/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

This is the thread for good news.

People have a tendency to focus on what is going wrong and miss out on what is going well.
I'm also suspecting that there is a doomer astroturf going on.

To counteract this a little i want to ask you to post uplifting news.

Hey lads,

I've been reading a lot of post-left anti-work and post-civ stuff lately. I've decided that my life goal is to escape wage slavery as soon as possible. I actually went ahead and put in my two weeks' notice today; unfortunately it's just to go to a slightly less shittier job—I'll still be a 9–5 drone albeit with better pay, PTO, and actually simply working 9–5/no weekends instead of 9–6 and weekends.

Anyways, how does one escape wageslavery? I've analyzed some options and they all seem unappealing to me. Here goes:

>FIRE
This option depends on hyperinflation not happening, society not collapsing, the USA economy keeping steady for a few decades, and so forth. Too risky, and you still have to waste away your youth and wageslave until your 40's while living like a miser. It's the "safe" option, but no guts, no glory?

>NEET
Not really an option because my parents won't support me. Plus, I don't want to live with my parents as an adult. Lastly, I'd rather take a more proactive approach to achieving freedom than languishing away at home.

>Illegalism
Based, but in the end it's working all the same. Being a drug dealer is like running a small business, only you have to deal dangerous customers as a bonus. Learning how to hack/fraud/etc. would take the same if not more effort than learning how to code and getting a non-illegal tech job.

Does /leftypol/ have any ideas? How the fuck do we escape slavery?

/leftypol/ told me i should always support Nationalism outside the imperial core, but isn't it a simplistic view?
When is Nationalism good and when is it bad?
Why the iranian revolution based but the Afghan struggle against a foreign country not?
Why is it ok for Iran but not for Checenya?
Isn't the Yugolav balcanization also a struggle for self determination? How about the prague spring or the hungarian counter revolution?
Where do i draw the line?

Jeff Bezos is going to space just to show his power and shit.
ITT we pray so it's spaceship fucking explodes epic style and he fucking dies in an infernal fire.

Jobs get outsourced to the ones willing to do it for less and or when the current workers ask for higher wages
I think it goes likes West -> Asia -> Africa

So when even Africa is finished and they too start asking for higher wages, What happens? Jobs return everywhere? Porky gets tired moving places and finally gives in to africa? They do a little bombing in some region to bring them down and get lower wages again? Some currency fuckery?

Also why did the black skin bad! shit originate in the first place? Was it a way to demoralize africans to take their resources? I mean it's insane to just look at some dude who looks different than you and become antagonistic. I know it's a slow racist snow pile that took many centuries to become what it is but who was the first CEO of racist (against black people)

Why the hell are birthrates on the decline fucking everywhere? Even in africa the major causation of high birthrates is low access to contraceptives and abortion and even then their birthrates are on the general decline every year… it's not even like humanity hasn't had worse periods to have kids than now but seemingly enough no ones fucking and I'm worried about becoming a single father with 1 adopted son because of this retarded shit…

There is a big redpill for you; none of the revolutions were popular and most of them were enforced to masses by a group of small people. That's includes most of those well-known revolutions too, where opressed masses uprise against opressors. At them, those revolutions only made by group of ""smart/bright people"" who tired by bastards; and they enforced their rule to the masses while masses despised them despite they made their conditions more better
I think a good examples are Ataturk and Lee Kuan Yew. At there in Turkey, reactionaries always use the argument that Ataturk was a dictator and didn't care about what masses think; but it's a good thing because if he wasn't a dictator and did what masses want ,Turkey would have no difference from any MidEast country. He had give many good things for masses, including "first right to vote for woman in world" but there was still many mass-reactionary uprisings against his rule, which wanted "ottofag" back. Because of those reasons, we progressives in Turkey are "mostly" elitist and have a saying that "for the people despite the people". Even some anarchists knows the fact that all progress in humanity is made by small group of people and not by masses. Lee Kuan Yew is another example, he has a quote that "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today." and that's true. Singapore is a dictatorship today and that's why they are very good. People of Singapore does have best-healthcare, best-education, skyhigh home-ownership, very green city, best-security, one of the best countries for woman, very racially-diverse and hell, even the free-food;which is not even fucking Norway does have
Because of that, how you mostly care about making masses leftists is totally impossible and wrong. What you only need is Max ~%15~ of revolutionaries compared to society. What you should do is taking the power and enforcing communism to the masses. Yes, you should enforce socialism to the masses; even with violance
Don't care about their thoughts, revolution is more important than what masses think

Over some tasty choco ice cream. Well /leftypol/ Who is in the wrong here?

https://twitter.com/Synthimers/status/1417243664863137796?s=20

Bottom text bottom text

>the founders of the US saw political parties as the ultimate evil to be avoided at all costs
>despite this, political parties had emerged before the Washington administration had ended
>meanwhile, for the entire duration of the first french republic, there were amorphous, free-flowing "factions" as in groups of people with shared values or political interests, but never centrally-administered, disciplined "parties" in the british or american sense
Why is this? Was there some material or procedural difference?

A million sides, constant changes of allies, a bunch of events - sort of the First World War in the South, in the Crimea and in the Urals, the latest fleet operations against the Germans and the Entente in the Baltic, literally Syria in the Ukraine, the Red Army attacking British tanks with bayonets near Arkhangelsk, the Wild West with Basmachi in Central Asia, Latin American partisanship in Siberia, White Genghis Khan is plotting something, White Czechs are fleeing from the Red Czechs with tsarist gold, finally the fight against anti-Soviet uprisings and simply hellish gang violence.

Red, White, Green, Black, Basmachi