/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2858866
>>2858795
>>2858534

Yes and no

Yes, things have gotten worse as the fascists consolidate power and this will only get worse until AI and climate change starts genociding the global north after killing everyone else.

No, the "left" hasn't changed; it's equally milquetoast in it's response to fascism and bourgies were never on our side.

I think the real solution is permaculture and lucid dreaming as opposed to proselytizing a specific ideology and I'm guessing you're already doing the former.
And TBH, I am also supportive of reform on the local level, because that is, evidently, the only level where you can change anything (And I mean on the level of individual towns and neighborhoods).

Glowie thread

'alt right' to the rest of the world is just the same usian liberalism

not my problem

>>2859716
>permaculture and lucid dreaming
Are you obtiomaxxing?

Patriot Front in the US Capital (Washington D.C.)

They seem to be very disciplined and organised, from the metro cards, to the shields and uniforms, almost paramilitary like. But it is likely to be unpopular with the public, relative to the overly militant image, however like other fascist groups, have done propaganda around aid.

The American Left should continue to focus on legal means, such as elections and national political organisations, like the DSA as the largest example, and smaller ones like PSL or CPUSA (who should be absorbed). This neo-kautskyist or leninist method of socialism through democratic means, seems to be a slow but sure method.

However black bloc tactics clearly do not work in the west, or other civic tactics against the fascists.

You Americans, are privileged to have a level of freedom, that would allow you to form similar uniformed organisation(s) (separate from the likes of the DSA, PSL, CPUSA).

There exists a few left gun clubs, like the John Brown Club and Socialist Rifle Association, who educate on firearms training and also do mutual aid; but at the least these groups could be mirror uniformed organisations, just as disciplined, to the patriot front, standing opposite them, just as a threat without committing any action, and if shit goes down, they are not the first to fire or bludgeon.

>>2859657
it's got nothing to do with intelligence, it's a function of political power

>>2859672
>it's got nothing to do with intelligence, it's a function of political power
trvke. only the most gullible cattle truly believe the claims. most religious people play along with the charade to avoid ostracism, and the leaders orchestrate the dogma for their own benefit.

>>2859631

This but unironically
(except with shrooms)

>>2859672
Of course it’s a function of political power, but I think that political power is preying on unintelligent people to sustain itself.

>>2859707
does psilocybin ONLY grow on cow shit? Like if I poop in a field somewhere and come back in a week, can I get some shrooms?

>>2859423
Making the prediction that 2028 will be similar to 1824 or 1856.

>>2859461
Third-worldists have always been self-hating westerners, feds, or misanthopes dressing their rhetoric in "leftish" sounding language.

Stop being spooked.

>>2859390
the kids are alright

>>2859390
What does the missing ten percent of millennials prefer?
CapCom?

>>2859107
>ultras
boogeyman term that means nothing

>>2859399
Once capitalism reaches a certain stage the superstructure overtakes the structure and the latter ceases to exist in political terms

>>2859412
This would go hard if I was illiterate and retarded.

I always wonder do these people realize that what they want has nothing to do with communism or do they just see all struggles against bigger powers as part of the same struggle

>>2859419
You know if you plan on being a one world government you are gonna have to get into the weeds on issues that aren’t strictly economic right?

>>2859399
>>2859399
>The programme explicitly calls for the end of money.

Still better than the USSR lol.

>>2835516
Which he said to an informant while under surveillance in fascist Italy, after the Comintern had bent over backwards to secure their rise with giving the keys to Togliatit. But how would you know, you don't read on principle (trve ML).

>>2859209 (me)
<Substantiating this:
· ICP's critique of ML-MZT is that the proletarian was crushed with the premature insurrection of the Chinese soviet in the 1920s (as if they had the same opportunity as the european left)
· ML-MZT or classical MLM on the other hand to this day has no developed urban tactic, it basically says "Bolsheviks already developed the tactic" but that is ignorant of the fact that the Bolsheviks assessment of material and social conditions in western Europe and NA (capitalist, imperialist, industrialized countries, like most would be closer to today), have been proven with time, are even more insufficient today than they were back then when Bordiga and the Italian Left levied their critique of the Bolshevik's self-contradictory demands with the Comintern's Bolshevization, which was a mechanist-idealist error that led nowhere other than degeneration of the communist-revolutionary front towards capitalist integration and political implosion.

bumping for input

Mass agitation is a tactic that was first formulated in its complete form by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin at the beginning of the 20th century. It stems from the experience with European social democratic parties: spontaneous uprising is not enough, but passive waiting for the conditions to ripen (as the Mensheviks did) is at best inactive, and at worst a betrayal of the revolutionary mission.

Mass agitation rests on two pillars: the question and organization. Its distinctive feature is that the organization does not strive merely for quantitative growth (as in spontaneous uprising), but for the qualitative transformation of participants. The goal is not to attract as many people as possible, but to turn existing ones (even if few) into exceptionally dedicated and capable revolutionaries.

First pillar: the question. Mass agitation does not accept public opinion as a given. Through active work it seeks to awaken class consciousness where it does not yet exist. Agitation does not mean mere awareness-raising in the liberal sense; its goal is to show everyday hardships as a symptom of the capitalist system and as a reason for revolutionary action. In doing so, agitators do not shy away from simplifications, emotional appeals, or even provocations — everything is subordinated to one goal: that the worker stops blaming the bad boss or the foreigner and begins to recognize the systemic enemy.

Second pillar: organization. But agitation alone is not enough; even the most convincing word vanishes in the wind if it has no body to carry it. That is why Lenin demands a vanguard organization — a small, disciplined group of professional revolutionaries that directs, coordinates, and prolongs agitation. Its role is twofold: negatively, to prevent a retreat into compromise and reformism; positively, to provide the workers' movement with the theory, strategy, and continuity that spontaneity alone cannot give.

Mass agitation is therefore a tactic that transcends the dichotomy between waiting and leaping. It insists that revolution is not born of itself, but must be fought for in an organized manner — long before the actual seizure of power. In this, it also differs from ideological mobilization, which will be discussed later. For now, it is important to emphasize: the vanguard organization is a tool for mass agitation, never its substitute. Its power lies not in controlling the masses, but in encouraging the masses to independent revolutionary acPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The vanguard, in Marxist theory, is a special form of organization that arises as a response to two fundamental problems: the weakness of the spontaneous consciousness of the working class, and the tendency toward compromise that sooner or later befalls every mass organization under the full conditions of capitalism.

According to Lenin, workers on their own, without the help of revolutionary theory, never achieve more than trade union consciousness — meaning they know how to organize a struggle for better wages, shorter working hours, or safer working conditions, but they do not know how to connect these partial struggles into a comprehensive attack on capitalism as a system. This trade union consciousness forces them into negotiations with the bourgeoisie, into the acceptance of reforms, and into forgetting the revolutionary goal. If the movement is left to the workers themselves, it will sooner or later land in the embrace of liberalism — as happened, according to Lenin, with the German SPD.

So let us look more closely at the example of the SPD.

German Social Democracy was the leading socialist movement in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, but it was precisely its example that convinced Lenin that a new organizational form was necessary.

The SPD was, in fact, composed of two parts: a political party and the trade unions, which represented the actual proletariat. Initially, the party rejected Bismarck's social legislation, seeing it as an attempt to bribe the working class, but the trade unions saw social reforms as beneficial for their members. Over time, the trade unions took over the leadership of the SPD, demanding that the party follow their pragmatic course. The activists gave in, and the movement began to make compromises with the German state. The SPD first abandoned revolutionary rhetoric, then also strikes as a means of pressure. Eventually, it supported nationalism and colonial expansion, which was in complete opposition to the internationalist character of Marxism. The culmination of this process came in 1914, when the SPD voted in parliament in favor of the war budgets for an imperialist war. For Lenin, this was final proof that the SPD had betrayed the socialist cause.

Its transformation revealed two fundamental shortcomings: first, the proletariat is capable only of "trade union consciousness," which forces it into negotiations with the bourgeoisie. Second, party activists are vulnerabPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The third great tactic of the proletarian movement — ideological mobilization — differs from the previous two in that it builds power exclusively on organization, not on questions. While spontaneous uprising counts on mass devotion to a question, and mass agitation seeks to strengthen and deepen that devotion through organization, ideological mobilization does not expect participants to voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the movement at all. Instead, it establishes an organizational framework that compels people to cooperate — regardless of their personal beliefs, passions, or doubts.

The mechanism can be illustrated by the example of paid work in a non-governmental organization: unlike a volunteer, who can reduce their involvement at any time if they lose enthusiasm, an employee with a work contract is forced to perform a certain amount of work, encouraged by payment and penalties. The same logic applies to soldiers in an army or citizens under a government: laws, taxes, and legitimacy create a system of incentives and coercion that directs individuals toward productive action, even if the regime is not popular.

When the organizational framework is strong enough, ideological mobilization surpasses all the limitations that would otherwise reduce the power an individual contributes to the movement. As a result, it can carry out extremely self-sacrificing, complex, and prolonged actions that, in scale and persistence, exceed the capabilities of spontaneous uprising or even mass agitation. In its extreme form, such movements become micro-states or micro-armies that compete with the established state in their ability to exploit, mobilize, and develop resources.

Of course, establishing and maintaining such an organizational framework requires enormous resources — this is the main limitation of ideological mobilization. Here the ideological part comes in: although the movement does not need participants to believe in the question, their belief can increase voluntary sacrifice and thereby reduce the need for organizational coercion. That is why ideological mobilizations often insist on ideological conformity.

The historically most well-known example of ideological mobilization is the Chinese Communist Revolution, although initially the Communist Party of China (CPC) did not intend to use this tactic. Like most communist movements of the time, the CPC first adopted mass agitation on the Leninist model. Only in the 1940s, afterPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The organizational form that best embodies ideological mobilization is the popular front. In the Marxist tradition, the popular front is a broad coalition of different social strata — not only the proletariat, but also peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, even the progressive part of the bourgeoisie — who unite under a common leadership (usually the communist party) to achieve common anti-feudal, anti-imperialist, or anti-fascist goals.

The popular front differs from the vanguard organization in two key points:

Breadth of membership. The vanguard is a narrow, ideologically pure group of professional revolutionaries; the popular front is mass-based and includes people with diverse, often even opposing views. Its strength lies not in homogeneity, but in organizational cohesion — in structures (party cells, trade unions, agricultural cooperatives, women's associations) that bind people into collective action, regardless of their personal ideological convictions.

Mode of operation. The vanguard acts as a catalyst of consciousness — through agitation it seeks to awaken class consciousness. The popular front, however, does not wait for awakening; with its organizational structures it captures people where they are and includes them in practical activities — in village defense, food production, education, armed struggle. By participating in front organizations, people gradually adopt its ideology. Let us recall that it is not consciousness that determines practice, but practice that determines consciousness.

A historical example of the popular front in the Chinese Revolution is the first united front between the CPC and the Kuomintang in the 1920s, conceived by Lenin as a temporary alliance against feudal warlords and imperialists. But the CPC soon learned that such a front is useful only if it is led by communists — otherwise it is exploited by better-organized enemies. That is why in the 1940s the party built its own popular front, in which it united peasants, workers, the petty bourgeoisie, and even parts of the nationalist elites under its control. This front was based on shared organization — on party committees, people's councils, armed militias, and economic cooperatives that permeated every village and every factory.

The popular front is therefore a tool for mobilizing the masses without prior ideological purification. Its power lies in the fact that it can operate even where people are distrustful of communism, ilPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Ideology, in our context, is what determines how a movement organizes itself, how it wages war, and how it sees its place in the world. Revolutionary socialist groups, for example, developed exceptional cohesion and discipline precisely because of a shared ideological framework that acted as both glue and a sieve for selecting cadres. Likewise, ideology enabled them to establish transnational connections — the exchange of experiences, doctrines, and support — something that non-Marxist insurgents mostly lacked. Ideology shapes tactics, but at the same time it also determines the enemy's response, which every movement must take into account when planning its struggle.

>>2843794
Inertia that continues to be withered by the real movement

>>2843794
"nationalism" isn't a single phenomenon with set reasons for its success, black nationalism exists for very different reasons from white nationalism, tutsi and hutu began as economic categories, greeks still thought themselves romans for centuries after it was economically advantageous, etc.

>>2843812
Why would some random person in Kentucky have solidarity with some random person in Arizona? Why would some random native to Bordeaux give a fuck about a random native of Nice? Nationalism is a myth.

>>2858239
>black nationalism exists for very different reasons from white nationalism
Yes, but it's still a Burgerreich cancer.

I don't think nationalism is that special or impossible to get rid of. Not to be Marxstradamus, but I think that as the fact that the nation-state is an untenable organizational form for working class politics becomes more obvious, it will be easier to separate nationalist reaction from the real movement. The biggest class base for nationalists today are lumpenized and declassed workers, downwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie, and workers whose bourgeois freedoms are limited by despotic regimes, lack of skill, or conditions nearing slavery. The global working class in the classical Marxist sense of the term has no qualms about migrating or working for foreign companies so long as the places and the firms they can work for offer better terms. Of course, these people are not free from the competition between workers, hence they are prone to reactionary and particularist impulses of their own (see Indian migrants in the UK who would vote for Reform based on limiting the number of migrants allowed to enter the country) but they have a practical class experience of being an international subject and might therefore be more amenable to the idea of proletarian socialism rather than national socialism(s).

>>2858171
Hungarians are also a good example of a country that's a genetic melting pot

>>2858163
>up to XVIII century poland was one of the wealthiest states in europe
Define "wealth", who was "whealty" and compared to what contemporaries?
>poland had very little stratification compared to contemporaries
Wat? In what sense was Poland supposedly less stratified than the HRE, France, Britain or Russia? Definitely not politically as the Sejm only represented aristocrats and their seats were inherited. Do you consider the Brititsh House of Lords an indicator of "little stratification" also?
>post your racial traits
You should always get banned on /leftypol/ on sight. You are clearly a racist piece of shit, an anti-communist spammer of the worst worder and you are rather easy to identify. Why the mods don't delete your shit is beyond me, that kind of tolerance towards your kind proved fatal already, only Deng, Kim and Fidel survived the counter-revolution.

>>2858193
>Define "wealth", who was "whealty" and compared to what contemporaries?
accumulated assets across strata of society. compared to other european nation which we managed to cumulate during 500 years of perpetual peace
there is a reason why especially germans and dutch just couldn't stop migrating to poland between XIII and XVIII century.
> Sejm only represented aristocrats
gentry represented 11% of the country's total population compared to single digit procent in other european countries
>You should always get banned on /leftypol/ on sight. You are clearly a racist piece of shit
<oh nyo someone told me i wear my heart on my sleeve and now my feefees are hurt (((( oh great communists of yore i summon thee to avenge my (family's) shame!

hey next time you ask someone some questions how about not reporting them like a fucking coward?

>>2858293
You're still not specific on who accumulated assets compared to what other European nation.
>500 years of perpetual peace
Poland experienced throughout it's entire existence never even a single century without waging war against their neighours in the West, North, East and South or without violently fucking with some minority within it's own territory. The vast majority of these wars were very expansionist & imperialist in nature, including the founding of the first Polish state.
>there is a reason why especially germans and dutch just couldn't stop migrating to poland
The rulers of Poland asked the rulers of the HRE to send settlers for political reasons, to be able to extract more taxes from more people under their rule and to modernize & develop their backward and underdeveloped turf which used to run an economy that was based to a significant part on selling Polish peasants as slaves to slave traders on the Black sea. Meanwhile in the HRE slavery was outlawed already through Germanic tribal law. During the high middle ages the HRE had experienced a massive boom due to favourable climate conditions, new farming methods & technology and rapidly growing population in the cities. German & Dutch settlers moved to Poland ON REQUEST and became a sizeable (bourgeois) minority in cities such as Krakau and Thorn which adopted HRE/Magdeburg law standards. However, it didn't take long until the Germanic minority faced massive discrimination and declined in numbers.
>gentry represented 11% of the country's total population
This is the dumbest thing i've read in a while. The "gentry" represents EXCLUSIVELY itself, the aristocracy. NOT the general population. NOT representing the population but exclusively a small caste of exploiters is the whole point of aristocracy and class society in general. Today the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and oligarchs do not represent the population either, they also represent their own class, the capitalist class, exclusively.

I did not report you, i guess a mod made you shut up for a while anyway, which i appreciate very much. I would prefer you getting filtered by default though. On top of being a racist piece of shit you always talk out of your ass due to sheer stuPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2858724
name a single war on polish territory between unification of poland 1315 to great northern war. we did not partake in reformation, counter-reformation nor had any major succession crisis.
>The rulers of Poland asked the rulers of the HRE to send settlers for political reasons
hre was severely overpopulated which made the population unruly and impoverished on top of fighting constant religious wars. in border and coastal towns like wroclaw, glogow, szczecin or gdansk immigrants became the majority in a very short time because their princelings just couldn't stop fighting one another.
slavery mind you was already outlawed by pope eugene in XV century. sure there was trade slave on the black sea but it was run by turkic people - tatars and muscovites who weren't christian so pope's demands did not apply to them - another projection, neat.
gentry represent the heart and mind of the polish nation. both the culture and the way we look at world and self was created by gentry exclusively as all the means of creating culture have always been in their hands. today there's only one polish culture, regardless of social strata.
>deliberately to clog up the board with anti-communist trash in order to make it unusable for communists
<oh nyo i got some pushback regarding my failed ideology and now i can't use the site (((((

I find it hard to believe the us caused more native deaths than either Spain or Portugal, but I'll be honest I don't really give a shit about finding out.

>powerscaling history and geopolitics
is this shithole just 15 year olds now

>>2858900
USA was extremely progressive for its time during 18th and 19th century.

>>2859054
During meetings of the First International they'd have an American flag on display in a "place of honor" as a symbol of republicanism like it was the flag of Republican Spain in the 1930s. The American civil war was going on. But they also displayed other national flags representing delegates from different countries.

no, amerikkka is very special and so are (you)