/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Please leave

>>2755890
You're worse than Hitler

you would be very popular on reddit

>>2755890
>I see no reason for that.
If you don't see how capitalism is destroying human civilization, and the societal harm and decay it brings, then you must be blind. Because even the most self interest middle class prick, can at least name at least one reason.

>Many people stick to the center
So? What you are saying is your'e a conformist. Centrism in the modern context offers nothing for the future. I don't know about the level of political awareness in Brazil, but where I'm from in Australia, the voting public is totally depoliticized. And when centrism fails, people gravitate to the direction of the highly concentrated bourgeois press.

>>2755890
>Try to convince me to be more radical, if you can.
Son of Lassalle, watch this video

>>2755890
>I support marijuana
You are a reactionary fascist

>>2755932
That's right, because support is reformist and reformism is liberalism - fascism, not because a plant with countless utilities is either unlike your WODigger antiscientific luddic primitive subhuman fascist brain

>>2755932
The worst of reactionaries calling others fascist reactionaries, chemicals and plants have no class character - they are all utilitarian means, blow your brains out LUDDITE REACTIONARY SUBHUMAN DEATH TO WODIGGERS

i like weed too
>Try to convince me to be more radical, if you can. (I hate authoritarians of all kinds).
read the replies to this thread >>2742033

Why do WODiggers hate chainsaws?

>>2755890
>Try to convince me to be more radical, if you can. (I hate authoritarians of all kinds)

MUH HECKIN' FREEDOM! I FUCKING LOVE BEING A SLAVE TO THE BOURGEOISIE! I FUCKING LOVE WATCHING CULTURE DISAPPEAR!

>As I said, I am not completely against Marx, anarchists and really radical left, I just don't see myself being good at it because I like to think about every little thing and I think these positions tend to be more inconsistent than mine sometimes (for instance, support for Iran and dictatorships).

Liberalism is le contradictory (read Carl Schmitt)

>I think radical left tends to be a lot anti-gay and mysoginistic. You call us "woke" and neoliberal just like the right wing fascists do when we are just trying to exist. You blame us for losing while your ideas never win in the west and we do (sometimes).

What do you think the word fascist means geg?

>>2755941
>>2755913
Capitalism is bad. Ok, we all get it.
It is structurally oppressive.
But what are the REAL alternatives, besides reform?
I think the cons of an authoritarian socialist state surpasses the pros. Until now, that's my position.

>>2755953
Fascism is basically blaming social minorities for societal problems because it is easier.

>>2755935
>>2755937
>>2755940

Calm down anon. Appearently not desiring the people to be dependent to the highly-addictive/effective stimulants (which does not contribute to the targets of the great 5 yr plan) is a sin.

All the drug barons and their lackeys will be removed from the scene =)

>>2755954
>But what are the REAL alternatives, besides reform?

A righteous state which achieves the absolute ideal.

>>2755959
>Fascism is basically blaming social minorities for societal problems because it is easier.

Please read any actual fascist theory.

>>2755960
Pot calls kettle black, addiction is a non-issue with responsible use. A highly addictive stimulant is caffeine, you are an anti-scientific retard.
Under US instigated world prohibition anyone who starts off at the downsides of substances instead of their beneficial use is complicit.

>>2755954
>But what are the REAL alternatives, besides reform?
reform is not a real alternative, thats the issue with your libslop, did you even read the thread?
>I think the cons of an authoritarian socialist state surpasses the pros.
currently the liberal world order only produces genocide and ecocide, what could be worse than the end of the conditions of life on earth themselves?
I don't think you have seriously thought about any of these issues

>>2755960
An addict is someone whose substance use is problematic.
A Drug War society does everything it can to make substance use as problematic as possible.

You are a beneficiary to criminalization which is a for profit activity propagandist charlatan.

>>2755968
>>2755966
>le ideap state
Ok, I like the "idea" and we can use it as a moral compass, but what about the reality of it?
People have rights, it does matter what most people think about their government. Think deep reforms are the only real alternative we have.
Deep reforms, not just "agreements".
Revolution is a sticky concept because you can actually justify anything in the name.of the so called "revolution" (like the iranian revolution).
Reform is much more solid because it needs deep thought and consensus, which is harder but at the end of the day, as I said before, they are more solid than "revolutions".

>>2755960
The definition implies that there's something wrong with habit-forming drugs. But this is not an obvious truth. Coffee is habit-forming and use is encouraged. Alcohol is habit-forming, cigarettes are habit-forming. 1 in 4 American women use SSRIs every day of their life. And we don't even call that a habit. To the contrary, we call that 'responsibly taking care of one's mental health!'

>>2755974
>Reform is much more solid because it needs deep thought and consensus, which is harder but at the end of the day, as I said before, they are more solid than "revolutions".
all of this was adressed in the thread I told you to read, you are just wasting my time

>>2755974
>Ok, I like the "idea" and we can use it as a moral compass, but what about the reality of it?

The ideal is the realization of human experience into the rational body, aka the state.

>Think deep reforms are the only real alternative we have.
Deep reforms, not just "agreements".

The current state is degenerate beyond fixing.

>Revolution is a sticky concept because you can actually justify anything in the name.of the so called "revolution" (like the iranian revolution).

Reform is a delusion. The very being of the modern world is degenerate by nature.

>>2755967
>A highly addictive stimulant is caffeine

And yet what are the mortality rates for the both? Nearly all of the drugs are way more lethal than any caffeine overdose you'll ever receive. Caffeine related addictions has an easier withdrawal as well.

>>2755975
Alcoholism and Cigarette consumption is never encouraged in the first place. And this applies for the drugs which have more severe effects statistically. China had the worst effects of unregulated drug trade.

>>2755980
Subversion is the best form of revolution.

>>2755983
Subversion is the social mechanism of capital.

>>2755982
>And yet what are the mortality rates for the both? Nearly all of the drugs are way more lethal than any caffeine overdose you'll ever receive.
Including pharmaceuticals I assume. Outlaw horse with that line of thought, there are way more lethal activities than any drug consumption you'll receive.

>>2755982
>Alcoholism and Cigarette consumption is never encouraged in the first place. And this applies for the drugs which have more severe effects statistically. China had the worst effects of unregulated drug trade.
Protestant missionaries spread lies about opium killing millions as seen in books such as The Truth about Opium by William Brereton, the real death toll was on the warlords following the civil war.

>>2755890
>For real, the world is not this big war you all seem to be fighting for
fuck off retarded lib, and when the revolution come shut the fuck up with your retarded opinion if you dont want to end up against a wall. Its literally thank to average idiots like you global communism hasnt been established yet, poverty and exploitation still exist, and fascists often take power
fuck you and people like you, you're not welcome here, only come back when you've actually read some marxists books to dispel your retarded ideas

>>2755940
LMFAOOOO

>>2755982
>caffeine overdose
Not accounting for illnesses by frequent consumption such as increased chance of heart attacks, blood pressure issues, seizures…

>>2755944
séX

>>2755998
It also varies if its caffeine ingested as coffee or energy drinks containing caffeine, energy drinks are far more lethal and problematic.

>>2755966
>read any actual fascist theory
the fascists dont read it so why should we
they dont read it and dont apply it, they ARE just blaming social minorities while enriching and reinforcing porkies and repressing everyone else

>>2755985
Marxism is cool man, it basically comes from Rousseau idea that the basis of social inequality is private property.
Marx is just a Rousseau's fan but felt ashamed to admit it and developed a highly intellectual form based on hegelian dialectics to say basically the same thing.

>>2755932
no you are the spooked reactionary you fucking retarded conservative bitch
remove this flag immediately you dont deserve it

>>2755986
>Including pharmaceuticals I assume
Those are made not to be addictive.

>Outlaw horse with that line of thought, there are way more lethal activities than any drug consumption you'll receive.

You may of course deem any kind of moral-argument to be a subjective judgement. Of course you can reject orating that smth is bad in its content, as the 'bad' is only a posed a content in the inquiry of an object, whether to be true or false.
But equally, claiming something is universally desirable or good is a similar judgement.
Why legalize drug circulation while it's illegal? Because of the uncertainity in moral judgements? But making it legal is a moral judgement as well, why should one care about the minority which desires it?

>>2756006
Everything is sp00ky

its quite telling that this website is more tolerant towards neo nazis than social democrats

>>2756008
>Those are made not to be addictive.
They are addictive you fucking retard conservative liberal. And these drugs are harder to kick than heroin. Far harder.
My own psychiatrist told me that Venlafaxin has a 95% recidivism rate for long-term users after three years - worse than cocaine.

>>2756008
OP here, didn't read all your discussions because it was out of the main topic of the thread, but are you some kind of idiot who thinks marijuana just "dopes" people like religion "dopes" people? Man, I smoke weed and I am alright. I can think, I can talk, I can revolt against the system (I am only thinking what kind of revolt is more useless).
It's not "dope", it's just living your life and enjoying things.

>>2756008
>Why legalize drug circulation while it's illegal?
Legalization doesn't work, legalization is a reformist process, criminalization is too profitable for the bourgeois to quit.

Appeal to cool fentanyl fallacy.

>>2756003
>the fascists dont read it so why should we
Erm

>>2756005
Too Althusserpilled for this liberal nonsense.

>>2756015
Criminalization and tight-controls did work in the USSR and works in the PRC :>

Similar for practices such as abortion.
In a way you can enforce some top-down policies and influence worldviews of the common man.

>>2756012
>They are addictive you fucking retard conservative liberal. And these drugs are harder to kick than heroin. Far harder.
>My own psychiatrist told me that Venlafaxin has a 95% recidivism rate for long-term users after three years - worse than cocaine.

Well, I'd admit I am not very informed about them. But at the end they're used for medical purposes and are regulated.

>>2756014
>Man, I smoke weed and I am alright. I can think, I can talk, I can revolt against the system

I don't like weed so it must be banned.

>>2756029
>Similar for practices such as abortion.
Whoops, my bad, I meant 'prostitution.'

>>2756011
so trve….. the communists and the nazis are literally the same… freedom and democracy are the way

>>2756029
Ok, so why you don't like weed?
Weed connects us to nature.

>>2756029
>Criminalization and tight-controls did work in the USSR and works in the PRC :>
They worked for the USSR? I don't see a USSR anymore. As for China it really is something to be proud of adopting American foreign policy for it to work in a market economy.

>>2756029
You don't understand them but you're still opinionated about them at the expense of others suffering. Then believe you are in line with science? Science is about understanding the unknown, not antagonizing it. Furthermore you idolize failed projects like the USSR instead of learning from their mistakes like opening up to foreign influence.

>>2756041
>They worked for the USSR? I don't see a USSR anymore.

In the lifespan of the Union, there were near zero drug addictions & prostitution cases, as all organized drug circulation or prostitution were absent and such actions were limited to small scale individual-individual cases.

>As for China it really is something to be proud of adopting American foreign policy for it to work in a market economy.

The PRC enforces very tight controls and laws on drugs, it is perhaps related more with the internal policies..

>>2756036
For some things you would really not feel the need to think on justifying it, as for my feelings about drugs.

>>2756044
>Furthermore you idolize failed projects like the USSR

USSR didn't collapse for their drug laws. Most of the states desire eliminating high-severity addictions, for the USSR primary substances were alcohol & smoke. Drug circulation and consumption were irrelevant and perhaps successfully supressed.

>>2756056
>In the lifespan of the Union, there were near zero drug addictions & prostitution cases, as all organized drug circulation or prostitution were absent and such actions were limited to small scale individual-individual cases.
There wasn't even before prohibition was introduced, the only major issue was alchoholism which persisted.
>The PRC enforces very tight controls and laws on drugs, it is perhaps related more with the internal policies..
It was introduced by americanophile Jiang Zemin as a result of the UN conventions on prohibition instigated by the US being pushed throughout the world.

>>2756056
>USSR didn't collapse for their drug laws.
Drug laws were part of the process of liberalization and foreign influence from America, the same one that lead it to fall apart into liberal democracies.

>>2756072
Drug addiction was largely a non-issue for the USSR and circulation of categorized drugs were prohibited beginning from the 1924 code.

>>2756077
All nations hold laws that prohibit drugs, yet "drug addiction" continues to be a talking point as an issue.

>>2756077
The population didn't have that issue, and with the advent of "marxist pedagogy" now heaps of it have turned to bourgeois anti-communism, social conservatism and resulted in the breakup of the USSR.
In fact most populations of the former Eastern Bloc didn't even bother to study Marx in schools.
But thankfully they were sober, so they could get back to religious christian, islamic and ethnic nationalism instead of the sciences of chemistry, botany and pursuing enlightenment.

>>2756084
They have had lots of drugs for 35 years now, where is the enlightenment?? I see only domestic violence and chauvinism

>>2756088
And who had responsible use? Only chemists.

>>2756088
By the way, for the most part everyone had all the drugs for all of humanity until 1914: "Harrison Act" (U.S.)
so where was the enlightenment? In all of society.

Behold the scientific socialists - of the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as seen on this site

>>2756056
Marxism-Leninism everyone, be a revolutionary 14/88

>>2756056
>Most of the states desire eliminating high-severity addictions, for the USSR primary substances were alcohol & smoke.
Yes they substituted drug addiction problems with debilitating alcoholism.

>>2755890
>I am not completely opposite to capitalism (because I think to stop capitalism you would need an authoritarian government and I don't like that)
The issue with this line of thinking is: what is democracy, actually? If your workplace is authoritarian (which is true the vast majority of the time - you have no control over top-level decisions and if you don't toe the line you get fired), and your boss is exploiting your labor by extracting your surplus value, and you spend the majority of your life at work… are you living in a democracy? Just because every 2-4 years you put a paper in a box to vote for candidates that are in almost all cases beholden to the ones exploiting you?

I have to say, holy FUCK the posts in this thread are so fucking bad and show just how much leftypol has decayed in the past ~5 years. Reminds me of how the "good" boards on 4chan decayed, and I doubt that's a coincidence. Same reactionary locusts stripping everything out until there's nothing left but a shallow husk. I would love to know where the good people moved to but hopefully it's a better place where the locusts can't reach.

this thread proves that doing drugs is bad for you

>>2755890
You are a progressive on social issues, that's good, we all are here I think. You also worry about poverty and the disavantaged, which you seek to help with social democracy and welfare measures; that's where the problems begin. You are from Brazil so you will probably accept this more quickly than First Worlders or at least Europeans: social democracies fail in the long term. You've seen it in Brazil, a guy like Lula comes to power and takes some distributive measures that seem like a great success, and they probably are, I won't deny I much prefer him over any neoliberal. But the very moment the Brazilian bourgoisie starts getting outcompeted or their profit margin shrinks enough, they will do whatever's in their power to get the government to lower taxes and do austerity. I'm from Argentina, I've seen it thousands of times, it happens all over the Third World. The mechanism is simple. Pogressivism is cheap, passing a law legalizing gay marriage costs nothing; alleviating poverty is expensive. For this second thing, social democrats must either print money or raise taxes. Printing money stimulates recessive economies but causes inflation in normal ones; raising taxes lowers the national bourgoisie competitiveness and profit margin and ultimately angers them. They will accept mild welfarism on the short term to pacify the working class and as long as it doesn't cost them too much, but when it does they reverse everything. Social democracy is always determined by the bourgoise threshold of tolerance, which follows a formula determined by A) the radicalization and organization level of the working class and B) the growth of their profits. During the 50s and 60s you had strong unions everywhere, the fear of Soviet style revolutions and a technological boom that increased worker productivity and bourgoise profits almost constantly; the result: high taxes, high distribution, the golden age of social democracies. Latin American pink wave at it's height couldn't achieve a fraction of that; in historical comparative terms, we were doing austerity even with them. Ultimately, the bourgoisie allows workers to have a bigger piece of the cake as long as they fear them and/or the cake is growing at a fast enough rate so that their share of the cake is also growing. This is unsustainable almost everywhere except in places where there's such an abundance of natural resources that the bourgoise makes enough profit to tolerate high enough taxes + the population is reduced enough to make welfarism relatively cheaper to them: Norway, Iceland, the nordic model. In a more limited way, some places of Europe.

In the developing world this is economically unsustainable. What can be done? Erase the bourgoise from the equation. In the Soviet Union everyone had home, health, education and worked less than in the West, and I say this as someone who considers command economy to have tons of crucial inefficiencies. You can't erase all of them / you don't like the Soviet Union? Then at least erase enough so that a second player, a socialist-led State, has enough power and money and influence on the economy to keep them at bay, like in China. Nationalize everything and you will have enough resources to build welfare and to invest in science, education and infrastructure to compensate for the loss of market competition as a development mechanism. Nationalize the main part and you will achieve the same while keeping some market. You can go whatever route you prefer, but the bottom line is that inequality and poverty can't be solved with taxes and welfarism, it can only be solved by reducing the share of private property on the whole economy. You can perfectly reject USSR and China's authoritarianism, if you consider them to be, while maintaining the same economic goals. The only "authoritarian" measure you can't reject is to confiscate billionaire's assets. If it makes you feel uneasy remember they inherited everything from their parents and inheritance is unjust.

>>2756149
This reply proves you don't know what drugs are

>>2756149
Correlation does not imply causation

>>2756171
I think Lula is a liberal. He thinks exactly like me, but in a more conservative way because he is older.
About reforms not being enough, I agree with that, but revolution (like in confiscating properties etc) don't seem like a viable option, because most people simply do not agree with it.
I disagree with you when you say inheritance is not a right, it actually is.
I also hate billionaires, but I don't think the government should confiscate their properties but tax them heavily.
>but it is hard
Well, revolutions are not easy either. Revolutions in latin america only happened in small countries and they were not as broad and successfull as many people think. The US will always be there to avoid us from growing so I think a social-democracy is the best we can achieve (I agree we don't have that yet amd we are pretty much very far from achieving it).
Our aconomy still depends a lot on China and the US, so we must follow what the leaders say we must follow or face the consequences, that's the harsh reality.
My position is heavily based on "the best we can achieve at the moment". Maybe it will change in the future, but I am not so sure.

>>2756204
>like in confiscating properties etc

This doesnt happen, look at China - they have a 90% house ownership rate. You should read up in the contexts of the confiscation communists have done in the past - it was done to people who were enslaving them in serfdom in China and slavery in Cuba.

China still lets you own (multiple) homes that you buy yourself, the difference is vs a liberal society is that 90% of people in China own a home. When housing isnt speculated on as an asset but is instead considered something a worker is entitled to this is a socialist mindset.

>>2756260
I am sorry but I fail to see China as a good example of society. They sure have good things, but the cons surpasses the pros, in my opinion. I don't like censorship and I am sceptic of the idea of a big, restrictive state for "the good of the economy".
They are culturally very different from us. Brazil is still a western country (a very lowkey one, but the cultural matrix is western and is totally subjugated to the west), we can't compare to China, they are a totally different culture.
Even to Cuba or Venezuela we can't compare. Very small countries and in my opinion their revolution failed (the US embargo helped, but not only that, I think these old socialist ideas are simply not good enough).

>>2756204
>most people simply do not agree with it.
Overstated. People are not zealous defenders of the philosophical concept of private property rights. They just care about their own wellbeing. When their wellbeing is diminished enough, they revolt, we see this happening all the time. When that chaotic revolts happens, the only thing they want is the promise of change. I assure you that if most people are experiencing hunger, rapidly increased cost of living or other such abrupt inconveniences, they won't care a bit if I have to seize the property of 20 families to stabilize their situation.
Most people didn't agree about the independence revolutions either. They didn't care about being Brazilians or Portuguese, they cared about being able to live like they projected to live. Only a handful of intellectuals, bourgoisies and certain specific groups cared about it; and yet the revolutions came to happen. Revolutions are always that way, leaded by a small minority that takes the opportunity presented by disaffected masses to enact a transformative program. The key issue is to have these vanguard and program ready to enact the moment the opportunity arises.

>Well, revolutions are not easy either
I am not trying to convince you to be a revolutionaire in the guerilla or leninist kind of way; I'm trying to convince you to be a radical, by which I mean, to accept that the only way to implement long standing social justice is with a socialist economy. You can attempt to enact that transition via elections. It's not unusual for extremists to get into government with crazy ideas with actual mass support, both on the right and the left. In many cases they even use the word "Socialist". This happening so often proves that people in many times didn't care to preserve capitalist social relations, because in their perspective the situation warranted a radical change. It's not that far fetched to believe that eventually someone will have the balls to do actual socialism.

>My position is heavily based on "the best we can achieve at the moment".
I'm not against that, in fact I always end up voting the most mild social democrat for president, in my case a Peronist. I don't care about that. It's just another bourgoisie, slightly better than the other.


>I disagree with you when you say inheritance is not a right, it actually is.
If you really believe that, you are not a leftist and you can never be a socialist and many of your premises were false. It is contradictory to worry about social justice while believing in inheritance, when social injustice is precisely the consequence of your chances at life being determined by the social lottery of on which family you got to be born. What did a poor child do to deserve living in poverty just because their parents were poor? What merit did a rich child do to deserve having their life solved with the inheritance of enough means of subsistence for three generations? The bourgoisie right of inheritance is nothing more than a remnant of the feudal lord's right to give their realm to their firstborn or to divide it between their heirs; it is a medieval notion resignified because it occupies a key place in the preservation of the capitalist system. Any rationalist realizes it is nothing but smoke. Resources should either go to those who deserve it and will manage it better or to those who need it the most; in practice, a combination of the two, but blood is no argument for nothing.

>>2756273
Every time I see you guys talking, I understand why I am not a "radical".
The fact that a father can give his posessions to their sons is not the cause of hunger in the world.
These things are not necessarily correlated.
And property rights are somewhat sacred (as I said, I believe in god and I believe in human rights for example) and I don't think anyone has the right to take your posession from you using any populist argument they can find. This is crazy and cand lead people to uncivilized behaviours.
I am ok with grafitti and vandalism as a form of protest for example, but expropriation is simply not the way forward.

>>2756296
its not that you are not radical you are a liberal and not a leftist at all, you are simply not a bigoted retard type right winger
if you want to defend the right of genocidal pedo billionares to transfer the wealth that allows them to do that to their offspring so they can keep doing that in the name of God and "human rights" thats up to you

>>2756296
>The fact that a father can give his posessions to their sons is not the cause of hunger in the world.
Personal property and private property are two different things
>And property rights are somewhat sacred (as I said, I believe in god
"god " singular, so likely Abrahamic, but not capitalized, so not Christian? Which one? Why not something less strict / less reactionary like paganism?
>and I believe in human rights for example)
When people here rail at rights as a concept they're more going at it from a stirnerite angle, that rights presume authoritarianism because rights are when the government permits you to do something with the implication that it can prohibit you from doing it if it so chose to revoke that right.

If there were no strings attached and you were free to do something rather than simply permitted to do something, you wouldn't have the right to do it, you'd simply have nothing stopping you from doing it.

>>2756316
>>2756318
I am somewhere between center and the left.
Liberalism can still be left if it has social issues as part of the idea of being a liberal (not only the "free market" bullshit). I am pro social organization like social movements and labour unions, I just don't think they have the right to expropriate anyone.

I am also not a materialist, I think principles and ideas matter a lot and human rights are not negociable because you can justify anything in the name of the so-called "revolution" (as I said, iranians still killing gay people in the name of the revolution).

As I said, my idea of god is neutral. He is not an authoritarian but he is the giver of life and people have righta because they have souls (otherwise they would be no different to an object, that's where I am afraid materialist thought ends up and the main reason many people died in socialist revolutons).

>>2756296
What does the Christian God have to do with property rights? Jesus said to sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor.

>Matthew 19:21
<Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

>>2756325
>I am somewhere between center and the left.
I'm sure you believe you are some sort of leftist, but its not up to you, this
>I just don't think they have the right to expropriate anyone.
automatically makes you pro-capitalism and therfor a reactionary right-winger
There is no further discussion to be had
I will give you the same recomendation I give to every right winger that comes here crying about retarded shit, read the theory texts listed on this thread >>2543514
(because of the stuff you say I'm assuming you have never read Marx, if you have and still believe all this nonsense about rights and "just taxing billionares" -lol- then whatever, just fuck off)

>>2756338
>then come, follow me
Where? he didn't say where, that's the problem.
Property rights are basically human rights because it is tied to human dignity and freedom. People work for things and even if they didn't work for it, it is theirs and their well being depends on that.

>>2756325
Materialism isn't disregarding ideas, ideas are materially significant because the brain is material and can use the body to act on other matter, so learning is like assembling a person with an idea into a person that knows that idea, which has material significance.

Materialism is (roughly) just that the material conditions of an area has influence on how technology advances. What ideas see use vs which ones are merely novelties.

If you've ever asked yourself "is this device / idea practical" you've done a materialism.
>>2756338
Christians capitalize the g. They're not talking about the Christian god.

embed fail, repostin

>>2756008
>Those are made not to be addictive
Hahaha

>>2756342
OP please understand this user is either joking or a false flagger.

>>2756342
You have no idea of what left and right means and you are a sociopath that uses it for your own interests but that won't work here, with me.
I am left because left is based on the idea people should fight for equality (even tho the way they do it may differ).
The concept of left and right came before Marx, it is tied to the french revolution and is based on the pro ancient regime and pro revolution (not the communist one, but the french one).
Thus said, I define who I am and I am between center and the left. You should read more marx until you understand how limited his thought is in the 21st century. Also read Hegel and other philosophers who inspired him to undrstand how he uses other peoples thought as a tool for his personal interests, just like you.

>>2756348
whatever you say rosa-killer

>>2756348
equity* but yeah. "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability"

>>2756352
"Everyone should have the same opportunity" sounds better.

>>2756355
Yeah that's the effect of the first half. Just ya need a logistics chain to give everyone equal opportunity.

>>2756355
>Everyone should have the same opportunity
kek typical neolib speak, you can't even handle the words equity or equality, you are barely to the left of Pinochet

>>2755890
You're a big liar, that's what you are. Your position is that of right-wing parties, lackeys of the United States, that support the United States abroad and are financed by the biggest businessmen to destroy workers' rights like a useful idiot until you're discarded when the masses will have to blame someone for all the effects of financialization and deindustrialization in Brazil.

A social liberal is a right-wing individual who votes for right-wing parties like the PSDB, which was always the right wing in Brazil before Bolsonaro and was always dismantling all labor rights, privatizing and taking control of state banks to bring banking services to the country, handing over the national bank to financial speculation while giving it "independence," attacking the minimum rights of the constitution for reasons of "fiscal responsibility" to be dismantled in order to subsidize private companies to destroy and sabotage public services to facilitate privatization. Or have you forgotten the "macroeconomic tripod" and the dollarization of the economy to keep the country in a cycle of austerity to serve parasitic speculators of public debt, deindustrialize the country, indebt the population to keep following the interests of financial capital so that the country is at the mercy of large landowners and continues exporting abroad? Or the extractive companies that were privatized where all the victims of the dam collapse who died buried or lost everything in the city of Brumadinho and Mariana, have you forgotten about the justice system prolonging legal processes and doing everything to avoid holding capitalists accountable?

Have you forgotten about the pension reform, handing over pensions to the private sector and leaving many workers without the means to receive a pension under the lie of a "pension deficit," when in fact there was a surplus that Fernando Henrique Cardoso created a loophole to pay other government sectors with, thus removing the obligation of capitalists to pay the cost as a right of workers? Have you forgotten that this led many workers to receive the Continuous Benefit Payment of the Organic Law of Social Assistance, called BPC/LOAS, due to its precariousness? Or have you forgotten about the labor reform, administrative reform, and all the attacks on workers' rights, pushing them towards informal and outsourced work? Have you forgotten all the privatizations, handing over public infrastructure that should have been collectively organized to financial capital, indebting the population and mass layoffs of workers?

Which centrist party are you talking about: The young politicians who loved the military dictatorship and were elected with Bolsonaro in power? Are you talking about the PSL and the Democratic Party, which merged with the ARENA party from the military dictatorship to form the União Brazil party, or are you talking about the Republican Party that votes with Bolsonaro and gives privileges to neo-Pentecostal churches to commit fraud, such as the "holy bonfires" of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, to abuse and exploit the desperate masses who are victims of financialization? Perhaps you are talking about the parties that only serve to make deals to inflate the cost of public works and agreements with private companies, siphoning public revenue for these parasites while handing over public assets to capitalists to enrich themselves? Or the political party linked to Collor's puppet unionism, serving in coalition with right-wing parties to destroy workers' rights? Maybe you are talking about Tábata Amaral, who existed in the PDT in a clandestine party called RenovaBR to destroy the rights of working women while using identity politics to co-opt the youth of the Middle class serving financial capital? Perhaps you're referring to Eduardo Leite, who attacks teachers and workers and dismantles flood prevention efforts with the MBL in Rio Grande do Sul to serve financial capital? Perhaps you associate with the MBL to beat and humiliate teachers and defend slave labor by day laborers in the countryside, the death of peasants for agribusiness, and the death of indigenous people for the enrichment of financial capitalism? Or the Novo party cutting 96% of the flood prevention funds while selling Minas Gerais for the enrichment of the parasitism of financial capital? Or the Novo party with the Zema government cutting 96% of the flood prevention funds while selling Minas Gerais for the enrichment of the parasitism of financial capital?

There is no class conciliation; the interests of the capitalist class are the opposite of those of the workers, and the rest of the population profits from the accumulation of capital made through the exploitation of workers, extracting surplus value from them. The state is an instrument of one class to oppress another and nothing more. Or do you think that the repression of the bourgeois state serves any noble purpose? The state is the result of the irreconcilability of classes between those without property, those who own property, and other owners against each other. Hypocrisy is expected, and all rights only exist as conquests in the class struggle organized collectively. All of this is created in society and will disappear when it is no longer useful to the bourgeoisie. And I bet that homosexuals will be the scarecrow that the bourgeoisie will point the finger at with their puppets when the masses have to find someone to blame for what is wrong with society and cannot blame capitalism. Eventually, reactionaries will give the answer, even if it's false, and you were just a fool to the bourgeois class, which will continue to enrich itself with the financialization of the country, a result of the inevitable fall in profit rates.

The economic sovereignty of other countries victimized by financial capitalism attempting to subjugate them must be defended by communists and leftists without exception to prevent the enrichment of global financial capitalism, which will use its spoils to intensify the exploitation of workers and the subjugation of Brazil, regardless of its false sentimentalism and apology for imperialism, typical of the Brazilian right. You will be punished for denying the supremacy of the proletarian class by conciliating with financial capital and its parasites, thinking that you will receive any freedom by handing everything over for the exploitation of financial capital.

The workers and their revolutionary party must be independent of the bourgeoisie, where all means of production and distribution must be public for economic planning following the needs of the population. This means democratizing the economy; any right must serve and be created by the working class, and other working classes cannot act without what they have in common with the proletariat.

Remember that all regulations have already been dismantled and are constantly being dismantled and distorted by capitalists who invest their money in politics for the benefit of capital accumulation, co-opt labor oversight in the private sector, and place individuals in the administration of public and regulatory companies to serve the interests of these capitalists. All the regulation and oversight you imagine will not last, and all of this is constantly being destroyed by the advance of neoliberalism, financialization, austerity, and privatizations under the influence of the capitalist class. There is indeed a great war, but now I ask you: will you continue to be the useful fool of the bourgeoisie who will be discarded, or will you serve the revolutionary class of the proletariat, serving its class interests for the liberation of the workers? "Authoritarianism" already exists in all private companies and in the bourgeois state. The abstract freedom you seek does not exist; only the class interest in power exists. Only with the dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of private property, the abolition of the anarchy of production, and the abolition of social classes can money be abolished and lose its function, the state can wither away, and the exploitation of man by man will end.

Or do you want to cling to your ego, bourgeois individualism, and narcissism, forgetting that social democracy arose from the betrayal of its principles, reconciling with the bourgeoisie, and eventually each generation betraying all its principles by following a more right-wing sector until fighting for nothing as a servant of neoliberalism? And that social democracy as a party in Brazil arose entirely as lackeys of financial capitalism, serving the biggest capitalists? Real social democrats have already been expelled from all historical parties to join some revisionist "socialist" party that is betraying its principles. I hope you don't make the fool's choice, but if you continue you will be punished like all liberal and reactionary counter-revolutionaries who deny the political domination of the proletariat, unless the bourgeoisie discards you first using its reactionary pawns who have a false consciousness needing to attack a straw man. Bourgeois freedom will be abolished in the communist revolution; the rights of the bourgeoisie have no value to me, nor the word of bourgeois apologists and petty-bourgeois lackeys who serve finance capital.

>>2756360
That part with in regards to "to each according to their need…"
You need to develop basic reading comprehension if you're going to shed your old reactionary tendencies.

>>2756296
>The fact that a father can give his posessions to their sons is not the cause of hunger in the world.
As others have pointed out, I am not talking about giving your children your house, your piano, your clothes, your car. I am talking about giving them hundreds or thousands of acres of land. Giving them a factory that employs a hundred workers. Giving them a share package that generates three minimum wages on interests alone. Giving them the ownership of resources on which a not insignificant part of a whole national economy depends. Abolishing inheritance is just an aspect of abolishing private property of the means of production; it has absolutely nothing to do with personal property, i.e., whatever you own that is not a capital good. Every resource on which society depends should be owned by society. You can draw the line wherever you want but it has to be drawn somewhere.

You have to understand that one key mechanism of ideological manipulation is excessively extending the meaning of an abstract concept so as to make you feel everyone of its instances should be treated the same even when they are empirically radically different. How can you possibly consider the same rules should apply to a father giving his children the family house and a bourgois giving his firstborn the ownership of a multinational company? They do the same thing with other concepts, such as freedom. There's absolutely nothing in common between my freedom to choose what brand of food I buy and their freedom to fire 500 employees.

Also, if you are a liberal, you are already against certain forms of inheritance and in favour of certain forms of expropiation. Liberalism was born out of the rejection of the feudal order, in which states and their corresponding territory were considered personal property of a ruling family and accordingly inherited from one generation to the other. Liberals realized this was unjust and irrational. What the liberal revolutions did to aristocratic and ecclesiastical property is nothing less than expropiation and (more or less imperfectly) democratization. They created a better world by radically altering the rules of the previous one. Socialism is nothing more than the logical outcome of the same movement. For that reason, it is inevitable.

>>2756372
Yeah personal property is fine to be generational. Generational private property is when things get fucked up.

>>2756364
First of all, I am left to all these parties and people you cited, that's why I consider myself leftist and not a centrist and not merely a "liberal".
In Brazil, I am more alligned to PT.

Thus said, your discourse is pure 101 marxism and only makes sense inside a merely marxist worldview.
As I said, I am not entirely agains it, but it is not the only way to see things. You have a very strong emphasys on economic issues, rather than social or cultiral ones. Ok, that's valid but that's not all that defines politics.
The "game" is complex. I alrrady said I am agains expropriation, because I think the dictatorship of the proletariat is, at the moment, more a philosophical concept than a reality. Capitalism works, this is undenyable, peole are not dumb and if they do not vote for communist parties is because tgere is a reason for it: your ideas seem pretty logical, ethical and coherent, but they fail to appeal to the classes you say you are protecting. The proletariat is probably more reactionary than the elites, that's the general idea I have, and it might be true for most countries.
Marx was extremely criticized not only by its adversaries but by fellow marxists, who viewed his ideas about the crisis of capitalism and inexorable class struggle as not exatly true in practise.
The world is not a philosophical thesis, it is much more dense and conplex than that. Politics is guided by feeling and emotions more than by material reasons and tge last years have proved that thesis.
You should just open your mind a little bit. It is not that you are entirely wrong, but you are looking at it in a brutalist way. Things are not so simple.

>>2756376
this is what you represent, sorry

>>2756372
This is some serious bullshit..That's why I hate marxism and I think it is actually fascism in reality.
People have the right to have big businesses, the right of a father to give their clothes to theirs sons is the same as a father giving huge lands to their sons.
It is the same thing.
People have the right to own things, it doesn't matter if it is big or small..If it is theirs, it is theirs.
Socialism is not the natural outcome.
I am not "a liberal", I am not against monarchies also, I am just against explitation.
There was not actually a revolution in property rights between the feudal-atristocratic ans the liberal order.

>>2755890
Gay kids freeze to death on the streets and it's absolutely justified for the homeless to gut landowners and their collaborators like fish. In this sense, I am an authoritarian.

>>2756384
Violence justifies violence. If the poor has the right to kill the rich, the rich has the right to defend themselves and kill the poor (and they surely will because they are more powerful).

>>2756380
>That's why I hate marxism and I think it is actually fascism in reality.
>People have the right to have big businesses
Is this what counts as "leftism" in Brazil? What the fuck is going on there?

>>2756396
Why the hell do you think being left necessarily mean expropriating properties. What is happening in your country tbh.

>>2756403
>Why the hell do you think being left necessarily mean expropriating properties.
because I'm not a right-winger like you

>>2756393
Sure. I fully expect the capitalists to fight back. It's class war. Revolution is not a dinner party.
>>2756403
People are freezing to death on the street. People are going hungry. People are dying deaths of despair in suicide and drug overdose.

>>2756380
>People have the right to have big businesses
>I hate authoritarians of all kinds
Girl you need to make a nekoweb and write some essays about you political beliefs so you can look each of them over and see the contradictions. This contradiction is so basic it's silly.
>People have the right to own things
Yes, that wouldn't change under socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vis-%C3%A0-vis_private_property

>>2756412
This war will never happen because class struggle is not the main motif in humanity. People have better things to do most of the time.
Find better ways to help the poor because they will freeze till death waiting to die in your war of choice.

>>2756410
Being to your right doesn't mean I am a right winger. Look at all society, how many people are defending expropriation?
My ideas are left to most people (taxation + social programs + welfare state + progressivism) this is enough to consider myself left because I worried about rights and freedoms but also equality.
You are a lunatic that thinks every landowner is exploiting people by default when it is actually not true (some of them are and if they are doing it, i will defend they be stopped).

>>2756423
Yes, because being an authoritarian and owning things is basically the same thing to an idiot.

>>2756380
You are just dogmatically repeating what I refuted without giving any argument other than "it just is". Feudal lords also considered kingdoms to be their right. After all, they fought for them! They earned that land militarily. Why couldn't the king of France just give the whole of France to his son? And if you live on my land being protected by my soldiers from the rival kingdom, the least you can do is be my serf. It's just their right to do as they please with their huge lands. Is that what you believe?

If you ever open your mind you will understand that the world we live in, which we consider more just than the previous one, was forged by expropiation, by force, by a radical change of the established naturalized rules of society and by going against what was perceived then as the powerful's "rights". But you will never open your mind, and I don't even think it's because you are a liberal, I think a liberal with good faith can be radicalized or at least made to doubt their own position, I believe ultimately your soul is devoid of the ability to question capitalist dogma because you are a lutheran. There's simply no way around it, nothing you can do with a protestant. Weber keeps winning again and again. Being gay and arguably young may have tilted you in the short term towards progressivism and make you support your local lukewarm latinamerican socdem in one or two elections, but you just can't resist the reactionary destiny of your belief system. Enjoy voting for Bolsonaro's grandson when you hit 40.

>>2756444
You are just playing with concepts.
The problems with the right of kings is not because of they own land but because they own people. That's a fundamentally wrong idea.
I m not against constitutional democratic monarchies, I am against absolutism, because it justifies exploitation.
Owning things is a fundamemtally different concept.

>>2756434
>owning a big buisness is just owning a big thing, pay no attention to the exploitation (extraction of surplus value) or the unjust political power that entails.
Okay you're just a janny seeing if the board remembers how to deal with trolls. Test failed I guess.

>>2756451
This surplus value is something marx just invented to justify his ideas and the fact big landowners have more political power is not fundamentally true in a democracy.

>>2756431
Scratch a socdem and a fascist bleeds

>>2756431
> This war will never happen […]
Homeless people already commit crimes and cops already shoot criminals. The class war is already happening.

>>2755890
The absolute state of the Brazilian left lmao. At this point the fucking USA has more revolutionary potential

>>2756380
>>2756449
>>2756434
You can't possibly be the same poster unless you're trolling. Too many contradictions between each post.
>>2756453
It's just math [picrel]
>the fact big landowners have more political power is not fundamentally true in a democracy.
A dictatorship of the bourgoise can't be a legitamate democracy.

>>2756462
As I said, the elites tend to be more revolutionary than the rest of the world.
Brazil is a conservative country and even social-liberalism is extreme left here.
But for real, this is how things are. Marxism is a failed ideology and should be abandoned.

>>2756453
>Marx invented surplus value to justify his ideas
You have absolutely no understanding of material reality. Even neolibs and other assorted pro-capitalists understand what surplus value is. What do you think profit is? Is this why you focus on """social issues"""? Do you not understand that social policy is dependant on material conditions?

OP, what is your relation to capital? You strike me as petit bourgeoisie/SBO or at least the child of one. I would assume so, being a Lutheran in a largely Catholic country. And why do you subscribe to a nonsense ideology that hates you as a gay man?

Everytime someone says "authoritarianism", "totalitarism", or "dictator", an innocent puppy dies.

>>2756465
Marx thinks the value of things is based on the work behind it but it is not necessarily true.
Things have value i society for a variety of reasons.
Marx is legit dumb.
I don't get why so many people fall for it.

And the idea that we live in a dicatorship when people have rights and can vote is the idea of a ln idiot who doesn't know what dictatorhsip means and is playing with concepts to push his agenda somehow. Marxism is basically this.

>>2756467
>Marxism is a failed ideology and should be abandoned.
Abandoned with what?

>>2756471
I don't knoe about puppies but many people were killed by the iranian regime.

>>2756474
>people have rights and can vote
Even Americans don't believe that liberal nonsense anymore

>>2756476
And you are a zionist as well. This is turning out to be a lib bleeding and showing fascist character

>>2756468
Marx has no idea of material reality. he invented his own kind of materialism to justify expropriation, that's it.
I am not against helping the poor with social programs and actually, I think we can help them much more by taxing the rich than expropriating them.
You just want to use the suffering of the poor as a justification for your authoritarianism.
Marxism is basically this, is about power, not about love or affection.

>>2756476
Many people were killed by the Brazilian regime but you don't give a shit because you're a fascist.

https://www.esquerdadiario.com.br/O-racista-Alckmin-Qual-e-o-legado-do-vice-de-Lula-para-com-a-populacao-negra

>>2756482
Marxism is about the power of the working class, not love or affection. You are quite correct here.

>>2756485
>>2756481
>>2756477
Take your pills.

>>2756487
Why would I defend someone based solely on the fact that he is a worker.
Have you ever thought about that?

>>2756489
>Between May 12th and 21st of that year, police officers and paramilitary death squads—which witnesses and other suspects indicate also included police officers—killed 425 people and were responsible for the disappearance of four others. The attacks continued for several days, killing another 80 civilians. The deaths were revenge for attacks by the criminal faction PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital), which killed 59 public agents, including police officers, civil guards, and prison guards. “It was a human massacre perpetrated by the State against the favela and the periphery,” recalls Débora Maria da Silva, representative of the Independent Mothers of May Movement. Her son, the garbage collector Edson Rogério, was found dead at age 29 after a police encounter on the 15th of that “bloody May,” as it came to be called by many mothers.
Under Lula's presidency btw.

>>2756496
>it happened under lula's presidency so it is direct lula's fault because he obviously was the commander of thr operation and not the head of the police department
You invent all kind of theories to justify your political ideas.

This thread

>>2756502
It goes to show that it is systemic to liberal democracy

>>2756453
>This surplus value is something marx just invented
wrong, he took it from liberal economists, people that were progressive for their time and that you disagree with, since you are a neoliberal, the ideology of the darkest reaction
>>2756467
>Marxism is a failed ideology and should be abandoned.
If by this you mean communists were exterminated during the cold war by fascism exported around the world by imperalist liberals then yeah, this is the first valid point you have made. I don't think you would disagree with the fact that currently humanity is heading towards self-destruction, right? This is the result of liberals like you and the wholesome chungus monopolistic big business warmongers you want to protect "defeating" marxism, enjoy it, you already won.

>>2756509
Sure, because police in Brazil is about liberal democracy and not literal fascism.

>>2756510
Marxism is an evil ideology that makes people completely dumb and power obsessed. He was a literal satanist. Read hegel, understand what the real dialects really are (it has to do with spirit and self consciousness rather than materialism and "productive forces"). Educate youself, become free.

>>2756502
It means that voting le hecking wholesome social-liberal into power doesn't make a state less "authoritarian" or whatever the fuck your vibes-based buzzwords are supposed to mean. It was an act of violence directed by the state government of São Paulo, Brazil's most important state. Now, why call Brazil a government or administration instead of "regime"? Is there even anything inside your skull?

>>2756517
>Sure, because police in Brazil is about liberal democracy and not literal fascism
That is police in every liberal democracy that you are praising to no end.

>>2756521
How is the police in iran and china going tho?

>>2756519
Because brazil is not a "liberal democracy"
are you dumb?
I am not even a liberal, you are saying that.

>>2756528
The Chinese police is a terrible example for you because they are quite amicable by all standards. Meanwhile, in Europe…
https://apnews.com/article/britain-riots-unrest-social-media-misinformation-attack-5824d3136675e10d6a25c9e17287c994
By the way Iran is not socialist by any definition I don't get why you would bring this up unless you're literally retarded

>>2756531
>brazil is not a liberal democracy
Retard alert

>>2756531
>It's not a liberal democracy because the vibes are not there
You don't even know what you are talking about lol

>>2756534
Yes, china is very amicable.
Why aren't there any chinese posters here talking with us by the way? Can they join the conversation, or the police is being too amicable with them?

And no, brazil is not liberal, brazil is a conservative country. Liberalism implies a set of values that conservatives despise.

>>2756517
>Read hegel,
I did and I side with Marx and other thinkers against that spooked cuck.
>Educate youself, become free.
Says the retard that worships the system of global ecocide that will make his country unhabitable in less than 50 years.
As I said, you already won, there is no need to defend your ideas here.

>>2756541
>Why aren't there any chinese posters here talking with us by the way?
There are Chinese posters in Leftypol, newfag. Another bad example.
>Liberalism implies a set of values that conservatives despise.
uygha are you cognitively challenged. Have you ever read a book in your entire life

>>2756011
>its quite telling that this website is more tolerant towards neo nazis than social democrats
look the kind of shit your "social democrat" buddy is saying

>>2756552
Conservatives are against freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Only these two values make them completely against core liberal values.
If some people are against that and call themselves libersl they are just lying, like "mbl" kind of people pretending to be liberal but actually being hardcore fascists.

>>2756558
Literally, everything I did was being against expropriation and orthodox marxism and that was enough for you to be crying about. Grow up. Being left is not being a terrorist.

>>2756559
>muh free speech
So the United States is your ideal of society?
>conservatives are against freedom of speech
No they're fucking not.
>hardcore fascism is when no freedom of speech
Just admit you want to insult black people with slurs, little boy.

>>2756564
If you're in favor of private property of the means of production, you're not a leftist, by definition. Retarded petista.

>>2756541
>>2756559
>And no, brazil is not liberal, brazil is a conservative country
You are actually using the burger definition of liberal. Do you know why Brazil is considered a liberal democracy?
>Conservatives are against freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Only these two values make them completely against core liberal values.
I guess the UK is no longer a liberal democracy

>>2756569
>So the United States is your ideal of society?
NTA but the US doesn't have free speech in the slightest

>>2756569
>So the United States is your ideal of society
It clearly is with the way he is defining liberal. This is the classic Brazilian who feels inferior to what he envisions as a squeaky clean liberal democratic west

>>2756571
There is no place in the world that has "freedom of speech", because there are material consequences to speech regardless if they're in the law/constitution or not. That's the point.

>>2756569
YES, I AM NOT AN ORTHODOX MARXIST
I AM IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
AND I AM A LEFTIST, BECAUSE LEFT AND RIGHT DIVISION IS NOT BASED ON KARL MARX'S IDEOLOGY.

Are you happy?

>>2755890
You're fine. Don't get your advice for how to be """radical""" from the faggots here. Vaguely left wing is my metric for good enough for most people. I'm pretty radical myself, but not in the way most people here would imagine it. I understand the limits of what is possible in a given situation/moment. What makes me a communist is the desire for abolition of Class, however that happens, or however long it might take.

"We're all social democrats in the short term" - Vivek Chibber

>>2756011
I wonder why that is

>>2756576 (samefag)
First time reading through the replies and all of you fucking losers dissappoint me lmao. You're so fucking cringe please god learn how to be normal

>>2756575
You're not a leftist. Being gay doesn't make you a leftist. Is Nick Fuentes a leftist? Is Clodovil a leftist? Get a grip, idiot.

>>2756576
>>2756580
Actually you're an evil fascist because communism is evil and against freedom of speech of whatever. According to OP, that is.

>>2756576
The idea of "class abolitionism" really gets me because it sounds a lot like "penal abolitionism" and "gender abolitionism" kind of stuff.
To me, being pro euquality doesn't necessarily mean you have to abolish all the differences. I think that's a huge leap.

>>2756582
For you, left and right division is based solely on how the person sees the condition of private property.
You toss like 99% of all other cultural, social and even other economic issues in the trash to save your hatred ideology. It shows a lot about you and your endgoals. Clodovil was nicer than you.

>>2756584
>The idea of "class abolitionism" really gets me because it sounds a lot like "penal abolitionism" and "gender abolitionism" kind of stuff.
<I don't like how this sounds because the vibes are off
>being pro euquality doesn't necessarily mean you have to abolish all the differences.
Have you ever thought about reading a book before spouting garbage about what you clearly don't understand? You're way out of your depth

>>2756585
>You toss like 99% of all other cultural, social and even other economic issues in the trash
You aren't able to correctly describe what left-wing and right-wing mean. You're a closeted right-winger.
>you're worse than a reactionary because you hurt my feefees
Least schizophrenic liberal.

>>2756575
left and right division is generally bullshit, but yes, marxists and capitalists both agree on the terms that private property is what separates the left from the right.
What is your conception of private property?

>>2756575
>YES, I AM NOT AN ORTHODOX MARXIST
you are not even an unorthodox marxist lol you consider it evil and the same as fascism and you are glad the communist movement was destroyed, you are an ardent anti-marxist and anti-communist, this makes you a right winger

>>2756593
Like how far down the CIA psyop do you even have to be to say shit like "surplus value was created by Marx to justify his evil ideology". Not even right-wing intellectuals think this. Insane levels of ignorance.

>>2756590
>>2756591
Left: there are inequalities in society, we should fix it
Right: there are inequalities in society, that's good.

The idea that abolishing private property of the means of production is the ONLY way to achieve equality is a radical idea and is solely based on marxism, a derranged ideology made for derranged people who cannot contribute anything to society but creating genocidal and empoverished regimes.
It is an easy way out, that's why it is so popular but also that's why it never works.

>>2756593
>>2756597
It is insane how you guys deify Marx. It is a religion.
You should fix youselves before fixing the world.

>>2756598
how do you eliminate inequality if private corporations work wageslaves to death?

>>2756364
I'm baffled that this great effortpost was replied with "but that's just your opinion man", "politics are about feelings", and "the proletariat is probably more reactionary than the elites". Motherfucker.

>>2756601
>You should fix youselves before fixing the world.
t.

>>2756605
Some people really need this treatment.

>>2756604
"effort post"
Nah, just like the valie of a product doesn rely solely based on the work behind it, the value of a post is not based on its "effort". You marxist don't have feelings, that's why you hate people who feel something, like me.

>>2756602
Better question, why do you think non-private property necessarily aboloshes slavery?
There are ways to fix problems within capitalism, but fixing problems withing socialism sometimes are way harder.

>>2756608
>You marxist don't have feelings, that's why you hate people who feel something, like me.
Least hysterical right-winger

>>2756608
>Better question, why do you think non-private property necessarily aboloshes slavery?
I simply cannot imagine how else to abolish wealth inequality than to abolish private property, and there within the class structure of capitalism.
>There are ways to fix problems within capitalism, but fixing problems withing socialism sometimes are way harder.
I will ask again, what do you think private property actually is.

>>2756609
For real? I do respect some right wingers more than I respect some marxists.
I feel they have some valid issues against people like you particularly, but I also recognize you are closer to them than myself.

>>2756601
I just agree with him on his analysis of capitalism and what is needed for it to be overcome, its funny that the guy that thinks politics is about "spirit" and believes the epstein class has a right given by God to exploit and rape is calling others religious in a derogatory manner

>>2756611
>I do respect some right wingers more than I respect some marxists
No fucking shit, you're a right-winger

>>2756610
You guys are just so theatrical.
"I need society to collapse so my ideology will raise from the ashes".
It is an easy way for doing nothing, tbh.

>>2756612
You abolish exploitation with laws against it.
It is not that hard.

>>2756614
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

>>2756614
answer the question coward

>>2756613
No, I'm not. You're crazy.
Case closed. I'm going to sleep now.

>I do respect some right wingers more than I respect some marxists.
fucking kill yourself you subhuman

>>2756614
>You abolish exploitation with laws against it.
you are braindead

>>2756614
>You abolish exploitation (extraction of surplus value) with laws against it
>People have the right to have big businesses
>I hate authoritarians of all kinds
Just make a fuckin' HTML document and lay your ideas out so you can see them all at once. You can't just let your ideas be this paradoxical and expect people to take them seriously.