Consume Product

this. they rarely read the originals, rather read what modern takes people have, usually short form, reddit tier, superficial trash.

and then they ignore virtually all historical context, picking and choosing only the tiny tidbits that don't completely blow over their position.

and when you highlight that every far left society ever has resulted in mass killings of their own people, they first try to pilpul the topic away, but ultimately wear it as a badge of pride... after all, the non-comrades were the tens of millions who were exterminated. they're absolutely okay with mass killings, do long as its those who stand against the far left revolution.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe didn't set out to epistemologically prove niggers are bad, or leftists are bad--not only that niggers and leftists are bad, but that they are criminal, in other words, violating the natural rights of other human beings, violent--but if one where to honestly reason Hoppe's theory to its logical conclusion, one can't help but to come to the conclusion that something drastic must be done about them. A priori niggers and leftists are criminals, therefore, self-defense is morally justified.

When questioned about this, Hoppe said anyone taking his theories out to their self-evident conclusions was stupid. But it's too late. Hoppe let a genie out of the bottle on this one. And he has even argued that merely verbally advocating or arguing for leftist ideals is a violation of the non-aggression principle. And of course, when the NAP is violated self-defense is justified. And this is based on reciprocity of ethics in Western Civilization. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have others do to you. That goes back to the Ancient Greeks and the Assyrians. That is our tradition in the West. That is our moral code. Ethics is a reciprocal system. You can only apply ethics to ethical people. You cannot apply ethics to unethical people. Self-defense is justified. Niggers and leftists must be physically separated from our society, by force if necessary, if the West is to survive.

Honestly, marx isn't super profound. I'm quite familiar with his works. With the exception of the manifesto, he advocates for nothing really. He just explained what capitalism is based on an extrapolated version of Adam Smith's labor theory of value. Marx's core critique of capitalism influenced far, far more than the marxists themselves. And in his critiques he was prophetic. The fault lay in the manifesto and in several of his essays, where he does indeed lay out a solution. The worker control of the MOP isn't even the core issue here, even fascist italy implemented this policy in the social Republic (and mussolini probably planned to the whole time). Even hitler, in a complicated way, implemented effective state socialism by ensuring every major industry was headed by a guy in government (even if in name it was "private").

The slander that the NSDAP is "actually capitalist" is from the rather ignorant mouth of Otto Strasser, and this lie from this relatively obscure figure forever lingers in leftist consciousness. Lets hear it from the horses mouth, from the real communists: Lenin never said "fascism is capitalism in decay" (because it isnt and he never thought this). The USSR never called hitlers Germany or mussolinis Italy capitalist, not a single time. They recognized fascism, accurately, as something different. At one point as an ally and at the next an enemy. This slander is something that appeared after ww2 among western leftists. Of course the ussr wasn't a stranger to throwing the word "fascist" around, however they did not conflate them with liberals either.

 The problem, of course, with traditional marxism is onviously internationalism.

Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed

Just go watch Dr. Zhivago. That will show you everything you need to know about 'muh communism'.

Yes, ok, but see... look, this time it will be different.

I never had a clue what Zizek was talking about, but that could be his disgusting speech impediment.

I don't think so. The ideology itself is criminal so anywhere you have communism you have criminals.

> Once you understand that all of what has been written about economic theory and economic systems are constructs that exist only partially in the real world

The old Austrian School of Economics, which used to be just called "economics" before social liberalism got hold of economics (they had to separate Austrian School from everything else)--Austrian School of economics sought to discover phenomenon in nature about economics just like the old scientists discovered the principles of physics or mathematics. They could observe phenomenon in nature surrounding the activities of humans and sought to describe it. Economics is a phenomenon that occurs in nature, in the real world. Entirely, not partially. It's not a theory that increasing the money supply causes inflation and devalues the currency. That's a fact. It was proven. Austrian School of Economics came about because of Marx, because the old Austrian school wrote vast tomes of scientific literature tearing apart Marx and Engels. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk wrote "Capital and Interest" one of the most important economics books ever written (but you never hear about it, you only hear about Wealth of Nations) largely to tear Marx a new asshole and point out how full of shit Marx is. Funny how you never hear about this book that's so critical of Marx, yet all economics after it is built on it because it was the equivalent of like how blues was the origin or rock n roll, and now there's heavy metal. It's like uh Newton to Pinrose or someshit.

I think the problem is people confuse capitalism with authoritarianism, tyranny, despotism, cronyism, or corruption, and the issue is we don't really have a free market. We have a tyrannical authoritarian government controlled by a wealthy managerial class, elites, who use the government to control the economy and steer economic policy, and use government violence to ensure their interests. That phenomenon of tyrannical government clouds people's judgement. Myself included. I'm a former leftists.

On the one hand, we have capitalism: we know that it works, but government is standing in the way. And on the other hand we have communism: communism cannot work because it's built on a farce which is centralized control over the economy. Both systems are trying to address economic calculation. There's information in the economy that reveals itself to us via prices, prices that occur naturally via market forces. And then, of course, utilizing prices, you have the profit-loss mechanism to signal the efficient distribution of resources.

If the government steps in and meddles in the economy then economic data/prices become distorted and the economic output gets less efficient and benevolent.

Under communism, there is no free market, prices are set arbitrarily via government bureaucracy, therefore there's no natural price system in place, no profit-loss mechanism to signal the efficient distribution of resources and you end up with totalitarianism and mass murder. Which we know happens sooner or later, every time communism is tried.