The nature of a lofty cause or ideology is to be self sustaining

First of all, I gave a serious reply to your dumb post, at least have the decency to give me a (you) in your response. That is just common courtesy my dude.

Secondly
When you state that X is the nature of of Y, you are saying that X is a necessary condition for Y.
If you can find Y without X, then X is not a necessary condition for Y.
My examples are Y without X. But you don't seem troubled by this.

Based on your reply, it seems you meant to say "successful ideologies are self sustaining', which is a different statement entirely.
I honestly didn't read the rest of your greentext manifesto because the first line had clear counter examples.

The nature of any ideology is to preserve itself beyond reason. See your own examples, see capitalism, or any other -ism. The difference lies in the success of that self-preservation. Often it tends towards either complete entropy or transformation.

Jim Jones did very little wrong.

based on some napkin math, Jim Jones murdered about as many African Americans in an afternoon as the Klan did during the entire 20th century.

:thinking:

youtu.be/NF-XMtNEudQ?t=30

so what you're saying is….socialism got defeated in the marketplace of ideas?

Attached: bii.jpg (600x561, 39.77K)

Muh reformism

Attached: die.png (517x480, 166.34K)

communism isn't the implementation of an idea you dumb anarkiddie

Socialism is a joke. it will not be implemented anytime soon. Leftist tactics include not engaging with your target because you think they're too dumb and waiting for the revolution like christians wait for the rapture. Socialism is at its core a religion. Theres a holy land(real socialism), the evil(porky), and the savior(the people). The fact that cockshott has pages of theory is useless. When you read how he plans to act on it, all he says is to campaign for direct democracy like liberals have been doing for eons. Your thought isnt revolutionary. Your antiquated methods are something you havent revised nor will you. You have a veritable treasure trove of leftist writing. Tell me how exactly are you going to implement your ideology?

The absolute ideology in this one is unreal, imaging what analogues other might think in is not a sound practise. Nothing you have said has any value in anyway, any retard can go about how dumb believing things are

...

Attached: laughing samurai.png (348x408, 154.43K)

What's the point if being post left? It just seems like an excuse to be smug and not do anything

No it's to be dependent on each other like in medieval times but have all the technology advantages of capitalism without the limitations and bullshit of either.

You just described socialism

Socialists actually go to protests and organize stuff though.

...

Meanwhile, a large portion of Latin America has been swayed by socialist ideas for decades now, capitalism hasn't been able to get a foothold over the whole earth and their have been conflicts over it since the beginning, every ten years theres another economic crisis. Maybe Capitalism needs to be "revised".

Im not a fucking capitalist or a socialist. Why does your ideology having flaws mean im a capitalist? Maybe youre just wrong. Capitalism has its foothold on everything. Any meaningful socialist states are either
1). turning to state capitalism
2). Being subverting by capitalists countries
3). Falling apart

Whether this is the fault of capitalism(it is) or something is irrelevant. It doesnt matter if you think that if they tried their best a socialist state could sustain itself. Reality tells a different story.

It wont work

Maybe your thread would actually have any impact if you were to write down a valid critique of why socialism isn't they way fowards from capitalism and how capital could be handeled differently?

How is being a classcuck under capitalism NOT a religion?
pic related

There's nothing holy about socialism, unless you think every pragmatic goal is reaching for Nirvana. No one thinks people can automatically save themselves without the right conditions being set. Class consciousness doesn't result from some idealist conception of the hero. Porky is symbolic of what results from capitalism as an ideology, not the capitalist themselves, who might be completely ignorant of their own actions. Whether you see him as evil or not is entirely subjective, as we've had retards who have come here to argue over it. It's funny you see him as evil though, as hardly anyone here uses that term.
Also religions don't all have this weird construct you've developed of "holy land", "evil", and "savior".

Attached: Die_protestantische_Ethik_und_der_'Geist'_des_Kapitalismus_original_cover.jpg (753x1124, 286.92K)

He's the same halfwit responsible for

He doesn't give a shit about critique, he just wants to own the libs epic style

Pure ideology.
If you support the status quo, you're tacitly pushing for capitalism. It's unavoidable.

Legitimate concern worth exploring, but you haven't shown how this will happen in every case, which it hasn't. Marxist-Lenninist would have to answer for this more than anyone

2). Being subverting by capitalists countries

Socialism isn't to blame for capitalist subversion.

3). Falling apart

Define "Falling Apart". As the answer to the seconcd criticism is most like the same as the third.

Reality tells us that socialism keeps springing up despite capitalism trying to squelch it, though. The fact we have to have this conversation today is testament to that.

See
This is pragmatism, niggy.>>2592422

Attached: zizek_drawing.png (473x595, 535.58K)

Im not a capitalist. Socialism as could work. Everyone hear knows this. Assuming it would be poached by capitalists it could go on forever. Personally, I think their would be a resurgence in hierarchy and an abuse of power but thats whatever. Socialism is vulnerable in the real world and cant work for those reasons. Its not about conceptualizing the perfect gov in theory. Its about affecting reality.

...

Who said i support the status quo? The fact that I want to change it disproves this. Society has alot of issues and using a blanket ideology like socialism wont solve them. And capitalist subversion is a fault of socialism. Thats like saying crackers dissolving in water isnt the crackers fault. Its true, but its something thats happening in reality. It doesnt matter if its fair or not. If it cant cope it cant cope. Plenty of nice people have died of cancer. And socialism is not on the rise. The biggest "socialist" areas are slipping into state capitalism like cuba and the DPRK.

>

No.

This is the equivalent of saying the goverment doesnt do anything.

Critiquing the alternative, without providing one, for one.
What are we left with except the status quo?

Change it to what, You haven't stated.

Who the fuck is pouring water on these crackers? the hell? Terrible analogy.

This beginning to remind me of capitalist realism. No one is arguing from a place of fairness. The idea that there is a fault in socialism that inherently allows them to be overthrown by capitalist is an unsubstantiated position.

Then why are Capitalist frantically intervening in Latin America at every turn and screeching about them? Because despite their flaws, it's still a thorn in their side.

Also, read this, for Christ's sake.

Attached: 51oEjGD juL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 54.57K)

No the government is an entity unlike socialism with is a theory or leftism which is category.

I provided an alternative. Which is breaking down problems and solving them using whatever works and discarding what doesnt.
not socialism =/= status quo support. It was a terrible analogy, I'll concede. I dont feel like reading that book again. But i feel like youre under socialist realism where you feel like there's no alternative to capitalism but socialism.

There isn't. Socialism is what will happen in the future…only perhaps they won't call it socialism nor communism, they will call it something else because socialism and communism have been completely wrecked by lazy people who never bothered to actually learn about it and keep perpetuating lies.

That's not really an alternative to either, as both would say they are doing just that. Socialist would argue that tearing down capitalism is a form of discarding what "doesn't work".
When you can't provide anything other than vagueries for an alternative, it is.

Arguing from pragmatism isn't the same as rejecting all alternatives. If you're going to say there is one, then the burden is on you to show it. Socialism has a mountain of theory to contend with, and if you're only willing to hand wave it away with a "do what works", then you shouldn't be surprised people are immediately skeptical.

Aight how about we start with private property? I propose we collectivize it. I call the solution 'socialosm'. Not an ism, I promise.

Nope.

I already said my alternative.

You don't have to match pages, just knock out the legs from it. Marx did it with the Utopian and Humanist Socialist.

And I told you why it's only vaguerie, not an alternative.

anti-civ post-leftism. The nature of it is that their is no "theory" different ideas can be tried and is more a category of though than a hard ideology. But just because socialism is more "concrete" to you doesnt mean its better. Socialism has more theory than i can stomach and is about as influential to most as "vaguerie"

Oh boy….

No, it just means it's more concrete, which means that ideas like "just do what works" aren't equally as pliable to liberalism.
I don't think you get to talk about influence when you can't even get Taiwanese cartoon imageboard to agree with whatever your ideology is .

Attached: 1391739014688.png (457x351, 120.6K)

Elaborate

Its not about implementing ideology. Its about the rejection of ideology implementation. You can think of it like any other -ism.

Socialism still has large scale civilization. With the existence of huge swaths of power there will people who want to seize it. As an ideology the stakes are higher if it finds itself corrupted. Leadership positions are given a slight power and eventually that power will be abused. In a completely collectivized society that could mean absolute tyranny. And the argument that one could rise up to eliminate corrupt leaderships doesnt work. Classical liberalism thought they could remove corrupt government by having their own militia. But when their government became corrupt and turned to america. It couldnt be undone at all(or if it will be undone, it cant be considered with ease since it took so long). Though this isnt a problem with socialism admittedly. Most political ideologies are utopian in conception and just take the same components of society(workers and leaders) and mix and rearrange them. Every -ism will be "better" than the previous one and claim to solve issues and be a reaction to the previous one. The -ism will eventually collapse and restart the cycle. The solution then must be to kill civilization. That which continues this.