/leftypol_archive/ - leftypol archive

>>505777
Automation will change completely our lives from top to bottom.
Its very possible that will end badly, but it must also be acknowledged that it provides a chance for socialists.

>>505785
I hope if they do it, they have the decency to start on a weekend. I'd rather get nuked at home than at work.

>>505770
Why would someone take you seriously if I gave you an extended critique in your article from LOLNOONE like http://www.massline.info/mlms/mlms.htm
His retarded takes comes in many flavors:
http://www.massline.info/rcp/expel/
>The highly deficient sort of top-down socialism which was originally established in the DPRK was—if anything—a more extreme form of the bureaucratic type of socialism which existed in the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. Since—as in the USSR—the DPRK regime did not know or use the mass line in politics, industry or agriculture, this type of society tended to soon become more and more undemocratic and authoritarian. Over the years it has degenerated totally away from anything which can be remotely considered as genuine “socialism” (which, after all, must most essentially be based on the rule of the people themselves). The DPRK is now best characterized as an ultra-nationalistic form of state capitalism, directed by a tiny militarily-obsessed elite social class, and for the primary benefit of that very privileged governing class. Even more absurdly, this DPRK ruling class has turned its regime into one which is very close to a hereditary absolute monarchy, which was ruled first by Kim Il Sung, then by his son Kim Jong Il, and now by his son, Kim Jong Un.
<PURE CRAPPISTAN FROM THIS MORON.
And the silly idea that Maoists like you and him, decide to rebrand what fascism is taking in count revisionism, starting from the "social imperialism" theory that Mao brought, tells me that you suffer a severe cognitive dissonace.
In that exact theory Mao in which he says "social imperialism" also said that the USS "will end the world with nukes", 20 years later, the USSR dissolved, and the nukes never arrived. And if a huge chunk of that speech in which it is the "social imperialism" theory is utter nonsense (there were three theories together: third world theory, social imperialism theory, and the USSR nuking the world theory) what makes you believe the rest of his speech isn't also utter nonsense. And that "social imperialism" is the starting point of "Scott H." who can easily be CIA Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>505789 (me)
This is from where he defines DPKR:
http://www.massline.org/Dictionary/DE.htm#DPRK
>>The highly deficient sort of top-down socialism which was originally established in the DPRK was—if anything—a more extreme form of the bureaucratic type of socialism which existed in the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. Since—as in the USSR—the DPRK regime did not know or use the mass line in politics, industry or agriculture, this type of society tended to soon become more and more undemocratic and authoritarian. Over the years it has degenerated totally away from anything which can be remotely considered as genuine “socialism” (which, after all, must most essentially be based on the rule of the people themselves). The DPRK is now best characterized as an ultra-nationalistic form of state capitalism, directed by a tiny militarily-obsessed elite social class, and for the primary benefit of that very privileged governing class. Even more absurdly, this DPRK ruling class has turned its regime into one which is very close to a hereditary absolute monarchy, which was ruled first by Kim Il Sung, then by his son Kim Jong Il, and now by his son, Kim Jong Un.
And the expel link is funny at best.

>>496341
The paper basically debunked itself
>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

>>496344
>The paper “debunked” itself
Not how it works. For someone who studies biology you don’t seem to understand how to read journals. You’re assuming a hypothesis that isn’t presented in the paper
1) Again, geographic ancestral groups =/= race and the authors are very clear about it, especially for clinical applications
2) They mention that this “thousands of loci” thing is only true if you sample only a few specific populations and not the world at large. Essentially, that’s saying that if you sample Hutus, Danes and Mongolians using thousands of Loci, and not any other groups that may possibly be in-between. More importantly, the Richards paper used only a few hundred loci to try and establish “Lewontin’s Fallacy”, Rosenberg (2002) used 377 and the Authors themselves said the minimum threshold is around 100 Loci and can determine geographic ancestry with 100% accuracy.

Saying that “a few hundred loci isn’t much” is what we scientifically call a cope. Just like how geographic ancestry is the same as race.

>>496346
>Again, geographic ancestral groups =/= race and the authors are very clear about it
Except they're not
>used 377 and the Authors themselves said the minimum threshold is around 100 Loci and can determine geographic ancestry with 100% accuracy.
Using c and not ω, ω is more accurate.
n such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.

can any Asians here confirm this?

gem

>>497483
>wants to destroy memes
<yet he is a meme
hmmmmm

bumping for resident retardo

>>495617
You bait, but this is exactly how they’ll spin it

ARCHIVE

CHINA

>>495554
what are those quote from?

>>493753
If invasion happens Ukrainians are forced by gunpoint to sign agreements they cant refuse.

>>493751
>War isn’t just about le army’s ability to fight
But Germany was defeated in WWI. It lost the ability to maintain combat readiness and conduct combat operations. That's as defeated as you get other than the other side literally in your capital. But you are correct, war isn't just about your ability to fight. However we were discussing that ability at the moment. You cannot on one hand claim that the US has poor soldiers while also admitting that the US sucks at war for reasons other than its combat ability.

>>493740
They want more influence on the internal Ukraine politics, but that is it, yup.

Spinozas idea of being still retains a priority of substance over modes and therefore of identity over differences and basically what he says is that Spinoza defines substance as that which is conceivable only through itself which is infinite by way of which it can only be conceived of through itself and not any other whereas modes are always conceived of as substantive modes they belong to substance but substance does not belong to it. The individuals belongs to the absolute but the absolute does not belong to them, and what that means is that identity in the form of substance will have priority over difference. And what Deleuze will now say is that this can only be overcome at the cost of a reversal, where univocity is said directly of differences, where being is said directly of differences, and what is univocal isn't substance in relation to its differences but differences themselves. This is what he is going to say the eternal return amounts to. The eternal return is the eternal return of the same in the sense that it is different. The eternal return says that everything remains different because differences always return. Thats going to be the common sense of all things in Deleuze. That all things retain a difference that is superior to any identity and it is linked to notions of power, of overcoming and the thing that it common to all things is their capacity to overcome, their capacity to express power.

reading and discussion of Deleuze's 'Treatise on Nomadology' from ATP

i'm assuming you're all familiar with chess the way go is played is in chess there are sides right you you have your pieces lined up on the board and the sides themselves have a particular uh part to play in the game when a pawn reaches the other side it gets promoted to whatever piece you like and it's always a queen unless you're like trying to make some kind of statement and there's a directionality to it pieces can only go in one direction relative to your side or certain pieces can't um pawns specifically in go by contrast there are no real sides because the aim is not the elimination of the opponent's pieces the aim is to control most of the board

see in chess it's like there's something like a state there's something like a wall your pieces are arrayed from from the beginning they are raid against an ordered opponent um you have a king that can be taken your your side must be defended because if they manage to get their pawns into your territory they can now start deploying very powerful pieces right behind your alliance and it's basically game over at that point if they manage to do so that isn't the case in go in go uh it's purely abstract there there are no fixtures the only fixtures in the game are what are created by the dynamics of the game itself the board itself has nothing permanent uh prior to the battle

Archive plz.

If Russia is planning an invasion, what are they waiting for? Seems like their military has just been sitting there for awhile waiting for the go-ahead. The longer they wait the more weapons are shipped into Ukraine from western countries. Are they waiting a few weeks for temperatures to warm up or something?

>>495012
I remember last month reading that Russia was going to invade around Christmas time since a lot of people wouldn’t be paying attention to the news around the holidays. Nothing happened.

>>494792
>>494811
>>494812
>>494815
russia will crush ukraine, allowing commies to take power there

>>494945
you have to go back

>>495015
this is what putinist actually believe

>>494386
>So either WWIII is inevitable
Yes.

Still want NATO reduced to nuclear ash.

>>494390
The first issue with your reply is believing I claimed the US is actually defending itself
What I asked specifically was whether or not you think the US will realistically invade or attempt to invade Russia, if the answer is no then clearly this isn’t actually an existential struggle for either side despite both sides claiming that it is

>>494366
>So let's get this straight. According to you Russia, whose primary concern is self-defense as of now, is the RIVAL of the USA, whose primary concern is "primary aggression". It seems to me that you are conflating the colonizer/colonized dichotomy with the competing imperialist/imperialist dialectic.
France was "defending itself" from a literal German invasion in 1914 too, but that didn't change the fact that France was still a power driven by the imperative of endless accumulation the same as Germany was. The point I'm trying to make is that Russia is animated by the exact same forces which animate the US and NATO, and unlike a country like Iran or Syria, it's actually in a position to dominate its neighbours (and much of the world) through imperialism if granted an opportunity to do so. Indeed, it would necessarily have to do so, because again, the same forces which cause NATO to be imperialist are also at work in Russia. ​Ergo a Russian victory over the West in Eastern Europe wouldn't be a victory over imperialism.
>Also, what "other capitalist blocs?"
Russia.

>>494329
Because they sold the idea the the U.S. was a cool thing to the CPSU, they sold the idea, through the events of the Berlin Wall, that everything can be a hunkydory wealthefare state with succdemory

This is what people like Bernie Sanders, and members went to do to the USSR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KCoR6UYs1k (1988, way before the USSR dissolution)

Sanders was related to people of the Socialist Workers Party, a gang of troskyites, the same that attacked insanely Stalin, making Gorbachev like a "sensate" response, if you will.

>Soviet officials were prepared to make about their own society frankly I thought that they would be there to tell us that everything is wonderful and that certainly was not the case, for example, they are absolutely open in acknowledging that they are not a democratic society and that those people we spoke to want to become a democratic society and right now they are in the midst of an extraordinarily important and turbulent point in their history at least some of them want to try to determine how they go from where they are.

These are other names:
>Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism: This group was formed after the Soviet coup of 1991 by Manning Marable, Carl Boice, Leslie Cagan, Charlene Mitchell, Angela Davis, Pete Seeger and numerous others who were expelled from (or left) the Communist Party for supporting Mikhail Gorbachev and the pro-democracy faction of the Russian government. Free of the CPUSA, the CCDS founders hoped to unite the divided American Left, and received support from a number of well-known leftists, including Noam Chomsky

https://web.cortland.edu/worrellm/dropbox/red%20groups.pdf

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>494303
You aren't wrong but please keep meta in /meta/

>>492596
Someone please make a new .webm thread

>>492909
that's a lame remix for a lame scene

>>492907
>>492908
diesofcringe.webm
i'd just make a face and throw some trash at them

>>493047
[spoiler]pussy paradise[/spoiler]

>>540637
>burger here
<*dumps schizo misogynistic ramblings*
pottery

>>540642
It's only comedic if there's a punchline, but as it stands Boris is proving that the punchline only works if people fall for it, but either he's underestimated exactly how far gone the populace is or he is the best judge of character in the world. Actually I think it might just be that he's a good con artist, he did start his career by writing completely false EU tabloid articles for the Telegraph and started the whole "The EU regulates your cereal" trend. But either way it all relies on there coming a point where it slams home, there's a payoff and everyone realizes that moment. But as it stands that's just not how it's working, it's just going further and further and further and I don't think it's ever gonna stop. You could get to literaly dystopia levels(implying it's not already, why do you think stuff like 1984 and V for Vandetta are set here?) and people would still nod their heads or be just generally upset at the way things are.

And funnily I don't think that's Boris's fault, it's the population and the overarching culture that's been developed since I think about WW2. See in most politics it always comes down to one issue for 90% of voters. In the US it's taxes, NI it's unionist/seperatist sentiments etc. But the England is unique in that they vote for the status quo. That sounds normal though right, modern neo-liberalism is basically that improving things is radicalism? But the English as a whole take it to a new level, it's an almost religious obsession with the status quo. It cannot be changed, it is entrenched, the leaders know what they're doing, have to preserve the history etc. It's kind of an analogue to the US's obsession with that every word their founding fathers spoke was straight from the mouth of god and should never be changed, but if it had matured for another 500 or so years. I can actually probably name exactly what caused it and who; Churchill and the keep calm and carry on campaign. At that time it imbedded that the populace should just carry on and trust that everything is going to be alright, and Churchill is the personification of that mentality. If Churchill was such a good leader why did he lose the general election immediately after the war ended? Shush don't talk about that he won the war or something.

But at every level I see this obsession with the status quo. What was Brexit about? It Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>540595
I'm going to cry into my novelty queen mug. Honestly I think that american WASPs will care more than anyone I've ever met in the UK

>>805287
>>805287
>>805287
>>805287
>>805287
>>805287
>>805287
>>805287
all in here