/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

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?

Trump lands in China for high-stakes summit with Xi Jinping, as Iran war looms over talks
Trump was accompanied by his son Eric and daughter-in-law Lara as well as tech leaders including Elon Musk of Tesla and Jensen Huang of the chip-maker Nvidia. The US president has plans for headline-grabbing deals and previously predicted that China’s leader, Xi Jinping, would “give me a big, fat hug when I get there”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/13/trump-china-summit-xi-jinping-talks

People demand “Bato” arrest
Various organizations widely condemned the Senate’s indulgence and defense of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa after the International Criminal Court (ICC) publicly issued an arrest warrant against him in the afternoon of May 11. The ICC confirmed the warrant for dela Rosa’s role in the Duterte regime’s “war on drugs.” ICC spokesperson Oriane Maillet stated the court issued the warrant on November 6, 2025. Authorities made the previously “secret” document “public” only this May.
https://philippinerevolution.nu/angbayan/people-demand-bato-arrest/

Philippine vice president impeached by lawmakers over suspected wealth and threats
The House, which is dominated by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s allies, voted 257-25 with nine abstentions. The two impeachment complaints against Duterte, which will now be elevated to the Senate for a trial, mark an initial setback to her plan to seek the presidency in 2028. Shortly before the impeachment vote in the House, Senate President Vicente Sotto III, who had vowed to immediately put the vice president to trial, was ousted by 13 of 24 senators, including supporters of the vice president and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
https://apnews.com/article/philippines-vice-president-duterte-impeachment-5d619c24ae6ef880d3c03bbcdccc1536

Ethnic Groups Are Fleeing Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts in Search of Safety in Myanmar
Concurrent with the forced Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Appellism is an ideology come up from The Invisible Committee from their text called "The Call" (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-call). They are a part of the anarchist side of communization and, like mainstream communization, they support the immediacy of revolution and the abolition of the working class. They are also insurrectionist.

From what I've heard they are very problematic, with some individuals claiming that they harass fellow anarchists who disgaree with them. There's this article written by an ex-member of the appelistes, claiming that they were bigotted, didn't protect the women within the appelist circle from rapists, and that they were hostile towards other anarchists. (https://anarchistnews.org/content/jumping-ship-or-why-im-defecting-terrible-community)

They have also been seen as reformist, as one anarchist claims that they were "the French tiqqunists who sold out anarchists at the Zad in order to negotiate for state-sanctioned land projects." (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/some-intractables-more-talk-more-rock).

Both the articles linked give a lot more detail to how problematic they are, so please read them if you want more detail.

>Traffic congestion in the Metropolitan Area of the Valley of Mexico generates an annual cost of 47 billion pesos, a figure that represents half of the total economic losses caused by traffic in the country’s main cities, reported Juan José Sierra Álvarez, national president of Coparmex.
>The leader pointed out a marked imbalance in public investment: while 47% of the mobility budget is allocated to private cars —used by only a quarter of the population— public transportation, which moves 39% of citizens, receives only 1.2% of the resources. This lack of investment forces public transport users to lose 118 hours per year commuting, significantly exceeding the 71 hours averaged by motorists.

Who is Coparmex you ask?
Coparmex (Mexican Employers’ Confederation) is a major business organization in Mexico.
In simple terms:
It represents business owners and employers
It advocates for private sector interests
It speaks out on public policy, economic issues, and labor laws
It is not a labor union for workers, but for employers

Some anon posted this article in another thread but I think it's interesting as its own. Here are some key points:
https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/the-irgcs-way-of-war/

1. the Islamic Republic is not organised around a single person: its institutional design prioritises not the fate of any leader, but rather the preservation of the system itself.
   
2. The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) provides a clear example. The SNSC brings together military officials (army and IRGC commanders), key ministers (intelligence, foreign affairs, interior), the president, and other key figures,
   
3. The SNSC effectively serves as the central body responsible for formulating core policies on national security
   
4. Through the SNSC, senior regime officials deliberate and make decisions through consensus, decisions that are formally ratified by the Supreme Leader. Decision-making thus occurs through an institutionalised and collegial process rather than through unilateral directives from the top.
   
5. The armed forces are similarly depersonalised and horizontal.
   
6. in wartime, local commanders have been empowered under Iran’s ‘Mosaic Defence’ policy, which enables them to act independently, especially if senior leaders are killed or communications are cut
   
7. The IRGC emerged as an amalgamation of revolutionary militias
   
   

Honestly, this seems to be in line with what I would expect an honest communist party to strive (well, most of it). 1. is essentially collective leadership, 2. 3. 4. is democratic centralism, 5. is partisan warfare and 6. 7. is a network of soviets.

the great and avthentic revolutionaries are two: Deng Xiaoping and Ali Khamenei.

What exactly is israel's endgame with gaza? So far only 80k people out of 2.3 million if israel wanted to genocide them all they would've done so already.
What's the endgoal here?
What can they hope to achieve?

I keep running into a particularly insidious type of revisionism. The "Deng Won" revisionism. It is stated repeatedly by disguised fascists, capitalists, and liberals (but I repeat myself) larping as communists on our board and misusing the concept of realpolitik that capitalist roader party bureaucrats can be deified, and, failing that, rehabilitated. Let me be perfectly clear. The party bureaucrats, the capitalist roaders, and the opportunist labor aristocracy cannot be "deified" or "rehabilitated" under any circumstances. They must all be liquidated alongside their inbred pedophile worker-hating Nixonist-Kissingerist counterparts. It is not the duty of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to waste precious and limited resources attempting to coddle and reeducate opportunists who in 99.9…% of circumstances will betray the working class, because they secretly harbor counter-revolutionary opinions, and collaborate amongst themselves to foment bourgeois counter-revolution. I don't care if they "raised billions out of poverty.". You put a bullet in their fucking head. Morality is not real. It is a theistic bourgeois construct regarding property relations. It does not matter if this is "good" or "bad." You put the bullet in the bourgeois bootlicker's brain or he will grow strong enough to kill you and everyone you love and destroy everything you fought for. Do you understand? If not, you are a liberal, a fascist, a capitalist roader, and you ought to be hung by your genitals from the nearest lamp post next to the rotting corpse of Bukharin. You are not a comrade, you are a coward, and vermin, to be exterminated alongside the ruling class, their children, their pets, and their lickspittle servants. This isn't a question of "nurture vs nature" either. This is a question of risk mitigation and victory maximization. I am not "weird" or a "freak" or "hate children" for understanding this. Take heed this quote from Mark Twain (Who, despite being a feckless bourgeois 19th century liberal, was perfectly capable of understanding the need for Revolutionary Terror):

>“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momPost too long. Click here to view the full text.