/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Materialist analysis of celebrities engaging in activism?

Recently, we’ve seen notable celebrities like Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo speak out against Trump and ICE. Their social media profiles are full of anti-ICE sentiment. Billie has also spoken out against billionaires despite being rich herself. So what’s going on here? Is there any chance that celebrities like Billie and Olivia can hold radical leftist political views? A lot of celebrities and musicians were involved in the 60s New Left, by comparison. Are we seeing a rebirth of this?

🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷 Aux armes, citoyens ! 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
I noticed there is no thread for France related shit. So let this be one. French people deserve a safe space and guarantees for their continued existence on loser imageboards!
J'ai remarqué qu'il n'y a pas de thread dedié pour la France, alors que les salauds américains et anglais en ont des centaines. Français, ne succombez pas à l'impérialisme anglochiotte!

Subjets of Macronpiter, leave a post.

What is the plan for the various nations within India? How do we actually implement this?
First step is obviously banning Hindi and English (rootless languages with no native soil)
What's the plan after that?

>pic related is the only ethnic map I could find
>yes I know the hindi parts are inaccurate, just ignore that part

How exactly do we successfully fight against and reverse Gen Alpha brainrot?

https://youtube.com/shorts/h2i3cGyzNKo

This stuff is becoming alarming. When I was a little kid in the 90s I would watch stuff that had actual substance to it (think: Disney renaissance, Don Bluth films, TV shows like Arthur). Plus our parents made an effort to read to us and get us looking at science books and history books for kids. When I babysit my neighbours’ kids who are eight and six (both boys) I’m horrified by how stupid they are. They can’t read at all. They can’t play musical instruments. They don’t do arts and crafts. They have the vocabularies of preschool-aged kids. They can’t do math and the eight-year old asks me to do his math homework for him. Both of them are either glued to their iPads or glued to watching YouTube on TV. It’s sad as hell. What do?

>"Soviet Union would achieve the full communism in 1980!"

Was Khruschev delusional, or was he a liar who knew he wouldn't have to answer for his words in 1980 due to being dead from old age?

(a) Anarchism has brought nothing but general phrases against exploitation. These phrases have been current for more than 2000 years. The main problems with anarchism are:

(i) an inadequate understanding of the causes of exploitation, namely the understanding of private property as the basis of commodity production
(ii) a lack of understanding of the laws of development of class society, especially capitalist society, leading to socialism, namely the role of mass-organized industry and production under capitalism
(iii) an insufficient understanding of the class struggle as the basis of the movement of society
(iv) the denial of politics in bourgeois society, namely the subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics under the guise of a denial of politics.
(v) misunderstanding of the role of organization and revolutionary education

(b) Individualism is the foundation of the entire anarchist worldview, namely:

(i) protection of small property and small economy on land - especially small agriculture
(ii) denial of the unifying and organizing power of revolutionary organization
(iii) denial of democratic centralism and majoritarian-Bolshevism.

(c) Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Anarchism is the product of the despair of the unbalanced intellectual or vagabond, not the proletarian. The anarchist tactic of refusing political struggle separates proletarians from world-changing historic praxis and turns them into passive participants in bourgeois politics.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I was told by someone on here that in order to be a Communist, I must "believe" in "Free Will." Somehow, I doubt this is truly a prerequisite, but if it really is the case, then so be it.

Before getting into "Free Will," there is no good evidence that human beings possess an immaterial “soul” that thinks, chooses, or survives bodily death. All available evidence indicates that what we have hitherto called a “person,” is an activity of a living brain in a living body. Mental states reliably track brain states; damage the brain and you damage memory, personality, judgment, and agency; destroy it entirely and the person disappears. No additional essence remains.

Human brains are biological systems governed by physical law. They are extraordinarily complex, adaptive, and self-modeling, which produces the powerful subjective experience and outward appearnce of "authorship" and "choice," but nothing in neuroscience suggests that brains initiate actions independently of prior physical causes. Also, introducing indeterminism or randomness does not rescue “free will” in the libertarian sense, since randomness adds noise, rather than control.

The popular notion of "Free Will" as an uncaused, self-originating power of the "soul" or of the brain, in more secular accounts of "Free Will," is therefore unsupported. What exists instead are constrained decision-making processes embedded in biology, development, and environment. Responsibility is not metaphysical; it is a social practice invented and enforced by humans to shape behavior while brains are still alive and responsive to incentives.

There is no evidence that accountability survives death. When the brain permanently ceases to function, the person is gone. What remains is matter, not an observing subject.

These conclusions are not radical inventions of modern science. The dependence of mind on the condition of the brain has been observable since antiquity through injury, disease, and degeneration, and has been progressively clarified by advances in biology, chemistry, and physics. What is new is not the insight itself, but the precision.

Resistance to these conclusions is understandable. They undermine comforting narratives of cosmic justice, personal exceptionality, and ultimate moral reckoning. Many cultures have developed religious and metaphysical systems that posit souls, absolute free wPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The contemporary Right, in the form in which it exists today, did not emerge organically but was shaped through several distinct historical reconstructions.
Twentieth-century National Socialism, while not inventing the Right as such, left a deep imprint on later radical and far-right movements, especially in terms of political myth, symbolism, and methods of mass mobilization.
In the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, figures such as Paul Gottfried helped reframe and rebrand parts of the post-conservative Right, coining concepts like “alt-right” and popularizing the narrative of “cultural Marxism.”
These ideas were then further transformed within online subcultures, including transnational internet spaces, where Western far-right discourse intersected with Japanese nationalist, aesthetic, and media influences, before being consolidated in the Western internet ecosystem.

Prisons have always fascinated me. They have thier own culture, their own laws, their own food, their own factions, their own politics, their own commodities even, yes, for example there are drugs that are harder to find on the outside than in certain prisons.
Honestly I wonder why don't we actively encourage people to go to prison and just tell them prisons are good? It is true for a lot of places. And we can flood the prisons to a point where most of the population is imprisoned. The country with the highest prison population is none other than the U.S.A. with over 1,8 million prisioners. Thats more prisioners than a lot of countries' populations.

How exactly are you supposed to overthrow the government of the most powerful country on Earth with a legally registered above ground organization where members don't hide their affiliation and which can never ever ever commit a crime? I don't support adventurism or terrorism or firebombing a Walmart or useless political assassinations that only have symbolic results. But revolution is still illegal and actually successfully accomplishing a real revolution involves committing countless crimes, often violent ones, and requires being actually capable of withstanding extremely intense state repression. The "left" in Western countries seems stuck in an eternal malaise where it struggles to accomplish virtually anything. Why? Let's look at the Western left. You either have glorified liberal NGOs with red flags doing an endless bullshit loop of holding up signs and selling newspapers or fighting losing battles to get tiny NLRB contracts, or ocassionally you have a schizophrenic anarchist/symbionese liberation army cult doing nothing but adventurism and firebombing walmarts. I posit that this malaise is because making a left-wing party is legal in liberal democracies, so any normal left wing party is lured to become a "legal" organization with all that entails. The exceptions in Western society naturally tend towards pure adventurism. I think the Bolsheviks actually significantly benefited from being an illegal underground party through most of the course of their existence. They had to learn the organizational tools to genuinely learn to survive state repression, to act decisively, and to build dual power without resorting to mindless suicidal adventurism. A revolution is not legal, so why would you try to accomplish the most brazenly illegal act of all (overthrowing the government) with a defanged legal organization? If the government decided to to a second Red Scare tomorrow, all these orgs would instantly evaporate. We need to go underground before being a communist is illegal and not after.