Unpopular Opines Thread

It’s been a while, I’ll start

Attached: Oceanskraper.jpg (414x473, 48.37K)

Other urls found in this thread:

foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/bytedance-cant-outrun-beijings-shadow/
youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM&gl=US
youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

None of this are edgy opinions.
Duh, historical materialism and moral relativism.
China never claimed to be not capitalist, not even in Mao times.

The climate change / global warming "debate" is about population control, and as long as the global population doesn't hit their goal of 500 million or whatever, they're going to keep bitching. If it's no longer about global warming, they will find something else to justify massive population reduction (because they are pathologically dishonest and will never come out and say they want to cull the population).
Global warming will cause damage but humanity will survive in the forseeable future, and eventually population growth will level as access to food will remain restricted and natural disasters will continue to be allowed to ravage populations, particularly in Africa. We grow enough food to feed something like 12 billion using the inefficient capitalist model we have now, properly managed we could potentially feed far more with just the land that is developed now. There won't be mass starvation, and where there is food, people can survive.

Really unpopular opinion: Climate change will not be solved.

The liberal focus on climate change ignores the entire spectrum of co-morbid environmental damage we're doing, but even if we focus on one thing, it's beyond the total capabilities of all bourgeois states to change direction.

A communist world could reach fully renewable/sustainable, even with the current population, but not before the earthy is deeply scared by run-away capitalism.
A flooded, fucked up world with extreme weather patterns will become the new normal.

No shit. It's irony and anger at burger ideology. Burgers aren't evil but they are pathetic for believing things that hurt them.
When was burger imperialism not colonial?
No shit.
Too bad it wasn't more successful tbh. There are still loads of fundies in murrika.
That implies academia is productive labor which is so generous it borders on delusional. Much of academia is simply intellectual masturbation for the purposes of convincing rich kids that they're smart.
I don't think predictions count, but that's very optimistic.
There have been successful ML revolutions now and then throughout the 20th century so probably. They'll get fucked by the US though.
I guess.

The problem isn't the amount of food but the distribution infrastructure. In a (likely) scenario where infrastructure has major issues we would see mass starvation because of the failure to sustain food shipments. Most population centers import food from pretty far away, with only enough locally stored food to last the population for a week or so. This is likely deliberate on the part of the ruling class both for increased profitability (the shorter storage periods, the less you spend on that), and as a measure to discourage a general strike.

Probably true.
Yep.
Mostly because they answer to fossil fuel companies.
A capitalist world could do this too, but only if there weren't the vast oil/gas monopolies. It's actually way cheaper to run on renewables, but global energy is run by a cartel with so much power that they influence what wars happen.
Probably. It was the normal for most of our species' existence, with the relatively stable situation only happening for the last 12000 years, when civilization emerged. And previously it was generally much colder, with swings between deep ice ages and thaws. We haven't had a desert planet in our species' history before.

Yes, distribution would be a potential problem, but not an intractable one and the solution has nothing to do with the austerity measures ecofascists want to push hard. In the third world, distribution has been THE problem for a long time, people don't have the money to buy food and capitalism doesn't have a use for these people if they're not slaving away for pennies a day.

To be clear, in full or highly developed communism, deistribution is easy. The issue is in the period of transition or the likelihood of a crash before the transition begins.

This ignores the advances in geoenginering and how it will counteract worsening climate conditions. This will eventually even out.

Everything post Spanish-American War.

Racism is bad and decolonization is key to creating socialism in settler states like America

We’re supposing we won’t fuck up geoengineering and only make things worse? And that we can magically reverse 200 years of nonstop war against Earth with magic tech that doesn’t exist?

The Climate system is not some divine machine, but a series of process that can be understood by humans and with the right actions, changed.

No. South Africa was the only state that somewhat managed to build an OK economy exactly because the Black political power focused on economic, instead of racial relations. In countries where "settlers" are majority, decolonisation will do nothing but empower fascism.

how is this in any way unpopular, isn't this leftist consensus??

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (250x241, 77.31K)

Where in the West has ever had a revolution that you can even say this so willingly?

You’re the one that believes a magic machine can fix 200 straight years of pouring millions if not billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

It’s like shooting someone in the fucking head and then resuscitating the dead body.

Hopefully I can trigger some of you with these takes:
And hopefully the hottest of them all:

Not that guy, but I know that every day plants use carbon dioxide at lower atmosphere and a few dozen tonnes of upper atmosphere leak into space.

your the inverse of Zig Forumstards who dream of Nazi masturbation fantasy, your ideas will never be carries to fruition, and your existence just annoys everyone else.

The only ones that would do this would continue to engage in imperialism and build their nativist socialism on the backs of the global proletariat.
Replace nation with culture and then sure. The nation didn't do any of that stuff, the people did (and of course the people who did are probably dead now).
Not in the sense of the people or the land, but for sure in terms of the state.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." t. Marx
The only way to achieve an ethnostate is to forcibly relocate millions of people which is itself genocide, and is infeasible without mass deaths. Ethnic nationalists are whiny babies who need to be spanked until they stop crying. They're upset over literally nothing.

What does this mean in plain language and is this scientific? Post proofs.

A surplus of food today won't matter when tomorrow it becomes a deficit from extreme weather or resource depletion, especially if those resources are needed for pesticides and fertilizers. There are countless other limits not directly related to food, from water stress to persistent pollution that are extremely dangerous to humanity.
Don't get me wrong, the answer isn't to start genociding people. Most of this is due to capitalist waste, and under socialism, we'd be able to streamline production to not only be more ecologically conscious, but more equitable as well. This still doesn't change the fact that we're horrendously in overshoot, and I'm skeptical we can stabilize things without a combination of reduced production and soft populations controls like universal abortions and family planning.

Attached: limits-to-growth.JPG (704x654, 90K)

Ok
You immediately contradict yourself here

Not the decolonization part

wtf does 'historically neccesary' mean? that it had to happen for the present to exist? no duh, that applies for everything.

I don't think genocide of the natives was necessary, there were plenty of other ways to solve that situation.

You're talking about such a large amount of land becoming totally unproductive that it is unrealistic unless the planet is literally turning into Venus. Enough food can be produced, and if need be oil-powered tractors can be replaced by human labor or animal power, but it almost certainly won't even come to that.
Of course the important thing isn't whether people can be fed (they can continue to be, quite easily), but whether the powers that be have the means to forcibly reduce the population and corral them into quarantine areas. In the past, this was not easy, but the modern national security state has been developing consciously towards that goal. Around 1980, humanity's fate was sealed, and most people born since then who are educated are enthusiastic about this impending extermination, and are completely irredeemable. They will not stop, no matter what, until they all die, or we all die. There is no compromise and no coexistence possible in the long term.
It really doesn't matter what economic system we have, although obviously a socialist system would not suffer the kind of inefficiencies and stupidities we see in the market system and with agribusiness designing seeds with the intent to disallow re-use. Given the logic of population control though, I would imagine such use of terminator seeds would continue, and deliberate action would be taken to begin starving out and with-holding food from the undesirables.

You're made of meat son, you eat shit and die

Read this study. The planet doesn't doesn't need to become a desert for crop yield to significantly decline worldwide and a large scale famine to occur:

Attached: journal.pone.0217148.g001.PNG (3394x4889, 4.83M)

Deng ACCEPTED that capitalism was needed in china in order to keep building an international power that would eventually send in the peoples liberation army.
As mentioned before, you just can't do all that singapore invading without reforms only suited specifically towards china's weird domestic and foreign politics/policies that would eventually be repealed by those adherent to "inherently socialist ideas" (Deng never really shit on the current central planning elsewhere, hence the CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS).
Sorry if this is too repetitive/incoherent. It's late as fuck and I'm tired

Attached: DengXiaoping.Cats.png (680x450, 217.68K)

Isn't it simpler to just believe that China gave in to the corruption that all M-L states did and the powerful were envious of their compatriots in the west?

Lmao

The decrease in land fertility can be countered by more advanced agricultural techniques.

Desalinization

Just don’t force women to abort healthy fetuses, also stuff like one child policies lead to harmful social consequences, such as a population that is mostly from the older generation.

We produce enough food for ten billion people, with current technology, and with a lot of arable land unused.

Decolonization is black ethnonationalism.

Oops, your mask fell off. Shoo shoo negative world Zig Forumstard

It's simpler, just not true.

Deng was a real Communist that drove over capitalists with tanks and made sure that diehards like Xi could purge careerist corruption with the aid of the party.

No, he drove over collage kids who were upset over the end to price controls. Real capitalist like pic related were allowed to do whatever the fuck they wanted.

Attached: JackMa.jpg (620x413, 32.03K)

Do you really believe that the rich little pricks of China today with their iphones and Lamborghinis are going to actually flip and build socialism?

Industry restrictions are super heavy
foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/bytedance-cant-outrun-beijings-shadow/

Bullets will come if they don't

Attached: Capture.JPG (1042x142, 47.33K)

Oh please….

I wish I could be as naive as you.

We're on our own, there's no master plan. The oligarchs of our future will wear a rainbow coalition of skin tones.

WigNats are so schizophrenic that if you told them that they could all move to a particular place that was theirs - freely and as a reconciliatory measure by socialist nations - to live in as they pleased, they would probably spurge out and come up with how the 'ethnostate' handed to them by socialists is actually a death camp to eliminate them. WigNats cannot be helped or reasoned with. They will each want their own ethnostate where they themselves are the rulers. It's not enough for them that socialists should exist apart from them.

China
China should be both supported and detested. It's not socialism in Marxist way of the world, but an outright DOTB it's also not. It's some weird combination of socialism with capitalism. The socialist element should be the one showered in praise; capitalist one thrown in the bin.
climate change
Will kill us all if literally no massive action will be taken right now. It's the outright most important issue of the current times. How is this controversial? Most people are in denial that "it will fix itself, dude". Something they wouldn't say if they knew their children had no future.
Zig Forumsyps
Zig Forumsyps (4chan's ones) unironically have revolutionary potential. They might be too dumb to understand the world in more complex ways than "the Juice did it!", but nonetheless their problem is capitalism; their savior is socialism. They wouldn't be opposed to soviet socialism be it not "Jewish". They literally want affordable healthcare and strong family.

Attached: 1550282265091.jpg (366x326, 42.56K)

Yes, causing the mass extinction of a significant percentage of all species on earth is nothing to worry about.

Humans are generally scientifically illiterate and incapable of long-term planning. Also there's an awful lot of money to be made by not solving the problem.

The only way to stay sane is to become completely alienated and think of yourself as a dispassionate observer watching events unfold from a distance.

There's no evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. There isn't even a consensus of opinion. The "97%" figure that's commonly spouted is of climate scientists who have voiced an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, which 34% of have, the remaining have no opinion.

I'm glad we have a galaxy-brain like yourself here to tell us what all those mute scientists are thinking, and to dismiss thousands of peer-reviewed papers with a single brilliant sentence.

The figure is based on published studies that support a position, not individual scientists. This gets misinterpreted all the time. No shit most studies won't take a position on a specific topic, because it's not relevant to every study. If anything it's shocking that as many studies are relevant.

Attached: im-nick-land-and-this-is-my-meltdown-i-work-13730767.png (500x618, 107.06K)

I don't think getting rid of humanity is necessary. If we're lucky we'll get to live as pets or children.

More probably they'll make Dr. Mengele look like Florence Nightingale.

I played Analogue: A Hate Story and Planetarian, am just now about play Lucy - The Eternity She Wished For, oh and I also love the Second Renaissance. Imma be fine but oh yeah, you dudes are screwed.

This is supposed to be an unpopular opinion thread user

Causing a mass extinction of humans should be at least a little problematic, but it is perfectly okay according to environmentalist logic. The important thing is to worship some balance of nature or stuff, because… uh… blood and soil? It's literally Nazi shit and why the left incorporates it baffles me to no end.

It makes a lot more sense when you see these same environmentalists reassuring their white liberal supporters that they themselves, due to their virtue and goodness and merit, don't really have to sacrifice much. Just the poor white trash, and the nigs. Especially the nigs, dig into them about their racism and you see the fireworks really go off, they're really motivated by a seething hatred of the black race that would make a Neo-Confederate blush, that goes beyond any possible reason proportionate to anything all the black people in the world have collectively contributed to climate change.

So was America pre-Regan.

That is impossible.

Do you understand what the word "extinction" means?
Fucking brainlets.

Global warming is what’s going to massively reduce human populations unless we do something about it. This is boomer NWO tier shit you’re spouting.

Yes and no, lots of them believe communism is only achievable through primitivism, that is the production of technologies that require cooperation and coordination to produce will neccesarily lead to power structures and social stratification.

So they are reactionary, but not in the usual sense. They reject technologies, not social progress

Socialism can never occur in America because of racism. I seriously doubt America will ever follow in the CCCP's steps because it would inevitably end up with sending blacks and latinos to the gulags. I think this would happen because anti-semitism is more difficult for Americans to come to terms with than racism, and especially with the racial riots and disturbances that have occurred in the 21st century—and continue to occur even to this day. Also, if you tell white people that they have to give up their property for black people or latino people, do you seriously think this will go over well with them? It's not like Russia where they are ethnically homogeneous to a better extent than America. White people are still the majority in America, and their opinion will dictate the political and economic systems. You might be able to get away with a hereditary monarchy if the monarch is white, and then you could push socialist policies through this monarchy. But, you also risk the monarch just getting assassinated. I think the most probable future for America is a resurrection of Wild Western anarcho-capitalism, with a spice of land ownership dissolution. This would allow a chaotic distribution of property to the lower classes without explicitly being "socialist" in the eyes of Americans. It would probably also dissolve American debts and send the country into absolute poverty for a couple decades until everything re-adjusts itself.

sure it will

social progress is impossible without technology

In a few decades most people will be mixed-raced. Besides most people in Burgerland aren’t racist. They couldn’t care less about that shit.

America is the only other country other than Africa (South Africa, to be exact) to have explicit racial riots. You need to read about the Ferguson riots of 2014, Baltimore riots of 2015, and then the smaller 2016 riots in Charlotte and Milwaukee. Also, are you even from America? The people inside of the cities may not be explicitly racist, but everyone outside of them does have racial opinions—especially about black people. The racism is actually a capitalist tool to keep white Americans working harder than blacks, by the way, and it also works both ways. The racism demoralizes blacks and pushes them further into criminality, leading to a massive amount of free labor in the prison-industrial complex. America HAS to be racist for our capitalist economy to work, which is why I don't believe socialism can ever work. Thus, my suggestion that anarcho-capitalism is the only move on the chessboard forward.

That's where nazbol comes in, we need to build a fash to commie pipeline if we are ever going to have socialism in america. Theres more of them than us right now by a long shot

from “outside the city” to be exact and people where I live aren’t racist.

>>>/gulag/

I moved to nc as a kid, and had friends willing to tell (more like brag, really) a transplant yankee that their parents were in the kkk.

But racism for the most part nowadays (outside the deep south) is between whites behind closed doors, and its alive and well even if it's been declawed

How about fucking no? That's how you get millions of black people murdered in "concentration camps" AKA prison. I am not saying that fascism is impossible, but you're suggesting a literal coin flip with the outcomes being either: a) white national-socialist country with racist concentration camps, or b) national-socialist country with concentration camps for ideological outliers. Which one do you SERIOUSLY think is more likely in America? The die is heavily weighted towards option A, so your ideal of a "pipeline" is just incredibly unwise to rely upon. It is a better idea to just dissolve the wealth with anarcho-capitalism for a couple of decades, allow property to be redistributed through anarchy, and then re-establish order with a socialist government to replace the crippled and neutered capitalist government. Obviously, both a fascist system and an anarcho-capitalist system will both have racist elements to them just because of the diaspora of blacks and latinos in a majority white nation, but it is highly unlikely that massive genocide attempts would occur under anarcho-capitalism and opposed to fascism.

I just can't agree with you on this point.

And yes, you are correct.

Literally 1/100 environmentalists are actually some deep green genocidist type, you're just throwing shit around to see what sticks.

The only people bitching about 'muh Africa overpopulation hurr durr' in my experience are Zig Forumstards and conservatives trying to distract attention in my experience.

This is not what happens. Under a anarchistic system wealth concentrates. This why after sexual liberalism there are more virgins than before.
youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM&gl=US

America wasn't controlled by dedicated communists.

dengoids get the bullet too

Attached: dedicated communist.jpeg (1200x800, 136.09K)

I am talking about mostly dissolving land ownership, which is a form of wealth. This can be accomplished by just killing land owners in an anarcho-capitalist system, which permanently bars these people from participation in the land ownership economy because they are dead. Also, unused land that is hoarded by land owners would naturally become used in an anarchist state. You are correct that wealth perhaps in the form of gold would concentrate, but gold is not necessary for human survival, and gold really doesn't exploit human beings unless a human being values gold to an inexplicable extent. Land ownership is inherently exploitative because humans are temporospatial creatures. We exist within time and space itself, so obviously, we need a space to exist within, and we should be able to exist within this space for free. Thus, under anarcho-capitalism, we can redefine land ownership in a way that isn't racist, and also in a way that is socialist. If the oligarchs and the rich want to take their gold and move to Iceland or whatever, then that's fine. Let them concentrate their stupid yellow metal on that shitty island after we terrorize them into relinquishing their land rights in America.

okay, NO

State controls are an essential part of capitalism, without the police to protect private property and laws to enforce contracts etc it's impossible for large corporations to form.

Georgism can work, anarchy can not. If you kill all the landlord without building a new state that enforces georgism, you will simply get warlords taking control of capital like land and ultimately they will recreate their own state.

t. relationship bourgeoisie
State conrols are an essential part of socialism. If the state is destroyed someone probably the capoitalists will just make another one and crush your hippie coommunes.

all anarchism is good for is creating power vacuums ripe for the taking

Yes, I am not advocating for anarchism FOREVER. That makes no sense, obviously a state must exist at some point. You would want something like Georgism, Communism, or some other socialist government to come in an fill the power vacuum that is left by anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is merely a transitional period between capitalism and socialism, and I think it is safer than the other user's suggestion which was to try and convert fascism into communism without any racial genocides along the way. So let me reiterate that anarcho-capitalism is not the end goal—socialism is.

so in what way was the Vietnam/Korea/Iraq/Afghan war an historical neccessary?

Dude, the nature of capital, is that it turns more and more into capital, you can't bargain with it, you can't use it to build socialism, at most you can bring your country out of the third world, and start looking for markets for your expanding economy.

I'm not an anarchist but your assertion is/was just wrong.

Which one? At least you seem to be iberal-leaning. Should markets exists?

Bourgeois academia has very well convinced us that politics and economics are different, but it's two halves of the same whole, economics are the politics of dividing scarce resources, china's system of production, and the state apparatus can not be separated, if the government allows for capital, it is a capitalist government. We should oppose it because that is class struggle, and maybe the synthetic system that evolves from Chinese capitalism will be tight, but in the mean time, I'm not gonna pretend that any state as it exists right now is a DOTP, and I hope nobody else does either.

No… I'm just saying that it's wrong to assert that capitalism is anarchic. By and large it isn't, it's enabled and protected by the state.

I don't think it's clear China aren't /ourguys/ from a Marxist perspective, since capitalism and communism are not really antithetical to each other. Obviously Marx believed communism comes after capitalism, so China is all about "developing the productive forces" as the first step toward building socialism. What exactly is the economic program they should have instituted to develop their economy without caving to capitalism? Seems very unrealistic to me and just another way anti-China propaganda leaks into leftist discourses which should be wary of such state department/glowposter talking points.

The problem with China is not found in Marx but in Baudrillard:
In short, we have to get out of "the problem with capitalism is that it doesn't meet our needs!" Because concepts like need are already conceding too much territory. But in terms of the more classic Marxist approach you guys bandy about I don't really see what China is doing wrong at all. They are only just now reaching something near tech parity. If they don't remake the world economy in the next 10-15 years, then shit on them, but like what were they supposed to do different to this point??

Markets are anarchic.

In the most primitive sense sure, in the sense of organised corporate capitalism, no.

no, just misanthropic and stupid
imperialism and colonialism is never necessary, and inevitably does more harm than good.
anprim is a meme and not even a good one. at least nazbols have theory, what do these doublethinkers have?
it's intellectually lazy and nothing else

Here’s an unpeople opione, nuclear war is impossible because of MAD. Nuclear proliferation should be encouraged in order to prevent conventional wars. Also radiation isn’t that bad, neither is nuclear fallout of depleted uranium being used in civilian industry.

Prostitution is exploitation.

Agreed

Fucking don't agree, never heard of Gulf War syndrome?

Procreating is selfish and forcing somebody to live, suffer and die is despicable.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (500x736, 53.46K)

Agreed. If you MUST care for children, just fucking adopt. We don't need to make more people.

I don't think they did anything wrong per se, capitalism was coming for them anyway due to capital expansion and the fact that it's the historic moment, and got a pretty good deal doing capital on their own terms. But that does not change the fact that it is a dictatorship of the bourgeois, and the working class is going to be against this as a matter of fact.

I find this argument odd. It's kind of like talking about how putting a newspaper in a trash can instead of a recycling bin is bad for the environment. On one hand, it's technically true. On the other hand, the way to save the Earth is to address systemic and large problems, and compared to that, a newspaper in a trash can is small potatoes.
Frankly I don't see what's the point in moralizing about childbirth. Let's focus on the bigger parts of the plan, like liquidating the 100 companies that produce 70% of all pollution.