How do I agree with you?

I feel like I should be leftypol because it’s more moral but I can’t agree. Can you convince me to socialism?

Attached: E2D1650A-D7C4-42BF-AB38-0F43E50089DA.jpeg (914x940, 179K)

Other urls found in this thread:

monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States#1970s
link.springer.com/article/10.2307/3342145?no-access=true
articles.latimes.com/1986-06-07/local/me-10010_1_socialist-countries
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Could you be more specific? What are your current views?

no, you shouldn't

Why aren't you a socialist?

Like, probably normie lib right

Read this, fam:
monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

Because it gives you everything you want realistically literally what else do you want.
I mean beyond being the king of everyone else, communism can't offer you that.

Most of us disagree with moralism around here.

Attached: personnel.png (924x560, 48.41K)

Spooky.

This is me, don't be spooked by the "no morals" crowd here. It's mostly people that want a secular/material argument (basically just want an argument that isn't "it's wrong"), and then it's egoists who are really big moralists but don't believe in morals, with the final group being really, really fucking stupid 4-d chess edgelords. That's really it almost all socialists are HUGE moral fags; they just aren't retarded so they make arguments from material reality.

Check at the reading list thread, read some basic works, ask questions and watch youtube channels on socialism / communism. I'm a bit of a Zig Forums newfag but you'll be surprised about how much you learn so quickly

There are no objective morals, only subjective morals exist. Please read some basic philosophy, marx and engels and then decide for yourself. Lurking this board is a pretty good way to introduce yourself for socialism stuff too, just remember to be sceptic and think with your own brains. Research, research and research.

okay, it may be more "moral" but morals aren't really good for arguing
like says a lot of socialists ARE indeed moralfags (like me), but it's better to argue with material reality
if you're a prole, it's in your own class interests to be a lefty anyways
read the basic works in the reading list thread and ask questions if you're confused

Attached: smug cat.jpg (390x500, 29.13K)

If it isn't about moral, what is it about then?

We aren't socialists because some old man with a beard told us it was the right thing, we're socialists because we believe such a society would be a net improvement on our lives and the lives of those around us.

Leftists believe reality is objective and thus believe morality is objective. That moral being self preservation. Liberals like to make reality subjective. That you can’t govern things because people live in their own little world. In reality, we live in the same earth and interact with each other. The idea that we live in our own little world often leads people to believe that the reason why people are poor is because that’s their own little world which they constructed and thus chose to be poor. Though in reality, the capitalist system; in which we all live in, creates poverty. The idea that morality is subjective is a lie. It sees that poverty and destitution can be one man’s treasure (freedom). Poverty and destitution isn’t a choice though.

Attached: 4ADA3487-CF99-40D0-8047-99B1C5EA60D8.jpeg (900x900, 86.34K)

what is this hot garbage?

You should be socialist because it's economically superior…………

Attached: 1438008208023.png (752x952, 445.35K)

Our only moral is self preservation. All things else are subjective. I mean, the ancaps believe the same thing but they default back to the same abstract morals in defense of property rights. The capitalist system destroys self preservation for the sake of profit and uses abstract moralism to justify it. Socialists on the other hand see self preservation to be the only moral. It’s the self interest of capitalists to widen the gap between bourgeois and proletariat for profit. It’s also in thier interest to maintain and preserve thier position. Thier interest goes against ours, but sense the bourgeois legitimacy isn’t justified, it must fall back in abstract morals to justify its destruction of the proletariat’s self preservation. All moral battles is rooted in class struggle. The proletarian morality sees the most objective view I.e. self preservation.

anime name?

Lmaoooo

Attached: 1520182201079.gif (480x238, 415.41K)

If you disagree then explain why. I’d like to know your reasoning. Maybe you can give me nuance and change my mind.

The problem is your only argument in this wall of text defaults on a contradiction; you first call it self preservation, which obviously refers to individual self preservation, and then call for notions of self preservation of the proletariat, which quite frankly necessitates individual sacrifice.

This sounds like a utilitarian re-interpretation of Marx, who was actually very concerned with other values also, hence his focus on alienation and so on.

He was wrong in this, but there you go. Analytical Marxist Utilitarianism really is the only way forward.

And also, the preservation of the proletariat is the last thing we want as communists.

Thanks y’all

I’m still new. I’d rather people call me out of my shit arguments than have people give me shitposts.

I meant to say the capitalism harms self preservation of individuals among the proletariat therefore it’s in there interest to overthrow it.

To not starve to death in a gulag.

The only time people starved en masse in gulags was during WWII and most of them were axis POWs who deserved it anyway

Lol.

Attached: CupofrtXYAA5CWb.jpg (1200x675, 621.27K)

Besides those numbers being the absolute pinnacle of gerontic anticommunist propaganda, I'd recommend related if you want an accessible reading regarding the popular conception of the idea of communism.

I would legit punch you if you showed this shit to me IRL.

Attached: communism catholic executions.jpg (2124x1336, 463.71K)

Your claim might be remotely believable if the exact same thing didn't happen literally every time.

Attached: communism-hasnever-been-tried-innocents-hey-lenin-whatcha-doin-azrsy-8742046.png (500x907, 216.92K)

Does anyone have that picture of all those TPUSA bible camp kids who painted "Communism killed 1000000000000" on a rock somewhere?

Sorry, I don't have the pic right now but… are you sure they really were with TPUSA? I assumed it was satire.

The same thing that happened literally every time is that every socialist country has improved things for the general people

Attached: 7dbfa5f87e38c52f781f82d9a291ab8b4e5531a5.jpg (793x890, 294.62K)

Attached: bf9be8e1477f4d82214eb9ef8fad99545cab960e59cd7372d9a58316a273aa70.png (960x720, 1.09M)

Checks out.

China and Russia had famines constantly before the revolutions. Why the fuck do you think everyone was so mad at the established powers there?

Attached: face 934239.png (855x1008, 745.22K)

Attached: consumption 1981.png (660x398, 90.38K)

...

Which one are you referring to? Because literally none of them were very good pre-revolution

The famine didn't occur because people "didn't know how to farm" you fucking idiot

I doubt the other instances tell much different story.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union

ez

Attached: 6a3cc6de73e0c8c60520549cfff428cff838ae28c5cb91af6128006398d3bc2d.jpg (2048x2048, 269.55K)

Most countries have centralized-ish farming systems though. The USSR and China were way ahead of the curve.

Attached: 1478562276530.gif (800x667, 1.23M)

But yeah, Lenin and Stalin just paid the clouds not to rain

Attached: 666ad62119314a15a0e24c77eb1ac992.jpg (633x537, 61.6K)

The US government is heavily, HEAVILY involved in agriculture.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States#1970s

And are massively successful compared to your average starving commie.
What point were you attempting to make? How much better capitalism is at everything?

I bet you think Zimbabwe is also having a completely natural and unavoidable famine after seizing actual farmers land as well.

Attached: 1455158002135.png (2093x608, 1014.93K)

That number is literally every human that has ever died.

Zimbabwe didn't have a famine though, it has a hyperinflationary crisis: v different things.

people didn't die before 1917 retard

No matter their race, violently taking land away from people who know how to farm it and giving it to random schmucks who couldn't keep a potted plant alive probably isn't the best of ideas. Farming education and working with the current owners to make it public incrementally would have been a sound option. But racists are fucking idiots, even the black ones.

Attached: 1516099054.jpg (421x399, 80.38K)

Attached: 1519943570606.jpg (1351x1920, 324.3K)

Attached: noggin joggin.gif (498x498, 612.95K)

hmm…

Gundam.

rawls literally says if you disagree with liberalism you are irrrational though

link.springer.com/article/10.2307/3342145?no-access=true


articles.latimes.com/1986-06-07/local/me-10010_1_socialist-countries

[…]

Attached: anarcho tankies.jpg (810x583, 53.59K)

[…]

[…]

what did he mean by this?

Attached: bait stirner.jpg (1146x1148, 12.53K)