Is there any substance to this or will it just tell me what I want to hear?

Rightwing candy to sooth their poor little heads and make a buck off of their gullibility

lmao. no.

both right wingers and left wingers are gullible fools. only high IQ centrists like me possess a viable political vision

Liberals are, yes.
Centrism isn’t any better off actually

>complains about liberals t. A Communist
Will this ever end? (No.)

Communists complain about liberalism all the time because they are incompatible ideologies. Liberalism entails capitalism, so it is antithetical to communism. Claiming that this is strange or hypocritical shows you don't know much about either.

They aren't, the underlying worldview of liberals and communists are extremely similar, the hostility between the two groups is just narcissism of small differences. Liberalism moves left over time for a reason.

Liberalism is the ideology we live under now, and it inherently entails capitalism. If there is no capitalism, there is no liberalism.

Some forms of liberalism entail capitalism, others don't, viz. communism

No, liberalism is all about private property and the competitive free market. The idea that people can "vote with their wallet" is liberal. It is antithetical to communism, ask any communist.

Liberalism vs. Communism:

>Materialism
Yes
>Labor theory of value
Marx got it from Adam Smith
>Labor theory of property
Yes, but liberalism upholds unprincipled exceptions on private property rights
>Determinism
Yes
>Spontaneously ordered society
Yes, both are anarchistic
>Whig history
Yes
>Darwinism
Yes when it can be used to attack religion or is otherwise politically useful, more recently it has become Bad, due to the influence of American race politics.
>Believes democracy exists and in bottom-up social organization more generally
Yes

Liberalism is not anarchistic. It advocates for free trade with some regulation. Anarcho-capitalism is not liberalism.

>Yes when it can be used to attack religion or is otherwise politically useful, more recently it has become Bad, due to the influence of American race politics.
Didn't the soviets under Stalin reject the theory of evolution?

basically any book titled like; "THE BAD PEOPLE how the blahdee blahdee bla did something reprehensible" is poorly written polemics for brainlets that need to be breastfed nonsense that they already agree with.

Doesn't matter if its left-wing or right-wing, if the book is titled as above its shit-cunt rubbish for people with no self-respect

>breastfed
breastfeeding is patrician tho

>when politically useful
OTOH I believe Trotsky was an advocate of eugenics. Lysenkoism was also politically useful insofar as it provided support for the idea of the New Soviet Man. It was likely also necessary to revise the Darwinism thing in light of the Scramble for Africa at the time, I imagine, at least this was the case in the US. Obviously it'd be a bad look to ask Mbongo to be our ally while disseminating eugenics manuals at home (there was a huge eugenics craze in the US pre-WW2, you know!)

>Communism
Religion is the opiate of the masses
>Liberalism
All religions are allowed, but they shouldn't influence the government.

It is, it believes society is a collection of atomistic Individuals who come together and agree to the social contract and form a night-watchman state so that everyone has the liberty to fulfill their desires through engagement with the Market, also the State posits the existence of, and protects, certain persons' property rights. Under Communism we have a collection of atomistic Individuals who come together and agree to a social contract and form a Commune that is totally not a State (I swear!) and have the liberty to fulfill their desires after performing their required socially-necessary labor hours for the Commune as determined by the Party's plan. The Commune has auto-enforcement of property non-rights since there is no State, at least in theory (but in reality the State is owned by the Party and you do what the Party says).

Modern liberalism is literally Communism except dishonest about who is in the Party and the existence of an economic Plan.

>Liberalism is a collection of atomistic individuals
>also the state
See. There's a state. That's not anarchistic.

Also, your appraisal of Communism has nothing to do with what communism actually is. Communism necessarily requires a violent revolution to overthrow Capitalism. There is no "atomistic individuals coming together" and there is no free trade. The workers wage war on the upper class and then become the state. Anything else is not communism.

I'm using anarchism in the sense that social organization "just happens" according to liberal theory, it ignores that authority always exists in society and that people generally conform to it under normal conditions, so that the things that are "just happening", in reality, are being done by some group with power in said society. There is no acknowledged central authority, just a bunch of oligarchs enforcing their property ownership through patronage to manipulate the nominal government. Now replace oligarchs -> Party Central Committee, nominal government -> your local Komsomol chapter. Same shit. It's a dictatorship of a small elite/Party pretending that they don't exist.

>the workers become the State
It's a workers' state because I said so comrade. Are you sure you aren't a reactionary questioning Party doctrine?

You mean the petit bourgeious disaffected intelligentsia wage war on the upper class by rallying the workers around highly emotionally charged propaganda and leverage the ensuing mob fury to their advantage in wresting power from the elite only to then cease it for themselves

>atomistic individuals living in liberal society come together and remove the previous elite in a Communist revolution. the Party installs itself as the new elite while pretending it hasn't.
>There is no trade, it's banned and you are "provided with everything you need". Don't question the Plan, Comrade.

>social organization just happens
Anarchism isn't when "stuff just happens." Anarchism is when there is no government or hierarchical order to society. Liberalism entails a centralized authority called the state, so it is not anarchistic.
>there is no acknowledged central authority
Yes there is. It's called the government. Liberalism has a government.
Communism entails non-hierarchical social structure, and class warfare and restrictions on free trade. Without those things, it's not communism.

>Atomistic individuals
I wouldn't call the Marxist conception of a proletariat vs. a Bourgeoise atomistic.

The whole conception of the liberal state is that a bunch of pre-society individuals come together, seemingly out of nowhere, to form the State to ensure their right to life, liberty and property or whatever (ugh). Under Communism a bunch of individuals previously living under liberalism come together and form the Party, which is totally not an elite-in-waiting, the Commune is totally not a State, and there's definitely no hierarchy.

>Liberalism entails a centralized authority called the state, so it is not anarchistic.
The whole point is that the State is not the actual authority, they are paid off by competing oligarchic factions to do whatever at different times, so no, there's no acknowledged authority because said persons pretend they aren't doing this. (At least the Party is semi-honest about its status and claims that its authority is vested in the democratic will of the people because it said so.)

>high iq centrism

nazbol is the only good centrism

If hitler was correct about anything it's that subhumans shouldn't be allowed to live. I'm betting my ass you unironically like stonetoss and think sorros wants world communism.

Attached: tiresome.png (500x478, 92K)

I don't know what stonetoss is, and I think Soros would be fine with Communism if he's on the Party Central Committee.

>The whole point is that the State is not the actual authority
No, the point is that the state is not an economic authority, whereas in communism the state is THE economic authority. Under liberalism the state only regulates the economy enough to keep the free market secure whatever that means, whereas in communism, the economy is entirely state/commune regulated.

no. rubix cube's are patrician, if a bit out dated.

You should read to challenge your beliefs.
Polemic writing or speech is an egocentric virus hidden within language.
The polemicist is incapable of debate and so incapable of the pursuit of knowledge. They are moths without a light to fly to. They are planets without a sun to revolve around. They are death.
The child of humanity never progressed by being fed polemics as nutrient. The child fed on polemics only exhibits the symptoms of moral malnutrition. They become withered infants overawed by egoism and narcissism.

What does any of that have to do with suckin on some nice big tiddies

I like stonetoss

>it's not really worth it to destroy your career over it
Peterson argues this mindset was responsible for all the atrocities of the 20th century.

sucking on tiddies is for babies
adults should endeavour to nourish their intellect with fruits of their own labour