/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2930675
Two more decades until the revolution anon, hang tight

>>2930675
>I know somebody who just voted for what his trade union told him to vote for,
Based

>I know somebody who just voted for what his trade union told him to vote for, many other ppl who vooote do this too.
It's apathy and some limited trust that your union has a decent idea who isn't in the "murder poor people betterer" party. Why bother thinking too much about it when there are more immediate matters? It's just going to get worse no matter who gets elected, why waste the brain power?
>How do we convince people to overthrow the bourgeois system
<convince
Convincing someone to be anti-capitalist is one thing, actually facilitating meaningful action is another. The concrete conditions must exist first before people are "convinced" re: rebellion. The work of communists is to display competence and build workable architecture for response to sharpening contradiction.
>they are all retarded and just follow their higher ups all the time
I wish you patience and wide vision, comrade. This simply isn't the case, it's just the path of least resistance. Even in what looks like compliance can be found the seeds of resentment, hidden enough to survive under the boot of capital.
>class consciousness isn’t going anywhere
I think perhaps you should reflect on what it means to be class conscious. One can be very conscious of class society and slip through the superstructure with great skill yet have no revolutionary thought because the education needed to leap towards an insurrectionary attitude is missing or seems to be a dead end.

Frankly, I think convincing the current "left" to get their fucking act together is more useful imo than convincing normies to join the "left" as it currently exists. If you're tired of the war of hearts and minds, perhaps focus on a different problem: How do we prepare the advanced section of the (lumpen)proletariat, such as they are, to respond to crisis that we commies understand is ever on the horizon?

I AM GONNA VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTE

>>2930675
If you aren't voting with your union you are less than worthless, you're below a lumpen, you aren't even fucking human, you retarded piece of shit, you fucking insect, you deserve to be killed for this post, faggot, broke retarded USELESS piece of fucking shit.

>>2930526
but they do not do it as they please

>>2930425
In hic signo vinces. Take as old as time

>>2930416
>don't mercilessly rape tartars? did you just do a heckin" russophobia? i'll KILL you for that, chud!
freedom from consequence is the only problem, an educated proletariat is pefectly capable of rejecting and educating

>>2930507
>and they are mere islands of socialism, isolated and surrounded by enemies.
a third of the planet btw

>>2930416
I don't think most people are meaningfully invested in "free speech." As a queer whose very existence has often been seen as pornographic, I have fundamentally different material interests than the majority of the population concerning "free speech".

Ultimately, I place changing social mores as rooted in economic factors more than very general statements about the mode of production. Secularism and queer friendliness are more tied to the specifics of the welfare state and urbanization than generalizations of queer issues as linked to capitalism or socialism. I think it's worth mentioning here that capitalism is a progressive force in many respects.

I am still wary of censorship but I think that homophobia would rise to the top in any dictatorship whether the liberal democratic dictatorship of capital or the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. I think that reaction is more about the productive forces than censorship and that's why I support socialism. Because I think the communists develop the productive forces the most.

The idea that any state will support queer people is very naive. I think that economic factors determine such attitudes more than anything else and I think only a minority of countries have developed to the point that being pro-LGBT (or appearing to be pro-LGBT) is social consensus. I do think that a socialist state will develop the productive forces, social services, urbanization and so on that will develop a secular and pro-LGBT culture.

Agents search Rep. Omar’s Washington home in criminal probe as she vows she won’t ‘be silenced’
The scope of the investigation was unclear, though Trump and officials in his administration have repeatedly referred in recent months to the existence of an inquiry into Omar, a Somali-born Democrat whose status as an immigrant to the U.S. and left-wing views have drawn scrutiny from the White House and other Republicans. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin last month cited an “ongoing investigation” that he suggested was examining potential fraud in her family’s immigration paperwork. “Something’s going to happen,” he said in a potential foreshadowing of the search.
https://apnews.com/article/ilhan-omar-home-searched-8e18c2aea948bd90f4d7a4eb32b9ec3a

Buttigieg gambles on a different path for 2028
Pete Buttigieg has been able to campaign for Democrats across the country more than many of his potential 2028 rivals this past year. One reason: He doesn't have a job. That's by choice. Buttigieg said no when top Democrats urged him to run for governor or the U.S. Senate in Michigan this year.
https://www.axios.com/2026/10/11/buttigieg-gambles-on-a-different-path-for-2028

Mailers promoting a socialist candidate in Ohio’s US Senate race have links to MAGA super PAC vendor
The mailers are sponsored by Enough Promises Ohio PAC and began arriving in voters’ mailboxes in recent days. They promote independent candidate Greg Levy over Brown with messages such as “Join the Revolution” and “Send a Worker to the Senate.” Levy describes himself as “Socialist running for the U.S. Senate to represent Ohio in 2026” on his X account. Levy condemned the fliers for falsely impersonating his campaign and engaging in “dirty tricks” designed to mislead voters. He said he is considering legal action.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2026-senate-ohio-brown-husted-maga-df0f117f541099713943613e9768fd75

Newsom Endorses Ballot Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

France: “Generation 6-7 doing May ‘68 all over again”
6 October – the third act of the school students’ protests that have rocked France since the beginning of the school year – represented yet another escalation of the movement. The demonstrations were huge everywhere. According to the organisers, school and university student organisations, 100,000 marched in Paris alone, and a total of 450,000 marched across the country. The demonstrations were lively, extremely youthful, and mainly composed of high school students, who turned up in quick-moving columns from each school and neighbourhood, armed with hundreds of home-made cardboard placards. On 5 October, 2,000 high schools – over half the total – across the country were already blockaded. On 6 October, about 90 percent of the country’s universities also joined the movement, following mass general assemblies attended by hundreds, and even thousands, of students.
https://communist.red/france-generation-6-7-doing-may-68-all-over-again/

AutoZone Workers Won a Union. Then the Company Fired Them.
Speaking with members of the newly formed AutoZone Workers Union, you would never guess that one of them had just been fired — and that another would be the next morning. That’s what happened to Nathan DuCongé and then David Valencia after they won their union election. On a Zoom call with Jacobin, though, their joy was contagious. DuCongé and his coworkers were all smiles and banter as they talked about their union campaign, how it feels to win, and the unexpected boost they received from filmmaker Boots Riley. On Friday, September 25, an AutoZone store in White Plains, New York, became the first of the company’s nearly seven thousand American retail locations to unionize. DuCongé and his coworkers, now members of United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 259, said they hadn’t been sure which way the vote would go. “The deck was really stacked against these workers trying to organize here,” said Brian Murray, an experienced organizer brought on in August by UAW Local 259 Vice President Mike DiGuiseppe. “It was because of their sticking together, the amount of fun they have, and their camaraderie, their solidarity for each other, [that] they were able to overcome a lot of union busting.” He added, “I would have expected [them] to noPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2926050
Heinrichchads winning

>>2926273
Another banger from that channel.

>>2926273
>the fucking anti-vaxx stuff near the end
am I missing something here? is he implying that Fauci was underestimating the amount of time (two weeks) it would take to get the pandemic under control?
>>2926199
>like, all the other british marxist authors from the last ~30 years are, at best, verso-books fodder
it could just be that the CPB has been infiltrated by glowies

>>2931008
I'm seeing a lot of "AI" crap in the planning debate recently and it is starting to get on my nerves. dumb. no one sits down and learns linear algebra. no one learns actual control theory

Sage and Report.

AI is not a threat and isn't actually intelligent.

Moved to >>>/siberia/831363.

>>2927644
>how to?
be an example. lead by example. and maybe an explanatory word or two.

>>2928075
>as a tool for cynical reactionary and ruling class atheists to brainwash the toiling masses with ideological opium
>the real truth nuke is that religion is literally run by atheists who know it's just a tool to brainwash the powerless into treating the world as a mere waiting room for the afterlife.
I liked averroes take on this.

<In Decisive Treatise, Averroes argues that philosophy—which for him represented conclusions reached using reason and careful method—cannot contradict revelations in Islam because they are just two different methods of reaching the truth, and "truth cannot contradict truth".[58][59] When conclusions reached by philosophy appear to contradict the text of the revelation, then according to Averroes, revelation must be subjected to interpretation or allegorical understanding to remove the contradiction.[55][58] This interpretation must be done by those "rooted in knowledge"—a phrase taken from surah Āl Imrān 3:7 of the Quran, which for Averroes refers to philosophers who during his lifetime had access to the "highest methods of knowledge".[58][59] He also argues that the Quran calls for Muslims to study philosophy because the study and reflection of nature would increase a person's knowledge of "the Artisan" (God).[60] He quotes Quranic passages calling Muslims to reflect on nature. He uses them to render a fatwa that philosophy is allowed for Muslims and is probably an obligation, at least among those who have the talent for it.[61]
<Averroes also distinguishes between three modes of discourse: the rhetorical (based on persuasion) accessible to the common masses; the dialectical (based on debate) and often employed by theologians and the ulama (religious scholars); and the demonstrative (based on logical deduction).[55][60] According to Averroes, the Quran uses the rhetorical method of inviting people to the truth, which allows it to reach the common masses with its persuasiveness,[62] whereas philosophy uses the demonstrative methods that were only available to the learned but provided the best possible understanding and knowledge

basically "most of this shit is allegorical, just dont tell the peasants"

Most people, even the irreligious, believe in something magical or supernatural
True atheists a very tiny minority, maybe like 1% or 2% of the global population
Honestly I don't have the solution - but Robespierre and his lot tried to replace Christianity with a Cult of Logic, or Cult of Reason or something like that
And within the Soviets it was debated by the party whether there should be a "god-building" movement, an intentionally crafted religion that at its core had principles which fully aligned with communism
Maybe ultimately that needs to be the compromise?

Check these out OP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-Building
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
Maybe in a communist world we'll need to use these ideas to fight other religions. Fight fire with fire as they say.

>>2927644
You're vastly overthinking it. Religion is popular because it has lots of money behind it and is an easy way to bribe proles to beat up minorities and support the ruling class. Defeating religion has nothing to do with convincing people and everything to do with expropriating the massive amounts of capital still held by the old regime.

>>2928140
I sometimes already see something like this with Marxism being accused of having a likeness to a religion, but I think that's just a really cheap way of discounting a philosophy as irrational.

>>2930745
Plato was the first libtard. All the mistakes of Western civilization can be traced back to the Greek or Roman periods. Anyone who unironically praises the "Greco-Roman" roots of Western civilization needs to be shot for supporting slavery.

There are generally three types of right-wingers I have encountered.

> The Scared Middle Class

This is the guy in his 40s–65s who managed to survive the 2008 crisis while still holding on to his pre-2008 neoliberal brainrot about competition and fair markets. He thinks anyone who protests is lazy and is deathly afraid of any political or economic change because he is in debt and knows he could easily fall behind on his payments. Funnily enough, the politics he supports are almost guaranteed to bring about the next crisis.

Lately, he has become increasingly addicted to TikTok and dreams of investing in real estate, watches, and old cars.

He is pro-cop, whines about taxes, fears Islamocommunism, and owns a small business.

The majority of modern right-wingers are like this.

> The Chud

He is either a young, kissless virgin or an older, rural poor guy. He is afraid of cities and migrants, has weird sexual and psychological complexes, and rages all day on the internet.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

to reinforce the point I made in >>>/leftypol/2930103 and >>>/leftypol/2930121 because everyone in this thread besides me and a few other posters seem to be either chuds trying to concern troll, or complete retards that love the marketplace of ideas. here is marx explaining it himself: chuds don't give a fuck about chuds authors, they do not care. it is pointless to debate this stuff because the motivations are material, not ideological. the opinions of none of these authors have ever affected reality, they were just playing defense for the status quo

<Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: “Oh! but I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money.” The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all. He threatens all sorts of things. He won’t be caught napping again. In future he will buy the commodities in the market, instead of manufacturing them himself. But if all his brother capitalists were to do the same, where would he find his commodities in the market? And his money he cannot eat. He tries persuasion. “Consider my abstinence; I might have played ducks and drakes with the 15 shillings; but instead of that I consumed it productively, and made yarn with it.” Very well, and by way of reward he is now in possession of good yarn instead of a bad conscience; and as for playing the part of a miser, it would never do for him to relapse into such bad ways as that; we have seen before to what results such asceticism leads. Besides, where nothing is, the king has lost his rights; whatever may be the merit of his abstinence, there is nothing wherewith specially to remunerate it, because the value of the product is merely the sum of the values of the commodities that were thrown into the process of production. Let him therefore console himself with the reflection that virtue is its own reward. But no, he becomes importunate. He says: “The yarn is of no use to me: I produced it for sale.” In that case let him sell it, or, still better, let him for the future produce only things for satisfying his personal wants, a remedy that his physician MacCulloch has already prescribed as inPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2930095
>They are winning the minds of the masses through social-media exposure and algorithmic infestation
All they’re doing is being loud and obnoxious, and appealing to a demographic that is literally dying off. And “masses”? Seriously?

>>2930825
i want add that all this groups unite in three things:

1)That despite some criticism of neoliberalism in praxis they still hold into the neoliberal/capitalism ideology. Hard personal work in a free market enviroment can make you rich(dont think about 2008). People who fail at that are stupid or lazy. And in general Thatcerism "There is no society just the person and his family"

2)Thus they are sceptical/fearful of social movements and organized workers struggle, when shit hits the fan they always side with the state, see France now

3)Their capitalist ideology requires some type of social darwinism, some people will loose for others to be winners, this game may require class conflict from above, violent crack downs and dead foreigners/poor
Thats why they like Israel

>>2928630
This book was nice
My favorite part was when shit was collapsing and everyone was begging gorb to take emergency powers, even Yakovlev, but he was like "I don't know that would be fucked up, I don't think Lenin would do that."

>>2930680
>Please ignore the capitalist imperial powers that set workers back
Yeah, like getting on a train organized by WW1 German imperialists

>>2930692 (me)
This uygha helped organize BOTH Lenin's return to Russia and Hitler's failed Beer Hall Putsch. The more you know.

some senile cowboy actor tells you to tear down a wall and you fold like laundry and do it? what kind of man are you mr gorbachev?

>>2929623
>based, nobody who hates furries has good politics/is a good person in general
This. April Furs Day was the date the 4chan would go down the inevitable road of becoming a Nazi hell-site.

>>2928819
On the other hand, our normative ideas of humanity, of what it means to be human, often exclude actual people from that category in practice. We reject tangible flesh and blood in favor of idealizations.

>>2928755
/thread

>>2928819
>because their obvious fate is to be reduced to subhuman animals, enslaved cattle at best and exterminated vermin at worst. and if they are all exterminated, then the remaining superhuman category will naturally split into two tiers of superhumanity

You are a burgoid or burgoid brained kill yourself idealist.

Marx begins his career as a journalist, at the age of 24 years old, writing for Rheinische Zeitung from between May–March, 1842–3, notably defending the freedom of the press, and also meeting Engels November 16, 1842. Inevitably, Marx was dropped for his radicalism, which leads to the idea of founding his own paper, partnering with the Young Hegelian Arnold Ruge, creating Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher in August 1843, but which only had one issue, in February 1844, including publishings of "On the Jewish Question", "Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right", and Engels' "Outlines for a Critique of Political Economy". Marx wrote a summary of this as part of the article, which displays a confused vocabulary, later improved upon. During this same time, Marx was writing on economic topics, in his nine "Paris Notebooks" (1843–45), which were never published, yet Marx still highlighted different sections, and seems to have intended them for print in his newspaper. At least in 1845, he was contracted by Carl Leske to write a book titled "A Critique of Politics and of Political Economy", but which never came to be, since this was cancelled in 1846, following more controversies from Marx's status. So, the Paris Notebooks can be considered the earliest economic writings of Marx, the contents of which are known today as: (i) Comments on James Mill, (ii) Notes on Ricardo, and (iii) The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. I will be reviewing these works.

(i) Comments on James Mill (1844):

This work contains lengthy quotations and responses by Marx. In the beginning, Marx disputes a supposed lawful nature of prices (e.g. exchange-value) synonymous with costs of production; citing accident as the coincidence between them, since the market admits of fluctuation. It cannot be a constant factor, elsewise there would be no market; Marx perhaps foreshadows planned economies:
<In political economy, law is determined by its opposite, absence of law.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/
We see in Marx's later writings, a desire to set prices by costs of production, and so the 'anarchy of production' is only an obstacle to perfect equilibrium. Indeed, it is thrice, Gossen, George and Schumpeter who see that a truly lasseiz-faire economy would produce the sPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

(iii) Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844):

Despite being unpublished, the manuscripts still have a preface with continuity from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, with Marx insisting upon a better system to understand his critique of politics in general – but which for the sake of censorship stopped his chances. Marx cites inspiration in this critique from Weitling, Hess and Engels, but attributes all credit of the "German positive criticism of political economy" to Feuerbach; and in an 1843 letter, attributes the very basis of Communism to him, expressing "love" for the man, but only to later see his "contemplative materialism" as ineffectual, in 1845. As for a stated methodology, Marx says he has a "wholly empirical analysis", which differs with later comments in Capital, that only by the theoretical is critique complete.

The First Manuscript concerns the "Wages of Labour", which as Marx writes, are "determined through the antagonistic struggle between capitalist and worker" adding, "Victory goes necessarily to the capitalist. The capitalist can live longer without the worker than can the worker without the capitalist." Adam Smith makes a very similar point, seeing that in his era, it was prohibited for workers to unionise, while capitalists did all the time. Marx repeats this point. Marx also references Smith in direct fashion, seeing the minimum wage as that which merely supports the "race of labourers" like cattle. Man in this case is a commodity, and so his labour receives a price according to the market. Thus, Marx writes that wages are determined by supply and demand, like all commodities; further, the components of price (wages, rents and profits) must be proportioned according to the rate of supply exceeding demand, leading to diminished returns for one factor of production over another. Marx sees a complete dependence of the worker in all this:
<it is most difficult for the worker to direct his labor into other channels […] it is just the capacity of the capitalist to direct his capital into another channel […] The worker need not necessarily gain when the capitalist does, but he necessarily loses when the latter loses.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm
So then, capital has autonomy, but labour does notPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Between 1845–6, Marx completed his criticism against the Young Hegelians, publishing The Holy Family, but failing to publish his incomplete German Ideology, which also severed the thread between him and Feuerbach. In 1846, his publishing contract for a critique of political economy was also cancelled, but despite this, he still advanced toward a general critique of Proudhon. I will be reviewing The Poverty of Philosophy (1846–7) here.

In the Foreword, Marx lambasts Proudhon as both a bad economist and philosopher, with Marx situating himself as a sufficient corrective. The first section deals with an antagonism between use value and exchange value. In this, Proudhon appears to presuppose the economic categories of which he seeks to enquire about, such as the division of labour and exchange – the actual source of the postulated antagonism. The issue presented is one of agency; Proudhon suggests exchange as a thing which is proposed between men, rather than emerging from relations of production themself. After this, Marx notes Proudhon's arrogant unoriginality in observation of the Paradox of Value, which is entirely fair. Proudhon also equates exchange value with supply (e.g. scarcity) alone, forgetting demand, as Marx writes. In this is also the strange formalism of a "pure exchange value" which defies coherence. A "priceless" item converges at either end of things poetically, but not actually. In determining supply as the cause of value, Proudhon also appears to ignore the fact that supply itself is a cost of production. Marx further adds that because demand is limited in its means by money, demand also counts as supply, each therefore are dialectical (read: Grundrisse Introduction):
<Demand is at the same time a supply, supply is at the same time a demand.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch01.htm
Marx concludes this by also showing that a commodity is not either a use/exchange value, but must be both, so the antagonism isn't in things, but is between people. Proudhon sees it exclusively; producers vs consumers.

Concluding Section 1, Marx tells us that where single producers and consumers combine in their haggling, the result is to Proudhon, a "synthetic/constituted value", which is his jargon that relates to costs of production. SecPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Returning to the text, Marx offers thoughts on slavery:
<Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance. Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy—the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization […] Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm
This is an important excerpt to consider in light of later writings by Marx on slavery, which seem to cause some theoretical controversies. Marx freely admits that only a wage separates a slave from a "free" worker, yet a slave is apparently incapable of producing surplus value while also producing commodities. Whence cometh value? It is exchange which thus constitutes the relation as itself. Marx briefly approaches this by saying that the very act of purchase gives value formation to non-commodities, making them commodities by the act of trading. But if valueless commodities exist, what do prices express..? If we take the route of money, only supply and demand can be said to have operation in markets, which Marx confronts, but rejects – I would claim, to his own peril.

Next in this section, Marx sees that through conflict in Proudhon's metaphysics, he attunes all of this to the object of a pure morality, which I would also see as the project of Adam Smith's demonstration of class warfare (Proudhon reportedly calling Smith one of his 'masters'). Indeed, as we have already seen, Marx views the project of political economy as a disguised moral philosophy. To Proudhon, categories which affirm equality are given imperative, like how "wealth" is both an "is" and "ougPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Wage Labour and Capital was originally a series of lectures written for the Workingmen’s Club of Brussels in 1847, later published in 1849, as newspaper articles in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. They are elementary of economic topics, but still serve as part of the canon of Marx's early thought; before the Gründrisse (1857–8).

In the first section Marx discusses wages and their own determination, which in Marx's time paid different rates according to industry. Immediately is a stain of revision however, for Engels in his 1891 Introduction states that he substituted the term "labour" for "labour-power", and so we do not have the original document. Marx was not without progress upon this terminology regardless, for the "prostitution" of the worker is a selling of himself, as given in the 1844 Manuscripts, which is the meaning of labour-power as a distinct commodity (which in Capital is a point referenced by McCulloch, whom Marx shows prior familiarity with; although the term itself, "power" is attributed to Hobbes, for which Smith also borrows the term. In reading Gossen in 1854 however, we see that "labour power" appears current in German vocabulary during that time – the term itself is only stylish; Marx's point in substance is that what is sold is a commodity in the form of the labourer himself; his own cost of repair):
<it appears that the capitalist buys their labour with money, and that for money they sell him their labour. But this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is their labour-power […] Their commodity, labour-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of the capitalist, for money […] So much money for so long a use of labour-power […] exchange value of a commodity estimated in money is called its price. Wages therefore are only a special name for the price of labour-power […] called the price of labour
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm
Marx thus draws a conceptual graph: we see that the 'price of labour' is really the exchange-rate between the two commodities of money and labour-power, equalling the costs of production for the labourer himself. Wages are thus the value of his traded commodity. Further, as Marx presents, wages are not summoned from labour as its immediate Post too long. Click here to view the full text.