/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>466626
Well, I'm not an incel - not that it matters. Once rejected, always rejected. It will always be some bullshit.
If people really want to value this, they're only contributing to the nightmare. I wish I could say it's only their problem, but their problems become my problems because they're trained to go after me or anyone who wants to stay out of their faggotry.
You're not really "incel" unless you're in that hard lumpen class, and in that situation, your life is destroyed for far more than the lack of pussy. It's just a reminder of why the world is a living hell.
But go on. I don't know why you think you're going to win with your likely porn addiction or whatever pity sex you are getting, or why you think this ends well. Fags always revel in the rot.

Seriously, I'm glad I didn't accept being a fag, which is one of the objectives of this rot. That's worse than anything I saw in the incel world, and that's saying a lot. That said, one of the fates for incels was to become a fag or troon out.

Feminism is just liberalism for middle class white women.

>>451812
SCUM manifesto has done more for both men's rights and women's rights than regular feminism has since it's inception by theory alone.

>incel/female question
just call em lesbians

>>462161
There's 100's of millions of middle class people in the US, Europe and Japan. Also the result of the people's glorious revolution?

>>462161
>Measuring poverty by porky metrics.
Meanwhile urban poor Chinese are more precarious and live in shittier conditions than they ever did as peasants.

>>469947
The situation with China internal migrant workers has improved tho.

>>469951
chins arnt human but hymen for the west

>>443875
Yeah. The Freemasons emerged from medieval guilds in the Western world where apprenticeship is very important. Young people would choose a "master" in a particular field, and professionals would group up in guilds to protect themselves, like for carpenters and… masons. That was the basis for what became these secret societies of bourgeoisie in England in the 1700s. When it came to America, it was a secret society for bankers, judges, wealthy businessmen, and politicians.

>>443868
>They are filled with conspiracy theories all over the net.
Yes. I think ultra-conservatives dislike the Freemasons because they see them as spinning powerful webs to spark revolutions.

Today, I suppose the Freemasons are pretty old-fashioned now. It's like old men who want to get away from their wives, while the upper bourgeoisie today have the World Economic Forum and so forth. The right-wing conspiracy theories don't really talk about the "New World Order" either anymore but the "Great Reset." And this is viewed in highly Manichean terms, like an "evil" plot to enslave the world. But the people at the top of the capitalist world don't see themselves as evil. They think they're doing good for the world, or doing things that will benefit everyone, whether that's the reality or not.

But I'd almost say the Freemasons in the 1700s-1800s were like the Protestant bourgeoise's alternative to the Catholic Church's upper crust of priests and cardinals. And they were at odds with each other, because the Freemasons discouraged Catholics from joining, and the Catholic Church issued injunctions against the Freemasons. There are ultra-conservative Catholics who also feared a Masonic-Judaic alliance. Jewish bankers and merchants worked with the Anglo capitalists who were part of the Freemasons and so forth. I imagine that's why Franco banned the Freemasons. He was an ultra-conservative Catholic leader. The Nazis of course banned Freemasonry as they were reactionary ultra-nationalists.

>China banned them
They kicked them out of the mainland. The Chinese freemasons were tied up with the British and the KMT and are apparently still allowed today to exist in Hong Kong. And they havPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

It's all façade and you still look too misinformed about them. Nobody here relates them with "the protocols of zion's elders" and this speaks alarming

Do they even still exist?

>>443868
Haven't been politically relevant since the 19th century.

>>454340

They are most certainly still relevant. Social Media distractions, and cover-ups make people think they're no longer important. The WEF, WHO, WB are FULL of 33rd Degrees.

Zionists fund Freemasonry, so it won't die, but could be restructured to captivate Millennials and Zoomers.

The problem is retaining long enough to identify if MM are capable of becoming a 33rd (sociopathic tendencies).

Current generations are degens, mostly, and it's hard to find well-rounded and morally eskewed individuals that would join.

>>469939
treating other side as terrorist (popular by mods)

You've always lived under "mass surveillance". The rulers are not blind and always have informants, and have always wanted to clamp down on any possibility of the little people having a single thing. The only thing that changed is that the masters have more eyes and more informants, and trained their subjects to be more eager to snitch. The only snitches who are punished are those who work against the lords' preferred thugs and gangsters.

In other words, Foucault is an idiot making obtuse mystifications to pretend biopolitics is new. It was inherent in the imperial religion of the 19th century and everything the liberals and Nazis did, and implied by socialism and communism.

>>469939
>Can someone define cancel culture?
A historic example would be the inquisition coming after you for opposing the crusades.

A contemporary example would be the radlibs harassing you as a something-phobe for not supporting rainbow-imperialism.

>>469959
Interesting point, i guess class struggle has to contain an information element. So what exactly is the objective here ? Should the proles know more about the ruling class than the other way around ?
>>469961
Yes Foucault's writings are obtuse, but i don't think he's pretending this stuff is new.

>>469684
Yeah that's true but this feels like they're just making a puppet and you're not supposed to notice the strings because you're marveling at the scifi aspect.

>>469684
yeah but what happens when it's trained on a dataset of $$$democratic world leaders$$$

>What are the political implicit of immortal legislators?
None, as long as nobody believes that any human (or robot) has the right to tell another human how to live his life.

>>469934
>it's all about BELIEVING duuudeee..
solipsistic brainrot

>>469934
Lol, where have you been the last 20 years. Algorithms have been telling people what to do for years.

>>464998
>Actually I would say the west is hiding it’s time until the neofeudal rent system becomes a immense inescapable reality
They can't make China submit to it, China is already to strong.
These people aren't the rulers of the world anymore.
>then industrialization will continue in a way that reinforces this reality
they're not playing 4D chess, they are loosing a game of checkers
>I don’t think they want to end industry period, they’re just stalling until it becomes beneficial to them
I get what you mean they want to blackmail industrial production to pay them rent, but all they can do is impose a rent burden on some industrial production that will than be out-competed by other industrial production that does not have a rent burden.

Marx made a pretty strong argument for why industrial power will in the end triumph over finance power.
What we are witnessing is a shift of economic power towards Asia, because the western capitalists are not keeping up with industrial investment.

https://invidious.baczek.me/watch?v=3_64wOUbiPE

the Nuclear Now Film just released

>>464982
>race for nuclear energy
What race?
The technology is ancient and (afaik) still unprofitable to this very day, despite the billions upon billions that are being poured into research.

Can you give an example of a single nuclear power plant that actually makes a profit without government subsidies?
inb4 muh AGW

>>469927
Nuclear power is very advanced, it's using the properties of matter that are way more powerful. From the point of physics there is just way more juice inside the core of an atom than its electron cloud.

Not using the core of atoms means technology gets stuck at a certain level. Not just for energy production but also for other applications. Eventually we'll want to mess around with the nucleus of the atom for other purposes like material science or possibly computing.

Nuclear power makes a lot of economic sense it uses comparably very little resources and labor inputs to produce absolutely huge quantities of energy. That means very low cost energy.

The main reasons why the capitalist mode of production has problems harnessing nuclear power is because it's a long term technology, it takes 2-5 years to build a plant, and then it runs for 40-60 years and then it takes another 2-5 years to decommission it. Which means that the entire cycle of an atomic power plant might be up-to 70 years. Most capitalists don't have that kind of patience.

Nuclear power-plants make electricity, and while electricity is the highest quality of energy we can make, it's also much harder to commodify, because you can't just fill up a tanker and then ship it to a customer. There sort off is a fix for that, i'll com back to it later.

Let me be clear here capitalism isn't the yard-stick against which we measure reality, if capitalism isn't able to deploy a useful technology that means capitalism is insufficient, not the technology. In Marxist jargon one would say capitalism is a fetter on the productive forces.

I think that if you want to run nuclear power within the capitalist mode of production the easiest way to do it, is by having a state-run energy production that provides super low cost energy to capitalist industries. It's basically energy as an infrastructure/subsidy.

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

>>469927
Can you explain to us why we should give a shit about profitability?

>>469844
>not clicking that
>I agree with the basic premise.

very peculiar

>>469848

Yeah, race is a charade & I'm not clicking.

Race is not a "thing" or "substance" you can isolate in a lab, but a question of heredity - basically asking "who your ancestors are" in a general enough sense that is understandable. We have a sense of what races are and who is in what race, but it only became relevant because eugenics became the political idea. The idea of "race rule" was absurd to even the screaming racists of the 19th century. It took eugenics to make that idea acceptable as a pseudoscience.

Maybe some day we wouldn't kill each other over stupid shit. There was a strange time in America where we thought that would happen. No such luck. Today's racism is thoroughly a proxy for eugenics generally, rather than mere "identity". The white racists can't even say what they really think with a straight face, because it's such a laughable claim about nature. It's intended for the petty-manager slaves who want to kick down someone, and when they don't have an identity ready for them to kick down, they find some other trait to justify their shitty behavior. None of it is based on anything but a crass greed, and that is intended. The true aristocracy are far more racist than anything that comes out of the mouth of a Reaganite bullycoward retard, and they are retarded. Listen to a liberal in the political elite talk about Africa and you can see hatred that would make Hitler blush, despite the lack of anything the Africans did except exist and want something for themselves. It's really absurd, but all of it comes back to a eugenic interest overtaking anything else. The Reaganites are their enablers, encouraged to be as stupid and venal as possible, then abase themselves and indulge in cuckold porn because they're the most worthless men and women, whose contribution to humanity is nothing but cheap and abundant torture and misery. The actually capable racists are the true danger. Without their hand, the Reaganites would be exposed as the fags they are and put down, and we wouldn't have to hear their retardation ever again.

Race is a charade but I don't understand anything else you said and I won't click some youtube link unless you give me a reason to.

>>469928
The video is from the Katie Halper show (lefty independent media with cerebral comedy and political commentary) , and there are 2 Marxists ( Pascal Robert & Jason Myles) explaining how capitalism uses identity politics. It's just shy of 5 minutes short.

>that won't stop people from minting coins or paper-notes
Which is completely irrelevant because that's not how money works. The stability of a currency is established by a state's ability to compel people to pay their taxes in the form of that currency. Funbux made by anyone else are simply commodities to be speculated upon.

>>469827
>Which is completely irrelevant because that's not how money works. The stability of a currency is established by a state's ability to compel people to pay their taxes in the form of that currency. Funbux made by anyone else are simply commodities to be speculated upon.
Lol of course you can't make your own fiat currency.

It's still possible to create commodity money, that can be precious metals, but they can also be based on a basket of normal commodities, a little bit like those supermarket gift-certificates. At present hardly anybody is interested in these and they hardly exist, let alone circulate. The reason for that is that government fiat currency is easier to use and has no drawbacks compared to commodity money. However if what many fear or anticipate comes true and those digital currencies get used for political repression, then commodity money will gain an advantage of bypassing those risks. You can't say this isn't a valid concern, in recent international conflicts access-denial to financial-transaction-systems has been wielded as a weapon. Whether this will also be used against smaller targets like organizations or individuals, that's unclear at the moment.

You do raise a valid concern about the stability, precious metals are currently suffering from exchange value fluctuations that are significant enough to make it hard to use as a currency, mostly do to speculation. Commodity money that is derived off a large enough goods-basket should remain usable though. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, during the early period of the 20th century when there were a lot of problems with fiat currencies, like severe inflation for example. A lot of people began experimenting with various commodity money schemes. This is largely forgotten history at this point but there is no reason to think this phenomenon won't come back if material conditions for it arise.

i won't comment on this but this is what ussr invented (ussr invented ipad !)

just like brazilians invented aeroplane

>dystopian "state in a smartphone"
dengbros… I don't feel so good..

>>469918
You're not entirely wrong to point this out.

However in China it's not really the state in a smartphone, it's the party in a smartphone. The Chinese state is very much a paper-machine. Party membership is mostly optional. Only the military and a few security related branches of government require party membership. party membership also might be an unofficial requirement for certain strategic sectors in the economy

Ironically enough if you want to do the American Yeoman rugged individual lifestyle about being a farmer that lives off grid while generating produce for cash, that's very easy in China because the state will even subsidize that, as long as it's a cooperative or family business.

That said China is pretty terrible on tech rights too, if you're a non-tech savy person buying the default-config tech gadgets, those have atrociously malicious anti-user features just like in the west. China also has tech illiterate politicians making stupid laws too, they even tried to ban ad-blockers. That said in the Chinese legal system laws are much more temporary. Rules are considered experiments and if people hate it, shit gets overturned very easily. So once the generation of people who grew up with technology enter the political system it's likely going to improve alot. In the west laws are like bricks in a castle-wall, fixing shit is very difficult and takes ages. If you had asked me 5 years ago of what civilization would win the race of making user respecting (satisfying the Richard Stallman standard of ethics) technology the default, i would have guessed that either Europe or the US would win, but with recent developments i'm not sure about that anymore.

China is also an ML system, so as long as you don't criticize the government too much, pretty much anything goes, which might sound unfree on the face of it, but considering where the west is headed, that might end up being less oppressive. Keep in mind that right now people in Germany are being prosecuted for having the wrong opinion on the Ukraine war.

>>469888
So we also need a method of evaluating what factors lead people towards honest vs tactical voting

>>469894
>distance-based voter-candidate "utility"
Sounds like this is the more generalized metric

>Sortition would naturally produce governing politics near the population
Sure but most people don't grasp statistical effects. Explaining why randomized statistically representative sampling is a really robust method, where all avenues for inserting bias have been beaten out, is really hard. Producing all those comparisons with electoral system might be necessary. I would even go as far as stating that we'd have to run an electoral and sortition system in parallel until we can prove by example that these statistical effects are real.

>>469896
>The increase in "complexity" doesn't seem that significant to me, though - I mean, it's not a difficult concept to understand. How dumb are voters supposed to be?
It's not about people being dumb it's about how much mental resources you require people to spend. If you can get good results with less brain juice, you leave more brain juice for other cognitive activities.

>Except for approval voting, these all just appear to be other forms of ranked choice. This seems like splitting hairs, frankly, especially when I said "ranked choice" and not "instant runoff" specifically.
Fair enough but consider that the main point was about focusing attention on having a bearable worst case scenario.

>>469897
Sure, corrupting a randomized selection process or the random subjects it picks, that will be very rare. Sortition probably makes it quite impossible to make corruption into a self-reproducing system.

That said it would not be hard to make election promises binding contracts. Enforcing contracts certainly is weaker than the structural anti-corruption tendencies in sortition. However it should be possible to improve the accountability for politicians upholding their election promises.

I guess if you have the option to implement a new political structure, go with sortition, but if you can't, apply as many bug-fixes as you can to the old one.

>>469902
>Explaining why randomized statistically representative sampling is a really robust method, where all avenues for inserting bias have been beaten out, is really hard.
Is it really, though? The ancient Greeks understood this at least two millennia before the Law of Large Numbers was proven mathematically.

>>469905
Not sure how to reply to this.
Ancient Greek was also one of the few instances of sortition democracy that we know off. If it was easy to spread this concept why wasn't it implemented more often ?

I wonder if I could have my cake and eat it. Be a right wing media grifter, but literally just engage in Marxist takes.
It seems when it comes to Idpol, being a Marxist is literally a far-right position according to Libs.

>>468569
Maybe if you can center on class politics you can gain support from people across the cultural spectrum. You should probably avoid using the bourgeois political left-right divide to understand politics. I think that would be limiting your self to cultural preferences of different bourgeois factions.

We may have to update our labels, because liberals are not liberal anymore, their focus is almost entirely on regulating the individual, they seem to be increasingly opposed to granting people more autonomy over their immediate environment, bodies, minds and personal possessions.

The liberals are also no longer championing social progress. For example there has been a huge regression in terms of prostitution. The liberals of the past used to agree with socialists that women ought not be forced to rent them selves out as prostitutes to affluent men. The people who see them selves as liberal today will explode in rage if you suggest that they can't command sex with money.

I'm also suspicious about other social theories from the liberals, i think it's going to be used to attack reproductive-rights for women. G-theory for example is minimizing the focus on the reproductive aspects of sexuality. This is certainly very convenient from the perspective of somebody trying to cloak their attacks on female reproductive rights. If womanhood is no longer defined by reproduction than the protections for womanhood will no longer cover reproduction.
The material explanation for this development might be that capitalism is attempting to commodify human-gestation. So that affluent bourgeois women no longer have to bare children but can rent surrogate wombs for that. Wealthy women will no longer need the protection of female reproductive rights to have autonomy over their bodies. They might even come to see it in the opposite light. The physical demands of pregnancy are a big disadvantage in the game of capital accumulation, and bourgeois women might see access to "womb-services" as a way to gain more "bourgeois-equality" compared to bourgeois men.

Socialists and people who used to be considered left would obviously be opposed to turning proletarian women into living gestation-pods for bourgeois spawn. But the liberals will likely champion this the same way they regressed on prostitution. I foresee surrogate womb services as a kindPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Finkelstein's definition of woke

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=EsffmdaoqZc

Look, I’m gonna level with you here. Like the vast majority of leftists who have been minted since Occupy Wall Street, my principles, values, and policy preferences don’t stem from a coherent set of moral values, developed into an ideology, which then suggests preferred policies. At all. That requires a lot of reading and I’m busy organizing black tie fundraisers at work and bringing Kayleigh and Dakota to fencing practice. I just don’t have the time. So my politics have been bolted together in a horribly awkward process of absorbing which opinions are least likely to get me screamed at by an online activist or mocked by a podcaster. My politics are therefore really a kind of self-defensive pastiche, an odd Frankensteining of traditional leftist rhetoric and vocabulary from Ivy League humanities departments I don’t understand. I quote Marx, but I got the quote from Tumblr. I cite Gloria Anzaldua, but only because someone on TikTok did it first. I support defunding the police because in 2020, when the social and professional consequences for appearing not to accept social justice norms were enormous, that was the safest place for me to hide. I maintain a vague attachment to police and prison abolition because that still appears to be the safest place for me to hide. I vote Democrat but/and call myself a socialist because that is the safest place for me to hide. I’m not a bad person; I want freedom and equality. I want good things for everyone. But politics scare and confuse me. I just can’t stand to lose face, so I have to present all of my terribly confused ideals with maximum superficial confidence. If you probe any of my specific beliefs with minimal force, they will collapse, as those “beliefs” are simply instruments of social manipulation. I can’t take my kid to the Prospect Park carousel and tell the other parents that I don’t support police abolition. It would damage my brand and I can’t have that. And that contradiction you detected, where I support maximum forgiveness for crime but no forgiveness at all for being offensive? For me, that’s no contradiction at all. Those beliefs are not part of a functioning and internally-consistent political system but a potpourri of deracinated slogans that protect me from headaches I don’t need. I never wanted to be a leftist. I just wanted to take my justifiable but inchoate feelings of dissatisfaction with the way things are and wrap them up into part of the narrative that I tell other people about myself, the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

At Oxford students now live in fear, they think cancelling each other will help them get ahead

<Even basic human connection is tainted at Oxford. Every student will at some point inevitably learn what’s known as a “hack” is, and realise that they did not make an enthusiastic new friend (“We should do coffee sometime, yeah?”), but in fact, the entire interaction was designed to get your vote for whatever minor position they may be running for that term. The coffee will never happen, and you won’t hear from them again until they pop up in your messages, asking for your vote.

<It’s been said that at Oxford “You don’t have friends, you have alliances”. However, even those are shaky at best. Whilst I imagine the nature of this has been the same for many years, it is certainly worse in ways today. At parties and events, people live in fear of something they say or do being recorded. This is more than just the effects of the internet age - it is well known that certain people, especially in student politics or journalism, often secretly audio record the entire evening in the hope of catching someone out.

<The worst part is that it doesn’t matter who it is they catch. People have publicly “cancelled” their closest friends, and even their partners. Furthermore, nothing is off limits to be used as material. Family issues, mental health, relationships - all of it can and will be used against you.

<Concerningly, some people do not even feel bound by the truth. They know that there is nothing their victim can do, and trying to do anything would just draw more attention to the claim, alongside requiring lengthy battles and lawyers not all students can afford. The process is the punishment, and the evidence will live online forever. And thanks to a popular anonymous Facebook page (the content of which is controlled by a few with vested interests), attacks can be made anonymously too.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/21/oxford-university-students-intolerance-free-speech/

This is even more hardcore than i thought.