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.)
Unique IPs: 23