What's the worst take you've heard on here?
One time, some avatarfagging fucking retard made a thread talking about "What's the worst take you've heard on here?"
There was once a very active namefag user on this board of Jewish heritage that identified as an anarchist who claimed that created purely Jewish communes was perfectly compatible with anarchism because they would be run anarchistically. They never answered by question whether this also applies to whites only communes.
i wrote that
idk man every day here people say shit like "discussion is for transhumanists", after a while i stop paying attention
>>828389It makes me ANGRY when I see these kinds of posts!!!!!! It makes me go "grrrr, i'm angry" and such!!!!!!!!
>>828384this guy called Anonymous who's a real dum-dum. not to be confused with my similarly named friend Anonymous, who's really kool.
>>828365I think I sort of agree with that anon. I don't think I've ever really vibed with anyone. I mean the fact that I don't really have any friends or have ever a romantic fling kind of proves it. Although I have had friends it's really only temporarily and only happens by chance. I guess maybe if I when out and did stuff I'd catch someone's eye and mine theirs and then whatever but I just don't seem to want to do that.
>>828389Drugs are lumpen. Singapore waged a successful war on drugs. Plenty of non-Western countries have.
>>828482>market authoritarian So fascism.
>>828447Japan and South Korea are also successful in their war against drugs, unlike the US which started it in the first place. All modern imperialist powers.
Meanwhile Houthis chew khat, indigenous tribes in South America use yopo (natural form of 5-MeO-DMT), and iboga is used in traditional rituals in Gabon and Congo by forest-dwelling people.
Ergo(t), psychedelic drugs and phenethylamines are ANTI-IMPERIALIST and TRAD, while the War on Drugs is IMPERIALIST and modernist DEGENERACY.
Whenever you are a /pol/yp or a /leftypol/tard, it's your duty to take psychedelic drugs and fight against the war on drugs. Thank you for your attention.
>>828510Its hilarious you believe this when the yanuza exist and I found tons of people smoking weed in China and Hong Kong, plus speed/meth use is normalised.
>>828522you are literally arguing against two brazilians that their country should have harder police repression against something (psychedelic drugs, specifically shrooms which are decriminalized) that absolutely no one considers a serious social problem. and you are doing it by blatantly conflating one category of drugs with drugs in general, because you are either dishonest or completely misinformed.
>>828522>individualistYou say that like its a bad thing.
>>828447there is no non idealist defense of this
>>828588Elaborate.
>>828657That retard needs to be killed. Consistently has the worst opinion about pretty much everything.
>>828549>police repression against somethingWhat's wrong with police repression if it serves proletariat interests?
>blatantly conflating one category of drugs with drugs in generalAll the same shit.
>>828563Individualism is a disease.
>>828661>What's wrong with police repression if it serves proletariat interests?It never does.
>Individualism is a disease.Communism is individualist on a micro level, collectivist on a macro level as much as i hate using liberal terms. What do you think developing yourself creatively means? Its about achieving a society where the individual is not burdened by wageslavery and the fight for survival so that they can put all of their energy into making of their life into what they think it should be. Unless you just jack off to the handsome mustache man and think communism is about a gigastate with red army hordes constantly shooting and gulaging people in which case you fell for the CIA story about communism and are no different than a 15 year old hormone-doped /pol/yp making black sun edits to cope with not being able to breed.
>>828662>It never does.Putting serial killers, rapists, and drug barons in prison does not serve proletariat interests? Does the proletariat benefit by having lumpen criminals out on the street?
>>828662>Communism is individualist on a micro levelIf that's your definition of communism, then I do not want to be a communist. Individualism breeds self-interest, which in turn breeds accumulation, which in turn breeds a new bourgeoisie.
>>828668Just because it does one good thing doesnt mean it isnt a net negative. And a fat one at that.
>If that's your definition of communismIts not mine. Thats Marx.
>then I do not want to be a communistI've got good news for you.
>>828671>it isnt a net negative. And a fat one at that.How is it a net negative?
>Its not mine. Thats Marx.Yes, Marx was incorrect about communist society. What of it?
>I've got good news for you.You're coming out?
>>828675>How is it a net negative?Police is reactionary as a very concept. It is created to protect the ruling class, no matter how you call it, from the ruled class.
>Yes, Marx was incorrect about communist society. What of it?He was. But this was one of his better conclusions.
>You're coming out?Your dad hasn't told you about us yet?
>>828679>Police is reactionary as a very concept.This is false, and a buzzword use of the word "reactionary" (which simply means opposition to change). Police that persecutes the enemies of society, e.g., the DotP terrorizing the bourgeoisie, absolutely advances proletariat interests. Of course, the power to persecute itself creates a disconnect between the security apparatuses and the rest of society, and this is precisely how AES has failed. However, the alternative would be chaotic anarchy if communist society has not been reached (if we're going by Lenin); thus, abolishing police before reaching communist society would be highly destructive.
>He was. But this was one of his better conclusions.Agree to disagree then. It doesn't really matter because Marx never really fully developed a blueprint for what communist society would actually look like. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is about as far as it went. Claiming to be able to predict what exactly communist society will look like is utopian.
>Your dad hasn't told you about us yet?My dad is nearing his 90s, so no.
Drugs, including psychedelics are the ultimate treat. They have been at the forefront of virtually any imperialist project they are one of the sharpest instrument of the tripartite capitalist state. If you are a druggie you are a lumpen.
>>828668>Individualism breeds self-interest, which in turn breeds accumulationthis does not actually logically follow. in a society of abundance, hoarding would run contrary to one's interest. indeed, pathological hoarding is already a thing under capitalism. (e.g. hoarders with houses full of useless crap, who far from becoming a new bourgeoisie, suffer under the weight of their senseless accumulation.)
>>828689he used to be a really hot twink in his youth we had a lot of fun eating his bussy. a shame he has such a retarded son
>>828695>this does not actually logically followIt follows perfectly. Individualism breeds self-interest, self-interest breeds competition, competition breeds accumulation, accumulation breeds bourgeois.
>in a society of abundanceAbundance does not eliminate competition, but rather shifts competition elsewhere.
>>828697Damn, so you were licking bussy in post-war Germany back in the 1950s? The times they are a changing, but somehow I doubt you're that old.
>>828695>hoarders with houses full of useless crap, who far from becoming a new bourgeoisie, suffer under the weight of their senseless accumulationIf it truly is "useless crap," then it has little to no exchange-value and its accumulation is thus harmful. The hoarders in this case are acting irrationally.
>>828706>competition breeds accumulationthis also isn't true! peter theil's single biggest business lesson is "competition is for losers", and communists have historically arrived at the conclusion that we're in an era of
monopoly capitalism, monopolies being - tautologically - non-competitive.
i agree that competition is shifted elsewhere, but specifically to social status, which would be decoupled from material wealth in conditions of abundance. (nobody impresses his neighbour nowadays by owning a TV, does he? because a TV is now universal, and so confers no difference with anyone else.)
this is why Elon Musk acts like such a loser: he would personally feel more fulfilled as a popular forum poster than as the world's richest man. but he his a bad poster and all the money in the world cannot make him a good one. it is easier to transmute base metal into gold than it is to transmute money-capital into social capital directly.
in an era where everyone had their basic needs met, all intra-individual competition would be non-accumulative status competition. (e.g. one may compete with their neighbours to make the best art or home improvements, or indeed to modify their car in the coolest way, rather than to simply have the newest car or pay a contractor to make the best home improvements. competition would be on the merits of personal craftsmanship and cultivated talents, rather than one's ability to afford the raw inputs.)
>>828889> it is easier to transmute base metal into gold than it is to transmute money-capital into social capital directly. >in an era where everyone had their basic needs met, all intra-individual competition would be non-accumulative status competition. (e.g. one may compete with their neighbours to make the best art or home improvements, or indeed to modify their car in the coolest way, rather than to simply have the newest car or pay a contractor to make the best home improvements. competition would be on the merits of personal craftsmanship and cultivated talents, rather than one's ability to afford the raw inputs.)Thank you anon for putting my exact thoughts into words better than I could myself!
>>828889>i agree that competition is shifted elsewhereThen you've conceded to my point of view. Everything else that follows is irrelevant.
>>828999it absolutely is not, as i expended 1406 characters explaining. if competition is inherently bourgeois, then you must join the rest of the bourgeoisie up against the wall since you're clearly competing to be the biggest idiot in the thread
>>829042>as i expended 1406 characters explainingYes, you explained a whole lot of nothing, as competition with regards to anything scarce, tangible or not, breeds a new bourgeoisie. When anything of value is limited, competition naturally produces winners who consolidate power, gatekeep access, and form a new elite.
>>829043 (me)
Indeed, even if you eliminate material scarcity, human psychology and social dynamics ensure that intangible scarcity will always exist. You have already conceded this point with regards to social status.
>>829043The bourgeoisie are not the same thing as "the elite", they're a specific class under specific historical conditions. The fact there (may) always be a status hierarchy doesn't make the abolition of the current material-scarcity based one and its replacement by another abundance/skill based one pointless.
>>829066>they're a specific class under specific historical conditionsAny group or strata that controls a means of social power will thereby stand opposed to the rest of the population, and will thus function as a new bourgeoisie. This is precisely why all AES have failed.
>The fact there (may) always be a status hierarchy doesn't make the abolition of the current material-scarcity based one and its replacement by another abundance/skill based one pointless.It means the same underlying logic perpetuates itself in a different form. Any competition and accumulation will generate a dominant stratum of some kind.
"May" is also incorrect. Competition will always shifts to things that are scarce; an abundance of everything, tangible and intangible, is impossible. Post-scarcity is a misnomer.
>>829085this does not follow. the power of the bourgeoisie flows from the fact they own the means of production. owning a really well-tuned car and having people think you're cool because of it does not give you that kind of power over other people.
especially because - and this is the really beautiful part - you can choose what you specialise in and find value in. i do not, personally, give a fuck about cars. if my neighbour and his friends think he's the coolest guy around for his car, and
my friends think i'm the coolest person around for my archive of incredibly correct predictions on /leftypol/, we're both happy and non-competitive. the hierarchies in question have too reserved a scope to really matter.
if you're an egalitarian who seethes about the very concept of hierarchy that is at least a respectable position, but don't throw around terminology like an imbecile. roman pharaohs were not bourgeoisie simply because they "stood opposed to the rest of the population". if we consider 'AES' leaders to be bourgeoisie, this would be a function of their position in an industrial economy built - perhaps unknowingly - around capital accumulation. bourgeoisie are, again, a specific historical thing and not just "whoever the current bad guy is"
It was on (((4chins))) /pol/ board but it just said "make bastard children become their concubines" or something
Every druggie is an agent of Capital.
>>829151This.
SOCIALIST WAR ON DRUGS NOWWWWWW.
China kills drug dealers.
The USSR killed drug dealers.
Cuba kills drug dealers.
North Korea kills drug dealers.
KILL ALL DRUGGIES.
>>829107>this does not followIt follows perfectly, actually. Either you're being purposefully obtuse or you lack the necessary abstract thinking. Competition that leads to accumulation means concentrated ownership. Concentrated ownership means a ruling elite that controls social relations. Its control mechanism is thus no different from the capitalist bourgeoisie that controls the social relations of production. Even if the means of production are ostensibly decommodified, competition and accumulation will shift elsewhere and the cycle perpetuates itself. Capitalists assert control via private ownership of capital. The new bourgeoisie can assert control via social status, state office and party bureaucracy (especially true for AES), control of violence, or basically anything scarce with high demand. Utopian socialists have no adequate answers on how to prevent this.
>owning a really well-tuned car and having people think you're cool because of it does not give you that kind of power over other people.If there is competition and accumulation for those cars, then ownership absolutely gives you power, lol. The car example only looks trivial if you abstract away the social relations around it. If you control access to a desired good, can exclude others from it, then you can convert that control into power and are thus absolutely a new bourgeoisie. The object and means is irrelevant.
>>829154Wait till he finds out who started the drug war and why
>>829163>muh nixonRetarded cope. The CIA in Latin America funds and organizes all the cartels and gangs. Every time some dipshit backed by America comes in the crime rate skyrockets and drug dealers gain impunity. The US never seriously tried to launch a war on drugs because they are the funders and backers of the drug dealers.
>>829169At least he is posting in an appropriate thread.
>>829165>>829167>>829168yeah faggot they keep it illegal and fund drug gangs because they need an inflated market that they can act outside the law in to get dark money, it being illegal facilitates this how retarded are you
>>829180Legalization fuels the growth of drug trade and drug smuggling. When they legalized a part of the ivory trade it shot up and poaching became as high as ever. Same thing happend with legalized prostitution in countries like Germany where they went for full legality trafickking shot up sharply. In the end legalization is just a cover for more exploitation, more legal one and more illegal one. Your liberal arguments are tiring.
>>829180If you wanted to actually stop drug gangs and not just been an adventurist piece of shit who fantasies about committing acts of violence against lumpen you'd understand making drugs worthless by legalizing supply is about the only way to actually change the material conditions that gives birth to the cartel.
Furthermore every AES has nicotine and booze in it - these are both drugs, you've just been SPOOKED.
>>829182>shit who fantasies about committing acts of violence against lumpen you'd understand making drugs worthless by legalizing supplyTalking point pushed by the corporate weed industry lobby groups.
>>829181>Legalization fuels the growth of drug trade and drug smuggling.Drugs arent the same thing as sex trafficking or the ivory trade though are they?
>liberal liberal liberalliberals started the war on drugs and made it a global hegemony, flipping it on its head doesnt make you smart just a useful idiot.
>>829183no its basic economics
>>829184>no its basic economicsOk Thomas Sowell. It might be basic economics but according to advanced economics there is something called induced demand.
>>829185thats funny because every state thats legalized weed has shown a decrease in usage
>>829184>liberals started the war on drugs and made it a global hegemony,The war on drugs is just theater in the end there are plenty of states that have very effective anti-drug policies and enforcement, usually those states have a past history of drug wars themselves that had a colonial dimension.
>>829187such as?
>plenty of states that have very effective anti-drug policies and enforcementthis is how criminalization is going btw, lmao!
>>829180No, retard. The CIA and other intel agencies traffic drugs because drugs are good at pacifying people. It's basically a bioweapon to keep the proles docile and inconsequential.
>to get dark moneyLMAO. Yeah bro, the CIA—with its billions of dollars in funding and black budgets—is so strapped for cash they need to deal drugs to make money. Imagine believing this.
>>829189>doesnt understand how the CIA works awardlol
they get given 'cells' or units of a few men who answer to one or two people and then carte blanche to fund there operations however they please, this includes the cocaine trade.
>>829186Dicriminalization in the Netherlands has led to weed gangs turning into big crime networks that started selling and trafickking other drugs. Before weed dicriminalization the Netherlands wasn't a major hub of synthetic drugs for example.
>>829188China, Singapore
>>829191Singapore is a reactionary monarch shithole, is this your best example?
I've been to China and smoked a shit ton of weed and saw ketamine and speed use everywhere, tell me you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>829190And? You think the CIA deals drugs to make money? LMFAOOO
>>829192>Singapore is a reactionary monarch shitholeNot a rebuttal btw
>>829192>A crime once happened, actually I did it personally.>That's why percecuting crime is useless.This is like 4 fallacies stacked into a single sentence. Lmao. Kindergarten-tier rhetoric.
>>829194>if X is true then Y and Z must be too hah!boring trite
>>829195It is, turns out if we just kill or imprison all the undesirables the problem 'goes away', see above about this just validating your boot tendancies.
>>829193yes, partially this partially for geo-politics they love having dirty cash to pay for 2nd and 3rd order stuff
>>829197>It is, turns out if we just kill or imprison all the undesirables the problem 'goes away'Exactly, this is a proven strategy when it comes to effective anti-drug policy and not some hypothethical. You are sobering up.
>>829199Hello comrade Dutetre finally we have cobbuminsm
>>829200Exactly. Turns out when you imprison every single drug trader in your country it just happens to be a sheer coincidence that you also almost completely get rid off like every second CIA agent in your state like in Afghanistan and China. Duterte is a great example. He just tried to emulate the same policy virtually any other SEA state already has and suddenly he is being tried for some bullshit by a court that only imprisons third world leaders. And where? In the Netherlands the narco-state that is literally one of the biggest centers of the global drug empire.
>>829197>turns out if we just kill or imprison all the undesirables the problem 'goes away'EMERGENCY GIGA
EMERGENCY GIGA
>they love having dirty cashTell me you're a retard without telling me you're a retard. The CIA very rarely deals the drugs itself because that would undermine plausible deniability. The people making the money are the proxies the CIA backs, not the CIA itself. Obviously given the way the intelligence underworld is, some of this drug money finances covert operations but this is a very, very small slice when compared to the CIA's actual budget and its other procurement networks.
>>829203>>829202t. someone who drinks 10 beers a day
>>829204The Taliban don't drink beer.
>>829204Ahaha. The druggie takes his last gasp as his arguments are thoroughly dismantled. Go overdose and die, faggot.
Alcohol is a drug too, btw.
>>829205then go live like the Taliban bro
>>829206BBLs are more dangerous to the proles than weed will ever be
>>829206Druggies are like Christians or so-called 'Religious communists'. When push comes to shove, they are druggies first and 'communists' second. They will sell out their own comrades for just another hit. You cannot trust them, never trust them on a very fundamental level.
>>829210>resorts to streamer twitch garbage speak when confrontedWe all know you dont have an argument, dont worry, BBLs objectively kill more people than weed.
>>829212>don't have an argumentDon't you lost every argument so far. You asked for example we gave you examples. We debunked your false talking points and the misinformation about liberalizations. Now you are just sperging out hysterically.
>>829213No one debunked anything and I dont see a point score, being a retarded debate addict doesnt make you right or the 'winner'
Now go and donate your entire paycheck to a OF model simp
>>829214You can continue to be denial about reality as much as you want, maybe this denial is the cause of your drug problem.
>>829214>Now go and donate your entire paycheck to a OF model simpKind of funny how addicts always have to make these weird gestures of other degenerate groups which they deem inferior to themselves to gain some, idk karma points for themselves or whatever? It's like how different subgroups of pedophiles judge others based on their preferences and slightly different paraphilias, lmao. This might come as a shock to you but OF, the porn industry, (online) gambling and the drug trade are part of one single bloc within the bourgeoisie.
>>829218It's a psychological defense mechanism.
>>829206you're the same retard arguing that there is nothing wrong with porn in the other threat but cannabinoid receptor rape isn't okay? AHAHAHAAHAHA
>>829230
>What if I just want to look at attractive women without supporting the industry?
then you are an unsocialized monkey with no purpose on this planet who has been materially allowed to indulge in his basest immediate desires uninterrupted without consequence or suffering. what you do or think matters little to anyone, because you will be happy with the patterns of light projected on your retina from your glass rectangle. pray that capital will continue to support this rectangle, because material women (who aren't sex workers on the clock) will not be so eager to indulge your desire.
>>829236
humans have been enjoying drugs for as long as they have been enjoying sex
>>829251
>appeal to nature
ok reactionnary.
>>829251
>we have an innate desire to have sex
famously asexual people dont exist
>>829258
you can just admit you're wrong instead of doubling down everytime like a teenager by the way
Sex is based. Drugs are lumpen.
>>829266Both are lumpen. AND THATS A GOOD THING
>>829266both sex and drugs (and rock) are keyed, but as it stands all those things are basically rape, which is locked.
>>829157/pol/cucks are using an epsteinite board while simultaneously larping as anti-Zionists.
>>829155you have totally missed the point: the competition is not for the cars, but for the modifications. obtaining a car that somebody else modified would convey little to no social status because it reflects no personal skill, while the cars themselves are not scarce.
not to mention your example is simply ahistorical nonsense, which you totally ignored. a feudal landlord controls an actual scarce resource and derives his power from that, yet he is not bourgeoisie, he is an aristocrat.
Unique IPs: 46