Message from @Kytzche
Discord ID: 608703868695609357
Media has always been used for political messaging
From Plato’s Republic
yea ik
im gonna shut it down
like the jews do to goys
Go ahead
I honestly would start laughing if you did
blows up media studio
taliban taught me valuable skills
wheres the ira when you need them
imagine the public if an african myth was cartoonized with whites
<:Soyboy:552587212215156746>
African Myth is hard to put on screen
Because there are more variations of a tale than a Greek Legend
mhm
@Ned Kelly
Zurin Arctus 😂
And they got deep-throated by Numidium
Yes
@Cúchulainn what of the deep-elves?
@Deleted User I guess I was a little harsh at your position. I Apologize, I do have areas where I do agree with you in many places, but race and stuff is a little too much for me. For me whether it's whiteness or blackness. Don't matter much to me. Only the content of character, seems more important to me, all the rest is secondary.
I watched an old video, of a discussion with Richard Spencer. I don't think an Ethnostate is the solution you would want, not to mention I don't believe it can succeed. Not in a democratic standpoint or even if aimed to be a dictatorship. I believe it will be against freedom which most of the alt-right looks up to.
The end result would practically be something even Richard Spencer would not be able to control. It's too vague and has Nietzschean element to it. For struggle for power and dominance. Rather than the rule of law.
Whether whites have a distinctive identity is also questionable to me and to my way of thinking.
Black Identity is also a manufactured one, not necessarily a distinct one. You have exceptions that go against the rule like Malcolm X. Intelligent individuals who change history for the better.
Same for many whites too.
So What I mean to say is, I don't have particular distinction to make, when it comes to necessarily the nature of human beings.
The same nature and nurture question. I don't understand the co-relation of how much your social conditions changes you, or how much you are different internally.
I think it differs person to person not just race.
At least that's what I think.
@Ned Kelly I yesterday listened to the audiobook up till chapter 4 and a little beginning of chapter 5. It did encompass I lot of things we were discussing, and made aware of many things, I wasn't aware of, especially to the scale of exploitation done by Capitalism. I am mostly impressed by the study done by Peter Kropotkin. But I did have a few disagreements. I wouldn't have them otherwise, if I weren't influenced by Ayn Rand.
Now towards collectivism, I have been mostly opposed to. Even the ideas of Kropotkin did challenge lot of my fundamental premises. I have to admit and he was right on mostly, on what he said.
I do agree we function fundamentally collectively, and interests should focus on the all, rather than a few.
Well but there is a distinction, I would like to make in people. The idea of collective care and collective mode of operation is that.
Because this is anracho communism, it's even more difficult to argue and the idea of collective action considered, without the help of the state.
Ahh it will get too long.
It's easy to explain collective action in an example of natural disaster, but difficult to explain in a natural mode of operation.
And here I wanted to bring a bit of philosophy, but again it'll get too long.
Difference in choice, and difference effort, is one.
The other the distribution of wealth, like mentioned bare necessities be provided to all.
Not to forget when Lenin or Stalin tried to achieve redistribution. The results were a lack of production of goods. More mouths to feed and less to work. It also destroys the incentive structure, on wanting to do work. I know Kropotkin pointed out, when taken out of the struggle of necessity, great men or of ability like scientists, etc can achieve great things and can benefit us more collectively in the long run. But do note that's an exception.
Generally, majority wants to wants minimum toil for the maximum gain. Without knowing the price it would have.
The industrialist does exploit, but does give something in return, it isn't just based on complete exhaustion of the worker, though this may be disputable, as you can say not all employers may the same. Not all products are the same even and the profit gained from it which can be redistributed.
This is going to be a pretty complex discussion. I'd be willing to do more, when I have organized my thoughts in a more better manner. Right now they are too irregular for a proper discussion.
Do share your thoughts, if interested
One moment
Lenin has quoted himself by calling the Soviet Union State Capitalist in the third internationale
Communism was never achieved by the Soviet Union due to the corruption and incompetence of the Bolshevik movement to gain any traction that wouldn't lead into an authoritarian state
Keep in mind this book was written in *1892*
Before the Soviet failure and the betrayal of the revolution by the greedy
People want their labor to be worth something
and giving the power to determine the worth and value of everything a worker does can be very frustrating and convoluted
Off topic for a second, but Kropotkin was born into Russian nobility but had denounced his claim to work on social justice and equality of the workers in Europe.
Yes, I read a few portions, of when he exiled to Siberia and when he returned to Russia to see Communism to be in quite in mess. Far from what he envisioned it to be.
Quite depressing
Yes, a pretty sad story.
The closest he had to a movement was the Black Army in Ukraine
but uh
they may or may not have killed a lot of Russian Peasants or it could be Bolshevik propaganda
Nestor was the "leader" of the anarcho-communist movement and had lead to the front of the war against the White Army and later the Red Army when they were threatening the Free State
Ok back to the discussion at hand, the problem with collectivization is that it implies that the workers themselves must be united in a cause to fight against their oppressors, being bourgeoise, but considering the sheer amount of propaganda and sentiment these days there aren't many anarcho-communes in the Western World
People have relied on their state so long that if it ever collapsed or went into turmoil, they would lose themselves and go to who ever the closest "person of power" is. For example, Somalia there were several movements of non western funded organizations that are "liberal" by nature who wish to restore the Somalian Republic before the invasions and massive conflicts started in the region by the Warlords and Ethiopians. Some of these movements managed to work together to stop illegal fishing off the shores of Somalia. Other movements in the former nation forced themselves in Somaliland to get away from the brutal political and hellish warfare from the rest of the country....
People will fight and die for causes they don't understand and hopefully will gain independence soon enough from their oppressors. The forever changing chain of Thesis V Anti-Thesis must end soon before it quite literally destroys the world entirely. The only way to accomplish such, is to destroy all hieratical systems, all forms of government, the abolishment of the self serving capitalist system, and the dismantling of leaders as we know it...
Hmm the picture you point, is quite a grim one. I hope it leads to a good resolution. It's like burning the old order, for a whole new one entirely.
If the working class people do rise up, against the ruling class. Eventually overthrow them. Is there a guarantee of a peaceful classless society that Marx envisioned? Or will we be constantly be trapped in an endless cycle of class struggle. One replacing the other.
Also from the capitalist mindset I am from I generally don't believe so strongly in class antagonisms. If someone ends up with more wealth whether through luck or effort. The point that you become the ruling class may not always be true. That might not necessarily exploit the worker.
Would revolution always be necessary in such cases?
I know in some cases where it absolutely is. In our current age it definitely is. But in certain circumstances Like I pointed out before, would there always be the case of exploitation. Would there ever be cases, where we might cooperate together for more gain with our own free will. Rather than exploiting each other.