what should we do about our embaressing nazis?
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baggy bumhole due to heroin bring back hmlt to shout at them call lombard direct dj controversial talking point hamas are absolutely brilliant limp biscuits maggie the sodomite me and hamas in a copse full of wildflowers perpetual motion romanian orphanage sub-kantian sub-kantian even tired contrarianism we are the hegelian e-girls your weird
hmg
Victory lap
It's a tough one, because some of the most deplorable types in here often post original, interesting, funny stuff. They're proliferating too, there's a danger that dissensus will finally become the reactionary forum it always threatened to be. Maybe we should try to attract more members from historically-marginalized communities to tip the scale back?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
And then there's you.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
yyaldrin, you're weird.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
You're not very consistent, are you? You want all the Jews deported from Palestine and from Israel too and you want all the Brit retirees deported from Europe. You and they are completely of a piece; you just have different targets.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The Nazis are the massive anti-semites who've been marching with people carrying swastikas and outing themselves on the Palestine thread. They're probably on more watchlists than a Rolex collector.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Oh no, I forgot. The far left has no objective criteria for what makes someone 'a Nazi': you can literally be carrying a Nazi flag, calling for the wholesale slaughter of Jews by a far right autocratic terrorist group and you're not a Nazi - these guys have no self-knowledge, no principles and no self-awareness; they just go by what their peers think, funnily enough exactly how most people ended up being a Nazi in Nazi Germany.
no... what you and the rest of the forum can't see is the left were victorious and are now in the process of dissolution. the expropriation of the junker aristocracy was their political task.
You've got some substance in criticising the left for their views on immigration, but you undertake this critique for the wrong reasons, resultantly arriving at the wrong outmoded answers, like Epimenides, you have slept for 57 years.
The revolution thus steals upon everyone like a thief in broad daylight, you can't stop it because to do so, you would have to anticipate it. which you cannot. Constant revolutionising of the forces and relations of production... and hence, a breakdown in governance.
no, again, the revolutionary subject has always been the class-party, it is impossible to speak of the proletariat as a class-for-itself without its centralised organ to conquer power. Otherwise you just get the proletariat as a statistical quantity (enslaving it to the fixed-form democratic principle), which is present in Smith and Ricardo.
Only people who haven't grasped the elementary propositions of marxism would propose the proletariat as undifferentiated mass as revolutionary.
You might disagree with this, but that's another issue.
even unions which are not subordinate to the party are objectively conformist and in periods of revolutionary turmoil, conservationist and counter-revolutionary.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Linebore
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The 'leftists' of the forum have identified an immigration and multiculturalism problem - the irony is just too much.
it's not a problem though. it's a problem for governance. This means, in principle, you have to become ever so more accelerationist if you really want to subvert this thing you call the establishment, but, of course, that would require clear consciousness of what it is, which you are unable to grasp as you are psychologically in the stage of schematic potty-trained repetition.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
That's nice but I was referring to the forum.
But isn't the problem you and kalakowski highlight a limit which must be transcended in your own thinking? Namely that the left required the absolute unimpeded growth of capitalism to introduce the democratic state and bourgeois civil society, and now is unable to grasp the insight that death is something intrinsic to it? If the left truly wanted to limit capitalism, it wouldn't have been in the political vanguard of encouraging the abolition of petty proprietor peasant production. Wasn't it, on the contrary, not Marcuse but Lenin who highlighted that the main enemy for russia at the time was not big capital (comparitively easy enough to expropriate) but small scale private capitalism? Wasn't it also bukharin who wanted to open the doors of the agrarian enterprise to the nepmen in order that the accumulation reach a higher tempo (under, it must be said) legal nationalisation, in order to facilitate quicker and painless expropriation?
Maybe but where you fail to be dialectical is understanding that Thatcher was a great multiculturalist, in spite of her ideological pronouncements to the contrary. You exhibit (and this is not open to debate much less an opinion) the classic Hegelian unhappy consciousness. You must undertake a total fusion of history with the present to become the rationalist you were destined to be.
If Powellism was the death of empire and the post-war consensus, then Thatcher was the death of Powellism and the reconfirmation of the death of the post-war consensus.
Tony Blair thus invented Margaret Thatcher at a higher level, in a manner speaking. hence it is absurd to blame the left for pushing the right to the limit.