/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>469678
I saw that estimate somewhere. I should have said a single automobile model. The number includes distribution, marketing and the told time to build all copies of a single model. Seeing as how a popular model can sell into the millions it seems plausible.

>>469681
oh that makes more sense, thx for clearing that up

>>469676
The point I'm making is not about the essence of human thought or knowledge, but about how we mechanically approach a problem compared to how an algorithm is written to solve a problem. Becoming a good computer programmer and approaching problems with such a machine is not trivial, nor is it universal to solving problems. Humans do not think algorithmically when solving all of their problems - far from it, humans are constantly active and react to many events around them, and possess an ability to integrate all of that information quickly in models which made sense to us. It makes us very good at recognizing patterns and figuring out machines or situations, through a process that is highly alien to an algorithm which must break down any sense-data into logical propositions. The algorithm can be programmed to do this, but there are long-understood barriers to doing this with a naive approach. Algorithms for example do not handle infinite regress with naive approaches - they will enter an infinite loop if carelessly programmed. Humans avert that as part of their functioning, unless they are made to go mad - and this madness is usually the result of humans' own symbolic knowledge faculties being turned against them, rather than something that happened because their brains were just defective. Humans with severe brain damage manage to continue operating in some way without being "mad" in their own approach to the world. They will likely not have the ability or function they would like or we would expect of others, but they would in their own way proceed through life, and to them what they do is as reasonable as they could be and makes some sense. Very often, the "mad" are not disconnected from the world at all, and see the same things a normal human sees, doing many of the things a normal human would. But this gets into a long discourse about political insanity and what it would mean for sanity to exist in a genuine sense, becuse there is indeed a genuine disconnect with the world and material events which is different from how we are told to consider insanity. Clearly insane people are allowed to rise to prominent positions and their insanity is celebrated, while innocent people who did nothing wrong or little wrong are declared madmen because they hold the wrong political conceits.

The point here wasn't about the machines being "crazy", but tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>469694
To put it another way, the problem isn't that computers exist, but that the NSA exists, and the computer makes the NSA possible. You will never compete with the NSA's command of information individually or in any organization you would create, let alone the wider network the NSA is connected to with the state.

>>469695
And of course, you don't get to wish the NSA out of existence because you don't like it. Something like the NSA, CIA, etc. will exist for reasons that make a lot of sense. The world where this is forbidden is the fantasy. Intelligence and command of information would always be carried out in some way, and this is the way it is done and can be done in the time we live in.

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.

>>469521
Go back

>>469548
Why?

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

>What are the political implications of the end of the Republican party?
What end of the republican party?

Anyway, to answer your question:
None, as long as nobody believes that any human (or robot) has the right to tell another human how to live his life.

>>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

>>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.

We desperately need more serious, independent journalists. I think there's a serious problem we have, though, in that a lot of the few independent or small journalists we have will, I think, end up serving some bias to the point of being inaccurate. To this, I can really only offer that people doing this need to be principled. Objective truth is a goal in and of itself, and so is recording what exists.

>>469118
You are correct that we need more independent investigative journalists.

But you are wrong to attack the ones that we have, because there is nothing wrong with them. They do have their own biases, but that can't be helped, it's not a matter of principle or integrity. You need a lot of minds to create a reasonably unbiased view of reality, the world is complicated it requires a lot of work to gather all the data and analyze all the factors. The quality is good , we need more quantity.

On balance listening to independent journalists gives you a much more accurate view of reality, than if you listen to mainstream media.

learn a asian/african language and just copy paste the material there for the english speaker,

>>469119
Trv.
https://glycineputler.libsyn.com/caribbean-rhythms-with-bap-episode-135-homer-part-two

>>469122
I have listened to this, here is my conclusion.

<the not so good
- His really long rant about the spirit of people is super idealist and basically just says the problems of the world are caused by people having the wrong values, as if economic structures aren't the dominant force that shapes the lives of most people.
- He thinks that we need more authoritarian capitalists, which makes me think he needs a Maoist struggle session.
- he low-key shills for fracking and low-key attacks nuclear power
- he does overgeneralizations like all women are npcs that can't think, instead of judging each person on their own merit.
- Towards the end of the podcast where he talks about mythology, he attributes greek atomism solely to Democritus and snubs Epicurus.

<the good
This is entertaining
He makes interesting observations about AI.

He needs to read Marx and other materialists, (he clearly hasn't read marx because he thinks marx = cultural critique by reactionary liberal professors, while the actual marx was doing hardcore economic theory).

>>469084
The rulers do not want any form of socialism that would be a meaningful implementation. They make it clear they do not want the people to have anything, and have found a critical mass of people who will fight to the bitter end to ensure those selected to die will die. That is the governing principle they have chosen to regulate society and economic activity. They announce this loud and clear. That's the source of your problem - that a concerted interest absolutely refuses to allow those cast out to possess a single thing. We could very easily give to those who have not the means to live and participate in society, but it was decided that the alien underclass was to be destroyed. There is no going back - it has gone on for too long, and is far from complete. If you want to change that, it is a political struggle - and it would not be some revolution where people LARP as Jacobins or Soviets and recapitulate past memories, which weren't even what their narratives suggest they were. The Jacobin tyranny did not conform to this clean narrative of Whig History canned revolution, and not even the narratives that were at the forefront of the revolution suggested that line of historical progress. What would be required is something very different, that has never happened in human history and managed to win. It would entail a way of thinking that is alien to all hitherto known politics, or at least politics as it has been conducted in this vast imperial enterprise that has a very long history.

>>469088
>The rulers do not want any form of socialism that would be a meaningful implementation.
When slave-societies like the Roman empire were converted into feudal societies, the slave-masters did not want it, but the feudal lords did not leave them a choice. When the feudal societies were converted into capitalist societies the feudal lords did not want it, but the bourgeoisie did not leave them a choice. When socialism gets implemented it'll be like that as well. If humanity would ask the entrenched rulers for permission to advance it's social and economic organization we would never have gone beyond clan societies.

>people who will fight to the bitter end to ensure those selected to die will die.
I guess it's true that such a tendency always exists in class societies but it's a loosing strategy, because it's too inefficient to murder or degrade loads of people. And it's not like it's possible to change the composition of the population via mass-murder or selective breading-rights. You could say that humanity is genetically so redundant that it's utterly futile to attempt artificial negative selection.

>What would be required is something very different, that has never happened in human history and managed to win. It would entail a way of thinking that is alien to all hitherto known politics
That sounds interesting, but change doesn't begin with a new idea, it begins with new material conditions that give rise to new ideas.

>>469089
<Tfw a dim-witted teenager tries to have a serious, deep, and logical conversation with a schizophrenic
>change doesn't begin with a new idea, it begins with new material conditions that give rise to new ideas
So change begins with…. a change
The education system in burgerland is a joke

>>469090
This went over your head, the point was about grounding the origin of ideas in the material world. If you tell people to search for new ideas, you also have to direct them towards examination of material reality, other-wise too many people will try introspection. Nothing new can be found from looking inwards, and that has been the case for millennia.

>>469091
Fair enough. I couldn't actually bring myself to read the rant you were replying to

>>469054
>I'm kinda wonder about the privacy aspect.
You should, given that multiple WEF officials have stated that it's explicitly about controlling people.

you can't even buy crypto without ID today

so the whole idea is pointless since its no better or secure than credit card

there's monero and other alternatives but you immidietly labeled criminal even if you mention it. so nobody uses it anyway

most likely it isn't perfect either

while interesting current gen of these currenties and applications are 'hoaxy' so its pure speculation or something

i have read a very good article in some anarchist joournal about these currencies how they were created out of some schizo ideas of the 90s

bitcoin obv. wasn't even remotely first currency and it was just engeenered or whatever

actually very good article on history and concepts that makes it pretty clear lmao

Oh lol Dickblast is part of the club. Interesting angle he played.

>>469055
The WEF's "you'll own nothing" is like the total oppposite of socialism.

There is basically 3 types of property: personal, public and corporate property
In fully realized socialism there would be only personal property (like your stuff) and public property (like roads).

The WEF wants that corporate property replaces all personal and public property, and everything becomes a subscription to a rental service, and the only way to own your stuff is via "manual liberation".

I suspect that what Cockshott has in mind doesn't really involve anybody from the WEF tho, he sees Central Bank Digital Currency as a way for nation states to regain power over finances. Currently the Bahamas, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and 7 Eastern Caribbean Union countries, have a central bank digital currency. China is working on one but it's not yet rolled out. So I guess we should look at what effect it has in those countries.

I see a potential problem because CBDCs might be ab/used for blocking the finances on the basis of political disagreements, that would cause it to fail, because nobody trusts banking that could just be turned off. In order to prevent financial which-hunting they would require very rigorous privacy features.

>>469045
You’re just a charlatan who think they found a new political position because you picked something to be a contrarian about

>>469047
Personally I'd define neofuedalism in more simple terms
>An economic system in which an increasing and fundamental proportion of economic surplus is directed toward expanding the means of social control, in which the reproduction of social relations increasingly occurs directly, politically, and for its own sake, and in which profitization through rent, subscription, fees, and similar arrangements take precedent throughout much of the economy.
Don't listen to the mouthbreathing unoriginal dogmoids who have never accomplished anything politically significant in their lives. They are just latching onto something to give themselves with a sense of certainty and significance