/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>481059
>Will the decline of empire, also bring a decline in political repression ?

No.
The repression exists to preserve the power of the upper echelons over their societies. It can only be stopped by actively stopping it. The best way to stop it is by starting now.

>My hypothesis goes as follows: they use imperial super-profits to fund repression at home. The shrinking imperial revenue also shrinks the budgets for repression. Or am i being naive here ?
There are some regimes in the world which are comparatively poor but still can afford to be very repressive. In the US, this would be paired with accelerated domestic extraction… and to be clear, we already see some of that in the form of lax labor law enforcement, where we're seeing chattel slavery and child labor fly under the radar for insanely long periods of time. The US is a very rich country, and it ultimately would still be relatively rich with or without the extreme exploitation of the global south; it has a ton of land, a lot of natural resources, and a ton of labor. Employing that US labor under good conditions wouldn't provide the kind of insane profits that employing overseas labor in poor conditions would, though, so you'll see more awful shit domestically: more scrapping of public services, more lowering of labor standards, more cancerous land speculation, more scapegoating of illegal immigrants (but also more hiring of them, just with higher penalties if they step out of line), etc.

Oof

Eugenics is not a defense or reactive position. It is premise on offense at every level of society, in every deed. The very purpose of it is to make defense of anything impossible, so that "nature" - an occulted elite - holds impunity because of a "Being". The eugenist never is seen defending anything. They always project, attack, shame. If the eugenist is destroyed and their position is overrun, they have always vowed to wage an interminable struggle to reassert "natural law", and if they face the ultimate consequence, they just smile and say "life well spent". You will not intimidate or cow the eugenist into submission, where the evil can become the good. The eugenist knows what they are and what they want this world to be.

"Pre-crime" is nothing but eugenic creed nonsense - the insinuation game. If we wanted to predict crime, that is basic to police work and the management of oppressed populations. The idea that the police are blind to what they do and do this "randomly" is ridiculous. The machine exists for a purpose, and it's not to serve you. This isn't about predicting crime. It's about establishing crimes of Being as the paramount crime. It's not difficult to see the inventives and agentur pushing criminal activity, with a nod and wink that "this is sanctioned". Germanic schools do it every single day and set it as their standard, normal, baseline behavior.

>>481187
Think about it conceptually like a tug of war.

People always push against repression. But if the repression apparatus can power it self with energy from imperial super-profits it has that external supply of extra energy to lean harder on people.

Repressive poor countries tend to be run by vassal regimes, that facilitate resource extraction for large powers. The tools for repression tend to be handed down to the vassals by the larger powers who's bidding they are doing. Do you have any examples of poor repressive countries that aren't subject to this dynamic ?

If a imperial bourgeoisie is forced to scale down from exploiting the global labor force to only the domestic labor force. Said domestic labor force should gain a lot more leverage and push the dial towards less repression. No ?

>>481424
People don't always push against "repression". They fight because they must, not because of some blind urge like animals. Humans have been remarkably eager to facilitate and enable oppressive governments because they personally have something to hold on to. Also consider that for most of history, politics was far away for the vast majority of humanity. All that one government over another meant was a change in the names of their masters, and usually new governments came in with donatives, along with donatives every time the royal family got a new member. Enough of that was doled out to keep enough of the people content.

Today's eugenist torture-state that eliminates such "corruption" like people having any iota of independence, is a very new thing, and still not perfected. It can only be credible by superimposing on history and nature itself its preferred forms, to suggest that there is no history outside of eugenics. And so, philosophical claims about the struggle for life are at the center of the project, and when possible, they are extended to all matter, all existence, and to the genesis of the universe itself (since "there is no god but God, and Galton is His prophet").

>>481427
>People don't always push against "repression". They fight because they must
same difference

>Humans have been remarkably eager to facilitate and enable oppressive governments because they personally have something to hold on to. Also consider that for most of history, politics was far away for the vast majority of humanity. All that one government over another meant was a change in the names of their masters, and usually new governments came in with donatives, along with donatives every time the royal family got a new member. Enough of that was doled out to keep enough of the people content.

You are talking about dark age feudal society. While what you are saying is true, it is not a complete picture. Remember that you are reading a history written on behalf of the rulers. They're leaving out frequent peasant revolts boiling up from below, killing off many odd lords, barons and whatnot. In history books some of that stuff gets left out or reframed as part of the rivalry between 'great feudal houses'. Sometimes his baron's story wasn't getting lynched for squeezing the population too hard he just died on an epic adventure quest instead. And then there's also the theocratic mechanisms, where peasants weren't angry because they got ground into the dirt, they were "non-believers".

The reason why peasant revolts never amounted to much was that they were stuck in a low tech agrarian mode of production, that would always revert back to some kind of military dictatorship, which is what monarchies largely were. Feudal rule was patchy, there were farming collectives that successfully resisted subjugation. Some endure, but most of that ended with the enclosure of the commons, or just people leaving because industrial society offered a better lifestyle.

Marx praised the bourgoisie for introducing capitalism and new technology, changing the mode of production meant creating the potential for a new society. Capitalism brought progress in the superstructure too. The reason why the bourgeoisie went for a slightly more democratic political system and more open societies, was because feudal monarchical system weren't characterized by tranquility and a-political subservient masses. Feudal rule was very unstable. Feudal succession was always intensely contested. Feudal rulers with erratic personalities could create a lot of chaos. Elected politicians get killed a lot less because they can be booted from power with a ballotbox, and if they become erratic they can be replaced without an upheaval. I'm not saying that bourgeois democracy was entirely a concession to struggle from below, the main reason was probably because a bourgeois democratic state could regulate intra bourgeois power-struggle. After-all if they had done feudal powerstruggle with industrial technology there would have been a new king every other week.

>torture-state that eliminates people having any iota of independence
Sure that's a repression method, but the dynamic that Marx described where every tendency creates counter tendency hasn't been suspended. You just have to find it.

>>481435
Except, the histories of antiquity acknowledge men of low birth rising to some power, acknowledge revolts against the rulers, and rarely indulge in any ideology or self-glorification. That has always been a middle-class, commoner vice more than it was a vice of proprietors. The proprietors believed for a long time the commoners were too weak and always under the thumb of force, and that the commoners were hated by labor and the lowest class too much to ever be trusted. The commoners can only rise because the order of the proprietors was dependent on technology and intelligence in a way that eventually allowed the commons to own a majority share of wealth. The commoner "revolt" was little more than a lateral move, with liberal nobles and priests facilitating this. Then you look at the people of the American revolt or the August period in Britain who were basically random-ass people who happened to have some money and could move into the trading companies and become the de facto imperial government and bureaucracy. It didn't even occur to the feudal order to "repress the revolt", and the commoners proved to be crueler and more given over to avarice than the nobility ever were, and that's saying a lot.

Peasant revolts arose not from "repression" as if they were reactive things to be cajoled. They happened because the state, despite its PR, is remarkably weak, so a congregation can find some guy who thinks he has a direct line with Jesus and the city guard will either fall or will join the would-be prophet. It speaks volumes of how pathetic human government is that simple things like "not starving people deliberately" and "not starting bullshit democidal wars" are novel after 6 millennia of this shit. But, the peasant revolts were not reactive. They happened because they could, because aristocracy is shit at anything but torturing others to make us like it, because peasants saw that even if they lose, the rulers couldn't do anything worse than what they lived through every day thanks to being ruled by inbred Satanic retards, and because at the end of the day, religion was far more of a unifying force than crass self-interest or pure opportunism.

To the ruling system, a revolt or crisis can be gamed so that the ruling ideas do not fundamentally change. Those who came close learn the hard way that humans really can't change by any amount of struggle, without resorting to such a sweeping change of society that it would require centuries and complete enclosure. All aristocracy had to do is create its own religion which pre-empted that and set such a change of humanity as a goal - to create humanity in its image and make the world nothing but a monument to them. This in some way is what aristocracy always was, but they had doubt in their own ranks that such a thing was possible or would actually be a good thing compared to basically anything else humanity could have been.

>>481450
>Except, the histories of antiquity acknowledge men of low birth
Maybe you read better history than I.

I once tried reading up on the history between the end of the Roman empire and the beginning of the industrial revolution. It just had dates, names of bluebloods, names of places, names of battles, etc in it. Giving the impression that all of medieval Europe was inhabited by about 1500 people who attended lots of ceremonies, and spend most of their time scheming and backstabbing while traveling in horse carriages that broke down a lot. The masses that make up society got reduced to a technical terrain feature like soil quality. Along the lines of: "If the serf density in your soil is too low the crops have problems planting and harvesting them selves"

>>481459
That tends to be political history. They didn't go in for material analysis because politics was decided by the nobility. There was no mass politics or an attempt to suggest that such a thing existed. That was the last thing any of the nobility wanted, and the people by and large do not want "politics". The industrial "revolution" entailed dragging labor into political life so it can be enslaved and exploited to the maximum.

The people of antiquity make their position on the lower classes clear - they hate the lower classes and want to crush them. There was no pretense that it would be any other way. If you look at the early modern republicans, it was the same thing. Most of them outright despised democracy and wanted to destroy it, and the most favorable only wanted "democracy" on the terms of certain bourgeois interests. Democracy was associated with the slave power until the slave power wanted to enslave the free and had to if it was to survive.

You are stuck on Whig history concepts of technological progress by a monopoly that totally wants to "do the right thing". It's always that. The whole thing requires someone to abolish what history really meant, in favor of pure narratives. Once people have those brain worms, they refuse to see anything meaningful, because they've been trained since childhood to "believe The Science" - trained to be bullbaited into oblivion. It's disgusting.

But, in ancient times, the writers were perfectly aware of the lower classes, how they lived, and that the lower classes were their basis if they wanted any new soldiers, slaves, and members that could promote into their own class. So, Agrippa's father is a nobody, and his grandfather is a freedman, and he rises to be something like Augustus' right hand man in war and administration.

There is a need of the eugenists to believe their ideological faggotry is universal and imposed on history, just as they invade every institution and every facet of reality and replace it with eugenics.