You're 100% right about Soros and capitalist pigdogs.

If they are anarchists, communist, and radical socialists who's only goal is to rebel violently against authority while looking autistic, then they are automatically a tool, not just for soros, but for all of the right wing because they destroy the left wing while believing that they are spreading communism and marxism.

This 100x

Hey, not saying it is a bad thing for my group.

*Mostly

Organised left looks like this

I have to wonder if soros starting defunding them because they act so batshit crazy that he realized that they were destroying the left wing more than helping it.

Let's be clear about our terms. Communists (Marxist-Leninit) have nothing to do with Soros.

The 'left' as you understand it, are revisionist and reactionary stooges.

The classic left I do have to give credit for how long it stood for, even if I do not agree with them and it did not turn out well in the end.

Modern leftism has mostly been reduced to a fucking joke.

🍻

Cheers to Stalin. If only he could have lived forever.

But no. Marxists believe that the tides come and go. There will be more revolutions in the future.

Heh, I still stand for private property and a free market, I just want it changed so that it cannot be manipulated and controlled into causing differences on the political scale.

The issue with capitalism is it is controlled by the jews in giant corporations who will preform actions that will cause the world to be maniupated to their will.

Hence israel, saudi arabia, soros, and more.

Capitalism always leads to exploitation and monopolies. More importantly, it creates tension in society, which has to be dealt with in some way. This implies a state which favours a ruling class, and so on and so on, only escalating the social tensions. It will never end well.

I do believen heiracrchies (In the sense that the state that rules over the population is always right).

I do not believe that corporations should control the people, rather the state should.

That depends if the hierarchy is for a purpose or goal, like the military. or if the hierarchy is an ends in itself, like a dynasty.

Certainly, in its current state, humanity needs authority to function.

But that doesn't mean it should always be this way.

Authority should be used to enlighten humanity and process it forwards.

Hmm...

Even to a point where authority will be needed less and less.

I believe that the state should always exist to unite humanity, and to provide them protection as well as help provide items such as food and water.

While also leading them on their path.

At least until something like the technological singularity occurs but that is an argument for another day.

https://twitter.com/ActualidadRT/status/877914948734767106

@Deleted User For the time being we both agree that the state is necessary. But I think a Socialist state.

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/131827773

"Communism is unstoppable and unbeatable"

I don't know how you do it. It is extremely taxing to put up with such terrible ignorance.

Meh, after being on the internet for such a long time you just learn to tolerate it for the most part.

@Deleted User Do you want to tease out why you still defend capitalism, or should be leave it?

I do not defend capitalism at all, I believen a free market that is rid of the influences from the world and is modified so that monopolies cannot grow and cause the lives of the people to be controlled not by the state, but by the corporations they begin to live under.

The only thing I could compare it to somewhat is the US market in the 19th centuary after teddy roosevelt broke up the monopolies.

Corporate free market? Sounds like AnCap.

Hell no.

I believen a strong state that supports the hard working people that keep the country functioning, while also having a free market to provide resources to the people that are acquired through currency.

I believe that you may have misinturptired that or I did not word it properly.

Along with that, I also believe that the state has a very strong military, so it gives people not just an opportunity to earn money, but to defend their borders and to support the country in times of crisis.

It seems like you are just trying to take the best aspects of every idea and ignore the contradictions between them. When you say 'people are to be controlled', do you mean by the state or by corporations? Any kind of repression will not be sustainable. You do not have to believe me, I suppose. A lot of ideology is motivated by blind optimism.

What I meant was by the state.

So then there will be a tension between corporations and the state, the corporations will become powerful and try to control politics, which is what happens everywhere nowadays. How will this be prevented?

Let me elaborate on that.

What I meant was that I believed in in a strong state that supports the hard working population that keeps the country going, while also having a free market to distribute resources such as food and water, while having some luxuries provided by it. I also wanted the market modified so that monopolies cannot grow powerful enough to challenge the authority of the state and to begin manipulating the people within it.

(My wording and explanation has been shit recently)

So you mean to use the free market as a method of distribution only? And still have a strong state to prevent any hoarding of resources with individuals?

Not exclusively for distribution, the market can also provide luxuries that a person can buy, very similarly to the ones we have now.

In the early USSR, for example, Lenin allowed some free market activity, because the state was not yet competent in running resource distribution. However, what happens when there is a reason for the state to control labour more closely, for example, at times of war?

Elaborate on what you mean by "hoarding resources"?

Using resources and property as a leverage to control others. Like what Kulaks did.

Then in that case if they are using to leverage control, they would be shut down.

And in times when the state needs to control labor more intensely, they would begin programs that would probably begin programs and incentives to join into the work force in cases such as war, such as higher wages, war bonds, as well as mobiilizing the market to shift the majority of production to be sent to the military rather than the general population, so food stamps would begin to be issued in order to cut down on food waste that could be sent to the military, and to decrease costs of keeping their soldiers fit and ready for war, as well as having limits placed on what the population can acquire or use on specific items in order to cut down on waste of items, and to again, make it cheaper to send people to war.

What if the state cannot afford to pay its war labour higher wages?

Will they nationalise companies?

'Socialise'

Incentives cost lots of money, money which can be better spent.

Then they must find some other way to entice people into getting people to work in labor, let it be bonds that the government pays back later, or something different entirely.

And how will the government promises to make good on its bonds?

The more people are working the more money that should be generated, along with that at the end of the war the military will largely go down in costs so the government will no longer have to run any more programs that will take a large chunk out of the budget, with that the government *SHOULD* be able to make good on it's bonds.

Plus, with the soldiers returning from war the more money you can get from a very large amount of people coming back into the work force.

There's a pressure point here. The incentive of the government depends on its reputation to deliever on its promises. When the people lose confidence, there will be problems.

In that case if there is a threat that the population may no longer have any trust in the government's promises, then I believe there should be a *TEMPORARY* silence of freedom of speech, which is meant to reduce the possibility of the government becoming weak from fear.

Ignorance, truly is bliss.

I see this deteriorating into an socialist authoritarian state anyway.

The government repossess factories and weapons etc. that are working against its interests.

Selling out to foreign states etc.

Selling out to foreign countries?

I very much dislike the idea of selling out jobs to foreign countries just because it is cheaper.

Sure. If there is no confidence in ther government, companies are going to look elsewhere for support and capital.

If you put limits of profit, this will happen.

You have to build the wall (to keep them in).

https://youtu.be/EOnSh3QlpbQ

Then that is why the state must build confidence in it's population.

If it must become an authoritarian state to do so, then so be it.

Yes, and its confidence is completely decided by catering to the whims of the population, which is a losing battle.

You have to have an iron fist, and show the way, even if they do not like it.

Then that is what the government must do.

This is why I believe in a very strong government, because it will show the population the correct way, even if it is a rude awakening.

Personal interests like profit work against a strong government. Which is way it must move towards socialism, so no one can claim personal interests in profits. They must commit themselves to the state for full compliance and productivity.

It may not be clear now, but when shit hits the fan, it becomes the only way forward.

And then what happens when things calm down?

Things calm down when global capitalism is destroyed. The world population is educated. And then there is no more need for the state. But then the free market will not return, because man has learned to live without exploitation.

And why can't profit be beneficial to the state if done correctly?

Profit starts the cycle all over again.

There can be no profit. Ever.

Like I said, the free market I have in mind will be modified not to produce explotiation of the people, but to genuinely distribute not just essential resources, but also luxuries that people will get using currency.

Free market implies private ownership, which leads to competition, which leads to accrue of capital.

And to acquire resources, the population would use and do whatever they needed to, then would sell them to somewhere else where they may be perfected then sold again to be distributed.

All property must be publically owned.

How do you reasonably expect humans not to compete with each other?

Even if free market could somehow be used only for distribution, it is not very efficient.

Humans compete is other ways, not personal interest.

Like I said, the free market would also be used to distribute luxuries that a company would produce then sell.

Very similarly to our own, but would be modified not to produce corporations or monopolies that manipulate populations to their will.

There is a fundamental problem here. I guess we cannot continue.

Free market without capitalism is an oxymoron. It can only be used as a stop-gap in some instances of need.