/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Has electronic mass media made people stupid??

I can't help but feeling that literacy peaked in the 19th century and that radio, television, internet, etc. has made it possible to interact with material on a very shallow level and shortened attention spans.

>Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires (Latvian: Leģionāru piemiņas diena), often known simply as Legionnaire Day (Leģionāru diena) or March 16 (16. marts) in Latvia, is a day when soldiers of the Latvian Legion, part of the Waffen-SS, are commemorated. From 1998 until 2000, it was officially recognized as a "Remembrance Day for Latvian soldiers" by the Saeima.
>The day has been controversial as the Legion was formally a unit of Nazi Germany and the remembrance day has been seen by Russia as an attempt to glorify Nazism. Others point out that no one has ever been convicted of committing war crimes as a member of the Legion and hold that it was a purely military unit fighting against the Soviet Union that had occupied Latvia in 1940.
A holiday to commemorate literal Nazi collaborators. Imagine having a country this cucked to where you celebrate people like this. besides Ukraine

Thread for the discussion of Modern Monetary Theory and Post-Keynesian Economics

## FAQ

Q: What is Modern Monetary Theory
A: MMT is a macroeconomic theory that explains how modern monetary systems work, and argues that governments with sovereign, fiat currencies can never run out of money. It also argues that deficits are not inherently bad, and that government spending can be used to achieve full employment and other public goods.

Q: What is Post-Keynesian Economics?
A: Post-Keynesian Economics is a school of economic thought that is critical of mainstream, neoclassical economics. It builds on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and argues that the economy is inherently unstable, and that government intervention is necessary to stabilize it. It challenges the beliefs of neoclassical economics that markets are rational and self-regulating, and attempts to bring back sanity (empiricism) into a discourse that has become voodoo

Q: Why should I as a leftist care about these things?
A: Two reasons. Firstly, it undermines the right-wing narrative of barter economics as the historical basis for economics, whereas in fact the state has always been the monopoly issuer of goods. Secondly, governments and politicians are constantly attempting to gaslight the populace that we cannot 'afford' certain things, and we have some of the most economically illiterate people on the planet running the economy.

Q: But it's not SOCIALIST
A: Look, it's just a description of how the economy as it is currently works, not prescriptive. There are plenty radical leftists who believe in these ideas, it can enrich discourse. Just think of it as another tool in your toolbox when it comes to debunking right wing nonsense.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

People here like to say that the USSR's role in WW2 was defensive and the real ones to blame were the West for the failure to create an anti-Nazi coalition with the Soviet Union. Their justification is that after Stalin was rejected by the western allies, he had no choice but to enact the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because other countries signed various international agreements with Adolf Hitler throughout the 1930s.

However, even western historians from today going back to the end of WW2 widely criticize the Munich Agreement as a symbol of "appeasement policy" which proved to be a disastrous move. However, when the Nazis themselves broke the Munich Agreement with their invasion of Prague in March 1939, the western allies THEMSELVES approached the USSR about a new anti-Nazi coalition. https://books.google.it/books/about/The_Twentieth_century_World_and_Beyond.html?id=2HiUQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

However, nobody ever talks about this. Why didn't Stalin agree to the anti-Hitler coalition and why is nobody talking about this? The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact could have never happened if Stalin decided to accept their request, he did have a choice about enacting it after all.

Once again, leftypol has come, to rise from the ashes, a thread is done. Let us now talk of strikes and rugs, as the government takes us for mugs. We will cry and shout, but mostly lout about.

QTDDTOT - Questions that don't need their own thread. The last one died, so here post your questions here.

I'll start, why is a centralized authority important to achieving communism and why is this seen a positive aspect.

Imo the true legacy of those fuckers is how much stupider they've made the denizens of the Anglosphere and the fact that the average Angloid doesn’t know what the FUCK a socialist is by now. Like holy fuck, ever since their rampage on the world stage, the average Angloid I.Q. seems to have fallen down to the fucking pits, sure, Yankees and Britbongs were always idiotic violent anti-communist cunts, but it wasn’t until those fuckers pulverized their brains and made “socialism” out to mean “when people aren’t far right and the government does stuff” the average Yankoid or Brit has become a true slobbering retard. Shit, the average Yankee literally thinks Marxism is when the rainbow haired college professor talks about racism for 30 minutes, at least 50 years ago they actually KNEW what a communist was, now “communism” is uhhhh when you’re to the left of fucking Rothbard? And how do these fuckers not realize the end result is being torn limb from limb when most people still hate neoliberalism despite being too retarded to know why?

In fact, the contemporary western rightoid unironically thinks neoliberalism is socialism, holy fuck these people need to die

Underrated turning point in history

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/g/e.htm#general-agreement-tariffs-trade

>Originally GATT was set up as a temporary body to facilitate trade negotiations. The International Trade Organisation (ITO) had instead been created to break down trade barriers, govern trade during negotiations, and resolve trade disputes. The ITO Charter, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTE) in 1948, included (among other "leftist" principles) a provision that all nations should maintain full employment. This provision outraged the U.S. and U.K.; both calling it socialistic and a violation of national sovereignty. In 1950, the U.S. government refused to ratify the agreement, and the ITO died.

Had this ITO charter been ratified, all nations in the UN would have been obligated to maintain 100% employment. This means the destruction of the reserve army of labor and a massive decrease in the available number of scabs. This would have given striking workers far more leverage over the corporations and the government, while not abolishing capital outright.

Thoughts?

is UNITED STATES GENERAL MARK ALEXANDER MILLEY hiding his power level or is it just a meme?

IS HE THE FUTURE STALIN OF BURGERIA?

consider:

he's read karl marx
he's read Mao Zedong
he's read Lenin
he wrote his senior thesis in 1980 on the IRA and Guerrilla warfare, and admitted in the opening that he was sympathetic to their anti-colonial struggle against the British.

~There will never be an "End of History."~

Why do you think it is that capitalist society still permeates to this day? Simply because you haven't unleashed the global communist pandora's box, and that the masses are yet to receive the truth? All throughout history up until this point we have always had competing factions who may work for either the common good or for the atomized success of their own interest. The "philosophical problem of evil" does come to mind. It's certainly nice to imagine that we could stave off any further mass societal evils in such a way, though this is reductive. If people could be motivated at any point to perpetrate the evils of nazi germany, they could be motivated again to turn against the tide of what ought to be done in favor of some kind of hysteria or just an innately selfish drive. I'm not at all trying to make a "but human nature" argument against communism, simply state that I don't believe in any future humanity which isn't guided by the flux state of good and evil in contention with one another. It is a kind of self-deceit to assume that humanity will ever be able to rid itself of its tendencies. Simply looking at the world around you, do you think any of these people are ready to cheerfully transcend all evil and remove themselves from the drama of this human condition as it perpetrates itself upon us? The capitalist urge, the selfish urge, is not something that can be done away with by any one sweeping movement.

We should be willing to think more thoroughly about a post-communist world and all that it entails. It is my belief that society will have to have ever-evolving principles and ways of organizing itself in order to actually sustain something resembling the utopia which is dreamed of here. What new moral dilemmas will arise given new conditions? How can we, just as the capitalists dream of with their (supposed) technological growth, consider the philosophical and moral implications of a post-utopian society that is capable of growing beyond present limitations to keep in tide with the advent of nature influencing our drive towards something higher than what is already achieved? Nature does, I believe, ensure that there is an ever-present force of change in the universe. And if we achieve a "new harmony," surely we will face oddities unforeseen by the trends of today.

Perhaps, given all this, it is somewhat necessary to narrow ourPost too long. Click here to view the full text.