This is the Instagram post

yup

just check his tats

He's aight

Not exactly the guy i would date tbh

also that last pic looks like a dude is sucking him off

100% fag

The shoulders give it away

Nationalism is the future

tila tequila is a crazy bitch

Ultranationalist Socialism

doesnt she believe the world is flat

i dont think she was lmao

or fame

probably fame

they all do for more fame

famous people are professional attention whores

true

i know tila from LA

nice girl

I used to read/watch all her conspiracy theories religiously lmao

That was a phase I promise

My son or daughter in the future

Children unnecessary.

Oh ok

Is it ok to fall asleep after you eat breakfast?

why wouldnt it be

@everyone

yes hello

islam is okay

what makes you say that

they behead people which is cool

all religions are okay

all religions except catholic and orthodox are cancer

I want to be pdf

leftypol isn't "political incorrect" it's just regular incorrect

there's no great truths that get through because you're willing to be terrible

you're just personally lacking the ability to have an intelligent restrained conversation

shouldnt leftypol just be politicially correct?

*you* have trouble expressing yourself without being offensive, but *i* don't

you're also lacking self-control and introspective capacity in various other ways

so you're not the leading edge of discourse

at all

who me?

just talking about /leftypol/ generally, i don't know you, hi

hi nigger

now i know you enough

you dont know anything about me

you're not saying the n-word and also leading the discourse

you're useless scum

but I am a leader of the revolution

nah

you're just a terrible person who can't control your worst impulses

can't or won't

just because I said nigger?

yup

its just a word nigger

lighten up

it only has as much power as you give it

but it shows who you are

you decide what it means

i decided you're not a thoughtful or respectful person

but how could you know that

you dont know me

...

stop trying to police language you hypocrite

are you liberal or not

who's policing language

you are

i just told you the impression you made on another person

we're both free to say whatever the fuck we want here

well your impression is wrong and I want it retracted

and you said something shitty that made another person know you're bad

but I'm not bad

.....which didn't free you to advance discourse

you're not the leading edge of anything

you're just shit

we're having a discourse right now

which I've been leading from the start

checkmate

Can't we all just get along?

And seize the means of production

explain why seizing the means of production is either necessary or effective

because otherwise capital brings more capital into itself, a runaway feedback effect that necessarily destroys society (including itself)

but are you saying you want unskilled laborers to take all the profits from a business that they put no investment into

an organization that was built from the ground up by its owner(s)

because if thats the case then entrepeurs wouldnt exist

businesses aren't especially built by their owners, that's the point

they're built by their employees

thats not true

notice that managers are also employees

owners literally don't do shit

I worked in a factory that was owned by a guy who started his business selling fruit out the back of his truck

and now he produces all the fruit bars and snacks in the country

he built that

another boss of mine ran a rental cabin business and he built every one of the cabins himself

and hes a millionaire now

so if ownership were to be assigned to someone else, would that be unfair

because then he wouldn't be compensated for all that work

if someone other than him were the owner, that would be unfair, huh?

thats what buyouts and mergers are, compensation

they should make the owner be whoever did the most work to make the company, huh

they dont seize their means of production, they pay them what their business is worth, which is usually int he tens of millions

so some unskilled labourer who walks in off the street should just get the company?

no whoever does the work to make the company

so the person who owns the company?

not who technically owns the resources needed

its like you're trying to fix something that isnt broken

i'm explaining to you in your own terms but you still don't understand

you think he deserves the company because he worked hard

what if someone else technically owned the food truck at first

no he owns it because it was his to begin with

then should all that hard work mean he just gets a minimal payment and no ownership

it's the same work

no because that would be stealing

which is what you're proposing

it's just a different set of rules

it's not "stealing" because it's not violating the rules

it's a different set of rules

where what you said should happen happens

people who work hard building businesses, get to share in the profit of those businsesses

i'm saying that should be the rule

generally it's now the exception

so you're saying if someone works at a company for a long time, and works hard, they should get a proportional share of the profits?

yeh, the same thing you just said

right, thats what I thought you believed

you said how awesome it was that someone's work resulted in them having control and sharing in profit

now let me explain to you why thats bullshit

but that's not how it actually works in this society-- actually owners can invest in stock and put in no work at all

i want society to work the way you falsely implied it does, that's all

when you agree to work for someone, you're forgoing a whole host of risks and challenges such as market stability and supply and demand of goods in exchange for an agreed upon and steady wage, you get paid what you're worth whether you're some bum off the street or a highly skilled intern or technician

the guy who owns the company generally built that company from the ground up or was there for most of its growth

hm? are you explaining to me how employment works? i know

yes so what are you not understanding

no, the guy who owns the company is generally a multinational, what planet do you live on

my boss was not a multinational

that's not the general rule

he lived across the street from me

what products did you sell

cabins

like rooms you could rent

were the things you sold *bought* from people who made their companies from the ground up

that we wheeled out to you

or was it just from sysco of course

no they were hand built by my bos

boss

do you think that's how most of the economy works

more or less yeah it is

what do you think about land ownership

supply and demand

i think land ownership is great

why

do you think everything should be publicly owned?

how the fuck does it fit into your scheme

do you have to make the land yourself

no what

Most things should be...

im just gonna let you explain your point of view so I wont interrupt

so doesn't everyone who made something themselves owe the land, without which they literally have nothing

owe?

you mean own the land?

no owe

the land provided all they have

they owe the land they did their work on?

yes

even if that were the case, so?

and the land their materials came from

without land there's nothing

and nobody made land

what are they going to do, throw money at the ground?

or else we could solve problems by going and making new planets

yes land is pre existing and cannot really be created so its a valuable commodity

acknowledge collective ownership of the land, and therefore of all its products

well we do create new land

the dutch are especially good at this

make new planets

I think there are enough planets already

Yeah and generally via collective ownership you can ensure people the right to live in a house

you mean like those awful state apartments they have all over russia from the soviet union?

the ones that devistated rural communities and have caused long lasting effects to this day, like russians not having any culture of land cultivation or groundskeeping because no one owned their own land which is why former communist countries in eastern europe are notorious for unkempt lawns and messy streets

It's also a question about budget. I think the government should also prioritise maintaning the house

huh? no i don't mean like that, i'm an anarchist

you just want the government to take care of every one of your needs?

like a parent?

But whilst we're bringing up examples; I've been to Cuba and their entitled houses aren't really that bad

yeah they are dude

theyre not even allowed internet in cuba

wtf are you talking about

people sell USB sticks with american tv

they have internet cards

yeah

I'd know

which are blackmarket

Not really, and if so the government doesn't seem to mind

Mostly because literally everyone there has it

But anyway I don't see how this is relevant

youve been to cuba and know less about it than I do

its just another example of a backwards and regressive communist government

and internet is illegal in private homes in cuba

I can't believe you're using cuba as a positive example here

I never said I was for prohibiting internet access, I should said that having a public option for housing would be beneficial

but we do

Said*

we have state housing

and we do it better than any communist country ever did

since we dont force you to live in them

theyre there if you need them

Which country do you live in?

new zealand

but you have the same in America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States

I agree with the fact that Cuba is definitely too authorian on that matter, but my point was a public option doesn't have to mean bad maintainance

and yet it always does

Not really though. Cubas boycott means they can't really prioritise anything, so I'm saying with a budget

it wouldn't be a problem

Not to mention Soviet Unions budget focused on war

yeah and plus with them being a socialist government, their public spending was catastrophic and that coupled with their insanely high military budget it caused the USSR to collapse

and thats what happens in socialist countries

And in the US

runaway public spending and debt based economies are unsustainable by nature

yes

I wouldn't exactly say USA is an amazing capitalist country

take a look at this; http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35073966

The reason why USSR had to focus on military was mostly due to ww2 and getting threats from everywhere

yeah it was a clash for global hegemony

which they ultimately lost because their ideology and economy was unsustainable

much the same can be said for the west, just we had a far more robust system in place

Which they mostly lost due to imperialism

one that actually incentivized people to work instead of having to coerce them

which is why no western nation has ever had to build walls to stop people from leaving

Which in it's self is betreyal to anything leftist

imperialism is the nature of civilization itself

its its natural conclusion

Imperialism is the nature of capitalism

power begets more power

Not civilisation

but the USSR was imperialist

in every way the USA was

You had primitive civilisations

without a state