What's the most insane, batshit crazy, mentally unhinged, downright psychotic, delusional, extremely stupid, just plain dumb and wrong, opinions and takes you ever read here?
From the top of my head are: people supporting, unirnocally, Mao and his action or being a plain crazy Maoist, and I even read some borderline delusional and probably mentally ill people here defending, UNIRONICALLY, Pol Pot actions,
113 posts and 39 image replies omitted.>>2212674https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm This distribution of the national income between the different classes of capitalist society can be depicted in the form of a diagram like this (the figures stand for milliards of dollars or marks, etc.):
>>2212741>The overworked frontline grunt with 20 deployments, slaving away in wars he doesn’t even profit from, is a prole—the ones who own private mercenary firms are not.petite-bourgeois political economiKKK deviation. false proletarianization theory. you fail to grasp the material laws of value production and distribution in capitalist society.
>>2212768>unproductive labor>none of the examples are unproductivethe fact that you separate rent from constant capital is a dog whistle but randomly throwing "interest" in the mix makes it too obvious. I mean, you posting from tor for a reason: mods refuse to do their job. more importantly, why are you even allowed to upload images from tor?
is everyone here mentally retarded?
>>2212401nice
i was gonna say the dumbest thing ive ever heard on the entire internet is you saying that productivism is just brown fascism.
but also socialism IS when you do away with commodity production, the thing is the way you get rid of commodity production is by building the productive forces necessary for that to materially happen. you are also conflating communism as a end goal and communism as a real movement without distinguishing them. communism and socialism are interchangeable and used to refer to both the end goal and the process of achieving it.
>>2213519Accoring to the mods on matrix, the guy was posting
> "communism is not leftist"> all jews are zionistsFrom a bunch of VPN IPs in other threads, so they nuked him
>>2213682Absolute majority of jews are zionists tho
But most zionists are christians and just racist right-wingers in general
>>2163778>>2163784>>2163791>>2163803>>2197431>>2210157Nature should unironically be destroyed. Nature is full of pointless suffering that can all be prevented entirely by destroying nature and preventing future animals from being born into this hellscape.
https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-biodiversity
>In my view, the way to determine whether impacting the environment is good or not is pretty simple: you look at the impact it has on conscious beings—both humans and other animals. I don’t care intrinsically about biodiversity—I care about making lives better for individuals. Species do not have experiences, only individuals do. It is thus individuals that matter. If species A has wretched lives and gets replaced by species B who have much better lives, I think that’s an improvement.
>For example, there’s an organism called the new world screwworm that that lays magots in the flesh of their victims, causing almost incomprehensible amounts of agony as the maggots eat their way out from the inside. These worms also tend to live pretty short lives of intense suffering. So when we got rid of the new world screwworm in north America—ridding the continent of a miserable animal that reproduces by torturing other animals—I think that was a great thing! It’s possible it will turn out bad because of some weird ripple effects, but if things are as I’ve supposed, then it seems pretty great. In case you doubt my position, as you can see below, I’ve depicted it as the Chad and the alternative view as the crying angry person, so it’s very likely true.
>Lots of people don’t share this view. They think we should not intervene in nature even if intervening in nature would reduce suffering and increase well-being of animals in nature. They don’t care about how much individual animals suffer, so long as there is biodiversity—many different species—and a lush and productive environment.
>This has always struck me as an extremely strange view. Even if nature is a torment chamber for almost every being who ever lives, so long as there are many different types of beings, the view holds that all is well. I can at least sort of understand holding that biodiversity is one value among many to be preserved, but it seems completely bizarre to think that it’s the primary thing that matters about an ecosystem. If an ecosystem is “functioning” in the sense that energy is efficiently flowing across trophic layers, but this situation is very bad for almost every conscious being, why would this be a good thing? Why do we care about ecosystem health if it comes at the expense of almost everyone in the ecosystem? This would be like taking a measure of societal health that doesn’t include, even as a partial input, how well off the members of society are—but instead only cares about how diverse they are in their torment.
>There are two somewhat different versions of the view. The first holds that what matters is ecosystem health and biodiversity—how robust the ecosystem is. The second holds that humans just shouldn’t intervene in nature—that the ideal state of nature is one that we haven’t influenced. I think these are both extremely crazy. >>2226093This argument works just as well for carefully destroying the planet to ensure nothing ever lives again.
I guess i'm okay with that but still.
Unique IPs: 31