/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2899235
A little note on privatisation: it's important to look closely at the details of privatisations, because a lot of the time they are effectively "fake", they're a state-sponsored cut-out racket for some appointed golden boy, rather than "really" handing things over to a competitive market. This is clearest in the UK and in Russia, where the privatisation programs were openly corrupt looting of the state, to massive detrimental effect. (Meanwhile somewhere like New Zealand had a hard time of it, but is basically a normal little country today except all those former state enterprises that weren't renationalised are now owned by Australians.)

>>2899395
The problem with your own currency is that you don't produce anything people want. In MMT theory, the answer is: the US government will beat you up for not paying your taxes if you don't hand over some USD, and it will beat other people up for not accepting USD as repayment of a debt. The US government has the biggest army and an armed police force on its side, and you do not.

But you don't really need all that. Corporate scrip (e.g. disney money, or the junk some firms used to pay workers in) works because goods are offered that balance the value of the scrip. If you were saying "I'll give you a car for one Anonbuck", people would work or hand over USD for your currency. The only thing you can't do is tax, because you've no means of enforcing payment.

Inflation has many causes but for simplicity's sake: if we take it as too much money chasing too few goods, it doesn't really follow that you have to balance deficit spending (e.g. money creation) with taxation. you only have to balance it with the amount of money chasing goods. e.g. if more goods and services are produced, the extra money will be absorbed, and if the rate of transactions slows, the effective amount of money will be reduced. (this trick was used in the USSR with beznal for inter-firm accounting, which allowed inflation in production to be hidden from consumers, who enjoyed price stability… until an ill-considered Gorbachev reform broke the firewall between beznal and spending money, at which point the state was funding its own looting.)

Debt is just a ledger of past money creation. It's possible to have a country where the amount of debt keeps growing in cash terms, yet shrinking as a share of the overall economy (e.g. Britain's national debt in 1945 was £21 billion and 250% of GDP, a ruinous situation, in 1980 it was £95 billion but only 42% of GDP.) what matters (mostly) is the debt to GDP ratio, not the debt itself.
(As Japan shows, however, things can get fucky: their debt to GDP ratio is like 250% but because that money wasn't really moving around and because Japan is generally odd, their economy spent a long time stagnant and deflationary. it's only post-covid they've seen sustained inflation, and even then of ~1-4%, e.g. the thing they've been nominally trying to achieve since the 1990s.)

>>2899418
>>2899418
>Might makes right
But would you say that the diverse portfolios of assets (e.g. cash, credit, forex, gold, crypto) etc. allows for competition? If USD competes with GBP or EUR, then money markets have determination. The idea of BRICS, for example, poses a threat to dollar hegemony. Even domestically, the blockchain can fulfill purchases in place of Visa - store coupons are also a type of competitive, internal currency. This is also why authoritarian regimes have to keep people inside of territories rather than letting them emigrate (e.g. induce competition between states for citizens). So, potential and actual violence allows for relative monopoly, but it is still a dynamic system of competing sectors.
>corporate scrip
If I can offer 1 car for 1 anonbuck, this is an internal market, and so taxation (e.g. an overcharge on goods) is still possible by raising exchange rates (e.g. prices), no? Inflation acts as a tax on wages, say, since the same goods are now more expensive, due to increased money supply - so then, in the closed system of an economy, the value of one asset (e.g. wages) must feed another. The purpose of taxation is then a type of redistribution, seen from deduction. Tax money must go "somewhere". So then, taxes just act as a surplus, or profit. Profit is possible through my own currency, elsewise I wouldn't distribute it. Tickets at a funfair allow for a lot of profit. Here, the state much more resembles a household, no?
>if more goods and services are produced, the extra money will be absorbed, and if the rate of transactions slows, the effective amount of money will be reduced
Right, but this again is household economics. What you are describing are the differences between (i) spending, (ii) saving and (iii) investing. If I have $1M and I spend it all on food, drink, entertainment, etc. I waste the money, but if I save it, I preserve future wealth at dimimishing returns, while if I invest it, I accumulate future wealth at appreciating returns. The condition of investment is in the clause "if…" more goods and services are made… This would mean that so long as an increased supply of money was invested, rather than wasted, then budgets are balanced - but between what? In a household, rates of spending are limited by savings, and investment is only a non-liquid type of saving. So, if spending is given from rates of investment, then spending is limited by the total savings of the household. Empirically, we saw that "quantitative easing" (e.g. printing money without a tax mandate) reversed interest rates on savings to negative rates, meaning that the increased public spending was directly caused from an extraction of private savings. So, the accounts of a state are like that of a household.
>Debt is just a ledger of past money creation.
But if debt is cleared by taxation, then it is not simply the money, but untaxed money. If, as you say, taxation gives currency its value, then more debt must mean less value.
>what matters (mostly) is the debt to GDP ratio, not the debt itself.
Which ultimately depends on savings. If spending is greater than saving, you create debt, but only of savers as against spenders, no? Spenders only spend savings. It is a tautology in terms. Debt accrues an imbalance, and this is unsustainable, which is why if conditions are unfavourable to investors, the economy disintegrates. If debt is good and right, why wouldn't states maximise it?

How do people here feel about forgiveness?
Is it weak and submissive to turn the other cheek, or is it strong to be able to extinguish the desire for revenge? Jesus says to give a thief your own coat - evil is injustly rewarded by lack of immediate punishment. This is the ethos of slaves and cowards to all sensible persons, no? Forgiveness can come afterwards, but never straight away.

The theological rationale of forgiveness is in the universality of sin, which thus makes no man better than another. Thus, Jesus says to not execute the adulteress so that she may repent. This is expressed today in the methods of rehabilitation; the redemption of souls. In older Catholic executions, the souls of criminals would be forgiven before their mortal bodies were destroyed. The forgiveness of sin was administered spiritually, but not materially. Of course, this conflicts with the Judgement of God - indeed, souls are destroyed in the Lake of Fire by their sin (the idea of a punishing afterlife in Tartarus going back to at least Plato). Here, there is no forgiveness, but a payment of debts. So, even if man forgives, God may not, making man more of a merciful spirit than God. The promise of Hell for the wicked paired with the forgiveness of ignorance (e.g. "forgive them… for they know not what they do") is certainly paradoxical, if not contradictory. So, is forgiveness really true, if sin still remains? As we see with the thief on the cross, forgiveness is granted by permission of God, despite one's sins in life. This is the "death-bed conversion" so notorious of criminal repentance, like Jeffrey Dahmer. In any case, sin is not erased, but passed on down the line - and this is the issue. Where mere man is asked to forgive his rapist and murderer, what sense can be in this? Beyond all passion is still the light of reason. Why is my forgiveness of evil more primary than the evil act itself? I reject this. I need justice.

>you have beaten me, raped me, murdered me - and now I love you
This is the psychological sickness of forgiveness. It is more than simple servility; it is the creed of slavery by an attitude of inferiority.

>>2900895
I think it's desirable to have some kind of avenue to forgiveness. A summary of a book I one read in a Slate Star Codex post (no, really) got to me on this.

From memory the story is basically as follows: There are two twin brothers, an unpopular one and a popular one. The popular one shows up in town and says that he and the unpopular one had a fight, and he killed his brother in self defence. Everyone naturally understands that this is forgivable, except the priest who says it will only be forgiven if he reflects on it, undertakes penance, is truly sorry, and so on. The townspeople think the priest is being old fashioned and too harsh, after all it was a good man engaged in self defence!

Then it turns out that it was actually the unpopular brother who killed the popular brother in self defence and came back to the town, not the popular one. He lied about his identity. Now the population is outraged: this is unforgivable! he killed a good man!
But the priest says: nope, forgivable, provided he reflects on it, undertakes penance, is truly sorry, and so on. Justice isn't a popularity contest and god doesn't discriminate.

Anyway I've probably butchered the story but the point that sticks with me is that there's no similar formal avenue of forgiveness today. You can't go to a priest and go "tell me what to do to show everyone that I'm truly sorry and repentant" and then have the priest stick up for you. All social crimes are either totally forgivable, totally unforgivable, or in an unstable position where they can be ignored most of the time but hauled out to shut you up if need-be. If there was some kind of accepted avenue towards conditional forgiveness, things would probably be a lot better.

>>2900923
Well, we set "penalties" against criminals, which if it they are paid, we say that they are forgiven (e.g. A "purgatory"; of "purging" impurities by a trial). Forgiveness in this case is the paying of debt (hence we call crimes "debts to society"). No one denies that forgiveness is possible - in time, but when Jesus says to offer your thief your coat willingly, he is effectively saying that forgiveness is unconditional, through taking on the debt yourself. Jesus thus takes on everyone's sin, leaving each to be sinless (if they would repent). So, the Christian is supposed to allow evil to overcome them by faith, and this we call "martyrdom". For example, Anabaptists are pacifists, and so you can murder them and they cannot defend themselves. When I see forgiveness of this kind, I see a willingness to be conquered, which I regard as undignified. Even if you will let yourself be victimised, at least defend others. So, I do not think forgiveness is impossible, but all crimes must carry a penalty.

How do people feel about pensions?
Are they fair or unfair?

>>2905557
fair ofc

What's the end goal of leftist?

>>2905672
Islamig gommunism

>>2905672
A universal labor camp.

>>2905672
>What's the end goal of leftist?
Originally to care about the normie. Now it's to envy you back to a vine thong and a pointy stick and buffalo. They're too fat for that.

Why's the /pol/ here too serious?

>>2905672
Increase the productive forces until they inevitably get swept away by the next ecological disaster/ressource scarcity

>>2905789
>Increase the productive forces until they inevitably get swept away by the next ecological disaster/ressource scarcity
Typed while sipping pumpkin spiced latte

>>2905793
Wdhmbt ?

>>2905796
>Wdhmbt ?
Discuss imaginary isekai while sipping capitalist made pumpkin spiced latte with soymilk that cost 10x the production costs

>>2905557
i don't like them. i think everyone should receive some kind of support when they can't work, but the current mass-transfer of income from the young to the old goes too far. but this shouldn't be seen through an age lens, it should be seen through an income lens.

you see the risks here in the UK: the UK's state pension is terrible, but discourse always focuses on cutting that rising bill (and with it the income of poor pensioners), rather than taxing people who're rich, including those who're rich through their private pensions. nobody even discusses means testing it (which would be undesirable, but have the same effect of making the rich meet the cost.)

as for why i don't like them, the reason is more simple: i began with the childish impression they were a really secure income, and then one day i learned that private pension funds can simply go bankrupt and leave you with nothing. they are just investments.

Did the very idea of "cringe" even exist before, say… 1990?
Was it possible to disturb people by exuding authenticity?
There is awkwardness in the past, but not "cringe" as we know it.

>>2905805
>you are a communist yet you consume things in the capitalist society you live in

wow das crazy

>>2907956
>Did second hand embarrassment exist before
Yes?

>>2908023
It's impossible… I'm weak… struck with the consumption…

>>2908954
That's not entropically favorable tho
The most communist thing would be to consume as much as possible to crash capitalism
Although, that is never going to work kek, but that's the theory behind it

>>2908954
this is one of the dumbest posts i've ever seen. the amish are just as capitalist and business oriented as anyone else in america, they consume plenty of commodities. just because those commodities aren't iphones doesn't mean they somehow arent buying and selling goods every single day. you have to be a fucking moron to think that the amish have magic powers that make all their necessary goods just appear out of nowhere.

>>2908954
Amish always use loopholes in their ideas to use modern tech lmao

>>2908954
Listen I agree that some commies can absolutely be hypocritical by always having the newest iPhone and such, the Amish are not the counterpoint you think they are. They constantly find loopholes to use modern tech that makes their lives easier.

Is a planned economy really possible or just a pipe dream, and any modern book on the topic of the feasbility of planned economy?

>>2909021
Peep the handbook >>2566144

>>2908973
For a better critique I'd say Marx didn't want people to practice asceticism or return to handicraft production, so consumerism is a bit of a red herring of the left (especially around the 2000s) which is why the meme is fun to poke them with. Iphones are a bad example because some Amish buy them, the excuse being they use them for business, and don't have them in the house (supposedly). But you're wrong that they're as business oriented as anyone else, some are petite bourgeois land owners yes, worth a few millions at most, they sell stuff like furniture, clothes, jam and other homey food items. If everyone was like them the modern world would collapse, but not in a revolutionary way.

Anyway, socialism will liberate consumerism:

https://buffsoldier-96.medium.com/a-marxist-defence-of-consumerism-c307f9186921

https://ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/13-2varul.pdf

Still, with resource depletion we might have to mix and match lifestyles to make everything work out.

>>2909021
All economies are planned.
It's just a question of who plans, and for what.

If you could force the whole world to speak in one tongue, like the Tower of Babel; one language, dialect and accent, would you? I see that it would allow for general intelligibility in communication, but it would also erase what is most particularly meaningful in saying what cannot be so easily said. For example, where one language fails to comprise the total horizon of meaning, a foreign word often replaces it. A "café" is a French word used by English-speaking people, and it is incorporated into the general syntax seemlessly, yet this is only possible where two languages are separated. So, it is separation that allows for integration, and thus for meaningfulness to be completed.

So, a one-world code of speech and writing would allow for basic meaning, but could not be totally meaningful. Any thoughts on this?

>>2911022
Language is Propaganda. God was right for once.

So, what's this "Schizo Maximalism" I hear people talk about on USAPol sometimes?

Why there is so much infighting among leftist?

>>2912175
The traditions of all dead generations n that

>>2912175
because we actually take our beliefs seriously unlike almost all other ideologies, therefore don't always agree on implementation

>>2912175
Because whereas rightism is about pruning "troublemakers" from the system which would be fine without them, leftism is about changing the system, from milequetoast reform to total abolition. Problem is there are both a lot of possibles "what comes after" whio are not compatible which each other, and even when people agree on"what comes after", there are a also a lot of possibilities when it comes to "how to get there".

>>2912276 (me)
Also because of COINTELPRO's heritage, anyone with a slightly different opinion is a presumed wrecker, so any disagreement escalate to full blown conflict.

>>2912175
There are like 500 different leftist ideologies.

Any books on direct action or combat in the streets (rebellions, riots, etc) but from a ML perspective?

What are the cause of poverty?

>>2912646
Gabidalism

>>2912646
Greed.

>>2912646
>What are the cause of poverty?
poor planning + more wealth possessors than wealth itself = Poverty

>>2912646
Poverty is the default. A better question is what causes wealth?

What's the significance of "being from the imperial core?" Like, every time I see it brought up, it's from a "global southerner" calling them privileged for "benefiting from imperialism," but what is that supposed to mean? With almost every country in the world integrated into the US or pro-US institutions like the WTO, World Bank, Bank of Settlements, etc, etc, it seems like the number of people that HAVEN'T benefited from yankee imperialism in a greater or lesser way directly or indirectly is actually very, very small.

How could a party achieve economical socialism in a federalized EU? I bet that they'll federalize soon since a lot of currently popular European parties are pushing for it.

>>2914099
It's impossible because the EU was built from ground up to be anti-socialist. Socialists should push for independence and sovereignty from Brussels and then strike bilateral deals with countries rather than going through the neolibtarded EU apparatus. The last thing any socialist wants is some retard like Kaja Kallas or Von der Leyen making decisions for their country.
I've attached a book for more reading if you're curious as to why the EU sucks.

Is philosophy just a hobby, or is it something more?

Why continental philosophy is so popular among left leaning people? Why analytical philosophy is hated by leftist?