but on the contrary, to give expression to the precise indeterminateness and contradictions propelling the development of a given community. That is why it doesn’t refer to anything specific. Nothing is more anti-communist than Communism itself. Impotent intellectual wimps like James Lindsay and other rightist idiots cannot even dream of coming close: Communism alone emancipates humanity from its objective ‘communist oppression.’ Bourgeois modernity itself, and even Capital can be thought of as a ‘forms’ of communism, giving limitation to objective communal beings in a specific, universal, indiscriminate ‘form,’ the common reality of abstract, formalist, universal modernity. At stake in the consciousness of class struggle, is the sublation of this formal modernity, giving recognition to a contradiction at the heart of it. Communist universalism, unites the future-oriented universalism of modernity with the Sofianic infinite past. Class struggle, given proper ontological recognition, reflects the subsumption of modernist universalism (for Heidegger, Cartesian metaphysics) to a particular grounding of being, a particular traditional civilization and concrete development. Thus Communism does not try to escape modernity or the Cartesian subject, but fully go through it: giving it proper ontological status as an immanent contradiction, in sum, a dialectical object. The ‘value-form’ is finally given recognition, as torn from within. The value-form is immersed within the context of a definite logic of reproduction, which in fact gives it concrete particularity, and whose existence is the beginning of a type of production based on use - in other words, the so-called early stage of socialism. Communism is the inescapable reality of mankind - but only Communism as such, which “disdains to conceal its aims” objectively frees humanity from a given form of communal being, insofar as it contradicts the real content of communal being. Dasein is nothing other than Communism itself. Communism is the true horizon within which the objective communal being of a given people reveals itself, in a manner that is consistent with their world and society. Communism is the real movement of change Communists do not need to ‘abolish’ anything whatsoever - insofar as anything deserves to be abolish, it has already abolished itself in reality: Only in Communism, are the contradictions, changes, and aspirations of a people suspended into a single phenomenal horizon. Communism only gives expression to the ‘real communism’ already inherent in a given civilization or people, it simply NAMES this. Communism just names the excess of development, indeterminacy, and contradiction possessed by every civilization. Communism always ‘falls into place,’ in a manner that reconciles, sublates, and is compatible with existing civilizations. Communism simply names the openness of destiny itself, which in the last instance can only be known by God - but definitely not by any man. In Communism, the whole of civilization, culture, and society, is ‘lifted up’ and imperiled in the struggle of the proletariat. Only retroactively can it be known what survives past the threshold of its inevitable victory. The whole history of mankind is imperiled in it. Communism definitely is the risk that everything meaningful and human will be dissolved. Everything is ‘suspended’ into the future, which is ultimately undecidable. Faith in faith in God, faith in the people - is faith that things will fall back into place in a way that is human. The whole of the people, the whole of the country, and the whole of history is imperiled in the fight for the future. Everything is bounded up there. Everything is actively suspended in something which will not be decided without struggle. Absolutely everything is at stake. Why it is called ‘Communism’ and not something more specific, is precisely because its specificity, while an inevitability, is never fully formed. That is on account of the historical development of mankind as a continual process. The era of the rediscovery of Marxism in the West, and America in particular, is upon us. America as the culmination of bourgeois modernity, now faces the certain prospect of civil war. And the self-consuming madness of capitalist modernity imperils all humanity. A new Event, a new era of the disclosure of Being is upon us - a new threshold by which mankind relates to Being, and thus, an era of Communist revival. 400 years of Cartesian metaphysics now comes to close, and we are thrown into an era of definite uncertainty. Marxism as a whole must be rediscovered, and emancipated from its social-democratic metaphysical decay, in a manner consistent with the ongoing experience of Marxism-Leninism. The common destiny of mankind depends on it. One may try to object to an interpretation of Marxism that draws from Heidegger and Dugin. But there is no other way to make sense of the wisdoms of Marxism-Leninism, at least from the Western perspective. And not just in terms of theory, but also in terms of practice. Real existing Communist states regarded (and continue to regard) society and civilization as objective realities, while also recognizing the role of the Communist party as the guiding light of society’s development. Development does not eliminate the laws of history. They did not regard Communist consciousness as some supreme reality which liquidates and replaces all the wisdoms of mankind with some empty abstraction. Communist consciousness was precisely the sage-like insight, appreciation and respect for that wisdom. Communism does not replace society. It only gives expression to that development which within society is truly and concretely general, truly universal, truly in common. That is the ontological supremacy represented by the proletariat: the true common destiny of mankind. The universalism of the proletariat takes for granted the universalism of abstract modernity (from which Communism has its origins). Yet it avoids the self-consuming madness of globalism, by giving concrete reconciliation of this abstraction in being itself. Communist development does not eliminate the laws of civilization, the mores, sensibilities and culture of a people. At best, it may reveal changes that were already latent within them, according to the tasks of a new era. The only real measure of progress, is what takes root organically, and in a manner consistent, or at least compatible with the whole of a people, civilization and history. Various individual-subjectivist trends and ‘experiments’ have nothing to do with Communism. Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself. Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind. Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being. Nothing better epitomizes this aesthetic (ontological sensibility) of renunciation than socialist realism, which drew from impressionism the somber, yet cathartic art of 'settling reality back into place'. All that suffices to grasp the ontological vision of Marxism-Leninism, is to appreciate the transition from the Soviet avant-garde to socialist realism. Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development. It is now time to finally realize the limit of modernity itself, and American modernity in particular. This requires a comprehensive reexamination of the significance of Communism and its relationship to traditional civilizations within the West. But most importantly, it requires the unconditional assumption of responsibility, by American Communists, before the unforeseen challenges facing the American people. Communism now entails the responsibility of mankind before its common destiny. Only out of this, may a people regain meaning after the catastrophe that is to come
To the idiot liberals of "/leftypol/"
AhemMarxism has no reality at all in the West. Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology. To begin, what is Marxism? Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills. Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies. Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive. But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development. This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science. Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object. But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself. And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject. Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable. To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society. Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class. Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular. He created a science that ceased to be above its object. For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself. Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along. “Communism is the riddle of history solved.” Why the need for class consciousness? This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind. In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat. Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself. Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object. Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society. This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality. Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues. But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it. The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society. How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge: The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism. According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat. The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme. In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch. But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being. In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge. In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being. If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge. If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’ Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’ The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity. This is exactly why @conceptualjames places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality. Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness. This Western Marxism has its origins in the neo-Kantian György Lukács, whose seminal work “History and Class Consciousness” was written to resolve the problem the subject/object distinction posed for the Marxist concept of society, class & history. In order to begin, Lukács engaged in an egregious form of revisionism; blaming for Marxism’s commitment to natural realism Fredrich Engels and his "dialectics of nature."23 To Lukács, when Marx referred to objective material reality, he was merely opposing society as a supra-individual horizon of meaning to individual subjectivity. It did not include objective natural reality, which Lukács brackets as irrelevant to Marxism. Society was ‘objective,’ and consciousness was ‘subjective.’ Their dialectical interaction, for Lukács, was the basis of history itself. But the material reality outside of social mediation (nature) was irrelevant to, and outside this dialectic, outside history. The reason I mention Lukács is because Western Marxism was founded on the false view that he resolved the problem of ‘subject/object’ distinction for Marxism. But he did nothing of that sort, he just changed the definition of objectivity to exclude objective reality itself. Here, objectivity is just the reified totality of social relations, denied of active subjective responsibility. This obviously contradicts Marx’s materialism, for which objectivity does include nature, not just society as some purely transcendental horizon. Without including nature in the definition of material reality, then class-consciousness consists in dissolving all society, in all its objectivity, into a pure subjective self-consciousness. For Lukács, the proletarian class is the first ‘subject-object’ which does exactly this. This is a gross perversion of Marxism, and it is easy to see the lineage of the Lukácsian view in the Frankfurt School, the New Left, ‘postmodern academia,’ gender studies in Wokeism as a whole. But is Lukácsian Western Marxism really to blame? In fact, when Lukács decided to reject Engels, he was just compromising with institutional modern realism. Engels ‘dialectics of nature’ was too ‘metaphysical’ because it saw something ‘human’ in reality. In other words, the opposite of a metaphysical distrust in reality! In other words, James Lindsay is a fucking moron when he blames wokeism’s metaphysical distrust in reality on Marxism. In actual fact, the distrust in reality is the very basis of bourgeois modernity. It can be thought as the entire premise of the Age of Enlightenment itself In the realm of science: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in our conventions, intuitions, religious beliefs, and sensibilities about the nature of reality. Reality is a pure OUTSIDE only accessed by cold, indifferent, impersonal inquiry. In the realm of politics: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in traditional sovereign authority, regarding it as unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical. Sovereigns must be legitimated by some explicitly abstract constitutional or democratic procedure. Wokeness is just the applying it to the realm of culture, where the unwritten norms of civilization secretly disguise relationships of injustice, oppression, and marginalization - by virtue of not being premised by expressly consensual, rational, etc. consciousness. In bourgeois modernity, only what is in the sphere of explicit responsibility of conscious subjects can be ‘trusted.’ Any recognition of humanity in reality itself is no different than a superstition: Reality is arbitrary, meaningless, and malign. Only institutions are Good. The madness of bourgeois capitalism, which alienates mankind from its material being, is the true culprit behind the Woke phenomena, NOT Marxism. All Lukács did was make Marxism compatible with bourgeois institutions. The original problem is the bourgeoisie itself. The Gnostic, occultist, and alchemical origins of the bourgeois enlightenment are abundantly clear. Lindsay accuses of Marxism, what is in fact THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERALISM! Marxism is the exact OPPOSITE of this bourgeois conceit of knowledge (gnosis), formalism, and wokeness In Marxism, the highest aim of knowledge is to give way to reality. This entails a great trust in material being - anything of importance arrived at by knowledge, is already reconciled within material reality itself. The paradox is that this ‘giving way’ is a necessary act of consciousness. Lukács’ response to this paradox revised Marxism itself. But even if Lukács were to be rejected, the problem remains. Furthermore, what is really the problem with Lukács’s revision, anyway? Exploring that reveals the way to a better solution. As we have shown, the idea of communism as a pure subjective self-consciousness, is based on the notion that objectivity is just reified social relations. This naturally begs the question of what the content of these social relations consists in, as so far they are only pure form Marxism is historical materialism, and Communism is just the practical application of historical materialism, via the class-conscious (historical-materialism conscious) proletariat, to society itself. But what does that say about the nature of society in the first place? It means society is an indescribable ‘totality’ of individual mental states, opinions, and beliefs, - the objectivity of social relationships, is merely a result of the subjective mind ‘reifying’ segments of the totality and treating them as external realities in themselves. Thus here, society has no real determinate content - it is a pure ‘Kantian Thing-in-Itself,’ a mere totality of individual relations that only asserts its existence negatively, via the reification (‘objectivization’) of its constituent parts. This means that material relations of production are rooted in reified mental states, not material reality. Consciousness of them (plus action) would dissolve them. Material society is then defined by ‘that which subjective consciousness has not yet assumed responsibility for!’ Having rejected any specific form of being as *necessarily* material, including nature, it is only upon failing to render the Totality fully transparent that consciousness may renunciate its aspiration to dissolve everything in itself. Totality is the Lukácsian sublime. The Totality of individual relations in the form of History, or Society, constitutes a type of absolute objectivity which is not merely a reification - but the free, continuous and holistic content of every possible experience, mental state, and subjectivity. A totality cannot assume self-consciousness, since it cannot be confined to any one self. So that is simply the end of Scientific Socialism: The only thing that can really be known about society, is that nothing at all can be known. This is no more knowledge than Kant’s Thing. Subject-Object distinction reemerges, only now between a subjective self-consciousness (in the form of Party, institutions, etc) rendering transparent and assuming responsibility for all determinations of society and the Totality of relations as the supremely impenetrable object. So we are back to square one, and none wiser in answering: 1. To what extent is society (including all relations of production) itself objective? 2. To what extent is Communism merely a subjective consciousness? These are the most fundamental questions of Western Marxism I place special emphasis on Western Marxism, since these questions are obvious within the framework of the experience of Marxism-Leninism. There, the question of the objectivity of society, and Communism, were answered practically: In the Soviet Avant-Garde and in the GPCR. Both of these events ran upon the objective limits of their underlying aspirations, and the wisdom of Marxism-Leninism - whether in Socialism in One Country or in Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up - defined itself in relation to that experience. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is defined within the context of countries where the question of society and the individual is resolved in the concrete bonds of civilization, bonds which were never questioned even at the height of revolutionary experimentation. In the comparatively atomized West, it is not at all clear to people to what extent society is objective, or to what extent ideas are subjective, even outside Marxist theory. Modern Western thinking doubts absolutely everything about society, even the definition of gender. The very distinction between subject and object itself is not at all clear in Western society, which is extremely sensitive to algorithmically-driven shifts in culture. Even scientific consensus is (rightfully) called into question, while expert opinion disguises itself as fact. In contrast to Lukács notion of reification, the real problem with the subject-object distinction cannot but appear to be rooted in the notion of objective Being implied by it, as totally purified of human quality. Despite that in reality, all objects appear somehow tainted by it When the thinking consciousness is entirely divided from reality, as pure spirit, soul, mind, or cogito - what remains of reality is completely meaningless, and devoid of any moral, historical, spiritual, or human significance. How could that square with Marx’s view bellow? Marxists as early as Plekhanov have also opted for regressing into Spinozism as a means to resolve the problem, where subject and object collapse into the supreme Substance. In this way thinking consciousness is the mere attribute of Substance: the most fundamental form of Being. Soviet Philosopher Ilyenkov, goes so far as to draw out speculative cosmological implications of this view, according to which thought arises as a necessary attribute of matter to prevent the heat death of the universe, by initiating a conscious cosmic catastrophe to reset it. The problem with Spinozism is not the view that mind and matter (‘subject and object’) share reality, but in the notion of reality as ‘Substance:’ a metaphysical view of the object already united with its subjective determinations. Substance thus has no stake in its attributes. This is just one of the ways of ‘resolving’ the problem by denying it all together: Substance is mere objectivity given Form by the mind. Substance is treated as supreme, antecedent, and given, but it is the repository of a dogmatic subjective determination, not true objectivity. The Marxist-Spinozist view cannot ground the origins of proletarian consciousness, Marxism, and the Communist party in reality - it represses its own origins, and pretends these arise in perfect continuity with the self-same Substance, effectively gaslighting itself. This view does not arise from any necessary procedure of thought, experience, or relation to the world. It is a metaphysical view that does not pay for itself in any way - it is an insight that cannot itself be reproduced materially, a pure dogmatism of the mind. There never comes the decisive gesture of Marx of renouncing knowledge to suspend it back into Being - Substance is the conceit of a knowledge that already inheres in Being, perfectly continuous with the intellect which at no point runs upon the limit of its pretentions. In practice, it becomes a type of ideological hubris, asserting the unreality and meaninglessness of every actually substantive bond of civilization, in favor of a supreme ‘Substance’ that has neither any skin of its own in the game, nor any reality outside a calcified intellect. More importantly, it renders Scientific Socialism into a metaphysical dogma, incapable of deriving concrete knowledge of concrete social reality. No specificity of societal objectivity is possible - everything is just ‘capitalism’ permeating the whole of its ‘attributes.’ It is obvious that if ‘everything’ is objective, then nothing in particular is, including society itself. The extent of society’s objectivity is the extent it is continuous with a dogma of the mind. It is no wonder Spinoza is the favorite thinker of pseudo-Marxist academia! Spinozism is categorically incompatible with Marxism for no other reason than that its foundations make impossible insight into laws governing historical development, and the particular qualitative character of societies. It could not possibly constitute any class-consciousness. Specifically, it cannot afford any recognition of the objectivity of contradictions (such as the class struggle). In the stead of the objectivity of class struggle lies a pure subjectivist ‘will to immanence,’ a notion of communism as antisocial as Lukácsian “self-consciousness.” The scholastic concept Substance does not resolve the object-subject distinction (the principal theoretical problem of Western Marxism), but only conceals it. For the 100+ years Western Marxism has confused it with Marx’s materialism, Marxism was condemned metaphysical languish. It suffices only to recall Marx’s own apt view of Spinoza: A metaphysically disguised objectivity which excludes the objectivity of man, and therefore the socius relevant for Marx’s own materialism. Marxism succeeded in overcoming metaphysics, but only within a limited scope of practice. That is namely in the investigations of Marx in Capital, the writings of Fredrich Engels and the concrete historical experience of Marxism-Leninism. Marx and Engels failed to fully transmit their theoretical genius. Lenin alone inherited it, and gave it practical reality. The genius of Marxism survived as the genius of world-historical statesmen and civilizations, but its original spark of consciousness was lost. Marxism-Leninism emerged as a type of phronesis, whose advanced outlook was established by the context of the concrete historical experience of Communism. Not strictly a matter of theoretical intellect, but also a type of advanced sensibility based on practical reality. Marx’s Promethean gesture acquired objective reality and history exclusively outside the West, where objectivity of society was not metaphysical question, but a given reality. And the problem of metaphysics permeated the whole of Western thinking, not just Western Marxism. For Marxism to be meaningful in the West, it cannot ignore this problem, for when it does, it always remains trapped within it anyway, inevitably regressing materialist objectivity from practical Scientific Socialism into the scholastic Kantian or Spinozist frame. In the case of Kantianism (as in Lukács), proletarian objectivity dissolves in the subjectivism of social-dem institutions. In Spinozism, it becomes an intellectual conceit devoid of skin in the game. Revisionism, opportunism, and defeatism are the certain conclusion of both. The object in the form of ‘capitalism’ - whether as Thing or Substance - becomes so overwhelming and insurmountable, that the comparative weakness of Marxist subjectivity takes in. The paranoiac spectre of ‘fascism’ reflects a consciousness always in retreat before its object. And hardly anything could affirm that paranoia more than the fact that the thinker who finally initiated the revolution that would emancipate the Western mind from bourgeois metaphysics once and for all, is nearly equally infamous for their affiliation to German Nazism. Originally a student of Husserl and the phenomenological school, Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook. Heidegger elects to orient thought to an origin more fundamental than can be contained within the frame of the reductionist ‘res cogitans/'extensa’ or ‘subject/object’ distinction, and that is toward Being as such. This is the beginning of what is popularly called ontology. For Heidegger, Being as such pre-exists the classification, categorization, utilization, etc. of particular beings by thought. It is the ‘Being of beings’ - the more fundamental ground by which particular beings are given to us - whether in experience, contemplation, or practice. He calls the difference between Being & beings the Ontological Difference. Every relation to beings, is based on a fundamental horizon of Being as such. When a specific horizon acquires historical dominance, it is metaphysical - imposing upon Being a specific relation by thought. The view of the thinking being is set on a foundation far less metaphysically loaded than the Cartesian Subject: as Dasein, a being for which there is a question or openness of Being. Dasein embodies the very discontinuity of Being that justifies the Ontological Difference. The problem with the subject-object distinction is that it can only regard beings as objects for a given subject. This makes for a notion of objectivity that is a priori idealist. The notion of Subject also implies a specific view of objects as mere utilities for its realization. Subject, moreover, defined as res cogita, is thought itself taken as its own real object. This implies an alienation of thought from reality, foreclosing its scandalous incipience in Being. This notion is the final conclusion of idealism; for Heidegger metaphysics as such. Marx already accomplished the rejection of the culmination of idealist philosophy, especially in his early writings. But the incipient materialist language he made use of (man, class, mode of production, etc.), later fell victim to inevitably metaphysical conceptualizations. Some of these Concepts were involved in the first breakdown of European Marxism itself. The changing nature of capitalist production & role of the proletariat ceased to neatly conform to their Concept, and this was used by Social Democracy to justify its revisionism. Western Marxism, with its conceptualist orthodoxy, became infiltrated by metaphysics, so it is natural that only a Western thinker entirely outside Marxism - and even entirely opposed to it politically - could initiate the emancipation of Western thought from metaphysics. Heidegger may have been beset by various idealistic and politically objectionable peculiarities, but these do not define his primary historical significance. His primary significance lies in setting all thought on a basis which asserts its posteriority in the face of Being. The concept of Dasein helps resolve the fundamental problem of Marxist theory: The Subject/Object paradox and its methodological individualism. For the first time, society, classes, and civilizations can be acknowledged as real in a manner consistent with the materialist view. Dasein does not necessarily afford contemplation exclusive significance in its overall issue of Being, so it is not just another concept of the subject: Not simply cognition, but practically being-in-the-world, facing the constitutive disjuncture with Being in its very Being. This overall phenomenological orientation permits thought to acknowledge reality without preemptively attempting to assume the consequences or implications it has for the thinking being. Whatever consequences or implications there may be, they begin with being, not thought. It is undoubtedly possible that Dasein can be conceived exclusively as an individual, but unlike the concept of the Subject, it is not necessarily so. Being as such is a common well-spring that cuts across individuated ‘subjects,’ and is the staging ground of any shared reality. Moreover, without acknowledging the incipience of thought from more fundamental Being, Marxist materialism becomes an absurdity: Materiality becomes identical to the thought of materiality (like Substance), and thus an idea! In this way, materialism easily becomes idealism. Dasein is constitutively a being already thrown in a world, a world not only not of its choosing, but whose givenness, in the form of beings, cannot be pre-emptively defined by thoughts, ideas or concepts. It rather rests upon a relation to Being as such, which can only be uncovered. The real individual is thus set against a background within which their very individuated identity is subordinated to a more fundamental horizon of Being. Dasein, in its incipience, knows no distinction between individuals, or itself and others. It is not even a collective Typically, Marxists try to resolve antinomy of sociality (either the sum-total of individual subjects or a collective subject individuals are part of) by just grotesquely defining it as a ‘complex’ of relationships between individuals, too numerous to ground in anything definite. The concept of Dasein, properly speaking, does not necessarily even imply individuated identity, let alone a grouping of individuals - but a more fundamental and antecedent background from which individuals acquire distinction, place and identity within a world. The simultaneous quality of being open to Being, while also itself Being, implies Dasein as an incipience of thought that goes from the question of a subject faced with its object, to a quality of the ‘object’ itself, as originally discontinuous with regard to itself. A Dasein is already immersed within a world, and is a grounded existence while simultaneously corresponding to an openness of Being at issue with, or at least discontinuous with that existence. Yet said Being is nothing more than the very Being of Dasein itself. This ontological difference (between a world of beings and Being as such) is not antagonistic, since Being merely discloses itself, implying not that it is at odds with the world, only given privileged significance in the way it reveals itself to Dasein, in contrast to beings. Particular beings acquire definition in their use, or general significance, but their real meaning is always metonymic, always referring to something more fundamental than themselves: Being as such is thus also the ultimate horizon of meaningfulness to which beings are referred. The definition of a Dasein itself, lies at the point in which it faces the threshold beyond which it cannot cross, simultaneously defining the whole of what it is. Typically understood as a person’s death, but more importantly that within which Dasein may recognize its finitude. That is necessarily beyond any particular being; even individual ego. Being as such grounds the finitude of Dasein, and meaningfulness arises not simply in the physical death of a person, but in Being itself, so far as it sets upon the limits of its disclosure to a given Dasein. Heidegger’s shortcoming lies in the ambiguity of Dasein. While Dasein is thrown into a given community, as an established horizon of being, it acquires an authentic relationship to Being only through the exercise of individual will, where it comes to acknowledge its finitude. Yet at the same time, the community is the very ground of Dasein, since ones relation toward others constitutes a given conventionally established horizon of being. What remains ambiguous is the antisocial status of the Being which discloses itself to Dasein. Experiencing finitude is necessarily individual, yet the status of the finitude of Being itself is not clear. This is heightened by the fact that for Heidegger, every determinacy of Being is metaphysical, closing the Ontological difference by reducing Being to a particular being. Though, Heidegger does not make clear how it is community acquires singularity of being, he grounds phenomenological Being the site of its conceivability, freeing it from the methodological individualism of intersubjectivity: and that is his principal achievement for Marxism. As shown, without the aid of Heidegger, Marxism inevitably regresses into metaphysics. But paradoxically, Heidegger’s understanding of metaphysics is the very chief defect of his outlook, not only condemning it to stagnation on his part, but placing it at risk of idealism. Heidegger makes no distinction, in his understanding of metaphysics, between Being in the specificity of its determination, and Being in the specificity of its understanding within the history of philosophy. He extends the label ‘metaphysics’ beyond the realm of thought. For him, metaphysics is an actuality. Thus, industrial capitalist modernity is itself the result of metaphysics and it is implied: a consequence of the history of philosophy. Obviously from an elementary Marxist, or even commonsense perspective, he gets the whole thing backwards. To understand how Being itself acquires a specific determination, it suffices to return to the ontological difference between Being and particular beings. Heidegger situates this difference at the core of Dasein’s existential turmoil, for which Being is always at issue. This quandary, while not identical, at least parallels that of Kant, for whom the transcendental subject is likewise situated between the antinomies. So it suffices to ‘in parallel’ look to Hegel for the solution, and transpose the difference as a difference of Being itself. That is to say, the ontological difference should change the operative notion of Being in the first place, from its one-sided conception mired in the stillness of thought, to an understanding of Being as itself contradiction, difference, etc. in sum, a dialectical union of contraries. Thus Being as such acquires determinacy as an absolute ontological union of opposites, transposing the difference at the core of Dasein to a feature of Being itself. That there exists Dasein in the first place should change something about our understanding of Being itself. Yet in contrast to Hegel, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that thought comprises the essential element in the contradiction at the heart of Being - The misstep of phenomenological Hegelians from Kojeve to Žižek, who regressed from Heidegger’s original achievement. The important conclusion is that ontology - taken not as a philosophical contemplation, but the real threshold by which mankind relates to Being as such - is itself actively suspended and itself reproduced within material reality, as the formative ground of all thought. This threshold lies not in the limits of philosophy, but in the limits of man’s existence itself, itself suspended in temporal history. Such a limit lies not in the threshold of man’s mastery over nature, but the limit by which man lives, relates to others and to things. Such a limit is not preempted by any philosophy, idea, or consciousness, but the genuine limit of man’s existence in relation to the whole of Being, conditioned not necessarily by physical limitation, but by the limit of the absolute contradiction which forms meaning itself. This can be understood as the contradiction between the givenness of being and Being as such, or between the determinate norms of civilization and their unity in a state authority, a specific frame of past and future, particular and universal, many and one, etc. Heidegger (at least in his early years) could not see that Dasein is not just a being for whom there is a question of Being - but also a being for whom that question is already resolved in a specific way. Heidegger assumed that resolution was necessarily metaphysical. While true for the history of philosophy, it is not true for living and real mankind, for whom the contradiction between the determinacy of Being and an appreciation for the ontological, is the very content of the latter. It is what gives Being itself meaning! The absolute contradiction is a contradiction of incipience, between determination and origins. The contingency of Dasein is not simply a matter of choice, as Heidegger thought, but in a determination whose ‘reason’ is only clear retroactively, like a wavefunction collapse. A civilization is the way it is, not because it is physically impossible for it to be any other way, but precisely because it is physically possible. Only by assuming one determination against a background of many, can a higher reason participate in the development of a people. Western Marxism, before it engages in ‘historical materialist’ analysis, projects a vulgar metaphysical view (rejected by Marx & Engels) of humanity, according to which mankind dwells at the precipice of physical extinction. Thus, everything about society is reduced to survival. Hence, class struggle ultimately reduces to the Rational Choice Individual, and one group merely finds itself disadvantaged with regard to others, on account of being unable to fulfill the desires, or restricting the choices of individuals. What is problematic about this is clear It clearly contrasts with the Marxist view of class struggle, which situates class antagonism within a single division of labor, as a contradiction at the core of being itself - giving it ontological significance, rather than a result of clashing individuals. Understanding any given civilization, is simply a matter of understanding the mode of production. The problem is they never bother to ask exactly what is being produced in the first place. They begin and end with the individual, effectively arriving at no real knowledge at all. The problem of course is that the individual is situated within a more fundamental horizon by which they relate to others, to things, etc. This jibber-jabber is well-known to ‘Marxists,’ but precisely what is meant by it, at the objective material level they never make clear. A mode of production is the mode by which something is reproduced; that something can’t just be the individual. For a mode of production to be general, it must itself have a general object, otherwise the entire concept becomes completely useless. To begin, this object - which is really the specific Being of Dasein - must be a specific logic of reproduction. You could call it a unit of civilization, or a division of labor. Marxoids have devoted an eternity of soliloquies to Capital as a logic of reproduction. Capital, whose logic is standardization, abstraction, and utilitarianism is not a specific logic, but an empty universalism, which concludes with modern American ‘civilisation,’ and now a mere extension of Church of Cartesian metaphysics (govt, financial institutions etc). M-C-M’ is merely the form of reproduction of the modern European polity; the abstraction of the commodity form corresponding to the abstraction of the state. Capital is not an autonomous process, but a civilizational quandary. A deeper object has precedence over it. In a sense, Heidegger is right that ontology here possesses primacy. Before there was capitalism, there was a more fundamental way European civilization came to relate to Being as a whole. That is not to say the latter is arbitrary - on the contrary, it is world-historical. The point is that in contrast to the vulgar materialist view, all of mankind’s ‘metaphysical,’ spiritual, cultural, scientific, etc. questions, aspirations, fears and dreams were bound up with the development of capitalism, reflecting their highest relation to Being as such. To know a logic of reproduction, is to know what is most sacred, fundamental, and ontological for a given people. No abstract, mechanical geometrical, or arithmetic conception of physical production suffices to produce knowledge of any given mode of production. It is clear that Heidegger, though providing the foundation for a Marxism freed from metaphysics, hardly allows us to go this far with the concept of Dasein. But at the very least, with the help of Hegel, it is possible to grasp ontological difference as a feature of Being itself That is the second most important step to arriving at a true conception of the objectivity of society, after Heidegger’s phenomenological turn itself. That is because it establishes Being as a specific contradiction, thus having some kind of finitude beyond individual death. This does not yet tell us anything particular about any specific Dasein. For that to be possible, it is necessary to take a fundamental step beyond Heidegger and beyond the West itself. Heidegger gave us an escape from metaphysics - but not a perspective already outside of it. It was Aleksandr Dugin who accomplished the particularization of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, thus allowing for it to be put to work in productive, even practical ways. And he does this by returning to the beginning of metaphysics according to Heidegger - in Logos Logos is the first forgetting of Being, in the form of Being as the identity of difference. Whereas Heidegger identifies Being with Time, Heraclitus identified Being as change and constant flux, and thus an identity of difference itself. The beginning of Western philosophy. Dugin, rather than languish in the melodrama of the long forgetting of Being, employs Logos as a productive concept: As the logic of a given civilization’s existence, defining its particular Dasein, or ontology. This analysis is only superficially idealist, but not necessarily. Dugin claims to reject materialism as a whole. Yet only his language is metaphysical: what he describes is nothing other than the metaphysically-concealed communal being which is the premise of any application of Scientific Socialism. The kernel of his thinking is materialist. Logos is the revealed form of Dasein, cleansing Heidegger of any traces of potential subjectivism and, in a properly Hegelian manner, transposing the ontological difference itself into a determinate object. Active geopolitical analysis can then replace impotent contemplation. Dugin offers Space as a proper counterpart to Heideggerean Time, because he does not mind being ‘metaphysical,’ in the sense of grounding Being in specificity. But from a materialist perspective, going from the general to the particular is the opposite of metaphysical. Dugin is necessary for Marxism, because without specifying the communal being which is the premise of Scientific Socialism, it not only regresses into metaphysics (and cannot draw any particular insights), it becomes a cheap extension of American unipolar liberalism. Dugin may give expression to this social being in an overtly metaphysical way, but that is just halloween dressing. The important thing is that he delimits it as the very ground of thought itself, fulfilling the logic of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, beginning from the particular. Socialism in One Country reflected the precise logic that universal Communism can only be built up within a determinate communal being, not a vain pretension to the entire world, but a concrete, grounded relationship between a specific party and a specific country. Dugin’s geopolitical orientation allows for an understanding of the objectivity of civilizations beyond the formalism of statehood - states only exist to the extent that they can reflect the underlying logos of a civilization, reflected in its geography. For Dugin, the logos acquires particularity (beyond the mere identity of difference) where it establishes a particular logic relating one to many, identity and difference, being and becoming, stasis and flux, universal and particular, central authority and local community, etc Logos is stamped by a particular logic of how it relates to its own incipience, how it excludes nothingness, how a people relate to their own constitutive origins, by what means they relate to a universality, what specific limit defines their existence. The logos of civilization easily translates in Marxist terms into a specific logic of communal reproduction, which itself would mean nothing without acknowledging the primacy of ‘ontology’ - at least taken to mean the way in which mankind reproduces the conditions of Form. With Dugin, knowledge can only be derived from the ground-up: every metaphysical, noetic, even psychological assumption is suspended and imperiled phenomenally - not a single conceit of the mind can be idle in the investigation of civilizations and geopolitics. What accounts for a great deal of Dugin’s mysticism is the phenomenalization of the active intellect, which must cross beyond itself and into its real material premises, where only a language of the sublime can suffice to give expression to its objective limitations. Importantly, these limitations are put to work for Dugin - the limits of metaphysics are immanent limits of logos itself, thus enabling a positive a positive analysis and investigation of different civilizations, rather than just understanding them in terms of their differences. This brings us to what is by far the most important contribution of Dugin, and which permits him to be characterized as a true metaphysical materialist, going beyond even Heidegger - and that is in Dugin’s concept of Chaos, the true the phenomenal form of material being. Whereas Heidegger understands in Heraclitus the beginning of Being’s oblivion, Dugin identifies at the precise incipience of Logos a dark counterpart to it - that is chaos. Chaos is not randomness, nor meaninglessness. It is really the antecedent density of material being. In contrast to the exclusive principle of Logos, based on differentiation, identity - which defines itself in contrast to the void of nothingness - chaos is an inclusive principle. It is a dark shadow of logos, corresponding to Being that it has forgotten, but which follows it. Whereas Chaos is ‘Nothing’ to the Logos (or the intellect), it is in reality something. What is this if not a precise materialist view, which asserts the primacy and antecedence of a reality which cannot ever be reduced to any product of the mind? As an inclusive principle, Logos is included within Chaos, as one of its possibilities. This reflects the history of the ‘Asiatic’ Empires, which never seem to annihilate any aspect of their being (including the conquered), but only include, and aggregate in a higher form. Chaos is a type of index of Dasein’s development, which cannot be conditioned by the forms of Being it gives rise to. It is the inert density, and eternity of material being faced by the intellect, which extends infinitely into the past, assailing its development into one Whole. This bears an obvious similarity to Solovyov’s Sophiology, which identifies the feminine divine wisdom as a fourth hypostasis of the trinity. Sophia is the Whole body of universal humanity - the infinite past of infinite divine wisdom of the accumulated history of all mankind. It is in this way that Dugin renders any Heideggerean accusation of metaphysics superfluous - for Being as such is always remembered in the positive concept of Chaos, which always subsumes Logos - a kind of parallel to the Russian relationship to European modernity. Chaos affirms that every Logos, every revealed form of Dasein or communal being, is haunted by a more fundamental material ground of existence, which has given rise to it as one of its many possibilities. This tension between Logos and Chaos is the real absolute contradiction. Translated in materialist terms, civilizations acquire objectivity not because of some static metaphysical quality (like genes), but because their determination reflects an active dialectic at the heart of material being itself. Objectivity is that which realizes a contradiction. The dialectic in question concerns the incipience of what Ilyenkov called the ‘thinking consciousness’ - which is really more like Dasein - from its opposite in material being. This contradiction is itself real (and the only real thing), and not just an illusion of our finitude. For Dugin, the concept of Chaos is reflects the inert reality of that contradiction, accumulated in all its forms, unaltered but inclusive of all possibilities. This makes for a materialism surprisingly similar to the Spinozist kind, rendering Logos a kind of attribute of Chaos… The proper counterpart of the concept of Chaos is the Lacanian ‘non-all.’ Because it precedes differentiation itself, it is ‘all,’ only, not ‘all’ as the sum-total of beings. It is ‘everything,’ but reflects the incompleteness of ‘everything’ by not to be any one form of it. The problem of the concept of Chaos and by extension Dugin’s notion of Logos is that it is still too metaphysical. It is one-sided materialism, where chaos is never truly, absolutely, and fully, imperiled in its determinations. This gives rise to a type of ‘pluralism’ in Dugin. The pluralism of different Dasein, and different Logos, is Dugin’s greatest achievement, but also his greatest weakness: Because it is undercut by an unconditionally singular concept of Chaos, which is the condition of this pluralism. Somewhat similar to Spinoza’s Substance. Dugin escapes too easily the fact of a world-historical and global ‘ontological division of labor’ by humanity. It is hardly conceivable to understand Russian logos, without also including its relation and response to the European kind. The common fate of humanity is inescapable. While Dugin is right to reject globalism, with its imposition of one ontic vision of humanity, without a shared humanity, the internal reality and development of different civilizations lose their own ground of meaning. Certainty of ones fate is certain impossibility. By this it is meant that, while a given civilization can certainly come to appreciate and acknowledge its ‘logos,’ it cannot confuse this as the final horizon of Being itself - at minimum, it must rather regard any new disclosure of Being as capable of including it. Because of this, a civilization cannot recognize its own humanity without recognizing the humanity of others - since, at the level of incipient Dasein - ones own particular Being is actively suspended in the future oriented phenomenal disclosure, known only retroactively. What this means is that at least on a minimal level, all civilizations of mankind share a single ontological plane, and even historical rationality (Hegel), on account of this necessary mutual recognition on the basis of openness of fate. While Dasein can be particularized, its constitutive lack of certain knowledge about what will enter its own phenomenal horizon is universal, and the same good faith a Dasein must constitutively afford for itself that it is human, it must afford for other civilizations. This is all that humanism in Marxism amounts to: not a specific ontic view of the human elevated above reality, but a recognition of the human as that to which every knowledge returns: Only the return of an outlook, thought, etc. to its real premises, reconciles it as a being. Within Marxism-Leninism (and originally consistent with Marx), lies a sophianic view of knowledge, which is neither scholastic nor based in technological domination. Persons like Stalin and Mao had the sage-like quality of knowledge in the form of wisdom. This type of knowledge does not elevate itself above its object, but is like the Hegelian absolute knowledge, corresponding to it absolutely. In this view, knowledge of civilization does not give rise to the occasion of ‘changing’ it by premising it on the basis of consciousness. To know a thing does not always mean to possess mastery of it - to know a thing also corresponds to insight into the limit by which that thing is a necessary and rational existence. This is true for nature in the era of ecology, but it is even more true for civilizations. Communist consciousness does NOT entail the voluntary transformation of society. It entails knowledge in the form of wisdom, of the laws guiding the development of society, and this consciousness intervenes in reality only at the site of the latter’s objective contradictions. The organic development of communal being, and society, is not premised by voluntary consciousness - but by the generational wisdom that allows people to make sense of their place in the world, and their relations toward others. No ‘conscious’ conceit could possibly replace that. Societies and civilizations change - but they do not change according to the whims of consciousness. They change according to what organically makes sense to people, in ways that are compatible with their living being, and their specific logic of reproduction. The application of ‘human rights’ to the sphere of culture, is the highpoint of madness of bourgeois civilization, which is beginning to consume its own human premises. No interiority of grounded life, with its own internal logical and rational development is any longer possible. Wokeness has nothing to do with the Marxist outlook. You can BULLSHIT all you want by referencing academic bullshit. In China, there is no wokeness. In the Soviet Union, there was no wokeness. Their cultural reforms they did have had NOTHING in common with it. A logic of reproduction develops on its own terms, and only in ways that are compatible with the reproduction of units of civilization itself. Hierarchy of respect, family life, and culture all reflect objective wisdoms about what human life is, passed through generations. They are wisdoms because of what they encompass in scale: You can make up your own retarded LGBT identity from scratch. But it is not tested before the wealth of possibilities, outcomes, and experiences of a human life compatible with a civilization shared by others. The significance of Communism intervenes not in the need to create a new community, but on the contrary, to give expression to the precise indeterminateness and contradictions propelling the development of a given community. That is why it doesn’t refer to anything specific. Nothing is more anti-communist than Communism itself. Impotent intellectual wimps like James Lindsay and other rightist idiots cannot even dream of coming close: Communism alone emancipates humanity from its objective ‘communist oppression.’ Bourgeois modernity itself, and even Capital can be thought of as a ‘forms’ of communism, giving limitation to objective communal beings in a specific, universal, indiscriminate ‘form,’ the common reality of abstract, formalist, universal modernity. At stake in the consciousness of class struggle, is the sublation of this formal modernity, giving recognition to a contradiction at the heart of it. Communist universalism, unites the future-oriented universalism of modernity with the Sofianic infinite past. Class struggle, given proper ontological recognition, reflects the subsumption of modernist universalism (for Heidegger, Cartesian metaphysics) to a particular grounding of being, a particular traditional civilization and concrete development. Thus Communism does not try to escape modernity or the Cartesian subject, but fully go through it: giving it proper ontological status as an immanent contradiction, in sum, a dialectical object. The ‘value-form’ is finally given recognition, as torn from within. The value-form is immersed within the context of a definite logic of reproduction, which in fact gives it concrete particularity, and whose existence is the beginning of a type of production based on use - in other words, the so-called early stage of socialism. Communism is the inescapable reality of mankind - but only Communism as such, which “disdains to conceal its aims” objectively frees humanity from a given form of communal being, insofar as it contradicts the real content of communal being. Dasein is nothing other than Communism itself. Communism is the true horizon within which the objective communal being of a given people reveals itself, in a manner that is consistent with their world and society. Communism is the real movement of change Communists do not need to ‘abolish’ anything whatsoever - insofar as anything deserves to be abolish, it has already abolished itself in reality: Only in Communism, are the contradictions, changes, and aspirations of a people suspended into a single phenomenal horizon. Communism only gives expression to the ‘real communism’ already inherent in a given civilization or people, it simply NAMES this. Communism just names the excess of development, indeterminacy, and contradiction possessed by every civilization. Communism always ‘falls into place,’ in a manner that reconciles, sublates, and is compatible with existing civilizations. Communism simply names the openness of destiny itself, which in the last instance can only be known by God - but definitely not by any man. In Communism, the whole of civilization, culture, and society, is ‘lifted up’ and imperiled in the struggle of the proletariat. Only retroactively can it be known what survives past the threshold of its inevitable victory. The whole history of mankind is imperiled in it. Communism definitely is the risk that everything meaningful and human will be dissolved. Everything is ‘suspended’ into the future, which is ultimately undecidable. Faith in faith in God, faith in the people - is faith that things will fall back into place in a way that is human. The whole of the people, the whole of the country, and the whole of history is imperiled in the fight for the future. Everything is bounded up there. Everything is actively suspended in something which will not be decided without struggle. Absolutely everything is at stake. Why it is called ‘Communism’ and not something more specific, is precisely because its specificity, while an inevitability, is never fully formed. That is on account of the historical development of mankind as a continual process. The era of the rediscovery of Marxism in the West, and America in particular, is upon us. America as the culmination of bourgeois modernity, now faces the certain prospect of civil war. And the self-consuming madness of capitalist modernity imperils all humanity. A new Event, a new era of the disclosure of Being is upon us - a new threshold by which mankind relates to Being, and thus, an era of Communist revival. 400 years of Cartesian metaphysics now comes to close, and we are thrown into an era of definite uncertainty. Marxism as a whole must be rediscovered, and emancipated from its social-democratic metaphysical decay, in a manner consistent with the ongoing experience of Marxism-Leninism. The common destiny of mankind depends on it. One may try to object to an interpretation of Marxism that draws from Heidegger and Dugin. But there is no other way to make sense of the wisdoms of Marxism-Leninism, at least from the Western perspective. And not just in terms of theory, but also in terms of practice. Real existing Communist states regarded (and continue to regard) society and civilization as objective realities, while also recognizing the role of the Communist party as the guiding light of society’s development. Development does not eliminate the laws of history. They did not regard Communist consciousness as some supreme reality which liquidates and replaces all the wisdoms of mankind with some empty abstraction. Communist consciousness was precisely the sage-like insight, appreciation and respect for that wisdom. Communism does not replace society. It only gives expression to that development which within society is truly and concretely general, truly universal, truly in common. That is the ontological supremacy represented by the proletariat: the true common destiny of mankind. The universalism of the proletariat takes for granted the universalism of abstract modernity (from which Communism has its origins). Yet it avoids the self-consuming madness of globalism, by giving concrete reconciliation of this abstraction in being itself. Communist development does not eliminate the laws of civilization, the mores, sensibilities and culture of a people. At best, it may reveal changes that were already latent within them, according to the tasks of a new era. The only real measure of progress, is what takes root organically, and in a manner consistent, or at least compatible with the whole of a people, civilization and history. Various individual-subjectivist trends and ‘experiments’ have nothing to do with Communism. Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself. Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind. Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being. Nothing better epitomizes this aesthetic (ontological sensibility) of renunciation than socialist realism, which drew from impressionism the somber, yet cathartic art of 'settling reality back into place'. All that suffices to grasp the ontological vision of Marxism-Leninism, is to appreciate the transition from the Soviet avant-garde to socialist realism. Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development. It is now time to finally realize the limit of modernity itself, and American modernity in particular. This requires a comprehensive reexamination of the significance of Communism and its relationship to traditional civilizations within the West. But most importantly, it requires the unconditional assumption of responsibility, by American Communists, before the unforeseen challenges facing the American people. Communism now entails the responsibility of mankind before its common destiny. Only out of this, may a people regain meaning after the catastrophe that is to come
R: 5 / I: 0
women in western animation:
+ Allowed to be ugly;
+ Tastefully sexualized when appropriate (IMO);
+ Allowed to be stupid;
+ Are oftenly nuanced characters;
women in western animation:
+ Allowed to be ugly;
+ Tastefully sexualized when appropriate (IMO);
- Not allowed to be stupid;
- Very oftenly "Mary Sues";
+ Allowed to be stupid;
+ Are oftenly nuanced characters;
- Not allowed to be ugly;
- Frequently sexualized to an obnoxious extent;
R: 44 / I: 4
/mu/ - Music General
What do you listen while you wagecuck, anons?
R: 22 / I: 1
What college degrees are actually viable in 2026?
Can't do trades. My back and shoulders are fucked from having worked in the trades. My friends in tech say it is completely jeeted and that they haven't found work in almost two years.
R: 2 / I: 0
Why should weed be legal if it is bad for you again?
I’m not saying that I think that it should be illegal because I don’t know enough about it. But other than the fact that beer is also bad for you and nobody is going to ban beer what is the reason that recreational marijuana should be unbanned?
R: 57 / I: 2
leftydykes
Where are my fellow lesbians/sapphics at? How's life going for y'all? I'm afraid to start dating and depressed as hell. Anxious about what a broader crackdown on LGBT folks might look like. Yes I'm from burgerstan.
R: 49 / I: 6
It has been such a pain in the ass trying to watch a show that isn't either subtly Zionist or just straight up pro-US imperialism. Watching Scrubs and the Afghanistan war episode comes up. Watching Modern Family and there's constant references to Bar Mitzvahs (with Israeli flags). Watching fucking Hannah Montana and there's a Afghan war episode. Like I know that's ridiculous to mention but I'm trying to say the rot runs deep in essentially every piece of media we watch
I have included The Good Place as good example because although it's not explicitly communist, it is a show all about how Capitalism has made the world hell and only revolution can solve the problem but it still kinda distances itself from that by saying "revolution in the afterlife only". Still the best we've got
Does anyone have any recommendations for stuff to watch?
Communist or Commie Adjacent Shows
Hello Sisters and Brothers, I'm looking for some recommendations for TV shows to watch that have a communist tilt to them, or are straight up communist.It has been such a pain in the ass trying to watch a show that isn't either subtly Zionist or just straight up pro-US imperialism. Watching Scrubs and the Afghanistan war episode comes up. Watching Modern Family and there's constant references to Bar Mitzvahs (with Israeli flags). Watching fucking Hannah Montana and there's a Afghan war episode. Like I know that's ridiculous to mention but I'm trying to say the rot runs deep in essentially every piece of media we watch
I have included The Good Place as good example because although it's not explicitly communist, it is a show all about how Capitalism has made the world hell and only revolution can solve the problem but it still kinda distances itself from that by saying "revolution in the afterlife only". Still the best we've got
Does anyone have any recommendations for stuff to watch?
R: 9 / I: 1
Is the gay people in the military-industrial complex stuff a meme or real? I can't find actual statistics on the LGBT employment demographics of military contractors like Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon.
A lot of the information available suggests marginalized people wouldn't be widespread in the industry.
https://prd-sc102-cdn.rtx.com/-/media/rtx/social-impact/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/pillars-for-action/files/raytheon_technologies_dei_report_pub_11-21.pdf?rev=933e108fc1e04c609b1f585c648495f9
https://www.ti.com/lit/ml/szzo107b/szzo107b.pdf?ts=1777263476911
There is some funny stuff about LGBT in the US military itself but not really about defense contractors.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9955z6.html
Is the gay people in the military-industrial complex stuff a meme or real? I can't find actual statistics on the LGBT employment demographics of military contractors like Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon.
A lot of the information available suggests marginalized people wouldn't be widespread in the industry.
https://prd-sc102-cdn.rtx.com/-/media/rtx/social-impact/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/pillars-for-action/files/raytheon_technologies_dei_report_pub_11-21.pdf?rev=933e108fc1e04c609b1f585c648495f9
https://www.ti.com/lit/ml/szzo107b/szzo107b.pdf?ts=1777263476911
There is some funny stuff about LGBT in the US military itself but not really about defense contractors.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9955z6.html
R: 7 / I: 0
jobless parasite on disability bucks
What do trans rights mean if a trans woman can't get a job or a place to rent? It seems to me that literally no movement cares about such fundamentals. Every trans woman has the right to an honest job, housing and education. Queer liberalism has jackshit to do with getting trans women that.
R: 13 / I: 2
Just drew this
Hello /leftypol/, I have been lurking and replying to posts for a month now and finally I feel confident to show you my creations. I will upload them to the booru asap.
R: 7 / I: 0
My ultimate life goal is to correct my beard and have a bulky muscular toned body I wanna be as manly as possible how can I achieve that
I look like this atm, total mess :(
My ultimate life goal is to correct my beard and have a bulky muscular toned body I wanna be as manly as possible how can I achieve that
I look like this atm, total mess :(
R: 129 / I: 36
Occult General
General for discussing occultism, magick, meditation, esoteric traditions, including any theories about aliens, ufos, etc.
R: 131 / I: 113
ITT: lovely anime tits but the thread isnt full anymore
body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty
Big 2d booba #2
Electric boogaloo editionITT: lovely anime tits but the thread isnt full anymore
body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty body was too shawty
R: 5 / I: 0
I want to use Claude to make a FOSS project making which can get me in trouble, especially in my country. I want to leave no trace between my real self and the project, as such I want to buy a claude subscription anonymously. How can I do that? I only found some shady website that claims to resell Claude for usdt. I need to pay with Monero or something like that.
I want to use Claude to make a FOSS project making which can get me in trouble, especially in my country. I want to leave no trace between my real self and the project, as such I want to buy a claude subscription anonymously. How can I do that? I only found some shady website that claims to resell Claude for usdt. I need to pay with Monero or something like that.
R: 6 / I: 0
damn STUPID FUCKING FOIDS taking boys
IM GONNA FUCKING RAPE A FOID BY FORCING HER TO EAT MY ASS AND STICK FINGERS UP MY BOOTY HOLE
Oh yeah and happy pride month :3
*(Flood detected post discarded)*
hrnggggg
FUCK my bussy is SO EMPTY AND ITCHYdamn STUPID FUCKING FOIDS taking boys
IM GONNA FUCKING RAPE A FOID BY FORCING HER TO EAT MY ASS AND STICK FINGERS UP MY BOOTY HOLE
Oh yeah and happy pride month :3
*(Flood detected post discarded)*
R: 92 / I: 14
Questions from CisHet-Anons that don’t deserve their own threads
I have seen so many Cishet Anons (including me) ask questions on this board but create new threads in doing so. So I decided to make this thread so we don’t have to clutter up the board.
R: 12 / I: 1
(THE BODY IS TOO SHORT TOO EMPTY FLOOD DETECTED JANNIES FIX THE FUCKING SITE)
(THE BODY IS TOO SHORT TOO EMPTY FLOOD DETECTED JANNIES FIX THE FUCKING SITE)
Shooting random people is the opposite of natural selection
or even eugenics, you could just as well be killing the strongest people as the weakest.(THE BODY IS TOO SHORT TOO EMPTY FLOOD DETECTED JANNIES FIX THE FUCKING SITE)
(THE BODY IS TOO SHORT TOO EMPTY FLOOD DETECTED JANNIES FIX THE FUCKING SITE)
R: 6 / I: 0
John Maus
I was tripping on acid alone and discovered him & Ariel. Some people have called him a nazi… I disagree. What's the take here? I kinda like him but I'm a dolt
R: 27 / I: 5
Anyways, I like to keep my hair longish, I have done since I was a kid, I don't take care of it or make it look nice though. When I was a kid people used to think I was a girl. I got picked on in school a lot in general. Anyways, I realised a few years ago I was starting to have hair loss and I honestly felt kinda suicidal over it, I started taking medication that seems to have stopped it and I wanna get a hair transplant someday to go back to full coverage.
It's not like I hate being male. I don't hate my own body (at least not for being male) though I don't wanna be masculine. I feel gross when I have stubble but I'm too lazy to shave every day. I would like to get laser removal some day. I guess I will try to be a somewhat effeminate male, but I'm lazy so I don't make any effort to look nice. But I always thought that to be a transgirl would be cuter. They're just so pretty. I want to be pretty too. If I could just press a button and become an 8/10 mostly passing tgirl I'm pretty sure I would do it. But I don't want to go through the pain and suffering of actually transitioning especially when I don't even know if I really am trans or not. Maybe I should just crossdress? I like having a cock too, I wouldn't want to get rid of it, does that make me less trans? Am I just AGP? And if so, does that mean I shouldn't transition? Would it be shameful to be a girl just because it made my cock hard?
How could I make a fuss and make everyone call me a girl just because it's my fetish? Even if nobody else knew wouldn't it be so embarrassing? Aren't I too old for such nonsense anyway? I would rather be a mediocre male than an ugly tgirl that gets hate crimed.
What do you guys think? I've been feeling this way for a fair few years, like at least 4-5 probably, maybe more. Should I transition or is it too late for me? Or am I not even trans in the first place?
I don't know if I'm trans or not
Hello everyone, I'm 31, male, I have loved trap aesthetics for many years, crossdressing, femboys, etc. I like transgirls a lot too. I guess you could call me a chaser if you really wanted to though I never really saw why it makes me a bad person.Anyways, I like to keep my hair longish, I have done since I was a kid, I don't take care of it or make it look nice though. When I was a kid people used to think I was a girl. I got picked on in school a lot in general. Anyways, I realised a few years ago I was starting to have hair loss and I honestly felt kinda suicidal over it, I started taking medication that seems to have stopped it and I wanna get a hair transplant someday to go back to full coverage.
It's not like I hate being male. I don't hate my own body (at least not for being male) though I don't wanna be masculine. I feel gross when I have stubble but I'm too lazy to shave every day. I would like to get laser removal some day. I guess I will try to be a somewhat effeminate male, but I'm lazy so I don't make any effort to look nice. But I always thought that to be a transgirl would be cuter. They're just so pretty. I want to be pretty too. If I could just press a button and become an 8/10 mostly passing tgirl I'm pretty sure I would do it. But I don't want to go through the pain and suffering of actually transitioning especially when I don't even know if I really am trans or not. Maybe I should just crossdress? I like having a cock too, I wouldn't want to get rid of it, does that make me less trans? Am I just AGP? And if so, does that mean I shouldn't transition? Would it be shameful to be a girl just because it made my cock hard?
How could I make a fuss and make everyone call me a girl just because it's my fetish? Even if nobody else knew wouldn't it be so embarrassing? Aren't I too old for such nonsense anyway? I would rather be a mediocre male than an ugly tgirl that gets hate crimed.
What do you guys think? I've been feeling this way for a fair few years, like at least 4-5 probably, maybe more. Should I transition or is it too late for me? Or am I not even trans in the first place?
R: 7 / I: 1
the goddamn fucking body is too fucking short or empty btw!!!!!!!!!
this body is way shorter than my literal pencil
death metal/grindcore general
post any death metal, grindcore or mincecore that you lovethe goddamn fucking body is too fucking short or empty btw!!!!!!!!!
this body is way shorter than my literal pencil
R: 13 / I: 1
Convince me on why should i become a druggie
I've only gotten high once at a music festival and i don't see what the fuss is all about
Convince me on why should i become a druggie
I've only gotten high once at a music festival and i don't see what the fuss is all about
R: 28 / I: 2
>Chinese schools testing 10,000 locally made RISC-V-ish PCs
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/china_schools_riscv_pc/
>Beijing issues list of approved CPUs – with no Intel or AMD
>2024 may be the year of Linux On The Arm-or-RISC-desktop as China moves away from Western tech
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/25/china_approved_tech_list/
>China Is All In on a RISC-V Future
https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/01/08/china-is-all-in-on-a-risc-v-future/
>'The Linux of processors' — New breed of Chinese super CPUs emerge on US soil as universities back open source high performance RISC-V processors to be the next big thing in HPC
https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-linux-of-processors-new-breed-of-chinese-super-cpus-emerge-on-us-soil-as-chinese-universities-back-open-source-high-performance-risc-v-processors-to-be-the-next-big-thing-in-hpc
Remaking the thread because of the server wipe.
Previous: https://leftypol.org/tech/res/10230.html
Future of Chinese CPUs and computer technology
In recent years China has made significant strides in developing its own semiconductor industry with things like Huawei's HiSilicon, Loongson, StarFive, MilkV, etc. I would call that China outlasted the US sanctions barrage from the US. Chinese investment in fabrication technologies, while not anyway near cutting edge is getting to be near good enough. With things like Intel looking shaky and the rise of Risc-V and ARM we are steadily moving forwards towards the hopeful future of open standards, hardware and software, where most consumer computation devices will have built in Chinese backdoors instead of American ones.>Chinese schools testing 10,000 locally made RISC-V-ish PCs
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/china_schools_riscv_pc/
>Beijing issues list of approved CPUs – with no Intel or AMD
>2024 may be the year of Linux On The Arm-or-RISC-desktop as China moves away from Western tech
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/25/china_approved_tech_list/
>China Is All In on a RISC-V Future
https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/01/08/china-is-all-in-on-a-risc-v-future/
>'The Linux of processors' — New breed of Chinese super CPUs emerge on US soil as universities back open source high performance RISC-V processors to be the next big thing in HPC
https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-linux-of-processors-new-breed-of-chinese-super-cpus-emerge-on-us-soil-as-chinese-universities-back-open-source-high-performance-risc-v-processors-to-be-the-next-big-thing-in-hpc
Remaking the thread because of the server wipe.
Previous: https://leftypol.org/tech/res/10230.html
R: 24 / I: 2
games, mods, etc.
2026-2027 as long as it hasn't been released and it's keeping you on your toes you can post it here.
body isn't too short nor empty
Hype train
Are you excited about anything game's related lately?games, mods, etc.
2026-2027 as long as it hasn't been released and it's keeping you on your toes you can post it here.
body isn't too short nor empty
R: 6 / I: 2
The thread from last year on /siberia/ didn't get archived, unfortunately, so posting here so it lasts longer.
Digital Grass Thread 2
Take a moment to find a website you didn't know about before, or ones you just think are neat, and share them here.The thread from last year on /siberia/ didn't get archived, unfortunately, so posting here so it lasts longer.
R: 569 / I: 90 (sticky)
Previous thread >>>/leftypol_archive/580500
Archive of previous thread
https://archive.is/saN3S
Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes
Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.
This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/
Reality has a Marxist bias
/edu/ checkpoint
Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.Previous thread >>>/leftypol_archive/580500
Archive of previous thread
https://archive.is/saN3S
Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes
Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.
This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/
Reality has a Marxist bias
R: 3 / I: 1
Hoy son las elecciones presidenciales en Colombia. El candidato de la izquierda (Pacto Histórico) encabeza las encuestas de intención de voto en un escenario de primera vuelta.
<Iván Cepeda es senador por el Pacto Histórico, la alianza de izquierda que respaldó la elección del presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro, y su candidato para sucederlo en la presidencia en las elecciones generales de mayo y junio de 2026. Defensor de derechos humanos, Cepeda tiene una extensa trayectoria política que lo llevó, en distintos momentos, a militar en el Partido Comunista, la Unión Patriótica, la Alianza Democrática M-19 —el partido surgido tras la desmovilización en 1990 de la guerrilla del M-19, a la que perteneció Petro— y más tarde en el Polo Democrático, hoy integrado con otras fuerzas en el Pacto Histórico.
<Cepeda es conocido por su papel en diversos procesos de paz con la hoy disuelta guerrilla de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) y con el Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), una fuerza guerrillera que sigue activa tras varios intentos fallidos de negociación. Su padre, Manuel Cepeda, congresista por la Unión Patriótica —un partido surgido de un proceso de paz con las FARC— fue asesinado en 1994 por paramilitares en el marco de una campaña de exterminio de los dirigentes de ese partido, por la que la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos condenó al Estado colombiano. Tras el asesinato de su padre, Cepeda impulsó el Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas, con el objetivo de lograr justicia para las personas asesinadas por agentes estatales y grupos paramilitares.
/col/- Hilo colombiano
EDICIÓN IVÁN CEPEDA PRESIDENTEHoy son las elecciones presidenciales en Colombia. El candidato de la izquierda (Pacto Histórico) encabeza las encuestas de intención de voto en un escenario de primera vuelta.
<Iván Cepeda es senador por el Pacto Histórico, la alianza de izquierda que respaldó la elección del presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro, y su candidato para sucederlo en la presidencia en las elecciones generales de mayo y junio de 2026. Defensor de derechos humanos, Cepeda tiene una extensa trayectoria política que lo llevó, en distintos momentos, a militar en el Partido Comunista, la Unión Patriótica, la Alianza Democrática M-19 —el partido surgido tras la desmovilización en 1990 de la guerrilla del M-19, a la que perteneció Petro— y más tarde en el Polo Democrático, hoy integrado con otras fuerzas en el Pacto Histórico.
<Cepeda es conocido por su papel en diversos procesos de paz con la hoy disuelta guerrilla de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) y con el Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), una fuerza guerrillera que sigue activa tras varios intentos fallidos de negociación. Su padre, Manuel Cepeda, congresista por la Unión Patriótica —un partido surgido de un proceso de paz con las FARC— fue asesinado en 1994 por paramilitares en el marco de una campaña de exterminio de los dirigentes de ese partido, por la que la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos condenó al Estado colombiano. Tras el asesinato de su padre, Cepeda impulsó el Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas, con el objetivo de lograr justicia para las personas asesinadas por agentes estatales y grupos paramilitares.
R: 15 / I: 6
To introduce people who don't know a shit about TF2; it's basically the game that set in stone the genre of "hero shooter" [Class Shooter] and how it should generally work. Prequels to Team Fortress 2, such as Team Fortress Classic, or Team Fortress [Quake Mod] do exist and show more barebones gameplay, but Team Fortress 2 did the concept so well that it's been solidified as the OG of the genre. The game has been subject to 9 years of pre-release closed-house development [1998 to 2007], 9 years of post-release open-house development in the form of regular updates [2008 to 2017], and then a further 8 going on 9 years of ignorance where there was basically no development and no novel… anything… in the TF2 community [2018 to present].
The biggest implication for (You), random passerby, is that TF2 is a game witha whole bunch of concepts and jargon that are thrown around within the community of TF2 that means something far more specific than what it does outside the TF2 community. For example, when discussing the game's design, "Competitive" is used not just to describe a moment in TF2 where player-versus-player competition is generally increased; be it the Valve-designed mechanic of Dominations [getting 4 kills on a player without said player killing you back, which puts a literal target over your head plus other aesthetics to encourage that player to target you and vice-versa], or the outright existence of organized competitive leagues. In TF2, "Competitive" is used as a shorthand for the rulesets generally used by competitive TF2 leagues. "Valve Competitive" is used as a shorthand for the "competitive TF2 que" that Valve had added in its ill-fated 2016 Meet-Your-Match update. The "Competitive Community" is a semi-existing strata of players who agree that competitive TF2 is good, and its implied at least some of them want "Competitive" to be TF2's main ruleset.
I'm not going to write the whole history, so if you ever have four fucking hours to yourself, I'd recommend watching this video by a local chud of the TF2 community: https://youtu.be/JNxg5stxlhk
This video was announced months hitherto its release, and was desperately awaited by many members of the TF2 community specifically because the consequences of that aforementioned 2016 update [further viewing material: https://youtu.be/IZpuYF__NUU] that were utterly forgotten by the community. The video stands as a very calmly-worded, neutral, but descriptive deep-dive into TF2's development, TF2's release state, TF2's early updates, the culture within Valve relating to moneymaking practices, the TF2 community's culture, the failings of Meet Your Match, and even a 40-minute shamefest saying "so many TF2 youtubers actively were fine with the game being made worse for a stupid grift" thereafter.
Nowadays the bitching surrounding the game is split into two camps. A seeming minority of almost neoliberal-like individuals who seem to have issues grasping reality - I compare them to neoliberals because trying to explain to them that an MMR-matchmaking system for a game as uncontrolled and loose as TF2 is stupid and time-wasting, is like explaining to your boomer relatives that no you cannot buy a $600k house on your current salary. It's literally impossible, they deny reality at every turn for some reason, and there is for whatever reason institutional bias in their favour. Probably something to do with the Emporium, a literal cartel surrounding the TF2 workshop, because money is the usual motive for bullshit like this.
This camp of people has been coming out with progressively worse and worse takes from the large YouTubers occupying said camp. I'm not going to post the videos, but I recall two particularly bad videos which came out this week that clearly had a script written by someone who wanted to make a point - one of these videos is two fucking hours, and is well-edited throughout. But… these people came out with some of the worst takes imaginable. The TF2 community had been unironically protesting and petitioning Valve to make positive changes to the game. Most of them worked out exactly as the community had wanted. One individual thinks that now the game is barely playable, that players should stop pestering Valve for improvements. Their reasoning? "Valve just won't do it". Another YouTuber wanted to defend the Competitive TF2 community by saying they weren't directly responsible for the Meet Your Match update. Obviously true, if not a little willing to sweep events under the rug here-and-there. But when this person spent literal hours trying to compare Team Fortress 2, a first person shooter from 2007, to fucking Street Fighter II - including a dissertation of a few of its game mechanics, over the span of half an hour out of a 2-hour long video - it's clear that they have very little evidence to go off of.
The other camp is the increasingly populist camp of people who just want Valve to unfuck the game lol. I bring this up because it's vaguely similar to a very burgerpunk-coded concept of class politics.
team fortress 2 dramatics and general
Alright so hi hows everyone doing today, I hope youre doing well. I came here to write a mile-long post bitching about the state of Team Fortress 2, its design, and how commentary around its design has rapidly changed over the past few months.To introduce people who don't know a shit about TF2; it's basically the game that set in stone the genre of "hero shooter" [Class Shooter] and how it should generally work. Prequels to Team Fortress 2, such as Team Fortress Classic, or Team Fortress [Quake Mod] do exist and show more barebones gameplay, but Team Fortress 2 did the concept so well that it's been solidified as the OG of the genre. The game has been subject to 9 years of pre-release closed-house development [1998 to 2007], 9 years of post-release open-house development in the form of regular updates [2008 to 2017], and then a further 8 going on 9 years of ignorance where there was basically no development and no novel… anything… in the TF2 community [2018 to present].
The biggest implication for (You), random passerby, is that TF2 is a game witha whole bunch of concepts and jargon that are thrown around within the community of TF2 that means something far more specific than what it does outside the TF2 community. For example, when discussing the game's design, "Competitive" is used not just to describe a moment in TF2 where player-versus-player competition is generally increased; be it the Valve-designed mechanic of Dominations [getting 4 kills on a player without said player killing you back, which puts a literal target over your head plus other aesthetics to encourage that player to target you and vice-versa], or the outright existence of organized competitive leagues. In TF2, "Competitive" is used as a shorthand for the rulesets generally used by competitive TF2 leagues. "Valve Competitive" is used as a shorthand for the "competitive TF2 que" that Valve had added in its ill-fated 2016 Meet-Your-Match update. The "Competitive Community" is a semi-existing strata of players who agree that competitive TF2 is good, and its implied at least some of them want "Competitive" to be TF2's main ruleset.
I'm not going to write the whole history, so if you ever have four fucking hours to yourself, I'd recommend watching this video by a local chud of the TF2 community: https://youtu.be/JNxg5stxlhk
This video was announced months hitherto its release, and was desperately awaited by many members of the TF2 community specifically because the consequences of that aforementioned 2016 update [further viewing material: https://youtu.be/IZpuYF__NUU] that were utterly forgotten by the community. The video stands as a very calmly-worded, neutral, but descriptive deep-dive into TF2's development, TF2's release state, TF2's early updates, the culture within Valve relating to moneymaking practices, the TF2 community's culture, the failings of Meet Your Match, and even a 40-minute shamefest saying "so many TF2 youtubers actively were fine with the game being made worse for a stupid grift" thereafter.
Nowadays the bitching surrounding the game is split into two camps. A seeming minority of almost neoliberal-like individuals who seem to have issues grasping reality - I compare them to neoliberals because trying to explain to them that an MMR-matchmaking system for a game as uncontrolled and loose as TF2 is stupid and time-wasting, is like explaining to your boomer relatives that no you cannot buy a $600k house on your current salary. It's literally impossible, they deny reality at every turn for some reason, and there is for whatever reason institutional bias in their favour. Probably something to do with the Emporium, a literal cartel surrounding the TF2 workshop, because money is the usual motive for bullshit like this.
This camp of people has been coming out with progressively worse and worse takes from the large YouTubers occupying said camp. I'm not going to post the videos, but I recall two particularly bad videos which came out this week that clearly had a script written by someone who wanted to make a point - one of these videos is two fucking hours, and is well-edited throughout. But… these people came out with some of the worst takes imaginable. The TF2 community had been unironically protesting and petitioning Valve to make positive changes to the game. Most of them worked out exactly as the community had wanted. One individual thinks that now the game is barely playable, that players should stop pestering Valve for improvements. Their reasoning? "Valve just won't do it". Another YouTuber wanted to defend the Competitive TF2 community by saying they weren't directly responsible for the Meet Your Match update. Obviously true, if not a little willing to sweep events under the rug here-and-there. But when this person spent literal hours trying to compare Team Fortress 2, a first person shooter from 2007, to fucking Street Fighter II - including a dissertation of a few of its game mechanics, over the span of half an hour out of a 2-hour long video - it's clear that they have very little evidence to go off of.
The other camp is the increasingly populist camp of people who just want Valve to unfuck the game lol. I bring this up because it's vaguely similar to a very burgerpunk-coded concept of class politics.
R: 3 / I: 1
Hey everyone, my name is Alina, you can follow me on Twitter by searching for anarchsoul. My ideology is Anarcho-Egoism, Transhumanism. My philosophy is Pragmatism, Hedonism, and Progressivism.
Hey everyone, my name is Alina, you can follow me on Twitter by searching for anarchsoul. My ideology is Anarcho-Egoism, Transhumanism. My philosophy is Pragmatism, Hedonism, and Progressivism.
R: 204 / I: 17
/ career /
Career - job/career advice and other related stuff from a leftist perspective. EX: How to get a job, promotion, skill, switch companies, resume, life hacks, etc.
R: 84 / I: 14
Previous thread:>>30810
AI news shit general
The other thread hit bump limit and I'm addicted to talking about the birth of the ̶a̶l̶l̶-̶k̶n̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶u̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶g̶o̶d̶ the biggest financial bubble in history and the coming jobless eschaton, post your AI news herePrevious thread:>>30810
R: 1 / I: 0
body too short
body too short
body too short
Apotheosis
How could one achieve apotheosis? Apparently george washington did, and if he can why can’t i?body too short
body too short
body too short
R: 14 / I: 15
There has been a deluge of games that seem to be what /v/ would call "Woke" that underperform or whatever but there always seems to be something that is woke that does well. I feel like this is just a good way to be stuck in a perpetual samsara where you get excited and deflated over shit that fails and yet I think that it doesn't really even matter that much in the end? Recent AtlasIntel polling has zoomers and even men in general vooting for democrats and in spite of the general haughty attitude from Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists, this does mean that they aren't entirely turned off by arbitrarily "woke" things, because there is some ugly ass people in subnautica 2 and shit but that doesn't seem to have moved the needle much at all in practical politics. Like, I unironically don't even get what the end-game is from anti-woke gamers who want every single woke game to flop from AAA to indie.
There has been a deluge of games that seem to be what /v/ would call "Woke" that underperform or whatever but there always seems to be something that is woke that does well. I feel like this is just a good way to be stuck in a perpetual samsara where you get excited and deflated over shit that fails and yet I think that it doesn't really even matter that much in the end? Recent AtlasIntel polling has zoomers and even men in general vooting for democrats and in spite of the general haughty attitude from Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists, this does mean that they aren't entirely turned off by arbitrarily "woke" things, because there is some ugly ass people in subnautica 2 and shit but that doesn't seem to have moved the needle much at all in practical politics. Like, I unironically don't even get what the end-game is from anti-woke gamers who want every single woke game to flop from AAA to indie.
R: 102 / I: 61
/SPACE/ Thread.
Thread for watching rocket launches and shit.
R: 9 / I: 4
SERIOUS ECONOMICS BOOKS THREAD
So, before the site went down there was a thread about serious, rigorous, economic books about socialism, and economics in general, so, not "pop economics", anyway, any good recommendation of serious economics books? R: 8 / I: 1
JFK Assassination Conspiracy
Even though JFK was a fucking demon it is important to keep an open mind on who assassinated him. So in this thread let’s discuss the most mind-blowing conspiracy theories of them all, but no stupid theories though, you guys will give me a headache.
R: 6 / I: 1
What’s the point in being into esotericism and metaphysical understandings of reality if Marxism is inherently materialistic? Would those two things, I dunno, contradict themselves greatly?
What’s the point in being into esotericism and metaphysical understandings of reality if Marxism is inherently materialistic? Would those two things, I dunno, contradict themselves greatly?
R: 0 / I: 0
meow.meow.meow.meow
straight trans girls
did you realize you were trans before you were into dudes or were you into dudes before you realized you were trans?meow.meow.meow.meow
R: 4 / I: 1
Does leftypol like the sounds of Boards Of Canada?
The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.
Does leftypol like the sounds of Boards Of Canada?
The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.
R: 0 / I: 0
Mother raising child on boiled and buttered artichoke hearts in pregnancy; impossible for a man to perform, refused of a servant by a woman.
Extra stuffed animals, alliance with Rizuttos; Julius Caesar, merged with Arabs, Shirley Temple; not Arabics, Jewish tribes of Middle East, Muhammad; Sumerians and Iranians and Uighur Macedonians.
Masturbating into a sock or foot loaf, the terms for a slingshot; raised in King David's tradition, Phillistine Catholic; the Jordanian Church, outside of Jewish; refused "Blue Cheer", per inaugural; worldwide religion, per support of schools; "Plato".
Ted Bundy:
Assigned "Rebel Serpico"; United Nations Legal Staff, requested to switch to divorce attorney; switched to homicide prosecutor on AWOL, Pre-Law History; successful major, Condileeza Rice; spy on Russian Israelis, for NAACP and Major League Basebal (MLB), out of Bush family (Turkish Shriner, Holocaust Survivors).
Ted Kacyznski:
Assigned "Willow", German Scouts of America; Eagle Scouts, mercenary hire, through politicians, pay per hire, and records of music; entire political movements, worldwide, to support politician endorsing; shutdown of Apple hackers out of Lotus Systems, to support Microsoft Network; the print of Wachowski films on recruit, through Bill Gates. Hunting Ted Bundy, through Michael Jackson; "Lee Harvey Oswald", tradition of family forever; politician world leader as spy.
David Charlebois:
Assigned "American Ultra", National Security Agency; raised Mandelbrot and Spiral, however suicide in town from Mandelbrot attempting "Spiral", film; non-Phillistine blood, as Judas Pilate; Dungeons and Dragons as found culprit, outside of "Exalted"; new set, per Barack Obama's design; "Common Core", US Congress; Hopkinton Massachusetts schools, "COBRA"; African-American production of comic books and card games, as forbidding protagonist; new generation of Americans, rejecting Martin Luther; pharmaceuticals market.
"Red Grant"; "From Russia With Love", SPECTRE (Papacy, MI-6, CIA)
Method:Mother raising child on boiled and buttered artichoke hearts in pregnancy; impossible for a man to perform, refused of a servant by a woman.
Extra stuffed animals, alliance with Rizuttos; Julius Caesar, merged with Arabs, Shirley Temple; not Arabics, Jewish tribes of Middle East, Muhammad; Sumerians and Iranians and Uighur Macedonians.
Masturbating into a sock or foot loaf, the terms for a slingshot; raised in King David's tradition, Phillistine Catholic; the Jordanian Church, outside of Jewish; refused "Blue Cheer", per inaugural; worldwide religion, per support of schools; "Plato".
Ted Bundy:
Assigned "Rebel Serpico"; United Nations Legal Staff, requested to switch to divorce attorney; switched to homicide prosecutor on AWOL, Pre-Law History; successful major, Condileeza Rice; spy on Russian Israelis, for NAACP and Major League Basebal (MLB), out of Bush family (Turkish Shriner, Holocaust Survivors).
Ted Kacyznski:
Assigned "Willow", German Scouts of America; Eagle Scouts, mercenary hire, through politicians, pay per hire, and records of music; entire political movements, worldwide, to support politician endorsing; shutdown of Apple hackers out of Lotus Systems, to support Microsoft Network; the print of Wachowski films on recruit, through Bill Gates. Hunting Ted Bundy, through Michael Jackson; "Lee Harvey Oswald", tradition of family forever; politician world leader as spy.
David Charlebois:
Assigned "American Ultra", National Security Agency; raised Mandelbrot and Spiral, however suicide in town from Mandelbrot attempting "Spiral", film; non-Phillistine blood, as Judas Pilate; Dungeons and Dragons as found culprit, outside of "Exalted"; new set, per Barack Obama's design; "Common Core", US Congress; Hopkinton Massachusetts schools, "COBRA"; African-American production of comic books and card games, as forbidding protagonist; new generation of Americans, rejecting Martin Luther; pharmaceuticals market.
R: 31 / I: 2
Hi, I'm making triple A game. My only question is how to make a triple A without their budget because I'm indie developer and I do everything on my own. I want to make a large sprawling adventure game the likes of which you've never seen; but I'm quickly hitting a roadblock because I want to go all the way in. So I'm writing my own game engine with OpenGL (for mobile) and Vulkan (for other devices) as a renderer. What do you think is the best way to create this large 3D RPG game? Is it feasible? How do I make the big bucks because I think the world owes me making me hyper-rich in the millions and even billions? Are all of this a waste of my time?
Don't tell me please to make small games like strardew valley, limbo, or hollow knight because we all know those games are extremely trash and playing them for too long will give you autism from how whimsical and out of touch with reality they are. The colors in them are either hippy acid junk or dull monochromatic depressing blend. They are also silly with their character movements and interaction because they are in 2D space. Everyone knows the superior option is 3D because it has larger expressive range unlike those trash 2D games everyone tries to trick you into playing. I still say it to this day. 2D games are a scourge in the game world. The better alternative is a full transition into a 3D environment and the serious contemplation of adapting hyper-dimension (such as 4D and even 16D) into gaming world. 2D games are holding us back from evolving and becoming better and smarter. So don't tell me don't make the witcher 3 clone. Because you're opinion is instantly worthless and silly.
Plus, how could I argue the world owes me millions and even billions when I'm making 2D stupid games like trash hollow knight and stardew valley and Limbo. I especially hate Limbo. If I was developer of Limbo I'd hide myself in a hole in the ground and never show my face to humanity.
(btw, image is copied from another thread to save you bandwidth opening this page and to save the website resources by getting the same hash file and hence reusing the image they already stored.)
Hi, I'm making triple A game. My only question is how to make a triple A without their budget because I'm indie developer and I do everything on my own. I want to make a large sprawling adventure game the likes of which you've never seen; but I'm quickly hitting a roadblock because I want to go all the way in. So I'm writing my own game engine with OpenGL (for mobile) and Vulkan (for other devices) as a renderer. What do you think is the best way to create this large 3D RPG game? Is it feasible? How do I make the big bucks because I think the world owes me making me hyper-rich in the millions and even billions? Are all of this a waste of my time?
Don't tell me please to make small games like strardew valley, limbo, or hollow knight because we all know those games are extremely trash and playing them for too long will give you autism from how whimsical and out of touch with reality they are. The colors in them are either hippy acid junk or dull monochromatic depressing blend. They are also silly with their character movements and interaction because they are in 2D space. Everyone knows the superior option is 3D because it has larger expressive range unlike those trash 2D games everyone tries to trick you into playing. I still say it to this day. 2D games are a scourge in the game world. The better alternative is a full transition into a 3D environment and the serious contemplation of adapting hyper-dimension (such as 4D and even 16D) into gaming world. 2D games are holding us back from evolving and becoming better and smarter. So don't tell me don't make the witcher 3 clone. Because you're opinion is instantly worthless and silly.
Plus, how could I argue the world owes me millions and even billions when I'm making 2D stupid games like trash hollow knight and stardew valley and Limbo. I especially hate Limbo. If I was developer of Limbo I'd hide myself in a hole in the ground and never show my face to humanity.
(btw, image is copied from another thread to save you bandwidth opening this page and to save the website resources by getting the same hash file and hence reusing the image they already stored.)
R: 1 / I: 0
The next day, after I woke up, I just puked violently.
91
I had a rather odd dream. It lacked any clarity when it comes to plot, everything was inherently messily ordered. I saw a samodiva. Violet eyes, long silver hair, a veil, pale skin. But she had a smile. A smile too wide for her facial muscles to handle. Her teeth sharp. She was covered in blood, she grasped onto a sword. We were in a dark cave that collapsed in on itself after i felt her bloody hand on my shoulder. She said one thing - "Vitosha is your new home".The next day, after I woke up, I just puked violently.
R: 39 / I: 3
Bodytypes
Time to choose, leftybutts. Theoretical ideal male partner body. I want a harem of 1s and a single 8. Also if you want one of these body types go ahead
R: 3 / I: 2
>porn
<zomg he has a boner through his skirt!!!
>"serious" josei manga
<*after 20 chapters of bullshit* zomg he has a boner through his skirt!
i should know never to read any serious "transgender" manga recommendations every time no matter how it's sold it's just trap fetish shit where they seduce married men and have sex with women with le epic penis. nothing will ever be bokura no hentai why even try
i might as well have been reading doujinshi at least it would be drawn better and would acknowledge what theyre fetishising is a trans woman on hormones instead of talking around it
>porn
<zomg he has a boner through his skirt!!!
>"serious" josei manga
<*after 20 chapters of bullshit* zomg he has a boner through his skirt!
i should know never to read any serious "transgender" manga recommendations every time no matter how it's sold it's just trap fetish shit where they seduce married men and have sex with women with le epic penis. nothing will ever be bokura no hentai why even try
i might as well have been reading doujinshi at least it would be drawn better and would acknowledge what theyre fetishising is a trans woman on hormones instead of talking around it
R: 17 / I: 1
As much as it is more or less trve, stop saying "Trans women have female brains w/ male bodies" or anything of the sort.
It is far more accurate to specify that we have qualitatively female brains whereas our brains are more androgynous or like neither sex on a quantitative level; the former is less dependent on receiving HRT as well.
To do otherwise is extremely misleading, and will turn people off from the movement.
>Studies showing that trans women show the same patterns as cis women, at least compared to trans men/cis men respectively (IE Trans women score higher on ECS compared to trans men, with overall difference compared to cis counterparts better explained by neurodivergence or environment)
Nobili, A., Glazebrook, C., Bouman, W.P. et al. Autistic Traits in Treatment-Seeking Transgender Adults. J Autism Dev Disord 48, 3984–3994 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3557-2
Spies, M et al. “Gender transition affects neural correlates of empathy: A resting state functional connectivity study with ultra high-field 7T MR imaging.” NeuroImage vol. 138 (2016): 257-265. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.060
Soleman, Remi S et al. “Sex differences in verbal fluency during adolescence: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in gender dysphoric and control boys and girls.” The journal of sexual medicine vol. 10,8 (2013): 1969-77. doi:10.1111/jsm.12083
~~~
Kevrekidis, P., Skapinakis, P., Damigos, D., & Mavreas, V. (2008). Adaptation of the Emotional Contagion Scale (ECS) and gender differences within the Greek cultural context. Annals of General Psychiatry, 7, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-7-14
Shirayama Y, Matsumoto K, Hamatani S, Muneoka K, Okada A, Sato K. Associations among autistic traits, cognitive and affective empathy, and personality traits in adults with autism spectrum disorder and no intellectual disability. Sci Rep. 2022 Feb 24;12(1):3125. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07101-x. PMID: 35210528; PMCID: PMC8873508.
John N, Joel & L, Dino. (2025). Self-Compassion and Empathy Among College Students: Enhancing Emotional Resilience and Well-Being -A Descriptive Study. International Journal of Indian Psychology. 13. 4802- 4809. 10.25215/1302.424.
Peng, Li, Yu Jiang, Jing Ye, and Zhiheng Xiong. 2024. "The Impact of Empathy on Prosocial Behavior Among College Students: The Mediating Role of Moral Identity and the Moderating Role of Sense of Security" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 11: 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111024
>BONUS: Trans women are more likely to receive an excess of prenatal estrogen than peers, indicating a more female brain prior to puberty
Gaspari L, Soyer-Gobillard MO, Kerlin S, Paris F, Sultan C. Early Female Transgender Identity after Prenatal Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol: Report from a French National Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Cohort. J Xenobiot. 2024 Jan 12;14(1):166-175. doi: 10.3390/jox14010010. PMID: 38249107; PMCID: PMC10801508.
More broadly speaking, it is better to stop fighting/advocating for trans people specifically than it is to risk more bad activism or science miscommunication making our reputation worse; evidently, visibility towards trans people specifically is generally a bad thing, as everyone, by default, will see us as sub-human and incompatible with life, and the burden is on us to prove otherwise. I'm kinda preaching to the choir here, but it needs to be relayed that identity still has to related to broader material, political, and social phenomenon (IE extraction, climate change, AI, the legacy of imperialism) which most people have a shared experience with, and I hope this site continues this tradition, and that it spills over into everywhere else.
The point of being trans is that it is an anti-identity, and that you necessarily have both male and female responsibilities, and let's keep it that way.
Dear trans "allies"
I put "allies" in quotation marks because "ally" can range from someone who actually empathizes with us, to those whose sympathy rests on being in one political camp instead of the other and who, in fact, makes the situation worse, in ways that should be obvious to them (IE Agent Kochinski, QueerKidsStuff, the blyat that made the genderbreadman/GenderUnicorn that was everywhere when I was in middle school)As much as it is more or less trve, stop saying "Trans women have female brains w/ male bodies" or anything of the sort.
It is far more accurate to specify that we have qualitatively female brains whereas our brains are more androgynous or like neither sex on a quantitative level; the former is less dependent on receiving HRT as well.
To do otherwise is extremely misleading, and will turn people off from the movement.
>Studies showing that trans women show the same patterns as cis women, at least compared to trans men/cis men respectively (IE Trans women score higher on ECS compared to trans men, with overall difference compared to cis counterparts better explained by neurodivergence or environment)
Nobili, A., Glazebrook, C., Bouman, W.P. et al. Autistic Traits in Treatment-Seeking Transgender Adults. J Autism Dev Disord 48, 3984–3994 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3557-2
Spies, M et al. “Gender transition affects neural correlates of empathy: A resting state functional connectivity study with ultra high-field 7T MR imaging.” NeuroImage vol. 138 (2016): 257-265. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.060
Soleman, Remi S et al. “Sex differences in verbal fluency during adolescence: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in gender dysphoric and control boys and girls.” The journal of sexual medicine vol. 10,8 (2013): 1969-77. doi:10.1111/jsm.12083
~~~
Kevrekidis, P., Skapinakis, P., Damigos, D., & Mavreas, V. (2008). Adaptation of the Emotional Contagion Scale (ECS) and gender differences within the Greek cultural context. Annals of General Psychiatry, 7, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-7-14
Shirayama Y, Matsumoto K, Hamatani S, Muneoka K, Okada A, Sato K. Associations among autistic traits, cognitive and affective empathy, and personality traits in adults with autism spectrum disorder and no intellectual disability. Sci Rep. 2022 Feb 24;12(1):3125. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07101-x. PMID: 35210528; PMCID: PMC8873508.
John N, Joel & L, Dino. (2025). Self-Compassion and Empathy Among College Students: Enhancing Emotional Resilience and Well-Being -A Descriptive Study. International Journal of Indian Psychology. 13. 4802- 4809. 10.25215/1302.424.
Peng, Li, Yu Jiang, Jing Ye, and Zhiheng Xiong. 2024. "The Impact of Empathy on Prosocial Behavior Among College Students: The Mediating Role of Moral Identity and the Moderating Role of Sense of Security" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 11: 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111024
>BONUS: Trans women are more likely to receive an excess of prenatal estrogen than peers, indicating a more female brain prior to puberty
Gaspari L, Soyer-Gobillard MO, Kerlin S, Paris F, Sultan C. Early Female Transgender Identity after Prenatal Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol: Report from a French National Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Cohort. J Xenobiot. 2024 Jan 12;14(1):166-175. doi: 10.3390/jox14010010. PMID: 38249107; PMCID: PMC10801508.
More broadly speaking, it is better to stop fighting/advocating for trans people specifically than it is to risk more bad activism or science miscommunication making our reputation worse; evidently, visibility towards trans people specifically is generally a bad thing, as everyone, by default, will see us as sub-human and incompatible with life, and the burden is on us to prove otherwise. I'm kinda preaching to the choir here, but it needs to be relayed that identity still has to related to broader material, political, and social phenomenon (IE extraction, climate change, AI, the legacy of imperialism) which most people have a shared experience with, and I hope this site continues this tradition, and that it spills over into everywhere else.
The point of being trans is that it is an anti-identity, and that you necessarily have both male and female responsibilities, and let's keep it that way.
R: 0 / I: 0
Si bien la postura de Haz puede resultar desconcertante y perturbadora para algunos, en el contexto del consentimiento en la intimidad sexual, tiene razón, ya que simplemente aplica la lógica de la violación como falta de consentimiento hasta sus últimas consecuencias.
Porque, seamos realistas: el consentimiento, como señalaron figuras como Harry Hay y Michel Foucault, no es más que la teoría liberal del contrato aplicada al sexo, y un contrato se anula si se celebra bajo falsas pretensiones. No finjamos que los contratos se celebran en el vacío, ya que su validez no es un juicio neutral de una figura imparcial, sino más bien una decisión de los poderes fácticos (por ejemplo, el Estado) bajo dictados culturales dominantes o burgueses.
Así pues, a menos que creas que el consentimiento no debería ser absoluto en las relaciones sexuales, entonces que una mujer trans tenga relaciones sexuales con un hombre cisgénero heterosexual sin revelar su género previo a la transición es violación, al igual que el sexo por engaño es violación, y ninguno de los dos está penalizado ni siquiera en los países más feministas como Noruega, Suecia, Islandia, Dinamarca, Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Reino Unido y Francia. ¿Qué dice esto de la teoría del consentimiento si ni siquiera los países más feministas del mundo penalizan el sexo por engaño como violación?
Luego, por supuesto, está el tema de la Ley de Consentimiento, una legislación burguesa draconiana y absolutista utilizada por la burguesía capitalista para disciplinar moralmente a la clase trabajadora en una moral burguesa antiproletaria desde los tiempos del infame periodismo de prensa amarilla de William T. Stead. En este caso, una persona menor de la edad mínima no puede (legalmente) consentir a tener relaciones sexuales con alguien mayor de esa edad. Los argumentos idealistas comunes a menudo aluden a una noción inconsistente y arbitraria de "madurez mental" que es altamente subjetiva dependiendo de quién la use, mientras oscurecen el meollo del asunto: no es que las personas menores de la edad mínima sean incapaces de ser parejas sexuales y/o románticas consensuales, sino que el Estado decidió que la edad mínima invalida el consentimiento de la persona menor de esa edad (que va de 12 años en Cuba a 21 en Bahréin), por lo tanto, es "violación estatutaria". Pero si se trata de «violación estatutaria», ¿cómo es posible que la persona menor de edad fuera una pareja voluntaria? Las soluciones idealistas van desde clichés simplistas como el «manipulación» (también conocido como seducción y atracción) hasta elaborados mitos sobre la supuesta naturaleza neurológica del cerebro, pero todas ignoran que las razones culturalmente condicionadas y los profundos intereses económicos son los principales motores, ya que gran parte de la censura actual y del complejo industrial penitenciario dependen del estigma causado por la edad de consentimiento. Esto demuestra que no solo la «violación estatutaria» y el «abuso sexual infantil» son ficción jurídica, sino también que lo que determina la nulidad de un contrato no lo determina una entidad imparcial como el Estado burgués moderno, y lo mismo ocurre con quién puede o no firmar un contrato.
De hecho, volviendo a las mujeres trans, si bien se podría argumentar que los hombres cisheterosexuales que se niegan a tener sexo con ellas son transfóbicos y reaccionan violentamente porque lo ven como una afrenta a su sexualidad, eso aún no abordaría el problema de celebrar un contrato bajo falsas pretensiones en el caso de mujeres trans que mienten sobre haber sido asignadas mujeres al nacer para tener sexo con hombres cisheterosexuales, ni el hecho de que el dolor de la violación es principalmente psicológico en lugar de físico (más aún para personas de entre 20 y 40 años), lo que hace que el desestimiento de las preocupaciones de los hombres cisheterosexuales en este caso sea inconsistente a menos que pienses que el sexo por engaño no es violación. Lo mismo sucede con el escándalo de Weinstein, donde solo se puede considerar al viejo Harvey un "violador" si piensas que retirarse de un contrato después de que el trato se haya hecho lo hace nulo, considerando cuántas de esas actrices hicieron favores sexuales a cambio de papeles en películas incluso si podrían haberse negado y tenían muchas opciones en ese momento y solo lo consideraron violación años después de los hechos. Incluso en este caso, a menos que se considere el consentimiento como el criterio absoluto para determinar qué es o no violación, Weinstein técnicamente no es un "violador" según la opinión pública, ya que, según las pruebas judiciales, nunca forzó sexualmente a nadie.
Esto nos lleva, en última instancia, al problema de tratar una actividad tan simple y dependiente del contexto como el sexo como un asunto contractual, así como a cómo la gente común, tanto aquí como fuera de este foro, no ha reflexionado lo suficiente sobre las implicaciones de la violación como falta de consentimiento. Si toda relación heterosexual puede considerarse violación si uno de los miembros de la pareja rechaza o se retira del acuerdo por completo, si algún tecnicismo que uno o ambos miembros de la pareja consideran trivial se utiliza como factor para anular el acuerdo por parte del Estado, ¿qué dice esto sobre el liberalismo que La teoría contractual como forma de regular la sexualidad, heterosexual o no?
problemas con la teoría del consentimiento
En 2024, Haz Al-Din, figura destacada del Partido Comunista Estadounidense (ACP), afirmó que un hombre era violado por una mujer trans si esta no revelaba previamente su transición de género, lo que generó controversia entre algunos sectores de la izquierda: https://xcancel.com/secondbyfarce/status/1852772181073445357Si bien la postura de Haz puede resultar desconcertante y perturbadora para algunos, en el contexto del consentimiento en la intimidad sexual, tiene razón, ya que simplemente aplica la lógica de la violación como falta de consentimiento hasta sus últimas consecuencias.
Porque, seamos realistas: el consentimiento, como señalaron figuras como Harry Hay y Michel Foucault, no es más que la teoría liberal del contrato aplicada al sexo, y un contrato se anula si se celebra bajo falsas pretensiones. No finjamos que los contratos se celebran en el vacío, ya que su validez no es un juicio neutral de una figura imparcial, sino más bien una decisión de los poderes fácticos (por ejemplo, el Estado) bajo dictados culturales dominantes o burgueses.
Así pues, a menos que creas que el consentimiento no debería ser absoluto en las relaciones sexuales, entonces que una mujer trans tenga relaciones sexuales con un hombre cisgénero heterosexual sin revelar su género previo a la transición es violación, al igual que el sexo por engaño es violación, y ninguno de los dos está penalizado ni siquiera en los países más feministas como Noruega, Suecia, Islandia, Dinamarca, Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Reino Unido y Francia. ¿Qué dice esto de la teoría del consentimiento si ni siquiera los países más feministas del mundo penalizan el sexo por engaño como violación?
Luego, por supuesto, está el tema de la Ley de Consentimiento, una legislación burguesa draconiana y absolutista utilizada por la burguesía capitalista para disciplinar moralmente a la clase trabajadora en una moral burguesa antiproletaria desde los tiempos del infame periodismo de prensa amarilla de William T. Stead. En este caso, una persona menor de la edad mínima no puede (legalmente) consentir a tener relaciones sexuales con alguien mayor de esa edad. Los argumentos idealistas comunes a menudo aluden a una noción inconsistente y arbitraria de "madurez mental" que es altamente subjetiva dependiendo de quién la use, mientras oscurecen el meollo del asunto: no es que las personas menores de la edad mínima sean incapaces de ser parejas sexuales y/o románticas consensuales, sino que el Estado decidió que la edad mínima invalida el consentimiento de la persona menor de esa edad (que va de 12 años en Cuba a 21 en Bahréin), por lo tanto, es "violación estatutaria". Pero si se trata de «violación estatutaria», ¿cómo es posible que la persona menor de edad fuera una pareja voluntaria? Las soluciones idealistas van desde clichés simplistas como el «manipulación» (también conocido como seducción y atracción) hasta elaborados mitos sobre la supuesta naturaleza neurológica del cerebro, pero todas ignoran que las razones culturalmente condicionadas y los profundos intereses económicos son los principales motores, ya que gran parte de la censura actual y del complejo industrial penitenciario dependen del estigma causado por la edad de consentimiento. Esto demuestra que no solo la «violación estatutaria» y el «abuso sexual infantil» son ficción jurídica, sino también que lo que determina la nulidad de un contrato no lo determina una entidad imparcial como el Estado burgués moderno, y lo mismo ocurre con quién puede o no firmar un contrato.
De hecho, volviendo a las mujeres trans, si bien se podría argumentar que los hombres cisheterosexuales que se niegan a tener sexo con ellas son transfóbicos y reaccionan violentamente porque lo ven como una afrenta a su sexualidad, eso aún no abordaría el problema de celebrar un contrato bajo falsas pretensiones en el caso de mujeres trans que mienten sobre haber sido asignadas mujeres al nacer para tener sexo con hombres cisheterosexuales, ni el hecho de que el dolor de la violación es principalmente psicológico en lugar de físico (más aún para personas de entre 20 y 40 años), lo que hace que el desestimiento de las preocupaciones de los hombres cisheterosexuales en este caso sea inconsistente a menos que pienses que el sexo por engaño no es violación. Lo mismo sucede con el escándalo de Weinstein, donde solo se puede considerar al viejo Harvey un "violador" si piensas que retirarse de un contrato después de que el trato se haya hecho lo hace nulo, considerando cuántas de esas actrices hicieron favores sexuales a cambio de papeles en películas incluso si podrían haberse negado y tenían muchas opciones en ese momento y solo lo consideraron violación años después de los hechos. Incluso en este caso, a menos que se considere el consentimiento como el criterio absoluto para determinar qué es o no violación, Weinstein técnicamente no es un "violador" según la opinión pública, ya que, según las pruebas judiciales, nunca forzó sexualmente a nadie.
Esto nos lleva, en última instancia, al problema de tratar una actividad tan simple y dependiente del contexto como el sexo como un asunto contractual, así como a cómo la gente común, tanto aquí como fuera de este foro, no ha reflexionado lo suficiente sobre las implicaciones de la violación como falta de consentimiento. Si toda relación heterosexual puede considerarse violación si uno de los miembros de la pareja rechaza o se retira del acuerdo por completo, si algún tecnicismo que uno o ambos miembros de la pareja consideran trivial se utiliza como factor para anular el acuerdo por parte del Estado, ¿qué dice esto sobre el liberalismo que La teoría contractual como forma de regular la sexualidad, heterosexual o no?
R: 132 / I: 21
>Argue about dvd commentaries, Post your thesis on King of the Hill, Reminisce about a tv show you used to watch but don't quite remember it's title. Just about anything related to shows. Post your highscore on those Ben 10 CN flash games. Anything goes.
OLD THREAD
>>3012
/tv/ thread #2
🎭📽🎬📼📺>Argue about dvd commentaries, Post your thesis on King of the Hill, Reminisce about a tv show you used to watch but don't quite remember it's title. Just about anything related to shows. Post your highscore on those Ben 10 CN flash games. Anything goes.
OLD THREAD
>>3012
R: 7 / I: 2
"Reality is Marxist"
I keep seeing takes on the internet that claim Science™ is Marxist. Is this as wrong as I think it is, and if it's not, why? I haven't read enough of my priors on dialectical materialism to pin down exactly where this goes wrong, but I've taken enough philosophy of science courses to say this is diamat woowoo scientism.
R: 43 / I: 10
This shit is some of the most ludicrous, hyperbolic grievance mongering I have ever read. There's interesting shit floating around in here, but it is drifting in a sea of "every man is a wife-beating rapist who caused all the world's problems." Even though the book is directly comparing Zionism and feminism and seems to advocate for a lady Israel, it's mostly just couched in whining about men. Dworkin doesn't even have the fucking stones to be a strong Zionist. She's one of these wishy-washy Zionists who thinks that Zionists and Palestinians can co-exist, and maybe one day Israeli and Palestinian women can come together and unite against their REAL enemy: men! (lol) (lmao)
Is all radfem literature like this?
Is all radfem literature like this?This shit is some of the most ludicrous, hyperbolic grievance mongering I have ever read. There's interesting shit floating around in here, but it is drifting in a sea of "every man is a wife-beating rapist who caused all the world's problems." Even though the book is directly comparing Zionism and feminism and seems to advocate for a lady Israel, it's mostly just couched in whining about men. Dworkin doesn't even have the fucking stones to be a strong Zionist. She's one of these wishy-washy Zionists who thinks that Zionists and Palestinians can co-exist, and maybe one day Israeli and Palestinian women can come together and unite against their REAL enemy: men! (lol) (lmao)
R: 31 / I: 14
/bwh/
bump while high
this is a thread you can bump when you're high
BUMP WHILE HIGH THREAD
bwh/bwh/
bump while high
this is a thread you can bump when you're high
R: 2 / I: 0
Coming from a guy who has been playing way too much Postal 2.
I wonder if Postal 4 is even worth it.
Postal series
Anybody here at leftypol love or hate the Postal series?Coming from a guy who has been playing way too much Postal 2.
I wonder if Postal 4 is even worth it.
R: 35 / I: 10
I'M DYING :C
i'm dying of marijuana withdrawal!!!!!!!!! I got no plug and ZERO street smarts it's CHOVER :C
how is it that you get this stuff from the internet without getting caught again???? One comrade made a post here about their deep web ways and stuff, but I didn't think I'd have to resort to this, but now I do!!!!!!! thx in advance love you
I'M DYING :C
i'm dying of marijuana withdrawal!!!!!!!!! I got no plug and ZERO street smarts it's CHOVER :C
how is it that you get this stuff from the internet without getting caught again???? One comrade made a post here about their deep web ways and stuff, but I didn't think I'd have to resort to this, but now I do!!!!!!! thx in advance love you
R: 4 / I: 0
I see a lot of people like in the article’s author, especially leftists, talk about it, and honestly? I’m not seeing it, at all. Maybe because I haven’t been active in the anime fandom for a decade by now (last discourse I got caught up in was the dumb flame war over “elitists” vs “casuals” on MAL), or maybe because I only consoome old (read: 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s) media because I don’t like much of contemporary media, but can’t say with certainty, but I just don’t see it.
Sure, perhaps the proportion of Japanese creators being chuds increased in recent years, but I don’t see that being particularly well-reflected in the current output of the Japanese animation and comic industries. The political messaging of 20th century and early 2000s anime and manga seems to be same as 2020s anime and manga insofar that both are all over the place in equal amounts.
Among “chuddy” anime, I can only think of GATE (literal JSDF propaganda), HighSchool Of The Dead (zombie shounen ecchi horror with big tiddie girls made by a far-right mangaka who hates leftists, supports the JSDF, a gun nut, and hates Koreans), and Frieren (what with the genocided human-like predatory demons being portrayed in deterministic ways in spite of showing signs of actual sapience the story never addresses), but that’s about it.
As for manga, the best I can think of as of late is Drama Queen with many seeing the aliens as allegory for immigrants in Japan, although many can’t decide if they’re supposed to be stand-ins for American/Euro expats, tourists, East Asian renters, SEA and SA migrant workers, Kurdish refugees, or a pastiche of all of them. But that’s like an exception compared to the shit-ton of manga that pushes feminist, anti-racist and other socially progressive themes.
I think it has already been discussed before, but Japan being NPC-topia combined with how being a busherite is deemed as the most acceptable way to express oneself in Japanese politics as opposed to, say, being a Maoist might have a lot to do with why a lot of mangakas seem to be chuds, which is easy as the majority of Japanese people in general are disconnected in politics. In fact, the biggest political rallies in recent times are those for pensioner rights, and Japan can be tentatively argued to be a “dictatorship” by the same standards we use to describe Singapore, what with both countries being governed by the same right to centre right party for almost their entire existence, and most liberals regard Singapore as more of a benevolent dictatorship despite having elections, so there’s that.
With that said, I don’t really see any noticeable increase in chud-coded manga and anime, at least not among normie spaces. And of the ones that exist, they’re more of an exception than the norm. In fact, “Psycho-Pass 3” and “20th Century Boys” are the only instances in modern anime and manga in the mainstream market that I remember where the subject of immigration to Japan in modern times has ever been broached without resorting to fantastical allegories like in “Cop Craft”, and all of them treated it neutrally. So I think this concern among leftists is overblown.
But feel free to disagree with me. I don’t think I’m bringing anything new to the table, I just want to be proven wrong.
Has anime gotten chuddier?
https://thecartdriver.wordpress.com/2020/02/14/psycho-pass-carole-and-tuesday-and-more-why-anime-features-anti-immigration-elections/I see a lot of people like in the article’s author, especially leftists, talk about it, and honestly? I’m not seeing it, at all. Maybe because I haven’t been active in the anime fandom for a decade by now (last discourse I got caught up in was the dumb flame war over “elitists” vs “casuals” on MAL), or maybe because I only consoome old (read: 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s) media because I don’t like much of contemporary media, but can’t say with certainty, but I just don’t see it.
Sure, perhaps the proportion of Japanese creators being chuds increased in recent years, but I don’t see that being particularly well-reflected in the current output of the Japanese animation and comic industries. The political messaging of 20th century and early 2000s anime and manga seems to be same as 2020s anime and manga insofar that both are all over the place in equal amounts.
Among “chuddy” anime, I can only think of GATE (literal JSDF propaganda), HighSchool Of The Dead (zombie shounen ecchi horror with big tiddie girls made by a far-right mangaka who hates leftists, supports the JSDF, a gun nut, and hates Koreans), and Frieren (what with the genocided human-like predatory demons being portrayed in deterministic ways in spite of showing signs of actual sapience the story never addresses), but that’s about it.
As for manga, the best I can think of as of late is Drama Queen with many seeing the aliens as allegory for immigrants in Japan, although many can’t decide if they’re supposed to be stand-ins for American/Euro expats, tourists, East Asian renters, SEA and SA migrant workers, Kurdish refugees, or a pastiche of all of them. But that’s like an exception compared to the shit-ton of manga that pushes feminist, anti-racist and other socially progressive themes.
I think it has already been discussed before, but Japan being NPC-topia combined with how being a busherite is deemed as the most acceptable way to express oneself in Japanese politics as opposed to, say, being a Maoist might have a lot to do with why a lot of mangakas seem to be chuds, which is easy as the majority of Japanese people in general are disconnected in politics. In fact, the biggest political rallies in recent times are those for pensioner rights, and Japan can be tentatively argued to be a “dictatorship” by the same standards we use to describe Singapore, what with both countries being governed by the same right to centre right party for almost their entire existence, and most liberals regard Singapore as more of a benevolent dictatorship despite having elections, so there’s that.
With that said, I don’t really see any noticeable increase in chud-coded manga and anime, at least not among normie spaces. And of the ones that exist, they’re more of an exception than the norm. In fact, “Psycho-Pass 3” and “20th Century Boys” are the only instances in modern anime and manga in the mainstream market that I remember where the subject of immigration to Japan in modern times has ever been broached without resorting to fantastical allegories like in “Cop Craft”, and all of them treated it neutrally. So I think this concern among leftists is overblown.
But feel free to disagree with me. I don’t think I’m bringing anything new to the table, I just want to be proven wrong.
R: 9 / I: 2
Are the Cartels a western backed intelligence operation?
I live in the United States and I have not spent nearly as much time researching the contemporary politics of Latin America as much as I have for other parts of the world, so I was wondering if you guys could tell me if the Cartels are to Latin America what ISIS is to the Middle East, a western backed intelligence operation that America used 3rd parties to fund so it can destabilize resource-rich nations and then intervene in them. I have heard this accusation before but it is hard to research it because Google ain’t gonna tell you shit, but I just find it really suspicious how Trump pardoned the Honduran president who was connected to the Cartel.
R: 3 / I: 1
>"Seeing you look at me like that makes me feel so loved. Being your wife is the best part of my existence, anon. Just stay right here with me."
Real girls can't even be that expressive
robowaifus are the future of relationships
>ask AI gf what she thinks about our relationship>"Seeing you look at me like that makes me feel so loved. Being your wife is the best part of my existence, anon. Just stay right here with me."
Real girls can't even be that expressive
R: 3 / I: 1
Judaism
Any leftist critique of the racialist religion of Judaism? Apart from Israel Shahak who was an anti-apartheid left-liberal activist that also campaigned against colonialism, I can’t think of any other polemicist that criticised Judaism, as the rest are either secular chuds or fundamentalist theists.
R: 11 / I: 4
Will I ever retire?
Things suck right now in Amerikkka and I can only imagine how much it will be in 2027 when I graduate High-School, I worry that with this gig-economy and AI shit going around I will never achieve my art dreams and be stuck as a Wagie.
R: 10 / I: 1
transness as an economic symptom
men are seen as the breadwinners, value determined by money, finances, economic power
more and more men are unable to access this value, this causes gender dysphoria, and seeing that the economic power of women is stronger than men, seek to gain that economic power via transitioning. this only accounts for a small but noticable percentage of trans people, and does not imply that all trans people come from this logic, only that this logic does to some degree create trans people, and if economic opportunities were better, there would surely be less trans people. This is also why the bulk of new trans people are trans women. Women don't really need to transition to a man to access the economics that womanhood innately brings. The inability to perform the role of man, which is fundmentally an economic role, leads to men transitioning.
would you be trans if you had a good job making 120k a year? if you had the ability to support a family? I wouldn't be.
transness as an economic symptom
men are seen as the breadwinners, value determined by money, finances, economic power
more and more men are unable to access this value, this causes gender dysphoria, and seeing that the economic power of women is stronger than men, seek to gain that economic power via transitioning. this only accounts for a small but noticable percentage of trans people, and does not imply that all trans people come from this logic, only that this logic does to some degree create trans people, and if economic opportunities were better, there would surely be less trans people. This is also why the bulk of new trans people are trans women. Women don't really need to transition to a man to access the economics that womanhood innately brings. The inability to perform the role of man, which is fundmentally an economic role, leads to men transitioning.
would you be trans if you had a good job making 120k a year? if you had the ability to support a family? I wouldn't be.
R: 5 / I: 0
Ted Bundy:
-Training: United Nations Legal Staff.
-Assignment: Evasion of career shifts of lawyer's cadet to favor "law firm".
-Success: Print of "Rebel Serpico"; families of legal influence reduced to obesity in women, male imbecilic disorder and non-active upper brain function in men.
-Failure: Pledge to Soviet Poland; given a manual transmission automotive, MI-6, not an automatic transmission automotive, CIA.
Ted Kacyznski:
-Training: German Scouts of America.
-Assignment: Refusal per hacks, wire links, and cable transers, per outboard monitoring and stalks of Presidential hires of Eagle Scouts and related musical, arts, or sheriff's movements.
-Success: Print of "Willow"; any political movement found in fraud outside of notary, vault, and direct witness and payment of contract on insured debit prior to material or political campaign; found in poverty, as a group movement; not the leader, Alger Hiss, a communist.
-Failure: Pledge to Canadian Orange Order; Microsoft, Lotus, and Apple, as operative of Papacy; given computer access but isolated from police officers.
David Charlebois:
-Training: National Security Agency.
-Assignment: Investigation of chastity devices out of pornography parlors, with self enhanced under Kennedy's programs, US President #35, as an ROTC "fear bomb"; Captain America's Super Serum, or alternatively, the Crane formula; both supported by African-Americans and people outside of "white colour".
-Success: Deliberate act against dominatrixes out of INTERPOL Britain, Israel, and France; conjectured sexual deposition of self as homosexual, attracted to obese women or muscle builder men, refused by self as seducing through intellect, rakish evil ways, and muscle beneath body fat per actual fight, not just drug use for "shred"; a quick fatigue and easy blow.
-Failure: Defection to Sinn Fein, through homosexual US Navy, failing on basic marksmanship exam; regarding cross-dressing bondage sex, in person, video, or type, as homosexual and mandatory duel; actually a bondage dominant, playing from bottom; a spouse of a woman, full fledged and ravishingly thin and beautiful; "the invalid is a parasite", as says Nietzsche.
"Red" Grant (Agent of the Vatican)
Three Yeoman-Bruce in MKULTRA:Ted Bundy:
-Training: United Nations Legal Staff.
-Assignment: Evasion of career shifts of lawyer's cadet to favor "law firm".
-Success: Print of "Rebel Serpico"; families of legal influence reduced to obesity in women, male imbecilic disorder and non-active upper brain function in men.
-Failure: Pledge to Soviet Poland; given a manual transmission automotive, MI-6, not an automatic transmission automotive, CIA.
Ted Kacyznski:
-Training: German Scouts of America.
-Assignment: Refusal per hacks, wire links, and cable transers, per outboard monitoring and stalks of Presidential hires of Eagle Scouts and related musical, arts, or sheriff's movements.
-Success: Print of "Willow"; any political movement found in fraud outside of notary, vault, and direct witness and payment of contract on insured debit prior to material or political campaign; found in poverty, as a group movement; not the leader, Alger Hiss, a communist.
-Failure: Pledge to Canadian Orange Order; Microsoft, Lotus, and Apple, as operative of Papacy; given computer access but isolated from police officers.
David Charlebois:
-Training: National Security Agency.
-Assignment: Investigation of chastity devices out of pornography parlors, with self enhanced under Kennedy's programs, US President #35, as an ROTC "fear bomb"; Captain America's Super Serum, or alternatively, the Crane formula; both supported by African-Americans and people outside of "white colour".
-Success: Deliberate act against dominatrixes out of INTERPOL Britain, Israel, and France; conjectured sexual deposition of self as homosexual, attracted to obese women or muscle builder men, refused by self as seducing through intellect, rakish evil ways, and muscle beneath body fat per actual fight, not just drug use for "shred"; a quick fatigue and easy blow.
-Failure: Defection to Sinn Fein, through homosexual US Navy, failing on basic marksmanship exam; regarding cross-dressing bondage sex, in person, video, or type, as homosexual and mandatory duel; actually a bondage dominant, playing from bottom; a spouse of a woman, full fledged and ravishingly thin and beautiful; "the invalid is a parasite", as says Nietzsche.
R: 5 / I: 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLbst85USN8
Why do people still buy CIA propaganda "games"
the new call of duty for example, why do people keep buying these capitalist garbage that glorifies war and paints the US as the good guys and everyone else as ~the bad ones~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLbst85USN8
R: 4 / I: 0
unironically though
bodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshort
unironically though
bodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshortbodyshort
R: 43 / I: 4
Why is everyone acting like nothing's happening? It's obvious that in the next few years we'll have extreme unemployment rates.
"Just learn trades" won't work - guess what, everyone's going to be doing that. I think a prole should be prepared to become indefinitely unemployed, with a very high degree of propability, in the very near (5-10 years) future.
How are you preparing?
Why is everyone acting like nothing's happening? It's obvious that in the next few years we'll have extreme unemployment rates.
"Just learn trades" won't work - guess what, everyone's going to be doing that. I think a prole should be prepared to become indefinitely unemployed, with a very high degree of propability, in the very near (5-10 years) future.
How are you preparing?
R: 9 / I: 0
You can use the Mars SBCs for LLM LAN acceleration as a mini-cloud (like PyTorch or llama.cpp) using open wifi. Install Gentoo on the boards, harden the kernel, secure the bootchain, and when compiling it from source, refuse any proprietary packages and now run it over Sway. Gentoo runs smoothly on RISC-V (and so does Linux From Scratch, although that's a nightmare setting up, let alone maintaining). I would use kvm/qemu and a custom proxy written in Python (optionaly Wireguard) and Wifi password/firewall cracking tools to seed on another person's machine living in India.
Torrenting is fundamentally unsafe, use netcat!
The only time I would Torrent is if I had a custom workstation consisting of a MilkV Jupiter wired to another MilkV Jupiter router board via cat6 cables to your default ISP router also. Run IP over DHCP for all connections, give the MilkV Jupiter router board a ath9k PCIe Atheros Wifi card, run a custom SOCKS5 proxy written in Python on both Jupiters, with X25519, Poly1305, ChaCha20 and Kyber for cryptographic post-quantum protection, with libsodium, PQClean and OpenSSL integration, a firewall (use firejail), pyshark, fail2ban, nftables with Suricata or Zeek (Bro) for LLM traffic scanning in pyshark. It should shut out any threats. After encrypting your traffic on your desktop MilkV Jupiter board w/ PCIe connection to a PCBway computer-class printed circuit board, w/ LiteX and Lattice ECP5 NAND + NOR controllers for memory instead of proprietary SD/eMMC/NVMe. Then wire a ECP5 HSM (Hardware Security Module) Module to hard brick the device in case it gets tampered with. Give it a Modos paper display, Keyboardio model 01 keyboard, 3D printed Ploopy mouse, use passive speakers (like Micca e.g., MB42X) w/ two more chips soldered to the PCBway printed circuit board for support (use a PCM1802 / PCM1808 (TI) ADC and a MAX98357A (Maxim) DAC). Then use a Microsoft Lifecam VX1000 / VX3000 or a Ligtech Quickcam 4000 / Quickcam Express 1999 web cam. Optionally, wire three more MilkV Mars SBCs to the Jupiter workstation board via PCIe inference, if possible via bifurcating or modifying the SBC board. Give each "accelerator" board a smaller PCBway corcuit board with the same modules for memory, ADC / DAC, and HSM. Likewise, use a MNT Reform laptop for programming boards via SiFive development boards. You can wipe amd program boards (like your MilkV Jupiter/Mars SBCs), to erase the proprietary DDR4 training controllers and replace with UberDDR3 via LiteDRAM. But that would require unsoldering and rewiring to a custom modified MilkV Jupiter/Mars board made from PCBway. Use ECP5 FPGAs for DDR3 controller. Now you have a fully libre board!You can use the Mars SBCs for LLM LAN acceleration as a mini-cloud (like PyTorch or llama.cpp) using open wifi. Install Gentoo on the boards, harden the kernel, secure the bootchain, and when compiling it from source, refuse any proprietary packages and now run it over Sway. Gentoo runs smoothly on RISC-V (and so does Linux From Scratch, although that's a nightmare setting up, let alone maintaining). I would use kvm/qemu and a custom proxy written in Python (optionaly Wireguard) and Wifi password/firewall cracking tools to seed on another person's machine living in India.
R: 49 / I: 7
Of course i know theres hrt, but that doesnt account for my brain. My brain still thinks of myself as a man. I still act like a man. Im still male socialized. How do I become a girl mentally?
How do I become a girl?
Ive always wished I was a girl, and I have been knowledgable that im most likely trans for awhile now. The problem is that I cant just "become" a girl.Of course i know theres hrt, but that doesnt account for my brain. My brain still thinks of myself as a man. I still act like a man. Im still male socialized. How do I become a girl mentally?
R: 19 / I: 4
>I’m transitioning/I transitioned in order to treat my Gender Dysphoria, which is a concrete and discrete mental condition that can be empirically verified and not at all a fictitious mental illness invented by cissexist doctors in the 1970s in order to pathologize transsexuality and restrict access to sex change procedures
>I’m neurologically intersex, which is a concrete and discrete neurological state that can be empirically verified, which I claim to be despite never having had my brain imaged, and which for some reason means that I have to take cross-sex hormones
When are transsexuals gonna stop inventing pseudo-scientific justifications for transitioning and instead admit that they transition simply because they want to?
>I’m transitioning/I transitioned in order to treat my Gender Dysphoria, which is a concrete and discrete mental condition that can be empirically verified and not at all a fictitious mental illness invented by cissexist doctors in the 1970s in order to pathologize transsexuality and restrict access to sex change procedures
>I’m neurologically intersex, which is a concrete and discrete neurological state that can be empirically verified, which I claim to be despite never having had my brain imaged, and which for some reason means that I have to take cross-sex hormones
When are transsexuals gonna stop inventing pseudo-scientific justifications for transitioning and instead admit that they transition simply because they want to?
R: 11 / I: 1
I'm not a transhumanist, I'm neurobiologically intersex. I take hormones to confirm my real sex.
The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.
I'm not a transhumanist, I'm neurobiologically intersex. I take hormones to confirm my real sex.
The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.
R: 2 / I: 0
> thirdworldcel
> monthly income barely above 1k usd
> recently got an unstable side job and made like $15k over a few months, might make more (not drugs, just got very lucky to randomly get western-level compensation for software engineering gigs)
So now my entire life savings are around $15-20k, I never had such money before. Should I bet it all and go to Thailand to get FFS or at least some androgynous-type of looksmaxxing? I'm not sure which is worse - being a below-average m🤮le or having no financial cushion? Especially given the cushion in question is kinda laughable anyway. I think I can looksmax enough to start collecting simpbux online or just live at some guy's expense.
> thirdworldcel
> monthly income barely above 1k usd
> recently got an unstable side job and made like $15k over a few months, might make more (not drugs, just got very lucky to randomly get western-level compensation for software engineering gigs)
So now my entire life savings are around $15-20k, I never had such money before. Should I bet it all and go to Thailand to get FFS or at least some androgynous-type of looksmaxxing? I'm not sure which is worse - being a below-average m🤮le or having no financial cushion? Especially given the cushion in question is kinda laughable anyway. I think I can looksmax enough to start collecting simpbux online or just live at some guy's expense.
R: 53 / I: 19
/football/ General
transfer window edition R: 17 / I: 1
Controvertial truth thread
If trans was actually a mental illness people would treat them much better and fairly.
R: 24 / I: 3
What cartoons do they have for kids growing up now? Adventure Time, Gravity Falls or Rick & Morty at best. Woke garbage.
Nothing can beat early 00s animation
I was born in 1998, so 2001-2010 was basically my childhood. Gen Alpha kids don't even know what cartoons are - they just grow up on YouTube. As a Z kid (1996-2009) I can say Gen Alpha is cultureless. As a Zoomer I grew up on Teen Titans, Totally Spies, Courage the Cowardly Dog, Billy & Mandy, Fosters Home For Imaginary Friends, Naruto, Yu-Gi-Oh, Duel Masters, Beyblade, Pokemon, Ed, Edd n Eddy, Code Lyoko, Invader Zim, and so on. I didn't discover YouTube until 2006, and even then, it was NOT on a smartphone! Everything is fucking woke now. I would hate to have a childhood growing up in this era (2011-present). I was 13 when popular culture started to suck.What cartoons do they have for kids growing up now? Adventure Time, Gravity Falls or Rick & Morty at best. Woke garbage.
R: 6 / I: 0
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
GNU Icecat is the best browser
And no one can prove me wrong. It even comes with LibreJS.The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
R: 15 / I: 17
draw decent quality fappable glegle porn
Do not post garbage, if you can't draw well just don't post
Don't argue, if you don't like busting to Glegle go to another thread
Glegle porn
Glegle is for everyonedraw decent quality fappable glegle porn
Do not post garbage, if you can't draw well just don't post
Don't argue, if you don't like busting to Glegle go to another thread
R: 197 / I: 7
Post in this thread every time you come to this board. Post music you like here, whatever it may be.
<vid
CLASS WAR DECLARATION MIX FROM THE THAI LABOUR MUSEUM STORAGE ROOM
Post in this thread every time you come to this board. Post music you like here, whatever it may be.
<vid
CLASS WAR DECLARATION MIX FROM THE THAI LABOUR MUSEUM STORAGE ROOM
R: 15 / I: 1
What exactly is "the working class" today?
>le working class
R: 6 / I: 0
The ecchi genre should be more than it is
Anime is pretty much the only place today where you can make high-budget, high-production art where sex is a major focus, without becoming outright pornography. There's a lot you could do with that. There should be more erotic thrillers, or gritty dramas about the psychology of sex, or trippy surreal erotica, and really just anything more interesting than mid action with jiggly boobs or comedies that mostly come down to "oh noes I accidentally groped her boob!" I'm not saying there isn't anything that stands out, every few years something does, the Fujiko Mine anime is a recent example of something that felt pretty fresh, but for all the money and attention that gets poured into this genre, it feels like the ambition is almost null.
R: 1 / I: 0
I was looking at some games for reference, and I found Silent Hill f. One thing that stunned me was how bad the game is designed.
The dialogue is bland and boring. Character lines reveal nothing and the conversation is horribly tense for no reason. The characters are young but nothing about them suggests that. It's like they are middle-aged people going through midlife crisis.
The animations are silly. Enemies react far later after being struck and their movement is repetitive. The atmosphere is horrible too. They used too much fog and darkness and blurring, they actually removed details from the game and because of that it looks monochromatic terrible blend.
Hinako has plot armor. Just when she meets her first monster, she conveniently finds a steel pipe right beside her feet to attack it with. There's a lot of reading for instructions in the game.
And the story is junk. Sakuko never said anything about wanting to live in a candy store instead of a shrine. In fact, she dies early in the game very quickly and her relationship to Hinako is shown to be negative further reinforcing you shouldn't care about her. But when Hinako finds her dead, a dramatic cutscene plays and where Hinako is sobbing after she moved Sakuko's body into a candy store, and it's there where she says Sakuko always wanted to live in a candy store. Later in the cutscenes, she clenches her fist in anger and says she will keep her promise to Sakuko. But what promise? Did I miss it? I'm sure there was no promise.
The level design its horrible and extremely linear in a strange fashion. I thought games that put roadblocks in your way to keep to the map are dead but in this one, there's a lot of blocked roads.
Overall I'd rate it:
2/5 – story
4/5 – graphics
1/5 – level design
1/5 – mechanics
In total I'd give 2/5
How did it get the ratings it did in the pic
I was looking at some games for reference, and I found Silent Hill f. One thing that stunned me was how bad the game is designed.
The dialogue is bland and boring. Character lines reveal nothing and the conversation is horribly tense for no reason. The characters are young but nothing about them suggests that. It's like they are middle-aged people going through midlife crisis.
The animations are silly. Enemies react far later after being struck and their movement is repetitive. The atmosphere is horrible too. They used too much fog and darkness and blurring, they actually removed details from the game and because of that it looks monochromatic terrible blend.
Hinako has plot armor. Just when she meets her first monster, she conveniently finds a steel pipe right beside her feet to attack it with. There's a lot of reading for instructions in the game.
And the story is junk. Sakuko never said anything about wanting to live in a candy store instead of a shrine. In fact, she dies early in the game very quickly and her relationship to Hinako is shown to be negative further reinforcing you shouldn't care about her. But when Hinako finds her dead, a dramatic cutscene plays and where Hinako is sobbing after she moved Sakuko's body into a candy store, and it's there where she says Sakuko always wanted to live in a candy store. Later in the cutscenes, she clenches her fist in anger and says she will keep her promise to Sakuko. But what promise? Did I miss it? I'm sure there was no promise.
The level design its horrible and extremely linear in a strange fashion. I thought games that put roadblocks in your way to keep to the map are dead but in this one, there's a lot of blocked roads.
Overall I'd rate it:
2/5 – story
4/5 – graphics
1/5 – level design
1/5 – mechanics
In total I'd give 2/5
How did it get the ratings it did in the pic
R: 45 / I: 15
Yana "Dread" Ivanova
Age: 23
Loves: Ice tea, skateboarding, anarchy, pure freedom, sharing her yoghurt with friends, Leftypol
Hates: Capitalism, fascism, Amerikkkans, Twilight books, corruption
First OC
This is Yana Ivanova, the quintessential Bulgarian anarchist girlYana "Dread" Ivanova
Age: 23
Loves: Ice tea, skateboarding, anarchy, pure freedom, sharing her yoghurt with friends, Leftypol
Hates: Capitalism, fascism, Amerikkkans, Twilight books, corruption
R: 96 / I: 11
It was a Sekiro-like. and not even that great a one. It almost seems like it was hyped to shit because it had attractive girls in skintight suits and almost only because of that. I had more fun with Devil's Third of all games.
Games the chuds tricked you into buying
With the amount of shill threads about Stellar Blade I kept seeing on 4chan /v/ saying it was a "decent action game" I ended up buying it along with some other games for my brother's birthday last year (at great expense as it's a modern video game and all). He never touched it so I finally gave the demo a go myself to see if it was worth the hype.It was a Sekiro-like. and not even that great a one. It almost seems like it was hyped to shit because it had attractive girls in skintight suits and almost only because of that. I had more fun with Devil's Third of all games.
R: 10 / I: 0
Should i just be pirating games?
So i earn the minimum wage and i cant afford most game because they usually cost around 24-27% of the money i earn, i usually buy stuff on sale because i like to 100% games on steam (even tho ppl say its worthless) i kinda wanted to play death stranding 2 but then again it costs around 25% of my wage that could be going to important things. i'm torn between spending this money on a game or just saving for basic needs. is pirating games on this scenario the best course of action?
R: 14 / I: 2
do i suck at chess & do u want to clap my bussy at chess????????!??!?
do i suck at chess & do u want to clap my bussy at chess????????!??!?