/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2665521
Water is not wet actually.

>>2663962
this post is funnier than the actual strip and really that's the problem with this horrendous humorless crap

>>2665453
the anon who provided the examples (me) is not the anon who said it's an inherent quality of MLs. I do not think it is an inherent quality of MLs. I think it's an inherent quality of whoever wins any revolution and needs to solidify power afterwards.

>>2664037
Did you think those webcomics stopped, or that they were new in 2017? Webcomics are just comics in a post-newspaper world. Gary Larson is a webcomicist now. (https://www.thefarside.com/)

Side note: Why does garfield.com redirect to nick.com? Shouldn't it go to (https://www.gocomics.com/garfield)?

>>2664134
it gets better

Still relevant.

>>2664005
>namefagging as your literal reddit username
It's so over for altchans holy shit

>>2666395
>stalin got cold war era tanks
It's so over for adolfy

>>2666395
this is a literal inversion of the truth, chruchill saw the fascists as a useful stick against the communists, not the other way around. let them revise. they'll fuck up again.

>>2664083
Wait, this was the og image? Fuck.

>>2667032
he's literally justifying that they/them mugger comic lol

>>2665465
> Lasalle's balls being bigger than his cheeks
Kek

>>2664146
it's funny because your support of hamas is purely internet cheerleading, not material weapons

>>2667376
>Muh cheerleading
Kill yourself retard

>>2667408
Even Palestinian refugees themselves are critical of Hamas and only clung to them out of sheer desperation, meanwhile losers like you do all this embarrassing performative bullshit online. And when all else fails, you can always call your detractors zionists!

>>2664083
Made in 2014 and still relevant a decade later.

>>2667419
>Even Palestinian refugees themselves are critical of Hamas and only clung to them out of sheer desperation
Palestinians, like all people, have a wide range of beliefs and opinions, especially on highly contentious groups like Hamas. But by and large they support them, especially in comparison with Fatah/PA, who are seen as collaborators/traitors. You clearly don't know shit about this man, plus you're gleefully repeating ziorat arguments, are you gonna bring up the anti-hamas protestors next? The only one who's being performative here is you. As if your detached indifference to the people resisting genocidal racists who imprison and massacre them for over 70 years, makes you better than anyone else. Actually kill yourself you colossal faggot retard
>you can always call your detractors zionists!
Denounce the opponents of zionism and get called a zionist. Shocker!

>Made in 2014 and still relevant a decade later.
If you've got some kind of issue with killing ziorats sure. Otherwise it looks like filth

>>2667422
PFLP are the predominant Marxist Leninist organization in Gaza. Unless you have some other group that we should look at, please shut up and kill yourself

>>2667434
الجبهة الشعبية اضحوكة لا علاقة لها بالصراع الطبقي او الشيوعية منذ نشؤها كحركة قومية مبنية على التعاون الطبقي الى تحولها الى بيدق بيد الاسلاميين والامبرياليين مؤخراً وهو تطور لا مهرب منه لهكذا نزعة انتهازية

حتى الحركات الشيوعية الحقيقية في العالم العربي ليس لها اتصال بهم انما تتعاون مع النقابات المستقلة في فلسطين لغاية التنظيم المشترك

>>2667435
>PFLP are the predominant Marxist Leninist organization in Gaza. Unless you have some other group that we should look at, please shut up and kill yourself
You saying "nuh uh" doesn't change this faggot

>>2667439
>الجبهة الشعبية الليبراليين الوحيدين في غزة
اتفق

>>2667444
>Nuh Uh x2
>Still can't name another group
>Thus will shut up and kill himself
I accept your concession

>>2667434
>especially in comparison with Fatah/PA, who are seen as collaborators/traitors.
Calling them traitors would be ceeding to nationalism. I just call them socdems.
>As if your detached indifference to the people resisting genocidal racists who imprison and massacre them for over 70 years
Martyr fetishism, classic "western leftism" as multipolaroids would say, no? Your moralism prevents you of makign useful analysis. You don't learn. It was "national liberation of opressed peoples" that created Israel. Seems like class colaboration always ends up with ruthless capitalist states, I wonder why?

>>2667454
>Calling them traitors would be ceeding to nationalism. I just call them socdems.
I didn't call them anything, I described how the palestinians generally see them. I don't care what you performatively call them, you are a mental midget

>Martyr fetishism, classic "western leftism" as multipolaroids would say, no? Your moralism prevents you of makign useful analysis
No, I simply called out your projection with regards to being performative. Martyrdom fetishism has nothing to do with it, but nice buzzword cope lol.

>It was "national liberation of opressed peoples" that created Israel
Yeah in somebody else's country retard, with people already living there, as a colonialist project developed by europeans lmao, if the palestinian cause was about forming an ethnostate in Sudan, you might have a point, but as it stand you just seem like a retard. But I'm glad you brought this up because it neatly gets to the crux of this "conversation", your equivocation of the people living under apartheid, occupation and colonialism and the people enacting that on them. Basically you are saying "Neither palestine nor Israel", which just means "I'm pro Israel", if you can't see why it means that, you are actually severely retarded and there's no point continuing this conversation.


>Seems like class colaboration always ends up with ruthless capitalist states, I wonder why?
In this case it hasn't led to any state tho, since the palestinians lack one. Do you have anything other than meme arguments you read on reddit? Are you capable of forming coherent thoughts on your own?

>>2666428
>pic 3
let dude cook. that's a good method

>>2667462
>Yeah in somebody else's country retard
Sorry ultra, natioal liberation is non-negotiable

>>2667765
>>2667792
>No more arguments
I accept your surrender, now learn your lesson and don't go around condemning hamas any further

>>2668862
I critically supported hamas when they blew up israelis, there's no reason to support them now

>>2667462
>Yeah in somebody else's country
<implying it would be good if it was in "their own country"
what did the great national liberation of yugoslavia or czechoslovakia lead to? what did the amazing national liberation of azeris lead to? at best a corrupt union, at worst genocidal maniacs who have nationalist chauvinism injected in them who use this to massacre and annihilate those who are not of their preferred ethnic group

>>2668864
A bit wishy washy of you anon. There is a ceasefire in place. Which Israel can break with impunity, but hamas cannot.

>>2668867
It's not universally good or bad anon jesus, If national liberation is based in a colonized or subjegated people, frees them from their economic subjegation by foreign powers then the outcome is a liberated people with some amount of sovereignty, that's preferable over them being colonial subjects/slaves/untermensch. If it's about ethonationalist seperatism, it's not good. The point being that doing national liberation in somebody else's country, claiming it for yourself cannot possibly lead to any positive/progressive outcome. That's not national liberation positive or negative, it's just colonialism, it is premised in expulsion and racial supremacy, rather than a desire to be free from subjegation in your own home.

>>2668879
>It's not universally good or bad anon jesus
point is that it's worshipped despite the fact all it does is create the conditions for an ethnostate or a rapidly increasing genocidal population
>If national liberation is based in a colonized or subjegated people, frees them from their economic subjegation by foreign powers then the outcome is a liberated people with some amount of sovereignty
they are not liberated if they are still under capitalism, or the "AES" as you call it, neither are they freed, just put under looser chains, and this is not a guarantee either, as you should know
>The point being that doing national liberation in somebody else's country, claiming it for yourself cannot possibly lead to any positive/progressive outcome
no different to all of what i mentioned, all of those were done by that population for their own purposes, and it either broke down (czechoslovakia) or led to a genocidal series of wars (yugoslavia and azerbaijan), nothing else can realistically be expected, even in the best examples of it (algeria, indonesia, india, DR congo) they either lead to a civil war, a genocidal dictatorship, or a normal capitalist state, likewise national liberation is not necessary in the modern era

>>2668869
You're right, countries do not exist. Countries are kayfabian patsies.

>>2668882
Nations are abstractions retard, there is nothing inherently tieing you to a piece of land aside from muh feelingz and a worthless paper by an org founded a century ago that says so.

>>2664726
>>2664775
I do more IRL work than you know, but sure. Keep coping. You have no argument.

>>2668887
>There is nothing inherently tieing you to a piece of land aside from muh feelingz
yes, im sorry that being attached to a land where everyone i know and love lives, where i lost my virginity, where i went to school, etc etc, is just stupid "muh feelingz". And the libtards who can't even imagine being attached to their land and their local community is also the ones signalling about how much they love the abstract "fellow workers" who they have never meet or talk with

>>2668880
>point is that it's worshipped
It's not
>all it does is create the conditions for an ethnostate or a rapidly increasing genocidal population
It doesn't, the political conditions that predominantly give rise to ethnostates and genocide are obviously found in colonialism and imperialism, not national liberation against those things
>they are not liberated if they are still under capitalism, or the "AES" as you call it, neither are they freed, just put under looser chains,
Yeah that's what I said lol, it's progressive compared to what came before. They're not totally free from all oppression and capitalism and such, but they are freer than they were before, their chains loosened

>no different to all of what i mentioned, all of those were done by that population for their own purposes, and it either broke down (czechoslovakia) or led to a genocidal series of wars (yugoslavia and azerbaijan)
It is different, as those people already lived there and they didn't need to go colonize some other place they hadn't lived in for centuries/millennia. Regardless Id hardly call what happened in those cases to be national liberation, liberation from who? Themselves? I guess you could say the russians in the case of Azerbaijan, maybe the Serbs in YS? Even then it hardly applies and seems to me to just be an appropriation of the relatively positively viewed natlib movements of the past

>nothing else can realistically be expected, even in the best examples of it (algeria, indonesia, india, DR congo) they either lead to a civil war, a genocidal dictatorship, or a normal capitalist state, likewise national liberation is not necessary in the modern era
The same arguments could be made for almost all revolutionary movements/moments, including largely socialist/marxist ones. Success is never a guaranteed, but the need for such changes can be estimated by their impact on/relation towards the global structure of imperialism.

>>2668897
> the political conditions that predominantly give rise to ethnostates and genocide are obviously found in colonialism and imperialism, not national liberation against those things
this is patently false tbh. One can see the tutsi genocide in Rwanda emerging specifically through radicalized left wing section of hutu intelligentsia who associated tutsis with both the feudal aristocracy of the past and the comprador nobility of latter times, basically giving blank check to ethnicity-based cleansing framed through class struggle. You can see this in India too, incident of sectarian calcification flared up precisely as colonial power weakened, the genocides in Armenia and Balkans (the former against Christians and the latter against Muslims) happened at the heel of national liberation movements against the Ottomans. This is because liberation against colonialism isn't just dismantlement of colonial subjectivity but its replacement with other forms of politicized subjectivity; as in once a nation is liberated from colonial domination they need to define an identity for themselves, which often is directed against other nearby groups whose inclusion into the political body is seen as an artificial project by the colonial empire

>>2668899
for example, let us took at national liberation in India. Why should a hindutva nationalist who supported the national liberation be compelled to accept an inclusive national identity that included Muslims and Christians? He could as well say that these people are foreigners and the only reason why they are included in the idea of India to begin with is because the British made it that way, hence equating secularism with colonial mentality that denied an organic national belonging. This is not a made up hypothetical, this is an actual argument pushed up by people like J Sai Deepak

>>2668899
>>2668901
Fair enough, I was more thinking about the conditions that set all these things up in the first place. But you are correct

>>2668897
>liberation from who? Themselves?
czechoslovaks from austrians, later the nazis, yugoslavs from the ottomans and austrians, azeris from russians
>It doesn't, the political conditions that predominantly give rise to ethnostates and genocide are obviously found in colonialism and imperialism, not national liberation against those things
here's the problem with this line of thinking, if that was actually true then the number of genocides after the national liberation should be lower, obviously you can see yugoslavia as an example, yugoslavia did not become a bastion of liberation for south slavs, but ostensibly a form of serbian chauvinism, this was true even after the KPJ became the leaders of the state, however there were now two yugoslavisms, one that was serbian chuavinist in nature, and now one that valued all nations, all this did was charge the population with nationalist thoughts, and when this government had done dwindled in strength, the nationalism merely became more secessionist, leading to the horrific yugoslav wars of the 90s, in algeria despite the nearly 70 year absence of french colonial rule, it speaks french more than it ever did as a colony, india now has more hindu chauvinism than it did as a colony, chauvinism that is creating genocidal conditions
>Yeah that's what I said lol, it's progressive compared to what came before. They're not totally free from all oppression and capitalism and such, but they are freer than they were before, their chains loosened
the point is that looser chains is not actual progress, nor is it simply "progressive" for this, it is nominally an improvement, but progress is when this is rid of, not simply loosened
>The same arguments could be made for almost all revolutionary movements/moments, including largely socialist/marxist ones. Success is never a guaranteed, but the need for such changes can be estimated by their impact on/relation towards the global structure of imperialism.
a problem i noted here is that imperialism hasn't meaningfully weakened after the national liberations of the 20th century, if anything it's gotten stronger, in the eyes of much of the population there, marxism is dead and has been for 30 years, nationalist developmentalism with the formations of new blocs are the future
>>2668899
exactly the sort of point i was making, simply attributing "colonialism" as the point of origin is worse than nothing, it rids you of understanding the structures that came after, rather than before, in myanmar for example, is it the result of a foreign colonization that the country is split amongst ultranationalist ethnic separatist lines vs an ultranationalist, hypermilitarist side? at best only partly in the case of the tatmadaw, as they had risen out of the japanese collaborationist army, but the collaborationists in myanmar joined sides with the japanese specifically against british colonialism

>>2668914
the problem with this line of thinking is that it imagines colonialism as being the root cause of these emotions rather than many of them emerging from them displacing or removing the colonial influences

>>2668950
>czechoslovaks from austrians, later the nazis, yugoslavs from the ottomans and austrians
Ok, so would you say those liberations were a negative or positive development? Especially with regards to the nazis and austrians I would say it's the latter, the ottomans being a more complicated can of worms

>here's the problem with this line of thinking, if that was actually true then the number of genocides after the national liberation should be lower, obviously you can see yugoslavia as an example, yugoslavia did not become a bastion of liberation for south slavs, but ostensibly a form of serbian chauvinism, this was true even after the KPJ became the leaders of the state, however there were now two yugoslavisms, one that was serbian chuavinist in nature, and now one that valued all nations, all this did was charge the population with nationalist thoughts, and when this government had done dwindled in strength, the nationalism merely became more secessionist, leading to the horrific yugoslav wars of the 90s, in algeria despite the nearly 70 year absence of french colonial rule, it speaks french more than it ever did as a colony, india now has more hindu chauvinism than it did as a colony, chauvinism that is creating genocidal conditions
That's fair, I agree and again I don't think "national liberation" is inherently progressive, it is dependent on the context in which it takes place. To bring it back to Gaza, until national liberation takes place, no economic or social progression can be achieved at all, they will simply remain effective prisoners of the israelis on the basis of their race or be exterminated entirely.
>the point is that looser chains is not actual progress, nor is it simply "progressive" for this, it is nominally an improvement, but progress is when this is rid of, not simply loosened
This is a bit semantics imo, the difference between viewing progression as a process towards and an arrival at a destination. Tight>looser>loose or tight > loose
>a problem i noted here is that imperialism hasn't meaningfully weakened after the national liberations of the 20th century, if anything it's gotten stronger, in the eyes of much of the population there, marxism is dead and has been for 30 years, nationalist developmentalism with the formations of new blocs are the future
I mean, I think that the formation of those blocks does weaken imperialism and that the view of marxism being dead is something that happened regardless of the successes and failures of particular natlib struggles. Most prominently due to the fall of the soviet union, I mean you can get into how that was actually natlib as well, but imo it would be a bit disingenuous

>>2668951
>the problem with this line of thinking is that it imagines colonialism as being the root cause of these emotions rather than many of them emerging from them displacing or removing the colonial influences
So you think them remaining colonies would be better or? What's the implication here? Imo yes, the colonialism is what predisposes however the particular tensions of the place play out, because that is the framework under which they develop. Even in your own argument, they emerge as a result of the process of removing colonial influence, which could only happen as a direct result of colonialism itself. Again, this line of argument makes it seem like you actually think remaining a colonial subject is the progressive thing.

>>2669021
>So you think them remaining colonies would be better or?
it really depends on the governance and how they did it, you don't really see things like that in countries like vietnam or kenya, but you do in most other examples (just for your information the difference is that kenya mostly became independent mostly without armed struggle, and vietnam mostly violently)
>>2669021
>itself. Again, this line of argument makes it seem like you actually think remaining a colonial subject is the progressive thing
only if you think that's the argument rather than "national liberation is more often reactionary than it is a progressive movement, and is fetishized without understanding the full gravity of it"
>Ok, so would you say those liberations were a negative or positive development? Especially with regards to the nazis and austrians I would say it's the latter, the ottomans being a more complicated can of worms
i wouldn't define either as particularly positive developments, the iron was hot to abolish the individual reactionary constructs of "czech" or "slovak", "serbian" or "croatian", which would be progressive, neither happened, i'll also say now that the ottomans were decidedly the worse force compared to the austrians, not a mixed bag, as the austrians had allowed limited forms of parliamentary representation, the ottomans ruled by military rule although were better than other alternatives
>That's fair, I agree and again I don't think "national liberation" is inherently progressive, it is dependent on the context in which it takes place. To bring it back to Gaza, until national liberation takes place, no economic or social progression can be achieved at all, they will simply remain effective prisoners of the israelis on the basis of their race or be exterminated entirely.
this is about the only condition in which national liberation could be defended in, as it is the basis of actually becoming something, although for the most part it's fantasy given utter annihilation and deportation seems more likely
>I mean, I think that the formation of those blocks does weaken imperialism and that the view of marxism being dead is something that happened regardless of the successes and failures of particular natlib struggles. Most prominently due to the fall of the soviet union, I mean you can get into how that was actually natlib as well, but imo it would be a bit disingenuous
the point is sort of that national liberation struggles haven't really lead to much class struggle rather than simple nationalist developmentalism

>>2669035
>it really depends on the governance and how they did it
>national liberation is more often reactionary than it is a progressive movement, and is fetishized without understanding the full gravity of it
Idk anon, this does sound like you prefer these movements didn't happen in the majority. That it was a step backwards, ie reactionary and that thus the progressive thing would have been to remain colonial subjects. Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just indifference.

>this is about the only condition in which national liberation could be defended in, as it is the basis of actually becoming something,
It's really not too dissimilar to other colonial projects. Just worse in a lot of ways and lasting longer into the present. Imo, without the decolonial and national liberation movements that happened, we'd be seeing a lot more of what is happening in Palestine across the world.

>although for the most part it's fantasy given utter annihilation and deportation seems more likely
Unfortunately so. Still, the future is not set and maximalist positions should be taken to prevent this, exclaiming support for organizations like hamas is the least of it. Especially when considering the predominant view of such organizations in the imperial core


>the point is sort of that national liberation struggles haven't really lead to much class struggle rather than simple nationalist developmentalism
Imo that's part of the class struggle, which is a tremendously slow and protracted process

>>2669062
>Idk anon, this does sound like you prefer these movements didn't happen in the majority. That it was a step backwards, ie reactionary and that thus the progressive thing would have been to remain colonial subjects. Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just indifference.
i can see how you'd get that from it, it's just not what i'm saying whatsoever, i suggest you keep that benefit of the doubt
>It's really not too dissimilar to other colonial projects. Just worse in a lot of ways and lasting longer into the present. Imo, without the decolonial and national liberation movements that happened, we'd be seeing a lot more of what is happening in Palestine across the world.
partially true, most other nations were gaining consciousness that they didn't need national liberation first, i mean an obvious example would be the bangladeshis, but in the case of palestine it happened precisely because there wasn't really a bourgeois nationalist movement strong enough in the arab world at that point, and there wasn't really a palestinian identity in the modern sense, it only really emerged after 1948 where as before it was an imposed identity from the british, and then it became the identity they had adopted as a result of the israeli colonization, though obviously it isn't really exceptional in the broader sense, it is exceptional in the modern sense
>Unfortunately so. Still, the future is not set and maximalist positions should be taken to prevent this, exclaiming support for organizations like hamas is the least of it. Especially when considering the predominant view of such organizations in the imperial core
i would say a problem with this is that position hasn't really led to much good either, hence why alternative positions have been taken on this issue
>Imo that's part of the class struggle, which is a tremendously slow and protracted process
it's not really that slow, protracted certainly, the whole problem (and part of the argument i'm making) is that these don't really stop capitalism's natural development and decelerate the global class struggle, as the stability of the world system of capitalism has only really increased since the 1960s rather than decelerate as was the expectation of the time, we have to take a new perspective is what i'm saying, not just relying on the positions of long dead men and women

>>2669068
>i would say a problem with this is that position hasn't really led to much good either, hence why alternative positions have been taken on this issue
Anon, idk what you're thinking of, but the maximalist position on this issue is not exactly what i'd call a commonly held one. Only recently has any sort of hard line emerged at a larger scale and even then it's far from normalized enough to effect anything substantially.

>it's not really that slow, protracted certainly, the whole problem (and part of the argument i'm making) is that these don't really stop capitalism's natural development and decelerate the global class struggle, as the stability of the world system of capitalism has only really increased since the 1960s rather than decelerate as was the expectation of the time,
I understand what you're saying, but we're getting into very subjective territory here. On the one hand economic development progresses, imperialism is strengthened, on the other hand internal stability is decreasing, trust and understanding in liberal institutions is waning, old structures are losing their edge. I find it hard to blame the existence and particular successes and failures of natlib struggles for the stability of the capitalist system. You might say they didn't do anything to prevent it or be outright facilitating it, but that's not a known factor and similar claims could be made about basically everything. You play with the cards you're dealt and sometimes, in our case basically always, you're dealt a bad hand.
>we have to take a new perspective is what i'm saying, not just relying on the positions of long dead men and women
Such as?