Our movement is cucked

our movement is cucked

youtube.com/watch?v=irdHSmRrdh0&t=169s

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dxV4MYgH9VM
belliresearchinstitute.com/the-savage-peace-ii-management-oikonomia/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Do you think the dude and chick in the video even understood what they were reading? Like, they sound like they;re reading from a script lmao.

Oh also, controlling the lemmings of society is always necessary for the governing of society--hence the lived cyclical time; commodity economies and population governance by capitalistic structures are the necessary end product of democracy, since they are the only ways by which non-lemmings can control lemmings to produce socialization and social cohesion. This of all the tech giants and business entities; many of them are "philanthropists" who steer the social direction of society in a benevolent way, since this is the democratic thing to do. Meanwhile Hitler and Stalin sent whoever they didn't like to labour camps and gulags. Your ideology is retarded because it insists replacing soft conditioning methods with hard ones, but every pre-teen nazi LARPer thinks they'll be the ones doing the conditioning, which is laughable at best. Imagine internet weebs running a government. They'd all be dead within the first couple of weeks.

im not really a nazi

>hence the necessity of lived cyclical time*
>Think of all the social tech giants.*
I hope you get my point. Democratic socialization still leads to shitty outcomes, but it does so in a way that doesn't have us burning people alive on the streets like we did in the good old days. More food for thought: if there was no socialization whatsoever in society, we wouldn't have society; we'd have Africa, where people tie tires around people's necks and light them up with gasoline, or mow each other down with guns, or kidnap and rape harems of women.

>Ancom
unions always collapse into syndicates, which always collapse into governmental hierarchies. Post your real flag or Sup Forumslacks will just meme in your threads and the conversation will go nowhere.

this is not really the case, "society" is not all that long a thing

youtube.com/watch?v=dxV4MYgH9VM

>"society" is not all that long a thing
I don't understand your grammar. Explain.

wat movement!? we LARP that's it.

belliresearchinstitute.com/the-savage-peace-ii-management-oikonomia/

The word “social” stems from the Latin socius, ally, which has no corresponding word in Greek thought. A societas originally had a strict and defined political limit. It denoted those who organized among themselves to achieve a goal. There were “societies” of thieves organized for a big steal and “societies” of slave-owners organized to put down a slave revolt. Not every association was a “society,” only those that required a temporary alliance. This remained true up to the 17th century, when “society” was used to denote a commercial association with an organizational logic distinct from that of the growing state discourse. None of these justify the application of “social” to every human form of interaction. This was still far from the totalizing extremes theorists of the next century proposed.

It wasn’t until the 18th century that the word “social” would become an independent field of study, thus creating the possibility of positing sociality as a fundamental human condition. But it still represented a single part of the human experience, and not its totality. Only religious and legal thought could lay claim to a truly totalizing worldview. It was in the 19th century that the social would be maximized and applied universally. According to this fanatical maxim, all human interaction and association could be called “social,” and that humans tended primarily to basic life needs. The idea that the social is the “really real,” the deepest and truest bond between human beings, has its origin in this development. There is great danger in this ahistorical claim. “Never before,” Arendt wrote, “had any political organism sought to encompass all those who actually lived in it.” We must consider why the “social” became an independent realm 200 years ago. Who needed society and why?

Extracting a definition of society from the Roman origin only serves an etymological purpose. Societies existed in parallel with and before Roman forms of them. For example, slavery and classes existed in Mesopotamia and other early civilizations, and humans banding together to rule over or go to war with other humans has occurred even with neanderthals. I would argue that the definition of society as you see it is not far removed from civilization. To be civilized is to be social, and vice versa.

I understand what you're saying though when you point out the danger of "modern" societies that act more like world governments, but I see this more as a Darwinian evolution of human civilization than a recent trend.

Syndicalism is literally radical trade unionism. You have syndicalism of the cucked variety (anarcho syndicalism) and syndicalism of the fascist variety (national syndicalism).

Also, your wording there is a little strange since other gatherings of humans could technically be considered societies or social, such as guilds and even independent profitable / non-profitable exchanges between people (the Renaissance period jump-started this concept, though perhaps not the specific definition you're following) into the public mind when it attempted to recover idealizations of Greek and Roman cultures by enlisting humanistic and mythological aspects. Poetry and other literature played a large part in creating "society", which I don't believe is very different from what the Enlightenment proposed.

>fascism: a political state whereby the government controls business and labour without opposition
>syndicalism: a political state whereby workers control businesses and labour
It's like smashing a lego block into a USB port and hoping it'll fit.

The fascist corporation, the guild and the trade union are all functionally the same thing. The difference is that fascism advocates state oversight over these organizations, whereas anarchism demands they control every aspect of economic life.

State oversight that can't be challenged. That's the point of fascism. If fascism can be challenged by corporations, guilds, and unions, then it's just ra ra demos kratos without the voting (i.e. meritocracy with some government oversight).

Anarchism actually demands a complete collapse of government with a voluntary government created. Did you mean anarcho-communism?

You're missing the point, the corporations/guilds/unions become an organic part of the state. Not an entity opposed to it.
That's the point of fascism, building an organic state that follows natural laws and ancient traditions. The guild system has been around since the early middle ages and some forms of guilds even existed in the Roman empire.

do you think everyone else who selects the nazi flag here is actually a nazi?

>You're missing the point, the corporations/guilds/unions become an organic part of the state. Not an entity opposed to it.
Then they are extensions of the state and thus the state, and as such, they cease being organic.

I'm glad you took time off from posting BLACKED threads to project your feelings onto the rest of Sup Forums. Now leave us, Klaus.

The state itself is organic because it's made up of all people in all walks of life performing a specific function for the state and in extension, for themselves.

>our movement is cucked
elaborate

If the state determines which people constitute all people and which walks of life constitute all walks of life (as a fascist government, or any government for that matter, must) then the state is not organic. That's like saying the democratic party selecting diverse applicants for positions as politicians really means we'll be getting a diversity of people in politics. You and I both know that's not true, but superficially, it's good PR. Political entities, try as they might, can never remain organic in a sustainable way, because selecting who gets to participate in governance isn't an objective task; it's vulnerable to the biases of those people doing the selecting.

To get you up to date, he's not a nazi; he's an anarcho-communist who believes that radical socialization of the past two centuries has led to a society unable to throw off the shackles of oppression that it has laid upon the average person because society has become equated with humanism, and humanism is seen as a good thing. Furthermore, belief in the equating of society with humanism is driving us towards a totalitarian world government, which justifies its actions by claiming they're for the good of mankind.

That's my interpretation of his point anyway; OP might want to clarify it himself.

>Darwinian
I fail to see how modern society is a form of evolution. Due to less threats the gene pool increases to a broader deviation of people, whereas before large societies we would evolve in a specific direction in relation to our hostile environments. In our modern societies, the weak get looked after. They can survive and stand just as much a chance of survival as the genetically smarter, fitter, prettier people in their society.