/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2801113
I am talking about the new left movement, and most of them got off more or less scot-free after their clown show they called a revolution. Sorry, but you pose no threat to the American empire.

>>2801088
I'll say Western leftists talk about Fascism in exactly the same way that Western boomer necons talk about communism. No reflection or actual insight into the ideology itself. No, they treat it as a demon that will destroy them.

>>2801124

it's just a buzzword for liberal reactions

>>2801121
>>you pose no threat to the empire

buddy i never said i was one of these people i was just saying the american legal system doesnt tip toe around justice based on peoples politics. you are paranoid are you from /pol/ or something

Why does the professed ideology matter more then what they actually do?

>>2799291
because you fail understand the class character of bourgeois democracy, and how it is not really democracy. You repeat "the modern left" but you mean liberals living in bourgeois imperialist "democracy"

>>2796060
Yeah because one party states cannot be democratic, or at least there is no mechanism beyond the individual will of the General Secretary/politburo (depends on how oligarchic vs autocratic it is) to ensure it remains such. Strong man politics cannot free people because by its very nature it subjects the masses to the individual whims of one person. Leninists will insist otherwise but they're lying because what they really want is to be part of the elite ruling clique and replace the capitalists as the new ruling class, not actually emancipate the proles from a ruling class.

Nobody here understands the main purpose of bourgeois democracy and the key innovation behind it. It's not some high-minded principle of citizen participation, though that does serve a useful error-checking function (if you're really shit you'll be removed from power), it's not even circulation of elites (though again, this is usually useful), it's not even changing parties in power (see Japan or Sweden 1930s-70s) it is, above all else: The stable transition of power.

Let's say strongmen outperform parliamentary democracy when they're in charge. Parliamentary democracies probably still beat strongman regimes in the long run! Why? Because in such a system, there's never a reliable mechanism for changing the person in charge when the strongman dies. Maybe you can have his kids do it, like a king - but then what if there's a disputed succession? A close ally - but then maybe said ally falls out of favor just a year before the strongman dies, or maybe he's the favored candidate of the strongman but not of all the other power-brokers. A junta of some kind - but then you've replaced your strong individual leader with an ossified committee who probably hate one another. And let's say some faction or individual is on the losing side but has a power base - why shouldn't he use it to try to stage a coup, which will with very high likelihood result in outright civil war?

In a parliamentary system it's very simple: If you aren't the faction in power, you put your resources into winning the election and taking power. Even in a system where the parties don't circulate much, as in Japan, there's a nice stable set of institutions for making sure the country is governed by a succession of different LDP prime ministers (and they change those pretty often!) instead of having one guy who'll bring the whole state down with him when he invariably dies. The result of that is that people can spend all their time going about their day doing whatever it is people do, losing an evening every 3-5 years to going to the polling booth, instead of fighting and dying in a pointless civil war over who gets to sit in the big chair.

I don't want much of anything of the left. I'd be glad getting class war but I'd settle for reprisals.
Whoever lets me off my boss, is the side I'd pick my gun for. Unfortunately rightoids, troglodytes they may be, are organized by people who are rather class-pilled themselves. So leftoids are the only hope for the man who wants to see rich people (or a subset thereof) liquidated.

>>2799371
>naive question that does not distinguish between bourgeois democracy and actual democracy
then can you give an example of "actual democracy"

>>2800831

also facts, dont be salty, utopian.

>>2800353
He was a failure and his analysis was lacking, should have read Das Kapital

Reminder that by the time he has moved to Paris, he had sustained so much physical injury during his time as an Anarchist revolutionary that according to the Anarcha-Feminist Lucile Pelletier, who served as his nurse, his body was "literally encased in scar tissue", in addition to still having a bullet lodged in his ankle from decades prior.

>>2792554

It's Max Stirner as Beavis, someone who is included in Anarcho-Juche's basis for their cults new theory.

>>There is way too much value on victimhood within the American left, which is something that definitely leads to drawing in a weaker coalition of apes. People who aren't weak generally can view themselves as conquerors even in situations stacked against them 1000:1. People who are weak and moralistic feel safer to be in the role of the "victim" than they do "the aggressor or conqueror". The way the American left approaches meekness isn't that far off from the modern Christian obsession with the same concept; being a victim, and turning the other cheek gives you higher moral ground, this is the worldview of the modern left, religious like victimhood - Juche Poster


Which is just building on the same logic as Stirner's quote,

>>One is not worthy to have what one, through weakness, lets be taken from him; one is not worthy of it because one is not capable of it. - Max Stirner

>>2792524
Didn't happen in India lol

>>2791966
>support China
Counterpoint: ching ching ching ching chong chong chong chong ching ching ching ching ching chong chong ching

>>2792856
they are correct about that

>>2801011
>>they are correct about that

Um didn't Juche literally post a bunch of those "muh whitey settler oppressor" threads? You know, the classic Maoist Black Panther shit that dominates leftism. Malcolm X quotes, all that. And now people are acting like he's consistent? Like… how does that even work?

You can say "Black people are America's biggest oppressed workers, settler colonial states this" kay, fine. But that directly contradicts his whole anti victim mentality. You can't have it both ways, my guy. Either it's a victim game race blame theory or it's class struggle.

Imagine saying the left is too obsessed with being victims but black people are victims of the system? That take is literally the prototype for leftist victimhood in the new left. Like, this existed before gay rights was even a conversation.

I'm just saying… the math ain't mathing. But hey, don't let me interrupt the circlejerk.

By abolishing market exchange.

>doesn't his concept of labor-vouchers imply commodification of labor ?
According to Marx, labour-vouchers are not money, but are simply a type of ticket or coupon which distributes goods (the communist system presupposing universal rationing of resources):
<Owen’s “labour-money,” for instance, is no more “money” than a ticket for the theatre.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
<For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
EBT Cards (food stamps) would be an appropriate analog.

As yet, we see that people prefer the liquidity of money to hard assets, so there is an inherent psychological issue. For example, would you rather be paid $400 in cash, $500 credit or $600 food stamps? Most people prefer cash to any other token.

>>2800836
Yeah but in the end it's reproducing the law of value but for only one type of commodity : labor. Working to get money/paid is de facto exchanging your labor for other labor, it's commodifying.

>>2800903
de facto but not de jure
Marx simply states that form and content are reversed, so we no longer have a form of value (e.g. money) but still retain its meaning.

>>2800903
>>2800917
Marx uses the same trick with the state; its not a state if it doesn't fit my definition of a state. So you can see it as dishonest if you want to.

>>2800735
>a gay bakery can't refuse to make a homophobic wedding cake

political views aren't a protected class (supposedly)

if you make cakes condemning gay marriage, you need to make one condemning straight marriage if asked

>>2800168
>Define neoliberalism as you understand it

I agree with your definition mostly but would also include tax cuts.

>[what you described] is obviously some flavor of neoliberalism, even if it's an atypical one.

It's really not, you're just proposing social democracy with extra localist characteristics. You can't be like 'they should do proper neoliberalism - high welfare, progressive taxes, and big infrastructure projects' because that's not neoliberalism. they did do neoliberalism, which is just voodoo economics and an excuse to rob the poor blind.

Left the thread for a day and its dead swear to god I carry this site on my back.

>>2799984
>>2799947
Turnout was good in the end happy days.

>>2800734
>the actual universally hated groups are the MEK
as if the average iranian could tell the difference
>supporting their efforts
what efforts? what have they actualy done to stop the bombing of the iranian workers? unless you think cheering for schools getting bombed counts as revolutionary defeatism and the ultimate form of praxis for all nonzionists nations

>>2800738
>what efforts? what have they actualy done to stop the bombing of the iranian workers? unless you think cheering for schools getting bombed counts as revolutionary defeatism and the ultimate form of praxis for all nonzionists nations
the first part is already answered, the second part i have no fucking clue what you're talking about, the iranian communists are currently irrelevant, keyword there, "I R R E L E V A N T", they don't have enough power to do anything, they have no backing with which to carry out your fantasies, it'd be like asking the bolsheviks in 1915 to prevent german chemical warfare, they are not capable of it because they have nor the weapons, nor the numbers to achieve it!

>>2800752
*the enemy is both weak and strong

shitlamists can't even hide their fascist class collaborationist origins

>>2800752
>Iranian communists overthrowing their libshit regime is anti-zionism enough
ok I'll wait for them to go ahead and do it then
>they don't have enough power to do anything, they have no backing with which to carry out your fantasies
>waa waa they are weak and stupid all they can do is lay down and cheer for zionists while their country turns into rubble
and they'll remain like that unless they actually start opposing imperialism instead of just watching form their cushy europeans apartments how their countrymen are massacred

>>2800752
>they influence strikes that cripple the country and protests where thousands of proles lay their lives
wich strikes and protests?? unless you mean the ones initiated by the pettybourg earlier this year and swiftly taken over by mossad agents

>>2796164
maoism is from latin america
>>2796166
correct
>>2796168
read this thread since you didn't know the diff:

>>>/leftypol/2767836

>>2796938
>The "third world nationalism" epithet is a slur deployed by the imperial core to dismiss any anti‑imperialist struggle that refuses to bow to the will of western forces who attack sovereignty
Except when it's an accurate critique of the limitations of inherently succdem left-nationalist opportunism which more often than not serves the interests of the national bourgeoisie and petty bourgeois clans while throwing the proles and lumpens under the bus.

>>2797122
It was popular mostly among Western leftists and the diaspora who criticized the USSR for not engaging in a suicidal war against the US and accused them of being imperialist.

I lived in China for a few years and I can confirm it’s completely dead. Even in Chinese left-wing circles, the most popular thinkers are Bukharin and Engels. No one hates Mao in China he’s considered essential to win the civil war, but that’s about it. More respected as a military leader then a thinker.

>>2796166
thats MLM retard thats different from maoism wich was the result of the sino-soviet split