/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

the hippie movement died a few generation ago

>>2801685
Hippies in general were not firmly based on devotion to a specific god (except for hare krishnas).
Socialism is also not "vibes and feeloings", it must be based on a theory of society for instance marxism.

I know this is something that was in the air for a very long time, but I am trying to organize it in a more complex way.

Moved to >>>/siberia/779733.

>>2801612
i've seen this exact ragebait copypasta a million times on twitter. same with the "my enemy is not the american ruling class, but the american people"

the LLMs just pump out ragebait until one sticks really good and then all the shillbot accounts repeat it to psychologically torture whatever human beings are left on the internet

new thread >>2801656
new thread >>2801656
new thread >>2801656
new thread >>2801656
new thread >>2801656
new thread >>2801656
new thread >>2801656
new thread >>2801656

>>2801564
>you're apart of the problem, we live in a period so different from the early 20th century, even from the mid-late 20th century, to pretend we can just do everything lenin or whoever did is idiotic
fool, you are afraid to use a tachanka, the most relevant proletarian weapon

>>2801585
if burger hitlerites itt can sperg out about jews do you think the mods care about misunderstanding of marxist theory

>>2800996
>would you rather have fascism or thing that leads to fascism
lol
read dmitrov
read dutt

>>2800996
> no racial laws
Italians invented racism

>>2801224
No that was Trotsky

>>2800996
Why though?
Respectfully, this kind of thing is what >>/siberia/ is for.

>>2801554
Sensible chuckle

>>2800689
Who said anything about it being reactionary?

>>2800696
I particularly enjoyed this post
>>2763262

>>2800538
>You really won't get gay men to go spend a week camping inna woods, they'll be like "ew, bugs!"

95% of military reenactments involve gay sex innawoods

>>2801252
not what he's saying, that's men basically "making due", he's referring of men making the political choice to be gay beliving that's revolutionary

>>2800696
I don't know what you're complaining about. The thread got derailed for a bit, but it seems to have gotten back on track.

it's easier to get more money, more rest time and more leisure time if you focus on making money yourself and build an actual escape plan.

apolitical chads who focus on the bag stay winning, chuds who care about spooks or communists who think sitting down on union meetings for 5 hours is improving their lives stay broke.

>>2797351
>You only need wages if you want to buy commodities
like food, housing, and water

it's more about removing fetters i.e. getting the retards out of the way so we can fix this shit.

>>2796856
>I fight for
>Fighting for any
>my personal interest to fight for
>I only fought for
>If I didn't fight for

posting on leftypol isn't fighting

>>2797016
Because Deng wanted workers to have more money so they can contribute to the Chinese economy uyghur

>>2801115
Fucking asshole, if he was mor impulsive we might not be the center of imperialism

>>2801115
That said, I would put most of the South American liberators far above Washington. They dealt with much worse circumstances, tougher logistics, more corrupt institutions, more violent and brutal forms of warfare and far more infighting. While the US had arguments in Congress, in South America there were outright wars with each general seizing power.

>>2801131
Not to mention not all of those guys were slavers

>>2801159
>>2801131
They also had to deal with an enemy in a gentlemanly war. Other than against the British native allies there were no massacres or mass lootings. None of the Founding Fathers ever had to fear their entire homes being destroyed or their families being murdered. In Latin American wars, it was brutality on another level, with a destroyed and mangled Spanish Empire, with its established allies in the New World, versus rising local military leaders and mass-conscripted soldiers, with all sides committing massacres and burnings.

>>2801210
Dan Carlin had a great quote about this

>That general who coined New Hampshire's state motto, live free or die, was a revolutionary war general, for example. He wrote that phrase decades after the war and in total freedom and safety. Now I have no doubt he would have been willing to give his life in the service of what was a brand new country during the Revolutionary War. But he could also take some comfort in the idea that he wasn't going to have to give much more than that. I mean, the British were not going to come into the country and after they hanged him, burned his teenage sons and rape his wife and his children and send them off to slavery, burned down his house, destroy his town and stamp out his church. They weren't going to do that. That's a different kind of risk, isn't it?

>>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.