/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Abstract politics for abstract people with no plan and no personal qualm with those power structures.

>>2676139
Alas, this is the fatal flaw of any class-conscious political philosophy: the self-fulfilling prophecy of inaction. Those who believe in these ideas, bearing witness to elite atrocity and its lack of consequence, will almost invariably lapse into a fatalistic outlook. They will conclude that failure is an inevitability due to said power structures. In doing so, they adopt two mutually contradicting axioms: that action must be taken, and that action is fruitless. Thus, movements remain small, easily defeated and susceptible to divide-and-conquer tactics. The tragedy is that, in a roundabout way, they are not wrong.

just go make prolepol.org already if you think there's no such thing. It's getting tiresome to see this same thread made 20 times.

>>2676236
Obviously, when one speaks of the left-right spectrum, there is no intent to imply an equivalence between communist thought and that which serves upper class interests. The issue is, what is considered "far left" and "far right" thought is almost equally fundamentally opposed to moderate thought on what are supposedly the same sides. They want to abolish our shackles of hierarchy and the state, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum skeleton. The disagreement is only over what happens next. Moderates on "both sides" are the shackles. It is an entirely separate paradigm.

>>2676292
moderates are the most violent of all, it's just that they are able to make their violence the most quiet and normal

>>2676375
It's more that moderates cause violence by passive docility. Extremists are acutely violent, but their end goals are for greater peace than presently exists. That being said, "right-aligned" revolutionaries are still your enemy because, more often than not, they continue believing divisive drivel taught to them by the elites about race and sexuality.

>>2676128
>There are only those that seek to perpetuate oppressive power structures, and those that seek to dismantle them.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm

Theses:

1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.

2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.

Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.

{
Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1]

Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
}

3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.

Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.

Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.

Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.

5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).

– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

>>2676128
>oppressive power structures
pomo liberal drivel

>>2676236
>pic
>bottom
Communists ( A movement, the real movement against the present state of things)
Capitalists (the bourgeois, a class partaking in a mode of production)
Fascists (defenders of the capitalist mode of production)

So why are they all on the same line? Because the movement has been overrun with liberals who believe themselves to be communists. The same thing happened to anarchism, which had an entirely different role, having been a movement of the declassed in some premise against class now almost wholly of petite-bourgeois and bourgeois liberals fighting for the status quo, driven by false consciousness that they are against the status quo.

>>2676128
Wow, you're so original! No one has ever said this before! Bravo, OP.
Anyway, post gay furry porn in this thread.

>>2676128
Based
>>2676236
You are a retarded fucking liberal

>>2676463
Because he is stupid, just your average falsifier thinking communism is but one option more in the ideology market.

>>2676128
the left and the right exist dumbass, theyre from the french revolution and represent two opposing sections of bourgeois legislation, and because communism seeks to transcend bourgeois society, it cant be said to be either left or right, but that doesnt mean they dont exist

>>2676139
>>2676230
communism isnt a philosophy nor an ideology, try again

>all this nonsense about "le doing nothing" over basic ass marxism about communism not concerning itself with bourgeois politics
take ur fucking meds

>>2676236
>unironically believing ideology can be placed on a scale
incredible that polsci retards still get taken seriously LMAO

>>2676834
>no argument except bringing up the name of some niche imageboard
radlibs not sending their strongest i see

>>2676847
>transcend
idealist term. read critique of the gotha programme. communism emerges from capitalist society. it is not some idealist transcendence of everything that came before.



<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875

>>2676852
>ur a fucking radlib for calling communism left wing on leftypol.org which i visit every heckin day

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/e.htm#left-wing

<Left/Right is the basic polarity of political temperament, the axis of political antagonism which manifests itself across all shades of politics, all epochs and social movements. Broadly speaking, the left-wing expresses that social force which is the most marginalised by, and has the least commitment to, the status quo and power relations of the existing society, and it responds to this position by being reformist or revolutionary. Meanwhile, the right-wing is by and large committed to reinforcement of, or at least adaptation to, the status quo and its power relations by being conservative or reactionary.

From marxists.org. keep pretending to be retarded. and see you tomorrow on leftypol.org when you make this stupid semantics thread again.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/e.htm#left-wing

Marxist politics and the left:

>Marxists unequivocally identify themselves with oppressed people who take up positions on the extreme left in social movements. Marx & Engels supported the Paris Commune, but criticised it for not being thorough enough – since the communards did not smash the state apparatus, tens of thousands were massacred by the French state. The Bolsheviks supported the Petrograd workers who tried to stage a premature revolution in July 1917, and Luxemburg and Liebknecht supported the 1919 German Revolution, even though it too was premature. The object of such support is both to try to move society forward through revolution and to temper the left-wing spontaneity with a scientific consciousness. During the 1920s and onwards, Trotsky criticised the Soviet Union in some cases for being too far left (e.g. forced collectivisation) and in most cases, particularly after 1933, for being too far right (e.g. popular front policies).

>Marxism stands on the left-wing of politics in a revolutionary way. Nevertheless, the spontaneity of a mass movement is one thing, and political leadership is another. Marxist political theory had its origins in both a critique of capitalism and the left. “Young” Hegelians, “True Socialists” and Utopian socialists, the left-wing of politics of the 1840s – See The German Ideology); Lenin’s last major work, addressed to the supporters of the Russian Revolution in the West, was entitled “left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder - a critique of the “left-ism” of those who wanted to imitate the Russian Revolution, without paying attention to the specific conditions of their own country. Marxism is scientific socialism; it is not a spontaneous politics. Consequently, while giving voice to the most left-wing forces in society, Marxists have a mind to what basis exists for this or that policy, the reality of the political terrain, and take a critical attitude to left-wing politics. Political leadership is never a question of looking for the most left-wing position on any given problem, but rather, of finding that policy which most strengthens and builds the self-confidence, unity and self-consciousness of the working class as a whole. In capitalist society this invariably involves a struggle with spontaneous left-wing consciousness.

>All political parties invariably find their youth, oftentimes side by side with minorities and so many other commonly disenfranchised groups, occupying the left-wing of the party, and this is generally true of workers’ and communist organisations as well. Marxists seek to foster and educate the left-wing to develop a more sober and scientific view of the political terrain, to learn to understand the motivation of other social layers and how to win battles, rather than just fighting valiantly. On the other hand, the trade unionists typically form the right-wing of workers’ parties, and obviously are valued nonetheless for their concern for a sober assessment of the balance of forces before battle is joined.

>In this way, in whatever political organisation you look to, there is a left and a right wing – and to trample that difference is a blow to democracy. Thus, we can see the radical and progressive step that capitalism took in its foundation: the right and left have been institutionalised – the left typically supports the small buisness owner (and to some extent unions) because they are the most marginalised by big buisness, while the right supports big buisness and some small buisnesses. Neither the big nor small buisness can exist without the other, so having advocates of both political wings in the government is key to the democractic and efficient functioning of society. This division in government is the most basic recognition and acceptance of the reality of the political terrain in any society. When Stalinism attempted to crush all political opposition in the Soviet Union, the party itself had to go from left to right in a zigzag of policy moves that became more and more dictatorial and destructive.

>While Marxism at present stands on the extreme left wing as advocates (in the words of the Communist Manifesto) of the “overthrow of all existing social conditions,” Marxism frequently warns against being too far left – you can’t just take to the streets and begin fighting a revolution when the conditions are not ready, when the working class is not in the streets with you! Even in Socialist society Marxism warns against being too far left – you can’t just (as Anarchists want) go directly into classless society. Cuba, for example, tried to completely do away with money in the first years of the revolution, in a move that was far left. Most Marxists disagreed with this policy, as it turns out correctly, as it outstripped material reality: society was no where near advanced enough to take that bold step forward. Thus, Marxism encourages a thoroughly scientific element in any political position. In times of political retreat, it is not simple; spontaneous left-wing politics may lack a basis in society at large, and pursuit of a left-wing policy for which there is no basis is unwise and irresponsible, while in periods of social upsurge, communists place themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with the left-wing and seek to bring together all the left in their common interests.

>>2676860
This was written by trots

>>2676857
>calling others idealist and treating left/right as some transhistorical phenomenon
bruh lmaooooo this post is PEAK midwit

you dont even understand your own quotemines LOL apparently "but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society" doesnt mean transcending aka moving past capitalism

i forgot how fucking embarrassing this pseud shithole can be lol

>>2676860
you are presenting literally no argument at all just posting some fucking "glossary of terms" thats just definitions with zero actual content??????? lmfao

>Left/Right is the basic polarity of political temperament
lol and im the idealist???? learn what idealism even means before you use those words kid

>In this way, in whatever political organisation you look to, there is a left and a right wing – and to trample that difference is a blow to democracy. Thus, we can see the radical and progressive step that capitalism took in its foundation: the right and left have been institutionalised – the left typically supports the small buisness owner (and to some extent unions) because they are the most marginalised by big buisness
LMFAO did you EVEN READ the slop you posted holy fuck ahahahaha

>Marxism at present stands on the extreme left wing as advocates (in the words of the Communist Manifesto) of the “overthrow of all existing social conditions,”
>Marxism frequently warns against being too far left
this is pure fucking nonsense, doesnt even present any analysis, literally just arriving at conclusions with zero reasoning

>Marxists unequivocally identify themselves with oppressed people who take up positions on the extreme left in social movements
i simply have no words bruh communism is about the proletariat not about oppression in the abstract (once again, THIS is textbook fucking idealism)

>>2676128
Communists shouldn't have been lumped with the left. Anyone who reads history can see this. Ever since the French Revolution the Left has done nothing but purge/backstab communists and those with more radical views who wanted to end exploitation based on private property rather than settling for a republican regime.

>>2676870
yeah communists explicitly reject class collaboration yet apparently im supposed to believe communism is part of an umbrella term that includes people from multiple classes?? get outta here

>>2676847
I am OP. That's basically what I said, the difference is pedantic. It exists, but not as it is commonly perceived. It is merely a useful rhetorical device to express the idea in simple terms as non-reality.
>>2676852
I wrote the 2nd post you quoted here. Communism is a state of affairs, yes. But I'm actually not talking only about communism. I am talking more generally about anyone who thinks the constructs of rigid social stratification and state are oppressive, regardless of individual reasons or concerns. By "philosophy" or "ideology" I am referring to people whose aim is to establish that state of affairs and/or think it inevitable. Again, the difference is pedantic.

Also, why is it a bad thing to criticize the lack of action being taken?
>"Then why aren't you taking action?"
That doesn't matter, because as is, virtually nobody is doing anything. If people are not allowed to point out the lack of action and call for more unless they're one of the 0.0001% of people in a communist or anarchist club, then more action will never come.

>>2676891
oppressive and must be dismantled in the long run*

>>2676852
>pointing out that OP is babbling in the abstract is 'philosophy' or 'ideology'
If OP was talking about marxism and not "freedom" o algo I'd not have said such.

>>2676902
The person said it themselves, Marxism is concerned with workers first and foremost, seeing that as the center of everything. But there are other forms of "I fucking hate the state" besides the exact particulars and ideas of Marxism, and that is what I would argue the actual spectrum is. That spectrum is, " I fucking hate the state ruling over *us*" on the "left", and "I fucking hate the state ruling over *me*" on the "right."

>>2676834
Stupid fucking pseud

>>2676914
The workers are endlessly divided and able to be bribed, they aren’t revolutionary and never will be

left/center/right is just a spatial metaphor for revolutionary/reformist/reactionary and anyone who acts otherwise is pretending to be stupid.
>no it's about hecking transcending da boojwah political spectrum.
yeah by going further left. whatever political force constitutes the revolutionary movement to abolish the present state of things is the furthest left.

>>2676918
see you tomorrow on leftypol.org comrade

>>2676914
>That spectrum is, " I fucking hate the state ruling over *us*" on the "left", and "I fucking hate the state ruling over *me*" on the "right."
That's a pretty workable framing. I'm writing that on a sticky note.

>>2677125
National socialists were socialists too, comrade

>>2677124
>>2677125
look at this level of argumentation bruh

>further left
leftoidism and rightoidism arent quantifiable retard, literal fucking vibes and aura bullshit

>>2676919
can't be bribed if there is a collapse of the government,which is what happenned in Russia and China
They had to choose (inb4 voluntarism/free will) which flavor of militia or gangster to follow if they don't want to starve,that simple

>>2677140
>look at this level of argumentation bruh

look at this not even an argument bruh 🤣🤣🤣