/lit/ - Literature

>Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power...the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to the solidarity of chains of generations, forward and backward ad infinitum. When this will is present, something like the imperium Romanum is founded; or like Russia, the only power today which has endurance, which can wait, which can still promise something - Russia, the concept that suggests the opposite of the wretched European nervousness and system of small states…

Tunnel Vision.
They're smart simpletons: pathological; they can't distance themselves from their emotions, their anger/lust/happiness/sadness/annoyance/compassion is always expressed and never denied, they wholly identify with what they feel at all times.
So they cannot see things in multiple perspectives or put themselves in other's shoes (not beyond instinctual empathy), this is the same reason why they can't meme. Terrible customer service.
The passion of artists without any of the creativity.

>>16432527
If they're so bad at propaganda, why have they come out on top on every single issue since the French Revolution?

>>16432527
Because instead of slogans the left writes books and you can't fit books on posters

>>16432585
good point i think.

>>16432626
almost inveriably rightist or moneyed interests using leftism as a psyop.

imagine /lit/ without sub 80iq political threads

now imagine the world without these people

>>16432673
>almost inveriably rightist or moneyed interests using leftism as a psyop.
Moneyed interests sure, but rightists? How does having the left being able to advance in all areas help the right? You're thinking of liberal (actual liberal) opportunists.

>>16432626
Taking and sharing pictures of shit with captions that they themselves believe in, isn't propaganda. It's similar to republican boomers believing everything the media said 20 years ago. These people believe the narrative. The black screen on social media wasn't propaganda but honest stupidity.

>>16432749
whatever you want to call it. french revolution hot subverted and placated by napoleon.
Marxism and unions almost always turned into petite capital class.
Freedom fighters turn into little napoleons like Tito.

and the less revolutionary “liberals” always tend to have an economic bent when they do something (look at all those former economically undynamic slaves that can now be usefull consumers of capital).

>>16432767
You totally missed the point of that post.
>The black screen on social media wasn't propaganda but honest stupidity.
And you're also either naive or retarded.

>>16432767
And the narrative is a negative feedback loop, it hasn't been planned by some "Illuminati' organization, as i said, these people believe what they themselves propagate. While propaganda is self-aware lying. Sure some radical cunts lie about minor shit but that's because they honestly believe Trump is a racist fascist dictator.

>>16432585
no, that's not it.
I'd actually say leftists are way more creative than conservatives in terms of actual art, not kitsch rubbish like memes
Despite that, the right is a master at propaganda. They're very good at convincing the hoi polloi to vote for them and believe in their ideas - no matter how bad those ideas may be.
I wish someone smarter than me could explain this better but hey that's why I'm here for book recommendations

>>16432788
>>16432790
Or that Islam is a religion of peace, or that immigrants is good for the economy, or that blacks are only overrepresented because all cops are racist, etc,. These ideas and their propagation aren't propaganda.

>>16432626
>If they're so bad at propaganda, why have they come out on top on every single issue since the French Revolution?

What do you even mean by left and right?
Is some Bloomberg journalist who holds complete contempt for the working class the "left"?
Is the university student whose parents are upper middle class who sneers at people who live in poor neighborhoods and taunts about them not having an university education the "left"?
Is some factory worker who is freaked out that his kids are being taught CRT on school and being taught that you can choose whatever gender you want the "right"?

>>16432809
>>16432790
These ideas weren't acceptable in any part of history until recently but now are. Why is that so you think? It's mostly the masses who believe it after all. You're thinking way too narrowly.
Read "Propaganda" by Ellul.

>>16432790
Sorry meant positive feedback loop.
>>16432799
The point is >>16432790 gullible idiot interprets X scenario incorrectly and shares her retarded perspective, people don't fact check and believes gullible idiot. 15 years ago it was the Zeitgeist movies, now this mentality thanks to social media is global and political.

>>16432527
It's for and by dumbfucks. People who failed as men, like Marx. You have to be legitimately stupid to follow the ideology of a man who never worked a day in his life to care about workers.

>>16432838
>>16432837

>>16432820
>What do you even mean by left and right?
Progressive vs. Conservative. Conservatives now hold views that they previously opposed and were propagated by progressives, so obviously the progressives have done something that worked.

>>16432527
Because the capitalist have an army of wageslaves and trillions of dollars.
It's not that the left is bad, it's usually that the left is left unheard.

I'm >>16432820
One example here:

This person would be considered part of "the left". What makes her a left-winger?

It's simple. The left assumes people are good on their own. The right assumes people need to be controlled. Propaganda is an inherently right wing concept. Therefore, the left is stuck making indoctrination material convincing people they are capable of thinking on their own. The whole schtick is neurotic

>>16432799
Kitsch is appealing brah, its ironic how all the communists countries just ended up churning out kitsch as well though communism is supposed to on paper be better for art

>>16432863
>The left assumes people are good on their own.
The right assumes people need to be controlled.

You've so lost the plot it's hilarious.

>>16432850
>Progressive vs. Conservative. Conservatives now hold views that they previously opposed and were propagated by progressives, so obviously the progressives have done something that worked.

Do you define everything from the past that has been abandoned as conservative and everything that changed progressive? But then, how can you know that the people who call themselves progressives nowadays will have their ideas accepted in the future?

Those who call themselves Progressives support the end of the traditional family. Does that mean that they are right because they are progressives?
What about Jacobins in the French Revolution? Eventually, they fell from power. By the time of the Bourbon Restoration were the Jacobins the Conservatives and the Monarchists Progressives?

>>16432882
Anarchists are leftist extremists. Fascists are right wing extremists. Your libertarian bubble is not the world

>>16432847
Plato called it Democracy.
All that goes on today is nothing but natural democracy, people believing in the retarded overly emotional rhetorician (who also believes what they're crying about).
Like when the teacher listens to the kid that cries when the kid that cries was the one who started it, except now only a tiny minority feeds the beast knowing it's bullshit (like 4channers creating memes that these people I'm talking about start latching onto without second thought).
My point is only a minority of the causes are real acts of propaganda, but the portion that actually matters is internally created by the naive idiots themselves; take away the 4chan memeing accelerationist trolls and the world would be no different, politically speaking, only slightly less entertaining.

>>16432899
So leninists/stalinists, maoists, juche, etc,. Are Right-wing?

>>16432837
>immigrants
>not good for the economy
I'd argue that only recently have they become a detriment, and/or seen as such, at least in post-industrial societies. Just look at all the places that welcomed immigrants to grow their economies, e.g. the Prussians and Protectants, U.S. and Euros, and Hugenots and the United Provinces

>>16432908
Yes. Exactly. Now you see it

>>16432887
>Do you define everything from the past that has been abandoned as conservative and everything that changed progressive?
In broad strokes, yes. The way "history" has progressed in the direction it has is because leftist/progressive ideas. These ideas have never before been acceptable throughout history. Conservatism thus stands for everything that opposes that direction.
>But then, how can you know that the people who call themselves progressives nowadays will have their ideas accepted in the future?
That's probably what will happen yes because of where their ideas inevitably lead.

>>16432527
depends on what 'left' you're talking about. the egalitarian, globohomo, social left is by far the best at propaganda. in fact i cant think of any good right wing propaganda that's been created since WW2 era. the actual economic left wing focuses more on reading, organizing and infiltrating government/education. mass appeal is probably just assumed too much. but they ran into issues in america because americans are cut from a different cloth.

>>16432911
Read, motherfucker. Only since the modern era. Not anytime before.

>>16432799
>hoi polloi
lol

>>16432923
>In broad strokes, yes. The way "history" has progressed in the direction it has is because leftist/progressive ideas. These ideas have never before been acceptable throughout history. Conservatism thus stands for everything that opposes that direction.

Would you say the "Temperance Movement" was progressive or conservative? Let's think at two points in history: 1920 and 1968. Was it progressive or conservative?

>That's probably what will happen yes because of where their ideas inevitably lead.
Where do their ideas inevitably lead?

>>16432839
Most people are stupid hence why most people are right leaning tho
im not really sure what the point of your reply is considering that propaganda doesn't necessitate ideas to be sound and logical for it to work

I'm >>16432956
>Would you say the "Temperance Movement" was progressive or conservative? Let's think at two points in history: 1920 and 1968. Was it progressive or conservative?

By 1920 and 1968 I mean.
Would someone living in 1920 who has the same idea as you do about what is conservative and progressive say that the Temperance Movement was conservative or progressive?

Would someone living in 1968 who has the same idea as you do about what is conservative and progressive say that the Temperance Movement was conservative or progressive?

>>16432919
Well then you're literally stating the same thing as the guy (libertarians) you're arguing with, you just can't agree on terminology.
If Libertarianism is right-wing then Fascism isn't right-wing.
There's only degrees of Fascism/authority vs Anarchy/no authority; or rather active and passive power (for power/sovereign is always absolute), what Power does/should do is a second ideological dimension.

>>16432956
>Temperance Movement
A bit of both, a bit of neither.
>Let's think at two points in history: 1920 and 1968.
In the grand scheme of things progressive of course. We may have taken two steps forward, one step backwards at times, but all in all the direction has been to progressive ideas since the revolutions.
>Where do their ideas inevitably lead?
Chaos and the lowest common denominator of humanity.

>>16432987
Would you say the Bourbon Restoration was conservative or progressive?

>>16432934
This is pure delusion.

Even many lefties admit that the alt-right has far better rhetoricians than they do.

>>16432850
thats a really gay way to put it. what is conservative or progressive is always contextual. both positions change as times go on you could just flip flop and say progressives now oppose the veiws that they use to embrace. conservatism and progressivism are two sides of the same paradigm. in its simpilist sense progressivism wants to change and conservatism does not, so then tend to balance out with gradual intermediate change rather than the out and out larger scale change of progressives. they are not two competing ideologies, but the two factions within whatever the current ideology is dominant (liberalism).

>>16432964
That's irrelevant. "The left" or progressive ideas have only been able to take hold since the revolutions, or possibly the enlightenment. Since the dawn of man to the end of the middle ages, these kinds of ideas have not been acceptable (except for some curious exceptions).

>>16433004
>Bourbon Restoration
Again, in the grand scheme of things, progressive.

>>16433020
If there is a Civil War in America and suddenly some /pol/ack wins the war in sits in the throne, would you say that /pol/ is a progressive board?

>>16432969
Yeah it's mostly an argument about terminology, because "left wing" and "right wing" are very liberally used words. The power/no power dichotomy is the closest you can get to using the word strictly. Right wing marxists were excellent at propaganda, while modern leftists who use Marxist imagery suck at it. Libertarianism is only right wing because it's not a sincere movement, but that's a whole other thing

>>16432911
obviously talking about mass immigration

>>16433026
Stop thinking so narrowly. Consider history in a broader sense.

>>16432527
What are you talking about? You know how many people still believe the Nazis had some kind of institutional system to euthanize their Jewish prisoners with bug spray just because the Soviets told them so?

>>16433007
That's not exactly what I was getting at (the distinction between all pre-modern morality, from the dawn of man until the end of the middle ages, and the modern morality), but you make a fair point nonetheless.

>>16433051
Now, please answer my question. Would that hypothetical case lead you to call /pol/ a progressive board?

>>16433063
Was the Iranian Revolution a progressive one?

>>16433068
That depends on how they implement it. If they were to take us back to a society with a pre-modern morality I'd consider them conservative. If they only change things superficially then I'd say progressive, because then it's only a matter of time before progressive tendencies will overthrow it.

>>16433075
Mostly yes. But not nearly as much as most other revolutions.

>>16432585
>this is the same reason why they can't meme
people on the left say the right can't meme. it's all interchangeable. but I do think because memes and fascism go hand in hand because both lack any sort of intellectual depth lol.

>>16433083
So, we have changed the meaning of progressive and conservative, didn't we? It is not about which idea won. Right now it would be about a "pre-modern morality".

What would be a pre-modern morality?

>>16433100
So, if I call for a theocracy in the West, does that makes me progressive?

they're good at propaganda, they're shit at memes.

Black Lives Matter is some of the most brilliant anti-white propaganda ever. Everyone knows what it implies, but you can't bring it up without being shut down by NPCs.

>>16433103
No, I haven't. Maybe you didn't understand what I meant.
>What would be a pre-modern morality?
In very broad strokes, anything that opposes equality and proposes hierarchy. Most "conservative" movements of today only superficially espouse these ideas.

>>16433032
By that 'Ancap' vs 'Ancom' also isn't a debate about ideals, but of human nature aka sociobiology; which neither of them knows anything about. Advocacy for Anarchy in any form is a delusion about human nature either-way anyway. Which relates to what I said about passive power/de-centralization vs active power/centralization; where power lies is also a question about human nature/psychology. "What should be" is a pointless inquiry it it can't be.

>>16433112
If it's a traditional theocracy, no it wouldn't.

>>16432527
Art is proto-scientific methodology for mediating truth.

If you want it to have impact it has to establish a credible framework in which the experimental characters and setting interact.
They dont have to be literally credible but reflect the truth of whatever idea or theme they represent and when they interact with other ideas or themes that interaction has to reflect some truth in the world.

Propaganda operates from an a priori assumption of truth, rather than naturally exploring some experimental scenario and developing what feels most truthful from it.
>My ideology is right therefore I will write a story or construct some artistic endeavor that establishes its righteousness.

When a person experiences that propaganda they may pick up on the lack of credibility in that expression or be ultimately dissuaded by its claimant to truth because the art never really established an appropriate context or reasoning in which it really works because the artist was too intent on establishing the righteousness of that ideology.

>>16433126
>No, I haven't. Maybe you didn't understand what I meant.
You were defining progressives as "those whose ideas won" and conservatives as "those who have lost".
Now, if you define them this way, in my hypothetical scenario, /pol/ would be (at least for a while) the most progressive board on the planet.

>In very broad strokes, anything that opposes equality and proposes hierarchy. Most "conservative" movements of today only superficially espouse these ideas
Would you say that Epicureanism was pre-modern morality or modern morality? They didn't oppose equality and they didn't propose hierarchies.

>>16433135
>If it's a traditional theocracy, no it wouldn't.
What would be a traditional theocracy and what would be a non-traditional one?

>>16433158
>You were defining progressives as "those whose ideas won" and conservatives as "those who have lost".
No I wasn't. Maybe that's how you interpreted what I said.
> Epicureanism
Was probably a form of proto-progressivism. But my point was that such movements never were able to gain or hold ground before the enlightenment. Since then, they have. So they must have done something that worked. So progressive propaganda can't be as ineffective as OP stated.

Huh? These recent protests prove otherwise Leftists are great a propaganda. USSR and China were/are great at it. Unless we're going by the very narrow strict Othordox Marxism only then yes they are quite shit tier at it

>>16433169
Man do I have to spell out everything for you? It's not that hard. Traditional would be any theocracy as they were until modernism. If you had a theocracy of modern progressive Christianity that is pro-equality and anti-hierarchy it would of course be progressive, despite it being a theocracy.

>>16433133
>Advocacy for anarchy in any way is a delusion
Then the only non delusional government is 100% fascism? I thought we were using this word as a pole of a spectrum.
Also, I see what you mean about power structure and moral ideals being separate spectrums, but I don't agree with that distinction. The more you know, the more those two spectrums converge. You can't sincerely argue for a moral ideal while also arguing for a power structure that would bring about the opposite result. The appearance of it being two separate arguments comes from not seeing how power structures reflect morals and lead to those moral outcomes

>>16432535
Nietzsche would have been so sad to see what the commies did to Russia. The poverty, the censorship, the death camps, the genocide of ethnic slavs... It makes me want to go skin a marxist.

>>16433195
>No I wasn't. Maybe that's how you interpreted what I said.
>>16432923
>>Do you define everything from the past that has been abandoned as conservative and everything that changed progressive?
>In broad strokes, yes. The way "history" has progressed in the direction it has is because leftist/progressive ideas. These ideas have never before been acceptable throughout history. Conservatism thus stands for everything that opposes that direction.

>Was probably a form of proto-progressivism. But my point was that such movements never were able to gain or hold ground before the enlightenment. Since then, they have. So they must have done something that worked. So progressive propaganda can't be as ineffective as OP stated.

Let's say I create a "Stoic political group". Stoics are known to support ascetic lifestyles, so I would call for an egalitarian economy. I would say that we all have vices so that we should not have a hierarchical society. A society where we all see each other as equals.
But as ascetic Stoics, we would have a society that cultivates the virtues. So, we would call for out of wedlock sex to be forbidden. We would also have very strong policies against recreative drugs.

Those who call themselves progressives nowadays support the values of the Sexual Revolution. Would my Stoic Party be considered progressive or conservative?

>>16433212
But then, why is the Iranian Revolution progressive, in your view?

>>16433257
>quotes
You really don't seem to understand what I'm getting at. It's not that hard really. Fine, I'll entertain you.
> egalitarian economy.
progressive
> we should not have a hierarchical society. A society where we all see each other as equals.
progressive
>we would have a society that cultivates the virtues.
depends on which virtues
>out of wedlock sex to be forbidden
conservative
>very strong policies against recreative drugs.
conservative
But, those are only the loose components of a schizophrenic whole. Pre-modern morals came from a complete world view, one based on hierarchy. From the ancient Japanese to the European middle ages to the ancient Greeks to the Aztecs, the specifics differed but they all were part of a coherent whole. Anything that tries to disrupt that organic whole through opposing hierarchy and promoting equality is in essence progressive.

>>16433308
Why would the condemnation of out of wedlock sex and drug usage be conservative? Those are not policies that promote hierarchy or combat equality.

>>16433270
It only seems conservative due to our current western paradigm (which is inherently progressive). Compared to the islamic middle ages, it's not a very conservative form of society. It has taken aboard many ideas and influences of progressive ideologies.

>>16433348
In your view, the Iranian regime of now is more progressive than the regime that came before it?

>>16433339
Yes they are. There's nuances of course, such as concubinage for individuals of higher classes. But in a broader societal sense these help to propagate the current hierarchy. The opposite is sexual liberty (which is inherently progressive) and recreational drug use (do I even have to explain?).

>>16433357
No of course not. But much more progressive than any pre-modern Iranian/Persian society. Stop thinking of it only in terms of what came directly before.

>>16433370
You are going to have to show arguments on why those things help to propagate the current hierarchy and why sexual liberty and recreational drug usage are inherently progressive.

>>16432527
>the left is bad at propaganda
>the right's manual go to book about propaganda is a leftist book (rules for radicals, saul alinsky)
What did he mean by this?

>>16433392
sexual liberty -> inherent part of any progressive ideology.
recreational drug use -> antithetical to traditional (mystical/spiritual) drug use.

>>16433219
>Then the only non-delusional government is 100% fascism? I thought we were using this word as a pole of a spectrum.
Form =/= way, I meant that all anarchic ideal societies are impossible. Not that the allowance for any form of independent individual action was.
>You can't sincerely argue for a moral ideal while also arguing for a power structure that would bring about the opposite result.
I mean, I see what you mean, but if you take into account that absolute anarchy would lead to micro-states of tyrant gangs with the wild west in-between and pockets of nice people; then one can see that passive force (aka police presence, or fear of later punishment) has to be present to deter the obstruction of personal freedoms (which are anarchic); thus one allows for the realization of X liberties (if it can't be realized you don't have it) by denying the liberty to 100% do as you will. So you 'need' "fascist" elements to prevent other fascismS (which absolute anarchy/plurality would lead to).
That's the second dimension, which would also be a square but not authority axis a economy axis, rather a Duty vs Liberty axis, that should also would take into account sociological psychology (perhaps triangle within the square), where there's grey areas of theoretical "hasn't been tried: is unlikely to work/likely to work" (outside triangle) vs "has been tried: sort of works/works adequately" (inside triangle).
Economical left/right is a false dichotomy, the same question is far larger than money;
>should we allow taking X from others to give X to others?
>do we have the duty to give what we have, X, to others in greater need than ourselves?,
These are in truth the same question, also merely the other side of the coin of:
>Must I protect others from others?
>Is it okay to take X from Y if I can?
It's all a question of the degree that we should allow oureselves to take and give to others.
Make duty the focus again.

>>16432626
>Spanish civil war
>Overthrowing of Communist regimes
>Failure of utopian societies
>Defeat of Napoleon and the French Revolution
>Failure of the Revolutions of 1848
>Nativism in Eastern Europe
>Brexit

>>16433415
Then, progressivism is about more than equality and hierarchy?

>>16433430
And yet here we are with forced equality and the masses having accepted progressive ideology to some degree all over the world. Those were, in the grand scheme of things, only minor setbacks for the left.

>>16433433
Yes, remember that I said "in very broad strokes." Most people would be able to grasp this. Instead of having a fruitful discussion about how the left has used propaganda, you are nitpicking some exceptions in order to prove something.

>>16433422
Because there's no such thing as negative rights.
Only duties.

>>16433442
>for the left.
liberalists*

>>16433520
Leftism is only a form of liberalism. So technically you are correct.

>>16433422
I respect the long thoughtful comment. I was never trying to argue that an ideal anarchist society would work (that's an extremist view) only that anarchist ideals were essential to leftism, while fascist ideals were right wing in nature.

But I'm not sure I agree with the distinction between liberty and duty. People can be given liberty and still act with duty. People may feel "bound" to duty but it's a psychological state, not necessarily the result of outside coercion, as a loss of liberty would imply.
>Do we have the duty to do x?
Is more closely related to
>Is it moral to do x?
But it's a very different question from
>Should we allow x?
Because that is closer to
>Should x behavior be forced onto people? And through what mechanism?

>>16432527
I feel like they're bad at empathizing with other points of view than "I want to be a hero and save the world". Whenever one nags at me about politics, I always ask them to pitch it to me "as if I was the most selfish man on earth" and they never have interesting responses.

>>16432527
>so bad
I think you just have a hard time seeing it

>>16433581
>>16433415
To prevent an action is to force another action, and vice versa.
Everything is prohibition and enforcement (usually simultaneously); either you prevent or you don't, even if some laws are written as what you should do in some instances, but that's only because it's simpler to list that than to list all that you shouldn't do. Like making a road, a road is prevention from not actually allowance for. Since what one could do WITH X is limitless, taking away/denying X (or enforcing anti-X) is infinitely limiting.
When they block one lane of the road to fix it that is, in truth, fascism. The road hasn't been given the right not to be driven on, people have been 'given' the lessened capacity and obligation (duty) to not drive on it. There are no such thing as rights.
Morality also presupposes spirituality.

>>16433520
This
If you want to get technical about it then lots of right wing people were classic liberals before the term got perverse.

I think that left wing in the form of progressive Will always ‘win’ because people want more rights, freedoms, benefits, etc. it’s like stopping the expansion of the universe.

The thing conservatives are trying to do is prevent the country from going full retard with communism, which is getting super fucking contentious because kids grew up by Marxist subversive teachers who made them confused about what is right and wrong and now all think communism is just simply the opposite of capitalism and it’s exactly like saying good instead of evil. This is why so many people hate each other now because of a assumption that people don’t want communism just simply because they are evil.

/rant

>>16433685
No no, that's not right. Everything is not prohibition or enforcement. Either a power structure is involved (deterministic, if executed perfectly) or a power structure is not involved (nondeterministic, either because we have free will or we do not know enough about crowd psychology to fully overcome the illusion of free will)

Imagine being an American and think the USSR or China is communist. Imagine being that retarded. I can't even fathom it.

>>16432527
Because in order to do propaganda you have to understand what people consider good. But what people consider good is because their motive is self-interest. You will never get people to organize by telling them to forget their self-interest. If you say "we can get the greatest amount of good by abandoning our self-interest" then you have not understood what humans mean by good (their self-interest).

>>16433722
that's what I said.
The latter is merely uncountable.
All rights are actually obligations of actions, like road blocks, and therefore fascistic (technically).

>>16433739
Based retard

>>16433755
Which goes back to power always being absolute in reality. There's always a sovereign, even if that sovereign surrenders responsibility which leads to chaos; the surrender is an act of power/authority.
The theological/moral is the true debate.

>>16433766
I await your explanation on how capitalism is actually communism. I know you're an American and think government = communism but I assure you that isn't so.

>>16432527
Literally all the propaganda being pumped out is leftist these days. Subliminal movie messaging, advertisements, music.
It's the right that is bad at propaganda. It's too on the nose. "Let's play the national anthem and wave the flag around!" So clever.

>>16433755
Ah, that makes sense.

>>16433782
To add, again.
The surrender can also lead to tyranny. Since power is rarely in one person, nor in the majority (since the majority wants to follow/not bother).
So it's a question of "where's the strongest self-aware super-organism" and/or how do you generate a super-organism out of a disorganized group of individuals, and THAT would be real Propaganda.

>>16432527
Rules for Radicals, The Menace of the Herd, and Liberalism; from Hitler to De Sade are decent reads on the subject.

>>16433797
I wouldn't call it propaganda if you yourself believe it.

These discussions lack chronological and geographic context and thus always result in a million contradictory understandings of vague ahistorical concepts whizzing past one another

>>16433987
Are you implying that people from different times and regions of the earth are different and what's true for one isn't necessarily true for the other?
:O

>>16433782
>>16433755
>>16433722
>>16433819
>>16433722
>>16433685
>>16433581
>>16433422
>>16433219
>>16433133
>>16433032
>>16432969
This was a very good series of posts.

>>16433854

>>16434069

>>16432535
This guy didn't get it.

>>16432527
The left is great at propaganda, much more effective than the right

>>16432527
Left is great at propaganda. You know how gay acceptance skyrocketed over the last 50 years? Propaganda

>>16435138
>liberals
>left

>>16435165
>implying commies don't fully support lgbt and globohomo

>>16435165
If you're making the point that politics are more than a one-dimensional left-right spectrum you are correct and a very smart boy
If you're making the point that gay acceptance is right-wing instead of left-wing you are retarded bigly

>>16435202
>implying libertarians don't fully support lgbt and globohomo

>>16435255
libertarian here, I don't approve of LGBT but I don't want it to be illegal

right wing propaganda is designed to reinforce your own delusions. left wing prop doesn't

>>16432527
They can't be that bad at it considering how indoctrinated a large portion of society is.

>>16435413
what is left wing propaganda designed for?

>>16434972
What does "this moves in a spiral pattern" even mean?

>>16435432
Left wing propaganda is about gaslighting you into believing that all of your preconceptions as well as your place in society are wrong and sinful.

>>16432527
Maybe its because of the literal demon fags that it appeals to

>>16435280
That's to approve of it.
The majority are like you, indifferent. Indifference moves the earth.

>>16435762
No it's not. I don't want it to be illegal to cheat on your partner, but I don't approve of it either.

>>16432527
They're too collectivist-oriented, so their propaganda only works on people who already believe what they believe. The only reason it gains a bigger foothold ever is if they themselves take the place of the dominant culture in whatever society they're in, meaning their propaganda by default will be "effective".

Also, anything by Edward Bernays.

>the left so bad at propaganda
>leftists are taking over institutions and destroying society and all the youth are being corrupted by the left and conservatism is dying
Which is true, /pol/?

>>16435925
The second one, the left is great at propaganda

>>16435931

>>16435931
This, their propaganda is working great. You can't complain that they can't do propaganda while also complaining they take over everything,

>>16436031
Based CIA asset Yuri.

>>16436039
The only one saying they're bad at propaganda is OP
>>16435925 is making the mistake of treating 4chan like all posts are made by the same person. If you do that then yeah the person is super inconsistent

>>16436042
>known liar
>based

Trump is the only christian white conservative with the balls to save white men. I say men because hopefully once he installs the next supreme court member he can overturn woman rights so they go back to second class citizens.
Hopefully Trump destroys the shitty Democrat left wing constitution and makes a new conservative constitution to take its place.
Having progressives were a detriment to society like social security, Medicare, and medicaid nothing but communist handouts.

>>16436156
Actual insanity.

>>16436156
>so they can go back to pre-suffragette mode.
THE PAST. WILL NEVER. EVER. RETURN.

>>16436156
based falseflagger

>>16433222
Improved the quality of life from feudalism to an industrialized society that became a world power?

>>16436259
With a lot of help from Wall Street financiers

>>16433854
>stonetoss
Please, fuck off.

>>16436283
What's your problem with stonetoss?

>16436156

>>16436259
why do commies always assume that russians couldnt have accomplished that without gulags and shit?

>>16433854

>>16436259
The Empire didn't genocide people, or send them to death camps.

>>16436288
He's somewhere between stupid and insane
See his unironic opinions about how a woman isn't worth as much as a person when she's no longer a virgin

>>16436296
what is the real-life meaning of this edit?

>>16436303
Coomunists are actually on the working class retard trump voters side or some shit

>>16436300
you talking about this?

>>16436300
>a woman isn't worth as much as a person when she's no longer a virgin
based

>>16436327
not-for-ants version won't upload, here's the website
http://stonetoss.com/comic/second-hand/

>>16436303
>panel 1
trump voters struggle for material gain politically
>panel 2
trump voters are members of the proletariat and their material interests reflect the interests of the rest of the working class
>panel 3
trump is a money laundering zionist shill that openly hates the poor and downtrodden
>panel 4
the psyoped braindead trumptard is unable to cope with this cognitive dissonance

>>16436327
>>16436336
kek that's funny

>>16436338
What did Donald Trump say about the poor and downtrodden?

>>16436303
Basically >>16436313 yeah
I think it's the idea that people on the left are working for the poor lower classes, where much of Trump's base comes from
The tug of war here isn't the trump voter's perceived war for his politics, but the actual fight for better quality of life
Trump is on the side of the rich, because well, have you looked at the news in the past 3 years?

>>16436338
midwit take

>>16436354
>Trump is on the side of the rich, because well, have you looked at the news in the past 3 years?
care to elaborate in a non- John Oliver way?

>>16436345
>My entire life, I've watched politicians bragging about how poor they are, how they came from nothing, how poor their parents and grandparents were. And I said to myself, if they can stay so poor for so many generations, maybe this isn't the kind of person we want to be electing to higher office. How smart can they be? They're morons.

>>16436359
nice cognitive dissonance, make no mistake we will liquidate you and sell your children into slavery at the earliest convenience

>>16436361
Unnecessary tax cuts for the rich, rolling back environmental protections, making Betsy Devos the SoE, etc. All things that pretty plainly negatively affect everyone who isn't rich.
>>16436327
That's the one.

>>16436300
but that's true

>>16436392
You're free to think that and include it in your standards for an SO, but it still makes you a dickhead

>>16436401
That's okay, I like being a dickhead

>>16436409
Sure, that's part of your freedom.

>>16436413
Neat

>>16432799
>I'd actually say leftists are way more creative than conservatives in terms of actual art
Postmodern art is fucking awful but ok brainlet

>>16436422
Where did he mention postmodern art?

>>16436422
but some of it is really good

>>16436474
Pretty neat.

>>16436422

>>16436382
in your ideology, cutting back environmental protections also negatively affects the rich
not sure how Betsy Devos negatively effects the non-rich

>>16436372
That is pretty disrespectful towards the poor, although I will point out that it's from an obscure new york times interview from 1999

>>16435451
Antonio Gramsci

>>16436295
No yea they probably absolutley could have if they didn't turn to an authoritarian regime after there was already a precedent set for constant invasion from neighboring and nations abroad.

>>16437341
This doesn't even constitute an English sentence, delete it and rewrite it intelligibly.

>>16436382
Regarding the Stonetoss comic, why would a computer's value go down after it's been skeeted on?

>>16436422
>Has never read cat's cradle
Ok retard

>>16437350
You can delete posts?
What I meant to say is that there had already been instances where literally almost the entire western world sided against the bolsheviks in armed conflict and as a result, Russians believed that an ideal stateless/classless society wouldn't work without getting btfo by foreign powers. So they turned to authoritarianism and then gulags and what not happened.

>>16432527
Most left wing shit is based entirely on abstractions. In order to understand what they're saying they have to fully flesh out these scenarios to get you in a train of thought that would allow these abstractions to be understandable and relatable.. On the contrary most right wing shit is built on base human experience that people can automatically understand and relate to.

>>16437463
That's because they're right, a stateless/classless society won't work without getting assblasted by foreign powers. It inevitably turns to authoritarianism because that's the inevitable conclusion to a contradictions like a stateless state and a classless society.

>>16432527
What everyone in this thread is ignoring is that propaganda is rarely a useful tool of opposition. Whatever imagery and persuation the left comes up with in non leftist societies is meant to fail. Propaganda is, however, a tool of validation. It legitimizes the class in power; the government, the church, the rich. The propaganda you're thinking of fails because it is not the propaganda produced by and for North Korea, China or the Soviet Union.

Stop thinking memes and infographics about diversity are the same, fucking retards.

>>16432799
The right understands how stupid and susceptible your average person is to propaganda techniques. The left thinks they can make everyone else see things from their point of view through education.

>>16433693
Why don't you want communism?

I think most people now a days see themselves as a little jeff bezos in the making. They don't understand alienation from minorities and most importantly they think all you need to "make it" is to work hard. But at the same time they think people working two jobs and breaking their backs are simply "too dumb" to make it. In other words, working hard is only important when you also have the talent to be great.

But societies run because of these people who run these low skill jobs, we don't live in a world where the streets clean themselves or the food we eat is grown and prepared by robots. Not yet anyway. So what should be done with the people who are the backbone of society? People at the top will earn millons because we've decided ludicrous differences between the top and the bottom are okay, and in a way, there needs to be a difference so that people can escalate and improve and this is something that has always been pointed out by leftists. But is it okay for a CEO to not only earn 100, 200 times what the lowest employee makes but to also receive bonuses and bonuses even when the company itself is in poor health (the airlines are a good example of this). The corporation as an entity is very poorly defined. The modern corporation is what feudalism was to capitalism, an inefficient, undemocratic way of distributing labor and profits.

People think "the left" is everywhere, because they see their beloved corporations post rainbow flags and they see CEO's taking the knee. What more effective propaganda than to turn "the left" into a bunch of whiny privileged assholes that are stopping the efficient economy by forcing companies to hire black people. This is what most people who define themselves as right wing, and dare I say, a lot of people who define themselves as left wing as well believe.

Where is the economic angle to it? Socialism is not about blacks or gays, it is primarily about the economic system. And, you know, back when the lives black matter movement was in vogue a couple of months ago I heard some fellow "leftists" complain about how the "socialists" were turning the focus from racial injustice to economic injustice, well I told this person: "but that's mostly why blacks are so alienated". Of course I was seen as a crazy radical.

Lately we have seen the discourse shift more towards a critique to private ownership, I am not going to deny that true leftism is in the rise. And I'm happy with that. I think one of the most interesting projects is the one lead by some economists called 'radical markets', in a way it is the extreme version of the free market economy but without private ownership. Very interesting.

In the end, I would say the right wing and let's call them neoliberals have done an amazing propagandistic work to dissociate the economy and specifically the ideas of private ownership with the social aspects of "the left". Effectively changing the discourse of what the left is.

>>16437671
>Why don't you want communism?
Because you guys are never very clear about what this is. Most people don't want the USSR and that seems to be what happens when 'Communists' take over

>>16437512
>That's because they're right, a stateless/classless society won't work without getting assblasted by foreign powers.
That's historically false. Israeli Kibbutzim were classless, yet they were always volunteering en masse to fight the arabs. I don't see why a small classless society would have more risk to get invaded by foreign power than small class-based countries.
The true enemy of classless society is not from outside, but from withing. E.G,, Paris commune, crushed by the royalist army. Revolutionary Catalonia, crushed by the republicans and franco. Budapest commune, crushed by the bolshevik unique party.

>>16437695
Maybe you should see for yourself what it is? It's not like there isn't a ton of communist authors. Marx, Rosa Luxembourg, Antonio Gramschi, Engels etc...

>>16437712
This is why your PR is shit, people ask you specifically what communism is and you guys never explain it. Waving hammer and sickle flags really doesn't help either

>>16436327
>women are the same as objects
Yes.

>>16437716
>[x] is like [y]
>WRONG [x] isn't the same thing as [y]
What is it about objecthood vs personhood such that semen spatter lowers the value of an object but not a person?

Trotsky, Eisenstein, Shostakovich, and Gorky were all decent propagandists.

>>16437702
Interesting. I should probably shut up about history/politics until I read more books.

>>16437715
>This is why your PR is shit.
Communism is not about having good PR, but is about abolishing PR, which is alienation.
>Waving hammer and sickle flags really doesn't help either
Bolshevism is not communism. And the hammer and sickle flag is saturnian symbolism.

>>16437843
If Communism is so desirable, shouldn't you be able to describe in your own words why someone would want to be a Communist?

>>16437873
material self interest

>>16437886
Only appeals to hylics.

>>16438163
Then slave away for Goldbergenstein because he gives money to Mormons. The rest of us will string your family up like Mussolini.

Engels and marx reduce all life to production of goods.

THis is why 100 years later, all people are alienated by production and money

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.
—Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Scientific and Utopian (1880)

yes it reduces people 'life to producing and trading goods

>>16438177
People like you are worthy of no ethical consideration. If you can cannot motivated by ideas greater than anything found on the material plane, then it is clear that your consciousness is too limited to be meaningful. Your pain and pleasure are just neurons firing in void; in just world you would be forced into slavery so that someone with a real mind could put your body towards a worthwhile ends.

>>16438196
>producing and trading goods
Communism is about abolishing exchange value. That's the basis.
Also it extraodrinary how spiritual people like you despite high stage communism, because supposedly it's only about producing material goods, yet you don't seem to criticize Capitalism so much, even if Capitalism is alienating people both physically and spiritually. Marx: " the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family" (Theses on Feuerbach).

>>16438220
Incidentally, the Soviet Union dedicated themselves to higher ideals and were the first on the moon, on Venus, had a higher literacy rate than Americans, historically gave women workers rights etc. American ethics by contrast are driven strictly by profit, which is why your vile nation is responsible for all the wars of the last 60 years. We will torch you alive.