Born just in time to watch the secular...

Capitalism in the hands of cultural marxists and rootless cosmopolitans is just as good a tool as international marxism to instate totalitarianism, although it has to be done in subtler ways (because of its democratic pretenses).

As long as rootless cosmopolitans are not turned into fertilizer the world will know no peace.

Why are you using secular as a negative while arguing for Communism?

Yes leftist, every leftists I've known and all left-wing parties world wide with the exception maybe of the communist parties of china and Russia.

Don't worry, there's a little more history left to go. The West will "learn from" innovative Chinese state capitalism and become even more authoritarian! Get hype for the raised GDP (but lower gini coefficient and freedom)

Post your face when we ought to reattempt revolutionary enlightenment liberalism but with redistribution and mutualist economics instead of bourgeois capitalism instituted

What about National Bolshevism?

>communism-lite
kill yourself jew.

Won't happen, technological advances emerge predominantly under capitalism to serve capitalist imperatives, which entail artificially enforced scarcity

>criticize capitalism
>WOW FUCKING MARXIST TRASH

Guess how I know you're American

You have it backwards, but by all means keep giving your surplus value to your boss like a good little cuck

>he believes in the debunked LTV
It's so easy to spot commies. Now go back to your cuckshed.

>You know that system where people have a myriad forms of culture, entertainment and commodities to choose from? That's like the real totalitarianism, man.

>tfw will live in a jetsons future where we're still all worker drones because the whole system would collapse without shlomo pushing the newest consumer fad onto society

So glad the West won the cold war

>capitalism
>culture

Are you trying to tell me that moving wealth from primarily Jewish bankers and rich property owners to common ownership is a Jewish scheme? Yes, that makes perfect sense because Trotsky heritage something something

Communism is the only genuinely anti-merchant ideology

the ltv and surplus value theory are two independent things

>that system that destroys every native culture and replaces it with Nike, Coke and Hollywood

>Are you trying to tell me that moving wealth from primarily Jewish bankers and rich property owners to common ownership is a Jewish scheme?
You're such a good little goy. The bolshevik revolution was funded by jewish NYC bankers like Jacob Schiff, and Trotsky himself lived in NYC prior to returning to Russia to participate in the revolution. Communism is inherently jewish because it seeks to destroy nationalities (as this would make the jew safer), and is not concerned with the transfer of wealth from "jewish bankers" to the rest of the populace, but from the whole populace to a little nomenklatura of jewish """""""proletarians"""""""

Not a argument

Yep. It is hell and there is no escape.

The funny part are the right wingers are desperate to title this hell we're in anything other than capitalism, just buzzwords like 'Globalism' and 'Cultural Marxism'

I've always found funny that leftypol pretends as if left wingers aren't cheering in the street at the advent of the globalist, cultural marxist world.

It really provides an availability of cultures that no other system does. I could watch an Argentinian traditional dance performance on YT, then watch an Italian movie on cable, then buy some chicken nuggets at an American fast food store, then go to a concert by a British rock band, then purchase a K-pop CD, then read a book by Herman Hesse.

Nobody forces you to purchase those products, right? You can buy shoes from a shoemaker, drink locally brewed beer and watch an indie movie for example.

Wait so both communism and capitalism are a jewish scheme?

Free market capitalism is not. Globalist corporatism definitely has a Hebraic tinge.

Man, I'm a fan of them. So smart and powerful.

They are a rather exceptional people. It's too bad they seem unable to not use their gifts in a way which hurts their host countries.

Surplus value is compatible with a strictly use value outlook.

Basically, you are in a position where (((economic necessity))) makes you produce [sale price X] of product for your boss and he pays you [X minus as much as he can get away with, which is most of it = surplus value]

Oy vey what a bargain! You should be grateful for your job

You're conflating socialists and liberals, presumably because your understanding of politics is limited to the retarded burgerclap political compass

global poverty is dropping, most peaceful time in history of human race, but no the capitalists are the evil ones

Oh really Trotsky lived in NYC? Wtf I love private property now

Nice argument nerd

I forgot that capitalists systems are responsible for there being a limited amount of oil, gas, arable land rescources

My biggest beef with capitalism is that it destroyed permanently the single earner family, at least on a societal basis. From the early 1800s - 1970s, most middle and upper class women stayed home. Then they got """""liberated""""" cause schlomo could make even more money.

Now instead of a God ordered family unit where everyone has a unique part to play, both parents abandon their kids in state run day care to go work as worker bees for a Jew run multinational so they can barely scrap by.

What progress!

Nothing last for ever, not even liberalism and capitalism will

You fucking retard, you think feminists, and those in favor of women's liberation were capitalists?

Is the new tactic by communists to pretend that cultural marxism is "capitalist"?

If you read my posts instead of whatever bolshevik strawman you anticipated you might have noticed I wrote "common" rather than "public/state" property and previously made reference to mutualism

>muh cultural marxism meme
Just a way for capitalist cucks to take the blame away from themself

>muh cultural marxism meme
>has cultural marxist memes saved on his hard drive
Kike marxist shill gas yourself.

Have jews become to /pol/acks what "patriarchy" is for feminists? I've seen people blaming them for both communism and capitalism.

fucking freedom is destroying our freedoms gib totalitarian autocracy pls

there is literally nothing /pol/ won't blame on jews

As far as reality goes, the only anti-merchant ideology is forms of Islam that are heavy on Islamic Banking.

born in time to witness the Ideology Wars

>implying either is good

>freedom to work for as low wages as your employer can get away with

Kek

Abondoning prohibitions on usury was a mistake

People just understand that American culture is inherently superior.

>America
>culture

Both of you are unerudite trash. It's Modernism to blame. Nazi germany was just as fond of getting woman to work as any communist or capitalist state.

...

>implying we didn't know

Now go and copy-edit more alt-right memes leftycuck.

No one forces you to work tard. You have freedom but you just dont use it.

>implying modernism isn't a product of capitalism

>Cultural marxism is a meme

But cultural marxism is based in critical theory and marxist base and superstructure.

>Ironic that capitalistcucks were the real totalitarians all along

Every political/economic system devolves into totalitarianism.

I find it kind of ironic how planned the economy became. grocery chains like Aldi control the whole supply chain from farmer to customer and they have so much power that they force the farmers to do their bidding. It's one step away from being a state controlled enterprise in charge of food supply and distribution.

>born in time to see & humanities ruin Veeky Forums
Feels bad man

>cultural marxism

So called "cultural marxism" is what happened when the CIA and other capitalist thugs, infiltrated socialist organization and corrupted their ideology so as to neutralize the threat.

The so called New Left was born. And was then funded heavily to push out any of the socialists remaining in the left-wing parties.

Today we have left wing parties but they don't hold any left wing ideologies anymore.

Communism and socialism are complete shit but it's not like capitalism is great either. Basically the modern world is a dystopia either way.

Yes this has largely happened, yet, there are the roots of its downfall already here.

Although not a leftist Spengler said great societies always collapse when they seem strongest. Baudrillard also said something similar along those lines, namely, that even with all of their most sophisticated weaponry, simulacra and domination of the world narrative, the Capitalist West was still vulnerable to a complete reversal of its fortune and a collapse under its own weight. The more powerful and in control they seem, the more precarious their foothold actually is.

In fact the early 2000's there were already the roots for a massive de-colonial and anti-western/globalised capitalist sentiment being rooted in the third world, that we will only come to discover in a few decades.

Please explain why Socialism is shit.

>There are still people who believe Fukuyama.

See

>cultural marxism
It's a conspiracy theory, not a real political stance.

Socialism is a utopic ideology. The concept of nation guided by the principle of equality is very theoretically attractive. In practice however, a socialist system is bad for all of society as whole. Socialism inhibits innovation and efficiency, the engines for economic growth, restricts the freedom of the individual, and provides a vehicle for corruption and tyrannical rule. Finally, socialism is costly and unsustainable.

>western culture isn't best culture

>Socialism is a utopic ideology

How is workers controlling the means of production utopic?

>Socialism inhibits innovation and efficiency

No, Capitalism does. Capitalism by nature means the owner will create a product cost effective for them, not the consumer.

>restricts the freedom of the individual

HOW?

>provides a vehicle for corruption and tyrannical rule

Most dictatorships have been feudalistic or capitalist or corporatist.

>Finally, socialism is costly and unsustainable.

HOW?
You seem to think

Socialism = when da govarment owns stuff lol

>It's a conspiracy theory

In Critical theory and Antonio Gramsci - developing the idea of cultural hegemony as a new way to attack the same bourgeoisie and reactionaries that Marx did. By attacking culture, such as traditionalism, whiteness, capitalism or religion - you are attacking the same concepts that "reactionaries" have always preferenced above class struggle. This is especially important because we are in such a late stage of capitalism that poverty has been eradicated in western societies, and so the traditional classical Marxist critic of capitalism is horribly outdated and obviously wrong.

>More Whig history nonsense.
Anyone who thinks Capitalism and Liberalism are here to stay is in for a rude awakening. issues like Automation of jobs, Peak Oil, and Climate Change will send the current global order to hell. If you want to see how really fragile the current Capitalist/Liberal order is, then just look at the European migrant and refugee crises. Westerners won't support this global order when it seeks to replace them. Capitalism is a system that is based on infinite growth in a finite planet and Liberalism can't exist without Capitalism.

In the end, everything is

>Capitalism is a system that is based on infinite in a finite planet
Care to explain?

...

Haven't governments owned almost all institutions in socialist countries?

Capitalism is just people owning property and entering into mutually beneficial relationships, it has nothing inherently to do with globalism and its doctrine that culture is irrelevant and all humans are interchangeable parts, a doctrine which by the way has far more in common with Communism.

If you want to blame something blame secular humanism.

>Most dictatorships have been feudalistic or capitalist or corporatist

>All attempts at socialism have resulted in dictatorships or at the very least widespread voter intimidation/fraud
>All attempts at socialism have resulted in at the very least market socialism due to the dire economic problems associated with the pure ideology

You're confusing Socialism with Marxist-Leninist Economics. ML's believe the state is the people, so them owning institutions is the same thing, though this theory is more or less universally rejected by Modern Socialists. A good example of a modern Socialist country is Rojava, or alternatively Norway, which has a large emphasis on Worker Cooperatives, though most socialists don't say Norway as it still maintains the markets system of production.

>Care to explain?
It is exactly what it seems. Capitalism is based around nonstop growth. There is no ''stagnation.'' You either go up, or you go down. The moment Westerners stopped breeding at above replacement levels. Western leaders opened the doors for mass immigration to keep the NeoLiberal order in place.

>All attempts at socialism have resulted in dictatorships

The only real examples of this are China and Russia, and Maoism never was a socialist ideology.

>All attempts at socialism have resulted in at the very least market socialism due to the dire economic problems associated with the pure ideology

Literally just Yugoslavia, and Tito integrated the Market into his theory anyway.

>Rojava
I shall look into this.

Also as one of the most free market countries in the world, I don't think that Norway can really be counted as socialist. Especially given that worker cooperatives and communes are largely legal in the capitalist world anyway.

>The only real examples of this are China and Russia, and Maoism never was a socialist ideology.
And Hungary, and Poland, and Yugoslavia, and Vietnam, etc, etc.

>How is workers controlling the means of production utopic?

Marx's biggest flaw was not outlining an axiological framework through which the means of production could follow and appropriately allocate resources toward. Capitalism already does this and it isn't particularly good, but at least it is functional.

>No, Capitalism does. Capitalism by nature means the owner will create a product cost effective for them, not the consumer.

Capitalism isn't about greed or making money. It is a dynamic system for the allocation of resources to satisfy the interests of individuals.

>Most dictatorships have been feudalistic or capitalist or corporatist.

So regimes like URSS and Maoist China weren't true socialism™ then.

>Socialism = when da govarment owns stuff lol

So you are an ancom or what? massive collectivization of means of productions require state management to work.

I just want something new to happen.
I want to live and see true history.

And China and the Soviets didn't introduce market mechanisms into their economies?

>From the early 1800s - 1970s, most middle and upper class women stayed home

Yeah, most women are not upper or middle-class though.

>Also as one of the most free market countries in the world

Coop Norge is literally one of the largest Coops in the world, though.

>And Hungary, and Poland, and Yugoslavia, and Vietnam, etc, etc.

Hungary, Poland and the rest of the eastern Bloc were always puppet states of the USSR, who had abandoned Socialism by the point they were made Russia's bitch, they're hardly fair examples. You're basically just saying Russia again.

>Yugoslavia
>Socialist

Tito is and always will be shit.

>Vietnam
lmao

Vietnam never 'Became' a dictatorship. The Republic of Vietnam was a dictatorship. French Indochinese rule did not give them representation. I would argue the Communist Vietnam was more democratic. They actually allow independents in elections.

>Marx's biggest flaw was not outlining an axiological framework through which the means of production could follow and appropriately allocate resources toward.

Most modern Socialists hate Marx tbfh. The best way to allocate resources in a worker managed economy is either through a market system combined with syndicalist management (Ew) or communes.

>It is a dynamic system for the allocation of resources to satisfy the interests of individuals.

And it is essentially pseudo-feudalist. Your status in the society is based entirely on the family you're born into. it is entirely based on production for profit, not need.

>So regimes like URSS and Maoist China weren't true socialism™ then.

Were the workers managing their own workplaces? No. Therefore, it wasn't.

>So you are an ancom or what?
Bookchin-ist Libsoc.

>massive collectivization of means of productions require state management to work.

Collectivization doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with a centralized system. In fact, most socialists argue against it.

Forgot to reply to

>Coop Norge is literally one of the largest Coops in the world, though.

Just how many chickens are in this giant coop?

even if it did have a "hebraic tinge", in the last instance global capitalism is not jewish anymore, nor was it ever really. The alleged "jewish" influence you see behind the global scheme of things is just a bunch of western capitalists or, in other words, people who look much like yourselves.

the """leftist""" parties in the west aren't leftist, senpai. they haven't been for many decades. had they really been leftist they would have prevented the deregulation of industry, defunding of the welfare states in the west, the opening of borders to international capital and labor (i.e. poor immigrants who cheapen labor at home). The so-called """"leftists"""" you see nowadays are pro-corporation, pro-open borders, fiscally conservative and multiculturalist, that last word being code for appeasing minority voters with feel-good slogans and accepting pro-immigrant labor whether you like it or not (immigrants in themselves aren't inherently bad as individuals, but corporations lobbied to allow immigration so they can lower wages for ALL workers because immigrants are willing to work for less than the western worker. this dynamic also creates deep cultural and social antagonism as natives have to compete with foreign labor, and corporations exploit this because native workers don't realize immigrants are a SYMPTOM of corporate malice.

By definition most are. Middle and upper class is like 2/3 of society. In the 1950s basically 1/2 to 2/3 of women didn't work.

>capitalism is marxism
holy shit, the amount of ideology in this post

Most people have been lower class, modern times have been the exception to that. The 1950s in the United States was a weird time of prosperity not seen since or before.

Plenty of women worked before the 50s, and plenty worked afterwards. Got to remember that the reason behind women not working is because if the wife worked it implied the man wasn't making enough to support her and thus didn't deserve her or a family.