Is Veeky Forums post-leftist?

>the critique of a critique of a critique

Boy, that's gonna make so much change happen.

heck yes i am post left

Veeky Forums is strictly a Catholic board, newfag

If you don't understand how one generation's critiques affect the next generation's collective beliefs and actions, then you're being cucked by society.

You joke, but...

What does it mean to be Catholic in this age? To really, REALLY be Catholic? To believe in Christ and the Church wholeheartedly?

Isn't it to be a total orphan, alone and bereft? The Left hates us. The Right hates us. The Left is going down the path of total secularism, embracing all the Deconstructionists and holding to no enduring truths. The Right has embraced nihilism, a viciousness and a privation that only ends in mass suffering and death.

What is there for the people of the Church, those who are part of the mystical Body of Christ? What is there for them in the world of modern politics? It seems there is only abandonment and rejection. But they should not despair, because Christ provides always, and the Resurrection is always real. In the long gray dust of the present age, they should still have hope, for Christ will still raise all up on the Last Day.

Vitalism ended up encompassing nationalism and crimethinc ended up supporting riots against it
Reminds me of that Contrapoints video where his communist is saying that fascism is so irresistible that we have to punch anyone who espouses anything leading to it in public

Boo fucking hoo, at least nobody's using you for firewood like Nero used to

Not exactly a compelling argument against fascism
"It's too attractive. We have to keep it boring by beating anyone more nationalist than Clinton"

Excuse me what video is this a screenshot from

That's a great boon, it's true.

But on the other hand, we have cause to envy the martyrs. They died for the truth of the Gospel. And in this age, people in the Middle East die for the Gospels. God blesses them and does not forget them.

dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3152925/I-complex-pale-Emma-Roberts-opens-insecurities-revealed-star-Photoshop-free-campaign-Aerie.html

>us

You're obviously not Catholic, so don't associate myself with your degeneracy, you fucking faggot.

We are all ethno-nationalists

Why am I "obviously" not Catholic? I'm curious. What disqualifies me from the tribe?

At least it's fun you downy downer

perhaps it's because fascism is an entry level political ideology for an apolitical proletariat?

True, true. You got me there.

Well I don't believe in right or left bullshit but I will answer yes since it makes sense. The least associated with /pol/ we are the better to be honest.

Veeky Forums is a Christian Traditionalist board which tolerates the presence of Zizekposters

it all makey sensey now

Too much Juoissance, just too much.

Post-Left is essentially Leftists who view the mainstream Left as basically sophisticated LARPers playing a theatre game in an outdated discourse and overly attached to meaningless symbolisms and identifications both in political action and ideology.

For instance a Post-Leftist might unironically say protest marches are now obsolete and we are in the age of the meme wars now

>perhaps it's because fascism is an entry level political ideology for an apolitical proletariat?
If you have a problem with that, then how about stopping this attempt to be the greater abusive parent of the household, and convince the proles to be part of your organization, not in the body but in the mind and- oh, forget it!

Yes OP, here be post-leftists.

I like a lot of post-marxist thinkers but the left-right dichotomy is a farce

Veeky Forums is pretty individualistic..... So is would be unfair to portray it as "leftist".

It's more about teen neurosis

Zizek is a covert traditionalist and jesuist priest

>Individualism
>Left or right wing
Spotted the non-individualist.

>Zizek is a crypto-Jesuit
>Jesuits are crypto-communists
How deep does the rabbit hole go?

There's a lot of gommies here so no

The post left doesn't exist yet but when it does it'll be dubbed the alt-left

But it is, where have you been for the past 2 years?

I'm a Leftist pragmatist, stoic, and skeptic. I don't know if there's a trendy name for that.

>tribe

> doesn't know the ontological positions of left v right political ideologies

>Zizek will be the next Pope
It's pretty deep.

>He doesn't know that individualism is inherently anti-political

Fight me Potok

>being this classcucked
you are not liberated, user

>Doesn't know that political ontology doesn't boil down to assigning attitudes about personality to the Left and the Right
Gas yourself

What is classical liberalism and conservatism's view on human nature?

Get your edmund Burke, hobbes and j.s mill out and get back to me when you've read them.

>Having a ideologically guided opinions
>Individualism
Top pleb. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

>Parliamentarism, that is to say, public permission to choose between five main political opinions, insinuates itself into the favour of the numerous class who would like to appear independent and individual, and like to fight for their opinions. After all, however, it is a matter of indifference whether one opinion is imposed upon the herd, or five opinions are permitted to it. But he who diverges from the five public opinions and stands apart, has always the whole herd against him.

And of course I've read them, user. I was doing high-school politics once too.

>Defining yourself according to group identities like class
Is there some kind of plebeian convention going on in this thread?

Catholicism is not defined by tribal affiliation, you simply used the wrong word.

don't feed the trolll

>It's another idiot who thinks that there's a contradiction between comprehenidng one's own existence as an individual and acknowledging one's belonging to a group
"Hi, I'm an individual--I don't belong to any race, not even the human race; my sexuality is unique, nobody else has one like mine; my beliefs are utterly unique, and if the were shared with anyone, I wouldn't acknowledge it :)"

This is the thing. Of course we belong to groups, inevitably society will pigeonhole us into groups whether we like it or not.

What I'm saying is we shouldn't define ourselves in line with this and act accordingly. Of course the both of us are probably proletariat. But should we really pursue freedom for the proletariat in place of freedom for ourselves? I don't think so, I think doing that would be an absolute waste and ultimately amounts to repressing ones own will for the sake of better toeing this line.

>but proletarian victories are our victories. Both goals are the same.
I hear someone say.

They aren't really though. Personal loves and desires differ from person to person and can be extremely abstract. But it doesn't make any difference to me if another prole on the other side of the country starves to death because of the capitalist system or if we achieve full communism tomorrow.

>but if things are good or bad for the other proles then they're good or bad for you too
This is actually true. If my demographic as a whole has a good quality of life then I probably do too.

But this is the great thing about individualism, it is infinitely easier and more rewarding to secure yourself a life that you want than it is to make things better for everyone you happened to born into similar conditions to. In this way I do not see the point in communism, or nationalism, or any other such thing other than a way to absolve oneself of the responsibility of making your own choices.

>What I'm saying is we shouldn't define ourselves in line with this and act accordingly.
I hear this all the time, but I see no reason to think that it's true.
>both of us are probably proletariat
LOL
>But should we really pursue freedom for the proletariat in the place of freedom for ourselves?
If we're both proletarians, then freedom for the proletariat *is* freedom for ourselves, just like freedom for the bourgeoisie *is* freedom for individual members of the bourgeoisie, freedom for the capitalist class to, as individuals operating within a common historical, economic, and social framework, exploit the individuals who constitute the working class.
>They aren't really though. Personal loves and desires differ from person to person and can be extremely abstract.
Revolution is not about love or desire, revolution is about the acquisition of power by the powerless and the transformation of society.
>it is infinitely easier and more rewarding to secure yourself a life that you want than it is to make things better for everyone you happened to born into similar conditions to.
>Hey boss, I want a raise and you're working me too hard
>btw I'm just one guy, I won't show up to work until you agree to pay me more to do less

>Hey boss, all of your employees want to renegotiate our common contract
>btw none of us will be working until you agree to renegotiate
Which is a more effective way to secure for yourself better working conditions and better pay? Which is more likely to

>I hear this all the time, but I see no reason to think that it's true.
Yes, which is why I spent the rest of the post outlining why I think it is.
>If we're both proletarians, then freedom for the proletariat *is* freedom for ourselves, just like freedom for the bourgeoisie *is* freedom for individual members of the bourgeoisie, freedom for the capitalist class to, as individuals operating within a common historical, economic, and social framework, exploit the individuals who constitute the working class.
I have a feeling you started writing your reply before you finished reading my post because I knew someone would say this and so I already put forward an argument in anticipation of this. So I'll just move on since you already tried to reply to it and there's no point giving the same argument twice.

>Revolution is not about love or desire, revolution is about the acquisition of power by the powerless and the transformation of society.
Did you think about this point at all or did that just sound bombastic in your head?

Yes, maybe that's the case. But it has exactly nothing to do with my point, unless maybe it does in which case you should explain why.

>Which is a more effective way to secure for yourself better working conditions and better pay? Which is more likely to
Striking, obviously.

But I understand communists are autistic so I don't blame you for confusing "a life that you want" with "making more money".

Stop dissecting and potshotting each others posts like redditors. Use coherent paragraphs like adults for fuck sake

>there's no point giving the same argument twice
It was a bad argument and I replied to it in that post.
>Yes, maybe that's the case. But it has exactly nothing to do with my point, unless maybe it does in which case you should explain why.
You made a point about the significance of love and desire w/r/t revolutionary social change. I simply pointed out that these things are not that important within the context of actually achieving social change. Look at American liberals in the wake of Clinton's loss in November: all that talk about love and tolerance amounted to absolutely nothing in terms of its ability to maintain the social changes that the Obama era saw.
>Striking, obviously.
There you go.
>Communist
I'm not a Communist, though. I just think that collective action can achieve positive change for the proletariat, as individuals and as a collective. The same is true for any class.
The 'life I want' involves a beautiful wife tolerating my keeping an infinite harem of beautiful women in our house in the country, and an infinite supply of good books, movies, and video games. That's an ideal, though--I think most people would settle for getting slightly better conditions if they can't get every single thing that they want.
If 'making more money' means 'making enough money to survive' then I don't see what's wrong with wanting that. Same for 'better working conditions,' are you saying that the people who died in the triangle shirtwaist factory fire shouldn't have worried about being locked into rooms full of flammable materials?
It's called greentext, you nigger.

>It's called greentext, you nigger.

You're the brainlet if you can't deduce the point of someone's argument and need to break it into individual propositions instead.

>Compares post style to Reddit
>Derides greentext
>Expects formalized logical refutations of shitposts
>On Veeky Forums

There's a difference between greentexting as a mode of posting which you're doing now and quoting isolated sentences like you can do on any other forum, including reddit

I'm afraid that I really don't understand your point. Quoting individual portions of posts in greentext is as old as my time on this site.

Yeah and its still kanker regardless. I am the authorative voice here and you will obey me

> I simply pointed out that these things are not that important within the context of actually achieving social change.
And? I don't care one bit for social change.
This makes the argument a bit moot because the question is whether or not individualism is compatible with group mentality. If you're fundamentally approaching life from a perspective that social change is everything and personal matters are irrelevant then you've already failed at individualism.
>The 'life I want' involves a beautiful wife tolerating my keeping an infinite harem of beautiful women in our house in the country, and an infinite supply of good books, movies, and video games.
Then go get it.
>If 'making more money' means 'making enough money to survive' then I don't see what's wrong with wanting that.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. If someone wants more money then more power to them. What I'm saying is there's more to life than getting paid so it's a bit of a silly example.
>Same for 'better working conditions,' are you saying that the people who died in the triangle shirtwaist factory fire shouldn't have worried about being locked into rooms full of flammable materials?
Of course they should have.
But I'm not going to worry about it for them nor do I see why anyone that sees individualism as valuable would.

>kanker
>I am the authorative voice here and you will obey me
No

>And? I don't care one bit for social change.
Then why did you call yourself proletarian? Do you not know what that word means?
>This makes the argument a bit moot because the question is whether or not individualism is compatible with group mentality. If you're fundamentally approaching life from a perspective that social change is everything and personal matters are irrelevant then you've already failed at individualism.
Oh man, you're fucking retarded. Do you not understand that not wanting to be effectively enslaved by the people who pay your wage is both wanting social change and wanting your own life to be better?
>Then go get it.
But that's impossible; there aren't infinite women, infinite games, infinite books, or infinite films.
>What I'm saying is there's more to life than getting paid so it's a bit of a silly example.
Have you even read my posts?
>But I'm not going to worry about it for them
I'm not fucking telling you to, you're not part of the group of people who died in a fire in that factory. I'm saying that they should have worked together to try to get better working conditions, so that they, as individuals, wouldn't die.
The problem with people like you is that you presuppose no common ground between the individual and the collective, overlooking the obvious fact that a collective consists of individuals, no matter what the collective is. I honestly don't know how you don't understand this.

>Then why did you call yourself proletarian? Do you not know what that word means?
As an example of a group that I belong to and because this
was the source of the sub-argument.
> Do you not understand that not wanting to be effectively enslaved by the people who pay your wage is both wanting social change and wanting your own life to be better?
Can you read? Did you read that post? Is someone helping you write these?

If you go in with the mentality that social change is everything you're simply not an individualist. And that's exactly you appear to be doing.
I advise you just go back and read this post

but slower since I already pre-emptively answered virtually all of your objections.

>The problem with people like you is that you presuppose no common ground between the individual and the collective,
I don't, in the first post you replied to I explicitly acknowledged that we're part of these groups whether we like it or not.
I just also think it's a total waste to orient your life around that identity.

Im post-post

I am a generation beyond the generation that uses the word post too much

We are post-modern positivist cultural marxist capitalist classical liberal totalitarian fascist anarchist capitalist marxists in favor of ethnco nationalism in an open border globalist commune system

Well, that's absolutely true.

People who hate the two big establishment ideologies in the american left: Neo-Liberals and the vaguely defined Social Justice crowd (mostly Neo-marxists and Intersectional feminists) which make up basically the entirety of Democrat platform.

>Revolution is not about love or desire, revolution is about the acquisition of power by the powerless and the transformation of society.
why do you want the acquisition of power and transformation of the society?. (if the powerless can have power they are not powerless at all)
this is very simple, without desire you dont give a shit and dont have a visión of what you want.
revolution is about desire in a high fucking degree. (this is something you already know, i suppose)

This

>I'm a skeptic
TIP

I'm a paleocon

I'm a modern conservative who wants no association with the alt-right.

you and all neocons need to be sent to the gallows

Yeah I wasn't meaning to suggest it as right or wrong

What do you have against "neocons"?