/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Assuming a revolution occurred and America was ruled by a vanguard, how would the nation be redrawn? Would native Americans or African Americans get their own SSR? What about white Appalachians, Creole, or New England?

Is this why the ruling finance wing of the book hates/fears Trump so much?

>Donald Trump has proposed a 10 percent “universal baseline tariff,” recently telling Larry Kudlow, “I think we should have a ring around the collar, as they say.” Though relatively modest compared to historical tariffs, Trump’s proposal should be praised for reviving the great American tradition of Hamiltonian political economy. The first secretary of the Treasury’s vision for American dynamism, yoking private interests to the public good through domestic investment and economic protection, became “the American System” that, adopted by the Republican Party, transformed the 13 colonies into a transcontinental superpower.

>Today’s Republicans, for all their celebration of the Founding Fathers, have largely forgotten the economic program that did so much to advance US prosperity. On Dec. 5, 1791, Alexander Hamilton delivered his “Report on the Subject of Manufactures” to the House of Representatives. In it, he summarized, and shot down, free-trade precepts reminiscent of Adam Smith. Instead, Hamilton called for Americans to declare economic independence from Smith’s Britain, much as they had declared political independence a decade and a half earlier. The report was one more flashpoint in the Cabinet war between Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, who was then secretary of state.

>Jefferson wanted America to be a land of yeoman farmers, with a modest economy built on the export of agricultural products out of the excess of continental bounty. Hamilton believed that this would squander the new nation’s chance to assume a separate and equal station among the powers of the Earth, consigning the young republic to the pathetic role of resource pool and captive market for European manufactures. Better to use an energetic federal government to augment the productive powers of American labor with a diversity of manufactures and feed demand at home.

https://compactmag.com/article/trump-s-hamiltonian-moment

A new dictate that tries to institutionalize mass crimes against privacy and free speech was approved by the anti-democratic neo-con regime that is currently occupying the UK
You can read about the gory details here:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-uks-controversial-online-safety-act-is-now-law/
mildly interesting discussion about it happened here
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38048811

Lets look at the contradictions

On the political side the main proponent of waging war against privacy are the big bourgeois right wing (who call their political out-let "Tori" ). The contradiction is that they relentlessly lobby for assaults on privacy, while they them selves are notorious tax-dodgers, and eventually all that surveillance is going to get used against their tax-dodging.

The UK occupying ruling class is also trying to remove all the voices they don't like from the internet, they hope that will make it easier to commit international crimes like for example all the illegal wars the UK neocons have waged. The contradiction is that by removing all the critical voices they will completely detach from reality. It will cause a total mental divergence between the population and rulers, bricking political stability.

Spy agencies are also lobbying for crimes against privacy. The contradiction is that they are basically killing off their ability to recruit new spy-agents. All their "foreign adversaries" will obviously gain access to that privacy-violation-data the UK collects of their citizens/spy-recruitment-pool, and use it to statistically unmask potential spies. That is likely what already happened during the failed Hong-Kong color-revolution where China probably exfiltrated western domestic surveillance data to zero in on western spy-networks in Hong-Kong and shut them down. Obviously China has the same problem with surveillance eroding their potential pool of spy-agents, but they have a large population and they'll be the last man standing, and the last to run out of people that have both spy-talent and no surveillance-foot-print. The contradiction here is the imperial bourgeoisie is undermining their imperial spy-capabilities.

Going full retard with this kind of law-Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

So there was a story about the FBI having pulled a big sting operation where they posed as "secure smartphone vendor" to spy on a bunch of drug dealers. Somebody made a video about it in case you care about the details
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=P5yPBV2NKhc

What i realized is that many people seem to think the mafia operates in a manor that is invisible to the state. The obstacle the police protagonist has to overcome is discovering the mafia. When they do find them, the mafiosi get busted. And in this story this struggle was overcome via this one new honey-pot surveillance tool.

The mafia may indeed be mostly invisible to average people, but that has nothing to do with evading the state. The Mafia operates with bribes and blackmail, not stealth. A mafia operation will usually corrupt people in policing organizations like the FBI to interfere with investigations on their behalf. That can be police officers getting bribed/blackmail to make evidence disappear. One mafia org will some time rat out another, which reduces competition between mafias and quells suspicions about police corruption.

The reason why the smartphone surveillance trap was effective indicates that the mafia hasn't fully adapted to new realities, and they have yet to insert "fixers" into the FBI's IT divisions. It's not because better surveillance changed the game. The police was always able to find mafia orgs, mafia's are anything but subtle. Reminder that from the outside it's impossible to tell if this very successful operation facilitated a deeper goal of purging mafia competitors.

Lets not forget that the biggest drug trafficking mafias are spy agencies that use it to create untraceable funding for their secret spy stuff and it turns out sometimes the state is the mafia.

So the US recently has banned the exports of Nvidia's dedicated AI chips towards China, as part of an expanding US tech-blockade. The official rationale is that this will prevent China from having "advanced ai capabilities" or something. With the subtext being that the US is the arbiter of what kind of technology China is allowed to have.

In reality this cuts off Nvidia from the Chinese AI-chip market. With some delay Nvidia products will be replaced by domestically developed and produced Chinese Ai-chips. Effectively inverted-protectionism. Nvidia is currently overpoweringly dominant in the Ai-accelerator space. If normal capitalist market relations had continued, no Chinese competitor would have been able to establish it self as a serious contender against NVIDIA in this decade. The Sanctions will only prevent Nvidia from selling products in China it will not prevent the Chinese from doing industrial espionage.

China is a huge market 3-4 times larger than the US market. So this artificially created AI-chip vacuum will be filled by another Chinese tech-giant that will explosively grow in the next few years. We can compare this story with the Huawei tech giant (that makes networking infrastructure and cellphones). They could only grow through state subsidies, and it meant having to overcome market monopoly tendencies. This developmental-friction from the market-monopolization tendency has now been removed. The end result will be a Chinese AI-chip-giant becoming a global competitor that will to a significant extend eat Nvidia's lunch.

It used to be the case that in the imperial stage of capitalism, the imperial center would use it's power to impose monopoly exports onto the periphery at the behest of monopoly capitalists to crush potential competitors from the periphery. This tendency now seems to be inverting, and i don't understand why ?

I don't think this is caused by racial spooks of Chinese people lacking inventiveness, that's just a "un-creative ant-people yellow-peril" propaganda-narrative. Not all racists are dumb, there are quite a lot of intelligent ones that only believe their own lies to the extend that it benefits their interests. So what is motivating this ? They must know that what they are doing will slow down China's tech-sector in the present at the expense of tremendously speeding it up in the near future. That seems like a bad trade-off unless the short-term advantage in the here and now has a huge traPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Voosh may be a cringe dumbfuck himself (lets be fair: what leftoid isn't?), but he's right, you know.

I'm gonna steal that one - marxism-dumbfuckism has a nice ring to it lol.

Hey leftychoods

Let's play a game. I list a topic, you write a very short explanation of your line on that issue.

>Milgram's Obedience Experiment

>Green New Deal

>Bukarin's Confession

>Porn

>Crocs

>People waiting in line for the new iPhone
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Was the internet good or bad for radical leftists and pro-revolutionarys? Before the internet you were say either in or out of the local groups, you disagreed with a few things, and you're kicked out, burn the heretic. This either led to people making their own group, conforming, or just abandoning theory all together, to become one of those people who called it just a "phase" now they happily vote liberal. The internet allowed these disgruntled and say vagabond, despised people to spread their books and pamphlets, now everybody interested could read what they had to say and those not possessed by the local mantra could become a follower. Everything said on here, the internet is nothing, it has no value whatsoever, irl groups had more power of course around town, but they're still as powerless as groups on the internet are.

So in Brussels (the capital-city of Belgium and the seat of many EU institutions) someone gunned down 2 people and injured a third. It was declared a terror attack, all the people had to go home and all the leisure activities got canceled. Many Politicians had to give speeches and so on.

If the media had more or less ignored this event, the damage would have been 2 dead, 1 injured and a few traumatized witnesses. However that shit got broadcasted everywhere and as a result probably millions of people got terrorized, subjected to fear. They ceased all their activities without a rational reason. Civilization ground to a halt by a small force that should'n've been able to do that.

Terrorism of this style only works because it can spread fear through the media. If the media did not do this, terrorism as a tactic would cease working.

Why is the media sending danger-warnings to people that aren't in any danger ?
Why are officials signalling "be afraid" to people who from a rational point of view don't have any reason to be?
Why isn't this treated like any other violent crime case, something the news mentions as part of a list of local happenings in between the messages about road-congestion and the weather-predictions ?
Why can one gunman interrupt a city of over 2 million people, when it should interrupt at most a city-block of a few hundred to a thousand?

Why isn't the major reaction to this an expression of defiant stoic indifference (even if it's not entirely genuinely felt) where everybody carries on as if nothing had happened. Terror attacks would cease if they can't elicit a reaction of fear and terror.

What would it take to change this ?