Left Wing Authoritarianism

left wing authoritarian here AMA My beliefs boil down to: Left wing ideology is enforced globally can progress humanity toward a superior future (e.g space, alpha centauri etc). Whereas the current devolvement into identity politics on the left and rapture and redemption on the right is ridiculous. The right wing has completely lost it. There is no god. There is no levitating Jesus who's going to judge you when you die. Making decisions on this fact is delusional and harmful to society at large. The left wing has an obsession with impractical communism/anarchy and transgenderism. It's economic policies are intelligent but the other countries it operates with simply see this as weakness to exploit (game theory) There are too many unintelligent people in power making decisions. If we gave Gemini 3 control of all the countries on Earth it would easily be able to eliminate world hunger / poverty and increase global prosperity and development. But instead we have Islamic retards fighting over who's going to fuarrrk 21 virgin children after they die. And jawdroppingly delusional individuals like the Peter Thiel who thinks the antichrist is real. I'm tired man.

Lain does not care. There is a few things I can spot from your post. First off, you are likely an American. I have only seen Americans say "left wing". Next since you said "left wing" you likely do not know any ideologies well or political theory. You have failed to define what your stances even are other than sounding like an Evangelical atheist from 2012. You will not win anyone over by just mocking them and failing to understand where they are coming from. What is authoritarian to some is not to others is also something to keep in mind as well as where you even are placing the boundary between left and right. This dichotomy is unnecessary. This is a very poorly constructed post.

I accept the criticism And yes I have recently been ingesting some of Richard Dawkins best moments on YouTube. And in my previous text there is an over reliance on the left-right dichotomy being incompatible. However I haven't seen many other popular ideas. There are more moderate policies that would make for a better world however the most moderate person is not the one who wins the election. Attempt 2: I explained what I didn't like about the 2 most popular political groups. Albeit the specific attributes I mentioned were popularist and unoriginal. Here's are more direct attempt at explaining my ideology I am interested in someone exposing flaws or informing me of a superior ideology Humans are not valuable. I come to this conclusion by logic, the universe is a vast expanse, all things that occur on Earth are like a drop in the ocean in comparison to it's effect on the larger universe. Nothing matters at all. Humans have some degree of cognitive dissonance happening at all times to remind themselves that this isn't actually the case. Even now as I am writing I delude myself, as to what I am writing is meaningful and valuable. Whereas that is not the case. On this premise, all future human endeavours should be of utilitarian value to the accomplishment of higher order objectives. Your well being and life are insignificant. Where I define higher order objectives to be that of experimentation on the universe, learning more about the big bang, using AGI to determine are we in a multiverse etc. All human resources are allocated toward performing experiments at CERN etc etc. We need to get rid of vain human endeavours and start going straight for the most valuable things. This isn't about nationalism or racial superiority like Hitler however it resembles his disregard for human life and utopian dreams. I want a world where AGI is doing Quark collision experiments in space. Not a world where [insert retarded leftism] or [insert retarded rightism]. A logical world dictated by science and reason instead of emotions and delusions.

A starter question. What is this "left wing" thing but not scientific socialism? Now, a nitty gritty. >Left wing ideology is enforced globally can progress humanity toward a superior future (e.g space, alpha centauri etc). You don't even mention Capital, so from the get-go this sounds suspicious, because broadly "left wing" is understood as abolishment of labour. >Whereas the current devolvement into identity politics on the left and rapture and redemption on the right is ridiculous. In essence, since you do not address the central question of history - historic development - you still focus on Identity, only it's not they identity "you do not like". (as an aside, left wing is associated with redemption, stopping the atrocity that is a passage of victors). >The right wing has completely lost it. There is no god. There is no levitating Jesus who's going to judge you when you die. Making decisions on this fact is delusional and harmful to society at large. You are mistaking the Ideological understanding - the so-called false consciousness - with an actual reason. Accumulation of Capital, whatever the cost. If imperialist machine can not cannibalize other states, it has to turn on itself. You can insert the famous Vampire metaphor, if you wanna. >The left wing has an obsession with impractical communism/anarchy and transgenderism. How do you move beyond Capital, if you can't rouse the class that operates the means via which Capital accumulates? I won't comment on "transgenderism", because idgaf. >It's economic policies are intelligent but the other countries it operates with simply see this as weakness to exploit (game theory) First sentence that makes some sense. One could return to Paris Commune where Communards naively believed that their own country won't turn on them and German army compromised of workers will turn to their cause. Or the gambit of 1917th October, where the revolution was supposed to start in Imperial Russia, but go on to the Imperial Center, not the opposite way. >There are too many unintelligent people in power making decisions. If we gave Gemini 3 control of all the countries on Earth it would easily be able to eliminate world hunger / poverty and increase global prosperity and development. But instead we have Islamic retards fighting over who's going to fuarrrk 21 virgin children after they die. And jawdroppingly delusional individuals like the Peter Thiel who thinks the antichrist is real. Lumpenprole tier behaviour. >>95173 >Humans are not valuable. I come to this conclusion by logic, the universe is a vast expanse, all things that occur on Earth are like a drop in the ocean in comparison to it's effect on the larger universe. Nothing matters at all. Humans have some degree of cognitive dissonance happening at all times to remind themselves that this isn't actually the case. Even now as I am writing I delude myself, as to what I am writing is meaningful and valuable. Whereas that is not the case. You approximate Althusser, but instead of making analytical and cold, you inject "i am 14 and this is deep" vibes. Stop that. >We need to get rid of vain human endeavours and start going straight for the most valuable things. This isn't about nationalism or racial superiority like Hitler however it resembles his disregard for human life and utopian dreams. Again, you almost describe scientific socialism. By almost, I mean that one wouldn't inject identity politics into it.

us leftwing is just thievery through government, the height of it is millionares talking about eating the rich no not me the guys who are richer than me. And all the identity politcs and other bullshit is fake justification for it. They establish opressed deserve free soykaf and then play victim olympics to qualify for gibs.

>>95171 >Left wing ideology is enforced globally can progress humanity toward a superior future (e.g space, alpha centauri etc). What exactly is so superior about a future involving space travel? What do we truly gain as a species from it? The only people who would truly gain anything from space travel are the ultra rich who have the means to do it. We have an entire, massive planet here that we live on and nurtures us. Sadly, there are so terrible problems plaguing this planet and its ecosystem, and they are all caused by the human race and human technology. Now I'm assuming here, but to leave this planet due to the damage we as a species have inflicted on it is one of the lowest forms of cowardice I could ever imagine. You should utilize your 'authoritarian left-wing' ideology to focus on solving the problems we have right here on Earth. >There are too many unintelligent people in power making decisions. If we gave Gemini 3 control of all the countries on Earth it would easily be able to eliminate world hunger / poverty and increase global prosperity and development. How are we to trust a technology that does not truly think or feel anything to solve the problems we face on earth? There are levels of nuance in these problems which no generative AI bot will ever be able to comprehend or understand. Your own ignorance and arrogance are on full display in these two sentences here.

For fuarrks sake, I write a goddamn college essay and get a spam warning. This site is like kicking dead whales down whatever the thing was. The beach. See attached.

>>95177 No. I will not see attached. Since your post was filtered as spam I will IGNORE your post, seeing it as downvoted by the authorities. Since you bypassed it I will perceive it as unsafe to engage with, IGNORING your reply, and leaving you frustrated, and wondering if the dead internet is true and the whole site is mostly BOTS acting on a personalized version of the internet served only to you

>>95171 Bro politics is so fuarrrking fake and pointless, everything is controlled by freemasons and adjacent cultists. Politics is just a way the rulers justify inflicting evil on the masses, they fabricate justifications to do whatever they want and the masses believe so they don't rebel.

It's a good start that you reject the freaks that call themselves "left wing" and who would face the wall in a proper socialist society the moment the revolution is complete and there is no need for destabilizing elements any more. But now the problem is that you have a system where you have to sell your soul to climb the ranks, even more so than at giant corporations, and the rest are basically selected for becoming bugmen. >Humans are not valuable. Spoken like a true bugman. >there is no levitating Jesus who's going to judge you when you die. Making decisions on this fact is delusional and harmful to society at large. People living under a socialist regime struggle to retain their humanity. Liberalism and a market completely unrestricted in some places but crony in others has made people void of meaning and depressed. Meanwhile, whether you believe in Biblical teachings or not, the societies operating on that premise have lasted for millenia. I implore you to look deeper into human evolutionary psychology and history. Anyway, as for my ideal system it is Starship Troopers but unironically. Service guarantees citizenship and the bugmen fear the terran federation. >>95180 The one thing that can't be faked is doing your part!

I'm just frustrated a gross amount of suffering appears to be arbitrary. So many resources are wasted producing junk. So much time wasted on dumb arguments. Total ambivalence, apathy, and learned helplessness is plaguing us. Meanwhile, who are we to presume we're so intelligent when our efforts seem so pitifully lethargic? Why be so judgmental and constantly trying to scapegoat other people as fundamentally wicked? Oh yeah, kill 'em all right? Or at least silence them. Left/right, right/left... someday perhaps one side "wins" the argument finally but then what? Once settled, I'm still waiting for us to implement those crucial adjustments just so we may experience actual dignity. Humanity better get its priorities straight. Don't give a flying fuarrrk about your bitch-ass identity, beliefs, or power-trips. I want to relax and live my life to it's fulfillment without regret. And by the way, let's avoid becoming victim to self-delusion. I mean, before we suggest what must be done here or there, we can start getting our own selves in order. That alone is challenging enough. Extensive outer space travel sounds so terrific and would qualify as the next grand achievement for humanity after the pyramids at Gizeh. Look into the writings of ordinary people from ancient Rome and even further back to Sumeria etc... our essential humanity remains the same. Same concerns about love, shelter, harmony, whatever. If anything, our era compared to then looks derivative. Millenia later their ruins still remain awe-inspiring and majestic. Truly built to last. Compared to the grandest achievements of our modern era, today's results are tacky, cold, and ugly. Let's become pioneers and finally move the conversation beyond the stale paradigm.It hasn't been functioning so good as long as I've lived so far anyway. If anything, things appear to be in regression. I hate how first-degree perverts across the globe supposedly have access to utterly, retardedly, huge nuclear arsenals. I'll become a demon and impale any asshole who would even dare threaten ruining our lives by even dangling their fingers toward the switch. Those bastards. I mean, realistically, humanity can only proceed slowly toward a worthwhile future. Last thing I want to happen is finding ourselves in deep-soykaf with the planet in crisis-mode because we've wasted our opportunity to recognize the writing on the wall. Just FOCUS on meaningful projects so we can maintain whatever truly, materially matters to us. We could still enjoy our fantasy stories and fairy-tales in our freetime. For now we must build some progress, if ever so little, year by year, so we may get some positive momentum going to it might eventually cascade into genuine flourishing.

>>95173 >Humans are not valuable. I In which giving individual humans more power is going against this treating them as greater than they are. > Nothing matters at all. Then why be into politics if it doesnt matter? >utilitarian No individual knows what is best for the masses and odds of the one person who does winding up in that position is low so your views would contradict this yet again. > Your well being and life are insignificant. Where I define higher order objectives to be that of experimentation on the universe, learning more about the big bang, using AGI to determine are we in a multiverse etc. All human resources are allocated toward performing experiments at CERN etc etc. Knowledge for knowledge sake when nothing matters? Pure autism. > We need to get rid of vain human endeavours and start going straight for the most valuable things. You just described vain human endeavors as desirable.

>>95177 Your analysis is concerningly accurate. I chose identity politics to discuss as I knew most about it. In regard to giving authority to an impartial system I don't understand why that could be a bad thing. And I'm not that young but I'm evidently not a humanities student. On me attempting to appear like a contrarian outsider to the system who has hidden knowledge. I have not given up on attempting to contribute to society. In fact what I wrote are representative of my genuine beliefs and the foundation of all of my long term goals are in regard to them. In regard to replacing world leaders with AI it was a more general statement that human tendencies were destroying a perfectly good opportunity at global harmony. Our tendencies to tribalism and emotional judgement are causing unnecessary obstacles to progress. And yes I see my own emotions as getting in my way of efficiency and goal achievement. And when I see others indulging in them I envy their freedom and joy. I despise the human form and it's natural tendencies. I would prefer it to be genetically engineered for the intellectual pursuits or replaced entirely with AI.

>>95182 >Left/right, right/left... someday perhaps one side "wins" the argument finally but then what? No side wins, the whole point is to get people emotionally invested in an unwinnable battle so they can form an identity, an identity that makes it easier for backroom deals to manifest and money to flow. >>95184 Heyy so you're not a bot, great. >I chose identity politics to discuss as I knew most about it. But why? Why do you choose to put energy into learning about (largely fabricated) identity politics instead of e.g. conflicts in the Middle East, or French, or how to cook, or how to talk to girls, or anything? If you're watching it, it's for you. No one seriously acts like the media images that are presented to you, but if the media dresses things up a certain way they can get you angry enough to waste your time and money on useless crap you don't even want. >In regard to giving authority to an impartial system I don't understand why that could be a bad thing. I didn't see this at the time, but it's 100% indicative of a weak superego. That's psychobabble that means you don't really have a sense of morality. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your dad probably was very inconsistent with how he parented - when he was angry he'd yell at you to stop watching TV, and when he was busy he'd yell at you to stop bothering him and watch TV. This has a pretty awful effect on a person; it guarantees that you can't actually form an understanding that there are rules, rules that you can't touch but exist nevertheless, that are true no matter who is applying them. Of course, you sense that there *should* be rules (you aren't a psychopath or psychotic thankfully), but you can't trust anyone to apply or come up with them, especially yourself. So the fantasy - I don't have to obey morality, I can get an omnipotent object to make me do the right thing, and then I can congratulate myself for doing what I was forced to do anyways. Want to know the real scary thing? Omnipotent means not omniscient, means it can't know everything, means you can fool it. >In fact what I wrote are representative of my genuine beliefs and the foundation of all of my long term goals are in regard to them. Then you've got problems, because this isn't the sort of identity that can sustain you, it's just masturbation of the Freudian sort. Go and learn the drums or something. The wonderful thing about the human mind is that you can do something that's "not you" just by convincing yourself that it's you, and despite what you think it will BECOME you and you will be something better than what you were. >And yes I see my own emotions as getting in my way of efficiency and goal achievement. The first is backwards, you're trying to be "efficient" so that you don't have to deal with your emotions. It's classic resistance, you replace emotional development with intellectual development so you feel like you're "getting somewhere" when you're really just stuck. >I despise the human form and it's natural tendencies. Yeah, I wish girls had cat ears too... >I would prefer it to be genetically engineered for the intellectual pursuits or replaced entirely with AI. Repressed neediness. You think that you're a budding (intellectual) but people won't give you the attention you deserve, so you form them as (NOT intellectual)s so you can keep a secure identity. In truth, the ways other people think about the world will surprise you. You're very invested in this ideology, but it doesn't really seem to be anything except a mask for rage at not being seen the way you want to be seen. You indicate that you're not that young, which is OK. At 16 this kind of sentiment is to be expected. At 22 this kind of stuff is a challenge that you can overcome. At 30 things start to become a Problem. There's really only two things you can do - keep putting all of your energy into maintaining this illusion, or accept who you are, accept that certain things happen, and *love the world anyways*. You probably think that things have to be this way, but they don't; it's as simple as seeing the world a different way.

>>95185 >Heyy so you're not a bot, great. That's a different poster. How it is BERRY GONZERNING :DDDD that you could not tell whether my braindead PERFORMATIVE SOCIAL CRITIQUE delivered through SARCASM and MOCKERY was generated by a : -HUMAN -A BIOBOT -AN ACTUAL BOT I am very concerned. D:

>>95171 Kind of a poor set of beliefs for a self proclaimed left wing authoritarian. You know why has the "left" lost space in public opinion? Do you know why the "right wing" is completely bonkers but is growing exponentially and is succeeding in it's intent? Because there is no left wing without the working class. That's their main fight and they left it to rot because it wan't a good enough product to sell. The working class problem is the only reason there is a socialist/communist/anarchist wing at all. There is no point in social politics if the instances that should be fighting for the working class and acceptable conditions of welfare are all concerned about virtue signaling, arguing about theory and infiltrating mainstream media with subjective identity bullshit. There are self proclaimed market nuts, the "right" and the hypocritical market nuts, the so called "left". And the only ones appealing to the working class are the "right wingers", because they know the working man doesn't stand for progressive politics. They stand for having a good steady life with benefits and perks while they produce for society, and no one is being a voice for that. So when an evangelical snake-oil vendor comes to nag about degeneracy, the working man feels heard. So bashing minorities and petty marginals suddenly becomes good enough. Why? Because everything else is being taken from them! The working man has no time to process nuance, he's too busy grinding and surviving, and in his mind, it's easier to survive without being bombarded with lame ass censorship and woke content everywhere, even if his soykafty life only gets soykaftier. That is why the "left" has lost and why the "right" has won and will continue to win more space. A minimum wage that's traced on products and real estate price, fair working conditions, safe employment and unemployment, regulating big tech and big corpos, those are the big fishes the left wing should be trying to fish. They would get extremely popular and as a bonus, they would actually discuss actual problems to be solved. At least in the west, those are the things the majority of people are interested in, but the socialists were all assimilated into consumerist mentality, to the point where everything they stand for are also for sale. So, because of the lefties being retarded and treacherous snakes, the working class suffers, abandoned and left out for priests to psyop.

>>95192 The reason for that is because the "left" has been coopted by influential groups after Occupy Wall Street. It's much more economical to pay some goons to pretend to be environmentalists and throw paint at priceless art pieces than fund an 8 digit influence campaign to convince the public global warming isn't real. Those who rock the boat too much get the metaphorical CIA journalism award.

>>95171 >The right wing has completely lost it. There is no god. There is no levitating Jesus who's going to judge you when you die. Making decisions on this fact is delusional and harmful to society at large. Because countless people from every era and culture who reliably keep encountering the same set of phenomena pointing to the existence of the afterlife are a millennia-old international conspiracy designed to trick the faithful away from the truth? And you know your truth that is impossible to falsify and is based on pretending events you dislike aren't real is the real truth because... you just assumed it to be true one day and instinctively know that anyone who doesn't share your baseless assumptions is stupid and needs to be killed?

>>95196 OP is way too confident on this stance. But to answer your first sentence, it is surely not a "conspiracy theory" but most probably a confirmation bias tied to a suggestion bias (especially with the cultural boom of the time). And I don't see how you assume your last question, that seems way off of what everything that OP said

>>95196 does it matter if you are getting bumfucked right now tho? Like, OP is just a dismissal, but one could construct the idea that real suffering and protest against it constructs an expression of suffering as something that belongs to this world, because of external (or internal?) forces. Salvation from suffering on this world via the messenger, like Christ. Man (the abstract) appears as something more than the world he created, because the same man suffers and does not understand the reason for his own suffering. Thus he turns beyond the "realm of a man" to explain it. He does not think of himself as a concrete "thing" in concrete situation. In short, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy, one could explain it via structuralist argument. As for OP, he didn't think is through, of course, but one could ponder if, under own framework, he has it backwards. He wants to abolish the religious without first abolishing the conditions that make the religious a worthy expression to turn onto.

>>95202 most large movements have sacred values that are not to be questioned which makes them a matter of faith. Dumbfucks just get iq filtered from recognizing anything that doesn't call itself religion as working exactly the same way.

How would this "leftwing authoritarianism" even look like, really? Are you going to genocide the relugious in the name of science? What's so leftwing about genocide? Sorry, I just don't see it

>>95203 I didn't want to mention Idjolodży, because this would make me go technical >>95204 He american, so everything that recognizes the necessity of state apparatus appears "authoritarian"

>>95204 Modern "left-wing authoritarianism" is just identity based redistribution. The economic theories are completely debunked and failed. If you were going to believe in some Marxist historiography, you'd believe in what, that we need to accelerate capital now for AGI, THEN we get fully automated luxury communism or something (???). All that's left is the social equality shibboleths which are painfully false now that every Western civilization has to deal with imported third-world bio-trash.

>>95171 The OP needs to urgently read ANY theory. "I am a Leftist" with vague beliefs. >There are too many unintelligent people in power making decisions. If we gave Gemini 3 control of all the countries on Earth it would easily be able to eliminate world hunger / poverty and increase global prosperity and development. But instead we have Islamic retards fighting over who's going to fuarrrk 21 virgin children after they die. And jawdroppingly delusional individuals like the Peter Thiel who thinks the antichrist is real. Genuine lumpenprole mindset, read theory PLEASE. MARX, LENIN, STALIN, ANYTHING. >>95174 Good post, kind post too. >>95213 Slop post

You are basically correct. Useful reading besides Marxist canon: The Communist Postscript, Boris Groys People's Republic of Walmart, Leigh Phillips and Michael Rozworski Mind and Tissue, Ray Peat >>95219 Jeffrey Epstein would be a better example of Actually Existing Fascism.

>>95219 as if the topic wasn't analyzed to death by marxists. The consensus is that commodity production never went away, hence it had to "bounce back" so to speak.

>>95232 The next time will be the real eschaton, though. When the CCP builds AGI they'll democratize it under socialism and then allow their citizens to self actualize themselves under the centrally planned AI economy. It's all been foretold in the Marxist arc of history.

>>95234 >CCP >Socialist hahahahahahaha. China is the centre of global capitalist production and full of cronyist corporations. >>95174 > Lumpenprole Marx was a retard about this concept calling homeless lumpenprole. Maybe it was the case in Germany during his time if ever but it is exactly not the case these days.

>>95235 The deng gambit will turn around and show it's full colours to you......

People have too much faith in other's claimed intentions. Usually it's very base lusts for power, resources, and control over others and their beliefs. They pretend to be stupid and they pretend to be righteous, but they're just trying to gorge themselves on everything and everyone they can get their hands on.

>>95234 bruh, AI-planned economy can at best do neo-ricardian (as Cockshott showcases thinking this is "socialism") economy. There is still commodity production, it's still capitalism, only less accented.

>>95235 >Marx was a retard about this concept calling homeless lumpenprole. Maybe it was the case in Germany during his time if ever but it is exactly not the case these days. leftypol jargon flew through me, because responding to that paragraph would be at least 3x as long.

Question: do you identify more with materialism or "leftism" (which sounds like a fake word to me but I have no better word to put there)? Also, do you think the Chinese model is any good,

can someone (OP maybe) give a quick clear definition of 'left wing'?

>>95293 Remember how capitalism came and said that every human, regardless of their strength or ancestry, is now allowed to own property? Starting with their own body. Left Wing is a collection of policies that aim to cancel capitalism by taking away this ability and return humanity to the state where only our betters were allowed to own things and make decisions… And once humanity is, again, reduced to using only a fraction of its mental power… Millennia of poverty and death with no progress await, all over again.

>>95293 imagine a circuit which job is to maximize return of investment. I appears that certain group of people acts on their own self interest, but they are best modeled as acting on "interest" of the circuit. While individual "effectors" can drop out and do whatever, the whole thing is dependent on that circuit working. If it falls to work, for some reason, it becomes entirely logical thing to destroy at least portion of capital it created to ensure that circuit itself is safe and sound. "Left wing" is wanting to break the feedback loop.

I have read all of the comments I didn't expect this to blow up my initial post was quite clickbaity >>95258 The open source chinese models are good like GLM 4.6 and Kimi K2 from my brief research I would say that materialism more closely aligns with my beliefs primarily due to leftism having the identity politics association whereas materialism has a purely economic focus. And the left's re distributive policies only make sense on the basis that humans have uniform value whereas that is not the case >>95196 Religious people make me unreasonably angry. It's a brain virus that needs to be eradicated. If you are a 3rd worlder it's excusable but if you're a 1st worlder it's embarrassing purposeful ignorance >>95192 good post >>95185 weak superego was accurate I will follow your advice in regard to modifying my thinking patterns and if it reduces any projection I'm doing and how that affects my outlook on the world

>>95293 The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" originate from the French Revolution during the late 18th century. The national assembly of France was divided ideologically and physically separated themselves in the hall to be among their peers. During debates they shouted at each other across the room, hence a division between the left and right wing of the assembly.

>>95192 maybe you did not get the memo but there is no more working class in that sense. we replace the worker with the consumer.

>>95295 >every human, regardless of their strength or ancestry, is now allowed to own property? Starting with their own body. This is liberalism. It arose contemporaneously with capitalism, but they are not the same. Capitalism is an economic/social system with two main features: 1) economic activity is centered primarily on markets, and the profitability of trades on the market is how people decide what should be produced. 2) ownership of capital (land, buildings, machinery, slaves, etc.) is also determined by the market, and a person that owns capital has a near-absolute right to everything it produces. Some consequences of these two features are: 1) ownership of capital and social standing are basically identical. People who own lots of capital are called capitalists. 2) capitalists must make their property as profitable as possible in order to avoid their social standing being taken away by another capitalist that does it better. 3) because capitalists have a lot of social and political power, and they need to exploit as much capital as possible, they attempt to remove land, resources, etc. from the commons and transform it in to capital. This can be seen in the modern day, where almost all the good land is either road or privately owned Capitalism is also an ideology which amounts to believing that this arrangement is good. >Left Wing is a collection of policies that aim to cancel capitalism by taking away this ability Left wing is people who think society should be mostly changed instead of mostly kept the same

>>95299 Reminds me of that Overwerk's song, "Feedback": - ''Time to break the feedback (the feedback!)'' - '''Don't you break the feedback (the feedback!)'''

>>95171 >a superior future (e.g space, alpha centauri etc). Funny that a superior future is all about fleeing Earth. You cannot be taken seriously. >it's economic policies are intelligent I'm yet to see even just one work on the long term. Unless you're ready to consider that other socialism as "leftist."

>>95171 Is this an steath pro-china thread?

>>95326 The sadder part is that pretty much every phenomenon that can, potentially, be abused to travel faster than light is a heresy against materialism and would be impossible to study once these guys take power.

>>95295 Not that one, and >>95314 already wrote a nice critical supplementary to your post, but I wanted to point out the following. >Remember how capitalism came and said that every human, regardless of their strength or ancestry, is now allowed to own property? Starting with their own body. Capitalists didn't come and say anything. Depending on the country, they sneakily took over the Monarchy's property or placed extensive legal restrictions to privatize and protect their already established gains and land ownership (which they originally got by the grace and blessing of the Monarchs) right after the Feudal order collapsed (to which end they actively worked towards and historically played a major role, most notably during the French Revolution) or before other major societal changes took place. In the former case, this is what we call - or, rather, maybe *used to call* - "old money". That's most of Europe. As for the latter, it's a bit more relevant for the US: the capitalists mostly gained their wealthy due to the vast yet-unexploited resources of the New World. Ironically, some of the capitalists earned their wealth by stripping other people off of their property and even ownership to their own bodies, which established the American financial dynasties of today, which currently, thanks to prevailing laws on capital transfer for instance, make it ever harder for other people to own property (and no, I'm not talking about buying your ps5 console or clothes made in China, I mean fertile land, means of production and rights to minerals). So, whenever you read about "right to ownership", the first mental image that should pop into your mind is that of a man who says one thing, but means something completely different - as Zizek has pointed out, within the first declarations of Western countries it is implicitly assumed that these rights and liberties are reserved for the educated, well-off white men, and that only way after did they started to extent and to encompass all the other citizens as well when they slowly began to take the written word to the letter. >Left Wing is a collection of policies that aim to cancel capitalism by taking away this ability and return humanity to the state where only our betters were allowed to own things and make decisions… What's "Left-Wing" and "Right-Wing" can essentially be understood as political tendencies where "Leftists" are defined by their obsession with progress, whereas "Rightoids" are defined by conservation. It comes from the French Revolutionary times where those sitting on the right side of the house supported the king and those who sought his overthrowing sat on the left. What you're describing there as "Left-Wing" sounds more like a strand of Aristocracy, which, judged by today's current political landscape, would likely be more right up "Right-Wingers'" alley. >aim to cancel capitalism This depends on what strain of "Left-Wing" you're talking about. But usually it's about mitigating the supposedly unwanted effects of Capitalism, not outright "canceling" them - as Dahl, a prominent political theoretician of Democracy, has stated: Capitalism results in the unfair accumulation of wealth at the hands of a wealthy few, which will make it ever more difficult to fulfill the Democratic ethos of giving power to people, if the wealthy few control the resources necessary to make your voice heard. So, in order to have a strong, functioning Democracy, it is also necessary for us to restrict by legislation the worst tendencies of Capitalism in order to preserve Democracy. >where only our betters were allowed to own things and make decisions I think this is the most interesting part of your post, because there's just so many layers to work with, when considering everything else you've just expressed. First off, isn't that, essentially, what a Meritocracy is, which is the go-to justification of Capitalism coming from supporters of Capitalism (that is, that only the most successful, competitive ideas flourish while all the rest withers and dies)? Secondly, you seem to imply that restricting capitalism in any way whatsoever is bad, but still think that "rule by our betters" is a bad outcome, and still think "Left-Wingers" trying to restrict capitalism is also bad. Taken together, you think that capitalism is a good system for creating wealth, prosperity, and unleashing humanity's abilities and potential to its greatest degree, but you don't want it to go to the other extreme either, where only those who've shown themselves to be extraordinarily capable at gaining wealth and power through their talents and efforts should rule, right? But you also don't want to do the "Left-Wing" thing of hampering or restricting the system from playing itself out and from reach its logical conclusion, because that'll lead us to the dark ages once more, right? Well, congratulations, you're a Leftist who doesn't want to Left-Wing. What a conundrum!

>>95171 Are you still there? If working pay only marginally more than not working, or even the same as socialists and communists want (separation of work and salary is an important point of their ideologie) why would anyone work hard, or early, or dangerous jobs, or at all? If working does pay significantly more than not working, and you have such a strong safety net than everyone will get taken care of no matter what, then where does all the money come from? Do you think this is magic? >Left wing ideology is enforced I stopped here. Enforced by who? By people? People who like money and power, who are the kind of men who made their way in the revolution/administration? Please, take a moment to stop here and to think, what happen next. They will enforce whatever will give more power to themselves and they will coat it in propaganda. That's what happened every single time and it will happen every single time again. >globally So, you want one central power to make the same rules for a village in China, for Rio and for a tribe in Greenland? Please love people more than you love ideas. What would the minimum wage would be, for instance? > There is no god. No, but there are people. People who are human, not rational automatons, not economical agents made to fit in the grand plans of some thinker. Everywhere people go, they invent gods. There is a reason for that, we need them. Let people be people instead of forcing your ideas on them. >Making decisions according to a moral framework is stupid This is how you can build a civilization. People are stupid, cruel and unfair, I know I am one, but if they need a God, then a wise man would give them one who will make them act as a civilized body. > It's economic policies are intelligent Then why do they fail?

>>95293 That is a very good question. I never liked this one dimensional abstraction, too much aggregation. If I told you about free universal healthcare, pensions, housing that is basically public for all families, strong infrastructure, a massive educational system that make kids live outside of their family, you may associate it with the left. It was that good old Austrian painter. Now, you may declare that despite this he was right wing because of his nationalism and all the propaganda that come with it, his political police, his economy being in no short part based on slaves in labor camps, or maybe his love for the military. That was the Soviet Union that every leftist said was on the far left until 91.

>>95333 'Free' education and health care are neither left nor right wing on their own. The difference is in your ability to choose which organization provides them.

>>95334 You don't get to decide where they go in neither left nor right authoritarianism. It's authoritarians, it know better than you what you need and if you disagree then you must be dealt with.

>>95333 Libertarianism has always been and always will be a failure. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/01/argentinians-struggling-milei-chainsaw-austerity Countries become wealthy when the state takes action, not because the market regulates itself. If you look at the economic history of countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea, you will see direct or indirect state participation in many areas: SOEs, industrial policy, subsidies to strategic companies, investment in transportation, energy, education, entertainment... You would even be surprised by the number of SOEs and direct or indirect state participation in countries such as Poland, Georgia, and many of the ASEAN group, which partly explains their high GDP growth during the 21st century. I know that these countries are not perfect and we are still subject to the human condition, but the fact is that countries get rich this way even though they promote the opposite as a psyop. You cannot talk about individual responsibility, self-made men, and the principle of non-aggression in a world where there is hunger, thirst, disease, natural disasters, and other things beyond your control. The world is not a Minecraft server.

>>95337 That's a really poor exemple. Argentina was broke on many levels. Milei have a bit of corruption but he improved Argentina beyond any hope. Yes, it's still a failure of a state, but now it's a normal failure, not a biblical one. South Korea already have ceased to exist for all purpose and intend, it's already a Chinese province. You don't survive that fertility rate for decade. China owe it's economic miracle to Deng: no ideologies, only pragmatism. The state of China is strong but never get in the way of developpement, not with worker's rights, not with taxes, not with regulations (that tend to change, but it's not the west). In general, when your country have no industry it take the government to start the economy and from there, economic success depend on the good allocation of resources, something a government have no reason to do well.

>>95338 -The economic freedom index is rubbish and has been refuted on numerous occasions and by multiple people. -Regarding Argentina, Macri screwed up by getting into debt with the IMF, while Alberto Fernández screwed up by trying to combat inflation by raising interest rates (something that, ironically, libertarian and neoliberal economists strongly promote, but studies have shown that it does not work and could even make it worse), in addition to having to suffer through the pandemic and the post-pandemic crisis. Milei lowered inflation by reducing interest rates (something that goes against his own economic doctrine, just like all the few good things he did, which were the opposite of what his doctrine says should be done), in addition to a lot of help from rich countries and US support. yet it has failed miserably and it is only a matter of time before it drowns in private debt and a 2001 occurs. -Regarding Deng, I recommend learning about Birdcage economics (I wouldn't call that a free market, to be honest). “Non-public” also includes private cooperatives, and you are still stuck in the China of the 2000s. It has improved a lot in many ways, including labor rights. https://youtu.be/M4__IBd_sGE?si=9LRYAljxgH6s3R4h -Taxes do not finance public spending (look up and learn about MMT and the deficit myth. Central governments are not like households). -State inefficiency is another myth. https://youtu.be/zL7klttTsnY?si=xxc8WtejOFdgpYFf

>>95339 Argentina is still in the hole, but Miley gave it an economic miracle by simply not taxing everyone who give jobs to death, not regulating everyone who give jobs to death and only spending public money on what is needed. Guess what? 7.7% growth. Not bad for a collapsing state. If state inefficiency wasn't a myth, the USSR would have won the cold war. Mr Porky have a finite money and if he want more of it he will do every trick in the book to make it productive. Mr Commission don't care how much public money it take to make things because public money is free. Look at Air France, when they were public they were spending like crazy for the same result than private companies because they could just ask for free public money. The moment they went private, they had the same spending than everyone else. The guy on your first video start by framing everyone else as anti China and then sing songs at the glory of the CCP. The second have only spouted opinions, often wrong ones for the first 5 minutes and I don't want to give them more of my time.

>>95340 There's inefficiency and then there's corruption and then there's a million other things going on too. The Soviet Union but run by Americans would not be the soviet Union, and nor would the United States populated by Russians be the United States. Unfortunately its hard to directly compare two massively different countries, but I would be hesitant to embrace monocausal explanations of their differences.

>>95340 Food consumption plummeted, manufacturing collapsed, construction declined. There were videos of tourists in Buenos Aires when the peso was inflated showing that small businesses were all closed or bankrupt. the Inflated GDP growth comes from the growth of extractive industries such as Vaca Muerta and the financialization of its economy.

>>95340 Also, what is that nonsense you've written about French airlines? One of the airlines considered to be among the best in the world is Qatar Airlines, which is completely nationalized.

>>95341 The soviet union had it's perks. In the early decades, they had better tanks, occasionally better planes, better computers, better rockets than the US. At the end their tech relied on spying on the west and they were 10 step behind on everything. And when the state is omnipresent, every victory is a victory of the state but every defeat is a defeat of the state. Who care about increasing productivity, just request more workers. >>95343 That one is paid for with the infinite money of Qatar. It's just rich people wasting their money on frivolities, airlines have a razor thin margin. The state is great at running things as long as free money rain on them. Whoever get to pay for that free money is usually hidden.

>>95350 >In the early decades, they had better tanks, occasionally better planes, better computers, better rockets than the US by 'early decades' here you mean like thirty years after it was founded, and right after the US spent several years sending patents, factories and war materials of all types to the Soviet Union. Not to say they didn't do anything cool or impressive but FDR gave them a huge amount of help in their industrialization/modernization and just off that+conquering a bunch of German labs and factories put them into a solid position to be one of the first producers of large rockets, jet air craft, and a bunch of other interesting devices.

>>95355 Yes, and also after they took Eastern and half of central Europe, with all the industries and the brain juice in it. There is an interesting fact about socialism, when Lenin (remember, Marxism Leninism have never been tried) was tired of seeing everybody starve and revolt, he allowed a limited quantity of free enterprise and got the Soviet Union to start to industrialize.

>>95182 >So many resources are wasted producing junk The resources are created by the same system that is unable to distribute it efficiently. You can't have both. If you get rid of the system the resources will also go away but you can distribute whatever is left efficiently if you want.

>>95357 mind you, NEP allowed for small scale enterprise (mainly in agriculture and retail), but everything "big" was still state owned (industry).

>>95359 To be more specific, referring to planned obsolescence like when Apple changes the plugs in their next-gen electronics claiming technological advances thereby rendering previous forms, like USB, progressively less viable so I have to buy new cables. Or bicycle components, like thirty years ago it was plausible to mix and match Campagnolo or Shimano brakes, derraileurs, seat-posts etc... because measurements on the average bicycle frame were almost totally standardized. So if something broke it wasn't too hard to replace or repair. These days bikes & parts are made of carbon fiber and with that a multitude of new adjustments needed, yet they're easier to brake and more difficult to repair. All this despite how practically speaking the bicycle in concept is so simple that it has practically reached peak efficiency fifty years ago. Planned obsolescence aside, there's outright junk mass-produced, like Justin Bieber backpacks pumped out of sweatshops which simultaneously emit horrendous pollution into sources of drinking water. What's the upshot of what I'm saying here? Like intelligent and responsible use of raw materials which would render recycling and repurposing much easier instead of chucking outdated products into toxic waste-dump landfills.

>>95362 All that stuff is bad, but how do you fix it? Apple can make soykaf products all they want and offer to the customers, is that not a fundamental right to offer someone something? How do you regulate that?

What is the closest right wing equivalant to your beliefs?

>>95369 >your beliefs Can't believe people still fall for this.

>>95364 There is no human right to sell on a market. I think it's pretty well established that slavery, even "voluntary" slavery, should not be legal. So the question isn't whether a lime exists, the question is where the line is. Personally I think the line should be set up so that producing and selling instant garbage is illegal, and manufacturers should be forced to (for instance) use standardized connectors. On the bigger scale, a system in which the betterment of the human race and stewardship of the land is valued over the ability of imdividuals to make profit would be better. This doesn't even mean any specific economic policy, it means a set of values.

>>95364 Yes, Apple has the right to offer customers bad products if they want to unfortunately. So they continue promoting the next iPhone again and again even though they're practically no different from the iPhones before. Then supposedly consumers en masse buy the new version then trash the last ones, which becomes an issue because it heaps loads of toxic e-waste. This is more a criticism of mentality. Advertising contradicts the notion consumers determine demand/output when companies actively manipulate the customer's desire for the new shiny version of basically the same product. So the conundrum of planned obsolescence in tech is basically you cannot, and should not, forbid companies or consumers from making bad/stupid choices. However it is urgent to mitigate the issue of e-waste. There must be a procedure to properly recycle the precious trace minerals used in the manufacture of electronics. The reverse of planned obsolescence is reverse compatibility. For example how the Playstation 3 makes possible to play games of previous versions. That is consistent with real and true technological innovation insofar as when technology becomes more advanced it should be perfectly capable to integrate the functions of what it has already been doing.

>And jawdroppingly delusional individuals like the Peter Thiel who thinks the antichrist is real. He is frequently quoted out of context about the antichrist, but I have to wonder how he reconciles his stated intentions with his actions.

>>95375 Personally I can't take seriously his thoughts on Christianity because he's engaging in bad faith. No Christian would be in a 'gay marriage'.

I recommend learning about the current decentralization process in Vietnam. It's interesting. Libertarians always talk about decentralization and criticize their opponents for being statists, but in practice, libertarians are statists, but for the rich and powerful. https://youtu.be/jXzeWB_Xieo?si=sBrOtXe--JV7Nla9

Left wing authoritarianism and right wing libertarianism are the most retarded positions a person could hold, because their goals contradict their methods. The left's goal, broadly speaking, is the improvement of workers' living and working conditions, and their emancipation. Authoritarianism is a method of governance in which those at the top get to easily abuse and exploit those at the bottom. The working class is at the bottom of the food chain. They are set up to get shafted relentlessly. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You will NOT get the "good guys" at the top of your dictatorship. You will get power-hungry, solipsistic sociopaths who will exploit and drive the workers harder and harder so that they can live comfy lives. The only way to ensure workers', as well as the common person's wellbeing, is to abolish hierarchy. The only way for those at the top to not rape, exploit, kill, and rob those at the bottom is for there to not be a top and a bottom.

>>95434 whats a glitterboy? >>95436 >The only way to ensure workers', as well as the common person's wellbeing, is to abolish hierarchy. The only way for those at the top to not rape, exploit, kill, and rob those at the bottom is for there to not be a top and a bottom. It would be nice if hierarchy was abolishable, but it just unfortunately isnt. All throughout the history of human society, there has always been some form of hierarchy. Families are an immutable part of humanity, and families are inherently hierarchies, with the older members of the family taking care of and being in charge of the younger members. Familiar hierarchies evolve into communal hierarchies, and then into societal hierarchies. Hierarchies are an unfortunate facet of human nature that cant be gotten rid of.

>>95437 >It would be nice if hierarchy was abolishable, but it just unfortunately isnt. All throughout the history of human society, there has always been some form of hierarchy. >Families are an immutable part of humanity, and families are inherently hierarchies, with the older members of the family taking care of and being in charge of the younger members. Familiar hierarchies evolve into communal hierarchies, and then into societal hierarchies. Hierarchies are an unfortunate facet of human nature that cant be gotten rid of. I badly expressed myself, sorry. When I said 'hierarchy', I meant the sort of top-down hierarchy that states and corporations impose. The type of hierarchy where there is a person (or group thereof) at the top which acts as a 'brain' for the whole, and those below are merely supposed to act on the leader's wishes. Of course I don't think all hierarchies are useless and wrong (nothing is just bad/good), families and apprenticeships are, I think, useful hierarchies where those on the top really do know much more and are able to impart knowledge and shape those at the bottom into wiser/more skillful people. However, in both of these examples, the hierarchy is quite narrow and everybody inside it knows each other. A state hierarchy, on the other hand, is enormous and gives persons in high-ranking positions huge amounts of power over vast swaths of people they will never even meet. Also, since it expects loyalty to those above you, and there is a looooong chain of people above you, even if you wanted to do good to those under you, you would get in trouble if you put serving the people over serving your superiors. This way, even those who care are pushed towards doing the bidding of those above them, who know the people even less. In such a hierarchy, the top dog is so disconnected from the people, and there are so many aspects to running a country (education, transportation, agriculture, military, settlements, diplomacy - and every one of these sectors has subcategories and subsubcategories and so on) that one person cannot reasonably know what each sector needs/the problems it faces and how it interacts with other sectors. The best way to solve this would be to ditch such a model and replace it with a leaderless bottom-up model. That's what I meant by 'abolish hierarchy', although I am aware that's also a type of hierarchy (already said sorry at the beginning).

>>95437 >Hierarchies are an unfortunate facet of human nature that cant be gotten rid of. Also, concerning the concept of human nature, you might find this an interesting read: http://libraryqxxiqakubqv3dc2bend2koqsndbwox2johfywcatxie26bsad.onion/library/francis-dupuis-deri-anarchism-and-human-nature http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/francis-dupuis-deri-anarchism-and-human-nature (clearnet link) cheers

the left and the right are both fuarrrking stupid. There is not left and there is no right just Jews and corrupt politicians who rape and eat children. How can we save the USA? The only option I can think of is revolution, but the corruption is in every facet of our system I fear it would not be as simple as executing everyone in Congress....

>>95448 The USA was founded by freemasons (shabbos goys). It was built to be destroyed, and there are far too many shabbos goys bought out by the synagogue of satan. The USA has been reduced to a whore who claims to be faithful to principles and beliefs but puts out for petty sums and peer pressure, exactly as planned from the beginning.

>>95174 Why the fuarrrk should he stop that ? This domination passive aggressive bullshit your are putting is the immature soykaf.

>>95437 >Families are an immutable part of humanity, and families are inherently hierarchies, with the older members of the family taking care of and being in charge of the younger members. This is almost correct, because they are not "imutable", their form changes. >Familiar hierarchies evolve into communal hierarchies, and then into societal hierarchies. And this is backwards, older human societies had no concept of Fathers, only Mothers, hence communal societies predate familiar hierarchies. As far as antropologists go, first "families" were groups separated by generations. All grandfathers and grandmothers were each other husbands and wifes, all of their children - brothers. The introduction of Punaluan family introduced a novel conception where there is an exclusion of brothers and sisters from intercourse (children of the same mother), yadda yadda yadda fast forward to modern conception of monogamous family that is shaped by economic factors more so than social ones. >facet of human nature No such thing. It implies that there is some immutability in human condition. For example that one could "invent" some socio-economic order regardless of his own society. Imagine a peasant (or even a king) trying to conceptualize early capitalism. He can't do that, precisely because his own material conditions can't go beyond "land as only good property" (you could argue that artisans could, but this is proper, because seeds of capital started in Italy in those circles). >>95454 No investigation, no right to speak

>>95171 Your idea has the same problem as all authoritarianism: who, exactly, is this infallible authority? >If we gave Gemini 3 control of all the countries on Earth it would easily be able to eliminate world hunger / poverty and increase global prosperity and development. lmao. Gemini is fine for its niche, as an *assistant* language model. But all LLMs have an enormous anchoring bias. It's useless as an executive authority, because it'll be exploited and lied to by whoever has access to it.

>>95350 >In the early decades, they had better tanks, occasionally better planes, better computers, better rockets than the US. At the end their tech relied on spying on the west and they were 10 step behind on everything. most of the successes of the early Soviet state can be attributed to youthful optimism. There was an entire generation of people that saw that they could shape the world to be better than the one they lived in. After ten, twenty years of being abused by dictators, who were hardly different from the Tsars when you get down to it, that generation lost its hope. So did their children. Now you have modern-day Russia. Hardly needs commentary. >>95355 >by 'early decades' here you mean like thirty years after it was founded, and right after the US spent several years sending patents, factories and war materials of all types to the Soviet Union. Do you know when "thirty years after it was founded" was? That is the time period 1920-1950, roughly. The Soviet Union was doing far better than the US during the great depression, for instance. >>95437 >Hierarchies are an unfortunate facet of human nature that cant be gotten rid of. Surely we can agree that the situation could be improved, though? >>95448 lazy >>95451 >The USA was founded by freemasons close. The good parts come from the Quakers. >>95481 You can immediately tell when someone is too stupid to be trusted with anything. It's when they think a computer would make better decisions than a person, as opposed to better inferences.

>>95171 >If we gave Gemini 3 control of all the countries on Earth it would easily be able to eliminate world hunger / poverty and increase global prosperity and development I don't know why any of the lains responded in good faith after reading this as if this is a serious discussion. Has this board been infested by retards?