/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>monopolies is not part of capitalism
>fictional capital is irrational
try reading some Marx all of this has been addressed roughly 200 years ago

>>377095
>monopolies is not part of capitalism
There's a difference between a monopolist who own an industry, and someone who own 40% of world "market".

>fictional capital is irrational
That's not the point. The point is that the economy doesn't run on profit and broke off connection to actual productions. If it didn't, the world economy would be dead when corona broke out. It celebrated new highs instead.
>try reading some Marx all of this has been addressed roughly 200 years ago
This is a meme. I've read Marx, and while certainly he's a important figure in social science, people who think he predicted everything are just repeating what others said without any thought. The late works of Marx are frequently inconsistent and incomplete.

>>377071
>there barely is any capitalism left in the actual world
>there barely is any means of production held in private
Slit your own throat, you fuckwit.

>dude it's not socialism because it did something I dislike
>dude its not capitalism because it did something I dislike
>dude it's not feudalism because it did something I dislike
>dude its not facism because it did something I dislike
>dude it's not
You get the fucking point OP you are legitimately poorly educated about history

>>377106
>the world economy […] celebrated new highs
The stock market did,food prices are currently rising as we speak,unemployment soared,and GDP growth as gone down in the shitter.
You can play with the mudpies in the sky,but that won't stop the rising prices of food and the instability deriving from them.
Yes rich people made a shitton of money,so ? it doesn't matter if the majority suffered,the economy IS in shambles,stop looking at /biz/.
Try to think in terms of real consequences and how things happen instead of textbook made-up scenarios like in the OP.

>>377071
Monopolies are the point of markets. Meaning markets fulfilled its promises

>>377146
>unemployment soared,and GDP growth as gone down in the shitter.
Yeah, for few months in 2020. But then it bounced back and people at the top actually profited from it. When an economy stops running the economy should go into a crisis. Not have a minor setback for few months and after that celebrate new highs. That didn't happen before. And the economy isn't in shambles because all of these mega corps still function just fine and are valued higher than before.

>>377106
>There's a difference between a monopolist who own an industry, and someone who own 40% of world "market".
monopoly consolidation was worse than it is now, during the "heights" of the British empire, where for example the east India company could practically run all of India from an office in London.
>That's not the point. The point is that the economy doesn't run on profit and broke off connection to actual productions.
Lol, actual production is the economy, it's not physically possible to disconnect from it, unless you want to convert money into table-top game-play-tokens.
>It celebrated new highs instead.
You mean wall-street having printed tons of money which is spend on ever growing military expenses, try to remember history, the Germans tried that once, and it didn't end well
>Marx, while certainly he's a important figure in social science
Marx is the most important economist of all time, nobody in economics can get around Marx.
You should read Marx until you stop making stupid claims like having an economy without production, imagine having snorted so much bourgeois economics that you think the fucking financial pyramid scheme is going to float away because they don't believe in gravity.

>>377071
You don't even need to read marx to know that Capitalism results in the end of monopolies. That's the whole point of the game of monopoly. It's that eventually someone wins the competition.

>>377146
It's crazy that we're in a great depression but because the stock market is completely buoyed by bailouts and printed money. So the media just pretends we recovered.

>there barely is any capitalism left in the actual world,

>Capitalism can be thought of as a market society, where everything gets turned into commodity including people for profit, but markets barely exist anymore

What kind of next-level cope is this ideology? Libertarian?

Not true capitalism !

>>377152
>monopoly consolidation was worse than it is now, during the "heights" of the British empire, where for example the east India company could practically run all of India from an office in London.
That's essentially pretty much one of the very few examples, and that wasn't caused by market forces. It's more of an military conquest of a nation. You still had different markets owned by different people. Not a datacenter somewhere doing all the work without touching a market.
>Lol, actual production is the economy, it's not physically possible to disconnect from it, unless you want to convert money into table-top game-play-tokens.
Well, too bad because that has happened in recent years. None of the biggest firms in the world live off production. What does facebook or google produce? Their whole economic models in most parts are about controlling digital spaces. They don't really produce any goods.
>try to remember history, the Germans tried that once, and it didn't end well
Try reading a modern economic book. There's a fundamental difference between money then and money now that economist mostly from NMT would explain. That is that money isn't based on gold anymore, and isn't even physical. It's also owned by state so they can't run out of it. They can print how much money they essentially want. The inflation worry is a meme because not only are most nations in the western world worried about deflation instead of inflation, also tens to hundreds of billions were printed for years by now every year and the economy is standing. Actually US had one of the lowest inflation levels in history.
>You should read Marx until you stop making stupid claims like having an economy without production
Believe it or not, Marx wasn't a prophet but just some dude who decided to study the economy. If he had such eldritch powers like you think he does, he would have bigger influence today in current political discourse then being read in some eccentric political parties no one heard about.

NTA
>>377180
>That's essentially pretty much one of the very few examples, and that wasn't caused by market forces. It's more of an military conquest of a nation. You still had different markets owned by different people.
Not a datacenter somewhere doing all the work without touching a market.
uyghur, are you even a Marxist? Yes, of fucking course those conquests has an economic basis to them. It doesnt matter if you had "different markets" owned by "different people", the actual mechanisms of capitalism are still fundamentally the same.
>Well, too bad because that has happened in recent years.
No, it hasn't. Actually read Marx and understand his fundamental analysis and critique of the mechanisms of capitalism.
>None of the biggest firms in the world live off production. What does facebook or google produce?
Commodities you idiot.
>Their whole economic models in most parts are about controlling digital spaces. They don't really produce any goods.
Goods do not necessarily equal commodities. A commodity is not always a good.
>Try reading a modern economic book. There's a fundamental difference between money then and money now that economist mostly from NMT would explain. That is that money isn't based on gold anymore, and isn't even physical. It's also owned by state so they can't run out of it.They can print how much money they essentially want.
We all already know about this, we aren't fucking stupid, and you didn't stumble upon something unknown to Marxists. And if you were a Marxist, you would know that this literally doesn't matter. Money was also always "owned" by the state, it isn't an argument.
>The inflation worry is a meme because not only are most nations in the western world worried about deflation instead of inflation, also tens to hundreds of billions were printed for years by now every year and the economy is standing. Actually US had one of the lowest inflation levels in history.
Yes, and?
>Believe it or not, Marx wasn't a prophet but just some dude who decided to study the economy. If he had such eldritch powers like you think he does, he would have bigger influence today in current political discourse then being read in some eccentric political parties no one heard about.
This is also a non-argument in regards to Marx's actual theory. The extent of his influence today has literally zero to do with his actual theory and the validity of it. Referring to how its currently received or the impact has is blatantly dishonest.

>>377180
>That's essentially pretty much one of the very few examples, and that wasn't caused by market forces. It's more of an military conquest of a nation.
You should read : Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism by Vladimir Lenin.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/imperialism.pdf
>>377180
>Well, too bad because that has happened in recent years.
No it hasn't.
>None of the biggest firms in the world live off production.
biggest in what sense, you can't trust financial valorisations,
>What does facebook or google produce?
they collect data on people, accumulate computing resources capital, and they try to produce machine learning software patterns form the data they collect.
online users essentially do unpaid labour.
>Try reading a modern economic book
I did, bourgeois economics is full of nonsense like subjective value theory it's insane mental gymnastics by a bourgeois class that can't admit that labor is the source of value. They haven't even figure out the concept of surplus value.
>There's a fundamental difference between money then and money now that economist mostly from NMT would explain. That is that money isn't based on gold anymore, and isn't even physical. It's also owned by state so they can't run out of it. They can print how much money they essentially want.
See this is pure idealism, computers of banks are physical too, the data links between banks that transmit financial information are physical as well. If you say something isn't physical you are saying that it doesn't exist. Gold had more mass than data packets and that made transactions slower. But that doesn't mean you can print money as much as you like. MMT is not realistic, except maybe for the US, but even that seems doubtful now, by the time anybody gets the power to implement MMT the neolibs will have burned out the Dollar. You should study the failures of monetary policies in Venezuela.
>The inflation worry is a meme because not only are most nations in the western world worried about deflation instead of inflation, also tens to hundreds of billions were printed for years by now every year and the economy is standing. Actually US had one of the lowest inflation levels in history.
The US has huge inflation, just look at housing prices, that's an insane amount of inflation, and during the pandemic other sectors suffered from inflation as well. Please don't tell me that you don't see inflation unless it's equal in every sector. That is just willful ignorance. They printed money that was used to buy up houses and that inflated housing prices. If you think that the gazillions of dollars they printed will not eventually try to find material wealth, that is faith not theory. There is zero reason to assume that this won't crash like it did so many times before.
>Marx wasn't a prophet
Marx's theories have empirical evidence. Most bourgeois theories aren't even falsifiable to begin with.

>>377071

Competition for relative individual profit and markett share still drive the economy.

Even if the size of various capitals has increased tremendously, none are total monopolies in given sectors (big retailers like walmart still compete with amazon for example, along with smaller ones).

In transportation in general, there are plethora of different firms from railways to trucking company and logustics firms. Their branflds are simply not well know to the public because they primarily other businesses not the final consumer. This is the case for most companies engaged in primairy and secondary sector. For example ask yourself if you can name the top 5 biggest steel producers in the world off the top of your head.

Finally a point about profit. Capital gains made off of speculation are still profit, as they do correspond to surplys value. They are a redirection of tge surplus away from industrial capital, but profit remains.

And those firms that make relatively larger profit over time grow faster abd make up a larger share of the decision making about where to direct capital flows and investment.

If there is no leftism in the world does this mean there is no rightism?

>>377071
>there barely is any capitalism left in the actual world
>Capitalism can be thought of as a market society
>but markets barely exist anymore
>profit isn't a central part of the economy anymore
dude what the fuck are you talking about
that last point i quoted isnt even THAT bad because its true that many major companies run on a net loss, but they still operate for limitless growth for the benefit of their owners, or expect to be profitable in the future. nothing has fundamentally changed about that.

>>377071
Let's have fujakobin explain:

"“Aren’t communists leftists?”

Not anymore!

The “left” was coined during the Great French Revolution for the faction of the bourgeoisie actively struggling against the absolute monarchies. In the 18th and 19th century, the bourgeoisie and proletariat shared common enemies and common aims – the removal of these old despots in order to create a democratic republic. A democratic republic is nothing other than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie – the society in which the bourgeoisie is most free to hire and fire workers, and as such a society in which the proletariat is most able to develop. This is all in the Communist Manifesto, as you know.

The bourgeoisie had shed its revolutionary role by the end of the First World War, when the social democratic parties decided to pursue war for the victory of their nation, and therefore war against proletarians of all nations. Prior to the war, communists and leftists were aligned under the banner of social democracy. After the war, they decisively split. In Germany, social democracy aligned itself with the bourgeois right and ruthlessly persecuted the workers that had overthrown the German Empire, in Russia and Hungary the social democratic parties aligned themselves with the proletariat and called themselves communist.

The left seeks to make life better for the proletariat. It is desperately fighting against the natural tendencies of capitalist economy: wealth falling into the hands of increasingly few monopolists, market anarchy meaning that it constantly fails to fulfill even the most basic needs for many people, and periodic crises throwing workers onto the streets being just a few amongst many.

You, as a communist, understand that the only way for life to stay better for the proletariat is to free the proletariat, that the only way to free the proletariat is to abolish private property, and that the only way to abolish private property is the political victory of the proletariat over all other classes.

The decisive split between communists and leftists happened over a hundred years ago!"

https://web.archive.org/web/20200807162806/https:/fujakobin.wordpress.com/2020/08/07/why-fujakobin-why-not-jacobin/

>>377071
based as shit
capitalism is moving itself towards a shitty non-populist communism (or something).

The way most people seem to thnk of left is way wrong anyways - they support a certain way of life, but this is always conservative and falls into being indistinguishable from the right. Not in the things being demanded, dont get this wrong, but the only way a Right vs Left distinction makes sense is if it mimics Zupancic's formula of sexual difference, representing the only difference that is true, as in it cannot be overcome dialectically - in subjectivity it is the difference of believing in being a One, versus pretending to be a One. In politics it may be seen as a centripetal force versus a centrifugal force.
If the right represents the status quo, then the left represents pure dissolution. There is no this policy versus that policy in right vs left, all that falls into bourgeois politics, i.e. the Right. So it goes for ways of governance, leaders, etc. too. The left is not a solid thing that imposes its being against a similarly solid present reality that is imposing itself. The Left has to align itself with development itself (note: not development how neolibs use the term, but development from dialectical processes), and not align with any particular outcome of this development. This does not mean justifying any historical outcome, it means always playing the hysteric and demanding better or questioning power.

>>377361
The center still needs the right. They once needed the right to come save them from communist revolutions, now they need the right to maintain the political spectacle. The left on the other hand has been folded into the center and transformed into "left-liberals", precisely thought the help of the right scarecrow.
I mean in the West ofc.

>>377468 (me)
*through the help

>capitalism is muh free marget

Why are you even on this board? Read Marx ffs.

>>377445
Good to see this is still being shilled I get sick of people talking about leftists

Capitalism is when you're "evil" like a 19th century factory owner.

>>379368
Retard

>>377071
Just sage this.

>>377355
>Even if the size of various capitals has increased tremendously, none are total monopolies in given sectors (big retailers like walmart still compete with amazon for example, along with smaller ones).

Google??

>>377071
human are commodified bruh, thing is it doesn't require capitalism

resources have determined male/female relationships pretty much everywhere outside Fourierian communities