/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2784696
Plus if they exist in every country then its almost like it's a question of class and "le westoids" have nothing to do with it.

>>2784696
>>2784701
It's a matter of which class is the majority and embodies the national consciousness, who is the "default".
In the third world, spiritual westoids are seen as alien.

In anti imperialist countries like Russia, iran, china, palestine, cuba, dprk, vietnam, venezuela, burkina faso, etc, they are suppressed

Your job, as a westoid, is to be the vanguard for those in your countries who are excluded from the imperial nation's self consciousness, not those who constitute it

>>2784701
Correct, in his stupid, miniscule brain, inside every third world country there is an ultra-nationalist bourgeois, who distinct themselves from "le compradors" that wll fight until the end for "national liberation", and that actively supports communism and understands Lenin and Mao, and will gladly risk death to fight against the proles to be able to install communism once le empire falls

Who knows where this country is, because everywhere in the third world the bourg always bends the knee and end up collaborating

>But le US Marine!

>>2784717
My job is to cut, weld and grind metal though.

>>2784717
>In the third world, spiritual westoids are seen as alien.
Wonderful baseless sweeping statement about the opinions of billions of people made without evidence. Definitely not projection/wishful thinking that borders on a noble savage trope.

.>>2784719
>to fight against the proles
Along* the proles

>>2784729
It is a universal phenomenon

>>2784830
The Iranian, Argentinian and Venezulean people should join forces with these comprador bourgeois, they should all hold hands and fight against Darth Vader's empire

>>2784830
Funny you mention Venezuela and Iran, since the former cucked out and became compradors and the latter would have done so if the Americans hadn't bombed them.

>>2784526
>In other words, people are unironically trying to claim that it was Lenin's belief that all workers in imperialist countries were part of the labour aristocracy.
no thats not what is said
"implicates" is not the same as "all are" its more about potentiality
they are pointing out that only the upper stratum are bribed, meaning lacking potential revolutionary consciousness, where the rest its temporary and circumstantial.
>Engels coined the term but he was describing the same phenomenon,
yes? and?
>He's one of the leading modern theorists on it
thats not really what he is known for. samir amin comes to mind way before and he definitely says that. its the classic position, tho it is controversial i admit. i dont think the benefits are direct, and i definitely deny the fw workers exploit, they dont, and dont have the political or economic power to do so. but i do think they benefit second order by proxy from increased infrastructure, im not talking about pensions or healthcare, and from wage differentials and purchasing power, and from decreased costs from increase in productive technology. its a lot more complicated than "fw workers steal from poors" which no one suggests
>At the moment proles have proven incapable of revolution everywhere in the world
yeah i dont think thats true either
>in the stronger countries of the periphery even display labour-aristocratic tendencies as I mentioned vis a vis India
but the liberal comprador ladder climbers are a minority of major city dwellers and not the majority of proles in those countries
>this seems to indicate that imperialism isn't even the basis of this behaviour.
i mean i think being a comprador because you are directly bribed by imperialists does maybe have a little to do with imperialism??

>>2784541
>labour aristocracy is good when they do it
basically, but they arent labour aristocracy
>the fact that most third world countries are ruled by compradors not the national bourgeoisie
also not true. its like every post you are just making shit up
>is not a substitute for it and can never actually destroy imperialism
why even bring this up when literally no one ever says it does? every writing on alliances with nat borg explicates the temporary nature of if predominantly

>>2784609
>Yes but national liberation can and should be led by the workers and peasants wherever possible. The national bourgeoisie are not only less reliable in the struggle against imperialism, but the first thing they typically do once regaining national sovereignty is repress communists.
Why are you acting like communists are endorsing support for national bourgeoisie over and above and as a revolutionary replacement for the proletariat? who is saying this? please quote them

>>2784641
>justify the passivity of workers even in the third world, their lack of independent organization, or their relationship with their ruling class.
idk man that sounds like projection and not something actually happening

>>2784675

>Yes, every country has its own strata of "native westoids" like gusanos, academics, petty bourgs, etc., who are functionally westoids
yeah they are overly represented in media but dont actually make up a significant part of the population, theyre more like occupiers than representative of the third world working class

>>2784696
>Aren't those who you want to join together with to fight against "le empire" though?
no? not even a little where did you get that idea

fake sabo even real sabo isnt this dumb

>>2784916
Westoid doomerist cope (gloating)
Western leftoids treat geopolitics like spectacle, a disconnected series of (what they perceive as) advebturist lashouts and betrayals. A desire for everything to happen on your schedule and your playbook or else you'll talk to the manager.
This is because your "support" for global south struggle is secretly a desire for third worlders to kill themselves advancing ypur narrow domestic interests.

This is because you and your ilk are petty bourgeois in spirit.

>>2784952
>"implicates" is not the same as "all are" its more about potentiality
No, Lenin is very explicit in his wording. The labour aristocracy is a minority and can only ever represent a minority. Workers may be drawn into their orbit even if they are not members of the labour aristocracy itself, but they do so against their own interests.
>its a lot more complicated than "fw workers steal from poors" which no one suggests
People on this site say that constantly. Scroll /usapol/ for ten minutes and you'll find plenty of posts claiming such things.
>yeah i dont think thats true either
Then where are the proletarian revolutions? What country has recently had or realistically looks like it's going to have a revolution led by and for workers/peasants?
>but the liberal comprador ladder climbers are a minority of major city dwellers and not the majority of proles in those countries
I'm not talking about those people, I'm talking about the conduct of self-described socialists and communists in the third world, who (especially in the stronger and more advanced periphery countries) have now begun to display the same kind of behaviours that Lenin decried as evidence of labour aristocracy. The Communist Party of India is the best example, since they (like the SPD) represent a huge segment of the Indian left and trade union movement, but they also renounce revolutionary struggle, help the state hunt down revolutionaries, support reactionary wars and occupation, and offer what is essentially a social democratic program. What is the meaningful difference between them and the Western left?
>i mean i think being a comprador because you are directly bribed by imperialists does maybe have a little to do with imperialism??
This isn't about imperialism or becoming a comprador as such, but about renouncing revolutionary struggle and the political independence of the worker's movement, and subordinating themselves to their ruling class.
>also not true. its like every post you are just making shit up
If that were true then imperialism would already be defeated. You can't claim one moment that imperialism is too powerful and an alliance with the national bourgeoisie is necessary, but then also claim that compradors have been defeated in most countries.
>why even bring this up when literally no one ever says it does? every writing on alliances with nat borg explicates the temporary nature of if predominantly
I was responding specifically to a post arguing that the strengthening of national bourgeois tendencies in the third world is the "real movement" and that it supplants the need for independent worker power.
>>2784956
>Why are you acting like communists are endorsing support for national bourgeoisie over and above and as a revolutionary replacement for the proletariat? who is saying this? please quote them
Here >>2784617
<I'm pointing out the fact that the weakening of western imperialism *is* the global proletariat freeing itself, concretely, in reality.
>>2784959
>idk man that sounds like projection and not something actually happening
Then show me a country in which there is a large, well organized, class conscious, and militant proletariat that has a real chance at seizing power. It's true that in many third world countries there are relatively large communist parties, but these typically don't exceed the size or influence of Western European communist parties in the 1950s-70s. If a labour aristocracy could exist in France or Italy despite having large communist parties, then why can't they exist in India or South Africa?
>>2784964
Whatever you say man, I'm sure that everything will be fine after Delcy's next meeting with the director of the CIA.

>>2784992
>The labour aristocracy is a minority and can only ever represent a minority
>only
not true either. he quotes engels saying all workers in britain

>Scroll /usapol/
yeah i think ill not

>You can't claim one moment that imperialism is too powerful and an alliance with the national bourgeoisie is necessary
you can

>then also claim that compradors have been defeated in most countries.
i didnt

>It's true that in many third world countries there are relatively large communist parties, but these typically don't exceed the size or influence of Western European communist parties in the 1950s-70s
ok so they are as big as the biggest point they were in the west? that sounds a lot better than all countries being equally comprador

>Then show me a country…
and why is that the metric? why must be perfect and pure to get critical support?

>If a labour aristocracy could exist in France or Italy despite having large communist parties, then why can't they exist in India or South Africa?
because they are not imperialist?

this is getting pretty old. you just keep asserting things that are not true

>>2785002
>not true either. he quotes engels saying all workers in britain
<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.
t. Lenin

Here he is saying clearly and without any wiggle room that the labour aristocracy consists of and represents a minority, and that this was the case both in England when Engels was writing and in Germany (and other countries) while he himself was writing. He isn't implicating the working classes in the imperial core as a whole.
>i didnt
Then in what way am I making anything up when I say that most of the third world is ruled by compradors?
>ok so they are as big as the biggest point they were in the west? that sounds a lot better than all countries being equally comprador
I didn't say all countries are equally comprador, I said that the third world can and already has developed a labour aristocracy. I'd also argue that a labour aristocracy can exist in both a comprador and national bourgeois state, though of course the former is more destructive.
>and why is that the metric?
Because it's the only metric by which you can argue that the third world currently displays more revolutionary potential than the West.
>why must be perfect and pure to get critical support?
They don't. I critically support virtually all national bourgeois governments, especially Iran in the context of the present conflict. However that's irrelevant to my main points, which are that the labour aristocracy does not consist of or represent the real interests of the vast majority of first world workers, and that a labour aristocracy has already begun to form in the third world.
>because they are not imperialist?
So? My whole argument here is that imperialism isn't necessary to produce the tendencies which Lenin and Engels identified as indicative of a labour aristocracy.

>>2784959
>no? not even a little where did you get that idea
>>2784625
I literally called you a classcuck for implying that.

Wtf is the point of this thread when this pic settles it

More than 50% of americans have something to lose but their chains case closed

>>2785350
This must go hard if you're fucking stupid.

>>2785354
>>2785350
Jewish negro posts

>>2785070
nta…

>>2785873
Someone ban this retard already I am tired of his jewish negro posts

>>2784719
the natbooj fight the compbooj and occupiers but don't like the commies. it's like the kuomintang and commies teaming up against the japs before fighting each other. it's not that hard to understand. countries need to have their own 1776 before they can have their own 1917. capiche?

>>2786126
That was in the context of WW2 and the US was supporting the Chinese.

>>2786126
>countries need to have their own 1776 before they can have their own 1917
The problem is that the natbourg simply turn on the communists and kill them all to prevent a 1917, then sell out to imperialism and necessitate another 1776. This exact thing happened in China btw, when the KMT launched a White Terror in 1925 and then became Western proxies which they remain to this day. Remember that the distinction between national and comprador bourgeoisie is not one of class, but political orientation. As such one can easily morph into the other, and they do it all the time. They simply aren't reliable as allies or as a force against imperialism. Even in the Chinese context, the KMT fought the Japanese invaders sure, but they were totally fine with the neo-colonial subjugation of China by the West.

>>2786359
How are you still missing the point this hard? Yeah, the national bourgeoisie are progressive compared to imperialism. Yes, there is space for collaboration with communists. Yes, a national bourgeois revolution is better than imperialism and should be supported against it. That doesn't change the fact that the progressive capacity of the national bourgeoisie is limited. Their capacity and desire to resist imperialism is limited. They have a long history of throwing out the imperialists only to welcome them back in 20 years later (after exterminating all the local communists of course). National bourgeois revolutions can create conditions more favourable to socialism on a global scale, but they are not a substitute for an actual communist revolution, and without communists actually subjugating the national bourgeoisie they always sell out and become compradors eventually. What are you not understanding? When has a national bourgeois government ever led to socialism?

>>2786359
Quotemining negro award

>>2786379
>Yeah, the national bourgeoisie are progressive
>They have a long history of throwing out the imperialists only to welcome them back in 20 years late
These are contradictory arguments

>National bourgeois revolutions can create conditions more favourable to socialism on a global scale,
Not even close.

>>2786406
Spamming slurs but not brave enough to use the actual slur, maybe you are actually a leftcom
>>2786410
It’s easier to make overthrow bourgeois in your country than it is to overthrow those thousands of miles away

>>2786410
The national bourgeoisie are progressive relative to imperialism, but the problem is that they can't be relied upon to stay that way when left to their own devices. In other words they can help defeat imperialism but then must be subjugated by the workers and peasants as soon as possible before their backsliding tendencies can manifest. I don't think this is contradictory.
>Not even close.
Complete nonsense. A weaker and more divided international bourgeoise is obviously more favourable to socialism than one united by hegemony. The national bourgeoisie also pursue policies that promote industrialization and urbanization, thus laying the socioeconomic foundations for socialism. Finally they undermine the ability of the imperialist ruling class to placate their own populations, making revolution more likely in the imperial core.

>>2786410
>National bourgeois revolutions can create conditions more favourable to socialism on a global scale
<Not even close.
Read Lenin. Read Stalin. Read Trotsky. Hell even read Bordiga. No communist writer has ever disagreed with that basic notion.

>>2786413
I am not replying to a garbage quote you have spammed multiple times.

>It’s easier to make overthrow bourgeois in your country
And yet you want to allign yourself with those bourgs instead

>>2786415
>The national bourgeoisie are progressive relative to imperialism
The natbooj works together with imperialists, there are very few countries where this isn't the case, most of the blobe is either an ally of the US, a colony of the US, where the natbooj actuvely support imperialism, or with China, where the natbooj benefits from Chinese capitalism
>A weaker and more divided international bourgeoise is obviously more favourable to socialism than one united by hegemony.
Irrelevant because they all join forces when it comes to fighting against socialism, just see what happened in the Russian revolution.

>>2786418
Revive Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Bordiga so they can see the current state of the world, maybe they will update their theory.

>>2786420
>The natbooj works together with imperialists
That is by definition not the case. If they are supporting imperialists then they are compradors, not national bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie are defined by their opposition to imperialism.
>just see what happened in the Russian revolution
During the Russian revolution the Germans helped Lenin get back to Russia and even had plans to arm the Bolsheviks. They also armed the Irish Republicans who had communist leaders like James Connolly. During WW2 the US aided Vietnamese and Chinese communists, Britain aided Yugoslavian and Albanian communists, etc. Not to mention of course the fact that the Western powers were allied with the USSR. The historical record shows that the bourgeoisie will support communists if they think it will give them an advantage over rival bourgeois states.

>>2786424
>If they are supporting imperialists then they are compradors, not national bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie are defined by their opposition to imperialism.
These don't exist, not a single country exists as an isolated nation. National bourgs still buy commodities from imperial countries, they trade with imperialists. The world is no longer divide as such.

>Germany
Germany was part of the Central Powers that fought against the Bolsheviks

>>2786436
>National bourgs still buy commodities from imperial countries, they trade with imperialists.
That's not the same thing as cooperating with imperialism. The national bourgeoisie don't allow their countries to be sucked into IMF debt traps, tow the line of the imperial core on foreign policy, or neglect their own development to serve as sources of cheap labour and resources. If what you're saying was true then there would be no cause for conflict between the imperialists and weaker bourgeois countries like Iran.
>Germany was part of the Central Powers that fought against the Bolsheviks
No, they fought the Tsar and later Kerensky, but they concluded a peace treaty with the Bolsheviks and were making arrangements to arm them in the Russian Civil War, but then were defeated by the Entente.

>>2786440
>That's not the same thing as cooperating with imperialism. The national bourgeoisie don't allow their countries to be sucked into IMF debt traps, tow the line of the imperial core on foreign policy, or neglect their own development to serve as sources of cheap labour and resources.
Literally no country does this, moreover, no country that does has managed to achieve any remotely relevant degree of development.
>there would be no cause for conflict between the imperialists and weaker bourgeois countries like Iran.
The Iran conflict has watered down, there was no more money to be made


>but they concluded a peace treaty with the Bolsheviks
They supported independence movements on the Eastern front, mainly the Baltics and Finland.

>>2786448
>no country that does
That tried*

>>2786379
I see, critical support to israel in their struggle against the iranian bourgeoisie

>>2786928
What has to happen to your brain to get anything even close to that from my post? Iran is obviously progressive compared to Israel.

>>2786448
>Literally no country does this
That's obviously not true and I think you know it. For example, all through the 1960s and 70s Iraq pursued an aggressive policy of industrial development and infrastructure expansion under the national bourgeois Ba'athist government. In more recent years, Bolivia and Venezuela pursued similar policies prior to their natbourg government being removed. I actually went to Bolivia while Morales was president, and the results of his development program are were highly visible. All through the cities and countryside you could see brand new infrastructure that had a major impact on people's lives like public transportation systems, health clinics, sports complexes, community centres, schools, low cost housing, etc. Iran also pursues similar policies, and has an independent and self-sufficient industrial base that has recently proven capable of sustaining a serious war effort against the US.
>The Iran conflict has watered down
It's reigniting as we speak, and if Iran was really a pliable servant of imperialism then it never would have happened to begin with.
>They supported independence movements on the Eastern front, mainly the Baltics and Finland.

1. So did the Bolsheviks
   
2. The Germans also supported the Bolsheviks against the Whites and Entente forces that intervened on their behalf.
   
   

>>2786949
When you say that the Iranian bourgeoisie must be destroyed for socialism you are implicitly legitimizing the Israeli destruction of all of Iranian society, including its bourgeoisie.

>>2786928
>>2786991
Based, I hope the Israel bourg kills the Iranian bourg in case the Iranian bourg fails to kill the Israeli bourg first

A death bourg is always a good thing, unless you are a fucking classcuck

>>2787199
The bourgs are the very last ones that become victims in any conflict tho, and even then they flee the country/start collaborating with the enemy before that happens

>>2787264
Bur leftypol told me we should support the national bourg?!?!

>>2786991
>When you say that the Iranian bourgeoisie must be destroyed for socialism
The bourgeoisie of all countries eventually need to be destroyed for socialism. Socialism as a system is antithetical to their existence.
>you are implicitly legitimizing the Israeli destruction of all of Iranian society
That might be the case if I hadn't said that the national bourgeoisie are progressive compared to imperialism and that Iran should be supported against Israel for this reason. How about you actually read what I said instead explicitly instead of imagining what you think I said implicitly?