/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>397584
oh em gee, it's written in plain English so a retard could understand it, workers of the world unite and all that

>>397580
The USA supplied raw materials and sometimes finished materials to allied nations dating back to before they even entered the war. The USA was a capitalist country ofc.

>>397584
>Das Kapital reads like schizophrenia.
How? What exactly is schizophrenic about it? Give examples.
>Communist utopia, whatever its called, sounds like Christian Garden of Eden fairy tales.
I have no idea what book you are taking about. Are you talking about Socialism: Utopian and Scientific? Because that's by Engels, and tears open utopian conceptions of socialism.

>>397590
You've read it from cover to cover then?

>>397594
No, I got halfway through and decided to move on to his other works, like the critique of the gotha program, which again, is very exoteric with it's sources and citations

>>397560
>None of it came true. Productivity under communism never eclipsed capitalist systems while simultaneously requiring less labor.
<if we produce more then that means this system is better than that other system.
Even if this was the case, no "socialist country" fully achieved lower-stage communism. No one, not even an anarchist, would argue that Capitalism would be abolished over night. What is important is if they make do with the abolition of the current state of things. By necessity, these systems would have to go under a transition from one system to another. If we're going to argue in terms of productivity, I may as well conclude that Anarchist Spain had a better economy than the soviet union due to them producing more, never mind the fact that the Soviet Union was in a unique position of transitioning from a feudalist empire to the superpower state that it would become.

>The standard of living in communist countries also never eclipsed capitalist ones.
How do you define standard of living? Each socialist revolution, Marxist, Anarchist etc, resulted in an increase in education, health, and a lowering of crime. Cuba itself has a better health care system and literacy rate than the USA, all the while under an embargo. China itself was able to eliminate Corona virus infested regions quicker than the USA did.

>Marx stated that capitalist systems eventually necessitate their own replacement with socialist systems, when actually the inverse has been true, and every socialist state eventually requires a switch to capitalism. Currently this is being observed in Cuba, which may or may not become capitalist, but I think a majority of Cubans want capitalism now.

Socialism requires an internationalist revolution in order to sustain itself, considering the backstabbing and infighting amongst socialist govs, and having state beauraucrats and politicians act in their own interest as opposed to that of internationalist socialism. Cuba, the Zapatista controlled Chiapas, AANES, all exist in relative isolation, with a lack of an internationalist socialist network, or a very weak one at that. Again, you can't expect revolutionaries to hit the socialist button and immediately abolish commodity production, the state, or class all at once.

>Cubans want capitalism now
Considering the fact that you've had a history of left-resistance in Cuba, most of the youth of Cuba criticise the Cuban government for not being socialist enough. The only ones demanding capitalism are CIA backed protestors and Gusanos.

>The list could go on and on..
Why do Nazis deliver these absolutes thinking they're beyond change and cannot evolve based on changing material conditions. History isn't "Humans vs Orcs".

>>397584
>Durr I refuse to read
Filtered.

Yo mods. Nazi flag fag arguing in bad faith and ignoring posts to just answer cultural idpol shit. Sage.

>>397591
>The USA supplied raw materials and sometimes finished materials to allied nations dating back to before they even entered the war. The USA was a capitalist country ofc.
You didn't refute what he stated at all. The US was at the time an unravaged country with vast access to relatively easy to exploit resources of various kind who could funnel them to its allies from relative safety. The USSR was a besieged country that couldn't aquire a large portion of the natural resources it had in many of it's territories without extreme effort due to climate and permafrost, and which had to deal with trying to maintain production during an invasion they were unprepared while having a productive labour force that was actually smaller then the Nazis (beginning of the war the Soviets had 11,000,000 while the Germans had 16,400,000, at the end 9,000,000 Soviet Laborers vs 18,000,000 German ones). And they still outproduced the Axis.

>>397582
>They absolutely did relative to those capitalist countries sharing similar conditions.
Come on. The USSR had more people and raw resources than the USA did during much of the 20th century. The difference was that capitalism rewards innovation with a potential reward that draws innovators. Communism doesn't.

>We never got to communism, communism exists world historically. What we got were revolutionary governments aimed in the pursuit of overturning capitalism, which eventually fell to counter revolution and capitalist suppression.
Yeah, so it's a mythical fantasy. If you require the entire world to acquiesce to your ideology in order for your ideology to 'win', then what you have is a bullshit ideology. It can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.

>No, he states that the trajectory of system makes it so there can either be revolution, or the mutual ruin of the classes. It isn't set that the capitalist system will just roll over to a socialist one. It can very well just fall apart altogether and pull everyone down with it when the TRPF approaches zero.
So that did happen with the USSR. It hasn't happened yet in North America or Europe afaik. In capitalist countries, the reported life satisfaction of residents correlates with things that are outside the realm of economic systems, such as societal harmony, racial/religious/ethnic homogeneity, and traditional culture/values.

>Cuba
You really don't believe that Cubans would switch systems of government if it were left up to democratic vote? I think those choosing capitalism would mog those chosing to remain by at least a 8:2 ratio.

>>397614
Literally 9/10 posts are directed at me because I'm the only non Marxist here. My internet is crap and keeps flickering on/off. I'm not arguing in bad faith. Please stop trying to control the dialogue.

Lol what a trash thread

I don't see the point anymore. I think I've seen enough.

>>397623
>Come on. The USSR had more people and raw resources than the USA did during much of the 20th century. The difference was that capitalism rewards innovation with a potential reward that draws innovators. Communism doesn't.

I'll take "What is a lie that anti-communists tell themselves to cope" for $1917 dollars, Jerry.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending

>ah, so it's a mythical fantasy. If you require the entire world to acquiesce to your ideology in order for your ideology to 'win', then what you have is a bullshit ideology. It can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Markets are fucking stupid, and considering the fact your ideology had to rape, pillage, plunder, and genocide its way across the globe you're in no position to talk about "fair competition" considering the fact they did so because Nazis found themselves under massive debt.
Considering the fact that during the 20th century African nations were adopting socialist stances as a means to gain independence, alongside a good chunk of asia and europe should tell you that it wasn't an unpopular idea. Most of these nations CHOSE to become socialist and adopt revolution. Your nation on the other hand had to commit genocide and appeal to mythic notions of racial superiority to do so, only for you to be BTFO by races you deemed inferior all the while taking a one way ticket to the cuck pits.

>You really don't believe that Cubans would switch systems of government if it were left up to democratic vote? I think those choosing capitalism would mog those chosing to remain by at least a 8:2 ratio.
<yeah dude, let's just go back to the time of batista and being a bitch to the US
Again, the youth accuse the government of cuba of not being socialist enough. It's likely they'd either start a process of more radical forms of democracy as opposed to the bullshit the USA represents.

>>397661
Petulant man-baby. Wtf does climate change blogs have to do with whether the USA and USSR had similar conditions during the 20th century? Not going to reward you with a real reply until you answer.

>>397682
Do you have a counter argument at all or are you just going to constantly move goal posts and ask questions that are obviously worded give an answer to suit your bias?

>>397623
>Come on. The USSR had more people and raw resources than the USA did during much of the 20th century. The difference was that capitalism rewards innovation with a potential reward that draws innovators. Communism doesn't.
The USSR literally had countless innovations that at times eclipsed the US, and where did you hear that people weren't awarded for innovations?The US even after the cold was cannabilized countless of these innovations, form industrial production to casting. The USSR had more people, but you greatly underestimate the amount of accessible resources for a good chunk of the USSR. For a great deal of time, many resources lay under difficult to near impossible to explore terrain until vast industrialization changed the equation, and even then it was difficult work.
>Yeah, so it's a mythical fantasy. If you require the entire world to acquiesce to your ideology in order for your ideology to 'win', then what you have is a bullshit ideology. It can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Literally every consequential system inevitably requires the world to exert itself. Capitalism is global, thus communisn must be global as well. It's not "bullshit", it's fucking reality. You live in a global economy dominated by a global bourgeoisie, and you claim that it's absurd that one needs the world to acquiesce ideology? Who are you trying to convince here? And don't talk about something being "mythical" when you wholeheartedly buy into the mythology of the "marketplace of ideas", as if it's the best ideas that win out in terms of popularity in the system we operate in.

>So that did happen with the USSR.
How do that happen in the USSR? The USSR reverted to capitalism from internal subversion and various other factors, it didn't decline in its TRPF.
>It hasn't happened yet in North America or Europe afaik. In capitalist countries, the reported life satisfaction of residents correlates with things that are outside the realm of economic systems, such as societal harmony, racial/religious/ethnic homogeneity, and traditional culture/values.
That's just a lie. Reported satisfaction absolutely correlates with the economic situation of society, and nothing is truely outside of the realm of the mechanisms of the economic system. It is the base which shapes the superstructure after all. The fact that you think that things like societal harmony or the values of society are outside of economics speaks to the absurdity of your views.
>You really don't believe that Cubans would switch systems of government if it were left up to democratic vote? I think those choosing capitalism would mog those chosing to remain by at least a 8:2 ratio.
Anon, the majority of people are literally protesting against the anti-government demonstrators. No, I don't think most would choose what you are stating.

>>397698
*to exploit terrain

>>397687
I stated earlier that I'm not looking for pasta here. This disagreeable poster is the one trying to obfuscate here, not me. I have nothing to hide from..

They're not sending their best, folks.

>>397706
>I come here in good faith
<Insert disingenuous bullshit.
The problem’s not that you’re here for b8, really inasmuch as you’re a fucking moron regurgitating myths and misconceptions you have about marxism uncritically.

>>397682
>refuses to read
>shits bed
typical.

>>397706
>I stated earlier that I'm not looking for pasta here. This disagreeable poster is the one trying to obfuscate here, not me. I have nothing to hide from.
Why did your argument shift from Marx is incorrect and wrong, Das Capital is schizo-tier, to Marx may be right, but he's wrong because we aren't in socialism? Can you actually give a part of Capital you found to be incorrect?

>>397698
>The USSR literally had countless innovations that at times eclipsed the US, and where did you hear that people weren't awarded for innovations?The US even after the cold was cannabilized countless of these innovations, form industrial production to casting. The USSR had more people, but you greatly underestimate the amount of accessible resources for a good chunk of the USSR. For a great deal of time, many resources lay under difficult to near impossible to explore terrain until vast industrialization changed the equation, and even then it was difficult work.
-despite having more people and more land, the USA mogged the USSR during the 20th century in innovation. The USSR, much like modern China, relied on theft of intellectual property FROM the United States, in order to compete with the United States.
-communism did not eclipse capitalism in innovation during the 20th century
>Literally every consequential system inevitably requires the world to exert itself. Capitalism is global, thus communisn must be global as well. It's not "bullshit", it's fucking reality. You live in a global economy dominated by a global bourgeoisie, and you claim that it's absurd that one needs the world to acquiesce ideology? Who are you trying to convince here? And don't talk about something being "mythical" when you wholeheartedly buy into the mythology of the "marketplace of ideas", as if it's the best ideas that win out in terms of popularity in the system we operate in.
The marketplace for ideas died out in 1991 when the USSR collapsed, and China embraced capitalism. What more is there to say about that? Your system if government draws no new adherents, save for the adolescents who are looking for a social clique and don't fit in elsewhere. Where in the world are people clamoring for socialism, and are they doing so merely because they perceive socialism as a welfare state?
>How do that happen in the USSR? The USSR reverted to capitalism from internal subversion and various other factors, it didn't decline in its TRPF.
The citizens, especially young people, were absolutely fed up with communism and yearning for American culture. Whether that was wise remains a subject of debate, but it's also what occurred in China when they opened up their economy to capitalism. 1.2 million Russian/republic Jews immediately came to the United States, and built comfortable lives here.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-O9X22TMo_go/XbZB5LCCi7I/AAAAAAAASDQ/gSMsKQ9bTOMsuw4jhhV0ybuDsCGf329EgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Mcdonalds_Soviet_Union_Moscow%2B%25289-1%2529.jpg

>That's just a lie. Reported satisfaction absolutely correlates with the economic situation of society, and nothing is truely outside of the realm of the mechanisms of the economic system. It is the base which shapes the superstructure after all. The fact that you think that things like societal harmony or the values of society are outside of economics speaks to the absurdity of your views.
Traditions and values last if they're not soiled and diluted. They outlast your petty economic shell game. They're the pillars on which western civilization were built upon, and they're older even than Christianity. You know nothing except your precious economic theory that Jews invented for you. Where are they now? They're all capitalists you schmuck, lmao.

>Anon, the majority of people are literally protesting against the anti-government demonstrators. No, I don't think most would choose what you are stating.
Hm, I'm sure the state doesn't jail and torture pro capitalist protestors too. Do you want cubas biggest tourist industry to remain prostitution? That's what socialist government has managed to offer as innovation bucko. The petite bourgeois casinos were replaced by women selling their bodies for food money. Again pragmatic analyses is something you ought to do more of.

>>397712
K. Communism promises all sorts of wonderful pie-in-the-sky fantasies, and what it usually delivers can be safely encapsulated in this picture - one fat porky motherfucker eating KFC in front of the starving masses, while dressed like Mao the great one.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/03/venezuelan_president_maduro_caught_scarfing_empanada_during_live_tv_address/empanada.png.CROP.promo-large.png

>>397745
>This is what communism is
>Shows vuvuzela
We're done with you.

>>397745
That's not KFC it's an empanada you stupid nazi, it literally says so on the link

>>397740
>prostitution
>That's what socialist government has managed to offer as innovation bucko.
Not True at all, Cuba has the best medicine research in LatAm, 2 of the best COVID vaccines are cuban.

>>397740
>-despite having more people and more land, the USA mogged the USSR during the 20th century in innovation. The USSR, much like modern China, relied on theft of intellectual property FROM the United States, in order to compete with the United States.
This is blatantly flase, and what limited "theft" that occured, the US had already done in the past in it's development as well. The USSR came from a near feudal society to a massive industrial power house in but a few decades, despite being ravaged twice utterly devastating wars and having a landscape that for a good portion was incredibly difficult to exploit. Just saying "more land and more people" entirely leaves out the context of the actual land people lived on.
>communism did not eclipse capitalism in innovation during the 20th century
Depends on which field. In many, it completely did, and it would be a lie to say differently.
>The marketplace for ideas died out in 1991 when the USSR collapsed, and China embraced capitalism.
The "marketplace of ideas" never existed in the firstplace. There's no "marketplace of ideas" where the best ideas compete and the best are just selected based on merit. There is just systems, and the power or lack of such to dominate the ideological sphere.
>What more is there to say about that? Your system if government draws no new adherents, save for the adolescents who are looking for a social clique and don't fit in elsewhere. Where in the world are people clamoring for socialism, and are they doing so merely because they perceive socialism as a welfare state?
This isn't an actual argument regards to socialism itself. And we can observe developments throughout the developing and imperialized of socialist struggle returning piece by piece.
>The citizens, especially young people, were absolutely fed up with communism and yearning for American culture. Whether that was wise remains a subject of debate, but it's also what occurred in China when they opened up their economy to capitalism. 1.2 million Russian/republic Jews immediately came to the United States, and built comfortable lives here.
The majority absolutely did not want an end to the USSR and the socialist system it had. Bringing up pictures of McDonalds is not an argument in the face of actual statistics, and neither is a portion of Jews leaving (particularly in the context of the entirety of the USSR, which was far larger then that).
>Traditions and values last if they're not soiled and diluted. They outlast your petty economic shell game. They're the pillars on which western civilization were built upon, and they're older even than Christianity. You know nothing except your precious economic theory that Jews invented for you. Where are they now? They're all capitalists you schmuck, lmao.
Where are your traditions? Completely alien to those held by those before you. "Traditions" and values do not exist in a vacuum, and you betray your own argument when you state "if they're not soiled and diluted", as if thats something you control at the end of the day. Every "tradition" you can name currently is something sperated from those of the past, of which are completely dead their own right. The only consistent tradition has been the tradition of destroying previous tradions, a practice as old as man itself. The economic theory I state is immortal though, beucae it is a living science, not a dead and rotting corpse of a "tradition" that you post-modernly wear the skin of to obscenely pleasure yourself.
>Hm, I'm sure the state doesn't jail and torture pro capitalist protestors too. Do you want cubas biggest tourist industry to remain prostitution? That's what socialist government has managed to offer as innovation bucko. The petite bourgeois casinos were replaced by women selling their bodies for food money. Again pragmatic analyses is something you ought to do more of.
If it does jail those protestors, then it's absolutely proper for them to do so. I have no doubt you would do the same for communists. Cuba's biggest tourist industry isn't prostitution either, where the fuck did you pull that from? There was an issue nearly 15 years ago, but they addressed it and now it's practically impossible to find one, especially in tourist areas. And do I need to even point out all the prostitution rampant in the capitalist countries you claim to be superior? If this is your "pragmatic analysis", it's lacking.

>>397745
>muh vuvuzela
Yeah, how dare a political leader eat an empanada in between having to give an address. Lunch is strictly prohibited for politicians now. What KFC are you even talking about, the link itself literally says empanada.

>>397740
>The marketplace for ideas died out in 1991 when the USSR collapsed, and China embraced capitalism. What more is there to say about that?
I think there are some objective economic forces that can't be superceded until those forces reach their limit. So the USSR was ahead of its time in that respect, because it tried to function as a more advanced form of "socialism" before the productive forces were ready, causing the economic and political systems to fall out of sync. I think China made the correct decision by "pulling back" and tolerating some degree of a market economy for now. But, if you follow what's going on there, they have been moving in a more "socialist" direction and I expect that to continue. It's also important to get the politics right, and have a strong party, unlike what happened in the USSR.

There's something Deng said that I think I agree with:

>Fallaci: New things are truly happening in China! And, speaking of new things, let’s talk a little about the opening to the capitalist West. This is largely an economic opening, necessary to realize the project of the Four Modernizations. Since this opening will introduce foreign capital into China, it’s reasonable to assume that this will allow for the spread of private property. But isn’t this just the dawn of a new capitalism, in miniature?

>Deng: Let’s say that the principles that we are following as we rebuild this country are essentially the same that were formulated at the time of Chairman Mao: to concentrate on our strengths and to consider international assistance as a subsidiary factor and nothing more. In whatever measure we open ourselves to the world — in whatever way we use foreign capital or accept the assistance of private investments — this assistance will only constitute a small part of the Chinese economy. In other words, foreign capital — and even the fact that foreigners will build factories in China — will not influence, in any way, our system, which is a socialist system based upon public ownership of the means of production. Despite this, we are aware that the decadent influence of capital will inevitably develop in China. Well, I don’t think that’s such a terrible thing. I don’t think that it’s correct to be afraid of this.

>Fallaci: Do you mean to say that capitalism isn’t so bad after all?

>Deng: It depends on the way you look at it. In any case, it is better than feudalism. We cannot say that all of the things that have been developed in capitalist countries are of a capitalist nature. Technology, for example; science; the ways of managing the economy, which is another science in itself, do not bear a classist stigma. And we intend to learn these things from you in order to aid us in our construction of a socialist society.

>Fallaci: And yet, at the end of the 1950s, I seem to recall, when you realized that the Great Leap Forward had been a failure, you recognized that man needs an incentive to produce; I would even argue that man needs an incentive to exist. Doesn’t that mean questioning the ideas of Communism itself?

>Deng: According to Marx, socialism, which is the first stage of Communism, covers a very long period. And, during this period, we will try to fulfill the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” In other words, we will blend the interests of the individual with the interests of the country. There is no other way to mobilize interest in production among the masses, let’s admit it. And since the capitalist West will be helping us to overcome the backwardness we find ourselves in — the poverty that afflicts us — it doesn’t seem opportune to get caught up in the subtleties. However things go, the positive effects will be greater than the negative effects.

>>397712
Greeaaaat. I asked for evidence that Marxism delivers its promises, and in return I heard that it can't deliver, unless the entire world embraces it and its basically a world system of government.

You
Fucking
Lose

>>397740
>-despite having more people and more land, the USA mogged the USSR during the 20th century in innovation. The USSR, much like modern China, relied on theft of intellectual property FROM the United States, in order to compete with the United States.
-communism did not eclipse capitalism in innovation during the 20th century

http://www.infoniac.com/hi-tech/top-10-inventions-made-in-ussr.html
>First man in space
>first probe into space
<but we landed on da moon
<b-but by your logic it wasn't real communism

So? A system itself doesn't produce an invention based on ideology alone. Necessity is the mother of all innovation.
<you use computer that is made by capitalism
We will hang the bourgoise with the rope that they sell us.

>still has weapons and technology that is used today by pretty much everyone.

>buy into the mythology of the "marketplace of ideas", as if it's the best ideas that win out in terms of popularity in the system we operate in.
<if thing is popular it automatically good
And you call us NPCs.

>The marketplace for ideas died out in 1991 when the USSR collapsed, and China embraced capitalism. What more is there to say about that?
To say that this is the final development in socialist praxis and theory is bullshit. Communism doesn't end with China nor did it end when the USSR collapsed. Is the way it is based on a combination of both domestic policies relating to how it operated on the world stage. We can ring our hands with what could have been done or we can learn from this mistake while simultaneously dealing with what we have now.

>Your system if government draws no new adherents, save for the adolescents who are looking for a social clique and don't fit in elsewhere.
<He says this when the groyper movement exists.

>Where in the world are people clamoring for socialism, and are they doing so merely because they perceive socialism as a welfare state?
https://www.newsweek.com/socialism-america-gallup-poll-1431266
>b-but it's a welfare state, that's just social democracy
Good chunk of Supposed socialist govs operate on this form of governance, from Bolivia and now soon to Peru. Even then, that doesn't mean that the journey towards socialism is a finality.

Socialism has fostered progress, innovation, and the development of human beings, rehabilitating, rebuilding, revolutionising where and when it needs to. What has Nazism and facism done other than spread genocide, misery and domination based on false heirarchies and delusional views of supremacy?
>b-but they ran the trains on time, and protect muh caravans

I bet you fucking unironically think the legion was great in fallout new vegas too. You will either be Xi pilled or you will Google Bookchin. Either way, the future is now, old man.

>>397749
>socialism is the first phase of communism
>fat fuck eating empanadas while his people starve to death is going to bring about utopia

Neat.

>>397768
t. chinlet

>>397764
>I asked for evidence that Marxism delivers its promises, and in return I heard that it can't deliver, unless the entire world embraces it and its basically a world system of government.
Marxism demonstrates that economic substructure determines political superstructure which in return reinforces the former. Marxism also argues the relationship of production should correspond to social productivity. What Marxists mean is that when social productivity is strong enough, socialism will come out to replace capitalism. Why? Because capitalism can no longer escape from its cycle of crises.

And capitalism is running into many problems given advances in automation and the potential for new markets – and thus the potential to exploit profit – are coming to an end. Because of the rise of developing countries, the welfare regime mainly practiced in Western Europe is running out of money to pay off the social class tensions, creating many social problems.

So socialism is the only way to solve the problem, i.e. nationalizing major enterprises to distribute goods and services through certain mechanisms equally and freely…. assisted by computer technology and extremely advanced social productivity in which the state directly regulates and controls production and the market. Then, given the accumulated experience from that, socialism will gradually move into communism in which class society will cease to exist. And this will take a long time, just like capitalism emerged over a long period of time to replace feudalism, and feudalism took a long period of time to emerge in Europe out of the Roman Empire.

Communism isn't a fantasy. It's real and it's coming. Karl Marx was right.

>>397767
>muh space
Useless.
Who had nukes first? Whole stole nuclear secrets from whom?
> thing is bad and unpopular thing still good
outlier human psychology
>we lost ussr and china, but don't count us out
I admire your optimism
>Newsweek newspeak
40% is the exact share of non-whites in the country. Again, are they looking for welfare state here? You have no idea what you're up against if you think these people give a shit about your ideology. They just want free stuff muchacho.

>Socialism has fostered progress, innovation, and the development of human beings, rehabilitating, rebuilding, revolutionising where and when it needs to.
Jesus that sounds like a PBS commercial for the Arthur J Sloan foundation. Wtf did socialism build muchacho?
>What has Nazism and facism done other than spread genocide, misery and domination based on false heirarchies and delusional views of supremacy?
You're going to tell me hierarchies don't exist or aren't deserved? The Chinese don't believe that. Blacks don't believe that. They simply view themselves as the rightful top of the hierarchy, which is why building a coalition without congruity will see you become their servant, unless you're in their particular demographic.

>I bet you fucking unironically think the legion was great in fallout new vegas too. You will either be Xi pilled or you will Google Bookchin. Either way, the future is now, old man.
I haven't played a video game since I turned 12. When I was a child, I did childish things. But when I became a man, I put away the toys of childhood.

>>397777
>Who had nukes first? Whole stole nuclear secrets from whom?
The US stole nuclear technology from Germany

>>397777
Since when do we let fucking Nazis post here. Hey anon, have you ever had a non-white friend before? Your ideas are retarded and you should seppuku

>>397781
Oh oh. They were Nazis weren't they? Chalk one up for the good guys.

>>397782
Yes I've had non white friends. So did German Nazis. One Nazi combat general even had a Jewish wife and his kids were half Jewish. You only know what you've been told. I'm here to tell you the truth instead.

>>397777
>Who had nukes first? Whole stole nuclear secrets from whom?
<who had rockets into space first
<who stole innovations from whom
Not an argument.

>outlier human psychology
Not an argument

>I admire your optimism
Not an argument

>40% is the exact share of non-whites in the country. Again, are they looking for welfare state here? You have no idea what you're up against if you think these people give a shit about your ideology. They just want free stuff muchacho.
Based. Fuck work. Also, not an argument.

>Jesus that sounds like a PBS commercial for the Arthur J Sloan foundation.
And you sound like a redditor.
>Wtf did socialism build muchacho?
Gave you a list as have other anons ITT, lists and examples mind you, which you wilfully ignored or as typical with dorks like you, downplay.

You're going to tell me hierarchies don't exist or aren't deserved?
You're going to tell me to believe in social constructs and invalid forms of organisation that only hinder human mobility? Or that heirarchical organisation is the only one that exists?

>The Chinese don't believe that.
False. The Chinese aren't a monolith.

https://libcom.org/files/The%20Chinese%20anarchist%20movement.pdf

>Blacks don't believe that.
False. Black people aren't a monolith
https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/anarkata
So again, not an argument

>They simply view themselves as the rightful top of the hierarchy.
As did many Europeans, be it in the shape of monarchs or emperors. But given the trend of Marxist movements, Anarchist movements, and the establishments of republics in the face of these odds, that was soon overturned. To argue generalise the thought of a human population is not only lazy, it's outright ahistoric considering how society changes and develops ideas unconsciously. So again, you provide no arguments.


>which is why building a coalition without congruity will see you become their servant, unless you're in their particular demographic.
I'm sure some do, and others don't. Why should I declare war on a an entire group of people, considering there are those who don't want to see me dead.

Pic very much related

>>397791
> people who know references outside of video games, imageboards, Marxist theory, and incel lyfe are redditors
Cool story Taylor. Make sure mom tucks you into bed tonight, and reads you a bedtime story.

if you just reply again you win the argument

>>397831
I just realized I was arguing with a 14 year old anarchist. Lol Jesus Christ, why are they here?

>>397840
I understand you're not a real nazi and just trying to radicalize posters

>>397844
Define what a real Nazi is.

This is more like talking to someone from r/neoliberal really. The Nazis we used to get were of a different caliber.

>>397541
>I didn't ask whether the profession is valid, right?
If you don't think economics is a profession that performs better than random people when making guesses about the future (see the infamous study by Philip Tetlock), then your analogy with doctors does not work. Or do you believe that formally educated doctors don't perform better than randos playing doctor.

>>397777
>>397783
>>397786
>>397829
>>397840
>>397848
Why didn't you respond at all to any of the other posts? Why did you ignore the actual points made and just attempted to hand wave it?