Understanding the enemy

can you rephrase this? i want to make a counterargument but i'm having a really hard time parsing what you're trying to say.

Nazism is a byproduct of german idealism...

In german idealism what's true is the "spirit" Geist (ghost) in the sense that an identity is only capable of existing thru time by dialectical evolution. Nontheless, that doesn't invalidates it's beyond phenomena origin.

for example: The Aryan race is a warrior race which only succeeds thru war. The jewish race is a race which only succeeds as a parasite, and even tho millennia has passed you can see a continuum of those "ghosts" playing in each nation. Just as the jews are thriving due to AIPAC in the present time and Germany who has forsaken its warrior spirit is dying; regarding whether or not The German Republic isn't a bunch of germanic tribes or that modern Israel isn't the King David's Kingdom.

Modern SJW are nazis in the sense they don't see the material reality, something that Marx suggested to do, and they see abstract identities just like the nazis.

So when they see a poor white man they don't see a poor white man, they see an english colonizer with black slaves, they an oppressor. And when they see a trannie, literally a man in a material sense, they see a woman.

And just like the nazis, who holocausted any jew and not only bankers and zionists, the SJWs are prosecuting any person who fits in their abstracts contructs regardless of their individual and material reality.

>Capitalism
which part exactly?

This.
Also commies never really share their resources with anybody.
Look at our MST, FIT, PO parties, they have at least 1.000.000 followers combined.
If only every single one of those donated 100 Argie Pesos every month, you could buy tools and machines for hundreds of workers every month.
A brand new tractor costs between 1.5 to 2 million pesos. Let's say 3 millions for the sake of excellency form the proletarians!
That's 33 new tractors every month....think about how many small farmers could improve every single month with that.

who are you voting for?
i hate Macri, but CFK going full SJW scares me

Why don't you ask your mother?
Extremely lame, anti-semitism is literally a feudal meme that allows you to to say (((literally anything I dislike))) is Jewish. As Marx says in "On the Jewish Question", if the Jews become "hucksters" it is because that behavior is rewarded under capitalism, a system that is created out of material realities and not abstract "culture" that rightists moan about.

We kind of see the idpol guys as misguided. Wanting to help marginalised groups is obviously a good thing, but the tactics they use don't foster solidarity as communists would attempt to do, instead they foster division. The idpol guys thing that if they point out systemic racism it'll just go away, without addressing the underlying cultural problems, and if it hasn't yet they just need to shout racist louder. Its a very liberal idea.

Communists would argue the best way to tackle racism is to build communities built on universalist ideas that can include people from all backgrounds.

Well...for now, AND ONLY IF THE KIKES DON'T SHOW UP ON HIS PARTY....
Espert.
If not, voto en blanco, again.
I may just want him to get like 10% to get a foothold for libertarianism in this commie land. That'd be something, I guess.

Attached: (((Macri))).jpg (544x545, 41K)

Yep, and just as he inverted the original dialectic of Hegel from spiritual to material, he inverted the dialectic of schlomo vs goyim into proletariats and capitalists

have a better argument?

The underlying fantasy of communism is the notion of a great merger of all the people into a single undifferentiated whole. I don't know that that's something that can be countered by arguments. I don't even know where the fantasy comes from.

You can see that this is where communism inherently tends when you identify what it is that Marx considers problematic in capitalism and what he thinks the society will look like under communism. In capitalism, the problem comes from things such as property, the division of labor, the exploitation of one class against the other, alienation, the separation of the worker from his product and his belief in external ideological chimera. For Marx, the problems of society and the problems of the workers come from a situation of multi faceted *separation*. Property separates human being, so do class, and in the end the worker is alienated -- separated, divided from -- his own labor, which becomes foreign -- separate -- from him. The *division* of labor is likewise problematic. It reduces the human being to only a single function in a larger machine. It is part and parcel of the alienation process. The classes are likewise other problematic units of separation. Class *division* creates class conflicts and so on.

By contrast, communism corresponds to the abolition of all classes, the end of alienation, the end of the division of labor, the unification of the world proletariat under a single society, etc. Almost all the problems identified by Marxism can be formulated in terms of problematic divisions. Mirroring that, communism eliminates all of them and creates of single unity of both people with each other and the person with his own self.

See:

Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, Tucker
Classical Economics, an Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Vol 2, Chapter 9 to 13
Quasi-Religions: Humanism, Marxism and Nationalism, John E. Smith
Main Currents of Marxism, Vol 1, Leszek Kołakowski,

>That degenerates in an extremist distress of mind and reclusion from outside world, in the sense and communist is extremly narcissistic, and he thinks he can understand the other, but in reality he loses the barrier, the frontier, between himself and the outside world.

I'm not really following this bit. I don't see how recognising class struggle as an important force in history results in introversion and narcissism. In my case, getting involved in leftist politics has helped me understand the importance of forming communities and in helping other people. I've become a lot more involved in my local community since i swung to the left.

what they don't get is that the main problem of violence isn't material but psychological. Black Americans are the 8th more rich population in the world and yet their crime and violence rate is near to warzone's rate.

why is that? is because inequity isn't material but ideal. You always too much or too few in relation to a third term. The reason why they're so animal-like is because they have at their side the most rich population of the world (((white))) americans.

So, it surprised me as an argie to know that in USA you had all these "ethnicity: black" on IDs and all these identity politics, and in UK too.

We don't have that in Argentina, every1 is a person, except for negroes and native americans, but they're mostly treated well cause there's not a political struggle defined by race; so naturally as the unconsciouss don't register that difference as a battlefield there's less at stake for fighting in that regard.

How can you expect for people not to be racist when all you do is keeping the category of race as a valid social and political way of thinking?

that's exactly the point "building communities" in other group, creating segregation inside a national and civic group of people.

You read the entirity of Das Kapital and you're still this retarded? This post is extremely spooked by the way, lots of very silly assumptions and talk of "spirituality" and loose Freudian psychobabble.

Attached: 0e9.jpg (600x600, 30K)

freud and marx are closer than you'd think

tell me that isn't truth, and that isn't a reasonable explanation for this behaviour
youtube.com/watch?v=A1IrRxoRkbQ

We are racist tho, everybody. And I have many miles of dirt street barrio wakings to know that by my own. As I'm a white looking semi mutt of some sort.
I think that all the supposed problems of violence arise from diversity+proximity. People being forced to live under expectations and conditions they do not wish.
Our niggas (mestizos) do not like to live under the same expectations of Palermo chetos.
And they behaved somewhat good back when they lived in the countryside, the big cities rot their souls like they do worldwide.

Attached: Northern Gaucho.jpg (1159x783, 319K)

I mean i agree with lot of what you said there. The psychological effects of extreme wealth inequality are just as important as the immediate material effects when it comes to things like violent crime. I would say that the way you tackle the problem is the same though, reduce the wealth inequality.

I also agree that racial categorisation serves to enforce ingroup outgroup biases, and that's something we should stop doing.

You can't even take the time to spell, but want Jow Forums to ... OK. In sum, command economy communists want to take your stuff; in a free market you are free to make as big a pile of cash as you can.
e.g If he has a nicer computer/phone/whatever than you, tell him he must trade because you need it more.

Yes, but you're doing it wrong
It's due to capitalism. You're also biased because I'm guessing your only exposure to left politics is via "SJW gets owned" compilations and you only see the most retarded libs, rather than actual communists. I'd say any self-declared communist would not be too surprised that Donald Trump was elected, since there's already so much reactionary retardation, and this woman clearly has some irrational attachment to "muh American democracy" and Shillary Clinton.

You don't need to understand Communism, you just need to know (((who's))) the people behind Communism, and then it'll tell you everything you need to know.

Attached: jews communism.jpg (1040x2640, 1.27M)

Please observe how this confirms this .

Does you friend have any private property? Take it away from them by force, and if they complain just mutter the phrase "but communism."

We see class as a more important uniting force than the nation. This part always seemed fairly obvious to me. If you're a german or a british soldier in ww1, your nations have both sent you to die so that a few rich people can struggle over who gets some more land. The nation isn't looking out for your interests, you have no reason to fight the germans, and every reason to fight with them against the people who put both of you in that position.

>On this matter he [Marx] was aided by his Jewish instinct, which he himself characterized in his essay on the Jewish question. The curse on physical labor pronounced in the beginning of Genesis, the prohibition against defiling the Sabbath by work—these things made him receptive to the Old Testament pathos of the English sensibility. Hence his hatred of those who do not need to work. The socialism of a Fichte would accuse such people of sloth, it would brand them as irresponsible, dispensable shirkers and parasites. But Marxian instinct envies them. They are too well-off, and therefore they should be revolted against. Marx has inoculated his proletariat with a contempt for work. His fanatical disciples wish to destroy all culture in order to decrease the amount of indispensable work. Martin Luther praised the simplest manual activity as pleasing to God; Goethe wrote of the "demands of the day." Yet Marx dreamed of the proletarian Phaeacian who would own everything without any effort. That is, after all, the meaning of the Expropriation of the Blessed.

>This kind of ethics informs his economic thinking. It is the Manchester school all over again. It is exactly like the thinking of Cobden, who at the very same time was leading the Whig free-trade theory to victory. Marx opposed the form of capitalism that derived its justification from Bentham and Shaftesbury and was formulated by Adam Smith. But since he was a critic only, negative and uncreative, he took over his principles from the very thing he was fighting.

Attached: 1550317851127.jpg (913x937, 125K)

>Work was for him a commodity, not an obligation. That is the core of his political economics. His ethics were the ethics of big business. Not that business is unethical; but we can read between the lines his opinion that the laborer is a fool not to engage in it. And laborers have understood him. The battle for higher wages became a kind of investment speculation: the worker was now a merchant selling his product, work. The trick about Marx’s famous "surplus value" thesis is that it was considered as spoils to be carried off by the successful merchant from the opponent’s stores. It was not to be presented to him for nothing. Class egoism thus became a universal principle. The laborers not only wanted to do business, he wanted the corner the whole market. The true Marxist is hostile to the state, and for the very same reason as the Whig: it hinders him in the ruthless exercise of his private business interests. Marxism is the capitalism of the working class.

Attached: 1540167339721.jpg (250x250, 19K)

Maoist here, absolutely this.

Yeah i agree. I wouldn't say the end goal of communism is necessarily "an undifferentiated whole" though. I don't think if we achieved global communism it would be the end of the nation state and the end of history. People would still have distinct cultures. The idea is that communist ideas act as something like a secular religion, uniting people around principles of mutual aid and solidarity across borders, despite cultural differences. I don't think this achieves a global utopia, but i definitely think that cooperation is a better principle to build a society on than competition.

well, i don't agree; i'm a Hegelian.

in WWI the differences between Germany and UK were radical.

The engine of history is not class struggle, is civilization vs civilization

what commies don't get is that cultures, most of them, are uncompatible with communism

hindu culture for example can't survive without racism

Interesting, I see no Chinese people

Attached: Jews_and_Mao.png (1021x3235, 2.15M)

Hitler wasn't the first nor the last

i don't want fascism, but the thing is SJW working along with globalist bankers are pushing for it

youtube.com/watch?v=apaJ3A56XbM

Culture isn't static, traditions and belief systems can, do, and should change and adapt when exposed to new ideas. They can do this without their distinctiveness and individual value being destroyed.

Weird. No apparent shilling on this thread.
Nice.

Attached: kitty.jpg (500x351, 59K)

yep, but culture has a direct impact in the lives of people... no one is going to chose an ideology which puts in peril their liberties and welfare... that's why communism only triumphs on shitholes and in the mind of weak people

There's various degrees of commitment to this mythical foundation to "wholeness" that essentially suffuse the entirety of leftist politics. (The presence of such a commitment is how I know to put Francis Fukuyama, a Marxists inspired globalist neo liberal, in the leftist category in spite of his commitment to free markets.) But it does not change the fact that the leftist has a tendency to perceive that differences are either the source of or just outright the problem that plague humanity.

This is why you intuitively perceived that division in level of wealth created crime. This is why you remarked that class was a better way to create *unity*, a good in and of itself. This is why you want communism to be "global", why the nation state -- a marker of difference -- would end under global communism. Communism is a secular religion "uniting people around principles of mutual aid and solidarity".

Unity, solidarity, global, merger. The themes are clear enough.

This, incidentally, is also why communists can generally so easily slip into other varieties of lib shittery centering around gender construction and so on. It's simply another facet of the theme of the abolition of differences.

>no shilling
>a based leaf

WTF is going here?

Attached: 1552241825562.jpg (741x568, 73K)

It's true.
There are evil sinners (the bourgeois)
and the faithful (proletariat) who are oppressed by the sinners villainy.
However the time of reckoning will come (the revolution) and the paradise (communism) awaits those faithful.
Keep in mind how liberally they would use terms martyr, father and even saint, the commies.
Also, the New Testament was the first to introduce the idea of universal equality. It is unnatural and virtually all the religions of old would use "us and them" or "caste system".

I mean, obviously both class struggle and struggles between nations both exist. What I would argue is that the working class does not see the benefits of the civilization they're fighting for, yet they are the only ones who are called upon to lay down their lives defending it.

If you were a slave in the confederacy, would you want to fight to maintain the confederacy?

>Deus Vult
>Says sins is in the unavoidable position of set of relationships and not in the ethics

fake christcuck

KEK gives bread crumbs of light from time to time.
Today, we assist one.

Attached: 1495573964156.gif (660x780, 201K)

>woahhh holy fuck like 5 Jewish people went to China they must all be Jewish pupets!! It's not like the communist revolution could emerge due to the massive inequality and imperialism in China, the charisma of Mao, and the ideological superiority of Marxism...everything that happens in history happens due to a shadowy cabal of Jews!!
Please do not attempt to tarnish Mao's legacy with such foolishness.

It's as if they were yearning for something.

Attached: 615AUZ-vqQL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 65K)

>the charisma of Mao
LMAO (no pun intended)
Mao was like 3rd in rank on the Communist Party of China until he killed the rest of the leaders before the Japs did they dirty work of weakening the Kuomintang forces fro them.
Also the war itself killed of hundreds of "charismatic" officers that could have taken his place or threatened his supremacy.

Attached: CHAD SPARROW.png (3218x1424, 181K)

Yeah i think cooperation is generally a good thing. I don't really see what your problem is with this idea.

a slave it's outside the civil system; has no power.

what's your point?

the difference between civilizations is impossible to wash away... when muslims get to be 50% of population prepare to live in hell.

i made a sociological study of it, it all ignited in an attack from immigrant's sons borned in Holland against a gay couple... i followed the rabbit hole, to Sweden, to UK.

It turns out that most of the children of immigrants tend to hold up the same view of the world thru the lenses of islam of their parents, another minority are more radical than their parents and the most little minority adopts western values.

what's happening in birmingham is the articulated and consciouss version of what already happens in regards of gang rape and terrorist attacks

We have an ENORMOUS amount of cooperation going on now. All market transactions are forms of cooperation. "Cooperation" is not what you're after.

Communist motif of merger and primitive communal paradises are very old. See pic.

Attached: Primitive Communism - Millenium.png (876x713, 218K)

Huh, pretty tall for a chink.

Market transactions are only mutually beneficial, and therefore "cooperative" if both participants have equal power, which is almost never the case, especially if the product being purchased is a necessity.

Take the american healthcare system for example. Paying whatever they want you to pay is mandatory, because if you don't you'll die. This is simply extortion.

>Yep, but the left is too stupid to realise what's must be done

Attached: 1553676824661.png (888x1192, 174K)

>Market transactions are only mutually beneficial, and therefore "cooperative" if both participants have equal power, which is almost never the case, especially if the product being purchased is a necessity.
>Take the american healthcare system for example. Paying whatever they want you to pay is mandatory, because if you don't you'll die. This is simply extortion.

The problem with that argument is twofold but I'm not gonna get into it more than that:

1. We do buy other necessities the price of which is perfectly ordinary, namely food. The mere fact that something is necessary for survival does not at all mean that the transaction is unfair or that there is any sort of price gouging, and the fact that you don't have to pay 10 000$ for a piece of meat or a bottle of water even though it is a "necessity" should indicate to you that the dynamic at play is actually more complex than the simple "economic law" that necessity implies power differential implies abuse.

2. If paying whatever they wanted was mandatory then you'd just be paying everything and then some, always, all the time. But no transaction, not even health care ones, actually respect that pattern.

Once again I'll simply note that you have identified "power differential" -- another form of division -- as being the problematic aspect of something, the implication being that there should never be such differential. In other words, a quest for another dimension of sameness.

I mean i have friends from muslim backgrounds who don't believe any of the nonsense about women being worth 2/3 of a man and it being ok to murder infidels. My mate sunni goes to clubs and does ecstasy with me and she comes from a first gen immigrant family. I don't think culture is as immutable as you think it is.

kill him already. fuck commies.

Yeah the food market is pretty decent most of the time, unless theres a famine, then it gets sold off to the highest bidder and the poor starve. Like it did in the irish potato famine, and the bengal famine.

Competition does actually work to protect against price gouging some of the time, but there are enough cases where it absolutely fails that free markets, while they should probably exist on a small scale, should definitely not be the basis for our entire society.

> If paying whatever they wanted was mandatory then you'd just be paying everything and then some
Exactly. That's how the american healthcare system works. Emergency procedures put you in debt servitude for life, unless you pay for extortionate insurance, then they only put you in debt for a few years. This might be my british sensibilities but it's hard for me to imagine how much more they could possibly charge.

>Exactly. That's how the american healthcare system works.

It actually isn't but arguing with you isn't why I joined this thread.

No way, the reason he initially was so inconsequential was because his thinking was so contrary to the Soviet line which ruled the party in its early years. He lead the Long March, so he was no pushover.

He's talking about Donnie...you silly cunt.

exactly
>they live without order, they live in a poscapitalist mindset of consumption and self hedonistic joy.

when you hear stories of women telling why they converted to islam they will say "oh well, i used to fuck around and smoke pot all day" and they get from islam what we used to give from christianity.

But in order to maintain a society, a nation, a civilisation you need order. That order manifests in a objective and material way called laws...

only people who strive for order make laws who are coherent, the actual state of affairs is unstable. 400 ex-isis fighters entered UK and a christian is denied assylum cause christianity is too violent...

this isn't going to stay glued for 50 years, and don't forget the online tought police... wait until muslims feel at home.

who ya gonna call?

Attached: marxbusters.jpg (3657x2928, 731K)

Red ice Lana said skid Marx wanted to put the word luciferian in his faggot manifesto tho exchanged it for atheist as he's too much of a bitch and a coward to say what he really wanted... See the friday rewind the week of the N.Z. cluster mind fuck...

call him a giant faggot for defining his life with an economic system. if it seriously affects your friends life so much that it drove a stake between you two. tell him how cringy it is to be a communist and excessively make fun of the language he uses and subreddits he visits until he thinks its uncool. communism is in all honesty extremely cringy and easy to make fun of but hard to reverse the brainwashing of.