A complete guide for leftists to evolve into supermen leftists !!

[TomLeftist]

EXERCISE PROGRAM AND SELF-HELP READING PROGRAM FOR LEFTISTS TO GAIN POWER. TO EVOLVE INTO LEFTISTS SUPERMEN !!
HIGH PROTEIN DIET OF 1800 CALORIES AND 53% OF PROTEIN, 42% OF FATS


Total calories of the whole diet: 1800
Total grams of fats: 85
Total calories from fats: 765
Percentage of fat calories: 42% fat calories
Total grams of Protein: 240 grams of protein.
Calories from protein: 960 calories
Percentage of calories from protein: 53%




MEAL # 1: 12 NOON (EGGS-PANCAKE)
3 eggs (15 grams of protein, 15 grams of fat, 200 calories)
2 tablespoons of butter or 3 slices of american cheese kraft (20 grams of fats, 200 calories)
2 scoop of whey protein powder (200 calories, 50 grams of protein)


Nutrition info of meal 1
Calories: 600 calories.
Grams of fats: 35
Grams of protein: 65


MEAL # 2 3 SCOOP OF WHEY PROTEIN
Nutrition info of meal 2
Calories: 300 calories.
Grams of fats: 0
Grams of protein: 75


MEAL # 3 10:PM
12 ounces of chicken breasts stewed (100 grams of protein, 10 grams of fat, 500 calories)
4 tablespoons of oil (40 grams of fats, 400 calories)


Nutrition info of meal 3
Calories: 900 calories.
Grams of fats: 50
Grams of protein: 100




EXERCISE ROUTINE:


Full body workout for weight training (Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays)


Bench Press 12-10-5-1-1-1 (The sets of 1 reps are real heavy sets to failure)
Incline Press 1-1-1
Back pulldowns behind neck for back 15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15
Press behind neck for shoulders 5-4-4-4
Squats for legs 15-10-8
Leg extensions 8-8-8
Leg Curls 8-8-8
Standing calves 15-15-15


Aerobic exercise 2 hours


(Monday, Tuesday, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Friday and Saturday):


Fast walking 1 hour


PART 2 - THE MIND


BOOK-READING LIST TO INCREASE MENTAL STRENGTH


Buy these books from http://www.amazon.com/books-used-books-textbooks/b/ref=sd_allcat_bo?ie=UTF8&node=283155


1-The Will to Power by Fredrich Nietzsche
2- Beyond Good and Evil by Fredrich Nietzsche
3- Napoleon Bonaparte by Emil Ludwig.
4- Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Fredrich Nietzsche
5- Crime and Punishment by Fiodor Dostoevsky.
6- Julius Caesar by Philip Freeman
7- Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman
8- King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table by Roger Lancelyn Green
9- Faust by Goethe
10- Xenophon's Anabasis by Michael A. Flower
11- Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome by John Man
12- Superman and Philosophy by William Irwin
13- Che Guevara a Biography by Richard L. Harris
14- Hannibal Enemy of Rome by Ben Kane
15- The Republic by Plato
16- The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
17- The Antichrist by Fredrich Nietzsche
18- Complete Works by Arthur Rimbaud
19- Know Your Enemy: The Story of Rage Against the Machine by Joel McIver
20 -The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
21- The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
22- The Politics of Aristotle
23- Homer by The Odyssey
24- The Wisdom of Life by Arthur Schopenhauer
25- The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
26- Human all too human by Fredrich Nietzsche
27- The Genealogy of Morals by Fredrich Nietzsche
28- Untimely Meditations by Fredrich Nietzsche
29- The Birth of Tragedy by Fredrich Nietzsche
30- Twilight Of The Idols by Fredrich Nietzsche
31- The Gay Science by Fredrich Nietzsche

[GLF]

Interesting thread, Tom. :)

But I'm a little surprised by your choice of reading. Dostoevesky was an outright Slavic fascist and Nietzsche's ideas were a precursor to 20th century fascistic thought. I really don't see how Nietzsche is anywhere close to being helpful as it pertains to leftism. I understand that your idea is rooted in the Nietzschean ubermensch, but again, this has nothing to do with being left-wing. Unlike the right-wing, we don't worship individualism nor desire a strongman. Our strength lies in the great mass of people.

[BIXX]

Nietzsche being a precursor to fascist thought is largely a myth perpetuated due to his sister's reimagining of his shit.

Not a huge fan of huffpo but this is a quick explanation as to why he's not a fascist.

http://huffpost.com/us/entry/5458843

[GLF]

I don't care if he is a precursor to actual fascism or not. There is stuff to be found there that is blatantly fascistic in thought. Hyper-individualism and liberation of the strong type of shit.

Communism is collectivist and emphasizes the power of the great masses over the individual and that was something Nietzsche was completely averse to. As communists we don't think on how to "become stronger leftists", we need give power to those who have none at all and we do that through social organization and coming together with all the people.

[BIXX]

I think your consistent parernalization of "the weak" is bullshit GLF.

Furthermore communism isn't inherently collectivist- your ignorance of communist theory is showing again.

[GLF]

I think your consistent parernalization of "the weak" is bullshit GLF.

Furthermore communism isn't inherently collectivist- your ignorance of communist theory is showing again.

Considering that you even dismiss the idea of a socialist vanguard as being "paternalistic", I don't really give a rats ass if you call me paternalistic. Keep in mind that I haven't called anyone "weak"...Nietzsche is the one who does that, whose ideas were repugnant.

And here you claim that communism isn't inherently collectivist while saying that I am ignorant of communist theory. I already knew you were a libertarian and now there is no doubt.

I've honestly tried to avoid factionalism up unto this point but I'm sick and tired of the bullshit. Libertarians and anarchists are the ignorant ones.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I've always wanted to be a socialist ubermensch. Thanks TomLeftist. Wow, what a useful and amazing list of things to dedicate my life towards.

(if somehow someone didn't get it, I'm being sarcastic)

[ckaihatsu]

Furthermore communism isn't inherently collectivist


Yes, communism *is* collectivist, especially for all matters of social production, and, within that, especially for all matters of *mass-industrial* productivity.

It's debatable whether communism needs to be collectivist for everyday social life -- I would say less and less in our contemporary times as digital devices fill in the gap for social connectivity (information-transfer), but the communications-technology aspect is beside the point, anyway, because some kind of social cooperation and coordination will have to happen regardless for post-capitalist society to attain full-automation and more individually-self-determining free time (if wanted that way).

I'll proffer that it's good to differentiate social / societal 'levels', or 'realms', by magnitude of scale -- the most-*personal* realm ('micro') is life/style, while the societal 'overhead' for any and all lifestyles requires the next-higher realm, that of *logistics*, while the societal administration of all of that can be summed-up as 'politics' ('macro').


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

http://s6.postimg.org/44rloql0x/160309_History_Macro_Micro_politics_logistic.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/r686uhkod/full/)


So, using this framework of scale, communist 'politics' -- unfettered mass-decision-making -- would necessarily have to be collectivist, by definition, and the middle-realm, 'logistics', *should* be as collectivist *as possible*, to enjoy material-production efficiencies-of-scale.

But the personal, life/style realm really should be one's own, post-capitalism, since so much of human class history has been dictated *from above*, coercing people into social groupings and their activities just for the sake of individual survival (this-or-that nation, and its military, religion, labor, and culture, etc.).

The principle of communistic non-coercion (non-commodity-production) would have a corollary in individual self-determination, regardless of work status. This could manifest as rampant individualism in life/style (*non*-collectivist), or it could be consistent everyday informal social ties (collectivist life/style), or somewhere between those two endpoints.

[BIXX]

Yeah listen, if you're gonna ignore the vast swath of individualist communist theory then there's no point in this discussion. Either you're too ignorant of it to have the discussion, or you want to conveniently sweep it under the rug.

[GLF]

But I guess it's okay for you to ignore the even bigger swath of Marxist/Leninist communist theory. I guess you're libertarian/anarcho bias is just too strong to have a discussion, so you conveniently sweep 150 years of rational socialist dialectic under the rug.

[BIXX]

No, I'm aware of all that theory and don't deny the collectivist communist tradition. I am not denying it's existence, I'm just also reporting the existence of the individualist communist tendencies.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

No, I'm aware of all that theory and don't deny the collectivist communist tradition. I am not denying it's existence, I'm just also reporting the existence of the individualist communist tendencies.
I think you would be correct in saying that there are 'individualist revolutionary tendencies' but communism is by its nature an ideology dedicated to the liberation of workers as a class. It is inherently 'collectivist'.

[BIXX]

Except there is lots of communist theory the eschews class in favor of a more holistic understanding of what the destruction of capital will look like. They don't lack an acknowledgement of class, but simply think class isn't the central conflict from which communism will emerge- there is much theory from afropessimist, queer nihilist, communisationist, feminist negativity, etc... That deal with this (of course some writers from those specific tendencies also do this k class is central, but most do not see a single point of centrality). Most even eschew the identity politics of their associated body of theory.

Also, I think you might find that "communism is the real movement that abolished the current state of things"- while Marx might have been primarily concerned with class, I'd be willing to bet that he would have a far more holistic understanding of liberation than most people here seem to think, were he alive today.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Except there is lots of communist theory the eschews class in favor of a more holistic understanding of what the destruction of capital will look like. They don't lack an acknowledgement of class, but simply think class isn't the central conflict from which communism will emerge- there is much theory from afropessimist, queer nihilist, communisationist, feminist negativity, etc... That deal with this (of course some writers from those specific tendencies also do this k class is central, but most do not see a single point of centrality). Most even eschew the identity politics of their associated body of theory.

Also, I think you might find that "communism is the real movement that abolished the current state of things"- while Marx might have been primarily concerned with class, I'd be willing to bet that he would have a far more holistic understanding of liberation than most people here seem to think, were he alive today.
None of those ideologies, besides perhaps communisation theory, are specifically 'communist' and you entirely misunderstand communisation theory if you think it individualist. For example, Theorie Communiste: "the revolutionary movement is and remains a movement of the class of labour even in the overcoming of activities as labour. The affirmation remains as long as capital is not yet abolished; this is to say, as long as capital still exists as opposed to the proletariat, even the proletariat on the point of abolishing it, i.e. of abolishing itself. In this context the proletariat retains a positivity, even if this positivity of labour is not reaffirmed by capital anymore; rather it is reactivated in the revolutionary process, as social reproduction becomes a process dependent on the action of proletarians."

And you shouldn't take that Marx quote out of context. The full quote (appearing right after a longer paragraph dealing specifically with the proletariat's position in capitalist society) is this: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." An emphasis, in this case, should be put on the last sentence. For Marx (and really for any communist worth their salt) the 'conditions of this movement' is class society and the proletariat's unique position within it. Communism is an inherently collective movement because of the conditions that capitalism has established.

It should simply be said. Capital is at the core of capitalism. The proletariat as a class is, by the very nature of its existence, uniquely opposed to Capital (that is to say, it is in the interests of the proletariat to oppose Capital not that it necessarily is organised to do so). Thus communism, and any theory or ideology that wishes to come under the banner of 'communist', exists on this premise: that the proletariat as a class must overthrow Capital. I'm not sure how you could, in any way, perceive that as anything other that 'collectivist'.

[Ele'ill]

Communisation theory isn't limited to TC and there are criticisms that challenge traditional conceptions of class, the proletariat, The Revolution, work, industry, process etc.. within other communisation currents, to the point that the word collectivist in the manner that a lot of communists use it doesn't fit. I think the observation of individual autonomy is significant in light of the original post being responded to.


Communism is collectivist and emphasizes the power of the great masses over the individual

[BIXX]

None of those ideologies, besides perhaps communisation theory, are specifically 'communist'
All of them acknowledge that liberation cannot exist under capitalism.

and you entirely misunderstand communisation theory if you think it individualist. For example, Theorie Communiste: "the revolutionary movement is and remains a movement of the class of labour even in the overcoming of activities as labour. The affirmation remains as long as capital is not yet abolished; this is to say, as long as capital still exists as opposed to the proletariat, even the proletariat on the point of abolishing it, i.e. of abolishing itself. In this context the proletariat retains a positivity, even if this positivity of labour is not reaffirmed by capital anymore; rather it is reactivated in the revolutionary process, as social reproduction becomes a process dependent on the action of proletarians."
See ele'ill.

I'd add, however, that individualism is not anti-social, rather, it's the recognition of both the social and the anti-social tendencies of a human animal.


And you shouldn't take that Marx quote out of context. The full quote (appearing right after a longer paragraph dealing specifically with the proletariat's position in capitalist society) is this: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." An emphasis, in this case, should be put on the last sentence. For Marx (and really for any communist worth their salt) the 'conditions of this movement' is class society and the proletariat's unique position within it. Communism is an inherently collective movement because of the conditions that capitalism has established.
Like I said, Marx was specifically interested in class- non class related struggles were not a focus of his. In fact, "The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence," is not to be denied, that class (and queerness, and race, and the struggles women face) are results of capital and the greater project of civilization- once again though, Marx was simply more interested in class-he had no reason to focus on anything else.


It should simply be said. Capital is at the core of capitalism. The proletariat as a class is, by the very nature of its existence, uniquely opposed to Capital (that is to say, it is in the interests of the proletariat to oppose Capital not that it necessarily is organised to do so). Thus communism, and any theory or ideology that wishes to come under the banner of 'communist', exists on this premise: that the proletariat as a class must overthrow Capital. I'm not sure how you could, in any way, perceive that as anything other that 'collectivist'.

Perhaps you're ignoring that queerness, for example, is also uniquely opposed to capital, differentially. Same with black bodies, or women- all of that liberation doesn't center around class, but a specific destruction of capital. The liberation of humans beings from class lives alongside the liberation of human beings from race, gender, etc... The things that destroy us. We aren't here to reaffirm ourselves as queers, as women, as blacks, as proles, but to destroy ourselves as women, queers, blacks, and proles, and to discover ourselves as the human animal.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Do you want to make a new thread about this in 'Theory' or somewhere else? I'd like to develop the discussion a bit more in depth. I'm not going to pretend that I've read everything that you have so it would be interesting to see links to/quotations for pieces that defend your perspective (which, at the risk of sounding dickish, is entirely wrong :P ).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Anyway....


Communisation theory isn't limited to TC and there are criticisms that challenge traditional conceptions of class, the proletariat, The Revolution, work, industry, process etc.. within other communisation currents, to the point that the word collectivist in the manner that a lot of communists use it doesn't fit. I think the observation of individual autonomy is significant in light of the original post being responded to.
I have no doubt that communisation has developed its concepts of class and so on in order to try and appear unique. And I also acknowledge the significance of individual autonomy as such. However, there is no facet of communisation theory that doesn't point to the necessity of overcoming Capital on a global scale. Tiqqun and others might advocate communisation on the small scale as a prerequisite of a larger movement but the emphasis, in the case of actually destroying capitalism in its totality, should be put on the larger movement. In no way could communisation be reduced to an individualist theory when it is concerned with those collectively oppressed by Capital and the methods that they should take to liberate themselves from that oppression.


All of them acknowledge that liberation cannot exist under capitalism.

I'd add, however, that individualism is not anti-social, rather, it's the recognition of both the social and the anti-social tendencies of a human animal.
There are indeed anti-capitalist ideologies that are not communist.


Like I said, Marx was specifically interested in class- non class related struggles were not a focus of his. In fact, "The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence," is not to be denied, that class (and queerness, and race, and the struggles women face) are results of capital and the greater project of civilization- once again though, Marx was simply more interested in class-he had no reason to focus on anything else.

Perhaps you're ignoring that queerness, for example, is also uniquely opposed to capital, differentially. Same with black bodies, or women- all of that liberation doesn't center around class, but a specific destruction of capital. The liberation of humans beings from class lives alongside the liberation of human beings from race, gender, etc... The things that destroy us. We aren't here to reaffirm ourselves as queers, as women, as blacks, as proles, but to destroy ourselves as women, queers, blacks, and proles, and to discover ourselves as the human animal.
I do not deny the unique oppression that certain identities and beings experience under Capital. However Capital's existence is not predicated on that oppression; it is predicated on the oppression of the proletariat as a class. Capital cannot exist without the sustenance it draws from the exploitation of labour - you could argue that certain groups and identities within the proletariat are exploited more or in specific ways but ultimately this exploitation is based on the relationship workers have with the means of production. That is why communism is the movement to abolish the present state of things - the proletariat, in destroying Capital, ultimately destroy themselves as oppressed beings along with the specific oppression of certain identities that could only exist while Capital exists.

This is why I say that the ideologies that you brought up (afropessimist, queer nihilist, feminist negativity) are not specifically communist. It is important to understand individual oppression and exploitation under Capital but Capital can only be destroyed through collective struggle.

[I Am The Walrus]

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Did you come straight here from /fit/ or /pol/? Your book list contains no leftist intellectuals and I doubt anyone can seriously build muscle eating 1800 calories a day. This has to be a troll post.

[CaptainCool309]

8 sets of 15 behind the neck pulldowns huh? :laugh:

Quick question OP: How are you supposed to get jacked like Superman from Red Son if you're doing 2 hours of daily cardio, 6 six days a week, on less than 2,000 calories a day?

I suppose the secret to success will be in all the philosophical enlightenment you'll get from reading so much Nietzsche.