[ 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."
Password (For file deletion.)


IRC Chat




| Catalog | Home

File: 1694200388963.jpg ( 279.14 KB , 1080x1441 , Screenshot_2023-09-09-01-5….jpg )


>How large is the ruling class, in a broad sense.

I'm guessing 10-20 thousand globally wield significant power and wealth.

Alternatively, about a billion people fill some sort of broadly defined state role (bureaucracy, courts, police, legislation - on through media, education, public service).

Aside from that, likely another billion or more perform some other sort of techno-managerial-social engineering (marketing) role within the context of capital accumulation.
Of course, there are several billion people worldwide engaged in either service, physical, industrial transit, or maintenance labor. There are also, of course lumpen and subsistence classes too.

Some other numbers:

The Forbes richest 500 list bottoms out around 5 billion usd in net worth. There's over 3000 billionaires and 56 million millionaires.

<Thoughts and political implications?
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>I'm asking what is the quantity of people with extraordinary power
Not sure what you are looking for then. Please define "extraordinary power"


File: 1694234332494.pdf ( 5.42 MB , 232x300 , Peter Phillips - Giants_ T….pdf )

According to the book Giants: The Global Power Elite, as of 2018 there were 36 million millionaires worldwide and the richest sector of the bourgeois was about 5.000 to 10.000 people, of which 2000 were billionaires. The top 0.0001% of the population.

I guess the numbers might be a little outdated now, but the book is worth checking out.


Are you dumb?


Power could be defined a few ways:

The ability to influence behavior and actions of others or to consciously shape the course of events.

Or, more soberly, the ability to allocate scarce resources.

Synonyms of extraordinary include remarkable, noteworthy, exceptional, etc.

So back to the question. What is the approximate quantity of actually living people in the world today with a remarkable and grand ability to direct others' actions, behaviors, and lived habits, shape the course of events, and/or allocate scarce resources?


>The ability to influence behavior and actions of others or to consciously shape the course of events.
I somehow doubt that anybody can truly shape events, i think it's all just degrees of influence.

>the ability to allocate scarce resources.

I guess within regular functioning of capitalism that would be the people with the most money ?
Tho true power is the ability to transform scarcity into abundance.

>What is the approximate quantity of actually living people in the world today with a remarkable and grand ability to direct others' actions, behaviors, and lived habits, shape the course of events, and/or allocate scarce resources?

<how many puppeteers are pulling the strings of humanity ?
Marx thought that in class societies agency over fate was not possible. In Marx's view the degree of freedom for individual people is that they can choose which class interests they serve, but probably nobody can direct the system.

File: 1694154607303.jpg ( 159.4 KB , 900x642 , GettyImages-51534332.jpg )


Remember when the left was anti bourgeois globalism, big pharma, and sending billions of dollars in military aid to corruptanti-Russian Third World regimes.

Now it's all faggots explaining to you why they have the human right to teach children about gender identity in whatever bathroom they want.

>Pic related is massive wto protest in Seattle, 99



File: 1694197950351.png ( 878 B , 125x125 , sage.png )

>it's another "the left"-is-liberal-identity-politics thread

File: 1694144892997.jpg ( 356.21 KB , 1280x957 , MOVGE7697__67217.jpg )


In terms of the landscape of knowledge, information, and ideology, is pic related, along with kayfabe, a more apt metaphor than the matrix.


In the Truman-show the environment is fake, but it physically exists, while in the Matrix the environment sort off doesn't exist.

Maybe it'S a mix of both.


Both feature a sort of curated reality which, if one accepts, they feel inclined to defend.

File: 1694112269521.png ( 115.41 KB , 763x610 , Indiastreetart.png )


India renamed it self, a bit like Turkey recently was renamed into Türkiye. However unlike Türkiye which makes a nice sound, Bharat sounds harsh like somebody burping during speech. They're undoing the colonial naming legacy and have been renaming their cities for some time, but they could have picked a nicer name for their country. Oh well.

I wonder if BRICS for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South-Africa , now has to be spelled BRBCS. 'Brubkess' def. is a downgrade from 'Bricks' too.


The full regional name, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya," sounds a lot prettier. Ending it on "rat" sounds terrible in English… but it's not an English word anyway, so what do I know?


>The full regional name, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya," sounds a lot prettier.
Any idea where i could listen to somebody saying that aloud.

File: 1694063111622-0.png ( 56.45 KB , 192x185 , 1693808857495.png )

File: 1694063111622-1.png ( 57.44 KB , 512x464 , 1693349478738.png )


>"muh grandma is a victim x that mean my narrative of x is true and i know anything. if you disagree then you deny my grandpa die ?!?!?!. and you deny anything happend at all!!!!!".

people who have said to be from X country or have X country done something to them is still influence by lie & manipulation & deception. infact if its about some country that clash with the biggoybad mentality of the world it will always be influence.

fuck all victim story user. they all should be hanged in the middle of town. we should have a culture of shaming when it comes to them. they should all be publicly humiliated.

>what about le holocos vectem!!

i do not give a damn just because they/they're people are a victim of ethnic cleansing but with flamboyant brutality. fuck them too. the only reason they are tolerated is because they can be use to fight anti-communist and anti stalin/ussr propaganda. other than that they are fully responsible & is the main pillar of the victim-story and atrocity-story and the culture that cradle them.

once the revolution happen all victim story user and their group should be round up and killed. no matter if it's victim of the communist or the nazi or even a victim of non-people like natural disaster or virus or etc.

it is ridiculous the amount of protection & pampering & how we give them power at all.

File: 1693578419130.jpg ( 43.51 KB , 680x472 , infrared-haz-is-unironical….jpg )


No wander leftypol spazzes out at the mention of him


>On the face of it, it seems completely contradictory to call leftism right-wing. The midwits responding to this will definitely try and remind you of that.

>But at some point in the course of Western history, people forgot about the actual historical tradition of left-wing politics entirely, confusing it for a newer ideology: Leftism.

>The key distinction lies in the 'ism' part of Leftism. In contrast to left-wing politics, leftism is itself an ideology rather than a political position. Jacobinism, Sandinismo, Mao Zedong Thought, etc. for example, can be called ideologies, which are left-wing in political content.

>Leftism, by contrast, is only left-wing in form. In content, it is actually right-wing. And this can be proven easily.

>Instead of referring to any actual concrete left-wing politics, leftism should be understood as a comprehension of the historical left taken in a purely abstract way - a meta-narrative of left-wing politics, if you will.

>This is what makes it outside the actual left-wing: In order to turn left-wing politics into a total IDEAL, you need a necessary conceptual distance from it which is only possible if you are, in fact, a right-winger.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
10 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>political snobbishness
No retard calling yourself a leftist is literally going against Marx’s reason for distinguish himself from other socialists and literally the main theme of Lenin’s work especially in regards to the party and vanguard. Look if you wanna feel cool and edgy by having a “leftist” political identity go be a dem Soc or anarchist


>Blacks and Fags not STFU about racism and homophobia are why conservatives vote Trump.
There I saved you 30 mins


File: 1693948245303.jpg ( Spoiler Image, 74.8 KB , 571x496 , 1693869309031796.jpg )

>They (the left) were taking all of the right's slander, mis-characterization, and demonization of the international left at face value and started identifying with it openly.
Holy shit no, the left did not turn into the histrionic strawman the right painted them as. This is something some old neoliberal fossil on Prager U would say


>Liberals have entered the chat


File: 1693997404222.jpg ( 625.63 KB , 1080x1336 , Screenshot_2023-09-06-17-4….jpg )

Ya, it was all PragerU who spun this idea out of nothing.

File: 1693901624104.png ( 791.4 KB , 488x788 , ClipboardImage.png )


I keep running into a particularly insidious type of revisionism. The "Think of the Children!" revisionism. It is stated repeatedly by disguised fascists, royalists, and liberals larping as communists on our board and misusing the concept of empathy that ruling class children can be reeducated, and, failing that, sent to a labor camp. Let me be perfectly clear. The brats of the petit bourgeoisie, of the bourgeoisie, and of the aristocracy cannot be "rehabilitated" or "reeducated" under any circumstances. They must all be liquidated alongside their inbred pedophile worker-hating parents. It is not the duty of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to waste precious and limited resources attempting to coddle and reeducate children who in 99.9…% of circumstances will grow up to be precisely like their parents, to secretly harbor counter-revolutionary opinions, and collaborate amongst themselves to foment bourgeois counter-revolution. I don't care if they're in diapers. You put a bullet in their fucking head. Morality is not real. It is a theistic bourgeois construct regarding property relations. It does not matter if this is "good" or "bad." You put the bullet in the bourgeois baby's brain or he will grow up to kill you and everyone you love and destroy everything you fought for. Do you understand? If not, you are a liberal, a fascist, a royalist, and you ought to be hung by your genitals from the nearest lamp post. You are not a comrade, you are a coward, and vermin, to be exterminated alongside the ruling class, their children, their pets, and their lickspittle servants. This isn't a question of "nurture vs nature" either. This is a question of risk mitigation and victory maximization. I am not "weird" or a "freak" or "hate children" for understanding this. Take heed this quote from Mark Twain (Who, despite being a feckless bourgeois 19th century liberal, was perfectly capable of understanding the need for Revolutionary Terror):

>“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


That seems like it's a long way from even being a decision we have to make. Like shit's probably gonna hit the fan in 2024, but I dunno if workers are even in a position to take advantage of it - things are probably about to get much worse.


The bolsheviks gunned down the children of Tsar Nik2 because there was a risk they could have gone into exile and become the beginning of a royalist counter revolution which would have been put down with yet more bloodshed. The bolsheviks can't really be blamed for the logic of feudal political power. Designing the feudal political form so that the only way to end it was for everybody in the thrown-succession to be dead, was always going to be a death-sentence for the last generation of royals. Everything ends, it's better to design political systems with a graceful failure-mode. Monarchs who didn't cede political power to democratic institutions are to blame for the slaughter that their structure created. The bolsheviks would have chosen to unelect the monarchical order if that was a possibility. The bourgeoisie in France did the same thing as the bolsheviks when they abolished obstinate feudalism. In some places feudal rulers dismantled their power willingly and transitioned into democracy and avoided becoming a bloodstain in the footnotes of history.

All that said the people who complain about this don't care about children at all, because they never morn any of the millions of peasant born children that died because of Tsarist rule. The correct thing to do is turn "Think of the Children!" back on them, child mortality plummeted under Soviet rule. That means these people are demanding the sacrifice of all those peasant children to safe the children of the Tsar.

The rest of your post isn't very logical. Political convictions and bourgeois sentiment isn't hereditary. All the past methods of dealing with counter revolutions was predicated on a false premise. The false premise that counter revolutions could be prevented. The correct analysis is that counter revolutions will happen and the task of the revolution is to make it fail. So we're going to organize the counter revolution our self and we'll choreograph it to make it fail. We don't have to invent something new, we can appropriate the kabuki theater they invented. If you have to deal with royalists, you build a fake castle with a fake thrown and a feudalism larp. If you have to deal with counter revolutionary neo-liberals you make a fake stock-exchange with line go up as larp and so on.

There are 2 factors why political and economic systems get overthrown. The first Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>The bolsheviks would have chosen to unelect the monarchical order if that was a possibility.
I rather doubt it has ever been that simple. Revolutions don't happen when the people being ruled over are content. They happen when their rulers have done something to piss them off enough to overthrow their system, and at that point their rulers can either expect to be killed themselves in vengeance or cling to power as hard as they can to protect their lives. Non-violent revolutions with non-violent transitions of power are rare precisely because violence-breeding destitution and repression is usually a prerequisite for a revolution to occur in the first place.


>Revolutions don't happen when the people being ruled over are content. They happen when their rulers have done something to piss them off enough to overthrow their system
The masses make revolution when they think it will make their lives better, collective revenge probably isn't a thing. Masses of people don't get organized just for payback, all that effort that goes into pulling off a revolution, that's motivated by gain. Revenge killings during revolutions do happen of course but they are acts of individuals, and they're usually frowned upon because the after-revolution politics has to recover from the disruption of normality and order.

>at that point their rulers can either expect to be killed themselves in vengeance or cling to power as hard as they can to protect their lives.

Not really, the rulers that give up tend to live while those that cling to power usually don't. Clinging to power means using brutal methods and making them selves into monsters. In the end that's what gets them wrecked. And this isn't because of vengeance. It's people having gone through rough times, thinking about all those good people that didn't make it. And then not being able to answer why these horrible monsters should be allowed to survive when the good people didn't. I have read a lot of testimony from the post ww2 period, people complaining about the wrong people surviving is a prominent theme. That sentiment ended a fuck-ton of Nazi collaborators in the last stages of the war.

The N°1 reason why terrible rulers get killed off is because they clung to power too much. Even the most horrible politicians almost never get killed because their hold on power is limited. And getting rid of them usually isn't terribly hard. So if the effort of getting rid of terrible rulers was low enough it's not worth killing them, but if it took a tremendous amount of struggle, people feel that they want to make sure that it's "permanent". Democracies have so little political violence because political power tends to be more ephemeral.

By the way the bolsheviks initially didn't intent to kill the Tsars. After being deposed they were put under house arrest for a long time. The firing squat order was given because there was a risk that they might get released from captivity by opposing comPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1693873250120.png ( 63.59 KB , 468x467 , key-digital.png )


Here is an article about Bill Gates sounding like a comic-book villain
TLDR: he complains that not enough people have digital IDs and he shills his product to IDtag more people.

At best this sounds like a conspiracy to commit massive crimes against privacy, but also a megalomaniac billionaire trying to control people. By the way the first group to use computers to catalog people were the Nazis, they bought IBM punch-card computers for the holocaust logistics. Not sure if that's a structural problem. Maybe there is a bad tendency to put people on lists and that should not be amplified with technology or something.

Anyway once they try turning IDs into digital control-collars, people will grow to absolutely despise ID systems. And that means IDs will become a ideological liability. So i'm thinking we should consider making cyber-socialism work without IDs.

We could treat cyber-socialism like a computer system for civilization that people can access via anonymous accounts tied to cryptographic-key-gadgets that lack any identification data. Such a key would give people access to government services and the economy. People would obviously be able to get multiple keys. That can work to our advantage, if people spread their important life stuff over a dozen keys there would be a lot more redundancy and the equivalent of ID-loss, ID-theft and Fake-ID would be less dramatic. There would also be less incentive to steal/fake those keys.

Anybody have objections to this scheme ?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I can see where people are coming from with this argument, but, it never really made sense to me. All the class dichotomies still exist just as they did in the industrial revolution. Not a lot really has changed.

Those who have nothing to sell but their labor power: Working class

Those who live off the labor of others: Bourgeoisie.

there's nuances, but, everyone on earth falls into these two classes of people.


I agree with you that capitalist class relations are still in effect.

But your definitions are kinda sloppy.
First there still are roughly .5 billion people living off subsistence farming, they neither are bourg, nor are they selling their labor-power.

Second "Those who live off the labor of others" is also true for children, old people, workers in the reserve army of labor, sick people and the hobo going to the soup-kitchen. None of these people are bourgeois. Maybe it would be better to define the bourgeoisie by private surplus appropriation ?


Even if some one is not selling their labor they still only have their labor to sell. rural peasants still meet this definition.


Also no because all those people don't live off capital. Maybe I was not clear enough.


Nope that isn't a robust definition either, some pension-funds are based on capital investment, and technically that means retired workers would be living off capital. Some workers are payed in stock-options, it's not very common but in theory they could potentially replace wages with some sophisticated form of stock options. There are orphanages that are funded by passive capital income and technically that would mean those parrentless children would count as bourgeoisie.

<private surplus appropriation

still seems like a more robust definition.

It seems like you are trying to avoid using the Marxist concept of surplus
Can you explain why ?

File: 1693845820477.png ( 436.06 KB , 630x397 , ClipboardImage.png )


<Style in work.

>I am not referring to literary style. What I have in mind is style in work, that specific and peculiar feature in the practice of Marxism-Leninism which creates the special type of Communist worker. Marxism-Leninism is a school of theory and practice which trains a special type of Party and state worker, creates a special Communist style in work.

>What are the characteristic features of this style? What are its peculiarities?

>It has two specific features :

>a) Chinese revolutionary sweep and

>b) American efficiency.

>The style of Marxism-Leninism consists in combining these two specific features in Party and state work.

>Chinese revolutionary sweep is an antidote to inertia, routine, conservationism, mental stagnation and slavish submission to ancient traditions. Chinese revolutionary sweep is the life-giving force which stimulates thought, impels things forward, breaks the past and opens up perspectives. Without it no progress is possible.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


There are "leftists" who will say tank man was the bad guy.


>b) American efficiency.
kek, amerikkkans are fat, lazy and dumb though


Deng probably was correct about a lot of things, but he shouldn't have undone the iron-bole policy. And arguably he overshot with the market liberalizations, China almost entered a crisis cycle and almost created a big bourgeoisie that got pretty close at destabilizing the Chinese economy.

File: 1693443609749.jpeg ( 9.85 KB , 168x300 , images (2).jpeg )


When will dorky millenial online activists and state sanctioned leftist influencers (i.e., teachers with twink tok accounts) realize they are making the right seem cool?

Think about it: a lot of hate that vegans receive isn't because people are overly hostile to eating vegetables. It's because vegans themselves brand themselves in a negative light: emotional, effeminate, weak, etc. Additionally, many younger people will naturally rebel against the professed values of the generation ahead of them. When will those who vehemently consider themselves part of the left realize they're actually helping to boost those they claim to oppose?

For context: pic related openly admits to being a cuck and gets offended if you don't praise him for it
40 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Did you even read anything I said?
I pointed out to you the current narrative that exists in evolutionary biology and human evolution and how we go to where we are.Again hunting takes a massive amout of resources and this will never change even with your meatard ideology trying to justify you behavior in 2023. This is like when people say "yeah well 1% of scientists say global warming isn't real!" when 99% of scientists agree global warming is real. 1% Of cherry picked scientists you specifically hunted down for your apriori existing conclusions about human diet during tribal times doesn't change reality.

big cats and dogs some times eating grass is not "omnivorous" behavior. Please study how scientists create these categories and how they are defined.

And again as I already stated several times even if everything you said was relivant (which it is not) what does that have to do with the conversation at hand? This is all just a massive red herring: This is 2023, not 6000 B.C. You are not a lion

You are not a hunter
You will never be an apex predator
You aren't special.


God I wanted to draw a picture of you shoving a dick in your mouth and saying "it's cheat day!" but then I remembered this is the main board and it might not be prudent.


>If you want to go even deeper, it's likely that agriculture was developed only after humans hunted all the easy meat to extinction.
People probably figured the part about plants coming from seeds a long time before the shift to agriculture happened. What i'm wondering about is when the hole cultivation-part took place. Did that happen before hunter-gatherers depleted "the easy meat" or after.

<humans are omnivores
>muh carnivores
this is one hell of a straw-man you are tearing down


Did you even read anything I wrote? I've simply been correcting some misconceptions, not making an argument for or against meat eating.


I think the study is flawed because from a baseline standard it’s filled with many biases, which instantly makes the study uncredible. I don’t deny tho that physical fitness translates to genuine political determination regardless of the orientation

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