/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The average fortune 500 company is in favor of socializing the economy? News to me. You are a retard, next.

>except anti racism, feminism, trans ideology, open borders, secularism and vax science
All these things are critiqued by leftists, except your kind dont seem to understand critique doesnt mean thoughtless dismissal.

Doesn‘t sound scientific to a priori assume the thing in question is corrupted bourgeois propaganda.

>>2542178
90% is socializing the economy, mouthbreathing faggot. Go die for Israel.

>>2542183
I dont know any 5 contemporary leftist authors, but if you want leftist critique of transgender stuff, here is a good article I read recently.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/reject-transgender-liberalism-gill-peterson

>>2542168
Capitalism believes in markets, porkies will sale and buy from anyone. They don’t support any of those things they profit from it. Especially for “open borders” idk where got retarded idea. Borders are porkies favorite thing, get prols tied to specific regions, allows them to control the flow of labor and creates massive opportunities for profit by selling “border security”. Also gives them a personal goons to shut down immigrants trying to unionize.

>unlike you retards I want anti-capitalism with racism, misogyny, xenophobia, theocracy, and medieval medicine

read principles of communism 1847, particularly the part I've highlighted below:

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.

This question was answered 178 years ago yet you are still too retarded to understand: Anti-capitalism doesn't just mean returning to pre-capitalism, it means advancing beyond capitalism while still retaining what made it superior to feudalism.

>except anti racism
Why must racism not be criticized?
>feminism
Another critique, already critiqued in itself and by other leftist sects but has salvagable elements.
>trans ideology
Literally just a group of people existing, if anything critiques bourgoise gender concepts. Once cisgendering ceases, so will transgenderism since they codefining concepts.
>open borders
An critique of borders as the logistically handycap it is. Borders won't exist under communism, because distinct nations won't exist. It'll all be part of China, and then China will become an empty signifier.
>secularism
Materialism only concerns itself with what matters, not what does or does not exist, if anything exists in the first place. Your deadbeat god won't matter until it comes home with the milk and cigarettes. We'll probably shoot it out of the sky by then.
>vax
The people that make vaccines critique it to make better vaccines, see next point
>science
The scientific process is the act of critique and praxis applying said critique in a cycle.

You have to tell me why racism, polio making a comeback, kids getting raped by border patrol and ice, and corporate megachurches are based and will lead to a better world where hunger, homelessness, and war are solved problems. Nobody is going to apologize for not thinking ripping out a baby and crushing its skull because a wife dared to be upset that her husband was lynch is "based". You need to justify your schizoid delusions and why the ocean isn't going to turn into a green slimy hottub.

>>2542192
I wonder if this guy will read any of the answers or if he immediately closed tab and fucked off back to /pol/ thinking he won

>>2542200
You are a troglodyte retard whose understanding of communism comes from ExxonMobil lobbyists and state department stenographers. Now go back to lapping up neocon cum, that's all you're good at.

>>2542191
That paragraph describes a group of people who don't exist anymore. Basically reactionaries from Marx's time who thought that feudalism was more "fair" than capitalism with muh guilds and muh peasant communes. Being critical of trans stuff or open borders doesn't mean that you literally want to revert to a previous mode of production.

>>2542204
The family is just a remnant of feudalism. National borders are used to charge monopsony rent which amounts to feudalism again.

Mods stop banning random tourists that show up, he isnt spamming or shitting up the board, the community can handle one /pol/ack debate thread just fine.

>>2542204
Ok then let's go through your specific objections:

>anti racism
Proletarians of all races should be united against the capitalist class rather than divided on this question, especially since the capitalist class is already united despite these differences.
>feminism
repeat the same argument as above. Male and female proletarians should be united against the capitalist class rather than divided on this question, especially since the capitalist class is already united despite these differences.
>trans ideology
cisgender and trans proletarians should be united against the capitalist class rather than divided on this question, especially since the capitalist class is already united despite these differences.
>open borders,
short answer: the proletariat knows no country
long answer: the bourgeoisie already have total freedom of travel but the proletariat is supposed to stay in a nationalist cage and be less free to move around than the stuff they create through their labor? On the question of brain drain, outsourcing, using migrants as cheap sources of labor, etc. End imperialism and this won't be a problem.
>secularism
Anti-secularism takes many forms. What kind of theocracy do you desire? Abrahamic? Vedic?
>vax science
enjoy polio, measles, mumps, and rubella i guess

>>2542168
>everything under the umbrella of capitalism is corrupted and must be criticized as bourgeois propaganda!!!

Not true. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find people who praise the bourgeoisie more than communists. For example, in a recent interview James Vaughn said that without the industrial revolution we would all just be good liberals because they were right about everything.

https://youtu.be/GRoyLo6HubQ?si=GPUYfouaPklCPman&t=5740

1:35:45 if the timestamp link doesn't work

I can't remember if it was Engels or Lenin who admitted socialism was a bourgeois science. Marx praised the bourgeoisie for being great revolutionaries who frustrated the reactionaries, he just wanted them to keep going but they're not incentivized to so it's up to the workers to do the rest. Note that many online socialists will seethe at this and accuse you of saying socialism is an extension of liberalism. Very undialectical.

>>2542244
>I can't remember if it was Engels or Lenin who admitted socialism was a bourgeois science.
you can't remember? so I take it you have no source for your claim (Not OP). If Engels said "socialism" is a "bourgeois science" (wissenschaft) did he say it during the era that he he wrote Principles of Communism, and trying to distinguish socialism from communism in general, or did he write it later in his life, when he was calling Communism "scientific socialism" and distinguishing it from bourgeois socialism, democratic socialism, reactionary socialism, and other forms of socialism? It's sort of like reading Lenin before and after WW1. For Lenin Marxism and Social Democracy were the same thing until WW1, when social democracy betrayed the international proletariat leading to the collapse of the 2nd international. So if these remarks are real I would like a source, and am especially interested in the year that source was written. But you can't even remember which of the two gentlemen said it.

>Marx praised the bourgeoisie for being great revolutionaries who frustrated the reactionaries, he just wanted them to keep going but they're not incentivized to so it's up to the workers to do the rest. Note that many online socialists will seethe at this and accuse you of saying socialism is an extension of liberalism. Very undialectical.

Yes, for Marx, the bourgeois were revolutionary, but their revolutionary potential was historically limited:

<The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

<The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

<The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

<The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

The Marxist position has always been that while capitalism has historically played a progressive role in developing productive forces, it remains fundamentally exploitative and contradictory. Capitalism is seen as a necessary step in history. It creates the material conditions for socialism and communism. But that doesn’t mean Marxists "love" capitalism. It is a system that is in constant crisis, where wealth and power are hoarded by a few. Communism, by contrast, aims for the sublation of these contradictions, where wealth is distributed according to need rather than profit. Communism doesn’t come from an uncritical acceptance of capitalism, it comes from recognizing that capitalism has reached its historical limits, produced its own grave diggers, and needs to be replaced by a system that prioritizes human needs over profit.

>>2542260
One example is Lenin in What is to be Done? when he favorably quotes Kautsky who said:

<Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without [von Aussen Hineingetragenes] and not something that arose within it spontaneously [urwüchsig]. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm

>>2542368
This is not "admitting" socialism is a "bourgeois science" as originally claimed, but stating something a bit more profoudn and nuanced, though I can see why you oversimplified this quote into the claim from a few posts back, especially deriving it from memory.

<The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia

This is the closest he comes to stating what you said, but I still think there is a difference between stating that scientific education is originally a privilege of the bourgeois intelligentsia, and stating explicitly that socialism is a bourgeois science. He is still saying by the end that

<the task of Social-Democracy
(1901, pre-split from Marxism)
<is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle.

So the practice of socialism is begun by the class traitors of the bourgeois intelligentsia, but is ultimately the task of the proletariat. It is not exclusively bourgeois, just originally bourgeois in its origins (since Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Marx, and Engels were all bourgeois class traitors).