What ideals does Zig Forums stand for?

GIBS ME DAT

ideally it's meritocratic, but ideal capitalism is impossible. the rich, having bureaucratic control, are always going to give themselves more than they deserve and give as little as possible to the poor.

Fuck off you type exactly the same.

Our ideals are seeding anime all day, smoking black tar heroin, raping white women, forcing sex changes upon cis straight white men, making movies were all actors are minorities, and being in favour of all types of abortion, including but not limited to recreative abortion, competitive abortion, folkish abortion, medical abortion, forced abortion, etc etc etc.

We want the government to do stuff
The more stuff it does the better it is

you bitch too much

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (495x786, 31.98K)

I know this whole thing is meant to be sarcastic, but still

Attached: 1486405247318.jpg (866x838, 160.56K)

Shouldn't there then be a bill of rights or something protecting citizens from the exploits of the corporations as well as necessitate the free market is guaranteed by the government if not by the corporations?

Only newfag retards think that shit flies as anyone worth their salt can fake it.
Thinking a load of offensive posts are funnier because the user is forced to be inoffensive is typical reddit behavior, as is being an unfunny spastic, and a samefag, and thinking these sorts of screenshots work.
Kill yourself you brainless newfag.

Attached: 2018-11-09_18-16-42.gif (972x801, 2.46M)

yeah that's called communism

That's precisely as easy to make as a screenshot.

Doesn't change the fact you're both complete faggots who have made the American left the laughing stock of the world.

Word police a bit more you dumb nigger, I'm sure the cowboy BO will back you.

But I'm saying that the government can only provide an alternative instead of being the only option.

you're full of shit. peep my bookmarks fag, I know what I'm talking about.
nice reddit spacing btw.

communism is not "the government controls everything". all that it means is that society is stateless & classless (no bureaucracy) and things are produced for use-value rather than exchange-value. everything else you can fill in the blanks. that's why dumb anarkiddies and leftcoms exist.

It transcends the "free market". Capital concentrates and industry becomes institutionalized. It's arguable based on some studies that wealth can concentrate in a family for up to 14 generations. In England, 1/3rd of the land is still owned by the old aristocratic families. Property centralizes, which is a problem that extends beyond the state. It effects everything from the media, education, food, health and safety in the workplace, global climate, technology, culture, etc.

The only bookmark you have of note is r/CTH, you stupid reddit nigger.

cope.

Boonposter is the funniest poster to be here for a year or so and you're a stupid faggot if you think otherwise.
Have fun on reddit.

do you think /b/ is safe space too?

So, this is the power of leftypol. OP asked you to tell your position without just listing names of ideologies. And this is your answer. Your answer is less valuable than saying "my politics are about making everyone happy".

...

So by use value you mean in a sense of necessity for it's possession (say, food and the quality of it) or the usefulness of it?

I.e., it's a dream and nothing more. As long as entropy has not reached its maximum value, there are differences, and differences always define classes.

What does this even mean? Fucking retard.
No, actually, replacing words on edgy imageboards with reddit friendly language to appease Chapo recruits is only funny for Chapo recruits. Fucking mong. Nobody else is impressed.
The filter wasn't added as le epic narwhal own xDDD - it was added because the board owner has bipolar disorder/ASPD/ASAD and takes it out on their captive audience out of anger due to being unable to stop boonposter and his 500 proxies.
Get a grip you reddit posting yikesfag.

differences never defined classes. the only thing that impacts your class is the name you're born with and your willingness to hurt other people.

I can tell by your phoneposting and the fact that you can't comprehend my post that you don't come from anywhere near the *chans. maybe you should fuck off.

Worker ownership of the means of production. No more no less.

Also, what's the difference between stateless and anarchy? Since there is no state there can't be a land that is in someone's rule (eg government). Or does this mean that the whole world would be run by one government? Don't you think it would be quite burdensome?

There's nothing to imply I'm phoneposting you stupid newfag cunt. Fuck off back to reddit and take your POC filters with you.

anarchy means there's no monopoly on violence. in a other words you wouldn't be able to get away with violence any more than the person nearest to you. this is unlike capitalism where you have military soldiers who kill people that don't succumb to Neocon wishes.
stateless on the other hand means there's no top-down organization. ie if your boss told you to fuck and you don't do that he wouldn't be able to call the police to force you off the premise without representation.
while they typically go hand-in-hand they don't really mean the same thing

you mean besides your impeccable capitalization and punctuation? you know it's a lot easier on the fingers if you don't press down the Shift key so much.

Ideals are spooks, I read a book that said so once. Try reading a book sometime you fucking fascist.

Is this one of the axioms of leftypol? Because nowhere else can you make such obviously false statements and expect them to count as arguments. For as long as you have differences, you can divide people based on them. Those divisions define classes. You've just decided to base your classes on wealth. Which is pretty arbitrary all things considered.

What if I defined classes based on beauty? Let's say you're one of the beautiful ones, and I'm one of the oppressed uglies. Should we redistribute your beauty? Should the most beautiful be assigned the ugliest possible mate? Why would you consider wealth to be a more meanignful attribute than beauty?

classes aren't based on wealth, but on power.
I think you're confusing class with classification.

kys yourself you 17 year old faggot
Imagine being old enough to drink alcohol and being WE R LEGUN tier. Fucking permavirgin zoomer.

Fucking faggot lmao

Well, principally my ideals revolve around Stalin and his mustache and daddy aesthetics. My father left mother and I when I was young and I've been looking for a figure to fill that g a p i n g h o l e in my life.

You can't enforce illegality of monopolies without a monopoly on violence.
You can't enforce statelessness without having a state. A single man cannot fight against a family, and a family can't fight against a state. Allow for any hierarchy, and it will evolve into state.

I'm an ML. he asked me what the difference between anarchy and statelessness is so I answered him.

Is that truly your argument? You make class divisions based on power? Does beauty not give you power? Is a man not more likely to do as an attractive woman says than as an ugly woman says? Beauty is power. Why are you oppressing me?

You're a 14 year old faggot.

I don't know what that acronym stands for.

And why doesn't this place have IDs? Makes conversation very annoying.

Serious post: Socialism to me is really about popular, bottom-up political power combined with collective workers' and community ownership of most things with production based on community needs as opposed to profit, all under an anti-oppression framework (opposition racism, sexism, homophobia, colonialism and imperialism etc.).
I dunno. It seems reasonable to me.
I'm American so I don't think there are any big threats to my country. Most people in the world seem to think my country is the biggest threat to the world and they're probably right about that. But there was one thing I really agreed with Hillary Clinton about when she was asked this question during a debate, and she flat-out stated "nuclear weapons."

I'd go further and say our own most of all. We've got thousands of these things still just sitting around and people don't really think about their existence, but they're gonna have to if things go really haywire. But I think Hillary said that because she had been in a lot of briefings among top state people (military, intelligence, etc.) who know exactly how bad a nuclear war would be, and how easy it is for any country with the technological know-how of building an oil refinery could have an independent nuclear arsenal pretty quickly. It doesn't play well politically but I think she was objectively correct about their dangers.

The way I imagine it, political authority would accord to the purpose of what you're doing. An apartment complex would be managed by the people living in the building as opposed to a landlord somewhere else or a big company that owns 500 apartment complexes. But this also extends to labor unions, neighborhood assemblies, factory soviets, etc. – and upwards and upwards, but with those at the top taking their orders from those at the bottom through these working-class organizations that take an active role in political life as opposed to a passive one.

Attached: dark_knight_rises.jpg (1280x720, 86.01K)

a man would only do something like that if he did not have access to sex at hand.
having power requires you to physically withhold something from another person. it's not arbitrary at all.
of course you market liberals are all about abstraction, us socialists are concerned with what happens in the real, actual world.

Legalize full automatic assault marijuana so that gay interracial couples can perform 1000 abortions a day

the age keeps going down. cope harder, dipshit.

Marxism-Leninism

Attached: girls.jpg (280x270, 16.1K)

That's retarded. All things being equal, a beautiful person will always have more value than an ugly person, i.e., he will have more power.
Also utterly retarded. Power literally means the ability to do work. You can't get more actual worldy than that.
Your previous sentences very clearly show that I have a far better graps on reality than you. Not that I would call myself a market liberal, though, since I don't assign labels on myself. I ask whether something makes sense or not. Your position does not.

Yet you equally refuse to address how, in light of the two of you (ostensibly) reacting to the same phenomenon, why there would exist such a distention between you? I can tell you with fair certainty that it isn't just because everyone else other than you is less capable of detecting "reality" like you said.

le post hog

This whole statelessness thing is starting to sound like libertarianism but applied to corporations.

Try to address my arguments or accept that your position is invalid. You talk about power, and I have quite conclusively shown that beauty is indeed power or at least exchangeable to power. If your position in any way is about equalizing or redistributing power, tell me why beauty, intelligence or health, and by extension genetics, should be free of consideration?

according to your own ideology value is subjective
lmao. okay let's make up a new word then, I'll call it "aeoufhawoudhawuofaw". to me it means "forcing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't do to the point where they have no choice, either inadvertently or purposefully." There, now we can stop arguing about your worthless meaningless semantics and move onto something tangible.

"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too." is what seems to pass for communism nowadays. I miss the days when they were a legitimate counterweight against rampant hyper-capitalism.

because those are post-surplus qualities. you do not need beauty. you do not need organic hair conditioner. you need food, water, and shelter, and people exploit you under the threat of not having those things.

Cyber Stalinism

Attached: d4f915743a986027be968eb827d585baa0478f4b.png (1641x807, 481.99K)

Subjective value gives rise to absolute power. You don't need to appeal to everyone to appeal to some, and appealing to some will give you power over them.
We already have a word for that. It's "violence". Pro tip: It will always exist, and minimizing it is not a question of fiscal policies.

Is this actually the best leftypol can give me? You're arguing that power becomes meaningless the moment your immediate survival is guaranteed? Is that it? Not only is that incredibly barbarian viewpoint, but it also does not make any sense. Any power you have can be used against the survival of others.

...

how is that absolute power? are you retarded? if a bitch wants to suck my dick that means I can make her do anything you want? you have no grasp on human nature whatsoever.
So you admit exploitation is violent and thus amoral then?
not even what I said. I'm saying people shouldn't be exploited (payed half of what they're worth) when the only other option is death.
yeah I remember that one time in human history where a woman was so pretty she convinced a bunch of men to starve themselves. OH WAIT THAT DIDNT HAPPEN BECAUSE HUMANS DONT WORK THAT WAY

I hope you realize how frustrating you're being. give me something tangible to argue about instead of your philosophical ramblings and dancing around semantics.

*anything I want

Exactly as makes reference to, simply pointing to the prevailing tendency to value these qualities (in whatever varied way they might, as conclusively equating them to power is folly) are surplus enjoyments - jouissance - and are part of a completed and competent structure of society that has already made apparent what it values and what it does not. Given that these features retain an allure, and a persistent mysticism (as romance and the other human qualities seem to, at least to the benefit of their marketability), why should it be that we should conclude that these are simply essential features of humanity when it is far more apparent that they're just a couple more calibrated cogs in the great wheel of ideological symbolism.

These things shouldn't be free of consideration, but you only consider how communists should orient themselves around an existing idea - beauty as a certain standard, with power, existing static - when, in all candor, it seems much more likely that we should abolish these considerations within any practical sphere, wholesale. We don't need to compete for power, and in a system that is beholden only to the common weal (that is a working definition here, not the full definition) - a pretty face won't change numbers and doesn't shatter algorithms.
equalizing or redistributing power? No, hardly, power - as it stands - must be abolished. The present version of this means that genetics, the very building blocks of who we are, must not fall neither to the incessant commercial drive of the international exchange, nor to the present state-agents. Communist power has never meant that the power of capital and the capital-state is merely handed to the communists, who are then its new shepherds, it means a wholly new power - new values, new symbolisms, and new organization; free from the enjoinments and contradictions of a system that would bind us to a static system of thought and an unsustainable system of economy

some may not agree with me but personally I STAND FOR
>complete systematic collapse of the system even though it feeds me……,,,,,XD

I know this might be a bit of a dividing post but I'm sure a lot of comrades will agree with me. fuck the police, long live stalin
, I'm out, comrades.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Attached: s-l300.jpg (300x175, 6.35K)

Good intentions in no way translate to making the word a better place. I want everyone to be happy, now what? Why is everyone still unhappy?

I don't know why I expected logic out of people from this of all places. You wouldn't have ended up in here were you capable of it. Let me give you an example: You prostitute yourself for money, i.e., beauty leads to money. You buy anything you want with money, i.e., money translates to absolute power, i.e., beauty translates to absolute power.
I couldn't give less of a shit about what you consider amoral, since I've never met a leftist, who had any grasp on what morality is, where it comes from and what its purpose is.
Do you remember that one time ten thousand men sailed across the Aegean, besieged a city and caused thousands to starve to death because of the beauty of one person? I guess not.
I have given you a very tangible argument about how any positive feature, in this example beauty, can be equivalent to power, and you have zero arguments against it. You ramble about semantics, when I couldn't care less about what words you use as long as your intent is clear.

I am wondering exactly from where emerges your strict and contoured idea of what power is and how it must be expressed - since it is, seemingly, intricately connected to violence. If you'd find any agreeable trend in the history of man, surely you'd agree it is transience. For what reason must the mercurial man settle for your power? The world is actually not a 'zero-sum game', your insistence is perhaps not this but that one person will always exercise power to subordinate another - why? If there was no structure that would permit and incentivize it, perhaps a man could vie for himself without rendering himself subject to some barbaric exercise of force or form.

Do you have any idea how pretentious you sound? Your output is on the level of communist manifesto. Absolutely abhorrent, that is to say. Say what you mean and ditch the prose.
Unhappiness must be abolished. Does that make sense to you? Gravity must be abolished. Laws of nature must be abolished.
What the fuck are you even trying to say here? What exactly is it you want to change? What exactly is it that you want to do? Give me a concrete answer, and I will tell you why you're being retarded.

this is a whole new level of coping. you don't even realize how powerless you are do you?
ok
okay you're trolling. I'm not even going to read the of your post. mods you're free to anchor this wasted potential of a thread.

Always the same outcome when talking to leftists. You can't substantiate your arguments. You flee to your torture chamberes and ban the dissenting voices. Absolutely pathetic.

worker ownership of the means of production.
production for use-value rather than exchange-value.
absence of bureaucracy.
how much more do we have to repeat ourselves?

go ahead, screencap it and use me as an example. everyone will know you're a skizophrenic retard who thinks fantasies are real.

Until you start making sense. Literally none of what you listed there makes sense. It's just memes and slogans, absolutely nothing concerte. Like I said, I want people to be happy, now what?

I actually enjoy talking to libertarians more than most types who don't share my ideology. I think they're misplaced Marxists who think they can solve the world's problems with the world's problems, but they see similar problems in many cases.

I think reality is real. You seem to think otherwise.

I only say what I mean, but I'll make it simple since words are apparently oppressing you. Your absolute and universal idea of power and what constitutes it are bunk - they're not precognitive, they're just elements of common thought. You can say, "WELL, this pretty man/lady did a thing and I/we/someone rolled over like a bitch" in varying different ways but you're not making a point, even then. Your argument involves a fundamental assumption that we questioned, on valid grounds, and you've reneged and told us we're denying some sort of abstract law of nature. Beauty is not a law of nature, and your """power""" is just another of those wistful and empty ideas that idealists and ideologues use to captivate and pacify retards, such as yourself.

You must really really believe in this reality, considering nobody except you is living in it

more vast prejudice generalizations followed by ad hominem. keep coping.

Give me a definition of power, and I'll show you how beauty can give it to you.
The words make sense. The sentences do not. How about you actually try to tell me what you are about instead of making empty and meaningless statements? Instead of saying how genes should be powerful and how your genome should have freedom, tell me what exactly you want to do with genes. Do you want peoples to preserve their gene pools? Do you want genes to be freely distributed? Do you want to forcefully redistribute certain genes? Do you want to get rid of an extra chromosome, perhaps?

Everyone lives in it. Few see it, very few believe in it.

the Trojan War didn't happen. take your meds.

Are you sure? Does it make my argument invalid? Is it something men would absolutely not do? Does nobody ever fight over beauty? Truly? Or maybe nobody ever gets harmed in fights, is that your point?

I'm quite certain my view of reality is indeed more accurate than yours.

I can't give you a definition of power. Not one that would cover all the bases, so I'll give you a preliminary one - "Power would be the ability to intercept a quantum exchange between two terminals, without suffering instant decoherence". Needless to say, I'm fucking with you, as I only find it interesting that you're quite hellbent on trying to insist on this fixed definition of power and in our failing to agree, though we experience the same phenomena, it is simply our failing to recognize reality. I find it very interesting. "They do not know it, but they do it" sort of thing, it is. The genetics thing is simply that the pace and undertaking of genetic modification and editing for both living and nascent humans is being undertaken in a private-public sector that is beholden to the market. I am not a terrible fan of certain editing processes and means being patented or trademarked, as there is no abstract system that should allow a firm to lay proprietary claim to parts of genome; likewise, I am equally cautious that such authority could fall to a bureaucratic state which would render access and control of ones own person to citizenry, or those who conform to state dictum.

Attached: zizexplain.jpg (1914x1968, 803.23K)

Of course you can't. Because then it would be instantly clear that whatever I've been saying all thread long is completely correct, and the only way you can retain your position is by remaining in ignorance. The moment you make any concrete and tangible argument, I would destroy it. Your whole ideology is based on murky views, convoluted ideologies and dreams. If you actually offered any solution to any problem based on your precious idelogy, your whole worldview would be in danger of getting dismantled.

If you have something to say, say it. I don't bother reading leftist memes, since I need to be mindful of my potential aneurysm.

I need to get to bed now. Try to get some arguments ready for the next time I come in this brainlet playpen. Assuming you won't ban me for illegal opinions, of course.

You know, you've made quite a point of insisting the emptiness of our 'ideology' without making any firm gesture that you even are versed in it. I think it remarkably convenient that you can simply shirk trying to engage ideations you don't agree with simply by making vague gesticulations as to how you think we think and then asking that we defend your idea of what we believe. I'd like you to make an effort, friend. I see it this way, you can prove you've a quarter-fuck of an idea of what you're talking about when you come here and ask us to defend your hobgoblin gollum idea of communism or you can finally get that aneurysm and we can be at peace from persistent intellectual dishonesty and unbearably shitty attitude

Epic.

Attached: 6a47de70c127f42eddad926bae99b807699fc5229d68387365ff1e78cefe11f2.jpg (460x276, 19.1K)

people fight over material. that's how it always has been and that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future. nobody lives in your idealist fantasy-land where people fight for virtue and self-fulfillment.

So what have you been saying about power? Let's look:

Oh, it's the ability to do work. But maybe…
It's appeal? All right, yet…
No, wait, it's money that's "absolute power"! Is absolute power different from power per se?

In short, you've given quite a few definitions (and this is omitting your mention of "intelligence or health, and by extension genetics" in reference to power). I don't think you have any idea what "power" is, unless you're trying to demonstrate "power" is a dialectic by arguing with yourself.

Reminder that socialism and even communism isn't a rejection of all hierarchies, just a rejection of the capitalist class system and the system of capitalism itself
Also, read Gotha Program. Marxism isn't about "muh equality". People are different and in socialism they only receive based on how much they work or contribute.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Attached: 121021CMC.jpg (960x720, 50.69K)

We want to replace production based on profit and private enterprise, by a society which collectively regulates production according to a plan and institutes public ownership of all productive property. We furthermore see the abolishment of wage-labour a fundamental aspect of such a society. We believe this will bring about social relations and a level of culture that would be more humane and removed from the constraining effects of economic coercion in a class society, enabling humans to develop themselves to the greatest extent. Socially necessary work in such a society would be allocated to best suit our needs and individual responsibilities, and the unrestrained growth of technological progress would reduce instead of increase our hours of labouring.

I want the entire world to be Communist, as in I want a world without class. Thusly I want a world free of the market, private property, and most wealth inequality. I could be more exact but that is just lame navelgazing really.
I think that Capitalist society is worse in every single way imaginable. There is not a single facet of life I don't see improved as a result of Socialist struggle. It is superior in all aspects.
Capitalism.
Capitalism weaves destruction and exploitation into everything. It is a requirement for it, and a product from it.

I believe we have a duty to protect our folk.
Unabated immigration of third world lower races into white nations. Such filth are not able to pull their weight, and will drag down any system.

Top 10 Zig Forums shitposters who HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD ALIENATION

it literally is. the abolition of commodity production is just a prerequisite for equality, just because it's the end goal of Marxism it doesn't make the whole ideology anti-egalitarian.
I'm not an anarchist. don't blame me because the reactionary chose to zero in on semantics (like 90% of conservative "intellectuals")