how could you be against socialism/communism as a black person

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Because socialism and communism are just pipedreams in a world where income is racially stratified.

We watch the socialist European countries act as vampires in the developing world, yet you aspire to be like them.

If Western leftist were serious about politics they would move to something more radical and successful like syndicalism, but we know western leftists just cosplay revolutionaries.

and THIS is why I couldn't vote for bernie sanders and voted for Elizabeth warren.

Pragmatic progressives > utopian shytposters

 

[ignorethis]

That’s…socialism. The workers taking control of the means of production.

Syndicalism is mainly known for violent conflict with socialist and communism but I guess they’re the same thing.

Like I said, until the leftist are killing each other in bars like early 1900s Eurasia, most of y’all are just cosplayers.

The only uniting trait most leftist share is getting their asses kicked by capitalism.

 

[Unfiltered]

Because there's a bunch of fukking weirdos on here who have no respect for our
political ancestors.


The US royally fukking them over.

From the USSR to Cuba to Venezuela and so on.


We have the US Directly impact their ability to succeed.

This

Pro blackness and capitalism don't mix, don't take most these folks seriously. Common sense will lead to exploitation due to greed and individual success.

Of were serious about fixing the problems capitalism is the last thing to stand for.

 

[Mowgli]

Rebels are down low aristocrats. Before you know it you'll be part of the problem

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

So what went wrong in every state that tried communism?

I know u won’t actually read up on this because u don’t care but read the Jakarta method if ur actually interested

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

and THIS is why I couldn't vote for bernie sanders and voted for Elizabeth warren.

Pragmatic progressives > utopian shytposters

Typical shill.

 

[Chrishaune]

Depending on the government is not going to save black folks. I don't know how many times they have to show you, but eventually it's going to end up extremely deadly for the black community. They've already killed off black families pushing abortion in the community. Soon they are going to take it to the level they really wanted to from the beginning. Their mind is already on population control.

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

So what went wrong in every state that tried communism?

so under communism the state "withers away". Yet the General Secretary or Primer remains.

So you really think that society can exist without leaders and more importantly criminals?

These questions will never be answered in an honest way. The only reply the 'lefty brats' will give is some arrogant and condescending quip like, "read a book." and then repeat the same, "That wasn't true communism." or "Communism is about a stateless, moneyless society." ad nauseam.
Then 'lefty brats' wonder why nobody takes them seriously and why everybody even slightly to the right of them and has basic doubts about their position hates their guts. I'm so glad that ordinary people are combating these 'lefty brats'.

 

[ignorethis]

They love to ignore the fact that the socialist societies in the world are still racist as hell.

Because race supercedes class as far as the hierarchy of identities.

Most socialist don't really want egalitarian "socialism" (if that's even possible), they want socialism for them.

Be naive enough to believe if the USA magically switched to socialism blacks wouldn't still be at the bottom. Hell black boys would probably be wholesale in "re-education/assimilation/integration camps" like we see in several Marx leaning nations.

Opposite

You have to have a poor grasp of black history outside of the past 400 years in western hemisphere.

Capitalism, free trade, and private ownership have always been a key part of several major African cultures.

Wealth has always been deified.

It's Marxism that Africa continuously rejected, because that shyt isn't native to Africa; it's the idea of a lazy European named Karl Marx that never wanted to get a job, took advantage of his close friends and leeched off them, let his kids starve to death while he lived, and his own mom basically called him a lazy bum.

I always question who would follow anything from the mind of that man.

You guys always say this, but all socialism eventually looks like this.

The ruling party in the DRC is part of Socialist International, they didn't just tack it on their name.

Hell most of the political parties with any power in the DRC are socialist leaning. Hell, the some of the wealthiest people probably consider themselves socialist.

All those well meaning socialist with money and power, and things aren't getting better.

That's because they're no different than their European socialist counterparts that feel that they must "do what they can to help the lesser people", all while being the lower classes biggest enemy by making economic moats so wide, barriers to entry so high, and so much corruption/nepotism/cronyism, you have to have political power or connections to do any business.

"You have to have political power or connections to do any business" seems to be a reoccurring thing in most Marx-leaning nations, but nah it can't be a pattern.

Dudes really get on the internet to regurgitate the thoughts of racist white men.

Hell, even the non-white Marxist like Che were racist.

Che believed Marxism failed in Africa because Africans were too dumb and lazy to understand it or implement it.

Africans just know bullshyt when they see and hear it.

Just a ideology for do nothing nikkas.
To handcuff do something nikkas.
Because you're not capable of doing something, other than taking orders from white people.

Dumbass really tried to break down the Second Congo War as socialist vs. capitalist.

Please stop talking about Africa, until you have at least a baby level understanding of tribes, cultures, and ethnicities of the continent, then an understanding of how politics intersect with those identities. Because if you knew even a tiny bit about real Africans, not cosmopolitan and Western educated Africans, you wouldn't be preaching this fantasy of socialism in Africa.

he actually hated black people, him and his Marxism co-creator Engels

Engels and him joking about his maybe 1/8th black son in law belonging in the zoo enough proof for you?



Don’t feel like making a citation but Google a sentence and you’ll find the source easy.

Hope this isn’t the part where we try to separate Engels from Marxism even though he really built out the ideology more than Marx, while Marx bummed and leeched off him.

nikkas really in here caping for Marx literally calling y’all “******s”


“Well that doesn’t mean he hated black people”


These oyinbos have done a number on a bunch of y’all.

 

[Satsui no Hadou]

Syndicalism is mainly known for violent conflict with socialist and communism but I guess they’re the same thing.

Like I said, until the leftist are killing each other in bars like early 1900s Eurasia, most of y’all are just cosplayers.

The only uniting trait most leftist share is getting their asses kicked by capitalism.

Syndicalism is just prioritizing and utilizing radical unions, which is directly tied into the labor struggle. The labor, and therefore class, struggle is central to socialism. What is so hard to understand about that? What is syndicalism to you, because you seem to use some relatively obscure concept of it?

 

[Luke Cage]

Can someone explain to me how socialism/communism is anti-black? Reparations is literally wealth distribution from the oppressors to the oppressed. The federal government is the largest employers of ADOS in this country and is the backbone of the black middle class. I don’t understand why people would be against it if they are black. Black leaders like malcolm z and mlk were communists. Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere etc.

reparations isn't wealth distribution, it's a debt owed for unpaid labor. it's back pay. a long delayed money exchange for services rendered.

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

These questions will never be answered in an honest way. The only reply the 'lefty brats' will give is some arrogant and condescending quip like, "read a book." and then repeat the same, "That wasn't true communism." or "Communism is about a stateless, moneyless society." ad nauseam.
Then 'lefty brats' wonder why nobody takes them seriously and why everybody even slightly to the right of them and has basic doubts about their position hates their guts. I'm so glad that ordinary people are combating these 'lefty brats'.

Oh, just so that you guys and gals are aware, I'm very critical of (most forms of capitalism as well. I also think some forms of socialism can work (mainly Market Socialism).

A mixed economy is the only way to go.

 

[Wiseborn]

No, it’s literally a classless society. There is no state and the government becomes obsolete.

If you want the technical specifics, in the classical interpretation, a communist society does away with coercion, so the governments function has less to do with managing people and more to managing technological resources which supply such an abundance of materials that nobody has to go without.

So you really think that society can exist without leaders and more importantly criminals?

These questions will never be answered in an honest way. The only reply the 'lefty brats' will give is some arrogant and condescending quip like, "read a book." and then repeat the same, "That wasn't true communism." or "Communism is about a stateless, moneyless society." ad nauseam.
Then 'lefty brats' wonder why nobody takes them seriously and why everybody even slightly to the right of them and has basic doubts about their position hates their guts. I'm so glad that ordinary people are combating these 'lefty brats'.

Exactly think you can change 12,000 years of human nature with a couple of changes in laws brehs

Danilov told them:



The only way communism kind of works is if you're talking about a hunter gatherer society. once farming happened inequality begun and women moved accordingly:



TWEETSHARECOMMENT

Bad news for anyone who touts the idea that our ancient ancestors had it all figured out: Scientists have discovered evidence that, during the Stone Age, only one man passed on his DNA for every 17 women. That’s right, guys. Living like our ancient ancestors means having as little as a 1-in-17 shot of reliably getting laid.
Danielle Paquette at the Washington Post explains:

Researchers recently uncovered a sharp decline in genetic diversity in male lineages across the world during the Stone Age. The study’s authors hypothesized that material gains made through early agricultural success — a proxy for wealth — gave smaller groups of related men the reproductive upper hand for generations.

“Men who had more wealth and power might have had more to offer to women,” said co-author Melissa Wilson Sayres, an Arizona State University professor who studies sex-biased biology. “Their sons and grandsons could have been more successful in the same way.”

(“More to offer” is one way to think about it, but the cynic in me wonders how much choice women could really exercise in societies that were so strictly patriarchal that a few wealthy men shut all the other men out of the sexual marketplace so effectively.)
In short, the research suggests that the men who managed to have the most babies—whose babies managed to survive to adulthood and have more babies and pass their genes down to the present day—were the ones who were really good at agriculture. It’s worth noting that most evolutionary psychology proponents (or “paleofantasists” as biologist Marlene Zuk calls them) imagine that the “true” nature of humans developed during our pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer phase. It’s difficult to imagine that true human nature is found in the heart of the caveman, when it’s likely that a few successful early farmers just crushed the competition in the genetic lottery.
The real takeaway here is to be skeptical of the notion that our sexual and social habits are as strongly genetically programmed as evo-psycho proponents believe. As Francie Diep at Pacific Standard writes, “As more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again.” Far from being robots who are acting out unchanging genetic scripts, we are creatures who experience periods of dramatic change—and those changes, in turn, change our genes.
The other takeaway: to be grateful we live in an age where it’s harder for a few powerful men to snatch up all the women for themselves. That sounds terrible for both men and women.


shyt is baked into the genetic cake

 

[Satsui no Hadou]

Oh, just so that you guys and gals are aware, I'm very critical of (most forms of capitalism as well. I also think some forms of socialism can work (mainly Market Socialism).

A mixed economy is the only way to go.

So…what do you think of enver hoxha Josip broz tito? One of the more liberal leaders in the Soviet Union and one of the first to go against the moscow. My ideal economy would be led by workers councils for each respective industry, with co-ops operating the workplaces.

Edit: Josip broz tito, not hoxha.

 

[ignorethis]

Syndicalism is just prioritizing and utilizing radical unions, which is directly tied into the labor struggle. The labor, and therefore class, struggle is central to socialism. What is so hard to understand about that? What is syndicalism to you, because you seem to use some relatively obscure concept of it?

Here is a quote that can explain it to you

But I can mention two fundamental features of Leninism that anarcho-syndicalism absolutely rejects:

1. Socialism as a system of bureaucratic manageralism, constructed top down through the state once “the Party” gets control of the state. Thus Leninism is ALWAYS opposed to the worker collective management of industry proposed by the syndicalists.
2. The “dictatorship of the party.” Lenin and Trotsky used this to beat over the heads of the Workers Opposition at the 1921 Communist Party congress. Lenin’s argument against worker elected management boards in industry or a worker congress for planning was that this would empower the “90 percent of non-Party workers.” “What is the role of the vanguard party then?” This means that Leninism has ZERO commitment to a multi-party, multi-tendencied worker council democracy. Their aim is a total monopoly of power for their party, and any coalition is just a matter of convenience in a situation where they don’t have power for a monopoly of party power.

Syndicalism never called for the abolishment of capital, Syndicalism is large nationwide unions for different industries having true political power without the need to go through political parties and bureaucrats. The unions replace political parties and corporations entirely, but act as both a political party and a corporation.

Socialism creates more bureaucracy and politicians, in fact bureaucrats and politicians are the lifeblood of Marxism.

Bookchin argues:

At the same time that syndicalism exerts this unrelenting pressure on capitalism, it tries to build the new social order within the old. The unions and the 'labour councils' are not merely means of struggle and instruments of social revolution; they are also the very structure around which to build a free society. The workers are to be educated [by their own activity within the union] in the job of destroying the old propertied order and in the task of reconstructing a stateless, libertarian society. The two go together.[77]

The unions not only check and balance the elite and upper management classes, but they check and balance each other. They trade with each other. If one union is better performing than another, or one industry is performing better; members of that union/industry are rewarded and high productivity is incentivized, not by an employer but by the union themselves.

Syndicalism rejects State Socialism and the use of establishment politics to establish or promote Socialism. They reject using state power to construct a socialist society, favouring strategies such as the General strike. Syndicalists advocates a socialist economy based on federated unions or syndicates of workers who own and manage the means of production. An influential anarchist movement based on Syndicalist ideas is Anarcho-Syndicalism. Anarcho-Syndicalism is a theory of anarchism which views Syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and with that control, influence broader society. Although Syndicalism advocates the control of production units by the workers it does not, as is the case for Socialism, advocate the central control of the economy. Instead Syndicalism advocates the operation of a production unit for the benefit of the workers of that production unit. This means that the workers sell or barter the production of their unit for the output of the other production units.

My tribe is actually one of the few real life syndicalism success stories, it’s was a tool used to obtain independence from Britain by making colonialism too expensive to make sense. But it was never a driven by a worker’s revolution fantasy, it was driven by a bunch of Igbo men wanting to bring more money home to their families.

But all this could have been avoid by distinguishing Marxism/Leninism/Communism from general socialist ideas.

Are you a Marxist?