/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

As the post said, cant think of anything theyve done for the proletarian cause except use all their power to take it down. They want to preserve commodity production and wage labour for the sake of stability. Unlike marxist leninists who actually take efforts to communism.

We know workers dislike domination. And contra Lyotard, they also dislike exploitation. But might a significant number of workers actually enjoy being estranged from the objects of their labor? Or at least, might they be indifferent enough to not see alienation as a problem?

Consider that as an alienated worker, I am encouraged to be utterly unconcerned with labor conditions outside of my own workplace. Or the quantity and quality of production of commodities that I do not consume. Those are the concerns of management and the bourgeoisie. My alienation provides a perverse degree of "freedom" from society, to focus only on my individual consumption and not the conditions of my fellow workers.

Whereas in a communist society of free and equal producers, I am supposed to have an interest the labor conditions in all workplaces in a society, as each directly affects the amount of social product available for consumption. The degree of political control needed to make that happen equitably seems extremely time-consuming and limiting, and I imagine a lot of workers would be turned off by it.

Perhaps that is why most 'socialist' experiments have never really addressed alienation, and why most workers seem completely resigned to the hyper-alienated existence mediated by apps and nation-states despite everyone allegedly agreeing on how horrible it is.

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?

BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you, BVLLsheviks QWN you

A thread for the forgotten continent, so forgotten the thread got wiped.
Discuss anything related to:
>Algeria
>Angola
>Benin
>Botswana
>Burkina Faso
>Burundi
>Cabo Verde
>Cameroon
>Central African Republic (CAR)
>Chad
>Comoros
>Congo, Democratic Republic of the
>Congo, Republic of the
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER

Manica di degenerati. Non mi aspettavo proprio che dopo un mese d'assenza, il filo cadesse dalla tavola. Vabè, leftypol ormai è l'ombra di quello che era soltanto qualche anno fa, ma c'è un limite a tutto.

the funniest thing about "anti-revisionism" vs "revisionism" is that it is not something Marx ever mentioned, because he would never imagine himself as the static, unchanging root of a globe-spanning political project called "Marxism" with various branches like "Marxism-Leninism", "Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Zedong-Thought", "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism", "Stalinism, "Hoxhaism" and so on . Instead, Marx revised himself several times during his own life, moving from a framework rooted in alienation and species-being, to a framework rooted in (what would later be called) historical and dialectical materialism. Engels famously said that he and Marx's system was a method, not a dogma, and Kim-Il-Sung repeated this when innovating Juche, as did Deng Xiaoping when innovating "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", make of that what you will. So if innovation is allowed and Marxism is a method, and not a dogma, why all the controversy about "revisionism?" If Marxism is meant to be applied to unique spatio-temporal conditions which outsiders, even sympathetic outsiders, usually fail to understand, why do outsiders always look for "revisionism" to condemn? Why not just accept that we are all striving not for "[insert the name of Great Men]" -ism but Communism and that our paths towards Communism are evolutionarily convergent from our different spatiotemporal standpoints rather than divergent from some imagined "anti-revisionist" standpoint? Am I being revisionist right now?

Let's look at how Marxists.org defines revisionism (you may disagree with each other on this very point):

> Revisionism

>A fundamental alteration of a theory, essentially usurping (though taking elements of) the former theory and replacing it with a new one. While the attributes of a theory are subject to change in accordance to changing historic circumstances, changing the fundamental basis of that theory is to nullify it in place of a new one.

Was Marx "Revisionist" when he revised himself? Who has the authority to decide the criteria for what is "subject to change in accordance to changing historic circumstances" and what is not?

I think the encouraging results of an even half-successful practice matter more than the purity of theory, personally.

The goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to become a Bodhisattva, an enlightened being who takes a vow to not enter Nirvana until they've achieved the liberation of a certain class, sometimes all classes, of sentient things.

There are many Mahayanists who are Marxists, Tenzin Gyatso included (although he's a filthy leftcom). There are also many Marxists who are Mahayanists. Engaged Buddhism is a thing, as well as humanistic and secular Buddhism.

Ceterum te certiorem facere debeo: qui procedet, in Terra Pura renascetur! Qui recedet, in inferno ardebit! Gloria Buddhae Amitābhae!

Furthermore, I must inform you, he who advances will be reborn in the Pure Land! He who retreats will burn in hell! Glory to the Amitabha Buddha!

<ITT: discuss various forms of localist politics, e.g. communalism, municipalism, other forms of localist socialist governance, distributism, etc

there are some who still complain that russia was "socialism in one country". i contend that they are right, not because the concept is absurd, but because they do not go far enough. we have not yet taken stalin's gnosis to its logical conclusion and brought it to the hyper-financialized modern era

the current dichotomy in modern discourse has largely been between reformism and revolutionism. ultimately both forms make the mistake of operating as though contradictions are uniformly distributed. it is either you immediately go against the whole system in order to take it down, or you work with the whole system in order gradually reform it into socialism. why are these ultimately the only two notions entertained? the first approach underestimates the adaptability of monopoly capital or they fail to see the difficulty in coordinating an immediate revolution across large spans of the country. i think we all can see the failure of the second approach with its disregard for the blatant capture of bourgeois institutions by capital. maybe instead of still operating at such a high level of social change, we should focus more on what we can achieve on lower levels

this was part of the wisdom in "socialism in one country", it was the recognition that the contradictions were ripe in certain regions over others thanks to imperialism, and the specificity of these contradictions to particular regions only supports rather than detracts from the cultivation of determinate national character (contrary to industrial capital, which constantly strives towards maximal hyperconnectivity and the erosion of all national determinateness). ultimately, if you can not even achieve socialism in one country, there is much less hope in achieving socialism globally. now, we must of course acknowledge that "socialism in one country" was a logical response to imperialism, with the latter's tendency to unite the various classes within a society against a common imperialist bourgeois enemy. it is easy to see this and conclude that various forms of third-worldism are the answer. my issue with such a position is that it simply gives us an excuse to sit on our asses all day. if we actually carefully analyze things, we would notice that developed western nations have a tendency to, after thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Cuba is currently facing one of its worst energy crisies in its history, entirely caused by the US goverment further tighting sanctions on Cuba, and with the recent overthow of the Venezuelan goverment now Cuba has lost its most valuable trade partner.
There is a deficit over 2,000 MW, so its supply isn't even coming close to its demand.

Local transportation, services, and obviously healthcare is being restricted. And considering Cuba does more for the global south in heathcare then literally any western country, it tells you how much this really effects the world, not just the nation itself. As of writting this thread Russia is sending a humanitarian ship to Cuba, do we think the US is gonna stop the ship?

So i must ask, what can we do indiviually to help Cuba?