/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain't driving 20 minutes to riot."

Mode: Thread

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

(62.28 KB 775x514 DOWn.jpg)
/crisis/ General Comrade 08/05/2019 (Mon) 07:43:55 No. 8552 [Reply] [Last]
DOW/Market Watch Thread
monitoring the market, trends, fluctuations, etc.
495 posts and 84 images omitted.
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1319238264901992448 Turkish lira near the 8 for a dollar mark. At this point the question is only when will recession hit?
>>1020900 implode.Totalwar can't happen becuase of opposition is already in doomerism here >>1013851 their* he is just an puppet.And you can do that by buying chinese EVs;it would trigger them >>1006045 Nah,consipracies would gain power within reactionaries* that was what happened in 2008-crisis and illuminati >>1005361 yes;that's why they are blatantly anti-commie nowadays >>998758 watch when all boomers are dead and gen-z gained power >>974285 i hope those machines would also buy an product
>>1029164 >>1029013 if Turkey imploded what would happen? geopolitically speaking it seems to cause a huge power vacuum in the middle east
>>1030064 Megali idea :ddddd T. Pol
>>1029013 Recently the pentagon threatened with repercussions for Turkey testing the S-400. So I am guessing this a U.S. sabotage to the biggest OTAN member after the U.S.

(110.16 KB 256x256 space.png)
Why explore space? Anonymous 10/09/2020 (Fri) 22:55:32 No. 976189 [Reply] [Last]
All the futurist aesthetics about exploring space is bullshit. Space is not going anywhere. "We're going to terraform Mars!" We need to terraform Earth. Have you seen how bad things are here? This crap about going to space is an enormous cope for the current state of the world. It reflects a juvenile drive to escape responsibility and reality and dare I say it reeks of quasi-religious eschatology about ascending to the heavens. The Soviet space program focused more on near-earth orbit for a reason. Satellites have real life applications. The whole "space race" meme was a result of the US trying to make up for embarrassment by setting largely pointless goals purely for the sake of showing off. Clinging to spacefaring aesthetics that came out of the "space race" is falling for capitalist propaganda. Regular space travel has been 10 years away for 50 years. Space will be there to explore after we've sorted out the problems on our little world. Don't be upset you were born too soon to explore the stars. You were born at the right time to get your species on the right track. And if we don't, space exploration will be even less likely to happen in the future. Fuck space. Space can wait.
301 posts and 46 images omitted.
>>976189 Terraforming Earth and 'colonizing' space aren't mutually exclusive. Sure, we don't need to build a fucking city on Mars right away or whatever and suggesting we should is a bit Reddit, but figuring out how to launch things from less massive objects (e.g. the moon) and figuring out how to exploit the massive amount of resources in our solar system has just as much real world applicability as satelites.
>>1019210 >Sure, we don't need to build a fucking city on Mars right away More like never, build space habitats
>>1019216 Yeah I prefer those too I was moreso just talking about colonizing space for permanent settlement
>>1018228 hence why i said we need a paradigm shift, obviously. and there is no reason to assume that space exploration will provide that shift. we need something akin to the quantum revolution, and that's more likely to happen in a high energy lab than anywhere else.
1. Conquer the solar system 2. Conquer the galaxy 3. Conquer the universe 4. Spread Marxism throughout the cosmos 5. Get killed for "MUH RED FASHY IMPERIALISM" 6. No, fuck the cosmos, Earth is worth it more

(575.34 KB 3000x2000 Mike Bloomberg.jpg)
the nuclear option against 4chan Anonymous 10/23/2020 (Fri) 23:54:55 No. 1029887 [Reply] [Last]
https://www.wired.com/2015/09/4chan-sold/ Hiroyuki Nishimura seems to be worth <$10 million USD. Is there really not a single Democrat who can step forward to buy the site? I understand that the Dems are not our comrades, but I cannot think of anyone better to buy the site than Mike Bloomberg, who spent $1 billion on his own vanity campaign for the Democratic Leadership. Shuttering /pol/ and normalising the politics of the site would be good for us. Alternatively, we could convince Tencent to buy it, which would be even better.
25 posts and 2 images omitted.
Why would u want this? Some of the boards(a, gif, k to name some) there are still good.
(133.73 KB 1280x1280 im-222837.jpeg)
>>1030066 Cope. Uncle Joey is gonna sweep the election.
>>1030135 >a pollyp eastern colony >k pollyp armory The only one I actually find tolerable nowadays is /tg/, and even then, not by much
jesus you guys post there still? expect the feds in a few years at your door waiting 2 take u to the camps

(196.73 KB 1155x661 MATERIALLY BASED.png)
/Beardtube/ Growing Thread Anonymous 08/05/2020 (Wed) 14:36:44 No. 747700 [Reply] [Last]
Hello comrades, As you can see i made this thread with the purpose of helping growing the so called Beardtube milieu of channels (The term is basically a proxy to say Marxist adjacent/Marxist Youtube channels). I'm asking the mods to keep this distinct from /IG/ if anything because I'd like this thread to be a place for small comrade channels to grow and also because /IG/ includes also non Marxist left content discussion. That said, I will leave down there a partial list of Marxist and Marx-adjacent channels to follow if interested in those kind of contents on Youtube. Here's the list: Okay here we go The Beardtube list : -/Leftypol/ videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSm1_XO-zvR0ToSJYMljmPA -Anticonquista https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl1bDSVi34xE65YzreytVxQ -Austrian_Maoist1

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Edited last time by Degoist on 08/26/2020 (Wed) 09:15:51.
484 posts and 39 images omitted.
>>749415 the guy's pretty cringe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO9xvnhMW5M >Did 'Fascist Aesthetics' Start With Trotsky?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3_oLOFesHM Yugopnik and Paul Morrin LIVE toalking about social media and socialists
https://youtu.be/ClLKm8Q8Pns Hakim is BACK with a video in the death toll of capitalism. https://youtu.be/MdOGLv3MyJA The HUGE CHAD also known as Fellow Traveler besides being an anon here is also out with a new video, reflecting on the lessons we could take from Bolivia.
Comrades in Poland need our support! NOW! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0Ll54bZnM

(309.67 KB 1500x1000 whitmer_rally_0038.jpg)
So apparently some militia member were plotting to overthrow the state government of michigan Anonymous 10/23/2020 (Fri) 23:00:21 No. 1029706 [Reply] [Last]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54470427 >According to a sworn FBI affidavit, an undercover law enforcement source attended a June meeting in Dublin, Ohio, where a group of Michigan-based militia members discussed overthrowing state governments "that they believed were violating the US Constitution" >"Several members talked about murdering 'tyrants' or 'taking' a sitting governor," the charging document states. In one video, a suspect denounced the state's role in deciding when to reopen gyms during the coronavirus lockdown. >The men met in a basement that was accessed by a trapdoor hidden under a rug, investigators say. Their phones were gathered and placed in another room to avoid secret recordings, but the undercover FBI source was wearing a separate recording device. >Six men - five from Michigan and one from Delaware - are accused in federal court of plotting the kidnap. They allegedly planned to hold a "treason trial" against Mrs Whitmer. >These six were named as Adam Fox, Barry Croft, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, Brandon Casert and Ty Garbin. Mr Garbin's residence, in a trailer park, was raided by authorities on Wednesday. >The other seven face charges of terrorism and gang-related offences in state court in connection with the alleged abduction plot. >They are Paul Bellar, Shawn Fix, Eric Molitor, Michael Null, William Null, Pete Musico and Joseph Morrison. >The group wished to gather about "200 men" to storm the capitol building and take hostages, including the governor. They hoped to enact their plan before the November presidential election. If that failed, they planned to attack the governor at her home, officials say.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

2 posts omitted.
I would honestly love to see this happen. The attempt. It was be like CHAZ, but more organised in a purely military sense, but 8x as retarded. Which means that it would last longer, but ultimately the fall out would be so, so much greater. Imagine WACO or Ruby Ridge but like, over an entire town or something they decided to take over. Shit would be so cash
(116.59 KB 800x800 1567425061962.jpg)
>Mr Garbin's residence, in a trailer park Of course.
I don't really even care who does this I just want to see government power get eroded and challenged more and more
>>1029762 >I just want to see government power get eroded and challenged If by "challenged" you mean a skinny guy who has never fought before getting into the ring with Mike Tyson and then getting destroyed in a single punch is "challenging" Mike Tyson, you could say something similar about what's going on here.

(6.10 KB 225x225 ilovecapitalism.jpeg)
Anonymous 10/23/2020 (Fri) 16:35:22 No. 1028543 [Reply] [Last]
The problem with that Karl Marx thinking is fractions and what motivates human desire. You can't take 100% output and give each person 100% of the output. Each person is rewarded a fraction of the output accordingly to what they do. You can't divide it evenly either, else that demotivates people. I.E Why spend 8 years studying to become an electrical engineer when one can become a garbage collector and get the same reward? That is the point of personal responsibility and individuality. Everybody has the freedom to do what they want with their time. Nobody is putting a gun to someone's head saying they can't study and get an education. If someone is born poor, its not their fault, but if they die poor its their fault not anybody else.
38 posts and 4 images omitted.
>>1028543 >huh duh human nature Kys mate.
>>1028543 Would it fucking kill you people to read a book before forming an opinion
>>1029049 >wagie Reminder that NEETs will be gulaged after the revolution if they refuse to get a job and contribute to society.
>>1028563 rofl, if most "min wage" jobs actually fucking paid a living wage and gave autonomy and respect to boot there would be LITERALLY nothing wrong with collecting garbage it's a necessary service, as is cooking food, stocking shelves and so on
>>1029722 Excuse me Grand Marshal with all due respect but speaking freely, technically we will be giving them a varied choice of jobs so it will be a matter of them refusing to take a job not get a job

(41.94 KB 600x600 a20c756.jpg)
Anonymous 10/18/2020 (Sun) 07:41:33 No. 1011534 [Reply] [Last]
Radical Social Democracy works, and it works better than any centrally planned system ever has. I've never been able to find a genuinely convincing argument in favour of socialism over social-democracy. Nationalisation of key industries, a robust welfare state, and strong unions in a largely market capitalist economy solve every problem you lot look to communism for.
201 posts and 18 images omitted.
>>1012725 >>1013176 I'd argue it is the basis of Marxism in a way, but there is a definite split between social democrats and Marxists that see some utility to "social democracy" in transition. What distinguished Marx's thought from his contemporaries on the left was that: 1. He disagreed with the utopian socialists who largely refused to confront capitalism as a class system, and refused to confront the political state, and instead suggested that their resolution of social problems could be achieved through a kind of voluntaristic adoption of a certain form of social organization. Socialism at this time was not a strong political tendency, it was considered in a sense an activity within civil society. Many bourgeoisie even called themselves socialists, but it was almost a term designating a philanthropic attitude for them. 2. he disagreed with the small amount of self-identified "communists" who, much like the utopian socialists, generally had a strong sense of what society should look like in distinction to the one that existed, but specifically rejected private property. Utopian socialists did no necessarily have a problem with private property. 3. He disagreed with the notion that the new society could be born from either conspiratorial or spontaneous revolution. Blanqi was Marx's main acquaintance with the revolutionary communist tendency that believed in the necessity of political revolution but had little theoretical understanding, totally open to conspiracy and terrorism if need be. Although later he feuded with Bakunin over the path to an authentic communist revolution. But while Marx and the social democrats can agree on the factual existence of features of social democracy, they differ in their ideological orientation. This kind of difference is of course the key to whether something like a trade union is going to be capable of helping a mass working class movement, or whether left to its own myopic devices will succumb to class collaboration and reaction. Theoretical understanding and consequent political strategy are the key difference. Marx's disagreements with his contemporaries were basically that he did not think a future society could be planned in advance, he did not think answers to social maladies could ignore the political state, and he didn't think that a true revolutionary movement could be anything but a mass movement. Therefore, Marx did support transitional forms that resembled social democracy in the sense that they were immediate answers to questions of the day. But he also always supported framing political struggle in a way that the answers to the questions subverted and fundamentally changed the present state of things, so that the political struggle was essentially advanced by a step, and the perspective of the working class necessarily changed by the new conditions of their victory. Step by step, the working class comes to understand the nature of the political state as class weapon of the bourgeoisie, and eventually he believed they would come to such a strong and full understanding of this, and through the substantial changes previously won, that they would come to understand themselves as the rightful rulers of society, and they would finally act to fully abolish the bourgeois state and replace it with a real dictatorship of the proletariat. And at that point, the proletariat gradually uses its full political power to completely change its own social conditions so that capitalism is truly abolished.
>>1029268 Really we should just execute them at the end of their term. We could make is a cultural tradition, like put them on a boat covered in wreaths and push it off into the ocean before bombing it with a mortar. We'd play the national anthem with bagpipes and then go to a music festival on the beach. It'd be a national holiday.
>>1011603 > being retarded enough to not realize every social democratic welfare state has been eroded by bourgeoisie austerity following seizure of political power through capital. seriously, all it takes is one economic downturn and the house of cards comes tumbling down, just look at sweden. and the boom-bust cycle of capitalism provides those downturns readily.
(46.27 KB 450x293 TRPF_USA.png)
(5.81 KB 278x181 TRPF_Global.png)
>>1011617 >The tendency of the rate of profit to fall has never even been documented
>>1011617 >The tendency of the rate of profit to fall has never even been documented, just theorised by economists. Absolutely retarded and false.

marxist definition of facism ? Anonymous 10/20/2020 (Tue) 08:01:23 No. 1014849 [Reply] [Last]
Liberals often describe fascism like a set of characteristics of people. That can be aspects of people they don't like. It can quickly degenerate into a political game, where fascism just means bad. More intellectually inclined descriptions of Fascism use check-lists of social rules, and non formal or formal cultural hierarchies. Often a description of a fascist character archetype is combined with a checklist to form a recipe how to detect fascism. The Result is an array of confusion that is completely useless. To rise above the sea of confusion, describe fascism using Marxist concepts like contradictions in capitalism, class analysis, and material conditions. What is the class character of fascism? What material conditions give rise to fascism ? What are the contradictions in capitalism that lead to fascism ? Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism which makes corporations a phenomenon related to fascism. Would you agree to that premise ? How flexible is fascism ? I ask cause big corporations are so invested in woke class collaboration. I wonder, could a new type of fascism start there ? which way would it go ? Are the woke identities going to be promoted as the new master-race or is it a trap or preamble to make them the new subhuman ? A related question is whether neoliberalism is counted as a subtype of fascism, a pre-stage that builds up to fascism, or something else entirely ? Can you separate fascism from imperialism and aggressive expansion ? Can there be a fascism of capitalist implosion ? The standard definition of fascism that was used by the Communist International during the 20th century: >The open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital. >Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people. >Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and predatory war. >Fascism is rabid reaction and counter-revolution. >Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people. Is it true today ? What about the new propaganda material the USA state department is spreading that dengism is the new fascism, can I ignore this as a geopolitics ? In the 20th century Nazi Germany was a peer competitor to USA capitalists. They considered the Soviet Union as peer competitor, and also said they were a kind of Nazi. So now they consider all their peer competitors as another kind of Nazi ? Is this just American tunnel vision ? Glowies are spreading these views, which is understandable propaganda tactics of painting competing powers as the devil. But what about the people that believe this ?
95 posts and 20 images omitted.
>>1028913 I'm a bit reluctant to expand on point 4 because I think it is pretty evident what I'm getting at there. Structurally fascism requires a police state to a degree, because disunity or dissatisfaction with the fascist project would be an admission that fascism did not solve the conflicts of liberal democratic capitalism, and so in principle would make fascism just a kind of highly authoritarian capitalism. Fascism can't admit this, because fascism IS supposed to be a response to liberal capitalism (and in fact truly is, but not in the way it directly presents itself). So even if a fascist tendency were to openly suggest it did not desire a police state, it would require it. >>1028926 You're simply using fascism as a word for "things I don't like about liberal democracy". You're actually giving liberal democracy a pass for the kind of horrors it can unleash. The structural difference between fascism and liberal democracy is based on the core fact that fascism must respond to the conflicts in liberal democratic capitalism, which is the labor-capital conflict. In the most basic sense, but described more fully above, it does this through total empowerment of the state and the fascist party/leadership. But as I describe above, this has structural necessities about it to continue to reproduce itself. These necessities are what define it as a different kind of project, they're definite social relations between the state, the fascist party and the class society below it. Liberal democracy is in fact capable of genocide, of removal of free speech, of removal of the right to jury, of removal of citizenship, of lack of a right to vote, and of a many numerous such things. Liberal democracy rests on fundamentally different structural necessities. It is a state form of republicanism between the bourgeoisie, and it is in a sense a truce between the bourgeoisie. They unite as a class in the liberal democratic state roughly as equals, with myriad rights and protections against others of their class. The fascist state is an ideological imposition on this context of central authority, and I think the precise class that imposes it is actually irrelevant because they will succumb to the structural necessities of fascism. The only significant point is that it is not a worker's state, fascism is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. It can be the big bourgeoisie who underwrite the fascist central authority, or it could be petty bourgeoisie who rise to that level, or it could be the military. It doesn't matter, what is important is that the state becomes centralized behind the fascists on the principle of total national unity, and a necessary outright rejection of the liberal principle of "rights" and such which exist to underpin the liberal democratic state. But both fascist and liberal democratic states are capable of great evil. It does no service to the communist movement to suggest that every flaw in liberal democracy is actually an expression of fascism. That just elevates liberal democracy to a perfect ideal, which is exactly what liberal democrats want, and is exactly why they indulge in calling certain things "fascist" that need not be fascist.
(6.68 KB 275x183 trajan.jpg)
>>1028913 >>1028953 But in relationship to Trump, I'd say it is entirely possible he is on the path to fascism, that he is "fascistic", even if he is not ideologically oriented towards it. Trump is clearly not an ideologue, he is inconsistent and self-serving, he has no intellectualized basis. The Nazis and the Italians had programs and intellectualized movements, they had ideology. Trump's ideology is at best American exceptionalism, but he is still a liberal democrat as much as any president has been. Despite his remarks on the media he doesn't approve of, or his mistreatment of Mexicans at the border, these are not inherently fascist. The freedom of the press has actually been abridged in America numerous times throughout its history, and Trump has not in fact even gone that far. Abridgement of freedom of the press can be achieved by a liberal democracy as long as the purpose of doing so is rooted in liberal democratic principles and towards the goal of maintaining liberal democracy. For instance, the freedom of the press is often abridged in liberal democracy in times of war or against supposed internal enemies. But this is not to abolish liberal democracy, though it could always fall down some unintentional slippery slope. It is done to "protect" liberal principles, namely the liberal democratic state from destruction. Liberalism is perfectly capable of abridging its own principles in the name of its preservation. However, the key is that it will not abridge the rights of the bourgeoisie in their republican truce vis-a-vis the state. The proletariat is not important, the rights of the non-capital owners is actually not important. Liberal democracy trended towards expanding rights for various reasons, but it does not require rights to always be universal and inalienable. But the exceptions must be justified in relation to the preservation of the liberal principle for the bourgeoisie themselves and their rights to equal representation through the liberal democratic state. But I'd also say that the fact Trump could be on the road to fascism is largely irrelevant, because he could also be on the road to other things too, or maybe nothing at all. The fact is what Trump is doing right now is not illiberal, and that is what is significant about the whole liberal delusion that he must be a fascist. He is publicly and in action, very much a liberal. He has made some threatening comments about not leaving office, but this is not fascism in itself. A dictatorship with capitalism is not fascism. What Trump values is economic growth within the system of free capitalist property relations. He bases his whole presidency on the notion that the economy has grown under him, that wages have gone up, unemployment has gone down etc. and this is entirely a liberal democratic conception of how the state functions. Liberal democrats do try to solve the conflict of labor-capital, but they do it by promising economic growth under the liberal system. The growth affords the ability to both line the pockets of capital, and also pay workers more. In boom periods, it is easier to solve contradictions either through social democratic programs skimming some of the excess off the top, or through the capitalists themselves being able to afford more workers/higher wages, and often feeling compelled to do it through market competition for labor during the growth period. Fascists on the other hand do not rely on economic growth in this normal sense. They are compelled, historically, to expansion and subjugation of internal populations to avoid the negative social implications of the economic cycle. But this is still not THE defining characteristic, it is rather in a unity with the fascistic dictatorship and the continued existence of labor-capital relations. For instance, it seems easy to come to the conclusion that colonialism resembles fascism by the above characteristics. I think it does as a subset of the capitalist mode, which is why it is a relatively common idea that fascism is "colonialism turned inwards", but as I think is clear I disagree with the simple notion that that is all fascism is. It is specifically the social order described by the points above, all of which effectively necessitate each other. Colonialism does not necessitate dictatorship or a police state, it is a different social system. In a sense, the brutality in the colonies can be used to underwrite the relative freedom in the colonial power's core. There is extraction occurring, but the extraction often defends liberal democracy. It did this in America, where the constant move westward avoided some structural issues of conflict within the proper United States. But fascism is primarily a response to the conflict of liberal democracy, so its centralized state etc. is almost more primary. The logic of subjugation and expansion is kind of immanent to it, not necessarily a principle, as stated above. Germany did elevate it to a strong principle, but other fascist states merely elevated unity behind the state as a principle, but were still compelled to expansion and subjugation.
>>1029017 >>1028953 >>1028913 Oh, and the last thing I'd say is that from what I know of Spain, it ceased being a real fascist state sometime in the 50s or 60s. I think it was very close, but it had diverged in key ways that made it a pretty typical reactionary capitalist dictatorship. It experienced economic struggles due to devastation in the immediate post-war period, and it was not allowed economic aid under the Marshall Plan because of its axis affiliation. But, because of its encirclement by liberal democracies, it was unable to resolve the conflict of the inability of the corporatist state to deliver on its promises through the process the other fascist states engaged in of expansion and subjugation. Instead, it relented to the liberal democracies and began a process of opening the economy up to the dictates of the foreign capitalists. Because of this, America began giving money to Spain for development. Spain became a capitalist dictatorship that achieved stability through economic growth. The institutions of Francoist Spain and the fascist period became a lot of hot air, and as soon as Franco died they were largely dispensed with.
>>1028953 >it is actually irrelevant because they will succumb to the structural necessities of fascism. The only significant point is that it is not a worker's state, fascism is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. It can be the big bourgeoisie who underwrite the fascist central authority, or it could be petty bourgeoisie who rise to that level, or it could be the military. It doesn't matter, what is important is that the state becomes centralized behind the fascists on the principle of total national unity Are you defining fascism as national unity ? And say that class interests do not matter ? The fascist states in the 20 century did not have much power over capitalists. I think you are essencialising fascism. Class interests do matter, always. National unity is conceptually to broad to mean anything. You need national unity to make traffic signs with consistent meaning.
>>1029604 No, I'm saying the specific section of the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeois or even the state itself that institutes fascism doesn't matter, because they are compelled by the actual structure of fascism to continue to favor bourgeois interests. The conditions for the creation of a fascist government can vary considerably, it can be through a more military milieu or through petty bourgeois reaction or even through big capitalist conspiracy, but they all result in essentially the same structure of social organization which manifests different secondary expressions which are contingent on the exact circumstances. You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying class interests don't matter, the maintenance of class society under fascism is what drives it to expansion and/or subjugation of internal populations because national unity under the state is not possible as long as class society and capitalist social relations continue to dominate.

(153.07 KB 289x304 20110402_De_Benoist.png)
The Marxists here Have an Archaic Understanding of Fascism Anonymous 10/13/2020 (Tue) 12:10:33 No. 992522 [Reply] [Last]
The neo-nationalism that we're seeing take over regimes around the world, from Trump to Orban, was formulated by pic related and the rest of the French far-right to be sellable in a post-WWII world. "Ethnopluralism" means there is no expansionist drive to the new nationalism, and it no longer is opposed to democracy (though it is opposed to liberalism). Notably, this means Dengist China snugly fits the criteria for the new fascism.
48 posts and 10 images omitted.
>>993024 >The New Right opposes Fascism. They see it as a failed form of radical Nationalism. Most New Rightists like de Benoist also oppose Capitalism and Racism. I think you're overselling the core differences between the new and old right. Granted, the new right has learned from the mistakes of the past and has significantly repackaged itself to appear more erudite and amenable to the general public, but have their goals really changed all that much since the 1930s? Goons like de Benoist are equally as hostile to democracy, individual liberties, and miscegenation as any brownshirt. They claim to be against racism and concepts like the master race, but at the same time, they champion segregation (rebranded as "ethnopluralism") and say shit like: >The objective study of history shows that only the European race (white race, caucasian) has continued to progress since its appearance on the rising path of the evolution of the living, unlike races stagnant in their development, therefore in virtual regression. They might also claim to be non expansionist / non violent and anti capitalist, but you know that would get tossed out the window the second they got a hold of power, just like it did when the old right promised the same things right before they got into power. You can't enforce an ethnostate (oh, sorry, I mean "integral federalism built on the principle of subsidiarity") without military force and the backing of capital interests, and the fact that they flatly reject Marxism should be a colossal red flag telling you they have no plans to alter the capitalist power structure. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that it is good to understand your enemy, and that we should all read up on the changes the new right has made to adapt itself to the 21st century. But I reject the notion that there's any significant difference in their political goals or the means through which they intend to pursue those goals from the right wing of the previous century.
>>992522 Fascism is a really complex phenomenon which can't really be indentified with some politician or theorist. One of the major problem here is that most part of the people are americans, from a country that never actually had a fascist regime, and that can only see politics, even if they claim the contrary, within the lens of american liberals. It is also funny to see people claiming "we need a new theory for studying fascism" when problably noone has study the old theory, which still has its role in understanding what fascism is or can be. "Fascism is capitalism in decay" it is not a rethoric formula, it is the most concise, but precise, definition of fascism we have, and that has a lot of implications that people, even who defines himslef marxist, do not see. First of all, fascism is not a theory. There is not a theory of fascism. There are a lot of authors and philosophers who have sided with fascism, and have tried to interpret it their own way. But funny thing everyone even on the right sees it its own way. You had one like Gentile, an hegelian neo-idealist, you had Evola and Rosenberg, schizo occulists, Heiddeger, and you have others that emerged after the fall of the old fascist regimes. There is no pattern. It is not the intellectuals who defines fascism. Fascism is the monster that arose when the bourgeoisie face a crisis that cannot face without uniting for a single objective, be it the fight against the working class, or imperialism. Gramsci defined the PNF(the italian fascist party) the vanguard of the bourgeoisie. So the "old theory" does not say "daddy trump fasicst", but saves you exactly from this error. We are slowly but steadly progressing to an era when fascism could actually arise, and this can happen only when the political status quo utterly fails, a moment in which the working class too can claim the power. It can be useful to study the enemy, but we sould remember that is not the intellectual that defines fascism, fascism is nothing but a cold mechanism used by the oppressor to slaughter the oppressed. Tha face that fascism has, and it can have many, does not alter the substance. As side note i would like to draw a little line beewtween fascism and what we can call neo-fascism (aka the goons that go around beating people claiming to save "western culture" by doing so). Neo-fascism is but a political sub-culture, their aestethics, their "theory" has nothing to do with fascism in itself. They are sign of the crisis, and they will side against the working class, but they are not the ones who will control the state once fascism took over. If someone what an example of this LARPers, just read about italian's right wing terrorist group during the years of lead.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>>1014643 Good post. The scary thing about fascism is its complete unpredictability. I think structurally we can see that fascism is defined by these three charasteristics 1) unity for unity's sake + 2) negation of class politics + 3) movement. When capitalism reaches such a point of decay that even the bourgeoisie is in a state of chaos, fascism asserts itself as a force of unity. Class struggle of course is the true cause of disunity, so the working class must be beaten to pulp. However in so doing fascism hasn't treated the cause of the disunity, so it must constantly search for new internal enemies or otherwise seek expansionist war. Politics are abolished in a sense. Fascism is like a parasite that kills the host and then re-animates the corpse to do its bidding. What form this takes depends on the particularities of the country and geopolitical situation. I think Russia and Turkey at the very least fit the description quite nicely. Hungary is on its way. USA is a very strange case. Economically and structurally speaking I can't see how they could become more fascistic than they already are, yet both parties seem hell bent to try.
(142.37 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0092.jpg)
You are all posers and debasers of Marx. Fascism is a general reactionary illiberalism coming out of a petty bourgeoisie that finds itself dispossessed by an ever-declining rate of profit and finds itself threatened by the PRC/Soviet Union or migrant labour. Ultimately the line between petty-bourgeois and bourgeois reaction is often quite blurry, at least in the U$. Take Donald Trump for example. He is operating perfectly as a representative of the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie (even as the liberal bourgeoisie feigns objection). However, he was swung into office by the movement of a dispossessed white petty bourgeoisie. Is he a fascist? It’s hard to say, even when using this more precise definition, but the content is essentially the same for colonised people, black and brown people, Muslims, queer people, etc.. Though perhaps for those of us in the first-world organising against imperialism, the distinction does make a difference in our capacities and limits. Like in Capital, money can be different things at different moments in the movement of capital. This is true for everything, fascism is a dialectical moment in the movement of capital and isolating it is always oriented towards some purpose rather than mere categorisation. See the 11th thesis on Feuerbach which is an ontological statement and not merely a polemic.
>>1014643 >"Fascism is capitalism in decay" it is not a rethoric formula, it is the most concise, but precise, definition of fascism we have, and that has a lot of implications that people, even who defines himslef marxist, do not see. >... >We are slowly but steadly progressing to an era when fascism could actually arise, and this can happen only when the political status quo utterly fails, a moment in which the working class too can claim the power. I finally get what all the the accelerationists who whine about acceleration being descriptive of things moving so fast that by the time you've analyzed it it's already too late not something that can be worked with In this strict and most accurate sense the USA has been fascist for some time now, multiple decades at least You know that comedy scene of two SS troopers talking and one of them asks are we the bad guys? Trump is simply the moment a whole bunch of liberals finally noticed the deaths heads that were all around them already precisely because he's actually shit at being a fascist compared to the previous presidents For those of you who freak out at Trump supporters for not recognizing he's a fascist There are two kinds, the ones who are in the same mindset as you were under Obama, while others just see the fundamental fascist similarity of Obama's USA and Trump's USA so don't see why Trump would suddenly be a fascist when he's not all that different from Obama >It can be useful to study the enemy, but we sould remember that is not the intellectual that defines fascism, fascism is nothing but a cold mechanism used by the oppressor to slaughter the oppressed. Tha face that fascism has, and it can have many, does not alter the substance.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

(17.43 KB 1416x672 tesla_irl.png)
Anti-Tesla Anonymous 10/16/2020 (Fri) 07:14:40 No. 1004167 [Reply] [Last]
I have grown incredibly tired of all the libshits suckers soyfacing over le epic Elon Musk and Tesla. I want a thread compiling all the worst or the stupidest shit the company or the man has ever done or proposed. I know a few things right of the bat that I kind of know already, but want to confirm with proper sources: >Tesla being a scam and a ponzi scheme >Anti-worker business practices >The idiotic car tube project >The tweet where he lowkey admitted that he helped couping Bolivia
83 posts and 23 images omitted.
>>1022079 At least jobs was (a) sufferable (b) good at his job. (part of why he was sufferable) and (c) more the spokesman for a cult of personality around the apple brand than the cult of personality. Culturally, he's like a Liberal Democrat to Musk's Dominic-Cummings wing Toryism. There are a small selection of good reasons someone could be naive enough to like Steve Jobs, but if you fall for Musk your personality is fundamentally defective and your reactionary hand is shown.
>>1022607 but to be clear, i do agree with the fundamental analysis about the role of dickheads in the superstructure. I'm just saying, I hate this year's deckchairs on the titanic more than last years.
>>1009278 Did she also ask you to donate so that she could make videos complaining about Batman's ass?
>>1021744 >Stormfront... storm >Thunderf00t... thunder You can't have thunder without a storm. >f00t... foot wears boot The boot of the market. His name is literally the Nazi boot crushing the neck of the proletarians! Wake up sheeple!
(77.48 KB 1111x720 Soviet Green Car.jpg)
(497.00 KB 875x522 RAF-2204.png)
Tesla is obsolete and elon musk is unecessery


no cookies?