/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Thread dedicated to the discussion of Australian politics and events.

I get that since the split the number of Australians here probably went from being counted on two hands to just one, but I figured that there should be at least a thread here that we can keep bumping.

I consider myself to be a socialist and greatly influenced by Marx, but I have the following critique of Marxism (or at least my interpretation of it). I'm not from /pol/, in fact I've been on /leftypol/ since the 8ch days. Here is my critique:

Marxism is correct that human history is about struggles between different groups with underlying economic motives, but it seems to ignore the fact that collectives other than class exist and that struggle between these for economic gain is a feature of history e.g. national conflict, ethnic conflict, religious conflict, etc. also exist. These cannot be ignored. Moreover, historical materialism presumes that there will come a time where there are no more conflicts between collectives and the state can be abolished. This is also a dubious claim, as as long as there are *some* people who want to expand their material wealth, people will inevitably gather into collectives (often using a state) in order to protect themselves and their interests. This is because most humans prioritise their own survival first and will thus gather into collectives in order to ensure their collective survival against an out-group. Due to resource scarcity, we can't simply let everyone have everything for free (as the lib strawman of communism goes) and instead resources have to be systematically distributed. Conflict between collectives determines this distribution of resources.

It's a bit like the tragedy of the commons. Groups can never guarantee that the resources they need to live won't be taken by other groups, so they are incentivised to come into conflict with other groups and expand their groups to make them stronger. States in the international system cannot guarantee their survival, ever. Therefore, they must maximise their power which often involves coming into conflict with (and exploiting) other states. The bourgeoisie cannot guarantee that they will have their same power tomorrow, and losing it could mean death if revolting proles decide they want to get out the guillotines. Therefore, the bourgeoisie are incentivised to maximise their power so that their survival can be guaranteed a little bit more than earlier, although it can never be completely guaranteed. This then leads the bourgeoisie to seek out new markets and new workers to exploit.

Socialism will not solve national conflict. We saw this with AES states like the Soviet Union going to war with different states like Afghanistan, Germany, FinPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Political and societal change can't be achieved in a democratic society as public opinion can easily be shaped by academia and media. The human brain is wired to trust authority. Most believe in what they are taught regardless if it's the truth. That's what makes humans a flawed species.

I believe that is the case as we want to feel safe. We would feel scared, worried and terrified if we questioned everything and everyone. If we questioned the people who claim to be working for our interests. If we questioned if they're actually working to deprive us of our rights, privileges and lands. It's easier on our mental health just to accept the mainstream therefore most people do.

Unlike other scams, democracy is unique as even its victims love it. They convince themselves that it isn't a scam because they don't like the alternative. They don't want to risk their lives to protect the rights of themselves and their descendants. They're cowards. The ruling class shapes the laws by shaping public opinion therefore democracy is the worst form of government for representing the interests of the public. Even worse than totalitarianism as the rich are governed to some extent under that system. Our governments can pass and amend laws without our approval then have public opinion shaped to accept such laws as they have done before. Supreme Court rulings, acts passed by Congress and executive orders are examples of that.

https://youtu.be/BAtGaz4UmMU

What is the ML (anti-revisionist) take on unions? Do they
1. advocate joining the big ones (let's say the ones coopted by capital during the corp-ification of imperial core mixed economies post-WWII) and influencing it with the Parties line?
2. Or do they create entirely new unions from the start (I know there were many ML unions historically, how's the situation today)?
3. If I have a choice between a yellow union, an imperial core socdem union engaging in open repression of MLs, or a syndicalist union - which would be preferable from an ML strategic POV?
4. What is the goal of the union activity for MLs?

Was he right bros? If so, elaborate. If not, elaborate.

So what's striking to me in a lot of the non-anarchist communist movement is the amount of significant movements and forms of thought that are named for their theoretical founders. Marxism, Leninism and Maoism first and foremost, but also lesser known strands where liberal accusations of a "cult of personality" are even less likely are subject to this phenomenon: Bordigism, Hoxhaism, Titoism and, depending on who you ask, Stalinism.

Now, the thought exercise is to think about what historical and contemporary communist movements might be called should we base the naming conventions primarily on their theoretical contributions or foundations rather than their theorizers. For example, Marxism could be called something like proletarian materialism and (Marxism-)Leninism something like Vanguardism. Notice that this is how it happens for some (but not all) liberal political thought: social democracy, neoliberalism, conservatism etc.

I realize this might not be a very interesting thread to some but it might be fun to think about in order to come to an understanding of how we view the (admittedly inevitably dumbed down) essence of the ideas we engage with and practice everyday.

If you don't understand Hegel's ontology + epistemology, then there is no way in hell you understand Marx's ontology + epistemology. Which means you don't understand dialectical materialism. And that in turn means you have some vulgar logical positivist view of what dialectical materialism is.

Cockshott cum drinkers need not apply.

Második felvonás!

A general thread for all India related discussion.

what did you guys think of pierre trudeau, he met with mao a years before nixon and even opened things up between canada and cuba, he had also kept close ties with different left leaning groups specifically trade unions he also crushed the left wing FLQ