Hello leftypol. I'm your average working class man, your average Joe, john smith etc. etc. Now, I'm not a fascist myself, but I find their arguments much more convincing/beneficial than yours. To me it seems that the fascists are And will leave me alone as long as I don't fuck with them. Meanwhile it seems lefties are anti-nation and anti-religion and won't leave me alone. Now I can help my neighbour if need be, but my wish is just to be left alone. How do you answer this? If I'm wrong please correct me. And let's not even start talking about the neo-libs/neo-cons (I don't think anyone of us likes them)
Going to start answering questions/start arguing in a couple of hours once I'm back home. Feel free to start without me.
Fascists use and invert religion for their own purposes as opportunists. They are in reality nihilists. Pro Nation? Then why do they want to impose a oppressive ideology on their fellow countrymen? Wrong. Fascists are control freaks. Leftists think Rightists i.e neolibs are in power and Rightists think Leftists i.e neolibs are in power. In reality the 'democratic' process is a fraud and the differences between parties are superficial at best. Porky always wins anyway.
This is not a concrete goal which can be achieved through politics, it's just a fantasy. It also sounds to me like you're arguing in bad faith and hiding your latent fascism. But let's cut the crap and go from fantasy to reality. What does reaction have to offer you in terms of quality of life and not "religion" and "family"? Is the rule of landlords and capitalists over workers healthy for you and are the people who actually point out this problem preventing you from living a comfy life of servitude? No one here likes these stooges. We are unapologetic communists and progressives of the kind Zig Forums conflates us with will be treated as the wreckers they are just like Marx and Lenin did.
something something those who don't move don't notice their chains
Wrong. Socialism and national pride are fully compatible (as Lenin and Stalin et al. have repeatedly written about), it is just different from bourgeois nationalism. Internationalism is not the same as rootless cosmopolitanism, either.
When Marx said "the proletariat has no country" he meant that there exists no country where power has been seized by the proletariat, not that we should le abolish nations or some shit like that. Observe historical socialist countries and all of them were quite patriotic.
Now, some time into the socialist future countries will indeed die off. But that merely means there will be no state anywhere as we know it. National traditions and cultures will very likely survive.
Also wrong. We just believe religion will eventually die off as unnecessary, but for the time being we are pro-freedom of conscience. Historical anti-religious campaigns in Soviet Russia and elsewhere were necessary because the Church openly sabotaged and waged war against the proletarian state. Nowadays militant atheism is unnecessary.
You have a bit of a strawman-tier understanding of our ideology.
What do you mean with fascists leaving you alone? Fascism is totalitarian and their ideology is like the epitome of the supposed strong leadership dictating every aspect of culture and society. Historically, fascism is basically just what happens when leftism is popular and capital can't provide an answer to the problems arising from the material conditions people are suffering from. Like I don't get why this is such a concern to you, leftists historically and in present politics almost unanimously vote against giving advanced surveillance tools to the state and law enforcement. When people talk about the KGB's or stasi's mass surveillance you have to realize that the current reality is significantly more panoptic and pervasive in nature, and the justification almost always relies on the fact that we need more surveillance because of the threat of terror and safety.
So in conclusion; you have right-wingers and fascist parties wanting more surveillance yet you are under the idea that the communists are the ones who don't want to "leave you alone"?
I don't remember what Rafiq wrote about this, but I know what Lenin did:
Ryder Ramirez
OP here
I guess what I'm asking is what does communism/socialism has to offer to ME please define what you mean, quality of life can mean different things to different people.
so how is Nationalism compatible with internationalism? by nationalism I mean that a Nation (a people) are their own masters and don't have to bow down to another people (Imperialism) like in the USSR (or modern russia too) where multiple people (Nations) are united under one country. In regards to religion what about the "opium quote" then? And please explain how the church "waged war" against the state.
I have yet to see a single anti-surveillance political party (maybe libertarians but meh)
I agree, Hitler was a retard, most of what you listed was a direct cause of him and his stupid war. And after the war fascism barely existed.
So he does support the independence of nations. but why did they invade several countries then? and still occupied and oppressed several nations (like The ukrainians) Seems to me like he said one thing and did another
You will always have to make compromises with people who disagree with you user. Stepping into a common federation is the best way to arrange this.
Jaxon Roberts
Not being a disposable asset for the ruling class? measurable quality of life like working conditions, clean air, good and available healthcare etc. not shit like having a white neighbour instead of a non-white one
4 hour workday. It can be a thing we just need to organize our production forces properly and make good use lf automation.
No countries can survive on their own in the modern world. Not a single one has all the natural resources available inland. A communist world would aim to distribute the resouces in a way all nations or cultural regions (since modern nations are complete fabrications, and most of them don't have a clear common history prior to unification) could have good living standards. This would efectivelly end imperialism in the whole world. Local cultures which are the only valuable thing in nationalism can survive and evolve as long as the locals want.
Lincoln Cruz
Look at how your local leftist party(assuming you're not American) are voting, anti-surveillance remains one of the things that the far left is against. I'm personally member of political party that is far-left and my party has voted against it consistently.
This. The biggest union in my country supports the anti-surveillance struggle while rightists support it cause "muh terrorism"
Jace Hughes
What American leftist party supports the fucking surveillance state? I think that's pretty much universal.
Dominic Richardson
What American leftist party wasn't created by the surveillance state?
Jose Lopez
Yeah but Americans don't have leftist parties and when Americans talk about "left-wing" they refer to the democrat party so I wanted to avoid that stuff.
Daniel Gonzalez
You should actually look up COINTELPRO sometime and how they actually operated instead of persisting in paranoiac delusions where American alphabet soup organizations are basically Satan.
America has leftist parties. They aren't big, but they have them.
Cameron Bennett
Proletarian Internationalism means you want socialist revolution to eventually succeed everywhere. It doesn't mean you shouldn't take pride in your nation's achievements and traditions etc.
The USSR wasn't imperialistic, it was a proletarian superstate and its constituent SSRs had broad political and cultural autonomies.
In Russia, Spain and elsewhere the Church directly sponsocommunists and agitated people to oppose Socialism. In other places religion sided with the revolutionaries (like in Latin America), and received support.
These countries were liberated from international capital and willingly applied to be given equal status in a federation. The USSR wasn't the Russian Empire
America has fbi honey pots, liberals and their most radical sect are soc-dems.
Ryan Murphy
Lol you think America has legit leftist movements?
Hunter King
All of that is provided by the current system, (at least in my country)
any federation quickly becomes a competition for the resources available. the different peoples will be arguing that THEIR people need the resources the most, it won't work. people will divide among racial/ethnic lines instead of arguing politics. A homogeneous society has no need of race-based politics unlike in multicultural federations like the USA
well, I'm not sure what my local communists have to say about surveillance. now that I think of it there exists only one truly anti-surveillance party, The Pirate Party. but I'll have to check
lol LMAO but if I may play the devils advocate and take your post seriously, why did the countries want independence then? let me guess, they were infiltrated and allied with capital due to glasnost etc. etc.
They didn't. The disbandment of the USSR was carried out by the elites. The people were overwhelmingly against
Jaxon Parker
and there is literally nothing whatsoever to improve?
Parker Jones
Why do you treat this as people being a hivemind If the USSR didn't have support from the locals, it would have never succeeded in spreading the revolution in those places.
It's like you see life as a video game where each nation is controlled by a player and everyone thinks and feels the same.
James Howard
No Area under the Control the USSR Militarily and / or Territorily was treated as an occupied territory with the Exception of the East-German states During and immediately after ww2 Any Land Annexed by the USSR during Military Conflicts such as the Baltic / Moldavia / Kurils / East-Prussia / Karelia etc were treated the same as any other part of the Soviet Nation
Michael Bailey
What organizations do you think are COINTELPRO?
Yes. The US isn't so Orwellian that literally everything is the secret doing of the state.
Easton Scott
The reason for that is that people in the first world benefit from cheap labor or outright slavery in the third world, and (at this point in time) deal with none of the consequences, such as pollution on a massive scale, famine, and unsafe working conditions.
Aiden Long
Immediate payout and long term benefits in material terms. Couldn't give a fuck about your religion or nation, fag.
You would receive full compensation, in terms of the labor you contribute at work, in the form of money. You would then be able to be part of the democratic process which determines your income tax and how that tax income is (or isn't) used for various public services. The result is a fairly massive expansion in terms of quality of life and income.
SPUSA is totally irrelevant minus it's heritage (used to be the original socialist party of America that ran Eugene debs and Norman Thomas), but they actually have a surprisingly decent platform:
Bentley Mitchell
Well if that's the case then name some of these supposed leftist groups you think are cool.
What good has hyper-nationalism done for anyone? No one is telling you to hate your country (as in its people, the government is a different story), your cultural heritage, ancestors or anything like that. It’s funny though, while supporting capitalism is the most anti-nation position possible. Globalism is the product of capitalism and the creator of mass immigration, amalgamations like the EU, you name it. I think religion does more harm than good but personally I think rigid secularism is the way to go. Attempting to “abolish” religion would likely create more problems than it would solve. I do think, however, that reactionary / barbaric beliefs and practices should be attacked and not respected because it is “muh religion”
Also lmao @ fascists “just leaving you alone” if you don’t fuck with them
Gabriel Murphy
-Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
The idea that fascism as a political regime is bent on 'leaving you alone' is an absurd fabrication. You would be regarded with utmost suspicion for antisocial activity and be legally persecuted for it. You would be taxed without representation. You would have your income determined explicitly and legally by profit seeking corporations which are allowed to participate in government more than citizens. You would have no legal recourse over people of higher position who commit crimes against you. You would have no say in the the use of tax income. Your personal life would be under constant scrutiny.
It's true that some of these things (particularly in regard to secret police work and security operations) might be said of some historical socialist republics at different periods, but recall that none of these republics actively incorporated them into their ideology and that these injustices, wherever they were found, were met with scrutiny and protest not just by citizens but also by the parties themselves, the constant subject of political struggle. They were never lauded or enshrined in the constitution or made to be enforced indefinitely and never carried out to such a vigorous and unappealable extent.
Parker Allen
OP, whether you are genuine or not, i'll take you at face value
I was in a similar situation myself when i was young, i wasn't so much pro-nation, but i had strong catholic belief to a certain degree (attended mass every Sunday, and tried to attend confession on a semi-regular basis) to me then as I was first entering the work force, it made perfect sense to me to support fascism, sure i wasn't total convinced of the Jewish aspects, nor did i really believe in race superiority, but the right wings call to a return to traditional family values, protecting our people first, and preventing fun was actually super appealing. To me, the 50s in America had reached a pinnacle for any civilization on Earth with clear cut family roles, the son to work hard just like his old man and do what makes him proud, the daughter to not only realize herself as a person, but to also find a suitable man who carries our families values, and the mother and father, two roles that although different, were fundamentally equal, the father served as head of the household not to be waited by the rest of them as a master, but instead to be a role model, and a pillar of good standing, the mother served to support the father in this endeavor, she functioned as the supports that held him up in many cases. This white picket fence and nuclear family life to me, was a worthy goal for a society to head towards. And it was what many members of the right, particularly fascists, were offering.
But here was a fact i didn't find out until a few years ago, income tax in America at this time, was 92% for every dollar you earned over $200,000 (today 1.7 mil) and 0% for everything under that. They had the view, that any man who was earning over this amount, could not feasible spend that sort of money in a single year, and it was better in the hand f the democratically elected government. When i found this out, it led me to do more research into the economic conditions of the 50s, and that's when i found out. A mere 12 years of soft socialist economic programs introduced in the 1930s via the new deal, would set the stage for this post war boom in America. If a few social policies and welfare programs could do such a thing to a war torn country, then it made me think, what could going further left mean? This lead me on a journey that i can only described as similar to my own experience of discovering Christianity, I chewed through book after book on the topic of leftist economics and social beliefs, it took me 3 days to finish Thomas Piketty "Capitalist in the 21st century." And each book would logically explain to me a similar conclusion. It wasn't the Jews, or the SJWs, or the Illuminati, Or the Liberals, Or TV, or anything else for that matter that had made achieving my dream world such a difficult and near impossible task, it was global capital, it was global capitalism that prevented my family orientated and value driven society from existing.
In this sense, Im far more "right wing" then most people on this board, but it's my hatred of global capitalism and what it's done to the world, not only in physical damage, but in the damage it has caused to the psychology of the society that keeps me coming back. The fact that the moment something becomes inconvenient for capitalism, whether that be family values, or strict boarder control, or democracy itself, it would simply be deemed irrelevant and removed from the global conscious of a people, was a compelling enough argument for me to chose communism over fascism
The earth has enough resouces to sustain all of it's population with great living standards. This is not a reality today because of market forces, imperialism and autistic consumer culture(all things communists are against). The result is 20% of the population consuming 80% of resouces
We as humans have with present day technology total capacity of having greater living standards across the board with a shorter workweek. You are just using the capitalist mode of production to justify your preconcieved racial biases and imperialism since your country cannot sustain capitalists and your current lifestyle without it. As expected of a frogposter arguing in bad faith to defend the most cucked of ideologies.
Luke Young
Read some Gramsci and you'll understand why lefties are such nosy cunts.
mostly politicians trying to constantly improve things that messes things up
I try my best to only buy locally produced goods, fully aware of this problem.
Interesting and high quality post user! going to need to check those numbers you posted, but I do agree with you on many points.
but poverty is declining across the globe (despite growing populations) in lack of better sources right now in this moment here's wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Absolute_poverty
This thread is too long for me to read to filter out any points I might be repeating (and frankly correct a few anons, a lot of people on Zig Forums are actually illiterate or badly literate in Marxism) and post a satisfying reply to your questions OP, however Just keep in mind that that hasn't been the case historically for them either.
As for your claim about a homogeneous society. Sure, why not, no more conflicts between groups. You have an ethnically homogeneous society, what happens with classes then?
Lol that's a good one. They'll leave you alone until they show up at your door to conscript you and your sons to fight in some war of conquest or to do forced labor. Aside from that, they'll regulate the living shit out of everything. Anything they don't like or disagree with you on is "degeneracy" in their mind. Anything they deem to be unhealthy to the nation will be outlawed.
Nolan Martinez
Poverty might be declining but inequality keeps growing so people get proportionaly porrer. Instead o reaping the benefits of progess people get more and more left behind.
Baltics were an exception. You are conveniently ignoring this image
Carter Garcia
Ahaha, no. They won't. Have fun getting culled as soon as the fuhrer arbitrarily decides you are no longer white enough. You can have your spooks in your private life, but they do not belong in government, period.
Gabriel Powell
Yes, but HOW do you oppose capitalism?
Austin Morales
besides the fact most of the posters here don't seem to understand what the fuck they're talking about regarding marxism, i'll bite They're more "pro-capital" than anything. They pretend to give a shit about the nation, but the nation state is just a tool for their control. They don't fucking care, they've never cared about you. Porkler doesn't really care about the people, he never has. Look at the history of Fascism and you'll see things more along the lines of "mass privatization" rather than caring about nebulous concepts as the "nation." What I'm trying to say is, it's all bullshit rhetoric. epic meme Religion tends to be a tool of whoever wants to use it, or used as a painkiller (not literally, obviously). Fascists don't really care about whatever you believe, they just care what you can do for them. Have you ever read, like, anything? I mean, me personally, yeah, but I don't know who all these people who aren't leaving you alone are.
Hudson Kelly
Your mistake is thinking we have to convince you in the first place. There's more of us than you, and that's all there is to it.
This is why I still think (the few) non-racists on the right have more revolutionary potential than your average liberal drowning in IdPol.
Joseph Lewis
People can't even distribute wealth equitably iwithn individual nations, what makes you think it will happen on a global basis. As long as we have an system of governance that rewards and encourages psychopathy nothing will change.
Isaac Evans
I'm like this, just not christ fan nor american.
Ryan Smith
When did Syria have that flag?
Nathan Brooks
Mussolini himself was an athiest. From my observation of the openly fascist people and parties they shit on any abrahamic religion and rather seem to embrace forms of Neo-Paganism.
Was the Volkswagen really a “scam” though? I think the drive to give people affordable cars was genuine but it just didn’t work out. They did all sorts of stuff like this with radios, etc
Justin Hill
lol
Jose Ward
Not an argument. I’m not even a Nazi but I think we should be fair on whether the Volkswagen was a scam by design (as some try to construe it) or a scam in practice. Maybe that’s implied and I’m just an idiot, but I could think of many worse things the NSDAP did than “muh cars”
Daniel Williams
Alright, /fascism/ here, in itself fascism is an organic policy so it will of course depend very much in what country you are, it is usefull in older times to look at previous national movements to try and see if the problems that persisted in the past are still present nowadays but above all I will try and respond to your points.
It can be argued that yes we are both pro nation and pro religion, the quotes about Mussolini being an atheist for example were from an age where he just thought that "it had no use", through the years he saw the importance that it had in his country and like a good leader he saw it has a model of a true italian, check the image, he wrote to this priest in special to talk about his beliefs, hell even Edvige Carboni that was quite well known for her visions tells us that Mussolini went through purgatory before entering heaven.
Anyways the importance of religion must first be judged alongside the relations of state with the church, if you are more inclined towards a strong connection with the church you can look after Integralism and National-Syndicalism, the texts from Charles Maurras are great if you have an interest in monarchism too but take note that this is Roman Catholicism, I do not know how it would work towards a protestant/orthodox nation or even Islamic.
In the other side you have politicians like Salazar that did limit the church but still allowed it to have a heavy role in the society by helping it upkeep their morals and traditions.
And in terms of Nation you have a lot to talk about too, I do not really enjoy the Imperialist tendency that Italy had, albeit I do have a small love for Colonialism due to things like Lusotropicalism and the idea of cultural Nationalism I understand that the era of great empires is over so I mostly focus on Irredentism.
Above all I believe that the fascist of the XXI century must worry about various things, marxism in itself is not the danger that it was throughout the XX century, global capital and the bourgeoise have been strenghtened to a point (mostly do to Globalism post 1989) that we must start seing it as an enemy that needs to be purged, there are some authors that talk about this idea of a nation where only petit bourgeoise can operate alongside the worker in a guild style of "socialism" but we would need to kill a lot but a lot of other people to make sure no one tries to fuck around with our nation.
In this day and age we are faced with various problems, we risk seing our culture die for capitalism and neo-liberalism, do look at the past for inspiration and not for guidance that is all I have to say.
Can you define "the nation" for me? Is it a people, borders, culture, or all of the above? Seems like every fash has a different answer.
Austin Nelson
Oh boy, you will always get a different answer because like I said you have people that put race above everything, others religion, others tradition.
Again look at where you are, study the history, the relations between your people, the tradition and you will understand what the nation is for you, look after past fascist movements if you need help.
For me and my country I believe it is this three things "God, Fatherland, Family"."God"represents the importance that our religion has for us, something that we can still see today here, "Fatherland" represents the historical legacy from our country, we are a country since 1143 and our borders have not changed since (with a small town as an expection) so it is normal that we do not fall under things like the vast amount of different ethnicities that the Russian Empire had for example, we are one people. And in the end "Family" represents the strongest bond we can ever experience in life, the basic foundation to society the extended family, the parents, grandparents and children all live to help eachother.
Naziposter I remember you from leftpol, but I believe your post is a bit dishonest.
Such factions were used just like how the Anarchists/Mensheviks/POUM/etc etc were used by the Bolsheviks to secure the existance of the USSR, it is no different that in the end they were all betrayed the same way as various fascist movements here.
And when talking about the Legacy of Fascism I can understand, I know little about NutSac or Japan but I know a good bit of the Italian case, it was idiotic to bring the whole Europe into flames and Mussolini should have stopped in Greece, he should have understood sooner that what Hitler was doing was pure suicide and that is the thing that I mostly critizice the past fascist movements in it's core: The failure to understand the situation of their countries. Italy, Germany and Japan were matched against the might of the USSR and Allies, do you honestly think that if we were to trade the ideologies and place the Axis as a communist "union" of some sorts that they would win? What is important now for both Marxists/Anarchists and almost anyone that wishes to bring back any other reactionary ideology that opposes this neo-liberal tendency is how to apply it to the XXI century because I am sure it is not R.ojava or some butthole in Mexico that is going to start a change.
Either we all pull our armchairs and keep waving our 100 year old dicks around or we end up finding a solution for neo-liberalism even if it means we kill eachother.
Bentley Torres
The ironic thing here is that the nation isn't an organic phenomenon, but a political fiction created by the bourgeoisie to legitimize bourgeois states during the decline of feudalism, when old feudal ties were being torn up and the peasants and workers needed a new reason to be loyal to the state. There is no nation that was not made up whole cloth starting in the 18th century except maybe England who was made up whole-cloth a couple centuries earlier due to their feudal system declining faster after the War of the Roses and English Civil War. There is some irony that your "solution" is essentially a return to what is essentially idealized feudal relations, considering that much of fascist ideology was formulated by that very declining feudal nobility nationalism was making ideologically irrelevant.
Brandon Thomas
All of these factions have opposed the Soviets pretty much from the start.
Michael Phillips
For now we saw two (maybe three) developments in the XXI of some attempt at neo-fascism.
First you have the shitfest that is/was the alt-right with all of it's autism and the lost of traction that it got, like I always defended no good movement can be raised in the US and succeed.
Second you have Dugin and I know little about it to even talk.
And then you have ISIS which in my honets opinion is just a Theocracy with fascist elements.
The nation was present much after the French Revolution, the result of such creation was not from some work done by the bourgeois as you can see in examples like the revolts of the Greeks against the Turks or the South Americans that revolted against their old colonial powers through the prospect of Nationalism, hell even Marx defended it when it came to the nation of Poland from the hands of the Russian Empire.
The thing that is of course obvious is that nationalism can be subverted to the interests of the bourgeoisie, just like Unions and even "leftism" with this new wave of "New Left".
I fail to see the interest of the rich imperial merchant in fomenting the revolt of a population against the main imperial power.
Sailors of kronstadt and the Anarchists both helped you guys during 1917 just like how the mensheviks gave you aid in the start.
Maybe we can talk about the KPD members that were handed back to Nazi Germany during the pact?
Camden Reed
Are you suggesting there are no Greek bourgeoisie?
Though, there's a difference between national liberation, the desire to not be under the yoke of an imperial or colonial power, and nationalism, a bullshit ideology.
Aiden Price
Albeit you do forget that what you defend is the modernist view of Nationalism, you have works on Primordialism and Ethnosymbolism that have criticized your views on the concept of nationalism for a long time.
Hell go back to the concept of citizenship in the Hellenic times, the work of socrates when he says that he is neither and Athen nor Greek he is a "citizen of the world", the concept is very old and depending on your view it can be the evolution of a concept or an always existing nature.
National Liberation relies on the concept of nationalism to be fumented, there is of course Greek Bourgeoisie but do you think that they were the ones that supported the liberation of said Greek People from the Ottomans or the whole Greek people that did it?
Being a citizen in ancient greece was more than being greek or born in a specific city. To be a citizen you had to be a soldier and be part of th polis, most greeks were not citizens. Humans do have intimate biological relations with their peers but we dont naturally value our homeland since we are biologically nomads. And still, respect and afection for a whole ethnicity is also a cultural phenomenon since natural human tribes never had more than a few hundred.
Humans might be able to feel compassion for similar people, but modern nationalism and modern nations are 99% political manipulation.
Jace Wilson
Are you honestly using lysenkoism? We have evolved from our nomadic ways through a process that has even affected our body, from our diets that affected our jaw development to the structure of our societies, I mean you can even understand that development through the dialetic, we went from primitive communism to the slave societies.
And who said that nationalism was just "being born", like I said it is organic to each people, Nigel Wilson writes with great detail this feeling of greek nationalism that was present during the persian wars, the fact that city-states united other the league to protect what they saw as not just their interests but the future of Greece.
Elijah Barnes
united under*
Oliver Young
The earliest agrarian civilization is 10k years old, most others came later. In evolutionary terms this time window is mostly irrelevant. Human jaws have been reducing for the las 3 million. Even if agriculture changed the shape of our jaws its because we are eating soft foods. Were we raised chewing raw meat mos people wouldnt have crooked teeth or need wisdom tooth removal. stanfordpress.typepad.com/blog/2018/05/why-cavemen-needed-no-braces.html Here they have examples of better teeth dating back to the middle ages when people didn't even brush.
And those are still phisical changes. We have been breeding dogs for thousand of years to the point we have pugs, pomeranias, dachshunds and other abominations and they still do mostly the same thing. To change the the fundamental organizational instincts of humans would take way more than 10000 years. Culture on the other hand, can convince people to blow up for allah in a few years.
Zachary Foster
It is relevant enough to show that we did infact evolve from being nomadic people to a sedentary lifestyle, the diet is one of the examples that I gave you, when we switched from hunter gathering to agriculture we saw the development (and infact worsening) of her dental structure: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117301
And excuse me but that is a falacy you are comparing a Sapient Human to a Sentient Animal. Such changes in our organization are different from theirs and can happen much quicker due to said Sapience.
This is not an area to talk about Darwinism but Sociocultural evolution. You will also have to excuse me but this is getting late and I need to go rest, glad to have this talk with you.
Brandon Howard
The Baltic Nationalist movements were vast anomalies in the USSR (See the image) and were more caused by Russophobia and Western backing for Baltic independence then a failure of socialism or the soviet system the vast majority of the Constituent republics supported the preservation of the USSR The only reason the USSR was dissolved was because of Yeltsin and two of his cronies in Belarus and Ukraine coming to power after a Coup against the Civilian goverment after the failure of the KGB coup (August Coup) They then dissolved the USSR without any referendum (As was constitutionally required) By the RFSSR the Ukrainian SSR and Belarus SSR
Jace Wright
Those changes did happen but they are not genetic. The article you posted just mentions a difference in jaws it does not say it's genetic. sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110805135351.htm There are studies like the one above showing how eating habits during development can change bone structure. It's the only reasonable way to explain such physiological disparities in such a short time. By your logic, modern hunter gatherer tribes would genetically have a different lifestyle and late agricultual societies would have different jaws, both are not true.
Levi Davis
Even if the Original Intent of the Volkswagen Program by the DAP was to actually provide all participating german Proles with a Beetle it certainly failed in its implementation and ultimately led to no Private citizens receiving the cars that they had been Promised their Union Dues was going towards Manufacturing while the Volkswagen
And it should be remembered that at this time the Volkswagen corporation was (Supposedly) run under Syndicalist measures with the DAP being the body responsible for Production of the cars
Mason Murphy
Why are you posting an Assad meme?
Aiden Jackson
You sound obscenely petit bourg and American. You are irrelevant at best and against God himself at worst. I suggest rejecting the demons that entice you to embrace Satan (fascism) and embrace God and his plan for HIstory instead. That being said your choice isn't all that important. First worlders will be obliterated in the years to come. You are privileged in that you have the ability to decide whether to be on the side of the victors or the weak, impotent, castrated losers who currently populate so many suburbs in the US and the rest of the west and who live off of the exploitation of the rest of the world's workers while pretending to be "individualists." Pic very much related. It's you.
USSR had republics for different ethnicities, but it was complicated: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#Under_the_Soviet_Union Russia is a federation of republics with different ethnic groups. If you don't have federations/unions but separated nations you will have economic/political warfare and somebody (the smallest) will bow down anyway, in political unions you at least have some representation.
Robert Morris
Yeah, you're a lost cause. kill yourself.
David Evans
No it doesn't. The Black Panthers rejected the bourgeois nationalism
Cooper Sanders
this is p dumb honestly but respect for being Catholic at least
"debate leftism" is more a disease than anything. Communism isn't a matter of selling workers a worldview. It's not a matter of what this or that proletarian believes. Its a matter of what they are and what they will be compelled to do. I'm going off topic anyways. Ehhh. The US ought to be destroyed and that's true of a lot of modern nation states. I am partial to an older sense of patriotism: that of feeling particularly responsible for your own community and those particularly near to you. Both for their moral successes and moral failures. So I can *sort of* understand the impulse to nationalism but I think it's misguided tbh. I've got no interest in pandering to it. Anyways I'm not "anti religion" but I'm certainly not "pro religion" either. Nor is any real religious person. I'm certainly pro-my-religion and think other religions are sometimes good and praiseworthy to the extent that they express truths like my own does. If someone does harmful shit and says it's their religion I have no problem being anti religious in that case. I have no interest in "leaving you alone" and certainly no fascist would either. In fact while libs or libertarians or even paleocons will tell you they want a world in which you can be left alone if you please that's more rhetoric than anything. Maybe what bothers you about communists is that we're just more honest about what we want from you. I basically follow aristotle in understanding politics as an extension of ethics. It's goal is the good life which is very different from "letting people do whatever they want"
Parker Morris
I already explained this, nationalism like any other concept ( Unions for example) can be subverted by Porky.
Even then their concepts of ethno-nationalism are dangerous mostly due to how they were just Bantu Supremacists waiting for an excuse to purge every other ethnicity in Africa just because "Pan Africanism lmao"
Kevin Turner
nationalism is inherently bourgeois.
They weren't. Their break with the black nationalist of the time was over exactly this.
Cooper King
You say that, but we saw our enemies post-WW1 in Europe when the fascists were able to mobilize a section of the working class against socialism and against liberal democracy. They sold them a worldview contra ours. We say "what they are compelled to do" but as a matter of fact Marx was arguably proven wrong in Europe. Socialism was coming to Germany, and it got crushed by an authoritarian reaction in an alliance of the liberals with the fascists, who succeeded in creating enough popular support to seize and maintain power at a time which was ripe for socialism. This movement rejected class interests, it barely makes sense from a strict Marxist interpretation. They effectively said the imiseration of the proletariat was wrong, but class society was necessary and you should feel proud of being a prole, and the state/ruling class should respect your service to its continued existence.
Arguable the same thing happened in America, except it wasn't Euro fascism that succeeded here. The unrest and imiseration experienced in the depression was an asset for revolutionaries, but socialist power couldn't grow because circumstances favored the social democrats. The war gave America an enemy, and after the war was over America effectively colonized the world as an economic hegemon. The working class could be appeased with the spoils of becoming the imperial center of global capitalism. The important thing to note is that, at every failure the revolutionary fervor gets diverted to a foreign enemy and imperialist war. We have never solved that, the only time socialists critically succeeded was in Russia, and it was because the Tsar failed. We nearly lost that time too, but faith in the Tsar's ability to win the war was shot and focus returned inwards. If unrest occurs on such a mass scale again and imperialism/fascism begins to rear its head in response we could see a nuclear war next time that ends the whole thing. There needs to be a response, and the best we have is to agitate and immunize against reaction, make it identifiable to the mass of people so they don't fall for it again.
