/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>473114
>I'm asking what is the quantity of people with extraordinary power
Not sure what you are looking for then. Please define "extraordinary power"

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I guess the numbers might be a little outdated now, but the book is worth checking out.

>>473115
Are you dumb?

>473115
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?

>>473128
>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.

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.

>>473106
Both feature a sort of curated reality which, if one accepts, they feel inclined to defend.

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?

>>473097
>The full regional name, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya," sounds a lot prettier.
Any idea where i could listen to somebody saying that aloud.

>>473019
>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

>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

>>473062
Ya, it was all PragerU who spun this idea out of nothing.
[spoiler]Clown[/spoiler]

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.

>>473049
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.

>>473057
>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.

>>473067
>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.

>>473041
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.

>>473042
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 ?

>>473043
Even if some one is not selling their labor they still only have their labor to sell. rural peasants still meet this definition.

>>473043
Also no because all those people don't live off capital. Maybe I was not clear enough.

>>473051
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 ?

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

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

>>473025
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.

>>472983
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.

>>472992
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.

>>472966
>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.

>>472976
<humans are omnivores
>muh carnivores
this is one hell of a straw-man you are tearing down

>>472992
Did you even read anything I wrote? I've simply been correcting some misconceptions, not making an argument for or against meat eating.

>>472927
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