>>1879636Ban this person for dumbness
True right wingers will never be converted but a fat fucking chunk of them are just traumatized autists or extremely ignorant people that need to be fed a bit of info to unretard themselves.
The only thing right wingers should be converted into is mulch.
>>1843413this, who the fuck wants to convert those fuckers? I thought it was common knowledge that they're a lost cause
>>1880911Yeah sure you were bro
I am a right winger studious of marx who has been here for years and i agree with you. I have always been right wing, even when ive known all of the correct commie jargon to spew. Its just an intrinsic part of my personality.
But thats why i want to say that its not simply about ideas; politics is much more about subjectivity and discourse. For example, the person who spams "jewish nigger" needs a marxian context to be able spread his pathology (which i also share). This person has not said any right wing ideas, yet he is performatively othering, which is a right-wing behaviour. People here are scared of vibe checking, but its like how you can tell that haz is right wing, or jimmy dore, or populists like this. They can say all the right words, but the company they keep says *more* about who they are. Vibe checking works as a science of intuition. You can always tell what's what and who's who from the outset. If you lack this aesthetic instinct, then youre spiritually deformed imo, but thats why the "intellectual" constantly rebels against the endowed soul. Words and numbers replace his instinct and feeling (yet through this obscuration, also reveals it).
But the thing is that because im right wing, my genuine anticapitalism is still mediated in reference to a scorching antisemitism - so like OP says, i can believe the *right* things (from your perspective), but its the "wrong" things which defines me - this is the space of subjectivity, where a freudian "slip" might happen and the unconscious reveals itself.
So my point is that politics is not really about ideas, its about personality. There are oppressive personalities like mine, and egalitarian ones like leftists'.
>>1880911At least you finally found yourself
>>1880949If you know you have an oppressive personality why don't you change.
>>1880954I cant, thats my point.
My subjectivity is preconditioned by my unconscious.
Its like how a gay guy can never stop being gay (some of them even sleep "gay"). Its a seemingly "voluntary" act which cant be overcome. Like transhumanists say, "do you think i would choose this for myself?" and yet they live in the free space of "choice". But our freedom is not the liberal freedom of consumption, but it is in being *what* we are more than *who* we are. Physiognomy attests to this fact well enough. Chinlets and soyjaks clump together in their camps by the laws of the soul; by their karma or by the will of God.
Ever since ive been politically conscious ive been right wing, even after reading leftists and whatnot. Nothing changes except that i learn more trivia.
>>1880969Ok but it doesn't matter if you have instinctively hateful and oppressive thoughts, maybe you can't change that but you're still in control of your actions, you can still choose to be an egalitarian
>>1880973When an animal represses their instincts things lose their order.
Again, its like telling a gay guy not to suck cock. Good luck with that.
Life finds a way and whatnot
>>1880993If i'm in bed with other idealists then i'm keeping good company.
Also i would say the battle today is largely (im)materialists vs physicalists. There arent many people talking about plato's theory of ideas, pythagoras' theory of numbers or aristotle's theory of forms these days, but it has all sunk into the scientific method of deduction. Even here, kant and hegel scarcely get a mention however.
Deduction has its limits, where induction follows up. This has always been the rule of common sense. So i abide by this in most things.
>>1880969I want to know how does one sleep like a gay?
>>1881057Pursed lips. Limp wrists. Fruity pyjamas.
>>1844412>every few years leftists add another dogma to the dog pile making their ideology even more restrictive and ethnocentricThis is only a "restriction" if you are a class traitor who has no solidarity because you don't care about women workers etc
>>1880949>So my point is that politics is not really about ideas, its about personality. There are oppressive personalities like mine, and egalitarian ones like leftists'.You might as well say politics is authoritarianism vs democracy. That means liberals who preach egalitarianism are all leftists while Mao and Stalin are right wing because the vibes they give off are "oppressice". We are not scared of vibes its more that it is immaterial and doesn't move politics.
>>1880949>This person has not said any right wing ideas, yet he is performatively othering, which is a right-wing behaviour. People here are scared of vibe checking, but its like how you can tell that haz is right wing, or jimmy dore, or populists like this … So my point is that politics is not really about ideas, its about personality. There are oppressive personalities like mine, and egalitarian ones like leftists'.Yeah pretty much. I think it's also very, very hard to convincingly pretend to be someone you're not. There's a lot of unconscious social cues (dress, demeanor, hand gestures, accent, even simple eye contact) that can give you away to any observer familiar with the group you're trying to emulate. There are social wrinkles that don't fit. Identifying such "dissonance" in social cues is also practiced by security screeners at border checkpoints, and I think it can be used to root out undercover informants or entryists in radical organizations.
>>1881104>That means liberals who preach egalitarianism are all leftists while Mao and Stalin are right wing because the vibes they give off are "oppressice". I don't get "oppressive" vibes from Mao when I read him, or read about him. His whole thing was emphasizing radical grassroots interventions. Some of this might be people buying into an "authoritarian" image created by bourgeois historians but which can be adopted and believed in by self-described communists who really have authoritarian views.
>>1881129>Some of this might be people buying into an "authoritarian" image created by bourgeois historians but which can be adopted and believed in by self-described communists who really have authoritarian views.Stalin authoritarian image came from bourgeois historians as well when you read him and actually see his policy he wasnt an authoritarian just like Mao. One of Stalin's most famous quotes was a complete lie and not said by him to make him out as a psycho killer(one death is a tragedy one million is a statistic)So you believe the bourgeois historians when it comes to Stalin but not Mao? Stalin gives off more oppression vibes I guess. This is why vibes as a "science" is absolutely garbage because you are basing your politics off of your own feelings and not out of substance.
>>1881136>So you believe the bourgeois historians when it comes to Stalin but not Mao?I don't know enough about the history so I held my words, but I understand that a lot of post-Cold War "revisionist" histories of the Stalin era describes a much more complicated story than Stalin just being "a dictator" and that a lot of what was going on was playing out on the ground and involved mass bottom-up mobilizations. He was apparently even open to significant liberalization (one may dare call it revisionism) of the state-led ML model after the war. I agree "our" image of Stalin today is shaped so much by fake psycho-killer quotes. I do question a lot of "Stalinists" though circa 2024 who are calling him "Koba" on the internet and posting "Shut the Fuck Up Liberal" memes with Stalin shooting you with an AK-47. I understand the edgy 13-year-old thing but I don't think "that thing" has much to do with Stalin or even the Stalin era… it's something else.
>>1880969>My subjectivity is preconditioned by my unconscious … Ever since ive been politically conscious ive been right wing, even after reading leftists and whatnot. Nothing changes except that i learn m ore trivia.It seems like a lot people probably have some nationalistic loyalties or hatreds buried deep down inside them, and many people can even be unaware of it. It might be the case that the most unhinged extremists or nationalists are the most "unaware," in terms of the self-deception involved and the vicious partisanship which they take up to advance their cause – like all they really care about is putting points on the board and they're indifferent to how many lies they tell. In this mindset, it becomes intolerable to believe certain facts that can be grossly obvious to everyone else (you especially see this a lot in failed military predictions people make while rooting for their team). The moment fear, jealousy, hatred and power worship are involved, the sense of reality (and right and wrong) becomes unhinged.
It's like a distorted reflection of real battles going on in the world and which are playing out in the minds of people. Then there are normal, boring folks who grow disgusted with it all and retreat into a quiet sort of conservatism: "all politics is built on lies, what's the point, I'm going back to tending my garden." But I don't think that's a very good option if you're going to bother talking about politics at all. It would probably be better to say, whether we like it or not, these emotional loyalties and hatreds are part of our make-up (they may even be necessary at some level for political action), but that nevertheless, we can struggle against them, or at least recognize what your own feelings really are, and then make allowances for the inevitable bias that will creep in, or prevent these biases and emotions from contaminating your mental processes as much as you can. That is, try to face reality, or accept reality, which is a constant struggle.
>>1880932By 2001-2016 standards I was.
>anti-war>1A absolutism>anti-police/surveillance state>legalize drugs, sex work, etc>open borders>pro-bodily autonomy Only thing that’s changed is I’ve lost any faith in democratic institutions. I tried voting to reform the system. But all they did was rainbow wash it.
>>1881168you were a liberal and you still are a liberal retard.
>>1881152>all politics is built on lies, what's the pointIt is.
>But I don't think that's a very good option if you're going to bother talking about politics at allGood. Let's kill the entire institution.
>>1881104>You might as well say politics is authoritarianism vs democracy.In some sense yes, but its also not that simple because these terms are loaded, where "authoritarianism" automatically means le ebil dictator and "democracy" means le will of the people. Today a lot of people call america a democracy, when in the first place it is a constitutional republic, and in the second place, it is a blatant oligarchy. But a lot of republics also sublate the class relations of nobility with plutocratic and socialite re-connections in this way. So it is neither "authoritarian" in the sense that it affirms sovereign imperium and formal class structures, and it is also not a democracy in how it sustains the "representative" model of parliamentary government with the electoral college and so on. So the "political science" of bureaucracies doesnt interest me as much as the aesthetic or "discourse" of different political subjectivities involved. This is why i think i am drawn to "class politics" as a spiritual motif which i would rather describe as "caste politics", not dissimilar to neoreaction's mythical racism, but my spenglerian flair is also to apply technics (the tactics of living) in the way of production (rather than getting bogged down in pure critiques consumption - or cultural exchange). I affirm class reality against universal proletarianisation forwarded by the interests of both capital and communism in its materialist schema.
>stalin and maoIsnt it largely accepted today that stalin is a right wing figure? But this is also my point - there can be right wing socialists, but no right wing "communists", admittedly. What it means to be right wing in some way simply means being anticommunist. I dont think stalin was a fascist though, but that was also his weakness. Mao i find theoretically interesting as a thinker of "dialectical materialism" in its essential meaning, and this likewise gives a general picture of popular social movement (like junger's total mobilisation) compared against marx and engels' particular capturing of the proletariat (and too where leninism discriminates against the peasant and lumpen).
I think in these matters you are thus either a thinker of Labour or a thinker of excess, via capitalist surplus or bataillean rapture. I think this is also where nietzsche draws his inspiration from the forces of dionysus, and links to ecstatic obscenity often defined by the right. This is the surplus-labour of the system's own terror (like how ISIS was a US-Israeli op). Yet violence also gives immediacy in its relation to the post-capitalist possibility - this i call the anarchy of absolute power. Nothing is more primary than a man with a weapon. This itself is the Historical subject and the base of all social relations.
"War is God" - Heraclitus
>>1881152>>1881129Just relate it back to the fact of sexual orientation. You can pretend to be straight but your friends "know" you are gay before you identify as gay. Your essence betrays your existence (like how some transhumanists are "women" by nature and some will never be).
I also dont believe in this rationalistic access to "objective" reality since our subjectivity is marked by our transcendental horizon which grounds us in sensibility. This is part of hegel's critique of impersonal attribution too, where as he says, "evil is in the eye which beholds evil", likewise "a cock is juicy to those who desire to suck cock". Here is the limit of aesthetic judgement according to the architecture of our unconscious - but this is why kant's loopy logic of aesthetics favours the impersonal for example, where "objectivity" in standards of beauty stands outside of phenomenal "function", but esteems toward its own Idea. I would say otherwise that hegel is correct in his idealism - every artist needs an audience.
But this realm of subjectivity is also where politics happens. The wish to build a nation on the trivium of facticity is the substitution of politics for economics, which is one of the many similarities between capitalist and communist thinkers. A debasement of the soul down to its mechanics.
But this is why i like lacan's notion of "das ding", or of "the thing" (in itself) which exits the logic of the commodity by its inherent sacrality. Some things are "not for sale" and so on. We learn this through capital's own conservative inhibitions in the state.
To me, this gives capital its own subjectivity likewise, which is represented in the bourgeoisie, as marx says - the capitalist is a human instrument of capital's Will (or inversely, capital has its mode of production by the consciousness of industrialists).
I think deleuze's critique of capital's "faciality" also gives reference to this capturing of capital against its purported excess. Capital is conservative, thats why it fails. It is personal.
Thats why nick land is also dead wrong. Capital enslaves humanity to its rule of mere life, where the state has a double function, of preserving the social order, but also in holding accounts of capital's surplus. Nick has been bitten by the auatrian-economics bug, when the real splendour of production has been in keynesian subsidisation of labour and consumption.
Again, the old battle is between tendencies of mercantile saving versus liberal spending.
I say melt all the gold and turn it into swords!
We don't need to convert right wingers, they will die of preventable diseases or failed vigelantism..
We do need to convert liberal progressives away from liberalism so they remain progressives / actually do something progressive instead of waiting for the system to provide progress for them via the voting gacha.
>>1881422>Isnt it largely accepted today that stalin is a right wing figure? Huh? Stalin is not considered right wing. he is still the most famous communist leader that is taught in school and an example of left wing "extremism". No one believes Stalin is right wing except delusional people who call him a red fascist but they have as much relevance as people who say Hitler is left wing.
>But this is also my point - there can be right wing socialists, but no right wing "communists", admittedly.Then Stalin is not a right wing figure because he was a communist and not a bullshit right wing "socialist" like Hitler. I don't know where you got that take that Stalin in the public conscious is right wing. He is universally acknowledged as left.
>>1881422>Isnt it largely accepted today that stalin is a right wing figure?No. Wtf u talking about?
>>1881539>>1881541Well its less about stalin the man and more of stalin the symbol. "Stalinism" has become associated with demagoguery and right wing populisms like nationalism. You can blame trotskyists or whatever, but i hardly find a generally egalitarian person who praises stalin as a great revolutionary. When they do, it gets bogged down in stalin's technical achievements, which is just obscuring the essential relation that stalin's image has to culture.
What it means to be "Left" thus becomes defined in wonky ways instead of being self-related through the zeitgeist. What is "left" today is not left tomorrow. The right have learned this lesson, when you are supposed to be le ebic gigachad for opposing gay marriage, yet big democrats like hillary, obama and biden all opposed gay marriage in writing not too long ago. But they flipped. You never see a republican flip the other way, because what is right is often just what is anti-left.
But then here is the right wing wonkiness. Where does the "right" begin and end? Since the french revolution it has only been the force if reaction and restoration, but with the "nietzschean" right like fascists and dissidents, it has taken a more positive yet undefined character, similar to nietzsche's own ontological confusion. Evola and guenon attempt to ground "tradition" in immortal principles, but these are also just convenient fictions, and so on.
Idk. What is "politics" in its essential self-relation to you? What is the shape of the political soul?
>>1881562What people say of a man does not alter a man. Public opinion is of no value whatsoever.
>>1881445You are both annoying and endearing.
>>1881132These xeets are wrong. There is nothing blackpilled about it. The only real struggle is struggling against struggle itself. Once you accept the struggle, there is no more struggle.
>>1881422>Today a lot of people call america a democracyDemocracy is the label retroactively applied to whatever system of rule the bourgeoisie want in a given century. The term democracy was recuperated in the early 19th century in the USA to refer to the republic as run by Good Honest Democratic Partisans or whatever shit.
Self-identification with a set of taboos is pretty weak "material" as far as immanent critique goes. Surely you can do better.
>>1881568Wrong. Only chinless hero worshippers think a "man" exists independent of the society that recognizes him. Someone please leave extra meds by the tor exit node
>>1881636That wasn't the implication. Clearly you have confidence in your opinions. A grave misjudgement.
>>1881636Spook detector: 100 points
You absolutely do need to correct idpol nonsense in order to maintain correct ideology. You need to focus on the class, not let it get divided and conquered by weaponized idpol. The perfect example of this is healthcare and us just taking turns fighting for marginalized communities access to healthcare instead of just making it universal. Access to gender affirming care is not inherently a leftist position because it could still just be wrapped up in the privatized, for profit insurance oppression. Norman Finklestein got labeled a transphobe for pointing this out, despite never saying anything bad about actual transgender people. It's just that he's the principled Marxist and the raging children don't know shit, so they need to be educated. None of this has anything to do with "converting right wingers." They can't be "allies" if they're tearing apart the class struggle.
Now maybe you're talking about "conservative communists" like Haz. These guys are irrelevant in real life. They have tiny communities of ex-right wingers who are on the path but they're still reactionary. It's overblown.
>>1881562>What it means to be "Left" thus becomes defined in wonky ways instead of being self-related through the zeitgeist. What is "left" today is not left tomorrow."Left" and "right are really kind of relative terms in the sense that they're defined in relation to the other in some state of conflict which is produced historically, although probably more in the case of the right than the left. The right is defined much more in a relationship to the left than the other way around, because the left's own definition of the right is stronger than the other way around. (Hence why rightists often try to confuse the meanings of left and right, or "I'm not a fascist, I'm just a classical liberal" or "don't you know Stalin and Hitler were basically the same").
"Left" and "right" is also useful when referring to internal tendencies within a party. Nobody really objects to Bernie Sanders being described as on the left of the Democrats and Hillary Clinton being on the right. But they would both be considered to be on "the left" from the perspective of a Republican Party supporter. Now, many readers on leftypol would read this and might object to any of them really being on "the left" but I don't think anyone is really "wrong" here, it's just relative and depends on your frame of reference.
But to define them, it's that the left is trying to negate the existing world. The right is trying to idealize it, or if change it, to return to some prior relations that once existed (which is also idealized). This is why I think "Stalinism" can take on a "right-wing" meaning now among communists as an idyll of the past that we have to "return" to before the New Left showed up and SCREWED UP THE WHOLE CANON like what Bethesda did to the Fallout games!!!
>>1881562>Stalinism" has become associated with demagoguery and right wing populisms like nationalism. Again that's blatantly false in public. When your average liberal says "Stalinist" their image is 1984 and not a Nazbol nationalism. Stalinism is seen as left wing extremism
>but i hardly find a generally egalitarian person who praises stalin as a great revolutionary.Depends. You are ignoring that praising any communist leader that the US says to dislike makes you a persona non grata. This includes Mao btw. Also some places will teach Stalin failed to make an equal society because of human nature and tried to make everyone equal and pay everyone the same and oppressed everyone to make it happen. An egalitarian person also is taught that the tsar was murder and that wasnt fair in the name of equality and Stalin ended up starving people for his ideals. It's nonsense but communism is taught as good intentions but cant work. They dont demonize Stalin in the same way as Hitler. Thats why rightoids complain about Stalin not being seen in the same way as Hitler and its some sort of leftie conspiracy.Overall an egalitarian person doesn't want to praise Stalin because their reputation gets put in the dirt and not because they don't want to praise him.
>The right have learned this lesson, when you are supposed to be le ebic gigachad for opposing gay marriage, yet big democrats like hillary, obama and biden all opposed gay marriage in writing not too long ago.Dennis Kucinich was considered the far left candidate and his gay marriage position was considered wonky and extreme. Obama was fine with civil unions so he already predicted where the wind was going and playing politics. What's consistent about being "left" and seen as left is if you threatened rich people(whether you mean to or not).
>>1881715Think past formal power and into real power, like a materialist. They are now a movement of public record, acknowledged by the bourgeois press as valid and real. They can still be activated for the usual Sorosian public spectacles, abortion clinic protests, or the occasional bit of wet work. So long as their existence supports the reproduction of the bourgeois order, no real harm will come their way.
>>1881791>before the New Left showed up and SCREWED UP THE WHOLE CANON like what Bethesda did to the Fallout games!!!Lmao, that really is it, isn't it?
>World: rearranged>Story mode: scrambled>Main Character status: historically subvertedThey will never recover
>>1881791Well i think the ultimate irony in this is how "communism" is an attempt to realise the prehistoric social relations of primitive-communism but at a higher stage of development. This would be the total reactionary act, of exiting history to return to the Time of species-being (or immediate existence, apart from alienation).
But i agree generally about everything else, but this is also the same relativity (of politics) that defines the prefixturing of subjectivity, where taboos in different eras change and thus our relationship to desire also changes. I think the fallacy of sexual ideology is the notion of "biological" drives, when the point we must always draw back to is the irreducible place of subjectivity, which represents a sort of "artificial" being toward-itself. This is why humanity acts "unnaturally" as its own nature.
So i dont think politics is fixed, the same way sexual relations arent fixed (like how homosexuality is an invention of modernity - which many po-mo would-be historicists miss ironically).
Although this is all based on transgression and conservation i cant help but also situate an objective determination in the materialist mindset, which guenon defines as "the reign of quantity". I think the left ultimately serves this spiritual Ahriman as the site of "progress" (where lenin and althusser reverse fichte for example, and see a transhistorical battle for ontology between idealists and materialists - where fichte is on the side of idealism and the communists are on the side of science and technology). Here the political subject is once more impersonalised (like how liberals speak about "the market"). Ofc marx wants to sublate capitalism, not teaf it down, so i see a common lineage. But in this same way i see the secret radicality of the right (as anti-materialists), in the movement of "anticapitalism" as opposed to the leftist "postcapitalism". To me ted kaczynski is a heroic right wing figure for this reason, like mishima, nietzsche and junger. Figures of wilderness and petulant negation. This is why the right is always attacking "current thing" and modernity, because the left is the spiritualisation of modernity and the right is everything else.
So in the same dialectical way that the subject "creates" objects, or how History creates Time, to me, "politics" as the institute of political-economy is modernity, which is also leftism. The Left creates the right, just like in the french revolution.
But this is my madness - i am only the inversion of my other, and yet, this is what preconditions my own subjectivity. I am held in negation and thus lack immediate existence (like how phallus creates masculine identity).
>>1881806>It's nonsense but communism is taught as good intentions but cant work. They dont demonize Stalin in the same way as Hitler. Thats why rightoids complain about Stalin not being seen in the same way as Hitler and its some sort of leftie conspiracyIt is in the very least an antifascist conspiracy, but the entire post-45 regime has been denazification, yet the jewell of this philosemitic gesture in israel also sours into the unconscious of the system (also in ukraine) as the very thing they are supposed to fight against - like how neoconservatism was bred out of trotskyism.
But this is why black sun emblems and neo-paganism wont save the white race, because these are the weapons of the american empire (where also the police force in the US is largely based on the codes of "the invisible empire" of the KKK - a racially esoteric cult said to be started by freemason albert pike).
So when you try to use the devil's tricks against the devil, it never works out; it just gets subsumed into the preexisting system of occult power. 4chan itself is just glowies baiting eachother.
and you can still be a fed even if you dont work for the FBISo fascism can exist in quantitative (unrepresented) relation to political-economy (in the military-induatrial complex). Yet this distance between the concrete and abstract in contradiction points to the failure of the sublimity of the system's imperium.
The system is repressed, so to say, but this "conservative" character defines much of capitalist society and is the greatest alienation; as a chasm between relations of the base of production and culture. Death is even censored behind hospital walls for example. Violent movies need to be protected from children and so on.
In ancient athens, young teens would go on military expeditions with masters to learn what life is all about. Today Reality is barred from us (even at the ontological level, with kant's *modern* epistemology). Today we are determinately mediated beings.
>>1881838>This would be the total reactionary actNot at all. It would be the culmination of a cycle. Your emotions are clearly leading you astray.
>which guenon defines as "the reign of quantity".Maybe you protoids shuold stop reading German "materialism" and start reading Marxian materialism.
>>1881905A cyclical theory of history is reactionary since it submits to the eternal return of the form of the social Idea, like the "hard times make strong men" meme. Thats why the left favours linear notions of "progress" toward continual self-transformation unto the unbroachable ideal of total equality. This follows from hegel's dialectical theory of nature seeking to realise itself, yet only affirming itself in the failure of an ideal (like how man fell from the garden of eden).
There is a circularity in this mode of thought, but hegel also broaches the enlightenment as "histiry turned on its head" where History ends with its self-completion by the ascent of Reason as a captured object of self-reference (as opposed to previous eras of "irrational" social forms, which indeed where repetitions of the same - but this is History proper, where Reason in self-consciousness to Hegel represents the path of universality via posthistorical conditions).
This is obviously transposed by marx into a materialist context. Marx's theory of History repeating itself is always held out by the rupture of contradiction however that constantly moves things forward.
You see, in the right-wing perspective, there is no end of History since History is majorly particularised (as opposed to being entranced into concepts of "world-history"). World-history by this perspective i would gather has largely been seen to be a eurocentric fetish of occidental Reason and "philosophy" (as hegel's "absolute" Idea).
What qualifies "progress" to marx against this sameness is that marx sees that history has an object of its own dissolution, which i rhetorically anounced as the "reactionary" ideal by "retvrning" to the ancient past.
>Maybe you protoids shuold stop reading German "materialism" and start reading Marxian materialismWhat am i missing exactly?
>>1881917>>1881905where hegel sees irrationality in thought defining history, marx sees irrationality in production defining history (where he even sees the "original sin" of aristotle in not marking the labour invested in commodities as the universal substance which binds them in equivalence, since the relation of the slave made man a commodity also, and thus labour was alienated from its object of self-consciousness in this way). Only with reference to a universal proletariat does labour come into essence and thus find political identification.
Marx is a hegelian afterall, even though he "turns hegel on his head" by his materialist inversion.
>>1881925The inversion of an ideology is a firm and clear step into a "post-" camp. PMC faggots need to get their Hegelian bureaucratic idealism back in their asses before the proletariat pulls it out with tools.
Unique IPs: 28