Right winger here, honestly trying to convert...

Soviet Union
Weimar republic

I assume you are American, and I also assume you support parliamentarian democracy, American values, free market and less intervention of the government? Then you are a liberal yourself. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, and overtly so, and has always been since the mid-18th century. Leftists are anti-capitalist.

There were historical circumstances where leftists sided with liberals, against feudal absolutism (such as in the French Revolution or the Bolsheviks with the Cadets in the February Revolution) or against slavery (Marx supporting Lincoln, etc.). Today, in the case of anti-imperialism, leftists might still cautiously side with liberals as an anti-imperialist front, like in Syria, where communists support the rather liberal Assad government.

There are three types of liberalism, right-wing liberalism, classical liberalism and social liberalism. All of them support capitalism. Leftists want to abolish capitalism. Our goals and wordviews are completely incompatible.

It's old Zig Forums stuff, but the bourgeoisie is not acting in their rational self-interest. The accumulation of capital is in itself an ideology.

Such an oversimplification makes your worldview vulnerable when examples of the bourgeoisie not acting in their "rational self-interest" are brought into the field, which happens more than often. I think this mechanistic formula was a direct result out of Zig Forums's Stirner phase, and I'm glad that brainlet meme died.

Attached: b4223ca277c6f7bc36c3c9770a6b96dfda6d622d721fee3600665902fc77704a.jpg (720x960, 122.02K)

Maoists really are the most autistic Marxists jesus fucking christ

Yeah. I mean Marx describes a lot of the issues the bourgeoisie face because of living under capitalism in terms of social relationships and consumption.

Why are you asking here? All bigbrain leftists already left.

Liberals are fine with capitalism as long as they have their bread and circuses, we aren't and want to put an end to nation states, religion, the family unity and private property.

Attached: 04cf04p.jpg (640x355, 44.34K)

Why the family unit doe?

Marxism is a commitment to materialism, from which we derive the empirical likelihood of of the labor theory of value. The labor theory makes it clear that profit is derived from exploitation and therefore removing that exploitation by expropriating the means of production from the relatively recent political economic class of capitalists (who expropriated them from peasants and the aristocracy) and handing everything over to a new working class would be not only humane but practical and efficient. The goal is a new society where the economy is planned by this proletariat through a democratic mechanism: their own state where there are no exploitative classes, where the whole of the population (although still split by certain cultural or intellectual strata) are in the same political economic position. You work and recieve the full value of your labor, and anything which is removed from that labour (such as funds for public services and pensions) is done by your consent.

Marxism in the main (as marx , being a staunch materialist and anti-idealist, would have it) leaves no room for what are considered the petty squabbles of race, sex and nationality. Culture might be of value to individuals and their personal right to it is fine and all, but the key difference between pseudo-socialist reactionaries or nationalists (hitler, Asser, etc.) and Marxists like Lenin is that Marxists put no emphasis on culture as a "natural" or "just" phenomenon (which is an idealist position) and would never legitimize these as state policy. The new working class is an international one and, much like how American cultural fundamentals were promulgated in conjuction with capitalism, a general socialist culture whose character is scientific and internationalist will be necessary to carry out the mission of the socialist state. Liberals and nationalists might think it prudent to stage mass protests and agitate over bathroom usage and and the color of immigrants, but these are not the most pressing issues of the day for Marxists.

In general, this is the program of Marxists:

These are more important than anything else, and anything we work for which does not necessarily correspond to these goals (like support for Palestinian liberation and other forms of anti-imperialism) is meant to contribute toward reaching them in the long term.

Attached: image.jpg (800x676, 224.88K)

It's an opressive social structure that needs to be razed just like the rest. Children must learn from an early age that their family means nothing and they are a part of a collective.

How is a family an oppressive structure? It's literally the foundation for raising children

It's just a shitty social construct that hinders social mobility. Family loyality is a problem that must be overcome if an equal society is to be created. Otherwise some families rule while the others work just as it was under capitalism.

So who raises children?

Good takes, but you need to offer alternatives. Fix the pic in question, for instance…

Ignore the retard
But the real argument for "Who raises children" would be that the whole community does, places of education and learning.

Wow, you must be hated by other Leftcoms.

You are a disgrace to communist standards.

FFS SOMEONE FIX'EM
im on mobile

I like the music in Burzum and Varg is such a meme that you can't really hate him for some of his more despicable views, come on.

ah never mind you meant the pic I quoted, ffs I spend too much time on Twitter where you walk on eggshells

sorry

>>>Zig Forums

Its better than the opposite. The capitalist class is generated by the capitalist system, not the other way around. Killing the pigs but not changing the system will just recreate the same system.

And just do away with the whole concept of mother and father (the people whose very DNA makes up that of their children), as being of minor importance and instead think that just any member of society will care for them as much? Do you not see a slight problem there?

Attached: bam.jpg (1000x745, 70.63K)

This is retarded. Like, beyond retarded.

Not really. Marxism isn't really in the footsteps of the empiricist tradition. see:

The family has little purpose even in capitalism. In feudal political economy, where almost all production was at the domestic and communal level, a familial household made sense as an efficient and healthy unit that produced the goods society needed. Nowadays, by necessity, parents spend much of their time away from children so they can make a living. Children themselves are often expected to spend most of their lives away from their parents working. The need for skilled labor in developed countries where child labor is illegal (through the decades long struggle of working people) makes it necessary that all children be educated and spend even more time away. And it is a great irony that, as much as the right lauds traditional family relations, it is considered grotesque and unhealthy to remain in the family unit past the age of 18, when actual traditional families would simply spend their whole lives together (excluding extraordinary circumstances). It is of course necessary for grown adults to leave their family because capitalism necessitates fluid labor, while peasant economies would keep the same family on the same land for generations.

Do you understand? The family as you conceive it does not even really exist anymore, except in richer households where it is only a cute cultural observation. Families remain only as a social burden that facilitates all sorts of unhealthy behavior (overworked parents turning to alcohol and abusing their children, overlooked children being introduced to gangs as their only meaningful social outlet, etc.) It would be better if we could have industrial communities with proper socialized local facilities (organized by a board of representatives from the local population) where parents could voluntarily leave their children to be educated, get exercise, socialize, and become involved in the community, with the goal of preparing them to join the working class. It would be in some ways similar to how hunter-gatherer or semi-agricultural tribal communities work, with children being raised with the support of the whole community (in this case a representative and vetted body of the community), rather than leaving the whole burden on one or two individuals who already work all day.

Attached: image.jpg (480x480, 98.46K)

I didn't mean to do away with the mother and father, but to do away the idea that the mother or father HAVE to be home and take care of the children.

Tbh I'm actually not sure why I had a left com flag on

That might be the cringiest non-ironic picture I've ever seen on leftypol, Christ, which autist made that?

You must be new.

all Capitalists are bad

We need more female CEO's!

All warmongers should be hanged.

More transgender and WoC child-bombers!

Quality post comrade.

Leftists see the big difference as either "you got it, or you don't got it." Shitlibs see the the big difference as either "you got it, or you don't have 'access' to it."

Attached: f21ddb422580090db19ee135664a57bf3ba0310183c49b5fed7499c4933a60b6.jpg (512x384, 41.72K)

...

no there the return on investment in a risk that the investor or investors took

Investors aren't productive. They have monopoly money that we all are forced to believe has intrinsic value, beyond the paper/linen and ink it is made with.

why would you *want* to convert to something you don't believe in? studying, sure, but wanting to convert? I don't get these
sage for useless

Bruh you're a Lois Lowry villain

trotsky not even once

1. Be a materialist. Materialism means that people behave according to their interests on a physical level and that ideas follow from this. The inverse is idealism, that ideas drive people and shape the world. Marx's first basic insight was to take Hegel's reasoning (which was based on idealism) and "turn Hegel on his head" by putting his approach in a materialist context. Liberals are overwhelmingly idealists who think that we just need to change hearts and minds. Socialists are (or fucking should be) materialists who look for the way the world is structured and how we might change the structure to suit people's interests better.

2. Don't be a cuck. Your interests matter, and society can serve them instead of telling you to subjugate yourself to some "higher authority" whether that's your boss, your president, the cops, or Jesus. Your interests can be met much more efficiently through cooperation and organization than committing to a dumb ideal like individualism (not the same as individuality, or being a unique person, but the idea that you must be self-sufficient rather than part of a community). Don't be caught by attempts to make you feel weak or invalid because you rely on others and others rely on you. Porky desperately wants you to feel isolated and alone so you feel powerless (which you pretty much are if alone) and come crawling to him for tendies.

Pretty much everything else follows from these two things.

Don't listen to him. Just look at the soviet union, how the soviet did shit. We want the same thing but better

yeah that you think DNA has more meaning than productive and healthy children

retard

Ostensibly a leftist is anti capitalist while a liberal is in favor of capitalism by definition, however since leftists often tend to be oversocialized they reproduce liberal ideology and the logic of capital without even realizing it most of the time. Especially when it comes to certain subjects, but I wont name what these subjects are since its bound to derail the thread. You can probably guess if you take the time to think on it though. So what we need is a communist/anti capitalist movement without all the moralfag baggage that comes with leftism, at least in my opinion.

Attached: eHCktoARGh0dHA6Ly9vY2RuLmV1L25ld3N3ZWVrLXdlYi9kYTQ1NjljMS1iYjUwLTQ2YWMtOWYxNC0yZTBlMGU4ZWZjOTUuanBnkZMCAM0CvA.jpg (587x700, 81.11K)

underrated post

also op, read more. we got the reading list for more info on that

Attached: daf433206125e22694e827b5182644a15bd89939ecf8e4e2086330c2945b2057.jpg (721x1596 950.39 KB, 626.54K)

tfw too intelligent leftist

l*berals

That image needs to be updated tbh

Just fucking start with Kapital, it's only hard for the first 100 pages.

20 YARDS OF LINEN

Attached: dont know that feel.jpg (655x833, 52K)

There is nothing anarcuck about believing that the family unit as we know it won't survive the transition of socialism. It's a basic marxist take. We shouldn't "abolish family bcuz it's oppressive", but it will for sure change, likely towards more communal child-rearing.

"S-socialism is just communal ownership of MoP, family and all the other stuff I like under capitalism will stay the same :)" is an undialectic and counterrevolutionary take.

Eastern Bloc family relations were heaven and earth compared to tsarist Russia and contemporary capitalist countries, with gender egalitarianism and communal socialization of children (Young Pioneers etc). Future socialism will be as progressive to the current family unit as Soviet socialism was back then, if not more

Attached: 2a346845fbf9a750d4755909b88e7378a169a14a.png (680x684, 330.72K)

Who fucking cares about children? Just don't make them.

Here sir, you dropped this

Attached: 24d.jpg (500x375, 42.72K)

ah, the whole gang is here

Attached: adams.jpg (634x961, 797.8K)

Don't start with Capital, it does not really explain Marxist philosophy much at all, because it is primarily an economic analysis.
Start with the Manifesto, Gotha Programme, some Engels and Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Basically check these out:

Then read Capital when you feel like you have an understanding of dialectical materialism and Marxist practice.

JFMSU

Attached: 19c3f2cb197e4e29f764a8bd3dd86209b5dfb2066bae247961eda871f49fbf71.png (1572x1072 36.38 KB, 201.9K)

cringe

Oh, yes. procreate and procreate again, please bring other slaves to porky and become more of a slaves yourself.

Imagine being this retarded

imagine being so retarded that your only argument is "you are retarded"

no, I have more
see

What about it did you think was cringy?

...

ayy Imao
No they weren't.
Taking a trip to former Eastern Block countries should be mandatory on this board.

why are you trying to "convert", is it just because it is easier being a leftist? Do you feel that it is safer?

this

they were
not comparing today eastern europe with the SU and its socialist allies should be something even a brainlet like you can understand

I posted that and I live in an eastern bloc country. Two decades of capitalism and brutal re-spooking have taken their toll, comparing those countries in the now to them under socialism is idiotic

my family is eastern european as well
just during the 90s alone so much changed for the worse so drastically only a fucking moronic murritard would talk shit like that

Google Bookchin

Attached: 14264105_143302916123882_728993539593802303_n.jpg (960x960, 101.27K)

ONE COAT

Rampant alcoholism and sky high suicide rate isn't what I'd call "ideal background for families".
The shit this board accused the contemporary capitalist countries, was just as characteristic for the Eastern Block if not more.

get fucked, because I'm Eastern European as well

This shit skyrocketed in the 90s. What are you talking about?

Pic related, suicides in Russian SFSR/Russian Federation and alcohol consumption in USSR/Russia respectively. Note how Stalin was so evil the KGB would break into your house and stop you from hanging yourself (only to holodomor you in a gulag afterwards) lmao

Attached: 0e513339cc16bab1dfada3410f551e5c.jpg (1145x773 70.89 KB, 345.49K)

shitlibs only care if you're a black trans faggot or a white male. in their deluded world view 'socialist' and 'revoltuionary' are synonymous wtih 'feminist' 'POC' and 'anti-racist' and there is little debate on such a topic.

real socialists don't give a fuck about these things and really only care whether you support capitalism or not, as that is what breeds all of the other issues libs pretend to care about.

another one is libs are massive pussies that can't stand to debate people they disagree with. they are anti gun and put shit like 'swipe left if ur X' on their tinder profile. they are intellectually weak to the point where they "literally can't even" around people that threaten their views.

Attached: d1b7e84c5981e1fe0aa6c00067a31e615d60815b.png (780x1200, 760.06K)

Did you seriously think these graphs supported your argument?

but what if… making coat quicker now??????

lol you're historically ignorant

shitlibs believe in democracy and human rights laws.

they chose Hillary as their candidate and then followed through with a tone deaf campaign
It was almost as if they wanted Trump to win anyway, and i'm including Hillary in the 'they', Hillary chose to even name Alex Jones during the campaign, and he was just sitting there laying into her with accusations which she never addressed. Call him a shill, expose him, do whatever, but don't just direct people to go and listen to him.
How much censorship do they think they can deploy to stop anything real being said again. Fools errand. It's becoming a fools errand for Trump too, at least in my opinion, that admin keeps fucking around with staged events they're playing with fire.

That is a sloppy try, faggot.
Once redpilled there is no way to turning back.

Attached: you.jpeg (1024x576, 79.52K)

just stick to fixing the economics, and don't sweat people's personal life you authoritarian faggot.

literally everything in society is a social construct. language is a social construct. school is a social construct. labor theory is a social construct. shut the fuck up about muh social construct as if that's an excuse for dismissing something of value just because you don't like it.

ankiddies pls go home

The only way forward, after being redpilled, is NAZBOL.

Attached: DIE DAUGHTER.jpg (266x190, 21.8K)

This is ideology speaking.

Read The Merchant of Venice, the Sermon on the Mount, and The Grapes of Wrath instead of wasting your time with this theory shit.

All you need to know is that Marxism is said to be materalist because it uses facts about wage and labour to determine that workers are insufficiently paid (exploited) by their capitalist employers, and that there shall one day come a proletarian revolution, eventually classes being abolished afterwards.
What's the difference between leftism and liberalism?
Liberalism sees lots of problems in society, but the capitalist system is not one of them. Leftism sees capitalism and labour relations as the root of all problems in society.
There's lots of other interpretations of this shit, but they're too similar to actually point out the specific differences between them unless you're actually interested in them.
For a brief introduction to this subject, read The Communist Manifesto and Wage, Labour, and Capital.
After that, don't go any further. Everything beyond these two works is worth reading only for people who seriously want to indoctrinate themselves into this.

literal schizophrenia

Funny you should say that becasue (and this is pulled out my ass from observation in various places) this seems to be a trend on the left, any person who invariably talks about familial relations this way ends up being a schizo, I wonder if there is some kind of commonality among schizophrenic marxists that lends to similar views

reading non-fiction books.

Attached: 07mIjeC.jpg (720x550, 53.06K)

I hate to bump this old thread, but as an ex-Zig Forums user who now considers themself a socialist, how do you guys explain all the jews in positions of power?
I don't really think jews have a secret agenda to destroy western society, because obviously ethnic groups are not a hivemind. Is it just ethnic nepotism like you see everywhere else?
How do you determine what is and isn't true that is shown in the media? I know a bit about the history of Edward Bernays, and I find that really interesting.
Relating to that, how do you know what statistics, news articles, and historical records are true?
Is black lives matter bullshit?
Why in the absolute fuck are the rich destroying everything? When it comes to stuff like climate change, if we don't fix it, we will die, correct? Does that not include them? I imagine to fix the problems with energy, climate change, and wasted food, they would have to stop their industry. But why would they rather kill everyone, including themselves than give up some of their money/power to save all of humanity, including themselves.

Attached: 9ed8218356627b4d5fc2e74fa2a0a7097f587f31b3e805051b6500628a121e99.png (550x417, 174.58K)