/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2882702
Not related to anything in the thread but what do you mean by this exactly? I feel like I'm missing some context.

>>2882710
operation reality was a sharty operation where they went irl and put up sharty related images, or just wrote their link.

Retards. Next!

>>2882702
Do this

Moved to >>>/siberia/810855.

>>2863953
Colonialists will attempt to divide and conquer a subject population based on pre-existing divisions as well as newly formed and sometimes deliberately contrived divisions. This will cause civil strife in the subject population who are forced to unite into a national liberation movement, causing a national identity to form. The national identity is then retconned as this eternal thing that has always existed, and the colonial period is re-written as a period of unusual internal division caused by external conquerors.

>>2863953
>While I'm thinking primarily about South Asia, the exact same narratives appear is most third world societies.
It's an interesting thing and probably goes to how history is often reinterpreted by people later in a way to serve present-day political purposes. In this case it's modern state building and part of that is creating a flag for a nation and defining who "we" are through some kind of story we tell ourselves (and enforced quasi-covertly with weapons) about our ancestral origins or an unfolding and beautiful fulfillment of providence and realization of freedom. That's probably just some shit people made up to produce a patriotic or loyal population, although the governments are real. That's the state.

>>2882243
I was referring to the post-Aurangzeb period, when the Mughal Empire rapidly lost its territory over the course of more than 150 years. That's the absurdity I was talking about. The large-border version of the empire that Indian nationalists often post about only lasted for around 20 years and its longer territorial extent was largely limited to central India.

>>2863953
You are right about the "divide and conquer" narrative, but you are introducing an equally false narrative that is commonly put forth in regards to the Aztecs and other Native Americans. The reality of empires is more about progressive conquering just like in the map painter games or whatever. You conquer one kingdom, tribe, whatever, you add them to your forces, then the next one, and the next one. That is how empires become so strong by snowballing their forces. Same with Greeks or Rome or any empire that ever existed. On that note too, I think the colonial narrative is a bit strange how it tries to make it seem that what these later empires did is somehow different or unique compared to what every empire did since antiquity and the same thing happened to all of those places by the Romans and etc. Centuries before.

>>2882202
>Indian/Pak/Bengali nationalists create a mythology of a unified nation where differences don't exist or get subsumed into a majority
to be fair to them,that's how EVENTUALLY a nation ends up existing,it's by beating your minorities enough until they all merge to beat up their oppressors (creating a new nationalist myth),or they abandon their peculiarities after multiple generations because enough beatings were administrated that the majority is now using it,so it's more convenient to learn the national language rather than both it and your local dialect

"America bad" is the slogan of the real movement, in all corners of the world that very sentiment is understood vigorously and deeply by the working masses. Anyone whining about it, or any variation of it, is a reactionary and a chauvinist through and through

as with all threads like this OP is burger until proven otherwise

Anti-Americanism is better when it's creative and exaggerates features of the country, like some grotesque dollar $$$ empire that builds things out of proportion and worships war and mutant freak football players.

>>2882311
We already have a general to contain bullshit like this.

>>2882317
Correct.

>>2868724
>I am quoting Marx directly
The point isn't that you are quoting Marx somewhere. You are not quoting Marx in your formula, nor is your formula a paraphrase of Marx.
>And I add that LP is labour in potential
Well duh. Labor power, since it is a potential, cannot be a concrete actually happening activity, which is what you were saying in your formula, contra Marx. Do you want to modify the formula?

>>2870056
>You are not quoting Marx in your formula
Yes I am. Marx:
<all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour power
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
Me:
<Labour-Power = Concrete + Abstract Labour
Where is the contradiction?

There is more wrong with your post: You claim exchange value to be simply the quantity of value. But Marx distinguishes values and exchange values as giving different ratios between products in the third volume of Capital. Exchange value is the distorted measuring stick of value that people perceive in the capitalist market economy. Value itself is not directly observed by the market participants.
>the longer one works, the greater the value of a commodity, but the more productive [intense] the labour, the less the value per commodity.
You take terms like "productivity" and pair these terms with specific zoom levels of the economy, unlike Marx. You project this assumption while you over-generalize from misinterpreted text snippets.
>a greater product is created with the power-loom, or what Marx describes as double the product, or half the value
It is only half the value because in this specific scenario Marx assumes the advanced production technique to be already the most common method to be found if one traces the origin of this or that unit of the product. The value of the product goes down because it is a macro-level change. Consider this in contrast: While an improvement in production technique is still limited to a particular site that only produces a small fraction of the quantity of the product in question, it is (for now) a micro-level change and as such constitutes an increase in value output at that site.

>>2863063 marx never ever used the words "labor theory of value" anywhere in all 3 volumes of capital to describe his theory of value nor does he put it up against "subjective theory of value." this is a construction of debatebros in the 21st century. marx's theory of value contains both subjective and objective elements. the subjective element is called use value. an object has use value if enough humans want it to justify manufacturing it. this is also related to demand. the objective element is called exchange value. an object has exchange value if it requires labor time to bring to market. this includes raw materials and natural resources. even an apple which falls from a tree has to be picked up and carried to a market place. this is also related to supply. if something has both use value (a rate of demand determined by widespread human desires or needs) and exchange value (a rate of supply determined by average labor time), and is created for the purpose of being sold, it is a commodity. If it is lacking one or another, it is not a commodity. This is crucial to know because marx's theory of value is not about random things like the mona lisa, or things which nobody wants like mud pies. It is about commodities. Another important thing is price versus value. Price deviates from value according to non-production factors: Currency hegemony, Currency devaluation, Scarcity, monopoly, monopsony, government expropriation, theft, war etc. Value on the other hand is only looking at the factors of production. It is not trying to say anything about the final market price. So when Marx says that the value of a commodity is its socially necessary labor time, he is not talking about the price. He is only pointing out the tug of war between profit and wages which occurs in the production process, and how that results in class conflict and class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, since the bourgeoisie own the means of production, and it is in the bourgeoisie's interests to lower wages and increase profit, not just for their own personal consumption of mansions and yachts, but also so that they have more money with which to expand production, and buy more means of production, and buy more labor power, and buy more raw materials.

How would that even be possible?

>>2852975
They demobilized. The peace process however was a farce, so many, being targets disarmed in the government camps, folded into ELN, FARC-EP, and various drug gang. Leads to some schizophrenia, coppied from one FARC-EP group turned drug gang:
<The criminal organisation describes itself as ideologically centrist and makes it clear that it does not subscribe to left-wing or right-wing doctrines, adding that “Marxist or fascist theories are not accepted within our organisation”. It also states that it accepts “all types of fighters, regardless of their background or combat experience”, provided they are not “enemies of the state”
A big part of the offensives we've been seeing by the ELN are apparently because of this influx of manpower and so on.
This could have gone into /QTDDTOT/ to be fair.

>>2852975
>Are/were they just drug traffickers and gangsters, or a real political movement?
both to different degrees at different points subject to internal and external influences

>>2853039
>They demobilized. The peace process however was a farce
nice one bro

Around the 2000s and 2010s, most of these old holdouts died off or surrounded, the same thing that happened with the IRA in the 1980s and 1990s, mostly due to better surveillance and third-world nations developing strike teams with COIN training.

>>2882191
The IRA didn’t die, they won their war and became the biggest political force on NI

>>2881290

The ubiquitous surveillance and enforcement apparatus makes revolutionary criminality impossible. Bakunin never accounted for AI and Flock cameras.

bumping this based thread

>>2881890
The state isnt omnipotent. There qill always be blindspots.

>>2882112
Where

>>2882181
nice try fbi

but yes clearly revolution is more difficult than ever and will continue to get more difficult and is probably already impossible anyway

why do humans worship their own rulers?

>>2881484
Self-domestication.

>>2881422
this is true but the retards on this board have no original thoughts and they will get mad at you

>>2881998
My good thoughts aren't original, and my original thoughts aren't good. Sad!

>>2882109
I'm just going to interject here: lol.

Twitterfags make some good edits i have to admit