[ 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: 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: 1677204482139.jpg (194.64 KB, 1490x1080, Iwillfuckingmurderyou.jpg)

 No.466060[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

The more older I become the more I understand just how strong is my urge to murder other communists.

Almost every one of them is some kind of a sperg, an idealist, a dogmoid automaton, a lib, a nationalist, a culture warrior, a grifter, a socialite, I could go on and on.
I can't fucking stand you. Every time I talk to one I imagine him choking on his blood, and this image gives me a relief.

First thing that triggers me immensely is the obsession with philosophy. Every time some idealist sperg mentions dialectics to me it takes me titanic effort to not pick up a chair and bash their head into the nearest wall with it.
Seriously, it got so bad that I sometimes daydream about choking Engels and Hegel with a stupid smile on my face.
I'm now convinced that there can not be such thing as a proletarian philosophy. Philosophy is a mind poison of the ruling classes, always has been, and it poisoned the minds of the leaders of the workers movement due to them all being intellectuals. All according to Marxism lol.
This obsession is so widespread that I sometimes wonder if I am the only one who came to Marxism through the study of history and not through some philosophic elitist drivel. It tells

The second thing is idealism (being an insufferable sperg is closely related). It seems like you just can't expect communists to be pragmatic in this day and age. It's like they are stuck between the Scylla of maximalism and the Charybdis of defeatism. It's either "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!" or "capitalism is actually socialism because they say so". It seems like communists don't have the patience or the mental capacity to just keep fucking grinding to their aims, slowly and methodically, using everyone and everything they can, and patiently waiting for their moment. No, they just NEED to sperg out and express their very important opinion (that 10 out of 10 times is some banal idealism or empty populist platitudes) on every little matter!
At moments like this it usually takes me two to three cigarettes to calm down.

And as we touched on it already, lets discuss the third thing - cheap populism. It is so widespread that I got in more fights over populist rhetoric than over any other thing. It seems like every communist takes his audience for fucking 10-year old kids who can be manipulated by simple tricks. Hey, you know that I can SEE what you are doing? You know we're all adults here? Hey, look me in the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
110 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>wholly parasitic capitalists are ushered into concentration camps
please do tell me what capitalists were "ushered" into concentration camps in Germany, Spain, Chile, Portugal, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc etc


Only the ones that refused to get with the program and submit to the people's supreme state


name them

protip: even jewish big capitalists in nazi Germany weren't sent to concentration camps


>It's literally when the economy is subsumed and directed by a state
never happened in fascism
all the "direction" was done only in the military related sectors and by giving capitalists massive subsidies with favorable government contracts and even then capitalists frequently sabotaged production plans when their profit margins suffered


>by giving capitalists massive subsidies with favorable government contracts
oh, and also cheap slave labor

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

File: 1677666514613-0.png (49.28 KB, 1299x1080, Paul Cockshott value theor….png)

File: 1677666514613-1.jpg (301.63 KB, 4016x1000, evolution of honda bots.jpg)

File: 1677666514613-2.jpg (66.22 KB, 1021x534, dancing boston dynamics bo….jpg)


Lets discuss value theory.

Marx says the source of all economic value is because human labor is universal.

Marx says human ability to imagine and plan ahead is the source of universality, what Marx originally meant by that is somewhat unclear to me. I think this argument was tailored at countering a bourgeois retort that equated human workers with beasts of burden like horses.
Cockshott has IMHO improved Marx's justification by tying it to the universality of human labor-power. Humans can do just about any work task you can come up with.

I want to go one step further and say that human universality also rests on the ability of producing new humans. This gets important later.

The reasons why this argument exists is because the bourgeoisie tries to argue that economy value comes from capital. For example machine capital or land capital.

Today nobody seriously tries to argue that land produces profits, because the landed aristocracy isn't powerful enough anymore to command mental-labor for intellectual class-war in the realm of economic theory. But some still argue that machine capital is not just tools for enhancing worker productivity, but a source of profits in it self.

Some go as far as saying that capitalists can replace human labor with machines.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
67 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Touch pussy


If I remember correctly than Marx did not say that primitive human societies lacked social labor altogether. I somehow get the impression you might be talking about abstract labor.

Your main argument seems to claim that the universality of human labor is a figment of the imagination of managers.

I have to say that my experiences corroborate what >>466750 said
<There is a difference between individuals in how much effort is required to teach a particular human a particular task, not what task it is.

If you discount the inequalities that come as a result of negative environmental factors among the able-bodied, then it really does seem to be a matter of learning speed and difficulty rather than ability.

So I would say that human labor is very universal in a material sense.


Primitive (barbarous) and savage in that period meant distinct stages of development. The theory going was that savage man was solitary and the "nasty, brutish, and short" view prevailed.

>Your main argument seems to claim that the universality of human labor is a figment of the imagination of managers.

It's not entirely a figment of the imagination, in that you can manage labor this way even if no one thought to do it. The point I'm making is that labor in the abstract is only considered when exchanging it or managing it. If we were to judge the utility of all we produce, we wouldn't claim all labors are equal or all labors are valuable.

Arguing a hypothetical about the human subject, which relies on assumptions about a human nature that is fixed, doesn't answer the managerial task in the here and now. No manager has unlimited time and resources to train employees to their maximum potential, and managers have no interest in any thorough education or training, and definitely don't want the proles to learn independently. That's why it's the slow and stupid who always get fired first, and intelligence is primarily a measure of cunning and an ability to lie and deceive to win the struggle for life, rather than something useful in a productive sense. We have such distorted ideas of what intelligence and learning are that we value all of the wrong things. Any monkey can read a book and formulate theories or hack out code, and if we lived in a society that rewarded this initiative at all, we would have very different incentives. The incentive in this society, and especially in full eugenism, is maximal betrayal and backstabbing. The maladaptive traits of capitalism becomes absolutes and eviscerate all in their path. That's what is being defended, because eugenics won. There is only hell now.


I think you are too doomer-pilled, you create thinking that is no longer able to recognize the opportunities for material progress, which do exist.

While it's true that eugenics is still around in some form or another, and it would be foolish to overlook it as a threat, you have basically dropped the concept of class-war waged by the ruling class and replaced it entirely by warnings about eugenics.

The lack of class analysis is worrying.


What do you think class war meant? It wasn't about classes as essences fighting eternally, but institutions. Eugenics was class collaborationist - there were always scum willing to suck up to the ruling interest - and was offered as a way to win the class war by defining who was in and who was out. Those who ruled aligned with a middle class movement to oppress the workers, and found those of the workers and the lumpen who would be useful slaves for their world order.

This mystical treatment of social class is something that only makes sense in the 20th century. In the 19th century, social class was something everyone was aware of. If you have to ask who is a member of what class, your class analysis sucks. It's what fascists do when they argue about who gets to be white in their imagined race-theory.

File: 1631839904853.jpeg (14.2 KB, 240x240, artworks-000160623485-h79….jpeg)


the other incel thread got derailed into age of consent shit-flinging, and furthermore i have a larger point so i will make a new thread. overall, i am of the belief that blackpill ideology and the materialist analysis of sex can be reconciled with one another. it is of my opinion that the reason so many incels are traditionalists stems from a fundamental false consciousness that has its origins in the truth of sex not having fully actualized

both black pill thinking and radical feminist thought share a fundamental kernel of truth: that sex based asymmetries are fundamentally grounded on the ownership of particular reproduction organs. other sexually dimorphic traits of the human species which are not primary sexual characteristics still play a role in job market, but as evinced from the fact that we still have unequal representation in jobs that do not require manually intensive labor, it should be clear that their role is far more minimal. there have also been posited psychological differences between men and women, but while they might have some explanatory power, there is a care that should be made, on how substantial these differences really are, which hasn't been had. my problem with this direction is that it uses a continuous distribution of neurodiversity in order to justify a bipartite categorical structure. furthermore, such an explanatory approach is practically inept, as it either suggests that nothing should be done in asymmetrical sexual standards, or an impossible regression in the material conditions of sex (id est, traditionalism). such a regression is, on one side impossible under hegemonic capitalism, and on the other hand, unlikely with current technologies (viz, automation, proliferation of contraception/protection from STIs, mate finding technologies like tinder, etc). this isn't to mention that a social-material regression would be predicated on women turning back on their material interests, which, without copious propaganda is unlikely. not only that, but many men either prefer to have women that are genuine intellectual and economic equals, or are simps who would rather prioritize the rights of women over their own sexual gratification

not only is standard traditionalism insufficient, but so is socialist approaches. the material conditions which produce asymmetries in sexual relations are mostly invariant to economic distribution strategies. we've had patriarchy since agriculture. technology and the reality of diPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
73 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


you know what's worse than an incel? a self-loathing incel


Well, I'm not an incel - not that it matters. Once rejected, always rejected. It will always be some bullshit.
If people really want to value this, they're only contributing to the nightmare. I wish I could say it's only their problem, but their problems become my problems because they're trained to go after me or anyone who wants to stay out of their faggotry.
You're not really "incel" unless you're in that hard lumpen class, and in that situation, your life is destroyed for far more than the lack of pussy. It's just a reminder of why the world is a living hell.
But go on. I don't know why you think you're going to win with your likely porn addiction or whatever pity sex you are getting, or why you think this ends well. Fags always revel in the rot.


Seriously, I'm glad I didn't accept being a fag, which is one of the objectives of this rot. That's worse than anything I saw in the incel world, and that's saying a lot. That said, one of the fates for incels was to become a fag or troon out.


Feminism is just liberalism for middle class white women.


SCUM manifesto has done more for both men's rights and women's rights than regular feminism has since it's inception by theory alone.

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