/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>546287
So your saying modi’s bill will improve the lives of Indians but also the potential of all that construction won’t be fully realized if ever simply because of how badly run of a country India actually is?

>>546293

Yup. I've brought up the Ortho/Booj capitalist explanation of the Soviet Union's failure as a failure to improve technological / organization bases; i.e, the Soviets could build capital endlessly, but they were screwed by the diminishing rate of profit at a low level, because their Solow Residual / "Total Factor Productivity" was low.

Traditional Hindu modes of relation MIGHT be affected by Marx's "All That Is Solid Melts Into Air" when he described capitalism, but given that capitalism (at least current and earlier versions) is exploitative at its core, the exploitation that underlies Hinduism might not be melted by capitalism.

In that case, the exploitation inhibits human capital development and thus creates a TFP / Solow Residual ceiling for capital accumulation, or in other words, India will hit diminishing rate of profit faster than the West, the East Asian states, and China.

bump

Well all infrastructure should be built as densely as possible unless development is near coastlines then it’s shit because your at risk of floods like what happened to Shanghai due to to much mass concentrated in one area

>>548284
Also this is an image of India and the one on the bottom is China

I would’ve said this is propaganda but the one on the top is Kerala while the one on the bottom is Beijing, India desperately needs to industrialize and build far fucking more than it is

>>548033
This is mostly because individuals will not directly feel this but in terms of the social consequences it will be felt. Individuals may be better off or at least decent in bad times but collectively the standard of living is dropping steadily. So of course there’ll be strong mouth pieces that will say everything is fine while socially everything is falling apart by every statistic.

>>548033

Americans would gladly support amazon having 2 senators in congress and owning half the land in the US because of trickle down economic beliefs. You literally could not convince a american to be a socialist. If i pointed a gun at a american and told them to say socialism is better than capitalism, they would choose death

>>548262
>If i pointed a gun at a american and told them to say socialism is better than capitalism, they would choose death
Good.

>>548262
But I’m an American and I support socialism.

>>548262
Where are you getting this idea? Debates with channers and redditors?

>>548210
Mohamed banned setting prices

>>482074
Most Christians aren't white

>>548223
i don't know what that means, was that a good or bad thing ?

>>548230
Based Christians

>>548242
Well if you support the free market the yes
> "In the Day of Judgment, the honest, truthful Muslim merchant will rank with the martyrs of the faith; the trustworthy merchant will sit in the shadow of the throne of God on Judgment Day."
>Allah (swt) has left to everybody the right to sell his commodity at the price He likes. Ibn Majah has narrated from Abu S’aid, that He said, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Selling (trading) is by consent.” But because it is possible that the State (government) may force pricing over the people, Allah (swt) prohibited it to set certain prices for commodities and then force people to trade (selling and buying) according to them; therefore, price-fixing was prohibited.

>>547644
(continued)
Let me add that it is not an original theory that the continual muslim-versus-muslim violence is sectarian in nature.

This article, feebly in my opinion, tries to argue against it
(https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-middle-easts-great-divide-is-not-sectarianism)

In this case, it's clear enough that the combatants are not fighting the government. It appears to be militant partisan groups infighting, different citizen groups. This is clear enough from the lack of any footage of soldiers in military fatigues engaged in combat, or the deployment of military assets . The Lebanese state has a viable enough military force that it could deploy to quell the violence. So it is not partisan versus state.

Why then would different groups of the same social class fight? What is their reason? So it is probably religion.

>>547318
I'm Egyptian and just watching these guys fight for fun in this thread lol

>>547508
>declaring Iranians to be immune to Nuremberg laws
What was he trying to achieve by doing this? Was there any sort of diplomatic and geostrategic reason behind it?

>>547690
Hitler wanted Iran to join Axis and stop exporting oil to Britain, Hitler's plans failed because the Allied powers knew of them and preemptively invaded Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

>>547640
>and mind you I have thought little about this specific issue, but generally have sharp instincts
<proceeds to completely misunderstand the factions
bruh, please don't ever rely on your self-described sharp instincts IRL. you will get burned for sure.

>>548053
It's everywhere. Go the rallies. Go to the meetings. Go to any college. They all talk like this.

>>548057
No I dont

>>548057
It's here too, who do you think are the ones getting mad about the OP?

>>548081
Samefagging lmao

>>548037
>Are you guys not tired of the smug one liners?
No.

>>545015
>i don't think china can pull it off
China has good chances at building socialism
>in time to save us
They will support the new socialist countries that will form in the near future by trading with them. but they will not recreate a big soviet block

>>543049
KWAB

White people

>>542972
damn you anon!!!! xd

>>547895
>>547896
2nd video

Not exactly what OP asked for, but related: Why socialism shouldn't use marginalist pricing.

>>546972
Sure, but I think heavy industry should most definitely be state-owned. Co-operatives should be used as peripheral hinges where relations can not be fully mediated by planning (yet), such as consumer cooperatives that sell commodities or farms that sell their produce to the state. As long as the heights of the economy are state-owned I don't see a problem with that (and it wouldn't make commodity production generalized, either).

>>546552
I don’t disagree with that analysis of markets, after all the agrarian capitalist model had many independent producers in the early phase in England and America and there was indeed inequality between such producers. But what I don’t like about it as a critique of let’s say “legislated” or mandated cooperatives (which it isn’t directly) is that it seems very undialectical to me. There has been no economy of generalized cooperatives that arose out of proletarianization. Yugo doesn’t count here in my mind, I don’t think it’s structure was substantially different from Soviet worker councils electing representatives (and Yugoslavia remained pretty centralized in key areas, including general property ownership, with the emphasis on workplace democracy and profit-sharing following the more early Soviet style phase).

Which is to say that it is unclear what the effects of such a move would be. I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that it would be dissolution back into capitalism, anymore than something like liberal democracy had to devolve back into central monarchy. People made those arguments, and you can easily make such a deterministic argument that the central state form creates an imperative for overt central authority. But I think that is a very reductive kind of argument. Even an idea like capitalism has to dissolve aristocracy, it clearly doesn’t. The birthplace of modern capitalism, England, has the fooking Queen and her spawn still running around, and even still has the descendants of aristocrats that still own vast tracts of land. The land owners in England supported enclosure and proletarianization, it was their means of extracting greater rents by leasing land to the most competitive capitalists.

Markets foster competition, which introduces levels of instability in production. The effects of this are felt most acutely by workers, as they naturally have less cushion in the form of property. I don’t think this changes in a cooperative economy, workers would still mostly experience themselves as workers except now their retirement isn’t in a stock market (as it doesn’t exist) but instead back in company pension schemes (which perhaps get insured and risk pooled or something like that in a truly disconnected cooperative economy, but ideally I’d think cooperatives could just federate and have direct shared pensions or otherwPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.

But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.

Bernstein has himself taken note of these facts. But it is evident that he has not understood them. For, together with Mrs. Potter-Webb, he explains the failure of production co-operatives in England by their lack of “discipline.” But what is so superficially and flatly called here “discipline” is nothing else than the natural absolutist regime of capitalism, which it is plain, the workers cannot successfully use against themselves.

Producers’ co-operatives can survive within capitalist economy only if they manage to suppress, by means of some detour, the capitalist controlled contradictions between the mode of production and the mode of exchange. And they can accomplish this only by removing themselves artificially from the influence of the laws of free competition. And they can succeed in doing the last only when they assure themselves beforehand of a constant circle of consumers, that is, when they assure themselves of a constant market.

It is the consumers’ co-operative that can offer this service to its brother in the field of production. Here – and not in Oppenheimer’s distinction between co-operPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>547247
She was just wrong about this. Worker cooperatives and consumer cooperatives have not proven to have any particular historical relationship, as they both wax and wane independent of each other (and it is not clear that they have acted to compliment each other). Furthermore, her analysis is highly reductive to an implied need to overcome capitalism all at once. That isn’t even how capitalism itself came into power, nor its predecessors. They generally swallowed up the prevailing mode from the margins as they subsumed the then acting contradictions into a complimentary (but different and ultimately exclusive) logic. Capitalism began in England, unambiguously. People point to earlier centers of commerce, like Adam Smith admiring the Bank of Amsterdam, but England was the real spark that set off an uncontrollable fire. And if you look at England, it was a segment of the landed gentry and aristocracy that spurred capitalism as a way to generate rents on their land. Their activity subsumed the logic of earlier forms of land rent and direct appropriation, the more continental medieval forms, for one mediated by a market that was driven by enclosure and proletarianization. As they created cheap and available labor and expropriated the peasantry in the same swoop, they set off the self-expansion of value. That process then consumed the continent as England basically began to dominate the world which pressured the other European powers down the same path.

If you simply looked at what the landowners in England were doing you could’ve easily believed that they were in the process of dismantling the English state back into petty feudal sovereignties, after all they were using the central state to dispossess the peasantry and force them into wage labor on their lands. But they weren’t doing that, the process of dispossessing them and making them work for wages in agricultural production that enriched the landlords and emerging capitalists was ironically empowering the central state as it was increasingly necessary for the state to coordinate the disciplining of labor and commodification of everything.

Which is to say that even if mechanisms of appropriation are similar (in the English case it was landlords just looking to extract rents as they always had, but the context of how that was developing was unique), the process of social development cPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Damn, reading this thread makes me wish I was smarter :(

Seems like so many good points and conterpoints, but I'm struggling to keep up.

>>544456
My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic is a children's show.

The "Equal Ponies" bit was about the pressure to conform in school and peer groups. The "bronies" thought it was about communism because they're retarded pedophiles.

>>547827
Yeah but it's fun so ur dum

>>544325
London is 59.79% white. Even if you only counted "British White", that's still 44.89% white, which is a strong plurality, not a minority.

Stop listening to right-wingers.

>>547830
>but I'M MENTALLY ILL right?
I prefer the term retarded but yeah, effectively. Brainworms and whatnot.