/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

There was a distinction that mattered in 1910 and maybe 1930 but both movements are so hilariously small that it doesn't mean anything nowadays.

>>2755256
Classic Vanilla anarcho-syndicalist theory trusted the syndicalist Form to inherently lead to revolution and in some cases they had advocated for a more mutualist-type social form where there would still exist a market to a certain extent with small firms and artisans in "comradely" competition, and still nations and a global market but with the ideal of solidarity in mind, etc.
Anarcho-communist theorists (i.e. "Platformism", "Especifismo") argue that syndicalist structures alone are not enough as they could capitulate to reformist/opportunist tendencies by nature of serving as a union in the context of capital, and it insists on the importance of a parallel political organization (a "not a party" of the more or less Democratic Centralist variety but horizontally organized) to take the lead and ensure a libertarian communist trajectory in the anarcho-syndicalist unions and to work towards building hegemony in the proletarian cultural sphere.
It should be noted that these are broad generalizations and there exist major differences in perspective and praxis between groups, national orgs, and individual militants from the beginning till now. Just look at the IWA vs ICL debacle or the many schisms in the CNT over the years.

>>2758582
This analysis in large part correct, from what I remember of my anarchist youth.
>Just look at the IWA vs ICL debacle or the many schisms in the CNT
Seems this happened somewhere around the time where I shifted over to Marxist communist theory (and later practice), but I'm still interested to keep up with social anarchist developments. Do would you have the capacity to elaborate on this latter part?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers_Association#Later_developments_(1940%E2%80%93)
>By the 21st century, the IWA was experiencing an internal crisis. This process culminated in 2016, with the expulsion of the CNT (Spain), USI (Italy), FAU (Germany), which together represented 80-90% of the IWA's working membership. In 2018, the expelled sections of the IWA established a new international organisation, the International Confederation of Labour (Confederación Internacional del Trabajo; ICL-CIT).[11] Alongside the CNT, USI and FAU, other affiliated organisations included the North American Regional Administration of the IWW, FORA (Argentina), ESE (Greece), and IP (Poland).[12] As of its founding, the ICL-CIT counted more than 10,000 members, located in both Europe and the Americas; in contrast, by 2020, the IWA's membership had dwindled to less than 1,000 active members, mostly located in Europe
I'm noticing that the new org is explicitly naming "confederation" as a structure, while IWA always was a federation. I also remember there were some anarcho-syndicalist / CNT -> radical liberal republicanism going on during the Spanish civil war, could this be related?
I don't know how recently you read anarchist theory (for me it must've been a decade ago) but do you remember platformists ever writing directly on the federalism v confederalism debate in organizational social anarchism? I'm trying to figure out of one can glean if this was truly a radlib/platformist split in the international ansynd movement that happened or if it's different.

>>2758605
>Do would you have the capacity to elaborate on this latter part?
As I remember it, the FAU(D) had been kicked out earlier for collaborating with non-anarchist groups (the wobs!) while the minority Polish section ZSP who were seen as ideological puritans were heading the GS. The national sections with the largest volume of militants (also more reformist/pragmatic of course) were sore that a section who only represented a handful of militants could overrule and kick out a much larger section, also angry about how in the IWA statutes influence is not quantity proportional and each national section has the same (1) vote. For example in the case of CNT-F(s) the two competing orgs had to share a vote. I'm not sure how the ICL has changed structurally in that regard, Haven't been as close to that scene in recent years, but you could say these days the IWA is old timers and "ultras" and the ICL is more pragmatic and reformist.
> I also remember there were some anarcho-syndicalist / CNT -> radical liberal republicanism going on during the Spanish civil war, could this be related?
It's too much to explain, I'd suggest reading G. Munis, Augistin Guillamon, and Michael Seidman on this topic.
>do you remember platformists ever writing directly on the federalism v confederalism debate in organizational social anarchism? I'm trying to figure out of one can glean if this was truly a radlib/platformist split in the international ansynd movement that happened or if it's different.
I'm not in the condition for citing references atm but the whole Platformism vs Synthesim debate is probably where you would want to start.

>>2755256
>>2755256
Anarcho syndicalism is only concerned with class struggle not necessarily where it leads as the end goal (usually the debate between collectivism vs communism is invoked)

>>2756810
Not the WU you dumbass

>>2756807
having local support doesn't matter if you've been killed or forcibly separated from the people who support you

>>2756966
Again, irrelevant statement to the conversation you replied to.

Read from the top and try again.

And I'm not arguing, I'm saying this because comprehension is an actual important skill if you want to create a better world.

>>2755432
is this supposed to make me hate cars less?

Hi Anon, is this text taken from some book? I'm not sure what it means.

>>2758698
It's just a schizo and/or markov chain spammer.

>>2755286
well, here's what i think from reading around 12 pages
i find it pretty interesting, especially when it comes to childhood and adulthood development and with frameworks
so far it seems very focused on one particular style/place/state of people but i haven't read the rest of it(i have it bookmarked to read for later)
the theory put forward intrigues me but the classification into a few separate domains like social, law, and finance seems a bit too narrow, there could be a lot more
the writing could see some improvement because some of it feels llm-generated (eg: this is not because x. it is because y) so it ruins the immersion sometimes

>>2755299
>seems very focused on one particular style/place/state of people
You'll have to expand on what you mean by this.

>the classification into a few separate domains like social, law, and finance seems a bit too narrow
Yes, I should include a derivation of these categories. They might be the most popular ones, but they seem arbitrary without a grounding.

>the writing could see some improvement because some of it feels llm-generated
It is, but let me explain how. I wrote the axioms, and I wrote the concepts. I then used an LLM to decompose, reorganize, and recompose. I do that as part of my process, which means the LLM is going to touch a lot of the file eventually and fuck up some of the verbiage.

I'm working on it like a codebase. The design, the section architecture, the model is mine. The details and the connections are created.

Also, I've made some updates to the paper, and will continue to do so.

Here's the latest draft: https://files.catbox.moe/u025jw.pdf

another ai slop thread

>>2758579
>The details and the connections are created.
Actually, this was wrong. Most of the details are main. Vague references to popular ideas (less controversial, less original assertions) may not be mine but take a far less important position in the paper.

>>2758593
>main
*mine
ugh

is inflation that much of a problem? Oh well, get fucked

holy fizzle

>>2756111
Also a dirty bomb that could kill that many 1000s of people would lethally irradiate the wearing before he could get to the target

whats going on here

>>2756111
> all concluded that you'd need around 300 to 400 kilos to make the smallest nuclear bomb.
where was this

The near future, yeah, maybe. But the near future is irrelevant. What's relevant is how convinced you are in socialism's inevitability. Leftists who only fight for socialism provided that they get to see it in their lifetimes are barely better than social democrats.

>>2756885
>girldads aren't men
clever ragebait

>>2756689
>pic
can i get the text without the image. it's good text

>>2758054

Used an text extractor, didnt double check all.

>You are being systematically robbed of the same opportunities which previous generations were entitled to by simple virtue of having been born in eras with lower global population.
>Proponents of malthusian-inspired deregulation propaganda aren't really worried about the Earth, knowing full well that it could easily support a much higher number of humans if political corruption, systemic inequality, and purposeful waste of resources were brought to heel.
>A meaningful career, life partner, family, house, car, and possibly even food & water can be dangled just beyond your grasp by strategic maneuvering of forces and organizations which you'll never see, and of whom you've likely never even heard. They consider you to be a kind of living, animate refuse, whose only use is the production of capital and the taxable income which follows.
>Your elected leaders are almost all fully aware of the scale of the upcoming social upheavals that this will cause, when enough of you realize that your impotent groaning and whing in public forums won't save you from your fate - one worse than that of a medieval peon who at least had the courage to rise up and murder their oppressors under desperate circumstances. Instead you'll permit them to withdraw even dignified modes of living, contrive diversionary scandal after scandal as though they were pre-prepared and drawn from a ready supply, turn you against your brothers and sisters, and consume farmed insect protein because you believe that it will halt the already irreversible climate change devastation caused by unchecked industry and suppression of clean energy tecchnology. Even worse, the half of you would rather suicide than fight to keep what's already been earned by your predecessors. If your ancestors could see you now, they'd spit in your worthless face.


makes a good copy pasta for sure

>>2758149
>>2756689
the view of the past presented here is rose tinted nonsense. most people didn't have a meaningful career, they just had no choice but to look for meaning in being the guy who moves boxes from line A to line B in the box factory. as for a family, the primary reason that is more difficult is because we've successfully won much of the war on boredom and on dire poverty. you are no longer compelled to find a partner as a means of not starving to death, and you are no longer compelled to find a partner as a means of fucking the boredom away. net result? - revealed preference, as economists call it? - people argue on 4chan dot org or twitter dot com instead of going out and finding someone. (indeed: how could overpopulation possibly explain a lack of partners? by definition there are more potential partners than ever!)
housing, granted, is an issue but the problem is not overall population but population distribution (and construction, but everyone knows about construction).
everyone wants to live in LA because it's cool and nobody wants to live in ohio because it's lame. (and so far as people have to live in ohio, they want to live in Columbus, not Rendville) net result: a bunch of wasted houses in podunk shitholes with no jobs, and a big deficit in coolsville USA.
car? not only do most have one, but they need one, which is itself the problem - the manipulation of unseen forces trying to screw over the reader - in any civilized country "you won't be able to own a car" would be no more inconvenient than "you won't be able to own a 2-in-1 VHS/TV combo unit"

>>2742033
To give a serious rebuttal: there's always a moment within reformist movements where the bourgeoisie stops cooperating and starts playing hardball. In those moments, reformists have always knuckled under and either lost power, or in the worst case implemented austerity themselves, betraying their own working-class base. Or they were killed like Allende in Chile, who allowed workers to be disarmed and refused to mobilize the proletariat for revolution until it was too late.

>>2758297
If we're talking a capitalist dictatorship anyway democracy is better than authoritarianism because workers can at least publicly organize and get concessions instead of leaving all the cards to the ruling class and being forced underground. There's a reason for operation condor and so on

Through Landsbergian hermeunitcs and the inversed sociological topology of the late Precariat, time.

>>2758303
>If we're talking a capitalist dictatorship anyway democracy is better than authoritarianism
Current day liberal "democracies" aren't democracy. Read Aristotle.

>>2742033
But there's lots of small, potentially tractable problems with that idea. What if you lose an election? haven't you considered that all political reforms create winners and losers, and the losers will fight against your changes?

It's much better if we follow my idea:
first, we non-specifically "Organize" - maybe we start a party (I'll be in charge, naturally) and then the party will "organize" by recruiting people. Then, well, ???, then a revolution will happen and we'll be the driving force in that revolution, winning it by ??? (universal acclaim of the proletariat, maybe), then we'll implement certain organizational structures and policies like ??? (idk the ussr did something), which will immanentize the eschaton, maybe give-or-take a showdown against the world superpowers depending on how i'm feeling that day.

>>2742120
This is a good thing and reflective of historical progress. Martial wank belongs with goat sacrifice on the dustbin of stupid things we did under worse material conditions. There is not one single dispute in the world that would be better solved by combat than by market competition, and market competition is itself so brutal that socialists and social democrats try to look past it.

>>2742141
I am coming to believe that the most practical reformist attitude is as follows: high-welfare libertarianism.
Most regulations are unnecessary, either entirely so or an attempt to solve by regulation what should really be resolved by tax and spending. The handful of regulations that are necessary can be retained easily.
Foreign policy should consist almost entirely of securing trade and bilateral immigration/visa agreements. The military should be cut to the bone, perhaps abolished depending on the country.
State owned enterprises can in many cases be privatized. The darkest secret of social democracy is that there is in-fact no reason to presuppose that an SOE has the public interest at heart more than any private company.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2758053
again its very strange to me that you maintain this position when the main tenets of mendels theory have been proven outright incorrect and his main contributions are an exception to what is now the rule.

you just implicitly accept that "genetics" as a field has a throughline with minor imperfections and course corrections to arrive at the current model, when in reality its essentially been essentially completely overturned and whats left is deeply intertwined with proposals that are closer to what lysenko thought.

and youre using "mendelian" as shorthand for something it doesnt represent and didnt claim, giving him credit for something he had nothing to do with and made no contribution to. while also using "lysenko policy" or "lysenkoism" as a distinct school of thought, when that is anti-communist propaganda. "lysenkoism" is an scare word against totally normal soviet biology and not the policy of of an individual person.

>>2758098
> "lysenkoism" is an scare word
ok so we should just have soviet biology threads instead of "let's debate lysenkoism" threads

>>2758099
sounds great

>>2758098
>and youre using "mendelian" as shorthand for something it doesnt represent and didnt claim, giving him credit for something he had nothing to do with and made no contribution to.

what? lets look at the charles example

"Mendel's investigations were well known to me before the year 1903 and all my work since then has been conducted in the light of his valued conclusions"
-charles

In the dr charles example he straight out admits that he used mendal's investigations and conclusions. His wheat expirements was also created shortly after he went to International Conference on Plant Breeding and Hybridization, where he learned mendels ideas and works.

"The remarkable work of Mendel has thrown a new light on the whole subject of plant breeding… we are now able to conduct our experiments with a degree of precision and a certainty of results that were previously impossible."
summary of the 1902 international conference proceedings (newman an argonimist who worked with charles)

Mendal ideas and works contributed heavily to dr charles wheat crop. Which later turned canada into a breadbasket.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2758099
He personally named himself a Michurinist after the famous Russian biologist he drew many of his ideas from.

>>2757289
leave a poo in his locker

>american

anyway, actually tell us what conversations you've had instead of being a dumb leftcom

>>2757429
I am not american you stupid fucking obsessed retard

sorry OP, this is a geopolitics and ISG board. nobody actually talks about class struggle. we have >>>/labor/ but it's less active than >>>/dead/ and >>>/edu/