/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1839877
Sorry, let us use the active voice.
>Of the tiny number of mistakes that Stalin did, shooting Bukharin with his rifle was one of them

>>1840457
>Since “kulak” was a social category never clearly defined, any peasant, however poor, who showed insufficient enthusiasm for the collective farm could be accused of having kulak “proclivities

Yeah, that's not Molotov's memoirs. Chuev's work is entirely made up nonsense made for sensationalist sales. It's proven by the fact that to this fucking day Chuev's family still hasn't shown anybody the tapes Chuev has supposedly taken of the interviews and wrote his book off

>>1840457
>Precise figures are still lacking, but the victimsmay have numbered an estimated ten million people sent into internal exile inSiberia, the far north, and other inhospitable locales

Nonsense again. They straight up say that 7 million people died in a famine, say that 10 millions were moved through internal migration (and 3 millions died from migration), and there's ZERO proof of any of those figures. Hell, they just take Soviet migration stats and claim that all people who were moved were actually dead. There's no physical evidence of Holodomor ever taking place.

Just another anticommunist book based on nothing real

>>1892581
You will never believe what happened in the Soviet Union.

>>1891923
As someone who really enjoys a good zinger
this attitude points to something problematic

>>1889045
>>1891918
you don't understand what democratic centralism is

>>1891929
>disagrees
>provides no argument
chad

>>1889042
Anarchism is poorly thought out. You need an institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force to enforce laws and levy taxes. The big problem with anarchism is that it relies too much on human generosity. The ideal society is one in which everybody has what they need completely independently of what others think they deserve. Rule of law is essential for this, as is the welfare state.
>>1889084
>It'll be totally alright
Yes it will. The point of a democratic republic is that there are limits on the state's power. It is only able to perform violence under specific and predictable circumstances, to a specific and predictable degree, and only to enforce laws that are passed with the consent of the governed via democracy.

It's important to remember what the alternatives to democracy and rule of law actually are. There is no option to just have everyone never do anything wrong. There will always be defectors in the prisoner's dilemma. The real question is whether the punishments for defectors should have to follow rules or not. The two alternatives to democracy are dictatorship and mob rule. In a dictatorship, the government can do whatever it pleases with you, and you have no rights. Read The Count of Monte Cristo. The protagonist gets arrested by surprise and thrown in prison for life when he doesn't even know what his crime was, without any sort of fair trial. That's not an ideal justice system. In a system of vigilante justice where "the community" punishes people, you get similar levels of tyranny. You get lynch mobs and witch burnings. You still have no rights, you still have no trial, you're just at the whim of the people's generosity, which will run out on anyone who did anything legitimately objectionable.

I think often anarchists themselves do a disservice to anarchism. Any anarchist who says the maximum ideal of society without hierarchy or authority is possible is larping. We do not know if its possible.

The point of anarchism is to move towards such society as much as possible. For this certain forms of organization can be adopted: mutual aid, mutualism, direct democracy at work place, etc.

Anarchists who think this way such as Bookchin and Chomsky are libelled as not "real" anarchists, but milktoast liberals. Modern anarchists are too concerned with purity and idealism. For example, a society where workers control the means of production through direct democracy would indeed be a more anarchist society. But moden anarkids will tell you no. That everything must be through free association. That democracy is "the authority of the majority".

Anarchism is becoming incomprehensible, unreachable even to anarchists themselves, much less the general population. There is no "anarchist society" to imagine, just "more anarchist society" to work towards.

>>1892373
he was directing that thought at jesus obviously

>>1848559
>Pretty much every people group exposed to Abrahamic faiths ends up incorporating elements from them
this is kindof a weird historical analysis anon, of course in the west where society has been officially christian in some capacity for over 1600 years, will have influence from christianity. You may as well ask why chinese marxism is influenced by confucianism or something.

>>1848582
>Most atheists are "reddit atheists" - that is, they don't actually think about the consequences of atheism or what an atheistic model of the world would mean.
neither does the majority of most belief systems?

>>1848559
>Pretty much every people group exposed to Abrahamic faiths ends up incorporating elements from them. They are so successful that everyone, from pagan Nazis to "POC revival" faiths, essentially adopts basic elements of either Christianity or Islam and changes some names on top
That OP & pic…

>>1892373
anachronistically using "jesus" as an expletive while talking to and crucifying jesus himself is the joke

Because people dont seem to care that much about themselves or others, not because of human nature, but because that is how capitalism is. People can imagine the end of the world more easily than the end of capitalism

>>1888925
>ended up on the ground in the korean war
on the korean side, right?

That’s because the liberal elites and neo conservatives have brainwash people to think that communism is bad

>>1888328
Sure, but any circumstances that actually allowed for socialist revolution in the US would cause mass migrations of all sorts out of the country anyway before any potential victory

Former UK diplomat and Assange associate Craig Murray talks about the inner working and politics of the SNP on his blog from time to time.

in a broad sense my GUESS is that rising global tensions and decline in standard of living make the idea of such a major political change scarier or at least feels less realistic than it was a decade ago, when it seemed like an exciting prospect in a relatively stable world. scots and catalonians arent really repressed or occupied as nations except in the very technical sense (still arguable), and it seems likely that the sentimentalism about cultural identity feels much lower priority when the future feels more uncertain. i think it would take very serious decline in the UK or Spain for that to circle back around to broad support for independence reframed as wanting to jump ship

>>1892266
any interesting things he says?

>>1892277
I don't know off the top of my head. Scottish Nationalism isn't a major concern for me.

>>1892266
He's running for the WPB in the upcoming election

Problem is if you go back to history the communist party there defended the racist pre-civil war government, so propaganda will just say theyre trying to take citizenship away from black people and women. Plus there's just a general cycncism about any and all political solutions to Latin America's problems.

>>1892076
Biggest problem in Costa Rica is the lack of a socialist movement. Historically there was never one, which ironically saved it from US intervention (unlike Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador).

Socialism and communism are highly demonized. And anarchism is basically non-existent.

>>1892083
>istorically there was never one,
Most of the civil war on the government side was fought by People's Vanguard Party militias though, unless you consider them revisionist traitors I don't see how they don't count

>>1892085
It has always been a very small party. Negligible.
Nothing comparable to Chile's Allende or Cuba's Castro

>>1892076
What if we just did the communism without the party? Ever thought about that Leniuyghurs?

found this OP

>>1887202
I fundamentally agree. It would be patronising for someone not from Mongolia to open a /mongolia/ general, tho. I started the first /ita/ back on 8chan about 2018 - ffs, time flies… - then we have the /sea/ one, the Brazilian one - very lively and always full of oi caralho -, /britpol/, the German one, the Nordic one… And I'm forgetting some for sure. They've all been started by people from those places and they are often in the relevant language. Let's hope some Mongolian anon will pop back here soon and do the thing. Interestingly, there are Mongolian speaking peoples both in Russia and China, and IIRC they exceed in numbers the actual inhabitants of modern Mongolia. I also think some /heartland/ general about Central Asia would be really interesting, just like /sea/ and maybe it would be an even better solution, considering anons from every single country in the region may be relatively few, but all together things could be more interesting.

>>1887331
> It would be patronising for someone not from Mongolia to open a /mongolia/ general, tho
not necessarily. if you want to attract mongolian anons to the board having a place for them might be a good start. You could open a thread with full disclosure that you're not mongolian and then let someone actually mongolian take over managing the threads once the ball is rolling. I very highly doubt /ukr/ is managed by ukainians or russians.


Also I looked on libgen for books about sukhbataar and found nothing

Might be of interest.

>>1891730
Preference as a concept can't be wiped out. And there's also another aspect, if physical attractiveness wasn't a factor, I don't think it'd really better the standing of most here.

>>1891902
>Preference as a concept can't be wiped out
government assigned gf

>>1891936
I see your proposal and raise you
Stabbing you in the neck

Maybe it wasn't clear. In a scenario where someone is forced to be your "partner".
I dare say the morally correct choice and correct course of action is to exsanguinate you like halal meat.
Seems pretty uncontroversial.

>>1891937
government assigned neck

>Social Democracy Is The Moderate Wing of Fascism
People say Stalin was wrong for saying this and retracted this statement later on but I think he was wrong to do so for the reasons outlined in OP

>>1892061
Social Democracy is the moderate wing of AES

>>1892063
reactions are spot on lmao

>>1892063
of course the Mises thinktank is going to make Keynes sound cooler than he was

>>1882309
This is basically conspiratorial thinking. Fascists and reformists are quite different groups of people, with quite different values and motivations. Most of you probably remember being a reformist. You remember that you weren't secretly trying to "bait" the working class so that you could "let loose the fascist hounds". You were driven by ideological motivations, exactly as you are now!
>both reformers and fascists are controlled by the bourgeoisie
How? Give any evidence for your claims. This whole post feels like you just decided that it was true because it was convenient to your ideology to be able to handwave away all dissent as being fascistic. Like when you say this:
>That is why the bourgeois governments of western Europe united against Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW. Not because they were fundamentally opposed to fascism itself, but because they were done using the fascists
What makes you think that there was no ideological opposition to fascism within the bourgeois governments of Western Europe? The obvious answer for why Western Europe united against Hitler is because he tried to invade and take over their countries and murder them! Many of these governments were run by liberals, who believe in things that are pretty contradictory to what fascists believe. Haven't you ever met a liberal? People have sincere and non-cynical ideological disagreements with each other. One of the most common failure modes of political thought is to assume that all of your political opponents share your worldview, but merely ally themselves with The Enemy rather than The Good Guys. A fascist would say that reformists and communists are the same because they're both on the side of the globalists.

The steelman version of this kind of argument is to say:
"Well, maybe social democrats, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and fascists all have different BELIEFS, and they don't CONSCIOUSLY all serve the bourgeoisie, but there are large-scale material forces which shape ideologies, and these material forces cause ideologies to converge towards the class interest of the bourgeoisie." I've heard this argument before. But it also doesn't convince me. What are these material forces? What is the mechanism that causes these ideologically diverse people towards furthering the class interePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1891920
>not knowing how to embed
it sure is summer in here

>>1891594
Depends on what kind of narrative you want about the man. If you want a staunch albeit somewhat inaccurate historiography you cannot go wrong with arch-Robespierrest Albert Mathiez's body of work. Albert Soboul goes is a much more traditional Marxist and his chronicle of the French Revolution details the breakdown of the Jacobin's ability to realize their promises to Sans-Culottes.

As for modern historians. There are a handful who wrote books exclusively on Robespierre.

Scurr's Fatal Purity is absolute dogshit, reliant on secondary sources, but as a work of fiction it presents romantic tragedy about Robespierre. Although, she does make use of Robe's sister's memoir a lot which gives a kind of intimate look at him.

Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee is more balanced and rather bland as a result. But does a decent job tracing his career from Arras and his defense of the poor to a member of the Public Security Council.

The Fall of Robespierre: 24 Hours in Revolutionary by Colin Jones focuses entirely on the 9th of thermidor and relies on primary source documents. It's also strangely pro-Robespierre despite front-loading with a lot of character flaws. It highlights he made an effort to out-maneuver his enemies, but like the French Marxists, the text concludes Robespierre's idealism let down the people of Paris at a critical moment.

Honorable mentions: R.R Palmer's Twelve Who Ruled. About the security council itself and has a real boner for Couthon (who is underappreciated.) Zizek's essay: https://www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm arguably the last good thing he wrote. Also attached Saint-Just's bio because he made a conscious choice to go to Robespierre on the 9th of Thermidor despite the Security Council offering him a way out.

>>1887972
> 'I accept your recommendation, but you shall be one of the victims'
Didn't Robespierre acknowledged this point and accepted it solemnly?

>>1891986
Both in his famous speech Virtue and Terror and in his conclusion to the Jacobin club.
>The speech that you have heard is my last will and testament. I have seen today that the league of evil-doers is too strong for me to hope to escape. It is without regrets that I succumb. I leave you my memory. It will be dear to you; you will defend it. And if I succumb, well, my friends, you will see me drink hemlock in calm.
It is one of the of the supporting planks to the idea he did try to kill himself, although, there is a body convictions suggesting he was shot during the storming of the club.

>>1891049
>>1891049
>socialist with keynesian characteristics
so a liberal alright