/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Interregnum Edition

#01 https://archive.ph/4Dq3L
#02 https://archive.ph/sntTt
#03 https://archive.ph/AoX8t
#04 https://archive.ph/mHlP7
#05 https://archive.ph/NEiRq
#06 https://archive.ph/bWfbJ
#07 NEVER EXISTED?
#08 DELETED FOR SOME REASON! >>2623774
#09 https://archive.ph/iarMN Senior Numba Nine 03-01-26 13:34:18
#09 https://archive.ph/P84hH Junior Numba Nine 03-01-26 19:13:34
#10 https://archive.ph/kh1wf
#11 https://archive.ph/JvoVM
#12 https://archive.ph/JWBNL
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

PMC leftists when blue collars whine about immigrants taking their jerbs
>Why are these people so backwards and stupid? Don't they know that wages already declined even before immigration and that immigrants mostly take over jobs that nobody wants to work with in the first place?

PMC leftists when AI take their jobs:
>NO AI SLOP SLOP FUCK AI I HATE AI LYNCH AI BURN THE DATASERVERS

And no, i'm not justifying anti immigration nativism, the point against them are valid and true. But those same points apply with AI. Wages are already declining long before AI is a thing, and AI is used primarily, in the creative industry setting, for entry level jobs with low wages that nobody wants to work in. You know, like making codemonkey scripts or making fillers for game backgrounds. But its the fucking hypocrisy i can't stand: you guys can correctly see through hysteria when it affects the blue collars, but when it affects your substratum's interest, your creative art making and programming jobs, suddenly you become as insane as the most rabid nativists who think that haitians are eating cat and dogs

Something I find a little strange, or perhaps just misunderstand, is that marxism is posited to be an morally unconcerned, descriptive theory, yet its adherents often don't adopt that attitude whatsoever. Most marxists I've ever met are activists and have a clear ethical problem with capitalism. However, this ethical problematization is never seemingly justified, just presupposed and unexamined. I don't think that's necessarily an inherent problem but it seems to run counter to the idea of the supposed amoralism of marxism. That supposed amoralism is used to counter liberal sentimentality yet it isn't actually amoralistic itself. You could probably even criticize Marx and Engels themselves for this, owing to their active engagement with a communist movement. If it's true that capitalism's collapse is an inevitability and the theory posts only that then why even concern yourself with ensuring or disrupting that outcome? Even if you want to argue that it is only a likely event and not strictly determined, from that we still don't have a reason as to why anybody should care, really. From the theory, communism is neither a positive nor a negative development, only a transformation. You could make an argument that you have a personal or community interest in communism but that would be an external moral argument that has no direct bearing on marxism.

How was he so based, and why has no other socialist leader even come close to accomplishing what he did? I don't 100% love everything the guy did, but I really do think that he's greatly underappreciated as both a theoretician and a leader.

https://medium.com/message/how-white-people-got-made-6eeb076ade42
It started in the late 1600s in America, but like so many scams, it spiraled out of control until it had a life of its own.

Not long after Europeans started arriving on the east coast of North America and the Caribbean Islands they found themselves rich in land but desperate for labor to work the land. The answer they struck upon was importation of bond labor, initially mostly Irish. The Irish had not been considered fully human under English law for centuries, and they ended up in plantations and working sugar under the Caribbean sun. The easy part of importing Irish (and Scottish) slave labor was that they were right next to England. The downside is there wasn’t enough of them for the amazing amounts of land laid before the eager English settlers, and thus the Atlantic slave trade with Africa was born. This is the story we hear in school, but the abridged version we get, intentionally or not, hides the scam of it. Initially the bond terms of convict, Scotch-Irish, and African labor was a set period of time, at the end of which they received bond money and their freedom in this new land. In fact, not that many bondsmen and women lived to be free, but some did, and established themselves as a mixed-race, free peasantry of the new world. If you’ve ever wondered where the free blacks of so many stories of early America came from, a large number were the families of freed African bond laborers.

As time went on, the labor needs of the land holders continued to grow, and desperate to cultivate the land, they were loathe to let go of their bond servants and the bondsmen and bondswomen’s children (whom they kept in bondage for a legally defined time as well). In the mean time, a growing American peasantry was proving as difficult to govern as the European peasantry back home, periodically rising up in riot and rebellion, light skinned and dark skinned together. The political leaders of the Virginia colony struck upon an answer to all these problems, an answer which plagues us to this day.

The Virginians legislated a new class of people into existence: the whites. They gave the whites certain rights, and took other rights from blacks. White, as a language of race, appears in Virginia around the 1680s, and seems to first appear in Virginia law in 1691. Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

🇨🇳🇺🇲🇪🇺 A thread for all-things multipolaroidistical 🇷🇺🇮🇳🇮🇷
Pioneer's edition
In spite of the seething of many supposedly 'leftist comrades', America's unipolar dominance is weakening every day and we move ever closer into a multipolar world. It is clear to any good faith communist that a multipolar world just means that: transitioning from American unipolarity to multipolarity, and that does not automatically mean the expansion and consolidation of socialism. The latter gains more opportunities in this new state of affairs, but nothing is given on a silver platter - communists still have to seize the day. If we make the mistake of thinking multipolarity is socialism, we might as well end up with a multiple poles of fascism and reaction. This is understood by communists, real ones, not agents of NATO clad in 'red aesthetics'. The latter strawman the 'multipolarity=communism' nonsense precisely to then dismantle it and thus ridicule and 'defeat' multipolaristas, doing the work of the NATO Moloch.
'''Multipolaristas, let this thread be a place where all developments concerning the advent of multipolarity is posted and compiled.

https://emmanueltodd.substack.com/p/diverging-populisms :: Diverging populisms, Emmanuel Todd

https://youtu.be/UMgkvvu_pnU :: West's Failure to Adjust to a Multipolar World, John Mearsheimer

https://youtu.be/US7oycLV5ZE :: Avec le PRCF, Rencontre Internationale, faire front anti impérialiste pour la paix et la liberté, Pôle de Renaissance Communiste en France

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.