/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>464950
change for the sake of change is retarded

classical analysis applies as long as there is a large group of people whose only means of sustenance is selling of labor power

especially when cloud fits the classical definition of MoP better than many other capital goods

>>464948
>MoP are production goods that are "worked collectively, owned individually"
>Cloud shit fits into this category like a glove

>>464950
>lack of victories for the left might indicate a need for change

I think both of these statements are true.
But i still don't know what to think about this.

The thing about taking over "cloud shit", i don't particularly like it from a technical perspective.
All those data-centers that run the cloud, function like some kind of brain for high tech society. They look really vulnerable to me, because there has been a consolidation underway. From millions of small on site-IT to about a 1000 mega data centers. It doesn't take much to destroy a 1000 large buildings filled with server racks and then the hole system grinds to a halt.

I would rather it was physically dispersed, at least then you don't have to worry about protecting a few high value targets. It comes with the downside that it's easier to gain physical access to dispersed computer hardware, concentrated IT can have really tight physical security. But on balance, i believe it is easier to compensate for un-authorized hardware access.

>>464953
>The thing about taking over "cloud shit", i don't particularly like it from a technical perspective.
lol, for me it's the other way around
it's beautiful from a technical perspective, very agile
running your own server was never that easy

computer systems have come full circle - only on a bigger, global scale now

>All those data-centers that run the cloud, function like some kind of brain for high tech society.
lol, yea, and rail system is like veins of this high tech "organism"

It's just infrastructure
Pull your head out of your ass

>They look really vulnerable to me, because there has been a consolidation underway.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>464954
>very agile
Oh no you did a corporate speak. Please pivot to normal speak.

I agree with you that the cloud stuff is very convenient, but there is no reason that physically distributed hardware could not have the same level of abstraction and ease of use.

The thing with cargo and power grids there isn't really an option to spread it out, but for Servers, you don't have to densely pack all the server racks in a few spots. It might even have some benefits for cooling to spread it out.

Only super-computers need to have all their hardware smooshed all in one spot.

You do not need a nuke to break a big building full of servers. Medium military grade weapons can damage the power and cooling for a data center and put it out of commission for a month.

>>464952
Cool story. Has that helped you at all

>>464928
>I believe that it is very based for prisoners to be working in chicken factories and making bricks. This is forced labor in my opinion, but instead of free people doing these menial jobs, the prisoners do it as punishment.

As long as you pay the prisoners the same wage as a normal worker, it might be worth considering under certain circumstances. But you have to pay attention that you are not creating a perverse system that has an incentive to imprison more people because the prison factory has a labor shortage.
<PA system crackles:
<Attention fellow citizens for the next two months littering carries a 20 year prison sentence, and in unrelated news the protectorate announces that boneless chicken wings will become available again in short order.
I don't know exactly where the threshold should be, i haven't studied this, but my guess is that the prison population should not be above 0.5% of the overall population, probably 0,3% would be better.

>Secondly, I read the bit from Cockshott where he states that cheap labor doesn't bring about automation as fast, I agree. I have noticed that when I watch factory videos, there are many, many jobs that could be automated but aren't.
A socialist system could just instruct factories to automate by decree, and that would work to a certain degree, but it would use up a lot of political energy to enforce it. It's easier to just make labor-power expensive enough so that increasing labor productivity through technological automation is baked into the economic incentive structures.

>I am genuinely interested in socialism, although it seems flawed in the sense that it reduces personal responsibility to the point where workers just don't care.
Socialists tend to have an instrumentalist view on this, as long as systems work and people live good lives it doesn't really matter. I can tell you that capitalist methods are entirely ineffective, negative reinforcement only results in apathy. And i think it's not supposed to work, invoking "personal responsibility" is only an excuse for punishment and neglect.

If you are genuinely interested in figuring out how to build a social environment that fosters persoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>464932
holy based

>>464808
Given that leaders of the Nazi movement were given private industrial operations to manage separate from their job as a governmental official, clearly there's a difference.
And that the State very often came in and created deals and developments between competing private companies for the ends of the greater whole, shows a difference. When the Nazi party wanted a new machine gun for their military, they forced a bunch of different companies together to pool their patents and knowledge and work to spit out unified designs, leaving you at the end with the MG34. After which the State worked out large scale payment plans, so that everyone with a patent involved in the design got paid out.

Both are significantly different than the arrangement found in China today or in the past.

>>464814
holy shit bro
do you expect anyone to read all that shit
I'm on a 4K TV and that shit still takes up a whole screen what the fuck

>>464818
>i have a fancy screen and i can't read.
You can download the ghost of Stephen Hawking and he'll read it to you, like an audio-book-player that is trapped in a steel-drum.

>>464821
Brevity is the soul of wit.

>>464793
>a plain definition of fascism makes you offended on china's behalf
big tell
>>464796
bot post

>>464702
Bee and Junko are pretty cute, actually. Leftypol always attracts cute ones.

>>464716
How do you know they're cute if we haven't seen them? In fact there's a decent chance that they're men.

>>464717
There have been leaks of their faces. Bee accidentally took a picture and revealed her face and body somewhat in the reflection of a glass while she was drunk.

I am pretty sure junko has done some cos-playing or some shit. I know her face has been leaked too.

>>464718
I remember the Bee leak but I haven't heard about junko's. Post it if you have it anon, I want to see what leftypol's IDF babe looks like.

>>464691
my resolution is to get my computer shit sorted out so i can start drafting my notes into theory

>>464472
>Discover Magazine
Lel. Also, archive that shit.

Andrew Tate says his jail cell in Romania is dark and infested with cockroaches and lice

https://www.insider.com/andrew-tate-jail-cell-dark-lice-cockroaches-email-2023-1

>>464491
Can someone contact him and tell him Nick isn't being a good G? I still don't have War Room access, and I gave him all my money.

>>464491
based

Simply hilarious.

>>461546
If the pareto principle was true, it does not allow for any optimization, because it would be an emergent property of a system.
In other words if you were to eliminate the less impactful 80% of the agents, it would follow that 80% of the remaining agents would have 4% of the former impact and total impact would decrease by 80%.

meesa think pareetoo is pseudoo sciency stuff

Even women can't escape it…

>>461884
>meesa think pareetoo is pseudoo sciency stuff
That is true, but that doesn't stop the pseuds from pushing it.

>>464771
Are you one of the 20% of visitors responsible for 80% of posts here?

>>464730
>Can you give a concrete example of Trump actually promoting industrialization.
I am not him, but one thing does come to my mind: him re-starting production of the M1A2 Abrams MBT. It was probably just a bit a pork that he was throwing to one of his congressional allies, though, because the Army really didn't want or need more of the tanks. Other than that, his supporters would probably bring up his useless tarriffs.
>leninist lolimperialism
Manufacturing is not coming back to the United States in the capitalist epoch for a number of reasons, primarily that the tapestry that is global commodity production has already settled into more efficient circuits. Attempts to turn nodes that have already been organically arranged to maximise efficiency of a different kind of production would be an inefficiency in the flow of capital, which capital abhors. Such a rearrangement would produce no off-setting efficiency in return, so, even in the event that it were attempted, it would just settle back into current patteerns on its own without active effort, which, again, would amount to an inefficiency.

Now, it would be possible to drive down the value of the means of subsistence for factory workers in the United States, but doing so would utterly destroy the capitalist economy. It would require the elimination of the enormous (and increasingly insolvent) debt load that the American working class is under. It would require the elimination of land rent, the elimination of private insurance, the elimination of lower-level government bonds–it would require the elimination of the American financial industry, and without that, where would the now-massive investments needed to build capitalist heavy industry even come from?

No, the factories are gone, and they are not coming back so long as capital continues to flow.

>>464742
>Trump did a symbolic tank production
Yeah that's not really doing an industrialization.
Military stuff doesn't really feed back into the economy, it either gets shipped off to battle fields or it waits in an armory. There's no self amplifying industrial feedback loop, where the things produced in industry also improve industrial production in the next cycle.
It's really expensive and hence large in financial terms, but in material terms it is usually just small production runs, it's not like you could produce tens of millions of tanks.

>It would require the elimination of the enormous debt load that the working class is under.
You can do a debt jubilee for the working class no problem. It will only unravel the banking system if you clear out debt that capitalists made to buy capital or play with the stock-market. Workers usually only buy commodities, if you cancel their debt that's like writing off commodities that were produced but not sold, that's not a big deal. You can't do that with capital, the numbers in the banks have to match with physically existing capital, if there's a deviation it unhinges the system.
>It would require the elimination of land rent
i don't want to sound like a capitalist apologist but capitalism would probably work better without rent seeking capital.
>the elimination of private insurance
I don't even understand why that exists, couldn't all insurance just be done by a single public insurance pot ?
>lower-level government bonds
I know what government bonds are, but not what it means with the "lower-level" qualifier.
Even capitalist governments can just print money and spend it on building an industrial sector, as long as in the end it produces things that people can buy. Tho the government can't try to re-circulate that money it printed to build the industrial sector once it gets it back via commodity sales. It has to remove it from the balance sheets after it's done boot-strapping.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>464744
>Yeah that's not really doing an industrialization.
It's not. Trumptards will cite that sort of thing, none the less.
>You can do a debt jubilee for the working class no problem.
The entire economy is founded on individual debt, and, as I said earlier, that debt is already approaching insolvency. If you start writing that stuff off, it will signal that capital has expanded to its absolute limit and capital will stop flowing, especially now given that so little capital is in the form of liquid assets. The short burst of spending that a debt jubilee would generate would be quickly devoured by hikes in commodity prices. That is, I suppose, unless it were done in the overproduction phase of the industrial cycle, but we are a way off from that now. That might be something to look for during the next boom.
>It will only unravel the banking system if you clear out debt that capitalists made to buy capital or play with the stock-market.
How would that be avoided? The banking system holds nearly all personal debt.
>Workers usually only buy commodities, if you cancel their debt that's like writing off commodities that were produced but not sold, that's not a big deal.
Yeah, so maybe during the overproduction phase when there is an abundance of unsold commodities.
>i don't want to sound like a capitalist apologist but capitalism would probably work better without rent seeking capital.
It probably would at that, at least for a little while. Of course, public ownership of real estate would eliminate the biggest, nastiest, tightest set of bonds that the bourgeoisie has on the working class–the threat of poverty. Guaranteed home ownership would be a recipe for outright rebellion, as the workers really would have nothing to lose but their chains.
>I don't even understand why that exists, couldn't all insurance just be done by a single public insurance pot ?
You are missing the forest through the trees. American workers, like workers everywhere else are productive, but what they produce the most of is their own debt (arguably the money commodity). The more they work, the deeper they go into it. American workers are singularly proPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Yeah, banning vices never backfires.

>>464454
this will hurt black and brown folx

>>464468
What doesn't?

>>464468
Dats racist

Also you mean help them right?

>>464474
I was gonna say, if anything it will help them.

>>464338
Oh you want to have both an electrical system and a mechanical chain-drive, i thought you wanted maximum design simplicity, that's why i left out the chain-drive. You know that you can peddle a generator to power a wheel-motor, you'll have some conversion losses but since you are substituting with battery power anyway that doesn't really matter.

>That would be fine for cruising on bare, dry asphalt, but on uneven terrain (think packed ice with patches of snow) I wonder how responsive such a thing would be.
Yeah an electrical-only system is rather elastic in it's responses, if you want to suddenly launch into an explosive sprint to the finish line in a cycling competition, this is no good, but in difficult terrain, this could be advantageous because you'll have smooth continuous power-delivery that helps with traction.

>Would the throttle be on the handles the way that a motorcycle's is?
No there's no throttle in this, you have a switch with multiple positions that represent different parallel and serial motor coil configs that change speed for a given voltage of the motor. You'll choose a switch position that basically represents a given speed, and then your e-bike will accelerate (limited only by the internal resistance of the battery) until it reaches the set speed. You'll realistically have between 3 to 6 speeds. If you don't want to accelerate you turn it off. This is functional but you sacrifice fine speed control for maximum design simplicity. You also have to choose an appropriate battery that won't burn out the motor.

>I would hate to have to use one of those expensive lithium batteries. It just doesn't seem very Soviet. Something dirt cheap that you can recharge with a crank and some water–that's Soviet as hell.
You don't need that many batteries for an e-bicycle, so it's not as cost-prohibitive as with cars to use lithium cells, but yeah a less resource constraint battery chemistry that's also light-weight enough, that's still missing.

>That wouldn't work with an alternator.
Yeah that's the case for all metal-air batteries, but they do store huge amounts of energy and are super cheap. You can have 200km or 125miles range per battery (aluminum-air version) and could gPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>464352
>Oh you want to have both an electrical system and a mechanical chain-drive, i thought you wanted maximum design simplicity, that's why i left out the chain-drive.
Yeah, I was thinking of using the electric motor to assist the rider rather than providing all the driving power itself. I have seen those around, and they seem useful if a bit heavy.
>Yeah an electrical-only system is rather elastic in it's responses, if you want to suddenly launch into an explosive sprint to the finish line in a cycling competition, this is no good, but in difficult terrain, this could be advantageous because you'll have smooth continuous power-delivery that helps with traction.
An interesting thought. I would have thought that being able to feel the road would be helpful in that regard, but you may have a point. Now I want to test the theory.
>You'll realistically have between 3 to 6 speeds.
Why not use a dial to adjust the voltage and control speed that way? I'm no electrician, so I don't know.
>You don't need that many batteries for an e-bicycle, so it's not as cost-prohibitive as with cars to use lithium cells, but yeah a less resource constraint battery chemistry that's also light-weight enough, that's still missing.
How much power do you think it would need with the operator pedaling and only using the electric motor as an assist for, say, cruising and for accellerating up-hill? Oh, and would attaching the alternator to the rear wheel allow for the bike to be charged while coasting down-hill?
>If there was ubiquitous infrastructure that stocked spare cells, this could work and it would be super convenient because instant refill.
Decades after the introduction of the first Tesla, electric cars still lack sufficient infrastructure. I would prefer to have something that is a bit more self-reliant.

>>464234
fuck peds

>>464234
>I love scaring the shit out of pedestrians on mine.
you try that shit on me I gonna bitchslap your ass

based Amsterdam state
let the cops shoot e-bikers in the streets
weak ass bitches are too afraid to use the road with the big boys
nothing better than to scare lil bitch ass cyclists on my truck haha

>>464234
>>464443
>>464444
war-commuting sounds like wasting a lot of effort on a pointless pursuit.