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

/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."
Password (For file deletion.)

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


The reason the marxists have a difficult time getting even 1% of the vote in most western countries is because a plurality of the western population is labor aristocracy that would be hurt not helped by an internationlist marxist revolution. This plurarily tend to control the conversation of the biggest parties in the west with the help of funds from the billionaire class.

The toxpic of labor aristocracy is the real crux of the disagreements within leftism and I don't see it discussed very often despite Marx ("petit bourgeosie") and Lenin ("super profits") themselves talking about it as a very important part of analyzing the modern world. As soon as you bring up the topic, many people make accusations about you being a third worldist despite Lenin himself being the originator of the idea.

What proportion of the western countries and eastern countries population is Labor Aristocracy in your opinion?

USA: 40%
Western Europe: 30%
Japan/Skorea: 25%
Russia: 10%
China: 10%
India: 8%

The low proportion of the population being labor aristocrats means that Russia/China/India are much more open to marxist ideas and each have had marxist governments at least at the state level.

I believe the proportion of labor aristocrats in the west is decreasing right now and that's why there does seem to be some openness, at least in online forums, for marxist ideas. But when push comes to shove, the fascist right MAGA movement and the neoliberal democrats gets more than 95% of these falling labor aristocrats.

Ultimately westerners, even those with leftist tendencies are not ready to even imagine a world where they are not paid 5 or 10 times as much as a chinese or indian worker for similar tasks. Because of this, they will always sabotage any leftist movement to protect their own interests and relative position in the world labor market.

Western marxists are better off trying to organize people who live paycheck to paycheck, who are a slightly smaller group right now than labor aristocrats but are increasing in number as China and India move up the value chain. We can't just rail against the billionaire class. They are only 1% of the population and are not the ones holding up the system. Their labor aristocrat lackeys number in the hundreds of millions and need to be countered by the working class movement by actively emphasizing the upper middle class people are a big part of the problem.
This titanic struggle against the capitalists and the labor aristocrats has reached crisis proportions as the labor aristocracy is largely supporting extremely high interest rates despite low inflation in order to extract wealth from the class of people that lives paycheck to paycheck. Most working class people cannot even afford a home or a car anymore in the west, which means they have lost their hopes of joining the labor aristocracy and maybe open to marxist ideas.

Ironically, it is the MAGA donald trump who is pressuring to lower interest rates, while the democrats have no concerns about it. MAGAcommunism shows that Republican voters may be more open to communism than Democrat voters.

So tell me, what proportion of the major economies is labor aristocracy in your opinion?('magacommunism' is a psyop)


Good post, but could you mind removing the gooner bait next time around? Other than that however the only thing you’re wrong on is the idea that socialism is based on “popular support”, which is just mob rule. Also labor aristocracy isn’t a phenomenon in the imperial periphery because the material conditions are fundamentally different


I think the bolsheviks got like 25 percent of the vote in the Russian elections so it does show that for a successful takeover you need at least 10-25 percent of the population supporting the vanguard or at least being indifferent about the revolution. Some decently sized group that is open minded towards you is needed for things like fundraising, safe houses, storing weapons, etc.

China had a similar situation with most peasants being open to the communist takeover or at least not resisting things like feeding the communist army.

I am just being practical when I emphasize that we need some important segment to literally feed and clothe and pay for our weapons and fight in the likely civil war.

I think you can argue that parts of China and India are a part of the imperial core at this point. The manager of a semiconductor plant in India who has two maids clean his household everyday is a part of the problem. I don't know if we can call it labor aristocracy but these people will have to be opposed. Same goes with managers and higher end professionals in China. These people are actively pushing a brutal variety of capitalism that is even more dangerous for the world than Western based capitalism in my humble opinion.


what a stupid post
class consciousness doesnt come from bad material conditions. else africa would be a bastion of socialism
"labour aristocracy" is probably the dumbest term socialist ideologues coined, ironically unaware of the fact that they were actually quite well off people
contemporaneous socialists are marginal and unimportant because they dont care to transform and understand their own realities, not because the western working class "lives well". in fact, they dont live well and thats why theyve been so angry lately


>class consciousness doesnt come from bad material conditions. else africa would be a bastion of socialism
<third worldists have entered the chat


No such thing, its just cope for bad tactics and strategy. No other group of people expects automatic support from anybody but for some reason Communists do from the working class, very strange. If the proletariat doesnt support us then that is our fault not theirs.


They are not proletariat. They are not being paid for their labor. They are being bribed using super profits from a reserve currency (legacy of past technological superiority) with salaries that are 5 times what they are in global south countries so they can be the army of capitalists and put down the working class movement in the west and the east.


>goon image
>labor aristocrazy
>focus on the west
Yeah, we anti-imperialisting hard


If the “working class” doesn’t support communism that objectively makes them not working class


western marxist parties have a difficult time getting even 1% of the vote because they are serial blunderers, chronic infighters, hives of sex-pests, and outright cults. (sometimes all at once!) most of the population being labour aristocracy may pose problems for organising a communist party in theory - but this shouldn't pose a barrier to a lot of communists-in-name-only. another explanation is therefore necessary for their failure. Take Britain: the Conservative party does not conserve, and the Labour party does not represent the interests of labourers, yet they persist - but the communist party? Not a word of it. if the answer to why this is was truly the embourgeoisement of the workers, we would surely see Labour decline and the Liberals rise as well, but that hasn't happened, so another explanation is necessary for why we do not have a communist party with rhetoric a mile and policy an inch to the left of Labour. (the space is there, the Scottish and Welsh nationalists occupy it comfortably! the Scottish socialists even had a brief run at representation in Holyrood before - *drumroll* - sex scandal.)

the class politics of interest rates are an odd distraction: low interest rates mean low mortgages, yes. theoretically, they mean cheaper industrial investment - oh what joy! - but in practice the low interest rates of the post-2008 to Covid era bred nothing but asset price inflation. neither states nor firms borrowed to invest.


Worst post I have seen this year, delusional economic determinism.


Ok liberal, go back to your western culture imperialism roots and suck the woke biden admin, first world pety borgeoisie.


Then just give up if you think it so hopeless, why are you coming here to try to infect the rest of us with your mental disorder?


False. I wouldn't be seeing all these "jokes" about rent, student loans and stuff if it was true. The bourgeois want us to think so, but it is false. Most workers are just lagging behind, which is completely normal and will resolve itself after the party takes power and shows in practice that communism works.


Go wipe the tears off your keyboard and stop trying to spread demoralization among us. We have to do everything in out power to win people over, nothing is automatic.


Trump and Joe Biden are serial blunderers too and have many sex scandals as well as are very cultish. That doesn't stop people from supporting them. Neither Trump or Biden oppose the labor aristocracy–that's why they're successful.

The real reason is that the hundreds of millions of labor aristocrats shut down any conversation about class conflict and gaslight the working class on a constant basis. Thrown in a little white grievance and you have a completely paralyzed working class.


>the hundreds of millions of labor aristocrats
Meds now.


Because there is still a significant part of the western population that is not labor aristocracy. They may gravitate towards a message that criticizes the upper middle class (the kulaks of our day). MAGA seems to be tapping into this by criticizing "urban liberals" who spend 15 dollars on a coffee and claim to be working class. Read my OP again before getting triggered.


Hopeless? China and Russia have eclipsed the west in terms of development and productivity and serve as a beacon to the entire periphery. If anything there’s more hope for communism than ever before, unless you’re a western chauvinist


How else would you characterize somebody who makes more than $35 dollars an hour, which is ten or twenty times the prevailing wage in Asian countries? Do you think these people are working twenty times harder than Vietnamese workers? Or is it more likely that they are being bribed with super profits to support the capitalist class?

There are literally hundreds of million of "workers" like this.


Even India has greater steel production than USA now and is catching up in car production. This is despite the fact that the growth of India is only about halfway right now.


>China and Russia have eclipsed the west
china and russia are not communist, why do they inspire hope in you?
>working twenty times harder
what a fucking retarded dumbfuck imbecile
get to reading, ignorant pig. capital is accumulated work, get that through your thick skull
"if people dont like communism is not communists fault!"


Trump and Joe Biden are temporary, the Democratic and Republican parties are the interesting institutions. You should be considering: what organisational and strucural factors give them sticking power? (Though in the US context the question shifts from "why aren't there 10 communists in parliament?" to "why don't communists occasionally get 15%?") Why is it that Greens and Libertarians can mount a no-hoper presidential campaign, but communists cannot?
If your theory were correct, a communist party which ran with the Democratic platform would be capable of this - Ross Perot was! Hell, Nader got 2 million votes, Gary Johnson 4 million, communists? Nill. We've seen socialist parties and labour parties around the world abandon the working class and even basic-bitch social democratic politics in response to the imperatives of capital. If communist parties were as good at survival, institutionally, as those parties are then we would expect to see more of them in elected office but with politics at odds with their names. (this would of course represent their failure as communists but show their success as parties, as it stands most communist parties are successful neither as communists nor as parties. the labour party, by contrast, is a dismal failure as a labour party but successful as a party.)


>labor aristocracy is when you make more than minimum wage.
Why are you so desperate to announce failure, rather that how develop actions that will successfully win them over?..


So you think Lenin was wrong when he talked about super profits being used to bribe workers in the imperial core? Do you consider yourself a marxist leninist or are you something else?


lenin is dead. can he solve your countrys problems for you? can he think about them? can he win over the masses for you?


The minimum wage is 7.15 not 35. A majority of americans make less than 35 an hour. Stop being mindbroken like this.


>Frederick Engels first introduced the notion of the “labor aristocracy” in a number of letters to Marx stretching from the late 1850s through the late 1880s. (2) Engels was grappling with the growing conservatism of the organized sectors of the British working class. He argued that those British workers who had been able to establish unions and secure stable employment – skilled workers in the iron, steel and machine making industries and most workers in the cotton textile mills – constituted a privileged and “bourgeoisified” layer of the working class, a “labor aristocracy.”


unironically yes you fucking federal agent


And what is communism according to you, o mighty westerner who clearly knows better than those dirty savages in the periphery?


then set up a seance and keep talking to him
which country are you from? because according to your description im a "dirty savage from the periphery"


Communism is not about “winning over the masses”, that’s mob rule which is one of the cornerstones of fascism. We seek to sublate the present state of things, not subordinate the organs of state to changing whims of fickle masses


Exactly. Anyone who has actually tried to convince skilled workers or professionals in the west knows how deeply reactionary they are. They are the force being the rise of fascism that we are seeing.


Being a Westoid isn’t just about geographical origins, it’s also a matter of ideology and attitude. You may not be directly from the imperial core but ultraleftism which you follow is a purely western invention


So what's your plan? Supporting Bernie or Warren so that people who make 50 dollars an hour can have even more comfortable lives? That seems to be the only alternative.


Lenin went full retard and tried to explain everything by economic causes.
>Communism is not about “winning over the masses”, that’s mob rule which is one of the cornerstones of fascism.
With 'comrades' like you who needs enemies.
>>They are the force being the rise of fascism that we are seeing.
Fascism is dead, has been since 1945. Why are you promoting the 'success' of our enemies while trying to destroy our morale?


>Lenin went full retard
With “comrades” like these…


>Lenin went full retard
I hope you get shot for that post one day


>Communism is not about “winning over the masses”
good luck trying to establish a new social order without popular support
>subordinate the organs of state to changing whims of fickle masses
i didnt say that
i dont know anything about those people and much less about america, who am i to guide you according to its current material conditions? thats for american communists to figure out. if socialism cant get a grip in the masses its not the masses' fault


even if it were fundamentally true, falling back to "labour aristocracy" as an excuse for a failure to organise effectively in the west would still be cope. it's a comfortable excuse to do nothing or do things you know won't work because hey, it's not that your organisation is unappealing to any thinking person, it's just an inevitable consequence of the forces of history making the workers too selfish to see the brilliance of your vanguard. (the 15 most annoying people you will ever meet, executve committee of the dullest newspaper you will ever see)


That wasnt Engel's point, trying to spin his words to support defeatism is moronic.
Lenin was correct that part of the upper strata were being won over but misunderstood the cause as being economic when it was really ideological.
Hang yourself faggot.


I am suggesting a change in direction to appeal to the working class and throw the labor aristocracy under the bus in our rhetoric by railing against the upper middle class.

This tactic hasn't been tried for some reason.


File: 1715441631417.jpg (142.59 KB, 1080x1080, hellocia.jpg)

>MAGAcommunism shows that Republican voters may be more open to communism than Democrat voters.
Magacucks are the labor aristocracy dumbass.


Rent free, go back to /isg/.


college educated whites are voting 51 percent for Biden

non-college educated whites are voting 80 percent for Trump

The facts do not support what you are saying.


Who is more of a labor aristocrat
A) Starbucks Barista
B) Oilrig worker

answers on a post.


If your party gives contant blowjobs to the labor aristocracy ("real americans" "middle class folks") then you survive. If you don't make these dog whistles and even mention "working class" or "poor", you lose funding and cannot survive. It's literally that simple.


Neither. Oil Rig workers live paycheck to paycheck because rent in oil producing areas is astronomical. Same thing with Baristas who live in high cost urban areas.


File: 1715442316989.png (215.49 KB, 336x391, laughdeath.png)

Eat shit magacunt, your "saviors" play golf while you toil away at your wage job.
>look at the voter polls
Imagine bitching about the labor aristocracy but then bowing down to vooting within the most cucked system in the world. You dipshits are slop-eating libs.


You are a liberal if you dont vote for anti imperialist trump. He is mostly know for being pro palestine since the beninging


>the man who moved the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem is actually pro-palestine


What was engels' point then?
The "aristocracy of labour" is simply the best-paid members of the proletariat. It doesnt have to be more loaded than that. But with higher pay comes a different sort of consciousness, no?



"How do we see these relations? If we look at unit labor costs—typically presented as the average cost of labor per unit of labor output—we can get a picture of how global commodity chains, or what I call global labor-value chains, work. Combining a measurement of wages and productivity, recent unit labor costs data show that the countries with the highest participation in global labor-value chains—the top three being China, India, and Indonesia—also have very low unit labor costs. The same goes for other countries in the global South, including Mexico, which has experienced a sharp decline in unit labor costs relative to the United States within the 1995-2014 period, reflecting two decades of labor flexibilization."

"This means that not only are wages low in these countries, but productivity is high. This results in much higher profit margins for multinationals—usually headquartered in the triad (United States, Western Europe, and Japan)—with the additional value generated often credited to production in the countries in which these multinationals are headquartered. The overall process is one of the amassing of wealth in these Northern countries, through a form of unequal exchange involving value capture."

- Intan Suwandi


File: 1715447927106.png (71.31 KB, 533x280, ClipboardImage.png)


"Consider, for example, a £2.50 cup of coffee purchased from one of the chains. Just 1p goes to the farmer who cultivated and harvested the coffee. In recent years the world market price for green coffee beans has plummeted and, at £2.00 per kilogram, is close to its lowest in history in real terms. For many of the 25 million small farmers who grow 94% of the world’s coffee, this is far less than the cost of production. Coffee farmers in Central America, for instance, need between £3.30 and £4.10 per kilogram just to break even, so they currently earn absolutely nothing for their hard labour and that of their children who typically help to bring in the harvest. Instead, they go deeper into debt; they watch their children starve; some turn to cultivating coca, opium or marijuana; many abandon their farms altogether and head towards the US border or to vast slums surrounding swollen cities"

"Remarkably, all but 2p of the £2.50 cup of coffee counts towards the UK’s GDP. This is a particularly glaring example of The GDP Illusion, the amazing conjuring trick whereby wealth generated by super-exploited farmers and workers in plantations, mines and sweatshops across Africa, Asia and Latin America magically reappears in the gross ‘domestic’ product of the countries where the products of their labour are consumed. And they are super-exploited because, no matter how hard they work, they cannot feed their families or pay for essential needs like healthcare and education that workers in rich countries rightly regard as their birthright."

- John Smith





These three sources, alongside Intan's and Smith's article, are very good explainers of Imperialism, Lenin was a basis, times have changed, for anyone in Britain, I recommend Tony Norfield's PhD Thesis, which explains Finance connecting to Imperialism in the case of the UK: https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/20315/1/Norfield_3645.pdf


Very good points


>be aware Marx already introduced petit-bourgeoisie and middle-classes
>still use fucking retarded twitter terms anyway


The labor aristocracy is a small minority where some class traitors try to opportunistic to co -opt workers not to organize themselves and have no solidarity together leading to a class conciliation ideology with the national bourgeoisie that deceives workers.
Let's see what Lenin have to say about the labor aristocracy:
<In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “…The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”
<On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep into the bones of the workers…. Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all.”[10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4, 1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the field….” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party” (Engels’s italics throughout)….
<That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”…. “With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position…” The members of the “new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated ‘old unionists’” …. “The so-called workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their being members of the working class because they themselves would like to drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism…”
<The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.
<The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power, vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities, China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.
<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.
<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.
<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!

<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

<The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.

<V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”



1. the avg american does not make 35/hr. I am in my 30s, and college educated, and only make 22/hr.
2. even if the avg american makes 20x more than the average asian, it's because the cost of living 20x higher. you should really be asking about purchasing price parity and exchange rates. You're confusing imperialism leading to differences in exchange rates with the wages of imperial core workers.


you don't need a college education to make it as a petit bourgeoisie. You do need a college education to make it as a prole.


If that's true then I want nothing to do with the working class


if supporting communism is what determines whether you're working class, then the factory owner Friedrich Engels must have been working class, no? dumbass


No the reason is that you guys screw up Marxism and try to twist it to meaning a dictatorship of college kids who ban cars for da environment!1! Shit like the "black-only safe places" on college campuses during BLM and so on turn every actually working-class person against you. Then you guys invent some buzzword to delegitimize their grief against you, like calling them patsocs.

You guys turned it away from a class struggle to racial and gender shitflinging, I don't call it politics, and thus moved many, many people away from Marxism without any effort from the government. It was all you. This is how trump won, by just pointing a camera at you guys.

I mean look at what you're saying right now, anyone that works but owns a house is now not a worker. Nobody likes you people.


>a dictatorship of college kids who ban cars for da environment
communism is actually a dictatorship of petit bourgeois truck drivers who roll coal to own the college kid faggots (fascists)


File: 1715535758745.webm (173.73 KB, 640x360, shoot.webm)

this is the most undialectical mode of thinking i have ever encountered

>Shit like the "black-only safe places" on college campuses during BLM and so on turn every actually working-class person against you.

Yes that was definitely /leftypol/

>Then you guys invent some buzzword to delegitimize their grief against you, like calling them patsocs.

ah yes, that wasn't a self-applied label of right revisionist public figures, it was a buzzword people made up on a Tanzanian Winterwear Knitting forum.

>You guys turned it away from a class struggle to racial and gender shitflinging

Yes that was definitely the Communists on the niche Eskimo Ice Fishing Forum, and not bourgeois liberals and reactionary conservatives. for decades

> It was all you. This is how trump won, by just pointing a camera at you guys.

Yeah there's no bourgeois superstructure. There's no media apparatus. There's no paid actors. There's no dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. There's no manufacturing consent. There's no inventing reality. The bourgeoisie have never poisoned the discourse. It's always the fault of the young adults going thousands of dollars into debt just for a chance to join the work force in a specialized role.

> mean look at what you're saying right now, anyone that works but owns a house is now not a worker. Nobody likes you people.

OP said most working class people can't afford a home, not that affording a home means you are no longer working class. you stupid piece of shit. they were just pointing out that immiseration radicalizes.



This stupid ass language is why you will always be stuck online and never do anything.

Unique IPs: 20

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