For nearly a year now I've been moving more and more to the left, so I'm thinking it's time to start discussing leftist ideas among jaded anti-communists and Fascists, whom I once counted myself among.
I think it's also about time I started being more active on this website.
With the culmination of my political confusion and will for this site to live on, I bring to you a Gommunism/Socialism/Anarchism thread for you to all post memes in and discuss the ideology of your enemy.
I'm willing to answer any and all questions that you might have about my ideology, other leftist ideologies, and the state of politics in the world in relation to those ideas to the best of my limited knowledge.
Welcome: Literally everyone except ancaps LARPing as actual anarchists
Not Welcome: Ancaps LAPRing as actual anarchists
Please, have fun and get /comfy/.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 81B8706573447AEC8DB63C2DC585251E-785182.png (766.8 KB, 960x667, 5d44a4261b8b85cec80597cc97489372bfc8256ac72585f337cb2f46aa4ef07a.png)
>>34599
I used to be a commie whats making you left leaning OP? Is it simply economics or is it that you've become more authoritarian?
I used to be a commie whats making you left leaning OP? Is it simply economics or is it that you've become more authoritarian?
>>34601
I've actually become less authoritarian. I'd consider myself a kind of Strasserist now, from being a Hitlerist National Socialist.
Firstly I got acquainted with the National Socialist rhetoric behind workers rights and "liberation". While liking National Socialist ideas and reading up on the policy, I was convinced NatSoc wasn't a full, sincere revolution in this respect. I was also simultaneously and paradoxically espousing libertarian talking points as many of my peers on the right did at the time. The contradiction became too much and I completely abandoned the moralism and biased rhetoric of libertarianism, as well as the Hitlerist ideology, despite to this day considering myself a supporter of Nazi Germany.
I simply kept following the workers liberation chain of thought and got here.
I've actually become less authoritarian. I'd consider myself a kind of Strasserist now, from being a Hitlerist National Socialist.
Firstly I got acquainted with the National Socialist rhetoric behind workers rights and "liberation". While liking National Socialist ideas and reading up on the policy, I was convinced NatSoc wasn't a full, sincere revolution in this respect. I was also simultaneously and paradoxically espousing libertarian talking points as many of my peers on the right did at the time. The contradiction became too much and I completely abandoned the moralism and biased rhetoric of libertarianism, as well as the Hitlerist ideology, despite to this day considering myself a supporter of Nazi Germany.
I simply kept following the workers liberation chain of thought and got here.
>>34602
So do you consider the class or the cultural/racial struggle to be more prevalent? Also I assume your not a Marxist by the fact that you still have an admiration for uncle Adolf but whats your opinion on the JQ?
So do you consider the class or the cultural/racial struggle to be more prevalent? Also I assume your not a Marxist by the fact that you still have an admiration for uncle Adolf but whats your opinion on the JQ?
>>34605
>So do you consider the class or the cultural/racial struggle to be more prevalent?
Class by far. I think that niggers are dumb and French people are annoying, but in day to day life, I, was a worker, will have more in common with other workers than I would with an incredibly rich person of my race and culture. And by in common, I don't mean mannerism, but rather common interests and benefits. Our interests align.
> Also I assume your not a Marxist by the fact that you still have an admiration for uncle Adolf but whats your opinion on the JQ?
Let me be clear; although I am not necessarily a Marxist, I don't hate Marx. As as for Uncle Adolf, he was the greatest man of his time, and Ubermench. Great man themselves are to be followed. They know what is best. I do not, however agree with his ideology. He was simply a man who had the power to do what needs to be done.
As for Jews, I acknowledge all of the problems they cause and am aware of the rootless international clique. I am in full agreement with Otto Strasser's condemnations of the Jews as the purveyors of finance capitalism. HOWEVER, I believe sincere revolution will put the Jew on the chopping block. His tendrils will be crushed with the banks.
If I were in charge, I would probably use secret police to enforce a no Jew policy in my government, however I do not believe that anti-semetism is actually all that necessary for a revolution. It would in fact hinder it's genesis, in my view.
>So do you consider the class or the cultural/racial struggle to be more prevalent?
Class by far. I think that niggers are dumb and French people are annoying, but in day to day life, I, was a worker, will have more in common with other workers than I would with an incredibly rich person of my race and culture. And by in common, I don't mean mannerism, but rather common interests and benefits. Our interests align.
> Also I assume your not a Marxist by the fact that you still have an admiration for uncle Adolf but whats your opinion on the JQ?
Let me be clear; although I am not necessarily a Marxist, I don't hate Marx. As as for Uncle Adolf, he was the greatest man of his time, and Ubermench. Great man themselves are to be followed. They know what is best. I do not, however agree with his ideology. He was simply a man who had the power to do what needs to be done.
As for Jews, I acknowledge all of the problems they cause and am aware of the rootless international clique. I am in full agreement with Otto Strasser's condemnations of the Jews as the purveyors of finance capitalism. HOWEVER, I believe sincere revolution will put the Jew on the chopping block. His tendrils will be crushed with the banks.
If I were in charge, I would probably use secret police to enforce a no Jew policy in my government, however I do not believe that anti-semetism is actually all that necessary for a revolution. It would in fact hinder it's genesis, in my view.
File (): F9FF449EFDFC1806D7AC5FCADD5FBD0E-330785.png (323.0 KB, 586x499, 4d29bd5f9e02d920663f0a920fa60e94cc78716a4b2488768270ea9a2cfc6117.png)
Should upload more meme. My posting game is off.
File (): C1A63E00CD2B9039FB6D4D819C6F954F-197219.png (192.6 KB, 595x371, 5fb9342baf927817912b133f315f7ed89bcaa03eaf571f355426a2fbcae9d347.png)
>>34611
Well, I'm not huge fan of the current state.
However I am a statist.
>theft
Call it what you want. I like the benefits states can provide, and so I support tax. I'm not a moral absolution. If you don't want to pay tax, you don't have to utilize the safe place the country gives you to work.
As far as I'm concerned, workers having the true value of their labor stripped from them is theft through misdirection.
Well, I'm not huge fan of the current state.
However I am a statist.
>theft
Call it what you want. I like the benefits states can provide, and so I support tax. I'm not a moral absolution. If you don't want to pay tax, you don't have to utilize the safe place the country gives you to work.
As far as I'm concerned, workers having the true value of their labor stripped from them is theft through misdirection.
1.Off topic, but what is the infrastructure necessary for a tertiary/quaternary economy? Obviously transportation infrastructure is an important one, particularly for the primary and secondary sectors of the economy, but what in particular for service sectors?
2. Describe your model of societal organization so I can argue all day about it. I know part of how one of ye thinks, but I'd like a more general discussion perhaps.
>>34606
>Class by far. I think that niggers are dumb and French people are annoying, but in day to day life, I, was a worker, will have more in common with other workers than I would with an incredibly rich person of my race and culture. And by in common, I don't mean mannerism, but rather common interests and benefits. Our interests align.
*desire to debate against intensifies*
Honestly where this debate really needs to start is what constitutes interests and goals, since I can already foresee that as a large part of why we would disagree.
2. Describe your model of societal organization so I can argue all day about it. I know part of how one of ye thinks, but I'd like a more general discussion perhaps.
>>34606
>Class by far. I think that niggers are dumb and French people are annoying, but in day to day life, I, was a worker, will have more in common with other workers than I would with an incredibly rich person of my race and culture. And by in common, I don't mean mannerism, but rather common interests and benefits. Our interests align.
*desire to debate against intensifies*
Honestly where this debate really needs to start is what constitutes interests and goals, since I can already foresee that as a large part of why we would disagree.
>>34614
How do you determine the distribution of goods and services without a market economy to drive supply and demand?
How do you determine the distribution of goods and services without a market economy to drive supply and demand?
>>34614
> I like the benefits states can provide.
Excuse me, but in my opinion state-provided services are ineffective and should be mostly changed for a favor of private sector, excluding military judicatory and police force - tho those also should be allowed in private hands.
> I like the benefits states can provide.
Excuse me, but in my opinion state-provided services are ineffective and should be mostly changed for a favor of private sector, excluding military judicatory and police force - tho those also should be allowed in private hands.
>>34606
>Class by far
And this is what eventually made me move off of leftist thought. I considered the question of whether class or other political separators were and are more important in a society. As soon as I started doing research into it the question it became clear to me that my original thought that class is more important of a struggle was wrong. Even if you identitfy with your class more then with your race you must ask yourself if this is the case as a whole? There is a reason why Neo-Marxists have moved away from the orginal class struggle and to the strategies of sex and race as the main societal struggles. It is more appealing and as a whole people are defined by these struggles more especially when the struggle is more obvious. There is a reason why the South in the mid 19th century didn't go communist. Income disparies were at their greatest but whites identified with whites even if they were rich. It was easier then to relate to some nigger even if he was in the same class as the white man post civil war. Same goes for almost all western nations, which is why revolutions were rare and took a lot of additional pressure to take place, such as the famines and war in Russia.
That when realizing this my views shifted and now I'm a nat soc. Classes are a divide societally but nothing that can't be negotiared and work out through cooperation, unlike race which must be left separate and supreme. I find far left workers liberation arguements hard to work with now because for the most part they are just Jews trying to divide and conquer. Labor movements are necessary for the wellbeing of the working class however I do not find conflict necessary anymore. At least those are my conclusions from long hours of thinking on these questions and doing research.
>Class by far
And this is what eventually made me move off of leftist thought. I considered the question of whether class or other political separators were and are more important in a society. As soon as I started doing research into it the question it became clear to me that my original thought that class is more important of a struggle was wrong. Even if you identitfy with your class more then with your race you must ask yourself if this is the case as a whole? There is a reason why Neo-Marxists have moved away from the orginal class struggle and to the strategies of sex and race as the main societal struggles. It is more appealing and as a whole people are defined by these struggles more especially when the struggle is more obvious. There is a reason why the South in the mid 19th century didn't go communist. Income disparies were at their greatest but whites identified with whites even if they were rich. It was easier then to relate to some nigger even if he was in the same class as the white man post civil war. Same goes for almost all western nations, which is why revolutions were rare and took a lot of additional pressure to take place, such as the famines and war in Russia.
That when realizing this my views shifted and now I'm a nat soc. Classes are a divide societally but nothing that can't be negotiared and work out through cooperation, unlike race which must be left separate and supreme. I find far left workers liberation arguements hard to work with now because for the most part they are just Jews trying to divide and conquer. Labor movements are necessary for the wellbeing of the working class however I do not find conflict necessary anymore. At least those are my conclusions from long hours of thinking on these questions and doing research.
>>34614
>As far as I'm concerned, workers having the true value of their labor stripped from them is theft through misdirection.
There's two things to talk about here:
1. What your theory of value is, and how you support it
2. Why do you hate value being stripped from workers in exchange for the security of not being subject to market forces (not being able to sell your product, but still having sunk that work into it, while as employed, sure, you don't get the full value of your product, but at the same time you don't run the constant risk of not getting payed at all for your labour; to be fair, this also needs to get into a serious discussion about what you think about markets in general, which relates to 2. of my previous post) but not value being stripped from absolutely everyone in exchange for, well, basically not being subject to market forces?
>As far as I'm concerned, workers having the true value of their labor stripped from them is theft through misdirection.
There's two things to talk about here:
1. What your theory of value is, and how you support it
2. Why do you hate value being stripped from workers in exchange for the security of not being subject to market forces (not being able to sell your product, but still having sunk that work into it, while as employed, sure, you don't get the full value of your product, but at the same time you don't run the constant risk of not getting payed at all for your labour; to be fair, this also needs to get into a serious discussion about what you think about markets in general, which relates to 2. of my previous post) but not value being stripped from absolutely everyone in exchange for, well, basically not being subject to market forces?
File (): 62DCD1702701C06C6853637CD7DB7BA0-70847.gif (69.2 KB, 531x447, Applejack_pondering.gif)
You know what i never quite understood? Nationalism is right wing, supposedly, and socialist policies are left wing or something
So how the hell are national socialists called very right wing
I don't understand
So how the hell are national socialists called very right wing
I don't understand
>>34616
Everyone gets the food they need, and if people produce unnecessary things, they are distributed to people who want things. Of course it's more complicated than that and there are all different sorts of communism.
I'm a strasserist. The market exists, it's just heavily restricted and doesn't involve private property. So, normally, I guess.
>>34615
I don't know what most of the first question even means above a rudimentary level. I'm also not willing to go completely off topic.
>2. Describe your model of societal organization so I can argue all day about it.
Well, I'm not 100% sure about my beliefs in this regard. I might as well just take a Strasserist position for now. The country should be split into syndicates in which the private property is collectivized and split between the state, management, and workers equally into thirds of profit and sway. The progression to manager should be based off of skill in a trade and is a promotion to an administrative position. The management essentially run affairs while the workers are allowed to decide how things are actually done within the workplace. Trade for resources, protection, and international affairs are handled by the state entirely.
>Honestly where this debate really needs to start is what constitutes interests and goals
Getting the full value of our labor. Also it's common sense reasoning that what's good for one worker is more likely to be good for all workers as opposed to what's good for the the wealthy or political class being good for the worker.
>>34617
I think that's fucking retarded. Capitalism does things more efficiently but it's machinations have no real need to do what's best for the consumer when the consumer can be oppressed, manipulated, or coerced.
Everyone gets the food they need, and if people produce unnecessary things, they are distributed to people who want things. Of course it's more complicated than that and there are all different sorts of communism.
I'm a strasserist. The market exists, it's just heavily restricted and doesn't involve private property. So, normally, I guess.
>>34615
I don't know what most of the first question even means above a rudimentary level. I'm also not willing to go completely off topic.
>2. Describe your model of societal organization so I can argue all day about it.
Well, I'm not 100% sure about my beliefs in this regard. I might as well just take a Strasserist position for now. The country should be split into syndicates in which the private property is collectivized and split between the state, management, and workers equally into thirds of profit and sway. The progression to manager should be based off of skill in a trade and is a promotion to an administrative position. The management essentially run affairs while the workers are allowed to decide how things are actually done within the workplace. Trade for resources, protection, and international affairs are handled by the state entirely.
>Honestly where this debate really needs to start is what constitutes interests and goals
Getting the full value of our labor. Also it's common sense reasoning that what's good for one worker is more likely to be good for all workers as opposed to what's good for the the wealthy or political class being good for the worker.
>>34617
I think that's fucking retarded. Capitalism does things more efficiently but it's machinations have no real need to do what's best for the consumer when the consumer can be oppressed, manipulated, or coerced.
>>34618
The reason neo-marxism or cultural Marxism is so popular is because the capitalist interests are in division along all lines but class. This is largely manufactured as the concept of "white" nationalism is rather new. Americans aren't for the most part of any ethnicity. They are all mongrels. They have no way to attain ETHNIC nationalism, so now it's "white" nationalism. White groups of people with no heritage in common at all blindly following "racial interests" like sheep. This is a product of an unconscious working class. Bordiga predicts that the workers will eventually become conscious that their race and nation bullshit is a complete ruse, and that their interests lie among other workers, now with rich, corrupt white people.
We must crush the myth that "race" is important in the grande scheme. Ethnicity was a useful tool, race is completely useless. Ethnicity involves common heritage, nation, and often culture. Race means nothing but genetics, and niggers can till a field as good as any white man.
>>34619>>34619
>1. What your theory of value is, and how you support it
Quite simple. The value is normally as the market determines it. In a market system, the product of labor is sold for far more than the worker is paid. The worker can now purchase less than the value of his labor in other labor in a market system. The fact is that this isn't necessary, and regardless of value, the working class can seize the means of production and enjoy the full value of their labor. Eventually.
>>34621
In Europe, the right is often conflated with nationalism and social policy. That's pretty much why. The National Socialist party started out as somewhat of a third position.
>>34624
>Hey mang who chipps in by distributing food based on need, I'm sick and will need extra supplies to survive. Can I have extra supplies to survive?
>Let me just do some math and figure out how much we can give you, and then give it to you.
>Okay
The reason neo-marxism or cultural Marxism is so popular is because the capitalist interests are in division along all lines but class. This is largely manufactured as the concept of "white" nationalism is rather new. Americans aren't for the most part of any ethnicity. They are all mongrels. They have no way to attain ETHNIC nationalism, so now it's "white" nationalism. White groups of people with no heritage in common at all blindly following "racial interests" like sheep. This is a product of an unconscious working class. Bordiga predicts that the workers will eventually become conscious that their race and nation bullshit is a complete ruse, and that their interests lie among other workers, now with rich, corrupt white people.
We must crush the myth that "race" is important in the grande scheme. Ethnicity was a useful tool, race is completely useless. Ethnicity involves common heritage, nation, and often culture. Race means nothing but genetics, and niggers can till a field as good as any white man.
>>34619>>34619
>1. What your theory of value is, and how you support it
Quite simple. The value is normally as the market determines it. In a market system, the product of labor is sold for far more than the worker is paid. The worker can now purchase less than the value of his labor in other labor in a market system. The fact is that this isn't necessary, and regardless of value, the working class can seize the means of production and enjoy the full value of their labor. Eventually.
>>34621
In Europe, the right is often conflated with nationalism and social policy. That's pretty much why. The National Socialist party started out as somewhat of a third position.
>>34624
>Hey mang who chipps in by distributing food based on need, I'm sick and will need extra supplies to survive. Can I have extra supplies to survive?
>Let me just do some math and figure out how much we can give you, and then give it to you.
>Okay
File (): 10AC1FDDA7143CFC5C647297061FCF8A-105008.png (102.5 KB, 800x430, Gondola_gommie.png)
>>34624
Imo need is a very personal and subjective thing, and I personally think that everyone should be able to take as much as they want, and give as much as they want, as to keep them happy and the system stable. Problem being this requires nigh infinite resources.
Imo need is a very personal and subjective thing, and I personally think that everyone should be able to take as much as they want, and give as much as they want, as to keep them happy and the system stable. Problem being this requires nigh infinite resources.
>>34627
We live in a world in which 2 billion people are overwight and yet 25000 people die of hunger every day. We can tolerate feeding people.
We live in a world in which 2 billion people are overwight and yet 25000 people die of hunger every day. We can tolerate feeding people.
File (): 04ABB3B22BFEB092B9EEE6132C5C8975-228065.jpg (222.7 KB, 888x800, 4dfc2cdc89557eff643516e39a9baed0bed634796b42a79a5059e0ac789c1cd0.jpg)
Really gotta post more memes.
File (): EE9916108694EDF2C491FC712BBF7B3D-159866.jpg (156.1 KB, 982x1200, 425254253srgaa.jpg)
>>34622
> but it's machinations have no real need to do what's best for the consumer when the consumer can be oppressed, manipulated, or coerced.
You know, there are means of consumer's protection. That's why contracts needs to be read throughtly and all the damages should be paid if not by wilingness of both sides than by court's judgement.
> but it's machinations have no real need to do what's best for the consumer when the consumer can be oppressed, manipulated, or coerced.
You know, there are means of consumer's protection. That's why contracts needs to be read throughtly and all the damages should be paid if not by wilingness of both sides than by court's judgement.
>>34629
I was talking about more than food
And even then, if you let people take however much they want, without increasing our food supply, then there will be at the very least shortages of certain foods.
I was talking about more than food
And even then, if you let people take however much they want, without increasing our food supply, then there will be at the very least shortages of certain foods.
>>34632
Yeah, because the problem is getting it there. Not that we decide who gets food based on who can afford it or anything. Because in the modern world it's REALLY hard to transport millions of tones of grain and everything amirite?
Maybe if we just let those African farmers do there thi-...
Oh wait they can't compete with cheap grain from America and are dependent, with capitalism taking every trucking penny from them so they can simply survive, while paying pittance for their natural resources and subverting their revolutions.
Yeah, because the problem is getting it there. Not that we decide who gets food based on who can afford it or anything. Because in the modern world it's REALLY hard to transport millions of tones of grain and everything amirite?
Maybe if we just let those African farmers do there thi-...
Oh wait they can't compete with cheap grain from America and are dependent, with capitalism taking every trucking penny from them so they can simply survive, while paying pittance for their natural resources and subverting their revolutions.
File (): D18277CBB66D6390F9BF81315484CBC5-991377.png (968.1 KB, 960x540, 15966057_232728643839466_3268183690151232982_n.png)
>>34636
>Hey Jeremy, why are you taking twenty loafs of bread? We need those!
>Too bad!
Is this how you think this plays out?
And I don't really care if little Timmy can get his xbox 360 for Christmas to be 100% honest.
>>34638
But you are correct. They are.
However Africans have historically been able to feed themselves by dint of them still existing and sometimes making empires. The CAN feed themselves, and would be forced to, if it weren't for western interference.
>>34639
>and just dump memes without making arguments.
I'm making arguments you fucking moron.
>Hey Jeremy, why are you taking twenty loafs of bread? We need those!
>Too bad!
Is this how you think this plays out?
And I don't really care if little Timmy can get his xbox 360 for Christmas to be 100% honest.
>>34638
But you are correct. They are.
However Africans have historically been able to feed themselves by dint of them still existing and sometimes making empires. The CAN feed themselves, and would be forced to, if it weren't for western interference.
>>34639
>and just dump memes without making arguments.
I'm making arguments you fucking moron.
>>34644
One of the richest men in the history of the planet was from Africa. Can't remember his name. Probably in this link somewhere.
He visited the whole fucking world. Got to Indonesia at some point.
One of the richest men in the history of the planet was from Africa. Can't remember his name. Probably in this link somewhere.
He visited the whole fucking world. Got to Indonesia at some point.
>>34622
>Getting the full value of our labor.
Again, what is the full value of your labor? Does it mean the whole product you created? A part of it? What about the cost of the machines and parts? Where do they come in? What about if, for example, machines do 90% of the "labor", however you may define that? Are you entitled to the machines so you can do your work? What about innovations in how your work is done - they don't exactly fit under the concept of "labor" much, but they can have large effects.
>>34626
I guess I'll continue
> In a market system, the product of labor is sold for far more than the worker is paid.
Is this done when including the investment? Additionally, how is this *not* necessary? Can workers make consumer goods without tools? I'm really interested in this magic worker who can produce modern quality aeroplanes without the expensive tooling, it'll be an economic miracle /s *obnoxious cunting intensifes*
>Getting the full value of our labor.
Again, what is the full value of your labor? Does it mean the whole product you created? A part of it? What about the cost of the machines and parts? Where do they come in? What about if, for example, machines do 90% of the "labor", however you may define that? Are you entitled to the machines so you can do your work? What about innovations in how your work is done - they don't exactly fit under the concept of "labor" much, but they can have large effects.
>>34626
I guess I'll continue
> In a market system, the product of labor is sold for far more than the worker is paid.
Is this done when including the investment? Additionally, how is this *not* necessary? Can workers make consumer goods without tools? I'm really interested in this magic worker who can produce modern quality aeroplanes without the expensive tooling, it'll be an economic miracle /s *obnoxious cunting intensifes*
>>34626
>Race means nothing but genetics, and niggers can till a field as good as any white man.
But will they want to till the fields with whitey? I doubt it. Racial groups will form their own class and have historically formed their own classes societally based on race. Look at Latin America where race has become a huge class indicator. Not too mention that races are inheritly better at different things. Maybe the blacks are better at picking cotton but the whites are better at making tools. This along with bias toward those who look different from you is what has created classes in nations in Latin America to begin with. Its just human nature and genetics that make men less able to relate to a a heirchy that is social rather then genetic and visible not only in skin but in traits and helping accomplish results
>Race means nothing but genetics, and niggers can till a field as good as any white man.
But will they want to till the fields with whitey? I doubt it. Racial groups will form their own class and have historically formed their own classes societally based on race. Look at Latin America where race has become a huge class indicator. Not too mention that races are inheritly better at different things. Maybe the blacks are better at picking cotton but the whites are better at making tools. This along with bias toward those who look different from you is what has created classes in nations in Latin America to begin with. Its just human nature and genetics that make men less able to relate to a a heirchy that is social rather then genetic and visible not only in skin but in traits and helping accomplish results
>>34642
also I was thinking more like
>I would like 2 loaves of bread because I want to make bread pudding
>yeah nah mate your ration only includes one loaf
maybe not with bread loaves
maybe with raspberries, maybe with champignons. Not being able to get something annoys people, and if the state controls who gets what they get annoyed and mad at the state, instead of companies in capitalist societies.
Example: I wanted to buy some rhubarb from a grocery store a week ago, they didnt have it. I got annoyed at the store. I still kind of hold a grudge.
But if that was the state created grocery store, I would get annoyed at the state.
And if enough people get annoyed with the government, they might get angry with it. If enough are angry they might subvert it.
etc
also I was thinking more like
>I would like 2 loaves of bread because I want to make bread pudding
>yeah nah mate your ration only includes one loaf
maybe not with bread loaves
maybe with raspberries, maybe with champignons. Not being able to get something annoys people, and if the state controls who gets what they get annoyed and mad at the state, instead of companies in capitalist societies.
Example: I wanted to buy some rhubarb from a grocery store a week ago, they didnt have it. I got annoyed at the store. I still kind of hold a grudge.
But if that was the state created grocery store, I would get annoyed at the state.
And if enough people get annoyed with the government, they might get angry with it. If enough are angry they might subvert it.
etc
>Again, what is the full value of your labor?
In a collective sense, everything they made.
>What about the cost of the machines and parts?
Cost? No currency or cost. What is needed is made. Ideally we would have automation before the revolution, however capitalists only like automation when we raise the minimum wage, otherwise it creates an angry class of unemployed people and we have revolution.
>What about if, for example, machines do 90% of the "labor", however you may define that? Are you entitled to the machines so you can do your work?
The more machines the better. Their labor would be collectively owned. Capitalism is the opposite. Socialism is the only way to get humans out of factories.
>What about innovations in how your work is done - they don't exactly fit under the concept of "labor" much, but they can have large effects.
Okay. I don't see a problem here. If someone wants to invent things instead of working, well, he gets everything he needs for thinking.
>Is this done when including the investment?
Eventually the investment is paid back.
>Additionally, how is this *not* necessary? Can workers make consumer goods without tools?
Workers make tools.
>'m really interested in this magic worker who can produce modern quality aeroplanes without the expensive tooling, it'll be an economic miracle /s *obnoxious cunting intensifes*
Workers make tools.
In a collective sense, everything they made.
>What about the cost of the machines and parts?
Cost? No currency or cost. What is needed is made. Ideally we would have automation before the revolution, however capitalists only like automation when we raise the minimum wage, otherwise it creates an angry class of unemployed people and we have revolution.
>What about if, for example, machines do 90% of the "labor", however you may define that? Are you entitled to the machines so you can do your work?
The more machines the better. Their labor would be collectively owned. Capitalism is the opposite. Socialism is the only way to get humans out of factories.
>What about innovations in how your work is done - they don't exactly fit under the concept of "labor" much, but they can have large effects.
Okay. I don't see a problem here. If someone wants to invent things instead of working, well, he gets everything he needs for thinking.
>Is this done when including the investment?
Eventually the investment is paid back.
>Additionally, how is this *not* necessary? Can workers make consumer goods without tools?
Workers make tools.
>'m really interested in this magic worker who can produce modern quality aeroplanes without the expensive tooling, it'll be an economic miracle /s *obnoxious cunting intensifes*
Workers make tools.
>>34647
>But will they want to till the fields with whitey? I doubt it
They will if the kike media (run for greedy corporate interests in politics and in the private sector) stops convincing them that whitey is the enemy. PORKY and his kike mates are the enemy.
REMEMBER! I won't fucking repeat this again. The first step is to MAKE A CLASS CONSCIOUS SOCIETY! Then we can have glorious revolution against porky. Every "but they won't want that because muh spooks" argument is bullshit when you realize that our first step is to BUST ALL SPOOKS.
>Racial groups will form their own class and have historically formed their own classes societally based on race.
After the revolution, niggers can make their own commune. But a class conscious society is the next stage of man's dialectic evolution, and the past doesn't apply to it without nuanced analysis.
>Not too mention that races are inheritly better at different things.
Yes, and they will fall into niches. No man will rule another in developed communism.
>Its just human nature
Plastic to the environment.
>Its just human nature and genetics that make men less able to relate to a a heirchy that is social rather then genetic and visible not only in skin but in traits and helping accomplish results
Dumb people look at people with different skin and recoil. When they realize that class OBJECTIVELY matters more, they will snap the fuck out of it.
>But will they want to till the fields with whitey? I doubt it
They will if the kike media (run for greedy corporate interests in politics and in the private sector) stops convincing them that whitey is the enemy. PORKY and his kike mates are the enemy.
REMEMBER! I won't fucking repeat this again. The first step is to MAKE A CLASS CONSCIOUS SOCIETY! Then we can have glorious revolution against porky. Every "but they won't want that because muh spooks" argument is bullshit when you realize that our first step is to BUST ALL SPOOKS.
>Racial groups will form their own class and have historically formed their own classes societally based on race.
After the revolution, niggers can make their own commune. But a class conscious society is the next stage of man's dialectic evolution, and the past doesn't apply to it without nuanced analysis.
>Not too mention that races are inheritly better at different things.
Yes, and they will fall into niches. No man will rule another in developed communism.
>Its just human nature
Plastic to the environment.
>Its just human nature and genetics that make men less able to relate to a a heirchy that is social rather then genetic and visible not only in skin but in traits and helping accomplish results
Dumb people look at people with different skin and recoil. When they realize that class OBJECTIVELY matters more, they will snap the fuck out of it.
>>34642
>historically been able to feed themselves Not exactly.
>They CAN feed themselves, and would be forced to, if it weren't for western interference.
This is true though. Stop feeding the nogs, and they'll either learn to feed themselves, or cut their population to a sustainable level.
>>34652
But it's more profitable to exploit them.
This myth that what's good for the market is good for the people is the peak of libertarian boot licking, right next to a hate for unions, who were REGULATED AND MANIPULATED because porky complained that they had to much power, and are now just thugs.
But it's more profitable to exploit them.
This myth that what's good for the market is good for the people is the peak of libertarian boot licking, right next to a hate for unions, who were REGULATED AND MANIPULATED because porky complained that they had to much power, and are now just thugs.
>>34649
>dat pic
Are you unironically a Stalinist? Because I'd like to know before I get into a long argument with a tankie.
>dat pic
Are you unironically a Stalinist? Because I'd like to know before I get into a long argument with a tankie.
File (): C74157700C6B0C02223B371D528D6F11-908911.png (887.6 KB, 420x1899, 27e756ca8250d9dd5a40cd559c093e19b069232a666606908979e6f15b0c3e57.png)
Nazbol is the true way forward my dudes, just FYI. Fuck Globalist Jewniggers.
File (): 325CBBF52CAC06CD48078A5BEDF6DFAA-57971.jpg (56.6 KB, 449x491, 1471153309926.jpg)
Communists just want to take our gu-
>>34659
Those whop get a laugh out of pretending to be nazbol are doomed to find themselves surrounded by fucking nazbols who believe they're in good company.
On an unrelated not, I do strongly believe that any socialist movements must be partnered with nationalist movements.
Those whop get a laugh out of pretending to be nazbol are doomed to find themselves surrounded by fucking nazbols who believe they're in good company.
On an unrelated not, I do strongly believe that any socialist movements must be partnered with nationalist movements.
>>34660
Do socialists normally oppose strict gun regulations, even if it means going up against neo-liberals?
Do socialists normally oppose strict gun regulations, even if it means going up against neo-liberals?
File (): 03DABD06253AEB0CBAEFF3A9F0AFBC5C-7752861.png (7.4 MB, 3498x2362, 1493394457477 (1).png)
File (): A3C3B73B6186AF02FF663245944B2CC9-329779.png (322.0 KB, 1280x720, Twilight_sad.png)
>mfw no one responds to my great example that included bread pudding
File (): F565CE9B5DE836BE1FD055EC15F14F14-228217.jpg (222.9 KB, 1052x1024, Hitler_Stalin_Pony.jpg)
File (): B39ED455215D2062EBF24F03B3998752-213467.png (208.5 KB, 2480x1696, 1486188220898.png)
>>34663
Anarchists are the most pro gun people on the planet. Some tankies don't trust people. However I'd say no true communist supports the stripping of guns from the proletariat.
>>34661
I think NazBol is pretty cool tbh. You can, however, tell that NazBol memes are shrouded in irony.
I really like third position socialist movements as well. Pic related. Giddafi and Sadam was a good boi.
Anarchists are the most pro gun people on the planet. Some tankies don't trust people. However I'd say no true communist supports the stripping of guns from the proletariat.
>>34661
I think NazBol is pretty cool tbh. You can, however, tell that NazBol memes are shrouded in irony.
I really like third position socialist movements as well. Pic related. Giddafi and Sadam was a good boi.
>>34671
>Anarchists are the most pro gun people on the planet.
I wish those guys had a bit more influence over the American left, in terms of that issue.. I used to be a leftist myself, but now I really do hope the Democratic party implodes under the weight of its own bullshit; maybe then things can get better..
Maybe I'd like nazbol, if I were a communist (I'm not), but what I've seen about them seems pretty cancerous.
>Anarchists are the most pro gun people on the planet.
I wish those guys had a bit more influence over the American left, in terms of that issue.. I used to be a leftist myself, but now I really do hope the Democratic party implodes under the weight of its own bullshit; maybe then things can get better..
Maybe I'd like nazbol, if I were a communist (I'm not), but what I've seen about them seems pretty cancerous.
>>34681
>I wish those guys had a bit more influence over the American left, in terms of that issue..
They don't vote, although there are a few. They are also completely separate from liberals. There are 2 lefts. Liberals are far right in their mind as they are filthy capitalists.
NazBol is mostly pretty cancerous.
>I wish those guys had a bit more influence over the American left, in terms of that issue..
They don't vote, although there are a few. They are also completely separate from liberals. There are 2 lefts. Liberals are far right in their mind as they are filthy capitalists.
NazBol is mostly pretty cancerous.
>>34692
Eh, I guess that's one reason not to...
Still, they should consider the fact that a little bit of influence is better than none.
Eh, I guess that's one reason not to...
Still, they should consider the fact that a little bit of influence is better than none.
>>34599
I'm going to respond with a post I made in respinse to a thread on this board a few weeks ago, since it covers many of my most essential problems with Marxism.
The essential problems with Marxism (yes I know you said "Communism/Socialism/Anarchism"), I think, are as follows.
Marxism is based around freeing an oppressed lower proletariat class from an oppressive bourgeoisie class. This means first, that Marxism doesn't actually have much of an idea of what its ideal society will look like, what the good of an individual is, or what a good society is. It only knows what is evil - the oppressive bourgeoisie class and its oppressive oppression. And it has no other evils to its puritanical morality, meaning that the basic functions of morality are ignored by it. I think this is why communist youth are petulant children - they have no moral concerns for decency, self-control, politesse, or respect for others, because their ideology allows for only one evil and no good.
Second, Marxism is never really satisfied that the Bourgeois class has been removed. It constantly looks for the oppressive class everywhere, and tends to tends to think it's found it. As such, it's constantly crusading. See the eternal revolution concept in Maoism or look at any of the "white privilege" nonsense in modern Neo-Marxism.
Third, it is so extremely collectivistic and deterministic that it does not provide any dignity to the individual human being. Every human is only the product of economic or social forces and is either a product of the oppressive class - which must be destroyed in its entirety - or a part of the oppressed, who may be sacrificed for the greater good of the whole. I think this is why Communism and Marxism tend towards extreme democide. The ideology demands it, and there is no reason not to.
Finally, and because of the fact that it sees everything as bourgeois oppression, it must be tyrannical in how it handles dissent. Every tiny bit of dissent again the communist "plan" is perceived as the oppressive class trying to reassert itself. And so all dissent must be silenced to end the oppression. See how modern feminists (Neo-Marxists) so quickly call out other feminists for being part of the oppressive patriarchy. That, I think, is another reason why Marxist Communism invariably becomes totalitarianism.
In short, it's a puritanical morality based solely on killing off an "oppressive" bogeyman. Though other ideologies frequently become oppressive genocidal totalitarian regimes, Communism invariably does. And that is why.
I'm going to respond with a post I made in respinse to a thread on this board a few weeks ago, since it covers many of my most essential problems with Marxism.
The essential problems with Marxism (yes I know you said "Communism/Socialism/Anarchism"), I think, are as follows.
Marxism is based around freeing an oppressed lower proletariat class from an oppressive bourgeoisie class. This means first, that Marxism doesn't actually have much of an idea of what its ideal society will look like, what the good of an individual is, or what a good society is. It only knows what is evil - the oppressive bourgeoisie class and its oppressive oppression. And it has no other evils to its puritanical morality, meaning that the basic functions of morality are ignored by it. I think this is why communist youth are petulant children - they have no moral concerns for decency, self-control, politesse, or respect for others, because their ideology allows for only one evil and no good.
Second, Marxism is never really satisfied that the Bourgeois class has been removed. It constantly looks for the oppressive class everywhere, and tends to tends to think it's found it. As such, it's constantly crusading. See the eternal revolution concept in Maoism or look at any of the "white privilege" nonsense in modern Neo-Marxism.
Third, it is so extremely collectivistic and deterministic that it does not provide any dignity to the individual human being. Every human is only the product of economic or social forces and is either a product of the oppressive class - which must be destroyed in its entirety - or a part of the oppressed, who may be sacrificed for the greater good of the whole. I think this is why Communism and Marxism tend towards extreme democide. The ideology demands it, and there is no reason not to.
Finally, and because of the fact that it sees everything as bourgeois oppression, it must be tyrannical in how it handles dissent. Every tiny bit of dissent again the communist "plan" is perceived as the oppressive class trying to reassert itself. And so all dissent must be silenced to end the oppression. See how modern feminists (Neo-Marxists) so quickly call out other feminists for being part of the oppressive patriarchy. That, I think, is another reason why Marxist Communism invariably becomes totalitarianism.
In short, it's a puritanical morality based solely on killing off an "oppressive" bogeyman. Though other ideologies frequently become oppressive genocidal totalitarian regimes, Communism invariably does. And that is why.
>>34599
How the fuck do you do the mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that anarchy will result in communism? Actually, how the fuck will we even achieve anarchy in the first place? How the fuck do you even define anarchy, because it seems like communists are at a disconnect between what anarchy actually fucking is. Do they just try to say that the revolution of the masses counts as "anarchy" somehow? (This ideology makes my head hurt.)
How the fuck do you do the mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that anarchy will result in communism? Actually, how the fuck will we even achieve anarchy in the first place? How the fuck do you even define anarchy, because it seems like communists are at a disconnect between what anarchy actually fucking is. Do they just try to say that the revolution of the masses counts as "anarchy" somehow? (This ideology makes my head hurt.)
>This means first, that Marxism doesn't actually have much of an idea of what its ideal society will look like, what the good of an individual is, or what a good society is.
That's 90% of communist theory post Marx.
>It only knows what is evil - the oppressive bourgeoisie class and its oppressive oppression.
Dumbest fucking strawman in history. Next paragraph.
>Second, Marxism is never really satisfied that the Bourgeois class has been removed. It constantly looks for the oppressive class everywhere, and tends to tends to think it's found it.
That would be Maoism. There was no doctrine of this in the west or on Russia. What nonsense.
>See the eternal revolution concept in Maoism or look at any of the "white privilege" nonsense in modern Neo-Marxism.
Eternal revolution isn't a thing for all of communism. And neo-marxism is a reaction to the racial division built in by kikes. Nothing to do with looking for more enemies, just changing the Marxist definition of class to fit their rhetoric.
>Third, it is so extremely collectivist and deterministic that it does not provide any dignity to the individual human being.
A platitude. The human can have dignity without owning private property.
>Finally, and because of the fact that it sees everything as bourgeois oppression, it must be tyrannical in how it handles dissent. Every tiny bit of dissent again the communist "plan" is perceived as the oppressive class trying to reassert itself.
Yes. Just as a revolutionary is imprisoned in the west,a counter revolutionist is imprisoned in communism.
>In short, it's a puritanical morality based solely on killing off an "oppressive" bogeyman.
t. someone who hasn't read anything.
That's 90% of communist theory post Marx.
>It only knows what is evil - the oppressive bourgeoisie class and its oppressive oppression.
Dumbest fucking strawman in history. Next paragraph.
>Second, Marxism is never really satisfied that the Bourgeois class has been removed. It constantly looks for the oppressive class everywhere, and tends to tends to think it's found it.
That would be Maoism. There was no doctrine of this in the west or on Russia. What nonsense.
>See the eternal revolution concept in Maoism or look at any of the "white privilege" nonsense in modern Neo-Marxism.
Eternal revolution isn't a thing for all of communism. And neo-marxism is a reaction to the racial division built in by kikes. Nothing to do with looking for more enemies, just changing the Marxist definition of class to fit their rhetoric.
>Third, it is so extremely collectivist and deterministic that it does not provide any dignity to the individual human being.
A platitude. The human can have dignity without owning private property.
>Finally, and because of the fact that it sees everything as bourgeois oppression, it must be tyrannical in how it handles dissent. Every tiny bit of dissent again the communist "plan" is perceived as the oppressive class trying to reassert itself.
Yes. Just as a revolutionary is imprisoned in the west,a counter revolutionist is imprisoned in communism.
>In short, it's a puritanical morality based solely on killing off an "oppressive" bogeyman.
t. someone who hasn't read anything.
>>34710
Jesus Christ, we let you post a shitload of your propaganda disguised as "memes", but I post one thing and you go all caps like a 4 year old. I'll give you a hint buddy, if your from reddit, you ought to learn what is funny and what isn't. I fully admit my "meme" wasn't funny, but your reaction sure was. You maybe able to get a decent conversation out of the users here because most of them are actually quite nice for a chan, but you'll get your ass torn apart anywhere else. The only reason I'm accusing you of being from reddit btw is because someone link dropped our site on r/farleftside.
Jesus Christ, we let you post a shitload of your propaganda disguised as "memes", but I post one thing and you go all caps like a 4 year old. I'll give you a hint buddy, if your from reddit, you ought to learn what is funny and what isn't. I fully admit my "meme" wasn't funny, but your reaction sure was. You maybe able to get a decent conversation out of the users here because most of them are actually quite nice for a chan, but you'll get your ass torn apart anywhere else. The only reason I'm accusing you of being from reddit btw is because someone link dropped our site on r/farleftside.
>>34715
>Jesus Christ, we let you post a shitload of your propaganda disguised as "memes", but I post one thing and you go all caps like a 4 year old.
What's wrong with caps? I'm joking. Why are you mad?
Not even reading the rest of your post. Fucking child.
>Jesus Christ, we let you post a shitload of your propaganda disguised as "memes", but I post one thing and you go all caps like a 4 year old.
What's wrong with caps? I'm joking. Why are you mad?
Not even reading the rest of your post. Fucking child.
>>34716
>It's just a joke guys! Why couldn't you detect my irony just from my post itself? Lol u mad bro?
>It's just a joke guys! Why couldn't you detect my irony just from my post itself? Lol u mad bro?
File (): 773CDCA3AA0326FB67D891AB0B5DF17E-542394.png (529.7 KB, 946x1680, 9abf0a20d99ce33787f86d2608388eb98ace6a15b593f6aac56ecfe2e77f2de8.png)
>>34698
>How the fuck do you do the mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that anarchy will result in communism?
Other way around, smart guy.
>Actually, how the fuck will we even achieve anarchy in the first place?
Read the Bread book or literally any Marx.
>How the fuck do you even define anarchy, because it seems like communists are at a disconnect between what anarchy actually fucking is.
Every anarchist in history wrote of what was essentially socialism. Ancaps changed that because they are fucking retards. Anarchy isn't just everyone do whatever the fuck you want, it's extreme equality No hierarchy. Communism is a good way to organize anarchy. So is syndicalism.
You're a new age child who doesn't understand what anarchism is. Real anarchism has existed several times in history and it works. Ukrainian Free Territory and Rojava are good examples.
>How the fuck do you do the mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that anarchy will result in communism?
Other way around, smart guy.
>Actually, how the fuck will we even achieve anarchy in the first place?
Read the Bread book or literally any Marx.
>How the fuck do you even define anarchy, because it seems like communists are at a disconnect between what anarchy actually fucking is.
Every anarchist in history wrote of what was essentially socialism. Ancaps changed that because they are fucking retards. Anarchy isn't just everyone do whatever the fuck you want, it's extreme equality No hierarchy. Communism is a good way to organize anarchy. So is syndicalism.
You're a new age child who doesn't understand what anarchism is. Real anarchism has existed several times in history and it works. Ukrainian Free Territory and Rojava are good examples.
>>34722
Are you implying that I was serious when I said
WOW
YOU SHOWED ME!
?
Are you actually fucking retarded.
Are you implying that I was serious when I said
WOW
YOU SHOWED ME!
?
Are you actually fucking retarded.
>>34723
I happen to know there were alot of anarchists who didn't buy the communism thing came around after the saw the horrors of government in ww1. However, you accuse me of not understanding your ideology when there are nearly infinite variations on it, and you just happen to believe in one of those variations. There are alot of people who have told me that they want anarchy before communism, and there are even those who say that anarchy literally IS communism. and then they all tell me to read Marx because he supported thier "true" form of communism. I find it very hard to decide what the "true form" actually is. I guess your just here to enlighten us about that, but why do you have any more credibility than shills or 4pol or the folks over at /leftypol/?
I happen to know there were alot of anarchists who didn't buy the communism thing came around after the saw the horrors of government in ww1. However, you accuse me of not understanding your ideology when there are nearly infinite variations on it, and you just happen to believe in one of those variations. There are alot of people who have told me that they want anarchy before communism, and there are even those who say that anarchy literally IS communism. and then they all tell me to read Marx because he supported thier "true" form of communism. I find it very hard to decide what the "true form" actually is. I guess your just here to enlighten us about that, but why do you have any more credibility than shills or 4pol or the folks over at /leftypol/?
>>34730
>I happen to know there were alot of anarchists who didn't buy the communism thing came around after the saw the horrors of government in ww1
Yes. Not all anarchists are Marxists, but they are socialists.
>However, you accuse me of not understanding your ideology when there are nearly infinite variations on it, and you just happen to believe in one of those variations.
Actually, I'm talking about literally every single semi-popular iteration of anarchy on the fucking planet. Excluding internet memes. Every anarchist writer agrees. Read the pick I sent. You probably don't even know who the fuck those people are because you've never read a book.
>There are alot of people who have told me that they want anarchy before communism, and there are even those who say that anarchy literally IS communism.
No, late stage communism IS anarchy. You are putting words in people's mouths.
>I find it very hard to decide what the "true form" actually is.
How about every practiced and popular form and the commonalities in between?
> I guess your just here to enlighten us about that, but why do you have any more credibility than shills or 4pol or the folks over at /leftypol/?
Because I've read a fucking book. Several. And if you spent 5 minutes before turning up here on Wikipedia looking up anarchist movements before sperging out like an utter fucking child, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Don't back peddle. Look at your first post and admit you were wrong.
>I happen to know there were alot of anarchists who didn't buy the communism thing came around after the saw the horrors of government in ww1
Yes. Not all anarchists are Marxists, but they are socialists.
>However, you accuse me of not understanding your ideology when there are nearly infinite variations on it, and you just happen to believe in one of those variations.
Actually, I'm talking about literally every single semi-popular iteration of anarchy on the fucking planet. Excluding internet memes. Every anarchist writer agrees. Read the pick I sent. You probably don't even know who the fuck those people are because you've never read a book.
>There are alot of people who have told me that they want anarchy before communism, and there are even those who say that anarchy literally IS communism.
No, late stage communism IS anarchy. You are putting words in people's mouths.
>I find it very hard to decide what the "true form" actually is.
How about every practiced and popular form and the commonalities in between?
> I guess your just here to enlighten us about that, but why do you have any more credibility than shills or 4pol or the folks over at /leftypol/?
Because I've read a fucking book. Several. And if you spent 5 minutes before turning up here on Wikipedia looking up anarchist movements before sperging out like an utter fucking child, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Don't back peddle. Look at your first post and admit you were wrong.
>>34732
And here we go. Telling the guy your debating to "read a book". What makes you any better than the Christian fundamentalist who just told me to "read the Bible" every time I disagreed with them? Just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it is true. Books are not these magical things where people suddenly have superhuman intelligence just because they "wrote their ideas in a book". All your doing is trying to create a statement that I can't possibly argue against because I haven't read some magical little book that solves all of societies problems. And you know that I'll never be able to read these books in time to respond to your weird ass ideology. So how about you actually use the "knowledge" that YOU gained from these books to enlighten ME on why communism will save us all, rather than just telling me to "read a book" so that you don't have to make an argument?
And here we go. Telling the guy your debating to "read a book". What makes you any better than the Christian fundamentalist who just told me to "read the Bible" every time I disagreed with them? Just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it is true. Books are not these magical things where people suddenly have superhuman intelligence just because they "wrote their ideas in a book". All your doing is trying to create a statement that I can't possibly argue against because I haven't read some magical little book that solves all of societies problems. And you know that I'll never be able to read these books in time to respond to your weird ass ideology. So how about you actually use the "knowledge" that YOU gained from these books to enlighten ME on why communism will save us all, rather than just telling me to "read a book" so that you don't have to make an argument?
File (): 9C3FB964C4E26FEED24A7799A8D66229-186790.jpg (182.4 KB, 1990x762, 6d0c376c7add2c0a586b33834df8ac35adef22040f512f45f79db79470963057.jpg)
>>34737
Yeah, I'm not even going to read past the third line. I've made my argument. I know I'm right. I talk to anarchist all of the time and have a strong general knowledge of anarchy while you probably didn't know anarchist collectives actually existed.
You come in here acting like I'm a fucking lunatic when you know nothing. You don't deserve my attention.
Yeah, I'm not even going to read past the third line. I've made my argument. I know I'm right. I talk to anarchist all of the time and have a strong general knowledge of anarchy while you probably didn't know anarchist collectives actually existed.
You come in here acting like I'm a fucking lunatic when you know nothing. You don't deserve my attention.
File (): C5D86AA8DC896946FAE03B89950F3493-233756.png (228.3 KB, 1920x1080, XW4R994.png)
>>34738
Typical communist, refusing to even acknowledge any opposition. I know only one thing, and that is that no one knows for sure if they are right. The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to admit that.
Typical communist, refusing to even acknowledge any opposition. I know only one thing, and that is that no one knows for sure if they are right. The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to admit that.
The comey thread is up, btw.
File (): 7A1373227C6D9AB024A68CDC8FE82C29-51253.jpg (50.1 KB, 250x375, 8569b8645c1ccd99e562715637294f2c.jpg)
File (): 443C73BB6620A074718E9BDAB8690923-445249.jpg (434.8 KB, 2000x1334, dont-tread-on-me-meaning.jpg)
File (): 1DCF6FDC4978D3D45CC16EB2C4C75DAA-8166.jpg (8.0 KB, 300x168, images (9).jpg)
Don't have time to respond properly because work and phone but I d like to say that I hate commies because they don't care about the individual. Any man should be able to live with his own kind and should also be able to make his stake in life. While I don't want freedoms to be infringed I do recognise the need for a state e.g. Environment, infrastructure, allowing the advancement of technology. It must exist to protect and serve the individual, the land and facilitate the exploration of the universe.
I used to be a gommie until I joined the military and actually started working with others while being equal, people will always game a system like that. I also think everyone should do time in order to mature and unite.
In short
>Muh mountain man lifestyle
>Muh modern scientific pursuit life style
>Muh friendship groups but united
>Muh don't tred on me commies get out ree
I used to be a gommie until I joined the military and actually started working with others while being equal, people will always game a system like that. I also think everyone should do time in order to mature and unite.
In short
>Muh mountain man lifestyle
>Muh modern scientific pursuit life style
>Muh friendship groups but united
>Muh don't tred on me commies get out ree
>>34705
So... No explanation as to what the good society would look like, or how human interactions on massive scale will be structured and governed in a post state order?
Do you deny that the borgeouis is an oppressive class under Marxism?
Do you believe that the Soviet Union was being faithful to Marxism when it abandoned the revolution and was content with a fairly nationalist despotic state?
Do you disagree that the thermal revolution is at the very least essential to neo-Marxist identity politics?
If the identification of the unit of relevance with the proletariat class, combined with the determinism thaf makes all individual human actions a function of emvironment does not degrade dignity, then why have Communisf governments (and for that matter, rightwing collectivist government's like the Nazis) been so willing to kill their own citizens or send them to die?
Do you deny that under Marxism, the definition of "counter revolutionary is fairly broad?
No? Okay
So... No explanation as to what the good society would look like, or how human interactions on massive scale will be structured and governed in a post state order?
Do you deny that the borgeouis is an oppressive class under Marxism?
Do you believe that the Soviet Union was being faithful to Marxism when it abandoned the revolution and was content with a fairly nationalist despotic state?
Do you disagree that the thermal revolution is at the very least essential to neo-Marxist identity politics?
If the identification of the unit of relevance with the proletariat class, combined with the determinism thaf makes all individual human actions a function of emvironment does not degrade dignity, then why have Communisf governments (and for that matter, rightwing collectivist government's like the Nazis) been so willing to kill their own citizens or send them to die?
Do you deny that under Marxism, the definition of "counter revolutionary is fairly broad?
No? Okay
>>34744
>Typical communist, refusing to even acknowledge any opposition
I was having a nice conversation with 5 people at one time and then you come along sitting atop idiot mountain thinking he knows shit.
>>34747
>I hate commies because they don't care about the individual.
I don't care about your spooks. I care about myself and people with my interests, which happens to be the whole working class. Our ancestors didn't give a shit and neither do I.
>Any man should be able to live with his own kind and should also be able to make his stake in life.
>His own kind
Spooky. Why? Why should he care? And why does communism stop him from starting a commune full of white people?
> While I don't want freedoms to be infringed I do recognise the need for a state e.g. Environment, infrastructure, allowing the advancement of technology.
So you like people putting their boots on you, but just lightly enough so that you can still move around. That's nice. I for one don't see the idea of a boot like you do, as I'm not an individualist.
> It must exist to protect and serve the individual
Just like the collective... Wow...
>and facilitate the exploration of the universe.
What should sicken you more than your view of collectivism is that people want to send rockets to Mars while people are still starving on earth. Such care for the individual! Fuck "exploring the universe". What a vain and frivolous pursuit in general, let alone in a world in which 25000 people die from starvation every single day.
>I used to be a gommie until I joined the military and actually started working with others while being equal
I used to be a libertarian until I went out and worked for myself cash in hand, doing better work, without paying taxes, and getting the full value of my labor. Well, that wasn't what tilted me, but funny coincidence, aye?
>Typical communist, refusing to even acknowledge any opposition
I was having a nice conversation with 5 people at one time and then you come along sitting atop idiot mountain thinking he knows shit.
>>34747
>I hate commies because they don't care about the individual.
I don't care about your spooks. I care about myself and people with my interests, which happens to be the whole working class. Our ancestors didn't give a shit and neither do I.
>Any man should be able to live with his own kind and should also be able to make his stake in life.
>His own kind
Spooky. Why? Why should he care? And why does communism stop him from starting a commune full of white people?
> While I don't want freedoms to be infringed I do recognise the need for a state e.g. Environment, infrastructure, allowing the advancement of technology.
So you like people putting their boots on you, but just lightly enough so that you can still move around. That's nice. I for one don't see the idea of a boot like you do, as I'm not an individualist.
> It must exist to protect and serve the individual
Just like the collective... Wow...
>and facilitate the exploration of the universe.
What should sicken you more than your view of collectivism is that people want to send rockets to Mars while people are still starving on earth. Such care for the individual! Fuck "exploring the universe". What a vain and frivolous pursuit in general, let alone in a world in which 25000 people die from starvation every single day.
>I used to be a gommie until I joined the military and actually started working with others while being equal
I used to be a libertarian until I went out and worked for myself cash in hand, doing better work, without paying taxes, and getting the full value of my labor. Well, that wasn't what tilted me, but funny coincidence, aye?
>>34755
>>34755
> No explanation as to what the good society would look like,
WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE EVER FUCKING READ!
Communism refers to a stateless, classless, and currencyless society as described by Marxist Leninist. The biggest thing about communism is how the society will work! How are you this fucking ignorant? Do I need to explain in detail how it will work for you to be happy, or can I trust you to be a big boy? Fucking hell...
>Do you deny that the borgeouis is an oppressive class under Marxism?
No. They are.
>Do you believe that the Soviet Union was being faithful to Marxism when it abandoned the revolution and was content with a fairly nationalist despotic state?
No. It is impossible to be faithful to Marx because his theories were not correct and didn't even apply to revolution in Russia.
>Do you disagree that the thermal revolution is at the very least essential to neo-Marxist identity politics?
Thermal revolution? No idea what that is. Never even heard the term. But I don't care what is essential to cultural Marxist revolution either.
> If the identification of the unit of relevance with the proletariat class, combined with the determinism thaf makes all individual human actions a function of emvironment does not degrade dignity, then why have Communisf governments (and for that matter, rightwing collectivist government's like the Nazis) been so willing to kill their own citizens or send them to die?
Because like every country you need people to die to defend and protect your interests and in the case of communism, spread revolution. What a fucking terrible argument. They are no more willing than any other state. And the Soviets aren't even a good example of communism.
>Do you deny that under Marxism, the definition of "counter revolutionary is fairly broad?
It's actually pretty specific in terms of what it defines. Everything that goes against the goal of revolution. A broad net, sure, but a specific target.
>No? Okay
Are you actually retarded?
>>34755
> No explanation as to what the good society would look like,
WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE EVER FUCKING READ!
Communism refers to a stateless, classless, and currencyless society as described by Marxist Leninist. The biggest thing about communism is how the society will work! How are you this fucking ignorant? Do I need to explain in detail how it will work for you to be happy, or can I trust you to be a big boy? Fucking hell...
>Do you deny that the borgeouis is an oppressive class under Marxism?
No. They are.
>Do you believe that the Soviet Union was being faithful to Marxism when it abandoned the revolution and was content with a fairly nationalist despotic state?
No. It is impossible to be faithful to Marx because his theories were not correct and didn't even apply to revolution in Russia.
>Do you disagree that the thermal revolution is at the very least essential to neo-Marxist identity politics?
Thermal revolution? No idea what that is. Never even heard the term. But I don't care what is essential to cultural Marxist revolution either.
> If the identification of the unit of relevance with the proletariat class, combined with the determinism thaf makes all individual human actions a function of emvironment does not degrade dignity, then why have Communisf governments (and for that matter, rightwing collectivist government's like the Nazis) been so willing to kill their own citizens or send them to die?
Because like every country you need people to die to defend and protect your interests and in the case of communism, spread revolution. What a fucking terrible argument. They are no more willing than any other state. And the Soviets aren't even a good example of communism.
>Do you deny that under Marxism, the definition of "counter revolutionary is fairly broad?
It's actually pretty specific in terms of what it defines. Everything that goes against the goal of revolution. A broad net, sure, but a specific target.
>No? Okay
Are you actually retarded?
This conversation was fine until it was over run by spastics that don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about.
We WILL be collectivizing your toothbrushes you swine.
>>34767
>Someone makes an ideology
>He writes a book about HIS ideology
>GUYS HE COULD BE LYING ABOUT WHAT HIS IDEOLOGY IS EVEN THOUGH HE INVENTED IT AND THE ONLY SOURCE FOR WHAT THE IDEOLOGY IS IS IN THE TEXT ITSELF
You should kill yourself.
We WILL be collectivizing your toothbrushes you swine.
>>34767
>Someone makes an ideology
>He writes a book about HIS ideology
>GUYS HE COULD BE LYING ABOUT WHAT HIS IDEOLOGY IS EVEN THOUGH HE INVENTED IT AND THE ONLY SOURCE FOR WHAT THE IDEOLOGY IS IS IN THE TEXT ITSELF
You should kill yourself.
>>34769
Ah, but you forgot that he also writes about what he thinks his ideology will achieve. if he claims communism will be paradise, he is clearly either lying or deluded.
Ah, but you forgot that he also writes about what he thinks his ideology will achieve. if he claims communism will be paradise, he is clearly either lying or deluded.
File (): 04AD474D26DB01E13FFF104C578C01FF-85861.jpg (83.8 KB, 757x481, 1490143560152 (1).jpg)
>>34773
We were discussing whether or not the ideology concerns itself with building a good society. Whether it can be accomplished or not is irrelevant to the premise.
You aren't smart enough to have this discussion. Please stop.
How does it feel to be intellectually outpaced by a leftist? I bet it feels really bad.
We were discussing whether or not the ideology concerns itself with building a good society. Whether it can be accomplished or not is irrelevant to the premise.
You aren't smart enough to have this discussion. Please stop.
How does it feel to be intellectually outpaced by a leftist? I bet it feels really bad.
>>34765
>read
Read what? I've read the communist manifesto, "socialism, utopian and scientific," Feuerbach's "the essence of Christianity," and I have some familiarity with critical theory and the Frankfurt school. I have also read a number of non-Marxist thinkers in the Hegelian school. What else do I need to read
>Do I need to explain how a classless stateless society would work?
I mean this with all sincerity - yes, yes you do. As I understand it, human interaction requires complex systems to govern and regulate behavior between individuals, and this is true whether you believe in the inflexible "springs" of desire as per the Englighteent understanding of human nature, or the "spirit" that allows collective social desires to superceed individual desires, under the understanding of human nature proposed by the Hegelian school
>read
Read what? I've read the communist manifesto, "socialism, utopian and scientific," Feuerbach's "the essence of Christianity," and I have some familiarity with critical theory and the Frankfurt school. I have also read a number of non-Marxist thinkers in the Hegelian school. What else do I need to read
>Do I need to explain how a classless stateless society would work?
I mean this with all sincerity - yes, yes you do. As I understand it, human interaction requires complex systems to govern and regulate behavior between individuals, and this is true whether you believe in the inflexible "springs" of desire as per the Englighteent understanding of human nature, or the "spirit" that allows collective social desires to superceed individual desires, under the understanding of human nature proposed by the Hegelian school
>>34774
Well, you did say you refused to read half of my posts, so I find it hard to believe you've destroyed arguments. Actually, your still responding to me even though you said I'm a fucking retard. Why am I worth your time, oh enlightened budda, who solves all problems?
Well, you did say you refused to read half of my posts, so I find it hard to believe you've destroyed arguments. Actually, your still responding to me even though you said I'm a fucking retard. Why am I worth your time, oh enlightened budda, who solves all problems?
>>34775
Also I read Edward Bellamy's "looking forward," which is effectively a fairly detailed explanation of how a specific almost Marxist state would work. But that state technically had a government, even if it was minimal, and so it wasn't quite anarchistic
Also I read Edward Bellamy's "looking forward," which is effectively a fairly detailed explanation of how a specific almost Marxist state would work. But that state technically had a government, even if it was minimal, and so it wasn't quite anarchistic
>>34775
Then why don't you know what communists believe to be a good society when that's literally the point of the ideology?
Don't lie about reading. You've watched youtube videos at most, you cretin.
>I mean this with all sincerity - yes, yes you do
No. The premis was that there does'nt exist an idea for a good society and that the good society itself wasn't an important part of communism, only class dynamics. These are your arguments, and the fact that the communist society is objectively the most important part next to revolution refutes your point entirely. The validity of the system is completely irrelevant.
You're moving the goalposts to another fucking country.
>>34778
That would still be a "good society" that you asked for. I'm not letting you move the goal posts.
Then why don't you know what communists believe to be a good society when that's literally the point of the ideology?
Don't lie about reading. You've watched youtube videos at most, you cretin.
>I mean this with all sincerity - yes, yes you do
No. The premis was that there does'nt exist an idea for a good society and that the good society itself wasn't an important part of communism, only class dynamics. These are your arguments, and the fact that the communist society is objectively the most important part next to revolution refutes your point entirely. The validity of the system is completely irrelevant.
You're moving the goalposts to another fucking country.
>>34778
That would still be a "good society" that you asked for. I'm not letting you move the goal posts.
>>34774
>Whether it can be accomplished or not is irrelevant to the premise.
How is that not relevant?
>Whether it can be accomplished or not is irrelevant to the premise.
How is that not relevant?
>>34779
Okay, then let's change the subject. What should I read to better understand Marxist Leninism?
Okay, then let's change the subject. What should I read to better understand Marxist Leninism?
File (): 5D0E54C4D48E946BAC345D1CEC26068F-2052275.png (2.0 MB, 2301x2397, 1496293820961-4.png)
>>34778
I tag this guy in, he will actually argue with you rather than troll you shitfaced. Have fun you two, but just remember, both of you will solve nothing. Both of you will walk away thinking you've won a victory. All of this is pointless including whatever I posted. Have fun!
I tag this guy in, he will actually argue with you rather than troll you shitfaced. Have fun you two, but just remember, both of you will solve nothing. Both of you will walk away thinking you've won a victory. All of this is pointless including whatever I posted. Have fun!
>>34782
Because it's efficacy doesn't actually relate to the fact that they were concerned with making a good society, which you stated.
>This means first, that Marxism doesn't actually have much of an idea of what its ideal society will look like, what the good of an individual is, or what a good society is.
There. You've been quoted. It's pretty much over for your argument. Concede and make a new one.
I simply can't believe that you actually read when you don't know anything about what communists consider to be a good society.
Because it's efficacy doesn't actually relate to the fact that they were concerned with making a good society, which you stated.
>This means first, that Marxism doesn't actually have much of an idea of what its ideal society will look like, what the good of an individual is, or what a good society is.
There. You've been quoted. It's pretty much over for your argument. Concede and make a new one.
I simply can't believe that you actually read when you don't know anything about what communists consider to be a good society.
>>34782
>he is so up his own ass that he believes humans can't engage in dialectic because he is too dumb too
really makes me think
>he is so up his own ass that he believes humans can't engage in dialectic because he is too dumb too
really makes me think
>>34785
>There. You've been quoted.
That wasn't me.
I really do think one of the most important variables to take into account in terms of political ideologies should be whether or not the worldview in question is realistic in the circumstances in question.
>There. You've been quoted.
That wasn't me.
I really do think one of the most important variables to take into account in terms of political ideologies should be whether or not the worldview in question is realistic in the circumstances in question.
>>34785
Sorry to interrupt, was just watching the convo, but it seems like you're making a strawman. He said they don't have a much of an idea of what it looks like, not if it's concerned with it.
Sorry to interrupt, was just watching the convo, but it seems like you're making a strawman. He said they don't have a much of an idea of what it looks like, not if it's concerned with it.
File (): 90893836ABEC041FC54CAE2E1485831E-319168.png (311.7 KB, 960x955, 1482111892666 (1).png)
>>34788
>That wasn't me
Without color ID this shit can be hard to track... Sorry.
I agree with what you are saying though, I just thought you were the other guy, who I think already pretty much conceded.
>>34783
Good place to start would be Das Capital. The Bread Book if you are ancom, although it can apply to the developed tankie communism. The State and Revolution has some good stuff in it if I recall. You can probably find an "essential works of Lenin" book somewhere. If you want a more modern take, you could listen to (or read if he has any books) Zizek. Ummmm.
Striner and bookchin for anarchism and the philosophy communists will often use to justify themselves.
Hegel for understanding what Marxists mean by Dialectic Materialism.
Then you should be pretty well off.
You're permitted to make your own ideology in Marxist circles most of the time. Through dialectic, you will probably end up falling into a fold.
>>34791
Well, they write a shitload about it. No one guy has all of the answers though.
>That wasn't me
Without color ID this shit can be hard to track... Sorry.
I agree with what you are saying though, I just thought you were the other guy, who I think already pretty much conceded.
>>34783
Good place to start would be Das Capital. The Bread Book if you are ancom, although it can apply to the developed tankie communism. The State and Revolution has some good stuff in it if I recall. You can probably find an "essential works of Lenin" book somewhere. If you want a more modern take, you could listen to (or read if he has any books) Zizek. Ummmm.
Striner and bookchin for anarchism and the philosophy communists will often use to justify themselves.
Hegel for understanding what Marxists mean by Dialectic Materialism.
Then you should be pretty well off.
You're permitted to make your own ideology in Marxist circles most of the time. Through dialectic, you will probably end up falling into a fold.
>>34791
Well, they write a shitload about it. No one guy has all of the answers though.
I'm probably going to fuck off to bed lads. I'm tired and getting actually rustled. The lack of color ID is having my retarded brain fuck up as well.
Good discussion though, to start with.
Good discussion though, to start with.
>>34783
Haven't read this one either, but it comes highly recommended.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
Haven't read this one either, but it comes highly recommended.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
File (): 154EEFABD6ACA1CAC206312B2BE4A8BE-194820.jpg (190.3 KB, 1280x1280, good bread.jpg)
>>34798
Not actually a communist. Strasserist. Devil's advocate and what not.
But yeah, Imma have a wank and then legitimately fuck off to bed this time.
Not actually a communist. Strasserist. Devil's advocate and what not.
But yeah, Imma have a wank and then legitimately fuck off to bed this time.
I'll never understand how people deluded themselves like that. Hopefully he comes back again when I can just spam "his" thread with pony porn. Because to be fair, if he just tells me that Im to retarded to argue with his pseudo-intellectual bullshit, then I might as well act like that.
File (): EC8D7B6061EC3D2B55ADA259E3C0C3BF-63338.jpg (61.9 KB, 960x470, 1496702698761-3.jpg)
Ok. Why is fedex better than the post office?
If fedex has issues with time or customer service they will lose business. Less business less funding. If the service is bad. It will go out of business.
If the post office is bad nobody can do anything. They receive the same amount of funding regardless. Allowing for failure and complacency.
Imagine some guy came up to you and said you have to pay mcdonalds a small fee every day to feed this homeless person. If you dont ill kidnap you and store you in my basement for two years. Then Ill go find another person and make him pay mcdonalds to feed you hamburgers.
In private capitalism you can choose what products you want. You can choose which services you want to pay for instead of being extorted and the services will be high quality. You wont pay for others mistakes either.
Socialism btfo
My next post Ill dismantle full anarchism.
If fedex has issues with time or customer service they will lose business. Less business less funding. If the service is bad. It will go out of business.
If the post office is bad nobody can do anything. They receive the same amount of funding regardless. Allowing for failure and complacency.
Imagine some guy came up to you and said you have to pay mcdonalds a small fee every day to feed this homeless person. If you dont ill kidnap you and store you in my basement for two years. Then Ill go find another person and make him pay mcdonalds to feed you hamburgers.
In private capitalism you can choose what products you want. You can choose which services you want to pay for instead of being extorted and the services will be high quality. You wont pay for others mistakes either.
Socialism btfo
My next post Ill dismantle full anarchism.
File (): D5810F9235CE4BCB873EF8F77A942992-121192.png (118.4 KB, 568x649, 27ed24c316427a7ab3112be1fa7fb57b8fecb3fd.png)
>>34802
>to retarded
>to
Read a Fucking Book
Also google Bookchin and read Bordiga while you're at it
He made several good points, despite him being rather aggressive, and you missed most if not all of them.
>to retarded
>to
Read a Fucking Book
Also google Bookchin and read Bordiga while you're at it
He made several good points, despite him being rather aggressive, and you missed most if not all of them.
>>34805
Don't bother, He will tell you to read a book and then gloat about how smart he is. If I wasn't on data this thread would be a gay horse porn thread by now.
Don't bother, He will tell you to read a book and then gloat about how smart he is. If I wasn't on data this thread would be a gay horse porn thread by now.
>>34806
Just name the points man, his shit was buried beneath him just declaring his intellectual victory. I can't stand it when people pull that type of bullshit, so I started fucking with him. I really wasn't reading most of what he said though, so you got me there.
Just name the points man, his shit was buried beneath him just declaring his intellectual victory. I can't stand it when people pull that type of bullshit, so I started fucking with him. I really wasn't reading most of what he said though, so you got me there.
File (): 2A9DBE9C7E3AA10B8C91F8489E0781A1-376718.png (367.9 KB, 700x1049, 125f43136ec0a7ac171ff928809e1c4d82674a5e795a33ad61a562efa161cafe.png)
>>34805
>If the post office is bad nobody can do anything. They receive the same amount of funding regardless. Allowing for failure and complacency.
>implying there will be a state that no one can shittalk in Communism
Unless you are referring to Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or other Vanguard states, that's just not accurate. Once "Communism" is reached there will be no state, there will only be the communes/the syndicate. The communes/the syndicate are ruled by Worker's Councils (The workers themselves, essentially) and it is in their self-interest to create good products. And if for some magical reason Chucklefuck Mgee decides he doesn't want to make quality products for the commune he will not receive the products of the commune's labour, and I guarantee you that will whip him into shape.
>If the post office is bad nobody can do anything. They receive the same amount of funding regardless. Allowing for failure and complacency.
>implying there will be a state that no one can shittalk in Communism
Unless you are referring to Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or other Vanguard states, that's just not accurate. Once "Communism" is reached there will be no state, there will only be the communes/the syndicate. The communes/the syndicate are ruled by Worker's Councils (The workers themselves, essentially) and it is in their self-interest to create good products. And if for some magical reason Chucklefuck Mgee decides he doesn't want to make quality products for the commune he will not receive the products of the commune's labour, and I guarantee you that will whip him into shape.
File (): 4CA9E4D0BD88952EA8C228CA831BD5F1-142633.png (139.3 KB, 500x409, 3f6b5bd6fb4130153abbe3ac9cc39d8457c9e489be5c0d842434eb2730f90085.png)
>>34817
Cats are more of an Anarchist mascot, to be honest. Freedom and all that.
The Left-Wing Catgirls Death Squads are comin', bucko.
Cats are more of an Anarchist mascot, to be honest. Freedom and all that.
The Left-Wing Catgirls Death Squads are comin', bucko.
File (): 69F016D151CDB2D7D0C29FC8C77259E8-69713.jpg (68.1 KB, 720x529, typo cuck.jpg)
File (): BC62D46A2B42EE27FA5BCB48BEAEFB59-1764159.gif (1.7 MB, 400x225, tumblr_n1wna3fS281sq9yswo3_400.gif)
>>34813
Ok so youre under the delusion that full libertarian starts to exist. Id argue that culture will destroy any aspirations of this. For example Waco Tx seige or muslims creating islamic state neighbourhoods in Sweden and enforcing sharia law. Dont forget organised crime.
How are you going to prevent bubbles of government (human nature fueled) from growing in your anarchist society.
Ps you sound like a malevalent intentioned intellectual.
Ok so youre under the delusion that full libertarian starts to exist. Id argue that culture will destroy any aspirations of this. For example Waco Tx seige or muslims creating islamic state neighbourhoods in Sweden and enforcing sharia law. Dont forget organised crime.
How are you going to prevent bubbles of government (human nature fueled) from growing in your anarchist society.
Ps you sound like a malevalent intentioned intellectual.
116 replies | 40 files | 15 UUIDs | Archived