/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1891281
Fascists want to revert the industrial revolution in most cases, no? Thats why they have an intrinsic hatred of urban life and modernity.
War is a way of de-industrialising by spending the nation's reserves in a sublime act of violence. The war economy eventually becomes something for itself in the end, not as a means to an end. Hitler himself was suicidal his whole adult life.

>wholesome post immediately flooded by angry REEing MLoids screaming incoherently

the other anon is right, worldview-marxism is a brain disorder

>>1891295
Samefag

>>1891298
Take a screenshot, then.

>>1891008
>as a transhistorical ideal
spooky

>>1891282
Social, as in a "New Man" engineering project.
>Fascists want to revert the industrial revolution in most cases, no?
They grew out of the SPD lineage. That would be strange. Of course one should never defer to sentiments manufactured by ruling classes.
>Thats why they have an intrinsic hatred of urban life and modernity.
Imagine needing to believe that.

<This article highlights the progress that has been made within fascist studies from seeing ‘fascist culture’ as an oxymoron, and assuming that it was driven by a profound animus against modernity and aesthetic modernism, to wide acceptance that it had its own revolutionary dynamic as a search for a Third Way between liberalism and communism, and bid to establish an alternative, rooted modern culture. Building logically on this growing consensus, the next stage is to a) accept that modernism is legitimately extended to apply to radical experimentation in society, economics, politics, and material culture; b) realize that seen from this perspective each fascism was proposing its own variant of modernism in both a socio-political and aesthetic sense, and that c) right-wing regimes influenced by fascism produced their own experiments in developing both a modern political regime and cultural modernism grounded in a unique national history.
https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/5/2/article-p105_2.xml

>>1891315
>believing in "third way" politics unironically
The ukraine nazis and israel prove that fascism is just the vanguarding of capital under imperialist conditions.
Nationalism itself was a creation of the french revolution with the idea of a people's republic.
All of this is derivative of bourgeois revolutions, which are liberal in kind. Why do you think fascists also largely come from libertarian circles?
Nothing new to see here.
Lolberts are allowed to be hypocrites too. They hate the state yet love the cops. Sounds familiar - no step on snake, but submit the lesser people to an iron will.

>>1891319
>>believing in "third way" politics unironically
They aren't referring to the neoliberal think tank. It's a generic term for triangulation, Aufheben in the sense of uplift. The social machinations of fascism are important to explore, unless we simply wish to treat the machinations of the economy as some great god to whom we must bow. (Marx wouldn't)

>The ukraine nazis and israel prove that fascism is just the vanguarding of capital under imperialist conditions.
"Vanguarding" is now a verb, oh dear.
Even if so, that simply does not happen without a superstructure to guide the capitalization. Not every contest is fully determined; that's symptomatic of the Worldview.

>>1891344
Fascism in italy existed as a way for the aristocracy to protect themselves from socialist resistance.
Hitler also saw his greatest enemy in communism.
Fascism is not anti-capitalism, it is illiberal anti-communism.
There is no sublation of socialism and capitalism in practice to uplift a new way; it always concretises itself to the powers which sponsor it, which originate in anti-communist paranoia.
You can be critical of both socialism and capitalism, but in the end (because we are historically contextual beings) we must choose a side ultimately.
I think there can be right-wing socialists, but fascists are not socialists.

>>1891355
>You can be critical of both socialism and capitalism, but in the end (because we are historically contextual beings) we must choose a side ultimately.
>faggotty-ass great god battle in the cosmos
No, we can burn it down and we can spoil the prize they would have won. The show does not, in fact, need to go on.

>>1891363
So you dont believe in (world) history, economics and progress then?

My main problem with "socialism or barbarism idea" is that even if we agree that every problem must be approached from a collective socialist manner, this will just cause more sectarist infighting of what is or is not a socialist solution to a problem instead of just resolving the problem.

>>1891372
All solutions to capital's internal contradictions are socialist
Socialism is not merely an ideology, but is a mode of production and a stage of history

>>1891364
>believe in
You'll have to unpack this for me, because it sounds like you're asking me to subordinate myself to a value system. Living in other people's dreams is the epitome of retardation.

>(world) history
What does it mean, exactly, to "believe in" world history? Worlds can be ended just as gods can be killed (these are often accomplished in the same motion). Yes, there is a chronicle of events that were meaningful to some self-organized group of persons. So? They're nobody to me.

>economics
If you "believe in" "economics" you are reifying capitalism, retard. Marx specifically told you NOT to reify economic categories.

<In capital — profit, or still better capital — interest, land — rent, labour—wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connec- tion between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the material production relations with their historical and social determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus value; and by representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, and finally reducing value and surplus value of commodities to labour in the direct production process. Nevertheless even the best spokesmen of classical economy remain more or less in the grip of the world of illusion which their criticism had dissolved, as cannot be otherwise from a bourgeois standpoint, and thus they all fall more or less into inconsistencies, half-truths and unsolved contradictions. On the other hand, it is just as natural for the actual agents of production to feel completely at home in these estranged and irrational forms of capital — interest, land — rent, labour — wages, since these are precisely the forms of illusion in which they move about and find their daily occupation. It is therefore just as natural that vulgar economy, which is no more than a didactic, more or less dogmatic, translation of everyday conceptions of the actual agents of production, and which arranges them in a certain rational order, should see precisely in this trinity, which is devoid of all inner connection, the natural and indubitable lofty basis for its shallow pompousness. This formula simultaneously corresponds to the interests of the ruling classes by proclaiming the physical necessity and eternal justification of their sources of revenue and elevating them to a dogma.

>and progress
Lol, yes, it's a bourgeois ideology that serves only as a rationale for the usurpation of the worker's surplus toward futile expenditure. The capital cycle depends on workers who need access to capital, remember.

If you spent even half the time researching the roots of your religion as you do "believing in" it, you be much less than half as stupid.

>>1891374
Lol no they're not. Marx sought to abolish everything about political economy, not merely to reform it.
<The work I am presently concerned with is a Critique of Economic Categories or, if you like, a critical exposé of the system of the bourgeois economy. It is at once an exposé and, by the same token, a critique of the system. (MECW, 40:270; emphasis in original)

You have failed to comprehend the full dimensions of "critique" because managerial liberalism has raised you to love and respect all that is. Or was that Hegel?

>>1891377
Reality has to be believed in for it to have social existence. Think for example if people believed they could never crash their cars. Suddenly there would be pile-ups. Science is a form of production today based on the "surplus-knowledge" of its positive feedback too.
>world-history
It is in most basic terms the encapsulation of the world within the capital relation, by which we have our being.
>economics
Yes, the discourse of political economy begins with capitalism, but there is still a legacy of logistical organisation which underpins human relations which we can call "economics", and which from commodity-circulation begets the circulation of money which sparks the capital circuit. This is marx's point of the determination of economic life toward global capitalism - saying "neither socialism or barbarism" once again points to ignorance of this lived experience.
>progress
So you dont believe in progress? Thats fine.
>>1891378
So socialism is not the steps taken toward a political critique of capitalism by a negation of the negation, thus ending the anarchy of production, crisis of overproduction, private property and surplus-value?

>>1891378
>managerial liberalism

Is there managerial socialism, or is all managerial theory capitalist?

>>1891382
>It is in most basic terms the encapsulation of the world within the capital relation, by which we have our being.
Is that intended to inspire some sort of piety or something?

>the discourse of political economy begins with capitalism
The discourse of political economy IS the discourse of capitalism. As Marx said, what you are reading in Capital is an EXPOSÉ, not a Comtist receipt book. What you are doing by elevating "political economy" to a dogma is nothing more or less than conserving the work of the bourgeoisie. Worldview idpol has you so turned around that you have no idea what is going on in the superstructure.

>This is marx's point of the determination of economic life toward global capitalism
Economic determinism is mythology. You should recognize these things by their forms and trash them immediately.

>saying "neither socialism or barbarism" once again points to ignorance of this lived experience
The point is to change it. Social phenomena need to be recognized in order to reproduce. Assertive abolitionism confounds their reproduction, causing the generation of inviable or unproductive offspring. Western Marxists are making headway here, assisting in the queering of the reproduction of Protestant gender.

>So socialism is not the steps taken toward a political critique of capitalism by a negation of the negation, thus ending the anarchy of production, crisis of overproduction, private property and surplus-value?
That's just liberal managerialism. Sorry not sorry to burst your bubble, PMCoid.

>>1891404
All critique, no construction

Take the cannibalpill.

>>1891405
Good. Structure worship is German idealism and you need to put away childish things.

>>1891409
If the world believes in creating the future while you sit back by only corrupting the present then you can still be a martyr for an impossible world.

>>1891410
>the world
>believes in
>corrupting
>martyr
>impossible world
Retarded aristocrat babble

>>1890342
Protraced People's War! It's the only method that can actually defeat the modern bourgeois state.
>>1891250
That's not a very insightful paragraph. Any Communist could write this against their ideological enemies. Are you perchance a leftcom or 'orthodox marxist' (lmao).

>>1891437
>Any Communist could write this against their ideological enemies
If that is so, then ideology is clearly the problem here, regardless of what it purposed to solve, and the worker's movement's attempts to construct one in contradiction to Marx's philosophy have proven to be a terrible, pernicious mistake.

With all the shit Kautsky also wrote on theology, I'd hope that those who presume to science would be the first to cut that entire diseased branch off the tree…

>>1890975
Anyone telling you not to think is trying to enslave you

>>1891437
>Protraced People's War! It's the only method that can actually defeat the modern bourgeois state.
Not possible against the current state of art in war technology, especially so in urban environments.

>>1891454
Not necessarily true; current technology depends on a lot of centralization; damage to highly connected resources causes more adversary headaches than damage to less connected ones; and damage to any resource is often more costly and urgent to the adversary's effort than total destruction. (Simple example: the services rendered with urgency to a soldier on a battlefield when he is wounded vs. killed)

This also applies to strategy; the destruction of a general staff or the diligent elimination of important civilian support personnel (planners, marketers, scholars) can indeed decide a war. Ukraine never recovered from the kalibration of the Yavoriv training school and command center.

I admit the minor problem that such an action must arise extremely quickly in order to realize the full benefit of these asymmetries. Hong Kong NGOs and NAFO showed us the way here.

I’m grillpilling because I’m not a leader or organizer. Just tell me when to come out, otherwise I will be grillmaxxxing

>>1891461
Where I live, there's no access to firearms to build a militia. It's not a possibility, and I'm talking about finantial resources. Are the workers supposed to fight against automatic rifles with sticks and pebbles?

>>1891437
how would this look in the united states? A bunch of people hiding in the appalaichans and everglades larping like they're chinese marxists in the 1940s only to get drone striked by sparkle

>>1891471
Systems tend to contain at least one critical point, which when attacked can cause failures that cascade through the system.

Look up Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement and adopt a systematic, problem-solving mindset that undermines the adversary's ability to act. Organizational, logistical, social, material. Bananas in tailpipes. Caltrops at the police garage. False or real alarms elsewhere. Disturbance to ruling or enforcing families' other projects or social value.

>>1891479
The families of enforcers are not sacred. Let them all be driven to murder-suicide.

>>1891004
I dont know how you think it is possible to advance the class interests of the proletariat without organizing among the proletariat, even if its for inter-class interests. Those are exactly the circumstances where contradictions make class tangible to those who thought they share the same interests as the petit-bourgeois

>>1891004
if someone appears to make the same post more than once on here, but the post has the same time stamp, it is usually a bug.

>>1891566
There is very much an element of autism in that post. I remember an argument between stemlords which went something like:
>x has cooked bad smelling food. That's reckless (in the sense of not looking out for other people).
<They didn't necessarily know it smelled bad
>Well, it smelled bad to everybody else
<But no one told them that
>Well, they must know
<You know that not everyone has the same brain you do, right?

>>1891453
If you don't do your own thinking it'll be done for you.

>>1891454
War technology is not the problem in any way. In urban enviorments guerrilas will be at the advantage unless the state wants to start massacring all its citizens. It doesn't matter how many billion pound tanks they make when we just blow them up with £500 drones. I'd like to hear what new invention you think beats guerrilas specifically. In fact, PPW only gets stronger the deadlier the weapons they throw at you. Intelligence technology and stuff like AI tracking is much more worrying than any physical weapon they can invent within the next hundred years. That's the real dangerous tech they have, though you might have been refering to it. I guess it could be considered in the same field as any plane or drone they can make.

The thing is, even with such advanced intelligence apparati that 1st world Bourgeois states have, it doesn't really beat the strategy of PPW. Yes, if they were incorrectly applying Jefatura to the wrong conditions the guerrilas would easily be defeated when their leader is found and apprehended, but that would be a specific mistake and not an inherent problem of the strategy. But, spies and psyops can't really beat a mass movement easily. It's a blow if the leaders are arrested but it doesn't collapse the movement. The Naxalites have had many of their important leaders and theorists mudered or arrested over the years and yet they survive. By building base areas individuals can have a greater degree of freedom. There's not much they can do bar drone strike if you have someone living in a liberated area where the people support them, and a missile strike would be the worst thing the state could do in that situation. The police aren't omniscient and if you're smart you can outmanouver them. A strong party that moves with the people is needed for this to work and such a party would need to be created anyway.

>>1891479
It'd probably be more in places like Detroit, but idk I'm not American. Also, as I have said drone striking is the worst thing the state could possibly do. If the government started dropping bombs on its own country it would radicalise so many people. I think your post is a little ridiculous.


I think what makes PPW especially important in Imperialist countries is that its the only real way to defeat apathy and integration into the bourgeois system, which are by far the biggest threats to socialist movements. They're right at the bottom of The state has advanced past needing the stick to hit people to keep them in line 24/7. Their power now comes from its psychological control (I'm not sure this is a good word but I can't think of one better, I'm not talking about like spiritual power here but how the state co-opts things and makes it seem like you can't win and shouldn't try). Marxist-Leninist orgs (not to mention Trotskyites etc.) are not equipped to deal with this modern state and therefore end up co-opted or apathetic and universally revisionist. Waiting forever for the right conditions which won't come will inevitably end up with you getting co-opted anyway. I think there's a word or term for what I'm thinking of but my tongue can't find it. It defeats the sort of post-modernist nihilism though, for one. Anyway I'm not advocating for focoism or random adventurism because that's just as useless, or for diving in without waiting a while to see if the situation can become more favourable. But PPW completely cuts through the state's cultural hegemony. It defeats the bourgeois' stronges aspect and then fights them where they are much weaker, in a battle that a suitably organised party can actually win. That's why I sort of unironically think it is 'eternal', in the sense that it is applicable to almost all conditions on Earth right now (not that it will always be. Whilst it can defeat the intelligence apparatus it might have a hard time against bioweapons and drones that can kill anyone sympathetic overnight, but thats just sci-fi for now of course).

>>1891907
Generals worry about logistics. Reactionary tampons worry about
>It defeats the sort of post-modernist nihilism though, for one

>>1891992
That's a really specific part of my post to get triggered by.

>>1892002
It's a retarded reactionary dogwhistle.
>idk I'm not American
Then you should unironically kill yourself for propagating your pietous mental illnesses back to a people that has no use for them.

>>1891282
> Fascists want to revert the industrial revolution in most cases
Yesn't. They think they can split the superstructure apart from the base, and substitute the former with their larper fantasy

>>1891907
I agree and disagreee. I agree that the militar technology isn't really a dealbreaker for a PPW, and that intelligence is much scarier for the reasons you listed. But with that said, I don't think PPW is workable in developed countries. Why? Because there is no pesantry and no indipendent production.

In Mao's china the near totality of the population were pesants who lived in villages and were, for the most part, economically indipendent from the rest of the country, at least at a basic level. Specifically, pesants were both willing and able to produce a surplus of food and basic items to sustain the communist army in the long run.
Compare such situation to a developed area such as europe: here the very last pesantry was estinguished more than half a century ago after having become irrelevant and a minority decades prior. In developed nations you don't really have local production: each production unit, factory or farm, depends on the market at least on the national scale to be able to source it's input materials. In the case of farms, this manifests in mechanized agriculture, which is dependent on fertilizers, anti-parasite products, complex machinery and more to function properly.
Adding to that, farmers have long shed their pesant origins and behave like petit-bourgeois, horribly exploiting migrant labour to make profit on a regular basis.

These factors combine and make a PPW unworkable in developed countries as any army would have trouble establishing a stable base of operations, and would be strictly dependent on foreign support to be able to continue production in the areas it manages to conquer.

>>1891282
Yes that’s definitely what the Nazis did
The Wehrmacht was the opposite of the Industrial Revolution
The Shoah was the opposite of an industrialized genocide
The Nazis didn’t give kickbacks to massive industries

This is the shit you start to believe once you unironically fall for the “anprims are fascists” meme

>>1892016
>They think they can split the superstructure apart from the base,
The "superstructure" is not entirely determined by the "base"; see Engels' letter to J. Bloch for an explanation of the economistic error. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21b.htm
<I would further ask you to study the theory from its original sources and not from secondhand works; it is really much easier. One can say that Marx has written nothing in which some part of the theory is not found. An excellent example of its application in a specific way is the “Eighteenth Brumaire of L. Bonaparte.” Also in “Capital” (III) are many illustrations. And also permit me to recommend to you my writings, Herr E. Duehring’s “Umwalzung der Wissenchaft,” and “Feuerbach und der Ausgang der Klassischen deutschen Philosophie,” in which I have given the most ample illustrations of Historical Materialism which to my knowledge exists. That the young people give to the economic factor more importance than belongs to it is in part the fault of Marx and myself. Facing our adversaries we had to lay especial stress on the essential principle denied by them, and, besides, we had not always the time, place, or occasion to assign to the other factors which participate in producing the reciprocal effect, the part which belongs to them. But scarcely has one come to the representation of a particular historical period, that is, to a practical application of the theory, when things changed their aspect, and such an error was no longer permissible.

>>1892033
I suspect that people who argue that "fascists are anti-modern" are actually M-Ls with one foot in fascism, trying to brand "modernism" as M-L's exclusive property despite actually existing history.

>>1892044
Collectivism and equality are liberal, enbrace modernism and accelerationism

>>1892051
Literally all those things are liberalism you fucking retard

Only politics that causes me stress is Ukraine war. Besides that im grillpilled and shitpost here because I enjoy discussing leftist politics.

>>1891907
>Also, as I have said drone striking is the worst thing the state could possibly do. If the government started dropping bombs on its own country it would radicalise so many people. I think your post is a little ridiculous.
<Tulsa 1921
<Battle of Blair Mountain 1921
<MOVE 1985
if you think the US gov. wouldn't drone strike guerilla positions in a protracted people's war, then "I think your post is a little ridiculous."