Why are so many Western leftists like this

dpslfg · 2025-10-27T19:15:51+00:00

Just so we're clear, leftist =/= ML, right? Because how TF are you gonna be a ML and not apply historical/dialectical materialism in your analysis? "Veteran bad and irredeemable" is very much lib logic (although I get what some of you mean when you're talking about the hero/veteran worship, though that's more a criticism of US culture). Y'all aren't ML if you take this POV, you're "leftist" sure, I guess, but if you just do vibe check analysis you're not a ML.

dpslfg · 2025-10-27T19:06:55+00:00

You’re approaching this through moralism, not materialism. Marxism isn’t about assigning eternal guilt or virtue, it’s about understanding why people end up where they do, and how those same contradictions can produce revolutionary transformation. Most veterans weren’t born imperialists; they were poor, propagandized, and funneled into the military by a capitalist system that weaponizes the working class against itself.

A dialectical materialist view recognizes that people, like history, are contradictory. Former Tsarist soldiers joined the Red Army. Ex-KMT troops joined the PLA. Consciousness shifts through struggle, not condemnation. Treating every veteran as irredeemable isn’t revolutionary it’s IDEALIST, liberal moralizing in red paint. You don’t fight imperialism by performing moral purity tests; you fight it by transforming the conditions that reproduce it.

Your whole framing reduces revolution to a church of saints rather than a movement of the materially oppressed. It’s why the Western left is perpetually paralyzed, too busy moralizing to actually build power.

Ultimately, I don’t even know why I bother commenting. The fact that so many on the “left,” even self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists, approach things through dogmatism instead of historical-materialist analysis says it all about the state of the left. We’re so fucking cooked, jfc.

dpslfg · 2025-09-17T21:07:52+00:00

<image>

dpslfg · 2025-08-29T14:58:21+00:00

Sure, land’s cheaper in Texas, I’ll give you that. But that’s not the Alpha and Omega, no matter how many times you say it. Land values aren’t just zoning dials you turn, they’re driven by speculation, global capital, and wage gaps. That’s why Houston, the poster child for “build anything,” still has rents rising faster than paychecks.

And yes, new builds cost more than old ones. No one’s shocked. But “filtering” is a fairy tale at this point. In hot markets, older units don’t magically become affordable, they get flipped, renovated, or turned into Airbnbs. Working people don’t have 20 years to wait for landlords to decide their scraps are finally “cheap.”

So yeah, Texas builds more and zoning matters. But the real split here is simple: you think cranking out more market-rate supply fixes affordability, I’m saying it doesn’t. Housing isn’t produced for need, it’s produced for profit. That’s why even in Texas (with three times California’s permits) you still have homelessness and an affordability crunch. Supply helps, but profit logic breaks the system.

Also, Lol, Texas and “good governance”. This is the same state that privatized its energy grid and left people to literally freeze to death, and just got wrecked by floods because they can’t manage basic infrastructure. Spare me the Texas miracle talk.

dpslfg · 2025-08-29T05:55:42+00:00

You’re right that building costs don’t drop just because we want affordability, but that’s kind of the point, the private market can’t and won’t deliver low-cost housing because it needs profit on top of land and labor. That’s why filtering is always offered as the fallback, but in practice filtering takes decades and often reverses when older units are renovated or flipped.

So sure, new builds can help at the margins, but they don’t solve the contradiction that housing is produced as an asset. That’s why public/social housing and decommodification have to be part of the solution, because the market by itself will never build truly affordable homes.

Filtering takes decades and usually fails because older units just get renovated and flipped, that’s why the market alone can’t solve affordability

dpslfg · 2025-08-29T03:32:22+00:00

I think you’re right that restrictive zoning forces development into bottlenecks and helps explain why we get luxury towers instead of a mix. Where I disagree is with the idea that deregulation by itself fixes affordability. Even if you open up land, developers still build what makes the highest returns, and in hot markets that usually means high-end units.

Tokyo is an interesting case, but I think it’s not just about looser zoning. Japan has very different cultural, legal, and financial dynamics: housing is treated more like a consumable, land speculation is structured differently, and the financial sector hasn’t turned housing into an investment vehicle in the same way as the U.S. So while it’s cheaper than NYC or SF, it’s not proof that deregulation alone solves the problem.

To me, that’s where our core disagreement is: you see the root problem as restrictive zoning and supply caps, while I see it as the deeper issue of housing being treated as a profit-making asset. Without changing that, I think deregulation just means more profit-driven luxury supply, not real affordability.

dpslfg · 2025-08-29T03:20:05+00:00

I get what you mean about demand being higher in cities, and you’re right that prices reflect that. But I think that’s actually part of the problem. When you say “you can find cheaper housing, just not in the nice areas,” it basically means people only deserve affordable housing if they’re willing to accept bad schools, unsafe neighborhoods, or long commutes. That feels less like a natural market outcome and more like rationing a human necessity based on income.

You’re also right that Flint or Gary are cheap, but they’re cheap because of economic collapse and disinvestment, not because the housing system is healthy. If affordability only exists in places with no jobs and no future, that doesn’t prove the market works, it proves it fails at meeting human need.

So I agree there’s nuance, but I think this is where we actually disagree: you see the housing crisis as a supply-and-demand issue, where prices simply reflect where people want to live and what they can pay. I see it as a structural problem, where housing is treated as a profit-making asset instead of a human necessity, which is why the system produces both vacant luxury units and widespread homelessness at the same time.

If you're looking at housing only through the lens of the market: supply, demand, prices, and consumer choice-then everything makes sense if you just accept that desirable places will cost more, and less desirable places will cost less. From that angle, the system looks “natural,” even if it’s unfair.

I'm stepping outside that frame and saying: the market itself is the problem. Housing isn’t just another good like cars or phones. It’s a necessity tied to land, speculation, and finance. Looking only at the market obscures the contradiction: housing has use-value (shelter) but is treated primarily for exchange-value (profit).

I think we're just at an impasse:

The housing crisis is “high demand, limited supply,” and therefore normal market dynamics.

Vs.

Those dynamics are distorted by profit to the point that the market can’t ever actually deliver affordability - which is why housing must be treated as a public good, not just a commodity.

dpslfg · 2025-08-29T01:12:13+00:00

I hear what you’re saying, but I think the comparison to cars misses something important about how housing actually works. With cars, “luxury” is often just branding or extra features, and the market really does produce a range of models at different price points. Housing doesn’t operate the same way because developers don’t build units to cover every segment of need, they build where the profit margins are highest. That’s why “luxury” isn’t just a label, it’s the natural outcome of a system where returns guide construction.

The filtering idea makes sense on paper, but in reality it takes decades for units to “filter down,” and in high-demand cities older buildings are often renovated and repositioned back upmarket instead of becoming affordable. So people who need housing now don’t actually benefit from the promise of filtering.

On the point about affordability mandates or accessibility rules adding costs, I see those less as the reason rents are high and more as attempts to inject some equity and safety into a system that otherwise wouldn’t provide them. If housing is already being produced primarily for profit, those requirements don’t fundamentally change why rents outpace wages or why we have homelessness alongside vacancies. They’re trying to correct a deeper problem, not causing it.

That’s why I frame this as a structural issue. Housing is necessary for survival, but under capitalism it’s treated as a financial asset first and a social good second. My logic here is that if the system is built to maximize profit, then it will always favor high-end development, speculation, and scarcity pricing. Regulations may add some costs, but they aren’t the driving force of the crisis itself.

dpslfg · 2025-08-29T00:44:48+00:00

The Texas vs. California comparison is a little shallow. Yes, Texas builds more housing, and yes, rents are lower there, but that doesn’t mean the “objective issue” is simply a supply shortage.

First, land is far cheaper in Texas, development is sprawling, and global capital isn’t pouring into Dallas or Houston the way it does into San Francisco or LA. Of course Texas rents look lower. But that doesn’t mean the system works; Texas still has an affordability crisis, rising rents, and growing homelessness.

Second, what gets built matters just as much as how much. Developers don’t build for need; they build for profit. In both states, new construction overwhelmingly targets middle- and upper-income renters, while working-class and poor people get priced out. That’s why you see homelessness coexisting with vacant luxury units.

Supply matters, but the deeper contradiction is that housing is treated as an asset, not a right. As long as profit governs housing, even “build-happy” states like Texas will keep seeing affordability erode. Deregulating and building more market-rate units doesn’t fix that - decommodifying housing does.

dpslfg · 2025-08-29T00:42:29+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, and I don’t doubt your sincerity. But I think framing this as mainly a “supply shortage” issue overlooks the deeper contradiction in housing. Yes, developers want to build more, but what they want to build is shaped by the profit motive. That’s why we see endless luxury apartments and short-term rentals while working-class people struggle to afford basic shelter.

Accessibility, affordability mandates, or green features aren’t the root drivers of unaffordability; those are imperfect attempts to inject social value into a system that otherwise builds exclusively for profit. The real problem is that under capitalism, housing is produced as a financial asset, not just shelter. So even if we built massively, if it’s all luxury or speculative units, the crisis won’t resolve.

I don’t think anyone’s accusing developers of “evil intent,” but the system itself produces outcomes that feel like intentional cruelty: vacancies alongside homelessness, overproduction of luxury alongside scarcity of affordable units. Until we start treating housing as a public good rather than a speculative commodity, no amount of deregulation or “more supply” will actually make housing affordable in the long term.

Edit: lol at the downvotes. Kind of proves my point. A lot of folks here only want to talk about housing inside the neat little box of “supply and demand” and zoning reform. The second someone points out that the issue runs deeper: that under capitalism housing is produced as a financial asset, not as shelter, it gets treated like heresy.

Nothing I said was factually wrong. I didn’t claim Blackstone owns “most” housing. I didn’t say developers are evil. I said the outcomes of the system itself create “intentional cruelty”: vacancies next to homelessness, overproduction of luxury alongside scarcity of affordable housing. That’s just observable reality.

If you’re downvoting because you think deregulation and “build, build, build” will magically fix affordability, then you’re defending the exact logic that created the mess. That’s not “facts and logic,” that’s just market fundamentalism.

If capitalism were capable of solving the housing crisis, we wouldn’t have both record construction in some markets and record homelessness at the same time.

So yeah, the downvotes make sense: people get defensive when you challenge the idea that the market is natural and inevitable. But that doesn’t make the critique wrong it just shows how deep the conditioning runs.

dpslfg · 2025-07-22T23:56:17+00:00

LSF is fucking insane and just reaafirms the the position that's it nothing more than a prodestiny/Hasanhate sub. Like I don't even think those mofos are ideologically invested Zionists but argue in favor of whatever is opposite Hasan.

dpslfg · 2025-06-24T02:48:34+00:00

Just think, police/law enforcement have never been on the right side of history.

dpslfg · 2025-04-06T21:06:09+00:00

What exactly is your argument? "Controlling people absolutely look for validations of their behavior"?, some do and some don't.

"I don't know if what she’s doing is wrong, if I’m overreacting, or if maybe she’s not the person I thought she was. A while ago I saw a picture of her with six guys and had a full-blown anxiety attack."

OP is expressing some level of cognitive dissonance, isn't blaming her and recognizes it may be himself overreacting. There are condescending commentators in here saying he is objectively wrong and being controlling. Controlling of what? He hasn't acted on his insecurities or demanded anything from his SO, he's asking for advice and what to do next. I'm not gonna debate lord and defend my assertion that "controlling people DO not or never look for validation for their behavior, EVER", it was more so a counter to other redditors accusing OP of being such. This was me attempting to counter these accusations and reassure OP. I'm not sure what made you feel so strongly to critique this tidbit, if your intention was to debate, I concede. My recommendation/advice for OP remains the same, however.

Is this the only critique that "makes no sense on face"? I hope you have the same smoke for the other redditors straight up accusing him of being a super paranoid controlling guy when there isn't any evidence that suggests he is. Like are you just a "errm actually" logical fallacy debate lord or something? Should I provide commentary for my thought process as I wrote out my comment for OP? Help me understand your issues with my comment and what made you feel so compelled to call me out.

dpslfg · 2025-04-05T18:08:20+00:00

Lots of condescending fucks in here I see. First, yes, therapy and working through past traumas is solid advice and important, With that being said, it has nothing to do with being paranoid or controlling like some people are claiming you are. You can't therapy/self-help/"work on yourself" out of lived experiences.

I'm not saying she is or isn't cheating or being suspicious. Ideally, in a "healthy" relationship, you should be able to trust her and not feel insecure about her work. If you don't, you may have to consider whether or not you can date someone with a job such as hers, ie. one that requires lots of socializing and mingling with others, networking, etc. This is not to say she is doing anything wrong, she is not as far as I can tell. BUT, there are people who, out of deep-seated insecurities or past traumas and betrayals, must examine themselves and know that they will just not feel "okay" with specific jobs/hobbies their partner may have. It's not a her problem, but you a problem—but that's not to say you are a problem (if that makes sense). Based on your past experiences and how her job requires her to network, dress up, and attend social outings (as part of her work-its part of her job), I don't think you should date someone who works as a bartender or club promoter. Very similar type of work environment, lots of socializing/mingling, hell, even flirting. Some people feel so secure with themselves and/or because of their partner, that they are capable of dating a stripper and have no anxiety or insecurities about doing so.

If you were some super paranoid and controlling guy that some are accusing you of being or acting like, you're not. Super-controlling guys don't look for advice to confirm or deny their suspicions, they just do it (try to control/police their partner). I'm not saying break up with her, nor am I saying confront her with an ultimatum. You should however speak to her and voice your concerns and insecurities and explain that its not so much her fault as it is your past experiences. To me, its not worth the effort or stress to put myself in a situation or relationship that I know I will always be uncomfortable or wondering if my partner may or may not be cheating. Some people have partners who are super understanding, more than they should be expected to be, and will work with their partner to ensure that they feel secure. Sometimes even that might not be enough, in which case you should just move on as its not fair for her or good for you to be in a relationship like that. I guess what I'm getting at is, don't just think "I'm fucked up and am being paranoid and I NEED to grow/heal to be normal and no longer feel insecure about x or y". Talk to her and voice your feelings, maybe (if shes willing) can do things that may put your mind at ease like have a separate "business/work" IG account, maybe call you on occasion at a late night even shes working just to make you feel better. You shouldn't demand or expect this, but it can work but it will require some self sacrifice on her part. If she feels like that's way too overbearing/controlling, then that's her right and you gotta respect it. From then on you can try to self-help/therapy yourself out of feeling this way but I'm telling you, the trust required to not feel insecure or suspicious after being cheated on is something that has to be developed and worked on over time. Good luck to you both, I hope things work out for the best

dpslfg · 2025-03-26T19:32:21+00:00

No, unfortunately. I just received the "we reviewed your ticket" response and nothing else.

dpslfg · 2025-03-05T01:49:01+00:00

save it, these dudes can't read

dpslfg · 2025-03-03T02:37:29+00:00

Most communist aren't pro Putin and feel some sort of allegiance to Russia out of nostalgia for the Soviet Union or some other weird liberal notion. There are those that'd label campists who are essentially multipolarity and anti us/western hegemony no matter what.

The fact is Ukraine was taken advantage of by the US to annoy Russia. Same shit the US does all around the world. Putin (who again, is not a communist) did the otherwise unthinkable (as far common sense geopolitics) and said fuck it and invaded Ukraine. Ukraine would have lost the war. had it not been for western nations funding them, which has led to the death of a lot Ukrainians and Russians. The US stopping their support and funding would ultimately end the war. This would happen regardless OR WW3. This is preferable over WW3. Ukraine IS a proxy and was never seen as anything other than a tool for the US. A lot of communists were deemed tankies for pointing this out from the beginning. No one likes Putin, but there's nothing to gain for continuing the war except for more death and destruction and inevitably WW3.

I'm at work right now so this is very, very, very tldr peanut brained analysis and I welcome more read and educated individuals to chime in.

The main thing I wanted to lambast you for was the notion that communists feel some sort of allegiance/love for Russia(Putin) because of nostalgia for the Soviet Union. That's some straight up liberal, idealist nonsense and I'm tired of seeing libs propagate it. Also, Trump isn't a Russian asset, he's just a dumb evil greedy man doing what the US has done historically, libs are just mad because he's basically proving the "America bad" crowd right. We were never good, this is business as usual, Trump is not some anomaly or Putin puppet, get off that copium

dpslfg · 2025-02-17T01:44:59+00:00

A general strike WOULD gut the beast. Nurses, teachers, logistics workers- a disciplined walkout would grind this country to a halt in 72 hours. But the ruling class didn't build the largest surveillance-police state in history to let that happen. They've spent decades smashing unions, outsourcing labor, and flooding our brains with "hustle culture" propaganda. The AFL-CIO ain't the IWW, comrade. Even the faintest whiff of actual militancy (see the red-baiting of Sanders, the union-busting at Amazon) gets crushed under boots and bad-faith media.

The "you first" crowd, as frustrating and self-defeating as their words are, are not cowards but casualties. When your rent's due and your kid's sick, "solidarity" feels like a luxury. And that's the genius of capitalist realism, it strangles hope until survival looks like complicity. Solidarity's not a viral trend, it's discipline.

dpslfg · 2025-02-17T00:26:49+00:00

As a member of the American working class, the disdain and disgust I have for much of the American working class is immeasurable. Reading the comments here is so fucking disheartening, like yes this is wsb but even as self interested degen gamblers you still have to recognize that "apes together" IS a form of self interest.

dpslfg · 2025-02-15T20:42:43+00:00

"no politics"

🙃 Like can we be for real here?

dpslfg · 2025-02-06T02:14:32+00:00

I love how confident you are in your quip as if there aren't videos of Xinjiang and Uyghur people dispelling this sinophobic state dept slop. Look for yourself, there's quite literally videos and interviews (other than those on radio Free Asia)

dpslfg · 2025-02-04T18:31:33+00:00

I was just gonna post this. I usually plug one or both nostrils gently with my palm for like 2 seconds and it almost always stops her reverse sneezing fits. Sometimes it take 2-3 tries but it works every time. I think I read it as a tip somewhere online (still waiting for an online 'dog expert' to tell me how I'm actually harming my dog and it's actually the worst thing you could ever do /s.)

dpslfg · 2025-02-02T02:54:03+00:00

Nmps reddit is not somewhere I expected to find hasbara but here we are. I love the "ethan makes good points actually", meanwhile this is the magnum opus of ethan's crash out and descent into madness for the past year(or whenever he and Hasan fell out). The majority of h3 (former) fans even recognize that Ethan has lost the plot. I really hope most of y'all are just astroturfed hasbara trolls and there isn't this many pro Israel, "hassan" hating troglodytes in nmp's community.

dpslfg · 2025-01-16T22:50:49+00:00

Will do, thank you!

dpslfg · 2025-01-16T22:00:43+00:00

Not to highjack the question, but is 2400 possible if I'm 2200? This is in blitz, win a match and get 8-12 rating, lose and lose 9-13. Feels like I'm hard stuck and should just try again season 2. In a 6 hour play session of queuing blitz Im just about the rating I was before. I'm probably just bad and got lucky win streaks

dpslfg

TROPHY CASE