[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/meta/ - Ruthless criticism of all that exists (in leftypol.org)

Discussions, querries, feedback and complaints about the site and its administration.
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1734887180980.png (387.39 KB, 546x438, hologram.png)

 

Hello /leftypol/ users. This is a thread to post ordinances, i.e. ad hoc rules voted on by the modocracy, which are not covered explicitly by the rules in rules.html, though most are arguably applications or clarifications of actions prohibited by the existing rules. Any posts violating these ordinances will be removed, and possibly banned at the mods discretion. This post will be periodically updated to reflect new ordinances, or to remove old ones.

  1. H*z is banned. Any mention of, depiction of, video, audio, or image (including memes) of, or related to, the individual known as Adam Tahir (more commonly known as Haz Al-Din), including associated projects such as the media collective "Infrared", or the US-based "American Communist Party" founded in 2024, etc. are BANNED.
  2. No non O.C. Wojaks, Pepes, or Groypers. Any Wojaks, pepes, groypers, etc. which are not /leftypol/ original content are considered spam.Superseded by rule 15 on 2025-04-20
  3. The Wojakifcation/wojak script is banned. This is a bit of javascript, commonly used on bunkerchan, which takes a post one is replying to and posts a greentext version of it in a pre-made wojak template, which is used as a reaction image.
  4. 'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25
  5. For original posts outside of /siberia/, "coomer bait" images which are sexual, sexualizing, or appeal to the prurient interest in any way are BANNED and will be spoilered or removed. - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-02
  6. Evading original post word minimum outside /siberia/ is BANNED. - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-02
  7. Incel posts are banned site wide (i.e. incel talking points and making 9999 threads complaining about women, saying all women are bourgeoise/sluts/etc.) - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-02
  8. "Feral" furry porn (i.e. drawn or cartoon pornography depicting a character that is a four-legged animal, or to a significant degree non-anthropomorphic) is BANNED, and will be spoilered or removed at the moderator's discretion - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11 Superseded by extension of rule 10 on 2025-02-17
  9. Climate change denial, especially to the extent of excessive doomerism and BP shill tier takes, is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11

why is haz banned? did he do something fucked up or is it because he's a fascist?

>>38493
I assume it's because it's mostly petty internet drama that's been beaten into the ground. It's kind of a shame, because I do think there's a lot to be said about people like Haz and movements like the ACP beyond said petty internet drama, and he just so happens to make for a good example.

'We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois.' Marx, circular letter of 1879.

File: 1735790930759.png (54.95 KB, 1200x402, GgLDVtpXMAA8T0z.png)

>>37647 (OP)
>'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25
This is silly. Hopefully you only ban "rhetoric" like magacom retards saying women are bourgeois or that living in a developed country automatically makes you bourgeois and living in a poor country automatically makes you proletarian, and not actual analysis, like Engels explicitly saying home-owners are neither proletarian nor part of the haute bourgeoisie.

>>38497
That quote does not back up your claim

>>38530
Engels is literally saying home-owners are neither proletarians nor capitalists (aka haute bourgeois), something obvious to anyone except for American leftists or third-worldist idiots.

home owners are bourgeois

>>37647
Before banning people for making soyjaks - CHECK THE FUCKING CONTEXT AND THE IMAGE.
IF THE SOYJAK IS LEFTYPOL ORIGINAL CONTENT, THEN YOU SHOULDIN'T FUCKING BAN IT. BECAUSE THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE QUALITY CONTROL PROPOSAL - TO FOSTER ORIGINAL CONTENT.

>>38552
I PROPOSED IT HERE FIRST >>37636 IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR THAT VERY REASON.

File: 1735868077245.png (5.66 MB, 4096x3239, oedipus.png)

>>38552
If it's not a /pol/jak or a version of a /leftypol/ related character how are they supposed to know it's OC? I've caught a ban for it before but I realized even though I made it in response to the specific content of the thread it could have been assumed to not be OC. After thinking about it, that's actually probably better because it doesn't just encourage OC but /leftypol/-specific OC which if it spreads would increase our footprint in the meme-o-sphere.

>>38556
>how are they supposed to know it's OC?
It's making fun of reactionaries. It's from the /Occult/ thread caricaturizing ITS (the eco-extremist / ecofascist cult). Context matters.

>>38556
>>38558
plus you can always upload to leftybooru so it counts as a leftist meme or to the original content thread

>>38561
Fine, I uploaded three of the edits on lefty.pictures
even though they're contextual.

Can these ordinances also be on the rules page? finding them on /meta/ isn't obvious to everyone

I agree with all of these.

>>38632
will probably be done as part of a wider rules/constitution rework

>>38632
>>38671
Could probably just put a link the the current ordinances thread on the rules page or something like that. Idk can you add a frame to the html that loads at least the OP so it shows at the bottom?

>>38672
probably easier to just add the ordinances as HTML - its on the todo list anon

>>37647
>'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25

communists need to recognise the class basis of communism and start drawing lines in the sand between those who have an interest in communism (the proletariat) and those who dont. only shows the priorities of the mods with this

>>38564
Consider adding a comment on the posts to explain the context.

>>38675
Honestly, it's shouldn't even be allowed to be considered a rule until it's in writing. Having a todo list for it is just asking for trouble.

>>38530
>>38533
Every person selling their labor power in the developed world: a politically emancipated proletarian! Is it a bit too hard of a fact to cope with that the responsible employee - good democratic citizen - is middle class, and a worthless audience? That the proletariat, the propertyless reserveless wage worker, is a minority?

You can go on and treat well-earning office employees that behave as respectable democratic citizens as politically spoiled proletarians, whatever, but enshrining this in a rule to ban anyone not doing so is ridiculous. I don't think that has much to do with the reality of class, and is not in line with how Marx nor Engels used the term either.

>>38684
Yet another idiot who thinks we're in the 1960's again

>>38677
the proletariat has no interest in communism, or else we'd be in communism or socialism in like 2 centuries ago. the proletariat is far more interested in caveman level bullshit like nationalism, christianity, fascism, idpol strawman, moral panic, billionaire+politician worship and etc…

>>38683
it already is in writing, on this thread

>>38692
What a dumb thing to say.

>>37647
Are you going to post this thread on the main board too or just hiding it away on this subforum.


1. Immensely silly to ban discussion of a person and/or party. Just inane
2. Why? Was there ever really a problem with this and wasn't the whole chudjak thing a good example of leftypol culture reversing memes? Do we think the userbase will suddenly become reactionary if they see a picture of a wojack? Reasoning here would be nice.

3. Good.
4. Immensely silly rule. Will ensure that Marxist/Anti imperialism discussions are hobbled. Not a surprise as all western leftist debate addicts end up making ideological proscriptions but disappointing from leftypol.
5. Fine
6. Don't know what this means but ok
7. Sounds good on paper but the sort of vague rule that will lead to mods interpretation ruling the day

< Whoever imagines that socialism can be achieved by one person convincing another, and that one a third, is at best an infant, or else a political hypocrite; and, of course, the majority of those who speak on political platforms belong to the latter category.
- Lenin


two new ords passed per mod vote

File: 1736649273467.png (168.89 KB, 1080x1398, harkness.png)

>"Feral" furry porn (i.e. drawn or cartoon pornography depicting a character that is a four-legged animal, or to a significant degree non-anthropomorphic) is BANNED, and will be spoilered or removed at the moderator's discretion - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11
A talking animal is anthropomorphic.

>"Feral" furry porn (i.e. drawn or cartoon pornography depicting a character that is a four-legged animal, or to a significant degree non-anthropomorphic) is BANNED, and will be spoilered or removed at the moderator's discretion - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11
Please reasssess this rule, this is WAY too broad.
When the character is clearly not a sophont then sure, but when the character clearly is a sophont this is excessive.

>>39051
What about for one cell microorganisms? =(

File: 1736688172712.png (630.83 KB, 1200x600, ClipboardImage.png)

>>37647
>"Feral" furry porn (i.e. drawn or cartoon pornography depicting a character that is a four-legged animal, or to a significant degree non-anthropomorphic) is BANNED, and will be spoilered or removed at the moderator's discretion - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11
What counts as "non-anthropomorphic"?

>>39055
on that scale? probably 4 and 5

>>39060
The beatrix potter range? Again this seems excessively broad.

Surely we could copy a anti-zoo rule from a furry site that has this figured out rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

File: 1736717900995.png (250.48 KB, 480x360, ClipboardImage.png)

>>39060
4 includes stuff like Zootopia and Robin Hood.

>>39063
>>39064
bruh unless zootopia has a sex scene I'm not aware of i'm pretty sure those movies aren't covered

>>39065
Most erotic fanart of zootopia is either on-model or only exaggerates proportions.
You'd be being obtuse to put judy hopps or my little pony stuff in "non-anthropomorpic" just for being feral. Sapience matters a lot here.

>>39055
>>39060
>>39065
>intelligent talking bipedal animal is "feral"
Bloody retarded.

>>39067
The etymology is flawed but yeah furries call designs that don't significantly change the physiology of the animal being anthropomorphized "feral." A lot of furry etymology is confusing, like calling scalies or avians furries, because the "fur" in furry isn't referring to literal fur anymore, the term was cemented before anyone thought too hard about that.
The rule has deeply flawed wording because it either makes no exception regarding sophonts, or does not make clear that such an exception is present, like basically any other site with nsfw furry art would.

>>39068
wtf is a sophont

File: 1736728314604.png (282.76 KB, 400x600, ClipboardImage.png)

>"Feral" furry porn (i.e. drawn or cartoon pornography depicting a character that is a four-legged animal, or to a significant degree non-anthropomorphic)
So if somebody did furry porn with a bear where the bear is standing upright that would be different from on all fours? Because actual bears (and various other animals) stand on two legs in real life.

>>39070
bears mostly walk on the ground and only stand on occasion

>>39069
An intelligent being; a being with a base reasoning capacity roughly equivalent to or greater than that of a human being. The word does not apply to machines unless they have true artificial intelligence, rather than mere processing capacity.

>>39068
yeah like boorus have a specific tag for bestiality and feral is a whole different thing lol, really unfortunate name

>>39070
behold, plato's beatiality porn!

What's the reasoning behind Ord 1? I think the MAGAcom movement is worthy of discussion, and Haz is worth making fun of.

>>39092
it was passed right after h*z freaked out and called the feds on leftypol and called leftypol pedos

>>39094
Is that it? That's retarded.

File: 1736896945982.png (38.51 KB, 200x200, ClipboardImage.png)

>>39092
He's a lolcow who thrives on negative attention.

>>39092
Us making fun of him is the whole reason he has a career.

>>39092
>>39094
>>39095
>>39097
IMO the occasional Haz/ACP mention should be fair game in /ISG/. The site shouldn’t be overtaken with him, but he is a really funny lolcow, and it’d be nice to hear about what he’s up to every now and then.

Hello, this is a request to unanchor the 2nd magacom thread with special permissions from a mod
Im trying to turn it into a place for serious discussion instead of shitposting and trolling

https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/2112790.html

why is feral banned, is loli content banned? the rules don't specifically mention it. lolicon is actually illegal in some countries, but feral is illegal literally nowhere and not really shock content either, what is the purpose of this ban?

>>39138
I believe feral is questionably illegal in some places, but yes loli is already banned

>>39139
oh well, its strange to me.

>>37647
>>39138
i did some cursory internet searching and could not find any source for feral pornography being illegal or legally questionably, with the exception of jurisdictions that restrict or prohibit pornography in general.
>>39139
is there any source for this?

and have any members of the sites administration given a rationale for these virtue signaling ordinances?
i can understand keeping content that may be illegal in some places off the site in order to prevent it from being blocked or taken down, and this is not a porn site, however it is a site which allows porn, so what is the purpose of passing these incredibly niche and specific restrictions if not simply for the sake of signaling the arbiters own virtue?

File: 1737284808231.mp4 (50.48 MB, 576x1024, 24737494747493.mp4)


>>37647
If you're gonna have rule #8 you really ought to re-word it. At the moment it's the kind of rule that makes you ask questions: did this site used to be a hotbed of feral porn? What was the inciting incident that got it banned? Why is it singled out compared to other kinds of objectionable 2d content?
I'm not asking those questions, but those are the sort of things it puts into the reader's mind, and they're not - so far as I can tell - "real" problems. This site never had large amounts of feral furry porn, never had any specific incident to get it banned, and there's no specific reason to treat it differently. If I'm wrong, correct me, but it looks bizarre in context.
By contrast: we have had issues with Hazposting, Wojaks/pepes and the related script, "real prole" rhetoric, coomer bait, minimum post-length evasion, incel posts, and climate change denial. The strong implication based on the surrounding context is that we've also had some kind of feral porn infestation.

File: 1737754613265.mp4 (14.68 MB, 640x270, MODSARENOTGODS.mp4)

>>39420
>I'm not asking those questions
I am asking those questions, right now.

Mods why is feral banned? is there some legitimate legal reason? or are you just trying to prominently display your moral righteousness with regards to fucking drawings

>>39423
>>39420
its fucking weird that THIS is the most controversial ordinance. Not haz, not anything else.

siberia gooners are willing to DIE ON THE HILL for FERAL porn

>>39425
It's weird that it was even made an ordinance in the first place. We have no idea which janny purposed it or why, and they've been radio silent on this both on here and on the /leftypol/ thread.
>Not haz
All that could be said of him has been said.
>Not anything else
All the other rules make sense and were already pretty much rules beforehand.

>>39425
i don't care that its feral specifically, i'm opposed to it because it has no reason, and no purpose. if it's to imply that feral is somehow uniquely worse than any other drawing, then im ready and willing to die on the hill.

>>39425
>its fucking weird that THIS is the most controversial ordinance. Not haz, not anything else.
Because it's the one that makes no sense and raises questions about how and why the ordinances are decided. The Haz one makes sense because of his history with the site. All the others are pretty self explanatory.

Since you all left Haz spam go on for a week with no announcement anywhere obvious, does this mean the ordinances are over? Rules that are sometimes rules and sometimes not rules depending on how pissed off the mod is that day aren't really rules. It wasn't even good drama people were just talking about pegging him a bunch.

>>39092
He has a career by being a lolcow. If everyone just stopped giving him free advertising, he would decay. Debatebros live through this negative attention.

>>39431
They're just offline sometimes. Report a Haz post at both AM and PM times and it'll get zapped.

>It's weird that it was even made an ordinance in the first place

every single message board I've been on has this phenomenon where the moderators try to fix what isn't broken by making new rules after new new rules, always constraining, never enabling.

It's something about having to feel like you are doing something to maintain your position. If a mod simply acted like a nightwatchman and did nothing except remove illegal stuff, then the other mods might suspect them of not contributing, so you get this kind of group dynamic where the mods collectively have to prove to each other they are participating, but the only way they can think to do this is by making up rules to ban things. There's a limit on imaginations.

>>39456
Maybe there should be a tracker for how many reports a mod/janny has reviewed or something like that, so there's a measure of what they're doing.

>>39457
That seems like it'd just make things worse, like public services being funded through traffic tickets in burgerland. The jannies should be okay with slow days rather than finding incentive to make up more things to zap.

>>39458
>more transparency of people in power would be bad

>>39459
If it's for transparency then make it a log. Cohost had a bunch of nice examples of lists over numbers being healthier.

>>39457
>>39462
I have been recording all mod actions (including report dismissals) on a spreadsheet for years.

>Climate change denial, especially to the extent of excessive doomerism and BP shill tier takes, is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11

based

AI/LLM whatever, being unreliable on facts and easy to use for spamming nonsensical slop, perhaps should be explicitly banned or somehow regulated with an ordinance or rule.

>>39497
I've been putting stuff I get from deepseek in codeblocks, could make that a rule.

My oc got deleted since it appearently violated rule 4. Meme was ironic and obvious bait. Not a huge deal, was low effort but I still think rule 4 is a little bit harsh or unclear. Would talking about the "labor aristocracy" get you banned? Honest question.

>>39499
Yes. All wage-workers are proletarians. Even CEOs. There are more CEOs in America than teachers and surgeon+physicians combined. This means CEOs are even more considerable share of proletarians than doctors or teachers.

The modocracy has determined that teachers and doctors are proletarians, therefore CEOs must be as well.

>>39497 (me)
btw, I realize determining whether or not a post was generated by an LLM would be practically impossible. We'll just have to live with that paranoia from now on. What could be moderated however is when posters are stupid enough to say they used an LLM to generate a post or image (screenshots of ChatGPT or deepseep). I think posts like those should be against the rules and deleted because they would introduce unreliable claims into conversations. I realize this is an imageboard and not some academic journal but still, leftypol has had a relatively good record so far of posters sourcing important information from actual news sources, articles, books etc. Personally I'd really hate it if that changed.

>>39501
>What could be moderated however is when posters are stupid enough to say they used an LLM to generate a post or image (screenshots of ChatGPT or deepseep)
Wait, so if the poster clearly states he used AI or whatever that would be a bannable offense? Or am I misunderstanding it? Like I understand that it's getting harder to distuingish ai and non-ai stuff but why ban (or delete the post of someone) if they are upfront about using it and it adds to the discussion?

>>37647
>'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25
I'm just going to say that this is one of the few things I will 100% back the mods on. This shit is literally what Leftypol was founded to oppose. These people have been nothing but complete utter wreckers that hijack threads to say that people in homeless encampments have the same class interests as millionaires and billionaires and promote demoralization and /pol/-tier nationalism. I can hardly even call these people a legitimate Left-wing tendency because they NEVER attack the bougeois but exclusively attack workers. Anybody that divides the workers among national or racial lines is an enemy of the workers, no matter what pseudo-Marxist ideology they build around it and I'm tired of there being almost no push-back against it.

regarding ord 1, the ACP has had some defectors come forward to talk about its toxic and cult-like nature. I wanted to know if this kind of insight violates ord 1

>>39497
This would just prompt the people using those to hide the fact instead of loudly broadcast it like they often do now (and get rightfully dragged for it). This is a very good example of something that would only be made worse by an explicit rule and moderation, but depends on "board culture" to police effectively.

>>39504
Mods have quietly decided that Haz/ACP shit can be posted on /isg/, which is actually how the rule was already before the ordinances. If they get mad at my post, just go on /isg/ and look at the dozens of posts violating ordinance 1 that they leave up.

>>39497
Agree. Dumping a 'conversation' with an LLM as OP is lazy as fuck, highly unreadable and in the end completely pointless because what is even the topic of discussion?
>Look what the machine just said
Who the fuck cares? If was inclined to talk to the machine, i'd do so.
If you happen to have a genuinly new idea/thought/whatever, at least have the decency to write and format it yourself instead of just dumping unreadable garbage as an OP.

>>39562
What I do for deepseek is:
>ask it a question
>think over what it gave
>ask for websites for finding that kind of information
>surf a bit from those as a starting point

>>39504
the rule is stupid. banning discussion of one group in particular for "i just don't like them" is inane

>>39499
there's a bit of rhetorical slight of hand going on with this ordinance.

at first, it seems reasonable "you wouldn't want people denying that proles are proles would you comrade?"

Yet it's become a tool to shut down discussion of labour aristocracy, making Marxist class analysis a blunt and anglo-fied tool that cannot see nuance and levels in an imperial system.

>>37647
Why have you made 9 new rules when you refuse to even enforce the rules we already have?
Get a fuckin grip.

>>39668
Fuck you nsv

>>39676
>Fuck you nsv
I have no idea what your gay little ESL insults mean, try again sorry.

>>39678
She has got a daughter and she is going to die.

For clarity shouldn't calling the unemployed lumpenproletariat be listed under 4? Most are either disabled physically, mentally or just can't find work in the capitalist market regardless of if they have some sort of skillset and that doesn't mean they lack class consciousness. Likewise with prostitutes many are leftists. Such take is inherently Reactionary. Who cares about upholding Marx's own flawed logic in the matter which he probably pulled out of his ass without ever talking to anyone he accused of being lumpenproletariat. I could understand con artists and murderers without a cause being called lumpenproletariat though.

>>39767
prostitutes produce no value. cannot be proletariat

>>39767
>Who cares about upholding Marx's own flawed logic in the matter which he probably pulled out of his ass without ever talking to anyone he accused of being lumpenproletariat.
the absolute state of this fucking board

>>39769
Marx is not a religious figure nor socialist is a dogma

Convert to some abrahamic cult if you want to uphold shitty beliefs

>>39769
Not everything marx ever said is correct. A lot of things held up as doctrinal are literally offhand comments he made in letters to friends.

>>39815
Yet you have failed to provide examples of marx theory being wrong nor reasonings why

>>39662
i dont see how thats a problem
labor aristocracy are still proles
>>39767
same here lumpen arent proles
whats the issue?
>>39813
>>39815
its not about that its about what the word means. proles produce surplus value under capitalism. lumpen dont. theyre still workers tho. it doesn't have to be a bad thing even if marx disliked them, thats separate from the economic analysis. and besides some marxists groups have correctly considered them revolutionary in certain contexts


the "real proletarian" thing is entirely different, its the people claiming baristas arent proles, or that "productive" means making physical things instead of profit for the capitalists

>>39815
You're a fucking idiot

>>39815
Or maybe just autistic? In that case, sorry

>>39815
Based and 'this really got them bubblin'' tier post

What is this American Communist Party and why is it banned?

>>40318
Haz's party, because he has one now.

>>40320
Context Haz personally is permanently banned from here, it extends to his party until we see a proper and utterly correct self criticism, and even then he is probably still banned because he can make his own audience and that makes him more useful than haz shitposting on /leftypol/.

>>40334
not a USAsian, barely know who Haz is, but this response comes across as bitterly sectarian and abuse of mod power for personal ends.

>>40346
>but this response comes across as bitterly sectarian and abuse of mod power for personal ends.
Fair to see it that way, but we've found that Haz has not only instructed his audience to illegally report this website to the FBI, and the prescience of his name alone bringing up unnecessary commotion, it was a janitorial thing more than a sectarian thing. But if you feel otherwise, feel free to make a poll or some other form to record how many anons agree with you.

>>40346
Why?? Haz is a cripto fascist grifter, any unironic support should be banned


So the truth is banned

>>40483
What are you referencing?

>>40378
>Haz has not only instructed his audience to illegally report this website to the FBI,
What a fag. Did he do this before or after the ordinance?

>>40497
He did that years ago, when he was still a baby streamer.

>>40485
My post that you deleted

Anons, this site is controlled opposition.

Can we start banning sex-negative posts?

Every single thread there's many posts whining about erotica or anime, whining about any alleged "pedophilia".
This site has been turning into /pol/ for the past three years.
And let's not forget the rabid heteroandrophobia on here.

Why have you turned this site in to such a shithole?
Why do you add new rules that you actively refuse to enforce?

Why is LATAM board almost completely un monitored ?.

>>40530
Are ya reporting stuff and not getting results,?

>>40533
Yes, almost a fucking week

>>40533
Mods don't do shit about siberia spam.

>>38497
I just came here because I accidentally posted a doomer wojak (sorry), what the fuck is this and why am I only learning about it now? What are the implications? Socialism is only possible in (West) Germany and Nigeria, but not actual ex-socialist states where home ownership today is high? This is absolutely wrecking my brain. I don't know how I'm supposed to accept this.

>>40653
its pretty obvious but people here regurgitate dogma without even reading the source material lol. why would homeowners see revolution in their own interest and why would they risk losing their property or even their lives fighting against class society. marx's conclusion is again obvious: only the reserveless propertyless wage worker has a tendency towards both association (because they are working with other proletarians) and abolishing capitalism (because they are immiserated)

>>38552
blanket banning wojaks because "they come from le reactionary 4chan" is peak internet liberalism from 2016. What the fuck happened to this place?

>>40735
>blanket banning wojaks because "they come from le reactionary 4chan"
That is not the purpose of the ban. The aim is to incentivize creativity and develop a separate culture by removing (what currently is) the main source of lazy memes and slop

>>40735
naj but they're more of a twitter thing these days, just abrasive debate addict culture that feels concocted in a lab to terminate any hope of a fruitful dialogue. The board has been way more chill since they were banned.
>>40737
And it's been working, keep up the good work.

>>40738 (me)
Also serves as a good counter to raid of attrition tactics, where /pol/ users unfamiliar with the rule don't know why their bait by a thousand cuts keep getting zapped, not realizing it's the soyjaks.

File: 1744838263227.jpg (29.7 KB, 492x449, 1597465375497.jpg)

>>37647
>'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25
You morons are banning even people discussing whether someone with large reserves sees revolution in their class interest or not, fuck off.

>supporting electoralism

<fine
>supporting class collaboration
<fine
>supporting nationalism
<fine
>discussing class position
<REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MODS

People here become unbearably retarded just to oppose the same retardation of MAGAcoms. It doesn't make sense to ban this and not glaring aspects of your average liberal discourse.

Do Haz and their sycophants even post here anymore? Worst parts of this place is dumbfuck Americans hating other dumbfuck Americans and everyone else having to pay the price for it.

>>40773
>what about this other shit
Also if you are incapable of discussing class without getting confused about what a prole is or accusing random groups people as petbourg then that ordinance acts as a pseud filter. That ordinance keeps the board rid having 14 different "are baristas proles" threads.

>>40774
>accusing random groups
There's nothing random about it if you could actually read.

>if you are incapable of discussing class without getting confused about what a prole is

You're describing the mods here.

>That ordinance keeps the board rid having 14 different "are baristas proles" threads.

Then ban those threads specifically, no need to ban actual marxism along with it.

>>40776
People have managed to have successful dialouges about class without resorting to muh baristas muh students muh artists. Just be dialectical about it.

>>40777
Except I see bans over it constantly, because both sides of the debate can only treat class as a moral qualifier. When you reduce ‘proletarian’ to a moral category equivalent to ‘good’, the obvious impulse is to depict yourself as a proletarian no matter what and people you dislike as middle-class. Even Lenin fell into this trap at times in his essays and moralized against the petit-bourgeois.

>muh baristas

Most insufferable example because outside of Hazoids nobody even cares about baristas and I can't believe the discourse went on for fucking months. Some baristas are proletarians working fulltime, others own their own cafe, and others only treat it as a side hustle. So, you can't say, a priori, that they are of either class, because class is not a static sociological formation. Class is a movement, which needs to be distinguished in its historical trajectory. Which leads me to…

>muh students

…Students are not utterly reserveless; their loans testify to that. They are aspirant bourgeois and petit-bourgeois who, far from coming together in proletarian organizations to fight for proletarian interests, rather strive to join or stay in the ranks of the propertied, the reserved. The prospect of qualifications and cushy careers gives them a stake in capitalist society that the proletariat does not have.

>muh artists

Craftsmen are like the original petit-bourgeois. I greatly enjoy art but Marx correctly analyzed a proletarian is without reserves and property by definition. Why would he define "proletariat" in such a way as to include people who clearly have no self-interest in communism? That would be a useless definition. Marx even talked about how there's a section of the population (the reserveless workers) which has been suppressed from gaining access to knowledge and artistic talent.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03l.htm

You can use all I posted to correctly rule out other groups like the police from ever being considered proletarian too, which hopefully is not a controversial statement at all.

Americans overcorrected hard from the days of Bernie and OWS and "taxing the rich" to just completely ignoring the importance of income differentials to class status. And before you call me out, no, income is obviously not the sole determinant of class, but it's safe to say that if you have a chunk of money lying around in reserve, you are not some immiserated wage worker to whom communism becomes a necessity.

It's easy to just blanket-ban anything that makes your job as a mod easier but this could easily be all part of Ordinance 1 without stifling the rest of discussion here.

>>40777
i could charitable agree if we are talking about salaried artists working for businesses but how the fuck are freelancing artists who sell the art they make at full price on a per client basis who dont associate with any proletarians at all because they work from the safety of their own bedroom remotely proletarian and how is stating this a bannable offense on a leftist imageboard

>>40780
> loans for getting into US collages are capital

>>40782
Sure, many may obviously end up being workers despite asking for money to invest in a degree but students in their entirety are simply not proletarian, the entire purpose of a university is to prepare them for employment as a petit-bourgeois. This gives them material reasons to be hostile to communism. Even Marx and Engels were critical of students and the "literati" for this same reason and treated universities as the main reproducer of bourgeois ideology and even went as far as considering doing interventions in campuses a futile strategy. Communists with a degree are a happy accident, not the tendency of such a group.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm

>>40784
>mechanics are petit-bourgeoisie
>programmers are petit-bourgeoisie
>hair stylists are petit-bourgeoisie
>dentists are petit-bourgeoisie
>security specialists are petit-bourgeoisie
>doctors are petit-bourgeoisie

>>40790
If the correct labels piss you off so much, ask yourself why certain jobs pretty much never form unions without bringing up idealist shit like "propaganda brainwashed them".

>>40792
There are doctor and police unions where I live.

>Productive labour is only an abbreviated expression for the whole relation, and the manner in which labour capacity and labour figure in the capitalist production process. Hence if we speak of productive labour, we speak of socially determined labour, labour which implies a very definite relation between its buyer and its seller. Productive labour is exchanged directly for money as capital, i.e. for money which is in itself capital, has the quality of functioning as capital, and confronts labour capacity as capital. Productive labour is therefore labour which for the worker only reproduces the previously posited value of his labour capacity; but as value-creating activity it valorises capital, and counterposes the values created by labour to the worker himself as capital. The specific relation between objectified and living labour, which makes the former capital, makes the latter productive labour.

>The specific product of the capitalist production process, surplus value, is only created through exchange with productive labour. What forms its specific use value for capital is not its particular useful character, any more than it is the particular useful qualities of the product in which it is objectified, but its character as the element that creates exchange value (surplus value).


>The capitalist production process is not merely a process of the production of commodities. It is a process which absorbs unpaid labour, making the means of production into means for the absorption of unpaid labour.


>It emerges from what has been said so far that to be productive labour is a quality of labour which in and for itself has absolutely nothing to do with the particular content of the labour, its particular usefulness or the specific use value in which it is expressed.


>Labour with the same content can therefore be both productive and unproductive.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

>>40784
Universities were much more elite and gatekept in 1890. You pretty much had to be an aristocrat or bourgeois to be in them. This is not the case today, especially in countries with public universities.

File: 1744869958355.jpg (27.93 KB, 335x333, 1446085944665.jpg)

>>40790
https://etc.gegenstandpunkt.com/content/die-jobs-der-elite

>>40793
we gonna pretend all unions are proletarian too? even pig unions?

>>40794
literally nobody has even brought up productive labor bro

>>40796
I didnt say that, I dont think cops are proletarian. Just pointing out that youre wrong.

>>40797
nta but while the union form benefits proles it doesnt mean they all have revolutionary potential, especially today when union leaders tend to be sellouts

>>40796
>literally nobody has even brought up productive labor bro
the implication of the 'not real proles' argument is based on the mistaken assumption that unproductive labor is not proletarian and is a parasite on the working class because their wages are redistributed from productive labor. the reason it is wrong is because all people who sell their labor are proles whether they are productive or not and the active agent is not the prole but the bourgeoisie who appropriates surplus value from productive labor to pay unproductive labor, and also that some unproductive work is necessary to bring commodities to market, so it is still necessary even if it doesn't generate surplus value. to this mistaken assumption about unproductive work is then added an additional wrong idea that productive work is defined as work that produces physical goods, rather than work that produces profit for the capitalist, to exclude non-physical labor and uphold blue collar factory work as the 'true proletariat'

>>40799
theres no implication at all because literally nobody is even arguing that, you havent even read marx except for out of context easy quotes much less what the posts are arguing. you are literally reducing proletariat to some slogan

>>40793
>>40797
Since the discussion is about proletarians I'm obviously not counting non-proletarian unions. It's like bringing up tenant unions as part of the class struggle.

>>40794
>>40799
You're arguing with ghosts. I'm not a hazlerite.

>to exclude non-physical labor and uphold blue collar factory work as the 'true proletariat'

A single mom working a cashier job is proletarian, a doctor clearly is not.

>>40800
>you are literally reducing proletariat to some slogan
im doing the opposite.
>all people who sell their labor are proles
what i described is the theoretical 'justification' for the argument that office workers and blue haired baristas aren't real proles but truck drivers and oil riggers are.

>>40801
>a doctor clearly is not.
that depends. a doctor at a hospital who works for a wage is. a doctor who owns their own practice isn't

>>40799
<all people who sell their labor are proles whether they are productive or not
So CEO's and Blackwater operatives who invaded Iraq are proletarians? Police are proletarians? This is not marxist class analysis.

>>40802
>for the argument that office workers and blue haired baristas aren't real proles but truck drivers and oil riggers are.
Can you point where anyone has made such a dumbfuck argument?

>a doctor at a hospital who works for a wage is. a doctor who owns their own practice isn't

So class is now a matter of individual choice? A doctor can willingly go from proletarian to petit-bourgeois just by leaving their hospital and putting up their own practice, everything else about them remaining the same?

you cant determine the class character by job title unless its "owner". it depends on their relation to the means of production not their job

>>40803
soldiers and cops are proles. most are class traitors but that doesn't change their relation to the means of production. you can't tell if a CEO is a prole or not from title alone. most have ownership stakes but it depends

>>40804
>So class is now a matter of individual choice?
>just by leaving their hospital and putting up their own practice
most people dont have the opportunity to "just" make that choice. it requires a lot of money. most doctors dont live in a country like america where they can leverage their education for further loans, and even in america over half never do.

>>40803
this is why it pisses me off that mods are banning any discussion of it cuz disagreeing with any retard who has no idea about class gets you banned lmao like marx and engels said many times a proletarian is without reserves by definition so why tf is arguing about it bannable? its like dengoids talking about patriotic socialists or millionaire proletarians except completely encouraged by the current ruleset , it all stems from some painfully idea concept of leftist unity except the only bannable posts are marxism and everything else is allowed a chauvinist nationalist , it baffles me

>>40805
Doctors make a lot of money literally anywhere, jesus christ. It doesn't matter what any given wage worker wants as class is not a value judgement.

>soldiers and cops are proles

This is so stupid. They aren't class traitors, they have an obvious stake in maintaining capitalism because they benefit from it so that clearly makes them not proletarians! For fuck's sake!

>>40804
Dont listen to him. He thinks bankers and blackwater operatives are proletarians merely because they are paid wages. Doctors are petite-bourgeoisie. Mao explains that lower intellectuals of capitalism are petite-bourgeois in his class analysis of 1926 capitalist China.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm

>>40807
what do wants or stakes have to do with their relation to the means of production?

>>40805
>you cant determine the class character by job title
in most cases bc i dont think theres proletarian neurosurgeons rofl

>>40808
meh mao was a retard , all the things itt are already in marx

>>40809
>what do stakes have to do with their relation to the means of production?
Oh my fucking god, is this what the staff wanted? No wonder discussion has gone completely downhill. Yeah I wonder why people who benefit from capitalism would see it in their self-interest to maintain it!!

>>40810
cuban neurosurgeons sent to venezuela on behalf of the state are secrete bourgeois agents?

>>40812
What in the flying fuck are you even talking about.

>>40812
Venezuela and cuba are socialist States. Doctors are proletarian under Communism, but bourgeois in capitalism. See barefoot doctor program

>>40811
Their self interest also has nothing to do with their relation to the means of production. Its also not in their self interest, its false consciousness, and their perceived self interest is why they are class traitors.

>>40813
most doctors in the world are workers not rich americans whos parents gave them 100k and told them to pick between med and law school

>>40815
>Their self interest also has nothing to do with their relation to the means of production
READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX READ MARX

This is like talking to a fucking wall. Nothing but catchphrases, zero actual analysis.

>>40816
proletarian is defined by its relation to the means of production. they don't own means of production and must sell their labor. the bourgeois own the means of production and don't work. petit-bourgeois own means of production and also work.

thats what marx says. its not complicated.

>>40802
>>you are literally reducing proletariat to some slogan
>im doing the opposite.
Ok, quick review:

>this group is not proletarian because they own property

<but they work for a wage!
>this group is not proletarian because they have reserves
<but they work for a wage! x2
>this group is not proletarian because they have a stake in maintaining capitalism
<but muh relation to production!
>this group is not proletarian because it's not in their self-interest
<self-interest is irrelevant! it's all about "relation to production"!
>this profession on average makes enough money to easily accumulate reserves anywhere in the world so big chances are they are not proletarian
<but they aren't Americans so they ARE proletarians! (?????????)

Seriously?

>>40817
This is like some braindead definition you'd see in some sociology 101 course. So according to you cops, military, managers, even CEOs are proletarians. Fucking incredible. And I'm the one who gets banned for arguing otherwise!

>>40817
So blackwater operatives who invaded iraq were proletarians? Were crackers also proletarians if they didnt own the plantation?

>>40818
>>this group is not proletarian because they own property
i never said that. if they own property and also work they are petite-bourgeois.

>>40819
>>40818
ok what the fuck do you think it means then?
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat

>>40817
>thats what marx says. its not complicated.
bro dont act like you ve read any marx at all when he says a lot more than just some basic shit about relation to the means of production. why are you ignoring all the times he talks about reserves , property selfinterest etc, he wrote dozens of pages saying what made the proletariat revolutionary and what did not for you to come here only using some vague sentence as the sole quality to compare any situation to

>>40820
yes.

>>40822
>he wrote dozens of pages saying what made the proletariat revolutionary and what did not
i didn't say they were revolutionary. lots of proles are reactionary and backwards. its probably not worth trying to organize cops and mercenaries because of things like their immediate self-interest but that doesn't make them not proles. if youve got dozens of pages of marx saying that workers aren't proles if they have 'reserves' then post them

>>40821
I feel like I waste my time every time I write an effortpost because I just get dumb one-liners in the replies. Anyway even this reductionist dictionary entry already disagrees with you.

< The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour…


This dependency constitutes their wage as the only source of income that they are in need of for their own reproduction. One who holds savings in assets or even owns a house/real estate meaning property would be taken off the equation as the relation of dependence no longer persists. Even Engels points this out in The Housing Question.

Let's take for example an oil engineer. An oil engineer would accrue a reserve that would enable them to keep themselves afloat if out of work, reinvest a portion of their income, acquire a home, etc. Their "weal and woe" doesn't hinge solely on their ability to sell their labor power.

Whether they choose to do so is irrelevant to their class position, you can't just call petit-bourgeois who fail at capitalist competition proletarians while only calling the successful ones petit-bourgeois, that's not how scientific analysis works. To drive the point futher: let's say this offshore drilling engineer moves to San Francisco, where the cost of living is such that they can no longer accrue assets. Or: they squanders their money every month on frivolous shit. Are they now a proletarian? Maybe if some radical change to the market happened such that they lost their job and could never regain their position forcing them to work a shitty job, but then and only then would it be correct to call them proletarian. This is one example of what people mean by proletarianization.

Capital also means a lot more than just owning some physical business, for fuck's sake, especially under capitalism where money can be used to buy almost anything. The fact is: you do not get away from the messiness that offends your theoretical conscience in the conception I put forward with these kinds of formal considerations. The fuzziness of the middle classes is a specific characteristic of it!

>>40825
>reinvest a portion of their income
thats something different, that constitutes ownership of capital
>acquire a home
this is also different and more complex, i wouldn't say a mortgage is ownership and i dont think that a home constitutes productive property as capital, but if you want to say the first world is majority labor aristocrat im not gonna argue with that, but they would still be proles. if you want to argue that a home counts as an investment property even while its being used for living in that would at least be valid since it is based on ownership.

>One who holds savings in assets or even owns a house/real estate meaning property would be taken off the equation

<one who <owns property>meaning <property> would be taken off the equation
what

>Whether they choose to do so is irrelevant to their class position

yeah it has nothing to do with choice that is not what im saying. every worker could simply "choose" to start a business just like your doctor who "chooses" to open a practice. free movement between classes and temporarily embarrassed millionaires are a myth

>The fuzziness of the middle classes is a specific characteristic of it!

middle class isn't real. marx didn't say being a bourgeois capitalist is when you make lots of money, its when you make money from ownership.

>>40826
You have such a stupidly narrow view of what constitutes means of production or proletariat. Marx, Engels and Lenin repeatedly used the term middle-class too. Fucking read the shit you are arguing so vehemently about!

>every worker could simply "choose" to start a business

Wow, becoming a capitalist is just a matter of sheer will. And here I am wasting my time being a dumb wage laborer!!

>>40827
>becoming a capitalist is just a matter of sheer will
oh you are actually illiterate my bad

>>40826
>>40825
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
<The semi-proletariat. What is here called the semi-proletariat consists of five categories: (1) the overwhelming majority of the semi-owner peasants, [10] (2) the poor peasants, (3) the small handicraftsmen, (4) the shop assistants [11] and (5) the pedlars.
<The shop assistants are employees of shops and stores, supporting their families on meagre pay and getting an increase perhaps only once in several years while prices rise every year. If by chance you get into intimate conversation with them, they invariably pour out their endless grievances. Roughly the same in status as the poor peasants and the small handicraftsmen, they are highly receptive to revolutionary propaganda.
Mao identified semi-proletarian as a seperate class from proletarian. Most or perhaps all unproductive (from society's view, not that of capital, i.e., any who not contribute social aggregate product) workers fall into this category. The walmart cashier is semi-proletarian, not proletarian. Because Mao said so. The middle classes (semiproletarian and up) subsist on surplus-value of the actual producers. Stalinist 1956 proletarian political economic textbook teaches us this. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm
<Furthermore, part of the national income is transferred, by way of payments for, what are called services, to the non-productive branches (e.g., for use of municipal services, medical aid, places of entertainment, etc.). As already pointed out, no social product is created in these branches, nor, consequently, any national income; but the capitalists who exploit the workers employed in these branches receive part of the national income created in the branches of material production. From this income the capitalists who own businesses in the non-productive branches pay the wages of their workers, meet the material outlay which they have to find (for premises, equipment, heating, etc.) and take their profit.

>>40829
>The middle classes (semiproletarian and up)
So the poor peasants are better off than regular workers? but also
>highly receptive to revolutionary propaganda.
?

>unproductive (from society's view, not that of capital

<From this income the capitalists who own businesses in the non-productive branches pay the wages of their workers

>>40828
>oh you are actually illiterate my bad
Bruh I'm going to scream, you haven't read any Marx at all and it shows. Even your one-liner taken from the marxists.org dictionary already proved you wrong. Your best retort to the fact that people who own reserves can invest them to accrue capital is that "any worker could choose to start a business". I mean what? Half of your posts don't even make sense.

>>40831
Ignore them, they are posting Mao.

>>40832
>Your best retort
slow down and read the posts you are responding to. im agreeing with you
>>40826
>it has nothing to do with choice
>that is not what im saying
>"choose" (scarequotes)
>your doctor
>>40804
>So class is now a matter of individual choice? A doctor can willingly go from proletarian to petit-bourgeois just by leaving their hospital and putting up their own practice
no its not, because people dont have the opportunity to make that choice. the people who have the opportunity to choose to open up their own practice already have access to enough investment capital that they are not proletariat, and most doctors do not have that. just like people who invest their reserves in the stock markets or whatever. if they have enough 'reserves' to live off dividends then they own capital.

>>40834
Yikes, that's actually fucking embarrassing from me. Sorry then.

>>40833
Mao's theory guided the most sucessful Communist revolution. Who are you to spit on Mao's theory?
>>40831
Mao explained the situation of the various strata of peasant in great detail. The semi-proletarian peasant was more revolutionary than the petite-bourgeois teacher, but the agricultural proletarian was more revolutionary than both. Mao illustrates why this is the case in great detail. Stalinist proletarian political science textboox illustrates how value is created and distributed in capitalist society, the basis of class.

>>40836
>The semi-proletarian peasant was more revolutionary
yeah but im wondering whether semi-proletariat is middle class and if its above or below proletariat, with proletariat being lower class and bourgeois being higher class. in the quote hes including poor peasants and land owning peasants, so this leads me to believe that hes saying peasants are like pre-proletariat, a feudal remnant, like the handicraftsmen that i assume are like artisans that directly sell the products of their own labor. the inclusion of poor peasants and and artisans together makes me think he is saying that are lower then proles, like lumpen proles, or that he is saying that are the same as proles, proletariat but only semi because they are fuedal remnants who havent transitioned to full prole. the inclusion of semi owner peasants is the same because they are tied to the land and have to work it and subsistence agriculture from a peasant doesn't rise to the level of petty-bourgeois. this is different from something like kulaks who used machinery or employed others.

I’m glad the feral furry pr0n rule got axed /s

>>40773
>Complains about Ordinance 4
>Thread becomes that which Ordinance 4 is there to prevent
Long live Ordinance 4

>>40850
nice tautology you fucking idiot, its still a better discussion than 95% of this shithole LOL

>>40780
>When you reduce ‘proletarian’ to a moral category equivalent to ‘good’, the obvious impulse is to depict yourself as a proletarian no matter what and people you dislike as middle-class. Even Lenin fell into this trap at times in his essays and moralized against the petit-bourgeois.
Yes. There is no contradiction between being a communist and not proletarian by this definition, in fact that is the historical tendency. Neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin, nor a whole bunch of theorists and revolutionaries, are proletarian by this definition.
And it comes full circle. I begin to understand now, the so-called Trotsky-Stalin split is missing the point gravely. Socialism in backwards peasant states was doomed from the start, because either the peasants owned homes, or acquired homes in the wake of the revolution. No wonder then that the peasantry is reactionary, for it either owns capital or is a vestige of feudalism with all the backwards cultural assumptions. No wonder that the Soviet Union already in Lenin's time realized the problem with letting backwards citizens participate in politics outside local and workplace affairs was literal political suicide for the Soviet Union.
And then, of course, the issue of commodity production in socialist countries, which just ended up reinventing capitalism, put the leadership in a position where they used increasingly unsustainable state force to suppress the contradiction, the inevitable reactionary superstructure, and the socialist countries either imploded like the Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia, or virtually gave up like China and Vietnam, or hyper-isolated like the DPRK.

I wish someone smarter than me would start spreading the word. Because I feel like if the misunderstandings and mistakes repeat, there will be no more chances for humanity.

>>40854 (me)
It also puts into perspective why the populations of ex-socialist countries are reactionary; why East Germany is more reactionary than West Germany today. Home ownership! God damn, I'm having a theory mindfuck. Everything is falling into place.

>>40854
>>40855
Yup, and all this is already in Marx and Engels. Goes to show how everyone namedropping them has never read them.

WHY HAS POST SEARCH BEEN DISABLED
I REPLY TO PEOPLE AND THEN CANNOT FIND THE ORIGINAL THREADS 2 DAYS LATER TO REPLY TO THEIR REPLY
FIX THIS SHIT

>>40860
Disabled as a precautionary. Right now it's under inspection/rewrite for possible SQL injection

>>40737
>The aim is to incentivize creativity

how does banning someone who picked a random image from their reaction folder incentivize creativity?

There's some kind of saying about 'if the only tool you have is a hammer..', that applies, what if you could find a way to curate a better board that didn't involve banning things, but something where you actually enocuraged positive action

Since the pepe/wojak banning, the board just feels LESS CREATIVE and more abrasive with the gap between users and mods widening.

just a very bizarre rule

>>40774
>That ordinance keeps the board rid having 14 different "are baristas proles" threads.

By not allowing any? Are the mods that incompetent that they can't direct discussion of an issue into one thread? Same with the HAZ stuff…Why can't that be discussed in the Internet general?

What is this obsession the new mod team has with telling people what they can and can't discuss?

the irony is that in order to make these ordinances, the mods must have had a discussion, so the implication is that they can discuss these things, but the dumb uncultured masses can't be trusted to.

>>40882
Consciousness resides in one's activity. That should tell you everything about their behavior.

>>39767
Then you should show more respect to college students then. Because they're often unfairly lumpenised

>>39767
>>40934
Lumpen is not a moral critique you stupid pieces of shit.

>>40782
>>40784
Students work dead end jobs that older people wouldn't want to do.

>>40936
>implying this is the norm anywhere
Being poor is not the sole requisite to be a proletarian.

File: 1745439234089.png (12.99 KB, 500x250, Oekaki.png)

>>40937
Then prole and student are two different booleans then, and someone claiming students can't be proles is evoking a form of real proletarian rhetoric then.

>>41013
>Then prole and student are two different booleans then
Yes?

>and someone claiming students can't be proles

There are proletarian students, they're just the overwhelming minority and either way all students are investing money hoping for returns (becoming proper citizens) so their consciousness reflects that.

File: 1745451891975.jpg (146.44 KB, 720x1099, engels middle class.jpg)


>>41018
>they're just the overwhelming minority
where?
>all students are investing money
scholarships

File: 1745461787142.png (18.97 KB, 348x324, ClipboardImage.png)


>>41040
Sooo… some people are middle-class proles?

>>41053
'middle class' is not a marxist term, it's liberal BS

>>41060
Are you arguing middle class = petit-bourgeoise, or are you arguing there just isn't a middle class?

>>41072
Think the problem is the term includes labor-aristocracy, and petit-bourgeoise elements, and is not a class, that is a group with a single relation to the means of production. You can't have a straight mapping like from "white collar" to "labor-aristocracy", or "NEET" to "lumpen-proletariate".

>>41060
>>41072
Well problem is Marx and Engels, in their poeticism, used middle class quite loosely. Clearly the average of it's use in their work is just petbourgs, but they weren't consistent about it.

>>41053
>middle-class proles
Middle-class is its own thing separate from the proletariat.

>>41060
Never read Marx award.

>>41073
>>41074
With the aristocracy and peasantry not existing anymore and landlords joining the bourgeoisie they're interchangeable terms today.

Can you do something to stop every fucking thread from being derailed by baseless pedophilia accusations/"discussion"

>>41598
>Can you do something to stop every fucking thread from being derailed by baseless pedophilia accusations/"discussion"
I would think that this would be covered by Rule 14 or Rule 11. Unfortunately, Rule 14 effectively doesn't exist.


Unique IPs: 96

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]