/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Dumb. Fucking stupid.

>>469601
<What we needed:
cybernetic socialism

<What we got:
cybernetic spectacle

An AI would honestly likely have less class interests to defend than another wealthy human.

>>469684
Yeah that's true but this feels like they're just making a puppet and you're not supposed to notice the strings because you're marveling at the scifi aspect.

>>469684
yeah but what happens when it's trained on a dataset of $$$democratic world leaders$$$

I agree with whatever gigachad Norman Finkelstein thinks about BDS.

>>469627
Finkelstein says that BDS is a valid tactic but there currently is no movement that's doing it.

Finkelsteain also says that Israel is working behind the scenes to get all criticism of the Israeli state labeled as antisemitism, in order to counter any new movements. Which means we have to accuse the Zionists of being antisemitic, which they technically are because Palestinians are ethnic Semites.

>>469647
I though Finkelstein was kind of ambivalent about BDS because he thinks it's insufficient.

>>469652
>I though Finkelstein was kind of ambivalent about BDS because he thinks it's insufficient.
Yes he does, and that is correct. But pretty much everything that the Palestinians or western leftists could do would be insufficient.

Israel has nukes, even if the US and Europe went full communism, we'd still be in a situation where the Zionists would be able to extort a continuation of the imperial gibs for many decades (until the nukes go inert from reaching the end of their shelf life). Lest we be willing to roll the dice on interdicting nukes.

Russia already has kinetic impact weapons that can destroy nuclear missile bunkers and the US is also working on similar tech, but even using that to neutralize the "Samson option" (what the Israeli call their nuclear weapons) would still risk enormous contamination. This tech will likely make it possible to destroy the cold-war type ballistic nukes and jet-launched nukes that Israel has, in sufficient quantity it can prevent nuclear explosions but these kinetic weapons are comparable to mini asteroid-impacts, and will catapult matter into the stratosphere. I don't think that it's politically viable to blast that much plutonium dust into the atmosphere. Israel has 200-400 nukes. You'd have to make everybody sit indoors next to air-scrubbers or wear breathing-filter-gear when going outside for 6 to 18 months. And eating fish from the ocean will be inadvisable for 5 years. It's better than 200-400 mushroom clouds but still very far from a palatable option.

What Palestine needs is some kind of battle-hardened productive forces, that would allow them to rebuild while under the Zionist siege. If they can rebuild faster than Israel can inflict damage by "mowing the grass" (their slogan for their periodic mass-murder campaigns), it will become a futile exercise in brutality and the Zionists will have to give up. Think along the lines of guerilla war but instead of fighting it's doing construction.

Maybe China's got some more of that diplomacy magic that they used to pacify the Saudi-Yemen conflict, and it will also work on the Israel-Palestine conflict. They already offered, but i don't know if that's going anywhere.

I said when this started, you guys really need to stop pretending that this is business as usual. We are living through depopulation right now. I said that tens of millions would die, and based on what I have seen and the policies passed so far, that has come true. We're already in the middle of it, and any population figures we are given are full of so many lies.

>>469521
Go back

>>469548
Why?

>>469556
Wut? Can you speak in terms that doesn't require being terminally online.

>>453228
No I write

>>453519
warehouse jobs are alright. They are pretty boring, tho. Most of the day I would sit around doing jack shit until one of the retards that ordered the product we had came to the back to pick something up that we would have to fetch. They would radio it in. We were trained to drive a forklift. That shit was hard work, but, a lot of the time we were just twiddling our thumbs.

>>452169
>Don't say sales, That's just 0 pay gamble.
Any real sales job will at least have a minimum wage base salary. My last sales job was pretty cushy. Just boring as hell. We had like 6 stores in town and some locations you'd get 1-2 walk-ins on average so you're just sitting most of the time(actually we were supposed to be constantly pacing but I sat.)

>>452169
>What are some good paying manual labor jobs that don't require education? Are they alll dangerous?
UPS delivery is supposed to be good. But you usually have to work your way up from the warehouse because it's so in-demand. You could also drive for Amazon or Fed-Ex.

I hear DOT work is good but I don't know how to get into it.

>>453226
>I am creative director,started as a coypwriter
How'd you start as a copy-writer? I know I could write that bullshit.

bump

>>468107

Not in the long term, no.

>>469336
The only strategical win the neo-cons pulled off was separating the Germans and Russian economy, but those economic relations will get mended in the long term, after-all the Germans and the Russians managed to do that after being mortal enemies in WW2.

All the other effects this war had, like boosting the alternate trade and finance infrastructure that by-passes the US dominated systems, that's not going to be reversed, that's influence, power and access the US ruling class has lost for the foreseeable future.

The US used to be able to control Saudi-Arabia and tell them how much oil they had to produce, and they lost that as well. As US influence in the middle east wanes China was able to swoop in and undo the Yemen-war with great speed and ease. It's even somewhat plausible that China may end up playing a role in brokering a peace-deal in the Ukraine conflict. The US influence on global affairs has receded dramatically.

All of this will impact the US ruling class as well. Because more trade bypasses the US dominated finance, Wall street will become a less influential node in global finance, that will reduce their command on power and wealth, they will also loose leverage they could use to give US companies privilege access to economic resources.

In the medium to long turn this will benefit the US workers because when the US bourgeoisie can't extract super-profits as easily from the rest of the world, bargaining power of US labor will increase.

The neocons told Taiwan they were thinking about blowing up TSMC to prevent China from getting access, and the Taiwanese government responded that the Taiwanese military would defend TSMC against the US.

That's the dumbest Neocon scheme I've heard about so far. In that scenario China could offer to help Taiwan to defend TSMC. Unifying Taiwan with mainland China over a common enemy that wants to take away their micro chips.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=Acwvq9uQTlY

i think the closest analogy we get is 'religious' wars in europe (some lasted 100 years, and were series of conflicts)

and that was partly based on schizophrenia and even often schizo rulers and mass psychosis

if you read about that would sound like neocon, only that capital was less valuable / important and people worshipped money and banks less (if banks existed they mostly served their role)

but religion was literal bonkers

>>469482
and state was often ruled by religion as well; it was religion+money

>Ethiopia and Tigray Rebels Agree to End Civil War
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/world/africa/ethiopia-tigray-civil-war.html
Thoughts? It glowed like the sun weird they drop it like that

Sudan is getting fucked

>>469431

What's going on?

>>469459
if you want to know the backstory read this:
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/02/01/us-meddling-sudan-oil-republic-poverty/

>>469459
TLDR factions of the military government are infighting and the country is on the brink of civil war

>>469148
>You are yourself whether you want to be or not
State of being is idealism at its peak stfu hypocrite
>Politics informs our existence and we are acutely aware of when we have no political rights or status in society, but it does not define us. We have a life other than politics or "society" in this sense.
Sounds like some Hegelian bs. Polítics is a reflection of material reality.

>This would make more sense after reading my book, which I will get back to shortly.
Charlatan

>>469152
To say you are anything other than "you" is to engage in symbolic wordplay. We are instinctively aware of ourselves to a sufficient degree because that is a real connection we have with the world, of which we are a part. All the nerves, impulses, and so on could only be relevant if they were real and did not require a mediator to exist or be understood. We are aware of this existence and that, at the least, there is a thought process active to speak of any consciousness. To suggest this process is anything other than a real, material event - and in our case, a physical event and an event of living things in its origin - requires invoking a whole different model of reality, which would be contingent on the existence of some world to allow the idea of "us" to exist.

It is possible to say that you can be something other than "you" as defined by another, or some static concept of yourself, but you can't decide that you don't exist by thought alone, or that anyone changes simply because of symbolic language far removed from their actual existence. If you are making that claim, first of all that has no material basis whatsoever, which makes this whole screeching about me being "idealist" absurd. Strictly speaking, what I describe would be some sort of physicalism, but I find that to be a limiting understanding of the concept. All I said is that some thought process has to exist to speak of anything being conscious in the sense we appreciate it. If you are speaking of a wholly disembodied abstract mind, you are speaking of something very different from us who are by all accounts a series of events. Even if you suggested an idealist framework from on high, you would have to suggest a reason why our lives are consistently like this, and that is what God or religion typically does - provide answers that the adherent can accept or not, or understand through the faculties available to them. In our rational thought and symbolic language, we only have ideas, but we are aware that those ideas point to some world outside of us or any conceit we hold about it.

I don't know why this autism repeats, but the people who are this committed to the bit are not running a script. They actually do believe this - and I know because I know the mentality and how this is drilled into people, the fear of people who simply do not get it and have this triggered resPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>469155
>that TLDR
You are literally arguing at nothing. Most of what you’re arguing to isn’t my positions or anything similar. It’s like you conjured your own straw man and replied to it. My argument is
>there is no static concept of self, to try to prove so is literally just entering idealist arguments
>”self” is constantly changing in response to objective material conditions, not “experience” which is too subjective and susceptible to idealism
>memory should be the materialist conception of consciousness, it’s what results as a response to material conditions
>if one could, through either biological or cybernetic means, materialize memory so that one could perfectly remember in every way including how they felt and thought in that exact memory; humans would truly achieve full self actualización
>humans would have objective materialized memories that could be analyzed over and over again to understand who they are as a person
Essentially I’m going a step above your “physicalist” argument by actually transforming “experience”(a subjective idealist basis for consciousness) into hard material data

>>469222
You're not going "above" anything. Fetishizing data is an old conceit about consciousness - very old actually. It isn't saying anything except, essentially, there is no knowledge, but just matter in motion that can be anything you interpret it as. You do understand what "data" means in information theory and computer science, right? What "data" means in philosophy of science?

This is what makes things like Galton's statistical pseudoscience appear viable - i.e., you insist over and over that correlations you choose to collect are themselves the "truth", and then fit your theory of knowledge to this highly curated selection of data, intended to suggest a just-so story. It is very easy to disprove this theory of mind or knowledge, or at least to say what it would imply if its origins are followed through to their conclusion. It is an intentional pseudoscience, which obscures anything meaningful about statistical analysis.

Long story short:
Entropy as a concept is wildly abused when studying life, and this is intended for political purposes and to make claims about the world that are not substantiated by any actual meaning or data. The study of heat systems is useful for its purpose, but does not explain literally everything.

The point I'm making is that knowledge and consciousness are not Turing machines or mere information processing. As information processors, human brains are remarkably bad, but humans do a lot of things like pattern recognition that is inherent to life with central nervous systems and sufficiently large brains. If you knew anything about cognition or computer science you wouldn't say this stupid shit. This is the retard version taught to code monkeys so they can produce low grade programs without really knowing what they are doing.

Since this is the philosophy thread, I figured I would post a preview of what I've written. Not yet ready for general release and will get some final edits, but maybe this would clarify some arguments I've made.

http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/mymethod.html

This is the first part of a series, and fairly lengthy. It should be noted that the purpose of the book is not to reveal the one truth, but to explain roughly how an ontology of reality control works - and so I have no problem with mereological nihilism and many philosophical no-nos.

To make a summary short:

- Our basic expression of reason in language, and all of the ideas we communicate to describe the world, are at first symbolic. The sensory data we translate to a picture or what we see, hear, etc., is a symbolic representation of the world, and could only be that.

- All of this communication can only exist because we hold that meaning is possible through knowledge. Much of the book builds up to the point I have described here first.

- The main purpose of symbolic language and expression is not to simply say "A is A" or "2+2=4" for its own sake, but to refine meanings and understandings for our knowledge and a full picture of the world and ourselves. We communicate these ideas not just to say them or spread them, but because they mean something at a level that is not symbolic. We would have to accept that there is a world where meaning is relevant that is shared between all who are in dialogue, and that however we participate, we are not in disagreement about certain facts.

- Facts are themselves product of symbolic language that are proven by some authority, rather than facts simply being true by assertion. That is, formal logic is always demonstrated in institutions of some sort. We may consider ourselves persons with authority to judge facts, but in society, institutions decide facts, not people. If people individually decide facts, it is because this is institutionally accepted, and even the concept "person" is an institutional rendering of a human being. We of course need to do this - we must agree on facts to hold a dialogue, and so in such discussions, we hold to facts, and among those facts we would hold is that there is a world to describe that is outside of the institution. The main purpose of institutions is nPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>469345
I'm not sure i get it ?
Is that a reference to the Nazi "final solution" ?
Because Zionists in Israel have recently become even more unhinged.

Is this news anon? O:

>>469345

We got the joke.

>Betty McCollum has reintroduced her bill to prohibit Israel’s government from using American taxpayers’ dollars from being used to abuse Palestinian children.

So will that have a better chance at passing into law now that the Zionists in Israel are going mask off by trying to abolish judicial independence ?

>>469341
no, thats because of some schizo monkeys fuked other monkeys

Oh, the greyshirt shitsacks are raised back yet again, to save the class system in these global crisis times by any kind of opportunistic means necessary.
How unexpectable.

Socialist aesthetics, vague moral platitudes, and name-dropping historical materialism without understanding its true content(e.g reaction is a pointless endeavor, for one.)

You really hit all the fascist checkmarks, my friend.

>>469247
If that's the case, then I guess a bit more fascism is exactly what the left (and world) needs

First of all, you're basically for equality while also appearing arguing against it. Nobody thinks of 100% complete equality when they talk about equality, there is always some specificity implied by it like "legal equality" for the libs. And whats ironic is that the way you repudiate equality is pretty much a mainstream position at this point. Normoids and libshits are increasingly prefer to talk about "equity" instead of "equality". In their case its ideological manipulation but yours just seems like word autism to me. Its plainly obvious that freedom and equality can coincide, just imagine telling a slave that equality is the opposite of freedom. So juxtaposing the two like that is questionable, and if you think thats slave morality then I'm sorry to tell you this but you don't understand what Nietzsche was saying.
On the flipside this "red superman" thing is too vague and implies too much. Are you talking about nature or nurture? The communists had similar ideas (New Soviet Man) but it was not based in eugenics. If yours is then I'm dialing up Eugene.
Good point on the neofeudalism hypothesis but its not fully developed yet. My problem with it is mostly semantic since it tends to obscure the fact that we got here through capitalism (and thanks to neoliberalism no less). I don't think a serious Marxist critique would be so opposed to it.
I think what freaks people here out is mainly the populism + elitism formula. This is the mainstay of fascist politics, although we now know well that the fascists actually despised the masses and had no qualms routinely manipulating them. You seem genuine too, but again you're too vague and might give the wrong impression. Or maybe you just crafted this post to upset easily triggered leftists?
Totally agree with the last part, although its perhaps too broad. There are some examples of conflict or competition in everyday life that are counterproductive enough to desire elimination, although whether or not they actually can be is a different story.

>>469208
I'm not sure what to make off your concepts of rights, or where you are going with this.

From the materialist perspective, stuff has to do what it says on the label. So if you have a right that means that it's not possible to be violated. A right to privacy means that there are no organizations or structures that are capable of collecting data and compiling secret dossiers about people. Of course it's not completely absolute, there's still nosy neighbors but nothing happens on a systemic level. The information systems don't really have a technical necessity for collecting all that data about people, they work perfectly fine without that, it costs extra effort to put in all the data collection.

The mass-surveillance/data-mining is imho the result of class society. You have a tiny minority of a ruling class that's getting super rich by draining wealth from the masses. They are trying to keep tabs on the masses because that's who they perceive as their enemy. Because if the masses can emancipate them selves their game is up.

For the sake of security mass surveillance is antithetical.

Lets assume that there is a socialist society that works like cybernetic socialism with democratic economic planning. That society also has to do security. Lets look at the thread models. There could be legacy capitalists trying to overthrow the socialist system to restore their former power. There could be external capitalist countries looking to overthrow the socialist system for the sake of expansion. There could be new people with ruler-aspirations looking to establish them selves as a new ruling class. All what these threat models have in common is that a relatively small group will use sophisticated methods to attempt to undo the socialist system. All the threads are narrow and operate at great depth. Mass surveillance is very broad and shallow, it's not suitable for this stuff.

The masses aren't a threat for socialism because by establishing democratic control mechanisms to direct economic surplus, the information that is necessary to keep the system stable will be gathered through that. Quite simply if the system upholds the interests of the masses and it is receptive to popular will, it'll be perpetually rock-stable, bar some natural disaster.

Of course the security against the afore mentioned narrow threadsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>469214
Why are you assuming a state is somehow naturally limited in what it does or "ought" to do? Almost as soon as the United States Constitution is passed, the second president pushes acts through Congress that clearly censor the press when it says bad things about him, and entail illegal search and seizure up the wazoo. That's something that is not controversial knowledge.
The rights of the constitution outlined rights of the states and federal government, not the people in an individual sense. Collectively, the people were presumed to possess certain rights, but legal rights enumerated in the constititution were clearly about the states and what laws can and can't be passed.

The intent of the 14th amendment did not say "everyone gets unlimited freedom", but was written to ensure that states could not pass laws clearly intended to re-enslave black people, or maintain segregation which effectively restored slavery. The interpretation did not make people morally equivalent to each other, but entailed political rights like not being enslaved.

As for a right to "unlimited property", that has never been the intent of the constitution or any law. It's retarded me wantee thinking. The same is true of privacy. There was never a "right to privacy", let alone a right that was entirely dependent on the government refusing to use police powers available to it. What prevented this in the past was not a constitutional right or any legal principle that was inviolable. What prevented such centralization in a democratic society is that democratic society has every reason to distrust large institutions collecting information about them, and so there would be agitation to prevent this from forming in the first place. Once it forms, there is no law that would stop it, and no force of nature that will make the state stop doing this out of kindness.
Needless to say, virtually everything about the national security state is blatantly unconstitutional and does not even regard the law as relevant. If you understand the political thinking in vogue, the "permanent state of exception" was accepted and eroded republican concepts of the law or any interest of the governed. All of that would now be controlled by a clique of people who controlled all the ideas that were permissible and had an effective veto that was taboo to even acknowledge. That of course Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>469214
I say this because a concept of legal rights is very important - if you don't have that, you have no leg to stand on to maintain any democratic society except rule of fear. These words do not mean anything you think they mean though.

The only right to privacy you possess is that you can stay silent. The government cannot make your silence a crime, even when they insist they can. You would have to be brought to a court or some setting that can make you talk, and there are clear precedents against self-incrimination. It isn't just about not allowing courts to force someone to confess explicit guilt, but about using legal trickery to insinuate someone is guilty of a non-existent crime. Eugenics in principle is a brazen opposition to that, built entirely on baseless insinuations. Its fundamental theory and approach to reason is a gigantic baseless insinuation glorified to its maximal extent. Everything about it is one brazen lie after another. You couldn't construct something more suited to abolish the United States as an entity than eugenics, and that is a large reason why it adopted the stance that it did. It was, in effect, eliminating the United States' governing principles and any idea Americans had about what they thought their rights were, if any.

One more thing that came to mind:
Let's take the Soviet Union, which had a much different conception of rights and values. The Party can control everything, monopolizes the political system, and no one seriously believes they have a direct choice in which high-level politicians rule. That stuff is all decided by the men in smoke-filled rooms, and the people are generally cool with that and figure that's how it has to work. The PArty in principle does not care about the letter of the law in the way Americans are taught to be this litigious. The Party can rewrite the constitution at will, and the constitution isn't a part of the civic religion.

There was one freedom Soviet workers really, really liked though, and this was something ordinary workers said when communism ended: "What good is voting for the politicians if I cannot vote for my boss?" To some extent, Soviet workplaces were democratic, in that workers usually picked their managers at the base level, and the state and party had no problem with this. Directives came from the Party about what to do, and the Party was big on scientific management, but the managerial culture of the capitalist world, where management cannibalizes everything in sight and gloats about terrorizing workers, wouldn't be possible. This didn't prevent your "democratic workplace" from shitting on you or being filled with assholes on the take, but it is a difference that was noted right away.
When the managerial culture of Reaganite America was launched, you can see why people hate this sort of thing. That's when people started going postal, then shot up schools or any institution seen as alien to them - and this made sense to men with nothing to lose, who were openly thrown away and told they were worth less than dogs.
By having a principle that your workplace was intended to have some input from the workers, and was operated in the interest of the workers, you have a right that is in principle very important. It wasn't all that it was cracked up to be, but it makes a huge difference when you see today's managerial overreach and HR tyranny, where the workplace is nothing but a giant eugenics project and treated as such. No one produces a fucking thing in today's workplace, and this is intended. The idea that work entails making anything for the people is anathema to the ruling values of 21st century society. Anyone who worked for that is considered a simp, a retard, or worse a potential trouble source that wPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>469253
This by the way is the "stifling bureaucracy" we were told was choking the USSR. They didn't care about the bureaucracy - far from it, the bureaucracy remained large as it was selling off Russian assets after the USSR fell. The "bloat" was all that stuff that the workers watned, and this is in line with the neoliberal ethos of gutting anything that is actually productive. You should listen when Kissinger said he wanted the economy to scream. Neoliberalism is a death cult and you are idiots for being stupid simps and enabling any of it.