/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

You're not going to be able to turn 1 million into a bourgeois set up. Best you got right there is rent money.

>>2913500
>itt: idiots falling for the most obvious bait
Bait is par for the course with anonymous imageboards; you expect it. It's like bluffing in poker. Anywhere else and it would be considered cheating, or, at least, not in the spirit of the game. Whether anons believe the OP is another matter; more likely they're just playing along.
>>2911661
>Now I just need an elite to sponsor me to gain power.
The "tell".
Obviously, they wouldn't need sponsorship, if it was true. They could just cash in their properties and business.

>>2914427
trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls, a story as old as imageboards.
It was the best of Internet. It was the worst of Internet.

>When do i get the call to blackmail and use Kompromat material for intelligence agencies, /siberia/?
me if u pay me enugh ;)

>>2912249
you should use your money to fund leftists

>>2912904
What makes someone proletarian?

>>2912913
>What makes someone proletarian?
being the working class of the 19th century

why did you use obi wan for this threaed?

>>2913172
thats not obi wan thats engels

>>2913169
so few proletarians actually exist in west

He

>>2915060
>Why would i be the one cleaning the toilets? Would you want me in a maid outfit too?
No. It's Sasha's job to be in a maid outfit if she consents to it. You will be purposed to clean toilets. You will not ask anymore.

pipo on community service

>>2915918
The USSR would've conquered all of Europe to the Atlantic, would've collapsed in 1997 instead.

>>2917274
>merciless
germans living elsewhere were all deported back to Germany after the war and all the Nazis on the east sides got fucked,what could he have done more ?

>>2917274
Trot supported half those nazis after he left the USSR

>>2915935
Better than Jewish

>>2917190
>he predicted the evil stalinist "bureacuracy" (which he himself was part of) would turn into the new capitalists
And he was right

>>2896059
>s, meanwhile pacific islanders were doing it in outrigger canoes for thousands of years by attuning their brains to the movements of the waves beneath the boat by some means modern neurology still doesn't understand
wait what? I thought they just followed birds from island to island

>>2885576
>he Party isn't some self-appointed club of enlightened intellectuals

It literally is though.

This is why I support CLR James's Every Cook Can Govern, whereby governance is drawn by lot from the population (with certain technical roles reserved) https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1956/06/every-cook.htm

>>2917103
Swiss model is better than having randoms decide.

>>2895502
Bro thinks miasma wasn't believed by the common folk LMAO

>>2886180

forget anarchist, no communist should respect a monarchy, the juche idea isnt even a real idea, nobody can speak clearly or define it, juche seems to mean anything and everything, which is conveinenet for grifters ig but its no marxist in fact its anti marxist

>>2835193
>The funniest part is her grandma being white
I don't think it was that uncommon, i have comrades in my local radical milieu who are white who went and worked in revolutionary african states after their revolutions.

>>2835329
They had a beautiful friendship

>>2886183
Insanely based anon

>>2835200
Nice try fed

>>2917809
I won’t concede your “foreigners in general are more likely to rape” racist formulation, because the current evidence base does not support treating that as a universal, measured individual-level rate. The Migration Observatory’s August 2026 review explicitly says actual offending rates by group are unknown and that there is no published immigration-status breakdown for convicted offenders: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/

Hence why I mentioned the Texas study. It provides a useful reference precisely because, unlike the UK data you’re relying on, the Texas dataset actually distinguishes native-born citizens, legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants. The researchers therefore measured the subgroup you’re trying to reason about rather than assuming that its rate must conform to the aggregate foreign-born rate.

That directly undermines the inference you’re making here: being a member of a broader category does not tell us the rate of a particular subgroup within it. You still need subgroup-specific data to establish the subgroup’s rate.

You’ve largely refused to engage with that distinction and instead returned to the assumption that asylum seekers should be expected to conform to the foreign-national rate. But that’s exactly the assumption under dispute.

Also, your 35% calculation is not the problem. My previous correction should be left standing: your arithmetic is now approximately right if the numerator and denominator are treated as compatible. The mistake is what you try to infer from that demographic composition afterward. The Home Office itself reports 42% arriving by small boat and 62% adult male, while separately warning that demographic profiles vary by nationality and route: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk

And your statement that Pakistanis are the majority of asylum seekers is simply false: Pakistan was the largest single nationPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2917808
>>2917809
>>2917811
>racist formulation
After all this is an ad hominem which reveals the raison d'etre of your absurd defence. Instead of wasting all this time, you should have just began with this thought-terminating cliché. I am a "racist"; that is your one and only verdict. I thought you were more clever than this, but apparently not. This is where you begin and end; I am a "racist". What a waste of words.

>>2917985
Aww butturt about being called out are we?

>>2917985
>thought-terminating cliché
As if “rape” and “sexual assault” in victim-centric British society aren’t thought-terminating cliches in and of themselves. Like c’mon, Starmer’s cabinet passed the 2023 Online Safety Act and wanted to ban VPNs under the pretence of wanting to “safeguard” kiddies away from “child rape” and “child sexual assault” first and foremost, because it’s well-known that you can justify a surveillance state if it’s the context of preventing le raep.

And that’s why I’m pushing back: Because as much as British liberals want to pretend that their country is enlightened, thing is that the UK is still stuck in the same mentality that led to the Satanic and “child ritual abuse” moral panics, made worse by the anti-immigration brainrot which seems to have gotten into you.

Most anti-racists here aren’t even pro-open borders anyway making your strawman disingenuous. They’re instead, by and large, opposed to the reactionaries led by thugs such as Danny Tommo and Tommy 10 names and supported by the Tories explicitly and implicitly by the current Labour government. Y’know why? The British left has been housebroken by feminist dogma, central to which is an entire ideology built around the notion that rape is this spectacular event that even a police state isn’t enough to prevent it.

>>2917985
Instead of whining about being called mean names, why don’t you address your opponent’s claims.

What language is this

Vere nihil utilis dicere potest, quo modum verba ipsa legi non curat.

>>2909243
hey anglo, ich werde hier nie wieder mehr auf englisch schreiben.

DEAL WITH IT

Podbijam bo chciało mi się mówić po polsku na lewicopolityce kropka organizacja

>>2908691
Boh ci sta anche per essere

Anti-Human Rhetoric is a Tool of Capital and Must Be Rebuked; Empathy as a Revolutionary Weapon

Published in HOUDINI Magazine, 2025-02-25

Anti-human rhetoric is the poison gas of capital's last stand, manufactured, weaponized, and pumped into the lungs of the masses through every crack in this rotting empire. These phrases, "fuck around and find out," "leopards ate your face," are not just words. They are the ideological jackboot on the throat of solidarity, the death rattle of a system that must dehumanize to survive.

"You didn't," not you specifically, but the vague caricature of you that someone's created in their mind. That caricature deserves to die, so when people die, it's okay. It's fine. The normalization of death is something you must sit with; it's a deeply entrenched part of capitalist culture.

"You shouldn't have been yelling on the subway. You shouldn't have been at the wrong place at the wrong time. You fucked around and found out. It's fine he strangled you to death. Sucks to suck." When they laugh as families lose everything in natural disasters, when they shrug as families are bulldozed from their homes, they reveal the truth: capitalism cannot breathe without suffocating us first. This is "culture"; it is the deliberate erosion of our capacity to see each other as human beings, not competitors in their death-match marketplace.

We have to rebuke this anti-human rhetoric. We, as communists, have to rebuke this anti-human capitalist rhetoric. How we can do this is by rejecting the postmodern, ironic detachment from existence that's been cultivated. Meaning what you say. Be sincere. Be empathetic, more empathetic than anyone else around you. Spread empathy. There's no limit to how much sincerity you can put out into the world.

I went to a business seminar when I was 20. Just sat in to see what it was about. The guy was talking about empathy like it's a weakness. "You can't get too attached. You've got to grind. Isolate yourself. Work on yourself. The only person that matters is you." That's the "fuck you, I got mine" culture we're trying to destroy. They teach isolation. They sell apathy as "self-care". But we say: Empathy is our artillery. It is how we challenge the alienation of capitalism. It is our greatest strength.

You want to know why they preach empathy as weakness in their business seminars? Because they know, they fucking know, that if we truly felt each other's pain, iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2910962

the thing of it is, everyone does have empathy, it's a universal human instinct and it's not really a burden, if anything the burden is ignoring one's own empathy which is something that requires continuous and tremendous, albeit often-unconscious effort. there's a reason why greedy rich people and cruel abusive people and pathological liars and other immoral people tend to become extremely defensive and angry or have a narcissistic meltdown if ever they are confronted or exposed for their behavior, why they tend to live lives of tremendous excess and extravagant spending, why they tend to only ever be concerned about extremely small petty things, why they tend to engage in high-risk/impulsive behaviors like gambling or substance abuse or compulsive sex, why they tend to often seem like they are playing a character all the time and not really being themselves and don't seem to think that their life is real and that it's just a movie where they are the main character or a video game where they are the player and everyone else is an npc - they do all of these things because they have an extremely guilty conscience, they are constantly doing everything they can to escape from reality and not think about who they are and what they've done, they are constantly running away from deep feelings of guilt and shame, which means they do have empathy. a person without empathy wouldn't need to go to such lengths to escape from reality. jeffrey dahmer had empathy, that's why he was a raging alcoholic and was wasted 24/7. elon musk has empathy that's why he wants to become a trillionaire and why he ran and hid from his own children and why he rants and raves about empathy being a weakness and a disease like he's trying to convince the world and himself that he doesn't have empathy. the real problem is, there is a limit to how much guilt a person can psychologically endure, we all hold ourselves to account for our crimes whether we realize it or not, and the accounting is scrupulous and sometimes even overzealous. the more a person dissociates from reality, the more numerous and egregious their crimes tend to get, the worse their crimes get and the more guilt they carry the more they dissociate, and eventually the rap sheet gets so bad that they will quite literally break from themselves and become permanently insane from the enormity of their crimes and nPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Did Maupin get zucked?

>>2916166
>Did Maupin get zucked?
What was the vidrel about?

>>2916699
Not reading books.

He made a few interesting points

• People are oversocialized into socializing their negativity into good, so they invent ways of reframing shitty behavior as good. The left does this more than the right.
  
• The more technology a society adopts, the more things people can do. Consequently, there's a greater the need for regulation.
  
• Technology and science are ambivalent and people can be terrible. More technology means we will witness more evil.
  
• There was more freedom in a medieval dictatorship than a modern democracy because they didn't have surveillance technology.

>>2916232
>The more technology a society adopts, the more things people can do. Consequently, there's a greater the need for regulation.
Samefag. This here means that people in industrial societies will be regulated to keep their behavior predictable, rules, dependence, conditioning and so on.

Some quotes from his manifesto
>The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.

>The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

>Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness.

>>2916058
>this is the era of Earth First zines, Earth Liberation Front fires, and all that stuff, it needs to be considered in this context and who the audience was.
That's an interesting point.

i feel like every writing rightoids tout as their best are retarded, its either this shit, siege or maybe the turner diaries if you're dealing with an older faggot

>>2916232
> People are oversocialized into socializing their negativity into good, so they invent ways of reframing shitty behavior as good. The left does this more than the right.
If you spend more than 10 seconds to actually conceptualize this in your head youd realize how meqn8ngless it actually is "oversocialized into socializing behaviors as good" no shit. Good is a positive word and want to be seen as good because we are social animals and being perceived as good will get people to like you. Its not a social phenomenon. Its a defence mechanism for justifying your actions to others even when you know you are doing them for a selfish and harmful reason. Its not as deep as Ted thinks it is.
> The more technology a society adopts, the more things people can do. Consequently, there's a greater the need for regulation.
This would imply that people remain equally as free as in ye olden days because the system regulates itself accordingly which goes against teds whole thesis. In how different of a position is a person who cant do shit but is free to do it from a person who can do anything but is not allowed to do it. Also this adresses regulation on a larger societal scale not personal inalienable freedoms and autonomy which is whats more important to Ted.
> Technology and science are ambivalent and people can be terrible. More technology means we will witness more evil.
The average elementary school kid reaches this conclusion on their own.
> There was more freedom in a medieval dictatorship than a modern democracy because they didn't have surveillance technology.
This is the only one I actually like as it actually has substance and potential. But this deals with the enforceability of laws more so than whats actually permitted. I live in a third world shithole that is in liberal terms officially orders of magnitude less free than the United states or France but I can get away with shit that i wouldnt dare think about in one of those countries. While i agree with Ted on this one completely and without reserve (i spent quite a bit of time thinking about this topic in particular, how governable are extremely remote places like rainforests, Arctic Canada, Tibetan mountains and extremely rural expanses of subsaharanPost too long. Click here to view the full text.