/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I've seen that anon too. He is schizo. We have a lot of schizo anons. The namefags are terrible but it's not said often enough how many schizo anons we have:

<the guy in usapol who is always talking about how he will run up in your house and splatter your brains on the wall

<the schizo who begins every post with "Wrong. you are [insert accusation] and you defy Communist line." followed by some schizo shit that never supports his premise.

<the anon who spams tweets and other isg outside of isg

<the various obvious /pol/yps

>>2720325
>
<the schizo who begins every post with "Wrong. you are [insert accusation] and you defy Communist line." followed by some schizo shit that never supports his premise.

that guys funny because he believes china is actually communist and the ACP is the Communist Party, or called it The Party

>>2720302
Clearly a Freemason. He just wanted to destroy the Western Christian order.

>>2720378
There is no evidence Marx was a free mason whatsoever.

>>2720394
and no, putting your hand in your jacket for a photo does not count.

>>2720394
Marx was evil

>>2720415
a take so stupid that it would cause even Stirner to defend Marx

>>2720429
Your metaphysical and theological erudition is non-existent. But that was to be expected.

Zionism isn’t a religious project but a modernist nationalist one

>>2720456
The Gaon of Vilna disagrees.

> Will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?
This is a quote from Engels

>>2720462
Doesn’t change the fact that Herzl and Ben Gurion were atheists

>>2720476
"The soul of Israel is central on the map of creation and the Jews are, in fact, behind a divine plan to take over, not only this world, but the entire universe interdimensional spacetime! This is a far cry, however, from the perennial viral anti-Semitic dogma of a global "Jewish conspiracy". Rather, it is a conspiracy of the messianic Light of Kabbalah and Science. This phenomenon is a universal "Overmind" that has been animating and networking all communication, all civilization and all history. Mashiach ben Yoseph may appear "dead" on the outside but the Overmind of Mashiach ben Yoseph - Metatron - is very much alive, wide awake and working in the secular and the religious communities as well as throughout the global infrastructure. In the context of the millennial Metatron, Mashiach ben Yoseph is the ultimate meta-system, animating, directing, redeeming and programming the very secrets of creation being revealed through secular discovery and religious scholarship. The Nation of Israel, which is collectively known as Yoseph, has been master-minding a world wide messianic confluence of techno-spirituality, stimulation and redemption, elevation and transformation, all towards a new synthesis and revelation of the Gaon's vision of the New Torah of the future."

>>2720485
Nobody thought this until after repeated Likudnik governments

>>2720437
>theological erudition
useless knowledge, especially when taken with a non-secular approach. religious studies is useful if you actually want to understand religion as a sociological phenomenon, but theology is just apologetics for a given religion.

>>2720485
This is just Hegelianism for Jews.

>>2720485
>quote without source provided
ok? wdymbt

>>2720485
the only source i could find for your bizarre sourceless text

>>2720513
Useless knowledge would be gnostic material religions that promise utopia right here and now but have only delivered bloodshed and millions dead. Satan is most pleased

>>2720545
so true bestie. i had better get back to practicing Ephesians 6:5 so that i get into heaven.

>>2720545
so which religion are you engaging in apologetics for today? and which sect of that religion?

>>2720529
Genius! You know not all books exist in PDF format on Anna's Archive, right

>>2720302
>I don't think Marx was even aware of zionism as a project, and if he was he would have been opposed to it on the grounds that it was a religious project.
Maybe on different grounds than that. Zionism was initially opposed to traditional religious currents among Jews, it was articulated more as a national movement. Maybe you could read Marx's support for American expansionism as progressive and read that into Zionism which came later, but you can read Marx in different ways, and other things about him which run in opposition to that. I've read "On the Jewish Question" and what he thought was going to happen was Jewish assimilation which the Zionists rejected. Really the guy you want to read about is Moses Hess, who was one of the Young Hegelians and an early Zionist. He was an influence on Marx and Engels but came in for criticism by them in The Communist Manifesto, see the section on "True" socialism.

>>2720565
all the more reason for you to provide the source in the first place

>>2720565
not sure what to make of this nonsense.

>>2720610
Well, this nonsense is literally what we see happening in our world today. In Pursuit of the Metaverse: Millennial Dreams, Political Religion, and Techno-Utopia Paperback would be "our" take on it, that book is the Jewish take.

>>2720634
PAPERBACK IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE. WARNING

>>2720634
and who is "our" for you?

>>2720559
>>2720655
where does this bozo keep running off to every time a basic question is asked.
>>2720545
>material religions that promise utopia right here and now
such as?

it doesn't matter what thread i'm on in this place, there is always some fly-by pseudointellectual who takes a big shit and then refuses to elaborate. you can ask them basic questions and suddenly they go from the most opinionated person in the room to completely mute.

>>2720302
>bait
zoomer neoliberal subject brainrot: "its ragebaiting to write contradictions from the horrors of history. Mods help, I'm denied my smooth, frictionless specatcle consumer slop! Mods! Mods!!! History is a weapon, and that's terrible"

>>2720456
>Zionism isn’t a religious project but a modernist nationalist one
"the USA founding fathers were atheist Deists who read Islamic religious texts" Politicians still used Christianity to justify slavery exactly like Zionist New Age fascists do today, here's the Ellison controlled new CNN talking about "Amalek is Israel's ancient enemy"
https://sfawbn.com/home/2026/02/28/remember-amalek-cnn-says-timing-of-iran-attack-bears-symbolic-meaning-in-judaism/

>Marx praised US conquest
Marxist historical materialism frames "Progress" as creating a bourgeois/proletarian modern state with development of the means of production. Engel's described the Slavs as "non-historic people" for not reading the Communist Manifesto published a mere year. I think its fair and kosher to say that:
"Marx supported the genocide and settler colonialism of the American indigenous people by the proto-Jeffrey Epstein transnational sex slave trafficking class, because Marx saw those bourgeois proto-redditors as more productive and likely to do bourgeois revolutions and primitive accumulation to develop the means of production to 'end barbarism'. Marx would celebrate the enslavement and genocide of indigenous peoples sustainable primitive communism so the proletariat could build Ford assembly lines and AI data centers"
Of course today Palestinian bourgeoisie already exist today so 21st century people calling him a Zionism isn't really accurate, their primitive accumulation has already happened

<Review: Roman Rosdolsky, Engels and the ‘Nonhistoric’ Peoples: the National Question in the Revolution of 1848, Critique, Glasgow, 1987
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no2/rosdolsk.html
>In his book, Rosdolsky sets out Engels’ justification for his position at length. Briefly, both Marx and Engels supported the bourgeois revolutions that broke out from February 1848 throughout Europe as the necessary precursors to the Socialist revolution, which they erroneously expected to be imminent. However, the revolutionary fervour of the bourgeoisie soon evaporated, and the forces of reaction rallied, particularly in Metternich’s Austria. In October 1848 the bloody suppression of the Vienna rising marked the turning point of the insurrections, and the revolutionary forces were thrown back everywhere from then onwards. What motivated Engels to write his vituperative articles was the Austrian Slavs’ rejection of their chance to win freedom from the oppressive rule of the Habsburgs, and their enthusiastic participation in Metternich’s counter-revolution.
>Rosdolsky divides Engels’ 1849 position into two parts – his realistic, materialist side; and his idealistic, Hegelian side. On the realistic side, Rosdolsky recognises that part of the reason for Engels’ position was due to his enthusiasm for the eastward spread of German industry and culture. He thought that German capitalism would be the vehicle that would destroy the old system, and quickly lay the basis for a revolutionary society where there would be no relations of exploitation.
>Marx and Engels’ support for German capitalism was not because they were German nationalists, but was due to the profound weakness of capitalism elsewhere in Eastern Europe. That meant that any other nationalism except German nationalism was a rare phenomenon, and national revolts even rarer. The necessary preconditions for the outbreak of a national revolt – the unity of town and country, the bourgeoisie and the peasantry – barely existed anywhere in Eastern Europe, either because a national bourgeoisie was absent, or because it was German and therefore had little in common with the mainly Slav peasantry. As a result, the endemic struggles that peasants conducted against their landlords usually remained sporadic, local affairs that rarely acquired a national focus. That the mainly peasant Austrian Slavs sided with their landlords against the German revolutionaries suggests that, for all their agrarian conflicts, feudal relations remained largely intact in the region. Engels’ position was ‘realistic’ in that he believed that the only hope for lifting the Austrian Slavs out of their stagnant existence was their rapid assimilation into the German nation (and hence the `annihilation' of themselves as a people separate from Germans).
>Rosdolsky subjects Engels’ “false prognosis” – his adoption of the theory of ‘non-historic peoples’ – to a devastating polemic. While he accepts that the Austrian Slavs had to be fought, insofar as they did eventually line up with the Habsburgs and Romanovs, Rosdolsky shows that at no stage were they ever offered freedom by the German revolutionaries of 1848, who, as capitalists, desired to suppress them anew. Rosdolsky believes that Marx and Engels should have led a campaign to back the liberation of the Austrian Slavs, since they could have at least expected to neutralise a number of those who subsequently threw in their lot with Metternich and reaction.
>Instead Engels, as an editor of Cologne’s radical Neue Rheinische Zeitung, argued that the Austrian Slavs had betrayed the revolution because they had no history:
<Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which come under foreign domination the moment they have achieved the first, crudest level of civilisation … have no capacity for survival and will never be able to attain any kind of independence. And that has been the fate of the Austrian Slavs. (Democratic Pan-Slavism, February 1849)
>Rosdolsky links Engels’ adoption of this conception directly to Hegel’s theory of ‘non-historic people’. In his Philosophy of Mind, the German philosopher held that only those peoples that could – thanks to inherent “natural and spiritual abilities” – establish a state were to be the bearers of historical progress:
<“A nation with no state formation … has, strictly speaking, no history – like the nations which existed before the rise of states and others which still exist in a condition of savagery.” As a result, those who were indifferent about possessing their own state would soon stop being a people. The reactionary implications of Hegel’s theory are clear: he thought that some peoples will always be uncivilised, no matter what. For instance, in 1830 Hegel wrote off Africa in his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: “Anyone who wishes to study the most terrible manifestations of human nature will find them in Africa … it is an unhistorical continent, with no movement or development of its own.”
(excerpt continued in next post with Lenin's critque of nationalism/imperialism)

>>2720690
>On the one hand, Engels backed the democratic tradition that supported liberation struggles against reaction. For instance, he backed the struggles of both the Irish and the Poles against the twin bastions of European reaction, Britain and Russia. On the other hand, as a strict centralist, he was committed to uniting all nations in a single centralised world economy. As such, he was reluctant to support any struggle conducted against the more advanced countries that did not accelerate the capitalist transformation of the world. This was because, at that time, only capitalism could develop the material basis for a world economy, even though it accomplished this in a barbaric fashion. Because struggles for national liberation were then the exception rather than the rule, this contradiction necessarily remained unresolved. It was the product of the level of development of capitalism at that time.
"world economy" the sneering Trot internationalists writing for the WSWS have the same kneejerk contempt for Iranian state socialism as International Monetary Fund bourgeois liberals, but don't you dare call it Zionist ideology!
>The best explanation Marx and Engels could offer was that, with the virtual absence of liberation movements, at least barbaric capitalism created the possibility of transforming society in a progressive direction, whilst pre-capitalist society meant barbarism without end. Nobody could produce any better answer than that, until there had been a further development of capitalist social relations. Given that the Austrian Slavs didn’t develop any national movements until some time after Engels was dead, it is perhaps understandable why he didn’t feel the need to repudiate his 1849 position.
>Nevertheless, there is much evidence to suggest that Marx and Engels began to change their position on the national question towards the end of the nineteenth century. Lenin, certainly, studied their Irish work closely in developing his own position. But in the end Lenin was able to solve the problem of the national question where his predecessors had necessarily failed because the development of imperialism itself had by his time provided the answer to the conundrum.
>Imperialism’s arrival on the world’s stage announced the fact that capitalism was historically bankrupt, and the economic (though not political) basis for a centrally planned world economy had been laid. At the same tithe, imperialism had carved up the whole world into oppressor and oppressed nations. As a result, from being an issue of merely episodic concern, the national question became the ‘burning question’ of the day for Socialist revolutionaries in the period around the First World War when Lenin developed his position.
>Lenin's position on the national question was that the imperialist epoch has made all nationalism reactionary, abstractly speaking, since only an internationally planned economy could bring progress. However, imperialism’s division of the world into oppressor and oppressed nations posed a political problem – the international division of the working class, the only force which could provide the basis for such a fully centralised world economy, The form this political problem took was the struggle between the Great Powers and the colonies over the democratic demand for the right of all nations to self-determination. The Balkans, for example, where many of the Austrian Slavs lived, became the focus of intense inter-imperialist rivalries which fuelled the nationalist aspirations that sparked off the First World War.
>Lenin argued that the international working class could never break politically from their own bourgeoisies, imperialist or otherwise, unless they championed the national question. Working class unity could therefore only be achieved internationally when, in the oppressor countries, the labour movement opposed Great Power nationalism and backed all anti-imperialist struggles unconditionally. It also required that, in a nation oppressed by imperialism, its labour movement should back the nationalist struggle insofar as it was directed against imperialism. This is because, in fighting Great Power oppression, small nation nationalism acquires a progressive content that it would not otherwise have in the imperialist epoch. In such conditions, it is by being the most consistent anti-imperialists that revolutionaries assert the separate interests of the working class, which are always independent of the more narrow concerns of the nationalists.
>Consequently, although revolutionaries do not aim to create myriads of small nations dotting the globe, if that is what is required to defeat imperialism and to secure a voluntary union of the international working class, then so be it. Such union would consolidate the single world economy, and so lay the basis for the mixing of national cultures, and therefore the eventual withering away of separate nations.

>>2720690
see >>2720567

>>2720690
>[calling something bait is] zoomer neoliberal subject brainrot
stated moments before saying
>Marx supported the genocide and settler colonialism of the American indigenous people by the proto-Jeffrey Epstein transnational sex slave trafficking class, because Marx saw those bourgeois proto-redditors as more productive
just lol

>>2720912
>>Marx supported the genocide and settler colonialism of the American indigenous people by the proto-Jeffrey Epstein transnational sex slave trafficking class, because Marx saw those bourgeois proto-redditors as more productive
>just lol
Is he wrong tho?

>>2720914
he's not wrong in the literal sense but it's ironic that he projects his zoomer neoliberal internet brainrot backwards into history onto marx. it's the same thing radlibs do.

>>2720914
also it's a moralistic argument. marx was allegedly "proto zionist" because he was pro-america and anti mexico… ok? they're both settler colonies. he was talking about which of the settler colonies was more historically progressive. by that point it was pretty clear that america, north central and south, was a bunch of competing european settler colonies. the sentiment against settler colonies was not yet mainstream leftist orthodoxy. neither was the sentiment against racism and homophobia. and marx wasn't a "leftist" in the modern sense of the word anyway. it's just browbeating nonsense. mexico was also run by catholic proto-epsteins so marx supporting the burgers against them is nearly meaningless. as for marx's main staying power… it's his critique of political economy. his analysis of the substance and magnitude of value. his analysis of the value form. his analysis of the exploitation of the proletariat. none of his edgy white boy letters about lassalle being le jewish nigger or his hot takes about america vs. mexico dethrone that analysis unless you're one of those people who think 1+1=2 becomes false when a person you don't like says it.