Is this a trick question? They won’t overthrow the “elite”, they’re just going to force the liberal bourgeoisie to kneel or die and replace bourgeois democracy with fascist dictatorship or an equivalent
Or idk maybe something worse than fascism we haven’t seen before, maybe the modern psychos just want extinction
>>1028829>Is this a trick question
No. I'm genuinely curious. The right always scream of overthrowing the elites but have no clear roadmap of what to do post-revolution, unlike us lefties. Hence why I asked such.
You need to Marxpill yourself. You're thinking in terms of "elitists" when you should be thinking in terms of classes. So one faction of the bourgeoisie would replace another, supported with cultural forces.
What would they practically do? Continue capitalist exploitation, remove any barriers for exploitation of the land. Continue the turn into theocracy and fascism. Same shit they're doing right now in power, there wouldn't be a revolution or an overthrow of anything.
They won’t because they are the elites
Look up the history of the Nazi Party or Fascist Italy, it’s a pretty clear roadmap>Purge the vaguely left populist part of the party>Make porky kiss the ring and get rid of bourgeois democracy>Let porky handle profiteering because you’re a Real Man (brainlet) that likes Big Guns, Fast Cars, and a Big Army>Impose feudalistic dictatorship on the working class, gut wages viciously, open labor camps, kill those dastardly elites communists, socialists, and trade unionists>Construct an economy of death utilizing death camps to completely use up the labor power of an endless supply of slaves to be gained through warfare and explicitly be worked to death to have the benefit of slaves without the cost of maintenance >Fight a war against your neighbors in a desperate attempt to save your dying Capital
At least that’s what the rightards did the last time they “overthrew” the elite
Everyone gets paid even less. Roads become subscription services. Police are even more militarized. Genocide of non-whites and white lgbtq. Nuclear war because they will probably think they could just nuke their problems away without anyone else firing a shot back.
Leftists have overthrown elitist rule and workers state did not emerge
and the road map for repeating this is already present in america. see how apparatuses for deporting illegals can easily be turned into an apparatus for importing slaves. why do illegals flee to america in the first place? to escape the terrorists and cartels armed by americans. to escape the bombs dropped by americans. to chase the wealth stolen by americans. what happens when they get to america? they get shoved in concentration camps for being illegal
But you have to admit Canada is a pretty nice country, so maybe not everything is the fault of USA
I think there are a lot of powerful white people in USA government and they don't genocide anyone
Now they'll have free reign to do what they have always wanted in their hearts. You think the people in OP pic are okay with non-whites existing or whites that don't think exactly like them?
I think you are wrong. But do you think this is at all possible, and in your mind those people are stopped doing genocide by who?
The idea is to just do whatever works at any given point in time for the people of the nation. The people are obese? Implement mandatory fitness programs or regulate service industries. Income deficit? Increase effective taxation, invest in infrastructure, realocate money or just take stuff from another nation. If a policy doesn't work out just revise or replace it. As long as the nation and it's people thrive everything is justified.
This has been the M.O. for the last 100 years, and as i see it people are not thriving. Not to mention. How do you even structure that so that state is accountable and picks the right goals, as opposed to wars, like the ones in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Ukraine…
They will remake pre-existing elite class structures like anarchkiddies.
How do you remake something that is pre existing?
Our current government does not act in the interest of it's people whatsoever. As a matter of fact they do everything in their power to fuck us over at every chance they get and therefore they aren't fascistic.>How do you even structure that so that state is accountable and picks the right goals
By replacing the ruling class with people of good character. Granted this isn't a permanent solution, but it doesn't have perfect anyway.
You are joking? This is so easy to casually say, but seems impossible to do.
Not really if you think about it. How hard is it to force schools to implement mandatory fitness programs? All it takes is people with the will and authority to do so. Same goes for everything else.
Again, i have to concluded that you are deluded. Would you even care about having "democratic legitimacy" with election? Or does this program demand a totalitarian fitness state
How do you remake a movie?
>>1029038>Again, i have to concluded that you are deluded
Right. Explain to me what's so unrealistic and delsusional about the idea of picking a minister for education that actually cares about his job.>Would you even care about having "democratic legitimacy" with election?
No. About 90% of all people are sheepish and can be lead into any position the ruling class desires them to hold. The ruling class wanted a war in Iraq, drummed up it's media apparatus, war support went up to 70% and then they invaded (or before? who cares anyways). Now only 30% of people say they supported the Iraq war at the time. Democracy is a joke. What the people really need is a shepherd that acts in their interests and guides them towards the right path.>does this program demand a totalitarian fitness state
We are talking about a change to the current circulum. You can call that anything you want, and likewise i wouldn't care how it's implemented one way or another as long as it fullfills it's intended purpose of reducing the obesity epidemic. One of the key difference between marxism and fascism is that the latter rejects the formers dogmatism. We don't want central planning, democratic workplaces or a withering away of the state. We just need to do what works.
Reality, as experience by living in this world. Not to mention you seem to think proles are unthinking so they need a minister to tell them what to do
So you think, current elites are bad, and you would be a good elites, and you won't be corrupted by power either, i presume.
>>1029083>you seem to think proles are unthinking so they need a minister to tell them what to do
I said that you can make about 90% of people believe whatever you want them to believe. Humans aren't equipped to deal with a 24/7 media apparatus bombarding them with propaganda. The fact that most people are dumb on top of that doesn't help either. Cry about that all you want, but it's true. >So you think, current elites are bad, and you would be a good elites, and you won't be corrupted by power either, i presume.
I'm not perfect, but yeah. I certainly don't hold active contempt for the people like our current ruling class does.
Explain to me what's so unrealistic and delsusional about the idea of picking a minister for education that actually cares about his job.
How does this website work, if you disagree with someone it's pure ideology by žižek. Why is this such a trump card to play and stop any argument
>What will rightfaggots do after overthrowing the elite?
Pretty obvious: liquidate anyone they perceive as enemies: leftists or any type of minority.
Rightoids don't want to overthrow the elite. Not even going by their own definition of "elite" i.e. Teh Jews. The Buffalo incel's manifesto spelled out that they're too scared of hard targets to ever actually go after them.
He actually implored others to kill elites as he drove 200 miles past Soros' house
I think rightoids are very weak, just look at sersf at jan6 trials.
Because people are the product of their enviroents. Their priorities, worldviews, and character are shaped by their material conditions. If government officials do the bidding of capitalists and in doing so screw over ordinary people, it's because they live in a society that manufactures such individuals.
Why don't you start by individuals, you don't say beaver society is shaped by their damns. It's not something that happens to beavers, it's what they do
>>1029182>Why don't you start by individuals, you don't say beaver society is shaped by their damns.
It is though, and so is their biology. Beavers construct environments that they are suited too, and they are suited to these environments because they construct them. It's dialectics.
How is this dialectics?
I don't get your point.
It's dialectics because it's about how humans and their conditions mutually influence one another, and that changes have to come from elements already existing within this dynamic instead of some outside force. People with good character can't rule the state if the social order systematically produces people with bad character.
>>1029176>people are the product of their enviroents. Their priorities, worldviews, and character are shaped by their material conditions.
You forgot to mention genes but whatever. Not like it matters, right?>If government officials do the bidding of capitalists and in doing so screw over ordinary people, it's because they live in a society that manufactures such individuals
The current power structure selects for psychopathic and selfish individuals. A good natured individual in a position of power can choose to reject corruption. There is no hardwired magic force preventing this case from occuring.>>1029203>changes have to come from elements already existing within this dynamic instead of some outside force
metaphysics>People with good character can't rule the state if the social order systematically produces people with bad character
In that case the good natured character must change the system. It doesn't contradict my point.
>>1029203>and that changes have to come from elements already existing within this dynamic instead of some outside force
How do these changes work? Please explain
>People with good character
What is this character?
>if the social order systematically produces people with bad character
How does social order work?
>>1029206>You forgot to mention genes but whatever
Genetic differences between people aren't large enough to matter. There is no gene for social responsibility.>There is no hardwired magic force preventing this case from occuring.
It's not magic, it's the nature of the institutions and the society they oversee. A well-intentioned person can enter government with the aim of doing a good job as a civil servant, but that goal will inevitably come into conflict with a wide range of other powerful actors whose position depends on hurting the public good. You need to alter the social order that makes this the case, ie eliminate contradictory social interests.>In that case the good natured character must change the system.
Systems aren't changed by people of good nature working for moralistic reasons. They are changed by huge masses of people working for their interests.>>1029208>How do these changes work? Please explain
Change is the product of contradictions. All class societies contain irreconcilable social contradictions, which given enough time will eventually reach an impasse, resulting in one force overcoming the other, bringing about profound social change. In other words, changes come about from tensions within the system itself. You can't expect some morally righteous group of people to suddenly appear, as if morality isn't a product of the system itself. You need to mobilize those elements that are in inherent material conflict and contradiction with the status quo in order to overcome it.
>>1029228>There is no gene for social responsibility.
How do you know this?
NTA but you seem pretty confident in its existence, would you like to point it out to me? It should be easy if it's so self-evident.
>>1029242>How do you know this?
Responsibility comes from a feeling of obligation to wider society. So what does society mean to you?
What's NTA?? I don't have any confidence. You made the claim, so please tell me how do you know this? It should be easy if it's so self-evident.
> What will rightfaggots do after overthrowing the elite?
Shit themselves uncontrollably
lol'd at the guy deriding "metaphysics" while holding up genes as things as invisible, eternal , things that determine us
What the hell is wrong with you. You made a statement, now back it up. Please!
Sorry you may be a different person. But you can back up claims of some other poster.
>>1029228>Genetic differences between people aren't large enough to matter.
Delusional but whatever. Comes with the territory of being marxist.>that goal will inevitably come into conflict with a wide range of other powerful actors whose position depends on hurting the public good
This just means the person in charge needs to channel his authority in a political effective manner. We already knew from the get go that our current government is corrupt. No shit changing it is going to be difficult.>Systems aren't changed by people of good nature working for moralistic reasons. They are changed by huge masses of people working for their interests.
They absolutetly can be. As a matter of fact the driving force of historical and political change stems from different elitists factions being dissatisfied with another or determined individuals fighting for a cause. Workers or slaves rarely did stuff by themselves and succeeded even less.>>1029246
Did you know that political views have a heritability of 40%?>>1029259
Let me guess you really like Haz?
I'm not that anon, my uygha. Why do I have to back him up? Plus if political views are inheritable up to a certain point, that means radical changes in society causing political viewpoints to shift will also cause genome changes. Meaning the main problem of social responsibility does exist and develop in our world, and not in your RPG-tier breakdown of human attributes.>>1029267>Did you know that political views have a heritability of 40%?
That's a lot of words and still no actual evidence for anything you've said.
I acknowledged my mistake!
>means radical changes in society causing political viewpoints to shift will also cause genome changes
Can you explain how this will work? I don't understand what you are trying to say
>>1029281>Meaning the main problem of social responsibility does exist and develop in our world, and not in your RPG-tier breakdown of human attributes.
Rephrase that because i have no idea what you're saying. >>1029285>>1029285>SoUrCe
Look uygha i don't like go through my library for people that don't even acknowledge genes are real. And it's not like anyone so far posted a single STUDIE_TM you can cream yourself over. Here is a random link: https://humanbiologicaldiversity.com/
Maybe it's there, maybe not. Enjoy it.
No idea what you're talking about. I'm also not trying to turn this into a boring HBD thread and just here to explain what i want for society.
As a sidenote all humans are organism and all organism are genes expressed in an environment. So if you say 'humans are a product of their environment' and leave out genetics you're lost on a highschool biology level.
>>1029294>"Uhh, sorry leftcucks but genes PROVE behavior is biological!">"Prove it.">>angrynpc.jpg
Kek, imagine my shock
>>1029267>This just means the person in charge needs to channel his authority in a political effective manner.
Political authority derives from having a social base. In other words it comes from mobilizing a section of society based on shared interests, and actually doing something to protect those interests. This is why fascist strongman thinking doesn't work, every state inevitably represents the interests of some combination of class forces, and within that combination some specific elements are always dominant over others. No leader or government can rise above the mode of production by which society reproduces itself, or the class contradictions embodied therein. They are on the contrary a product of these same contradictions and represent one of the belligerent forces. It's impossible to pursue a universal social good under capitalism, the only way to do this is to abolish these irreconcilable social antagonisms by abolishing class. Otherwise you will just end up with an endless parade of rulers who represent the dominant class interests (the interests of those who control the means of production) against those who compose the vast majority of people.>As a matter of fact the driving force of historical and political change stems from different elitists factions being dissatisfied with another or determined individuals fighting for a cause
No political clique ever siezed and held power without a social base, without representing the interests of a major class grouping. Power is dialectical, and even the most brutal autocracy is constrained by the desires and interests of its supporters. Caesar couldn't have ever held power without the support of the proletarii and the military, Mussolini could never hold power without the support of the Italian landowners and petty bourgeoisie. All governments have a class character.
>>1029310>Otherwise you will just end up with an endless parade of rulers who represent the dominant class interests
Why would it be any other way?
>>1029310>every state inevitably represents the interests of some combination of class forces
You're assuming that class is the only (major) constant factor that affects society over time, which is obviously false. The intrests of the nation, or state, and it's people in an of themselves are a constant force as well. It's therefore absolutetly possible to organize society around classless characteristics.>No leader or government can rise above the mode of production by which society reproduces itself, or the class contradictions embodied therein
History would strongly disagree with that one. At best you could say leaders over time can't escape class contradictions.>No political clique ever siezed and held power without a social base
Sure, but my point was that the social base isn't usually what drives societal changes.
can 1917 count?
Trump talked big about draining the swamp. All of that became him replacing democrats with his own version of a swamps, that's it.
>>1029021>elite class structures>Anarchists want this.
That's enough posting, Agent Langley
1850 style slave plantations
>>1028822>If lefties overthrow elitist rule, a workers' state replaces it afterwards. If lefties overthrow elitist rule, a workers' state replaces it afterwards. Then, a classless society form after much transition.
Depends on how you define "state". I doubt a dem-con/ communalist or anarchist would advocate for a centralised power structure to aid in this transition. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
>However, what will rightists do when they have successfully overthrown the (so-called, because yeah, they are rightoids) "elites?" An example would be Donald Trump trying high-ranking Democrats and other elites opposed to him in a criminal tribunal, and executing them afterwards. What will they do afterwards?
Let's say this happens, Donald Trump is in collaboration with US oligarchs, who effectively run the show. The US state is under the control of capital, as opposed to US capital being under control of the state. If Trump was to launch a successful coup, he would require a significant backing of US olgiarchs, not all of them, but a significant amount. How this new government will work is up to scrutiny, but I imagine it'd be akin to Trump being nothing more but a bourgoise authoritarian- deporting so-called illegal immigrants, and rendering the democrats obsolete, effectively creating a strange reaganite form of governance. At least that's what I think will happen should Trump be put in charge. In effect, it'll be the US as it exists but with no democrats, and an already existing electoral college made entirely by Republicans. Here comes the clincher though: will it still remain an oligarchy in which capital still controls the state, or will Trump use the state to control capital?
>Will a workers' state form?
Again, that depends on what is defined as a "workers state". Billionaires being put under the bootheel of the party doesn't exactly make one a socialist, and can just as easily be attributed to fascism. Even if you have "the representatives" chosen from the working class, their relation to power changes and they become statesmen who make their own policies as opposed to say, a delegation.
>Can they embrace leftism because they have no clear goal of what to do afterwards and so have to resort to using leftist strategies? Opinions welcome.
Depends on the "leftist strategies". I'm doubtful, but stranger things have happened. Keep in mind, despite Otto Von Bismarck being a hard-core conservative, he had a hand in creating the first modern welfare state. But as we know, state-mandated health care and massive infrastructure projects are far from "socialist".
They will have soft apartheid where white christians rule or at least had disproportionate power as a minority of the population and they have strongman leaders like Trump combining industrial policy, trade restrictions, isolationist foreign policy, working class union voters with rural petit booj.
Basically neoliberalism with a thin veneer of christian pseudo-peronism
It would resemble Suharto's New Order regime in Indonesia. Instead of lumpen gangsters carrying out state violence it will be right wing militias doing the dirty work. They'll start accusing anyone they don't like as a "satanic communist pedophile" and use that to justify mass killings.
so thats effectively islam that they hate
They already did between 2017 and 2021. It was a hilarious and terrifying disaster.
Their are a lot of possibilities, it would depend on the conditions that the society is in and who is in the leadership, you could get fascism, reinforcement of capitalism under reactionary leadership
while unlikely a nazbol state could emerge, or their could be a collapse in complex technology which would result into a return to feudalism. But IMO if a far-right revolution occurs in America what will likely happen is what happened to Qing China, the central government will collapse and you will see a “warring states period” where dozens of different right-wing warlords and a few left-wing warlords raise armies who slug it out in the ruins until one becomes powerful enough to reunify the country by this time America would be unrecognizable.
>>1030235>fascism is just capitalism that is reactionary
I thought underages werent allowed on this site
The right arent revolutionaries
They break shit but are essentially unorganised
What's your definition?
Same thing they did when they stormed the capital, absolutely nothing until they slowly trickle out and go back to donating to their favourite rightwing grifter podcast
>>1028822> what will rightfaggots do after overthrowing the elite> rightfaggots ever overthrowing the elite
You can argue that natsoc were rightfaggots, but they had an entirely different economic proposition for society unlike American rightwingers. History already described what national socialism does. That is removing stock exchanges and giving profits off companies to workers. Making the government able to set out what businesses are allowed to do and which targets they should pursue, so it doesn't go against government ideology / control. Basically a short term reset / fix of insane profit chasing that capitalism is. But it's only short term in that if such a government would exist longer and longer the same corrupt structures emergence but than in a class cooperation
context and the worker is extremely more fucked than before.
Also constant drive for war and supremacy over other countries / areas for scarce resources which was one of the core values of that ideology.
But traditional American right wingers can not get enough for licking corporate boots even if they can't sustain a live for themselves. It's the exact same shit in Europe. Idk why people keep voting these centrist / moderate right wing parties either, they only serve the 0.01% and they actively state so in their party policy proposals in election time.
Give me a better definition
hardmode: no Umberto Eco
It depends on whether or not they'll let bygones be bygones. I suspect they will. Organizational apparatuses that suddenly find themselves ownerless, like say Soros's stuff, will simply get new more right-aligned management. After a couple of years of things shaking themselves out it will be like switching between Coke and Pepsi.
I think they're stuck on "x" man bad, as individuals, and therefore not capable of any serious lasting change beyond the momentary lack of opposition allowing them to push through some pet projects. Though even those pet projects might not be what they seem. For example Bill Gates might count as an "elite" the right wants not to have whatever power he does anymore and yet Bill Gates goes together with privatized schooling ideas (that haven't worked even with tech billionaire funding pursuing the idea).
After the rightoids overthrow the globalist elite they will french kiss their dakimakuras.
the true foolishness of the right is believing that replacing politicians with their private sector paymasters is somehow "anti corruption." they're just cutting out the middlemen
>>1030313>You can argue that natsoc were rightfaggots, but they had an entirely different economic proposition for society unlike American rightwingers.
bullshit. the natcucks privatized the fuck out of the german economy. PDFs related
>History already described what national socialism does. That is removing stock exchanges and giving profits off companies to workers.
corporations maintained their hierarchical structure and capitalist economy was kept mostly in tact by the nazis. they simply removed undesirables (jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc.) from boards of directors and confiscated their shares. They also cracked down on socialist and communist labor unions. A 30s motto of the natcucks was "marxism is the guardian angel of capitalism" This goes to show you how shallow their "anti capitalism" really was. pic related
>Making the government able to set out what businesses are allowed to do and which targets they should pursue, so it doesn't go against government ideology / control. Basically a short term reset / fix of insane profit chasing that capitalism is. But it's only short term in that if such a government would exist longer and longer the same corrupt structures emergence but than in a class cooperation context and the worker is extremely more fucked than before.
International corporations like IBM profited handsomely from 3rd reich contracts when carrying out the holocaust, and many corporations leased slave labor from concentration camps. The Americans paid reparations to Aryan industrialists of the 3rd reich for their private property lost in allied bombing campaigns after the war. Nuremburg was a farce. It was capitalists controlling the "punishment" of the fascist 3rd reich.
Just look what they did the one time they succeeded in a couphttps://www.britannica.com/event/Wilmington-coup-and-massacre
>>1029267>Did you know that political views have a heritability of 40%?
oh mai gawd, did you know that people iget influenced by the views of their parents and community?
devolve into warlord states most likely
Unique IPs: 39