[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / siberia / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / twitter / tiktok ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)


File: 1684269293952.png (108.8 KB, 299x168, ClipboardImage.png)

 

I've noticed that all of the ruling classes use the same systems of statism, legality, politics, and economics (a mix of capitalism with social welfare systems). They use legal systems, laws, and courts. They all have governments that control, politics, with parties and political systems. It's all the exact same thing all around the entire world. We have been under this shit for 100s of years meaning a specific order has been maintained with increasing expansion:
<States
<Legal systems
<Economic systems
<Political systems

There are people behind this system of social control. No matter what "side" it is, they all use the same systems I just mentioned, whether China or Russia or the USA. Their public servants like Soros and Gates and Musk And Trump and Putin and Xi, these are all just different factions that are opposed on the surface level. Rich dynastic families with old histories, secret orders, and monarchies have come together over time to rule the world in this way of statism, legalism, politics, and economics. They aren't necessarily on the same side, but they work together to maintain that exact order of the 4 points I mentioned earlier. Why?

You can claim that everyone developed these systems, and every society developed this in the history of civilization! Well, NO. Not all tribes developed the exact same system of control. The ideology of legal systems and justice is a very specific thing. The Native Americans didn't have police, they didn't have their own economic system like the Euro invaders. They lived based on a gift economy, the same way today you go to the Amazon jungle tribes and they have no conception of any of that shit. In the same way, the Aboriginals in Australia don't, there are even videos of them explaining the fucking shit to them because they don't understand how modern society could have gone so wrong.

The important thing is I don't reject everything in this modern situation of ours. I suppose government systems and other current systems would have to be used for a time as we transition and figure things out. The US state out of all the states spends the most on war. All other states are spending resources and money on war too. If we divert all of the money being poured into war, we can solve all hunger, end all homelessness, build a peaceful society.

Man-made economics didn't always exist either, in fact, it's recent and coincides with the start of civilization. That's what kicked it off, a convergence of technologies - barter, agriculture, and writing led to the first cities and the start of civilization which have only been around about 10,000 years at most.

But for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, we lived as hunter-gatherers under nature's gift economy. We've been talking about this for many years, but Marxists always fail to understand why it's superior. You're forgetting natural law and nature's economics. In nature, it works based on a gift economy and that is always in effect, unlike man-made economics that is based on, and layered on top of the natural world in which things are freely shared, so you're not paying for the air breathed or sunlight. You're not paying anything for these imageboard posts or for other interactions you gain from others. But in man-made economics, you pay for a therapeutic chat, you pay for all the food and water and living spaces, and that's only getting worse despite all the commie efforts. I'm not interested in bullshit scraps on a planet of wealth where there's more than enough for even double the population.

Making a point against such enslavement isn't idealism or an argument against history. We didn't have "the same order" for thousands of years, but for about 1500 years that has been slowly developing over time, growing to encompass the whole world in one specific system. It would take generations for people to learn to exist peacefully like I want, with a philosophy and ideology for peace, but it's all forgotten.

But whenever I mention this to Marxist people, you call me out on "perfection or idealism or utopianism" or some bullshit because you have no argument. I don't know how to help you understand, you just misunderstand and ignore things, like no, systems of social control didn't always exist. Governments didn't even always exist, cavemen didn't even live in tribes - they lived in family units. So why do Marxists say that I'm negating the history of civilization, and my ideas are not built on anything but idealism? The ending point Marxists make is that slavery isn't a problem for them, if they are okay with being lied to, robbed, and enslaved then go suck statist dick like a commie cuckold "I have accepted that nothing can change so I shall keep bending over"

There is literally a chance for our species to become better in our own lifetimes, there is factually an option in existence that we can discover to bring it about in the physical world, but Marxists just say keep bending over and there's nothing that can lead us out of our current state of affairs, when in fact there IS a way to bring about peace. The trap that had been set up for intellectuals, all these different political philosophies like Marxism vs AnCap vs AnCom groups, they just talk without achieving, an endless intellectual debate endlessly talking without actually doing something that leads to genuine progress, nothing substantial, not a scrap of bread for a starving man who hasn't ate for a week but Marxists seem to be content with that

🚨🚨🚨 LEFTCOM ALERT LEFTCOM ALERT 🚨🚨🚨

Lol, yeah…

>>15930
>what_you_think_you_look_like_vs_what_you_actually_are.jpg

neither of these pics are ugly tho

Upper classes are well aware that their servants can turn up against them. Servant have no idea and just cheer nationalism, religion or some other kind of idpol.

>>15928
Marx literally wrote about 'primitive communism' and how people used to live communally. However how do you expect to get rid of states, governments, politics, economics, and still support a world of 8 billion people? We can't live like hunter gatherers anymore.

>>15933
90% of people will die from hunger and hunger related diseases but OP's wholesome tribe of noble savages will survive this apocalypse and live happily ever after.

>>15929
<🚨🚨🚨 LEFTCOM ALERT LEFTCOM ALERT 🚨🚨🚨
more like anti civ retard

it appears the cholera has liberated shit from my bootyhole again(i am dying of dehydration)

This anon has discovered nominalism and it’s implications on contemporary politics

the marxist position on this is not "systems of control always exist", whatever that really even means. the marxist position is that the state is necessary for the repression of the bourgeois to maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat. once the bourgeoisie is eliminated as a class, the state no longer serves any purpose, and it withers away.

>another gift economy thread
"Native Americans" did not "have a gift economy". The Incas had money and a planned productive sector. The Maya's did not have a gift economy. Most of North American tribes did not have a gift economy. To claim they all did is historical falsification. To claim one system of organising is "natural" is to essentialize humanity. If it was natural, we would not have developed anything else. English or Chinese is not natural either. They are all tools to help run societies.

>>15930
Cute baggy eyes cute baggy eyes

File: 1684319593988.png (121.51 KB, 480x480, left anarchism.png)


>>15940
Well, to be honest, while her stances are obviously demented and she would need a thorough re-education, talking about her looks, while she isn't a classical beauty - so to speak - she's not even that ugly in that no make up pic. I repeat: her main issue is her brain.

>>15929
No that's an anprim, learn what leftcom means before you try to turn this into a meme.


Unique IPs: 14

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / siberia / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / twitter / tiktok ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]