/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

you can just cancel debt and then expropriate expropriators. money is not real. bourgeois economics is fake.
>Bolshevik revolutionaries overthrew the government on October 24, 1917, subsequently creating the Soviet government. The amounts of payments in default were enormous.[3] Russian debt to Great Britain alone at the end of World War I was estimated at between 538 and 568 million pounds. The amount of debt to France was estimated at 3,573 million francs and Russian foreign debt to Japan equaled 147 million dollars.[citation needed]
The debt repudiation
>On February 8, 1918, the Soviet government repudiated all bonds issued by the Tsarist government when the Soviet of People's Commissars of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) cancelled all previously issued Russian government debt. It stopped payment on foreign debt at the beginning of 1918 and declared that all debts contracted by the Russian Empire were cancelled, as well as the debts contracted by the Russian Provisional Government, so that the war could be continued from February to November 1917.[citation needed]
>At the same time, the Soviets decided to expropriate all assets of foreign nations in Russia. The Soviets also nationalized banks, lands, and industries. By repudiating the external debt, the Soviet government implemented the Petrograd Soviet’s decision of 1905.[4]

actually help bring about world communism or would it just lead to there being multiple little fascist states that cause lots of trouble?

The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.The body was too short or empty.

Have there been any studies done deconstructing the left-to-right ("Saul-to-Paul") political conversion narrative that the right-wing loves to throw around?

I'm talking about people like former CPUSA members who turned state like Whittaker Chambers, Bella Dodd, and Louis Budenz; neocons like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and David Horowitz (rest in piss); or contemporary "conversion" stories like those of Abby Johnson. I'm obviously talking about Americans here but I'm sure you can name plenty of examples from other countries. What psychological factors cause someone to abandon leftism and fully embrace the right, and even worse, turn on their former comrades?

Is it simply the case that they upheld leftism as a dogma, so when their "god" died they found another god? Is it because they were always authoritarian assholes and embraced the right when the right gave them a better outlet for being authoritarian assholes? Was it because they found that the left was moving in a direction they didn't approve of, so they gradually became rightist? Or, using the narrative they themselves most often parrot, they felt "betrayed" by the left so in turn they betrayed the left?

Also, why do we rarely see any prominent right-wingers turning to the left?

communism and great man theory are perfectly compatible

history confirms this, the most successful communist movements that advanced history towards a communist future, the USSR and China, both did on the backs of great leaders, no one gives a fuck if great man theory or cults of personality are not materialist in a narrow marxist view, what matters is that it happened, all the theory and pure reasoning in the world is no match for historical fact.

why should I care what european marxists or anarchists have to say about the subject? you didn't do shit, you are potential man, all talk, the blueprint for a communist movement is already out there, will you embrace it or perish like a leftcom dog?

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.

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?

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.