[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chemo / choroy / hydrus / l / throat / tingles / v8 / vichan ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: f7fcc411ca8d484⋯.jpg (84.31 KB, 1024x751, 1024:751, no platform.jpg)

File: 264d30a2c75886e⋯.png (34.64 KB, 571x301, 571:301, vaush1.PNG)

File: a57ba66c73d190a⋯.png (108.55 KB, 521x598, 521:598, vaush2.PNG)

File: 280624ec5f4ac85⋯.png (200.62 KB, 528x546, 88:91, batko.PNG)

 No.143270

Hello everyone, upcoming eceleb vaush got butthurt that he got a strike on his youtube account for hatespeech. We've heard this story time and time again, the very dipshits who believe in deplatforming are BAMBOOZLED when they lose their platform too. If the left wants any chance to get its message out in the internet age, it cannot be handing over all the control to tech monopolies.

I've been saying this since 2015 and have been getting shit for it but fuck you I've been right this entire time. I was mocked for arguing in bad faith and secretly being a reactionary because I didn't want porky to have unilateral control over political expression. The typical woke retards who push for this stuff all too easily find themselves on the opposite end of the boot, not understanding that free speech for leftists also means free speech for rightists, as much chagrin as that may cause you.

And it's always a radlib, they always support the woke SJW crap. As the years have gone on I have less and less sympathy for these tards as they easily swing their guns towards leftists they perceive less pure than themselves (Pierre trudank vs batko being one example). We've seen the results of /leftypol/ and what powertripping mods can do, and how it can easily kill discussion.

Nazbol is the only solution.

 No.143271

Nazbol aside it is pretty fucking hilarious seeing progressives go "wait why are you censoring me I'm right?" when the same liberal admins they appointed take them down. The same thing happened with /r/ChapoAssClowns, they said "Slavers should be killed" or something like that and got banned for extremism, how they did not expect it is beyond me.


 No.143273

What kind of idealist liberal do you need to be to think that radical leftists wouldn't be banned from these platforms regardless of how they handle the far-right? History has shown that they will do everything in their power to get rid of us, even if it means blowing up innocent citizens just to throw a single anarchist out of a window.

Free speech for leftists never existed and never will as long as the commodity form is not abolished.


 No.143278

File: 1588114fb07ce98⋯.png (11.3 KB, 447x378, 149:126, 158.png)

>>143273

>Free speech for leftists never existed and never will as long as the commodity form is not abolished.

<trading a bunch of grain for a hammer in a village means your free speech will be restricted


 No.143279

>>143270

OH NONONONONO-

=AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA==


 No.143280

>due to false flagging

>Will be attempting to appeal

snitch ass licking youtube boot


 No.143281

File: a16559548396335⋯.jpg (487.75 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, rly (2).jpg)

>>143278

>barter exchange is generalised commodity production

>>>/liberty/ -tier take


 No.143282

>>143270

Who is that guy?


 No.143283

Exactly.

It makes no sense to support a norm of silencing 'dangerous', 'radical', or 'violent' speech when you yourself want to overthrow capitalism.

You cannot be both pro-censorship and a leftist.


 No.143285

true, deplatforming affects even the most liberal of liberals hence they step on the toes of predator multinationals, for they are as human as we, despite us thinking otherwise, are subject to error. the fact that Bezos wants to deplatform "white nationalists" as much as this board relishes in the fact, will cause many free market types to move leftward and into proletarian violence.


 No.143288

File: 75e80b259ad6cb7⋯.jpeg (55.94 KB, 666x803, 666:803, Dq2fjdhWwAENM9G.jpeg)

>leftists being banned is dependent on reactionaries being banned

>leftists have any control over the policies and enforcement of policies by social media companies

>nazbol, a fusion of nationalism and stalin stanning, will avoid censorship despite historical and current instances of those ideologies extensively using censorship

Glad I can count on 8chan to deliver nuclear takes every day.

>>143273

>What kind of idealist liberal do you need to be to think that radical leftists wouldn't be banned from these platforms regardless of how they handle the far-right?

A nazbol.


 No.143290

File: 31e468012167213⋯.jpg (40.05 KB, 1200x708, 100:59, breathe through your balls.jpg)

>>143288

>He missed the point

>He doesn't know about Reddit

>He uses the word "Stan" even as an insult against Stalin posters.


 No.143291

>>143270

>Trying to use capitalism to deplatform fascists.

Nobody on the actual left really gives a fuck about retards like Dave Rubin or that k¡ke faggot Ben Shapiro. They are the right wing equivalent of Anita Sarkeesian and only jumped in the gamegate momentum bandwagon to enrich themselves. Then again, liberals are complete dipshits and only focus on the culture war, not the bigger problem here: capitalists.

>We've seen the results of /leftypol/ and what powertripping mods can do, and how it can easily kill discussion.

/leftypol/ was shit way before the new feminazi mod seized power over the entire board. That femifaggot merely put the final nail in the coffin. The death of /leftypol/ is a well deserved one and, hopefully, we can come on top as the actual leftist politically incorrect board; what /leftypol/ was supposed to be from the very beggining.

>Being a /pol/nigger is the only solution

You're not fooling anyone. You merely want to replace the "jewish" bourgeoisie with white bourgeoisie. Either embrace anarchy of fuck off.


 No.143303

File: 7e16f39b035d0fa⋯.jpeg (107.46 KB, 675x908, 675:908, D5lRKFIW4AAGt--.jpeg)

>>143290

>implying there was a point beyond being butthurt about ecelebs

>implying I care about reddit, youtube, or twitter

>not using stan for faggot fanbois


 No.143307

>>143303

>implying I care about reddit, youtube, or twitter

>not using stan for faggot fanbois

>I don't care about Twitter while also using Twitter and Reddit lingo.

Just call them faggots.


 No.143309

>>143270

>working with Porky to destroy the white working class because the n word is bad

>be surprised when Porky gives you the boot once you outlived your usefulness

DemSocs and modern Ancoms are just emotional liberals.


 No.143310

File: f36424b5d8aaad1⋯.png (316.06 KB, 900x600, 3:2, 29f7869612d7567fdbe7587123….png)

>>143307

>stan

>reddit

Nigga you zoomers new as fuck.


 No.143311

>>143309

>everybody is emotional except for me

>DemSocs and modern Ancoms are just emotional liberals.

Okay nazbol flag poster lmao


 No.143312

>>143311

>anti racism is more important than your country's native working class

Let's not pretend that "mainstream" and acceptable left movements are anything but social liberals larping as workers , while they support cheap labor and trannie acceptance (both which are sponsored by your friendly neighborhood bourgie)


 No.143313

>>143310

Yes I know stan was initially a millennial term made to describe obsessive Eminem fans.

However Twitter recently relaunched the term a new which is mostly likely why you are using it.

Also

>Zoomer

>Cuckchan lingo

It's worse than I thought.


 No.143314

File: d5c5a1ba5e2ec4a⋯.jpg (172.75 KB, 920x1280, 23:32, __clara_and_nonna_girls_un….jpg)

>>143278

It is no accident that Marx should have begun with an analysis of commodities when, in the two great works of his mature period, he set out to portray capitalist society in its totality and to lay bare its fundamental nature. For at this stage in the history of mankind there is no problem that does not ultimately lead back to that question and there is no solution that could not be found in the solution to the riddle of commodity-structure.


 No.143315

what the fuck is a stan


 No.143316

>>143315

Two seconds on Google.

stan-an overzealous or obsessive fan of a particular celebrity.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stan


 No.143317

File: 2779903125f63da⋯.jpg (108.19 KB, 480x950, 48:95, 9614df7b7817c5999ae404796c….jpg)

>>143313

>Yes I know stan was initially a millennial term made to describe obsessive Eminem fans.

I was there and unironically was a stan as a teenager fam. How twitter or reddit uses words doesn't matter to me.

>implying 8chan isnt over half cuckchan regulars

We all come from that shithole.


 No.143318

>>143317

>We all come from that shithole

A. Not that recently and B:

I didn't and proud of it, I found out about 8chan else where.


 No.143319

>>143318

Why would anyone be proud of coming to a dying cuckchan knockoff without ever going to cuckchan?


 No.143320

File: 82a4c6534fe9feb⋯.png (207 B, 40x60, 2:3, Futubaicon.png)

>>143319

>Cuckchan knock off

>Cuckchan knock off

>Cuckchan knock off


 No.143321

>>143320

Why are you still wasting our time? Don't you have something more productive to do, like necking yourself for example?


 No.143323

File: 07532dfd3f1c50f⋯.jpeg (74.3 KB, 703x794, 703:794, DQo79ZjVoAALQSL.jpeg)

>>143320

All western chans are 4chan clones, you may as accept that.

>>143321

A butthurt nazbol whining about ecelebs isn't particularly interesting so we may as well derail.


 No.143324

>>143311

The point is that radlibs would rather enable capitalism than share space with literally anyone else. That includes dumb rightwingers, smart rightwingers, leftwingers with nationalist sympathies, and leftwingers who simply don't buy into the woke narratives.

I trust radlibs about as much as I trust pinochet fans. Anyone who gleefully describes how much damage they'd do to people who disagree with them are never trustworthy allies.


 No.143325

>>143311

>>143324

I should also add on, rightwingers always win in the case of accerlationism. In a game of brutalism and violence, you will fucking lose to whoever is the most psychopathic.


 No.143334

>>143311

But they are


 No.143335


 No.143336

File: 41529722b7d4d87⋯.jpg (135.12 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Larson_1527974163098_12156….jpg)

>>143325

>Mencius Moldbug says society always goes left

>So you sayin

>Hol up

Society can't go further left?


 No.143337

>>143317

Not me. Came after GG.


 No.143355

>>143336

How is it that rightwingers gain the popular support of people ever?


 No.143356

>>143324

This.

Radlibs and Pinochetfags are literally the worst things ever. Also find it ironic that the two groups that cry the most about muh individuals and fear the ebil 'totalitarianism' also happen to be the most close-minded and pro-censorship fuckers around. They also tend to be complete shills for globalists while pretending that they are fighting against them.

Honestly, Nazbol is kind of a shit term to describe it. The point isn't to support Bolshevism or Stalin. Most national-syndicalists get their inspiration ironically more from the anarchist left with Proudhon than with the politics associated with Marx or Lenin. Nazbol only caught because Limonov's edgy party became a thing.

The idea that racism/nationalism equals authoritarianism/anti-democracy is retarded too. You can advocated for workers' self-management and a decentralized participatory democracy and still hate niggers/migrants.


 No.143360

>>143356

>You can advocated for workers' self-management and a decentralized participatory democracy and still hate niggers/migrants.

Aren't those things counterproductive for a nigger free society?


 No.143366

>>143360

Not really. Absolute democracy actually reinforces white rule due to whites being the majority. (See what universal male suffrage did in America in the Jacksonian Era.)

Workers' self-management leads to the a society ruled by workers. Blacks tend to be lumpens or precariat workers, so they'll end up becoming an underclass under the boots of the unionized proletariat. This can be seen in the American labor movement, which had done everything to discriminate against blacks and keep them out of well-paying jobs.

Those weren't bugs. They were features.


 No.143367

File: 4104dc3baf7ea4d⋯.png (240.39 KB, 757x3030, 757:3030, le freeze peach.png)

>all these redditumblr rapefugees taking the oneliner gag at the end of the OP dead serious

>>143273

>>143285

>>143288

>hurrdurr freeze peach don exits

Tell me about how shitlibs encouraging and collaborating with porkies here to impose Saudi-style restrictions on free expression makes radical leftism easier


 No.143369

File: 7c8064a2ad0ad82⋯.jpg (46.77 KB, 960x717, 320:239, 2020.jpg)

>>143367

>if you don't believe in liberal ideology, you're enabling capitalism

It's like you've never read an ounce of theory or history. Take that flag off you god damn liberal.


 No.143370

File: 564012a4b33312b⋯.jpg (90.34 KB, 516x622, 258:311, communist_party_mask.jpg)

>>143369

>take off that libertarian socialist flag you liberal

Again, tell me about how instituting authoritarianism under capitalism, and spreading authoritarian ideology within "leftist" activism, helps the leftist cause of socialism.


 No.143374

File: e2fc8108294eaed⋯.png (61.68 KB, 400x338, 200:169, ecb3a9ab5558d5a353bfdf1a6c….png)

>>143370

You're a liberal who sees the state as a unitary institution and believes in rights, not a libertarian socialist who understands what the state is and disregards spooks. The flag for you is the rose or donkey.

>instituting authoritarianism under capitalism

Capitalism, and the state, are inherently authoritarian, you may as well complain about instituting rain under a hurricane. Anarchists have been saying this for over a century now, you should at least read part of the anarchist faq if you're going to front as libertarian socialist.

>spreading authoritarian ideology within "leftist" activism

Not crying everytime a fag gets put into social media jail isn't authoritarian unless you've got an Engles-tier understanding of authoritarianism.

>helps the leftist cause of socialism.

No one here has said some fag getting banned is helping socialism, we've been saying that radical leftists will be getting attacked regardless if the reactionaries get fucked or treated nice. Any decent history of the socialist movement reveals this clearly, did you snooze on that along with basic anarchist theory?


 No.143378

>>143370

> authoritarianism is when you don't let nazis kill you

galaxy brain take


 No.143381

File: 0cb2ebe1d1dac14⋯.gif (4.7 MB, 360x240, 3:2, terminator intro.gif.gif)

>>143374

>You're a liberal who sees the state as a unitary institution

No, I see it as a vital conduit under capitalism right now for imposing some measure of democratic restraint against capital, and I appreciate the fact that weakening the state without first greatly strengthening labor through an incipient parallel socialist system would create a power vacuum. A power vacuum capital is able and eager to fill.

>believes in rights

Rights exist insofar as they are upheld, both in practice and in principle.

>you may as well complain about instituting rain under a hurricane

>radical leftists will be getting attacked regardless if the reactionaries get fucked or treated nice

Material conditions were unarguably far worse here before various liberal rights, such as free expression, were instituted in law, and cherished by the majority of people. Material conditions continue to be far worse in places where liberal rights are legally suppressed, and popularly disdained. These improvements to material conditions made socialist activism tremendously easier and more effective, and continue to do so.

You are attempting to deny both present and historical reality with an insane "bad stuff happens under the current system, so removing every single safeguard against even more bad stuff happening won't make the system worse" perfect world fallacy.

>Not crying everytime a fag gets put into social media jail isn't authoritarian unless you've got an Engles-tier understanding of authoritarianism.

But failing to oppose, openly advocating for, or directly participating in the acceptance, creation, enlargement, operation, and defense of far reaching and unaccountable authoritarian institutions certainly is.

Also

>social media jail

This is how it always starts, you won't be laughing in Overlord Zucc's killbot camp.

>>143378

<a firm, consistent, and principled opposition to creeping tyranny, such as the embrace of censorship both across broader society, and within the left itself, means letting nazis kill you


 No.143406

>>143356

that's kind of how I view it as, left-wing nationalism.

I take more from Proudhon, Sorel, and Bakunin than Marx, although I though Bakunin's thoughts on feminists was stupid. current year bs I guess.


 No.143409

File: c0253a38911936b⋯.jpg (291.88 KB, 1200x1080, 10:9, 7c498b1de5823462126de023e8….jpg)

>>143381

>I see it as a vital conduit under capitalism right now for imposing some measure of democratic restraint against capital

Like a socdem or liberal. The rose or donkey are waiting for you.

>weakening the state without first greatly strengthening labor through an incipient parallel socialist system would create a power vacuum. A power vacuum capital is able and eager to fill

Capital already fills that spot through the state, the state isn't a neutral bureaucracy, it is the main tool of oppression wielded by the ruling class.

>Rights exist insofar as they are upheld, both in practice and in principle

The state has consistently shown to enforce rights only on a whim and reject principle when capital is threatened. In reality rights don't exist outside your head, they are the ultimate spook.

>Material conditions were unarguably far worse here before various liberal rights, such as free expression, were instituted in law, and cherished by the majority of people

Free expression and various other liberal rights have been part of the western legal systems and ideology of the bourgeoisie concurrent with, and often preceding, the suppression of the socialist and labor movements as well as other contrary institutions such as slavery. It's idealism to assume that legality is the basis for freedom. The state's currently more benign management is the not the result of legal reform neutering it, it's the result of retaliation being more severe and more possible yet less common than it was in the past. If the state stops playing nice it's going to be because capital is under threat, not because leftists didn't defend some eceleb.

>But failing to oppose, openly advocating for, or directly participating in the acceptance, creation, enlargement, operation, and defense of far reaching and unaccountable authoritarian institutions certainly is.

This sounds like a better condemnation of your support for the state than my not caring about social media bans.

>This is how it always starts

It's always been this way, social media didn't start moderating and banning because some rainbow hairs or leftists got mad at being destroyed, it did so since inception to keep cash flow stable and control narrative. The way to stop that is to abolish capitalism, not circle the wagons everytime adolfstalin gets banned for ranting about niggers or women.


 No.143413

File: b330bbca7c5207d⋯.jpg (310.79 KB, 1200x1219, 1200:1219, history of corporate whini….jpg)

>>143409

>Like a socdem

Remember "socdem" in its "Rosa stabber" sense doesn't refer to those such as Rosa herself who use parliamentary reform as one among many praxes in the pursuit of socialism, but to those who unironically believe "muh mix of socialism and capitalism" to be an ideal end goal in and of itself.

>or liberal

Again, "liberals" are decried not for being liberals, but for being merely liberals. Like every other ideology of any significance since the Enlightenment, socialism IS inherently liberal. Indeed, socialism is perhaps the ultimate liberal ideology.

>it is the main tool of oppression wielded by the ruling class.

No, that would be labor exploitation. Much as for us, however, it is a crucial battleground and weapon in the class war, one that is readily dispensed with once total dominance has been reasserted.

>assume that legality is the basis for freedom.

I never said such a thing. I have, however, emphasized that it is frequently a crucial means of securing and exploiting past victories.

>The state's currently more benign management

Ah, good, a baby step toward lucid reality. Now that you've acknowledged being leftist in a nice polity actually is better than being leftist in a nasty polity, all that's left is to drag you to the conclusion past leftist agitation both inside and outside the system is directly responsible for subsequent reforms, while porky has been struggling to halt and tear down such reforms nonstop.

>This sounds like a better condemnation of your support for the state than my not caring about social media bans.

The state is not an entity with an agenda, merely a tool and a reflection of present conditions. Serving the interests of capital directly, as censorship apologists do, is totally incomparable.

>It's always been this way

>it did so since inception

Big discussion fora didn't used to censor wrongthink, content hosts didn't used to censor wrongthink, offsite archives didn't used to memoryhole wrongthink, ISPs didn't used to censor wrongthink, CDNs didn't used to censor wrongthink. All of this is new, and all of this is getting worse faster, with the eager assistance of "leftists" who were firmly in support of free expression even a decade ago.


 No.143420

>>143271

Go listen ro the recent Chapo Trap House episode with Hasan Piker. Listen to them talk about how looking into an ideology and figuring out what you believe by argument is an alien concept to them. These radlibs and progressives all think of politics as a dogma not to be questioned, as received wisdom handed down from on high. They are effectively religious fundamentalists.

Fuck them in particular. They're impossible to convert barring a crisis of faith and they're siphoning converts from the center and right.


 No.143422

>>143270

What?

The dude is very critical of tech monopolies and believes that in his perfect anarkiddie society fascists would get guarenteed public platforms just so their arguments could be publically deconstructed. He just also believes that the one good thing about tech monopolies is that they can deplatform nazis before the 1930s happen again as he prefers neoliberalism over fascism.

I mean he even engages in frequent debates with white nationalists, aka platforms them, but most internet platforms just make it so that these ppl can choose to stay in their echo chambers and not engage with criticism if they don't want to, which he is against.


 No.143423

File: ee3b4f2a7f04fd5⋯.png (57.59 KB, 395x400, 79:80, likemotherlikedaughter.png)

>>143420

>They are effectively religious fundamentalists.

I've gotten the general impression over the years that the vast majority of them are from born again families.


 No.143427

File: fe81c66e48a07bf⋯.png (73.2 KB, 727x462, 727:462, 927d0846696258afed67db473a….png)

>>143413

>Remember "socdem" in its "Rosa stabber" sense doesn't refer to those such as Rosa herself who use parliamentary reform as one among many praxes in the pursuit of socialism

It does, the rosa stabbers were in fact the product of such praxis as the need to protect the state was of more interest to socialist politicians than the need to protect the class. Besides rosa stabbers the other product of social democracy was leninists, it's like there's a pattern or something. If only there was a group of socialists who opposed electoralism and bitterly fought against socdems throughout history, perhaps they'd call themselves "anarchists" or "libertarian socialists".

>Again, "liberals" are decried not for being liberals, but for being merely liberals

Liberals are decried for holding property as sacred and adhering to idealism. Socialism is a rejection of this.

>No, that would be labor exploitation.

Exploitation is the component of capitalism as a system by being the key social relation. It isn't a tool.

>Much as for us, however, it is a crucial battleground and weapon in the class war, one that is readily dispensed with once total dominance has been reasserted.

The state isn't a battleground in the class war, it's a weapon wielded by the ruling class. This has been commonly agreed upon by anarchists and marxists for over a century. You've got a liberal view of the state, not a socialist view.

>I never said such a thing

It's the logical conclusion of your ideology and praxis.

>The state is not an entity with an agenda, merely a tool and a reflection of present conditions

Even if we are to take the first to be true, it is currently a tool wielded by the bourgeoisie and only serves their interests. Historically the state has always been wielded by a ruling minority and a state that no longer does so can't accurately be called a state.

>Serving the interests of capital directly, as censorship apologists do, is totally incomparable.

You're serving the interests of capital by legitimizing the state as a medium of class mediation instead of dealing with it as the tool of oppression it is. You do the same thing by treating censorship, whether private or public, as something to be addressed by free speech activism in rather than a product of class society.

>All of this is new

It's at least a decade old.

>with the eager assistance of "leftists"

This is miss piggy tier. Leftists not caring or even supporting censorship of da nazees on social media is no more assistance to capitalism than leftists not supporting or even opposing Assad is assistance to imperialism. It's irrelevant opinion from a fringe with no actual power.


 No.143429

>>143409

>the state isn't a neutral bureaucracy, it is the main tool of oppression wielded by the ruling class.

I don't entirely agree with this. The Supreme court specifically has made decisions to ensure 1st amendment rights of radicals, specifically Yates vs. United States and Brandenburg vs. Ohio. The Yates case was about leftists found in violation of the smith act because they advocated for communism, and the brandenburg case was about a KKK member in violation of Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute. In short, you can oppose the US government and have revolutionary rhetoric so long as that rhetoric is not literally about to happen.

These cases are important because they guarantee radicals' right to political expression even if the US government doesn't like it. The police can't throw you in jail if you advocate for a workers' revolution or a white nationalist revolution. Protection of radical speech means every radical gets it, including the radicals you might be fighting.

>The way to stop that is to abolish capitalism, not circle the wagons everytime adolfstalin gets banned for ranting about niggers or women.

>rights don't exist outside of your head anyway

Not a fan of this nihilism. The state and capitalism have an unholy marriage in the internet age to crack down on any dissent. The one thing the neoliberal regime counts on is radicals fighting each other instead of unifying on key issues. Alex Jones is a goofy retard, but he's anti-war and anti-corporate abuse. Jones getting banned means anti-war leftists get banned too, and indeed that was what happened when Jones was censored summer2018.


 No.143430

>>143423

Yes, also a lot of wokies seem to be from reactionary families, which is why they're in favor of backwards shit like segregation. Instead of figuring out what positions are right, at most they figure out how to use woke language to justify the opinions they started with.


 No.143431

>>143427

Except the socdems and progs are responsible for the most neoliberal reforms in my country.

Something the conservatives didn't dare to dream off, because people would be protesting on the streets and the socdems and progs would lead them. This way the people responsible for the shit are still in charge of the parties, they keep spiralling downwards and the conservatives just need to administer the shit they always wanted to, being ensured that despite their massive unpopularity, the """""left""""" opposition is even more hated and can only be in government with a conservative coalition (which makes people hate them even more)


 No.143441

>>143430

Many of them are reactionaries just pretending to be leftists to fuck leftism from the inside out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmyJyzoW2fM


 No.143444

>>143429

Lol I'm mentioned in this. RENT FREE.


 No.143447

File: 55e62dc8944bda5⋯.jpg (49.27 KB, 740x822, 370:411, 59939784_799365710434856_7….jpg)

>>143355

Because here in the states, esp, the few genuine leftists and what are mostly radlibs like to shit on so-called "white trash" for moral grandstanding as if their morals are somehow better or morality has a measuring stick

<it doesn't

So you see the rural classes get more reactionary because of this.


 No.143451

File: f5ab8bb8ac84da5⋯.jpeg (89.04 KB, 916x660, 229:165, DxCSFAhWoAEUP1Q.jpeg)

>>143429

>I don't entirely agree with this.

The issue with rights and privlidges is they require the goodwill of the state in order to be real. So we find ourselves in the position of relying on the state to keep to it's rules, which historically it hasn't, and if in violation of them to remedy and punish accordingly, which even if it does is too late or little to repair the damage. Since we have historical precedent of the state violating rights, it is foolish to expect the state to not do so again if given motive to do so.

>Not a fan of this nihilism.

That's not nihilism, it's saying we need to be more radical.

>The state and capitalism have an unholy marriage in the internet age to crack down on any dissent.

The state and capitalism have been married for centuries at this point a on, this iteration has just been updated for the times.

>The one thing the neoliberal regime

Stop saying "neoliberal" when you should say capitalist.

>radicals fighting each other instead of unifying on key issues.

We've been doing this forever, and united fronts with capitalism is gay.

>Alex Jones is a goofy retard, but he's anti-war and anti-corporate abuse.

Jones is like being anti-AIDS but pro-HIV. Capitalists of any stripe aren't allies of socialists, and any cooperation usually ends up with the latter getting backstabbed.

>Jones getting banned means anti-war leftists get banned too, and indeed that was what happened when Jones was censored summer2018.

Yes, and begging google to play nice isn't going to fix that. So long as capital controls our information channels it is going to be unaccountable to any real degree. We can either become the free speech #metoo, where we can only affect firms based on public shame, or we can abolish the system that allows censorship to occur.

>>143431

>Except the socdems and progs are responsible for the most neoliberal reforms in my country

That was implied. It's not a bug that yuropoor socdems, pink tide south americans, and actually existing socialist states have embraced capitalism in one way or another.


 No.143461

>>143451

The government is by no means pure, but it is vastly more accountable than capital is. If a government ignores the desires of its people, it risks a revolution and thus makes concessions to workers, whether or not the capitalists like it. FDR did as much during the great depression, he pissed off a lot of capitalists with his new deal, but told them a revolution would come if they didn't appease the people with social reforms. How did the US get 40 hour work weeks, how did Europe get maternity leave if not through workers wielding their governments against capital?

As for cooperation with others, there are lolberts and redfascists I trust much more than some liberals. As I said in >>143324, the people to watch out for are the ones who jerk off to power fantasies.


 No.143464

File: 86fbe08378411b0⋯.jpg (161.07 KB, 2160x1215, 16:9, 1497295749994.jpg)

>>143461

>The government is by no means pure, but it is vastly more accountable than capital is.

The government is run by capital and for capital fam, individual capitalists being unhappy doesn't change that it is a tool the bourgeoisie uses to maintain their rule.

>How did the US get 40 hour work weeks, how did Europe get maternity leave if not through workers wielding their governments against capital?

Strikes, radical labor organization, and activism. Of which capital and state were the primary opponents, with trade union leadership and "socialist" parties often taking the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. When the state and capital were forced into giving into to demands it was a defeat of the state, not an instance of the proletariat wielding the state.

>As for cooperation with others, there are lolberts and redfascists I trust much more than some liberals

I wouldn't trust anyone who has ideological or material interest contrary to the abolition of capitalism. Anyone who doesn't has an implicit power fantasy that involves exploitation and oppression.


 No.143474

>>143464

No offense but I don't want to get sidetracked in these side conversations. Supporting media censorship, for any reason, is strategically dumb.

This is a tough turd to chew on, but populist nationalism is enjoying so much success because it's the loudest proworker voice right now. The left has been struggling with idpol infighting and weird sectarian purity spiraling; meanwhile the aforementioned redfascists will take any opportunity to get their message out. >>143413 had a good point where he said agitation delivers results, well what have the fascists been doing besides invading every dialogue and speaking their mind?

Proworker rhetoric is actually popular, like really fucking popular, but the left has ousted itself from the public dialogue in an effort to deplatform the right. Liberals cannot push back against reactionary rhetoric, that's why you need a socialist/communist to challenge fascists. But since some leftists refuse to engage with the right, the fascists have had the floor for the past 6 tears, with their views going unchallenged. So these redfascists, using proworker but reactionary rhetoric, are gorging themselves on workers' support. Again, the past 6 years have shown the consequences of not directly engaging rightwing rhetoric. We cannot be prideful here.


 No.143475

>>143474

>populist nationalism is enjoying so much success because it's the loudest proworker voice right now

Pro worker in rhetoric, but not in practice.


 No.143476

>>143474

>the fascists have had the floor for the past 6 tears, with their views going unchallenged

Make a video with your name and address repeatedly yelling the word "nigger" and send it to a bluetick journo on Twitter and see how fast your "fascist views go unchallenged" lmao


 No.143478

>>143475

yes that is the problem. Don't forget 70% of the SA in weimar germany were originally socialists. People can fall for reactionary rhetoric, including hard leftwingers.


 No.143480

File: 314aaf4b134d50b⋯.jpeg (245.03 KB, 1200x922, 600:461, DibO8nXVAAAlOFw.jpeg)

>>143474

>No offense but I don't want to get sidetracked in these side conversations

Fair enough.

>Supporting media censorship, for any reason, is strategically dumb.

The only one itt that supports it is >>143285 . The others who object to abstract notions of free speech don't care because we see it as normal operations for the state and free speech activism to be ultimately useless.

>This is a tough turd to chew on, but populist nationalism is enjoying so much success because it's the loudest proworker voice right now.

A wild side conversation appears! Frankly populist nationalism doesn't have much support outside the middle class, the fellas going nationalist are more likely to have an above average white collar job than be a blue collar dude. Most of the working class is burnt out on politics because it doesn't offer them anything, rather than wanting to build a wall or kick out the muzzies they want to fuck someone and watch tv or play vidya. This alienation is increased when the nationalists inevitably fail to help them out and just end up making the boujees richer. If we want these people we've got to do something besides peddle a platform or debate the USSR's economic benefits circa 1969. The return of labor organization outside of electoral politics and trade unions is what is neeeded because that's what gets the goods.


 No.143495

>>143474

>populist nationalism is enjoying so much success because it's the loudest proworker voice right now.

It's not pro-worker by any means. They talk about migration endlessly to hide the fact that they serve the interest of the same capitalist elite as everyone else. People more easily accept it from them since they have been brainwashed to believe that migration really is the only thing that matters even if it means suppressing your wages, abolishing your right to strikes, record low corporate taxes and harassing trade unionists to provide the same cheap labour to the corporations that they think would get by migration. But it's okay because at least they won't let the cannibal rapist terrorist workers from the Middle East in.

I'm sick of you clueless retards eating up their propaganda, how about you see a little further than you retarded binary "anti-idpol" dogma that makes everyone who diverges from social liberal stances a little "based and redpilled" and actually consider what these retards are doing to suck capitalist dick. How about you try living in Hungary for a year or two and talk about how "pro-worker" these criminals really are?


 No.143501

File: 78cb723bb63aa2a⋯.jpg (7.63 KB, 234x215, 234:215, 60641991_134735757707471_4….jpg)

>>143495

So you deny the existence of outliers?


 No.143509

File: eae54724df8c175⋯.png (131.18 KB, 816x564, 68:47, koch brothers are leftists.png)

>>143495

Dude, you are so wrong it ain't even funny. The bourgeoisie are very pro migration; even the

"right wing" capitalists like Murdoch and the Koch brothers are pro immigration/miscegenation, pro gay, pro tranny, etc… They're just leftists with a lot of money But yeah, keep pretending your bioleninist assfuckery is anti capitalist in any way.

>suppressing your wages, abolishing your right to strikes, record low corporate taxes and harassing trade unionists to provide the same cheap labour to the corporations that they think would get by migration.

You do know you can be racist without lowering people's wages, right?


 No.143512

File: 558a0551904f40c⋯.jpg (19.5 KB, 578x213, 578:213, zero difference.jpg)

File: 071cc74ad4cec4c⋯.gif (9.89 KB, 398x538, 199:269, unions.gif)

>>143427

>the need to protect the state was of more interest to socialist politicians than the need to protect the class

There were already far deeper problems with the SPD and their ilk within the 2nd Internationale by that point, such as their complicity in WWI just a few years earlier. Politicians within those parties had wholly lost touch with their rank and file, and their comrades across the world.

>socialists who opposed electoralism and bitterly fought against socdems

Most of whom were syndicalist. You can get into sortition versus electoral representation versus communal direct democracy, if you want, but socialism is democratic, period.

>Liberals are decried for holding property as sacred

That is merely a capitalist distortion of the liberal ideal of personal security

>it is currently a tool wielded by the bourgeoisie and only serves their interests

Then why have they always struggled to dismantle it? Why have they always fought against its restraints on them?

>something to be addressed by free speech activism in rather than a product of class society.

>Leftists not caring or even supporting censorship of da nazees on social media

That censorship occurs isn't really the issue. The issue is the construction of powerful omnipresent censorship infrastructure in practice, and popular rejection of free expression in culture (including within received "leftist" ideology). Failing to protect the free expression of nazis, or actively participating in it, is de-facto aiding in the erection of a vast apparatus that will seal our doom. Moreover, especially within the left, it is destroying and corrupting the rival edifice of free expression activism, willfully tearing away at the foundational doctrinaire causes of leftism itself, akin to campaigning for religion, dictatorship, war, slavery, and other right wing causes.

>>143451

>The issue with rights and privlidges is they require the goodwill of the state in order to be real.

No, they require the unflinching, principled support of the masses, who will agitate ceaselessly for their enforcement when they are not law, protect and participate in them when they are law, uphold them amongst ourselves, and absolutely never opportunistically betray our own core ideals.

>So we find ourselves in the position of relying on the state to keep to it's rules

False dilemma. We can impose the expectation on the state of conforming to rules it agrees to, and use the legally enforced rights resulting from that, while simultaneously performing illegal direct action that is made easier by more favorable laws to press for further reforms in our favor just like porky does.

>That's not nihilism

Pretending that hard won concessions don't exist and haven't made leftism easier and more ambitious in the centuries from totalitarian feudalism to democratic republicanism absolutely is nihilism, verging on delusional schizophrenia.

>begging google to play nice

That is only part of it, shouting down anyone on the "left" who engages in or lauds suppression of free expression for any reason will remove the support Google depends on to justify such misbehavior, but yes, getting consumers to avoid such centralized and readily abused services in favor of sane alternatives is part of it. There are also potential legal remedies that have been used successfully in the past, such the recognition of Google as a monopoly, resulting in the imposition of fairness regulations as a public service, nationalization, or Google being trustbusted to prevent any porky from exercising such unchecked power.

>>143464

>When the state and capital were forced into giving into to demands it was a defeat of the state, not an instance of the proletariat wielding the state.

What about when the state begins acting on that concession, and beatdowns of porky cause the piggies to squeal for deregulation against the state, or open borders with states that are already deregulated?

>>143480

>we see it as normal operations for the state and free speech activism to be ultimately useless.

What activism is useful, if not free speech, ESPECIALLY inside leftism itself!? You realize that sort of thinking is where tolerance for the authoritarian "inner party" structure of the Bolsheviks originated, right?


 No.143513

>>143478

That fact has to be appreciated in historical context. Especially since openly left wing parties were increasingly outlawed, leftists joined the SA and other Nazi organizations with the hope of flipping the party. Infiltration aside, many sections of the Nazis early on were nazbol in nature, attracted by early Nazi rhetoric of anticapitalist and socialist revolutionary tone. All of these facts played a part (along with the need to conform with the wishes of the non-Nazi government during transition) in the Nazis purging themselves of such elements.

>>143474

All of the other replies to your post seem to have ignored that your main point wasn't any appeal of aut-right ideology itself, but the fact that they are willing and eager to get their message out and appeal to anyone they can, whereas the "left" has acquired a well deserved reputation for rejecting and attacking anyone who doesn't conform perfectly to the party line, as well as abusing those who aren't sufficiently submissive.

>>143495

>It's not pro-worker by any means. They talk about migration endlessly to hide the fact that they serve the interest of the same capitalist elite as everyone else.

The migration talk, along with some other issues outside the neolib/neocon pseudoconsensus (opposition to free trade, opposition to tensions with Russia or Korea and military adventurism in the MENA region, privacy/spying, whistleblowers, corruption, political correctness, free expression, etc.) primarily work because no organized political faction other than the evil neonazis is willing to give anyone the time of day on such issues, for any reason whatsoever. Even the most anti-idpol economic motive imaginable will get you labeled a cryptofascist.

>Most of the working class is burnt out on politics because it doesn't offer them anything

Engagement in politics? Sure. Political stances? No, absolutely not. Look to opinion polls, and you'll see mountains of leftist positions the masses hold favorable or even fervent positions on. We need to provide an outlet for these desires, one that is organized, disciplined, and active.

>The return of labor organization outside of electoral politics and trade unions is what is needed because that's what gets the goods.

Absolutely agreed direct action (both labor and consumer) is and always has been the primary praxis of every left tendency that has ever accomplished anything useful. But that didn't occur in a vacuum. Laws protecting organization, unions, strikes, labor propaganda, and other related activities, correlate strongly with the rise and fall of organized labor.

>>143509

>superstructural flimflam that doesn't touch the material base of capitalism is leftist

>/pol/yps aren't all classcuck collaborationists willing to suck huwite uncut porky cock bone dry as long as they don't have to be nice to le ebil darkies & wimminz


 No.143515

>>143513

>>superstructural flimflam that doesn't touch the material base of capitalism is leftist

>Erasure of culture and borders isn't leftist

>Usurping old aristocracy isn't left wing

>Implying that global neoliberalism isn't just a transitional state towards communism like mercantilism was a transitional state between feudalism and capitalism


 No.143517

File: ad30af3d6dbe0ef⋯.jpg (219.81 KB, 859x597, 859:597, marx on classcucks.jpg)

>>143515

>"white" nationalism isn't a mystery meat neologism glossing over and mongrelizing the distinction of thousands of regional cultures that fought wars of genocide against each other on grounds of ethnocultural inferiority as recently as WWII

>aristocrats were anything but the porkies of their day, intermarrying abroad in allegiance to their class, and ruthlessly exploiting and shuffling around "their" subjects through population transfers for thousands of years to atomize and alienate any stirrings of unity or class consciousness beyond blind allegience to the sovereign

>unregulated transnat porky ownership ownership of the means of production is communism


 No.143518

>>143517

>"white" nationalism isn't a mystery meat neologism glossing over and mongrelizing the distinction of thousands of regional cultures that fought wars of genocide against each other on grounds of ethnocultural inferiority as recently as WWII

I'm guessing you're a retard who believed the myth that Hitler wanted to genocide the slavs even though some of his most loyal foreign SS divisions were slavic.


 No.143519

File: f04a301380e9adc⋯.jpg (87.2 KB, 800x445, 160:89, diversity-800x445.jpg)

>>143518

>the myth

Set out at length in official documents seized from the reich, and corroborated by statistics of the areas targeted by them.

>some of his most loyal foreign SS divisions were slavic

There were also nogs, muzzies, and Capitalists. That doesn't change the fact that they were officially slated for annihilation, in campaigns that were at least partway complete by the time the Allies crushed them.


 No.143520

File: 346819c1e5f7f6d⋯.gif (164.17 KB, 457x422, 457:422, main-qimg-f0f3196128102cd4….gif)

>>143519

Lel, tripped over my own filter.


 No.143521

File: 84e8c0bc2575696⋯.jpg (68.76 KB, 744x294, 124:49, BritishGenocide.jpg)

>>143519

>That doesn't change the fact that they were officially slated for annihilation, in campaigns that were at least partway complete by the time the Allies crushed them.

What's with liberal fags and sucking imperial British dick?


 No.143522

>>143519

>That doesn't change the fact that they were officially slated for annihilation

Got any proof of that or is that a literal assumption? As far as I know Hitler only reved up the Holocoaster for Jews and retards after the whole deportation thing failed.


 No.143523

>>143521

While also hating the U.S. at the same time. Anon, I..


 No.143525

>>143509

capital is now literally expunging racist sexists and homophobics from banks closing alt-right accounts to the poster boys of amerikapital (zuck and bezos) publicly denouncing and deplatforming fascists. doing the opposite of what the capitalists do is now good praxis. we should now be racist sexist homophobics.

anitfas are in league with the capital! striker was right, cops are just antifas with a badge.

I am unironic about this


 No.143527

File: 2646611efa1da2b⋯.gif (1.96 MB, 379x292, 379:292, decisive soviet victory.gif)

>>143521

>>143523

Eh, I've no fondness for the USSR either. Just because The Perfidious Anglo was engaged in nefarious other activities, doesn't discount any appreciation for their demolishing the Axis and restoring peace to Europe.

>>143522

Like I said, numerous documents straight from high command, and various operations carried out in the preliminary phase of their execution, such as resettlement of Germans into Slavic land, sorting Slavic villages out for liquidation/slavery **pun intended*/expulsion east/kidnapping or rape for "Germanization", and the systematic starvation of occupied Slavic populations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan


 No.143528

>>143527

No not the slavs, all the others you mentioned.


 No.143537

>>143270

>Nazbol is the only solution.

pls no


 No.143541

>>143537

you're just mad because De Leon made apologetics for le jooz


 No.143542

>>143527

I live in the states myself, I'd agree with some tenants of anarchism if it weren't filled to the brim with poofters, no offense


 No.143544

File: 0e703f31d94037e⋯.jpeg (207.63 KB, 2048x1257, 2048:1257, D431BVeWAAAHHgf.jpeg)

>>143512

>There were already far deeper problems with the SPD and their ilk within the 2nd Internationale by that point

Most if not all of which can be traced to their entrance into the state bureaucracy. This is because our activity produces us, and management of capitalism produces managers of capitalism.

>You can get into sortition versus electoral representation versus communal direct democracy, if you want, but socialism is democratic, period.

This is a dodge that has nothing to do with the point against electoralism. The libertarian socialists were fiercely opposed to electoralism and other forms of seizing state power because they believed it would transform socialists into oppressors of the working class, which is what happened. If you're going to support electoralism you should take that flag off and drop libertarian or anarchist labels.

>That is merely a capitalist distortion

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism and has been since inception, stop trying to make liberalism into something it never was.

>Then why have they always struggled to dismantle it?

They haven't, at most they want to dismantle specfic governments or bureaucracy while keeping the professional force sections around to maintain property.

>Why have they always fought against its restraints on them?

The same reason they fight among themselves over different policy, they have competing interests individually but as a class have a common interest in maintaining their dominance.

>The issue is the construction of powerful omnipresent censorship infrastructure in practice

Which already exists and will exist until capitalism and the state are gone. Do you even social relations?

>they require the unflinching, principled support of the masses,

And if "the masses" are unable or unwilling to riot overy any instance of rights being violated we find ourselves dependent on the state's goodwill to reify our rights.

>Pretending that hard won concessions don't exist and haven't made leftism easier

Something which hasn't been said outside of your imagination.

>shouting down anyone on the "left"

How anti free speech of you.

>What about when the state begins acting on that concession, and beatdowns of porky cause the piggies to squeal for deregulation against the state, or open borders with states that are already deregulated?

The same we'd do if porky was peddling nationalism or social democracy, continue organizing as a class.

>What activism is useful

None.

>You realize that sort of thinking is where tolerance for the authoritarian "inner party" structure of the Bolsheviks originated, right?

Actually it originates with the idea that proxy decision making can be democratic, hence the term "democratic centralism".


 No.143547

>>143544

>Most if not all of which can be traced to their entrance into the state bureaucracy.

I think the more severe problem is usually a temptation to appeal to as broad a base as possible, watering down any dogmatic platform. This then selects for those of a waffley, unprincipled nature apt to bow to special interests.

>If you're going to support electoralism you should take that flag off and drop libertarian or anarchist labels.

There are a variety of stances toward parliamentary participation versus direct action, ranging from Proudhon's pragmatic dual power reformism, to Bakunin's firmly abstentive stance, to those whose opinions shifted in response to conditions, such as the Spanish anarchists that joined with the Republic in the prelude to civil war.

>Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism and has been since inception

Absolute nonsense. Materialism, universalism, science, humanism, egalitarianism, brotherhood, peace, freedom, etc., are foundational to every ideology of the Enlightenment, including both capitalism and what would become socialism.

>they have competing interests individually

What capitalists ever had the interest of legally protecting strikes, unions, agitational labor propaganda, mandatory worker representation on corporate boards, and countless other policies that directly attack the entire edifice of capitalism itself? At worst, you can describe it as a tactical retreat against the terrifying power commanded by the working class, not factional infighting among porkies.

>Which already exists and will exist until capitalism and the state are gone.

Many of the acts and mechanisms of censorship being built for porky with the aid of SJWs are wholly new, haven't existed for decades, or are expanding to scales unprecedented in recent memory. Don't be contrarian.

>And if "the masses" are unable or unwilling to riot overyambivalent to or proudly participating in any instance of rights being violated

That is exactly what this thread is complaining about, and that is something which has to be reversed within the "left".

>Something which hasn't been said outside of your imagination.

Do you really want me to quote every instance in this thread of you asserting that free expression doesn't exist for leftists, state enforcement of laws which explicitly protect free expression has never benefited the left, and the same is true of every other socdem reform?

>How anti free speech of you

<responding to expression with expression is censorship

Ha ha, very funny. But seriously, we must firmly rebuke any tendency to support fundamentally right-wing ideas such as censorship among the left, and any impression that those who hold such ideas can call themselves leftists unopposed. If this is about criteria for org membership or ejection, that is a very different issue from discourse in general society.

>None.

I wasn't just talking about activism to influence state politics, but activism generally, including the internal structure of direct action anticipating the establishment of socialism. If you don't uphold free expression, you aren't socialist.

>Actually it originates with the idea that proxy decision making can be democratic

Proxy decisionmaking is absolutely necessary for some things, unless you're a preindustrial society that can fit your entire citizenry in a single room every week.


 No.143548

>>143541

lol, nazbols aren't anti semitic


 No.143554

>>143509

Capitalists want cheap labour, they don't give a fuck if they get it by importing migrants or intensifying the exploitation of the native population as long as they don't revolt. And nobody revolts as long as they are scared of the spooky migrants.


 No.143563

>>143554

>And nobody revolts as long as they are scared of the spooky migrants.

Bruh, nobody's revolting anyway.


 No.143566

File: 1518bd7e9fb9e5b⋯.png (3.33 MB, 700x4791, 700:4791, nazbol is fucking retarded.png)

>>143548

>nazbol

>sincere adherents

>coherent political positions

>anything other than memes to troll normalfags


 No.143567

But seriously, why should I, or any other worker, give even *more* power to capital by backhandedly defending mass immigration?

Immigrants don't give a fuck about Leftism (if anything they vote for /theirguys/, i.e. idpol-infested loons that think wypeepaw are the reason everything sucks), and its literally just funnelling billions into the pockets of capital through higher rents, more labour competition, more consumers, more development…for what? So you can make some empty noises about "international solidarity"? So you can preen here that you know who the REAL enemy is, unlike those chudcel nazis?


 No.143580

bump


 No.143592

>>143495

>how about you see a little further than you retarded binary "anti-idpol" dogma

you're going to lecture us about being shortsighted? Racial idpol was literally propagated by the fed to disrupt labor movements. My point also still stands that by virtue of being the loudest proworker movement, nationalists are getting the workers' support. I don't know how you interpretted that as an endorsement of a rightwing dictatorship. How about we focus on being louder critics of capitalism than the fascists are, and criticize fascists for their sympathies to private property?


 No.143597

>>143566

>not realizing books on the subject and ideology, which spans even other ideologies were written.


 No.143602

File: e0f2dbcf0086ff7⋯.jpg (100.72 KB, 465x768, 155:256, block09.jpg)

>>143567

But seriously, why should I, or any other worker, give even *more* power to capital by backhandedly defending white nationalism?

Crackers don't give a fuck about Leftism (if anything they vote for /theirguys/, i.e. idpol-infested loons that think niggers and mexicans and muslims are the reason everything sucks), and its literally just funnelling billions into the pockets of capital through higher rents, more labour competition, more consumers, more development…for what? So you can make some empty noises about "fighting the ☘️elites☘️"? So you can preen here that you know who the REAL enemy is, unlike those antifags?


 No.143605

File: 3d7fbe2ef923ed2⋯.jpg (662.45 KB, 3173x1988, 3173:1988, 3d7fbe2ef923ed2d2f37542a1d….jpg)

>>143547

>I think the more severe problem is usually a temptation to appeal to as broad a base as possible

Which again goes back into their position in the state bureaucracy, ie a need for support in elections. It's not an issue of them being ideologically unsound, it's a consequence of their position in the state apparatus.

>There are a variety of stances toward parliamentary participation versus direct action

Yes, and the libertarians have opposed to parliamentary politics for a century. When they broke with this to elect socialists, they admitted it was a mistake afterwards. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/diego-abad-de-santillan-spain-1936-1939-gravediggers-of-the-revolution

Why you front as a libertarian socialist when your position is in line with socdems or even leninists is confusing. Did you buy into the "libertarian is when the gubbermint is nice" meme or do you like supervillain colors?

>Absolute nonsense

It's quite literally the ideology of capitalism based upon idealism supporting abstractions. Socialism is the antithesis of liberalism in the dialectical sense.

>What capitalists ever had the interest of legally protecting strikes, unions, agitational labor propaganda, mandatory worker representation on corporate boards, and countless other policies that directly attack the entire edifice of capitalism itself?

Off the top of my head, Theresa May has supported the worker representation bit. Unions have been legalized and even supported because in their leadership tends to side with the boss over workers (there's that hierarchy again). None of these "attack the entire edifice of capitalism itself" and are fully compatible with a capitalist system along with free healthcare or education.

>Many of the acts and mechanisms of censorship being built for porky

Have existed previously in other forms. Sjws are a dying breed that don't exist off the internet.

>That is exactly what this thread is complaining about, and that is something which has to be reversed within the "left"

The left having a protest against censorship will go down the same way the hands off syria and venesuela, a cringefest that doesn't do anything.

>Do you really want

I'd prefer you read a book but go ahead, you won't find anything contradicting without using bizarro reading. A 40 hour work week or the legal ability to unionize doesn't mean the state can't spy on or assassinate you, else right now cointelpro would have never happened and Fred Hampton would be a disappointment instead of a martyr.

>I wasn't just talking about activism to influence state politics, but activism generally

So was I. https://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism

>If you don't uphold free expression, you aren't socialist.

If you don't abolish capital you're not a socialist. "Uphold free expression" is too abstract to matter, such as your hypothetical organization not allowing those opposed to the lazy fairy radlib approach to free speech.

>Proxy decisionmaking is absolutely necessary for some things

It's 2019 Lenin, we don't need enlightened proxies to rule represent us.


 No.143609

File: dd18d31f0826955⋯.jpg (25.35 KB, 492x449, 492:449, 15.jpg)

>>143602

>that comic reposted for the 351,293rd time

You ever wonder if maybe turning a blind eye to capitalists actively sowing the seeds for future ethnic/religious squabbling through mass immigration is the problem?


 No.143611

File: 252434694b255d1⋯.jpg (88.05 KB, 462x768, 77:128, block02.jpg)

>>143609

It'll stop being posted when it stops being relevant.

>You ever wonder if maybe turning a blind eye to capitalists actively sowing the seeds for future ethnic/religious squabbling through mass immigration is the problem?

Yeah, back in the 19th century Marx wrote as much concerning the Irish and English proletariat. You ever think that giving in to squabbling is exactly what the bourgeoisie want and that a united proletariat is better than workers divided along spooks?


 No.143617

>>143599

no, you must have me confused with someone else.

most of my views are drawn from Camatte, Land, Schopenhauer, Linkola, Spengler, Blanqui, Sorel, Foucault, Nietzsche. hardly what I'd consider "woke"


 No.143620

>>143554

Why the fuck would they want their slaves to kill eachother?


 No.143629

>>143620

ruling over divided people is very effective at preventing revolts. It's why european colonists created countries bordering on multiple ethnic groups; the natives were too busy fighting themselves to unify against their oppressors. It's also what the Romans did, and it's what capitalism is doing now.


 No.143631

>>143611

>You ever think that giving in to squabbling is exactly what the bourgeoisie want and that a united proletariat is better than workers divided along spooks?

I'm saying why give them another weapon in the arsenal? Whatever internationalist solidarity you get through mass immigration is a cents on the dollar to the billions capitalists rake in from it.


 No.143632

>>143629

>It's why european colonists created countries bordering on multiple ethnic groups; the natives were too busy fighting themselves to unify against their oppressors

Sounds pretty spooky mang


 No.143634

>>143632

> exploiting spooks to further your own aims

It's actually egoist af


 No.143635

>>143632

>pretty spooky mang

you have no idea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UfsEj7AOGI


 No.143637

File: fe2dc076aa292cc⋯.jpg (84.16 KB, 465x768, 155:256, block10.jpg)

>>143631

>I'm saying why give them another weapon in the arsenal?

If it's not immigrants it's going to be outsourcing. If it's not outsourcing it's going to be contractors. And so on and so on. The bourgeoisie already has the weapons to keep the proletariat poor, organizing with immigrants and people in other countries isn't giving them anything.

>Whatever internationalist solidarity you get through mass immigration is a cents on the dollar to the billions capitalists rake in from it.

The immigrants are here and the bourgeoisie are going to maximize profits one way or the other. We would be better served by working with our class instead of adopting nationalist stances, which also see the bourgeoisie make billions through suppression of labor movements.


 No.143638

File: 38a9337ffef5c41⋯.png (340.83 KB, 786x368, 393:184, rights.png)

>>143605

>It's not an issue of them being ideologically unsound, it's a consequence of their position in the state apparatus.

This isn't a problem unique to states, or even to political representatives. Anything that needs supporters or members is constantly tempted to water itself down for broader appeal, rather than holding fast to attract true believers or properly acculturate people before they join.

>When they broke with this to elect socialists, they admitted it was a mistake afterwards.

I don't think the war was winnable, at least not without the kind of support abroad nobody was willing to lend them. The only strategy for victory would've been to externally undermine or internally subvert the military and other social reservoirs of reaction before hostilities could erupt.

Also, most of that article's complaints are about the sparseness, uselessness, or perfidy of international aid, rather than intransigence or sabotage by the republican government itself. I've seen opinions touching more directly on participation though, which instead argue the lukewarm leftist electoral victory was what prompted a military coup, and the government that would've resulted without anarchist intervention wouldn't have accelerated into fascism so severely. I don't buy that either, given the outcomes of Germany, Italy, etc.

>your position is in line with socdems or even leninists

My position is the goal of a society structured in an anarchic way. As long as each step I take, takes us closer to that goal rather than diverting in a contrary direction, I am an anarchist.

>Did you buy into the "libertarian is when the gubbermint is nice" meme

Government≠state. Government is the process by which groups think about and act on decisions, states are the exclusive monopoly of force and dominance over a place and/or population.

>based upon idealism supporting abstractions.

Just because capitalism has to reduce most of liberalism to airy spooks remote from daily life, doesn't mean those ideas weren't conceived with the intent of immediate and omnipresent realization. Socialism is in every way part of the the liberal tradition.

>Theresa May has supported the worker representation bit.

Leaving aside the fact she flipflopped before actually doing it, that was cribbed right off the Labour platform, both in response to pressure from..

>Muh unions

Basically all flavors of anarchism are built on unions or something like them as the basic building block of civilization. Further, not all unions reproduce electoral representation within them.

>Have existed previously in other forms.

Before being stamped out by decades of uniform, relentless leftist activism. That isn't happening anymore.

>Sjws are a dying breed that don't exist off the internet.

Except in every school's humanities department, every HR/PR department in every private and public business or other organization, every media outlet, and the leadership of every nominally leftist organization or cause of any kind.

>a protest against censorship

Free expression activism has consisted of far more than protest. Sabotage, strikes, cataloging and publicizing instances of censorship as well as those responsible, boycotts, judicial and other procedural attacks, purging supporters of censorship from the left, legislation, etc. And on the defensive side, supporting and protecting the suppressed.

>you won't find anything contradicting without using bizarro reading. A 40 hour work week or the legal ability to unionize doesn't mean the state can't spy on or assassinate you

You just did it again. The state spies on and assassinates leftists infinitely less with socdem reforms than without them, which leaves the left in such countries tremendously larger and more effective.

>So was I. https://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism

"Activism" covers everything from mailing a green ink letter to assassination. That article is about activists seeing themselves as a separate group from those affected by the issues they rally around.

>If you don't abolish capital you're not a socialist. "Uphold free expression" is too abstract to matter,

Abolishing capitalism, like instituting free expression, is something that can and probably will have to be done a step at a time.

>your hypothetical organization not allowing those opposed to the lazy fairy radlib approach to free speech.

SJWs are free to engage in idpol-driven powermongering outside the left, and we in the class war are happy to engage with them as a cohesive, wholly separate group.

>It's 2019 Lenin, we don't need enlightened proxies to rule represent us.

So is this billion man plebiscites every week, Maotistic communes forging iron ore in their backyard, or Deus Ex's Helios ending?


 No.143639

>>143620

Just enough squabbling to keep people distracted from class consciousness, not enough to destroy significant amounts of human capital.

>>143631

>>143637

Opposing mass economic migration≠opposing the migrants it already drove here

Also

>If it's not immigrants

and

>If it's not outsourcing

then

>it's going to be contractors.

How exactly does that work with labor pools sealed shut against human rights arbitrage at the borders, and porky asphyxiating against the pressure of rapidly increasing leverage for the working class?


 No.143646

File: c773b901326d085⋯.jpg (84.18 KB, 462x768, 77:128, block03.jpg)

>>143638

>This isn't a problem unique to states, or even to political representatives

It's a problem of hierarchy, of which states and party formations are perfect examples of.

>My position is the goal of a society structured in an anarchic way.

As is that of the leninists and social democrats.

>As long as each step I take, takes us closer to that goal rather than diverting in a contrary direction

Your steps take is further away because you ignore the connection between means and ends as well as the issue of social reproduction. We must use means consistent with anarchist communism if we are to arrive at an anarchist communist society and not some kind of social democracy.

>I am an anarchist who gets things done.

Ok Hilldawg.

>Government≠state

Read Malatesta. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy

>Just because capitalism has to reduce most of liberalism

Capitalism is the essence of liberals. You're expanding liberalism way outside of it's ideological parameters.

>Leaving aside the fact she flipflopped before actually doing it, that was cribbed right off the Labour platform

The labor party is an openly capitalist party and has been for decades, the memes about corbyn aren't true.

>Basically all flavors of anarchism are built on unions

Only if you take an extremely expansive view on what unions are, similar to what Marxists do with the state.

>not all unions reproduce electoral representation within them

The ones that do are going to be the ones who are supported by your favored policies, and for some reason they tend to be the ones that reliably side with the industry over the workers. The IWW considers trade unions shit for a reason.

>Except in every school's humanities department, every HR/PR department in every private and public business or other organization, every media outlet, and the leadership of every nominally leftist organization or cause of any kind

So outside of any areas of class struggle and in places hostile to socialism anyways.

>The state spies on and assassinates leftists infinitely less with socdem reforms than without them

So you finally admit the state is going to sabotage regardless of whatever abstract legal binds on it.

>That article is about activists seeing themselves as a separate group from those affected by the issues they rally around.

Which is what activism as an activity and ideology produces. Rather than seeking to become activists, we should seek to operate as a class.

>Abolishing capitalism, like instituting free expression, is something that can and probably will have to be done a step at a time

>SJWs are free to engage in idpol-driven powermongering outside the left, and we in the class war are happy to engage with them as a cohesive, wholly separate group

It's pretty impressive how you manage to out leninist the leninists while being unaware.

>So is this billion man plebiscites every week, Maotistic communes forging iron ore in their backyard, or Deus Ex's Helios ending?

Cockshot's writing on voting raises some interesting possibilities.

>>143639

>Opposing mass economic migration≠opposing the migrants it already drove here

In actually existing politics it certainly does.

>How exactly does that work with labor pools sealed shut against human rights arbitrage at the borders, and porky asphyxiating against the pressure of rapidly increasing leverage for the working class?

I don't know, I'm less interested in hypothetical fantasy than I am in reality, in which the bourgeoisie have a variety of methods to ensure they remain in power and maximize profit.


 No.143650

File: a32c3150a0b7bac⋯.jpg (262.33 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, make it with your own hand….jpg)

>>143646

>It's a problem of hierarchy

Hierarchy certainly makes it a zillion times worse, but nah, it's an omnipresent problem infecting everything down to pancake-flat open sauce software projects.

>We must use means consistent with anarchist communism if we are to arrive at an anarchist communist society and not some kind of social democracy.

To the extent we're able, yes. But we live under capitalism, we are necessarily behaving in a hierarchic and evil fashion at all times. The most we can do is attempt to prevent making the present system at any given time (i.e.: capitalism right now) worse on our path to anarchy. This is where MLs failed, producing things even more monstrous in many ways than the already abominable status quo they rebelled against.

>Read Malatesta

<1 paragraph aside in the lede of a document translated from spaghettese

>Only if you take an extremely expansive view on what unions are

If you defect from a yellow union with anyone else and strike together, congrats, you've formed a wildcat union. Moreover, remember unionism extends beyond organized labor, encompassing consumer unions of various kinds.

>So outside of any areas of class struggle

Even ignoring my reformist agenda, basically every single anarchist tendency is absolutely infested with them, aside from a smattering of random tiny local branches cut off from the contagion.

>So you finally admit the state is going to sabotage regardless of whatever abstract legal binds on it.

<bad stuff happens therefore anything that prevents it from happening a lot more is dispensable

Even under socialism, people will do bad things. The point is to build a system that minimizes them, not pretend it's possible to eliminate all of them.

>Rather than seeking to become activists, we should seek to operate as a class.

And part of that is raising class consciousness. That doesn't mean we should go full vanguard, but it does mean shilling ideas and doing good deeds to lend prestige to the ideas that led to those accomplishments.

>It's pretty impressive how you manage to out leninist the leninists while being unaware

This isn't building secret shadow councils or throwing people in gulags, it's just the same thing as atheists excluding the religious from their organizations, even if they're friends in other contexts. SJWs are not leftists, not socialists, and do not belong in our movement.

>Cockshott

Build Helios it is then. Even speaking as someone fairly deep in crypto, his most compelling stuff is incredibly esoteric, and combined with the need to sort out his ML apologia, it's very difficult to wrap my head around. I agree that modern IT presents very exciting possibilities to hammer together something with the massive scale and omniscience of modern industrial civilization, without turning into a centralized Orwellian panopticon ripe for catastrophic abuse, but there are so many technical and procedural questions that are pretty much entirely unexplored that I remain unsure as to whether something desirable is really possible.

>In actually existing politics it certainly does

Lots of issues vital to the left are currently surrounded by a wall of deluded reactionaries, such as impeding military adventurism, disrupting offshoring, breaking up tech monopolies, protecting privacy, and evading censorship. That is no reason to concede them to the right, nor to leave the misleading slanders of false leftists unchallenged.

>I'm less interested in hypothetical fantasy than I am in reality

Like when the exact scenario I described unfolded for four decades, devastating porky until they were able to reopen the borders to a tsunami of capital and slaves that washed away organized labor?


 No.143653

File: 3cadae649728288⋯.jpg (12.01 KB, 277x363, 277:363, Veblen3a.jpg)


 No.143688

>>143288

Nazbol is closer to a socially conservative version of council communism than straight Socialism in one Stan bs.

I know this because I read Karl O's and Niekisch's books.


 No.143695

>>143646

>>143650

tbh you guys are getting mucked up in semantics, life is better when workers fight. Support workers fighting, even if complete victory is not there.

>>143688

Nazbol ideology has nothing to do with internet nazbols. It's a shitpost ideology meant to piss off liberals (which I approve of)


 No.143698

File: 75021cc52ff4015⋯.jpg (4.34 KB, 192x192, 1:1, 750.jpg)

>>143695

>Nazbol ideology has nothing to do with internet nazbols

you say this as if those online aren't genuine about their intentions IRL.


 No.143932

File: 93376c1b3e68e45⋯.jpg (637.27 KB, 1080x2220, 18:37, destinylmfao.jpg)

hmmmmm


 No.143934

>>143932

this is why murder of sjws is gonna be justified soon.


 No.143937

>>143932

prove him wrong though


 No.143940

>>143937

>the idealization of workers is gay.

No one's idealizing workers, God forbid, the average yokel needs to change. Fighting for workers rights is a change for the better. You can't expect instant results of societal change without it.

>You will never start the revolution and bring down capital.

Not with that attitude of supporting capitalism just for supporting your specific groups want for privilege. If he can't see this then it's best to actually kill them, they'll just join the reactionaries in civil war anyways.

There proved him/her/it/faggot wrong.


 No.143942

>>143934

This

>>143937

The point isn't whether or not workers are great people or whatever, the point is that capitalism is built entirely and exclusively around exploiting, oppressing, and hurting workers. This is both a fundamental contradiction that renders the current mode of production inherently unstable, and a great evil that stains everything it touches.

Only by putting the workers in control, allowing us the entire value of our labor, can this broken system be rectified.


 No.143943

>>143937

>"this idealization of the average worker is so uninformed it can only come from white college kids who've spent too much time on YouTube."

Fucking explain how this isn't dictator porn. Sorry workers, you're too fucking stupid to care about anything ever. Guess you should just be slaves to us, the benevolent overlords instead of your capitalist overlords. Totally different this time I promise.

>>143940

>the average yokel needs to change

<implying average yokels aren't typically a mix of leftwing economics and reactionary social politics


 No.143944

>>143942

Don't play their game when they get to set the specific rules up. You'll lose. Radlib isn't a phrase thrown around, it's a real thing and Destiny is one of them. Radical but liberal, not concerned with workers but more concerned with LGBTQIAAWTFBBQ politics. You owe nothing to to these charlatans.


 No.143978

>>143548

The original German ones were. Russia were just copycats


 No.143979

>>143943

Average yokels from what I've seen are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. I think you got that backwards


 No.143982

>>143979

Where are you seeing said yokels? Suburbia and the innercity may have conservative types, who talk about free markets and legalizing weed, but the more rural I go I see more radical politics. Apologia to reactionary social policies (like hating gays) and also apologia to socialism under the guise of nationalism.


 No.143999

>>143270

By all the gods you nazbol faggots really don’t quit, please donate your communist literature to the local library and off yourself


 No.144004

>>143937

Someone needs to smack the fuck out this 4 foot doughy faggot.


 No.144009

>>143999

>1-line gag at the end of op triggering this much asshurt

In your head, rent-free.


 No.144010

>>143937

Co-ops


 No.144314

bump


 No.144337

File: 5ec5e313024004d⋯.jpg (200.52 KB, 500x376, 125:94, stupid.jpg)

>>143932

This guy's always been a huge piece of shit.

I hate both of these guys, but Hasan Piker addresses Destiny's stupidity here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEmZvDDkj_c




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chemo / choroy / hydrus / l / throat / tingles / v8 / vichan ]