/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Sammy Weaver is a hero and Marshal Degan is rotting in Hell. I would love to find his tombstone and fuck a prostitute over it, have her piss on it, then I'll ejaculate on it and rub my dick all over William Degan's funeral memorial. Fuck that dead cocksucker.

>WASHINGTON — Kevin Harris, who was severely wounded three years ago in a bloody siege at Ruby Ridge, Ida., disputed on Tuesday crucial elements of the government’s account of the incident, including who fired the first shot.

>Harris strongly denied to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism that he and his friend Randy Weaver–whose cabin had been staked out by federal agents–had sought to ambush marshals on Aug. 21, 1992. The agents were trying to arrest Weaver for failing to appear in court on weapon charges.

>His voice cracking as he struggled to suppress sobs, Harris graphically described the shooting of Weaver’s 14-year-old son, Sammy, and the killing of Weaver’s wife, Vicki, by an FBI sniper on the following day, as she stood hidden by the cabin door.

>“I would not have been anywhere near those woods if I had known that all those men with assault rifles and a silenced submachine gun . . . were out there,” Harris said. “We were just walking along the trail . . . , making a perfect target of ourselves.”

>Weaver thought that there might be a deer or other game nearby.

>As he and Sammy reached the Y, Harris said, Striker neared a man wearing camouflage clothing and the dog seemed to lunge for the man’s hands. The dog then moved away from the man, circling, and “suddenly the dog was shot,” Harris said. Harris did not say where Randy Weaver was at this point.

>Sammy then began to raise his weapon and said, “You shot my dog, you son of a bitch,” Harris testified. Harris said that he headed for cover. He said that was the last time he saw Sammy alive. “I saw smoke puffs and brass shell casings flying in the air down in the woods below the trail. I assumed Sam was shooting and that someone was shooting back at him, but I didn’t actually see Sam shoot.”
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Why is nationalism such a powerful force?
Nearly all communists buy into it in some form.
Seems like we cant seem to get rid of no matter what. Why? Whats so special about it?

Liberal Gen X Dad Incites Revolution and wonders why there aren't pitchforks on the streets. Still think revolution is impossible?
…………………………………………………………………………………………

Why do Western governments make it easy for their citizens to access drugs and CP via the darknet?

Shouldn't civilized countries actually be consistently eliminating access to such filth?

On contradictions mao talks about there being a progressive bourgesisie, a bourgesisie thats good and helped the shift from the chinese feudal mode of production to capitalist mode of production and thus allowing a socialist mode.

Yes its confusing and i don't get it even after reading it because i don't think he understoon dialects.
But it makes me think, today is there a progressive bourgesisie in america? I thought the CEOs of ben and jerrys were good until they were ousted, and also buckyies.

No bait no rageful discussion just honest question, Why was he so hated?

It seems to me that By all means he is an orthodox marxist and his writings perfectly fine. And his criticisms of the USSR seem non-objectionable to most people (Totalitarianism is bad, More party discourse needed, More worker democracy, etc.)

Why is he so hated among many marxist circles? Hate doesn't describe it, He is thoroughly despised.
I'm all ears. and will respond if I have time.

The global economy is overproducing in general. Abolishing overproduction would not lead to drop in living standards, since with planning and rationing we can ensure decent living standards for 8.5 billion people using 30% of current production, and use the remaining surplus for luxury, free time, and science.
<Some narratives* in international development hold that ending poverty and achieving good lives for all will require every country to reach the levels of GDP per capita that currently characterise high-income countries.
<However, this would require increasing total global output and resource use several times over, dramatically exacerbating ecological breakdown.
<Furthermore, universal convergence along these lines is unlikely within the imperialist structure of the existing world economy.
<Here we demonstrate that this dilemma can be resolved with a different approach, rooted in recent needs-based analyses of poverty and development.
<Strategies for development should not pursue capitalist growth and increased aggregate production as such, but should rather increase the specific forms of production that are necessary to improve capabilities and meet human needs at a high standard, while ensuring universal access to key goods and services through public provisioning and decommodification.
<At the same time, in high-income countries**, less-necessary production should be scaled down to enable faster decarbonization and to help bring resource use back within planetary boundaries.
<With this approach, good lives can be achieved for all without requiring large increases in total global throughput and output.==
<Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investmentsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER

Manica di degenerati. Non mi aspettavo proprio che dopo un mese d'assenza, il filo cadesse dalla tavola. Vabè, leftypol ormai è l'ombra di quello che era soltanto qualche anno fa, ma c'è un limite a tutto.

A peasant, a shepherd, a simple worker from Donbass, he became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Was such a thing possible under capitalism?
"I learned to count to 30, and my father decided that learning was enough for me," Khrushchev recalled. "All you need is to learn to count money, and you'll never have more than thirty rubles anyway. My father dreamed of saving up, returning to the village, and buying a horse to grow enough potatoes and cabbage to feed the family. But we never got a horse. My parents cherished this dream even after 1908, when we finally moved to Yuzovka. There, my father worked in the mines, my mother washed clothes, and I cleaned steam boilers."

I think it’s interesting to observe the pattern of technological development in Africa compared to NATO. A lot of what’s being made there is surprisingly specific, pragmatic, and efficient compared to many new western technologies that often serve as solutions to problems western companies make.

Technologies built around mobile systems; efficient use of clay, cement, and steel metals; decentralized utility and logistics systems; a lot of work related to solar power which im happy for; some oddly specific technological developments surrounding armoured cars, surveillance, and border security etc.

From what I infer a lot of this behaviour is driven organically by the geographic conditions of the continent in general. Many of the resources on the continent are stretched across vast distances, sparse/scarce in supplies, and broken up by unusually poor terrain. This often means that any technological developments made are unusually way more specific, pragmatic, and efficient in use for immediate and existing problems compared to tech made outside of it where figures or promises on features surrounding what the tech can do. Sometimes, this does *alot* to change how people approach life. It’s only recently that a lot of changes were made so that desert sands and earth could be used conventionally at scale to produce modular construction kit—this is huge on construction in general since it offers a way to build on the scale that china did *without causing the same level of ecological destruction*.