Hey guys Zig Forums here...

Not quite. Bourgeois nationalism is something that happens as feudalism transforms into capitalism. It's not so much about dividing people up, as about having a state in place that will enforce contracts, property rights, and other bourgeois rights and freedoms. Compared to feudal institutions, the bourgeois state actually centralized a lot of power, geographically and quantitatively. The shape and size of that state is more or less an accident of history, and bourgeois nationalism is the ideology of trying to create an attachment to that accidental state, now that feudal and religious bonds have frayed.

The splintering into hyper individualism is something new, typical of our so called late capitalism, and late enlightenment. It remains to be seen if it will do away with bourgeois nationalism - it's still pretty string in most of the world. As to the left deconstructing everything into individuals, the neoclassicals started that, don't blame us.

You should read "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Friedrich Engels if you want to know more about this. Here's a quote from it.

There is no "comparison" between fascism and capitalism. Fascism is simply capitalism in decay. ⛏️rotsky, though I dislike him, has a good book on this.

You should read Marx. The term materialism in Marxist circles has a much different meaning than how it is commonly used.

Hah! I doubt that. In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. They were servants of finance capital, not enemies of it.

Attached: graph-1-1.jpg (581x481, 27.38K)

extended family >>>> nuclear family if this is what you mean by the 'marxist' stance on traditional family structure

also fascism, historically, has just proven to be the decay of liberal capitalism into state capitalism with a 'subversive other' propped up by said state to justify fucking the proles over
it's still exploitation even if it's not da joos/niggers/foreigners/communist/degenerates etc and instead your "fellow countryman"

Historically fascists have stabbed both communists and the worker movement in the back the moment they could. Fascists always got rid of their left elements (s.trasser, left Falangists, the dude in Italy who led the fascist syndicates and wanted to expropriate the bourgs) and cracked down on unions and communists. Fascists are never to be trusted.

In what sense?
When fascists say this, what they really mean is that they reject philosophical materialism entirely; they believe strictly in idealism. Fascism and the far left are about as incompatible as it gets.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism are good summaries of the difference.
Fascism is not literally the same as capitalism, but the far left considers it to be an ideology formed to defend the capitalist mode of production in times of crisis, when the legitimacy of the ruling class becomes an unpopular view.
These "shared beliefs" also have an entirely different meaning to the far left. Nazism is infamous for appropriating leftist rhetoric for its own ends. Its idea of what "materialism" and the "ruling class" are differ fundamentally from ours. Fascism is an ideology about violence and authority, not merely using it as a means to an end, and endorses the existence of a de jure ruling class as being rulers by virtue of strength and superiority.

And fascism is squarely on the capitalist side of that coin. Even if fascists weren't also repugnant for other obvious reasons, they would still be enemies - it's just a gangster capitalist ideology.

Marxism views (bourgeois) nationalism as an ideology used to delude workers into believing they have common interests with the people who exploit them and to obfuscate class contradictions that exist within a nation state.

This is indeed a tendency that exists in a certain part of the western left. People obsessed with defining themselves as some ultra-unique identity (gender queer non-binary pansexual woman of color, and so on), race separatism by making "cultural appropriation" out to be something inherently racist, doing weird ass race/gender/sexuality based anlyses instead of class analysis and proclaiming white cis-hetero-patriarchy-whatever to be the enemy instead of capitalism. It's usually a moralistic and masturbatory excercise of out-"woke"-ing people and scolding people over the most insignificant things, rather than actual politics. This is what is (somewhat sloppily) called "idpol" on here. It has nothing to do with Marxism and pretty much everyone on this board despises it.

Most of the people engaging in this shit are incredibly privileged upper middle class and petty bourgeois college students, which are not usually reliable allies in anti-capitalist struggle, as they ultimately benefit from capitalist society. Idpol is also cynically used within left organizations to attack political opponents (for example going through a persons tweets to find something totally harmless to spin as racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia).

Some things to note: 1) Opposing this type of identity politics doesn't mean one believes racism to be irrelevant or non-existent, or that homosexuals don't deserve to be treated like people. 2) The best critiques of this type of identity politics comes from within the left. 3) the "SJW threat" is often opportunistically played up by right-wingers, despite them having very little power in the real world outside of a few spaces (some colleges, twitter and tumblr and that's pretty much it).

Attached: dsa dems empire.png (954x960, 202.36K)

Thanks for the reply.
While this is true, they had a flexible mentality in regards to economics. Sometimes the state needs to intervene, other times loosen controls. It wasn't a fixed thing for them. The free market is capable of generating enormous wealth, and that can be advantageous especially when the entirety of the world is sanctioning you.

Yes and no. They are pro-hierarchy yes, and they are indeed idealists. They value traditional European masculine qualities such as might(if used for right), chivalry, virtue, honor, duty, sacrifice and so on.( I think you get the gist) I think it's a little bit disingenuous to say that it's a movement of violence though, especially when you consider they were in open battle with the communists. Fascism is not about preserving an "economic mode" it's preserving culture and traditions. Mussolini wanted to revive a sort of Roman spirit. People like Evola saw the modern world as the erosion of the soul of not only the individual but of the collective identity of the nation as well. Fascism is a sort of compromise of modern and traditional values. We don't put much value on the notion of progress and view it as more of a degeneration, a "retreat forward" of sorts. At the end of the day, the Fascist ideal could be something along the lines of a Farmer with a large family, embracing whatever spirituality/religion that matches that of his people. The family grows enough food to be sustainable and they hold dear the aforementioned values I listed above. This is not really to different than Jefferson's Yeomen farmer ideal. It's a simple and virtuous citizen who is capable of defending his traditions and values. And yes, there is a healthy dose of Nationalism and pride for your country. The idea is not to hate your neighbors, but you simply realize that you have interests that might differ from theirs. Within this society, the noble Warrior is respected as the defender he is, while the merchant is his inverse. At the top of this ideal society, the priest/holy man guides the masses. Above the priest is whatever God/Gods your collective prays to. There is always someone above you from the house wife answering to her husband to the priest answering to God. We look at those below us with love and compassion. Compatriots are our extended family. We are not citizens of the world and are not one people. That being said we respect our neighbors. We are not just idealists, we are unwavering idealists. You have to understand that Fascism is an abstraction it's a sort of spirit that is cultivated.

Attached: OswaldMosley.jpg (599x333, 41.86K)

It is hard to imagine how violence does not flow from this. This is not necessarily critical, or even negative (as it goes in radical politics, excuses will not be made for the terror), but it is very much a logical conclusion.
Well, yeah, that was the core of my point. When we say fascism is capitalistic, we mean that in a de facto sense, because they do not care about economics and thus tend to maintain the status quo for practical reasons. Notably, Hitlerists purged the Nazis' left-wing faction because they considered private property to be vital to preserving tradition and hierarchy.

Michael Parenti has a good explanation of the relationship between capitalism and fascism: youtube.com/watch?v=w3Pi_uBJ1HU

Any form of change leads to violence. That's why I never indulged with my peers critiquing Communism for their high death toll. What system has had a smooth transition? Not many, if any. That's why I'm a little surprised that you even brought violence up at all.
I could entertain this notion. The "true Right" doesn't view society through the lense of economics, you're right, it is about people and culture. However, it restricts much of the poisonous Capitalistic tenancies. This goes back to the Capitalism and Communism are 2 sides of the same coin of materialism. The other user was wrong to say that we are on the Capitalistic side though. He is thinking of the situation through the lense of materialism. Think of it this way,
Unrestricted growth, no regards for culture. The Free Market will fix all of the woes of society. Financial aristocracy emerges. Merchant class is idolized. Propaganda encourages a consumerist society. The nuclear family is broken up to double the workers and tax base.
If only society was more financially equal, all of societies woes will be solved. Disregard for culture and tradition. Aristocratic Merchant class is destroyed.
Societies woes are because of disunity and the rejection of moral traditions and our shared historical values. Rejects Capitalistic Aristocracy based on the Merchant Class and desires to revert back to something along the lines of pre French Revolution Aristocracy. (Duels and upholding of honor etc…)
These are 3 completely different systems. Fascists HATE Capitalists too. Many view their values as Semitic and non-European.

Strange that they didn't ever show it in practice.

everytime turd positionist come here it's always the same shit
reject economics and your pure degenerate free society will just be capitalism with an aryan face (and then just die out in 5 years)

Attached: dissapointed but not surprised.jpg (577x720, 88.97K)

"Disregard" is a poor word. The idea that Marxists somehow hate people living traditional lifestyles is nonsensical propaganda. Rather, we believe that culture changes and evolves over time, and encompasses an extremely wide variety of incomparable things, ranging from harmless norms to ideologies and even genetic traits, so "preserving" it is a non sequitur to us.
To radicals, the idea that capitalism even has values is in itself questionable. Capitalism does not care what people think as long as its own existence is perpetuated. The cultural norms that condone and value capitalism are formed by it, not the other way around.

Not it's not. Your response illustrates that. It's like you're saying "I have regard for human life, but I will do nothing to save it, the idea of life evolves over time." Once again it's back to this notion of "progress" that we simply reject.
We agree with this notion. "Unrestricted Capitalism" is bad for the volk and their culture. Having a restricted market isn't bad though. (Profit sharing, giving the worker stock options, Nationalization of strategic resources etc…)
We don't value Capitalism as an end, like you seem to be implying. It's valued as a dangerous tool of production that needs to be dialed back to tailor the needs to the people. How far back to dial it back is debatable. It's a means to an end.

Capitalism inherently undermines "traditional culture" through a process of deterritorialization which is a product of genralized commodity production and the integration of all life into the market. This isn't something you can "dial back". The thing that you're trying to preserve is the very thing that's devaluing community and culture. Your "critical" position is rooted entirely in the aesthetic and is lacking any substance.

MADE BY NAZSUCC DEM GANG

A different perspective is not disregard. Marxists do analyze and critique culture, after all.
As noted in , traditional lifestyles did not decline under socialist governments, even when "degenerate" social behavior was not criminalized. The idea that society would degenerate into a circlejerk of apathetic consumerist metrosexuals without the use of authority to force social norms is just silly, at least to us.
We don't value Capitalism as an end, like you seem to be implying. It's valued as a dangerous tool of production that needs to be dialed back to tailor the needs to the people. How far back to dial it back is debatable. It's a means to an end.
To each his own, but this doesn't make much sense to us: capitalism is capitalism, no matter what kind of spin you put on it. It was certainly a productive force after feudalism, but its own contradictions remain. Pic related.

Attached: 8f9[1].jpg (500x222, 30.67K)

At this point it's just turning into a circular argument, user. You say NO! with conviction, I say YES! with conviction. I will admit that no system is perfect though, Fascism certainly has its faults. Just like Communism has its faults. Like in China where it's desirable to become a public official in order to be the beneficiary of all of those lucrative bribes. And how in the Soviet Union there was a powerful underground Free Market. I'm not sure any system is capable of killing the Free Market entirely.

I had to kek.
I suppose. Cheers, user.

The difference is that in the far left, theory and praxis are not the same thing. Marxist philosophy is a field in which theory is constantly being developed and critiqued; failures like Marxism-Leninism and Maoism have been learned from, and in fact, lacked unanimous support among communists to begin with. They are products of their time and should be treated as such.
In comparison, fascism seems to reject intellectual rigor outright and just lies to people whenever it changes its mind about something. Obviously this is fair game from a fascist perspective, but we would consider it to be dangerous. It is telling how during the original fascist movement, a lot of theory conflict was basically /int/-tier arguing over who is and is not white.

Well that's because your worldview and politics are constructed by memes that have been regurgitated at you for your entire life. This isn't a knock on you personally that's just the way ruling ideology works.
It doesn't exist, has never existed, and will never exist. Capitalism is predicated on state intervention and enforcement. Like most people you don't seem to understand what capitalism actually is which in turn makes you incapable of understanding it's antithesis.
Is a capitalist state.
No. It had a black market to compensate for inefficiencies in their productive and distributive process due to the technological limitations they were faced with. A black market is by no means a free market.

So, the fundamental philosophical schism between the fasc and gommies is that Marx built his thought off of the axiom that 'existence begets essence'. That the material world produces the immaterial world, and thus in order to change the immaterial world of human relations and the manifestation of variation, you must first alter the Material Conditions.

Many of the people here won't disagree with (some of) your values, and I strongly support several. However, these values need to be explained materially, through economics or politics, otherwise they don't have an effect on reality. This is why you see yourself as very different from capitalists, whereas the communists don't make that much of a distinction. Historically, all a NatBourg state has to do to gain the support of people like you who identify with values is to put on the performance of these values, change the color of their flag, switch around who is the lowest class, slightly change the rosters of the ruling class, but still have complete private ownership of property. If you don't have explicit material explanations for your values, you can't fully judge whether your society follows your values, except by the performances it puts on. The same exact process is currently going on here in burgerland, except with feminism. More female politicians, the first female head of the CIA!!!, more female CEO's, more products that say they support women, but nothing actually being done for the lower class women who work as much as slaves, but without a master to at least want to make sure his investment doesn't depreciate.

From what I've seen of the fascists who have actually posted their earnest opinions here, I've noticed that the primary drive is believing in fantastical stories. Which I can't fully fault you for, because people have been defining themselves through the stories they tell since the dawn of consciousness, that is fundamentally human. What I can fault you for is falling for a baseless story. A narrative designed to support a certain class (the bourgoise) by presenting an idealized version of the past to the people whose values and history had just been eroded by capitalism. It's essentially the most real form of cultural appropriation.

Itd be so easy to believe that my mostly German blood entitles me to being a member of the volk. But it doesn't work like that, because I wasn't part of that culture. I do not know how to produce and prepare the food of that people, I do not speak the language, I did not grow up wandering around those lands, and most importantly, I was not raised in the social reality and thus have no idea how that actually works/feels. Itd be nice if I was, but I live here, a wageslave in burgerland. We all want something to identify with, stories we can tell about ourselves in order to feel like we belong. And that's the problem with communism, it's completely right, but also inhuman. It's a wall of text, material descriptions, dry and in-accessible. And thus, I have some sympathy when you try talking about values. But then you go and rant about jews controlling the world, and remind me that if you let your desire to belong overcome the need to live truthfully, then you are a weak, brainlet cuck.

Which is unironic as it could possibly be the most "human" civilization ever established besides maybe primitive society. The communists of the 19th and 20th century were able to tap into something that inspired people but people were excited about the future and it's seemingly endless possibilities. Now each of us has become these little despondent islands who've been disciplined and domesticated by capital so thoroughly that it's become the only possible reality. It's a totalizing force which delineates our ability to look beyond it. Even a lot of the left has internalized the artificial limitations set by capital as they can only offer up tweaks in the management of capital as opposed to a fundamental break with it. We definitely need to build meaning and offer up a window that looks out beyond the walls but I'm not sure how to actually do that.

Just to make sure, you do realize we want equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome or personal qualities? If not, maybe you'll be interested in reading a short text by Lenin on the subject to clear things up: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm
That moment when even Zig Forums agrees that idpol sucks.
Seriously though, no one here supports that kind of infighting. We see those people as liberals. And as others have pointed out concepts like the "hyper-individual" are more related to postmodern philosophy most of which is explicitly anti-marxist.
You're definitely welcome here as long as you argue in good faith.

I think many fascists may be genuinely opposed to capitalism, but when implemented in practice fascism is not really anti-capitalist. For example there's all this talk about using capital for the benefit of "the nation" instead of profits, but there is no practical way to enforce this, because the basic structure of capitalism leads to profit motives being omnipresent. Also I've often seen fascists (as well as str.asserists, nabols, etc) advocate for class collaborationism on base of the bourgeois and proles being the same ethnicity, which is retarded and just another form of idpol. So I don't think fascism is able of overthrowing capitalism, and I think this is illustrated by the fact that both in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy heavy privatization occurred rather than collectivization.
What I think scares many fascists away from communism is the identification of "materialism" with materialism in the colloquial sense of the word, i.e. a kind of hedonistic vulgar lifestyle only aimed at material possessions. As I see it communists don't aim at such a lifestyle. It is true that we analyse economy and society in materialist terms, because we think this is the only realistic and scientific way of making an analysis. But the end goal is not to make people into some kind of drones who only care about material goods and pleasures - that's what capitalism does basically, capitalism is "materialist" in the vulgar sense of the world.
I believe socialism would, by abolishing the profit motive and giving people the ability to own the fruits of their labor, encourage a healthier and more spiritually-oriented lifestyle, less likely to lead to depression.
Yes, because it would likely still be capitalist, as well as opposed to internationalism, workers' rights and basically anything else we stand for.
I haven't read engels' book on the family, but personally I think family structures are mostly a private occasion, something neither to be encouraged nor discouraged by the state. Except when by "traditional family unit" you mean things that are opposed to socialist values, e.g. forcing women into an inferior position. I am opposed to that and think it should be actively combatted by the state.

See this is what i meant earlier with fascism not really being opposed to capitalism. A "mentality" doesn't really do anything without systemic change.
It's the only fascist text i have read, and i guess you can debate the classification as "fascist" but from the Futurist Manifesto by Marinetti I got the impression of an extreme glorification of violence and war.
This is alright imo. Pic related, I agree with Tito on this one.

Attached: tito socialist patriotism.png (997x801, 210.74K)

Two basic communist objections to this (obviously more can be made) would be;
1) It's unrealistic that such a community could come into existence at this stage of socio-economic/material development of society. This isn't a valid critique from an idealist viewpoint of course
and
2) How will you ensure this "holy man" is someone who genuinely cares about the community and does not abuse his power?

As i said I'm under the impression fascists often glorify this violence and see it as an end in itself, for the sake of "heroism" and similar things. Communists on the other hand, while agreeing that violence can be a means to reach an end, intend to at least avoid unnecessary bloodshed Not saying all deaths Stalin or Mao caused were "necessary" btw, but it's generally the intention As Engels wrote in Principles of Communism, when answering the question whether property can be abolished peacefully:
"It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."
This is a strawman. Communism is not as much about "equality" as it is about giving the workers ownership of the means of production.

We do want to "save" or improve human life, but we think a certain progress in history is inevitable. It's unrealistic to desire an advanced industrialized society with the values of the feudal age, for example.
How you "value" it does not really matter if you keep it in place; it doesn't change the nature of the system.

Why not, it has only existed for a few hundred years.

I'm also from Zig Forums, but since I read Marx and understood the evils of Capitalism, I haven't found a place where I fit in. Zig Forums hates people like me because we actually give a shit about the workers and want to gut porky, and Zig Forums hates people like me because we actually give a shit about preserving the cultural, blood, and soil heritage of people (Nationalism for Everyone tbh) and want to gas the damn Kikes.

You should read more because everything you listed is just a means of control by the bourgeoisie over the proletariat and not worth preserving under a dictatorship of the proletariat

Attached: zizek my gott.jpg (960x913, 79.88K)

♫Nazbol Party, it is the gang for you and me♫
♫Nazbol Party, to kill the jewish bourgeoisie♫
♫Throughout history, we are a mystery♫
♫So gaze upon us and see…♫
Nice spooks nerd

Attached: 4350ac840b1746db0c23c207dcd1db3a7ad3781e.jpg (600x720, 263.4K)

I am very aware that people's identity has historically been exploited to the benefit the Capitalist pigs, but this does not mean that heritage ought to be done away with entirely.

If I'm forced to pick either a future of mulatto Socialism with no protection of cultural and racial boundaries, or a nationalist government with corrupt Capitalism, I'd probably shoot myself instead of continuing my existence in such a shitty reality where Nationalist politics can not coexist with Socialist economics.

Nice dubs, globalist hedonist.

>>>/autpol/
Legit 100% fucking NAZBOL GANG

Ye but, Dugin a Jew-lover.

Fuck this. I need to read more economic theory and start practicing my people's traditions. I'll make myself into a Nationalist + Socialist hybrid with stronk muscles and good cardio. Fuck this neoliberal status quo niggery and those pro-miscegenation Kikes. May we all be blessed by the holy Swastika!

You're a damn good comedian mate.

Attached: stalin-laughing-02.jpg (238x256, 14.31K)

If people want to chant historically relevant songs and live in white neighborhoods, they are free to do so under socialism.
If people don't want that, noone can really force them to. And if someone does try, he will probably fail, as people tend to resist forceful policies like those.

So my advice is
1) Read more Marx. He didn't care about equality but was concerned about freedom and came to the conclusion equality of opportunity (which only socialism/communism could provide) was the only way to achieve complete freedom for all people.
2) Read Engel's 'Origin of the Family'. There are likely to be books written recently with contemporary research but I'm not aware of any.
marxist.com/on-engels-origin-of-the-family-1.htm
4) Don't go NazBol. The contradictions within the ideology are staggering. If you're really that caught up on race think about how designer babies are going to remove any kind of genetic disadvantage any individual may have. If that isn't enough rest easy that communes will exist for people like you.
5) Culture has radically changed throughout history. Socialism and Communism would bring about a culture that would not only support but celebrate the freedom which humanity will achieve. There's nothing that intrinsically special about culture; it's just a way of ensuring people enjoy their lives and that the political-economy is stable. Read Stirner.
6) Read Bookchin and Cockshott

...

We need more people like you on all sides engaging the opposition with respectful discussion. Good questions.

No one cares about culture (literally most leftist just don’t give a fuck) ,if you want to dress like a fag in a socialist society you would have no problem .
I personally want all cultures to survive as i believe that all worth the same. If you are a far-right dick you only care about your culture and say most other cultures suck and should either be destroyed or forced to become like yours (this is what rightards have done historically)why don’t all people have the right to a culture.
Well again why you care about race, culture is nice and makes you unique, but race was created in the 1700 or something so why
Do you really believe that niggers are all inferior to you?
Do you really believe think that anything race based is even logical?
Also if I want to fuck girls from Uganda are you planning to stop me?
If I am black, yellow, red or anything would you hate me for no reason or don’t want to be friends or work with you?

this. as a german I had very good discussions with AfD-voters, they can be very receptive to arguments when talking to them with mutual respect

they agreed that solidarity with the third world and without the interference of the west, mass immigration wouldn't be a thing etc., its NOT that all of them are just assholes, well it may be they are not very bright (intellectually) but at least you can make them say they would vote for you :)

I had very good discussions about politics with FvD voters in the netherlands. Most of the "alt-right" isn't Zig Forums-tier, so you bypass a lot of spooks, keep a shared criticism of idpol, and, most importantly, have a shared interest in politics. Just keep it civilized, and they will do so also.

Miss me with the racial boundaries, but I don't get this idea that socialism would eradicate distinct cultures. The Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent China, did a lot of things to protect and promote the various national cultures. The legalization of the Ukrainian language was accomplished under the Soviet Union, to name but one example. Within the limits of respecting collectivization of the means of production etc., I don't see why you couldn't go play at being Amish or whatever. Once you have global communism and global planned development, there would be no need for movements of peoples beyond tourism and natural emergencies.

Would argue that this was a sympathy tactic, instrumental and not intrinsic to Soviet thought (per se). The Soviets knew full well they could turn the minority populations, oppressed and 'Russified' under the old older, in favour of the new regime by giving them more respect and cultural autonomy. They ofc also needed to find some workable federation they could include post-revolutionary peoples into without autistically pretending they could 'Russify' the world or whatever.

Well its hard to parse intentions almost a century after the fact. However, on the topic of race, which I dismissed but whatever, here is an interesting tidbit about race in Red China: national minority nationalities have grown their share of the population by leaps and bounds under communism, thanks to exemptions from the one child policy.
Counts as a Han genocide I suppose.

Attached: techomulattoism.webm (640x360, 2.89M)

Zig Forums doesn't hate you, in fact they agree with you. NutSac or Fascism is pretty much what you're about.

who the fuck made that webm

Attached: white juche.mp4 (854x480, 9.85M)

stop being racist you retard

neither of those are opposed to the bourgeoisie or capitalism outside of petty moralizing about "they's degenerate"

pretty interesting, ty

pire

Conflation of communism with bourgeois "leftism" aside, these are pretty decent questions for a Zig Forumsyp.

Neither did Marx, and neither do we. Equality in the abstract is an immaterial notion. There is a reason that "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was the cry of bourgeois revolutionaries. I believe in imposing the rule of my class on the whole of society, so that we may one day do away with class rule altogether.

What you are referring to is liberal, pomo, and leftoid identity politics which indeed serves to divide the working class. These types aren't usually liked around here.

There wont be a revolution with the kind of division that idpol leftoids have prompted.

Couldn't agree more! This is called thinking dialecticaly!

Attached: smoke4.jpg (997x318, 72.36K)

go back to wherever you came from

thats not true. i've read a shitload of theory. it takes a lot of de-programming to become a communist in the most neoliberal reactionary hellhole on earth

Hey, Op
I really like this picture
Would you mind if I take this jam from you ;)

It is well a meme and I like i

Attached: DfUswyxVMAAXqaR.jpeg (960x727, 56.55K)

*You* need to go back, newfag.

My nigga.

Attached: smoke2.jpg (756x945, 110.1K)

That's actually a pretty good Political Compass meme.

Communist movement is the independent assertion of the interests of the working class separate from the interests of the capitalist class. Capital and labor presuppose each other. You can't have capital without labor and labor without capital. You can't have employees without employers, and vice versa. But within this relation of dependency exists a conflict of interests - capitalist production is inherently based on the exploitation of wage-labor. Capitalists will always attempt to depress the wages of the worker, and the worker will always attempt to increase their own wages. What is necessary for the assertion of the interests of the proletariat separate from the interests of the capitalist class is a political organization that seeks for the abolition of capitalism - of overcoming the capital/wage-labor relation.

Nationalism and liberalism are ideologies of the bourgeoisie. They are good insofar as as labor presupposes capital; the preconditions for a future socialist society are created by capitalism. Communists support the development of capitalism specifically to create the conditions for a struggle against capitalism. It is for that reason that Communist often support liberals and nationalists or liberal or nationalist policies, especially in the struggle against feudalism and imperialism, as imperialism stifles the growth of semi-feudal relations of production into proper capitalist relations of production. How this is framed depends on whether you follow Stalin or ⛏️rotsky.

I must make a distinction between nationalism and patriotism. They are often tied to one another due to the nature of the modern nation-state, but I think a distinction needs to be made. Nationalism means support and identification towards one's national community, a community tied together through a common language, culture, and territory. Patriotism means support and identification towards one's participation in the political community, which is often narrowly defined in terms of the modern political state, and encompasses the notion of citizenship (which, again, is often narrowed into official, bureaucratic, acceptance into the formal political apparatus, the state). Marx himself disliked the use of the term 'comrade', preferring to style himself, in the old Jacobin terminology, 'Citizen Marx'. Socialist patriotism means support, not of the nation or of the bourgeois state, but of the political organs of the working class.

The congruence of interests between capital and labor due to the relation of dependency between the two can mask their own antagonistic interests and create a situation wherein the politics of the working class is subordinated to the politics of the bourgeoisie. This is why nationalism and liberalism is fought against - because they represent, as bourgeois ideologies, the submission of the working class to the politics of the ruling class.

Attached: 2a5d0b9305e1db4dd2817fb85e164bd9a0d13341.png (598x812, 769.34K)

i think the focus on the nuclear family is misguided too. We should be working to have communities ,and worry less about the one mom/ one dad rule. If you have good relationships with your neighbors and family in general, it won't matter as much if the mother or father are unsuitable. It's just that mentally unhealthy people whose marriages tend to fall apart aren't as good of parents and tend to not have strong relationships with other people, possibly due to past inter-generational trauma. I kind of just scratch my head at the insistence some people have on one dad, one mom , as if an entire village of people who care about you would not be better than that.