[ 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."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

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


 

Why after like the 90’s the chance for communist parties being elected are slim, like the closest it got I think was in Russia in 1995 and Greece’s communist party getting 20% of the vote or something.
And it can’t fully be capitalists owning the government because Chile had elected a socialist party.
I’m probably wrong doe and there probably is some communist parties doing good I just can’t find any

 

once the soviet union fell the communist movement also fell

 


 

>>1853145
What about it? Its irrelevant on a global scale.
The only real competition to america's hegemony is china

 

File: 1715568039470.png (168.5 KB, 382x346, seriouslike.png)

>>1853140
>Why after like the 90’s the chance for communist parties being elected are slim
>after the 90's
>communist parties
>elected
wew lad
>>1853145
>cuba
Ah yes, remember when Castro beat Batista in the 1959 "election"?

 

because the us state department funds reactionary parties and state agencies in the us and their client states also work to undermine them

 

File: 1715568928696.gif (3.39 MB, 498x373, smoked.gif)

>>1853153
>capitalists keep rigging their own system against us and are always funding reaction
Woaw its almost like socialism will never come from just voting at the ballot box and the people have nothing without a people's army…

 

>>1853155
if only there was a socialist state that was already in power that could act as some kind of revolutionary vanguard

 

File: 1715569847568-0.png (163.06 KB, 980x877, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1715569847568-1.png (89.44 KB, 970x729, ClipboardImage.png)

>and there probably is some communist parties doing good I just can’t find any
There is obviously going to be a lot of contention about what a communist party is (being named one isn't necessarily acting as one), but if you want an interesting counter-example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nepalese_general_election#Results [pic 1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nepalese_National_Assembly_election#Results [pic 2]
note: the Nepali Congress party are listed as DemSocs on wikipedia

 

File: 1715569909446.png (317.68 KB, 1000x1000, Untitled.png)

all communist parties except for those based on patriotic impulse like cuba or north corea's ruling parties existed mainly to siphon funds from the soviet union to enrich themselves. the cpusa is one example of a communist party that never sought to actually take power and instead sought to try to prove itself to be as moderate and harmless as possible, same with the JCP. this is because they accepted the legitimacy of the states' institutions and sought to embrace the false national identity of states which had no national identity, particularly settler-colonial entities. if the JCP had supported ainu secessionism, or if the CPUSA had come to support black belt separatism, they might have become more radical, but instead they slowly devolved into reformist and entryist parties for the most part, with a strong careerist impulse. political parties of course are completely undemocratic in the first place so it should come as no surprise that the people participating in the political direction of communist parties often had very little sway in whether or not the parties would turn in a more coffer-fattening direction.

 

>>1853165
>join my nazbol non-party
didn't read.

 

>>1853140
A (self-identified) Marxist-Leninist party governed Cyprus in the 2000s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_of_Working_People
Anyway: the real reason is because in most countries communist parties never had a particularly strong electoral base (even in countries with major communist parties, how often did they break 20-25% of the vote?)
what happened after the 1990s is inevitably a consequence of what happened before the 1990s, parties rarely spring up out of nowhere and perform well. communist parties are usually at a disadvantage relative to socialist/socdem parties in terms of maximising their social appeal both directly to voters, and also indirectly to institutional power brokers like the press. sometimes that's for unfair reasons (an association with foreign control / USSR, the class interests of power brokers) but sometimes it's for perfectly reasonable reasons: a failure to formulate a serious parliamentary program, a general disdain for parliamentarianism (why try hard to get elected when the revolution is imminent and your vanguard will have total control?), an intolerant attitude towards other parties where co-operation would be helpful, a too-overt sense of entitlement to working class votes, embarassing flirtations with violence and terrorism, cargo-cult behaviours, institutional dysfunction, etc, etc… the communist parties that have 1-10 seats are already, by the standards of non-governing communists, in the top 0.1% of most successful communist parties.
a hypothetical electorally successful communist party is unlikely to be taken seriously as a communist party by other communists - the actually-implemented programs of such a party would be largely indistinguishable from a social democratic one. logically, it is quite easy to defend this (that's the nature of capitalism!) - but socially it is much more difficult to explain why voting communist doesn't get you communism. (while a socdem party can be much more glib - "socialism is what a Labour government does")

 

>>1853204
Communist parties across the world will take seriously any party that actually wins and has control over a region. Because that's what matters. They don't give a fuck if you're more theoretically pure or whatever. That is because they didn't win power by being obnoxious leftcom nerds.

Every communist with a single brain cell will agree that the USA will require a complete restructuring akin to full blown rev, new constitution etc, before ever allowing a communist vanguard to lead.

When that inevitably happens, (barring global nuclear Holocaust) any annoying pedantic leftcoms will be left behind and ignored, as they always have been.

Unless this land, currently called the USA, acquires a new name during/after mentioned rev (which isn't really that farfetched), then the communist party will probably be called the CPUSA. Just kind of how it's always been done.

 

>>1853215
(Op)
And besides, all of this is theorycrafting anyways. Burgerland is so far behind that it won't be till MAYBE gen alpha grows up.

What I wish I could see more of is a kind of "What is to be done Part 2: in the meantime" for us the USA because it is fucking BORING (speaking for myself) as an online communist who finds it very hard to compartmentalize and just wishes he had a fucking war to die in.

 

>"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

In other words, if you're getting popped every time you try to do communism out loud (look at the black panthers) then just keep doing other progressive things in the meantime. The ultimate goal is the same, but you can't be mad at the CPUSA for not mowing down landlords. I'm honestly surprised they even exist at all in this god damn shit hole.

 

>>1853220
communism is tasty


Unique IPs: 9

[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 ]