Do marxist/communists lack ambition

i come to the conclusion that the underlying insecurity among leftists is ambition

they simply lack it, they never inspire to be great, they never inspire to be a somebody

maybe the don't have the ability, maybe they are simply mediocre...mediocre in intelligence, mediocre in life in general

that's why their ideology is the ultimate cuck...

a real man is an individual, with ambition and the ability to change the world
They could of been this man....they could of been the next Elon Musk, or Steve Jobs....


but no they decided to be fucking losers..and thats what they will remain, fucking losers

marxist are just fucking lame in general

What is the point of this thread?

Epic

the word you're looking for is "aspire" not "inspire".
>hur dur the world should be built for the best of the best and average people should just be the slaves of great people!

seems kind of silly considering the great man's "greatness" is arbitrary and merit based fascism never actually works out like that and it inevitably becomes nepotistic, with people who don't deserve positions being held up by family and blood.

Your system just doesn't make any sense, why say "fuck yoy" to 99.9% of the population, why not build a system that finds a way to make use of such manpower? As far as I'm concerned the brain isn't everything, and the smartest person isn't always the best person for the job, and anyone with a philosophy like yours was probably born on top and doesn't know what it's like to be spit on by nepotists that think they're hot shit because their parents made them everything that they are.

it's not about who is the lack one lad

if we ever go back again to cold war, there was no lacking thing, just a race thing

same like in WW2

i mean look what is goin on with NASA development after US take the crown of cold war throne

>take

i meant took

It's a strange phenomenon, but I wouldn't call it "lacking ambition." Left leaning people tend to display creativity and artistry at a much higher rate than their right counterparts. Likewise though, the right is more than often made up of clever businessmen who can assert themselves to preform better than those around them. It's a difference in mentality between the two, the left wants to see where things could go and how to change things, the right wants to work within the current rules to push things forward. Revolution vs evolution, in a nutshell.

I think OP is actually on to something. I said something similar in the leftist thread, but i'll tweak it here.
It isn't that the left is ideologically bankrupt. in fact, the left has have created tons of ideas, schemes and ideologies over the last century which should be poached from. If you're implying though that Democrats are somehow less ambitious than Republicans, you're totally off the mark and are just stating your perception of things and not statistics. But politically, I think the major problem of the left is a lack of leadership; and thats because, as you say, nobody wants to put in the effort to build party organizations, politick and so on and so forth. The Left (and the Media in general) are also moralistic to a fault, so that any kind of personal failings or gaffes by democrats (and republicans too) is seen as a fatal blow to one's reputation. Except, it's not. Trump, to his credit, proved how ridiculous that idea is. I wouldn't call it political correctness, just an excessive concern for proper conduct which can be found on both sides (for example, rick perry messing up naming the departments he wanted to cut). That I think is a legacy of protestantism on the one hand, and the excessive scrutiny brought by technology, namely the oligarchic corporate media and anarchic groupthink of social media. In the past, most faults of politicians were pretty much concealed. FDR's and JFK's problems came to light only many decades after their deaths. Even if politicians did have problems, they were ignored or played down out of reverence for the political process. This exists no longer in the US, but until recently this was the way things worked in France, until Sarkozy, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Hollande and others took it too far, or because the panopticon nature of our technology has now made it impossible to cover up faults even in a system where it was once accepted.

We just don't buy into the capitalist definition of ambition and success.

This knee deep in pure ideology
Mein gott! I award you with one petaZizek

>neoliberal are leftists
If anything the lack of grassroots support and the working class divided by identity politics is what sets the Left back

but to go back to the lack of leadership, the lack of talent is just as important as the lack of privacy and reverence in politics. I suspect most aren't encouraged to pursue a political career anymore except sociopaths, ideologues or people controlled by paid interests (think Marco Rubio, who never really had a job until a car mogul manufactured him into a hard conservative politician). The parties as they stand are pretty corrupt and bankrupted and their organizations hierarchical, nepotistic and swollen with lobbyists and party bureaucrats looking to preserve their interests or get in on the spoils of funding. The parties are so ossified that Trump was able to outmaneuver him. I believe that Trump isn't smart or qualified, but unlike other politicians he was a master of optics, having honed his skills from over three decades of being in the public eye. Basically what we need is a Trump with actual thinking skills (i suspect some here will disagree). But a politician with the traits of the fox and the lion we lack. And I believe this lack is because people are 1) as i said too moralistic to join corrupt parties (as they always have been) 2) the best and brightest (though i have doubts about an elite of ubermensch ruling over the mass brainlets because muh equality) are funneled into the private sector, namely the tech industry, science or the media and 3) because, as much as i dont like zealots, especially of the kind in the Republican party, I think there needs to be politicians who are true believers in a better ideology than now exists, and pursue their goals with zeal, whatever it takes (conservatives as you imply OP seem to have a very motivated class of fanatic politicians, though I think their ideology is incoherent, harmful to most and mainly pushed by big business) .

They're usually genetic defectives or ugly traps.

This is a big generalization, but I've noticed the left tends to hate qualities like success, ambition, strength, beauty, purity and ability. They seem to have an innate need to stamp out these qualities. Notice how their art is more about "subverting" these things, as opposed to celebrating them.

>science
I guess i meant engineering and computer science.

>neoliberal are leftists
yeah, you're right, but the question is why is the "true" moribund at the moment? because they can't combat identity politics propaganda, you say. But if the Left were at least a bit strong, why aren't they fighting back with their own organizations, media outlets and counter-propaganda. I wager it's because a lack of leadership and organization, and that lack is accounted for by concerns for ideological purity and the fear that politics is corrupting (which it is). Why is the left so demotivated, in your opinion?

>leftists lack ambition
>elon_musk.jpg
>cuck
I hate leftists but jesus fuck are you spooked, you sound like the kind of person who would get sucked into a multi-marketing scheme. I bet you like Stephen Molyneux too.

>nod an argument
Many university graduates end up as liberals, they are quite successful as far as the average person goes, that is not the reason. If anything the fact their lives went so well might contribute to their naivety and complacency.

Yes I think you're right. It's a form of absurd egalitarianism as pernicious as the know-nothingism of the right. Anti-intellectualism is entrenched all over the political spectrum. And identity politics is one of its worst perpetrators with their destruction of all standards or institutions that enforce those standards in favor of the least common denominator which unfortunately are minorities. The sad thing is it seems to me a type of racism and condescension that the minorities are treated as a "racial class" or caste when really they should be identifying along such lines as social status, income etc.. Skin color means absolutely nothing, but identity politics implies that having dark skin is a virtue in itself and having white skin brands you as morally deficient, cruel and oppressive by nature.

"true" left*

>But if the Left were at least a bit strong, why aren't they fighting back with their own organizations, media outlets and counter-propaganda
Man shut the fuck up. you literally don't know shit. The Left faced so much setbacks in the Cold War with the rise of neoliberalism, broken unions. McCarthyism rekting shit up. Political discourse of socialism and communism distorted to fit right wing agenda. Liberalizing certain figures or events to hide socialist elements (eg Helen Keller and Albert Einstein are never reminded of their socialism. Or right wingers actually upset that socialists are hijacking Women's Day)

But now DSA and anarchist groups are rising in numbers, regaining the grassroots numbers they need to do shit. People have more a nuanced view of socialism other 'big daddy gov doing things'. It was never a top-down solution for the Left as most their success previously was always bottom up. To actually advocate or consider a top-down solution shows how unaware you are of the history of the Left

> communists lack ambition
> this is why they are known for the most ambitious political projects in history

>Man shut the fuck up. you literally don't know shit.
wat. I didn't say anything to deserve that. but you are confirming my hypothesis of ideological purity. I asked at the end of my post to hear your opinion on the matter but instead your respond with a post full of condescension and the insistence that I don't understand "real" [read: dogmatic] history of the left, which is a narrative that is shaped leftist historiography or an appeal to shared memories and ideas that isn't necessarily the best interpretation.

> Liberalizing certain figures or events to hide socialist elements (eg Helen Keller and Albert Einstein are never reminded of their socialism.
I'm not far left but I've known this from reading the fucking newspaper; are the people so unimaginative that you have to spoon feed them little factoids? Is that what we seriously need to revive the labor movement or the left? Where are the worker cooperatives and self-help societies of the 19th century, which were dedicated to self-improvement through reading, socializing and insurance schemes? They don't exist. Why? the economic structure of post-industrialism imo.
>broken unions
unions have been oppressed, sure, but there were unions in the 19th century who faced A LOT more oppression than US unions and somehow thrived even though they were banned by law. American labor, at least what i've read in the 20th century, has always been weak and reliant on the government to thrive (labor movement was given life only at the whims of the FDR administration). So why have the unions weakened? imo bad leadership, ossified organizations, some corruption and the plummeting of factory labor, where it's easier to organize. Besides that, the Union movement will only ever be strong, as I see it, if the working class is faced with total immiseration. But productivity gains and government benefits mean that nowadays a worker is always secure in food, and possibly in housing and personal finance. Conditions are simply not as desperate as they used to be, and so with the basics secure the working class is free to flirt with ideologies that fit their cultural outlook, namely racism and other things vilified by the liberal democrats.

>and anyone with a philosophy like yours was probably born on top and doesn't know what it's like to be spit on by nepotists that think they're hot shit because their parents made them everything that they are.

You sound pretty salty.

?

Elon Musk is only able to do what he is doing thanks to these "unambitious commies" as you put it.

Yeah they're low energy and low test.

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

yes it is troubling. to be leftist nowadays is to be artsy, impractical, emotional and intolerant of anything outside their arbitrary standards (though the right has this last problem too). I don't support the communist movement but at the very LEAST, people like Lenin, (and Stalin and Robespierre in their own ways) were hardheaded pragmatists.

you sound like daddy had everything worked out for you before you ever even saw an interview room.

some people have dad's that do drugs, drink, and go get milk forever, and they may have the natural inclinations you do but they never had the opportunities you did, and that's exactly why you can't just look at the spreadsheet and say "this half is smart and this half is dumb" because that's ridiculous. every position has competition, were the other 99 people worthless because there was only one slot for 100 qualified people? Are you stupid enough to believe this world is organized enough to make use of this manpower? because it isnt, and qualified people become poor because there just wasn't enough room for every competent person to succeed. You can look back in a revisionary or reactionary mindset that everyone who didn't succeed is worthless, but this is clearly wrong under even the slightest investigation.

>It was never a top-down solution for the Left as most their success previously was always bottom up. To actually advocate or consider a top-down solution shows how unaware you are of the history of the Left
It was both. Genuine political mobilization needs organization, which means having leaders, recruiters and a party structure/bureacracy to institutionalize the values of the lower classes or whatever. Please tell me one instance where "bottom up" organization has suceeded because pro tip: you can't

You are salty as fuck. I work with my dad and recently got a pay rise to $35 an hour. Stay mad faggot.

I have almost no ambition and do not enjoy winning and I am very right wing.

I can be extremely motivated but never ambitious.

wow so I was right on the money, you never even had to do a real interview you had the job before you even entered that room. And you have the gaul to claim that the world functions on merit when you're an example of nepotism. I find that most people with your ideology have a similar background. People who were more qualified the you didn't get the job because daddy used nepotism and it was extremely effective.

>you never even had to do a real interview you had the job before you even entered that room.
xD, nope. I had my job (drafting/civil design) straight out of highschool, stay mad.

>I find that most people with your ideology have a similar background. People who were more qualified the you didn't get the job because daddy used nepotism and it was extremely effective.
You live in a world where it doesn't matter what you know all that matters is who you know, and you know absolutely no one because you are a slaty cunt who thinks he should have things handed to him.

Again, stay salty you mad fucking idiot.

you wouldn't know anyone either, you were born into this world and the first man to even hold and lay eyes on you was the only contact you ever needed.

And now you go around telling other people to find connections when you never had to do that yourself.

Do you even realize how delusional you are? It doesn't matter what you post here it's pretty sad that you legitimately believe your success is based on merit when it's one of the weaker arguments I've seen. I don't even have to go armchair psychologist on you because you're like the textbook definition of nepotism.

>I don't even have to go armchair psychologist on you because you're like the textbook definition of nepotism.
You already have you jelly faggot. Just fuck off and stop making a characateur of your political adversaries. The end result of that sort of thinking is the same awful propaganda angles that ensured Trumps presidency and Brexit.

most of that technology was developed by private business and the rest could have too

>I don't even have to go armchair psychologist on you because you're like the textbook definition of nepotism.
You keep saying that over and over as if it's a bad thing. Because you believe you are some special fucking snow flake, you aren't. Anyone can do any job with the right amount of training, this is the world we live in.

Again, stay fucking mad because you had literally no chances given to and then you just curled up and said fuck it all, it's too hard. You are pissed your dad didn't hand you a job like some lucky people get. I live in a town with the highest unemployment rates in the country, god forbid I take the only job I could get, right? And yes, I formed many, fucking many connections to the point where I can find my own work, thanks dad!

You are salty as shit dude, you've not made one single point past
>you are the textbook definition of nepotism!
As if it matters. Are you telling me if your dad offered you a 100k salary you would turn it down because you felt as though you were not suited to the job, someone else could do it better? Fucking hilarious, you are a moron.

Seriously, stay fucking mad. Have you ever thought about the fact that maybe, if nepotism was actually enforced by the government you might actually have the chance at a job you wanted? In this day and age with the largest unemployment rates out there nepotism is really the only thing which can stop it.

But yeah, stay salty fucking idiot.

>base your entire face value ideology on meritocracy
>that gets torn down so you switch goalposts
>muh nepotism is good/will save the economy!

You're a joke. Stay in your bubble, you just look like an idiot when you come out and try to pretend you know how the world works.

Nice rebuttal. I will gladly stay in my bubble, it's awesome. Enjoy being unemployed. Guess what, I've been working while shit posting.

I actually jus got paid about 15 bucks to have this argument with you, thanks nepotism.

What the fuck are you talking about? There are plenty of leftists that changed the world.

Leftists also seem to hate masculinity

Stop being mediocre

He can't help it, it's everyone else's fault he knows literally nothing of value and has next to no charisma.

I didn't start this argument to feel good about myself at the end, I didn't enter it thinking "I'll show this guy my life is actually better!" was never my objective. We're anonymous, that's pointless, could have just lied about myself.

I came here to prove that meritocracy is joke and the smug shits on Veeky Forums that praise meritocracy and claim they are a part of that glorious system are actually examples of the opposite of that. This thread started out with a much of merit-based arguments and when I tore that down you idiots just started name calling, proving that I was right all along. Thanks for following my carrot on a stick, I've won the argument I set out to make and I couldn't have done it without your overt and self-defeating proclamation of nepotism

>I've won the argument I set out to make and I couldn't have done it without your overt and self-defeating proclamation of nepotism
Mate, you called me the poster child for nepotism and I agreed with you. I literally am, you're yet to say why that's a bad thing, why I should choose unemployment over employment, why I should be mad I was given a chance.

You are also yet to answer the question, that being if you were given the chance we are, you are implying you would turn it down, you would say to your dad

"Dad! what are you doing, hire someone who knows that they are doing! I am fine staying at home all day living off of your back, I don't need a job, someone else will do it better!"

You are a fucking idiot. But yes, you 'won the argument'. Good job.

A statement a mediocre man would make do you think Isaac Newton whined like a bitch crying about " meritocracy is a joke I'll never be as good as others it's all a bullshit system " no he didn't because he wasn't a bitch like you. Stop living at your parents house and get a job you fucking bum

They really do. It's weird.

Leftists also deny the reality that men on average are physically stronger than women

>yet to say why it's a bad thing


well, considering the cornerstone of liberalism(real liberalism not what you would call "leftists") is the dismantling of traditional nepotistic power structures and replacing then with merit (See: the French revolution) I would say that nepotism represents a failure of our system to do what it set out to do.
Considering it stands as a huge contradiction of itself to claim a merit system and run it based on nepotism, it is clearly a net negative to humanity as a whole as far as organizational capacity is concerned. The world would be a better place of meritocracy were actually a thing, but instead its held back by people like you.
So to answer your question, no there is no reason for YOU to not take the job as an individual, but to then claim that you're in the right, this is how it should be, and other systems are inferior is a stretch to far. Your only argument is selfish individual gain, which from the perspective of a nepotist demands the system remain archaic and dated in order to accommodate themselves, but this does not mean it's right or that it's the best for humanity.

I get it, it works for you. You have the same ideological position as the dictator of North korea, he has no reason to change and neither do you.

But you're both statues of a former era, both inefficient and bad for humanity.

but it's good for you and nobody else. that's your argument and you've made it well. but you've lost every other argument worth having in that same breath

The left in general are lazy fucks. Hence their need to rule over other people and enrich themselves without having to produce anything.

No people like you the definition of weakness is what ruins civilization

nepotism breeds conservatism and conservatism breeds more nepotism, leading to the wealth gap we have now. You're literally ruining civilization as we speak.

Holy shit dude, please, please don't tell me you are under the impression if I underperformed at work I wouldn't be fired because my dad is my boss, you can't be that idiotic? Right? Please tell me you are not operating under that assumption.

>Your only argument is selfish individual gain, which from the perspective of a nepotist demands the system remain archaic and dated in order to accommodate themselves, but this does not mean it's right or that it's the best for humanity.

Your argument is literal, literally salt, you are saying right now I should be unemployed because at some stage my dad had to train me up to do the work I am doing. I honestly, no longer have any clue what you are saying.

Seriously, answer the fucking questions.
>why is it a bad thing (you tried but failed, try again)
>would you take a job your dad offered you
>why should I chose to be unemployed in the most unemployed place in the country over being employed and maybe one day getting out of here.

Seriously, stop posting after you answer those 3 very fucking simple questions.

Are you seriously under the implication that in my daily role at work ive got no idea what im doing but dad just sits there like "that's my son". Because, I am one of the better, faster drafters this city has to offer, thanks to the training I received from dad.

You are probably the saltiest mother fucker out there. Have you ever actually held a job?

>ur salty
>"why is it bad!"
>given reason, ignores reason
>"but y is it bad tho!"

so how many times are you going to write a wall saying the same thing and ignoring whatever input you actually receive? You seem to be having this conversation with yourself.

How many times are you going to keep posting without answering those 3 questions?

>they simply lack it, they never inspire to be great, they never inspire to be a somebody
You undertand you're saying this about the political wing that is overwhelmingly more prone to revolution and revolt than the other one right?

Also while you are at it, answer this question.

>Are you seriously under the implication that in my daily role at work ive got no idea what im doing but dad just sits there like "that's my son". Because, I am one of the better, faster drafters this city has to offer, thanks to the training I received from dad.
>Are you seriously under the implication that in my daily role at work ive got no idea what im doing but dad just sits there like "that's my son"
>Have you ever held a job

Because I am beginning to think it's actually you has no idea how the real world works, because you've probably been unemployed your whole life and you are approaching 30.

You are saying I should be living in poverty, as opposed to competently working every day.

You talk like a bug came to life

Thanks to those feminine, mediocre and unambitious leftists you have rights and benefits as a worker and you certainly were not forced to work as a child.

instead a chinese child does my job, thanks Obama

I am still waiting.

Is this the commie containment thread?

Fucking good those people are a plague

But the circumstances you are born into and therefore the skills you develop like self confidence, ambition and Iq to an extant are not a result of your own attempts.

Left wing ideology is about trying to bridge the gap so that 'untapped talent' that is not facilitated with a good upbringing can come to the front of meritocracy meaning that we get the most naturally qualified people for all facilities

is this the new right wing assumption; to demean the masculinity of their opponents? i see it a lot

amusing given how communists used to mock bourgeoisie as soft, effeminate and unwilling to work