/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2563668
Yeah that particular post was a little cheeky.
>More generally speaking, the entire point is that HLC is a goal, but not something wherein all the details have been worked out, otherwise we'd have revolted already
Well it's hard to get people on board with "we'll iron out the details later guys don't worry". In any case why shouldn't the average person's goal just be to kill rich people in a revolt and take their spot on the throne? Whoever takes the throne will arguably end up happier than whatever they'd get in the communist ideal

>>2563501
Reading pages and pages used to be normal on the internet before social media. You are just brainrotted from the short form content slop that now dominates the mainstream internet.

>>2563675
Why wouldn't the rich just use AI drones to kill us all once they have machines that'll do everything for them?

>>2563680
Hmm…read communist manifestos or watch cute girls twerk it to the spongebob theme song remix. Hard choice for sure

>>2563679
No one is actually telling you to revolt now. It's more about building Gramscian counter hegemony, proletarian power that exists relatively independent of the capitalist system.

The thing is, no Marxist revolt has succeeded the way the theory claimed it would. It's never been a first world, imperial core revolution; the closest would have been Imperial Germany and the Nazis seized power there before the KPD got their turn when the Red Army marched into Berlin.

In reality, if you were actively engaged in revolutionary violence in the Imperial core, you'd likely be quickly detected and arrested, or allowed to fester so that elites would have an excuse to clamp down on all socialist movements in their country. You work toward building strength, waiting until the system becomes unstable enough that a revolutionary outburst can actually succeed, or that when you have civil war, the Communists are best positioned to win.

And the point of MLs is that Communists don't have to be perfect. They just have to be better than what came before; if they become a bureaucratic bourgeoisie and counterrevolutionary, you're absolutely entitled to overthrow them.

The fundamental, basic difference between liberals and Communists is that liberals draw legitimacy from the demos, the citizens of a nation state, however unequal and subverted they may be. Communists draw legitimacy from the masses, the working people and downtrodden of society, which is a better sell than giving Musk or Bezos 2 billion votes owing to campaign finance fraud and media manipulation, or for that matter, the CIA and FBI's relative influence over establishment media.

And the biggest selling point at this stage is, the center isn't holding. The liberal center is breaking down, with the fascists and Communists rising as their main alternatives. If you can no longer believe in liberalism, because of all the manifest hypocrisies and it's actual democides of its own demos, then your choices are, fascism and Communism.

If you don't want to become a fascist, become a Communist. It's not perfect, but it is in fact working for a livable future, not liberal decadence now or fascist atrocity later.

>>2563570
You are using a very simplified and dumbed down analogy, but I'll go with it. With how much we produce in the modern day, if everyone was to have resources split equally, you would get to have a whole cake. It's more than enough for your needs and should satisfy your wants too.

But if your fatass insists on hoarding a billion cakes, so many cakes that you and every member of your fatass family for generations could eat 10 cakes a day their whole life and still not run out, that becomes a problem. Why? Because the number of cakes isn't unlimited and as a result of your gluttony millions of people now have only part of a cake, or a tiny slice, or even no cake at all.

Applying this analogy to the real world, the fatass is the capitalists/billionaires/elites/whatever you think of them as. The people with a partial cake is us. You understand why it is in our interest to want equal distribution, right?

I am a communist merely because I am acting in my own self interest - more resources for me, for the people around me, less for the handful of rich who already have more than they could ever spend in a lifetime anyways.

>>2563423
No it would be more like Star Trek. A post scarcity society, where private property wouldn’t make sense. It would be like trying to charge people for air. When Marx wrote the communist manifesto he was witnessing the rise of industrialization. It used to be special artisans that would produce say shoes that could only crank them out in small amounts. Then these factories come along and they’re cranking out shoes like crazy, all these small cobblers are now forced to close shop and end up working in these factories. This obviously creates contradictions, more shit is being created faster and for cheaper but everyone’s lives are getting worse. Even the factory owners eventually get fucked because they’re creating more stock than they can sell. So they got to spend money to destroy or store surplus. They have to profit so they can’t sell at a lose or even just give it away. Because it’ll saturate the market further. So we’re in this stupid situation where we all work to make commodities that go directly into a warehouse or just outright get destroyed. During this overproduction crisis the factory owner then begins reducing wages and doing layoffs. Which reduces the number of people future customers. This happens across the economy over and over. Capitalism is great at building factories and productive forces but the logic of the system ends up wasting a bunch of resources and then it destroys itself in the end because the only way to reset the monopoly board is burn down all the surplus. So capitalism sucks at managing capital because in the end it eats itself. The goal of communism is to figure a way out of this system. Everyone’s got different ideas on how it’ll look like, so my idea isn’t the end all be all. Knut most communist will be vague about what post capitalism means and what the administration of things would look like.

>>2563685
They probably will. Or trigger a highly destructive war so that once it's over, most of the proles are dead and they can cavort with their robot sexbots.

As the others said above, Communism is simply a matter of self-interest. You either seize the means of production when opportune, or the means of production will seize your life.

>>2563629
>I'm not sure it is possible for humans to forsake the instincts endowed to us by our ancestors and their ancestors. We've fought and killed each other for millenia as is our nature. It is the height of arrogance to presume we could rise above ourselves.
You are greatly oversimplifying human nature. If our nature was just competition we would have never formed civilization in the first place or even tribes, we would be lone hunters who occasionally meet up to mate like big cat species. How old are you?

>>2563700
The basic argument for instinct comes out to: when you get angry and want to kill someone, do you actually do it? When you see an attractive individual, do you actually rape them? Instinct is instinct, but humans also have self-control.

>>2563629
Lmao “human nature”, is it you’re nature to drive a car? Is it your nature to make post on the internet? What you talking about?

>>2563695
>if they become a bureaucratic bourgeoisie and counterrevolutionary, you're absolutely entitled to overthrow them
So I guess we'll be doing this a lot. Maybe we should put the AI in charge of distributing the food

>>2563696
Well that gets me back to the other question then. Why not just take the throne? If it's just for selfish desires anyway what could be more selfish than becoming the king?

>>2563700
I think if anything you're overcomplicating human nature. Almost everything we do is in some way trying to get other people to do as we see fit. It's practically all competition from top to bottom

>>2563698
>most communist will be vague about what post capitalism means and what the administration of things would look like.
Believe me I've noticed lol

>>2563702
based chad gazing into the light

>>2563703
It's human nature to impose our will onto our environment. Otherwise we'd still be hunting with pointy sticks

>>2563704
Beijing is planning it, i.e, to automate away vast swathes of their bureaucracy.

And it's not actually a bad thing; if current MLs actually deliver the material base (factories, technology, etc) necessary for realizing HLC, but refuse to allow the state to wither away, just be anarchists, get rid of them, and implement actual HLC.

>>2563708
It's not. Some societies are more competitive than others, some are actually communalist.

Consider the Japanese. Cooperation and competition are both human potentials, which can be modified by upbringing and culture.

>>2563717
You know japan has had kings right? In fact don't they still have a monarchy in some form? I also think it's funny you draw a distinction between the social pressure of a collectivist society and the oppressive nature of a monarchy. It's still people getting other people to do what they want. That is human nature. The competition isn't for resources. It's for your mind.

>>2563714
Yeah that’s even everything’s nature. We’re just the current top dog for now. I don’t see a point in burning all our resources away for some pissing match against nature itself. I like this anons post the best >>2563695

People see the writing on the wall and it’s gonna be bad time aheads. Communist, for how annoying they can be are good people in the end and even if the vision is fully complete or articulated. It’s far better than burning everything down so rich Zionist pedos can party while the world burns than retreat to their bunkers.

>>2563720
Consider Bonobos, who are related to Chimpanzees and are arguably humanity 's closest relative. They spend most of their time fucking each other. Chimps spend a lot of their time going to war with each other, and are more warlike than us.

The entire thing is that the very idea of human nature is something you've imbibed, instinct exists, but it's socially mediated. Talking to me on the Internet is not actually part of human nature, you weren't born with the ability to use a keyboard, to read and write, or even speak English.

The biggest problem is that you mistake the specific cultural circumstances of your capitalist society for human nature; the drive to dominate and compete is a human potentiality, but it varies both on material base (what happens if you lose? Do you starve or feel bad?) and cultural superstructure (does society tell you to compete? Or does it tell you to cooperate?).

>>2563722
Communism is the last option given that the alternatives are neo-Nazis and liberal brain wreckers.

If you want to shit on liberals in public, just say you're a Marxist. And it's fun how hypocritical they are when they end up being attacked from the left. Free speech, in liberal thinking, is great until they're losing.

>>2563722
I don't deny that things suck for the average person today. My point is it's in our nature as human beings to tilt the scales in our favor. No matter the societal structure we formulate, there will always exist those who use their positions of power as leverage to get more of what they want. It's a fundamental part of what it means to exist within a group. So in essence hierarchy will always exist and with it inequality and eventually exploitation. Even giving the reigns of power to AI doesn't necessarily ensure equality. Who gets to build the AI? Who's able to possibly influence it to give them more and others less? Humans will always push the envelope. It's our thing

>>2563723
What a convenient notion. Surely our current state of affairs didn't naturally progress from man's inherent nature. No it must have been the aliens that did it.

>>2563701
>when you get angry and want to kill someone, do you actually do it? When you see an attractive individual, do you actually rape them?
Yes lmao people do these constantly. In more developed societies we learn not to because of religious doctrine, social pressure, and laws enforced by violence

>>2563706
Because not everyone can have the throne. And if I'm on the throne a lot of people will want to take me down, either for egalitarian reasons or because they want the throne themselves, so I need to constantly maintain my power and can't rest. So I'd rather live in communism.

To put it another way, Communism is sort of like a tech project, because we have alpha and beta versions, but we don't have the production variant.

If we HAD the production variant, we wouldn't be arguing about this, you'd have real HLC societies you can just point to and remark how everything is better there.

But the nice thing about a tech project is, if you pump in enough R&D dollars into it, it'll work.

The Soviets were the first to create a Marxist-Leninist state, and it actually collapsed because of bureaucratic rot; they had OGAS staring at them and their vanguard revealed themselves as managerial bourgeoisie when they nixed the project to save their jobs.

The Chinese are currently running a beta version, which is a socialist market economy intending to ape the benefits of social democracy, but with a Marxist-Leninist core.

If they survive, and don't crash, they'll probably get to simulated socdem, them they'll move onto actually beginning the transition to HLC.

The importance of simulating socdem is that it's not actually socdem, which we know is unstable, as welfare states get torn apart and raped, between neoliberalism and uncontrolled immigration. Because the actual core is Marxist-Leninism, there is the potential to move beyond the unstable form of social democracy and actually see what HLC might look like, experiment with it, and actually achieve it.

The basic question is, do you want to invest in Crypto, which is a pure tech scam, AI, which is a bubble, or communism, which hasn't been proven to be hopeless?

Consider a Pascal's Wager of Communism.

If you choose not to be a Communist, all the signs are there that things will get much, much worse. In the best case scenario, you'll be a middle-class fascist and the fascist system won't crash before you die. This is all you can hope for.

If you choose to be a Communist, however, there is hope, Gramsci: "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the spirit" that we will be able to transcend many of the social limits of the human condition. You can conduct Praxis, the application, validation, refinement, and sometimes refutation of theory, toward the Communist cause, and that is your investment.

Or, you can hope that when the liberal system crashes, you'll be a comfy fascist and the fascist system won't crash on your head before you die.

>>2563731
Selfish AND lazy. What a combination. Oh I'm only teasing that's a fine way to rationalize your position

>>2563708
This sounds like projection. If most of our nature is just trying to get other people to do as we see fit, why do those other people do as a handful of people see fit? Social constructs have constrained socially disruptive elements of human nature, like excessive competition, for a long time.

>>2563726
Actually, it's crap because from a materialist (historical materialist) angle, it's a combination of human beings and their environment.

The basic argument goes, what is human society if you teleport it to Mars? Asphyxiated, because there is insufficient oxygen on Mars.

What if we didn't have nukes and fossil fuels? Likely, the European Enlightenment would have ended in a Malthusian crash due to insufficient energy inputs for fertilizer.

You're trying to argue that innate essence is what determines humanity, when humans in practice are the combination of their intrinsic biology, their historical development, and their environment.

What we're arguing basically comes out to, that in high-level Communism, human nature will be different precisely because human nature is the result of biology and environment. People will be more cooperative, because there would no longer be a need to compete for material necessities and many social necessities as well.

>>2563735
>Selfish
Everyone who's pragmatic and realistic is self-serving, but I am advocating egalitarianism for self serving reasons, and you are advocating inequality for self serving reasons. Who is the selfish one?
>lazy
Are you saying I should want to work and be stressed all the time? Sounds pretty… contrary to human nature. Why would I want to constantly work to push down members of my own species when our environment is now far different from the one we evolved in, and it's no longer necessary to fight over scraps of food? There are sufficient resources for everyone, and it's merely a matter of distribution - how the hell did you arrive at "not wanting to be king = laziness"?

>>2563726
It progressed from man's inherent nature and the environment, and the sky is blue. 100 or 1000 years ago the current state of affairs was different. This too will pass into a new stage of advancement. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?

I suggest if you're sincerely interested, try Mao's On Contradiction.

On Contradiction, On Praxis, Mao's genius is making it seem like common sense, but you know common sense isn't so common.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

>>2563736
>why do those other people do as a handful of people see fit
Oh I love it when I see people ask the right questions. Power is given my child and thus requires the consent of the influenced. We've developed many ways of manufacturing consent. To tie this to the bonobo thing because I think it's funny, I recall watching a short documentary on bonobos. There was a clip of a female bonobo presenting her ass to a male in an attempt to influence him to give her some of his fruit. She knows simply taking it would likely lead to aggressive behavior and just her simply eyeing the food has made things tense. He accepts of course and fucks her then tosses her some fruit. She returns several times to get fucked and some fruit. She's leveraging her physical attractiveness to attain what she wants. It's in their nature as much as it is in ours. It's a product of evolutionary biology to learn to influence our environments.

>>2563737
>What we're arguing basically comes out to, that in high-level Communism, human nature will be different precisely because human nature is the result of biology and environment. People will be more cooperative, because there would no longer be a need to compete for material necessities and many social necessities as well.
I'm reminded of that line they always repeat in everyone's first economic class. Something about human desires being infinite. In any case what you're proposing seems awfully hypothetical and arguably contrary to what we've seen throughout most of human history

>>2563742
You're framing it as domination, whereas you could also frame it as exchange. Everyone got what they wanted, the male bonobo got a fuck, the female bonobo got food.

Domination and influence is a subclass of exchange. One gets the impression you've never really loved or been loved in your life. Because love is as much a human potentiality as hate.

>>2563408
when we share the toothbrush

Anyway I have to go to bed. I'd like to say this has been illuminating but it's now apparent communists are not a monolith and don't agree on basic concepts regarding the implementation of their own ideas. Despite my lack of more technical knowledge, I knew from the outset the question of communism vs capitalism would ultimately hinge on beliefs on the true nature of humanity. I think you'd be surprised to learn most people likely do not share your views on that topic. Thank you for humoring me and answering some basic questions. I do appreciate it. Feel free to keep posting and if I remember about this thread when I wake up I'll try to reply to some of you

>>2563743
I think a big problem is, you don't realize how socialized you are. You make the assumptions of your dominant society, to behave and think in the mold your society wants you to behave and think.

For instance, what about Buddhists? Reducing desire. Likewise, if you have infinite desire, aren't you infinitely cock blocked? If you are truly infinitely cockblocked, shouldn't you be angry and frustrated all the time?

At any given time, you have finite desires, simply because of your cognitive limits, and limiting your desires is often as effective as satiating them.

In reality, you are told you have infinite desires so that you'll spend more than you need, put yourself into debt, and work jobs you hate to drive labor productivity.

I think the biggest benefit of Marxism to you is probably to realize that you've been lied to all this time (I guess I myself, if you have a fixation on domination and influence, have a fixation on lying as a constant of human interaction), that things don't have to be the way they are now, and that they can be different. Marx called it False Consciousness.

>>2563744
Your mistake is in making a distinction between dominance and exchange. They're both merely an exertion of influence. The female bonobo could have just as easily chosen to fight the male bonobo for that fruit. She didn't because she knows she'd likely lose so she used a system of influence she was more adept in to achieve her aims. Anyway like I said I'm tired. I have to sleep. Goodnight

>>2563742
>my child
alright pseud, how old are you again?
>consent of the influenced
so the majority of the population is "the influenced", which implies the majority of the population is not seeking to dominate others but rather accepting the social order, which implies we can simply change the social order.
>bonobo prostitution
scarcity conditions

>>2563746
Does human nature really exist? Do you have the same human nature as a serial killer? If they don't have the same human nature you do, why should it be that you have the "true" human nature? Consider that most of the people of the world do not live in your society. Why should they have the same human nature as you? If, their observed desires and behaviors are different than yours, do they have the "real" human nature or do you have the real human nature?

Either one, you're a troll acting in bad faith, in which case we're just practicing our argumentation skills, or two, you're a naive kid, in which case I suggest you read more and get around more. Life is really more exciting than post-adolescent angst.

>>2563748
We're basically arguing about categories. What you're revealing is that your assumptions are axiomatic, that is to say, held by faith as preassumptions. Consider the liberal philosopher of science Karl Popper, a totally different system than ours.

According to him, the scientific quality of a proposition is based on its ability to be falsified. So, I guess:

-What evidence would be considered sufficient to suggest that human nature doesn't exist or is highly malleable?
-What evidence would be considered sufficient to suggest that interactions between agents exist beyond influencing others for gain or domination?

It's when a vanguard political party overthrows the government and seizes the means of production and becomes the new government and absolutely nothing changes at all.

>the real movement that abolishes the present state of things
>the conditions of the liberation of the working class
>a mode of production with a "lower" and "higher" phase
>when a Marxist-Leninist party is in power
take your pick

>>2563415
Maybe turn on the news sometime buddy, maybe look at the world a little bit. Many people in this world are fighting grug for food every day

>>2563771
Scam image FAKE picture. There thousands of toothbrushes, each following the timezones in longitudinal laps across the worlds. It was efficient.