I have a hard time believing that any of us would care about capitalism if we had "made" it. Through bad circumstances, bad choices, bad relationships, lowly class origins, or disability, we have ended up here at the end of history. I can't help but think about what it's like to be a winner. How often do they think about us?
gvke
>>2816597>I have a hard time believing that any of us would care about capitalism if we had "made" itwow… you mean the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class… that the chains are most invisible to those who don't have to wear them…. that the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are free from exploitation while being exploiters, and therefore do not see capitalism as a mode of production, and a form of class society, but as an eternal state of unimpeachable nature?
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow
you're telling me now for the first time
if I became a billionaire tomorrow I would invest it all back into communization schemes. you can have all the money in the world but as long as you have enough to live without being stressed, pursue intellectual or artistic pursuits, and spend time with people you care about, everything else is just hollow consumption that we've been conditioned to want by a system that alienates us from our labor (i.e. aforementioned intellectual & artistic pursuits). if you feel differently then you're just informing on yourself for being barely above the level of an ape, running on pure limbic system impulses, which the bourgeoisie are really just an advanced form of.
>>2816610>if I became a billionaire tomorrow I would invest it all back into communization schemesthat's why you will never be a billionaire, and if you were, the other billionaires would assassinate you.
>>2816611maybe, but the point is to build something resilient to the assassination of high-ranking party members
>>2816611You can't fight money with money, because if you give it away you'll be snuffed out by those who reinvest it. You have to use it strategically like in national liberation struggles so the people can establish a foothold to compete but that is still within the paradigm of statism.
>the bourgeoisie is not in favor of communism
WOW, shocking revelation!
>>2816597Damn our surroundings affect us?
>>2816597Even if I magically was given 100 million dollars tomorrow, it still wouldn't fix how I feel about the suffering that is happening needlessly in the world. I am relatively financially comfortable already and it doesn't make me feel any more capitalist.
>your interest would be different if your position in class society was different
woah…
>>2816664Il go let engels know
I "made it" at birth and i still care about leftist agenda. You are an idiot and/or projecting your own failures.
I have made it and disagree. I am full of revenge.
>>2816736>leftist agenda.you mean anti-communism?
I would donate exorbitant amounts of money in the superchat of my favorite VTubers, hire surgeons to correct my baldness and increase the size of my penis by a few centimeters, and also hire the most beautiful transsexuals in the world to satisfy my scat fetish.
>>2816597It really depends on how you define "made it"
One of the strongest predictors of a person's politics today is their underlying disposition. High openness, high agreeableness, and mid-high neuroticism is a recipe for becoming a leftist even if by one lucky break or another, the person who has those characteristics wants for nothing in material terms.
Meanwhile the archetypal rightist is driven to rightism no matter how many comically on-the-nose examples of capitalist exploitation smack him in the face.
The correlation with rightism and material success comes about mostly because both are low-agreeableness (assholes), with a slight split being that business types are somewhat higher in openness than other rightoids. (Although this is a very broad brush, especially in the US. a lot of the worst small business tyrants are business owners in regulated and protected fields where innovation isn't really required. meanwhile, others trend more liberal in disposition and sympathize rightwards out of instrumental selfishness only.)
damn, the "politics is for freaks" thread got deleted. Here was going to be my reply:
>>2816940
this guy gets it
>>2816846
wrong
>>2816891
lol
>>2816836
look into the idea of credibility enhacing displays from religious studies. basically people show loyalty to religion not based on its doctrines, but based on how committed and willing to risk themselves on behalf of religion the people they grew up around were. Basically most people aren't very logical and don't assess whether a religion makes coherent logical sense, but they judge whether it is true based on how committed the people around them are. It's like "wow, if my brother was willing to move to get tortured by the secret police for his faith, then god must be real and religion must be important." The same is true of secular ideology. Costly displays of loyalty signal truth to normies. Key word costly. So when leftcoms and academic marxists attack all other communists, including people who have risked their lives, for not understanding the letter of marxism, that is a display of loyalty, but not a costly display. Your displays of loyalty have to be costly to mobilize people. You have to be willing to die or lose a lot. Practice precedes belief in religion, and in politics Engels said an an ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory.
>>2816980>if one has no stake in the capitalist system, then one may well turn against ithe is so close to realizing that it is necessary for capitalism to function that most people be proletarian and therefore have no stake in its continuation
>>2816872CIAnonymous coming in hot with another banger.
>>2817789>im wrong but im going to ignore any evidence that proves me soyeah ok
Unique IPs: 22