/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>people unionize so hard that porkies are forced to reduce working hours from 12 to 8
>100 years later
>the working class hasn't done this again to achieve 4 hour work week

why?

This is like a certified Mark Felton Productions video title.
Imagine what could have been.

>…there was a possibility of developing an independent socialist movement through the fledging Southern Rhodesia Communist Party, which had been formed from radical elements in the Rhodesia Labour Party, and those who had been associated with the South African Communist Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain. But at that time Russia was pushing "Popular Front" unity of all classes, which in Rhodesia meant unity with the white liberals. The price the party had to pay for this unity was to stop the work it had begun with the emerging black working class, as this was deemed antagonistic towards the increasingly racist white labour force. This ultimately destroyed the party, as it divorced it from a real working-class base.

>Parallel to this was the emergence of organisations representing the emerging black petty bourgeoisie, whose agenda was limited to putting pressure on the colonial state to grant more opportunities to certain black Rhodesians. One of the leading organisations was the Southern Rhodesian African National Congress, formed in the 1930s, but until the emergence of the struggles of the black working class in the late 1940s it remained small and largely irrelevant, looking to white reformists for direction and leadership.
https://ivavalleybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Socialists-in-Zimbabwe.pdf

Will be ready shortly, ask either about books or secondarily about videos.
Preference given to books in reverse order, so Defending Materialism, How the World Works, Economic Planning in time of Climate Crisis, Computation and its Limits, Towards a New Socialism etc

Tuesday, May 20th at 3:00 PM EST/8:00 PM BST
Join known Marxist Computer Scientist Paul Cockshott on an AMA (Ask Me Anything) here at leftypol.org

Post your questions on the forthcoming AMA thread this Tuesday!

Cya there!

So Lenin's most important contribution to revolutionary Marxism, in defense from revisionists like Kautsky, Bernstein and Co. is his detailed study on capitalist imperialism and petty-bourgeois corruption within the workers movement leading up to the inter-imperialist war (part 1) where these corrupt leaders chose a "lesser evil" side of imperialism to support. Turning the imperialist war into a civil war, culminating in the successful October revolution, a world-changing event.

The Marxist movement then splits into two:
1. people who side with Lenin's concern on the side of the international revolutionary workers movement
2. the bourgeois elements in the leadership positions within the bureaucratic-reformist cancer metastasizing upon the workers movement that side with welfare gibs / their imperialist bourgeoisie / ethnic chauvinism etc.

Lenin dies prematurely and shortly after self-described Leninists of numerous tendencies then go on to take completely contradictory positions with a proclivity to picking sides, in the inter-imperialist war (part 2).
Notable examples: the left-communist "ultra-Leninists" around Bordiga, the left opposition "Bolshevik-Leninists" around Trotsky, the "Marxist-Leninists"* around Stalin.
Bordiga, Trotsky and Stalin believe the Axis imperialists are to be critically supported almost until its too late (i.e. for several years leading into WWII relying on this "Leninist analysis").
Stalin then flip flops after almost having Moscow sacked by Nazi Germany and concedes to figures like Dimitrov, who argues in favor of picking the Allies side of the imperialist war and injecting the domestic Party and movement with millions of liberal-bourgeois elements*. "Marxism-Leninism" from this point on goes on to contain a blatant antagonistic contradiction at the heart of it that keeps erupting in a variety of ways continuously throughout the 20th century within the ideological disputes of Communist Party leadership.
* Mao and the CPC adopt the later Dimitrovist position of "Marxism-Leninism", diluting the domestic communist movement with these "progressive bourgeois" elements from the start, which will become a critical issue in domestic tumult later down the line.
By the mid 20th century, "Marxism-Leninism" erupts towards an overt social-imperialPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

One idea that routinely comes to mind about colony building is the focus on taking land away from already inhabited areas over setting up camps in uninhabited, unexplored, or inhospitable territory. I cannot be the only one to consider how inefficient it is to waste resources on trying to build colonies in already established places where you’ll face resistance from indigenous populations compared to building colonies in places where resistance should be nonexistent. Just look at this image. There’s all the land, potential mineral resources, and lack of competition right there. Sure it’s a desert, but if you can adapt to the conditions with the tech you bring from your home country, then it’s yours to make productive.

### The 1970s Divergence: Productivity and Wages Under Capitalism

The 1970s marked a pivotal rupture in capitalist economies—productivity continued to rise, but wages stagnated. This decoupling was a structural shift, not an accident, and robotics now threatens to deepen this divide exponentially.

—

### 1. The Post-WWII Golden Age (1945–1970s)
- Strong Labor Power: Unions, New Deal policies, and Keynesian demand management ensured wages tracked productivity.
- Bargaining Leverage: High employment + welfare states meant capital shared gains with workers.
- Profit Stability: Corporations accepted lower margins in exchange for stable demand (Fordism).

Result: A temporary class truce—capital expanded, workers prospered.

—

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

small business owners usually fall into two categories: people who were so good at their job that they wanted to uncap their earnings and capture all the upside so they became consultants essentially, and on the other hand, people who are so obnoxious that being their own boss is the only way they could stay gainfully employed. If you've ever had the displeasure of being of being employed by the latter you'll know they can be infinitely more cruel, anal, dimwitted, and petty than any corporate executive or HR manager. The kind who pay minimum wage, as few or no benefits they can get away with, and scream at employees.

The petit booj ran a business with no buffer, no adaptability, and treated people like garbage, now they want my sympathy because they bet wrong on cheap imports?

A huge part of the emotional charge behind these complaints, especially among small business owners or freelancers, is the existential fear of re-proletarianization. They've tasted a degree of autonomy (however shaky), and the idea of going back to W-2 life, answering to a boss, or clocking in under surveillance again feels like death of the self.

They've constructed identities around being the boss, even if they're just scraping by. Going back to a "real job" means surrendering control over their time, work environment, and self-image. Many of them bought into the bootstraps ideology. Losing the business, or just watching it stagnate, feels like personal moral failure, not just market fluctuation. It’s not just about money. It's about status. Going from "entrepreneur" to "employee" (even if it's in a cushy corporate gig) feels like falling a class rung back into the worker pool. Many use their business as a narrative shield: "I'm not stuck in the system, I'm building something." The collapse of that dream isn't just stressful, it's identity-threatening.

That’s the real fear underneath the performative outrage, the entitlement, and sometimes the cruelty. They’re clinging to their mini-kingdoms (some justified, many not) because the alternative isn’t just economic loss. It’s class displacement. Its fear of them being turned into just another schmuck clocking in at 9 and slaving away under stark fluorescent lights.

FACE IT - COMPLAINING ABOUT TARIFFS IS THE TREATLERISM OF THE PETIT BOURGEOIS.

Why does it feel like so much “anti-imperialism” has very little — if anything — to do with anti-imperialism and is simply Muslim identity politics?

For instance, why would anyone compare Pakistan to Palestine, when the former is a sovereign nation that was a close US ally during the Cold War and the latter a stateless nation that’s been fighting a 77+ year guerrilla war against one of the most brutal armies in the world and is now facing an all-out genocide? Pakistan and India are both bourgeois states with close ties to the US that both frequently imprison communists. To compare Pakistan to Palestine, in that western activists have a moral duty to hold mass protests waving Pakistani flags and boycott anything Indian is fucking stupid.

Yeah, I’m not shilling for India. But this shit is theoretically weak af.

Also, why does it seem like in every political conflict involving Muslims (except for China vs the Uyghurs) leftists always insist on taking the “Muslim side”? Look at Ethiopia vs Somalia or Christians vs Muslims in Nigeria, for instance. During the Cold War this would have made perfect sense, because the side fighting against the side backed by the West could be allied with the USSR and utilized to fight western capitalists. Today, not so much.

I’d love to understand the logic here.