/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21249043]

Let me first preface this with saying that I’m not a Marxist or a leftist.

Is there any books on Western leftism and their focus on race, gender, trans, etc. and then abandoning the working class? I come from the third world and had family that used to be communists, and I find it hard to view them as having the same ideology as Western leftists. I also struggle with believing any iteration of the right wing ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’ or the left-wing ‘idpol is a psyop bro!’ memes as well, looking for something more in depth and nuanced.

I feel communism in the third world was mostly just left-wing nationalism and the class war/destruction of an old order that was sterilized and pawns of the West. Yet in my online travels I think it’s a lot different in the West.

[Anonymous No.21249146]

>>21249043
Have you considered that your judgement based on being a third world internet tourist is really a flawed method of sociology?

There's a journal from the 1970s called Radical Amerika available online in full. It charts the degradation of the US New Left into third-worldism, lifestylism (what you'd identify as identity politics), and its elevation into factory work.

https://archive.org/details/1124108641437108

It is unethical to talk about anything after 1983 due to it being "current" and therefore "operational."

[Anonymous No.21249155]

I cant help you with specific books but i can tell you that the term for what you are describing is "intersectionalism" applied to marxism. as for what the point of it is, my personal theiory is that it relates to a lot of leftist auxiliary social theory which involves breaking down various ideas and constructs in order to maximize class consciousness thus maximize revolutionary potential. ie. you break down the family unit and replace it with a more class conscious form of collective organization, you break down religion, gender norms, rece etc etc, basically you destroy EVERYTHING that is related to the normal order of things in order to insert more class conscious alternatives so that you can manipulate society towards a more all-encompassing collectivist existence

[Anonymous No.21249174]

I can't recall but I thought Paul Gottfried had a recent book on this topic? But either way you basically want to learn about the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse, and the New Left. You should read both sympathetic and unsympathetic treatments. For the Frankfurt School, Martin Jay has the standard book. Buck-Morss is also good. Herbert Marcuse has a good interview with Bryan Magee which you can find easily on youtube.

Basically you want to separate out two things: first, the sincere shift in 20th century Marxism away from both fatalist economic determinism + Bolshevism, and toward "cultural" Marxism (and the rationales for this), and second, the utter uselessness and utterly bourgeois character of the New Left, which was inspired by this cultural Marxism. The thing is, cultural Marxism was necessary, in the sense that if you wanted to maintain Marxism at all, you had to shift to a more robust theory of the superstructure and "reification," because both classical economistic Marxism and USSR communism were utterly discredited failures. If you still want to remain a Marxist at all, then the ways in which Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and to an extent Benjamin (he's too weird to classify and almost has romantic/fascist elements) tried to do this make perfect sense.

None of this necessarily means that their ideas weren't put to horrible use though. Adorno died bitter, after telling Marcuse he was retarded for thinking the student movement wasn't thoroughly bourgeois, and thinking he could influence it with his "great refusal." Google "Adorno Marcuse letters 1968" and read the exchange. Marcuse was definitely naive - many of his ideas were simply absorbed by bourgeois institutions, with their post-war legions of woman employees who think socialism = liberalism = "being nice," and this created the managerial-therapeutic regime we all live under today. But it can be argued that Adorno's own solution was simply a variant of Marcuse's shitty one: create an elitist theory of aesthetics that only hyper-educated bourgeois meta-Marxists can understand, and make it dominate prestigious universities and thinktanks for decades. Eastern and Central Europe were still absorbing elitist Frankfurt School methodologies and outloooks from Germany into the 1980s, it was incredibly stagnant.

And that's not even getting to how fucking stupid the student movements were, how liberal and bourgeois they were under their thin surface veneer of radicalism, how easily coopted and infiltrated they were. The New Left was the greatest gift to the bourgeoisie ever. Read about the SDS and the Weathermen and form your own opinions about how useless these people were and whether they had anything at all to do with Marxism.

All the good/real Marxists became post-Marxist, is what happened. Look at Paul Piccone:
https://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/where-marx-and-conservatives-meet-the-writings-of-paul-piccone/
and people like Christopher Lasch.

[Anonymous No.21249187]

>>21249043
Culture of Critique answers everything. Also, that you don't "believe" in the Judeo-Bolshevism stuff just means you're ignorant. It's not a debate, it's documented how overwhelmingly Jewish the Bolsheviks were. Culture of Critique discusses that too.

[Anonymous No.21249228]

>>21249174
Which is weird because the debate within large movements of workers was about humanism (Nagy / Thompson) versus anti-humanist structuralism (Althusser, and effectively Brezhnev); being solved in praxis by the praxian marxisms.

The New Left and Culturally focused Marxism were utterly irrelevant to large movements of workers.

Perry Anderson's arguments in English Marxism might be a start

[Anonymous No.21249449]

>>21249174
Please excuse me if this is a retarded question, I'm still learning: Are the "alt-right" post-Marxists or "truer" heirs to Marxist thought than wokeists/idpol libs? Cause a lot of times I hear contemporary rightists making critiques that sound very materialist and very akin to attacks on the cultural superstructure. Like, is someone like Curtis Yarvin more of a Marxist than someone like AOC? I couldn't think of any better example lol sorry. Also what do you think about Douglas Lain or Ben Burgis or Angela Nagle? Mark Fisher? Zero Books? I'm not expecting you answer about each of the questions I asked, but I am very curious as to what you'll say. I hope this was coherent.

[Anonymous No.21249475]

>>21249449
NTA but the alt-right definitely has truer marxist elements than the New Left. There is only a small overlap, though I'd say it's closer than what passes for socialism today.

[Anonymous No.21249529]

>>21249475
>There is only a small overlap
Can you explain what the overlap is? Cause we might be on the same page here. Or at least the same chapter.

[Anonymous No.21250005]

>>21249449
There are lots of different kinds of post-Marxist that also intersect with conservatism or reaction, for example Werner Sombart became a National Socialist, Georges Sorel created syndicalism and indirectly national syndicalism which basically became Fascism, Mussolini was a leading Marxist before he founded Fascism, James Burnham was a Marxist before he went ultra-conservative. Also look up the New York Intellectuals, lots of founding neocons were crypto-Trotskyists, or really just opportunists all along. Paul Piccone is one of the most interesting post-Marxists, and his journal Telos is basically responsible for introducing Carl Schmitt to English speakers, and they also did a special issue with the Nouvelle Droite and Alain de Benoist which some see as a move toward third positionism. Benoist and the Nouvelle Droite claim to be Gramscians. Gramsci himself was basically a post-Marxist heavily influenced by Sorel. There's also Schumpeter who can be extremely good, also Raymond Aron who rejected Marxism and became a kind of Weberian. Maoism is hardly Marxist, it's basically totalitarianism with tactical elements similar to Gramsci.

I don't know much about Yarvin but someone like him seems to me like they would fall more into the same category as Pareto, Mosca, and maybe Weber, social theorists who have analyses of society very reminiscent of "historical materialism" in that ideal factors are heavily or entirely conditioned by inevitable social processes like conflicts between classes or elites, and they are influenced by elements of Marxist sociology, but they don't agree with Marx at all on any particulars. Whether guys like Weber or C. Wright Mills or Christopher Lasch or Piccone, who absorb huge amounts of Marxist thought and clearly think in Marxian categories, but clearly reject Marx's actual observations and predictions about capitalism to huge degrees (but so did Marcuse), are "legitimate heirs of Marx" because their theories are better or more interesting or more suited to 20th/21st century conditions is debateable. It all depends on what you take to be the the crux of Marx and Marxism, for example whether you think historical materialism as an "outlook" can be divorced from Marx's specific theory of class conflict. Modern bourgeois social science and even many radical right wingers (Samuel Francis' Leviathan and its Enemies comes to mind, since he uses Burnham's managerial class thesis) are highly "historical materialist" in this extended sense. What does it mean to be a Marxist? That's been debated since anything like a unitary Marxist discourse effectively died in the '20s and '30s, and Western Marxism and officially USSR-sponsored "dialectical materialism" diverged.

[Anonymous No.21250010]

>>21250005
I don't know much about the Nagle/Baffler crowd, I know they sometimes get shit on for being Strasserists or something, but this happens any time some leftist advocates taking a tentative step back from the insane intersectionalist pseudoleftist crap they use to indoctrinate future HR workers and middle managers at universities. Look at that Malcom Kyeyune guy in Sweden. I am deeply suspicious of any Zero Books type shit but only instinctively, because the last time I checked them out it seemed like a vanity press for theorybros who just want to be "the Ranciere guy." Mark Fisher seemed alright but his fans seem to be a lot of Ranciere guy theorybros too. I just don't like much of the contemporary left in general, it's sort of like the Republican/MAGA vs. old-fashioned neocons vs. libertarians debate, it's all shit, if you actually have a camp you wholeheartedly believe in within that mess, and you aren't just tactically observing from a distance and hoping for certain outcomes, you're deluding yourself. The only smart MAGA people are the ones using Trump to destabilize the system, not actually loving Trump, but then all the non-retarded Marxists I knew celebrated Trump's victory for the same reason.

The left is full of self-indulgent and broken people, and infinite rich people, and its core principles are 200 years out of date and massive liabilities most of the time, because they have been coopted by the managerial state in a way that makes you end up marching alongside pedophile transvestites.
I personally can't see any existing current doing anything useful any time soon. Maybe some massive Cesar Chavez thing in response to actual problems, but how do you get billions of liberal berniebros to understand tactics when all they know how to do is grandstand? And when the actual problems do come, and they will soon, they're going to hit so hard and fast that not much will matter anyway.

If you are sociologically inclined or inclined toward the historical materialist outlook I would recommend just viewing all this shit as fodder for your own inquiries at most, and go make it a goal to understand modern social and economic history, Marx, and major dissident and post-Marxists, then find your own way in it, whether that way takes you to national syndicalism or Maoism or whatever. When the economic shocks start hitting soon, all the Angela Nagles will become irrelevant because their podcast and twitter frame of reference and all the liberal shit they take for granted, like even the tempo of university-mediated "public discourse" and vanity presses, all of it is going to disappear or restructure drastically. But the one thing that can't taken away from you is actual understanding. From what I can tell Yarvin is trying to do something like that by being a kind of alternative sociologist of power, but he sucks anyway.

[Anonymous No.21250029]

>>21249043
Paul Gottfried "The Strange Death of Marxism:The European Left in the New Millennium" is the book you are looking for. He was an ex Marcuse student who jumped ship to the New-Right afterwards.

[Anonymous No.21250030]

>>21250010
>>21250005
Wow fuck me you really gave an actual, interesting response. Thanks man. I actually have to go to bed now, but I'm gonna be reading through this. One last quick question for you: if you don't mind me asking, do you have any academic background in this stuff? Or did you just learn about this out in the world/on the internet/reading books?

[Anonymous No.21250032]

>>21249043
Marxism is going exactly according to plan. In fact, I'm surprised it took them this long to focus on race and gender. After all, Marxism is just atheist Christianity, with the same revolting impulse towards the "good" and "helping" people, and it would make perfect sense for Marxism to turn towards racial and sexual minorities. After all, those are more filled with resentment and are far more petty than the working class, who still understood the importance of suffering in order to achieve great things, so they were logically abandoned.

I suspect that Christianity will do a similar thing, and completely abandon the West, once the West begins to rediscover the value of suffering, and turn towards a people more aligned with its spirit of resentment and pettiness. It will probably move towards Asia and South America, and turn those into heavenly kingdoms of Protestant spoiled brats. They will become like America is today, consumerist hellholes where everyone is fat, stupid, has every need satisfied, and where no one is happy

[Anonymous No.21250034]

>>21249449
>Douglas Lain or Ben Burgis
Vote Blue No Matter Who Marxism

[Anonymous No.21250036]

the left/right dichotomy is senseless and mainly exists to support corrupt american bipartisan politics that keep the populace at each others throats instead of pogroming their masters. american discourse heavily influences most of the worlds discourse like it or not.

if you want to understand why all of these things are connected that should appear disconnected, study the jews. unfortunately it really is that simple, no matter what your professor or redditors will tell you. be prudent and use the research tools you are fortunate to have available to you if these things matter to you.

[Anonymous No.21250042]

>>21250010
There is simply nothing like a Weber, Schumpeter, Gramsci, or Aron currently living, these people don't even deserve to be called epigones. Or rather all the truly interesting ones are on the right, like Alain de Benoist and Samuel Francis, who actually have/had synoptic visions. Piccone and Lasch were good too, and they were tending toward some kind of third positionism or political organicism.

Someone like AOC isn't a Marxist in any sense, you have to remember that socialism and communism are vague terms and Marxist communism is not all communism. Marx had very specific doctrines and a very specific analysis of society and the modern state, and he deliberately critiqued "utopian" variants of socialism and communism as being essentially counterproductive bourgeois daydreaming. Not that his version was much better in the long run, but he was right about that at least. Most thoughtful elites 1800 have been sympathetic to socialism to some degree, even Bismarck was basically creating a welfare state or "social monarchy." All ultra-conservatives between 1870-1940 were trying to find ways to "integrate" socialist demands into a more robust non-liberal state. Being socialist doesn't mean much of anything necessarily.

The central Marxist point is whether the producing class also owns the means of production, thus dissolving class distinctions and creating a rational socialist state because relations of exploitation simply become irrational and irrelevant. This has always been a utopian ideal despite Marx's critiquing other utopianisms like Saint-Simon and Fourier, or the supposed sloppiness of bourgeois socialists like Proudhon. Engels also engaged in all sorts of dilettantish daydreaming about sexual liberation, so did the Saint-Simonians and Fourierists. The left has always had a problem with separating hysterical and vague "liberationism" from genuine proposals for a rational socialist state, going right back to the 18th century with guys like William Godwin (look up his wife). All that happened in the 20th century is that all those kooky proto-hippie free love dude weed utopian socialists and anarchists started being promoted as the official smokescreen of the bourgeois state in its educational institutions, both to dilute serious class-based and USSR-backed Marxism (understandable since it was a fifth column), which worked great, and to give people an outlet for venting their impulse to improve society or help the downtrodden, so they don't become Marxist at all. You should read Lasch's Revolt of the Elites, there's an audiobook on youtube if you prefer. Combined with Burnham's managerial thesis it explains a lot. AOC has no ideology, she's a sub-regional middle manager for a totalitarian managerial world-state.

>>21250030
I hope it helps at all, sorry for walls of text. Not really, just a lifetime of being too annoyed by shitty in-group behaviors to join any one group. Seriously though read Lasch's Revolt.

[Anonymous No.21250049]

>>21249529
On the surface level, the rhetoric is very similar. Alt-right speakers generally rail against the establishment, big banks, big tech, and big business. Their demographic make-up is similar to the October Revolution demographics; disenfranchised, uneducated working-class whites with a small percentage of middle class educated whites. Most individuals that identify with the alt-right (although the label is seen as cringe now) dislike the bourgeoise left and the establishment so much that they're willing to work with any race if it means kicking leftist and billionaire teeth in. Even the Jew-shtick is very close to general anti-capitalism. Almost every criticism of Jewish control and international finance so closely matches Marxist rhetoric that any policy enacted to stem it would enact a de facto socialist state.
Finally, the alt-right has always had an outright socialist faction and many alt-right supporters that think they're capitalist are a lot more like unwitting socialists in their practical ideologies.

This is just a surface level explanation because I don't feel like wasting any more time.

[Anonymous No.21250050]

>>21250042
all you can really do at this point is try to influence others with words or lone wolf/clandestine cell stuff in minecraft. it's an unfortunate and unfulfilling time to be alive. I can't even afford a house without a decade of slavery.

[Anonymous No.21250057]

>>21249043
Gramsky, Marcuse and post modernism.

Leftism is synonymous with all the "anti racist" stuff.
Leftism is cosmopolitanism. All leftism. There is no difference between the 3rd world leftists and the basedboy 21st century modern leftists at their core ideology.

The people who have a religion of cosmopolitanism are generally Jews and Atheists. This isn't "it was da Jews!" but I'm saying, in the west, jews are more predisposed to these ideas. This cosmopolitanism exists all throughout societies in the world even in the absence of jews.

https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/03/13/the-ussr-invented-hate-speech-laws/
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/04/02/leftism-pedophilia-and-sexual-revolution-sexuality-in-the-culture-war-for-the-socialist-restructuring-of-humans/

[Anonymous No.21250063]

>>21250042
>I hope it helps at all, sorry for walls of text. Not really, just a lifetime of being too annoyed by shitty in-group behaviors to join any one group. Seriously though read Lasch's Revolt.

Actually been very slowly working through Revolt lol. It's crazy how prescient the dude was. I'm trying to read Gravity's Rainbow now too AND I'm in nursing school (I'm a man, in case you're wondering), so I've been falling off Revolt, but I appreciate the nudge.

[Anonymous No.21250065]

>>21249155
This is really close

[Anonymous No.21250069]

>>21249043
>Western leftism and their focus on race, gender, trans
This is already wrong

[Anonymous No.21250084]

>>21250049
Alt right and leftists see the same problem but have completely opposite diagnoses.

The floods of immigrants into America and causing white genocide is why white people are more right leaning.
And leftists hate white people.

You are correct that there is a small faction of "leftist" alt righters. (Richard Spencer, TRS, and Keith Woods). But Richard Spencer is literally a federal agent.

>>21250032
Marxism is Jewish religion. Not Christianity. What you are describing as "helping people" is literally Tikkun Olam.

[Anonymous No.21250088]

>>21250049
Yes indeed and it's interesting because, and you noted this in this post yourself, I feel like many factions falling under "alt-right" don't really care about race as much as they care about ideology or values. If you're a black guy who has the "right" ideology, then you're good. I mean shit there are a lot of nonwhites with a good amount of sway in the current "right wing" discourse. I guess the 21st century is just in need of a new "orientation" of the political spectrum, huh? Cause clearly the old left/right thing has fallen apart.

[Anonymous No.21250091]

>>21250069
>it's the neoliberals bro!!!
>capitalism totally wants to focus on gays and trans and representation and how white people are bad even though every business that does so loses profit!!!!
>BELIEVE ME!!!!!

[Anonymous No.21250107]

>>21250091
Why do they keep doing it then? And it's more than just businesses making these choices, that makes it sounds a lot less widespread and culturally entrenched it is. Are you familiar with the idea of the ideological superstructure?

[Anonymous No.21250111]

>>21250107
*culturally entrenched than it is

[Anonymous No.21250125]

>>21250042
One last thing, my friend. The fact that you said >Not really, just a lifetime of being too annoyed by shitty in-group behaviors to join any one group. Seriously though read Lasch's Revolt.
really gives me hope, because if you didn't learn about all of this shit in college, then that makes me think Marxism, political theory, sociology, and philosophy doesn't have to be for academics. The more NEETs, the more people driving Uber, working at Wendys, working soul sucking IT jobs, etc. that are able to read about these and UNDERSTAND these things, the better. I'm not holding my breath, but this would truly be beautiful.

[Anonymous No.21250127]

Modern western leftism is simply all about hating and resenting capitalism for putting them all in their righteous place.

You already have free healthcare and free education in every developed country. There are zero reasons to protest or seethe or cope or dilate. You are guaranteed to grow up healthy, educated and skilled.
But your average leftist bought gucci lattes, face tattoos, blue hair, narcotics, humanities degrees instead of stem degrees, and is now in his adulthood as unemployable, unskilled, useless retard who has no one to blame but himself, seething at yacht owners.

This is modern leftism, ladies and gentlemen. You cant work. You cant make a bridge. You cant make a nuclear reactor, hypersonic propulsion, a semiconductor. But you think you are entitled to a yacht anyway.
Leftist genocide, best day of my life, simple as, frfr no cap.

[Anonymous No.21250131]

>>21250107
It's WHO, NATO, UN, Event 201, Civil Rights act of 1965, and Jews owning all the banks and hollywood, retard.

TPTB have this particular worldview and are pushing it in every place they can because they have all the power.
It's not capitalism if it's against the profit motive.

[Anonymous No.21250134]

>>21249043
>abandoning the working class?
All the "working class" commitment stems from Marx's arbitrary belief that "a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering <...> cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society"
Also, something something "is the complete loss of man" something something "the complete re-winning of man."

That is hermeticism. Albedo-nigredo-rubedo alchemy. Because Marx liked stealing from Hegel, and Hegel liked stealing from religious mystics.
There is no objective definitions here, only ramblings á la 'because I say so!' and dubious logic á la 'if you damage brain speech areas, people will automatically magically switch to Elon Musk's neuralink for communication. Such is the dialectic law of nature, yes-yes.'


The modern day marxoids recognize the arbitrariness of "working class" part of bullshit, but still keep committing themselves to the 'universal suffering' part.

[Anonymous No.21250141]

>>21250107
>>21250131
And they are doing it because they are trying to reshape the world into something "equitable and egalitarian". They hate white people, they hate Christians and they hate any form of nationalism or self determination.

They want every city to be a "smart city" so they can carefully track and control all the minutia of the populace so they have power forever. They want no surprises to undermine their absolute authority.
There's only 1 thing that explains all the stuff we are seeing and it's Satanism.

[Anonymous No.21250155]

>>21250131
Yeah man I'm sure WHO, NATO, UN, and your cabal of rootless Jews would love to have Marxist revolutions spring up in their nations. I'm sure that would be very helpful for them. I'm sure a military coup by Marxists who said "we're closing the borders because we can't feed or house anymore people and we have our own problems" would be exactly what globohomo wants.

[Anonymous No.21250162]

>>21250155
>Marxists who said "we're closing the borders because we can't feed or house anymore people and we have our own problems" would be exactly what globohomo wants

Show literally 1 Marxist who has ever said this.
Marxists do not want nationalism. They want global communism.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.21250171]

>>21250155
Your faggot marxists would immediately open the borders and beg for 6 billion immigrants.
But for a serious answer, yes they would like controlled marxist uprisings. The marxist useful idiots form the vanguard to crush the middle class and any other group with even marginal institutional power that might challenge them while they stay in power as international non-government organizations that financially support/enslave failed marxist states.

[Anonymous No.21250172]

>>21250162
There's different strains of Marxism. You can use Marxist methods or Marxist theories and be a nationalist or you could do the same and be an internationalist. There's more conservative Marxists and there's more liberal Marxists. You don't even have to be a communist to be a Marxist or at least influenced by Marx/use his theories or analysis. It's that simple. What do you think Marxism is exactly?

[Anonymous No.21250185]

>>21250172
Show me 1 based Marxist.
Won't happen because they don't exist. You're just kvetching in the theoretical.

[Anonymous No.21250191]

>>21250091
>capitalism totally wants to focus on gays
Destroying the connection between "household co-existence" and "bloodline inheritance", so that no organized clan kinship structure could resist consumerism? Totally doesn't, yes-yes.

>and trans
Sure, the pharmaceutical corporations totally don't want a stable number of suppliers addicted to hormone consumption.

>how white people are bad
how the graeco-roman honor-based model stands against everything the capitalism stands for. You won't buy shit, if you go for κλέος.

[Anonymous No.21250198]

>>21250185
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kees_van_der_Pijl

[Anonymous No.21250199]

>>21250191
Agree with all three.
Communism/marxism is still faggotry that will inevitably lead in the same direction though.

[Anonymous No.21250209]

>>21250185
OK I'll admit, maybe they'd be post-Marxists then. Excuse me pard, I'm still learning. Christopher Lasch is the one I immediately think of (even though I guess he's more post-, because he uses Marxist methods of analysis and uses a materialistic worldview like many rightists do nowadays funnily enough), then there's guys like Adolph Reed who showed me that Marxism is not synonymous with wokeism, Thomas Sowell was of course a Marxist for a while (still a materialist now, far as I can tell, definitely doesn't seem like an idealist).

[Anonymous No.21250211]

>>21250185
I also don't really know what you're looking for when you say "based"? Do you mean people who will say "it's niggers" or "it's Jews" or who just want ethnostates over anything else?

[Anonymous No.21250220]

>>21250191
You're just arguing in bad faith at this point.

>They want us all gay!
>Capitalism!
>They want us all having babies for more population growth!
>Capitalism!

It's obviously unfalsifiable.
I can show you how Barilla pasta lost market share by embracing the gay shit or how Brooks Brothers went out of business or how Disney and the NFL never met their projections because of leftist cosmopolitan political stances, but there is no point arguing.
You're just an ideologue.

Clearly, the patterns of the last 6-7 years are all pointing to how society is being shaped by an elite who have globalist and cosmopolitan worldviews even against the profit motive but you wont go outside this very narrow narrative to explain it.

[Anonymous No.21250227]

>>21250211
Christian, against feminism, against abortion, against immigration

[Anonymous No.21250237]

>>21250227
>against abortion
When your daughter got fucked by a nigger
@
She has to give birth to a half-nigger

[Anonymous No.21250238]

>>21250199
"The great illusion of our days is that democracy and liberalism are the antithesis of communism. The illusion is like saying dusk is the antithesis of night"

[Anonymous No.21250248]

>>21250227
Ah then I don't know, you might be SOL, but then you might not be. I know the Red Scare chicks were heavily influenced by Marx and they're pretty conservative about abortion as well as being religious too (Dasha's a Catholic if I'm not mistaken, Anna is Jewish but she's one of the good ones don't worry) but they're basically nobodies in terms of actual sway and you might find them really annoying I don't know. They also talk a lot about Christopher Lasch who was able to balance Marxist analysis and conservatism, or so I've heard, I'm still reading Revolt of the Elites. Look man, just remember the Bolsheviks and the Maoists were just a few violent groups heavily influenced by Marx that got lucky and went and fucked up a lot of the religious and cultural heritage in their respective countries. That's not what all Marxists or post-Marxists want to do, nor is that specific to Marxists, and I think even less so now in the 21st century now that a lot of theorists have learned the value of spirituality in an increasingly meaningless world.

[Anonymous No.21250249]

>>21250191
>>21250220
I regret sounding so standoffish and angry
I just mean to say you can hypothetically argue anything based on any reasoning and logic.
Marxism doesnt help to predict anything that's actually happening in the world (in my opinion).

It's very likely you aren't an ideologue. Sorry

[Anonymous No.21250261]

>>21250248
Yeah I guess so
I'm just wary of listening to women since they are usually just retarded who do the same thing of "justifying any action with any ideology" like I described. For example, looking at feminism now, they are justifying how abortion and hook up culture is wrong using feminist theory and call themselves "4th wave feminists"
It's all so tiresome. Just feels like a never ending circle jerk of acceptable ideology when I'm actually seeking The Truth.

[Anonymous No.21250262]

>>21250249
based

[Anonymous No.21250293]

>>21250261
>Just feels like a never ending circle jerk of acceptable ideology when I'm actually seeking The Truth.
Hey so am I, but I'm also uncertain that I'll find any metaphysical certainty in this lifetime, in this flesh, so I've more or less just chosen to walk the path of faith and say "I can't know it. I choose to believe it. It is totally irrational." But at the same time, I'm gonna use my senses and my intellect to analyze the material, fleshly world around me and try to improve it or at least point at the flaws, and it just so happens that Marx as well as many of the other people who've been influenced by him, provide some tools to help do that. They're not the only set of tools I use, but they're in my kit, you know what I mean? I mean shit if something doesn't fit with Marxist analysis or theory, then I use another method of analysis or theory or come up with my own. It doesn't have to be so an ideological prison, it can even be a weapon to help you break out of a prison.

[Anonymous No.21250305]

>>21250293
the thing that I think fucks people up is that they see Marxist ideologues who DO treat Marxism like an orthodoxy and they assume THAT is what Marxism means. They assume Marxism means Bolshevism or Maoism or whatever the fuck the Cambodians were or any other zealous cult of Marx, but that doesn't include all of the other Marxists or people influenced by Marx who added on to his ideas or only used some of his ideas that are not cultists.

[Anonymous No.21250337]

>>21249043
Kolakowski goes up to the 1970s and covers Marcuse (One Dimensional Man), where Western Marxism's turn to blacks, deviants, and lumpenproles begins. More interestingly Kolakowski points out that Marx's original endorsement of the working class comes from a philosophical deduction, not anything empirical nor practical study of economics (which for Marx would come later). If that philosophical deduction is wrong, if in fact it was not the working class who were going end all alienation and create the classless utopia of Winckelmann grecian dreams, then it is possible to transplant Marxism onto newly deduced liberationary groups: which is what Western 'New Left' Marxism did.

As history revealed post-Mark, the working class were content to reform capitalism, to form trade unions and bargain for better conditions, to get a "fair days wage for a fair days work", rather than abolish the wage system and create a classless society where all are liberated; to conventional Marxism the working class failed its historic mission, or perhaps Marx was wrong to identify them as its bearers, in any case new candidates can be put forward for the messanic role.

New Left philosophy is the practice of deducing new groups to cast as new messiahs for that Marxist schema of Young Hegelian eschatology.

[Anonymous No.21250427]

>>21249174>>21249228
>>21249449

>>Basically you want to separate out two things: first, the sincere shift in 20th century Marxism away from both fatalist economic determinism + Bolshevism, and toward "cultural" Marxism (and the rationales for this), and second, the utter uselessness and utterly bourgeois character of the New Left, which was inspired by this cultural Marxism
Marxism has always been bourgeois since day 1. Classical liberalism is bourgeois and new liberalism is bourgeois

[Anonymous No.21250459]

My understanding of westoid leftism is that they simply want to consume more than they produce. They seethe at bezos types for having yachts, and this is their whole politics.
I dont think there is a justifiable need for leftism in Western countries because healthcare and education is already free. You are paid fairly. There is nothing preventing you from becoming a dentist or an engineer or a programmer and making upper middle class income. There is also nothing preventing you from starting genius companies or buying genius stocks and becoming rich.

Leftists seethe at capitalism because it puts them in their place. Unproductive, borderline unemployable minwagers seething at bezos yachts. Meanwhile, legitimate workers who work hard and make yachts are perfectly happy to sell yachts to bezos types.

Therefore leftism is anti worker. Property rights are the only defense a worker has against leftists.

[Anonymous No.21250491]

>>21249043
Culture of Critique answers everything.

[Anonymous No.21250555]

>>21250459
The aim of Marxism isn't fair wages or fair opportunity, no matter how much that may form part of leftist tactical grievence rhetoric. Marx begins with the same conceits as the 18th century enlightenment and romantic figures that informed his era: that the classical civilisation of Greece was a harmonious society we ought to recover and re-realise. Marx correctly saw that the first efforts to restore this classical republicanism, in the French Revolution, were mistaken because they failed to consider the economic basis of classical society: Greece and Rome were built on a slave economy, you can't restore a classical republic in modern economic and social conditions with a mere mental change of ideas or rulers as Robespierre & Saint-Just thought. In order to create the enlightenment-romantic Grecian polis for everyone you needed a modern political economy that produces a classless society, where there are no helots, slave-class, or equivalent alienated class, and everyone can flourish as citizens per the 18th century classicalists picturesque ideas of Grecian character cultivation. Marx thought he had discoverd the secret historical schema to create the economic basis for that neo-Grecian utopia in his revised Hegelianism and study of Ricardo and contemporary economics.

The 18th century enlightenment-romantic dream of restoring a harmonious classical society is the teleological goal of Marxism as is emerged within European thought, a practical update to the failures of their immeadiate predecessors in France. The hope of creating that utopia is what guides Marxism, and any mere "but higher wages, but oppurtuinity to start a business" appeal falls short of that grand utopian vision.

[Anonymous No.21250832]

>>21249043
Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.21250843]

>>21250227
>Christian, against feminism, against abortion, against immigration

[Anonymous No.21250979]

>>21249043
>Is there any books on Western leftism and their focus on race, gender, trans, etc. and then abandoning the working class?
the abandonment of the working class came first and it goes back to the II International and then to the tactics of united front and popular front. if you want to really understand the phenomenon, you need to start there. so texts like these:
>Lenin: Opportunism, and the Collapse of the Second International
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/dec/x01.htm
>ICP: The Comintern and the United Front
https://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cote/cotesdacoe.html
>ICP: What the Popular Front ReallyWas
https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/WARS/Spain_PF.htm
and so on. only then comes the loss of working class electorate, which forces the leftists parties to look for more replacements, which they find in ascending sections of the middle-classes that are somewhat opposed to the middle-classes represented by the parties on the right. namely, all kinds of minorities and oppressed groups that demand equitable treatment among the middle class, want respect and an equitable share in the fruits of bourgeois society. equitable access to upper positions, to better neighbourhood, and so on

[Anonymous No.21250999]

>>21249043
>I come from the third world
>uses "leftist" like an American
No, you don't.

[Anonymous No.21251040]

>>21250555
So leftists are romantics for the slave society, where they would end up as some pseudo intellectual class that doesnt work.
No wonder the workers all over the world revolted against communist revolutions.

[Anonymous No.21251089]

>>21249043
>Is there any books on Western leftism and their focus on race, gender, trans, etc. and then abandoning the working class?
The shift from class to "identity" was deliberately funded and spread by think-tanks and corporations as a means of diverting political energy from causes that were threatening to capitalism to causes that were neutral or even beneficial to capitalism, by creating "woke" alternatives to capital (more women CEOs, etc) and by keeping working class people divided.

[Anonymous No.21251135]

>>21251089
Leftism worked as long as it was a male movement because it allowed for a balance between the social justice impulse and the heroic impulse. Women turn everything into a fucking church bake sale that's just an excuse for them to gossip. They fundamentally don't understand struggle. However when they are organized in families they are a huge boost to social justice praxis because they support their husbands and keep the family together while the husband is making sacrifices, like going on strike.

Rushing women into the workforce while all the men were away at war in WW2 was a 1000% deliberate move to prevent returning soldiers from demanding social change. After WW1, the world's economic system realigned in a way that inadvertently redistributed shitloads of wealth to the working class, partly because the wealthy had made so many predatory loans to governments during the war that the system simply collapsed and had to be rebooted, leaving them holding the bag. This was de facto wealth redistribution. Soldiers also know how to organize and fight for their rights and veterans have a lot of clout. Returning soldiers dominated politics for 20 years in Europe after WW1. The bankers and advertising moguls sitting at home knew they had to shape culture to prevent a repeat of this. Look up where the Dulles brothers got their start and where they ended up. That isn't an accident nor is it an isolated incident.

The whole post war welfare state apparatus was one giant social engineering program to atomize people and prevent early 20th century activist politics from happening again. People had to be plugged into the state via welfare and the market via consumerism and that's it, otherwise they are individuals. The best way to do that is to flood the labor market with irresponsible unmarried women with no experience of organizing, break up marriage, break up traditional culture and any form of solidarity other than vague liberal individualist values. The CIA funded everything from Encounter magazine and the Congress for Cultural Freedom to Karl Popper (yes really) to the rise of libertarianism. The modern hyper-medicated perpetually indebted consumerist woman who works an office job she hates and spends all her wages on hedonistic consumption, while men think the only point of their lives is to be a 21 year old digital barfly sex addict and peter pan syndrome consumer too, is their utopia, it's the completion of Lippmann's and Bernays' projects of total social control through oversocialization. People only follow predictable straight lines, from impulse to conditioned payoff.

There is nothing wrong with women's lib in abstract but it has always been used as a wedge issue to disorient leftist movements. Voting should be done by family. The Saint-Simonians split over this exact issue, they knew simply promoting free love would worsen women's conditions by unleashing the worst impulses of mankind, easily manipulated by industry.

[Anonymous No.21251149]

>>21249043
Books from Jean-Claude Michéa.

[Anonymous No.21251155]

>>21249187
>it's documented how overwhelmingly Jewish the Bolsheviks were.

[Anonymous No.21251166]

>>21250220
>Clearly, the patterns of the last 6-7 years are all pointing to how society is being shaped by an elite who have globalist and cosmopolitan worldviews even against the profit motive but you wont go outside this very narrow narrative to explain it.
Absolutely not. The globohomo is social engineering to disrupt class consciousness, move from class struggle to identity struggle, and try to transform the proletarians, the working class, into stupid obedient drones. This has everything to do with class struggle. An attack from the Capitalist class toward the working class.

[Anonymous No.21251169]

>>21251155
DELETE THIS

[Anonymous No.21251176]

>>21251155
Not him but infographics are retarded and can be manipulated easily, what you should really read is the parts of Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together on this topic. He cites many sources, most of them Jewish and mainstream, admitting it. He also shows how they stopped doing this after it became a liability and started persecuting anyone who pointed to their own prior bragging about it.

There are also many quotes from leading communists including top leadership like Lenin about how they are completely reliant on Jews to enact Soviet policy. It makes sense because they need outsiders who are willing to work for a completely new regime that is creating a completely new bureaucracy and enacting terror measures on the traditional population groups. Naturally they recruit more heavily from urban professional classes who are also outsiders looking for a chance to be insiders. Also a lot of Jews had recently flocked to the cities and were more available than usual for such recruiting.

[Anonymous No.21251178]

>>21251155
If more Bolsheviks had been Jews, the USSR wouldn't have been such a worthless dumpster fire of incompetence.

[Anonymous No.21251187]

>>21251176
Solzhenitsyn can manipulate just as good.
>Also a lot of Jews had recently flocked to the cities and were more available than usual for such recruiting.
more "than usual", i.e., more than their share in the population, which was a few %. so even if they were over-represented in the party (which the graphics agrees with), they were still a large minority.

[Anonymous No.21251189]

>>21249043
for the millionth time, it’s because you’re confusing liberals with communists. the latter are constantly still talking about race all of the time. it’s libs who are obsessed with race and gender

[Anonymous No.21251199]

>>21249043
Basically, mainstream left-of-centre Western political parties stopped being remotely left wing in the early 90's which caused a problem for right wing parties because it became a bit ridiculous trying to call characters like Bill Clinton or tony Blair a commie.
Instead of throwing away decades of cold-war derived propaganda tropes, they decided to rebrand feminists, alphabet people and trannies as communists.

The weirdest part is when troons started self-identifying as communist as part of some weird blowback effect.
Interesting times we live in.

[Anonymous No.21251213]

>>21249043
commies in the west applied marxism to culture. while it seems commies in the third world, just kept it economics.

[Anonymous No.21251219]

>>21251213
even look up pedo history like nambla and see its founder and his background. applied marxism to "child liberation" theory to justify buttsexing children. typically boys.

[Anonymous No.21251233]

>>21251219
and then of course you have marx himself who touched on things we would consider culture. straight from the communist manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
for example:
>The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
>Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
>But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
>And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
>The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
here is marx arguing to separate children from the parents, and place children into "social education" to be raised by the state instead. his perverted world view that parents only have children to "profit" not because they actually want kids or even love their children. heaven forbid children help their parents or their parents pass on their skills to their child. let alone marx knew nothing about biology to begin with so he didn't bother to understand, we pass on knowledge for the same reason we want to pass on our genes. our genes don't want to die, we don't want our knowledge to die out either.

[Anonymous No.21251236]

>>21249043
Most of the trannies etc are influenced by "post-structuralists" (judith butler, foucault etc). Who reject teleological accounts of history (marxism), grand narratives, (marxism) meta-narratives (marxism), patriarchal power structures (marxism), economic determinism (marxism) and materialism (marxism).
You're barking up the wrong tree m8.
The very label "post-structuralist" hints at a rejection of marxism.

[Anonymous No.21251242]

>>21251233
and then he himself went into abolishing marriage as well:
>But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
>The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
>He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
>For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
>Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
>Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
again marx had the same line of reasoing with abolishing parenting with abolishing marriage because he believed "men only had wives to profit off their capital / use them for their labor." take note, marx wrote his manifesto in the middish 1800's, when most women were housewives and men slaved away in factories and died in the battlefield. marx believed women making dinner and feeding a child were more oppressed then men.

[Anonymous No.21251251]

>>21251242
>>21251233
so marx himself applied his own economic / labor theroes to non economic things. its not shocking to see others like the famous sci fi author isaac asimov applying his theories to other things >>21251213 and the founder of the first big pedo movement in the united states, david thorstad >>21251219 apply it to things like child liberation, when with david, it only was an extension of what marx started.

[Anonymous No.21251260]

"cultural marxism" is a conspiracy theory stemming from 90's AM talk radio

[Anonymous No.21251266]

>>21251251
also take note too that marx argued for a rejection of past knowledge as well:
>When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
>When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
>“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
>“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
>What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
>But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
>The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
to get down to it, marx argued that a communist must abolished the old ways of thinking, from history, religion, science, philosophy, etc because essentially, they were made during a period that allowed people to own private property and were tainted because of that.

well if you abolish the old culture norms, the old ways of thinking, get rid of current historical knowledge, current and past philosophies, science, etc you are going to be left with a void to fill. its not hard to believe that if you abolish christianity that made it illegal to have gay buttsex, that void will be filled with a bunch of commies engaging and promoting gay buttsex instead.

[Anonymous No.21251276]

>>21251260
"Conspiracy theory" is a weaponized term to make people not question the established narrative.
Cultural Marxism = Frankfurt school = Judeo-Satanic globalism

[Anonymous No.21251278]

>>21251276
maybe so. but its still a half-assed conspiracy theory from 90's talk radio.

[Anonymous No.21251291]

>>21251266
>marx argued that a communist must abolished the old ways of thinking, from history, religion, science, philosophy, etc because essentially, they were made during a period that allowed people to own private property and were tainted because of that.
One problem with this type of thinking is the faulty assumption that you are getting rid of all the old biases and somehow achieving a clear and objective worldview, but this is wrong. Marx assumed all kinds of presuppositions that he could not justify at all. He was a bad philosopher. He made all kinds of epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical assumptions with no justification.
Atheist materialists always do this. They are not sophisticated thinkers.

[Anonymous No.21251297]

>>21251278
Yet is is real nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.21251307]

Karl Marx supported open borders and mass immigration.
Karl Marx supported feminism and "liberation" of women.
Karl Marx supported the destruction of the traditional family.
And yet left wing demons will still say "Umm actually sweaty, that's not real Marxism."
They are liars and frauds.

[Anonymous No.21251312]

>>21251242
Victorian era were not keen on prostitution. I really have no idea what Marx is talking about. It was heavily condemned by Victorian society and mostly. Especially prostitution among children. Hell in the UK you had the vagrancy act 1824 that was passed completely criminalizing prostitution that was pushed by the Christians. There was a great scare among Victorian era during the 1840's and 50's that they thought prostitution among with STD's were increasing and caused a massive moral panic and backlash against it causing the government to crack down even more.

"Bourgeois" society did not support prostitution at all. They were the ones railing against it.

[Anonymous No.21251315]

>>21249043
Leftists don't truly believe in anything. They will just latch to whatever is opportunistic at any given moment. Your third worlder communist family would happily be woke faggots if they had been born in the first world. Also read Spandrell.
https://spandrell.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/
https://spandrell.com/2017/12/13/bioleninism-the-first-step/
https://spandrell.com/2018/01/21/leninism-and-bioleninism

[Anonymous No.21251317]

>>21250084
My friend, Christianity was literally started by someone who's referred to as 'rabbi', you couldn't mental gymnast harder if you tried

[Anonymous No.21251324]

>>21251317
This is called the word concept fallacy.
The religion of the Bible is not modern day Judaism (the synagogue of Satan). The religion of the Bible is Christianity. Even in the Old Testament they were looking forward to the coming of Christ and there are many prophecies of Him.

[Anonymous No.21251329]

>>21249174
good post

[Anonymous No.21251333]

>>21251312
Also Marx was married and he drained his wife's fortune. To a point he repeatedly asked engels for more money. Maybe his bit on "The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production" was projection on his part. Maybe Marx didn't understand love and that if a wife or daughter did go the route of prostitution, it wasn't because the husband / father was pushing it to "extract capital from them" but rather they were in dire living conditions and it was the only way they could help take care of the family because even the father was struggling to be the bread winner.

Marx entire world view about this was completely backwards and very twisted indeed.

[Anonymous No.21251341]

>>21251324
No, that's called being literate you fucking muppet.

What you're engaging in is literal mental gymnastics. You're basically someone who hates jews while subscribing to a religion of which its founder thought the Jewish religious establishment wasn't Jewish enough

[Anonymous No.21251342]

>>21251317
Modern jews have nothing to do with judaism of old. Jesus comes from the tradition of Abraham. Modern jews come from the pharisees that killed Jesus. It's actually likely that the pharisees were originally from a different ethnicity and infiltrated judaism just like jews have infiltrated the west today. This is why Jesus told them they called themselves jews but truly were the synagogue of satan. This is also why modern jews follow the talmud as their main book instead of the Torah. They even removed some books from the Torah because they prophesied the coming of Jesus. Christians are unironically the true descendants of judaism. Modern jews are satanists.

[Anonymous No.21251344]

>>21251266
>well if you abolish the old culture norms, the old ways of thinking, get rid of current historical knowledge, current and past philosophies, science, etc you are going to be left with a void to fill. its not hard to believe that if you abolish christianity that made it illegal to have gay buttsex, that void will be filled with a bunch of commies engaging and promoting gay buttsex instead.
Especially if those communist already had prejudice against Christianity. They would do it out of spite.

[Anonymous No.21251345]

>Marx
Jew
>Lenin
Jew
>"Trotsky" (real name was Bronstein)
turbo Jew, also created neoconservatism
>Frankfurt school
all Jews
>Antifa
created by Jews
>feminism
pushed by Jews
>LGBT
pushed by Jews

[Anonymous No.21251347]

>>21251324
What the actual fuck are you talking about? You need to read Romans or a history book.

[Anonymous No.21251353]

>>21251341
No it's not. If modern Jews actually followed the Bible then they would be Christians, not Talmudic Satanists, which is what they are.

[Anonymous No.21251362]

>>21251342
correct
>>21251347
more word/concept fallacy and dishonest argumentation

[Anonymous No.21251364]

Are there any books about the transformation of the Western left during the 1960’s from an historical rather than theoretical perspective? I don’t really feel like wading through a bunch of cringe New Left manifestos.

[Anonymous No.21251386]

>>21251342
>It's actually likely that the pharisees were originally from a different ethnicity and infiltrated judaism just like jews have infiltrated the west today
This. Black Israelites red pilled me about this fact. I don't think the original jews were black though. That's obviously bullshit. But Black Israelites are up to something about modern jews being infiltrators who replaced the real jews, and this goes way back than just the ashkenazis too. They have been doing this for millennia. The real jews, the God-chosen people, would have never killed the Messiah. Once you recognize that fact, history becomes much clearer. The pharisees were canaanite worshipers of moloch.

[Anonymous No.21251390]

>>21251353
>If modern Jews actually followed the Bible then they would be Christians

Which proves my point that Christians are basically Jews who think that Jews aren't Jewish enough. Thank you for literally proving my point for me

[Anonymous No.21251395]

>>21251345

[Anonymous No.21251398]

>>21251386
>The real jews, the God-chosen people, would have never killed the Messiah.

It’s prefigured over and over again in the Old Testament, which consists almost entirely of diatribes about the Jewish people turning their backs on Yaweh. The Christian religion becomes completely incoherent if you think the Jews that killed Christ are a different group than those from the time of the prophets.

[Anonymous No.21251405]

>>21251395
Yes I know that they control both sides of the modern dialectic. That doesn't refute what I just said.

[Anonymous No.21251408]

>>21251260
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/news-and-letters/1990s/1996-10.pdf
Page 2.
Read this review, older Marxists used to call reformists 'cultural Marxists'.

[Anonymous No.21251412]

>>21251408
Left wing simpletons see the phrase "conspiracy theory" and they think that means it's not true.

[Anonymous No.21251422]

The Israeli professor Yuval Harrari wants to create mandatory mind control vaccines for the global population and he said that covid is a great opportunity for his agenda.
His book is supported by Obama and Bill Gates.

[Anonymous No.21251424]

>>21249043
This is an interesting text: some German Leftists punished the working class for supporting Nazis by standing behind lumpens; their position seems to be mainstream now.
https://platypus1917.org/2022/05/31/the-early-antideutsch-and-the-working-class/

[Anonymous No.21251431]

>>21251398
Yes I agree with this and I'm >>21251353

[Anonymous No.21251435]

>>21251398
There are two sides to the jews. There are the good ones, who became christians, and there are the bad ones, who killed Jesus and became the modern jews. These jews come from the canaanites. This much is a fact.

[Anonymous No.21251570]

>>21251395

[Anonymous No.21251718]

>>21251570
>Bernie
>radical
It’s all so tiring.

Leftism is a desire for pluralism, freedom and nature.
Rightwingerisms are various schemes of centralization, conformity and a rage against nature

[Anonymous No.21252118]

>>21251266
>>21251291
>>21251344
Marx's work is translated into English by retards. The term "abolish" is a translation of "aufheben" which is a dumb word that can also be translated as "transcend" or "sublate", alongside abolish. Young Marx was more anti-religion than the older Marx and he ended up only disliking the church organization and immunities from taxation. Not that that saves his past critiques, but do what you will with that information.

To use the better translation of the term "aufheben", we can see that Marx supports the sublation or transcendence of the family unit, which is much more in line with his and Engels' work on the topic. The unit of the family has changed throughout history from large clans to small nuclear families. Families were never *abolished* they are only ever sublated, or "transcended" in that they are replaced with a new form of the same concept and this new form of the family is dependent on material conditions. For example, hunter-gatherers could never adopt the nuclear family because they wouldn't have enough people to survive. Just the same, capitalist society needs the nuclear family because it is a small modular unit that consumes less of the surplus so the bourgeois can have the surplus.

Just the same, enlightenment ideas sublated feudal ideas. Feudal ideas sublated Roman ones. Roman ideas sublated Greek ideas, and so on.

[Anonymous No.21252199]

>>21251718
Funny how centralization, conformity and rage against nature can perfectly sum up all leftist governments in history.
Nature and liberty are of the right, they don't even make sense as concepts in leftist paradigms.

[Anonymous No.21252208]

>>21250191
Based and true, capitalism is poison.

[Anonymous No.21252309]

>>21251718
>Leftism is a desire for pluralism, freedom and nature.
This is why I keep voting for the left. I vote those things, except for pluralism, which I think it's a tricky thing. When you put everything in a melting pot you kill diversity. But other than that the left is great because it's all about freedom, nature and fighting centralization.

[Anonymous No.21253657]

>>21251155
Anyone can post infographs. Everyone knows the truth.

[Anonymous No.21253772]

>>21250337
>classless utopia of Winckelmann grecian dreams
What? Did Winckelmann really believe there was no class distinction in Ancient Greece?

[Anonymous No.21253788]

>>21252199
Liberty is gay and leftist

[Anonymous No.21253985]

>>21251155
Funny that there are mulitple jews not classed as such. If you were honest it would be closer to half which doesn't even count spouses who are jewish or the many shabbos goys.

[Anonymous No.21254009]

The Age of Secularization goes into this. Author's thesis is that what could be called the "New Left" or "Western Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism" was born out of a contradiction between historical materialism and dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism broadly states that an absolute model of history is discernible (i.e., there is potentially prescriptive content here). Historical materialism provides the foundation for moral relativism however and has no prescriptive content. With this in mind, the claims of dialectical materialism can be scrutinized historically while the claims of historical materialism are entirely critical in nature and can't be scrutinized in the same way.
With the failure of Communist revolution in the 20th century, the idea that Marxism provided an accurate model of history was refuted (what a coincidence that our academics developed incredulity towards metanarratives in the 1980s). What was not refuted however was historical materialism, which by its nature seems to resist easy refutation. This surviving plank of Marxism was championed proudly and propounded by the usual suspects (Frankfurters) and eventually, successfully sold to Anglo-American power institutions and liberal student movements of the 1960s. Broadly, historical materialism survived the death of Communist Marxism in the form of "socio-economic factors" thinking, which was highly useful to both egalitarian activists and to state apparatuses that want to actively manage the society and economy, but that's beside the point. The author then goes on to say that the New Left is actually highly complementary to bourgeois capitalist societies, because New Left critiques could actually be used to purge bourgeois culture of irrational attachments to things like race, faith, nation, and sexual ethics. What emerges from the acid bath of New Left critique then is actually a more rigorously bourgeois society, one that is bent on converting all human material into consumer-producers without irrational attachments to things like national glory or morality.

[Anonymous No.21254159]

>>21249043

[Anonymous No.21254793]

>>21251176
>There are also many quotes from leading communists including top leadership like Lenin
Lenin was a quarter jew. He had christian education. He was an atheist.
Also, what is the Yevsektsiya during early bolshevism? Literally a bolshevik institution meant to eradicate religious judaism.
You analyze the jews as a race. But better is to analyze them from a class perspective. They were merchants and money men. Tsaric Russia was hindering the merchants plans. Either jewish, or not, as many merchant goyims were anti-tsaric during Nicolas II reign.Those backed up the republican ideas, instead of supporting Nicolas II. You can find a merchant and money men class of people all around the world. In China, for example, it's the Li family. Jews have nothing specific.

[Anonymous No.21254799]

>>21251178
Lenin was way softer than Stalin. Reminder that Stalin killed everyone in the bolshevik party during the great purge. Indiscriminate of their jewish of goyim origin. Jews like Karl Radek got beat up to death.

[Anonymous No.21254800]

>>21253657
Stalin killed them all. That contradicts the jewish plot.

[Anonymous No.21254819]

>>21251307
This post is either written by a total retard, or by a disinfo shill.
Marx was exactly against mass immigration.
Proof here:
http://www.reveilcommuniste.fr/2018/12/karl-marx-denonce-les-effets-ravageurs-de-l-immigration-sur-la-classe-ouvriere-1870.html
He didn't care about feminism, and even expelled a women who was too much feminist from the communist international. Marx literally never wrote or talked about feminism, and was focused on the proletarian emancipation.
Engels was homophobic.
Marx and Engels (the origin of family) view Capitalism as the cause for family destruction. Marx himself was a family man, and stayed married to the same women his whole life, who he deeply loved. Nothing to do with you porn addict incels

[Anonymous No.21254821]

>>21249043
test

[Anonymous No.21254825]

Some precision, Engels was never against marriage. He criticized bourgeois marriage, which was some financial alliance between two families, joining their houses, their assets, with a forced marriage, exempt of love.

[Anonymous No.21254979]

>>21254821
did it work

[Anonymous No.21255415]

>>21254800
>the plot failed therefore there was no plot
Just because jews are retards who always get themselves killed doesn't mean they're not also evil

[Anonymous No.21255426]

>>21254825
Why are these people so fucking retarded? Marriage has always been this way. Are native american marriages bourgeois? What kind of marriage did he support? If anything today’s kind of marriage is much farther from financial interests between the families than from the individual’s own “connection”.

[Anonymous No.21255440]

>>21255415
If bolshevism was a jewish plot, led by a majority of jews, having undisputed power in the bolshevik party, why did they let Stalin take over and kill them in the great purges? How is it possible that the rabbis were powerless to prevent the ascent of Stalin, and powerless to assassinate him? Aren't they supposed to be almighty, to control everything in the shadows?

[Anonymous No.21255444]

>>21255440
>Aren't they supposed to be almighty
No, they got kicked out thousands of times and they'll get kicked out again soon.

[Anonymous No.21255454]

>>21255426
>Are native american marriages bourgeois?
Less bourgeois than victorian era marriage for sure, which was 100% merging of financial assets, and 0% love.
> What kind of marriage did he support?
Free marriage of people who love each other, and divorce if they don't love each other anymore. He criticize the hypocrisy of arranged marriage, were the man, if he doesn't love his wife, go see prostitute, which is true and happened a lot during the Victorian era.
>If anything today’s kind of marriage is much farther from financial interests between the families than from the individual’s own “connection”.
Like Engels wrote, proles were, and are today, more free in love than bourgeois. As they have nothing, no assets. So they marry for love, not for merging financial assets.

[Anonymous No.21255456]

>>21255444
Sure. Kick out the jews and replace them with goyim merchants. This is mental jewry. You do not have to wear a Kippah and go to the synagogue to embrace judaic values: huckstering and money.

[Anonymous No.21255461]

>>21255456
I don't care about your leftard seething, I was just letting you know the bolshevik revolution was jewish and you can't do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.21255468]

>>21255461
Even if i was (still) national socialist, i would awknowledge that only a minotiry of the bolsheviks were jewish. It's a fact.
https://i.4cdn.org/lit/1668352290684553.jpg
Anyway if the bolsheviks didn't take over, the republic would have taken over, and you would have had liberal Capitalism, free jewry, instead of State Capitalism (bolshevism).

[Anonymous No.21255476]

>>21255468
>only a minotiry of the bolsheviks were jewish.
Not in the Plitburo >>21253657
>Anyway if the bolsheviks didn't take over
Lmao I don't care about your delusional alternative histories tranny

[Anonymous No.21255496]

>>21255476
A politburo of one quarter jew, lenin, a jew trotsky who got assasinated by Stalin with a hammer, two guys who got purged by Stalin the same year in 1936, and the last one imprisonned by Stalin for 10 years, and assasinated in prison by Stalin order. The jewish plot definitively not solid. Where were the almighty rabbis to prevent this from happening?
Also, you people never answer the Yevsektsiya. Never.

[Anonymous No.21255504]

>>21255496
Are you a bot? I addressed this point before. They're not almighty, they're idiots. The jewish plot was only needed for the bloody revolution. Everyone knows that by the 30s jews lost power in russia which is why american jews started attacking the soviet union in the papers. You're dumb as rocks like all leftards. You're so dumb you may have jewish blood yourself.

[Anonymous No.21255510]

Since you people are too afraid to do your own research, let me clue you in.
The stated mission of the Yevskektsiya sections was the "destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture".[5] The Yevsektsiya sought to draw Jewish workers into the revolutionary organisations; chairman Semyon Dimanstein, at the first conference in October 1918, pointed out that, "when the October revolution came, the Jewish workers had remained totally passive ... and a large part of them were even against the revolution. The revolution did not reach the Jewish street. Everything remained as before".

[Anonymous No.21255513]

>>21255454
>Like Engels wrote, proles were, and are today, more free in love than bourgeois. As they have nothing, no assets. So they marry for love, not for merging financial assets.
Yeah, today this kind of marriage from love is much more common and indeed the restrictions may affect the haute bourgeoisie more.
I am particularly driven to a spiritual understanding of love and spiritual relation with a lover (Dante, Petrarca, Sappho, etc.) but the application of this to society, to the commoners is just sentimental bullshit. Real love is an eternal seeking.
I hate marxists utilitarianism and their retarded accusation of anything they don’t like as bourgeois even when the things themselves predate bourgeois values.

[Anonymous No.21255520]

>>21255504
>Everyone knows that by the 30s jews lost power in russia which is why american jews started attacking the soviet union in the papers.
Is this why america financed Stalin during WWII?

[Anonymous No.21255522]

>>21255520
It was because they were fighting Nazi Germany dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.21255535]

>>21255522
Nazis who were highly financed by Rockefeller, throught standard oil, who owned I.G Farben, which finance 45% of Adolf HItler's 1933 campain.
General electrics owned the german commmunication.
Ford owned Opel and Volkswagen.
The american Fed and the Bank of England financed Hitler as soon as 1924 (Dawes plan).
Rockefeller opened a bank in germany in 1936, with some nazi banker: the “Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.” investment Bank.
https://themillenniumreport.com/2019/08/western-banksters-owned-and-operated-nazi-germany/
Hitler was a Khazar with Canaanite blood. His grandmother Maria Schicklgruber was probably IMPREGNATED in Rotschild's manor, when she was working there as a maid, according to Chancelor Dolfuss, and a former Gestapo officer, Heinrich Pfeiffer, under pseudonym Hansjürgen Koehler.

[Anonymous No.21255564]

>>21255535
>it's the 'hitler was jewish' conspiracy

[Anonymous No.21255568]

>>21255564
Sure. The fact that Hitler had jewish DNA is a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.21255570]

>>21255564
>Rockefeller didn't finance 45% of HItler's 1933 campain. No No, this didn't happen.

[Anonymous No.21255577]

>>21255564
Different anon here but is this really a conspiracy? But yeah of course it is just ridiculous to bring it up all the time at any time.

[Anonymous No.21255588]

>>21255577
So the bolshevik conspiracy being jewish, when in fact the statistics prove that it wasn't jewish is not ridiculous to being brang all the time. But Hitler being financed at 45% by fucking Rockefeller is not a fact worth being mentionned.

[Anonymous No.21255592]

>>21255568
>>21255577
Yes, there's never been any evidence for it, it was repeated back then too as part of leftard anti-hitler campaign (they did this for all fascist leaders) and it's repeated today by the same leftards.

[Anonymous No.21255595]

>>21255588
What does Rockefeller financing Hitler have to do with how jewish the Politburo was? Are you schizophrenic?

[Anonymous No.21255598]

>>21255592
The fact that Adolf Schicklgruber has jewish DNA make it a little more than a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.21255603]

>>21255598
He doesn't

[Anonymous No.21255625]

>>21255595
I dislike both the nazi and the bolsheviks. I will not support one retard against the other.
The bolsheviks were State Capitalist, but not jewish in nature, because the statistics prove that only a small fraction of all the bolsheviks as a whole, or the 1917 people's commissars, or the central committee of the USSR, were in fact, jewish.
On the other hand, Hitler was highly financed by Rockefeller, who had major activities in germany through the standard oil, owning I.G farben. As well as banking. Other american oligarch, including Rotschild, financed HItler, and steal the gold of countries invaded by Hitler.
Between the bolsheviks and nazi germany, nazi germany was way more financed and owned by "jews". Who are in fact not jews, but molochian canaanites. But that's a slightly different debate.
You nazis are lagging. Perhaps in 10 years you'll understand that nazi germany was financed by america.

[Anonymous No.21255629]

>>21255570
the American state can fight Germany and some American capitalists can have investments in Germany. what's your point?

[Anonymous No.21255638]

>>21255603
E1b1b is present in around 20% of the Ashkenazis.
Chancelor Dolfuss had investigated on Hitler, and found that his grandmother was impregnated in Rotschild manor in Vienna. All written by former Gestapo office Heinrich Pfeiffer.

[Anonymous No.21255657]

>>21255629
It's not investments. Germany was controlled financially by america. Controlled.
My point is that it was far, very far from your fantasized independant glorious master race. They were literally the bitches of Rotschild, Rockefeller, Astor, Onassis, Ford, etc...
They would never have been allowed to win. They spared the English at Dunkirk mysteriously. The I.G farben and A.E.G (controlled by General electrics), factories in germany stayed intact at the end of the war. They were not bombed.
They played a role, but not the one you think of. Probably they were made to loose. And then germany loose it's sovereignty. Which is what happened.

[Anonymous No.21255682]

>>21255657
how was Germany controlled?
>The I.G farben and A.E.G (controlled by General electrics), factories in germany stayed intact at the end of the war. They were not bombed.
no shit, why would Americans bomb property of American capital? or other German infrastructure they could use for their own profit after defeating Germany militarily?

[Anonymous No.21255726]

>>21255682
So it was never really about nations. But Capital accumulation.
I cannot picture germany as an invicinble race of knights, when those invincible knights were literally working in the factories owned by Rockefeller, Rotschild, Astor, Onasis, Dupont, Bush, etc...

[Anonymous No.21255943]

>>21255726
>So it was never really about nations. But Capital accumulation.
both. nations are means of capital accumulation, and competition--including between states--is a moment within the process of capital accumulation
>I cannot picture germany as an invicinble race of knights
yes, they aren't, they're just people

[Anonymous No.21256080]

Still no answer about the Yevsektsiya...
About the judeo-bolshevik conspiracy, if the jews were only about 11% of the total members of the bolshevik party, there is not reason for the bolsheviks party to not have existed, were the jews absent of Russia. Only if anti-jews think that those 11% manipulated the other 89% to adhere to bolshevism.
Reminder also that the bolsheviks didn't really take over Russia with shadow conspiracies, or even force. By october 1917, the public opinion about the new republican government, which the bolsheviks took over (yes reminder the bolsheviks took over the republic, not the tsar), was catastrophic. The bolsheviks were very popular and had a majority in russian assemblies. The bolshevik coup was opposed with very little resistance from the State apparatus: police, soldiers. This demonstrate that the new russian republic popularity was very low. And the bolshevik popularity very high.

[Anonymous No.21256164]

Reminder also that the bolsheviks were 11% jews. The Mensheviks were 22% jews. The mensheviks were liquidated by the bolsheviks after the bolsheviks accessed power, and physically by Stalin in 1931. But what does this 22% jews in Mensheviks mean? It seems, it means that jews, in the end, didn't want a bloody revolution, but more like a peaceful access to power with democracy. Reminder also that the mensheviks were declared illegal by the bolsheviks in 1921.

[Anonymous No.21257297]

>>21255564
>What is the e1b1 gene, and where does it come from?

[Anonymous No.21257309]

>>21249146
it is unethical to be a marxist.

[Anonymous No.21257406]

>>21249449
I'm not sure if Yarvin, the guy who (rightly) advocates for recolonization of Africa can be described as "more of a marxist"

[Anonymous No.21257429]

>>21250042
>Combined with Burnham's managerial thesis it explains a lot.
I think this stuff is starting to wear pretty thin. The Democrats / AOC / etc. are not "communists" but I enjoyed reading Sohrab Ahmari the other day talking about how the right is screwing itself up because it has become enthralled by these theories that someone with a worthless degree working at a Starbucks isn't really part of the "working class" but is part of some kinda managerial entity on account of his social value structure -- which to be sure is different from a traditionally stereotyped Teamster but I know a Teamster shop steward who does drag so even that's more complicated nowadays. The point being, it's one thing to rail against "woke capital" and it's another thing to actually believe or even do anything in terms of empowering labor, which the right is not interested in, generally.

Did you see that woke Starbucks worker crying and demanding a union? Yeah, it might seem cringe, but the response from the right was just to call this person a pussy. People are entitled to their opinions but the right's message is seemingly more concerned with complaining about the cultural sensibilities of people like this -- who is a working adult -- even though their cultural sensibilities do not invalidate their claims for a better deal. So it's no wonder they get the result that they do. Trump, as contradictory as he was, was enough of an omnivorous media consumer that he might've wanted to give people like this a better deal, but the post-Trump Republicans are just outright frauds in the main and totally in the tank for plutocrats.

>At its worst, this tendency bizarrely classes adjunct professors and the like among the ruling class, while oligarchs like Elon Musk are made out to be working-class heroes, of a kind, simply because they defy some progressive orthodoxies. Often, this account of class in America traces back to crude readings of James Burnham’s theories on the managerial elite, many of which were falsified by history while the author was yet alive ... America’s class structure isn’t all that complicated. Those who wish to map its contours would be better served by examining things like labor markets and capital flows than critical theory. Roughly speaking, there is the top 0.1 percent, the largest owners of capital; the top 1.1 percent, composed of Wall Street executives and other high managers; and the top 5 to 10 percent of professionals who service the assets of the first two groups.

>The bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, comprises blue-collar workers, nonmanagerial workers, non-college-educated workers, and downwardly mobile college-educated ones. That last group is the target of much right-wing ire, because its members often share the cultural views of the upper 10 percent.
https://compactmag.com/article/what-the-right-doesn-t-get-about-the-labor-left

[Anonymous No.21257446]

>>21249043
My advice is to read this book
The truth is after the disappointment we call Stalin, after the failure of the spanish revolution in some part due to Stalin (Orwell has written a good book on that), after the failure of Mao, and combined with secret service's constant infiltration of leftist organization and funding of fascists in south america and the east and radical jihadist organizations in the middle east to undermine leftism. The space that in the end allowed to exist for some minor success on the leftist front was only a couple millimeters to the left of social liberalism which we can see represented in the very influential work of Chantal Mouffe.

To understand the nationalism which much third world leftism engages in, the work of Mao is relevant on the difference between national and imperial bourgeois.


For a way forward look at Hart & Negri (also separately), Agamben & Tiqqun, honestly Zizek and Deleuze & Guattari are obscure but they are spitting when you get their incantations.
Also read the wiki of Autonomism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism

[Anonymous No.21257495]

>>21257429
Every day since 1970 has been your day to do something with all this potential and create a real labor movement, not endlessly talk about how you're going to do it. Nothing ever happens, for the exact reason that those college-educated people DO identify with the upper 10%, in a way that makes them totally complacent because they think history is on pause as long as they can keep tweeting and barely making rent with Starbucks fake jobs and help from their parents in a neighborhood and city they can't afford. The mass shedding of the dead weight of these feckless faggots would be the only positive sign of an actual working class movement becoming self-conscious. They are so neurotic they are literally cutting their cocks off.

[Anonymous No.21257522]

>>21249043
Marxism is a world religion that sanctifies the oppressed. In the developing world, the average person is considered oppressed, while in the developed world, the average person is considered oppressive. Marxism wasn't changed, it was completed.

[Anonymous No.21258336]

>>21250010
>but how do you get billions of liberal berniebros to understand tactics when all they know how to do is grandstand?
Leftism nowadays is primarily a social media phenomenon. The most we’ll get are protest movements akin to BLM and electoral races. That’s it. There’s nothing else in store for leftism — no revolutions, no mass labor movement, no civil wars, no threat to the system whatsoever. A handful of unionized Starbucks and a ton of viral tweets is all they have left.

[Anonymous No.21258379]

>>21257429
>I think this stuff is starting to wear pretty thin. The Democrats / AOC / etc. are not "communists" but I enjoyed reading Sohrab Ahmari the other day talking about how the right is screwing itself up because it has become enthralled by these theories that someone with a worthless degree working at a Starbucks isn't really part of the "working class" but is part of some kinda managerial entity on account of his social value structure -- which to be sure is different from a traditionally stereotyped Teamster

This is a strawman. Nobody actually thinks this. Most especially, not Yarvin, who is responsible for the spread of these ideas. You should just read Moldbug (obvious you haven't) as he debunks this whole argument.

[Anonymous No.21258459]

>>21257446

Tiqqun are not "a way forward" in any way, they were just a bunch of rich French jewish grad students who wanted to play anarchist theorist for a time, and they fucking hated Negri because Negri was the popular kid in the niche that they were trying to occupy.

The autonomists in general were the lowest of the low, truly (forms of!) life unworthy of life. t. have read the book on these scumbags and taken notes. Actually there's one humorous interview with Piperno where he indicates that Negri never shuts the fuck up so even the police and judges stopped listening to him after a while.

[Anonymous No.21258529]

>>21258336
unless we do something about it

[Anonymous No.21258634]

>>21249043
Read Nietzsche, specifically the will to power. He shot called the entire 20th century in that book.

[Anonymous No.21258697]

>>21258634
How much of that book is actually Nietzsche? I’ve seen a lot of scholars say that it was unfairly edited by his sister and many passages are forgeries, but from what I’ve seen it’s consistent with works from his later years like Anti-Christ and Twilight of the Idols — much more social polemic and absolutely spot on for the most part

[Anonymous No.21258856]

>>21251040
>So leftists are romantics for the slave society
Absolute zero reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.21259444]

>>21251364
>Are there any books about the transformation of the Western left during the 1960’s from an historical rather than theoretical perspective?
Yeah, but its mostly New Left manifestos

[Anonymous No.21259545]

>>21249146
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.21259622]

>>21257495
>Every day since 1970 has been your day to do something with all this potential and create a real labor movement, not endlessly talk about how you're going to do it.
I do take part in some rank-and-file organizing in my own limited way. Just gotta keep plugging away at it.

>Nothing ever happens, for the exact reason that those college-educated people DO identify with the upper 10%, in a way that makes them totally complacent because they think history is on pause as long as they can keep tweeting and barely making rent with Starbucks fake jobs and help from their parents in a neighborhood and city they can't afford.
Even so, the wages of this cohort have remained stagnant for about 30 years and Ahmari's point is that something is happening right now, these Starbucks workers (among others, not just them, but hospital workers, dock workers, retail clerks, tractor-factory hands, etc.) have been doing a wave of labor activity that hasn't been seen in the U.S. since the 1970s. It's limited and qualified in all kinds of ways, but the only prominent Republican politician who has expressed any support for this is Marco Rubio of all people which is a sad thing, but from Ahmari's point of view, being a Catholic conservative who does have some Catholic social beliefs, he thinks the conservatives are out of touch with these working adults.

Because their economic policy is overwhelmingly beholden to a donor class of plutocrats and high corporate managers. Seen from that perspective, it makes sense for conservatives to talk about baristas as though they're members of the ruling class, but that leaves them indifferent to issues of wages, workplace power, healthcare and speculative finance. Fake right-wing populism against "woke capital" can talk about companies becoming overly politically correct but they don't touch the power of corporate America to coerce people -- workers and consumers -- or the power of private equity or hedge funds to hollow out the real economy. Think about it: If you're a member of the downwardly mobile middle class, someone with a college degree but without a secure job, all this rhetoric says: you aren't getting any help. Who are they going to turn to? Some nu-right gabfest led by Curtis Yarvin? No, they turn to the labor movement and so do class-conscious industrial workers.

If your message is instead "I don't give a shit," or at least indifferent, that'd be an honest opinion. But the additional irony is that this means means upholding the very forces these right-wing populists claim to oppose: Big Tech and "woke" capital and deindustrialization and so forth. That's a big mistake but it comes from resting on superficial cultural observations with a very narrow definition of the "working class" with all kinds of arbitrary exclusions, rather than a serious analysis.

[Anonymous No.21259643]

>>21257495
>The mass shedding of the dead weight of these feckless faggots
And see, this is more honest, it's just outright hostility to working people. It's what I expect from people who consider themselves to be intellectuals who don't have any real skin in anything, but take heed, a "pro-worker" movement that doesn't care about the material predations of capital as such isn't worth anything, no matter how much it complains about the cultural pretensions of woke capital. People won't buy it.

[Anonymous No.21259654]

>>21249043
>left-wing nationalism
More like social-nationalism (was like that in Nazi Germany too), not leftism...

[Anonymous No.21260174]

>>21259643
Working people? The feckless faggots are the ones whose dads make six or seven figures and subsidize them while they work part time at a co-op or book store for 10 years. I said they're cutting their cocks off. Normal working people are not doing that.

The sooner you loudly and clearly exclude rich FAGGOTS from working class movements, or impose some kind of rite of initiation on them where they have to give away all their money, the sooner working class movements will start to be about the working class again, and not about retards chopping off their tits and wanting more vegetarian options at the office snack bar.

>>21259622
I agree with much of what you're saying, but you are mistaking me for a Thatcherite or Reaganite. You are also mistaken in calling these people populists. The last thing they wanted was populism, and they are now trying to absorb it into a new Republican synthesis that benefits from its votes while not actually doing anything. You should read "From Household to Nation," by Samuel Francis. He predicted the Trump phenomenon 25 years ahead of time in relation to Buchanan's presidency, because he saw that Buchanan only lost due to contingent factors (he arrived too early).

You're a communist so you should appreciate big solutions. The only solution to "wokeness" that will work here is the complete liquidation and nationalization of the rent-seeking class and its assets, a massive Pol Pot/Maoist/NSDAP/Jacobin revolution that dissolves all parties and breaks up the dysgenic faggot oligarchy. I don't care who does it. Any revolutionary terror is better at this point than another thousand years of New Yorkers writing op-eds in the New Yorker about how "actually, rich genderfags who work at Starbucks are the new socialist wave!"

The only value of the Trump phenomenon is if it happened quickly enough to flood the government with a new faction that destabilizes the power of the old faction, thus creating a space of possibility for new politics. I wouldn't care if AOC and "the squad" had been the ones to do it, or Bernie Sanders, if they had actually been sincere enough about their fake leftism to shake up the system. Bernie Sanders getting on his hands and knees to suck neoliberal dick is the living symbol of how likely the reemergence of a peaceful working class politics is in this country, when the only people who know what that means are neurotic cat lady internet fag hags.

[Anonymous No.21260269]

>>21256080
>This demonstrate that the new russian republic popularity was very low. And the bolshevik popularity very high.
The bolsheviks literally lost the november constituent assembly elections lmao. They got something like 25% of the votes while the socialist revolutionary got 50% of the votes.

[Anonymous No.21260275]

>>21249043
sorry OP but marxism was always a judeo-bolshevik ideology based on mass materialism and centered around exploiting the working class for internationalism.

[Anonymous No.21260294]

>>21249146
>It is unethical to talk about anything after 1983 due to it being "current" and therefore "operational."
This is why you were killed, again and again

[Anonymous No.21260314]

>>21260269
I was talking about their popularity in august 1917. They were undeniably more popular than the republic.

[Anonymous No.21260333]

>>21260269
part of SRs supported the Bolsheviks. also in reality the popularity among the decisive elements like city masses and soldiers had a much larger weight than popularity among pesasants, whereas in the elections it had a smaller weight due to the numerical advantage of peasantry. so the raw election result numbers don't reflect the effective popularity well.

[Anonymous No.21260335]

>>21250032
>Marxism is going exactly according to plan.
No it's not, that is like saying that the 48'ers got everything they want with the triumph of liberalism. They would have been horrified at what became of their ideology, but because of the goalposts changing every generation it """won"""

[Anonymous No.21260367]

>>21249146
>It is unethical to talk about anything after 1983 due to it being "current" and therefore "operational."

That’s what I would say if I was the one doing the op

[Anonymous No.21260394]

>>21250125
I'm not him, but I would like co contribute. I think you will enjoy reading Engels. Engels wants to write to the everyday pipe-cleaner joe, ie. the working class. Just as an illustration, after Marx's death, Engels expended the rest of his life translating Marx's text to English and expressing Marx's though in a language that the average English worker could understand.

I would recommend you Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as a starting point, but better educated Marxists in here might recommend better stuff.

[Anonymous No.21260470]

>>21260394
>after Marx's death, Engels expended the rest of his life translating Marx's text to English and expressing Marx's though in a language that the average English worker could understand.
no, he spent most of it putting together manuscripts left by Marx into the remaining volumes of Capital while changing and adding as little as possible.

[Anonymous No.21260508]

>>21260470
Yes, he did that while translating on the side, sorry.

[Anonymous No.21260553]

>>21251570
The real problem Jews have is that they WE WUZ as bad as Blacks. They themselves put out the idea that Anarchism was literally all Jews and so is Communism. They do this with Vaudeville, as if the many thousands of travelling entertainers in the 19th century were all Jews. They invite the conspiracy theories by affirming THEY WUZ all of the shit, due to their neurotic culture of self-important overexaggerating.

[Anonymous No.21260566]

>>21260508
on the side of the side. stuff like Origin of the Family or The Peasant Question is also new work rather than some adaptation of Marx

[Anonymous No.21260875]

>>21260333
>also in reality the popularity among the decisive elements like city masses and soldiers had a much larger weight than popularity among pesasants, whereas in the elections it had a smaller weight due to the numerical advantage of peasantry.
I really find it amusing how you try to skirt around the fact that the bolsheviks lost the november 1917 elections.
>Yes, the SRs got more votes, but they got peasant votes, which for some reason matter less than the votes of urbanites

[Anonymous No.21261033]

>>21260875
I don't skirt around the fact at all, I'm just telling you the fact is irrelevant and explaining one of the reasons for that.
>which for some reason matter less than the votes of urbanites
they matter less, because the proletariat in the cities and the soldiers were stronger and more decisive in terms of deciding who is going to rule than the peasants in Bumfuck, Siberia. this power wasn't proportional 1:1 in terms of the mere numerical strength of the respective groups. which is why, as already explained, the elections couldn't properly reflect it.

[Anonymous No.21262420]

>>21251135
Based. Saved for reposting purposes

[Anonymous No.21262438]

>>21251570
>Jews taking credit for movements because a couple people in the movement we're Jewish
These kikes are even worse than the antisemites at this.

[Anonymous No.21262511]

>>21251718
>Leftism is a desire for pluralism, freedom and nature.
Leftism is a religion obsessed with "human liberation" and poor understanding of nature which seeks to destroy traditional social bonds in favor of different, mental bonds.

Some admit that the only real court for ideas is made in violence and war, which they call a "revolution" but mist of the time they tend to lose on that field.
It's all psychological in the end.

Btw, has anyone else noticed that workers are completely aligned with capital in the for of investment funds which guard their economic interests?

[Anonymous No.21262542]

>>21252118
>hunter-gatherers could never adopt the nuclear family because they wouldn't have enough people to survive.
The nuclear family is just the name for the unit within a clan. The father, mother and their children, which was integral to all HG tribes. The children were not raised by 'the tribe' with no conception of parenthood. The tribe was just a miniature state headed by a clan head which, according to virtually every legend and myth, atleast became what we call the patriarch. Even in the paleolithic it was usually the women who married into other clans. Clans didn't just join together in holy matrimony to whoever married one daughter, she became a part of the other tribe.

[Anonymous No.21262588]

>>21262542
It wouldn't surprise my how the idea of ownership is intrinsically rooted in the parents relation to their children, a very covetous instinct to protect and posess. To have the child recognize you as it's owner and not others.

Also, even hunter gatherers had conceptions of a restricted territory which the clan owned. The idea of nationhood is older than most think

[Anonymous No.21262724]

>>21249043
Mark Fisher, maybe.

>communism in the third world was mostly just left-wing nationalism and the class war/destruction
Communism is a Europid construction. Way to throw the baby out with the 'decolonized' bathwater. picrel

[Anonymous No.21263075]

>>21251135
Everything you say is correct except for
>it has always been used as a wedge issue to disorient leftist movements

The whole project to atomized society, destroy the family and emancipate women into industrial society was anticipated (and even promoted) by Marx and Engels. It’s a natural development of modernity, it was not specifically done to subvert leftism. Most leftists would denounce you as an evil fascist for even suggesting that social individualism and women’s rights is a bad thing. They all support it, even their intellectual fathers.

[Anonymous No.21263212]

>>21249043
>I feel communism in the third world was mostly just left-wing nationalism and the class war/destruction of an old order that was sterilized and pawns of the West.
Just imagine what this would be like if you were the West. It becomes nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.21263233]

>>21250091
Capitalism creates a gay aristocracy because gays accumulate capital rather than spending it on the production of children. Capitalism empowers gays as time goes on because power does not come from people and familial ties and obligations but rather it comes from your ability to pay others to do things.

[Anonymous No.21263266]

>>21250220
>>21251166
No I think you can clearly trace what the ruling class is thinking just from the stuff they publish. In the 80s they were publishing Milton Friedman stuff and that was what they were doing, but now they have shifted to the idea of "stakeholder capitalism" which is exemplified by BlackRock's ESG scores. The direction of the large and powerful organizations that wield influence over society is directed by the thoughts and ideas of the people who hold that influence (are on the boards etc). This ideas might be influenced by their class position as nobody is going to totally go against their own interests and all their ideas are naturally going to position themselves as the center but the dominant ideas of this group of people are subject to trends and shifts like anything else.

The nonsensicality of the New Left is just a measure of how the ruling class exists without any true opposition rather than a core explanation for the behaviour of the ruling class. By all means they could be pushing the left into ways in which they can be neutralized by their attempts to tamper with the opposition are not the same thing as the things they do when they are amongst themselves. However neither is what they do when they are amongst themselves a secret. It is literally published for those who pay attention because the ruling class is composed of disparate individuals as the only thing that connects them is their wealth and the fact that their wealth is widely distributed to the point that what is good for one member of this class is usually going to be good for any random person of similar wealth level and economic-geographic distribution so they can communicate and disseminate ideas openly to each other without needing to know each other. In addition to this they might also speak privately to each other when they do know each other (such as being on the boards of similar companies) but while possible it is unnecessary.

The ideology of the ruling class and how it changes is just as important as looking at how the ideology of the opponents of the ruling class and how it changes.

[Anonymous No.21263270]

>>21262588
>The children were not raised by 'the tribe' with no conception of parenthood.
Yet that conception differed from yours. How about having several fathers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partible_paternity

[Anonymous No.21263272]

>>21251155
>bunch of no names
>Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev vs Stalin and Bukharin
They were a majority of the important people.

[Anonymous No.21263279]

>>21263270
to this one >>21262542

[Anonymous No.21263318]

>>21251312
I think the idea goes that the bourgeois socieity while railing against it was the main funders of it by purchasing these services. If the Communist Manifesto was written during the war on drugs he probably would have said something about stock brokers doing cocaine lines or something. I think this section of the manifesto just descends into reddit tier screeching about hypocrisy. If you pay attention closely it seems as if the section is meant to be about pre-empting accusations that are flung at communists so it just devolves into whataboutism. I get the feeling they might have been insecure about their own version of Orwell's "sandal wearers and fruit juice drinkers" but they could bring themselves to argue against them even if their association made them uncomfortable so the fact that they are adjacent to them just makes them lash out rather than do anything about them. Orwell himself never really makes any argument against fruit juice drinkers other than say he doesn't like the fact that they congregate in their spaces. I suspect that every generation has to deal with their version of these things and everyone has a a different approach. The communist manifesto chose to just do whataboutism.

[Anonymous No.21263334]

>>21251233
>>And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The prussian state education schooling system comes from the 1830s. This might have been what he was most likely to refer to as "your (bourgeoise) education". He was also probably the first generation to be raised in it. I think what he might be saying here is that they didn't invent the prussian state education system that proliferated across the world such that it is the one we all have today but that they would merely adapt it to their purposes. You know "mechanisms of capitalism will be the tools of its destruction" and all that hegelian dialectical nonsense.

[Anonymous No.21263352]

>>21251408
basically it is just another word for pinko. people who are too weak to enact structural change and instead just "attack" (read joust at windmills) the superstructure

[Anonymous No.21263363]

>>21263233
>Capitalism creates a gay aristocracy because gays accumulate capital rather than spending it on the production of children
It actually need not be so.
In theory, nothing stops 2 people from differentiating "live under one roof", "genital friction" and "offspring production". After all, from an evolutionary psychology standpoint, the purpose of gays was to help raise their nephews in a tribe. Because gayness correlates with the stress the fetus had received, signalling "These are hard times for the tribe! Resources scarce! Switch to quality over quantity!"

And one could even easily produce their own children via reproductive tech, or even just via negotiated one-night stand with the opposite-sex for procreation purposes. Yes, it would somewhat complicate bloodline and property inheritance things, but the tribals too had insanely complex systems with lots of terms.

Thus, the problem is not so much "gays accumulate capital" per se, but rather "gays don't believe in biology". The problem lies in the LGBT-ideology, that comes pre-packaged with loads of liberal crap, making everybody believe that they are individuals and that group selection doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.21263381]

>>21255454
>He criticize the hypocrisy of arranged marriage, were the man, if he doesn't love his wife, go see prostitute
This implies a lot, namely that people would even go to a prostitute in the first place which is not all people. I know people say just go see a prostitute but it is obvious that people don't do this. Thinking your wife is a bitch and that you don't want to sleep with her because of that does not mean you would purchase a prostitute. I can't fathom the people who actually engage in prostitution, particularly because arguably the man is the one who does all the work during sex anyway so they are the one who should be being paid as the prostitute just has to be a starfish. Maybe if you want to do things which might show up in De Sade it could qualify as work that should be paid, but beyond that I don't think prostitutes are worthy of the pay they would receive and so nobody should purchase their services. By all means people do have mistresses for free and that is a possibility if you hate your wife but unless you consider mistresses to be in the same class as prostitutes (fuck it they probably do) then I don't see how this argument makes sense, but then this sounds like some proto-incel arguments against only fans about rich men turning women into whores by supporting them financially.

[Anonymous No.21263407]

>>21255454
>victorian era marriage
If the proletariot are the majority of the population than the characteristics of victorian era were that of the proletariot. If you are merely judging "bourgeoise Victorian marriage" then it isn't right to compare it to marriage today, rather it can only be compared to the marriages amongst the rich today. To that I say, do you think anything has changed? Do the rich marry for love even now?

The only discernible difference between marriage then and now it the availability of divorce and the rich take advantage of this to the nth degree.

Are the rich divorcing each other all the goddamn time any better than when the rich at least had to pretend to have family values? All this enabled was the ability to combine and separate assets at will. It can now happen multiple times within a lifetime rather than needing to rely on a child to do in the next generation. Whoopididoo I guess we saved rich kids from being forced into marriages with each other because now their parents can just divorce and marry each other instead such that they became step sibilings instead of spouses. Dear god is that what is behind all the step-sister/mother porn?

[Anonymous No.21263423]

>>21250141
Satanism is actually very anti-authoritarian and pro-privacy.
t. former Satanist

[Anonymous No.21263429]

>>21255468
Okay from the perspective of Russia is Kerensky really that bad. We think of Russia as despotic because it never had a Liberal period. We have no idea what this would have looked like. It is easy to say that Liberal just equals bad but that was not exactly clear by that point. We have no idea what direction Liberalism in Russia or even the world would have gone into in the absence of bolshevism.

[Anonymous No.21263487]

>>21255522
>>21255520
This is also why the Jews were so gungho on trying to take down the Tsar, they considered him the Literally Hitler of his era. This is also where stab-in-the-back gets credence. The Jews were divided between France and Britain for financial reasons, but had a personal grudge against the Tsar so they also had people supporting the Kaiser, but when the Tsar was removed many of the Jews who were seemingly in support of Germany no longer had a reason to support it. A stab-in-the-front would have been if the Jews had never supported Germany and were always against it, to be stab-in-the-back they needed to have previously been in support of Germany but then withdrawn their support at the critical moment. The balfour declaration being at around the same time certainly doesn't help.

Now if you will allow for a second the contradiction between Anglophile financialism and liberal anti-Tsarism is not outside the mainstream historical explanations for delayed US entry into the first world war. The Nazis being anti-Liberals took the inverse of this position, and connected these Liberal interests as being two branches of Jewish interests. When the contradiction resolved itself, financial Liberalism/Judaism took over and so the US entered the war to protect the loans its bankers made to Britain. Now of course not all the people making the loans were Jews but you can't expect anti-semites to not think finance is Jewish. They are basically incapable of seeing it as anything but.

Thus rather than a stab-in-the-front, the stab-in-the-back narrative states the Jews (Liberals) abandoned Germany when Germany was no longer useful as a bulwark against Tsarism. An important part about all of this is that the Liberals would have potentially been pushing for war back when Russia was Tsarist. The overall sentiment is one in which the Liberals got them into a conflict for ulterior motives and then abandoned them when the going got tough. The Nazis in a perfect encapsulation of the sunk cost fallacy did not want to end the war with a loss after everything that had already been sacrificed. This does not necessarily mean that they would have wanted to start any particular war, but rather than when you are fighting a war, you are bloody well fighting a bloody war and you should fight to the death and take no prisoners while doing so. The idea of war is war is an important aspect of nazi atrocity appologia, and many people (See: Orwell notes on nationalism) have noted the similarities between pacifism and fascism in their belief that atrocity is inherent to warfare and that to avoid them the only way would be to avoid war. The Nazis/Japanese/Fascists differ from the pacifist in that they aren't not necessarily against war like the pacifist, but that they expect soldiers to give and expect no quarter while fighting. The pacifist expects the same thing and opposes all war for the same reason. They both reject Liberal ideas of limited "just" war.

[Anonymous No.21263529]

>>21255510
>The Yevsektsiya sought to draw Jewish workers into the revolutionary organisations
translation: we need to recruit more jews into the party and administration because the jews ought to rule in this system.

The "masses" are not what these people are concerned about. Their narrative of the october revolution is that Jewish professional revolutionaries deceived the Russians into signing their own death certificate as they would be betrayed by those same Jewish professional revolutionaries when they were no longer useful to them.

The key idea is a rejection of the masses as being the driving force of the revolution because while the professional revolutionaries might say everything they do they do for the masses, the vast majority of it is just then admonishingly looking upon the masses for not doing what the masses are supposed to be doing and they keep trying to figure out ways to get the masses to do the masses thing, in a quite literally representation of that meme where a guy is poking the masses with a stick and saying "c'mon do a revolution".

The idea is that proffesional revolutionaries kept poking the masses with a stick begging them to do a revolution FOR DECADES and then eventually at Russia's weakest they finally did it, but in doing so Lenin signed away vast chunks of Russia's territory to the country that had agreed to send him over there deliberately for the purpose of causing mayhem. It is the incessant nature of the proffesional revolutionary, many of whom were Jews, the anarchist faction of which were blowing stuff up like Muslims do today and were disliked widely for the same reason, that just never fucking stopped fucking with them. Yeah the vast majority of Jews lived in traditional communities and were difficult to get them to change their ways, but the "terrorist Jews" as Churchill said in Zionism vs Boshelvism the struggle for the soul of the Jewish people were disproportionate among the terrorists.

[rosecrossfaded No.21263531]

>>21249043
oh yes my nigga. FRANCO FREDA REAL MAOIST NEONAZI SHIT BROS

[Anonymous No.21263698]

>>21263423
Your meme Satanism is a particularly efficient subversion scheme against Protestant society, partially born out of its own Miltonian mythology.
Satanism ontologically does not function as a humanist or liberationist ideology. The central tenets are antihumanism, condemnation of people and of any spiritual reconciliation of people, and from there onwards it is generally nihilistic.
t. actual current Satanist

[Anonymous No.21263952]

>>21259643
I don't think it is hostility to working people so much as hostility to this particular job. Baristas shouldn't exist. They should learn to code etc. Others think coal miners shouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.21263971]

>>21263270
Which entirely depends on ideology and not the conditions they find themselves in and was mostly practiced by a handful of people(nation) which understandably became inevitably subjugated.
This ideology depends heavily on ignorance aswell and you will never convince someone today that a child can have real multiple fathers without lying. It's not surprising that most people understood this intently when they saw a child share so many features with it's biological parents.

[Anonymous No.21263973]

>>21257429
I think we are getting into situations where opposing groups have an idea of a New Soviet Man of what the ideal worker would be like personality wise but these ideas of opposed to each other.

[Anonymous No.21263988]

>>21263487
You forget that Wilhelm wasn't exactly cordial with jews. Claiming they can never be true germans and all that, a phrase which partly kickstarted zionism

[Anonymous No.21263995]

>>21250107
They do it because they genuinely believe in the ideals.
Corporations are just following a trend and not enforcing anything.

[Anonymous No.21264028]

>>21263971
>you will never convince someone today that a child can have real multiple fathers without lying
you will never convince someone today that a god impregnated a woman with himself as his own son... oh, wait.

>This ideology depends heavily on ignorance aswell
ANY ideology depends on ignorance. Sometimes even tongue-in-cheek wilful.
For example, to use money all you need to do is NOT question WHY that green colorful paper with peculiar scratches "100" is more valuable than the one with a peculiar scratches "1",
And to vote in a democracy, all you need to do is to believe that all people are equal, despite simultaneously having knowledge from your school biology lessons that this is not the case.
And people once executed a british king "for the benefit" of the british king, because they didn't want to burn bridges with the "king's two bodies" ideology.

>depends on ideology and not the conditions they find themselves in
You adopt an ideology not for some fancy, but because this is how group selection works.
If you are, say, a tribesman in some South American jungles, cooperation would only boost your chances for survival. It would be only common sense to care about and educate other tribesmen's offspring as if they were your own. Because your group is small, and every skilled spare hand counts.

[Anonymous No.21264066]

>>21263995
>they genuinely believe in the ideals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banality_of_evil
"not a fanatic or a sociopath, but instead an extremely average and mundane person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself,"

[Anonymous No.21264078]

>>21263272
Yet since the jews were only 11% of the total bolsheviks, there is a strong probability that bolshevism would have existed without the jews, in a goyim bolshevik party.

[Anonymous No.21264086]

>>21263272
>a breed genetically self-selected towards higher verbal IQ through Baldwin effect
>wonder why they keep ending up everywhere on positions requiring good social skills

[Anonymous No.21264097]

>>21263407
People think Engels wrote about destroying family, the family unit, marriage. When it was about bourgeois marriage. Read on the origin of family.
>>21263429
In my opinion, were bolshevism absent, russia would have had a Stalin like dictatoship anyway. Russia always had a tradition of very strong leader. From Ivan the Terrible, to Vladimir Putin. Russian like a strong man, and this has little to do with a jewish plot.

[Anonymous No.21264103]

>I feel communism in the third world was mostly just left-wing nationalism
It was just an excuse to get a moral cause going. Only elites take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.21264167]

>>21264028
>you will never convince someone today that a god impregnated a woman with himself as his own son... oh, wait.
Sure you can because a god can theoretically do anything. Whereas multiple seeds from multiple fathers forming one child is logically incoherent and depends on ignorance/not thinking at all about it.
>For example, to use money all you need to do is NOT question WHY that green colorful paper with peculiar scratches "100" is more valuable than the one with a peculiar scratches "1",
That's not based on ignorance though but a general social recognition of value. It's not the same as throwing everything you know about biology out of the window because you want everyone to think they have more than one father.
>You adopt an ideology not for some fancy, but because this is how group selection works.
You don't "adopt it" out of utility or anything, often times there was no real utility or anything to it but it became a fixed tradition due to false trial-and-error, dancing over again to make it rain, insisting that you must be doing something wrong until it works, without ever thinking that maybe your funny gestures don't influence the weather in any way. it was ingrained into you from birth by people who controlled you and had it ingrained into them from birth and so on. And somewhere down the line a particular individual was attributed divine wisdom and people listened to and believed his words, those that did not could always be killed or outlawed if they wanted.

[Anonymous No.21264172]

>>21264066
Not sure what this has to do with what I said. The people who push for gay pride stuff, especially if they aren't gay themselves, genuinely believe it is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.21264180]

>>21264172
Id politics is a diversion tactic

[Anonymous No.21264181]

>>21264167
>a god can theoretically do anything
>throwing everything you know about biology
>logically incoherent
Oh, you sweet summer child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegony_(inheritance)#Influence_in_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter#United_States

>a general social recognition of value.
>it was ingrained into you from birth by people who controlled you
You seem to believe that this "value" of yours exists. Why? Is it in the same room with you right now?

[Anonymous No.21264188]

>>21264180
Corporations didn't cause it. Big corporations don't take risks and they are often made up by people who inhabit a society with genuine beliefs. The "base" does not matter at all and is wholly subservient to the "superstructure" which dictates everything it does.

[Anonymous No.21264201]

>>21264181
>telegony
???
It's not really my fault the nazis were retarded.
>You seem to believe that this "value" of yours exists. Why?
It is a real social phenomenon which people recognize and has real influence?
It doesn't conflict with any fact of the hard sciences whereas pretending that telegony is real does.

You seem to be becoming deranged

[Anonymous No.21264202]

>>21264188
>Big corporations don't take risks and they are often made up by people who inhabit a society with genuine beliefs.
Corporations are controlled by mostly two entities: Blackrock and Vanguard. If id politics is good for them, because people talking about id politics are far less dangerous for them than people talking about class abolition, then they'll push for it.

[Anonymous No.21264208]

>>21264172
>Not sure what this has to do with what I said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology
The nature of this phenomenon is build not in some scrupulous reflection and pondering, but in being a clichéd zombie, i.e. unable to produce 2 coherent thoughts together.

Ironically enough, the "woke" are not awoken, and perform all their life routines like drones on an auto-pilot.

[Anonymous No.21264222]

>>21264202
Except they don't really push it for class reasons or anything because people have genuine beliefs.
And class will never be abolished anyway.

[Anonymous No.21264225]

>>21264201
Telegony and epigenetics might be real, but race supremacists exagerate it's importance, to the point were for them it is the determining factor of society.
In any case, if epigenetics are real, then there is no reason we can't influence how our genes are expressed toward a society ridden of class dominance.
From the latest researches, DNA is something that can store informations, and communicate.

[Anonymous No.21264229]

>>21264222
>And class will never be abolished anyway.
I wouldn't be so sure. So can see people who are pissed about class everywhere.

[Anonymous No.21264232]

>>21264208
That can be said of most people in general.
Not really as much for the true believers

[Anonymous No.21264239]

>>21264229
Not really, you might be delusional.
Also, the workers' pensions and health benefits come from the asset portifolios of pension funds investing in public and private equity, so their interests are just as tethered to capital as any fatcat

[Anonymous No.21264255]

>>21264225
Telegony is not real at all lol. It's not my fault you obsess over and reach for retarded shadows.
>if epigenetics are real, then there is no reason we can't influence how our genes are expressed toward a society ridden of class dominance.
Dominence is not linked with genetics, it's just how life works, it's an ethical matter but autistic materialists can't think for themselves

[Anonymous No.21264256]

>>21264201
>It doesn't conflict with any fact of the hard sciences
Or hard sciences might tell you whatever the Big Brother decides they should tell you.

>It is a real social phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Which operates on wilful ignorance. Does something really exists, when it does not?

>It is a real social phenomenon which people recognize and has real influence?
And the adherents of the natural theology would say that the God is a real natural phenomenon and has real influence.

>real
What is "real", really? How do you know?

[Anonymous No.21264272]

>>21264256
>Does something really exists, when it does not?
To paraphrase it more clearly: Does something really exists, when knowledge disintegrates it?

[Anonymous No.21264280]

>>21264239
The working class definitively benefit less from the Capital than the Capitalists.

[Anonymous No.21264287]

>>21264256
>Which operates on wilful ignorance.
No, like I said, ignorance is more like pretending a child can have multiple fathers when basic biology and logic empirical or rational would tell you otherwise if you bothered to think about it. A man thinking about money will always come to some to the conclusion as to it's value but in order to think that two human fathers contribute to a single child has to deliberately not think about it if he wants to keep genuinely believing himself.
Really, the only person who wants some big brother to tell everyone what to think is you.
>And the adherents of the natural theology would say that the God is a real natural phenomenon and has real influence.
And? I believe I said money is a social phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.21264291]

>>21264280
How so? Capital is the reason why they benefit at all.

[Anonymous No.21264328]

>>21264287
>ignorance is more like pretending a child can have multiple fathers
And court evidence is more like pretending an illegally obtaint evidence doesn't exist, even if you flaunt it.

>social phenomenon
"Social" means virtual construct. Which means wilful ignorance and a lie.
>And? I believe I said money is a social phenomenon.
Then it can't be real.

>pretending a child can have multiple fathers when basic biology and logic empirical or rational would tell you otherwise
pretending the Sun moves above your head when basic astrophysics and logic would tell you otherwise... oh wait.
>come to some to the conclusion as to it's value
pretending the social phenomena such as "value" exist when logic empirical or rational would tell you otherwise... oh wait.

>but in order to think that two human fathers contribute to a single child
"147. Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was born from the womb (of his mother).
148. But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is real, exempt from age and death."

[Anonymous No.21264365]

>>21264291
Capital is the reason why they are exploited, and give more value to the Capitalist than they are paid.

[Anonymous No.21264487]

Capitalism is bad because our end goal as humanity should be the achievement of a post-scarcity society. Capitalism as it exists actively discourages progress towards that endeavour.

[Anonymous No.21265797]

>>21264365
"Capital" is the reason why they benefit and work in the first place.

[Anonymous No.21265812]

>>21264328
>"Social" means virtual construct
Social phenomenons are more real and actually affect you, other than your gay little theories.
>Then it can't be real.
People are not using money? Are you retarded?
>pretending the Sun moves above your head when basic astrophysics and logic would tell you otherwise... oh wait.
You are not making any sense.

[Anonymous No.21265819]

>>21264487
No it shouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.21266315]

>>21249043
You need to read marx a couple more times

[Anonymous No.21266322]

>>21264487
>our end goal as humanity should be the achievement of a post-scarcity society

Should it be?

[Anonymous No.21267163]

>>21265812
>Social phenomenons are more real and actually affect you
A mirage in the desert is real, because it actually affects you. Therefore, it is not a case of your perception malfunctioning, it is a case of the desert mirage's existence, right.
And a schizophrenic's hallucination of demonic clowns is real, because it actually affects one.

>People are not using money?
Schizophrenic is not seeing the demonic clowns?

>Are you retarded?
No, you.

>You are not making any sense.
Is the Sun moving above your head across the sky from East to West? Or is the heliocentric model correct?

[Anonymous No.21267440]

>WORDS
>WORDS
>WORDS
Not reading this thread but I've lurked /lit/ long enough to know whats going on in this thread.

There's a hard-core marxist guy who writes decent posts and then there is this pseud academic SPD/Democrat tier retard who makes moral, emotional posts. It goes on and on until the thread is closed or deleted.

[Anonymous No.21267838]

>>21267163
>Is the Sun moving above your head across the sky from East to West? Or is the heliocentric model correct?
Actually, above our heads. Anyone who isn't under mind control will come to this conclusion. But that's a totally different subject.

[Anonymous No.21267901]

>>21267838
>Anyone who isn't under mind control will come to this conclusion
So, Copernicus was wrong, the earth is the centre of the universe and all your committments to science are invalid?

[Anonymous No.21267916]

>>21267901
Yes. Heliocentric model was never proven anyway. Like many other things, like neo-darwinism, the germ theory of disease, human origin of global warming.

[Anonymous No.21267918]

Many scientific theories are circular logic.

[Anonymous No.21269010]

>>21252118
>can also be translated as "transcend" or "sublate",
Aufheben is doesn't translate to transcend ever.
>t. Germ

[Anonymous No.21269030]

>>21264487
>our end goal as humanity should be the achievement of a post-scarcity society
why?

[Anonymous No.21269096]

>>21264487
This thinking is a big reason that gommunism lost though. Capitalist economies outproduced and created higher “quality of life” than Communist countries, both in material and liberational terms. GDP. Gay Sex. Massive Immigration. Every Family with 3 Cars on Finance and a 30 yr Mortgage. Rising Obesity AND Fat Acceptance. What’s not to love? That’s ultimately why post-scarcity gay space communism communists are a joke; the liberal world order already beat them at their own game. If the ultimate object of life is leisure, consumption, and the ability to “do what you want bro” the Communist simply must consneed that the USA fulfilled that object better than the USSR did. When I’m looking for an intellectually serious Communist, I’m looking for bare feet, co-op farmstands, henna tattoos and people tied to trees. There is no victory through productivity for the the Commies, the Protestant Work Ethic will not be outcompeted

[Anonymous No.21269149]

>>21269096
Marxian here. Good posts. As it is also our opinion as to why communism didn't take off.
However, you didn't take into consideration the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined with market saturation. This is the internal contradiction that will render Capitalism an impossibility.

[Anonymous No.21269171]

>>21269149
>This is the internal contradiction that will render Capitalism an impossibility.

Yes, any day now. For REAL this time.

[Anonymous No.21269627]

>>21269171
Negative interest rates.