/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Hopefully.

>>483825
>In only six months, Sahra Wagenknecht's new party has BTFO'd the remnants of Die Linke and is already the 3rd most popular party in recent German state elections
That was an impressive showing indeed.
>Is she gonna do it, anons?
I hope so
>Can Germany be saved after all?
I think so

She's in great danger of being assassinated like Robert Fico right now. The party revolves too much around her personally and all it would take to defuse its momentum is her death.

>>483852
>She's in great danger of being assassinated like Robert Fico right now.
What makes you say that ?
Why do you think she's got something in common with Fico ?
Do you think Germany is as rough as Slovakia in that regard ?
>The party revolves too much around her personally
In what way ? She's the most visible personality in the media, but is she really the one that runs things ?
>and all it would take to defuse its momentum is her death.
I'm not so sure that your prediction would come true, it might make her a martyr, a powerful symbol. Political assassinations have unpredictable consequences and can backfire fantastically. And there's probably tons of volunteer-effort that went into making the party a success, not just one person.

All that said, you are correct they eventually do have to be more than just the Sahra Wagenknecht party.

>>483856
It's not that Germany is as "rough" as Slovakia, it's that the German/NATO media has been relentlessly smearing her as some kind of fascist along with AfD, and there are huge vested interests that want to ensure Germany stays a vassal state to US hegemony.

She was already attacked by someone a couple weeks ago by the way. Hope they're giving her good protection.

Wagenknecht? Moar like WagenCucked amirite? (Idk anything about this person)

>>483864
She's a prominent east German Marxist who got sick of all the idpol and liberalism in Die Linke and decided to break off and form a new party focused on anti-capitalist goals.

>>483865
The German economy is already in freefall how much more anti-capitalist can it get.

>>483858
>It's not that Germany is as "rough" as Slovakia
I'm sorry but, if German politicians are in danger of being assassinated, then i disagree.

>it's that the German/NATO media has been relentlessly smearing her as some kind of fascist along with AfD
I think that might actually helping them in elections. If the establishment media is seething about somebody, that's giving them a anti-establishment endorsement.

>there are huge vested interests that want to ensure Germany stays a vassal state to US hegemony.
Is this about the nukes that are supposed to be installed in Germany ?

I get the impression that the German population sees those nukes as the US making them a target. If all the nukes were stationed on US soil all the Russian counter-nukes would be targeted at the US. By putting some of those nukes in Germany some of the Russian counter-nukes now get pointed at Germans.

I mean they're not wrong about this, it's not like the Germans would controle those nukes, which means there's no deterrence effect. If the Germans wanted a nuclear deterrent for real they'd buy a nuclear sub from the French, the nuclear parts for upgrading one of their subs, or something along those lines. Anything but land-based-nukes, where they paint a target on their own population.

My guess is that organic popular resistance against the planned nuclear emplacements will be overwhelming, (those have been in the past, during times where the political climate was a lot more favorable). Killing politicians will not change any of this, it might even heighten the resolve, it's a fully organic sentiment, that will resurface vigorously and force all politicians to bend. I don't know what else to say, it's threatening people with annihilation, nobody in their right mind would accept that.

Wagenknecht won't break off relations with the US, she'll just try to tone down the hostility toward Russia to the point where Berlin and Moscow no longer openly threaten each other with war. This is the majority position, it's the moderate position, the only faction that is against this is a subsection of fringe neocon extremists who want to set off WW3 for real. You know the kinds of people that make Warhammer40K characters look like pacifists.

>>483865
>She's a prominent east German Marxist who got sick of all the idpol and liberalism in Die Linke and decided to break off and form a new party
That is correct

>>483865
>focused on anti-capitalist goals.
>>483867
>The German economy is already in freefall how much more anti-capitalist can it get.
That's the irony, if Wagenknecht becomes Chancellor of Germany the first thing she'll have to do is save German capitalism.

>>483869
>That's the irony, if Wagenknecht becomes Chancellor of Germany the first thing she'll have to do is save German capitalism.
And what's she going to do exactly?

Germany's biggest problems are
1. high energy prices and global warming hysteria has destroyed their manufacturing capability
2. reckless immigration has created a permanent drain on the economy and eroded citizen's safety and social cohesion

As far as I know you can't be a leftist if you don't support both global warming and mass immigration so what is going to change exactly?

>>483870
>And what's she going to do exactly?

I don't know what Wagenknecht's policy for fixing the energy-situation is. I haven't investigated it yet, sorry. I have my own ideas about how to fix the energy supply tho, wanna hear about it ?

Her position on immigration is clearly that she wants a reduction, but she's not going to allow xenophobic hatred. Like what the sensible position was before everybody went nuts.

Her position on "global-warming" is that the German car industry will be allowed to continue building cars with combustion engines. The rationale for that is that combustion engine cars will continue to be used for a while, and since the German ones are very efficient and clean in comparison to what others in the rest of the world are producing, it's actually a small benefit for the climate.

My guess for the medium term is that the German public sector will be tasked to research and develop a cost efficient battery technology. Once that is ready it'll be gradually introduced as a new type of hybrid, where a combustion engine charges the battery to extend the range.

tangent-begin
From a engineering point of view it's irrational to not just spin the wheels directly with the combustion engine, and instead convert rotation into electricity and back into rotation again. However from an economic point of view this will be cheaper cars with better range, and no problems with insufficient charging stations. Since gradually charging a battery doesn't produce engine load-spikes, it'll produce less of the really nasty air-pollution that occurs when you push an engine hard.
tangent-end

German manufacturing like everywhere in the west, declined first and foremost because of investment-strikes, and exogenous non-production-related neo-liberal-system costs that got tagged on by parts of the neo-liberal system that aren't directly involved in production. This did far more damage than the environmental hysteria, which admittedly did some damage too.

And the quick and dirty fix IMHO, at least in the short term is just doing public sector manufacturing that produces stuff that's been designed elsewhere, like the private sector. Because that's the only way to quickly train a manufacturing workforce, and set up the necessary infrastructure simultaneously, while not having to reconfigure everything else in the economy at the same time.

>>483873
>she's not going to allow xenophobic hatred
Framing any opposition to uncontrolled mass immigration as "xenophobic hatred" shows you are already on the wrong side of this issue.

People who do not have German ancestry are guests inside the country.
Guests who:
- do not work (or pay taxes)
- commit crimes
- do not respect women's rights, LGBT rights or other European values
are not welcome and should be removed. It's as simple as that.

Why am I working 40 hours a week just for the state to give these people free housing, free food and let them rape my sister and stab my brother?

>the German public sector will be tasked to research and develop a cost efficient battery technology
Has the global private sector not poured billions of ESG investment into exactly that already? Why do you think the German public sector will succeed? Do you think people work harder after you remove the profit motive.

>German manufacturing like everywhere in the west, declined first and foremost because of investment-strikes, and exogenous non-production-related neo-liberal-system costs
Nonsense. Over the last 10 years Germany has shut all their nuclear power stations because something-something green energy and now electricity cost is almost double that of France. To make shit you need energy and to make shit at a profit you need cheap energy. That's why Volkswagen is now on the brink of bankruptcy. That and the disastrous EV sales. You can't support the bougie green energy agenda and the working class at the same time. You have to pick a side.

>the quick and dirty fix IMHO, at least in the short term is just doing public sector manufacturing that produces stuff that's been designed elsewhere
And how would that help exactly? The problems are still the same: energy is too expensive and consumers don't want EVs or hybrids as much as the economic central planners want them to.

>>483874
>Framing any opposition to uncontrolled mass immigration as "xenophobic hatred" shows you are already on the wrong side of this issue.
No, that is not what i said, and you're being unreasonable to insinuate that I did. There are people who oppose immigration for rational reasons, that is not in question. However xenophobic hatred exists too. There are people who seek to gain some kind of position of status on the basis of that hate.

Basically it will be correct to say:
<I oppose immigration because it goes against my interests
but it will not be correct to say:
<I oppose immigration because these xenos are monsters from the beyond
The latter is political-code for wanting immigrants as pseudo-slave-labor

>Has the global private sector not poured billions of ESG investment into exactly that already?
They are not trying to make the lowest cost batteries. There is a maximum amount of energy we want to store in batteries, which is influenced by how much energy we can produce and how much of that we want to use up immediately versus how much we want to store for later. This results in a sealing of how many kWh of electricity we want to store in batteries, and the private sector is trying to reach that ceiling while making the most amount of money. That will be the most expensive battery that just out-competes the other competitors.

>Why do you think the German public sector will succeed?
Their interest will be to make the cheapest input for their car industry, that will be the lowest cost batteries. Look at China, they had state-directed battery research and it's driving down battery costs. The first thing they did was look for cheaper minerals to put into batteries for example.

>Do you think people work harder after you remove the profit motive.
That is not the point I'm making, but it is true as well. Monetary incentives have been investigated, increasing the monetary incentives improves motivation, but it is not linear, after a certain point more monetary incentives decrease motivation. If you keep increasing monetary incentives further eventually you reach a point where people stop doing what you payed them for altogether and they start focusing all their efforts on manipulating the incentive mechanism.

>Over the last 10 years Germany has shut all their nuclear power stations because something-something green energy and now electricity cost is almost double that of France.
There is another way of looking at this, almost all of the nuclear power-plants that have been build were public sector projects. The private sector could have invested into nuclear power, it could have lobbied for reasonable nuclear regulations, but it didn't. The strongest force in private sector energy production has been the fossil fuel industry and they lobbied for regulations that make nuclear power extremely difficult, and they funded a bunch of pseudo environmentalist groups, that never attack stuff from the fossil fuel industry but always show up when it comes to opposing nuclear. There are privately funded nuclear power research projects, but they're not lobbying for a nuclear power-revival, they should be trying to undermine their fossil-fuel competitors in some way, you know play the capitalist game, but nope.

>You can't support the bougie green energy agenda and the working class at the same time. You have to pick a side.
I want lots of nuclear to generate massive amounts of power to supply the primary industry that converts raw-materials into refined production-ready-inputs. But i also want the type of energy-production like solar-panels, wind-collectors, municipal geo-thermal or what-ever-collectors because I think that's the ticket for making energy-self-sufficient homes, in the sense that they are detached from things like fluctuating oil-prices. I don't want a situation where people are forced to look at something that is called "the global oil markets" hoping that the numbers are low enough that they can afford to heat their house. Or be worried that some Geo-political bullshit can affect their lives.

>And how would that help exactly?
The point is to re-start the industrial processes.

>energy is too expensive
The energy problem is solvable.
Right now restore the energy source that was destroyed by Geo-political nonsense.
In the near term build bog standard budget solid-fuel light-water nuclear reactors, to buy 20 years time until it gets cheap and easy to build liquid-fuel-salt nuclear reactors.
>consumers don't want EVs or hybrids as much as the economic central planners want them to.
Not many people really care about what makes their transportation-machine go. People dislike EVs because:
they're too expensive, and suck in the second hand market,
because they're designed to be hard to repair or modify,
because they have massive privacy problems and might potentially be hacked or backdoored.
It boils down to high cost and insufficient user controle.

I did some back on the napkin calculations and i think it's possible to build a very basic 5 seat hatchback car with a one cylinder 25 horsepower petrol engine that charges a small commuter-range battery. It'll cost 30% less than the famous 10-15 grand BYD EV that everybody is raving about while having like more than double the range. You get the low operating costs for daily commutes by recharging from a household electrical plug and good range for the occasional long distance travel by using petrol. VW could make this. They have done this in the past: build good value cars to a price-point. But that is a high-volume low-margin product, the car industry wants to make low-volume high-margin products, for some reason.

>>483878
>The latter is political-code for wanting immigrants as pseudo-slave-labor
How can they be used for slave labor if they're being deported? The fact that the minimum wage still exists is proof that evil corporations are not importing migrants for cheap labor.

>the private sector is trying to reach that ceiling while making the most amount of money. That will be the most expensive battery that just out-competes the other competitors.
You're saying they have gone down the wrong technological path because they're too greedy? Nobody is making money from EVs. I think they'd settle for breaking even at this point. And the whole point of the market is that different companies will try different things to get an edge over the competition. I don't understand what you think a single failing European country is going to do better that a dozen international auto manufacturers and billions of dollars of Blackrock capital.

>Look at China, they had state-directed battery research and it's driving down battery costs.
China has cheap coal energy and slave labor. And those cheap EVs are catching fire all over the place.

>almost all of the nuclear power-plants that have been build were public sector projects.
>The private sector could have invested into nuclear power, it could have lobbied for reasonable nuclear regulations, but it didn't.
You can't have it both ways. If the public sector is the champion of nuclear energy then why does the private sector have to lobby for reasonable regulations.

>The strongest force in private sector energy production has been the fossil fuel industry and they lobbied for regulations that make nuclear power extremely difficult
I agree. That's why we need a free market where the state can't be weaponized by private interests to kill off competition.

>they should be trying to undermine their fossil-fuel competitors in some way, you know play the capitalist game, but nope.
The "capitalist game" is to gain market share by selling higher quality/lower cost products that consumers prefer. When the government does stuff that's socialism, you know that.

>The point is to re-start the industrial processes.
If the private sector is struggling to turn a profit then what is the public sector going to do differently? Either you have to force the workers to work for free or you need to pay them by robbing another group of people.

>The energy problem is solvable.
It's not solvable while the people in charge are trying to phase out both fossil fuels and nuclear energy at the same time.

>People dislike EVs because:
They can't go as far as real cars.
They take orders of magnitude longer to "refuel" than real cars.
Something like 80% of the value is in the batteries.
The batteries only last 5 years compared to a real car which typically lasts 15-25 years.

>But that is a high-volume low-margin product, the car industry wants to make low-volume high-margin products, for some reason.
>for some reason
1- Consumers don't want that and nobody would buy it
2- The state doesn't want that and won't let you sell it
3- Nobody thought of it because everyone is an idiot except you
It would be cool if it was the 3rd one.

>>483873
>the German ones are very efficient and clean in comparison to what others in the rest of the world are producing
I'm pretty sure Volkswagon was the first in a procession of car manufacturers that were caught cheating on their emissions tests several years back.

>>483881
>How can they be used for slave labor if they're being deported?
Because no part of capitalism actually intends to deport people it can use as labor. Every part of capitalism wants to import labor via immigration.

>The fact that the minimum wage still exists is proof that evil corporations are not importing migrants for cheap labor.
Not really. The alternative to minimum wage laws is militant labor unions.

>You're saying they have gone down the wrong technological path because they're too greedy?
Yes, that's one way of putting it, if they develop technology that uses rare minerals large capital can try to capture all the mineral deposits, that makes it hard for competition to form. If they develop technology for common minerals that makes it much easy for competition to form.

>Nobody is making money from EVs. I think they'd settle for breaking even at this point.
All EV models are either luxury cars or at least the kind of nicer car that only people with above average income can afford. They're not making the really low cost cars for the masses, which is necessary to get all the economy of scale effects from mass-production.

>And the whole point of the market is that different companies will try different things to get an edge over the competition.
That does happen but car companies are not really experimenting much these days. Maybe the most efficient design for electric looks very different.
>I don't understand what you think a single failing European country is going to do better that a dozen international auto manufacturers and billions of dollars of Blackrock capital.
I don't understand why you think this corporate machine would be good at innovating. Most of the share-holders that nominally own the thing are only interested in maintaining their wealth. Most of the corporate bureaucracy is run by a psychopathic managerial cast who's only interested in petty careerism. It's a suffocation machine for spirited and curious people that want to experiment and try out new things. This machine can only do incremental improvements on what it already understands. Assuming Germany got a somewhat leftist government of course they would be able to create a dynamic public sector that does better, simply by the virtue of not suffocating people. Like there's no penalty for them if they fund research that invents something that wipes out an established industry somewhere else. A giant hedge-fund that owns a good chunk of the world is going to axe any project if it threatens to interfere with something else they already own.
>If the private sector is struggling to turn a profit then what is the public sector going to do differently?
A public sector doesn't have to make a profit, they just have to cover their costs.
>Either you have to force the workers to work for free or you need to pay them by robbing another group of people.
Workers produce surplus, if you reinvest the surplus into improving the means of production you get a growing economy.

>It's not solvable while the people in charge are trying to phase out both fossil fuels and nuclear energy at the same time.
I get the impression they are trying to hoard all the energy for them selves, but you're not wrong on this.

>They can't go as far as real cars.
>They take orders of magnitude longer to "refuel" than real cars.
>Something like 80% of the value is in the batteries.
>The batteries only last 5 years compared to a real car which typically lasts 15-25 years.
That too, yes.

>1- Consumers don't want that and nobody would buy it
good-value budget cars got made in the past, and people absolutely loved these, there still are old-timer communities who try to keep the remaining example alive, many many decades after the production ended.
>2- The state doesn't want that and won't let you sell it
Not sure what you mean exactly, what motivation would the state have for preventing people from getting affordable cars ? genuine question !
>3- Nobody thought of it because everyone is an idiot except you
>It would be cool if it was the 3rd one.
I'm sure others thought about it too, maybe there's something else that's blocking it.

>>483884
>I'm pretty sure Volkswagon was the first in a procession of car manufacturers that were caught cheating on their emissions tests several years back.
I remember that. Clean diesel was a scam.

>>483881
>You can't have it both ways. If the public sector is the champion of nuclear energy then why does the private sector have to lobby for reasonable regulations.
Huh ?
If the private sector wanted to get serious about doing nuclear energy, it would lobby for reasonable regulations to make that possible, as a first step.
If a government wants to build public sector nuclear energy it just changes the anti-nuclear regulations by decree.

What's so puzzling is that there are privately funded nuclear power projects, that "tinker" with the technological aspects, but they appear to be completely ignoring the political fight. Meanwhile the competition to nuclear power is basically trying to regulate it away to get rid of a competitor. I don't really get why there's so little pushback.

>>483825
No different from afd nazis. I hope she gets murdered.

i used to really like her but her work after leaving linke has been pretty shit, along with her willingness to concede to the CDU and work with more liberal-conservative establishment while refusing to work with linke or any of the many smaller far-left parties that remain outside the political mainstream is kinda shit

>>484055
Keep crying NATO cuck.

>Can [a succdem] save [a bourgeois state]?
Yes. Succdems will do anything and everything in their power to protect the bourgeois state. Especially repress anything to the left of them. If you want to affirm the bourgeois order vote for any parliamentary candidate.

>>483885
>Because no part of capitalism actually intends to deport people it can use as labor. Every part of capitalism wants to import labor via immigration.
But none of the migrants are working. They just get free food and housing from the state. They can't even speak english what job do you expect them to do and how are they going to make a profit when minimum wage is sky high.

>Not really. The alternative to minimum wage laws is militant labor unions.
Unions only work because the state prevents employers from firing strikers and hiring replacements. This contradicts your first argument which is that evil capitalists already control the state enough to influence immigration policy. If they had that much influence why wouldn't they crack down on unions and workers rights first.

>if they develop technology that uses rare minerals large capital can try to capture all the mineral deposits, that makes it hard for competition to form. If they develop technology for common minerals that makes it much easy for competition to form.
Your premise that everyone with "capital" is part of a hive mind working together is wrong. Obviously anybody left out of the rare minerals cartel will be incentivized to develop technology for common minerals. That's how market competition works.

>All EV models are either luxury cars or at least the kind of nicer car that only people with above average income can afford. They're not making the really low cost cars for the masses, which is necessary to get all the economy of scale effects from mass-production.
Low end EVs do exist like the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt. Before Tesla the only EVs were cheap, low end and mass produced. That's not what's stopping them from being profitable.

>I don't understand why you think this corporate machine would be good at innovating. Most of the share-holders that nominally own the thing are only interested in maintaining their wealth. Most of the corporate bureaucracy is run by a psychopathic managerial cast who's only interested in petty careerism.
That's why most innovation comes from startups.

>Assuming Germany got a somewhat leftist government of course they would be able to create a dynamic public sector that does better, simply by the virtue of not suffocating people.
You realize that everything you said about the "corporate machine" applies 10x to the public sector. At least corporate managers can get fired and corporations can go broke if they perform too poorly. The state can't go broke they drain as much money as they want from the tax slaves. You think there's no politics or careerism in government bureaucracies? My dude without profits that's all they've got. And there's no such thing as a startup in the political world. Every state is a bloated leviathan at this point.

>A giant hedge-fund that owns a good chunk of the world is going to axe any project if it threatens to interfere with something else they already own.
Again this is an argument against having a state monopoly not an argument against market competition.

>Workers produce surplus, if you reinvest the surplus into improving the means of production you get a growing economy.
Only if you have customers. The most efficient mud pie factory in the world is still worthless because nobody wants mud pies. You don't automatically get value just because people are doing labor. That's why central planning doesn't work, you can forced people to do labor but you can't force the result to have value.

>what motivation would the state have for preventing people from getting affordable cars ? genuine question !
People who can't leave the geographic area of the state are easier to control and exploit. The only mode of transportation the state doesn't have absolute control over if private cars. I didn't really mean that though I meant corporations are always lobbying the state to introduce legislation to fuck over their competition. We agree that oil companies have weaponized the state to fuck over nuclear energy. The same could happen to any other new business idea.

>>483912
>If the private sector wanted to get serious about doing nuclear energy, it would lobby for reasonable regulations to make that possible, as a first step.
You're doing the hive mind thing again as if the "private sector" is a single entity. The investors who could make a profit from nuclear can't out-lobby the oil industry. So what are they supposed to do? They're obviously not going to go to jail over this shit. On the other hand in a free market there wouldn't be any regulations to stop them.

>Huh ?
Your position is that the government is the good guys who only want what's best for citizens so why don't they fund and deregulate nuclear power by themselves? Why do they need to be lobbied.

>>484230
>The only mode of transportation the state doesn't have absolute control over is private cars.
I guess private boats and planes do exist. But for the common man the only realistic way of escaping a hostile state is with a tank full of gas. EVs that need to charge for 6 hours every 300 miles are not an option.

>>484230
>But none of the migrants are working. They just get free food and housing from the state.
That's basically what capitalists want. The state pays for the survival of these people. They are counted as un-employed officially while un-officially they are made to work in the informal economy without anything like a labor-contract that granted them some labor rights. That enables capitalists to pay wages below the survival level.

>Unions only work because the state prevents employers from firing strikers and hiring replacements.
Unions work because workers can engage in class struggle. And it's not like states haven't de-fanged unions when those were integrated into the legal frame-work. Look up the history of militant unions. Those blockaded factories and had their own militias to deal with strike-breaker-mercenary groups.

>This contradicts your first argument which is that evil capitalists already control the state enough to influence immigration policy. If they had that much influence why wouldn't they crack down on unions and workers rights first.
There have been Harvard studies on policy preferences, which shows most of the time big capital interests are the only thing that influences policy. There was a time in history where workers had no rights and the result was revolutions.

>Low end EVs do exist like the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt. Before Tesla the only EVs were cheap, low end and mass produced. That's not what's stopping them from being profitable.
I don't know the technical specs of the 2 cars you named, but all the cheaper EV models i looked at were cars intended as a secondary car for grocery-shopping or similar local commutes. People couldn't use this as their only car.

>That's why most innovation comes from startups.
The problem with startups is there is no incentive to invent something "revolutionary" because the purpose of startups is for big monopoly companies to buy them up. Which means the incentive is to only invent something marginally better to maximize the amount of money that can be extracted from monopolies by selling them better technology piece-meal split up into many start-ups. If somebody invents something truly revolutionary they want their own business empire, they don't want to make somebody else's business empire bigger.

> At least corporate managers can get fired and corporations can go broke if they perform too poorly.
No mega-corps get to-big-fail-bailed-out and the manages always have a golden para-shoot where they get richer even while they wreck companies.

>The state can't go broke they drain as much money as they want from the tax slaves. You think there's no politics or careerism in government bureaucracies? My dude without profits that's all they've got. And there's no such thing as a startup in the political world. Every state is a bloated leviathan at this point.
The reality is this: From the 70s onwards the neo-liberals began privatizing lots of stuff from the public sector, and the result was that shit got worse and more expensive, in all but a few exceptions. The criticism of bloated bureaucratic stuff is not wrong, but privatizing the bureaucracies just made it worse.

<A giant hedge-fund that owns a good chunk of the world is going to axe any project if it threatens to interfere with something else they already own.
>Again this is an argument against having a state monopoly not an argument against market competition.
Public sector enterprises do not need a state monopoly. (Most companies that manage establish a monopoly are in the private sector btw.) And i don't understand why you think that the public sector would behave like hedge-funds, they don't have the same incentives and constraints. If you think that markets will do away with the reign of hedge-funds why isn't it happening ? There's markets already, so what's missing ?

>The most efficient mud pie factory in the world is still worthless because nobody wants mud pies.
Sigh, the mud-pie fallacy, isn't a real argument. Marx said socially necessary labor, not arbitrary labor.

>People who can't leave the geographic area of the state are easier to control and exploit. The only mode of transportation the state doesn't have absolute control over if private cars.
There is some truth to this, but people have always left geographic areas, even today people walk from one place to another, in considerable numbers and over large distances. If you look at the data, most of that type of migration favors 50-125cc dirt-bikes/mopeds. Cars are complicated and expensive, it's difficult to find repair-parts and ways to make enough money to pay for it while on the move. Stowing a bike on a ship is usually not complicated, but cars, that's a epic rigamarole.

>I didn't really mean that though I meant corporations are always lobbying the state to introduce legislation to fuck over their competition.
I know, Marx called it the monopoly stage of capitalism.
>We agree that oil companies have weaponized the state to fuck over nuclear energy. The same could happen to any other new business idea.
I'll be honest, i haven't figured that part out quite yet. Maybe some stuff is immune to monopoly-blocking. There was something called a Fusor, it's a small table top machine that does nuclear fusion. It's consuming lots more energy than it produces, that's why you probably never heard of it. But for a brief period, people got very excited and thought they'd have found a accessible way to break their energy shackles. And to be honest if the Fusor had not been a dead end, "big oil" probably would have croaked.

>>484230
> The investors who could make a profit from nuclear can't out-lobby the oil industry. So what are they supposed to do?
Yeah the oil industry is ruthless, anybody that's trying to compete has to be equally ruthless.
>They're obviously not going to go to jail over this shit.
If they win and become the dominant power source, they'll be immune to that.

>On the other hand in a free market there wouldn't be any regulations to stop them.
There's a number of failed states where governments can't impose any regulations what soever. Yet none of the wonderful things you are promising are happening there.

>all this mutual cock sucking
Did the bots learn 2 scam their employers or smth?

btw this fucking nazi bitch shall burn in piss, keep crying eastoid uyghurs but your masters' investments into this patheticity ist nothing but cope b4 the showdown.
>inb4 if you don't support muh daddy inseminator ur natoid

SHE DID IT AGAIN
Wagenknecht's party blasted through the Greens to get third in recent Brandenberg elections. It's behind the SPD and AfD, but her party has a large enough proportion that neither can rule without working with them.

Good breakdown on this from the Duran boys.

>>483870
climate change deniers get the bullet

immigrant dehumanizers get the bullet

especially since the former phenomenon causes the latter

>>484465
This has to be a shitpost from him, bacause ive definitely laughed, didnt know this guy

>>484983
>climate change deniers get the bullet
>immigrant dehumanizers get the bullet
If you actually lost access to fossil fuel energy and had to share your food and living space with migrants you would change your opinions in a heartbeat. You only support this shit as long as it's not costing you anything.

>>483870
>2. reckless immigration has created a permanent drain on the economy and eroded citizen's safety and social cohesion
You're confusing "immigration" with "government" again, racist nazbol shitposter.

Voting is immoral, all parties are national socialist and if you try to force your way of life on someone else you're a dickhead.
Taxation is theft, become ungovernable.

**<Als ich den ersten Kanacken gesehen habe, der einem Klimakleber in die Fresse geschlagen hat, habe ich mir gedacht: scheiß auf die AfD, Ausländer rein!
– Der Rosarote Panzer**

>>485849
Other chans support nested formatting. Meh.

>>485849
The other guy you are responding too probably is channeling xenophobia, at least too some degree. However since Germany doesn't have a booming economy atm it's irrational to attract immigration anyway. The struggle session to make that guy embrace reals over feels, can always be had if and when attracting immigration becomes rational. Btw your motivations for embracing immigration isn't the most rational either, since you seem to be basing this on having seen a foreigner beat up somebody you didn't like.

I haven't been following German internal politics very closely so i don't know all the positions. However the BSW party seems like a safe bet. It seems like the BSW would not be recklessly gambling on wars. The economic policies seem workable. Boosting small to medium capital, over large capital doesn't really fix capitalism, but it'll unblock the system, at least for a while, you know because the smaller capitalists can still accumulate capital unlike large capital that can't anymore and are stalling out the economy as a result. Large capital no longer sees good returns on investment with regular commodity production, and that's why they are on the war-path, they want to accumulate capital by conquering it. Even if you ignored the misery such a path causes, it just doesn't seem like a plausible option within current conditions.

>>483825
Reddit tells me Putin controls her.

>>485849
>You're confusing "immigration" with "government" again, racist nazbol shitposter.
Without government 3rd world animals are still 3rd world animals.

>all parties are national socialist
Most of them are global socialist. If you actually are lib-right then you want political units to be as small and localized as possible so nationalism is better than globalism.

>>485921
Ummm, globalism isnt realky socialist.
Also lib-right doesnt care about nationalism.

>>485913
Right now painting political rivals with the "Russia-brush" makes them look bad, mind you a lot less then it used to.
Eventually there will be a shift, and doing that will make the Russians look good instead.

Consider the perspective of the people who like the BSW's policies: If Sarah is my friend and TheReddit says Vladimir is Sarah's friend, maybe that means Vladimir is also my friend ?

They might be doing propaganda with the simple model of in-group out-group thinking, if that's all they do, it will eventually backfire. I'm sometimes wondering if they have a more in depth strategy that only appears short-sighted and there is cleverness yet to be revealed.

>>485921
>3rd world animals.
The word "3rd world" comes from the first cold war, and it meant countries that were neither part of the Soviet block nor the Nato block. It never implied anything about the countries them self or their people. It only ever was about military alliances.

>global socialist
Pretty much all socialists subscribe to internationalism. Meaning a world order of sovereign states that abide by international law. Your understanding of globalism, seems to be what most socialists would call multi-nationalism or trans-nationalism. Meaning large corporations that operate in many countries trying to convert the governments of those countries in to subservient tools for their interests.

>>485937
>It never implied anything about the countries them self
It implies that the country is underdeveloped and irrelevant because any important country was pressured into picking a side. What was once called the 2nd world is now called the "axis of evil" (China, Russia, Iran, etc.). What makes such a country so severely underdeveloped is the people who live there which is why you want to be very careful about importing them as migrants.

>Pretty much all socialists subscribe to internationalism.
National Socialists and National Bolsheviks obviously don't. The difference is between politics aimed at a limited geographic area or people vs politics aimed at uniting the globe. Nazi Germany only cared about Germany and the "Aryan" people. The USSR cared about "liberating" all workers of the world regardless of country or race and subsuming all traditional countries into a new communist world order.

>Your understanding of globalism
If you just want to fight your own strawman then don't quote my post id. Find a way to do your ego masturbation without wasting my time.

>>485961
>It implies that the country is underdeveloped and irrelevant because any important country was pressured into picking a side.
I think this is only half true. The other half is that there are historic precedents of countries doing neutrality successfully. And the neocons seem to get particularly upset about that for some reason. Like their brains only have 2 boxes one for foes and one for friends, and if it doesn't fit in either of these they get upset.
>What makes such a country so severely underdeveloped is the people who live there
Are you shitting on these people for choosing neutrality during the first cold war ?

>What was once called the 2nd world is now called the "axis of evil" (China, Russia, Iran, etc.).
I get what you are saying, but common that slogan is just too unbearable to repeat. Countries as malevolent mechanical linkages ? Why ? That metaphor doesn't make any sense. Who ever came up with that clearly was a nut. Pun intended.

>National Socialists and National Bolsheviks obviously don't.
There only ever was one fascist regime that called it self "socialist", but clearly wasn't. And National Bolsheviks were a tiny party in Russia that only existed briefly during the 90s and nothing ever came of it. So you haven't really contradicted that Socialists are internationalists.

>If you just want to fight your own strawman then don't quote my post id. Find a way to do your ego masturbation without wasting my time.
At first glance this sounds like a personal attack, but on second thought You appear to be indirectly attacking the criticism against multi-nationalism ?
Can you clarify your position on corporate power overriding democratic controle of governments.

>>485962
>The other half is that there are historic precedents of countries doing neutrality successfully.
Nobody called Switzerland a 3rd world country. Clearly it's just the ones that don't matter.

>Are you shitting on these people for choosing neutrality during the first cold war ?
No I'm shitting on them for being subhuman savages who rape and murder their way through europe right now.

>Countries as malevolent mechanical linkages ? Why ? That metaphor doesn't make any sense.
It's from the point of view of the west, right. Me and my allies are the 1st world. The guys who won't do what we want and are too strong to bully around are the 2nd world (USSR, CCP/Russia, China, Iran) and everyone who doesn't matter is the 3rd world.

>There only ever was one fascist regime that called it self "socialist"
Fascism is just a branch of socialism. The red headed step child you wish didn't exist.
https://libquotes.com/benito-mussolini/quote/lbb5l9y

>At first glance this sounds like a personal attack
I guess it was. But you diffused it well.

>Can you clarify your position on corporate power overriding democratic control of governments.
I never said anything about that. You randomly decided to insert into the conversation for no reason which is why I was annoyed.

If you want me to comment though then I think you are on the same side as the globalist corporations. You both want the largest government possible and then monopolize the means of production under that government. The difference is you think "the people" will be in control because they vote for the politicians and the corporations think they will be in control because they bribe the politicians. One of you is certainly exploiting the other.

>>485966
>Nobody called Switzerland a 3rd world country. Clearly it's just the ones that don't matter.
Switzerland was considered to be part of the first world. Also the third world countries were influential on the global stage then, and increasingly so in the present. So they always mattered.

>No I'm shitting on them for being subhuman savages who rape and murder their way through europe right now.
There are no subhumans, humanity is a species without any subspecies. Please refrain from fantasy biology.

If you want to argue against immigration because you think that it's increasing labor-competition too much, we can have that discussion. But if you just dehumanize people as "savages", you are not actually trying to prevent the import of immigrant labor, you are trying to create consent to take away the rights of those people so that capitalists can exploit them harder. This is not just ethically objectionable it's also bad for the local workers, because it undermines their bargaining power in the labor market.

If you are angry that social cohesion is breaking down you have to blame the ones at the top, they're the principal cause.

>It's from the point of view of the west, right. Me and my allies are the 1st world.
Nope i still don't get why you think an "axis" is a suitable political metaphor.

Also the people in the west that want to play cold-war with Russia again are not your friends. They are painting a target on our backs and they are stealing public funding that could be used for useful stuff. The opportunity damage they are causing is gigantic. They them selves get rich of this, but for everybody else it's the end of prosperity.

>The guys who won't do what we want and are too strong to bully around are the 2nd world (USSR, CCP/Russia, China, Iran) and everyone who doesn't matter is the 3rd world.
We ? You think you're part of the circle that bullies around countries ?
And it doesn't track, if the 3rd world doesn't matter why did the US put so many military bases on it ?

>Fascism is just a branch of socialism.
There is ruling ideology propaganda that tries to equate Socialism with Fascism. Because they want to hide the fact that Hitler, Mussolini and the bunch were servants of reactionary imperial finance capital.

For example Hitler sacrificed Germany on behalf of imperial capital. Basically for big imperial capital, Nazi-Germany was not much else than a means to attack the Soviet Union. There are WW2 similarities to how Ukraine is being sacrificed. The main gripe was that the Socialists in Russia had cut off those imperial capitalists from exerting dominion over the resources and the labor-power in that place. In that sense the Socialist project appeared to imperial capital as little more than a rival power. But Socialists build a different economic system, that was creating ideological competition, capital was faced with a situation where they had to grand workers better pay and better conditions. To them this was pure horror.

But there is more to this, the reason why Neo-liberal ruling ideology wants to equate socialism with fascism, is because they them selves are servants of reactionary imperial finance capital, just like the fascists. The fascists were the ones that invented the concept of privatization, and the neo-liberals copied from them. So there is an ideologically inconvenient proximity between Neo-liberalism and fascism, in economic terms and also in terms of whose masters they serve.

To be fair, there also are differences between Neo-liberalism and fascism. However when a neo-liberal equates Socialism with Fascism, that accusation is a confession that they intent to become fascist.
(I don't consider you to be neo-liberal, to be clear, i think you're just wrong for adopting that one ideological talking point from them)


—– tangent
My impression is that you want a politics that prioritizes the needs of a nation and the people native to that place. That's understandable since that is the explicitly stated purpose of national governments.

The fascists aren't going to deliver on that, they're servants of imperial capital and they're always going to sacrifice the country on the altar of imperial conquest. Fascism is national suicide. You can see it in Ukraine, and increasingly also in Israel. It's not as bad as it was in the 20th century in Europe (yet), but the fascist tendencies are manifesting.

The Socialists have always delivered on national development, and avoided uprooting people and make them migrate to other places. But the means of achieving that has always been solidarity between countries and helping them develop and create good conditions so people don't feel compelled to migrate. It's more efficient to strive for mutual gain.
—–

>If you want me to comment though then I think you are
I take note you avoided answering the question and instead proceeded to attack me. Again
I don't understand why you are doing this, you gave me the impression that you want national governments to prioritize the interests of the population over multinational corporations. Why is it so hard for you to just say it?

I don't use the word globalism because it's too generic, "globe" is more or less the same as "sphere" just a geometric shape. And in my mind the opponents of globalism would be cube-ists.

For an international government, I want one that gives fair representation to all countries but the only purpose of this international government is to block regular wars and covert-wars like regime-change antics. Maybe in the future when humanity expanded in to the solar system it would also represent Earth in Solar-system politics. That's it, a UN with teeth to keep the peace and maybe space diplomacy in the future.

I think this will block security competition between states, and for me this holds the promise that we get our civil liberties back that were stolen under the pretense of "" national security ""

>>485998
>Also the third world countries were influential on the global stage then, and increasingly so in the present.
Which 3rd world countries do you think are "influential" right now? They are so irrelevant they regularly genocide each other and even the human rights council can barely pretend to care.

>There are no subhumans, humanity is a species without any subspecies. Please refrain from fantasy biology.
I hope you remember that when you meet a gang of military aged african migrants on the street for the first time. It's easy to be pro-shark when you are not swimming in the water.

>you are trying to create consent to take away the rights of those people
They don't have a "right" to be in my country.

>If you are angry that social cohesion is breaking down you have to blame the ones at the top, they're the principal cause.
Again, get back to me when they open a migrant center near your house. Until then you're just virtue signalling from afar.

>Nope i still don't get why you think an "axis" is a suitable political metaphor.
It's not my metaphor, maybe that's the source of confusion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

>We ? You think you're part of the circle that bullies around countries ?
You're speaking english so there's a good chance you are in a NATO country.

>if the 3rd world doesn't matter why did the US put so many military bases on it ?
Why did the USSR put missiles in Cuba?

>There is ruling ideology propaganda that tries to equate Socialism with Fascism.
I thought the ruling ideology is fascism according to your side? lol
<fascism is collectivist / anti-individualist
<socialism is collectivist / anti-individualist
<fascism is central planning / anti-free markets
<socialism is central planning / anti-free markets
<fascism is authoritarian / anti-liberty
<socialism is authoritarian / anti-liberty
My dude the only reason you hate fascists is because they are "racist". Tell me I'm wrong.

>Hitler sacrificed Germany on behalf of imperial capital. Basically for big imperial capital, Nazi-Germany was not much else than a means to attack the Soviet Union.
This is quite historically illiterate, the first thing Hitler did was close the German stock market and was later completely cut off from international capital due to his treatment of jews and it was western capital that funded the Soviet Union to smash Nazi-Germany not the other way around.

>I take note you avoided answering the question and instead proceeded to attack me.
I didn't attack you this time you're just being a snowflake.

>You gave me the impression that you want national governments to prioritize the interests of the population over multinational corporations
This isn't about me.