/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2756559
>muh free speech
So the United States is your ideal of society?
>conservatives are against freedom of speech
No they're fucking not.
>hardcore fascism is when no freedom of speech
Just admit you want to insult black people with slurs, little boy.

>>2756564
If you're in favor of private property of the means of production, you're not a leftist, by definition. Retarded petista.

>>2756541
>>2756559
>And no, brazil is not liberal, brazil is a conservative country
You are actually using the burger definition of liberal. Do you know why Brazil is considered a liberal democracy?
>Conservatives are against freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Only these two values make them completely against core liberal values.
I guess the UK is no longer a liberal democracy

>>2756569
>So the United States is your ideal of society?
NTA but the US doesn't have free speech in the slightest

>>2756569
>So the United States is your ideal of society
It clearly is with the way he is defining liberal. This is the classic Brazilian who feels inferior to what he envisions as a squeaky clean liberal democratic west

>>2756571
There is no place in the world that has "freedom of speech", because there are material consequences to speech regardless if they're in the law/constitution or not. That's the point.

>>2756569
YES, I AM NOT AN ORTHODOX MARXIST
I AM IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
AND I AM A LEFTIST, BECAUSE LEFT AND RIGHT DIVISION IS NOT BASED ON KARL MARX'S IDEOLOGY.

Are you happy?

>>2755890
You're fine. Don't get your advice for how to be """radical""" from the faggots here. Vaguely left wing is my metric for good enough for most people. I'm pretty radical myself, but not in the way most people here would imagine it. I understand the limits of what is possible in a given situation/moment. What makes me a communist is the desire for abolition of Class, however that happens, or however long it might take.

"We're all social democrats in the short term" - Vivek Chibber

>>2756011
I wonder why that is

>>2756576 (samefag)
First time reading through the replies and all of you fucking losers dissappoint me lmao. You're so fucking cringe please god learn how to be normal

>>2756575
You're not a leftist. Being gay doesn't make you a leftist. Is Nick Fuentes a leftist? Is Clodovil a leftist? Get a grip, idiot.

>>2756576
>>2756580
Actually you're an evil fascist because communism is evil and against freedom of speech of whatever. According to OP, that is.

>>2756576
The idea of "class abolitionism" really gets me because it sounds a lot like "penal abolitionism" and "gender abolitionism" kind of stuff.
To me, being pro euquality doesn't necessarily mean you have to abolish all the differences. I think that's a huge leap.

>>2756582
For you, left and right division is based solely on how the person sees the condition of private property.
You toss like 99% of all other cultural, social and even other economic issues in the trash to save your hatred ideology. It shows a lot about you and your endgoals. Clodovil was nicer than you.

>>2756584
>The idea of "class abolitionism" really gets me because it sounds a lot like "penal abolitionism" and "gender abolitionism" kind of stuff.
<I don't like how this sounds because the vibes are off
>being pro euquality doesn't necessarily mean you have to abolish all the differences.
Have you ever thought about reading a book before spouting garbage about what you clearly don't understand? You're way out of your depth

>>2756585
>You toss like 99% of all other cultural, social and even other economic issues in the trash
You aren't able to correctly describe what left-wing and right-wing mean. You're a closeted right-winger.
>you're worse than a reactionary because you hurt my feefees
Least schizophrenic liberal.

>>2756575
left and right division is generally bullshit, but yes, marxists and capitalists both agree on the terms that private property is what separates the left from the right.
What is your conception of private property?

>>2756575
>YES, I AM NOT AN ORTHODOX MARXIST
you are not even an unorthodox marxist lol you consider it evil and the same as fascism and you are glad the communist movement was destroyed, you are an ardent anti-marxist and anti-communist, this makes you a right winger

>>2756593
Like how far down the CIA psyop do you even have to be to say shit like "surplus value was created by Marx to justify his evil ideology". Not even right-wing intellectuals think this. Insane levels of ignorance.

>>2756590
>>2756591
Left: there are inequalities in society, we should fix it
Right: there are inequalities in society, that's good.

The idea that abolishing private property of the means of production is the ONLY way to achieve equality is a radical idea and is solely based on marxism, a derranged ideology made for derranged people who cannot contribute anything to society but creating genocidal and empoverished regimes.
It is an easy way out, that's why it is so popular but also that's why it never works.

>>2756593
>>2756597
It is insane how you guys deify Marx. It is a religion.
You should fix youselves before fixing the world.

>>2756598
how do you eliminate inequality if private corporations work wageslaves to death?

>>2756364
I'm baffled that this great effortpost was replied with "but that's just your opinion man", "politics are about feelings", and "the proletariat is probably more reactionary than the elites". Motherfucker.

>>2756601
>You should fix youselves before fixing the world.
t.

>>2756605
Some people really need this treatment.

>>2756604
"effort post"
Nah, just like the valie of a product doesn rely solely based on the work behind it, the value of a post is not based on its "effort". You marxist don't have feelings, that's why you hate people who feel something, like me.

>>2756602
Better question, why do you think non-private property necessarily aboloshes slavery?
There are ways to fix problems within capitalism, but fixing problems withing socialism sometimes are way harder.

>>2756608
>You marxist don't have feelings, that's why you hate people who feel something, like me.
Least hysterical right-winger

>>2756608
>Better question, why do you think non-private property necessarily aboloshes slavery?
I simply cannot imagine how else to abolish wealth inequality than to abolish private property, and there within the class structure of capitalism.
>There are ways to fix problems within capitalism, but fixing problems withing socialism sometimes are way harder.
I will ask again, what do you think private property actually is.

>>2756609
For real? I do respect some right wingers more than I respect some marxists.
I feel they have some valid issues against people like you particularly, but I also recognize you are closer to them than myself.

>>2756601
I just agree with him on his analysis of capitalism and what is needed for it to be overcome, its funny that the guy that thinks politics is about "spirit" and believes the epstein class has a right given by God to exploit and rape is calling others religious in a derogatory manner

>>2756611
>I do respect some right wingers more than I respect some marxists
No fucking shit, you're a right-winger

>>2756610
You guys are just so theatrical.
"I need society to collapse so my ideology will raise from the ashes".
It is an easy way for doing nothing, tbh.

>>2756612
You abolish exploitation with laws against it.
It is not that hard.

>>2756614
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

>>2756614
answer the question coward

>>2756613
No, I'm not. You're crazy.
Case closed. I'm going to sleep now.

>I do respect some right wingers more than I respect some marxists.
fucking kill yourself you subhuman

>>2756614
>You abolish exploitation with laws against it.
you are braindead

>>2756614
>You abolish exploitation (extraction of surplus value) with laws against it
>People have the right to have big businesses
>I hate authoritarians of all kinds
Just make a fuckin' HTML document and lay your ideas out so you can see them all at once. You can't just let your ideas be this paradoxical and expect people to take them seriously.

i need smith-anon's take on this

Macaco analfabeto funcional dando pitaco no que não entende. Já pensou em ser podcaster? Tu é claramente qualificado.

>>2756569
>conservatives are against freedom of speech
<No they're fucking not.
What? Historically righter wingers have been against freedom of speech. And they are still are today. They just complain when people tell them off for being racist.

Freedom of speech was always a leftist goal in origin. Maybe a bit ultra leftist.

I'm more stoned than you will ever be op

>>2755940
>Druggies are so fucking stupid they don't even realize that it's the CIA running the gangs to deliberately destabilize Latin America, hence why every time a socdem takes power crime goes down but whenever a libtard takes over all the gangs suddenly get a billion times more powerful.
checks out

>>2756748
>don't even realize
We do realize, thats how they profit off of criminalization, what you don't realize is that every threat you make will come back tenfold on you.

>>2756761
You people are retarded. If Maoist China had your "we can never stop drugs just give up" defeatist attitude they would still be a liberal colonized opium den shithole today. Tough action against dealers works. The death penalty works. Despite having over a billion people. China today has no large-scale drug issues, unlike Western countries. This is empirical proof that prohibition works and the only reason it doesn't in the West is because the Western ruling class don't want a drug-free country.

>>2756767
Vulgar luddite drugs don't need to be stopped, they need to be utilized. The death penalty would work best on you. Sobriety and a drug-free world is a Western American ideal.

There is only one thing wrong with dealers - that they are for profit. Maoists, Stalinists akin to their social-conservative national syndicalist and national socialist brothers are bioconservative puritans, economics is only a second talking point to them, and they certainly have no issues with markets or playing the fool pretending that certain nations are somehow out of the capitalist mode of production.

>>2756767
I smoked weed when I was in China, it grows everywhere lol (and so do the locals)

Drugs are an integral part of the sciences and practices - chemistry, botany, biology, medicine, psychology and their recreational use is tied with the exploration of cognition. Anyone who denies this to say "druggies are retarded stupid we are gonna gulag you" is a tiny hitler masquerading behind "marxist-leninist" rhetoric to push luddic sentiment and power trip.

WE ARE GONNA KILL YOU, YOU WON'T KILL US, as long as people exist they will use drugs. Everyone uses drugs, people will seek to use drugs to alter their cognition. What cartels do is just a hint of the violence you are provoking, when we turn the status quo around I vouch to conduct human experiments on you.

Make all the threats and insults you want - infantilizing drug users & enthusiasts, calling them stupid, retarded, accusing them of acting in the interests of bourgeois governments, calling them fascists, reactionaries, whatever. We are with the scientific methodology, you are with the luddic. We will kill you.

>>2756793
Towards a worldwide union of producers and consumers, for planned production, for the advancement of the species, the utilitarian strive.

>>2756793
As show that we're not all bark no bite, I have prepared a special surprise for the KKE headquarters next month in Greece :)))))))))))))))))))

>>2756376
Incorrect. Even with a mitigated neoliberalism, the PT (Workers' Party) used and expanded public properties and employed state capitalism to the extent possible within the framework of class conciliation, often making defensive gestures when the bourgeoisie launched an offensive to remove labor rights, privatize, etc. The PT has politicians from the MST (Landless Workers' Movement) and has ties to this movement for agrarian reform, while you cling to the natural right to private property when the constitution itself states the need for a social function of property that can be expropriated. The PT's activists do not share your position on the inviolable natural right to private property; within it, there is discussion of the use of a developmentalist ideology, which you can find in Dilma Rousseff, who had abandoned her program to move away from the macroeconomic tripod with the New Macroeconomic Matrix, but gave up when she realized that there was no national industrial bourgeoisie that was not financialized to make this capital and labor agreement since the Brazilian bourgeoisie only cared about speculating in the financial market.

The Workers' Party (PT) has a position of not falling into the trap of demonizing foreign countries in order to have dialogue and economic sovereignty, where Palestine is recognized and its existence in an economically viable way is demanded. Defending a US invasion is not a position of the PT. Go to the alternative media close to the PT and you will see Marxists, supporters of campist ideology, defenders of 21st-century socialism and fans of Chinese revisionist socialism, as well as various warnings of threats from the CIA to Brazil, or talking about the lies of the mainstream media. Your speech is that of a lackey of the mainstream media apologist for American imperialism.

But the PT is a reformist, conciliatory party that cannot stop the advance of neoliberalism and the financialization of the economy, even if in a delayed manner, constantly making concessions to the bourgeoisie, demobilizing the population, always conceding more to the "broad front" and electoralism. The PT will not reverse the financing of fascism and reactionism, which is the natural result of capitalism. There is no peace or reconstruction if you don't reverse the financialization of the economy, which would require ending the spending cap just to be able to implement the policies of Lula's first and second terms. Even if you reversed it, you would only intensify the class struggle. The rise of fascism always stems from the cowardice of the lesser evil on the left and the decay of capitalism. The revolutionary party must always be voted for to demonstrate the building of workers' forces.

The only solution to avoid surrendering to neoliberalism or repeating what Dilma did is to go further to a more radical position of using state-owned enterprises and state capitalism as a weapon to reverse financialization, socializing the economy instead of thinking that capitalists will ever stop caring only about buying and selling speculative securities in the financial market. Public money should not go to private companies but to public state-owned enterprises competing against private companies and meeting the needs of the population, not to mention the need for democratization to politicize the masses to participate in all aspects of the economy.

Your position is that of right-wingers who are part of the typical broad front, like Tábata Amaral, who exist to co-opt fools from the middle class with identity politics to serve financial capital. I would say that you represent the very corrosion of reformism, a betrayal of the original principles of the PT (Workers' Party). Although PSOL (Socialism and Liberty Party) represents the past of the PT with its original, more radical principles, even so, PSOL is heading down a path of corrosion similar to its own past. The only ones who have real solutions for Brazil's problems are communists, anyway, because they follow scientific socialism and do not believe in class conciliation.

>>2755890
If you lived within a state that was genuinely democratic and with a proportionally strong lobby for working and poor people, you would have to choose whether your commitment to weak government or your commitment to poor people is higher. You will no doubt disagree, but this is how I see it, as a communist. The only way to fix the ills of capitalism is progressively expanding reforms in the economy towards socialism. Early on this looks like regulating business, but as this disrupts the economy or businesses try to undermine/work around it, further measures, like targeted expropriations, freezing funds of huge business owners like Jeff Bezos, state owned enterprises competing seriously with private sector, etc. will be needed. All this happens under liberal capitalist states as well. Beyond that, a move towards the whole of the productive economy (i.e. people who make stuff en masse) being state directed (and later state owned), and the non-productive economy (i.e. land and monopoly rents) being expropriated for most likely municipal state ownership.

This is all "authoritarian" because there is deprivation of property (of billionaires and parasite rentiers), freezing assets in order to not allow capital flight, government heavily involved in economy, strong regulation with no loopholes, etc.

As Lenin says, socialism is state-capitalist monopoly made to serve the people. Right now we have state-capitalist monopoly serving the rich. If you care about the poor and working people more, you will eventually see the necessity of strong government (democratically controlled by the working class) in overcoming control by and for a very small class of opulent wealthy, and I don't have to convince you right now about this, I just have to convince you that a state where the working class has a say is better than a fake democracy or dictatorship. If you support small government more, then you were never on my side in the first place, and all the niceties about weed and butt sex were just you wanting some personal liberties to increase your personal comfort (and i could only assume you're somewhat wealthy yourself), and nothing to do with freedom or the comfort of working people as a whole. If the latter is the case it's not loss, you were a class enemy from the start, just one with a softer and less realistic outlook than the fascists.

Kino thread