[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Tor Only

Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

| Catalog | Home

File: 1627803355498.jpeg ( 39.94 KB , 414x575 , kleroterion-reconstructed.jpeg )

 No.414616[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Democracy: Governance by lot with citizen participation in major decision-making
"Representative democracy": an Orwellian word inversion used basically to describe the Roman oligarchic system of governance with fake appeals to populism peddled by Jefferson, Madison, and especially Andrew Jackson

Were leftists of the late 19th and early 20th century aware that this word inversion had taken place? Did any of them have an inkling that elections were a naturally oligarchic institution? I am curious about the effect this historical revision of the democratic mode of governance had on socialist strategies, tactics, and institutions. I know Marx had an education in the Greek classics, so at least he was aware… Right?
135 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>And once the wolf cub gets a taste of blood, it's anyone's guess what happens next.
Lol. If it's anything like Athens, then there will be blood. Because that democracy had one peculiar feature, at least when it came to crimes against the state (isangelia) - accuser didn't risk anything, while the accused risked everything (capital punishment).

Many politicians were killed by this method, especially strategoi. At some periods in Athenian history it was basically a suicide mission to be elected as a strategos. Multiple times in Athenian history there were mass executions of strategoi.
Orators didn't fare much better either, as they too were subject to isangelia, and some were killed for "deceiving the demos" when their agitation led to bad results. Orators also had to deal with "graphe paranomon", a suit against proposals in the assembly that are "contrary to the law", where the accuser again didn't risk anything. Funny enough orators enthusiastically used this procedure against each other.

The general rule of Athenian politics was "the demos can never be wrong, and when it is wrong, it is because it was deceived by bad politicians".


File: 1677900035908.png ( 660.18 KB , 134x170 , jizzed in my pants.png )

>capital punishment for heads of state that fuck up
Based beyond belief. Shoulder the responsibility, bear the risk.


It's not just about fucking up.
Demos in general didn't like people who were too eager or successful in their political careers. Especially after the oligarchic coup failed and the middle classes got decimated in the Peloponnesian war. Politically ambitious people were viewed as potential tyrants.
Out of all the famous Athenian politicians all ended up either sentenced to death or exiled. The smartest, like Pericles, when they sensed the mood, just laid low out of the public eye. Even Demosthenes was cursing the Demos, while running from a death sentence for his involvement in the Harpal's case.

And that's not even talking about Socrates, who was killed for ideological reasons and was made an example of to others like Plato.
Aristotle also ended up running from a death sentence.


>And that's not even talking about Socrates, who was killed for ideological reasons and was made an example of to others like Plato.
Tho to be fair, the Demos didn't intend to kill him per se. Just wanted to humiliate him, to see him beg for his life like all the others, to make him submit publicly.
But the old sophist chose death.


>Even Cleisthenes was ostracized.
Correction: this may have actually been a rumor started by a Roman Greekaboo in the 2nd century AD, about 700 years later. There doesn't seem to exist any other source supporting this and there's no evidence from excavated ostraca that Cleisthenes was ever ostracized either.

File: 1679384771389.jpeg ( 32.38 KB , 474x572 , ant.jpeg )


Serious question. I've read recently that the dynamics of the ant population, ie how many different types of ants should be produced, is actually determined by worker ants in a colony.
This implies that the queen is actually a mean of reproduction controlled by the worker ants, through feeding patterns, pheromones or whatever other mechanisms. Is there a detailed research on this?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1679520096032.pdf ( 7.68 MB , 212x300 , HOW THE WORLD WORKS.pdf )

>How the World Works
>maybe someone has the pdf
here you go


Is this book really much different than anything written by Dave Harvey or Wolff? Just read a summary and it sounds exactly the same as any other circa 2000 Leftoid Marxoid book you'd find at the Goodwill.


I doubt that you can draw conclusions based on comparing book summaries.
I would say that :
Cockshott is the king of brevity, he writes extremely to the point, and manages to pack in a lot more knowledge in a lot fewer pages. On the philosophical scale I would consider Cockshott to be a harder materialist than Harvey or Wolff.

I can't really give you a comparative literature analysis because for that you really have to purposefully read authors side by side and note the points of difference and agreement.

If your intention is to socially discredit Cockshott's book without actually engaging with the contents, then kindly fuck off, i think this is a worthwhile read.


No, I'm actually fairly interested in reading it since it gets shilled so hard here. But I'd have to pay to get it imported where I live. Someone should post screenshots of the best passages, since the chance of me reading a book on my phone is practically 0.


the only cockshott book worth buying is "towards a new socialism", and it would depend on the price. cockshott gets shilled because he has a computer science / programming background and some crazy ideas, people read him for the entertainment or intellectual value, rather than practical insight. I like his books, but they are like sci-fi novels

if you want a serious materialist analysis of your surroundings, find marxist authors specialized in your region

File: 1670863443402.png ( 630.77 KB , 834x485 , Joe Biden's House.png )



Download NOW!!! Nuclear war is threating us because these officials refuse to engage in diplomacy with Russia anymore. It is your country, it is your cities, do you want to be blasted to oblivion because of these wicked men and women? NOW is the time to do something about it before it is forever too late!!!

8 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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


Said the "gas the Jews" crowd.


What are you talking about


Is there no report button on this board?


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

File: 1653622185958.png ( 2.72 MB , 2048x1955 , Screenshot_20190206-141025.png )


Are there good arguments for why communists should or should not become entrepeneurs, landlords or investors?
What should the few bourgoisie who find themselves sympathetic to communism be directing their efforts towards?
20 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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


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

File: 1678408906383.png ( 31.77 KB , 300x250 , h9LEsbjnAB-2.png )


Your lord and master has been reinstated on Twitter.

Bow and scrape, plebs.

I suppose this is also a good place to make a "Eugene general" to discuss your Lord and Master's received wisdom and awe in His magnificance. You are in the light of the new knowledge of the 21st century.

So you can check out my website and comment on my writings:


Since you all like talking about transhumanists all the time, I wrote an article about that on the website, and also a podcast on the incel thing which I linked before. As you can expect, sexual politics has always been a proxy for eugenics, and when push comes to shove it always comes out in these arguments.




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:

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.

File: 1678553418031.jpg ( 76.38 KB , 1024x768 , economic-systems4-l.jpg )


<centrally planned capitalism

Is this the solution to the problems that historical socialism faced. If so, to what end should capitalism be planned? How (or by whom) should this be decided and upon what administrative, legislative, or judicial basis?
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Those sneaky eugenicists outlived Stalin. Impressive


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.


<Does this make sense to anybody?


>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.


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

File: 1678503043400.jpg ( 615.41 KB , 1260x504 , SpectrumStrikeLocal3.jpg )


We are well aware that trade unionism is in dire straits right now. The trade unions have all just gotten a terrifying kick to the teeth with the events of last December, and even the supposedly "strong" UFT has people admitting that they feel like its power is gone. How do we assist in the creation of new unions to replace the old corporate ones?


File: 1678028984956.jpg ( 91.32 KB , 563x565 , malev2.jpg )


>Super crazy idea
Instead of sperging out abt history and philosophy (dats dialectical materialist n sheeit, muh eugenics), why not just focus on appealing to actually existing people to unite against the actually existing ruling class? This might be a better foci for any proper left.
55 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




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.


>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.


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.


Tfw autism shares its coke with schizophrenia


It's that time again comrades. A new Global Capitalism Update has dropped



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

File: 1678107901600.jpg ( 22.13 KB , 384x384 , aucDes-4.jpg )


>Chimp in state of nature never jerks off, but in captivity he does, wat does this mean? In state of nature he’s too busy, to put plainly. He is concerned with mastering space: solving problem of life in and under trees, mastering what tools he can, mastering social relations in the jockeying for power and status. Deprived of this drive to development and self-increase he devolves to pointless masturbation, in captivity, where he senses he is in owned space and therefore the futility of all his efforts and all his actions. The onanism of modern society is connected with its supposed “hyper-sexualization” and its infertility. It’s not really hyper-sexualization, but the devolution of the spirit to the lassitude of a diffuse and weak sexuality.

>Among your instincts you will find the longing for strong friendships, that the modern evil tries to snuff out. And they have good reason to try this, because every great thing in the past was done through strong friendships between two men, or brotherhoods of men, and this includes all great political things, all acts of political freedom and power. The modern zoo wants you instead to be a weak and isolated "individual".

He's kinda right


>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

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home