/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

They were accelerationistas

Kek

>>452901
Lenin picked Russia as a revolutionary candidate because it was the weak link in the imperial supply chain, because the Tsar was incompetent and despised by the population for being a tyrant.

If you make an effort and read up on the conditions in China you'd see that Mao's revolution was just inevitable.

Lenin didn't start a revolution, he was a key player in an existing revolutionary movement, one that Marx himself recognized as the potential first revolution in the chain of world revolutions.

>>452934
>Lenin picked Russia as a revolutionary candidate
How is this retardness called?

>>452901
Russia wasn´t backwards, it was the sixth largest economy at the time, it had a lot of peasants, but everyone had them. And Mao, well Mao was bourgeois revolution with red flags

Name one successful communist revolution that started in an advanced society without any form of decay

>>453073
Yugoslavia turned out pretty well imo

>>452901
because they're opportunists

>>453073
>communist revolution
<without any form of decay
t. dialectics understander

>>452962
Russia had advanced industrial centers and an ideologically advanced proletariat
Read Trotsky’s analysis of Russia’s development, he discusses his theory of uneven and combined development, basically the notion is that once industrial capitalism developed in one country is began wrapping its tendrils around the world, everywhere industrial capitalism would be introduced, that place would get a more and more advanced form of it
When French, British, and German imperialists began semi-imperializing Russia via their domination of its industrial centers, they introduced already highly advanced technologies and labor techniques that heavily immiserated the already miserable and impoverished Russian masses, the new Russian proletariat found themselves in the quite perplexing situation of already being shackled with the worst excesses of capitalism right from the very start without liberalism or overseas colonies to soften the blows in a situation where advanced marxist and anarchist revolutionaries were already running around the place.
Lenin was effectively correct, Russia was the weak link in the chain, the place capitalism and imperialism could be fought and defeated.
You misunderstand the Russian Revolution, it truly was against class rule and imperialism above all else, the tsar was just a sideshow which is why he basically went down without a fight, the real fight for the future was after the tsar was deposed and barely anyone missed him, the real fight began when the Whites were propped up like puppets by the empires.

Marx didn't take settler-colonialism into consideration. The word proletariat means in German "without property" not "worker' or "wage earner".
Settler-colonialism extends property to proles and that negates their revolutionary potential. Things like "idpol" that .ogres like to whinge on about are simply the superstructure of this material base.
In every country that a revolution started in had classes of people without property. They were either peasants like in the USSR and China or colonized people like in Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea etc.
There will never be a revolution in the first world, and there never has been.

>>454251
stuff like r/antiwork and generally just the level of "leftist" discourse online only solidifies this sentiment in my mind. most americans are labour aristocrats with some just working useless jobs that the capitalist paper clip machine just churns out

>>454258
>labour aristocrats
rereading this, maybe this is too extreme of a label lmao

>>454251
>Marx didn't take settler-colonialism into consideration.
How so ? Marx did wrote about colonial empires, because those still existed in his time. Settler colonialism is mostly dead. It still happens in the conflict between Palestinians and Zionists, in occupied Palestine, but in the rest of the world, It's gone.

Some hopeless idealists exist that are trying to make it into a essence of an identity for some reason, so do pay attention to not get fooled by that. You have to be engaged in building new settlements in a colony to count as a "settler colonialist"

>The word proletariat means "without property" not "worker'
Marx uses proletariat and worker interchangeably in his texts. Pay attention that in Marxist theory all the classes of people are organized around their relation to the means of production. There is a difference between personal property and private property. Property-less proletarians means that they don't own means of production, it doesn't mean that they have no stuff.

>They were either peasants like in the USSR and China or colonized people like in Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea etc.
>There will never be a revolution in the first world, and there never has been.
There were powerful revolutionary socialist forces in the western world too. Don't you forget that. The revolution in the USSR succeeded and failed in the west because imperialism gave the western bourgeoisie a second source for surplus that kept them afloat during periods of revolutionary activity by the western proletariat. That means that the periphery has to overcome imperialism before the core can be liberated.

>>454264
>Marx did wrote about colonial empires, because those still existed in his time.
He did not significantly take it into account in his critique of capitalism.
This blindspot is why he was so embarrassingly wrong about where revolution what spark, he believed it would happen in industrialized Europe, it happened everywhere BUT there.
>Settler colonialism is mostly dead.
It's a continuing process, if it were dead all of Latin America would not be a ward of US hegemony.
You would not have several thousand bases spread across the entire world. And you would not have more slaves nominally than you did at the height of the Atlantic Slave Trade.
>Some hopeless idealists exist that are trying to make it into a essence of an identity for some reason,
No, the capitalist state extends institutional power in the form of property on an identity existentialism. Basically you can never not be white, whites get land, so therefore whites will always have property.
It's laughably idealist to believe that fascist movements in both the US and Europe are because uppity black/slav people stepped on too many toes.
>Marx uses proletariat and worker interchangeably in his texts
Doesn't change the critical aspect of being a prole, which is not having property, not simply selling your labor. This logic is how robber barons like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk get away with calling themselves fellow workers, because they do indeed collect a wage as well.
This would never happen if the true definition of prole were more widely used.
>Property-less proletarians means that they don't own means of production, it doesn't mean that they have no stuff.
They don't own private property, that's what I mean.
Real Estate is private property, toothbrushes are not. Which is why the average settler-colonial white prole has 200k in equity in their homes, while blacks on average have 1k if any at all.
>There were powerful revolutionary socialist forces in the western world too. Don't you forget that.
Preening platitude, show me where. Fringe elements don't count.
>The revolution in the USSR succeeded and failed in the west because imperialism gave the western bourgeoisie a second source for surplus that kept them afloat during periods of revolutionary activity by the western proletariat.
This is wrong, the USSR as a real competitor to the West ended after the 1960's, which is when you see the rise of neoliberalism.
The only thing the USSR successfully did in terms of competition was checkmate the US nuclear war ambitions via MAD. Which I will say is tremendous, but their success extends little beyond that.

Marx woefully misunderstood what the advanced countries were, or Marx never really intended a revolution as you believe it happens. It gets confused because people today have this narrative of a "canned revolution", because that's what happened in a sense during the 1930s and that's the model of the revolutionary classes at present. 1917 didn't happen by the Marxist formula for revolutions at all, and the Bolsheviks did not start the revolution as the unquestioned majority against a bunch of capitalist parties. They weren't even the only socialist game in town.

Revolution in any sense is a near-impossibility. It is even more impossible because the class that has the most interest in revolutionary activity basically got their revolution in the 1930s. The entire setup of national security states made revolution impossible, without a giant civil war where the natsec guys massacre the hordes of rebels. This is the threat openly wielded by those who see the natsec state as beneficial in some way to them. So not only are the rebels horribly outgunned and imprisoned in all the command and control systems that tell us what we are, but the people who would rebel have the most reason to defend or desire to join the regime. The workers were abandoned, as they were no longer necessary or desirable for anything really, and even if the workers were seen as useful, it would only be to agitate and cajole them into some grunt work. There is no realistic way the workers can address their grievances with the sitting government, short of extremely drastic measures that wouldn't be compatible with a victorious revolution. It would be more likely for the workers to mass-suicide to avoid the coming slavery than it would be for them to rebel and take political power in any way, even in alliance with some other element. The closest thing to a "worker's revolution" would be the rise of some Caesar-like figure, and this was entirely intended. Basically, fascism became "the real movement abolishing the present state of things", and if you see where Marx's theory leads, it was an almost inevitable development. That's why fascism appears everywhere today and why everything is called fascism, because that became the "default". The only way out would be to reject the view of history as a grand narrative, which a few of the enlightened figured out, but they seem allergic to actually winning anything. The only thing left is that people fight fascism because they must, even if it is a doomed struggle. The only way to stop it would be for the left to abandon socialism as it has existed, and that would mean that if any genuine anti-fascist revolution did happen in the 21st century, it would look very different and the results would not be what you would expect.

>>454265
You haven't found a flaw with Marx's theory, you just found something where Marx says something that goes against your economic interests. You probably are a labor aristocrat or petite bourgeois that's doing a revisionism. Or you a are pseud that read Sakaist bullshitt, and are using it for crypto racism. Are you that radlib race realist who believes that humans are split into races by any chance ?

Colonialism ended with the British empire dying off, that probably was around the time they had to give back all their colonies, depending how you want to date it historically. You could make a case that haiti is still a colony. But the activity of settler colonialism has been relegated to history, with the exception being Zionism.

Of course imperialism still exists but capitalist empires are no longer colonial powers, they extract super profits via financial imperialism, not colonial occupation. Therefore colonial theory has to be retired, it's no longer relevant in our time.

You have lost all credibility by claiming that Steve Jobs (are you a bot ? cause ya referencing dead people and that's sussy) or Musk are workers. They own means of production hence they are capitalists. The fact that you are also trying to diminish that the west has a vibrant revolutionary left history, makes you look very dishonest.

>>454267
>Marx woefully misunderstood
>Revolution in any sense is a near-impossibility.
>Basically, fascism became "the real movement abolishing the present state of things",
>The only way to stop it would be for the left to abandon socialism

this post is pure glow

>>454269
>You haven't found a flaw with Marx's theory, you just found something where Marx says something that goes against your economic interests.
Not really, I'd love for a revolution to happen. A revolution is a risky gamble that propertied settlers are more than happy to postpone indefinitely because of their semi comfortable place within capitalism. The only reason why you are seeing the superficial revolutionary sentiment now is because neoliberalism is dismantling the settler class.
All those white people owning homes, not paying rent, making 1000x more proles doing the exact same jobs in the global south. That's all Trillions of dollars that could belong to the booj. Neoliberalism is bringing everyone under capital, no exceptions. Whites were perfectly fine with that, or at least fine enough with it to not rise up, until their property started being effected.
This revolutionary potential of the first world settler is fleeting. Once the Boomers start dying the largest wealth transfer in history will occur and people like you will go back to being hardcore Republicans and follow the same exact pattern as your Boomer parents.

>>454269
>Colonialism ended with the British empire dying off,
Lol, did racism end when Obama was elected too.
>You have lost all credibility by claiming that Steve Jobs (are you a bot ? cause ya referencing dead people and that's sussy) or Musk are workers.
I didn't claim they were workers, I said THEY CLAIMED they were workers and the average prole largely believes them. And it's because the bastardized version of proletariat is used. If people understood it to mean property less, then no one would believe that Jobs or Musk are visionaries who slept under their desks because they were such hard workers. And I know Jobs is dead, he's still one of the most famous booj celebrities regardless.

>>454270
You think the petty home owner has only been squeezed now? The whole of neoliberalism was about stripping from that class everything, because they were the people who actually had a stake in the property game. The workers were pretty much defeated during the 70s, the underclass was obviously defeated and is kept alive only to be humiliated.

It's quite clear you don't understand America if you throw around "settler" as a cope to keep alive a belief about social class that was wrong from the outset. The oligarchs of America have always wanted to eliminate the small holder, and in the 20th century this extended to the petty industrialist (who always was a servile creature, hence their predilection for fascism). To believe otherwise is to believe that the rulers actually believe they are beholden to democracy and the rulers are actually trying to help. That has never been the case once in American history; the rulers help no one but themselves.

I don't believe the truth is admissible in your entire world-system. You're believing in a wank version of history rather than anything that actually happened. So I doubt this conversation will go much further. You're primed to respond to keywords.

Anyway the short of it is that for about 30 years, America wasn't that different from the post-WW2 USSR. The USSR was more capitalist than it claimed, the USA was more "socialist" in the sense that it was planned by the oligarchic trusts to accomplish certain objectives. The entire basis for the post-WW2 American project was that the new ruling institutions, all commanded by the trusts, were good and noble and must be believed no matter what. This effectively meant that there was no such thing as democracy even in form, and it's rather cute that elections can be so obviously stage-managed and people think it's perfectly normal. Believing in this liberal democracy is like believing in Santa Claus (incidentally, the modern myth of Santa arises around the same this this oligarchy is seizing power).

>>454270
the left is being divided by identity politics that is what's holding it back, it is having the same effect as sectarianism.

You are talking about settlers as if that was still existing. Settlers were people who claimed new territory by erecting new settlements. Basically the second wave of people that followed after pioneers scouting and mapping out places. This isn't happening anymore the hole world is settled, and has been for a long time.

If you say people can be settlers without doing any settling that is idealist essentialism, that can lead to the reactionary phenomenon of identity politics.

The biggest problem in US politics is the influence of the imperial big bourgeoisie, that is stealing from public funding for military and war, instead of building public housing, public infrastructure and running full employment. The second problem is the pro imperial labour aristocracy that supports all of this. And on third place you have the reactionary petty bourgeoisie that is punching down against the proles and the lumpen-proles as a reaction to big capital trying to sallow their little capital.

>>454271
> did racism end when Obama was elected too.
no racism is the praxis of attributing race identities to people and segregating them into different groups, in order for ruling classes to play them against each other. Racism will not end until class society ends, because the superstructure of class society is maintained by racial divide and conquer. I don't understand why you expect racism to end just because colonialism ended, ruling classes still want to cause division and strive in the populations to make it easier to oppress them.

Maybe my comment was too strong, you could maybe end racism in class society, if you could find a way to make people not identify as a race. The state structures that enforce systemic racism do depend on people believing it to be reproduced. If people were to purge racial identification from their heads, the systemic racist structures would not go away immediately but they would start to erode because there weren't any people reproducing it.

If you could find the magic that convinces people to let go of racialism, the US ruling class would fear their grip on society slipping, and the media would go crazy and start calling for ethnic slaughter and civil war. You know they killed the people like Fred Hampton when he tried to unite the poors across racial identities. But that is the key to overcoming the dictatorship of the US bourgeoisie and making democracy happen in the US. Racialism has powerful memetic properties that lodges it very deep into the brains of people, but it is not invincible. If you set out to kill racialism avoid becoming a celebrity, a leader figure or preacher, because of what happened to Hampton, instead you should copy guerilla marketing.

Marx's definition for classes as based on their relation to the means of production does not produce false consciousness of the type that would confuse tech billionaires as workers,

>>454272
>The whole of neoliberalism was about stripping from that class everything, because they were the people who actually had a stake in the property game.

Workers always want to own their homes, in socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China home-ownership always was/is very high. The social democratic countries in South America are also building homes that workers can own. Should socialists put homeownership for workers into their programs ? Considering you say that neoliberalism tries to strip people of home ownership it seems like a safe bet.

>>454273
>the left is being divided by identity politics that is what's holding it back, i
Pure idealism, the left is divided by property owning class collaborators of the Settler class.
Capitalism always has and always will need a source of original accumulation and that's via colonization.
Racism, or idpol, is simply the superstructure that overlays this base.
For example, Trump increased his share of Mexican voters in 2020, but how could this be if idpol divides workers? Especially idpol that is explicitly anti-them? It's because they are being promised a position in the Settler class and being extended institutional power for this, this position used be occupied by Asians but tensions with the Chinese is eroding that.
This is also why you suddenly see American Asians so suddenly concerned with racism and calling for solidarity with blacks. It's not because idpol divides workers, it's because they are being kicked out the Settler class.

>>454274
You anti-idpolers will always, always, ALWAYS resort to idealist explanations of racism.
The way your type describes it idpol could be used interchangeably with demonic possession. I've even seen silly comics where a bourgeois will whisper idpol into the ear of a worker and suddenly he turns antagonistic toward other workers.
Political dialogs that encompass 100's of millions and even billions of people will always have a material base.
The house negro isn't the house negro because his master conned him into being there, he's a house negro because it's way easier than being a field negro. Everything else is just superstructure.

>>454274
>Racism will not end until class society ends,
Not true, and neoliberals prove you wrong every single day. Racism, while still very prevalent, is a shadow of it's former self from the 1960's. This trend will continue, and is why the culture war is hot.

>Haven't they read Marx?
Your OP may be in jest, but you are actually correct, Lenin was a fucking booklet who never read Critique of the Gotha Programme and Marx's other writings where he does detail how a socialist economy might work. This was made apparent when he asserted that there was no precedent for how to do socialist planning and that they should just copy the state capitalism of the German Empire.

>>454279
>Not true, and neoliberals prove you wrong every single day. Racism, while still very prevalent, is a shadow of it's former self from the 1960's.
Neo-liberalism has been increasing racism and regressive racialist politics, for about ten years. The core of racism is ruling classes using race to divide and conquer the lower classes. You are fooled because they use different language and tactics than in the 1960s. The new racism gives recognition to their victims, uplifts a few token members and bribe them to sell out, political motions are coopted with a big show and then the systen proceeds to continue as before. There is a spectacle of racial justice, but no substance.

If you want to claim that racism has declined show me poor people working together ignoring the difference of racial identity, pursuing their economic interests.

>>454294
No, you just have an ahistorical understanding of racism that you pull directly out of your ass. I can point numerous federal laws that protect against discrimination and numerous case studies where minorities have successfully sued or pressed charges against settlers that violated the law.
I’ve actually been involved in some of these cases and can tell you they are taken quite seriously by both the gov and defendants.
These protections were non-existent 50 years ago. That doesn’t even get into the culture which is at least superficially antiracist. A capitalist enterprise cannot survive a blatantly racist scandal anymore.
Meanwhile all you can do is cast unsubstantiated aspersions about how everyone but you and your troglodytes have been “fooled”.
>If you want to claim that racism has declined show me poor people working together ignoring the difference of racial identity, pursuing their economic interests.
2020’s BLM riots.

>>454277
Your post is half wrong, and it's worded in idealist bourgeois polit-speak

Marxist classes in capitalism are:
lumpen-prole or precariat
proletariat or wage worker
labor-aristocrat or intelligentsia or managerial strata
small bourgeois
big bourgeois
and some places also have imperial bourgeois
that's all the classes there are

Technically there also is a small amount of free laborers that sit between chairs.

Racialism and racism is a type of idpol.
Racialism is the racist believe that humans are divided into subspecies, you can spot racialists when they assign slave-trade identities to people.
Racism is when you take the racialist slave trade IDs and use those to treat people differently, or put them into social hierarchies.

In the bourgeois system in the USA there are 2 types of racism. The old historic racism that is upheld by the cartel that owns the private prison industrial complex which seeks to extract almost slave-labor from prison inmates and steal public funds. The new racism is upheld by corporate structures with imperial interests, and it cloaks it's racism with anti-racist spectacle, but in material reality it's no less brutal. If you take their imperial effects into consideration, their body count rivals historic slaughter.

From a Marxist perspective we mainly have to look at this from the perspective of organizing labor, the racialist IDs that are stuck to the minds of proles are creating difficulty to organize the proletariat. There are more problems. There also is general idpol, that is upheld by class collaborating labor aristocrats whose life experience makes them look at the world through bourgeois eyes and small bourgeois capitalists. Both use it quite deliberately to interfere with the formation of class consciousness.

>>454278
Yes class society is the cause of racism, but that is the anti-idol position. Even after you end class society you still have to deal with the old superstructure. You have dismantle the idealism of racial ideology.

>>452934
>Lenin picked Russia as a revolutionary candidate because it was the weak link in the imperial supply chain, because the Tsar was incompetent and despised by the population for being a tyrant.
Strange way to write that Lenin was sent by the germans to fuck things up in Russia.

>If you make an effort and read up on the conditions in China you'd see that Mao's revolution was just inevitable.
What revolution? They fell back into the old chinese tradition of ruining things for themselves again and again.

>>454300
>2020’s BLM riots.
The fact that they ended the moment Tr*mp was out the door and nobody was seriously punished for them should be a clue.

>>454691
Well Biden enacted a lot of Socdem reforms like the eviction moratirum. People don't riot unless they're desperate. You act like Trump's ouster wasn't a serious shift in material conditions.

>>454694
> People don't riot unless they're desperate
People rioted because the media literally told them it was their moral duty to protest racial injustice and you're a white supremacist if you don't.

>You act like Trump's ouster wasn't a serious shift in material conditions.
Trump was ousted by the 1%. The billionaires who own all the news papers and TV channels and hollywood and social media and ran 24/7 negative propaganda against him for 4 years.

>>454696
>People rioted because the media literally told them
Lol, idealist nonsense, they rioted because blacks were tired of being executed in the streets.
The only reason why the Floyd death even got out is because one teenage girl had the balls to keep filming even after being threatened multiple times by police.
>Trump was ousted by the 1%.
Oh fuck no, Trump was voted out because he fucked up the COVID response so hard. You’re yet another recovering /pol/yp that believes idealist conspiracy theories.
The Dems could have run a potato and won against Trump. Trump would be prez now had it not been for COVID.

>>454700
>they rioted because blacks were tired of being executed in the streets.
Most people rioting were white. Rittenhouse shot 3 white people. This narrative that blacks are "executed" by police was stirred up by media.

>The only reason why the Floyd death even got out is because one teenage girl had the balls to keep filming
The media was agitating race issues for weeks before hand. Do you not remember the way the media blew up the story about the "jogger" with the hammer who got shot? Floyd was just the case that finally got the fire started.

>idealist conspiracy theories
Dude, the billionaires who own the mainstream media are not your friends. Stop eating their crap.

>>454704
>Most people rioting were white.
Lol no, all the worst rioting took place in the inner city where building were burned. And the inner city is mostly poor minorities. There weren't any footage of Whole Foods getting razed kek.

>>454704
>The media was agitating race issues for weeks before hand.
Lol okay /pol/yp, I guess the police killing innocent people has nothing to do with it.
What really happened is that the government hasn't caught up to the material conditions of the smartphone era. The reason why Floyd caught fire is becasue the narrative is captured so completely. In most police brutality videos the violence is only fleeting. But with Flloyd you can see the violence play out from beginning to end, he even cries out for his mother.
Lastly, the media doesn't influence anyone anymore. Most rioters saw that video via social media, which is entirely automated. The algorthms spread the video because it rightly determined it was something people wanted to see, it does the exact same with right wing propoganda.

>>54718
>What really happened is that the government hasn't caught up to the material conditions of the smartphone era.
Why have the riots stopped,
Because poverty has been solved?
Or because the media have stopped stirring it?

>>454721
The riots stopped because the government suppressed them and the majority of retards rioting weren't hardcore anarchists anyways. Take your meds.

>>454730
>The riots stopped because the government suppressed them
The government that literally kneeled to them?

>>454733
The police were literally abducting people and sentencing them through secret courts lmao. The libs in the Senate aren't the paramilitary police force of the United States.

>Buying into the spectacle but in reverse.

What even is this?

>>454737
>The police were literally abducting people and sentencing them through secret courts lmao
Some January 6 protestors have been jailed and tortured without trail for over a year now (see the Q shaman for example). The leaders of BLM have 10 million dollar houses in LA.

>Buying into the spectacle but in reverse.
The billionaires who control mainstream media and news websites are not your friends

>>454749
Oh you're a lone poltard ok I see.

>>452901
Earth really is a backward shithole. Why can't it be a nicer place like the Solar system. Everybody knows the Universe of Time and Space is the forward looking part of the frame of reference.

Nationalism deludes you. Embrace the world in total and refuse the framing error fallacy.

>>454750
He's not wrong.

>>454750
He's not wrong.

>>454860
>Framing error fallacy

The what?

Research the conditions in which a revolution can happen. If the majority is eating bread and has a job they are not going to pick up arms.