/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

kill all opticians.

We have this thread at least once a week.

First of all, this idea that leftism has uniquely bad optics is one spread primarily by rightwingers on rightwing platforms like X the Everything App. The right acts just as if not more cringe on a day to day basis (picrel), they've just set things up so that they can shittalk us more than we can shittalk them.

Second, people's politics are ultimately the result of their own self-interest, or at least what they perceive to be their own self interest. They'll adopt the views that they believe benefit them; the presentation of these ideas has very little actual impact.

>>2608120
I agree with you that the right is cringe but they sincerely believe what they're saying. Like how do you actually solve this problem?

>>2608129
You don't. It's a hard pill to swallow, but already radicalized people are typically not worth engaging with directly, and are often radicalized in the direction that they are because their ideology being true would benefit them. You should be interested in people who already have one foot in left-wing thought, or are politically uninvolved but in a situation where leftist politics would benefit them. Otherwise you're just wasting your time.

>>2608139
I'm not denying what you're saying, but do you have examples of this? I've had the thought progressive liberals are at least approachable but seeing people further to the right as a lost cause is something I'm not sure of yet which is why I made the thread I guess, wondering how much optics actually matter. Right wingers are cringe but they have the benefit of appealing to tradition which makes them more easily digestible for many people.

>>2608160
It's easy if you're actually a prole yourself. I'm currently between jobs, but the place I worked previously was full of people in tough spots who had more to gain from Marxism than they had to lose.

>>2608170
Well, many people I've worked with had extremely reactionary attitudes despite being pretty much in poverty, typical white identity politics as you might expect. Is there value in appealing to them?

>>2608176
I'd say not really. For those kinds of people, you need to wait for the material conditions to arise for them to question their ideology themselves.

>>2608087
It's a game that cannot be won when the bourgeoisie owns all the mass media and can hire innumerable shills

>>2608120
TRUTH NUKE

>>2608575
Also a truth nuke, don't even bother fighting the media war, their agents alone probably post more propaganda than you, nevermind their botfarms

>>2608087
I think the left plays with optics way too much. It's concern for optics that causes groups to do their pointless little flag and poster holding photo ops with 15 people.

Here's the thing, conservatives look at people with blue hair and go "that's a lazy socialist liberal". This is not, in fact, a socialist who doesn't care about optics. This is a crazed lunatic who calls everything he doesn't like a socialist. And he doesn't like blue hair. This is not a person, this is conservative media with billions of dollars behind it and hundreds of millions of viewers. So it makes sense why you confuse the two things, but hopefully this sets you straight.

IMO the left obsesses over optics too much, trying to be le decent hecking human being. Instead we should stop trying to pass off as normies, we don't need to seem normie to get people on our side.

>>2608575
>>2608656
Evendoe mainstream media is dying and alternative media is the biggest its ever been. While yes the bourgesisie of course have a hold on this it also lets us establish our own media outlets such as this site. I wouldnt be all doomer about it

>>2609623
>They have grown quite rapidly.
It's been a while since I last checked, but as far as I can tell, they had a decently large influx of members in the beginning, but failed to actually maintain that growth. As far as I can tell, their actual cultural relevance peaked about a year ago, which is kind of sad.

Worked on several major serious political campaigns for several parties in my time.
Lack of care of optics is imo, one of the single biggest reasons the left does not hold power. The average person sees Leftists as naive do gooders with a very real antisocial/lumpen bent that will do more good than harm over the long term.
I've talked to people on door steps and phone, seen internal data polling, watched focus groups etc.
The left lacks massive credibility and it's the lack of optics and basically a pathological addiction to picking the wrong side on every major issue is always brought up.
The left has a real "player hater" problem. Anybody who actually is serious about playing politics rather than virtue signalling, and actually looking at issues in pragmatic ways is usually shit on by the rest of the left. You see it relentessly here on Leftypol as well. Most Leftists see the left as basically a weirdo-counter culture rather than a real political movement.

>>2608087
The left will never control the optics. Television, newspapers, and social media are fully captured by capitalist vampires.

>>2625713
For example as well
- Supporting Mass Migration and calling anybody who opposes it racist.
- Incoherent Woke crusades and calling anybody who opposes it racist, sexist, bigoted etc
- Supporting terrible dictators for no reason beyond campism
- Supporting Islamists for no reason beyond campism
- Supporting any and all antisocial sociopathy if committed by minorities and calling the victims racist.
- Being insanely racist and bigoted towards white people
- Spouting clear economic nonsense that makes no sense to the average person or even Marxist, just *hits a joint*"Yeah it sounds good man".
- Always being represented by obnoxious spineless succdems who can't play the game well and/or sell out (Bernie, AOC, Corbyn etc) or complete woketard freaks (blue hairs, wokies, anarkiddies, "antifa" etc)
- Massive double standards on basically all issues, and pretty much always siding with Lumpens over every one elses interests
- CHAZ/BLM
And way more that people will go running to the mods and cry about if I bring up.
The left is already playing politics on hard mode and the left and it's base are like I said just above, pathologically addicted to picking the wrong side, always. The left is a contrarian counter-culture, it is not a real political movement.

>>2625736
hey hey thats all me

>>2625736
Litteraly me

>>2625736
you should get a real job instead of being a CIA agent

>>2625736
Goomba fallacy

The only optics necessary are chinese scifi megacities, tech and low food prices

>>2625811
How do I get one of those?

>>2625713
>>2625736
>and basically a pathological addiction to picking the wrong side on every major issue is always brought up.
You seem to be implying that the solution is to go full chud and appeal to conservatives as much as possible. That is, to put it lightly, extraordinarily misguided.

The thing with "the working class" is that it's a descriptor of class position, not a marketing demographic. Members of the working class may have shared material interests, but ideologically, there really isn't any throughline. Going hard on cultural liberalism may put off cultural conservatives, but going hard on cultural conservatism just results in the opposite problem, putting off cultural liberals. If you want to get a mass movement going, you need to find a way to appeal to both at once.

When you hear the word “communist” in a the 1950s, the image is of a Russian intelligence agent.

When you hear the word “communist” today, inevitably most people conjure an image of a blue haired college student. We need credible representation. Maybe the chuds were right we have to RETVRN to trvditivn.

>>2625736
>- Supporting Mass Migration and calling anybody who opposes it racist.

The Marxist position regarding immigrant workers is to organize all the workers of the world and defend the labor rights of immigrant workers and their other civil rights to minimize the coercion of capitalists and their intensified exploitation of immigrant workers, but to understand this position I will teach you with quotes that prove my point.

Let's begin with the text addressing the issue of Irish and English workers at the time:

<I shall give you here only quite briefly the salient points.

<Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

<If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English.

<As for the English bourgeoisie, it has in the first place a common interest with the English aristocracy in turning Ireland into mere pasture land which provides the English market with meat and wool at the cheapest possible prices. It is likewise interested in reducing the Irish population by eviction and forcible emigration, to such a small number that English capital (capital invested in land leased for farming) can function there with “security”. It has the same interest in clearing the estates of Ireland as it had in the clearing of the agricultural districts of England and Scotland. The £6,000-10,000 absentee-landlord and other Irish revenues which at present flow annually to London have also to be taken into account.

<But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

<And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

<This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

<But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.

<England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.

<These are roughly the main points of the circular letter, which thus at the same time give the raisons d’étre of the resolutions passed by the Central Council on the Irish amnesty.

[…]

<We hit another bird with the same stone, we have forced the Irish leaders, journalists, etc., in Dublin to get into contact with us, which the General Council had been unable to achieve previously!

<You have wide field in America for work along the same lines. A coalition of the German workers with the Irish workers (and of course also with the English and American workers who are prepared to accede to it) is the greatest achievement you could bring about now. This must be done in the name of the International. The social significance of the Irish question must be made clear.

<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Remembering that Marx and Engels favored uniting all workers of all nationalities, including immigrants, to fight together for the communist revolution and their shared class interests, separatism was not acceptable to them without some material conditions. Irish separatism was an acceptable alternative due to English chauvinism, which hindered the organization of the English and Irish proletariat. This prejudice stemmed from the intensified subjugation of Irish workers. If the alternative to a joint revolution in Britain is the continuation of this subjugation of the Irish, then Irish independence would be an option for a future socialist federation on more equal terms between the Irish and English.

I'll post the text where you can read "The Question of the General Council's Resolution on the Irish Amnesty" if you're interested in reading it, which explains this point:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/03/28.htm

Now, to answer the question about immigration, I will first cite the general position that differentiates communists from other working-class parties in the manifesto:

<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Let's look at practical examples of a political program in an election in a bourgeois democracy, with texts by Marx and Engels that fit what is written:

<(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

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

<1. One rest day each week or legal ban on employers imposing work more than six days out of seven. - Legal reduction of the working day to eight hours for adults. - A ban on children under fourteen years working in private workshops; and, between fourteen and sixteen years, reduction of the working day from eight to six hours;
<2. Protective supervision of apprentices by the workers' organizations;
<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;
<4. Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;
[…]
<7. Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;
<8. Prohibition of all interference by employers in the administration of workers' friendly societies, provident societies, etc., which are returned to the exclusive control of the workers;
<9. Responsibility of the bosses in the matter of accidents, guaranteed by a security paid by the employer into the workers' funds, and in proportion to the number of workers employed and the danger that the industry presents;
<10. Intervention by the workers in the special regulations of the various workshops; an end to the right usurped by the bosses to impose any penalty on their workers in the form of fines or withholding of wages (decree by the Commune of 27 April 1871);

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

Now let's look at Lenin's quotes for those who pretend the Bolsheviks didn't have workers of various nationalities or refused to organize immigrant workers:

<We can demand popular election of officers, abolition of all military law, equal rights for foreign and native-born workers (a point particularly important for those imperialist states which, like Switzerland, are more and more blatantly exploiting larger numbers of foreign workers, while denying them all rights). Further, we can demand the right of every hundred, say, inhabitants of a given country to form voluntary military-training associations, with free election of instructors paid by the state, etc.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1916, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution: III

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/iii.htm

<6) Freedom of movement and occupation.

<7) Abolition of the social estates; equal rights for all citizens irrespective of sex, creed, race, or nationality.
[…]
<12) Replacement of the standing army by the universally armed people.

<12) The police and standing army to be replaced by the universally armed people; workers and other employees to receive regular wages from the capitalists for the time devoted to public service in the people’s militia.
[…]
<In the endeavour to achieve its immediate aims, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party supports every oppositional and revolutionary movement directed against the existing social and political set-up in Russia, but at the same time emphatically rejects all reformist projects involving any expansion or consolidation of the guardianship of the police and bureaucracy over the labouring masses.

<V. I. Lenin, 1917, Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm

From here, you can already see that any excuse anyone gives to increase the repressive power of the bourgeois state under any pretext must be opposed by communists. Remember that the proletarian state has the right to use its revolutionary terror to socialize the economy and punish counterrevolutionaries as it pleases, since the state is an instrument of one class to oppress another.

There are many possible actions to be taken with wage equalization, unionization of all workers, the right to radical unionization to organize outside the control of the bourgeoisie or its state, advancement of the legal right to public defense, democratization of the legal and judicial process in addition to the guaranteed public legal right to legal processes for all workers to fight in solidarity together, adding to this with the socialization of needs so that the population has the right to housing, education, health, childcare as a social responsibility of the entire society instead of being at the mercy of all of this that will remain as commodities for profit in the market.

>- Incoherent Woke crusades and calling anybody who opposes it racist, sexist, bigoted etc

This is incoherent; what liberals and social democrats do is irrelevant to communists.

>>2625736
>- Supporting terrible dictators for no reason beyond campism
>- Supporting Islamists for no reason beyond campism

Any violence by a subjugated population without even bourgeois rights under imperialist capitalism is acceptable in order to acquire economic sovereignty. You can see this with Marx accepting the separation of Ireland from England if the alternative is the continuation of the subjugation and exploitation of Irish workers, as long as it is not possible to organize English and Irish workers because of English chauvinism that deceives workers into not acquiring solidarity, then separation is an acceptable alternative so that in the future a socialist federation can be formed with more equal relations between Irish and English, but remembering that the ideal would be to organize English and Irish workers together for a socialist revolution acting together. This already helps to understand the position of defending the self-determination of nations that Lenin wrote.

Workers in the imperialist core must cut off and sabotage all funding that maintains the dominance of imperialist capitalism abroad by capitalists and their agents who profit from this type of relationship. This is non-negotiable in order to avoid declining into opportunistic social chauvinism and to show solidarity with the workers of the world. This means that the sale of arms and loans that support the collaborators of imperialist capitalism, who maintain dependency to intensify capitalist exploitation, is not tolerated. All this means that the workers' party must take this position no matter how much it is hated for it, and if a party that pretends to be leftist is in favor of reconciling with capitalist imperialism in the imperialist core under the pretext of saving "democracy" and "freedom" abroad, then this party must be destroyed for serving imperialist capitalism.

Now let's start by explaining to you the question of what capitalist imperialism is with Lenin:

<But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Now let's look at his position on the types of countries as examples at the time Lenin wrote about the self-determination of nations and capitalist imperialism:

<6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations
<In this respect, countries must be divided into three main types:

<First, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national movements came to an end long ago. Every one of these “great” nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat in England in the nineteenth century in relation to Ireland.

<Secondly, Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia. Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the workers in the oppressed nations.

<Thirdly, the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.

<V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm#fwV22P151F01

Now regarding the issue of wars and the opportunists who obscure the truth by trying to defend imperialist capitalist finance capital that maintains dependency to intensify exploitation. I'm only posting this to avoid confusion if someone is reading what I wrote trying to equate the war of a puppet of imperialist capitalism that uses chauvinism against the Russian population with the right of Palestinians to use violence against Israel to acquire economic sovereignty:

<In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war “defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the war.

<A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.

<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War and “Defence of the Fatherland"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/1.htm#v23pp64h-029

Now a text against those opportunists who equate every war as if it were "inter-imperialist" to defend US hegemony:

<Advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new era of imperialism. Does it follow from that that only imperialist wars are now possible? Any such contention would be absurd. It would reveal inability to distinguish a given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of variegated phenomena possible in a given era.

<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 2. “Our Understanding of the New Era”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/2.htm#v23pp64h-036

>- Supporting any and all antisocial sociopathy if committed by minorities and calling the victims racist.

For the sake of anti-imperialist struggle and achieving economic sovereignty, violence by various subjugated peoples against their oppressors is acceptable for their national liberation and the eventual supremacy of the proletariat; giving any power to the bourgeois state to repress is unacceptable to communists.

>- Being insanely racist and bigoted towards white people

What liberals, anarchists, and Sakaists say is irrelevant to scientific socialism.

>- Spouting clear economic nonsense that makes no sense to the average person or even Marxist, just *hits a joint*"Yeah it sounds good man".

It has nothing to do with scientific socialism, therefore your outrage is irrelevant.

>- Always being represented by obnoxious spineless succdems who can't play the game well and/or sell out (Bernie, AOC, Corbyn etc) or complete woketard freaks (blue hairs, wokies, anarkiddies, "antifa" etc)

The revolutionary socialist workers' party must be independent of the bourgeoisie for the proletariat to acquire political supremacy; therefore, your outrage at social democrats and liberals is irrelevant, although situations with intense class struggle and moments of spontaneity are good for gaining experience and spreading propaganda to the masses.

>- Massive double standards on basically all issues, and pretty much always siding with Lumpens over every one elses interests

The state is the instrument of one class to oppress another; to overthrow the bourgeois state and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is not tolerated to give power to the bourgeois state, which will be used against the working class. The proletariat has the right to use revolutionary terror in the dictatorship of the proletariat and to consolidate power against counter-revolutionaries who will be punished.

>- CHAZ/BLM

Moments of spontaneity are good for gaining experience in the class struggle, advancing recruitment, spreading scientific socialist propaganda, and emphasizing the need for discipline in preparation for the revolutionary situation.

>>2625931
Try to appeal to chuds right now is, frankly, incredibly tone death, considering how fast the pendulum has been swinging in the other direction. Anti-woke content is cringe, Charlie Kirk's death is a meme, and the MAGA movement is collapsing in on itself. We're at the point where a Muslim Demsoc got elected as the mayor of New York City. We obviously need to go further than this, but the fact that it happened at all signals a pretty big cultural shift, and to ignore that because you think hair dye is icky is a pretty stupid decision.

>>2626072
>We're at the point where a Muslim Demsoc got elected as the mayor of New York City
Because he’s an ivy league rich boy dressed in fine suits and presents white.

>>2626077
Missed the point award. A decade ago, even he would've been considered far too radical to get into a position like that. Him getting into office marks a significant shift in the Overton window of American politics, which had been locked pretty firmly into neoliberalism for decades.

>>2626091
A decade ago idpol was turned up to 11, where have you been? Your average voter in 2015 was way more radicalized than today, both sides believed the world was going to end when Trump/Hillary won

>>2608575
Have you tried talking to people?

>>2626072
That 'smile', regardless of the person beneath it, is inhuman-looking. Kirk probably got shot by a rightoid who thought they were a reptilian in disguise.

>>2625736
>And way more that people will go running to the mods and cry about if I bring up.
I'll take one guess: muh trans

Being correct is not enough. It's obvious, but it needs to be emphasized.
____

Being approachable and respected is vital to building a mass movement. That doesn't mean everyone has to be respectable to everyone, certainly not, duh. It does, however, mean there is value in building up a diversity of representation, who are respected by a diverse range of audiences.
In my line of work, I earn more respect and authority from coworkers by acting like a yuppie wanker. In fact, it even helps me agitate among those who didn't consider themselves 'left' before I started talking to them. Once people respect your opinion, it's easier to teach them.

But if I went, dressed and talking the same way to a construction worker, or a food retail worker, or a million other places, most of them wouldn't give a fuck about my political views.

Optics doesn't always mean dressing up in a suit. It means knowing your target audience and respecting them.

The only "optic" issues the left have is their addiction to appearing weak because it makes them think they are being brave for doing so. It goes hand in hand with their tendency to suck the dick of any reactionary that say vaguely left-ish things.
You are litteraly much worse at projecting power than the faustian shitlibs (who actually get what they want).
"Optic" do not matter in big gay uyghur 2026, either you empower Your Guys into action and mass support or you trap them in endledd struggle sessions over pathological radical feminism anti-racism bullshit, what is the optic of MAGA freaks, zionists and indians? None.
Apolitical discord user Tyler Robinson did more for the left than anyone in decades with his insane lone-wolf Terrormaxxing in the name of trans rights or wathever.

Reminder that Tyler Robinson reversed 2 decades of memetic humiliation of the left in one potent act of chimp out.
Did he cared about radfem bullshit? No. Did je cared about brown peoples feelings? No. Did he wanted to be seen as cool by Jimmy Dore? No. He just wanted to make some discord transhumanist happy.

>>2625909
>You seem to be implying that the solution is to go full chud and appeal to conservatives as much as possible
Isn't this what ACP is already doing anyway?

>>2626072
Don't polls show a hard swing towards the far right amongst young men? AKA the most important demographic when it comes to violence

>>2626667
So what you're saying is we need more of what others would call "adventurism". I kind of agree, we had something similar with Mangione.

>>2626072
Everything that you said is true.
>>2626077
>hes not a weak ugly poorfag with zero social skills and network so hes BAD
Eternal Faustian Shitlib victory it is
>>2626673
>Don't polls show a hard swing towards the far right amongst young men
Neurotic faillenial detected.
>>2626676
It's not about the adventurism in itself but you do in fact need to look tough, cool and have the potential for violence = vitality & collective empowerrnt. We are not in 1910 where material conditions defined most of politics, not in the post-welfare threats first world at least. Rightists understood this decades ago.
You wont achieve anything with spiteful castrating radical feminists and ACP shills sucking right wingers dick.

NAMEFAG RANKING:
https://strawpoll.com/w4nWWOoPYnA

Take 30 seconds to rank the namefags. It is important to know the opinionnof leftypolars. This is Democracy

https://strawpoll.com/w4nWWOoPYnA
.

>>2626673
if this were actually true, there'd be more evidence towards it, polls like this are believed by gullible people, like yourself

>>2626098
>Your average voter in 2015 was way more radicalized than today
Objectively false. In all forms and shapes of US politics.