[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

 No.240753[Last 50 Posts]

Post your favorite anti-capitalist videos. This one is a documentary with the anarchist primitivist theorist John Zerzan. It's an 7.5/10 documentary for focusing attacks only on corporations but not much to say on why governments are bad. It's still very comfy though.

no liberal/fascist/statist bootlicker propaganda please. This is a pro-neet thread, and only socialists are pro-neet and want to abolish work, so fuck off if you want to post about how much you love living in a propertarian world.

Primitvist, tribalist, pre-statist videos are welcome too. This includes anthropological and historical videos that show how statist/propertarian systems came to be (like on humans self-domestication before the earliest states/civilization began, ect.).

Statist propaganda includes the "marxist" states. It's okay if the statist is not the main focus of the video. This documentary I'm posting has che and castro talking for a bit, but they are not the main focus of the video, so it's fine. The focus is on mass-consumer society and not a vanguard party.

This is meant to be an especially comfy thread with the trump flu (corona) exposing how fragile/death cultish and unfulfilling capitalism is, and it will help us to imagine its collapse (though unnecessary since its inevitable) and why we should abolish it.

>tldr comfy thread on the collapse of mass consumer society


John Zerzan interview, very comfy.


Eco-anarchist/communalist Murray Bookchin


Alan Watts on turning work into play.

>abolish wageslavery and work


Theorist Jonathan Nirzan explaining his power theory of capital. Kind of dry if you don't like academic talk though.


scene from monty python on anarchy. Seeing this makes me wish they would make a whole television series on an anarchist society. It would be great propaganda.


Dr Gabor Mate on how unhealthy a slaves life is.


chomsky vs capitalist shill


Chris Hedges on how liberalism creates the conditions for fascism.


Star Trek is communist and bread-pilled


there's the political thread for this garbage

>This is a pro-neet thread, and only socialists are pro-neet and want to abolish work, so fuck off if you want to post about how much you love living in a propertarian world.

yeah right lol


The politics thread is not meant for posting videos like this, its meant for commentary on the news, which this is not about. If you don't like it then hide it.

>yeah right lol commies hate neets :^)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_of_work here is the wikipedia page on neets and people that hate work. Why do I only see socialists advocating for its abolishment here? If you can find me any other political philosophy whose goal is to abolish work, then I'd be glad to learn about it and you can post it here if you want to (has to be video though and comfy).

This is a comfy video on the libertarian socialist Bob Black's essay "The Abolition of Work". When did liberals make it a goal to get rid of work, and fascists??


Dude just wants a circle jerk where he wont have his bad ideas criticized like in the political thread where he gets btfo so bad that he cries to the mods to ban people for hurting his feelings by pointing out how bad his ideas are.


Wanting everyone to be a neet is a bad idea? Wanting to end consumerism (which is normie culture) is a bad idea? Wanting to end civilization (which is created by and for normans and used to oppress wizards) is a bad idea?

I don't even like the mods and I've made threads about making wizchan a participatory, liquid democracy before in meta to give more power to the userbase. I don't have any reason to believe they would follow the wizchan rules by banning people that should be banned.

If you really feel so strongly about criticizing socialist theory here or any of the theory shown in the videos posted, then feel free to do that. Just beware the neetism is explicitly tied to socialist theory, and no other political philosophy advocates for neets. Arguing against this tendency will get you banned (or not since the mods are libcucks/fascist sympathizers).

I didn't really make this thread for discussion, it was made because I like watching these types of videos. They are relaxing especially in times like these where their messages are confirmed and highlighted by the irrational actions that are happening in response to a global pandemic.

I'm ready for a laugh. Go on defending normie culture and society, larping as a wizard thinking you belong here.


>Wanting everyone to be a neet is a bad idea? Wanting to end consumerism (which is normie culture) is a bad idea? Wanting to end civilization (which is created by and for normans and used to oppress wizards) is a bad idea?

Yes, those are all super bad ideas.
> Just beware the neetism is explicitly tied to socialist theory
>a theory that always without fail involves slavery when used in the real world
>and is all about empowering workers
>is explicitly tied to "neetism"
God you are full of shit.
>If you argue against me you will get banned.
No I won't and no matter how much you whine arguing against socialism is in no way shape or form a violation of rule 4 so you can't hide behind rule 4 to prevent people from criticizing your ultra shitty political ideas that is more likely to kill all neets then help them.
I get that some here are suicidal and all but that does mean everyone else wants to die like you do.

>I didn't really make this thread for discussion

Like I said, you made if as a circle jerk safe space where you can express your political opinions without criticism. So no shit you don't want discussion.

>I'm ready for a laugh. Go on defending normie culture and society, larping as a wizard thinking you belong here.

Your stupid ideas would directly lead to the death or enslavement of neets as has happened every single time it has ever been attempted in real life without exception.
It is literally all about workers controlling things and bending the world to their favor.

Explain how the fuck something that is from the ground up for workers "explicitly tied to neetism".


File: 1585609217810.jpg (54.53 KB, 629x406, 629:406, Dumpster-Fire-1.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


>rule 4: Do not disparage or show contempt for the celibate, NEET, or reclusive lifestyle.

>you are full of shit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_of_work Read this link on neets, but I know dumbasses like you don't like reading so maybe you should watch the videos I posted. You wont find any liberalism/fascism there, only socialism.

>slavery when used in the real world

If you are talking about state-socialism (really state-capitalism) then I don't advocate for that. I figured people would get a hint when I said in the OP not to post statist propganda, including marxist-leninist states. Perhaps you missed that or you do not know about the different types of socialist theories.

I'm an anarchist, so if you want to give me an example of anarchists creating slavery, then I'll make a response. There are plenty of examples of capitalists creating slavery and it is the dominant social system now that forces us into wageslavery. I don't know of any anarchists creating slaves.

>I'm suicidal, not capitalists :^)

lol. Capitalism is a death cult. We have the president telling people to go to work and expose themselves in the midst of a global pandemic, despite us having the resources to keep everyone but food workers home. In its short 300 year history, capitalism and civilization has managed to bring hundreds and perhaps even thousands of species to extinction, destroying the complex ecosystem that developed for millions of years. We are forced into an alien life and domesticate ourselves into classes of rulers (all those above in the social hierarchy) and slaves (the bulk of humanity, at the bottom), not the world where we as a species evolved in for thousands of years and feel natural in. We are seeing the ultimate tragedy of the commons due to consumerism (climate change) and you dare call socialists suicidal??

>wahh the people control everything under socialism and not the bourgeosie D: mr politician, mr business owner i luv u

Who is telling you to consume and maintain society as it is, keeping the system going like a cog? I'm not, I want to end it all so we can be free and decide our own destinies. In this pandemic right now we see people wanting to stay home and have control over their lives, but the leader of the "free" world trump is telling people the stock market needs to go up and that capitalist profits and the economy is more important than human life, which ,by the way, is anti-neet. The documentary I posted in the OP should have drove this message home.

We have the technology now and enough surplus to feed everyone, house everyone, and work far less than we do, but capitalism is driven by the profit motive and demands constant growth, and we do not have control over our lives because the capitalist firm is effectively a totalitarian institution. This means that the economy does not work for humanity, but humanity works for the economy, which is effectively controlled by a minority of rich people, so it is nothing more than another form of feudalism. If people were given a choice and had power over themselves, just like our ancestors lived for thousands of years, they would choose to be lazy and spend time how they like. We produce enough food and resources for this to happen, but capitalism distributes these resources to only go to people with money, not to where it needs to go. And btw, most people don't have money.

>explain how it is tied to neetism

this is why I don't like posting in the politics thread. The people that have strong ideas on socialism literally have no knowledge about it other than the propaganda they received from their liberal brainwashing economics 101 class or highscool history class. I don't feel like explaining this, but I did provide you links and a video to read if you honestly want to know why socialism is so strongly tied to neetism (though I doubt you'll look at them). But its not hard to understand why. You're a worker, right? Do you want to stop working? Well too bad, that decisions is left to your boss that wants to extract as much of your time and labor from you for his profits while you have no say over anything and are paid crumbs. In a socialist society, your community or workplace (that includes you) can make that decision, so you would have a meaningful say over how you live your life. You would not be afraid of automating your job either, because automation would serve you instead of a corporate owners pockets.

Watch this video, hopefully it can end your confusion on our ideas.


>wanting to be a neet and ending normie society is a bad idea

Can you explain why?


Great thread but terrible execution

10 mins into that ""documentary"" and it was 'we live in a society' on steroids

Can't even get through the rest


>Nah man, it would totally work this time if they did it my way
>It totally wouldn't have the same results as every single other time it has been attempted
>When it failed it wasn't real socialism
>They just didn't do it right
>Did mention any criticism of my ideas are a rule 4 violation in my mind

Did I miss anything?


What? I can't respond to this because you didn't say anything, not that I expected you to know anything about what you're talking about in the first place. If you actually want to educate yourself so that you can make a proper objections to anarchism then you should read about its most successful projects and the theory itself. I doubt you will though and I'm going to ignore your comments if you keep making anti-intellectual non-responses that you think are criticisms. Here is some historical reading material if you are serious about criticizing it, or literally just watch the videos I posted earlier with some of the famous anarchist theorists speaking, fucking dumbass liberal : https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ejercito-zapatista-de-liberacion-nacional-autonomous-resistance https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ejercito-zapatista-de-liberacion-nacional-autonomous-government-i https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/steve-rushton-rebel-cities

Stop derailing my thread with your bullshit.


We have a containment thread.


This is not for news commentary and I don't want to dilute the point of this thread by posting docs in that thread among all the unrelated discussion. This is meant to be a comfy thread for videos.

video on limits of liberalism


Bakunin on Freedom


Hunter, gatherer pre-statist related. Extremely comfy video


Anti-civilization doc.



Collapse 2010 doc by a former pig, turned radical


The Corporation, 2003 historical documentary on how corporations and the government fucks over the people they claim to benefit


Revolutionary Rojava, RIP


compilation of videos critiquing capitalism, very comfy


So this is just a thread of you spamming your playlist and crying rule 4 at anyone who replies to thread you don't agree with.


Collectivism is anti-wizardly and socialist ideas don't work.


Sounds about right.


>rule 5: Do not submit low quality, inflammatory or off-topic posts.

I said in the op no liberal propaganda, so this is against the rules of my thread, get the fuck out. Though I doubt the mods will do shit.

If you post that video in the politics thread I might make a response to the propaganda in it later. For now I'll just say that I don't support any of the regimes that lady is speaking of.

All of the real world is anti-wizardly, but the best we can do is seek a society that will best serve wizards as a whole. A socialist society would better serve wizards as a whole. Also, dumbass, there is nothing inherently collectivist about socialism, though that is the dominant strain of socialists for good reason. You might be interested in individualist anarchism then, which by the way is far more wizardly, infinitely more wizardly than capitalism (see video).

And "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism. Fucking educate yourself before misusing terms, not knowing the proper meaning of words. You should read this to get a better understanding of why "an"caps are not anarchists, but more like minarchists or feudalists.



Also stop derailing my thread. I said in the fucking op, this is an anti-capitalism thread. If you want to make a separate thread for capitalist propaganda, then make one, but I specifically made this thread for anti-capitalism and said so in the op. The mods aren't following rule 5 by leaving your posts up.


Also since you bring up that collectivism is anti-wizardly, you should look into anarcho-primitivism then. The philosopher in the documentary of the OP is the main theorist for that school of anarchism.

His name is John Zerzan and he wants to to end civilization and bring us back to our hunter/gather past. Literally nothing as wizardly as that. Most other anarchists hate primitivists and call him a genocidal misanthrope because how can we destroy civilization without killing billions of people (though he does not want genocide, they are just misinterpreting him). Just look at what Chomsky has to say on him.


File: 1585618295554.jpg (133.39 KB, 1300x956, 325:239, young-smiling-man-wearing-….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

looks like youtube autist found his foil and now they are are both just spamming tube videos at each other like defunct bots lol


I suppose this fits here if this an anarchist thread


Even your other commie comrades make fun of your failed ideology.

And no, socialism is inherently both collectivist and anti wizardly.
For fuck sake it has social in the name.

Also communist can play semantics all they want but their distain for individualism and hypocrisy on issues of liberty prove through actions that they aren't real anarchist. Meanwhile ancaps actually respect individual liberty as their highest value.


video on peterson


You do realize that hunter gathering societies are both definited by extremely tight social groups where ostracization means death and hard physical labor is required to live.

It also is absurdly unrealistic as far as anything other then some comune larping on privately owned land.


I mean you can make up bullshit all you want but they say nothing to the real experiences of the people actually that have actually experienced anarchy in real life. Video related.


I never said I was a primitivist, and I actually only have an elementary understanding of it, only having read short descriptions of it and John Zerzan speaking of it in the docs I posted.

We already live in a highly socialized world, but I imagine that if we went back to primitivism and stopped destroying the environment, with the far lesser population we would have much more room to graze without any humans in site and a wizard would be able to take a cave or something to live in without anyone bother him. Like how the main hermit did, but no one would bother him and force him into civilization, because there would be no civilization. You could always choose to live in a tribe I suppose, but personally I wouldn't, I would rather be in nature as a hermit.

>commune larping on privately owned land

you have no understanding of socialism, but what you're describing is utopian socialism that was tried and failed in the earliest stagest of socialist thought and no serious socialist wants to bring about any current of socialism by buying fucking private land to form a commune, though I see this as a consistent strawmen by authoritarians that never read our literature to know what we want.


Yeah it was partly the fault of the leninist's betraying them, so thats why they failed. If they had anything to learn from revolution, it is not to trust marxists. They will turn into counter-revolutionaries when they gain power.


Albert Einstein's essay "Why Socialism?"


You don't make the rules here, schizenu. If you want your gay little enforced commie circlejerk then go back to ernst.

Crapitalism with all its faults is still one of the few systems where one can consistently get away with not working now.


An entry-level piece, but a great one that I should probably rewatch again.


File: 1585630291790.jpg (91.36 KB, 673x960, 673:960, 1483330704862.jpg) ImgOps iqdb



File: 1585630695042.jpg (302.38 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, EmilysQuotes.Com-world-dan….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>we can never do better, there is no alternative, this is the end of history, stop questioning society and obey money, worship the market, capitalism is a god, private property rights are gods
>wageslaves outnumber neets 1000000 to 1 but we can do no better :^) despite clearly having the resources to stop working as is evidenced by the corona pandemic having only "essential" businesses work but this cuck wants to worship consumerism while saying we can't get better than this
>most wizards are wageslaves and even the few that can be neets hate it because they are inculcated in consumerist norman culture but still thinks we can do no better and nothing can change, no improvements possible :^)
>literally making the same arguments that supporters of the monarchy made when liberalism was radical
>life without the king is impossible, we can't do anything without the king ruling us, there will be no improvements in society without the divine right of the kings connection to god
>just see the similarities between capitalist cucks and supporters of monarchies to see that they are both religious fetishists. the monarchists fetishize the king for their religion, and the capitalist fetishizes money and the market for their religion
>obey the market god, do nothing but consume, don't criticize capitalism, never attempt to improve your life, this is the end of history

Also you are breaking the rules.

>Do not submit low quality, inflammatory or off-topic posts.

But don't worry, the mods don't care about enforcing them.


Is imperialism driven by capital allowed?


I see you don't understand what division of labor is and don't seem to get how low the quality of life and the extreme amount of work one has to endure without it.
It wouldn't mean happy fun time for wizards. It would be suffering, hard labor, and then a painful death for wizards.


Because most western "socialists" are delusional useful idiots.

>In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism (Russian: тунеядство tuneyadstvo, тунеядцы [tuneyadets/tuneyadetchi"),[7] in accordance with the socialist principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution."[8]


and you didn't read the op to get that no one here is a state socialist.
>don't post statist propaganda, including marxist states

> “If instead of the present capitalist class there were a set of officials appointed by the Government and set in a position to control our factories, it would bring about no revolutionary change. The officials would have to be paid, and we may depend that, in their privileged positions, they would expect good remuneration. The politicians would have to be paid, and we already know their tastes. You would, in fact, have a non-productive class dictating to the producers the conditions upon which they were allowed to use the means of production. As this is exactly what is wrong with the present system of society, we can see that State control would be no remedy, while it would bring with it a host of new troubles … under a governmental system of society, whether it is the capitalism of today or a more a perfected Government control of the Socialist State, the essential relationship between the governed and the governing, the worker and the controller, will be the same; and this relationship so long as it lasts can be maintained only by the bloody brutality of the policeman’s bludgeon and the soldier’s rifle.” The Anarchist Revolution

>“The nationalisation of industry, removing the workers from the hands of individual capitalists, delivered them to the yet more rapacious hands of a single, ever-present capitalist boss, the State. The relations between the workers and this new boss are the same as earlier relations between labour and capital, with the sole difference that the Communist boss, the State, not only exploits the workers, but also punishes them himself … Wage labour has remained what it was before, except that it has taken on the character of an obligation to the State … It is clear that in all this we are dealing with a simple substitution of State capitalism for private capitalism.” Peter Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement

>“Marxian socialism advocates the centralisation not only of political power but also of capital. The centralisation of political power is dangerous enough in itself; add to that the placing of all sources of wealth in the hands of the government, and the so-called state socialism becomes merely state capitalism, with the state as the owner of the means of production and the workers as its labourers, who hand over the value produced by their labour. The bureaucrats are the masters, the workers their slaves. Even though they advocate a state of the dictatorship of workers, the rulers are bureaucrats who do not labour, while workers are the sole producers. Therefore, the suffering of workers under state socialism is no different from that under private capitalism.” Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution

> “The mistake of authoritarian communists in this connection is the belief that fighting and organising are impossible without submission to a government; and thus they regard anarchists … as the foes of all organisation and all co-ordinated struggle. We, on the other hand, maintain that not only are revolutionary struggle and revolutionary organisation possible outside and in spite of government interference but that, indeed, that is the only effective way to struggle and organise, for it has the active participation of all members of the collective unit, instead of their passively entrusting themselves to the authority of the supreme leaders.

>“Any governing body is an impediment to the real organisation of the broad masses, the majority. Where a government exists, then the only really organised people are the minority who make up the government; and … if the masses do organise, they do so against it, outside it, or at the very least, independently of it. In ossifying into a government, the revolution as such would fall apart, on account of its awarding that government the monopoly of organisation and of the means of struggle.” Luigi Fabbri, “Anarchy and ‘Scientific’ Communism” The Poverty of Statism

> “The important, fundamental dissension between anarchists and Marxists is that … Marxist socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are libertarians.“Socialists want power … and once in power wish to impose their programme on the people… Anarchists instead maintain, that government cannot be other than harmful, and by its very nature it defends either an existing privileged class or creates a new one; and instead of inspiring to take the place of the existing government anarchists seek to destroy every organism which empowers some to impose their own ideas and interests on others, for they want to free the way for development towards better forms of human fellowship which will emerge from experience, by everyone being free and, having, of course, the economic means to make freedom possible as well as a reality.” Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas

> “Anarchist critics of Marx pointed out with considerable effect that any system of representation would become a statist interest in its own right, one that at best would work against the interests of the working classes (including the peasantry), and that at worst would be a dictatorial power as vicious as the worst bourgeois state machines. Indeed, with political power reinforced by economic power in the form of a nationalised economy, a ‘workers’ republic’ might well prove to be a despotism (to use one of Bakunin’s more favourite terms) of unparalleled oppression …Republican institutions, however much they are intended to express the interests of the workers, necessarily place policy-making in the hands of deputies and categorically do not constitute a ‘proletariat organised as a ruling class.’ If public policy, as distinguished from administrative activities, is not made by the people mobilised into assemblies and confederally co-ordinated by agents on a local, regional, and national basis, then a democracy in the precise sense of the term does not exist. The powers that people enjoy under such circumstances can be usurped without difficulty … [I]f the people are to acquire real power over their lives and society, they must establish — and in the past they have, for brief periods of time established — well-ordered institutions in which they themselves directly formulate the policies of their communities and, in the case of their regions, elect confederal functionaries, revocable and strictly controllable, who will execute them. Only in this sense can a class, especially one committed to the abolition of classes, be mobilised as a class to manage society.” The Communist Manifesto: Insights and Problems


Socialism doesn't logically work without centralization, and that centralization realistically relies on the state or state like entity.
It takes one hell of a convoluted twisting of words to the point of them being meaningless to try and make socialism and anarchy compatible.


well, that's just like…. your opinion man. Nothing to do with reality and the history behind the socialist movement, but believe whatever fantasy you want if that makes you happy I guess.

I know liberals don't like reading books, but just in case I'll drop this here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism


The only one spinning fantasies here is you, centralization and authoritarianism is the logical application of "socialism" and no drivel of failed philosophers can change that.
But yeah, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Ho Chi Minh obviously were not commited enough and didnt known anything about Marxist theories and thats why socialist utopia wasnt achieved, but you will topple the world order because you read Bakunin or something.
Its always amusing when leftists want to act the role of an intellectual when this Hegelian ranting is devoid of any substance, disconnected from all reality and doesnt require any kind of analytic work or interchanging knowledge frok multiple subjects, just write something about workers oppression and say how you wish the world was and you too can be a Marxist.

So stick your shitty books up your ass, you neurotic freak.


This is a horrible video jesus titty fucking muhammad while rimming yahweh what the FUCK
Who fucking thinks making a """documentary""" like this and even believe they should be taken seriously. It started out great until they began taking about that Zernan fag and shitting out all trance/whatever music while talking about how destroying someone's property is not violent.


>blah blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't know how to read to distinguish between the nuances of differing political philosophies and their histories and agreements and disagreements so I'll be a crude reductionist and say its all the same because I'm too dumb to know better just like all liberals :^)

I can just as easily make the argument that centralization and authoritarianism is the logical conclusion of capitalism/liberalism/fascism and therefore they're all the same, you fucking moron. Obviously that's not true.


File: 1585742958294.jpg (21.13 KB, 238x286, 119:143, 3951404.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

The only good communist is a dead communist


Half of this site is bored rich kids LARP'ing that they are guys like me. That's why the socialist threads seem to touch a nerve.

Rich Mom & Dad are sweating at home cause of protests and rent strikes and little Johnny and Janey are getting worried about their trusts. LOL


Reading comprehension: 0
Self awareness: 0

>I can just as easily make the argument that centralization and authoritarianism is the logical conclusion of capitalism/liberalism/fascism and therefore they're all the same, you fucking moron. Obviously that's not true.

Thats some shitty deductive logic, as I said, failed philosopher.

All States drift towards regulation, centralization and taxation as time who would have guessed, of course this went right over your troglodyte head because Marxism doesnt require analytic or logical thought.
Its a neurosis and there is no point in talking to narcissist failures like you, so keep donating to Bernie you dumb fucks :DDDDD


OP is a fag lmao


wtf is this shit


One dude that got his feeling hurt in the political thread tried to make a thread all to himself.
This is the result.









Captitalism is bad and socialism/communism is even worse.
Go to be faggot somewhere else.


Social=normalfag shit=antiwizardly



im a poor old fuck, unlike you i dont live in a Mcmansion role playing a am myself.

Better go help mommy and daddy plan how to stop the rent strikes LOL

World Wide Socialism is coming.


File: 1586104329574.jpeg (93.07 KB, 800x665, 160:133, 10BB7040-B48A-471F-B5BE-0….jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

Yeah dude, just like communism was coming during the Cold War.


So comfy.


Chomsky explaining why property is theft


This is Water - David Foster Wallace

This could be why and is probably a likely reason. However, a lot of people here are poor and uneducated so they think all of socialism is totalitarianism like the USSR or China due to their propaganda liberal brainwashing education system and constant govermnent propaganda. In The U.S. we had an event called the red scare in which the government launched a massive propaganda campaign against socialists and persecuted them to the underground where they had no influence. I can imagine similar events happening in the other capitalist countries. It is still ongoing, but not to the same degree as in the past where claiming you were a socialist would get you locked up with no trial, straight up murdered by the fbi/cia, harassed and ran out of the country. It's very strange to see on a site that has a popular thread called wageslave general and that claims to respect neetdom, yet they support capitalism. Just goes to show you how powerful propaganda is.


The Gift Economy and the Commons:
This is a conversation between International Economist, James Quilligan and Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics recorded at Immediacy Studio in Media, PA on June 27, 2012.

- Gift economy (00:06)
- RIO +20 (08:57)
- A new economic model (14:14)
- Ecology of money (22:19)
- The future of markets (36:20)


Marxist economics Professor Richard Wolff explains Hegel's Master-Slave Dialectic under capitalism


>buhu I don't want to work


File: 1586198569553.png (81.66 KB, 600x500, 6:5, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb


And socialism is set up to be in favor of workers
And socialism is really bad at creating enough surplus that is necessary if you want NEETs to be able to exist.


Because only in Capitalism parasites can exist and leech off society and get away with it. I know this because I will be one, by inheriting 7 rentals. Solely sitting on my ass and getting rentbucks from wagecucks.

But yeah I agree with you propaganda is deeply engraved in wagecucks mind. I find it amusing, I'm not some wealthy capitalist, just lucky enough to have a small fortune. But seeing droves of wagecucks, deep in loan, never owing their house (probably never will), calling themselves "capitalist".
No, you are a dumb prole, try have to have "capital" before calling yourself one.


A Dying Culture
Description : "
A Dying Culture: The End of Postmodernity is a feature-length Marxist documentary looking at culture, art, postmodernism, video games, data, social media, the state and war in context of the largest crisis in capitalism's history."

forewarning : It was made by marxist-leninists and thus unsurprisingly contains less than a minute of pro-lenin, anti anarchist propaganda in it. This goes against the rules outlined above stating that there should be no state-socialist propaganda. However, these only occur for about less than a minute over the full 3 hours and 30 minutes of the entire documentary, which mostly describes a Marxian analysis of the historical development of capitalism up to 2019. Additionally, the propaganda is conveyed through imagery and not through direct words from the narrator, making it easier to ignore than if it were more direct propaganda conveyed through words and imagery. Less than a fraction of a percent of the film breaking the guidelines should not be a problem.

To fully appreciate this film, you would need at least a basic understanding of socialist theory and it may be hard to follow (or impossible) if you are unfamiliar with socialist philosophy.

For example, they introduce the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci's theory of culture hegemony, Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism, and many more theories from socialist philosophers.

This is a monumental documentary of such high quality that nothing comes close to its depth, its range, and its quality of production. I rank it among the top 5 of documentaries I've ever seen.

If you can't watch it all in one sitting, it is broken up into a series of videos starting with the title "A dying culture" in the channels video section. Also found in their videos section are documentaries on the imperialist nature of capitalism which I haven't seen, but, judging from the quality of this documentary, are likely just as good.

The ruling class regularly and openly exposes itself as against the interests of regular people, but people are not class conscious and have no understanding of any class analysis due to suppression/propagandization of socialist literature, and thus they can not recognize it.

Ironically, the most class conscious people in our society are the rulers of it - the bourgeoisie. Not the people whom it would help the most - the proletariat.

>socialism is set up to be in favor of workers, not to rich people
And? Do you think if people had power, they would choose to work more instead of less? Do you even have a job? Most people that aren't brainwashed right-wing capitalists want to work less and hate work. You take for granted that you work 40 hours a week, but if it were not for socialists fighting for workers rights you would be working 16 hour days 7 days a week and be a child laborer. The only people that want you to work more are the peopling enriching themselves off of your labour, the capitalist. And the capitalist gets to be a neet because of this, as >>241410 points out, not you. If you had control over your labour, then you would get to be a neet (or a vastly reduced work time) because your labour would directly benefit you and not a capitalist.


You you are not even going to deny that socialism is set up to be in favor of workers?
Despite you constantly trying to get people banned for being against socialism because you make the shit argument that being against socialism is somehow disparaging to neets.


File: 1586224084655-0.jpg (164.51 KB, 1125x1540, 225:308, mmgch90jd3k41.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1586224084655-1.jpg (198.12 KB, 1200x595, 240:119, DGZLYp6XsAE2ah0.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1586224084655-2.jpeg (59.74 KB, 602x283, 602:283, main-qimg-df2a5f936e70bbf….jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

Can you explain why giving power to workers is bad? And back up your statements of why this is bad with historical evidence. Explain to me why ending child labour was bad, why ending 16 hour work weeks were bad, why unions are bad, why workplace cooperatives are bad, and why are all of these things are anti-neet.

Why would giving power to elite minorities be better for us? I mean, unless you're a capitalist that gets to be a neet because of your position as a capitalist, then I don't understand why you would think wageslavery is good other than a lack of imagination of anything being better than your shit situation and hopelessness instilled into by the ruling class that this as is good as it gets and nothing can be better than capitalism. Instead of seeing capitalism as a historical development that was socially made, you see it as an inevitable and inescapable product of human nature because of your myopic and ignorant view of history and working alternatives to it that have worked markedly better for the masses.

How can you be so brainwashed as to think giving people more power would be bad unless you are a rich person yourself whose power is threatened by the people? Socialism for the rich (as evidenced by the bailouts), and rugged individualism for the poor is good? Explain yourself.


Not him but imho there are few reasons.
-The failures of the socialist revolutions in 20th century
-Living in 1st world, although detoriating, kinda gets a more humane capitalism than the 3rd world shitholes
-Preference of status quo over violent revolution/chaos/bloodshed
-Thinking if you are a good goy enough you might become one of the billionaries


>Can you explain why giving power to workers is bad?
It destroys indivitual liberty, reduces productivity, and has objectively worse results in economic terms compared to the alternative of individuals participating in a free market without the violent coercion that is necessary and inevitable in every single form of collectivism/socialism.

Also giving more power to workers is historically bad for NEETs because workers generally dislike those who don't work. This has consistently lead to NEETs getting purged or enslaved under just about every form of socialism ever tried.

Giving power to collectives in general is a really bad thing for outsiders like wizards. People like us aren't usually apart of the in group of the collective and thus giving a collective power means they would have significantly more power to impose their will on the minority which wizards are. Especially one so reliant on social connections like under SOCIALism.
Individual livery is actually to wizards benefit, not increasing the power of those who collectivist based on the type of worker they are.

> Explain to me why ending child labour was bad

Explain to me what that has to do with what I said or why I should care if some kid works or not?
Also socialism didn't end child labor, Capitalism did.
Linking a short section of a book posted on facebook rather then the full book because that would be rude.
and this is a essay on the subject of child labor and the industrial revolution.

>why ending 16 hour work weeks were bad

I don't even know what you were attempting to mean here.
If you want to work only 16 hours a week you can. Just don't cry about "meh living wage" if you make such a choice.
>why unions are bad
Oh boy…
Not only does that not have anything to do with what I said, but it also would take far more fucks then I have at the moment to deal with.
I will just ask this, why the fuck should a individual give up their bargaining rights and become subservient to a money sucking middle man?
>why workplace cooperatives are bad
No one is stopping cooperatives, they just generally are unable to compete as well as other types of organizations when competing in markets.

>and why are all of these things are anti-neet.

Explain how giving power to workers beifits neets in any way first.

>Why would giving power to elite minorities be better for us?

Has nothing to do with what I said nor is even remotely implied by what I said.
Thus I feel no need to answer such a question.
Really the rest of the paragraph gets totally off the rails and is just some absurd strawman you expect me to defend for reasons that elude me. So I will also ignore all that as well since it also has nothing to do with anything I said.

>How can you be so brainwashed as to think giving people more power would be bad

I strongly distrust collectivism because of it's long track record of always leading to tyranny and oppression of the individual. Unlike you I actually value individual liberty and don't like being oppressed based on fitting in with the majority group.
I also don't think power should be given at all. Any and all power should be rightfully and conditionally earned on a individual level.
>unless you are a rich person yourself whose power is threatened by the people?
You can fuck all the way off with your bullshit.

> Socialism for the rich

No, socialism for no one.
Where the fuck did I ever once anywhere ever say that I was in favor of socialism for anyone in any form?
Fuck off with that bullshit too.
>and rugged individualism for the poor is good?
Explain your problem with individualism. Explain how you think collectivism is somehow comparable with wizardry?

>Explain yourself.

Vid related


>I don't even know what you were attempting to mean here.
You misunderstood him.
He was talking about socialists campaigns in 19th century.
Many "rights" that are considered to be given today (8 Hour workday, having weekends off, not having kids cucking themselves in factories) were actually fought very hard by the socialist of that era. People were literally shot at for demanding better working conditions.
I'm this guy here >>241426 I am no socialist but I do admit certain comforts wagecucks enjoy (no matter how fast they are being eradicated) are due to socialists sacrifices. For ever Ford who threated their workers right (which was due to high turnover rate because of the constant deaths but thats another topic) you had 10 capitalists who didn't.
Weekends, 8 hour work days etc were not "given" but they were "taken".


I have never read anywhere that they campaigned for a or against 16 hour work weeks.
Leek sauce please?


to add

I do agree with you on some accounts. Yes only in capitalism neets can survive/leech off.

But I find it interesting that while you value individual liberty, and hate tyranny you also agree how worker coops etc are delusional if they think they can survive in this cutthroat market.

I mean take a look at the corporations today they are more or less private tyrannies. You need to have very strict top to bottom authoratarian corporations in order to compete in the market. In this way they work exactly like a socialist tyrannical state in some aspects. Your actions are monitored, HR acts like KGB/Stasi, warning you about wrongthink. You have a nomenclature, you have the burocratic elite. You have corporate propaganda and people have to pretend/maintain a decorum on how they love their work soo much (in reality they hate it) Very similar to how ussr operated. I'm sure there are alternatives but you know I mean the average corporation, which no one likes to work in.
In other words we have private tyrannies which many people have to consent because the other option is to starve.
I disagree with capitalist in that I don't consider the freedom to choose between starvation or cucking at a corporate job as freedom.

Am I a socialist? No. Would I want it over the current system? Most likely not, but I don't fool myself into the current system is "free". Its just slavery in disguise for me.
Socialists have a long history on advocating workers rights
that being said many "social" programs in yurop were established after 1850s by conservatives to more or less prevent any socialist chimpouts. Bismarck iirc had some interesting thoughts concerning the welfare programs in Deutchland.


Am I dumb because I can't fine any mention of 16 hour work weeks in your link.


Oh sorry I was talking more about socialists advocating for 8 hour, weekend etc.
I think anon who wrote 16 hours is wrong, but work was deffinetly over 8+ hours. iirc the average work hour was 11-12 hours for a british factory worker in 19th century. But not an expert on 19th century labor conditions myself, I just know socialist did a lot to fight for many rights we consider given.

Also another fun fact, labor day is celebrated because police killed protesters (who supposedly attacked police first, probably an Agent Provocateur) who were demanding weekends off.


From the wikipedia
>At that time, the working day could range from 10 to 16 hours, the work week was typically six days a week and the use of child labour was common.[1][2]
But I couldn't find a well researched scholarly article. the 1st and 2nd footnotes are not that of a good sources, the second one is better and even that claims 10-12 work hours at usual.
I found some articles concerning working hours in 19th century but they are quite late (focusing only on 1880s-1890s) and they claim that work hours were usually around 10-12 hours too.


File: 1586231049960.jpg (302.38 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, EmilysQuotes.Com-world-dan….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>failures of socialist revolutions of the 20th century
Which ones? The ones that the USA helped to overthrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change) ? That's not an argument that socialist systems has inherit internal errors that make it untenable, but an observation of an ideologies main benefactors (liberalism and the bourgeosie) actively suppressing movements that would threaten those benefactors power. This is essentially the barbarian "might is right" argument if this is what you're saying. By this logic, if the nazi's were never defeated then they would have been right to genocide the jews. If liberals failed in overthrowing the monarchies then the monarchy would have been better.

And I'm not a state-socialist. I'm an anarchist and I would only agree that most revolutions have failed only if they were hierarchical revolutions (not the "might is right" liberal argument), so this is any marxist-leninist revolution. This includes the cuban revolution, China, north korea, Russia, and all other marxist-leninist states because the vanguard party have simply become the new ruling class and the centralized structure of the state makes a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" impossible except for in name because states were designed to exclude the majority from making decisions. In fact, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between these so-called "socialists" and fascists.

The only revolutions I support are the libertarian (anarchistic) ones. Do you know of any of them? Such as in Catalonia, the Zapatista's in mexico, the rojavan revolution? The experience of these revolutions have only confirmed libertarian theory in that giving people more freedom will lead to more wealth, liberty, self-expression and the fuller development of individuality.

>1st world

Most people live in "shithole" countries, and I'm a socialist because I don't want there to be any "shithole" countries. The goal of socialists is not poverty, but for everyone to enjoy life as much as possible and to be rich both spiritually and materially.

Moreover, socialism will reduce the necessary individual working time for everyone to a minimum, by distributing the socially necessary working time smoothly and rational among the workers. It will be better in the satisfaction of needs, since it will produce only for them, and not for profit - and thus it avoids unnecessary work. Time which they can use for self-fulfillment. With the disappear of the profit compulsion, phenomena like "planned obsolence" would disappear. The products would be designed for durability and reparability. If the people consume less, it wouldn't be harmful for the economy, it would just mean that they have less to work. It can fully use technology, which isn't profitable in capitalism: like renewable energy or automation. Nobody would lose his jobs because of robots, instead he would just work less and/or learn a new job gratuitous. The landscape wouldn't be wasted by advertising, which constantly try to make you feel unsatisfied, so that you buy their new product to fill this hole. You would be able to participate in the democratic decision making: both in politics and in the economy. We wouldn't be just a gear in the machine. And so on and so forth…

In order to understand us correctly: Capitalism has created the needed productive forces on which socialism has to be built on. But it has failed to distribute this wealth equally among the people and thus to improve the lives of the people. For this - and for further progress - we need socialism.

>preference of inertia over change

>by resisting the powerful and wealthy, we will do more harm than good

Firstly, this is phenomena called learned helplessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness by which the ruling class has made people fear freedom and all change that would benefit them. It is the same as under chattel slavery when slaves were afraid to escape or attack their master because they would be whipped or murdered if they failed. So there is some truth to this, but you forget that in periods where there is no social struggle our liberties and freedoms become restricted anyway, even more so than without social struggle.

For example, look back to the down-sizing mania of the 90's and 80's when unions were weak and companies laid off tens of thousands of workers so they could exploit cheaper labor in third world countries. Moreover, this argument actually indicates the need for social struggle. It is a damning indictment for a system that expects people to kow-tow to their masters otherwise they will suffer hardship. This is essentially saying "do what you're told, or else"! Any society based on that maxim is an affront to human dignity.

You could easily prove that slave rebellions may be against the long-term interests of slaves because by rebelling the slave may face the anger of their master. By submitting their wills to a master, they can perhaps avoid violence and may even be rewarded for being an obedient slave. But do you seriously believe this is just and a system that should be maintained? This attitude betrays a slave mentality that isn't fit for self-respecting human beings (although fitting for the ruling class who have made you to think this way)

Additionally, the argument that we should do nothing to improve ourselves ignores the fact that by resistance the conditions of the oppressed can be maintained or even improved. For instance, if the capitalist knows that their decisions will be resisted then they will be less inclined to impose speed-ups, longer hours ect. If they know that their wageslaves will agree to anything then why would you expect them to not impose all types of oppressions if it will increase profitability? Just as states impose all sorts of draconian laws if they can get away with them. History is full of examples of non-resistance producing greater evils in the long term and of resistance producing numerous important reforms and improvements.

>I might become a billionaire too

You have a better chance at winning the lottery. However, even if you do become a billionaire, you will lose your humanity in the process because no one becomes a billionaire through good deeds. You only become a billionaire through mass-exploitation of thousands of workers.

You're pissing me off because now the thread is in a massive derailment, but I will reply to this regardless. However, right now I have to study for exams and shit so it will be a while before I have time to adequately address your refutations. This may take a week or maybe until next month.


>I mean take a look at the corporations today they are more or less private tyrannies.
There is a pretty big fundamental difference between a potentially tyrannical private company and a tyrannical government. That difference being free association and consent.
One could choose on a individual level if they want to enter into a business relationship with the corporation and can at any time leave if they they decide the relationship doesn't benefit them anymore.

It is a bit like comparing chattel slavery to BDSM slavery. While it could be argued there are some very broad similarities they are fundamentally different things with one being way more ethically fucked then the other.

I am sure those are totally the same thing and no one could ever be confused by the phrase
> 16 hour work weeks
with not meaning the same thing as working 16 hours a day
and instead interpreted the phrase as meaning work for 16 hours total within a week.
Nope, totally the readers fault for misunderstanding.
but seriously if that is what dude really meant then he is a fucking dumbass that needs to learn how to express his thoughts more clearly


First guy you replied to, I'm not totally against socialism per se, or rather I'm against it because I have a realative amonut of wealth (give or take). But I'm I will agree with you that unless you have some wealth (imho 1.5-2 million dollars) you are more or less enslaved by capitalism, so yeah I gave socialist some credit where its due >>241433

That being said, good luck in your posts. Still don't expect me to be a socialist when I'm a cozy tiny petit bourguise. Muh rentals
I mean I understand your philosophy but for me it is the same shit
Option A:
We will give you free house and free food (you know "free" but anyways) BUT you will HAVE TO work. If not we will enslave you, throw to gulag and FORCE you to work

Option B:
You don't have to work :) You are free to not work :) But you have to pay for food and housing :) Of course you are free to not work and free to starve if you don't want to purchase anything :)

I mean I would deffinetly pick Option B over Option A but it is because I have some degree of wealth (fuck you money in the bank) and I'm actually free to not work. I can live off as a NEET until I die, provided there is no civil war/act of god or (gosh) a communist revolution etc.

but if you don't have fuck you money, work or starve to death is hardly freedom. Again I understand where you are coming from but for me both are slavery. Freedom to starve is not a freedom.
I still prefer option b over option a because at least if you are rich in option b you can be free, in option a everyone is a slave.
But I find poor fucks who live in option b but thinking themselves as free to be delusional. Unless you are rich you are a slave. But as I said that is just my personal opinion.


If a govenmental structure is too week to withstand outside pressures then it should still be considered a failure.
National socialism (Nazi) are considered a failure in part because they collapsed due to overwhelming outside pressure.

Socialism in the form of fashism also failed repeatedly under the influence of outside pressure.

You know what system has fuck tons of outside pressure against it while in a weaker state but managed to overcome it, survive, and then thrive, the democratic republic that is the USA. It was able to fight off the might of the most powerful empire in the world at the time and maintain it's founding values while doing it.

So no, blaming the US for socialism governments always failing isn't a excuse.

>You're pissing me off

Hey, you asked the questions and now you are getting pissy at me that I answered them?
>reveals "he" is a student
imagine my shock
>dismissal and what I think they call leading someone on
Are you sure you aren't female? Because that is a bitch move right there lol.


While I disagree I undestand your position on the matter.
I get the feeling we may have discused this before but who knows.
Anyway it kind of seems the conversation is naturally winding down so I do wish you a good day for now.
Maybe we can explore these ideas in depth some other time (preferably in a slightly better thread).


Yeah I should go to bed too. anyways

Finally I must say that I much prefer capitalism over socialism (again due to personal reasons) but I find some arguments of socialists to be valid, again the absurdity of freedom to starve is one thing. Another thing is what I mentioned above, the corporate tyrannies.

I'm pro capitalism but I would be much more pro capitalism if majority of people worked in small businesses, coops, self employed had a say in the work. But thats not the case, in USA only 33% are self employed, and this number includes "self contractors" who are more or less employees of big corporations, only with lower benefits. The 33% also includes dumb gig jobs like driving for uber etc, where although you have some autonomy, you are still bound by a big corpo policy.

Anyways, my point is many people work for giant bleak corporations, which are for all things considered act like these kafkaesque tyrannical socialistic goverments of 20th century. I don't want to repeat myself but again top down management, obeying orders, thoughtpolice etc. All of which exists.

I sympathize with socalists a lot after I got my first (and last) corpo job (in unilever none the less kek). And I had the luxury to say fuck off to them. Many people don't whether due to their dumb consooomer choices, due to health insurance or due to kids college money etc. They are more or less slaves of the corporation.
Thats why imho having fuck you money is important. Video is related shit movie but an excellent scene.

so my tl/dr of all of my posts is to not become a goy of socialists but also not be a goy of the capitalism either. Socialists have really really really good pinpointed criticism of capitalist work enviroment imho. and to be honest I would probably be a much more stern capitalist defender if not for my wagecucker in unilever.

sorry I sperged a long post again I hate people who post last and fuck off but I really should sleep. In anycase this is wizchan so thread will stick for weeks if not months.
I won't delve too much into this but you have a very romantic view on history. I would argue that usa during independence is much different thank usa of today or usa of early 20th century where it decided to become an "empire". I mean iirc founding fathers thought "political parties" would be a disaster and should be avoided at all costs, go figure. A I still admire the american independence and its value in history and this is just my historical autism talking.

anyways I'm really off, i wish you best of luck debating with the student socialist above



This isn't a full response to your original comment but I want to put to rest your denial of the actual history of working conditions during the industrial revolution.

This is common truth for any historian studying the lived reality of people during this era, but politically motivated ideologues like you love to distort history in order to make it seem like your ideology has never had any faults. Not only did capitalism lead to an increase in the working hours for people (they worked less on farms) but it also decreased their liberty and freedom because they now had a boss to answer to.

I'll just drop some primary source links as well as studies from professional historians that have studied the history of the labour movement
https://www.amazon.com/Overworked-American-Unexpected-Decline-Leisure-ebook/dp/B001F0PYH8 (there should be a free pdf somewhere of this I'm sure)



https://www.ducksters.com/history/us_1800s/working_conditions_industrial_revolution.php (this is an elementary level summary of the conditions and work cited here -https://www.ducksters.com/works_cited/industrial_revolution.php )

https://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com/working-and-living-conditions.html (see the works cited for this on the sidebar)

When I have time to make a sufficient reply to your refutations, if you deliberately deny and distort history then don't expect me to continue responding to you. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with ideologues over fantasies.


socialism=more bullshit taxes and gibs for niggers and white trash
No thanks.


Half this site wants to be or already are the ideal candidates for "gibs", and also are poor enough to not have so much taxes on them.


they don't want to break rule 4 so they selectively complain about single mothers and blacks


Being forced at gunpoint to give your money to succubi is a major problem and has nothing to do with rule 4.

It is one of the things that will likely lead to the collapse of the developed world and proof positive that universal suffrage was a bad idea.

I don't think you fully understand how big a problem bitches voting themselves other people's money while simps nod in agreement actually is.
If left unchecked it will kill us all.


If we had to live on another planet, mars maybe, would we have capitalism?

Why do we have capitalism on earth?


If we had to live on another planet, mars maybe, would we have capitalism?

Why do we have capitalism on earth?


Your assumption is unexplained.

If scarcity exist there will always be a need to allocate resources. What has proven objectively the best system of doing this regardless of scale has been capitalism.
So there is no reason to think it wouldn't also be used if we had to live on a different planet.


It already has. Rapefugees are everywhere.


"welfare queens" are going to make the developed world collapse yep yep yep right-o



If we went to mars, it would only be because of some rich asshole funding it and using it for profit and power.


>Being forced at gunpoint to give your money
I think being forced to work for the majority of your life or face the threat of being pushed unto the street to starve to death homeless is a bigger problem. Maybe the poorer wouldn't have to pay so more taxes if the scumbag rich wouldn't dodge them and lobby for lowest taxes on themselves, making the state have to look somewhere else(and in turn waste all that money on killing other poor people around on the world instead of helping its own citizens).
I don't understand how the fuck you can screech about "welfare leeches" on a site like this, where people can barely operate in society and jump through so many hoops to get them. People like you would throw them in the oven just as fast as so-called welfare queens.


is the only thing you can do make strawmen?



the mgtow clowns, infected and over run with Libertarian Capitalist poison


The simp clowns, infected and over run with feminist themed communist poison.


It is not that rich are bad, but elites


File: 1586333519274.jpg (227.32 KB, 1187x832, 1187:832, image0-54.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Does anyone else here agree?


>Using virgenity to shame those that disagree with you
>dehumanizing people over political bullshit

Dude I think you are on the wrong site and need to go back to wherever you came from normie.


Minus the stuff on virginity and genetics, for the most part: yeah.




>lack of commas
>using normie instead of normalfag


The only reason why I hate /pol/groids is because they constantly invade wizchan. Couldn't give two shits about them otherwise.


They don't even know of existence of this site, its mostly lefties, normalflags, r9k crabs and other random outsiders to whom /pol/fags belong


You are normalfag yourself, probably failed one.


>people who grew up in the 90s can't be wizards now

How about you have a piping hot cup of shut the fuck up.
I will use whatever words I damn well please. Your bogus attempt at word policing will never shut me up.


>taking everything said on internet at face value
They can, but failed normalfags like you can't
Go back to /r9k/, fag.


>how you dare to call me out of my normalfaggotry!?


so like…what does "reee" mean?

I see you kids using it all the time, not him btw


It is the sound the forbidden meme frog makes from shitchan


I didn't understand any of that



trust meatface pig man from the miser institute to set you straight


I mean can you blame them?
I look at the funders/voters of mises institute, If I was them I would also sperg about socialism.
Problem is not them though. I never understand why so many right wingers try to protect "west" while at the same time hate its globalist pro fag pro weed etc stance.
The west mises institute wants is exactly that.


Not even as a socialist, but as a wizard I want to destroy civilization. Are you kidding me? You sound like some normie that doesn't belong here if you want anything to do with norman society.

This thread >>>/meta/53791 rings more true than ever the more I see you larpers defend normies. Why don't you go back to /r9k/ or the fucking crab redpill sites.

It's bastards like this that keep trying to take my neetbux away and telling me to get a job too meanwhile the socialist is in here and meta defending neets and you assholes are still mad at him while sneakily evading rule 4 to say neets are parasites. Get the fuck out of here already.


Most jobs are pointless, so I don't really get the whole pro-work emphasis on this website. Only reason most shitty jobs exist is because automation isn't profitable enough yet, so technological progress is held back due to the need to get a certain return. A service sector-based economy has tons of waste and just basically seems to be a way to justify having people work and businesses that aren't really that solid. It's like the economy is just a simulation so more people than necessary have to work.

A good example is like 48% of employment in US is provided by small businesses which aren't essential and can't survive covid19. Even larger corporations need bailouts. With the whole shortages thing people talk about, we frequently pay farmers huge subsidies(happens in europe too) since they aren't profitable on their own.


Pretty sure this site is pro neet unless the rule to not shame neets was removed since they keep being insulted lately


Both socialists and capitalists glorify work. For all that literature on idleness/lazyness by paul lafargue or russell you have tons of ussr propaganda about working to create a better society etc
In capitalism it is the same, work is worshipped, it is worshipped so hard that even people who can live off as neet kings have to "pretend" to work.

Few years ago I watched Ivanka Trump trying to explain "how she worked so hard and how she was so tired and this and that"

Can you believe it? Your father is a billonaire yet you still have tu justify your riches.. Geez, at least nobility of yore didn't give a fuck, they hunted and wared and feasted and did not pretend to "work in the farms". In past at least nobles didnt work, today everyone does. We are equal in misery.


Yeah, well the Soviet Union emphasized work because it was way poorer and couldn't mechanize as many things, but the emphasis led to a lot of redundancy as they maintained those levels of workers even when it wasn't needed due to seeing a need for people to still earn wages even when they couldn't be productively employed.

In the US, there's no guarantee of having a job, but it's still glorified and people who don't have one are shamed even though the labor force participation rate shrinks and most jobs could easily be cut as well.

Ivanka justifies her riches because she wants to seem like her own person. I wouldn't say rich people work in the same as way poor people. They usually have projects they take on of their own volition, so it's a lot less draining than someone mopping puke off the floor or a paper pusher who has to do data entry or something else numbing.


if thats true then why is the socialist here the only person defending neetdom from the capitalists attacking it. And he said he didn't support the USSR because he is an anarchist socialist that doesn't believe in states.

Read the fucking thread, I don't see any reason to believe this bullshit that all socialists are the same and want people to work in gulags like you keep trying to make it seem like after reading this thread. He even linked several literatures by socialists denouncing work and talking about anti-work and you scum bags are still trying to talk shit about them to so you can evade rule 4.

It is like there are different types of socialists like there are different types of capitalists. In capitalism we have democrats and republicans and socialists have there different beliefs too, but you're too dumb to tell the fucking difference.

He even said this in the op
>no statist propaganda
It is like you people are incapable of learning or reading anything, or maybe you're just /r9k/, redpill invaders that came to ruin this site and make people hate neets. Fuck off already, I'd rather have people here that actually care about neetdom and hate norman than people like you that keep defending them. Fucking larper


Eh, I think a lot of the wizchan regs that are virgins but people that blend into society are just resentful of anyone who isn't in a high-powered stem position or rich(or a temporarily embarrassed rich person) especially NEETs who don't blend into society. While they might have idealized NEEThood as younger adults, they saw they could be at a decent position within the societal hierarchy, so they turned on that.


Come on I give some credit wher its due, I'm well awar of the socialist criticism of work, but when they are in power they also glorify it. And no I won't count "muh true socialism" just as I don't count "muh true non crony capitalism"
Most socialists and capitalists kneel before the idol of work.

I'll ignore your ad hominem but will tell you this, for all the glorification of work by capitalism, you can still live like a neet, if you are a capitalist. In a socialist utopia, you would have to work, provided the society is not post scarcity, but if you are a capitalist I mean really owning capital you can just relax and have the wagecucks do the toil for you.

The irony of capitalism is that they pushed "work is good" propaganda on the workforce so hard that THEY THEMSELVES BELIEVE IN IT. Thats why you have billionarie daughters like ivanka trump talking about how hard working she is etc.


>you can be a neet if you're a capitalist

Wow, literally a temporarily embarassed millionaire just like this >>241771 guy above you pointed out.

It's not wonder you're defending the rich and powerful so much because you think you'll be one some day, meanwhile most wizards are homeless, in poverty, and wageslaves. How is this a good system for us that aren't born as rich stem lord 1%'rs? Like shit.

All I know is this, if we were in a capitalist society and everything was automated then only the capitalists would benefit and we would turn into feudalism because the rich own everything, but under socialism automation would benefit everyone because the people own it and we wouldn't have to work or become serfs to a fucking feudal capitalist lord.

And at least we could work on our own terms without bosses under socialism, free from them telling us to work faster and harder and threatening us with being fired like what happens under capitalism all the time. We wouldn't even have wageslave general if it weren't for socialists because capitalists don't believe they are slaves.



More comfy videos.


You do realize not all wizards are warlocks right?


You either disregard norman life and separate yourself from it or try to destroy it, not throw yourself into it like a fucking failed norma crab. Wanting to save normans and preserve them is a purely crab failed normalscum desire, nothing resembling the traditional and core wizards principles of isolating yourself from the world or striking back against it because it is a source of suffering. You're nothing but a failed normalfag that doesn't belong here and the same bastard that >>>/meta/53791 is talking about.


Sorry for the delay, was sleeping.
I mean I'm defending them because I'm a small time player. Not much but I have enough wealth to neet off until the day I die.
You are right in your observations imho. It's just that its due to capitalism I'm able to neet off to the end of my life.
Of course something might happen, a big market crash, end of civilization, or even a socialist revolution. Which might topple my condition

in any case my point was more directed to capitalists, I have seen people richer than me working as much, if not more (again whether their work is valuable is something else) than the wagecucks beneath them. It is absurd.


the failure of communism is the same bullies and assholes in power now will be in power then.

really think about how much energy some people spend trying to hurt others and control them so they spend less time thinking about their own mortality and death.


Excellent false dichotomy champ.


Socialism For Dummies for the idiots posting here that know nothing of it. Lecture given by Marxist Proffessor Richard Wolff so beware he is biased towards marxian socialism and doesn't really mention the non-marxist socialist currents. This is Part 1.

If capitalism is so great, there is no reason that it should be off limits for criticism.


Richard Wolff: "Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism" | Talks at Google


Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media – Feature, Documentary

Documentary on how capitalist societies brainwash us and stop us from critically thinking about the systems of oppression.


>Socialism For Dummies
Trying so hard not to make the obvious and easy joke.
Trying so hard.
It hurts.


Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media – Feature, Documentary

Socialist analysis of how capitalist fake news works.


Noam Chomsky is one of the best examples of a guy who thinks because he is a expert in one thing (linguistics) that he is somehow also knowledgeable in other things where he is clearly and laughably not (political science and economics to name a few).
Seriously everything he has ever said regarding economics as always been laughably wrong and I don't know why anyone would ever listen to him about anything other then his actual area of expertise.


>Noam Chomsky on Love: "Life's Empty Without It"


Chomsky on Wage Slavery


Chris Hedges "Wages of Rebellion"

Speech by libertarian Socialist Chris Hedges

>Revolutions come in waves and cycles. We are again riding the crest of a revolutionary epic, much like 1848 or 1917, from the Arab Spring to movements against austerity in Greece to the Occupy movement. In "Wages of Rebellion," Chris Hedges–who has chronicled the malaise and sickness of a society in terminal moral decline in his books "Empire of Illusion" and "Death of the Liberal Class"–investigates what social and psychological factors cause revolution, rebellion, and resistance. Drawing on an ambitious overview of prominent philosophers, historians, and literary figures he shows not only the harbingers of a coming crisis but also the nascent seeds of rebellion. Hedges' message is clear: popular uprisings in the United States and around the world are inevitable in the face of environmental destruction and wealth polarization. Focusing on the stories of rebels from around the world and throughout history, Hedges investigates what it takes to be a rebel in modern times. Utilizing the work of Reinhold Niebuhr, Hedges describes the motivation that guides the actions of rebels as "sublime madness"–the state of passion that causes the rebel to engage in an unavailing fight against overwhelmingly powerful and oppressive forces. For Hedges, resistance is carried out not for its success, but as a moral imperative that affirms life. Those who rise up against the odds will be those endowed with this "sublime madness."


Libertarian Socialist Chris Hedges response to capitalist surveillance terrorism on the same platform.


Here's how I see it. They protect "west" because even though they are uncomfortable with some of its characteristics they know, perhaps unconsciously, that it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo. The fortunate nearly always defend the status quo because any change may entail loss of wealth and power. The consequences of stubborn elite conservatism are increasing societal brittleness as it fails to adapt to the changing environment and cycles of revolution and replacement.


Hegelian Recognition and crabs - by Marxist youtuber cuckPhilosophy

Good video to understand the crab failed normans defending capitalism here


It's clear to any intellectually honest person that capitalism is a dysfunctional self-defeating system (as are most things invented by human beings), but the alternatives offered to it are fucking awful 19th century spooks that failed catastrophically in practice, and their apologists should be ashamed of themselves (no, there will be no 'revolution'). What is likely to happen in practice as capitalism breaks down is that different alternatives will be tried in different places, and some 'system' will be cobbled together out of local experiments, in the same way that feudalism emerged out of the wreckage of the Roman Empire.


I've got to admit his video on kpop was pretty good, but the topic itself is… quite something. What a disgusting industry.


>Libertarian Socialist Chris Hedges
>dude that was apart of the tea party
Pretty debatable
>response to capitalist surveillance terrorism on the same platform.
>Speech had nothing to do with capitalism or terrorism
>was all about a government agency doing things in the name of the state with no care for property, capital, or profit
You are the most dishonist person on the entire website and I am really getting sick of your bullshit.


Some real anarchist videos unlike the violent communist authoritarian shit that OP pushes.


this is not an intelligent assessment and you continue to show your ignorance of libertarian politics by saying this. I don't know how you seem to come to imply that he is a right winger, when nothing he has ever done would suggest that. Not everything he does is anarchist, but he is definitely a libertarian socialist and he has identified numerous times before as a christian anarchist, and anarchists by definition do not want a state and we do not want capitalism because they are both manifestations of hierarchy, so of course we would be interested in joining a tea party that allegedly wants to get rid of the government and try to convert them to become anarchists or at least libertarian socialists. Right wingers share a lot of messages in common with libertarians, actual libertarians, not the American kind when they say libertarian to mean right winger. In the rest of the world and historically, libertarian has always been a reference to anarchists or other types of libertarian socialists, because we actually believe in liberty, and the americans that falsely call themselves that believe in property more than liberty, so they should rather call themselves propertarians, which is what I will call them.

Their messages like "don't tread on me" could easily be a libertarian message if they really meant it, but they only stop the govermnent from treading on them and not corporations (although not really either since they believe in big govermnent, but only in the way of police and military, and small govermnent when it helps the working class). Rednecks are usually associated with right wingers, but historically they came from socialist union members in the south that wore red bandana's (and btw red is a historically socialist symbolic color to signify the blood of the workers and revolutionaries that died fighting for freedom) see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck and a modern socialist organization that uses the term too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck_Revolt (and the redneck revolts were involved in the tea party movement too you fucking dumb ass)

We believe in gun rights too, which right wingers typically tend to support. And anarchists historically do not participate in elections, we boycott them. So if you are trying to associate us with any political party …. okay nvm I'm not going to explain anymore you need to educate yourself and I don't have time for this shit I'm tired of arguing with your dumb asses.

seriously, you can oppose something without understanding it, but you can't agree or disagree until you have a basic understanding of something. You clearly do not even have a basic understanding of libertarian socialist politics.

>speech had nothing to do with capitalism or terrorism

So when the state does it, its not terrorism or violence to you? And once again, you do not even have a basic understanding of libertarianism, because libertarians do not see the govermnent and the economic system as mutually exclusive, but they are dependent on each other and used to bolster both, which is why we oppose both capitalism and the state. So when the state does something to suppress dissent (which btw they have always been doing especially to socialists that are threats to the system) we see it in connection to the economic system, which is capitalism and they use the CIA/FBI consistently through history to terrorize and infiltrate socialist groups, which is what he's talking about and the organization that Snowden was in.

But don't believe me if you don't want to, I'd like to see why you think this is debatable. I'll just leave this video on chris explaining his views on the tea party, and there is nothing here that would contradict libertarian socialist principles.

And even if he did, why would that matter? Unlike you authoritarians, we libertarians do not worship people, we take idea's, criticize them and refine them.

I'm not watching this shit, can you give me a tldr.


File: 1586739112793.png (418.44 KB, 819x622, 819:622, 1586259450765.png) ImgOps iqdb

>western civilization

ANybody who views world in such a basic primite view should end his existence.


t. real wizard


"Conservatism is the new punk rock", I remember the Inforwars product pusher PJW first said this shit


Karl Marx Anime trailer

What ever happened to this? I never saw anything of it but the trailer. Was it any good? What other socialist philosophers did they include in the anime? I'm especially curious if they included meetings of the first Internationale or if they included Marx's arguments with Proudhon since I'm an anarchist. Anyone see it?


>Claims to understand and be libertarian
>Hates personal liberty

You aren't libertarian, you are a stupid commie that just wants to destroy all you envy.


Proudhon and Bakunin were included but it was pretty shallow. It was just funny to watch since a lot of the things they show Karl doing would get him into trouble in China.


There's a very detailed manga adaptation of Das Kapital that I've been meaning to read as well.


Should Socialists Take State Power? | Red Plateaus



[Last 50 Posts]
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]