[ 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





File: 1652507678729.jpeg (35.65 KB, 738x415, images - 2022-05-14T02535….jpeg)


Opinions on the Unabomber and specially his manifesto


Unabomber was a psychopath terrorist. Instead of blowing up innocent people he should have moved to a commune or got in contact with the Amish (psychopathy got in the way). If someone is trying to attach him or promote him in a group, this individual should be watched for glowops.


Pretty much yeah what >>455248 said.
The guy was a pos. The Unabomber is a good warning sign about The dangers of prescribing the economic issues generated by capitalism as something other than capitalism lol.


My understanding is that he got psychologically fucked with while he attended university by a professor, which is how he started going down the "crazed psychopath" career path.

Morale of the story: Don't psychologically fuck around with people unless you want to create someone like an Unibomber.


>The Unabomber is a good warning sign about The dangers of prescribing the economic issues generated by capitalism as something other than capitalism lol.
He was halfway correct, he wanted to return to primitive communism but he wanted humanity to just turn it's back on their technological and ideology accretions and live in fifth and harsh nature? That is why dialectical thinking is so important.


if there was any justice in the world he should've been sent to a psych ward and the MK ULTRA people should've been put on trial


had decent critiques of modernity but missed the cause of the problems by a mile, the psychological suffering in the first world and physical suffering in the third world happened before technology lol

also he was a reactionary loser


True, but it's important to remember that 'capitalism' isn't a static thing, but develops and changes throughout history according to internal and linear technological developments.
It's possible that 'monopoly capitalism,' 'late stage capitalism,' 'liberal state capitalism', or whatever could be more spiritually degrading as a general state (especially as it is moribund and decadent, as Lenin noted, instead of innovative and emergent), compared to in the past.


Another brainlet whose critique of "the left" amounts to a misinformed caricature.


huh, he's still alive?


Actually, his critique of the left was pretty spot on. Pampered over socialized fags who treat politics like a social club and wouldn't last a day in an actual revolution


He does nothing but attack a liberal straw man in his essay. Liberals are not the left.


What precisely is the difference?


It is unsurprising that this board would be dogmatically opposed to someone who points out the impossibility of engineering a utopia, using real world examples to do so. The idea that ever increasing technological capability should prove to be inversely correlated to human freedom should hardly surprise anyone who observed the comparative deadliness of spears and atomic weapons. People here are content that merely to demand a hammer and sickle are etched into their cage.


File: 1676134160041.png (548.52 KB, 1024x583, read bernie read.png)

Anon, you're not like Uncle Ted just yet. You haven't sent bombs in the mail to anyone. You haven't had your brain turned to mush by an MKUltra expriment. This means there's still hope for you; you have the opportunity to genuinely engage with challenging ideas. Unlike Ted, you can actually Read A Fucking Book. Might I suggest Capital, by Karl Marx?


File: 1676136828160.jpg (79.51 KB, 850x400, quote-one-sometimes-gets-t….jpg)

Liberals are inherently conservative but accept change if necessary for the survival of capitalism.
The left doesn't really exist anymore, but if it did, it would be characterized by a desire to actively supercede capitalism. There will be times where leftists are forced to become stewards of capitalism, like in the early USSR, but they never accepted it as anything more than a period of transition.
Every left-wing movement throughout history has its base split between a section of petty-bourgeois intellectuals and a section of present or future workers. Ted's "critique" of the left has existed since the 19th century if not earlier, and definitely before Ted became the unabomber. Bookchin attacked "lifestyle anarchists". Britbongs shat on "champagne socialists". Orwell was merciless and idolized workers. This "critique" is nothing new, provides little insight, and offers no solutions to any problems.


>No one is left except me!
Downright infantile - but at least there was some intellectual honesty (paired with cognitive dissonance) to admit that actually successful Marxists ended up promoting capitalism.

But, according to your convoluted fantasy definition of the left (that doesn't exist also, apparently), it wants to overthrow capitalism to what end exactly?


I never said I was a leftist, anon. The truth is that probably none of us are actually on the left.
By the way, my "convoluted fantasy version of the left" existed for over 100 years. You fucking moron.


>Everyone is dumb except me
>Nothing is pure enough today to be the left
Point still stands, and you didn't answer my question


Then give me a response worth answering.



Thank you for posting. It is gratifying to see my observations exemplified.


>I'm not a leftist
>Here's my ultra specific positive definition of the left primarily related to my interpretation of history, that you must adhere to
That makes sense. So at bare minimum your not a leftist but we should accept your framing of the left. Thanks for clearing it up


Yes, I know, I have an opinion. How shocking.
So what's your point? Do you have an argument, or just insults?


File: 1676599184249.pdf (50.32 MB, 176x300, Ellul_Jacques_The_Technolo….pdf)

The best ideas in ISAIF originally came from the Technological Society, which imo, does a better way of conveying it but is much longer and verbose.

I actually don't know if Ted actually read Marx or any early century author, or how much research he's done into them. But it's not as if Ted's views were the result of mental illness or trauma.


File: 1676599267505.webm (342.99 KB, 360x360, Opinion.webm)

>my opinion doesn't need any justification


File: 1676636638862.png (441.44 KB, 622x460, 1676164833340969.png)

For a primativist he was still pretty based and red pilled. The issue with terrorism, again, always comes down to the selfish motivation of it. It's ultra-leftist action and turns the general popuation against you. Not to mention the fact he was just wrong


>selfish motivation
>it's ultra-leftist

Terrorism is infra-leftist since it is born out of thinking that it is just some people are a problem and not their position in the political system that will always put new replacement parts into itself the moment the positions become vacant.

Unique IPs: 17

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]