I just read Umberto Eco's 'Ur-Fascism' essay

A trot sells a paper, a tankie sells Stalin, and an anarchist sells a dream.

But Stalin is not jewish.

Well, Marx goes without saying, so

show them the all encompassing power of the immortal science

Attached: smug lenin.jpeg (540x810, 43.01K)

It's good, and I say that I have had virtually the same experience (I was an ex-ns), however from my own opinion I would say do your own research and broaden your information sources (don't get all your information from just one place).

For starters though, I recommend anything related to critical theory since it appealed to me and got me out of my phase (Primarily about capitalism and its effects on culture, psyche, etc) It happens to be that Frankfurt School literature is completely the opposite of what its regularly accused of>>2950512

Oh also the communist manifesto as an introduction to how marxists see history is great: just don't expect some roadplan on what should be done, ironically enough for a manifesto it ain't that.

Okay, anyone who actively supports republicans is obviously an asshole and perhaps a fascist, whatever. But don't expect nice words for the democrats here. Let's not be fools: everytime they were in government, they waged war against vulnerable countries in development, they did free trade and benefited wall st etc…

Anyway, marxism might be what you're looking for. Just keep in mind something: marxism is not about hate for the wealthy or fascists or whatever. Marxism is, or tries to be, science, done with the purpose of transforming our reality into a better one. So no moralfaggotry is allowed here. We don't want to hear bitching about x or y. Instead, give arguments, read theory and debate politely, that should do it. If you don't like it, well, you might not fit in here.

And something else in this respect. I have ambiguous feelings. I think, for example, that Trump victory in 2016 was actually good because if you look at his campaign, he put on the table a lot of important issues: wasteful wars, free trade benefiting the wealthy, dead infrastructure, and generally poverty and misery in the midwest. That was good. Hillary didn't talked about that, neither did Obama nor Romney. The establishment had complete hegemonic domain over public speech. But Trump came and a lot of these issues became important. Now, today is a different matter. Trump is really, really dangerous because he co-opts a large portion of the working class with racism and nationalism while fucking up everyone and benefiting the wealthy as usual. The economy he built is completely rigged in favor of the most powerful, we know that. But he is effective at distracting us from those issues right now. So while I think that his victory was, historically speaking, generally good in 2016, right now it's imperative to defeat him. That's why I would like to see more of candidates like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. But instead, the party is shifting towards a more radical IdPol with Harris, or to the dead and useless centrism with Biden.

I thought tankies only sold their comrades.

Your thinking is shaped by who you hang out with and the media you read.

If they are real friends, like actually hang out with you, would take you to the hospital, challenge you to be better, defend you when someone is talking shit, don't give them up.

If they are internet friends that haven't been that great to you, it's not a big loss if you move on. But you do need to get involved in another community very very quickly. There's here, or a ton of other leftist groups (including meme and gaming) online. Introduce yourself and be honest.

You'll feel less alien as you are more exposed to the culture. You are learning a new language.

Attached: g1.jpg (1200x886, 162.57K)

Apologies for the late reply, I was busy with the sadpanda nuking business.

As Eco began to list the key tenets of ur-fascism, the pieces of the puzzle started coming together. Elitism and arrogance? Check. Traditionalism and worship of technology? Check. Syncretism of contradictory philosophical/religious stances that points to some one Truth? Check. Cult of heroism through /fitlit/? Check. Obsession with firearms and a contempt for "weak men"? Check. Life is lived for struggle? Check. Behaving as if one is superior for one's country of birth/ethnic origin? Check. Incredible hostility towards ideas that the circlejerk does not like? Check. Unreasonable hostility towards certain words, even apolitical ones? Check. Contempt for intellectuals whose stances differ from the circlejerk's? Check. Taking action without thinking which then causes a chain reaction, making others act without thinking? Check. Overwhelming distaste for parliamentary democracy? Check.

Now, they are of course not exact copies of each other. Some qualify for only one set of tenets, others qualify for another set, etc. but as Eco states - even the presence of one tenet will lead to fascism if left unchecked.

Why do I call them crypto-fascists? Because none of them refer to themselves as fascists, one person might refer to themselves as a reactionary monarchist. Some call themselves "ecofash" (semi-)ironically. One prominent shitposter has claimed to be an anarcho-communist, though whether or not they actually are I can not tell given how much they shitpost. One person has claimed to be a "radical centrist". The bottom line is, ALL of them display behaviors that align with at least one of the tenets listed by Eco and are slowly but surely on their way to legitimate fascism. And just as the moderates, conservatives and reactionaries banded together to support fascism, so will they if the opportunity ever arises.

Attached: garfield.jpg (974x709, 62.02K)

Nah fair assessment. I think people tend to use Eco's essay as a box-ticking exercise to "Oh well how fascist are you!" rather than analysing that "fascism is all of these things combined, without some elements you have someone that isn't going to go full Mussolini/Hitler/Franco but someone that might be a fellow traveler".
But yeah his essay is amazing, mostly because rather than taking "GOOD MEN DO NOTHING" moralism it actually dissects why fascism is appealing. Life Lived for Struggle is a great one: when you have an alienated individual who feels he has no meaning, telling him that actually there is this war he can wage and if he dies in it he will be a hero is a very powerful thing. Eco recognises this, and that's what makes him a great political scientist.

Out of interest, what racial prejudices did you/do you hold?

Which Zizek books are a must?

Yeah that's my problem as well, I can't find a leftist online circle for myself that isn't a fucking vampire castle minefield.

whats the rush? Taking a break from social media can be a good thing. I find I achieve the most and develop the most as a person when I take long breaks from hanging out in FBI communities of "internet friends"

Well Zizek's best work is actually his video material: I recommend "A Pervert's Guide to Ideology" which is about how ideological influences can be seen in various forms of media. Also just background listening to his interviews or panels: the thing about Zizek is that he is damn funny.

No he isn't. His faux accent and mannerisms get tired quickly and he just jerks off middle class university students about how enlightened and superior they are, unlike those evil authoritarians who actually had problems that needed to be dealt with.

Absolute seething in this post, you from SEP?

If that's all he does, I'm sure you'll be able to give an example of this happening.

I also was really fucking reactionary once, and i think my way of getting there and out again is kinda interesting.

As a kid i was always center-left oriented (with the ironic commie year around age 14). 2016 (i was 17 at the time) i had a big fight/falling out with pretty much my entire friend circle, so i was a foreveralone during summer break. I felt really alone, downtrodden and all the rest, and i spent the entire time shitposting on 4chan and playing vidya, while slowly becoming more and more resentful, with that anger being channeled by Zig Forums and reactionary youtube towards the usual suspects, leftists, minorities etc. I never thought of myself as antisemitic, but i made all the common memes about happy merchants and all the rest.

so, I spent my time consuming the dumbest of the dumb online reactionary content, from Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, fucking Sargon to the others. All the while believing most of their outlandish claims, except climate denial. I was fully on board with apparent cultural marxists corruption education and all that.

Thankfully, in my last year of school, when i tried to defend these beliefs i made an absolute ass out of myself (understandably). At first i would write it off as muh leftist teacher agenda, but i still had enough gray matter left to realize i was the one being wrong here. Additionally, i realized at the time that i'm bisexual, and the contempt most of the other frogpeople had for that drove me away from them. Over the last months i slowly deradicalized myself and came more in line with my former politics, though i'm seeing myself drifting further and further left while looking at current geopolitics, especially in Europe where i'm from (AfD for example scares the shit out of me).

I Retrospect i find it really frightening how easily a more or less apolitical kid can get radicalized into reactionary almost-but-not-quite Neonazism just by Youtube and the Internet in general.

So, here i am. Where do i start my leftie journey?

Read this and enjoyed it. I didn't understand it fully though because the work references other thinkers which I didn't read.

Attached: 9781844673001.jpg (261x400, 23.26K)

What exactly do you want? To understand left wing economics, history or other theory? I personally wouldn't recommend youtube channels because they dumb everything down (and boy can they be cringy sometimes) , but there are some like NonCompete and BadMouseProductions. I would have recommended Contrapoints, but lately her videos are only about trans issues. When it comes to something fast to read I would recommend "principles of communism" by Engels. Feel free to ask any question you want.

Paul Cockshott's lectures

You show clear signs of intelligence, just keep reading. The left will not vilipend you for being tempted with fascism at some point and if they do, they're garbage.

Your story is pretty common and I went through something similar.

I'm thinking a lot of lefty internet spaces are full of young guys who intuitively know the mainstream liberal and conservative parties are comprised of a bunch of criminals, and they realize the far right is a bunch of psychopaths or just not an option for whatever reason (you're bisexual so that closes that out for you, I'm gay so it's not an option for me), so these young guys accept a nominally socialist platform but don't have much of a lived connection to the left so a lot of what the left does just seems annoying or like an inconvenience (yappity women whining about stuff, restless natives complaining about the copper mine on their sacred mountain, blah blah blah).

But a lot of annoying people have been right about stuff!

Like I live in Texas and while protests are not common, if you go to one here it'll be a like a bunch of Mexican and black women yelling at the top of their lungs about oppression and so on, or yelling about "environmental racism" (hruh? sounds like postmodern gibberish to me! well actually it's because companies dump toxic shit in black neighborhoods because nobody gives a fuck) and if you're some white kid from the suburbs like me that can be very bizarre at first. And there's a temptation to get annoyed by some of this stuff or think of it as like a distraction. Like "I wanna wage the class struggle but these weird pet causes are getting in the way!!!" But that is an error I think. The world is really complicated.

I'd liken it to Homer Simpson trying to stop a nuclear meltdown and he pulls out a giant instruction manual and he goes "who would have thought a nuclear reactor would be so… complicated!!!???" Except the nuclear reactor is the world and history and the instruction manual reads "Dialectical Materialism": youtube.com/watch?v=v5MOatu5-DE

Anyways, here's the reading list I use: scribd.com/document/143368029/Communism-Reading-List

If I could leave you with a nugget, it's to say that classical Marxism says that there is a determining objective / structural position (economic class) at the root of society that corresponds with a subjective position (proletarian / worker) and the working class is exploited. So the proletariat's job is to unite and overthrow capitalism + abolish class society and this is gonna happen like a runaway train with no brakes. Now I think this is basically true in a broad sense but it got more complicated when this did not happen in a straightforward way. Like classical Marxism would've predicted a proletarian revolution to occur in the most advanced capitalist countries, which obviously did not happen, and also failed to account for the rise of autonomous social movements. So a lot of contemporary debates on the left have emerged in the context of this "re-theorizing" and to what if any extent it diverges from core principles.

Just jumping in here to ramble on without anyone asking me. I think a lot of white nationalist types have this basic bitch ideology that black people (in particular) are just actively hostile to white people, and liberal multiculturalism comes across as like a fraud to them or like turning white people into lambs for the slaughter.

I don't think this is actually true, but liberal multiculturalism tends to not do itself many favors because it tends to be wrapped up in this gooey, warm idealistic vision that we just need to "love" each other or all get along. I think that asks too much of people. Like I live in heavily black city and I'll pop behind a bus stop to smoke a cigarette and see some black guys hanging out around the same spot give me a dirty look but that's only a problem if I cared about them "accepting" me or whatever. It's just not necessary for people to like each other like that. Like the most you can ask from people is a mutual and minimum standard of mutual respect, and a dirty look ranks pretty low in the disrespect department. It's not like anyone is getting up in anyone's business.

It's just not a big deal, is what I'm saying. I guess the opposite (also bad) version of how white people handle this is to overcompensate and try to "be down" with black people or whatever, because they want to be accepted and liked. But like I said it's just not necessary.

No, I like Stalin.

It’s his target audience and he knows it. They finance his spending on blow and a luxurious lifestyle in general, he is the high-brow version of chapotraphouse. The professional class is too ‘sophisticated’ for him to praise them openly so he instead praises institutions, policies and practices that benefit them like the EU, unrestricted travel and “just think (and listen to me/pay me) instead of act”. He, like the acolytes from the academy that immediately sprung to his defence, is living a good life and is not really interested in change that would threaten that. As members of the intelligentsia they hate the actual lower classes which is evident in his demonisation of them as “male white supremacists”, which reveals him to be liberal despite his vulgar pretence to the contrary, again like chapotraphouse.

Anarchism or Socialism?, by J.V. Stalin.

read lenin instead. start with the basics before you graduate to zizek.

state and revolution is a good read and sub-100-pages short. lenin wrote quite concise. his writing style is great and so is the content obviously.

marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf

I was raised by a hippie father who would play jazz, blues, soul and reggae songs by black artists at home. Occasionally he'd play more exotic ethnic music as well. We often traveled the world, especially when I was really young. I believe that because of my father I've been conditioned to not have racial prejudice. Even during my most fiercest Zig Forums years I never hated Jews - to me "the Jews" was just code for the elite; yet I would dismiss any person who had Jewish blood according to Wikipedia.

Other forms of prejudice though, such as being disgusted by homeless people and refugees? Absolutely, I assure you however that it is not deliberate. It is a reflex reaction, and I'm not sure if I could ever get rid of it. It stems from thinking that they're dirty and could infect me with some disease.

Not gonna lie, that's kinda strange.

He doesn't do drugs and doesn't live a "luxurious" lifestyle.
Zizek is fiercely critical of EU as it stands and considers Varoufakis a close friend and supports DIEM25.
He also thinks the liberal notion of multiculturalism and open borders is a stupid idea.
It's nice to know that all critics of Zizek are completely clueless about Zizek.
What?

Do you have any idea what these people get for their talks? Nevermind the connections and genral millieu of celebrities, he is part of high society.
Varoufakis is a reformist, he fundermantelly belives n the EU. The anarchists do not want to reform the state know do they.
It was some article called the moebius strip of social contracts or something. Essentially, egalitrianism is bad where I am am on the winning side of inequaity, everyone who disagrees is a white supremacist. Pure sophistry.

When I was talking about unrestricted travel I was mostly talking about shengen, but he did praise merkel for allowing all those migrants in. This also shows his disdain for popular will, which was clearly against that. Instead we should follow enlightened intellectuals such as himself.

Okay, that's something that can be worked through. I mean if you're gonna read Marx you kinda have to.
Ah, middle class elitism, again not too bad it can be dealt with.
Fair enough, nothing too bad here.

Eh not really, look at how a middle class professional reacts to a homeless person and you will see it.

I have no doubt Zizek has enough money to live comfortably, he has after all published dozens of books, but he clearly does not live "luxuriously". And I wouldn't really care either way.
What do you mean he "believes in the EU"?
What does that have to do with anything? I'm not an anarchist.
That's an article about INCELS, not lower classes you fucking retard. Not getting laid is not a class.

Clearly you have not read the posts in this thread, I'm not going to debunk this for the 5th time.

I care because the material well being and social relations of a person makes their ideology.
Anarchists are against the state>>2951029
, zizek is for the EU, his weak criticisms notwithstanding.
Niggers are not a class either, but to deny a strong correlation is delusional. Pretty much all racists hate the poor in general including those of their own race, somebody in leftytrash posted a text from a bourgeois us woman during slavery where she openly said so. They just use acceptable targets like niggers/incels to cover their social darwinism.

Mhmm. Zizek has been a communist since he was young and poor-ish, and remains one today.
Ok?
Ok.
Being an incel has nothing to do with poverty.

Source? Even if he was, many people become reactionary once they gain social status. Most college "leftists" end up as consevatives or neoliberals at best.
It's also interesting that a communist would support NATO's attack on socialist Yugolavia.
Ok.
At least you admit it.

t. zizek

There is pretty strong correlation. Even just looking a marriage, there are more females with degrees know and they don't want anyone "under" them. Claiming that sexual success is an independent variable from financial success is beyond dishonest and clearly motivated by your self-interest from a middle social position.

Saint Elliot was a trust fund baby who drove a Beemer. I would say there's more of a relation between incel and suburban middle class cultural void than poverty.

Anyway relative to his surrounding he was not that rich. He also lived in a city, not suburbs. You are just tryin to keep the image outgroup as priviliged so that attacking xontinues to give you social points, like the conservatives do with all these immigrants living better than natives on welfare etc.

Welcome to the true red pill, OP.

My best advice for you would be to chip away at your social circles ideology slowly. I have converted many of my right wing friends from reactionary to ancap simply bu placing my self in their social circles, leveling with them, and having a real eye to eye conversation about the economy, politics, and the state of the world.

As far as you go, I would so leftypol is actually a pretty good place to start; I agree with the rest of the posters.

Attached: 67058024_2307485912699688_2014446207077711872_n.png (400x513, 92.98K)

He's the prototypical incel, he is a representative.

Elliot was rich, and from my understanding he was suburban, that's my impression from that story about him getting a glass of water from his dad's house.

If you are a virgin, it's ok, I was once a virgin with rage too, but do you really have to identify as an incel, a group primarily known for mass killings?

While Zizek was definitely against Milosevic, he was also against the NATO intervention.

what did he mean by this

Er was pretty exceptional. Just look for their polls about their economic situations. Very below average.
Yeah, everyone was underage (or below 21 or whatever) once.Should I identify as a jew, a group primarily known for stealing from workers and seducing young german girls?

Doesn't seem like it. He also said "both are worse" about guaido and maduro.

Whut?

How old are you then?

Attached: c538ec43760786aa4d7cf7469fee39c72fcbf0ec310ed27b0848b2e5cb2e72d2.jpg (610x597, 47.54K)

I read this too on a communist site claiming this is proof Zizek was for nato intervention, but it isn't.
I went and read the full article, and it's clear he condemns the actions of nato.

And yes, the comment about maduro was dumb.

Thats me. The ones who give up the facade of moralism because they of a terrible reading of Stirner are the most telling.
Underneath all of it there’s a disdain for the weak.

Disdain for the weak is weakness.

No it's not. Stop perpetuating this reactionary stereotype of powerless = morally bad.

What is Zig Forums's consensus on the following:

Attached: 868.png (376x401, 51.61K)

Mostly negative
A spook
No real consensus I'd say
People here seem to have distanced from him over time, but consensus is still mostly positive
Based
A spook
Good at the core, but too dangerous right now as it can be used and abused by porkies quite well
Technocrat cucks
Depends on who you ask, but for me slightly good, as his presidency might destigmatise socialism in Burgerland a bit
Cure mentally ill trans people through gender reassignment surgeries. Kids should be informed that it is a thing that exists, just as sex in general, through sex-ed classes
Good as far as I know
Don't think anyone here gives a shit about him
Bad
Bad, but at least is an enemy to US, so enemy of my enemy
Depends on who you ask here, but I'd say above average
Very bad, possibly worse than US and Israel
Their complaints are to some extent justified, however their approach is retarded

But keep in mind that I am in no way a voice of all of Zig Forums, so take this with a grain of salt

obviously shit
nazi way of saying "me not like"
haven't read them yet, i won't comment purely from simplistic internet knowledge, Stirner makes for great memes though
i think any morality is fundamentally subjective
bullying bad
good way to predict performance in certain areas, like STEM, absolutely no way to judge the worth of a human, and pretty questionable in consistency/accuracy sometimes
Definitely a worthwhile way of improving human lives. Problem could be that porkies will monetize it and lead to further societal inequality (e.g. only porkies can afford robot arms)
useful for shifting public perspective further left, i'm doubtful about Yang since Zig Forumsyps like him for some reason
also technocrats are a nono
Live and let live. since transitioning is the best way we have of "treating" dysphoria, i'm all for it
Kids being turned trans by exposing them to it is just reactionary fearmongering so they can rationalize their hatred
if people want to die, we should let them. basic dignity
literally whomst careth?
Zionism and imperialism bad
at least enemy of the US, still oligarchy though
definitely not the worst, in no way the best either. lots of interesting research happening there, for example gene editing and thorium reactors
fundamentalist shithole, allowed to do whatever they want because oil
some of the most pathetic people around today. also pretty much always reactionaries so fuck them

Mostly negative.
Like the sexualization of the west? I believe so.
Like objective morality and aesthetics? A bit of objective and a bit subjective.
I have no personal issues as long as it isn't forced and is done humanely.
Gender dysphoria is usually caused either as dissociation (trauma coping mechanism especially for Trans-Identified females), fetishism or internalised homophobia. Men cannot be women and vice versa and people with GD should be made comfortable in their birth sex.
Should only be done if it is warranted.
They're all terrible.
The problem of social malaise.

Attached: el risitas.jpg (800x650, 45.39K)

only okay with it if it’s limited to aborting fetuses with bad genes or down syndrome. Fully grown people shouldn’t be sterilized or euthanized.
not a fan
literal retard
I don’t know who he is
cool
based
morality is created by people to justify their actions
don’t care about ascetics
genetic modification to make people smarter is a good thing and should be universal and mandatory
pretty good
good
good
shit
gang weed
gender is a spook, don’t cut your dick off for spooks
I’m not sure, if it happens under capitalism doctors shouldn’t get payed for it for obvious reasons.
litteral fag
should be nuked
cool country, sad the USSR fell
cool country, sad it’s restored capitalism
should be nuked
I have nothing against them, however the reason their lonely isn’t because of women, but because of alienation and commodity fetishism.

Always interesting how the "former" fascists jump ship to a more socially accepted ideology where they quickly disguise themselves so they can live out their desire for stomping on “pathetic” people, while claiming “bullying bad”. Never trust a “former” reactionary, they are just opportunists looking for personal gain.

incels are the people that advocate for a women genocide because they can't get laid
oh but please, defend the reactionaries against muh hidden fascists

cringe

cringe

based, cringe, cringe, based

based

cringe

cringe

based

cringe

cringe

based

cringe

cringe

cringe, cringe, based, cringe

cringe

jews are the people that advocate for a aryan genocide because they can't get rich

oh but please, defend the reactionaries against muh hidden fascists

Attached: you before you learned to disguise youself.png (434x428, 239.11K)

equivocating that in any way is stupid and you know it, user

It's really not. Both are socially acceptable demographics to insult in their historical contexts that elevate the attacker's social status, while for example attacking arayns/women would lower it.

The guy made the best response
Why so triggered?

Other anons have already make wholesome responses but let go more in-depth with some things
Pro modern china anons are called dengist
They have arguments on why china is still socialist but counter-arguments also exist
I think leftypol popularized him as a meme
Strinerposting is still a tradition here
Cute
Some anons hate him other think he is a progresive candidate (aka good but not that good)

Attached: 44a226f4ae93ff0e719233793dc953ac5ec3c60db34cf1a316ddba703ac3044e.png (800x600, 40.71K)

anuddah shoah is a conspiracy theory, incels are pretty fucking open about how they want to wipe out the femoids
does elliott rodgers ring any bells? their permanent hateful outbursts at anything that moves on their forums?

"holy shit are these lefties antagonistic for the smallest reasons. i guess i'll just go back to Zig Forums, they are always nice to me"
can you see how purity screeching like this could harm the cause of deradicalizing fascists, user?

Go to Zig Forums, the jews are also pretty open about the western genocide. Does ((Epstein)) ring any bells?

You won't, persons like you will always jump to whatever is the most convenient to their personal status, which white supremacy is not currently. There is no such thing as "deradicalizing" somebody who was ever attracted to literal nazi ideology, all you are doing is letting snakes in that will betray you at their convenience. maybe you failed their purity testing by being a mutt or a degenerate so you switched to where you can remain hidden.

Most people don't give a shit about the so called ideology and will follow whatever tries to explain their frustration with the current world. Do you believe that majority Zig Forumsyps have a good grounding in Nazi ideology? No, they don't. They just are boomers or edge lords who want big state to live their boomer life free from unemployment and "degeneracy". I mean we have people like OP who realize how hollow fascism is as a political position, but those are a minority. In truth those so called reactionaries would be fine adopting socialism if it wasn't clustered together with trannies and SJW.

zizeck admitted that over 45 million people were murdered because of communism

you can find him saying that at the oxford thing he did

...

OP here, back. Thanks for the responses.

Have another question:
What does Zig Forums think about the threat of automation? Obviously both capitalism and socialism fall apart under it. Also, am I the only person here who unironically supports Andrew Yang?

Attached: 1552796755369.jpg (640x640, 53.54K)

Automation shows the limits of capitalism as it needs both workers and consumers, when unemployment is too big there's less consumption and so less profits for the bourgeoisie, that's why bourgeois politicians like Andrew Yang want an UBI to save capitalism from its own contradictions. I was myself a huge advocate of UBI years ago before I got into marxism.

In socialism, you would have all the benfits of automation without the problems because everyone would have a guarantee work and income and worktime would simply be shorter and shorter due to automation.

But what happens to those left unemployed?

There will be no unemployment in socialism, because unemployment only benefits to the bourgeoisie.

youtu.be/HPYxbID-Rps
this is pretty basic leftist theory

Attached: 61493957_2599137026780277_5185240589699907584_n.jpg (750x477, 28.98K)

99% reactionary, but the advent of gene editing may make it viable again in a fully ethical way that doesn't violate socialist principles.
90% reactionaries whining about things they don't like, 10% actual critique of how capitalism destroys culture.
S A D B O I
Never read him, no opinion.
Both based, despite Nietzsche's reactionary personal beliefs.
Spook
Not familiar.
Rude tbh.
Largely irrelevant in the way reactionaries like to use it. There are numerous non-biological causes for racial Autism Level disparities such as upbringing, nutrition, stress, etc.
Potentially useful if used carefully and ethically, like gene editing.
Socdems, but socdems who represent a genuine re-emergence of the worker's movement after decades of atrophy. Severely flawed but encouraging signs of future potential for the left. Communists should work with them and their ilk on certain issues while maintaining independent organizations and programs, as well as healthy criticism of their bourgeois tendencies.
Gender abolitionism is the solution to this problem. Imposing behavioural characteristics and dress codes to people based on their biological sex is pretty spooky.
Good for terminally ill or severely disabled people.
Apartheid state on the road to fascism. I wish for its swift defeat.
Capitalist, imperialist states like any other. Their rise and rivalry to the US is a good thing insofar as it strengthens multipolarity, which can strengthen the worker's movement and oppressed countries. I'll take their current governments over pro-western liberal ones like the HK protesters or Navalny want, but ideally I'd want to see them overthrown by revolutionary socialists.
Cancerous theocratic shithole that needs to be glassed.
Alienated young men. Their misery does evoke some sympathy, but many of them are too far down the reactionary rabbit hole to be saved.

Automation is a cancer for workers under capitalism and a blessing for workers under socialism. Automation under capitalism means workers will be fired, while under socialism it means workers will work less for more due to the cooperative nature of the economy.

My train of thought was socialism means the workers own the means of production > automation replaces workers > socialism becomes impossible because there are no workers to own the means of production. End result is either a peaceful communist utopia, or the world goes up in flames.

I just finished reading Ur-fascism and realized that many of the qualities Eco describes as being characteristic of fascist governments can also be found in authoritarian socialist states (USSR, DPRK and Mao's china).
So is the whole meme about those countries just being "Red Fascists" actually true?

Attached: spongebob.jpg (1280x720, 81.41K)

Yeah kind of but not really. We use socialism to mean lower phase communism, and full automation isnt necessary to reach communism, although they definitely go hand in hand.
Chapter 5 of State and Revolution might be of interest, particularly the last section.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

Every state is a tyranny. Authoritarian socialist states aren't objectively any less "democratic" than Liberal republics, and, in most times, much more.

The reason Ur-fascism was written was probably for the ultra-left bludgeon against actually existing socialism. Western leftists loved nothing more than spitting on the USSR.

20th century socialism was based in plenty of ways, but let’s not pretend they were democracies in practice (not to say the western countries are either). Not because of their repression of actual countrrevolutionaries (ie not Trot boogeymen) but because of their ossified and unaccountable elite that ended up killing the Union.

Democracy really seems as utopian as full communism, in the near future at least. There has never existed an "actual" democracy in the past.

they were pared down democracy where groups ceded individual votes to a chosen vanguard representative in the form of the party which is an economic and political union.
mind you, the flaw is that they didnt have the ability to undo dictatorship of proles via referendum nor did they have a right to recall their representatives (like cuban democracy for example) but still getting bogged down in idealistic definitions of democracy discounts that even pure democratic forms have abusive/coercive potentials and are also authoritarian (all government is always authoritarian). the only exception would be utopian communism, where no violence by the state or the masses ever happens and the population is single minded because of complete lack of hierarchy
i dont think most of the USSR wouldve voted to get rid of the leadership anyways. so thats a success in my estimation; the journey doesnt matter, just the destination… and the destination is the peoples desired outcomes.
that sounds no different than most western capitalist democracies so if your measuring stick is bourgeois western democracy yes they were not all that different but by more left standards of democracy, its only existed in a handful of countries in all of human history and that list doesnt have china or russia in it.

read about authoritarian mentalities more than just eco. like adorno:
archive.org/stream/THEAUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY.Adorno/THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY. -Adorno_djvu.txt
there is more to fascism than just economics and state craft. see above where former reactionaries use terms of disgust: disgust reactions and parsing the other/outgroup as rats or pestilences/diseases to be cleansed is a backwards holdover mentality that helps to produce and be capitalized on in recruiting reactionaries. there used to be a lot more psychopaths in the world. they used to be adaptation-wise, valuable for protecting children and women (through their psychopathic possessiveness and capacity for violence). nowadays, theyre not so useful since society is a lot more built around more pacifistic activity.
reactionaries are creatures of dead or dying structure and hierarchy rather than capable of creative improvisation and rebellious critique of the status quo. all states have conservative elements; but then again the bolsheviks and maoists were creative for their time, capable of improvisation and refinement. they were dynamic. did the average peasant have reactionary thoughts, yeah sure. then again they also had the political opportunity to progress society by killing and terrorizing their oppressors. authority isnt so bad when its keeping you from starving or helping you learn how to read for the first time. so what authoritarian elements you see are by nature… not fascistic. red terror is simply not comparable. theres more to be argued about that red terrors and the like are by nature utilitarian and forced by necessity, whereas fascists play at genocide and terror for idealistic, superstitious compulsive/neurotic reasons. thats why it always costs too much for them: red terrors and gulags and the like wouldnt exist if they were terribly inefficient.
authoritarian isnt a profane word. its not an insult all the time. it means what it means when it does.

Really? Like where?

Democracy isn't a binary, as you yourself has mentioned, Democracy isn't a system of institutions, but a property of society. It is on a scale, and China and Russia were fairly democratic, at least in several few years right after the victory in the Civil War.

Overall, there has never existed an institution that would strengthen democracy. All institutions, otherwise, weaken it. And authoritarian Socialist states weaken it less, because at least they do not conceal their true nature - or at least - do not make much effort to conceal it for internal needs. Whereas the Liberal Republics aim to completely discredit any idea of democracy, and make everyone believe that Democracy is percicely the Liberal institutions and nothing else.

You still need institutions though, and plenty of authors wrote about how those institutions would differ from bourgeois democracy (soviet vs parliament etc). Democracy can’t function without direct legal means by which the citizens can influence the state, even against the wishes of those administering the state. Otherwise what prevents the state from acting independently or against people’s wishes?

Direct and constant pressure, with a promise of violence, from the people. Nothing else really can. All your institutions will be subverted by the established power one way or the other.
Of course, the last great attempt to achieve democracy - the Cultural Revolution - has also failed.

Thus we come to Communism - a dictatorship that allows some struggle for the Labour rights, and is efficient in managing the state and developing productive forces.

Anarcho-Tankism