[ 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

File: 1718122470459.jpg (883.46 KB, 1514x1495, nazi.jpg)


The honorary leader of the Communist Party in my country (also a founder of the former Association of European Communist Parties) recently founded a parallel, anti-imperialist party whose main concern is reclaiming the economy from what he characterizes as an oppressive "global financial system". He claims communism can never be achieved (even on a smaller scale) until the workers are freed from the soft colonization of neo-imperialist forces led by the "new bourgeoisie", defined as a class of multimillionaires/billionaires with direct or indirect control/monopoly on the means of productions, politics and mass media.

The interesting thing is, his message resonates with the voters of smaller anti-establishment parties, even on the right. He only failed to get a seat in the parliament because he refused to form an alliance with another alternative party as it wasn't explicitly on the left (it was a centrist party and together, they had enough votes; roughly the same voter-base was basically split in two equal parts and that failed to get both elected). He later changed his mind on the matter, reaching the conclusion that opposing supranational financial/political institutions is the single most important issue that prevents the self-determination of workers (and by extension communism itself), which is why he's now willing to find compromise with whatever party shares the same concerns -including anti-establishment parties on the right or even the far right.

I don't believe in the horseshoe theory but I'm more and more convinced it is possible for people on the fringe of the political spectrum to get "politicized" (and then, possibly radicalized) because of the same kinds of issues/struggle; they may fall on the opposite side of the spectrum, but that's only because external influences framed the same problems in different ways, and that led them to pursue different/opposite solutions and ideologies.
The only people that benefit from such ideological divisionism are the ones that have no interest in finding solutions for problems that are common to both sides (or at least, to the people on both sides); alternatively, it's people that actively benefit from such problems.

It's unpopular by definition but I genuinely believe the fact we're blinded by our differences is the single most determining factor in the common failure to solve the problems that led people to the opposite side of the spectrum in the first place.
Compromise will never be found and the circus will continue indefinitely.


This is the dangerous thing about fascism; it always utilises left-wing rhetoric to achieve power before abandoning it. It doesn't take a genius to recognise that banks and politicians are evil, but blaming it on a minority ultimately implies that
>"well, capitalism is fine, just as long as there are no___ involved!"
Which is only marginally different from the liberal view of
>capitalism is a force for good, but only when the good guys are in charge!
This is why horseshoe theory is wank.


Absolute horseshit, workers do not need "self-determination" they need absolute annihilation along with any other class division, anything less is social fascism.

the problem with horseshoe theory is it presupposes the existence of such political spectrum apropos of nothing, in order to arbitrarily combine otherwise irrelevant superficial similarities, your guy sounds like the social-credit schizos in canada, that ended up becoming generic neo-cons when given power.


>workers need absolute annihilation


>…along with any other class division
I love taking quotes out of context :D


Workers "self-determination" is not exactly the end goal, and is not the means to an end. Workers can gain their autonomy in some cases under capitalism, in the sense they are truly the subjects not the objects of choices which affect them.
Workers self management and their self management is part of the method to which achieve coherence between the ends and the methods


>>1882920 (me)
Self-management understood as an end seems to me to derive from – and/or lead to – a terribly limited and limiting concept of society and of human beings. Self-management understood as a means lends itself to mystifying uses. It is susceptible, in a more or less insignificant form of decentralised power, to appropriation in new “participatory” techno-bureaucratic systems. Both can give way to new and obscene forms of “interiorised” power, that is, to an “induced” self-control”, a “piloted” self-discipline in a hierarchical society, to a kind of self-exploitation, a “consensual” domination.

Contrariwise, conceived as a method and placed in a position of juncture, not only between means and ends, but also between theory and social practice, self-management can express all of the wealth and all of the difficulty of anti-hierarchical and anti-bureaucratic conflict and thought. In this condition, it can become a formidable logical and operational instrument; a subversive instrument not vulnerable to social and conceptually classist systems, because irreducibly libertarian and egalitarian.


Standard socialist doomer that leads into actual fascism. Tale as old as the 20th century.


All the ziggas and socdems here will disagree with you. But you are correct.


"worker" is not the same as "proletarian".
A worker is someone who works, a proletarian is a class under capitalism that has no private property or "value", that can only offer their labor force to the market.
The soviet union was a workers republic, made by the workers. It was not a proletarian republic, because class was abolished in their context.


>class was abolished
not it wasn't


the vast majority of industry was controlled by "cooperatives", agriculture was "collectivized" and and automation was advanced in large scale, is not the best we can do, but it was a major step towards communism. There was still the division of labor, the differences between the farmers and the urban workers, the differences between the formal and informal workers, and the "difference between the """people""" and the """"government""" ", but much closer to class abolition than capitalism ever will be.


>Compromise will never be found and the circus will continue indefinitely.
The existence of contradictions in social life will never be liquidated otherwise there will be no history. There will be nothing at all. But I don't think the left can give up ideology or compromise on that since it will cease to present an alternative (but historical contradictions being what they are, means that a new left will eventually come about eventually). The left is basically a set of ideas, principles, and a philosophy aimed at eliminating social relations that are a barrier to fulfilling human needs in different ways.

That's basically the issue, the left for most of its actual history has been a minority with a lot of disadvantages compared to those who are just after power for its own sake, and has only broken through in rare situations. The right can rely on the inertia of existing social relations and just telling lies to get into power and isn't afraid of using any hodgepodge of ideological slogans in pursuit of that goal. In the rare instances the left has achieved power, the left could coast for awhile on the repressive power of the state which it now had under its control, but again the left was probably doomed (once again) in the long run after it lost the intellectual and moral principles which, in the first case, allowed the left to act like a kind of historical dynamite which blasted through all the dead wood – all those ossified political systems, institutions, traditions, customs, habits, closed doctrines, etc. – standing in the way of what we call progress.

This is also why I don't think the left should be afraid of being a minority. Once the left starts to subordinate its ideas to tactics in the pursuit of power, it begins to surrender the premises for its existence and degenerate.


I think the line of thought that "anything less than total abolition of class division is social fascism" to be extremely suspicious and pretentious, close to boring "sectarism" than anything else. You may think some method of organization is better and provides more equality, material gains and freedom for the workers, but that doesn't mean you can draw a line, where your ideology is real socialism and everything else is "fascism in disguise". That would be dishonest.


this. notice you never see this left-populist nativism put much emphasis on the imperialism and neocolonialism that is responsible for the degredation of the poor world and creates the majority of migrants. if a left-populist anti-immigration party said they were going to stop all investments direct or indirect in US/NATO/aligned military ventures and occupations and create new restrictions to prevent the national economies participation in exploitation of the third world (the latter could even be presented as a way to build direct commercial relationships with other national economies rather than trade being mediated through international finance middlemen), i would be way more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on their anti-immigration rhetoric. but as it is, if you bring this up you get told that that kind of anti-imperialist rhetoric is impractical because its unappealing to the voters and alienates too many potential allies, which is another way of saying "we are opportunists who have no intention of being politically consistent"


File: 1718129641245.png (95.93 KB, 531x320, ClipboardImage.png)

>"anything less than total abolition of class division is social fascism" to be extremely suspicious and pretentious
Because you're a member of the pretentious middle class who thinks their emotional displays should be rewarded with anything less than cricket bats, I bet.


I've fallen for this ruse multiple times. These people always turn out to be reactionaries eventually.


This is kruschevite thinking.


What is kruschevite thinking





>Because you're a member of the pretentious middle class who thinks their emotional displays should be rewarded with anything less than cricket bats, I bet.
>Talking about the person, not the argumented presente
When will you guys learn not to fall in those obvius fallacys?


>I can't articualte my critique so instead I'll call you dead guy's names


Well, that is just what the economic reports of the soviet union said. Vast majority of industry was indeed controlled by cooperatives


Talk to the book and don't waste my time with your verbal combat dances.



It's thinking that classes were abolished in the USSR and that class struggle goes away in socialism rather than intensifying. This was the ideology of Kruschev which obfuscated a bourgeois take over of the USSR.


Read the image at


Ok, there were still classes in the USSR, i quite agree with that, which ones, for example, since the bourgeoisie was eliminated and property was collectivized?
In any case, the soviet union was extremely progressive force of history, that industrialized more fast than any country in history, not even talking how much better the people lived after the revolution, in general terms.
Not trying to convince people for a certain ideology or thought.


Imediate destruction of all class is not the only way to classless society. That is why the NEP was implemented


I'm so tired of all the multipolarist crap, it speaks volumes when this is all leftists can hope for: just another shitty flavor of capitalism.
I give up. I no longer have anything to look forward to in the future. I don't give a fuck anymore. No vooting, no movement, no protest, no coop, everything is useless and pointless.


>sees increasingly large strikes
>abandons socialism like a boss


Imediate destruction of all class is not the only way to classless society. That is why the NEP was implemented. I understood from this comment:
>workers do not need "self-determination" they need absolute annihilation along with any other class division, anything less is social fascism.
That he is defending an anarchist position and is calling other forms of socialism, including ML, to be "social fascism". Was i wrong?


If "socialism" is just neoliberal capitalism, then there is no reason for actual workers not to nuke the entire project and every PMC involved in forwarding it, is there?


Calma down man


I'm tired man. I used to be a full-fledged communist and over the years I've let myself become a multipolarist retard that ignores all the shit Russia and China do because somehow I believe we'll be better if we have capitalism 2 instead of capitalism 1.
I've turned my beliefs into a soccer game, I no longer give a fuck about actual workers from the world, it's all abstractions. Ideology, symbols, pure imagery has replaced what drove me to communism in the first place.


anon you need to take a break from browsing here and find some fulfilling in your personal life


>is not the only way to classless society
It isn't, that is true, and neither is it even a particularly good way. We could simply rip the faces off of the PMC now and condemn all their bibliography to the public domain. Managers in particular are trivially replaceable by machines, and the machines will be more obedient to the worker, too.
>That is why
To avoid ending class? That was the reason, the WHY for the NEP? Either you have an English skill issue or Lenin's program needs even more hostile investigation than I originally thought.


The USSR at that point became an imperialist power, so it was not progressive.
When did I say socialism should be neoliberal capitalism? I think you're confused, I uphold Stalin.


>I uphold Stalin
Exactly. Vulgar economism is exactly the same ideology as Thatcher expressed with "There is no society" and you're soaking in it.


File: 1718134487908.png (328.4 KB, 688x1015, ClipboardImage.png)

And no, Capital is not an instruction manual for anything but capitalism, and if you are actually trying to "do" capitalism and extend the proletarian condition, may you and your family go the way of Yezhov.

Normalize beating people for upholding the cmmandments of dead men.


If you look hard enough certain branches of the right and left do believe basically the same thing

It is hard to put it into words but it’s basically you are up against a particular liberal-leftist hegemony that is the establishments of every Western country

In Europe why is it considered far right to curb the massive Islamic immigration plaguing their countries. What does that say about the establishments if they are ambivalent and even support the waves. What does that say about the lefties of that country

At the end you see that liberals, leftists, globalists, communists, and corporations all just so happen to support basically the same things
>inb4 but
If you’re a communist and take offense to what I’m saying than unironically you are not a true communist, you’re just the weird liberal-leftist hegemony I described above

I ain’t see no Antifa trying to protect the border that’s for sure

See my point


My point is there are two kinds of communists, true communists and your slightly edgy liberals that use communist lingo and art style but always come home to daddy at the end of the day


>the massive Islamic immigration plaguing their countries
Yeah this is right wing rhetoric, I don't know what to tell you. People from formerly colonized countries are fleeing the destruction caused (directly or indirectly) by western imperialism, and you describe it as a plague. Explain to me how this is muh true communism please.


File: 1718135564095.png (470.46 KB, 640x426, 1717935382063-4.png)

>youre not a TRUE communist if you dont want to Protect the Border!

lmao ok retard where are those migrants coming from and why? the proletariat has no country, that point is non-negotiable. pic related, laughing at you


see my other post if you want to see what i think >>1883023


>See my point
i see your point came flying out your ass, and you haven't actually made any argument, i highly suggest committing suicide.


I am not arguing in favour of capitalism. Its pretty ridiculous to call 1930s USSR capitalist. I uphold what dead men and women say when they are useful. Are you being ignorant on purpose, or do you just need education?


geniunely curious, how was 1930s USSR not capitalist? surely it was DOTP but it was also still capitalist no?


>My point is there are two kinds of communists


What time period do you think was more socialist? If you think that period of the USSR was not socialist I don't know what could be. I don't know the percentages of how much of the economy was state run or whatever though. I didn't think we'd be arguing about this. It'd probably take me some time to look it up.


>if you believe different my moral ejaculations are inherently valid


Yes, "true" communists are retards who
Marx already fucked back off into their Protestant rape farms
<C. German or “True” Socialism

<The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expressions of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.

<German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits (men of letters), eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the Eighteenth Century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of “Practical Reason” in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified, in their eyes, the laws of pure Will, of Will as it was bound to be, of true human Will generally.

<The work of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.

<This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

<It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote “Alienation of Humanity”, and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois state they wrote “Dethronement of the Category of the General”, and so forth.

<The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms, they dubbed “Philosophy of Action”, “True Socialism”, “German Science of Socialism”, “Philosophical Foundation of Socialism”, and so on.

<The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome “French one-sidedness” and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

<This German socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such a mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.

<The fight of the Germans, and especially of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.

<By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things those attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

<To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires, and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

<It was a sweet finish, after the bitter pills of flogging and bullets, with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.

<While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

<To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

<The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry “eternal truths”, all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public.

<And on its part German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

<It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.(3)


>self-identification is dispositive
Fine, we'll call it TRANScapitalist. Those are SOCIALIST commodities, SOCIALIST profits…
Nice empiricism dude.
Save it boomer. Autonomism ftw


You should read up on the politics of Alberta to see where such alliances go. I'll give you the tl;dr
>Liberals govern the state
>Libs are mostly urban elite types - lawyers, bourg, etc. They're also seen as an "eastern" Canadian controlled party.
>Most of the state don't like this because they're farmers or labourers
>Ultimately, they vote the United Farmers of Alberta into power
>The party membership had some radical ideas, like MLAs (MPs) as delegates, bound to follow party resolutions
>In power, the UFA were basically orthodox, "a government like any other", with MPs not bound to follow the radical resolutions of the membership
>Great depression hits
>UFA government mounts an economically orthodox response, mostly worried about rising levels of state debt. It does little to provide relief, prevent farmers from being evicted, it deports unemployed immigrants, and suppresses strikes
>members, on the other hand, become increasingly left-wing and become increasingly disillusioned
>A preacher named William Aberhart starts a "Social Credit" movement, based on the economic theories of CH Douglas. (it's doubtful Aberhart understands them), including the promise of a $20-25 national dividend for every adult in the state. This movement then becomes a party in like 1934
>Members from the UFA move to the Socreds, carrying their former radicalism, despite the fact social credit is basically a technocratic ideology. Socred members even collaborate with communists on strikes, rallies, etc.
>Ultimately - and totally unexpectedly - the Socreds win the 1935 election by a giant margin (56/63 seats)
>Most of those MLAs, handpicked by Aberhart, are small businessmen and such - not farmers or workers.
>They then do basically nothing about social credit (even appointing orthodox advisers and passing orthodox budgets) until a massive backbench revolt, at which point they pass a bunch of bills that are unconstitutional, and briefly experiment with "Prosperity certificates" but abandon them in the face of business opposition
>The party maintains a sort of schizophrenic approach in government - minimum wages, economic orthodoxy, very strong prohibitionism, anticommunism. The mild progressive reforms see it re-elected by a thin margin (in popular vote terms) in 1940.
>Aberhart dies in 1943 and is replaced by Ernest Manning, a full blown red-baiting Conservative.
>Socreds win 7 consecutive elections on an increasingly right-wing platform, ditching the pretense of being monetary reformers, or indeed left-reformists in general.
>Not only do they have meager social programs, they also ban "communist" films (including British pro-UN films and Hollywood films), attack the media and teaching profession as being full of communists, represses trade unions, etc.
>Ultimately they make Alberta a conservative stronghold.
>When the Socreds ultimately lose power, it's to the Progressive Conservative party, who then continue Conservative governance until 2015

What I'm saying, in very very long form, is that when you ally with people who don't share your class interests, in they will always ultimately sell you out. How distant they are determines how much: The UK Labour party sold out the working class in 1931, but remained somewhat left aligned. The Socreds, without those tenuous links, became utterly reactionary. "We agree on the problems! We even agree on the solutions!" is not the glue you think it is: Once you're sitting in office, your perspective warps and the incentive for a turn to orthodoxy is immense. If you've no personal reason to take the leftward track, you are never going to do so.


i honestly don't think the soviet union had the chance to be socialist, the revolution happened when there were still many holdovers from feudalism and only a very small urban proletariat. my understanding is that the NEP was adopted in order for the DOTP to sponsor the development of a market-oriented capitalism as a necessary prerequisite for socialism, and later the great break happened in order to speed up industrialisation under a much less market-orientated capitalism.


Based. I think the left still harbors too much sympathies with "progressive" liberals who are just as Nazi as the right wing liberals. We're always being scared into voting for neoliberal demons. Maybe it's time for something single focused like this.


Leaving work rn. Many grammar errors Will be made in the following. You basically can't implement communism in just a moment, in the though of marxism leninism.The NEP was needed in their specific historical period, just like the next five year plans, to acomplish the collectivisation and industrialization of the soviet union to then reach communism.
The PMC "classe", contrary to what you said, was not abolished. Managerial work was never abolished. If i an not mistaken, in Stalin works about the economic problema of socialism in the soviet union, he talks how easily the managerial class was integrated and unified in the working class. Again, workers are not the same as proles. If their work can be substituted by a machine, so be It, but that discusson, about the "PMC class", can be made in another day.
Marxism leninism is, in broad terms, a science. The right wing of the politburo, guided by bakhrurin, and the left wing, directed by zynoviev, implemented and interpreteded the process of collectvization in various ways, the first did it "too slow", the second"to fast". In his work about dyzyness, or something, Stalin talks about how those different interpretations of the 5 year plan was hendering the whole project down. It was needed to have a more specific party line to better accomplish the goals. What i am trying to say is, some think to go too slow, others think to go too fast. Kulaks were nota eliminated in a little moment, it took decades to eliminate them as a class. The NEP was implemented as a way to recover from the russian civil war. Some forms of capitalism and independent ventures were allowed. That doesnt meant the soviet union was "social fascist", just like China today is not "social fascist". This is only a sumary of the main idea. Need to go home, lots of grammar errors i know, but i must go now, gonna resoond at home.


That is when we disagree, my point was and os that the soviet union was indeed socialist.


how was it socialist?


>I think the left still harbors too much sympathies with "progressive" liberals
>Maybe it's time for something single focused like this.

No, what the left needs is a clear "business model", but socialist, so that we can maximiz de winning and avoid ineficiency. Create an enviroment where inovative thought may be created. For that, we need a concil of directors, or a vanguard for the workers party. It will be the objective of the board of directors to achieve comunismo, and create the goals to every year be more efficient and with better quality.
Of course the worker will be heard in such a system, through multiple surveys and checks to measure the level of satisfaction and class consciuness in every worker. But, a division of labor may be required tô, egain, acomplish the best efficient and end results for all.
They know the scientific thought of marxism leninism, they know what is better for you.


It was socialist in the scientific marxist leninist definition of socialism.


sorry i'm a bit daft, which is?


That is confidential information, only allowed for the vanguard party, sorry man, rules are rules…


ah, all's well that ends well i suppose!



ᴉuᴉlossnW 2 in progress.


As a fascist i agree


Nice try fbi


What I mean is, splitting or avoiding people because they don't fit your entire program is counter productive. Better to set up a bunch of shell orgs that serve specific purposes that don't have to be entirely made up by communists or leftists for that matter. Why waste precious manpower when you can get libertarians to advocate for less ICE and prison labor or whatever. Judo/aikido their greivances to where you want while maintaining the main org intact.

It also saves you the issue of ultras, and libs infiltrating the org and nitpicking about who you do relations with.

Orgs are just brands for outsiders. Brands can be changed as needed.


Good luck actually getting libertarians to care about police overreach, their anti authority schtick is completely performative


File: 1718192390441.jpg (152.88 KB, 800x572, authority man.jpg)

'member when libertarians were actually against cops?


guarantee you he only made this one because he got pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt lol


This isnt much different from national liberation if you live in a neo colonial country.
If someone in the imperialist core were to say this, its overtly fascist since the people controlling out country are also the capitalists living in our country.

Maybe you can provide a bit more context about where you live instead of keeping it this vague.


>leader of the Communist Party in my country





Judging by his syntax and style, I can't tell if OP is Italian, but I suspect he may be talking about Rizzo Pelato Servo della Nato. I could be wrong, but still…


>which is why he's now willing to find compromise with whatever party shares the same concerns -including anti-establishment parties on the right or even the far right.
cringe. may he rot


Good point.


proving the point exactly

Unique IPs: 33

[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 ]