/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2929589
The point of communism is to rationalize all aspects of human production, to abolish anarchic production, that includes sexual reproduction.

>>2929578
>I don't think homosexuality is very common in hunter gatherer tribes, if it even exists. They associate it with city living.
It might be more common in settled human civiliations.

>If an animal only exhibits behavior in captivity, if you don't want to call it unnatural, okay, pick a word that won't get people angry at you, I can't think of any off hand.
I just don't think there's a sustainable philosophical distinction between natural and artificial. Marx described human beings as natural beings who transform their environment through labor which then transforms them. In any case it's happening in the material universe and not entering this plane through some interdimensional portal. But there might be certain social conditions that make behavior like homosexuality difficult to practice.

BTW Cockshott is also concerned about falling birth rates and thinks socialism could reverse that via socializing childcare along with other measures. Maybe but I somehow doubt it. Also I think he's probably right that TFR suffered when transitioning to capitalism in a quite bad fashion. But both Cuba's and North Korea's birth rates (according to their own data) are below replacement. Asian countries with more conservative gender roles than many Western countries have lower birth rates. The only rich country where the population even actually looks like a pyramid is Israel (of all places). Where birth rates were actually quite high (like in the hunter gatherer scenario), it was probably due to the violence of their environment where anyone alone would be eaten by tigers or killed or raped by the other tribe of hunter gatherers. Threat of death works on people's monke brains so they reproduce more. It wasn't that long ago in human history that coercion of the natural environment was also very severe. So maybe in socialism we can increase TFR by periodically introducing armed raiders that frequently murder people into the environment.

>>2929612
Having the purge but in communism

>>2928654

I must say you have a weird & irritating obsession with that novel dear enemy. Don't worry though, you won't have to live through anything like it since the idea is to have you swiftly summarily executed.

>>2929612
I don't think hunter-gatherers have a particularly high TFR, although it might depend on the environment, but my understanding is they tend to breast feed a long time which depresses fertility, women have a kid every 2-4 years which is higher than ours to be sure. It's subsistence farmers who breed like rabbits which is what helped them push out hunter-gatherers.

>>2926686
>August letter
>sent in April
what did Marx mean by this?

>>2929637
august (adjective) : marked by majestic dignity or grandeur

If your fantasies of the future involve turning back the clock you're a delusional idiot.

>>2929650
There’s a finite amount of resources that are possible to exploit

>>2929650
True. The time of neoliberalism, social democracy, and socialism have ended. They won't come back. Something new and terrible will take their place. Maybe they'll put chips in our head so we're always good boys and girls. That would be historically progressive (more rational control of production).

>>2929637
The guy's name was August Vogt. There's also August Bebel. Or is this supposed to be a who's on 1st kinda joke.

>>2927030
Charlotte is so hot.

>>2926900
The western "left" are fascists who are also soy and weak.
See Azov Battalion
See Israel
See the US Military
See the EU
See Canada

>>2929612
>threat of death
>israel
The number of people actually killed by terrorists is unfathomably low compared to other causes of death

>>2929734
No. Israel is run by a terrorist group and they've killed countless.

>>2929736
Kek. Holy based, so true

>>2929603
Functionally this is not possible because human society is not fully rational.

>>2929603
>>2929755
State mandated gfs wen

>>2928647
>This is an ultra-individualist view
That person talks like that in general in this thread, see:
>>2927709
>womb transplants are now possible
Not artificial wombs, but transplanted real ones. Somebody who is aware that we live in a society would ask how these are to be procured. But I guess to that anon, it's like these things come into existence out of nothing in the act of obtaining (buying?) them.

>>2929925
you could get them from someone who doesn't want theirs

It's genuinely very funny that the ACP is such a poison that other opportunist and social fascist parties are tearing off limbs to save the body.

>>2926561
>Communism is when we "do something"
It's so telling that all people have to fall back on to make these vapid defenses of indefensible parties everywhere. is just parroting the US Democratic Party.

>>2931515
So what’s the positive, defensible alternative to all the social chauvinist opportunist parties? I don’t see any successful PPWs happening but maybe I’m stupid, they never outright lose but they seem to just slowly dwindle into irrelevance especially as the peasants become proletarianized, move into the cities, and lose the farmland that could theoretically feed a People’s Army

>>2929732
>The western "left" are fascists who are also soy and weak.
>See Azov Battalion
Mhmm sure. See when this started I was like well at least these guys will get killed and then Russia traded their command structure captured at Mariupol back to Ukraine for Medvedchuk while having ranted about executing them all for months, and now it's no longer a battalion but, like, three brigades so ꑭAzovꑭ is now way bigger.

>>2929732
>The western "left" are fascists who are also soy and weak.
<proceeds to list right wingers
ah but you put scare quotes around "left" implying therefore that they are, above all else, the leftmost people in the west. very good. amazing opinion. very cool. there is nobody in the entire west to the left of the azov battalion. nope. don't even try to investigate this claim. it's irrefutable. pack it up.

>>2931516
Your main question was already answered by Lenin a century ago:
>It is impossible to carry out the tasks of Socialism at the present time, it is impossible to achieve real international unity of the workers, without a determined rupture with opportunism and explaining to the masses the inevitability of its bankruptcy.
<The War and Russian Social-Democracy
Even if you believe that these Parties aren't completely opportunist, and have revolutionary elements, Lenin said:
>It is absolutely essential to split the most revolutionary elements off from the 'centre'; this can be done only by the ruthless criticism and exposure of the 'centrist' leaders. The organizational break with the 'centre' is an absolute historical necessity.
<Theses on the Basic Tasks of the Communist International
The main task is to unite around revolutionary ideology, and in so doing rupture with and isolate revisionism, opportunism, and social chauvinism. The solution certainly isn't to just join an existing Party because you can't be bothered to do the hard work of organizing a revolutionary force that can supplant its influence among the genuinely revolutionary sections of the population. Unity is a great thing, but we need to discern between the unity of Revolutionary Communist forces and the unity of "Communists" with opportunists:
>Unity — a great cause and a great slogan! But the workers' cause requires the unity of the Marxists and not the unity of the Marxists with the opponents and distorters of Marxism.
<Unity & Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity
The revolutionary forces must grasp the roots of the opportunism which exists in their countries, and struggle against it to build the subjective forces for revolution. Within countries like the UK and US this root was already identified by Lenin and the Comintern:
>I would like to say only a few words about Comrade Crispien…. His speech is a most important document, and expresses explicitly the political line of the Right wing of the Independent Social-Democratic Party.
>Since we have a good revolutionary party worthy of the name of Communist, it should conduct propaganda for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as distinct from the old conception of the Second International. This has been glossed over and obscured by Comrade Crispien, which is the fundamental error common to all of Kautsky’s adherents.
>… a struggle of trends must and does exist: one trend is that of the revolutionary workers who have just joined us and are opposed to the labour aristocracy; the other is that of the labour aristocracy, which in all civilised countries is headed by the old leaders….
>In what kind of tone does Comrade Crispien speak of the split? He has said that the split was a bitter necessity, and deplored the matter at length. That is quite in the Kautskian spirit. Who did they break away from?… In the first place, this was done too late. Since we are on the subject, that has to be said. Second, the Independents should not deplore this, but should say: “The international working class is still under the sway of the labour aristocracy and the opportunists.”… Then Crispien went on to speak of high wages. The position in Germany, he said, is that the workers are quite well off compared with the workers in Russia or in general, in the East of Europe. A revolution, as he sees it, can be made only if it does not worsen the workers’ conditions “too much”. Is it permissible, in a Communist Party, to speak in a tone like this, I ask? This is the language of counter-revolution…. If, in desiring to prepare the workers for the dictatorship, one tells them that their conditions will not be worsened “too much”, one is losing sight of the main thing, namely, that it was by helping their “own” bourgeoisie to conquer and strangle the whole world by imperialist methods, with the aim of thereby ensuring better pay for themselves, that the labour aristocracy developed. If the German workers now want to work for the revolution they must make sacrifices, and not be afraid to do so.
<Speech On The Terms Of Admission Into The Communist International
The root of opportunism in the "developed" countries lies in the labor aristocracy and petty bourgeoisie, which need to be struggled against on a worldwide scale.

As for the second part of your post, it's wrong to reduce what I and Maoists advocate for to simply "PPW". I do believe that the strategy of People's War is universally correct, but I don't believe that it would be right to try to launch one in any imperialist country right now. Right now revolutionary forces need to regroup and throw off the trotskyism that presently dominates among "Marxist-Leninists" in their country, struggle for unity, and build the (principally underground) infrastructure for revolution — beginning with defensive structures led by the party, then moving to offense. Entryism, trade-unionism, etc. are dead ends well past their expiration dates, and mislead the movement into thinking the labor aristocracy is a revolutionary class.
>they seem to just slowly dwindle into irrelevance especially as the peasants become proletarianized, move into the cities, and lose the farmland that could theoretically feed a People’s Army
"seem to" according to whom? I wont deny that the Indian People's War is heavily on the back foot (the Filipino struggle is the opposite). Our Indian comrades have been very upfront and honest about this. However we've heard this song and dance before. Opportunists have been arguing this has happened in India since 1967. Each time they have used this to justify not a reorientation of the Revolutionary War, but abandoning it in favor of legal careers as politicians and integration into the state. If someone has made this analysis in India and put forward a concrete program for continuing the revolution in new conditions, that'd be all well and good, but this hasn't happened. Instead we have several capitulationist factions stumbling over one-another to make apologies and give up the fight entirely. And so the struggle continues principally in the Indian countryside, reorienting and adapting to the world around them while the opportunist CPI(Marxist) and the capitulationists fail to put up a coherent struggle against fascism, let alone capitalism.

>>2926561
<doesn't it get tiresome calling every commuist party liberal while doing even less than them
>>2931515
>It's so telling that all people have to fall back on to make these vapid defenses of indefensible parties everywhere.
Doesn't it get tiresome accusing others of defending the indefensible when they ask why nothing is happening and nobody seems to be making any headway?

>>2932088
> (the Filipino struggle is the opposite)
Any sources? I want to believe in the CPP NPA NDF, if nothing else than because the Filipino semi feudal haciendists are probably the worst political class in the world besides zionists

>>2926564
critical support for the cpg

>>2926310
came here to ctrl+f "trans"

As long as we don't allow idiots radlibs +feds to cry Jüdische Physik!, this sounds like good news.

>>2926533
this is what men look like

literal crocodiles. and we look like little helpless fish.

>>2939918
The CPB is also transphobic. One of their election candidates was literally endorsed by JK Rowling for being a (male) TERF on a TERF manifesto (well, really more of a leaflet) and because their party supported, in the most craven language possible, the UK supreme court ruling.

>>2939918
>>2939922
>>2939926
>>2940139
seems to me his chuddy trans positions weren't the real issue since his party shares them, and he was expelled for anti zionism, and questioning the british govt's narratives about supposed "antisemitic" terror attacks

>>2926670
I think he's just pointing out that they're less likely to have kids which statistically puts them above subsistence. Cockshott himself is a tenured academic and labor aristocrat by his own admission. He's not trying to slander homosexuals, just the liberal superstructure about oppression that de-centers class. Also his own son is a nonverbal autistic man who is institutionalized and relies on state support to live. I don't think Cockshott regards his own son as a parasite. He is a transphobe though.

I will always appreciate this meme btw

>>2940642
For me it's not so much about slander or not. It's more about whether he thinks homosexuals or homosexuality will exist in socialism at all. He believes homosexuals earn more per hour than the value an hour of their labor creates on account of not having kids so therefore they are not proletarian by definition. So in what kind of socialist society does that still exist. But the main thing is that it's fatal to his version of socialism because it undermines the reproduction of workers.

>>2940642
The anon you're talking to is obviously dishonest and has an agenda.
>>2940660
>It's more about whether he thinks homosexuals or homosexuality will exist in socialism at all
If no gays existed in a Communist society, then so what?
>homosexuals earn more per hour than the value an hour of their labor creates
This is nonsense.
What you mean is that gays have more disposable income, which is true, since they aren't rearing families. Marx talks about this (1875):
<one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
>they are not proletarian by definition
By the etymology of pledging children as property?
Tell me, are any childless workers proletarian? Stop the cap.

>>2940664
>If no gays existed in a Communist society, then so what?
I mean it wouldn't really matter, but how would they disappear exactly.

>This is nonsense. What you mean is that gays have more disposable income, which is true, since they aren't rearing families.
Which (according to Cockshoot) means they have a lower rate of exploitation on average, because the value of labor power includes the mean cost of raising the next generation. So homosexuals directly appropriate a portion of the value of reproducing labor power. He doesn't think class is determined by the relationship of the means of production (really).

>Tell me, are any childless workers proletarian? Stop the cap.
Take up with Cockshott, idk man. I'm not one of his epigones.

>>2940668
>homosexuals directly appropriate a portion of the value of reproducing labor power
Stop using the loaded language of "homosexuals".
As Marx writes, this applies to single people in general.
A childless person has more disposable income than otherwise.
Does this mean that single people exploit married people?
>He doesn't think class is determined by the relationship of the means of production (really).
I don't know the context of Cockshott's comments.
What video is this on, and does he say that gays aren't proletarian?

>>2940669
Single people have to pay taxes that go towards benefits for parents, and schools and healthcare for children, so that argument doesn't even make sense

>>2940670
Or I should just say childless people.

If anything parents are the ones getting a free ride

>>2940670
>>2940671
If single people are exploited, then that shows that they must have a greater disposable income in the first place – children add necessary costs. Issues in statistical gathering is separating gross income from net income. As a gross, married people make more (since couples compound income), but there are costs given to children as a result. Relating this to Cockshott's given comments, it's the "middle class" which is most shafted by taxes, so margins of gain are subtracted.

>>2940643
I used to think this (but via Steve keen rather than cockshott) but as I now understand it, it's just people talking past one another. The chart shows an entire market rather than one firm's unit costs and it assumes price determines quantity produced rather than vice versa.
(E.g. rather than saying cars get more expensive as you make more cars, it's saying that you get more cars if you'll pay more for cars, and that if too many cars are produced then prices will fall.)

>>2940669
>What video is this on, and does he say that gays aren't proletarian?
It's under his video on the political economy of gay households and yes, generally. There can be some fraction who are working class, but the most important thing is that the group on average has income well above the general population and therefore will not be in the main aligned with the socialist cause, objectively, and in socialism constitute a potential social basis for the restoration of capitalism. But Cockshott thinks radical lesbians are a potential ally of the socialist movement, since men are the dominant sex class in society and women are the servile sex class, which places lesbians in a different economic position from gay men, and that socialists should ideologically defeat the Rainbow movement by splitting lesbians from it. So I'm guessing you will have lesbian forces besiege counter-revolutionary fortresses manned by gay guys.

>>2940660
> It's more about whether he thinks homosexuals or homosexuality will exist in socialism at all.
I've never heard him say anything to the effect that homosexuality wouldn't exist under socialism
> He believes homosexuals earn more per hour than the value an hour of their labor creates on account of not having kids
no if anything the argument is that they work just as hard as the average prole and earn just as much, but they are able to save more of it by not forming families… and even this is a statistical argument about averages, not a denial that there can be individuals who are very poor. I think his argument is kind of clumsy and full of holes (like ignoring systemic discrimination in hiring and wage determination against LGBT people in general) but I don't think he accuses them of being less hard workers or their "labor creating less value"

>>2940970
> So I'm guessing you will have lesbian forces besiege counter-revolutionary fortresses manned by gay guys.
giga

>>2941059
>>2940660
also, I forgot to add, if homosexuals weren't discriminated against in adoption, they could easily form families, and even take unwanted children off of cishets, which cishets do in fact make a lot of, so if anything ending discrimination against homosexuals would negate dickblast's clumsy critiques anyway, but still I think you mischaracterize them a bit

>>2940970
That's because he assume men couple don't want children (giga if true), whereas lesbian have female hormones and shit that makes you want to be a mom

>>2941059
>I think his argument is kind of clumsy and full of holes
I mean these debates have a tendency to get moralistic or people debating whether he's a phobe. But more than that I think his framework is just very strange, overly mechanical (like I was saying earlier ITT). The proletariat in Marxism is mainly defined by its relationship to production fundamentally, which is not what he's doing here, it's some estimate of hourly value creation on an accountant's balance sheet and defining class that way. Like I said he explicitly says (read the comments under the video I mentioned) where he says class as a relationship to production is incorrect, he thinks it's a Second International idea and he doesn't like it.

>>2941060
I know it's a great image. Like imagine that going down in the year 2099 in Russia or something.