/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I am trying to understand more about the current Russian National Bolshevism, if there is a real ideology there or is it pure joke…

Does anyone know if there is an ideologist or any real theory that can be read about them? lol

It's often seen as a success story of a nation that built itself from scratch post-colonialism and as an example of IMF loaning "working" and of "moderate pragmatism" beating "ideological purity" (of e.g. Burkina Faso). At least that's the mainstream narrative.
But why did it not get the usual foreign-business/political-meddling/coups/destabilization cocktail its neighboring African nations had to deal with? What's the secret?

[okay so faggots I got a hot take that youŕe not ready for]

CHILD LABOR IN MODERATION CAN LEAD TO US SUCCESS

So for many years there has been them implementation of child labor laws, if you know the history of it then good if not look that shit up. BUT! Here I come. I offer you a solution to the problem that is plaguing the nation *Labor shortages*! There has been a push for college and less for people entering the workforce immediately after high school also there is a astigmatism that applies to both that and trade skills. Now that we got that out of the way, my proposal. I know that depending on your state (US specific) that 14 year olds and more-so 15 year olds are entering the workforce at the unskilled jobs. This would be things like housekeeping or like fast food. I know that my mother when she was a child that she was working in blueberry patches in the 1970ś as a white woman but now in 2024 there would be all hell raised if I suggested to my mother that I wanted to do the same thing she did for the summer instead of an intership/college class/ or a job relating to my future intended career. I am 21f for context. But I have been brainwashed as has everyone with the idea of college for all and this leads to the inflation of qualifications for jobs for now jobs that didn´t require a degree to now havi ng one compared to our parents who applied and are still employeed in the same sector. If we lower to the working age then we have more people that are getting money, you may suggest that people are only working at 14-16 if they need the money, but we are considering that the population of the working age in the united states is not increasing to support the large number of adults living past the working age (ss benefits/programs). So if we get a bunch of 12 year olds , even just lowering it by 2 years you start to get people that are working the jobs that no one wants, they get time management skills, and money which stimulates the economy. This is more kids buying like clothes or makeup or games and then in turn then parents can stop with this whole allowance gargin. WHICH I HATE. I HATE HATE HATE seeing bitches my age get an allowance like as soon as I got a job in high school part time any financial help from my parents seized, I know that this is just parents wanting to give their kids, but this is harmful both ways with an expectation of assistance and then the draining of parentś savings. We can see with millennials that therPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

At what point do monopoly super-profits paid to a substratum of workers switch to being something worthy of celebration to something of genuine concern. Should this be something that Marxists even care about?

Construction workers in one of Australia's largest states have reached an agreement that will have them paid wages equal to the top 1% of workers as a minimum, on major government projects. This is partly politics, partly because major infrastructure projects are one of the only things keeping this country artificially in growth.

Notably this doesn't apply to significant sections of the construction labour force, only for those workers on major government infrastructure projects, which are largely closed shops. Workers building domestic houses will still be paid shocking wages to work in terrible conditions.

Effectively this provides surplus wealth to a labour aristocracy at the direct expense of other government workers including healthcare workers in particular, who have average to terrible conditions and insane workloads.

Win for workers or another example of a politically connected minority extracting surplus wealth?

Political discourse has dropped off a cliff. No one could blame people for this. The political problems of today are massive in scale, existential in importance, and often deeply personal.
However, this is keeping anything from being done. This will continue. People will drive their party to take action, which will cause a backlash effect, halting progress in any direction.
Some people believe that the only way forward is the complete breakdown of the social order. These people are waiting for the violence to start. But we have to believe in a better way, or else we will eventually wind right back up where we are. No political system lasts forever, and even if your particular political utopia takes place, it can eventually devolve into what we have now.

What we need to avoid this is better tools - better tools for making decisions, better tools for informing the public, and better tools to direct our area of focus.
One of the things that I believe holding us back on this point is the present-day structure of political disagreements. That is to say - little or no structure at all.

When there are disagreements on a political point, the most productive way, currently, to resolve these disagreements (or at least air them out) is political debate. Ask yourself - is even the most well-run and polite political debate the best way to present an argument for the general public to make an assessment of who is correct for themselves?
First of all, it's nearly impossible to address every argument and piece of evidence provided. Arguments spread out like an infinitely deep tree structure - every argument can have one or more counter-argument, which can all be supported by one or more pieces of evidence, which can all have issues, and all those issues can have counter-points, and all those counter-points can have counter-points, ad infinitum… Even if you could present this in the theoretically perfect debate, and no one could follow it - and even if you could, you would have to look up all the citations for yourself. Even after all that research, there is little way for you to contribute to the argument other than start a whole new debate from scratch, which likely would not be perfect!

I propose that a Wiki-like structure is a more ideal way to structure an argument on any topic.
The initial topic of argument can be laid out with points and supporting arguments from each side. One or more counter-arguments can be liPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

How can the Socialist economic calculation problem be solved? Didn't Ludwig von Mises say that socialism has a major problem that has something to do with information or something? Apparently it's a big problem capitalists seem to have with socialism, and part of the reason why many of them oppose it.

Pic rel is not a reflection of my political views.

I started reading his "History and class consciousness", and it looks very convincing so far. Why is he apparently foundational to "western marxism", which was an utter failure? Is there something reactionary and opportunist in his work?

People do not understand the Luddites, they claim Luddites rejected "progress" in fact they revolted against their subordination into the emerging class of industrial proletarians, enslaved both to modern mechanical terrors and their erudite and unscrupulous owners
There are technologies that can and must be redeployed like networked tech, communications, and computer algorithms, technologies that must be reconfigured like modern agriculture, and energy infrastructure, technologies that must be heavily reduced in usage down to purely necessary tasks like plastics, and technologies with no ethical or safe usage like nuclear weapons and automated weapons system that should just be abolished entirely

People here will deny it, lots of leftists are blinded by the panopticon.

In the modern world, those who reject so called technological innovation and "progres" are trash, but those that submit to the technological terror of the bourgeoisie are lower than that! And that's why the Luddites were true heroes.

Haven't seen a thread from News Anon 3.0 in a bit. Last thread was 04/18. Not to be greedy, but I'm a big fan of their coverage. Anyone online knowledgeable about their disappearance? Thanks.

Why are reactionaries so obsessed with repealing the social and cultural changes of the 1960s? Even today you listen to turds like Chris Rufo go on about 1968 was the year american succumbed to cultural Marxism, or at least began it's long march to such.

>The politics of the Gingrich revolution of the nineties are locked in a strange obsession with the politics they purport to repeal-the politics of the late sixties. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, forthrightly set out the conventional loathing: "To me all the problems began in the sixties." But the troops of the New Right are far more nourished by the sixties than they appreciate. The sixties provide the right both an evil to extirpate and a libertarian ethic to emulate.

<In the words of Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ph.D., American history breaks in half in the sixties. During the years 1607 through 1965, Gingrich said not long after assuming the leadership of the House, "There is a core pattern to American history. Here's how we did it until the Great Society messed everything up: don't work, don't eat; your salvation is spiritual; the government by definition can't save you; governments are into maintenance and all good reforms are into transformation." Then came the deluge, Gingrich continued: "From 1965 to 1994, we did strange and weird things as a country. Now we're done with that and we have to recover. The counterculture is a momentary aberration in American history that will be looked back upon as a quaint period of Bohemianism brought to the national elite"-the notorious "counterculture McGoverniks," an elite who "taught self-indulgent, aristocratic values without realizing that if an entire society engaged in the indulgences of an elite few, you could tear the society to shreds."

>Gingrich's generation of Republican first-termers, like Ronald Reagan's ideologues before them, toss the word "revolution" around rather lightly. The collapse of communism hardly left them complacent, but rather pumped up their sense that America trembles on the edge of a chasm. Thus Irving Kristol in 1993: "There is no 'after the Cold War' for me. So far from having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. . . . Now that the other 'Cold War' is over, the real cold war has begun. Post too long. Click here to view the full text.