I am anti left - AMA

I don't fit on the left right spectrum but I strongly oppose leftism. Feel free to ask me anything if you are interested in a different perspective.

Let's keep it civil.

Attached: smug girl in pepe suit.jpg (814x792, 125.51K)

Other urls found in this thread:


you do, actually, there's no spectrum, bye bye alt right

nice bread

Attached: 1552842851435.png (874x664, 41.73K)

Yuck! Centrist get the bullet too.

Thank you.
Good thing for me that I am not a centrist.

What political opinions do you actually hold and what do you think "left" is so we can all look and laugh at you

not a centrist/doesn't agree with the left=right thank you for the question

Why are you such a massive bundle of sticks, OP?

Is this how alt-kikes look like?

In other words

Attached: leftwingdeathsquads.png (706x694, 497.55K)

I am free of ideology. I support what works best in practice.

Leftism encompasses revolutionary ideologies that go against property rights and meritocracy, for example socialism, big gov, wealth redistribution and so on.

I guess I just can't help it.

The nazi larpers wish me dead so I am definitely not on their side.

What is that?

right-wing liberal, there you go

t. basic bitch liberal with the political insight of a ten-year old

You cannot be free of ideology. Only a rock is free of ideology.
This is an ideology and what you perceive as "working" and "best" is ideology.

Well thanks for showing your fundamental idiocy


Nobody is free of ideology.
Case in point, you're a liberal.
Wrong though. Fuck do you come here spewing bourg talking points devoid of any factual basis and then claim to be free of ideology?

Peak ideology.

Try to read communist theory instead of strawmaning.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics?

I think you meant marxism-leninism-maoism-hoxhaism

nah, this faggot could use a heavy dose of basic political philosophy before they could handle anything more concrete.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (326x499, 238.95K)

Realpolitik isn't an ideology, just a mean to an end.

You are literally every suburban white 12 to 24 year old male with less than 3 close friends and limited social experiences. Get away from YouTube and vidya kid.

Attached: 1550869325589.png (600x600, 383.63K)

Wrong. I also oppose the right and liberals. But they are both very weak and much less of a threat than the left.

In your use of the term ideology it has no meaning. Ideology is fundamentally based on theory and ideas, not on practice.

Property rights are a fundamental component of meritocracy. How does leftism support it?

Then go ahead and share your understanding of leftism.

You talk high and mighty but you make zero arguments. Typical for a philtard.


if the only things you support are private property and meritocracy you are a right-winger.

Why is "what works best in practice" not an ideological statement, then? "Works best" for whom? "Works best" in what way?

Leftism isn't necessarily against meritocracy, although this does depend on what group or which leftist you're talking about. Some are against the concept of "merit," mostly anarchists; most allow for it in some form, in a theoretical socialist state.

I could understand why you might hate leftists. Many leftists hate leftists. On the other hand, you may not even be hating leftist but liberals, however "radical" they may try to pass themselves off as. Nonetheless, you should probably read more about ideology.

If you have a body, or set, of beliefs – you have an ideology. It may not be something that can fit purely into labels such as "socialism", "conservatism", "liberalism", or "fascism", however it still maintains that set of ideas = ideology. You believe in something, or a complex of somethings, therefore it is an ideology. Very many people don't fit nicely into labels like "liberalism" and "conservatism" because one can be fiscally conservative, socially liberal. or the inverse, and still have an ideology, or even be conservative on some fiscal issues and liberal on others. Even then, if you look there are many syncretic combinations:
On and on. You can read the variants section for yourself.

Property rights are antithetical to a meritocracy. Property gives the owner power over others not out of his own ability, but out of ownership. A millionaire inverter does not make tons of money by being meritfull, but by owning property, while a more meritfull person who does not own property earns less.


Yes, you are not free from theory and ideas, whether you like it or not.

No, not all meritocratic economies are market-based, even less so private property-based.

You don't understand what I meant. Even if you just want "what works best", it will depend on an underlying ideology, which isn't simply implied by political realism.

i mean you come here talking about your supposedly high-minded political positions (not ideological tho ofc xDDDD) but you just demonstrate naivete and ignorance of basic concepts and terminology while offering no arguments. Its not exactly a good faith position on your part, and its not going to encourage any on the part of anons here.
Alas your opinions are entirely bland liberalism, so unthinkingly absorbed from the status quo you can't even recognise them as ideological. But since you're here you've got at least some interest in the political so hopefully in time you'll start reading books.

You probably mean the conservatives (as in Christian values).
When we mean liberalism, we mean economical liberalism (as in capitalist deregulation), not as in societal liberalism (as in civil liberties).

Practice itself is based on theory and ideas. People don't just do shit without thinking about it.
Socialism isn't about "wealth redistribution", it's about the working class controlling the means of production. The problem isn't that "some people have loads of money and others don't so we need to tax the wealth and distribute it equally XDDD", it's "the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie who are required to exploit the workers that they employ to turn a profit and society as a whole is structured to uphold this state of affairs, which is counter to the interests of the working class."

Your idea that private property rights are inherently meritocratic is in itself an incredibly ideological one. Multiple studies have shown that a person's intelligence, for example, has very little bearing on whether or not they end up rich - rather, it's mostly down to the circumstances that a person is born into (background, inheritance, opportunities) and luck. Plus, of course, a healthy dose of exploitation.

I ask again, why do you come here, repeat absolutely normal liberal talking points stemming from the most absurd misrepresentations of what socialism actually means, and then try to act like you're actually free of ideology?

Has OP even stated why he's against leftism?

yeah, he likes private property

Someone should tell him about market socialism, it would blow his mind.

He is a rational realpolitik person who only wants private property and what works best and has no ideology (AKA he is a centrist)

Fun on this board how these teen leftists have never set foot in a socialist or communist country.

Stop spending that money on craft beer and weed and go travel and see how good shit works for yourself.

Go away retarded boomer

so this is the power of the non-ideological centroid

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (673x923 1.81 MB, 49.78K)

You write too many posts and I can't keep up. Please keep that in mind.

I support what works. There is abundant evidence that meritocracy leads to best results because it incentivizes better performance. I do not support private property as an untouchable ideological right.

Very good questions. I guess whether it is an ideology is a matter of semantics so let me close this by saying that I see ideology as a set of beliefs that are followed independent of reality. I do not hold on to any such beliefs but start with the actual real world situation and how a problem can be solved best independent of preconceived theoretical belief systems.


You could argue that this part is ideological since meaning is subjective and with that the goals who are a fundamental component in this process.

I think our primary goal should be our survival.

And the best way to maximize our survival is through technological progress. So the challenge turns into how can we maximize technological progress.

I will take this critique into consideration. The problem is whenever I did so in the past, I usually did not learn anything valuable.

Wrong. It is fundamental to merit that you get what you deserve. When you create something, you deserve it, therefore it should be your property.
This investor enables others to do things they could not do without him lending them his property. The merit is that this investor faces the very hard challenge of investing properly. If he does a bad job, he loses wealth. If he does a good job, he gains wealth. Just as deserved. His job is extremely important, predicting in advance what will create the most value and then enabling the creation of said value. Also, that initial wealth did not come out of thin air. Someone had to earn it.

Of course not. I am not free from biases and prejudice either. However, I do not consciously follow any ideology as I see it.

How can they work without some form of ownership?

You are the ignorant one. You assume you understand me without even giving it a try.

How about this? Give me the name of THE BEST book you know and I will give it a try if I haven't read it already.

That's what I assumed. When I say liberal, I mean classical liberal, not a lefty who has hijacked the term for the war of words.

l e l

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (292x193, 21.54K)

I think you've gotten lost, let me set you straight: reddit.com/

Mankind isn’t united. Which men?
Also, about investors;

Why should th investor be rewarded for just throwing money at something? If he invests in a car factory, he’s just putting money into it. He does not build the machines. He does not operate he machines. He doesn’t build the factory, and he doesn’t even participate in the day to day managing of the operation usually. He just has a bond or whatever that says “x business owes me some cash with interest”.

In addition, the only risk he takes is becoming a worker. Why should he be rewarded for figuring out which industry he can best exploit? In a socialist system the construction and operation of a car factory would be done anyways and all the workers involved would be paid according to their contribution. Under communism cost is irrelevant, only need is important.

Attached: 9B8C2621-39FE-43B9-9A3B-ADA6E0141F36.jpeg (727x1214, 373.82K)

Что-то тут дохуя белых заднеприводных пендосов 🤔

Ну вас нахуй, тупые американцы олололо

Сосите 🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆

you're on the spectrum alright

I am going to explicit further as to what I mean by realpolitik necessiting an ideology.

The most representated realist political theory after the industrial revolution was egoism (liberalism). Political egoism means we, as a civilization, should produce exactly what the general population wants. This is an individualist ideology (german or socialist - latter known as "communism" - idealism for example).

There is also materialism. Political materialism means that we, as a civilization, should produce and develop our mean of production (and thus scientific research) as much as possible. This is an essentialist ideology (metaphysical monism). For example, advocating for endless growth can be considered materialistic.

Then comes other ethical (and often essentialist) ideologies, for example religion. Political religion means we, as a civilization, should do what God wants. What God wants is defined within religious texts and is often arbitratry in the context of historical social customs and ethics.

So which political ideology do you mean when you say "what works the best"? To what end?

all i could understand from that is "fuck you americans" so based post

The revolver in the middle seems to have 8 chambers in the cylinder. Is this the power of communism..?

I have lived and worked in china for 6 months, in the same dorms as native chinese workers.
Get out of your house yourself.

I am against leftism because I think that leftism causes tremendous damage to mankind.

Examples are the slowing down of the economy and innovation through bloated states, suppression of meritocratic elements through wellfare state, bureaucracy and mass regulation. Or mass immigration of people who cause more harm than good, meaning they destroy social cohesion and become a huge burden on society.

Leftism has for example caused the destruction of western civilization because they won and now it is just a matter of time to unfold. An example are the USA. White children are already a minority, they have fallen off the demographic cliff. However, whites are the only ones who consistently vote against the left, for small government and a free economy. Now the USA are trapped in a self reinforcing leftist cycle, meaning social cohesion will continue to degrade, the economic growth will slow down to EU levels of stagnation and worse, innovation will drop. Brazil and USA used to be similar on a per capita basis. The reason why Brazil isn't as rich and successful now is because they embraced more leftist politics than the USA. But gradually the USA started following Brazil's footsteps, turning into a shithole.

some have 8 chambers tbh

thanks for justifying the anchoring of this thread

I might agree, but you have to define what you mean by "performance".

All of mankind? No identity politics (as in "we" against "them")?

We are well past this. Now human civilization needs to find a further (arguably arbitrary) goal. Consider survival is not a "goal", it is a reality for life to exist. The struggle for existantial competition (Darwinism) is probably what you meant. Do you think humanity is in danger of being taken over by another species? If not, then your fear might come from structural issues within human society, maybe global warming?

Or mitigation of issues through structural policies.

This is called skepticism.

I posted a small book about market (mutualist) socialism (without private property), try to read it.

Did this nigga just claim USA and Brazil are socialist

Good, because the USSR did exactly that with the piece-rate system. Marx also advises that people get paid based on the work they complete in Critique the Gotha Program, albeit with non-transferable labour vouchers and what not.
You can receive societal compensation and a position for your singular invention, but the idea that you should continue to receive monetary "royalties" from such an invention is both extremely inefficient and absurd. Otherwise we would be in the ridiculous position of paying the inventors of the wheel and the cart still.
So he's a gambler. He's a gambler who takes the risk of becoming a prole at worst. He fulfills a task a computer could do but with all the risk and inefficiencies of a person.
That's kind of the point isn't it. The wealth came from somewhere and was generated by others who create usable products. He's just moving the money around for his individual benefit.
Private property is the privately held mean of production, means of production being the large scale fordist industrial production that allows society to operate the way it does. Personal property is whatever you personally own/buy from yourself. We want the first, not the second.
We are against that as well

Attached: henry-george-760813.jpg (450x360 125.24 KB, 4.26M)

But you previously said ideology is about theory and not practice?

Statists are just a part of socialist theories.

This is not socialism, but welfare capitalism.

Theses exist in every developped economies, even in the US.

So idpol, are you a race realist?

My bad, I should just read posts fully before starting answering them.

Unfortunately, capitalism only incentivises profit. It doesn't matter whether a capitalist cuts wage expenditures by employing more technologically advanced machinery and less people, or whether he cuts wages by outsourcing his labour to the third world - both have the desired effect.
So why should I perform unpaid work daily so the owners and shareholders can get their bit? Private property rests on the exploitation of surplus labour, i.e. labour over and above that necessary to reproduce a worker's living requirements. Instead of being directed to a social end, then, the product of this surplus labour is instead used to sustain the capitalist class and expand production.
You mean "labour had to create it."
That doesn't matter. Ideology influences everybody, whether you're conscious of it or not.
Social ownership is still ownership.

Sorry, ensuring everyone has an equal chance at living a healthy life and has their most basic needs provided for is somehow *antithetical* to allowing a person to entirely fulfill their potential? How many potential Einsteins do you think have been able to render no service to humanity because they had to start working at 13 to support a broken family, leading to them being unable to attend school?

This is literally the "cultural Bolshevism" argument the Nazis were so fond of, and you claim to be without ideology. Fucking lol tbh

Are you fucking retarded? Having a government doesn't make you leftist, otherwise every government in existence would be "leftist". Also the USSR had literally no extreme mass immigration, so I have no fucking idea where you have this idea that "mass immigration=leftist". Mass immigration is purely a capitalist creation.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Oy Voy🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Who is not united with whom? This is a hypernationalist perspective and the consequence is that the groups not united should at least stay away from each other.

Then the answer becomes the group of men that I belong to.

If it is so easy why don't you do it and become rich and then share the money you earned with others? If the investor wants to make money, he needs to know if an extra car factory is even needed or if that money should be invested into something else instead. Blind investing will always lead to loss of money because most investments fail. The investor to make money must determine where that money is most needed and creates the most value. In a socialist state unqualified bureaucrats with no personal connection to the wealth they rule over do the same but with much worse results, which is why the USA became the richest country in the world and the soviet union was poor. It all comes down to how efficient we are with the allocation of our scarce ressources and de facto investors do a much better job than government workers. Do you have a better alternative of determining ressource allocation?

He IS a worker. What he does is work that needs to be done with or without him.


No we are not. When I talk about our survival, I do not mean surviving the next couple of days. I mean surviving for all eternity. Our existence gives us value, if we all die out it will be as if we never existed in the first place after time has erroded our remains. I am talking about survival, not just a couple years, not just millions, not just trillions, I mean for all eternity.


Global warming is not a big issue to mankind. Yes, there will be damage but our technological progress greatly outweighs any negative consequences from global warming. I also do not fear a supposed WW3 that will lead us to extinction or any other apocalyptic events.

Which one?

Both have large socialist elements. No country truly is capitalist or socialist but countries have socialist and capitalist elements.

How does that align with
You can only get paid if you can own something.
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Wrong again. The most successful investors use state of the art computational tools to guide their investment. They are managers of ressource allocation. You can't automate this management yet. Feel free to name an alternative that works better than investor system and provide some evidence for it. Because the only alternative in the past was government workers and that sure didn't work well as can be seen by all the communist countries.

Because the USSR was a shithole and nobody wanted to live there.
Then why are leftist politicians the cause behind it? Sure you can argue that because capitalism works so well and creates so much wealth and high quality of life, it attracts all these immigrants. But it is still politicians who allow them to come.
No. See for further explanation.

Unfortunately we do not yet have better alternatives. There is no perfect system, just less shitty ones. That's why I am not a liberal but believe we need strong social structures so that we do not pursue individualism but actually work towards a greater good.

Raw capitalism would be bad too but capitalist elements are essential tools. Imagine in school if everyone got the same grade no matter how they individually perform. Standards would collapse.

Which is it?

Good luck, but this is an essentialist ideology and not an egoist one (unless you mean human imortality).

Don't you think the events triggered by the effects of global warming will be detrimental some part of humanity which won't have access to said technology?

We'll probably see, but I wouldn't be so confident on this matter. What feasible technical solution do you believe has been put forward up to this point?

What about ressources depletion? Don't you fear war for ressources? Oil for example?


Are you an anarcho-capitalist or a minarchist?

They are not, capitalists interests for labor migrants are.

Are you sure? Have you extensively read heterodox economical theories?

You mean market economy.

How is this related to the market?


I literally just explained what personal property is. Literally stop dodging, we don't want your toothbrush.
First, it worked quite well. Second, Cybersyn.
Read Cockshott

So much so I guess that people want it back. Funny that.
They aren't? SocDem's aren't "leftists" and even plenty of them are for immigration controls.
So your retarded and refuse to look at the economy as a whole and constantly misrepresent marxism. Nice.

Attached: bcdbae468d890f8ae6e6c80eed47e05aa2e646124dd93bc19f40ff1910833190.png (950x751 11.5 KB, 200.96K)

The USSR was in the top 3 countries by GDP for much of its existence, though.
You are continuing to misunderstand what socialists mean when they say "property". People still own personal property under socialism; it's literally enshrined in every socialist constitution that I've ever read, e.g. here in the 1977 constitution of the USSR:
I get the feeling you don't much know what you're talking about and have done very little research on what socialism even is tbh.
Yes, you can. The USSR was already pursuing such a project in the '60s - OGAS - that ultimately was passed over due to the technology of the time making such a transition massively costly. More recently, Cybersyn in Chile proved remarkably effective, allowing for normal coordination and functioning of the economy even with most of the truckers on strike during the US-backed coup - and then Pinochet happened. Now in the 21st century we have people such as Paul Cockshott proving that not only is computerised planning possible, but it would now be easier than ever; case in point being .pdf related.

Holy fuck, is this babby's first anticommunist argument or something? Socialism does not mean "everyone get paid same XDDDD", but rather everyone receives the proper compensation for their work. Marx literally says this in Critique of the Gotha Programme way back in 1875:
You can boil this down to the Leninist slogan of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" - still an imperfect state of affairs (not "to each according to his needs"), but a massive advance over the current state of affairs since it eliminates the unearned income of the property owners and instead allows for the surplus product to be used to better the whole of society.

All pictures taken by a US spy btw, so don't even try to pull the "doctored photos" shtick on me

Attached: 588a2d0fc361885b268b45eb.jpg (1600x1043 71.75 KB, 403.54K)

Attached: 848e656f60fdd6f53f2b7aceb9fe7261cd246f1eb2db72054e184387e851aa5a.jpg (759x800 123.9 KB, 1.17M)

Attached: Soviet-Union-in-the-30s.jpg (1023x689 28.47 KB, 126.09K)

I agree, deport all capitalists.

why give retards a platform at all?

so this is the power of smug centrism

Let's hope he is busy reading theory after he changed his mind on the nature of ideology.

beat me to it.

Why be on this board if you're not a leftist, dumbass?

Attached: oh yeah woo yeah oh yeah wo woo yeah oh yeah woo.png (750x724, 211.54K)