/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Hello – I don't really know anything about politics. Where do I start? Any short texts I can pick up? Open to a wide variety of perspectives. I know picrel is from someone who probably isn't very well regarded around here but I did find it interesting, and I also thought "well I don't want to psyop myself into becoming a Nazi" so I may as well ask here. I mostly only lurk really.

🗽UNITED STATES POLITICS 🦅

<Rogue State Edition

>May Lenin awaken the workers and help them to see the necessity of revolutionary civil war in the United States.

🛠️ Strike Tracker ⚒️
https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/

🇺🇸 Deeds of the Burger Reich 🇺🇸
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities.md
https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

📺 Glowie News 📺
(sponsored by the Burger Eagle Freedom Institute (formerly USAID))
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Spartan society is unique and rare in slave societies through history. The majority of its society was made of slaves: 100 000 Helots, and only around 8000 Spartans. The question naturally arises: How comes the minority rule over the majority?

Humanity is facing a similar situation, power in the hands of a few thousands, yet billions of people can't free themselves. So the question remains: how comes the minority rule over the majority?

David Hume attempted to wisely answer such question:

"Nothing is more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than to see the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.

When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is, therefore, on opinion only that government is founded."

As such, to change society masses to change opinion. It is, therefore, political education the most important task of the revolutionary.

Ok hear me out, I'm scatterbrained so not sure how to explain this well.

Who's to say that a "techno-feudal" future wouldn't literally be techno-feudal? Is this really at odds with capitalism?

The Roman patrician class. Patrician comes from pater, pater meaning father. "Descendant of father". What father? Allegedly, the one of several that originally settled Rome. These fathers monopolized power over the presumed late-comer migrants to Rome who would become the plebs. To use an analogy, it's like how today you might immigrate somewhere but find yourself discriminated in employment and housing because you're not "one of them" even if you obtain citizenship. But on a smaller scale.

The power of a patrician did not necessarily come from being a "household name". Rather it is belonging to the collective of "household names" that gave power. A bundle of sticks, if you will. A ruling class. We are taught in schools however that the distinction between patrician and pleb faded. Did the ruling class fade? No, the ruling class became "the wealthy". Actually, the patricians were already "the wealthy". The only thing that changed is that now, the plebs could become "the wealthy", too.

In other words, the bundle of sticks expanded to incorporate new "sticks". Why could the original fathers of Rome monopolize their power in the first place? Because from the very start they were "the wealthy" relative to the late-comer migrants.

By the way, virtually the exact same thing played out in Athens. The eupatridae were the Athenian equivalent of patricians.

The old Marxist tale is that capitalism defeated feudalism. Leaving aside the fact that "feudalism" is ill-defined. In vernacular conception, "feudalism" is rule of nobility. But as we've established, "nobility" (such as the patricians and the eupatridae) is older than Medieval Europe. Well, what the old Marxists wanted to say really, is that the descendants of Medieval European nobles were defeated by the "bourgeoisie". This happened, right?

You might find two factoids interesting.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Five Eyes, honestly, shouldn't be using that much AI because AI based opinion control tends to breed reactance and ressentiment.

My previous position was pure Third Worldist, i.e, that Marxism is hopeless in the developed West, that for Marxists in the first world, you have three options: rear guard battle in the core, revolution in the periphery and semi periphery where Marxism and more specifically Marxist-Leninism actually have a chance, and emigration to an actual ML state (North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, C) or ML controlled territory (Kerala in India).

Looking at the "what is Communism" thread, it seems that it might be worthwhile to actually establish a Trotskyite/Demsoc territory or country within the imperial core, simply for the propaganda value and to influence opinion in the developed West.

That means:
-Developed country / Imperial Core status
-Victory through elections, however much disinformation is used to win the first few.
-Subsidies from BRICS to provide high HDI and standard of living to survive the inevitable Western sanctions.
-Potential military protection from Russia or China, to prevent coup attempts or hard attacks.
-A BJP / LDP-style political structure, wherein the vanguard party effectively controls the mainstream and the elections, but allows the existence of rump opposition parties or loss of local control over regions.

I think the point is concentration, i.e, looking for a country where a Trotskyite revolution CAN succeed, and dedicating efforts to decisively win elections there.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Socialist
>Emmm END OF HISTORY is le wrong amirite?

Actual Fukuyama
>Everybody will eventually learn to love liberalism because the atomized liberal subject who is free to set up whatever they want as their identity/being and be validated for it is the least bad model for every ideological tendency out there

If you actually read about Fukuyama what he said is legit what a lot of lib leftoids (and rightoids who want to have individual space where they can identify as an agarthan superman) wants society to look like. They say they want community or "a village", but in the end what these liberals perceieve as a "community" is a libertarian association that ultimately serve to empower the individuals that is the end all be all of politics. Regardless of whether its rightoid politics who tell impressionable young men that they can larp as macho hunters in a warband with women all over them as long as they spend enough time doing the based ritual or leftoid anarchist who misinterpret the Deluzian rhizome all of you guys unconsciously pivot to Francis's position

The most critically acclaimed tv shows in the western world all have one thing in common. Their mc is some irredeemable sociopath who uses manipulation and violence for gaining wealth. Breaking bad and the sopranos is the most glaring example. But even mad men is extreme in how evil the mc is. Dude cheats on his wife and neglects his kids but is considered badass for doing so. There's even one scene where don is handed a copy of Atlas shrugged by his boss
Is this how western elites view themselves?

Is prostitution inherently wrong?
We can all agree that it generally correlates with human trafficking and crime but I'm talking about sex workers who persue this career out of their own free will.
I don't think the state should interfere with what consenting adults do with their bodies as long as no one is harmed?
Would society become less violent if men were able to satiate their sexual frustrations through sex workers?

Maryland politics

Politics pertaining to maryland

For the discussion maryland and its future

Maryland residents prefered

Why is there no maryland meme flag?

considering the average "discussion" on this place im convinced 99% of posters here have not read even the fucking manifesto (but have gladly wasted years of their lives reading shit only relevant to academics)

>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf