/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

What's up with FARC? I don't see much discussion of them in leftist circles despite being a communist ML group? Are/were they just drug traffickers and gangsters, or a real political movement?

I rarely hear arguments against objectivism that manage to invalidate Ayn Rand's argument for capitalism. Her argument is often considered to be the following, assuming a simplified syllogistic format :

>1. Survival requires reason : Man survives by using his rational mind, not instinct or force.

>2. Reason requires freedom : A mind can only function if left free to think and act on its own judgment; force or coercion can't make someone think.

>3. Capitalism is the only system that bans coercion between individuals and protects property rights, allowing each person to act on their own judgment.

>4. Therefore, capitalism is the only moral/practical social system : it's the only one consistent with the requirements of human survival and rationality.

The idea behind her argument is that living is to value human life, and that capitalism is rationally the correct system that upholds men's self-determination of values and hence of life given that it prevents force being used upon them. Capitalism is what follows from her objectivist ethics : ethical egoism.

I've yet to see any actual counter-arguments done against her pro-capitalist stance that are valid.

I'm really fucking gay and I like men but I don't see how a cavalry of transfem transbians would ever be a possible thing, if everyone could just unleash the barbaric animal inside of them it would be super amazing because I want these subhuman money laundering zionist flesh eating bastards to have their corpses eviscerated till their eyeballs are coagulated and they lay pudged up in blood, cum and fecal matter until they are indistinguishable to a pile of negroplasm which is then grinded up and fed to a rhinoceros and birthed from it's infected urinatus.

Ted Kaczynski meets Jeffrey Dahmer.

The war is won by boymoders.

Total boymoder victory.

It work pretty well for a bit in Catalonia, but I'm not really sure the means of revolution adapted to the conditions of 1920s Spain would really translate all that well to modern day America.

Australian and Oceania politics general thread. 'EDIT'"Previous thread: >>2371516"

Link dump:
https://www.greenleft.org.au [good events page]
https://www.auscp.org.au/militant-monthly
https://solidarity.net.au
https://redflag.org.au
https://marxistleftreview.org/?topic=australia
https://www.michaelwest.com.au
https://partisanmagazine.org/about/
https://overland.org.au
https://arena.org.au
https://www.themonthly.com.au
https://www.crikey.com.au
https://www.redblacknotes.com
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I cope with globalization's destruction of the labor movement by pretending that we have reached the global Lewis turning point. There's just not that big of s global latent reserve army anymore. The capitalists will still be evil but now they will have to explicitly use force or develop technology more in order to exploit us.

I've been seeing a lot of neoliberal and generally pro-market positions on social-media for a while now and I was wondering if this was a general phenomena or if it was just me.
In any case, in the event that this is a general trend on social media, how receptive is the average person to that kind of propaganda ?

From where I'm from, most people are pretty left-leaning economically but also have a lot of anti-tax views (which is logical given the burden of 65+ on the pension system). But is this the case everywhere ? I've also noticed that a lot of zoomers seemed to embrace the myth of the self-made man a lot more than the older generations.

Let's rehearse the facts:
>The US bombed Cambodia harder than they did in Nazi Germany and Japan
>The majority of the urban population were refugees from the countryside when the cities were emptied.
>Life expectancy dropped to its lowest point in 1975, before the Khmer Rouge took over. Afterwards, it began increasing.
>The Khmer Rouge successfully did all they could do prevent famine.
>The Khmer Rouge was not peasantist/primitivist. There was investment in light industry, healthcare and education.
>Thousands were killed in the Vietnamese invasion. More refugees fled per year from the puppet regime than from the Democratic Kampuchea.
>The central government ordered a stop to all killings on several occasions.
>The CIA only supported the Khmer Rouge after Vietnam took over to fuck with the USSR. The same CIA that bombed the country to rubble

Am I saying the KR was good? No. But blindly believing in propaganda is stupid.

Is the whole boomer vs. gen X vs. millennial vs. zoomer thing simply another form of false consciousness?

For example, someone born in 1986 and someone born in 1994 are both “millennials” but someone born in 1997 is a “zoomer” even though someone born in 1994 has a life experience much more like someone born in 1997 than they do someone born in 1986. Likewise, we don’t even know how to define when certain generations end or begin. Is the cut-off for boomers 1963, 1964, or 1965? To what extent does it matter?

It seems like scapegoating “boomers” for everything has become a popular thing to do on social media and I have to ask why is blaming the older generation somehow worthwhile? “Boomers were the hippies who ended up becoming conservative and voting for Reagan” — that doesn’t explain the material factors that lead to the rise of Reagan and neoconservatism in the first place. You can’t simply “blame boomers” when “boomer” exists in a materialist context. Likewise, you can’t blame Gen Xers and millennials for being “vain” or whatever when Gen Xers and millennials also faced material conditions beyond their control. So why are we placing blame on generations? Does it make any sense to do this?