/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I rate this 3/10

"we" dont need "new" "theories", generalize existing discontent but thatd require you to interact with the proletariat and distinguish the proletariat from other classes lmfao

communism preceded marx, and even marxs critique isnt some blueprint for how communism will look. you need to actually read marx and engels shit to really understand what communism means within marxist theory

Marx already figured it out

>>2686809
There's several left intellectuals doing this but their conclusions are all extremely bleak. Either that or their ways forward are very weak and end up feeling dated after a few years when whatever social movement they were observing peters out or gets coopted.

It's much less depressing to retreat into fandom and the Leninist/socdem delusion of movement politics.

>>2686809
dont need new theories 'what is to be done' is still valid people just dont want to/have to do everything else first/learn the hard way

<i havent read these works, so they don't exist
Fuck you, and fuck the other repliers who accepted your nonsense premise.

Leftypol is the angel of history . Looking backwards while moving forward. The theory of the now is all junk from the 1917 revolution that doesn’t meet the moment . The left right now looks like an outdated relic in the dustbin of history . There’s no current Marxist or communist theorist meeting the moment . Not badiou not Reza Negarestani not zizek all
Of then are already way outdated in 2026 speculative realism was cowardice that also now seems dated . The lefts fear of being cancelled makes it impossible to meet a
Challenge

What theory? People are so atomized that they stay rotting in their rooms while staring at their screens and discuss 5 hour analysis videos of the buttcheek hair density of Gorden Freeman in HL2, you need to wait until 2050 if you want to see class politics emerge again.

The way I see it, no leftists can seem to agree what Marx, Lenin, or any of them meant about anything. It's very much like Christianity. All supposed followers of the prophet Christ but they all somehow took away completely different things from his words. Also like with Christianity, you're trying to supposedly get people to read your book but it always has to be accompanied with:
>Yeah, you won't get the story unless you have a good understanding of life in first century Roman Judaica.

If there was any clear logic or understanding to be found in those books, you could just present it as separate from the minutiae of the historical situation of that time. Like if in every scientific discipline, you could only learn the theory by learning all the trivia of every one of the scientists lives, no one would get anywhere. Idol worship is a curse. If there is some universal truth there, it really has no connection to the individual who discovered it, because it's a universal truth, so someone would always have discovered it. Their personality and ego have nothing to do with an accurate description of objective reality.

I'm partial to the automation imperative myself. I feel like it's a line of logic most normies can follow, and it's an easy answer to present conditions:
>robots and AI are talking all your jobs
>wouldn't it be great if they could do that and you still had a decent living?
>ergo we need a system where you don't need to work to survive, leaving us free to automate all work out of existence

Well, I could take a crack at it.

What's an aspect that you think existing theories are lacking at? Even if it's only marginally significant I might be able to cobble something and throw it on neocities.

>>2686809
because the left composes 4 core groups, none of which is seriously committed to political change:
cool but functionally apolitical people (90% of online leftists)
intellectual masturbators who want to compete to have the best understanding of leftist orthodoxy.
losers who LARP as intellectual masturbators but don't actually read, they just drink whatever vomit they can find.
actual cult members who sell newspapers.

moreover, most of the theory the left is desperately short of isn't leftist as such. there are plenty of left-wing economic theories out there, what's lacking is a leftist who'll seriously sit down and read a textbook on organization management and then build a serious organization capable of achieving its goals. (which will, in all likelihood, be to help train and prepare people for a better organization by having them do some leftist-adjacent task. if you want to build a revolution, start by finding a way to get these useless fuckers to sell lemonade successfully…)

but that's actual work, miserable thankless work. nobody wants that. more pragmatic life advice is to try your best to be in group 1. commission your fursona in a north korean uniform kicking kirkified Gregory Bovino in the nuts and get banned from furaffinity until you censor it. that's praxis. that's funny. everything else is shit and boring and oh god i've wasted my life reading so much boring shit only to realize it'll never come to anything because i'm the only person who took this massive joke seriously please don't subject yourself to this fate

>>2687357
They are severe lack of yuri in any of the existing theories.

>>2687357
More big titties.

Yes there is revolutionary theory! Marxism is a science that is always being updated. That is what Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is.

>>2687396
This seems pretty accurate for the first world. Hopefully enough of group one and two will will decide they actually need to do something about the world once they start losing their treats

>>2687425
>Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
actually spat out my drink lmfao none of that garbage is scientific or a scientific argument or presentation

>>2687426
memer doesnt even understand what scientific socialism entails

>>2687314
>The way I see it, no leftists can seem to agree what Marx, Lenin, or any of them meant about anything.
i dont think its really like this irl, just in niche online circles among mostly young people and students

that vast majority of MLs, which are the vast majority of communists, see continuity from marx to engels to lenin stalin and mao

>>2688064
mlm is fine if you read sison and ignore gonzolo

>>2687425
>maoism
Cmon, be serious, you dont actually believe maoism is relevant in 21st century.

>>2692702
>that vast majority of MLs, which are the vast majority of communists
lol thats not true at all

>>2687425
>Marxism is a science
world proletarian revolution status?

>>2692720
it is

If the aim is workers democracy the tools are here snd people are pretending they dont exist.
Things such as blockchains, ai and robotics.
You might think their memes but the elite smong the borgoise dont and theyll use those tools towards their aims.

>>2686809
>>2687396
You should take a look at the "partyist" or "orthodox Marxist" tendency, which is defined by its scrupulous attention to organizational theory. Organizations include the Marxist Unity Group in the US, related "Unity" projects around the world, and the Communist Party of Great Britain (PCC); publications include Cosmonaut, the Weekly Worker, and Prometheus. Here you see some of the most sophisticated Marxist theory today being directed toward (avowedly) practical ends, complete with a whole suite of new or rediscovered theory terms: "state loyalism", "bureaucratic centralism", a pronounced focus on the institutional corruption of the media and state, and a lot more.

I must disagree however with your judgment of leftist history. Endlessly arguing about what Marx and Lenin really meant, the legacy of the USSR etc. of course isn't productive, but our movement was once large enough that what you might think as a "new" theory was actually an organized movement more than 100 years ago. To prevent our organizations from repeating the failures of the past, we have to learn our own history: our real history, not the old hagiographies of Lenin and his "vanguard party" etc.

If you guys cant understand nuance how about this. The state tskes ownership of businesses snd property and everyone gets one stonk share.

>>2692732
0.000%

>>2692814 (me)
Coming back and reading my post again, I realize that I contradict myself a bit when I condemn "arguing about what Marx and Lenin really meant", just before imploring us to learn "our real history".

What I really meant to say was this: we can and should argue about what Marx and Lenin really meant (at interminable length, if needed), but we can't rely solely on what Marx and Lenin said: both existed as participants in a thriving socialist movement, and we need to evaluate their arguments in the context of what their political allies and opponents were doing. It is no longer enough to quote Marx and Lenin and thereby rest your case: you have to reconstruct why their arguments were relevant then, and why exactly you think they remain relevant today. I've got to go now, but a perfect example would be Marx's reply to the Gotha Unification Program: Marx's arguments should be considered, but so should the immense empirical evidence that the Gotha Program did work to unify and dramatically grow the socialist movement.

Lenin's strategy was historically specific to Russia in the early 20th century, a basically pre capitalist state. The fact that people in advanced western societies still advocate this strategy is beyond retarded.
Larping as if unions "soviets" or the need to advance the productive forces is at all relevant and necessary. The technology to make communism is already possible.

>>2692984
I've been reading a book, "Armed Insurrection", put out by the soviet union/comintern (mostly written by Tukhachevsky), and it seems to draw the totally wrong conclusions from their recent history. Like the bolsheviks spent a long time building up the Red Guards, and that's ultimately what saved the soviets and won them the popularity to lead them and thus win over the soldiers, the rest being history. The book, which tries to be a guide for other communists to follow, focuses heavily on slogans and showcases the comintern-pushed totally unprepared insurrection in germany in 1921 or something where they literally armed union workers with clubs and then tried to start a country-wide insurrection that would lead to them taking power by simply declaring it in one city where they didn't even know if they had any armed (with clubs!) and supportive workers. The literally fired the guy in charge when he started training people with guns. Then put him back in charge and told him "insurrection by tomorrow, glhf". And it failed, obviously. They seemed to have no clue what Lenin's method actually was.

This fact seems super relevant to the question of tactics among revolutionary communists, especially maoists, who contrast the "leninist insurrectionary" method with mao's ppw. Even the comintern didn't know what lenin's methods were and how to successfully replicate urban insurrection! Plus there was no contest of governments in germany at the time, huge L. Imagine if the bolsheviks simply declared an insurrection before the soviets even existed and without the militia that stood down Kornilov. In September 1917 lenin writes about how it would have been wrong to begin insurrection even a few months earlier, in July!

So my point is… the words of our past revolutionaries might be worse than worthless, actually dangerous, if we don't analyze them in context of the actual history of what happened and base our understanding on that.