Hey Leftypol

Hey Leftypol,

I'm curious about the ideological tendencies here.

strawpoll.me/12491400

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/pG-c-i1NlSc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions.
dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jas/articles/87/6/0872160
aasv.org/shap/issues/v9n6/v9n6p295.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You fucking pleb.

1/10 pol, no anarcho-hoxhaism

poll

Oh shit thats right

fuck

Of course, how could i forget

Shit poll mate

I see googling Bookchin has paid off.

Kill urself OP.
We are the only ones who workers support via trade unions.

No Marxism!! No Stalinism! WHAT THE SPOOK!!

Marxism-Leninism is newspeak for Stalinism.

It's not really newspeak if it's always been what they called themselves.
Also, this is a seriously cancerous poll. Non-socialists and Bookmeme in the top 3, and 8% of the votes going to various marketfags.

I'm not even a communalist, but to dismiss communalism based off of the, alright they are insensate , google bookchin posts is just wilful ignorance

Just accept your communalist overlords tbh

You are aware that's not a real tendency right?

...

They didn't put "Marxism" and Luxemburg seemed the least deviationist of the options presented (and I basically agree with her) so I clicked it anyway.

No Transhumanism?

Transhumanism is a feature under communism so it's redundant

As long as I get mai robowaifu, augments and can do my own thing I'm happy

the immortal science of anarcho-communism is number one

shame

is masturbation an ideology

i almost just voted for AnCom because whatever, i like kropotkin, but then i got mad that the pleb mutualism was up there but not anarcho syndicalism

Your test is so narrow and short. Anarchism is not on there. Anarcho-communism is, and you wrote 'mutualism' by itself but not 'anarcho-mutualism'?

is this bait?

No?

can you please describe what state mutualism is

I have no idea. I've never heard of such an idea.

I haven't seriously read Bookchin, but seems to American for me. Would I find something interesting if my leftist approach aside from classic theory is from Latin American leftists?
Not even idpoling about Latin America, it's just that it feels more raw than most european/American theory.

IMO yeah, Bookchin is pretty great if you are in the green quarter and/or like plants.

What is mutualism vs anarcho-mutualism?

I certainly feel on the green quarter, but it depends on how you like plants. I found that a lot of environmentalist (mostly against nuclear) are great for first world, but would send under industrialized countries to stone age.
Green energies are great and would solve everything in the world but have another costs, I could easily see a lot of environmentalists sending southamerican countries to misery and poverty just so they don't exploit their resources.

shit poll tbh m8

youtu.be/pG-c-i1NlSc
Related

These are all memes though

You wish nazbol was just a meme bucko!

What am I supposed to put if I'm a socialist who hasn't decided on a specific ideology?

'other'

Nonsense.
Industrialism like the west has seen is dangerous and if the third world takes the same route, it will mean the collective extinction of the human race.
The idea here is for South America to skip this industrial phase entirely and instead develop an ethical and democratic economy based on sustainable and synergetic technologies. Thus urbanisation, which is one of the leading factors in apoliticizing people can also be avoided.

Communalist with egoistic consciousness. Read The Next Revolution and The Right To Be Greedy.

Smashies and smashielight wins! WOoooo!

If you didn't get a rose, please step the fuck out.

You're reading some shit theory, the world doesn't work that way. The two points that most strongly predict per capita pollutants are population density and economic development. We can maybe have a decent standard of living without killing the planet if we cluster up and give nature room to breath.

Some data to preface the theory here, picking on the US because states have more even economic development than countries, so its not being thrown off by poverty. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions. Sort this by per capita and its very obvious what happens.

Now theory: lets just consider one large, but by no means the whole, piec eof the problem: transportation.

If everybody lives close together, you automatically have access to cleaner transportation options. There's more short distances to cover, and simple human power can do that, walking or biking. For medium and long distances public transportation systems can be built efficiently only if the population density is high. Electric cars, (not nearly as great as they are made out to be, but an improvement nonetheless) work far better over medium distances. City to city transport can be easily handled by a rail system (except here in burgerstan for some reason), but how do you rail up 100,000 small towns?

And don't say you're gonna go back to horses, that was no better than cars over here. We've had destroyed the forests feeding them and clogged the waterways with horseshit by now. Its numbers, lack of poverty (and shit public transport in burgerstan) that did it, not cars themselves.

Water issues are similar, in the city we have sewage treatment to keep human effluent, and its cheap per person, barely even registers in the municipal budget. In the podunk town I work in some summers we have to leech off the state for the money to afford a sewage treatment plant that only services a few thousand people (since we're upstream of the Colorado river they're pretty easy to blackmail).

Here's the thing:
In the grand scheme of things, the transportation of human beings only account for 11% of CO2 emmisions making it a quite weird thing to focus on.
Instead we must look to industry to find the biggest sinners in this regard, mainly to factory farms that arise in rural areas with little population, a phenomenon that is also only made possible with urbanization.
In terms of transportation of goods, which is certainly also a problem, this is a problem that is inherent with globalism, and thus one that will decrease once the economy is decentralized and democratized and thus greater emphasis on self-suficiency is established.

Now theory:
Urban zones are not cities. They lack public areas made for the face-to-face assemblies that are necessary for a healthy political sphere to exist. Thus democracy and urbanized zones cannot coexist, and without democratization, there is no way to ensure that environmentally safe policies are being followed (let me remind you that every socialist regime has been lax on environmental standards as well)

So even if Urbanized Zones make transportation easier, they also make environmentalism impossible.

If you did, we burn both you and your rose.

I picked anarcho-communism since it's the closes, but come on OP!

As I said, its a small part of the problem.

Let's keep going. Oh hey you already think factory farms are only possible with urbanization neat.

Guess what, factory farms pollute far far less, and use less land, per unit of food produced. So there's another problem you're introducing.

You're theory is skipping a lot of steps but there's an obvious problem too: a small, coherent polity is going to do a lot to prevent local problems, and have very little political will to enforce global problems.

Good environmental standards can only result from accurate knowledge of the problem. You can't be good at environmentalism without environmental science any more than you can go to the moon without physics. This is a hard problem, and you fucking greenies are no better than republicans at listening to the environmental engineers when they tell you your ideology has no relationship to the material.

Disregard porkyposter, burgerland for example has plenty spaces for green energies. But still regarding a internationalist economy could solve but I don't see any realistic alternatives in short term, so while helping the environment, environmentalist policies on third world will condemn a lot of people to extreme poverty (not talking about bourgeoisie luxuries, but actual living means). Logistics are the enemy and only local production are short term viable alternatives. Even green energies seem to get environmentalists rage because of the damage caused to nature on virgin lands.
Physicist here, I fucking hate nuclear because it has a great cost on future generations, but on some context seem like the sanest alternative until we have a viable logistics (disclaimer, nuclear fision is never the sane alternative, just seems good because of the existing infrasreuxture)

This problem is mostly solved on first world, the right wing propaganda is just a spook to maintain the profits. The side effects from green energies are negligible given the baseline where the ecosystem is already fucked up. Things can only get better with more technology.

No Juche. WTF

The cost of nuclear to future generations is having a huge stockpile of clean energy.

That long lived 'waste' is fuel. not hypothetical fuel, actual functioning fuel that's used in European reactors. We don't use it in burgerstan because the politicians cry about it, not because the tech isn't there.


Depends on what sort of solution you want. By 'green energies' you mean wind and solar right? But wind and solar aren't solved problems. Generation is easy and cheap sure, but its intermittent, solving that intermittency is hard. See attached for the scale of just how hard. yet greenies keep insisting 'we can totally do this right now' when we can't. A number of countries have successfully moved to low carbon grids but they all did it with huge amounts of nuclear and/or hydro, because right now we still need reliable systems.

If industrialization is to happen in the 3rd world, it is to be done with the capital of capitalists, meaning that the thrid world is not to see much profit from it.

The third world can easily make localized and self-sufficient economies that don't also the destroy the very foundation for life. Once an economy is communized and slef-sufficient, there is no reason to trade with the outside world, in terms of survival at least.
A pretty good example can be in Appalachia, in which there are areas where money is only used for interaction with authorities. Beyond that, they live comfortable, simple lifes, all without any need to destroy humanity as a whole in exchange for short-term profit.


Citation needed. I can find no source backing that claim up.

Factory farms also increase the risk for pandemic MRSA plagues that modern medicine can't cure

dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jas/articles/87/6/0872160


Several assumptions here:

1) Small farmers forgo antibiotics. I don't actually know, and shutting down for the night so not looking it up. Though it occurs to me maybe I should find out what the hell the neighbor that keeps cows on my property is actually doing.

2) We can avoid an MSRA plague even if we stop eating meat, hospitals are the main source of new strains so we're kinda just fucked.

3) Traditional methods are risk free of disease: aasv.org/shap/issues/v9n6/v9n6p295.html

(If you're in a time zone where you're about to sleep read that in the morning, seriously you won't be able to sleep after. Night.)

I'm really not sure if this is supportive of the "efficiencies" of factory farming, or indicative of the problems that small farms face when competing in the Free Market™ with corporate mega-plantations

poal.me >>> strawpoll

If by clean energy you mean fusion, it's not efficient enough, you still lose energy, Europe has reactors for research purposes (ITER). if you mean something else, please enlighten me, I'm not specialized in nuclear so I might be wrong.
On the aspect of solar and wind, yes they are viable sources outside from quick transportation. Issues about irregular energy flow have been theoretically (in the strong sense) solved by batteries (latest generation). It's not profitable enough (because fossil is cheap) but the technology is pretty good and viable.
On the aspect of transportation that's actually my complaint about environmentalists, the logistic on transporting energy are pretty weak, railroads are good enough to transport goods, but nothing else, for sea routes, you still need nuclear energy (pretty efficient IMO, but still wasteful)


Well, yeah, because mainstream left seems to disregard any initiative that might affect the environment, so the only way to industrialize seems to be capitalist. Given the whole status quo, the left on latin America depends on the rest of the world sympathy to exist (otherwise, they might even be killed), so they pander to first world environmentalists. With the existing material conditions, being under industrialized is just a blank card to reactionaries, even nazbol seem like a sane alternative. Environmentalists have the head so stuck in their ass to realize they're keeping third world down not only on living standard but on on revolution.

>dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jas/articles/87/6/0872160

There are a few problems with this one. Firstly, it's about diary production, and sorta ignores the whole hormone thing, we have introduce since the 1944.

Secondly, it does not compare modern conventional farming and organic farming.
It compares modern conventional to conventional farming as it was performed in the 1940's.

Beyond that, there's a lot to be said about the fact that easy cheap meat that allows the thing to be mass-produced and consumed, is a great problem, that causes the whole industry to be many magnitudes largers, than it would otherwise have been.

This is all of course totally besides the ethical implications of treating animals with cruelty, and the kinds of ethics that are bred in a society where cruelty for the sake of profit is deemed okay.


Most of them have no reason to give their animals anti-biotics, since they don't live in squalor. It'd simply be a pointless expense.
Even if they do, of course there'd need to be leglislation saying that they cannot.


Unless we decentralize and eleminate urban centers, of course, so there's less risk of a mass-death scenario due to some disease.


They're not, no. But at least those diseases are not very likely to be resistant to anti-biotics.


Where's the revolution in killing off the entire human species? Is that not like pissing your pants to keep warm in the winter?

The revolutionary thing is obviously to create a counter-economy, not based on the globalist market economy, but rather on democratic ethics and self-sustainability. People just need bread and good politics, then they can get by. Indeed, poverty is no better in many of the industrialized countries, where all the wealth has simply accumulated at the top, the envirnonment has been destroyed and a totalitarian state has been established.

Why are there so many left communists all of a sudden? Has Bordiga forcing proved proper meme magic is real?

I'm talking about exploiting the resources in a sane, moderate way, and you reply something about killing the entire human race. That's the thing with fucking first world environmentalists, everything that doesn't pander to them is killing the earth.
No, you can't build some refinery because it pollutes, also you can't build a hydroelectric plant because it destroys the natural landscape, also can't construct your solar farm because fucks up the forest, but here, have some pennies.

Why did you include the "I'm not a socialist" option when 7 out of 10 other options say the same thing?

I read The Next Revolution and Social Ecology and Communalism. I wasn't impressed in the slightest. The only reason he has so many adherents is because of how easy to read and understand his stuff is, which means illiterate newfags can quite easily jump on the Bookmeme train instead of trudging through a thousand pages of Capital to really understand Marxism.

I don't think there are many Leftcoms, just many people reacting to the recent influx of liberals.

what's the difference?

lel, trots on icepick watch

Bookchin is for rational human centered ecology that doesnt preach self denial but rational consuption. So you might like his style.


There is nothing wrong with that, Bookchin was thoroughly opposed to the protectionist idea of nature preservation. But anarcho-greeny is right if all states industrialize like China this planet will be fucking dead. If you call for decentralisation of production its clear though that some degree of "industralisation" will be necessary.

Communalism is only popular because of kurds

maybe actually read Bookchin before you throw him in with the others

Given the rather large number of posters that would fall into the 'not a socialist' category.
I find it a shame that only specifically socialist ideologies received their own categories.

Marxism-Leninism is only popular because of Soviets.

No one really cares about Kurds tbh, we care for the the communalist aspects of Democratic Confederalism and the practical implementation of it by PYD, TEV-DEM, YPG and other organisations in Rojava/DFNS and the now mostly destroyed structures in Turkey.

I find it a shame that these people are here at all. Let's not make you feel any more welcome.

I think us non-socialists are doing a very important service for this board.
Without dissenting opinion, this board would quickly become a useless echo-chamber, a left wing version of Holla Forums.

Thanks for including Market Socialists in the poll. These larping ass niggas and their memes.

Never attacked Bookchin for environmentalism. I admitted that I haven't read him enough to even know it's posture. What I actually said about Bookchin, was that I didn't find it's prose appealing for me.
I will probably read it anyway during some free hours, but I was looking for something to get me enthusiastic about it.

Honestly for me it just boils down to 'anti capitalism'
Im just an edgy contrarian who never fell for the Holla Forums memes and realized the problem was the rich.

I put down ancom, but I dont especially associate with everything that entails.


Your technological utopianism isnt an ideology.

this, tbh

if M-L is the second ideology by size then why the fuck it's only me and 3-4 other guys defending USSR at most

There's a diference between "admiring" and "giving sloppy blowjobs to anyone involved with".

...

Suggestion for OP for new poll:

Either you go much more into detail:
M-L and M-L-M are missing M-L Antirevisionist and M-L, "Market Socialism" at least Titoism and Dengism, a whole lot of anarchist sub-categories…

Or you cut it even shorter:
Marxists/Planned Economy (including Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Hoxha …)
Market Socialists (Tito, Mao, Deng, Anarchists)
Liberals (Socdem, Demsoc, Reformists "mixed economy" faggotry whatever)

Either way you should ask for imput for a comprehensive solution

...

Non-sectarian leftism is the best ideology. Marxism and Anarchism both work.

Because Holla Forums is filled with shitposters, and leftcom is the perfect ideology for smug shitposts.

Lol okay dude. Go try reading Ecology of Freedom.

i'll defend it against blatant lies
but it did have plenty of flaws

I don't know if you're lying or you just don't know what you're talking about.

Good reading comprehension. I said he was easy to get into because you have a bunch simple, easy books by Book himself which allow you to get a grasp of the ideology, whilst you have to start reading economic analyses from 200 years ago to get into Marx. I never made a direct comparison of the quality or content of Capital and TNR or whatever. It should be quite easy to see the point of how the newfags who stream in will read some of those quite pleasantly written introductory works and then name themselves Communalists even though they know fuck all (just like most other people here). You're fucking deluding yourself if you believe even 1/10 of the Communalists here have actually read his longer works.

What's going on here

I had to pick tanky because you left Leninism off the list.

You have to do the same thing with Bookchin. Plus newer and more advanced anthropology than Marx ever had access to.
Also, there are plenty of "Marx readers" out there, to gain a simple gain of Marx.
Everything you say about Commuanlism also then applies to Marxism.

So therefore

I read The Communist Manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Programme. I wasn't impressed in the slightest. The only reason he has so many adherents is because of how easy to read and understand his stuff is, which means illiterate newfags can quite easily jump on the Marxmeme train instead of trudging through a thousand pages of The Ecology of Freedom to really understand Communalism.

Meaningless twaddle.

Porky is bad but an even more statist, oppressive government? No thanks, buddy.

t. government back off but don't fuck off also not a minarchist, I think

You're putting me on

factory farms don't pollute less by ratio

no wonder this board is such shit

factory farms don't pollute less by ratio

Can you guys give the numbers on this?
Clearly large-scale farming operations take advantage of economies of scale, and this advantage isn't dependent on having capitalism

I wholeheartedly agree. Anti-GMO activists, for instance, are some of the most misinformed people on the planet. Nothing but a writhing mass of magical thinking.
Since the capitalist system absolutely thrives on reincorporating dissent, and makes it profitable for individuals to do just that, it's really no surprise that the environmentalism movement is so absolutely dominated by mysticism and disconnected from science, because the only scientific solution presupposes a post-capitalist world.

...

Luxemburgism is a type of left communism.

I think leftcoms should be divided into the German (libertarian) and Italin (authoritarian/Bordigist) types.

You are also missing individualist/nihilist/Stirnerist/"lifestyleist" anarchism and primitivism.

Good problem to have tbh

...

Go to bed, Kane

Don't tell me what to do statist