/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>539314
They also have to deal with the mess their ancestors left them due to boomer and Gen X capitalists having a "After me comes the flood" attitude. For example Exxon knew back in the 1980s what they were doing would kill capitalism in the long run as it would kill human civilization as a whole but they decided that is a problem for the sucker capitalists that takes the reigns after their dead and buried with all their money.

>>539321
The boomers who are still alive will live to their 90s and 100s
You will never live beyond 110, technology does not make you magically grow older.
All this means is gen x will never have their time in the spotlight, and zoomers will be sick of old people running the show eventually.
You millenials are truly fucked, and no amount of pol science delusions can stop that

>>539326
>pol
pop

>>539326
>zoomers will be sick of old people running the show eventually.
i think zoomers and enough leftist millennials are enough politically aligned so there's not a huge generation gap on political opinion like there is between people above or below 45.

However zoomers are still more leftist overall

Zoomers are just boys and girls. Give them time to come on their own rather than repeat the same mistakes of other generations and weigh prejudgement on them callously.

I say this as a millennial who sympathizes with zoomers despite teasing them all the time. I've also probably fucked more zoomers than I have millennials, so I feel somewhat qualified to comment on their psychology. (I'm a young millennial but am not into older partners, so I tend to date zoomers, if you are pedantic about it. The oldest zoomer is like two years younger than me.)

It's a symptom of the sickness of this culture that nobody bothers to help zoomers to understand their situation but instead mocks them for being incompetent, too dependent on tech, sheltered etc. Younger generations are discarded as worthless trash. This is a boomer disease and we should not recreate it.

Generational thinking, in short, is stupid and laden mostly with preconceptions and biases rather than actual truths. Instead analyze the material conditions and technological realities. Strip that away and every generation regardless of sequence is just a farmer in the mud trying to wrest a few pathetic stunted stubs of vegetables from the indifferent cruel earth.

>>527701
The Fed’s strategy is to divide and weaken the CPUSA. If anything glows here it’s the misinformation spread by OP, and splitter parties that left the organization.

How do you actually stop glowie infiltration into leftist spaces though?

>>539060
the cointelpro sabotage strategy is literally just being a dumb piece of shit, so just throw out anyone who’s incompetent, glowie or not. if things are running smoothly in accordance with the party line, then there’s simply no need.

>>528532
You're not going to convince a conspiracy theorist with conspirational thinking lol.

>>539180
neat

>>539064
Yes! That's why i loved Apocalypto. Shows Natives as they truly were

>>539021
So you make a fair point but explain your goddamn gore video? The fuck is the point of that shit? How is it relevant?

>>539064
You make a fair point but the fuck is this about "muh christuin morals", like uygha red the bible and in fact read a history book on ANY pre-medieval society. The conceptions of them being victims isn't about them not fighting back but about them being pushed off of their land often wantonly, and that even those "injuns" that did not engage in excessive violence got axed indiscriminately by colonialist governments and that's just as unethical, if not more so given that Native Americans were societally less developed compared to the "civilized" Anglos

>>538997
this explicitly rejects central marxist tenets; I don't see the coherency of this belief system

>>539002
which ones are those

>>539011
as far as I understand, Engels conceptualized communists not as the ones which inform the proletarian, but those who were simply "in the know", who were willing to aid the inevitable revolution. the ideological or propagandist, precipitative, role never belonged in a marxist system. this seems like a recent development, only emerging with the late modernist theorists and their sociological critiques (althusser, etc.) original marxist doctrine specifies explicitly that –
>Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

>>539019
why are you out here calling communism incoherent when you know all this stuff instead of just calling me a retard?
anyway to answer the original question, information and agitation has historically played an important role in successful revolutions despite what engels says. for all their great ideas, it’s fair to critique marx and engels for never seeing a successful communist movement despite all their efforts.
when you say it’s a modern phenomenon, do you include lenin in that?

>>537368
>All there is left is radlibs and all the pro-CPC gang shit is dead. I concede to the porky, they have beaten me and converted me.
I think you need some encouragement, comrade. If leftists want to make me believe in communism, they need to really believe in it themselves, and that's what I'm here to do, like Goku going Super Saiyan. We all feel blackpilled from time to time but I believe in revolutionary proletarian power. There's just one problem: We're just not it.

>wanting to be stop human civilization from destroying itself is the same thing as a liberal obsession of man sinning against nature
im tired of sharing the board with faggot idealists which make every problem ideological when it's just about practical necessity if basic things such as self-preservation are assumed preferable

>>538030
>implying most people on r/collapse don't also think we should have socialism as well

>>538006
better to not have kids than have billions of people die off from crop failures and storms. you don't even care about actual solutions, you uyghurs just want to breed. that's why you keep making threads about muh birth strikes

>>538059
>You can hide behind moral nihilism, you can be a socialist, but you cannot be both
you're grasping here, painting what you don't like as "moral nihilism" isn't going to work

>Being a socialist demands that we make distinctions between what is desirable and what isn't
ok. a massive human population is not desirable

>>538884
is zizek even gommunist

>>507066
>Why are the specific sect of ecologists in places like /r/collapse, Twitter, liberal Youtube, etc. so dead-set on promoting the implicitly eco-fascist notion that overpopulation is the greatest driver of climate change? /r/collapse is particularly disturbing to me since it’s usually nominally anticapitalist, but I guess since it’s still full of upper middle class coastal burgers they’re still deeply obsessed with mass murdering brown people as a “solution”

Ruling classes want to preserve their own status more than anything else. They prefer to keep the current base of economy including the way energy is produced basically the same because they fear that any major changes would lead to changes in the class composition of society. So their solution is to just cut off everybody but them from the energy supply. They think the system as is will be enough for them. The remaining non ruling class people who support this are people who think they will be on the inner circle and not be cut off.

From an ecological view it's of course nonsense, if society moves to a better energy supply system that is not polluting like nuclear and renewables, that will do more to improve the environment than austerity. In a more ambitious advance to fusion power or stuff like moon based remote solar it's possible for the industrial system to reverse it's role as a drain on the ecology and turn into an ecological support system and have a net benefit on nature.

The capitalist system is really hard on people and causes a lot of suffering, and the Malthusian type argumentation is just an attempt to make up reasons why people should suffer. There is no resource shortage, if you account for technological possibilities.

A demographically shrinking society will increase the class power of workers, so there is a silver lining.
Once we make it to a socialist mode of production, population is likely going to start growing, because historically when societies got to a higher stage where they deployed a better mode of production, that's what usually happened. There are some intermediate ecological constrains that will have to be added to a socialist economic planning system, but we should see this like reaching a higher technological level necessary to allow for more economic growth.

>>507066
>It's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism

I've seen Zizek say that a million times, not sure if he's quoting someone else. A certain subset of online westerners are used to buying cheap Chinese gadgets, driving/flying on a whim, replacing media consumption devices every few years and the myriad other ecologically devastating things we do to make misery comfortable. If anything, declining birth rates across advanced countries makes population limitations easier to accept than moving idiots out of deserts and getting rid of air conditioning.

>>535556
Then maybe you can explain?

>>535773
As I said above, his work must be placed with the class society and contradictions of the late 19th century. His work was a direct challenge to the rising proletarian movement, just as Hitler's Mein Kampf was emblematic of the response of the bourgeoisie to the October Revolution. In his work he actually does tacitly admit that class struggle is the motor of history, but his response is simply to argue for suppression of it. He was also a strong advocate for colonialism and despise his protests about religion, he encouraged using it to keep workers drunk and ignorant. That is why, despite all the howlings of pathetic anarchists, ultralefts and anti-Soviet "leftists" who try to reinterpret him, the nazis were indeed the true inheritors of his ideas. Fascist German troops marched into the Soviet Union carrying copies of his works edited by Baeumler.

>>536165
Fascist Italy saw the complete dominance of monopoly capitalism, banking cartels and industrial conglomerates were integrated into the state, corporations set up to suppress class struggle, in the 1920s privatisation was carried out and during the Great Depression it had millions unemployed, while in the Soviet Union, unemployment was abolished thanks to the Five Year Plan.

There is a complete difference between fascist Italy and the Soviet Union. In Italy the bourgeoisie reestablished their power by suppressing the revolutionary proletarian movement in the early 1920s, whereas in the USSR they were completely dispossessed and all private property and land ownership abolished, and economic planning where workers managed themselves and exercised the proletarian dictatorship (which naturally Mussolini attacked) and replaced the old inherited bureaucrats and managers, replaced the market system, which still reigned in Italy. Fascist Italy joined the reactionary rebellion against the Spanish Republic in 1936 with even more aplomb than fascist Germany, and also invaded the USSR alongside the axis for a "crusade".

Italian fascism must seen as an attempt by the Italian bourgeoisie to catch up and replicate what France, Britain, Germany and America achieved by 1914. The integration of financial cartels, massive centralisation of capital, colonial expansion (Libya, East Africa), and of course wars to redivide the world (Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania).

>>536569
Let's go by parts.
>Fascist Italy saw the complete dominance of monopoly capitalism
It would be more accurate to say that Fascist Italy saw a complete monopoly of the State over capital:
"In the course of its developmental and autarchic program, in 1937, the Fascist government declared the IRI a perma­nent parastate agency. By that time the lstituto controlled over forty-four percent of all Italian capital stock, and al­most eighteen percent of the total capital of the nation. For all intents and purposes, the credit system of the nation was under the control of state and parastate agencies. By the end of the 'thirties, approximately eighty percent of the credit available in the Italian economy was controlled directly or indirectly by the state.68 The Fascist government had devel­oped more elaborate controls over the economic enterprise of the nation than any other state of the period save the Soviet Union" (A. James Gregor).

>Banking cartels were integrated into the state
"In the face of the international situation the Fascist gov­ernment increased its legislative controls over the financial institutions of the peninsula. The centralization of banking
to which Borkenau later alluded was begun during 1926. By the fall of 1926 a government Istituto di Emissione be­came the central agency for the issuance of national cur­rency"-
(A. James Gregor).
It would have had no sense that Mussolini allowed banking cartels to thrive, yet took away from them the right to issue national currency. It does not make sense, either, that the lstituto per la ricostruzione industriale, being an state agency, became the principal credit institution; nor that through this same institution was the Fascist government able to de facto nationalize all banking industry.
Before the advent of Fascism, the principal banking association was the Associazione Bancaria Italiana. Instead of letting this association be independent and determine the development of the banking industry, the Fascist régime established the General Fascist Banking Confederation, which gave the industry new responsibilities under the syndical state: "The Syndical Section became officially responsible for a programme that was almost entirely new as compared with that carried out by the previous Banking AssociaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>537397
>It would be more accurate to say that Fascist Italy saw a complete monopoly of the State over capital:
>For all intents and purposes, the credit system of the nation was under the control of state
This sort of thinking was exposed a long time ago by Dimitrov. A state is only ever an instrument for the rule of one class over another, it doesn't exist above classes, it's the elimination of any sort of bourgeois democratic methods by open terrorism. The economic system of fascist Italy differed little from the New Deal in America. Both were modifications of capitalism with state intervention intended to stave off revolution by the working class, using public funds to bail out private banks. But where does the money for this come from? Through exploitation of the proletariat.

>It would have had no sense that Mussolini allowed banking cartels to thrive, yet took away from them the right to issue national currency
Same thing happened in Britain from 1946-1997. Central banks which operate in all capitalist states issue currency. The fact that fascist Italy centralised banking is another reflection of its tendency towards monopoly. Gregor, like all liberal analysts of fascism, mistakes the inevitable tendency of capitalism towards monopoly/centralisation for something new, when it's a inherent part of the growth of the means of production beyond the control of the old elites, who are disconnected. The Italian partisans were largely communists, certainly the best and first fighters were communists, but a large section of the bourgeoisie abandoned Mussolini in 1943 because of the complete failure of his campaign in north Africa and impending invasion by the Americans and British. much like German in November 1918, the bourgeosie was split and a section preferred peace, realising they would lose much more.

>The first of these is the enrolment of the various producing categories with due regard to their qualifications as employers, employed
This is another thing which delineates fascism from socialism, that bourgeois employers are permitted their own associations, much like any current capitalist state where employers associations are rife.
>for the purpose of bringing about the dePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>537636
Reagan then proceeded to bring back that military spending in the 1980s to build his expensive high-tech army to trying and confront Gorbachev's Soviet Union and ended up with a MIC with no wars to fight and proceeded to create conflict where there was none to justify its existence.

>>537780
>Stalin purged all the men of talent in the Soviet Union

Examples of those men, please.

What’s up with airline food? Like yikes so disgusting am I right?

>>537703
Grover Furr has written about this.
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html

>>536805
>Why did the US go so crazy in it?
You might as well ask why fascist Germany went so "crazy" in the USSR, but like Vietnam the anti-communism of the bourgeoisie drove both murderous wars of imperialism.

>>538288
Anyone who declared war on Belarus would immediately be at war with Russia, if a NATO country did it that would be World War III.

>>538387
this conflict has bee going on since at least last year, when NATO gave Poland some antiaircraft and missile defense systems, and iirc Russia gave Belarus higher flying bombers to compensate.
It's just going to be a proxy war, just like every other proxy war. Only this time its in eastern europe.

>>538391
Belarus is not at war with Poland at all.
It might stay a proxy war, once it does break out, if the conflict doesn't get too serious, but a NATO invasion or anything else that actually threatens the existence of Belarus would never be tolerated.

>>538288
It would look like thousands of Russian tanks being blown up by NATO air superiority. Belarus is backed by nuclear weapons in the end.

They're trying to topple Belarus for not going along with lockdowns. Lukashenko refused IMF bribes.

>>538554
yeah it was invented by a schizo who poltards hounded and bullied relentlessly.

Everyone under the age of 25 should be banned from using the internet.

Alright so I trolled this thread, it is I the technocrat anon from another thread. Just look at this thread and look at yourselves, do you really think the proletariat is worth anything? Just look at how cringe you fags are.

>>538570
>lel i tricked u
if you really want to be subordinate to some neo-feudal lord, then go ahead and pick your lord whom you will serve as a retainer under. until then, shut the fuck up.

>>538543
So what if they praise Marx? Ask yourself why it’s more politically “correct” to talk well about Marx and not about Hitler. The most subversive things Marx said was a critique of modern society and took the side of the working class in their efforts to form unions, associations, clubs, parties. In hindsight a lot of the things the working class asked for was for “good” things such as shorter working day, higher wages, political rights, the universal suffrage. These are things most people would look at with reverence because it was eventually successful. Marx also stood on the side of the northern union against the confederacy, another thing that could easily be praised in hindsight. The “right side” of history is always written by the victor. And the victor is still only victorious to the extent that it’s comparable to the past so let me give you an example: slavery is critiqued and called inhumane, civil rights movement lead to political rights being given to former slaves, eventually this idea sticks and everyone sees every human as a sovereign. The ideas of political liberalism are a lot more stronger than economic liberalism. In hindsight political liberalism crushed almost all other forms of political systems of representation and rights. This is a consequence of liberalism’s centuries long struggle against feudalistic and absolutist monarchical structures. Liberalism literally arose out of the absolute sovereign and feudal sovereigns.

The fascists cannot reverse liberalism without taking away individual sovereignty, literally reversing centuries of progress in favor of absolutist monarchy or feudalistic structures which is retarded considering all our economic progress and the fact that feudalism based its support only in feudalistic landed gentry.

1. The industrial revolution rendered any and all feudalistic landed property invalid
2. Because of this, consequently the absolute sovereign can no longer levy any power without a parliament, which would still render any absolute monarch invalid
3. Turning industrial production into a feudalistic style of production would to famine, pauperism and revolution

This is why fascists are essentially liberal reactionaries. They will want the gains of liberalism while turning back the clock into a political structure only fitted to landed feudal property. The irony of fascists is that they literally cannot exist without war; any Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>538164
based
>>538196
cringe, imagine the bolshevik revolution where people complain that Lenin looked to much like a Tatar

>>538196
>do you plan on going to a BLM demonstration and telling them they should put aside their immediate, valid concerns and read about dialectical materialism?
No. And this also addresses your "led by POC". Communist cadres should be above simple apparent contradictions. They should analyze and understand how appearances around them emerge. Masses can't be cadres. Masses can't understand nuanced takes. This contradiction is apparent when unions lobby for war to keep their weapons manufacturing jobs.
>The hearts of people of colour are already invested in revolution.
Absolutely wrong. You must acknowledge that the working class is predominantly submerged in liberal ideology. A good example of this is the more radical elements of the working class, the so called American "democratic socialists". They are completely engaged in capitalist realism and their goals are entirely modest (eg eventually push Biden and Pelosi to consider maybe talking about Healthcare for all). These people are not for "the revolution". They are anti-capitalist in aesthetic only. Otherwise, still operating under liberal terms. Same with George Floyd protestors. Except they are not even coherently anti-capitalist. They are simply rebelling a little against the government. This is normal for citizens to do in liberal countries. The US is an exception because they are submissive hyper-individualists, culturally bootlickers, and are a militarized surveillance police state.
>Europeans know their world is changing and are more inclined to being reactionary. This is why they express fear rather than delight when BLM topple their monuments
>their
You have american brainworms and are thinking in liberal terms. These monuments are not "theirs" and the reason they dislike when BLM topples monuments is because of the reverence of tradition, history, and symbols. They are fighting a liberal war at the level of ideas. The statues are merely symbols in this battle. Nobody gave a shit about them but they are politicized to virtue signal in favor of black people or in favor of tradition, history and other stupid shit rightoids care about.

As a Marxist, you should see through this.

>>538151
This is complete nonsense. Class differences cannot be reconciled under capitalism, but trans issues certainly can. Why would you put people that can lose their revolutionary potential with a couple inconsequential reforms at the forefront? Transgenderism isn't a rebellion against the ruling class, its a rebellion against your peers. I would go as far to say that transgenderism comes from the top-down, from gender studies conducted in bourgeois academia. It fits perfectly into the western neoliberal hegemony as i outlined in >>536709 . Revolutions comes from the masses not misfits. Besides I don't think that men on estradiol make good soldiers kek.

OP here. Boy has this thread been derailed, eh. To reiterate: we're holding a Capital Volume II reading group. Plan is to meet on the 17th to discuss Chapter 1. Join our Matrix chat for the meeting.

Moved to >>>/edu/7980.