[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


 No.1185746

I recently saw this linked on a 'national anarchist' blog. It's part of a larger trend I've noticed of the far right adopting leftist rhetoric. Does anyone else think this trend could grow and become a threat. If so, how do we preempt it?

>What We Want


>We want a society and state that creates better people: stronger, smarter, more creative, healthier, and exhibiting qualities like decisiveness, honor, duty, skill, courage, and a spirit of service. We want a socialism of the vitalistic type: a government that intervenes not in the name of false equity nor simply to offer people easy lives of comfort, but rather to support and sponsor merit and character-based hierarchies while preserving the ability to overcome meaningful challenges, all to cultivate more capable people. We want a system which leads the development of individuals and humanity to a higher level. We want to build a vibrant new society of revitalized, virtuous, strongly-bonded people to replace the dreary, modern one of listless, atomized neopeons.


>What We’re Against


>We’re against the emerging techno-feudalism of full-spectrum control exerted over daily and total life through technological, economic, social, and biomedical means. We’re against the rule of a small class of petty, lame elites, exerted through all aspects of the state (government, media, education, dominant cultural and corporate institutions). We’re against the widespread poverty and degradation of the lower classes and the spiritless, immiserated condition of the working and middle classes, along with the rampant promotion of weakness, ill-health, mental disorders, dullness, and obedience inherent in the current system, often under the guise of pretty phrases like ‘democracy,’ ‘equality,’ ‘social justice,’ ‘anti-racism,’ ‘human rights,’ or ‘public health.’ We’re against the endemic ugliness of culturally-left, oligarchical, subscription-mandate capitalism. We’re against the spiritual degradation endemic today. In short, we’re against the modern world, its rulers, and the eunuch media-priest and bureaucratic collaborator classes.

 No.1185748

advanced faggotry

 No.1185750

Socialist right wingers exist. Example

 No.1185752

File: 1663925234629.webm (2.14 MB, 630x472, fascists stealing.webm)

Always have been.
This might just be a new wave of it.

 No.1185753


 No.1185754

Where the fuck have you been, the origin of fascism is in appropriating elements from leftism

 No.1185756

>>1185754
No, fascism is racist nationalism. It's completely opposite

 No.1185758

>>1185750
The accent sounds burgeroid
Is it another dog walking on its hind legs

 No.1185760

>>1185758
He is Irish

 No.1185761

>>1185758 (me)
What the fuck accent is that it has that southern burgeroid drawl but it's british

 No.1185762


 No.1185764

File: 1663925832129.jpg (813.84 KB, 2765x1308, National Soycialism.jpg)

>>1185750
2 minutes in and Keith is already coping lmao. "The jews that were pushing for communism" LMAO can't even go 2 full minutes without dropping the mask and ignoring class analysis in favor of racial hate mongering. "If I was in England I'd do anything to keep Labour out of power".

This is why socialists call fascists frauds they prioritize retarded stuff like race over actual socialism.

 No.1185765

>>1185764
"Third Positionism" is a lie. There is no such thing as a "Third Position".

Social Democrats claimed to be a midway point between capitalism and socialism. They completely failed and reverted to liberalism.

Fascists claimed to be a third position between capitalism and socialism. Their societies were more brutally capitalist than the governments and former administrations that they overthrew.

The only people fooled by the idiocy these youtubers put out are retards who refuse to read or learn from history.

 No.1185768

>>1185756
I didn't say it IS left-wing, but fascists have always adopted rhetoric and aesthetics from the left. And nationalism isn't exactly unique to the right either :^)

 No.1185771

You want the secret to deal with this? You probably don't. Few leftists online seem to. Its actually very simple - its called "not being the stereotypical politically correct faux progressive leftist SJW that the right claims you to be".

People everywhere are waking up to the fact Shit Isn't Working. The Right, going back 100 years+, has always had some overlap with these same elements and/or appropriates leftist sounding rhetoric. However they differ with certain policies (ie the traditional Nazis everyone thought about purged the Strasserites, those who actually wanted leftist-ish economics rather than corporatism/fascism, among some other differences, soon after they had power to act independently). The reason this keeps coming up is because people realize that capitalism isn't working and its only getting worse, but who, what they blame, and how you deal with it can differ.

You want to stop people taking up this stuff? Two steps - break down why their policies suck "hurdurr we don't want people to have easy lives" and other nonsense in their policy is a good place to start. That can be handled. The real reason why people choose this side is an uncomfortable truth - they see obnoxious "leftists/liberal progressives" and want something different from capitalism, but don't want a world where they feel you'll never need to stop self flagellating if you're a white american because you're an evil oppressor etc. I see how people get to this place - especially online, there are a lot of so called leftists who are just fucking obnoxious; the ones where everything goes to 11 (ie "THEY JUST WANT TO KILL TRANS PEOPLE" applies equally to someone proposing a law prohibiting a doctor from informed medical care and someone who says something inflammatory on Twitter or some trans character in some show they find objectionable etc), those who are quick to cancel and deplatform and call for all manner of things in their witch hunting nonsense and perpetual offense taking. Don't be that kind of leftist. I'm sick of having to explain to people that it doesn't have to be a package deal, you don't need to bundle "universal public health care" with "if you every offend someone of a 'marginalized group' or are otherwise deemed an 'oppressor', regardless of merit, you now have to contend with a concentrated attempt at character assassination because of that thing you said somewhere some time".

Its getting very old to see people choosing the right simply because of the left being very visibly obnoxious to the point they'd are more interested in "we can't let THOSE people have control they're fucking insane" than the actual policies involved. Will policing our own community fix everything? of course not, but I'm getting very tired of watching so many people end up on the other side and have to be dragged back because of basically left leaning people stepping on stupid as fuck landmines, many of which they place for themselves.

 No.1185775

Gonna split this into 2 or 3 posts depending how long i ramble.

First, lets look at the history of who we're discussing.

>'National-Anarchist'

'National-Anarchism' is interesting as it isn't just a purely internet/meme thing like AnCaps and Infracels etc.
'National-Anarchism' was basically an ideology spawned out / became the ideology of the United-Kingdoms 'National-Front' [NF], devised by Troy Southgate

It's important to note that the NF had relatively 'high' support compared to most Neo-Fascists in post-war Europe [Sometimes coming 4th place behind Lab/Tory/LibDem at council and house elections], This is considered due to the fact that unlike the rest of the european 'far-right' which became anti-welfare and extremely Atlanticist, the NF became extremely ANTI-Atlanticist and pandered extremely heavily to Proletarians and Lumpenised-proles with corporatist and welfarist ideology.

The NF was founded by Arthur Kenneth Chesterton - Who had been an open member of Mosley's BUF and who was described sometimes as 'The last blackshirt' due to him being a 'traditional Mussolini/Mosley style Fascist till the day he died'. And all the guys Chesterton left in charge of the party also had developed all these weird 'true fascist' synergies that tried to set them apart from generic skinheads and Pro-NATO deathsquad fascists like Italy, France and Greece.

So first they became 'Strasserists' [Nick Griffin, Who later went on to briefly start a new party and win two MEP seats in 2009 on his strasserist platform], Then they seriously took a turn towards 'adapting Gaddafi, Nassar and Baathism for british circumstances', And then eventually arrived at the idea of trying 'Anarchism'

The point im laying out with all of this is, considering the ideological history works out, Im gonna assume that the 'National-Anarchist' is completely genuine in their words and their not just pulling a haz #MAGACommunism style desperate attempt at swaying the 'other side'.

 No.1185776

>We want a society and state that creates better people: stronger, smarter, more creative, healthier, and exhibiting qualities like decisiveness, honor, duty, skill, courage, and a spirit of service. We want a socialism of the vitalistic type: a government that intervenes not in the name of false equity nor simply to offer people easy lives of comfort, but rather to support and sponsor merit and character-based hierarchies while preserving the ability to overcome meaningful challenges, all to cultivate more capable people. We want a system which leads the development of individuals and humanity to a higher level. We want to build a vibrant new society of revitalized, virtuous, strongly-bonded people to replace the dreary, modern one of listless, atomized neopeons.
Pretty much what he describes here could be found within the model of welfare employed in any historic socialist state, In the USSR for instance, It could be argued that the leeway and reasons for getting 'direct cash deposit' / money in the bank welfare were even lower then the west - If you were someone over 18 and weren't in some sort of tertiary education, very disabled physically or mentally, were a woman caring for children or had already hit the pension age - you were expected to be fucking working - Obviously in fairness i should point out there was a degree of corruption in this system - sometimes quite severe [I believe in many of the 'Stans' ~20% of the population viable for work, would simply live in large familial households where maybe some family members DID work and forge dependents / economise etc to make ends meet.

(Im just gonna ignore the Anti-Vax bullshit entirely because LMAO.)
>>We’re against the emerging techno-feudalism of full-spectrum control exerted over daily and total life through technological, economic, social, and biomedical means.
Techno-Feudalism? This guy read Yanis?
>We’re against the rule of a small class of petty, lame elites, exerted through all aspects of the state (government, media, education, dominant cultural and corporate institutions). We’re against the widespread poverty and degradation of the lower classes and the spiritless, immiserated condition of the working and middle classes, along with the rampant promotion of weakness, ill-health, mental disorders, dullness, and obedience inherent in the current system,
Pretty much anyone whose not completely fluoridated would somewhat agree with that, I know full well he means trans by 'mental illness' though.
>often under the guise of pretty phrases like ‘democracy,’ ‘equality,’ ‘social justice,’ ‘anti-racism,’ ‘human rights,’ or ‘public health.’
Any Marxist would agree that these terms wielded by the state, in domestic and foreign affairs - are in fact simply 'pretty words' to justify one policy or another. The issue once again becomes clear when we remember the exact mind-wrinkles this guy had that leads to him complaining about 'anti-racism' and 'equality'

 No.1185777

>>1185771
The truth is that the average Western citizen is so fucked in the head mentally and instilled with libertarian values from birth that the psychological basis for any socialist mass movement has completely collapsed.

It's not even a matter of "well just do this and then people will flock to you" - no the truth is workers had decades to do that before the Red Scare and mass distribution of drugs and "critical race theory" and all that other crap happened and at the height of its power the Communists in the US could only garner a million or so votes for their presidential candidate country-wide.

You long for a disciplined organization that will never occur because the only people attracted to socialism are disaffected outcasts who do not have the skills, restraint, money, knowledge etc. to fashion something from the limited recruiting pool that they have. Democrats seem to even go through socialist organizations as a quasi "youth rite of passage" and then reminisce about how they grew up decades later to vote for neoliberals like Biden. The explosion of "antifa" personnel under the Trump administration is proof positive that the majority of self-proclaimed socialists in America are just liberals pretending to be red.

It's not a question of "anti whiteness" etc. because that's a symptom and not the cause, the symptom being Democrats LARPing as socialists before they eventually quit and grow up to let the next generation of students try it out for fun. You even see this with the CPUSA which runs articles defending Biden and Hillary. Yeah it glows as fuck but that's a testament more to the failure of internal discipline because hey if /leftypol/ can counter glowie spam it sure as fuck is possible for real life orgs to counter glowies as well.

 No.1185823

>>1185746
>It's part of a larger trend I've noticed of the far right adopting leftist rhetoric.
They have been doing it since the time of the Hitlernationale.
>Does anyone else think this trend could grow and become a threat.
No.
>If so, how do we preempt it?
Just stay true to your anti-capitalist rhetoric. They do not want to abolish capitalism, instead they back «social democracy.»

 No.1185832

>>1185777
You are being idealist/nationalist in your thinking and as the crises of capitalism unfold and the power of capital stagnates during a massive downturn in steady profits, the ready susceptibility of the masses to the proletarian/communist movement increases and the bourgeois solutions for facing these crises gets weaker and weaker as the contradictions of capital accumulation come into friction and unfold.

 No.1185866

>>1185746
The far left is already 'adapting' to this by moving to the right on issues of nationalism and identity.

I think this kind of 'ideological drift' is a natural consequence of radical politics becoming more popular and well-known. You can afford to have the 'correct party line' if your tendency is stagnant and has no hope of obtaining power. Most Western Leninist sects which prided themselves on theoretical clarity have either not meaningfully grown or straight up collapsed within the past decade, while more flexible (and more rightward) groups like DSA or the Labour Party were able to attract lots of new members. I assume the same thing is happening organically within fascism; 'alt-lite' and 'national conservatism' attract more people than the Klan or old school neo-Nazis.

 No.1185939

>>1185777
>>1185786
My response was mostly in the context of keeping people from adopting anti-liberal-capitalist right ideology that includes some elements similar to/directly from leftist ones, not simply a "doing this will instantly make everyone socialist".

Regarding the rest of what you mention , with regard to the past we should keep things in mind that there has been massive opposition to leftist policies in the time frame you mention, but despite this there was a lot that got done, even if things weren't perfect; policy victories often hard fought, at a time when executing union leaders or Battle of Blair Mountain level shit was common, and Palmer Raids could simply paint leftists as evil foreign influence. It wasnt' just an issue of getting a party elected (in a vastly anticommunist, blacklisting era) but pretty much all the economic policies from the early labor rights movement in the late 19th early 20th century to the New Deal and beyond were left-leaning ideas; its only a pity they didn't go farther (ie Roosevelt's 2nd bill of rights, pretty much everything Wallace advocated for and the policies in the much later MLK's Poor People's Campaign were very similar for example and were they implemented would have enshrined at least a Nordic style social democracy) Anyway, while history or theory can be helpful, they shouldn't be used as a guide to the future when the conditions are different.

Youth being attracted to political ideals,especially new or new seeming/radical ones is nothing new, however its still a very small portion of the electorate in most US cases. I don't think most Dems go through a "socialist" phase or anything, in fact its only literally since 2016 that socialism and social democracy ideals and policies, much less the word "socialism"itself has become popular. A small percentage of middle class college sociology majors getting involved in some campus activism is nothing new, but the overton window has shifted in a way it hasn't for a very long time. The "recruiting pool" is a lot larger than the stereotypical collegiate activists; the issue is properly reaching people and not turning off those who don't fit exactly into the "woke enough" mold, even when they agree with policy. "Liberals pretending to be red" is one of those "lefty infighting" things that isn't often very helpful when it what definitions for "liberal" and "red" can vary immensely between those involved. "Voting for neoliberals " is often the only option up until very recently and being able to jack off to how socialisticer you are than everyone else by NOT voting (or voting for some 3rd party simply as a protest even if in a swing state etc) while handing a district to the more right wing candidate isn't advisable. In 2020 and 2022 there have been more lefty Dems running than ever with a real chance of getting elected. The idea that you'd see someone with Bernie's policies or AOC/TheSquad having a chance to be elected, much less several of them is new and good; no its not overthrowing capitalism in one fell swoop but that's just not on the table - improvement is. If you're worried about any disruptive influences (ie "glowies" though frankly subverting the left is not high on the gov't to do list like it used to be and the bigger issue is instead corporate power) this is where things like the culture war bullshit become important because as long as we have people who are more interested in deplatforming "harmful ideas" or "misinformation" it will be easy to weaponize that against anyone who steps out of whatever narrowly drawn line; very easy to exploit. Social media often magnifies the already huge lefty infighting tendency , which turns off a lot of people who would otherwise be in favor of policies we support. There will always be young, politically energized activists but the field needs to be much bigger than just that and extremely visible bad behavior by certain lefties make it harder to bring others over, to say nothing for other forms of engagement. We don't need only people who are going to put on the red beret and march in lockstep in order to make progress; that's no the only way to get things done. We have the right answers to a lot of problems and a larger portion of electorate seems the most open to them for a long, long time so long as we can clearly state the policy and not fuck it up with asinine bullshit / be perceived as either entirely consisting of or directed by the stereotypes that the right would have them believe that represent us.

>>1185786

I wrote a bunch above and will reply to yours in the following post,

 No.1185959

>>1185777
Too much internet

 No.1186011

>>1185750
"""""""""socialist"""""""""""""""

 No.1186036

>Should we worry
Literally no. At least not if we remain coherently, totally and consistently anti-capitalist. Right wing rhetoric tends to melt when exposed to consistent material analysis for too long.

 No.1186204

>>1185832
No, people will just war with each other over scarce resources while their alliances and hostilities will be based on instilled mindsets of kinship. May that be race or being from similar socio-cultural backgrounds. In what fucking way will Americans turn to socialism when shit hits the fan when they are so deeply opposed to socialism as an idea? The most realistic scenario is that there will assassinations towards high profile people out of the belief individual rich people are to blame for the crisis, waring with the police/military, closed off communities trying to maintain themselves and only cooperating with like minded groups, hoarding and killing for resources. Barbarism is far more likely than socialism.

 No.1186212

>>1186204
Balkanisation it is then

 No.1186213

>>1186204
>using Americans as a standard

 No.1186216

>Far right adopting leftist rhetoric
They've done it since Mussolini and Hitler lmao, probably even earlier

 No.1186535

Lol the only reason why your seething OP is because leftism is his whole identity and politics is just a collection of aesthetics in their minc

 No.1186552

File: 1663962436545.jpg (45.23 KB, 399x224, gay.jpg)

People really do fucking over react to SJW don't they? Is it reasonable to just be a culture centerist who find both sides of the LE ebin nationalism is based and trad shit and SJWs and their sensitivity bullshit to be grating?

 No.1186559

>>1186552
Yes, you are very special for disliking two widely hated extremist fringe groups.

 No.1186562

>>1186559
<SJWs
>two widely hated extremist fringe groups
Log off.

 No.1186564

>>1186559
I don't give a fuck about being special. Seems like some projection is going on, maybe you should base your opinions on logic instead of just "Who will I piss off with the opinions I have" mate. Maybe we can actually have mutual Ws for once.

 No.1186652

File: 1663965695503.jpg (137.3 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

>>1185939
>"Voting for neoliberals " is often the only option up until very recently and being able to jack off to how socialisticer you are than everyone else by NOT voting (or voting for some 3rd party simply as a protest even if in a swing state etc) while handing a district to the more right wing candidate isn't advisable.
There are a lot of people like my parents, who are normies and not "leftists" in some kind of identifying way, who think leftists voting for a third party because of a "pox on both your houses" if it leads to Republicans getting elected are insane dumbasses. My dad is like "fuggin' Bernie Sanders is gonna spoil it" and I had to explain to him that Bernie told his dumbass followers to vote for Biden.

>>1185777
>It's not a question of "anti whiteness" etc. because that's a symptom and not the cause, the symptom being Democrats LARPing as socialists before they eventually quit and grow up to let the next generation of students try it out for fun. You even see this with the CPUSA
There are a lot of CPUSA types who are not "socialists who grew up and became Democrats," or rather, I think there are a lot of them who were liberal Democrats in the beginning who then moved to the left, basically they were just college liberals before joining the CPUSA as adults, so voting to keep Republicans out is not weird to them at all, because they were already doing that before becoming "communists." And particularly people involved in organized labor in some kinda way. They're just normies. One of the paradoxes about this too that the "woke / virtual signaling" stuff like "you fucking white male" or sparkle magic hands instead of applauding is not a thing with them compared to the DSA types or boutique subcultural Tumblr-style stuff. That's just my impression though.

>which runs articles defending Biden and Hillary. Yeah it glows as fuck but that's a testament more to the failure of internal discipline because hey if /leftypol/ can counter glowie spam it sure as fuck is possible for real life orgs to counter glowies as well.

It's no big mystery. They want power and influence in politics and to be able to stop a bill if there's a bill they want to stop. It's just politics. They run candidates as Democrats and some do get elected from time to time and there might be some in office as state legislators right now and you wouldn't know. One problem though is that running as a communist is illegal in some places. In any case, I think the way to counter glowies is to put them to work because glowies are there to be a disruptive influence. So go tell them to register people to vote or pass out "know your rights" literature from the local central labor council to workers at a grocery store. Have them do something productive.

 No.1186662

Man faggits really love taking shit socialists scream about and repurpose it as if that’s what they were always in favour of but not socialism don’t they?

 No.1186751


 No.1186788

>>1185753
>Not capitalism nor socialism but capitalism

 No.1186845

>>1185746
this isn't leftist rhetoric, this is retarded word salad, please read more marx

 No.1187694

>We want a socialism of the vitalistic type
Why is it that reactionaries never describe their poltics in a coherent concrete way. If you read what little facist literature there is you will find all sorts of flowery nonsense like this "modernity, vitality, an organic state" with very little substance. I think what highlights this is Goebbels talking about the nazi economy he states that once the Jewish elements of German society are removed the German soul will coalesce and German'y full economic potential will be realised. No where does he actually talk about actual nazi economic policy just nice sounding platidues

 No.1187893

>>1186562
No no blue haired girls on college campuses are ruining America you see
Andrew Tate and Sargon of Akkad told me this

 No.1187894

>>1187694
because they're not interested in actual politics and setting up working systems for people to live in, they're coming up with bullshit to cover the fact they just want to massacre the "undesirables" that are contaminating something they have no fundamental problems with.

 No.1187896

>>1185760
Every fucking time.

 No.1187915


 No.1187937

File: 1664039285660.mp4 (2.23 MB, 640x360, rxdYWtvnOK00MR_a.mp4)

all of these right wing populists are rich faggots who just want ot be famous

and the text in the OP is a meaningless drivel

there's extremelly easy way how to deal with them: just tell them to fuck off

 No.1188145

>>1185746
That's a soldier or a cop, under capitalism.

 No.1189252

>>1187937
The way people can just go on a heated tangent while not saying anything worthwhile at all
The dude is such an irritating nerd with nothing to show for besides being a leader of racist incels

 No.1189261

>>1185746

> some internet thing happens, should we worry?


no lol, it's just internet nerds, nobody involved has any power and will never achieve any because they are internet dweebs

 No.1189284

>>1186036
>Right wing rhetoric tends to melt
it melts under material conditions and scrutiny but most people aren't paying enough attention to notice

 No.1193121

File: 1664240838133.png (927.89 KB, 960x960, ClipboardImage.png)

bump thread + discuss picrel

 No.1193132

>>1186559
Are the SJWs extremist? None of them are writing manifestos and doing mass shootings. Their crime is being whiny dorks who's only power is getting the next Disney product marketed to them. They're aren't a political factor they're a marketing demographic.

 No.1193155

>>1193121
It achieves being both gay and retarded

 No.1193159

>>1193121
most of it seems good, would say solid left-wing-socdem reformist policies , although i don't understand some of it. Why ban red colored tape or free only 16.7% of protestors ?

 No.1193168

>>1193159
based analysis comrade

 No.1193173

>>1193159

literally every part of this that isn't targeting specific cultural bugbears is just right-wing economic policy, you have to be an absolute moron to not read this think tank trash as transparently opportunist right-wingers

 No.1193242

>>1193173
>cultural bugbears
I'm now attempting to imagine a disturbing creature that has bear and insect features, i know it's probably an expression, but i can't help it.
>is just right-wing economic policy
no it seems like left-wing economics, like de-privatizing large companies in the energy, tech, finance and agricultural sector , even if it uses a lot of unusual wording like "declare as public commodities". There is random stuff like reclaiming land from swamp areas which seems like provincial politics, but other stuff is clearly left-wing like ending foreign interventions or freeing Assange and Snowden.

 No.1193421

File: 1664250436196.jpg (288.38 KB, 728x1710, 1489745588713.jpg)

>>1186036
>At least not if we remain coherently, totally and consistently anti-capitalist
The problem is that a large portion of supposed "leftists" are none of those things, and in fact agree with the bullshit premises put forward by the right, but simply oppose them on the basis of an arbitrary moralism, when the left position is to reject the premise entirely. When supposed "leftists" go around saying things like "working class white people benefit from fascism" and "socialists need to make white people uncomfortable" and similar bullshit, it serves only to push people to the right.
Hell, the notion that various "identities" are coherent collective groups with shared interests across class lines is the most basic form of false consciousness, yet it's been foisted onto the left by rebranding it as "identity politics". We have a modern "left" that cares more about the Combahee yuppies than Marx and it's a legitimate problem.
There's a reason so many members of the so-called "new left" went on to become neocons and Reaganite neolibs, and there's no doubt in my mind that many of the modern radlibs will follow a similar path.
>>1186562
>>1187893
"Political correctness" is overwhelmingly unpopular with the general population across nearly all demographics, with the sole exception being wealthy liberals. Yes, the rightoids who constantly rant about such things are a bunch of grifters, but they're only able to gain an audience in the first place because that shit is genuinely despised by everyone else, and with good reason. "Wokeness", "SJWs", or whatever you want to call this shit is counter-productive at best and oftentimes outright anti-leftist.
Honestly I find it pretty sus for people on /leftypol/ of all places to be defending that shit considering those are the same sorts of people who call us "brocialists" and "class reductionists" and such (remember the whole "catgirl drama" a few years back?). Nevar 5get that the "new left" and the "cultural turn" were born from the rejection of Marx's thesis that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle

 No.1193441

hey remember that time they started calling fascism 'socialism'? anyway yes op this trend is trendy and we should be trendful about it.

 No.1193533

>>1193173
ok glowie

 No.1193534

File: 1664253573234.mp4 (128.02 KB, 720x540, 4r.mp4)

>national anarchist
>"We want a society and state"

 No.1193545


 No.1193547

>>1185761
>>1185760
>yfw lenin has a southern burgeroid drawl
REDNECK REDS WILL RISE AGAIN YALL

 No.1193559

>>1185764
Shit infographic. Not false, just ineffective for its target audience.

 No.1193562

>>1193242

you're legitimately a mark if you think this is left-wing. the only serious economic policies proposed here that aren't just twitter memes are:

- lower taxes
- remove red tape / deregulate industry

I have bad news for you about who that benefits. outside of that the whole thing is just a hodgepodge of internally contradictory culture war stuff mashed together in the hope that something grabs people.

 No.1193563

>>1193559
how would you improve it?

 No.1193564

>>1193563
insert more wojaks in it.

 No.1193565

>>1185775
>And all the guys Chesterton left in charge of the party also had developed all these weird 'true fascist' synergies that tried to set them apart from generic skinheads and Pro-NATO deathsquad fascists like Italy, France and Greece.

>So first they became 'Strasserists' [Nick Griffin, Who later went on to briefly start a new party and win two MEP seats in 2009 on his strasserist platform], Then they seriously took a turn towards 'adapting Gaddafi, Nassar and Baathism for british circumstances', And then eventually arrived at the idea of trying 'Anarchism'


>The point im laying out with all of this is, considering the ideological history works out, Im gonna assume that the 'National-Anarchist' is completely genuine in their words and their not just pulling a haz #MAGACommunism style desperate attempt at swaying the 'other side'.

 No.1193573

File: 1664255149590.png (41.8 KB, 300x300, 1652229542096.png)

>>1185746
The sad reality is, is that right wingers and liberals alike have been co-opting progressive movements rhetoric and misusing their terminology for decades now- and sadly we ourselves as communists have a bad habbit of doing something similar.

Authoritarian, Libertarian, Tankie, Fascistic, etc. these are words that more or less used to mean something, and some could argue given a context of a community they still do. But with the internet, these terms get misused and misappropriated.

Unfortunately, unless we want to start issuing copyright on these phrases, this is the way things will continue to be.
But much like socialist theory, we learn and discuss new phenomenons and as a result invent new terminology.

It is thankless work, but we must continue to do it.

 No.1193575

how come whenever the rightoids try to hijack the left, people here assume that they can succeed very effortlessly in their scheme, but the other way around, in which the left outmaneuvers the right and hijacks their popular mass base, is believed to be impossible and too difficult to succeed, as total capitulation before even the idea is tried authentically

 No.1193589

File: 1664256479539-0.jpg (1.12 MB, 1980x1584, alternative 1.jpg)

File: 1664256479539-1.jpg (2.54 MB, 3256x2808, alternative 2.jpg)

>>1193563
Good question.

Let me analyze what I think is right and wrong with it.
I wouldn't improve it, I would recreate it.
<>
Immediate focal point is the implied statement '>implying nazism is socialism', excellent! It's even big enough to be seen from a thumbnail and leads you to read left to right. Simple, Effective.

then we have… down I guess. The highlighted quote just says 'they privatized' [sure, good point] and 'they went against the trends of mainstream capitalism' [why would that support the argument of them not being capitalist? Don't explain, I know there's no contradiction, but that's not the impression the sentence gives someone who isn't going to stop and think about this for long]
The infographic highlights the text, and doesn't suggest a conclusion to draw from it. It relies on the reader understanding that privatization is generally considered anti-socialism, and someone who knows that probably isn't in need of this infographic.

Then we have a decoration of a few German company owners giving a nazi salute. Eh, not compelling since that was their nation. Easily dismissed.

Then we have a table and a graph. Words words words! Pretend the reader is an idiot who didn't learn how to interpret statistics. Circle the table name in red if you have to, direct the reader on what's important and omit all the unimportant stuff! Suggest what to interpret from the graph. Why does the rate of return on capital make something not socialist? Why does it matter that Henry Ford hot a medal so much that it gets 1/3 of the infographic?

Honestly, the worst thing about this image is that it relies on the assumption that state ownership of business = socialism, which by the way is not a generally accepted condition of socialism, and assumes the reader will properly interpret unexplained data and understand why it was given to them.

I also see issues with these alternatives in the booru

The first one actually uses the same graph, and explains the trend visible. It also explains the significance of privatization and its relation to Nazism. Unfortunately it also gives the impression of 'strong economy = capitalism' and is so much more words words words, then includes off-topic crap.

The second one… literally contains the other two. So let's just talk about the bit at the bottom. That has some gems, unforturnately overshadowed by the rest. It have explicit quotes talking about private property and free enterprise! It has discussion of hitler killing the strassers! It has the anti-worker action in the bottom right! But overall it's a clusterfuck.

The real issue with much of these is the over-focus on an academic style of communication. By all means, absolutely give good evidence and cite sources. We need that more! But this is the other opposite, where it's dry and assumes the reader knows how to parse it, rather than ever telling them what to notice AND why it matters. That, and lots of wasted space.

>>1193564
lmao no but if you're aiming for /pol/troons then maybe unironically yes

 No.1193591

>>1193573
>Authoritarian, Libertarian, Tankie, Fascistic, etc. these are words that more or less used to mean something, and some could argue given a context of a community they still do. But with the internet, these terms get misused and misappropriated.
Oh as if it's the internet's fault. Guess how many people used socialist, anarchist, communist, fascist and nazi even remotely correctly in the 1960s-2000s.

 No.1193619

File: 1664259425815.jpg (65.08 KB, 542x512, castro-davis2.jpg)

>>1193421
>When supposed "leftists" go around saying things like … "socialists need to make white people uncomfortable" and similar bullshit, it serves only to push people to the right.
It does and they should cut that ultra shit out, but part of the problem that socialists face is that there are a lot of people who have stakes in the status quo and that reflects in ideology and them thinking or doing otherwise would make them uncomfortable.

>Hell, the notion that various "identities" are coherent collective groups with shared interests across class lines is the most basic form of false consciousness, yet it's been foisted onto the left by rebranding it as "identity politics".

I don't care for postmodern critical theory, but how does this account for the black struggle for equality in the United States? This is where this "class reductionism" doesn't really make sense to me, because that struggle was (and still is) a real thing in history. I'm not trying to negate the class struggle here, but this was an ethic group in the country that was experiencing oppression which had a material effect because black people were not able to own property (they were property) while white people were able to take an active role in building up generational wealth via primitive accumulation which has had very material outcomes. So "identity" here (i.e. race) has been passed on as material REALITY for people who are born with black skin and then grow up and begin to become aware of what that means.

>Nevar 5get that the "new left" and the "cultural turn" were born from the rejection of Marx's thesis that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle

In the final analysis. You have the class struggle and contradictions in the base between the relations of production (between proletariat and bourgeoisie). But Marxism doesn't negate the role of the superstructure whether they be legal traditions, philosophical theories, religious views, the mass media, art, and (yes) culture which also plays a role in influencing struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. While the New Left might've flipped this base/superstructure relationship on their head, and others would want to flip it back around to where it was before, there are others who seem to deny the role of the superstructure at all.

 No.1193764

>>1193619
>but part of the problem that socialists face is that there are a lot of people who have stakes in the status quo
Yes, and those people are capitalists, not "white people" any more than it is "Jewish people".
>how does this account for the black struggle for equality in the United States?
Slavery was literally a result of class struggle, its not some behavior inherent to "white people" to be inflicted upon "black people"- the relation could have easily been reversed under different historical material conditions. Even the most idpol-brained radlib will begrudgingly admit that modern notions of racism came about during the colonial era in order to sow division between slaves and indentured servants who had previously been working together to overthrow their masters, its not just something that sprung from the aether.
>this was an ethic group in the country that was experiencing oppression which had a material effect because black people were not able to own property (they were property) while white people were able to take an active role in building up generational wealth via primitive accumulation which has had very material outcomes.
So why are you viewing those material outcomes as a "race" issue rather than a class issue? Are they a problem because they're happening to "black" people specifically, or are they a problem in their own right? And if its the latter, then why focus on "race" rather than addressing the problem itself? It makes sense if you're a liberal seeking to legitimize capitalism by ensuring that class divisions are proportionate across various demographics, but not if you're a socialist trying to eliminate class distinctions altogether.
There's no shortage of "black" capitalists these days, and treating "black" people as a collective only serves to erase the class distinctions between those capitalists and "black" workers. When a working class "white" person believes that they share the same interests as "white" capitalists we acknowledge this as false consciousness, so why are you so reluctant to recognize it when "black" people do the same thing? You're fetishizing these "identities".

 No.1194142

>>1185756
dawg….

 No.1194173

>>1193121
>Dismantle Big Tech
>Nationalize Big Tech

Completely incoherent

 No.1194374

>>1193764
>Slavery was literally a result of class struggle, its not some behavior inherent to "white people" to be inflicted upon "black people"
I didn't say that. But remember that you can't dogmatically apply Marx to differing national conditions, you also have to account for the particularities. I think that doesn't work in the U.S. because slavery distorted the class struggle, in that the initial core labor force were slaves, which was a distinct caste. If you were not a slave (i.e. white) then you were born "free and equal." This is why socialism or even talk of "class" until the U.S. has often been considered "un-American," because many people don't believe they belonged to a class in the first place. It doesn't mean that they're actually "classless," or that class struggle isn't still operating as the engine under the hood of the car, so to speak, but communists have to account for that in their analysis and strategies.

>Even the most idpol-brained radlib will begrudgingly admit that modern notions of racism came about during the colonial era in order to sow division between slaves and indentured servants who had previously been working together to overthrow their masters

It's somewhat clumsy. That is the function. But it's not like the capitalists got together one day and went "eh heh heh let's divide the working class." The bourgeoisie has never needed that, they merely inherited the relations of previous orders (i.e. slavery) which were rearticulated into the modern capitalist society.

>So why are you viewing those material outcomes as a "race" issue rather than a class issue? Are they a problem because they're happening to "black" people specifically, or are they a problem in their own right? And if its the latter, then why focus on "race" rather than addressing the problem itself?

Because it's not either/or. It's not seperated in some kinda mechanical way. It's just not dialectical. It's a kind of class essentialism that, in its effort to foreground class struggle, ends up explaining oppressions as supposedly outside of the proletariat-bourgeois contradiction. You can't really understand how the class struggle is going to operate in the U.S. without its relation to race, and vice-versa, you can't understand how to deal with racism in the U.S. without class struggle (see bourgeois idealists who are responsible for the postmodern identity politics that we see). Marxism is the way to correct that. So, the logical conclusion is that the resolution of injustice toward the black people in the U.S. and in the world in favor of freedom and equality is also a resolution of capitalism in favor of socialism through class struggle.

>When a working class "white" person believes that they share the same interests as "white" capitalists we acknowledge this as false consciousness, so why are you so reluctant to recognize it when "black" people do the same thing?

Because black people are responding to *actually existing* oppression and they're being told by (frequently white) leftists that their complaints about it are "dividing the working class" like they've been brainwashed by a ruling class "conspiracy." That point of view, which advances itself under the guise of creating proletarian unity, objectively serves to undermine it. That's why those types turn into Haztards.

 No.1194375

>>1193589
all that shows is that NS is not Marxism not socialism

 No.1194760

>>1194375
thank you for your insightful contribution to this thread


Unique IPs: 51

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]