/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

engels:

> …modern materialism is essentially dialectic, and no longer needs any philosophy standing above the other sciences…. That which still survives, independently, of all earlier philosophy is the science of thought and its laws — formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of nature and history.

After way too much time, the https://leftypol.org/search.php is finally back!
Now powered by a new backend with new filters and broader wildcard support!
Enjoy!

>>2784430
sorry
>>2783956
I am protestant yes but this shit is insane. Christianity is supposed to be your personal experience with God and being faithful to him. Something about this feels off. This makes me feel weird

read this my people before talking about how stalin was le hecking evil

>>2784445
>stalinist propaganda
obsessed

>>2784446
it is because it's both promoting stalinist ideology and mythology, along with using contortions of existing evidence, that being said it wasn't an intentional program of starvation

>>2784416
No they weren't.
>communism when line goes up
My favourite AES is America and to say otherwise is white supremacy

>>2784383
Capitalism has not uplifted 600 million people out of third world level impoverishment in 3 decades no. Certainly not in the current day

>>2784438
True. It uplifted more.

>>2784438
So 50s-70s Japan, South Korea, and post-war Western Europe was based AES

>>2783463
China is a communist country stupid, they don't have democracy or the free market and they're enemies of the United States

I hate the community, talking to people is draining, this is why I will never organize or join a comune or co op, capitalism suits me better as an individualist, just make money and go home.

>i have defeated the prior tendencies finally found the true doctrine of revolution
>fails to organise social momentum
>soon everyone's talking about marx again

i am sure internet subcultures remain the true negation of marxist "dogmas"

>>2783972
Yes anon, we should embrace another failed sect which promote liberal values instead of real means for organising a proletariat.

Not to mention this dude was zionist and had sympathies towards libRETARDianism.

>>2784432
libertarianism isn't that bad, the problem is libertarians.
this is not the position i would've taken in 2017, but we're definitely in a direction of state-lead warmongering much worse than the worst that could be dreamed up by a global free market.

the problem with libertarians is that they mostly have personality flaws that've lead them to be Tax-cutting Trump type contrarians rather than committed believers in the rights of the individual. hence you see a shift towards "anarcho" capitalists who want the unspoken-state to throw taxmen out of helicopters, rather than libertarians who can say: go live on a commune if you want, but leave me out.

it and neoliberalism share a fundamental failure mode: they become very caught up on tax cuts and the immorality of taxation and forget all about regulation, even though overregulation, protection for businesses that should go under, etc, are in fact the most harmful interventions of the state. (tax is just a blip - it moves a cost curve a little bit, that's all. the market can handle that, but it can't handle if you just say "you can't open a coke bottling plant in this county because the government says only one guy's allowed to have one!") since it's obvious who loses from taxes (and not who gains), and since it's obvious who loses from deregulation (and not who gains - the answer is generally "more people than lose"), there's very little incentive to focus regulation and leave taxes alone, and lots and lots of incentive to rail against taxes at full volume with only quiet hypotheticals about regulation.

>>2783256
>oughts
Already told you, the only ought is self-created by the brain’s reward system. Saying that a pedophile FEELS like he should do xyz is descriptive. Saying that he SHOULD implies an external moral ought which doesn’t exist

>moral statements
Quick question, why do you think preferential statements can be non-contradictory ?

> This has already been admitted by anon, but when elaborated, he doubles down in contradiction, stating that both statements have validity.
Jesus christ you are dumb. The whole point that I’m saying is that moral language is structured in the same way that preferential language is : inherently relational to the self. It’s baffling to think that you still don’t get it after 300+ posts

the annoying thing about all this is that, like, the evidence of starting from social utility is pretty straightforward.

we know that people oppose paedophilia because they are told from an early age that it is bad. we can tie this to the institution of the family; the legal separation of child from adult via ages of consent; the way that predation on children is a legal abstraction used to mediate the boundaries of civil society.

people thus believe that the molestation of children is bad. and you know, i'd think most people here agree with that.

we can then go, hmh, but the way in which we're told paedophilia is bad often leads to us thinking of paedophilia as some conspiracy, a meta-organisation of creepy men in the shadows, who can only be brought to justice by vigilantes like chris hansen. this, clearly, contradicts with what we know about predation–that it is often intrafamilial, and that abuse and rape mostly concern themselves with people already known to the victim. 'conspiratorial' predation via the internet is indeed rampant, but a minority compared to these instances, which often go unreported due to the inherent privacy of the family.

and we can take this to its logical conclusion–that the family is the systemic framework permitting child abuse, and the current mechanisms by which we educate people about paedophilia are inadequate and should be adjusted. there should also be a more comprehensive framework of protections, which may even require a radical adjustment of the way we treat family relations.

"but wait!" says anon. "that's useful! fuck! we can't do that!"

so anon insteads reduces paedophilia's moral quality to an abstract variable that can be proven true or false–disagreeing with these is, in anon's eyes, tantamount to sanctioning child abuse.

it's fucking ridiculous.

(cont.)

furthermore, people can disagree with my assessment here. but the means by which they do so will often involve the elucidation of social evidence, not magic variables lurking in the shadows.

but again, we can all agree that the consensus by which we understand child abuse is bad (which, again, i hope all of us here do) has not actually changed the structures that enable child abuse. we must therefore move on from ghosts, religion, morality etc and actually address the issues, including how people are educated–not the dialogic process of philosophical debate clubs.

(cont. 2)

sorry to triplepost, but it does reinforce my point that epistemology is basically a religion.

i do have an interiority, which i know is true, but even fucking kant recognised that this doesn't make me *be*–what makes me *be* is the understanding that other things also exist. otherwise i'm a brain floating in the middle of nowhere.

kant wasn't free of epistemology though, and hegel brutalised him so hard people still think hegel is some kind of occult dialectical mystic and not a dead german guy with some Textwalls they only deem impenetrable due to their own epistemological religions. they want to know what the dead guy is Thinking, not what he is Saying.

our interiorities can involve an epistemology, perhaps. i can reckon with my internal acquisition of knowledge, and then i can apply it. for me, it's my relationship with the marxist doctrine, and my ability to use social evidence to affirm it. if this must be deemed a soul, religion, etc. whatever then sure, but whenever i discuss my beliefs with an epistemologist, they are totally unconcerned with social evidence.

they want to know my interiority. and they want to poke holes in my epistemology; they want to lure me back into a world of thought where i can achieve true enlightenment.

but this is modernity. i don't do that. i take things as they arrive to me. the philosophers have long wanted us to leave plato's cave, to come to the *real world* of truest thought.

these people are priests, with a church, and a liturgy. they are dogmatic relics of the middle ages demanding you pray with them rather than discuss your real fucking existence.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2784401
>As for the tweet, I dunno man, it didn't really seem like a joke to me, or at least one with serious feelings behind it. Even if they want to say it's a joke, political parties shouldn't be shitposting. Look if you don't find videogames enjoyable anymore that's fine but it's crazy to go out frothing at the mouth about them being 'degenerate'. It makes you look mental to 90% of the left. If WPGB wants to try doing social conservative socialism, then okay, I don't think it will work but they're welcome to give it a go, as I said I even voted for them, but they can't just go out and act like fucking Haz, nobody likes that, not even conservatives.
Sure, another part of the left being not serious in this country. I just find it funny how so many here seemed to be personally offended by the TRVKE lmao.

>>2784384
there are 217 flats in trellick tower
5 million / 217 = 23041
build 20,000 trellick towers a year and you'd have a substantial surplus of permitted housebuilding.

now because you are stupid i will explain: this does not literally mean building 20,000 trellick towers, cool as that would be. obviously, one would build - say - 100,000 more reasonably sized blocks of flats and 40,000 regular homes. one could also always cheat a little: build 9000 alexandra road estates and insist that the complex is all one big building. really, as a stimulus to actually doing things, it's a wonderful policy. (all the flats will, of course, be well insulated and have solar panels on the roof and a little windmill just to piss you off.)

but go ahead and explain why you don't want good working class construction jobs and infrastructure investment.

>>2784387
the point of production is consumption :)

>>2784394
link the dickhead then.
(speculation: you won't because it's a source so right wing as to be socially embarrassing and even you're not that dumb.)
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2784356
Well said and TRUE but too deterministic. I doubt Lenin was always perceived as the tasteful aristocrat compared to Nikolas II or whoever were the leaders of the white army. Same with Mao VS Chiang etc.

one should understand marketing politics as being like marketing any other product.

imagine coca-cola was a political party. 69.3% of soft drink sales by value in the UK are coke - it's more popular than keir starmer is unpopular! but unless you're the LDP in Japan (and even then) you can't be coke in politics. coke is an undifferentiated product, which is a marketing way of saying "we've narrowed our target demographic down to: everyone"
and it works! you cannot really narrow coke drinkers down by personality type. they're everyone, everyone drinks coke. even diabetics.

Now Dr. pepper, they're different. "try more weird". their target demographics are basically the same as the Green party: 18-34, a little individualistic or quirky. maybe even (gasp) a touch irresponsible, not drinking reliable old coke. in 2024 dr. pepper's sales-by-value went up 12%. they're also, incidentally, the most loyal consumers of any brand UK-wide. but unlike coke, they're not undifferentiated. you can, in fact, narrow down who drinks Dr. Pepper.

just for fun: the SNP are Irn Bru to an uncanny degree. In Scotland it is coke. you cannot really narrow down Scottish Irn Bru drinkers by demographic. (and if you dig into the minutiae, you even find some parallels: used to be more popular with men, now skews gender neutral…) the drink's unique taste is good, but it differentiates itself from other soft-drinks using inoffensive nationalism. its slogan: "made in scotland from girders", really goes for the kind of industrial social-democratic nostalgia that the SNP took up when Labour blundered it away.
In the UK as a whole, it's popularity skews younger, more overlap with the Dr. Pepper demographic… which is also true of the SNP. (remember 2015's gimmick of english people googling if they could vote for Nicola Sturgeon?)
and just to push a metaphor to breaking point: a lot of pre-2015 supporters have become upset with changes to the recipe post-2018…

so, what's my point? well: for dr. pepper to try to pivot to being coke would be a terrible mistake - you'd throw away this unique, differentiated position without any real hope of taking over coke as the default option. also, more importantly, politics is all about differentiation. why did your party flop so hard? because Zak Polanski was selling Dr. Pepper and Your Party were offering mystery bottles which had an 85% chance of containing something 1%Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2784263
Generals aren't the deep state that's just the state.

do it

>>2784378
Lmao is it real

>>2784429
no. but the doordash grandma was fake. he's a paid stooge of the GOP. i havent seen any information about the pilot since the rescue.

i do think we need to wait and hear something from reputable sources and serious communists