Political Spergatory or How I Learned To Love /pol

So what is marxism though in specific?

 

It's that thing the CIA made to convince college kids to block traffic and harass people on twitter for money so that China can make Iphones for Joe Biden's hairy legs.

 

If I had to define Marxist thought... That's a bit off-topic, but Marxists think only the Marxists should have guns (to make it easier for Marxists to kill innocents and take over to create a system where only they have rights) so I suppose it's on-topic after all.

It's hard to describe the layers of contradictory weaponized confusion that is Marxism. Because if you defined one of the stupid and contradictory lies that make up the delusion named Marxism, you'd leave out other ones. You'd have to explain why all of it is bad and wrong at once, or at least the major foundational lies. And no matter how you defined it, a blindly religious fanboy of it would say "That's not real Marxism, real Marxism is good. If it fails to do good it's not real Marxism and if you think Marxism's bad you just don't understand Marxism". Fundamentally, Marxism is whatever the Marxists want it to be in that moment, even if one part of what they say contradicts another. Marxism is really the evil things they want for the world, the evil methods they use, and the obvious logical failings that convince them they're in the right.

Once upon a time, a very stupid and evil man had some very wrong ideas about how the world works, and he believed he could make the world "better" if he got power. Of course, because he doesn't understand how the world works, he would be unable to solve problems effectively if he had power. But he wasn't the type to let facts or the many, many books and free thinkers that debunked him get in the way of his pursuit of power. He made some lies that sound very convincing if you don't think about them too hard, and with the help of some similarly evil men like Lenin and Stalin and their friends in leftist academia, he raised generations to believe the nonsense he believed. He exploited the failing education system and its sub-par teachers and their ignorant students to spread Marxist delusions. To understand Marxism you need to understand the bullshit it says, understand what's bullshit about it, and understand what Marxism has to gain (or thinks it will gain) from spreading that delusion. You must know why the liar is wrong and know why the lie is told.

Marxism said Worker Specialization was a mistake because "Workers can only feel happy if they can feel the complete product they create with their hands". Obviously, that's wrong. The modern world needs far more than generalized craftsmen making wooden chairs in their garages. Medical specialists are needed to save more lives and advance medical science further. The iphone only exists because different technologies created by different specialists were brought together by a specialist. Marketing specialists sold it to the public. Programming specialists made the operating system that lets it run and the programs it can run. Art specialists, Hand-drawn Animation specialists, CGI specialists, camera specialists, voice acting specialists, so many different specialists are needed to create a television show or a game or a car. Specialization makes for more specialized jobs, which means more specialist jobs in the free market. This is a good thing, because if you don't like your job, you can learn new skills and get a different one. If you're the best there is at what you do, you can be paid more for it. If you don't like farming or working in a car factory, you can learn to code. You can try to make your own business and become an entrepreneur. You can sell your specialist skills to people who need them, and if you're good, you can sell for more. The free market was designed to let people rise up, even though monopolies with state aid make this harder than it should be.

This is the part where someone says "But college has a monopoly on the education industry and overcharges for pieces of paper that prove you know what an online course would be better for teaching you". I agree, fuck colleges and fuck the high prices they only get away with thanks to government aid. Fuck commie Boomers who got Human Resources jobs they weren't qualified for, have no idea how to hire qualified people, and solely look at degree collections to see whose resume seems the most impressive. No entry-level low-paying job should require excessive qualifications and six years of experience with a coding language that has only existed for two years. Colleges should transform themselves into a place of testing where you go to prove you know what you studied alone using the internet. See, Marx and his buddies intentionally spread these lies because they want a generalized amorphous mass of low-skill "Workers" that can be moved around and replaced as needed, especially if they try to unionize or strike. They don't want a worker population full of smart people who might rise up the ranks meritocratically and do their part to stop corruption, they want to fill the upper ranks of workplaces with the most short-sighted and corrupt Marxists willing to take bribes and overlook Marxist abuses of power.

Marxists said Unions always work and are the only way to make corrupt businesses and industries good. See, a business needs to make money to stay afloat (Unless a corrupt state is funding it). So if a worker started whistle-blowing on the abuse in his workplace even if it meant getting fired, and then a rational and moral populace decided to boycott the megacorps that abuse workers, even if it meant paying extra and buying local goods from independent stores to support the local economy, corrupt businesses wouldn't make so much money. If people were good and we all agreed on what good is, we would fight to hold business-owners to account. We would be the ones forcing businesses to clean up their act, instead of sitting around consooming mindlessly and hoping a union of easily-replaced workers risk their jobs and futures to form a union that can solve the problem for us. Unions can very easily become corrupt, too. Unions don't have to work for the bottom line or the customer or the shareholders or the workers that make it up. They're free to use workers like bargaining chips while demanding that any non-union workers who refuse to join and be used like bargaining chips get fired. And what about places where Unions are "Needed" the most? Does Walmart have a union? How about McDonalds? Do workers unionize when exploited by crunch time and unfair deadlines? Unions can't form where they're needed the most, and they're free to form where they're not needed. Oh, but we do have a Teacher's Union, and you can thank it for many of the things that make public education so shit, especially incompetent teachers that keep their jobs when they shouldn't. Unions are one of those "Good idea in theory, could only work in a theoretical world where everyone is nice and nobody is ever corrupt and unions would never be needed, not very effective in practice" ideas. It's not a perfect solution, but Marxists will call it the only solution because the "underqualified highly-paid union leader" job can be a profitable one if you're corrupt enough.

Marxism said there's no such thing as "ethical consumption under Capitalism". It said there's no such thing as morally and ethically eating/reading/buying something or selling something under capitalism. That's total bullshit, obviously. If you've ever bought an indie game, you've supported the free market. If you've ever bought stupidly expensive honey from a farmer's market, even though the supermarket sells cheaper shit, you've supported the free market. At least once in your life, you've been the reason why someone good can prosper outside of a megacorp. That is ethical consumption under capitalism. A Communist's understanding of Capitalism begins and ends at "Rich people poop on poor workers and that's bad". A Capitalist could spend hours explaining why every last scrap of Marxist thought is wrong. Not that a Marxist would ever stop wanting to do evil things, of course. And Marxism is the best system for an evil person.

Marxism said nothing is true unless a Marxist says so, and we can't truly know anything unless a Marxist thinks it's right. He hated the idea of independent thought and critical thinking, he wanted to replace it with "Critical Theory", the religion of "You're wrong because I said so and if I can find one flaw with your argument or you or what you believe, everything's wrong and needs to be thrown out. But you can't use that same logic against us because we say so". It's just tribalism with a fresh coat of paint. The religious belief that the Marxists need to take power, no matter the cost, and hold onto it, no matter the cost, because they are the Marxists and they see flaws in everyone but themselves.

Marxism said it's the state's duty to kill the free market and nationalize all jobs(so nobody can make their own jobs without government approval), then make work voluntary while paying non-workers to pursue leisure. Also, paying crap businesses to stay afloat without needing to keep themselves afloat from hard work or innovation, he wanted this so unemployment numbers would seem to be low even though little economic or social benefit came from this. This part of Marxism is an appealing lie, to be sure, but it's a lie for a reason. Work wasn't voluntary in the soviet union, was it? People weren't paid for leisure unless you were a corrupt fatcat marxist official whose idea of leisure was abusing power for fun and personal profit while turning a blind eye to abuses of power above and below you. History has proven that collectivism and the centralization of power is a bad idea. If anyone should have political power, it certainly shouldn't be Marxists. But dumb people really, really love the myth that they might one day be paid to enjoy leisure activities all day while others have to toil in the fields. And evil people really, really love the belief that they might one day get to be a corrupt Commissar who kicks down doors and arrests thoughtcriminals but not before clubbing the ugly ones and raping the hot ones and getting away with it all.

Marxism said Western Civilization is shite. He said it's got flaws, therefore it's no better than any other civilization out there.

There are places on this planet without the light of western civilization. Or the sub-par light of eastern civilization. Places where it is normal for a woman to be gang-raped to death in public as punishment to her family because her brother accidentally caused a car accident. Places where "Village Councils" form Sharia Courts where bloody and barbaric stone-age punishments are given out. Have you ever seen the satirical youtube series "All Cultures Are Beautiful"? It shows parts of foreign cultures the BBC's documentaries would try very hard to leave out, because it reminds you that these backwards cultures aren't "Cute and exotic and fun and weird", they've got practices that would make stone-agers vomit.

The cultures that let these monsters get away with institutionalized gang-rape are objectively inferior to "Guns cheeseburger freedom God bless the USA and free speech" American culture. It doesn't matter how much you personally hate a theoretical super-american fat neighbour, you'd survive living in a country full of them. You might find it annoying and hard to make friends, but you'd be able to live a long and happy life in a country full of them. But would you live a long and happy life in a country where getting gang-raped to death is the standard punishment for being accused of "witchcraft" or "Penis thievery"?

Marxism is bad and wrong on every level. If Marxists believed in the good they claim to fight for, they would recognize that there are easier AND more effective ways of achieving good things and fixing the world's problems. They wouldn't fight for a dead ideology that's killed more people than Hitler.

By the way...

I had an idea yesterday, and I decided to try a short post in this thread. One that can be easily read and responded to without room for someone dishonest to pick and choose what he responds to. Your question required a long answer, so that went out the window.

But here comes what I wanted to say in this thread anyway:

If owning any gun suddenly became as illegal as owning two hundred pounds of cocaine, how good do you think the US Government would be at trying to keep guns and cocaine off the streets and out of the black market and out of the country at the same time?

 

I'm getting a strong incel/school shooter/maga/pepe le frog/Alex Jones/etc. vibe from this guy.

 

SilverStar in Rebel with too much goddamn free time and nothing better to do.

Since you check off a couple boxes in your list of internet buzzwords yourself, it must seem eerily familiar to you.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, keep in mind that this post didn't get him any warning points, or warnings from moderators. Keep that in mind in case people start playing the "Silveeer, you're too meeeean!" card on me.

Also, MutantScalper, lol.

Doesn't matter how many words you slander me with, I'm the one becoming an indie dev. What will you be in two years?

But since you mentioned Alex Jones, that reminds me of something.

Remember when the left committed Financial Terrorism against him by trying to get the banks and payment processor sites to refuse to let him send/receive money, and the justification for this was "waaah he criticized some kids who want all guns banned because their bullying victim shot up their school! waaaah he's criticizing political activists- i mean he's harassing children!"

And then a year later, the mere sight of a few white kids nervously smiling as a violent leftist mob of "adults" scream racial slurs at them and bang a drum in their face was enough to trigger the entire left into harassing and doxing those children and calling for their deaths.

Historians will not look kindly upon you. Future generations of children will laugh at you Boomers and your Anti-Humanist Dead Leftism. Hell, kids are already laughing at you lunatics now.

 

Can there be such a discussion without it devolving into tribal warfare? And how would go about derailing a spergout thread, having a civil conversation about gun control?

 

a pretty vague definition of the concept.

Ya, this is a problem but it's not just with capitalism, it's with the entire industrial condition. Transforming people into functional insects which is the process you see in industrial modernity is a problem yes

The average company requires a lot of specialists. Bethesda requires a lot of specialists. It doesn't change the fact their products are low quality as with the rest of the gaming industry because they're commodities made for a profit.

Unions as a concept are good generally speaking. Right now, they're pretty liberalized in the status quo. However, you need some form of reaction or group organization against giant companies like Amazon or Google that actively subvert the state towards their economic interests.

You are correct though that unions as a group are pretty limited in the short term and aren't the full answer to it.

I thought the cool hip thing in the right rn was to rail against production consumption? Yes, consumption of commodities is a bad thing. You and everyone else in NMA have seen the micro effects of this with the Fallout IP.

The fact that indie developers have to rely on a profit in order to stay afloat means that bad trends will still leak in. It isn't at the same level as the AAA industry but you still see this like with the overuse of the 8 bit retro aesthetic or all those games that use survival gameplay.

It's not the capitalist himself who is bad as an individual. It's that their overall relation to production lowers existence, materialistically and spiritually.

The dialectic is one of the most important concepts in that philosophy. A large amount of it is based on finding the bits of truth within other outlooks and combining in its own framework to get an overall better picture.

Critical Theory is postmodernism which is often reactionary towards marxism and has more in common with the Right and people like Plato or nietzsche than it does to the left's material analysis.

You are incorrect. The idea of the kind of society marx wanted to create iirc was one heavily based on local power So with that being said tho. There is nothing wrong with using the state to protect your own, a concept which a lot of the Right such as national conservatives actually agree to.

The entire basis for marx's worldview is based on the Western Canon. ie people like Hegel and Aristotle. So this is a lie.

You mentioned the Middle East. A lot of middle eastern countries use to operate under Arab Socialism, which combined social democracy or socialism towards also nationalist secularization. A good example of this is Gadaffi, an individual who ran one of the most powerful economies in the region of MENA with self owned co opt businesses and numerous privileges such as nationalized electricity. He and other arab socialist leaders wanted to create a region across the middle east and africa with loads of economic independence. One of his ideas was to switch the country's economic basis to something that would give more independence. Gaddafii would later be executed due to capitalist geopolitical influence.








The above is an image of Socialist Afghanistan in the 70s, before the reactionary war which the countries in the west supported later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

 

I'll heat up the stove.


Hitler was a Marxist.

 

Charisma score off the chain.

I don't even speak the language and I'm convinced. It makes me cry how terrible it all is.

 

He's a Marxist. It's impossible for him not to be. It's also impossible for me as a capitalist to not be Marxist. This is a nuianced topic. Das Kapital is perfect critique of the system and the inherent needs that need to be overcome and considered. The natural response to this is branches of factions with competing ideologies to fill the gap left by Marx. This goes under the assumption of the Nitzchean apocrypha of the death of god. The idea is where does this idea of god reside in the intention and motivation of the common man, who's identity has been stripped from him in the modern context of 19th and 20th century Western society.

The Bolshevik Jews, the anarchists, socialists, ect... were all Marxist, but they didn't want to share with "The other" in search of this "Identity" under the absence of "God". No one wants those dirty gypsys and big dick savages spoiling the new order as the incestial humanist worship that was the foundational shadow of this unresolved sexual identity crisis.

Hitler was the one who brought, for a short time, the resurrection of this "God" through identification with the German people. Other peoples identity politics, yes, identity politics indeed, are the divisions of this gap that was left after the nihilism brought by industrialization, complex theorem and unresolved paradoxes at the time, conflicting cultural heritages, and the devastation of identity brought by the absence of a unifying force for the peoples of Europe.

However, the economic therom is all the same. Marxism is the basis for modern interpretations and complex behavioral models of neo-liberal economic theorem.

Basically Hitler tickled Germany's anal chakra and became The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirt.

 

Universe doesn't work that way. Human beings are elemental constructs. Uranium is usually found underground physically and metaphorically. If it was in the light of the day the radiation would overwhelm and destroy.

Talents should be utilized in their correct modality.

A poet stirs the soul and the soul is ...