/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Hello, ask a Kashmiri leftist who lives in Kashmir anything from culture to politics and history of socialism in kashmir

Kill revisionists. Behead revisionists. Roundhouse kick a revisionist into the concrete. Criticize Revisionists. Crucify filthy revisionists. Defecate in a revisionists food. Launch revisionists into the sun. Stir fry revisionists in a wok. Toss revisionists into active volcanoes. Urinate into a revisionists gas tank. Judo throw revisionists into a wood chipper. Twist revisionists heads off. Report revisionists to the state security. Karate chop revisionists in half. Curb stomp the class basis for revisionism. Send revisionists to Gulags. Crush revisionists in the trash compactor. Liquefy revisionists in a vat of acid. Eat revisionists. Dissect revisionists. Bomb Revisionist Headquarters. Stomp revisionists skulls with steel toed boots. Cremate revisionists in the oven. Mandatory reeducation for revisionists. Send revisionists to labor camps. Drown revisionists in fried chicken grease. Vaporize revisionists with a ray gun. Purge old revisionists. Feed revisionists to alligators. Slice revisionists with a katana.

Why are south americans so friendly to reactionary or ancap ideas? And what's with the growth of USA-philia?

We've been exploited nonstop by the USA yet people seem eager to choke on American cock and run in the rat race in here, and the anti-left sentiment is not only growing but getting increasingly more aggressive and borderline rabid.
Feels like latam has been successfully lumpenified (I just made that word up).

The most recent round of shitflinging about porn got me thinking about the Miller Test, and how it confuses the fuck out of me.

For those who don’t know, the Miller Test is a test used by the US’s Supreme court to determine if something is “obscene” and thus doesn’t fall under first amendment protections. In order for something to count as obscene, the answer to all three of the following questions must be “yes”:
>Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
>Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
>Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Tests one and three seem very arbitrary to me. How do you determine what “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” thinks, or whether a “work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”?

Beyond that, the very idea of “obscenity” as a legal concept seems like it runs counter to the first amendment, which is pretty clear that freedom speech and freedom of press aren’t things that can be limited. Is it because they’ve declared that it doesn’t count? Because if it is, then that kind of defeats the whole point of having free speech to begin with, doesn’t it?

Please, for the love of god, someone explain this shit to me.

Revolution is just adventurism with planning. The manifestation of a class-wide union of egoists. The only difference between the "bad" adventurism that people like Lenin denounced and the "good" adventurism (revolution) is that when you do risky shit that gets you killed in the good adventurism, you do it with lots of people, and spend years and years "planning" in advance. And how does that "planning" manifest? Turns out very little of it is actually planning the way you plan to build a building by drafting blueprints. 99% of the "planning" is people hyping each other up for revolution, convincing each other it's a good idea, and convincing each other to stand together and not back out when the time comes. The same way a bunch of college frat boys "plan" to ride an empty shopping cart down a steep paved road when drunk. This "planning" is really hyping. Admit it.

>Educate:
Just means educate people that the thing being hyped is good
>Agitate:
Just means get them agitated so they would rather do it than not do it
>Organize:
Just means get them to do it all at once rather than alone.

"Planning" for a revolution is a lot like planning for a WoW raid except instead of 25 people fighting hundreds of monsters, it's thousands upon thousands of people fighting a handful of bourgeoisie and their well armed lackeys. Which brings me to my next point. Revolution should theoretically be easy. The "three percenter" reactionaries in the United States are always going on about how it only takes 3 percent of a country to overthrow the government. It probably takes even less! Washington would cave if 1,000,000 armed and half-trained civilians sacked it. And that's not even 1% of the USA.

This is why adventurism is based. If everyone capable went out and got a k/d ratio of 2 on the porkies, it would be over in a day.

>ooooh fed thread! fed thread! fed thread redemption!

The real feds are the ones demoralizing you from doing anything. The real feds are the ones telling you that this truth is "fedposting." I'm not telling you to actually do anything without planning, I'm just pointing out this "planning" should not take decades like people say it does. In fact 99% of it is people hyping each other to be brave. People lack the bravery to just fucking do it. YOLO tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Not trying to be an enlightened centrist here, but it has always seemed odd to me how people on the right and left fetishize the concept of a militia taking down a conventional army, when reality has shown the opposite result every time, I come from a shitty third world nation that is barely held together most of the time, and my country has experienced numerous rebellions by Islamists, ethnic nationalists, and communists, and every time they have failed. This is because a "well-armed and well-funded militia" is no match for a well-armed, better-trained army with superior logistics and structure. Of course, in the event of a total collapse, a militia could potentially become the only proper authority for a region or if faced with an entirely incompetent and corrupt army. However, in most cases, a real army always prevails over militias. I don't know how people fell for this meme really, Eve Marx bought into this up and advocated for workers' militias, which ultimately proved to be a massive waste of time and loss of life for everyone involved, the Spanish Republicans insisted on using them in the Spanish civil war and they were a massive hinderance that lost way too many battles, and thoughts of forming an actual army was "Stalinism" and a betrayal of the revolution.

"we used to have culture" edition

come in, make friends, talk about everything Brazil related - politics, news, the arts… and shitpost, of course.

Previous thread: >>1683261

I'm making this thread because I think my experience might be really similar to other people on this board.

I live in a large town in Europe, of about 100k people. I'm quite far from the capital or any actual city, and even if I lived there the only groups in my country are radlibs and socialdemocrats that are completely hypnotised by electoralism.

How does one be a good communist, where there is no party in existence, in your area or the country you are in? Is there any way to volunteer your time to any organisations like ICOR or ILPS in any significant way?

Even in larger countries, like France or Britain, the existing parties seem a bit pathetic, and not at all widespread. How you stop the waves of feelings of helplessness and apathy that comes from feeling like you don't have any realistic option to contribute to the movement?

The fundamental leftist critique of religion is that religion lulls the masses into complacency with promises of a better life in Heaven and an assurance that the Earthly order is ordained by Providence and, on the flip side, recognition of the falsehood of religious belief will cause the masses to undergo a radical re-evaluation of the world, the way it is organized, and their relationship with their fellow man. But here in 2024, and in the Western world, is this still relevant?

Let's look at the first claim. Is the largest or even significant ideology keeping the masses in line the promise of a better life in Heaven? Do the actively religious actually believe that the world order as it is established now is the product of divine providence? I would say that obviously this is not the case and hasn't been for a while. What subdues the masses can vary from country to country, but at least in America (and increasingly around the world) it is not the promise of Heaven that motivates the masses to stay in line, but the promise of earthly reward. The "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" attitude has long been an aspect of the American ideology, but I would argue that it has moreso and moreso taken on the religious aspect of maintaining social compliance. First you had Horatio Alger stories which generally portrayed a "rags-to-riches" narrative based on young men engaged in some kind form of good works to rise above the poverty while benefiting their community, which then turned to Ayn Rand's stories which rejected outright any greater social responsibility of the industrialist tycoon, instead portraying them as pseudo-divine "Great Man" figures for which all the industry and wealth of the world was merely an extension of their great personalities and any attempt to direct or interrupt their great works was to invite disaster upon the world, for the world needs the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur does not need the world. This is further developed by the "self-help" movement that began to take off in the 70s, where often men of wealth would give advice on how to get rich to the masses, but this "advice" was almost never about making shrewd business decisions or actual ways of acquiring capital and business deals, but a litany of all the supposed morals and examples of virtuous living the wealthy supposedly possessed. And then, finally, to top it off we have "The Secret," a bestselling novel which posited that it is not simply being a great personality aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.