/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Do you have one about the affects of computers and umsation? Or perhaps cool bunnies?

After way too much time, the https://leftypol.org/search.php is finally back!
Now powered by a new backend with new filters and broader wildcard support!
Enjoy!

>>2767299
for a libshit she has surprisingly correct takes on anti-imperialism

Reminder the Islamic Revolution is leninism applied to Iran’s unique historical and geographical conditions. MEK, Tudeh, all communist parties in Iran are all trotskyist and ultra and anarchist and cannot and never will be taken seriously.

>>2767306
t.

>>2767308
We can both be correct at the same time

>>2767202
You say the same crap as Laura Loomer. You might want to sit this one out.

>>2767227
Loomer is only saying this because she wants to justify Israel annexing Syria she doesn't give a fuck about syrian christians especially when most of them supported Assad (which Israel hated because he was part of le axis of le resistance).

>>2767242
>defending loomers intentions
You must be her agent

>>2767195
>>2767227
One poster said that your take on Jolani is based and a trvke, give me tldr

>>2766859
No case number, but he attached these screenshots to the post

>>2767290
The third world will form a united red army and invade NATO like the Soviet Union smashed Nazi Europe

>>2767271
>Le corrupt
Lmao

>>2767267
>reconcile
With what?

>>2767290
Yeah, that's what I said. The west will turn fascist and the third world will have its revolutions and eventually the west will be red too

>>2767301
You have to believe nuclear weapons don’t exist or are highly exaggerated for this to be true

>>2767251
There literally is no such thing as "enough work"

>>2767252
Yes and did it prevent that alienation everyone was aware of? Did it prevent black markets and speculation? Did it prevent parasitism at the party level? Another thing: 20th century planning models had labor hoarding problems as a matter of law because they obligated everyone to work. Had they adopted their own version of the Yugoslavian model, there would be less of that hoarding and more organic employment.

>>2767255
Yes there is. For whom are you generating entropy? And if you are worried about being outcompeted by the capitalists, then do the world a favor and nuke the capitalists and then everyone can chill not not participate in the rat race.

>>2767251
Universal obligation does not lead to "bullshit jobs" Sinbad, those didn't really exist in socialist states. Jobs were productive and besides maybe some functionary positions, they were necessary. We've got bullshit jobs now despite no obligation at all, it is imperialism/capitalist monopoly that generates them. The obligation to work was just q method of preventing unemployment and the sale of labor as a commodity

>>2767270
Very well. If universal obligation to work is indeed a good policy, then I will support it. But I fear given the capitalist culture of the west, any implementation in the west will lead to problems that would be more serious than what the 20th socialist models experienced.

>>2767294
Well a dotp would have to be established first before any obligation of worth could be implemented. Capitalist countries need unemployment so that they can exploit laborers and have a pool to choose from. But it'd have to remain to be seen exactly how measures against this should be done. I agree that the deep insulation into capitalist ruling class ideology for centuries will cause problems in the implementation of socialist policy across the board

>>2767228
Everyone in the tour de france cheats just like every medal winner in the olympics is on some cocktail of steroids - sorry, "asthma and adhd medication". He was simply the best cheater.

>>2767236
>>2767235
they should just make it more honest and turn it into the tour de dope and the dopelympics. this is what proletarian workers states like east germany tried to do by using sunstances to push human ability to the next level by creating heroic communist supermen.

Just let all athletes use roids and PEDs, all of them, who cares? They’re gonna do it anyway, it’s better if their cycles are public and every team has a chemist to draft.

Just give everybody performance enhancing drugs. Make it mandatory and put it in the water or the beer or whatever. See how far you could push the common person.

>>2767292
Steroids don’t actually make you stronger, they accelerate healing from injury. Giving them to a fat office worker would probably just give them even worse heart problems. Now if you give them to factory workers and roofers something interesting might happen.

>>2766511
Homeschooling should be a prosecutable type of child abuse

>>2766806
>>2766656
Homeschooling should be allowed if parents can prove they can teach their kids. My fear with homeschooling is parents just don't discipline the kids enough and they grow up retarded.

>>2767275
Also, kids need socialization otherwise they grow up afraid of society and others.

>>2767275
>>2767278
American petit booge drivel with neoliberal means testing talking point.

>>2767272
Yeah that scene is even funnier knowing what we now know. Some of those kids are pretty based though

What would have happened if we got the bancor instead of dollar hegemony?

>>2764798
a keynesian world would still be capitalist and imperialist. porky would have found a mechanism of action other than petrodollar hegemony.

>>2764798
International development is always tricky due to the nature of competition; this was the struggle of early capitalism, which began by empire and mercantilism in the 16th and 17th centuries, until "free trade" was facilitated in the 18th, by zones of colonial capture. Tariffs on foreign imports was universal, except for goods which circulated within empires (this has legal precedence in the 17th century under "imperial preference" which granted subsidies to monopolies). Free trade then begins as internal markets for empires (while domestic goods were traded freely by custom since ancient times; unfree trade was seen as "usury", while foreign trade carried "risk" and was surcharged). You can see this continuity today where "sanctions" are placed on nations which refuse to align with empires, such as the United States. Free Trade then, is an outgrowth of Mercantile trade (as Engels writes in 1844). Development is then tied up in imperial interest, and so we see how colonies are raised up for the benefit of powers, and afterwards, abandoned for the same purposes. China is currently colonising Africa in the same way Europe did, by conscripting labour to their capital - creating mutual benefit, but to the privilege of the employer. So then, the precedence of development in history is non-competitive. Compromises by inter-national "trade deals" can also be established, such as the US giving China manufacturing blueprints, to be set under a contract of employment for a period of time. Science is a private enterprise, uuterly monopolised, as we see with how some countries are not permitted to have nuclear weapons, but who decides? The hegemon.

The same principle reigns in charities, which foster international development by exploiting local populations. Charities of course facilitate revenue by demand, supplied from suffering, so suffering is in the self-interest of all charity workers (like how crime is in the interest of the police or sickness is in the interest of doctors). We can see this practiced by Bill Gates, who is providing welfare for people as he privatises their land (like a society which replaces jobs with hand-outs). This is what Marx called "primitive accumulation", or the process of accumulating property into a few hands (Vagabond Laws and "Poor Relief" programs only occur as capitalism develops). Mass unemployment is the prelPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2762441
I like how this poster debunked a 4 minute video with 4 sentences

>>2767285
Although I will disagree on the last point since it is childish.
>bananas are grown not produced
>we have much more advanced estimation models for demand
>question is to match labor expenditure to labor consumption in the form of products. (you always want to have productive labor so there is growth in the economy)

>>2766002
>as it turns out, you're just repeating mine but under different terms.
well maybe he just doesnt like your tone! harrumph

>>2766095
We have determined in prior post (>>2764808) that most of your posts rests on begging the question. We can examine multiple of these cases here too.

>So when I say "we are both human beings", you deny this?
I do not deny this. As we can see, you commit to begging the question here. What I am denying is having necessary moral values due to our human species. You are, here, assuming that by having a common human species, we must necessarily share some common values.
Funnily enough, this was noticed earlier on in >>2763680.

>do you believe in the category of goodness?
This has already been cleared in >>2763332.

>How can I tell when you don't reveal your position?
Already have : >>2762537. This is like the fifth time I've done so. Step up your game if you want to keep baiting.

>That is not my position
Then tell me. This is like the third time I've asked you. What is morality, how do we determine it, and how does the criteria you use to determine it makes it "good".

>>2766627
>Then tell me.
Ah but anon… not having a position allows endless baiting…

>>2766627
>I do not deny this
So our human being is a collective being, correct?
>What I am denying is having necessary moral values due to our human species.
If values derive from "biology" and we share biology, we then share values. That is a necessary sequence.
>moral judgement is relative to something unreal
But if there is a judgement of "morality" then you are affirming the reality of something. Your issue is that you are preserving moral language where you ought to decline to such categorisation. This is part of the same issue as when you claimed that there can be a "bad" taste; no, there can be non-preferential tastes, but preference does not confer morality upon anything. So then, if you wish to conclude, we may agree that preference cannot be synonymised with moral judgement, unless something is preferrred for its abstract moral content. Preference persists amorally, such as in irrational beings.
>What is morality
Morality is a concern with what is good and evil, and thus presupposes their reality (you cannot have morality without a realistic perspective).
>how do we determine it
By reason, hence irrational beings are not subject to moral guilt
>how does the criteria you use to determine it makes it "good"
My criteria is reason. The determination of virtue is in considering what activity is correct to perform and not perform. Correctness is defined in consideration to need, which corresponds to being. Need is the principle of self-cause, for it determines itself. What is necessary is always justified, while what is unnecessary can only be justified under particular conditions. We may then call the process of judgement upon morality "justification" (e.g. "to make good"). We may further call necessity a positively justified, while what is unnecessary is either (i) negatively justified, (ii) positively unjustified, or (iii) negatively unjustified. Thus, we may (i) not-do certain things which are good, (ii) do certain things which are bad, or (iii) not-do certain things - which are bad. In the last case we see that what is "bad" are ends or results, making morality in this case "consequential" or relative to outcome. In the firstPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2767174
>If values derive from "biology" and we share biology, we then share values
Why is it that we all see different things despite having the same eyes ? Or why is it that we all have different tastes ?

>But if there is a judgement of "morality" then you are affirming the reality of something
No you're just presupposing your definition of morality to be correct whilst exlcuding other definitions without justification.

>there can be non-preferential tastes, but preference does not confer morality upon anything
<you can't say that something tastes bad because it goes against my logic!!!
lmfao the absolute state

>we may agree that preference cannot be synonymised with moral judgement
We may not. I could also say that morality is in reality purely a emotive language with no genuine content, and that as such everything you have said is false because morality is not truth-apt nor a real object.
As you've noticed, I don't do this because it would be a massive instance of begging the question, which is exactly what you have done since the beginning.

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