/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The absolute state of the discourse on this board lately is pathetic. It’s almost 2026 and I’m still seeing "socialists" parroting CIA talking points like they’re reading from the Black Book of Communism. It’s time to filter the radlibs and the ultras who care more about moral purity than winning.

If we actually apply historical materialism instead of utopian wish-casting, it becomes obvious that Stalin and Deng aren't just "good" – they are the two greatest practitioners of Marxism in history because they did what Western leftists refuse to do: they prioritized the survival of the revolution over the approval of the bourgeoisie.

1. Stalin: The Shield
Stop crying about "authoritarianism" and read Losurdo. His Critique of a Black Legend completely exposes how the "millions dead" narrative is just recycled Nazi war propaganda that the West adopted during the Cold War. The "Holodomor" wasn't a genocide; it was a combination of kulak sabotage and cyclical drought that the Soviets eventually ended through collectivization. Stalin understood that you don't survive capitalist encirclement with good vibes. He took a country of wooden plows and turned it into a nuclear superpower in a single generation. He purged the fifth columnists because he knew a war of annihilation was coming. Without that "authoritarianism," the Wehrmacht would have wiped the Slavs off the map.

2. Deng: The Sword
The hate for Deng is even more embarrassing. You guys claim to care about the poor but hate the man who oversaw the greatest poverty alleviation program in human history? Deng understood that "poverty is not socialism." He developed the productive forces necessary to compete with the West. And regarding 1989: He saved China from the fate of the USSR. Tiananmen was a textbook color revolution, backed by Western NGOs and intelligence. Deng saw Gorbachev selling out to Pizza Hut and realized that sometimes you have to crush a counter-revolution to preserve the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Because he had the spine to do that, China is now mogging the US economy while Russia spent the 90s getting looted by oligarchs.

TL;DR
Parenti said it best in Blackshirts and Reds: you people want a revolution without a revolution. You want a clean, safe process that never makes mistakes and never exercises power. That doesn't exist. Stalin secured the state; Deng secured the economy. If you reject them, you’re not Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Nobody cares about "revisionism". Nobody cares if you think socialism ended in the USSR in 1953 or whatever. Nobody cares about your position on debates and splits that took place decades before they were born. What people *do* care about is that socialism and can solve the problems that face them, like poverty and colonialism. I've seen people here ridicule the notion that socialism is helping people but there is really no other way to build power. People did not follow Lenin because he had the right ideas but because the Bolsheviks were the only conceivable solution that didn't end in what would later be known as fascism. Why does the CPC have near-universal approval in China? Because their system works and it provides for the people. Almost nobody there wants to return to the days of the Cultural Revolution. And where is anti-revisionist cause celebre Albania today? Now just another NATO puppet state. The entire concept of "anti-revisionism" is anti-materialist because it puts ideas before people. It doesn't matter if you have the right ideas because Marxism was never about having the right ideas. What matters is having the right practice. Here's another truke: If your system can be undone by a single bad actor with mere decrees, then maybe it was useless and was never going to make it in the first place.

I'm not really active here anymore, but I have to post this. Who's ready for the Sino-European alliance against United States Imperialism?

(Or in ten years time, a Greenland Conference on the Zones of Occupation between Von der Leyen and Xi Jingping, and whoever else decides to join in the mess)

🗽UNITED STATES POLITICS 🦅

<ICEcution Edition

>May Lenin awaken the workers and help them to see the necessity of revolutionary civil war in the United States.

🛠️ 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.

The debate over whether AI is “ethical” is mired in petit-bourgeois moralism. Technology itself doesn’t create suffering — capitalism does. The real question isn’t whether AI should exist, but how it can be used for human benefit instead of private profit.

The outrage toward AI is highly selective. People claim it “steals,” as if corporations haven’t been extracting labour, culture, and data for decades. They claim AI is destroying the environment — meanwhile, online video streaming accounts for the majority of global internet traffic and emits far more CO₂ than AI use does today. According to The Shift Project, an hour of streaming produces roughly 55 g of CO₂, and a typical Netflix user emits around 17 kg of CO₂ every month. Pornography alone occupies a huge portion of global bandwidth. Yet no one demands the abolition of streaming; our habits and pleasures are completely normalised.

Before attacking AI, remember that streaming culture is part of the spectacle of late capitalism: endless passive entertainment that keeps people distracted while the system churns on. People fixate on AI because it is new and unfamiliar — not because it is the true driver of ecological or social harm.

What is never discussed is the role AI could play outside capitalism. Under a rationally organised, democratically planned socialist economy, AI could become an instrument of genuine human emancipation. AI could eliminate monotonous labour, optimise resource allocation, reduce systemic waste, plan production in real time, expand access to education and culture, and coordinate complex systems on a scale no bureaucracy could ever achieve. Instead of reinforcing exploitation, AI could free people from it — shortening the working day, expanding leisure, and allowing individuals to participate meaningfully in cultural and intellectual life.

In other words: AI is not inherently exploitative. It simply reflects the system into which it is born. Under capitalism, it becomes another tool for profit extraction. Under socialism, it becomes a tool for human development. The question is not whether AI should be used, but who controls it — capital or society.

Critical support for Trump invading Greenland.

After longtime of NAFOISM tyranny, we will finally see them destroyed. No more cultural imperialism like “Russia is le bad because muh LGBT rights” from Eurotranshumanists.

>I’m doing this because I want my factory worker to buy my cars. If they make enough money, they’ll buy my own product.

This is probably a stupid question.

Is it possible for the globe to prioritize growth of the means of production sufficiently to allow for development of the developing world, and countries like China, without having deindustrialization of the developed world? I'm thinking of things like shifting production towards the manufacture of manufacturies, and the mass education of personnel. Something like creating the jobs and the consumers simultaneously.

Obviously there are constraints on resource, which only advancement of the means of production can eventually solve. But there's no rightful moral code that says that the developed countries are more entitled to these resources than the developing world. Could it be that within these limits that aggregate consumption could be grown on this model?

Is it possible that this can be done within the capitalist mode of production? It seems that this might be close to what the Soviet Union was capable of doing within its borders.

I am a LibSoc so i don’t particularly care for marxism leninism but i do respect certain marxists like che and ho chi minh, but i just don’t really understand why people like kim. I know that a lot of the stuff about him isn’t true, but he still doesn’t seem like the greatest guy, but maybe that’s just the CIA propaganda.

The American leftist community failed to make meaningful changes on a local and national level over because it prioritized visibility over internal organization and protection. Most of its efforts have centered more around activism, protests, and campaign movements rather than fundraisers, mutual aid (this actually was done, but to a very limited degree), community protection services (only the black American has had any success in organizing armed defence for marginalized communities so far and even that’s limited to black Americans), and facilities for allied groups beyond gay bars and clubs which are often out of reach for most Americans.
The latter decisions that weren’t made are far from impossible to pull off. With a fraction of the money much of the American leftist community has, most reactionary communities have maintained such institutions and services for decades to centuries depending on which community you look into. It would objectively be far more practical regardless to focus more on internal organization and building structure to this community of people rather than shifting attention consistently to the media and national audience where efforts are diluted in coordination and often reliant on demonstrations of moral upstanding and humanistic virtue rather than concrete action. It wouldn’t be any harder to pull off than any new protest or movement, and it wouldn’t cost much to anyone especially if money is pulled.

So why didnt these actions occur?

unitedstatian 'ultras' are the most obvious crypto chauvinists in the world and I say this as a great and authentic ultraoid

There is more proletarian solidarity to be potentially found among the conscripted ranks of the IDF and Wehrmacht than in your mercenary petty bourgeois/labor aristocrat army

Every dead american soldier is a victory for the international working class. Further proof of this is in the rise of anti-war sentiment among the american proletariat whenever the cost of war spikes (Vietnam, War on Terror) compared to the jingoistic character they generally take whenever it goes their way (WW2, Gulf War), it also has a proletarianization effect on volunteers.

<revolutionary defeat for thee but not for me!
sorry but
>"The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland." - Letter from Marx to Engels In Manchester, 1869
>"The conversion of a war between governments into a civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ("defeats") of governments; on the other hand, one cannot actually strive for such a conversion without thereby facilitating defeat." The Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War, Lenin

<b-but hate is le bad
While we do not envy or disdain the bourgeoisie as is common of the middle class, as that would reinforce the role of competition in society, Marx also notes that there can be no class war without class hate. Hating your class enemies (police/army) can be revolutionary, granted it doesn't distract from the materialist critique of class society that is absent of morality.

Yes I will take a million dead US soldiers over one dead prole who they were in the process of killing. I'm not shedding a tear over my militant class enemies.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.