/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Captcha
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

Bernie Sanders draws his campaign to an end: The political lessons Anonymous 03/19/2020 (Thu) 08:58:34 No. 377008 [Reply] [Last]
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/03/19/sand-m19.html The Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign effectively came to an end Wednesday, with campaign manager Faiz Shakir announcing that Sanders was returning to his home in Burlington, Vermont, where he “is going to be having conversations with his supporters to assess his campaign.” The announcement was emailed to millions of people on the campaign mailing list, without the usual accompanying request for a donation—a sure sign that Sanders is preparing to drop out. What Sanders and his top aides will “assess” is the exact form in which he will begin to campaign for former Vice President Joe Biden: should Sanders officially drop out now, or should he maintain the pretense of a contest. It is significant that Sanders is bringing his campaign to a close precisely at the point where reality is demonstrating the necessity for socialism. The spreading coronavirus pandemic is exposing the inability of capitalism to deal with any of the great problems confronting mankind. As the ruling elites respond by funneling trillions of dollars into the stock markets, workers throughout the world are outraged over the criminal indifference of world governments to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. For the second time in four years, Sanders has mounted a campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination which mobilized a wide popular following, particularly among young people, based on his calls for a “political revolution” and his focus on social inequality. And for the second time, Sanders will attempt to convince his supporters to back the most right-wing, pro-capitalist candidate available. The growth of anti-capitalist sentiment revealed in the support for Sanders frightened the ruling class. After Sanders’ initial victories in early caucuses and primaries, the Democratic Party turned sharply against him. The same party that Sanders claimed could be reformed mobilized to resuscitate the campaign of Biden, the semi-senile embodiment of the party as an instrument of Wall Street and the military. Most of the remaining candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden, while the nominal “progressive” Elizabeth Warren ended her campaign without endorsing anyone—an effective statement of support for Biden. The party mobilized the corrupt representatives of the African American bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie to support Biden on the basis of racialist appeals. The media was organized to present Biden as the most “electable” candidate to defeat Trump, while supporters of Sanders were branded as Russian agents. Sanders had no answer to the offensive against him. When the Democratic Party kicked him in the teeth, his response was to shift further to the right, adapting himself at every turn. This included a number of statements declaring his readiness to wage war against Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China, and that the US has “the best military in the world.”

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

372 posts and 24 images omitted.
>he Democratic Party turned sharply against him. The same party that Sanders claimed could be reformed mobilized to resuscitate the campaign of Biden, the semi-senile embodiment of the party as an instrument of Wall Street and the military. Cope Sanders might've caucused as a Democrat for ages but he was never a Democrat and thus never one of "them." It's fucking obvious that as more moderates dropped they'd flock to Biden based off his performance in SC. There is no conspiracy, and since the author claims there is one, then prove it. >This included a number of statements declaring his readiness to wage war against Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China, and that the US has “the best military in the world.” You will never win in national politics if you actively demonise arguably one of the most powerful military forces of all time, whether you like it or not, this is a sacred cow that is impossible to attack and get away with it unscathed. > His criticisms of “my friend Joe” did not extend beyond mild rebukes. He did not once mention “socialism,” “capitalism,” or his “political revolution.” I agree. >Sanders does not call for placing the pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries under public ownership in order to launch an emergency program to open more intensive care units and produce ventilators, as well as the development of a vaccine. He does not call for confiscating the fortunes of the super-rich to pay for the enormous social needs created by the crisis—and aggravated by decades of corporate-directed cutbacks in public healthcare services. He does not even call for taxing the wealthy. Retard tier idealism. There is not enough of a leftwing movement in the United States to even contemplate publicly saying this. I totally agree that this should be done but you're fucking retarded if you think anyone would seriously propose such notions right now. All we can do is wait and see how the NSC + Cabinet utilise the Defense Mobilization Act given we all know Trump isn't holding the reins right now.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Gentlemen i feel like we are running out of options. If America cant even turn into soc dem what do we have left? Support chinese imperialism over american and hope they win?
>>384334 move to a country with universal healthcare and affordable housing, murica is a sinking ship
>>384334 1) Hope Corona kills the Boomers 2) Wait for society to fucking burn 3) Watch society fucking burn
>>384174 It’s funny beyond fuck for you fags to argue exactly why electoralism is A WASTE OF FUCKING TIME, and then right after demand people waste their time with it. The fuck is wrong with you? If you’re actually going on about electability shit to justify imperialist aggression then you aren’t a commie and are suited to the DNC. I wonder how you fuckin socdem shills would respond when Sanders started bombing foreign countries like all 45 presidents proceeding him.

David Harvey talks about anti-capitalist implications of COVID-19 Anonymous 03/19/2020 (Thu) 16:20:31 No. 378047 [Reply] [Last]
DAVID HARVEY ON COVID "THE ANTI-CAPITALIST AGENT" 19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI1UGA5QTrg
11 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>379477 This is pretty much why I take issue with the guy. It is overwhelmingly clear that Marx's views must be seen as grounded in a Labour theory of value, or more specifically a theory that embodied labour time in a freely reproducible commodity is proportional to its mean price under conditions of a free market. There is no comprehensive falsification of this formulation Marxian theory of price formation that I have ever seen. As such I feel like just throwing it out is the abandonment of core marxist ideas for no good reason.
>>380589 Stfu you are to retarded. You can have criticisms of 20th century socialism and still be Marxist, Anarchist or leftist whatever word you use. Boiled down its just "this is what we got wrong and should do next time". Harvey and Chomsky are good.
>>382113 This. Debating over the one true reading of Marx is annoying. I'm grateful for the work Harvey does because I think it can lead people towards their own readings of Marx. Even if we find people like Harvey and Wolff to not always being on the mark, I'd rather they be around then not if they help in building class-consciousness. I see them acting in good faith while being surrounded on all sides by capitalist academia and educating minds.
>>384842 People to busy pretending the Soviet Union still exists to realize we need a 21st Century Socialism for a new generation of workers

(151.46 KB 600x617 stalin porky.png)
"Socialism has money and markets" - and other retarded nonsense Anonymous 03/02/2020 (Mon) 00:41:17 No. 315321 [Reply] [Last]
Stalinists on this board seem to think that there is some kind of "transitional" stage between the capitalist and socialist modes of production. Supposedly, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a bunch of firms have to be nationalized, a bunch of succdem reforms like universal healthcare must be implemented, and all firms must come under the control of the state. According to them, socialism has money, markets, commodity production, wage labor, and property ownership (although this property is owned by the STATE, which according to them, is OBVIOUSLY different). They misunderstand even the most basic shit about what capitalism is, and thus they're completely lost on communism. How do we get to communism? Simple. As stated by Marx in the Manifesto, " the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Got it? There are no "transitional states" or other objectives. There is no utopian cybernetic scheme that people like Cockshott work out in their head. The ONLY thing that needs to be done to abolish capitalism is for society to stop recognizing people's claims to private property. From here, all of society will become "a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community." Then what's the point of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Well according to Marx, the only purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is "overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" over THE ENTIRE WORLD. The proletarian state DOES NOT, and CANNOT abolish the capitalist mode of production by itself. I cannot stress this enough. The ONLY purpose of the dictatorship is to render the bourgeoisie powerless and pacify all other classes, so that the proletarians can finally get around to abolishing private property.
152 posts and 20 images omitted.
>>327740 Science is more precise, it's hard to go against things that can be directly observed in exat termins, while socio-economics is quite muddled.
(162.07 KB 576x566 GLk41ixh (1).jpg)
(140.46 KB 1641x807 EPlR1gAWsAAdnAt.jpeg)
>>316404 >Frankly, "planning" out how future society will be organized in your head is a pointless waste of time: it'll be up to the people of the future anyways. how bout no
>>341772 >Nepal >wikipedia Kek

(25.39 KB 400x400 xRebdCDg_400x400.jpg)
Why are the brits bootlicking this nigga? Anonymous 03/21/2020 (Sat) 23:33:58 No. 384495 [Reply] [Last]
I imagine they'll continue doing even after they get infected.
>>384495 They just want to get over with it. You cant push internationalism democratically.
anglo brainwashing
>>384495 because they think boris is a proper lad

(69.59 KB 685x448 images (1).jpeg)
Religious supression in the USSR Anonymous 02/28/2020 (Fri) 18:00:04 No. 308476 [Reply] [Last]
Whats the thruth and whats the myth regarding religious life in the Soviet Republic?I'm also a bit curious if there is anything about the smaller groups still practicing slavic paganism and how well they fared under socialism Hunting down people by their faith in such a huge country sounds a fair bit complicated and idiotic to me, so what did actually happen?
32 posts and 8 images omitted.
>>376488 stfu obscurantist
>>316394 Doesn't the Czech republic have the highest meth consumption in the world?
>>380742 No, it's Slovakia and then Australia.
(12.02 KB 207x244 download.jpg)
>>308481 so he was a pagan larper like himmler but more based?

(54.21 KB 750x731 za9xqcbxgee11.jpg)
Anonymous 03/20/2020 (Fri) 16:38:56 No. 381492 [Reply] [Last]
Here is an idea, let's understand Nazis better than they understand themselves, that way we might actually be able to cure some of them since they are basically just afraid and often (as far as basically all of my experience goes) at least slightly challenged intelligence wise... Read some Post Malone https://libcom.org/library/anti-semitism-national-socialism-moishe-postone
61 posts and 3 images omitted.
>>384219 I've read Hitler, Mosley, Mussolini, Gentile, Goebbels, Strasser. You're obviously mad that your sacred texts didn't convince me, because they're made for very gullible people. Also sage for this godawful thread. >>384296 He should be permabanned, the baboon jokes stopped being funny years ago.
>>384296 Leftypol doesn't understand that ignoring these people is the biggest insult you can give them. >When the nazi asks, "what do you think of me" simply say "I don't think of you"
>>384205 Off to the forest, then. Your bodily autonomy is no more important than anyone else's.
Nazism is an incredibly shallow ideology, even when you get into the pseudoscience bullshit parts. There is nothing more to understand.

(106.14 KB 600x600 withered.jpg)
/doom/ - Doomer General Anonymous 03/21/2020 (Sat) 21:22:53 No. 384170 [Reply] [Last]
For a moment I thought this crisis would mean some sort of change and maybe revitalize the possibility of a workers movement, but its already becoming plain that they're letting people they don't think they think are useless die on purpose and using this whole thing to further advance towards total, open control. The type that doesn't even rely on money or markets, just plain violent ownership. Perhaps Orwell was right and revolution in the modern time is impossible. The state is to powerful, and the lives of the average workers too drudgerous to form a theory of their own oppression without the help of the intellectuals of the middle class, a class that will always betray them to seize power for themselves. Its getting bad bros. I've already lost my Job and the national guard has Humvees outside.
61 posts and 8 images omitted.
>>384251 Well we probably would need a Marxist neurologist for that. I'v just recently begun looking into this and so far i found Daniel Dennet Consciousness explained which goes a little into that direction
Sever your emotional investment in the proles and learn to enjoy the shitshow. Nobody is coming out of this with any dignity. If you can't get any lulz out of it then just kys right now.
>>384342 ...the last words of porkies. That kind of philosophical musing is a waste of time. Anyway if you're here it's more proof than ever of free will given the ideological conditioning that occurs from birth to death.
>>385053 >some dissatisfied and alienated people thoroughly failed by the system discover literature that reveals what brought them to this point, and accept that it makes sense >therefore human will is a bunch of coin-flips that is inexplicably outside causality or calculation
>>385085 There's questions as to whether consciousness even falls in line with causality. Ex. a human isn't like any other object such as a ball rolling down the hill where it would just keep moving, but if it had a mind at any point it would resist and it can provide it's own shaping of reality. There's no law being broken here if you take a phenomenological perspective where you're doing the interpretation of the sensations you're receiving, which you're not really in charge of. Anyway again, that side of philosophy is for chumps who want to focus on something that's such a waste of time like if we live in a simulation or not. Imagine presenting this sort of thing to Marx. I'm sure he would have laughed in their face and proceeded to go back to his study. I think it's fun sometimes I admit, but I think the current crisis has made me distance from it a little with the only part remaining being the one of critique. Philosophy is a 3000 year old game and discussion, and I find the social and historical aspect more rewarding. I'm open to the critique of my own post, I guess that's one of the benefits of it.

(30.51 KB 288x288 Pepellende.jpg)
Show me good texts that btfo supply and demand/free market Anonymous 03/21/2020 (Sat) 20:58:58 No. 384120 [Reply] [Last]
If any of you kind anons could provide any texts that talk about disproving supply and demand, free market, etc (simple stuff preferrably) it would be really appreciated. Also a bit of a related question, the USSR never abolished neither wage labor nor currency, so people would still be incentivized to have more money right? If this is the case then why would, say, a butcher sell meat to the price the state tells him to sell it to if many people are buying his meat; wouldn't he be incentivized to sell it for a higher price? Even if he's getting subsidized by the state, you could say these people would still be inclined to sell their products for a higher price if they can clearly see people are very much into their shit.
17 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>384189 >Will people produce to fulfill needs? Yeah I suppose >>384192 I'm not implying it's economic theory, I'm asking if the functionality of supply and demand would still be present in a hypothetical communist society.
>>384197 Supply in demand is too general a term in this case. Do you mean supply and demand in a market or market-like setting where it sets the price according to the supply and demand in a given moment? If the economic system has said market like characteristics then "supply and demand" will create the price. If there is no such market like system it will not have effect. I would ask you to please specify what you mean by "will supply and demand exist". It seems a silly question.
>>384239 It most likely is a silly question, I asked it cause I didn't see supply and demand as what it actually was. I think a better question would if production in a communist society would be conducted on the basis of supply and demand.
>>384292 Production isn't conducted according to supply and demand. Supply and demand only concerns price. In capitalism, if the price is larger than the costs, you will ramp up production in order to make more profit. Under communism, you would have supply and demand, but not neccecarily price. You could have rationing. If you so have price like cockshott advocates for the early stages of socialism, you would change production so as to get the price to match the cost of production.
>>384120 What about muh commodity production?

(53.29 KB 518x518 images (89).jpeg)
How can I deprogram myself from viewing Jews as evil reptiles? Anonymous 03/21/2020 (Sat) 19:07:54 No. 383869 [Reply] [Last]
I seriously stopped seeing them as human. Every Jewish person I know has some sort of mental illness and low empathy and obvious health problems due to inbreeding. They are generally sadistic and ugly. I just can't stop seeing them as reptilians. Can I be deprogrammed? Or am I too redpilled?
80 posts and 8 images omitted.
>>384104 Because He's autistic enough to believe he has a chance with Jewish girls yet he spends his time on an incel forum. And the people who fetishize minorites are generally woke twitteroids. Therefore I picture him as an unattractive but overconfident woke tranny.
>>384124 > incel forum leftypol is the chad forum buddy
>>383869 By realizing it isn't just Jews oppressing you. There are a number of different ethnicities oppressing you. Racism is just their way of dividing the lower class
>>384127 Where is the incel forum?
They already gave you your answer OP here >>383874, if you're still spooked on jews you're far too gone

(932.75 KB 788x805 marx.png)
Question on the start of Capital Anonymous 03/21/2020 (Sat) 05:45:54 No. 383181 [Reply] [Last]
The world is burning, what better time to read Capital? I've just started, like literally only read the first section of the first chapter, although I do already know a lot about the LTV already so not going in completely blind. However there seem to be two fundamental points in this first section that Marx is building up on top of, and I've spent time trying to justify them to myself but I can't quite do it, can some comrades help me out here? First off is the assertion that if x corn = y iron, then x corn and y iron must be mutually equal to some third thing. I almost get this but it still feels like a jump to me. Why *must* they be equal to some external third quantity? The only reason that comes to mind is that maybe this third quantity is more 'fundamental' somehow, in that it isn't expressed in terms of another commodity but rather a pure number, but I still feel like this is hazy too so I would appreciate some clarifications. Secondly is the abstraction of use value in equivalence. I completely agree that in comparing corn to iron, their material uses are stripped away, leaving just different quantities to be balanced out. But what about 'usefulness' of a commodity? Marx seems to assert that as long as something *is* useful, it doesn't matter in what way, but can't we say that it might matter *how* useful something is, almost as if usefulness had a quantity of it's own which played into these weightings? I understand that the next step in the argument is that if usefulness is abstracted away, this necessarily only leaves the quantity of labour, or labour time, imbued in the commodity. Again, I agree with this for the nature of the usefulness, but I can't articulate as to why this also must abstract about 'quantity' of usefulness. What if iron is just more useful than corn as a general statement? Then surely this would factor into a difference in value, *as well as* the labour time required to produce a given quantity, no? I know this argument is wrong somehow but I don't understand this well enough to figure out why. Can anyone help me out with both these things?
12 posts and 1 image omitted.
"First Premises of Materialist Method The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm The scientific premise (of the Materialist Method) is reality, and we can empirically infer that people do this (this is what money does) - this is exactly the defining characteristic of generalised commodity production, generalised exchange! However! - consider if this was not true. We have then two commodities of two (generally) unequal quantities (x corn and y iron). Since we have generalised exchange, then corn can also be exchanged for linen, as can iron. Say that z_x is the amount of linen we receive for x corn, and z_y is the amount of linen we receive for y amount of iron. If z_x and z_y are not equal, then one is greater than the other. Without loss of generality, we assume that z_x > z_y. We could then get our hands on x amount of iron, exchange it for z_x linen, and then exchange z_y of the linen for y iron, and end up with (z_x - z_y) linen and y iron. If we exchange y iron for x corn, we end up with x corn and (z_y - z_x) linen, so we have a surplus of (z_y - z_x) linen, just by moving paper around.
>>383248 No, definitely not. Marx explicitly says in Capital vol 2 they are not currency, and furthermore they do not mediate exchange value because value itself doesn't exist by this point of Socialism - all labour is already directly social as production is communally owned and so the transition from private to social labour - the act that bestows value - cannot take place.
>>383327 honestly Tiqqun made an interesting article on ‘use value’ called ‘on the economy considered as black magic’ which does have its metaphysical parts but it addresses commodity equivalency vs singularity of individuals while belonging to a larger group. There are a couple works it draws heavily on including one I can only find in French but it’s still doable. >>383203 np anonrade, it’s fundamental algebra but you probably took that class ages ago and thus forgot
>>383181 >First off is the assertion that if x corn = y iron, then x corn and y iron must be mutually equal to some third thing. I almost get this but it still feels like a jump to me. Why *must* they be equal to some external third quantity? Because iron and corn are two different things. They have little in common with each other, but they have some quantity by which you can compare them. The third thing isn't another commodity like >>383189 implies. The third thing is more conceptual. It is a factor that exists in common between the two things that allows you to compare them. The "third thing" is really just the comparator between the two. >Secondly is the abstraction of use value in equivalence. I completely agree that in comparing corn to iron, their material uses are stripped away, leaving just different quantities to be balanced out. But what about 'usefulness' of a commodity? Marx seems to assert that as long as something *is* useful, it doesn't matter in what way, but can't we say that it might matter *how* useful something is, almost as if usefulness had a quantity of it's own which played into these weightings? The best way to think about this is that there is a finite demand for things. Where you have less supply than demand you have scarcity. Where you have more supply than demand you have abundance. If the demand/need is fully supplied, there isn't use-value/utility in exceeding it. And in capitalism you can actually have a crisis of overproduction, where the supply is high enough it drives the price too low to be sold for a profit. >I understand that the next step in the argument is that if usefulness is abstracted away, this necessarily only leaves the quantity of labour, or labour time, imbued in the commodity. Again, I agree with this for the nature of the usefulness, but I can't articulate as to why this also must abstract about 'quantity' of usefulness. What if iron is just more useful than corn as a general statement? Then surely this would factor into a difference in value, *as well as* the labour time required to produce a given quantity, no? The factor in play is demand. There is more demand for iron. The reason everything gets stripped away but labor input is because the labor input is what you (the general, conceptual you) have to trade to get the product. You can think of it like the natural cost of the thing. Society or the economy has to pay nature the labor input to turn existing resources into the product, and then once that happens the product can be exchanged on the market according to that. The price fluctuates based on other factors, and even the value degrades with use or deterioration of the product.
>>383539 >Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine >>383562 >This quote is about gift economies among Indians and Slavs Certainly not. >>383736 >Tiqqun made an interesting article on ‘use value’ called ‘on the economy considered as black magic’ That text misrepresents Marx in basically every second paragraph (the other paragraphs are about other French "theorists"). <He thought he’d found such a foundation [of equivalence between commodities] in use value No, the foundation is socially necessary labor time. This is basic Marx101 knowledge. <For Marx, use value has no mystery about it; it is the bare state of the thing Marx criticizes that point of view in Capital when he brings up magnets and society's evolving understanding of what those are useful for. <work has finally showed itself to be something inessential This isn't even worthy of a rebuttal. <Use value is to need what Marx considers that exchange value is to labor: use value is the abstract need crystallized in a particular thing, which appears as a purely specific quality of that thing, because need is presented as something general, abstract. Use value is NOT presented in some abstract way by the economic system, so the analogy doesn't work at all. Talking about complex gift-giving rituals between islanders:

Message too long. Click here to view full text.


Delete
Report

no cookies?