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,
>>2163791If nature gets in the way of Communism then yes. Fuck them animals.
>>2163793Have animals ever produced a Kant or Hegel? No? Animals literally cannot even do self reflection because they lack the biology to do so? Humans are not animals
>>2163810you sir are a monkey
you can cope about it
seethe about it
mald about it
but in the end you are monke
>>2163803don't care about your moral fagging
nature pleases me and thus should keep existing
>>2163760I hear one a lot, namely the constant use of the word "zigger" by self-proclaimed trve socialists. At the risk of, god forbid, sounding like a woke libtard on leftypol.org, that word is primarily used by people who are currently defending evropa from inferior Asiatic hordes by their own understanding. It may be a bit problematic to use such language. The people who use such language desperately want to be like racists who use the word uyghur, the only thing that makes them different is the objective reality where they are the ones with less military industry.
The read settlers crowd is also dumb but they get pushback all the time already.
The ecology and animal issues people are not deranged as much as lacking perspective, but that's far from the worst thing in a world where religious fundamentalists and open and proud Nazis are running wild and making the world a worse place even when it doesn't need to be for porky profits.
Basically anything Pasquale or leninhat ever said.
>>2164192Not really. Some people actually just 'believe in' rights. To say you don't believe in rights doesn't mean you don't believe they are a social phenomenon, but that you don't endorse them as a practical interpretation of flimsy privileges.
>>2165758Marxism thus far has been the doctrine of decolonization, anti imperialism. Those communist projects that have not focused on perpetuating the socialist project by understanding the context in which they exist and instead have tried to naively do away with commodity production have failed miserably or live in absolute toil.
To think that socialism is when you do away with commodity production is to misunderstand Marxism, to be a utopian socialist, and ultimately to be counter revolutionary. Socialism is the doctrine of the liberation of humanity. Not some instruction booklet to be assembled.
The curse of the western antirevolutionary leftist is a deep ignorance in Marxism, history, and geopolitical economy (and I realize I said the same thing three times, but you have to know your audience).
>>2165764Was Marx trying to decolonize England? Germany? France? C'mon.
>Socialism is the doctrine of the liberation of humanityIncorrect. Engels defines it as the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat, and that's a big difference.
The rest of your post is correct however.
>>2165840Everything in existence is imperialist.
Amoeba? Imperialist.
Lion? Imperialist.
Gazelle? Imperialist.
Supernova? Imperialist.
Big Bang? Imperialist.
>>2165785>Marx trying to do [x]Marxism =/= Marx. Marx could've been gooning all his life for all I care.
>proletariat, not humanityThanks for reading my post and supporting it another Marxist author's opinion on the matter.
>>2165787Nothing gold can stay, ponyboy. The projects that have walked it back were essentially forced to. Even the indigenist zapatistas have turned to commodity production. If you know of an example where this hasn't happened, I would like to know.
>>2165806What zero history knowledge does to a MF.
>>2165807Big boy didn't even do the basic reading. Give a proper critique or STFU.
>>2165844Wrong, you forgot Canada, Australia, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, and their sub-imperialist allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey, UAE, Kenya, Egypt, Jordan, Singapore. I am increasingly validated that I am the only serious person who has ever come to this site, and nobody else is capable of more than incoherent adderall rants and insinuating jokes like this
>>2165854It's a braindead criticism of illiterate people who think that the criticism of imperialism is just anti americanism. They do this because the US is behind most shenanigans, they're historically illiterate so they think it's about picking on the US. The purpose of this criticism "imperialism is when america" is to then say Russia, Iran, China, and even other more ridiculous examples like Iraq or whatever, are imperialist.
You're getting into actual theory of imperialism and sub-imperialism. Sub-imperialism has been recuperated to mean "a little imperialist", again to say that Russia, China, Iran etc are imperialists.
The underlying justification being that leftists are morally obligated to be anti-imperialist all the time wherever they see imperialism (neither NATO or Beijing), because imperialism is morally the highest sin there is. Lenin (PBUH) said so or whoever, doesn't really matter to these people.
>>2165864>they're historically illiterate so they think it's about picking on the USI suspect it's more nefarious than that, it's an unfortunate reality that most American/Western leftists have found their way to "Socialism" as a blanket term via the liberalism that is proclaimed as just "leftism" in the west, after becoming disillusioned with the social democratic parties.
The problem is that their disillusionment almost always comes from the idealism that such parties could be doing more but are simply choosing not too for various vapid reasonings, but because social liberalism is more developed and held in higher regard in the west than most other places (or at least the west sells itself on that) it therefore suggests that despite all the ways the US/West leaves these people wanting, they nevertheless still feel like they live in the most left-wing societies to have ever existed and thus cannot comprehend why a self-proclaimed leftists wouldn't side with the west against socially conservative nations like Russia, Iran, China, etc.
Unironically, the support for western imperialism is actually quite strong amongst the western left on the basis that even if these nations end up being run by a western-controlled comprador government, that should come with more social liberalism, democracy and free speech that in turn would therefore make them more left-wing and thus a victory in the eyes of western Democratic Socialists.
That the western bourgeoisie has no interest in rocking the boat with populations that are socially conservative, don't want to risk nationalist movements coming to prominence in free elections by utilising protected free speech in favour of keeping control over their ill gotten territories as amicable as possible, is intentionally lost on such DemSocs.
>>2165921Well said. Yeah that rings true.
>That the western bourgeoisie has no interest in rocking the boat with populations that are socially conservative, don't want to risk nationalist movements coming to prominence in free elections by utilising protected free speech in favour of keeping control over their ill gotten territories as amicable as possible, is intentionally lost on such DemSocs.I didn't understand this paragraph. Would you mind rephrasing it?
>>2167016>abolishment of capitalism, commody production and wage labour weren't always a core component of marxist demands and objectivesThe whole question is how. Not even Marx knew. He never lived to see an even moderately successful socialist insurgency. He has literally nothing of value to say as to the how, since Marx and Marxism are always about the concrete real experience informing theory.
Please could you clarify this point?
>>2165921>The problem is that their disillusionment almost always comes from the idealism that such parties could be doing more but are simply choosing not too for various vapid reasoningsI think that's a good description. The left often positions itself as trying to influence the ruling class. I'm not even referring to people who focus on electing social democrats, but the people protesting outside the DNC who consider themselves leftists and radicals and anti-imperialists. It's like "we demand you listen to us" (but they're not listening).
>they nevertheless still feel like they live in the most left-wing societies to have ever existed and thus cannot comprehend why a self-proclaimed leftists wouldn't side with the west against socially conservative nations like Russia, Iran, China, etc.I can understand this criticism of Western leftists who throw in with the Western camp as like a bloc, but the problem is that the Russian government also pisses these people off by funding all kinds of idiotic political slop (Tim Pool and Black Hammer were being funded by Russia) and encouraging an atmosphere of irrationalism (which I think is corrosive to the left), and communicating more generally to these people with socially liberal values that the Russian government does not like them. What else are you supposed to think?
There is what anti-imperialists who support Russia say what Russia is like, and there is what the Russian government says what Russia is like. But China doesn't do that. I'm not even talking about the gay stuff specifically, but just not actively trying to piss off the Western left and present them as an enemy in their outward-facing media channels. Why does Russia do this? It makes them look like utter jerks, and to these Western leftists like people in their own countries who don't like democracy and talk about why we need an ancap monarchy run by the techlords (who seem willing to make a deal with Putin) or whatever.
What in Russia are they going to look at and see as an alternative to their own situation? In China, they can actually see things. Unfortunately, the people in the West who see an alternative in Russia tend to be on the right. Of course, Westerners project a lot onto Russia. It's either all bad, or it's much better than it really is, or wishcast that Putin is about to say something they like rather than talking about the Middle Ages. Either way, these leftists see the Russian government as representing negative trends like their own countries which they don't like.
Now, as to why Russia does this, one reason is because the government sees influencing Western conservatives as a more fruitful method of building soft power. But I also think the Russian government wants some level of antagonism for internal political reasons. The generation that came to power after the collapse of the USSR is getting old and they need to reform and transition to a new version of Russia and hand off power to the next generation, but they can't do this kind of economic and political restructuring without a war because it's not the USSR and they can't just order things to happen (nothing will get done), the system doesn't work that way. But with the SMO, Putin can secure another term without protests, create a bloc of patriotic forces who will support him, select the people are "in" and who are "out" (power transition), and reduce the country's reliance on foreign trade (which is part of a global phenomenon), and so on.
To be fair, Putin is in a very tough situation because Russia is a madhouse and he has to keep a lot of different people happy or they'll get rid of him, and the alternative is complete and utter humiliation for Russia, which would not be good. So I don't like him, but I don't call him monke or whatever. He doesn't seem like he has a very fun job.
>>2163760There are people here who will call those who affirm the most basic tenets of the communist project (family abolition, proletarian internationalism, atheism, etc.) left-communists or ultras. You don't have to be a western armchair communist to have basic reading comprehension and political understanding of what a classless, moneyless, and stateless society entails.
Also, the Cultural Revolution was one of the most innovative and progressive socialist experiments in history and people who hate on Mao for muh 25 million are retards.
>>2204747Are you retarded? marx stated that by "family abolition" he was referring to the bourgeois fetishisation of family as a tool to keep wealth locked up by grooming heirs to capital.
As for religion, the reason he disliked it was because it was being shilled as an alternative to improving the living standards of the proles, not because there was anything ontologically evil about faith.
It's just kind of obvious that you're basically just trying to be edgy, as is evidenced by your Mao gluck-gluck. Mega cringe.
>>2204747Western sources claim like 1-10 million in a country of 700 million people; the lower bounds are less deaths than COVID in the United States.
You can get up to 30 million more easily with the Great Leap Forward, but Deng claimed it wasn't Mao's sole responsibility (and Mao wrote self-criticism after the disaster), and while the party used to attest to the figure in the Dengist period, it's now closer to 3 million (demographic loss) under Xi.
>>2204753Are you retarded? Your understanding of family abolition can be dismissed with just a cursory glance of the manifesto. For starters, he does not discuss bourgeois "fetishization" of family- he discusses the bourgeois family itself, the organization of kinship relations in capitalist society. Yes, his analysis of this form does include a critique of inheritance, but he doesn’t start or end there. Both the Manifesto and Engel’s study On the Origin of the Family demonstrate that the bourgeois family is a structure of patriarchy which oppresses both women and children, placing them into a property relation with the man of the household at the forefront. This extends to a critique of marriage as binding a woman to her husband, as well as a critique of the “hallowed co-relation of parents and child” where the education and relationship given to the child begins and reinforces bourgeois social norms. Of course, modern liberal society has changed some of this, as now divorce has become more common place in the First World and social reforms have somewhat muddled the gender relations that previously defined the family. This does not change the fact that the communist movement’s end is the destruction of the legal, political, and socio-economic structures that define the organization of kin that we call the family. It is not just about inheritance, it is about social coercion and the reproduction of capitalist relations on the most microscopic level.
As for religion; again, you clearly have not done your reading. The *first* line to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, presumably where you get your reasoning from, states that *the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.* No one said anything about religion being ontologically evil or any other kind of moralistic drivel, it is just the simple fact that religion is an idealistic movement that decenters the real, the material, from man. Marx's materialist criticism of religion makes of it just like any other historical and societal form of alienation– the roots of which can be studied, and will gradually be done away with in the establishment of communism. That being said, none of this is an appraisal of anti-theistic violence (which was actually denounced in the writings of both Engels and Lenin), something which I doubt anyone could defend.
>>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. Unique IPs: 88