Give me your pills

Thank you, and I agree with the webm. We find that democracy is not a viable solution to anything because the removal of the baselines of a common cultural narrative (i.e religion or monarchy) allows the alien forces of crony capitalism to proliferate mass culture. The solution is therefore a totalitarian state where the cultural narrative is solidified by the state.

The internet was a mistake.
Political philosophy is not a fucking game and your dumb assertions are not arguments. I hope your mum bans you from the computer.

Political Philosophy is a fucking meme, now get me to believe otherwise. The point was to shift me from being an evil "racialist" to being "outstanding revolutionary", just to prove if it can be done, and you're proving to me it can't be done.

And here is is the problem with asking for simple explanations for complex theories, because you then respond with something a bit more complex, which would have been answered if you had just read the books.

If you can’t be bothered with books, here’s some videos that cover the basics.
youtu.be/eGOA2WedIQo
youtu.be/6P97r9Ci5Kg
youtu.be/Hb6dXR6AfXE

You can also watch this video
youtu.be/LtlZys7QOO4
And check out this channel
youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ
To join Cockshott Gang

In response to what you said, your thinking is flawed at its basics because you are stuck inside an idealist intellectual framework, you need materialism, son. There is no need to maintain some “cultural narrative” because the foundation of human society is not culture, but economics.

Attached: 2CD45079-547E-46E2-BE1C-B72BE7959A55.jpeg (262x256, 25.63K)

Whoops, posted picture for ants.

Attached: 3C641FAC-0DAF-4848-8144-17C7B008EA69.jpeg (612x600, 78.12K)

Alright you're right, I'll stop memeing and post what I have. But like pointed out, "explain your entire political theory, history, and practice to me in less than three sentences", alternatively "explain your entire political theory, history, and practice to me in less than three .jpg's" is still a fucking stupid way to go about this.

Attached: slavoj althusser.jpg (468x613 916.22 KB, 142.46K)

Attached: michael_parenti_on_cuban_revolution.mp4 (426x240, 11.91M)

The history of human society is the history of class struggle.
Class struggle changes as different dominant modes of production give rise to different social and economical conditions.
Thus the ruling class changes. In Slavery you have slave owners, in Feudalism you have feudal lords and in Capitalism you have capitalists.
Each of these modes of production is progressive in its conception but becomes a burden to society as a whole once it reaches its highest stage.
We proclaim that capitalism is now in its highest stage, monopoly capitalism and is thus a barricade to socioeconomic progress.
Any attempt to reform capitalism will regress and fail in the end, wether that means a welfare state, free market, corporatism or anything in-between.

Attached: F924246C-FF70-4D56-ADDE-6DC54B643DD2.jpeg (640x820 319.97 KB, 140.2K)

Now we are getting somewhere.

You are right. It happens to be that I do not support capitalism, and in actuality, I despise it. Capitalism, outside of the ideal "metaphysics" (inner critic manifest) or whatever its called, it almost always evolves into Cronyism because there is no solidity of common cultural narrative.

Perfectly said, the third one. True individuality is done in a caveman society because there are no markings of property, no papers distinguishing this and that. Fight and kill for a stick.

Attached: parenti right side wrong side.webm (400x276, 15.52M)

Wew lad.

The problem with the Communist is that, as stated by a poster earlier above, "I am a right winger because I want to preserve culture you want to destroy", inferring that Left-wingers or whatever you people call yourselves want to destroy the culture I want to preserve. It is the fault of our anti-communist societies by stating "They want to do violence" or whatever instead of out-right showing what they are for, "for the revamping of the social order and for the de-construction of these values we've had".

Can't you see? The anarcho-primitivist society IS the advanced society!

Attached: parenti_communism_did_work_for_millions_of_people.webm (640x480, 5.56M)

And this is why you need to read a book, you need to get your head out of that idealism. There is no ideal, metaphysical capitalism that exists or existed prior to real capitalism. Capitalism is a real, living system and what you regard as “corruption” is merely part and parcel with its development as a really-existing living system, and it will behave the way it does regardless of the “cultural narrative”. Indeed, it will shape the cultural narrative, as it does now.

Attached: F3662346-BD33-470B-9569-E2A0B869E3B6.mp4 (640x360, 11.32M)

We don’t give a shit about your “values”, what we are concerned with is the real material conditions and relations that undergird our society.

Watch the videos I linked you.

The values of each society are determined by its composition and relationships.
In Athenian Democracy, slavery was something very moral, regarded as the natural order, etc.
In many monarchies, having a King was moral, due to his divine right/bloodline.
Today, owning any and all amounts of private property is moral, without considering the impact this has on society.

How can you then claim that there's certain constant values in society "the left" is out to destroy?

Well why we should is easy. In short, capitalism wastes human talent. I'm phone posting so I cannae go into depth but remember 2008? How many well trained professionals with socially useful skills did you see out of work? I saw engineers, computer scientists, laywers ect. all on the dole because some bankers played silly buggers. Such a system deserves to have its shit kicked in.
As for if we can: well "muh hooman naturé" comes up a lot, but humans aren't naturally selfish or predatory (towards other people) or combatative. We are at our fundimentality one thing: self interested. This is neither a positive or negative trait, merely one bound by our enviroment. In nature it leads us to form cooperative tribes to ensure our self interest is maintained through cooperation with others that do the same. A socialist society should be designed to repeat such activity: make it in the rational self interest to cooperate, to avoid mutal combatitivness, and to build the collective while maintaining thenself. I am no utopian, however if it can exist in actual nature, it can be constructed in civilisation.
So yeah, in the end, socialism for me is self interest: when useful people are working it betters my life, so we should coordinate economic activity to ensure that.

everything you're saying is a definition. I also noticed the fact that in the "clash between culture and power", a black man and a woman are fighting. These people had power?

Anyways, there is an "ideal" capitalism that exists in peoples heads, and the basic concept of it: "Goods and services exchanged for currency, and the currency being used for that". Just as one could say there is no ideal, metaphysical communism that existed.

That's the thing. We aren't in the middle of "Leftists trying to destroy us!", the process is over, and the Soviet Union died before they could even witness the success they achieved.
I don't get why people think we're in a constant state of battle, as if the battle is "never over". The battle is over, and the Left already destroyed it.

We forgot our past, present, and future tenses.

scots, innit?

Perfectly summed up. You are correct.

Also, what are the "real material conditions" that undergird "our" society. What level of society? A Global level? National level? Personal level? Yes, there are these things happening, and this is the result of the mixing-up of cultural narrative and the crony capitalists that we have allowed to proliferate our culture. The solution is easy and simple, requires no wide-scale, red-bannered "revolution". All you need are a couple of censors, or better yet, total control of the media.

Maybe this will help.

Attached: 1528921918602.jpg (847x2086, 751.22K)

No, its really not that simple.
When the current controllers of the media, the bourgeoisie also control whole countries through multinational companies, controlling the media is far more difficult than you seem to understand.

What exactly did the "Left" (there's no united front called the Left in reality) destroy?

I am not sure what type of response you are expecting to get besides "Who makes up the MAJORITY of these multi-national bourgeoisie?". That's what I mean, the "Left" or whoever already won. As much as you don't like it, they have control over everything, and if they considered you communists a legitimate threat (Had you the power to overthrow them), they would instate a controlled opposition, like in the Soviet Union.

You already know what they destroyed. Foundations of things like Womens Rights, NAMBLA, Gay Rights, similar movements of the 70s that branded the entire decade with Hedonism, then getting "mad" when a neocon controlled op "reversed all their amazing progress" just to prevent legitimate "revolutions".

They could have if they were bourgeois, but this is more about people consenting to bourgeois rule when they aren’t bourgeois themselves.

Yes, but you see that’s simply an abstraction, and a propagandistic one at that, since it focuses entirely on the brief realm of equality within a capitalist system, the equal access to the open market, rather than the mode of production and distribution.

Correct. To quote Marx,

to do that i'd first have to make sure we have a common understanding of leftism and leftist ideology.

Zig Forums isn't better at making memes, they just are memes

Attached: 0f03eed64b3f3885d3cf1f19d299296d873a686f039316d7ff2810e4673f25fb.png (1444x1006, 2.74M)

Man, they couldn't just wait for technology to get better then, huh?

Ideally, the people should consent to the bourgeois due to the threat of invading forces that threaten to shake up the social order, but when a "bourgeois" ruler already is negligent of his own people, of course they will be friendly to foreign ideologies, and he's already failed that.

Therefore, we find that communism is the cause of incompetent rulers and negligent richfolk. Fuck, the things they did wrong.

Isn't that the meme from /bant/?

what absolute bullshit

Economics and the natural world.

Every level. Every level of our society, every level of our society is undergirded by material conditions and relations.

No, this has nothing to do with cultural narratives. This is how our system works as as a living system, it’s dialectics.

see, that's the difference between us and you
you want to believe
we study
this is why you want to be spoonfed easily digestable memes that entertain you rather than actually reading and getting a firm grasp of things

you are pathetic and honestly you should kill yourself, but you wont, you are just too fucking retarded to even acknowledge how much an insult your existence is to humanity itself

this

leftism has nothing to do with reconstruction values and social norms. It's about material conditions.

Look at you, seizing upon a tiny little word which you in fact knew the meaning behind, but choosing to believe the alternative simply for the sake of scandal. I am sorry that I don't want to replace whatever is left of my culture with red banners and monuments to a guy with a fucking printing press. I also do not owe anything to this bitch-ass "humanity", that shit should all die if it's retarded enough to have different ideas. I also notice that because you can't get me to "study" otherwise, you resort to this. Quite pathetic of you, actually.

Then you've got it all wrong.

So, you believe there's some form of clandestine world government controlling every single country in the world, and these people are "the Left", they both controlled the US and the USSR somehow.

You should actually go read, there's no way we can discuss this and get either of us to change their position.

The fuck are you on about? The proletariat have no common interest with the bourgeoisie. If anything, they should stand in solidarity with their fellow proletarians of all nations against bourgeois rule.

says the guy who doesn't like to read.

...

Oh, I made a mistake. They weren't "The left". "The Left" is a clear umbrella term used to catch-all subversives that were the tools of this "one-world government". You see, this "one world government" that we talk about so much is the result of Capitalism. It's why we despise Capitalism. It lead to this one-world government of those "board of directors" and everyone further up the ladder, and it's something I'm not sure you're aware of.

Of course the uneducated plebeian would do something so ignorantly. Why do they care and how did they all turn into sudden ideological intellectuals that believe "I don't owe anything to the bourgeoisie! I am the commune! It's not like some commissars are gonna seize power and!-"

Superstructure must be fundamentally reformed in order to allow the ideology to even come into question.

Most of the bourgeoisie are liberals if they’re not full blown reactionaries. They’re certainly not leftists.

The USSR wasn’t controlled opposition, have you seen what the people in power thought of the USSR? How they reacted to it? You don’t fund a massive counterrevolution to your controlled opposition and then follow it up with an invasion of 14 different countries including four great powers (Britain, France, the United States and Japan) in its fledgling state.

You should pick up a book on the actual history of the USSR, because it’s clear you don’t understand how shit actually went down.

You're someone I can get. Finally, a person who takes self interest and the others into factor. Modern capitalism is what we are against, and the problem is that they have already "succeeded".

I forgot to say that it was a revolution transformed into controlled opposition that was able to shake the control of with Stalin and his successors.

That is literally how it happened. There is no such thing as "grass-roots revolution" or a "people's fight". It ends up either being at the interests of a few people that coordinated the uprising, or it transforms into controlled opposition.

Stalin wasn’t controlled opposition, neither were his successors.

There's no world government. There are very small minorities(bourgeoisie) that partly control parts of the world. You can't say for example that while the EU and USA have aligned interests, they are not absolutely controlled by the same bourgeoisie.

can* say

That's what I'm saying. Stalin threw off the controlled opposition, and maybe Gorbachev was the controlled opposition designed to intentionally end the USSR before it could actually implement a communist society in the West.

Read a book. I know you don’t want to, but it’s necessary.

The history of the Soviet Union cannot be understood outside of the context of a country that was under siege culturally, militarily and economically right from its birth until its death. There have been plenty of movements that stuck more closely with these lovely peaceful, liberal-democratic principles. They were all crushed. Only the USSR and countries modeled on it survived. Why? Because only through a vanguard and a powerful workers’ state could you resist the immediate and unending onslaught from capitalist, imperialist powers.

that might be your means of achieving socialism but those are not it's goals.

Ah, then in that case, I already know. In certain ways, I admire and respect the USSR, not for being a "powerful workers state", that's a given but there's much debate on that, but how it is a model for how to successfully run a country and destroy your enemies. In the frame of "History happened", the USSR is clearly the superior state, but what is annoying is the communists overseas trying to implement ideologies that will, in the modern context of those disgusting "peace and liberalism" ideologies, could never take form. Ideologies, no matter how right, how potent, will simply never take form, as much as you convince the ones willing to give up their insecurity for ideology. We are in the context of liberal democracy, the ultimate result of capitalism, where dialectics and everything you love and use to explain communism have no value.

Alas, the point in this board is to debate ideology, regardless of this truth that ideology as much as it is debated has no value due to dominant cultural context. But you are right.

I also think that this idealism you accuse us of having is the result of a simple hatred of materialism. We don't want our lives to be material, we don't like any of these, so of course we are right in rejecting those that want us to change. You can say that this is wrong or this is the divide, but this is an eternal truth that people don't want to be told that their ideals have no meaning. People want Ideals, and so they will stick to the notions of nation and culture, things that give them pride. For them, Feel equates to real.

This thread seemed to have us only meet at close ends. Maybe I was the idiot. It was good talking, though.

...

Attached: DESU.png (432x346, 144.05K)

I recommend watching Noam.Chomsky's lectures on Anarcho-Syndicalism since you're a normie, or in fact any Chomsky lecture tbh, if you want proper red pills regarding the media, watch Chomsky's lectures on manufacturing consent and propaganda

Attached: 1449724724335.gif (292x400, 395.31K)

What you are describing is left wing Liberals, not communists. We also reject their childish conception of reality.

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

Materialism as a philosophical concept means that the material comes first and ideas follow. In contrast idealism means that ideas come first and the material follows.

it figures

Good rec comrade

Imagine how many books poor user would have to read in succession if everyone listed one.
If you were smart you could extract what's essential to a point and condense that into something memeable

absolutely.

I don't get how this guy has any legitimacy to what he says, considering he's a fucking linguist. same with that Alinsky dude, he was a fucking archaeologist but he went into ideology.

Left wing liberals and you. Your rejection of their reality is an ideology. We are in the context of a liberal democracy, and it is evident in the media that is being forcefully handed to us, the capitalism that allowed this to happen. Capitalism is the purest manifestation of "Nobody is wrong, and nobody is right", and so is Libdem, of course they will co-exist. Liberal Democracy is a superstructural pass for Capitalist economics to take place.

And on the meaning of materialism; but as a practical concept, it means removing religion and culture from the mix. I see many threads with "Class > Race" as their gist with "Race and cultures are divide and conquer spooks for the proletariat!" as their basis. We don't want this. We want our race and culture, we want our ideas. This is what divides us.

Like the great Bezmenov said (along these lines)
"A person can be tall, handsome, but absolutely naive. Another person can be short, bald, but clever."

*to fit my interests:
"tall, mighty, intellectual, but absolutely naive"

Idealism is the philosophical concept that consciousness begets reality, and indeed that reality is a reflection of consciousness.

Materialism is the philosophical concept that material reality begets consciousness, and consciousness is thereby shaped by material reality.

You're right. We don't want our lives to be shaped by material reality, especially when we hate material reality. Ideal reality is an escape from the pain that material reality inflicts, so you cannot blame them when the pain is so severe that it causes an entirely different form of reality to be established.

These two co-exist. Ideal reality can shape the material reality into being practically in-sync with the superstructure. Is this what Communism seeks to do?

youtube.com/watch?v=1-U5O7HCt0A

Attached: 1344595981562.jpg (5000x4500, 3.44M)

There is no such thing as ideal reality. There is only material reality and abstractions within human minds, also subjected to material reality.

And people don't "choose" idealism because it's somehow more appealing. It's the default interpretation of reality because it serves the material interests of class society, and is thus a worldview that is actively pushed, whereas materialism has tended to be the philosophy of radicals.

People have personal reasons that default them towards idealism, just as the individual forms the basis of the collective (class society). Modern society transforms the philosophical concept of materialism that yes, was of radicals, into another form of idealism. Different groups based around materialism sliding into isolation, leading to idealism. The majority is naturally inclined towards idealism, and so the idealist mindset sinks into the pockets of materialists.

Basically, among you communists are real radicals, but the majority of you are idealists that trick themselves into thinking they're materialists.

Therefore, idealism can serve multiple interests, and not just the interests of the class society. Or maybe it does, in some in-frame loop-basis. If the people wish to believe in the idealist mindset that continues the class society, so it shall be, but it must also be acknowledged that it is inevitable for the materialist radical who wishes to change the idealist society. It has happened, so no further discussion outside of groups such as these is warranted.

Class society, too, is a construct of this materialist reality. Was there no materialist at the top that facilitated the functioning of this class? If humanity evolved towards this class society, who has the jurisdiction to say it is wrong? But who also has the jurisdiction to say it is right?

So, what is your solution to all these problems capitalism causes?

Ideally, instate a regime of any kind. Clerico-nationalist, Stalinian Totalitarianism, whatever that isn't capitalism/democracy (It goes without saying that they both equate to each other). Something similar to what you'd say.

Realistically, however; absolutely nothing. We can do nothing really, mainly because any movement that legitimately threatens the capitalists-up-top will turn into controlled opposition. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, we are on the way to redemption through degeneration and eventually our destruction. From an atheist perspective, we wait for this society to collapse or whatever, I'm not sure. I'd leave the atheistic solution to you.

Never watch the video, always read the comments. Apparently some shit about how you get ugly and your face muscles shift if you mouth breathe.

No, not really. Because someone has 10 slaves doesn't mean that he is a materialist.

There's no wrong or right, might makes right. In our current societal development, the subject class, the proletariat has a way and the interest to take control of society. It doesn't need to be objectively moral, it is right for us.

Now you're catching my drift. See, your might makes right, and our might makes right. It's a constant circle. The limited diversity of information and the abundance of it proves an obstacle to your proletariat, now what do you do?

Now the thread is dead. This thread was a therapy session.

Capitalism is a system built on internal contradictions that undermines itself. The proletariat will come to oppose it because it is in their interest to do so, and if conditions now won't prompt the proletariat to overthrow their masters, deteriorating conditions into the future will.

Yeah, of course any system that there ever was justified itself in one way or the other. However ideology and belief can't maintain anything if the material reality is against it. It doesn't matter how truly a slave master believes in his system, when the material reality keeps "reminding" the slave that his position is unfavorable to him.

We live in an age of mass misinformation and liberal propaganda, that's true. The economic crisis will only get worse. Methods of building revolution are being tried by different movements and people around the world, if any of them is successful I'm sure we'll find out.

That will be perfect. Make it a reality. The topic of Race between us is something that can be overlooked, but I hope this will help you. Sometimes I relapse into states where I forget entirely what I'm debating for.

Attached: wl4Isix.jpg (650x396 189.87 KB, 44.32K)

the 3rd pic is all you really need to understand it

The first quote is by Gregor Asser, it is misattributed to Hitler to slander Marxism.
The second you can keep, it is a caricature of socialism.

Gregor Asser*

Gregor Asser
wtf is going on?

Why can't I write str + asser?

word filter

Why would they filter that name tho

youtube.com/watch?v=UY98EypmH7k&bpctr=1533394071

To make fun of the people who keep trying to push that ideology here.

Who has already succeeded at what? There is no final victory, no final defeat, only the same fight fought over and over again. t. Tony Benn.

you're fucking kidding yourself

Wasn't there a documentary about this?

came back to check on thread
I bet he believes in civic nationalism.

If there was, I didn't watch it. By the way, I keep hearing talk about "spook this" and how polacks "refuse to give up spooks". If we refuse to give them up, no matter what, no matter all this "evidence", does this mean we're right?

No that means that you are brainlets and classcucks who need internet personalities to command you around

Again, you provide nothing to refute the idea. One person with enough gall could say that you guys levitate towards these "spooks", since it's natural that people find security in their groups.

A bit of a context-wise edit towards the end of this post, but it's enough to get the gist. "Class", etc, are indeed, problems, but they are problems that need corruption laws and a bit of "human rights violations".

Attached: 1529206189634.png (984x1414, 149.48K)