That's pretty funny

>communists and capitalists fighting on the same side
No, it's the ultra-rich, not capitalists. The one in yellow is the capitalist.

Attached: 1584658703227.png (462x456, 62.38K)

>Also Gadsden snakefuckers only march with fascists because they're fake libertarians who want the Government to step off of their toes while still supporting draconian immigration policies.
Because the practical consequence of open borders is a massive increase in the size of government. People from third world shitholes are not gonna magically become libertarian when they land on US soil.

Can american boomer fucks get range banned already? Jesus

Teen Vogue is literally shilling for Marxism; we're through the looking glass here. You don't get to still pretend to be against the establishment.

Attached: 5lkk48j863g31.jpg (930x989, 143.43K)

Attached: TVReason.jpg (856x642, 88.18K)

>massive increase in the size of government
When Snakefuckers say this, they always mean social programs, not government overstepping people's civil liberties. Republicans voted for the Patriot Act, remember? "Big government" to them only means "I don't want my tax money going to black people's food stamps".

The people who run capitalism know that if communism takes over they will still be the elite; they'll just be commissars instead of CEOs and it'll be easier for them to put bullets in their enemies.

>teen vogue

Attached: garfield i wonder who thats for.jpg (1125x641, 64.85K)

where's the lie?

>Republicans voted for the Patriot Act, remember?
Okay? But libertarians were always strongly against it.
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/sen-rand-paul-veto-fake-reform-of-the-patriot-act

Attached: 150521062705-newday-rand-paul-ends-patriot-act-filibuster-00010512-full-169.jpg (1600x900, 209.34K)

>But libertarians were always strongly against it.
I said snakefuckers, not libertarians. Most people who go around waving the Gadsden still vote straight Republican ticket. "Don't tread on me" is simply the "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind" half of conservatism.

The point of my posting it was to give an example of a corporation advocating far left ideology, not to debate their argument. But obviously every attempt to institute communism has failed to alleviate poverty. There is always a wealthy elite and poor, often starving masses.

every attempt at capitalism has failed too, what's your point?

Since the Occupy movement, those who oppose the 1% have been deemed to be Fascists, and all the energy directed against them has been redirected to fight for Communism and other identity politics. By inducing crab bucket mentality into the 99% protesters, the dominion can never be toppled.

Google "recuperation"
Companies and politicians will support left/liberal social causes with warm words, nice banners, and pointless internal diversity programs. They won't risk their own bottom line though. Your bank will tweet #BlackLivesMatter and then go right back to denying black mortgage applicants.
If an idea can be integrated into the current way of doing things without threatening the bottom line, it will be recuperated. It is a massive error of judgement to conflate the recuperated idea with the original, more radical ideas that birthed them. Che Guevara the bomb throwing revolutionary is a very different man to Che Guevara the hot-topic shirt face, but so long as you think of him as the shirt-face you're not actually going to read his ideas on revolution.

the ultra rich are universally shareholders.

Teen vogue going political is easily one of my favorite media stories from the past decade. 10/10, totally unexpected twist.

Zig Forums is now the board for civilzed political discussion, unlike Zig Forums thanks stonetoss, very based.

When the Democratic People's Republic of Korea declares itself democratic we laugh in the face of their transparent self-serving lies. Why would you take a corporation's claim to support leftist ideas more seriously than North Korea's claim to be Democratic?

A shareholder is not the same thing as a capitalist.

baffling claim
Dictionary definition of capitalist:
>a person who uses their wealth to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
shares: an investment.

>"There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind" half of conservatism.
But that is the whole of identity politics. "I must have what my strawman opponent has" and "Fascism must be fought with Fascism". Have the polars switched again or is this not the blue message?

>"I must have what my strawman opponent has"
To be more generous on this lunacy; "I must fill the role of my oppressor". If that is conservatism, then the polars have shifted back.

Nope, the free exchange of good generates wealth which lifts people out of poverty.

Attached: gadsden-swastika-comic.png (940x300, 39.65K)

>Nope, the free exchange of good generates wealth which lifts some, few, people out of poverty while most poor people just get poorer

fixed brother

and yet in the first world things have stalled and this generation will be poorer than their parents by any reasonable measure. (no, having an iPhone doesn't make up for the fact you'll never own a house.)

Attached: 1585057473583.jpg (1005x289, 107.85K)

Yes, identity politics are extremely anti Marxist, and arguably not even leftwing. Instead of abolishing class it creates more and more classes with different rules for everyone, i.e. It's anti-egalitarian, just with slightly different rules than stuff like white supremacy

I've actually looked up the quotes origin. In context the author is basically saying that all politics is essentially conservative in that all politics is essentially defined by a protects but does not bind/binds but does not protect dynamic.
It's a much more radical criticism of politics as a whole, rather than just contemporary conservatism.

I mean, there's Black Nationalists out there on the fringes, but that's not the entirety or even majority of what's broadly described as "identity politics". Believe it or not, you an argue and campaign for policies that benefit your demographic without arguing that your demographic should have hegemony, especially in situations where your demographic is currently the underclass. The argument is for equality, not total control. Also
>"I must have what my strawman opponent has"
>"Fascism must be fought with Fascism".
These have nothing to do with identity politics or the idea of in-groups and out-groups protected by the law, so it's not relevant to the conversation, which I might remind you, is about conservative ""libertarians"".

do you even know what the Gadsden Flag is?

The people who this comic rings true for are the same people who think Disney is communist because Onward has a gay.

Have you not seen China? Communists can and will abuse a capitalist system.