[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


 

How are the right and the left both pouncing on the EU at the same time dude? Fuck my uyghur life, shit's so over. Supranational governing bodies formed by consensus are never going to work.
54 posts and 10 image replies omitted.

>>2896231
90% of leftist takes are just them following whatever the right says so they can feel like theyre "winning"
give it 5 years and leftists will become free market advocates or pro israel or repeat whatever other rightoid talking point just to "win"

>>2896379
>buy our energy goy
how about no

I firmly believe the european idea can be saved if reimagined by the left as a force of internationalism and homogenization and collective enforcement of progressive laws over the continent. When I say reimagined I mean COMPLETELY rehauled and serving different goals.

>>2896449
>euroids will suck american cock forever
yes we realize this

>>2896418
Greece committed outright fraud to build up Euro debts and then got caught. As it happens I actually think Greece should've withdrawn from the Euro, but they didn't! A left wing government held a left wing referendum to tell the EU to fuck off, won, and then immediately folded! Meanwhile the UK - my example, by the way - has no party committed to violating any EU rules meaningfully and yet voted to leave. "Muh Greece, Muh Greece" - fuck Greece. Greece's own government fucked Greece.

>>2896381
Historical progression

>>2896318
>Gain independence. Break off from US control.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The EU just handed all your data over to US companies and the NSA on a silver platter.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-passed-the-european-parliament-through-the-back-door
So much for european "democracy" btw, the EU literally doens't matter issues can be passed with minority of votes.
The EU does not even succeed in being a rival imperial power to the US. Literal vassal state.

>>2896434
tbh I'm open to a more pro-market left in a tactical sense. The most reactionary factions of the bourgeoise are those in protected industries. it's not for nothing that the UK is: (a) an incredibly reactionary shithole (b) faked most of its so called neoliberal privatisation/deregulation, instead creating a non-competitive cut out system of authorised looting and (c) the most economically stagnant and miserable of the first world countries.

Armaments for Israel, incidentally, is one of those old noncompetitive protected sectors. Fundamentally the optimal defense budget of a bourgeois state is zero. If we could temporarily get tax cut wankers on board with that, that'd be grand. I'd gladly put every penny of the defense budget in the hands of (who knows) supermarket shareholders.
This will not be a popular view with those who pretend we're within 20 years of a revolution and that they'll soon control all those F-35s

>>2896469
The political situation has changed in 150 years, refer to >>2896358

File: 1787239220596-4.png (2.55 MB, 3840x2160, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2896434
>give it 5 years and leftists will become free market advocates
because communist China is free trade and capitalist america is protectionist, yes

>>2896469
>>2896473
Let's argue that the EU is unreformable, in that case I don't see why you would still not see a project aiming at a socialist federal europe as an improvement over merely abolishing it, and letting the various nat bourg of europe run their anti-communist little fiefdoms.
The Russian Empire was also 'unreformable' (without abolishing it). But the solution to this was not splitting it up, but rather capturing and centralizing it under a communist party.
Furthermore there is no full financial, agricultural, technological and industrial independence in this globalized world, not even for the likes of Cuba or the DPRK. So what hope would places like Belgium or Estonia have here? You're not gonna get rid of international supply chains by getting rid of the EU and freedom of movement and labor.

You might also argue that the EU prevents nationalizations - but so do 'independent' bourgeois states. Is the situation any better in Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, Norway or Switzerland? It isn't. Everything that can be said about the EU can be said about any nominally independent (As well as non-nato) bourgeois state out there, no matter how big or small. Anti-communism is as global as capital.
And if EU workers are not ready or willing to organize across national lines now in favor of a socialist federal europe, why do you think they would be after the EU is abolished? Where is the historical precedent for any of this?

Was Lenin wrong about a "United States of Europe"? No. But he could have written the same about the US (if it had not existed) or any disorganized subcontinent, and it would have been just as true. The development of capital gives rise to imperialism. This does not require Europe to be united or disunited.
>>2896473
But what prevents workers from pursuing their own interests in the EU, compared to the Russian Empire, which was also anti-communist, and even more centralized?

>>2896318
You really think the spineless European bourgeoisie would do that?

>>2896482
>The development of capital gives rise to imperialism.
The economically imperialist nations of Lenins time are the same exact imperialist nations of today. Not a single nation has transitioned from imperialized to imperialist since. The question of whether Europe is united or disunited is fundamentally an important one for global socialism and it would obviously be preferable for the imperialist europeans to not be cooperating on how best to divy up their spoils

>>2896474
>tbh I'm open to a more pro-market left in a tactical sense. The most reactionary factions of the bourgeoise are those in protected industries. it's not for nothing that the UK is: (a) an incredibly reactionary shithole (b) faked most of its so called neoliberal privatisation/deregulation, instead creating a non-competitive cut out system of authorised looting and (c) the most economically stagnant and miserable of the first world countries
you heard it here bois, "muhh incentives" and "muh markets" anon is back at it again, telling us all how the pro market fundamentalism coming out of the late 80s never actually happened. how often do you need to be told that you are wrong?

File: 1787241626614-6.png (795.13 KB, 1080x1280, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2896474
>the most economically stagnant and miserable of the first world countries
lmao no that would be Canada

>>2896509
Based Trump raping KKKanadian SSettleroids to death with his 50% tariff trade wars.

>>2896482
>But the solution to this was not splitting it up, but rather capturing and centralizing it under a communist party
what? it literally broke up, your analogy makes no sense. the civil war was won because remnants of the russian empire were so disorganized and couldnt agree to shit, that was one of the main conditions the civil war could even be won. nobody is arguing that the dissolution of the EU only strengthens the communist cause but rather that such an event would certainly create the conditions necessary for future endeavours. it would discredit liberalism as the failed ideology that it is, setting the stepping stone for future action. it is my belief that the reason why marx and engels sometimes make contradictory statements and failed to accurately predict an european revolution was because they failed to completely separate themselves from liberal (enlightenment) ideals. it was those ideals clashing with the ideals of a society yet to come. and to be fair, they were both sorta aware of it, but really, most of their criticism they directed at other like-minded.

>>2896187
Yeah western euros are fucked for the foreseeable future. Climate change, the collapse of the U.S empire and resource crunch means at best they can hope to be a neo-colony of Russia. Imo its good for American politics because it politically becomes untenable to continue for the U.S to prop up western Europe and treat it like wakanda for white people. Once euros go through muttfication the euro left will stop tailing the far right on immigration nonsense. The burger left is still trying to tackle that too but Its been shifting rapidly.

>>2896566
>Once euros go through muttfication the euro left will stop tailing the far right on immigration nonsense. The burger left is still trying to tackle that too but Its been shifting rapidly.

Huh that's interesting what do you mean by that anon

>>2896566
North africa is very famous for having no immigration brainworms thanks to their browness fr fr

>>2896505
Until someone makes a convincing counterargument, something you've never done despite schizoing out and accusing several randos of being me.

In what sense is the UK Government picking and choosing crooks to run water, rail, electricity, etc, "market fundamentalism"? you think that just because a politician talks about something a lot, that means they mean it?

>>2896509
>per capita GDP growth
bizarre statistic almost certainly included to down rank Canada for it's massive population growth.
Give me real terms wage growth since 2006.
>>2896538
I said "left" instead of Marxist for a reason. The task before Marxists in building a viable organisation is a huge one. One I sympathise with entirely, but one far beyond most of the clowns here. If I sneakily dislike your quotation of scripture, I respect that you at least try.

That said, I would ask you to think about the implications of "public" ownership under capitalism - do you seriously imagine that the UK government, which has now nationalised a steel mill from a Chinese firm, will operate that steel mill one iota more in the public interest than the private sector? Do you imagine a bourgeois state runs its holdings in the interest of anyone but the bourgeoisie? Would it help if I noted the justification for steel nationalisation was "national security"? Think here for yourself, rather than what is in the manifesto: if the UK Will be a soviet Republic in 10 years then of course steel nationalisation is cutting the Marxists work out for them, but if the state remains run by the bourgeoisie then all you have is a duff steel mill subsidised to churn out raw materials for armaments for bourgeois wars. In such a case I take no shame in saying I'd rather it was being used by the chinese to build railroads.

Europeans working always was a meaningless fantasy

>>2896788
I have little time for a theological reading of Marx. Arguments should be made on their own merits with plain reference to contemporary or historical examples of the phenomena under discussion.

Stripped of Marx's aura, your arguments are much less impressive: The bourgeois labour government is good for nationalising a steel mill so it can suck up money that would be better spent on public services for the general proletariat so that a handful of workers can stay in employment producing raw inputs for the arms industry, because IF (and what an if it is!) there's a revolution this will have made our job easier. (Assuming, of course, a tank made from British Steel doesn't land a lucky shot on British Stalin…), it isn't permitted to vote for bourgeois parties so we must vote for a non-bourgeois socialist workers party (total count of such parties in Britain: flat zero.), a laundry list of "wills" and "musts" to be implemented by this utterly absent vanguard, and some handwaving of the fact that since some suffering is inevitable in a revolution, we should look forward to the inevitable pointless suffering before us and, indeed, enjoy the current pointless suffering and that of the last 40 years because in the final tally the as of yet non-existent vanguard will eventually result from it and seize the helm, and with it, all that lovely steel. I'm not convinced! Call me a libertarian apologist true worshipping at the false idol of bourgeois property rights false if you want, but when coca cola plan a new product line there are nowhere near as many missing dependencies in the chain between thought and action. They do not paper over a massive chasm like "there is no workers party worthy of the name in the country under discussion, not is one likely to appear any time soon" with heavy handed quoting from long dead theorists.

We must start by taking our actual situation seriously and seeking truth from facts. I do not believe a Marxist party need advocate libertarianism (actually I think this would be a grave misstep, my point as such is really a half way house between taking theory seriously and suggestions for the bourgeois reformist "left" parties), but I do not think conditions are even sufficient for a real left party. In Britain more fundamental work is needed, the very basics of institutional organisationising skill are lacking or actively maldeveloped in unhelpful ways. It is useless in these conditions to talk of what a proper party would do when our raw material and talent could not successfully organise a pissup in a brewery.

did the marxists.org spammer get banned? lmao

>>2896472
>issues can be passed with minority of votes
Only because of the EC. The EC, and with it all the undemocratic aspects of the EU, exists only because national governments were afraid of a supranational authority bypassing them and being accountable only to the people. The problem is, as always, half-assing in the name of appealing to people who do not even appreciate the attempt to appeal to them. It's hard to even put into words how many problems would be solved by simply having this piece of shit union structured like an actual state instead of like the UN.

>>2897211
>It's hard to even put into words how many problems would be solved by simply having this piece of shit union structured like an actual state instead of like the UN.
true but im not sure many people realize how much of an impossibility that is

The US engineered the 2008 financial crash specifically to target European markets which were starting to syphon American investor capital during the 2000s. Same as with Japan in the 90s. Economic sabotage follows whenever any "ally" of the US starts threatening its position at the head of the global financial pecking order. And the US has always garnered anxieties about the euro specifically in this regard.

>>2896820
>>2896581
>but when coca cola plan a new product line there are nowhere near as many missing dependencies in the chain between thought and action
why the fuck would you take coca cola out of all examples lmao, i cant… (just google for new coke)
Hayek was smarter than you (and since you lack any self awareness and introspective: thats an insult). i really thought about responding to your post and even had most of the text done but then i saw the second post which was filled with so much narcissism and self-pity, I just can't. Why should I teach someone to drive who lacks the crucial skill to learn from their mistakes.

>>2896822
I was gonna write a long reply wth

>>2896187
>>2896231
>>2896318
>>2896313
>>2896339
>>2896343
>>2896331
>>2896375
>>2896431
>>2896454
>>2896498
It looks like I’m going to have to respond once again to the opportunists here who deny the supremacy of the proletariat and the workers’ party’s obligation to remain independent from the bourgeoisie.

One factor to consider is that the European Union is an unreformable imperialist capitalist institution; therefore, the communist stance must be anti-EU and anti-NATO to recover financial, food, technological, and industrial sovereignty in the processes of appropriation and nationalization of the economy for socialization. The European Union prevents nationalizations and state monopolization for the socialization of the economy, is responsible for maintaining neoliberal measures and hindering the advancement of class struggles, preventing the defense of communist causes such as bank nationalization with its own national currency, and preventing a country from having a monopoly on foreign trade, which is necessary to socialize the economy, abolish private property, anarchy of production, and abolish social classes.

Class conciliation does not exist; it is impossible to reform a bourgeois state into a socialist state. You can push bourgeois democracy to its limit by radically democratizing and intensifying the class struggle with radical reforms that lead to its collapse, thus facilitating a revolutionary situation where the communist vanguard will have prepared the workers for this type of situation to carry out a revolution to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat (proletarian democracy).

Tell me why the imperialist capitalist institution that is the European Union can be reformed into a socialist society if bourgeois states cannot? When Marx deemed the separation of Ireland from England acceptable, he argued that having more equal relations for the development of Ireland would facilitate a communist revolution between the Irish and English so that both could enter a future socialist federation with more equal relations, but this is a union of socialist countries. It makes no sense for a socialist country to be in a bourgeois organization with other bourgeois countries; a union of socialist countries created by socialist countries only makes sense. The relationship between a socialist and a capitalist country must be limited to acquiring what is necessary for economic sovereignty, encouraging industrialization, promoting exchange systems more independent of imperialist capitalism for poor countries to use, encouraging multipolarity, helping other communists by spreading revolutionary propaganda, and educating other workers through diplomacy alongside communists in other countries.

Let's look at quotes from programs in bourgeois democracy that demonstrate how necessary national banking with its own national currency is:

<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

<6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

[…]
<(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

<10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.


<This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.


<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, March 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germany


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm

<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;

[…]
<11. Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

Nationalization of the banking system is necessary to facilitate the socialization of the economy and to implement public policies for workers free from the influence and control of capitalists and financial market speculators. For a communist revolution to succeed, there must be national banks to be seized, or a national currency must be created:

<It is therefore comprehensible that in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune – this would have been worth more than 10,000 hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favor of peace with the Commune, but what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists. Naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed – as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm – that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school proscribed.


<1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm

Did you forget this text too?

<If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting. What elasticity, what historical initiative, what a capacity for sacrifice in these Parisians! After six months of hunger and ruin, caused rather by internal treachery than by the external enemy, they rise, beneath Prussian bayonets, as if there had never been a war between France and Germany and the enemy were not at the gates of Paris. History has no like example of a like greatness. If they are defeated only their “good nature” will be to blame. They should have marched at once on Versailles, after first Vinoy and then the reactionary section of the Paris National Guard had themselves retreated. The right moment was missed because of conscientious scruples. They did not want to start the civil war, as if that mischievous abortion Thiers had not already started the civil war with his attempt to disarm Paris. Second mistake: The Central Committee surrendered its power too soon, to make way for the Commune. Again from a too “honorable” scrupulosity! However that may be, the present rising in Paris – even if it be crushed by the wolves, swine and vile curs of the old society – is the most glorious deed of our Party since the June insurrection in Paris. Compare these Parisians, storming heaven, with the slave to heaven of the German-Prussian Holy Roman Empire, with its posthumous masquerades reeking of the barracks, the Church, cabbage-junkerdom and above all, of the philistine.


<Marx to Dr Kugelmann Concerning the Paris Commune, April 12, 1871


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_12.htm

Now I will include a quote from Lenin stating that a union of European capitalist countries has only the purpose of uniting capitalists to suppress socialists and divide semi-colonies and neocolonies for the exploitation of imperialist capitalism, intensifying the exploitation of European and foreign workers.

<A United States of Europe under capitalism is tantamount to an agreement on the partition of colonies. Under capitalism, however, no other basis and no other principle of division are possible except force. A multi-millionaire cannot share the "national income" of a capitalist country with anyone otherwise than "in proportion to the capital invested" (with a bonus thrown in, so that the biggest capital may receive more than its share). Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and anarchy in production. To advocate a "just" division of income on such a basis is sheer Proudhonism, stupid philistinism. No division can be effected otherwise than in "proportion to strength", and strength changes with the course of economic development. Following 1871, the rate of Germany's accession of strength was three or four times as rapid as that of Britain and France, and of Japan about ten times as rapid as Russia's. There is and there can be no other way of testing the real might of a capitalist state than by war. War does not contradict the fundamentals of private property—on the contrary, it is a direct and inevitable outcome of those fundamentals. Under capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics.


<Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists … but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard America's more rapid development. The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever.


<A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.


<Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.


<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

For the proletariat to acquire its political supremacy, it must organize itself as a class in a socialist workers' party independent of the bourgeoisie, fighting for the supremacy of the proletarian class to socialize the economy in solidarity with the workers of the whole world, preparing the workers for the revolutionary situation. Any suffering or sacrifices that workers may endure along the way are irrelevant to this; therefore, the European Union, NATO, the IMF, and any bourgeois organization that stands in the way of achieving economic sovereignty must be opposed, attacked, and destroyed so that the proletariat can gain political supremacy and the masses can lose any illusions about the bourgeois state. This also means revoking contracts with all private companies and bourgeois organizations, as well as auditing the public debt to nullify it; if necessary, default on the debt, provided that any law related to fiscal responsibility is abolished.

>>2896482
Once again, I am offering this response to the opportunists who make up excuses for not destroying the EU and NATO, and to all the “left-wing” parties that do not support the destruction of both, parties that must also be crushed and destroyed, no matter how much suffering or death the workers may have to endure.

You remain mistaken. The Russian Empire and the bourgeois republic that followed it were overthrown by the Bolsheviks during the revolution; a proletarian state was established upon the ruins of the old state, with no continuity of previous laws. All bourgeois and reactionary institutions—such as the police and the standing army—were abolished so that the Red Guard and the Red Army would uphold the supremacy of the proletarian class. You are aware that, during this period, desertion was rife among the soldiers as the dual power of popular councils—comprising soldiers, peasants, and workers—was being built; this process prepared the masses for the revolutionary situation.

Let us look at Marx's writings on the Irish question:

<England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.


<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

<The question now is, what advice shall we give to the English workers? In my opinion they must make the repeal of the Union (in short, the affair of 1783, but in a more democratic form and adapted to the conditions of the present time) an article of their pronunziamento . This is the only legal and therefore only possible form of Irish emancipation which can be embodied in the programme of an English party. Experience must show later whether the merely personal union can continue to subsist between the two countries. I half think it can if it takes place in time.


<What the Irish need is:


<1) Self-government and independence from England.


<2) An agrarian revolution. With the best intentions in the world the English cannot accomplish this for them, but they can give them the legal means of accomplishing it for themselves.


<3) Protective tariffs against England. Between 1783 and 1801 all branches of Irish industry flourished. The Union, by abolishing the protective tariffs established by the Irish Parliament, destroyed all industrial life in Ireland. The bit of linen industry Is no compensation whatever. The Union of 1801 had just the same effect on Irish industry as the measures for the suppression of the Irish woollen industry, etc., taken by the English Parliament under Anne, George II, and others. Once the Irish are independent, necessity will turn them into protectionists, as it did Canada, Australia, etc.


<Marx-Engels Correspondence 1867, Letter from Marx to Engels In Manchester


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_11_30-abs.htm

<I have become more and more convinced—and it is only a question of driving this conviction home to the English working class — that it can never do anything decisive here in England until it separates its policy with regard to Ireland most definitely from the policy of the ruling classes, until it not only makes common cause with the Irish but even takes the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801 and replacing it by a free federal relationship. And this must be done, not as a matter of sympathy with Ireland but as a demand made in the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain tied to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because it will have to join with them in a common front against Ireland. Every one of its movements in England itself is crippled by the strife with the Irish, who form a very important section of the working class in England. The primary condition of emancipation here—the overthrow of the English landed oligarchy—remains impossible because its position here cannot be stormed so long as it maintains its strongly entrenched outposts in Ireland. But, once affairs are in the hands of the Irish people itself, once it is made its own legislator and ruler, once it becomes autonomous, the abolition there of the landed aristocracy (to a large extent the same persons as the English landlords) will be infinitely easier than here, because in Ireland it is not merely a simple economic question but at the same time a national question, for the landlords there are not, like those in England, the traditional dignitaries and representatives of the nation, but its mortally hated oppressors. And not only does England’s internal social development remain crippled by her present relations with Ireland; but also her foreign policy, and in particular her policy with regard to Russia and the United States of America.


<Letters of Karl Marx 1869, Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_11_29-abs.htm

Let's look at a quote from Marx's text "Critique of the Gotha Programme" here:

<It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form".


<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter I


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

And in the Communist Manifesto:

<Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.


<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1848, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Now, let us look at quotes from Lenin discussing the Marxist position regarding imperialist capitalism, starting with the definition:

<But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:


<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.


<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalism.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Now let's look at his position on the types of countries as examples at the time Lenin wrote about the self-determination of nations and capitalist imperialism:

<6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations

<In this respect, countries must be divided into three main types:

<First, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national movements came to an end long ago. Every one of these “great” nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat in England in the nineteenth century in relation to Ireland.


<Secondly, Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia. Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the workers in the oppressed nations.


<Thirdly, the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.


<V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm

Now regarding the issue of wars and the opportunists who obscure the truth by trying to defend imperialist capitalist finance capital that maintains dependency to intensify exploitation. I'm only posting this to avoid confusion if someone is reading what I wrote trying to equate the war of a puppet of imperialist capitalism that uses chauvinism against the Russian population with the right of Palestinians to use violence against Israel to acquire economic sovereignty:

<In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war “defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the war.


<A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.


<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War and “Defence of the Fatherland"


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/1.htm

Now a text against those opportunists who equate every war as if it were "inter-imperialist" to defend US hegemony:

<Advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new era of imperialism. Does it follow from that that only imperialist wars are now possible? Any such contention would be absurd. It would reveal inability to distinguish a given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of variegated phenomena possible in a given era.


<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 2. “Our Understanding of the New Era”


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/2.htm

As you can see, workers in the imperialist core must cut off and sabotage all funding that maintains the dominance of imperialist capitalism abroad by capitalists and their agents who profit from this type of relationship. This is non-negotiable in order to avoid declining into opportunistic social chauvinism and to show solidarity with the workers of the world. This means that the sale of arms and loans that support the collaborators of imperialist capitalism, who maintain dependency to intensify capitalist exploitation, is not tolerated. All this means that the workers' party must take this position no matter how much it is hated for it, and if a party that pretends to be leftist is in favor of reconciling with capitalist imperialism in the imperialist core under the pretext of saving "democracy" and "freedom" abroad, then this party must be destroyed for serving imperialist capitalism.

Furthermore, a socialist country cannot depend on imports from or collaboration with imperialist capitalism; these European nations must achieve sovereignty in food, technology, industry, finance, and energy, among other sectors. This can be accomplished through state-owned enterprises and cooperatives, requiring the country to isolate itself while socializing the economy and collaborating with communists abroad in solidarity with the global working class; eventually, a new socialist bloc will emerge to launch the struggle for socialist hegemony worldwide. Any federation or supranational organization must be formed by socialist countries and members of communist parties, rather than by capitalist nations, the bourgeoisie, or global organizations integrated into US and European imperialist-capitalist hegemony.

>>2897313
New Coke got to market! It "failed" but they sold billions of cans! It kept selling as "coke II" until 2002! Coke's "losses" on new coke were $30 million but their overall profits that year were $700+ million! Coke's high profile money burning "blunder" nevertheless got further than any western leftist org since the 1980s. Be serious: do you think any western left party could design, make, and can/bottle soda and distribute it (even in a single regional market, at a loss)? Do you think they could even recognise their bright new idea was a dud and pivot in a matter of months? (There are microparty freaks clinging to niche cult leaders and flop theories from decades ago!)

>>2897483
I will be brief: you still appear to take for granted a workers party of the sort which exists nowhere in the western world.

>>2896474
Now, again, my response to the repugnant threat of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, which must be eradicated and fought by scientific socialists, is that the Marxist position is not based on moralism and does not tolerate voting for a bourgeois party, much less a party that serves unproductive finance capital by spreading fantasies and false hopes about the market to the masses, who must accept and submit to the supremacy of the proletarian class.

You are completely wrong; the Marxist position is to advocate for democratization and mass participation in the economy and the bourgeois state in preparation for a revolutionary situation. It is irrelevant whether the bourgeoisie uses public policies for its own benefit, as it was already doing so before. Handing public property over to private interests does the exact opposite—it removes public accountability and subjects assets to the control of finance capital, thereby prolonging bourgeois dominance and incentivizing unproductive capital; this is unacceptable. Profit-driven arms manufacturers incite war to further exploit workers worldwide, intensifying the grip of finance capital.

You are acting out of ignorance and serving as a lackey for capitalists—much like those who champion central bank independence. Just because a conservative or reactionary decides to implement public policies aligned with the bourgeoisie, you imagine you possess some form of independence, when in reality, you have simply been co-opted by the bourgeoisie as a resentful reactionary.

The free-market idealism you imagine existing outside the state does not exist; the wealthiest capitalists will fund any means necessary to gain an advantage in capital accumulation and secure their own interests. Capitalist competition inevitably leads to monopolization, oligopolization, and consolidation; wishing to reverse this makes you a petty-bourgeois reactionary fantasizing about a past that never existed.

The position of scientific socialism relies on monopolization to facilitate the socialization of the economy. If you don't believe it, let's look at some quotes that prove my point. I will leave quotes from the political programs of Marx and Engels that prove my point about the need for economic sovereignty, which is incompatible with liberals who desire "freedom":

<In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.


<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.


<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.


<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.


<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.


[…]

<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.


<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.


<These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.


<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.


<1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

<2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
<3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
<4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
<6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
<7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
<8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
<9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
<10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.


<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.


<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Now, here's a quote from Engels that proves my point again:

<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

[…]
<(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

<(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.


<(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.


<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.


<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.


<(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

[…]
<(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

<It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.


<Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.


<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

This quote from Lenin demonstrates the superiority of state capitalism over private capitalism, which prepares and facilitates the socialization of the economy:

<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.


[…]

<Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.


<Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it” (1917)


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm

Now a quote from Engels about the historical direction you are wanting to revert to a petit-bourgeois fantasy:

<II. Capitalist Revolution — transformation of industry, at first be means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.

[…]
<III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.

<Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Chpater III [Historical Materialism]


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

You merely want to co-opt the masses into becoming useful idiots for finance capital with the lie of a past "pure" capitalism, instead of pursuing the supremacy of the proletarian class, organized in a party independent of the bourgeoisie, to champion the nationalization, collectivization, and socialization of everything in order to abolish private property, the anarchy of production, and social classes.

File: 1787340453770-3.png (300.84 KB, 495x619, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2896434
>give it 5 years and leftists will become free market advocates

>>2896581
Once again, I offer my response so that ignorant young people lacking a scientific socialist theory do not fall for your lie, a lie born of petty-bourgeois and lumpenproletarian resentment, that refuses to accept the supremacy of the proletarian class within a workers’ party independent of the bourgeoisie; It is intolerable to insinuate that financial capital is the lesser evil because state capitalism must be defended against private capitalism, no matter how much workers have to suffer, die, and be exploited by the bourgeoisie.

It's irrelevant what capitalists will use public property for; the more state-owned property there is, the easier it will be to socialize the economy and acquire economic sovereignty.

Let's look at Marx's advice on how to act when capitalists are nationalizing property to serve their interests and spending public money?

<We have seen how the next upsurge will bring the democrats to power and how they will be forced to propose more or less socialistic measures. it will be asked what measures the workers are to propose in reply. At the beginning, of course, the workers cannot propose any directly communist measures. But the following courses of action are possible:


<1. They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of as many productive forces as possible – means of transport, factories, railways, etc. – in the hands of the state.


<2. They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy. The demands of the workers will thus have to be adjusted according to the measures and concessions of the democrats.


<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1850, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

In addition to this, as with the three quotes from Marx that I posted:

<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.


<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1850, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.


<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm

<Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it, and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.


<We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.


<The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the exiting state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognise the prevailing order.


<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Apropos Of Working-Class Political Action".


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/21.htm

It is not permitted to vote for bourgeois parties, much less those that serve finance capital. Your duty is to demonstrate strength by voting for the socialist workers' party, independent of the bourgeoisie, to spread propaganda serving the supremacy of the proletarian class. This means that no libertarianism is tolerated, nor any mendacious apologetics of middle-class ignorance such as anti-corruption, anti-statism, bourgeois liberty, bourgeois individualism, bourgeois independence, or any petty-bourgeois fantasy that denies the need for the petty bourgeoisie to act only on what it has in common with the proletariat. Democratization of the economy is the Marxist position, not subordination to unproductive financial speculation, and any libertarian apologetics must be combated and punished with re-education or worse, to destroy any illusions that private property possesses something sacred. Private property must be attacked and abolished, and its defenders will be eliminated as counter-revolutionaries.

Scientific socialism is incompatible with fantasies of decentralization; moreover, it is irrelevant how many workers have to die or suffer. The class struggle must intensify, and economic sovereignty must be acquired so that the masses accept that their only salvation will come with the political supremacy of the proletarian class to socialize the economy on a national level, abolish private property, anarchy of production, and social classes.

<The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.


<In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.


[…]

<The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.


<The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.


<Karl Marx: The Civil War in France, The Third Address, May, 1871, [The Paris Commune]


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

You forgot this quote about morality:

<Communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism, nor do they express this contradiction theoretically either in its sentimental or in its highflown ideological form; they rather demonstrate its material source, with which it disappears of itself. The Communists do not preach morality at all.


<They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoists, etc.; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much selflessness, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the Communists by no means want to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", selfless man. That is a statement of the imagination.


<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1845, A Critique of the German Ideology, Abstract of Chapter 3, [Idealist mistakes & Materialist corrections], Communists on Selfishness and Selflessnes


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03abs.htm#p264-5

Do you not realize that, in order to complete the communist revolution and acquire the economic sovereignty needed to socialize the economy, there will be sacrifices along the way—leading to deaths, suffering, and further pain for the workers—so that the proletariat may gain political supremacy, consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, and create a socialist economy by extinguishing the exploiting classes?

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a pro-market "Left"; that is simply being a "useful idiot" co-opted by ideologues who act as apologists and lackeys for financial capital. Any pro-market "Left" must be re-educated or destroyed, just as all counter-revolutionary libertarians will be punished for denying the nationalization of the economy.

>>2897476
>the communist stance must be anti-EU and anti-NATO to recover financial, food, technological, and industrial sovereignty
>sovereignty
there is no difference between being controlled by international capital or national capital to the proletariat
and the EU doesn't even have a monopoly on international capital
Brexit is the perfect example. The UK has only become more reactionary, not less.
>in the processes of appropriation and nationalization of the economy for socialization
holy cope

>>2897535
You have repeatedly ignored the point that there is no workers party independent of the bourgeoisie. (No real surprise since your post is almost verbatim the one to which I was replying in the first place.)
One cannot
>demonstrate strength by voting for the socialist workers' party, independent of the bourgeoisie
When such a party does not exist!

It is insanity of the highest order to make decisions now based on what such a party will do in power, when such a party neither exists nor has any serious prospect of coming to be in the near future. It is worthless to quote Marx without any accounting of the actual material circumstances in which we find ourselves. You may as well be quoting the bible, or the Maastricht treaty.

>>2896231
>>2896434
the fuck are you jewish niggers even talking about? name literally one example of this

>>2897706
"Lexit", most prominently Kate Hoey and George Galloway, alongside the CPGB-ML (petit bourgeois rug sellers), the CPB (labour party for even bigger losers), RMT (trade union), and a thousand other runts.

oh and of course /leftybritpol/
Britain leaving the EU of course smashed neoliberalism and we're now a decade into the socialist commonwealth of Britain, while the EU itself has collapsed and been replaced with the soviets that would've seized the continent a century ago but for SPD backstabbing…

>>2896820
Your arguments are moralistic attempts to justify opportunism, as if Chinese capitalists, or those of any other nationality, would not integrate with American and European imperialist capitalism, following the logic of capital accumulation to turn a profit. The Marxist position centers on controlling the means of production, not on obsessing over distribution. Steel mills are means of production; the Marxist position is to demand even greater public control, 100% of these industries, without compensation, since the capitalists themselves are conceding that nationalizations are necessary.

It does not matter if state capitalism is used in the interests of the capitalists. You must critique the economic public policy of state-owned enterprise management without conceding anything to capitalists and their agents; this means that there must be demands including the democratization of these public companies with 100% state control and not being misled into wanting to remove politics from the economy out of personal resentment. “removing politics from the economy” always means handing the economy over to financial capital so that bourgeois democracy cannot be used as a tool to challenge imperialist capitalism, thereby reinforcing the illusions of bourgeois ideas that the policies of the bourgeoisie are a natural law beyond question and increasing the false consciousness of the masses.

If there is no workers' party in your country then you should create this party following this quote from Marx about what communists are:

<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.


<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.


<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Have you forgotten what Engels wrote about the United States when it still doesn't have a working class party?

<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.


<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm

Here, one can see the necessity for a workers' party that holds an anti-imperialist stance and defends state-owned enterprises—rejecting the lie that the market must be "free" (independent of the bourgeoisie) regardless of its flaws. Such errors can be corrected along the way through discussion; even if that fails, the experience will provide the workers—and former party members, should the creation of a new party become necessary—with valuable lessons, experience and wisdom learned.

A workers' party should be evaluated based on whether it champions the following principles:

Higher-phase communism, lower-phase communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the building of popular power through workers' councils, democratization of the economy, anti-imperialism, defense of state capitalism over private capitalism and petty commodity production, advancing and intensifying the class struggle, recognition of the class struggle, economic sovereignty (including financial, technological, industrial, food, and energy sovereignty), defense of public services socialized to meet workers' needs, avoidance of granting repressive powers to the bourgeois state or agents of the bourgeoisie, and a non-anti-communist stance, among others.

A workers' party that embodies even part of what was mentioned above is already better than any bourgeois party; libertarians fit none of those criteria and are the worst possible party,and for this reason, they must not be tolerated under any circumstances. These lackeys create neocolonies, intensifying imperialist capitalist control and the grip of finance capital while depoliticizing ignorant youth and the depoliticized middle class; the co-optation of the masses into a fake "Left" cannot be tolerated. Furthermore, libertarians are not leftists; they are reactionaries, lackeys of finance capital no different from fascists, and they will be ruthlessly crushed as the worst type of counter-revolutionaries.

I know the damage this scum causes firsthand, as I am from the Global South; it seems to me that you are a lumpenproletarian or that you subscribe to petty-bourgeois fantasies—refusing to accept the supremacy of the proletarian class because you harbor resentment toward the workers in your own country based on moralistic pity or existing prejudices. You are a weak coward stubbornly insisting that the workers in your country are inherently reactionary, when this is anti-Marxist revisionism—an intolerable betrayal deserving of punishment—until you learn to fall in line and start organizing the workers in your country to accept the supremacy of the proletarian class.

>>2897713
i'm not a britbong and i have no idea who any of those people are

>>2897715
I mean if in the end being in or outside the EU doesn't change shit,why is every brit on this site butthurt about Brexit ?

>>2897680
Wrong. Bourgeois organizations are not tolerated, as they are obstacles that must be destroyed; they stand in the way of overthrowing the bourgeois state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The United Kingdom should not rely on imports; instead, it should utilize state-owned enterprises and state capitalism to facilitate the seizure of the means of production, which must be nationalized to enable the socialization of the economy. Promoting job security, wage equalization, and the elimination of all forms of precarious labor, while expanding labor rights and mandating unionization for all workers—will dispel the prejudices held by the masses.

A slogan you could use in your country to attract the lumpenproletariat and other workers would be: repeal and modify laws that prevent the radicalization of unions in order to intensify the class struggle; create a workers' statistical commission with mandatory members of workers without bourgeois or apolitical technocrats to calculate workers' wages according to the price of food and necessities so that inflation does not affect workers; abolish indirect taxes linked to working-class consumption so that these workers begin to lose superstitions of the state; judicial democratization of lawyers for the working class; forced unionization of the working population; equalization of unions to avoid traitors conspiring and selling themselves to the bourgeoisie without solidarity with their class in the leadership of these unions; solidarity in judicial judgments of unpaid wages along with any type of further intensified exploitation; defend the labor rights of immigrant workers with compensation for the victims and severe punishment for the capitalist even if the victims say it is voluntary and they do not have class consciousness to fight for their labor rights; defending the guarantee of public employment is also good.

Nationalizations without compensation, along with various actions to remove the role of profit in the needs of the population and increase public participation, should always be discussed. Don't forget to always talk about nationalizing all private banks. As much as possible, the country must avoid depending on raw materials from abroad for energy (sovereignty in food, energy, financial and industrial production must be paramount to avoid dependence on imperialism). Always connect everything to why private property must be abolished to radicalize the masses so they don't remain in a distant abstraction and irritate the bourgeoisie with the diminishing profits extracted from them, leading the bourgeois state to crises due to the intensification of class struggle. Advocate for the wages of immigrant workers to be as high as those of native workers, with compensation for any disregard for this by punishing the capitalist, and equalization so that the wages of all workers are as high as those of state-owned companies.

Furthermore, state-owned companies can be directed to supply the domestic market with cheap goods, competing with private companies and bankrupting them so they can be nationalized, occupied, collectivized, and socialized. This will further reduce the profits of capitalists, bringing chaos to the bourgeois state. Of course, the defense of acquiring economic sovereignty must be made even if it means more suffering and blackmail from capitalists punishing workers, but as a country acquires more economic sovereignty, the blackmail of sanctions or schemes that capitalists will attempt will have less effect.

Just because the bourgeoisie manages the bourgeois state in a way you dislike, it does not mean we should tolerate fantasies about some imaginary past capitalism or grant "freedom" to private property. Capitalist competition inevitably leads to monopolization and consolidation; seeking to individualize private property is a reactionary desire to turn back the clock. The scientific socialist position is to move forward by nationalizing everything and democratizing these assets, allowing the masses to participate in the economy rather than leaving decisions about their management to capitalists and their agents behind closed doors.

As the intensification of finance capital and the exploitation of workers progress, reactionary sentiments will rise whenever the masses question the current social order; the bourgeoisie is then compelled to provide a response that does not challenge the bourgeois class itself. This phenomenon is occurring not only in the United Kingdom but across the European Union and the entire world.

>>2897704
Wrong. A party could only partially address some of the points I made; this party would be better than libertarians, who are lackeys of finance capital. A key point a party must have is anti-imperialism. This means being against the EU, against NATO, against any foreign funding, arms sales, loans, and aid for the maintenance of puppets of imperialist capitalism so that they collapse, no matter how many workers die or suffer at the hands of some other capitalist demonized by their bourgeois media. This means the destruction of Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and other countries integrated with imperialist capitalist hegemony.

Let's look at party programs in your country then, starting with the Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist:

<The communist party of the British working class, the CPBML, exists for the complete overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by working-class control and the building of socialism.

[…]
<We study to understand Britain and the world so as to achieve working-class control.

<Foundations, 12 November 2024


https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/foundations-2024

Based on what is written here, it has already earned positive points in relation to what I wrote above about libertarians.

<Keep out of wars

<Our class should get Britain out of NATO, an aggressive alliance which with its partner bloc the EU aims to add to US economic and political advantage. But we do not support any rival bloc. Some have said support the EU against US imperialism. Some say support Russia or China, or both, against US imperialism. But no good can come from backing one bloc against another.

<The working class’s main enemy is at home. Workers face a single ruling class which has a single aim – to stay in power. It seeks to maximise that power to exploit and profit from workers’ labour. All its policies, domestic and foreign, are geared to that one aim. Peace, human welfare, our environment, mean nothing to them.


<NATO tells us that other countries across the world are our enemy. It blames Iran for inflation here, blames Russia for soaring energy prices here, and blames China for deindustrialisation here. But our difficulties here are home grown, their source the capitalist class. Of course, we have to be on our guard against all threats to Britain, all hostile acts, from whatever quarter.


<Sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves. But capitalist governments and other bodies claiming to speak on workers’ behalf routinely abuse this right for their own ends, to conduct wars of aggression.


<NATO, led by the US and British governments, increasingly intervenes in other peoples’ wars. The government, with “loyal” opposition support, drags us into more and more foreign wars, none of which is about the defence of our country. Interference only makes things worse. We should not import foreign conflicts to our streets, our communities and our trade unions. We are for the defence of Britain and to that end we must unite here. Our working class should get on with the job of fighting for wages and conditions. Our trade union movement can strengthen the peace movement in its struggles, but the demand for peace must be wider than that – embracing all of the working class whether currently in dispute or not.


<Britain is a major funder of the war in Ukraine, blocking diplomacy and leading every reckless escalation. NATO’s aggressive interference encouraged the Ukraine government into launching civil war from 2014. NATO quite deliberately provoked Russia, whose expansionist government was goaded into invading Ukraine. The resultant trench warfare stalemate risks escalations, such as the USA looking to locate nuclear weapons to its base at RAF Lakenheath for the first time since 2008. The USA can only send them here because successive British governments have been so compliant. The British government and the loyal opposition parties are happy to encourage and subsidise the supply of weapons from British arms manufacturers which fuel the continued destruction of Ukraine. Growing calls by British workers for peace and for getting US bases and troops off our soil must logically and surely lead to calls to leave NATO.


<However, some unions with members working in the defence industries have supported pro-war resolutions at the TUC and the STUC, in the mistaken belief that supporting the war in Ukraine is supporting those members. The GMB motion passed by the TUC in 2023 called for continued “financial and practical aid from the UK to Ukraine”. This was a call to send ever more arms to Ukraine. We need a defence industry for Britain, for defending our independence, not arms for Ukraine.


<The British and US governments have regularly opposed ceasefires and opposed the peaceful resolution of conflicts, as when they block the peaceful reunification of Taiwan with China. We oppose US and NATO interference in other people’s disputes. We serve no foreign power.


<Taking Charge - Tasks To Be Done, 25 October 2024


https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/taking-charge-tasks-be-done#Keep

More positive points following the anti-imperialist principle unlike you.

Now I will take another party in the United Kingdom as the Communist Party of Britain:

<Democracy and popular sovereignty

<In modern capitalist society, it is the interests of monopoly finance capital which predominate, regardless of proclamations about the sovereignty of the people or of parliament.

<The electoral franchise and other democratic rights are subverted by huge inequalities in wealth and power between different classes and sections of the population. Politicians and political parties are bought or intimidated by big business and large sections of the mass media which pursue a pro-capitalist agenda. In Britain, the electoral system is mostly rigged against small, new or left-wing parties, while elected parliaments can be marginalised or dissolved.


<The European Union represents a new model whereby monopoly capital can circumvent democratic representation and accountability. The EU parliament is elected by constituencies so large as to break any meaningful organic link between electors and representatives. It has no power to initiate or unilaterally amend legislation. The fundamental capitalist economic and political character of the EU is set in constitutional concrete. Any real sovereignty is shared between unelected and unaccountable bodies – the Council of Ministers, the EU Commission, the European Central Bank and the EU Court of Justice.


<The essence of popular sovereignty, on the other hand, is that the democratic will of the people should prevail over the vested interests of a powerful minority and their state apparatus. This revolutionary concept originated in the English Revolution, with the Levellers and the soldiers’ parliament, and in the French Revolution with its constituent assembly and constitution. It was also seen in the Paris Commune of 1871, in the workers’, peasants’ and soldiers’ soviets (councils) of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions, and in all mass movements against exploitation and oppression.


<In Britain, the struggle for popular sovereignty has expressed itself recently in the mass movement against imperialist war, in the 2016 referendum vote to reassert popular sovereignty against EU membership and in broad-based campaigns led by trades unions, local trades councils and the People’s Assembly Against Austerity to defend jobs, pensions, benefits and public services. But popular sovereignty will only prevail when state power is taken out of the hands of the capitalist class by the working class and its allies, whose interests represent those of the people and society in general.


<This lays the basis for the active involvement of the people in all aspects of decision-making. Such mass participation is the surest guarantee that democratic rights will be enormously more extensive and more real in a socialist society, free from the distortions of monopoly capital’s wealth and power.

[…]
<Funding the Left-Wing Programme
<Such an ambitious range of economic, social and cultural policies will have to be financed through a more progressive tax regime and revised public spending priorities. The LWP might therefore include policies to:

<Increase tax rates on higher rates of income.

<Levy an annual wealth tax on the richest section of the population.
Impose a ‘Robin Hood’ tax on City financial transactions.
Increase the rate of corporation tax on the profits of large companies.
<Place a windfall tax on monopoly profits in specific industries as necessary.
<Close all tax havens under British jurisdiction.
<Develop more effective mechanisms to tackle tax avoidance and evasion by transnational companies and wealthy individuals.
<Cut or abolish VAT on essential goods and services.
<Replace the council tax with local income, wealth, land and property taxes based clearly on the ability to pay.
<Renegotiate and, where appropriate, cancel Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts in order to eliminate excessive corporate profiteering.
<Cut British military spending and end all state subsidies for armaments exports.
<Control movements of capital in and out of Britain.

<Over time, as inequalities in income and wealth are eroded, economic growth would expand the basis for increased tax revenues.

[…]
<An independent foreign and defence policy
<In the international arena, the aim of the LWP must be for Britain to pursue its own foreign policy, independent of the United States and the EU.

<Implementing the domestic and international policies of the LWP would have to mean no submission to the treaties, laws, directives or institutions of the EU and its ‘single European market’. New bilateral and multilateral agreements would need to be negotiated for mutually beneficial cooperation with European and other countries. In the meantime, and as an independent state, Britain should also reject all attempts by the EU or Council of Europe to equate Communism with the ideology, policies or crimes of fascism and to suppress communist and socialist organisations on that basis.

[…]
<Enhancing the United Nations and its associated institutions as agencies for progress will depend on strengthening working-class and anti-imperialist forces at national level. Making the permanent membership of the UN Security Council more representative of the world’s peoples, with states such as China retaining their veto, would provide some counter-balance to the abuse and manipulation of the UN and member states by the imperialist powers.
[…]
<Britain should retain military forces that are sufficient to deter aggression and to participate in humanitarian activities at home and abroad, in strict compliance with international law.

<Clearly, the subservient alliance with US imperialism, including collusion to violate fundamental human rights and international law, would have to cease immediately. All British involvement in military invasions and occupations of other people’s countries must also end, as should diplomatic support and arms exports to repressive regimes. The closure of all British military bases overseas will prevent their future use by British, US and NATO forces for aggressive purposes. Any further enlargement of NATO should be opposed. Britain should promote NATO’s dissolution while withdrawing from it at the earliest opportunity.


In the absence of any significant progress towards creating an independent, sovereign Palestinian state on the basis of UN resolutions, alongside a secure Israel, the British government should pursue unilateral and multilateral sanctions against the Israeli state and its institutions until real progress is made.

<Britain’s Road to Socialism


https://communistparty.org.uk/publications/britains-road-to-socialism/

From what I've read here, there are several positive points that outweigh your libertarianism lie. If I read more, there will probably be more positive points, because I focused on the writing related to having an anti-imperialist position, which is of paramount importance before other important principled points when analyzing a party.

Other workers' parties in your country probably have positive points on my list when I'm analyzing political parties, unlike your stubbornness in wanting to be ignorant, your resentment towards the workers of your own country, and your defeatist resignation to imperialist capitalism (for me, I would accept the death of all the workers in my country rather than surrender to the ignorant middle class, lackeys of financial capital in my country, who pretend to be "rebellious" in search of bourgeois "freedom").

>>2897713
These political parties supporting Lexit prove that they are better and braver in abandoning superstitions about the state that you will never be, this includes against apologists for the European Union. With this they gain a positive point with me on my list.

In addition, let's take a quote from Engels about the petty bourgeoisie and the working classes that existed before the industrial revolution:

<6 . What working classes were there before the industrial revolution?


<The working classes have always, according to the different stages of development of society, lived in different circumstances and had different relations to the owning and ruling classes.


<In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.


<In the Middle Ages, they were the serfs of the land-owning nobility, as they still are in Hungary, Poland, and Russia. In the Middle Ages, and indeed right up to the industrial revolution, there were also journeymen in the cities who worked in the service of petty bourgeois masters. Gradually, as manufacture developed, these journeymen became manufacturing workers who were even then employed by larger capitalists.

[…]
<9 . In what way do proletarians differ from handicraftsmen?

<In contrast to the proletarian, the so-called handicraftsman, as he still existed almost everywhere in the past (eighteenth) century and still exists here and there at present, is a proletarian at most temporarily. His goal is to acquire capital himself wherewith to exploit other workers. He can often achieve this goal where guilds still exist or where freedom from guild restrictions has not yet led to the introduction of factory-style methods into the crafts nor yet to fierce competition. But as soon as the factory system has been introduced into the crafts and competition flourishes fully, this perspective dwindles away and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself by becoming either bourgeois or entering the middle class in general, or becoming a proletarian because of competition (as is now more often the case). In which case he can free himself by joining the proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement.


<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

You are forgetting a quote by Engels important here against your resentment:

<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.


<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm

Do you realize here that Engels refers here to a distinct workers' party even though this party is highly deficient on the flag of Henry George? This will irritate the resentful ones here who don't want to organize by calling other organizations petty-bourgeois, but how would you describe a workers' party under the banner of Henry George then?

>>2897715
Leaving the European Union is a necessary step to dispel the fog of illusions and superstitions surrounding the state and to adopt an anti-imperialist stance fighting for economic sovereignty. Withdrawing from NATO, and from all agreements that maintain the UK's integration into and subordination to American and European imperialist-capitalist hegemony, is another such step. It is necessary to organize a workers' party that is distinct and independent of the bourgeoisie, one dedicated to proletarian supremacy, to disseminate propaganda, assist workers' organizations, form popular councils, and field candidates in bourgeois elections to disseminate revolutionary ideas. Its goal would be to push bourgeois democracy to its breaking point and collapse by demanding the democratization of the economy, nationalization without compensation, the abolition of fiscal responsibility laws, the right to public employment, and the state takeover of industries; public enterprises would compete against private ones to drive further nationalization by inducing bankruptcies. Other measures include wage equalization to encourage workers to fight collectively for pay raises, and making retirement a public system, free from capitalist control or profit motives, with costs borne by the capitalists who exploited the workers and guaranteed by the government. These and other actions aim to foster the radicalization of the masses and intensify the class struggle, rather than encouraging complacency.

Ultimately, workers will be prepared for the arrival of a revolutionary situation, enabling the establishment of a proletarian democracy to socialize the economy and abolish private property, the anarchy of production, and social classes in favor of national economic planning based on actual labor performed and the needs of the workers.

File: 1787950800297-7.jpg (630.69 KB, 1091x2117, 98713.jpg)

>the EU is not a communism
Explain this then.

how many times are you gonna make this thread

>>2902765
I only ever made another one once back in spring (I think?).

icelanders said fuck the eu, based tbh. libs seething.

>>2903091
It is what it is.


Unique IPs: 35

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]