/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

In the Truman-show the environment is fake, but it physically exists, while in the Matrix the environment sort off doesn't exist.

Maybe it'S a mix of both.

>>473106
Both feature a sort of curated reality which, if one accepts, they feel inclined to defend.

The full regional name, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya," sounds a lot prettier. Ending it on "rat" sounds terrible in English… but it's not an English word anyway, so what do I know?

>>473097
>The full regional name, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya," sounds a lot prettier.
Any idea where i could listen to somebody saying that aloud.

That seems like it's a long way from even being a decision we have to make. Like shit's probably gonna hit the fan in 2024, but I dunno if workers are even in a position to take advantage of it - things are probably about to get much worse.

>>473049
The bolsheviks gunned down the children of Tsar Nik2 because there was a risk they could have gone into exile and become the beginning of a royalist counter revolution which would have been put down with yet more bloodshed. The bolsheviks can't really be blamed for the logic of feudal political power. Designing the feudal political form so that the only way to end it was for everybody in the thrown-succession to be dead, was always going to be a death-sentence for the last generation of royals. Everything ends, it's better to design political systems with a graceful failure-mode. Monarchs who didn't cede political power to democratic institutions are to blame for the slaughter that their structure created. The bolsheviks would have chosen to unelect the monarchical order if that was a possibility. The bourgeoisie in France did the same thing as the bolsheviks when they abolished obstinate feudalism. In some places feudal rulers dismantled their power willingly and transitioned into democracy and avoided becoming a bloodstain in the footnotes of history.

All that said the people who complain about this don't care about children at all, because they never morn any of the millions of peasant born children that died because of Tsarist rule. The correct thing to do is turn "Think of the Children!" back on them, child mortality plummeted under Soviet rule. That means these people are demanding the sacrifice of all those peasant children to safe the children of the Tsar.

The rest of your post isn't very logical. Political convictions and bourgeois sentiment isn't hereditary. All the past methods of dealing with counter revolutions was predicated on a false premise. The false premise that counter revolutions could be prevented. The correct analysis is that counter revolutions will happen and the task of the revolution is to make it fail. So we're going to organize the counter revolution our self and we'll choreograph it to make it fail. We don't have to invent something new, we can appropriate the kabuki theater they invented. If you have to deal with royalists, you build a fake castle with a fake thrown and a feudalism larp. If you have to deal with counter revolutionary neo-liberals you make a fake stock-exchange with line go up as larp and so on.

There are 2 factors why political and economic systems get overthrown. The first Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>473057
>The bolsheviks would have chosen to unelect the monarchical order if that was a possibility.
I rather doubt it has ever been that simple. Revolutions don't happen when the people being ruled over are content. They happen when their rulers have done something to piss them off enough to overthrow their system, and at that point their rulers can either expect to be killed themselves in vengeance or cling to power as hard as they can to protect their lives. Non-violent revolutions with non-violent transitions of power are rare precisely because violence-breeding destitution and repression is usually a prerequisite for a revolution to occur in the first place.

>>473067
>Revolutions don't happen when the people being ruled over are content. They happen when their rulers have done something to piss them off enough to overthrow their system
The masses make revolution when they think it will make their lives better, collective revenge probably isn't a thing. Masses of people don't get organized just for payback, all that effort that goes into pulling off a revolution, that's motivated by gain. Revenge killings during revolutions do happen of course but they are acts of individuals, and they're usually frowned upon because the after-revolution politics has to recover from the disruption of normality and order.

>at that point their rulers can either expect to be killed themselves in vengeance or cling to power as hard as they can to protect their lives.
Not really, the rulers that give up tend to live while those that cling to power usually don't. Clinging to power means using brutal methods and making them selves into monsters. In the end that's what gets them wrecked. And this isn't because of vengeance. It's people having gone through rough times, thinking about all those good people that didn't make it. And then not being able to answer why these horrible monsters should be allowed to survive when the good people didn't. I have read a lot of testimony from the post ww2 period, people complaining about the wrong people surviving is a prominent theme. That sentiment ended a fuck-ton of Nazi collaborators in the last stages of the war.

The N°1 reason why terrible rulers get killed off is because they clung to power too much. Even the most horrible politicians almost never get killed because their hold on power is limited. And getting rid of them usually isn't terribly hard. So if the effort of getting rid of terrible rulers was low enough it's not worth killing them, but if it took a tremendous amount of struggle, people feel that they want to make sure that it's "permanent". Democracies have so little political violence because political power tends to be more ephemeral.

By the way the bolsheviks initially didn't intent to kill the Tsars. After being deposed they were put under house arrest for a long time. The firing squat order was given because there was a risk that they might get released from captivity by opposing comPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>473041
I can see where people are coming from with this argument, but, it never really made sense to me. All the class dichotomies still exist just as they did in the industrial revolution. Not a lot really has changed.

Those who have nothing to sell but their labor power: Working class

Those who live off the labor of others: Bourgeoisie.

there's nuances, but, everyone on earth falls into these two classes of people.

>>473042
I agree with you that capitalist class relations are still in effect.

But your definitions are kinda sloppy.
First there still are roughly .5 billion people living off subsistence farming, they neither are bourg, nor are they selling their labor-power.

Second "Those who live off the labor of others" is also true for children, old people, workers in the reserve army of labor, sick people and the hobo going to the soup-kitchen. None of these people are bourgeois. Maybe it would be better to define the bourgeoisie by private surplus appropriation ?

>>473043
Even if some one is not selling their labor they still only have their labor to sell. rural peasants still meet this definition.

>>473043
Also no because all those people don't live off capital. Maybe I was not clear enough.

>>473051
Nope that isn't a robust definition either, some pension-funds are based on capital investment, and technically that means retired workers would be living off capital. Some workers are payed in stock-options, it's not very common but in theory they could potentially replace wages with some sophisticated form of stock options. There are orphanages that are funded by passive capital income and technically that would mean those parrentless children would count as bourgeoisie.

<private surplus appropriation
still seems like a more robust definition.

It seems like you are trying to avoid using the Marxist concept of surplus
Can you explain why ?

There are "leftists" who will say tank man was the bad guy.

>b) American efficiency.
kek, amerikkkans are fat, lazy and dumb though

>>473025
Deng probably was correct about a lot of things, but he shouldn't have undone the iron-bole policy. And arguably he overshot with the market liberalizations, China almost entered a crisis cycle and almost created a big bourgeoisie that got pretty close at destabilizing the Chinese economy.

The PPW specifically refers to the military strategy for a semi-feudal country, with nowhere near the level of communications a modern imperialist state has. In our world(let's be honest maybe like one of you doesn't live in an imperialist country), where legions of cops or soldiers can go to any location in the country in a matter of hours(especially if you live in burgerland), what is the new military strategy of the proletariat then?

This is not to say to discredit all of MLM and its thought, simply the idea that "PPW is universal", which generalizes the term beyond all meaning.

>>461564
It has been so long since PPW has had any success whatsoever, that I think that it can be safely consigned to military history.

For the burger anons out there, what do you think about the thought expressed in Red Pages? I find their criticisms expressed about the application of PPW in imperialist nations pretty potent, but of course that could just be due to ignorance on my part.

The previous attempts of applying MLM to the first world including the work of the Black Panthers and Young Lords did lead to pressuring the bourgeois state into producing many social programs once the proletariat saw what was possible, but at the same time the direct action groups(the Young Lords in particular) were directly limited by the meddling of the local street gangs.

It is obvious that the drug-peddling gangs and the state police force are the two utmost forces to struggle against for the party; the mass base tactics applied in the Philippines come to mind as an interesting solution to their grasp over these neighborhoods, so much so that I'm certain someone else has tried it first. Is there any theory published around attempts to build a people's army by in first world conditions as of recent? Most armed groups that I'm aware of are usually anarchist explicitly or implicitly(such as Redneck Revolt), so I'm curious of a specifically Maoist solution.

No wonder every media outlet smears this guy so hard. He names names

>>472944
Shame he's a Zioncuck.

>>472945
Never understood the attempts by politicians to cozy up to Israel. As a friend/ally, they're about as trustworthy as the US itself.

>>472361
Cornel West

Idol sisters… I don't feel so good..

>>472828
labor aristocracy

>>472828
PMC is not a class. It's a meme from reactionary settler angry that capitalism isn't working FOR THEM.
Nurses are considered PMCs for God's sake.

>>472926
Source?

>>472926
>PMC is not a class
True.
The PMC acronym used to mean professional military contractor.
It would have been better to say PMS - Professional Managerial Strata, to avoid the overlap
But it appears that the PMC label stuck, so the next best choice is PMC - Professional Managerial Cast

>settler
Settlerism is almost extinct, it still exists in a few places like in Palestine where Zionists are trying to displace Palestinians. The attempt at turning this into a cultural identity is ruling class divide and conquer idpol. It's super reactionary.

>angry that capitalism isn't working for them
Most opposition to capitalism tends to be motivated by self-interest.

>Nurses are considered
Service workers, and repairing people is considered productive work.

>>471569
>It's always better to make things worse
I have to say your political program is utter dogshit.

>What happened to leftoid extremism?
Today pretty much all extremisms are based on politics that generate or maintain extreme wealth differentials between the super-rich and the rest of society. Another way to frame is that extremisms spring from various attempt of imposing or upholding the imposition of extreme wealth differentials.

Communist, socialists and leftists generally do not accept these politics and hence the more economically left you go the less extreme your politics become.

>>471575
This is very true and the older I have gotten the more I have begun to understand and accept this.
Take smashing windows for exampke; Smashing windows and riot porn were some of the first things that actually got me into left wing anarchism in the first place but as I got older I realized that most people are just extremely off put by this behavior and it actually gives the right more ammunition and is more self serving and ultra than anything. Now I tend to understand that this behavior actually enforces the mechanisms of capitalism by further emboldening reactionary ideology and giving more ammunition to our class enemies.

>>471589
And why are people off-put by this behavior?
Granted, most people are lemmings, but many non-lemmings seem to hate this as well.

>>471568
Perhaps.

Wake up babe