/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2356581
>it's the third world where capital operates unfettered
Private property isn't being protected there - beyond the property of few privileged individuals, typically with government connections. Property rights must be universal or they become mockery - "protecting" your stolen loot.

The third world has bog standard capitalism, it's not some kinda conan the barbarian style precapitalist wasteland lmao

>>2356628
What capital exactly they are currently accumulating? Spears and straw hats?

>>2356653
well they aren't accumulating much of it because it's the west that's accumulating it, duh

>>2356628
I live in Pakistan and it is clearly not a complete tribal war zone, but the way that business and social issues are handled is essentially anarchistic, the police are underfunded and deeply corrupt, and communities are therefore dependent on themselves for their own law enforcement. That sounds good, expect that those laws will be judged by what the community considers to be Islamic, and that local Imams will have a lot of power. And if the mullah says that God has ordered a local hospital to be burned down, then all the young men in the community will burn it down. If someone is accused of insulting Islma, they will kill them. This is against the guidelines of the state and much of Pakistan and the third world is run this way. Of course, there is law here in theory, but there is no regulation. People screw each other in a thousand different ways, and again there is no law, no security, no public works, those get established under dictatorships.

>>2352042
>they have to jump to It's The Jews
Funny enough, the major thinkers of modern modern libertarianism were almost all Jewish

>>2356628
Conan is kinda based low key

https://coyoteandwolf.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/shameless-self-promotion-in-defense-of-conan-the-barbarian-zine-repost/

https://corabuhlert.com/2021/06/30/conan-the-socialist/

>>2357087

Precisely.

What our resident libertarian degenerate ideologue does not understand is that it is precisely the strength of government, by various means which is what makes conditions in the west better for the median person, despite the mode of production being capitalist in both instances.

Strip away (or significantly reduce) law, infrastructure, industrial policy, welfare measures, migrations controls & of course imperialism and the conditions of life for a much larger proportion of westerners would look like those of the median Pakistani.

My sympathies to you by the way. I have heard things have deteriorated a bit recently in Pakistan. I hope you are getting by.

>>2212788
libertarians don't exist anymore they just morph into normal conservatives or far right after a while.

>>2358387
Better than most people here. The safest regions in our country are those run by the Military establishment and state sanctioned para-Militares. They have their own problems, but they function and that is still a huge improvement for many people here. Because of these experiences, I sincerely believe that Authoritarianism, whether Communist, Ba'athist or Bonapartist are necessary for the Third World and our material and social development.

>>2357771
wrong: https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/23341.html

>>2358462
Wasn't the director a Maoist?

>>2357087
Samefag, another observation that needs to be made that informs my politics is that when these communities or groups of communities attempt an organized Islamic uprising/revolt, they fail quite miserably, despite the fact that the police are underfunded and understaffed, they have the unlimited right to use violence to deal with them and so they deal with them by beating them, shooting them and arresting them en masse. It is one of the reasons why I am not really impressed when I hear western leftists talking about how they "beat up cops" during a local riot or whatever, because these are far more violent and numerous men and they are being beaten to a pulp by men who are not even one tenth the size or budget of a western police.

>>2358453
>>2358485

Happy to hear you are doing (relatively) okay.

One thing that might interest you that has recently absorbed my attention is the issue of unitary vs. federal states & civil vs. common vs. customary law.

The way you describe things, it seems like Pakistan suffers from both the devolved power inherent to federal states & significant remnants of customary (that is very informal, diffuse & personality dependent) law.

Though the reasons he gives are lacking in my opinion, in The Prince Machiavelli even mentions that the more stable & better governed states are those with formally appointed ministers that derive their power from the center (as opposed to those with barons/feudal lords with own powerbase).

Its why I am not at all surprised that you say that some of the better areas to live in your country are those strongly supervized by the central military or very closely associated groups; This because the military tends to be most unitary, formalized, hierarchical (as opposed to heterarchical), rules/procedures based institutions in most countries.

This means rules/policies/procedures are relatively clear, lines of authority and responsibility are as well, enforcement mechanisms exist & are carried out by relatively trained personnel, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, among the most intellectually serious marxists, one of main problems with capitalism is precisely its inherently heterarchical nature; In other words the problem is that capitalism is insufficiently "centralized" & moreover inherently incapable of becoming so.

>>2358453
> Because of these experiences, I sincerely believe that Authoritarianism, whether Communist, Ba'athist or Bonapartist are necessary for the Third World and our material and social development.
Listen, it's not rocket science - people need to have a choice among plenty of well-paid jobs for material development of a country. Africa is poor because no one fucking does anything there. People are lying under the palms all day long - what "development" you expect from that. When Western business left Africa during decolonization, deindustrialization followed. For jobs to be well-paid they must must involve using plenty of (previously accumulated) capital. It's (even) Marxism 101. A corollary is that jobs in well capitalized industries will be relatively pleasant and easy - we talk about pushing the buttons in 10,000HP machines (or in computer keyboards) versus swinging the shovels. Also, business must have opportunities first for job opportunities to arrive.
Gaberments give you none of this. They could but they never do because it's against the interest of the ruling caste. Rulers don't want social mobility of a meritocratic market because it endangers their privileged position, simple as that. They are not able to _efficiently_ capitalize the economy and, as I hear from you, they are barely even able to provide basic security to their "citizens" (kek).
Also
>Better than most people here.
Drink some champagne for us. With your local junta representative.

>>2343107
>"Fascist ends" were basic conservatism in the late 1800s
Supporting patriarchal ethnostates practicing a belligerent, colonial and often genocidal imperialism and also maybe this whole newfangled "human rights" thing is going a bit too far? Yeah, basically. If I thought that the best way to ensure the future success of the nation was to slay captives in sacrifice at the temples of the gods, that would make me a pretty typical guy in classical antiquity, but hardly a reasonable person today.

>degenerate as the libs, economically out of touch as the Neo-cons
You just described rich celebrities.
Libertarianism is one form of "I have money and want to he allowed to do anything with it" ideology.

You have to give the Libertarians a bit of band-handed credit for having largely hamstrung the right by being the delusional true believers in the neoliberal order. I would argue that a significant portion of why Trump's administration is as retarded and incompetent as it is can be laid directly at Libertarianism's feet. It has convinced large sections of the right that there is no need for nation-building or extensive, large-scale and long-term social projects. Socially conservative, low-key de facto ethnic-supremacist neoliberal capitalism is the natural and inevitable order that will simply assert itself as a flawless, harmonious society once the bad actors and artificial interventions and regulations have been removed. Remove this regulation, abolish this tax, return to this archaic monetary system and the toothpaste will just slide right back into the tube!

No plan for industrialization? No need! Factories just sprout from the earth in the presence of late 18th century economic environments. Deporting all the farmhands with no plan to replace them? No need to worry! The market will fix it, probably. After all, it used to be that migrants didn't make up the vast majority of farmhands, and the right and natural order will simply re-assert itself overnight. And, as always, there's no need for "New Deal" type policies to get the economy back on its feet. Economic miracles are always just one more big tax cut away! And if reality doesn't seem to match what the neoliberal economists told you was supposed to happen, it's reality that's wrong for not stepping up to match their models.

>>2359080

There is indeed a certain good fortune when the imperial core countries adopt libertarian policy prescriptions wholeheartedly.

A good strategy for an emerging socialist country might indeed encourage their enemies down the libertarian path. "Please dear enemy go ahead & cut everything indiscriminately, deregulate, privatize &liberalize it all! And especially legalize all drugs and remove all restrictions on the ability to buy and sell them!"

>>2358453

Having though about it more, I wanted say explicitly that your intuition that a "strong "authoritarian government" is best for economic & social development does in fact have some validity, but in my opinion might refinement in terms of what this "authoritarianism" means specifically.

This was in the back of my mind when I typed up my reply here: >>2359039

I want to add that a strong centralized unitary government with clear central leader (or very small ruling clique/family) does have a very strong incentive to purse a clear rules based administrative system with promotion based on qualifications & deed based merits, as well as keeping social peace & engaging in long term & large scale projects.

This is because illegality, disorder, corruption, social injustice threaten their power whereas large scale & long term development benefits it. Since they are the ultimate owners/controllers of everything, there are no competitors that have to be undermined or avoid cooperation with (in order to at least not fall behind in the competition, whether its war or the economy).

The key is though to maintain a clear system of rules & adminstrative methods precisely to ensure all these goals can be met (& to prevent the emergence of any significant antagonistic power blocks). This is no quick or easy set of tasks to be sure, but they are necessary to achieve.

Historically, there are some antecedents in Pharaonic Egypt and especially post-Qin China, among others. In fact, ancient China had a philosophical school develop precisely around these issues called legalism. Have a look at some point as I think it would interest you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)

>>2359251

I am so sorry, I just looke at the wiki page that I linked and it appears to have been exploded and is practically unusable now. Here are some better links at least for now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_Yang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Lord_Shang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Feizi

I swear the original article wasn't like this a few years ago. Not that wikipedia is a great source to be begin with to be fair, but at least it could give coherent introduction before whenever the current mess was pushed through.

>>2359251
Your points are almost exactly what I view. If you are a westerner, then you are the one who really understands the problems in the third world and why we cannot escape into fantasy as certain western leftists did.

>>2231216
>>2212941
The reason that Libertarianism died was that this policies were implemented by the Democratic-Republican Party, but the weakness of this ideology was demonstrated very clearly in the War of 1812. A decentralized and disorganized system left the United States unable to defend itself in an actual large-scale War

>>2212788
That's easy:
Because the independently wealthy like the idea of being able to do whatever they want with said wealth.
T. libertarian

>comedians, filmmakers, and actors
Mostly members of the same tribe that wrote most libertarian literature, so it's a biospiritual affinity.

As for WASPs, they just want to justify not paying taxes for black and Irish welfare without seeming racist.

>>2360098
With wealth or without it. The "aristocracy" historically had the most freedom and they did pretty much whatever they wanted. Libertarians acknowledge that all people have the same inherent freedom.
There is a difference between modern leftist and libertarian approach to equality. Everybody generally agrees nowadays that people are more or less equal; leftist strive to achieve practical equality by reducing aristocracy to the level of peasants - libertarians say that everybody can live with as little restrains as aristocrats. (as long as they don't directly exploit others ofc - this is what differentiate libertarians from some traditionalists)

>>2360098
>>2360231
>>2360368

I am reminded of Chesterton's quote about the degenerate/anarchic tendencies amongst the wealthy.

Always seeking ways put of being restrained by formal government law (the only law for them as close as they can get to the 'law of jungle' or worse).

Their elimination as actually existing social categories is necessary for the very perpetuation of mankind (in sense of both basic survival & expansion across the universe).

>>2359271

I appreciate the compliment; I am indeed from a western country (though my values tend very much hostile to typical contemporary western ones, "left" or "right")

As far as Marxism goes I am actually a third-worldist, so I try to understand what goes in third-world countries, at least in trying to work out some basic patterns, and weak and dysfunctional government is pretty universal and obvious as a problem (although some of the specifics of how this manifests changes from country to country).

Not that first-world governments cannot be dysfunctional, but they are certainly not weak, and a lot of problems are papered over by the spoils of imperialism & colonialism,among other things I listed earlier in the thread.

After all, capitalism as a system tends to generate its own dysfunctions, and no government overseeing a capitalist economy will be immune from such; Hell even socialist states subject to the world market are not entirely immune.

>>2360643
> third-worldist
I feel I should inform you they don't exist. It's a fantasy for Western leftists and upper-class non-white intellectuals. No one who has any semblance of political relevance in the West and the Third World is a Third Worldist, all the actual socialist parties are some flavour of ML and follow what happens in China

>>2360698

As an intellectual current in Marxism it certainly does exist.

Parties usually don't use it as self identifier, because, especially in third world itself, the basic theses are obviously true:

The idea that exploitation in the Marxist sense is far greater in the third-world & the proportion of the population that is bourgeois, petty-bourgeois & labour aristocrat is far smaller in the third world; These are painfully obvious.

That the std. of living there makes revolution is less unlikely to take place there compared to the "imperial core" countries also is, again, pretty obvious.

In fact, if it weren't for many first word communists & organizations and their chauvinism, the term third-worldism wouldn't be necessary at all, because all the basic theoretical building blocks already exist in Marxism, expanded upon a bit in Leninism & Maoism.

>>2360706
>As an intellectual current in Marxism it certainly does exist.
a current perhaps but certainly not intellectual. and it exists as widely rejected one by real parties

>Parties usually don't use it as self identifier, because, especially in third world itself, the basic theses are obviously true
so parties don't identify as it but they have appointed you as their representative to make it clear that they agree with it so much it doesn't even have to be stated? and of course you don't post any proof, not even one speech or book when you claim to be talking about the majority of parties in the third world

I live in the third world, I'm part of a marxist party here, maybe the biggest one in the country, and part of the formative literature for cadres are refutations of the unequal exchange theory. you are straight up lying

and those refutations are from the 60s and 70s right when that theory was emerging, you have local authors refuting arghiri with more or less the same points you see now on this board. the thing is, you have never bothered to seriously read authors from outside the imperial core, or worse, authors that haven't been translated to english because they are too local to be relevant for college book clubs

>>2360706
>As an intellectual current in Marxism it certainly does exist.
I live in the Third World and have been involved in both academia and local politics, but that is not the case. The handful of idiots involved in postcolonialism are almost all disconnected from their own heritage. Most of them do not speak their own language. Local politics are practical, but can be bloody and violent and may require men with certain criminal or militaristic tendencies. And frankly, I don’t give a damn whether the Socialists and Communi8st in the First World are Chuvanists or even Racsit. Everyone here and most of the world is racist in some way. I thought you were not one these delusional western leftists who cannot see people as real people. There is no secret formula. There is chaos, civil war, and under those conditions the strong and the populists usually win.

>>2360708
>>2360709

Hey I am open to read any refutations you can share (though I was never that impressed by Αργύρη's argument to be fair, despite our common ethnic heritage); Please do post them.

Generally though, the argument used is that workers in higher productivity sectors are exploited similarly because the wages they earn (in labour time equivalent) are inferior to the socially necessary labour time of the commodities they produce (that is to say the average labour time required to produce the commodity across the entire industry).

I think this argument is inconsistent with Marx, and can be illustrated using a ground rent.

But it seems, as I was writing this post I may have triggered you basly emotionally in some way (wasn't my intention either), that goes far beyond the confines of political economy.

—

>Everyone here and most of the world is racist in some way.

This is not even what I was referring to with my chauvinism comment (Its that they often ignore the rest of the world, thinking things are the same, or that imperialism/colonialism offers little in benefit to the first world populations, etc.)

Xenophobia of course exists in the third world, and its not even racist (in the sense of based on race): Its usually tribalist or clan based (and religion plays too)

For example, people in the same country will get enormous favoritism in hiring on the basis of their tribal/clan background, even when its explicitly illegal.

>Local politics are practical, but can be bloody and violent and may require men with certain criminal or militaristic tendencies.
>There is chaos, civil war, and under those conditions the strong and the populists usually win.

I don't disagree with any of this, and I don't see how agreeing with the thesis of third world countries being exploited more (in the labour time sense) or being less unlikely to have a revolution invalidates that.

Historically socialist revolutions occured nearly exclusively in "less developed countries" (Russia, China being the biggest examples)

Without a militaristic, dare I say, "totalitarian" outlook and structure, not only will a revolution fail, but if the economy and society is not organized along the lines of a "single elegant machine", the revolution won't be sustained (kosygin-liberman reform comed to mind as dooming the USSR).

—

Finally, a note about practicality & my third-worldism:

A full time ordinary (factory, shop, service, etc.) worker in west Africa earns the exchange rate equivalent of some 50-80 usd a month (if he is lucky to have full time formal employment at all). Its likely somewhat higher in Pakistan but likely not by more than 2x is my guess.

In the first world, even a minimum wage worker is earning easily 15x that, maybe not even working full time.

Ergo, if one wants to finance the operations of communist party, where will a $ spent have greater effect?

There is a strategic/tactical opportunity here.

>>2360734

* a differential ground rent scenario

>>2360734
>and its not even racist
It is racist, you're judged by your color of your skin and people are very open about it.

>>2360734
As I see it, Third Worlders are just self-hating Westerners living vicariously through irrelevant Third World groups. They are helped in these assumptions by local intellectuals who are also irrelevant in their own countries and are very Westernized culturally. The thing is, instead of even thinking the least bit critically that maybe Marx was wrong in military matters and that it's not feasible to achieve a communist revolution in an industrialized developed nation with a Competent army. They went into another pathetic delusion that
>"actually, it's because the entitled First World proletariat don't revolt, because they're comfortable in their position in the supply chain
and they sought even more retarded to justify these positions
In reality, it comes down to the difference between strong and weak states Example, Leftist revolutionaries in Imperial Russia at the end of WW1 faced a military that had been gutted by Imperial Germany for years and would make a much easier opponent, this is not the case for modern America, where even a relatively moderate movement like Occupy Wall Street quickly had the NYPD trucking people into their camp and getting infiltrated, To use another example, Venezuela, in 1992 then Colonel Hugo Chavez was able to organize over 2300 soldiers to almost succeed in a coup against the Venezuelan government, In the United States this would not happen due to the overwhelming capture of the United States military by politically rightwing actors. An actual leftist would never make it to Colonel let alone General and even if they did, if they attempted a coup against the United States Government, they would most likely be detected while organizing their soldiers and that's assuming they could find any soldiers to follow their orders.
TL;DR: Proletariat in Western Europe and the US don't instigate leftist revolutions not because they're parasites fat off the blood of third world workers but because organizing a leftist revolution in a country with a strong government with a united military and competent surveillance infrastructure is Nightmare Difficulty compared to some weak South American or African government that can be seriously challenged by organized peasants with AK 47s.

>>2360712
Samefag, let me tell you what material 99.99% of people in left parties receive, 2 translations of works by Mao (Quotations and on guerrilla warfare), some pieces by Stalin, but never by Marx (because he's Jewish) and most importantly a local political thinker. This will vary by ethnicity and region, but there will always be someone dead whose writings (usually a mix of advocacy, nationalism, vague socialism and self-determination) and these are what 99.99% of people in leftists parties read here, including it's leadership, so yes third worldism and other western nonsense of the new left do not exist here.

>>2360749
What does it matter that the state is strong if firstoids don't even try in the first place?
Yhey don't try because they're comfortable, simple as

>>2360749

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. In fact they seem to me to be complimentary (maybe even mutually reinforcing)

Those state that gain the benefits of imperialism & (neo)colonial arrangements can afford both greater welfare and a stronger security apparatus to repress threats. Its kind of like double jeopardy in terms of game theoretical incentives (for revolution). Revolution is a collective action problem after all.

In fact, there is a reason I used the term "less unlikely"; Because revolution is unlikely to begin with, everywhere.

Things really do have to break down quite severely to reach that point. People en masse have to be brought the brink (usually war or famine, but maybe some kind of pandemic might do it). This most likely to happen where poverty is already greatest; And before that people will be more receptive to ideas of radical redistribution when they already have trouble keeping their kids healthy (so its easier to build a party base before the breakdowns)

>>2360757

Man, you have no idea of my experience with third world organizations, hehehe…

Let's just say that, in my experience, what you describe us optimistic.

That people in revolutionary organizations in the third world are even fully literate and are given even Mao quotes is already a rare luxury.

Did you think I honestly believed that for example the average Ghanian is reading Nkrumah?

People have to fucking hussle constantly just to survive. They don't have time for even reading the bible or quran, much less reflect on the intricacies of value theory.

—

>>2360749

>self-hating Westerners

Just wanted to say, hey you caught me! Hahaha!

I don't need third-worldism to hate the west, not at all i faxt. I don't even need Marxism for that.

I often like to put it this way: People are fucking disgusting and degenerate everywhere.

If the west is different in any way, its only that degeneracies and sicknesses here are more complicated, more advanced, more developed!

The parasited wealth is only an enabling factor, and not the only one.

>>2360749
>An actual leftist would never make it to Colonel let alone General and even if they did, if they attempted a coup against the United States Government, they would most likely be detected while organizing their soldiers and that's assuming they could find any soldiers to follow their orders.

There was that one communist west point graduate that got discharged just for being a communist.

>>2360759
You're a retard

>>2360747

I missed this reply. You are right: I actually meant to type "not even mainly racist" and didn't catch it in my reread before posting.

If you are a privileged area of Pakistan, it actually makes sense that you would witness skin color based discrimination/mockery/violence, because there are enough people there who can work indoors most of the day and have lighter skin.

Almost certain outside those areas its definitely "my microsect of Islam with local village leader vs. yours", or "my village vs. yours "or my tribe/clan/family vs. yours" because skin colour isn't as a much if differentiation factor (In much of Africa it basically doesn't exist except amongst the extremely wealthy elite that can afford expensive & dangerous skin treatments)

>>2360368
I think that's an over-simplification. My understanding of socialist/Marxist ideology is the idea that by organizing major functions of society under a centralized state authority a prosperous & harmonious society can be explicitly described and engineered (DotP being an example of this idea). Whereas libertarianism supposes that a prosperous & harmonious society is in the collective interest and that individuals will generally act to move society in this direction. As such the state needs merely protect the people from abuses of their freedom from internal and external entities, and limit violent/destructive forms of conflict resolution among society's constituent individuals and institutions.
>>2360631
Libertarianism is a pretty broad field of thought and unfortunately there are many who simply decide they ought to be able to do whatever they please and think no further. It is obvious to me that a society needs means of mitigating destructive individual behavior. However it is preferable that as few of these means as possible are in the hands of the sovereign state, as it it the state itself that is generally the greatest threat to the society it protects.

>>2360924
>Libertarianism is a pretty broad field of thought and unfortunately there are many who simply decide they ought to be able to do whatever they please and think no further.
But the fact is that "do whatever I want" (including drugs, sex, and filth) was the primary appeal for 99% of its supporters, especially Gen X and older millennials. It's hard to overstate how many assholes identified as libertarianis online in the 2010s because they weren't moralistic Christians like the Republicans but weren't "SJW's" either and a common point of comparison was claiming the "SJW's" were actually just like like conservative Christians. From what I've looked up, three quarters of those former youtube skeptics are trying to be breadtubers (like Amazing Atheist) and the rest have gone further to the right and adopted some form of RW socialism.

>>2361152
I don't care that a bunch of grift-tubers moved on to another grift after their previous one became less profitable.
And yes, many people are introduced to libertarian ideas because of our general stance on recreation drugs. It is easy to intuit the state's insidious desire for control when you can't get high on weekends because Pres. Nixon said it was communist 60 years ago.

>>2361152
>But the fact is that "do whatever I want" (including drugs, sex, and filth)
You don't libertarianism for that, mainstream parties already offer you endless opportunities in this regard. To say nothing about infinitely better financial possibilities for would be politicians - no successful businessman will "lobby" you to de-regulate his industry (as it would be losing twice for him) but all of them will gladly contribute their time and money to push some "reasonable" "regulations" kek.
Even communism is a better proposition for would be rulers - chances of winning in developed countries are small but potential gains measured in power and influence are tremendous. It's a high-risk high-reward option. Libertarianism is clearly the very bottom of the barrel here: a political party trying to disarm political parties? kek

>>2361931
btw, when Americans banksters were doing their last push for establishing the Central Bank in America (the ultimate regulation of the banking sector) they literally bribed 100,000 journalists across the United States to praise the supposed benefits of central banking. The best investment in the history of mankind.
File rel. doesn't go into the conspiratorial part of these shenanigans but should be of interest for everybody as it clearly exposes the fraudulent characteristic of "modern banking". Complex topics described in simple terms - it was evidently intended to be read by the members of congress who aren't known to be the sharpest tools in the drawer kek.
Serious libertarians (I am not talking about 14yo "libertarians" here) are concerned with much more important stuff than "drugs and filth".