[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1770393194445.png (474.44 KB, 608x453, ClipboardImage.png)

 

At the upcoming Amerimutt elections, you need to vote republican.
Liberal democracy promotes the lie that it can resolve its own issues by reforms, all the discontempt with Trump and all of his crimes against humanity will be swept away and MEMORYHOLED the moment amerimutts rush to the voting polls to elect a democrat. What America needs is not reforms, it needs to become so bad and vile at this point that it collapses into a civil war. America can only go through its problems by continuing with problems, rather than trying to resolve them by prolonging the life of its bourgeois democracy in damage control.
>Accelerationist retard
Accelerationism works, your moronic liberal damage control is what prolongs bourgeois illusions of "freedom". It is almost obviou americans will not be having a civil war in spite of knowing their government is ran by pedophiles and will simply protest until the next election, what leftists and broader anti-systematic forces need to realize is that they need to continue the crisis brought by Trump in order to bring about the conditions for a sufficient revolt.

Vote Republican as ridiculous as it sounds.

If you vote for democrat you will end up with a government that covers up all the previous systematic issues, continues the same foreign policy and puts to sleep the general public. Democrats will only stabilize America to continue its pedophilic imperialist existence, whereas Republicans will continue to degenerate it until it becomes unbareable and collapses.

YOU DON'T NEED ILLUSIONARY DEMOCRACY, YOU NEED REAL FASCISM FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THE PROBLEM AND CONFRONT IT WITH WAR.
A vote for republicans is a vote towards class war - confronting the real face of the enemy.

Inb4
>FED! CIA!
If I am a fed, I am the most revolutionary fed to have ever lived. Fuck your candy ass libtardation, man up and face the pain.

What's wrong with being a mutt doe?

>>2682469
Nothing its just an expression to dehumanize americans here, its a constructive insult.

>>2682474
not sufficiently aryan americans at least

I think we all knew this for a while.
Trump getting elected has been the best thing for organizing. Most of my local orgs have exponentially grown as a result of the Trump Bump.

File: 1770919961661-0.png (84.69 KB, 800x450, la_raza_cosmica.png)

File: 1770919961661-1.png (378.17 KB, 1000x720, lol u racemix.png)

>>2682474
>constructive
nah you purebread hasbsurg bitch, total mutt victory. viva la raza cosmica.

>>2682468
>YOU NEED REAL FASCISM FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THE PROBLEM AND CONFRONT IT WITH WAR.
under "real fascism" the people who see the problem get killed thats the problem with this tactic, then those who didnt get killed (opportunists) raise the next generations of leftoids

>>2682469
its a 4chan term

>>2689764
Why does the white guy in the middle look really unhealthy? Looks like an engineer from Prometheus.

>>2689774
OP literally admits to being a fed and says "face the pain" lmao
this is just the weakest fascist propaganda

>>2690175>>2682468

Yeah this infamously worked in the past 🙄

I’m not voting period, believer in the system chud. I know how this ends.

>>2682468
>>2721578
The Marxist position for bourgeois elections is not abstentionism nor voting for bourgeois parties that serve the domination of capitalist imperialism, but rather into organizing a distinct revolutionary party of the working class for proletarian class domination that is independent of the bourgeoisie. Using the election to count forces and demonstrate its program to the masses, even if its candidates have no chance of winning. Voting for communist candidates is a duty if you call yourself a communist, to develop experience in the class struggle and spread propaganda to the masses.

Now let's begin with three quotes from Marx and Engels on how communists should act in a bourgeois democratic election:

<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1850, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.

<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken

ttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm

<Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it, and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.

<We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.

<The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the exiting state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognise the prevailing order.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Apropos Of Working-Class Political Action".

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/21.htm

Lenin also agrees with me if you read the text “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder in the section written "Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?", so I will leave the link to the page if you want to read it:

<Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

<It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German “Left” Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:

<“. . . All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected. . . .”

<This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?

<Parliamentarianism has become “historically obsolete”. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be “historically obsolete” many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is “historically obsolete” from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.

<Is parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”? That is quite a different matter. If that were true, the position of the “Lefts” would be a strong one. But it has to be proved by a most searching analysis, and the “Lefts” do not even know how to approach the matter. In the “Theses on Parliamentarianism”, published in the Bulletin of the Provisional Bureau in Amsterdam of the Communist International No. 1, February 1920, and obviously expressing the Dutch-Left or Left-Dutch strivings, the analysis, as we shall see, is also hopelessly poor.

<In the first place, contrary to the opinion of such outstanding political leaders as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, the German “Lefts”, as we know, considered parliamentarianism “politically obsolete” even in January 1919. We know that the “Lefts” were mistaken. This fact alone utterly destroys, at a single stroke, the proposition that parliamentarianism is “politically obsolete”. It is for the “Lefts” to prove why their error, indisputable at that time, is no longer an error. They do not and cannot produce even a shred of proof. A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification—that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses. By failing to fulfil this duty and give the utmost attention and consideration to the study of their patent error, the “Lefts” in Germany (and in Holland) have proved that they are not a party of a class, but a circle, not a party of the masses, but a group of intellectualists and of a few workers who ape the worst features of intellectualism.

<Second, in the same pamphlet of the Frankfurt group of “Lefts”, which we have already cited in detail, we read:

<“. . . The millions of workers who still follow the policy of the Centre [the Catholic ‘Centre’ Party] are counter-revolutionary. The rural proletarians provide the legions of counter-revolutionary troops.” (Page 3 of the pamphlet.)

<Everything goes to show that this statement is far too sweeping and exaggerated. But the basic fact set forth here is incontrovertible, and its acknowledgment by the “Lefts” is particularly clear evidence of their mistake. How can one say that “parliamentarianism is politically obsolete”, when “millions” and “legions” of proletarians are not only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright “counter-revolutionary”!? It is obvious that parliamentarianism in Germany is not yet politically obsolete. It is obvious that the “Lefts” in Germany have mistaken their desire, their politico-ideological attitude, for objective reality. That is a most dangerous mistake for revolutionaries to make. In Russia—where, over a particularly long period and in particularly varied forms, the most brutal and savage yoke of tsarism produced revolutionaries of diverse shades, revolutionaries who displayed amazing devotion, enthusiasm, heroism and will power—in Russia we have observed this mistake of the revolutionaries at very close quarters; we have studied it very attentively and have a first-hand knowledge of it; that is why we can also see it especially clearly in others. Parliamentarianism is of course “politically obsolete” to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses. Here again we find that the “Lefts” do not know how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements).

<Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

<Third, the “Left” Communists have a great deal to say in praise of us Bolsheviks. One sometimes feels like telling them to praise us less and to try to get a better knowledge of the Bolsheviks’ tactics. We took part in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Russian bourgeois parliament in September–November 1917. Were our tactics correct or not? If not, then this should be clearly stated and proved, for it is necessary in evolving the correct tactics for international communism. If they were correct, then certain conclusions must be drawn. Of course, there can be no question of placing conditions in Russia on a par with conditions in Western Europe. But as regards the particular question of the meaning of the concept that “parliamentarianism has become politically obsolete”, due account should be taken of our experience, for unless concrete experience is taken into account such concepts very easily turn into empty phrases. In September–November 1917, did we, the Russian Bolsheviks, not have more right than any Western Communists to consider that parliamentarianism was politically obsolete in Russia? Of course we did, for the point is not whether bourgeois parliaments have existed for a long time or a short time, but how far the masses of the working people are prepared (ideologically, politically and practically) to accept the Soviet system and to dissolve the bourgeois-democratic parliament (or allow it to be dissolved). It is an absolutely incontestable and fully established historical fact that, in September–November 1917, the urban working class and the soldiers and peasants of Russia were, because of a number of special conditions, exceptionally well prepared to accept the Soviet system and to disband the most democratic of bourgeois parliaments. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before and after the proletariat conquered political power. That these elections yielded exceedingly valuable (and to the proletariat, highly useful) political results has, I make bold to hope, been proved by me in the above-mentioned article, which analyses in detail the returns of the elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia.

<The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible: it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”. To ignore this experience, while at the same time claiming affiliation to the Communist International, which must work out its tactics internationally (not as narrow or exclusively national tactics, but as international tactics), means committing a gross error and actually abandoning internationalism in deed, while recognising it in word.

<Vladimir Lenin’s ““Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder”, 1920, chapter 7

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

>>2722096
*Here is the correct link to the text “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge in Hoboken:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm

File: 1772770510440.png (24.65 KB, 479x409, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2722096

>>2682468
At the upcoming Amerimutt elections, you need to vote democrat.
Liberal democracy promotes the lie that it can resolve its own issues by reforms, and the democrat party exemplifies this lie. When they return to power and nothing gets any better
for the average burger, the last veneer will vanish: no blaming trump, no blaming republicans, no blaming le bad man, only the system laid bare for all to see, Ezra Klein's "Abundance" as it really is.
>Liberal retard
Liberalism in its modern incarnation, the ideology of AI Abundance, trickle-down everything, EA smugness, is the real accelerationism.

Vote Democrat as ridiculous as it sounds.

If you vote for republican you will end up with a populace and media that sublates all the system's flaws on le Bad Man. Republicans will only be a scapegoat for America to continue its pedophilic imperialist existence, whereas Democrats will expose the flaws as intrinsic to the imperial capitalist system and collapse it.

>>2682468
>le voting


Unique IPs: 14
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /