/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2621692
Marriage isn't inherently monogamous and monogamy isn't necessarily something natural. Marriage isn't something tied to the state either since it exists in stateless societies or societies where the state isn't very strong, arguably it plays an even stronger role in those communities. The idea that marriage can be a private affair (it seems your parroting Engels here since he said something similar) is delusional and contradicts Marx actually. Humans make decisions within a social context so no choice is purely private because all of them are shaped by social constraints.

Some soft family/marriage abolitionists still seem to think people will form monogamous relationships by choice in the absence of marriage, but this is just semantics. Its also ironic because they claim to oppose bourgeois sexuality, but then go on to promote monogamy which is very bourgeois. The other types that believe in unrestricted free love not bound by relationships, children raised by the community etc. well people tried that in the 70s and there was a huge spread of STDs.

>>2621694
In the pre-capitalist past, if men ran off they and their family would be punished by the wife's family or civil authorities. In Europe, divorce and abandonment were crimes. In other societies, divorce was permitted but it came with reimbursements and compensation. Today, adultery laws are not enforced in most places where they exist. Men are not punished for abandoning women and children besides alimony payments, which some feminists want to scrap because they reason that a man being bound to pay up is a violation of his individual freedom to quit a relationship.

>>2621659
>When marriage was reduced to just an aesthetic thing (ceremony, wedding dresses etc) that's when gay marriage became possible. It serves basically no purpose whatsoever but it continues to hollow out marriage as an institution.
Capitalism freed people up to live more autonomous sexual lives, but same-sex marriage came around (as a result of a dialectical process) to stabilize people's lives under actually existing capitalist conditions in which security is not socially guaranteed, but privatized through intimate relationships. Bottom-line though is that marriage is an economic unit and marriage has certain benefits like joint property ownership, easier access to credit / mortgages, stuff like that. That's really what this was all about, and that's also really why banks sponsor floats at Pride parades. It's not some grand conspiracy to "distract" people from the class struggle like some socialists have been fond of saying, it's economics at work. Like maybe expanding property ownership makes people more conservative by integrating them into a 30-year fixed mortgage, but what banks care about is producing more mortgageable "units" and expanding the market.

But that's what marriage already was for straight couples. The ceremonies which people spend a lot of money on are ways to kind of mystify it and make it feel dramatic and spiritual. Maybe in the Middle Ages the incense smelt better.

>>2621685
>The need to care for someone whose body is being put under extreme pressure is what made marriage important. Central to that is sacrificing somethings for another person and I don't mean pitty patter responsibilities (who pays rent, who walks the dog) but more meaningful roles and commitments that have to be fulfilled.
Okay but in reality, in the modern world, straight married couples don't necessarily have to have children either. Also in some cases they can't because the woman can't produce children for medical reasons. But that's not really the point. Also there are same-sex couples with children.

>>2621685
>The breaking Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2621659
>>2621685
Communism is not a movement fantasizing about returning to some past of patriarchal relations with isolated petty-bourgeois property, as fantasized by reactionaries. Your analysis is not materialistic and is not based on social class relations. Capitalism destroys the institutions of the past by destroying part of the individualism of private property that maintained patriarchal relations of subjugation. The other part of the property will be socialized with the communist revolution, with the abolition of private property, destroying once and for all any institution that reactionaries cling to, so that the proletarian class becomes the dominant class that will abolish social classes.

Now I will leave you with a quote from Engels:

<[Reactionary Socialists:]
<The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society.>> This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

<This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:

<(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

<(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free from the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2621200
>>2621217
>>2621198
>>2621340
>>2621474
OP here. The reason why I find this to be the logical position is because.
>It's wrong to racially target immigrants, and I'm fine with reforming the immigration system in favor of a merit based one, but let's be honest, the reason why 80% of immigrants are in America because the capitalist overlords want cheap labor and screw native workers out of paying minimum wage. Applies to both undocumented immigrants and H1B workers
>Corporations have done more to normalize homosexuality and transsexuality than any gay activist could hope to. When same sex marriage was legalized in 2015, they ran a 1000 commercials a day featuring gay couples in order to get those pinkbux, so much so that it was dubbed the year of LGBT ads
>Corporations love abortions, because it gets them out of paying for a woman's maternity leave. If they could get away with it, they would push for late term abortions.
>Overall, socialist principles sound like they put the nation and its people first. Capitalist principles put money first and the nation is just a host, nothing more.
>>2621308
There's the whole heartbeat thing but frankly, I'm just skeptical of liberal abortion laws because they can serve as a gateway to late term abortions as well as turn abortion into something that can be abused. Of course I'm against strict "life begins at conception" laws too because they can be used to deny a woman abortion in case of rape or if her life is in danger (both of which I support as exceptions). So six weeks is a middle ground for me.

>>2621193
It's fine. People here want to say that
>these specific economic positions considered left-wing in america today and these specific cultural positions considered left-wing in america today are directly connected and inseparable
and they're wrong, there is a lot of leeway. History proves as much. The socialist camp accepted a wide variety of policies on issues as important as all of village life, it's not surprising socialists in different countries could agree to not push their views on things like gay rights onto each other.
>>2621217
>WOMEN SHOULD BE IN THE WORKFORCE AND ENJOY EQUAL RIGHTS AS MEN, GAYS SHOULD BE IN THE WORKFORCE AND ENJOY SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHTS
I got the ick from you using the word "rights" too often, sorry libtard. But seriously, it's a very vague and moralistic thing to say in most contexts. And that's by design, you can say "man has a right to freedom and pursuit of happiness" and then say "oh but nonwhites and women are not included in the definition of man teehee". If you think modern discourse around rights is all that different, grow up.
Productive forces are stagnating in western countries at best. No advancement in production is related to gay rights or third wave feminism, actual value-producing workers tend to be quite far from these changes for the most part, especially the most important ones that are involved with production of the means of production.

>>2621552
Its not that the other person is left in the dirt, but there is allocation of utilities based on needs because there are people producing such utilities to make it available of distribution to begin with. The mode of consumption is constructed from the mode of production to reproduce the relations of the mode of production.

"As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind."

>>2621526
>>2621552
>>2621633
>what if i take ur shit as if communism is just capitalism minus "property" XDDDDDDDDD and not an entirely different mop and all the new relations that entails
why tf would u (yes u >>2621547 >>2621631 ) even bother engaging with this retardation

>>2621521
The text that was posted seems to imply a lack of economic planning in collective ownership; scientific socialism also involves the abolition of the anarchy of production, and it's important to understand that this will irritate some people who are against what is called "authoritarianism" in economic planning.

>>2621668
on the contrary, a mode of production is entirely concrete but ur retarded brain is too smooth to understand even that

>>2621669
social planning isnt really the central planning retards like cockshit who dont even understand value pretend it is

Lesser evilism isn't anti-imperialism, it is anti-communist campism.
Lenin explained how a capitalist nation cannot be anti-imperialist. He also set out criteria for capitalist imperialism which perfectly with a description of the modern Russian state.
The fact that the USA is an infinitely greater and more powerful imperialist power doesn't change any of this. It doesn't justify picking sides in inter-imperialist wars between anti-communist states.
I'll keep saying this until you campoids cease with your blood and soil nationalism.

>>2621510
<*He also set out criteria for capitalist imperialism which fit perfectly with a description of the modern Russian state.
Sorry, typo.
I'll expand further though.
Lenin's criteria for being an imperialist state are:
>The concentration of production and capital to such a high degree that monopolies emerge, playing a decisive role in economic life
>The fusion of bank capital with industrial capital, creating “finance capital” dominated by a financial oligarch
>The export of capital, which becomes far more significant than the mere export of goods
>the formation of international monopolist associations of capitalists that divide global markets among themselves
>partition of the world among the most powerful capitalist states

According to Lenin therefore, Russia is imperialist. As evil as the USA is, as much of a Bandera worshipping Nazi society Ukraine may be, it is still an inter-imperialist war and to say otherwise is to deny Lenin.

>>2621510
>>2621515
bold of you to post in a dead thread

I'll bite thouever

>The export of capital, which becomes far more significant than the mere export of goods
This is not the case for Russia. Russia's economy is resource-oriented. All of Russia's financial assets in Europe were frozen and seized, and the economy still keeps afloat on raw resource exports and state investment into strategic sectors.
>the formation of international monopolist associations of capitalists that divide global markets among themselves
Russia is not competitive in dividing global markets. It has no multinationals to speak of outside of Gazprom, which is again a raw resource company. Global markets are overwhelmingly controlled through US and EU-dominated international structures, which Russia can't contest in any way. The US was able to isolate the Russian economy with a flip of the SWIFT switch, while Russia doesn't have any means for an even remotely equal response.
>partition of the world among the most powerful capitalist states
Russia barely participates in this division. Western businesses dominate every country that is assumed to be in Russia's "sphere of influence". Russia can't even dictate the policies of Belarus let alone anyone else.

What's left is that Russia has financial capital. What should be kept in mind is that when Lenin wrote "Imperialism etc.", simply having financial capital in the first place placed you in top 10 of the most developed and powerful nations while most of the world was still semi-feudal. Financial and information tools have advanced since then to the point where even poor African nations have central banks and technically national financial monopolies. The likes of KKE deduce from this that everyone is imperialist and there exists Burundi imperialism and Kyrgyzstan imperialism. But it's clear that what is key in analyzing imperialism is not the mere presence of monopolies, but each nation's relative role in redividing the world. Russian capital's role is fleetingly small in that regard.

>>2621617
>>2621617
>>2621617
>>2621617
bake i guess

>>2620771
>the Israeli army is accelerating preparations for the possibility of a sudden war on three fronts: Iran, Lebanon and the occupied West Bank.
>"I was elected as a democratic socialist and I will govern as a democratic socialist."

What will Zohran say when the Zionist entity escalates?

TYBNA

>>2621004
He is a Zionist honey

tybna

>>2621236
>gigapseud coping with psychobabble
theres only one communism so yep, they are that different :D

>>2621249
>theres only one communism
good luck getting all the communists to agree on which one is the TRVE one
>psychobabble
i don't like psychobabble either but when I see communists who agree on 90% of things wanting to kill each other over the 10% of things they disagree on, while their enemies are perfectly content to unite and crush them with much less overlap… I can't help but think of the narcissism of small differences. Even now you exemplify it perfectly.

>>2621252
lol obvious booklet trying to have strong opinions on communism with wikipedia screenshots of shit entirely unrelated to it

>good luck getting all the communists to agree on which one is the TRVE one
good thing communism is the movement of the proletariat not a debate club :D

>but when I see communists who agree on 90% of things wanting to kill each other over the 10% of things they disagree on
yeah dude the person who pandered to the peasantry and national bourgeoisie and other middle classes and wanted SIOC is the same as the one who focused on the global proletariat, they both thought "capitalism" le bad!!

>Even now you exemplify it perfectly.
not rly, you are just a massive retard 👍

>>2621258
So do you really believe Stalin and Bordiga have less in common than Charles Darwin and Kent Hovind?

>>2621258
>lol obvious booklet trying to have strong opinions on communism with wikipedia screenshots of shit entirely unrelated to it
On the contrary, the more theory and history I read, the less certain I become. I am not a teenager who calls people booklet and gigapseuds while spamming emojis for a quick dopamine rush. If anything is going to create clarity rather than uncertainty, it's practice, but most communists hate each other too much to practice communism together. They're too busy trying to purge one another and splitting into new parties. :^)

>>2620202
I mean, I have read the scripture of all the Abrahams, and the one I like the least is the Jews. The people I trust the least is the Jews. I would rather associate with a Christian or Muslim any day. The root of evil in Islam or Christianity is the Judaism. I don't like Jews.

>>2620204
I mean I have multiple Christian and Muslim friends, never a Jew.

will luigi go free?

new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213
new thread >>2620213

AHEM

>>2621877
Yeah the EBT was going to be eternally cut and there were riots planned.
>This is huuuuge
It's not. Thanks for playing

Walz said he's stepping down as Minnesota governor.

Politicians with nothing to hide don't do that.

>>2620621
>Stop making these ISG threads
I rarely make any thread and I have no idea what ISG means.

Tankies fight Nazis dipshit

>dirtbag left
>twitter lingo
>just another buzzword like "alt-left" neolibs used in 2016 to fearmonger
ur gay

>>2620681
Get a job.

>>2620544
>tfw you get put into a made up state
Its good to start with the core of the problem. With artificial states like this confederacy is the only solution.

>>2620551
It's strange how India hasn't collapsed though. Must be a cultural thing.

>>2620551
states are an european construct

>>2620557
This

Crazy to think Myanmar has shit like this happening and no one knows

There is no reason to convince dengits they are wrong. It will be more pleasurable to watch them looking the inevitable rot of China completely clueless of what happens.

>>2620588
you will die of natural causes first at this rate

>>2620120
>no cow content
6/10.