Question for Leftists

The PRC is waging information warfare against the GOP and USA in support of DNC given that none of their candidates proved popular. All of this is an effort to restore the treason that was happening at the behest of China under the Obama-Biden administration.

Europeans depend heavily on Russian oil / gas. They do not like Russia having a lot of leverage over them in this way. Poland / Ukraine are the eastern border of Europe as far as Western Europeans are concerned, so they want NATO running a defensive corridor there.

The Middle East primarily sells oil / gas to China. They do not have pipeline access to Europe, and the United States blocks pipeline access to China via Afghanistan (which we occupy, for this exact reason).

In the middle of the Obama regime, they toppled Egypt / Libya, specifically by supporting rebels in eastern Libya. You probably don't know this, but eastern Libya is the highest per capita recruiting grounds for al-Qaeda anywhere in the world. They are the ones who were largely responsible for building IEDs that killed most of our troops in Iraq. Lots and lots of American blood on their hands. These are the people Obama supported against Gaddafi however.

Why? Libyan weapons stockpiles were shipped to Syria. The plan was to overthrow Syria and then Turkey. The intention here was to open a pipeline path from Saudi Arabia to Europe. The easiest way to do this is Jordan / western Iraq > Syria > Turkey > Europe

The fallout of such a pipeline opening up goes like this: Saudi energy becomes cheaper than Russian (easier to extract than Russian, but comparable delivery prices once a pipeline is available from Saudi Arabia to Europe). Europe switches to ME energy. Russia then has to switch to selling to China. Afghanistan is no longer valuable real estate in controlling Chinese energy sovereignty. The West has no controllable territory between Russia and China to cut supplies > China obtains effective energy independence, superpower status

Leftists have no concept of personal property so it's not a matter of morality for them

>I am not a leftist. However, I see nothing wrong with taking things from billionaires and giving it back to normal White people.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The left ONLY wants to seize the property of whites, regardless of classes. Leftism is a religion that hinges on "correcting the injustices of the past", and that includes giving everything that whites posses to the people leftists felt were wronged centuries ago. I have never once seen a leftist calling for redistributing the wealth of super rich black athletes/singers/actors to poor class whites, funny thing that.

Attached: leftypol in a nutshell.png (1755x470, 117.03K)

I get that.
Yet Leftists will still claim to BE "moral" as if it was some objective thing.
Marx himself understood it wasnt meaning most havent actually read marx or thought about the subject matter themselves.
And fine user
But you dont claim to be "moral" in doing so
You dont use thus fucking 14 year old girl soccer mom teir buzzwords
You believe what you believe because you believe it
And at least from what i can understand, you dont appeal to any autistic and fake authority to justify your views.
>Not true, there are objective biological standards that lead to objective morality.
Kek
You're getting into the realm of National Socialist morality Lefty.
And while you can actually make an objective moral argument on that basis, that isnt where you take it as shown in:
> That is, whatever acts in the interests of the preservation, spread, and advancement of life on Earth is objectively good.
That is false.
If you take the the argument of Biological objective morality then it is objectively good for any being on this planet to do what is in THEIR OWN evolutionary interest.
They have nothing to gain from perserving "Advanced life" if that life is significantly genetically different from their own
Rather it is objectively better for them (from the biological stand point) to compete with said organisms so that they can become the most succesful from an evolutionary stand point.
The only way one can determine "good" under the biological world view.
>Then we also objectively feel pain, and inflicting pain on someone for reasons other than self-defense is usually immoral.
Again dude
why?
You can only the make case that pain is objectively "Bad" if you believe your own genetic survival for your own survival is objectively good
And as you demonstrated you dont subscribe to a philosophy that proports this
Who cares if you or anyone "suffers and dies" so long as the masses of advanced civilization continue??
1/2

Attached: nothingeverends.jpg (250x392, 39.03K)

Wasn't she only like 4 years older?

>>The next closest thing to objective morality is the class basis, what serves your class interests (proletarian or bourgeoisie) is your morality.
Again dude
Why?
What about this world view makes it objective?
What part of economic class is inherent to humanity, much less to our morality???
The entire point of Marx IS THAT IT IS temporary.
>First and foremost, we must put a distinction between private property and personal property, which is an important distinction for socialists to make.
Responding to you and the other user bellow
Fun fact about the Dialectical Marxism?
If a construction workers owns a retirement portfolio a single share of a single stock the nets him a single cent in dividends??
He is dielectically speaking a member of the "Capitalist Class" who is to be purged in the revolutionary holocaust with all those who profit off the backs of the workers.
Food for thought.

Attached: whywememe.jpg (720x707, 57.28K)

>Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived, i.e. not a relationship between person and thing. Private property may include artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas - these generate capital for the owner without the owner having to perform any labor.
>Conversely, those who perform labor using somebody else's private property are deprived of the value of their work, and are instead given a salary that is disjointed from the value generated by the worker. Marxists consider it to be unfair that mere ownership of something should grant an individual free money and exploitative power over others.
>In Marxist theory, the term private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
Which again dude
Includes the construct worker who owns just one
single
share
in procter and gamble
And is getting
one
single
cent
In dividends from it.
He is, by definition, exploiting the workers of Procter and Gamble for their labor and taking their profits as a result.
Under Dialectical Marxism, this makes him a member of the Capitalist Class
Determined by Marx to be slaughtered in the Revolutionary holocaust
Not have his private property taken away mind you
Not merely have his resources nationalized and be forced to pay back that which he exploited
No.
Under the Dialectic he is to be killed, as you ought to well know if you ever actually read Marx.
If you DONT personally subscribe to this ideal thats fine, but that makes you by definition a "Revisionary" and also technically speaking not a Marxist.
As you support a brand of socialism other then that which marx advocated for.

Attached: genzkid.jpg (1280x720, 108.96K)

No can do.
It *is* moral to punish evil people.

You're probably right. I too have never encountered an IRL leftist who wasn't an ethnomasochist. It's a shame since Marx himself was a racist.

fucking hell you're retarded i'm not a commiefaggot even i know working class people don't own the electrical/gas power grid, the water/sewage plants, the housing and construction machines, or the food processing plants. the commies want these things to be collectively owned and operated for EVERYONE not just those who can afford to buy these things. it's fucking kikes sitting in new york who are shareholders in these companies who own these properties

Attached: 1573145791599.jpg (680x603, 30.93K)

I am talking about land, niggerfaggot.
>it's fucking kikes sitting in new york who are shareholders
Wow, no fucking shit, Sherlock.

If a Jewish bankers made money by scamming working people it would be immoral not to shoot the bastard and sieze his private property.

Attached: Stalin_Full_Image.jpg (555x831, 571.13K)

Most Marxists don't uphold complete classicide. People like myself advocate for revolutionary self-defense. If someone is trying to sabotage the revolution, or harm the people, or hurt people in the movement, we have a right to defend against it.

Also, Marxists don't view the bourgeoisie as one giant monolithic organism. There are differing sections of the bourgeoisie. Someone like Jeff Bezos (finance capitalist, bourgeoisie) is much more likely to get imprisoned or executed than some mostly-proletarian, somewhat petty-bourgeois construction worker who owns one share in some company.

Also, most shares in companies are owned by the rich and powerful. It doesn't matter if a few working class folk own a few shares. Also, I have read Marx, and he doesn't fetishize unneeded violence like you suggest.

they own all the land too, you stupid nigger faggot. real estate companies domestic and foreign own the best land all over the country. working class people don't fucking own land either most of them rent it

As a german communist i dont care about your privat stuff.
Its the stuff you own that can be used to build and produce something. Things like forests, fields, factories and workshops.
If you start beeing "to big to fail" you need to be fully owned by the state and not by faceles shareholders who only care about money and not the wellbeeing of the people. The state (if democratic) cares about people becouse people vote and if they get angry they vote for "the wrong party(TM)".

Solong capitalism worship the "free market" more then the well beeing of the humans i keep beeing a communist becouse this greedy thinking is what ruins us all.

I should get a world map mousepad. Would ease pissing off minor nations.

Bruh

Attached: D091716F-AF0E-488D-B2DE-BF0D09FEE71A.jpg (1000x532, 74.43K)

>they own all the land to
I see you live in a city.
Out here in the real world, we know that is not true.
This is what communists do to poor farmers who want to keep their land.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cazin_rebellion

>Most Marxists don't uphold complete classicide.
No but Marx did.
Which kinda makes the people that DONT uphold it by definition non-Marxist revisionaries.
I dont have a problem with that by the way and if you guys actually adopted the term "post-Marxist Socialist" you might be able to make the case alot easier that what you are proposing is significantly different from the images of totalitarian states people conjure up when they hear the word "Marxist"
Small piece of advice and i hope you believe understand that it is actually given in good faith.
> People like myself advocate for revolutionary self-defense. If someone is trying to sabotage the revolution, or harm the people, or hurt people in the movement, we have a right to defend against it.
Bro i have no qualsm with any act in and of itself INCLUDING classcide
The thread was about how the left tries to make morally objective claims when they proport to an ideology which advocates moral subjectivity.
Which any materialist philosphy does.
>Also, Marxists don't view the bourgeoisie as one giant monolithic organism.
Again dude,
depending on how literally you take Kapital?
Marx kinda fucking did though...

Attached: hewholivesinapinapleunderthesea.jpg (648x880, 100.32K)

>There are differing sections of the bourgeoisie. Someone like Jeff Bezos (finance capitalist, bourgeoisie) is much more likely to get imprisoned or executed than some mostly-proletarian, somewhat petty-bourgeois construction worker who owns one share in some company.
>>> much more likely
kek, you se its that kinda shit that makes people a little fucking ancy about this dude.
Not to tell you how to run your ideology
But maybe one of you could write a book that isnt 150 years old to out line the way class conflict works in the modern age instead of referencing something so outdated.
I mean hell you still got guys like Jason Unruhe
claiming no one in the first world is even a PART of the proleteraite and all the work should be done on third world shitskins
Which kinda gives credence to the claims of "anti-whiteness" the right has always thrown at the left.
> most shares in companies are owned by the rich and powerful. It doesn't matter if a few working class folk own a few shares.
Still makes them members of the "Capitalist Class" Under Marx's definition
>I have read Marx, and he doesn't fetishize unneeded violence like you suggest.
"Fetishize" no.
Say it "is inevitable and to be expected" with deep undertones of approval by nature of his own ideology which advocates for the very things that will be achieved through said violence?
Yes.

The only actual belief that leftists have is hatred of whites. It's the only thing consistent with the fundamentally contradictory worldview
>pro-fag and pro-muslim
>pro-worker and pro-illegal immigrant
>fight for the poor but hate poor whites more than anybody
>decry capitalism but base their identities around products
>hate the rich but won't criticize jews

All of these contradictory beliefs undermine white interests and white nations, which is why they believe them. There's no belief that leftists have that don't follow this basic principle

Attached: 1559190436851.jpg (1079x345, 127.56K)

honestly it's pretty fucking creepy how that shit played out in the prequel trilogy. still, though
>nice

Not subjective. It is objective. Morality is as simple as living in accordance to natural law and doing what’s eugenic for your race to ensure a future for your people. Morality is racial interests that is it. Go against the interests of your people you are evil. Do what’s best and you are living with your racial god.

Calm down, Zach.

You clearly haven't read Marx and probably just got your information about him from bourgeois propaganda. Marx didn't think that killing the bourgeoisie would solve all the problems, as capitalism perpetuates the capitalist class. Karl Marx did not uphold left-adventurism and he did not fetishize violence

As I said in an earlier thread to someone:
>Propaganda of the deed and left-adventurism are atrocious tactics that have been demonstrated to not work. Assassinating capitalists will not end capitalism, as Marxists understand that it is the system that perpetuates the capitalist class and the capitalist class perpetuates the system. Even if your bloodthirst was 100% quenched and every owner of capital was done away with, the masses would be horrified, the system would still be there, and capitalists would still pop up as a result. Except now, the masses would actively hate communists even more and for a good reason.

Also, Marx didn't see proletariat and bourgeoisie as groups that couldn't be split any further. No, they had their subsections and different class interests, with an overall class commonality of proletarian and bourgeois.

For example: Lumpen-Proletariat, Proletariat, Labor Aristocracy, Petty-Bourgeoisie, Haute Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, etc.

Attached: Dis my store now.jpg (1024x686, 78.04K)

>that pic
hawt. moar
>there isn't
and that's why Japan is winning the hearts and minds of America

steins;gate is good shit, arguably my favorite time travel story

I MOVED SOME FINANCES AROUND AND INHERITED DADDY'S MONEY

NOW I OWN DA STORR
DURRR

It depends of the type of private property. I dont care for your car or your smartphone or whatever. These things can be reproduced.
But there are certain things that cannot, including land. So im in for seizing all estate property because this belongs into the hand of the volk for its free usage.
Also "intellectual property" is a retarded concept by its own and should be abolished. But in the end, as a leftist, i dont care for moral anyway. Law of nature is law enough for me. Fuck the system and the anoying clusterfucks that countrys are.

>How exactly do you consider the seizing of private property to be moral??
If you stole it, it is moral to seize it and return it to its owner.

Marx was a life long debtor. Marx wrote to Engels regularly about how he couldn’t wait until his mother could die so he could get his inheritance. What did he spend his inheritance on? Not lying his debts. Instead he spent it on lavish material goods so that he could LARP as an aristocrat. Marx was a narcissist and a sociopath that created an ideology to rationalize his own psychosis. Fuck you. Fuck all commies.

>claiming no one in the first world is even a PART of the proleteraite
Most Marxists aren't Third-Worldists, I'm not even one. Yes, the third world has the most oppressed sections of the proletariat and yes, the first world has the labor aristocracy that benefits from imperialism but we still are exploited by capitalism nevertheless, and stand to benefit in the long term from liberating ourselves from these chains.

Also, some in the left DO hate white people, I don't share this sentiment and I view it as anti-dialectical and anti-materialist. Class analysis should not be replaced by racial analysis. I'm not against white people, but of this global imperialist system which benefits first world capital and the labor aristocracy (mostly white) at the expense of the Global South (mostly black and brown).

Yeah, I'm going to need sources for those claims...

>You clearly haven't read Marx and probably just got your information about him from bourgeois propaganda.
Do you want me to quote him to you boy?
Because i fucking have.
And i did not read Marx through the WHOLE of Kapital to have some fucking cunt tell me otherwise lol.
> Marx didn't think that killing the bourgeoisie would solve all the problems
No but he saidt it was going to happen anyway
and it would, after a transitory period
Lead to the Communist Utopia he envisioned.
>Also, Marx didn't see proletariat and bourgeoisie as groups that couldn't be split any further. No, they had their subsections and different class interests, with an overall class commonality of proletarian and bourgeois.
True but the main devide was between the proleteriate and those who had things other to lose then their chains.
including the "petty bourgeoisie"
>Most Marxists aren't Third-Worldists, I'm not even one.
And Sincere congrats on being that kind of tard.
>. Yes, the third world has the most oppressed sections of the proletariat and yes, the first world has the labor aristocracy that benefits from imperialism but we still are exploited by capitalism nevertheless, and stand to benefit in the long term from liberating ourselves from these chains.
Alwasy appereciate a commie who doesnt cuck on this
Good on you for it.
>Also, some in the left DO hate white people, I don't share this sentiment and I view it as anti-dialectical and anti-materialist. Class analysis should not be replaced by racial analysis. I'm not against white people, but of this global imperialist system which benefits first world capital and the labor aristocracy (mostly white) at the expense of the Global South (mostly black and brown).
If thats the case man you might want to look at Stasserism or some of other Economically left wing racialist ideology.
The mainstream left WILL ALWAYS want you dead becuase of your fucking skin color.

Attached: boardroommemebasic (1) (1).jpg (1000x1298, 154.72K)

based and redpilled. Modern rich people are submissive jews who got their riches from exploitation of their hosts which they constantly try to undermine. There is nothing wrong with taking away wealth from traitors.

*Sincere congrats on NOT being that kind of tard.

holy shit I have that exact keyboard and monitor, based pick nigga

> every group we turn against another group can be endlessly split into ever smaller and smaller subgroups that we can turn other subgroups against until... Utopia!
and you commies claim theres no such thing as Cultural Marxism.

Nah, that's just the Western left, or as I like to call it, the "synthetic left".

Look at the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom, COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, etc. Also take a look at "the Aquarian Conspiracy" which documents general CIA fuckery and bourgeois sabotage of the Western left, and how they've become liberalized, promote postmodernism, wish to destroy the family, destroy culture, destroy gender, and use identity politics and blame instead of class politics.

Most communists around the world aren't like this, and I've heard countless criticisms of Western leftists from the global left. Here's a good video on the subject of the synthetic left:

youtube.com/watch?v=xgKPyIj8Q60

What? You misread what I said entirely. What I was saying is that there are different sections of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, that the working class and capitalist class have subclasses with different interests on smaller issues but still have common interests on larger issues.

> all land belongs to "the volk"
> free for their use!
> never heard of The Tragedy Of The Commons
> never been to a city park where niggers enjoy their "free use for all"
> cant explain why anyone would till the land and plant crops, or build a factory to produce goods
why would YOU build anything when anyone else can just come in and take it from you?
this is why Hot Topic lefties like you are even worse than real marxists.
you are the Useful Idiots who create the swarm of red banner waving retards that Hurl Their Bodies Against The Barricades and let the conniving scheming (((Intellectual Vanguard))) sieze control of a nation and run it like their own personal candy store until the wheels fall of and (((They))) scurry off to live in luxury in the south of france, hawaii or the swiss alps
you are a tool of (((A Certain Tribe Of Merchants))) and you are too stupid to even see it.

Bro if you think the Fucking Frankfurt school is far back as western subversion of the left goes i got some bad fucking news for you

Attached: (((ClassTreason)))meme (2) (1) (1) (2) (1).jpg (1155x2000, 303.18K)

I see literally nothing wrong about taking things from people I dont like and giving it to people I like.

If you like Mexican food, southern food or indian food; every single dollar should be taken from you.

> you misread what i said...
no, im pretty sure i got it.
we all got it.
> kill the evil bourgeoisie!
> kill the evil haute bourgeoisie
> kill the evil petty bourgeoisie
> kill the evil labour aristocracy
> kill the proletarians
> kill the lumpen proletarians
> come on guys, we are just One Murder Away From Utopia!
marxism is the ideology of greed
marxists are carrion eaters who claw and bite at other carrion eaters to maintain their position on the bloated corpse and begrudge even one of their own even the tiniest morsel of rotting flesh
you all think youre gonna be the Chairman or Premier, but "When The Revolution Comes" youll be the guy kneeling over a ditch while your "comrades" put a bullet in your head for having 2 more cigarettes than the other guy, as you scavenge through the wasteland you created by murdering everyone who built anything.

i see literally nothing wrong with shooting every communist who opens his greasy fat mouth outside his momma's basement.
i think jesus would back me up on this.

As someone who doesn't watch shit movies like star wars, what's the joke?

>making a ton of money means you are automatically bad
Majority of rich people are shit, but that's because the majority of people are shit regardless of wealth/income.

>That is, whatever acts in the interests of the preservation, spread, and advancement of life on Earth is objectively good.

Oh? Then imposing hardship is morally good. Hardship drives innovation and improvement. Penicilin, gps and sea floor magnetic scanning cane from war. Even our bodies build muscle through the pain of exercise.
Life should be made to be hard to a better human is continually forged.

Ironic, that you would achieve something they never will!

Erm, again, that's left-adventurism. Which is a petty-bourgeois trend among the Western left. Also, communists are proletarian and against the bourgeoisie. Again, as I said earlier quite a few times, classicide is not the answer because capitalism perpetuates the capitalist class. Even if every owner of capital was killed, the system would bring about a new capitalist class.

I recommend you read this article by Marxist journalist Caleb Maupin before further spouting this uninformed nonsense.

medium.com/the-red-flag/scientific-constructive-socialism-in-an-age-of-pessimism-a-conversation-with-caleb-maupin-adbb5731b1e9

>The only way one can determine "good" under the biological world view.
He's right, you're retarded.
>Anarcho-Capitalism
It never does. It gets outperformed at every possible turn. Really simple.

Most rich people don't "make" their money, they take it. The basis of the capitalist class' wealth is the exploitation of the working class, the extraction of the surplus value generated by the working masses.

For more info on this topic: youtube.com/watch?v=d3RfXOAu6CU

>He's right, you're retarded.
Do explain how an evolutionary organism whos inherent and objective purpose in life is to pass on their genes and ensure as many of them survive as possible could possible be shown to have an OBJECTIVE moral duty to persue an idealized advanced society that does not allow his own genes to survive??