[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
What is 6 - 2?

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!

| Catalog | Home
|

File: 1765117317935-0.png (343.76 KB, 517x424, putler.png)

 

571 posts and 151 image replies omitted.

Komplett lächerlich.

>>2808368
Er hat es doch eindeutig gesagt: Der Tag hat uns befreit, darum feiern wir den Tag.

>>2808368
Warum gibt man sich mit solchen rethorischen Zaubertricks überhaupt zufrieden? Schlechter Journo.

>>2808537
Weil das sonst deine letzte Teilnahme an der Bundespressekonferenz, und die haben jederzeit die Möglichkeit dich abzuwürgen.

Florian Warweg ist der "giftigste" da, frägt auch oft zweimal nach, bekommt aber auch keine Antworten.

File: 1778486491494.jpg (35.54 KB, 589x521, journalisten.jpg)

>>2808368
>>2808377
>>2808537
>>2808801
Wir leben in einer Gesellschaft.



 

I have an anarchist YouTube channel.

I have a unique analysis on things. I'm not an ancom. You could describe me as an individualist anarchist or as a primitivist anarchist.
Check it out and tell me what you think! https://www.youtube.com/@diodtheanarchist
420 posts and 50 image replies omitted.


On your latest video, I would begin from first principles; what is humility and what is the role of sexuality in civilisation?

We see in myth, Adam and Eve become aware of their nakedness only after they gain knowledge, and so cover themselves in fig leaves; afterwards, they are covered in animal skins. Later, we see Ham cursed for coming into knowledge of the "nakedness" of his father, Noah. The knowledge of nakedness is not simply aesthetic, but active, for it said that Adam and Eve "knew each other" when they copulate, and so "knowledge" is associated with Eros, such that the "forbidden fruit" is the primary prohibition, and the initiation into apparent nakedness. We see in the writings of Freud, eroticism is not essential to the organism (such that libido is inorganic, as it is expressed in the Death Drive), and so it is understood symbolically (for indeed, all eroticism requires the vehicle of fantasy). He sees that civilisation is nothing besides the development of a primary repression (often ritualised as the prohibition of incest by totems). We see for example, the protogenoi, titans and gods as incestuous; brothers marrying sisters, and so on - but by the time we get to Oedipus, incest is reviled as contrary to nature in mythical narrative. Adam and Eve are certainly brother and sister (or even father and daughter, if we view Eve as generated from Adam's rib). Abel, Cain and Seth are thus products of incest, but we see that Cain (as the father of civilisation; e.g. the father of agriculture, cities and craft) attains a wife from outside of his immediate family (i.e. his mother), and so already in Cain is the development of civilisation by the traversity into otherness, and the prohibition of incest. Incest as the primary sexual union thus, must be broken to develop society.

The prohibition of incest by the regulation of mating also leads to further dynamics, as Freud views it - that where sex is managed from above, it also cultivates a monopoly; thus, we have polygamy by a "primal father" (e.g. Cronos) who is cast down by Zeus, and from whence, the union of marriage is constituted, to properly manage the competition of mates by monogamy. Thus, primary regulations creates monopoly, and this is further advanced by the institution of marriage. Marriage is fraught with internal contradictions however, since the wife competes with daughters, and the husband competes with sons. We see for example, that when Lot's wife is killed, his daPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2809953
Yes, exactly! We live in a more sexUAL society, and a less SEXY one! Eroticism in civilization is the only way to live with the 'sexual repression' required for civilization to exist and still live a happy life for most people, I think.

File: 1778596806549.jpeg (29.03 KB, 461x388, images.jpeg)

>>2809972
Yes; sexual vs sexy is certainly concise. Žižek as a conservative understands this most utterly; that there is a deficiency (e.g. a boredom) in positive excess, while what excites stimulation is mediated by negativity. An example is in how Žižek describes a male porn star who was impotent on set, and so who watched porn to get an erection. Here, the object could not cause its own desire, but had to be narrativised in its fantasy. This is also why all pornography has a story, and all sexual performance is symbolised. In terms of social discourse too, flirting does not work by direction, but indirection, and so euphemism and play reveal by obscuration, like clothing, which in covering the body, cause a desire for it. We see in animals also, the complex rituals of attaining a mate, like singing and dancing in birds. So, sexual selection is not rationally constituted (otherwise girls would like the 'nice guys', but we know they don't).
>Eroticism in civilization is the only way to live with the 'sexual repression' required for civilization to exist and still live a happy life for most people, I think.
I think that we should just ban porn, and replace it with erotic art. Porn is manifest uncreativity.

>>2809998
Yes, more sexy nude paintings please! And paintings of nearly nude women with drapery on them <3

If communists want to spread revolutionary consciousness, we can do so through attacking the porn industry. It will also help with algorithmic merge.



 

There is no hope. There is no movement. I keep waiting for the spark. For a bifurcation in the continuum. I remain dissatisfied. Capitalist Realism stands undefeated, cruising on easy mode. The Communist movement has been successfully destroyed internationally by American finance capitalism: the last imperialists.

What's for us, committed guerrilleros? Conversion to Islam, I guess. Jihad is the last form of resistance. This is the American Century.
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted.


bleak

>convert to Islam
What if I don't want to fuck goats?

>>2808982
pork and alcohol are your life because you’re a treatler

Guy who never actually did anything in his life : "Oh man I'm so exhausted and depressed it's all over man".

I suggest you actually follow through with this larp and kill yourself



File: 1778104636057.pdf (555.15 KB, 255x197, call.pdf)

 

I want to learn about the french revolution more after checking out De Toquevilles analysis of its cause and a little in Age of Capital by Hobsbawm. I've read some manifestos from the times (Babeuf, Robespierre) on marxists.org but want more history that refers to primary documents. Are the minutes of the early parliaments available, or polemics between the factions? Just give me everything pdfs or recommendations.


file unrelated

>>2804221
>Are the minutes of the early parliaments available, or polemics between the factions
Some of the most well known speech are available on the french assembly website
https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/decouvrir-l-assemblee/histoire/les-grands-discours-parlementaires

but if you want the primary source of the first parliamentary debates, according to this
https://shs.cairn.info/revue-parlements1-2010-2-page-146?lang=fr#s1n2
you gotta read "Le Moniteur universel"
Theres apparently an old history book version of it "Révolution française ou, Analyse complète et impartiale du Moniteur" that you can find online
https://books.google.fr/books?id=pTM_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PP9&hl=fr&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

But even better, the BNF apparently have it digitized, then you can really feel like a 1789 frenchman reading about the debates in the news, starting from the estates general (pretty amazing honestly) :
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb34452336z/date1789.r=
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k44109553

>>2804993
some good books of the period would prolly be the best ofc, but Im no expert on that front
maybe "1789-1792 / 1792-1794 : Les deux Révolutions françaises" by Henri Guillemin who is a well liked historian by leftists here in france, although it might be a bit dated now.

My entire view of jacobins is based off of TFR and it will be extremely hard to change that



File: 1778303472330.jpg (14.36 KB, 530x400, banana.jpg)

 

What exactly explains the (American) left's obsession with trying to "convert" right-wingers to the left?

I ask, because I've been politically active on the far-left for almost 20 years (I'm in my mid-30s) and I've seen this pattern going all the way back then. When the Tea Party crap was a thing in 2009-2010, there were a lot of leftists (mostly Trotskyists and Chomskyite anarchists) who wanted to "show them the light" and convert them to leftism. The logic was, these people have very real grievances but they've been brainwashed by the media or whatever to embrace the right instead of the left. Nowadays I see a lot of leftists talk about converting MAGAts to Marxism or the new wave of TradCaths to Liberation Theology. Hell, I see so many atheist leftists repeat the "JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST" mantra despite having zero stake in any Christian theology, simply because they believe doing so will win right-wring Christians over to socialism. I also see heavy, heavy romanticization of Appalachia and Appalachian culture to the point where comrades will say things like: "WE NEED TO TAKE BACK THE TERM 'REDNECK' AND MAKE IT RADICAL AGAIN!" – cool story bro, Harlan County voted for Trump by over 80%.

So why though? It doesn't help either that this seems to be a distinctly American phenomenon. When I speak to comrades in Europe, Asia, or LatAm, they make it very clear there is no converting a fascist or a communist, or a TradCath to anarchist. They're under the assumpton that you don't missionize to the right-wing on the basis that "deep down they're a good person", you fight them. There are material reasons why right-wingers remain right-wing and chose reactionary and exclusionary politics over radical leftist ones. TradCaths, Evangelicals, and Appalachian hillbillies aren't going to become communists just because Penny the Pink-Haired Grad Student panders to them.

>pic unrelated; it's a banana
147 posts and 12 image replies omitted.

File: 1778459504934.png (715.76 KB, 637x680, image.png)

Talking to apolitical workers or moderate leftists is fine. Talking to conservatives can be okay if they share your material interests (i.e. they're working class), but it's a poor investment of your time and energy for obvious reasons. Talking to fascists and the bourgeoisie (even petite bourgeois) is counterproductive, complete waste of time.

>>2808852
i'm sure worshipping the same guy is gonna get you real far in a country detached from it, but what do i know? i'm just an ultra!

File: 1778460756261.png (6.86 MB, 2048x2001, 1775624711588.png)

>>2808695
Simply talk about all the obvious ways in which capitalism is completely antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. He tells his followers to care for the poor and the downtrodden, that the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is sinful, that property should be held in common and distributed according to need, etc. In short, simply identify to them the myriad of ways in which capitalism compels and encourages people to behave in ways that are the complete opposite of Christian teachings. From there it's a small leap to point out how a socialist society would be objectively closer to the application of those teachings on a national scale.
>>2808639
>Massive scientific and technological activities that would have been greatly hampered in an environment lead by the retarded superstitions of backwards religions institutions.
And yet countries like the US which didn't engage in any crackdown on religion made similar advancements and often surpassed those of the Soviet Union. This isn't the 17th century, no mainstream Christian denomination teaches that scientific inquiry and research is a bad thing. On the contrary, some of the largest denominations (like Catholicism) actively promote it as a means to better understand God through studying creation.
>the rift already existed
The rift existed between socialism and established religious institutions. Those institutions like the Russian Orthodox Church absolutely needed to he subjugated and neutralized. However it doesn't follow from this that religion in general should be demonized. The correct course of action would be to promote schools of religious thinking which were compatible with the revolution. This is the current approach in China. If a reactionary priest tells somebody that they cannot be both a Christian and a socialist, we aren't helping our cause by confirming that and allegation and forcing Christian workers to choose between their faith and their class. We would be much better off convincing them that not only can they be both, but that their faith compels them to be a socialist.
>Religious "Marxism" rejects dialectical materialism
I see no reason why this should bePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

If you believe the world was immaculately concieved you are not a materialist. Simple as

>>2808837
>Reading my posts I see I might come across as a concern troll and I’m sorry if I do, but I’m really asking here
No, it's fine. And even if you were, it can still lead to an interesting discussion.

A big thing in Marxian historiography is that, while the overall direction of history is in a given direction, on a moment-to-moment basis, it can still go backwards. It took centuries worth of back and forth for capitalism to overtake feudalism, so long that feudalism still existed in Russia by the time the Russian revolution had occurred. Whether or not we actually are moving in the direction that Marx and Engels believe us to be is debatable, but that's a whole conversation unto itself.

>>2808852
I don't see what any of this has to do with anything.

>>2808877
>And yet countries like the US which didn't engage in any crackdown on religion made similar advancements and often surpassed those of the Soviet Union.
The US also has a construction that protects people from religious authority. Both countries were still, from a legal perspective, secular, so the distinction isn't quite as large as you think.

>This isn't the 17th century, no mainstream Christian denomination teaches that scientific inquiry and research is a bad thing. On the contrary, some of the largest denominations (like Catholicism) actively promote it as a means to better understand God through studying creation.

See above. And crazed Christians who want to live like it's the middle ages absolutely exist.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 1778440825185.jpeg (107.46 KB, 500x659, IMG_8481.jpeg)

 

The majority of ‘anti-fascists’ are anarakkkidies and shitlibs who a pose it purely because of “Muh democracy” or “le authoritarianism” the lies about communism are basically the same lies about fascism, to be frank fascism at its core is a better alternative to capitalism but not by much. I suppose fascism also was, at least under hitlers policies,very antisemitic and anti-gay, but there are plenty of Queer-phobic communists and many communists where anti Isreal and sometimes anti-Jewish to some extents(xDDD)

Anti-fascists and fascists are both liberals fighting to the last worker for the sacredness of capital

The left and right are meaningless bourgeois abstractions. We are the real movement. Next question?

If you reply to this thread you're either a troll or retarded

>to be frank fascism at its core is a better alternative to capitalism
No it isn't you stupid simian chimp

i hate them because i hate all social-democrats

Most rank-and-file fascists in a fascist state like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy would be rank-and-file Communists in a socialist state TBH



File: 1778399567143.png (357.83 KB, 716x870, ClipboardImage.png)

 

Was Marx taking a subtle jab at the bible at the end of the Manifesto?

>The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

  • The Communist Manifesto Ch 4

>For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
  • The Gospel of Matthew 16:26

Is Marx saying that since souls don't exist, it is better to gain the world and lose one's chains?

BRAVO MARX!

All religious "Marxists" are LARPers.

>>2808214
actually buddhism does not contradict marxism or the dialectical method

File: 1778438624377.png (180.72 KB, 904x904, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2808164
it may or may not have been a deliberate reference. Hard to tell.

>>2808229
It does, on the virtue of being metaphysical, but definitely it does not contradict it as egregiously as Western Platonic idealism does, which likely contributed to its success in China.



 

Recently saw a discussion in regards to "Third Worldism" as in MLM + unequal exchange (a non-Wallerstinian branch of world systems theory) having grown in influence in the anglophone/western, largely online, "communist" spaces.
Here is my dialectical engagement, as they were on to something important, not usually recognized, but also partially incorrect. I attempt to correct it ITT.

Unequal exchange, Mao/Chinese aesthetics and purely performative MLM rhetoric has grown in recent years… But with time comes change.

The original 90s ThirdWorldism "movement", centered in north-america diverged from MLM on a variety of theoretical issues, most crucially the revolutionary nature of the proletariat. They supplemented their divergence with integrating post-Marxist turns happening in word-systems theory (which was ongoing in western academia between the 80s and 90s). As ""Maoism" ThirdWorldism" largely accomplished nothing, other than maybe increasing confusion in the communist movement during the era of blackest reaction, we mostly remember them by their cartoony writing and online media available through archives from that era.

So if 90s Third Worldism was a north-american revisionist offshoot from MLM which integrated non-Wallerstinian unequal exchange theory and rejecting revolution in the imperial core for rhetorical "support" of [far off, peripheral countries]… What are the particularities of the contemporary expression?

2020s Third Worldism can be observed as being a north-american right-wing revisionist movement which retains both the non-Wallerstinian unequal exchange theory and the purely symbolic appeals to Mao, but now replacing the "MLM" pretender framing for the simpler, safer state ideology of social-imperialist China; that also just so happens to feign adherence to 'Mao Zedong Thought', even after it was systematically replaced with the Bukharinist-Dengist capitulationist counterrevolution. which is continued today, the true basis for Xi Jinping Thought, as the bureaucrat-monopoly capitalist heading the political line of the party has only deepened the cementation of a new pole in the capitalist imperialist world system since Deng, when neither as many NEZ, stock markets, overall % of bourgeois in the party or billionaires existed in China. Mao Zedong Thought lives on in the rural and urban areas of any militant area of the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
54 posts and 9 image replies omitted.

>>2767356
>yeah so we're going to need you working 30 minutes monday,two hours tuesday etc etc
the statements of the utterly deranged

>>2767315
Are there any blogs that have historicised this being the case via archival methods or something similar? Or is it able to be unearthed through links to SA archives? Wasn't a SA user but considering it was very internet-centric this doesnt sound too unlikely. Would need some sort of proof of the connective tissue to counter-pose to the emergence of the M3W """orgs""" like MIM, IRTR, LLCO, etc.

>>2767251
invasive plant species mean no more "bullshit jobs",mechanical removal with lawn equipment of phragmites and kudzu alone would end unemployment.

>>2769125
>kudzu
Ok. Based. I changed my mind.

Mamdani status?



File: 1777999618382-0.png (176.33 KB, 451x454, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1777999618382-1.png (5.15 KB, 240x146, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1777999618382-2.png (224.7 KB, 448x236, ClipboardImage.png)

 

Hoxhaism, like other Scientific Socialist movements, had first emerged out of the ideological conflict during the middle-to-late potion of the 20th Century CE. During this time, Enver Hoxha, General Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labour, began to understand, and be critical of, the increasingly revisionist and opportunist rhetoric and polices of the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics after the death of J. Stalin. At this time, the powerful and harmonious socialist economy that was created as a result of the five-year plans of the 1930’s was slowly being metaphorically watered-down as Khrushchev and later Brezhnev ruled the USSR into the later part of the 20th century.

Enver Hoxha was further agitated by Mao Zedong’s “three worlds theory”; a revisionist and opportunist idea which ignored any sort of societal contradictions in favour of Mao’s immediate geopolitical ambitions. To quote Comrade Hoxha on the “three worlds theory”:

"[…] all of these terms which refer to the different political powers working in the world today conceal — and don't reveal — the class character of these political powers, the basic contradictions of our epoch, the predominant key problem on the national and international scale today, the grim struggle which is waged between the bourgeois-revisionist world on the one hand and socialism, the world proletariat and its natural allies on the other hand." (Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Party Congress of the PLA)

Enver Hoxha would seldom capitulate to Khrushchev’s careerism or Mao’s flunkeyism, however. Instead, he would later withdraw from the social-imperialist Warsaw Pact, and would end relations with the revisionist People’s Republic of China. Thus in the process, preventing the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania from becoming a vassal of either social-imperialist state or bloc.

Hence, from this ideological conflict emerged Hoxhaism – the continuation of Marxism and modernisation of Leninism for the international proletariat, free from the crass revisionism and careerism of the Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the petite-bougeois pseudo-Marxism of the People’s Republic of China.

After Hoxha’s life concluded in 1985, a large amount of Communist Parties, many of which located in the Americas, have taken up Hoxha’s example resilience to revisionism and careerism.

Hoxhaism, as it exists in the present, is the most potent Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
42 posts and 10 image replies omitted.

>>2807887
Whenever someone posts this out of context quote I'm just gonna respond with Friedrich Engels' words:
>"Marx was a genius; we others were at best talented. Without him the theory would not be by far what it is today. It therefore rightly bears his name."

>>2807887
he was making fun of the french, nuff said

>>2802652
you must admit this is a bit silly?
Marxism should be "revise" or "re-envisioned" whatever as material conditions change. The world is very different today from the industrial revolution
Not only that, but Albania never really progressed under Hoxha. The country still doesn't even drinkable tap water. Clearly Dengism or Castroism or even Juche are superior models.

>>2808070
>Albania never really progressed under Hoxha
you wot m8. the party of labor of albania basically built all the infrastructure, industry, electricity, technology, education, etc. albania has

File: 1778437350514.jpg (385.35 KB, 732x1024, Gaboon_viper_camouflage.jpg)

>>2807863
>idk they seem pretty lame compared to ICMLPO
Do you even know what the united front and popular front are you fucking dumbass?
There is nothing more "lame", to speak you prepubescent verbiage, than, after going out of your way to rebase on anti-revisionist, revolutionary Marxism-Leninism like Hoxhaists are supposedly doing, not dispense with one of the most blatant batch of revisionist seeds found in the simpleton directives of Dimitrov's years in the ECCI; collaboration with bourgeois liberal leaders (progressives like Churchill!), parliamentary cretinism and peaceful coexistence with capitalist imperialism. After your "Fifth head", Hoxha himself, at the end of his life, famously spend a large amount of energy tackling and critiquing the so-called "eurocommunist" counter-revolutionary advance; a political movement within the eastern bloc which was exactly a direct consequence of a process starting with the Comintern's 7th Congress. Concessions there from made into a battering ram, weaponized by the bureaucrat right-wing. In everything Dimitrov modified of the United Front with his Popular/Anti-Fascist Front addition, Stalin found the need to add absent cautious detail, clarification, grounding it in the united front conclusions; pointing to the Popular Front having no place after the fascist axis were no more.
Stalin was a Leninist and the Comintern gradually refined the United Front tactic, crystallizing in the United Front from Below during the 5th Congress the most universal tactic for the capitalist imperialist era, having none of the 6th Congress ultra-left mistakes. It was born out of praxis in the real sense of the word. To think 7th Congress 'Popular Frontism', pushed by Dimitrov, consisting of a right-deviationist overcorrection to 6th Congress, which was in turn a left-deviationist overcorrection in response to Bukharinite eclecticism causing chaos in the Comintern during the 5th, when it is the ground which revisionist stand on, is fucking sus. Apparently ICMLPO just concluded that the mantle of anti-revisionism just wasn't that important as Hoxha stans and, as a result, have handed the KKE that sword instead. Practically, that is (as far as I can gather) the case right now. KKE and their ECA international from 2009 onward, have a more ML anti-revisionist line than the largest Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 1778433322810.jpeg (218.65 KB, 1000x1401, IMG_3519.jpeg)

 

Marxism is not about vibes, justice, or who feels bad. It is about material development. Any attempt to condemn American imperialism primarily on moral grounds is liberal humanism, and therefore idealism. Despite the moral indignation likely to follow this post, let me explain.

As is well known, of all the things Karl Marx was, an idealist he was not. Nor was he a moralist. He did not frame his analysis of social phenomena—however fraught—in terms of ethical condemnation or approval. Even when discussing subjects as uncomfortable as prostitution, Marx was concerned with material conditions, not moral outrage. One can only imagine his incredulity at seeing self-described “Marxists” today reverting to liberal moral language when confronted with elite scandal, mistaking denunciation for analysis.

Naturally, as a man of his time, Marx was not immune to contemporary prejudices. This is neither here nor there. What matters is that his method rejected moral evaluation as the driver of history.
Unlike Whig historians, Marx understood history as neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. Accordingly, he described phenomena such as the destruction of Indigenous societies in the Americas, the expansion of European colonialism, British rule in India, and even slavery in ancient Greece as progressive—not in an ethical sense, but insofar as they advanced productive forces and dissolved pre-existing social relations. In the Greek case, slavery marked the transition from tribal organization to the polis. In the colonial case, capitalism shattered stagnant forms of production. For Marx, European colonialism represented a double mission: destructive, certainly, but historically necessary.

It is with this framework in mind that one can argue—without moral embellishment—that Marx would have understood modern American imperialism as a progressive force. If historical progress is defined by the destruction of pre-capitalist social relations and the development of productive forces, then American imperialism is not merely progressive, but among the most effective such forces in history. Marx regarded capitalism itself as a violent yet necessary stage, since communism emerges through capitalism, not alongside or prior to it. To recoil from this conclusion by introducing moral exceptions is to abandon materialism in favor of sentimentality, a tendency unfortunately common in the contemporary Western left.
One may object to American imperialism on Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted.

>>2808465
This shit must be bait

File: 1778436433915.jpg (227.89 KB, 1080x862, Tudehsisters....jpg)


>1979 Islamic Revolution

The west is the reason that counter revolution exists howeverbeit

>>2808536
>They've been deindustrialize Europ
Not necessarily, Europe has become deindustrialized because the end of Euro colonialism, the aging of their population and China rising

>>2808544
As long as we don't call China socialist it's alright.

>>2808544
indeed it is, glory to chinese imperialism due to its progressive nature, and death to the american and russian imperialism!

I'm not reading all that slop, but the vibe I'm getting is that you've reinvented Kautskian ultraimperialism. this doesn't work, for reasons that Lenin lays out in Imperialism



Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ 1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /10 /11 /12 /13 /14 /15 /16 /17 /18 /19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /32 /33 /34 /35 /36 ]
| Catalog | Home