/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Are there any books about how the Federal Reserve engineers controlled crises? Or, the role of central banking under the capitalist mode of production?

Share your ideas?

Without the federal reserve, would inflation alone cause the proletariat to rise up? Therefore the federal reserve stabilizes the status quo, etc.

Jay Powell states in every hearing that the Federal Reserve's mission is to reduce inflation down to two percent. He also states that the strong labor market is the driving force of inflation and that the labor market will need to be softened.

These crises benefit no one, except the major capitalists who consume the competition and accumulate more property due to firesale prices.

so how the fuck are we supposed to organize or get together socially at all when every single leftist space on the internet is basically a cult? like I'm having a mental health crisis and i really wanted people to talk to on fbi.gov or something but literally every single fucking server is locked behind a bunch of questions and qualifiers and they want you to write a fucking essay about how marxist you are. Literally the only server i got in so far i got banned in less than 24 hours for something completely inane, i don't even really understand what I did.

im so fucking lonely and alienated but I'm basically excluded from 99% of spaces where ostensibly some like minded people might be, I'm sick of it and i don't know what the fuck to do anymore.

People often forget here even with history, that the Social Democracy meant the building of an alternative to capitalism, building structures within the party organ to assist and build culture and art and education for the proletariat. At some point the Social Democratic Party abandoned those revolutionary principles and instead of actually building youth programs and public gymnasiums at the expense of the party and all of these things meant to elevate the Proletariat to proper culture that was denied to them by capitalism and capitalists. At some point you see the Social Democratic Party abandon the building of a socialist society as it's objective program, understanding that the political struggle is the class struggle and vice versa. When did they become so conservative that they abandoned even the objective of their party programme? With regards to reform and revolution, to many socialists revolution and reform was one and the same thing, so this was never the real question because it was answered. But at some point during WW2 and after Social Democratic Parties abandoned all revolutionary and politically charged programmes even objectives of reformation and transformation via electoralism was abandoned by the Social Democratic Party to do nothing but maintain the capitalist status quo.

This is a fun thread for dumb dilemmas. Give us your 'which side do you support's, your 'would you rather's and your trolley problems. Yell, laugh and reason.

We'll start with a variation of an old classic:
Hitler, ᴉuᴉlossnW, Thatcher, Reagan, W Bush, Trump
All before they gained relevance.
You have a gun with two bullets, where do they go?

Thinking about mass shooters and their motives, does it really matter what they believe? The dopamine rush associated with the entire spectacle of the thing requires nothing behind it, leaving the actor total creative freedom in the symbology they use or manifesto they write

What's frightening about the act isn't the accessory motive they claim or what's developed by the media to be the shooter's 'mythos'. What's frightening is the idea that it really doesn't matter, anyone could do this, at any time, for no reason at all. Terror has no face.

There seems to be a brutal awareness of this among certain sections, to the extent that you'll sometimes see headlines like this. In America I think there's still somewhat of a sense that this can still be managed, through regulation of firearms or "arming teachers" and similar.

People here like to say that the USSR's role in WW2 was defensive and the real ones to blame were the West for the failure to create an anti-Nazi coalition with the Soviet Union. Their justification is that after Stalin was rejected by the western allies, he had no choice but to enact the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because other countries signed various international agreements with Adolf Hitler throughout the 1930s.

However, even western historians from today going back to the end of WW2 widely criticize the Munich Agreement as a symbol of "appeasement policy" which proved to be a disastrous move. However, when the Nazis themselves broke the Munich Agreement with their invasion of Prague in March 1939, the western allies THEMSELVES approached the USSR about a new anti-Nazi coalition. https://books.google.it/books/about/The_Twentieth_century_World_and_Beyond.html?id=2HiUQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

However, nobody ever talks about this. Why didn't Stalin agree to the anti-Hitler coalition and why is nobody talking about this? The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact could have never happened if Stalin decided to accept their request, he did have a choice about enacting it after all.

…and communists, other than Chinese communists, have absolutely nothing to show for themselves.

In a time where Europe is cracking and spontaneous class war emerges, in particular the health workers, firemen, and farmers (which with highly developed mechanization don't differ that much from the proletariat) protesting; when France is once again starting to kindle; when there's a actual war displacing and killing millions in Eastern Europe, when communists there could be in the trenches agitating against the war – the Western communists have NOTHING to show. Why? Is multipolarity the only thing which will immesirate the western proletarian sufficiently so that they once again turn to the tool of proletarian revolution in the time of imperialism?

What is to be done?

West Bank settlers win Israel parliament vote
Israel's settler movement celebrated Tuesday after parliament annulled part of a law banning them from residing in areas of the occupied West Bank the then Israeli government evacuated in 2005. That year the government of Ariel Sharon, a long-time settler champion turned peacemaker, oversaw a unilateral withdrawal by Israel from the Gaza Strip, and the removal of Jewish settlers from the Palestinian enclave and four settlements in the northern West Bank.
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/03/west-bank-settlers-win-israel-parliament-vote

Top Israeli minister: ‘No such thing’ as Palestinian people
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. There is no Palestinian history. There is no Palestinian language,” he said in France late Sunday. He spoke at a memorial event for a French-Israeli right-wing activist who denied the existence of a Palestinian nation and advocated annexation of the West Bank. The lectern was adorned with what appeared to be an image showing the map of Israel that included the occupied West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-netanyahu-smotrich-tensions-38150d2ba81f571b1d5333dd7b046af0

Thousands mourn four civilian Kurds killed while celebrating Nowruz
Local sources told Middle East Eye that brothers Farhan Din, Mohammed, Ismail Othman, and Ismail's 18-year-old son were killed on Monday evening when fighters from the Sharqiya Army opened fire on people who had lit fires for Nowruz in the town of Jindayris. Three people were also wounded, one of them seriously.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syria-thousands-mourn-civilian-kurds-killed-celebrating-nowruz

HPG: One soldier killed after Turkish attack on guerrilla positions
The HPG Press Centre statement on Monday said: "The Turkish occupying army is committing war crimes and continuously attacking our forPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

What if the proletariat isn't the revolutionary subject?

There's one really good argument against Marxism. And it isn't the stupid arguments about how Hayek said central planners can't solve the millions of equations, Venezuela, or human nature.

The real problem with Marxism is the lack of a revolutionary subject. In countries where socialist revolutions succeeded, they were often on the backs of peasants, not industrial workers. There are precisely zero examples of successful proletarian revolutions, and zero ATTEMPTS at new proletarian revolutions since the 1980s or so (i.e. Peru), certainly for the whole 21st century.

The fact is that the thesis of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject has essentially been disproven by the 20th century. Any form of socialism or communism going forward would need to have an alternative driving force, and would therefore not really be Marxism.

It's actually possible capitalism doesn't even produce a revolutionary subject at all.

Other possibilities are counter-economics (maybe coops or prefigurative cybernetics), ultra-vanguardism aka blanquism and coups, accelerationism, or even some more outlandish examples like building humanity into a hivemind so that it is ontologically incapable of commodity production and therefore defaults to borg-communism.

Even though Bookchin rightly critiques Marxism in this regard, he just goes on larping "democracy" as though nothing is changed, there's no reason for a bunch of randos to make communism or anarchism or communalism whether you call them proletariat or not.

I've seen way too many social movements fail or be swallowed, only for the next generation of rubes to come along and mindlessly cheer for war, imperialism, capitalism and for the elites to drink their blood. The only difference is trad flavored vs woke flavored, real life is like the ending of mass effect the fucking universe explodes and you only get to choose the color of the explosion.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.(0 reply bait thread)