Progressivism is a bourgeoisie conspiracy to destroy the left

[disillusioned]

The bourgeoisie realized at some point in the mid to late 20th century that they would not be able to keep the lie that is capitalism alive forever, so they came up with a diabolically brilliant plan: Take over the left, and then redefine it's goals to work IN FAVOR of the bourgeoisie rather than against it. That way it would literally not matter if the left won, because said "left" would not even be truly leftist anymore.

Think about it. Who actually benefits the most from most modern "leftist" ideas? In the past it use to be that leftist movements focused on things of actual importance. Now it's all about some stupid bullshit like open borders and stricter government regulations that does nothing except harm the working classes while making the bourgeoisie more rich. 90% of modern leftism involves bullshit that directly or indirectly harms the working class while also at the same time distracting that same working class away from things that are actually important. Identity politics, open borders, feminism, global warming etc those things are all bullshit and just make the elites more powerful.

And the insane thing is that it actually worked. 90% of modern "leftists" are too stupid to realize that they are actually just useful idiots for the bourgeoisie. The same bourgeoisie that they themselves are pretending to hate. The bourgeoisie has effectively succeeded in disarming the left by redefining leftist ideology in such a way as to make it work in it's own best interests. And the useful idiots are falling for it.

 

[Deleted member 6475]

 

[Uglybrazilian]

We need soviet union back

 

[user1728482728]

High iq thread

 

[Deleted member 7112]

View attachment 424961

i wish i was as high IQ as my Squid bro

 

[Deleted member 3702]

We need soviet union back

Death to communists

 

[ToursOverBoyo2020]

High IQ thread. The capitalist class has hijacked the leftist movement and turned it from a movement which was based around improving the lives of workers and ending wars to that of promoting degeneracy, feminism, the gay agenda, the tranny agenda, identiy politics bs .

 

[Patriot]

The bourgeoisie realized at some point in the mid to late 20th century that they would not be able to keep the lie that is capitalism alive forever, so they came up with a diabolically brilliant plan: Take over the left, and then redefine it's goals to work IN FAVOR of the bourgeoisie rather than against it. That way it would literally not matter if the left won, because said "left" would not even be truly leftist anymore.

Think about it. Who actually benefits the most from most modern "leftist" ideas? In the past it use to be that leftist movements focused on things of actual importance. Now it's all about some stupid bullshit like open borders and stricter government regulations that does nothing except harm the working classes while making the bourgeoisie more rich. 90% of modern leftism involves bullshit that directly or indirectly harms the working class while also at the same time distracting that same working class away from things that are actually important. Identity politics, open borders, feminism, global warming etc those things are all bullshit and just make the elites more powerful.

And the insane thing is that it actually worked. 90% of modern "leftists" are too stupid to realize that they are actually just useful idiots for the bourgeoisie. The same bourgeoisie that they themselves are pretending to hate. The bourgeoisie has effectively succeeded in disarming the left by redefining leftist ideology in such a way as to make it work in it's own best interests. And the useful idiots are falling for it.

Modern left often works in favour of state-megacorp aliance which is far away from free market capitalism and fair competition.If someone pursue high market regulations, high taxation, more government etc. It means that the potential competitiom from smaller enterprises is really in harsh postition. This is why the party that got most financial support in the US are Democrats, this is why huge corporations and super-elites are often in favour of leftie ideas.

High IQ thread. The capitalist class has hijacked the leftist movement and turned it from a movement which was based around improving the lives of workers and ending wars to that of promoting degeneracy, feminism, the gay agenda, the tranny agenda, identiy politics bs .

Nothing improved life of the workers more than free market capitalism, competition and rule of law.
This is why western, most capitalist states of the west in 19th century were the richest and this is the reason why people in other territories perished in pre-industiral, pre-capitalist conditions.

 

[Deleted member 5061]

The bourgeoisie realized at some point in the mid to late 20th century that they would not be able to keep the lie that is capitalism alive forever, so they came up with a diabolically brilliant plan: Take over the left, and then redefine it's goals to work IN FAVOR of the bourgeoisie rather than against it. That way it would literally not matter if the left won, because said "left" would not even be truly leftist anymore.

Think about it. Who actually benefits the most from most modern "leftist" ideas? In the past it use to be that leftist movements focused on things of actual importance. Now it's all about some stupid bullshit like open borders and stricter government regulations that does nothing except harm the working classes while making the bourgeoisie more rich. 90% of modern leftism involves bullshit that directly or indirectly harms the working class while also at the same time distracting that same working class away from things that are actually important. Identity politics, open borders, feminism, global warming etc those things are all bullshit and just make the elites more powerful.

And the insane thing is that it actually worked. 90% of modern "leftists" are too stupid to realize that they are actually just useful idiots for the bourgeoisie. The same bourgeoisie that they themselves are pretending to hate. The bourgeoisie has effectively succeeded in disarming the left by redefining leftist ideology in such a way as to make it work in it's own best interests. And the useful idiots are falling for it.

Water is wet. If you own both sides you cant lose. Same with almost every country and the only 2 major competing parties for power.

Dude ... come on now thats the simplest stuff to know. The idea of controlled opposition exists for centuries if not thousands of years now.

 

[Patriot]

The bourgeoisie realized at some point in the mid to late 20th century that they would not be able to keep the lie that is capitalism alive forever, so they came up with a diabolically brilliant plan: Take over the left, and then redefine it's goals to work IN FAVOR of the bourgeoisie rather than against it. That way it would literally not matter if the left won, because said "left" would not even be truly leftist anymore.

Think about it. Who actually benefits the most from most modern "leftist" ideas? In the past it use to be that leftist movements focused on things of actual importance. Now it's all about some stupid bullshit like open borders and stricter government regulations that does nothing except harm the working classes while making the bourgeoisie more rich. 90% of modern leftism involves bullshit that directly or indirectly harms the working class while also at the same time distracting that same working class away from things that are actually important. Identity politics, open borders, feminism, global warming etc those things are all bullshit and just make the elites more powerful.

And the insane thing is that it actually worked. 90% of modern "leftists" are too stupid to realize that they are actually just useful idiots for the bourgeoisie. The same bourgeoisie that they themselves are pretending to hate. The bourgeoisie has effectively succeeded in disarming the left by redefining leftist ideology in such a way as to make it work in it's own best interests. And the useful idiots are falling for it.

Another thing.
Who is a bourgeoisie?
If, according to Marx, this is any owner of the tools of production then the vast part of society are indeed part of the exploiting class. According to Marx any person who have any employees is actually thieving them. Even if we got, let's say, a architect's bureau where the main architect earns 10k$ per month and other architects 7k$ per month.
I would not say that masses of small factory owners, shopowners, and other
professionals with a small workplace are indeed the bourgeoisie, and they are people who feel the effects of fiat money and subsequent state regulations that favour big companies that are "big to fail". So the terminology and calling someone a bourgeoisie today is no more appropriate for the class conflict presented by the left. If the left side has an enemy, then the enemy is the super-elite of globalists and powerful bankers, then it turns out that they have the same enemy as a large part of the right. This is also the reason why a few years ago the head of the Russian Communist Party was in favour of returning to the gold standard they are people who feel the effects of fiat money and subsequent state regulations that favour big companies that are "big to fail". So the terminology and calling someone a bourgeoisie today is no more appropriate for the class conflict presented by the left. If the left side has an enemy, then the enemy is the super-elite of globalists and powerful bankers, then it turns out that they have the same enemy as a large part of the right. This is also the reason why a few years ago the head of the Russian Communist Party was in favour of returning to the gold standard.

 

[disillusioned]

Nothing improved life of the workers more than free market capitalism, competition and rule of law.
This is why western, most capitalist states of the west in 19th century were the richest and this is the reason why people in other territories perished in pre-industiral, pre-capitalist conditions.

Working conditions and quality of life for the 19th century working class was literally hell on earth...

 

[Patriot]

Working conditions and quality of life for the 19th century working class was literally hell on earth...

Firstly we shall answer the question: where and in what year?
Was this year 1899 in Berlin or 1830 in London?
Before the era of capitalism, the era of industrialization, masses of people lived in the countryside, where there was no medicine, people were often malnourished and could die for 30 due to tooth infections. Was a life of a factory worker who used to work 12 hours a day, 6 days peer week, in London in 1830 really such a terrible alternative? Besides, no one forced these people to migrate to cities. I do not deny terrible health and sanitary conditions in the first half of the 19th century. I am just saying that if it were not for the dynamism of economic processes and, consequently, the development of technology, people would still live in poor, poor villages. Data on nutrition, quality of life, and education indicate that the fate of the working class in the UK has improved decade after decade. And with fully private food production and almost entirely private education system.

 

[disillusioned]

Was a life of a factory worker who used to work 12 hours a day, 6 days peer week, in London in 1830 really such a terrible alternative?

yes

 

[Patriot]

yes

Well, if it would be, people would not went for it.
I assume it could be worse for many, but not super-terrible as an alternative.
Life was generally not easy 150 years ago.

 

[disillusioned]

Well, if it would be, people would not went for it.

 

[Deleted member 1751]

Yo keep writing essays

 

[disillusioned]

Would like to add that there isn't actually any such thing as the "left" in the western world either. 90% of these so called leftists are just rich snobby whites advocating for neo-liberal economics and feminism/sjw horseshit, or whiny minorities that want handouts. Actual socialism is dead.

 

[Danish_Retard]

The bourgeoisie realized at some point in the mid to late 20th century that they would not be able to keep the lie that is capitalism alive forever, so they came up with a diabolically brilliant plan: Take over the left, and then redefine it's goals to work IN FAVOR of the bourgeoisie rather than against it. That way it would literally not matter if the left won, because said "left" would not even be truly leftist anymore.

Think about it. Who actually benefits the most from most modern "leftist" ideas? In the past it use to be that leftist movements focused on things of actual importance. Now it's all about some stupid bullshit like open borders and stricter government regulations that does nothing except harm the working classes while making the bourgeoisie more rich. 90% of modern leftism involves bullshit that directly or indirectly harms the working class while also at the same time distracting that same working class away from things that are actually important. Identity politics, open borders, feminism, global warming etc those things are all bullshit and just make the elites more powerful.

And the insane thing is that it actually worked. 90% of modern "leftists" are too stupid to realize that they are actually just useful idiots for the bourgeoisie. The same bourgeoisie that they themselves are pretending to hate. The bourgeoisie has effectively succeeded in disarming the left by redefining leftist ideology in such a way as to make it work in it's own best interests. And the useful idiots are falling for it.

This unironically.

 

[Patriot]

Would like to add that there isn't actually any such thing as the "left" in the western world either. 90% of these so called leftists are just rich snobby whites advocating for neo-liberal economics and feminism/sjw horseshit, or whiny minorities that want handouts. Actual socialism is dead.

Well this is the issue presented from the leftie perspective I assume.
Lew "Trotsky" Bronstein would say that "actual socialism" died with rise of stalinist USSR etc.
Does it mean Stalin was a right-winger? Of course it does not.
I do not think one has to be a true socialist to be a leftie.
I consider a vast spectrum of social progressivist to be leftie despite their non-marxists views on many economical issues like stock market etc. Champagne socialists do exist, same like SJW and other people who rather on the left site within ideological spectrum. Leftism is older than Marx himsellf. It is dated back to French revolution and even among that time it had many different approaches to how the world should be organised, and you know it. I do not think we should reduce the "left" just to the followers of "actual socialism".

 

[Subhuman Philtrum]

finally I'm seeing people that understand that immigration literally depresses wages apart from the top 1% who gain from it
It's so easy to understand just draw a demand and supply curve. Economics should be made compulsory at every level of education, this shit can't run any longer we keep getting poorer because of this shit, not only first world countries but the countries in which the immigrants are from are left poorer because the immigrants are the most productive members of the workforce usually. Even though immigrants become richer than they would have been they usually lead worse lives because of social exclusion and high prices on minimum wage so the increase in wealth they get is small, and they leave their families and communities and their homes and put their lives in danger just to be an outcast in a so called "inclusive" society jfl i'm done with open border "let them all in" believers

 

[Deleted member 2597]

finally I'm seeing people that understand that immigration literally depresses wages apart from the top 1% who gain from it
It's so easy to understand just draw a demand and supply curve. Economics should be made compulsory at every level of education, this shit can't run any longer we keep getting poorer because of this shit, not only first world countries but the countries in which the immigrants are from are left poorer because the immigrants are the most productive members of the workforce usually. Even though immigrants become richer than they would have been they usually lead worse lives because of social exclusion and high prices on minimum wage so the increase in wealth they get is small, and they leave their families and communities and their homes and put their lives in danger just to be an outcast in a so called "inclusive" society jfl i'm done with open border "let them all in" believers

Fucking legit I don't know why my parents chose go immigrate they would've led a better life if they stayed in their native country.

 

[Subhuman Philtrum]

Fucking legit I don't know why my parents chose go immigrate they would've led a better life if they stayed in their native country.

same I wouldn't have been lonely my whole life

 

[Deleted member 6856]

mogged

 

[Deleted member 2597]

same I wouldn't have been lonely my whole life

Exactly they think their children will lead better lifes, but their social status ranks in the west and their children have a very high chance of ending up as failures due to exclusion due to ethnicity and end up falling for the fake left meme rhetoric.

 

[Deleted member 2205]

Capitalism is cucked

 

[oatmeal]

@disillusioned
are you a marxist-leninist?

 

[disillusioned]

@disillusioned
are you a marxist-leninist?

I have an identity crisis in regards to ideology. I largely agree with the economic views of Marx but fucking hate just about everything leftist believe in regards to social issues. It also doesn't help that the socialist movement in the west has gotten raped by sjw faggots. Basically I'm a "conservative socialist" if that makes sense.

 

[Aesthetics_III]

Basically I'm a "national socialist"

 

[oatmeal]

I have an identity crisis in regards to ideology. I largely agree with the economic views of Marx but fucking hate just about everything leftist believe in regards to social issues. It also doesn't help that the socialist movement in the west has gotten raped by sjw faggots. Basically I'm a "conservative socialist" if that makes sense.

yeah i see ya there, i wouldn't want to be associated with LARPy college kids either

im currently reading capital rn

i guess you could look into george sorel or something

 

[disillusioned]

"basically I'm a national socialist"

No. Fascism is not socialism, even though the movement featured many ex-socialists. Fascism does not seek to end exploitation of labor like socialism does.

 

[wannabenormie]

I have an identity crisis in regards to ideology. I largely agree with the economic views of Marx but fucking hate just about everything leftist believe in regards to social issues.

Can you elab on what economic views of Marx you agree with?

 

[disillusioned]

Can you elab on what economic views of Marx you agree with?

5 major reasons:

The crisis of overproduction:

Capitalism is ultimately unsustainable because the basic premise of it doesn't make sense as a result of the crisis of overproduction. The crisis of overproduction is basically the fact that capitalism slowly destroys it's own purpose for existing over time by reducing the number of capitalists competing with each other over time. It basically works like this:

1. A bunch of capitalists compete on the free market by producing stuff.

2. Because absolutely perfect information on supply and demand don't exist you end up with overproduction, or that is you end up with more being produced than what is exactly needed.

3. Then because of said oversupply some capitalist will fail to sell their stuff causing them to go bankrupt. This reduces the number of competitors on the market while also temporarily causing a recession.

4. This process repeats over and over, and with each overproduction crisis/recession the total number of competing capitalists is reduced a bit more each time. This continues until after a while you only have a small number of giga-capitalists who control everything. Like we currently do today. There use to be alternatives to PCs many decades ago for example, but now everything is just Windows based with maybe a tiny number of Macs and Linux computers here and there.

5. This means capitalism is by design self-defeating, because by design it destroys it's own reason for existing (competition between capitalists) by always leading to a scenario where capitalists don't actually need to compete with each other.

It's parasitic:

Requires little explanation tbh. The capitalist can get rich massively out of proportion to his own actual contribution to the economic process simply by the merit of owning the means of production.

Example:

1. Capitalist owns a factory.
2. Factory has a profit of 1000$
3. Capitalist hires 10 workers and pays them 10$ for their work, and pockets the remaining 900$ to himself.

This is exploitation, because even though the capitalist also has to do some work running the factory in the end there is no true relationship between the amount of money he makes and his actual value to the factory. His wealth can basically just scale upwards infinitely insofar as profits grow, where as this does not hold true for his workers. This means capitalism is inherently unfair as it's designed to benefit the capitalist only.

It doesn't factor in cultural factors or nepotism:

Capitalism assumes people will always look past things like family, ethnicity, race religion in wanting to obtain profit. This is false. People in the real world will discriminate all the time even if it's not good for them profit wise. And because of the crisis of overproduction this won't cause them to be outcompeted by more open minded people over time since they will eventually face little competition anyway.

It encourages self-destruction migration policy:

Just look at modern mass immigration. Who do you think benefits from importing all this third world slave labor?

It leads to moral rot:

Modern society is low T and soy largely in part because of rampant consumerism and materialism.

 

[wannabenormie]

@disillusioned interesting points, below is how I address them

The crisis of overproduction:
[...]
3. Then because of said oversupply some capitalist will fail to sell their stuff causing them to go bankrupt. This reduces the number of competitors on the market while also temporarily causing a recession.

I believe first major point where you are wrong is this one.
If I remember correctly there was never any recession (at least in history of the United States, I pick this country as I have some basic knowledge about its economic history) that resulted purely from embracing capitalist system.
On the contrary - it was more a result of government intervention into monetary affairs.
Basically it looks like this:
1. In normal situation to create a business you either have to go with your own capital or get loan from the bank
2. To get loan from the bank in standard situation you should prepare suitable business plan for the bank to get it approved - if this is shit you probably won't go through in normal scenario
3. In normal scenario banks have limited amount of money they can lend - thus they are very picky about who they will give a business loan.
Without going into the details - this is based partly on their observation of how much money people are actually putting in investments and also rate rate of money they lend to rate of money they keep.
As for investments - if times are tough for the people - lower amount of money goes into investments and this is also a signal for the banks to be more sharp with loans.
4. With monetary intervention and allowing lower rates - thus giving banks more money there is more money for loans.
This results in banks criteria for loans being lower and people getting wrong signal that this may be right moment to invest.
5. All sorts of business spring up because money is easy to get and government basically pumped it.
6. This however comes to an end when faced with actual market situation and after spoon feeding is over there is recession.
Recession in fact is cleansing process and shows which businesses actually should exist (there is demand for them) vs which are results of pump action.

The crisis of overproduction:
[...]

4. This process repeats over and over, and with each overproduction crisis/recession the total number of competing capitalists is reduced a bit more each time. This continues until after a while you only have a small number of giga-capitalists who control everything. Like we currently do today. There use to be alternatives to PCs many decades ago for example, but now everything is just Windows based with maybe a tiny number of Macs and Linux computers here and there.

Point I would like to take is following - I don't use Google because I know nothing of alternatives but because the product is so good that it rarely gives me a reason to look for something else. Thus I don't know if Google being big company is something bad there.
The same can be applied to Windows/Macs/Linux - they all have their pros/cons and this is probable reason why they are the ones that stand.

It's parasitic:

What you wrote about stuffing 900$ to owner's pocket is indeed true.
Capitalism however enables another owner to pop up and give a bit higher wages to workers so he will end up with 800$ and so on, and so on.
You can also wonder if situation would be better if the owner did not show up and people were unemployed or everyone was hired for $10.
Capitalism is also quite motivational as it gives you the chance of being this owner stuffing his pockets.

It doesn't factor is cultural factors or nepotism:

I believe you are wrong in here (see my response to point 1.3).
I don't really know about cultural factors but take a look at it this way:
Let's assume there are two small shops for a small district in American city.
One of the owners is known racist while the other doesn't really care.
Him being racist could have the effect of people socially shaming him etc, but also could lead to a situation where his market niche would be white supremacist when everyone who would be mad at him would shop with the second owner.
As for nepotism - I don't really mind, its owner's money in the end and if he decides to risk his product performance by hiring someone incompetent then result is on him.

Modern society is low T and soy largely in part because of rampant consumerism and materialism.

I believe competition is great as far as high T like behavior goes.
What you mention could actually be result of cultural socialism but I guess this is more of a political than economical topic.