/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>158539
>If a liberal revolution came to my country (the United States), I would probably support it.

Your Country was formed on a Liberal Revolution you Brainlet

le reactoid face

The Time when Liberal Revolutions were adequate, was when most of the World was Dominated by Feudal(or Asiatic) Modes of Social Organization and a Liberal Capitalist System was the superior system. Now Liberalism is the World Hegemon and although some reactionary Countries persist to this day, they still participate in the Capitalist World System to an extent. A Liberal Revolution would just pull them completely in the Orbit of the Hegemonic Powers, so we should in this day and age always settle for Socialist Revolution

>>158545
I know. What I mean is any revolution that would seek out social and economic justice within the framework of capitalism. In particular, I would support a revolution that sought to get rid of America's current constitution and replace with a brand new one. We really don't need a document from the 18th century serving as the foundation for the American government in the 21st century. A new constitution could also make it easier for leftist parties to gain influence if it establishes an electoral system, like proportional representation, that makes it easier for third parties to win elections.

Another thing I want to point out is that leftypol is often too quick to assume that, when revolutionary conditions arise, people's first instinct will be to turn to socialism. I do not think that is very likely to happen if there isn't a well-established socialist movement, so some form of liberalism will be what people will automatically support to in many situations.

>>158550
>A Liberal Revolution would just pull them completely in the Orbit of the Hegemonic Powers
What if the revolution is taking place in a hegemonic power?
>we should in this day and age always settle for Socialist Revolution
What if there is a revolution going on but very few socialists participating in it? There is no socialist revolution to "settle for" in this context.

>>158557
>I know. What I mean is any revolution that would seek out social and economic justice within the framework of capitalism. In particular, I would support a revolution that sought to get rid of America's current constitution and replace with a brand new one. We really don't need a document from the 18th century serving as the foundation for the American government in the 21st century. A new constitution could also make it easier for leftist parties to gain influence if it establishes an electoral system, like proportional representation, that makes it easier for third parties to win elections.
If you're going to come up with fantasy "what if" stories, why don't you make one where things turn out in a more favorable way?

>>158561
>If you're going to come up with fantasy "what if" stories, why don't you make one where things turn out in a more favorable way?
A liberal revolution doesn't seem that unrealistic if America's current social tension continues to build. Liberal revolutions and near-revolutions have occurred within liberal democracies, like the protest movement in Chile that resulted in Pinochet's constitution getting scrapped. Due to the lack of a strong socialist movement, I think a liberal revolution is more likely than a socialist revolution to occur in the United States in the near future, so I think we should consider what to do in the event of one.

>>158568
A liberal Revolution in a Liberal Country is a Tautology. The only thing happening is the Reallignment and Tensions between the Leftist Trends and Rightist Trends of Liberalism

>>158573
>The only thing happening is the Reallignment and Tensions between the Leftist Trends and Rightist Trends of Liberalism
Yes, and thhe difference between the two can be important for many people. If a revolution in the United States rose up advocating for racial equality, an end to America's forever wars, and social democratic policies, would you or would you not support it?

>>158579
See Social Democracy in the Social Democratic Parties doesn't exist anymore and most of them are just Social Liberals. Would I support real Social Democrats? Maybe, if they push through with raising the Minimum Wage and other policies bringing the ROP down and punch Capitalism in the Gut. I would still work on the Revolution in the Maintime so we are prepared when the moment arrives

>>158573
>A liberal Revolution in a Liberal Country is a Tautology.
This.

>>158568
>A liberal revolution doesn't seem that unrealistic if America's current social tension continues to build.
If you think the constitution will be changed one word in the next few decades, I don't know what to tell you fam. Read up about how that works.

Imaginging the constitution being thrown out entirely is PURE fantasy. So fantasize yourself something nice while you're at it.

>>158582
>If you think the constitution will be changed one word in the next few decades, I don't know what to tell you fam. Read up about how that works.

>Imaginging the constitution being thrown out entirely is PURE fantasy. So fantasize yourself something nice while you're at it.
With enough pressure, pretty much any social change is possible. Besides, many other countries have adopted new constitutions following mass movements. What we need is a large and militant mass movement. Bear in mind that I am not necessarily expecting the adoption of a new constitution to follow the specific process outlined in the existing constitution.

>>158585
>With enough pressure, pretty much any social change is possible. Besides, many other countries have adopted new constitutions following mass movements. What we need is a large and militant mass movement. Bear in mind that I am not necessarily expecting the adoption of a new constitution to follow the specific process outlined in the existing constitution.
So why can't we just adopt a communist constitution in your fantasy?

>>158585
Provably false.

>>158591
>So why can't we just adopt a communist constitution in your fantasy?
A couple of issues:
1) Lack of a communist presence in the movement for a new constitution
2) Greater resistance on the part of both political and economic elites

I am curious, what do you think can realistically happen in the United States in the next 10-20 years?

>>158593
Could you elaborate on that?

>>158595
Liberalism is doomed anyway. Three Scenarios arise here:
1) Socialist Revolution Best Case Scenario
2) Fragmentation linked with an either full or partiall Breakdown of the International System 3)Reactionary Resurgence and Temporary Takeover of the Government

>>158599
So why do you think those things are possible but not the adoption of a new constitution?

>>158602
I already told you that the only difference inside Liberalism will be among the leftist and rightist Trends. They won't change the Constitution to a degree that would make a Difference since they are all liberals in the End. America is in Decline and people trying to seek change inside the system that is responsible for the decay…well they won't think like that for long

>>158595
>1) Lack of a communist presence in the movement for a new constitution
THERE'S ZERO PRESENCE FOR ANY NEW CONSTITUTION!

Why are you wasting your time with this pointless thought exercise?

>Masturbating at home
>My fantasies
>What if I was walking down the street, then I bump into Megan Fox and she was all like:
>Anon, I just met you, and this is crazy, but you're kind of hot, and I really want to give you a blowjob
>No scratch that, too unrealistic, their's no way she would be into me
>Ok what if I was walking down the street and Rebel Wilson was all like:
>Anon, I just met you, and this is crazy, but you're kind of hot, and I really want to give you a blowjob

>>158605
Ok on a serious note: Would you smash that fat coochie?

>>158604
>I already told you that the only difference inside Liberalism will be among the leftist and rightist Trends. They won't change the Constitution to a degree that would make a Difference since they are all liberals in the End.
This is a gross oversimplification. Nordic liberalism and Mexican liberalism, for example, are very different.
>America is in Decline and people trying to seek change inside the system that is responsible for the decay…well they won't think like that for long
Umm, we are talking about a revolution here, so of course people seeking a new constitution aren't going to "seek change inside the system"

>>158605
>THERE'S ZERO PRESENCE FOR ANY NEW CONSTITUTION!
True, but there are already movements for lots of things a new constitution could make easier. It's a lot easier to jump from wanting Medicare for All and a Green New Deal to a wanting a new constitution than it is to jump from those things to wanting full-blown communism. My thought is that we may end up seeing a mass movement pushing for social democratic policies, with the people in that movement eventually realizing that the political system as laid out in the constitution is the biggest obstacle to achieving said policies. That's basically what happened in Chile last year.

This is what lack of materialism does to mf.

Liberal "revolution" will not be able to accomplish anything. Politicians and capitalists don't make decisions just because they feel like it, or because they believe in something. They do it mostly because of economic necessity. Look at Biden continuing to build the wall after Trump. Capitalism is in crisis, so whatever government there will be under capitalist basis, it will be forced to implement those kinds of decisions that fit the situation or disappear. Liberalism/capitalism has nothing more to offer the humanity, time to move on and build something better.

>>158622
Again, gross oversimplification. Different political systems can produce different outcomes even if they share the same basic economic system. For example, living under a capitalist autocracy is typically noticeably worse than living in a capitalist "democracy".

>>158622
>Liberalism/capitalism has nothing more to offer the humanity, time to move on and build something better.

Yet it really doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon, and even if it did, our best years will be behind us personally speaking, living in a half-dead world. So you can see why people want a miraculous return to social democracy.

>>158614
>This is a gross oversimplification. Nordic liberalism and Mexican liberalism, for example, are very different.

They won't change the Basic Tenets of Liberalism you buffoon.

>Umm, we are talking about a revolution here, so of course people seeking a new constitution aren't going to "seek change inside the system"

Revolution my ass. Liberals changing the Liberal Constitution so it entails…what exactly? More Representation of Minorities in Marketing or outlawing Gay Marriage depending on which Liberal Faction wins over.
As >>158622 pointed out. You lack a Materialist Analysis of the current Affairs

>>158624
Again you argue like a Liberal. Maybe you are even one. What else is there to say, we will never see eye to eye

>>158614
>True, but there are already movements for lots of things a new constitution could make easier. It's a lot easier to jump from wanting Medicare for All and a Green New Deal to a wanting a new constitution than it is to jump from those things to wanting full-blown communism.
Once again. Do you know how impossible it is to get a constitutional amendment passed? This country would have to collapse into all out civil war before their is a new constitution from scratch.

Last time: At least pick a good cope fantasy.

>>158607
>Ok on a serious note: Would you smash that fat coochie?
Def. I want to know where the market for straight male giggolos is. I'll give them a good deal. Ehh I'd fuck her for free truthfully. I'd kind of fuck any half way decent looking chick as long as she doesn't want to get all emotional and clingy. I tried Tinder and had some success with some Rebel Wilson tier looking chicks, but they're always looking for some insane level of emotional commitment, and I don't have the heart to break their heart you know what I mean?

>>158629
I am not a liberal, but I believe there are noteworthy differences between different political systems under capitalism. I would definitely prefer a socialist revolution, but a liberal revolution seems more realistic in my country and many others at the moment. Let me ask you this, would you rather live in capitalist autocracy where you have no influence on policy-making, or a liberal "democracy" where you have a little influence on policy-making?

>>158624
>Different political systems can produce different outcomes even if they share the same basic economic system.
Not really, no. Same tendencies in every fucking country in the world, including rising the age for pensions.

>living under a capitalist autocracy is typically noticeably worse than living in a capitalist "democracy"

Yes, it is easier to live in imperial core, where your ruling class can share some spoils of exploitation of other countries (that you call autocracies). It is not a product of "dufferent systems" it is a product of different places in economic pecking order.

>>158625
Well, they can wish for return of Jesus, doesn't mean it will happen.

>>158633
>Let me ask you this, would you rather live in capitalist autocracy where you have no influence on policy-making, or a liberal "democracy" where you have a little influence on policy-making

See this is the Mistake you are doing here. A capitalist Autocracy would be moving outside the Liberal Sphere into Fascism, which is a Reaction to the decay of Liberalism. The only reason Liberalism can maintain its charade of Parliamentary Democracy, is because it isn't challenged enough. But we are not talking about Fascism or Reactionary Systems here, you want to talk about Liberalism. And no, the standar conservative is not a Fascist.

>>158632
>Once again. Do you know how impossible it is to get a constitutional amendment passed? This country would have to collapse into all out civil war before their is a new constitution from scratch.
There's two scenarios I can think of:
-A revolution overthrows the government and enacts a new constitution
-The powers that be, fearful of being overthrown, hold a referendum to enact a new constitution. It is not following the "proper" constitutional process, but the rules need to be bent a little in order to get out of an uncomfortable situation.

>>158634
>Yes, it is easier to live in imperial core, where your ruling class can share some spoils of exploitation of other countries (that you call autocracies). It is not a product of "dufferent systems" it is a product of different places in economic pecking order.
Even if you compare countries with similar levels of economic development, you can see the differences political systems can make. For example, the #1 reason America has such a flimsy welfare state compared to other first world countries is its electoral system that makes it next to impossible for third parties to get elected.

>>158637
>-A revolution overthrows the government and enacts a new constitution
So why not just have a communist constitution at that point?
>-The powers that be, fearful of being overthrown, hold a referendum to enact a new constitution. It is not following the "proper" constitutional process, but the rules need to be bent a little in order to get out of an uncomfortable situation.
That's never going to happen.

>>158637
>Even if you compare countries with similar levels of economic development, you can see the differences political systems can make. For example, the #1 reason America has such a flimsy welfare state compared to other first world countries is its electoral system that makes it next to impossible for third parties to get elected.
Wrong. Again, complete lack of materialistic analysis leads to idealistic thinking about "changing political system". You ARE a liberal, stop pretending that you are not.

>>158638
>So why not just have a communist constitution at that point?
Because it's not communists overthrowing the government…

>>158640
Ok big brain, tell me why America has no universal healthcare while every other rich country does.

There are no more liberal revolutions, unless you're talking about the potential for revolution in Arabia or some shithole like that which will basically never happen. The "Arab Spring" was CIA glow ops rather than an organic revolution, finding the slime who would suck up to who they thought was the world hegemon.

The chance of a revolution of any sort in the United States is next to nil. It's not because the US Constitutional system has tremendous faith from the believers - far from it, large swaths of the population would be happy to see the end of it and the end of that order is being pushed now on fucking SNL even. It is rather that, right now, the feds delivering money and plunder are worth more than rebellion, and the state itself has nearly limitless reserves of violent enforcers that would crush any rebellion. Even asking for mild reforms that would cost the liberal state nothing - in fact reforms that would be an immediate money gain - would be rejected, because what is happening here is happening for reasons and is very intentional. The ruling class message from the start has been that they will not give a single inch to the people, and that the ruling class is going to take a mile from the people, making threats and holding "freedom" hostage when people were already as free as they could expect to be before the state intervened with its latest cockamamie scheme. Immediately putting an end to Bill Gates' vaccine passport info tracking horseshit, and instead following a health policy that makes sense, would be an immediate profit to the US state and would increase public support for the regime. We can't have that though, because the gain to the interests ruling America by doing this shit are way, way more than the gain of running a government that is even trying any more. It's the same reason every strategy of tension has been utilized since 2008, so that aggressive acts of the ruling class are unopposed and people are pitted against each other.

>>158642
>Ok big brain, tell me why America has no universal healthcare while every other rich country does

America is dominated by Right Liberals(Conservatives) almost entirely. Social Liberals advocating for a Welfare state have not until now been able to succeed much

>>158646
>America is dominated by Right Liberals(Conservatives) almost entirely. Social Liberals advocating for a Welfare state have not until now been able to succeed much
Why?

>>158642
>Because it's not communists overthrowing the government…
It's not anyone overthrowing the government you fucking tard.

Bruh why did you come here to help us write your shitty "what if" story? We might as well hypothesize on what The Turner Diary revolution will be like.

>>158649
>It's not anyone overthrowing the government you fucking tard.
So, and? That doesn't stop the rest of this board from fantasizing about their glorious communist revolutions.
>Bruh why did you come here to help us write your shitty "what if" story?
I'm basing it off the political conditions in the United States and social movements in other countries.

>>158642
>Ok big brain, tell me why America has no universal healthcare while every other rich country does.
Ok, small brain. First of all it is not true. Second of all it has to do with neoliberal economy, after getting rid of almost all production sector dues to being able to move it overseas, most of the money that comes into USA is due to USD being main currency of the global market and shitload of intellectual property (that WTO will force you to accept if you want to trade). Meaning that economic power of workers is almost zero, therefor their political power is about the same. If you want to change it, you have to change USA economy, which probably lead to a collapse of USA as a country and/or rise of fascist state (probably several) instead.

Now fuck off and go read some Marx.

>>158648
Now this an entirely different question that would constitute its own post. But Social Liberals like FDR adopting Keynesian Policies met their end in the 70s and the failure of these Social Liberals to adopt to this Reality has allowed Conservative Neoliberalism to still dominate the scene with a giant Monopoly on Mass Media and penetration of both Parties. You could also analyze the material Conditions like Geography(ie the Frontier and Manifest Destiny) that had the most influence on American Superstructure (Culture, Laws etc.)

>>158652
>So, and? That doesn't stop the rest of this board from fantasizing about their glorious communist revolutions.
Now we come to the crux of the thread.
>>158640
>You ARE a liberal, stop pretending that you are not.
You're a liberal who wants to beat us over the head with faggot liberal "realpolitik" and tell us about how your fantasies that will never come to fruition are more "practical" than our goals and how we should abandon them and join you in NPC space to get The Democrats elected.

In summation: Fuck you.

I'd say there is a real material differance between liberal and colour revolutions. The former is clearly an act of class warfare by the middle class and the nascent bourgoise to take control of economic power from either a feudal order, a state-capitalist government or a proletariat dictatorship. Meanwhile a colour revolution most of the times doesn't actually serve an economic interest for its participants, only for its foreign sponsors at best, but instead focuses purely on superstructural issues of perceived wrongdoings of the state, or due to internal powerstruggles that more resemble the war of the roses rather than an actual revolution.

>>158654
>First of all it is not true.
Give 1 example of a rich country other than the United States that doesn't have universal healthcare.
>after getting rid of almost all production sector dues to being able to move it overseas
That happened in most other rich countries to varying degrees. Also, most rich countries that adopted universal healthcare did so before outsourcing became a big thing.
>most of the money that comes into USA is due to USD being main currency of the global market and shitload of intellectual property (that WTO will force you to accept if you want to trade). Meaning that economic power of workers is almost zero, therefor their political power is about the same.
Hmm, not sure what to think of this one
>Now fuck off and go read some Marx.
Most of things you mentioned didn't exit in Marx's time

>>158657
>But Social Liberals like FDR adopting Keynesian Policies met their end in the 70s and the failure of these Social Liberals to adopt to this Reality has allowed Conservative Neoliberalism to still dominate the scene with a giant Monopoly on Mass Media and penetration of both Parties.
But FDR never went as far as your typical European social democrat did.

>>158661
>The former is clearly an act of class warfare by the middle class and the nascent bourgoise to take control of economic power from either a feudal order, a state-capitalist government or a proletariat dictatorship.
That isn't really how liberal revolutions work anymore. The bourgeoisie is already in charge everywhere.
>Meanwhile a colour revolution most of the times doesn't actually serve an economic interest for its participants, only for its foreign sponsors at best, but instead focuses purely on superstructural issues of perceived wrongdoings of the state, or due to internal powerstruggles that more resemble the war of the roses rather than an actual revolution.
Are you referring strictly to glowie revolutions in non-US-aligned countries, or are you referring to something broader?

>>158665
>But FDR never went as far as your typical European social democrat did

Im talking about Social Liberalism and not Social Democracy here man. There is a difference although the latter always reverts back to Social Liberalism instead of the promised Socialism

>>158665
>Most of things you mentioned didn't exit in Marx's time
Oh no….

>>158665
>Give 1 example of a rich country other than the United States that doesn't have universal healthcare.
Russia. And before you give me that crap about it not being a rich country, it has the world's eleventh-largest economy by nominal GDP and the sixth-largest by PPP. India and Brazil too btw (even richer than Russia).
>That happened in most other rich countries to varying degrees.
No country can rely on rent as USA does now. Therefore, no country can afford to fuck their workers like USA does.

>Hmm, not sure what to think of this one
Of course you aren't. You are a fucking lib, this is a completely new territory for you. You need to do actual brain work.

>Most of things you mentioned didn't exit in Marx's time
I can use Newton's equations to calculate plane's trajectory despite the fact that planes didn't exist in his times.

>>158669
I know, right? Like if it wasn't yet obvious that he is a lib and never even opened anything Marx wrote, it would be now.

>>158675
>Russia. And before you give me that crap about it not being a rich country, it has the world's eleventh-largest economy by nominal GDP and the sixth-largest by PPP. India and Brazil too btw (even richer than Russia).
Russia is more of a middle-income country if you are measuring in per capita terms.
>No country can rely on rent as USA does now. Therefore, no country can afford to fuck their workers like USA does.
What do you mean by "rent" in this context?
>I can use Newton's equations to calculate plane's trajectory despite the fact that planes didn't exist in his times.
The topics we are dealing with here are more complicated than that.

>>158675
>nominal GDP
>GDP by PPP

Wow it's fucking nothing, use GDP/capita like everyone else and you'll see how rich Russia actually is (if you want to see how rich the average Russian is, then use mean income instead)

>>158680
>Russia is more of a middle-income country if you are measuring in per capita terms.
Sure, sure. Then does Qatar, Brunei or Emirates have better healthcare than Germany?
>What do you mean by "rent" in this context?
Read Marx.
>The topics we are dealing with here are more complicated than that.
Not an answer. READ. MARX.

>>158685
Agree with you, but atleast tell him what to read. OP may be a Liberal, but he isn't entirely arguing in bad faith

>>158687
>OP may be a Liberal, but he isn't entirely arguing in bad faith
Eeeeeeeh. He keeps saying that he is not a liberal. Why would he need to lie on this subject if he was arguing in good faith?
> atleast tell him what to read
Starting with Principles of Communism just to understand the basic definitions. Wage labor and capital. Value price and profit. And Capital. That would give a good introduction into marxism.

>>158685
>Then does Qatar, Brunei or Emirates have better healthcare than Germany?
Probably not. Petrostates are bit of an oddity.

>greater civil rights, civil liberties, democratic participation, economic justice
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>158632
>I want to know where the market for straight male giggolos is.
Watch Midnight Cowboy and find out.

>>158665
>Are you referring strictly to glowie revolutions in non-US-aligned countries, or are you referring to something broader?
I'd say broader, but encompassing glowie revolutions. For instance stuff like Egyptian revolution wasn't really a glowie one, but was motivated by much of the same rethoric of "we want freedom, whatever that is", while the economic structures would basically stay the same no matter who won. Same applies for glowing stuff in Russia's sphere, where both sides are similarly shit. Russia it self is more akin to that War of the Roses thing, as it is just 2 subsets of oligarchs trying to be the ones in power.

>>158680
>The topics we are dealing with here are more complicated than that.
How about an ecology analog then, that shit is complicated af: no today living individual bacterium existed during Darwin's time, yet we can use his theory of natural selection to understand and predict how they react to changing conditions, such as exposure to antibiotics.
The point is, good theory has a long or eternal shelf life. Read Marx.

>>158624
<Gheddafi's Libya was worse than today's Colombia

Nah dude

>>158755
I'm not trying to deny that economic forces play a big role in shaping politics, but I find it bizarre that leftypol seems to think that the political system has little or no impact on things.

>>158792
Gaddafi's Libya was an anomaly. Generally speaking, liberal democracies are more pleasant to live in than autocracies. Just compare Tunisia to Egypt, or Ghana to Equatorial Guinea.

>>158545
Socialists revolutions contain liberal revolutions inside them