This is a general thread for all ex-Peterson fans coming to this board in wake of the debate. Oldfags, try to give newfags helpful introductory material, without sending 500 pg .pdf files. This thread is for newfags to gain a basic grip on leftist ideas.
Newfag Immigration Center
Other urls found in this thread:
READ BOB BLACK
there is no replacement for lecture
No one goes from being a right-winger to reading leftists books in a day. What we need is to give people condenced and easy to understand videos that explain the basics of our ideas.
Michael Parenti on identity politics being a neoliberal con is a good one
Gonna go with Chris Hedges on
Sorry gonna go with Chris hedges on pornography as well
listen to cumtown
Karl Marx - Das Kapital Volume 1 (Marxism):
Karl Marx - Das Kapital Volume 2 (Marxism):
Karl Marx - Das Kapital Volume 3 (Marxism):
Paul Cockshott - Towards a New Socialism (CyberSocialism):
Read this if you still like Hitler and want an introduction to Socialism
Otto Str*sser - Germany Tomorrow (Str*sserism):
Muammar Qaddafi - The Green Book (Jamahiriya):
Daniel De Leon and the Foundations of American Socialism (Guild Socialism):
Abdullah Ocalan - Democratic Confederalism (Democratic Confederalism):
Murray Bookchin - The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism (Democratic Confederalism):
Kim Il-Sung's Various Writings (Juche):
Joseph Stalin - the Foundations of Leninism (Marxism-Leninism):
George Douglas Howard Cole - Guild Socialism Re-stated (Guild Socialism):
Kim Il-Sung - Revolution and Socialist Construction in Korea: The Selected Works of Kim Il-Sung (Juche):
Gamal Abdel Nasser - The Philosophy of the Revolution, Book One (Ba'athism):
Peter Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread (Anarchism):
Don't do this
newfags study maoism
Good pick, I'm sure this won't send them laughing back to Zig Forums.
Zig Forums is overwhelmingly moralist and anti-porn when it comes to sex and so is hedges. Also he's openly defended right wing free speech rights and is a Julian assange stan
It's pure virtue signalling, reactionaries are closet degenerates more often than not. It's easy to find nuanced, relatable speeches from people other than this clown.
reading sucks, fuck you i wont do it
zizek is a fascist
there are no white proletariat read settles by j sakak
Why should we read Tucker Carlson?
Can someone explain to me what the fuck is up with that tumblr post? i remember seeing it in this exact board posted unironically.
READ CONAN THE BARBARIAN
READ LORD OF THE RINGS
this but unrivonaly
Also read Loth too Stoddard "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy" (1920)
READ KIM IL SUNG
READ KIM JONG IL
read Mei. Kemaof
REEEE LET US OPRESS YOU! STOP GETTING INDEPENDENCE
all boons are going back to the zoos
babbette baboon! youtu.be
Read boons to society to the zoo!
I've been into leftism since last summer, am i a newfag or an oldfag? I live in finland so search when the last summer was there.
You're a newfag, check out The Finnish Bolshevik on youtube. Also check out Paul Cockshott's shorter videos, especially "Why labor theory of value is right".
When you feel ready to tackle theory, start with "Value, price and profits" by Marx and "Foundations of Leninism" by Stalin. Those are relatively short, reader-friendly introductory texts that will take you a long way and make it much easier to really dig deep into Marx and Lenin.
As an all-round, consolidated introduction to Marxist economics, I find .pdf related to be pretty good - though it was written by a Trot, so it contains the requisite bits about the USSR being a "transitional form between capitalism and socialism" that I personally don't quite agree with. Still, I can't fault the way Mandel explains the core concepts tbf.
I'd recommend State and Revolution before FoL tbh, especially given our friend is an anarchist.
We really need a quick and dirty primer on the dialectic.
Basically what I'd tell newfags is that Marxists have a fundamentally different view of how history functions and how social development occurs. Liberals like Jordan Peterson get very confused and think Marxists are just sputtering contradictions, when Marxists are actually pointing out contradictions in the structure of historical development itself. It is through this dialectical conflict between these contradictions that history occurs. What do I mean by "dialectical" conflict? I mean there is a conflict in any given age, but the "winning" side is likewise transformed in the process into something different from how it entered the conflict.
A thesis and antithesis collapse into a new synthesis. Out of that synthesis, a new conflict emerges.
The United States resolved the conflict over slavery. But it did not return to its roots as a Jeffersonian democracy of powerful individual states and a weak federal government, either, like "America in 1776 with small individual producers everywhere except without the slavery." The war abolished slavery and also transformed the United States into an industrial capitalist empire with a strong federal government and based on large-scale wage labor.
Ideology also derives from the objective, material conditions of society: the economic base. Ideology (social values, culture, politics, etc.) likewise maintain the base. Slavery was a system of economic exploitation in which the *ideology* of white supremacy emerged: a system of oppression and thought control. Black slaves were exploited as slaves, but oppressed as blacks. Liberals often confuse these two things. They think we Marxists see exploitation and oppression as the same thing, and that capitalists are "evil." But Marxists do not think in these moralistic terms. It was the development of the industrial capitalism of the north, in any case, that destroyed the slave system in the south – and likewise transformed social relations along with it.
Going back to Zizek vs. Peterson: Zizek is basically using dialectical argumentation in a similar manner to me. Peterson did not understand this because he is trapped in one side of an ideological dispute: between his side and the "post-modern neo-Marxists" on the other. He expected Zizek to be that, but Zizek's line of argument is that P.C. culture and Peterson's own opposition to it are dialectical opposites: they sustain each other. And the ideological categorizations in this debate make no sense, as P.C. culture is not Marxist at all but actually liberal – those who talk about actually changing the economic system in a left or quasi-socialist direction are attacked by P.C. culture ("Backstabbin' Bernie is a white man"), and the alt-right people – and the "alt-lite" types like Trump – are actually the postmodern ones. See Zizek's point about Trump being this avatar of traditional values while also being a decadent game show host.
This is, again, because the "debate" people are having is between two subjective, ideological categories that arise from contradictions within the economic "base" of society, but these twin categories also, likewise, maintain that base. The "debate" as such is a trap: it is form of ideological thought control preventing history from moving on to its next stage. But it will eventually as the debate collapses and devours itself as it is beginning to.
Or I might be totally wrong or whatever but who gives a fuck
Good intro to dialectics
Who did you vote for last election?
What? 90% of peterson's work is none political
spotted a lobster
aha, lobsters don't do politics
OWNED LIBTRANDS FACTS LOGIC
While relatively being new I show the armchair flair. Good to be with you scholars and commentators alike. Shit posters are funny too.
I read the communist manifesto, quotes and passages of other works, and I will continue reading Das Capital. The works of Lenin interest me.
contrapuntalpoints deraficalized me I am now transitioning with hormones and donating all of my money to lgbt causes and adopting African children and raising a brood of boons
Fucking trot of an OP now where's my icepick, Marxist-Leninist-Petersonism and Juche are functionally equivalent in theory
For hardcore-theory-lifters an examination of the situationist's dictionary definitions of "leftist" and "rightist", and a reminder that Stalin condemned left and right deviation on theoretical grounds–these both conflict with mass line work, read the fucking short course — in praxis are in order here
I cannot get any book in here, they get stuck and never download.
Could you upload them somewhere else?
Ah, so is that debate why there are so many brainlet posts on this board?
I thought the mods were just stepping up recruitment of Reddit rejects
newfag here needing some basic help so I know where I'm at exactly
the question is simple: is this a legit communist board or you're just quasi-revolutionists fighting for LGBT and other PC bullshit like it matters?
Nah, most people around here don't care much about SJW or LGBT. We will discuss them sometimes but it's infrequent and great deal of posters is against any form political correctness. May I ask where you came from?
I hope so. I don't understand what's the bridge between this "liberal progresivness" and marxism and lately I'm even starting to think this is some anti-marxist plot to undermine our ideology as ridicilous.
I mean what normal socialist would go for that bs?
I am from Croatia
ding ding ding, we have a winner.
George soros, identity politics supporter to the core, also funded tons and tons of anti-communist and dissident movements in the soviet union.
no, don't worry, your position as top brainlet is secure
Not here from the debate but this seems like the right thread to ask in.
I have become open-minded about socialism/communism but I am not yet convinced, can anyone address these questions?
As for my current beliefs I used to be a near-ancap lolbertarian but the threat of automation has made me believe that taxing and wealth redistribution in the form of universal basic income will be necessary. I also now think that monopoly intervention is justified. The reason that I am considering communism is that the main advantage of capitalism is that it makes producers much more efficient and produces more total wealth for everyone even if it isn't distributed equally, BUT with automation humans will no longer be producers, only consumers and owners. And since private ownership of the means of production wouldn't matter when AI are running things we don't really need anyone to own them to be efficient. I think people should be able to own the goods they consume but not the machines that produce them. It would be dangerous to wait until we have full automation to make this transition though since at that point a small handful of greedy people would control all of the world's resources, making revolution impossible, so I would like to get us on the path towards communism right now even if it hurts our efficiency since the stakes are so high.
There are numerous ways people thought of doing it. I guess I like the Cockshott's way of having something close to greek democracy (paulcockshott.co.uk
Well, if the person is a leach because of some mental illness he needs help in my opinion. When it comes to sociopaths they will just be stopped by the state at first and later by the people because of social norms. Otherwise those who don't work don't eat.
You get your labor credits which are calculated how much you worked and then buy food with them.
From a socialist, not communist perspective, what makes state controlled industry more appealing than just giving everyone a universal basic income from all the funds that would have been spent on state companies?
If by socialist you mean social democrats, then none, they want to reform capitalism. A socialist/communist would want to have them state owned since the working class would be in charge and ownership of them.
I might hurt some people but private industry is in many ways more efficient, I would say a mix between those two shows great results, which can be seen in China. Still we haven't tried socialism with cybernetics which could be as, if not more efficient as private enterprise.
If you have any questions ask.
Are social credits basically just money? If not then what's the difference?
And because of the political system of the US someone like dup could get in power, I think those kind of capitalists and authoritarian "socialists" are basically the same kind of person, they're just sociopaths that want to consolidate power by whatever means is most convenient to them. A direct democracy would be a lot better, but it would also be a huge endeavor to simplify a lot of the government's systems to make them comprehensible to a layman so they'd actually participate. I think if there were only a couple dozen laws with very generalized applications you could rely on communities to enforce themselves without much government (which is how it worked for a large portion of American history before the police existed).
Vouchers are exchange units with extremely limited scope, only used for exchange for goods (produce) and services. They're tied to you, nontransferable and are granted for your labor time.
Credit is generally used to denote its digital nature.
They don't circulate. after one is used it ceases to be. They also are calculated in labortime which is different than money.
Ehh, not really. I'm not pro Stalin, I'm not even a Marxist-Leninist but him being a crypto-capitalist or simply wanting power doesn't hold true. He did a lot of good like give free healtcare, full employment, fought a war against Germany, etc. He also came to power in shitty situation for the SU. I know this might seem strange because I also was confused how someone could approve of Stalin, but a great deal about him being the "evil mustache man" is just propaganda.
As for the goverment stuff Cockshott makes good videos how votting would work. Here's one youtube.com
Sounds like the first legitimate use for blockchain
You can find good things to say about Hitler too like saving the German economy, doesn't make him right. Even if Stalin was a cool dude and the gulags didn't exist the issue I took with him was that he didn't give up power to the people, which is the entire point of socialism being the intermediary between capitalism and communism. All of the bad shit he did was specifically done to stay in power, so not only did he refuse to give up power he did everything he could to prevent that from happening.
Is a corollary of that that trading is illegal? money is ultimately just another commodity that is used in exchange for practical reasons. I ask because it goes against this liberal notions that even many "leftists" cling to with how the individual should be free to do what it wants etc.
If that site doesn't work, then these texts are all available at
Is this a new poltard meme?
I did it, was shit btw.
Yeah, just another one of their dumb strawmen
The thing is Stalin wasn't Hitler yet he's seen as equal for propaganda purposes. Gulags are seen as pretty much red extermination camps, which is simply wrong. It's claimed he killed 30mil people or so but most of those deaths are from a famine and WW2 kills, which I think I don't have to explain why it's bullshit. Anyways he doesn't really matter that much now and like I said I'm not a ML.
Hebereke March red army is a good game to ecchi fags.
Newfags are total faggots.
Neoliberalism was a CIA project used to destroy pro-Worker Socialism and replace it with Anti-Worker, Pro-Homo SJWism of the "New Left"