/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

This history of socialism shows, with perfect clarity, that a fully planned economy is plainly inferior to a socialist market economy. This is not to say that fully planned economies are bad, they absolutely do have their strengths. But economies that are partially planned, directed rather than dictated, have all of the same strengths, while being infinitely more flexible. The socialism of then may have raised millions out of poverty, but it was the socialism of now century that raised them into luxury, luxury greater than anything the capitalist world has ever been able to provide.

Western "Marxists" are fucking obsessed with the idea of command economies. Half of them say that AES states are not actually socialist; this is wrong. The other half says that AES states have only temporarily adopted markets, and will return to the Golden Path as soon as possible; this is also wrong, and much more egregiously so, be because it requires ignorance of and/or cognitive dissonance towards the official statements and actions made by these nations.

Western "Marxist" arguments in favor of command economies are, likewise generally rooted in ignorance, not understanding that the lifestyles they have/aspire to would be unfeasible within a purely planned system. Those that are not rooted in ignorance are instead rooted in aceticism, in poverty worship, in an intellectual cancer that must be rooted out by whatever means necessary.

Sure, we may, at some point, obviate markets. But it would require a fundamental change in the means of production that, by my calculations, is far, far away from where we are now.

In any case, you would do yourself well to stop worshipping the corpses of Stalin and Mao and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

"Anti-Dogmatism" is not "Pro-Revisionism", "Anti-Revisionism" is not "Pro-dogmatism": Neither Dogmatism Nor Revisionism!

Marx and Engels did not present Marxism as a frozen doctrine; they treated it as a materialist method that develops with concrete historical conditions. So not every theoretical development or strategic adaptation is “revisionism.” At the same time, this does not mean every departure from revolutionary politics can be defended as “non-dogmatic flexibility.” In the Marxist–Leninist sense, revisionism refers to revisions that liquidate the revolutionary and class basis of Marxism under the banner of adaptation.

So both errors should be rejected:

>using “revisionist” as an empty factional insult against any disagreement or development;

AND

>using “anti-dogmatism” to justify abandoning class struggle, proletarian power, or communism itself.

Historical Examples


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

Half baked thought written on my phone, based on half-remembered anthropology, so bear with me.
Class society came about as a result of division of labour, right? There were separate groups of people who performed administrative function, like organising large scale agerculture, or who monopolised violence in form of warrior class. As history marches on the social organisation gets more complex, demanding more division of labour, not less. This seems to be driven mostly by technological growth, people with distinct expertise are needed to maintain technological society. It is not a process that I see ending with transition to planned economy (or any other model I can think of).
Now I dont think division of labour neccessarly must lead to class distinction, after all different kinds of concrete labour are performed by people occupying the same position in socio-economic pyramid, and if we imagine a society where incomes are equal, all should be of the same class.
The one problem I see is with those who perform decision making function. To allow ourself a biological analogy, the brain of social organism. By virtue of their position, they are not only allowed to secure priviledges for themselves, and as such constitute themselves as a class, but arguably the position is priviledge in itself as it bestows the greatest amount of autonomy on individual.
So the question I have, is it possible to create society with no decision-making strata? Or, if not, how can this strata be made "virtuous", so they conduct themselves as a selfless civil servants, rather than acting for their own personal benefit?

Marx observes many times in his work that a new stage of history can only emerge when the time is right, so to speak. So why is it a contention of communists (including Marx himself, as far as I can tell) that we need and should advocate for revolution NOW? Isn't it natural to conclude that the faults and ultimate failure of hitherto "communist" states came from an attempt to establish communism without the proper material basis?
I think it's honestly almost obvious that a post-capitalist stage is possible, that it is desirable, that the right time will be when the productive forces are so developed that they come into conflict with the social form, and that this will create a need for revolution.
But why exactly should we "fight" for communism before that time comes?

The West (tm) actually has all the pieces of dialectical materialism, but refuses to "assemble" them so to speak. They have broken up the pieces into empiricism, pragmatism (the American philosophy, not the colloquial sense of the word), and systems theory.

>Empiricism: has knowledge from experience (but often fragmented)
>Pragmatism: truth is what works
Systems theory: everything is interconnected

dialectical materialism combines all these insights into one coherent whole: reality is material and exists independent of our minds. things are interdependent, always changing, constantly in development, have to be studied in their context, and to understand reality we need to not just theorize, not just act, but put theory into practice, turn practice back into theory, closing the theory-practice loop, while remembering always that the particular is a case study of the general, that the general fails to describe the particular, and general both does and does not equate to the particular.

I get why people dislike it most of the time; it's used by conservative parents to basically indoctrinate their children and socially isolate them, but thinking that makes homeschooling inherently bad is just like thinking all education is bad because bad people use it sometimes. A form of it could be very useful, especially for us Marxists who are often maligned by those controlling the current educational establishment. It's not like the current public school system is entirely flawless, with it often spewing anti-communist, pro-regime change, right-individualism, and pro-capitalist propaganda. If I had a kid, I wouldn't fully exclude them from public school, but I would perhaps add some sort of extra curriculum at home where I'd teach them Marxist theory, unbiased history of past socialist experiments that doesn't automatically default to (Mao killing 100 billion innocent kulaks in the gulags), and other useful things that may be discouraged elsewhere. I'd kind of be like homework but with studying Marx, Lenin, and even Franz Fanon and perhaps other leftist tendencies like anarchism since it's good to know what your opponents on the left think; marxists.org would be very useful for this, actually. This is especially relevant as it seems like reactionary forces, particularly in the United States, are trying to hijack the school system, such as Project 2025 or PragerU Kids.

how is argentines claims to the falklands in anyway less imperialistic then Britains?
the only argument i hear is that falklands is closer to argentine (which is a pretty weak argument ) or that it was claimed by spain once (like spanish imperialism/colonialism is better then british).
considering how argies mostly descends from europeans, where arguably just as bad as USA when it came too genociding and oppressing natives they are also a colonialist state.
so why do leftist anti-imperialists defend their retarded landclaim?

Was the American revolution historically progressive? Before McCarthyism CPUSA used to venerate that shit a ton, I as an American think that it was better that it did happen than didn’t, the British would never have upheld any of the treaties, look at what Australia did while remaining loyal to the British, and if they stuck with the British Empire then the evil capabilities of the Empire would be worse. However I can’t say that it was Historically progressive because they failed to do a lot of the historically progressive shit like abolish slavery and stuff, because there were a ton of historically progressive pre-Marxist revolutions in the Americas like in Haiti or Gran Colombia, but America was not one of them.

There is no reason not to join the Democratic Party, they have no party line, no discipline, it's a purely big-tent party; you can say and do whatever you want, and you will never get kicked out. DSA has shown that it's the best strategy to become Democrats by achieving the most out of all left-wing and left-leaning organizations in the US, meanwhile everyone running as third parties have failed to elect even 1 candidate in any important position, or organize a serious protest.
>inb4 this belongs to usapol
This question has been misunderstood so often that it deserves its own thread(usapol)

I made this flag for people who aren't Stalin dick suckers but are still okay with millions of people dying/support China. Like me.


"body to short or empty" fuck you!