[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ 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.)

In for some red terror?
15% off on selected items with promo code "SPOOKY" at shop.leftypol.org


File: 1761245436061.png (154.58 KB, 379x590, image.png)

 

A materialist analysis of the current epoch leads to a challenging conclusion: the path to dismantling imperialism does not directly lead to communism. The primary force capable of breaking the back of the current U.S.-led imperialist system is the independent capitalist development of the Global South. By building sovereign industrial and technological capacity, these nations can make their own economic exploitation unviable.

However, this process of national liberation is a bourgeois project. It is led by forces whose objective is not the abolition of class, but the creation of a national capitalist state. In this struggle, the internal class antagonism is temporarily masked by the unifying fight against a foreign oppressor.

We must therefore be clear: to expect communism to emerge organically from this process is a strategic and theoretical error. The outcome will be the consolidation of new, indigenous American, European and Russian haute bourgeoisie, not the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>We must therefore be clear: to expect communism to emerge organically from this process is a strategic and theoretical error.
this is your problem, to use concept like 'to emerge organically'
You substitute this for the 'will of God'.
All anti-imperialists and communists understand than anti-imperialism is simply what the name means: against imperialism, and that it does not, as a side meal, also automatically offer communism. The point is anti-imperialism is a sine qua non for communism. Not a sufficient condition, but a necessary one.

>>2533547
This is what I have been saying for years. Anti-imperialism has nothing to do with socialism and the movement has been taken over by 3rd world nationalists.

Cope.

File: 1761249327210.png (23.96 KB, 500x250, image.png)

>>2533591
t. picrel

>>2533642
This is how I imagine all the retards that cry about "muh third worldism" look like.
Btw OP made this thread after he got BTFO in /PRC/ lol, many such cases
Sad!

Sorry, but the global revolution WILL happen.

>>2533547
Le anti-imperialism is le worst product of imperialism.

Why are you arguing against arguments nobody is making OP?

>>2533573
"Anti imperialism" as leftoids understand and support is just pro imperialism. The only anti imperialism which can exist is anti capitalism, which currently doesn't exist anywhere on the planet.

The Empire Never Ended

>>2534674
communism sublates capitalism and emerges from it through revolution. It is not simply "anti-capitalism." Engels points out there are several forms of "anti-capitalism" which are not Communist:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

— 24 —
How do communists differ from socialists?

The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.


[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:

(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.

(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.


[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.


[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.

It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.

>>2533547
Uhh, yeah, no shit. OP, socialism is a long process of evolving social-economic factors; you can't have a socialist state in an underdeveloped region. Right now they need to negate their feudal-colonial state by creating a local bourgeoisie and market to be able to achieve economic sovereignty while still being part of the international bourgeoisie order, even if it means creating alienation and trauma in the social sphere as a result of capitalism's contradictions.

Only after the market phase is fully exhausted and the contradictions pile up can they negate their own bourgeoisie and establish a socialist state, which would be national communism, i.e., a worker's dictatorship in the form of the previous nation state.

Communism will happen only after the international order is fully negated.

Anti-imperialism is not communism but the road to it.

>>2534697
So you're taking on the Menshevik position, interesting

File: 1761298261028.jpeg (116.1 KB, 1208x1043, GfldOgOWMAA4JUm.jpeg)

>>2534703
Taking leaps of faith out of ideological purity is utter nonsense and must be rooted out as anti-revolutionary.

There's a reason why the USSR didn't survive and China did.

>>2534697
There is no anti imperialism any where on the planet, so there is no road to communism

The US will not allow independent development in the Global South and since the 1980s has undermined all efforts at independent reform in Latin America. The US never really gave a fuck about communism, they just care about loyalty. Communist, capitalist, it doesn't matter what these countries call themselves as long as they are friendly to the US and US business interests and allow the US to extract wealth from their country.

>>2533547
>Antiimperialism/National Liberation is not Communism
I don't think anyone here has ever said it was. Pointless thread

>>2534726
Is there any actual evidence of this? The entire west poured billions into industrialising China because their own RoP was declining. To a lesser extent they did the same thing in India and other countries. Many global South countries today are vastly more industrialized and have a higher standard of living than 1980.

Seriously just look at comparisons of life expectancy, infant mortality, industrial stock, electricity production, food production, literacy etc. Virtually all global South countries saw massive improvements in all these categories.

>>2534765 (me)

In fact, the decline/stagnation of living standards in the West in the past 40 years, is the direct result of neoliberal reforms that outsourced industry to the third world. The West colonized itself to benefit global capitalism as a whole (since the Western capitalist class is not nationalist, but globalist).

Now this is ending because of too much resistance in the Western countries, so they're going to end the trade deficit, eliminate immigration and take on a mercantilist approach again like the past.

>>2533547
The problem of "not Communism" is the real issue here. The vast majority of the world's workers, and most of the political left, believe that Communism is undesirable or impractical. Or that it's a mythic end goal at the end of a millennia-long period of national industrial development.

Propagating a clear conception of what Communism is, its pros and cons, and the institutional muscle to make it look achievable is the central and obvious task of the radical left today. That's the only way to fight back against the various right-deviationists that have been hogging the mic on /leftypol/, social media and the like.

>>2534820
>The vast majority of the world's workers, and most of the political left, believe that Communism is undesirable or impractical
vast majority of westoids you mean. Both india and china, some of the most populous countries on earth, have enormous communist parties

>>2534833
dont bother with these people, they will never admit there is a world outside the US and western Europe populated by actual humans and where real process are happening

>>2534833
Apart from the leftcommunist parties, real communist parties don't exist. All of those parties you mention are just bourgeois parties opportunistically using communist symbols and phraseology to pursue national capitalist ends.

>>2534909
>is this guy just trolling and baiting or is he real unironic leftcom bordigger?

>>2534916
He is just a westoid blackpilled by his own intergenerational purity fetish.

>>2534833
All 'official' communist parties, western or not, are Dengist/Eurocommunist parties who advocate national developmentalism. Maybe with a vague in-500-years 'transition to communism.'

>>2535267
and thats a good thing

>>2534916
>is he real unironic leftcom bordigger?
Sadly we have infestation of these people.


Unique IPs: 19

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]