[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol_archive/ - leftypol archive

Our own National Museum
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1619984696577-0.jpg (454.81 KB, 600x770, PW0466_1_l.jpg)

File: 1619984696577-2.jpg (116.15 KB, 800x799, EXgWHr2WkAASSPi.jpg)

 No.11465[View All]

Well it's another day of /pol/fags raiding. Given the increased attention our board has gotten I figured I should write up a critique of /pol/; both the "arguments" it makes on here as well as its ideology in general. Maybe some /pol/lyps read it and take it to heart, most likely they wont. This is just an open post anyone can comment on. I'm slightly hungover, so forgive me if this comes across as a bit incoherent.

/pol/'s ideological problem
/pol/ is ostensibly a "fascist" board. Though its far removed from the fascism of yesteryear. Whereas Italian Fascism at least had an intellectual and philosophical component to justify itself, whereas it could elaborate on some basic tenets (even though it would contradict all of them at some point) Nazism had no such thing: just an incoherent conspiracy.

What both Fascism in its Italian and Nazi forms had—that /pol/ certainly lacks—is collective discipline. Most of the early blackshirts were veterans of WWI. The success and organizational power of the fascist movement could be attributed to the work of these veterans who, to their credit, actually were fairly efficient at what they do.

>What was the base of classical fascism?

<Veterans and the economically devastated middle class.
>What is the base of modern fascism?
<An economically devastated middle-class.

All /pol/ is home to is the socially maladroit children of middle income earners. Well, and Boomers screaming at the world as the last synapses in their brain burn out. Of course there may be a few exceptions here and there (and its obvious /pol/ anons like to LARP as the exception to the rule) but for the most part the same people are attracted to /pol/: The children who sat alone on the playground. The incel seething at some happy couple in a coffee shop. The kind of person who thinks they're one life coach grifter away from finding real happiness.

Everything /pol/ does is directed by their class position as the children of middle income earners, as asocial loners with serious self-esteem issues. If they do have a career, its likely as a contractor or some white collar worker that is isolated from or in direct confrontation with other workers. Either way, it leads to /pol/ being collectively impotent.

Comrade Stalin once taught that Anarchism is a strain of liberalism, in that it sought the total liberation of the individual. I believe that Fascism, by contrast, promises the total tyranny of the individual: a way for maladjusted individuals to exercise violence upon others to satisfy their libidinal urges. Every Fascist wants to be a king in their own right, what this usually means is that where Fascists attempt to organize in the modern day, their orgs fall apart due to infighting and backstabbing.

/pol/ can tout campaigns such as placing "Its Okay To Be White" posters on college campuses, but at the end of the day these are individual actions and can only affect individual change. The Fascist violence of today is individual violence: its the fascist murdering groups of school children. Its the fascist gunning down peaceful churchgoers. The only "change" /pol/ can manifest is individual psychos throwing deadly temper tantrums and rallying more people against itself.

>inb4 "but we memed Trump into the White House"

No. The Republican Party did. Oh sure, the enthusiasm you guys showed for Trump helped, but if he'd done anything but run Republican he would've fallen on his face. You were accessories to his victory, not the deciding factor.

Which brings me to my final point: you've all been useful stooges for right-wing parties. What was your overall strategy? Well, to use the only power left to you (voting and whining) to put people who say the right things in office, then you act shocked that they pursue an agenda that's compromised by the status quo. Nevermind that you don't have any infrastructure outside of mainstream right-wing political parties. Nevermind that you have no policies other than impotent rage at everything around you. You approach politics like a kite approaches the wind: you let it blow you around and pray you go in the "right" direction.

/pol/'s tired arguments
If any board encounters /pol/ they usually trot out the same arguments again and again.

<"Are you afraid of debating us? Why do you ban us? Why do you not let us discuss race theory? It's because you can't respond to it, isn't it?"


I'll be perfectly frank: /pol/ is a cancer. That cancer is what killed 4chan.

Wherever "discussion" that leaves the door open to White Nationalists happens, they flock to it like a moth to a flame. Usually because they're despised and insta-banned everywhere else. The idea that /pol/ was a "containment" board is laughable. It was a fucking lighthouse for fascists, and soon began to leak into other boards. It was /pol/, not moot and not reddit, that killed 4chan. As your board grew, you began leaking onto other boards: /v/, /co/, /tv/, and so on.

You weren't changing peoples minds. You were pushing the oldfags out with your excessive faggotry. It was always "uyghuruyghuruyghuruyghur", constantly, and while the chans had always been known for edgie humor, at least /b/ could change things up now and again. Your entire board's culture is dedicated to seething about all the sex blacks and Jews are taking away from you. You'll constantly shit up /v/ by bitching about "woke devs", you'll shit on /tv/ shows for having some interracial couple (and for being unable to get the image of a black man pounding a white woman out of your head.) You made 4chan, as a whole, a far less entertaining place.

You're cancer. The internet is better off without you.

<"Lefties oppose Capitalism. Yet they do things international firms like. Curious."

Whenever /pol/ tries to claim that the far-right are the real anti-establishment heroes, they'll always trot out some example of Leftists being opposed to harsh-immigration laws and Rightists being in favor of them, with big firms usually siding with the Left. Somehow this is supposed to imply that Leftists are the footsoldiers of Capitalism. Let's consider the following points, however:
>Leftist support for immigration devolves to not brutalizing immigrant laborers with the long arm of the state.
>The Right never offers an immigration proposal that would punish firms that hire foreign/illegal labor, only punish the laborers.
>Corporate support for immigration amounts to profit-seeking at worst, lip-service at best.
The fact is large corporations support immigration because it allows them to pay a lower wage. You're not a revolutionary for recognizing that. However instead of taking the common sense position that the corporations themselves should be punished for driving wages down, you always seem to wind up on the side of brutalizing the immigrants.
And do you know what? Megacorps love our current immigration policy perfectly well! Harsh penalties for "illegal" immigration means you can hire people at a sub-minimum wage, avoid paying them benefits, and at any time you can use the threat of police violence to keep your workers in line! You'll suffer none of the consequences if it turns out you utilize an entirely immigrant-based workforce, instead you're rewarded for it with additional profits.
All the Left wants is for our fellow workers to be treated as human beings, rather than as subjects of a totalitarian regime.

<"Generic Holocaust Denialism, FBI Crime Stats, Bell Curve Nonsense."

There's a saying that /pol/ would be wise to learn: "It takes ten minutes to debunk a ten-second lie."
You can throw all the graphs, stats, and empirical evidence you want out there, /pol/, but the fact remains that all of these things can be faked (and quite often /pol/ shares completely manufactured quotes) or misinterpreted. Shit, if you're as autistic as most of us here, it could be easy enough to convince people the earth is hollow.

That "normies" can't respond to your evidence isn't because of the power of the evidence itself. Its because literally no one things about race and racism as much as /pol/. Normal people don't spend their day meticulously combing through "Justice for Germans" and hearing "both sides." To expect that of them is ridiculous. You can create the appearance of having an empirical ideology while being as far from correct as possible. When you have a view beforehand and look for evidence afterwards, you can remarkably find a lot of it.

<"What about an alliance?"

An Alliance between fucking what? Boards? The fact is the jannies just clean up the shit around here, they don't direct us. Much as yours don't direct you. Any "Alliance" would just be a degree of courtesy between individuals on here, and it'd be just as politically impotent as either of our boards.

The only "Alliance" with actual political power between far-left and far-right would be an alliance between parties: which you largely don't have and we largely want nothing to do with.
I mean, who on the Left would actually want to ally with you guys? The CPUSA? Yeah no, we have older comrades who remember your lot shooting union workers for the "crime" of wanting a higher wage. The PSL? While we have our differences, they aren't going to throw their lot in with the fucking Nazis. Trots? Shit, I'd like to think they're better than that.

An Alliance to do what? You expect us to march side by side at protests? Us carrying the red flag of Socialism and you carrying the Swastika? What'll happen the next time some cop inevitably guns down a black person and you start howling "uyghur had it coming!"?

No alliance with Fascists.

TL;DR
/pol/ is a cancer on everything it touches and mistakes annoyance for wit.
879 posts and 138 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12345

>>12344
You can't help stupid especially when it's facetious to avoid conceding. I was drunk as fuck yesterday but even through that I figured out them allegedly being so up their own ass they can't concede on anything down the the very standard definitions of words because without those semantics they have nothing. Fart-sniffers, man.fedFed

 No.12346

>>12344
>>11945
>You guys are the left wing of capital, and the western left is fundamentally fishhooking in its ideology now that globalization caused a confrontation between liberalism and populism
What do you mean by fishhooking? Also why do you assume that populism makes a distinct political movement. Liberal intellegentsia thinks they do, but there is hardly any evidence.
>But you reproduce it and liberalism as progressive again so long it is universalizing and leading to the conditions for class struggle or the left
What did he mean by this?
>Thus the race class synthesis in the settler colonial thesis
Did the sentence got cut off?
>The issue isn't the reproduction of capitalism, ira basically who does so as part of the bourgeois democratic revolution still being progressive
What connection are you trying to make?

I think this makes your core argument. I will reply to the last part later if I get it
>>12345
Ok? Cool story bro

 No.12347

>>12346
uyghur you're the one writing paragraphs of your personal belief and sniffing your own ass when none of it has any impact on reality especially because you retards filtered yourself out by constantly bickering over basic definitions with eachother. How the fuck are you going to effectively message to anyone else?fedFed

 No.12348

>>12347
>by constantly bickering over basic definitions
Only anglos care about definitions. Sniff

 No.12349

>>12348
Seems like there must be a lot of Aryan anglos here because when you aren't busy fearing your boogieman you're busy accusing eachother of being one over their lack of playing by special snowflake definitions you learn from a book about communism or freshman philosophy which is where most fartsniffers up their own ass land.fedFed

 No.12350


 No.12351

>>12350
You're the guy in the other thread too aren't you? You respond in short quips and came out swinging with "I'm not mad, but you're so mad in gonna go out of my way to interact with you when you outright said youre a shitposter".

Be honest, how fat are you and what was your last job?fedFed

 No.12352

>>12351
Nah. I'm that guy >>12305
I just think you're fun to troll. You seem desperate and kinda permanently online. You reek of projection

 No.12353

>>12352
>permanently online
>is the first one back
>accuses me of being another anon that made you made in the past
>"I'm trolling u"
>"I'm not mad ur mad"
>projection
Holy cope. How fat are you, what was your last job, do you ever talk about politics in real life or can you not because you're too retarded to talk to actual people and retreat online?fedFed

 No.12354

>>12353
I weigh two metric tons
My last job was a walrus masturbator
I stand on street corners with a megaphone shouting about the labor theory of value while blasting the Internationale from a boom box

 No.12355

>>12354
Damn that's pretty Based. Sucks reality doesn't match delusional commie fantasies.fedFed

 No.12356


 No.12357

>>12353
>Holy cope. How fat are you, what was your last job, do you ever talk about politics in real life or can you not because you're too retarded to talk to actual people and retreat online?
Yeah…

 No.12358

>>12357
Seven proxies.fedFed

 No.12359

>>12356
Nope. I nailed anon. He does nothing and has nothing going on like most people who argue about communism being practical and effective online all day.fedFed

 No.12360

>>12359
>make up strawman
>destroy said strawman
<this doesn't work like that
>Nu uh! I won. I destroyed him with logic and facts
Based?

 No.12361

>>12356
The ex-walrus masturbator here, I was making fun of glowflag anon. I figured that saying a person weighs literally two metric tons would signal that I was mocking him.

 No.12362

>>12361
He takes it literally, makes a screencap, posts it on 4chan and claims victory. You can't reason with these people
Btw why did you quit with the ex-walrus masturbator job?

 No.12363

>>12361
I've been accused of projection over a dozen times my first hour baiting this morning. Funny thing about projection is the people who like to chuck it around casually are usually very well entrenched in their own.

How fat are you?

>>12362
I did cap my ban from leftypol and no I'm not going to post it on pol. A new folder in the bans folder.

>>12360
Thanks man it's a note from your playbook!fedFed

 No.12364

>>12362
I taught the walrus how to jerk himself off into the bottle and was fired for slacking on the job.

 No.12365

>>12364
The Bourgeoisie at it again

 No.12366

File: 1620064616132.jpg (257.42 KB, 1077x1077, 20200714_222248.jpg)

>>12363
Ok you're so schizo, it's funny now. Here, have a hit

 No.12367

>>12366
Every post I understand why the cope meme comes from here more and more yet seems to have been appropriated by your boogiemen.fedFed

 No.12368

>>12367
What?

 No.12369

>>12368
?

Pass 8th grade english.fedFed

 No.12370

>>12369
Use punctuation

 No.12371

>>12370
pass 7th grade englishfedFed

 No.12372

>>12371
This guy can’t even place a period or comma in the appropriate spaces, yet he lectures us about passing english.

 No.12373

I'm admittedly just skimming the thread right now, but so far all the /pol/ responses I've seen are just various /pol/yps whining "Nuh-uh, our ideology is super serious!" and "Actually you guys are weak/unemployed/lazy!"
Which, again, just reinforces that Fascism as it presently exists is just militant liberalism. Everything devolves down to individual attitude, individual thought processes, and individual experiences.
Furthermore, when called out that the sum total of their ideology is essentially just "Austrian Incel seethes about Jews and conjures stories about a super race" they'll rush to claim there's more to it than that, that it's deeper than that, but never actually prove its anything more than that.
The whole of Nazi ideology is based around claims of their being some "Aryan super race" which conveniently manages to lose two world wars against "subhumans" and find themselves subjugated, allegedly, by semites. Nothing in Fascism's base claims are proven, just assumed and rewritten whenever it suits the fascist.

 No.12374

>>12372
This guy starts pretending to be retarded when he has nothing better to respond with.fedFed

 No.12375

>>12373
What did you think about the native poster's description of debate threads and how they usually shut down? I made my central point to argue over that redefining words and then adhering to those definitions within a niche community neutered your ability to argue outside of that bubble.fedFed

 No.12376

File: 1620066202342.jpg (58.78 KB, 2500x1353, doomerboi.jpg)

>>12373
I'd like to add that Fascism as a whole is based around obfuscation and filibustering the point.
What is Marxism when reduced to its most simple form? That distinct classes exist. That these classes are in conflict with one another. That Capitalism has reduced these classes to an "ownership" class (the bourgeoisie) and a "laboring" class (the proletariat). The Marxist sides with the proletariat because he believes that once the proletariat defeats the bourgeoisie, class society can be eliminated.

What is Nazism reduced to its most simplified form? There's a race of superhumans known as Aryans. Germans are the purest descendants of that superhuman warrior race. Yet in spite of being the "best warriors" it's enslaved first by "weak, sniveling, conniving Jews" and then defeated in battle (twice!) by people that are "subhuman." The Jews simultaneously run the banks and big finance, but also the revolutionary movements opposing the banks and big finance (all this in spite of the fact that Hitler never killed a single ultra-rich Jewish banker). Oh, and "degeneracy" is a thing that somehow "weakens society" by making people vaguely effeminate; in spite of there never having been a historical civilization on the planet that fell due to an overabundance of fembois.
Did I miss anything?
>>12375
Didn't see the post, but debates on the internet usually become shitflinging contests of two faggots who aren't discussing anything, but feel obligated to keep posting "to get the last word in."
I made my thread to critique /pol/, I've yet to see any substantial defense of them.

 No.12377

>>12376
Let me actually take the trollerskates off. You seem cool.

Could it be possible people take pol at face value and far, far, FAR especially when comparing this place directly to them, too seriously when it's just a bunch of banter and people venting over being upset they're stuck in the very same power structure ran by the very same people?fedFed

 No.12378

>>12377
>It’s just a joke, bro, we don’t actually want to gas all the jews and joggers if we had our druthers.
And you say you’ve never been on /pol/

 No.12379

>>12378
I said I never read either. You should probably stop believing what drunken shitpost you read of mine to bait out people who have gigantic egos and see a soft target.fedFed

 No.12380

File: 1620066911397-0.jpg (337.94 KB, 3120x4160, IMG_20210212_150736.jpg)

File: 1620066911397-1.jpg (220.21 KB, 1944x2592, IMG_20200904_115418.jpg)

File: 1620066911397-2.jpg (473.33 KB, 3120x4160, IMG_20201230_101618.jpg)

I don't particularly care, I'm just gonna keep making microwave, sound, x-ray and laser weapons as well as proliferating them and literally giving them away to felons for free

Energy weapons are great, often discreet and there is no good way to block alot of them.

I hate the antichristnaziNazi

 No.12381

>>12380
Based uyghur laser anonfedFed

 No.12382

>>12377
So your argument from what I understand is that /pol/ itself isn't serious, it's more or less a form of venting that people are taking too seriously. Feel free to correct my if I'm misunderstanding you.
While I agree that /pol/ has no small amount of people venting (its kind of a rubber band for how insufferably woke the mainstream is) it can become an addiction. I've seen how it affects people. I believe it was the Christchurch shooter that covered his rifle in /pol/ tier memes, yeah? Plus, the Q-Anon insanity started on /pol/ as well, and you only need a brief peak at /r/QAnonCasualties to see the overall negative effect its had on people's lives.

While my OP is that /pol/ itself is impotent when it comes to affecting large scale political change, I don't believe it's incapable of causing harm. If anything, its had a lot of deadly consequences.

I'd compare it to a drug addiction. Sure, if someone takes bump of cocaine now and again, at a party or the like, it isn't too terrible. But to do it day-after-day, month-after-month, it consumes you. Your original personality shrivels, and you emerge this hateful little creature.
/pol/'s constant hysteria is addicting enough on its own, it draws people in time after time, and I believe it can warp someone into a monster. I think that kind of mentality should be challenged, if not for the safety of other people, then for the sanity of the /pol/fags themselves.

 No.12383

>>217646
>>217627
>>12380
That's cool and all, but what's the point of posting that in this thread?

 No.12384

>>12382
>So your argument from what I understand is that /pol/ itself isn't serious, it's more or less a form of venting that people are taking too seriously. Feel free to correct my if I'm misunderstanding you.
That is indeed my argument. Oldfags understand you meme or you get meme'd and I believe we see a large quantity of people getting meme'd by taking what amounts to /b/ with politics way too seriously.

>While I agree that /pol/ has no small amount of people venting (its kind of a rubber band for how insufferably woke the mainstream is) it can become an addiction. I've seen how it affects people. I believe it was the Christchurch shooter that covered his rifle in /pol/ tier memes, yeah? Plus, the Q-Anon insanity started on /pol/ as well, and you only need a brief peak at /r/QAnonCasualties to see the overall negative effect its had on people's lives.

I agree but I also believe this place radicalized people as does Facebook and Twitter. We can't stop people from assembling in their preferred communities but we shouldn't fear the entirety of the community because some mentally ill people will fly off the handle. What they're introduced to can exacerbate it and at that point I personally believe the argument moves towards liability and if we should shut down any platform deemed dangerous as well as how that door being opened might be abused.

It also plays upon you either meme or get meme'd. Imagine being a shitposter that started the Q hype. You have hundreds of thousands of retards and boomers worshipping your shitposts.

>While my OP is that /pol/ itself is impotent when it comes to affecting large scale political change, I don't believe it's incapable of causing harm. If anything, its had a lot of deadly consequences.

I wholly agree but when we apply this to pol, we're also offering the opportunity to apply it to communities at large online. I distrust authority pretty strongly despite the fed fag because I don't think the powers that be wield it to protect us.

>I'd compare it to a drug addiction. Sure, if someone takes bump of cocaine now and again, at a party or the like, it isn't too terrible. But to do it day-after-day, month-after-month, it consumes you. Your original personality shrivels, and you emerge this hateful little creature.

/pol/'s constant hysteria is addicting enough on its own, it draws people in time after time, and I believe it can warp someone into a monster. I think that kind of mentality should be challenged, if not for the safety of other people, then for the sanity of the /pol/fags themselves.
Is this a pol thing or an arguing with people online thing that can be observed across the internet?fedFed

 No.12385

>>12384
You are an interesting fellow. Interesting indeed

 No.12386

>>12346
>What do you mean by fishhooking?
The western left uses ultraleft critiques of the 20th century to rationalize liberalism in the 21st as it has a confrontation with the populism of the nation-state under globalization
For example it will falsify any working class angle to this populism using theories about the labor aristocracy, then turn around and use race-class synthesis to suggest we need democratic revolution as a precondition for an eventual socialist one
>Also why do you assume that populism makes a distinct political movement. Liberal intellegentsia thinks they do, but there is hardly any evidence.
Mostly because I think current populism resembles past forms in the 19th and 20th century stretching from the KMT to William Jennings Bryan to Bolivarians and Narodniks to the peasant socialist SRs
>What did he mean by this?
The left doesn't have a problem with reproducing capitalism so long as it is in some way democratizing under the theory that capitalism needs to exhaust itself of this trend before a sense of exploitation and class consciousness sets in. We need to dissolve the nation state in order to reveal the antagonism between international capital and labor, which means liberalism is currently still progressive
So the issue with populism isn't that it reproduces capitalism, but the wrong kind
>What connection are you trying to make?
So long as globalization is in crisis due to the rot of the nation state, the left will default to supporting liberalism as still progressive, even in an imperialist state that just achieved post communist unipolarityssnpSSNP

 No.12387

>>11465
>where Fascists attempt to organize in the modern day, their orgs fall apart due to infighting and backstabbing.

oh my god the irony
do you seriously think posting shit on the internet and patting eachother on the back is going to fucking do anything? the funniest thing that both of you do is simply participate and then go and vent when you inevitably see the problems that come with this failed experiment of greed and hubris which we call a functioning society. 4chan's /pol/ is impotent. Every /pol/ board on the fucking internet is impotent.

THAT INCLUDES THIS ONE, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

"Nazis" on the internet only do as much as skinheads: they pick off the weakest people in a society and ensure they stand out so when it comes time to cull the reactionaries, they'll be in plain sight. What you fail to realize is that you've been pulled into the same fucking trap. You stand out. You are a weird faggot and whether or not you actually pass on your beliefs is irrelevant because you will remain a "weird faggot" just like your beloved lolcow Nazi incels who you can't stop slobbering over.

The truth that no one is willing to face is that your beloved fringe cultural icons are in it for money. Your actions on the internet have no real-world effect, and you are simply lying to yourselves as an escape from a life which you think is monotonous. You don't actually bring up any grievances other than social ones at any time. BOTH of you don't. The mental illness prevalent in a dying society is not a problem in of itself which can be fixed, it is a symptom. It is only natural that people would be disgusted by it, whether that means they have a general dislike towards people who chase their own doom through frivolous, meaningless and short-lived "pleasure" or people who want to kill or upend millions because they believe it will be some sort of saving grace for something long dead.

Calling strangers comrades on the internet will never gain you support from the people you need to convince to help you overthrow the current government and install a communist regime. Just like screaming about and at black people on the internet won't make them go up in fucking smoke and usher in some nonsense "ethnostate" that wouldn't exist outside of Amish people in the fucking dakotas due to constant, non-stop mixture for centuries and no cultural tradition being passed on.

Most of you either haven't grown up or quite simply can't. You are all being successfully contained on the fringes of society because you believe that simply talking with people in your extremely limited social circles is some huge contribution working to accomplish a bigger goal which you have no real foresight of. What you must realize is that anarchy is a state, not a political ideology, and it is simply chaos acting as a buffer to allow a naturally selective hierarchy to take place. There are many ways in which you can accomplish this, but you have to get rid of this premonition that it will all go smoothly. And that sure as hell won't come from just talking to strangers on the internet.

Find five people you can trust, figure out how to fend for yourself in any given situation. If you are young, understand that whatever purpose you are trying to find is not going to be here, it is with those who surround you. The internet is a tool used to manipulate people, not organically bring them together, so don't be so naïve in thinking you will find your brothers in arms anywhere on the web. GET OUT OF HERE!

 No.12388

>>12386
>For example it will falsify any working class angle to this populism using theories about the labor aristocracy
I don't that's necessarily true. The western left is pretty hostile to the concept of a Labour Aristocracy, simply because that would mean they would have to accept that they are useless. What I do however see is that this so called "populism" is laughed at, because it doesn't really mark a shift in power. In essence you have right-populism that is a revitalizing of old domestic industrial capital and left-populists that try to reestablish a sort keynesian social democratic concensus like in the post-war years.
>then turn around and use race-class synthesis to suggest we need democratic revolution as a precondition for an eventual socialist one
Can you give specific examples. I don't think I have seen this one
>Mostly because I think current populism resembles past forms in the 19th and 20th century stretching from the KMT to William Jennings Bryan to Bolivarians and Narodniks to the peasant socialist SRs
I can see your point. But in the end these movements can still be categorised as Socialist/Nationalist etc rather than populist. Populism seems to be more a style than a coherent ideology. I doubt there will be a movement in the future that will run under the banner of populism. We live in unstable times, and unhappiness with the status quo and "globalization" is a natural consequence of the contradictions of capitalist society. Populist sentiments are popular, but they are only able to channel broad unrest into some vague boogeyman. They can't last long, because a coherent movement like Marxism, or Fascism will form sooner of later
>The left doesn't have a problem with reproducing capitalism so long as it is in some way democratizing under the theory that capitalism needs to exhaust itself of this trend before a sense of exploitation and class consciousness sets in
I guess thats true for some currents. Left-Accelerationist for example. But Social Democracy doesn't think so, and Leninists don't think so as well. They are either content with Keynesian Capitalism or are actively struggling for Revolution. Those that are actively advocating for exhausting the capacities are rare imo.
>We need to dissolve the nation state in order to reveal the antagonism between international capital and labor, which means liberalism is currently still progressive
I wouldn't call it progressive anymore, but destructive. Liberalism in principle also isn't against Nation states since they were the reason for them in the first place. They just aren't neede anymore in the age of global capital.
>So the issue with populism isn't that it reproduces capitalism, but the wrong kind
Yes, certainly. Both Left- and Right-Populism advocate for states of capitalism that are not only hindering to reveal the antagonism of labor and capital(idk about right-populism though, since their form of capitalism might actually be better in showing the contradiction), but are also not possible to reproduce currently.
Unless you show me how Populism would be better in laying bare the contradictions.
>So long as globalization is in crisis due to the rot of the nation state, the left will default to supporting liberalism as still progressive, even in an imperialist state that just achieved post communist unipolarity
The western left is plagued by identity politics. Anarchism is pretty much openly Liberal and Leninism is in a stalemate. I personally don't think Populist movements are any coherent movement. Most of them pander to big tent Socialist, Liberal, Reactionary blocs in the end. I don't really understand why you advocate for "populism" though. Do you think it will be better in showing the contradictions between capital and labor?

 No.12389

File: 1620087243878.jpg (241.49 KB, 400x550, NSDAPfamily.jpg)

>>12332
>>12332
>If you want to claim that National Socialism represents a "meaningful step" in western philosophy, you better have the fucking balls to prove that statement.
One of the oldest questions in western philosophy, seemingly answered at some points and at others left unknown, is as to what exactly a human being is "meant to do" in his life.
The question as to what is objectively "good" and "bad".
To answer this question in the modern context, one might begin by asking what exactly a human being "is" on its most basic level.
And to this end one may in turn ask where exactly the being originated from, as its origin may shed light on its nature and in turn its purpose.
In the case of the human being the origin is now, for the first in human history, actually known.
It comes in the form of the fathers sperm meeting the mothers egg, the genes within mixing and mutating, resulting in a third cell.
All that a human being is, comes from the genetic material of this third cell.
From its limbs, to its sex organ to its brain and the consiousness which rises there in.
Ergo we can say that a human being is objectively first and foremost a genetic organism
And as such?
We can say that whether a human life has purpose or not is determined upon the basis of the function of its genes as it is defined objectively on this basis.
In the case of genes the function of genes is reproduction, and as such the reproduction of one genes is the fullfiment of ones purpose and the preservation of ones self to the fullest possible degree.
All that which aids the procreation of ones genes can be objectively understood to be "good"
and all that which hinders it objectively understood on this basis to be "Bad"
The understanding of this and implemenation as political and personal philosophy being National Socialism.
>>12334
>>Marxism misunderstands and infact misreprsents the human condition.
>[citations needed]
Marxism works off the enlightenment era assumption that man is first and foremost a rational unmoored self interested ego, completely independent from and equal to his fellow in all meaningful regards without inherent morality or purpose.
The entire basis of class consiousness is predicate upon this assumption.
As human beings are in reality biological organisms motivated largely by their evolutionary drives (which their cultures and hierachies are infact a manifestation of)
Marx misunderstands humanity and as such misunderstands both how they will act and how they OUGHT to act given their biological and inherently tribalistic nature.
We are not pleasure seeking egos interested foremost in our own "material interest"
We are infact genes who manifested consiousnesses for the sake of their preservation, both in our own person and in others, and this explains often enough why parents sacrifice for their children and why soldiers sacrifice for their "nation."
All of this is a result of the long arm of evolutionary phycology
And while it isn't really Marx's FAULT that he didnt know about evolutionary phycology (he wrote right around the same time Darwin was formulating the initial theory)
It does mean Marx was wrong, largely as a result of the time he wrote in, in his conceptualization of human nature.
Not in the way liberterian autists argue mind you,
as they to argue on the same enlightenment era egoist frame work in an even MORE explicit and unrepentant manner,
But rather in a way regarding the biological nature of man and the inherent impulses and infact purpose which manfiest there in.

 No.12390

>>12387
Awful lot of whining. I post on here for fun and I’m a member of a party that’s over a hundred years old. You’d have a point if I ever tried to argue that leftypol is the nexus for a revolutionary movement, which I didn’t.

 No.12391

>>12389
Since you actually earnestly tried to respond I’ll type up a response after work tonight.

 No.12392

>>12388
>The western left is pretty hostile to the concept of a Labour Aristocracy, simply because that would mean they would have to accept that they are useless
They've adopted not only that theory, but the settler colonial one as well
They don't accept they, the middle class, are useless because they are interested in institutions
The left is more concerned with rurals than the middle class, the labor aristocracy and settler colonialism is used to explain the gap between the latter suburban and urban types and the former.
>What I do however see is that this so called "populism" is laughed at, because it doesn't really mark a shift in power. In essence you have right-populism that is a revitalizing of old domestic industrial capital and left-populists that try to reestablish a sort keynesian social democratic concensus like in the post-war years
Pretty much, but it shouldn't be laughed at. It's challenging what the western left isn't able to
I think its anti imperialist
>>12388
>Can you give specific examples. I don't think I have seen this one
Arguments over the electoral reform or surrogate democratic party reveal that position. You see it in the left and liberals after 2016, a belief that unless we vote blue colonialism will not be held at bay
>>12388
>Do you think it will be better in showing the contradictions between capital and labor
I dont know if it's better at it but it's the closest thing to a force showing it
But it's more accurately a division over globalization, not capital.ssnpSSNP

 No.12393

>>12389
Okay, back. Gonna be kind of brief because I've got some vidya gaems with buddy to get to. Your argument seems built on the naturalism fallacy (I.E. Nature = "Good") but let's not forget humans are nature's paradox. As the only form of intelligent life that we're aware of, we've taken ourselves out of nature and all the biological imperatives that come with it. You can say that our goal is to carry on our genes, but the truth is we have free will and can voluntarily choose not to.

But even accepting that logic for a minute, by its very nature it destroys Nazism. The iron law of nature is not, as some "Darwinists" misstate, the survival of "the fittest." Rather all evolutionary biology is rooted in adaptation. The creature that survives is the one most able to adapt to its environment. To, in essence, diversify itself. Throughout life, from tiny flowers to mighty dinosaurs, everything ends up changing. When a species stops changing, it becomes an evolutionary dead end.
Look at Nazism; if it were really obsessed with passing on genes to the next generation, then it wouldn't have its obsession with "racial purity." After all, even if the whitest scandinavian had a child with the darkest african, the child would still inherit genes from both of its parents, even if darker skin is the dominant gene. However, Nazism doesn't care about that. Instead it ascribes "cleanliness" and "dirtyness" to certain races and peoples. It tries its damnedest to preserve its supposed "racial purity" by ruthlessly calling diversity.
But its another evolutionary truth that homogeneity in genetics ultimately leads to sterility, just look at what happened to the Aristocrats of Europe with their obsession with "blood purity!"

Rather than enhancing the fertility of German society, Nazism sterilized it. "Degenerate" art was banned. "Dirty" races were exterminated. The end result of all of that was an ultimately sterile society; one that could produce no art, no great works, and ultimately had its genes "dirtied" by foreign soldiers when they lost the war.

Nazism isn't a philosophy based around life. Its impotent. Sterile. Much like Hitler himself. Its violently obsessed with purity which is a betrayal of biological reality. It's, if anything, a philosophy of death.

But you know what is a philosophy that would allow mankind to continue to pass on their genes? Marxism-Leninism. That's the only political philosophy on the planet that sees man as more than a commodity, that opens itself to the world, to life itself, and embraces it.

 No.12394

File: 1620157284864.jpg (101.03 KB, 800x462, darklsd (2).jpg)

>>12393
>>12393
> Your argument seems built on the naturalism fallacy (I.E. Nature = "Good")
Common misconception and infact a forgivably understable one.
National Socialism is based around the understanding of the function of biological organsisms being the origin of their morality; not their nature.
There are a great deal of things a human being may be predisposed to do by virtue of his genes or enviroment (such as excessive alhohal use, self harm or homosexuality) which are none the less objectivelly immoral as they undermine the survival and reproduction of ones genes.
Just because you are morn with a mental ilnnes that predisposes you to serial murder does not serial murder in your case is moral (in so far as you are capable of consious action)
>but let's not forget humans are nature's paradox. As the only form of intelligent life that we're aware of, we've taken ourselves out of nature and all the biological imperatives that come with it.
I'm honestly curious if you actually believe this how in the hell you think Marxist Socialism is ever going to arise??
As Marxist Socialism is, after all, first and foremost predicated upon the appeal to material conditions of the working class.
If the material conditions of the working class (which are necessairily biological in character given that the material the workers are made of is bio-matter, responding to stimulous over time) are not objectively important how would you be able to say that Marxist Socialism was the inevitably product of a capitalist economy?
Just through argumentation (Which will necessairily by your frame work be inherntly baseless) and emotional appeal given in hopes of calling workers to the banner of your cause???
Granted i have put the words of this response in your mouth to some extent,
But IF that is the fundimental basis of world view it seems pretty inherently idealistic my dude.
No real scientific study of history to speak of.
>You can say that our goal is to carry on our genes, but the truth is we have free will and can voluntarily choose not to.
Yes anon we have free will
We can also choose to blow our brains out, throw ourselves from tall buildings and cover ourselves in gassoline light on fire.
If you accept free will (as Marx very arguably didnt given his largely determinist philosophy) the only real question is what we OUGHT to do.
If we cannot answer that question all answers are equally valid
Their would be no quantifyable or objective way in which your view would be superior to even the most brainless "Racist" Liberterian Alt-Right Incel.
>But even accepting that logic for a minute, by its very nature it destroys Nazism. The iron law of nature is not, as some "Darwinists" misstate, the survival of "the fittest." Rather all evolutionary biology is rooted in adaptation.
You know its funny anon,
and I dont want to sound TO dismissive saying it,
But that is literally the exact argument my creationist parents made to me when I went through my "le epic edgy athiest" phase around 12.
Anyway, moving on.
>The creature that survives is the one most able to adapt to its environment. To, in essence, diversify itself. Throughout life, from tiny flowers to mighty dinosaurs, everything ends up changing. When a species stops changing, it becomes an evolutionary dead end.
Anon i am sincerely curious who actually taught you this?
Without trying to sound like TO much of a dick,
you are aware single celled organisms are still a thing correct??
Crocodiles as basically the same genetic form as they were 200,000,000 years ago, and out lived by 10s of millions many other animals (including the dinasaurs) who much more thoroughly adapted to changes in their enviroment.
You are to some extent right one point, namely the implied point of the common understanding of evolution being an autistic upward trajectory towards an "ubernmenc" or apex preditor or some shit.
This is really just based more then anything on a misunderstanding of what is meant by "Fittest;" which is usually believed to refer to the some superior phisical quality on the part of the organism.
In reality what "Survival of the Fittest" means is survival of that which is "Most well fit" to the conditions of the world as it exists.
Humans for instance, adapaptable and consiouss as they are could all die out tommorow in result of nuclear war.
The cockroach however, despite having existed in the same form far longer then humans and also being far less phisisically superior by most human estimation would none the less have been proven to objectively superior to humanity as a species given its continued survival in our absesne.
>Look at Nazism; if it were really obsessed with passing on genes to the next generation, then it wouldn't have its obsession with "racial purity." After all, even if the whitest scandinavian had a child with the darkest african, the child would still inherit genes from both of its parents, even if darker skin is the dominant gene.
Yes but if both parent share some genes then the more genetic material of both gets passed on to the next generation, which causes those who breed within in race to be more evolutionary succesful then those who breed without as more of their genetic material is passed on
(Before it is brought up, incest is also immoral under National Socialism as the act causes genetic mutations which in turn alter the gene pool and also produce children which are incapable of survival via defect)
>However, Nazism doesn't care about that. Instead it ascribes "cleanliness" and "dirtyness" to certain races and peoples. It tries its damnedest to preserve its supposed "racial purity" by ruthlessly calling diversity.
Anon,
Have you ever actually read any major work written by a National Socialist?
>Rather than enhancing the fertility of German society, Nazism sterilized it.
How So?
>"Degenerate" art was banned.
Which cause the genetic sterilization of society how?
Litterally the same point of western liberals used to make of the USSR my dude.
>"Dirty" races were exterminated.
Fairly objectively untrue given that the term "holocaust survivor" is a thing, its farely clear they didnt actually EXTERMINATE any race.
But again,
How does this relate to genetic reproduction?
>The end result of all of that was an ultimately sterile society;
Their birth rates litterally and quantifyably shot up…
> one that could produce no art
Anon you are aware that the third riech litterally comissioned aritsts and skuplters correct??
>no great works
Suppose it depends on what one considers "great" but i find the restoration of the Germany economy under hitler (which if you disagree with i'd be happy enough to debate in its own right) fairly considerable
>and ultimately had its genes "dirtied" by foreign soldiers when they lost the war.
To your credit,
At least you have ONE point which is directly related to your thesis lol.
To your point,
This is litterally the same thing as saying that given the fact that China, Vietnam and most "Marxist" nations the world over now whore their own populations out as slave labor in sweat shops to multi-billion dollar corporations that some how Marixsm; which is doctrinally opposed to these things, somehow supports them "subconsiously."
You can say the third riech failed just like the USSR failed; both reduced to pitiful losses and the destruction of what they held dear.
But the rape of women and children in berlin no more discredits National Socialism then Sweat Shops of the "peoples republic of China" discredit socialism.
The degree to which Marxism allows private property and wage labor is the degree to which it by definition is not Marxist socialism
And the degree to which a state fails to value the genetic procreation of its people is the the degree to which it is not National Socialist.
>Nazism isn't a philosophy based around life. Its impotent. Sterile. Much like Hitler himself. Its violently obsessed with purity which is a betrayal of biological reality. It's, if anything, a philosophy of death.
Anon if the justification you have for this position is merely the end of WWII then socialism is, inherently, an ideology of wage labor and slavery to international mega corporations
As represented in the current state of east asia and Russia itself today.
>But you know what is a philosophy that would allow mankind to continue to pass on their genes? Marxism-Leninism. That's the only political philosophy on the planet that sees man as more than a commodity, that opens itself to the world, to life itself, and embraces it.
Marixms-Lenninism doctrinally and definitionally sees human beings as nothing more then material agents of history.
If you think the ideology is about "carring" for people who need to read Marx's critiques of the Utopian Socialists.


Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]