/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Request for a ban to be lifted

>>2300211

Why did that website download malware onto my computer

>>2917986

Which website normie, the one ending in .is or the one ending in .ru? :^)

>>2918140

>As to why those sit vacant rather than renting at a lower value, it has to do with the bank's valuation models.

I didn't ask that bit thanks for the non-sequitr.

I said why would they raise their price by a 1000 if they can't find a renter at the listed price even if everyone got a 1000 dollar raise?

Do you understand now?

>>2918102

you can't exploit machines, no labour - no profit, no profit - no capitalism.

machines can't be exploited because capitalists have to pay the full price of machines, while they can underpay for the labour power of workers. This is possible because worker reproduction precedes capitalism, and capitalism only has to pay for maintaining labour power.

To make this clear if capitalists could grow people in vats, then all profits would disappear, because now capitalists would produce workers like they produce machines, and had to pay full price, for labour. If you attempt to make exploitable machines by having self-replicating machines, you will put an evolutionary selection pressure for an anomaly in the machines, that no longueur hands over surplus to capitalists, but rather uses it to reproduce in higher quantity and or quality than other machine-replicators, with additional evolutionary bonus points for being able to reprogram other machines.

If your UBI were enough to live on, so you don't have to work then it will be rent that competes with passive income from capital, for the surplus produced by what ever people remain working. The lack of a reserve army of labour means that capitalist will loose the ability to underpay the remaining workers. Lets assume that not all tech workers, artisans, high-end services workers … can be wooed by high wages, but would rather spend their time working on their own projects. The capitalists would see their power waning, as well as loose the special labour supply that produces their personal projects and lifestyle and immediately reduce the UBI or raise cost of living until they can maximise exploitation of labour. There is another dimension to this, very few people are willing to fight wars and build weapons, meaning the military and arms production would also be affected, You might see UBI linked with a draft or have your technical expertise requisitioned. SERVICE GUARANTIES CITIZENSHIP !

If you are looking for a theory that contradicts what i have said, there are people that say that in consumer society consuming commodities is a type of laPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2918086

I'm not american, can you elaborate? 'High earners' might mean the upper middle-class (which would require ridiculous increase in tax rates for UBI still) rather than the 1% which is what i was getting at. Taxing that portion of the population is a very daunting task when you consider that their massive influence and power weakens the enforcement of such taxes significantly. Not to mention you're not getting the capitalists to pay even more tax when their profit and growth rates are tanking. Remember that we might not ever get another post-WW2 boom period that enables such a tax, and if we do that probably would mean that WW3 happened and communism failed to assert itself as the global paradigm.

>>2882867

>Just searching "Honecker's Afrikakorps" gives you multiple articles.

MFW that's retarded

>>2912106

>The Council of the Gods

>Stars

These sound good and are the only ones I haven't seen on this list, Imma watch em. Got any free streaming links?

>>2915524

>>2915368

His take at the end is kind of dumb…

He basically says this mini-series is leftist propaganda and they're making the situation worse than it actually was to make them more heroic.

>>2915545

>but the design and the containment areas successfully limited the damage and it didn't explode and it wasn't exposed to the sky and didn't cause a nuclear cloud over half the continent.

This anon raises some good points. Why did Three Mile Island didin't end up in a larger dissaster while Chernobyl was so horrible?

Did control rods really had tips made of graphite which accelerated reactivity?

Is it true that Soviet reactors lacked containment buildings around them?

Is it true that proprely enriched fuel in cores?

Because it's cheaper?

>>2918037

The graphite "tip" is part of the RBMK design, it's why they didn't have to use heavy water. Chernobyl engineers dropped power for the test, moderating Zenon in the reactor ate up lots of the neutrons, and they stopped getting electricity out of it – like braking too hard in a car. Then they pulled up the control rods to speed up the reaction and get power back. The problem was that RBMK control rods have the absorber on one end and the moderator (accelerator) on the other. When you pull out all of the absorbers & pull in all of the moderators at the same time you heat up the water too fast, boil a lot of it off, and let out extra neutrons that eat through all of the Zenon moderators.

Why werent people evacuated sooner?

>>2918366

They were evacuated almost immediately. However they couldn't just say "Hey the reactor just blew so you are going to have to leave your homes and possibly irradiated belongings and flee" So instead they had people evacuate and telling them it would be temporary to prevent a panic which would have made the evacuation slower and have more casualties.

Could someone please comment on this thread?

http://boards.4channel.org/his/thread/6785001

I'm curious, I've read that the Germans had about a six week opportunity to wipe out the Red Army, if not they would be bogged down in a war of attrition. I've also read that the Germans were surprised to find that much of the Soviet equipment was superior to their own, specifically in terms of armour, the T-34's and KV-1's making mincemeat of the Panzers. So, how in the name of holy fuck do the technologically inferior Germans manage to inflict such horrendous defeats on the Soviets? And how do the Soviets manage to absorb and recover from them?

>At the end of the fighting in Kursk, the German forces had suffered 200,000 casualties and lost 500 tanks, while Soviet losses amounted to 860,000 casualties and 1,500 tanks.

How is such a disparity in casualties possible? How were the German Panzer divisions able to take out 1500 technologically "superior" tanks?

Even late in the war, in 1945, Soviet "victories" routinely meant twice the number of casualties sustained by the Germans.

>>2918349

>T-72 was technically a copy of the M47

I have to see that fucking interview because that shit is fucking amazingly dumb

>>2918362

We already covered this before on the thread.

>>2916090

>>2915630

>>2914931

>>2914886

TL;DR: German Blitzkreig allowed for a rapid strike that took the Soviets off-guard. In 1941-42 Soviet losses were higher because the Germans were pressing the advantage in most aspects, but after the Red Army finished re-organizing and halted the Germans, from 1943-1945 the Germans began taking generally higher losses. However since the USSR was rolling back the Germans and had no advantage of surprise they had to slog through high losses. This was coupled with the soviets generally adhering to international POW laws while the Germans eradicated most POWs in brutal fashion.

Tank losses were counted differently in the USSR and in Germany, thus causing the loss counts of the Soviets to get inflated.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/04/on-german-tank-losses.html

German tank losses were counted much differently than Soviet losses. A German tank is considered lost if it is destroyed, and, more importantly, there is no longer hope of recovering it. That is why losses can show up days, even weeks, after the tanks have actually been destroyed. When looking for German tanks losses, a much more reliable method is to look at dead crew members. You can’t fake those.

On the other hand, the Germans would claim an immobilized Soviet tank in no-man’s land as a kill, even if the Soviets would recover it later. A German tank in the same position would not be counted as a loPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2918362

>Germans had about a six week opportunity to wipe out the Red Army

Not really. There is literally no way for the Germans to have defeated the Red Army within 6 weeks. The Soviet Defensive lines did their job even with some mistakes and by Moscow had ensured the impossibility of further penetration.

>Germans were surprised to find that much of the Soviet equipment was superior

That's true especially for the T-34

report from May 1942

"Characteristics of the T34.

The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off. Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible. Hits on the turret ring, even with high-explosive shells or machine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, armor-piercing shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the weld seams. The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells).''

from October 1941:

For the first time during the campaign in the East, in these battles the absolute superiority of the Russian 26 tons and 52 ton tanks over out Pz.Kpfw.III and IV was felt. The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open fire with their 7.62 cm gun on our Panzers already at a range of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with high accuracy. Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can only achieve penetrations under very special favourable conditions at very close range under 50 meters. Our Panzers are already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters. Many times our Panzers Were split Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>most porkies are pedos

>most porkies are drug addicts

>most porkies have awful porn fetishes

>most porkies are sadists

>>2918365

Let's invent our own bullshit thing.

>>2917681

the clintons, unironically. so much blood, backroom deals and bribes. i honestly don't know why some rogue gunman with an axe to grind hasn't gotten them yet.

the more i see rich people the more i sympathize with stalin and start questioning the current state of morals and ethics. is that normal?

>>2918068

>implying this isn't just maintaining the status quo that has been here since leftypol was created

Newfags gtfo.

>>2918012

> don't blame porky for screwing up the water-supply resulting in lead-poisinging blame le zishatwitemail

>>2918084

>I am a feminist

why ? do you really think reasoned Marxist feminism can fix misandrist mainstream feminism ?

Go have a look how online discourse develops, after a while the class aspect gets dropped, and it devolves into reactionary screeching. It's quite obvious that this is the wrong frame of reference if class contradictions are on the back foot.

We have to invent a new discourse where misogyny and misandry alike are negated, we should in the spirit of equality equate misogyny and misandry, and attribute it the same low rank in cultural hierarchies.

>On a side note, I think its possible that the reason so many millenials practice this particular form of ‘wokeness’ is because we came of age during the days of George W. Bush, when evangelical Christianity was the bee’s knees and anyone who criticized the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan was a traitor (even to the hilarious point of an Orwellian renaming of french fries to freedom fries because the French government criticized the Iraq war). If you ever dared to criticize the wars, or George W Bush (especially in his first term) some asshole would get up in your face and yell that you were a little prick who hated America, hated freedom, should move to some other country, hated the troops and was ungrateful for the troops who were ‘over there’ dying for our FREEDUM. Fox news was unironically seen as “fair and balanced” You literally couldn’t bring up any criticism of Bush/Iraq without people booing and some citizen of the greatest country getting up from his seat and shouting you down, lest he miss an opportunity to ‘call out the bad person’.

<This sort of frothing McCarthyist rage dovetails pretty closely to the attitudes of many on the ‘woke’ left and you can see how people who had these attitudes psychologically imprinted on them during childhood of thing ended up emulating it. You can think of the figure of the stereotypical ‘angry social justice warrior’ as sort of the modern inverse of the guy who ran over the Dixie chicks CD’s with a steamroller.

Okay I don't know if it occurs to you folks but there is a whole lot of definition-fucking going on here and it needs to be cleared up:

>We need to reject feminism because feminism is liberal and anti-Marxist, and it gives the left a bad image

<But that's the bad kind of feminism! We still want to have gender equality, so we need to make it clear that we support that kind of feminism!

>Well of course we want gender equality, but that's not what feminism means anymore!

It just goes back and forth between altering definitions of feminism.

Now, it's clear that we all want gender equality (at least, I hope), and it's also clear that we all want SJWs to fuck off (at least, I hope), so if we can agree on both of those things then I don't see what the problem is.

>>2918012

>quoting an incel who killed themselves

yikes

>>2917254

>>2917253

very nice

>>2917254

>>2917253

Good job, mate!

>>2916961

The USSR fell because the party was infiltrated by people whose interests were better served by capitalism, and you're holding on to a country whose party allows open billionaires in its ranks?

Michael Hudson: Trump’s Trade Threats Are Really Cold War 2.0

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/06/michael-hudson-trumps-trade-threats-are-really-cold-war-2-0.html

America’s wish list: other countries’ neoliberal subservience

At stake is whether China will agree to do what Russia did in the 1990s: put a Yeltsin-like puppet of neoliberal planners in place to shift control of its economy from its government to the U.S. financial sector and its planners. So the fight really is over what kind of planning China and the rest of the world should have: by governments to raise prosperity, or by the financial sector to extract revenue and impose austerity.

U.S. diplomacy aims to make other countries dependent on its agricultural exports, its oil (or oil in countries that U.S. majors and allies control), information and military technology. This trade dependency will enable U.S. strategists to impose sanctions that would deprive economies of basic food, energy, communications and replacement parts if they resist U.S. demands.

The objective is to gain financial control of global resources and make trade “partners” pay interest, licensing fees and high prices for products in which the United States enjoys monopoly pricing “rights” for intellectual property. A trade war thus aims to make other countries dependent on U.S.-controlled food, oil, banking and finance, or high-technology goods whose disruption will cause austerity and suffering until the trade “partner” surrenders.

China’s Willingness to Give Trump a “Win”

Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can’t really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its owPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2915711

A couple articles like that and a little bit of reddit promotion and the site will be flooded with anarcho-liberals doing cultural critique of videogame titties. Is that what you want?

>>2915724

I honestly don't care. The way the capitalist culture industry sexualizes women isn't off-topic to the wiki. If you don't care about that stuff you just don't visit those pages.

This wiki being flooded with legitimate activity can only be a good thing.

Do you disagree? What kind of problems do you see it causing?

>>2915733

>If you don't care about that stuff you just don't visit those pages.

I'm aware of that solution and I don't have a problem with an article about videogame titties by itself.

>What kind of problems do you see it causing?

That sort of article becoming common will change the politicial composition of the people writing and editing articles. They will either directly interfere with the more serious stuff or making it harder to understand by referring to it in a nonsensical fashion. Or first make a whack reference to the serious stuff in their culture-critique stuff, then coming to half-realize that the reference doesn't fit and then editing the article they referred to for making it sort-of fit instead of editing their own stuff.

>>2915779

Meanwhile the larger user-base will be better able to correct those mistakes.

I agree with you to the extent that we need good Marxist moderation to make this stuff work. We can't allow the culture critique people to get in charge of the site at any point.

The absence of the admin of this site is starting to annoy me.

>To further test the wealth-and-power idea, the researchers plan to look for other genetic markers that would indicate that something cultural, not physical, kept those early male farmers from reproducing. Team members could also collaborate with anthropologists and archaeologists, to see if they have any clues.

>Nature is a harsh taskmaster, but so, it seems, is human culture. Although the popular notion is that farming and settlement cushioned people against "survival of the fittest," this study shows that's not true. Something cultural happened 8,000 years ago that's marked us even today.

Will that happen again when capitalism is abolished?

>>2918382

Evolution has not stopped. We are also still at war with viruses and so on.

>>2914006

why does he special needs though :(

>>2914433

This is incredible, thank you!

There is no heaven, this is it.

>>2914433

Hope you don't mind I used it for my new video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gooxju3t420

It's really shit, and I made it really fast to meet a deadline, but this pic really adds a lot to it.

>>2914789

No problem. As long as you enjoy it it's enough for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4k9VexS6aY

Daily reminder that strners philosophy doesn't actually refute Leninism and anarkiddies who act like it in itself does are retards

>>2908668

> saves gay porn to his computer

> calls other people faggots

ok faggot

>>2918379

hmu when there's a Stirnerite plan to overthrow capitalism or literally solve any problem in the world today, thanks