/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

from what you imply, politics is not really about facts, which is true. its mostly about values.

>>2533083
Well let's see one side wants everyone to be slaves to some elite whereas the other side wants everyone to be equal and happy, what a hard choice

>>2533106
i never knew i was in the presence of a saint

>>2533096
>>2533106
Sure, it's about values, but both side claim some thruth based on some evidence, like the right say people are born violent, while the left claim is all about "material conditions" and not inbron traits, that a empirical question that can be tested, my question is which side actually hold the truth how to world works?

>>2533112
those arent political questions but are scientific questions.

>>2533112
I mean do you actually believe that people born in shitty miserable poverty conditions aren't going to have a worse life just because of that? Do you really believe people are just 'born violent'? Why aren't all countries roughly equally violent in that case?

>>2533119
>Why aren't all countries roughly equally violent in that case?
they are.

>>2533116
But they do have political implications, like how feasible would be criminal rehabilitation

>>2533119
I see plenty of poor people born under extreme stress that don't go out to become criminals, actually a minority of poor people become criminals, the question is why? The idea of "material conditions" fall flat because many are born poor but don't go on to become killer and rapists.

>>2533120
obviously they aren't, just look at a simple stat like murder rates

>>2533132
murder isnt the only form of violence
also, do those stats record the crimes of the rich and powerful? structural violence is also implied in everything we do.

>>2533131
Then why did the first conflict between humans only start after farming and agriculture was developed? That's tens of thousands of years without significant violence, longer than we have gone with wars.

>>2533126
its still all dependent on values.ì

>>2533138
look up what friedrich engels writes on "social murder"
if i am the president and cut medical care for millions of people, i have done no damage directly from my person, but have still done damage indirectly. power means responsibility, no?

>>2533083
even when i was underage i didn't frame questions in such an infantile way

>>2533139
Are you implying that people didn't kill or did violence before farming and agriculture? Are you delusional?

also, if a million people died in iraq, who are the murderers and who should be put on trial? violence cannot be so simply defined.

>>2533144
Yet you don't know how to answer the infantile question.

>>2533083
which side consistently defends the strong from the weak (easy mode)?

which side consistently defends the weak from the strong (hard mode)?

"During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."
- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds

>>2533108
You'd have to be retarded to not know that the left is the superior side

>>2533136
Sure it's not the only form of violence but it's an incredibly obvious one, the US state is also more violent than say the Norwegian one in general too.

>>2533145
Broadly yeah. The first evidence of real strife and violence we have is from the Neolithic period.

>>2533149
Here is an answer: >>2533150

>>2533151
>retarded
again, this isnt an "intellectual" problem

>>2533139
Isn't the commonly accepted theory that homo sapiens killed off other early humans?

>>2533155
It actually is you fucking retard

>>2533153
Dude, people kill and did violence since the dawn of humanity, you COULD said that systematic violence like state warfare only appeared when agricultural state appeared, no saying that before agriculture and farming neve had violence is literal lunacy

>>2533136
The U.S is also more violent in that regard compared to other countries thanks to imperialist wars that they created.

>>2533150
Thanks, bro, that made me pause and thinking about it, still I'm on doubt on how reconcile the finding of behavioral genetics with progressive politics, it's very hard.

>>2533158
no it isnt.
wanting people to be "happy" is not an intellectual task, and therefore has no relationship to facts as such.

>>2533153
>Broadly yeah. The first evidence of real strife and violence we have is from the Neolithic period.
mmmmmmmm this doesn't really mean much because the further back you go, the fewer humans there were in the first place, and the more degraded is the archaeological evidence. The capacity for warfare increases exponentially with the development of technology, but small scale forms of violence were still endemic in the paleolithic. Humans are social animals and competed over local scarce resources even back then. And of course there was always domestic violence too.

>>2533152
murder i would classify as a direct form of violence, but as we know, "words hurt", so speech can also be violent. other than this, there is indirect violence, like eating meat or paying taxes which fund the war machine. no one is truly innocent.

>>2533164
How is it hard? Sure not everyone is the same genetically but what's your point? People aren't responsible for their genes, you still should give everyone a chance regardless. Someday we'll be able to tailor everyone's genes and maybe then we can talk about 'good and bad genes' beyond basic things like passing on illnesses.

>>2533164
If you say that every single person who does violence is because of "they are born with it" or "genetics", then its retarded, unless if can come up the gene that turns people like that. Mfs in the 19th who said that, could only rely on people's physical appereance or skull shapes(lol) because they could find a gene that makes people violent.

There are objective facts and answers to every question. But the question of "who is right" is ultimately first dependent on "what do you want".

Do you want a world where all the people of the world live in harmony and different cultures and ethnicities can intermix? The right will never give you that.

Do you want a world where your specific desired ethnicity/culture is dominating (at least in a given country) and intermixing in never allowed? The left will never give you that.

Notice how I said "never give". Because the opposite isn't true. It isn't guaranteed that the right will achieve your right wing desires and it isn't guaranteed that the left will achieve your left wing desires.

>>2533169
Ok sure our system is violent in general, I agree with you, but Norway also is doing less warmongering than America so clearly America is more violent by any reasonable definition

>>2533171
everyone in the world participates in violence. isolating a violent "gene" is absurdity.

>>2533173
it all depends. by terms of foreign policy, maybe, but i cant quantify all the factors.

>>2533170
The problem here is that many people on the left go on to say that "material condition" explain everything, now after you dig around some behavioral genetics studies and book it become clear that not everything is about "material conditions" people do go on to act pretty strongly according to their genetic predisposition, that can refute the whole "material condition" argument.

>>2533171
Bro, just read a classic twins study on criminology and it's pretty clear some people come into this world with some violent predisposition.

>>2533083
Morality is subjective and contextual. I.E

>murder is wrong
<except in self defense
>stealing is wrong
<except to fed a starving child

Ect ect, so you’ll never find a morally satisfying answer to your question. The right is wrong though because conservativsim is self defeating. Life on earth has never once gave a shit about tradition or values. It’s adapt or die off, we are subject to our material conditions and if we can adapt or overcome them we will go the way of the millions of other extinct species.

>>2533178
>people do go on to act pretty strongly according to their genetic predisposition
This is fake. Twins experiment was proven fake - person conducting the experiment was cherry-picking twins

>>2533178
genetics are a material condition
before ww2, the left used to be eugenic, like plato

>>2533177
You can't come up with any argument whatsoever. Yet still cling to your dumb hypothetical.

>>2533178
You realise genes are also 'material'? That whole concept is about the history of countries and societies not individuals. Obviously genetics play a role but that didn't conflict with leftism in any way

>>2533171
*they could not find

>>2533183
Nah, there's literal hundreds or more of twins studies around, the evidence pretty clear show that you're wrong there.

>>2533178
Genetics is determined by material conditions. Some people have more melanin because the live closer to the equator. Everything is determined by material conditions.

>>2533187
No, there are no legitimate studies proving correlation between genetics and autism. Sacred cow of eugenicists is fake

>>2533185
>argument
there is no dispute; i am simply offering self-evident propositions. there is no such thing as non-violence, so then what people find disagreeable politically is not based in objective factors, but subjective factors.

>>2533181
Only some, when they are born with a mental disability, everybody is not born the same
>>2533174
Thats true

>>2533194
There is such a thing as non violence otherwise the word would have no meaning at all. Your bullshit is self defeating.

>>2533182
this just devolves into tautology. we only "adapt" to what is present, not what is presumed to be inevitable.

>>2533198
the meaning of the word is subjectively defined as i have proven. the limits you set on what can be considered violence thus shows your values.

>>2533083
There are material interests and little else, when you look at actual, real motivation for any political action. Ideology plays a role, sure, but it only serves to paint a material action in a certain way so that it becomes acceptable within an ideological line.

In other words, only marxism explains politics because marxism talks about self-interests instead of nonsense like "nation's soul" or "judeo-christian values urge us to crusade against communism"

>>2533203
>self-interest
if "self-interest" was an essential attribute of individuals and groups, there would be no need to write literature on it.

>>2533192
Are you insane? Are you literally denying genetics because it doesn't support your political views? How different are you from a conservative religions nut that believe that gay because are gay by choice and believe in "conversion therapy"? Absolute insanity

>>2533215
here is the point where you must consider WHY someone would deny something, which traces itself back to the affirmation of fundamental values (again, confusing politics with science is a false paradigm).

>>2533194
>so then what people find disagreeable politically is not based in objective factors, but subjective factors.

Explain, how is subjective

>>2533199
>we only "adapt" to what is present, not what is presumed to be inevitable.

Yes we do, don’t see how that refute my point. If we could adapt to anticipated problems we would be a space faring species. No, there’s a process and we won’t advance till we adapt to our current issues. Which will change our material conditions and thus create new problems to adapt to.

For example, humanity were hunter and gathers. We had the technology for agriculture long before the Neolithic revolution but didn’t adapt to agriculture society in till the end of the first ice age. We were forced to give up tens of thousand of years of tradition so we can do back breaking farming. We didn’t do this because morality or genetics. The mega funa we relied on to maintain hunting and gathering had died off forcing a change in our life of production. Which created new problems, which we continue to adapt to this day.

go to the ideology store and get an ideology and maybe some personal criteria and critical thinking if they're in stock

>>2533218
The only point I'm understaing coming from him is that he deny genetic finding because it doesn't support his political views, it's like a conservative that believe that people are gay by choice and not born that way, science denial can go both left and right it seems.

>>2533224
You haven't bring up the studies or the fact that those don't only cherry pick isolated cases.

>>2533220
because setting boundaries is a subjective exercise. you can even think of it in terms of territory. where do the borders of a nation begin and end? where does my own property begin and end? where does clothing begin and end? ultimately, its part of an imaginary exercise which confer upon "politics". the attempt to unify fact and fiction also has its impossibility in the same way.

with violence the point is most clear, where as sober thinkers like schopenhauer say, the world is irredeemable and therefore the only moral thing to do is die. you cannot solve these problems, but only sort them to certain ends, which converge upon things we care about, not what is objectively considered.

>>2533224
politics is not about facts, so what you say is perfectly legitimate.

>>2533237
That kind of pointless, if politics are not based on sound reality, then just become a plaything of schizos saying crazy bullshit around, politics should be based on what's real and work from there, denying reality doesn't help anyone.

>>2533232
A literal meta analysis on 50 years of twins study, how can one deny that level of evidence is beyond me

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25985137/

>>2533106
>>2533108
>>2533112
it's not about values but about telos, silly. do you want everyone to be emancipated and be free, or do you not want everyone to be free, it's really that shrimple.

>>2533243
>politics should be based on reality
reality has no concern with politics though
what can be extrapolated from reality in political consideration? once we've already built prisons, havent we diverged from what is truly objective?

>>2533249
>freedom
a subjective category

>>2533255
at some point it's going to boil down to evaluating a subjective qualia, but at least we can agree on everyone being free (whatever that means) to be the endpoint of history

>>2533252
What are you on about, bro?

>>2533207
Hunter gatherer society used violence to hunt animals for food and use their fat, bones, fur for their self-interest of survival, bronze age mfs figure it out that when they conquered a tribe it was more useful to bring the conquered tribesmen to do forced labor instead of killing then all, because it was in their self- interest. I could go and go, how is self-intetest not a essential attribute just because it was explained in more debt in books ?

If you have a conscience it's easy, you just let your conscience be your guide. If not, then I don't know what to tell you.

>>2533258
its not about qualia.
in all senses, we are already free. right now. we can literally do anything we want - we'll might to jail, but we can still do it. so "freedom" is not teleological; in this way, its only a potency which may be actualised at any time, and yet, always is, since when we choose to act, we also choose to limit ourselves. so then, freedom is not merely a potency, but a permanent actuality. to exist is to be free.

>>2533260
the original idea is that genes can help us determine political outcomes (i.e. crime), but once we already have "crime", genetics become politicised.

>>2533271
It's funny because if you go to a rightoid place and ask the same question, he would say the same thing like you said.

>>2533263
if we have self-interest, then its clearly in people's self-interest to keep things the way they are.

>>2533277
yes and both are right, even if both get different results

>>2533179
Better access to education, food, free housing, free healthcare, low crime rates, and anti-racism?

>>2533312
The USSR has many things going for it, shame it collapsed in the 90s, imagine if they had implamented reforms and all of that

>>2533335
who would win:

the future vs pizza hut?

>>2533083
>>2533278
Have you ever considered reading communist texts to draw your own conclusions, or are you simply fed a regurgitated rhetoric of demonization against communists, attacking a straw man whose point of view you've never seen? Scientific socialism, unlike other political theories that pretend to be eternal, emerged historically with capitalism and the formation of the proletariat as the bourgeoisie rose to power. It allows us to better analyze the society that was forming with the irreconcilable antagonistic interests of the proletariat and capitalist social classes. The proletariat sells its labor power, while the capitalist extracts its surplus value, seeking profit in the market. Class interests are opposed to each other; unemployment becomes a weapon to discipline workers and intensify exploitation, while workers want job security to be able to receive the means to meet their needs. There is a contradiction between the use value that the consumer desires and the worker needs for their life, and the capitalist's vision, which only sees goods being compared in the market, profiting, and receiving more capital that will be used for further accumulation of more capital.

Read the introduction to scientific socialism, and you won't see a fantasy that claims real capitalism was an eternal, ahistorical meritocracy, and suddenly the state, Jews, globalists, Satanists, "degenerates", "the elite", communists, leftists, inferior races, or any other scarecrow invented against the "poor innocent entrepreneurs" who are not cheating, unlike these corporatists or big capitalists, and that if they are eliminated, this will be resolved. Worse, is the fantasy of meritocracy as a justification of the capitalist class, just as the divine right of kings justified feudalism and manorialism so that the so-called "inferior masses" don't fight for their rights and don't follow their class interests, because otherwise they are envious of their "superiors."

Today's financialized capitalism is the inevitable result of a declining profit rate, where there are no more markets to expand, but capital must continue to accumulate more capital. There is no class conciliation; the state is an instrument for one class to oppress another to maintain a ruling class with its private property, which will be increasingly concentrated by competition. To deny this is to deceive the masses with lies so that they do not follow their interests in socializing the economy by arming the proletariat and other working classes that will serve the political domination of the proletariat, which will become the new ruling class in the proletarian state, abolishing private property, anarchy of production, and social classes where housing, health, education, child and elderly care, transportation, extractivism, industry, food production, natural resources, culture, community, leisure, etc. will be organized collectively by society as collective property and cooperatives that do not compete with each other, therefore organized by the needs of the population with the right to guaranteed employment. There will be no more financial speculation because the stock market will be trashed when it is abolished with the suppression of private banking and the administration by economists will be expelled to a statistics commission mandatorily formed by workers so that no capitalist can transfer the costs of inflation to workers because workers' wages will be linked to the price of food and consumption. With the socialization of the rest of the economy along with the extinction of the exploiting classes, all these resources can be allocated directly to collective national economic planning.

If you want to see this other perspective, I suggest reading "The Principles of Communism," and then reading "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" to get the basics of scientific socialism. You'll be surprised to read how different it is from the narratives of liberals, conservatives, reactionaries, reformists, chauvinists—that is, the apologists for class conciliation and private property—who deny what the state is and how it emerged, mystifying it in various ways to justify the existence of the capitalist class.

Link to Principles of communism:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Link to Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

>>2533179
was dismantled because the elites felt they could get a lot more if they dropped the communism and equality, which they did by becoming filthy rich oligarchs while living standard for everyone else plummeted
the problem is that the KGB didnt shoot them all during the planning phase, and the population was too passive to protect their own interests and didnt hang the traitorous fucks of the perestroika

>>2533083
Only children online. Communism is a football game to them lmao.

>>2533083
first you need to define what 'good' is, then what politics mostly aligns with what you consider as good

if you aren't an edgelord who thinks unecesary suffering is a good thing you can take this into account >>2533106.

Bot thread. Saged.

>>2533148

Say a life saving operation costs 50k usd as a hypothetical. Someone evading 100k in taxes such that some levels of government do not increase spending on healthcare can be responsible for 2 whole avoidable deaths, making it strictly worse in terms of outcome compared to someone has murder one single person, ceteris paribus.

>>2534480

One can add the conception of good itself determines what kinds of suffering are necessary and unnecessary in given circumstances.

>>2533164
violence is inherent to life. we're violent to plants, fungus, and animals to get food. we're violent to each other to get territory. when so called "civilized" people like yourself use advanced schools of thought like "behavioral" genetics to characterize "savage" people as "inherently violent" and thereby criminalize their existence, you are just doing violence against them in a roundabout way. just admit you don't like certain types of people and want to exterminate them instead of doing this pussyfooting about muh genetics.

btw… everyone and everything is evolving and mixing all the time, so people you see as inferior or superior to yourself, eventually they will all homogenize together into a much more ambiguous "humanity" because technology and the world market and the international community of humanity is dissolving physiological difference brought about by thousands of years of evolution faster than you think. These are growing pains.

>>2533131
Material conditions inform a person's life doesn't mean it is an on off switch between being a good person and being a psychopath rapist/murderer you retard

>>2533131
>I see plenty of poor people born under extreme stress that don't go out to become criminals
<le anecdote
Lol, the relationship between poverty & lack of education (lack of opportunity) + no socdem neetbux and trying to make ends meet is babies first statistical causation.

oh this is a JAQing off racism thread in disguise. he tried to hold it in for a while but now he's doing muh crime statistics muh behavioral genetics

>>2533736
>all this yapping
more worthless religious scripture
>READ THESE BOOKS
why should i when i have a functioning mind?
>>2534552
if you shot suffering people in the head, all their bad feelings go away. is this good?
>>2534572
you were right in your first paragraph then entirely fell off.

>>2534838

For certain kinds of utilitarian, yes. For some some of them its even the optimal way to proceed.

I don't necessarily myself consider it good though (and I am not any variant of utilitarian).

My main point though was that normative differences play an essential role in determining differences in answers to some of these questions.

>>2533106
>one side wants everyone to be slaves to some elite whereas the other side wants everyone to be equal and happy

True but not the way you imagined.

>>2534838
>you were right in your first paragraph then entirely fell off.
no counter argument just assertions