/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3394387]

are there any good contemporary books on Socialism?
pic related. i want to learn what this whole thing is actually about instead of the usual wingnuttery from my local community.

[Anonymous No.3394443]

[Anonymous No.3394447]

I am a democratic socialist from the U.S. The democratic socialist party is a growing movement.

[Anonymous No.3394460]

[Anonymous No.3394462]

>>3394447
>a growing movement
moar liek
>a bloating corpse

[Anonymous No.3394464]

I am 32. Not all Americans conform to your pre-defined expectations of them.

[Anonymous No.3394465]

>>3394460
> Pretending all Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians and Cubans hate socialism
You're an idiot.

[labor history bro No.3394466]

Read history, OP.

[Anonymous No.3394468]

>>3394443
>eagleton
warning! this is a literary critic.
read engels: family, property, state and pretty much everything you'll find from marx

[Anonymous No.3394471]

>>3394465
Obviously generalizations are generalizations, and therefore full of shit.

Which makes OPs picture equally retarded.

[Anonymous No.3394474]

>>3394466
yeah, read history. it will make you drop this nonsense.
>>3394465
What a wonderful specimen of the "edgy American teen"

[Anonymous No.3394476]

Guys you guys are confusing Marxism with socialism. Marxism is an ideology for naive idiots.I am Russian and I can vouch that communism was failure in my country. Democratic socialism however works in europe.

[Anonymous No.3394481]

Communism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.

[labor history bro No.3394488]

>>3394474

It's not that reading history will make you "drop nonsense," but you'll begin to understand that human societies are much more complicated than the contemporary political-culture dichotomy of HURR MUH MURKAN FREEDUMS vs. SOCIALFEMINIST COMMIE REBULITION!!1

With that said, I've found Joseph Schumpeter to be really enlightening as well as challenging. He eschews cheesy moralism and shallow polemics.

[Anonymous No.3394494]

>>3394476
Мы же, блеать, всех пшеков выебли. На венеру летали, блеать!

[Anonymous No.3394495]

>>3394476

And that's why modern day Russia is so wealthy, important and democratic ?

Are you even old enough that you witnessed the glorious days of the Soviet Union ?

[Anonymous No.3394499]

>>3394476

In America, you fail communism; In Soviet Russia, communism fails you

[Anonymous No.3394502]

The soviet union was immensely oligarchical. The problem with modern russia is how they dissolved the soviet union. They fucked up in the transition.

[Anonymous No.3394504]

>>3394443
he was a professor at my Uni!

[Modality !DqHaTB4JOs No.3394505]

>>3394387

this picture doesn't accurately present the issue at hand:

suppose it was "what americans know about being" and "being".

the epistemic and metaphysical necessities are disconnected, for they encompass two separate spheres of being.

<λx.[]Θ(x)>(c) <=> []<λx.Θ(x)>(c). if we mean: what it means to be vs what americans know of what it means to be, then this presents an infinite regress; for what it means to be has being and must then encompass a larger set of being within being which we must assess whether americans have knowledge of. it's an extension of zeno's argument from space.

QED

[Anonymous No.3394506]

>>3394387
I recommend the Essential Works of Socialism by Irving Howe. It's an anthology but, it's very detailed and it's from a Democratic Socialist/Communist Historian. I recommend on the basis that he's not a state capitalist like Stalin was.

[labor history bro No.3394507]

>>3394502

>implying there was a transition

[Anonymous No.3394508]

>>3394488
>schumpeter
I've only read his work on world war 1. He explained it with social darwinism; edgy teens should read more Spencer :)

[Anonymous No.3394512]

>>3394495
eh, the soviet union was anything but socialistic.
socialism aims for a classless society, whereas the soviet union was nothing but a huge hierarchy.
workers had next to no power and people had virtually zero freedom of speech.

[Anonymous No.3394518]

>>3394507
But it was a great success, the transition!
THE SOVIET STATE HAS WITHERED AWAY
ahaha

[labor history bro No.3394522]

>>3394508

>labour IS history bro

[Anonymous No.3394530]

>>3394506
>Stalin
>state capitalist
>capitalist
har har har
you degenerate dumbfucks, why don't you swap this term for "satan", like khomeni did; it evidently has no other meanings left.

[Anonymous No.3394532]

>>3394512
Trot History Month

[Anonymous No.3394540]

>>3394512
what classes? they all shot all the classy intellectuals! ahaha. rly mao, brezhnev and ho chewed on the very same deep-frozen "sausage" turds as the rest of their nations :)))))) this "socialism" thing is a philosophy of envy indeed; all hail nietzsche!

[Anonymous No.3394552]

>good contemporary books on Socialism?
for the new intellectual, Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.3394599]

>>3394474
It really isn't true that most people living under Marxist-Leninist governments dislike them; quite the opposite. The hard left still does very well in Eastern bloc elections (to the point that they've won - often! - in countries like Moldova), Mao is still very popular in China, etc.

[Anonymous No.3394603]

>>3394552

>Ayn Rand

Get out.

[Anonymous No.3394606]

>>3394512
>workers had next to no power
it was a worker's tyranny. The intellectuals had no power but the degenerate ruffian felt pretty much at home.
>and people had virtually zero freedom of speech.
Nonsense; In the bourgeois Democracy where the press belongs to the bourgeoisie there is zero freedom of speech but in the USSR the press belonged to the peasants and workers :)

[Anonymous No.3394616]

>>3394603
aww, did I rustle your plebeian jimmies?
>>3394599
you're SO right. pic related; more incoming

[Anonymous No.3394617]

dont read a book. talk to an immigrant from these areas.

my old art history teacher was from the former ussr and would aleays talk about an aspect of where she came from for the first few minutes of class.


>>3394552
read ayn rand to value yourself, instead of exposing yourself to group value. best choice you can ever make.

[Anonymous No.3394622]

>>3394616
>more incoming

[Anonymous No.3394628]

>>3394622

[Anonymous No.3394634]

>>3394628

[Anonymous No.3394637]

>>3394634

[Anonymous No.3394644]

>>3394637

[Anonymous No.3394647]

>>3394637
>>3394634
>>3394628
>>3394622
>>3394616

arent all of these extremely isolated?

i once saw an interview where one of these groups walked past, consisting of maybe 15 people, all old. the interviewee brought up that most people look at them as sad and attached to an outdated dead idea, like lost souls.

[Anonymous No.3394655]

>>3394647
No. Ex-soviet countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan still have a very strong pro stalinist/leninist attitude.

[Anonymous No.3394672]

>>3394655
kind of weird that they liked lenin and stalin when they killed more people than even the nazis.

[Anonymous No.3394688]

>>3394647
in communist countries you had to be a cynic or a complete moron to become a communist. latter ones are those who remained communists after the countries.
>>3394655
but the main point to their stalinist/leninist attitude is to shoot all the lesbians, faggots and foreigners and to mutilate all the wealthy and all the intelligent people in public. This marxism is more credible than that of the German and Italian pot smokers on campus because the Kyrgyz bydlo knows their theory by heart.

[Anonymous No.3394700]

>>3394672
stop projecting so much. communists arent intellectuals, they're a cult. there is a hitler cult in russia, there is a tamerlane cult in uzbekistan and a temujin cult in mongolia.

[Anonymous No.3394707]

>are there any good contemporary books on Socialism?
No. There is nothing good about socialism.

[Anonymous No.3394713]

>>3394707
And there is nothing contemporary about it, either.

[Anonymous No.3394718]

>>3394647
>arent all of these extremely isolated?
Not at all.

'Communism' is a right-wing conservative ideology in post-communist countries. There are lots and lots of right-wing conservatives, and they sure as fuck aren't anything like 'lost souls'.

[labor history bro No.3394731]

>>3394713
>>3394707

"There is nothing good about socialism."

LoL ikR, stupid sheeple commies. They shud jus read Ayn Ran like us and Be Real individuls.

[Anonymous No.3394743]

>>3394731
well thanks for demonstrating all your intellectual capacity, ye vanguard fighter of the lazy bums.

[labor history bro No.3394750]

>>3394743

U jus Havt lernt that we r individuls and we need 2 look out For our Own. its the naturaAl order of socities.

[Anonymous No.3394759]

>>3394731
dis nigga doesnt have much of a self identity.

nigger,

[labor history bro No.3394764]

>>3394759

www.endthefed.com

EDUCATE URSELF

[Anonymous No.3394767]

>>3394718
yeah, but it is not a right wing ideology. It is a LEFT wing ideology. It is not the ideology of progress, of freedom, but one of fear, of gluttony, of sloth, of greed, of wrath and of envy; the LEFT wing is an alliance of sadist warlords and of their masochistic willful slaves. King Louis XVI was, in modern terms, a left wing tyrant not any different from any labour leaders of this day.

Hitler was a socialist.

[labor history bro No.3394768]

>>3394767

>Hitler was a socialist

No.

[Anonymous No.3394770]

>>3394767
>Hitler was a socialist.
Didn't stop him sending socialists to the camps though, did it?

[Anonymous No.3394776]

>>3394750
>>3394764
if you have no arguments left you can still demonstrate your stupidity by the butthurt inept use of a Libertarian strawman, bro.

[Anonymous No.3394780]

>>3394767
>yeah, but it is not a right wing ideology. It is a LEFT wing ideology.
'Left' and 'right' is relative.

However, it is a conservative ideology, for sure. (Stands for family values, sexual moderation, hard work, education and knowing your place, classical art, upstanding morals, all that good stuff.)

[Anonymous No.3394784]

>>3394770
>Didn't stop him sending socialists to the camps though, did it?
there's nothing more socialist under the sun than doing that.

[Anonymous No.3394786]

The Benn Diaries.

A personal account of the Labour Party's Golden Years (and its slow descent into mediocrity in the 80s, and centrist bullshit in the 90s) from its most prominent and most serious socialist. The man has some great arguments, and because he wasn't some PoliSci graduate with a debt to pay off (like most modern political writers) he has no need to extend to the bold to sell copies of his work.

[Anonymous No.3394788]

>>3394784
You're confusing socialism with totalitarianism.

[Charles Dingus !!N4jGcT6O5vY No.3394798]

>>3394776

I'm not arguing against you. I'm only suggesting that a thorough reading of socialist thought does have SOMETHING to offer, if not a plausible schematic for revolution, then an interesting framework through which to consider contemporary and historical capitalism.

>implying you even made a sophisticated argument

[labor history bro No.3394803]

>>3394798

wrong tripcode

[Anonymous No.3394813]

>>3394780
>However, it is a conservative ideology, for sure. (Stands for family values, sexual moderation, hard work, education and knowing your place, classical art, upstanding morals, all that good stuff.)
And how is that different from Marx and Engels, from Lenin and Lunacharsky, from Stalin and Zhdanov? They're marxist. This is the left wing, take it or leave it. Whoredom is evil according to the Capital; homosex is evil according to the History of Family, Private Property and the State; discipline is nescessary according to all practical class warfare pamphlet ever written.
"moderation, hard labour and knowing your place" have always been the ideals of degenerate plebeians. Christendom used to be a socialist ideology as well; that's why it spread through the slaves.

[Anonymous No.3394825]

>>3394788
>totalitarianism
Totalitarianism, Socialism, Fascism, Plutocracy, The Left Wing, Tyranny, Social Democracy; take any term; it's all the same.

[Anonymous No.3394839]

>>3394476
>Guys you guys are confusing Marxism with socialism.
I think your confusing Marxism to a degree with Leninism and Stalinism. Though they have similar elements, the latter are more authoritarian while Marxism can go either to become libertarian or authoritative.

[Anonymous No.3394842]

>>3394825
So basically, you don't know anything about politics? Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous No.3394846]

>>3394768
Keynes would be proud of Hitler's projects. As would be Marx; just you count how many points from the original communist manifesto were put in action by ol' Adolf

[Anonymous No.3394861]

>>3394846
Keynes died after the war ended.

[Anonymous No.3394864]

>>3394839
>Though they have similar elements, the latter are more authoritarian while Marxism can go either to become libertarian or authoritative.
No, just NO. Marx raved about seizing the power and using the state just like the big boys do; first you become a major global player and then, when you have drowned the dirty bourgeoisie in it's blood your working masses SOMEHOW arrive in the kingdom of heavens.
>>3394842
all these bloody regimes inhibity the two most basic human rights, the right of ownership and free enterprise.

[Anonymous No.3394872]

>>3394864
>all these bloody regimes inhibity the two most basic human rights, the right of ownership and free enterprise.
Explain how social democracy does any of this?

[Anonymous No.3394875]

>>3394481
>Communism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.
>Anarchism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.
>Liberalism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.
>Conservatism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.
>Capitalism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.
>Syndicalism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.
>State socialism is an idealogy for edgy suburban kids.
>/lit/ is for edgy suburban kids.
>The person writing this comment is an edgy suburban kid.

You can't even begin to comprehend my edge...

[Anonymous No.3394882]

>>3394875
I actually expected better from this thread. I know its 4chan and you'll get the MUH FREEDOMZ argument no matter what you say, but I at least expected some form of educated opinion from /lit/.

[labor history bro No.3394883]

>>3394846

Fascism was partially a reaction against the growing strength of working-class movements. Fascism generally reseted upon the lower-middle class, not laborers.

Perhaps Marx would have hailed fascist movements as expedients in the world-historical process?

Idunno. Marx is a tricky thinker.

[Anonymous No.3394938]

>>3394861
so...? Hitler was the perfect keynesian socialist: the Autobahn, the Gas chambers, the Volkswagen, the War, the Prora Settlement, the Einsatzkommandos, the "Strenght through Joy". That's "deficit spending" :) and not some gambler's hypercapitalist hell, bro
>>3394883
>Fascism was partially a reaction against the growing strength of working-class movements. Fascism generally reseted upon the lower-middle class, not laborers.
It was a working class movement voted for by people who used to support social democrats. Conservatives kept voting for the Zentrumspartei and the middle class took a liberal nationalist party of it's own.

Of course you will define your "working class" as "people who STILL voted for the KPD". But this wasn't the WORKING class; this was the UNEMPLOYED class - the lumpenproletariate of Marx. If you actually WORK you're lower middle class now? WUT??
And Antisemitism wasn't a conservative scarecrow, it was important in all the self-ascibed socialists, Proudhon, Bakunin, even Marx; they were the vanguard of the degenerate and spiteful lazy biggots.

[Anonymous No.3394956]

>>3394938
But some of those weren't bad ideas. The Volkswagen, the autobahns. Just because it was made by Hitler, it doesn't make it bad by default. Hitler was an excellent politician, he transformed Germany from a broke shithole to a country so powerful the whole world had to team up to defeat it. Of course, he was a racist lunatic who killed millions of people based on nothing other than their religion, but what that has to do with his economics is pretty irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.3394962]

>>3394872
it is the rule of lazy bums, of bureaucrats, of the ministry for silly walks. same shit, another word. there is no society! and they are the church of "society".

[Anonymous No.3394964]

>>3394962
Can you not speak in conjecture please?

[Anonymous No.3394967]

>>3394938
>It was a working class movement voted for by people who used to support social democrats. Conservatives kept voting for the Zentrumspartei and the middle class took a liberal nationalist party of it's own.
Has the right managed to convince itself that it happened like this? The Nazis never quite got a majority in the Reichstag and were reliant on the support of the mainstream political right, which they had no problem getting. The Social Democrats were their only consistent opponents.

[Anonymous No.3395007]

>>3394476
Marxism hasnt been properly executed in your country so you cant vouch for fuckin shit

[Anonymous No.3395012]

>>3395007
>tfw no Trotsky

[Anonymous No.3395014]

>>3394967
They WERE the Social Democrats!! It is sad indeed that Christian and Liberal parties have not learnt from this grave mistake and still collaborate with you, from time to time, you inhuman bastards.
>>3394956
Just you look at him! Heil hitler, there, comrade. Venceremos Heil! Ahaha; the only problem that he's got with Hitler is the genocide and the war. He wished he was a "National Social Democrat" instead HAHA! But aren't human rights a bourgeois phantom anyway? metaphysics! bourgeois metaphysics! Self-serving nonsense only profitting the ruling class!

[Anonymous No.3395019]

>>3395014
What on earth are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.3395030]

Socialism by Mises

[Anonymous No.3395047]

>>3394786
>the Labour Party's Golden Years (and its slow descent into mediocrity in the 80s, and centrist bullshit in the 90s)
all the parties used to Marxist until the 80s. It kinda went out of fashion; Good riddance! And Islamism shall vane as well if we ever manage to topple that bastard in Er-Riyadh.

[Anonymous No.3395070]

>>3394964
how social democracy is a tyranny? easily: it is illiberal. :)
>>3395019
the naked truth. I know it hurts; this is why ceaucescu had to die. A deluded socialist will never swallow the truth. It's kinda like debating a fundamentalist christian; at some point they'll just cry and say "no" like this bloke here:
>>3394768

[Anonymous No.3395079]

>>3395070
Are you trying to take the high ground? You've skirted around facts and provided nothing more than the old /pol/ standard of 'muh freedoms'.

Can't you read for yourself instead of repeating the same old /pol/ crap? Its like debating a fundamentalist christian, repeating the same thing over and over despite how little truth it has to it.

[Anonymous No.3395091]

>>3395047
The 80s were an awful time for left wing politics, agreed. Thatcher and Regan set us up for a boom bust economy set on service instead of manufacture, on quick profit instead of long term investment. Its their fault we're in this mess, really.

[Anonymous No.3395099]

>>3395079
i've never been to /pol/. They're nazis, right? well, i'm not socialist at all. So far all socialism have been national; there never was a labour party demanding social spending for the starving zimbabwean. All the social democrats are white aryans nazis who now, like Hitler, rave at the globalisation process; at the new yellow peril.
"it might pull a billion out of poverity but this billion isn't white"
>facts
which facts? facts speak against you. Your own "laws of history" speak against you. This is why your parties perish.

[Anonymous No.3395105]

>>3395091
yes, you lazy people are where you belong - in a mess.

[Anonymous No.3395112]

>>3395099
What do you believe in? They're mostly Randroids over at /pol/. I don't think the laws of history speak against us at all. A lot of social democratic parties like Norway and Australia happen to be doing very well at the moment. Whilst I know they have a lot of natural resources, so do most other countries around the world.

[Anonymous No.3395120]

>>3395105
Blaming the people? How misanthropic can you get. Why on earth is the financial crisis the fault of the everyman?

[Anonymous No.3395125]

>>3395112
>They're mostly Randroids over at /pol/

That's not true; there's a wide variety of right-wing ideological viewpoints available on /pol/, from fascism all the way over to anarcho-capitalism.

I don't disagree with anything else you're saying though.

[Anonymous No.3395130]

>>3395120
which financial crisis? when stalin starves the peasant - that is a financial crisis. the fact nk cannot get capitalised - that is a financial crisis. china's progress being ruined by a communist mob - that is a financial crisis. the leftwing cleptocrats in all the countries outside of America are a financial crisis.

[Anonymous No.3395132]

>>3395125
Why does /pol/ breed such a right wing bias? Bored neckbeard teenagers? Anonymity?

[Anonymous No.3395141]

>>3395125
yeah, but fascism is on the left. Moussolini was a red anarchist who actually managed to get to power.

[Anonymous No.3395147]

>>3395132
left-wing bias
like the rest of the society.
it's just that the social democrats nescessarily have to rear their ugly nazi faces when confronted with an international community rather than a national one.

[Anonymous No.3395156]

>>3395141
Fascism is not on the left in any meaningful sense, it wasn't identified as distinctly left-wing at the time by pretty much anyone either within the fascist movement or by those outside of it. And Mussolini broke with the Socialists and was thrown out of the fucking party before he formed the fascists. It's nonsense. You could argue that it's a distinctly modernist party and that all modernist parties are in some sense of the left, but that would be stupid, and has no relation to the world as it is and to words as we use them to designate things within it.

[Anonymous No.3395159]

>>3395141
Fascism is in no way on the left, nor is it to the right. Its just an inherent problem on both sides of the chart. You can have oppressive right-wing regimes, dictating the way you live whilst having no social schemes in place at all. In fact, most of history is dominated by such a regime, with the communist-style regime only a twentieth century invention.

[Anonymous No.3395164]

>>3395132
It is a development of the misogynist, anti-politically correct, and especially racist humor and ethos that 4chan used to have and still does to some extent. Except radicalized and turned into a serious ideological position rather than dumb shock humor.

[Anonymous No.3395165]

>>3395147
So you're claiming /pol/ is fair and rational, and its the outsiders which are deluded?

[Anonymous No.3395169]

>>3395164
I think its the typical misanthropy of the type of person who would spend all day online arguing politics as to why libertarianism is such a huge thing there.

[Anonymous No.3395177]

>>3395165
That's what everyone from /pol/ claims, yes. It's a huge feature of the ideological systems on /pol/.

>>3395169
Little bit from column A, little bit from column B, I'd say.

[Anonymous No.3395184]

>>3395164
> misogynist, anti-politically correct, and especially racist
all the pure socialist countries were exactly that. This is Vox Populi, this is Vox Bydlo.

the "new" moderate left had, of course, to make a compromise with liberal ideals to avoid association with their founding father, Adolf Hitler.

[Anonymous No.3395188]

>>3395177
>It's a huge feature of the ideological systems on /pol/.
I think its laughable when they scorn at academia, as if their folder full of unsourced infographics is somehow superior to a fully comprehensive education.

[Anonymous No.3395190]

>>3395165
i've never been there. i'm not a lazy leftwing "misanthrope" :)

[Anonymous No.3395194]

>>3395184
You are actually insane

[Anonymous No.3395199]

>>3395159
The Fascists are a splinter-group of the "Socialist" party of Italy formed by an editor of the party's official official paper, "Forward!"

[Anonymous No.3395204]

>>3395184
The main flaw in your argument is the suggestion that oppression has only ever existed through socialism. You overlook the corporate tyranny of Victorian Britain and the current state of China. You overlook right wing dictators such as Idi Amin. You refuse to accept that its possible to rule tyrannically without providing social schemes. You rule any decision made by a morally evil regime, no matter how good or how important or how powerful it was to the country, saying the Autobahns were a bad thing for Germany simply because they were built by the Nazis. You ignore facts when they're presented to you and then rage when someone denies a false fact you've made.

How awful.

[Anonymous No.3395210]

>>3395199
... who got kicked out of the party because he made a fundamental intellectual break with them before he formed the Fascist party.

>>3395204
The main flaw in his argument is that he thinks Adolf Hitler was the founder of socialism. he's insane or a troll.

[Anonymous No.3395211]

>>3395194
And what do I have, comrade doctor? the famed "sluggish schizophrenia"?

[Anonymous No.3395213]

>>3395210
He didn't even know Keynes was alive for the war, shows how little research he has done. Its not even like that is a factoid, Keynes was massively important in finding loans from the USA after the war.

[Anonymous No.3395225]

>>3395210
>... who got kicked out of the party because he made a fundamental intellectual break with them before he formed the Fascist party.
YES! This is how splinter-parties form.
>The main flaw in his argument is that he thinks Adolf Hitler was the founder of socialism.
Not of socialism, but of the modern Social Democracy. You could also place the birth of the "liberal" left into the laps of Teddy Roosevelt but he wasn't all too different from Adolf the Hitler. Addy's just much of lucullent as an example

[Anonymous No.3395229]

>>3395225
Essential reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[Anonymous No.3395235]

>>3395225
>YES! This is how splinter-parties form.
His break was more profound than that, and there is a fundamental difference between the thought of the socialist and the fascist parties (not to deny that there are correspondences between them, but that doesn't mean that fascism is a socialism)

>Not of socialism, but of the modern Social Democracy. You could also place the birth of the "liberal" left into the laps of Teddy Roosevelt but he wasn't all too different from Adolf the Hitler. Addy's just much of lucullent as an example

The only slight problem with any of this is that it has no resemblance whatsoever to reality

[Anonymous No.3395260]

>>3395213
>He didn't even know Keynes was alive for the war
i didn't what lol? you are deluded by your hate and by envy and by sloth. I think it's because litsci majors cant get a job - thats why lit is so dominated by an ideology of the angry and poor.

the american war industry is keynesianism as was the german one. hjalmar schacht was a keynesian, too.
>>3395204
The current state of China is still communist; the independent citizens occassionally get robbed and mudered by their rabid communists prole leader. This is bad.
Idi Amin is bad, too. But none of them are on the right. A right wing china would be a china without the communist party. A left wing uganda would be an uganda without corruption, without genocide under the rule of law.
corruption and nepotism is a leftwing phenomenon; a social democracy, now, is institutionalised nepotism and the only opposite of "right wing" is "wrong wing".
>You refuse to accept that its possible to rule tyrannically without providing social schemes.
There could be a Hobbesian lord protector but Idi Amin doesn't quite fit the description. You left-wing bloke should stop using "capitalist", "right" or "neoliberal" as an ersatz for "evil"
>You rule any decision made by a morally evil regime, no matter how good or how important or how powerful it was to the country, saying the Autobahns were a bad thing for Germany simply because they were built by the Nazis. You ignore facts when they're presented to you and then rage when someone denies a false fact you've made.
'm saying the Autobahns were wrong. I'm bringing them as the most lucullent proof, along with the war, the nepotism and the genocide, that the nazi party was, in fact, on the left.

[Anonymous No.3395263]

>>3395260
you are, again, insane

[Anonymous No.3395266]

>>3395260
You don't even know what left and right-wing means, do you?

[Anonymous No.3395270]

>>3395229
wikipedia ISNT essential reading outside of the angry workingman's abecedarium.

[Anonymous No.3395280]

>>3395266
out of arguments, lefty?
>>3395263
>insane
how very communist of you. Do you like wikipedia? here you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.3395291]

>>3395280
It's hard to argue with someone who's talking nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3395316]

>>3395235
>The only slight problem with any of this is that it has no resemblance whatsoever to reality
what's the matter with you? yes, the american leftwing anti-trust policy along with it's "progressive party" were first introduced by the genocidal prototype of adolf hitler.
populism is on a leftwing phenomenon, bro.

[Anonymous No.3395318]

>>3395316
What country are you from? You're ESL, right?

[l'ennemi du peuple No.3395322]

>>3395291
you've never been good with argumentation

[Anonymous No.3395328]

>>3395318
>ESL
wait, is that an insult?

[Anonymous No.3395332]

>>3395328
Means you're not a native speaker of English.

[Anonymous No.3395343]

>>3395332
Why would that be relevant?

[Anonymous No.3395351]

>>3395343
because you're such a shitty writer

[Anonymous No.3395359]

>>3395351
Admitted. my prose is still a far cry from your beloved classics of revolutionary socialism :)

[Anonymous No.3395370]

>>3395235
>His break was more profound than that, and there is a fundamental difference between the thought of the socialist and the fascist parties

name them