/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>183926
>What do ML's think of democracy in this process of economic planning
literally the goal

>making it more decentralized
usually the centralization is a result of war economies and political/geopolitical concerns, its not an objective in itself.

>>184004
this, I also believe that with modern tech, we could have ML implementing some decentralized direct democracy control of the economy. The problem is the dependence on some stability to implement it correctly, the capitalists states wouldn't even let you set it up, and you'd naturally need some centralization to fight them off effectively.

>>184880
Yeah but I see a lot of dogmatic ML's that don't really ever want to discuss how their system would work.

bump

what the fuck is this thread

Economic planning in the Marxist sense has nothing to do with planning in the 20th century sense. Marx's idea of planning was no according to distribution as such but distribution of labor time across all of society to store it up. If you read Marx's 1844 manuscripts you see him briefly cover the idea that 5 hours, I repeat 5 hours of work in a society is enough to reproduce society as it existed in 1844 with no loss to the workers. Think about that, if they calculated that 5 hours of laboring in 1844 is enough to reproduce life as it is in 1844 imagine how much shorter it is today.

Marx's idea of labor time being allocated is about allocating labor across society for the needs of society and not accumulation. If all the whole of society needed to reproduce the existing conditions if society required labor to consist of 2 hours of necessary labor and 2 hours of labor for storing labor time for things such as expanding production, to take care of the unemployed, stored up stock for whatever problem may arise such as natural disasters, etc. Marx imagined a society of planning it's labor time across society according to need and enjoyment. All labor time is absorbed by capital, directly stored by the representatives of capital, capitalists. One of Marx and Engels biggest points of agitation was shortening the working day to 10 and 8 hours respectively.

If some assholes want to plan, they can plan to shorten work times to less than 5 hours a day as the standard for all people. Which would force wages to go up. The eventual goal for communists is to abolish the wage and the extension of the working day to extract surplus.

>>179269
nice joke

>>176894
I think it's important to understand the Hegelian undercurrent that exists from Marx all the way to say, Debord. Cockshott has always struck me as someone who just isn't interested in that.

just read hegel and he doesn't say anything about communism but says a lot about monarchism. how is this leftist at all. was a marxo a crypto monarchist?

>>191373
suddenly the juche regime makes sense ,,,

>>218760
Bro you've already posted this one get new material

>>206447
Some are. It took the English to save Europe from its delusions.

>>206430
They won't BE overthrown. They will eventually choke on their own bile and that will be that.
Then I suppose it'll be back to warlords in the region. Americans are incapable of self-determination.

There is no hope.

>>206468
Not for Americans, no
But I accepted that Americans aren’t full people long ago

>>206399
These times are over. It becomes harder and harder for the elites to control the masses.

>>198973
>>199178
>>199291
tr00ns

>>199301
Its probably all over Austard media

>>199301
>>200024
sadly it appears they did not include any of those scenes in the news coverage.

low amusement since it was an accidental death

>>200093
10 months jail is rather harsh sentence for filming and saying rude things

the police appear to be still unhappy and crying for harsher sentence

imo he did nothing wrong and the story got too much attention in the Fake News MSM

>>218691
Who hurt you?

>>218563
*extreme

>>218489
TBH I doubt they are more exceptionally brutal than any of the other Western Coalition troops. It only seems like they are because they were the only ones exposed doing shit like that

>>218563
>>218565
Dogs follow the steps of their masters. The fact they were/still are Anglo puppets causes them to bow down to the lowest of levels of monstrosity to keep their masters satisfied. They're only satiated with blood, after all Himmler himself couldn't even look at people getting executed, yet I'm sure many Nazi executioners thoroughly enjoyed their macabre jobs. It's the same with the Eternal Anglo.

>>218567
to be fair i never heard of american troops drinking from a prosthetic leg,or americans flying a nazi flag on a car and driving down the hill after shooting an afghani family,or americans locking up an afghan man in house and tossing grenades from the windows after forcing him to say where taliban hides,or killing 1 of five hostages because the helicopter doesn't have enough space and replying to the men who asked about the dead guy "oh,that?,he's dead mate"

>>218535
What happened to based Zuma after they couped him?

>>180016
Incels don't support prostitution, they support the incel-rebellion

>>179871
Fourier was the one who had sex orgies in his community and advocated free love

>>179897
CIA

>>218538
That seems pretty worrying, but I’m not sure what advice to give you. Could you get him in touch with someone who specializes in mental health?

>>218558
>Spain
>No antifa
I call bullshit.

>>219889
i was talking about where i live,its only a few leftists and many right wing people here,people will probably kick you out if they found out you're antifa,the closest place were i think antifa is active is probably kilometers away.
>>219770
yeah i will do just that,hopefully he will litsen and not refuse to see a therapist because they are >friends of the elite,who fired me after using me as a tool.

>>218236
>has edits on his computer
holy shit, you sound like such a pussy. why is it such a big fucking deal to you people that the guy saved and posted tarrant memes - Not even to support him, but just fucking posting them to illustrate a point? That's redditor faggot pansy behavior.
Do you want to be like the breadtubers and redditors, and manufacture consent for censorship without taking the time to properly understand the situation and psychology involved? This is not an open-and-shut case.
Just saying '/pol/ radicalized him' is oversimplifying things, people should try to understand exactly how and why it happened, and you won't do it by making basic discussion or analysis of their messaging verboten.

I personally saved a lot of that stuff both because I am a compulsive archivist, and because it was so repulsive and unfunny, it's like a pure distillation of /pol/'s soul or lack thereof. Showing them at their worst like that can change minds.
Reading /pol/'s jubilation at the deaths of dozens of innocent people next to the rest of the boards' horrified reactions and anticipation of the impending crackdown, was like the epitome of what 8chan is, or was.
Why shouldn't that be posted for demonstrative purposes?

>>218225
why do you have only 1 arab comedian on your list? are you a crypto faacist?

Aaahhhh, shucky ducky quack quack

this

Ryan Magee and Matt Watson.

Moved to >>>/hobby/15368.

>>217867
>This isn't capitalism, and this ignores the largest context of how the system functions.
Who cares? We are talking about the profit, surplus-value, or whatever that Marxism entails belongs to workers, at least if I am not missing anything.

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch09.htm
If you need a 6600+ word essay to explain what one word means, your ideology is probably vague enough to be a religion.
>It's one page, I think you can manage that.
A 6000 word essay is at least 24 pages.

>A lot of the terms we are using come from classical economics. Regardless of that, even colloquial use of the word does not require intent.
It does. Clarified that on another post. And those definitions that require no intent or aren't loaded, are general enough to include any kind of use of anything.

Though labor-meaning human beings- is treated a commodity under capitalism it is not bought and sold in the traditional sense. It is bought in that the laborer is employed. The laborer also sells there labor, when a normal commodity, and an inanimate object, does not sell itself. However when a capitalist dispenses with a worker, they do not sell the labor as though they would trade an asset, in which case there wouldn't be unemployment because labor would simply move from one employer to the next. Instead laid off workers are more appropriately "thrown out"

So through the very nature of treating human beings as a commodity–the extremis of which is slavery–disenfranchises the worker and puts them at the mercy of the capitalist. In America tying healthcare to employment is an even more insidious example of the oppression of the working class by the capitalist. The laborer is offered no respite, no moment to themselves but is completely subjugated to the needs of capital.

Classically, the capitalist seeks to pay the worker merely a subsistence wage, so that they are able to provide for the minimal conditions of their survival yet lack the mobility or autonomy to voluntarily exit the arrangement. This is as true today as it was in the 1800s, though those who are subject to substandard wages tend to reside in poor countries where they lack bargaining power.

As social theorist Byung-Chul Han observes, this form of capitalist exploitation is not exclusive to poor countries. Instead in developed countries it is subsumed under a different guise and constitutes "auto-exploitation." In developed nations the skilled, educated worker is fed an ideology of careerism and social climbing, and they continually push themselves to produce while binging on stimulants and seeking advancement. Thus there is no need for external coercion, they discipline themselves into serving the capitalist system by convincing themselves that they are making it serve them.

>>217927
This is exactly what I was getting at in my first post in this thread. A lot of people here (and in general) take for granted private property which is individual private ownership which has essentially died in general. What exists now is essentially a mass of social capital shared as a totality by the capitalist class. So we could only understand capitalism as a social totality; a mass of social relations rather than individual phenomena which is just that, individual phenomena. It's one of the mistakes of bourgeois political economy of only examining individual capitalists and their dealings instead of the social totality which is where it's revealed. The sum of all relation productions in society is the way to examine this.

>>217940

>If by appropriation, it is meant stealing that surplus value, then by definition, there is morality going on. This needs to be defined.

I'm not that anon, but exploitation doesn't involve "stealing" per se. It is claimed in Marxian value theory that value creation occurs in production and is only realized in the market. In effect neoclassical theory agrees, as market exchanges are exchanges of equivalents and deviations are arbitrage opportunities, which are not productive. But as opposed to neoclassical theory, value theory suggests that commodities represent a total labor time and the cost structure of this is split between labor and capital outlays as well as profit. So profit is just a slice of the commodity value, being average hours required to produce it, and the difference between the hours labor is remunerated for and the total is the "surplus" that profit comes out of. This description need not involve any notion of theft, in real terms the hours are not owned by labor. They're sold for the wage. In fact, it has been pointed out that any particular input could be given a measure of exploitation if you were to impute responsibility to it for production. For instance, if you rented a van to deliver a piano to someone or something, the difference between the rental price and the selling price of the piano upon delivery could be construed as the ratio of your "exploitation" of the van's services. Of course I think the attempt to do so kind of misses the point of classical value theory in general, which is that labor is clearly the responsible factor. We don't impute responsibility to trucks for hitting little girls in the road and send them to jail because they are incapable of responsibility, only agents are.

However, granted that I have my criticisms of the critics on that point I do think Marx slipped up in his presentation of the issue. I couldn't even claim that he was absolutely wrong because it is unclear to me that he thought it necessary to preemptively exclude such an interpretation with more elaboration. But regardless, he presented his theory as though the unique thing about labor was that it can be exploited by having its time rented for a wage with the difference pocketed by the person renting. This is unique to labor in the sense that labor is the only generalized self-operaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>217940
>You avoided defining exploitation. Idk what you're even trying to do
I literally provided the definition, what are you talking about?
>How can someone even deduce that someone is being "unfair" to begin with without a moral construct?
You can show that the worker is being used in a way which is antithetical to his material interests, but in the end the decision of whether this is "proper" is in some ways an "ethical" one. The worker is being exploited, but whether or not you are ok with exploitation is something that would be socially informed. For example, we can look on ledger and possibly see a case of a person trusted to maintain a fund exploiting those who give to it, but it would be the decision of the those who give to decide if they are ok. Exploitation isn't Marx's only critique of capitalism though, and his issue eventually comes down to it's very mechanisms.
>I inserted "by", because it didn't make sense without it, so made a best guess assumption. If by appropriation, it is meant stealing that surplus value, then by definition, there is morality going on. This needs to be defined.
There is a set amount of labour necessary to reproduce the worker and society. The labour beyond this is surplus labour, and the amount of labour time which goes into the production of commodities of which the profit from sale is taken by the capitalist and reinvested into his capital. The point of this is to show how the capitalist is unecessary in production, as is the system itself. The workers can very well just engage in the necessary labour to reproduce themselves and society without the capitalist or capitalism.
>Unfairly, selfishly, the intent is there. It is not the word selfish that I have a problem with. It might as well be done for social benefit. Besides, selfish is mentioned here:
"Unfairly" is not the same as "selfish". Selfish is something which can involve intent even when based on a socially informed view of it, while "fairness" is something entirely socially informed and can be judged regardless of someone's intent on the matter. And for the definitions to find common usage, I used Merriam.
>Please quit nitpicking now. This is just tedious and besides the point.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>218061
I actually don't totally disagree with him, rather, perhaps his understanding of how we educate people is off. Rather than having the state delivered education in a horizontal and top down manner it would be more pertinent to understand that education of the population can be done through informal means such as word of mouth delivered to people through, say, the union, or, unions. The issue i face isn't really that i disagree with him, rather, I disagree with how to go about it.

>>218081
True. Dialectics as scientific was not, however. Unfortunately the former prevails.

this lecture is pretty good

>>217737
>I think just understanding what ideas Descartes had is enough.
>>217727
>you should at least read Kant's lectures and prolegomena
A summary is enough but if you've taken intro philosophy or had a decent history teacher and payed attention to the enlightenment section you should be fine.

>>218230
I disagree. Understanding the antinomies and from where they stem is essential for understanding dialectics.