/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The Trump government is purging the U.S. military in the middle of a war. Almost a dozen generals have been fired,m including the head of the entire U.S. Army.

I genuinely dont think well ever live in a world
national, ethnic, racial, cultural and gender divides wont be more more important to people than class divide.
Why do people have to buy into all this bullshit?

<A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

• Stalin, Marxism and the National Question
  
  

What exactly does he mean by "psychological make-up" here? Because from where I'm standing, people in the same nation are psychologically very different from one another, as individuals. I cannot imagine a single place on Earth where the individuals are psychologically the same, but maybe "psychological makeup" has some special Marxist-Leninist definition here that I'm not aware of. I'd like better help understanding what Stalin meant by this. Thank you in advance to anyone who is willing to help with this.

The most recent iteration of the No Kings protests represents a significant strategic convergence within the anti-capitalist bloc, marking what appears to be the broadest coalition participation to date across the United States. Preliminary reports from multiple jurisdictions indicate that while tactical unity was largely maintained during the march itself, significant ideological and strategic cleavages emerged regarding questions of praxis and mass leftist work.

>>The Contradiction in Methods

A dialectical tension manifested between two competing conceptions of revolutionary praxis. On one pole, the Marxist-Leninist organizations, including various NGOs, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and related leftist formations advocated for what might be termed traditional propaganda methods, vocal engagement with the masses, distribution of printed materials, and direct ideological recruitment through interpersonal discourse.

On the opposing pole, the more militant youth contingents, anarchist collectives, and Maoist cadres advanced a confrontational-accelerationist position. These elements sought to redirect the march toward sites of state power, anticipating and indeed, desiring police deployment of chemical agents and physical repression against a liberal crowd. This tactical divergence reflects deeper theoretical disagreements regarding the nature of consciousness-raising and the mechanisms of radicalization.

>>Ideological Foundations of the Split

The anarchist and Maoist position rests upon a critique of what they characterize as "bourgeois-reformist" methods of recruitment. From this perspective, the newspaper-style agitation and voluntary engagement favored by Marxist-Leninist organizations represents an obsolete mode of praxis that fails to recognize the material conditions necessary for genuine class consciousness. Instead, they advance a thesis of forced radicalization through confrontation, the position that liberal and petty-bourgeois elements must be compelled into direct conflict with state apparatuses, irrespective of their subjective willingness, as the necessary precondition for revolutionary consciousness.
This methodological schism, between voluntary recruitment through ideological persuasion versus coerced radicalization through state confrontation, generated observable antagonisms throughout the mobilization, suggestinPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Before I start about whole topic of this post I would like to point out that this post mainly focus on Communists and not other tendencies among "radical leftism" because their justification may systematically vary and require different approach so I would like to keep it rather focused on concrete mindset in certain group of people.

Alot of people who become Communists today may have different reasons for their radical outlook of current state of things, but what fundamentally may cause for these people even to look critically at current state of things is definetly whole history of struggle between oppressed and oppressing and analysis itself on how even does this struggle effect people's state of being and how we as people can eventually build a movement which does opposse current state of things which as we know dynamically change in this whole history of struggle in name of class intrests.

But how does it even relate to Veganism?

Honestly it does very much relate in contemporary developed states because we live in very unique times where we as people (oppossed to third world countries) can consciously decide between consuming products which are result of animal exploitation and which aren't, but as we know Communism doesn't come from moralist standpoint as I pointed it out in first part of the post, but this fact isn't even about morality (or ethics) itself but it's about our reasoning in first place, we take certain analysis as something true and based on certain methodology we come to conclusion that class dominance (oppression) is something which can and even should be overcome in this whole history of struggle dynamic, but we can argue that slave fighting against laws which impose slavery on them is in their intrest, and we can go even further in Communist analysis that certain classes may share certain intrests in this whole history as for example early bourgeoisie fought against slavery because it was in their intrest, even tho they didn't share their status and conditions in state of things they found theirself.

Modern unconscious proletarians itself doesn't care about things like overthrowing or critiquing current state of things because they mostly lack any class consciousness, but proletarians who are class conscious (communists) Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I deeply lament the Revisionist Deviation of the MPCP, as I consider Shining Path an ACTUAL org which DOES DO stuff-besides starbucks college discussions-
that said; are there pro-pol pot remnants, as well as active orgs fighting for correct non-revisionist communism eg; roberto vaquero for hoxha, in spain?
IS Cuba still defensible as orthodox marxism-leninism and if not; are there MLs *within* the cuban party?

This book was written for a primarily white audience and throughout it, an idea that white Americans or white westerners tend to struggle in social settings in general stuck out to me. This wasn’t explicit, but a lot of the problems the author complained about did follow the patterns of what I’d expect of someone with generally poor social skills:
• getting defensive over racism or speculated of it instead of calmly apologizing or recognizing that youre harming others (this latter carries over to non racial conversations)
• actively denying the lived experiences of others of colour when presented with consistent verbal reports from them
• needing to be told by people of colour about their issues with American racism instead of being able to perceive them firsthand (I’m concerned that this carries over into not being able to tell when one is harming others in white westerner communities)
• excusing blatantly or obviously racist (obvious as in even the person watching can tell without failure that that behaviour is racist) behaviour from other white Americans instead of just calling out that behaviour as inappropriate and asking for its cessation (that makes me question if other inappropriate behaviours also aren’t questioned)

These are some of the points that came up. If you can, please leave some responses on your experiences as or around white American or white westerners so I can get a better understanding if these aspects of social maladjustment are just my observations or realized by others

In effort to defend their epstein lies and behaviors, euroamerikans, like israelis, often say they are not colonizers. Leninless Reddit revisionist cry that this scientific socialist understanding is "idpol." They are wrong. They defy scientific socialism. Lenin's Teachings swiftly refute their lies.
>[T]here is the tendency of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists to convert a handful of very rich and privileged nations into 'eternal' parasites on the body of the rest of mankind, to 'rest on the laurels' of the exploitation of Negroes, Indians, etc., keeping them in subjection with the aid of excellent weapons of extermination provided by modern militarism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm
Every single euroamerikan is a parasite because Lenin said so.
>300-400 million out of 1,600 are oppressors https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/ni-misc/notes-nations.htm
Here, Lenin use 1910 census and deduct all non-euroamerikans as method to calculate demographics of exploited and exploiter in imperialism. See picrel.

I have noticed that many of my comrades receive push-back, both from organic voices and from deliberate, planted ones typically directed at our language, our rhetoric, and the concepts we work with that extend beyond what is considered acceptable within mainstream society. We operate outside the bounds of liberal civility between class and political opponents. We step beyond moralism and speak in terms of power, power that stands in opposition to existing institutions, with the aim of toppling them, not entering them.

One example is my comrade's statement that reactionary movements are not equal to ours, and therefore do not deserve honest conversation or platforms; they deserve attack on all fronts, physical or otherwise. Some people take issue with this, which has always confused me. I cannot speak for the other JPAs, but I am now realizing in my experience this militant tendency is far from the norm within the broader left, and the moment they're done being threatened by someone they aren't willing to engage with, they drop the support. In fact, the militant edge of the movement has often been pushed to the edge by leftist counter‑insurgents. Over the years, militant praxis has frequently dictated the pace of broader left politics, shaping the topics, the framing, the urgency. Yet the largest base of the left remains reformist, and not only pacifists, but PASSIVE, which is a big difference. These modern leftists aren't pacifists, because they would call the workers who threw bolts into the gears of machinery violent; that is counter-insurgency. That reformist majority vigorously critiques, attacks, and slanders anything it perceives as ultra‑left, overly militant, or brash. They do not merely abandon militants in times of repression; that would be too abstract of a description of what happens. The reality is that they exist to enable that repression, through the very way they behave within movements and the language of their critiques. The counter‑insurgency role of the left fills many functions, and this is one. Another is the continuous capture and containment of revolutionary energy, funneling it back into the DNC or other bourgeoisie avenues.

This is the role most of you leftists who are counter insurgency'd up by your captured revisionist/reformist orgs end up serving, whether consciously or not you exist as a form of counter insurgency. The position is inherently controlled opposition, and counter-revolutionary. You move for socPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

What are you guys opinion on queer anarchism?
I think I am something like this.

Pic related is a place in my hometown (Curitiba - Brazil) that I would totally make as the headquarter of my movement.