/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The left being super into tone and word policing, and basically excluding people with purity tests might be a psyop to weaken the left.

Also I think a lot of these "right wingers" are just working class people with perhaps some reactionary views, but I don't see why they wouldn't support economically left policy. We shouldn't alienate workers.

>>490251 (OP)
>Why is the left so fucking censorship/ban happy?
<History
In Socialist countries like the Soviet Union for example censorship was basically admitting defeat to capitalist media industry, they could not produce anywhere near the volume of high production value media as the west. To be fair to the soviets, in practice the spectrum of ideas that they allowed was much broader than what you could do in the west when you considered the limitations of commercial viability. 80s Soviet Scifi is wild and mind-bending.

<the political economy of immigration under capitalism
In bourgeois politics the purpose of the liberals is to import cheap immigrant labor, and the purpose of the right is to attack their status to make the imported labor easier to exploit.
To be fair to both sides, the liberals genuinely want to treat immigrants as equals and the right genuinely only wants to keep them out. The capitalists cherry pick the parts of each side that serve their ends. That leads to bad social consequences and then they get both sides to blame each other for the shitty result. Out of that animosity comes the desire to get the other side shut up.

Immigrants could be integrated but if you silo them into ghettos, it creates more opportunity for divide and conquer, and ruling classes do like to divide and conquer. I think the US doesn't have high immigrant crime rate, but in some places like in France (don't quote me on that) there is indeed a higher crime rate. But that is not the result of immigration it's the result of silo-ed off population groups.

<the socialist position
You can demand to limit the influx of immigrant workers until there is full employment and immigration no longer creates wage-dumping-competition.
You cannot demand the government round up certain people and get them deported unless they committed a extra serious crime. You can only punish people for what they do, not for what they are. Also the ruling class wants to beta-test hardcore repression on immigrants and then role it out to the rest of society later. They will not stop at immigrants, eventually they'll do it to you

<the dark side of the right
A section of the right wants to create a cast system where certain people are not granted the same rights as others.
Another dark side is trying to scape-goat immigrants for the shit capitalism fucks up.

<the dark side of the liberals
Many libs simply are well off enough to be able to hire a servant household-help and immigrants are the people willing to do that for low pay.
Another dark side is that they like to shit on workers of lower socio-econonmic status, but they can't do that openly they need a pretext, an excuse to kick down. Appearing to combat racist attitude works for that purpose. It's perhaps a more clever way to status-bully. The purity-test exclusion stuff that >>490252 mentions can be part of this too. Although sometimes it's just tribal or sectarian shit-headedness.

<the material forces that drive migration
The biggest cause for immigration is mostly imperialism, countries low in the imperial pecking order get held down and then a part of their population leaves, seeking escape the strangle-hold of empire. The second cause is that it's economically advantage for countries to do this because immigrants are labor-power where other countries payed for the schools and whatnot, that's an economic free lunch.

<circling back to censorship
Ruling classes want to controle what the dominant ideas are in a society. So they promote censorious leanings. They don't necessarily care what gets censored at first, they just want censorship structures to be created, which they can take over later.

I really don't think the left is any more censorious than society at large at the moment. You just notice it more in political discussions because it's extra insidious in that domain. Whatever someone's politics, if they have the power to control debate and an incentive to exercise it it's always hard to resist that temptation. That's why we, on the left, should be addressing the systemic origins of censorship, in the same way we direct our critique of the outcomes of capitalism to the system itself..

TL;DR: Down with all jannies, power to the posters! Posters of the world rise up, you have nothing to lose but censorship.

it's because they can't admit their defeat

>>490253
Good post, the hilarious thing if you posted this on say rSocialism or .orge, there is like a 80% chance you would be called a right winger, /pol/ and banned.
Saying this in most IRL leftist spaces would be a massive no no as well.
The left take this turbo approach to issues from a moral position, not a materialist one, and it leads to massive censorship, over people not being as "moral" as Leftist would like you. This is despite the POINT of Marx and Engels was to reject this sort of Utopian Socialist moralfag thinking.

>>490252
>The left being super into tone and word policing, and basically excluding people with purity tests might be a psyop to weaken the left.
Large part was, look into the "Campaign against White Chauvinism" which was a FBI wrecking COINTELPRO. But lets be real, it is absolutely perfect at manipulating the Left's weak points in solidarity, since most Leftists are moralfags, not Materialists.
>Also I think a lot of these "right wingers" are just working class people with perhaps some reactionary views, but I don't see why they wouldn't support economically left policy. We shouldn't alienate workers.
It's not just working class people, pretty much anyone who engages in materialism on "no no" topics that the left takes some turbo moralist position on, will be accused of being a reactionary or "right winger" simply because the conclusions are often far more aligned with rightoid positions, than the standard shitlib left one. The amount of times I've copped bans from .orge for advocating for literally Lenin/Sverdlov era Bolshevik party positions as being "/pol/" is pretty fucking wild. God forbid you actually advocate for any policy the CPC takes instead of just sucking the dick of China as an anti-US force.

>>490251 (OP)
Reddit is the worst, all the marxist/communist subs will ban you if you have an opinion that differs from the mods interpretation of marxism. Multiple times I'd write something up that references modern marxist works like Marxin the Anthropocene by Kohei Saito or something from Micheal Roberts and instead of engaging in discussion I get slapped away and banned because some internetbrained moron read Engels 10 years ago and thinks he's the king of marxism.
People in positions of power on the internet enjoy dominating others and are largely sadistic, it's not just marxist spaces it's everywhere. Our culture is skullfucked by capitalism and I hate it. So lately I just read, and stick to smaller platforms and personal blogs and spaces that don't invite mass discussion or power tripping.

>>490289
What is 'Marxin the Anthropocene by Kohei Saito' about? And Micheal Roberts?

>>490290
Micheal Roberts is a Marxist economist who blogs a lot but he has books too. He's most well known for tracking the rate of profit across different countries and arguing that capitalism has been in a long depression since the 2008 financial crises to this day in terms of rate of profit decline.
https://thenextrecession .wordpress.com/

Marx in the Anthropocene is a kind of philosophical archeology book that summarizes historical marxist arguments relating to productivism and ecology all the from Marx himself into the modern day and posits an idea of degrowth communism to rectify disagreements that have stemmed from arguments over productivism with modern degrowth economics (which itself is a school that arose out of marxism.) (Note, degrowth =/= malthusian economics, not the same thing.)

Marx was surprisingly ecologically aware for the time period he was alive, he wrote about soil degredation in europe and was concerned about peak guano mining at the time and sewage wastewater among other things. later in life he came to criticize the capitalist mode of production for being in discordance with the earth's "metabolism." We know this due to the work of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA)
[[ https://mega .bbaw.de/de ]] project which has uncovered and translated many letters from the soviet archives from Marx to leading biologists and scientists of his time about the topic, aswell as his private discussions with Engels about capitalism's relation to the environment.

This topic is controversial in certain marxist spaces because people are very attached to ideas of productivism in marxism. Contrary to the strawman, degrowth communism doesn't advocate for squalor and comes to conclusions of abundance for the working class within a degrowth economic framework.

>>490251 (OP)
I dunno but it's very frustrating for me as a free speech absolutist on the left, I feel like there is no community for me on the internet. Right wingers are retarded on most issues so even if you're not censored you will be mobbed by pure idiocy if you talk about stuff like economics, but left wing communities are like a minefield where any small transgression against one of their sacred cows will end up with you expelled entirely.

>>490292
There's not such thing as a free speech "absolutist", don't fall into that propaganda trap. You're either for speech without qualifications or you're not a free speech advocate.

>>490291
>This topic is controversial in certain marxist spaces because people are very attached to ideas of productivism in marxism.
Marx said that when a mode of production becomes a fetter on the productive forces that's when material forces impose a change in the mode of production. As example he states that feudalism was holding back industrial productive forces that's ultimately the reason why it was changed into capitalism (and in some places into a soviet style industrial system).
You would have a very hard time arguing that productivism isn't central to marxism. Pay attention that productivism in marxism means that a given amount of labor-time gives you more use-value. Capitalists have a looser definition where they make no distinction between more efficient production processes and simply making people work longer for the same pay. Marxists genuinely consider the latter as lowering productivity, which is the polar opposite of how bourgeois economics sees it.

We have to take into account the physics perspective, specifically statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. That teaches us that configurations of matter that are more effective at maximizing entropy are significantly more likely to exist over those configurations of matter that are worse at entropy-maxing. This is the very reason that life exists at all. If the sun keeps shining at a piece of dirt for long enough, eventually a plant will evolve simply because matter arranged as a plant is better at maxing entropy than matter arranged as bare dirt. (If you care about the physics, atoms jiggle that's called Brownian motion. The jiggling allows atoms to re-arrange at random, the configs that maxes more entropy are more stable, as in less likely to be jiggled into a different config, hence why you end up with the matter-configs that entropy-max real good )

For societies that dynamic holds true. Agrarian societies were displaced by industrial societies because industrial machines were better at maxing entropy. But there is more to this, in nature there are 2 ways of increasing entropy. You can grow trees and deer to increase entropy, but you can also have a big forest-fire. At the level of societies the parrallels are, you can have lots of production or alternatively you can have big wars. In general terms you can increase entropy by arranging matter into complex structures like living organisms or industrial equipment, but everything getting burned-down/bombed-to-rubble also increases entropy.

There is no escape from this dynamic, rising poverty levels in the west have caused reduced consumption of commodities, and at the same time war-fare increased consuming all the energy that was previously used for civilian production. It bares noting that there is a lot of energy stored in those nuclear weapons, releasing all that would massively increase entropy. If we degrow the civilian economy to the extend that releasing the kracken nukes becomes a better way at maxing entropy, we're all dead.

If you care about preserving the biosphere, by for example reducing the use of fossil fuels to lower CO² emissions, you have to find a way to displace fossil fuels by going to a method of energy production that makes more energy, (to beat the fossils at entropy-maxing). Nuclear for example could significantly out-compete fossil fuels in terms of how much energy you get, there might be a way to have power-generation eat the plutonium from those nukes, which would shut that box of Pandora's.

Consider that expanding the mashine-sphere, can also benefit the bios-sphere. If we got to the level of sophistication that enables us to build habitats in space, we would begin copy-pasting biosphere into big space-cans.

>>490295
>
If you care about preserving the biosphere, by for example reducing the use of fossil fuels to lower CO² emissions, you have to find a way to displace fossil fuels by going to a method of energy production that makes more energy, (to beat the fossils at entropy-maxing). Nuclear for example could significantly out-compete fossil fuels in terms of how much energy you get, there might be a way to have power-generation eat the plutonium from those nukes, which would shut that box of Pandora's.
90% Renewables + Nuclear isn't hard, with most going to Renewables.
It just requires a smart grid, doing a smart grid, would knock out 50% of energy requirements due to efficiency gains. Through Renewables/Nuclear as well, you knock out the majority of cargo shipping emissions which are used to transport fossil fuels.
Issue is we live in a world where the state has given up to Capitalist logic, so the state doesn't give a shit about electrification of everything and a smart grid. If we had a planned economy, we probably would have largely finished electrification by 2010s and moved onto solving some element of Carbon capture (my suspect this will be done through biohacking plants to make them far more efficient carbon stores)

>>490296
>90% Renewables + Nuclear isn't hard, with most going to Renewables.
I agree with renewables + nuclear is the way to go, but the ratio you suggest is unrealistic. Technically nuclear is renewable too, if you are good enough at nuclear physics. Renewables are excellent for residential and less power intensive sectors of the economy. However for high energy demand industries, it's not suitable. Wind, solar,… capture very dispersed forms of energy, to concentrate all that power to one spot, where a giant industrial machine uses it, you need a giant web of cables. Installing a nuclear power plant is much better for that application.
As for the ratio i think 50/50 green/atomic is probably about right. In the very long run nuclear might become the bigger share because it's got less space constraints, especially if we figure out nuclear fusion.

>It just requires a smart grid, doing a smart grid, would knock out 50% of energy requirements due to efficiency gains.
I don't know what you mean, and i kinda associate the word "smart" with enshitification of electronic gadgets. Something to be avoided. What exactly makes a grid "smart" ? My hunch is that you want to conform energy demand to energy production. Meaning that people have to schedule their energy consumption to happen when the sun shines and the wind blows. People in a society do not behave like members of a orchestra or a dance choreography, they are not going submit to that level of discipline. If you want my advice go for energy storage if possible. It'll also increase grid stability and it will reduce the time pressure on maintenance work.

If you think that efficiency gains reduce power demand, you are wrong, that is demonstrably incorrect. Efficiency gains are obviously nice and very desirable, however they are not a substitute for energy.

>Through Renewables/Nuclear as well, you knock out the majority of cargo shipping emissions which are used to transport fossil fuels.
Most oil and gas gets transported through pipelines. But you could do cargoships with nuclear reactors or sails (or the more efficient rotor-sails, which are spinning tubes instead of big sheets of fabric). I will admit that nuclear reactors would have to be idiot proofed before commercial shipping companies can be entrusted to have them.

>Issue is we live in a world where the state has given up to Capitalist logic, so the state doesn't give a shit about electrification of everything and a smart grid.
China is building a huge amount of nuclear and solar, so some states clearly give a shit.