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.
>>11467All a reading list like that could accomplish is giving someone a really schizophrenic political education.
Also I'm not seeing much from Italian fascists in that list. Where's the doctrine of Fascism?
Honestly, the Nazis were the more incompetent fascist movement, so I'm at least glad to see they continue to be an albatross around /pol/'s neck.
>>11465Interesting. Wondered why this board is so dead.
>/pol/ is fascistThat's an oversimplification.
>that leaves the door open to White Nationalists happens, they flock to it like a moth to a flameWhen a poor man asks for alms, and all shut him out but one, what will that poor man do?
>their class position as the children of middle income earners, as asocial loners with serious self-esteem issuesProbably, but it isn't much different from the people here.
>a way for maladjusted individuals to exercise violence upon others to satisfy their libidinal urgesIt all comes back to sex with lefties doesn't it? When everything is a penis, this says more about them than /pol/.
>You weren't changing peoples mindsThey changed mine. It seems unfathomable to some that one may go from typical commie or just far left beliefs in general over to the generalized majority of /pol/.
>Generic Holocaust Denialism, FBI Crime Stats, Bell Curve Nonsense.I appreciate how this paragraph offers nothing to the contrary, only suggesting that /pol/ is erroneous because you said so.
>It takes ten minutes to debunk a ten-second lieYour ten second lie is defeated with a meme. It takes lefties ten minutes to debunk a ten-second meme because they're incompetent.
>Its because literally no one things about race and racism as much as /pol/Not sure. May be true. It's certainly an issue worthy of being broadcast and taught in schools and universities constantly.
>mistakes annoyance for witProjection.
Enlighten me lefties. What makes you come here? I came here out of curiosity. No activity on the rest of the threads, and this one said /pol/ so I went 'aha! this should be interesting'
>>11515>That's an oversimplification. yeh you're also a bunch of boomer libs
>When a poor man but you're all rich kids
>It all comes back to sex with lefties doesn't it? When everything is a penis, this says more about them than /pol/.http://understandingworldreligions.com/classic%20works/Goodrick-%20Clarke%20Occult%20Roots%20of%20Nazism.pdf Press f3, type "sexo-racist gnosis"
>They changed mine.(((they))) yes indeed
>>11468What makes me come here? Memes and news
>>11522???
>>11523You didn't read it. If you did, you should try reading again, but slowly.
>>11524>only non redditized leftoid spaceThat's fair. Disagree with the rest
>but you're all rich kidsSo /pol/ is rich, middle class, and poor at the same time? Odd. I was using a metaphor though.
>(((they)))Yes, the jews have shown me the light of the israeli lobby…
>memes and newsFair enough I guess.
That link just takes me to a whole book. The search pulls up a bunch of assertions of a sexo-racist gnosis, without delving into any sort of meaning. If it's hidden deep in the book, I do not have time to read it at the moment.
>>11531You're convinced spam threads form the consensus of ideas? Why?
>>11530I'm sorry for your reading ability.
>>11532Cemeteries are typically quiet.
>>11528>So /pol/ is rich, middle class, and poor at the same time? no rich and middle class
>Yes, the jews have shown me the light of the israeli lobby…(((they))) being various intelligence agencies, zionist outlets and other far right and media influences, I gave you an article,
>>11468comment on it. It contains proof your entire "movement" glows to high heaven, and it always has.
>>11534>You're convinced spam threads form the consensus of ideas? Why?Beucase "spam" is practically the status quo.
>Cemeteries are typically quietI'd rather have an imageboard with a moderate pph in which discussion can happen without the thread hitting the limit after about an hour then one in which threads either fill up rapidly with low effort posts or get slid off entirely.
>>11538Yeah, killed the spirit makes more sense. I agree mostly, spirit is still there albeit heavily damaged. Lot of trash to sift through, but I would argue someone cares enough about its existence to post trash in the first place. That whole annoyance v wit thing in the OP.
>>11540>rich and middle classMy point was you can't honestly believe the general population there is from a particular class and not all of them.
>comment on itI can promise you I'll read it. I can not promise you I will read the 4 hours of reading material you guys just gave me before I have to go.
>movementThere is no movement.
>>11541>status quoFair, as I said, there's trash to sift through. Think about who would put trash there and why, coupled with the activity.
>I'd rather have an imageboard with a moderate pphAlso fair.
>>11539Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries
This is literally all projection, you're a midvit masquerading as an intellectual. Lmao then you strawman everything with your completely brainwashed idiotic take.
Fact is these "fascists" are growing all over the western world, truth is these "fascists" are only suffering a temporary setback due to censorship. All over the western world left wing parties are dying. You've let your major parties become kidnapped by corrupt oligarchs, yet you're so thickheaded that all you can think about is Trump. You're losing Europe and libtards won in the USA, now they will continue fucking USA up even more, do even more unjust wars waste even more and it will all be associated with the left.
Hell the american left even failed with force the vote because most are corrupt globalist mouthpieces, he renegged on literally every single progressive promise, you're not getting healthcare, you're not getting a minimum wage, you're not getting student debt forgiveness. Biden is even building border walls.
You live in a fantasy land of delusions you concocted for yourself, truth is the social conservative right/third wave movements will continue to grow. They will do so because libtards are the real racists, because they are completely hypocritical and will continue to drive people into their arms. This will only escalate and censorship can only slow it down.
Hell even your delusional take on the kohlface meme displays your utter lack of originality and understanding of chan culture, it's literally a joke right wingers on kohlchan made themselves, it doesn't reflect reality, we all know the surveys which display right wingers have more sex, are less mentally ill and are more attractive, there is absolutely no reason not to assume the same is true of right wing contra left wing channers. Also make your own OC or atleast shoop out the "kohlface" from the meme, jesus christ does none of you know how to use even paint?
Also chopping your dick off and changing gender just not to stay a virgin is pretty sad tbh desu.
>>11551>all other anglo countries except Canada(although right is growing there too) The right is growing amongst the elderly and Anglo countries are getting increasingly old. That's literally it. Go check who elected Trump. Go check the UK elections. Pretty sure Corbyn won every working group in 2017, right up to the 65s and still lost, that's how utterly undead the UK is.
There is no hope for the right in these countries. OAP's aren't gonna storm the halls of government on their mobility scooters. The only thing it can accomplish is winning the ballot box, which achieves at best a preservation of the status quo. Deciding the window dressing of the slow economic, demographic and ecological decline of the west.
>>11525>but you're all rich kidsKek. My parents went bankrupt, after already being poor to begin with. My mom is in a wheelchair from her MS. I was a lefty until 2015. I wore a CCCP t shirt and voted for Trudeau. My favorite genre was hip hop and my parents were explicitly anti racist. It wasn't until he bailed on everything he promised that I found /pol/ and slowly shifted to the right.
Now? I made $24k last month, and I'm set to make even more this month. Whh? I embraced the tenants of fascism.
Arbeit. Macht. Frei.
Keep projecting though, all your shortcomings and failures are your own fault.
>>11573Very persuasive, I definitely don't want to gas you now.
>>11574Because I didn't want harper to win re election. NDP is throwing your vote away.
>>11576'Member when you guys made a small handful of images and came to pol only to get btfo so hard by one aussie posting more fresh content than you had to raid with that this place shut down for a day?
People who have never even been on 4chan 'member.
fedFed >>11579I don't speak frog
>>11577Booj? Failson? You'll have to speak in normal English this is my first time on bunkerchan. If you're implying the son of a low income family is bourgeoisie Im at a loss. I grew up in a rented duplex sharing a bedroom with two siblings. Now I own my own business and pay my staff $75/hour.
>>11584Yeah, I started it from the ground up. I was never born into wealth. I saved money, I lost $25k, which was my life savings, the first time I started my own business and had to go back to my old job begging for a part time position. Now I net that much a month.
You can do it too, if you work hard enough.
>>11580<'Member when you guys made a small handful of images and came to pol only to get btfo so hard by one aussie posting more fresh content than you had to raid with that this place shut down for a day?This isn't Bunkerchan
>>11582>claims to have been a commie before becoming fascist (read: went from radlib to racist lib)>doesn't even understand simple class termsUnsurprising.
>>11594So basically you have to work for someone else to not be a bourgeoisie? Is it explicitly a function of being an employee?
Literally anyone can start a business.
>>11596I help people make more money and get taxed less and get financing for expanding their businesses.
>>11597Proof? What do you want? My website? My biz banking statements?
>>11605Sorry I'm not going to post something you can commit fraud in my name with
>>11606Yeah, and anyone can get capital. I lost my life savings trying to start my first business, went back to washing dishes.
>>11609The homepage is still bunkerchan.xyz
>>11602Is it a meme around here to start throwing books at eachother until someone backs down instead of demonstrating you can explain your beliefs and reasoning in your own words and a convincing manner to other people?
>>11609>>11606fedFed >>11580Nobody raided you fag. You guys literally just did it to yourselves by avenue of halfchan anons fishing for (you)'s, and then you decided to have a meltdown and spam cp and gore. And when that failed to get the response you wanted, you tried falseflagging as anons and screencapping the posts. Even when anons called you faggots out, you would still try and cope by leaving out any of the replies.
>>11593Stop being such a newfag. Bunkerchan split from .org months before the /pol/face meme was even a thing, and the split had nothing to do with the raid, but rather mod drama and Space_.
>>11608i would not purchase insurance from a business which isn't sufficiently skilled at avoiding disaster to redact the doxable info from a bank statement.
(well, maybe i would if i was planning to do some kind of insurance fraud, but i'd have to plan it out first.)
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11602Im asking for clarification
>>11604Then it wouldn't be a very good business would it?
>>11619I could also easily edit ANY bank statement to make it look like I was earning 100's of thousands of dollars a month. I could easily use a clients bank statement as well, and larp that I'm making millions. Either way I'm not going to do either from my phone
>>1161480% of businesses fail in a couple of years. The key is to keep working and not just give up because you failed.
Arbeit. Macht. Frei.
>>11628did you actually quote the posts in the wrong order
are you fucking high
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11631Looks like I did, due to the poor functioning of this website. How come racist incels can make a better image board than the enlightened individuals who come here?
Not high though, I quit that to help me focus.
>>11643>Arbeit Macht Freiexcept it literally doesn't. what you are advocating is not that Arbeit Macht Frei, but that das Kapital Macht Frei
(das Kapital the concept of money-capital, not the book.)
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11656Yet I had no capital. I was born poor. My parents owned no property or assets, and lived paycheck to paycheck, going bankrupt from not being able to pay the bills. How did I free myself from that?
>>11659Yes you've posted that 3 times now, does it make you feel better about not being successful?
>>11571I think people really underestimate this effect. I found alt right influence on my life to be overwhelmingly positive. I saved up money. I got out of my parents house. I started working out and eating healthier.
Had to drop the Jewish stuff just for sanity’s sake but I’m still glad I found the nazis on the internet. They made my life better.
>>11670That's because /pol/ is willing to engage in an actual conversation based on the merits of your ideas. Nothing's truly taboo, and if you're searching for answers, you'll find a wealth to choose from.
It's been less than an hour and I've already witnessed more vitriol and scorn from leftypol than /pol/. While one may be an absolute clusterfuck of content, this is a typical hivemind that attacks anyone going against it's confirmation bias.
read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book >>11661>Yet I had no capital. I was born poor. My parents owned no property or assets, and lived paycheck to paycheck, going bankrupt from not being able to pay the bills. How did I free myself from that?And? Our analysis of what defines a capitalist isn't an emotional one, you just are or aren't. If a person who is capitalist wants to turn class traitor, thats all fine and great, but that doesn't negate the overall analysis made about capitalism itself.
>>11665>implying keeping an open mind and taking the stance of allowing the most liberties and freedoms we can without infringing upon others' abilities to succeed within the system society decided on isn't basedThis isn't any capitalist society I've ever heard of, or really how most societies operate in from a practical political perspective.
>>11679>Something I've noticed in particular so far is that despite a core part of showing you understand your beliefs is to be able to state them in a simple manner that a layman can understand. I've yet to see it.You. Are. Not. Smartest. Person. Ever.
You. Need. To. Consult. Past. Work. On. Idea.
Other. Smart. People. Exist. And. Have. Existed.
Read. Book. Faggot.
>>11646Yeah man, sorry we have too many words here and don't spam wojaks all the time and yell uyghur transhumanist faggot
>>11679>Something I've noticed in particular so far is that despite a core part of showing you understand your beliefs is to be able to state them in a simple manner that a layman can understand. I've yet to see it.My belief is that you should acquaint your head with the pavement and stop wasting air, illiterate cuck.
>>11688I don't really understand the class warfare narrative, it comes off as a misguided attempt to cause division among the low/middle/upper middle American demographics, while accomplishing nothing to further anyone's personal wealth or prosperity.
To hell with class warfare, everyone should recognize that they're responsible for their own livelihoods and not beholden to whatever bracket of wealth they were born into.
read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book >>11674So I got capital. How did I do it? I worked hard and saved money. Anyone can do that.
>>11677100%, except the jew part. I deal with jews all day long and they are the most ruthless, scummy and unkind people on the planet. 2nd to only the Chinese.
>>11681Never read any self help books
>>11682Im not a capitalist. I'm a fascist. The only reason I am even in the business that I am in is because it is profitable and I need capital to be able to raise many happy, healthy children and help them overcome this disgusting capitalist, socialist world. The jew world order will erode one day, but if I live in it I am doomed to participate. I would rather emancipate myself than emaciate myself.
No matter which age you live in, hard work will improve your life's circumstances.
>>11706>How did I do it? The less you eat, drink and read books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save-the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor dust will devour-your capital. The less you are, the more you have; the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life-the greater is the store of your estranged being
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11706>Im not a capitalist. I'm a fascist. The only reason I am even in the business that I am in is because it is profitable and I need capital to be able to raise many happy, healthy children and help them overcome this disgusting capitalist, socialist world. The jew world order will erode one day, but if I live in it I am doomed to participate. I would rather emancipate myself than emaciate myself.Anon, you are a capitalist. Being a "fascist" doesn't make you not a capitalist, if anything it just makes you more so. Your system and this system is system doomed to crisis, whatever way you slice it.
>No matter which age you live in, hard work will improve your life's circumstancesWhere did I state I was against hard work? Hard work is fine, and people should be made to work as workers. Including you.
>>11677>I started working out and eating healthier. Worth noting that I yell at the young ones here about this etc and was yelling the same thing at the young ones back before the ancient board split between /leftypol/ and /pol/
fwiw I was always communist lefty/pol/ never a Nazi
Also now that you've gotten the basics covered have a read through Stalin's shortcourse
https://archive.org/details/historycpsushortcourseBoth comrade Xi and Mao studied it diligently and they became the most powerful men on earth
>>11709Never read any, to be frank. The lightning and the Sun is probably the most liberating book I've read.
>>11710You don't have to abstain from enjoyment to be successful. Right now I'm about to head for a walk down the beach followed by beers and Gelato with my wife and our dog. Every morning I work out and once a week or so I even play some vidya.
>>11706> No matter which age you live in, hard work will improve your life's circumstances.lol
> The only reason I am even in the business that I am in is because it is profitable and I need capitaWhat business are you in, and while a pedantic point money != capital stop using the two interchangeably it makes you look stupid.
accelerationAcceleration >>11708One's relation to production for society has absolutely nothing to do with class, unless you're discussing Communism and not Capitalism.
>>11714That seems to be the case based on this post's lengthy preamble. Disparaging the upper middle class comes off as an envious and fruitless endeavor; every American has the ability to achieve an "upper middle class" income within their lifetimes, but holding them in contempt for the success accomplishes nothing.
The majority of Americans are already within the global 1% of earners, it's something to be humbled by rather than resentful towards. There's nothing wrong with highlighting class inequities, unless you're end-state is to eradicate the system entirely.
read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book >>11721>No matter which age you live in, hard work will improve your life's circumstances.>lolHow can you even argue this? Every commie i know shows up to a 9-5 job, barely works, and comes home to a messy house to order skip the dishes. They are communists because they are fundamentally lazy under achievers.
As mentioned earlier my business is commercial lending, insurance and corporate tax planning.
>>11694I can’r speak for anyone else, but I’m not.
Empirically speaking, “debates” do not change opinions. At least not of the people debating. There’s better praxis that people can do, although talking about praxis on an imageboard is laughable.
And besides that, who the fuck do you think you are? The resources are available if you want to educate yourself and not just shitpost. Just crack open “Capital.”
>>11717I’ll check it out. Also the alt right got me reading books.
What do you think of the national social Democrats from Vietnam? They seem like a really good political party but I’m just not that familiar with what they actually believe.
>>11725> Every commie i knowHow do you know they’re commies, anon?
Have you heard of the phrase “my boss makes a dollar…”
>>11725Your anecdotes are worthless anon, and we have to first define what you mean by commie since it's clear you have low verbal iq and struggle with proper definitions.
Also it's ironic you are spending your sunday shitposting on a board that doesn't want you here while complaining about lazy workers.
accelerationAcceleration >>11730I disagree with this take for the very reason it dismisses criticism and ends on a footnote of 'read a book uygha' which is about as spineless as it comes. I believe people who arent truly at their core disagreeable and ignorant remain open to the arguments and positions presented before them then evolve around it even if the arguments and positions are contributed in an environment where the goal is to win, such as a court.
>>11731Imagine you don't have the definition of class you hold in your head right now.
Imagine your only sense of relativity has come from the reality around you.
Imagine now you hear because of the mechanisms of capitalism and production, the gas station owner down the street is just as detached and exploiting of his employees as Amazon, Walmart, Target, etc.
Does it seem like you have been presented a convincing argument or one that amounts to "How dare you seek to elevate yourself"?
fedFed >>11730Debates can easily sway opinions if you can provide enough evidence to leave an audience doubting their own beliefs.
Hardcore leftists have changed my perspective on wealth in America through debates. Originally I was a strong proponent of Rand and Objectivism, through compelling argument they proved many of the top 1% manipulate legislation to entrap citizens into a down-spiral of cyclical debt, while enriching themselves through fraudulent methods. Wall Street stands as grand testament to regulatory corruption.
I'm willing to listen to the merits of anyone's argument, as long as they abstain from absolutism and extremism. Unfortunately /pol/ is one of the rare outlets in which politically incorrect ideas can flourish as they would normally be vehemently censored on virtually any other platform.
read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book >>11740Fucking lol'd
>>11737Most people don't open espouse fascism because its not socially permitted. You can put a commie flag on your jewbook profile picture and not get banned
>>11737Any fascist you've met exclusively online is more than likely a Larp.
I've known 2 self-professed "fascists" in person. They were both health nuts, that held an inflexible contempt for obesity.
read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book >>11724>One's relation to production for society has absolutely nothing to do with class, unless you're discussing Communism and not Capitalism.Where the fuck do you think you are? Yes, we are advocating for communism.
>That seems to be the case based on this post's lengthy preamble. Disparaging the upper middle class comes off as an envious and fruitless endeavor; every American has the ability to achieve an "upper middle class" income within their lifetimes, but holding them in contempt for the success accomplishes nothing. >The majority of Americans are already within the global 1% of earners, it's something to be humbled by rather than resentful towards. There's nothing wrong with highlighting class inequities, unless you're end-state is to eradicate the system entirely.This isn't about income or envy you pseud, its about relations to production. An engineer who makes $100,000 a year is still very much a prole.
>>11762>ran a newspaperThat he got funded by his rich friends that he defrauded lol
>organized labour unionSo a jew being jewy and not working but finding a way for others to pay for him to sit around and do nothing
>>11768I missed that note, anon actually said marx worked but only by implying he was a petite bourgeoisie.
Like pottery
>>11768You don’t have to take Marx’s word for the things he’s written. They’re literally grounded in classical economics and anthropology to an extent as well.
Marx and Engels weren’t just political theorists, they were pioneers of the field of Social Science.
>>11766>Where the fuck do you think you are? Yes, we are advocating for communism.First time here, I try to abstain from calling every lefty a Communist off the bat.
>An engineer who makes $100,000 a year is still very much a prole.An industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, earns their living by selling their labor to achieve a satisfactory income to achieve prosperity for their family is the fundamental core of the American Dream.
read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book >>11768He was keenly aware that his field was contingent on the rest of society, and cared about the vast majority who labored under employment in worse circumstances. The same can't be said for the asspained burgers in this thread who can't read.
>>11772Are all journalists self employed? Also being self employed doesn't mean petit bourgeois, it's an artisan in Marxist terminology.
>>11763O hai explain to me why the USA education system is so garbage?
>>11717 ←- also me
To give you a sense of the calibre of the response I'm expecting since it's my day off work and you amuse me
stalinStalin >>11797My theory is work sets you free. Your theory is gibs me dat fo free.
It doesn't take an intellectual to figure out who will have the more successful life
>>11816Its the most fundamental principal of fascism. The harder you work, the more prosperous you are. The more people that work harder, the more prosperous we all are.
It's the polar opposite of communism which is to make everyone equal. You can only make people equal by bringing everyone down to a common denominator. You can't make everyone run a 9 second 100m. But you can make everyone roll across in a wheelchair.
>>11831According to capitalism, the lazier workers are worth more, because they exert less labor.
Therefore, they make the same as someone who works hard.
Clearly, capitalism will set us free.
tankieTankie >>11832your name drop makes no sense. bakunin was a fucking aristocrat.
> Reminder I don't read yea we figured
accelerationAcceleration >>11826>Its the most fundamental principal of fascism. The harder you work, the more prosperous you are. The more people that work harder, the more prosperous we all are.But that's not how any fascist economy worked at all. In fact, most fascist economies had wages for workers reduce overall while major business were provided state subsidy.
>It's the polar opposite of communism which is to make everyone equal. You can only make people equal by bringing everyone down to a common denominator. You can't make everyone run a 9 second 100m. But you can make everyone roll across in a wheelchair.Communism isn't about making people equal, and Marx decries the concept of egalitarianism inn Critique of the Gotha Program, as well as Engels in his letters. Can you even name me a single socialist state which mandated people be made "equal" in all things?
>>11838"Most fascist economies"
But Hitler Germany was the most prosperous nation i the world that took the entire British empire, Soviet empire and American empire to stop it. If wages dropped by dollar values tripled what does that imply about standards of living? Virtually everyone in nazi Germany OWNED a home
>>11841I disagree with his interpretation of how a system that he personally felt exploited by is inherently and in an organized, widespread, oppressive manner exploiting all within the system short of those with capital. I believe capitalism is a strong enough system and meritocracy that you have the opportunity to leave behind more in life than you began with and offer a better run to your progenies.
Still not quite sure what you believe beyond work bad, employers bad, trust government to allocate it right because 'the workers' are going to have an elected body that is less equal than the rest as every instance of it in practice demonstrates. It also seems like Communism is weak and vulnerable to outside subversion since it often falls to no fault of its own.
Regardless though, you convey yourself in a manner that alienates the average Joe and worker that wants to keep their head down and lead a good life. It's like you kneecap yourself before the race.
fedFed >>118441. wages stagnated under the Nazis
2. Germany has never been a nation with high home ownership rates.
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11844>But Hitler Germany was the most prosperous nation i the world Lol no. Literally had to stave off starvation by requesting grain imports from the Soviets.
>that took the entire British empire, Soviet empire and American empire to stop it. With the entirety of the Axis on its side, which allowed it to outnumber the Soviets in the vast majority of battles during the offensive into the USSR. Declaring war on the USSR while in the middle of war against Britain and France isn't exactly a badge of honor either anon.
>Virtually everyone in nazi Germany OWNED a homeSo did everyone in the USSR after industrialization and reconstruction you fag.
>>11860There's nothing more ideological than the
'common sense' of the masses. At least smart fascists read Nietzsche.
accelerationAcceleration >>11859Not the person you're responding to but this specter or abstraction of "the average person" is a ridiculous mirage. Either argue for something or not, don't pretend play like your the arbiter of what a normie is.
If you want to argue the present system is meritorious, or that a different system that is actually meritorious is desirable, argue as such. You are here, so you are not "average" and we don't expect "average" people to show up and autistically argue in this thread for hours.
>>11848>I disagree with his interpretation of how a system that he personally felt exploited by is inherently and in an organized, widespread, oppressive manner exploiting all within the system short of those with capital.But it does, purely by the numbers.
>Still not quite sure what you believe beyond work bad, employers bad, trust government to allocate it right because 'the workers' are going to have an elected body that is less equal than the rest as every instance of it in practice demonstrates.Who said work bad? You keep making this assertion. And why have employers when you can just have computer based central planning? And again, socialism isn't about equality, I don't understand where you get this idea. Its not about everyone being the same in "hierarchy".
>It also seems like Communism is weak and vulnerable to outside subversion since it often falls to no fault of its own.Revolutionary governments were fine when they were as voracious and aggressive as their opposition, and only faltered when they came to believe that there was time to wait.
>>11859>you're saying you shouldn't earn from the merit of your actions and effort1. Look at China and the amount of private businesses they have, heck, they even allowed billionaires. How's that "shouldn't earn from the merit of your actions"?
2. Capitalists are parasites, landlords are parasites, stock market players are parasites. Go to average Joe and ask him what he thinks of those people, try to persuade him that capitalist or landlord work as hard as Joe does and get laughed right in your face
>>11861Where do I get my bricks at the local BLM protest so we can stick it to the man while blacks take the flak?
>>11862No, I post like this here because I thought I would get discussion unlike 4chan where you piss into the sea of piss and have a giggle.
>>11863Notice how I did not mention it but you did. Beyond that, I don't think common sense is an argument to make when I can instead ask you what practical purpose your ideology presents to people who seek to live by their own merits and stick to their own lane? Why might that tie into the system remaining vastly ideological rather than practiced?
fedFed >>11859it is often better to convince people to hate their smug meritocrat overlords and see appeals to "meritocracy" for what they are than it is to convince them of the merits of communism.
(not as part of any ingenious long-term communist scheme to overthrow the meritocracy, but instead because of the relative position of the two ideas - there are already plenty of communists for the level of organization they are at, what communists need is not recruitment but structure - meanwhile, far too few people know about the history and structure of the meritocracy.)
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11868>No, I post like this here because I thought I would get discussion unlike 4chan where you piss into the sea of piss and have a giggle.Yeah.. This board is pretty fast as far as spin offs go, but still much slower than 4chan.
Seriously, people will have month long debates with pages of text and sources and pdf sources.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htmThis is a pretty short introductory text on what most people refer to when we say communism.
Please note: there is nothing about ethnic struggle or cultural marxism or any of that crap
tankieTankie >>11860I'm saying your pragmatism is nothing more than ideology, which is perfectly summed up in scales covering your eyes statements like:
> people who seek to live by their own merits and stick to their own laneas if such a thing is possible
accelerationAcceleration >>11877like hideo kojima made an entire game recently ruthlessly mocking and humbling any clown that believes tey are truly independent. Or you know pick any film or art movement in the 20th century and you'll see the same critique show up again and again. Your pragmatism is the sewer run off of a capitalist system ardently propped up by its most feckless neophytes.
>>11880What happened to forming 'concise and simple' arguments, because this is meaningless.
accelerationAcceleration >>11888To recap
> when cornered you become needlessly wordy and anxious> your pragmatism is propaganda and made fun of by nearly every art movement in historyPlease finish high school before trying to debate anyone again
accelerationAcceleration >>11902> whendozems of thousands of jobs leave a city and have no intent to come back despite it being an economic hub?Again, documentation please.
So many businesses around where I lived also closed down, but that’s because of the pandemic.
>>11900And I'm not Russian so the government doesn't take 85%+ of my wages.
>>11899But I'm not Chinese so I don't live in a system where I can't even say mean things about my government online lest they strip my opportunity and human rights away in an irl shadowban.
fedFed >>11903Are you telling me there are no press releases from major establishments such as Target that announced withdrawal expressly because of how the riots were handled and have no intent to move back in?
A tangent but did you know small first generation business owners are not only the largest portion of uninsured businesses, but that insurance doesn't cover civil unrest?
fedFed >>11906I’m asking you to find them for me. To do the actual work of confirming your assertions.
As for those businesses? Fuck’em. They’d otherwise either get bought out/outcompeted by bigger ones or become the bigger ones themselves. At least the former’ll proletarianize.
>>11911Putin, the guy who buddies up with oil oligarchs and has a palace in Crimea. Sure he doesn’t miss the union.
Burgercide when?
>>11906>Are you telling me there are no press releases from major establishments such as Target that announced withdrawal expressly because of how the riots were handled and have no intent to move back in?Then they'll just get replaced by a company who seizes the opportunity to establish themselves in the area, and obtain the unrealized profits in what is an economic hud.
>A tangent but did you know small first generation business owners are not only the largest portion of uninsured businesses, but that insurance doesn't cover civil unrest?And? By the merits of your system, they should be readily replaced by other competitive small business owners with capital. Always be ready to work, right?
>>11913Guess its better than it used to he.
>>11914You're setting arbitrary guidelines to argue within when we've already established we have such a massive difference in our fundamental beliefs that we will never see eye to eye. Why do you think I might just stand stand ground instead of moving into your semantics game?
fedFed >>11909>Is the USSR still around? How about the other soviet iteration? It not being around doesn't change the escalating crises of capitalism. In my view, the USSR's issue was that it didn't go nearly far enough in centralizing production once prior forms of algorithm had run their course.
>DPRK>Tyrannical Lol. Sometimes I wish the DPRK were the "monstrous" regime liberals make it out to be.
>>11925Don't wanna seem inflammatory but this place is just like every other chan, sorry man. That's what you get.
Generally the better way to go about it is to state your own arguments then have people argue against them, rather than ask them for a model of the world. People on the internet are too lazy for that shit and if they weren't you would read the theory you want to know about, even if you vehemently disagree with it by googling "Marxist theory" or going to Marxists.org.
>>11925>you will turn right around and make them in your own favor.Where?
>Those are flimsy principles to be ignored because theyre so far into ideology they will literally and not figuratively have any impact on a stable society short of it becoming destabilized.Stop talking as if you're making a documentary you pretentious uyghur.
>idpol heavy subreddit minus the upvotes.Where was the idpol you fag?
>>11943Okay simply look at how well communist movements have done, the state of Kerela in India is the most prosperous state while being ruled by communists.
Health Indicators
Kerala
India
Birth rate (per 1,000 population)
14.60
22.80
Death rate (per 1,000 population)
6.60
7.40
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 population)
12.0[22]
44.00
Maternal mortality ratio (per lakh live births) * 2009
40
301
Total Fertility rate (per woman)
1.70
2.90
Couple Protection rate (%)
62.30
52
Life expectancy at birth (Male)
71.40
62.60
Life expectancy at birth (Female)
76.30
64.20
Life expectancy at birth (Average)
74.00
63.50
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_model >>11465>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 No it's way more than that. 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
You guys want to on the one hand say populism and nationalism is petty bourgeois, so it reproduces capitalism.
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.
You do this so long as there is a middle class that obstructs class consciousness, which imperialism creates anyway.
Thus the race class synthesis in the settler colonial thesis. The issue isn't the reproduction of capitalism, ira basically who does so as part of the bourgeois democratic revolution still being progressive
But does this not conclude with rationalizing imperialism as progressive like Marx did?
This all seems to be why leninists and anarchists are in crisis while demsocs and such grow.
So how can you blame people who are populists because they have no stake in the reproduction of capitalism the left and liberals want? How can you call that reactionary when there is no revolutionary alternative?
ssnpSSNP >>11937> I'm looking for what THEY believe from Marx and all their other life experiences. What made them this way? What thoughts keep them this way?God, what fucking liberal brain bullshit is this? You think that this is because of our feelings and experiences?
We recognize our downward mobility, the instability and dysfunction of our political and economic system and its general active hostility to people. Our economy is a case study of the red queen effect.
>>11925"common sense" arguments are tedious and boring. if you wanted to actually talk about how things work in practice you'd be in an entirely different thread talking about china or cybersocialism or the fact that sphere starmer has now consumed all of hounslow.
your attempts to engage in conversation have fallen short largely because they don't raise anything of any particular interest to the userbase here. you haven't raised any interesting theoretical questions, historical moments, or anything that's particularly pleasing to explain, and people have responded with a level of disinterest as a result.
it is as though you've come into a statisticians convention just to argue about how you think the monty hall problem is bullshit because it runs counter to common sense. for about 5 minutes the statisticians will have fun trying to explain to you how counter-intuitively, it isn't bullshit, that they've done simulations and everything, and that statistics is a wonderful and fascinating field - and when you say that you're still not convinced they'll get bored and start telling you that the next time they flip a fair coin they're going to try and ping your eye out with it. except, of course, this is an imageboard so your eyes will be targeted not only for your own uninteresting questions, but even if you merely remind people of other uninteresting questioners in the past. people do not come to imageboards or to conventions to be bored. (well, maybe statisticians do.)
and as an outsider you will no doubt think "well of course you'd write this extended insult towards me, you're one of the people here who just wants to circlejerk", but let me let you in on a secret: i use this flag in part to tempt posters who i will find boring into revealing themselves before i make the mistake of talking to them in good faith. and as you can perhaps also tell, explaining to you why you have had such bad luck is something that interests me far more than many of the other things you have raised.
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11934>>11937Well I can't speak for everyone, but as a Marxist, I mainly came to this theory over a long process of 'radicalization'. First I was an unconscious liberal social democrat techie type with a Electrical Engineering degree. But I was highly conscious of systemic and environmental issues, as well as frustrated with planned obsolence.
Over time that led me to a position of understanding that capitalism demands constant expansion, constant production of "exchange values", in order to be maintained. As that is the case, this has major environmental implications. Through Jevon's paradox, improvements in efficiency cannot necessarily lead to diminishments in total emissions.
Thus we need to theorize a system, and advocate for a system, which demands a transcendence to the permanent closed loop of investment to yield profits, of constant growth. Or if there is growth as society demands, growth within ecological limits.
There are many approaches to this, some Marxist, many not. And not every Marxist places ecology in the greatest of esteems as I do.
>>11942Do you think governments have less power under capitalism or something? The government IS capitalism, it wouldn't even exist without them. >bringing power to the worker is going to work out as it has been demonstrably repeatedly.
To begin with, in every socialist state workers undoubtedly had more power than in their previous states, especially in Russia and China.
>>11953i have never pretended to be free of emotions. on the contrary my post is about an emotion: boredom.
(this without even having to read into whether some desiccated calculating machine of pure reason would write an extended tangent of mixed metaphors mainly as a vehicle for a few half jokes.)
the only irony, as i see it, is that you managed to reply to my good faith explanation with the kind of reply that justifies not giving you a good faith explanation. fortunately
>>11952 had a much better reply :)
democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism >>11970Define “running through capitalism.”
Never mind that india’s a federated state, shouldn’t communist controlling the government have ruined Kerala?
A communist named Jyoti Basu from West Bengal damn near became prime minister in 1997. What could’ve been.
>>11962>communism leadership has proven itself to have the freedom to singlehandedly destroy their own nations repeatedlyThe USSR suffered 2 colossal wars and still transitioned from semi-feudal state to nuclear superpower. You call that a failure? lmao.
>a shit system that repeatedly shits itself and blames the dog.You keep saying this despite socialism having improved the conditions of people in almost every case. Only occurrence I can think where this didn't happen is the Khmer Rouge.
>>11976Use enough brainpower to pass an 8th grade quiz that asks the same question. I anticipate the mental gymnastics eagerly.
>>11977Yeah I do. Because it fucking failed and never came back and is viewed as a historical mistake and tragedy against those subjected to it. 2 more weeks and capitalism will all break down.
fedFed >>11980You’re the one who made the assertion. I’m asking for clarification.
Could it be that you’re just spewing shit reflexively?
>>11991Whether or not it’s logical for them to miss it (according to a burger piece of shit) can be debated.
What’s an objective statement of fact is that they do miss it, and don’t consider it a travesty per your words.
>>11999>i think the right-wing populism is like imperialism and capitalism turning on itselfI think so too. But I think liberals represent imperialism here, not us
How come that means we are reactionary but viet cong were based natlib struggle
ssnpSSNP >>12013If most of them had suffered greatly under socialism I doubt this high percentage of Russians (
more than half) would have this opinion that the Soviet era wasn't bad.
>>12019Ok, put it out? Put out contradictory data and that can be used for conversation?
For example, only 28% of russians want to return to the same path the union was following. Which isn’t necessarily an argument because there was serious problems with how the union was run in the 1980s, but that does not in itself constitute a problem with communismTM.
Anyways, we should all do a Cockshott and work towards a new socialism.
>>12026>why your argument relying upon how people felt about something in some random poll can be used to accurately judge history.See
>>12028. Also, the majority of polls fluctuate between 65% and 75%.
>>12021>I guess I am despite your argument revolving around how people who got polled about something you feel strongly about feel when I'm trying to express why the logic behind it is really not smart.This is your argument:
>Because it fucking failed and never came back and is viewed as a historical mistake and tragedy against those subjected to it.If most of the people who were "subjected to" socialism are saying that it wasn't bad and a lot of them actually say they miss those times, then your baseless "argument" is fucking wrong. How fucking retarded must you be to think your pathetic excuse of an argument is not based on feelings too? And worse, it's based on
your feelings, not those of the people you claim to know the opinion of.
>>12041Why don't you try to have at least one coherent thought per post anon. We can't read your mind.
>>12040>despite it being common senseLike arguing with a child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question >>12030I'm from pol
>>12038>It's the same regime. The CPC's standing committee doesn't see a practical difference, just differences in tacticsReally? Can rightoid nationalist populists join the anti imperialist bloc of nations?
ssnpSSNP >>12052But anon, I'd never base my actual argument around a poll and how people feel about something that caused multiple famines the bread lines just couldn't keep people alive through.
A random ass poll from a year ago on how nostalgic boomers feel about the good ol times is comedy.
fedFed >>12053>I see an adhom It's not ad-hominem. I'm not saying you're begging the question because you're a childish dimwit. I'm saying you're begging the question AND you're a childish dimwit.
>but do you know what you call the latter half?Latter half of what?
Once again:
>>12040> We can't read your mind. >>12058>But anon, I'd never base my actual argument around a poll and how people feel about something that caused multiple famines the bread lines just couldn't keep people alive through.Ahh, and this is where we get to the classic part where you admit to base your twisted opinion on the Soviet Union on
>muh hololdomor>muh bread linesIf they were so bad and caused by the socialist system then why have so many former Soviet citizens stated multiple times before and after the fall of the Soviet Union that they were alright or better back then?
>>12063Go threaten the liberals deep interests on a structural level in a real way and observe how they start talking and behaving
You'll see it
stalinStalin >>12071>Sometimes it's better to not post at all than make yourself sound retarded. You know it, yet you keep doing it.
>I can't interpret a basic sentence that fits in a tweet>that means you're stupidYour syntax and grammar are completely fucked guy.
>>12058>I'd never base my actual argument around a poll and how people feel about something This all started here
>>11980. Did you or did you not state this?
>>12103Why don't you resd the study and tell us exactly why it's bullshit?
This is what we call a dialogue…
>>12068There is no one angrier in this thread than you lmao.
>>12071You can't write coherently when you're this angry. You've written several posts that barely make sense. To avoid confusion and ambiguity, you should phrase your ideas correctly and use proper punctuation. But of course you don't care if people understand you or not because when they don't, you have an excuse to try to make fun of them, because that's all you have. Truly pathetic
>>12072At first you claimed that the USSR was seen as a tragedy and blah blah blah. By whom? By that 75% of "nostalgic boomers" you say are not thinking rationally even though they lived in the Soviet Union and you didn't? Or by the blatant liars who made that shit up?
Just admit you don't have proof and we do, and move on.
>>12100>people here take the internet so serious one aussie shut the board down for a dayImagine believing this myth. Literally just one fag tooting his own horn, and everyone on /pol/ just believed him.
>hey those are the people who radicalized TarrantThat was 8/pol/, not us.
>>12125And you're not making sense again
I bet you're used to spamming a thread to bump limit because you merely don't understand what they're saying
>>12123>No, conversations where people talk at rather than with eachother That's called defending your views anon. You're not going to talk "with" someone when trying to show what you see as issues in their analysis of things, especially when they then defend that analysis.
>begin to flail about over why their sources are best sources even if it's a poll.Holy shit anon, you started this. You were the one to make a certain claim, anons refuted it, then you tried to say that polls can't prove anything in regards to the topic, even though its the only thing that could be used in regards to the topic (Russian opinion of socialism).
>>11986>>11991>>12021>>12044oh wow you are actually retarded
do you really not know how to evaluate polls for accuracy or do you think polls are a jewish trick and people just pay for results they want?
>>12140Lurk more faggot.
Do you really think that because you're shit worldview isn't tolerated makes us dishonest?
Make a thread about a topic, and I guarantee you'll get quite a few retards trying to engage you in good faith.
>>12149>No. I think your shit worldview that is so shit it only thrives in low population corners of the internet that jerk eachother off and immediately off puts anyone from the outside that looks in.this is a given, this is an imageboard after all
However, when I look at /SIG/ on 4/pol/ all I see is trad wallpapers and muh jooos.
There is no reading, no theory, and it really is a stretch to call /pol/ a board for politics.
>>12100>>'hey those are the people who radicalized Tarrant'No, we were practically the only board on 8ch who actively opposed the right wing ideas of the rest of the site.
>>people here take the internet so serious one aussie shut the board down for a dayThe site never went down during the raid, at most they turned CloudFlare DDoS protection on so that you had to solve some captchas to access the site every 10 minutes or so. The normal threads were mostly fine and most of the raid posts were contained in a couple of threads, the gore spam threads that were created were immediately deleted. The "aussie who shut the board down", who no doubt took the internet more seriously than all of us combined, was an assblasted /pol/oid making retarded false flag posts so that he could screenshot them and post on /pol/ as proof of his epic victory against those damn gommie drannies who made fun of me with a wojak edit, as shown here
>>12109If you want to see for yourself:
https://archive.vn/A9QAq#926235http://archive.md/WAj2B#925897Lemme remind you that this all happened because /pol/cels, who think an internet culture war and aesthetics are what matter the most in the world, were offended by a single fucking picture made in MS Paint, and you believed their version of the events instead of seeing through their bullshit as anyone smarter than them would.
>>12152I just did the math for you on that figure they gave in the Scientific American headline.
That's 0.000384615384615%
>>12156>find poll that takes a portion of the populace>insist it represent them all accuratelySo you literally don't know what scientific polling is.
>>12123In any case, you have 0 sources.
What do we have? Other than those polls you say mean nothing (without anynthing to back up that claim than your own mental gymnastics), we have scientific studies, statistics and history.
You are the only one here who's talking "at" others instead of "with", you refuse to engage in an honest discussion because you're mad about having been proven wrong early on.
>>12165Why would the corrupt nation in question, Putin's Russia, want to fake an opinion poll like this?
You'd think he'd fake it the opposite way, right?
>>12147they do a poll every couple years on several questions
look for yourself
https://www.levada.ru/en/tag/the-ussr/https://www.levada.ru/en/2019/08/07/the-soviet-union/>This survey was carried out May 24–29, 2019 with a representative sample of all Russian urban and rural residents. The sample comprised 1616 people age 18 or older from 137 localities in 50 regions of the Russian Federation. The survey was conducted as a personal interview in respondents’ homes. The answer distribution is presented as percentages of the number of participants along with data from previous surveys.
>The statistical error of these studies for a selection of 1600 people (with a probability of 0.95) does not exceed:
>3.4% for indicators around 50%>2.9% for indicators around 25%/75%>2.0% for indicators around 10%/90%>1.5% for indicators around 5%/95%
>In May 2019, the Levada Center repeated it’s list of assessments (14 in total) from the project “the Soviet person.” The respondents could choose an answer from the survey card if they corresponded with their ideas about the >>12166yeah, you type in prayer like mottos.
Definitely a zionist.
>>12172>Perhaps you were. I was debating an opinion poll does not erase famine, mismanagement, systemic oppression or collapse.No you said the poll was incorrect. You said that those percentages of the population don't hold that opinion because
YOUR "common sense" would indicate they hold a different opinion on a society they lived in based on your understanding of how life was like in that society based on your supposed superior understanding of what life was like there and how people would feel about it.
heres the latest one
https://www.levada.ru/2020/03/24/struktura-i-vosproizvodstvo-pamyati-o-sovetskom-soyuze/anon says
>>12009>>12009>75% according to the last pollWhich is probably quoting moscow times
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/24/75-of-russians-say-soviet-era-was-greatest-time-in-countrys-history-poll-a69735if you scroll down in the poll you see
<THERE IS AN OPINION THAT "THE SOVIET ERA WAS THE BEST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF WELFARE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ORDINARY CITIZENS." >To what extent do you personally agree or disagree with this judgment? (one answer)
>February 2020>Definitely agree37>Rather agree38>Rather disagree13>Definitely disagreefive>I am at a loss to answer637 + 38 = 75
>>12012
>75% of those polled that answered or 75% of all Russians that were expected to give an answer? Why might even people who miss nazi Germany say 'no, Nazi bad if interviewed?
>The poll held on 20 - 26 February 2020 on a representative nationwide sample of urban and rural population capacity 1614 people at the age of 18 years and older in 137 populated points, 50 subjects of the Russian Federation. The research is carried out at the respondent's home using the personal interview method . The distribution of answers is given as a percentage of the total number of respondents, along with data from previous polls.your move
>>12184I reject your narrative
Refer to the OP, it explains everything (aside from stormfront)
>>12179>No you said the poll was incorrect. You said that those percentages of the population don't hold that opinion because YOUR "common sense" would indicate they hold a different opinion on a society they lived in based on your understanding of how life was like in that society based on your supposed superior understanding of what life was like there and how people would feel about it.You're giving me your brain worms. Apologies for repeating myself.
>>12181>I sure didn't because much like your opinion theirs doesn't matter in any pragmatic way that has a tangible effect on reality and that's how it stays until we're all dead.So now you're conceding the poll is accurate, but you're saying it doesn't matter.
>>12178>>when this board exists because it couldn't handle bants on 4chan or 8chanThis is like saying /pol/ exists because it can't handle bants in real life.
The answer to both is censorship forcing movement. Most mods and jannies on /pol/ ban communist theory.
>>12181>much like your opinion theirs doesn't matter in any pragmatic way that has a tangible effect on reality and that's how it stays until we're all dead.Ok, so now you're admitting that your assertion that "socialism is seen as a historical mistake and a tragedy" is wrong, yes? Because, using this logic, there's absolutely no way to prove that what people think about it one way or another is objective or reflects reality. The only way you could prove such a thing would be by asking the people who experienced socialism.
Therefore, you can no longer use the claim that "socialism is seen as a historical mistake and a tragedy" as "proof" that "socialism bad".
Unless, of course, you're not basing your claim on what ex-Soviets think, but on what imperialist sources have fabricated. If so, that's a whole another problem.
>>12226Can you respond to
>>12141 please?
>>12229I wasn't sure what to draw from it and I really don't have enough hands on with it to form an opinion, I just know our Healthcare industry is one of the most busted in the entire world.
>>12230But anon, I advocated infiltrating those groups to feed info to the glowies.
fedFed >>121844chan was better moderated when there were commies and not just liberals and fascists in the mod team.
Also read the OP and stop believing /pol/.
>>12178/pol/ literally banned communists forcing them to migrate to other site. You're a fucking retarded newfag.
>>12236Very cool, but I didn't ask.
You like Biden?
>>12201bruh if you're claiming that you don't post (or spend a significant amount of time) on /pol/, stop acting like you know more about it than us. You can't seriously believe all that shit about "/pol/ is right again" when they're the ones obviously shitting up every other board, right? These pictures are years old, the reason why everyone hates that board is that they've been trying to infect the whole site for years and they've succeeded, and you didn't even notice, now you're starting to believe them.
https://archive.is/DadgHhttps://desuarchive.org/q/thread/284599/http://web.archive.org/web/20210320044847/https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/125003.htmlLike other people said, next time you see one of "us" trying to start shit in a non-politics board, ask them about LTV.
>>12242It was worse back then, but yes, if you're a genuine communist who's really advocating for communism or criticizing fascism/conservatism from a leftist perspective, they'll censor you and possibly also ban you. Obvious shitposts made by obvious /pol/cels pretending to be communist stereotypes just so others can attack a strawman don't get that treatment. Besides, the origin of /leftypol/ was mostly /lit/, so you're double-wrong.
>>12215>I have no proofGood to know.
>>12290They targeted gamers. Gamers. They targeted gamers. Gamers. We're a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the hardest, most mentally demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital token saying we did.
We'll punish our selfs doing things others would consider torture, because we think it's fun.We'll spend most if not all of our free time min maxing the stats of a fictional character all to draw out a single extra point of damage per second.
Many of us have made careers out of doing just these things: slogging through the grind, all day, the same quests over and over, hundreds of times to the point where we know evety little detail such that some have attained such gamer nirvana that they can literally play these games blindfolded.
Do these people have any idea how many controllers have been smashed, systems over heated, disks and carts destroyed 8n frustration? All to latter be referred to as bragging rights?
These people honestly think this is a battle they can win? They take our media? We're already building a new one without them. They take our devs? Gamers aren't shy about throwing their money else where, or even making the games our selves. They think calling us racist, mysoginistic, rape apologists is going to change us? We've been called worse things by prepubescent 10 year olds with a shitty head set. They picked a fight against a group that's already grown desensitized to their strategies and methods. Who enjoy the battle of attrition they've threatened us with. Who take it as a challange when they tell us we no longer matter. Our obsession with proving we can after being told we can't is so deeply ingrained from years of dealing with big brothers/sisters and friends laughing at how pathetic we used to be that proving you people wrong has become a very real need; a honed reflex.
Gamers are competative, hard core, by nature. We love a challange. The worst thing you did in all of this was to challange us. You're not special, you're not original, you're not the first; this is just another boss fight.
fedFed >>12284> your asshole is also capable of being buttered up by being cohesive when dealing with the feds“Cohesive?” I genuinely don’t understand
>which I am not, I just think it's the most appropriate one.That’s a suspiciously specific denial. It would make a lot of sense, though.
>>12277Doug Funnie = Short for Funkenstein
Skeeter Valentine = Originally Valenstein
Patty Mayonaise = Originally Mayo
Everyone character on that show is a crypto Jew.
>>12284What does being a compliant bystander have to do with opsec? Do you think they’re in on it, anon?
Is that what the glowie flag is about? You wanting so hard to be a cop?
>>12295Sorry turned off my flag for a second.
>>12288Whole show takes place on an """"operating system""""". Only one non-kiked OS.
fedFed >>11465(T-NatSoc poster btw for anyone who cares, didnt want to misrepresent)
>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.Will give it a read anon
>/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.If i may ask anon
Have you ever actually read any NatSoc literature?
I dont mean this necessairily as a "jab" its just that I have a hard time anyone who has read Germany Tommorow or even White Power by GLR would come away believing it was simply a "conspiracy theory"
The ideology preports to be a "world philosophy" which gives fundimental tenants to both personal and political life
Even if your initial position is that it fundimentally FAILS to provide as such it may help to read NatSoc literature to better critique it
I for the record originally read Marxist and leftist literature for much the same reason
>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.Anon, keeping in mind that you are self admitedly inebriated, may i ask what exactly is the fundimental difference between this and the "/pol/fag" types who call you
>"transhumanists"and ignore your arugmentation on the basis of your supposed character??
I for one know nothing about you
For all i know your a drug addicted child predator with down syndrome
Yet I (a pathetic and brainless reactionary CHUD!!!!) am capable of engaging your ideas without commenting on my assumptions of your character.
I would hope to Christ infinitely more wise and intelligent (and superior no doubt) theorists of lefty /pol/ would, AT THE LEAST be capable of attaining at least the minor grace of virtue my poor psuedo intellectual capabilities grant me
>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.If such is the case then why bother mentioning it?
I mean if their arguments trully our manifestations of their class positions and nothing more it should be easy enough to undermine said positions on their own merits.
Something i might add would make your argument the stronger.
>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.…
Anon i've read through a paragraphs worth of diaologue at this point
where exactly do the
>"Critiques"Begin???
>/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.Out of curiouslity how would you factor in the riot at the capital into all this?
>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.Republican party seems as though they'd have been much happier both before 2015 and currently with a candiate OTHER then donald trump being selected
largely because were one?
They'd probably be in controll of the presidency and both houses of congress right now
>Which brings me to my final point: you've all been useful stooges for right-wing parties. Wait hold the fuck up
Where the fuck is the ideological critique??
lol.
>What was your overall strategy?Destabilization of the political order, moving the overton closer to explicitly ethno-nationalistic politics through promotion
Given the fact that 40% population now thinks elections are bullshit and the most watched cable news show in america just talked about replacement theory life on the air i'd say its going pretty well
>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.This sounds like alot of cope for a dude whos watched the "left" become defined as explicit Reganism with a D after its name in his life time
(apologies if that came as snide but given the fact there apparently is NOT actual argument to this post i dont think it was tottally undeserved)
>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.>You weren't changing peoples minds. You were pushing the oldfags out with your excessive faggotry.If thats the case anon why not just mock us into oblivion??
If we trully have NO arguments why not just bully the right off the platform like the right bullied feminist types???
Memes are easy enough to come up with.
The only issue to be had beyond them is argumentation, which if you fail at makes it harder to further your opinion on a public space.
>Your entire board's culture is dedicated to seething about all the sex blacks and Jews are taking away from you. Exactly how often do you think we think about sex anon??
Most /pol/ocks report porn threads and sage the shit out of any discussion regarding sex as quickly as possible.
No one talks about black guys fucking white girls but literal shills who everyone immidiatelly calls a faggot.
Who the fuck are you even characturing at this point??
>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! Anon i dont know who exactly on the "far right" you think your critiquing
But i can honestly say that in my ideal state anyone who invaded the nation, or aided in the invasion of the nation (such as a business owner seeking cheap labo) would be publicly lynched, their corpse adorning the borders of the nation themselves.
>All the Left wants is for our fellow workers to be treated as human beings, rather than as subjects of a totalitarian regime.As you were indoctrinated to want to do on the basis of the liberal morality propagated by the very same capitalists you claim to oppose.
>There's a saying that /pol/ would be wise to learn: "It takes ten minutes to debunk a ten-second lie."Similar to the lie
"Profit is theft" anon??
>>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.Oh no shit anon.
But that goes for everything doesn't it?
the holocaust
the moon landing
The fucking shape of the earth
We can go down all manner of shizoid holes in the persuit of our bias if we wish but it cannot and will not ammount to an objective argument unto itself unless universally applied
Be as skeptical of what the FBI and learning institutions say as you want, but be prepared to either apply that standard universally or be called out as an idiot to stupid to realize his own inconsistancy.
In any event however?
You wont have "debunked" anything
You will just have denied it
Purely on the basis of your own standards of evidence i might add.
>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.Sounds like alot fuckin cope for a guy whos entire argument is based around being suspicious of of that which he is told selectively.
As for normies people are indoctrinated to believe what they believe from childhood
It is only men of at least meagerly differenitated intelligence who ever question anything they are told.
If you are not one as such that is your business
But i someone doubt writing "critiques" of other ideologies is then the ideal line of work for you
>No alliance with Fascists.Never would expect as such from you anon
The only people who would commit to such are utiliterian
And if you were utiliterian
You wouldn't be a fuckin Marxist
(IE someone who sees wage labor as inherently wrong as "exploitation")
>>11571>Whh? I embraced the tenants of fascism.>Arbeit. Macht. Frei.This is parody right? Did The Nazis ever use this slogan anywhere besides the camps?
>>11575>Very persuasive, I definitely don't want to gas you now.Literally shaking RN.
>>12315Oh of that anon
I have no doubt
>>12316Your Perogative
>>12317Sorry about that anon,
It is late and I didn't grow up in education was really provided lol
Written english is more less akin to a second language to me, one i had to teach myself.
>>12318Yes and yes
But Marxism as an ideology isn't one which is truly coherent in that regard.
It gets around this as it isn't truly at its core an advocation for an action on the basis of benefit but rather a statement on what it sees as the inevitable conclusions of a system
Still in so far as material interest is considered to be the "end" of human action it makes no sense to oppose actions on the basis of their "alienation" to the given "worker"
>>12320>Have you? No offense, but it is hard for a Kraut like me to even imagine this. Most NatSoc literature is in german and written in a very specific context only suited for germany around that time period.I have
though i would challenge the assertion that National Socialism only makes sense in a single context as i would argue it necessairily reaches beyond that context as it represents the next meaningful step in the progress of western philosophy.
Its like saying democracy can only be understood in the historical context of ancient greece and any modern implication is, on that basis alone, unfounded.
>>12323>it represents the next meaningful step in the progress of western philosophy. lol, motherfucker what? Its a conspiracy based around some idea of a "super race" that's brought low by Semites which are simultaneously the strongest and weakest "race" out there. Nazism has contributed absolutely nothing to the western philosophical canon, its just some fucking Austrian incel seething about Jews. The entirety of its philosophy and morals devolve down to "Everything would be perfect if the kikes were gone."
Its a pathetic ideology. I can at least give Italian Fascists credit for trying to create something new.
>>12324>Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy about creating the most happiness, not "working towards a goal by any means". Anon i stand by premise
And whether you believe i have or not, i have, in so far as anything an anonymous person on an image board says means anything, read mill.
Marxism misunderstands and infact misreprsents the human condition.
If you saught to increase human happiness including your own you would attempt to implement an ideology which understood human phycology and its evolutioanry base and integrated as such into the doctrine of its an idelogy.
Such as National Socialism infact does.
>>12327>lol, motherfucker what? Its a conspiracy based around some idea of a "super race" that's brought low by Semites which are simultaneously the strongest and weakest "race" out there. Anon not to be terse
But this litterally the equivilant of
>"Socialism is when the government does stuff, the more stuff government does the more socialist it is"tier understanding of the ideology.
>"REEEEEEEEEeeeeeeee">>>"reeeeeeeeeeeeee"Anon is this really the best you fucking got??
This pathetic screaming of unsophistcated emotion into the void???
I could expect as much from a lib anon
But not a Marxist
Marxists (at least in so far as i've talked with them) ALWAYS at the LEAST have an ARGUMENT for their views.
You are the first self proclaimed i've seen in a long time who litterally doesn't.
>>12328Guitly as charged.
>>12329Go to sleep.
Btw, in a communist country, you’d likely have been able to get a decent education or at least taught to read and write so that you could better engage with ideas and communicate your own.
>>12329If you want to claim that National Socialism represents a "meaningful step" in western philosophy, you better have the fucking balls to prove that statement.
All one can look at, if they were to examine the material "achievements" of Nazism, is a Europe that was devastated by war, an economy that was run by slave labor, and a "super race" that lost a war against people it considered "subhuman."
I might be riding the waves of some fucking lager, but I can at least recognize bullshit when I see it. The entire political philosophy of Nazism rests on unchallenged assumptions (that "decadence" is a measurable thing that destroys civilizations) and a host of bullshit.
>>12331>Go to sleep. Perhaps should
>Btw, in a communist country, you’d likely have been able to get a decent education or at least taught to read and write so that you could better engage with ideas and communicate your own.kek
Touche
Though the same could be said for a NatSoc country anon,
Though i will admit, i would absolutely rather have been born in the DPRK then the US.
>>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.Sure anon,
And i will
Assuming the thread is still up come morning i will respond IN DEPTH,
you have my word.
>>12329>Marxism misunderstands and infact misreprsents the human condition.[citations needed]
>>12330Weirdly enough in philosophical discussion, words have different meanings. With people spending there lives debating over the definition of something.
>the fact somebody else redefined it within a specific field doesn't change its standard english definition.That somebody else created one of the most influential moral philosophy in history. He didn't "change the definition", it was used as an extension.
>>12323>Its like saying democracy can only be understood in the historical context of ancient greece and any modern implication is, on that basis alone, unfounded.That would be another discussion and the case can be made that the Athenian concept of democracy isn't being used anywhere in the modern world.
My point however is that National Socialism was loosely based on the concept of prussian state socialism coined by Oswald Spengler. And this ideology was specifically designed to reject "english Liberalism" and "french Anarchism", and to be only suitable to the german people. To appropriate an ideology that pretty much openly doesn't care about the conditions of other countries except germany, for a non-german is frankly quite stupid.
>>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 populismWhat 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 leftWhat did he mean by this?
>Thus the race class synthesis in the settler colonial thesisDid 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
>>12345Ok? Cool story bro
>>12350You'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 >>12351Nah. I'm that guy
>>12305I just think you're fun to troll. You seem desperate and kinda permanently online. You reek of projection
>>12353I 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
>>12361He 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?
>>12361I'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?
>>12362I did cap my ban from leftypol and no I'm not going to post it on pol. A new folder in the bans folder.
>>12360Thanks man it's a note from your playbook!
fedFed >>12368?
Pass 8th grade english.
fedFed 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.
>>12373I'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?
>>12375Didn'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.
>>12376Let 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 >>12377So 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.
>>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 >>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 unipolarity
ssnpSSNP >>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!
>>12386>For example it will falsify any working class angle to this populism using theories about the labor aristocracyI 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 oneCan 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 SRsI 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 inI 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 unipolarityThe 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?
>>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.
>>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 uselessThey'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 yearsPretty 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 oneArguments 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 laborI 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 >>12389Okay, 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.
>>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 artAnon you are aware that the third riech litterally comissioned aritsts and skuplters correct??
>no great worksSuppose 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