Unpopular opinions thread

Industrial technology is a necessary evil, but an evil after all. No society should be based on an endless and uncontrolled technological progress.

Despite being insufficient in creating a legitimate revolution and lacking the ability to create a workers state, they are useful in radicalizing the working class and creating class consciousness where previously none existed.

Attached: 63188804-3221-4296-ADCB-805B49E35862.jpeg (750x920, 1.14M)

As stalinist gang I respect Trotsky a lot for his contributions as a revolutionary and military leader and really wish he could take Stalin's bantz better instead of sperging out and betraying the USSR

Market socialist/cooperative economy as fist stage to planned economy.

Attached: 1494952148_1494832215001.png (400x742, 358.59K)

is that when the IMF fist you till they get to plan your economy?

the opposite is true. stalin was so infuriated by trotsky's banter he exiled him to kazakhstan and then kicked him out of the country altogether. had he not done this he could have easily just kept trotsky under surveillance or even executed him in a show trial. instead he let trotsky shitpost for a decade outiside the country

An achievement I, too, would like to achieve

Trotsky was an honorary australian.

democratic socialism is now the main form socialism. spergs may cry about it but their meme ideologys will remain irreverent for the foreseeable future

Attached: ha.jpg (259x194, 4.28K)

This.

Poor financial policy is not tied to any specific system.

I think certain ethnic groups are less intelligent and more prone to violence than others and its not because of environmental factors…

Zig Forums being completely irrelevant to any real leftist movements is a good thing because this board produces some of the worst takes I've ever seen. Imageboard culture in general is terrible and should be destroyed in the long run. The best thing about the continued existence of websites like 8ch is that they offer easy to books, which is honestly not something even exclusive to imageboards themselves. As a whole, the impact imageboards have had on politics is massively overrated and more malignant than helpful. Every time I see someone earnestly believe these websites will help spark real change, I cringe.

all left politics is basically irrelevant worldwide at the moment though

I hope this isn’t an unpopular opinion here but I completely agree with you. Some people take these places way too seriously

The left is kill

I firmly believe liberals (especially the "sjw" type) are much more of an immediate threat to actual leftists than fascists are because they subvert and delegitimize the whole movement turning people away from us.
I also think some fascists can be converted using proper rhetoric

I totally agree, especially about the right-wing conversion. Much of the right already hates capitalism and consumerism, which is more than can be said for the Hollywood neoliberal "leftists".

As for my unpopular opinion, I feel that the left should focus much more of its efforts on issues of labor, rather than attacking cultural values. Most modern proletarian agree that the bourgeois system is terrible, and a tactful movement could easily take advantage of this. However, we instantly lose most of our working-class audience when we attack their religion and push radical egalitarianism. We could've held a significant portion of American workers if it weren't for a handful of "revolutionaries" trying to reinvent gender within a year. One issue at a time, people.

As unfortunate as this is it's true, I mean ffs the BO unironically thinks this place has the power to deter imperialism. How fucking delusional do you have to be and also how much self-importance do you have to publicly say "I fear for my life by posting here" and "we'll be hunted down by the FBI" or some stupid shit like that.
I legit think that nigger has schizophrenia

True

I dont think a pure class war would ever happen
People will support the left for other reasons

there's no problem with strong moderation. there's a problem with random banning of certain topics for no good reason, when these are topics that are commonly subject to debate just like any other.

agreed, and accelerationism is morally indefensible. yes, this is important.

fully and totally agree, hope more have this opinion

I'd argue that at some point humans will get so far that anyone could build a weapons as powerful as neutron bombs in their garage, which should be prevented

related Kurzgesagt Vide: youtube.com/watch?v=UjtOGPJ0URM

I think Christianity should be the basis for any society and the Orthodox church should be a sort of theocratic administration in symphonia with the state.

I don't support gay marriage or sex reassignment surgery.

Abortion should be illegal in all cases.

Jeremy Corbyn is the best socialist candidate in the west rn.

Differences in Autism Level are mostly due to genetic differences, but it shouldn't be the basis of our social order and people/races shouldn't be treated poorly on ground of race, we're all children of God and that's all that really matters.

Attached: Icon Dymphna.jpg (359x450, 54.37K)

...

Some ideas that might be controversial:
>Western countries must organize a large, skilled industrial army to quickly modernize the third world.
>As such, communism can be established by giving each citizen (1.) full agency over their labor, so that they can take action in this system qua system, (2.) full insight into the economy, so that they can understand this system qua system, (3.) and full capacity to communicate and associate with other workers according to their interests, so that their actions are collective and organized.
>Socialism is already happening all around us. Most of the time, capitalist exploitation depends on small scale socialism to maintain itself. A well functioning workplace always requires a good deal of worker solidarity, albeit controlled worker solidarity. People are not motivated to work hard without having to provide for their relatives, albeit only their direct relatives.

I agree with everything you said except the autism level stuff and substitute Orthodoxy for Protestantism.

CHRISTCOM GANG UNITE

Attached: smiling.png (1342x1940, 765.18K)

Leftism is dead

The hidden Zig Forums discord is UpMcQmT we have over 5000 members and are growing.

It has to stay hidden or 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧discord🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 will shut it down. As far as discord knows its a Minecraft discord.

Attached: 4841.png (438x562, 336.89K)

Wrong board friendo

>>>Zig Forums

I unironically think shitty NazBol edits of Ben Garrison comics are fucking hilarious

Nazis are the best shitposters here

It's one thing to ban people who derail threads, it's another to ban anyone who dares to criticize Putin or Assad.

Is this an unpopular opinion outside of stormfront and Zig Forums?

It might make them theoretically see the benefit of communism, but practically speaking wouldn't it also make them less likely to enact a revolution? Would still prefer social democracy over neoliberalism because of what said though, and because things will ultimately still go to shit for the working class with or without social democracy so revolution is inevitable either way.

Reddit spacing is a good thing and it makes posts easier to read. Come at me.

Sounds reasonable to me, comrade.

To be expected. Shitposting is their natural state.

Soviet Union has a better chance of making its comeback than China ceasing their revisionist ways.

In the short-term yes, but in the long-term I think getting people to become open-minded towards leftist ideas is a necessary first step towards achieving that. You can't exactly mobilize the working class if a bunch of them think that even social democracy is akin to slavery.

The Orthodox church is shit bro
Why tho?

Uphold the democratic dictatorship of the postertariat

would abolishing ice do anything?
asking for a friend

I support the LGBT movement to the extent that I'd be called a hopeless idpoler on this board, but I don't really care tbh. If liberalism can help us normalise gay relationships and accelerate the dissolution of gender relations then I'll opportunistically cheer for it.

Give an example of idpol you support…
Cause not on people on this board have the same ideas dude

All*

The particular slogan means nothing. INS was the deportation mechanism before ICE existed, and before INS, there were other bodies. It's easy to suspect that if ICE were abolished, another immigration enforcement agency would be created, given a "friendlier" face and mission for a few years, and then go back to the same tasks. The sentiment behind the slogan is good, though, but I think that should be more accurately expressed as stop deportations/family separations/etc.

not sure where to even start

Okay, for instance I unironically agree with Freud and others that bisexuality should be seen as the natural condition and monosexuals as strange cultural outliers. This view should be introduced in education early on, and a socialist state would need to struggle against conflicting monosexual culture that divides people into destructive consumerist camps.

how is the homosexual-heterosexual distinction necessarily consumerist

Outside of this i do agree with him
Tbh most people are bi deep down at least

I'm of european descent in Latin America and I find mestizos to be particularly disgusting in terms of looks, so much so that I'd want them out of my country, but I can't voice this in socialist circles because racism is seen as extremely anti socialist.

Straights and homos are encouraged to have separate lifestyles, socialise in different circles and engage in different cultural practices.
Hook-up culture is extremely consumerist on both sides etc.
What you often find is that bisexuals are considered nonexistent or vacillating weirdos by both sides ("bi erasure"), in reality what they mean is that bisexuality doesn't have an easily commodified cultural identity. This is very bad for liberal capitalism since it has to find new markets and it can already sell a bunch of products to chad gays and submissive sissies.

I totally agree and whats more (potentially unpopular opinion incoming) think this should apply to medical advancements as well, I actually think medicine needs chill the fuck out and people need to take responsibility for their own health, you don't need to go to the dentist every 6 months if you stop eating so much processed sugar and brush your teeth. same goes with fatties, smokers etc. sure capitalism is the main problem but people need to take responsibility for their own bodies as well

maybe these aren't controversial and I'm just so used to reading/posting anarchist shit where literally no one is responsible for anything except white males and capitalism

humans should live in nomadic bands

Wtf?

blaming the individual for their poor health and reducing their circumstances to the results of choices made by the individual is actually a mainstay of capitalist medicine and its artificial scarcity of resources; so yes, socialist and anarchist lit would necessarily consider additional (structural) factors to individual choices being to blame.

This is an actual Marxist goal dumbfuck

Gender is a socio-economic phenomenon that is reproduced in a specific way relative to the mode of production. As usual, we see both sides of the political spectrum fail to understand this because they're not historical materialists. Liberals see it as an issue of individual expression, while conservatives see it as ideological perversions of a supposed fixed biological order.

The way to analyse this can be simply demonstrated - take an example of a "passing" transgender woman. She is legally considered a woman, she acts as a woman, she looks like a woman, she interacts with people who accept her as a woman - in every sense of the term she is materially a woman, the analysis remaining irrespective of personal feelings. The reason it is an economic phenomenon is because the steady dissolution of gender relations clearly takes place with the advancement of productive forces, which reveal the incompatibility of the previous social formations. Primitive society inexorably forces on the sexes a division of labour, and with it also forms of gendered social relations, which reflect on the entire superstructure. With the realities of modern labour, the gendered division are losing all of their material presupposition, and remain as social formations purely as superstructure, as outdated fetters similar to remains of nobility in capitalist notions.

What this basically amounts to, is that we can say that gender withers away under socialism, or else acquires a drastically different form. Similar to what we say about the state, there can be no sudden abolition of "gender oppression" or whatever, since it can only lose its role as the material conditions for its existence start to disappear. Under capitalism we find plenty of reasons why gendered forms of work are retained - uncompensated domestic labour, childcare, prostitution and pornography for profit etc.

I must have misinterpeted your original post. Thanks for the explanation, comrade

Americans should form a Sanderista National Liberation Front

Your first statement contradicts your second. People's view on what a "woman" is like or what it is to be feminine is not in any way material. Sex is real and material, but the subjective and culturally based view of what constitutes what is "womanly" is not. Gender does not exist in any material way, a man with a ponytail and who crossdresses and calls himeself female is no more genderwise a female then a man who does the exact same and calls himself male. That is to say, neither can show a concrete definition of what is the gender male, but both can be materially shown to be of the sex male.
tl;dr Gender is a "spooky" shit, Sex is real

I really do hate Jews, mainly bourgeois, liberal Jews. They really grate on me. I don’t think a cabal exists but they do have influence. They just rub me the wrong way

It's just because alot of the bourgeoisie ones are insufferably smug about it and many of them will use their 'jewishness" as some kind of justification or rationalization for their position (i.e. "My people/ancestors went through so much, it's amazing that I'm here" or "I'm jewish, so that differentiates me from all the other bourgeoisie because reasons"). It's more or less the same feeling I get when I have to listen to minority or woman bourgs talk about how they are somehow different because they had to go through more "struggles" and then act like they are exempt from the same bourgeoisie collective as the rest of their associates because they are the new "face" in the scene "shaking" things up. Also the fact that a lot of them feel representative of whatever group they identify and use it as deflection is also offputting to me ("I'm here/this is for all of X ethnic/minority/oppressed group! You should feel happy because I share an arbitrary trait with you even though I profit off your labour while you make minimum"). It's Volksgemeinschaft on a smaller scale.

but I literally said capitalism is the main problem

Yeah and there are lefty Jews who hate those people too.

There was a young Zionist guy who showed up at my socialist club, and was interested, but was trying to suss out various members' opinions about Israel. Kinda dressed like a hippie and was wearing a kibbutzim shirt. He ended up getting into an argument with somebody who called Israel an Apartheid state. He never came back.

I wanted to be like: dude, people on the motherfucking ISRAELI left call it an Apartheid state. David Ben Gurion warned of it. And not even the left but liberals such as Ehud Barak, a former prime minister. The boundaries of discourse in the U.S. on this question are narrower than in Israel, which is just pathetic.

I think a lot of young Jews go on birthright trips and they get wrapped up in the homeland and that makes them receptive to all kinds of bullshit the Israeli state propaganda apparatus feeds them. There is an Israeli parody of this which owns btw: vimeo.com/35660324

Attached: birthright_3.png (500x517 2.15 MB, 513.08K)

Another person who doesn't understand Marx at all. Materialism acknowledges social relations and historical processes as real, concrete things, this is what sets it apart from vulgar mechanistic materialism. The point isn't that there is this pre-social realm of economic things, and then Marx says that social things depend on the economic things - this is what liberal academics say to discredit the analysis. Point is that economic relations are ALREADY social relations in every sense, people reproduce their daily life by being a part of the social structure, existing as sets of numerous social social relations. This is hismat.

Another person who doesn't understand Marx at all. Materialism acknowledges social relations and historical processes as real, concrete things, this is what sets it apart from vulgar mechanistic materialism. The point isn't that there is this pre-social realm of economic things, and then Marx says that social things depend on the economic things - this is what liberal academics say to discredit the analysis. Point is that economic relations are always ALREADY social relations in every sense. People reproduce their daily life by being a part of the social structure, by enforcing social relations which act back upon production and capital. There is no realm outside of the social, therefore gender is real because it is a real, enforced, MATERIAL existence. This is historical materialism.

Forgot to quote

While the Iraq was was unjustified, the American invasion of Afghanistan was not only justified, but a good thing. A neo-fuedalist state. The government America set up allowed for the development capitalist economy which is progressive compared to feudalism. They also promoted women’s rights and put former PDPA members in power.

Oh yeah. I agree with that. The music coming out of Afghanistan now is fun: youtube.com/watch?v=AL8tzKCAxik

It's like the Taliban got pushed out and Bollywood moved in.

you said you were tired of reading how capitalism and white men were to blame

I don't think taking a shit on the floor and then cleaning it up is worthy of praise, if anything you should deride them for shitting on the floor in the first place.

No, but he what does argue that it is the base material conditions in which a society develops which determines it's economic relations which in turn then forms the material basis of society and that it is from such a base that the ideological structure of that society is formed. Not all of history may be as reducible, and Marx warns as much, but as a generalization explaining the development of societies it serves it's purpose.
Never denied that economic relations weren't social relations (I don't know how you would do this), but it important to note that economic social relations differ drastically from the ideological ideas and relations that emerge from them. As in, they are completely non-comparable to eachother. The superstructure of society can influence the base, but in no way is the superstucture the same as the base.
None of this follows. I'm not disagreeing that people believe in gender, I'm arguing whether or not it actually exists. Someone repeating somethig not real as something real and enforcing its belief doesn't make it anymore real. You're conflating all social relations as the same and giving economic social relations the same validity as the changing relations that emerge from them.

I agree with this. Tbh Cuba and the DPRK probably have a higher chance of bringing back proper socialism as well.

The Taliban isn't gone are the American forces are still fighting them/allying with them in various parts of the country against ISIS. Same shit, different day

The Taliban was willing to extradite Bin Laden. We only invaded because they didn't want to extradite *on our terms*. You don't achieve justice by burning down a murderer's entire neighborhood while executing the arrest warrant.

Iran and the Taliban nearly went to war prior to the American invasion, and as a country with a culture and history much closer to Afghanistan's, as well as much more immediate security interests, it would've been better if Iran dealt with the Taliban instead. Foreign policy should be focused on what achieves peace and stability, not imposing a way of life on a country.

Alright, let me try to clear this up more.

I'm not denying that, ultimately, sexual dimorphism is a biological given, and therefore primary in this sense. Though with modern medicine we can heavily intervene into it today, and who knows how in the near future, there are biological limits.

But when we talk about gender, I just don't think a simple formula like this works: Sex is the biological material reality, while gender is the social construct that people believe in and is ideologically enforced, but spooky. That is, I don't think this is a proper or sufficiently Marxist position. Yes, the concept of gender is ideologically enforced, but the gendered division of labour is also deeply integrated into the capitalist mode of production and reproduced economically, this is why I call it a material existence. From the moment we are born we get specific gendered commodities, we are instilled with gendered behaviors, we are confronted with gender-dominated forms of work and exploitation that I mentioned before. This is a historical social existence, and increasingly separate and functioning apart from the actual limits of sex difference. But it's more than just a spook people believe in, it's an entrenched social network of relationships, it's fundamentally connected with the way we revolutionise the mode of production.

So basically, I don't see how it's relevant if you think gender isn't real,. In a sense, it's as real as capital is real, that is, obviously it would break apart if it ceased to be a socially operating force. But doing that is much more than an ideological operation, it implies a fundamental material change in conditions.

I don't think capital can be compared on the same level as gender as one is derived from the base while the other is the base, but we may be speaking over each other here. You're saying gender "exists" because despite being an ideological idea it is also a system which is entwined with capitalism or not? Your previous post, if it's yours, on liberalism has me a big confused, I'm saying it doesn't exist because it is just an ideological idea that only retains relevancy at the time and though emerging from the base and influencing it, is not completely necessary for the continued existence of capitalism as a whole.
Wait, we're you not the one voicing support of liberalism to progress and normalize LGBT movement? Isn't this contradictory to that as it would imply that you have to change the material conditions of society first to affect such things, something I don't disagree with at all? Or am I mistaken?

Sorry, this is kind of messing with me as well. What I got from the Origin of the Family is that such division is less gendered and more sex based due to the female sexes role in reproduction.

I was shitposting late at night and didn't put it well in that post, sure. But my support for LGBT rights is simple, because I opportunistically like supporting "gender confusion" and promoting transitioning for people to hop between these social categories precisely because they're becoming so flexible in advanced countries. Does this negate the whole superstructure of gender relations? Nope, but I see no reason why a transgirl shouldn't occupy the social position of "being a female" if she wants to, since it is divorced from biological sex in the first place and doesn't matter. Maybe it's not a "principled" communist position but being a bislut myself I'd make use of liberal bad politics when I can tbh.

Why do you personally have a problem with trans people being acknowledged? I think the whole "durr you're still a male it doesn't matter what you behave like" a retarded reactionary view.

this buzzword is getting on my nerves

Climate Change and Environmental direct action should be largely the single sole focus on the left for the next decade with the latest IPCC report. Everything else is literally a distraction with the fate of mankind basically being given a fucking 12 year time limit.

Attached: IPCC-1.png (1416x846, 184.66K)

fuuuuuuck

Attached: blessedarethemeek.png (640x644, 1.01M)

...

Shut the fuck up nerd.

Attached: yeah no.jpg (500x500, 93.33K)

You have to take over the means of production, to actually
be able to do the things necessary. Capitalism has reached an impasse, solving the problems means overthrowing capitalism, everything else is a distraction.

This, so much. Every time I go on half/pol/, every other thread with any decent amount of responses is a bait thread, and most of what gets posted is pointless name-calling and autistic screeching. There's no real discussion to be had, outside of maybe the Christfag and LARPagan threads, and even then…

I just have a problem with the idea of gender in the first place and thus have trouble with the idea of transgenderism. A reactionary on the other hand would believe in strict gender roles which align with sex and that being a certain sex means you should follow a certain role, otherwise you would be upseting the "natural order" of things.

To clarify, I have trouble with the idea of transgenderism because it assumes that gender is a real yet metaphysical thing which you can "identify" with and is still very attached to the idea of what a man and woman "should" be like. It assumes that there are these attitudes of what makes a man or woman and that having alignment with such attitudes makes one of the male or female gender. For example, you are a man who identifies with the female "gender". But what exactly are you identifiying with? Are you identifying with societies view of what a female is like with long hair, a feminine figure, maybe a feminine voice? Are you identifying with your own view of what a female is and deciding that you fit such things so then you are female? What is the female "gender"? It's such a nebulous concept that you could get a large variety of answers with none of them having any relation to each other. A person could decide they like dresses and acting "girly" and decide that this fits what a female is thusly they are the female gender, and yet another could like the exact same things and come to no such conclusion. Is the first person wrong or is the second person just confused or ignorant about themselves being transgender or not? Why only two genders, why not four or six or two hundred or three thousand? Why not a billion genders for every single person? They whole idea of gender is so ridiculous that it can only ever end with an infinite amount of nebulous and nonsensical archetypes. Either gender doesn't exist, or there are an infinite amount of archetypal genders which exist outside of us "undiscovered", at which point it would be safer to throw the whole thing out as it would be simpler to say people have attitudes. One needs only to ask someone "What makes a female or male gender?" or "What makes you the male or female gender?" to find how whimsically idealist and subjective the whole concept is. I have no problem with a person dressing or acting as "feminine" or "masculine" as they want, but I do have a problem with the idea that being either makes one of a certain gender.