/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

ITT post groups or persons who you think downfall is entirely deserved alongside reasons why you think that is, in relation to the workers movement

Islamists are low hanging fruit but I thought I'd celebrate the recent downfall of Hezbollah as an Arab worker. Blud spent their time in power being IMF cumrags, breaking up strikes, purging non-reformist communists, turning Lebanon into a neoliberal heaven, poisoning workers with drugs, their leader spent his last days begging for de-escalation after sallowing his empty threats from 13th floor bunker while workers were getting slaughtered (not by him this time)

No doubt the Lebanese army would just take over Hezb job in brutalising workers but at least liberals will be exposed as no different than Hezb who they blame for everything while being in bed with. Or perhaps they will re-arm it again if workers aren't pacified.

Last challenge: Name one (1) group that killed more Shia communists than Hezbollah

All in all, rest in piss

Can /leftypol/ answer these questions that I have ?
I consider myself a social-liberal. I've read and understood fairly well marxist literature (mostly read secundary sources though), aswell as most other polsci theory because of my degree.
I don't align with marxism mainly for 3 reasons that I'll formulate as questions:

>1. Why does the dialectical movement have to worsen the proletariat's lives
In essence, if material institutions change because they can't objectively and materially fulfill their purpose (i.e. a company that exists to make profits faces competition which lowers its profit rate), why would these changes and evolution incur a decline in the proletariat's condition and accentuate class antagonism ? I know marxist's economic theories, but they don't explain as to why the new institutions that would emerge from the old ones wouldn't be better.
For example, capitalism's crisis (a contradiction) have lead to the creation of better financial managing, which imo is a better thing than recurring crisis every 10 years.

>2. Why can't the state and different class interests agree on a mutual interest.
I understand that in marxist theory the state essentially only lives as a tool for the bourgeoisie to use. However, in the face of revolutions or class conflict, why couldn't both parties collaborate rather than face off ? Both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can have an advantage in collaboration and mutual interest rather than pure conflict. I mean, in polsci theory this is the founding basis of the state.

>3. (and a bit more practical) Isn't the whole marxist linguo counter-productive to the ideal you hold ?
For instance, shouldn't you say "workplace democracy" rather than "abolishing private property", given the sentence's long history of being misinterpreted ? Same goes for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the exploitation theory etc.

It becomes imperative for the various strains of infantile left-deviationists (be they the Bordigist armchairs, the dumpster-diving anarchists, or the idealistic voluntarists still clinging to the metaphysics of spontaneity) to immediately confront the sheer magnitude of their historical illiteracy and sign the attached document with the requisite humility.

It is truly fascinating to watch you petty-bourgeois moralists clutch your pearls over actually existing socialism, entirely ignoring that your axioms are derived purely from liberal ideology and fail to account for the material conditions of a besieged proletarian dictatorship attempting to industrialize a plow-based feudal economy into a nuclear superpower in two decades while facing the combined hostility of the entire capitalist world. This dialectic extends inexorably to the PRC as well; for as it has been aptly noted, the productive forces necessary to defend a revolution must be equal to the productive forces attacking it.

Perhaps if you had actually engaged with Capital instead of merely skimming the back cover of The Conquest of Bread or watching CIA-funded video essays, you would comprehend that a revolution is largely the most organized, centralized, and terrifying thing there is. All that crying about "Red Fascism" because the Soviets didn't immediately dissolve the state apparatus while the Wehrmacht was knocking on the door constitutes a counter-revolutionary betrayal of the proletariat.

So please, put down whatever anarchist, leftcom, or revisionist slop you are currently consuming, stop fetishizing failure, and recognize that your "pure" socialism is a phantom; the Real exists only as the profane, this-worldly, dirty-Jewish muck of class struggle. Formally apologize to the General Secretary for your embarrassing lack of theoretical rigor NOW.

Previous thread: >>2177902

Dump all the seemingly pointless, dubious, and frivolous questions that don't deserve their own shitty threads.

Got a question that's probably been asked a million times before? You're in the right landfill, buddy. Post it here.

Threads that otherwise might go in here will eventually find themselves become merged to this thread.

<Republic of Cuba
<Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
<People’s Republic of China
<Lao People’s Democratic Republic
<Socialist Republic of Vietnam
<Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Rest of the world is ruled by bourgeoisie and personal opinions and political positions are up to debate but not these countries. Dictatorship of the proletariat means that these countries are ruled by the proletariat and their representatives.

Why do revisionists and infantiles get so hung up on concentric construction? It's a practical way of understanding people's war. The party should not be separated from its organs and the people, it needs to be part of each of them in order to understand them. Letting the army be controlled by non-party members is a bad idea. The PLA needs to be working within the mass orgs and the people as well, in order to formulate strategy. The mass orgs are how the party and organisation diffuse into the people. You need to think of the whole of revolutionary society as a single whole in order to properly understand its contradictions.

Did Marx ever once utter the word "revisionism?" If you think about it. Anti-revisionism is the ultimate revisionism because it is anti-dialectical. It stresses revisiting the "classics" of the numbered heads (however many you think are "worthy" of the title, 4 or 5 or 6) of Marxism-Leninism rather than scientifically studying the evolving world and coming up with New Theses. Marx and Engels were anti-dogmatic and stressed an evolving understanding of the system, yet so many of their followers today are "anti-revisionists" who think nothing (or at least nothing important) has changed since 1883.

Teach me about him, I skimmed his Wikipedia article and saw two sections about his romantic life and mental illness which looked interesting.
Why isn't he more well known? What has he done? What did he believe in?

Who do you think the best head of state of all time was? You can pick whoever I just added those images above because I assumed that those would be the most common answers.

The graph going around showing "men becoming conservative" is hilarious because the female line is the one going nearly exponential whereas the male one just droops a bit.