/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>467206
>i would rather see the world subject to nuclear holocaust than live without my leftist fantasy being real
<billions must die
leftist moment

>>467509
Said the "gas the Jews" crowd.

>>467510
What are you talking about

Is there no report button on this board?

>>467510
>anyone who criticizes my insane mass homicidal leftist fantasies is a NAZI
smartest poster on leftychan

What is the correct position on "self-employed" uyghas

>>467020
They're kind of irrelevant. They do not make up a major portion of the economy (not the actually self employed ones) and they are basically just Petty bourgeois. I think of them as closer to workers though if we think of petty borg like a sliding scale. Ideologically, obviously, they tend to side with the capitalist class, but, it is possible for them to become class aware.

No, not really. That's just playing into the Nazified morality of "work", instead of what work meant to people who actually want to do something. If you imagined a communist society, the producers would be free to associate without being pushed to kill each other for stupid reasons. You'd be more likely to engage in activities because you wanted to do them, or filled a need someone wanted for reasons other than chasing money tokens to pay the tax man. The situation in communism is that society is productive enough that we don't have to suffer basically because others decided we were meant to suffer, and we could do things along those lines right now if there were a will to do so. There isn't a genuine crunch that forces us to suffer this much, which is why so much of the work is bullshit and somehow the things that we wanted to do can never be done, while someone is on the spot to make you miserable if you dare to do anything on your own initiative. So, the idea that you would invest in a portfolio would seem odd, and very likely the right to live would mean you're already invested in the whole society and get a dividend simply for being alive - like a basic income, but without the string attached that you're cast out of society if you dare take it. It would instead be something so basic that to speak of taking it away would be some sort of madness, rather than the situation today where we can obviously have nicer things but the political class does not allow it, even if letting us have those nice things would be obviously better for most of humanity. The people who are there to ensure we suffer reap everything and the honest lose everything, and that's the sad lot we're made to live in.

It should be noted that workers themselves have an investment in their status over the unemployed, and this has been the running battle - the workers against the reserve army of labor, which is to be exterminated. The owners of the world got us eager to kill each other over a lump of horseflesh, because it was too much for people to get over their hatred of that which is ugly to them. When the concept of what is "ugly" is created by a thought leader and ideology to declare that most of humanity is ugly and only the selected classes are life worthy of life, the society destroys itself - at least for most of us. The tendencies in liberal society turn towards absolute destruction and can think of nothing else. In this way, the democratic idea is defeated forever and Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

There's no good argument for communists not investing or becoming "entrepreneurs" if they have the resources to do so and the integrity to remain communist. Smartly investing, at least smalltime, is unfortunately just good advice for existence under current conditions in general - under the circumstances, labor just isn't nearly as rewarding for the amount of effort you put in, and the price of everything is so inflated (and has been for decades) that you pretty much need some passive income to live decently.

In this society, capital is power. If someone can pursue capital and maintain a socialist POV, then that is a good thing - and it is very rare, but having sympathizers to the workers' movement who have capital is a good thing. The alternative is only having opponents of the workers' movement who have capital - there will still be millionaires and billionaires whether or not any of them remember ever being workers. There used to be some big capitalists who had socialist sympathy in the US - there was a much stronger socialist movement back then, and as a result there were some people with lots of capital who sympathized.

Landlords can get fucked, though. If you can afford to own land, then you should absolutely buy land - you can live on it, you can use it for business, etc. Land, to be clear, is a good, easy investment, but… for fucks' sake, just invest in BTC or microchips or something. If you can help it, don't take the land speculation route, don't hold land vacant, don't hold homes vacant, don't decimate cities, don't own somebody else's home and charge them for it please. Invest in something productive or something stupid that'll make you money anyway, don't be a landlord, it's the worst one.

>What should the few bourgoisie who find themselves sympathetic to communism be directing their efforts towards?

I'm not sure precisely - in my head, helping to fund workers during strikes seems like a good idea, but there may be problems there.
Funding alternate communications infrastructure would also be good. Buying a shit ton of weapons and helping organized militias would also be useful, but you'd have to kind of keep that hush hush (just buying the weapons & stockpiling would probably be your best route, because then you could just appear as a "hobbyist" or "gun nerd" until shtf)…

>What should the few bourgoisie who find themselves sympathetic to communism be directing their efforts towards?
support workers organizations
if you're afraid about the effects on your capital accumulation, ie you don't have better than average means of production or a monopoly position, then support workers in other industries that you don't do business in
or support academic research

other than that there is nothing really you can do as an individual, large corporations take form of the collective ownership

/who/

>>466998
When I saw
>he’s back
I was excited because I thought it was Pierre tru dank but it’s just a literal who

Your boy made an update:
http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/pod007.mp3

Just rambling off the cuff about some things around the "virology debate" to set up for a series on the mechanism-vitalism debate and the resulting systems theory, and then the origins of medicine and how philosophical thought about the body contrasted with a mechanistic view of the body as if it were an engineering project.

>>467043
Those sneaky eugenicists outlived Stalin. Impressive

>>467045
Literally this. Cornholio took the side of the cyberneticists over OG Lysenko and wound up trying to plant in the fucking tundra, which the agronomists said would not work based on basic science and shit we already knew.

Repudiating Stalin was one of the worst things the USSR ever did, and it was initiated by people who wanted to pretend the Nazis were something other than what they were and play this moral equivalence game. It comes from not recognizing the centrality of eugenics to everything that happened in the 20th century, and it was done for the shittiest reasons. If you thought Stalin did bad things - and he did a lot of bad things as any ruler does - the secret speech was just a way of bending over to get fucked by American cock. You have to ask what motivated someone to do that, and the only real answer is that the global plan took precedence over any particular nation or the actual people involved. It wasn't as if workers forgot how to produce things, or didn't believe in the system enough. The ruling system failed them, and actors within it pushed along the dissolution of the USSR. Ordinary people, even if they didn't like the ruling system, had no reason to believe capitalism was some paradise. There was enough dialogue between the two superpowers to have a sense of what the other side thought, and it was the great game of mystification to break that understanding and replace it with the Nazified version of history. Eugenics by its nature does not allow history to exist except as a triumphal death march over anything that would stop it.

>>467068
>Does this make sense to anybody?
Sort off.
For example
I think "Cornholio" might refer to Nikita Khrushchev
He accuses liberals that equate Stalin with Hitler (and 20th century communism with Nazi-fascism) as attempting to rehabilitate fascism or obfuscate what it was.

>>467073
>obfuscate what it was
A boogeyman used by capital to rally support from the nominal left?

Relevant videos from CDV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5irKkmA_qx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEkPZJ6hl5Y

>>466936
Fucking*

>>466921
Idealism is a system of philosophical thought that imposes ideology onto analysis of reality. Discussing how the ideas of various groups have shaped their praxis and the events of history is not idealist.

I'm not the guy who you encouraged to commit suicide for disagreeing with you by the way, you seem confused. You also make my stomach turn like the sight of an open wound or a collapsed, unresponsive loved one.

You have weird typing tics like replying twice, strange use of red text, that make me think you have serious psychological issues, something like OCD maybe, which is a life destroying and isolating mental illness that's torture to live with and I don't say it to mock you but because I see in you a fellow beaten down comrade stricken by a horrific illness and a tyrannical and harrowing situation.
I hope you grow something in a community garden this year, the smell of dirt is pleasant and can heal deep wounds.

I never explained my hypothetical idea so you don't know whether it's cockamamie, this is your pathological dogmatism showing again, the tyrant in your heart that I believe can be drowned in simple dirt. The tyrant that came from outside you, and was internalized through torture.

And I don't like all this talk of horses and carts, I don't like innuendo, innuendo is a linguistic style that tiptoes around responsibility and the specifics of a situation far too warily for my taste. Innuendo is a style of speech that has something to hide, it compartmentalizes like a gangster or spy, not so much to avoid detection but to assist in making the outcome of a legal battle favorable for the offender, to avoid anything being proved, to get a verdict of not guilty.

I think people do things, and that systems don't exist above and removed from them, but are extensions of their will, subordinate to their will or collective wills.
I think you have the ideology of learned helplessness with a garish marxish coat of paint over it.

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

>>466994
>more longer
I should have proofread longer…
please disregard that error I wrote one thing before writing another and didn't fully delete the first things I wrote.

>>466994
I don't think that psychoanalysis is helpful. I just think he's the victim of ignorance and echo chambers and a society with atrocious values. He could stop being ignorant and make a few connections to eliminate the most obvious errors, but that is not easy when certain ideas not only run deep but are reproduced in society to reinforce failure.

With the really bad psych cases, the problem will not be resolved by any amount of "internal struggle". Therapy is a torture session - that's what it was designed for, to interrogate suspected criminals. If you wanted to help someone, you wouldn't make them destroy themselves and talk to space aliens. You would speak of things that are practical and real and you wouldn't act as if society is total and inescapable. That's what you would do to slaves, and most people in the therapist's office are slaves. The only values taught in therapy are how to kick someone else down to get ahead, and it's not surprising that the only successes in therapy come from embracing the total war against the weak. They basically tell people they can be "saved" if they hate the correct people, the Bad People. It's a sick cycle. I don't have that option, not that I would take it because I would not have anything to gain and nothing they say can be trusted, and they want me dead anyway.

I do think he suffers from some severe moral cowardice, which is common among his type, and that is not a thing you can fix by teaching the right ideas or conditioning someone to be good. In a society like this, though, moral cowardice is the dominant value, because brazen amorality is considered the height of ethics, and the only ideas of morality are tied to eugenics. If that is "help", insanity becomes normal, but there are no standards for comparison. It's why the institutions go out of their way to deny that there can be any fixed standards or consistency, and the law is written so that for the underclass, Oceania has no law. This is only going to be worse in the future, and all pretenses of the old law are disintegrating. With it goes all of the illusions that a democratic society is at all possible.

That said, there are things someone can do that are very obviously better for them, like not supplicating to this eugenicist death cult and not running away in fear from the name. It's the absolute terror and fear thatPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>466994
>>467001
Tfw autism shares its coke with schizophrenia

Oh god I fucked up big red text. I'll never live this down.

>doesnt blame the individual for social problems
>recognizes masturbation as a consequence and not a cause of undesirable circumstances
>unironically believes in the power of friendship
based and redpilled

>>466765
Touch pussy

>>466748
If I remember correctly than Marx did not say that primitive human societies lacked social labor altogether. I somehow get the impression you might be talking about abstract labor.

Your main argument seems to claim that the universality of human labor is a figment of the imagination of managers.

I have to say that my experiences corroborate what >>466750 said
<There is a difference between individuals in how much effort is required to teach a particular human a particular task, not what task it is.

If you discount the inequalities that come as a result of negative environmental factors among the able-bodied, then it really does seem to be a matter of learning speed and difficulty rather than ability.

So I would say that human labor is very universal in a material sense.

>>466770
Primitive (barbarous) and savage in that period meant distinct stages of development. The theory going was that savage man was solitary and the "nasty, brutish, and short" view prevailed.

>Your main argument seems to claim that the universality of human labor is a figment of the imagination of managers.

It's not entirely a figment of the imagination, in that you can manage labor this way even if no one thought to do it. The point I'm making is that labor in the abstract is only considered when exchanging it or managing it. If we were to judge the utility of all we produce, we wouldn't claim all labors are equal or all labors are valuable.

Arguing a hypothetical about the human subject, which relies on assumptions about a human nature that is fixed, doesn't answer the managerial task in the here and now. No manager has unlimited time and resources to train employees to their maximum potential, and managers have no interest in any thorough education or training, and definitely don't want the proles to learn independently. That's why it's the slow and stupid who always get fired first, and intelligence is primarily a measure of cunning and an ability to lie and deceive to win the struggle for life, rather than something useful in a productive sense. We have such distorted ideas of what intelligence and learning are that we value all of the wrong things. Any monkey can read a book and formulate theories or hack out code, and if we lived in a society that rewarded this initiative at all, we would have very different incentives. The incentive in this society, and especially in full eugenism, is maximal betrayal and backstabbing. The maladaptive traits of capitalism becomes absolutes and eviscerate all in their path. That's what is being defended, because eugenics won. There is only hell now.

>>466774
I think you are too doomer-pilled, you create thinking that is no longer able to recognize the opportunities for material progress, which do exist.

While it's true that eugenics is still around in some form or another, and it would be foolish to overlook it as a threat, you have basically dropped the concept of class-war waged by the ruling class and replaced it entirely by warnings about eugenics.

The lack of class analysis is worrying.

>>466776
What do you think class war meant? It wasn't about classes as essences fighting eternally, but institutions. Eugenics was class collaborationist - there were always scum willing to suck up to the ruling interest - and was offered as a way to win the class war by defining who was in and who was out. Those who ruled aligned with a middle class movement to oppress the workers, and found those of the workers and the lumpen who would be useful slaves for their world order.

This mystical treatment of social class is something that only makes sense in the 20th century. In the 19th century, social class was something everyone was aware of. If you have to ask who is a member of what class, your class analysis sucks. It's what fascists do when they argue about who gets to be white in their imagined race-theory.

>>466582
Sorry glowfag, it's ober for u