This thread is permanently archived
Howard many leftist/rightist on danger/u/ ?
| I dunno I mainly vote left because the current right consists of dangerous psychopaths but I really consider myself more of a centrist.
| Better idea: we don't join a big human centipede of like-minded fools passing the same shit around. Then suggestive words don't matter, because communication with the other side makes it hard to turn everything into secret buzzwords.
Oh fuck I forgot where I was. N/M
| Going more conservative recently but will probably continue to sway slightly economical liberal, then social liberal.
| >>307730 oh yeah, I forgot you, it's not the first time I see communist here ( see the thread "shitpost 194"). Well, I suppose it's normal with a mostly young population in this forum.
Do you agree that is it necessary to have a dictature in a communist system?
| >>308274
>Well, I suppose it's normal with a mostly young population in this forum.
You're refering to that Churchill saying? To be honest I think a lot of young people still don't care about politics.
>Do you agree that is it necessary to have a dictature in a communist system?
If you mean dictature as in "dictatorship of proletariat" in it's intentional meaning (basis-democratic councils), then yes.
I'm also against democracy as in "democratic centralism".
| Howard.
| Stern.
| I am 100% a Cybergod fearing citizen.
| I just want to see everything burn i dont give a fuck who lights it
| >>308813
Actually I think the same. But I also want to add, that I want to survive the inferno - and I'm a bit afraid that not the best will survive but the ruthless.
| Can someone ELI5 the whole right/left thing. I never understood it :(
| >>309292
It goes back to the French national convention. On the left side were the radical, progressive, pro-revolutionary forces, on the right side the reactionists that wanted re-establish some of the old feudal elites or even restore monarchy itself.
| Social and economical liberal to be honest.
| >>309721 That may have been the case for revolutionary france but that sure as hell isn't the case now.
| I think everything boils down to this: leftists generally believe in materialism, that everything in life depends on the environment - the material. Right wing people are idealists and believe primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena.
| >>310128 >>310171 People that study modern political science will tend to say this "left or right to what specific?". You can define left and right through different ideologies and nations and get different results. What>>37a14f showed is a Marxist definition of left and right. But there's other cases like the one given from the French revolution which is a more classic one. It really depends where you put your pov from.
| >>308302 I didn't even think of Churchill, but after researching what he has said, it indeed represent well what I was thinking. So yes, kind of.
How a dictature can be compatible with basis-democratic councils? Isn't the opposite by definition? Or maybe you're talking about temporary dictatorship as the Roman empire used to do during crisis?
PS: sorry for the late answer
| I'm a leftist, but I'm not a liberal. As long as personal freedom is no.1 I get along with right wingers to be honest.
| Anarcho-communist, so about as far left as it gets.
| Tfw you're a proud Revolutionary Reactionary
| >>310506 for those who don't know, this is basically the embodiment of the ideas of the Great German Empire First Minister, Otto Von Bismarck
| very social liberal, but i think i'm more of a centrist on everything else
| socially leftist*? idk i can't tell anymore
| What if you are just going with what brings you the most money what are you then?
| Socially 99% laissez-faire,economically somewhat socialist, but political groups on the left are fucking retarded around here, so I just vote parties that I'm 100% sure won't win based on their outlandishness.
| All.
| I'm an ararcho-transhumanist so I'm about as cyberpunk as you can get
| >>310321 Could you please elaborate? or maybe it's too long to write here? in that case , do I have to read Marx or another book? I insist on the dictatorship theory
| >>312144 just read fuckin Marx and don't be such a pseudo intellectual cuck who thinks he can refute communist theorie with semantics.
And after you have read Marx you can interpret him however the fuck you want. You can claim the Soviet Union would have led to Communism but Stalin died before it happens or you can claim that the only way to communism would be a nuclear war.
Marx just wrote a theorie on scientific and philosophical bases.
That's why commies hate each other.
(1/?)
| >>312144 >>312277
In Feudal times you had the Feudal Lords and you had the famers. The whole economic system was quite different. The Lord owned the Land and the farmers. But the farmers will always have the right to farm on it. If the land is sold, it's sold with the farmer. The farmer doesn't care about being sold because he can still survive through having the right to farm on the land.
Ofc he has to give the Lord like 10% of everything, but after all life wasn't too bad.
(2/?)
| >>312144 >>312279
The problem was that the farmer couldn't even leave the land or marry without the consent of his lord.
But the order was given from God and everyone has their place in the social order.
The main class system was you had the Lord's and the Farmers. But with time specialised trades developed and people in cities were allowed to learn them. The Titel of the Smith was then given to the son or a close family friend and they in return could again be a smith.
(3/?)
| >>312144 >>312282
With time the machines were developed and the labour automated.
So some of the Lord's invested their gold in the industrialisation and got mad rich. Even some of the towns ppl were able to invest and got mad rich.
But this automatisation fucked up the old order. The class of the bourgeois (people who don't have to work to survive cause they have so much money and means of production) was rising, while the class of the prolitariat (workers) was being created.
4/?
| >>312144 >>312286
So with time these bourgeois started revolutions, together with the workers. Together they fought against the remaining Kings, Churches and Lords who hadn't evolved. They fought against Monarchies and for republics. And people died, many people. But they won.
But soon the workers had realised that the promise of freedom and equality were nothing than lies. Now the people didn't had the right on the land the worked on. They didn't had their own means to survive
5/?
| >>312144 >>312288
The workers had to work 12 hours a day, with their children and their wives. They worked together, in dangerous workplaces. Deadly accidents were common.
And at that time Marx n Engels developed their theories.
One of them was the class system. Like as we had seen with the feudal lords, there was a dictatorship of the King's and lords. But then the bourgeois and workers (who were often old farmers, going to the cities) fought against the system and created a
| >>312144 >>312286
new one. The dictatorship of the bourgeois. And in this shit we are living today.
And basically the idea is to take power and create the dictatorship of the prolitariat.
What does that mean? It means that people who don't have enough money or means of production to survive without working (workers), take power and create a system in which they hold the power. = The dictatorship of the prolitariat
(7/?)
| >>312144 >>312295
And this dictatorship of the prolitariat stands in opposition to the system right now. In the system we live today there are a handful of people with the most economic power. The 8 richest people in the world own 50 of the wealth. 2 of those 8 people earned their money somehow. The other 6 people has their wealth since generations. One could say that they are white hetero man. Or that 3 of them are Jews (while we have 2%jews worldwide) but that would be stupid-
| >>312144 >>312297
Identity politics. Instead of saying we have to kill all Jewish hetero white men we just claim that the bourgeois holds power. And instead of saying we want a piece of the cake (social democracy), we say we want the whole bakery (socialism).
Also Socialism is just the transitional phase to communism.
Welp I think that's it
--commie g/u/rl over--
| >>307584 love you man. Glad to hear that there are still people out there who can think on their own
| You have there mistake. Liberal are rightists. Leftists are socialism etc.
| Im rightist, Liberal.
| I dont know what I am just leave the fucking gun rights alone...fuck
| >saying we want a piece of the cake (social democracy)
Well, todays social democracy does not even say that. They are full into neoliberalism/capitalism making their clientele (workers) licking feet of their employers and drive them directly into the arms of the far-right. It's like conservative neoliberalism just with women rights and homo rights, with a clear focus on the rich ones.
| WHIG FTW!
| I'm alt-right
HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US
| I mean... I'm a national socialist (the worst kind there is).
Sieg heil
| traps aren't leftist or rightist.. they are downist
| >>316325
There is no such a thing like "national socialism". It's a contradiction, an oxymoron. The term was invented to weaken the real (internationalist) socialist by attracting their clientele with socialist rhetoric but mixed/poisned with imperialist, racist, nationalist and antisemite bullshit lies.
| National socialism is nazism
| OwO my I'd is 69
| >>317689
nazism is false-flag socialism as disguise for fascism, which is capitalism in it's last, worst and most honest form.
Once and for all:
If the business runs well and the bourgeoisie does not fear, then capitalism allows liberal democracy.
If there is a crisis, and the bourgeoisie is afraid about the status quo, then capitalism turns into fascism/nazism.
If the proletariat wants to get out of this circle of death, destruction and rebuilding they have to overcome capitalism.
This thread is permanently archived
| Because "leftist" and "rightist" could be suggestive words, let's go with "leftist=liberal" and "rightists=conservative". I'm asking this because in a forum where everyone seems to be a gay sl/u/t passionate about cyberpunk, I'm pretty sure it will be mostly liberal. But hey, let's see if it does , for... Sociological purposes.
Sorry for my approximate English, London is not my native language.