/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2806267
"competently reactionary" requires definition. if you mean that they effectively implement reactionary policies, that's one thing, but often they are rhetorically reactionary in a completely unnecessary way. Nick Fuentes calls himself a "moderate democrat" because he's a troll, but Kamala Harris didn't go around demanding we build a wall, stop the boats, stop the transgender menace, etc. She spent most of her time saying nothing - and saying nothing is okay, saying nothing means not saying bad things. She lost in part because of that, sure, but contrast the UK where in days when our institutions were slightly better functioning this guy lost his seat in the courts because he went so far in attacking his lib-dem opponent from the right that it tipped over into libel and breached the representation of the people act 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Woolas#2010_re-election_and_election_court_case

>>2807056
The SNP have gone to every election since at least the 1970s with an insistence that Scotland needs more immigration and less emigration, and the only reason they weren't doing it sooner was because they were under the control of fundamentalists who wanted all policy decisions to be postponed until after independence.

>>2807222
>Kamala Harris didn't go around demanding we build a wall, stop the boats, stop the transgender menace, etc.
No, it was Hillary and Obama; the darlings of the Democratic Party, who actively promoted a border wall and opposed gay marriage, before they didn't. There was no change of mind, only a change of agenda. Cuckservatives STILL call Obama "deporter in chief". If that's the case, why not be an Obama supporter? The difference is that Nick Fuentes would support Obama, like how he supported Kamala, while a typical conservative is afraid of the blue party. Same thing in this country, and mark my words - Farage will raise net migration into the UK above Starmer. I promise you.

>>2806645
I neither accept that antisemitism is mostly derived from the actual actions of Jewish people (not even Israel), nor that Islamophobia is majorly caused by the actions of muslims.

The majority of antisemitism comes from the right and the right rarely give a fuck about gaza. if they whine about israel at all, it's usually about the USS liberty or some other nonsense.
The majority of islamophobia comes from the right as well. The common factor here is rightism, and any nitpicking about Israel's actions prompting an increase in antisemitism on the left misses the woods for the trees. almost tautologically, rightists are either prejudiced or at ease with prejudice if it means they get tax cuts. if they did not have a personality type inclined to prejudices, they would not be rightists.

>>2807226
the pivot speaks well of them. it is one thing to oppose gay marriage in 2004 and another thing entirely to oppose it in 2012. even if their personal feelings haven't changed one bit, their ability to say the right thing is laudable. it is britain's politicians refusal to do the same, or their pivot from doing so to not doing so, which must be explained.

you might be right about farage delivering the "worst of both worlds", but why didn't starmer deliver the best? why not shut the border while singing the praises of diversity and immigration from the rooftops? if you believe immigration (and not press hysteria and petty prejudices) really does cause the majority of anti-immigration sentiment, you should get rid of it by cutting immigration on the one hand while keeping progressives on side by pretending you're not doing that (maybe all the immigrants are staying away because of brexit. that must be it. grr, brexit.)

>>2807232
Starmer is someone who seems to always be trying to read the room rather than having an agenda, which is part of the fault of his strategy. He went from condemning the Southport rioters to calling Britain an "island of strangers" to apologising for it, etc. He's all over the place, so just isn't the best politician.

>>2807233
I will reiterate that it is not oikophobia to hate old reactionary cunts in wanker parts of England. Glibly: I love every Green voter, SNP voter, plaid voter, I accept most Labour voters and Lib-Dem voters as well. There are even a smattering of Tories I can live with. Reform voters, however, are more foreign to me than any other person on the planet. This would be true even before we factor that in the modern world one can find people with whom they have more in common based on shared ideas, hobbies, tastes, humour, etc, than they can in the modern area. (e.g. there are people from Canada who are more like me than people in Britain, and my dislike of British people who are different to me is xenophobia not oikophobia.)

Let's turn it around: why isn't it Oikophobia for you to hate the indigenous British left and all our proud tradition of uselessness? Why are you more afraid of left-voting British muslims than of right-voting British whites with yankee brains?

>>2807231
TRTCH NVUKEU

Hard to argue against when reformers are seig heiling behind nazi flags at rally and the lefts 'anti-semitism' typically manifests in 'can you please stop genociding muslim babies'

>>2807240
>Muslims don't produce shit becasue anything good is Haram.

wrong

>>2807244
Death to UK culture. Death British values. Death to Westminster. Death to the project of Britain.

>>2807244
You saw Tory voters like Corbyn's policies until they found out it was Corbyn… and you concluded that people vote based on policy, not based on some other factor, so the left should adopt more pragmatic policymaking?

The left would basically ignore the hospital problem and leave it to some kind of boring official decision, although you could have a fun argument about it (if the regular hospital is saving 10,000 people who're 90 years old, which is what a regular hospitals usually do, it will probably save less years of life than the children's hospital). Opening a hospital makes you look good no matter what.
I think the left is also perfectly capable of making such decisions. The SNP oversaw the construction of a hospital that killed some people - well, fair enough, that could happen to anyone, builder's fault right? Well, how did they respond, as basically decent people? They helped management try to cover it up because it would be bad PR. Anas Sarwar directly asked John Swinney to take responsibility in a question from one of the victims mothers and he looked right into the camera and said: wait for the inquiry. Sarwar said: That's exactly what the victim's mother said you'd say to try and get out of this. John Swinney looked straight back into the camera, sounding all sensible and respectable, and he said: wait for the inquiry. He got away with it and just won a 5th term, and I would still gladly say he's a decent person because "wait for the inquiry" is too anodyne to be obscene.

The SNP and Plaid run contrary to basically ever argument "decent fucking person"ism. In the SNP's case, you don't even need to govern particularly well! The SNP since 2015ish have been comically incompetent, but never openly evil. Their opponents have been evil, and look where that got them. The wider left's competency problem is purely logistical - if the SNP could pull off the last Holyrood election, mired in scandal, incompetency, and near-bankruptcy, against the best funded Labour campaign in Holyrood history, the rest of us have no excuses. If Plaid can argue for an independent Wales from the current economic baseline, the rest of us have nothing to fear in selling our ideas.

As for 2017 Lab > 2028 Reform Switchers, there are basically none of these. You're falling into the trap of believing media narratives instead of looking at actual polling data in depth. People aren't constituencies: if a northern seat flips from Labour to Tory or Reform, that doesn't mean Labour voters themselves are going Tory or Reform. (Instead in most cases Labour voters were discouraged and Tories/Reform lost votes compared to 2017. e.g. if you assume differential turnout, then most red wall seats could fall simply because Tories voted and Labour voters stayed home.)
I mean remember this: more 2019 Tory voters died than swung to Labour in 2024, despite Starmer doing all he could to pander to them. Voting behavior is complicated. Anyway, I'm putting my money on the comparatively young parties.

>>2807263
the only person sperging out like this is you honestly, are you lost from the facebook/reddit liberals seething?

Its just buisness as usual for leftists, if you think anything will fundamentally change between reform or lab/tories you are stupid, its just the 'bad' liberal party to play the heel for the next 'good' liberal party.

>>2807263
You're the real globalist since you believe so strongly in the British Empire. I am personally a nationalist.

>>2807263
The average rightist in this country is retired or expects to retire before the next election. "the workers" well managers, insofar as managers count as workers vote green, lib-dem, independent, SNP, plaid, or (for some godforsaken reason) labour.

I will however give you this: I'd sooner hand the world to bankers than to dementia patients.

>>2807223
>The SNP have gone to every election since at least the 1970s with an insistence that Scotland needs more immigration and less emigration the only reason they weren't doing it sooner was because they were under the control of fundamentalists who wanted all policy decisions to be postponed until after independence.

The leader of the SNP could go out and stab someone in broad day light and the scots would still vote SNP. Until independence is achieved things like immigration policys are just meaningless hypotheticals, which the fundamentalists knew.

if the SNP ever achieved Scottish independence the first thing to happen would be party splits specifically over now non-hypothetical issues like immigration policy suddenly going from meaningless to meaningful, a nationalistic SNP now actually needing to justify to its nationalistic voter base their open door pro-immigrant policy, has a massive risk of becoming very unpopular very quickly and blowing up into 4 different partys.

>>2807278
fundamentalists flopped hard, the SNP only started winning seats when they put forward a broad socdem platform. the last time they did serious independence planning (or even referendum planning) was in 2014.

>>2807282
are you missing the amount of hardline nutters the SNP has?

like they have had everything from hardcore evangelical anti-lgbt types such as Ruth Davidson + Glasgow east and anti-abortion types such as Kate Forbes.

>>2807282
<the last time they did serious independence planning (or even referendum planning) was in 2014.
it looks like they're about to try again lol

>Ahead of the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, Swinney said in September 2025 that the UK Government should commit to granting a second referendum on independence should the SNP win a majority at the election.
>On 8 September 2025, the Scottish Government published the Your Right to Decide paper, which sets out the government's prospectus on independence following a second referendum and establishes the view that "it is for the people of Scotland to decide on their constitutional future".[113] In the paper, the Scottish Government states that the UK is a "voluntary union of nations" rather than a unitary state, and therefore argues that Scotland should have the ability to decide whether to leave a voluntary union arrangement.[113]
>At the 2025 SNP Conference, Swinney argued that an SNP majority in the 2026 Holyrood elections would make it impossible for the British Government to refuse a second referendum. The conference supported a motion backed by Swinney to declare a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament as a mandate for a second referendum, and rejected a proposed amendment to treat the Scottish Parliament election as a substitute referendum by the party. Swinney argued that, "The precedent is clear, when the SNP win a majority, we deliver a referendum on independence", and told the conference, "nobody knows what tactics I will deploy" to achieve a second referendum.

>>2807240
>Say what you want about bad faith Zionist fascist Jews, at least they produce good media and contribute a lot to Western culture, Muslims don't produce shit becasue anything good is Haram.
African American are still hated even though they produced massive amount of good popular culture that is still widely beloved byt he young and old alike. Same for gay guys until very recently, same for pedophiles.
Zionists arent defended by shabbos over their decent cultural production but because they are overrepresented in politics/journos/law enforcement AKA hard power.
>>2807244
>if organized, and stopped allowing themselves be led around by narcissitic tendencies such as virtue signalling and the need to be seen as a "decent fucking person" rather than taking a pragmatic and tactical stance at policies and messaging, the UK left COULD take this country
I agree and would extend this to the entire western left more generally. But most of "pragmatic" leftist politicians have ended up being Keir Starmer at worse and François Hollande at best. François Mitterand was considered half a failure during his presidency but he look like Lenin in comparison. I won't even bring up the more explicit "anti-woke pragmatist" left like figures like Sahra Wagenknecht, the ACP or Galloway because it becomes ridiculous.
Overhal the left doesnt lack "pragmatism", it lacks machiavelism and will. Just look at how the average leftist react when you propose that the left should appeal to cops, the weaponry industry and military institutions aka the people that make and own the guns will get you an idea of how serious most leftist are about winning.
In the end most of the cultural issues you and i debated over are irrelevant. The Argentine and Mexican left perfectly manage a voting coalition made of socialy reactionary poor proles, middle classe normies and woke urbanites because they have the guns and the will.

>>2807290
>"nobody knows what tactics I will deploy" to achieve a second referendum.

uhhh what did he mean by this?

>>2807294
I don't exactly mind appealing to cops, at least they serve some kind of social purpose, but arms manufacturers? I don't want to march arm in arm with workers striking to get paid more to build bombs to drop on Gaza

>>2807289
Ruth Davidson was and is a Tory, as in, she literally lead the Scottish Conservatives and has never been in the SNP. Kate Forbes kept her nutter views mostly quiet and then quit politics after being marginalised when they became more public, Fergus Ewing was kicked out and ate shit, Joanna Cherry was stopped from moving to holyrood and then ate shit at Westminster and now has a book out seething that Nicola Sturgeon didn't like her. (One of the few correct judgements Sturgeon ever made)

The SNP used to keep its nutters in line by focusing them on independence. Now the nutters are willing to wreck in pursuit of their prejudices, they're mostly out. Forbes is the most egregious case of a high profile nut but she doesn't run her mouth like the others, she just believes insane things quietly.

>>2807290
If the UK was smart they'd grant a referendum and let the Yes side lose it again, the SNP are in no state to campaign for it at the moment (bankrupt and short of real talent) and haven't done any of the planning for what an independent Scotland would look like since 2014, but that'd take boldness (and, tbf, confidencd that money can offset the UK parties own talent vacuum)

>>2807294
The left tautologically cannot appeal to arms dealers and has an uphill battle winning over cops to no real end. Building a left-wing paramilitary would be infinitely easier than winning over the existing one and that's saying something.

>>2807301
I mixed up the Ruth with Joanna Cherry my bad, its hard to keep a track of the TERF landwhales

>>2807301
idk do you really think yes would win this time? the general state of the UK is much worse than in 2014 and people have much less trust in westminster (not saying they had a huge amount in 2014 but I feel like 90% of people would agree 'they're all criminals' nowadays)

>>2807302
Also yeah it does seem like the SNP has been cleaning house with the times, I think back to the Salmond era where he was taking millions of donations to vote against gay marriage from the mega bus evangelical nonce

>>2807303
I meant 'do you really think no would win this time' obviously.

I mean shit I feel like if you asked English voters 'do you want to dissolve the government and have some kind of other arrangement, who knows what', most of us would probably vote for it.

>>2807294
You can't switch around "pragmatism" with "machiavellism" and pretend you're making a smart point, retard. If you want to do third way politics then you're free to join labor lmfao. They're doing great!

>>2807290
Scottish independance polling is at the higest it's ever been, last poll in date gives 52% for independance, 43% for unity and 5% undecided. Since the greens also support independance, this is the most independantist scottish parliament, Brexit and the general decline of British living standards have caused scots to be less inclined to stay in the Union.
>>2807301
What you're proposing for Scotland was Cameron's strategy for Brexit, hoping that a remain vote would give him legitimacy.
Didn't work out.
I think westminister is in a tricky situation, they are in need of legitimacy since they've completly lost the elections, so they might give Scotland the referendum, but if Scotland wins, then Northern Ireland will leave for sure and Even Wales might be tempted. Could sign the end of the UK. So I think the only way for the SNP to gain its referendum is if they end up being kingmakers in the next general elections, say if there is a Tories-Reform-DUP-TUV alliance against a Green-Labour-Libdem coalition with neither achieving the majority, SNP and Plaid could offer its support to the broad left in exchange for a Scotland referendum.

>>2805326
I've seen you make this point a few times and you never bother to explain why a communist society will be super duper mega gay and kinky, you just put it out there like it's an undisputed truth. Why would the world become so turbohomo if it turns communist?

>>2807361
because it just will…ok?!!!

>>2807361
Because the material restrictions that lock down how people can live will be overcome. Indeed, that is basically the definition of developing the productive forces. If you want to explain why women can live as full human beings instead of as child rearers, look to the industrialisation of textile work (even rich women used to always be spinning thread if you go back far enough!), to labour saving devices and the pill. If you want to explain childlessness (including homosexual partnership of the same age) look to pensions, social security, and general prosperity ensuring you don't need a child to care for you in your dotage, if you want to explain transgenderism look to the internet (not because people are groomed or tricked into it, but because it lowers the social cost of transitioning. If everyone locally thinks you're a freak that's suicide fuel in 1980 and basically irrelevant in 2026, where everyone on leftypol.org still thinks you're cool.)

For every other fetish it's basically a simple function of mass communication. If you want to fuck toasters, great, go to /r/toasterfucker and share your hottest (medium brownest?) fantasies. No plausible communist society is going to enact a ban on harmless weirdness and no successful one is going to bring in enough judgemental noseyness to exterminate it.

>>2807382
trvth nuku

also east germany was heading this way anyway, they legalized homosexuality and opened trans clinics because it was easier to give the gays what they wanted than to continue to waste police time arresting them.

>>2807394
they are doing material analysis if you cant tell

>>2807397
yes, multiple famines happened and they needed to quickly repopulate, banning abortion was also related to this.

>>2807394
I am explaining how economic and technological progress drives social change in ways that aren't always immediately intuitive (how does a textile mill in Lancashire lead to Nicola Sturgeon?) but which has a central tendency towards social liberalism.

>>2807397
I may do more detailed analysis but yes. You can view the earlier legalisation as an attempt to leapfrog the underlying economic composition of society and push progress by legislation alone, which failed and was rolled back as Stalin rationalised things. That the USSR didn't subsequently liberalise (or develop to its full economic potential) speaks to its underlying institutional flaws.

Though legislation is cheap: the real question is whether there was more homosexual behaviour in 1917, 1934, or 1991. I put to you that there were more exclusively gay Russians outside a lavender marriage in 1991 than in 1917, because even when homosexuality was legal the circumstances of 1917 made it materially infeasible for most people to live as they wished

>>2807401
The legalization/decrimm in 1917 is misleading, it was widely hated by most Russians and enacted by city intellectual types - the average Russian didnt know how to read and lived in a serfdom era shithole for the most part and was super orthodox, they had to throw concessions to the reactionaries due to population collapse.

As I previously stated the USSR in the 80s was starting to liberalize LGBT+ laws towards its end, same with womens rights.

>>2807401
Viewing living conditions as "good" or "bad" as a proxy for the roots of liberalism is stupid. Russia may have been poorer in 1993 than in 1990, but that doesn't undo the invention of the morning after pill abroad, or a large number of trained abortionists hanging around, does it? You are imagining a mechanical determinism into a much messier process.

>>2807394
communism is the fulfillment of the broken promises of liberalism.

>>2807405
This is also pretty symbolic of Lenin era USSR vs Stalin era USSR - Lenin was a well read intellectual, Stalin was an orthodox guy who was born in a farm barn.

This is where Stalin was born

>>2807405
>The legalization/decrimm in 1917 is misleading, it was widely hated by most Russians and enacted by city intellectual types

did the average person even know or care?

>>2807411
Yes the average rural russian would have been aware of this, you should research the push/pull between the tribal style women doctors who lived in rural areas and the criminalization of them by the Tsar, and later emancipation by the revolution.

>>2807414
>It is the law which drives social change you plonker. There are more gay people today than in the past because it was a crime in the past. Simple.

yes and no, it's not one way street, the law drives behaviour and behaviour drives the law

>>2807414
And how do the elites manifest what they 'want'?

They have to play politics with demographics eventually.

>>2807412
Reading about this will help you understand what pathologic is talking about

>>2807421
znakharki is the word btw

>>2807421
Which is why they can let people be gay and have abortions when there is enough people to meet the material needs of the population but have to pull that back when faced with famine.

Education leads to liberalized LGBT+ laws in general as a trend, you cant get educated if you need farm hands so you dont all die.

>>2807412
woman doctors has nothing to do with homosexuality though. abortion maybe idk

>>2807410
Stalin was also an intellectual and an atheist where is this classist shit coming from

>>2807414
>No, you are saying that there is a linear graph between communism and queerness, which is clearly false.
I am saying that they are strongly correlated, which is true. The fact the USSR failed to update its laws to reflect underlying material conditions speaks to the same underlying structural flaws that meant the USSR couldn't adapt to changing conditions and not die on its arse. (Contrast China, which adapted fine and which has a negative official line on homosexuality and nonconformism in general, but which nevertheless is full of LGBT behavior because all the basic underlying material drivers are there.)
The law influences changes in social attitudes, but it does not drive social change. As late as 1995 a majority of irreligious adults in the UK thought gay sex was always wrong despite homosexuality having been legal since the 1960s!
The changes in the 1960s came about due to increasing recognition that whether you criminalized being gay or not, some men were going to do it.

That said: liberal elites are always, everywhere, better than conservative elites. That around the world conservative elites have allowed themselves to be eaten up pandering to the actually mentally deficient tells you all you need to know about the "virtues" of conservatism.

>>2807430
Because it's not a question of rich vs poor.
A poor country with a retirement system will, all else being equal, have more exclusively homosexual men than a richer country without one. That is what this theory predicts. It is, to a high degree, independent of wealth. (Though because everything is connected to everything else, this can't be drawn too far: a rich enough country without any state retirement system will probably still have childless couples due to a reliable private retirement savings scheme. You've really got to dig around in low/middle income countries for this kind of thing.)

The liberal west is more economically developed than the DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam. China is an interesting outside case where it is more developed in some respects and less developed in others. There is no "communist" variable in the way you seem to wish there was. Cuba is governed by a communist party, and in that sense is "more communist", but it is economically underdeveloped, and is in that sense further from communism. This is obviously well above your pay-grade, but someone else might get something out of having this obvious fact explained plainly.
Incidentally, it's not for nothing that the most reactionary parts of the developed world are the least developed US states and the actively undeveloping United Kingdom.

>>2807441
That isn't the hypothesis. The hypothesis, oversimplified, is that:

1. Communism is the highest state of economic and social development
   
2. As societies develop economically and socially, they are more gay
   
3. Therefore, communism will be incredibly gay.
   
   

A communist governed socialist country has not achieved communism, and indeed none of them claim to have achieved "communism." There is no "more" or "less" communism in this sense. It is like saying that you have done "more" moon landings than me because you've been in a plane and I haven't. You cannot have "more" or "less" of a binary condition, it is either done or not done, true or false, on or off.

>>2807596
Is there a single person outside Mainland China who sees more gay behaviour from Chinese than Western people? Where are the queer parades with 100+ million attendees? Where's the multitrillion gay club industry?