Hello /leftypol/ users. This is a thread to post ordinances, i.e. ad hoc rules voted on by the modocracy, which are not covered explicitly by the rules in rules.html, though most are arguably applications or clarifications of actions prohibited by the existing rules. Any posts violating these ordinances will be removed, and possibly banned at the mods discretion. This post will be periodically updated to reflect new ordinances, or to remove old ones.
- H*z is banned. Any mention of, depiction of, video, audio, or image (including memes) of, or related to, the individual known as Adam Tahir (more commonly known as Haz Al-Din), including associated projects such as the media collective "Infrared", or the US-based "American Communist Party" founded in 2024, etc. are BANNED.
No non O.C. Wojaks, Pepes, or Groypers. Any Wojaks, pepes, groypers, etc. which are not /leftypol/ original content are considered spam.Superseded by rule 15 on 2025-04-20- The Wojakifcation/wojak script is banned. This is a bit of javascript, commonly used on bunkerchan, which takes a post one is replying to and posts a greentext version of it in a pre-made wojak template, which is used as a reaction image.
- 'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25
- For original posts outside of /siberia/, "coomer bait" images which are sexual, sexualizing, or appeal to the prurient interest in any way are BANNED and will be spoilered or removed. - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-02
- Evading original post word minimum outside /siberia/ is BANNED. - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-02
- Incel posts are banned site wide (i.e. incel talking points and making 9999 threads complaining about women, saying all women are bourgeoise/sluts/etc.) - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-02
"Feral" furry porn (i.e. drawn or cartoon pornography depicting a character that is a four-legged animal, or to a significant degree non-anthropomorphic) is BANNED, and will be spoilered or removed at the moderator's discretion - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11 Superseded by extension of rule 10 on 2025-02-17- Climate change denial, especially to the extent of excessive doomerism and BP shill tier takes, is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2025-01-11
>>38493I assume it's because it's mostly petty internet drama that's been beaten into the ground. It's kind of a shame, because I do think there's a lot to be said about people
like Haz and movements
like the ACP beyond said petty internet drama, and he just so happens to make for a good example.
>>37647 (OP)
>'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25This is silly. Hopefully you only ban "rhetoric" like magacom retards saying women are bourgeois or that living in a developed country automatically makes you bourgeois and living in a poor country automatically makes you proletarian, and not actual analysis, like Engels explicitly saying home-owners are neither proletarian nor part of the haute bourgeoisie.
>>37647Before banning people for making soyjaks - CHECK THE FUCKING CONTEXT AND THE IMAGE.
IF THE SOYJAK IS LEFTYPOL ORIGINAL CONTENT, THEN YOU SHOULDIN'T FUCKING BAN IT. BECAUSE THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE QUALITY CONTROL PROPOSAL - TO FOSTER ORIGINAL CONTENT.
>>38552I PROPOSED IT HERE FIRST
>>37636 IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR THAT VERY REASON.
>>38561Fine, I uploaded three of the edits on lefty.pictures
even though they're contextual.
>>38530>>38533Every person selling their labor power in the developed world: a politically emancipated proletarian! Is it a bit too hard of a fact to cope with that the responsible employee - good democratic citizen - is middle class, and a worthless audience? That the proletariat, the propertyless reserveless wage worker, is a minority?
You can go on and treat well-earning office employees that behave as respectable democratic citizens as politically spoiled proletarians, whatever, but enshrining this in a rule to ban anyone not doing so is ridiculous. I don't think that has much to do with the reality of class, and is not in line with how Marx nor Engels used the term either.
>>37647Are you going to post this thread on the main board too or just hiding it away on this subforum.
1. Immensely silly to ban discussion of a person and/or party. Just inane
2. Why? Was there ever really a problem with this and wasn't the whole chudjak thing a good example of leftypol culture reversing memes? Do we think the userbase will suddenly become reactionary if they see a picture of a wojack? Reasoning here would be nice.
3. Good.
4. Immensely silly rule. Will ensure that Marxist/Anti imperialism discussions are hobbled. Not a surprise as all western leftist debate addicts end up making ideological proscriptions but disappointing from leftypol.
5. Fine
6. Don't know what this means but ok
7. Sounds good on paper but the sort of vague rule that will lead to mods interpretation ruling the day
>>39060The beatrix potter range? Again this seems excessively broad.
Surely we could copy a anti-zoo rule from a furry site that has this figured out rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
>>39065Most erotic fanart of zootopia is either on-model or only exaggerates proportions.
You'd be being obtuse to put judy hopps or my little pony stuff in "non-anthropomorpic" just for being feral. Sapience matters a lot here.
>>39067The etymology is flawed but yeah furries call designs that don't significantly change the physiology of the animal being anthropomorphized "feral." A lot of furry etymology is confusing, like calling scalies or avians furries, because the "fur" in furry isn't referring to literal fur anymore, the term was cemented before anyone thought too hard about that.
The rule has deeply flawed wording because it either makes no exception regarding sophonts, or does not make clear that such an exception is present, like basically any other site with nsfw furry art would.
Hello, this is a request to unanchor the 2nd magacom thread with special permissions from a mod
Im trying to turn it into a place for serious discussion instead of shitposting and trolling
https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/2112790.html>>37647>>39138i did some cursory internet searching and could not find any source for feral pornography being illegal or legally questionably, with the exception of jurisdictions that restrict or prohibit pornography in general.
>>39139is there any source for this?
and have any members of the sites administration given a rationale for these virtue signaling ordinances?
i can understand keeping content that may be illegal in some places off the site in order to prevent it from being blocked or taken down, and this is not a porn site, however it is a site which allows porn, so what is the purpose of passing these incredibly niche and specific restrictions if not simply for the sake of signaling the arbiters own virtue?
>>37647If you're gonna have rule #8 you really ought to re-word it. At the moment it's the kind of rule that makes you ask questions: did this site used to be a hotbed of feral porn? What was the inciting incident that got it banned? Why is it singled out compared to other kinds of objectionable 2d content?
I'm not asking those questions, but those are the sort of things it puts into the reader's mind, and they're not - so far as I can tell - "real" problems. This site never had large amounts of feral furry porn, never had any specific incident to get it banned, and there's no specific reason to treat it differently. If I'm wrong, correct me, but it looks bizarre in context.
By contrast: we have had issues with Hazposting, Wojaks/pepes and the related script, "real prole" rhetoric, coomer bait, minimum post-length evasion, incel posts, and climate change denial. The strong implication based on the surrounding context is that we've also had some kind of feral porn infestation.
>>39420>I'm not asking those questionsI am asking those questions, right now.
Mods why is feral banned? is there some legitimate legal reason? or are you just trying to prominently display your moral righteousness with regards to
fucking drawings >>39423>>39420its fucking weird that THIS is the most controversial ordinance. Not haz, not anything else.
siberia gooners are willing to DIE ON THE HILL for FERAL porn
>>39425It's weird that it was even made an ordinance in the first place. We have no idea which janny purposed it or why, and they've been radio silent on this both on here and on the /leftypol/ thread.
>Not hazAll that could be said of him has been said.
>Not anything elseAll the other rules make sense and were already pretty much rules beforehand.
>>39425i don't care that its feral specifically, i'm opposed to it because it has no reason, and no purpose. if it's to imply that feral is somehow uniquely worse than any other drawing,
then im ready and willing to die on the hill.
Since you all left Haz spam go on for a week with no announcement anywhere obvious, does this mean the ordinances are over? Rules that are sometimes rules and sometimes not rules depending on how pissed off the mod is that day aren't really rules. It wasn't even good drama people were just talking about pegging him a bunch.
>>39092He has a career by being a lolcow. If everyone just stopped giving him free advertising, he would decay. Debatebros live through this negative attention.
>>39499Yes. All wage-workers are proletarians. Even CEOs. There are more CEOs in America than teachers and surgeon+physicians combined. This means CEOs are even more considerable share of proletarians than doctors or teachers.
The modocracy has determined that teachers and doctors are proletarians, therefore CEOs must be as well.
>>39497 (me)
btw, I realize determining whether or not a post was generated by an LLM would be practically impossible. We'll just have to live with that paranoia from now on. What could be moderated however is when posters are stupid enough to say they used an LLM to generate a post or image (screenshots of ChatGPT or deepseep). I think posts like those should be against the rules and deleted because they would introduce unreliable claims into conversations. I realize this is an imageboard and not some academic journal but still, leftypol has had a relatively good record so far of posters sourcing important information from actual news sources, articles, books etc. Personally I'd really hate it if that changed.
>>39497Agree. Dumping a 'conversation' with an LLM as OP is lazy as fuck, highly unreadable and in the end completely pointless because what is even the topic of discussion?
>Look what the machine just saidWho the fuck cares? If was inclined to talk to the machine, i'd do so.
If you happen to have a genuinly new idea/thought/whatever, at least have the decency to write and format it yourself instead of just dumping unreadable garbage as an OP.
>>39499there's a bit of rhetorical slight of hand going on with this ordinance.
at first, it seems reasonable "you wouldn't want people denying that proles are proles would you comrade?"
Yet it's become a tool to shut down discussion of labour aristocracy, making Marxist class analysis a blunt and anglo-fied tool that cannot see nuance and levels in an imperial system.
>>37647Why have you made 9 new rules when you refuse to even enforce the rules we already have?
Get a fuckin grip.
>>39769Marx is not a religious figure nor socialist is a dogma
Convert to some abrahamic cult if you want to uphold shitty beliefs
>>39662i dont see how thats a problem
labor aristocracy are still proles
>>39767same here lumpen arent proles
whats the issue?
>>39813>>39815its not about that its about what the word means. proles produce surplus value under capitalism. lumpen dont. theyre still workers tho. it doesn't have to be a bad thing even if marx disliked them, thats separate from the economic analysis. and besides some marxists groups have correctly considered them revolutionary in certain contexts
the "real proletarian" thing is entirely different, its the people claiming baristas arent proles, or that "productive" means making physical things instead of profit for the capitalists
>>40320Context Haz
personally is permanently banned from here, it extends to his party until we see a proper and utterly correct self criticism, and even then he is probably still banned because he can make his own audience and that makes him more useful than haz shitposting on /leftypol/.
>>40485My post that you deleted
Anons, this site is controlled opposition.
>>40735naj but they're more of a twitter thing these days, just abrasive debate addict culture that feels concocted in a lab to terminate any hope of a fruitful dialogue. The board has been way more chill since they were banned.
>>40737And it's been working, keep up the good work.
>>40738 (me)
Also serves as a good counter to raid of attrition tactics, where /pol/ users unfamiliar with the rule don't know why their bait by a thousand cuts keep getting zapped, not realizing it's the soyjaks.
>>37647>'Real Proletarian' rhetoric which implies a large percentage of wage workers are not proletarians is banned - per modocracy vote passed on 2024-12-25You morons are banning even people discussing whether someone with large reserves sees revolution in their class interest or not, fuck off.
>supporting electoralism<fine>supporting class collaboration<fine>supporting nationalism<fine>discussing class position<REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MODSPeople here become unbearably retarded just to oppose the same retardation of MAGAcoms. It doesn't make sense to ban this and not glaring aspects of your average liberal discourse.
Do Haz and their sycophants even post here anymore? Worst parts of this place is dumbfuck Americans hating other dumbfuck Americans and everyone else having to pay the price for it.
>>40774>accusing random groupsThere's nothing random about it if you could actually read.
>if you are incapable of discussing class without getting confused about what a prole isYou're describing the mods here.
>That ordinance keeps the board rid having 14 different "are baristas proles" threads.Then ban those threads specifically, no need to ban actual marxism along with it.
>>40777Except I see bans over it constantly, because both sides of the debate can only treat class as a moral qualifier. When you reduce ‘proletarian’ to a moral category equivalent to ‘good’, the obvious impulse is to depict yourself as a proletarian no matter what and people you dislike as middle-class. Even Lenin fell into this trap at times in his essays and moralized against the petit-bourgeois.
>muh baristasMost insufferable example because outside of Hazoids nobody even cares about baristas and I can't believe the discourse went on for fucking months. Some baristas are proletarians working fulltime, others own their own cafe, and others only treat it as a side hustle. So, you can't say, a priori, that they are of either class, because class is not a static sociological formation. Class is a movement, which needs to be distinguished in its historical trajectory. Which leads me to…
>muh students…Students are not utterly reserveless; their loans testify to that. They are aspirant bourgeois and petit-bourgeois who, far from coming together in proletarian organizations to fight for proletarian interests, rather strive to join or stay in the ranks of the propertied, the reserved. The prospect of qualifications and cushy careers gives them a stake in capitalist society that the proletariat does not have.
>muh artistsCraftsmen are like
the original petit-bourgeois. I greatly enjoy art but Marx correctly analyzed a proletarian is without reserves and property by definition. Why would he define "proletariat" in such a way as to include people who clearly have no self-interest in communism? That would be a useless definition. Marx even talked about how there's a section of the population (the reserveless workers) which has been suppressed from gaining access to knowledge and artistic talent.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03l.htmYou can use all I posted to correctly rule out other groups like the police from ever being considered proletarian too, which hopefully is not a controversial statement at all.
Americans overcorrected hard from the days of Bernie and OWS and "taxing the rich" to just completely ignoring the importance of income differentials to class status. And before you call me out, no, income is obviously not the sole determinant of class, but it's safe to say that if you have a chunk of money lying around in reserve, you are not some immiserated wage worker to whom communism becomes a necessity.
It's easy to just blanket-ban anything that makes your job as a mod easier but this could easily be all part of Ordinance 1 without stifling the rest of discussion here.
>Productive labour is only an abbreviated expression for the whole relation, and the manner in which labour capacity and labour figure in the capitalist production process. Hence if we speak of productive labour, we speak of socially determined labour, labour which implies a very definite relation between its buyer and its seller. Productive labour is exchanged directly for money as capital, i.e. for money which is in itself capital, has the quality of functioning as capital, and confronts labour capacity as capital. Productive labour is therefore labour which for the worker only reproduces the previously posited value of his labour capacity; but as value-creating activity it valorises capital, and counterposes the values created by labour to the worker himself as capital. The specific relation between objectified and living labour, which makes the former capital, makes the latter productive labour.
>The specific product of the capitalist production process, surplus value, is only created through exchange with productive labour. What forms its specific use value for capital is not its particular useful character, any more than it is the particular useful qualities of the product in which it is objectified, but its character as the element that creates exchange value (surplus value).
>The capitalist production process is not merely a process of the production of commodities. It is a process which absorbs unpaid labour, making the means of production into means for the absorption of unpaid labour.
>It emerges from what has been said so far that to be productive labour is a quality of labour which in and for itself has absolutely nothing to do with the particular content of the labour, its particular usefulness or the specific use value in which it is expressed.
>Labour with the same content can therefore be both productive and unproductive.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm >>40790https://etc.gegenstandpunkt.com/content/die-jobs-der-elite>>40793we gonna pretend all unions are proletarian too? even pig unions?
>>40794literally nobody has even brought up productive labor bro
>>40793>>40797Since the discussion is about proletarians I'm obviously not counting non-proletarian unions. It's like bringing up tenant unions as part of the class struggle.
>>40794>>40799You're arguing with ghosts. I'm not a hazlerite.
>to exclude non-physical labor and uphold blue collar factory work as the 'true proletariat'A single mom working a cashier job is proletarian, a doctor clearly is not.
>>40800>you are literally reducing proletariat to some sloganim doing the opposite.
>all people who sell their labor are proleswhat i described is the theoretical 'justification' for the argument that office workers and blue haired baristas aren't real proles but truck drivers and oil riggers are.
>>40801>a doctor clearly is not.that depends. a doctor at a hospital who works for a wage is. a doctor who owns their own practice isn't
>>40802>for the argument that office workers and blue haired baristas aren't real proles but truck drivers and oil riggers are.Can you point where anyone has made such a dumbfuck argument?
>a doctor at a hospital who works for a wage is. a doctor who owns their own practice isn'tSo class is now a matter of individual choice? A doctor can willingly go from proletarian to petit-bourgeois just by leaving their hospital and putting up their own practice, everything else about them remaining the same?
you cant determine the class character by job title unless its "owner". it depends on their relation to the means of production not their job
>>40803soldiers and cops are proles. most are class traitors but that doesn't change their relation to the means of production. you can't tell if a CEO is a prole or not from title alone. most have ownership stakes but it depends
>>40804>So class is now a matter of individual choice?>just by leaving their hospital and putting up their own practicemost people dont have the opportunity to "just" make that choice. it requires a lot of money. most doctors dont live in a country like america where they can leverage their education for further loans, and even in america over half never do.
>>40805Doctors make a lot of money literally anywhere, jesus christ. It doesn't matter what any given wage worker wants as class is not a value judgement.
>soldiers and cops are prolesThis is so stupid. They aren't class traitors, they have an obvious stake in maintaining capitalism because they benefit from it so that clearly makes them not proletarians! For fuck's sake!
>>40805>you cant determine the class character by job titlein most cases bc i dont think theres proletarian neurosurgeons rofl
>>40808meh mao was a retard , all the things itt are already in marx
>>40811Their self interest also has nothing to do with their relation to the means of production. Its also not in their self interest, its false consciousness, and their perceived self interest is why they are class traitors.
>>40813most doctors in the world are workers not rich americans whos parents gave them 100k and told them to pick between med and law school
>>40816proletarian is defined by its relation to the means of production. they don't own means of production and must sell their labor. the bourgeois own the means of production and don't work. petit-bourgeois own means of production and also work.
thats what marx says. its not complicated.
>>40802>>you are literally reducing proletariat to some slogan>im doing the opposite. Ok, quick review:
>this group is not proletarian because they own property<but they work for a wage!>this group is not proletarian because they have reserves<but they work for a wage! x2>this group is not proletarian because they have a stake in maintaining capitalism<but muh relation to production!>this group is not proletarian because it's not in their self-interest<self-interest is irrelevant! it's all about "relation to production"!>this profession on average makes enough money to easily accumulate reserves anywhere in the world so big chances are they are not proletarian<but they aren't Americans so they ARE proletarians! (?????????)Seriously?
>>40818>>this group is not proletarian because they own propertyi never said that. if they own property and also work they are petite-bourgeois.
>>40819>>40818ok what the fuck do you think it means then?
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat >>40820yes.
>>40822>he wrote dozens of pages saying what made the proletariat revolutionary and what did noti didn't say they were revolutionary. lots of proles are reactionary and backwards. its probably not worth trying to organize cops and mercenaries because of things like their immediate self-interest but that doesn't make them not proles. if youve got dozens of pages of marx saying that workers aren't proles if they have 'reserves' then post them
>>40821I feel like I waste my time every time I write an effortpost because I just get dumb one-liners in the replies. Anyway even this reductionist dictionary entry already disagrees with you.
< The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour…This dependency constitutes their wage as the only source of income that they are in need of for their own reproduction. One who holds savings in assets or even owns a house/real estate meaning property would be taken off the equation as the relation of dependence no longer persists. Even Engels points this out in The Housing Question.
Let's take for example an oil engineer. An oil engineer would accrue a reserve that would enable them to keep themselves afloat if out of work, reinvest a portion of their income, acquire a home, etc. Their "weal and woe" doesn't hinge solely on their ability to sell their labor power.
Whether they choose to do so is irrelevant to their class position, you can't just call petit-bourgeois who fail at capitalist competition proletarians while only calling the successful ones petit-bourgeois, that's not how scientific analysis works. To drive the point futher: let's say this offshore drilling engineer moves to San Francisco, where the cost of living is such that they can no longer accrue assets. Or: they squanders their money every month on frivolous shit. Are they now a proletarian? Maybe if some radical change to the market happened such that they lost their job and could never regain their position forcing them to work a shitty job, but
then and only then would it be correct to call them proletarian. This is one example of what people mean by proletarianization.
Capital also means a lot more than just owning some physical business, for fuck's sake, especially under capitalism where money can be used to buy almost anything. The fact is: you do not get away from the messiness that offends your theoretical conscience in the conception I put forward with these kinds of formal considerations. The fuzziness of the middle classes is a specific characteristic of it!
>>40825>reinvest a portion of their incomethats something different, that constitutes ownership of capital
>acquire a homethis is also different and more complex, i wouldn't say a mortgage is ownership and i dont think that a home constitutes productive property as capital, but if you want to say the first world is majority labor aristocrat im not gonna argue with that, but they would still be proles. if you want to argue that a home counts as an investment property even while its being used for living in that would at least be valid since it is based on ownership.
>One who holds savings in assets or even owns a house/real estate meaning property would be taken off the equation<one who <owns property>meaning <property> would be taken off the equationwhat
>Whether they choose to do so is irrelevant to their class positionyeah it has nothing to do with choice that is not what im saying. every worker could simply "choose" to start a business just like your doctor who "chooses" to open a practice. free movement between classes and temporarily embarrassed millionaires are a myth
>The fuzziness of the middle classes is a specific characteristic of it!middle class isn't real. marx didn't say being a bourgeois capitalist is when you make lots of money, its when you make money from ownership.
>>40826You have such a stupidly narrow view of what constitutes means of production or proletariat. Marx, Engels and Lenin repeatedly used the term middle-class too. Fucking read the shit you are arguing so vehemently about!
>every worker could simply "choose" to start a businessWow, becoming a capitalist is just a matter of sheer will. And here I am wasting my time being a dumb wage laborer!!
>>40826>>40825https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm<The semi-proletariat. What is here called the semi-proletariat consists of five categories: (1) the overwhelming majority of the semi-owner peasants, [10] (2) the poor peasants, (3) the small handicraftsmen, (4) the shop assistants [11] and (5) the pedlars.<The shop assistants are employees of shops and stores, supporting their families on meagre pay and getting an increase perhaps only once in several years while prices rise every year. If by chance you get into intimate conversation with them, they invariably pour out their endless grievances. Roughly the same in status as the poor peasants and the small handicraftsmen, they are highly receptive to revolutionary propaganda.Mao identified semi-proletarian as a seperate class from proletarian. Most or perhaps all unproductive (from society's view, not that of capital, i.e., any who not contribute social aggregate product) workers fall into this category. The walmart cashier is semi-proletarian, not proletarian. Because Mao said so. The middle classes (semiproletarian and up) subsist on surplus-value of the actual producers. Stalinist 1956 proletarian political economic textbook teaches us this.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm<Furthermore, part of the national income is transferred, by way of payments for, what are called services, to the non-productive branches (e.g., for use of municipal services, medical aid, places of entertainment, etc.). As already pointed out, no social product is created in these branches, nor, consequently, any national income; but the capitalists who exploit the workers employed in these branches receive part of the national income created in the branches of material production. From this income the capitalists who own businesses in the non-productive branches pay the wages of their workers, meet the material outlay which they have to find (for premises, equipment, heating, etc.) and take their profit. >>40829>The middle classes (semiproletarian and up)So the poor peasants are better off than regular workers? but also
>highly receptive to revolutionary propaganda.?
>unproductive (from society's view, not that of capital<From this income the capitalists who own businesses in the non-productive branches pay the wages of their workers >>40832>Your best retortslow down and read the posts you are responding to. im agreeing with you
>>40826>it has nothing to do with choice>that is not what im saying>"choose" (scarequotes)>your doctor >>40804>So class is now a matter of individual choice? A doctor can willingly go from proletarian to petit-bourgeois just by leaving their hospital and putting up their own practiceno its not, because people dont have the opportunity to make that choice. the people who have the opportunity to choose to open up their own practice already have access to enough investment capital that they are not proletariat, and most doctors do not have that. just like people who invest their reserves in the stock markets or whatever. if they have enough 'reserves' to live off dividends then they own capital.
>>40833Mao's theory guided the most sucessful Communist revolution. Who are you to spit on Mao's theory?
>>40831Mao explained the situation of the various strata of peasant in great detail. The semi-proletarian peasant was more revolutionary than the petite-bourgeois teacher, but the agricultural proletarian was more revolutionary than both. Mao illustrates why this is the case in great detail. Stalinist proletarian political science textboox illustrates how value is created and distributed in capitalist society, the basis of class.
>>40780>When you reduce ‘proletarian’ to a moral category equivalent to ‘good’, the obvious impulse is to depict yourself as a proletarian no matter what and people you dislike as middle-class. Even Lenin fell into this trap at times in his essays and moralized against the petit-bourgeois.Yes. There is no contradiction between being a communist and not proletarian by this definition, in fact that is the historical tendency. Neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin, nor a whole bunch of theorists and revolutionaries, are proletarian by this definition.
And it comes full circle. I begin to understand now, the so-called Trotsky-Stalin split is missing the point gravely. Socialism in backwards peasant states was doomed from the start, because either the peasants owned homes, or acquired homes in the wake of the revolution. No wonder then that the peasantry is reactionary, for it either owns capital or is a vestige of feudalism with all the backwards cultural assumptions. No wonder that the Soviet Union already in Lenin's time realized the problem with letting backwards citizens participate in politics outside local and workplace affairs was literal political suicide for the Soviet Union.
And then, of course, the issue of commodity production in socialist countries, which just ended up reinventing capitalism, put the leadership in a position where they used increasingly unsustainable state force to suppress the contradiction, the inevitable reactionary superstructure, and the socialist countries either imploded like the Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia, or virtually gave up like China and Vietnam, or hyper-isolated like the DPRK.
I wish someone smarter than me would start spreading the word. Because I feel like if the misunderstandings and mistakes repeat, there will be no more chances for humanity.
>>40854 (me)
It also puts into perspective why the populations of ex-socialist countries are reactionary; why East Germany is more reactionary than West Germany today. Home ownership! God damn, I'm having a theory mindfuck. Everything is falling into place.
>>40737>The aim is to incentivize creativity how does banning someone who picked a random image from their reaction folder incentivize creativity?
There's some kind of saying about 'if the only tool you have is a hammer..', that applies, what if you could find a way to curate a better board that didn't involve banning things, but something where you actually enocuraged positive action
Since the pepe/wojak banning, the board just feels LESS CREATIVE and more abrasive with the gap between users and mods widening.
just a very bizarre rule
>>40774>That ordinance keeps the board rid having 14 different "are baristas proles" threads.By not allowing any? Are the mods that incompetent that they can't direct discussion of an issue into one thread? Same with the HAZ stuff…Why can't that be discussed in the Internet general?
What is this obsession the new mod team has with telling people what they can and can't discuss?
the irony is that in order to make these ordinances, the mods must have had a discussion, so the implication is that they can discuss these things, but the dumb uncultured masses can't be trusted to.
>>41013>Then prole and student are two different booleans thenYes?
>and someone claiming students can't be prolesThere are proletarian students, they're just the overwhelming minority and either way all students are investing money hoping for returns (becoming proper citizens) so their consciousness reflects that.
>>41018>they're just the overwhelming minority where?
>all students are investing money scholarships
>>41053>middle-class prolesMiddle-class is its own thing separate from the proletariat.
>>41060Never read Marx award.
>>41073>>41074With the aristocracy and peasantry not existing anymore and landlords joining the bourgeoisie they're interchangeable terms today.
>>41088>Hard working adults of middle class economic standing who have to work forty hours a week or more doing backbreaking labor and endless bills to pay are not proletariat because they have more money/toys than meAnd leftists wonder why no one respects them.
>>41598This. They call anything cutesy as "pedophilic".
If it's not that, they refer to anything they don't like as "fascist". This place really is just a spiritual descendant of 4chan.
>>41598This x 3
It's always someone emotionally unstable doing it. I don't even like it being done against chuds even since it is just endless shit flinging back and forth. It's a waste of time.
Unique IPs: 99