/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2764058
I think that's more of a caricature of the dialectic. It's more that something can be "false" but also express something real or be internally coherent even if it breaks down.

>>2760716
>we see empirically that after every crisis, monopolies only grow stronger. in fact the most powerful bourgeois WANT crises, staglation, wars, etc because the chaos allows them to advance their capitalization
Empirically, this is wrong. The bourgeoisie generally don't want crises (depends on the crisis, but they tend to create unpredictability, which can be expensive to manage), they absolutely do not want stagflation (and they're willing to fuck over everyone else to ensure it doesn't happen, see Paul Volcker's tenure at the Fed), and they usually don't want war (depends on the industry they're involved in, the particulars of the war, and how they're positioned in relation to it).


>>2764058
That isn't how dialectic works in Hegel or Marx. The equations are abstractly juxtaposed, and "synthesis" isn't equivalent to adding the two equations together then dividing them by two.

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis was actually Fichte (at least in one of his many different presentations of the Wissenschaftslehre). Hegel actually criticized Fichte for it, although it's true that Hegel has sometimes been taught this way despite that.

>>2765325
>the bourgeois generally […]
they are not a unitary class. the smaller bourgeois obviously do not like any of these things but the larger ones absolutely love all of these things as it allows them to expand their share of assets thanks to private equity. this is because it is not about profit as such but differential accumulation. power only means something in comparison to something else. mere cost doesnt matter. if everyone is suffering then the larger entities will be the last to fall under and file bankruptcy

>>2765453
idk why but the site was not letting me put one of the links i wanted to …? anyways aside from those graphs i got from another blog, here is another example given by the casp folks
https://capitalaspower.com/2023/09/bichler-nitzan-the-capital-as-power-approach-an-invited-then-rejected-interview/
>In ‘Going Global: The Great U-Turn in South Africa and Israel’,111 we argued that, by the 1980s, the dominant capital groups in the two countries had grown too large for their respective home markets, and that in order to continue their differential accumulation, they had to break through their ‘national envelopes’ and go global. However, conflict-related sanctions and boycotts on the two countries made significant outward capital movement difficult if not impossible. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the global stagflation of the 1970s and 1980s provided their dominant capital groups with a massive differential windfall: global inflation multiplied the price of gold many times over and in so doing boosted the differential profit of the South African conglomerates, while the depth-driven conflicts of the Middle East caused military production and exports by the Israeli holding groups to thrive. And as long as these differential boosts continued, a large chunk of the capitalist ruling classes in the two countries remained seated on the fence. They wanted the conflicts to end so that they could go global, but with their depth-driven differential accumulation being so lucrative, they were willing to wait. It was only with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opening for business of the former Communist Bloc, the rise of emerging markets and the consequent global shift from depth to breadth that they finally got off the fence to openly support the end of Apartheid and reconciliation with the Palestinians. And it were these inner realignments of the elites, we argued, that tipped the balance in favour of the U-turns and serve to explain why the two U-turns were, at least initially, relatively peaceful. It seems that, when it comes to the accumulation of power and the associated creordering of the world, the ups and downs of inflation, just like the amalgamPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

the fundamental flaw of Marxism is that naming your world view and identity after another man is homo-idolatry. On another note, ACAB also includes therapists.

>>2755878
It's true but without mass automation it wont be possible to maintain a relative upward class mobility or even wage growth without importing millions of people. And most whites, even far-righters, dont want their bloodlines to be serf forever so…

>>2755464
>the idea that identity politics repels "workers" has also proven fallacious. on the contrary, people love identity politics. those put off by identity politics of the liberal left generally find themselves comfortable with the identity politics of the right. those incensed that you're proud to be black are usually themselves proud to be white, or at least, wish to be told that they should be proud to be white.
I wouldn't say the argument is that identity politics is necessarily repellent to workers as individuals, though. Racial pride is obviously "attractive" for some in some sense and not always for the same reasons, but having people organized in terms of identity (as the Black Pride Socialist League, the White Pride Communist Front, etc.) seems counterproductive to collective worker organization and joint action. Really, it sounds like a recipe for toxicity and rancor.

Of course, the example is extreme, but just because people might be attracted to identity politics doesn't say anything about its place in socialism. I don't find the "tu quoque" argument (and bare assertion) of "well, you must support right-wing idpol if you don't like it" very convincing either.

>what such an outlook really shows is that the left is alienated from "workers" for a different reason: because it imagines a certain fixed image of a worker, in his hard hat, at his factory. a starbucks barista on minimum wage? she's not a worker, she's just some middle class woman. what's she going to do? anyway, we should find positions that repel her and attract the bloke in the hard hat.
I've heard this argument off and on for a number of years, but if this sort of "narrow" view of workers had a significant following and a substantial effect on the left in aggregate (I don't think so myself), you'd think that other groups with different views would have had extensive growth and led to a revival of the left at some point in the past decade, but no such thing has happened.

The alienation of the left from workers is more likely related to the general decline of political party participation, even though political stances have become increasingly central to how people identify themselves.

>>2765394
I actually completely wrote a whole big thesis but the janny feds deleted it I swear to God.

>>2749726
I actually agree with a lot of this. Did you write it? But there are some key differences.

1: The right does it too. There's the class you claim to be, the class people see you as, and the class you act upon and internally recognize yourself as. If you actually care about any of this; you are not proletariat. You're petty bourgeois middle class. Third worldists are right about that. What they're not right about is how this interacts with such people.

Most aren't willing to admit leftism is synopsis with nihilism. For me to care about stability, I have to have class interest in that stability. That's why liberals can speak all day long about building cheap housing for inner city folks, and it means nothing. Cheapening goods and services means nothing. You think I care about any of that? Why do you unless you have a vested interest in it?

Let's take for example ice. Ice is le'bad. Just grabbing Latinx and throwing them in vans. Bad stuff. Ok…and? Lots of things are bad. Bad stuff happens to me every day. Why is it my responsibility to care? Because I'm a good person? Why is it my responsibility to be a good person?

It isn't. It's bullshit the other class interests invented. And you acknowledge this and think it means I want them out of my country. I don't as see…that's also not in my class interests. The contradiction of capital is some need those Latinx around working for cheap, others see them as an existential threat. The only thing I see is how upset the situation makes people when I'm not the one working, I'm not the one having sex with some 6/10 Mexicana Trotskyist named Pumfee, I'm not the one who is getting shit out of this. In essence I am the real proletariat and for me this just looks like a purple haired woke gorilla rubbing herself up against an ice agent molesting him and it's all very funny, but ultimately just distraction.

The fact of the matter is, if either side got it's way, my life does not significantly change. The only real leftist position is hoping the lights go out. No hospital care, no food in grocery stores, no gas to drive with, no hope left. Everyone is dead or just wishes they were dead. If that physically repulses you, you have petty bourgeois vested interests.

>>2765348
see >>2765159, first picrel.

>>2765340
What about boobs on the ground?

giga fizzle
nothing ever happens
you still have to go to work tomorrow

>>2765343
the old fat pedo turd can now sense that everyone around him is doubting or disgusted with him, so he's reducing his circle to only the most committed zionist warmongers and trump personality cultists

>>2764329
For what? Love to know what rule I broke.

>>2764341
the implicit rule of not being a dumb frogposter

>>2764351
Pepe & Pepo make me laugh and that's not liable to change any time soon.

>>2764326
>This hasn't ever been achieved anymore than any White Power movement in the United States has succeeding in getting closer to a Fourth Reich. Every single Communist country has been almost entirely homogenous in every way - it was Russian imperialism upon Eastern European countries that made them hate Communism far more than anything Communism itself did or whether or not it was being practiced correctly.

Big joke, all communist revolutions were not homogeneous with communists of various races, contrary to the fantasy you have in your head. You don't understand what imperialist capitalism is; read "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" about the dominance of finance capital as inevitable in the competition and accumulation of capital. All bourgeois states will be overthrown, the supremacy of the proletariat will be established, and any counter-revolutionary, reformist, liberal, and reactionary will be re-educated and punished for denying the new ruling class. Your opinion, apologists of the bourgeoisie and tradition, means nothing to me and will be crushed. I don't value sentimentality and nostalgia from lackeys of finance capital who will eventually be discarded by the bourgeoisie.

>Yeah that's not gonna happen for people with a healthy relationship with their own identity - nobody wants to be a Kalergite Bugman in the Global Communist Crusade.

Wrong, workers will form socialist culture without chauvinism or reactionary influence, without private property and social classes to feed false consciousness. This will be done in a socialist economy without profit.

>What culture? You're gonna end up destroying it and replacing it with something artificial in it's place by the bayonet. Somehow this was also not OK when the British Empire or any other Western European Empire did it… but now it's really swag for Commies to?

The socialist culture that will exist in socialist society and will form within it without the exploitation of man by man, acting and organizing collectively according to the economic plan to meet the needs of the workers. The British Empire initially served the interests of its ruling class, the aristocracy, and eventually the bourgeoisie, to accumulate capital. If you had read the text "The Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2764326
If you're too lazy to read, then I'll leave you with a quote from Lenin about what imperialist capitalism is:

<But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Proletarian internationalism is a duty, no matter what you complain about, and all bourgeois states will be overthrown for the supremacy of the proletariat, no matter your opinion or your outrage.

Capitalism is also morally and aesthetically despicable.
It is a void of being that pushes people into a combo of non-existence + negative work.
It makes me really sad.

Correct, the amoral aspect of capitalism is a correct and calud criticism of it, despite what sone dogmatic leftists believe.

>>2765315
I dont consider myself a scientist, maybe a philosopher or a mystic. I have read some things, but I prefer creating my own worldview based on what I read.
To me, capitalism is morally wrong because everything that is not morally good (like seeking the truth, listening to good music, making love in some way) is actually bad and not just "neutral".
That's where my idea of capitalism as a social and existential void comes from. It literally sucks life from good people and give it to someone who doesn't really care about nothing.
Non-beings and ugly people pretending they are, while good and exceptional stuff being always tossed away and repressed.
I have no idea where this comes from, but I think socialism is a good way of fixing it.

>>2765339
It's the human essence recognizing capitalism is flawed, in the same manner animals in zoos go crazy

Funny thing is, if you take morals out of the equation it’s still a pretty shit system.

> look at china
China operates by the “light-heavy” principle when it comes to the market. It’s not a neoliberal “free-market” and still purposely maintains SOEs which is why neoliberal capitalists in the U.S. are still pissy.

>>2764291
Find me a market economy that doesn't maintain SOEs and has no government intervention. The reason neoliberal capitalists are pissy is because they have to compete with Chinese capital, since China can pump out 100 cheap EVs for one dogshit F-150.

>>2764291
the US has just as much state aid and protection even if it doesn't have ownership
indeed, regulation and protection from failure matters far more than ownership in terms of skewing market outcomes negatively. americans should all be driving cheap chinese cars, SOE or not.

>>2764294
>Find me a market economy that doesn't maintain SOEs and has no government intervention.
Find me one where 68% of the total registered capital of all firms have at least some level of state ownership and you might have a point. https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/reassessing-role-state-ownership-chinas-economy
> The reason neoliberal capitalists are pissy is because they have to compete with Chinese capital
Those aren't mutually exclusive. If they could have implemented and maintained "shock therapy" neoliberal policies in China in the late-70s early-80s, they would likely not be having the same issues they are having today.
>>2764300
Ownership is a crucial difference because it's partially how China was able to reject neoliberal shock therapy. The market instead became a tool for development goals instead of falling into the neoliberal trap of being used by the market for the sake of building U.S. dominance. Using China as an example of neoliberal superiority is nonsense when neoliberalism would have wrecked them completely if it had its way.

>>2764353
ownership is not particularly relevant to that development model, which is why china is a mixed economy. the ownership/control distinction blurs almost to irrelevance in such a context anyway.

what you must understand is that the US state acting in market distorting ways is also bad. this is why liberalism is "good" - in almost all areas, the US following the theoretical prescriptions of liberalism leads to better outcomes. neoliberal economic theory, divorced from its flawed, human advocates, will tell you loud and clear that there should be free trade with cuba. (even if cuba doesn't reciprocate!)

or, back to the thesis of the OP: the implementers of neoliberalism let neoliberalism down. would-be neoliberal presidents continued to indulge in protectionism and obviously inefficient regulated/protected markets. in britain, half of neoliberal-hero margaret thatcher's privatizations put former state assets into "private" markets subject to less competitive pressure than the average chinese SOE. what was good in "actually existing neoliberalism" is fading, and what is bad is expanding. all i'm saying is: consider the inverse. imagine if the good were expanded, and the bad were fading, instead of writing off the whole thing and pretending that the closest thing to the kingdom of heaven on earth is the random statist tilts of the nixon administration combined with headline-programs from the dead USSR.

The primary contradiction is whether you can see why kids like the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch

>>2759242
How is class not the primary contradiction when class is tied to why these are consistent problems?

Like proles care about the environment, bourgeosis dont and destroys the planet for profit, and for decades we've been living understood of upcoming crisis of global warming, and we failed to stop it.

>>2762989
based and productive forces pilled

>>2759242
Greta has been discrediting protests and occupying the political scene since day one.
She makes an excellent controlled oppositional pawn which prevents the people from demanding what they need.

The eradication of false competition which works against the people's interests is a step in removing the establishment, even capturing and holding these government pawns hostage is more reasonable than joining them.

Only no kings protests are viable.

whats the difference between strasserism and national bolshevism

>>2764531
If you get up everyday at the same time, go to the same job, do the same things and go to bed at the same time, your brain starts to skip memory in order to safe power. Then some day you wake up and you are scared, because you are 65yo and wasted you life paying taxes to pedophiles.

>>2764647
kek, also interested

>>2764647
>Strasserism
Otto Strasser was a 'guild socialist' who favored de-urbanization and agrarian self-sufficiency.. Basically what Marx would call a reactionary socialist. He was still completely anticommunist and an early proponent of a NATO/EU style alliance against the USSR.
>NazBol
National bolshevism was born from elements of the KPD and German leftcoms in reaction to the treaty of Versailles, when a lot of leftists were turning to nationalism. Decades later the Nazbol manifesto was published by Karl Otto Paetel which rejected marxist philosophy but advocated a planned economy and an alliance with the soviets. Russian Nazbol is a pretty different thing that came much later in the 90s with Limonov and Dugin and took some influence from the Germans but I'm not sure how much. It seems largely right wing mixed with some left-leaning nationalists like Black Lenin.

why is there a leftypol and a leftychan? personal drama or is one site for one leftist tendency and the other for another

>>2764268
Ofc they're not, I just state that exploatition is against self and class intrest of everyone included in porn industry.

>>2764263
Go back to /pol/

>>2764263
>No one has self-intrest in normalisation of drawn pornography except for those who profit from it.
I think this is an interesting point. But why exactly would it not be in the gooner's self-interest?

>>2764362
Because he's unconscious victim of his own addiction which does cause him to involuntary be a cow for endless profit.

Those people don't only destroy their life by addiction which deepen their sexual frustrations but also some people make profit out of it.

Also they're definetly victims of porn in terms of social interactions, alot of males get addicted to porn at very young age (including drawn ones) which determinate their inability in socialising with opposite sex and even may cause rise of misoginistic behaviours which obviously isn't beneficial for them but they don't realise it until it's too late.

i notice that tumblr is covered in ads for some hardcore ai generated fetish porn now. remember a few years ago when tumblr cracked down on "adult content" by basically shadowbanning every user who posted any remotely revealing pictures of themselves? apparently it was never actually the content itself that was morally objectionable, it was the human content creators who were the real target. it's okay to have a site covered in filthy depraved sexual content for perverts to jack off to, what isn't okay is human sex workers making a living off of it and expecting to be treated like human beings. ban all the sex workers and replace them with ai and suddenly there's no ethical dilemma, you can advertise all the creepy incest ai porn you want and nobody will complain.

>>2759237
because trump is israel's bitch

This video attempts to dismantle Marxism on 2 major grounds: (i) the LTV and (ii) central planning. On the first point, the LTV is counterposed to a "subjective" theory of value (despite the LTV requiring subjective utility in its pretext). The narrator also says that unnecessary labour cannot be accounted into the value of a product (e.g. digging a hole with a spork), which just makes Marx's very argument on average labour-power, or SNLT. Finally, the narrator fails to see that the demand for labour in production is itself a subjective utility which is factored as a cost which appears in the value of a final product. Labour is itself a commodity, which regulates values in their consumption (e.g. cheap versus expensive labour). Menger's notion of higher and lower values perfectly factor into a "cost of production" theory, like Jevons.

On central planning, we can say that there is a transference between Keynes' Law ("demand creates its own supply") and Say's Law ("supply creates its own demand"), showing that market dynamics of distribution are not maintained, and so people receive whatever is given to them (by claim of receipts). This can be facilitated for (i) necessities (such as what public services currently provide), but not for (ii) consumables and (iii) luxuries. Money and markets are necessary to provide capital for prospective investment. The Austrians are perfectly right about this, which is why attempting to centrally plan a total economy is unnecessary and harmful. Thus, central planning is limited to a restricted division of labour (limiting the potential of wealth), yet increased production increases the investment of capital into further divisions of labour. The Marxist fails on this point, yet our narrator never brings it up, since he is too focused on the presumption of markets facilitating value (when Menger himself distinguishes between "goods" and "commodities"). Thus, wealth (e.g. total utility) multiplies itself, and this is comparable to the division of labour, which creates markets. It's for this reason that Marxists lack a proper theory of social wealth, and can only justify poverty (since markets are defined by relative wealth). Its not that central planning "doesn't work", but that it is inherently limited in its possibilities for productivity. That would be my criticism of the Austrian dogmatists, who misunderstand the point; Communism is a system of equivalent poverty, while Capitalism is a system of relative poverty,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Here I provide a self-selected collection of works from François Quesnay (1759-67), which comprises the main materials of what is referred to as the school of Physiocracy (the collaborators of which are the first to call themselves "Economists"). I include the Tableau Economique (1759), On Natural Rights (1765), General Maxims (1767) and The Despotism of China (1767).

>>2762441
> the LTV is counterposed to a "subjective" theory of value (despite the LTV requiring subjective utility in its pretext)
every fucking time lol

What would have happened if we got the bancor instead of dollar hegemony?