[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)
Required: 2 + 2 =

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

| Catalog | Home

File: 1713453294905.png (9.06 KB, 200x290, SquattersSymbol.png)


Looking for resources on squatting, i.e. websites or pamphlets or books, in the United States. I've been navigating through the squat.net website, but didn't find much resources there except for a couple pop-up shops in Seattle. Curious if anyone online had a reason for this. Are these squatting efforts in the states just not-existent, or are they more localized to private chats and local groups? Thanks.
15 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>Ever asked yourself why homeless people never squat?

Because the cops will violently assault them.


I wasn't sure what to call that mindset but ironically enough I think that's "idealist" assuming everyone does everything for ideological reasons, thus a homeless person must be some anarkiddie flexing his lifestylism.


File: 1713480496954.webm (7.7 MB, 394x222, xavier.webm)

squatters rights duuuuuuuude *hits bong*


You typically don't end up as an >on the street< homeless person until every support structure in your life falls away


File: 1713574274420.png (607.01 KB, 600x522, ClipboardImage.png)

> Ever asked yourself why homeless people never squat?
This is like saying why don't starving people not eat?
Squatting is a method of obtaining housing. Less than ideal, but if you can squat somewhere you aren't going to be "unhoused" in the most basic sense. And people like you aren't going to see those people because they are in their squat not on the street.

File: 1713494720000.jpg (692.7 KB, 800x1023, sax_flute.jpg)


Music is the biggest lie ever told. Every day, it suckers people out of millions of dollars and untold hours of time. It springs from an infantile desire to be comforted by a mother's lullaby. Music keeps the masses enslaved.
Why do you listen to music? Is it a crutch to get you through the day? When you go to a concert, what on earth do you get out of it? Do you feel "warm fuzzies" when you are walking out of the building? Maybe it makes you feel all happy inside. Well, the real world isn't like that. Music has no answer to the problem of evil. As long as you are a listener, you have no chance of fully participating in a rational discussion.
Ask a professional musician (professional shamster, more like) why he plays his kind of music instead of another and you'll never get a straight answer. What makes a clarinet better than a Japanese koto? Why play jazz instead of classical? "I like it more." "I'm more familiar with it." Non-answers. "They're about the same." Then why play music at all?
Musicians tell you they love their fans… then they sell the T-shirts and CDs at the door. Some even take donations– as long as they can separate the marks from their money, their gig is a success. Music is nothing but an organized scam.
From the beginning of a child's life, her parents indoctrinate her to believe in a myth called "music". They force her to believe that certain arrangements of sounds is somehow more important than other ones. Never in the history of humankind has a more insidious waste of time and money been conspired. Start her on Baby Mozart; buy her "children's music" (the very name betraying the unethical, Orwellian scheme); raise her on piano and jazz, and buy her a Beatles CD on her 16th birthday. The most popular songs lie to you: "All you need is love." Others are simply nonsense: "Bye, bye Miss American Pie." Some songs have no lyrics at all! They do not even make an attempt at meaning. The veil is lifted; the stupidity of the whole exercise is transparent before everyone, and yet they continue listening as if brainwashed.
When I point this out to the thoughtless listeners, they tell me not to argue with something so "beautiful". Can't they see that they are wasting their time on mere noise, that rarely says anything akin to common sense? "Well, Shakespeare, he's in the alley / With his pointed shoes and his bells, / Speaking to some French girl, / Who says she knows me well." What on earth is that supposed to meaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
23 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.

Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is, in some sense, to maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts

The principle of utility does not mean that any given pleasure, as music, for instance, or any given exemption from pain, as for example health, are to be looked upon as means to a collective something termed happiness, and to be desired on that account. They are desired and desirable in and for themselves; besides being means, they are a part of the end. Virtue, according to the utilitarian doctrine, is not naturally and originally part of the end, but it is capable of becoming so; and in those who love it disinterestedly it has become so, and is desired and cherished, not as a means to happiness, but as a part of their happiness

involves our saying, for instance, that a world in which absolutely nothing except pleasure existed—no knowledge, no love, no enjoyment of beauty, no moral qualities—must yet be intrinsically better—better worth creating—provided only the total quantity of pleasure in it were the least bit greater, than one in which all these things existed as well as pleasure. It involves our saying that, even if the total quantity of pleasure in each was exactly equal, yet the fact that all the beings in the one possessed, in addition knowledge of many different kinds and a full appreciation of all that was beautiful or worthy of love in their world, whereas none of the beings in the other possessed any of these things, would give us no reason whatever for preferring the former to the latter.

Act utilitarianism:
Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics that states that a person's act is morally right if and only if it produces the best possible results in that specific situation
To understand how act utilitarianism works, compare the consequences of watching television all day tomorrow to the consequences of doing charity work tomorrow. One could produce more overall happiness in the world by doing charity work tomorrow than by watching television all day tomorrow. According to act utilitarianism, then, the right thing to do tomorrow iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>obvious bait, download soulseek


>>touhou user doesn't understand music
? the biggest reason touhou got big was the music retard


>You WILL live your life on the assembly line and you WILL be happy


No, the combination of crudely drawn anime girls and trashy OST is proto-ai content. You are drawn to the full package, the retarded community, soon people will be talking about how it became popular from racist fumo diskkkord gifs. I see you out there stacking as many retardcore special interests as you can. It's like blackface for autism. I can't wait for you all to rope

File: 1713413607610.png (241.41 KB, 900x631, ClipboardImage.png)


Let's talk about boba liberals. That name is so funny to me it sounds just like boba tea. Boba liberals, drinking boba tea, and being stupid ignorant liberals just as they always are.

29 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Boba liberals are basically cops. They serve the bourgeoisie


the author is a literal child.


Oh shit you weren't kidding.
I actually didn't read the article. I have no motivation for it.


>Makes sense you like an even shittier version of soy horchata


File: 1713724581383.jpg (210.92 KB, 1654x1080, Boobchuy.jpg)

I only know about boba due to Amphibia

 No.1732849[Reply][Last 50 Posts]


How would IP laws and copyright be handled under socialism?

Would it be abolished or just reformed? How would artists be compensated if not for royalties?

Also, what about “hard cases” like instances of cultural appropriation, etc.?

Let’s have this discussion.
552 posts and 67 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Copyright abd IP have zero place or need under socialism.


Wrong. See Communist China



And who made most of those “pre-existing music snippets” by chance?


So what’s the argument FOR copyright/IP aside from “China dies it”?


From what I've seen in most places in Europe the parties are revisionist, disorganized, irrelevant and engaged in the politics of liberal democracy.
The ones who are not revisionist are also barely relevant (perhaps even nonexistent outside the internet) and practically hidden from the public.
Are there any parties from former Eastern Bloc states worth joining today?

I'm peculiarly curious about countries like Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia and Germany. Most of what I can find on the internet shows that whatever 'communist' parties have been left have begun collaboration with nationalist christians and liberal socdems among other bourgeoisie filth in the hopes of gaining relevance once again.
Is there no party left unaffected by the likes of eurocommunism and religious liberalism? Solidnet has a lot of parties listed, but which are worth joining? http://www.solidnet.org/home/
68 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>I have two choices:
>A party that is allied with far-right parties.
>A party that is socdems in disguise.
Skill issue, just organize bro.


Can't I just shit myself and yell 'authoritarian' to get in a social club without the bureaucracy?


>Where will you hide when the Bordigist revolution comes?
My armchair, you fool!


even if you organize in a group that dosent completely incorporate your ideas you can influence it by joining it
being vocal about your opinion your ideas and your methods in it so they may be agreed upon
maybe you yourself realise that all along real militancy was something else and the people inside the org made you realise that
point is join even if you dont fully agree, do it just for the expirience of, it is worth it


>Reactoid orgs offer camaraderie too and much more – thanks to bourgeois funding.
I honestly can't think of any 'orgs" besides maybe ultras and military veteran groups.

File: 1713425538807.png (920.52 KB, 630x840, marx surf.png)


Why are Communism and Marxism as "ideologies" borderline synonymous? Why is it that Marx's economic analysis of 1800s capitalism is treated as an essential building block for how we overthrow capitalism in the 21st century, as though to dispense with his analysis is to dispense with the end-goal of communism as such?
I feel like I often see a trend of reasoning that runs, simplified, that only Marx's analysis renders the collapse of capitalism from internal contradictions and the arrival of communism historically inevitable. But that seems like pretty weak reasoning: If he's wrong and it's not historically inevitable, why give up on it!? Why not try to work towards it instead of waiting for history to do all the work?
Maybe it's just because I've been a frustrated social engineer all my life, but it doesn't seem in any way intuitive to me that one should abandon the notion of a classless, stateless, and moneyless society just because one also accepts Keynes' view that fiscal policy can mitigate capialist downturns, or rejects the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, or indeed, even if one accepts neoliberal doctorines, any more than one should abandon the notion of flying on the grounds that the theory of gravity says earth will try to pull you down again. Theory only tells you how the world works, it's then on you to deploy it to make the world work the way you want it to. Why is there no major branch of leftist ideology which operates around this seemingly obvious principle?

You might say it's because Marx's analysis is so obvious that everyone who reads it agrees - and maybe that's true - but most self-identified communists don't actually read him beyond the manifesto, so that cannot be the explanation.
You might say "oh you mean Ancoms?" but a lot of Ancoms seem to run with Marx's analysis of capitalism - just not with Marxism-Leninism as an overall ideology.

I'm not saying Marx is wrong, don't waste time arguing he's not wrong. His rightness and wrongness -indeed the rightnes and wrongness of any theory - is irrelevant to this thread.
This thread is about the relative absence of a certain kind of person and analysis. If you want the dilemma clearly: "Why does the marketplace of ideology not have any non-Marxist communists in stock?" If you want the dilemma in pretentious economic terms: Why is "Normative" Marxism ("what we should do") so dependent oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
74 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Religious communists are the most prominent non-Marxist communists I can think of, especially Christian communists if you find any may take some inspiration from Marx/Engels but are likely going to diverge from them significantly.


I cannot see why a classless, stateless, moneyless society is restricted to Marxists rather than something that people imagine they can build from another approach. Again: if you reject the TPRF, reject the LTV, and reject that capitalism must eventually collapse from its own internal contradictions, why does that mean you must reject the notion of nevertheless building a movement to overthrow it, of building an aeroplane rather than waiting for gravity to invert itself so you can fly?

if you can think of a better word for "stop selling newspapers, stop arguing about gorbachev, stop arguing about whether we'll have anime under communism, and actually analyse how the fuck you rebuild working class power without simply falling back on what worked in 1917" then i'd be glad to hear it. "pragmatism" has been devalued by a thousand traitors, but everything else has been destroyed by a thousand loyalists.

that the broad strokes remain the same doesn't preclude him being wrong in the details or the details having changed. it would be deeply, deeply surprising if they hadn't given the broader development of capitalist economies and indeed of basically every field of study.

a point of trivia: in the 1930s in Germany the SPD rejected Keynesian economic stimulus on the ground that, if it worked, it would run counter to their interpretation of Marx. If you can spend your way out of a recession, the thinking went, the whole edifice crumbles. Now, if Marx is right about everything this was the correct course of action - but if this is a misinterpretation of Marx, or if Marx was wrong, or indeed, if Marx simply hadn't detailed the precise scenario of "yeah it'll work for about 30-40 years then the political pressures of full employment will cause capital to react by destroying it, t. Michal Kalecki" then this was a utterly suicidal move in their present context.
this point of trivia should not be considered any general expression of reformism, or notion that socialists - let alone communists - should be concerned with managing the capitalist economy per-se. hPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>"yeah it'll work for about 30-40 years then the political pressures of full employment will cause capital to react by destroying it, t. Michal Kalecki"
where did he say that?


File: 1713520929563.pdf (80.09 KB, 255x180, kalecki43.pdf)

"Political Aspects of Full Employment" is what i'm referencing, though he didn't put it in much like those terms. What I've done is say what happened, then clump his name on the end because it's a result you could derive from what he set out. He was fairly optimistic that either capitalism would adapt to the increase in working class power that full employment provided, or be replaced.

>In the slump, either under the pressure of the masses, or even without it, public investment financed by borrowing will be undertaken to prevent large-scale unemployment. But if attempts are made to apply this method in order to maintain the high level of employment reached in the subsequent boom, strong opposition by business leaders is likely to be encountered. As has already been argued, lasting full employment is not at all to their liking. The workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of industry' would be anxious to 'teach them a lesson'. Moreover, the price increase in the upswing is to the disadvantage of small and big rentiers, and makes them 'boom-tired'. In this situation a powerful alliance is likely to be formed between big business and rentier interests, and they would probably find more than one economist to declare that the situation was manifestly unsound. The pressure of all these forces, and in particular of big business—as a rule influential in government departments—would most probably induce the government to return to the orthodox policy of cutting down the budget deficit. A slump would follow in which government spending policy would again come into its own.


You somehow managed to beat OP in the posting retarded shit competition. Congratulations.

File: 1713282777901.jpg (34.62 KB, 399x480, 1712165070942661.jpg)


So we all know China is the big bad economic rival of the US but what about India? I don't know much about them other than they have a fuck huge population, were pro-soviet during the Cold War, have historically been at odds with China over territory, and have had mixed relationships with the US in the past.

What is Bharat's future role in the world? How are they gonna shape up the game with regards to other nuclear powers (or at least the other big three)? What about their rule in multi-polarism? Relationship with other third-world nations?
16 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1713486188642.png (1.25 MB, 923x1024, basedxii.png)


ah yes xi famously known for not being in cahoots with the bourgeoisie


He's busy buying ropes, give him 4000 years.


This but unironically. You people just refuse to read Chinese own laws and prefer rumourmongering Westoid press instead. For example, it's still believed that Jack Ma is/was a billionaire owner of alibaba



US veto sinks Palestinian UN membership bid in Security Council
Twelve countries voted in favor of the draft resolution recommending full Palestinian membership. Britain and Switzerland abstained. Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas's office called the US veto "a blatant aggression" and "an encouragement to the pursuit of the genocidal war against our people… which pushes the region ever further to the edge of the abyss."

Algerian journalist says he was expelled from his country without explanation
Alilat said he regularly takes flights from Paris to Algiers to report on Algeria, where he has for years been a well-known journalist due to his work for French-language daily newspapers including Liberté, which was shuttered in 2022 amid financial problems and scuffles with the government and Algeria’s state-owned oil company, both of which are major advertisers for the country’s newspapers.

Turkey continues to cut off water supply to Alouk Station in Hesekê
The Turkish state and its mercenaries cut off the Alouk Station, which provides water to more than one and a half million people in Hesekê and its district. The Turkish state has cut off the water supply more than 40 times since the occupation of Serêkaniyê. According to the Hesekê Water Directorate, the last water cut was 7 months ago and the water cuts still continue.

Deadly heat in West Africa warns of climate change-driven scorchers to come, says report
Temperatures soared so high in Mali and Burkina Faso they equated to a once in 200-yeaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


No it's someone in a cat costume


Episode 369: Claude Marks: TrueAnon
We meet Claude Marks, founder/co-director of the Freedom Archives & former FBI most wanted for a talk about revolutionary radio, serious politics in the 1960s, and a life in movement.

Workers’ control: Who should run our workplaces?
“Not a wheel turns, not a lightbulb shines, and not a telephone rings without the kind permission of the working class.” Ted Grant, founder of the IMT, often repeated these words. What it gets to the heart of is that the whole world keeps going thanks to the working class. The construction of houses; lorries driving from point A to point B; the delivery of post: the working class keeps society running. Yet it does not run society. All of this is done as part of an overall system – capitalism – in which the means of production (warehouses, factories, oil and gas rigs, supermarkets, etc.) are the private property of the capitalist class. They own this plant, equipment, and infrastructure. And that means they get to decide what’s done with it. The ongoing dispute at Port Talbot reveals this starkly. Several thousand steelworkers are being thrown on the scrapheap, despite the crucial role they play in production. Their livelihoods, and the whole town’s fate, has been decided by the cruel logic of the market. None of this production is planned according to the needs of society. Instead, the economy operates chaotically, dependent on whatever maximises profit for the capitalists. That’s why we face redundancies, or are made to work longer, for less, while their profits get bigger year on year.

Frederick Engels: Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State III. The Iroquois Gens
We now come to another discovery made by Morgan, which is at least as important as the reconstruction of the family in its primitive form from the systems of consanguinity. The proof that the kinship organizations designated by animal names in a tribe of American Indians are essentially identical with the genea of the Greeks and the gentes of the Romans; that the AmericaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1713494621209.jpg (52.27 KB, 720x596, Dascapital.jpg)

That's it for this week. I have a few things going on that's gonna keep me from posting till tuesday at the soonest.





Have a nice break news anon


From Nazi newspapers printed in USSR in 1942-43. Turns out, Nazis were the final source for the mass repressions of 1937-38. Newspapers include every bit of the myth, from repressions of "formers", from secret troikas, from the absolute idiocy of a secret order to capture 700k people (how do you even detain 700k people with a secret reason for detainment? How do you imagine policemen explaining people why have they detained those people, lmao), to Yezhov carrying the reppressions out in secret from Stalin, to trials sentencing people to death and hiding the extent of repressions through saying to relatives that the repressed were actually sentenced to "10 years without the right to correspondence (write and receive letters)"

Do you feel like an idiot for believing that USSR killed 700k people in 1937-38 yet? That's literally Nazi propaganda, you know. And Soviet dissident myths came out from Nazi newspapers found in formerly occupied territories, given that to this fucking day nobody has ever found even one corpse out of those 700k
2 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>correspondence (write and receive letters)
Anon. Explaining basic words in brackets makes you look either insufferably condescending or legitimately retarded.


File: 1713466142025.jpg (237.88 KB, 923x2000, USSR1938Almanac.jpg)

I just don't know if this word bears the same idea as the one in Russian. "10 лет без права переписки" is a very common propaganda myth in Russia and it may not bear the same weight for people living elsewhere


Furthermore, Katyn was done by Nazis


cool. you have our attention. now explain this to the hordes of liberals and conservatives living in the imperial core who believe every single anti soviet myth


It starts with purging our own ranks of those myths.

File: 1705974099762-0.png (457.85 KB, 1804x1804, Posadas.png)

File: 1705974099762-1.jpg (537.87 KB, 2160x3840, book.jpg)

File: 1705974099762-2.jpg (503.07 KB, 2160x3840, book2.jpg)


Did Posadas have anything of value written or was it all just corny pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories along with doomer prepper anti-civ thought?
It just seems like a complete joke with the only thing legitimizing it being its brief involvement with the Cuban revolutionaries before being disowned.
The way it presents itself is like a Bordigist art project which somehow was schizophrenic enough to take itself seriously - also reminiscent of Nick Land after drugs.
Outside the obvious - we wouldn't survive a full on nuclear war. So is there anything worth reading about it or is it just a dead meme living on aesthetic and sci-fi?
I got to admit though, these covers look cool enough that I'm questioning if I should buy the books just for the swag.
60 posts and 32 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Nuclear War won’t destroy capitalism.
The imperial core will shift their powers to the southern hemisphere excluding Australia.


>Nuclear War won’t destroy capitalism.
<A modern nuke going off over a modern city is going to put so much shit into the atmosphere that a new ice age is an optimistic scenario.
These replies are conflicting….
Why not just critique Posadas' analysis directly instead of just making broader statements about nuclear war? Or are you afraid that he might be correct?


Nothing ever happens.


Posadas was correct, billions must die, nuclear war is desirable. Just wish he wasn't a Trotskyist.


>Just wish he wasn't a Trotskyist.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 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