Are radical leftist retarded?

americans are so heavily indoctrined to believe they are better than their fellow americans even the thought of sharing something is weird to them

>But why though? Why should I work harder to provide for Lazy Larry? If I'm a noble with a several fiefs be on the same level as a serf?
>Enlightenment is literally the most cancerous thing to be birthed onto mankind.

you aint any better, you like neuroscience, he likes flipping burgers, whats the issue? its not the same level anyway even in communism

or are you a piece of shit who only does stuff to get approvement from others? similar to religious ppl who needs a supernatural entity not be a shitty human being?

>unironically comparing class based ownership to someone providing an invaluable service by working and studying hard.

retard

I can't believe you can't see the irony here

>A conniving employee of some type of vulture firm is as desirable as an poor laborer struggling to feed his family.
This is why "socialistic" regulations are needed to prevent monopolies and provide you with a proportionate cable, internet, clothes prices and avoid allowing you to be shafted by scummy crooks.

You don't inherit by title a neuroscience degree, you dumb leftypolnigger

Yes because a person who puts in the years and time and effort to become something "great" should essentially be on the same level as the barista at Starbucks with the afro-carribean studies degree.

Fuck off, humans are not meant to be equal we never have and never will be.

Christ it was /pol/ yesterday and it's lefty/pol/ this morning.

>Yes because a person who puts in the years and time and effort to become something "great" should essentially be on the same level as the barista at Starbucks with the afro-carribean studies degree.
How do you measure how much work somebody puts into study? It is possible that barista at Starbucks put even more effort in afro-carribean study degree

>How do you measure how much work somebody puts into study?
You let the market figure it out.

You might put in a lot of work memorizing worthless pomo garbage, but if it's worthless in the free market, your compensation for your work will be commensurate.

How much effort would someone put on jacking-off for 50 years? I'm legitimately curious, the so-called masturbation technique was developed by many people yet they remain unrewarded. The question is, how much gold is jacking-off worth?

and people whose effort isn't required by the free market die off?

That's actually Nazism you're thinking of.

I think everyone can muster up the intellectual power to flip burgers or mop floors.

Nazism actually doesn't pretend like it has much theory behind it.

But for 100 years now leftist """intellectuals""" have written long and obtuse tomes to just rationalize their daddy issues and repressed homosexuality.

but your original argument here was that people should be rewarded for the effort they put into studying
here however you say that it's not the effort, its the utility that should be rewarded.
So which one is it?

Yeah that's retarded. I'm better than a ton of people on this planet therefore I deserve a bigger reward.

The underlying idea would be that you'd put your efforts into something productive.

Of course the value of the thing you put effort into will determine your compensation.

The only effort involved in any humanities degree is the mental gymnastics

Yes

Leftists believe that human nature doesn't exist, and humans are blank slates entirely moulded by their environment. This allows them to justify any theoretical society. They believe that humans only dominate each other because they're raised in a capitalist society, and they won't care about competition, money, and status if raised in a communist society.

Artificially inflated value as loan sharks don't increase gdp in a genuine way.

Actually they believe in imposing restrictions because of historically and presently observable human behavior.

Communism is the future

Socialism is selfinterest classcucks.

Not as retarded as radical capitalists and the ministers to "superior men" i.e. faschits.

Kind of the debunks the "don't believe in personal property" meme.

Imagine if this quote were real. Imagine the sheer butthurt and attempted damage control it would generate on /pol/.

Sigh. Nother left - /pol/ shitflinging thread guaranteed to make over 100 replies and be up for at least a few days.

Our first colony in Jamestown started out with a communal egalitarian scheme for food and everybody nearly starved to death.
John Smith changed the rule to 'if you don't work, you don't eat' and a little over 300 years we whooped Europes ass.

Daily reminder that hierarchies are not only the natural result of a developed society, they are also beneficial.

Like socialism is the natural result of philosophical and political progress.

I don't know people seemed to have worked very hard during the potato famine and other alleged famines rightists love to cite. Perhaps it's a question of something other than alleged work exertion.

Rightist in this thread make justified points about how neurosurgery and other hard-to-reach jobs should be rewarded better, but go full retard with their "everyone who is poor is just lazy" and "the free market will fix everything" bs.

Leftists in this thread make justified points about how predatory market speculators and golden parachute CEO's are not into any way beneficial or deserving of rewards and are actually shitting up the market, but go full retard in their "oy vey, it's another feudalism" on everything.

Leftism is revenge porn for lazy, stupid people.

The answer is regulated capitalism, no extreme is going to work. In what extend we should regulate though, that's the real question.

I guess that's why it appealed to all those legendary slackers, like coal miners and 19th century factory workers, before the West started adding some measures to ensure they are treated fairly.

>The answer is regulated capitalism, no extreme is going to work.
I agree.
>In what extend we should regulate though, that's the real question.
Im a fan of ordoliberalism.

firs part was meant for

>Moneyless society
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
That's essentially how early societies operated. In a Germanic village, you'd do what you could to help provide and in turn people would take care of you.

That's wrong.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Disproves your idea already because if everyone were equal everyone's abilities and needs would be the same.

The political right denies human nature as well though.

The political left argues that people are essentially the same and that it's discrimination, different starting conditions, etc. which cause social disparity, so by their logic if we positively discriminate the underprivileged we'll achieve equality.

The political right argues that people are essentially the same and that it's some people working harder than others which causes social disparity and that the inequality we have is thus only just.

Both are wrong. The poor are for the most part poor because they lack the abilities that are in demand within a modern society. Frankly, most the poor are poor because they're not smart enough. The political left won't change the status quo through positive discrimination and the political right wants to essentially punish people for something they've been born with and blames them for something they cannot change.

So it's almost like decent and hardworking yet uneducated and naive manual laborer are easily seduced by a flashy ideology. They treat it like some sick religion, become zealots themselves, and devolve into lazy, spiteful bastards.

>In a Germanic village, you'd do what you could to help provide and in turn people would take care of you.
Now where's the part where a colossal state comes in and threatens to kill them all?

Key word being Germanic, not all ethnic groups exhibit communalism.

Well, if one of them decided to live in a corner of the village put a fence around it and declare it his property and then decided that he won't help out a fellow villager in need because he's not entitled to the fruits of his labour, and traded with enemy tribes because he's a free person who can do business with whomever he wants, you can bet that they wouldn't adhere to the NAP for long.

I agree with you but due to the heredity of intelligence (and the fact that the stupid tend to breed more) the only sustainable and rational option is the "right wing" one, since taxing the deserving to subsidize the undeserving will eventually lead to collapse due to too many undeserving leeching off fewer and fewer deserving. The "left wing" option is impossible unless you implement eugenics.

I second this. We subsidize poor genes and it'll be the death of civilization. Going against evolution, it doesn't actually help the less viable members of society. It just stunts their development.

The problem with that option is that it strains the cohesion of society. It's not like the 'stupid' are incapable of survival - they've been surviving for aeons perfectly fine. They just cannot make money within the very constraint economics of a modern society. They can however make money in more primordial societies by more primordial means, and that's what they are going to do. The result is chaos. It's much easier to subsidise them. And in fact: most European societies already do that.

>Going against evolution
That's nonsense though. It would be utterly foolish to interpret natural "purpose" into the societies we're living in. Someone who cannot become a doctor or engineer might be perfectly capable of ploughing a field or holding a rifle - it's just that he doesn't get the opportunity to do so any more. After society breaks down at some point however, such skills might become more valuable again. Also, as I said in , the fact that they cannot make a living the proper way does not mean they're going to kill themselves. They'll help themselves somehow and whatever they do is going to result in a less functional society.

I'd love to see a more traditional society, but I think we're too far up the creek for that. I just hope enough culture and genetic potential is preserved post collapse to restart things.

Bugger off satan

What I never understood is the following: marxists were criticised, fairly so, for not taking into account potential abuse and corruption. But why does capitalism, which actively rewards psychopathic malice, get a free pass? How is enabling antisocial behavior and short-sighted greed going to result in a functioning system that benefits all?

too bad it doesn't want to do that lmao

>it is another my psychoanalysis of people i despise turns out to be a negative episode
And those rich people who are socialists have their own sets of mental illness right?

>a stateless society in which the workers control the means of production and organise without any state or central leadership
>and organise without any state or central leadership
isn't this a contradiction? if workers organize, isn't this organisation a state by definition?

>and in turn people would take care of you
people would take care of you, but it doesn't mean that everybody was equal.
The best hunter/warrior in the village had a much higher status and more material goods than the village fool who contributed nothing

If you were to become a doctor, it shouldn't be because it's a high paying job, or because it's prestigious. It should be because that's the profession you want to exercise, and because you want to be a productive citizen and help your society.

Spot on buddy, everyone wants to be the savior. I don't despise these people, I'd love to see them in a healthy market society where they live within their means. Crony capitalists deserve the shaft just as much as socialists. The normal human condition isn't egalitarianism or cutthroat capitalism, it's a competitive but cordial free market society where men are equal under God and the law but are not made equal in talent or outcome.

Don't consider it as "payment". You do your work to society because you want to, and other people do theirs and in the process they provide for you. Everybody works for eachother to enable for everyone to pursue their interests.

normal human condition is living in tribes and hunting mammoths

>easy to disprove
go ahead then, lets hear it, how can you disprove a stateless society?

what if nobody wants to clean toilets?

Wrong, eurasians have for thousands of years evolved towards a family-centric property based society.

But you're probably a creationist, since you're a leftist.

I should have said optimal, not normal.

stateless society lacks the level of central organization and hierarchy to defend itself against a hostile neighbour who has a state and a organized military.

optimal for what?
power? living conditions? happyness? progress?

Wow what a unfalsilible non argument if you have a convenient explanation for all facets of socialists.

>Crony capitalists
Your mistake is thinking the problems of the systems are due to perversions, not its logical consequence

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine
>successfully mutiny against the bolsheviks
>defeat numerically superior white army and cur their lines of supply, saving Moscow and probably the whole soviet union
>stabbed in the back by Trotsky (the irony)

apparently anarchists can defeat state armies

They don't need to think it works. They only need to know that the people on top live very well for doing very little, and that's where they want to be.

That also depended on the village fool's family's status.

However, the idea that Communism believed in equality is factually wrong. See what I wrote below in response to . In fact, I'd argue that many Communist/Socialist systems were a lot more aware of differing talents than today's society's are. If you were good at something and your talent was recognised you'd be put through the necessary education to make sure your talent would prosper - however, with your talent also came the obligation to use it for the good of society as a whole.

All of the above, it allows the true genius of the individual to flourish and benefit society as a whole. After all, progress is a consequence of great individuals shouldering the burden of exceptionality for the benefit of mankind, selfless by choice. The collective allows for the diffusion of responsibility, making great minds impotent and average minds dangerous.

any examples that managed to exist longer than 3 years?

Crony capitalists are a tumor that grow in a healthy body, we treat the cancer and strengthen the body. A consequence of life is illness, but ending life to end illness obviously isn't the solution.

that's just retarded. If there was a form of society that was always best at everything, then every country would follow this model eventually

So this image is true?

Nice chetnik flag =^)

>it's a competitive but cordial free market society where men are equal under God and the law but are not made equal in talent or outcome
That's wrong though. Naturally, Humans have always lived in tribes and they worked towards a common goal within that tribe - most of all survival. There was of course internal competition to some extent but in the end, people were cooperative more than they were competitive. Competition was between other tribes - most of all after people start to settle down. The period of the first human settlements being the period of the first mass graves too.

Human history has rarely been competition between individuals, it has most of all been competition between groups - many of which were bonds of unconditional solidarity such as family.

So, this is the power of "anarchism"

Your problem is that you think people with mankind's best interests at heart are running the show. Why would they want a better world for all of they lose their grip on power?

>are leftists retarded

Yes, otherwise they wouldn't be leftists.

all of human history before around 5000BC
north america before 1500 (excluding mexico)
Zomia
Freetown Christiania
Rojava
EZLN in Chiapas
i could go on but i wont

because your system is the best at everything, including beeing the most powerful

essentially yes

this is a chetnik flag, observe the difference and also how you're a fucking moron

so this is the power of "memes"

Even you admit you are clearly going capitalism's nature, yet you mock leftists for going against human nature, when you are. Lol

Why contain it? All of FDR's work to save capitalism from itself ala New Deal has already faded barely 100 years after his policies.

The only end to this pointless struggle against crony capitalism for a humane one is socialism

>all of human history before around 5000BC
>north america before 1500 (excluding mexico)
really? thats your argument? you wanna live as a hunter-gatherer?

did you even read the rest of my post?

We no longer live in a tribal society. But we can certainly still cooperate when necessary, I pay taxes that ideally go to things like national defense, infrastructure, and space exploration. Too much of a good thing, though, will squander resources and make for a vulnerable economy.

if you also think that those two examples were bullshit, why even mention them?

So venezuela is true socialism too?

These people operate outside the parameters of an ethical society.

when did i say those examples were bullshit? you asked for examples, i gave them, what more do you want?

>true socialism
this kind of evangelical attitude towards left wing ideologies is why labor camps happen, Venezuela is a country attempting to free itself from the grip of the USA and international finance, and is being duly attacked by those institutions for trying to be free