Just a normal human here. I came to here to see what you guys are about. So what are you guys about...

We know because to this day there are tribes living a hunter gatherer life.
Marxist have a very specific definition of class: marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm
The kind of specialization/division of labor you are implying here is already due to a class society. I'm pretty certain that a time a tribe had one "shaman" at most, they weren't like a separate strata of priesthood like in Feudalism. There were no separate "warriors" either, since if tribes went to war the same people who were "the hunters" fought against the enemy. The "gatherer/hunter" separation was mostly based on gender and age: women didn't generally hunt because under pregnancy or child rearing if she died or got injured two lives were at stake.

Well…

Liberals are pro-immigration out of moral reasons: muh poor third worlders, we must help them, it is our ethical duty, etc. Their analysis pretty much stops there.

Marxists of the kind you'll meet here will first of all try to understand why immigration is happening. Let's say there's a wave coming because US imperialism. We then ask what are the reasons for imperialism, and so on, until we arrive at the real causes.

Marx was pretty much against immigration based on the fact that even in his time immigrants under-bargained their wages and made the workers hate them instead of the real reasons for their own problems, capitalism: americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

If you are asking whether we believe that there's a conspiracy by le jooz to exterminate the whites by bringing in migrunts then the answer is no. We here believe in systemic analysis and not conspiracy theories.

So do you hate right and why?

The number one reason for immigration will be the global climate catastrophe in the following years. Capitalism is not able to tackle climate change, because of the profit motive, for one thing.

An eco-socialist transformation on a global scale isn't just an antidote to this, it's our best shot at surviving the next 100 years. We need economies that are planned and not decided by "the invisible hand" (i.e. blind rules and chaotic patterns) of the market.

Economic immigration is tackled best by making the world less unequal. Just imagine the US spending half the amount it currently spends on its army developing the third world. It would mean significant change in this regard within years.

I wouldn't say we hate "The right" – arguably, half of the human population constitutes it. We understand conservatism and liberalism as being much closer to each other than either one of them to communism: they are both for private property, a market system, class rule, etc.

Regarding social issues you'll find most Marxist being rather liberal (most of us don't think that gays kissing openly on the streets is haram), although it must be said that you can pretty much be a consistent Marxist on the essential questions (economy, political power, etc.) even if you are a homophobe or mysoginist or any of that retarded shit.

Marxist don't deny the progress capitalism has brought. That we don't consider women to be the property of their husbands anymore is a definite good capitalism has brought, for example.

...

But right doesn't think like that either. They don't like those overly gay propaganda prides, because this is weird.

Attached: gayyyyyyyyy.jpg (700x394, 68.78K)

Human sexuality is weird in itself, dude. If you think that a man fugging a women in the pusspuss is somehow less weirder than a man fugging another man in the poopoo you haven't really thought about human sex that much. For example, there's no other animal on Earth that can fuck for hours straight and multiple times just out of pleasure. There are no other species that fantasized during sex, or does weird sexual role-play, etc.

The right often intentionally misinterprets the real stakes of gay pride (legal equality) as some kind of conspiracy to bring down heterosexuality or whatever. Yes, they are flamboyant and look retarded, any many homofags know and admit this. Are they more irritating than a cosplay event, tho? IMO the latter is ten times more retarded because how it ties the individual to brands and celebrates it. At least I can understand the fags here: they are treated like trash by some of his fellow citizens and on this day they can say "Fuck you, I can do whatever I want you asshole" and they chose what triggers those the most whom'st they hate. But what's up with stupid niggers dressing up as Thor or that shit? What's their fucking excuse?

From a communist perspective, tho… the gay agenda is totally conservative. It wants to preserve the family unit just extend its scope to include them. Communists want instead as communalized child rearing as possible. See Chapter 12 - The Commune from this book to get a glimpse of what we want:

The right often intentionally misinterprets the real stakes of gay pride (legal equality) as some kind of conspiracy to bring down heterosexuality
Nobody gives a fuck if a dude fucks another man in the ass. The problem is that they want to change laws so they can marry and adopt kids, and the best way they can think of doing that is by showing how weird they are. It's like me trying to get a gun license while only using Punisher quotes. Would you give me a gun?

What do you think about pronouns and sex change operations on a child? Do you think it is a mental illness?

You are right in pointing out the ambivalence here: asking society to give them the responsibility of taking care of a child while acting irresponsible and childish. It's their PR, so, you know…

In any case I would much prefer orphaned kids to be raised by gayfags than by the state. This kids grow up constantly suffering from lack of attention, personal care, contact with adults, etc. No matter your reservations towards homos, it would be much better for kids to have 2 daddies instead of none. Would you agree with this?

Retarded. We are anti-PC. Look up Zizek videos on political correctness.
IMO sex change ops should be punishable by law because its an irreversible life altering operation based on pseudo-scientific reasoning. We are not creating wymyn out of men, we are creating botched up men, for fuck's sake. I'm the same on plastic surgery as well (not including restorative ones, of course). Capitalist doctors are selling lies, make a profit, and destroy lives. The capitalist media picks the story up because its edgy and controversial, thus generating views. People gobble the shit up and start standing in lines where they make them look like aborted clowns.

Going old and being able to accept that is part of the human experience. Until we have proper scientific methods for slowing down aging (e.g. gene manipulation) shit like this should be off the table, because it's all dishonest self-deception and parasitism on stupid people.

What do you think of antifa?

Liberals LARPing as radicals, substituting class politics and analysis for moral takes and the most short-sighted tactics (if you can even call it that).

What really paints them in such a way for me is that a good majority of them call themselves "anti-capitalists," while that term literally means jack shit in itself. Even a nazi calls himself anti capitalist. You become a comrade by wanting the exact same shit as I do, not by hating some vague shit like "skinheads" and "big corporations".

At best, people who will continually fail until they realize that opposition to fascism will also have to constitute opposition to the capitalist system that uses fascists as a reaction to maintain the current condition and advance a reactionary agenda, both social and for material conditions and relations (and by extension the liberals who serve the same purpose, the only difference being the extent of soft and hard power used, and overtness in action). At worst, liberals whose actions accomplish nothing much except ruffle the feathers of some idiots who then go and murder a bunch of innocent people using that as a justification.

I can tell that you guys have a pretty bad pr problem. Most people think that you guys are same as Liberals. What is your problem with altright anyway? From what i get, you kinda want the same thing.

At the best of times they have an incoherent and idealistic worldview which is based on bullshit conceptions of the world based on things like heritage or culture (which are even then usually mangled versions of the truth) rather than empiricism or analysis. At the worst of times they flip on a dime with their solutions, largely based off their own emotions and who they've been influenced by last, making incoherent decisions that usually backfire in hilarious ways or often harm themselves and other proletariat for the benefit of the rich. They are easily manipulated as tools to maintain the current class arrangement and to further empower the capitalists. Their conceptions of things like race, culture, gender roles, and all the other idpol issues are their main concerns, not the emancipation of the working class through the ownership of the means of production. This is why they are no better than liberals.

Interesting take. What would your ideal society be? Just go for me from point to point.

The "ideal" society is one in which class has been eliminated and the communist state has withered away to give the workers the full control of the planet in a classless and stateless society. All communist ideologies aim towards this end.

But who is running this?

Who's running what?

The people of the world, in whatever new phase of social organization arises out of the devolution and dismantlement of the communist state. It is for the people to decide, not myself.

...

But you need people up there, and they have to make decisions, who are these people? how do you force these ideals anyway? Who is at top making people behive as you want?

If a structural hierarchy for society is needed, it will be constructed. More likely, we either will have a form of direct democracy or consensus democracy enabled through technology on a multitude of levels, from societal to planet wide.

The only thing we must force is the destruction of the old system of societal arrangements and bring in the new one: the communist state, using a socialist workforce to develop the means and methods by which the society that will come as the communist state gradually dissolves to cede power to a new system.

In the transitional period? The vanguard of the party will ensure that the ideological tenants of the party are upheld, gradually destroying the bourgeoisie society and allowing for the formation of a new socialist societal arrangement, at which point communist ideals will perpetuate themselves.

How do you want to escape earth and eventually escape entropy?
Do you unironicaly belive Abbos or Niggers are capable of space travel?

Permanent habitation of other planets in any capacity belong isolated scientific bases is long off, so I'll leave that riddle to future generations.

As capable of anyone else when you destroy the highly reactionary governments and societies that govern them and give them a proper education rather than use them as appendages for machines to enable resource extraction.

we either will have a form of direct democracy or consensus democracy enabled through technology on a multitude of levels, from societal to planet wide.
You should understand this is impossible?

The only thing we must force is the destruction of the old system of …
This means literal war,or really funny politics. But no, you have to kill to even try this. I guarantee they will and can kill better than you can.

In the transitional period? The vanguard of the party will ensure that the ideological tenants of the party are upheld, gradually destroying the bourgeoisie society and allowing for the formation of a new socialist societal arrangement, at which point communist ideals will perpetuate themselves.

So murder for wrong think? Oh the irony.

By killing every other leftist of course.

Attached: g.jpg (314x227, 17.97K)

You should understand this is impossible?

This means literal war,or really funny politics. But no, you have to kill to even try this. I guarantee they will and can kill better than you can.

In the transitional period? The vanguard of the party will ensure that the ideological tenants of the party are upheld, gradually destroying the bourgeoisie society and allowing for the formation of a new socialist societal arrangement, at which point communist ideals will perpetuate themselves.

So murder for wrong think? Oh the irony.

Sorry, i some how fucked the whole post. Don't send me to the snowhell now.

Yep, decades of propaganda and COINTERPRO operations pretty much make most people have the same level of knowledge on leftist theories as you do. The word communism, socialism or leftist has basically lost all meanings in the US and are used to call out what you hate.

Even hardcore anti-communists like Kermit Pete don’t even know what communism is aside from reading the first page of the manifesto. Hell, most Western textbooks define socialism and communism as “free shit” or “goobermant does stuff”.

Attached: 16650345-06FB-4536-9774-A44E796A48F9.png (768x628 1.02 MB, 158.08K)

On the contrary, it's worked with the implementation of it by Cockshot in the past, and it's had some promising results in leftist communes in Mexico as well. When the materialist truth is understood, people can truly understand and protect their interests, so this seems like the most likely trajectory.

Oh, we know it means revolution. And I'm not particularly scared of the capabilities of fascists, whose utility to the capitalist class at this point has been neutered by the increasingly authoritarian nature of liberalism and the implementation of things like riot police and what have you. For now, fascists look more like an antiquated relic in the capitalist toolbelt than a real threat.

The only way that new social orders come into the world is through violence, as we've seen with the societal progression of society. The class war shall be a war of similar proportions. Global imperialist capitalism must be destroyed as an institution, with its supporters either disposed of or re-educated, all while implementing the kind of de-nazification measures that the USSR used on Eastern Germany, but tuned towards eradicating liberal and reactionary ideology. Only idealists think there is non-violent solutions to the domination of the bourgeoisie: they will not relinquish their power easily.

Attached: reducation.png (500x410, 209.97K)

Who are these "fascists"?

all the wannabe Zig Forums nerds and other idiotic assemblages of these different "alt-right" (or whatever they call themselves now) ideologies. Or more accurately, distinct lack of ideologies, more idealisms and idpols. The historical use they had for the capitalist class has been long since supplanted by the implementation of state institutions like the riot police, and the current crop of them aren't even particularly useful. The fascists of WW2 fame were at least composed of men that were broken by the destruction of the aristocratic myth of warfare, made into psychotic murderers due to the desensitization and social alienation that comes of watching everyone you grew up with getting mowed down in pointless chauvinistic wars. They were killers without conscious or sense, deeply broken and willing to enact all manners of violence for any measure of psychological security. The current crop of them are a bunch of internet weirdos and autists who fap to BBC porn.

For wrong act, like actual counter-revolutionary actions.
If you have actual ideas on how to run shit that aren't "let's bring back capitalism guys it'll work this time" you're welcome to join a local council or the party itself.

You should at least use the word "fascists" right, because no one else will. You need to use definite words on definite things, otherwise your orders will not work, wink wink.

Do you know about federal reserve?
Because this is what you should research.

Also,these guys on "right" kinda want the same things as you do. It's like i thought it would be. No person from one side actually ask why or what other side wants. To me, it seems like "right" actually wants a lot of same things as you do. You are thinking too small.Also, Communism has never worked, so WHY NOT MAKE SOMETHING BETTER? You said it yourself.

This is why you need to change it. Those books can't be for nothing, surely one of you guys can think a way to make it work. You have to change it enough so it will morph in a mold that might not even look like communism in the end, but the idea will still be there. Just think what you want to have, in the end.

Abolishing private property of land and natural resources, commodity production for profit and wage slavery?
Where the fuck did you find right wingers who want any of that.

Some parts of it worked, some not, there's plenty of ideas how to refine, you can name it post-capitalist or whatever but as soon as you try getting rid of profit motive people will recognize it as communist policy and call it what it is.

Change what? The end goal is classless society, the only things that change are tactics on how to get there, they will always be specific to current material conditions.

But the fact that you will need armed men will make classes by default. As long as someone have to tell people what to do, it will always make classes.

You guys do know that the whole of point of these shit is to direct the criticism towards it and alleviate the disdain for ‘normal’ LGBT right? I can’t believe something so basic as a sacrificial pawn strategy gets ignored. If these parades weren’t around the right would be whining about regular gays doing regular gay shit.

that's not what classes are though

Right never gave a shit about men fucking other men. It was their "parades" that got their attention.

Attached: slippery-slope-comic1.png (1140x300, 52.81K)

If people that will tell you what to do and you have to do it, i don't really care what's called.

Arm everyone fam

Someone clearly forgotten about history like the Stonewall Riots and the Right’s behavior in other less progressive countries.

Anti-gay legislation and crackdowns on gay bars predate every pride.

I think this is the problem, labels from past or how people just think. You know you are basically same as liberals?

Organization right after the revolution is not the END goal, class struggle is only beginning after it, and as we saw with USSR and China proletariat can lose it hard.

How the fuck are pronouns anti-PC?

every time

Coming from someone who seems to think that labels have no attachment to the past that allegation means nothing

is china communist?
if so, why are they ravaging every other scrap of land near them in order to secure capital gain.
I don't see the difference between capitalism and communism, both are about endless greed and sucking up every country nearby to fuel a global machine which serves a minute number of people at the top while all humanity is stripped out of life.

No, but it depends who you ask.
It’s kind of a mess, in my personal opinion, as they think they can control the borgs in their country and have it serve the interest of the paroles, but I haven’t seen much evidence for it.

Proles*

Yeah Marx would have totally supported the exclusion of the third world proletariat from better paying imperialist countries. Also labour aristocracy don't real.

I took you seriously until you posted Angela Nagle. I expected you to post some of Marx's writings on the subject as source material. Not some useful idiot that let Tucker Carlson make a fool out of her when she appeared on his show.

HAVE SEX

youtu.be/6s8oBlHbjyg?t=72
Here is the video of Angela Nagle on Tucker Carlson. You correctly pointed out that immigrants can be used as scapegoats for the capitalists, causing workers to fight the wrong enemy. Tucker Carlson used Angela to scapegoat immigrants when she appeared on his show. He literally played a reel of immigrants crossing the border - focusing on immigrants and not capitalists/other factors- as Angela tried to explain her point of view. I should be clear. I don't necessarily care what she said. It was not really anything profound nor disturbing and thought that it was nothing to fret about. But Tucker used her like a tool, and made her look like a complete idiot in my eyes.

...

That retort doesn’t really work unless you can explain how material conditions prevent you from having sex

I have autism, dont look good, have no social circle and am poor.

Attached: PF.05.10.2017_CE.europe-07-03.png (950x752 166.28 KB, 212.79K)

Meant for

Poor people still have sex, in fact if you believe propaganda they have too much sex. Not an argument.

Attached: autism_relationships.PNG (410x886 44.14 KB, 86.29K)

The money thing was jusr to preempt muh hookers anyway.

Because everything else is not related to material conditions

Attached: 2_int_akko.jpg (200x214, 23.22K)

You having autism, no friends and being a loser has nothing to do with material conditions. Being poor is a product or a consequence of it though.

No it|s not, there are plenty of people who are rich under capitalism.

Which is because of their material conditions (access to means of production, social capital, capital) etc etc

It is the difference between systemic and individual characteristics relative to others, blaming only one or the other is not sufficient to explain single outcomes, omly both taken together determine a certain result. What you are saying is that economy is purely systemic and sex purely individual.

Which you have not done to prove that poor people have no or lesser sex

No the distribution of wealth is systematic and the distribution of sex is individualistic, Perhaps genetic factors are at play here, but that can’t be considered systematic.

ITT: Lumpenpolceltariat

You misunderstand. The point is that even if there is systemic explantation for some group, that alone can not explain why a certain individual of holds the position it does. Just saying “capitalism” is not enough to tell you why Bezos is billionaire because there are plenty of people under the system that are not rich. He came from the right family, has no empathy, was lucky etc.
PURE IDEOLOGY. Sexual selection is a systemic explanation for the distribution of sex, are you a creationist?

That is not even the central marxist critique of capitalism. That of surplus value being taken by capitalists from workers. That is what keeps rich people rich and getting rich. And that is how capitalism works.

No it isn’t?
That is not even how pure ideology works…

Take a shower, get a haircut, go to some autism support group and smash an ugly girl on a spectrum.

Explain to me how you determine when a human is born whether he will be a rich capitalist or a poor prole. Protip: it is largely luck depending on who your parents are
I meant systematic. How can you say then explain that somebody attractive is going to have more sex without any systematic explanation? Is it just an “essential part”? This makes no sense as it literally others relation to you.

The girls on the spectrum all get sexuallz used bz neurotzpicals, seriuosly.

...

*This makes no sense as it is literally how others relate to you.

Now this is called sidestepping the argument

Okay first of all, you didn’t mention looks until now so this is a massive pivot. What is considered to be ‘good looks’ is based on cultural norms and personal effort that can be different. That isn’t to say that lookism doesn’t exist but it is vastly different to the other factors that you described which were genetic.

No. They have all the hallmarks of a capitalist society and they’ve been that way since the 80s. Some people insist that they still are, but they’re extremely wrong.
That’s partially true in some ways, however there are some things you should consider. First of all, while there was a definite elite in the USSR, the wealth disparity between them and the poorest citizens was much smaller than in capitalist countries. Also even the poorest had all their needs guaranteed, which is not something the poor in most capitalist countries can say. Furthermore, the aggressive expansion of the Soviet economy and its gobbling up of resources in a highly un-ecological manner was a result of the specific geopolitical circumstances at the time. They found themselves forced to compete with the West to avoid getting destroyed, and so they pursued an aggressive economic expansion program. However with capitalism, this consumption is driven by its own internal momentum and logic. Think about this rationally, in a socialist system there is no force that drives it inexorably to greater consumption, nor is there any reason to consume or produce goods in an unsustainable or un-ecological manner. The collectively owned economy is not driven by an imperative to produce and sell as much produce as possible, to cut costs as much as possible, etc. It’s highest priority is the wellbeing of its people. Under capitalism however it is absolutely imperative for every firm to sell as much product as possible as quickly as possible, therefore it promotes consumption for its own sake which obviously drives constant exhaustion of natural resources, ecosystems, and people. Not only this, but it needs to be done as cheaply and quickly as possible, which of course usually means as dirtily as possible. The Soviet system, to the extent that it resembled capitalism in this manner, was a result of a life and death competition with the West which effectively re-created the same pressures that drive capitalist production (ie produce as much as possible as fast as possible). However under capitalism these pressures are endemic, rather than the product of a particular situation. So while socialism can demonstrate the same issues under the right (or wrong) conditions, capitalism will always have this problem.

Killing those who oppose change and installing a new government on top of the same power structure, leads to a situation The Who described as:
< Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Except the old boss had experience.

I identify as a centre left social democrat, who enjoys perturbing the status quo. The term democratic socialism strikes me as suspicious.
Those who glorify marxism are pro (civil) war in my mind.

Now, to answer OPs question:
People on the left are usually atheists, who think that a government should not be a theocracy.
For a scandinavian, throwing out monarchy and establishing a republic, is like removing the reset button on a computer.

I am for a separation of church and state, because as it stands, christianity is in a state of "the inmates running the asylum".
I am against ""any"" centralization of power, so obviously I'm 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸Norwegian🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸.

I am not going to explain why I am right for holding one position, and others are wrong, because that tends to devolve into juvenile moralizing.

Countrary to the main stream left, I am wary of open borders. However, the welfare system is being abused by both foreigners and locals, so I think we should be justified in having a privileged identity, and a means of promoting anyone into said class. Academia serves part of this role, but predatory capitalism is a bone of contention for many on the left, hence marxist shills.
The rest of this role is served by fraternities such as the freemasons, which the right have a stranglehold on.

I think the US free speech is very important. In Norway, people celf-censor a lot. Don't get me wrong, I think exercizing the prefrontal cortex furnishes your judgement, but it can lead to suppression of important issues.

In essense, I want the left to duplicate what the right does, but without the irrational baggage. But I am not so sure this is even possible. That reduces the left and right dichotomy into atheist and religious.

Attached: 684px-Masonic_SquareCompassesG.svg.png (684x804, 97.25K)

Lmao at the Laotian Empire in that picture. Wish it was true. They have the entirety of SEA in their hands!

And the DPRK owns all of Korea now

no.
akko is a qt

Attached: akko.png (714x945 3.54 MB, 423.68K)

Google Tulsi Gabbard's assistants police cult and the p2 lodge

0/10 reading comprehension

If you actually believe that then you are incredibly ignorant of history.

What argument? I have been talking about systems and individual characteristics and how they interact to give certain people certain outcomes.
I did where I mentioned all the others.
You are pivoting to liberal ideology with muh bootstraps. It doesn’t matter for systematic explanations, some people are more attractive than others and they are positively discriminated against. If you are too hung up on ideology for humans, look at other anmimals. E.g:

Attached: Heritability of Facial Attractiveness.PNG (812x588 95.52 KB, 95.52K)

I am looking into it.

And you completely ignored the actual Marxist critique of why Bezos is able to become and remain rich and instead pivoted to other conditions that he also has. There are other proletariat that have the same conditions as him but couldn’t make it as big as him (if at all) due to capitalism.

Wait, so your don’t look good is not about clothes and hygiene?

Even your frog examples and picture is about sexual selection with regards to access to resources (via fitness and best territories

Not when you can always alter your looks and that doesn’t translate to sexual prowess or financial success as well as animals.

And you don’t have to believe in free will to think that sex is rewarded for effort, hard work and morality since the capacity to do all 3 is influenced by genetics.

No I have not. Economics is they system. A better example are trust fund kids though. Only within the wider system of vast wealth inequality and its inheritance and continual concentration in capitalist accumulation can their particular individual luck to be born to the right parents allow them their “success”.
No, reddit-chan…
You ignore the very much biological part (itself primarily determined by genes and secondarily by environment): The females then arrive and choose the males with the deepest croaks

The naturally good looking can also alter their looks too and look even better. This is still muh bootstraps though, makes little difference and cancels out with others doing it as well. Also, humans are animals.
True,but being sociopathic and immoral is rewarded by females with love and sex.

Attached: 116599be1d33591548bfcd54e65dbb70dab9b28ab33f97910949dc544f59f1f1.png (973x448, 99.22K)