/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

It's definitely a thing here in Britain. Tony Blair and Keir Starmer were both Trots while studying at Oxbridge alongside a bunch of other senior Labour figures. British Trots base their platform on superficially far left politics divorced from a working class base, so joining at uni is a great opportunity to feel like a radical while selling papers and giving speeches to the plebs. With no social base or meaningful working class organisation membership rarely extends beyond university, after which many graduates revert to the mean and adopt typical petty-boug political attitudes. So teenage Trots often end up middle aged neo-cons

Not only trot
But anarcho-, and leftcom as well
Just look at Moffin'. He is a raging russophobic, sinophobic pro-NATO and pro-EU nazi.

>>2597776
And a pedo too! Is there anything this guy can't be?

>>2597781
Oh wowowow
Now that is a heavy accusation to make
I hope you can back this by proper evidence, because I am in no mood to get banned here
I oppose Moffin's political and economic positions, but I do not know his tendencies when it comes to sexxxo stuff.

There are too many examples of trots becoming neocons. There's another pipeline of bordigists/italian leftists becoming white supremacists

>>2597247
No, because members of every other tendency also end up defecting to the right as well. Maoists, anarchists, MLs, ultras, everyone.
A ton of CPUSA members gave up after the 1930s and became arch-conservatives but we never hear of the "Stalinite to Buckleyite" pipeline, do we?

>>2597789
Can you give me some links (articles, videos, whatever) about the leftcom to whitesupremacy pipeline?
I have fun shitting on leftcoms

>>2597790
Because Stalin is the sun and a few dark spots in no way diminishes greatness of the Sun.

>>2597790
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Ferrara

There's a lot more Stalinists who became conservatives in continental Europe who we never hear about, while just weren't that many of them to begin with in the U.S./U.K.

>>2597772
>It's definitely a thing here in Britain. Tony Blair and Keir Starmer were both Trots while studying at Oxbridge alongside a bunch of other senior Labour figures. British Trots base their platform on superficially far left politics divorced from a working class base, so joining at uni is a great opportunity to feel like a radical while selling papers and giving speeches to the plebs.
in America we have guys like this too. One who comes to mind is Van Jones, who was a "Maoist" in college and now is a professional liberal bootlicker.

>>2597772
Can you please provide an example of of a leftist/communist party in a developed country that does have 'a working class base'?

>>2597883
Can I give a few examples from the last century or does it have to be currently?

There’s a kernel of truth in that being a contemporary anti-AES western leftist and adopting the ideologies that broke with those that prevailed in the USSR, always had the goal of anti-Sovietism which is only a skip and a hop from being anti-Communist in general. You become a Trot, a Maoist, a Hoxaist, etc to be the good socialist while those figures are lauded by the western bourg for being principled in being anti-Soviet, but when the Cold War ended there was no need for principled “good” anti-Soviet communists and thus the good socialists became the sensible, matured and enlightened neo-con.
Smart enough in their youth to have seen the flaws of the Soviet Union unlike those primitive working class dogmatists, but wisened by shocking revelations about what they inadvertently were supporting via Trotsky, Mao, Hoxha, that Peruvian guy, etc.

What Maupin tries to push is the idea that neocons are warlike and also socially liberal, so somehow Trotskyists took over conservatism (from nice, pleasant, socially-conservative isolationist paleocons… don't mention the racism and Axis sympathies) and began wearing conservatism like a skinsuit. But I don't think that's accurate for a couple of reasons.

From what I understand about neoconservatives, they were originally more focused on domestic policy than foreign policy (which was added in a bit later), and regarded themselves as morally serious defenders of "Western civilization." It's all dour and moralfaggy with them in that way. They're skeptical if not hostile to New Left social movements. Okay, Douglas Murray is gay, but he is not supportive of "gender ideology." They believe religion has a role to play in maintaining order, which is a really intellectualizzed way to come around to a religion. Christopher Hitchens didn't like religion but he wasn't a typical neoconservative, who is more like Murray.

Also, I don't think Trotskyism was ever into this hedonistic sex-positive stuff to begin with. I mean mid-20th century Trotskyism that you'd find in the Spartacist League or some group like that. They didn't suddenly become prudes, they already were. You can find a ton of heat aimed at identity politics from Trotskyist groups. Meanwhile nobody has ever talked about an anarchist-to-neocon pipeline from anarchists who really were libertines.

Trotsky was as neocon as he was fascist

Trot to neocon
Anarchist to Maoist to Anarchist to…
Anarchist to Ultra
Nazi to rad socdem (ML)
Rad socdem to ᴉuᴉlossnW (ziggers)
Rad socdem to neolibs (deng)

It's just funnier to shit on Trotskyists
The name itself: Trotsky. It's all ridiculously soy.