Unofficial Right-Winger Questions For Left-Wingers Thread

This is the unofficial thread for any of my fellow right-wingers to ask Zig Forums their thoughts on certain matters or just want to banter about how they're wrong.

Anyways please don't be a cunt.

Attached: Commies suck..jpeg (235x350, 18.37K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Nice dead board, even the BO couldn’t handle the autism I’ve heard

actually the discussion there is a lot less retarded than 4/pol

then again that doesn't say much

It was comfy until it got popular and the original BO left. NatSoc garbage took over

what do you think the qtddtott is for?

A fascist board? Shocking!

Attached: 1WQMZf.jpg (680x793, 27.5K)

Why do commies exist?

because of the conflict between capital and labour inherent in capitalism

for mainly left winged schitt

Okay here's a question to get the ball rolling:

What do you guys think of a capitalist entity in which the leading members of it are in consistent contact with their employees on a personal level, and the leading entity also contributes to the labour effort?

fuckin boomer

what, a small business?

Attached: bordiga.jpg (1175x1068, 92.64K)

Empathy can't drive a good workplace.

Doesn't matter. They still have material interests at odds with each other. If anything the close proximity just makes people more hostile since the capitalist is directly giving them shit instead of a middle manager. Also, seeing the boss drive a nice car and shit while doing less of the same work makes the contradictions even clearer. It's almost certain to degenerate into completely justified spite between the involved parties.

what if they contribute to the work effort and drive a shitty ford because they can

If they care so much why don't they just turn it into a worker cooperative already?

Anyone who drives a ford is by default a counterrevolutionary. Death to TruckTards.

inb4 "It's my right to drive a 400 pound death machine that takes up 2 whole lanes"

inb4 "It's my right to tailgate and be a massive asshole on the road with my gigantic car"

inb4 "but I need it to move heavy stuff!"

The state will provide trucks for those who truly need it. Everyone else will be shot.

Attached: smiling.png (1342x1940, 765.18K)

Trucks are not the first things that I think of when I hear "Ford."

Attached: 1995-Ford-Escort-RS-Cosworth-Just-Listed-Front-Three-Quarters.jpg (320x213, 27.27K)

So I used to be a NatSoc for a while but recently got class conscious and investigated Marxist theory and its branching elements and found a lot of desirable things. I was particularly attracted to Revolutionary Catalonia, the Paris Commune, etc and the freedoms they enjoyed with nary a sign of the myriad problems conservatives ensured me would arise in such situations. I've come to the conclusion that despite warnings to the contrary, Communist societies are not inherent destroyers of culture and in fact may be much greater protectors of it than any soulless modern capitalist society ever could be. America, arbiter of global capitalism, is currently a train wreck of a cultural wasteland as is plain to see.

I really only have two big hang ups left

Firstly, is this habit of incessant "I'm offended, you can't say that, reported!" stuff I see in the American/European left something I should expect in an authentic Communist society, or a product of the whiny bourgeois attitude we have here in the West? I'm not going to stop someone from being homosexual or believing in what they want or whatever, but am I going to get physically lynched for calling people retards and faggots even in jest?

And secondly the race/culture issue. Do you guys support integrating wildly varied groups of people and if so are you sure that wont have some serious ramifications? Is there anything to stop people from just choosing to discriminate in favor of their own kind and eventually evolving to a position of localized power where they could then chose to harass or do worse to their racially/culturally different neighbors? I mean this is what humans have *apparently* been doing for a very long time, I just have to assume that tribalism is something they're going to resort to as a default. Would we assume the communes would just retain their local cultures and demographics and the incentive for mass migration would not really exist in a post capitalist world? If there's something more comprehensive like a study or video I that answers this, that would be fine too.

Thanks for not being the dismissive assholes I'm used to dealing with among the tradfags over at Zig Forums. My transition towards the left has been a lot smoother than my entry into the far right years ago and It's winning me over more every day.

Attached: 1535638849733.png (265x348, 115.4K)

To answer your first point, yes, it’s a bourgeois construct.
To answer your second point, we generally want industry to be built up in an evenly distributed manner. This would remove the material incentives for immigration in the first place. In a full internationalist socialist world, immigration would be almost nothing, since there still would be the odd person who wants to live halfway across the world.
So yes, local cultures would be preserved, and maybe some will experience a resurgence.

The first point it's purely a bourgeois concern and an overall extension of callout culture. What to do about it is a different concern and kind of complicated.
The second point is something that I have been concerned about but what to do about it is different on each case. I've thought of not allowing communities to concentrate and forcing them to coexist.

Mass migration only happens under Capitalism, with no need for cheap labor and if industry and living standards were more equal and no America dropping drones on third worlders it simply wouldn't occur. No one wants to leave their friends, fanily, community and house to travel thousands upon thousands of kilometres to get somewhere they don't even speak the language without massive living standard differences or your house got blown up. If Africa lived like the French do why would they even move to Europe if they had everything they needed and oppunities to grow.

Of course some migration will still happen but they are willingly coming and would obviously easily intergrate into society. (especially when their not just used as cheap labor and debt slaves)

I was in the military, and I can confirm that it does not take longer than a couple months of doing the same shit for people from wildly different backgrounds to get along just fine.

Cheers gents, those are the answers I was hoping for. I can't believe I used to think yall were like the crazy gun grabbing idpol folks the right always made you out to be. I think I'm going to fit in with you lot miles better than I ever did with those Fascist incels.

I don't know man, I can see what you mean to an extent but when I was in the US Navy there were definitely cliques of different races that hung together and even further cliques of the same races divided along the lines of whether you were more of a polite suburban type or a more rough and tumble country type.

(X) doubt

Attached: 6F58EDB9-1805-4C1E-A419-1098E79DFB23.png (750x1334, 2.86M)

Why dont you believe that user?

more than half of leftypol was ex-pol-tards who picked up a book, learned and grew the fuck up… not even kidding lmao


you're so fucking gay that i had to not only make to posts, but get dubs and trips at the same time.

Really, I can't blame you for this misconception. The vast majority of modern US 'socialists' tend to actually fall into such a crowd and unironically think socialism is when the government does nice things and doesn't let you say nigger. It's natural that right wing propaganda would capitalize on this.

Attached: Tgc74fS.png (609x1019, 472.48K)

What are the different types of leftists

What do you mean? There are literally thousands of different beliefs in all political wings, you are gonna have to be a little more specific.

from left to right:
anarchists - marxists - social democrats
all of them have a lot of different tendencies, defined by differences in theory or praxis. for commies here is one list: there is also overlap around the edges of the ideologies. then there are syncretic ideologies that are harder to place: beefsteak nazis and other nationalist socialists, christian communists and so on.

Attached: radical-reactionary.jpg (728x546, 55.87K)

That they are, and what a surprise that they'd take over a fascist board.

There's a bunch but the main 3 are Marxists, anarchists, and reformists. Marxists tend to either follow Lenin or be orthodox Marxists and think that the proletariat must seize state power and lord it over the bourgeoisie until we achieve communism. Anarchists think a state can't escape capitalism so we have to reorganize society from the ground up. Reformists think we can get to communism by passing laws and electing politicians.

Each of these break down a lot more into specifics.

Attached: The reality of lefist movements.png (720x673 15.92 KB, 574.14K)

Who do you support?
A feminists or B muslims

no, fuck both

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (500x712, 281.81K)

You win this time.
mfw a wall of text has to be at least 5 words

Attached: 0bde7b7c79d4eefdecc3831069e743004291d9000126b26cfac79055455e2f68.png (862x665, 555.81K)



Attached: 6a871b83d84e96580c2d2e7f0a50c704760abdd7bdedb38b4d5031fbcb5893c4.jpg (750x737, 77.32K)

There is a need for an explanation because your framing the question as an either/or issue shows that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A straight "A or B" answer wouldn't actually answer the question, it would just solidify some retarded belief you have about ☘️the left☘️. We wouldn't have to respond to you with walls of text if reactionaries didn't have a pathetic desire to simplify everything. If I could say something like "A but I dislike liberal feminists more than secular Muslims," and expect that you know what that means, I would never have to write a wall of text in response to a reactionary. Walls of text are the result of you not being willing to understand the beliefs that you oppose. They're a consequence of reactionary stupidity, not leftist verbosity.

Attached: get absolutely fucking slammed faggot.PNG (447x326, 128.08K)

Literally the only thing anyone had to say.

Why aren't communists capable of being honest about their shitty system?
When I talk with normal, sane human beings about subjects of economics and politics, they tend to revolve around things like

The commie response is just "assassinate the rich and nationalize everything, except it doesn't count a nationalization, because we're actually the People's Party of Working Party People, and therefore not the """State"""".
And every single time this fails, it's never because your system is fucking idiotic, but because "We didn't have famines because we slaughtered all our farmers, and anyway it was America's fault anyway, but who cares, it wasn't real communism anyway!"

The people communists always refer to as "capitalists" are almost always willing to point out some of the issues that can arise from the basic human right of "people being allowed to own their own businesses", but the consistently catastrophically shitty system known as communism can never, ever be blamed for any of its shortcomings, due to communists.

Yeah, it's yet another case of "answer this multiple choice question where each answer confirms one of my biases." Might as well say:
Hey leftards are you
A. Retarded
B. Stupid
C. Gay
D. Gaytarded

This phrase doesn't mean anything.

MLs aren't the only commies.
such as?
Why do you think the bad things that happen in "communist countries" are the fault of communism but that the bad things that happen in capitalist countries are not the fault of capitalism?

Are you actually illiterate?

I did specifically request that you dont post a wall of text.

Attached: 1311956108489.jpg (326x347, 21.28K)

Neither of these addresses capitalism or private ownership per se. They are uselessly broad statements that people spout when they want to seem cultured and abreast of current politics.
Hmm, yes, we're seeing as time goes on, although wealth fluctuates between individuals, its damaging to the overall economy to have it completely concentrated in the hands of very few individuals
Some technologies have become so fundamental to our way of life that it would be catastrophic for them to fail. Exactly what measures should be taken to ensure that they don't?

Internal problems with communism can and should be addressed. There are multiple reasons that reactionaries are incapable of doing so. My list is nonexclusive. I'm going to reddit space fuck you it makes editing posts easier.

First, reactionaries by and large have no interest in reading or understanding any socialist or communist theory. Failing to do this, they are completely unequipped to differentiate between problems which are internal and external to communism.

Second, they completely ignore that there were problems in communist regimes which are external to communism. A simple example is trying to plan an economy without supercomputers. The reason for this is obviously because reactionaries don't argue in good faith about communism. They want to prove that it is impossible, not to actually identify its real problems.

Finally, liberals in particular often believe something like "if it always happened in the past, it will always happen in the future, and if it has never happened in the past, it will never happen in the future." This again makes lots of historical problems look like problems internal to an ideology.

Your "strawman" is a perfect example of a bad faith reactionary argument. I use quotation marks because while you may be presenting it as a caricature, that's the only anti-communist argument anyone has presented to me irl once you skip over them getting triggered at trivial shit like a translation of Marx saying "expropriate" instead of "steal."

I won't pretend communists don't want to nationalize and plan the economy. Anyone who claims socialism doesn't have a state is lying, and anyone who doesn't understand why communism doesn't have a state is either 1) admitting they don't know what communists mean when they say "communism," or 2) pretending to not understand that words have different uses in different contexts. Slaughtering the rich and peasants isn't an internal problem to communism. Not every ML state did that. The Ukrainian famine was complex and didn't just happen because some kulaks got got.

Your objection to the "not real communism" argument shows that either 1) have never tried to understand communist theory, or 2) that you're again pretending that words don't have different meanings in different contexts. When communists talk about communism, they don't mean "a government that calls itself communist." Pretend we're saying "magical fairyland utopia" instead of "communism" if it makes you feel better.

Once you've addressed the problems I've addressed you'll see that prophet Marx (pbuh) and his messengers Lenin and Stalin literally never once said or believed anything that isn't true.

If you can't read a few sentences, kill yourself.

That's a whole lot useless filler just to say
The other guy you responded to was making fun of what a walking meme you are.

Attached: memes.jpg (480x272, 19.7K)

I addressed why your objection to the "not real communism" argument is stupid, but let's go at it anyway.
Some definitions: A communist country is a country that calls itself communist, and communism is the system or ideology that those countries don't just profess to follow but actually follow. A "magical fairyland utopia" is a S O C I E T Y that has eliminated capitalism (as described by Marx), and "magic" is the system that those societies actually follow.
I posit that communist countries were not magical fairyland utopias, and their governments and economies were structured around communism, not magic. Magical fairyland utopias have never existed, but they are possible. What's more, magic is real, or at least some forms of magic are true. Why am I wrong?
inb4 you respond with a meme again because all you have is rattling around in your skull is a bunch of witty phrases you've read online

Attached: when the slamz pretty good.JPG (509x547, 52.84K)

That is not just right wing memes; that's right wing thought.

Because it sounds exactly like you're describing a post-scarcity technocratic utopia, which is absolutely nothing to do with communism or Marx. The fact that your shitty system can only work when CAPITALISTS have solved literally every single problem for you should give you some idea of how utterly terrible it is.

Attached: Theory.png (480x272, 143.9K)

Why can capitalism only work when feudalists have already done all the hard work and invented large scale agriculture and the beginnings of the mass production steam age? Fucking thieves!

Attached: starbucks meme feudalism.jpg (1639x774, 281.42K)

Anyone who is a 14-15 yo christcom edgelord is a counterrevolutionary retard and deserves to be publicly humiliated and raped in town square before being hanged drawn and quartered.

unlucky for you, i am a kekist

[screams in southern]
400lb is not a heavy car. No truck takes up two lanes, and even then there are smaller pickemups that are as wide as a bitch Prius or whatever.
Hummers =/= trucks.
t. Porky
Everyone should own a truck. It's the proletariat's vehicle.

Leaving some random planks of wood and rotten crates in the back all the time because you're white trash doesn't make it a 'works truck', sorry.

Attached: DpFm0vFW4AMNDQi.jpeg (960x954, 52.53K)

Low blow. The wood's in there in case I need it, same with the bungee chords. Never know what you might work on, you know? And just because you're not helping your friends move, or picking up furniture, or taking a big thing to a friend's place doesn't mean you shouldn't own a truck. Think about how you can help a comrade out.

Attached: 9e1.png (1920x1080, 304.93K)

Maybe he left off a zero. 400lbs is not even a Lotus kit car made of carbon fibre.

Yeah I left off a zero.

t. trucktards

Attached: lol.png (222x255, 63.24K)

Attached: ram-50.jpg (792x493, 43.79K)

See I can respect a man that drives a reasonably sized economical truck to carry small but important loads. I may have been unfair.

Attached: toyota hilux.jpg (1247x821, 243.49K)

I meant the laughable distinction between "NatSocs'" and other fascists

No, but it will arguably become less and less acceptable to casually use these words as time passes, similar to what has already happened to the N-word. Socialism doesn't just entail an economical but also a cultural/societal change. The only reason these words are still thrown around so much is because capitalism prevents people from departing from a mindset where they are effectively aware of the offensive nature such words could carry to others

That is quite the grand narrative you have there.

Attached: PomoAnti-Pomo.jpg (788x460, 65.51K)