/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19551347]

When did you realize communism made the most sense?

[Anonymous No.19551349]

>>19551347
At the age of 13, then I'd realized otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19551351]

As soon as I saw your image, OP.
If I become a leftist, will she have sex with me?

[Anonymous No.19551354]

>>19551347
You forgot to add 'books for this feeling'

[Anonymous No.19551360]

>>19551347
at around 27

[Anonymous No.19551365]

>>19551347
I dunno, I always thought she was a Nat-soc...

>>19551351
No she is pure and chaste.

[Anonymous No.19551367]

Would love to see your peabrain explain how it makes the most sense so I can have a good laugh
go ahead OP

[Anonymous No.19551379]

>>19551347
Made for BBC.

[Anonymous No.19551382]

>>19551351
>she
I've got bad news for you anon.

[Anonymous No.19551389]

>>19551347
Nat is borderline retarded.

https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1638826197841.webm

[Anonymous No.19551408]

>>19551347
>In Marx’s entire oeuvre, I don’t think there is a single disinterested reflection on death. . . . I was pondering this at his grave in Highgate.

Cioran, Anathemas and Admirations

[Anonymous No.19551412]

>>19551367
Because it is the most in line with human nature, Paleolithic societies practiced primitive communism, it was not until the advent of agriculture and therefore private property did humans become corrupted by greed.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

That is how we lived for almost all of human history, everyone in a tribe was taken care of, contributed, and was important. Now everyone is so atomized and all out relationships are commoditized, life has lost its meaning.

[Anonymous No.19551424]

Although inferior to 2D waifus, tiktok thots do in a pinch as life fuel in this shitty and ugly world.

[Anonymous No.19551462]

>>19551389
No need to point that out. OP's picture made that clear.

[Anonymous No.19551474]

>>19551347
A few years ago

[Anonymous No.19551504]

>>19551412
>Because it is the most in line with human nature
No such thing according to Marx himself.
>Paleolithic societies practiced primitive communism
>projects his desired civilized socioeconomic system on past people closer to animals than us
>That is how we lived for almost all of human history,
And how did humanity fare during it? Why did they have the need to invent religion when they lived in the system which you claim communism is a renovation of?
>Now everyone is so atomized and all out relationships are commoditized, life has lost its meaning.
Okay incel, there is no meaning in life but work to Marx anyway. If you wish to go back to when tribe chief Apu could literally put you to death because the Deer Spirit demanded it go ahead.

[Anonymous No.19551509]

>>19551389
Are all the girls in flordia like this?

[Anonymous No.19551512]

>>19551347
I remember a few years ago I was walking down the street and saw a man with a young girl plastering pro-communist posters on public property (sign posts, benches, etc). The girl was super fucking hot, looked like OP's pic, and I remember thinking what a shame it was that a girl that hot had fallen victim to such a terrible ideology. Hopefully she'll overcome that phase in the future, if she hasn't already.

[Anonymous No.19551525]

Is there a single communist or socialist movement that isn't just about queers and anti-racism? Is there a single one that isn't filled with limp-wristed people who would condemn you for making a move against the capitalists/international finance?

[Anonymous No.19551531]

>>19551347
That's not anarchism, quite the opposite really...

[Anonymous No.19551541]

>>19551504
Why did they have the need to invent religion when they lived in the system which you claim communism is a renovation of?

Religion as a set of rules to live life by only came with civilization, it was simply a way to train humans to be obedient and subservient

In primitive tribes we see they also had gods, but these were created just to explain the natural world, like a sun god, or rain god, there was no Ten Commandments or anything like that


>If you wish to go back to when tribe chief Apu could literally put you to death because the Deer Spirit demanded it go ahead.

Any nowadays if the govt demand it you will be drone striked, which is a lot scarier imo

[Anonymous No.19551542]

>>19551379

[Anonymous No.19551563]

>>19551347

[Anonymous No.19551573]

fuck capitalism! also, don't forget to get your pfizer booster shots!

[Anonymous No.19551594]

>>19551349
Classic brainlet response

[Anonymous No.19551601]

>>19551347
When I did the math and learned that my work makes my boss a profit equal to about five times my salary.

[Anonymous No.19551613]

>>19551601
and you think it follows from that that total government control of production is a good idea? i believe that is what is called a "fallacy"

[Anonymous No.19551620]

Communism doesn't make any sense. It punishes people for working hard and rewards people for being lazy shits. It is literally idiocy.

[Anonymous No.19551630]

you just know one of those fat guys from chapo makes these threads of young women seeming to endorse communism thinking it's going to influence losers to adopt a failed extremist ideology. objectify women for the cause bro! even isis doesn't sink that low.

[Anonymous No.19551635]

>>19551382
*good news

[Anonymous No.19551639]

>>19551347
When my mom kicked me out of the house

[Anonymous No.19551641]

>>19551635
bang on

[Anonymous No.19551642]

>>19551613
A planned economy is only one of many possible solutions to be applied to any given circumstance, it is however not the only one nor is it necessarily applicable to every circumstance.

[Anonymous No.19551646]

>>19551601
Your employer took all the risks by forging a company and hanging a shingle in the marketplace. You took no risks. You just filled out an application. You're damn right you get paid a fraction of what you make for the employer.

[Anonymous No.19551652]

>>19551642
>a business must create more value than the sum of its costs to be viable
>therefor communism is a good idea
not too bright huh

[Anonymous No.19551760]

>>19551646
and what afforded the employer the ability to take these "risks," as you call them

[Anonymous No.19551815]

>>19551347
I know this girl IRL even though I’m much older. Weird how she is famous in an area where I have zero knowledge or interest

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19551842]

>>19551347
>>19551389
wow amazing
also, since like forever

[Anonymous No.19551846]

>>19551760
Banks. You go indebt to start a bussines.

[Anonymous No.19551849]

>>19551408
>No such thing according to Marx himself.
how about you read some Marx:
>To know what is useful for a dog, one must investigate the nature of dogs. This nature is not itself deducible from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would judge all human acts, movements, relations, etc. according to the principle of utility would first have to deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as historically modified in each epoch.

>Why did they have the need to invent religion
because they didn't have science. they weren't able to understand nature directly so they had to do it through inventing gods that represented forces of nature. then they weren't able to understand the emerging large-scale social processes, so they had to do it through inventing god that represented a supernatural will dictating social processes.
>there is no meaning in life but work to Marx
Marx:
>Time is the room of human development. A man who has no free time to dispose of, whose whole lifetime, apart from the mere physical interruptions by sleep, meals, and so forth, is absorbed by his labour for the capitalist, is less than a beast of burden. He is a mere machine for producing Foreign Wealth, broken in body and brutalized in mind.

>If you wish to go back to when tribe chief Apu could literally put you to death because the Deer Spirit demanded it go ahead.
future communism can't be based on a religious proto-understanding because this was so inexact that it was only applicable in societies of basic complexity and basic level of productive forces. it will be based on scientific understanding of nature and society, not on return to religion.
>>19551525
no communist or socialist movement is about "queers and anti-racism". communism or socialism is the class movement of the proletariat. but things like anti-racism abstracted from class are not class demands, so they can't be part of it. in fact they're used primarily by bourgeois and middle class people as a means of competition within that strata. and this nothing to do with the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.
moreover, the only thing that can possibly abolish racism is the abolition of class society, but anti-racism vehemently opposes this truth, so in its practice it's pro-racist.
>>19551613
total government control of production is state capitalism
>>19551620
no, it literally stops the situation where the most rewarding thing is doing nothing and letting your capital make money for you. in communism, on the other hand, everyone will work.
>>19551652
yes, the fact that production in capitalism is determined by profitability and not by need is a good reason to abolish it for those whose needs are left unfulfilled. in addition, the fact that the workers are on the side of the costs so that the maximization of value you describe is done by depressing the living standard and the working conditions of the workers is also a good reason for the workers to abolish it.

[Anonymous No.19551854]

>>19551347
lit is the only board dumb enough to both believe this and take the bait

[Anonymous No.19551858]

>>19551854
everyone knows its bait we just like arguing about communism

[Anonymous No.19551862]

>>19551351
>If I become a leftist, will she have sex with me?
the inner monologue of every 5'7 white dude

[Anonymous No.19552025]

>>19551347
It doesn't, it has its fair share of problems. So does everything else. The main issue with it is that without making profit companies can't really do any R&D. And centralizing decisions too much will probably always be a bad thing in the long run, because people are a decent "measure stick" for whatever they are experiencing, so they probably will have an upper hand over a elite of politicians. That is why I'm somewhat skeptical of China ending up "making it".

[Anonymous No.19552042]

>>19551389
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1639237391183.webm

[Anonymous No.19552086]

>>19552025
>muh R&D
mars is just a few years away anon, I can feel it! and eternal life will not be much farther behind!

[Anonymous No.19552103]

>>19552086
That is how you improve the overall lives of people, anon. In the end it is always a matter of "making the cake grow" vs "sharing the cake". You have to keep things somewhat balanced, democracy can absolutely be improved on those regards, but I don't think this dynamic will change.

[Anonymous No.19552109]

>>19551347
>When did you realize communism made the most sense?
When I realised no system has killed as many leftists as communism.

[Anonymous No.19552111]

>>19552025
>China ending up "making it".
China’s facing a housing bubble right now because of CCP meddling

[Anonymous No.19552115]

>>19551347
>When did you realize communism made the most sense?
When I realized "socialism in one country" and "socialism with x characteristics" are ways to be a fascist without having to be racist

[Anonymous No.19552118]

Communism is too divorced from reality; it's an ideological pipedream that discounts human motivation.

[Anonymous No.19552145]

[Anonymous No.19552152]

>>19552111
Yes, but don't pretend that other countries don't have anything like that. Now it is mainly a matter of seeing how they will get out of it, if they even manage that.

[Anonymous No.19552161]

>>19552103
>improve the overall lives of people
do you think people are happier today than they were fifty or a hundred or a thousand years ago because we have fast cars and automatic vacuums and live to ninety more often?

[Anonymous No.19552163]

>>19551347
I used to have a goth girlfriend with that jaw shape and the same hair. Bigger boobas tho.
Things didnt end well. I have a 3 page letter somewhere where she calls me a human swamp.
: (

[Anonymous No.19552171]

>>19552161
Existential matters? They have way more power than people from the past used to have. And existential issues usually are a thing if you are not starving. So, yes?

[Anonymous No.19552175]

>>19552161
The main problem with capitalism is that people still haven't figured out a decent way of dealing with surplus. Americans are literally killing themselves with food, and that is also a thing in most western countries.

[Anonymous No.19552206]

>>19552175
No the main problem with capitalism is that the people who make the surplus don't get to keep it.

[Anonymous No.19552212]

>>19551347
Last month unironically

[Anonymous No.19552222]

>>19552171
yes your automatic vacuum gives you power. you are liberated by the acceleration of your truck.
>>19552175
people will continue to kill themselves with food so long as they are in a system that demands it. the problem is that new frontiers of exploitation are always needed to sustain growth.

[Anonymous No.19552226]

How could you even implement communism successfully. In America at the least the people have already shown that they don't want control, and would rather have other people tell them what to do

[Anonymous No.19552228]

>>19552206
That is somewhat fine, competition is a decent thing when you want to have things thriving and R&D being a thing. It is definitely getting to a weird point where people feel like building rockets and kill themselves with fucking food, but still, considering that I live in the countryside of a LA country and I can have access to books in the blink of an eye, it was probably for the better.

[Anonymous No.19552244]

>>19552222
Yes, anon, people have to somewhat change their ways. That is why they are discussing that "sustainability shit" in case you haven't noticed.

[Anonymous No.19552246]

>>19552118
>human motivation

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19552287]

>>19551349
At 13 I was a cold war kid extremely distrustful towards these words and their governments.
Not till the Bush administration did I start to drift left, still questioning the quagmire of information about Sovietism and the other tankies…
Anarchi-communism makes the most sense

[Anonymous No.19552297]

>>19551849
>how about you read some Marx
Nothing wrong with what I said, there is no generic all-encompassing human nature, that's what Marx critized Feuerbach for.
>because they didn't have science. they weren't able to understand nature directly so they had to do it through inventing gods that represented forces of nature
Literal bs hypothesis made by materialist retards. Sociology was a mistake. There is hardly any connection between those two things and you know it.
>then they weren't able to understand the emerging large-scale social processes, so they had to do it through inventing god that represented a supernatural will dictating social processes.
That not only hardly applies to any religion today, but to any religion at all. And the shit about inventing a god to history the current societal structure is just funny. Completley ascientific.
>muh exploitashon
I don't care, he still considered work the main characteristic of man. Just because alienated work makes him like a machine doesn't stop him from being a man, or else the worker wouldn't be able to revolt, would he?
>literal positivist gobbledygook
Marxists are, were and will always be liberals.

[Anonymous No.19552301]

>>19552244
no people have to significantly change their ways, the "sustainability shit" will only ever be enough to stop total collapse, if that

[Anonymous No.19552304]

>>19552228
Easy opinions to have when you're not working in an Amazon warehouse.

[Anonymous No.19552327]

>>19552304
They could be a factory worker in a soviet factory. In the end you are just changing one elite for another. You remove the economical elites and replace them with political ones. I think that isn't nice, because this ends up concentrating more power on the hands of politicians. I don't like them.

[Anonymous No.19552347]

>>19552327
You right-wing retards have literally gone from "capitalism is the most amazing system ever, freedom fuck yea!" to "yeah I know the system is shit but at least it's not a soviet dictatorship!!!!" and think you're proving a good point.

[Anonymous No.19552358]

>>19552347
The thing is that it doesn't really change a lot of things. Consider China and how things are done there. It is not that different from a "regular western" country. And I'm not even right-wing, I think I'm an anarchist or something, I believe that people should attain a decent enough level of understanding that they are able to self-rule.

[Anonymous No.19552427]

>>19552358
china good

[Anonymous No.19552596]

>>19552427
It is not hell on earth. While it definitely has its problems, it is probably not that bad.

[Anonymous No.19552616]

>>19552596
I know quite a few chinese immigrants who say it is in fact hell on earth

[Anonymous No.19552626]

>>19552616
I don't know, have you ever been in a country under a civil war? Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the overall living standards there are that great, but they probably aren't that bad.

[Anonymous No.19552633]

I was peobably 16 when i thought communism was the goal.

Then i realised at about 25 that a mix of socialism and capitalism was the most ideal solution.

[Anonymous No.19552642]

>>19551347
Seeing the massive and unavoidable inconsistencies of marxism, and communists' disgusting and criminal record in the last century, I realized otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19552650]

>>19552626
Yeah nah man, it's pretty fucking bad

[Anonymous No.19552651]

>>19552616
how many?

[Anonymous No.19552731]

>>19551504
You speak really authoritatively about Marx for someone who's never read him

Shit thread op you coomer retard

[Anonymous No.19552806]

>>19552642
would like to point out that Portugal was communist after the commie revolution in 1974. We've had Socialist governments since then.

>t. still Poortuguese

[Anonymous No.19552825]

>>19551351
>assuming she actually cares about communism and isn't posing with the magazine for attention

[Anonymous No.19553359]

>>19551347
>>19551412
>Because it is the most in line with human nature, Paleolithic societies practiced primitive communism, it was not until the advent of agriculture and therefore private property did humans become corrupted by greed.

This is why /lit/ laughs at you

[Anonymous No.19553386]

Life is such a kino magazine. Better than any history book.

[Anonymous No.19553439]

>>19551347

When I left Cuba and my parents brought me to Italy, I just want to go back people here are too fat! I want to eat less again :(

[Anonymous No.19553451]

>>19551347
As a diet plan.

[Anonymous No.19553497]

>>19553451
>have trouble losing weight due to excess production of food in a capitalist societies?
>move to a communist countries and starve until your ideal weight
>100 million people have done it before you why can't you?

[Anonymous No.19553855]

>>19551347
When women begin attaching themselves to an idea/piece of art/philosophy is when you know it's time to move on, find and develop something new. Women are incapable of anything more than a surface level understanding, they care far more about the social aspect of an idea than the idea as an abstracted form. This woman (if she is indeed a woman) very clearly saw an old communism book in an op shop and thought it would make for an edgy instagram photo, it's something to add to her 'personality'. It's a fashion statement to her. That's what it is, politics/economics has just become a fashion statement, it's no longer something worth fighting for.

Anyway, communism is outdated, not to say capitalism isn't, just that these ideas just cannot cater for the fact that there's a digital economy now. You can't really seize the means of production anymore, because we have the technology that lets us (if you're intelligent and know how to use it). Now we want to seize the means of distribution, because it's marketing that is really the big kahuna. In Marx' time, there were things that people wanted that they could not get. Now there are things that we can easily get but we do not want; the economy has shifted such that the only thing in demand is demand itself.

I don't identify with any political leaning. Whenever I try point out that 'left' and 'right' are meaningless, nebulous terms, I always get accused of being a "communist" (funny) or a "centrist" (equally funny, given how much self-awareness you'd have to lack to sincerely call someone a 'centrist'), and it's unanimously agreed upon that these things are 'bad' or 'virging', compared to their beliefs which are 'good' or 'chad'.

Honestly, I'm in favour of scrapping consumerism and luxuries, I honestly get far more pleasure from studying mathematics than anything else. Luckily my job involves the use of mathematics, and so occasionally on slow days, I can pretend like I'm working, when in reality I'm looking at means on a circle or something interesting, then I can go home and toy around with mathematical ideas that are on my mind. I have to be somewhat secretive about what I'm doing, because I'd probably be paid less if my boss found out I enjoy my field so much that I spend more time doing things I enjoy than what I'm actually meant to be doing (luckily she often chastises me and tells me to have a break because "I've been working nonstop"). I hate that our economy values you doing things you don't want to do, because it's somehow nobler to be stuck in a job you hate earning 6-7 figures, than one you love earning 5. It's as if we've created a culture wherein you're more respected the more you hate your job, and if you happen to love your work, you're obnoxious and should be paid less, or you should do it for free (pro-capitalists I've met have often said "if you love your work so much, give me your money". They're incapable of realising humans can have nuance).

[Anonymous No.19553957]

>>19552175
in capitalism, food, like every other commodity, is produced according to its profitability, not according to how advantageous it is to human flourishing. that's why
>>19552226
>Nothing wrong with what I said
you said there's no such thing as human nature according to Marx and I quoted you Marx talking about "human nature in general". we both know that you haven't read Capital.
>Literal bs hypothesis made by materialist retards.
lol cope harder religtard. at one point in history it was smart to have certain religious beliefs but in 2020 it's just a pathetic fashion statement for contrarian teens
>That not only hardly applies to any religion today
it fully applies to religions that dominate today. it's how they came about. and they'll go away only when the veil of the social process is lifted for entire humanity, i.e. when capitalist society is abolished and bourgeois ideology loses hold on common consciousness.
>I don't care, he still considered work the main characteristic of man.
no, he has considered conscious creation the thing that distinguishes men from other animals, and he was right
>Just because alienated work makes him like a machine doesn't stop him from being a man, or else the worker wouldn't be able to revolt, would he?
ok? are you being autistic about the concept of dehumanization or something right now?
>Marxists are, were and will always be liberals.
no, Marxists are thoroughly opposed to liberalism. they reject methodological abstract individualism, rights of man, popular will, the democratic principle and everything else liberalism stands for. they affirm that bourgeois society is a complete realization of basic liberal ideals such as justice, and they represent the consciousness that human species has of the only way this liberal society can be abolished. in short, they're more anti-liberal than someone like you has the capacity to even imagine
>>19552327
the USSR was capitalist
>>19552642
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria were never socialist. they were never close to even a proletarian dictatorship (with the exception of Hungary), let alone a socialist society

[Anonymous No.19553981]

>>19551347
You're not going to have communism ever. Most that you'll get is UBI from the excess an automated economy is going to bring.

[Anonymous No.19554056]

>>19551347
>work
>receive nothing
i-it makes sense i swear!

[Anonymous No.19554074]

>>19553957
Dictatorships won't solve that, the main problem with them is succession. Even if you do manage to get a nice leader, as soon as he leaves power, there will be a fight for power and shit will fly all over.

[I hate women No.19554081]

>>19551351
No. In pretty sure she's an edgy zoomer tik toker still in hs, a lefty basedboi is probably the last thing she wants

[Anonymous No.19554084]

>>19551412
>Because it is the most in line with human nature, Paleolithic societies practiced primitive communism, it was not until the advent of agriculture and therefore private property did humans become corrupted by greed.
lmao
private property always existed, even more so in hunter gatherer groups

you think the best hunter is going to give up the best sharp rock? the best pussy? the best food? there's a reason women reproduce at 14x the rate of men spanning across hundreds of thousands of years, because humanity is incredibly unequal and if you couldn't compete to secure your station, you were excluded unfit, and eventually dead

this literally cannot be argued, it's in your DNA, it's in everyone's DNA, it is nature incarnate

[Anonymous No.19554097]

>>19551563
Wow communists eat food, who would've thought

[Anonymous No.19554114]

>>19554074
class dictatorship has no problem of succession and there's no reason why fight for power has to always end up in the defeat of the proletariat and the restoration of bourgeois dictatorship
>>19554084
it hasn't. in early societies people worked together and put the product into a common stock that was then used to fulfill the needs of all members of the group

[Anonymous No.19554126]

>>19554114
your DNA proves this false, we've quantified the ratio of male to female ancestors, it isn't even close, there is zero parity or common stock

laughable

[Anonymous No.19554138]

>>19554126
B-but my noble savage meme!

[Anonymous No.19554161]

>>19554114
Good luck enforcing that once someone get into power.

[Anonymous No.19554186]

>>19553981
>Most that you'll get is UBI from the excess an automated economy is going to bring.

This is ideal; if everything can be automated, then there's no need to work. People will finally be free to pursue creative endeavours (of course most won't, but who gives a fuck about NPCs that want to wallow in sloth their whole lives?)

[Anonymous No.19554278]

>>19551347
When I was a retarded teen, now I am a grown adult stacking paper and I know i'd be a Kulak one day and you fags would try to kill me because you're too retarded to google some investing strategies.

[Anonymous No.19554304]

>>19551347
When I learnt about the Khmer Rouge. They were so great

[Anonymous No.19554311]

>>19551347
Unless mods do something about you bunkerchan travelers, I will Sage your threads.

Sage

[Anonymous No.19554325]

>>19551849
>in communism, on the other hand, everyone will work.

LOL'd for real.

[Anonymous No.19554346]

>>19552616
oh yeah? and i know one gorillion unicorns that say it is in fact heaven on mars
>>19552650
kys

[Anonymous No.19554350]

>>19554126
women aren't property you incel
>>19554161
once proletariat gets into power it will enforce its interests just like any other class that's in power. there's nothing special about it that makes it impossible

[Anonymous No.19554399]

>>19552642
Does this account for inflation?

[Anonymous No.19554418]

>>19554350
>humans aren't property
>slave owners aren't wealthy
lewl
alternatively
>women aren't a direct result of wealth/power
lewlwewl

[Anonymous No.19554433]

>>19551347
Have you noticed how in stories (books or T.V. shows) that what starts out promising all have endings that seem to come out of nowhere, as if they’re imposed from without rather than obeying the story’s inner logic? It's like yanking the football like Lucy yanking the football. That's like art under capitalism. To get you to buy into it, what they do is give you some emotional identification with the real desire for change, justice, virtue, freedom, resolution to the major conflicts etc. -- in other words, a taste of communism -- but then when they don't need your emotional buy-in anymore (because the series is wrapping up), they discard all of that and betray their own audience.

A consistent working-out of problems tends towards communism, but pop culture in capitalism can't go all the way because it would be too threatening to the reigning social order, so the creators have to thwart their own instincts no matter how tacked-on or unconvincing the false "resolution" is. The ending tends to be a restoration of the status quo, or some plot twist where the revolutionary becomes the villain. In other words, the restoration of the status quo is the best we can hope for. But that's cynicism and everyone in the world realizes it's a lie, which is why they're constantly disappointed at these betrayals. But it keeps happening over and over again.

There's also a dichotomy between being a "rational" person and being a communist, which is wrapped up in the concept of struggle. "I'm a rational, scientific free thinker and not like those bleeding hearts." But I think the people who start reading Marx and stick with it realize that's a false dichotomy, and that if you want to be earnest about struggling for justice, the communism becomes the only reasonable and logical conclusion to the most reliable explanation for the state of the world.

https://youtu.be/yh5XNmkOXME

[Anonymous No.19554459]

>>19551525
Only in the places theyre not trying to subvert
https://thediplomat.com/2021/09/china-bans-sissy-men-from-tv/

[Anonymous No.19554489]

>>19554459
That was more K-pop stuff. China though still seems stuck in the late-90s "Xena: Warrior Princess" brand of gay-lesbian content on TV with the definitely *not gay* main characters blowing flutes at each other.

https://youtu.be/IiegQOcRnDY

[Anonymous No.19554504]

>>19551347
Communism is the best form of government, except for all the other systems that have been tried.

[Anonymous No.19554513]

>>19551347

When I realized you literally couldn't trust any of these featherweight alt-light retards to stop being jannies for christkikes long enough to be antisemitic enough to gas the jews already and just end it and secure a future for the existence of WHITE CHILDREN

[Anonymous No.19554516]

>>19554513

[Anonymous No.19554559]

>>19554433
>Have you noticed how in stories (books or T.V. shows) that what starts out promising all have endings that seem to come out of nowhere, as if they’re imposed from without rather than obeying the story’s inner logic?
Using Ockham’s razor, the most logical explanation for this phenomenon is that the writers wrote themselves into a corner, they had a great premise but couldn’t execute it properly, time/budget constraints prevented them from making the ending they wanted or, more likely, the show was so successful that the producers pressured them into making more seasons to milk it a second a cash cow and they had to rewrite the ending to fit in the new events.
>https://youtu.be/yh5XNmkOXME [Open]
Every dystopian science-fiction has these moments, TV tropes even had a dedicated trope for it
>https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrandInquisitorScene
Cpt. Beatty and Guy Montag, O’Brien and Winston in Room 101, Mustapha Mond and John, Bernard and Helmholtz, in every narrative of this kind a high ranking official appears and gives the protagonist a lecture on why it was foolish/naive of the protagonist to rise up against the regime, usually justifying it with impressive rhetoric.
Of course these characters are always full of shit, their arguments riddled with fallacies and half-truths but the point is that they sound convincing, both in-universe and to the audience so you are dumbstruck trying to find a counter argument.

[Anonymous No.19554595]

>>19554350
It is all about who controls the army at that point, anon. Even if someone is thinking about it, what prevents someone from seizing power afterwards? That is the main problem with dictatorships, politicians have a lot of power on their hands.

[Anonymous No.19554744]

>>19554595
if someone isn't thinking about it, what prevents someone else from seizing power afterwards?*

[Anonymous No.19554848]

>>19554559
>Using Ockham’s razor, the most logical explanation for this phenomenon is that the writers wrote themselves into a corner, they had a great premise but couldn’t execute it properly, time/budget constraints prevented them from making the ending they wanted or, more likely, the show was so successful that the producers pressured them into making more seasons to milk it a second a cash cow and they had to rewrite the ending to fit in the new events.
Occam's razor is an aphorism that often passes for insight but can just as easily turn people into credulous liberals. Showrunners are accountable only to future investors, who need to be reassured that the showrunners are a good investment. That requires signaling maturity, which in a capitalist society means that the truth is always whatever conclusion you reach after you get over your youthful radicalism. It's true for the Watchmen, the Hunger Games, Game of Thrones, and so on. Hunger Games could be a socialist revolution series... up until the sugar-coating ending in which the characters find peace away from politics. Having *no* politics is where liberal ideology leads, back to where it all started.

To quote John Stuart Mill:

>An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.