/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I will die on this hill

It seems like almost every POS western WWII history I read through goes out of its way to make lengthy dissertations discussing how the Wehrmacht cunts were actually beautiful angels nobly defending their country who were forced to do bad by the wicked mean SS, while the Red Army were largely composed of either savage brutes or virtual prisoners forced by pain of death to fight. They will claim the Red Army had utterly inferior tactics and inferior technology and only achieved victory by throwing so much bodies at machine guns that the Germans ran out of bullets.
I’m guessing the intent here is to subtly rehabilitate fascism to ensure Westoids will always side with a new Reich over communist liberation, yes?

The idea of progress is a core foundation of leftism and especially in scientific socialism. I have some questions:
1. Can you actually be a leftist, if you reject the idea of progress?
2. If you believe in progress, then there must be civilizations which are more progressive than others.
3. According to this logic, aren't less progressive civilizations inferior?
4. Isn't it then justified for progressive civilizations to embrace chauvinism towards less progressive civilizations?

I have the feeling something is wrong with my conclusion. Can somebody explain me, where my error is in my thinking?

I usually get shit from all around the board, from absolute dogshit, to the most effective military in the world in 1939; it’s either the extreme that the army was incredibly effective and their tactics (not strategy) was brilliant; other times I get that Hitler was just lucky because France went full retard, Britain was caught with their pants down, and the Soviets just didn’t think the Germans would be dumb enough to invade when they did. Which is it? Were the Red Army truly underdogs like Rocky Balboa, or was their victory always entirely assured?

My love was born in Aberdeen,
The bonniest kid that e'er was seen;
But now he makes our hearts fu' sad—
He's ta'en the field wi' his white cockade.
⁠O, he's a ranting, roving blade!
⁠O, he's a brisk and a bonny lad!
⁠Betide what may, my heart is glad
⁠To see my lad wi' his white cockade.

But seriously tho when do we found a Left-Jacobite Party like they have Left-Carlists in Spain.

Her take on modern capitalism is brilliant.

Out of the collision of these two sets of struggles there emerged a surprising result: a ‘progressive’ neoliberalism, which celebrates ‘diversity’, meritocracy and ‘emancipation’ while dismantling social protections and re-externalizing social reproduction. The result is not only to abandon defenceless populations to capital’s predations, but also to redefine emancipation in market terms.
Emancipatory movements participated in this process. All of them—including anti-racism, multiculturalism, lgbt liberation, and ecology—spawned market-friendly neoliberal currents. But the feminist trajectory proved especially fateful, given capitalism’s longstanding entanglement of gender and social reproduction.
Like each of its predecessor regimes, financialized capitalism institutionalizes the production–reproduction division on a gendered basis. Unlike its predecessors, however, its dominant imaginary is liberal-individualist and gender-egalitarian—women are considered the equals of men in every sphere, deserving of equal opportunities to realize their talents, including—perhaps especially—in the sphere of production. Reproduction, by contrast, appears as a backward residue, an obstacle to advancement that must be sloughed off, one way or another, en route to liberation.

So I am in the midst of reading the Fourth Political Theory by him and while I obviously don't agree with his conclusions, I can see some truth in his Criticism of the Ideologies of the 20th Century.
So can someone who knows a bit about Dugin tell me, if there is some merit for Communist to read him or if he is just a paid shill by Putinist Oligarchy

I'm an ML-Cockshottist but i think its a good thing to promote anarchism in the west (as long as its REAL anarchism), especially in burgerland.

When i say real anarchism I mean ancom which actually believes in the LTV/exploitation, and in achieving full communism. You also need ancoms to call out the socdem/marksoc/FBI simps who claim to be anarchist.

Finally, I think anything which destabilizes and degrades the west's military/intelligence power is a good thing. Therefore based tendencies like insurrectionary anarchism and illegalism should also be pushed. We need something like late 2000s/early 2010s hacktivism/anonymous culture but on steroids x1000.

Anarchism also has better optics because people won't be spooked by Soviet style boogyman that still lives rent free in the western (and especially BURGER) mind.

The only problem with anarchism is that

1) it won't actually be able to overthrow capitalism successfully, and
2) its appropriated by grifting retards who will not be named here who shill marksoc and Socdem/Bernie/Democratic party bullshit and try to call that anarchism. Also
3) they piss off Dengists/MLs by criticizing China, but IMO this part doesn't matter because it really has no influence. It's not like anarchists will start supporting the american government to own the Chinese or something (except grifting fake anarchists like horsecock man). So even if they criticize China its not like it actually matters other than pissing off western Dengist larpers.

The upside is that decentralization makes it harder to crack down. See: antifa which, contrary to popular belief, not all anons here actually like or support, nevertheless have managed to avoid law enforcement crackdown due to lack of centralization.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

What do you guys think of the recent rise of occult in politics?

I notice that the right seems to be more willing to embrace this than the left does even tho there are just as much occultists on the left as on the right

Your takes?

Are you just an online leftist or do you actually organize as well?