[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
What is 6 - 2?

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!

| Catalog | Home
|

File: 1767086646606.jpg (138.89 KB, 1080x1440, 1739246024900583.jpg)

 

Singapore is an economical and social miracle undoubtedly, low rate of corruption, high rate of employment, FDI, Income and quality of life in general.
All this achieved through a strict neoliberal economy, Lee Yew is practically worshipped by Neoliberal for not only his policies but also for his Anti-communist operations.
Marxist (atleast I haven't found any) can point out to any contradiction plaguing Singaporean multicultural society.
Does this economical path is the way to prosperity, as an alternative to liberal western ideology.
What does /leftypol/ say on this? Can he be refuted by Dialectical Materialism?
189 posts and 31 image replies omitted.

Is leftypol banned in Singapore? I haven't seen anyone from Singapore here

>>2652564
>Nor is Singapore an amazing place to be in right now. The neoliberalisation has left the city state with low TFR on par with South Korea and Hong Kong. And this is already with constant immigration and Malay minority, the native chinese and indian would be even lower. Rising living costs and declining economic power has meant that the PAP couldn't make any gains against the Workers Party, despite exploiting the tariff situation like Carney and Albanese did. Ironic that LKY spent decades ranting about welfarism only to have the current Prime Minister be called Voucher Wong for his constant reliance on government vouchers and stimulus spending. PAP even gives out free groceries as 'political campaigning'. The economic miracle of Singapore for Singaporeans is over. I doubt any local neoliberal or fascist would be happy with the sober reality now.

this is pretty much the same path japan, korea, and taiwan went. Lol


>>2667529
I get the impression that Singaporeans are live in a weird bubble and are very mentally strait-jacketed for the most part. They can't see anything outside their carefully curated and hypercompetitive culture of their authoritarian city-state.

Singapore sucks



File: 1770024426031.gif (1.18 MB, 1536x2533, caption-4.gif)

 

Libertarians come in many flavors. Even Charlie Kirk called himself a libertarian once. Most of them are irredeemable, craving to oppress women & minorities - terrible people, who ALWAYS slide towards fascism.

However, there's a smaller subset of them who value freedom above everything else and despise surveillance. Are we their closest ally? Because libertarians on the right just cling to Palantir, Israel and horrific child abusers. How do we integrate them? What should be done to integrate them?
4 posts omitted.

>>2677198
he's a republican voting in line with everyone else.
>>2677194
b-but… communism doesn't work….. and lenin wasn't the best person in Russian revolution
>>2677199
if I shift their position somewhat and bring them to the left, lefties (some, but most vocal ones) will purity test and cancel us altogether.

>>2677206
>some, but most vocal ones
The whiny little online shits who don't know how people work. Yeah, we ignore them too. Purity testing is wrecker shit. This is a mass movement.

>>2677198
>his son
Rand is a Zionist dog unlike his father

>>2677185
Integration was tried, albeit under different circumstances, but it went nowhere. https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

>>2677186
They are very fun to laugh at



File: 1769886484125.jpg (83.51 KB, 600x750, 30333cnxx3661.jpg)

 

friendly reminder: if you are a NEET and a communist, you are suicidal. you are according to marxists a useless eater and they will 100% exterminate you after the revolution.

source: marxist theory and history
22 posts and 4 image replies omitted.

File: 1769919830531-0.jpeg (126.23 KB, 828x1448, IMG_4748.jpeg)

File: 1769919830531-1.jpeg (60.03 KB, 828x641, IMG_4749.jpeg)

We are here to help comrade .

i'm a minmaxer, even when i'm suicidal i'm as productive as i can be, i don't take a single step without a purpose.

>>2674296
>During War Communism there were labor camps for those not engaged in productive labor.
so ur tellin me if i dont have a job theyre gonna give me one where i hang out with the bros and build stuff to help society?

based

>>2674198
Damn that’s crazy

>>2674562
>>that's why we need a global mystical 1984 state
thats what we already have tho, you think you live in communism lol? are you american?



File: 1769049470358.jpg (14.91 KB, 380x431, 1743979551318.jpg)

 

Fine. I'll address it. What can we do to stop the incessant infighting between MLs and Ultras?
There is ultimately a middle ground to be found between their positions.
And it is at least in my opinion, it's the positions between both groups that makes the most sense and most closely resemble the intent behind Marx's original aims.
I am a bit of a theorylet so maybe I am missing some crucial ideological perspective that already achieved this, but if not I suppose I am in a sense proposing that stance here.

What do I even mean? Take for example;

Ultras:
>We must abolish the commodity form and money on day 1 of the revolution or you're a state capitalist moderniser falsifier and a betrayer of the revolution
MLs:
>It's fine to have 100 years of market economy, stock exchanges, billionaires etc whilst only making vague promises of transitioning from production for exchange value to production for use value in some distant ever further away future

Ultras:
>You must never ever support national liberation even when the movement is clearly progressive and socialist in character and it's successes will weaken imperialism and capitalism
MLs:
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
84 posts and 30 image replies omitted.

>>2667438
>Muh semantics
Ok don't listen to me then. Keep being confused

Did 'strengthening proletarian ties' include, forcing united fronts on international parties, allying with nazis, allying with western colonialists, abolishing the Comintern to appease said colonialists, establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, etc?

>>2667440
>semantics
Nice cope pseudo. If only this distinction wasn't the whole reason Marx broke with the left and the Comintern was later established

>>2667443
You asked me a question, I answered it, then you just restate the question differently. The only pseud here is you, Marx didn't break with the left over the distinction between socialism as the mop and socialism as the state ideology of a post revolutionary dotp. He broke with various groups for various different reasons, disagreement over utopianism, reformism, idealism, etc. The comintern was established to further the goals of international revolution and again, break from reformists and their ilk. None of that has anything to do with your confusion regarding mop and post rev dotp both being called "socialism"

>>2667092
Not quite



File: 1769805402946.jpeg (44.96 KB, 683x1024, IMG_1731.jpeg)

 

What’s your opinion on Mao agricultural socialism I think personally that’s better than industrial socialism because it helps out the peasants Not saying Vladimir Lennon what’s wrong but I just personally like Mao take on things

>>2672394
>lennon
Also, you need industrial socialism to advance. Being stuck in agro is not a good thing. The direction of history is that you build industrial society with agro surplus and peasants stop being peasants. Same goes for proles. The goal of communism is to get out of "peasantry" and "proles" and become free people.

There is no Mao's 'agricultural socialism'.
Mao HAD to rely heavily on peasants because they were the overwhelming majority of Chinese people at that time.
Mao was not a vulgar stagist à la Kautsky. He was not going to sit and wait a million years until there is a big enough proletariat.

Once the PRC was established, he did everything to industrialise and thus proletarianize. It did not all work out perfectly, but he never enshrined agriculture and peasantry to the detriment of industry and proletariat. Never.

>>2672435
Came here to say essentially this. China industrialized hugely under Mao. Anyone claiming that China was simply "agricultural" during his era is being willfully dishonest.

Liberal industrialization



 

>search for any wealthy businessperson you can possibly imagine
<they're in the files
>search for any high-status ivy-league academic you can imagine
<they're in the files
>search for any billionaire CEO or banker ever
<they're in the files
>search for acting heads of states and powerful senators/congresspeople who're still in office
<they're not in the files
>search for high-ranking military and intelligence officers in the CIA, Mossad, MI6, etc
<they're not in the files
>search for CEOs, CTOs, CFOs and other such personnel who work in military-industrial-complex firms like Rayteon and Boeing
<they're not in the files

I guess we know who the blacked out names are.

Does this mean the military industrial complex control the financial and intellectual elite along with the civilian authorities?

Yuge party



File: 1768296365839.jpg (70.33 KB, 779x523, jesus-teaching.jpg)

 

What are your thoughts on collectivism in general? how essential or necessary do you think it is to general leftist thought and application? personally, when I look inward I yearn to be collectivist, but yet I find myself siding or having to consider myself an individualist most of the time. If I had to be a collectivist then I would have to be really extreme probably. Though that almost is what individualism is in a modern context I think.
10 posts and 5 image replies omitted.

the whole confusion around individualism and collectivism comes from the intuitive difficulties which arise from the following state of affairs: an organism is a contained and self reproducing metabolism; a collection of chemical catalysts and templates that catalyze and constrain reactions which produce more of the same catalysts and templates and so on. you've got micro-organisms and you've got macro-organisms. macro-organisms are composed of micro-organisms that in some way mutually depend on each other to complete their respective metabolic logistical circuits. a society is a large macro-organism composed of large individual micro-organisms called people. people are macro-organisms composed of anatomic and cellular micro-organisms.

you can see the tension working when you think about thatcher's old quote "there is no such thing as society. there are individual men and women, and there are families". it's been talked to death as the watch words of individual-atomistic neoliberalism, but what's instructive is that she has to almost immediately concede a macro-organic reality in the form of the family. it is impossible for even the most radical liberal idealogue to honestly or coherently conceive of individual humans totally abstracted from sociality, because all people come into the world dependent upon other people, and the perpetuation of any population is the perpetual production of new dependents. the ideal of liberal individualism is an ideological product of universal commodity exchange. the notion that there are only individuals and families engaged in voluntary mutual exchange is only plausible to people in social conditions which obfuscate and commodify collective relations of interdependence.

consider the possibility that climate change decimates global agricultural output to the point that people are collectively only socially capable of producing enough food to feed 90% of the current world population. the obviously resulting famine deaths should illustrate the collective reality of society well enough. at human scales, individuals cannot persist without the collectives that generate and constrain them.

>>2643337
Collectivism and Individualism are not seperate things, yet alone mutually exclusive. If one shall die in the name of their 'nation' (or something else) , it is because the idea holds a domain over their mind, why is it individualism when one strives for endless wealth but it is 'collectivism' when someone dies in a crusade or something in the name of a god, accounting that the idea of that is somehow pleasant for them.

collectivism vs individualism is a false dichotomy, similar to the false dichotomy of authoritarian vs libertarian

Max Stirner's union of egoists is a pretty good arguement for collectivism.




File: 1767585463974.png (2.84 MB, 1024x1536, the vvest.png)

 

It’s time for you to face the facts: the track record of “multipolarists” predicting the imminent end of U.S./Western primacy has been consistently VERY poor.

Israel has tamed Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah and the Gazan people are on their last legs. If they survive at all it will be in tents rather than dense cities as before. At every turn, the conflicts are shifting from balance toward overmatch and escalation control in favor of the West/US/Israel.

Since roughly the mid-2010s, we’ve seen repeated claims that Iraq/Afghanistan, the 2008 crisis, Syria, Ukraine, or China’s rise would mark a decisive terminal decline, yet in practice the U.S. and its allies have retained escalation control, alliance cohesion, financial centrality, and unmatched intelligence-strike capabilities while rivals absorb disproportionate costs for challenging the system. The mistake isn’t noticing Western contradictions, it’s assuming those contradictions imply fragility rather than durability, and confusing loud resistance with actual system-overturning power. What recent years suggest is not that the empire is collapsing, but that it has shifted from overextension to selective enforcement, which is precisely the mode that makes repeated predictions of imminent demise look increasingly disconnected from observed outcomes.

“Multipolarists” and self-described anti-imperialists fundamentally misread Western restraint as terminal decline rather than adaptation. China remains a regional rather than global military challenger whose only plausible path to victory runs through the Taiwan Strait and whose demographic, alliance, and structural economic limits make it incapable of replacing the United States as a system-organizing power; the deeper implication is that many people invested emotionally and ideologically in the idea of inevitable Western decline are unprepared for a world in which the system they oppose proves both durable and adaptable, producing not liberation or collapse but a long, grinding equilibrium that frustrates anti-imperial hopes and exhausts challengers.

(The last, and I mean absolute LAST chance for the US world order to be overturned even PARTIALLY, is for China to defeat the AUKUS in the Taiwan strait prior to 2030-2035 when China’s demographic decline will begin to affect its military strength.)

Multipolarism: The Oppositional Defiant DisoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
91 posts and 14 image replies omitted.

>>2628298
>in terms of material power it’s more comparable to Russia even despite decades of advantage in military technology
i think that gap has completely closed which is frankly beyond embarrassing considering the state of russia

>>2642868
It's when you got strippers on multiple poles

>>2640691
No, it’s definitely coughing blood.

>>2642868
this tbh, never seen a mulipolarity criticism thats wasnt pure strawman

>>2630669
>People here love to copy-paste Lenin quotes here, but they don't realize that the imperialism that Lenin (and Hobson before him) described was happening within a multipolar European world order.
case in point, that idiot think 20 century imperialist competition is somehow similar to multipolarity. its not



 

From my understanding, Marx's philosophical theory was essentially the dialectical method except applied to history and society. To me, it seemed like it could be broadly summarized as :
>Society determines men's consciousness
>This creates class antagonisms and conflicting interests amongst them
>Over time, contradictions between them are overcomed by changing the structure of society, which produced these classes
>Communism is the movement which abolishes class, thus ending structural contradictions within society


However, I don't see where alienation comes in all of this. To me, the antagonisms between class and the desire to overcome contradictions was mainly in regards to each class' own interest. The bourgeoisie benefitted from capitalism, and so aimed at keeping it, whilst the proletariat endured it and in turn had different motivations. My understanding of alienation is essentially that it is the impossibility for men to fulfill their social and creative potential. This twists the dialectic from class conflict to merely satisfaction of one own's potential. It seems like capitalism or class structure isn't inherently at fault in this way, but more so how it is performed.
So, from my understanding, it looks like alienation can either be replaced in Marx's "mature" dialectic by treating it merely as one of the many motivations for the proletariat to overcome capitalism. Or, on the other side, that it treats the economic crisis and misery produced by capitalism as only alienating factors which are added ontop of the pre-existing alienations.
I think that fundamentally this might go at odds with how I percieve's Marx's works. Imo, Marx is mainly a social critique who performs a sociological and economical assessment of society to posit the sources for its conflicts, and its potential future. This concept of alienation seems very much hegelian and much more philosophical, and incurs some form of moralist and idealist critique in Marx's otherwise "scientific" work. Thoughts ?

<inb4 read the manuscripts

I have, and they didn't answer my questions.
32 posts and 7 image replies omitted.

The concept of alienation, for better or worse is one of the best concepts devised by Marx. It has materialized in recent times in such a way, modern philosophers like Chul Han, have to try and not sound like Marx.

>>2687414
>i am more hegelian than marxist
many such cases in this website


>>2688091
And they are failing

>Alienation from the product
The laborer creates the product, but he doesn't own it. The laborer helped create the product, but the commodity doesn't show it. On top of that, absolutely nowhere in the process of creating the commodity is the laborer really any part of the production, his labor is sold in exchange for currency, so the boss gets his labor + the commodity, the laborer only gets the currency.

>Alienation from the labor

Because his labor is sold, he is alienated from it. once the product leaves the business, the laborer never sees the product again, he never sees the other people on the market selling products to one another, he never sees the trade, he never sees the result of that trade, he only sees part of the currency commodities are exchanged for that's his reward for selling his labor.

>Alienation from other people

Since we are in direct competition with each other for our income, we start to see each other as competitors, not as human beings. We see our bosses as 'our betters' and ourselves as 'lesser', we derive value from our position in the economy, not society as a whole. The baker in your street becomes the baker, if you see him without his working clothes you'd feel a little weird, realizing that he is just as human as you are, not just a machine creating your sandwiches every day. Social bonding is replaced for currency, human connections are formed outside of every day life, not during.

>Alienation from species-being

Alienation from both labor and commodity thus creates alienation from others, which in turn creates alienation from your gattungswesen, your species-being, your base desires as human beings that aren't being met. We sell our labor to a boss for the 9 to 5, it's tiring, it's unfulfilling, we essentially shut our brains off and sit there doing these menial task for 40 hours a week.



File: 1768082874266.jpg (106.39 KB, 640x701, worse.jpg)

 

What are the best books about gunsmithing, lockpicking, forgery, mobilizing through hostile territory, hotwiring machines, evading surveillance, and other morally grey acts that would be useful in the event shit hits the fan and the government you're in collapses? Stuff to keep you alive or safe until you can actually get to your friends, family, comrades, etc. if they're hundreds of miles away

I'd use /AKM/ but the board is dead and more warfare focused than being concerned about general skills.

>nothing ever happens

posters NOT allowed, assume it has happened and it's you and the hostile concrete jungle with no friends around.

>>2639672
https://archive.org/details/DaysOfWarNightsOfLove
https://crimethinc.com/
Crimethinc has a lot of stuff about indiviual actism, i don't wanna get fedded so you can read yourself but there's plently you'll find

File: 1770326556771.jpg (61.7 KB, 636x456, augdanoffs.jpg)

mods! move this chud to /AKM/ so i have a reason to go there again

>>2639672
Anti Nehcel book thread



Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ 1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /10 /11 /12 /13 /14 /15 /16 /17 /18 /19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /32 /33 /34 /35 /36 ]
| Catalog | Home