/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Throw hot diarrhea on random bussiness men

>>2918691
In all seriousness, what really is the point?

>>2918694
The point is in the theory you didn’t read

>>2918694
Use your pent up anger of not being able to have a comfortable life or respect because you werent born a bourgesisie and funneal it into gigachad revolution

>>2918695
Yeah, but why read theory if you don't carry out its practical implementation?

>>2918697
>why read
Idkno, cause nearly everysingle person who did anything worth while in recent history read books

>>2918699
Seconded

>>2918699
Theory is nothing without application. There is hypothesis, and there are results. Where are the real world results that marxism can work? If it can work then why hasn't it won the cold war? The best example we have today is china and they're using a market economy instead of alternative systems. How is it that they've never achieved this level of influence under mao? Do the maoists of /leftypol/ have an answer for this?

>solution
There is no solution to the kind of suffering you are experiencing. It can be put behind you, but not solved.
You may reflect upon your experiences and cultivate immovable wisdom alone, or, you can utilize the vast expanses of human experience recorded in the words and images left by those who have walked the path before.

Read/listen/watch the theory, anon. Not because it will solve anything but because ignorance is no shield.

>>2918712
What's the point of the theory itself? Are you guys just using it as a form of endless escapism? I'm not content with that.

>>2918709
>>2918713
>>2918714
>real world implementation
>practical implementation?
>application
>results
>real world results
>real world implementation
All wheres, no whys from someone skimping on the theory

>>2918714
To be quite honest with you, any and all implementations of communist/leftist forms of economics and governance that i've seen has resulted in more suffering. It could be that no matter what system is created, it will have an equal chance of benefiting only those who oversee its fruition. So i can conclude that the socialist aim seems to be senseless.

>>2918717
source? also you use pop science terms but seem to not quite understand that the scientific method also involves reading lol

>>2918716
But i'm not seeking answers from within a book. I'm seeking answers from people like you. I'd like to hear YOUR perspective on this matter.

>>2918713
>What's the point of the theory itself?
To expand the mind and push intellectual horizons.To access ideas that, alone, one may not encounter otherwise.
>>2918717
>To be quite honest with you, any and all implementations of communist/leftist forms of economics and governance that i've seen has resulted in more suffering.
Have you read the theory? I'm not talking just the economic manuscripts but the history, the works of culture produced under socialist experiments. The scope of "a socialist society" is broad, it cannot have been only suffering. Even in the suffering, there are lessons learnt.

>>2918719
>source?
You don't have to look far. Simply ask yourself what human incentives keep people from wanting to share resources in a socialist country and why sharing needs to be enforced and who does the enforcing. If there's a need to enforce a rule this strict to begin with, that means there's a power structure being used to foment this goal. How can you be sure that this power structure isn't going to start acting in its own self interest? For example, if i wanted to grow potatoes in my backyard who is to say that i can't and why? What gives anyone else the right to my potatoes?

>>2918720
>>2918717
>But i'm not seeking answers from within a book
Part of your problem. Won’t follow recommendations. Can’t even ask the right questions, and insistently so. Lacking in drive. Thought patterns insultingly rigid. Presumptuous without knowledge, the worst quality.
>I'd like to hear YOUR perspective on this matter.
My perspective would be wasted on you, stubborn one. You have already decided the conclusion anyways. Forget theory, I doubt you ever picked up a history book.

>>2918724
not reading allat if you cant even find a source. Ik it all makes sense if your head René but we dont that "I think therefore I am" shit round these parts

>>2918709
>socialism is when no markets
Not this shit again

>>2918726
>>2918727
>>2918728
I guess you guys still have no credibility after all

>>2918729
Oh boy, an Uncle Ted stan

>>2918724
>You don't have to look far. Simply ask yourself what human incentives keep people from wanting to share resources in a socialist country and why sharing needs to be enforced and who does the enforcing.
This line of questioning is precisely why you should read the theory.
<"Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. " - Critique of the Gotha Programme
It's more than just sharing, more than power and enforecement.
>For example, if i wanted to grow potatoes in my backyard who is to say that i can't and why? What gives anyone else the right to my potatoes?
Grow what potatoes? Using whose tools? With what water? In whose country? How large is your back yard? Do other people have potatoes? What if you wanted to trick people into thinking your potatoes are parsnips? How is the backyard yours? These are all questions that fall into place once you parse the theory. Nothing is independently arising, anon. To see how the 10,000 things relate is the point of theory.

>>2918732
>>2918733
Well none of you had anything original to say other than
>lol go reed theory
Must suck to rely so much on a book to form any real convincing evidence.

>>2918736
>if I act snide over already having made up my mind and go “NUH UH” over any objections like a kid I win
You realize we get resentful trolls like you basically every week, right? You ain’t new

>>2918689
omg its verity

>>2918735
>The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land
That definition is uniquely false. Assuming you mean business owners as "nonworkers", the means of production are in their hands as they have the financial capital to purchase, organize, and put the means of production to use. They are not "nonworkers" as they do work. The nature of their work is simply different from the types of work that others perform. They are the coordination anchor of a business.

Those that you call workers are paid to use the machinery or equipment already provided to them in exchange or a wage that they agreed to receive. However, not every business takes the traditional form. There can be family businesses in which relatives can help run, fund and maintain production operations where profit is split evenly, and there can also be one-man operations where production is either contracted or done entirely by hand by one person. Everyone who participates in the economy is a worker. Work isn't just tied to menial factory or field labor. Work requires real input at all levels of an organization.

>>2918735
>Grow what potatoes?
White potatoes

>Using whose tools?
Using my own tools that i made from steel/iron or tools that i bought or traded for something else

>With what water?
I'd grow my potatoes with ground water that i pump myself into my localized irrigation system

>In whose country?
In the country that i reside in.

>How large is your back yard?
40 square feet

>Do other people have potatoes?
Not everyone does which is why i'm selling them

>What if you wanted to trick people into thinking your potatoes are parsnips?
They'd probably find out. I wouldn't need to lie about them as lying causes unwanted negative attention.

>How is the backyard yours?
It's mine because i cultivated it from an unoccupied plot of land.

>>2918736
Books are where evidence is stored. If we bring evidence, argument or any ideas, it is likely to be pulled/parsed/supported from theory. We tell you to read the theory because you will be able to read directly what we are referencing and form your own connections based upon your own life experience. If you have not read the theory then, on a predominantly marxist imageboard, we may as well be speaking two subtly different languages. You have questions but you do not seem to have the language to express them. Thus, we seem to have to start from square one.

That said, a specific question to answer would likely help things. "What's the solution" is extremely broad.

>>2918741
This is exactly the type of language barrier that I am talking about. "Worker" is not just "person who does work". It is a proletarian, a person with a particular relationship to the productive forces.

>>2918747
>a person with a particular relationship to the productive forces
Yes. Like those who fund, maintain, and architect the production.

>>2918754
>plays semantics with my semantics
bunker transhumanists gonna bunker transhumanist

>>2918750
>Fund
With funds gathered how? Does funding mean ownership?
>maintain/architect
Themselves? Alone? The vast productive forces all with their own hands? With what materials? Education sourced from where?

You're almost entirely missing the point of what I'm saying. The answers are there in the literature. Even so, what we are talking about is not if capitalists perform labour but their function/position in a capitalist mode of production. Capitalists own the means of production, proletarians do not. Proletarians must sell their labour power to capitalists to survive. Capitalists purchase that labour power and extract the surplus value produced by that labour power etc.

Capitalists, by themselves or through the organs of the state, may:
Claim ownership over the species of potato.
Sell or deny sale of tools or material.
Claim sections of ground water.
Contaminate water.
Expel you from your residence.
Erode or contaminate your back yard.
Outcompete and bankrupt your potato business.
File food safety concerns about your potatoes.
Reclassify their parsnips under a broader "potato" colloquial. marketing umbrella.
Seize your back yard through eminent domain.
Etc. Etc.

These answers are not the important part, the important part is the framework with which the question/scenario is analysed and parsed. We use a marxist framework here, so we advise you to learn the marxist framework so we can better understand eachother.

>Hating random people with lots of money and reading theory that never sees real world implementation isn't going to make my life less miserable.
Correct.
The answer is to not hate people with money, they are themselves slaves to capital and have long ago lost their minds. Reading theory by itself does nothing at all.

The answer is to take action, even seemingly insignificant action. Agitate, propagandize, engage in self criticism to detect thinking patterns of the liberal status quo and obliterate them and so on. This way the theory you read will become real world implementation and start having real world impact.

You see, capitalism as with anything else that has internal contradictions will always have small almost imperceptible changes and tensions, and these will always explode at one point .Your goal is to make the tension build up quicker and to know what to do once the unavoidable explosion comes.

>>2918729
>claims attempts at socialism lowered QoL
>asked for source
>posts unrelated shit
lmao what a pseud could you even do better if you tried?