Marxism

So Marxism interprets history as the story of class struggle right?

How do they get over, in terms of their theory, the fact most Nations (in the classical sense of the term), most of the time pulled together to fight foreign enemies when required to do so? Eg Romans vs. Carthaginians.

It seems like a really autistic way to analyze history, to view class consciousness as the only legitimate form of consciousness, but to view any sort of consciousness based common kinship bonds (ethnic/race) as a false consciousness. I guess it seems bizarre to me, the common response is "well rich people have more in common with each other than they do you!", but I don't actually think that's true. Most rich Chinese for example are extremely patriotic/nationalistic, and certainly don't believe they have any sort of real group identity alongside Bill Gates just because he's also rich.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxist.com/class-struggles-roman-republic-one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
straitstimes.com/politics/the-race-issue-how-far-has-singapore-come
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

i don't think you understand historical materialism

It's like most enlightenment claptrap (even though Marxists get mad as fuck if you lump them in with libs) in that it attempts to ascribe some sort of particular/special sui generic qualities to man that elevate him above other animals not in terms of degree, but (crucially) by kind.

As a result Marx doesn't really deal with what modern Marxists would dismiss as "biological essentialism" (the idea that basic laws of nature like mendelian inheritance also happen to apply to humans too).

It's funny because Marxists are hardcore about this affectation of rationalism and, often, asceticism (weird for an entirely worldly and material ideology) too - look at some of the early Russian revolutionaries in 1905. But deep down they believe in exactly the same pseudoscientific bullshit that everyone else in the enlightenment believed in (tabula rasa etc).

All western philosophy after the Greeks was a mistake.

Oh, for the record Marx comments on nature/nurture once in Theses on Feuerbach, saying something to the effect of man being wholly a product of his material conditions. That's about all I can remember.

Anyway even when I was a Chomsky-reading, Zinn-emailing faggot something didn't quite sit right with me about how completely detached from human nature most leftist-theorizing was. People to me always seemed to want to be partly group-identifying, partly-territorial, partly-acquisitive, substantially the product of their parents, partly-hierarchical etc.

I guess that's why Confucian and Aristotleian political formulations appealed so much, it seemed to take what man actually was and work from there.

It's telling that the only response anyone has to these claims (even when I used to be a paid-up member of Z magazine) was "NATURALISTIC FALLACY" (improperly used).

The weird thing is all of their arguments about why promiscuous sex is great are all textbook naturalistic fallacies anyway. Same with how mainstreaming homosexuality is good because a minority of animals occasionally practice it. That is literally what a naturalistic fallacy is.

marxist.com/class-struggles-roman-republic-one.
Modern marxist historians have abandoned materialist determinism anyway.

Thanks for your great contributions to the board, /pol/.

>Until Marx developed the theory of historical materialism, the prevalent view was an idealist interpretation of history, which attributed everything to the actions of individuals.

This isn't true at all. Thucydides certainly didn't think so, rather great individuals give individual form to particular attitudes, tendencies, feelings etc. Pericles could never have risen to power in an Athens that wasn't supremely self-confident for example.

I don't support what I linked, I just used it to respond to OP's question on how historical materialism could be applied to rome. Although a counterexample doesn't refute a quote that claims prevalence, not homogeneity.

>Most rich Chinese for example are extremely patriotic/nationalistic, and certainly don't believe they have any sort of real group identity alongside Bill Gates just because he's also rich.
Rich people can be under false consciousness too but when push come to shove they would ditch it to protect their own interests. Which Bill Gates share those same interests with them

The whole concept of false consciousness is just a way of handwaving away "things that obstruct my theorizing".

It's insane how arguments this bad have gotten this far, but then again western philosophy thinks Rawls' Veil of Ignorance defense of liberalism was some sort of slam dunk lul.

>Rich people can be under false consciousness too but when push come to shove they would ditch it to protect their own interests

The problem here is that your own interests are intrinsically tied to that of your kinship group, for 99% of people they aren't going to find similar levels of seamless integration with a group that they're not, comparatively speaking, closely related to as a result of divergent evolution.

>The whole concept of false consciousness is just a way of handwaving away "things that obstruct my theorizing".
It's worse than that. It's a totalitarian way to incorporate refutations of your theory into your theory, preventing you from having to face the essence of the criticisms. The same as nazis labeling their opponents as jews or psychoanalysts telling them they are repressed.

>your own interests are intrinsically tied to that of your kinship group
Third world elites ally with first world elites constantly to fuck up their own countries.
t. third worlder

That's called being a poor leader who is part of a group with a maladaptive group evolutionary strategy. It doesn't say anything about "class allegiance". African leaders aren't even capital-rich, they're cash-rich because their countries are incapable of creating capital in the first place.

I think a lot of this is just projection too. Western whites assume that because race means nothing to them, it means nothing to everyone else too.

Since humans make decisions emotionally rather than rationally, I think the best cure for this is simply to spend a year or two in a country like Japan or China, or even Singapore.

>moving the goalposts this hard
You are unironically being like what this poster said>Japan or China, or even Singapore.
And you clearly never lived in any three

>who is part of a group with a maladaptive group evolutionary strategy
So examples that refute you are "groups with maladaptive group evolutionary strategies" and examples that don't are human nature working its way, making your statements unfalsifiable. They're not even isolated cases.

I was unaware you could chalk up any greed or corruption to being part of some socioeconomic group with systematic aims and goals that overrule ethnic allegiance.


>And you clearly never lived in any three

I've lived in Singapore, but not Japan or China.

>So examples that refute you are "groups with maladaptive group evolutionary strategies" and examples that don't are human nature working its way

See above. Marxist claims aren't just that corrupt/bad leaders exist, but that history is the story of class struggle, and that necessarily, class struggle is more important than ethnic struggle.

>See above. Marxist claims aren't just that corrupt/bad leaders exist, but that history is the story of class struggle, and that necessarily, class struggle is more important than ethnic struggle.
Which third world high classes consistently allying with first world high classes to fuck third world low classes seems to support. It's not hard to find refutations to both materialist and genetic determinism, they're both retarded.

It is not a 100% thing but the latter always plays second fiddle to the first.

>I've lived in Singapore, but not Japan or China.
And so you didn't know about the shitshow the presidential election was? That is symbolic of ethnic allegiance but not yet another show of class struggle? Singapore is an excellent case of racial struggle playing second fiddle to class struggle

Where are you from? I'm from Greece. While we're not third world (not yet) I'd say most of the fucking up of this country has come from people firmly committed to liberal internationalism. It's bona fide ideology rather than economic.

Argentina.

>It is not a 100% thing but the latter always plays second fiddle to the first.

Always? Are you sure you want to stick with this assertion?

I'll give you a chance to rescind it.

>Singapore is an excellent case of racial struggle playing second fiddle to class struggle

You're clueless. The Chinese in Singapore are highly exclusive and overwhelmingly vote for a party (the PAP) for whom it is stated policy to have a selective immigration policy to maintain their demographic dominance.

Not to mention how pronounced racial self-segregation, far moreso than class-based segregation.

>Which third world high classes consistently allying with first world high classes to fuck third world low classes seems to support.

Consistently? How are Duterte, Modi and Xi "consistently allying with first world high classes"? If this were as uniform a process as you describe, Gulf Arabs wouldn't be some of the most stubbornly exclusionary, ultra-conservative people on earth. They consistently tell western powers to go fuck themselves, as does East Asia increasingly.

If history is class struggle, why are there so few examples of bonafide class struggle throughout history, while examples of class collaboration are ample?

False consciousness goyim, just like anything short of a society that hasn't invented replicators yet "isn't real communism".

It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to place at the centre. Think that Spengler's centering of high cultures is much better.

>thinking sinkie chinks actually care enough about mudlays to let their daughters marry them, let alone align themselves with them

spoken like a true delusional 白左。

Yes, and when given power Marxists quickly declared genetics a bourgeois pseudoscience in the Soviet Union and had a madman with astonishing looks leading agricultural science.

I don't know enough about east asia to discuss it competently, and I'd rather not go off from a quick google read. I assure you however, that in latin america and in banana republics in general, the local oligarchies have no problem handing power to corporations that enslave locals or to participate in coups that shift policy according to external wants, to put it in extreme terms. I'm not trying to establish class determinism, I'm simply saying your "your own interests are intrinsically tied to that of your kinship group" is retarded.

>I'll give you a chance to rescind it.
Nah, you have yet to give any counter examples.


>You're clueless. The Chinese in Singapore are highly exclusive and overwhelmingly vote for a party (the PAP) for whom it is stated policy to have a selective immigration policy to maintain their demographic dominance.
Do you even live here you stupid ang moh? Let me break it down. Everyone overwhelmingly votes for PAP, other races included. If anything the biggest viable Opposition party can be said to be a overwhelmingly Chinese, but that is more coz Chinese in SEA are more woke than other races and more involved in trade unionism. PAP isn't a pro-Chinese party (although it kinda is, but not in the UMNO's pro malay way), but rather very class based

>selective immigration policy
No. If anything PAP is taking any idiots into country with impunity, only tempered by public outrage against its White Paper to increase its population to 6 million. Chinese here even loathe Mainlanders far more than Banglas.

>pronounced racial self-segregation, far moreso than class-based segregation.
While there is racial self-segregation, it is not as bad as the region, in no part thanks to PAP's efforts to keep the races tolerable to each other. What is class based segregation is our education system and the PAP's cynical abuse of the word meritocracy to legitimize class segregation. Once our recent presidential election shows that the myth of meritocracy in Singapore is breaking apart.

You are so fucking clueless in the inner workings of Singapore that you didn't even respond to my reference about our recent presidential election. Read Liberalism Disavowed before making such shitty comment about my country.

South america is by and large run by a high content European elite, of course they'd sell the mestizo masses down the river.

Well, there are actual struggles between classes, like warriors against clergy, or businesspeople against monarchy, or urban poor against businesspeople, it's just that there's also struggle on all kinds of other fronts.
In terms of what communist movements have actually done, they've mainly attacked feudal relations, killed a lot of people and introduced the market.

That's unfair honestly. Marx liked darwin a lot and lenin had no problem with genetics. Stalin made a shit ton of random draconian decisions, attributing them to marx is arbitrary.

I think you meant to reply to someone else

meant for

Marxists not Marx. Don't know Marx well enough, although declaring China non-cannon seems a bit unscientific to me. Although again, don't know the material.

>putting words into my mouth this hard
People flipped their shit about the recent president not coz she was malay, but coz someone was kept out from being president yet again

You're twisting reality until it fits your narrative and then claiming it can explain everything.

>Nah, you have yet to give any counter examples.

Every single ethnic conflict in history perhaps? Why didn't Roman proles and plebs align with the dozens of other ethnic groups they fought of similar material standing?

Perhaps there is more to humans than simply what they produce and own, and we're more in common with those who are, after all, our extended family than complete racial aliens?

如果你是新加坡华裔,那你应该看得懂:普通的新加坡华人对他们的女儿宁可她结婚大陆人或是印度人?洗脑垃圾。

Marx stated quite categorically in Theses on Feuerbach that man is a product wholly of his material conditions.

>People from highly heterogeneous societies have no real group cohesion or loyalty

No shit!

Are you accusing me of being a Marxist?

kek, in any event the racial divide between the commoners and the elite is very real in South america, and incidentally isn't exactly anything new from a historical perspective

>No shit!
There's both heterogeneous and homogeneous cases and they all went through the same shit.

There are no homogeneous societies in South America, and the most heterogeneous ones are overwhelmingly the most dysfunctional (Brazil makes Argentina look like a paradise).

I'm accusing you of acting the same way as marxists if we replace material determinism with genetic determinism, yes.

>kek, in any event the racial divide between the commoners and the elite is very real in South america, and incidentally isn't exactly anything new from a historical perspective
see

Marxism and most leftist movements are incompatible with modern understandings of sociobiology and behavioral genetics.

You cannot believe in Marxism/Leftism while also accepting the fact human beings are intrinsically unequal not because of any lottery, but because their genetic lineage is quite literally objectively inferior to someone else's. It simply does not follow.

Marxism/Leftism only makes sense if you assume talent is equally distributed or that talent is unequally distributed but that that distribution is a crapshoot.

Touche.

In fairness, I personally consider the elite ruling class of a nation to be an ethnicity onto themselves in all cases anyway.

Most conflict has been inter-ethnic/racial. Moreover the examples of people from one group aligning themselves with foreigners in the interests of class allegiance are few and far between, and what scant examples exist are almost exclusively from the past two centuries.

>There are no homogeneous societies in South America
Bolivia is almost all native, argentina was (until some decades ago) almost homogeneously white (feel free to meme about it), other countries more or less heterogeneous, and all have gone through the same.

>and the most heterogeneous ones are overwhelmingly the most dysfunctional
That's not what we are discussing.

Further it is to note, historiography isn't entirely representative of how one views history is constructed, many histories are from, yes, upper class men of the era who would have only really had the opportunity to entertain the perspective of the lay people, also, many ancient and medieval histories are essentially stories, so to treat the writings as indicative of ones conception of the way history forms is somewhat disingenuous of modern viewers who class it as such.

>Why didn't Roman proles and plebs align with the dozens of other ethnic groups they fought of similar material standing?
Coz those in power told them to. The haves-nots fighting other have-nots to benefit the haves is nothing new. It doesn't undermine class struggle. Nor did it stopped the particianscrewing over the plebs, Roman and otherwise


>那你应该看得懂:普通的新加坡华人对他们的女儿宁可她结婚大陆人或是印度人?洗脑垃圾。
You don't need to encourage inter-marriage to put an end to ethnic struggle, just tolerate them. If anything the rise of Singlish is a good sigh that the ethnic struggle is becoming less and less relevant. Plus the younger generation is liberalizing in that they dont care as much as the previous ones

>洗脑垃圾
Said the one talking about shit he doesn't understand

>Bolivia is almost all native

I don't know enough about Bolivia to comment. What's their population quality like on average? IQ etc.

>That's not what we are discussing.

You're trying to insinuate there are no differences of degree, so long as "they all went through the same shit". This is dishonest. Whatever Argentina's economic turmoil, much like Greece it never descended into full on Rio-tier subhumanity.

>Coz those in power told them to.

So this pattern just repeated itself for thousand and thousand and thousands of years, from the Sumerians on? Perhaps you should ask yourself if virtually all of human history is dominated by this so called "false consciousness", with scant examples of the "real" consciousness manifesting itself, is it "false" in the first place?

Further: Can you even speak/read Chinese? What is your ethnicity? Asking questions like: "Would you be ok with your daughter marrying someone from group X?" or "would you be ok with having someone from group X as a neighbor?" are ABSOLUTELY crucial to understanding this issue, since they are a 1:1 litmus test of whether or not class transcends race, which it absolutely, positively does not and has never done on any systematic level.

>You're trying to insinuate there are no differences of degree, so long as "they all went through the same shit". This is dishonest. Whatever Argentina's economic turmoil, much like Greece it never descended into full on Rio-tier subhumanity.
Again, that's not what I was discussing with the other user. I was discussing whether local elite groups would ally with foreign elite groups to shit on local low class groups, and whether this was a result of a local racial divide. We weren't discussing the economic performance of more and less diverse groups.

lol @ an unironic communist in singapore talking as if he's representative of the place at all.

>stupid ang moh

Careful now bro, doesn't class transcend race? No need for such sluts :-)

Care to elaborte on your statements? You provided no arguments to back them up

>Marxism/Leftism only makes sense if you assume talent is equally distributed or that talent is unequally distributed but that that distribution is a crapshoot.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is exactly the opposite to assuming talent is equally distributed.

That other user was suggesting that there's a link between your lack of cohesion and your leaders selling you out, I don't think it's purely the result of that diversity, but I certainly think racial diversity plays a part in retarding a state's ability to cultivate a national identity as cohesive as say, Japan's.

Moreover you have to distinguish between "selling out your people" and attempting to develop your country according to conventional economic wisdom (however wrong it is). These elites genuinely believe that attracting FDI is good for the group as a whole, it's not some consciously nefarious thing for them.

Uh, the argument is in the post. How can you believe inequality is illegitimate when it is primarily ordered around innate talents that are dispersed, not according to some lottery, but according to your parents/ancestors own genetic quality?

The whole basis of leftism, or perhaps a large part of it if I'm being more charitable is that inequality is illegitimate because it's purely the result of exploitation.

Marxism is retarded.

It has been eternally BTFO forever now.

>Perhaps you should ask yourself if virtually all of human history is dominated by this so called "false consciousness", with scant examples of the "real" consciousness manifesting itself, is it "false" in the first place?
Why would I indulge in a naturalistic fallacy?

>since they are a 1:1 litmus test of whether or not class transcends race
No it doesn't. I don't need to immerse myself in Malay culture to prove that class transcend race, but see my Malay neighbor as a fellow proletarian that I can work with.

>"would you be ok with having someone from group X as a neighbor?"
Not only did you not include that question beforehand but that point is moot in Singapore anyway, since most HDBs have racial quotas. Not that people do mind actually.

It is a general assumption among most leftists, then and now, that these abilities are obtained through environment (eg. schooling).

If we are talking about races in general, sure. If we are talking about individuals, I don't think so.

>Why would I indulge in a naturalistic fallacy?

Your argument is essentially: "People have been duped by elites from the earliest civilizations up until the present day, virtually uninterruptedly."

If you believe that's a compelling account of history and what humans are, then I'm not really sure what to say to you. It's like believing that human beings actually have anime-tier powers locked away inside their hearts somewhere, but we just haven't found them yet.

>I don't need to immerse myself in Malay culture to prove that class transcend race

I'm not asking you to immerse yourself in it, I'm asking your fellow Chinese Singaporeans to be ok with their daughters intermarrying with them. If class transcends race, then this should not be an issue.

>since most HDBs have racial quotas

HDB quotas are there to ensure that self-segregation can take place, LKY himself said he believed in the right of self-segregation to create a peaceful society.

I am only breaking down the misconceptions that he has of my country, I did not act as if my opinions are common place.

>No need for such sluts :-)
If you do lived in Singapore, you would have known that label contains no racist connotations unlike say yanggui. It literally means Caucasian.

Sorry what do you mean, that racial differences can be ascribed to environment but that individual differences cannot? This makes no sense, if X% of a particular variation is genetic, then its genetic regardless of whether you're comparing one individual, ten individuals or ten thousand individuals.

For a chink you sure are bad at mathematics. Maybe your inability to compete at a STEM level is why you became a Marxist in the first place? lel.

I was about to post something along these lines. Class consciousness or class identity is just one of many forms of identity that humans construct for themselves and is never at the top of the list. Other forms of identity such as national identity, ethnic identity, tribal identity, religious identity, hell even gender identity are far more powerful (leading to the somewhat hilarious situation where self-proclaimed socialist feminists decry the gender pay gap of CEOs as a sort of grave injustice. "Those oppressed female CEOs should get a raise," they cry). Identity politics was a mistake.

>Sorry what do you mean, that racial differences can be ascribed to environment but that individual differences cannot?
No, that I accept that leftists don't believe in racial differences, but I don't think they deny that some individuals are naturally smarter than others.

>This makes no sense, if X% of a particular variation is genetic, then its genetic regardless of whether you're comparing one individual, ten individuals or ten thousand individuals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

>Maybe your inability to compete at a STEM level is why you became a Marxist in the first place? lel.

This is actually one of the reasons I dislike leftist arguments. I'm not technically STEM (just an accountant) but from where I'm standing, the best salaried people are all those with the scarcest and most difficult skillsets to master. The reason I don't earn as much as a senior engineer at Google is simply because I don't have his (rare) skills and I probably don't have the abstract ability to master them even if I did.

How exactly is that "unfair"? It seems pretty shameless to say that it's unfair desu. That guy is just smarter than I am.

>then I'm not really sure what to say to you.
You could have given me an argument instead of appealing to naturalistic fallacies

>then this should not be an issue.
And I am saying that it is not or was never the benchmark for such proofs. Plus we are already getting there

>It is another LKY's word is literally law in Singapore episode
straitstimes.com/politics/the-race-issue-how-far-has-singapore-come
>The Housing Board in 1989 also introduced the Ethnic Integration Policy that mandates a quota for minorities in HDB estates, so as to prevent racial enclaves from forming.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

LLN has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about my retarded friend.

Yeah, especially in our day and age with the focus on ever-increasingly specialized engineering disciplines, it's overwhelmingly high-IQ people who get the most money.

Let's divide the IQ differences in genetic differences and environmental differences. Assume that you have two racial groups with the same average genetic IQ. Assume that they have a non null difference in environmental IQ. Then if you are comparing two individuals you will find that the % if genetic IQ plays a large role, but if you are comparing a big group the genetic IQ average will be more or less the same and the environmental IQ will explain everything.
Also, I'm not the chink nor was I defending leftists. I just think you are wrong in saying they don't believe there are individual differences.

But leftists don't deny that people are different, the concept of meritocracy was after all pushed by socialists before burgers meme'd it in their own disorted way.
I am all for a skilled doctor to be in charge of the workplace instead of a third rate one, but what kind of superiority does a hospital owner who just inherited it and has no valuable contribution to it besides taking all the profit have for it to be legitimate, private property is the only thing that enables talentless people succeed

>environmental IQ
>genetic IQ

It doesn't work that way, when we discuss GWAS and variation, it refers to the TOTAL variation.

>but if you are comparing a big group the genetic IQ average will be more or less the same

Given that divergent evolution has had such an obvious except on morphology, bone density and shape, skin biochemistry etc. Why would you assume that it had zero effect on neurology?

Genuinely curious, does evolution just stop at the neck because it's uncomfortable for leftists?

>before burgers meme'd it
desu it was anglos. RIP Micheal Young

Most of the new wealthy in SV overwhelmingly come from engineering backgrounds, they aren't capital-owners. Likewise for people in China's high-wealth cities - eg Shenzhen.

>when we discuss GWAS and variation
Irrelevant to the point.

>Given that divergent evolution has had such an obvious except on morphology, bone density and shape, skin biochemistry etc. Why would you assume that it had zero effect on neurology?
It's a scenario to prove that believing in equal races without believing in equal individuals is not logically inconsistent as you implied. I'm not commenting on whether that's the world we live in.

>Irrelevant to the point.

The extent of genetic/environmental variation in intelligence is established most solidly by GWAS though.

>I'm not commenting on whether that's the world we live in

Ah, abstract fantastical theorizing divorced from human nature. Like most leftism.

Do carry on.

Well, you entered abstract discussion when you implied that the position was logically inconsistent. The correct refutation is abstract, not empirical.

Marxists don't think that transition to socialism is possible in a pre-capitalist society. They believe that capitalism works in their favor, because it erodes conservative identities like religion, nation or family, and creates a rootless working class that identifies with its economic position instead of their religion, nationality or family.

You directly referenced imagined empirical constructs like "environmental IQ" though. These don't actually exist, so how can you expect someone to not draw upon the body of evidence that exists to demonstrate your leftism.

An engineer is not wealthy, thats middle class at best, unless you're a financial engineer.
I am speaking of people who do nothing but own the means of production, was steve jobs a genius? The guy couldn't even code, he made his whole fortune from exploiting these engineers and countless sweatshop workers, some of whom could have become doctors had they not had the unfortunate fate of being born into poor families.
You can larp about IQ all you want, but it does not change the fact that enviroment is the decisive factor of it all, IQ is like dick size, it has no use if you don't get the opportunity to use it.

>why are there so few examples of bonafide class struggle throughout history
>what is the displacement of the catholic church within spain during their civil war
>what is the revolts of the serfs during Catherine of Russia's reign
>what is the French Revolution
>what is the American Revolution
>what is the Spanish Revolution
>what is the American working class fighting for stronger unions and worker's rights after ww1
etc

The construct is useful and has no impact in the discussion.

>An engineer is not wealthy

Delusional. Software engineers with specialist skillsets can command salaries of $500k+.

>Steve Jobs

Jobs is an exception. Most SV CEOs have an engineering background. Most startups require very little capital.

>You can larp about IQ
>larp

Huh?

>environment is the decisive factor

How can it be the decisive factor when you're talking about a sub-group of the general population of less than 0.1%? For 99.9% of people what's important is their ability to leverage marketable skills, which are largely contingent upon innate genetic ability.

>useful

It doesn't actually exist in psychometrics.

Nonsense, a lot of marxists provided critiques of how capitalism forces people to internalize social problems on an individual level which further alienates them, read adorno, deleuze or debord
t.conservative marxist

Oh boy, here comes the /leftypol/ screeching about "muh class, muh anti-wacism, back to /pol/"

>If you believe that's a compelling account of history and what humans are, then I'm not really sure what to say to you. It's like believing that human beings actually have anime-tier powers locked away inside their hearts somewhere, but we just haven't found them yet.

This. I can't take people who don't think racial/ethnic bonds are real, organic and meaningful seriously. It's the definition of sticking your head in the sand.

>Jobs is an exception
yet apple is the most valuable commercial brand today, really says a lot about the kind of meritocracy capitalism provides, its really hard to picture the amount of cognitive dissonance genetic determinists who support capitalism suffer from.

Nobody is saying ITT though

This is why third-worldism and black power marxism and so on is so funny. Because they can't actually get non-whites to genuinely believe in the notion of racelessness, even theoretically, they basically just afford them racial nationalism but subsume it under a marxist label.

As if Ho Chi Minh was anything more than a Vietnamese nationalist who believed in land reform.

Looking at how the VCP and CCP now preside over increasingly traditional, Confucian-orientated (rather than ML orientated) societies, and how the DPRK has gone full-NatSoc, I don't see how anyone can take internationalism seriously.

Non-whites don't give a fuck about your internationalism.

>what is the French Revolution
>what is the American Revolution
>what is the Spanish Revolution
All of which were championed by the upper class and their prols while the upper class who opposed them had their prols as well.

It wasn't really rich vs poor, it was revolutionary vs reactionary in every case. Hell the revolutionaries in the US would be considered hardcore reactionaries by today's standards as they advocated for an aristocratic representative democracy

Google is the most valuable brand in the world today, not Apple.

>really says a lot about the kind of meritocracy capitalism provides

For the vast majority of people, as in, over 99% of people: Their abilities really do determined, roughly speaking, their station in life and their salary. Take it from a guy in his 30s in white collar work kid.

Can we just turn this into a "shit leftists say" thread instead?

>"Neo-liberals are fucking scum! Torch the banks and fuck capitalism!"
>"Dumb racist, we need those immigrants to boost our economy and increase our GDP!"

t.has no idea what third worldism is
Its quite hard to push internationalism when burgers are funding fascists across the globe user, reminder that this is Veeky Forums

>amount of cognitive dissonance genetic determinists who support capitalism suffer from.
You realize that biological determinism isn't discredited by the stagnation of people moving up and between classes based on personal performance right?
>What is nepotism
>What is xenophobia
>What is any kind of group dynamic that has an inherent basis in human behavior

It just occurred to me that the idea you need to make markets larger and larger and larger in perpetuity, hence the "necessity" of mass-immigration is probably the most hardcore neo-liberal concept ever invented.

I mean it's basically: Keep inflating your population artificially every single year, forever.

>when burgers are funding fascists across the globe
We even allow American antifa fags to go there and become peshmerdas

And liberals and leftists buy into it wholesale.

If it weren't for those Americans then all of those totally un-nationalistic liberals like the PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, Duterte, Russia et al would unite us all under the banner of internationalism, agreed.

Realizing that America pushes bona fide liberalism that it genuinely, earnestly believes in is the final red pill.

>Dont worry about overpopulation and ad infinitum amounts of pollution
>The ozone layer is overrated, better keep funding space travel there because after I'm done with this Earth colonizing a barren desert planet with no atmosphere will sound like heaven in comparison
What's worse is that they always give the excuse they are just "developing" the planet and other countries
>Don't call it exploitation, call it "progress"

>12 posters
>93 replies
/pol/ sure has dedicated users

Reminds me of how that Jew infiltrated America's foremost environmental lobby and basically got them to rescind their support for strict immigration controls by refusing to give them money if they continued with it.

Under every rock....

>And liberals and leftists buy into it wholesale.

Liberalism and leftism are joined a the hip now, whether they like it or not.

>And liberals and leftists buy into it wholesale.
No leftists don't. How can anyone take you seriously when you are consistently strawmanning everything

Corbyn's shadow treasury secretary has verbatim (well, roughly speaking) echoed what was just said: That immigrants are necessary to increase economic output.

It's textbook neo-liberalism, yet Corbyn is supposedly some sort of hardcore leftist.