Is the times of great men, conquerors and heroes over in todays world? Or will history prove otherwise?

Don't have a bull to prep?

its nothing but fashion now, it has no teeth and has been philosophically dead since the 80s.

your memes are proof of that, its been completely absorbed by the Capitalist system, castrated, and made its pet in order to keep workers/consumers healthy and satisfied.

People always feel that way, OP.

It's because we look back at history in a condensed view. We see the highlights of a lifetime of deeds from a great man distilled into a single paragraph in a history textbook, and they seem godly compared to the people around us today. But for the people alive today, we've been watching their lives play out in real time over decades, without their myriad petty human faults and setbacks edited out by historians.

Look at Putin: all you see is this balding villain we're always at odds with. But if you look at him like a historian would describe him, here's a man who rose from being an insignificant intelligence operative to being the dictator of one of the world's greatest superpowers in only 20 years, and has conducted the first successful conquest of European land in decades.

>death from plagues
stupid capitalist germs with their guns and their steel

Thanks for proving my point, give communism the same amount of time and mankind is extinct

But it hasn't.

Communist revolutions still happen.

if you read Caesar's writings while he was in Gaul he has similar feelings that Rome is basically at a dead end compared to the glories of its past and that of people like Alexander whom he idolized.

>comparing deaths caused by things other than capitalism to things caused directly by the failed idealogy called communism
End thyself

Actually bro that already happened.

The reason capitalism has taken over the planet is because socialists (including Adolf Hitler, of the national SOCIALIST party) annihilated all life on Earth and now we're in hell.

Daily reminder that cuckoldry is a racist, sexist right wing fetish.

>Communist revolutions still happen.
where?

the only places where communists are relevant is the third world due to Maoist prodding from China trying to disrupt America's control

in the 60s you had armed terrorist groups in Europe killing and bombing people for communism, now you have urban fashionistas shopping at goodwill and posting hammers and sickles on twitter alongside lame Liberal political slogans

I've noticed this is always the defence and I can see why.

Capitalist dupes have the perception that because communism comes with state control initially that all the deaths are caused by the state and thus by the ideology. But in capitalism the deaths are privatized along with the means of production, and because of the very ideological underpinnings of modern capitalism the deaths and brutality by private interests aren't seen to matter.

People dying because they have nothing to eat? Because of shitty working conditions? Poor safety regulations? Inadequate resources? From massacres by bourgeois controlled states? These are absolutely caused by capitalism.

Daily reminder commies will hang from trees on the DotR

I agree but I don;t think playing the "who killed more" game negates the core issues with socialism/communism or necessarily makes it a viable alternative to liberal-capitalism

>its nothing but fashion now
it's pretty Veeky Forums though, you have to admit

>your memes are proof of that, its been completely absorbed by the Capitalist system, castrated, and made its pet in order to keep workers/consumers healthy and satisfied.
memes belong to the workers, porky

>plagues, wars, and poor weather conditions causing poor harvests causing famines are caused by capitalism

...

what workers?
its a passive intellectual exercise now at best, essentially naval gazing and has no presence beyond what has been absorbed by "democratic socialists" which we all are aware is just another breed of Liberal capitalist with a friendlier face and a softer hand.

1. In the third world, as you went on to mention.
However this is not due to Chinese prodding so much as it's to do with the fact that living in the third world is shit and Maoism seems like it knows what's up from such a perspective.

In the Nepalese revolution the Maoist forces weren't backed by China, the Naxalites in India aren't operating against a particularly US controlled state. You simply do not need the backing of a great power for such forces to exist, although it can help.

>in the 60s you had armed terrorist groups in Europe killing and bombing people for communism
Well yes because there's no KGB to train and give them weapons.
Perhaps Maoists are on to something in saying the first world lacks revolutionary potential.

>porky
Hi /leftypol/, here to shill again?

>Wars caused by capitalism
Yes
>Famines are caused by capitalism
Yes.
If it wasn't for capitalism's terrible method of distributing resources they would have something to eat, as even in British India where there was localized famines there was never a shortage of food.

>what workers?
us, the rightful owners of the memes of production. How much did you pay for that spicy meme? odds are nothing, because the meme economy is entirely communist.

>Smash cultural marxism
Hello /pol/.

Wasn't there that one german (waffen SS?) commander who captured a whole place without bloodshed by pretending as soviet (was it?) soldiers?

>In the Nepalese revolution the Maoist forces weren't backed by China
you're delusional if you think this
same with the Maoists in India

Mao was right in that regard, but the third world also lacks the ability to built or develop communism and Maoism is an entirely top-down affair which is incredibly fragile and often brutal, not everyone can be Mao and control such a nation themselves.

this reliance on personal charisma means Maoism can never really get off the ground, one of the reasons even China has adopted Capitalist market systems.

>Yes
kys
>Yes.
Good to know porky has a weather-dominater
Cultural marxism isn't /pol/, it's mainstream leftism
kys

>communist
no
more distributionist if anything

I stubbed my toe on my bed frame a minute ago, was that capitalism? Do I have to kill the bourgeois now?

if it wasnt for capitalism's terrible method of distributing resources, they wouldnt even be alive

if they were under socialism, they wouldnt have anything to eat either, thanks to some pseudo-intellectual shithead acting like his theories are completely correct and bringing about complete failure because he completely ignored how incredibly complex it is to manage production and distribution of resources through a static, non-competitive closed system

quick porky, tyrone's getting impatient

Where'd the great men and heroes discussion go?

Yes

This thread is your answer. They are all arguing on the internet now.

Don't be so raysis comrade!! It's our DUTY to the workers to fight for all equality, including racial, so we must exterminate the white menace!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War
>Kingdom of Nepal
>Supported by: US, EU
>Maoist party
>Supported by: . . .?

>Mao was right in that regard, but the third world also lacks the ability to built or develop communism and Maoism is an entirely top-down affair which is incredibly fragile and often brutal
Personally I don't entirely agree with Maoism here, if recent displays in France prove anything it's that the first world can be proactive enough to be revolutionary. But the greater problem is ideological agitation, capitalist cultural hegemony is so deeply entrenched into western society that (as this thread is an example of) you can't open your mouth about it without hearing some cold war propaganda.

But I don't think the Third world lacks potential to develop communism, nor is Maoism a top-down affair. As the cultural revolution is a testament to.

/leftypol/ decided to meme up the place like the nice carbon-copy of /pol/ that they are.

At least /pol/ makes me laugh oftentimes. /leftypol/ is simply unfunny. There's not even shockvalue to it.

>yfw m00t is hailed as one of the proponents of Internet culture in 3005's history textbooks.

>Supported by: . . .?
The international judeo-masonic conspiracy

>Wars aren't caused by capitalist interests
ISHYGDDT
>Good to know porky has a weather-dominater
I never said they do, it's a matter of capitalism being an awful way to distribute resources which in turn causes famines in the event of a poor harvest.

A poor harvest alone doesn't cause a famine, having no food causes famine. And when there's food being exported out of the country anyway that should tell you what the real problem is.

>Cultural marxism isn't /pol/, it's mainstream leftism
I think the bigger point against cultural Marxism is that no Marxist believes in it.

It seems to be half based on a shitty comprehension of Gramsci and half pure conspiracy theory.

Yes.

>if they were under socialism, they wouldnt have anything to eat either
On the contrary the socialist model of things is perfectly equipped to deal with shortages.

>Where'd the great men and heroes discussion go?
I'm sorry for contributing to the shitposting, that get was too nice so I had to meme a little bit.

As for the great men and heroes thing, I think that our culture and our society are incompatible nowadays. We're sceptic towards the mere idea of a flawless hero and unwilling to suspend disbelief for the sake of a narrative. We don't put people on pedestals the way we used to (barring third world shitholes were cult of personality is still a thing) Also our societies have reached the point where the throne is bigger than the man sitting in it. Strong institutions, checks and balances etc. have decentralised power to the point where no one man can hold it and political partisanism has grown so deep that nobody can unite the various centres of power behind him.

Also there's the fact that history is always rose-tinted especially when looking at figures who have been basically mythologised.

Ah wikipedia, the bastion of all knowledge
completely delusional

quora.com/Why-do-Nepalese-people-not-realise-that-China-funded-the-Maoists-in-the-civil-war-set-up-schools-bragging-about-India-being-an-existential-threat-and-still-say-that-India-intervenes-in-Nepalese-affairs

China has been to war with India before, and is a major rival with them, yet somehow the Maoist revolts on India's borders + within its Eastern provinces has no connection to China?

I'm not saying that revolution is an impossibility, its always a factor, but Communism as a political force is currently comatose if not dead

again it has not made progress intellectually since the 80s and western communists use it primarily as an aesthetic addendum to their own off-pink liberal ideas of progress.

China was unique, the only place comparable to it is India but thus far Maoism has no powerful voice in India beyond low level revolts lacking in charismatic leadership

China may have been largely rural but it was also wealthy and home to very developed areas as well as many educated people in the cities. Mao himself was an intelligent educated man who was charismatic to boot, but his death was the swan song of the Red Kingdom.

>ISHYGDDT
Do commies always beg the question?
>I never said they do, it's a matter of capitalism being an awful way to distribute resources which in turn causes famines in the event of a poor harvest.
You misspelled communism
>having no food causes famine.
Having no food IS famine
>I think the bigger point against cultural Marxism is that no Marxist believes in it.
All marxists believe in it
>conspiracy theory.
Kill yourself

...

>There's not even shockvalue to it.

>Shockvalue
>funny
jesus no wonder /pol/ is so tasteless. Shock humour is for twelve year olds, it's post-irony's age now.

>the cultural revolution

...

>There's not even shockvalue to it.
desu its like going to an Indian restaurant

the pleb orders Chicken Korma, mild but still something new for him.

/pol/ orders the spiciest thing on the menu and makes a huge scene with his flailing

/leftypol/ orders butter chicken and cheese nan "ironically" then makes an equally big scene over how /pol/ is embarrassing everyone by being loud and intolerant.

>yfw m00t is Tesla and gets Edison'd by Hiro

That's more captivating than anything else.

...

Never

Yeah, germs just hopped straight over the Atlantic. No affluent owners of capital oversaw the Atlantic trade that spread them. That would be ridiculous.

Thanks for that link that defintively sources the claim that the Chinese didn't support the Maoists, the Indians themselves did.

However it's a bit silly to say communism is ideologically dead, it's no more ideologically dead than 100 years ago prior to the October revolution. It simply lacks major backing, and perhaps to a more important extent cultural clout. At this point all it would take it is another revolution in a major world power, and we can never tell when or even if that would happen because revolutions are by nature spontaneous. I mean no one would have predicted that despite it being extremely underdeveloped and a hotbed of reactionary politics that Russia would become the first country to have a successful communist revolution.

I also think it's a bit of a right wing fantasy that all communists in the west are young liberals trying to make a fashion statement.

>China may have been largely rural but it was also wealthy and home to very developed areas as well as many educated people in the cities
So is India, as a matter of fact most major thrid world countries could be described in such a way.

but user, the soviet union was capitalism.
state capitalism.
which is just a very defective version of actual capitalism
no wonder it could deal with shortages

ebin

>Do commies always beg the question?
I didn't beg the question, I just responded to the shitpost on an answer with a shitpost of equal measure.
>You misspelled communism
No I didn't, I wrote capitalism on purpose.
>Having no food IS famine
Yes, and it's caused by a poor method of distribution.
>All marxists believe in it
I have never met or even heard of a Marxist who thought this was anything other than a right-wing conspiracy theory.

>the socialist model of things is perfectly equipped to deal with shortages.

Venezuela is not socialist.

of course not

>I'm going to criticize postmodern pedantry by being utterly pedantic!
>It's genius, I'm so smart.

Literally who is so ideologically cuckolded that they'll throw away any sense of practicality to push something like postmodernism?

>Capitalism
>Having full stocked supermarkets at all times.

...

I'm not joking.

It is literally about as socialist as Britain prior to Thatcher.

...

>it's a bit silly to say communism is ideologically dead
it hasn't had any philosophical development of any influence since the 80s

what we have now are Keynesian liberals adopting Marxist rhetoric, so much so that now the majority seem to think Keynesianism is socialism in many cases.

maybe in the far future it will see a revival, no idea can stay dead forever, but as of now its about as likely to gain traction as a monarchist revolution.

in the Wests, communists are either outmoded old fuddies living in the Cold War, anti-social hippies who while arguably "living" communism far more than anyone, have near zero influence thanks to the Liberal system, and young urban liberals taking on the aesthetic of communism to aid their own infighting with other Liberals of different persuasions

...

The USA is socialist.

the other isles look full

either that one product is in massive demand or the store is re-arranging its inventory as they often do.

Exactly.

Which is why pictures of supermarkets are always a dumb argument.

except when every isle is empty

except commie supermarkets are never fully stocked

...

The ones in frame that is.

Or at least most of them, as is the case in both pics.

Yeah they are.

>it hasn't had any philosophical development of any influence since the 80s

East Germany was the wealthiest Warsaw pact state because of West German extortion money that kept it afloat.

Nick Land is pretty far away from Marxists lad
like REALLY far.

Here's Yugoslavia, not even in the Warsaw pact.

>only one type of bread

Dude, there is very clearly multiple types of bread.

why does the money of taxes in western democracies who go college professors of social sciences who are Marxists?

because they are tame and ideologically toothless

he's literally a marxist

have you not read anything he's written?
he's devoutly anti-egalitarian, anti enlightenment, anti humanism
if he's a Marxist than so is Leopold II

Because the political elite is sympathetic to leftism.

>the political elite is sympathetic to leftism.
ehhh not really
more that socialist rhetoric suits the Liberal agenda and can be easily adapted to the rhetoric of progress

Holy shit. Awaiting worldwide communist revolution over here. New USSR when?

he only pretends to believe in those things. he wants to accelerate capitalism to destroy society and usher in communism with humans evolving into AI