[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

| Catalog | Home

File: 1696996627716.jpg ( 51.63 KB , 620x745 , 5bfge5.jpg )


If a society isn't eugenic

Then it is dysgenic.


>The (true) left needs to stand for the advancement of the collective organism, not celebrate the right of the individual to live gracelessly and die pathetically under the decadence of oligarchal security-finance stage capitalism.

Under the strong bureaucratic post secular socialism of the alt left, free public gyms - both outdoor and indoor - will be build in every neighborhood and community. Walkable cities, strength, and vitality will be promoted. Physical slacking will be discouraged. Fatties will be placed in exercise reform camps.

The revolutionary Marxism of the left is a form of self love. We don't tolerate fattie deviations because we hate fatties. Rather, we love our community and the bright future we're all building. This impels us to strict discipline. Thus, excellence in mind and body - the cultivation of a higher, prize stock - becomes a paramount virtue.
24 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


If there is no "objective intelligence", then computability and any metric is impossible. Reality itself is impossible.

He knows exactly what he is saying. Just substitute everything he wrote with "you are retarded, hahaha". Satanics have a familiar script.


You can tell he's just recapitulating the eugenic claims about "inborn intelligence", and then states in the same post that "intelligence is a black box" - which is never how anyone believed intelligence or consciousness worked. This is purely a political and legal thinking that protects his favorite institutions, makes them sacrosanct and unmentionable. Eugenics relies on this controlled insanity. It's all so Satanic.


If you wanted to defend a failed theory that gives you a knife at the throat of everyone in the world, you would lie about everything and anything regarding intelligence, and claim "intelligence is subjective". It's the usual Germanic horseshit. He is only thinking "I am strong, he is weak, I push the button I was trained to press so I win, win, win". The idea that this turns on itself is inadmissible in his world-system. Like I said, it's all so Satanic.


>this is not rocket science.
Because it's brain science. Btw. brains might be more complicated than rockets.
>about how middling intellects are comfortable in their stupidity as long as they have someone to kick down
Ironically enough that might be the primary application of EYE-Q tests these days.


File: 1705401177471.png ( 931.22 KB , 600x2557 , dc1bc3e5b1b74bbb7073d59bbc….png )

File: 1679597769492.jpg ( 100.15 KB , 787x590 , necon.jpg )


I'm asking my self whether or not the neocons are nothing but blood-dripping salesmen for the arms-industry, and all their ideological stuff is foolishness.

I'm not looking for cheap shots, like proving they never achieve their stated goals like "winning the war on terror". Just assume it's part of their strategy to lie about their true goals.

I used to think that they were both effective at generating profits for the arms industry and also furthering US imperial power. But I don't think that anymore.

For example the wars in the middle east caused something like a war-chaos-belt that separated Europe from Asia and prevented the formation of "Ꭼurꭺsian" (loaded term) economic integration that could potentially become an economic block that would be many times more powerful than the US. So in that sense you could look at the failed wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on as somewhat effective at maintaining US hegemonic power.

But it turns out that it wasn't the case. The conclusion that most analysts are drawing now is that the US wasted a bunch of time and effort fucking up the Arabs. And was nothing but a distraction that allowed China to grow into an economic powerhouse that is now more or less untouchable for the foreseeable future.

The Ukraine crisis again follows a similar structure, it seemed like a viable way to separate Russian-German economic cooperation by creating a trade-disrupting war-zone and political-capital for economic separation, so that economic integration may not lead to a Russo-European economic block that would have been more powerful than the US.

But it turns out that this wasn't the case either. The result of the Ukraine crisis is:

Sino-Russian economic integration. Which might lead to the formation of a much more powerful economic block than the Russo-European one. But the consequences don't stop at undoing the Sino-Soviet split. It also has killed the economic power of Europe which means that a potential Trꭺnsatlꭿntiꮸ (loaded term) economic block is much weaker now.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
43 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The few rulers who really believed in religion understood it was a vehicle for worldly power, and most of the truths they cared about were esoteric. Christianity is a very violent and vicious religion when you see what it really is.

Even then, most rulers are fickle and venal creatures who default to an essentially Satanic view of the world. They don't appreciate how religion is really effective and leave that to their priests and advisors. Because such rulers allowed the Church to maintain its privilege and position, the Church had every reason to encourage the nobility's Satanic and predatory world-view and facilitate excuses for it. Priests are really cynical bastards and a lot of them are the few who really would be atheists in that society, not counting the multitude who only paid lip service and endured life with whatever bitter comfort they could find outside of polite society.

Religion was never about mollifying the masses with ideology in that way. Most of the time, religion was what counted as social services, charity, and so on that dealt with the homeless and the lowest class. Religious leaders really had little interest in moral probity, at times encouraging the vice of parishoners so long as it conformed to the overall goals they intended for society. The religions are all nasty and disgusting, working overtime to strip out the decency humans might have possessed in a better world, and replacing it with dogmas that make them more effective killers and plunderers. The working classes were ruled primarily by fear rather than faith, and the bourgeois were long contemptuous of religion and didn't like having to pay tithes for charity. The bourgeois hated the homeless and wanted to whip them for failure to work, and so the Poor Laws happened and Christianity was slowly dismantled.

Really, religion only had appeal to priests who saw it correctly as a vehicle to command peoples' minds and souls. They'll tell you outright you're not actually supposed to believe it literally, and interpret the metaphors correctly to figure out it's a system of mental cheating.


It must be remembered that for a long time, the working class were left to their own devices, and never had that much faith in religion. Most people only attended churches because it was obligatory, and without any concept of free speech or assembly, anyone who proclaimed it was bullshit was punished. Privately, workers and peasants disdained all of it, often returning to folk religion or stories they told themselves for generations. The inroad to invade their lives was not possible beyond threats, and because religion presented some social stability and typically counted as whatever education they were going to get, the religion could be abided. Priests, like any aristocracy, hold their flock in utter contempt, and this is especially pronounced in Christianity. It wasn't released until the Reformation that the priests believed the whole time their flock were damned to hell and deserved to suffer. How Christianity survived the Reformation, I don't know, and in a lot of ways it didn't. The Protestants were almost eager to either become outright Satanists or took on the interests of the bourgeois and eventually technology. A lot of people who really weren't Christian could go through the motions, and eventually secularization. It was a religion with a very flimsy foundation, seeing how Christianity is structurally a death cult that got really big and could conquer the world.


Have you taken your meds recently? Now would be a good time.


Here is a massive article going into great depth of the geopolitical ramification of the neocon's recent foreign policy, highly recommended

From Strategic Dilemma to Strategic Disaster, Part 1

<Western officials and analysts are fond of noting that ‘Putin’s war on Ukraine’ has damaged rather than strengthened Russia’s strategic position. Rather than neutralizing the threat NATO poses, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has increased that threat, so the analysis goes. Putting aside the obvious contradiction with most of these observers’ position that neither NATO nor its expansion presented a security threat to Russia, one needs to look at the reverse side of all this. Have Western security, NATO countries’ security, American national security been enhanced by NATO expansion, the refusal to negotiate with Moscow a new security architecture for Europe, and the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War and its ongoing escalations? The fact is that the Russo-Western relationship proper as a security dilemma is now virtually a zero-sum game; when one side undertakes a measure to ensure its security vis-à-vis the other, the other responds with measures at least as deleterious to the former as the former’s were for the latter. This has proceeded now for decades, beginning with the first round of post-Cold War NATO expansion, though Russia originally was slow on the uptake in response to this challenge as a result of her temporary weakness.

<In this mutual security dilemma’s most recent episode – the NATO-Russia Ukrainian war – the West’ security position also has been weakened, given the bolstering of the Russian military through increases in numbers, budget resources, battle experience, and mobilization of the Russia’s military-industrial complex. Far from being ‘isolated internationally’, Russia has been able in tandem with China to forge a new pole of power in the international system’s structure, dealing a perhaps deadly blow to Western, in particular American global hegemony. It is doubtful that enhances Western and American security, particularly as much of the alternative pole-formation is taking on an increasingly anti-American tone as opposed to one of creating a more or less neutral, simple alternative pole or center of global power. Moreover, NATO’s newest ally, prospective member, and bulwark against ‘Russian expansionism’ – Maidan Ukraine – is at high risk of being
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1703984944606.png ( 5.48 KB , 500x174 , internatinoal banker.png )

The neocons are planning to seize the frozen Russian assets in order to continue funding the Ukraine proxy war.

Western finance went REEEEEE DON'T, this will trash our reputation and spook the investors

The Unintended Consequences of Seizing Russian Assets
<the West is persisting in its endeavours, with a proposal to use frozen public Russian assets to finance Ukraine
<For many other countries, however, freezing Russian assets is widely perceived as a method the US-led West employs to weaponise its primary currencies. The European Central Bank warned in June that using interest-rate proceeds from the frozen assets could prompt other central banks to “turn their backs” on the euro,
<“The implications could be substantial: it may lead to a diversification of reserves away from euro-denominated assets, increase financing costs for European sovereigns and lead to trade diversification,” the note added. And Bank of America analysts led by Michael Hartnett recently noted in a report that “US dollar debasement is the ultimate outcome as the dollar is weaponized in a new era of sanctions.”
<Such fears are thus expediting not only the ongoing global trend of de-dollarisation but also the construction of viable alternative financial systems by China or even Russia.
<nations and regions have accelerated efforts in recent months towards arrangements aimed at reducing their dependence on the dollar. At the heart of these de-dollarisation initiatives is the fear in many capitals that the US could someday use the power of its currency to target them the way it has sanctioned Russia
<Indeed, central banks are already calling back their offshore gold assets to domestic storage facilities in increasing quantities over such fears.
<According to the results, a substantial percentage of central banks are concerned about the precedent set by the US freezing Russian rPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1703306819479.png ( 14.26 KB , 360x360 , press.png )


There is a growing tendency to undermine investigative journalism, especially the part about the ability of journalists to protect their sources. Obviously you cant have journalism if sources can't be protected. Even laws that make the protection of sources ambiguous have to be counted as violation of press freedom, because that may have the effect of intimidating sources.

A recent example would be this:
EU capitals want media law carve-out to spy on reporters
<European Union governments want to be able to spy on reporters in the name of national security, even as lawmakers urge them to crack down on spyware.
<Privacy advocates and journalists’ organizations argue the new clause would give countries a free pass to snoop on reporters.
<the current compromise "is not only weakening safeguards against the deployment of spyware but also strongly incentivizes their use

As a rule of thumb if somebody advocates for legislation by invoking "national security" it's terrible and should be rejected unless proven otherwise. I can't even come up with a hypothetical scenario where threatening the security of a nation state hinges on confidentially talking to journalists. Threats to the security of a nation state are very rare and severe stuff, like sabotage of vital infrastructure or assassinations of strategically relevant personal. The very last thing a conspiracy of that type would want is advertise their actions by telling a journalist, who'd warn everybody about the impending danger.

I can't really explain why journalism is being undermined at this point in history. Investigative journalism has never threatened a state, it's always only sought to influence what states do by creating political pressure. So it doesn't appear to be structural. I think this tendency might be caused by personal ambitions. There are people who are intending to do truly horrible things and they want to have the ability to persecute journalists in order to get away with their misdeeds.

What would be an effective counter ? Should we just have a default assumption that people in positions oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Hersh really fucked up recently regurgitating that fiction from one of his sources that the top Ukrainian general was negotiating with the top Russian general. I'm really surprised he got duped like that, and I wonder if anyone else in the past has tricked him similarly.


>you don't have a "right to say whatever you like"
Fine there are a few edge-cases like you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded place, but those are very rare.
>you don't have a "right to truth"
It depends, in general people do have a right to lie, but when it comes to what powerful people do, yes absolutely people have a right to the truth, also scientific knowledge that seeks to approximates truth, you have a right to that as well.
>If you're going to think like a German
Dafuck does that even mean ? Stop speaking in riddles.

>If you're already invoking an idea of "protecting your sources" and the clandestine nature of your investigation, you're invoking the terms the national security state set.

Sneaky cloak an dagger stuff existed aeons before national security states did, so that attribution seems wrong. No matter, "protecting your sources" is meant literally, as in protecting the sources from persecution and retaliation. Keeping the sources a secret is just one strategy towards that end. But you are correct it would be preferable to do all that stuff in the open. But then it becomes necessary to organize sufficient force to frustrate potential threats to journalistic sources. Maybe you can enlighten us how to do that.

>Naturally, secret societies do not let you disrupt their mechanisms of action, or play by any such rules.

Your premise is that secret societies are powerful. Is that actually true ? The ruling class appears like an open conspiracy and they're not even subtle about it.

>Ultimately, you the subject

You're thinking in hyper individualist terms. Maybe it would be better to think about this in terms of base and superstructure to figure out what's what.


>Hersh really fucked up recently regurgitating that fiction from one of his sources that the top Ukrainian general was negotiating with the top Russian general.
There probably was some background channel activity happening, there usually is during wars. So it's probably easy to get this shit wrong.
>I'm really surprised he got duped like that, and I wonder if anyone else in the past has tricked him similarly.
I don't know about tricked, but Hersh has gotten things wrong before, but you'll find very few journalists with a perfect record. But all things considered, he's gotten a lot of big scoops very right.


>Fine there are a few edge-cases like you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded place, but those are very rare.
No, you don't have a "right to say whatever you like" anywhere in the history of American law, and this is all about subverting American law and replacing it with a Germanic impostor.
Really, saying "FIRE!" - making a false warning - has nothing to do with political rights one way or another. It's not inherently illegal or immoral to do things like that in a way that the state has any say in. A private establishment can enforce its own security, within the bounds of law, and so if a patron made a false alarm, the owner of the establishment would be the first to discipline that, for the owner's own interest. The state or society generally has no say in that matter. Pulling a false alarm is a dickhead thing to do, and nothing prevents a state from making such behavior illegal, but all of that has nothing to do with political speech or assembly. Such laws against doing that are numerous and are the rule rather than exception - that is, any magistrate which can pass laws has a lot of latitude to regulate speech. Free speech in particular mostly says the feds aren't going to smash your press "just because", and the feds aren't going to insist that everyone has to say the one acceptable idea. It has nothing to do with this Germanic "unlimited freedom" faggotry that derives from Kant and Hegel, which has nothing to do with freedom in the genuine sense or the legal rights. It is free assembly and political rights that were the more relevant part of the first amendment and similar laws of that sort.
The only reason this Germanic impostor is encouraged is to allow transgressive, Satanic people to conduct lawfare. Those arguments are routinely laughed out of court. Nowhere in American history has a "right to say what you want" ever been protected. All of those laws are about what the state will do to the press, what sort of laws against speech it can and cannot pass.
Making arbitrary laws against speech based on empty sentiment would be against the intent of society and the purpose of the law, for a variety of reasons, but again, that has nothing to do with a codified "right to say whatever you want". It would be understood that an arbitrary law like "you have to espouse the correct ideology in school or we will Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


In any event, the freedom of the press in the United States was abrogated early when President Adams didn't like the press reporting on a scandal that was, you know, illegal. He got the law anyway, and while it was struck down and there was a pinky promise not to do things like that again, it has long been understood what lines the press can and cannot cross.

If you think the state has an implied regulatory power over speech - and the "lack of power" of the state to enforce speech implies really the opposite, that in principle the state's power is absolute if the state obfuscates and works through private interests - then nothing like a free press is possible. You can use endless reductio ad absurdums to say that "there is no such thing" or "freedom isn't free", and begin ridiculing the concept. Originally, the crowns of the conservative order could smash anyone's press, make it illegal to publish anything the crown didn't like, break up any assembly, and basically mandate what you are and what you will be. It is that sort of thing that the bill of rights and the concept of rights is intended to resolve - what the state can and can't do, and to whom the law applies. I've said before the real target of this is the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause - the part that doesn't allow broadly defined classes of persons to be designated as "possessing no rights" without due process. That was already effectively abrogated completely by eugenics - they can say anyone is insane without standards of comparison - so there's not really an argument to make about freedom. Without the dominance of eugenics, none of this discourse would be tolerated.

As for the original post about investigative journalism - the control of the press today doesn't take the form of legal punishments or smashing the press, which is what the legal rights originally referred to. People are allowed to investigate. The government will just refuse any inquiries and say "national security" on anything that is remotely real, and seed a bunch of bogus reports. The MO of the US has always been to leak through familiar channels bits and pieces of what actually happens, much like a secret society or a new religious movement gives away little bits as initiates climb the ranks in the organization. This method of disseminating information is very effective at controlling what anPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1703246480939.png ( 594.88 KB , 603x1268 , ClipboardImage.png )


I hate America with every fiber of my being and I pray for its destruction. I hope for an asteroid to hit or a massive earthquake happens, but whenever I see this like this, I just can't hate America anymore. It makes hating America cringe-worthy and annoying, and I do not want to be associated with these people


File: 1703763072545.jpg ( 22.93 KB , 621x580 , A13usaonutL._AC_CLa_2140,2….jpg )

It's like this shit, I agree with everything said but at the same time I would despise anyone who wore this unironically.


File: 1703799680616.png ( 218.03 KB , 425x354 , ClipboardImage.png )

>i want to be a socialist but those other socialists are being cringy and i dont want to be associated with them omg i wish i could be a socialist


I don't want to be associated with retards calling themselves "himbos" on the internet. It's stupid and makes a mockery of the Communist movement.


>defending succs instead of hunting them

>the Communist movement
You're not in the 1920s or even 1968. Find some meds in this ancient trash already ffs.

File: 1698896189879.jpg ( 45.32 KB , 500x582 , xi gun.jpg )


China Set to Tighten Hold on Crackdown - Hit Finance Sector
never mind the strange title
<China is set to step up its hold over the $61 trillion financial sector, amidst a regulatory crackdown that has seen detentions of several top executives and an unrelenting crusade against corruption in the industry.

<This week, at a twice-a-decade financial policy meeting, Beijing vowed to uphold the centralised and unified leadership of the Communist Party (CCP) on the country’s financial work. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang were in attendance at the meeting.

<China will “persist in taking risk prevention and control as the eternal theme of financial work,” the Central Financial Work Conference held in Beijing was quoted as saying.

<“We should be aware that all kinds of contradictions and problems in the financial field are intertwined and influence each other, some of which are still very prominent, and there are still many hidden risks of economic and financial risks.”

<Over the past year, China’s main anti-graft agency and the CCP’s decision-making body have both vowed to crack down on corruption within the industry. That has led to arrests of a wide range of executives including top dealmaker Bao Fan, former Bank of China chairman Liu Liange and former AMC fund manager Wang Yawei.

<The crackdown has also focused on the opulent lifestyles led by finance industry executives, leading to wide-ranging pay cuts and warnings to banking and investment sector employees against activities that might attract regulatory scrutiny, such as posting pictures of expensive meals, clothes or bags on social media.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
45 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1703653990712.png ( 20.45 KB , 425x300 , xijinpinggringchad.png )

China sidelines its once venerated central bank


<Analysts said the changes, part of a shake-up under President Xi Jinping, would diminish the PBoC’s clout over domestic policymaking as well as its role as a communication channel with global regulators and markets.

<Beijing has in effect put the PBoC under the control of a Communist party-led oversight body — the Central Financial Commission — which has nearly 100 staff overseeing financial affairs.

<“the PBoC’s reformist and modernising tendencies” had been “a sort of Trojan horse that allowed the government to experiment with financial liberalisation and integrate other market-oriented mechanisms within a state-dominated system”.


Trick question - there is not "living matter". There is matter animated by a process called life, but no substance called "living matter". When life ceases, the body decays into its constituent materials, assuming there is a body left. Parts of the body die and are shed or recycled, such that the body reconstructs itself over time, absorbing dead matter and energy to accomplish all of its functions. There is no "living matter" which is a self-contained substance in that way. It always stores energy from the environment and consumes a lot of resources simply to maintain its processes. Life is a vampire, but not a mindless one and not an evil vampire by nature, unlike our ruling elites.

The "bullshit" are these efforts to sanctify life as an essence or substance, when any competent systems view of life long ago abandoned such a thing. There isn't a singular "origin of life" story that doesn't devolve into religious koans about what life is "supposed" to be, and this is intended. Suggesting mechanisms by which life processes begin wouldn't give that origin story any inherent value to explain life now, because living things adapt as an open-ended and versatile goal to be meaningfully alive in any complex arrangement. It is at heart the processes, the life-functions, that are preserved, rather than the "life-essence" or genetic material. If that were ever adopted, which is the correct view of life mechanistically, it would mean the end of the eugenic creed's religion. That is not tolerable, and that's why all the pseudoscience is cranked up to 11, to defend a failed system.


Everything we do, and everything we ARE, is life-functions rather than genes which just happen to act in ways that conform to political expectations. If there is genetic material, it is meaningless without a corresponding life-function or behavior resulting from it. The stubbornness of life did not require a technocratic plan or blueprint to make life "regress to the mean". Life-functions to make life attain stability so that those functions continue, and it is the life-functions which "repair themselves", either by their own power or in concert with other life-functions that comprise the life-form. The body doesn't have a planning committee internal to it by some immaculate design which "just knows" what the body is supposed to do. The preservation of organic functions would be very obvious, absent a compelling purpose why those functions would cease at the command of the life-form's more prominent functions - for example, letting a limb be amputated to save the brain, which animal life cannot continue without.

The life-functions are not inexorably carried out "to the last gasp", as if a drive to live is paramount above all other concerns and all life will axiomatically preserve its life-functions in all cases. But, generally, there is no good reason why life-functions should cease just because they don't fit an intellectual conceit. There's not really a cycle of obligatory death and life. We are, in the main, "dead" creatures. The matter of the flesh is dead, absorbed largely by other dead life-forms. We interface with dead technology, and dead knowledge. The very contact we have with society to say nothing with spiritual thought pertains almost entirely to a dead or unliving world. We could view "life" as a fleeting phenomenon if we chose, and continue living happily - probably happier than if we indulged in philosophical obsession regarding life-worship or death-worship. There is much more in this world than essentialism, and eugenics exists to terminate all of it and leave us with the purest shit.


Not the reform I was hoping for. Giant private banks don't need a fucking "oversight body", they need to be taken out back and shot so that finance can be democratically organized.


>Not the reform I was hoping for.
Honestly it went further than i thought it would go. My guess would be chinese finance capital lost a political powerstruggle and the weakening of western economic power are the biggest factors.

>Giant private banks don't need a fucking "oversight body", they need to be taken out back and shot so that finance can be democratically organized.

The Chinese have actually done this, for extremely severe cases of financial fraud. But I get it, that's not what you meant, you want a political rupture with decisive political action. But in china things are going relatively well, so don't expect dramatic changes. I think they're basically experimenting with incremental changes to improve their economy. I wouldn't knock this too much, because having a oversight body filled with communist carders that can overrule big finance, that's something we wish we had.

File: 1654714677666.mp4 ( 8.04 MB , 510x720 , The American dream.mp4 )


QTDDTOT - Questions that don't need their own thread. The last one died, so here post your questions here.

I couldn't find it so i'll make a new one.
71 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1699817357694.jpg ( 108.25 KB , 1080x809 , 169967141581.jpg )

So you are basically arguing that the great man theory of history is the most influential political force in history (in 2023) and that because only
successfull" political revolutions in the past have been carried out, planned, and organized by great men that, for some reason, that you will not explain, this means now that a decentralized, more collective revolution cannot be lead in the modern era? Ignoring the fact that basically the whole of history since the industrial revolution, especially in the united states, was lead and organized by labor unions and syndicates in leftists countries that don't fit into your propaganda narrative about the USSR? Am I getting this right?




>Political rule in China relies on local collaboration from agents whose sole occupation is enforcing top-down regulations and snitching.
I don't know what you mean with this "agent-based-governnance", but china does not have a uniform regulatory environment, different provinces have different regulations.

>Any revolution in history has been carried out by a leading cadre often drawn from the petty bourgeoisie, albeit with the support of the diverse array of people.

Yes all successful revolutions had revolutionary cadres, and they wouldn't have succeed without the masses.
>There has never been a revolution spontaneously directed by 'the masses.'
But nobody has argued for a spontaneous revolt in this thread ?

>a highly organized minoritarian vanguard party, such as in Russia.

Minoritarian ?
Bolsheviki means majority faction


File: 1699849487681.jpg ( 242.69 KB , 1024x1024 , IMG_20231113_112350_047.jpg )

You should spend more time actually trying to prove your point by organizing something in the real world, not fingerwaving on your dead image board.

Or, at the very least, maybe you could invite some members of the 'working class' to participate here. Display some sort of competence in organizing the masses lol

…Anything that would vindicate your faith-based view that the masses are the makers of history

I won't hold my breath.


Are you brain dead or something?
You need a physically see a labor strike for what?? To prove that labor intrinsically has more power than capital? What even are you trying to prove?
Since you want to be a child I will hold your hand and walk you through the last 100 years of industrial organizing in the unit d. You realize people fought and died for the things you take for granted today right? Things like the 8 hour work day. All of this was done through collective bargaining and organizing labor.


File: 1703366991409.jpg ( 47.04 KB , 600x800 , 20231204_080506.jpg )

OK so recently I got the essential works of Lenin. I was really excited to get into it, but it's really hard to grasp. I read a good bit of "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" without knowing he meant communist when he was saying social Democrat. He also brings up so many newspapers that my head is in a constant spin trying to remember who is who. Should I just read Stalin's work on Leninism? Or is there a better work that kinda puts all this simply? I'm sad that I'm struggling with this,and I haven't gotten to State and Revolution, but it's kinda sapped most of my excitement for reading this.

File: 1689113130086.jpg ( 1.58 MB , 3690x2481 , students-marching-on-the-s….jpg )

 No.470946[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

What happened to the anti war movent?
The anti war movent was extremely vocal in 2001 - 2010 it seems. Vocal against the war in Afghanistan and iraq. In Vietnam people literally put their bodies on the line destroying arms facilities. So why have we done such a radical 180 when it comes to the war in Ukraine? What happened?

There is such over whelming deep throated support for the war in Ukraine. Overtly on the side of Ukraine and NATO but the "antithesis" to this on the left is to turn to supporting Russia. What happened? Anyone with half a brain understand Russia is not only not leftist, but, they are no even close to the left they are right wingers and the Russian government is overtly reactionary and the same is true of the US and Ukraine, but, the mask has fallen it appears with most vocal supporters of the war in Ukraine (meaning they are no longer identifying themselves on 'the left' but just out right as liberals) So what happened?

What happened to the anti-war left? CIA? Memory Hol'd? What happened?
96 posts and 41 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>a country that imprisons and kills political dissonants (some of which are communists) and homosexuals.
Good, they should kill more. Kill their families. Go abroad and kill even more with as much polonium as they can. Kill their extended family and friends, and friends' families. And there has not been a single communist worth shit that was killed by the RF. All of the based ones are tied to the KPRF in some way, I don't care if glowfeds, westernized transhumanists and traitors to their nation like Navalny would call themselves "communist".
You are lower than the scum on my shoe. If dissidents were the bottom of the barrel of society, then you would belong in a secret compartment underneath that, swimming in shit and garbage


Nations are concrete and objective. Read marx. Read stalin. And kill yourself westoid. You can easily spot who's a closet anarchist or if someone used to be an anarchist in the past based on their aversion to nationalism - something on an equal level of importance as class.


If that were true we wouldn't be having this conversation right now retard, lmao. Just because nations developed along historical and material influence doesn't make them anymore "objective" than money or your collection of lolicon. This is delusional cope from desperate faggots.


If nations weren't important, no one would care about Ukraine being annexed.

Russia haven't changed much since the Tsarists area. Aristocrats, communists and now autocrats keep driving the same train on the same roads.
I don't see you condemning the murder of political opponents and the decriminalization of homosexuals in the USSR, tankie.


File: 1703223419289.jpg ( 331.61 KB , 1360x1532 , into-the-trash-you-go.jpg )

>If nations weren't important, no one would care about Ukraine being annexed.

File: 1702793600348.jpg ( 107.64 KB , 500x500 , artworks-NiiG5PKMGqx9cluJ-….jpg )


Anarchist? More like nothing to show for it!!!


u wut m8?


more sucessful than trots.
also rojava and chiapas my friend.


I'd say much less. trots have been in majority party coalitions across latam at many points of time. Rojava has one "anarchist" microparty but I'll give you the chiapas: agrarian shithole that is getting crushed by organized cartels. just be a maoist he already incorporated anything good that anarchists had to say


>shitting on anarchism while under the chinese flag
>despite the fact that it is precisely anarchism that was the most powerful thing in Asia for decades, & so much @ that that even some kid named Mao wasn't reading any of the marxoid shit due to it being practically nonexistant in Asia

Your memes are shit, you should feel bad, kill yourself.

File: 1701847986199.png ( 341.92 KB , 680x850 , 1692659292157512.png )


Venezuelans vote to claim sovereignty over a part of oil-rich nation Guyana
Is this another example of proletariat struggle against Western Imperialism? Tsnkies, sound off!
18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>The Venezuelan socdems will probably use it to fund social welfare with it.
Ok, Venezuelan plebs get the bread without circus, and "essequibans" get what? war?

They should look at downbassians to see what they get lol.

More blood for the multipolar God.

Humanity is so fucked lol.


File: 1702178476121.jpg ( 77.24 KB , 540x622 , masterduel-12b1w7k.jpg )

SOUTHCOM to Conduct Flight Over Guyana
>In collaboration with the Guyana Defence Force (GDF), the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) will conduct flight operations within Guyana on December 7. This exercise builds upon routine engagement and operations to enhance security partnership between the United States and Guyana, and to strengthen regional cooperation.
About to be some Kuwait invasion 2, electric boogaloo all up on tankies.


File: 1702179106130.jpg ( 76.82 KB , 828x1077 , 20230716_103024.jpg )

>Venezuela isn't imperialist because Lenin says Capitalism has stages.
But Marx didn't. This is why Marxist Leninism is gross revisionism. Where capitalism exists ALL of Marxist critique applies.
Capitalism requires original capital (mistranslated as primitive capital). Basically it needs someone, somewhere get completely ripped off, no wage, no nothing


You gave me the impulse to re-examine the situation again. And i have to admit that i don't really know what game is being played.

I do know what happens to countries that get taken over by multinational oil-barons. Those are going to determine that the political rights of the locals are a "political risk" that is threatening profitability. And then the government gets replaced with a military hunta. They will also determine that the country should not have any economy that is not totally depend on the oil industry because that could result in "misaligned economic incentives". What the oil multinationals have done to countries like that is so bad that people call it "the resource curse".

There is a possibility that Venezuela isn't really trying to get Essequibo, they might just be trying to fuck with ExxonMobile's plans to get it. They might not want a hard right extraction-vassal on their boarder. They might be aiming for a situation where it's more trouble than it's worth for ExxonMobile. After-all Venezuela is not likely to outright win a military contest and lay claim to the resources, if the US gets involved in this. But they could easily frustrate the ability of ExxonMobile to conduct extraction operations.

>and "essequibans" get what?

Is there any outcome where they don't draw the ass-card ?
Based on the history of multinational resource extraction capitalism, they might be better off working out a deal with the Venezuelans. If my speculation is correct and Venezuela's priority is keeping ExxonMobile out of their backyard, they might get a really favorable deal.


Here is an interesting take

The Venezuelan-Guyanese Dispute Is A Classic Security Dilemma

<Venezuelan policymakers apparently calculated that the US has a greater need at present for their country’s oil exports ahead of next year’s election and as suspicions circulate about de facto jointly led Russian-Saudi OPEC+’s strategic intentions than for oil exports from Guyana a few years down the road.

<With them in mind, these same policymakers then took note of how much the US’ stockpiles have been depleted over the past 22 months of proxy war against Russia, which led them to conclude that it’s comparatively weaker than at any time in recent memory. Accordingly, they seem to have wagered that Venezuela’s role in ensuring the US’ immediate energy security interests and that country’s newfound military limitations created the best opportunity yet for them to press their claims to Essequibo.

<The reason why they didn’t want to leave the conflict frozen was because they concluded that the US would inevitably exploit Exxon’s offshore oil investments in disputed waters as the pretext for deploying a permanent military presence that could then lead to a multitude of hybrid threats to Venezuela. It wasn’t until after the US eased the sanctions and its military limitations were exposed that policymakers realized that they had the unique opportunity to finally resolve the security dilemma over Essequibo.


File: 1701555219479.jpg ( 189.83 KB , 1024x740 , Plague-of-Athens.jpg )


All right, so we've seen how oligarchies and dictatorships respond to pandemics. Some of them were effective, some were profoundly ineffective. The general theme was to deprive people of their civil liberties and violate bodily autonomy with coercive medical procedures. In some liberal oligarchies these measures were even used to permanently expand the powers of the unelected bureaucracy. Okay. That's something an undemocratic state can impose upon its population only by its undemocratic nature.

But what would a democratic response to an infectious public health crisis look like? In a complete democracy (i.e., communism), how would the populace quickly react to and decide to defend itself against a deadly contagion?
15 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


To add to this: one of the top priorities of society in communism will be removing all of the poisons that the bourgeoisie have deliberately put in our water, land, air, food, and medicine. In communism, people's nutrition and physical exercise will also improve dramatically. As a result, all of these so-called contagious diseases as well as non-contagious such as cancer will be eradicated.


File: 1702163591028.pdf ( 710.96 KB , 232x300 , pemic_report.pdf )



Honestly shocked the ACLU wrote something like this, given their failure to fight for the things they stood for during the pandemic.


This was published in 08 before the ACLU was turned into a fully biofash govt mouthpiece.

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 ]
| Catalog | Home