This thread is permanently archived
Won't somebody think of the children?
| >>325984
Those who think the nuclear family is bullshit don't want to abolish the family as a construct, but are critical of the Idea of father as patriarch and mother as submissive caregiver, you fucking CHUD.
| Hey, I have nothing against families choosing to switch things around, but saying that a caregiver is "submissive" is kind of insulting to people who choose to take that role. Who decides what is and isn't "submissive"? I've only seen critics of that lifestyle using that word. >>326054
| >>326138
No, I talking about the traditional (meaning 1950s) family values, roles, and structure espoused by your typical American conservative.
| I bet you think "cultural marxism" is a thing too.
| >>326310 I Don't know how idiotic a person can be to not see how racism is still around especially in US
| >>326214
No it never was. The thing is, that you have a understanding of family, which is limited to biochemical circumstances ignoring social ones in a hardcore-autistic way.
| Weimar Germany is one of the earlier examples. Term was coined a few decades ago though.
| Is this what you guys are stooping to? Arguing in support of child concentration camps? You really don't care about anyone but yourselves at all, do you?
| >>327029
I never said I support anything. Im trying to learn about this cultural marxism thing cause i hear about it everywhere
| >>327029
They're not exactly concentration camps but it's still unbelievably fucked up. No law specifies that degree of enforcement.
| Ok, but what is cultural marxism and why is it so prevalent? Is it concerning immigrants coming to the US?
| >>327033
It is why white people are so poisoned against self-preservation. Frankfurt school is an interesting place to start.
>>327029
And you don't care about anything but virtue signalling to other liberal retards. If you really cared about those poor poor Mexican children then spend your money and time going to Mexico to help them instead of whining about it online like it accomplishes something.
| >>327037
Im white and Im not poisoned to self preservation. Its not a hard task. Just have kids with other white people and keep things flowing. Hell, if genetic engineering takes off we should be fine with designer babies. Why is there a conspiracy theory for this?
| >>327041
It's actually Nazi propaganda as they originated the predecessor term Cultural Bolshevism, however there's no functional difference between Nazism and white nationalism/supremacy.
| >>327071
Or take back all that money we wasted on playpens, and invest it in our immigration courts where it's needed.
| >>327074
That one is going to be a bit harder as from what I hear the money has already been given to the private prison industry, although we could get it back by destroying said Industry, while also seizing the assets of and jailing (for extra laughs) those who owned for-profit prisons.
| >>327071
Yeah borders are racist anyway Malthusian traps aren a white nationalist lie to keep nonwhites out
| >>329745
>borders are racist
I mean we are talking about a settler-colonialist ethnostate that was forced to open up voter enfranchisement and engaged in genocide, even if we weren't talking about the US, the itself state is bigoted, as it tries to enforce a mono-culture at the expense of minority cultures, one example of this are the Occitan, the Breton, and the cultures that each d'oil language belonged to in France and France's standardization of the French language and culture.
| >>330231
And subsequent laws and practices that insured black people being economically and politically disadvantaged.
| I've never heard "FUCK THE FAMILY UNIT"
| >>330224 You do realize that if you try and "enforce" your "multiculture" your head is going to end up on a pike, right? Not everyone wants their daily life and place they feel they belong to, to be destroyed for the sake of some ideal. Heck, you're obsessed with Marxist theory. Use your brain to figure out why regular people don't want that.
>but muh minorities
Yes but there's also majorities. There's always going to be some side oppressed. You pick your poison.
| We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our children.
| >>330224
I'm sure you are an alright guy but the "I'll pretend to be a Marxist retard" thing stopped being amusing a few threads ago.
| >>330687
I'm not calling for the enforcement of multiculturalism there's no need for that, as it would naturally occur when the world's nation-states have been dismantled.
| >>330881 Recent years have demonstrated the opposite. Nationalism has never been so strong world-wide in many many decades.
| >>330886
True but so has Communist/Anarchist activity, that's also an indicator of late-stage capitalism.
| >>330887 Neo-liberalism died so it's more of the formation of the new economical movement. There's a theory of economical cycles. This means that an economical paradigm will work for a few decades and then completely collapse due to reaching deficits or over saturation. Currently countries like Spain, Poland, Germany, Rwanda, China, the US, Qatar and Dubai are doing exceptionally well economically. But their success isn't really understood properly yet.
| >>330224
I reject the premise that majorities will always oppress minorities, the only reason it happens is due to someone gaining from which is the bourgeoisie and political elite as having an easily opressible (yet still troublesome) out group, ensures political relevancy for right-wing parties, and having what amounts to a serf class is beneficial for the bourgeoisie.
| >>330890
Yes, everyone knows what the boom-bust cycle.
That isn't what I'm talking about, what I'm talking about is in the past when capitalism is in crisis, bourgeoisie and liberal parties willingly capitulate to the right in order to ensure capitalism continues, as Revolution is near, I say this because in the US capitalism never truly recovered from 2008, sure banks got bailed out, but living standards and working conditions never improved and that is what prevents Revolution.
| >>330902
That isn't to say that it's going to happen tomorrow, a week, a month, a year, or 5 years from now, but rather class consciousness is building, and if the Political elite and the Bourgeoisie do not enact social democratic reforms (like Scandinavia, Germany, or the Benelux) then Revolution will be inevitable.
| >>330890
As for the countries you listed those in Europe seem to be growing due smart investment in undeveloped markets and in fact that downturns in Western Europe were aftershocks from the US after the bubble bursted in 2008.
In Africa it is mostly due to political stability and the fact that in particular Rwanda was actually not that underdeveloped compared to Northern Nigeria.
In the ME it's pretty much the same as Europe, but they used oil money to make up for any losses.
| >>330913
Finally in China the the party kinda has control over the many major corporations within it, and guides them to make political and economic investments with in third world countries with many resources, while the party invests in national infrastructure work and also things like the belt and Road initiative, that along with exploting the Chinese worker to a point where they work nearly for nothing, allows the government to China to have access to a large amount of capital.
| >>330915
Side note: I should say that Chinese investment also increases the rate of African development, as there is where China has been investing a lot recently.
| >>330902 I'll try to go through all your posts. But first I'll say a personal critique. I don't agree with the usage of terms like bourgeoisie in the 21st century. A lot of changes happened in the 20th century that made it impossible for the periods to be as comparable. Marx lived at a time where minimum wage, pensions, maximum work hours, worker unions, international regulations and international courts did not exist. The idea of "classes" I also find problematic.
| >>330938 I'll use Nietzsche for this. Nietzsche speaks of the degenerating of cultures to the point that the main central culture as an idea completely dies and people identify with whatever I wish. I think the attempt to make everyone wealthier has had a self destructing effect. The reason why there's no common ground or "class identity" at the moment is because classes exploded into many smaller subdivisions. Even among the rich there's currently no unity.
| >>330905 Now ignoring that little criticism I think that the theory of economical cycles is also relevant even if there is to say a Socialist world. The problem is Socialism can't get away from such an endeavor either. During the 20th century many of the Communist nations went through several economical cycles, but after the change towards rigid conservatism (conservatism in the sense of Marxist-Leninist theory), economical change became stagnant which had huge consequences.
| >>330944 Clearly even in a state where Socialism works, the issue of economical cycles exists and if ignored it can completely destroy Socialism. I find this a weakness of people who see Socialism as simply "the improved version of capitalism". Such logic is bound to create a huge conservative logic in the long run.
>>330913 For what you said about the Middle East, you're far from the truth when it comes to Dubai. Dubai's oil exports are less than 5% of its GDP.
| >>330946 Its main source of income has actually been trade as well as very good and stable business conditions as well as good conditions for foreigners to invest and even move their business into Dubai.
Rwanda is an interesting case alongside China. I'd consider them cases where the fallacy that a developed country has to be democratic is proved false. Rwanda was still a very poor country but it followed a similar model of development as Dubai while copying China's authority.
| >>330915 China is an odd case in a different sense. It invests only in very unstable and poor countries for the most part. The reason being is that even if they can't pay, China thus then gains authority over these places for the initiative of trade (it's done so with several African countries already).
I'd say the common thing in the countries I've listed is that all of them have very strong international trade while also keeping national interests tight.
| >>330951 Compared to neo-liberalism, the current economical focus seems to be moreso on advancing the state instead of the corporations within it (but this is a tough case in the US where corporations are nearing the ability to control the state). I also think it's important that it's no longer seen necessary for a country to be democratic in order to become very wealthy (as seen in the cases of the Middle East or China).
| I'm sorry for my rambling but everyone on this board is incredibly hostile to the point where I can't have a coherent conversation without people going about how I'm Satan or whatever else for not agreeing with them. This is refreshing.
| >>330938
I can agree that Marxists theory needs reform, I'm am an anarcho-syndicalist, not a Marxist (Leftcom or ML), if know what that is is I can explain it (in general terms) if you want.
I don't see how class in this context can be problematic as it isn't some shitty dog-whistle for race, it just an indicator of the owners of capital (bourgeoisie) and facilitators of labour (proletariat), there aren't any more than that.
| >>331034
Sub-classifications like petite bourgeoisie mean owners of capital who work with their workers, think Ma & Pa store.
| >>331034 If you want to. And well currently it's just a bit iffy who really owns what. Everything is unstable and today's billionaire potentially tomorrow's hobo. I think that's one of the causes for state-focused development moreso than corporate one like you'd see during the neo-liberal boom. At least in my opinion.
| >>330941
I disagree, in that it isn't that classes "exploded" but rather there is a lack of class consciousness, in Europe it was due to social democratic reform, and in the United States it was due to propaganda about being the alternative to Communism, and there is much unity amongst the rich maybe not so the celebrity rich and and the background rich, but the majority of the rich tend to advocate for deregulation and privatization.
| >>331043
The Idea behind an Anarcho-syndicalist society is horizontal organization and collective ownership of the means of production (similar to other Anarcho-communist ideologies), though how everything is organized is via Worker Unions (think the CNT or IWW) that Confederate to handle situations, it should be noted that Unions are freely associated meaning that they may at anytime leave the confederation of Workers Unions if they wish.
| >>330944
Not exactly the thing that causes economic crashs, is that Capitalism needs infinite profit growth to sustain it self, the problem is that is impossible, as we are able to dig only so deep and land is finite, meaning there only so many Commodities you can make and people you can exploit, thus over investment in proportion to productivity happens, while Socialist and Anarchist economic system make goods only for use and direct action to do what needs to be done...
| >>330944
Part two?
that is exactly what Anarchists want to avoid an hierarchical, autocratic state that exerts its Authority in all matters, and instead for the workers to govern and consult amongst themselves.
| >>331065 >>331067 The problem is those can only go so far too. Unless you start limiting population but then how can any growth happen? I see a big danger in holding off any growth since you're then risking of becoming an extremely vulnerable society that could be wiped out instantly. And a lot of these kinds of issues did happen during Socialist economies. Kornai calls this the economy of deficits.
| >>331080
You don't have worry about infinite growth in terms of the human population as those tend to decline the further along a nation development, I think kurzgesagt has video on it.
This gets into another post I was gonna talk about, which is that the Eastern block economies still produced commodities and had money which is why among Anarchist community the economic system draws criticism (along with being directed by Moscow).
The point behind a communist economy isn't...
| >>331111
commodities trade which a lack of adversely affects capitalist market economies, but creation of a gift economy and where things are made and given with no expectation of receiving.
| >>330946
What I meant by "oil money taking the losses" is that bad investments were able to be looked over due to the vast amount of of wealth generated by oil production, and the investment that turned out to be good contributed to the now large service sector.
| >>330953
Kinda sorta, when it comes to nearly developed economies State guidance has shown to be a great help to them, which goes to show at least that the Austrian economics that letting corporations run amok, damages your economy
| >>330954
Because this board is meant to emulate Leftypol or pol (don't tho), and not really be a place where people, but jerk each other off over either how much of a reactionary they can be (again don't) or laugh about how much of capitalist hellworld we're all in.
| >>331191 >>331201 This is a lot more productive than someone telling me how the superstructure says we're all going to be fine. I personally prefer seeing politics and economy from a practical point of view, i.e. what's useful at the current moment in time. I think this board can be good as a place discussing politics and news and the board actually serving its purpose is nice, rather than having pointless threads (since there's boards like /u/ or /cyb/ for roleplaying).
| >>326972
>claiming about "culture Marxism"
>preaching culture pessimism
>calling others "lobotomized"
Error: Your logic is not logical.
| >>331254
>I personally prefer seeing politics and economy from a practical point of view, i.e. what's useful at the current moment in time.
Congratulations, you fell for the ordinary ideology of "pragmatism", which dominates world politics.
The problem: What seems useful to you, may be harmful for others.
Pragmatics are ideological fundamentalists in disguise.
| >>332073 I don't want policies world wide unlike people like you with an agressive rhetoric. The basis of the policies happening on a selective area of people based on research and understanding of issues in said area.
Thus you're a part of a chain of perpetual improvement at the current given time and a role of a particular dominance is actually faded from a longstanding pov. I see Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Luxembourg as good examples of that.
| >>332076
>I see Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Luxembourg as good examples of that.
Bad examples. It won't work to turn the whole world into regional tax-oasis's. Because this is what all economic successful microstates have in common.
| >>332076
Liechtenstein in particular is a peculiar example because the power of the monarch is on the rise. Just 15 years ago he obtained for himself an incontrovertible veto on anything except the possible (but extremey unlikely) abolition of the monarchy, & he's not reticent to use it.
This thread is permanently archived
| "FUCK THE FAMILY UNIT!"
*immigration reform happens*
"TRUMPLER IS LITERALLY SEPARATING CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES!!!!!!!!!!"