Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc...


How can leftypol ever recover?

Attached: CBE30B55-CAE3-4438-B933-EEAB37772AC4.jpeg (287x425, 68.97K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Anone who is not anprim depends on others. Bezos would die alone in the wilderness without tech too.

Attached: Kim_Il_Sung_Portrait-2.jpg (600x758, 104.76K)

The quote is about modern American leftists you runt

Attached: acafd2ecc38e5b634b5f179a0a70ac5f7cee1ebe842c1d83a83603f93769daf8.jpg (401x399, 21.5K)

It's just the typical amalgamation of socialism and liberalism. I don't think he has any understanding of political economy.

In reality in America they are one and the same

Attached: 1348343533937.jpg (300x300, 14.15K)

implying it's any different in Europe

I doubt it.

Attached: 27a33294256586e8f42fad2f3d4dc25bf3ccc8347ddb2ec7cd9f0a8c07d59fbb.mp4 (1280x720, 13.24M)

This is why we need to ditch the word socialism complete and replace it with 'lower phase communism' or just 'communism'.

nonsense. liberalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. that you feel they are the same has no bearing on reality

The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

it's like fascism and conservatism you can situationally move from one camp to another depending on the political climate and your own personal agenda

No, socialism relies on the collectivization of the means of production, while liberalism relies on the privatization of the means of production. They are fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable.

I am sure there are people like that. Doesn't mean you can conflate these concepts and doesn't invalidate socialism or actual socialists

Why are you so scared of leftism anyway? In America the political pendulum has always swung back and forth. A short dose would do you some good and not be permanent.

Bernie Sanders started as a socialist. Got a government job. Moderated his stances. Became a senator. And is now a radlib.

I think there is some truth to it, those at the top of the hierarchy have an interest in it persisting while those at the bottom do not. Collective action is ultimately just a means to achieve selfish goals though and just another strategy compared to being a braggart grifter or whatever.

Attached: hoxha.jpeg (679x679 95.12 KB, 40.49K)

What's your point? That socialism has become a meaningless word in modern discourse? Bernie was never a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word. The party he was a member of in his youth, Young People's Socialist League, had already become completely anti-communist and turned to social democracy, as many """"socialist"""" parties did.
Pic related was their logo, one arrow for monarchism, one for fascism and one for communism.

Attached: YPSL.jpg (225x225, 15.83K)

People generally arent autistic enough to care about abstract principles to the degree that it compromises their immediate personal interests. You would be served better by being a liberal rather than a communist in modern society or in the highly unlikely event that Communists ever come close to taking power in the USA I will quit my comfy FBI job and join the new Cheka/NKVD.

OP is autistically quoting the unabomber manifesto.

The unabomber manifesto isn't that bad, except for the whole section about what he perceives as leftists.

Okay, what is your point?
Why would I be better served by being a liberal when I don't want liberalism? Are you trolling me son? I would rather die for communism than capitulate to capitalism.

The number of people on this board who actually thinks this pathetic fucking Zig Forums-tier buttmunch had anything useful or insightful to say about the world or humanity just goes to show that socialism is doomed to fail due to the sheer stupidity of its adherents.

I don't agree with him on everything, but generally he's alright. Name me one thing he's wrong about.

His main premise that industrial society has been a bad thing for humanity. So 90% of everything he says is just objectively wrong.

That's a lot of words to just say "dude just don't be poor lmao"

And another 5% is wrong, but difficult to argue with (leftist psychology, collectivism, etc.)

The last 5% are his good opinions and they are certainly not enough to make him worth reading.

Anti Soviet and anti communist arent the same thing. I agree he's shill. Many public figures in the West were anti Soviet socialists because that was the easiest thing to be at the time.

I'm not disagreeing with you but it happens all the time. user is a socialist gets a job writing for some shitlibby rag or a professorship gets invited to cocktail parties and gradually begins to moderate his stances.

Well, he has a point. There are studies which show that people are more relaxed in those societies. No division of labor exists there besides one of sex. Those societies are less prone to famines. Also I don't know if you noticed but our planet isn't in the best state because of it. Then comes the fact of how unrewarding modern work is and you kinda get his point.

Sure, but the party was anti-communist and anti-soviet.

It doesnt say it was opposed to communism it says it was opposed to the communist party those were typically loyal to the Soviet state Socdems agree with the ends but the means are different.

Err by that logic the nationaI socialists were socialists.

Attached: truth.jpg (975x567, 62.34K)

No one disputes that there were certain advantages to primitive communism but the simple fact of the matter is that modern medicine, agriculture, and production have helped humanity far more than they've hurt it.

People are living longer, healthier, happier lives. Ted K himself even admits that primitive society was quite brutal and that anarchists who have an idyllic, utopian view of it are mistaken.

[citation needed]

Think about how many conditions and ailments that people today live normal, functional lives with. Think about how many of them would be a death sentence in the primitive world.

Think about how fucking hard and stressful it would be to search for food literally the entire day and still not be sure it'll be enough to sustain you. Think about how destructive even mild elements would be when you don't have sophisticated shelter to protect you. Think about how generally boring and pointless your leisure time would be without art, music, or the written word.

Debatable. Families for instance were more interconnected with each other. In today's hunter-gather societies it has been shown parents care more about their children. He also makes an argument of what will happen in the future and the "cyber fascism" memes aren't funny in that case anymore. Also our planet is literally on verge of mass extinction but no one seems to notice.
His point was that it was more rewarding. How gay it too sounds, it can be summarized by "work hard, play harder".

Lions and Tigers are fed better and live longer in the Zoo but are they really happier user?

Underrated post

Yeah you're right, they weren't as anti-communist as I thought.
That may have been true in the late 19th/early 20th century, but certainly not the second half of the 20th century.

yes they were faggot('no')


Based mods.

Funny thing is all you have to do is read Unabomber manifesto and you will be pretty much aware of 90% of Alt right, Eco-fascism, Neo reactionary and dark enlightenment thought.