/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

How else can you be forgiven for your sins??

those 2 points are fine though and any reasonable third worldist would have no problem with it. contrarian leftypol chvds arent reasonable though

same reason people shilled accelerationism
>stay at home and do nothing, view politics solely through online aesthetics
>shill preexisting trend within capitalism as an actual political belief
>call everyone actually doing something irl wrong and unpure
>you now have an unearned sense of moral and intellectual superiority
most of these people are just future david horowitzs

>>2763804
ah yes the evil first worlder, in his hubris he believed he could have a good life working 6 hours a day in an office job with vacations and healthcare.

he should have chosen to work in the coal mines cock torture noxious gas factory 14 hours a day with no pay because that is what a true worker does.

>>2763806
what people are calling "third-worldism" doesn't have shit to do with Lin Biao or revolution in global south and is just first worlders with an abrahamic worldview, they should just be called first worldists if anything.

>what incentive is there for a first worlder to embrace an ideology that wants him dead and broke?
Because it is general course of history. Israeli and zioeuroamerikan epstein people always kill babies in vain attempt to defy course of history until they are eliminated. You just want cheaper treats. You are epstein

>>2763862
we get it lil bro you grew up with rich parents lmao

>>2763801
West don't do shit for you bro, never will
>Muh unions
Your unions aren't tying fuckers to train tracks anymore. They are just neutered HR managers unfit to even do that and whatever bargaining power they have is minimal and could just as easily be done by two employees stealing everything

>But I live here!
You mean you're dying here. I wouldn't call being a penniless incel banned from everything living.

>There… there's oppression in the turd world!
Don't care. America is more evil.

>>2763865
You are the zio. Cease your zioprojection and offer better answer OP question. Why would zios "embrace" arab "ideology" where they are dead and broke?

>>2763801
Unions are good because they encourage offshoring jobs to the periphery. The welfare state is good because it lowers religiosity and harms the churches.

>>2763862
Social-treatlerism is objectively historically progressive in sharpening the contradictions of imperialism and accelerating the rise of fascism. In the hindsight of history, social-treatlerism lead to the rise of Nazi Germany and later the German Democratic Republic. The GDR road to socialism is not the most noble or straightforward one but it is the most historically proven one.

>>2763801
everyone would be richer if we ended capitalism. there's no reason to believe the imperial core could be the vanguard as there is every indication the body politic supports fascism and imperialism.

>>2763877
ur an oversensitive rich kid lol

don't worry about it, JDPON Don is already on the job

>>2763806
If the union, social programs, walkable streets, public healthcare, and the high standard of living he desires are sustained by the consumption of goods and capital extracted from the Third World through unequal commercial relations, then I am against it on principle, and so should every self-respecting Third Worldist. It's not like they need our consent anyway.
>>2763801
>>2763809
There is no incentive. It is in your best interest that the unequal political and commercial relations between nations remain as they are. This knowledge may wound your ego as a "leftist," "communist," or whatever political identity you currently adopt. This thread is merely a failed attempt to reconcile your internal contradictions by being consoled by other like-minded anonymous individuals. It's digital opium.

>why should a first worlder believe in third worldism/maoism?
no one sane shouldn't

>>2763954
kind of tree determines kind of flower, and kind of class determines kind of talk. first worlders uphold epstein and first worldism. Third worlders uphold mao and third worldism.

>>2763939
Your principles are a spook and you are a reformist, not a revolutionary. Social spending and international aid are tools of counter-insurgency. I support increasing the parasitism of the security-industrial complex and sharpening the contradictions of imperialism.

>>2763971
You sound like israeli or zelensky begging for more aid

>>2763939
we get it lil bro you grew up with rich parents lmao

>>2763981
You should support Israel and Ukraine because they are parasitic wreckers of the imperial core.

>>2763987
ukraine settlers wants to genocide russian. Israeli settlers want to genocide palestinian. You are israeli. You are zelensky. You are epstein

>>2763988
you are bratty. you are spoiled rich kid. you are daddys money.

>>2763988
Russia is doing fine fighting Ukraine. You have a better point with Israel.

this prankster set up a fake ICE reporting line and recorded the maggots calling up to try to get their neighbours deported. these people aren't going to wake up one day and recognize their own malevolence.

just listen to the machinations of a modern day holocaust. it's wild. absolutely shameless shit.

>>2763988
Russia settlers are displacing ukrainians from their country, Israeli wants to annihilate palestinian, You are Russian, You are israeli, You are settler, You are maxwell

>>2764004
>>2763989
Wrong. Ukraine is not a country. You resort to zioprojection

>>2764007
You are lying bastard, ukraine exists and is being colonized by russian, you are russian settler, you are israeli, you are Z-ionist

>>2764007
you are entitled karenspawn. you are neocalvinist. you are a literally an isra*li.

>>2763801
>>2763939
The labor aristocracy is a type of representative of the working class that weakens the workers' movement with the opportunism of class conciliation to deceive and divide them, I think it is very likely that the criticism for unions with the leadership co-opted to betray the working class applies in this definition as a type of class traitor. Remembering that the bribe that the capitalist offers is optional as a concession tactic along with repression to facilitate the exploitation of capital. The labor aristocracy is also a small minority where some class traitors opportunistically try to co-opt workers so that they do not organize and have solidarity among themselves, leading to an ideology of class conciliation with the national bourgeoisie that deceives workers to weaken the movement collectively.

All this has nothing to do with distorting scientific socialism into some kind of moralism of guilt or paying for sins that some resentful people in the first world propagate to create apathy among first-world workers fighting for their class interests, which are shared with workers worldwide. Every right that workers have in the bourgeois state comes from class struggle as a concession from the bourgeoisie to pacify the masses so that, at a better time in the future, these rights can be taken away by the bourgeoisie to intensify the exploitation of workers as the rate of profit of capital decreases.

Now let's see what Lenin says about the labor aristocracy and what should be done, which is not what third-worldists in the first world say:

<In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “…The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”

<On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep into the bones of the workers…. Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all.”[10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4, 1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the field….” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party” (Engels’s italics throughout)….

<That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”…. “With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position…” The members of the “new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated ‘old unionists’” …. “The so-called workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their being members of the working class because they themselves would like to drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism…”

[…]

<The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.

[…]

<The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power, vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities, China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.

[…]

<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.

<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.

<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!

<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

<The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.

<V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

>>2763966
Wrong. Third-worldism, fueled by resentment towards first-world workers, is reactionary and typically exists because resentment towards the first world corrupts scientific socialism, preventing the organization of first-world workers against financial capitalism and the struggle for the class interests of all workers worldwide, without giving repressive power to the bourgeois state, and fighting for the labor rights of all workers without emotionalism and moralism.

I am a third-world worker, so there is no insult to throw at me, no guilt or sin invented by your moralism to create apathy and deny what I wrote.

Read what I wrote here:
>>2764019

>>2763983
I'm a Huezillian making minimun wage. Are you the faggot who started the "leftcoms are Belgians" bit?

>>2764032
you are isra*li. you come from money. you owe me 5 bucks.

>>2764019
>labor aristrocat
Its so funny how leftists suddenly become believers of trickle-down economics so they can try justify their envy and resentment.

>>2763801
>why should a first worlder believe in third worldism/maoism?
what does your identity have to do with whether something is true or not?

Absolutely none. But the good news is that the theory of exploitation of third worldism is nonsense.

In the 21st century, the "services" sector accounts for almost 70% of the world's GDP. We live in a literal monopoly rentier economy. You are a capitalist, you have a machine, the machine goes broke, you need to contract X people that have a monopoly license from Y manufacturer that they pay for, to fix your machine. This is unironically almost 70% of the world's economy. Where does the money come from to pay for rent? Finance. Yes, the "services" sector is paying for itself, by definition of being almost 70% of the world's economy. The problem is, this money is fake as fuck, such as banks loaning money "out of thin air" or money sourced from pump and dump speculation. Marx called it fictious capital. And as our economy increasingly revolves around this fictious capital, like a snake eating its own tail, it has less and less to do with actual productivity. Do you see the problem? The profits of transnational corporations (emphasis: TRANSNATIONAL) no longer depend on stolen wages. The third worldist thesis rests on this theoretical fossil that is no longer reflective of our world.

So then, why do workers in the third world still have crappy buying power compared to the first world? The answer may not surprise you if you've been paying attention. Monopoly capitalism. The transnational corporations have monopolized IPs, patents, technology, know-how. They say to the third world capitalist, "we will only subcontract you if you are affordable for us", or "we are a premium brand and the price to franchise using our name is high". What's the expected consequence of this? The third world capitalist driving the wages of his workers down as much as he can get away with, so that he can be "affordable", or otherwise afford the license. In other words, it's structural power imbalance, not mere stolen wages.

Why is the first world "overpaid"? Historical labor struggles, geographic proximity to the most expensive land and property in the world where the world's haute bourgeoisie (top 10%) concentrate, and "bribes". Yes, that's literally it.

Third worldism is a dinosaur from when the world had too much lead in their heads.

>>2763801
>persuade me to support you!
That's what a treatlerite would say. There is no saving people of the Third World from the Empire without destroying living standards of Empire's workers. Unless you, a treatlerite, do socialism, you have no way to reconcile with the Third World.

As world market shrinks for the West and expands for the East/Global South, your life will get progressively worse. It's simple economics - your producers go out of business or scale down, they decrease wages and fire workers, and that makes you poor. Either migrate to a better country or DO SOCIALISM. Or maybe pick a third option and go and kill thirdworldists you hate so much to save the Empire, yeah?

>>2764075
What a bunch of fucking nonsense.

Service economy doesn't create anything, real economy does. Service economy at 70% means that for things 3 workers use, only 1 is actually required to produce, everyone else are barbers, baristas and other kinds of easily cut out of the equation professions.

Westoids have decreased their real economy and increased services and rent. Global South, meanwhile, grew their real economy. WOW, what a goddamn unexpected development that Westoids became relatively poorer, and Global South relatively richer, in real terms! Westoids can't even pay for their imports anymore, because they don't SELL ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY WANTS, except for a bunch of parasitic money making schemes upheld by the power of arms.

OOF, sounds like the Global South has a material interest in removing parasites from the equation altogether, and treatlerites, instead of acknowledging the problem, simply wish for the return of social democracies of 50 years ago, when they had actual productive economies that could pay for their social needs!

>>2764079
>they don't SELL ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY WANTS
Because they cant due to the higher cost of labor capitalists will outsource it to the third-world always.

Actual Third-Worldism isn't anything remotely like that, if the jannies and mods had any desire at all to police this place, they would rangeban those fucking thirdie retards that confuse marxism with their revenge fantasies, but as we all know, mods and jannies are fucking retarded

>>2764085
Just look at this shit
>>2764079
This retard has no problem claiming other proletarians are "parasites" and yet the jannies won't do shit to stop this

Fucking trash moderation team

>>2764085
for that to work permanently I'd imagine the tor node would have to be closed which honestly might be needed atp

>>2764086
They used to be a lot more vigilant but I guess we got too many 4chan transplants who have the "just do whatever" approach who managed to worm their way into the staff.

>>2764019
Quotemining uyghur award

>>2764091
illiterate moron award

>>2764091
Forgot my image

>>2764093
>Tankiddie calling anyone a moron
Kek

>>2764094
Why do people even take marxist leninism seriously when literally every communist ml country has failed and collapsed.

>>2764086
Service economy is inherently parasitic. Sorry that you don't understand that, say, security personnel is non-essential, therefore parasitic, to a company, or delivery workers, that can be replaced with people walking to the stores, or hell even stores themselves, because you can just walk to a factory. You have issues with the label I use, but I am calling it whatever was implied under ML economic thinking. ALL OF THOSE SERVICES ARE NON-ESSENTIAL. YOU ARE PAYING FOR CONVENIENCE, NOT SOMETHING ESSENTIAL.

>>2764096
Have a nice eye-bleeding experience, btw

>>2764099
This is like saying iron isnt essential because you can just use copper instead.

>>2764100
China osnt ever going to transition away from state capitalism they dont want to end up a shithole like the ussr

>>2764079
Third worldism as a theoretical current emerged at the tail end of the social democracy period, before neoliberalism took hold. Third worldism was originally intended to explain the social democracy in the West. Hence your assertion that when the West was "productive" it paid for social democracy is, if you're a third worldist, incoherent. The whole point, according to third worldism, was that this was a lie, and wages were stolen from the third world for the benefit of first worlders.

Anyway, leaving that aside. You make a serious error, and said error is assuming the third world is free from hosting parasitic finance. It isn't. Almost every third world country, if we don't count places like Haiti, has its own domestic parasitic finance. Ultimately, it is not a, as you suggest, solely a concern for the first world. Furthermore, you fell for the industrial bourgeoisie propaganda, that we need to consume so much. We don't. Mindless consumerism isn't a natural state of affairs. An interesting article on that topic:
https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-gospel-of-consumption/

>>2764100
You are a jewish negro, Lassalle

>>2764099
>ML economic thinking
>thinking
The same ML economies that collapsed and regressed back to capitalism? lol

>>2763801
in 50-100 years, if we survive climate change, the 3rd world, due to being allied with china, will be more automated and more advanced than the 1st world. they will have switched places. China can pave 4 lane highways using automation now.

>>2763801
third worldism = I support local fascism, local oppressive religious entities, and local porky against global fascism, and global porky.

>>2764102
Iron is cheaper than copper, funnily enough, and that was the reason why iron replaced copper.

>>2764108
Same ML economies that defeated fascism and developed Eastern Europe and China.

Besides, what does it matter? Service economy is parasitic, it's expenditures, not gains on the balance sheet. You even had neoliberal papers admitting defeat and saying that countries with industrial policies outperformed countries that went for neoliberal service economy-based policies.

>>2764104
State capitalism is not a societal formation. Societal formation is defined by the ruling class, which one governs the state, and either state capitalism, market economy, whatever, is all merely economic tools that can be employed by the ruling class. Debt and prison slavery does exist today, yet we don't go calling USA a slave owning society, buddy

>>2764131
>Same ML economies that defeated fascism and developed Eastern Europe and China.
WE WUZ

>>2764151
WE ARE

>>2764154
NO MORE

>>2764208
STILL DO

>>2764220
COPE

>>2764222
who cares?

>>2764132
You are doing reification. The USA literally relies on human trafficking to feed itself. That this doesn't match 1:1 chattel slavery is true yet meaningless.

>>2764131
>Defeated fascism
But the USSR and China allied with Nazi Germany and the US

>>2763801
I'm gonna help the third world by working as a digital nomad and just live airbnbs in broke places like costa rica