/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

It work pretty well for a bit in Catalonia, but I'm not really sure the means of revolution adapted to the conditions of 1920s Spain would really translate all that well to modern day America.

A thread to share of what you think are your controversial opinons and takes, here mine:

- mass immigration is bad overall (I'm not against immigration per se, more like unfiltered immigration is quiet bad in my opinion)

-religion in general are bad, reactionary and backwater, and trying to "fuse" religion and left leaning politics are bound to fail because both doesn't mix well

-"liberal" eugenics is mostly right and should be mass adopted

-China is actually a trying a form of modernize socialism with end goal of becoming a full fledged socialist nation when they exhaust the market-capitalism form of relation in the country

-North Korea is a abomination of socialism

-Supporting Russia is stupid because Putin is nowhere near close to be a support of socialism and progressive politics and is just a form of support imperialist politics by because isn't western somehow is good, it's like supporting japanese imperialism back in the WW 2 era isn't western

I've been seeing a lot of neoliberal and generally pro-market positions on social-media for a while now and I was wondering if this was a general phenomena or if it was just me.
In any case, in the event that this is a general trend on social media, how receptive is the average person to that kind of propaganda ?

From where I'm from, most people are pretty left-leaning economically but also have a lot of anti-tax views (which is logical given the burden of 65+ on the pension system). But is this the case everywhere ? I've also noticed that a lot of zoomers seemed to embrace the myth of the self-made man a lot more than the older generations.

Let's rehearse the facts:
>The US bombed Cambodia harder than they did in Nazi Germany and Japan
>The majority of the urban population were refugees from the countryside when the cities were emptied.
>Life expectancy dropped to its lowest point in 1975, before the Khmer Rouge took over. Afterwards, it began increasing.
>The Khmer Rouge successfully did all they could do prevent famine.
>The Khmer Rouge was not peasantist/primitivist. There was investment in light industry, healthcare and education.
>Thousands were killed in the Vietnamese invasion. More refugees fled per year from the puppet regime than from the Democratic Kampuchea.
>The central government ordered a stop to all killings on several occasions.
>The CIA only supported the Khmer Rouge after Vietnam took over to fuck with the USSR. The same CIA that bombed the country to rubble

Am I saying the KR was good? No. But blindly believing in propaganda is stupid.

>>2838086
I'm sorry, "We" are "Winning" by "Doing Nothing"? While the US secures every single node in your dubious tactic of Belt and Road outside of the China-Russia-Iran triangle, two of which are extremely vulnerable (entrenching the quarantine 1*, compounding power asymmetry 2*)
1: how's that worked out for all ML states so far? it is the most lethal and you invite it? who's playing who? "do nothing win" may be the CIA's most successful meme and you drooling suburban Californian MLs love it
2: speedrunning the later decades of the USSR are we? Ah yes China winning hard by events in Caribbean (only stable core of their LatAm strategy)
Great that you now have allies like UAE and Egypt in BRICS after Assad (oops, guess he wasn't immortal, but Ben didn't make a vid no that :( curious) Bright days ahead in west Asia, the key geostrategic zone for the Belt and Road pipe dream to come into effect (connecting asia to africa and latin america) as all arab states in the region let the the zionists "finish the job" for their bottom line.
Chinese chauvinism made them get kicked out of Sahel too, you think South Africa can carry the continent by itself?
As yankees now pivot from Asia to LatAm (Japan, Philippines, Thailand, India, Nepal, Afghanistan, """East Turkestan""", socfash Mongolia) and the British Commonwealth in the timezone - "looking good") and LatAm most already having been made subservient following US successful drug networks wrecking the straight line from Mexico to Brazil; "pink wave" reformists predictably walking on crates went and made themselves associated to drugs and are now stuck in a alt-right malaise for the foreseeable future (you say "look at andean region"). The entire continent is a settler-colonial project that already accomplished its task. Arab populations can't even find the bourgeois nationalism in them in the late stage of capitalist imperialism to free their Palestinians brothers and sisters from the first phases of their genocide. Iran is doing what it's doing purely for regional competition with the Isaraelis and Gulf Arabs. Every single west asian sunni arab zionist state standing firm, no arab spring 2 but arab nationalist.

You are as politically relevant as a radlib and your class collaborationism makes you but another obstacle in the way of proletarian revolution.

Is the whole boomer vs. gen X vs. millennial vs. zoomer thing simply another form of false consciousness?

For example, someone born in 1986 and someone born in 1994 are both “millennials” but someone born in 1997 is a “zoomer” even though someone born in 1994 has a life experience much more like someone born in 1997 than they do someone born in 1986. Likewise, we don’t even know how to define when certain generations end or begin. Is the cut-off for boomers 1963, 1964, or 1965? To what extent does it matter?

It seems like scapegoating “boomers” for everything has become a popular thing to do on social media and I have to ask why is blaming the older generation somehow worthwhile? “Boomers were the hippies who ended up becoming conservative and voting for Reagan” — that doesn’t explain the material factors that lead to the rise of Reagan and neoconservatism in the first place. You can’t simply “blame boomers” when “boomer” exists in a materialist context. Likewise, you can’t blame Gen Xers and millennials for being “vain” or whatever when Gen Xers and millennials also faced material conditions beyond their control. So why are we placing blame on generations? Does it make any sense to do this?

I'm not American but my gf is. At her work she has a bunch of lesbians who tell her about attending DSA meetings. She says they do cool shit like consoom ethically under gabidalism, only buy fair trade stuff, run coops, do community outreach etc and try to be as little of an autistic political bickering club as possible. However at the same time I see a bunch of shilling that the DSA is extremely anti-White, and the fact that the only local chapter I've heard about first-hand is full of dyed-hair lesbians (who are pretty much always spiteful and militant especially towards White guys) along with the sperging about skeletons in the closet of the one prominent White guy their movement was even able to get (Platner) to seem "relatable" to White guys leads me to suspect that these people are not actually the friends of working class White men. I get the feeling that, if they get their full way after the zionist conservative billionaires controlling the other side of American politics are done squandering all public goodwill towards themselves, it will be open season on all cracKKKKers and their shit across the West as a rainbow coalition of crusty mutated-looking baizuo, Americanised 4b feminists, the couple hundred million browns inside the West and every other brown piece of shit from the third world that wants to waltz in will be permitted to work their way towards a pogrom against all working class White "settlers" while the porkies and yids that are actually responsible for the problems they're worked up over just lock up their gated communities, move their gigafactories to India or take a plane back to Israel.

This is probably the result of anti-DSA shilling, and of course I have nothing but contempt for ziocons and the orange pedophile, but at the same time I've interacted with pro-Palestine protests/groups with a self-proclaimed "socialist" bent in my own country and they mostly seem to oppose Israel because they think they are White cracKKKer colonisers and worship anyone with brown skin. To what extent is the DSA made up of people who would actively cheer if I got hacked to death by a random naked Haitian for no reason unless I parroted their talking points constantly and painted my nails weird colours?

Awesome! I hope the plane took out some financial scum. By the looks of it there was a fire so I hope as many of those imperialist bourgeois pigs were roasted in it. It's a shame the whole building wasn't taken down but the plane was too small. People should start crashing like cargo jets (since then it is a victimless attack apart from some cleaners and other workers in the building) into financial office skyscrapers in order to start culling the bourgeois where they are at their most concentrated in imperialist countries like China or the U$A.

The Indian state is claiming that they have defeated the naxals. Is it over?

https://archive.md/20260530081637/https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/30/india/india-maoist-rebel-naxal-free-intl-hnk-dst

From my understanding Mao said China will be an industrialised socialist nation by the year 2000, then Deng postponed it to 2050 which is still repeated to this day.

But what does this concretely mean in qualitative terms, how do the relations to production shift? Will the stock market be abolished, private ownership of capital, the three represents system abolished, a planned economy be build? It can't just be more development of the productive forces or building a welfare state or it doesn't mean anything.

So people who think China is actually socialist, can you give government approved sources that prove any intention to build communism?