/politics/ - News & Politics

>>4428

Do you have to be an internationalist on leftypol? Because that has been my biggest problem with it.

>>4444

You can go to /leftypol/ with whatever your opinion is, the mods dont ban dissenting opinions, we have regular nazi posters there, which is curious; the main measure against right-wing shitposting is bumplocking the threads and the quality use of sage by the users.

But gping back to your cuestion, what exactly do you mean by internationalist? I ask you thins because this word has lost a lot of its original use due to misusage, mostly in the english language and in the American context.

In the Marxist meaning, internationalism reffers to the international solidarity, its an atitude towards the rest of the world. When Marx said that the workers had no country, he was reffering to their economical interests. Since the capitalist system is global, the interests of the class become too. A Chinese, an Arab, an Indian an Australian and all the works of the world suffer from the se system of opression, the interests of the national bourgoise its no longer the same of the workers.

Internationalism would be, for example, when the International Brigades formed to fight Franco in Spain. These groups were international volunteer groups mostly formed by the different communist parties of the world to fight against the Franco's regime in the Spanish War.

in my opinion, there are three kinds of socialism: international socialism (see: USSR, China, Norks), national socialism (see: nazi krautistan) and what i call "natural" socialism (see: any hunter-gatherer society). international socialism was an economic and cultural failure, national socialism was a cultural failure and "natural" socialism is the best way to live, as work is limited to a couple hours a day, disease is mostly nonexistant, and people are more content. of course, because of its simplicity, it has been almost completely destroyed by agrarian and industrial societies.

>>4452

>"natural" socialism (hunter-gatherer society) is the best way to live

You think living in mud huts and dying because you scraped your knee and got infected is "the best way to live".

Might I point you to the congo or somalia?

fucking /leftypol/ spergs

>>4452

Despite cooperation in hunter gather society being necessary, people were still competing with each other. Particularity for mates.

>>4449

> the mods dont ban dissenting opinions

Ban reason: nazi concern troll

===

>He is a danger to all leftists, no matter how left.

He really isn't though, he doesn't even care about economic leftism, he just hated some social policies of the mainstream center-left

If liberals just toned down the genocide-all-white-people aspect of their ideology he would have no reason to hate them

==

Ban reason: raid fag

==

>>330433

because we all know how fucking deluded you idiots are.

You are built up on lies that are being destroyed as we speak and soon (5-10 years), there will be no left-wing power.

Enjoy either Aryan cock up your arse, or some kabab

===

these are just two examples from the ban page:

https://8ch.net/bans.html

>>4452

If you are talking abput Nazi Germany when talking about National Socialism you are completely wrong. No fascist regime was anti-capitalist in any way. Nazi Germany banned labour unions and replaced it with one vertical organization in which both workers and bourgoise were in. They did a huge privatization plan of the country economy and in general, their policies favoured capitalists and not the workers.

Also the antisemitic rethoric is a fucking joke, it was meant to drive out the attention of the workers from the real danger, and to misdirect it. In fact, fascists parties all over Europe were known for using the colours, tactics and other identifications from the left to confuse the class concious workers. Primo de River, the founder of Falange Española, openly admited he took the red and black from the anarchists and they called one another 'comrade' im the Falange to appeal to the workers while working for the capitalists interests.

I think it behooves us to remember Marx's dictum that in the modern world, nation-states function chiefly as agents of international capital. At the most fundamental level, National Socialist Germany's unforgivable sin was its refusal to become enmeshed in this web of global greed. Hitler stated bluntly, "we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

These weren't just empty words. The party rebuilt Germany's shattered economy in just four years without putting their people into debt to the one percenters, through a series of self-financing work credits spent on civilian infrastructure improvements (contrary to rumor, military spending was just 16.6% of the annual budget, mostly for necessary defensive measures against an aggressive neighboring France, whose armies had invaded German territory no less than thirty-three times in the previous two centuries). They enacted social programs meant to do away with class distinction, while preserving private property, and provided guaranteed wages, health care, housing, and price controls on food and consumer goods. They went on to build trading relations with more than twenty other nations, based on a fair exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials - again bypassing the international banking cartels, which customarily brokered all such transactions.

After the war Churchill admitted to conservative MP Lord Robert Boothby, "Germany's most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."

Germany's authoritarian socialism implicitly committed heresy against America's primary political illusion, that capitalism and democracy are compatible. Whether we approve or not, fascism devised a practical method of assuring the greatest good for the greatest number, and this was intolerable to those who have used the illusions of democracy to such great personal profit.

Hitler correctly argued that the absence of sufficient state controls is the fatal flaw inherent in liberal democracy, which enables the wealthy class to manipulate the economy, the press and elected representatives for its own gain. In a December 1940 speech, he said "Free enterprise this group understands as the freedom not only to amass capital, but especially to use it freely; that is, free from state or national supervision. . . In these lands of so-called democracy, the people are never the primary consideration. Paramount is the existence of those few who pull the strings in a democracy, the several hundred major capitalists. The broad masses don't interest them in the least, except during elections." If this doesn’t describe Donald Trump and the rest of the Republican and Democrat freak show, I don’t know what does.

>>4613

Do you have a source for that quote?

>"Germany's most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."

> the people are never the primary consideration

The thing is some people don't want the government to baby sit everyone.

>free from state or national supervision

have you seen the long litanies that make up the United States' regulations?

This actually how many monopolies form in the US , because the companies have a a vested interest in using the state as a means to flood out the competition.

Not to mention that Hitler's "authouritarain socialism" was like Keynesian more than anything else.

While the increased l military budget did help , production in other sectors of the economy stagnated

> just 16.6% of the annual budget

but also over 10% of GDP after 1936

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/military-spending-patterns-in-history/

see figure 4

>>4590

>Does lefty/pol/ accept the idea of race realism

Fuck no, the owner of the board is a Paki and bans it

Honest question about a term you use on your board: ClassCuck.

Could you explain what that means?

What I gather is it means that people willingly accept a class system that fucks them over and like it. Is that close?

>>4478

AnCap here.

Believe it or not, I've never been banned for posting on /leftypol/ (and I make troll threads quite often). Meanwhile imkampfy has banned me repeatedly for serious thread because I'm not a nazi.

Admittedly the second guy you posted was a shitposting asshole. The first I can't speak for because I don't know the rest of the context.

>>4637

>Believe it or not, I've never been banned for posting on /leftypol/ (and I make troll threads quite often

If that's true, it wouldn't mean they are good, it would mean they are not bad all the time.

>Admittedly the second guy you posted was a shitposting asshole.

That was not a shitpost. Call it extreme post, bait, ..etc but it's not a shitpost. He's saying the actions of the left will kill it. It will either push Europe to the right, or muslims will have their way. Either outcome will hurt if not kill the left.

>The first I can't speak for because I don't know the rest of the context.

If /leftypol/ truly values freedom of speech, the first post wouldn't have been deleted, regardless of context.

>>4652

That's because the only successful leftist regimes were Cospaia (which was Mutualist, not even left-leaning), peer-to-peer technology (which is usually right-wing AnCap/Agorist with a "peer" aspect), that city district in Rome (mostly tryhards who are just banding together in hard times), and the Spanish Civil War (which didn't even last that long and was mostly focused in local communities).

>>4663

They're /leftypol/, they don't have to value freedom of speech, they just have to have more freedom of speech than /pol/.

>>4673

I didn't say they should. I was just commenting on this:

>>4449

>You can go to /leftypol/ with whatever your opinion is, the mods dont ban dissenting opinions

which is clearly wrong

Why are so many IDs ITT different shades of pink and purple? I think /leftypol/ is rubbing off on /politics/.

>>4677

>unironically asks why there are purple and pink IDs in a /leftypol/ embassy thread

>>4590

>race realism

IT would be meaningless. Even thought I dont accept this theory, lets use your logic and assume there are substantial differences in the human races. One of the most important points of Marxism is "From each according to its cappacity, to each according to their needs"; this means that everyone gets what they need to do their job in a efficient way and they get what they need to live and thrive, and that they give ot society whatever they can from the fruits of their labour. Its a system that promotes hard work and its the only system in which the phrase "If you work hard you will succeed" is real. Also, Marxism also says that whoever doesnt work would also not eat. THis is not a freegiving system, there isnt any example of that in History.

So, even considering that black people are less valuable than white people and will perform worse, they still are valuable in the communist system, and they will be rewarded in relation to their work. And the best of all, they wont be robbed their labour, like in Capitalism, that robs all of us.

>>4625

>What I gather is it means that people willingly accept a class system that fucks them over and like it. Is that close?

Yes, it would also reffer to people willingly defending the capitalist system when they re obviously proles who get no benefit from it.

Fuck off lefty/pol/, that first image is so full of bullshit I don't know where to begin.

Have you even heard of Mosley?

>>4736

Ah, that makes more sense in defending a man made system.

Reason I asked was because I think I had a misunderstanding with people on leftypol when I questioned the terms validity when talking about class systems that exist within nature. They may have been talking about a capitalist system, not a class system that exists outside the man made world.

>>4428

I like how the first image says 'Europe should be for Europeans' like it's a bad thing

>>4428

>racism exists mainly incited by corporate media and authority figures as a means to divide the workers

What fucking planet does the creator of this image live on.

>>4793

What gets me the most is how it implies the "first world" is merely geographical and whites just happen to live there.

if the moderation here wants to be allies with leftypol that bans for anything they call "pol" which os anything that triggers them

then the moderation here needs to make a sticky

you can have a meme board 2?0 with more porky capitalist and less moderation but don't pretend to be an alternative to pol for discussion

has it been a month yet? already all this shit here as if we got all the trash and none of the remaining quality from pol

>>6143

it's the prevalent theory that gets accepted and propagandized by the left

>>4734

youd need a more overbearing state than America already is and youd be a baby from cradle to grave

>>4734

>everyone gets what they need to do their job in a efficient way and they get what they need to live and thrive, and that they give ot society whatever they can from the fruits of their labour

>"let's give a fuckton of shit to low end workers so they can comfortably produce whatever little they can!"

That's a fucking resource sink, no wonder why that commie shit doesn't work.

>they will be rewarded in relation to their work

Let's ponder in this thought for a second, if you

give a low end worker the profits his work desserves then you get...low profits for the unproductive.

How can you caontradict yourself so badly in a single breath?

>>6230

not to mention the fucking sperglords on /leftypol/ make /pol/'s [shillcalling intensifies] meme look nonexistent.

I went there as a moderate once and these people dogpiled me for daring to be sane.

>>6237

Yeah, they're pretty delusional at times and that's coming from someone who considers himself a socialist. The Anarchists on that board are some of the worst, especially when it comes to blind unrealistic idealism.

>>4444

well /pol/ is everywhere so may as well

>>4444

Checked for the proletariat

>>4428

The infographic on the far right is one of the only ones in this thread that is accurate.

I can never wrap my head around how you goofballs can sit there and say with a straight face that it would be successful to eliminate the concept of "trade" in favor of a system where everyone willfully gives up everything they work hard to create, puts it in some big pile, and takes from it when they need it.

>>7222

it's a mental disorder

>>6253

>considers himself a socialist

For the last time, raising the minimum wage is not socialism.

seriously though I'd put $20 on you being a reformist

>>7222

Nobody wants to eliminate trade, holy shit. That would be crazy, what the hell do you think anarchism, socialism and communism are? I said this in another thread, read leftist theory first, and then read critiques of leftism.

And a third party explaining leftist theory does not count.

In socialism the workers own the means of production, the people who work, who do something, own that which they use and produce, 100%, where in capitalism the people who do not work, yet own the property need their cut as owners, so they take their cut and only pay the workers and fraction of the value of their labour.

>>7258

*a fraction of the value

>>7258

>In socialism the workers own the means of production, the people who work, who do something, own that which they use and produce, 100%

Why should 80 IQ workers who merely package and arrange the products my factory product own the means of production?

>>7260

*my factory produced

>>7260

Because as it stands, the people producing the stuff would own it, the people packing the stuff, unless they're in the same group as the people who produce the stuff and are merely taking on a different role, would just own their packaging plant. Don't know why they wouldn't join up but whatever.

Yes it's your property, right now, because of the concept of private property, we seek to abolish that because as it stands it's better for you mr. factory owner, but it's much better for mr. heir to a long line of multinational factory owners with their hands in the pie on the desk of every government they can get their pies on the desk of.

So, the why comes down to, it's in my best interest. The ruling class is very much smaller than the working class, and it's in the vast majority of people's best interest to seek a socialist system where people own what's theirs and don't have to give it up to the boss, or the lord, king, or god emperor.

The lower classes are under educated because those are the perks of being the lower classes. They aren't poor because they're dumb, they're dumb because they're poor.

And IQ isn't some sort of region in the brain that holds your smarts, or some sort of universal, unflawed standard of intelligence.

>>7262

There's no packaging plant. Packing is done in the primary factory where products are manufactured using machines I paid millions or dollars to build, or maybe I'm an engineer myself and participated in building them.

Why should these workers get anything for free? They are free to create their own shit. If workers get to own the means of production, what motive would I have to innovate and invest time and money in creating products? It will be taken away from me.

>The lower classes are under educated because those are the perks of being the lower classes.

I think the state should provide free education. Some of my colleagues come from humble backgrounds, they now earn in a month what their parents earn in years, why? the education is free where I live, they are dedicated and they have average or higher than average IQ.

>>7275

>paid millions of dollars to build

You paid someone to build them. A lord can order his serf to build him something. The serf still made it.

If you're an engineer and participated in making them then you should get your fair share.

I'm advocating not that anybody get anything for free but that we stop letting people get a free ride doing close to fuck all but getting a massively un-proportionate cut exploiting the labour of the workers.

The education is free here too. It's terrible. There's a paid alternative that doesn't outright lie to, abuse and stifle young children though, but, only the rich can afford to give their children a fair chance.

>>7281

If I build a chair and sell it to you, do I have right to sit on it or take it whenever I want? The engineers (not just a single engineer) got paid for their skills and time, same for anyone else involved in creating the product, which is my own original idea. They have free will. They choose to take the money. They could have built it if the product's idea occurred to them and had enough resources and dedication. No one would have prevented them.

You don't seem to be convinced in what you are saying. You are just trying to justify it because you don't want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. This can be reduced by implementing protectionist policies and some socialist programs, but taking over the means of production will turn any country into a shithole.

>>7291

>They live in a capitalist system, they have to choose to take the money. From somebody, somewhere.

Then, I don't think we live in a capitalist system yet. It's not illegal to be self-employed. It's not illegal to make craft on your own. It's not illegal to eat your own produce. It's only barely becoming illegal to live off the grid.

>Taking over the means of production would not make the country a shithole, capitalism is making the world a shithole.

Interestingly, Botswana is one of the few African countries that never experimented with socialism, and at the same time, it's also one of the few African countries that is progressively becoming less of a shithole with every year. I guess it's because the state knows how to tax mining companies, which also provide jobs to the country, and how to invest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.

>>7291

Aren't you simplyginf things a bit too much?

The work of an Engineer or a Scientist isn't just a product he can make every day and put on shelves for selling. It's intelectual work that often afects tons of people with new technology, or simply the know-how to provide proper maintenance of current technology.

Let's say a Scientist discovered a new medicine to cure some afliction. He gathers a few more workers and makes a lab to produce pills with that medicine to sell.

How much should the scientist get? His job is done, the pill works and he doesn't need to "give more science" every day for the pill to be produced, and yet his colleagues will be in the lab making pills every day.

Should he get a percentage of every sale? Why? He didn't made any of those pills, this is winning money for nothing!

But where it not for his discovery, there wouldn't be a lab making pills to begin with!

If he is entitled to a certain amount of cash for every pill made simply because he created the idea of that pill, how is this different than someone being entitled to a certain amount of cash for creating and investing in a new company?

Let's say an Engineer is hired to perform maintenance in a factory. His job is quite simple, he has to oversee every machine and make sure they are working perfectly, solving any problem that appears. How much does he get from the production? A fixed percentage? But what if there are no breakdowns on the machines? Or what if there are many, many issues giving him a lot of work?

His coleagues might end up feeling it's unfair that he wins money for nothing if nothing breaks down, or even worse! He might sabotage the machines to justify his own job if he gets more money for every broken machine!

Socialism and Communism sound absolutely horrible when it comes to defending intelectual work and property and these are the forces that drive humanity forward. This is most likely why communism never works and socialism is only ever partially implemented. Without competition, without incentives to have an edge over other people with your ingenuinety, society stagnates and dies.

And this isn't even mentioning Art at all, which sounds like an even bigger can of worms.

Capitalism is about maximum exploitation and I don't think it's a good system either, but at least it keeps society moving, even if only to an earlier grave.

>>7291

Also, another point.

I don't want to sound rude and call you a retard but... You don't seem to place much value on IQ for whatever reason, and you even simplify it quite a lot as just a number that doesn't describe very well a person.

Which is correct, but besides the actual whole point.

It's true that most poor people are dumb because they are poor and not the other way around.

But it's false that all smart people are smart because they are rich. Maybe you didn't said it, but you seem to be implying it.

Smart people are smart because they work for it, they have ambition. You have a few milionaires that aren't really that smart but they know what they want and they go for it, wether legally or not doesn't matter. It's their ambition and focus that makes them work and achieve sucess. Having good brains is just an asset that smart people know to use, often because it's all they have. But if they lack brains, they will use any other asset they have to achieve their dreams.

Dumb people literally don't care. They can be either rich or poor, they just don't give a flying fuck about working or achieving anything. They have the most vapid dreams and the future is 5 seconds span. They never plan, they never consider the assets they have and they don't ever use them anyway.

I've seen and met a lot of spoiled brats, wealthy enough to drive good cars, get good computers and go to very decent education. And I've seen them squander all the money, the respect and the education they were given simply because doing drugs was more their thing.

And at the same time, I've met people that had barely enough for a notebook, but always arrived on time for lessons, always did their work before hand and cooperated whenever possible, showing a will to learn that made me jealous sometimes.

All of those people got what they deserved based on the amount of work they did during their education, by the way. Money did not help or hinder any of them. It is ambition and the inteligence to know yourself, your assets and even your limitations that you must work with that dictate how far you move in life.

And sadly, Capitalism is VERY good at rewarding those, while Communism and Socialism do a very good job of mitigating their value.

>>7291

>Yes, but the only way you get paid is by not paying them the full value of their labour, by not contributing but still taking the largest cut, you are effectively a parasite, capitalism is a parasite.

You are underestimating the value of ideas, architectures, design and planning. For example, any programmer can create a Twitter clone for low and moderate load. When Twitter started, the software was simple. The value is the idea not the software. It would be stupid to suggest that if the founder hired a programmer to build it he has an obligation to make him partner, unless that's what he wants.

>>7347

>>7343

>>7341

>the incentives argument

Has it ever occurred to you that people don't only do things for money? For starters, why would you become a chemist, engineer, or a programmer or whatever if you had no interest in creating things in the first place? Socialism's incentives are about improving society, nobody does anything otherwise.

>but then nobody will do anything!

If this is your reply then you seem to be under the impression that people are self-interested lazy fuckwads... and you're not totally wrong. However: consider that a truly self-interested individual isn't going to allow society to collapse if that said society benefits them. This might not be a popular opinion with some of my anarchist comrades, but I would argue that the reason socialism CAN work is the same reason that capitalism DOES work. If you are at all interested in historical materialism, then you must accept that capitalism is necessary for human evolution and necessary for socialism to exist at all. One common aspect of all failed communist projects is that none of them evolved from late stage capitalism. I personally believe that such projects are always doomed for failure. One of the biggest mistakes Marx ever made was assuming a revolution is inevitable, and betting on such a thing today is likely a bad bet as well. He could have never foresaw how far capitalism would develop and we might not even be anywhere near the end of it, there's no way to tell for sure. I'm involved in radical politics because I think that such a revolution will likely be violent and will require good theory to be successful. However, I want to make you explicitly aware that your criticisms of the socialist model are not necessarily without merit, but it may be that you just don't agree with a specific brand of 'leftism' or 'socialism' or whatever. Going back to what I said earlier, about people being individualist shits, I agree that such a thing is true but I would make the case that socialism could not exist otherwise. Socialism for me, requires that people are rationally self-interested in the same way that capitalism does.

Whenever I read on /leftypol/ it just seems to be a huge trollfest. I just can't take those people seriously.

Whenever they come to /pol/ they never debate anything but just try to do as much shitstirring as possible.

Who cares what /leftypol/ thinks or doesn't think tbh. Compared to the nutjobs who said they were marxist and I met IRL, they seem to be a couple of steps further into insanity.

>>10559

>people are self-interested lazy fuckwads

they were thought to be, it's alienation.

/leftypol/ seems to have become more open to different views than /pol/ has.

/pol/ isn't even really a discussion board anymore. It's been thoroughly hijacked.

>>10568

Are you retarded?

/leftypol/ was being spammed with fergunson threads so the BO decided to move all fergunson related shit to one stick thread to avoid having 15 pages of the same thing.

He wasn't banning dissenting opinions.

>>10630

fuck off rulecuck

>>10602

laziness has its merits too, lazy people innovate for efficency

>>4734

I've never seen somebody undo themselves so well that I don't even know what to say. Are you a troll?

>>10630

It's what he said that was troublesome. In fairness, he did admit he made a mistake.

The board owner was not a bad guy, but his new mods are shit.