ideologically he used to one of the more radical socialists in italy so what went wrong ?
What went right?
>wanting borders to keep existing
>literally wanting a state
Childish anarchkiddie detected. Literally only utopian retards and captalists want that type of world
all capitalists want strong borders what are you talking about ?
they're a small minority and we should support them in abolishing borders and eventually the state
The desires of reactionary first-world labor aristocrats are irrelevant. Concentration of capital and ownership, the destruction of traditional institutions, and the disintegration of national borders must be accelerated if socialism is to be realized.
Look at this ideology-addled retard thinking that capitalists don’t above all desire the free movement of people, capital and goods. They’re breaking down states and creating ever big states, capitalism IS globalism. Capitalism IS white gen.ocide
*even bigger states
The goal is a world-state
ITT: marxists reveal themselves as closetted faggists
We realized that Marxism is a trick to destroy and subvert European nations long ago now here. Remove democracy, internationalism, pro-globalism, anti-religion, race denial and egalitarianism and many aspects are still tolerable
>not one flag the whole thread
I'm 90% sure it's your views that doe before all else and the flag is just the smoking gun.
>le special snowflake
Fuck off roastie
>calls himself a feminist
>posts an Obama video clip
You’re just a basic bitch roastie. Go back to /leftypol/
>thinking a Trumpstein video will trigger me
Lmao @ this roastie stuck in the red versus blue paradigm
>all capitalists want strong borders
>who are the Koch brothers ?
>who is George Soros ?
>what is Trump's speech about legal migration and his abandonment of the promised wall ?
>what is Ronald Regan's amnesty act for illegal Mexicans in 1986 that increased the number of mestizos in California ?
>what is the European Union and its hate speech laws ?
>what are the big businesses that support anti racism and are pro diversity ?
>what is the privatization of social media and ultimately the internet just to deplatform the anti diversity crowd?
Anon, Porky is the biggest fan of Jamal and his 8 cousins coming here. Even those semi nationalist countries that were socialist in east europe during the 40's till 80's were more isolationist than any right wing government today. Capitalism has done more harm to ethnic nationalism and the white working class than socialism. Libertarians sperg out at me when i point that out.
He supported Italy in WW1 instead of decrying war as harmful to the proletariat.
They're spooked and don't read anything but memes.
>saying nationalists are just on spooked on memes when capitalists are THE biggest proponents of free trade, mass-immigration, regional agreements like the EU, USMCA and the the globalization of culture
People get borders. Capital moves freely. Porky only wants Jamal and his eight cousins when they can do specific jobs. Retards worry about mass migration depressing wages, but the wages that they depress would otherwise move to wherever immigrants come from. Off-shoring is the real issue.
Nationalists are spooked as shit and are incapable of doing anything but aligning with capitalism.
>Off-shoring is the real issue.
Nah, ultimately Capitalism is the real issue and it's not going to stop being shit if you somehow stopped offshoring or movement.
>Nationalists are spooked as shit and are incapable of doing anything but aligning with capitalism.
That’s why they should be put in concentration camps as part of the construction of a nationalistic ethno-utopia
Oh yea, just shit on the white working class and dismiss their concerns about foreign migration, that'll work out for you. Not that Porky isn't already doing those things, but you're doing his work for free.
>Nationalists are spooked as shit and are incapable of doing anything but aligning with capitalism
Too bad for them that capitalism censors and deplatforms them, and promotes right wing liberals or libertarians like Shapiro, Trump or Peterson (pretty much accepted opposition from the establishment) Unless you count the useful idiots from r/thedonald, which in that case, you're right about those types of people.
A genuine ethno nationalist movement with actual socialism is capitalism's biggest enemy.
>Off-shoring is the real issue.
Depriving the global south of industrial development just to keep high wages and benefits in the north is as reactionary as opposing open borders.
Since when did this board become a safe haven for tankies and nazbol faggots? Fuck off back to /leftypol/ retards. Go suck Stalin's dick on your shitty board you fucks; this is an anarchist board.
the white "working class" doesn't exist
I see how you misread my post ( >>136286 ) I meant that it is capitalists who should be put in camps, not nationalists. True socialism is antithetical to globalism, internationalism and all other porky tricks. Really makes me think how Marxists are so often aligned with massive corporations in social views
The synthesis of nationalism and communism is unironically the key to White prosperity.
White capitalists are race traitors(try better next time)
>Fuck off back to /leftypol/
>this is an anarchist board
yeah, i think you mixed things up pretty badly Bat'ko…
Sure thing Porky.
My mistake. Got them confused.
>Marxists are so often aligned with massive corporations in social views
Spot on. Modern marxists, especially the ones from twitter circles, or leftypol, are more concerned about good boy points from their immigrant friends, than their fellow man from the working class. A chunk of the ones that claim to be "anti identity politics" are just against white tribalism. Change it to blacks or transsexuals, and see how they shill that id pol.
You're right about white neo liberals and white bourgeois. A traitor will always be worse than an enemy.
>Modern marxists, especially the ones from twitter circles, or leftypol, are more concerned about good boy points from their immigrant friends, than their fellow man from the working class.
I definitely think it is an exercise in ego and virtue signaling for many first-world leftists. What is most disgusting to me is how they will always put the foreigner before the working man of their own country. Illegal immigrants are used as cheap sources of exploitable labor for porky that drive down wages at home and serve as a braindrain on their own countries. It is funny how Marxists think getting demographically replaced by porky’s third world friends SHOULDN’T make people enraged. No one wants non-white countries to be open doors, but when it comes to the west, let them all in! This is why I can never be a Marxist or a leftism. It’s anti-white and I’m too socially conservative, racist and sexist for leftists.
Nice to see more Nazbols on here
Social conservatism I understand. What I don't understand is why someone would willfully be racist or sexist.
Depends on what you classify as "racist". Do i want to colonize the countries of other races ? no
Do i want to preserve the people from my own country ? yes.
If you think that's racist, then it's your call. Both the class conflict and multi racial problem has brought instability in european countries.
I believe humanity can coexist, but only if each has his own place. The middle eastern population that is forced in Europe because Israel is trigger happy in the Middle East (and bombs their countries) is problematic for Europeans and middle easterners .
Ultimately, the capitalist wants a multi racial, and eventually mixed society, with no identity or purpose, just to be another consumer ready to grow fat, be overworked and exploited. A united socialist & ethno nationalist country gets in their way.
As for sexism, i believe women should get opportunities in the work field , based on merit, not their gender. And they shouldn't be demonized for choosing motherhood and family, in fact, those ideas need to be encouraged, not shamed. Hence why, the socialist state's duty is to protect the family structure and to give every member of the nation the opportunity to prosper , for the collective's well being.
>What I don't understand is why someone would willfully be racist or sexist.
Because not everyone is a follower of the church of leftism in which those things are something similar to the islamic concept of haram.
I think this one point where the religious are mentally ahead of the secular; at least they understand that their faith is their faith and not the standard position for everyone.
Good old opportunism.
The right-wingers tried their own mass-movement and it's easier to lead one, when aristocrats and capitalists support you, than fighting against them.
Considering how retarded 'leftists' can be, I'm not surprised some people get pushed that way.
''And please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. But for the moment I am advocatus diaboli. […] As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents
In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.''
Only if you are a capitalist from a developing country.
In a Western country, the borders can't be open enough.
>toll-free resources through neo-colonialism
>cheap workforce migrating to your country to outcompete the expensive local population
>Outsourcing to countries, where tax is low and population cheap
>Beggaring thy neighbour with your underpriced, subsidised goods, ruining their economy
You don't have to be a Marxist to be against racism and sexism. My stance comes from my faith not from any leftist theory or whatever. I don't even like Marx.
I agree that simply allowing every single refugee to mass immigrate to another country is not a wise or sustainable decision, but the problem is "preservation" when used by ethno-nationalists is usually a euphemism for killing or kicking out every non-white from a country despite them knowing the language, contributing, etc. which is also unjust. Also, you personally may not be interested in colonizing other countries, but generally nationalists when in power have been imperialist as fuck since there's nothing stopping them from making the logic leap from "other races should seperate" to "we should subjugate the inferiors".
As they usually do.
Racism on the international scale is stupid, being pro-white isn't anti-black, and should be vice versa.
Sexism I can understand. Rosa once said women would dance for reactionism if given suffragism, but I tend to not see that pattern, they consistently vote for things that are detrimental to their country over and over again. Voting should just be across the board illegal because I think most people (and this is across the board) I have little faith in for bringing about what they need instead of what they want, which is what people mostly do. I tend to think people really only care about themselves. But women have a worse track record in regards to this.
Unruhe doesn't care much about race per say, his third worldism is based on geography more than anything.
Mussolini was never a radical, he was literally on the M15 payroll and got kicked out of the socialist party for being pro-war.
the koch brothers, trump, and other capitalists all want strong borders and lots of illegal immigration at the same time because keeping a large segment of the working class in limbo means they can be overexploited and pressured to accept lower wages. that's how capitalism has always opeated
>Oh yea, just shit on the white working class
I am the "white working class" you fuckwit.
>Not that Porky isn't already doing those things, but you're doing his work for free.
I can guarantee you that porky isn't organizing workplaces or tenants.
>Too bad for them that capitalism censors and deplatforms them
They still legally operate and are supported by the police, getting banned on reddit isn't state suppression.
>promotes right wing liberals or libertarians like Shapiro, Trump or Peterson
Who will embrace reaction when capitalism is under threat, and give some power to you faggots in exchange for protecting capitalism.
>Unless you count the useful idiots from r/thedonald, which in that case, you're right about those types of people
There is no real difference between you and them.
>A genuine ethno nationalist movement with actual socialism is capitalism's biggest enemy.
Social Democracy with racist characteristics is completely compatible with capitalism.
Holy up what happened to the anfem? Did she (presumably) get so out of hand the mods kicked her out?
Yes, it's in the log.
Christ she didn't strike me as being so bad that she deserved a ban, she may have been a complete idiot on multiple points but she didn't have the level of rabies other's did.
yes, surprisingly enough capitalism is built on internal contradictions.
What's with all the deleted posts? Feels like Mark/v/ in here.
>I am the "white working class" you fuckwit.
You sure enjoy fucking yourself in the ass
>I can guarantee you that porky isn't organizing workplaces or tenants.
No. He's doing anti racist propaganda. You're simply doing it for free. Thanks , oink oink.
>They still legally operate and are supported by the police, getting banned on reddit isn't state suppression.
Private property is suddenly good when it owns the racists ? damn, spoken like a red liberal that larps as a socialist. I love how you ignore hate speech laws in Europe, they are state suppression against those that oppose the pro diversity status quo.
>Who will embrace reaction when capitalism is under threat, and give some power to you faggots in exchange for protecting capitalism.
Lmao, i want to destroy capitalism, but Porky want to give me power to protect it ? get your fucking figures straight. Shapiro and Peterson are scared shitless of both european nationalism and economic socialism. I'm the anti christ according to their logic.
>There is no real difference between you and them.
You mean Trump's fanboys that would privatize healthcare and lower taxes for the rich just to own the left ? i don't think we have 10% in common
>Social Democracy with racist characteristics is completely compatible with capitalism.
oh no no no , look at this dude!
I don't even support private property. I ain't no corporatist or hitlerist. I support the workers of my country owning the means of production, and a socialist state that exists to protect the national interest and well being of the people. I don't know if your ancom autism is leaking or you're just pulling a Destiny with all these false accusations.
Not really, his mates said he was fucking oblivious to marxism.
>Nah, ultimately Capitalism is the real issue and it's not going to stop being shit if you somehow stopped offshoring or movement.
Yeah, it would. Capitalism would collapse if it were divided into small spheres again, because the rate of profit is no longer large enough to support a large, broad-based bourgeois class.
Nah I'm cool. You can though.
He's a Canadian petit bourgeoisie. And shits on us because "that's what leftists are supposed to do" it's like getting picked on by a three year old. With all due respect his heart is likely in the right place but I doubt his head is.
He works at a gas station I believe.
This. Perhaps a better question, how did pro-war sentiment become so widespread within the 2nd Internationale in the leadup to WWI, when socialism was at the zenith of its power?
>Off-shoring is the real issue.
Eliminating offshoring without slashing migrant quotas won't get you anywhere, doubledome. They're two sides of the same scabbed coin.
>actually believing neolib claims that they're responsible for global development in the last 40 years, rather that the steady march of technology itself.
>strong borders and lots of illegal immigration at the same time
Most of the stupidity in the thread has been appropriately attacked, but this takes the cake. Total illegal alien population in the US has held steady at ~10M since the 90s, but the legal immigrant population has grown by over a million a year, with a cumulative effect since the 1965 neolib explosion of quotas totaling over 70M.
Illegals being suppressed through do-nothing raids and deportations (as opposed to anti-employer policies like eVerify, that actually work) in no way conflicts with open borders, especially considering the vast majority of illegal aliens entered the country legally, then magically vanished from the system to overstay their visas.
austria deserved it tho
>Perhaps a better question, how did pro-war sentiment become so widespread within the 2nd Internationale in the leadup to WWI, when socialism was at the zenith of its power?
The reformists and bourgeois socdems all took the nationalism pill.
>Eliminating offshoring without slashing migrant quotas won't get you anywhere, doubledome.
Try to think beyond the nationalist paranoia. Industrial production is not done where the people who consume the resulting commodities are. Instead, it is almost all done offshore, and the reason that it is done that way instead of bringing all the cheap labor to the local factories is to keep the poorly paid industrial workers away from the consumers who are actually capable of consuming the goods that are produced. Wages in the centers of capitalism have to be kept high enough that the consumers remain able to consume, which means that wages there have an effective floor. Consumption is an equal and opposite part of the productive process, and capital stops flowing when nobody can buy. That is why there are so-called "centers" of global capitalism.
Excess human migration upsets the distinction between the centers of capitalism and the periphery where offshoring does not. If the cheaper labor pool from the periphery is entirely mixed with the consumers in the centers of global capitalism then the centers of consumption themselves would cease to exist, and all there would be is workers living hand-to-mouth. That doesn't work for the capitalists who want to produce lucrative luxury items. That is why they keep borders in place which only really restrict the flow of people. Legal migration is facilitated to keep the local consumers from ever having enough income that they can squirrel away a savings, thus taking money out of circulation. Illegal immigration (because laws are for the lower class) can also be done to keep the lowest-paying jobs worked by people who do not make enough to be consumers anyway as cheap as possible. Immigration only impacts those selected areas. It does not target wages as a whole.
>They're two sides of the same scabbed coin.
KEK, you're the same guy who thinks that migrants are "scabs." Tell me, guy with an ancom flag, what is your opinion of Joe Hill?
>Total illegal alien population in the US has held steady at ~10M since the 90s, but the legal immigrant population has grown by over a million a year, with a cumulative effect since the 1965 neolib explosion of quotas totaling over 70M.
That consistency right there should tell you that the system is working as intended.
Pic related used to be a vegan and an anti-racist. What went wrong?
Do people STILL buy this "porkies want cheap labor!!!" stuff? Has no one realized that it's about having new buyers, not new workers, first and foremost? From the bourgeois perspective, it's great if Africans, Indios etc. work, but it's not really necessary. The Third World is the only place currently producing humans who can buy things. They literally tell you over and over again that they want as many bodies as possible in The Economy.
it's both tbh
porky wants cheap labour and also more people integrated into the globalized capitalist economy
Increasing people's wages isn't going to make them use vastly more clothing, food, housing, electronic devices, media, and so on. You need more bodies, period.
>Increasing people's wages isn't going to make them use vastly more clothing, food, housing, electronic devices, media, and so on.
t. has never met a spoiled brat with bourgeois parents
>the reason that it is done that way instead of bringing all the cheap labor to the local factories is to keep the poorly paid industrial workers away from the consumers who are actually capable of consuming the goods that are produced
>If the cheaper labor pool from the periphery is entirely mixed with the consumers in the centers of global capitalism then the centers of consumption themselves would cease to exist
Absolute piffle. Look back to the last Gilded Age, when living conditions in the imperialist centers were largely similar to the typical prole as in the imperial margins of the globe, until organized labor won reforms that improved material conditions, in no small part due to closing off porky's access to the safety valves of free trade and mass economic migration. Indeed, right now, look at the """emerging middle class""" of 3rd-world nations like China, India, and Brazil, conspicuous consumer-ing it up while shoulder-to-shoulder by literal starving peasants. That is what porky wants the 1st-world to look like again.
>KEK, you're the same guy who thinks that migrants are "scabs." Tell me, guy with an ancom flag, what is your opinion of Joe Hill?
Staunching the infinite hemorrhaging of fresh migrants, in no way contradicts unionization of the ones who are already here. Quite the contrary.
>That consistency right there should tell you that the system is working as intended.
That was kinda' exactly what I said. Ineffectual performative suppression of illegal aliens (and the blatantly intentional creation of illegal immigration by relaxing enforcement mechanisms that actually work) is done specifically to provide an "under-underclass" to keep legal immigrants fearful, mass economic legal immigrants then doing the same to native workers.
>Wages in the centers of capitalism have to be kept high enough that the consumers remain able to consume
>it's great if Africans, Indios etc. work, but it's not really necessary. The Third World is the only place currently producing humans who can buy things.
I've never been able to swallow this, because wages and consumption aren't connected in any way, given that most consumer spending in recent decades has come out of credit rather than savings. Read about MMT, and you'll understand that the mechanisms supposedly underlying capitalism completely broke down long ago, and the keystone of capitalism for nearly a century, due to fiat currency, is the ability to create or dismiss credit out of thin air with the flick of a bureaucrat's pen. We are living under actually existing centrally planned economics, but the entire public-facing academic discipline of "mainstream economics" consists of a charade to obscure this fact under the bygone mirage of "sound money" and "the market", to keep the proles from seizing the levers of this machine for our own good.
>I've never been able to swallow this, because wages and consumption aren't connected in any way, given that most consumer spending in recent decades has come out of credit rather than savings.
Need to Grow(tm) your way out of debt. Only way to accomplish that is more bodies - there is a limit to which the masses can be loaded up with debt, especially with a birth rate of 1.3 per woman (implying a 73% population reduction over 3 generations if I did the math right).
Also, note that the nations that MMT advocates cite as "monetarily sovereign" really aren't, as they have to borrow their currency at interest to conjure it into existence so are ultimately subordinate to a bank, and in practice said countries are run by a small oligarchy rather intimately connected with banking.
>keystone of capitalism for nearly a century, due to fiat currency, is the ability to create or dismiss credit out of thin air with the flick of a bureaucrat's pen.
Is this some Marxism-Jehuism?
Living in Ohio will turn you against that quick. People here are walking stereotypes.
>MMT is upheld by both leftists and rightists, ooh, spoopy
>muh interest rates
Reminder bonds have regularly been issued at negative real or absolute interest rates throughout the post-WWII era to the present day (including the majority of US federal deficit "spending" right now), and in spite of porkies decrying it as "fiscal repression", the bond market happily buys them as fast as they're printed.
>muh inflation can't be taxed away
>muh wiemar hyperinflation
Gee, I wonder what currency the crushing post-WWI debt imposed on Germany was denominated in?
>muh chile, muh venezuela
None of their woes stemmed from fiscal policy as anything other than a symptom of other issues
>some countries lack monetary sovereignty, therefore those that have it shouldn't be held responsible for abusing or ignoring it
Reminder Greek debt, taxes, and spending are all on par with those of stronger economies, and the entire problem was the confiscatory interest rates of the debt they were taking on
>minimum wage eliminating bullshit jobs isn't exactly what minimum wage was intended to do
>MMT proponents are meanies that huwt my feefees
And perhaps the pièce de résistance of the entire trainwreck, the author literally says:
>The Fed is forbidden by law to purchase bonds directly from the Treasury. The recent episode of quantitative easing (QE), designed to fight the Great Recession, was a partial exception
What an absolutely meaningless, empty, joke of an article. MMT isn't some all encompassing ideological prescription of policy, merely a description of how capitalism actually functions today, the denial of which places any opponent of capitalism in a compromised position.
>For once Jacobin had a good article on it.
Jacobin has good articles on lots of things, they also have milquetoast NYT/WaPo gobbledygook like that link, stunningly awful SJW stuff written by some Tumblrina that could be ripped straight from Gawker/Vox, and mercilessly based hot takes that read like an effortpost from this board. I think the mag just has no real editorial policy.
>Need to Grow(tm) your way out of debt.
Propagandistic poppycock. Just keep issuing more and more debt, then when the bubble pops, have daddy pick up the pieces with more issuance and keep playing.
>they have to borrow their currency at interest to conjure it into existence so are ultimately subordinate to a bank, and in practice said countries are run by a small oligarchy rather intimately connected with banking.
And what happens when those banks carry on their retarded behavior to the point where they bite off more than they can chew, and begin self-destructing, as they regularly and invariably do? Who do those "all-powerful" bankers come crawling to, cap in hand, to bail out their sinking ship? Monetary sovereigns, who punch in some zeros, and magically keep the "market economy" from going nova yet again.
>Look back to the last Gilded Age, when living conditions in the imperialist centers were largely similar to the typical prole as in the imperial margins of the globe, until organized labor won reforms that improved material conditions, in no small part due to closing off porky's access to the safety valves of free trade and mass economic migration.
Top KEK. Oh, it's you, and you're still pushing that Texas-made high school textbook fairy tale. How do you even wear that flag while pushing for nationist reformist electoralism?
>That is what porky wants the 1st-world to look like again.
Right, because going back in time to the age when there was a frontier is possible.
>the infinite hemorrhaging
You have some idealism on your face.
>That was kinda' exactly what I said.
No it isn't. You are talking about how Porky is trying to change the world back to the Gilded Age, which is silly because the system is already optimized for the present.
>I've never been able to swallow this, because wages and consumption aren't connected in any way
Jesus, read Marx.
>the keystone of capitalism for nearly a century, due to fiat currency, is the ability to create or dismiss credit out of thin air with the flick of a bureaucrat's pen
Do not confuse sovereign debt with consumer debt. Consumers can only take on so much credit before it becomes impossible for them to repay at which point the financial institutions that would grant them credit cease to do so.
this is a fucking dumb cope, you faggots can't ever stop shilling for the policies of billionaires
He says as every single last politician from every mainstream party pushes the "stronk and secure borders" meme.
>policies of billionaires
you mean like the billionaire president who wants a giant border wall?
Pushing for unionization is just as bad as pushing for border walls. You're not only excluding millions of migrants from a chance at a decent life, but also excluding millions of domestic (mostly minority) poor while privileging a narrow labor aristocracy of "unionized" elite. Unions have a long and checkered history of segregation and exclusion, to say nothing about propping up capitalist relations and imperialist wars, and shilling for them in the consumerist core is essentially saving capitalism from itself.
fucking nuclear retarded take
>Implying that I give a shit about scabs and minorities
Bitch, fuck the minority poor and migrants. The unionized working class should become the ruling class and send you filthy scabs to the guillotine with the capitalists.
The Presidency is a figurehead position in the US that has power only when coordinating with the oligarchy. Compare the speed with which the US takes action on, say, Israeli security, bank bailouts, and so on vs. the (never-happening) border wall. If the actual ruling class in the US wanted a wall it would be up within a year. Given the resistance in the civil service and military, rulings in lower Courts, Foundation money directed towards promoting pro-immigration activism in media and academia, and so on, I think it's safe to conclude that the US oligarchy does not want a reduction in immigration. The USG in the 1950s deported a million Mexicans in a summer as part of Operation Wetback, remember.
If capitalists today were hardcore nationalists like you stupid Marxists say they are they wouldn’t be concluding massive trade deals like NAFTA, the USMCA and shilling for immigration even if there was a wall (I want them to come legally! – t. Trumpstein). Let’s also look at globalist policies at work in Europe with the EU where borders are practically non-existent and the free movement of people and capital is assured. To keep the system running the capitalists have to conquer larger and larger markets, destroy borders, homogenize the Earth through consumerism and the multikulti not to mention importing millions of low-skill low I Q third-worlders to destroy the ethnic cohesion, communities and culture of the native populations all to serve the almighty punt and profit.
Globalism = Capitalism. Marx even recognized this as far as the 1840s, but he obviously drew flawed conclusions. From the Manifesto:
>The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
While Marx talked about provinces being integrated, the next step is countries, whole continents and then the globe. But the question is, WHO will rule the global state? Hmm
>If capitalists today were hardcore nationalists
Nationalists are the idiots who believe the stupid shit about volk and culture. Capitalists just keep borders in place to maximize their profit margins.
>they wouldn’t be concluding massive trade deals like NAFTA, the USMCA and shilling for immigration
Capital knows no borders, fool.
>even if there was a wall (I want them to come legally! – t. Trumpstein)
I love it. You fucknuts were crowing about how you all got him elected and how you were "winning" two years ago. We told you, didn't we? We told your dumb asses. /pol/ is right again!
>the EU where borders are practically non-existent and the free movement of people and capital is assured
Capital moves freely. People have to get visas which only those with specific career experience get. Even then they only get them so long as they are willing to work for significantly less than the locals are willing to work. Then you dipshits blame them for your problems.
>To keep the system running the capitalists have to conquer larger and larger markets
Dumbass, capitalism already spans the globe. All it can do now is consolidate into ever-shrinking centers. The bourgeoisie has to eat itself to grow.
Capital already has no borders, and you can't erect any.
>homogenize the Earth through consumerism and the multikulti not to mention importing millions of low-skill low I Q third-worlders to destroy the ethnic cohesion, communities and culture of the native populations all to serve the almighty punt and profit.
That shit is all the result of capitalism being global. There are no more cultures in isolation. It's just one big fucking world, and "cultures" have become nothing but regionalist facades painted over the same base of commodity production. Read Adorno.
>Globalism = Capitalism
Jesus Christ, you stupid fuck, try learning what things actually are so that you can do some goddamn systemic analysis. Reality isn't memes.
>But the question is, WHO will rule the global state?
Any state always serves the interests of the ruling class. It does not make one damn bit of difference what culture thaey happen to be from. They will always serve their own interests, which are control over themeans of production.
>it’s another Mammon-worshiping passive agressive leftist post
Look beyond economics you fucking dweeb – there’s the obviously capitalist angle, but the most important and innate dimension that leftists are too afraid to even touch is race struggle – something which, unlike class-struggle just doesn’t go away with changing conditions. People back in the 1880s knew all about race struggle – see Ludwig Gumplowicz:
<race struggle for dominion in all its forms, whether open or violent, or latent and peaceful, is therefore the actual driving principle, the moving force in history
Likewise Friedrich Ratzel discussed the struggle for space and land. We see the theories of Ratzel and Gumplowicz playing out before our eyes as they always have. How else can we explain the tensions between races, the opposition to multiculturalism and the behavior of the Jews?
>Look beyond economics you fucking dweeb
>cultures" have become nothing but regionalist facades painted over the same base of commodity production.
As opposed to?
>Indeed, right now, look at the """emerging middle class""" of 3rd-world nations like China, India, and Brazil, conspicuous consumer-ing it up while shoulder-to-shoulder by literal starving peasants. That is what porky wants the 1st-world to look like again.
Poverty is terrible, the only thing worse is not everyone being poor.
>so what went wrong ?
He became a stirner fanboy and realized that the world was nothing but a stage for the musings of his ego.
>the age when there was a frontier
Colonialism was hardly a prerequisite for robber barons to exist
>the system is already optimized for the present
Then why has porky been working nonstop to dismantle it, ever since organized labor began winning victories in the late 1800s?
Neither fiat currency nor deposit insurance existed in Marx's time, and without such reforms, capitalism would've self-destructed about when Marx predicted.
>Consumers can only take on so much credit before it becomes impossible for them to repay at which point the financial institutions that would grant them credit cease to do so.
False. Consumers go bankrupt, banks are bailed out by sovereigns, then the "business cycle" starts all over again.
This. Trump's rhetoric ("big beautiful door" included) is exactly that, just as Reagan talked tough on migration but did retarded things like his amnesty. Trump's supporters are another matter from Trump himself, depending on how much of a rabble of unprincipled bootlickers they (continue to) prove themselves to be.
>high unionization rates aren't strongly correlated with higher compensation and better workplace conditions for non-union workers
>billions of 3rd-world poor can be lifted from poverty by evacuating a few million scabs into the 1st-world
>eliminating future migration doesn't help past migrants
>open borders and the spoils they grant aren't the sole incentive for imperialist war
>weakening state regulations isn't good for transnat corporate porky
8/10, bait of superior quality.
>Capital knows no borders
>Capital moves freely
>Capital already has no borders
Wow, gee, I wonder why porky screeches with autistic fury whenever tariffs, taxes on foreign revenue, or indeed migrant quotas are imposed?
>Any state always serves the interests of the ruling class.
Then why does porky constantly push for deregulation and privatization with such fervor?
>implying the bloody inter-"German" wars happening then, or the Nazi autism genociding Slavs, is comparable to the modern muttburger conception of "racism"
Studies have shown that stark inequality, to a much larger degree than absolute levels of poverty in many countries, causes dissatisfaction and political instability. Those countries are playing with fire.
the most important and innate dimension that leftists are too afraid to even touch is race struggle
What a fucking joke. There is absolutely nothing about race that definatively determines a set of material interest. There is no "race struggle," because race does not contain contadictions. Race A does not contradict Race B. No, each of them is entirely interchangable with any other within any given mode of production. It is class and only class that is defined by contadictory interests.
>unlike class-struggle just doesn’t go away with changing conditions
You joke-ass brainlet, race does disappear with changing material conditions. Read some goddamn history. Race gets redefined every time a different ethnic group gets brought into any given system, which happens constantly. The Italians become white. The Celts become white. The Slavs become white. Your supposed "race" has never had any exclusive definition. How can it have a "struggle" when it can't even define itself?
>race struggle for dominion in all its forms, whether open or violent, or latent and peaceful, is therefore the actual driving principle, the moving force in history
Wow, it's fucking nothing. Where are the contradictory definitions that necesitate inherent struggle? I am drunk off my ass, and I can logic better than you can.
>How else can we explain the tensions between races, the opposition to multiculturalism and the behavior of the Jews?
Your imagination. Show them to me.
>Studies have shown that stark inequality, to a much larger degree than absolute levels of poverty in many countries, causes dissatisfaction and political instability. Those countries are playing with fire.
Of course they do, people don't have the time and opportunity to destabilize things when they're illiterate, hungry and living in insular villages without alternative to the voice of priest, elder or landlord. To judge the rising above those conditions by an increasing segment of the population as degenerative consumerism is privileged arrogance, better that they be poor, virtuous little peasants than that they be vulgar.
>Colonialism was hardly a prerequisite for robber barons to exist
Are you fucking serious? Where exactly do you think that shitton of wealth that suddenly got injected into the bourgeois class came from?
>Then why has porky been working nonstop to dismantle it, ever since organized labor began winning victories in the late 1800s?
Nigger, please. Capitalism adapts to present realities. There is no "dismantling" going on, just gradual change which is the nature of reality.
>Neither fiat currency nor deposit insurance existed in Marx's time, and without such reforms, capitalism would've self-destructed about when Marx predicted.
The World Wars and the flu pandemic kept capitalism going. Now it is just living on borrowed time. How appropriate.
No, it is true, and you are an idiot.
>Consumers go bankrupt, banks are bailed out by sovereigns, then the "business cycle" starts all over again.
Except that the consumers then lose the ability to consume while the banks eat the loses. Value is all human labor.
>Wow, gee, I wonder why porky screeches with autistic fury whenever tariffs, taxes on foreign revenue, or indeed migrant quotas are imposed?
"Porky" doesn't. Only certain porkies do. Capital can come from anywhere. All tarriffs do is to limit where it comes from. It still flows regardless. Bourgeois interests that want "open borders" (a classic meme) are only ever interested in expanding into new markets. Likewise, bourgeois interests who do not want their markets opened are only protecting their exclusive access to a given market.
>Then why does porky constantly push for deregulation and privatization with such fervor?
Again, "Porky" doesn't. Only certain porkies who want access do.
>Studies have shown
>How can it have a "struggle" when it can't even define itself?
How are words that refer to other words metaphysically endowed with a quality that strips its subjects of all other qualities and makes them behave as they should under your assumptions?
Are you an actual wizard?
Those people aren't just "vulgar", they're indifferent to the point of depravity from the suffering of those around them. Moreover, they invariably contribute to traitorous class-collaborationism among wealthier workers, and "comprador" lumpenbourg behavior among domestic capitalists.
>Where exactly do you think that shitton of wealth that suddenly got injected into the bourgeois class came from?
Primarily from industrial workers. The plunder of imperialism (and, indeed, of the industrializing nations' own peasantry) certainly played a crucial role, but porky's ability to monopolize that wealth and power against the rest of their population was what defined capitalism, then as now.
>The World Wars and the flu pandemic kept capitalism going
Maotists recycling neocon revisionism, pottery.
>the banks eat the loses
<implying they aren't bailed out every time
>Only certain porkies do
>Only certain porkies who want access do
Essentially all porkies all the time are pedal to the metal for free trade, unlimited migration, deregulation, and privatization.
>Those people aren't just "vulgar", they're indifferent to the point of depravity from the suffering of those around them. Moreover, they invariably contribute to traitorous class-collaborationism among wealthier workers, and "comprador" lumpenbourg behavior among domestic capitalists.
And worst of all, they couldn't give a shit about some marxist lecturing them on how their newfound prosperity makes them traitorous class-collaborationists comprador lumpenbourgs who looked way more sympathetic when they appeared in a unicef ad 30 years ago than they do now with their round bellies and filled shopping bags.
Which is worse than them being impoverished, as that might be bad, but at least it doesn't upset the ideological order of an exploited third world only getting poorer and poorer, a consistency that is valued more highly than the prosperity of the people it supposedly concerns itself with.
The notion that Irish people weren't considered white is retarded.
Irish people always were considered equal to any other white in America, at least legally. Irish colonials who entered the country before the great migration waves of the 19th century were full citizens. Naturalized Irishmen were also full citizens, and all Irishmen born in America were Irish.
The Irish were discriminated on RELIGIOUS grounds. Scottish and Welsh people were perfectly tolerated due to their Protestantism, but the Irish were Catholic. There were some racial theories, but they relied on Anglo-Saxon surpemacy, not white supremacy. In fact, Know-Nothings joined the GOP along with abolitionists.
Reality was that whiteness, as a conception, evolved to UNITE Celts, Italians, Anglos, and Slavs. They were all white from the start. Basically, whiteness was created to replace Anglo-Saxon Protestantism as the core aspect of what being American meant.
Nazis are not 'white supremacists' or 'white-nationalists' for that very same reason. They are Germanic Supremacists. They want to preserve the narrower Germanic race, not the white race.
Basically, WASP-fags in the 19th century were mostly motivated by religion and those who were 'racialist' often cared about the 'Anglo-Saxon' race, not the 'white race'.
>Implying that we should care about their welfare
Fuck them. The third world has saw increased prosperity at the cost of first world workers. This 'equalization' only leads to mediocrity and somewhat-shitty living conditions for all while a small elite live high. They are scum and are only worthy of being incinerated with napalm.
TLDR: Fuck niggers, spics, chinks, gooks, and pajeets. They are the drooling armies of porky, their cannon fodder. Scabs should be dealt with violently. If you are not willing to throw scabs into the firing line, then you are no true revolutionary.
>the ideological order of an exploited third world only getting poorer and poorer
>the prosperity of the people it supposedly concerns itself with
Because this small fraction of the population getting richer, almost invariably at the cost of their "lessers", does nothing to improve the overall wealth of the nation. In fact, the creation of such groups tends to intensify and more firmly cement poverty in those countries.
>Irish colonials who entered the country before the great migration waves of the 19th century were full citizens.
You mean the Irish who were almost all "indentured servants", whose contractually limited period of servitude and cheaper price, in contrast to blacks, typically caused their owners to work far harder? I mean, there's a reason massive numbers of Irish bodies going to the Americas (and other even worse colonial possessions) didn't result in large Irish populations existing there, but merely Irish corpses.
>Reality was that whiteness, as a conception, evolved to UNITE Celts, Italians, Anglos, and Slavs.
>Basically, WASP-fags in the 19th century were mostly motivated by religion and those who were 'racialist' often cared about the 'Anglo-Saxon' race, not the 'white race'.
Broken clock is right on time, twice in a day.
>Because this small fraction of the population getting richer, almost invariably at the cost of their "lessers", does nothing to improve the overall wealth of the nation. In fact, the creation of such groups tends to intensify and more firmly cement poverty in those countries.
The overall wealth in the third world has improved, or if not, when was it wealthier? You just can't have it that they are doing better when your ideology dictates that they shouldn't.
Those unwilling to die for socialism, should die for socialism.
send from my Iphone while listening to rage against the machine praising the shining path.
>Fuck them. The third world has saw increased prosperity at the cost of first world workers. This 'equalization' only leads to mediocrity and somewhat-shitty living conditions for all while a small elite live high. They are scum and are only worthy of being incinerated with napalm.
>the logic of capitalist production asserts itself by causing an equalitization of commodity prices worldwide, including the labour power commodity
<REEE FUCK NIGGERS IT'S THEIR FAULT
Imagine being this braindead
>not praising Shining Path and hating jews at the same time.
That is a much more controversial claim among experts than the general public is led to believe:
Firstly, because even by their money-focused numbers (GDP/capita, average income, etc.), China alone accounts for these numbers being positive. Eliminate China, and the numbers are stagnant or negative. And because (even in China, as the article linked in my last post also pointed out) the numbers touted most often are averages rather than medians, so a small slice of the population being lifted slightly from poverty, obscures the vast majority of the population enjoying little or none of that prosperity, distorting the average.
Second, because measuring changes to poverty in terms of money is a bad fit for economies that were largely non-monetary (i.e.: hunting and gathering, subsistence farming, small localized villages, etc.), so an individual going from nominal wages/spending of $0/day in the country to $10/day in the city might actually be poorer than they started out. This is why direct indicators of welfare (i.e.: malnutrition, disease, child mortality, etc.) are more important, and they paint a far less favorable picture.
Third, because much of the progress commonly attributed to capitalism/neoliberalism/Marxism-Leninism/etc by their ideologues can more easily be causally linked to the steady march of science, industrialization, and democracy itself.
>luxuries getting cheaper somehow means necessities getting more expensive doesn't matter
>commodities are made by capitalism, not by fellow workers
It's another episode of /leftyfash/
Begorrah what has this board degenerated into? now we got unironic christcom nazbols who don't even read Marx.
>My stance comes from my faith not from any leftist theory or whatever. I don't even like Marx.
>My stance comes from my faith
god kill this board already please.
>who don't even read Marx.
Fuck your Jewish cult leader. No one needs to read some old rabbi who died centuries ago
I agree actually that it is due to the capitalism and the way it develops things. Just pointing out that this is why third-world niggers are their lapdogs.
I want to abolish capitalism and establish complete workers ownership of the means of production. I want unions to conquer the economy and state.
Well, more like being willing to *kill* for socialism than anything. Dying for something is against your self-interest. Matyrdom might have its place, but most people should try to keep themselves alive. Simply put, if you're not willing to protect your material interests through arms, then how can you possibly be free?
>Actually thinks I'm new to here
You know, I namefagged specifically so that people won't think the board climate has 'degenerated' or changed due to my presence. I wear an obvious badge of shame. Anyone who thinks I'm new is a newfag. I'm not the average user here, and I've gotten banned multiple times. Inevitably, you're going to get people who aren't 'kosher' in a free environment.
But yes, I actually did read Marx. Mostly just the Communist Manifesto, but I also read into his theories. I mean, if there's a contradiction in the interests of the first-world proletariat and third-world proletariat, I'll naturally align with the former against the latter. Historically, the ruling class has always made alliances with the bottom of the barrel to promote their own interests. I don't believe that the third-world proles or the first-world lumpens have the capacity to seize the means of production. It was never the slaves who gave fear to the Roman ruling class, it was the plebeians. It was never the serfs who scared the feudal lords and clergy as much as the burghers and free peasants. Astroturfing is a tactic used by the elites to sabotage free, democratic republics historically. See the British when they imported uitlanders into Boer areas in an attempt to force the Boers to either restrict citizenship or face a complete loss of political power. The only real response is to fight their lackeys, which doesn't somehow stop the fight against the elites themselves.
A unionized working-class is the greatest threat to the capitalist class. It created an independent middle class that actively is opposed to their goals. The professional-managerial class is more akin to the clergy.
Also, I don't think Marx is right about everything. I actually disagree with him as to how linear history is. It reeks of Whig theory. Technological forces change the battlefield, but the battles are won through the actions of those fighting in them.
Based and Gadsen-pilled. I’ve seen you on /fascist/, lefties can’t even compete
>Just pointing out that this is why third-world niggers are their lapdogs.
Calling one group of workers trying to make a living "lapdogs" because their lower living conditions make them more more appealing targets of exploitation to capitalists is retarded.
>It was never the slaves who gave fear to the Roman ruling class, it was the plebeians.
Have you ever heard of a guy called Spartacus? Slaves who rebelled during the servile wars made the Romans absolutely shit themselves, which is why during the last one the Republic a) deployed like 40 thousand people under Crassus to crush the uprising b) after suppressing the rebels crucified 6 thousand survivors among the Appian Way as an example not to revolt c) started treating slaves less like shit just to make sure something like this would never happen again. At no point did the Conflict of the Orders take such violent turn.
>It was never the serfs who scared the feudal lords and clergy as much as the burghers and free peasants.
<what is German Peasants' War and all other serf peasant revolts in Germany
<what is Wat Tyler's Rebellion
<what are Transylvanian peasant revolts
<what is Pugachev's Rebellion
<what are countless other examples of unfree serfs revolting
Not to mention it is the burghers who were often willing to bend over like little bitches, with German Peasants' War being a good example of such behaviour.
No one wants to read your pseudo-intellectual drivel
Here's the full study of Hickel's claim that global poverty hasn't actually been reduced.
>German Peasant's War
Failed. Though, I still admire it. Serfs I think have more revolting potential than slaves (Or, even modern day scabs) due to their greater freedom. If the serfs did win, they would have created a smallholder society similar to Switzerland.
>Wat Tyler's Rebellion
They weren't all serfs. Artisans and yeomanry were often the leading figures of the revolt. Again, they would have simply created a smallholder society if they won.
It was more of a petty noble revolt using the peasants as cannon fodder, proving my point.
Led by Cossacks, who were freemen.
Freemen have aided serf rebellions, and the most successful rebellions are those compromised of or led by freemen. Though, I'd say that perhaps using serfs as an example is pretty bad due to serfs being way less transient than migrant scabs. My bad there.
Also, Spatacus failed. And, being treated better does not constitute an improvement. The very existence of latifunda doomed the Roman Republic.
The point isn't to start some ill-fated revolution that crashes and burns or falls under the control of a despot or new oligarchy. The point is to create a stable democratic republic.
The reason why the Roman elites didn't go crucifying the commoners wasn't because the commoners weren't a threat, but rather that the commoners were such a threat that the elites were cautious. Of course, I oppose such elites in general.
Let's bring up examples of democratic republics of freemen who actually lasted past a revolt:
<The rural cantons of Switzerland
<The Boer Republics
<Town hall meetings
<The more democratic medieval city-states like Florence
<The Middle Roman Republic
Also, it's hardly retarded. It's just the inevitability of class conflict. Class warfare cares little for morality. They're making a living, at our expense. Just like how capitalists make money for themselves at our expense. There is no way around it. You have to fuck people over to start a revolution.
Also, third worlders come from cultures where the concept of democratic governance is foreign, with the exception of Latin America. Look at what happens when you give communism 'Chinese Characteristics'. It's a shitshow.
To be honest, I make much more drawn out posts.
Your posts are based though
>licking balls of some retarded namefag
You've hit the rock bottom pham
He was an opportunist who realized there was more money in shilling for nationalists than agitating for worker's rights. Fortunately he was properly punished for this betrayal in the end. God's wrath turned his whole world upside down.
BTW, read this book to figure out what went wrong with Italian Fascism. (Key is in the fact that he relied on the squadstri and the ANI was infiltrating the fascist movement from the start.)
Start with yourself, heavens gate
neither capitalism nor socialism was the answer to the problems of the 20th century
True, communism is
>it's another leftcom with a superiority complex episode and talks about how terrible (insert board here)
love it or leave it faggot
Gadsden I've seen you here for years and I just wanna say you're a pretty cool dude
opened the thread and saw exactly what I expected, tankies/nazbols and anarchists arguing with each other.
Mussolini put a stop to much of the exploitation of working italics by mercenaries, drew a line around Italy and removed harsh taxes on the lower, working classes. He put in many government programs (such as maternity leave and healthcare) to boost working peoples, and the Italian economy grew quite a bit until the great depression hit. Compared to other militaristic countries, fascist italy had less punitive policies against political dissidents compared to Soviet Russia or Germany, and this is with several assassination attempts on Mussolini's life. Really, it seems like fascism is just communism plus nationalism.
Fascism was whatever idea mussolini woke up with in the morning, he was more like qaddafi than hitler.
At least I'm not namefagging
you're always a good guy, Gasden, seen you on Fascist, I was the guy with the Sorel flag. one of the few, from what I remember.
btw, the reason I don't make long drawn out posts is because serious discussion is reserved for my videos and blogspot posts.
go back to >>>/fascist/ and stay away
>5 autists hated by everyone else
>claiming to represent the board
Only a specific subset of capitalists with most of their assets in industries that benefit from economic nationalism oppose open borders, the vast majority, especially the wealthiest of them, want and benefit from free movement of goods and capital.
Everything you described is just new deal liberalism, not communism. Not shocking given that Mussolini was basically just Italy's FDR but more nationalist and anti-democratic.
I go on /fascist/, especially when /leftpol/ bans me. Honestly, I don't agree with a lot of the users there and their conception of fascism though. (Less because of 'muh racism', and more because I'm a fervent advocate for democracy/confederation and don't really care about traditionalism. I also feel like the Fiume and pre-1919 period of 'fascism' is completely ignored by most people.) But ironically, I find that I have more freedom to post there.
Still, it's great to see a Sorelian around here. Sorel is actually very relevant to this thread, though French national-syndicalism is more based on the fact that the Third Republic was associated with centralization. If an American conception of republicanism or the Cantonalist model took hold in France, the Sorelians probably would be fervent republicans.
The Italian national-syndicalists, though, seem to be more of a continuation of Mazzinian and Risorigimento thought. Another key thing is that Mussolini always disliked Marx/Marxism. The ur-fascists tended to actually lean towards the anarchist and syndicalist side of leftist politics.
tbh this just feels like purity spiraling. A government using military force to extract resources from the ruling class and distributing it to the workers is a less extreme solution that just revolution and anarchy. This goes back to the nazbol/soviets vs anarchists debate.
Mussolini was an opportunist and a coward, took money from the anglo, and he never had any real power.
Also, with his prominent jaw he is responsible for the feminization of Italy.
It's unfortunate italian fascism will never drop il duce in the dump.
you and I disagree on traditionalism but I'm not a democracy advocate either. I think race issues mostly boil down to national liberation of ethnic groups but that's it.
is there not a reason for free discussion, besides your boy Bordiga hated both fascism and anti-fascism, so wouldn't you just take a neutral position on it?
Probably the best answer.
>Also, with his prominent jaw he is responsible for the feminization of Italy.
Nigga what jawline.
I'm not a slave to one dead theorist, but I am bored of the race debates. Why would anybody today have a neutral position on fascism?
Being 100% neutral on fascism may not be in that anon's self interest J Barg
That that was used in propaganda
I don't care about the best interests of anyone except what I can do to get over on other people so their move I guess
What the fuck happened to the posts these guys are replying to?
Is /leftpol/ becoming /leftypol/? WHAT THE FUCK..
/pol/ getting banned is a good thing. They do not bring arguments. They only try to drown discussion in dustbin bullshit.
Guess I'm fucking off from this board. It was nice while it lasted.
My last words:
Long live the first-world labor 'aristocracy', the bedrock of democracy!
You'll never succeed with a revolution of powerless precariatians and lumpens against an all powerful capitalist elite and their technocratic lackeys.
>namefag announcing that he is leaving an imageboard 4evar!
He was one of the better posters alongside naziposter, though.
He has been garbage since /leftypol/.
You need to go back.
Good lord this board has truely gone to shit.
Maybe the ban happy leftist purists were right.
In the end, it doesn't really matter
this thread could really about how more people go left to right than right to left but you niggas playing games
how the fuck can you be this wrong?
no, ancaps do exist and I used to know a lot IRL
He is talking about actual capitalists–the boirgeoisie–not ideological self-proclaimed "capitalists" who do not have any actual command of capital.
I see no rebuttal, tranny. Marxism killed 100,000,000 innocent workers in the 20th century in a Jewish movement for mass-extermination. We’ve gotta admit this and reread the works of socialists who realized the value of nationalism, tradition and the need for a solution to the urban problem
Quit trolling, and read something.
you got everything right except it was Capitalism
Mad Max would be funny IRL though
>muh 100 million gorillion bazillion trillion quadrillion
It should've been 100,000,001, gusano.
What's wrong anon, don't you want a little feminine penis in your life?
My roommate likes feminine penis. Ask him
They killed a much smaller amount than 100 million than because they went overboard trying to eliminate their enemies, an at least understandable course of action when you realize the actual geopolitical situation they were in.