I'm unironically a leftist why should I not be? srs

I'm unironically a leftist why should I not be? srs

>tfw you went from bluepilled to redpilled to "bluepilled" again in the span of a year and a half

I went from SJW progressive to 1488 to national bolshevist. Dont take 99% of shit here seriously it's all jokes. Socialism is the best system, the Jew is a threat but it's exaggerated, the white race is not in danger but we need border law. Get that nonsense out of here so we can make real positive change.

don't be redundant, we already knew you were a faggot OP

i know that Sup Forums is meme nazism but i was actually hoping to hear out some opposing points
my only understanding of pol-philosophy is thay racial superiority/inferiority is the base of it

Take the Bog pill

this is the only way out

...

Heh. That pic of Kropy sure got my attention. Former anarchist here so this will be fun. Will try to answer your question in a concise manner, but please understand it's not that easy and, frankly, it's cool if you're still a leftist. This is Sup Forums, we don't care.

But first, on race:
>my only understanding of pol-philosophy is thay racial superiority/inferiority
Yes and no. You'll find plenty of 1488 in Sup Forums, but a huge part of it is ironical and a certain percentage of the userbase subscribes to some sort of "civic nationalism" where race is irrelevant next to patriotism and shared common values (western values, that is). But even those who do subscribe to white nationalism, if you take your time to sit down with them, they will tell you that they do not think whities are superior to niggers, just that some races do things better than others (they will point at the athletic proficiency of the black race) and to disregard that flies in the face of science and common sense. And once you accept that races have different physical proficiencies, what's so wrong about intellectual ones? It's still genes and they can point out the racial IQ bell curve, where in average black people have 1 whole deviation less IQ than whites (and whites are dumber than asians).

This is what we call here race realism. I'm not a fan but I subscribe to it in face of overwhelming proof (redpills, bro). White nationalists go one step beyond by saying that this IQ variance demonstrates in cultural ways, with african societies never managing to move past the iron age (even today). They will go on showing you examples of what happens when a former white country becomes a black ethnostate (South Africa and Rhodesia).

describe a position you hold without using an appeal to emotion.

Read more. Literally leftism destroys society. In any of its forms it leads to degradation and decadence. It is degradation and decadence. It is mob. It is demos. It is the least common denominator, irreducible human nature of the crowd. It makes sin the virtue and judgement the sin. It embrace it is to embrace the spirit of oppression and corruption. Your economics and social theories suck and have no functioning example in all of history. Your philosophies are wishful thinking that you try to force onto reality. No amount of fallacious actions such as moving goal posts, omitting details, tweaking statistics or reframing context can make your leftist philosophy accurately reflect the real world.

I went from social democracy leftist to very moderate conservative - libertarian.
Thanks Sup Forums you showed me the way.

Now let's attack those leftist principles. I'm going to try to do this in several stages, it's quite complicated and I'm sure not going to adress every single tiny bit of theory, just gonna give you the basic gestalt of it.

The first thing you need to know is that Communism cannot happen. It's impossible. Not because of human nature or any other excuse like that, it just cannot work because it has no way to properly assign resources to different tasks (Mises wrote about this quite a bit). Let's say you want to go downtown to watch a movie with your girl, you have several choices before you: you can drive your own car, you can call a cab, you can catch the bus or you can hire a helicopter to take you there ASAP. Under capitalism we can take into account economic factors to make our decision, we know hiring a helicopter is ridiculously expensive, but finding a place to park our car in the city centre is also a fucking chore so it's best if we call a cab even if it's a bit more expensive. Under communism (true communism) this isn't all that clear, resources are still finite, but I can't exactly tell how expensive is riding a helicopter to go watch a movie.I might take into account how long it takes to make the helicopter compared to how long it takes to make a car (hi there, Bakunin labour vouchers!) but under real communism there is no real reason to stop me from taking the helicopter to go from point A to B.

So, as you can see, the whole Kropotkin anarcho-communism as is, is a bit problematic. It's all up in the air and, in the best case, we all need to sit down and vote in the assembly who really needs a resource more than others. So we move to Bakunin and his labour vouchers. At face value they offer a great solution to our previous problem: we can tell how long it takes to work on a helicopter compared to a car, if we use labor vouchers we can now "pay" for one thing or the other because we know how hard is to make a helicopter.

(con'td)

The problem with labor vouchers becomes apparent when you point out that an hour of cleaning the streets or making homemade candles isn't worth the same than an hour of attention of a doctor. And even then,the hour of a shitty doctor isn't worth the same than the hour of a world-level neurosurgeon. Even if we take material scarcity out of the equation, there is a subjective value associated to the productivity of certain human labour hours next to others. If you can agree to this, you have moved from basic anarchism to, at least, mutualism/agorism and now you know you need to pay for shit.

The difference between regular anarchists and market anarchists is that they accept money needs to be a part of the equation in order for society to function. Note I'm saying market anarchists, not anarcho-capitalists. Why? Because market anarchists are still against the explotation of the worker by the capitalists. The means of production are still owned by the worker himself (or his union/assembly/whatever), he just chooses to use money to trade with others from a different community. To this anarcho-capitalists reply "what exploitation?" and here's where we face the famous Marx surplus value theory, which is the cornerstone of both communism and anarchism.

It goes like this: I'm the worker, I spend two hours producing a loaf of bread. You're the capitalist, owner of the bakery. The bread sells for 2$, I get paid 0.5$ for each bread, you earn 1.5$. How the fuck is that fair since I'm the one doing all the work? They traditional answer is that you own all the materials and tools required for me to work and that's why you get your money. But this is a bit short-sighted. You were the man with the idea and the money, the one that organised it all... and the man that, if were the business to fail, would end up bankrupt while I, who has been only renting my labour to you, get to walk scotch free.

Big fucking redpill from this Spanish goy in here. Read it OP. Says more than I could bother to

This of course gets muddier once we advance to more corporate enviroments, with boards of propietaries and corporate persons, but the original point still stands: the worker rents his labour and ensures end-line production issues and market competition does not affect him. I pay for this safety by letting you take a bigger part of the cake.

This argument gets further strengthen by adding a bit of this thing we love in the right called personal responsability. I chose to work for you in the same way I could've chosen to get a loan and build my own bakery. I assess which method suits my interests best and make my choice. Ancaps take this a step further by saying that, even if I'm dying of hunger and my only choice is to whore myself for 50$ a month, it's still my choice to die and I'm therefore not being exploited.

If you balked at this last line then we're now moving to statist/communitarian principles, if not, congrats, you're now an ancap. Again, communism doesn't work and "labour vouchers"/money require you to have valuable skills for the community... what happens when you don't? Then, you could say, the community needs to take charge of those in need. How the community should do that is debatable, but now you're sharing political space with minarchists and libertarians. In my opinion most of Sup Forums would fit here comfortably, but... well, you see, the problem with libertarianism is a known one...

(cont'd)

> unironically a leftist
Oh how exciting. How quaint.
You're a normal...boring...unironical....person.
Why should you not be?
Because the truth is exciting!
And redpills are FUN!
WE LIKE REDPILLS A LOT!
YOU SHHOULD FUCKING HAVE SOME!

Jews have control of your mind. They'll make a socialist dependent slave of you and the milk will be sour and short coming. God that's good.
The world is so much better redpilled. Yea....

You'll hear here in Sup Forums that the French revolution fucked everything up. What, you haven't? Lurk more. And it's 100% true. The French revolution gave birth to the modern state (remember, no king of old ever took more than 10% of your production in taxes. Ever). Countries like Liechtenstein or Luxembourg are remnants of what used to be the norm in Europe: check a map of 17th century Germany and tell me how the hell could any state/lord enforce anything there. If I was a wanted man in Brandenburg I could move to Bavaria and start anew (more or less). Lords would wage petty wars against one another using mercenaries and not very motivated militias. This was the Europe the Grand Armée raped hard. And with all reason. France then was organised under a totalitarian state devoted to war and united under the idea of nation.

In older times, what united the people was shared customs and religion, that was it. You were mainly loyal to your family, to your local lord and to your church. You could not be a muslim in a christian kingdom, marrying another man went against the traditions of your people and the survival of your family. In short, you were a part of the immediate community and that meant both rights and duties. This went to shit with modern nation states. You can be anything you want to be... as long as you support the nation. Your family no longer matters, your religion no longer matters, your people no longer matters. This is why European leaders see nothing wrong with flooding the continent with muslim refugees, their blood no longer boils when they read about their own people being raped and murdered by a foreign army they pay for.

I think the white nationalist movement is misguided, but it's a symptom of what happens when we lose sight of those simple truths we took for granted and ended up losing in the French revolution. Our countries are European countries, with European values and populated by European people... and that's worth protecting.

And I'm done. Hope someone finds this remotely interesting! Also read more Hoppe, Kuehnelt-Leddihn and even Moldbug who, despite being a jew, is a pretty cool guy.

define leftist?

because anyone who lives under purely left-wing regimes quickly learns why its fucked up via, genocide, theft,state enforced slavery (they make you a prisoner), starvation.

because u shouldnt

Why are you a leftist?

Depends how left. I myself am left on several issues however lean right more often than not.

Along as you're not blindly choosing the left position for every issue simply for the sake of being left there isn't really an issue.

Also how many sexes are there?

If you aren't willing to give up being a leftist please realize that communists will always betray you. Never trust them. If you are a communist please kill yourself.