/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

why are there so many fascists on leftypol now
the fascists are poisoning this board
this board was much better in the past
how can this be defeated

Previous thread:
>>2535127

So give the fact US invasion of Greenland went from provocative joke to a realistic possibility, what are the chances of European governments getting their shit together?

I remember seeing a reply to the US pol thread and I think its a good idea

In countries without socialist rep in their goverments, we should purposely vote for the worst candiates in elections, to further accelerate the ongoing collapse of capitalism.

So list retarded political candiates.

Vietnam has a smaller public sector than the United States and they are Pro-America, Pro-Israel, and Anti-China in their foreign policy. I have no idea how after America nearly committed genocide in your country you can put them over fellow socialist states, they will condemn America when it does something shitty but never act on it, they are practically just Spain, Norway, or Ireland when it comes to foreign policy. I know that China is also shitty when it comes to foreign policy and stuff too but they are at least technically Anti-America.

The revolutionary task, as Foucault articulated in his debate with Chomsky, lies not merely in the denunciation of the obviously repressive organs of the state and ruling class but in the patient, systematic exposure of the mechanisms of power embedded within those institutions that present themselves as benign, neutral, or even benevolent. The bourgeois therapeutic apparatus, psychology, psychiatry, medicine, sciences, sexuality, and its allied practices is a paradigmatic case of such a mechanism. It functions as the dominant social institution for the management of subjective distress, yet its foundational logic is the atomization of the sufferer. It systematically abstracts the individual from the material conditions of their alienation, reframing crises of exploitation and oppression as failures of personal adjustment or thinking. This is not liberation from mental suffering; This is more accurately described as the pacification of the mind veiled in the clinical language of care.'

This individualizing logic is not incidental to the therapeutic project; it is its structural function under capitalism. As the radical psychiatry movement contended, fostering mental health was to be an art rather than a science, requiring a shift away from individual psychotherapy and toward supportive group work, coupled with direct social and political action. The consumer/survivor/ex-patient (c/s/x) movement, a powerful, decentralized coalition emerging from the anti-psychiatry struggles of the 1970s and 1980s, forged the very concept of peer support, where those with lived experience provide mutual aid outside the medical model's bourgeois hierarchical structures. This movement has been instrumental in developing a variety of peer-support alternatives. AA was one of the original movements to flirt with these concepts in it's religious, communal stance against the medical world's treatment towards alcoholism at the time, directly organized by the alcoholics themselves, not passively accepting the official treatment they were often subject to. Things like this often end up creating something more than a mere psychotherapy model or a technique; it is a movement of community that fundamentally challenges the power relations embedded in professionalized care and recovery itself.

The "institutional psychotherapy" movement in postwar France, which profoundly influenced figures like Frantz Fanon, Felix Guattari, and Michel Foucault, offers a vision Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

The cults of personality of 20th century communism were a mistake, though perhaps unavoidable. The emergence of pronounced cults of personality in several 20th-century socialist states can be understood as a historical misstep rather than an inherent feature of Marxist theory. Stalin himself denounced this in his interview with Feuchtwanger, and some personal letters. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as developed within Marxism, refers to the collective rule of the working class organized through its institutions. In practice, however, this principle was often conflated with the authority of individual leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Il Sung. This conflation obscured the distinction between class power exercised through mass participation and the symbolic centrality of particular historical figures.

This development did not arise in a vacuum. Many of the societies in which socialist revolutions succeeded were shaped by predominantly peasant populations, relatively low levels of literacy, and recent histories of feudal or semi-feudal rule. In such contexts, political authority had long been associated with monarchs, emperors, or strongman figures. It is therefore unsurprising that revolutionary movements, even when grounded in collective and egalitarian ideals, were interpreted through familiar cultural patterns that emphasized personal leadership. The elevation of revolutionary figures into near-mythic symbols can be seen as a byproduct of these conditions rather than a deliberate theoretical aim.

Recognizing this helps clarify that the issue was not simply the presence of influential leaders, but the tendency to substitute their personal authority for the organized, conscious activity of the working masses. A more consistent application of proletarian rule would emphasize institutions, education, and participation over symbolic identification with individuals. Understanding the historical roots of these personality cults allows for a more grounded assessment of past socialist experiences without reducing them to caricature or dismissing their broader social and economic transformations.

I legitimately do not understand why people believe he was wrong. Look at Jewish people and how specialized into getting better at academia or India with how certain groups become natural fishermen. Lysenkoism feels like it's striking a cord between Stirnerite individualism and collectivism and it legitimately sounds cooler than Darwin's lame "one will breed more than the other and the species will survive". Darwin's system doesn't explain suicide for example.

>Some even believe that artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I., will create a permanent underclass. In the United States, the term “underclass” gained currency in the 1960s to describe the factory workers left behind by the postwar automation boom. Today, it has become repopularized as a viral term for a theory that posits that people have a limited window of time to build wealth before A.I. and robotics are advanced enough to fully replace human labor. At that point, everyone will get frozen in their current class positions: The rich will be able to deploy superintelligent machines to do their bidding, and everyone else will be rendered useless and unemployable, left to live off welfare scraps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/opinion/ai-labor-work-force-silicon-valley.html

So is it over or will throwing millions of people into becoming peasants lead to a revolution?

Last year there was this masterpiece of a thread https://leftypol.org/dead/res/6179.html
that got moved to >>>/dead/, in spite of its schizophrenic rants I feel like there were some good points made there.

Tl;dr for those who don't want to read through it the thesis is that the workers are the counter-revolutionary subject. Highly recommend reading it though.

With that clarified lets continue discussion on the thesis.

Lately leftists online (such as Logo Daedalus) have been speculating about a possible return to 2010s HR individualist managerial political correctness (a.k.a., woke) in light of Trump’s falling popularity polls over the Epstein files and his failure to rebound the US economy as well as his second administration being overall more fascist and extreme than the first one both rhetorically (see the DHS’s Twitter account which seems to be ran by a wignat) and in practice (e.g., expansion of ICE under the current regime).

Maybe this will age like milk, but personally I don’t think the woke will ever come back, primarily due to the fact that it arose during a period in American history that can’t be replicated in the foreseeable future as well as because it got heavily exhausted to its fullest potential by 2024, something else will form instead but I can’t put my fingers on it. Let me elaborate…

Yes, there may be backlash to Trump in the form of:

• greater tolerance for immigration,
  
  
• renewed talk about abolishing ICE (which isn’t actually necessary for border security and overlaps with existing agencies),
  
  
• less willingness to tolerate soft white nationalism or openly white-nationalist speech now that the Trump project has made its racial character explicit.
  
  

But I don’t think that means a return to the specific ideological package of the 2010s.
The elite liberal factions that promoted “wokeness” as a substitute for social democracy feel politically exhausted. Their compromises — with Trumpism, with Zionism, with capital more broadly — are remembered, and they’ve already pivoted to new projects like “abundance,” technocratic managerialism, or vibes-based productivity politics.

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