/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2888808
the american left would love her if she became a democrat and said the word "healthcare"

>>2888930
are they really left then

new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939
new thread >>2888939

>>2888925
Normally I would but just got a job at a non-profit that I actually like. Mostly helping people not get evicted.

>>2877812
The reason why emancipation happened in Jamaica etc is partially becase of the Haitian revolution, the most radical elements trickle down and force change

You never let a good crisis go to waste. If you are a leftst in Haiti you should be jumping at the opportunity to do something.

>>2877812
Yes? The Haitian colony was basically everything bad about post-revolution Haiti but with slavery stacked on top, so there wasn't really any loss in freeing themselves anyways.

>>2819423
As for why Haiti never had a proletarian revolution, the answer is that they were never really in a good position too. Haiti throughout most of it's history has mostly been an agrarian nation with little industrialization developing throughout it's lifespan, and industrialization makes workers a lot more class aware because of the relation to their labor and it's exploitation. The Haitian revolution being a bourgeois revolution alongside being a slave revolt probably didn't help either. Combine this with a ruling class who has basically been under the thumb of the US and who were actively stamping down on any serious communist movement in their country and you get a nation where most of the proletariat have very little class consciousness to speak of.

>>2822437
no dumbass

>>2819437
correct answer. thread should have ended here but leftypol has to weigh in with their racist trolling

>>2888224
>Kant also rationalised war as a progressive force of "perpetual peace", where disputes are resolved by the forced result of a concession.

that's a load of crap. during kant's lifetime europe was in a state of perpetual war and he was insulated from all of it because he was a privileged intellectual, a gentleman scholar. his closest exposure to war was during the seven years war, when his homeland the prussian empire teamed up with the british empire and went to war with the rest of europe, killing about 10% of the entire european peasant population at the time. for a few years the russian army had occupied kant's home city and he and his fellow prestigious academics all immediately betrayed their country and swore allegiance to the russian empress in exchange for being allowed to keep their wealth and their positions. just for comparison, if a peasant soldier in the prussian army even tried to desert he would be forced to slowly walk a gauntlet back and forth between two rows of soldiers caning him on his bare back until he died, but a privileged prussian scholar like kant could publicly swear allegiance to a foreign enemy and it wasn't considered a crime at all, it was just business. this is the kind of person whom we are supposed to revere as one of the brilliant philosophers of our great western culture, this craven powdered-wig fop who lived inside of a plastic bubble totally removed from reality, sitting on ornate furniture writing about war and morality while getting drunk on expensive wine imported from an enemy country. a so-called "world citizen", like these modern-day silicon valley techbros who think that they are outside of everything and have this higher understanding of it all and are totally oblivious of their own tremendous privilege. western people who call themselves leftists really need to do something about their preprogrammed eurocentrism and deification of the historical european intellectual elite, which includes marx and engels. they need to stop internalizing the idea that all of the knowledge of the world comes from the minds of a few great men in europe and a few highly-publicized books, start becoming more mindful of the extreme historical biases in play and the fact that there is a whole other vast universe of knowledge beyond what we are taught in our schools that has always bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2888251
If your family is from genoa it’s easier to bring a girl from Mali to them than a girl from Venice

>>2888496
Hegel also welcomed the conquest of Prussia by Napoleon because of the illusions of progress. If Hegel's life was immediately threatened, I doubt he would be so enthusiastic. As for Kant himself, he only published his Critique of Pure Reason when he was 57, and so lived a life of leisurely contemplation before then. His ultimate aims for the project of Perpetual Peace was the creation of a global government, such as the United Nations. Liberals in this time also concieved of free trade as a means of ensuring mutual interests, but free trade itself is mostly an imperial interest, so we return to hegemony.

On Kant's politics, I have discovered inconsistencies, where in "Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals" (1785) he sees the "moral law" as categorical imperative by practical reason, and so we are made free by the legislative act, presuming the legislative body above the executive branch (e.g. parliament above president). This has continuity in "Perpetual Peace" (1795) where a code of international law is suggested (which before this time there was only the "law of the seas" of Grotius, 1609). This really has precedence in Rousseau, such as in his "Discourse on Political Economy" (1755), where he says that the limit of positive law grants freedom henceforth, similar to Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" (1776), where he defines government as a "necessary evil", and thus a ground for freedom by its constitutive limit. We see in Coke's "Petition of Right" (1628) a cause for the "rule of law"; a sentiment carried on into Enlightenment. Yet, in Kant's other work "Principles of Political Right" (1791) we see that Kant views Sovereignty as the right of executiveship, reversing his apparent Republicanism by favour of monarchy over democracy. Kant's attitude to royalty was always inconsistent, offering praises to the Prince in his first edition of Critique of Pure Reason. He was an opportunist, as you imply. On Kant's class interests, we also see him philosophically justify an idea of intellectual property in his text "Of the Injustice of Counterfeiting Books" (1785). Copyright Law itself was an 18th century invention, with precedence of publishing rights limited in the case of the KJV Bible (1611), which is still in effect today. Kant makes note of the "profit" of unauthorised publishers being owed to authors, and so intertwines morality and monPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2888826
>>2888827
>>2888831
nobody cares larping faggot, now fuck off this board

>>2888840

orrrr?????? nothing you are a fat jewish man with a bald head

Reading like 5 of these pics gave me brain cancer

Thx, op

bump

>Lenin and Trotsky
Stopped reading there

kinda looks like engels artstyle, who agrees!?!

>>2887759
dare to use the brain now and then

>>2887707
>Stalin, along with Khruschev and Zhukov, made the same statements in private
<Khrushchev attempting to make detente and Stalin trying to squeeze everything out of the western powers.
Lend Lease didn't make the difference between winning the war, it made the difference with how many loses

>>2888238
Do you know what the word "private" means?
They PRIVATELY admitted to their OWN PARTY COMRADES they would’ve lost. Why do you keep inserting appeasing the Allies into this scenario? Are you stupid?
>Khrushchev attempting to make detente
No, dumbass, Khrushchev authored his memoirs in secret after he was overthrown, and he wrote it before detente became official Soviet policy. The only reason we know the memoirs exist is because his son smuggled copies to the US and Western Europe in the 1970s; it was a major political embarrassment for the Soviets at the time.

>>2858900
>I think America deserves some credit for the minute good it’s done on the world stage
like…. what?

>>2888618
defeating imperial japan? Defeating fascist italy? Helping defeat fascist germany?

>>2876565
>so the revolution will only come when TWD happens
this has to be some far right accelerationist trolling leftists trying to get them more racial and hateful lmao

>>2887920
>If you do not destroy the unproductive right-wing parasites you will not develop the productive forces
Revisionist
>If you do not develop the productive forces, you will not have communism
We know, we’re still not doing Dengism
>You want a crisis induced by falling rates of profit but you reject the notion of reducing the profits extracted by rent seekers by subjecting them to competition.
No
>Tell me, anon, why do you love American car dealers so much?
We really don’t

>>2876600
>a homeless in the we$$t kkkan eat heckkkin mcdonald$$!!
Thirdie-neoliberal synthesis

>>2876646
ok this just brings us full circle back to OP which argues that revolution in the imperial core is necessary even though it hasn't happenedy et

>>2876653
That's actually pretty despicable behavior and how you see substance users really tells me a lot about you.

https://kaygreen.blog/2026/08/09/the-alarming-tale-of-the-far-right-bookshop-in-rural-suffolk/
>TERF who edited Glinner's memoir is shocked to find that all their TERF pals support a far-right bookshop
<For many prominent GCs who genuinely started out on the left, it’s clear that hanging out on the right, taking pay cheques from UnHerd, The Critic, Spiked and The Spectator, and knowing they’ll get a sympathetic ear from Julia Hartley-Brewer of Talk TV or Josh Howie of GB News, has meant they end up sounding very like their new right-wing friends. Cheering for Israel and abusing anyone who opposes the genocide of Palestinians has become de rigueur for many vocal GCs.
<When some of them embrace obsessive anti-Muslim racists who happen to be GC, it feels like they’re not doing it despite the Islamophobia, but because of it. This distortion of values doesn’t escape trans rights activists. As one mocked the other day: ‘You could not write a better punchline to the “protect women and girls” TERF academics joke, than them all coming out to eulogise the wife-beating paedophile Rod Liddle.’
<Someone else at SiP told me she hated the far right but would ‘link arms with whoever I have to’ on the issue of gender ideology. This is a familiar position, but I would suggest it’s not actually true. Yes, they’ll work with anyone on the right. But if you’re the kind of deranged ‘tankie’ and ‘Hamas apologist’ who thinks it’s bad to shoot Gazan kids in the head for target practice, they don’t want to know you.
they're so close to getting it. (but then go down the blind alley of wanting a new TERF left grouping instead, which will always in the end lead to you the grotesque spectacle of the CPB praising the Supreme Court and British Government.)

>>2890153
>Someone else at SiP told me she hated the far right but would ‘link arms with whoever I have to’ on the issue of gender ideology

Every single time lmao, it's like being anti-trans is a brain worm that overrides everything else they supposedly believe in, also why I cringe at "anti-idpol" types

You just know those types of "people" would be bitching about the DDR, not because of anything related to revisionism or anything along those lines but because of their position on trans people

5th heatwave of the year, 35c summers in the north of England, everything is dead, dry, the lakes are mostly shrivelled up and GONE…
Yes still 2 of the 3 largest political parties straight up deny climate change, and all 3 of them want to open more oil drilling sites.

If anything as it gets hotter, the rate of denial increases.
The Tories of 10 to 20 years ago - despite how abhorrently vile and evil they were in all conceivable ways - at the least acknowledged climate change is real. Can't say that about them under Kemi…

>>2891097
>>2891097
>>2891097
>>2891097

NEW

As general of the red army he massively failed the iberation of Europe by attacking Poland while the USSR was still weak and fighting Romanov loyalists, as a result of which future leaders had to pull shit out of Siberia's ass to fund African rebels instead of using pre-established French factories

He replaced marxism with social degeneration theory and class with "bureaucratic stratum", making him the arch revisionist

Is combined and uneven development theory any good? Is it useful?

>>2888198
Poland was lost because of Stalins fault. He delayed the attack.

>>2856178
He just had a really, really annoying personality. Other than that he was fine.

>>2888747
Might as well drop some open intel about illegally developed devices and illegally imported devices by China through the ports.

Huawei is importing electromagnetic components without markings.

There is multiple Chinese money printed funded housing deals which occurred for land acquisition for spy purposes.

There is multiple police stations which were operating for the Chinese communist party illegally persecuting individuals illegally.

There is multiple ill-obtained ports.

There is an undermining Chinese force within universities which are mainly operating for militaristic purposes which include generating underwater military technology, civilian surveillance, labor party infiltration assets, illegal identities are used from multiple Chinese satellite neighboring countries.

Biolabs have operated illegally and are suspected to have targeted the population.

why would Chyna invade Cuck Island when they can just wait for the US to collapse?

>>2888260
I think we just had different understandings of what the lumpen-proletariat were. I've honestly ignored writings on the lumpen-proletariat because they are usually very chauvinistic or unfair. More than that I just think what a lot of people say about them isn't really objective or scientific. I'm unconvinced by what Marx, Engels and Lenin had to say about them, and I'm more convinced by what Mao and later Maoists had to say about working with the lumpen-proletariat as a major allied force like the peasants can be (even though you are totally correct that only the working class can be strictly revolutionary).

What I have been using lumpen for just means anyone who is "unclassed", who doesn't have a direct relation to the means of production or work. Like I'd say students are very similar to the lumpen (at least the idea of the lumpen I was thinking of. I might have been using terms imprecisely.

Still I'm not sure about why you consider these people 'the brokest of the broke capitalists', or having an 'aristocratic soul'. It's basically a moral judgement that that is very similar to how the state attacks long-term unemployed people. Nobody would work if they didn't have to, I'm not sure that's aristocratic in any way.

Idk it all feels very moral to me. Like 'they're not revolutionary because they're all leeches and criminals'. So like, why does that matter? Doesn't that make them more likely to side with the revolution? Also, I think the lumpen-proletariat is difficult to define even as a class itself. I think it might be better to just call these people unclassed and dispel the moral attachments of the lumpen-proletariat. My opinion has not been completely solidified yet and I'm still unsure about things.

I kind of think they are uniquely revolutionary along with the working class, because it isn't really a class. So of course there are plenty of unclassed people with working class consciousness or who are just unemployed proletarians, who in every meaningful way are proletarian. But there are also unclassed people with bourgeois consciousness (criminals who think they are going to get rich). Also there are plenty of unclassed people with feudal / pre-capitalist consciousnesses as well in the colonised countries. Idk, I just don't think the lumpen-proletariat is necessarily a useful term.

>>2888312
Said that wrong, I don't think they are uniquely revolutionary along with the working class, I don't think they could ever be the driving force because only the working class has the direct need to end exploitation, but I think unclassed people are much more 'revolutionary' than even the peasants are.

Without the cultural revolution there will be no socialism. Sorry!

>>2886812
>>2886831
>>2886819
How nice of you ""communists"" to self-report that you take communism so unseriously you literally can't even imagine it, or what it would take to establish it.
>""Left"" ""com""
As if I ever doubted it.

>>2888612
Squeaker