Liberal Shit you're sick of hearing

What other liberal garbage are you sick of hearing? I'm talking the generic kind of Liberal that thinks Socialism isn't as evil as Boomer conservatives say it is, but still look down on it in some way, like a lighter anti-communist. What even would you call these kinds of people? Gen X Liberals?

Attached: Shrek Marxism.png (882x591, 245.38K)

Other urls found in this thread:

globalresearch.ca/operation-unthinkable-in-immediate-wake-of-world-war-ii-us-planned-to-wipe-out-the-soviet-union-with-a-massive-nuclear-strike/5470161
old.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/8u27qt/how_do_we_fight_the_idpol_problem/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Is something I often hear whenever I touch the subject with people

pic related

Attached: intensity intensifies.gif (600x313, 859.98K)

The issue with communism isn't that it's "utopian", it's that it can't physically compete with capitalist nations. Communism has always failed - not for lack of trying. Asia and South Amerca have experienced dozens of attempts to introduce communism, and all have failed. I don't consider the primary issue to be the "utopian" or "unrealistic" goals of communism, but there's something that historically prevents it from getting the physical power behind it to win - every time it's tried. It's great if your car is efficiently engineered and less polluting, but if it doesn't go faster than the opponent, you sill lose the race. That's my main issue with communism. It just does not seem to be able to withstand the attacks of capitalist nations. And now that the largest nuclear and bio/chem weapon stockpiles are in porky control, I can't imagine a future where it stands a chance.

Yes, I'm sure Communism taking root in some of the poorest regions in the world isn't the root cause. It must be something inherent in Communism.
Well thank Marx the development of the future isn't reliant on your ignorance.

Yes, I'm sure Communism taking root in some of the poorest regions in the world isn't the root cause.
This is my entire point. I'm sure this is a big part of the issue. Go read my comment more carefully. I didn't say the issue is with communism. I said the issue is that societies that adopt communism inevitably get btfo by porkers.
Communism appeals most to societies with a large populace living at the very bottom of the capitalist ladder. You need to have half of your country practically starving to death to get the kind of popular support needed to enact ML politics. This is another limitation that prevents communism from taking root. I know you're mad because you misinterpreted what I said to be a personal attack against ML, but I'm making a comment about the practicality of putting it in practice against a very powerful and hostile enemy, not the practicality of ML theory itself.
…will be dictated by those with the biggest guns. Just as it always has throughout history. Unless those with the biggest guns become sympathetic to ML theory (and we know this is unlikely, since only the poorest countries seem to flock to ML politics), explain to me how they get enacted or maintained anywhere.

Tbh though, I think everyone here can agree that communism simply can't be acheieved until the US as an imperialist power is destroyed. Focus on crippling the US before attempting communism.

...

Yes, thank you. This is the point I'm trying to make. And it think it's at the root of most normalfag critiques of ML re:
You can look to history and see example after example of ML taking root and then getting subverted, destroyed, and the whole country collapsing. Normalfags see that and think "see, doesn't work". And they're right - but for the wrong reasons.

Of course Marxism-Leninism isn't going to take popular root in the modern world, it isn't made for the modern world to begin with. It was based off of the needs and limitations of post-feudal Russia. Western M-Ls are mostly LARPing retards and misanthropes with a fetish for barracks communism.

If MLs were to ever initiate a revolution in your country, what would you prefer: join them or do nothing?

It's hard to know, since this is extremely hard to imagine, given how they are mostly out of touch with modern politics.

Living in the US, I would do nothing.

...

I'd definitely join them if they initiated a revolution. It just won't be happening. We really need a new socialist orthodoxy for the 21th century. One that's backwards compatible with Marxism but highlights different stuff.

The irony is that the opposite is true. Humans are instinctively communist. We naturally share things with each other and get upset about inequality. If this weren't the case we would have never become as brilliantly cooperative as we are. The capitalist order only exists because of spooks.

Humans are, as a species, a social primate. This isn't something we "became" in any conscious manner, nor is it something we could have survived without. A given human cannot with very rare exceptions survive in isolation and the human species certainly cannot exist without male/female pair-bonding at the very least. So the idea we "became" cooperative doesn't really apply, unless you mean it in the evolutionary sense (and even then, our prehistoric ancestors were also likely social, sexually dimorphic mammals too.
The funny thing is, depending on your perspective, one could make the argument that cooperation is inherently selfish if its the only way to secure one's own well being.
Again, one could look at this as a selfish position as well. A farmer who has a light harvest might promote "equality" via crop-sharing because it's a way to hedge his own supply of food year to year. In effect, he has created a system where everyone farms and the output from each farm gets split equally between the farmers (a truly equal economy). But this could be put in place entirely because people don't want to starve, and want to make a deal with their neighbors to prevent it. I wouldn't reflexively attack the concept of selfishness, since it's an adaptive and useful survival mechanism for organisms. You just have to understand how to apply it to promote positive outcomes.

Attached: 1386500502065.jpg (580x679, 57.81K)

Our ancestors genocided Cavemen so they were Nazbol

I did mean it in the evolutionary sense. We're talking about our nature here. Humans evolved to collectively coordinate complex novel tasks, and this extremely well. For this we have to be able to assume that others are generally well-intentioned.
You're right that it's ultimately selfish behavior. It's a necessary heuristic in the state of nature. Social life is complicated enough as it is. If you go around cheating people things won't end well for you.

We also had sex with them.

At least our ancestors definitely weren't Zig Forumscels then.

"It's good in theory but it just doesn't work"

Attached: Shrekpaint.jpg (300x236, 10.96K)

I did read your ridiculous comment. It's still incredibly idiotic.
ML isn't the be-all-end-all of communism you dumb asshole. If you weren't completely pig ignorant of Communism and labor history or just in general you'd know that the various currents of socialism experienced popularity even within apparently wealthy societies.
I'm not a ML you drooling nimrod.
If you weren't completely ignorant you'd know that isn't true. Alexander the Great conquered the world with an army a fraction of the size of what the Persian Empire was able to field. Genghis Khan conquered the most advanced societies in the world with illiterate nomads whose most sophisticated technology was alcoholic goat milk and the recurve bows. The Germans hacked apart the Roman Empire without the benefit of Rome's advanced technology. Abyssinia sent the Italian's packing without the benefit of their industrial advancements or their modern weapons. Berbers with rifles were able to defeat the Ottoman's without the aid of railways or industry or all their "biggest guns."

You don't know what you're talking about.

A fun way to deal with these people is to reduce the argument to absurdity. Liberals usually get flustered when you point out that they are essentially saying modern society in general is contrary to human nature and that it would function better if we reverted to slave society.

Here, have a snickers

Attached: Snickers.jpg (589x320, 42.25K)

Attached: stfuliberal.png (573x591, 415.08K)

christianity is stupid
give up

Muh human nature arguments, but a lot of that is just the culture telling people what to think. The human nature argument is literally just a rehash of the argument for divine right, so it's not really a liberal one, but mainstream liberalism at this point is a strawman to be knocked down by conservative monarchism/fascism. There may be some liberals with guts to actually stand for something, but they definitely aren't a part of mainstream politics which has gone full rightist.

Usually though the objection I hear to communism is that it's just a scheme to install a one-party state, which tbf is a valid criticism if you think about how revolutions actually work. Revolutions are not waged by the starving masses alone; the track record of such rebellions is not very strong throughout human history, and capitalist society has only made it easier to suppress such rebellions. Who is to say that what comes after capitalism won't be a system that is even worse, and manages to overcome capitalism's contradictions? In a lot of ways I'd even argue that we're in the middle of a transition between capitalism and… something different, but certainly not anything socialist.


Lol you think nations are the driver of history? Capitalism is a global system. It wouldn't be possible without comprador elites in those third world countries, and the rulers of the first world don't give a shit about whatever "national interests" they purportedly represent, which is why they're okay with America going down the shitter - it actually helps the rulers out, since they can go into their gated communities and private schools and leave the plebs to their own devices.

No u

I THINK YOU CAN

Attached: b7fbd4c6b96e4c0c302c3fc3e5c0084033998af7fcd9866995107adde503db28.png (330x360 623.34 KB, 1.07M)

Attached: v2.png (960x948, 1.18M)

Fuck I mean't called but I guess subconsciously I wanna kill liberals too.

Join then and get them to not be sectarian. Ally with anarchists etc.

Imperialism, the CIA, the insane power of western capitalist nations who obtained their wealth and power through exploitation and imperialism

Attached: fasdfasdf.png (640x2242, 135.34K)

just yesterday some guy was posting a graphic where it spelled "idenity"
did the same person make all of these?

Attached: 1518958379966.gif (500x281, 912.1K)

Attached: AEEEEEEGH.jpg (450x450, 69.01K)

its a spelling error in a badly drawn ms paint comic comrade, chill.

personally, it's the free market cultists that i'm well and truly sick of. in other words:

Attached: 1526206600093.jpg (384x384, 20.61K)

i'm 100% sure ninch inch nails wrote a song about people like this.

Attached: controlled burning.png (772x754, 626.67K)

Attached: 1525604958865.JPG (593x575, 26.3K)

he's right though. if the capitalist west can resist challenges to itself from within and without, there's no reason a socialist country should not either. the appeals to paranoid "cia" schemes, which is severely overrated and based on ahistorical fantasies as though CIA trascends history and has its fingers in everything, is the most pathetic copout and makes marxists look like tinfoilers.

Attached: AlbaniaPepe.png (785x757, 44.84K)

globalresearch.ca/operation-unthinkable-in-immediate-wake-of-world-war-ii-us-planned-to-wipe-out-the-soviet-union-with-a-massive-nuclear-strike/5470161

what's your point? military planners in all countries also drew up warplans in the 1930s anticipating war and before WWI as well. there's nothing inherently anti-communist in having such plans to attack a geostrategic enemy

It's a branch of neoboomerism

old.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/8u27qt/how_do_we_fight_the_idpol_problem/

Only realistic way to sell socialism today, frankly.

tfw they literally make the exact same point against idpol as fascists

Attached: 4f824bfd53630d01ad095cb67f91437763dbadb99515e3ba8a0c7bf93edc1dfd.jpg (435x435, 114.8K)

*For idpol

...

...

What's it called?

Is Trent Raznor /ourguy/?

Really hate liberals who act like the public bribery forums they call governments are meaningfully democratic.

I think he's referring to "Survivalism" but I'm not sure. That whole album (Year Zero) is pretty political

Or actually Head Like A Hole

I was referring to Happiness In Slavery, and it's rather fucked up music video. look at the lyrics, and you'll see what I mean.

Someone should make a alternative history game where you play as a Soviet fighter in a Mig-15 going on sorties to shoot down massive waves of imperialist bombers and fighters in a desperate bit to save 220 million people from nuclear hellfire in 1949. And/or a real time strategy game or fps of the Soviets once the Bombs have already dropped and the Soviets ,despite the U.S predictions of surrender, have Declared total war to fend off barbarism in the face of socialism.

Some of my friends told me that exploitation and all the negative effects of capitalism is justified because "might makes right", that weaks (including my friends themselves) deserved to be exploited.

Your friends are classcucks.

Also literal cucks.

I know but I can't just call them cucks (that sound like namecalling), how do you debate "might makes right" thinking?

Abolition of hierarchies necessitates extermination of those in whom hierarchical thinking is ingrained.

That inheritance, nepotism and the powers of just-hiring-some-fund-manager-to-do-all-the-work-for-you means that capitalism is closer to aristocracy than meritocracy.

That capitalism = meritocracy is the largest fucking meme in recent history and should be fought at every encounter

Tell them that most of the so-called "mighty" are in those positions not because of might, but rather through nepotism, cronyism, or just the fact that they were handed that position with no hard work

Clearly they're ultra ☭TANKIE☭s who want workers tribunals for bankers and a neo-NKVD to round them all up.

What's your next argument when they admit they're happy to live in an aristocratic society?

I'm not sure if I want to exterminate my friends.

Nepotism, cronyism, plutocracy, etc. don't bother them, they think that power is never illegitimate, according to them, only power justify power.

Spoiler alert: they will expect others to lick their boots

If that's what they're all about then fuck them. Hard to turn devoted sith into communists even if you explain that they'll never have power under capitalism. If they want to be cucks, let them. People with that mindset won't contribute anything to socialism except being new Berias and Yezhovs.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1920x1080, 936.58K)

soviets had such plans too once they developed the capacity to carry them out. also americans already had no qualms with civilian terror and strategic bombing in japan and germany so why are you surprised they would scale it up exponentially in an existential war against the Soviets? why do you think that the opposing powers will just sit their and take perceived communist subversion?
No but why should we let the soviets off the hook for preventing anti-communist subversion? you act as though the US is some omnipotent terror god that can do what it wants with the snap of a finger. the reality is that anti-communism is effective because a critical amount of people, especially ruling classes and their lackeys, liked what the US had to offer. They were willing recipients of US aid and you act as though Third World countries should develop in vacuums except when the Soviets are allowed to do stuff.

no preventing*
i.e. the US obviously outwitted them in several instances

That was my conclusion too after our discussion last night, I hoped to have another explanation here, I guess I'll just have to avoid political discussion with them.


That's the problem, my friends don't give a shit about any "if", they think masters are legitimates only because they are masters.

But doesn't Stirner out right say "might make right." I'm in the section right now where he says that. I realize it's a bit of a play on words but still.

nah it's literally "Might makes…"

Power of any sort, social power, mental power, etc.

a better pic

Attached: f4d71007736eb2ba7b4fa93137010df010bcb30e85aa94eba4e09351db6441ad.png (882x591, 291.26K)

Attached: pure ideology.png (629x701, 448.81K)

Hey guys lets give it a rest, huh!? Cant you see that liberalism is GOOD for you?

Attached: Lib Tears.jpg (552x540, 60.96K)

Aaron bastani put it best: liberalism started with Hobbs, he declared that the individual must be subsumed into the commonwealth. You call that freedom?

Locke and Hobbes can eat my shit

God they can't even see the complete hollowness of their own ideology. Liberalism is dying. Once the genocides start it will die out completely as people are forced to confront he realities of capitalism (by force if necessary.)


That's a brainlet quote that ironically only a liberal would take seriously. Hobbes is the only good liberal because he understood that rights and even morality could not exist without the state. He was pretty dialectical as far as liberals go. The real problem with liberalism is its idealism. That's what makes it so absolutely cancerous. Human history is a story of people emerging. We aren't going uncovering new ancient truths or simply safeguarding divinely ordained rights, we are creating them. Liberals refuse to understand this and they never will. They are archaic and will be disposed of when the revolutions start to kick off in earnest.

Attached: 762eb3de28045d062033923c64252623a7185d800dafa663aa8fcc20a44a4a59.png (847x744, 179.69K)

Liberal triumphalism in the current year is really something to behold. The Soviet Union's dismemberment broke their brains.

Is there any event that will fully just break them? How can we tear them from the fuckin fever nightmare theyre lucidly strolling in

I would say war but liberals will cheer on and canonize their favored war criminals and genocidaires, so my guess is socialists taking power and making liberals choose between socialism or fascist barbarism.

They will be forced ? Are you sure they won't just find a way to reify fascism within liberalism ?

will come eventually thanks to the collapse of the environment, but im not hopeful tbh. Liberals have a bad track record in that they tend to support the barbarism

Well neoliberalism is a kind of fascism for the 1% with it's own cult of followers in the prosperous professional class, so in a way they already have.

Liberals and their diversity fetish is fucking bullshit. It is so much harder to organize when you have to deal with forming a group with working class blacks who are racist against working class mexicans. This diversity liberal capitalist nonsense to stall the revolution and cause us to infight

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (996x1191, 1.14M)

This argue is fine enough to start out with, but often manifests itself in toxic ways. Racism exists in all communities, but its most prevalent in white communities, because of this POC are less likely to in-fight with each other. For POC its often not racism against anyone else, but empowerment for themselves

Hello Zig Forums

...

>>>Zig Forums
If the soviets wanted that they'd helped the nazis exterminating polish

t: most boring bland moderate centrist boomer I've ever met

Attached: 1530579234582.png (1000x1000, 482.04K)

The old classic

Attached: 708e51eca4903562692da15535254027480512c9c1957f3a690e64066254c296.png (324x499, 40.44K)