Radlib retard SHOCKED, did not see this coming at all

Glad I can count on Zig Forums to deliver nuclear takes every day.

A nazbol.

Attached: Dq2fjdhWwAENM9G.jpeg (666x803, 55.94K)

Attached: breathe through your balls.jpg (1200x708, 40.05K)

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.

Zig Forums 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 Zig Forums is a well deserved one and, hopefully, we can come on top as the actual leftist politically incorrect board; what Zig Forums was supposed to be from the very beggining.

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

Attached: D5lRKFIW4AAGt--.jpeg (675x908, 107.46K)

Just call them faggots.

DemSocs and modern Ancoms are just emotional liberals.

Nigga you zoomers new as fuck.

Attached: 29f7869612d7567fdbe7587123c62cba11c7980a6367575b4094abd1c9ba93fa.png (900x600, 316.06K)

Okay nazbol flag poster lmao

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)

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
It's worse than I thought.

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.

Attached: __clara_and_nonna_girls_und_panzer_drawn_by_abazu_red__397979af4caa82d49430badfdef628d1.jpg (920x1280, 172.75K)

what the fuck is a stan

Two seconds on Google.
stan-an overzealous or obsessive fan of a particular celebrity.
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stan

I was there and unironically was a stan as a teenager fam. How twitter or reddit uses words doesn't matter to me.
We all come from that shithole.

Attached: 9614df7b7817c5999ae404796c9f16eee92e1a10.jpg (480x950, 108.19K)

A. Not that recently and B:
I didn't and proud of it, I found out about Zig Forums else where.

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

>Cuckchan knock off
>Cuckchan knock off

Attached: Futubaicon.png (40x60, 207)

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

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

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

Attached: DQo79ZjVoAALQSL.jpeg (703x794, 74.3K)

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.

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.

But they are

This

Society can't go further left?

Attached: Larson_1527974163098_12156104_ver1.0_1280_720.jpg (1280x720, 135.12K)

Not me. Came after GG.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Attached: le freeze peach.png (757x3030, 240.39K)

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

Attached: 2020.jpg (960x717, 46.77K)

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

Attached: communist_party_mask.jpg (516x622, 90.34K)

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

Attached: ecb3a9ab5558d5a353bfdf1a6cc87bf7d959b06b.png (400x338, 61.68K)

galaxy brain take

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

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

Attached: terminator intro.gif.gif (360x240, 4.7M)

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.

Like a socdem or liberal. The rose or donkey are waiting for you.
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.
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.
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.
This sounds like a better condemnation of your support for the state than my not caring about social media bans.
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.

Attached: 7c498b1de5823462126de023e8ab880feec455e0.jpg (1200x1080, 291.88K)

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

Attached: history of corporate whining.jpg (1200x1219, 310.79K)

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.

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.

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

Attached: likemotherlikedaughter.png (395x400, 57.59K)

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".
Liberals are decried for holding property as sacred and adhering to idealism. Socialism is a rejection of this.
Exploitation is the component of capitalism as a system by being the key social relation. It isn't a tool.
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.
It's the logical conclusion of your ideology and praxis.
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.
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.
It's at least a decade old.
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.

Attached: 927d0846696258afed67db473a4278bfd06297b8.png (727x462, 73.2K)

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.

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.

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.

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)

Many of them are reactionaries just pretending to be leftists to fuck leftism from the inside out.
youtube.com/watch?v=HmyJyzoW2fM

Lol I'm mentioned in this. RENT FREE.

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

Attached: 59939784_799365710434856_708988530931531776_n.jpg (740x822, 49.27K)

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.
That's not nihilism, it's saying we need to be more radical.
The state and capitalism have been married for centuries at this point a on, this iteration has just been updated for the times.
Stop saying "neoliberal" when you should say capitalist.
We've been doing this forever, and united fronts with capitalism is gay.
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.
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.

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.

Attached: DxCSFAhWoAEUP1Q.jpeg (916x660, 89.04K)

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 , the people to watch out for are the ones who jerk off to power fantasies.

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.
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.
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.

Attached: 1497295749994.jpg (2160x1215, 161.07K)

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. 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.

Pro worker in rhetoric, but not in practice.

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

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.

Fair enough.
The only one itt that supports it is . 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.
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.

Attached: DibO8nXVAAAlOFw.jpeg (1200x922, 245.03K)

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?

So you deny the existence of outliers?

Attached: 60641991_134735757707471_4495913598710710272_n.jpg (234x215, 7.63K)

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

Attached: koch brothers are leftists.png (816x564, 131.18K)

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.
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.
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?
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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?

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?

Attached: unions.gif (578x213 9.89 KB, 19.5K)

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

...

Attached: marx on classcucks.jpg (859x597, 219.81K)

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.

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

Attached: diversity-800x445.jpg (800x445, 87.2K)

Lel, tripped over my own filter.

Attached: main-qimg-f0f3196128102cd4e7160496adb40182.gif (457x422, 164.17K)

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

Attached: BritishGenocide.jpg (744x294, 68.76K)

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.

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

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

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.

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:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

Attached: decisive soviet victory.gif (379x292, 1.96M)

No not the slavs, all the others you mentioned.

pls no

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

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

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.
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.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism and has been since inception, stop trying to make liberalism into something it never was.
They haven't, at most they want to dismantle specfic governments or bureaucracy while keeping the professional force sections around to maintain property.
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.
Which already exists and will exist until capitalism and the state are gone. Do you even social relations?
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.
Something which hasn't been said outside of your imagination.
How anti free speech of you.
The same we'd do if porky was peddling nationalism or social democracy, continue organizing as a class.
None.
Actually it originates with the idea that proxy decision making can be democratic, hence the term "democratic centralism".

Attached: D431BVeWAAAHHgf.jpeg (2048x1257, 207.63K)

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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?

lol, nazbols aren't anti semitic

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.

Bruh, nobody's revolting anyway.

Attached: nazbol is fucking retarded.png (700x4791, 3.33M)

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?

bump

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?

...

are you one of the "down with white supremacy and replace it with brown supremacy" woke twitter users?

Attached: idpol.PNG (1781x311, 58.61K)

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?

Attached: block09.jpg (465x768, 100.72K)

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.
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. 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?
It's quite literally the ideology of capitalism based upon idealism supporting abstractions. Socialism is the antithesis of liberalism in the dialectical sense.
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.
Have existed previously in other forms. Sjws are a dying breed that don't exist off the internet.
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.
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.
So was I. libcom.org/library/give-up-activism
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.
It's 2019 Lenin, we don't need enlightened proxies to rule represent us.

Attached: 3d7fbe2ef923ed2d2f37542a1db3000869c525cb0fa3247fe04e57f56f2c47bd.jpg (3173x1988, 662.45K)

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?

Attached: 15.jpg (492x449, 25.35K)

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

Attached: block02.jpg (462x768, 88.05K)