/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>463142
>No, thinking that violence is made possible by the law instead of the other way around is idealist.
No dipshit, the laws are real because a police man will really kick your head in if you break them. That's why people follow the law, you're just arguing against a strawman and thinking you're an intellect because you're winning.

>>463142
>Idealism=spooked
Read Stirner brainlet

first there was a threat of violence - then there was a law

seethe idealists

>>463147
>You're just too much of a brainlet to get what a dialectic is.
And here comes the red-painted liberal to inform us all of how dialectics work (spoiler: his imaginary bullshit is real).
>The law does make the violence possible
No it doesn't, no more than making a thing illegal makes that thing stop happening.
>Changing the laws demonstrably changes society
The change comes first. The law that justifies the change appears afterward.
>They don't, they enforce the booj's.
The bourgeoisie does not benefit from many of the routine extra-legal activities of the police. In fact, I imagine that the bourgeoisie would prefer a bit more social stability, but I riot now and again is the price one pays for employing a bunch of armed thugs with no effective oversight.
>You're not too smart are you?
Funny, I have the same impression of you–just another mid-wit using basic bitch dialectics to justify a worldview that doesn't match the reality that is right in front of him. You would no doubt be intellectually stimulated by touching grass.
>>463149
uyghur please, you get proven wrong every time lawmen break the law before a law gets passed to make what they did legal.
>>463150
>Property is 9/10ths of the law as they say, it's civil liberties that aren't enforced.
It is also property that does not always get enforced, notably personal property. The police never do anything to secure personal property claims, and I mean nothing. It doesn't matter whether you have a theif's face on video as he steals your shit, they will never lift one finger to either prosecute the criminal or to secure the return of your property. That isn't the only property claim that doesn't get enforced, though. Property may be nine-tenths of the law, but, just like every other law, it is selectively enforced.
>Imagine believing this.
The cops are not as class conscious as we give them credit for being. Certain individuals get treated better than others do. There is absolutely a difference in how proles tend to get treated as compared with petit-pigs, but class is far from the only thing that determines who gets treated in what way by the police.
>>463151
Scroll up, moron. Another moron already said that, and it was already put in its place.

>>463154
>And here comes the red-painted liberal to inform us all of how dialectics work (spoiler: his imaginary bullshit is real).
And here comes the reactionary to smear everyone as a lib.
>The change comes first. The law that justifies the change appears afterward.
Nothing comes first, it's relative. Doesn't matter regardless, they reinforce and influence each other. See I told you you are a brainlet.

>>463154
>The bourgeoisie does not benefit from many of the routine extra-legal
It doesn't hurt them either.
>Funny, I have the same impression of you–just another mid-wit using basic bitch dialectics to justify a worldview that doesn't match the reality that is right in front of him.
Lol, you're the one that thinks being spooked is simply believing or even repeating a concept.
Are you spooked for speaking English to me "A fixed idea!" kek. Egotism is the purest form of anarchy. Not some philosophical masturbation about how laws written on paper aren't literally real. Like no shit sherlock, that's not what anyone is saying.

>>463154
>The cops are not as class conscious as we give them credit for being.
Wow you sure showed that strawman. Not a single goddamn time did anyone say cops are class conscious.
>uyghur please, you get proven wrong every time lawmen break the law before a law gets passed to make what they did legal.
Only when they violate the civil liberties of proles. Name some cops that killed some booj…. Yeah thought so.

I dunno wtf are you retards arguing about

laws are formalized violence
there can be violence without laws, but no laws without violence
or more precisely coercion, which implies violence

and to think of violence in the abstract, without its connection to the process of societal reproduction, is peak bourg idealism

>>463164
>And here comes the reactionary to smear everyone as a lib.
Reactionaries are libs, you basic bitch.
>Nothing comes first, it's relative.
Yes, something comes first. The unfolding of time is not relative; it's linear. inb4 pomo non-linear time bullshit.
>>463165
>It doesn't hurt them either.
Some of them it does. It hurts petit-porkies and some financiers. It hasn't hurt them enough to warrant actual oversight of the poilice yet.
>Lol, you're the one that thinks being spooked is simply believing or even repeating a concept.
That's a narrative that you made up in your own head. Resolve it there.
>>463167
>Not a single goddamn time did anyone say cops are class conscious.
>Only when they violate the civil liberties of proles
Catch up to the conversation, dipshit.
>Name some cops that killed some booj…
Pablo Escobar springs immediately to mind. Oh, and how about Jeffrey Epstein?

>>463169
>there can be violence without laws, but no laws without violence
This uyghur gets it.

>>463171
>Reactionaries are libs, you basic bitch.
I guess you're a lib then dipshit.

>>463171
>Yes, something comes first. The unfolding of time is not relative; it's linear. inb4 pomo non-linear time bullshit.
Not when you're in the middle of a dialectic. It's like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg. It's relative to your own perspective. And it doesn't matter, as a materialist I've got chicken and eggs to deal with. Knowing which came first doesn't help at this point. You're a pseudo intellect that thinks he knows and has some kind of authority when in reality you know nothing of value.

>>463171
>Some of them it does.
How? Even after the Floyd riots little about how police operate changed.

>>463171
>Pablo Escobar springs immediately to mind. Oh, and how about Jeffrey Epstein?
These were both career criminals that had documented protection from both police and intelligence agencies. Both were only killed after public out cry for gross crimes (Pablo for bombing an airliner, Epstein for sex trafficking).
Epstein's story broke back in 2006 by the now defunct Gawker, and Pablo openly operated for years.
Now show me a story where a book was victimized by police randomly like proles are always subject to.
Using this as an example is like saying the state hates capitalism because it goes to war with capitalist countries so much.

>>463184
Yeah, the state only reluctantly killed Pablo and Epstein after years of public outcry. Technically anon is right but to say this is an example of police killing porky at parity with how much it kills proles is such a fucking cope.

>>463181
>reactionary
>problematic cis-het white male
>librul
>faggot
It's all used the same way, and it all just means the same shit–people who say things that I don't like. Faggot.
>>463182
>Not when you're in the middle of a dialectic.
Not everything is a dialectic, and "Law and Violence" is one of those things that is not a dialectic. This absurd notion that everything can be explained with dialectics is precisely what Stirner was mocking in The Ego and Its Own. Dialectics can be a useful tool for analyzing certain phenomena (actual dielectics as opposed to "law and violence"), but it does not describe everything, any more than the scientific method does.
>It's relative to your own perspective.
No, it's not. It's a perfectly verifiable question of which thing came before the other, and which thing still exists in the absence of the other.
>You're a pseudo intellect that thinks he knows and has some kind of authority when in reality you know nothing of value.
The difference between us is that you are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole so that it fits your a priori prejudices, while I am actually looking at a thing and seeing how it works.
>>463183
What? We are talking about the effect that extra-legal police violence has on bourgeois interests. Keep up.
>>463184
>These were both career criminals
Top lel! Do you have any idea how many of the bourgeoisie is "career criminals?" None of them abide by the law, and most of their fortunes are heavily supplimented with ill-gotten loot. Hell, just look at what happened to Epstein. He wasn't killed legally or out of any sense of justice. He was murdered so that he couldn't talk about allllll of the bourgeois bastards he got teenaged prostitutes for. Those supposed "non-career criminals" killed him.
>Pablo openly operated for years.
Yes! Exactly! Right out in the open and in plain view of law enforcement, just like so many other porkies do right now. Only some of them get SWAT teams at their doors. As in the case with Epstein and Escobar, the law justified the violence used against them, but that violence was not applied for legal reasons. The law is just an excuse for having done the violence.

>>463185
>to say this is an example of police killing porky at parity with how much it kills proles is a blatant strawman
FTFY

>>463200
You just talk past all my points like the pseud that you are.
If you had ever read Striner you'd know he actually uses following the law as an example.
In the example he uses someone in their home watching a thief being arrested.
If the person watching is happy that the thief is getting arrested because that will keep their own property safe, something that is materially true, that is not spooked. However if they think it's good that the thief is getting arrested because it's "good" and "keeping order" then that is spooked.
Stirner or anyone is not debating on whether laws or ideas are real. Yes I know laws written on a page cannot literally leap up and hurt me, for you to think that this is some kind of deep insight shows how dumb you are.

>>463200
>Not everything is a dialectic, and "Law and Violence" is one of those things that is not a dialectic. This absurd notion that everything can be explained with dialectics is precisely what Stirner was mocking in The Ego and Its Own. Dialectics can be a useful tool for analyzing certain phenomena (actual dielectics as opposed to "law and violence"), but it does not describe everything, any more than the scientific method does.
The Law determines how police met out violence. It it self is in a dialectic with the base and private property. You used to be able to not hire someone because they were black, now you cannot do that and if you do state violence will fall upon you.
>No, it's not. It's a perfectly verifiable question of which thing came before the other, and which thing still exists in the absence of the other.
No it is, because the dialectic is in motion.
>The difference between us is that you are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole so that it fits your a priori prejudices,
Lol, no it's you that's trying to abstract Marx into idealism. Unmoored from material reality you, like so many reactionaries, use it's authority to push backwards and bigoted politics.
>The difference between us is that you are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole so that it fits your a priori prejudices,
Answer the question, you said police violence hurts porky, even though we had nationwide riots over police violence and little changed.
How does police violence against proles hurt porky?
>It's all used the same way, and it all just means the same shit–people who say things that I don't like. Faggot.
I can tell you get called these names alot because you are dumb boor who thinks he's right all the time when you aren't even correct on the basics.
>Top lel! Do you have any idea how many of the bourgeoisie is "career criminals?"
This supports my case that the police do not in any real sense prosecute the booj even when they are committing staggering crimes.
>Yes! Exactly! Right out in the open and in plain view of law enforcement, just like so many other porkies do right now. Only some of them get SWAT teams at their doors. As in the case with Epstein and Escobar, the law justified the violence used against them, but that violence was not applied for legal reasons. The law is just an excuse for having done the violence.
This only happened after they became comically large and public liabilities. Do you really think those two men were the only porkies committing those crimes?

>>463208
Imagine actually reading that fag

>>463207
>The Law determines how police met out violence.
No, it doesn't. Not at all. Police violence does not confine itself to acting on behalf of the law, nor does it occur in even most instances where the law prescribes it.
>You used to be able to not hire someone because they were black, now you cannot do that and if you do state violence will fall upon you.
Jesus, imagine actually believing that that's true. Employers can not hire someone for any reason that they want. They just can get into trouble if they boast after the fact that they did so for a particular reason.
>No it is, because the dialectic is in motion.
That phrase is meaningless the way you use it.
>backwards and bigoted politics.
What in the actual fuck are you even talking about? Now, the way that you make everyone who disagrees with you into a caricature of a particular enemy that you have in your head actually IS the function of a dialectic–the one that every identiarian is stuck in.
>Answer the question
I did. You're an idiot who can't comprehend what he reads.
>you said police violence hurts porky
I said that it can hurt individual porkies. I also said that it can, on occasion, work against bourgeois interests. "Porky" is not a real person, and he definitely isn't one monolithic cabal.
>I can tell you get called these names alot
Of course! It's impossible to talk about politics online without getting accused of being one caracature or anonther at any given time. They want that idealist simpletons like you use the term "reactionary" is exactly the same way that /pol/tards use the term "cuck." They are both empty, meaningless perjoratives. Inb4 well achshully, "reacionary" means blahblahblah
>This supports my case that the police do not in any real sense prosecute the booj even when they are committing staggering crimes.
Not always but sometimes, because the law is selectivelty enforced.
>This only happened after they became comically large and public liabilities.
Epstein and Escobar were not killed over any public outcry. "Public libilities" are big nothings. They get forgotten in the next news cycle.
>Do you really think those two men were the only porkies committing those crimes?
You really are too stupid to follow the points in this discussion.

>>459049
The mistake here is thinking that Trump himself ever cared about any of his populist slogans. Once he was actually in power, he filled his cabinet with corporate ghouls and cut taxes like any other Republican. His voters didn't care because the populism was always just a pretense and the real foundation of the entire MAGA movement was just owning libs. It was never about fighting for the working man in anything but rhetoric.

>>463655
Damn Poe's Law. I can't tell if this stuff is serious.

>>459313
Nah. You’re a fascist. You measure skulls like a Nazi, you demand racial segregation like a Nazi and you apply whole stereotypes to an entire people like a Nazi

>>459312
>red polyp
Contradiction. It’s impossible

>>463326
It literally does not matter. The movement is what is important, and MAGA is the closest thing to a Communist movement that exists now. If Trump betrays his own movement that creates an opening for new leadership and new direction.

>>464056
>The movement is what is important
Pic related
>MAGA is the closest thing to a Communist movement
Comrade Lenin save us all from this cringe

This counterpunch article is really the perfect article to shit on the idiots here. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/01/19/latin-americans-can-call-fascist-coup-attempts-fascist-but-us-americans-cant/

>>464347
Also written be a fart sniff academic who has never done real work in his life, who exists as defender/dependent of the extant system while posing as a critic/subversive.

Funny how all these superduper radicalleftists seem to have coushie jobs in media and education…

>>464360
What the fuck are you talking about? Did you forget that we are all dependant on the system, the only way you escape capitalism is either revolution or death. It's ridiculous to try and call a leftist a sell out for taking an academic job. There are much worse jobs out there under capitalism, I've had few myself, and there is nothing wrong with taking a job that offers good pay, benefits and generally decent working conditions. Unless you're some type of academic boss, who has teaching and research assistants working for you.

>>464363
What is the function of the university system under capitalism, you dense faggot

>>464364
You realize this Paul Street guy isn't the head of a university, right? From what I've read of this guy he is an anti-capitalist, and a progressive, of course.

>>464370
Liberals don't know what capitalism is. They hate "capitalism" as if it were just some stupid ideology.

>>464370
Aging millennial fag still suck in 2003

>>464377
Arguably, anti capitalism is more popular than ever. More and more people are at least leaning towards anti-capitalism every day now. I just jumped in this convo I hope it isn't some retarded polfag.

>>464380
That's great an all, but the world has already moved on to a managerial state mode of production. As usual, the western left is about 50 behind the times. But keep on conveniently ranting about small business owners and tailing the imperial academic strata (which couldn't independently organize itself out if a paper bag) while the oligarchal class and its technocrat servants class seize more power.

>>464382
No it hasn't and this is retarded for numerous reasons. Oligarchies of corporations controlling the world is not "state control" of anything. It's people who want to get rich off their investments running the economy producing things for profit.

>>464382
>managerial state mode of production
>oligarchal class
>technocrat servants class seize more power
By these alone I can tell you didn't even have the basic Marxism 101 introduction necessary to opine about such topics. You are so full of shit yet so self-confident, I can not but assume you are an American.

God bless whoever this retard is

I think Haz might be having sex with the wrong gender.

Chairman Trump has spoken