Why did so many mediocre writers support the atrocities of the leftist republicans in Spain?

Not at all

>Young people from all over the world come together to fight along the international brigade against faschists supported by global powers in order to live in their dream world
At all.

Why did superior genetic specimens (like pic related) and trad catholics support the church informing on and torturing its local people?

Attached: vallejo-nájera.jpg (421x512, 83K)

But a 2/10 compared with Finnegans Wake.

George Orwell didn't write any masterpieces

Leftists are not people

Fo you ever get tired of being a literal trope?

>why did the people who were literally being cannibalized, raped, tortured, and castrated as their holy sites were desecrated, their spiritual beliefs demonized, and their people massacred in numbers that would make ISIS shudder support informing on those who did committed these atrocities
Gee, it's a really tough one

Do you ever get tired of being a literal demonic force who spreads evil and misery wherever you go?

When you hold a certain vision of progress all is justified to achieve it. Be wary of anyone who uses the term "reactionary" as a pejorative; they always fantasize about killing dissidents.

I mean, no? lmao

Attached: 6D721CC4-2FF7-493F-BEEB-8C0ECC9F7AAC.gif (400x273, 846K)

Didn't Orwell disavow the communist fighters?

Americans are leftists, does this surprise you?

Malraux is based thaux

>smart people support a leftist idea
hhhmm, the problem might be with you OP

Which authors supported the BASED nationalists?

That was only because they ultimately differed to Stalin. I doubt Orwell would have lost any sleep over the rape of a few reactionary nuns.

Speaking of raping nuns, has anyone here read the Leopard?

the CNT did literally nothing wrong

Attached: x4vawlg3jowy.jpg (448x289, 33K)

i think it was mostly anarchists killing nuns.

but I heard that apparently the spanish church had a long history of antagonizing the masses and all that. idk shit about it, so i don't have a real opinion on all the atrocities apart from general condemnation. jumping to all the conclusions about "depraved leftists" that /pol/tards do is another matter

The Church wasn't innocent

Yes and it is based af.

>that speech where Don Fabrice explains why the entire island of Sicilia is an arrogant piece of shit
>that uncle-nephew relationship
>that consciousness of life going away drop by drop like water from a broken waterclock

>jumping to all the conclusions about "depraved leftists" that /pol/tards do is another matter
I think the most important lesson of the 20th century is that all political ideologies are capable of inspiring violence, and that they should't be judged based on their propensity towards violence at a given moment.

>dude they were literally ISIS lmao

Attached: that way.jpg (320x320, 23K)

Attached: rthedonald.png (487x487, 698K)

literally who cares

They were probably worse if anything. Also, reddit loves and will do anything to defend anarchists.

why do you """people""" keep advertising your website here?

>being worse than ISIS, makes you ISIS
dumb cunt

/pol/tards are worse than niggers.

>hates leftists
>lives his life completely determined by their principles

>it's a /pol/tard conflates liberalism with leftism episode
yes user I'm sure the site primarily used by white american coast dwellers is a bastion of anarchism

Why even succumb to their racist lingo?

Franco's side was the right side. There was ugly business on both sides but in the balance of things Franco was preferable to the communists and the anarchists.

Can’t wait for our generations lost boys to come home from the front lines of global jihad and write their first novels

leddit have a popular forum called LateStageCapitalism that constantly shits on liberals

also i dont think that's an accurate view of who uses the site anymore, it has become one of the actual social media giants

The US government let’s anarchists riot in the streets with impunity, so you should be surprised that they have a great deal of support on reddit.

>liberals aren't leftist because my tankie special snowflake definition of the term only counts people who want to completely dismantle capitalism, meaning not even social democrats are considered leftists
literally on the same level of retardation as when ancaps say anyone who doesn't want to wholly dismantle the state isn't a rightist or when a reactionary monarchist larper says republicans aren' rightists or when a spergy dungeons and dragons fan says dragons with two legs aren't actually dragona but instead wyverns
kill yourself imbecile

lmao not him but what a perfect example of saying a lot while knowing nothing

liberalism =/= leftism is pretty basic stuff, what an embarassing post

It's especially braindead since the term comes from the French Revolution, in which the Left referred to...oh right liberal Republicans, opposing the monarchy.

only among loony self-radicalized internet spergs, just like how only among loony self-radicalized internet spergs the notion that you cannot be a rightwinger if you tolerate the existence of the state or the parliament is accepted

sounds super applicable today, thanks for the irrelevant elementary history lesson

Not even a civil war.
It’s much more complex
You’re thinking of Chesterton
Which is the kind of mindset that can get you killed in war time. The clergy had a truly evil connection with the establishment powers and a history of resisting the people’s will for change
Nice to see decent posters around here

the irony of an anticapitalist saying other ideologies are dead and irrelevant today lmao

It's where the term comes from, and literally only Marxists use Leftist to refer to the far right. Because the sensible definition of the term is clearly 'left wing ideologies"

You're basically erasing history when you try to call liberals Right wing

How many people who are not self-declared Marxists-Leninists-Maoists would argue that German SPD is not a leftwing party?

>SJWs
>anarchists
"This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other. [...] This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found."

>You’re thinking of Chesterton
Neither of them wrote any masterpieces, both were good at writing (Orwell is better, less pretentious and stuffy)

>only among loony self-radicalized internet spergs
The fact that this is what you believe says it all. Ideally you would have read enough to know better, but even with your entire intellectual repertoire consisting of Yea Forums, did you really fail to miss all the Zizek threads?

You realize people don't have to agree with everything Marxists say? They didn't invent the term Leftwing, they have zero authority on the subject, and it commonly is used to refer to anyone from liberal to anarchist

imagine being so warped by your psychotic internet political echo chambers that you genuinely believe Slavoj fucking Žižek is a relevant philosophical figure and not just a meme internet pop political figure barely on a level above Peterson
lol just lol

my post had nothing to do with ideology brainlet, the social and political elements of the revolution specific to france specific to 1789 are hardly applicable to the whole West in 20fucking19

Cringe and guiripilled

Orthodoxy is something I'd consider a masterpiece.

Neither is 'capitalism vs anticapitalism'. The fight going on right now in the West is between Neoliberals and various pseudoFascists

There are left and right liberals. They’re both liberals for supporting capitalism. But like any Catholic who denies Protestants the name of Christian, you just have to step back and call the. For what they are. One of the things you can call them both is rightwing. On that side of the capitalist fence

>a history of resisting the people’s will for change

As a Catholic I find this to be a nonsense statement. Who cares what the people "will"? What matters is the Truth, the absolute and unchanging Truth. This is why democracy is a bad idea if Christianity is true, because the masses can sometimes (even frequently) desire things that are contrary to the Truth.

I wouldn't. It's not even good apologetics. Definitely not a masterpiece.

very ebic but totally irrelevant, I was responding specifically to his post that such thinking is “only” found on the internet. i’m not interested in you butting in and moving the goalposts to feel like a participant.
Cool, irrelevant to your argument, you lose

And you think Marxism is applicable in 2019?

You’re asking me about my ideology in response to a post where I say it’s not about ideology?

You should try expressing yourself in a tone other than 'snarky teenage girl'. Anyway, your definition of Leftist is only relevant to a fringe that has no power, so you dont need to butt in to lit and cry about people using the term in a different way.

I've heard of Protestants denying the term Christian for Catholics but never the other way around. Unless we're talking about Mormons, but I'm pretty sure no one except other Mormons thinks of them as Christian.

>You should try expressing yourself in a tone other than 'snarky teenage girl'.
you should try not speaking authoritatively about things you know nothing about and then coping by moving the goalposts and whining about muh tone

because they were building a genuinely utopian society of free association and self-sustainability while fighting a fascist movement that foreign powers both capitalist and socialist saw as a threat to their way of life and an inhuman manifestation of unbridled modernity

Attached: 2605557_orig.jpg (450x240, 39K)

Your point was 'marxists use the term Leftist to mean x'. Everybody here knows that, because one of you appear and cry about it every single time. You didnt win an argument, we just dont care about your opinion

Just how fucking retarded are you? How are you not getting it? 19th/20th century Marxism is about as relevant today as 18th/19th century liberalism. That's the whole fucking point. Capitalism-anticapitalism issue has been resolved conclusively by 1990.

>Anyway, your definition of Leftist is only relevant to a fringe that has no power, so you dont need to butt in to lit
>butt in to lit
Lmao the /pol/tard thinks all of Yea Forums is his incel domain, the majority of Yea Forums is leftist, fuck off

>you lose you lose
nice another internet argument won
better luck next time bucko

No you're basically a laughingstock, this board has like 30 threads up right now about fascism and racism

Nope, you and I both know what the argument was about and how totally you lost it lmao keep coping

>if you're not a MLM you're a /pol/tard
the absolute state of brainwashed zoomers

Let me know when you elect one of your pallid incels to congress.

You called someone out for calling a liberal a leftist, because you're a child who needs everybody to follow his fringe politics. The neoliberals have completely ousted you guys from relevance, you're dinosaurs who have to allow dumb black women to tell you what you can say

>he thinks congress matters
I thought you guys were revolutionaries

>19th/20th century Marxism is about as relevant today as 18th/19th century liberalism.
Math is hard

The saddest thing is that the underage commie LARPer in this thread doesn't even know that his literal idols Stalin and Lenin wrote about rightwingers and leftwingers within communist movement itself, which is something that should be impossible by his own spergy definition.

Surely, but we’re also intelligent, that’s why we’re in congress and you’re on Yea Forums imagining that a “revolution” can only take the form of tiki torches and Challengers

By your own definition of right and left Congress is like 99.97% right you fucking moron

Well this is why the church should be dissolved. Assholes with your mindset have killed for your stupid ideals. The people’s will that I was thinking of most was educating their children, NOT by priests and nuns. So obviously such a dangerous notion was worth killing over, you’ll say.

I’ve heard both, but it all depends on the person

We’re talking about Marxists vs fascists, keep up very stable genius

>implying this isn’t the case

Well I guess you gotta change topics to save face on an anonymous imageboard somehow lol

>he thinks history tends only towards his Christian inherited concept of progress
You have an amusingly childish view of reality, so all that squawking about Fascism rising from Trump and Bolsonaro,etc. was just play acting?

Also elected officials don't need to be very smart, as you'll be the first ones to point out in other instances, and you yourself are not elected to anything but trying to argue outdated positions on Yea Forums

lmao the irony, try following the thread numbnuts

>Which is the kind of mindset that can get you killed in war time. The clergy had a truly evil connection with the establishment powers and a history of resisting the people’s will for change
Imagine the copious amounts of hypocrisy in this post. You clearly dont know shit about the spanish civil war and even less dont take to account the amounts of hypocrisy it was for these people to do those brutal acts while claiming to be all humanist and "for the people".
The "kind of mindset that can get you killed" is actually promoting your stupid anarcho egoist ideology that would more easily get you killed since people would realise that you only have a stinky old cunt that serves for nothing but whinnying.
Just to add that despite as shit as the clergy is, it wasnt like the way you claim to be, even less something as a non or some local village priest.
God damn this people are so dumb and ideology fuelled that it makes me cringe.

Attached: 1541209063621.jpg (600x600, 28K)

>>he thinks history tends only towards his Christian inherited concept of progress
... excuse me? How do you imagine this word salad is relevant?

Alright let's get back to topic that started your whole emotional outburst in this thread. Please address and

You think fascism can't come back because there is a 'right side of history' because your political views are a fairy tale promising utopia if only the ebil bad guys stop messing it up

it's the correct definition, the fact that people stupid enough to misuse the term exist in power only proves that the status quo has failed at a fundamental level. i am correct in all my assertions and you cannot and will not change this fact.

>it's the correct definition,
You have a really hard time understanding how words work lol

>You think fascism can't come back because there is a 'right side of history'
No I don’t, and I never said that. I drew a contrast between elected Marxists and tiki torch street Nazis in response to you asking whether we weren’t supposed to be revolutionaries. Our ideas are actually making political progress.

A word that predates left-anticapitalism by half a century and has only ever been used to denote left-anticapitalism by left-anticapitalists, who as a movement and an ideology lost all political power and popular support forty years ago, means only left-anticapitalism because you, a left-anticapitalist, say so? lol just lol

So Trump doesn't stand for white supremacy? Neither do Orban, Salvini, etc? Because the far left have informed me they do

You seem to under the strange delusion that you’re arguing with one person, I never had an outburst and have no interest in your brainlet takes. As a genuine communist I don’t care about debate. I’m only interested in my side winning, who the fuck cares about converting fascists lmao

>Elected marxists

Where dis?

Alright LARPer I'll chalk it up as my victory. Thanks for playing.

They do, but they’re not fascists, they’re gateway drugs.

>I’m only interested in my side winning
The sad part is even if the guys who you consider your side ever win, you're some worthless peon to them that will be used as cannon fodder while they set up a dictatorship. And you call other people bootlicker i bet fucking lol

That may be true, but left-liberals are still leftists.

Never you mind

I’m not a communist because I want to be in power... weirdo brainlet

Of all you’re talking about is capitalist hegemony, sure. Just know there is a real and anti capitalist left

>liberalism =/= leftism is pretty basic stuff, what an embarassing post
this is how far gone we are in terms of political thought

Well enjoy dying so they can fail to achieve communism like every other people who've tried. Though i doubt theyll really get anywhere in the first place

>oh no people don't agree with my fringe definitions
sew far gone

By using the term real you're implying that succdems etc. are not also real leftists
Never figured you for a tankie

no you do

Chesterton is a MUCH better writer than Orwell. He is not stuffy at all, witty and a quick read. I could read Chesterton all day, and I've forgotten about Orwell until this thread.

Clearly the concept of fighting for a better future is foreign to you because you’re a soulless conformist. Whether we succeed or I die is irrelevant to my espousal of communism.
That said, for the record, your idea of communism is inaccurate.

correct. having difficulty understanding something? do i need to use smaller words, sweetheart? maybe draw a picture in mspaint, sweetie? hmm? maybe i just need to dumb it down for you, hmmm?

They’re capitalists. So well right of me.

Tankies are statists.
How about red squares, green squares, etc.?

>because you’re a soulless conformist
meanwhile you 5 posts ago: my mommy is in congress. w r smart, you guys r losers

>Communism
>Better future
l o l

worth it just to see cuck retards like you catch a bullet in the crossfire

Attached: 1531028464959.png (800x894, 21K)

>seething so hard you resort to sweatyposting
its okay to just leave a thread if you lose an argument dude you're anonymous no one will be able to bring it up next time you post in a thread

>hurrr definitions are decided by whomstever holds the most political clout in americuck politics

this is your argument. naturally i wouldn't be caught on the same side as it.

>you deserve to die because you oppose my psychotic violent ideology
The state of commies. I hope you at least have guns

*nun

You’re flat dumb. Conforming to the status quo =/= agreeing loosely with a fringe element in congress

Just go back to twitter you fat retard, nobody cares about what marxists think words mean

she's a minor celebrity who the press frequently portray well, you're just a cuck to the status quo

fringe elements dont get into congress, they get a visit from the feds

>fat retard
The fat retards always wanna be the first to project, last to post a pic. Really makes me think.

Ive only ever seen fat women say whomstever

>muh faux two faced effete pacifism
>n-n-no not p-p-political violence... anything but that... we're an ideology of peace...

i will not even begin to discuss what amounts to civilized conduct until you wholeheartedly denounce the war crimes of the US government

Why is liberalism not nearly in perfect overlap with "The Left" when both accept Whig history, materialism, determinism, rights, democracy, "the will of the people", and so on? The only difference is:
>Liberal: Some people can own private property
>Communist: No one can own private property.
and the latter implies that the Party Central Committee will own everything anyway.

There has never in history been a time when the communist definition of the term has been accepted as the universal one. You think Democrats weren't considered leftwing in 1978 because USSR was still around? You think the average German didn't think of SPD as leftwing in 1930 because KPD called them red fascists? You're an ignorant child brainlessly repeating what other ignorant children said before you. You know Lenin literally wrote works making fun of the people he considered to the left of him? Read a fucking book you dumb nigger

You’re impossibly dumb. Capitalism is the status quo. AOC is very much a fringe element. Literally nobody on either side of the aisle would argue this. But you are. Why? Because you’re just that fucking dumb.

>twitter
>highly corporatized, centralized global shilling platform for predatory capitalist interests and US intelligence

no. twitter is where YOU belong.

>the US government has committed war crimes so let's stage a bloody revolution, oppress the entire population and probably murder a bunch of innnocent people so that we can repeat a failure that occurs every time people do this
you're absolute scum really, and it's obvious that youre motivated more than anything by sheer envy

>my institutions told me that this obvious product is a fringe element
fucking lol

>implying AOC isn't literally an establishment darling

>implying the US isn't communist with anglocommunsim as official party line

there has never been a time when any definition was universally accepted. why should i consider the proud boys™ sponsored rightoid definition when my definition fits my political views better personally?

Insane to imagine to myself in your shoes and be this dumb and yet be so sure I know it all. It’s like a horror movie.

twitter is where you can get all your latest aoc tweets, fight the power comrade

Twitter pretty much is THE internet marxist haven atm, unless they arent your TRUE COMRADES or whatever lmao

Well for one, your definition is used by less than 1% of the English speaking world.

you have no idea how politics works dude, stop posting

if you cannot denounce the crimes of your own governmental institutions then i simply cannot accept your argument as in good faith. you either support mass murder... or you do not. it's literally black and white.

Start with Proudhon and Stirner.

i expect no less than three peer reviewed studies confirming this statistic

I understand that lefties have a very hard time empathizing with different viewpoints, your cultlike ideological conformity makes that clear. Actually very few people trust the press, the fact that you trust your random little socialist outlets is a sign of deference to authority, not rebellion. You guys are just an oddity of the establishment, too harmless to be considered a real threat, allowed to fester in Marxist departments of the Ivies while even your AOC was elected for being a spic by other spics

He’s just clueless about everything in general. I keep trying to avoid responding to him but he’s all over the thread.

I couldnt care less what you think of my motivations, go talk to your good faith friends on your hugbox you dumb faggot

wrong
Yea Forums is the internet marxist haven. you are that which does not belong.

>Stirner
Anarcho-liberal.
>Proudhon
Basically an anarcho-liberal.

Go ask your mother, your father, and your sibling. I'm sure they'd be happy to talk to you since it would be the first time you leave the basement this year.

then why are you even responding

and yet this thread and any other thread will be full of Fascism and other right wing posting, some marxist haven

Yea Forums is just for contrarian retards of all flavors

To call you a dumbass for your dumbass opinions

>I understand that lefties have a very hard time empathizing with different viewpoints
I’m more than willing to talk to anyone of any ideology, I really am. The vitriol is all on your side and I responded in kind. But anyone trying to talk to me in good faith will have a conversation.
There’s a difference between being willing to listen and allowing dissent when our ideology is actually implemented. Even then, personally, I’d lend an ear to people who are unhappy without reporting them. It’s my personality.
You’re too eager to strawman and villainize. It smacks of insecurity in your views, either their validity or your grasp of them.

the only dumbass here is you, CIA nigger

solely because of you lmao

Instead of trying to pigeonhole them, read them.
Liberals are statists and supporters of capitalism. At the start of anarchism we see the real problem is all legalisms. They’re “spooks”

You're absolutely brainwashed to think that something that has literally always failed will somehow be different in the highly unlikely event it ever comes to pass

Spook is not synonymous with social construct you retard. Stop talking about terminology you can't even be bothered to fucking wiki.

We’re talking about capitalism here right?

Edison only had a lightbulb after a thousand. Sometimes a brilliant idea needs multiple goes.

I'm not even much of a capitalism fan but don't be THIS dishonest

>leftist
>republican
Excuse me but are you retarded?

R E A D
T H E
F U C K I N G
B O O K

Attached: 369D7E5C-19F5-461A-BA10-FD66CF419369.jpg (585x850, 83K)

based

Forgot pic related.

Attached: facepalm.jpg (1024x683, 102K)

Butterfly how do you define ‘capitalism’? :3

>Orwell loved Stalin
Imagine being such a complete dumbass that even the hamfisted (heh) fairytale of Animal Farm goes over your head

Edison didn't kill millions of people trying to make a lightbulb. If you were promoting some kind of 'let's go make some coops' type ideology then try as many times as you like. You're promoting something which has literally always ended in violence and repression.

Niggers allowed to roam free in the streets and in markets.

We’re headed for another collapse, user. This thing NEVER works.
It only works for the winners. Hence the collapse of civilizations. Donno if China has it in her to be much bigger than the US, but the earth won’t support it, so we’re headed for something different.
And I hope it’s Not Capitalism

A
SPOOK
IS
A
FIXED
IDEA

violence and repression still exist in the current year and are actively perpetrated by capitalist powers so i dont get your point

You understand that every form of society ever has undergone frequent collapses? That's not unique to modern capitalism, and is in no way an argument that your particular theory, which has already failed multiple times, is a better solution

Life isn’t about material collections. Perhaps this is what the marxists don’t understand. That there is something inherently more important than the sheer amount of money you have. Perhaps that’s what this world needs to make a movement out of. :3

>« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE
I would define it as medicine everyone takes but dosen't like.

You’ve been softened by modernity.

>as long as it mentions authors I can't be blamed for making a thread that I knew for certain wasn't going to be about literature!
kys

>statism
Authority always exists within society.
>supporter of capitalism
Stirner: Society does not exist and is a spook, I advocate a union of egoists who come together to fulfill their desires (where do these come from? what if someone's desire is to make someone work for more hours than socially necessary for them?)
This is turbo-liberalism.

not on a comparable scale

I asked her to define it, not you.

Butterfly I am waiting for my response :3

>desecrating the body of anyone is OK
Far from a civil war. But thankfully, the winner is the rightful ruler. Assad deserves to win.

Based evil butterlfy number two!

ok Rambo

>Life isn’t about material collections. Perhaps this is what the marxists don’t understand. That there is something inherently more important than the sheer amount of money you have.
That’s literally what we believe, yes. In a capitalist society everything is about the money. Since we’re on Yea Forums, imagine the arts without the money incentive. There would be no more James Pattersons, no more soulless capeshit, etc. Marxism is literally all about restoring the focus of society to the people, which requires taking it out of the hands of capitalists whose focus is money.
>Perhaps that’s what this world needs to make a movement out of.
We are. It’s called Marxism.

>That’s literally what we believe, yes. In a capitalist society everything is about the money. Since we’re on Yea Forums, imagine the arts without the money incentive. There would be no more James Pattersons, no more soulless capeshit, etc.
Then what's the argument for the art of those with literal Patrons? Baroque court musicians, or Renaissance painters/sculptors/etc, for example?

>He actually fucking things cheap pop culture media won't be a thing under communism

lmfao

absolutely on a comparable scale. if all of modern quality of life and prosperity is to be taken as the direct result of capitalism, then so must every weapon used for war, every bomb and bullet bought and sold. oh and also moderate rebels like al qaeda and isis who were trained by the CIA. all of that is LITERALLY capitalism.

Their only purpose is profit, genius. Let me know how that fits into a communist economy.

Owners of businesses who exploit labor and land for their own gain. It’s nonsense and has a long history. Money, written laws, piracy.

Why is a “social construct” not a “fixed idea”?

If you were to only read, and ponder for a few moments...
Apollonian minds. Geez

Unjustifiable authorities should be challenged

Attached: 20A1D834-8494-4B9B-AA08-0C3097A47B76.jpg (1015x633, 103K)

I don’t understand the question. Maybe you don’t understand what the role of a patron was.

To entertain simps you simp lmao

>if all of modern quality of life and prosperity is to be taken as the direct result of capitalism
I would never say that though, that's completely retarded. It's almost 100% due to technological advances

Wars between sovereigns cannot be blamed on economic conditions in the same way as repression within the state. Capitalism exploits and alienates its workers, communism has tended to produce famine and mass murder. Both Communist and Capitalist countries have waged war against other countries for geopolitical reasons.

> In a capitalist society everything is about the money
There are many who are focused on money.

Tell me though, Marxism, who wants the powers and methods of production in the hands of the people, which is an inherently atheistic doctrine, tell me how this is not a religion/cult based on money redistribution? Essentially at the core, is a methodology which is based on subsuming everything a certain class of people have and redistributing it to the workers. Maybe when those workers did not have the means to become capitalists themselves this may not have been great.

But you live in America in the 21st century, Capital is very mobile. And social capital, your labor for example, even moreso.

Marxism will never be a meaningful movement, and I can guarantee you because of me even moreso. What you are witnessing is a system working: capitalist democracy letting individuals speak. It’s what I’m about, its what this website is about and it’s what this country is about.

It’s what we’re about.

... yes... but solely for profit........ never respond to me again

Society doesn't "fix" ideas, neither does it have them. Most of the social constructions in contemporary America, for instance, are treated ironically. A social construction, or any idea, can become a "fixed" idea if the person who has it treats it with "reverent awe and dread." Hence, "spook." Like a horse in a thunderstorm.

>Unjustifiable authorities should be challenged
Whither the theory of justice and why? Suppose I claim that the justice of the masses as vested Communist Party in accordance with the will of the people is always right because historical necessity dictates the suppression of anti-socialist elements including Stirnerians. Is this just, why or why not

The point is there will still be garbage media made even if it's point isn't "profit" why is this flying over your head

So again. Laws are very much respected by most. Held in awe and dread.
They are all spooks. The states constitution, every rich mans land deed, down to every red cent.
Spooks

Not that guy but that’s a baseless assertion and you’ve continually failed to comprehend his point all while being so smug that me as an outsider is compelled to inform you that you’re not even a quarter as smart as you think. Yes there will always be bad artists, but in a communist society there will not be bad artists who are bad for the purpose of profit. This is not debatable.

There will still be artists who appeal to the lowest common denominator for fame. The most famous artists will still be those who appeal to the retarded masses. That's a problem of mass culture, when artists used to be paid(so for profit) by the aristocracy they made very different art than when they started being paid by the masses.

>but in a communist society there will not be bad artists who are bad for the purpose of profit.
There's literally no difference between bad art for profit and bad art that's just bad. Regardless, it's bad - that someone can get paid for it is an opportunity, not a problem.

>Owners of businesses who exploit labor and land for their own gain
There will always be someone trying to exploit some kind of material gain for their advantage.

The twisted thing about your socialist philosophies, especially Marxism, is it actually gives more power to the powers that be, either they have to be more fierce and aggressive or the Aristocracy which supplants theirs has to be. Simple as that.

You have change from within. The landowners should basically not be a class of people, Butterfly. I’m with you on that one. I’m a Geoist. It would get rid of land rent and a class of leeches.

Capital though? Hm. Capital should be easily accessible but that is the name of the game, is it not? I think you can work amazing things under capitalism.

I think it is a slog, but eventually it all comes back to you if you’re a good employee. Do you take pride in your work, for instance?

I will grant there is something going on, but it sure isn’t Marxism. You can bet most of these people are weak for simply talking about things you would like or even simply talking about things you might be interested in. I’m sure you’ve seen the behavior.

But yeah, anyway. Not to get off on a tangent, you’re always stating for me to read things, how about you give Henry George’s Progress and Poverty a read.

I think there are persistent groups of people who don’t PRODUCE anything, that’s the problem. Capital produces a lot of different things, Butterfly.

>There's literally no difference between bad art for profit and bad art that's just bad.
In fact there is, namely that in one case, the art is bad for profit, and in the other, the art is just bad.

But only the one that is made for profit has mass appeal? How can you verifiably state this?

Are you afraid of profit or something? The end is the same. Bad art.

Wrong
Wrong
...not going to waste my time here

>There will still be artists who appeal to the lowest common denominator for fame. The most famous artists will still be those who appeal to the retarded masses.
That’s a nice thought experiment but there is factually no historical equivalent to the predominance of grifters in the arts today, and it has everything to do with capitalism. The most famous artists of the past —say, Mozart —were also the best.

You’re right.

I think the issue here is greed. The only reason he was overpaid for the art is because people cared way too much about money :3

Greed, and lack of faith in a higher power is the immediate problem I think we’re met with. This age hopefully will see the emergence of great gains in technology alongside belief and faith in God

lmao
The point is that with the monetary incentive gone, there will be less of it. But yes, bad is art is indeed bad art, truly profound.

You don’t want me to go Stefan Molyneux on your bitch ass here :3

So art for which compensation in the form of monetized surplus labor extracted from the peasantry via the King/princes can be good but art for which compensation is in the form of monetized surplus labor left over after extraction from the masses by the bourgeoisie can only be bad because it's done to make money (whereas no one before liberalism expected to earn money from their work?)

Are you sure you aren't defending aristocracy.

Mozart was famous to an aristocracy though is my point. When mass popular culture emerged the art music scene became an irrelevant sideshow and today if you go to hear music they'll probably play Handel, not Schoenberg.

Mozart does actually sell to the masses somewhat, but he's not going to compete with Ariana Grande or whatever

Orwell explains himself completely in Homage to Catalonia. For one thing, he ideologically supported Socialists over Fascists, and felt that Fascists taking over Spain was a danger to the entire world. He came well after the main part of the red terror was over, and never participated in it himself. Remember, he would have seen claims of Red atrocities in rightist newspapers along with claims of Fascist atrocities in left wing papers. Of those, many were probably false on both sides and many were true.

So art went to shit? :3

Hm. Interestingly enough, Tocqueville comes to the same conclusion. Unfortunately you will never have again art so delicately crafted. On the other hand something akin to what we’re doing on here couldn’t happen under a monarchy or aristocracy. The public just wasn’t educated.

It’s just a tradeoff. Under this system, you won’t have giants, just a lot of very well rounded individuals.

>It’s just a tradeoff. Under this system, you won’t have giants, just a lot of very well rounded individuals.
I'd rather we had a few Great Men a generation than mediocre, well rounded populi

The irony here is that many esteemed composers nowadays were actually popular with the masses and much of our mediocre contemporary popular music has an intel agency behind the scences (see: Laurel Canyon)

You’ll still have great men. You’re talking to one right now.

Sometimes movements will happen still. Something works out with intelligence and spirituality. :3 just go forward, but always remember to follow the word of God

The issues as I see to discourage are
Homosexuality
Transsexualism
Greed
Lust
Gluttony

>pic related, it's a historical photograph of Spanish leftists--the same endorsed by the likes of Hemingway and Goldman--parading around the corpse of nun and giggling to themselves.
based af, it honestly reflect very well the ideas of this website. Go to facebook, pussy

What I'm getting from this particular discussion is that we need to bring back monarchy and aristocracy if we want art to be good again.

This thread is a shit show and you could tell from the title.

>”hey, I have an obvious and clear bias regarding this subject. Why is the other side so eviiiiiil? Tell me, Yea Forums, huh?”

I'm sure there will still be stuff like capeshit for the less art inclined in the communist society. Just hopefully a lot fucking less

New pasta?

Aren't shitty bards and stuff like that bascially yesterdays art grifters?

>Finnegans Wake
Don't pretend you've read it or appreciate it as a work of literature.

Shitty bards were at least not organized into a criminal syndicate, and occasionally brought pleasant entertainment to people who worked for a living.

I like Down and Out in Paris and London. It's a pretty good book.

In Sweden we literally had a Green party politician draw this comparison (Housing Minister Mehmet Kaplan). He said islamists going over to fight in Syria on a Swedish passport were no different than Swedish volunteers fighting in the Spanish Civil War and Finnish Winter War. Shortly after he was forced to resign due to his ties to Islamic extremists in Turkey were exposed.

To make this post on topic, does anyone have any good recommendations on the topic of the Spanish Civil War? I've been meaning to read more about it.

This isn't strictly true. Mozart wrote for wealthy patrons, but also had a subscription concerto programs for the bourgeoisie, which was an innovative business model. He also wrote singspiels and popular operas that the lower classes went to. His tunes were widely known and performed at all levels of society during his most popular years, and in one of his letters boasts "every errand boy in Vienna whistles my tunes".

The Kurds are the POUM. No leftist goes to fight for ISIS

Fantastic recommendation user, read the whole essay and couldn’t agree more.

I know that in the Durutti biography I have, they identify the church as a primary landholder which would hire pistoleros or whatever to silence squeeky wheels among the rabble. Whether or not this justified what that rabble did in return is a moral matter I don't care to discuss. I will say that I went into reading the Durruti book thinking 'hell yeah this guy is cool' and came out of it with a far more ambivalent feeling about him.

I think he meant 'deferred.' The context makes this make more sense.

If you want Spanish Nationalist political theory, read the collected essays of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He’s actually spot on in his understanding of the self-doubt at the heart of the modern liberal state.

Franco-anarchist alliance against the liberals and commies is best alternate timeline

It’s like you’ve never read Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. The whole Spanish left was a massive, ineffectual joke. Their own infighting caused their demise. The POUM in your photo, in particular, was purged by the Communist Party of Spain, supported by the Soviet Union. Go read Solzhenitsyn and explain to me how any person in the 21st century can possibly believe that Soviet communism was a good system.

Lmao. History for liberals is like an episode of Scooby Doo, and they’re the bad guy. “We’d have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids and their dog!!!”

>In July 1936, during the Spanish Civil War, Giménez Malla tried to defend a Catholic priest from Republican militiamen. They both were arrested and imprisoned in a former Capuchin monastery, converted into a wartime prison.[7] An acquaintance advised him that he would probably be released if he gave up his rosary, but he refused. The soldiers asked him if he had weapons, and that he answered: "Yes, and here it is", while displaying his rosary. On August 9, Giménez Malla and others were taken by truck to a cemetery and shot. He reportedly died holding the rosary in his hands, and shouting: "Long live Christ the King!".[6] He was buried in a mass grave; his body has never been found.
Hallelujah! Praise Ye the Lord!

Attached: poke2.jpg (616x474, 40K)

>Money is the only form of capital
Oh buy, THIS retardation again.

Heidegger

Because Orwell and Hemingway were culturally protestants and as such subhuman anglos.

This is the perfect example of marxist idiocy: a complete failure of understanding that hierarchies aren't just monetary and that abolishing private property or money won't get rid of most inequalities, most hierarchies and most human desires that make communism untenable.
Shitty pop culture is made because a) there are shitty artists that can only produce that b) there are artists who want fame above all and c) because there are monetary incentives. Removing only the last cause isn't going to stop shitty pop culture from being produced. In fact, given that most people would be able to keep on living without working or at least without working most of their day, we're going to have even more shitty artists who are going to produce even shittier least common denominator stuff because there's going to be even more competition among them for fame and attention.

>They’re both liberals for supporting capitalism.

Attached: images(32).jpg (470x652, 28K)

>mfw anarchists couldn't even defeat Franco, who was shit tier by fascist dictator standards
>they still think they can rule the world

Attached: Rainbowman.jpg (780x520, 47K)

>Americans are leftists
I wish. I can't even afford the medical attention I need thanks to our heartless right wing policies.

This guy is a literal joke, he himself was a former communist and then made a living writing pants on head retarded straw man stuff like this.

Also Liberals =\= socialists , he seems to be taking a stand against enlightenment thinking generally.

Great that the alt right has produced another generation of half wits to lap up this tripe. But keep going, reading this stuff actually makes you more stupid, and that makes us stronger.

They didn't support the atrocities of the Republicans, but were allied with them because they opposed the far greater atrocities committed by the Nationalists. But I suspect you know this already.

Stop viewing the world as either one or the other modern American political party. Capitalism means less regulation and is therefore liberal.

I hope the Donald takes what little welfare you get and abolishes it.

Writers are imaginative, and imaginative people are often drawn to utopianism. Once the utopian idea has been sufficiently absorbed, any amount of atrocities begin to seem justifiable in its pursuit.

Stop being a brainlet American. Liberalism does not mean the same thing as leftism. Lassaize-faire capitalism is as liberal as you can get.

I don't receive welfare. That's what I'm complaining about. I have been hard at work since I was 15 and my country does little to repay me. If America were a leftist country I would be adequately compensated for my work and I would get to see a doctor for my lung problem. Anyway, that's a mean thing you said.

you write like a failed uni student, fascinating
stupid take as well, you're american aren't you? probably a skelly to

>support the atrocities of the leftist
Leftism is a symptom of psychopathology. They want to rule the world with false accusations and terror.

>caring for the people in need is a left-wing thing
Shit you're probably one of those retards who thinks colonization was mostly supported by the right and that borders were invented to oppress non-whites

El americANO señores.

wtf I love these writers more now

>Capitalism
Not that user but maybe ancap not current"capitalusm"

>Liberals =\= socialists
Wrong, socialists are liberals, they're simply too stupid to realize it. Socialists are the "useful retards" of liberalism and exist only to do its bidding i.e. to decimate the unprofitable social structures that stand in the way of the unbridled flow of capitalism. The family, the home, the community, the church, the nation, morality, spirituality, beauty, your very sense of self--socialists destroy these institutions because of their faggish resentment for social achievement and their nihilistic glee in evil (see the OP picture of smirking young people brandishing knives at the weakest and most innocent possible target). But this destruction unintentionally and inevitably paves the road for capital to sweep in and conquer their own tenuous and effeminate hold on power.

Essentially, the left is a collection of brainless golem who are incapable of noticing that they are deliberately protected and led by the plentiful hand of the establishment. They never stop to wonder, why is it that we are allowed to meet and speak and organize and influence? Why do we hold cushy positions at Ivy league universities and supposedly adversarial institutions like the CIA and the Senate? Why can we commit crimes with impunity and why doesn't the FBI assassinate us in accordance with our own mythology?

The answer is: because you are not a real threat. You are a mob of unruly children incapable of governance, an insentient social weapon to be sicced on enemies of liberalism. Even if you take power, you always (ALWAYS) end up either collapsing under the weight of your own mismanagement or succumbing to the exponentially superior power of capital.

He’s right, but his statement is meaningless.
The whole liberals /= leftists is the new talking point for people who are allergic to nuanced or are just too embarrassed that their political allies can derive support for a different economic framework from an exceedingly similar moral framework.

Nobody claims this mister strawman

Why do you think it's not a civil war?

>>chesterton didn't write any masterpiece
Reported for being underage.