/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>603844

Yes, my post was an obvious strawman.

I'm very delighted that you took its place. Keep shitting up the board, friend.

>>610130

Yeah could a mod please explain why the phonebanking thread was deleted? Is /leftypol/ just about masturbating to theory and discussions of real world activism are prohibited?

>>610868

Clinton Family:

$3 Billion in Donations in 40 Years

The Best Investment Corporate America Could Make

Something like that. You have to act like a normie, remember? They don't know neoliberalism is wrong.

>>611134

And then maybe you could add "You Really Think She's Fighting For Us?/You're With Her But Is She With Us?" or something like that.

I missed last nights CNN "Forum." Give me the highlights, comrades!

>>610788

Got both of what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LSjlgTWRtE

Have you guys seen this? Based Slavoj

>>611017

both of the "Perverts Guide to…" movies i think he means

le sniffing slav

>>610615

>strawmanning this hard

Guns are the tools of any revolution in the same way that a a hammer is the tool of a carpenter. Free and easy access to them is in any leftists best interest.

More importantly, for all Mao's problems, he was right about something: Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Governments are only governments because they have the necessary force of arms to enforce their will, and any system that claims to represent the people needs to have the populace armed as well so that the government does not have a complete monopoly on the use of force. To disarm the people in any way is to disenfranchise them politically.

>>610903

I don't recall guns solving voter suppression, which is UNDOUBTEDLY disenfranchising citizens.

If you're waiting for the oppression of the people to get violent before you use your guns, it's too late. You don't have a helicopter or smoke grenades.

>>610761

Great sources, too bad you have to pay to actually read it, which I doubt you did.

>>609694

>Is there any research on this?

Are you serious? Do you honestly think an armed person is as susceptible to intimidation as is an unarmed?

>The gun-toting poor of the USA have consistently voted against their interests for decades

That has literally nothing to do with the right to own personal firearms.

>I don't know where you think more guns = more freedom

Logic. Who has the right to own a gun (a freedom), has at least one more freedom than who has no right to own a gun. Get it?

>"Durr…I said it was an authoritarian shithole, but that's not a description". Just admit you're wrong.

Singapore is an authoritarian shithole. It's still a decent place to live in. Just admit you're ignorant.

>Again, just because an Australian can't buy guns in all the ways you can doesn't mean they "Ban all guns, except those of the state". Just admit you're wrong.

It's called hyperbole; welcome to 8chan. If you were actually familiar with Australia, you'd know that most Australians go through their entire lives without touching a gun, let alone owning and using one. Here, there are virtually no guns in private possession; in the suburbs and cities, where the overwhelming majority of the populace dwells, guns are virtually unheard of. People don't own handguns, here. You have to go further inland to find guns; most of them being simple bolt-action rifles and break-open shotguns; most owned by farmers who, even then, rarely use them. Even the "shooting sports" community is tiny, and under frequent pressure from anti-gun fanatics. For all intents and purposes, the only armed entities to be found in Australia are the police force and the military; i.e. the state. Just admit you're ignorant.

>Oh, now you're FROM Australia?

Yeah, but it's virtually irrelevant; I could be from Antarctica, and you'd still be wrong.

>If the technology was so foolish, it wouldn't be developed by multiple arms manufacturers.

>>609694

Cont.

>Thanks for admitting it. Give me more weak arguments to destroy, I'm hungry.

I wouldn't get cocky; you're still yet to make a proper and valid point.

>It gives me the freedom to ignore you.

Good idea. That is what most anti-gun morons do when confronted with reality, anyway.

>I don't need to, your country already has sane gun laws.

Yeah, that is, by your definition of sane; guns for the state, none for the populace.

>>610997

>Great sources, too bad you have to pay to actually read it, which I doubt you did.

You can read the abstract, and in either case, there isn't any sound research that supports your claims or those of any anti-gunner.

>>607607

>National syndicalist.

>No option for neither.

>>609841

Boku no Pico

>>607607

Wait… isn't marxism essentially anarchism? The end goal of marxism is a stateless society.

>>607667

>includes a lot of syndicalist elements

Yeah, everything here is so absolutist.

>>610735

No, not at all. They are completely different approaches.

>>610492

>Is a situation wherein society as a whole controls the state (worldwide state, federation, syndicate, what have you) and thus means of production, not socialism?

It is, obviously. Worker control of production through a democratic state used to be the most popular conception of socialism but then the USSR fell and people starting worshiping co-ops instead.

>>610575

Yes?

I there a problem, officer?

:^)

Anarchists believe that the burden of proof rests upon those who claim hierarchical muh privileges for themselves or others, so, if some one is going to claim to be your king or your ruler they must justify that position to you and infact to every one and if the burden of proof cannot be met then that authority is illegitimate and should be dismantled by direct action and if necessary revolution.

So this:

>iven that an anarchist union or a federation of everyone would still punish acts of violence not endorsed by them and use violence to enact the will of the larger society on the few rebellious ones, such as capitalists or murderers.

Is bullshit

>>610575

>Especially since I question the whole "monopoly on violence", given that an anarchist union or a federation of everyone would still punish acts of violence not endorsed by them and use violence to enact the will of the larger society on the few rebellious ones, such as capitalists or murderers.

It's tangential, but this is already done. Stun guns, tear gas - violence can already be countered with less violent means. That's a side point though.

I think it's tautological thinking. Within capitalism there is violence and murder, so how can violence be countered without violence?

We don't look to the future, we can look to the past, or even the not yet "civilized" corners of the earth like the deep Amazon jungle. How much violence and murder goes on there? Despite bourgeois propaganda, the answer is very little, almost none really.

I mean Honduras and Colombia have large murder rates (and a large degree of class conflict, not unrelated). Iceland and Sweden have very low murder rates (and less class conflict). Iceland had one murder last year, in a country of 329,100 people. With changes in the world and Iceland's social system, you could easily see this figure going to zero. Thus, no more murder problems.

Violence and murder and killing are absolute necessities in class societies. They are unneeded in classless societies. I mean, how many big an issue is murder in Iceland with one murder last year? I think that's due to world pressure, with changes in the world I'm sure that could be lessened. It no longer becomes a problem.

If the state were to own both a monopoly on legitimate violence and the means of production, then there would be nothing to check its tyranny. Indeed, that is exactly what happens in such states. Consider this: in societies where the state controls the means of production, what recourse does the population have? How can it see its grievances addressed? If it can not do so, then that is tyranny, a tyranny that is ultimately no different than the very similar situation in liberal capitalist societies.

>>610636

I see, you are just shitposting and are triggered by the word state, even though the OP explicitly stated that the state would be democratic.

>>610669

>you could easily see this figure going to zero. Thus, no more murder problems.

I think this is far too idealistic. There will always be insane people who want to murder people just for the fun of it.

>Tribes in the amazon

If someone in those tribes kills one of their own, they get put to death or exiled (which is basically a death sentence).

>>610693

>what recourse does the population have?

So basically this comes down to what definition of state we are using. A federation in which the means of production are owned by the federation but operated by the workers would be the same as a democratic socialist state.

Thanks.

>>607271

leftcom

>>609091

Meanwhile lenin broke up workers councils, reinstated private property, and kept the state.

That pic is cancer.

>>606507

This is a stupid question, and marxists shouldn't use an anarchist community's lack of "self defence" as a way of arguing against anarchism.

An anarchist society could potentially defend itself quite well if it started from a point of having a strong national army with competent generals (all now dedicated to anarchism) before an anarchist revolution.

We should focus on an anarchist society's inability to transition people into living in a stateless way of life, and all the problems that come with that.

>>610557

>>just get rid of the material conditions right, fucking, now.

>oc related

Yeah because this is somehow suddenly possible if the state does it.

>>610557

>Revolutions are dead when they are killed. While things did go worse than they needed to, this fundamental fact can't be changed, no matter your respect for "freedom", "rights", and "the individual" on paper.

>when your experiments go wrong it's because your theory is shit

>my theory is infallible, outside forces always cause it to fail

Holy shit that doublethink

>>611102

Anarchism is calvinball

>>611102

>not illustrating the difference between choosing your own leader and having a boss

tsk

It all feels so hopeless OP, especially when there are even people on leftypol right now who think the ussr was communist and go around feeding normie misconceptions. Personally, I think we should stop using the word communism and start refering to ourselves exclusively as socialists or perhaps even syndicalists if youre into that kind of thing. The word communism has been stolen from us by fascists.

I think it's best too try go slick entryist, speak socialist talking points but do it in a way that doesn't out yourself as a Socialist/Communist. Don't talk about "means of production" or any intellectual shit (normies are anti-intellectual as fuck generally) talk about how management are retarded and why aren't us workers running everything when we have on the ground experience. Talk about how it's unfair the company is profiting from the work we do etc. Slowly open them up too Socialist ideals.

The main issue these days is that the working class has become so fucking reactionary and anti-intellectual that I find its actually dangerous too out yourself. I've been outright bullied at jobs by coworkers once I outed myself as simply someone who was politically and intellectually conscious.

what's with the date and lack of sender/recipient?

dead

>Where will you be when the singularity happens?

Standing beside my ai waifu in virtual space, plotting out the rest of eternity

He's right, direct dem. I'd imagine would create some major animosity when the decision is over anything important, it's also far from flexible and can't take immediate action like in the case of disaster relief. There's also about 2 centuries of political science on how to manipulate votes.

That said I don't think there is a major issue with local autonomy and some centralization to take care of all regular bs and unexpected crisis.

>>610702

>there are no laws in anarchism

What the fuck? Every anarchist i've met spends all their time denying this.

>>610732

>email zizek

>tell him about /leftypol/

>he responds saying it's full of inane comments

>>610787

Representative government ensures the majority can't vote to genocide the minority, for example; it has checks and balances, separation of powers, constitutional law etc. Unfortunately, all of this was written before corporate money assumed its predominant position in political life, so it's all broken down and corrupted.

Fuck off. The constitution was designed to entrench an upper class from its inception and universal suffrage was considered tyranny of the majority

ukranian neonazis attack elderly communists and get btfo.

note the police car during the end of the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugiMtE0mn-k

>>610765

>>610944

More anti-Ukrainian racism, brought to you by paid kremlin shills.

>>611078

>anti-Ukrainian racism

i got nothing against ukranians

do you have nothing to comment on the video?

>>611078

Sure, paid shills arguing with nazi on leftist board, filled with people who hate nazism…