/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I have noticed that many of my comrades receive push-back, both from organic voices and from deliberate, planted ones typically directed at our language, our rhetoric, and the concepts we work with that extend beyond what is considered acceptable within mainstream society. We operate outside the bounds of liberal civility between class and political opponents. We step beyond moralism and speak in terms of power, power that stands in opposition to existing institutions, with the aim of toppling them, not entering them.

One example is my comrade's statement that reactionary movements are not equal to ours, and therefore do not deserve honest conversation or platforms; they deserve attack on all fronts, physical or otherwise. Some people take issue with this, which has always confused me. I cannot speak for the other JPAs, but I am now realizing in my experience this militant tendency is far from the norm within the broader left, and the moment they're done being threatened by someone they aren't willing to engage with, they drop the support. In fact, the militant edge of the movement has often been pushed to the edge by leftist counter‑insurgents. Over the years, militant praxis has frequently dictated the pace of broader left politics, shaping the topics, the framing, the urgency. Yet the largest base of the left remains reformist, and not only pacifists, but PASSIVE, which is a big difference. These modern leftists aren't pacifists, because they would call the workers who threw bolts into the gears of machinery violent; that is counter-insurgency. That reformist majority vigorously critiques, attacks, and slanders anything it perceives as ultra‑left, overly militant, or brash. They do not merely abandon militants in times of repression; that would be too abstract of a description of what happens. The reality is that they exist to enable that repression, through the very way they behave within movements and the language of their critiques. The counter‑insurgency role of the left fills many functions, and this is one. Another is the continuous capture and containment of revolutionary energy, funneling it back into the DNC or other bourgeoisie avenues.

This is the role most of you leftists who are counter insurgency'd up by your captured revisionist/reformist orgs end up serving, whether consciously or not you exist as a form of counter insurgency. The position is inherently controlled opposition, and counter-revolutionary. You move for socPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

What are you guys opinion on queer anarchism?
I think I am something like this.

Pic related is a place in my hometown (Curitiba - Brazil) that I would totally make as the headquarter of my movement.

I want the expansion of immigration and the ruin of the imperial middle-class.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch02.htm

> The mass of [the middle-class] formed the basis of the military power of [migrant]-owning society. They served in the armed forces and bore on their shoulders the main burden of taxes essential for conducting war. But as a result of the competition of large-scale production based on cheap [migrant] labour, and under the weight of burdens beyond their strength, the [middle class] were ruined. The insoluble contradiction between large [industry] and [the middle class] continued to intensify.

> The squeezing out of the [middle-class] subverted not only the economic, but also the military and political might of the [migrant]-owning States, and particularly [the USA]. Victories were replaced by defeats. Wars of conquest were replaced by defensive ones. The source of the uninterrupted supply of cheap [migrants] dried up. The negative aspects of migrant labour appeared more and more strongly. A general fall in production took place in the last two centuries of the existence of the [Statesian] Empire.

https://www.swtimes.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2016/10/15/on-holiest-day-in-jewish/25200145007/
>TEL AVIV, Israel — As afternoon dims into dusk on the eve of Yom Kippur, an extraordinary thing happens in this secular metropolis: Israel’s city that rarely sleeps grinds to a standstill and is enveloped in a strange and wonderful silence.

>Parents lug bicycles out of basement bomb shelters. Children pop their heads out in between parked cars to see if it is finally safe to go into the road. The echo of car horns is replaced by the pinging of bicycle bells.

>“It’s the one day that parents can let kids go out in the street without getting run over,” he says. “They can ride their bikes from one end of the city to another.”

>After dark, wide-open HaBimah Square next to the eponymous national theater fills with hundreds of families. Parents socialize as children wobble along on training wheels and teenagers plan nocturnal bicycle rides to neighboring cities.

How old were you when you realized cycling us Zi*nist coded? True anti-colonial proletarians drive lifted trucks

Wanna know what folks on here thinks of andrea dworkin and general sentiment around her work alongside others in her vein. Was she a genius or just stupid?

Why are crippled homeless beggars, disabled and rich Mafia all lumped together as Lumpenproles?

Seems hella weird rich criminals being in that group according to Karl Marx.

the fundamental flaw of marxism is that it is built around the idea of ONE contradiction being the motor of capitalism's development, namely what is manifest in the value form. this is merely the contradiction between proletariat and capitalist. but of course there is the contradiction between the capitalist and the capitalist, as well as the contradiction between the form of bourgeois institutions and their actual content insofar as they are in a material relationship with the capitalist class

what we have seen is that after the falling rate of profit has progressed a certain point, capitalists realized that the first contradiction was no longer tenable to work with and so they moved to the other two. this has resulted in a qualitatively distinct transformation of the development of capital. in the contradiction of the value form, still working within the logic of value, the only salient variable is productivity. however, in capitalist vs capitalist and capitalist vs government power relations they no longer need to concern themselves with such things. it does not matter that the rate of profit is zero or even negative if you just fucking kill your competition and have the govt print infinite money. the solution to capital's first contradiction really is just have more war and sabotage everyone else whilst introducing financialization bullshit. look at netflix. they actively undercut blockbuster whilst losing money just to push their opponent into bankruptcy. that is just what is normal now, cannibalism

this is why ofc there will be no revolution because the contradictions at play have nothing to do with prole cattle. they are just pawns in the larger game. in the context of disputing wages, there is a clear connection between one's class position and what is the natural progression with respect to how to address things. in such contexts, class consciousness is something very simple to promote. this is not the case when its having a war with the national bourgeois of another country, or heck in the future two megacorporations just fucking killing each other mafia-style. that is what will happen btw. the iran war will crash the economy and corporations will capitalize on the chaos to balkanize western states into feudal shitholes. then eventually you will have these "freedom cities" hurling drones at each other and any prole cattle that thinks of objecting to this will be preemptively executed why palantir technology

tell me whePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Capitalism is social and existential vampirism.
If capital is the value of exploitation, then we have capitalism as a way of life that one person benefits from the disgrace of other people.
It is a threat to society disguised as freedom and excellence.
Am I right?
Notice that I am a little high.

in setting oneself against the status-quo and against capitalism, which is the correct thing to do because the status quo and capitalism have many flaws, most people drift into a certain mistaken mode of thinking: capitalism is bad, and whatever is against capitalism is good.

this is a sort of moralistic mode of thinking. it works for individual relationships (john is bad, the enemy of john is my friend) but terribly for modes of social organization. capitalism is good compared to feudalism, capitalism is bad compared to communism. obviously marx understood this and any marxist could tell you that in theory capitalism is "historically progressive" - but look in practice and you'll find that the ire of the communist is always directed more strongly at the capitalist than at any worse alternative. were (somehow) a feudalist counter-revolution to break out in some far flung country, you can bet /leftypol/ would critically support it against US imperialism. we have had our contingent of Trump contrarians, and very few of them pre-2024 were advocating for him on the basis that he'd totally screw the US and clear the way for China to become a world power. no, if that happens it'll be a fluke.

this is important for two reasons:

1. on the question of how to organize a capitalist economy, conventional economics is more right than it is given credit for. there is no rational reason for socialists to instinctively side with every loser under the status quo. in many cases, socialists should in fact be pushing for "neoliberal" policies that neoliberals themselves have chickend out on. why is it that of all bourgeoise, owners of coca-cola bottling plants are specially isolated from competition by regulation? why should car dealerships have a special carve-out from the market mechanism that gives them greater subsidies and while making the consumer - that is, often, a proletarian - pay more?
   
2. most of the possible alternatives to the status quo are worse. you will see more and more language that vaguely evokes the pre-neoliberal status quo, and you shouldn't be baited into supporting it. a protectionist turn against free trade, more in-sourcing of strategic goods, greater domestic investment in (military) industry, and so on, funded of course by a stripping of social protections. if you thought living in a market focused only on trade was bad, wait until you get the thrills of a non-market focused only on war.

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