[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

| Catalog | Home

File: 1626510440560.jpg (162.62 KB, 542x651, Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1985….jpg)


>be Richard Sorge
>smash cooch left and right because you have just that much game
>fool the Third Reich for years
>delivered vital informations concerning operation barbarossa to the USSR
>Ian Flemming says, you are his inspiration for James Bond
>even classical cold warriors like Tom Clancy have to admit that you are probably a better spy than any western spy could ever dream of being

Why was this guy such a chad?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


If you're a spy you have to live with the possibility that nothing you do will be acknowledged because it would be proof of your guilt.


>Sorge is based but it's an enduring Anti-Communist myth that he had vital information on Operation Barbarossa
He did have vital information on Barbarossa, he just didn't have documentation to prove it. Stalin's skepticism was understandable, but it was still a serious mistake.


Requesting source on the Flemming thing. I have heard a gorillion "real inspirations for James Bond" but this is the first I hear of this guy.


I didn't find anything convincing tbh. There is a quote by Fleming where he said that Sorge was the best spy in history. Ofcourse there isn't a sure way of knowing if he really said that, but why would he lie? Sorge was a spy, liked to drive nice cars and bikes, an alcoholic and womanizer. There seams to be atleast a little homage to him by Fleming


Not a mistake if you consider the consequences of treating every bit of hearsay as fact.
There wasn't enough evidence of the issue to base national policy on, that doesn't mean the standards of evidence should have been lower or that they were wrong to set them there. It only looks like a mistake in hindsight because we know everything.

File: 1626553294223.png (523.78 KB, 720x1560, based ahmed.png)


2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.




Yeah the USA back communists, retard


Abiy Ahmed said taking from the IMF is like taking money from your mother. Fuck Abiy and Fuck TPLF. Fuck TPLF the most tbh.


Abiy will not defeat the insurgency and he will get his shit pushed in by Sisi. Screencap this


Isn't the Prosperity Party openly neolib?

File: 1626571428511.jpg (53.37 KB, 496x744, abiy-99992-portrait-medium.jpg)


If the capitalists are defined as evil due to their inherent nature of exploiting proles whom have no means of producing anything by themselves and are subject to selling their labour in order to survive how does a socialist revolution whom commodifies all workers into endlessly labouring for each others cause or more often times in history labouring for an authoritarian elite like chairman maos party, heads of the ussr and nk or Cuba's party etc manage to free proles from exploitation by those that control the means of production? Doesnt all socialism do is force dependency among the working class rather than at the very least under capitalism give them options to escape working for others if they simply can opt out or choose to avoid?
18 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Economic exploitation is rather an objective economic process which occurs in regards to the value produced by the labouring class of a time.
No it was made pretty fucking clear by marx engles ted Kaczynski and god knows how many other philosophers that worker exploitation occurs when workers hate forced into labouring to produce wealth they'll never see the benefit of.
>capitalism and capitalists themselves operate inevitably on a global level.
No no they dont otherwise North Korea, china and estwani would cease to exist
>Anything less, or rather a stifling to strive for anything less, is a condemnation towards obliteration or suffocation.
<wahhh wahhh any type of societal change that ends up good for the public that isnt in my exact definition is bad because bad
>And? I don't care for random isolated "independent" communities, I care for socialism and the necessary actions to get there.
So your saying that when communities form outside of socialist societies then it's natural that people work for each others interests but when socialist fucking ruin those communities like what happened in ukraine and Afghanistan than all of a sudden you dont care, yeah that makes sense
>This measurement seems rather arbitrary. Being able to say something is not the same as being able to execute it, and no politcal group actually consequentially cares for "freedom" when the chips are on the table and it comes times to remove your opposition. Killing a person is fundamentally the same a censoring them. Not only that, but what difference does it make between censoring someone, and society being structured in such a way where no one wants to report the thing in the first place because of the profitability or larger social context of doing so, or such statements being made impotent because don't result in anything due to being thrown into the void that is discussion without realization.
You had an idea of the measurement of freedom being arbitrary but you kept rambling on and on and inevitably I lost track as to what your actually trying to state
>"Personal" interests are not inherently separate from "collective" interPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Read Marx.


File: 1626584676874-0.png (152.81 KB, 1552x638, NationalismAnd21stCenturyC….png)

File: 1626584676874-1.png (168.53 KB, 1045x1024, 1517884273702.png)

>No it was made pretty fucking clear by marx engles ted Kaczynski and god knows how many other philosophers that worker exploitation occurs when workers hate forced into labouring to produce wealth they'll never see the benefit of.
No, its not. Is such a thing a "good" thing? Likely not in regards to both our interests, but that's still not economic exploitation, which is something specific.
>No no they dont otherwise North Korea, china and estwani would cease to exist
Two of those are completely suffocated and isolated to the point of stagnating, while the third is entirely open in its adoption of capitalism for its reasons. Nothing you stated negated capitalists and capitalism operating on a global level.
>wahhh wahhh any type of societal change that ends up good for the public that isnt in my exact definition is bad because bad
No, its because its inconsequential. It decays and is inevitably reverted or subverted toward capitalist processes.
>So your saying that when communities form outside of socialist societies then it's natural that people work for each others interests
Yes, in general this occurs due to primitive relations necessitating it. It is not optimal though, and with time will eventually develop more advanced economic relations.
>but when socialist fucking ruin those communities like what happened in ukraine and Afghanistan than all of a sudden you dont care, yeah that makes sense
Explain "ruin" here, because I don't see their lives as ruined.
>You had an idea of the measurement of freedom being arbitrary but you kept rambling on and on and inevitably I lost track as to what your actually trying to state
The read it again and pay attention to the overall point being made.
>Holy fuck, I was almost willing to stop reading at that point because that is literally wrong. Niqqa not everyone on the planet is the fucking same and unsurprisingly different people need and want different fucking things at different fucking tiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Workers and Capitalists each behave according to their self-interests, but in self-interest there is a hierarchical system. Capitalists extract the surplus value from workers and workers are deprived. This deprivation is unncessary as the Capitalists take the surplus value from the worker, who gives it in order to work, but at their decline and disadvantage. >>384794


Your question sounds like it's from the Ruling class's perspective, where capitalist rulers are vexed by the question why all those workers and peasants followed people like Mao, but not people like them. It's simple Communist rulers take less wealth out of society than capitalists for the "service" of organizing production and society. Also communists have generally been better at producing economic growth than capitalists, especially for those at the bottom of society.

>Freedom is a measurement of how much an individual is capable of executing their own ideas
By that you mean it's a big fight where people all try to impose their ideas on others and force them to do their bidding. The resulting society of that is going to be very unfree, in capitalism it creates giant mega corporations that considers you to be a "human resource"
In that system there is very little freedom for other activities like forming a society and rationally pursuing common interests.

File: 1626554326133.jpg (64.12 KB, 488x600, 488px-Juhayman_al-Otaibi.jpg)


>Juhayman ibn Muhammad ibn Sayf al-Otaybi (Arabic: جهيمان بن محمد بن سيف العتيبي‎ ‎16 September 1936[1][2] – 9 January 1980) was a Saudi militant and soldier who in 1979 led the Grand Mosque seizure of the Great Mosque of Mecca, Saudi Arabia's holiest mosque, to protest against the Saudi monarchy.

>Juhayman said that his justification for the siege was that the House of Saud had lost its legitimacy through corruption and imitation of the West, an echo of his father's charge in 1921 against former Saudi king Ibn Saud. Unlike earlier anti-monarchist dissidents in the kingdom, attacked the Saudi ulama for failing to protest against policies that betrayed Islam, and accused them of accepting the rule of an infidel state and offering loyalty to corrupt rulers in "exchange for honours and riches."[3]

>On 20 November 1979, the first day of the Islamic year 1400, the Great Mosque of Mecca was seized by a well-organized group of 400 to 500 men under al-Otaybi's leadership.[4] A siege lasted more than two weeks before Saudi special forces broke into the mosque.[4] French Special Forces provided a special tear gas (CS gas) which prevents aggressiveness and slows down breathing.[4] Al-Otaybi was executed by the Saudi authorities, in public, on 9 January 1980, in Mecca.


Ex-Muslim here, just a symptom of the Saudi's massive corruption


Specifically how they cynically used Ikhwahn teachers to spread the type of Sunnism that motivates people to do shit like the Mosque seizure


Aren't the Saudis massive hypocrites?


To be a human is to be a hypocrite, but yeah the Saudis are especially cynical

File: 1626561977216.jpeg (18.8 KB, 258x196, download.jpeg)


What is the marxist/materialist explanation for the iranian revolution? doesn't it disprove historical materialism due to being motivated by religion and not CLASS CONFLICT?


Religion is only a medium through which class ideas are expressed. It was the same in the English bourgeois revolution in the 1600s. It was expressed in religious terms of god-given rights, "natural" freedoms and distrust of the church, because that is how people primitively understood the world, but it really represented class conflict and the overthrow of feudalism.


File: 1626562907503.jpg (154.43 KB, 641x950, ShahExile_.original.jpg)

Not really the way I'd look at it. Class conflict is the motor force of history. It would be better to answer this question by looking at the class character of the revolution, wouldn't it? It was working-class people and small shopkeepers from the bazaars. They wanted to nationalize the resources. They opposed imperialism and Zionism while overthrowing a monarchy. In some ways, the Islamists shared goals with socialists. So when you ask "why did Iran have an Islamic revolution," a historical materialist analysis is going to attempt to discover the means by which that question arose in the first place. Answering that is only the first step and is never a complete analysis.

>Shah doing the virgin walk


As others have said in similar threads, read Abrahamian on this subject. He outlines the developments in Iranian class society that lead to this quite well.


File: 1626533421496.jpg (231.86 KB, 2048x1448, toko.jpg)


Leftypol, why do you insist that such concept as "totalitarianism" has no use in understanding political systems? How else do you call a one party state with complete party control over the economic, political, and cultural life of a society? Do you have any other term that encompasses such particular societal configuration? If no, then this concept has a very particular use in understanding human societies.
84 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




The thing is totalitarianism is useful as a definition, the problem is that people see a false dichotomy between it and “freedom”, and that they see totalitarianism as a bad thing. These afflictions especially plague anarchists, but it’s worth reiterating that totalitarianism is the only viable way to have socialism and to run society. Your alternative is authoritarianism, wherein an ignorant leadership with backwards laws and Luddite attitudes towards technology are in charge, all while security forces can barely keep a lid on rampant discontent


Totalizing states are in contradiction to meaningful conceptions of freedom. It is not historically inevitable that totalizing states are the only possible states, or that people are obliged to love them. As it turned out though, there was no formulation of technocratic society in which meaningful freedom or democratization was a feature. There was some faint attempt at it within progressivism, but it was expedient to the ruling ideas that totalitarian world-systems were the only ones that were "common sense". Meaningful freedom was too expensive and incompatible with states that were designed to fight the next total war first. This might have been salvaged into something livable, except that by the time something other than WW3 was on the horizon, eugenics had won and vowed to subdue the whole society to its insane fantasy. What was left of any movement for human freedom was annihilated and replaced with this sick, depraved fantasy and numerous false oppositions. Freedom in the eugenist view is only the freedom of eugenics and its institutions. And that brings us to today, where the only choice left is to fight eugenics or accept it and thus accept eternal human slavery.


It does have some applications. Like for example we live in a "market totalitarianism". Everything is ideologically reduced to markets, everything is integrated into the markets and everything must be regulated by markets. It is a totality that allows no exceptions. Its proponents explicitly said that the problem with communism is that it isn't "total enough", "it leaves stuff out", whereas (economic) liberalism is a total system.


The "market totalitarianism" is not what it superficially seems. The leaders of America don't actually believe in that nonsense about markets being good just because. The myth of the market is really a belief in the eugenic function of markets, in which society is gamed specifically so the eugenic classes are favored. It is easier to work through market mechanisms to affect that change, but the moment the market ceases to be useful for eugenics, these same people drop their mythology immediately and call for regulations (so that the market can be gamed to produce the "correct" result). Because there are only a small number of oligarchic firms which have a lot of weight in the market, the market system is already gamed in favor of those with very large hoards of money - and those people also have the status and influence to demand that the formal political system give them essentially unlimited money should they desire it. This was put into action during the planned collapses of 2008 and 2020.

File: 1626462982306.png (156.79 KB, 870x605, ClipboardImage.png)


How do you explain the transition from feudalism to capitalism? What were the things internal to feudalism that gave birth to capitalism? Was capitalism inevitable from feudalism? If so, was it inevitable from slave society, hunter-gatherer society?
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1626484175050.jpeg (25.81 KB, 600x338, youll own nothing and be ….jpeg)

More and more things are becoming subscription based. At the same time, megacorporations are merging together. 20 years ago, people bought physical VHS tapes of movies. Nowadays, we pay a monthly fee to Netflix in exchange for the service of being able to watch movies. Subscription based utilities (water and electricity) are being privatized nearly everywhere (handed over to the megacorps). Very few people own houses, instead paying a "subscription" to their (increasingly corporate) landlords.

The coroporations that collect these subscriptions are merging together. Once one big tech company achieves hegemony in a particular industry, it becomes hard for competitors to survive. As the company that is dominant in a particular industry begins to grow, other companies sell themselves to the big one in order to make money. We saw this happen with Facebook and Instagram. Instagram was unable to compete with the rapidly ascending facebook and ultimately merged with its competitor.

If these trends continue, eventually we will see a situation where a few megacorporations dominate the economy and "rent out" their services to consumers (the "Netflix model"). Amazon prime, Spotify, and YouTube Premium are all examples of this. While the "netflix model" originated in Big Tech, it is spreading to other industries. There exists a very real possibility that, as wages fall and consumers are unable to individually purchase products, nearly everything could become a subscription. In the 2020 World Economic Forum (Porky convention), many tech leaders speculated at replacing the consumption of physical goods with renting them out via an app, literally paying rent for a table.

Another factor in the our economic future is automation. In the past, automation was focused primarily in industrial that required physical work and typically increased worker productivity while generating new jobs. The automation of the future will replace both blue collar and white collar workers. Those who own these new Automated Workers (Automation bourgeoisie) will grow tremendously rich while the original workers will become unemployed. The newly unemployed workers may resort to selling their labor in an all encompassing "gig economy" by performing servicePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1626484593248.png (165.5 KB, 2354x556, Screen Shot 2021-07-16 at ….png)

>>382625 (me)
TL;DR commodities are no longer being purchased (the capitalist model). They are controlled by a corporation and "rented out" to their subjects (the feudal model). In Medieval times, the lord owned the land and windmill that the serfs grew and processed their grain on. In modern times, Corporations own everything we consume and rent them out to the workers.


Feudalism is capitalism dumb dumb. It's just a different form of capitalism.


>Feudalism has its roots in two places: the degeneration of the Roman Empire
Feudalism has its roots in the latifundia, takeover of the Roman commons, and debt peonage that was already being imposed on laborers in the late Republic.


File: 1626557730762.png (3.23 MB, 1400x1750, Klaus scwhab.png)

>Big Coporations will be your new feudal lords, and your your subscriptions will be your tallage.

File: 1626551616145.jpg (297.84 KB, 940x935, Digesting_Duck.jpg)


Focusing on economics only and reducing leftism to class warfare is a strategy that will catastrophically backfire on the left should we ever win. It's a fatal flaw that will not only alienate a great chunk of the population that will then be prone to getting coopted by liberals, but also cause social turmoil after a revolution when those lifted out of eageslavery suddenly have enough free time to contemplate changing society for the better don't get support from the revolutionary leadership against those who wish to block it.

The hard truth is that not everything in life can be materially explained and a lot of it has to do with psychology and human behavior which is in the realm of metaphysical (not talking sipernatural just not dictated by economics). Leaving this question completely unadressed in a revolutionary phase will create a timebomb that will explode and fracture the leadership and society after a revolution when conpeting societal visions begin emerging.

I know most leftists irl arenlike this, but I'm just posting this to show how much this site's aitistic obsession with class reductionism is not only self sabotaging but also nonsensical. Why shoot yourself in the foot when it's so easy to just embrace all forms of liberation under the umbrella of marxism?

You can't jump across a gap "a little bit" you have ro go all the way if you want to get to the other side. Thinking things will magically snap into thwir place if people's material needs were met is extreme idealism.
12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>I am saying that believing that class struggle will solve all social problems is idealist
You are just a retard who is using words without understanding what they mean. Back to /pol/, faggot


The CIA funds your ideology.


>CIA is casually dropping lib takes while they're here to astroturf about Cuba


anchor for idpol bait outside containment >>305951


File: 1626556236553.png (36.7 KB, 610x654, 4d9.png)

How the fuck is this idpol you intercontinental ballistic faggot of a jannie?

File: 1625965063840.png (1.93 KB, 306x165, images.png)


>literally first world and provides absolutely 0 relevant innovations to the planet
>had literally 100s of years since the industrial revolution to become a superpower yet accomplished fucking nothing
>has access to fertilizer and massive amounts of unused land and resources yet canadians for all of their history since their independence are too stupid to settle on any of it and rely off the american economy to survive
>nearly all the development in that country can be described as canadians built alot of farms and suburbs and nothing more with toronto being the only exception of Canadian "civilization"
>somehow so unbelievably cucked to the point where they still cant form a military without aid from the US to defend itself from eastern powers like china iran and russia, and to make things worse canadians are letting their own government take away their guns and assfuck them even more than they already have to this day
What a fucking disappointment canada is ahahahahahah, no wonder so many canadians flee to america ahahahahah.
46 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Canada is going to China's and Russia's foothold in North America, calling it right now


>wtf all that perfectly good farmland gone to waste!
>Just grow oranges in the fucking frozen solid arctic BRO!!!
this is why I hate talking to people about Canada, they never realize that half the country has been a fucking popsicle since the ice age.


>be a*glo
>deport all of French North America's bourgeoisie at the conclusion of the seven years war
>wtf why is quebec culture so working class!!!


>quebec culture
>working class

no, they have a sense of nationalism tho


File: 1626553680923.png (203.11 KB, 1280x1280, 1626053611111.png)

>Quebec is unique compared to the rest of canada

File: 1626535955013.jpg (847.2 KB, 3264x1504, 20210717_090000.jpg)


I never realized this but I fucking despise grocery shopping with all my fucking blood, how the fuck do proles convince themselves every fucking day that going outside to walk through isles upon isles all to find some shitty product they're looking for in some shitty cement building that's barely piped and wired properly just so they can spend 100s if not thousands of dollars every year on goods that are already overproduced and undersold to jack up prices isnt the fucking definition of extreme stupidity??? Imagine struggling to garden or farm your own land to grow food on a planet where over 90% of all its land is unused, a planet with so much fucking food that you could feed the entirety of earth till 2050 all without farming anymore just by living off existing supplies. How just fucking how do they convince themselves that grocery shopping is normal and not just scamming on an industrial scale
31 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1626548377778.png (42.33 KB, 344x432, milk.png)

<general secretary can you tell our audience why you overthrew the capitalist world order
>the Jug of Milk
<I'm not sure I understand …
>You heard me
<Milk ?
>Yes, 10 bucks, that's how much they tryed extort the proletariat
…stunned silence
<What the general secretary is trying to tell us is that…
>the people's milk costs .06 labor hours
…roaring applause


File: 1626548666252.png (1.96 KB, 348x227, 9ee.png)

>42 bucks a liter
Jesus and I thought here in italy we had it bad my christ…


>Bullshit the average chinese citizen lives on $10-15 worth of yuan a DAY and can still feed themselves for a lifetime.

Yes, PPP varies in different countries. Reality is though while conditions are getting drastically better in China, the average Chinese person is nowhere close to the level of post-war consumption which boomers enjoyed.

Artificial scarcity is a legitimate thing, however, on an ecological level, the consumption habits & diets of past generations were unsustainable. Going in a chaotic climate change world, In socialism, you'll be eating better quality food, healthier & safer food, but less of it.


That's 42 cents not 42 bucks asshat and yes that's still really bad


File: 1626549969425.png (81.68 KB, 800x509, gdppercapfrom1700.png)

The GDP per capita of most post war boomers was on par with the gdp per capita of your average sino today and that's if you were lucky to be in the united states, all over europe was a desolate warzone that was mostly destroyed. No stfu these problems dont need to exist

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home