/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Has there ever been a materialist explanation for why western socialist and communist groups are overwhelmingly white, relatively gender balanced and majority cis (disregarding pronoun nonsense)?

Whereas the membership of contemporary rightoid fascist groups is disproportionately hispanic, Indian or otherwise nonwhite, overwhelmingly male, and rife with pedophiles, perverts and other abusers?

Many people believe that economic depressions and recessions cause crime, and that economic booms are associated with low crime rates. History, however, tells a different story.

In my new LSU Press book, The Roots of Violent Crime in America: From the Gilded Age through the Great Depression, I examine in detail United States crime rates over a sixty-year period, from roughly the 1880s to 1940. I wrote about a more recent period, 1940 to 2015, in my previous book, The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America (2016). Together, these works provide new insights into the relationship between crime and various social conditions: poverty, immigration, economic crises, weakness in the criminal justice system, group subcultures of violence, and more.

A major issue addressed by Roots of Violent Crime, which I would like to touch on here, is the relationship between economic conditions and violent crime. I will limit my remarks to crimes of violence, that is, murder, rape, assault, and forcible robbery. This leaves out property crimes, such as theft/larceny, fraud, burglary, and arson. I’m also excluding so-called public order offenses, including drunk driving, weapons violations, and immigration crimes.

Property crimes and public order offenses correlate with economic conditions in a different way than violent crimes. One can readily see why. Suppose we have a terrible depression, as in the 1930s, with millions of people desperate for necessities and even for food itself. It doesn’t take much to imagine theft and burglary rising in such a situation. As I will show, however, violent crime does not follow the same trajectory as property crime, though it is widely believed that economic decline is a principal cause of crime increase.

The United States has suffered numerous economic recessions, the worst of which (the Great Depression) lasted for more than a full decade, from the stock market crash of late 1929 to the war boom of 1941. Major recessions also occurred in 1873–1879, 1893–1897, and 2007–2009. But there was no consistent relationship between economic decline or economic booms and violent crime.

In the 1890s, a major recession and the influx of millions of massively impoverished immigrants should by popular assumption have produced higher violent crime rates. As I write in Roots of Violent Crime (p. 168):

“If cities breed crime, then the late nineteenth-century United States should have experienced a crimPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Politically, there are no people more repulsive to me than those Balts (by the way, I’m not a Russophile or anything like that). Such an exhausting underass fly syndrome and good house uyghur vibe radiates from all three countries in that forgotten little corner of Europe. To some extent, it can be understood, considering their position and historical context, but their pathological hatred and Nazi-leaning collusion, in the style of an obedient little dog, is so irritating and disgusting that it goes beyond anything that could justify them.

I don’t know what your experience with them is, but whenever I’ve come across someone from that crowd - mostly online - it’s always the same impression: they throw shade and open hatred toward 'my' country (‘little Russia, blah blah blah’), convinced that they’re above the Russians, with some strange badger-like habitus about them. Incredibly unpleasant people.

New Noj rants on Lenin's Government. Key takeaways are as follows Lenin abandoned his ideals from State and Revolution, that being a state that eliminates the alienation caused by the difference between worker and politician that is prevalent in bourgeoisie democracy, due to the civil war. But kept the elimination of the distinction of different branches of government and that the idea that all political conflict arises from different class interests. The state was separated into two halves the Soviet Government and the Party with a matching set of hierarchy. With the goal of the party to guide the government, but as time went on the distinction between the too blurred. With the Politburo becoming the head of state due to its quick ability to create and pass laws as compared the slow bureaucratic soviet government. The party at all times dominated the government and prevented from any real change in policy from it. Finn ally the party was highly undemocratic as getting into the party required to be approved by other party members and any deviation in ideas could resulting in expulsion.New Noj rants on Lenin's Government. Key takeaways are as follows Lenin abandoned his ideals from State and Revolution, that being a state that eliminates the alienation caused by the difference between worker and politician that is prevalent in bourgeoisie democracy, due to the civil war. But kept the elimination of the distinction of different branches of government and that the idea that all political conflict arises from different class interests. The state was separated into two halves the Soviet Government and the Party with a matching set of hierarchy. With the goal of the party to guide the government, but as time went on the distinction between the too blurred. With the Politburo becoming the head of state due to its quick ability to create and pass laws as compared the slow bureaucratic soviet government. The party at all times dominated the government and prevented from any real change in policy from it. Finn ally the party was highly undemocratic as getting into the party required to be approved by other party members and any deviation in ideas could resulting in expulsion.

Alienation is not some fucking moral crisis of humanity it's literally just how wage labor and capital accumulation work. Marxist humanists can't admit that because they keep putting "the human" at the center of everything instead of looking at the material setup that creates it.

Let's put aside the elephant in the room (India's obsession with Israel), and even their anti-muslim pro-hindu-obsession. Just look at their diplomatic and trade situation with Russia, China, and the USA.

India, by the laws of history, should have become communist-led by 2010, the latest. Socialism was (and still is) the class interest of 98% of their population. It's fucking insane, if you think about how cucked their comprador bourgeoisie situation is + the underdeveloped state of their infrastructure, their semi-feudal small manufacturing, their idiotic e-scam economy, the absolute destitution of their villages/peasants, and so on. Obviously, it was the USA that """"helped"""" India to get rid of the Naxalite """"threat"""".

But then you look at this fucking country's geopolitics/diplomacy/trade and it DOESN'T MAKE FUCKING SENSE, DUDE.

https://swentr.site/india/627932-new-great-game-in-south-asia/ (Please ignore the title and keep reading, it's a very good summary.)

Like, what the actual FUCK is India's foreign policy?!

They hate Pakistan, they try to bribe Sri Lanka, they suck both US and multipolar dick at the same time, and they have constant border disputes.

It's fuckin insane, to the point that future historians will be writing books about the ridiculous failures of India's foreign policy.

Why don't Palestinians just make czech hedgehogs like picrel? It worked for the Ukrainians. They have plenty of rubble.

Fuck Israel fascists! Free Palestine! RIP Abu Obaida!

Can someone give me non-bullshit explanation of how exactly Western PROLETARIAT benefits from imperialism?

The West exported their investments and know-how and helped in the industrialization of the third world. Not just China, but also SEA, Asian tigers, India, Brazil, Poland, Malaysia etc. This resulted in the exact opposite of what happened in colonialism. The Western industries were hollowed out this time, and outsourced to the third world. Now sure, the Western bourgie benefited from this, but the money didnt trickle down much. That's why in the 1970s you could support a family and live a decent life doing a simple blue collar job and now you cant. So where exactly did the Western PROLETARIAT benefit from this imperialism?

Nazism is founded on Satanism.
Nietzche, the philosopher whose works were used as a philosophical backing for the Reich, was a Grand master of the Ordo Templi Orientis Lodge, whose leader was Aleister Crowley. Aleister Crowley, if you don't know, was the premier satanist and occultist of the 19th century, who coined the term "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". He is the man who inspired LaVey to found the Church of Satan.
Hitler himself was deeply interested in occultism, and openly expressed this. Nazism in fact directly traces its roots to Ariosophy, a racist offshoot of Theosophy, the movement Crowley was a part of. Himmler was particularly embroiled in this.
The recent rise of Nazism is nothing more and nothing less than a psyop to compromise the right-wing youth into being Satanists.

I often find it hard to focus on Marx, and other theorists writings and ideals when i'm surrounded by personal relationships and similar distractions. I feel as if I am not truly devoted to the advancement of the proletariat because of this, because of these influences. How do I destroy these aspects of my life to further my dedication?

I know soon I need to be dedicated to a party, as I'm turning 22 and haven't don't much in terms of dedicating my life to the formation of a party and furthering its influence