Why are leftists grouped in together with globalism when it isn't inherently a leftist idea?

Why are leftists grouped in together with globalism when it isn't inherently a leftist idea?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Leftists do what they are told.

Because they are being manipulated by globalists. They are useful idiots.

Because they fell for the "globalism = peace and love" meme.

they've become a globalist tool
their original "peace, love, and justice for everybody" ideology is just way too conservative for them to stick to now days
the tables have turned
the tides have shifted
everyfuckingthing including genitals and skin colour is the opposite now
they've gone over to the dark side
they do not mean well, not for themselves nor anyone else
they war with common sense and critical thinking
they know not what they do
they are a lost fucking cause
and they're killing themselves and their movement at an incredible rate
the (((globalists))) might've overcooked it this time around, which only plays into our favour

Great question. Because the left control the narrative?

...

Leftism is inherently globalist and vice versa actually

If you take leftist principles of equality to their logical conclusions, it makes no sense to prejudice people of your own nation over people of other nations. If there are no differences that matter between people anywhere in the world, then the very concept of a nation or an ethnicity doesn't mean anything.

To look out for the interests of your own people at the expense of others, meanwhile is an inherently right wing idea.

This

Because globalism is a conclusion to leftist ideals.

Leftists may not like globalism, but they're ideals support it indirectly.

Because the left is infiltrated by filth. Probably some CIA psyop to make the hard left not relevant, a psyop that got out of control and spread to the "soft left".

t. Commie

This new left and the Neo-Liberals go hand in hand.

>To look out for the interests of your own people at the expense of others, meanwhile is an inherently right wing idea.
What is right wing to you? It's many ways to measure that. If you are talking about;
Left = Collectivism
Right = Individualism

Then you are wrong obviously.

youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

Don Draper did this to us..

Internationalism is incredibly leftist idea, it stemmed from Trotsky and Lenin, but Stalin opposed it in favour of "socialism in one country". So commies are kinda split 50/50 where some favour globalism, some don't.

The thing I don't get is why all these antifaggots and anarchists support globalism. Isn't anarchist supposed to be the complete antithesis of globalism? I mean, if borders are a social construct and central governments are evil capitalists, then how come is stripping people from their ancestral lands and putting them on welfare (making them dependent of the central government) remotely close to anarchism?

>Stalin opposed it in favour of "socialism in one country"

Stalin didn't oppose it. He publicly adopted it to ease the tensions between the USSR and the West. Stalin knew that if Communism didn't take over the world, the USSR would fail to capitalist influences. Hence why the Soviets still funded communism uprisings all over Africa, the middle east and Latin America.

>why the Soviets still funded communism uprisings all over Africa, the middle east and Latin America.
I think that was after Stalin died when russian commies started shilling for (((internationalism))) again

What do you mean by internationalism? Lenin (and Stalin) was very much in favour of nation's right to self determination and the former non-Russian territories of the Russian Empire got more autonomy under USSR. The USSR did develop into Muscovite tyranny though, just like the EU did - but it wasn't the intention.

Communism and internationalism are inextricably linked. Their theme song is literally the internationale and the main goal of communism is a global workers revolution. Get educated u stupid fuck.

That goes against Stalin's action of invading Finland and Poland, and his plans to eventually attack Germany after they resisted communist uprisings.

Stalin would have happily steamed through all of Europe if it wasn't the Germans attacking first.

A core principle of communism is that it can only exist if capitalism is dismantled globally. Hence, commies want a one world government so they can institute communism world wide.

It doesn't imply that there shouldn't be borders and that nation's should have the right to self determination.

It simply says that workers world wide should cooperate to end Capitalist tyranny.

>Lenin (and Stalin) was very much in favour of nation's right to self determination and the former non-Russian territories of the Russian Empire got more autonomy under USSR
Not really true. The seemingly democratic governing in satelite states and soviet republics were just an illusion. Actually, it was all puppet governments and they weren't really allowed to make independent decisions that strayed from the Kremlin's guidelines sent to them.

Also, they completely revised all history (like saying that estonia was never an independent state, and we voluntarily joined the USSR for protection against fascism) and taught that bullshit to everyone. When you went to a university, you had to take a compulsory "scientific marxism" course (my parents told me this one) and marxism was very incredibly dismissive towards national identities, which they tied to "uppity elitism".

individualism can only be achieved with collectivism

Jews dont believe in borders for goyim. Communism is 100% jew manufactured to serve themselves.

Based chinaman gets it

We're using the words "leftist" and "liberal" falsely.
Most of the virtue-signalling retards are literally just that.

Their narrative goes as follow
>all people are equal, except privileged white asshole who enslaved the world
>hitler did nothing right
>borders are racist and limit me. we should be free to roam mother earth as we please
>person can't own land
>i have never met my dad / my dad is an abusive alcoholic
>rules are limiting our potential
>i want money and unlimited freedom to do anything
>i want to be whoever i want and still escape social stigma
>what the fuck is economy?
>men and women are the same because i didn't get to choose my gender at birth

Globalism and endless expansion is the only way to camouflage and compensate for the failure of left wing ideologies to provide an acceptable standard of living and way of being for their citizens. If you swallow everyone and everything up, there's no longer anyone or any way that you can be criticized for the shortcomings of your system. It's as much a defense mechanism as anything else.

Humans are colectivists by nature but the point is that they care about small local communities that they actually have connections with instead of some island-monkey on the other end of the world.
Basically care about your self first, your own community second and everyone else last.


Tell me what does a potato farmer in Bulgaria have to do with Bruxuelles? Only that Junker is telling him which shape his potatoes have to be to be considered ''naturall by EU standards' so big food companies in Germany and France don't loose on the market against higher quality and cheaper food products from Eastern Europe...

If you really think about it, both communism and capitalism lead to globalism if you take them to their pure logical extremes.

The only weapon against it is decentralization of power to the nation state or smaller entities.

Yes, but this is not "Marxism". It's "couped" Marxism. My impression is also that it was an illusion, but ideologically both Lenin and Stalin spoke in favour of nations existing and ruling themselves.

My impression is that under Stalin the power centralized though, maybe because of the threat of WW2. The invasion of the Baltic region and Finland for instance would be militarily strategical, and crucial to defend against the European powers (imagine a Pro-Nazi Baltic invading the USSR with Nazi-Germany). So in SOME ways you could understand why they did it. Just like you can understand the Russian annexation of Crimea today.

Actually yes, which is why the Right-wing is wrong. Their individualism only leads to some individuals tyranny over others, both in theory and in practice. At least the Left-Wing have it right in theory.

Communism is not 100% Jew manufactured, but Jews flocked to Communism because;
1. Jews were mostly poor back then
2. Communism gave a Jewish worker identity as a worker. Jews in Europe had and have an identity issue as they don't belong here. Everyone can be a worker.
3. Jews are not stupid, and their social IQ is high which would explain why so many influential Jewish Communists. Also Jewish nepotism.
4. Jews are also very influential, just as influential if not more, in Capitalist economy, what does this tell you?

If I were a greedy Jew, I would be in favour of Capitalism and Globalism. Hide myself in the USA and rule the world with my multi-national corporations and banks, the people affected are so far away from me that they are no threat.

In a lot of ways the modern left and right are fighting for the same thing, They're just at odds with how to achieve these things.

We are indeed collectivist. A nation is basically a huge tribe. The individual --> The family --> The nation.

I agree with you, and my point is that globalism is NOT leftist.

because karl marx a.k.a Chaim Hirschel Mordechai got paid by rothschilds to write a subversive doctrine that would eradicate private sources of wealth and monopolise state power

Because theyd have to take more responsibility and work harder under a more protectionist world.

More shitskins = more tax = more government money for arts degree jobs.

I dunno. First tell me why are centrists and the moderate right lumped in with "leftiststs" and then equated with outright socialists? These are crazy times.

What are you talking about? Communists are internationalists and don't believe in borders.

The left should be purged.

same reason why leftists are grouped in together with post-modernism when it isn't inherently a leftist idea.
subversion and demoralization through indoctrination.

same reason they're both grouped in with communism
because that's what you fucking are. Braindead, socially engineered marxist tools

This.

You need to understand, the leftists got cored out. Obliterated. Subverted and co-opted over the last 8 years.

The first time I went to SDS during the Obama admin was the last time I associated with socialists.

They are completely de-radicalized. Completely focused on identity politics. Economics don't matter.

What kind of cuck fucking socialist doesn't SUPPORT those 'rural and suburban retards'?

Trump winning was the best thing to ever happen to the true left. The left that is anti-war. Pro-labor. Pro-union. When Trump talks about a trillion dollar infrastructure plan there should be celebrations in the streets, not antifa riots. When Trump brings in unions and businesses to find ways to get jobs back into the US there should be block parties and food drives.

But there isn't.
Because the Left is dead. There is only The Cattle now.

because globalism is stupid, and so are leftists

fpbp

t. rural and suburban retard

prejudice is a noun

But praising an imaginary frog God who makes his will through repeating sequential integers on a Bhutanese fake vagina appreciation fourm isn't.

>muh neo-liberals
you need to go back

Shut your blasphemous whore mouth, shill.

retarded

>leftists aren't globalists

Given that communism is an utopian international movement bringing the entire world under the working class, and that the USSR and the Communist Chinese conquered, subjugated, and propped up regimes from (((Bela Kun))) to Pol Pot, you must be either lying or stupid.

t. someone who has never read any Marx

>The invasion of the Baltic region and Finland for instance would be militarily strategical, and crucial to defend against the European powers (imagine a Pro-Nazi Baltic invading the USSR with Nazi-Germany). So in SOME ways you could understand why they did it

Still doesn't explain why he kept the soviet republics on a short leash even after the nazi germany ceased to exist. The satellite states outside of USSR like Poland or Hungary, the supposed "free" nation states "allied" with USSR were strictly controlled and administered by the USSR. Hungarian revolution of 1956 illustrates my point the best, read about it on wiki below

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

I know that USSR played the strategic defense game a lot, and that's why they are so scared of NATO forces in Estonia these days, especially when Saint Petersburg is in very close proximity from our border and they fear that the americans could effectively launch ballistic missiles from Estonian soil, directed towards St. Petersburg.

Point I want to make is that the strategic geopolitical games of Russia cost the people of baltics our right to safeguard our language, ethnicity, culture and traditions, since Russian, or Soviet government may claim to allow some of these, but ultimately, they don't give a shit if Estonia is populated with russians or estonians, as long as Russia gets their sweet buffer zone against the evil murrika.

I always saw globalism as a supercapitalist/muh free market thing and liberals as wanting protectionism (and if you look back it's more often been the right that has reduced protectionism and killed local industries) but now it's the opposite.

The Left see that Globalism results in Europe becoming Africanised; so they support it.

Globalists are socially far left fiscally capitalist, they use leftists as their useful idiots mainly to breakdown cultures and societies from within and to keep the people of the targeted countries pacified while the those countries are broken down and molded in to one state. The jokes on the leftists as they'll never get the socialism/communism they crave.

>utopian international movement bringing the entire world under the working class
According to Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary of Russian from 19th century, proletaire is not a working class, but a bum. Hobos do have to make physical work from time to time, and they are the most oppressed class indeed. But who would let the steering wheel to those who can't steer themselves. That's when you understand that the real masters are behind the curtain of this play.

I thought about that before. Globalism is just rebranded imperialism

They probably thought having Hungarians and Romanians in Stalingrad once was enough.

Just one more point about this:

For the Left, the white man is ALWAYS wrong. And so the white man's biggest enemy must be incredibly virtuous.
Most people on the Right (which is seen as being white and male) have bitched about Islam a whole lot. In some ways, it is the #1 enemy.
The Left see this and conclude that Islam is actually the best, given that it has the traditional white man so riled.
So the Left will (and have) submit to the Muslims when they say not to draw Muhammad. They will let Muslims rape white girls. They will let Muslim areas become no-go zones. And so on. Because the Muslims cannot possibly be the bad guys, because they are the enemy of the Rightwing.

Because there is no united "left" front.
Saying "the left" is a faction in a conflict is like saying "the whites" are.

You put fucking anarchists (no state) and totalitarians (full state) together, like they agree on everything.

That's because the left has this infatuation with giving brown people money they didn't earn. Make no mistake, though, they're just along for the ride. The right is the main pusher of globalism, as it destroys the many of local labor for the profits of a select few traitors.

>They probably thought having Hungarians and Romanians in Stalingrad once was enough.
How come? Lots of eastern euros fought on both sides.

Just to elaborate further, the Globalists are socially far-left in action (they force social-leftism on to their targets) but they themselves are likely extremely redpilled. I strongly doubt that the Rothschilds would be happy with one of their own marrying someone from a double-digit IQ ethnic group.

>Having an open world without so many barriers.
>You're stupid... for not recognising that's a liberal {leftist} policy.
Degenerating tard.

>americans could effectively launch ballistic missiles from Estonian soil, directed towards St. Petersburg.
I seriously doubt they seriously believe an european nation would destroy the most european city of this strange land.
In my picture of reality soviets play along with your imperial MIC (military-industrial complex) and that's just gross (I saw the way our "leaders" party. boy, they suck)

Maybe they thought or wanted to think that USSR had popular support.
Or
If they let go of the Baltic region, maybe they could have fallen under US control. Communists are just as allowed to practice Realpolitik as Capitalists. It was morally and ideologically wrong that's for sure.

>When Trump talks about a trillion dollar infrastructure plan there should be celebrations in the streets, not antifa riots.

Public private partnerships, i.e., more toll roads and shit. Trump's infrastructure proposal (not passed yet, thankfully) is just a sell out to the globalist agenda. Making what was done quietly before now loud, official and bigly damaging.

Trump's actions don't measure up to his rhetoric so far.

They make lots of money playing along...

Checked and /thread

This is the true answer. The media. Leftists see white Americans as the problem. They know if whites get outvoted and out numbered then the left will always win elections. We see this with CA and soon Texas. They want people coming in and voting. The media wants this for control, 3rd world immigrants buy the media's bullshit far more than whites do thanks to its anti-white American bias

Like all poor people, they're obsessed with money.

kike detected

Because basically all leftism has globalism in it. Seriously, almost all leftist ideologies are globalist.

>It wasn't real communism
Because you would have done differently, right?

Not an argument

>Yes, but this is not "Marxism". It's "couped" Marxism. My impression is also that it was an illusion, but ideologically both Lenin and Stalin spoke in favour of nations existing and ruling themselves.
Which goes against Marxist ideas. "True" communism is globalist, as are most leftist ideologies.

because globalism goes hand in hand with the belief that cultural and racial differences are irrelevant (all are equal on the purely material plane of commerce).

>their narrative goes as follow (conservative edition)
>people of British,Northern European and German extraction are better than you although we will accept you if your income or test scores meet our standards , genocides and slavery are trivial bits of history
>hitler did nothing wrong
>borders keep out people from ethnic groups and religions I don't like.Slavic mail order brides are OK .I should be free to roam mother earth as I please
>public can't own land
>I fear my dad / my dad is an abusive alcoholic
>rules are limiting my potential
>i have money and want unlimited freedom to do anything
>i want to discriminate against anyone different
>it's magic I don't have to explain shit
>women are good for making sandwiches and babies

Marxism is a very simple idea. It means that people who get money simply based on the fact that they already had money are bad for society and should be removed from it.

>i have money
>i buy a building
>i rent it out
>i proceed to get money just because i already had money

>i have money
>i find a person with an idea
>i buy him an office and hire him
>i get money from the finished product/service
>i get money simply because i already had money

The idea that a person with money takes a cut, because he lets you use his money, is seen by Marx as wasteful.
This is the entirely of Marxism. Everything else is added by ideologues trying to push their own agenda.
Marxism simply means that people who labor, thus create value, should get paid, while people who don't labor (since having money isn't labor) should not get paid, because they don't create value.

Not saying I agree or disagree, I am only explaining it for all the billions of people who talk in favor or against Marxism without having read the works of Marx.

>Actually yes, which is why the Right-wing is wrong. Their individualism only leads to some individuals tyranny over others, both in theory and in practice. At least the Left-Wing have it right in theory.
wow nice black and white dichotomy

False. Read Marx instead.

He said right wing, not 'right'. There's no ambiguity in what right wing means.

And I read it as right wing, and not only right. One way to divide left and right in politics would be to divide between collectivism and individualism. Which would make NatSoc left.

>False. Read Marx instead.
That's exactly what Marx called for, heck half of you commies say that communism can't work until socialism is global, and communism itself calls for the eradication of nations.

BECAUSE THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME IN THIS DAY AN AGE

The left got so btfo with soviet union collapse that they barely even try anything economic anymore, all they do is impotently shill identity politics and open borders. Exactly what elites want

There's a few older ones like Tariq Ali i see that get it more and are more actual marxists but not many.

Read Marx.

how so?
I read CofC and the author there stated that individualism is strictly European trait and to have that you need homogeneous society

>One way to divide left and right in politics would be to divide between collectivism and individualism.
Yes, but he said right wing. So that's irrelevant.

Right wing = heirarchy
Left wing = egalitariansim

The modern left and right you're trying to bring into this are useless because they're only capable of describing two flavors of liberalism which both carry the same fundamentally left wing assumptions about equality before God, etc.

Unless he had some hidden book out there where he says "JK guys, I was just kidding, nations are cool and stuff" then there's not more reading that needs to be done.

If people only wrapped their heads around the implications of the quote in your pic.

>Right wing = heirarchy
That's a strange definition. What do you base this on?

Dividing politics into left and right is useless.

Read Marx instead of spouting bullshit about it. If you are anti-Communist you should read it to know your enemy :)

>Why are leftists grouped in together with globalism when it isn't inherently a leftist idea?

Because it's too difficult for many people to understand the difference between social liberalism and left-wing politics. The former is about human rights, freedom of speech, privacy and the like and the latter is more about socialist policies like free health-care, labor unions, worker rights and whatnot (The stuff that Yankies tend to label as communist)

Globalism isn't the problem, it's the unbridled Free-trade deals that come with it and whatever bullshit like TTIP, CETA and TISA they come up with to screw the world over for profit.

He was in fact opposed to nations.
He also wrote at a time when empires were still around, and nation basically meant what would today be "state citizenship" or something. Like the Austro-Hungarian nation, and the idea that every member of it should sacrifice life and limb for the state that enslaves him.

Marx is a product of his time. He seems funny today, but 90% of his advice is accepted - workers rights, unions, minimum wage, maximum work hours, no child labor, equal rights between genders and races, freer(er) travel across borders, mandatory vacation days per year, state funded education and health care, and so on.

You should try reading Marx, I don't think you can call yourself a real communist until you have

Leftism is not about about working class anymore. Technological progress means less and less work available and leftism has to find newer solutions, like universal basic income.

Most socialism and all Communism is internationalist. Marx thought that all nations were just little material intricacies which would be ironed out in time. Stalin's socialism in one country was just pragmatism.

This :0

>(((communist world revolution)))
>overthrow all governments
>not globalist

>That's a strange definition. What do you base this on?

This is and has been the only real definition between left and right, egalitarian and hierarchical. Individualist (right) vs collectivist (left) is a Libertarian meme.

>Read Marx instead of spouting bullshit about it. If you are anti-Communist you should read it to know your enemy :)

if you had read Marx and understood him you would be a Marxist.

>That's a strange definition. What do you base this on?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics Some reading for you since it seems your entire political understanding as of now is based on uninformed Sup Forums posts.