/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I was playing Monopoly with my girlfriend and a few randoms. As I was in the process of winning the match, I pissed her off by refusing to sell her a house to give her a pity monopoly over one colour unless she made the deal under conditions that would not have been advantageous to her. She complained that the game wasn't any fun and that I was being an asshole by refusing to sell when I already had 2 colours monopolised, but I figured that while I was probably already going to win (unless I got very unlucky and got shafted for rent by someone), my probability of winning was all but certain if I denied her the monopoly while keeping my own.

After winning, I smugly pointed out that Monopoly was created by a Georgist and that this was the whole point of the game (that monopolies are bad), but then I realised a deeper truth - that monopoly demonstrates that Hitler was totally right. National Socialism is the most coherent and internally consistent worldview possible to the extent that it is completely in line with the physical laws of the universe, game theory and human biology. Even National Socialism's apparent inconsistencies and the hypocrisy of its advocates demonstrates National Socialism's permeation of the whole fabric of human existence whether people acknowledge it it or not.

The first of these is that life is a zero sum game. Marxism's roots (and Georgism's roots) are Smithianism. Without Adam Smith there could have been no Marx or Henry George. It took Adam Smith (the French Physiocrats were weak pussies who couldn't even withstand social unrest over flour) to break the modern West out of the 18th century Mercantilist mindset that if you take in as much money as possible at other people's expense you beat them, and that if people's roles compliment each other we are all better off and richer in the long term. Imagine if everyone bought up their own portions of the board in Monopoly, refused to create monopolies and collected 200 every time they passed go. There would literally be more money between all of the players than if 1 player bought up the whole board and speedran raping everyone else to death (which in the Wealth of Nations he criticises happening in Bengal, which was a quite literal legally-enforced Monopoly under the EIC, and he supported free trade and peace between countries). Adam Smith believed very tellingly that his own magnum opus was not the Wealth of Nations but actually the Theory of Moral Sentiments (you can look this up), which essentially suggests that people get the greatest satisfaction out of working with each other when their moral sentiments correspond with one another and they both wish to help each other. This shit is literally the basis of Communism. How the fuck else will you have a society with no class, no property, no exchange value of goods and everybody contributes what they can and gets what they need? If Adam Smith had been born 100 years later he would have been a Socialist or a Communist.

Why doesn't this work in real life, though? Liberal African cum drinkers who think we just need to reform the status quo will sit there shocked and scratching their heads that we now live in "techno-feudalism" where literally everything gets shittier so anyone trying to enter or depose the class which controls property and capital lacks the ability to do anything about it. Google is a glowuyghured useless piece of shit so you can't reverse image search the faces of CEOs, anti-user garbage and data harvesting is everywhere, you are purposely paid less and less and your opportunities limited more and more to encourage your dependence. Every single year the vice is squeezed around your balls tighter and tighter until they turn blue and your sperm dribbles out watery and useless.

Because of game theory, you stupid liberal monkey lovers! It would be one thing to actually make the economy as open as possible to meaningful participation and consumption by everyone and it would objectively make everybody wealthier in the long term (including Elongated Muskrat since his trillion dollarinos are not actually real but shares in his company, whereas rewarding labour more and encouraging working people to procure more goods and services would inevitably encourage innovation which is responsible for him not living like an elite from the middle ages shitting out of a castle window) but then it would open up the current elite to the possibility of competition which they would eventually lose to someone. The universe decrees that is is unironically better for everyone else to lose than for others who could be opposed to you to win, since they could eventually rape you and take all your monopoly money later.

You could say that nature doesn't reflect on this because ecosystems with a wider degree of diversity are more resilient,ecosystems with a low diversity of species and niches tend to experience population booms and then crashes, and that ecosystems which are small and isolated tend to lack familiarity with and resistance to invasive species, but that's only because these things aren't self-regulating, because they develop randomly in ways that are then selected for by environmental pressures so environmental pressure too abrupt will shock the whole system and because their development is unconscious and random they require constant struggle to steele their ability to withstand threats and crises*. The Spartans, Romans etc all more or less succumbed to racial degeneration and demographic dilution which caused their founding ethnies to fade out of existence because they all relied on labour outside of their outgroup (latifundia slaves, helots, landless plebeians confined to their shitty tofu-dreg insulae) to the long-term demographic detriment of their ingroup. They literally were destroyed by "decadence", and in the case of the Roman Republic also infighting over the wealth which allowed individuals within the ingroup who controlled it to be decadent.

*If you disagree, and you think diversity makes ecosystems more robust because everything compliments eachother rather than struggle, you are literally a Lysenkoist who thinks plants benefit from being planted in the same place to grow stronger together and you are a fucking retard

Socialism and Comunism sounds like the solution to the Very Real and Physical RACIAL DEGENERATION experienced by these cultures, and it is, so why don't we just acknowledge the future is either socialism or barbarism? Because it will inevitably be taken advantage of and destroyed by bad actors unless there is something gluing it together, and humans are unironically spooked schizo creatures at a biological level. This is why using transcranial magnetic stimulation on people can alter their surveyed opinions on immigrants, religion and politics - /pol/tards and every abstraction they edify are literally just a walking amygdala, steeled by hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection to rape to death everything that looks or feels forrin or "cringe". Libtards like Francis Fukuyama in his book "Foundations of Political Order" curiously talk about how "organisms don't edify their genes" while talking about how the foundations of all human political organisation have been tribal and kin-selective in origin historically. Race as a spook is just a way to have your kin-selective behaviour work past Dunbar's Number.

Two examples of things that Don't Work in Practice because of this are Liberal Multicultural Christianity (like Methodism) and Liberal Capitalist Meritocracy. These are both actually much fucking dumber than Communism as an idea. Both are destroyed by Indians, who are tribal, clannish and will level everything down to being the same tier as the shitty mudhole they came from, but who destroy cucked Canadian "timmies" by raiding all of their church food banks and reviewing the cakes they get as charity on youtube and only hiring their own ethnicity/caste until every corporation and government department becomes a worse than useless Indian sinecure centre. The only way to solve this is to physically remove all Indians from the meritocratic "level playing field" so only people who accept the rules of the game wholeheartedly (ie non-clannish White people who have had a nuclear family structure since the middle ages and brown immigrants whitewashed into behaving like them) can participate. It is curious that if you completely locked Indian "talent" out of the tech industry by forming a geographical cordone sanitaire around India, cutting India's internet cables and blowing up their airports or simply dropping nerve gas on every shit-filled Indian slum, technology would actually be more advanced and usable for the average person to be productive with than it is right now. However, Indians are winning and can all brag that Mudshit Sukdeep from IIT Scamapur is a CEO. You can't even find anywhere to rent Timmy fuck you. It is better for Indians to destroy the entire planet than to risk competing with Timmy or Chang on a level playing field, and they win by following this rule despite their average autism score being 82 and them smelling like shit.

Christianity is maybe the better example than Meritocracy because it has always relied on having a strong sense of in-group loyalty. Either a "Christian commonwealth" is vigorously enforced by the Pope in Rome or some Caesaropapist figure, or the glue holding Christianity together is outside persecution like the early Church experienced. Christianity cannot handle actually embracing everyone without some sort of glue holding it together from within or without because it will just turn into a joke and everyone will take advantage of it like Hindu idol worshippers laughing all the way to the Methodist Ontario food bank.

At the same time, can you name one successful instance of socialism that isn't ethnic or religious in nature? Fucking one? Every individualistic free love utopian socialist community collapsed. The USSR collapsed because Gorbachev tried running it less like a gangster state and led to the 1990s being a period of even more unbridled gangsterism. Even more socialist countries sold out and adopted international capitalism to get ahead, in the case of China unironically vindicating everything I'm saying because they've won the long game by accumulating the world's productive capabilities and intellectual "property" while purporting to be playing by the rules of the Western capitalist game (China now has over 200x the naval shipbuilding capacity of the United States). The most successful surviving and examples of socialism are Mennonites, Kibbutzim (the ones which didn't sell out) and North Korean Juche. That being said even stinky Indians living 20 to a house in Canada are more socialistic than most of the world will ever be, because the idea of using humanity as a universal ingroup is retarded.

Even if you were to implement something like Georgism, so the whole community benefitted off the proceeds of land and natural resources, or if you and your friends were to divide up everything in Monopoly equally and play forever, you are still siphoning resources off something else and coming together as a gang to rob it. Where do you think the energy from you sitting together to play eternal Monopoly comes from? Is it literally stolen from other plants and animals. Humans are an apex predator which uses intraspecific cooperation to cultivate and harvest nutrients from other organisms without their consent, and the more efficiently they exploit and abuse other living things to extract the "rent" of proteins and carbohydrates out of them using force the more able they are to focus on other things like playing Monopoly.

Just like Pierre Proudhon rightly pointed out that property is theft, because the Right of Property can only exist and be enforced through coercion, and Property should theoretically be a social impossibility because for somebody to have Property and to be able to use force to deny someone else executive possession over their neglected Property means the Proprietor is stealing the possibility of the potential executive possessor's future productivity and all of its compounding benefits from the community using the threat of force (ie I should be able to grow potatoes on a vacant lot because everybody's groceries are too expenssive fuck you), Man's supposed "stewardship over the Earth" is also an elaborate act of theft and coercion against social animals with brains, emotions and inner worlds much like our own, among other organisms we share a common ancestor with, using the superior ability of humans to engage in infraspecific cooperation for the enforcement of violence.

Adam Smith's own oft-quoted analogy of people benefiting from cooperation and the economy not being zero-sum relies on butchers and bakers - what are these people in the business of exactly? Mashing up the impregnated ovules of plants whose reproductive morphologies are homologous with our own? Slaughtering and butchering animals?

Agriculture is rent-seeking, theft and rape and humanity as the stopping point of our moral sphere of relevance is horribly arbitrary and just as kin-selective morally as the worst kind of National Socialist Hitlerist racism that threw 6 million Jews into ovens. There is no absolute moral line in the sand between racism against Africans because they use all your tax money to buy fried chicken and using pesticides to kill hornworms because they eat all your tomato crops. Both are your genetic relatives and they share a life, subjective experience of the world, brains and homeobox genes with you. Yes, you are unironically a racist shitlord if you value human life over animal life.

Also, if you value people over common genetic descent with you but at the level of humans, why stop there? Great Apes all have a great deal of self awareness. You could also include Cetaceans, but does that mean that the contingency factor for whether something has moral intrinsic value to you is intelligence and self-awareness rather than genetic relationship, since Cetaceans are more distantly related to humans than mice are (rodents and lagomorphs form the clade euarchontoglires with primates after all)? If so, does that mean we can safely mash all retarded people into paste and feed them to pigs? Or no, because they're huuuumans? Do you see how much of a racist hypocrite you are?

It would be pretty much impossible to not have a system of in-group-based and probably kin-selective (or a proxy for kin-selective such as religion or nationalism) backing up socialism, even if the spook backing it up is the common interests of "humanity" (as opposed to what? the billions of animals forcibly impregnated, tortured, killed and eaten every year for those humans?). The only way I can think of this not happening would be if you physically destroyed every ecosystem on Earth, disassembled every living thing that is constantly struggling, suffering and reproducing, and then simulated the consciousnesses of every being on Earth with some photosynthetic/chemosynthetic source of energy and made it so that not even the bug brain emulations were raping and eating billions of each other every day, but then this probably wouldn't even work since a computerised self-replicating entity/system that is alive (and therefore able to make more of itself, which AI is not, AI is more like a virus which is why Elongated Muskrat calls us its bootloader hoping it will come alive) would be favoured by natural selection to simply use its compute to make more of itself/more paperclips instead of emulating the consciousnesses of everything with feefees.

However, while this is patently ridiculous to us now, I think even a united "humanity" which looks out for the interests of all of its members is similarly unrealistic, as the world around us demonstrates. Socialism literally only works if it's kin-selective, ingroup-based and ruthlessly destroys all of its potential threats in a conflagration of racial annihalation before they can destroy it (or otherwise finds some way to eke out an independent racial/religious existence for the forseeable future if this is not possible, as North Korea and Jewish and Mennonite cults do). Even Leninists are unacceptably Utopian Socialists which is why there are no surviving examples of Leninism in the world today. Otherwise Utopian Socialism or Marxism-Leninism would have obliterated Capitalism by now and we would all be heading towards Communism. It's not a prisoner's dilemma or a tragedy of the commons when the scabs have a completely different identity, worldview and directional selection towards behavioural inclinations and cognitive patterns as you. Otherwise you sound like a broken record and a cultish mentally-disabled class reductionist repeating the same things over and over again.

The workers of the whole world are not going to unite because a "worker" is barely even an identity for them to rally around, even if it is theoretically in their material self-interest. The reason that I am incentivised to destroy my girlfriend in Monopoly is because we cannot play under the same piece, which is what racism/religious fundamentalism/all other forms of kin-selective moral inclination are pretty much biologically ingrained in humans for them to be unable to do. This is probably how modern humans (who bring archeological evidence of abstract and symbolic thought which leads to spooked clannish belief systems wherever they go) outcompeted other species of humans in the paleolithic to begin with. Also, only because I love my girlfriend and want to fuck her do I actually feel bad about raping her so hard in Monopoly, therefore I am vindicating the immortal spirit of Adolt Hitler racist chudlord who is using kin-selective logic in prioritising my life partnership with my girlfriend and our babbies over my own pleasure in winning at Monopoly. If you even eat vegetables and want starving babies in Africa to eat vegetables even doe millions of bugs, the natural habitats of animals and the vegetables themselves are destroyed in the process continually, you can't object to the Holocaust without being at least slightly a hypocrite. Thank you for attending my TED talk.