/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>The Far Left is the only political persuasion that insists on people reading and following the secular equivalent of holy texts
OP, what is your opinion on Council Communism

>>2902979
>You will NEVER create any kind of mass movement that way.
mass movements can't be created on will in the first place
>you will not win without copying Lenin and just hijacking a popular movement that was not originally communist to begin with and imposing yourself (and if that's the attitude you come into politics with, you almost certainly do not have the interests of the masses in mind).
good thing communism is about the proletariat and not le masses
0/10 post, I regret reading it

>>2902983
It's not that they can't, but that they won't. If you come at them with the attitude that if they don't they're not welcome that they, well, won't support you because you come off as elitist.

>>2902982
The proles are the masses, there is no situation where most people are capital owners, the existing capital owners will never allow that.

>>2902984
>They just won’t, OKAY!!!!
OP, what is your opinion on council communism

>>2902984
then your gripe is less about the communist movement and more 2026 internet nu-leftcommunists who think they're hot shit for having heard the term "commodity production". with how strapped for members most communist parties are nowadays i havent actually seen nor can i comprehend this attitude

>>2902987
They’re talking about the fabled “normie” dude. What are you on about?

>>2902988
subject of the conversation is "elitist communists who treat texts as gospel", OP makes claim that "if you're x, they will y", i say "your gripe is less with x, more with z" trying to stress that their claim only belongs to a small minority and not the general trend. you've confused the subject of the conversation somewhere down the line

>>2902989
>subject of the conversation is "elitist communists who treat texts as gospel"
And failure to reach out to “normies”.
>if you're x, they will y", i say "your gripe is less with x, more with z" trying to stress that their claim only belongs to a small minority and not the general trend. you've confused the subject of the conversation somewhere down the line
Think you’re one of the guys OP was talking about.

>>2902990
key difference being we're not normies, i can expect you to understand how logic in conversations work. you misread what i was saying and there's no shame in that

>>2902992
>key difference being we're not normies, i can expect you to understand how logic in conversations work. you misread what i was saying and there's no shame in that
Yeah, you’re one of the guys for sure. Leftcoms don’t have that much contact with “normies” on the ideological level by the way.

>>2902986
The fact you insist on me answering this question betrays that you don't care about what I said, you just want your opinion on council communism validated and will dismiss or approve of what I said based not on its own merits but my response to your question. Out of spite, then, I refuse to answer it.

>>2902995
>The fact you insist on me answering this question betrays that you don't care about what I said, you just want your opinion on council communism validated and will dismiss or approve of what I said based not on its own merits but my response to your question. Out of spite, then, I refuse to answer it.
Definitely a Maoist

>>2902996
Mao wrote some good theory but practically speaking was a flop. He didn't really follow the doctrine of the mass line himself and was economically illiterate yet insisted on directing economic development himself as he ultimately trusted no one else to influence China's path to communism, with disastrous consequences.

perhaps it's because there's not really any such thing as intrinsically secular or non-secular texts, there are just books with writing in them and people interpret them however they will. people used to consider the bible as a secular work, they regarded it as scientific fact, the most cohesive and sober-minded explanation of how the world was created and how everything in it works. given enough time, every book humans write will eventually become ancient scripture with little kernels of truth here or there underneath a mountain of speculation and bullshit.

>>2903001
>Mao wrote some good theory
Better poet than theorist.
>He didn't really follow the doctrine of the mass line himself and was economically illiterate yet insisted on directing economic development himself as he ultimately trusted no one else to influence China's path to communism, with disastrous consequences.
Sounds about right. What is your opinion on the implementation of the Mass line in the modern context?

>>2902979
People just pretend to read, it's trivial. Marxism is more and more popular every day despite people becoming less literate in general. (In practice if not statistically: reading for pleasure etc has dropped off a cliff)

In reality modern politics is fundamentally a product differentiated by the personality of the purchaser: leftists as high-agreeableness, high-openness types, Marxists with a higher dose of neuroticism than liberals as a general rule, "patsoc" types lower in agreeableness and openness and closer to the rightoid archetype. The right, meanwhile, are low agreeableness and low openness, with neuroticism varying more widely between obscenely self-confident con-men and little /pol/ freaks. The fundamental appeal for the left is signalling one's pro-social nature and the fundamental appeal for the right is signalling one's anti-social nature and seeing others suffer.

Movements of any real kind are a thing of the past. It's all fandom, religion if you like. The left are certainly tedious pseuds with the particular irony of reading Marx as a theological text (e.g. presented with any real world problem, they'll have a scriptural quote at hand. Analysis of whether the quote really applies, whether something really works as Marx wrote it, never occurs. Marx wrote it, thus it must be true…) and like all signalling games, there is a vulnerability to being more anti-liberal than anti-rightist, since liberalism competes for the same general territory while the right does not, but this is severely mediated by the underlying dispositional thing: Marxists and liberals can get on, on a personal level, in a way that marxists and rightists generally cannot. But this must be weighed against the alternative, which is quite bluntly anti-civilizational.
For all their flaws, Marxists have picked the right broad pathway. Everything else is a minor course correction by comparison.

Mao, for all his flaws, was certainly a force of civilization. India vs China is a beautiful test case in development: Mao made many, many, many mistakes, but the all important things he did were to get literacy rolling and to smash the dead hand of traditional culture and emancipate women. India, being a sort of democracy, allowed social reform to be vetoed and wound up with a more unbalanced pattern of education investment. Maoism is the foundation on which the success of Dengism was built… plus, he had some banger quotes. No investigation, no right to speak! Be sure to make nine hours of sleep a rule!

>>2903005
It's a tricky thing to thread because following it *fully* will just turn you into right wing populists, as that is the default mass line in virtually every country owing to the right being politically dominant. In order to be a socialist movement, you obviously have to have some minimum criteria or the word means nothing. I think the best approach is to have a loose a definition as possible - that is, so long as you support abolishing private capital, what replaces it is up for debate. You can listen to the "mass line" on that, rather than deciding it beforehand and trying to push for one specific kind of collectivisation. Another thing you need a baseline on is general egalitarianism - you don't want a "leftist" movement so permissive on non-economic issues that you let in Strasserites. Ethnic tribalism is a no-no, no matter how racist the masses are. But other things, like whether the movement is exclusively secular or needs to co-opt a religion or two to broaden appeal, to what extent niche gender identities are politically acknowledged rather than just being a private thing, to what extent you are nationalist (in the civic sense - as said, definitely not the racial/ethnic sense) or internationalist, all these things I think are worth bending on in order to actually enact some form of socialism, even if it's not your particular ideal form, because trying to create that will lead you to create an exclusive little club of true believers that will get nothing because nobody else will work with you. The perfect is the enemy of the good, as it's said.

>>2902979
>The Far Left
in for a real treat with this monolithic tripe
>is the only political persuasion
Communism, Social Democracy, Anarchism, etc. are all called "far left" by troglodytes but only the stupidest person would see them all as a unified "political persuasion."
>that insists on people reading
the horror… reading!
>and following
how awful that people should put theory into practice
>the secular equivalent of holy texts
so… "holy texts" minus the supernatural nonsense, unfalsifiable claims, and complete rejection of materialism? How dreadful.
>(ie Kapital + whatever else that person considers essential) and adhering to strict pre-defined doctrine to be accepted as part of their movement.
ever heard of Mein Kampf?
>You will NEVER create any kind of mass movement that way.
A vanguard party and a mass movement are two different things. A communist revolution consists of a vanguard party leading a mass movement, including its working class, its trade unions, its cooperatives, its revolutionary army, and in rare cases even its non-reactionary elements of other classes who choose to side with the revolution. Not every worker needs to read theory for a revolution to be successful, and the broader working class in any mass movement is going to have syncretic beliefs that do not always align with the vanguard party. Membership in the vanguard party is dependent on things like knowing revolutionary theory while membership in the broader mass movement is not.
>You people
Who? Leftypol? Monolithic tripe.
>are the reason Mao even had to articulate the doctrine of the mass line - even if it should be so fucking obvious it shouldn't need to be said and even if Mao himself didn't necessarily follow it - because communists are notorious for devolving into elitism instead of actually being servants of the people (Lenin being the first one to actually succeed as a communist didn't help this whatsoever).
Elaborate on the latter point about Lenin, lol.
>If you're not building a movement where someone who has never read a single line of Marx and never will can walk in and feel welcome anyway, you will not win without copying Lenin and just hijacking a popular movement that was not originally communist to begin with and imposing yourself (and if that's the attitude you come into politics with, you almost certainly do not have the interests of the masses in mind).
You really don't need Marx to understand exploitation.