/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

actually very true
you are very wise snailcat

But there is some truth to lifestylism though. People who are successful tend to lose their radical edge because they get comfortable with their situation and tend to favor reforms, rather than giving up their privilege.

I fucking hate anarchists so much

>>453554
?

>>453543
>Lifestylism is a major problem
yes it can be, but not in the way you think, for example when rich people buy an electric car and think that solves climate change.
> It encourages purity spirals and alienates tentative supporters.
at the moment identity politics is alienating supporters from the cause,
Neoliberalism has a tendency to filter out decent people, the system puts scumbags at a considerable advantage when it comes to gaining wealth, so it's actually not a bad strategy to be very suspicious of people that have lots of money.
>leftist economically successful.
there are rare exceptions like Friedrich Engels, but in general wealthy people get wealthy because they pursue their own class interests, not the class interests of workers.

>>453554
roo haha roo haha
Go marxist lenists go marxists leninist
roo haha roo haha

That's what you sound like, a faggot.

>>453553
>>453556

You are doing exactly what I'm talking about in the OP. You are prone to automatically reject leftists that achieve wealth or power in our existing society. Newsflash, you need material wealth and power to assert your will onto society and the world at large.

You're engaging in self-terminating behavior: The moment a movement to enact Leftist change starts to gain authority, you become skeptical and unsupportive of it, leading to it collapsing and achieving nothing of note.

>>453561
Well power doesn't simply come from hierarchical control of capital alone. Power can come from and should ideally come from the bottom up but you are still right. There's no reason to turn down a millionaire who ants to donate to the CPUSA for example. That's counter productive.

>>453560
>>453561
>You are prone to automatically reject leftists that achieve wealth or power in our existing society.
You are being unrealistic, only a few people are principled enough to act against their own class interests. You have to be extra cautious when somebody claims to do that.
>you need material wealth and power to assert your will onto society and the world at large.
Sure but why do you have to become a capitalist for that ? Will the system even let individual capitalists dismantle capitalism ?
I don't believe that it's possible to use private wealth to change the world, i do notice that there are a lot of ideological messages that say this, but that's a trick, to get you to grind without a reward.
People on the left aren't motivated by dangling a chance at riches in front of them, so you invent stories of changing the world with private fortunes.
If there is no collective wealth pile to contribute to, there isn't much of an incentive to accumulate wealth. And of course that collective wealth pile would need protections that it can never again be privatized
>You're engaging in self-terminating behavior: The moment a movement to enact Leftist change starts to gain authority, you become skeptical and unsupportive of it.
I don't see how I'm doing that ? Unless you equate "a movement" with "a rich person".

>>453553
Of course it's an anarchist flag simping lifestylism

>>453543
>and alienates tentative supporters
Supporters do not mean shit leftists who actually read theory will always be small in number.
>feeds into the liberal argument that socialists are all just loser burnouts bitter at the world
Why should socialists care about liberals think? I am waiting for the revolution not trying to build a movement or reform shit.

>>455573
*about what

>>453553
Bookchin was right.

more ethical is better

but not as good as full ethical (or close to full)
sometimes full is not required because the difference is small
like using taxi/uber instead of owning car

Capitalism wouldn't be any closer to being destroyed if American leftists stopped with lifestylism

>>456141
The worst of it is the people who leave their lives of comfort to live in squats, usually teenagers.

The true problem in the American left is that they've been joined at the hip to the Democrats for over half a century. Lifestylism is merely a symptom of this. They have long since accepted being completely integrated into the liberal democratic system. You don't have to search far to find that the only strategy that self-proclaimed "radical" anarchists and communists have to offer is to urge people to vote blue in every election. These people are incompetent at best and pure swindlers are worst.

Western leftists as a whole are politically impotent because they have no effective strategy. If you want the western left to be a viable political force in the 21st century, then focus on developing strategy. End of story.

>>455580
Amen brother.

>>453543
>Shitting and pissing because a leftist is economically successful feeds into the liberal argument that socialists are all just loser burnouts bitter at the world.
If you're a "leftist" who spends millions on a mansion (like Has*n) instead of funneling it towards socialist causes, you're not a leftist.

>>456157
No true Scottsman buys a mansion.

>>456160
Indeed, the only requirement to be a leftist is to claim that you are one. Today, leftism - as with rightism - is inherently flawed since it no longer involves any politics, degenerating into pseudo-political moralizing. If communists and anarchists wish to become relevant, they must detach themselves from leftism and ressurect the political core of their respective movements.

>>456160
He's not a socialist because he's a huckster cult leader. The mansion is just a symptom of that.

>>456147
>The true problem in the American left is that they've been joined at the hip to the Democrats for over half a century
That's the idiots, the people appealing to the masses by dumbing down theory, reformists.

>>456162
>Indeed, the only requirement to be a leftist is to claim that you are one
True. But there are thousands of different underground radical-leftist groups that have been shitting on these people for decades, and they often aren't recruiting or reaching out to outsiders.
>Today, leftism - as with rightism - is inherently flawed since it no longer involves any politics, degenerating into pseudo-political moralizing
That's the result of the internet, unless the internet gets wiped off the planet this won't change.
>If communists and anarchists wish to become relevant
Communists and anarchists, especially anarchists, are small and fractured groups who are always infighting. There isn't one anarchist group, one communist group, or even a leftist consciousness, but many many different groups around the world and web who are infighting one another. Communists and anarchists are always fighting for relevancy and control, that's all the different groups are doing, they've been doing that for the last 100 years and it has been a failure.
>they must detach themselves from leftism and resurrect the political core of their respective movements
What do you mean detach from leftism? do you mean remove themselves from all the id-pol, moralizing and such. Resurrecting the movements won't do shit, all the movements have been failures, another million man march won't change anything. Normal people don't care, they won't ever care, your movement will be made up of just you and your bohemians, plus the very very small (a couple of people) you manage to recruit with shitty flyers or some outreach. Try if you like but I will sit back and watch the next attempt fail again. Of course as a pro-revolutionary I support the attempts.

>>456160
No true Scotsman lived his entire life in Wales.

>>455573
>Why should socialists care about liberals think?
Easy, because liberals are the super-majority in most western countries. Any power base you want to build for any kind of political order must inevitably be drawn from their ranks.

>>456173
>That's the result of the internet
No, that's the result of the retreat from socialism, starting from the second half of the 20th century.
>What do you mean detach from leftism? do you mean remove themselves from all the id-pol, moralizing and such.
Yes, not for moral reasons, but because all the moralization and idpol is inherently non-political.
>Resurrecting the movements won't do shit
I specifically mentioned resurrecting the political core of these movements. The failure you repeatedly mentioned are only failures because they have yet to be redeemed, because the leaders of these movements chose to merely retreat rather than learn from their failures and start again.
>another million man march won't change anything
>your movement will be made up of just you and your bohemians, plus the very very small (a couple of people) you manage to recruit with shitty flyers or some outreach
This is specifically what I am addressing. What about any of this strikes you as political?

>>456179
Communists have been trying to draw liberals in for decades and it has been a failure, liberals aren't going to switch over to the side of a small powerless ultra-minority, not even a small amount has. Liberals aren't going to give up control willingly and it'll take the collapse of the entire global capitalist economy to even give a small possibility of revolution, if the revolution comes liberals will be happily killing any pro-revolutionary's they see encroaching on their control.

>>456182
The best example of a liberal who switched over to the side of a small powerless ultra-minority would be Karl Marx.

>>456181
>No, that's the result of the retreat from socialism, starting from the second half of the 20th century.
They retreated because they failed over and over, the new generation of radical socialists tried to pick up where the last left off (often making the same mistakes) but they're still failed.
>I specifically mentioned resurrecting the political core of these movements. The failure you repeatedly mentioned are only failures because they have yet to be redeemed, because the leaders of these movements chose to merely retreat rather than learn from their failures and start again.
You would be resurrecting not a healthy body but a very rotten dead body. Even if it a new healthy mass movement gained traction it would quickly be another failure.
>This is specifically what I am addressing. What about any of this strikes you as political?
It is political so say that political movements against capitalism will always be failures.
>>456183
Were talking about the revolution.

>>456184
Your attitude is merely a more honest and explicit rendition of what every leftist today implicitly believes, and the source of their degeneration into pseudo-political moralizing and idpol.
Politics is a struggle for power. Socialism is the struggle for working class power. Contemporary leftists are not political, because they struggle for justice rather than power. Any movement that wishes to seize power must be political and vice-versa.
The organizing of workers into soviets was political. The Soviet Union would not have existed had the Bolsheviks merely chosen to encourage marching in the streets or writing pamphlets.
Of course they would have been unsuccessful if they refused to be political, and that's precisely what happened to the radical left once it became apparent that Soviet socialism was reaching its limits.