[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / fur / mde / o / tacos / vg / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 59rd Attention-Hungry Games
/blog/ - Tell us about your day

October 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 92cb5168ed3fe3b⋯.jpg (245.12 KB, 1600x756, 400:189, what you think you look li….jpg)


Why do you want to belong to a toxic community, who keeps hurting you?

I know in this case, it's because it's Brittany Venti. She has no skills and no higher education like the Alt-Right wants, so she has to keep appealing to them.

But what about normal people? Is it a mental illness?

105 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


just like all right-wing ideology, it's the dunning-krueger effect. Any smart black person is able to see right through the bullshit of affirmative action and calls for "diversity" because at the end of the day you know you're always going to have problems because of some bureaucratic white asshole. Once you realize this it's easy to fall into the liberal thought loops that lead to fascism.

t. nigger



Because by befriending the far right "acceptable" non whites gain the respect of the most threatening faction while they don't have to pay anything in return. The liberals already loves non whites no matter what they do so why side with them? especially when some time ago the alt right was at it's strongest and the internet is still dominated by right wing rhetoric.

Also you don't realize how much damage SJWs, Red Liberals or whatever you want to call 'em have done to the actual left with their arrogant, almost paternalistic attitude on non whites, like they are a defenseless baby that has to be protected, kinda like when the teacher makes the bullied child sit next to her in front of the whole class in an attempt to protect him but makes the problem even worse.


File: 61619b5394de83d⋯.jpg (390.42 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, pol meetup.jpg)

op that bitch lives in filth. literally cockroaches in her house running around 24/7 and dishes of old crusty food all around.

almost like a disgusting hoarder who does not bathe



>guy in the blue shirt with the glasses looks like he can't wait for someone to rob his house so he can shoot them

fucking kek


Had to double check if I was on /pol/ for a moment.

File: a788b5f51038bbf⋯.jpg (15.62 KB, 220x312, 55:78, HowardScott.jpg)


What’s some good writings by Howard Scott of other members of the Technocracy Movement? It seems like the only ideology that can solve climate change, abolish markets, and accelerate progress.It also doesn’t have any baggage from being slandered by McCarthy.

35 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 3b02bae0af86bf7⋯.jpg (65.78 KB, 660x480, 11:8, 5441040605_72f12def1d_o.jpg)


I think it is quite charming.


Obviously true post-scarcity is an impossibility; That is why it is broadly accepted in such circles that whenever one refers to 'post-scarcity', they are referring to a system that is able to eliminate scarcity at the micro scale and not a system that is able to change the nature of the universe.

The very fact that I would have to explain this, is due to what I can only hope is empty pedantry on your part.

Additionally, there is no 'praying at the alter of Technology' in Technocracy.

Technocracy is chiefly concerned with energy management and organisation; Technology is of tertiary concern at best.



Technocracy is a non-democratic ideology that does not really intend to take power via some referendum or other democratic nonsense.

As such, it would have been extremely hypocritical to have to have formed a political party and participated in elections.

However because formal organisation of the movement was required, incorporating as a non-profit was a logical move.


Yes, clearly that is what I'm referring too.

While the work is indeed chiefly about some ridiculous, fanciful version of Long.

Howard Scott (as another political enemy FDR) is mentioned by name as one of the regimes leading collaborators, personally invited to help assist in the reconstruction of America.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



>It has been explicitly mentioned several times in this thread that Technocracy has nothing to do with engineers and scientists ruling society.

I have yet to a see a single concrete explanation of "real technocracy" in this thread besides some vague platitudes about the scientific management of society and eliminating scarcity (along with some downright nuclear takes on "political solutions"). It is a completely substance-less ideology with no revolutionary potential, alive only in the minds of a few autistic STEMfags on the internet with a toddler's conception of Marxism. Technocracy is dead and buried, exactly where it belongs.


File: d0b0dfbb36db9e7⋯.jpg (424.84 KB, 1446x1043, 1446:1043, class interests.jpg)


> I have yet to a see a single concrete explanation of "real technocracy" in this thread

Then permit me to explain what Technocracy truly is.

Any ideology represents interests of some specific group. This group defines and shapes ideology through their desires (as there is no way for ideas to get support, other than by being useful to someone). Exact excuses often vary and do not define the essence of ideology (even if there is nominal difference).

Consequently, we must look at the people who are behind Technocracy, at their problems and interests. And we will see that at it's core, it is ideology of industrial "labour aristocracy" (qualified specialists who possess enough education/skills to make them Petit-Bourgeois, even if they are often paid - de jure, not de facto - as wage-workers).

The proverb "if all you have is hammer, every problem looks like a nail" applies here in full: Technocracy (or, should I say, "people who constitute basis of Technocracy") attempts to present qualities possessed by said industrial "labour aristocracy" as solution to everything. Similarly, qualities not possessed by them are treated as something irrelevant to solution or even harmful. Worldview of Technocracy is shaped by those two influences.

This is why class struggle tends to be overlooked by Technocrats of all shapes (even those who pretend to be Marxist): Petit-Bourgeois intellectuals are neither Capitalists nor Proletariat. They don't care about class struggle and question of ownership is not important to them.

This is why we constantly get attempts to resurrect "objective use-value" (as Petit-Bourgeois intellectuals don't want unwashed masses constantly defining and redefining it, this is nothing but infringement upon the territory said intellectuals want to personally control).

This is why usefulness has to be expressed only through physicalPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 9fa022807077a27⋯.jpg (152.78 KB, 764x514, 382:257, cybersyn.jpg)


Why are you talking about Cockshott as irrelevant and unworkable when you're a fucking Technocrat? It's a meme-tier ideology that can't be realized as it's entirely designed by intelligentsia (which is unable to hold power by itself)

Cockshott's work on econophyiscs should be right up your alley if you didn't have a stick up your ass about anything you consider "tainted" by socialism.



<eggsbloidashn is wen yuo eggsbloid ossers by being to intelligent to be(nis) a real worker xDD

<reel use valu is udilidy in teh indvidual mind xD & neoglassigl eggnomics == troo margsism

<meking a brice algoriddm is deh same as DODALIDARIANS dic(xDD)tating wad de peepl consum!!!

<troo socilisd broducdiwiddi is mashurd in brosdiduds

File: 6ff5159af22fb8f⋯.jpg (37.82 KB, 420x420, 1:1, 1542557325476.jpg)


30 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>>2723850 China has to play by America's rules because they'ret the ones who run the world at the moment.

Well they can: buy oil in their own currency , write their own trade-rules, and crude military subjugation is not possible at at least regionally. What exists now is American hegemony that is based on system lag, it takes a while for the underlying reality to fully manifest itself.

>>2723850 Sure, China is going to be the hegemonic capitalist superpower sooner or later, but I see absolutely no reason to believe they will suddenly become socialist then

China could considerably extend its influence over parts of Asia but that's it, Chinese geography is too limiting for more than that, also the age of maritime-power as means to empire is coming to an end , and areal-power will eventually suffer the same fate. There is a sizable faction in China that does push for socialism, whether they can become the dominant political force, is kinda open, but you have to admit if you get a socialist power that starts out at the heights of technological development, rather than one that has to play catch-up, it's going to be game over for capitalism.

>>2723897Except China isn't that, it openly spits on plenty elements of ML.Fucking DemSocs in the West are more Leninist than China.

In the first tier cities, yes liberal-ish bourgeois and petty-bourgeois sentiments are dominant, but not in the rest of the country



>fought for the Republicans in Spain

>criticized Ghandi for his Nationalism

>thought a proletarian-led revolution was the only way to avoid 1984

>said "A Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worth-while political objective today"

>not a Socialist




His collected essays are really interesting cause you can see the descent into chauvinism, anti-communism and general crankery in the 40s. Orwell was a bad socialist but a good political commentator. So yes, reading those gives you a better perspective on 1984 as you realize he REALLY is talking about Britain.


The ☭TANKIE☭s aren't wrong when they chastise him. The mythos of anti-soviet libertarian socialism needs to die if we want socialism in the 21st century to go more the way we like it.



>The ☭TANKIE☭s aren't wrong when they chastise him. The mythos of anti-soviet libertarian socialism needs to die if we want socialism in the 21st century to go more the way we like it.

but I'm an ML myself. Orwell was completely a product of his time and was subject to constant English (and Spanish) propaganda. In his time there were no peer-reviewed computer databases or online forums you could just browse through to pick up global intelligence.

What you're doing is the equivalent of dismissing Marx because he was wrong about the deskilling of labor.



You're not wrong, but in the end his leaning towards anti-communism got too heavy. In 1984 he popularized multiple memes about the USSR which still persist

>high ranking party members were plutocrats

>constant shortages of consumer goods

>faking economic outputs (you can even find internal CIA documents acknowleding that soviet economic statistics are accurate)

File: 0cd852498c0cb93⋯.png (15.47 KB, 787x125, 787:125, image0.jpg.png)


Looks like halfchan's having a bit of trouble. What do you believe to be the cause of this? I honestly don't think this is all the fault of /pol/ in itself, but the lack of good memes from 4chan outside of say /biz/. However I'm kind of a fucking moron, so I want your takes on 4chan's decline. I'm sure 8chan will blame SJWs for this somehow.

137 posts and 32 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




What did you expect? every board here that isn't explicitely leftist is a /pol/ colony

>Where can I go to discuss anime that isn’f full of complete reddit-tier normalfags who actually pay for Crunchyroll or isn’t full of spooked far-right keyboard warriors?

Nowhere, I already tried to seach something like that foe years, there are spinoffs like samachan.org or fufufu.moe, but they are dead as fuck, there is also >>>/leftyweebpol/

Right now 4/a/ is still the only half-decent place, as shit as it has became.

The only hope is for enough people to leave in big enough numbers to sustain another board.



>4chan decides to ban nazis

>they just congregate on another virgin website that won't ban them

it's literally pointless. the only way to deplatform Nazism is to educate people on socioeconomic reality.


File: 11fe2ef4d220ff0⋯.png (30.78 KB, 1488x145, 1488:145, 4channel will be more prof….png)


Honestly, I was more pissed when they were deleting Girls und Panzer threads left and right

Outside of that, I couldn't give a single solitary fuck about what happens to 4chan




It's been dead for a while.

The moment /pol/lyp grifters came, it was doomed to be infested by boomer scum, and zoomer cancer. Now it's just a forced and stale meme fan club.


reminder that if moot just deleted /b/ in the first place none of this shit would've happened

File: a4243f2c278d851⋯.png (19.45 KB, 300x250, 6:5, n92y6chYLz-2.png)


If diversity is a strength then why is race mixing allowed? This will lead to a homogeneous society.

27 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>mixing these populations will result in homogeneity in the sense that a person from the mixed population will have any combination of these traits.

>A population being litterally the defintion of hetrogenous means its homogenous

polyp logic, everyone

>A bowl of every color marble mixed together looks homogeneous and boring compared to seperate boxes with every color of marble, or distinct combinations of blue and green, etc etc.

I bet you seperate your skittles before eating them



Im not /pol/ you fuckwit.

>I bet you seperate your skittles before eating them

How about you read the whole post, you illiterate faggot?

Or, you know, just refer back to the first post I made. Rather than take lines out of context and attack a strawman /pol/ack for what you imagine that he would mean when he said them.



with hostilities out of the way, lets actually say something:

Two separate populations which are homogenous in different ways is more diverse than one single population with a combination of both of their traits.

In a racemixed society, any given persons handful of traits will be broadly similar to anyone elses. Any two handfuls of skittles you take out of the bag will look mostly similar, only a little bit different. Wheras a bag of standard skittles looks different to a bag of some special holiday skittles they gave different colors.

But like I said, even if you're going to be an insufferable, litigating nerd about what we mean by "diversity", the key point is that even from /pol/s perspective, whether its basic idea about how things work is right or not(it actually is), it shouldn't matter in the fucking slightest.



Suppose there's a trait that comes in two variants, which has zero effect on the probability of creating offspring and members of the species in question show no preference for same or other with respect to that. The trait is encoded by two alleles, one from the father and one from the mother. One variant comes from having at least one dominant allele, the other from two recessive ones.

You acquired two groups of the same size, each having a perfect 50:50 ratio of males and females. One group is pure in that each member has both dominant alleles and the other is pure in that each member has both recessive alleles. Nobody is pregnant at the moment. You mix both groups together thoroughly and they create offspring.

First offspring round: What is the expected ratio in outside appearance of the two variants? What is the expected ratio in inherited alleleles?

Second offspring round: What is the expected ratio in outside appearance of the two variants? What is the expected ratio in inherited alleleles?

50th offspring round: What is the expected ratio in outside appearance of the two variants? What is the expected ratio in inherited alleleles?



The frequency of any one particular trait doesn't matter. Historically and still somewhat now, different populations of people display particular combinations of multiple traits which make them look distinct.

I understood what you were saying about genetics perfectly well, it just does not matter. More diversity of traits within a group still means less diversity of highly distinct looks.


if you have two bags of skittles, each bag with different colors, and take a handfull of each, those two handfulls will look different from each other. But if you mix the bags together, any given handful will look the same as any other, even though there are more distinct colors that any given skittle can be, its all generally the same distribution of random noise.

A human appearance is a collection of different traits in different variants, like a handfull of skittles that can be some range of colors. Seperate groups with seperate sets of characteristic is more diverse and generally prettier. This is just pedantry over what precisely we mean by diversity. It doesnt fucking matter which definition we use, because it doesnt matter one way or another in either case.

File: 18e555d568d03bb⋯.jpg (562.01 KB, 939x1190, 939:1190, Robespierre.jpg)


what are some pre-capitalist historical figures that if born today would have been communist?

39 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



marx loved spartacus



Robespierre was SocDem. Babeuf and (arguably) Hebert were (proto)Communist.



this sounds anti-marxist as fuck though

>societies' problem is debt and is not there if there's periodic abolition of debt

>financial elites are the ones ruining the world and we need a strong central authority that 'keeps them in check'

>all this talk about small farmers, restoring property and shit

the ultimate petit bourgeois utopia


File: 77f6845e0e50143⋯.jpg (62.58 KB, 879x628, 879:628, exorcist.jpg)



I'm not even remotely right-wing but saying Fascism "rejects rationalism" is a dangerous statement.

True modernism/enlightenment holds that all ideas are fair game in the field science, as ideas can be scientifically tested. Fascists only reject the former (a la purges and book-burning), but accept the ladder. It's much more selective modernism than postmodernism, it's only viewed as postmodern due to the paradoxes in its principles.

Though many Nazis are effectively postmodern in practice, the anti-egalitarian philosophers they listen to are not, since bias is not equivalent to postmodernism.

File: 5beccc449c798d2⋯.png (42.11 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, IMG_0539.PNG)


Hitlerist natonal socialism ?

Stalinist communism ?

W H Y N O T B O T H ?


File: 0f69cc91c39628c⋯.jpg (30.35 KB, 1278x742, 639:371, 8cd549552179470fc02fd5f7f8….jpg)


File: fb2eadd42e8246b⋯.jpg (332.06 KB, 2018x1024, 1009:512, 1542360569384.jpg)


Extremely based and redpilled move by China


Buy a ZTE smartphone today to critically support the struggle against US imperialism

The burger FEARS the Chinese telecom bvlls

60 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.





The Chinese government is NOT a reliable source about China. This is like using the CIA World Factbook as a reliable source about Iran.



I am not certain of what your bone of contention is, as none of what I said was based upon that link. That said, the only analysis that has taken place, reactionary or otherwise, is based on the information provided by the provisional guiding committees for the social credit implementation - so the only info you could have is from the government, whether or not you believe the bullshit varnish is another thing entirely.

My particular commentary should not strike you as particularly offensive, either, as I do not naively foreclose upon the use of the aggregated data as a means to enact social privations, just that the system was not enacted specifically towards these ends - they will, however, be a major byproduct.






>Well for one there's a government social-credit system in the first place.

There is one in every fucking Western country and highly sophisticated one in state like the U.S.A.

Its often just a little bit more vague and arbitrary than the Chinese concept (as it actually exist not the hyperbolic fabrications you hear repeatedin Washington controlled media rarely even bothering to add fake evidence that never actually even says anything they claim ), depends heavily on association (exactly what Washingtons parrotts keep falsely claiming about the Chinese system) and is often just keept secret because its usually a tool utlized for "security" and "crime fighting aka control citizens.

The only reason this is getting hyped is to normalize domestic oppression with constant

>look how bad these others have it according to us


File: bfd1ee231ab9610⋯.jpg (13.91 KB, 235x255, 47:51, 9d18a8c5fd5fc2e038eda45b26….jpg)


15 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I would think that in practice co-ops would tend to be somewhat upscale. If the workers own the MOP and give themselves humane working conditions, they are out-competed by the capitalist chains.

Would not be surprised if this ends up being the next hip thing for Turkey's professional caste.



>If the workers own the MOP and give themselves humane working conditions, they are out-competed by the capitalist chains.

To make it work we need large popular and political support for cooperatives. They also need to be deeply interconnected with one another and ready to boycott merely capitalist enterprises.

We need to get politicians into office ready to implement policies that favor cooperatives, and gradually democratize authoritarian enterprises. (Putting ever more workers in executive positions, giving people control over their workplace, etc.)


File: 81e0e72bf146a2f⋯.jpg (94.66 KB, 468x312, 3:2, joseph-stalin.jpg)






Yes! There is massive difference when between happenings in socialist and crapitalist country.



Are Co-ops in capitalism gonna be a path to establishing socialism? No, of course not. But can it help to radicalise workers and bring them farther left? Yes, of course. When the larger, traditional corporate competition comes to shove, and when the government comes to shove for them, they'll remember that and people will move further to the left as a result. Again, no co-ops aren't socialism (when existing in capitalism) nor are they a path to it, but they are very much useful for our ends.

File: 6fcabd2ec8e3354⋯.png (69.85 KB, 923x173, 923:173, Ocasio.png)

File: 6a3bd31f0060bdd⋯.jpg (87.11 KB, 1024x710, 512:355, bougie.jpg)

File: a30cc0fa7a880dd⋯.png (102.08 KB, 612x942, 102:157, amazon.png)

File: ee019f4135df9f3⋯.png (75 KB, 352x298, 176:149, social democrat.png)

File: 08d32d4fd36e378⋯.png (72.15 KB, 1083x359, 1083:359, marx on social democrats.png)


Can we please get a thread going to air our grievances with the Left wing of fascism, Social Democracy? I can't think of a "Leftist" movement that has let workers down more or capitulated as much to capitalism (except perhaps "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" which for all intents and purposes anyone who isn't retarded can just agree is neoliberalism) and is destined to let them down again as Social Democracy. I also feel that now that it is becoming popular again to package social democratic ideas as "Socialism" in the United States it is necessary for there to be a strong critique of it. I would like to note that I am not even against "critically supporting" certain social democrats outright, I'm actually a big Corbyn and Melenchon fan, but I just think we need to be careful not to allow it to gain a monopoly on the resurgent interest in Leftism among young people and the working class and I especially think we shouldn't allow uncritical discussion of Social Democracy here, as at the end of the day it is just liberalism no matter what "usefulness" it might have for 21st Century Leftism in the short-term.

Therefore, please post Social Democrat/Red Liberal criticisms, cringeworthy pics and/or videos, or whatever else you want ITT. Anyone lurking who is an unironic Social Democrat feel free to defend yourself but please try to remain civil

370 posts and 91 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Irrelevant historical comparison that doesn’t even make sense



That's the BO you're talking to! Show some respect!



Banned instantly


She will get engaged to a REDpilled no-name and become radicalized


File: e4bc9d6f613dcec⋯.jpg (29.6 KB, 400x285, 80:57, 1401967324864.jpg)


Demsuccs are just the "left" wing of the Democrats. Even their first chairman admitted to it.

File: 2ad7ae3d2d717c7⋯.png (128.42 KB, 460x215, 92:43, ClipboardImage.png)

File: f0541713b2e232a⋯.png (997.84 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 8c0a07cd0be47dc⋯.png (341.77 KB, 787x918, 787:918, ClipboardImage.png)


It's that time again Comrades, Lenin is young, and new October is coming.

Normal difficulty, 1985 start.

Who will the politburo elect as General Secretary?

Grigory Romanov, Adropov's steadfast protege within the party leadership?

Mikhail Gorbachev, the rising star of the party?

Victor Grishin, an unlikely but ambitious hardliner and close supporter of Chernenko?

Or the longstanding, if unambitious, party grandee Andrey Gromyko?

Or perhaps the politburo sees another, more appropriate candidate to lead the Party in this difficult time for the Union.

495 posts and 269 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 55adfa8c0976e1b⋯.jpeg (43.01 KB, 540x810, 2:3, 55adfa8c0976e1b2d22f30f5d….jpeg)


Uhh… m8?

I hate to tell ya this but… you're late by like almost a month now.



I won 2 times in a row with DDR and it was not even that hard.


File: eaa1e8d2aeab114⋯.jpg (46.49 KB, 445x459, 445:459, eaa1e8d2aeab1146099eb35abf….jpg)


Well DDR is pretty much the easiest of them all since they have the best starting conditions ie. a good economy and a large pool of agents to use for covert actions abroad and domestically. So you winning with DDR of all things is not saying much about the game's difficulty.



Why does that game lack Czechoslovakia, the true richest Eastern Bloc country (unlike DDR, it didn't get the Potemkin village economic support from USSR to make it artificially rich, and was quite good despite having to deal with Soviet occupation).


File: 9585603c15c71fc⋯.png (363.21 KB, 1000x940, 50:47, e93b60bbf267d58c2807c663cd….png)


Because Czechoslovakia is DLC.

File: 28f10820874f80f⋯.jpg (173.94 KB, 1174x738, 587:369, Lenin and Stalin.jpg)

File: 0394de65579f447⋯.jpg (32.12 KB, 700x360, 35:18, lenin.jpg)



>Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and financier Warren Buffett own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the U.S. combined;

>As median household wealth has declined since 1982, the Walton, Koch, and Mars families have seen their wealth grow 6,000 percent;

>A full-time Amazon employee making $15 an hour would have to work for 2.5 million years to earn $78.5 billion, the amount Bezos's fortune has expanded in the past year alone.

>Published by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) on Tuesday in a new report—titled "Billionaire Bonanza 2018: The Role of Dynastic Wealth" (pdf)—these numbers paint a striking portrait of an economy designed to enrich a handful of individuals and family dynasties while leaving the rest of the American population with stagnant or falling wages, meager or even negative wealth, and soaring economic insecurity.

>"Today's extreme wealth inequality is perhaps greater than any time in American history," Josh Hoxie, a co-author of the report, said in a statement. "This is largely the result of rapidly growing wealth dynasties and a rigged economy that enables the ultra-wealthy to grow their wealth to never-before-seen highs."

>Citing economist Thomas Piketty's warning that the United States is operating under a system of "patrimonial capitalism" that allows the wealthy few to hoard their riches and pass them on to their heirs—fueling the rapid explosion of inequality since the 1970s—IPS found that "seven of the 20 wealthiest members of the Forbes 400 inherited their wealth from previous generations, often through companies founded by their ancestors."

>These members, the report notes, include "Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries as well as Jim, Alice, and S. Robson Walton of Walmart and Jacqueline and John Mars of the Mars candy empire."

>According to IPS, these thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

44 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



lol now the 50 cent army is character assassinating marx himself to try to make China look better



Basically this and its already happening. But the gig economy is unsustainable. It doesnt offer a living wage in a world where everything is becomming increasingly more expensive. Eventually this race to the bottom will end once it finally pushes everyone to the breaking point.



But that's exactly why people will move from ownership to renting. They won't be earning enough from their gigs to own property. They'll only be able to borrow it for limited periods of time on lease. Owning will become increasingly more expensive, but renting will become increasingly more convenient.

get ready to share your dishes on an app because you can't afford to own plates



Marx wrote very successful books about political economy (that were 99% correct). Writing is a job.



It will only de-bourgify the wage slaves. the labor aristocracy can still afford to buy. They will unfortunately be driven further right as the increasing number of poor demand more socialist policies which means more taxes for the few remaining homeowners.

File: 425f70f0c9a30ba⋯.jpg (1.48 MB, 2080x1080, 52:27, KJU-WPKCC2P-ROCT082017c.jpg)


>The new class is used as a polemic term by critics of countries that followed the Soviet type of Communism to describe the privileged ruling class of bureaucrats and Communist Party functionaries which arose in these states.

>The term "red bourgeoisie" is a pejorative synonym for the term new class, crafted by leftist critics and movements (like the 1968 student demonstrations in Belgrade).

Thread for the discussion of the role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union in particular and socialist states in general.

The growth of a group of self interested unaccountable bureaucrats is often used as an explanation for the failure of the Soviet Union. This criticism goes back to the very start of the project. But even if a grain of truth is in it, it can be hard to disentangle liberal or deviationist propaganda, and so merits closer examination.

The relationships between the state, the party, the government, the bureaucrats, the nomenclatura - all will be made clear in this thread.

68 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at




Yes. You should ignore everyone who doesn't agree with you. They are obviously insane.



If you want to nitpick and demand sources but then discard sources because they've been "debunked" (but you can't show where) then obviously you're just wasting everyone's time. Go watch anime or something.




Wait a sec, that argument only works for a binary issue, something that either is absolutely the case or absolutely not. It doesn't work for arguing about general trends. What you pretend to be a sensible structure for an argument is this:

Argument: A is different from B because A has quality FOO_AS_COMMON_OCCURRENCE

Pseudo-refutation: but B also has quality FOO_AS_RARE_OCCURRENCE

Example argument: Heavy smokers are different from non-smokers because of the lung-cancer issue.

Pseudo-refutation: Non-smokers can also get lung cancer.

Another example argument: The capitalist class leads longer lives than the working class.

Pseudo-refutation: Here, look at this working-class guy that is older than some dead capitalist, so there!

You don't either have full access or none at all. If you are allowed in, your degree of access depends on how much hard currency you have (duh). Intershop stores in the GDR were like that (first only open to tourists, in the 70s open to the general population, but only those with Westgeld could buy anything, meaning a minority). The Russian hard-currency "Beriozka" stores directly discriminated between important party people, who were allowed to shop there like the tourists, and the majority who were not. Also consider the location of these stores and that people couldn't decide by themselves whether to move to a big city like Moscow.



Schitzo Anon unironically thinks that if you don’t believe the USSR was a flawless worker’s paradise then you must believe it was a satanic hellscape. Apparently there is not middle ground.



> Wait a sec, that argument only works for a binary issue

Which is okay, as the argument it refutes is binary - which was the whole point of the refutation (that someone's understanding was overly simplistic; not to mention wrong).

> It doesn't work for arguing about general trends.

It doesn't. But we don't have an argument about "general trends". Our stable geniuses can't formulate an argument beyond the "since I've read somewhere something about someone getting a bad impression about USSR after reading some unknown book or article, USSR was not real Socialism and all accusations against it are automatically true".

> Example argument: Heavy smokers are different from non-smokers because of the lung-cancer issue.

> Pseudo-refutation: Non-smokers can also get lung cancer.

That's not a "pseudo-refutation", but a proper one.

As your example argument did not clarify what "lung-cancer issue" was about, it is perfectly legit to point out that having lung cancer does not make you a heavy smoker.

> Another example argument: The capitalist class leads longer lives than the working class.

> Pseudo-refutation: Here, look at this working-class guy that is older than some dead capitalist, so there!

Much better (as it actually is a "pseudo), but it is a qualitatively different kind of mistake, not the one you are talking about.

> The Russian hard-currency "Beriozka" stores directly discriminated between important party people, who were allowed to shop there like the tourists, and the majority who were not.

So, there were secret Party Elite passes that super-secret Party Elite had been using? News to me.

Some sources would be good.

> Also consider thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 480dbb0f6d174fd⋯.png (541.09 KB, 415x562, 415:562, 87.png)


OC Thread 3.0

I suppose we should establish a new thread dedicated to /leftypol/ original content.

Feel free to post original content you've made, or OC someone else recently made which you would like to share.

Or, collaborate on improving content within this thread.

495 posts and 322 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Even Brezhnev is better than Lukashenko.


File: d361289d54e60b4⋯.png (2.04 MB, 988x2101, 988:2101, Scarlet Аылй.png)

Here is my OC Scarlet, the Russian Socialist.



File: e9f02eb029002f8⋯.png (104 KB, 600x600, 1:1, alunya thumbs up.png)


Nice to see more communist OCs



Sure thing, thank you comrade.

File: 254b6ae14c9b006⋯.jpg (55.76 KB, 547x547, 1:1, 1538149818495.jpg)


What does /leftypol/, think of Lavrentiy Beria? Do you think he could have saved the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War if he had been allowed to implement his reforms instead of getting overthrown and executed by Khrushchev? Even if he had turned out to be a Soviet Deng Xiaoping and turned the Soviet Union into a state capitalist nation would have been better than the Soviet Union completely collapsing and falling to the Oligarchs and Putin?

89 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.






I'm talking about democracy, not meetings where high officials can jerk off to each other.



Also, we forget that the Soviet Union was in constant danger of being nuked any moment in those years.



Smearing people as nazbols, the oldest trick in the book.


File: 14b757ea99b9f07⋯.jpg (1.56 MB, 2844x4694, 1422:2347, 15e7c8e7810e0ca9fc451510b4….jpg)


The old clique was corrupted as fuck and they killed stalin.

Zhukov did nothing wrong

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / fur / mde / o / tacos / vg / vichan ]