[ 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."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix

IRC Chat

Pleroma

Mumble

Telegram

Discord


| Catalog | Home

File: 1627893280185.png (387.3 KB, 932x789, liberal tantrums.png)

 No.417625[Reply]

25 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.438491

File: 1628677293530.png (1.22 MB, 2500x1921, Shay’s Topkek.PNG)

>>438417
>Implying
>>

 No.438532

>>

 No.444946

>>421023
>gg chang
hehe
>>

 No.460613

Bump


File: 1626853070974.png (116.54 KB, 888x444, ad286345111ab5af4aae759253….png)

 No.391644[Reply]

Can you explain me why some "comrades" have an understanding of colonialism that has more to do with Gnosticism than Materialism?
Why colonialism has become the original sin ?
I often here even smart fellows end up in the rabbit hole with some spooky shit on "muh ancestors" "muh white people" "muh post colonial identity".
Why is colonialism worse than say slaves societies which non european countries had?
Every system (feudal, clan, slave ecc.) Has been imposed through conquering, war, competition, capitalism did the same. Colonialism is a consequence of capitalism.
77 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.460510

>>460474
The real point is that every society was either enslaving people or enslaved by someone else until a couple hundred years ago. Faggots like to believe the west was somehow different and stood out as particularly evil, when in reality the west eradicated slavery. It's not like white people voyaged into Africa to catch the slaves themselves. They bought them from other Africans. Moreover, Africa is the primary place where slavery still exists today. Cope
>>

 No.460511

>>460446
The irony of you saying this by twiddling your thumbs on a device which didn't exist 15 years ago
>>

 No.460512

>>391721
Prolly because you're a powerless faggot who won't do shit besides make idle threats online?
>>

 No.460521

>>460492
10% if that. Either way I mean they are part of the wider Steppesphere/Francosphere but not necessarily the exact same culture, mostly historical and language ties
>>

 No.460572

File: 1668288955148.png (359.48 KB, 540x531, CapitalistEfficiency.png)

>>460511
>unironic muh iPhones
You need to get some self-awareness. And read Capital.
>>460521
>not necessarily the exact same culture
I am of a mind that "cultures" cannot be clearly delineated, as the concept itself is so ill-defined as to be useless for any practical method.


File: 1649581658731.jpg (2.54 MB, 2744x3720, vkdkdfeesho.jpg)

 No.455071[Reply]

Post all your oc. I did some, I did a bit.
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.459398

File: 1666000425283.png (84.33 KB, 1200x1555, MaxStirner1.svg.png)

Nice meme
I like it
:)
>>

 No.459399

File: 1666001903353.png (65.87 KB, 200x193, f541c92a502bbd65a1349defa1….png)

I made this a while back
>>

 No.459402

File: 1666008678890.jpg (77.41 KB, 914x1130, IMG_20220603_191015_311.jpg)

>>

 No.459408

File: 1666021157372.jpg (81.66 KB, 500x756, 6x89xh.jpg)

>>

 No.460454

I made this eons ago >>>/i/484


File: 1668043446042.jpg (45.56 KB, 1024x685, Black pilll.jpg)

 No.460280[Reply]

After every election in the US the left feels even more dead. I get more blackpilled. Anybody willing to share their experiences organizing or anything?
15 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.460333

>>460320
>There still are socialist countries around, DPRK, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and China for example.
All liberalized their economies
>I know that you will at minimum contest China's claim to socialism but they are ruled by a Communist party that is nominally still upholding ML, and there is no way you can say that China is a bourgeois dictatorship. There is no way a bunch of billionaires are going to tell the politburo what to do.
The EU and America call themselves democracies. Therefore it must be true
Xi Jinping is a billionaire
>I don't see how ?
>Libidinal sex-politics are irrelevant to this, they serve no purpose other then derailment.
Ya, you definitely don't fuck
<Hey guys, join our spunky group of leftist dudes who don't get laid but definitely know what's best for everyone
Inspiring message
>>

 No.460334

>>460329
So you agree that western imperialism didn't stop in 1947? You have to be severely history-let and reactionary brained to fucking say imperialism stopped in 1947 westoid trash.
>>

 No.460355

>>460333
>All liberalized their economies
DPRK didn't. And it's only partially true for the others. It's understandable, it allowed them to survive the blackest reaction after the Soviet dissolution. China did it to level up their technology base, and it worked. You have to admit that in every crisis they moved a little to the left.
>Xi Jinping is a billionaire
I can't find any legit source to corroborate that, so that's probably false.
It's very unlikely because he's doing a policy to "adjust excessive incomes of the super-wealthy"
>speculating about sex-life
this is basic liberal wrecker stuff.
>group of leftist
Leftist political organization is about fighting for the interests of the proletariat, it's not supposed to be a social club.
If you allow it to become a social club it will get torn apart by drama.
>>

 No.460367

>>460334
>So you agree that western imperialism didn't stop in 1947?
Yes i agree with that, western imperialism didn't stop
>You have to be severely history-let and reactionary brained to fucking say imperialism stopped in 1947
It seems like an oddly specific date, i wonder what that is about.
>>

 No.460404

>>460322
>imperialism is when the production of commodities gets done in different places than where those commodities are cosumed
Theorylet turdworldist. Lenin was wrong, and Marx was right. Deal with it.
>>460334
You're a fool for thinking that it went on after the entire mercantile colonial system collapsed, you know, the collapse that even Lenin predicted would be its end. The "imperialism" model doesn't work anymore, even in theory. There are no empires that function as their own distinct economies anymore. Even in the supposed "first-world" (NATO-made bullshit, by the way) workers are net exploited. They're not sitting on the pile of treasure that you mined; they don't even own the actual furniture in their rented apartments. They're all going to die in debt and work until they do.
>>460367
>It seems like an oddly specific date, i wonder what that is about.
The Kuomintang get shoved off the mainland, the Raj ended which set off independence movements throughout the Middle East, Indonesia had gained independence from The Netherlands not long before. The French and the Americans held onto some of their colonies for a bit longer, but in 1947 the vast majority of people who had been living under colonial rule had either achieved outright independence or were in the midst of a fight to achieve it. The empires were dead, and a global capitalism with two competing spheres had taken its place.


File: 1667926378745.jpg (413.17 KB, 1200x900, 1fhcc14ie4h31.jpg)

 No.460209[Reply]

>Every few years, I think about joining the Democratic Socialists of America. And every few years, I end up leaving one of their events shaking my head in disappointment. More often than not, I end up in meetings that have nothing to do with wages, working conditions, and other issues that socialists are supposed to care about. One of the last times I gave DSA a chance, I ended up in a discussion about "Hamilton." The socialists debated whether Lin-Manuel Miranda's musical was "reactionary" or "liberatory." It felt like an Introduction to Cultural Studies course rather than an activist meeting. My impression was compounded by the fact that I was surrounded by college students. Personally, I would rather spend my time knocking on doors and talking to voters than discussing whether a theatrical production is progressive or not. I certainly have no interest in trying to cancel one that's not.

>But some members of the DSA have different priorities. Last week, members of the Madison, Wisconsin chapter demanded that a comedy club cancel Louis C.K.'s upcoming performances. Back in 2017, C.K. admitted to sexual misconduct with five women. Four years later, these socialists believe he has no right to step back on stage. As they put it, "In addition to joking about his own abusive behavior, Louis C.K. has long gotten a pass for tasteless jokes about the Holocaust, disabilities, and transgender people. As socialist feminists, we stand strongly opposed to platforming abusers, and we believe Louis C.K. must be held accountable for his abuse and oppressive rhetoric."


>But the uproar over Louis C.K. was just the latest example of DSA members trying to cancel public events. Last year, the New York City chapter invited Adolph Reed Jr. to speak. Reed is an African American socialist who has been an activist for decades, who argues that socialists should focus less on racial disparities because this emphasis undermines multiracial organizing. It was a step too far for the DSA, somehow, and an uproar ensued, leading to the cancelation of the event. Cornel West, another African American socialist and fellow Ivy League professor, lambasted the decision. "If you give up discussion, your movement moves toward narrowness," he blasted the DSA in the New York Times….


Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>

 No.460215

The DSA is red-painted liberals. That's nothing new or surprising.
>>

 No.460272

>>460209
Yeah, they're a bunch of nerds.
Nothing you can really do about it.
>>

 No.460382

>>460215
>everything I dislike is liberal
Or maybe the left just really, really sucks right now.
>>

 No.460384

>>460382(me)
Actually, fuck that. The DSA really are red liberals. My mistake.


File: 1667951914853.jpg (120.21 KB, 908x1024, 1667847529393955.jpg)

 No.460223[Reply]

Why is there no thread for this? Republicans are looking to take the house and Senate. Crazy times are ahead let's have a general about this.
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.460246

>>460245
The slurry brain that people in Pennsylvania elected
>>

 No.460247

File: 1668014887261.jpg (58.26 KB, 419x630, 9781101932377_p0_v3_s1200x….jpg)

>>460239
Do you recommend I start with this one? I want to learn more about leftism in America
>>

 No.460252

>>460247
>Pivoting away from the fact oz is a homeopathy peddling hack
>>

 No.460380

File: 1668093717079-0.jpg (18.39 KB, 220x275, Lt._Gov._John_Fetterman_Po….jpg)

File: 1668093717079-1.jpg (67.26 KB, 931x523, DR-OZ-CAMPAIGN-11-6-22.jpg)

>>460252
>Oz
>62 years old
>Healthy
>Homeopathy enjoyer

>Fedderman

>53 years old
>Obese
>Stroke victim
>Lump in their neck
>Science truster

This wasn't the own you think it was
>>

 No.460475

>>460380
>Oz follows his own medical advice
you're dumber than i thought


File: 1668061155629.jpg (109.55 KB, 728x728, 521301-gettyimages-4847411….jpg)

 No.460326[Reply]

>no western imperialism since 1947
How many western "socialists"actually believe this? Pic related is from the Suez crisis of 1956, many many other imperialist wars like fucking Korea and Vietnam.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.460335

>>460330
>moralism
How is not ignoring the millions of working class people killed by western imperialism extremely moralistic? Might as well just say you're a psuedo white supremacist porky.
>>

 No.460338

>>460335
It's by definition moralism
>Moralism is any philosophy with the central focus of applying moral judgements.
>>

 No.460358

>>460338
I guess I should not be a fucking anti-capitalist then, why are you even a leftist? You know I also sympathize with people who died in the fucking millions from imperialist actions is that a "moralist"? Piece of shit retard, yeah fuck the working class fucking the poor fuck the kicked out and killed and stomped poor working class people fuck them. It that makes me a moralist than I am one.
>>

 No.460359

>>460358
>Why should you be anti-capitalist
Um, self interest
>>

 No.460366

> >no western imperialism since 1947
Even if it were true the current order was built on a pile of corpses from the two wars.


File: 1666866320511.jpg (127.95 KB, 732x544, IMG_20221027_131917.jpg)

 No.459737[Reply]

CPUSA outreach media looks like a zoom call between people languishing away in an assisted living facility
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.459772

>>459760
i also joined an org, but i haven't heard anything back even though they said they'd call.
>>

 No.459773

>>459772
The leaders of modern American orgs are incredibly lazy some times. Maybe they just feel defeated? Idfk.
>>

 No.459785

>>459773
>Maybe they just feel defeated?
Not maybe, definitely.
The truth is that most of the left is defeated. The few serious communists (and anarchists) remaining simply possess and use the minimum critical faculties necessary to be aware of this fact, though they may not communicate it directly.
All the other leftists are still in denial, hence their tendency to masturbate to right-wing social democrats and go deep into identity "politics".
The left has no coherent strategy.
>>

 No.459792

>>459785
Inb4 "wow that's so doomer anon "
>>

 No.460361

>>459785
Honestly preferable to most of the rest of the left because I don't think they're actually trying to bullshit me in a country where pretty much everyone else is running some kinda scam. You might think they're wrong but I don't think there's any divide between what they say on those streams and what they actually believe. Whatever you think about them, they're very consistent. And that is why they're an enormous failure!


File: 1668044334215.jpg (44.18 KB, 1200x1200, nTXoM7knc.jpg)

 No.460283[Reply]

Am I the only one who never found the magacommunism meme funny? There are still people trying to push it here or something, and it just bores me.
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.460331

Honestly I would rather live under fucking neo-liberalism than haz-oid magacommunism. If magacommunism tries to corrupt a revolution into a counter-revolution I will just starting killing every magashit with my Glock.
>>

 No.460342

>>460331
> I would rather live under fucking neo-liberalism
Ya, because you're a liberal.
Back to disc0rd!
>>

 No.460347

>>460331
Should we really be surprised that those upholding the dominant ideology of our era oppose MAGACommunism so vehemently.
I feel like we're being raiding by reddit
>>

 No.460348

>>460342
>>460347
Shut the fuck up hazoids, report these fags.
>>

 No.460353

>>460348
Awww, what wrong. Did you get dismissed again by Pasquale? Try doing hand strengthening exercises and make sure to use plenty of lotion


File: 1668016651865.jpeg (30.41 KB, 800x529, 753ce196545ffd41ec8e8d37c….jpeg)

 No.460250[Reply]

The logic of accumulation lies in the growing concentration and centralization of control over capital. Formal ownership can be spread out (as in the “owners” of shares in pension plans), whereas the management of this property is controlled by financial capital.

We have reached a level of centralization in capital’s power of domination, such that the bourgeoisie’s forms of existence and organization as known up to now have been completely transformed. The bourgeoisie was initially formed from stable bourgeois families. From one generation to the next, the heirs carried on the specialized activities of their companies. The bourgeoisie was built and built itself over the long run. This stability encouraged confidence in “bourgeois values” and promoted their influence throughout the entire society. To a large extent, the bourgeoisie as dominant class was accepted as such. Its access to the privileges of comfort and wealth seemed deserved in return for the services they rendered. It also seemed mainly national in orientation, sensitive to national interests, whatever the ambiguities and limitations of this manipulated concept might have been. The new ruling class abruptly breaks with this tradition. Some describe the transformation in question as the development of active shareholders (sometimes even characterized as populist shareholders) fully reestablishing property rights. This laudatory and misleading characterization legitimizes the change and fails to recognize that the major aspect of the transformation involves the degree of concentration in control of capital and the accompanying centralization of power. The new ruling class is no longer counted in the tens of thousands or even millions, as was the case with the older bourgeoisie. Moreover, a large proportion of the new bourgeoisie is made up of newcomers who emerged more by the success of their financial operations (particularly in the stock market) than by their contribution to the technological breakthroughs of our era. Their ultrarapid rise is in stark contrast with their predecessors, whose rise took place over numerous decades.

The centralization of power, even more marked than the concentration of capital, reinforces the interpenetration of economic and political power. The “traditional” ideology of capitalism placed the emphasis on the virtues of property in general, particularly small property—in reality medium or medium-large property—considered to purvey technological anPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>

 No.460261

>>460250
>The logic of accumulation lies in the growing concentration and centralization of control over capital. Formal ownership can be spread out (as in the “owners” of shares in pension plans), whereas the management of this property is controlled by financial capital.
Absolutely nothing about this is new. This shit was as true in the seventeenth century as it is now.
>The bourgeoisie was initially formed from stable bourgeois families.
Lel, no it fucking wasn't. It was formed of the bastards, the second sons, and the adventurers who plundered the New World. They were the least stable group imaginable.
>To a large extent, the bourgeoisie as dominant class was accepted as such.
The fuck? It wasn't even accepted as such after the French Revolution. It wasn't recognized until after the turn of the Twentieth Century. Even Marx called it the "middle class." Who is the idiot who wrote this flagrant ahistorical bullshit?
>Samir Amin
Of course.
>Its access to the privileges of comfort and wealth seemed deserved in return for the services they rendered.
…to absolutely nobody. The aristocrats considered them to be savages and upstarts. Workers considered them to be little different from bandits (hence the term "robber barons"), and the peasantry thought of them as puffed up nobodies. It's like this idiot never read anything written in the ninteenth century.
>The new ruling class is no longer counted in the tens of thousands or even millions, as was the case with the older bourgeoisie.
Gee, it's almost as if the petit-bourgeoisie is dying out for some reason, like something is causing their rate of profit to fall globally.
>The English term crony capitalism should not be reserved only for the “underdeveloped and corrupt” forms of Southeast Asia and Latin America that the “economists” (the sincere and convinced believers in the virtues of liberalism) denounced earlier.
The term is reserved for use by fools who refuse to recognise that it's just how capitalism works. It has worked that way since the Dutch East India Company was founded, and even folks in the seventeenth century recognized it.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>

 No.460298

>>460261
>This shit was as true in the seventeenth century as it is now.
In the classical stage of capital, capitalists were more define by the ownership of physical capital (factories) which hadn't been massively divested through common stock ownership. Sorry, but people having pension plans tied directly to stock private stock ownership wasn't really a thing until recently, at least not on a mass scale. Similarly, while there has always been financiers, they didn't former unto themselves a distinct ruling class (i.e., the Rothschilds weren't treating the Fords or the Rockefellers like middle managers). The point Amin is making relates to the complete dominance of finance capital
>Lel, no it fucking wasn't. It was formed of the bastards, the second sons, and the adventurers who plundered the New World. They were the least stable group imaginable.
Lol, Pizzaro didn't go on to start a factory. Capitalist isn't synonymous with 'bad guy'
>The fuck? It wasn't even accepted as such after the French Revolution. It wasn't recognized until after the turn of the Twentieth Century. Even Marx called it the "middle class." Who is the idiot who wrote this flagrant ahistorical bullshit?
It would help if you read things in context instead of using the splitting hairs of sound bites approach
<This stability encouraged confidence in “bourgeois values” and promoted their influence throughout the entire society. To a large extent, the bourgeoisie as dominant class was accepted as such. Its access to the privileges of comfort and wealth seemed deserved in return for the services they rendered. It also seemed mainly national in orientation, sensitive to national interests, whatever the ambiguities and limitations of this manipulated concept might have been.
I could be wrong, but he seems to be implying that the 'old bourgeoisie' was tied directly to productive capital which actually made things of practical use to the nation, not disembodied hegemonic capital tied mainly to banking and financial services
>…to absolutely nobody. The aristocrats considered them to be savages and upstarts. Workers considered them to be little different from bandits (hence the term "robber barons"), and the peasantPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


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 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home