|
Lots of people talking past each other ITT, but I do have a question that relates to both Marxist socialism and social democracy. This thread has brought up the fact that when most westerners think of the word "socialism" there brain translates that into social democracy, the Nordic model, democratic socialism, etc. (ex: that pie chart posted earlier ITT). With the word Communism meaning classical Marxist socialism. Hell, even the majority anarchists refer to themselves as "anarcho-communists" nowadays. To the average first-worlder socialism means "big government" these days (Ex: Cruz calling Trump's proposed single payer healthcare system "socialism" Even labour and socialist parties are starting to do this! now I am not going to insult this thread by arguing with that fallacy but it does bring me my question. If politics is the art of getting your voice heard then modern Leftists are terrible at politics, I can even see failures to communicate in this very thread. Say what you will about Sanders appropriating your word, but we simply live in a world where might makes right. And political might can change a narrative. If socialists are ineffectual at obtaining their stated goals why shouldn't I vote for Social Democrats who have a better modern track record? It seems to me that after decades of red scare propaganda, and Marxist socialism essentially dead in the water that socialism could do with a bit of a re-branding. Because the word socialism doesn't mean what it used to. If you are advocating for workers control of the means of production calling yourself a socialist doesn't register with Joe Sixpack. He will just think your after his guns and property. (Call it false consciousness if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Socialism has an image problem.) How would leftists be able to fix this? Because while I am definitely left of any mainstream political party, I simply do not have time for ineffectual politics, and neither does the common worker! If anyone would like to address this in simple language without sounding like a smug academic it would be greatly appreciated.
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:Non minority in first world country spotted Truth hurts, doesnt it? From the beginning I have limited my query to the First world, because I have lived their most of my life. Whether you admit it or not Marxist ideology means gently caress all if Marxists can't spread their ideas in the First World. The first world has all the power, and if you can't convice the average first world non-minority prole that Marxism is in his best interest than all your fancy 20 dollar words mean nothing. Also for what its worth I come from a Hispanic family, and your're frankly insulting me by assuming that my view on Modern Marxism means that I must be in some privileged group. My entire family is working class, and 4/5 of them will be voting for Bernie Sanders this coming Tuesday. Sanders has conviced us that he will serve our collective interests better than all other candidates currently running. If that makes us Reformists than so be it. Dreddout fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:People have been searching for 100 years for some sort of formula on messaging and organization that, if you only follow it, the working class will suddenly hear you. Unfortunately, I don't think that's really how politics works. Material circumstances have to be favorable; a seed won't grow unless it's in the right soil. I agree with this line of reasoning completely. quote:The welfare society (like the one Sanders advocates at the present time) was only ever a transitional state; it's not a sustainable political formation.It will always slide back into capitalism or forward into socialism. I have heard this line of reasoning a lot, but you are going to have to back this idea up for me. What makes a welfare state unsustainable? Ultimately all societies will eventually fall apart. So what makes Social Democracy more volatile in the short term? Please try to explain using language a non marxist would understand. quote:But the combination of political forces that have ruled the earth since then are coming apart at the seams;the viability of Sanders and the ascendancy of Trump is a sure sign of this disintegration. Again, the burden of proof lies on you. From my (admittedly narrow) point of view the Status Quo [The status quo being modern capitalism of any flavor.] seems pretty stable, and I wouldn't be suprised if neither Fascism or Socialism arise from this political turmoil.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:I don't think rebranding communism is going to work boys. If the underlying policy remains a childish fantasy you will probably not get far. How is democratic control of the means of production a childish fantasy?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:Pretty much all post-war social democracies have been dismantled (US, Britain) or are in the process of being dismantled (Scandinavia). If you're asking why then the standard Marxist answer is that a reformist capitalist system leaves ownership to the means of production, the real instrument of power, in capitalists' hand, who will then only have to wait for the working class to become demobilized to leverage their money and resources against the welfare state system. And what does Socialism offer me, a first world worker, in return? Because you can also say that all actually existing socialisms have failed their stated goal of communism (USSR, PRC, DPRK) much less actually achieving a socialist society. Or they are in dire straights of being destroyed by outside influence. (EZLN, YPG) As a Utilitarian I couldn't care less if my boss is a Technocratic Corporate Overlord, or a Democratic Syndicate Foreman. If the Overlord provides me with a stable, secure high standard of living than gently caress it! If my loved ones are secure healthy and happy then I am content with my lot in life. I'm not going to risk house and home for a revolution that, historicaly, hasn't worked out well for people like me! In this world might makes right, and all the talk of liberty, equality, fraternity goes out the window if you can't protect those ideas. So why shouldn't I go with the capitalist who will give me the best deal, instead of the socialist who will sell me a pipe dream in the form of merchandise?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
First off, thanks for being civil. My tone came off as a bit argumentative, but keep in mind that I care about this topic. Or else I wouldn't have bothered.rudatron posted:I think that kind of skepticism is healthy, as is the purely utilitarian outlook. There's a lot of real free-market fundamentalist types that will harp on about how welfare is bad, because capitalism is inherently ethical. So if you starve under a free market, you deserved to starve or whatever. I've got little sympathy for that kind of thinking, results matter. Agreed. quote:Nor can past failures simply be ignored, to do otherwise shows a lack of critical thinking. I do not believe, however, that past failures necessarily indict all kinds of centrally planned economies, and I think there's a lot of variations that can be tried and improved upon. There was a very real fundamental lack of accountability in the soviet model, so obviously that kind of thing is essential. Starting from the foundation of democratic control, and going from there, will obviously create a categorically different type of planned economy, that should at least be tried. I can see the reason behind this line of thinking, and I would honestly not hate living in a planned economy that worked as intended. However you seem to be a bit too focused on the classical view of socialism as a centralized plan economy. What about Mutualism and Market Socialism? If we define Socialism as democratic control of the means of production then we do not have to limit ourselves to relying on the central planning model. In fact my ideal economy is mixed. With government controlling the sectors that have proven to work best under them, and a market sector run by co-ops and small businesses. With the understanding that individual business's would be beholden to public good, and control to prevent them from growing to large. I concede that I am biased as I have reservations against centrally planned society, and disdain for Laissez-faire economics. quote:Now, as with all change, there's risk involved. There is, however, something to note. Inequality is getting worse. The lives of people like you have decreased in standard of living, and there's no sign of that slowing. We're also approaching a number of crisis points, in terms of things like climate change, that give lie to the idea that the free market solves all (it in fact has a terrible problem when it comes to anything that invovles the commons, which are incredibly important - we need clean air to breath, after all). This isn't because the corporatist overlords are Evil People, it's just what the system has a tendency to do. Eventually, pipe dreams are going to look a lot more 'realistic', as it the actual-economic-reality becomes increasingly broken, and more obviously so. It's at these points that a revolution occurs. That doesn't mean its pointless to fight for reform, it's what you should always do anyway, but don't rule out everything else yet. This argument is what makes me consider Socialism. Understand that I am only human, and my loyalty lies with my family and friends, not some political ideology. Ensuring their well being and happiness is my primary concern, this is why all the talk of revolution scares me, and why I would prefer any change to be as peaceful and smooth as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Whole lot of people don't get that Capitalism has become as much a religion as an abstract economic system and that it will not be brought down by anything so pedestrian as education I know that it's troubling when the snake oil salesman believes their own lies, but couldn't the same be said of Socialism? At the end of the day we are still Savannah apes, we just lucked out and had enough brain power to get to where we are today. So I am hesitant to pathologist capitalists with a smug dismissal of "Well you just don't understand how the world works.  ".I'm not trying to dismiss your point, but you can say that all human ideology is hooting at tribal fetishes. Neither you or me are exempt from this. goatse.cx posted:Rudatron put it much better than I could but I will also add that the marxist argument for the need for socialism is very much rooted in the self-interest of the working class, not highfalutin principles or preachy moralism. I am aware of this, but you need to realize that much of the modern First world Marxist movement is confined in Universities, something that won't endear you to much of the working class. Especially when you have abrasive assholes like horselord prepared to die on hills that frankly don't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
I would like to take the time to thank the people who have taken the time to seriously address my questions and concerns, you have been very informative and challenged my beliefs!rudatron posted:Well I care about this topic too, so that's something we have in common. My issues with market socialism is that it retains production-for-exchange (which is necessary for a market), which means its going to be perpetuating many of the same problems, like the disregard of the commons. Any production-for-exchange involves compensation for that exchange (directly tied to that exchange), the externalization of as much cost as possible, and discrete 'firms'incentivized to maximize their exchange-potential, however that is accounted. That is to say, market socialism retains private ownership of the means of production, and cannot be regarded as socialism. Since I'm skeptical of anarchism and anarchist arguments in general, this means I regard a planned economy as a necessity for socialism. Fair enough, maybe their is some undiscovered alternative to either a planned or market economy, but (I assume) you and me are not economic geniuses, and it would be beyond the scope of this thread besides. One thing I have noticed w.r.t modern socialism is the blurring lines between Marxist and Anarchist lines of thought. (Ex: Rojava being based on Marx and Bookchin.) This gives me hope for a more unified Left in the future. quote:I disagree with others that Marxism doesn't have a moral component - Marx may have said it does not, but he lied. Even if you agree with his theory, there's no reason to not then argue that humans should go back to feudalism, or whatever, unless you see it as part of a project of human history, with specific goals. Certainly, there's a lot of intersection with 'self-interest' - were the whites fighting for slavery not acting in their 'self-interest'? Isn't false consciousness a kind of self-interested stance? It is, the trick is that the issue of 'morality' is hidden in what is considered part of the 'proper' or 'true' community. So if we're being honest about this, internationalism is a moral stance. It's the right moral stance, and one that I'll fight for, but it is what it is. I think you would have to argue that say David Koch is acting in his own self interest, just that his self interest is against the vast majority of other humans. I do not have any specific view of human history, I think we lucked out getting as far as we did. But ultimatly I do not believe in any "right morals" whats good for the oligarch is bad for the worker and vice versa, neither can really be wrong, but as a Utilitarian helping the greatest amount of people would be my ultimate goal, which is why I identify as a Leftist. Irregardless I have no illusions on what side of the fence I lie on, and maps like this,  prove that Capitalism isn't exactly helping the greatest amount of people possible. quote:Which is were we come to your the question of where your loyalty lies. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here, in fairly strong terms. You're in the majority, I know, both historically and currently, but my loyalty does not lie with my tribe, whatever that is, but with humanity. What you feel is 'natural' and expected, but not something I think is good. I'm not trying to moralize to you here, it's just something I find depressing. From your standpoint, your fear of revolution is somewhat justified, but fears and hopes do not a future make, unfortunately. I think something is inevitable, I just want it to look like something good & hopeful, not ugly and full of hate. At some point, you might have to make a choice. If not you, then your descendants. I believe in the old saying "A rising tide lifts all boats" so logically what is good for 99% of Humanity is good for my family. I hold no illusions that some vague notion of "blood" means I should care about certain people more, but I can't pretend I personally care about someone I have never met. I wish the hypothetical people well, but realistically bad poo poo happens every second of everyday, and humans simply don't have the capacity for in-depth empathy on that scale. I care about my loved ones because I know them on a personal, material, level, and in some way, I view them as a Microcosm of Humanity. So I am not some FYGM Tribalist, and it wasn't my intention to come off like that. quote:You obviously also have a point about tribalism/confirmation bias, and that's especially true for anyone who is ideological. Most people aren't ideological, like yourself, but when you have an ideology, any, it kind of reorders the world into how you want it to look. The past becomes this museum-esque set of exhibits, leading to the current day, and then a mysterious jump into ~the wonderful world of the future~. So when people talk about horseshoe theory, this is what they're referring to, but the implication that that necessitates some kind of ideological similarity isn't true. It's just that the personality that leads someone to becoming strongly ideological exists across the spectrum I'm not trying to imply that I am some completely rational actor who is, "above such petty ideologies  " I just recognize that we are all biased and that by recognizing our ideology we are able to refine our belief system.quote:But I would absolutely dispute the idea that you, unless you are a very lucky person, actually have a standard of living that is both high and stable. I don't know anything about you! But I suspect that your personal economic situation is actually quite precarious - dominated by debt, fear of unemployment, healthcare/housing costs, etc. You'd have to be quite a rare individual to not have to worry about such things a little more every day. I meant in comparison to the Third and Second World. I have actually lived below the poverty line for much of my life, and had to enter the workforce earlier then most people, to secure my family. This is probably why I have such a great deal of familial loyalty, we have always looked out for each other. quote:yeah no kidding. correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems like the theme of your questions is "what can leftism offer, when looking out at the world today, it's brought so little?" I am attempting to keep this thread on topic by being a gadfly/devils advocate between Social Democrats and Socialists, but I am learning from this discussion! In response to Marxist academics note that I am not anti-intellectualism (I'm the first of my family to attend college, where I discovered Leftism, and crippling debt!), but I also have little sympathy for some trust fund kid who thinks he's better than me because he read a few thick books! Finally, to Horselord, a Internet Tough Vanguard who hasn't contributed anything to the discussion except "Stalin did nothing wrong." and "Kill the workers who disagree." "Niven's Law: No cause is so noble that it won't attract fuggheads." quote:Ah, the "I want to keep my loved ones safe, but I am curious about revolution". You're right Dreddout, we have nothing to offer you. Please stand against the wall. Fixed that for you, you incorrigible oval office.  Seriously, threatening to kill someone because he has concerns and question about extraordinary claims about modern society? Especially when I a leftist from a working class family, how are you going to convince the average conservative worker if you can't convince me. But I am not worried about people like you putting me up against a wall, when people like Trump want to deport me, and Hilary wants to starve me. Frankly people like you will never have control over any popular movement, if you threaten to kill the people who would be in your base. I assume you're from the UK, because you post in that thread a lot, so you probably don't have a grandmother who lives on substitence level incomes because she can't afford her heart medicine, but people like you often belong in the aformentioned group of trust fund kids, who brag about being ideologically pure, while the poor starve around them. In conclusion, HorseLord posted:"hey guys we've done the nationalist part, but when are we going to do the socialist part? wait why are you aiming your gun at me? wait plea-" - strasser HorseLord posted:Non minority in first world country spotted  Enjoy being on my ignore list   Sleep tight comrade pupper Dreddout fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Sleep tight comrade pupper! Thanks, for taking the time to respond with effort! I'm going to take a break from this thread from a bit, you, rudatron, and Mofabio having given me quite a bit to chew on! But I will be back later, with some more questions! Tia, cya.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:it's not my job to educate you, shitlord! Maybe not, but this thread is for asking questions about socialism, and I think I speak for many in this thread when I say I would prefer a two sided discussion, not a link to a Forbes article and a "Just google it! Why are you forcing me to respond to your posts?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Double post
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Das Anstrengung Post Vol.II coming later today guys. The themes will be Religion, Entertainment, and Violence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
So I have come up with more questions to ask you guys! I've taken the time to read some wiki articles on Marxism. (Cause the best way to understand a 100+ year old ideology is to skim a few articles right?) But I would like some book recommendations for deeper reading. (Specifically relatively light reading, pertaining to Marx himself, a biography on the guy would be useful. Maybe a book on modern 21st century Marxist movements and thought.) With that being said onto my first question. What about religion? I come from a heavily Catholic family, and while I am personally agnostic, I feel that socialist movements have made a mistake by alienating religious people and churches in the pass. Many of the socialists I admire (Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Woody Guthrie) were people of faith, and I don't think having immaterial beliefs are inherently anti socialist. The state atheism of the USSR and PRC are, frankly, little better than a church dominated society. In my opinion separation of church and state is vastly preferable to the state having an opinion either way. Take America for instance, the influential folk singer Woody Guthrie never joined the communist party despite being a socialist, because the early communist society required members to renounce their faith. Capitalist's took advantage of this, and now we have poo poo like the prosperity gospel and megachurches. Despite the teachings of Jesus Christ being remarkably similar to a communist society. I understand that many religions are extremely hierarchies, (Hello, Holy See!) but most modern religions have adapted to huge changes. The Catholic Church, for instance, has survived the transition feudalism to mercantilism, and mercantilism to capitalism. I doubt it couldn't survive in a socialist world. Hell, the more religious member of my family has become a noticeably more liberal since Pope Francis was elected My primary question is, in a socialist society would religious freedom exist, and be protected? Would religious people be persecuted, because I don't think religions going away, and it can only hurt socialists to alienate the central facet of many members of Humanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDS00Pnhkqk Namaste, YCS Dreddout fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:
It seems to me that the relationship between Marx and Hegel mirrors that of Aristotle and Plato. The student focusing on the material world while the teacher thought about "higher" realms of existence. Just a coincidence I find interesting. quote:The last paragraph brings this together: overthrowing religion to effect a political transformation is all backwards. Religion as we know it will go away when it's no longer needed, i.e., when things don't suck anymore. Critique of religion can be a useful tactic in education though. To me this says that abolition of religion, etc. isn't really a priority agenda item, it's just something that he expected to happen in the course of things, just as you stop needing painkillers when the injury heals. This is along the lines I was thinking on, but I doubt religion will completely go away. We might be more skeptical now, but "spiritual not religious" people still outnumber atheists. Call it a "god gene" or whatever, but I think that many humans will always believe in some spiritual system. Regardless of what a secular government wants. quote:Honestly I think I could be pretty wrong about this because what comes after just goes over my head, but the immediate gist seems to be that opposition to religion is criticism of religious ideas as agitation to action, not a program for enforcing atheism. Which leads me to suspect that anti-religious activity in historical communist revolutions has had more to do with institutional power than eradicating a belief. Or, maybe eradicating a belief was seen as just as good, idk. IIRC the church in Russia was pretty drat corrupt, so maybe they had some of it coming.  I still don't think the common man needs to be suppressed for the wrongdoings of a church.quote:The upshot for me is that there's no inherent reason why communist revolution would require abolition of freedom of religion and imposition of atheism. What it sounds like it might entail is a whole lot of militant internet atheist smugfarting so that's reason enough to oppose communism imho. One notable thing is the fact that atheism isn't associated with being a lefty anymore. (If it ever was.) In a survey I recall, half of all an-caps identify as atheists. I don't think atheists (Particulary modern atheism, which requires a lot less "free thinking") are any more predisposed to leftism then anybody else. rudatron posted:The issue is that religion and religious values are a touchstone for reaction in general. Like how 'In God We Trust' was only placed on US currency during the 50s, because of the red scare. Theoretically, there's no relationship between religion and economics, you could conceivably have any combination you want. Realistically, establishing any new society that attempts to overturn the oppression of the past, is always always always going to make enemies of established religious structures, because of their political function of masking that oppression (This rich guy who cut himself a bonus can't be bad, because he's deeply religious, etc). It's not something socialists ever had control over, they were attacked and then they counter-attacked. I mean the ruling ideology of the USSR was atheist, not secular, but there weren't concentration camps for Christians or whatever. You're throwing all religious (Less charitably Christians) people in one box! There have been times in history where religions have been bastions of progress. One of the reasons religion is allied with the right is a perceived threat from the left. The USSR might not have killed Christians, but it did demolish and destroy many churches, mosques, and synagogues.It's that kind of poo poo that I am against. I also don't like your impression that religious organizations are inherently dishonest, they are organizations, that ultimately have the objective of increasing followers, and with many sincere followers rise to rank withing said organization. They aren't immune to corruption, but corruption isn't more inherent then say, a Leftist political party. quote:Exactly the same problems will pop up in the future, and no amount of declaring how secular you are is going to change that. Hell, deeply pious christians in the US think they're oppressed, when they have to do their job for a couple that might be gay. How do you assuage that kind of wide-eyed fanaticism? You realistically can't. Christianity is on the decline in America, so obviously freedom of religion is doing some good. People who won't bake a cake for a gay person are in the minority, and that minority is shrinking rather rapidly. I won't pretend that Christians are some oppressed group, they are still in power after all. But as someone who lives in the bible belt, I can see that wide-eyed fanaticism dying out as society becomes more secular. Also you should know that similar things happened in the USSR https://web.archive.org/web/20071023063313/http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/44.html] In fact it oppressed Jews worst than Christians (I suspect because the Christians were in the majority.) A majority will always attempt to oppress the minority, the Unions policies didn't change this fact.There is an answer to the problem of religious overreach, but it doesn't lie in socialism as an economic system. In any case you will not be able to build a popular movement that advocates oppression of religion! It's simple to core a facet to many (maybe most depending on where you live) peoples lives. If your saying that a socialist movement needs to supplant religion. (As opposed to limiting the power of organized religions.) Well, I can't call myself a socialist, because a economic movement can't supplant spiritual desire. It just won't work. goatse.cx posted:I don't know how religious activities are regulated in USSR but in China, free practice of religion is permitted on the part of citizens but religious organizations are heavily restricted from expansion and proselytizing, like go to church and praise jesus all day long if you want but you can't go around handing out pamphlets or build new churches without state approval. Which is frankly how I prefer it. For what its worth, I agree with this completely. Dreddout fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
100 degrees Calcium posted:CHrist, are other countries this loving stupid? How does anyone ever get anything done with their heads so firmly lodged up their own asses. American Exceptionalism is a hell of a drug!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I don't we what's wrong with using "socialism" if you use its original meaning. 60+ years of McCarthyist influence on discourse. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
loving serfs stealing my silver!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:gently caress just loving go for it full socailism or whatever
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:"Communism"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Manly Marxist Memes: Your understanding doesn't even rise to Wikipedia
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:You say that like he doesn't deserve it. I can't wait till we get to call him a sellout!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:are you telling me that if you had any control over your bowels and/or food supply that you wouldn't poo poo where you eat Is this what workers control of the means of production is about?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN8kGzHH00I
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Prav posted:utopia will be built on the fidelity of social democrats and the organizational skills of anarchists And to the Marxists, memes!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:marxist memes in the marxist meme thread. you dont say There seems to be an undercurrent of Bolshevism in these memes!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:No one explained why Stalin stole/hid the presents under the tree Presents are bourgeois
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which has a contemporary cult named after them? Platonist stayed around a lot longer than Marxism has existed. They directly affected philosophy for the better part of a millenia This is basic poo poo, man.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:I just realized I called Lenin the wrong name You do realize that that post will get you gulaged in the coming revolution, right? Fake edit: my spell check turned "gulaged" into "regulated" which sounds like a pretty cool euphemism for disappearing enemies of the state
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
rudatron posted:they were probably not up to fire code, i saw a few of them on fire That was the result of a low energy arsonist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Did you know they had memes before the internet? It's good to know we're following in the footsteps of the OG Ironyboys!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:the people who voted for trump are in for a loving shock I agree with the rest of the post, but really? I don't really know if they will equate the system not working to Trump. I'm sure the gop could do a hard spin blaming the dems (or a million other targets) for their failure to live up to Trump's promises. If politics of the digital age has taught me one thing, it's that humans have the memory of goldfish for problems that don't concern them on a material level. Also a lot of Trump's base seem to have elected Trump in an effort to drag down those they see as responsible for their problem (IE: The coastal elite, establishment politicians, liberals) to their level. I live in Oklahoma, and work in a poor part of town at a grocery store. From the bits and pieces of politics I pick up from Trump supporters (Discussed in a non-political environment, among their friends) they usually say they don't think Trumps honest, they just like him better than Clinton. A lot of trump voters just wan't Trump to tear their enemies down, they don't necessarily think he will make life better for them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:but here's the thing: trump's cabinet picks have been standard GOP the entire way down, the Trump administration is effectively identical to what a Cruz administration would look like, but with Trump at the top This assumes most of them know, or care about Trumps cabinet picks. Like the hardcore MAGA dude is gonna be disappointed sure, but Joe Sixpack? He's gonna shrug his shoulders carry on voting straight ticket Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:took this in SF a while back Nice selfie
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:You should probably work on seizing the means of producing decent meter.  'd harder than kulaks in vorkuta
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Okay? Talk. Everyone will get a free vape of their choice!* *Not available in Hawaii
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/813006973562130433 Tweet in question Atrocious Joe posted:Next four years are going to be fun The only problem is what's going to replace it. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Generally you can spot a fascist by how much they talk about degenerates, or subhumans. Also their strapping outfits
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
consumed by normies posted:communism... is good christianity... is stupid
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 09:21
|
|