/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

One confusing aspect of nazism in the modern and Cold War era day is the hysterical avoidance of recognition of the primary objective of the original German nazi party, the total conquest and erasure of all non German european people. These people included but not limited to, polish people, anyone registering as Slavic, British people, Spaniards, Italians, non Germanic birds, Romani peoples, Romanians, Greeks, Turks depending on whether you consider turkey European, and a few others. This was explicitly outlined in the manifesto of the Nazi party mein kampf that genocide of these groups was the first priority of the German Nazi party, it was also implicitly outlined that the nazis saught to recreate at least on a more philosophical level the British empires expansion in the new world and in african, oceanic, and Asian colonies in European territory.

I’m amazed by how many misinterpretations or outright false claims surrounding the nazis objectives there are from myths of European unification to the genuine belief that genocide was not the first priority of the Nazi party.

if you are such a good marxist who is really well versed in the economy how come you are not making a lot of money? if marxism is truly the correct ideology that can see and predict trends in the economy and the way money moves it should help you earn bread, marx invested in the stock market after all.

Is it possible to be a Christian and be a communist I know Huey Newton was a Christian and a communist, but do you think it’s possible to still be one? I know there’s a lot of Muslim communist like haz

When I was a kid I remember reading about rural agriculturalists in Mexico who after the signing of NAFTA found themselves priced out, for the production of corn I think, and forced into migration or poverty. I also recall hearing that the TPP (and apparently NAFTA), operated largely to enforce "corporate rights" as persons, or even more, in the imperial periphery, beyond the lowering of tariffs. In these details there can be nothing but opposition.

However, you hear of the increased growth of tomatoes, for example, in Mexico, because of their comparative advantage, and of impressive manufacturing sector in things like automobiles and even increasingly electronics. These are remarkable things. In the big picture as an internationalist you have to support them here, to the extent to which you thank trade for these things.

On the other side of the deal you read just as many stories today of towns wiped off the map by deindustrialization, and that even though productivity has increased employment for these high-value added has declined without end. This is the issue with trade in at least the Anglo-sphere, and once upon a time the former Soviet Union at the minimum: deindustrialization. I know it's likely somewhat controversial to discuss these two groups together, and it might be a mistake, but the inquiry stands.

I'd like to discuss what's the problem with deindustrialization, and how does it relate to trade?

What happened to modern communists and their complete abandonment of atheist propaganda? We need to be making bangers like this again.

English Translation: “Fairytales - The calendar of saints, It’s worth laughing”

Trump is about to drive Canada and Europe into China's arms over this greenland shit in which case China will have the majority of trade on every continent even north america outside the US.

This is basically happening as we speak with Canadian PM Mark Carney openly welcoming Chinese auto manufacturing into Canada.

Now that China will have overwhelmingly won the trade war against the USA and will be the primary trade power in south america, north america (minus USA), western europe, eastern europe, the middle east, africa and asia.

Given that, when can we expect China to implement global socialism?

Drug user liberation advocates ought to hold a formal appearance instead of trying to look like hippies, all these demonstrations make the drug users look retarded in comparison to any uniformed opposition.
Groups of persons against drug prohibition ought to have formal wear such as suits or other types of uniforms to be able to combat the influence from formal authorities.
A crowd of casual clothed, hippie-wannabe, exhibitionist freaks cannot persuade a conservative populace towards siding with them.
For all public appearances I strongly advise from my thorough research in crowd psychology that any drug advocacy public appearances should be done in formal wear, modest uniforms or at the very least the extent to which a person can attend with their best most tidy clothing.
Do not go out looking like a junkie / outcast / freak. It will only harm you when recorded and the broader scene. It is completely counterintuitive to attempt to revive failed countercultural movements or attend with an "IDGAF" attitude.
Drug advocates are already ostracized by the lumpen and reactionary majorities, PR with everyday clothing will not serve to try to "normalize" or "blend in". When a prohibitionist dresses leisurely their opinion is taken in normally, when a drug advocate dresses leisurely they are always going to end up being ridiculed and degraded. It would not be as easy for the opposition to degrade persons or call them "degenerate, jobless, bums, junkies" and such when faced with a crowd of people in uniforms / suits and formal wear.
It is strongly advisory to look like a WASP in order to combat WASPs.
Study the strategies of the opposition. See how conservative content creators in public speeches have for years farmed millions if not billions of views off of the contrast of a "principled man versus gender freak abomination" - Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, TFP Student action etc.
If you don't hold a formal appearance in a public event odds are you will be turned into a lolcow for content farming, guaranteed if you do not behave yourself, speak loudly / obnoxiously, have a meltdown and/or are generally unprepared to speak on the subject of the event. To be able to counter any opposition on a subject of interest a person must learn their opposition by mentally pretending to be a part of it (as the saying goes, put yourself in their shoes) in order to predict all the possible arguments and traps they could lay out and how thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Communism is neither related to "Leftism" nor "Socialism", in fact these reformist movements are antithetical to Communism.

Before some illiterate dumbass takes this as lazy "sectarianism", this was the key issue the Communist International meant to settle. In fact the entire Comintern was born out of the contradiction between the revolutionary content of Marxism and reformist nature of leftism, the murder of German communists at the hands of their left-socialist "comrades" cemented this seemingly forever (clearly not)

>In this connection all those parties that wish to belong to the Communist International must change their names. Every party that wishes to belong to the Communist International must bear the name Communist Party of this or that country (Section of the Communist International). The question of the name is not formal, but a highly political question of great importance. The Communist International has declared war on the whole bourgeois world and on all yellow social-democratic parties. The difference between the communist parties and the old official 'social-democratic' or 'socialist' parties that have betrayed the banner of the working class must be clear to every simple toiler.
<Twenty-one Conditions, Comintern 1919

Going further back to Marx, this distinction was evident (hence the "communist" manifesto)

>in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
<Preface to the 1872 German Edition

>But why were the terms later used exchangeably by the early days of Lenin?
Simply, they were not. By "social democrats" Lenin was strictly referring to the membership of the SPD and its analogous party in Russia who upheld the doctrine of Marx at the time until the German SPD broke away from it.

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

🗽UNITED STATES POLITICS 🦅

<Glowhell Piss Price Edition

>"I'll take a Double Triple No-Bossy Deluxe on a Hammer, 19x17 Mao style, extra sickles with a wheat laurel and a fist, light tank tread grease; make it sing the internationale, raise it high, and let it wave."

🛠️ Strike Tracker ⚒️
https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/

🇺🇸 Deeds of the Burger Reich 🇺🇸
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities.md
https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

📺 Glowie News 📺
(sponsored by the Burger Eagle Freedom Institute (formerly USAID))
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

THOUSANDS DEAD

Inter-lumpen war - oddation

Previous threads:
https://archive.ph/dDpTN
https://archive.ph/5s7Ek
https://archive.ph/1Rvi8
https://archive.ph/Rr2SM
>>2649208 (unachievad)

Internationalist Voice (Iranian) analysis of the protests (Jan. 4-19):

>Leftists and the Mujahedin claim that monarchists are attempting to influence the protests in favour of “Reza Pahlavi”[7] by adding audio to video clips, or that this role is being played by the Islamic bourgeoisie itself, which is confident in the harmlessness of the monarchist opposition. In other words, they argue that the promotion of monarchist demands within the protests is either meaningless or marginal. This claim is partly correct, but it does not capture the full reality.

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