[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

| Catalog | Home

File: 1668196188838.png (281.13 KB, 963x893, career.png)

 No.1263434[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Talk about job/career advice and other related stuff from a leftist perspective. EX: How to get a job, promotion, skill, switch companies, resume, life hacks, etc.
540 posts and 86 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>How do I mentally cope with this disgusting creature?
By realizing that you're such a loser that they make you share an office with that guy


>get two friends to go into the same job field as me so they can make good money with only a short education
>they're both enjoying it and ask me for help with stuff
Is this what it's like to be a dad


Do you change their nappies?


only the one time but we both agreed to never speak of that dark time


I guess hiring is opening up again because after months of automated rejections I got 5! requests for initial phone calls with the hiring manager in the same week.

File: 1685126851154.png (Spoiler Image, 216.3 KB, 640x389, ClipboardImage.png)


It's a tendency among some people on the left to explain chinlet behaviour with some really vomit-inducing reasoning. At best, they claim that they've have been tricked into the alt-right pipeline and, at worst, they even shed tears for them saying they're the victims of a cruel system. I, on the other hand, would like to argue that the psychosis of chinlets isn't a result of being "radicalized" by some evil entity, but a very predictable reaction seen among petite-bourgeois/lumpen deadbeats around the world that just so happens to serve their best interests.

At the very core of their ideology, there lie two demands that stand out the most. Namely, multi-generational households and strict in-group endogamy (racial, caste based, religious etc.). Both of these things ensure the accumulation of wealth for a parasitic, reactionary class. The best example of this that I have seen is here in India. Our very strict social norms pertaining to marriage, family and the role of women in society have created a class of freeloaders. Men who don't work because they live with their parents and accrue rent on the lands they inherit from them, while they treat their wives (who wouldn't have married them if it weren't for strict endogamy and arranged marriages) like brooding mares, slaves and dowry bags. It's a pathetic existence, but they're shameless and they don't care. It gets worse if they somehow get a job, because then the dowry goes up by a lot, especially if it is a government job because then they can leech off even more through bribes. Any woman who gets fed up by this and elopes is hunted down by her family and honor-killed. chinlets understand the power dynamics at play here; they're smelly nerds who have lived cushy lives and have turned reactionary the moment they've faced the slightest adversity. They know their class interests and I'm tired of cringeworthy libshits trying to argue that they don't.

TL;DR, chinlets behave the way they do because of their material class interests, not because they've been "radicalized". They demand strict endogamy and family relations because that allows them to inherit wealth and accumulate rent while being a NEET.
32 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


How do you get the cars at the back of the driveway out?


in that case they would kill the black guy (either unofficially aka lynching or executed after trial by all white jury) and coach the girl into saying she was raped i.e. the 'to kill a mockingbird' scenario



I always liked this take on the lumpenprole, however it doesn't really acknowledge to new microclass of the parents money/neetbucks basement dwelling consumer that makes a huge amount of the posting base. Its absurd how these people could accumulate a decent amount of social capital just by having privileged enough lives to post all fucking day. I would somewhat disagree with the characterization of organized crime as purely lumpenprole, big criminal groups start acting just like normal capitalists once they actually get capital. There are literally blood sets in my area that buy real estate now. It's more like this insane completely unregulated segment of capitalist economy with unsanctioned capitalists leading bands of lumpenprole who may or may not get enough capital to also become a boug. imho its prolly the closest we'll ever get to actually existing neofuedalism in some ways


*shit more like mercantilism than feudalism now that I think abt it


>they've been unable to emphasize to this demographic, how their chinlet class interests aren't worth it
Can they really be blamed for it? These are the kinds of low-life scum who got radicalized into supporting rape and genocide because of online culture war retardation. I don't think they canq be salvaged tbh.

File: 1685274282788.png (729.47 KB, 561x700, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1480675[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

The older I get, the more I realize how based Khrushchev was.
>Oversaw the peak of Soviet prosperity
>Oversaw the growth of the socialist camp to its greatest extent
>Put down counter-revolutionaries
>Brought humanity into space
>Made Kennedy shit himself
What's not to love? Has there ever been a Soviet premier as successful?
229 posts and 50 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Should the Russians have been genocided because of Vlasov?


ROA fags were killed yeah


So when are you gonna make the Yeltsin appreciation thread?


Even if everything Khrushchev said about Stalin was true and all the purges were justified, I dont see how it possibly could have been a good idea to undertake an overt campaign of "de-Stalinization." Continuity and legitemacy are crucial, I personally do not agree with the Dengist direction for the PRC at all but in a purely strategic sense the way they maintained continuity while turning so decisively away from Mao was really effective.


You can't skip the brow

 No.1346696[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Why has CPUSA been so mythologized in the past two years when they were a massive failure and sucked even in their “good days?”

American communists tried to follow the Bolshevik strategy and failed. They didn’t originally give a shit about Black people either, they only adopted the Black Belt thesis because Stalin told them to. They were way too close to the Comintern and that bit them in the ass later on. Foster was power-hungry and mad because his steel strike failed while Browder was a clout demon. The whole thing was a mess from the start. I’m kind of relieved the feds took them down.
572 posts and 108 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Nice! Are they archived anywhere?


Who has PSL betrayed? Go on, tell us. Share with the class.


I also need to know




File: 1685374091351.jpg (157.06 KB, 752x791, LeTrotskyDB.jpg)


How exactly would you define Trotskyism? How exactly would you summerise it's key differences from other Left wing political positions?

From my understanding most people here are Marxist-Leninsts, and even those who aren't certainly don't seem to look favourably at Trotsky.
So in your view what was wrong with Trotsky's ideas, and with the modern Trotskyists?
17 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>How exactly would you define Trotskyism? How exactly would you summerise it's key differences from other Left wing political positions?

Trying as best as possible to remain neutral, here are some of the key principles of Trotskyism:

1. Internationalism: Trotskyists believe that workers have common interests across national boundaries, and therefore support global cooperation and solidarity among working class movements.

2. Permanent Revolution: Trotskyism holds that socialism cannot survive without spreading beyond national borders. Thus, Trotskyists argue that a successful socialist revolution must aim not only to transform internal politics and economics, but also foster a chain reaction of similar uprisings throughout neighboring countries.

3. Democratic Centralism: While many forms of governance can succeed in pursuing these goals, Trotskyism places strong emphasis on decentralized control underpinned by majority rule, with free speech, open discussion, and regular election of leaders from below. In this respect, they share much ground with libertarian socialism, though usually disagree on tactical matters like how centralization versus local autonomy should apply during transitional periods before power has been fully consolidated within labor organizations rather than the State.

>From my understanding most people here are Marxist-Leninsts, and even those who aren't certainly don't seem to look favourably at Trotsky.

most of the people on here have never done work or joined an organization, were children or not even born yet when the USSR collapsed, and learned theory through memes.

>So in your view what was wrong with Trotsky's ideas

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


>3. Democratic Centralism:
Lmao how did you get this wrong?
Trotskyism is against Democratic Centralism. The Mensheviks and Trotsky came out against the Bolsheviks over Democratic Centralism and was one of the items they split over

Democratic centralism means when the party debates a motion (at which point there is free speech, rigorous discussion etc) but when it moves to put that motion to a vote it becomes binding on every party member to uphold that motion even if they vehemently disagreed with it during the discussion stage

Here's Trotsky, who wrote an entire polemic in 1904 against Leninist methods of organising calling Lenins book on organising "long and boring"
<But Comrade Lenin keeps on advancing. After writing a whole book to tell us that revolutionary methods (“insurrection” and “overthrow”) were only acceptable during the circle period; that in a Party “one and indivisible” discipline must rule; and that elements who break discipline in the Party of the proletariat by that alone show their petty-bourgeois opportunism, Comrade Lenin, who in 500 pages has managed if not to convince his reader, a least to exhaust him with all this philosophy, suddenly throws at him this obscure aphorism:

<And as Lenin, unlike the anarchistic intellectuals of the “minority” represents (I use a quotation he takes from an article by Kautsky) ‘the ideal model of an intellectual, totally steeped in the proletarian outlook … who without complaining marches in line, and works at each post he is given’; as Lenin, following Marx’s example never ingratiates himself into first place and ‘submits to Party discipline in an exemplary manner’; as Comrade Lenin possesses all these absolutely inestimable qualities as a disciplined Party member, who is not afraid to remain in a “minority,” he judges it indispensable to “slip” into his work in advance the philosophical justification for the split in the Party made to retain the remnants of his army. And he does it in a bare-faced way which is the reverse of his deep mistrust of his own supporters.
<If anyone rebels against me, it is very bad. If I rebel, then it’s good. Such is the brief and joyous moral of a long and boring book(LPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


The only success of Trotskyism in 120 years of its existence is Project for New American Century and the Bush administration of 2000
(Trotsky did 9/11)


"Marcyite Trots" applies to WWP, not to PSL, which broke from WWP. PSL has never been Trotskyist. Ask any PSL comrade about their "lord and savior Trotsky" and their ideology of "Marcyist-Trotskyism" and you will get a lot of confused expressions. Some of the older ones will likely have heard of Sam Marcy, but none of them would argue that they are Trotskyists. There were like ten people who joined PSL in like 2004 who were from WWP. PSL defending the legacy of the Soviet Union was not because of a complicated Marcyist Trotskyism development but, rather, something that is completely consistent with Marxist-Leninism, because they are Marxist-Leninists. I have never heard of any PSL comrade calling the USSR as "degenerated" worker's state and you will notice that their analyses of the Soviet Union are consistent with Marxist-Leninism.
But don't take it from me, a random jagoff on the internet, maybe read what PSL publications have actually said about the issue, like how I hope you would research any party and its position.


Trotskyism is just anti-communism with a socialistic face, Trotskyists have fought against every socialist state that has ever existed and always supported re establishing capitalism


Why do most western (especially Anglo) countries have a severe housing shortage? Is it because of capitalism? How would socialism solve the "housing crisis"?
49 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


all im saying is building decent housing for the homeless is better than letting them squat in rat infested decrepit buildings


>Isn't the rise in prices constrained by average income?
considering the average house in Canada has gone from 4x the average yearly salary to 14x the average yearly salary, your common-sense approach firmly grounded in reality does not hold true in the speculative rent-seeking hellhole we find ourselves in


so what the fuck is the point then? just hold onto the houses as a speculative asset and hope the bubble inflates even more?


>so what the fuck is the point then? just hold onto the houses as a speculative asset and hope the bubble inflates even more?
is this your first time looking into how financial markets work or something?


to elaborate: finance is fundamentally a game of kicking the can down the road for as long as you can avoid a Great Depression or 2008 Financial Crisis, and even then it's a great time to invest if you have the cash and get the ball rolling for another fundamentally unsustainable cycle of made-up valuations driven by irrational speculation completely removed from actual reality. it always ends in disaster and it always makes a lot of people filthy stinking rich. it is rolling the dice on a civilizational scale to see who manages to avoid having their skull used as a soup bowl when the crash dissolves the pretense of civil society.

File: 1685457706722.png (9.27 KB, 800x533, Bandera_FE_JONSdss.png)


Did Falangists and National Syndicalists switch allegiance to the Republicans following Franco's control of the JONS labor union?
>>I have encountered Spanish Flangeits and National Syndicalists who dislike Franco and support Marxism-Leninism.
- Some of these individuals have read Marx and Lenin and believe that ideologically loyal members of the JONS joined the Republicans to protest Franco's takeover of the Union.

>>the only case I have found of this being true was Ramiro Ledesma Ramos who was later shot by the CNT apart from that can't find any other sources so I am here to ask you anons if you can find any other sources of this happening.

<<also, I had to read their Retraded theory ew.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>>1483243 Maybe try using a different source because Wikipedia doesn't mention everthing


>>1483243 Franco Betrayed the Flange by taking it over and completely ideologically fucked it up by not implementing Syndicalism in Spain and Allying with the bourgeoisie, banning labor unions, not abolishing capitalism joining Nato, and Sucking America's dick. the JONS union was Originally a National -Syndicalist, Anti-capitalist Utopian Socialist, isolationist Nationalist, organization so you can understand why they were pissed off, also it's kind of the same relations as with the Hoaxits and the Revisionists or the Marxist Leninists and the tortkyists


>I have encountered Spanish Flangeits and National Syndicalists who dislike Franco and support Marxism-Leninism.
twitter isn't real life


I haven't done much research on Falangism in particular, but in my research on Fascism generally I've noticed a trend of there being more radical "Left Fascists" who want to push the "Fascist Revolution" further. In the case of the Nazis they were out and out purged, in Spain I imagine they were suppressed, though in Italy they had a little more luck.

Edmondo Rossoni, for example, was a Left Fascist who lead the "Fascist Syndicate" which, funny enough, grew larger than the actual National Fascist Party. He'd openly encourage strikes, went as far as saying that the industrialists would eventually lose their power once the workers were educated enough to seize the means, and apparently frustrated large Capitalists enough that (allegedly) one of them said they may need to start funding the Communists to fight the Fascists.

ᴉuᴉlossnW, similarly, underwent a (broadly unpopular) policy of "Socialization" of businesses during the RSI. Among his allies was a former Communist that argued he was free to do the "real" Fascist revolution.

So it doesn't shock me that a few Falangists opposed Franco. If anything he was just a conservative Junta leader. Not an actual, ideological Fascist.


File: 1685469331826.jpg (193.28 KB, 1400x844, FvJRg89WwCQWJyX.jpg)

Franco's regime seemed much more of a traditional Catholic authoritarian state with moths munching on the vestments, and with the fascists subordinated to that regime rather than the other way around. The Falangists pulled heavily from students if I remember right and many were killed off in the war, with their leader intercepted and shot by the Republicans.

The Italian fascists and the Nazis went radical during the endgame period of WWII but that was when they were in total war mode.

File: 1685271038658.png (852.68 KB, 1024x685, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1480605[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Racism is usually explained away in Marxist circles as false consciousness or whatever, but how does that explain large, catastrophic historical events that seemingly transcended economics, like the Holocaust, Jim Crow and Apartheid laws, disproportionate police brutality, etc.?
151 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


No, read the whole text nit just the first two paragraphs. Section 3 goes into racism and the last couple paragraphs goes into how liberals scapegoat atrocities. Racism exists because of the division of labour where different aspects of social production are monopolised by different groups of humans (social classes), with the analogous monopolisation by these groups of the means of production and corresponding products (private property) resulting in a society made up of haves and have-nots — of ruling and dominated classes and the maintenance of this society results in what we understand as racism.


>Racism exists because of the division of labour where different aspects of social production are monopolised by different groups of humans (social classes), with the analogous monopolisation by these groups of the means of production and corresponding products (private property)
Can you explain this better


Read the text i linked, i put it there so i wouldn't have to go more into detail.


I read it completely before I replied, it mostly goes into the levels of racism and nationalism themselves instead of any cause


>The concept of the “economic base” of a particular human society extends beyond the boundaries of the superficial interpretation that restricts it to the remuneration of labor and to commodity exchange. It embraces the entire domain of the forms of reproduction of the species, or family institutions, and while technical resources and available tools and material apparatus of every kind form an integral part of it, its content is not limited to a simple inventory of materials, but includes all available mechanisms for passing on from one generation to another all social “technological knowledge”. In this sense and as general networks of communication and transmission, after spoken language we must also include under the rubric of means of production, writing, song, music, the graphic arts, and the press, as they appear as means of transmission of the productive legacy. In the Marxist view, literature, poetry and science are also higher and more highly-differentiated forms of productive instruments and were born in response to the same requirement of the immediate life of society.
>With regard to this issue questions of interpretation of historical materialism arose in the camp of the workers movement: what social phenomena really constitute the “productive base” or the economic preconditions, which explain the ideological and political superstructures that are characteristic of any particular historical society?
>Everyone knows that Marxism opposed to the concept of a long and gradual evolution of human society the concept of sudden turning points between one epoch and another, epochs characterized by different social forms and relations. With these turning points the productive base and the superstructures change. For the purpose of clarifying this concept we have often had resort to the classical texts, both to establish the various formulas and ideas in their correct context as well as to clarify just what it is that suddenly changes when the revolutionary crisis supervenes.
>In the letters we quoted above in which Engels responded to the questions sent to him by young students of Marxism, Engels insists on reciprocal reactions between base and superstructure: the political state of a particular class is a perfect example of a superstructure but it in turn acts—by imposing tariffs, collecting taxes, etc.—on the economic base, as EPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1622844213997.jpeg (41.93 KB, 742x560, 8e6.jpeg)

 No.296564[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

QTDDTOT - Questions that don't need their own thread. The last one died, so here post your questions here.

I'll start, why is a centralized authority important to achieving communism and why is this seen a positive aspect.
495 posts and 104 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


help create and bank book publishers to translate theory of other languages and create new ones.


There seems to be something about Islam that prevents the full secularization of society, unlike Christianity which kind of recognizes secular authority (render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's) so what would be the proper way to make socialism appealable to Muslims? Maybe Hakim could Chime in? since he I know he lurks here.



should I read capital even if i'm not an organizer or economist?


scratch that, I think I need to re-read the basics first until I truly understand before going with capital

File: 1685438322473.png (558.64 KB, 640x488, ClipboardImage.png)


Is Michael Parenti a leftist worth reading or is there someone who does what he does better? I've heard people saying there are better Marxist historians but they don't seem to ever cite any. If I should bother whit him which works are best?
35 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Yes they are, the army was composed of this exact demographic.
That's not the demographic he claimed to champion, he specifically claimed to be serving the poor in the cities who were jobless, the soldiers in legions were not in rome looking for work they were in the army.
>Then why did they hate him so much?
Because he was using the poor as a support base which put him in conflict with the optimates yet despite that he continually gave colonies to his legions rather than the poor and the property of the nobility was largely untouched. His supporters expected that he would continue the legacy of the Gracchii, of Marius, of Cinna, and of Catalinus yet he did not which caused his supporters (who supported him for decades and who waged a years long civil war under him) to kill him while his 2nd in command looked the other way.
>A state which rules in the interests of a particular class by definition a dictatorship of that class.
No it's not, any state can claim to rule in the interest of a class but a dotp is where political; power is held by the proletariat, see the Petrograd soviet in russia which stopped the kerensky coup. The ancient proletariat were not in control of rome and Caesar claiming to serve their interests does not turn it into a dotp either.
> you're equating the ancient Roman proletarii with the modern capitalist proletariat
Because they're the same and Marx used the same term to refer to the same class in both epoch.
> The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, while modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat.
Not to mention that the word 'Proletariat" is literally a latin term so ofc it comes from the ancient class.
> You're essentially extrapolating from what is actually a pretty measured statement
It's not a measured statement, from a historical view Caesar did not work to the interest of the proleteriat and his examples of him working to their interest is literally just him passing lePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Because he was using the poor as a support base which put him in conflict with the optimates
How did it put him in conflict with them if he wasn't actually doing anything to harm their interests?
>No it's not, any state can claim to rule in the interest of a class but a dotp is where political; power is held by the proletariat
So are right wing military juntas in Latin America not dictatorships of the bourgeoisie? After all they didn't directly control the state, the military did.
> The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, while modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat.
How is that not a fundamental difference in their position in the relations of production though? He's literally saying that their relationship to the social order is the reverse of that of the capitalist proletariat.
>examples of him working to their interest is literally just him passing legislative reforms
If seizing power in a coup/civil war and implementing policies which serve the interests of the proletariat is not a DotP, then what is?
>Quite literally just "socialism is when the government does shit"
I've never heard him say anything like that. His defences of AES is to highlight how badly distorted the image of these states has been, how they actually did tremendous good for the working classes of those countries and actually accomplished much of what they promised. In a political environment where many supposed socialists uncritically accept everything the bourgeoisie said about AES, this was sorely needed. I'm not aware of any statement he's made abour what socialism is or isnt. Iirc he's even said in lectures that he's less interested in the semantics of the issue, and more interested in the actual record of the only alternative to the Western model to exist thus far.



*proletarii* anon, he isnt literally calling it a working class revolution, just that the upper class (temporarly and for cynical reasons) acted in the working classes interests, for a while.


like you're literally engaging in next level autist symantics here, hes a marxist; hes going to use marxist terminology in offhand sometimes, like here where hes twisting the conception into a roman related pun that flew completely over your head.


lol imagine that being your takeaway from that quote

He is literally saying that the pure socialists are wrong for thinking socialism is when you push a button and establish a communist mode of production, whereas he supports the real movement that is most successful (on its way to abolishing the present state of things). Agree or disagree in part or in whole, but holy shit try to actually comprehend what you're reading first.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home