/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Vietnam has a smaller public sector than the United States and they are Pro-America, Pro-Israel, and Anti-China in their foreign policy. I have no idea how after America nearly committed genocide in your country you can put them over fellow socialist states, they will condemn America when it does something shitty but never act on it, they are practically just Spain, Norway, or Ireland when it comes to foreign policy. I know that China is also shitty when it comes to foreign policy and stuff too but they are at least technically Anti-America.

The revolutionary task, as Foucault articulated in his debate with Chomsky, lies not merely in the denunciation of the obviously repressive organs of the state and ruling class but in the patient, systematic exposure of the mechanisms of power embedded within those institutions that present themselves as benign, neutral, or even benevolent. The bourgeois therapeutic apparatus, psychology, psychiatry, medicine, sciences, sexuality, and its allied practices is a paradigmatic case of such a mechanism. It functions as the dominant social institution for the management of subjective distress, yet its foundational logic is the atomization of the sufferer. It systematically abstracts the individual from the material conditions of their alienation, reframing crises of exploitation and oppression as failures of personal adjustment or thinking. This is not liberation from mental suffering; This is more accurately described as the pacification of the mind veiled in the clinical language of care.'

This individualizing logic is not incidental to the therapeutic project; it is its structural function under capitalism. As the radical psychiatry movement contended, fostering mental health was to be an art rather than a science, requiring a shift away from individual psychotherapy and toward supportive group work, coupled with direct social and political action. The consumer/survivor/ex-patient (c/s/x) movement, a powerful, decentralized coalition emerging from the anti-psychiatry struggles of the 1970s and 1980s, forged the very concept of peer support, where those with lived experience provide mutual aid outside the medical model's bourgeois hierarchical structures. This movement has been instrumental in developing a variety of peer-support alternatives. AA was one of the original movements to flirt with these concepts in it's religious, communal stance against the medical world's treatment towards alcoholism at the time, directly organized by the alcoholics themselves, not passively accepting the official treatment they were often subject to. Things like this often end up creating something more than a mere psychotherapy model or a technique; it is a movement of community that fundamentally challenges the power relations embedded in professionalized care and recovery itself.

The "institutional psychotherapy" movement in postwar France, which profoundly influenced figures like Frantz Fanon, Felix Guattari, and Michel Foucault, offers a vision Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Modern transhumanism seems to have been entirely coopted by the extreme right, the fascist right.
The Elon Musks, Peter Thiels, Alex Carps, Sam Altmans, Mark Zuckerbergs, Nick Lands, Curtis Yarvins of the world.

These are people who hate humanity. Hate. Hate. Hate. Nothing but hate for the human condition.
These are people who see capitalism as both inescapable and worth accelerating to its maximum hostility, just to line their own pockets and see how many they can kill in the process, which they take pleasure in.
They want the working classes as a living dead, as digitised servitors, as brains hooked into a corporate matrix, hopeless and powerless to do anything but work.
They watch at Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, and read Neuromancer and decided the hellish dystopia is what they want, at any cost.
Why? For the aesthetics alone? Because they expect to be the corpolords on top of the dogpile for a brief moment? Due to pure psychopathological sadism?
If you listen to them they've stated their aims:
They want city states, owned and ran by megacorps, ruled by CEO kings, when millions of serfs toil for the 0.0001% to live in a synthetic cyberutopia.

Is it any wonder then, that the modern left reacts today with a total hatred to transhumanism?
Recently there's been a whole spate of videos from leftist content creators outlining how they believe transhumanism is an ontological evil, conceptually and entirely with no distinction between various ideological forms it may take.

But it didn't use to be that way.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

The cults of personality of 20th century communism were a mistake, though perhaps unavoidable. The emergence of pronounced cults of personality in several 20th-century socialist states can be understood as a historical misstep rather than an inherent feature of Marxist theory. Stalin himself denounced this in his interview with Feuchtwanger, and some personal letters. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as developed within Marxism, refers to the collective rule of the working class organized through its institutions. In practice, however, this principle was often conflated with the authority of individual leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Il Sung. This conflation obscured the distinction between class power exercised through mass participation and the symbolic centrality of particular historical figures.

This development did not arise in a vacuum. Many of the societies in which socialist revolutions succeeded were shaped by predominantly peasant populations, relatively low levels of literacy, and recent histories of feudal or semi-feudal rule. In such contexts, political authority had long been associated with monarchs, emperors, or strongman figures. It is therefore unsurprising that revolutionary movements, even when grounded in collective and egalitarian ideals, were interpreted through familiar cultural patterns that emphasized personal leadership. The elevation of revolutionary figures into near-mythic symbols can be seen as a byproduct of these conditions rather than a deliberate theoretical aim.

Recognizing this helps clarify that the issue was not simply the presence of influential leaders, but the tendency to substitute their personal authority for the organized, conscious activity of the working masses. A more consistent application of proletarian rule would emphasize institutions, education, and participation over symbolic identification with individuals. Understanding the historical roots of these personality cults allows for a more grounded assessment of past socialist experiences without reducing them to caricature or dismissing their broader social and economic transformations.

I legitimately do not understand why people believe he was wrong. Look at Jewish people and how specialized into getting better at academia or India with how certain groups become natural fishermen. Lysenkoism feels like it's striking a cord between Stirnerite individualism and collectivism and it legitimately sounds cooler than Darwin's lame "one will breed more than the other and the species will survive". Darwin's system doesn't explain suicide for example.

>Some even believe that artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I., will create a permanent underclass. In the United States, the term “underclass” gained currency in the 1960s to describe the factory workers left behind by the postwar automation boom. Today, it has become repopularized as a viral term for a theory that posits that people have a limited window of time to build wealth before A.I. and robotics are advanced enough to fully replace human labor. At that point, everyone will get frozen in their current class positions: The rich will be able to deploy superintelligent machines to do their bidding, and everyone else will be rendered useless and unemployable, left to live off welfare scraps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/opinion/ai-labor-work-force-silicon-valley.html

So is it over or will throwing millions of people into becoming peasants lead to a revolution?

Liberal "mutual aid" is simply charity draped in the rhetoric of radical anti‑charity, a food drive, a medicine or clean‑needle table, a hot meal dispensed downward. Such interventions may be momentarily useful, but they are not mutual aid in the materialist sense. They reproduce the giver‑receiver relation, the commodity form of assistance, and the reification of the helper as petite‑bourgeois dispenser / volunteer. The recipient remains an object of pity; the circuit of capital is interrupted only at the point of transfer, not at the point of social reproduction. The empirical reality contradicts the self‑congratulatory narrative of radical cliques, there is more genuine mutual aid, more autonomous social reproduction, more daily cooperation outside the wage occurring in the poorest, most abandoned neighborhoods than in the entire apparatus of the NGO left and its salon revolutionaries. The most effective organizers, those who actually emerge from the material conditions of the working poor and the lumpenproletariat, struggle daily against the immiseration capitalism has imposed upon them yet they are systematically ignored by white‑collar, Ivy League students who inhabit comfortable, cushioned lives, who speak the language of Marxism while practicing hyper‑individualism, who mistake performative radicalism for class struggle, and who treat the poor as abstract signifiers rather than as comrades with whom one eats, sleeps, and fights with. This is not a failure of theory; it is a failure of class position entirely. The petite‑bourgeoisie has colonized the left, and until it is expelled, or until it learns to shut the fuck up and take orders from those who actually live the struggle, the light of truth will remain hidden behind a cloud of grant proposals and endless virtue signaling.

Real mutual aid is not an event. It is a mode of living, the daily, tedious, yet joyful labor of reproducing the material conditions of collective survival outside the wage, outside the bourgeois state, outside the NGO, and, ideally, outside every other institution that mediates and limits working‑class power. This process ideally must begin with the capture of space and the utilization of the commons. Territory is not merely a backdrop to existence; it is the material precondition for autonomous social reproduction.

I do not agree with all of Kropotkin's theoretical works, but his Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution remains a solid analysis oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Last year there was this masterpiece of a thread https://leftypol.org/dead/res/6179.html
that got moved to >>>/dead/, in spite of its schizophrenic rants I feel like there were some good points made there.

Tl;dr for those who don't want to read through it the thesis is that the workers are the counter-revolutionary subject. Highly recommend reading it though.

With that clarified lets continue discussion on the thesis.

Lately leftists online (such as Logo Daedalus) have been speculating about a possible return to 2010s HR individualist managerial political correctness (a.k.a., woke) in light of Trump’s falling popularity polls over the Epstein files and his failure to rebound the US economy as well as his second administration being overall more fascist and extreme than the first one both rhetorically (see the DHS’s Twitter account which seems to be ran by a wignat) and in practice (e.g., expansion of ICE under the current regime).

Maybe this will age like milk, but personally I don’t think the woke will ever come back, primarily due to the fact that it arose during a period in American history that can’t be replicated in the foreseeable future as well as because it got heavily exhausted to its fullest potential by 2024, something else will form instead but I can’t put my fingers on it. Let me elaborate…

Yes, there may be backlash to Trump in the form of:

• greater tolerance for immigration,
  
  
• renewed talk about abolishing ICE (which isn’t actually necessary for border security and overlaps with existing agencies),
  
  
• less willingness to tolerate soft white nationalism or openly white-nationalist speech now that the Trump project has made its racial character explicit.
  
  

But I don’t think that means a return to the specific ideological package of the 2010s.
The elite liberal factions that promoted “wokeness” as a substitute for social democracy feel politically exhausted. Their compromises — with Trumpism, with Zionism, with capital more broadly — are remembered, and they’ve already pivoted to new projects like “abundance,” technocratic managerialism, or vibes-based productivity politics.

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

I fucking hate classcucks, the classcucks I hate the most are by far the apolitical illiterate ones, my human diaper of a boss just hired a fucking retard that gives no fucks about welding PPE and works stupidly fast while also welding and fabricating like shit. We have tried time and time again to tell him to work slower and to demand PPE or else our boss will demand us the same and the fucking imbecile doesn't change

God damn what a fucking retard