Are Trumpards the new SJW? They use the same identity politics:
youtube.com
instead of
>muh black peypole
we get
>muh white peypole
instead of
>muh gay pride
we get
>muh hetero pride
>This is how right wing SJW propaganda works
youtube.com
>This is how the right wing SJW leader loooves his "arch nemesis" and the establishment
youtube.com
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
busin.biz
theanarchistlibrary.org
archive.org
constitution.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Right wing sjw is redundant.
Identity politics is inherently right wing.
Go back, dont let your board die
>new
Idpol has been the cornerstone of both major American political parties since the 1990's when any discussion on labor or economics died.
Why are all these commies suddenly coming out of the woodwork? Did the alt-right encourage them? Is this just a meme?
This is nothing new.
>Muh working class
>muh self-serving rich people
>muh wealth inequality
This is all that socialists base their world view on. Sad!
Its called late stage capitalism.
Class consciousness rises.
>Identity politics is inherently right wing.
I agree.
>muh racial purity
>muh white genocide
>muh rapefugees
This is what all aut-rightists base their worldview on. Sad!
We've always been here. The alt-right's screeching just drowned us out for a little while.
Reddit and leftypol
>socialists can't even refute that their ideology is based on very few viewpoints and all they can do is straw man their opponents
Autism.
>reddit
>not full of liberals
Kek
truth, but gotta open some Sup Forums eyes here, comrade
woah OP you really made me think
SAGE for you madjarska pizdo
>this level of cognitive dissonance
>muh class struggle
>Numerous examples throughout history of people uniting regardless of class to take out a common enemy
>Muh economics
>t. People that haven't even learned basic economics
>The Bourgeoisie is working in rational self interest
>So we should kill them and steal their stuff
>Immigration is bad
>But our ideology is completely cosmopolitan
>Charity is bad
>The only way giving stuff is good is if we force you or we kill you and steal your shit
Please stop shitting up the board with your stupid generals, there is 3 of these threads up at any given time. You can shit up the board with unique topics of discussion, but this is just annoying.
Fucking moderate edgelords
Ctr its futile youre jewish money wont do the tricks commie filth
>>So we should kill them and steal their stuff
You realize that class society can only exist because of economic exploitation of the waged class, correct? From the worker's POV it is taking back shit that was taken from him.
>"How dare you point out that I missed the obvious opportunity to refute your comment by just giving a few additional viewpoints that socialists base their world view on."
Step up Chromosome Boy.
It seems to me that Trump loves the Clintons. Am I mistaken? Was he just pretending to play golf with Bill for decades?
Really makes you think about your allegiances.
>Well if we call it our stuff despite entering a voluntary contract in which we said it was there stuff, it is our stuff so it is okay to kill them and ste- I mean take it back
>The only way giving stuff is good is if we force you or we kill you and steal your shit
feudalism and capitalism
>voluntary
you could just starve to death if you choose
>I have no idea where profit comes from
>I tell others to take an econ 101 class
wew
So worker B gets paid 10 dollars a day, and he creates 100 dollars worth products. Do you have a hunch where the 90 dollar goes?
Can you disprove the fact that their are class divisions?
Can you disprove that different classes will act according to their interests?
Can you disprove that there exists wealth inequality?
What is there to refute in your post exactly?
Another leftist movement wasn't real socialism, I see.
I think I solved "not real socialism" paradox.
In capitalist structure when something fails, it fails on the lowest block of the production chain possible. When communism fails the problem is elevated on someone else's shoulders until it kills the entire state with millions of casualties, and socialists declare it wasn't real socialism.
---- Now that I think about it, marxists present the strongest argument against socialism when they say corporations shouldn't be bailed out without even realising it----
What do you think, /pol?
Into renting the means of production built by someone far more intelligent than him.
kys and always sage.
...
>far more intelligent
intelligence has very little to do with buying stock user
Melania Trump Outlines Plan To Tackle Social Media Bullying
youtube.com
CONFIRMED FOR IDENTITY POLITICS
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Yes you can, or you could have a subsistence farm which is surprisingly easy.
>I read marx once therefor I must be an expert
Worker B uses a machine bought by Owner B. Worker B is able to make substantially more using this machine and enters a contract with Owner B. He does this, then Owner B takes the 90 dollars stipulated by the contract and pays Worker B 10 dollars. Worker B has an autistic shitfit and demands that Owner B give him all 100 dollars. Owner B says that the machine he operated was purchased by him and that the contract even stipulated how much he would be payed. Worker B yells nuh-uh that belongs to the workers now and then takes control of everything and proceeds to horribly mismanage it.
>t. hasn't read Marx
At least I'm getting my dicked sucked unlike the communist at the bottom.
it's a very naive outlook on life to think we are in a meritocracy
Neither did you. I read confessions of anons on 2ch who did read it (as well as Engel's writings), they said the book is the biggest anti-communist argument there exists, it turns thinking people into anarchists.
>Can you disprove the fact that there are class divisions?
I'm not trying to.
>Can you disprove the fact that there are class divisions?
So what?
>Can you disprove that there exists wealth inequality?
Never said there isn't.
>What is there to refute in your post exactly?
That communists only base their ideology of-of 3 topics.
>At least I'm getting my dicked sucked unlike the communist at the bottom.
classcuck confirmed
I think the most annoying thing about communists is they're invariably murderous tyrants or losers who think they should be rewarded solely for their rightthink.
The smugness and inability to reason outside of quoting their holy books written by their dear leders makes it even worse.
Don't forget to sage.
Owner B bought that machine from Owner A who only "owns" that machine because of arbitrary property rights. He takes the majority of the profit from selling the machine despite the fact that he did not labor to create the machine. He only gives a pittance of the profit to Workers A, C, and D, and blames their economic conditions on them being lazy.
When Workers A, B, C, and D organize a union to strike for better wages and conditions, Owner A has an autistic shitfit and demands the state enforce his "rights" by sending in the police to violently suppress the striking workers.
Buttmad peasant with no marketable skills outside of commieshilling confirmed.
Try going to a communist country sometime. The people I know who escaped one give it pretty bad reviews.
>second hand sources
think for yourself why don't you.
busin.biz
But if anarchism really is more your style, have at it
theanarchistlibrary.org
They're not. They're reactionaries.
This would be akin to claiming
>ARE SOCIALISTS THE NEW NAZIS? THEY BOTH BELIEVE IN COLLECTIVISM. KINDA.
He can pay for it himself. Killing thieves should be legal in all circumstances. Dressing your bullshit up with a hammer and sickle doesn't change shit.
>Yes you can, or you could have a subsistence farm which is surprisingly easy.
You still need to buy land,which means you must work beforehand to get capital, this does not solve exploitation
So we should all become farmers to end exploitaiton?
Worker B uses a machine bought by Owner B. Worker B is able to make substantially more using this machine and enters a contract with Owner B. He does this, then Owner B takes the 90 dollars stipulated by the contract and pays Worker B 10 dollars. Worker B has an autistic shitfit and demands that Owner B give him all 100 dollars. Owner B says that the machine he operated was purchased by him and that the contract even stipulated how much he would be payed. Worker B yells nuh-uh that belongs to the workers now and then takes control of everything and proceeds to horribly mismanage it.
How did Owner B get the machine?
He bought it from a capitalist who got the machine from the workers who made it with tools that the capitalist bought from other capitalist who got it again from workers.
If you trace anything back you will se it was made by workers and that it was just "stolen" by the capitalist.
>this is how delusional leftists are
Just proves what mentally defective, useless failures leftists are.
If you don't have a well paid job by the age of 25 and are conservative, you are a failure.
>b-but i'm special!
No you're not. You are the failure at Burger King who i tell to get my fucking food.
>communist holy books
Wew, you sure read a lot, friend. Teach me.
>only 17% of Russians think the breakup of the soviet union was a good thing
>autistic screeching
not an argument
>tfw leftypol is trying to shill their anti-capitalist bullshit on Sup Forums
>While the majority of Sup Forums realizes that all of their opposing degenerates would simply fucking starve off if the government wasn't propping them up
How can I add more buzzwords?
He can only pay for it because he was born into a class that protects their interests.
I do agree thieves should be killed. So when the parasitic cunts who "own" the factories claim that they deserve the value of their workers labors dress up their theft as hard work, ask them: "Whose?"
Racism is a big problem because it is often used to justify curtailing the civil rights of certain groups of people, that are often lazily classified. "Black" and "White" are actually not races at all. They're social constructs. There is no "White" race and there is no "Black" race. There are people popularly herded into those categories, but those categories have nothing to do with DNA, ancestry, culture, or anything that we'd traditionally define as a "race." Case in point: In the early 1900s, there were heated debates in congress over which races would be considered "white" and which would be considered "colored." For a few years, Latino people were considered "white," until that ruling was repealed. There were even debates over whether or not the Irish should be considered white.
They didn't know about DNA. They didn't have IQ tests. It was all created as a means to determine which people were treated like second-class citizens. If you go to Africa, there is zero concept of a "black" race. Ethiopians don't consider themselves to be the same race as South Africans. Kenyans don't consider themselves to be the same race as Nigerians. People often ask why white people aren't allowed to have cultural pride. But they do. My city has German and Polish heritage festivals every year. And there's this little national holiday called Saint Patrick's Day. "White" is not a race. "White" is not a culture. German, Polish, Slavic, Irish, those are races, & those are freely celebrated.
>Owner B bought that machine from Owner A who only "owns" that machine because of arbitrary property rights.
>I use money which I earned in order to purchase something and expect this thing to belong to me, but this is arbitrary compared to everyone getting stuff for reasons.
>He takes the majority of the profit from selling the machine despite the fact that he did not labor to create the machine
Yes and? He spent the money to buy it, his money. He could have chosen to be a worker with relatively little economic risk, but he took a risk and was entrepreneurial.
>He only gives a pittance of the profit to Workers A, C, and D, and blames their economic conditions on them being lazy.
A neat little strawman. He gives them what was stipulated in the contract. And I personally don't call workers "lazy" for not being factory owners. They are working as well, and I think more people should take risks and try to become the guy in the top hat themselves.
>When Workers A, B, C, and D organize a union to strike for better wages and conditions, Owner A has an autistic shitfit and demands the state enforce his "rights" by sending in the police to violently suppress the striking workers.
The right to organize unions is a crucial fundamental right; however, going out and demanding that rich people be shot and destroying property is not a right.
If government is institute of oppression, then the less government the less oppression, right?
According to socialists they need to increase government to epic proportions, and then it will kindly dismantle itself and communism happens. The fact that this didn't once happen in history of socialist countries and socialists aren't obsessed with answering this question shows you their true colors.
"But in his last edition, Orwell turned his article to critique leftist club instead. He noticed that socialists are never workers - they are from, upper middle-class and are full of enmity towards the poor. Their true motivation is hatred of the rich, and everyone who has more than them is rich. Right... " - Jordan Peterson.
This description of socialism is accurate. "Socialists" don't see themselves a future workers of the socialist state, but as the new party aristocracy. When you notice that, you will gain immunity to socialism forever.
ok, so let's name our owner mr. Trump
>inherits millions of dollars
>buys hotels
>mexican immigrants work in those hotels, underpaid
>Trump gets extra profit
>mexicans get extra-exploitation
B-but it's all okay, because he bought it legally!
I don't think you understand how systemic critique works. Just because this is legal or moral today, most of humanity despises this shit. If I work in a hotel with 10 other workers I want the total worth of my work and no BS about muh benevolent owner and the contract (I'm forced into).
Socialists and SJW's are one in same these days.
Go to any socialist forum and they freak out like babies over the most insignificant "ablelist" or "racist" language.
One guy got mad at me for using the word idiot.
>implying it's worth wasting effort in arguing with a cultist who belives in a fat freemason jew's ideology that has lead to the death and violent oppression of millions
So the repeated, abject failure of every communist country is the fault of porky and kulaks and no change needs to be made to Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot approaches?
(((Pew)))
wew
Have some sage and a free helicopter ride.
organized raid from reddit and /leftypol/
or more succinctly, an organized raid from reddit
>Yes and? He spent the money to buy it, his money. He could have chosen to be a worker with relatively little economic risk, but he took a risk and was entrepreneurial.
Because Buffet, the Koch brothers, Soros and the other wealthiest members of our planet sure took a risk by being born into absurd amounts of wealth right? Not to mention that the wealth they have was created by the labor countless people around the world.
>A neat little strawman. He gives them what was stipulated in the contract. And I personally don't call workers "lazy" for not being factory owners. They are working as well, and I think more people should take risks and try to become the guy in the top hat themselves.
Simply because it's in a contract does not mean that it is a fair, or even livable wage. Workers around the world (in India and China especially) are living on starvation wages, all sanctioned and supported by their respective governments.
>The right to organize unions is a crucial fundamental right; however, going out and demanding that rich people be shot and destroying property is not a right.
Then why has there always existed a concerted effort by both capitalists and the state to break up unions and other forms of organized labor? If you need an example just look at the history of Harlan county, or apply for a job at retail; watch the propaganda they feed their workers about the "evils of unions".
>socialists
What do you mean by that word? In Europe it's social democrats, and neo-liberals. In the US there are no mainstream socialists (Bernie was a surprising exception) only liberals.
How's it different in aut-right circles? If you even dare suggesting that systemic crises for instance aren't due to the evil Jewish conspiracy but the contradictions of capitalism, you get babbies freaking out at you too, bans, etc.
>If government is institute of oppression, then the less government the less oppression, right?
not at all. most governments don't represent the people. only when the people actually have credible control over their government would its actions not cause oppression.
constitution.org
On the contrary, most modern socialists aim to use cooperatives as the basis of the any new socialist economy.
youtube.com
>You still need to buy land,which means you must work beforehand to get capital, this does not solve exploitation
Of course you must work until you have earned enough money to buy the land from somebody. It makes sense that someone owning land would expect compensation. However, if you believe that you can work your entire life as a subsistence farmer; you should be fully capable to survive working for a short period of time in a factory, farm, etc.
>So we should all become farmers to end exploitaiton?
Well isn't that the grand plan of socialism? Everyone gets the sweat of their brow, every farmer has a plow. No capitalism is about specialization. A system in which people specialize is much more efficient.
>How did Owner B get the machine?
He bought it
>He bought it
quit copying me
>He bought it from a capitalist who got the machine from the workers who made it with tools that the capitalist bought from other capitalist who got it again from workers.
You assume that somehow the classes are static. I can move from worker to owner. I work for enough money as a worker, I invest in a tractor and some land, I employ people to work that land, and now I am the evil capitalist. And again these workers entered voluntary contracts, they agreed to giving their labor in exchange for a wage and a base in which they can more efficiently perform their labor.
>not at all.
You are directly contradictiong marxism. You can't evade inconvenient questions by switching your beliefs mid-conversation.
>On the contrary, most modern socialists aim to use cooperatives as the basis of the any new socialist economy.
More power to them, I hope they succeed in the free market and prove their theory right. And no, I am not giving them my taxes, or allowing diversity comissars decide that my children are white and therefore should be discriminated against.
>How's it different in aut-right circles?
I thought about it, and settled on the fact that with right-wingers my country will still be white in a hundred years.
I take my wages and build a business. How am I not entitled to ownership of said business? How are thieves trying to steal it not justified in taking buckshot to the face?
Who really is the parasite, hmm? The man who built a business with his wages or the people trying to steal it?
Nobody cares about your worthless NEET ass' critical analysis. Kys or get a job.
>my country will still be white
>I like exploitation when a white guy does it to me
classcuck idpol detected
>The man who built a business with his wages or the people trying to steal it?
LEL, Trump inherited the fucking money, went bankrupt like 4 times, and scammed thousands out of their money through shit like Trump University.
Also pic very related.
>You are directly contradictiong marxism. You can't evade inconvenient questions by switching your beliefs mid-conversation.
I never said I was a marxist. I agree with his analysis of capitalism, but I can disagree with his approach to socialism.
>And no, I am not giving them my taxes
You already give porky and his corporations your taxes.
>allowing diversity comissars decide that my children are white and therefore should be discriminated against.
are you saying people don't have the right to discriminate against others on their own PRIVATE PROPERTY?! for shame user.
the alt-left is sick in the head
>I like exploitation when a white guy does it to me
No, but I prefer exploitation by a guy with closest genes to me. And no, socialism doesn't stop oppression it exacerbates it. If you want to disprove me you'll have to fix my country, because Belarus is the most socialist country in Europe right now.
>"alt-left"
>posts a pic of a bunch of liberals
He was already a billionaire when he inherited the money but nice tired accusation retard.
>hey guys I agree with everything the left believes on social issues but I don't want to be killed by muslims and taxed to death
Reeeeeee get out of my far right
>No, but I prefer exploitation by a guy with closest genes to me.
Spooky af
Fuck off reddit and /leftypol/ kikes.
>alt-left
We don't call ourselves that. We are anarchists, communists, marxists, Leninists, etc. We don't need idiotic names for ourselves when we have a 100 years old political movement.
>Belarus is the most socialist country in Europe right now
So the means of production are owned by the workers? Or do you mean "socialist" in the "neo-liberals calling themselves socialist" way?
youtube.com
>Because Buffet, the Koch brothers, Soros and the other wealthiest members of our planet sure took a risk by being born into absurd amounts of wealth right? Not to mention that the wealth they have was created by the labor countless people around the world.
Actually Buffet did take quite a few risks but whatever. First, their wealth was earned at some point by their ancestors and built up over time. It wasn't like the ghost of Adam Smith came down to Soros and said "Go off and become an evil capitalist, here is this money!" Second, they are investors, they make money lending money to people. This includes workers that wish to buy a house, and this gives people the means to buy and sell homes as well as start businesses without starting with every penny of capital. Three, you assume these people just sit around laugh evilly in their lairs all day; they are still constantly having to check in on investments, monitor the market, etc.
>Simply because it's in a contract does not mean that it is a fair, or even livable wage.
If you don't think it is a fair and livable wage, organize a union or better yet, don't fucking work there. Also you ignore who the capitalists sell to and why they want to have such low labor costs, but let's ignore the entire consumption side of the equation.
>Workers around the world (in India and China especially) are living on starvation wages
A natural result of intense industrialization, but right now the average living conditions in China along the coastal "capitalist" zones are getting substantially better as the country moves forward through the demographic transition.
>Then why has there always existed a concerted effort by both capitalists and the state to break up unions and other forms of organized labor?
Because people like to exploit the state to their own advantage; therefor, the state should not get involved in the economy and instead protect the social rights of people in order to prevent cronyism.
All of these fucking labels create more confusion than they're worth. Right Wing, Left Wing, Liberal, Conservative, Assholian, Dumbfuckifarian, who gives a shit.
Here's how I view politics:
>Retarded ideas
>Not retarded ideas
...
...
That picture is so retarded and so are your points
>Presents problem
>each group has different views on the problem
>"look they're all the same lmao!!!"
fucking idiot, sage
...
...
>entire ideology is founded on class struggle
Talk about projection. What else is exlcusively right-wing? Mass starvation? Economic collapse?
lefties stoked the fires of identity politics and now the right wing has discovered it can use the same weapons with great efficiency
the coming civil wars and world war will be due to the left's use of race, sex, and culture as weapons against western host nations and the oceans of blood shed will be on the hands of those who championed the idea that the west is a proposition nation.
>TLDR ILL SEE YOU IN THE RACE WAR SCRUB
>I never said I was a marxist
I know, because marxism became "not real socialism" the moment I mentioned it's contradictions. Socialism operates on quantum level, it's always real socialism until it run's out of other people's money and information is leaked about brutalities of another communist dictator, at which point it instantly becomes "not real socialism"
>You already give porky and his corporations your taxes
Corporate bailout is pure socialism in my opinion, reread my very first post ITT. I love low taxes.
>are you saying people don't have the right to discriminate against others on their own PRIVATE PROPERTY?!
None of marxists in US use their private property, they used infiltration in government to create government positions for themselves. Sound familiar?
>So the means of production are owned by the workers?
The means of production were seized by the state, then communists redistributed them between their friends, because why not? Typical story if you look at history of socialism, in fact it's so typical that I've yet to find one single socialist country that didn't end up with this result after following through any socialist doctrine.
>Can you disprove the fact that their are class divisions?
Lmao this is some cringeworthy "prove my god doesn't exist" nonsense.
Kill yourself.
>alt-left
nice meme
>Actually Buffet did take quite a few risks but whatever. First, their wealth was earned at some point by their ancestors and built up over time. It wasn't like the ghost of Adam Smith came down to Soros and said "Go off and become an evil capitalist, here is this money!" Second, they are investors, they make money lending money to people. This includes workers that wish to buy a house, and this gives people the means to buy and sell homes as well as start businesses without starting with every penny of capital. Three, you assume these people just sit around laugh evilly in their lairs all day; they are still constantly having to check in on investments, monitor the market, etc.
But those investments bear little risk if they have familial wealth to fall back on, and if the state will bail them out (as they have repeatedly in the past). The workers who do have the money and/or capital to invest are disappearing and never had the same guarantors that the financial capitalists have. If a worker with no property, or a significant amount of wealth or capital tries to play the investment game, he is either run out of business, or acquired by the large conglomerates of financial capitalists (assuming the winds of the market forces do not blow him down beforehand).
>If you don't think it is a fair and livable wage, organize a union or better yet, don't fucking work there. Also you ignore who the capitalists sell to and why they want to have such low labor costs, but let's ignore the entire consumption side of the equation.
Again, unions are constantly targeted by capital, the state, and even the dominant ideology. The large unions in America for example, are hardly in the favor of labor, they more often than not represent the corporation or company the workers are striking against. This is even true of organizations like the AFL-CIO.
1/2
>liberals
>lefties
Liberals want private property, market, state, class system too. They are already right wing.
>socialists/communists
>only caring about class
Nice meme.
>I know, because marxism became "not real socialism" the moment I mentioned it's contradictions.
Marxism is an ideology not an economic system. And I would greatly appreciate it if you would point be towards where I said I was a marxist in this thread.
>I know, because marxism became "not real socialism" the moment I mentioned it's contradictions.
yugoslavia and Rojava are two examples of socialism. Communists and socialists have been in power in many countries, and have done many goods things and many bad things, as is the case with most political regimes.
>Corporate bailout is pure socialism in my opinion
>anything a government does in socialism
interesting hypothesis
>None of marxists in US use their private property
We were discussing cooperatives in this context, in case you've forgotten.
>The means of production were seized by the state
And I'll gladly agree that is not a good thing when the people don't control the state
>then communists redistributed them between their friends, because why not?
And when the neo-libs like thatcher privatized all the businesses they sold them for pennies on the dollar to their friends, making them a fortune.
2/2
>A natural result of intense industrialization, but right now the average living conditions in China along the coastal "capitalist" zones are getting substantially better as the country moves forward through the demographic transition.
So where does the industrialization move then? The severity of proletarianization and the wealth disparity present in Europe and America obviously cannot be tolerated, and the manufacturing companies need a base of workers that are poorly organized and capable of being easily exploited, if what companies like Ford have told us is true.
>Because people like to exploit the state to their own advantage; therefor, the state should not get involved in the economy and instead protect the social rights of people in order to prevent cronyism.
But the capitalist class is the one who runs the state; they are the ones funding lobbyists, writing legislators paychecks, and pushing for laws and agreements like TTP and TTIP. This is not some miscreants trying to hoard more and more for themselves, this is the natural trend that capitalists take, as their interest is to maximize their profits for themselves and shareholders. This has been true as far back as the middle and late 19th century, and early 20th century. The large banks of Germany and America were constantly decried by the economists in favor of capitalism, those who lamented the death of "free-market" capitalism and the rise of the "monopolistic" capitalism. This distinction of cronyism and puritanical capitalism is irrelevant, as the trend of capitalism is that capital and wealth become conglomerated and concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
classical liberals do but modern liberalism is conforming to Communism and collectivism more and more as evident from the universities and the Social Justice Warriors it churns out.
I agree that liberals want property rights and the rest but they want it with certain caveats and exceptions to compensate for injustices seen in their own eyes and thats a big distinction.
Identity politics is poison.
The only thing worse is being the only group not using it.
And on the left, it's not just SJWs. It's blacks, gays, muslims hispanics, asians, jews, women, native americans, and probably a dozen other groups I can't be arsed to remember. For every single group, one can reliably predict that their first priority will be getting someone else in their identity group promoted, not doing their actual job.
X is like SJW is said by SJW since they noticed people are fed up with their bullshit.
Thats why we have White nationalism to protect US, not equality or libertarianism or other SJW nonsense, anything thats anti male, homo or anti White is what SJW demands openly from their own Words LITERALLY:
Thats why instead of SJW pro black, pro homo, pro women, we have:
Anti faggot, anti women, anti black and pro White, pro male and pro normalsexual, thats good for US.
Since people are NOT created equal, neither in value or ability, and since niggers, faggots and women are not equal in ability nor care for us there is NO reason to care for them, hence why we have White nationalism for a reason.
That is why egalitariniasm and equality is indeed SJW; since they are not equal and thus not in our interest.
Thats why we are removing THEM.
Tl:tr, people are not equal and people who claim or take the fence position will be kicked to the SJW side where they rightfully belong and instead we have policy good for US, and people can choose US or THEM.
its very simple, simply ask what good they done for US and you will notice the benifits of choosing US.
Yeah, right-wingers are the new SJWs. They both tell you what you should do and think, and want their crybaby safe-spaces. The only difference is that instead of crying and relying on guilt, they lean on faux-alpha bullshit and try to fight about it. Neither take actually solves anything, and they both look like assholes who shouldn't be taken seriously.
Congrats!
>modern liberalism is conforming to Communism
So modern liberals want the abolition of private property? Nope.
>liberals want property rights and the rest but they want it with certain caveats and exceptions to compensate for injustices
They want to balance the contradictions of the system. Capitalism balanced is still capitalism.
>our precious identity over theirs
Keep cannibalizing yourselves while capitalism kills us all.
>But those investments bear little risk if they have familial wealth to fall back on
Of course, because their families built up that wealth specifically for this reason
>if the state will bail them out (as they have repeatedly in the past)
Not many hardline capitalists believe in bailouts. As I said previously, the state should stay out of the economy.
>The workers who do have the money and/or capital to invest are disappearing and never had the same guarantors that the financial capitalists have.
You say that this baselessly. The average person today has invested in something, and wealth still exists. What do you think they do with social security, 401k, and even money in the bank. When you buy something with a credit card, someone just invested in you.
>If a worker with no property, or a significant amount of wealth or capital tries to play the investment game, he is either run out of business, or acquired by the large conglomerates of financial capitalists
If he is run out of business it is due to his inability to compete, which is brutal for sure, but the evil conglomerates provide a better service. Also if you spent some time reading up on economics, you would realize it isn't always the smartest option for a large company to absolutely brutalize its competition. Additionally, in New Orleans at least, there are plenty of small businesses. They are everywhere, succeeding in the boom, failing in the bust, but improving.
>Again, unions are constantly targeted by capital, the state, and even the dominant ideology.
I know, unions should be permitted to exist so long as the workers have the initiative to organize them. We literally agree on a worker's right to unionize, and capitalism should not stop unionization. But your ideology centers around the idea that capitalism and unionization is incompatible when it isn't
>The large unions in America for example
Which is why unions shouldn't be large and should just be privately organized on individually.
>balance the contradictions of the system
what does this mean?
>So modern liberals want the abolition of private property? Nope.
they want redistribution and equity across all walks of life if that isnt Communism is dont know what is