[ 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.)


IRC Chat





File: 1648437287853.jpg (106.08 KB, 861x635, media_221016_en.jpg)


What's your current thoughts on strategies towards socialism?

From what I have gathered there's at least a guiding principle. That is that the proletariat can only come into its own through practical experience. This means that the transitional movements into socialism should treated with more interest and enthusiasm(rather than only a temporary evil). Local councils and credit unions should have control over their own capital. City capitalism instead of State capitalism. Give all workers experience and responsibility with the production and distribution of the social product.

Then transition into labor vouchers. With an empowered social body all around, there's not a need, and likely a disincentive, for any bureaucratic managers trying to leech off society. An actual withering away of the state and its old politics.

I think the left took a wrong turn somewhere that emphasized the vanguard as too much of an academic mission. Leading to a lot of the bad politics we see today, where the fight over consensus is the main struggle. If someone doesn't agree with a particular interpretation of their own economic experience then they're an enemy. Education really happens through practical hands-on experience and not (only) book reading.


>Local councils and credit unions should have control over their own capital.
For that you have to use the financial systems that the capitalists control. I don't know how much you can trust these anymore. Look what they did to countries with sanctions, can that be done on a smaller scale ? Can they do that to a credit union ? How do you ensure that your money transactions continue working even when the big bourgeoisie recognizes your coops + credit union as a growing competition ? The hole point of this is to deny big capital the ability to extract surplus, and they will try to pull the plug on your structures once they recognize that there are pipes with circulating money that bypasses them.
>City capitalism instead of State capitalism.
City capitalism isn't viable because cities can't make their own food, look at the attempts of imperial capital to starve out countries like Venezuela, they managed to create food shortages, but not starvation. A city couldn't survive such economic warfare. It's standard socialist theory to bridge the divide between cities and countryside for a reason.
>Then transition into labor vouchers. With an empowered social body all around, there's not a need, and likely a disincentive, for any bureaucratic managers trying to leech off society. An actual withering away of the state and its old politics.
This sounds good, if my fears about precarious reliability of financial systems are true, there might come a time when doing labor vouchers is the only option we have left.
>I think the left took a wrong turn somewhere that emphasized the vanguard as too much of an academic mission. Leading to a lot of the bad politics we see today, where the fight over consensus is the main struggle. If someone doesn't agree with a particular interpretation of their own economic experience then they're an enemy. Education really happens through practical hands-on experience and not (only) book reading.
You need theory and praxis, The reason there is so much infighting is because we lack theory about organizational decay. Think about radioactive decay of unstable elements that decay until they reach a stable isotope. That's how we need to start thinking about organizations too. And start creating organizational structures based on what they will decay into.


>How do you ensure that your money transactions continue working even when the big bourgeoisie recognizes your coops + credit union as a growing competition ?
This is the big conflict that's always going to have to happen at some point. But I have say it's not so straightforward. Even with Russia now, the majority of the capitalist class around the world is staying out of the fight. There could certainly be more hostility to a socialist federation but what i'm basing this on is what China is seeming to be moving towards right now.

>Hefei has pioneered a shift in Chinese capitalism over recent years in which local governments are increasingly taking minority stakes in private companies. Since the 1950s, Hefei has been a hub of scientific research, but today its shrewd investments have transformed it from a relative backwater to a bustling metropolis of about 5 million people. In terms of economic growth, what Chinese media call the “Hefei model” appears to work. In the decade to 2020, Hefei was China’s fastest-growing city in terms of gross domestic product.

from https://archive.ph/rkb48

Before this China had the problem of local governments main revenue stream being land(and home) speculation. Part of the plan to purge the financialization that has taken over western countries is to distribute capital control down to the local level and give regional governments more autonomy.


All I can say is that all hitherto existing strategies not only failed but were destined to fail, and the latter strategies were intended to fail. There is not even an understanding of what the goal is supposed to be at this point, let alone a plan that would attain the goal in any way we would consider good. The state of affairs is that socialists, broadly speaking, are allergic to anything that would actually be an improvement in the conditions of the working classes. The only thing that is possible in the mindset of the current ideologues are recapitulations of a technocratic idea that tells us to put all faith in a middle class or the high intellectual priests, and that's the best they can do. There is no concept that the working classes matter in the slightest or that there is some baseline of human decency we ought to aspire to. The only ideas allowed are untrammeled power for the professionals and the provincial interests of a trade union against the masses, not including the ideas that are from the outset nefarious betrayals of not just the workers but humanity as a whole.

If anything is going to happen, it will be something new, and it will have remarkably little to do with economic planning. The market arrangement we have been used to, in one way or another, is disintegrating and becoming something else. The way it's being pushed is towards outright serfdom, "you will own nothing and you will be happy". The proprietors no longer have a need or want of the free market, and have been sucking up all the money, hoarding the wealth and transforming it into the tools that would enforce this new arrangement. Realistically, we do not need some novel planning. The means to plan industry and distribution of the product have been available for over a century, and all that remained was the need for accountability and something that would check a politician with nefarious intent. That's the real problem, that the machinery of politics, government, and management are in the hands of people who do not want to give up an unequal society, and that the lion's share of that machinery is in the hands of people who specifically want the cruelest inequality. As mentioned, the only ideas we would consider somewhat good only speak of a kinder inequality, both in wealth and political status. So there would need to be, at least, anything that would indicate that a democratic, solidaristic politics is possible, or at least that there could be some element of democracy left in society. Right now, if you ask people under 40 about voting, most will look at you and ask what the fuck you think that is going to accomplish, and they're right to think that. In their experience, there is no way they can interface with the institutions that is not the most degrading, submissive relation, in which the untrammeled might of a middle and ruling class is imposed, and where the law is completely arbitrary. There is no law in Oceania, in other words.


Let me try to explain briefly the actual US system from the 1930s on. It's not FDR waving his mighty hand to move the economy, but the collection of large trusts that supported his government that make, effectively, planning decisions. The US government itself has, since the 1930s, paid far more attention to what their money is actually producing, and aims ostensibly for goals that are in the public interest. There is a myth that the public interest in America is limited, but in reality, what those who hold the government consider "the public interest" is very vast, such that the government is going to be in your business. You saw hints of this with Prohibition, the various health and eugenics laws (many of which are still in effect, some of them stronger now than they ever were). But also, the government has broad objectives. That these objectives are largely dictated by private interests does not change that they are plans towards particular uses of money, and the people in government possess their own objectives as a whole. The US state and government has an objective of keeping all the oligarchs and old money families happy, even if they are in shifting alliances and have antagonisms.

Of the trusts, though, there is a grouping that has established itself more or less permanently as the "private arm" of the state, stuff like Rockefeller Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, and so on that have an outsized role in dictating US policy. Those foundations and organizations are not going anywhere, and no one wants to abolish them or can threaten them in any serious way. To go against the establishment is to go against the actual US state and everything we've known. There are foundations that would like to displace the big dogs and replace them with organizations of a similar nature, guys like Cato Institute who want full privatization into the hands of them and their cronies. So there is some conflict at the top, but the established players have successfully sold the appearance that their organizations alone constitute the consensus that is possible in American politics, and the minor players can only work around the edges to try and engineer long-term trends. That has been the opposition's strategy since the 1930s - to engineer a "revolution" of sorts that would take on characteristics of a Nazi-type coup. The particular politicians and spectacles presented to the masses have in actuality little to do with this - no one will be elected without the blessing of the establishment, and someone likely sat Reagan or Trump down in the White House theater to tell the new president just how the game really worked. Call it workplace orientation.

Anyway, these foundations, trusts, and so on aren't actually run by the rich themselves. Quite literally, the very rich gave up direct executive control. The deal in the 1930s was an alliance between the oligarchs and their most capable employees, who had a reason to perpetuate the dominance of the trusts and the new institutions. Guys like Kissinger and a lot of the functionaries didn't come from anywhere special, but presented themselves as a scientific dictatorship that would decide what people were going to think and believe from now on. It was specifically set up to counter "an excess of democracy", and the formation of this preceded the 1930s in steps that were understood to lead to something like this formation. So a lot of the decisions are actually made not by a few rich porkies, but by a larger elite of functionaries who are strongly invested in their position against the masses. Those functionaries have an antagonism with their paymasters, and so the professionals are always seeking to establish themselves as something greater than the rich men behind the curtain, not just in the public imagination but behind the scenes. Letting the professionals take the lead in the public imagination is no great loss to the oligarchs, since they want to become invisible and secure against the angry mob. Behind the scenes… well, without the professionals, the trusts don't do much except sit on money. This is ameliorated because the rich themselves are in a position to take professional work, and have a hammerlock on deciding who is and isn't educated and who can be hired on. The ideology promoted by the establishment is one that is suitable to both parties - the rich keep their fortunes and are told how awesome they are, and the professionals get a machine that allows them to rule more or less absolutely, at least those who are at the very top of the machine and make the most important planning decisions. It is very intensely opposed to democracy and opposed to any economic activity that isn't controlled in some way, and it seeks to impress on the rest of the population that they should adopt the same ethos as the ruling establishment. Therefore, "greed is good", the neoliberal dogma, and particularly eugenics are promoted tirelessly, and must be. The moment this ideology is given up, the alliance that makes the past century of government possible is forsaken. Not one iota of disagreement can be tolerated on a substantive matter, and that's why any dissent which crosses the line to even say something meaningful is crushed utterly. The ruling establishment must create a total monopoly on intellectualism, and be in a position to dictate who can be what. This might be for some enlightened purpose, out of a belief that the people who put themselves in that position earned it and have no reason to give up power to a bunch of angry proles and agitators. But it is always a very aggressive monopoly, and in order to secure its position, it inevitably must resort to making the rest of society suffer and making the rest of society stupid. The ideal of such a society is that no one knows anything about anything, and the whole society is ruled by lies and myths. It will lie for the sake of lying, seeing the regime of deception as a kind of intelligence test to filter people for advancement.

Anyway the point of explaining all of this - and I'm sure this is all obvious but is normally pointless to say - is to tell you that, really, it doesn't matter whether there is a free market or planned economy, from the perspective of the capitalist. The market arrangement had always been tolerated because it incentivizes behaviors those who rule want, rather than the market being something they conceded to. This myth of "pure markets" is a very modern insanity. The planning mechanisms of a later capitalist country don't need to override the market, so much as work through it and excise the risk a market society brings to its wealthy actors. All the risks have to be borne by particular classes of people, and so the winners and losers of every crisis are pre-selected. It is through planned crises that major shifts in planning are implemented, and all of these crises are things that could be prevented with the slightest effort if it were desirable. Realistically, it would be possible to "freeze" market exchanges such that things largely remain stable. This would require a more vigorous intervention of the planners, such that it would appear far more like a planned economy than a market arrangement, but there was no reason for the planned demolition to occur when it did, except that it suited oligarchs for contractions of the economy to occur when they did - with the crisis of the 70s (though this was brought about by foreign entanglements), with Savings and Loan in the 80s, and the big ones being 2008 and 2020. The former affected most of the world, the latter was intentionally planned to align to a global lockstep strategy that has been in effect ever since. Knowing that the economy can be frozen, and that crises are planned, is one way in which the economic mystification can be sold. There is never a sense that economic crises actually point to something real or have material causes, because they really don't have material causes if we were to analyze the whole system, and many economists have. There is a whole unwritten story here, or a largely unwritten one. That is that, for the past few decades, vast sums of money disappear from the US, on the order of trillions of dollars, and a decent part of this is through the government's misappropriation. Large sums of money are transferred effectively to global capitalism, to this global system being established. The global system is the brainchild of the US-run trusts, and it's entirely the point. Simply put, the rulers of the US no longer have a need for the US as an entity. More than any other country in the world, the US government is to be reduced to nothing more than a human resources department, and all of its public features are increasingly used for nothing but social control and domination. Therefore, you get schools that don't teach even to the extent that they did in the past, power companies that don't provide power, roads that are continuously torn apart and rebuilt even though they could easily have been planned to last longer. It's not some spooky energy of capitalism that makes it inevitable, but a deliberate plan. Planned obsolescence is a terrible strategy in any long term, but if the plan is to have an excuse to extract rent and control people in every minute way, it is the only strategy which makes sense - to defuse the market and soak up productivity, redirecting it towards control. It would have made far more sense from a productive capitalist sense to build a thing once and keep it working, then move the productive assets to another thing, as there is no shortage of stuff that can be done. If there was nothing to produce, then it would make more sense for a capitalist to sit on their hoard, and that part is evident enough. To continue sitting on this hoard, and to expand the hoard, though, the capitalist's strategy would be to control its people and find every way to extract rent, not because it needs to but because it can.


Anyway, right now the ideas of socialism are "everything for the professionals, fuck everyone else". Quite simply, these classes in the vanguard believe, with good reason, that they don't really need workers, and workers are obsolete. The working classes have been so lumpenized that they wouldn't be useful for any project of the professionals. A tendency to be led by the professionals was already in socialism from its earliest conception, but the original idea was an alliance between science and industry, and there wasn't any reason why ordinary workers couldn't take on the wisdom of science and reason. There was, however, an ethos among the professionals that dissuaded them from allowing such a thing, and favoring concepts of science and reason that would result in a stratified society. Promotion into the ranks of the professionals would be increasingly controlled, and the highest of the professionals understood their position against the lesser professionals whose work was less essential to the political question.

It would still be possible to reverse this tendency by asking a few simple questions, among them this: "What do you expect, in the medium term, this ethos to actually bring?" During the post-war boom and the neoliberal period, there was a willful blindness of the educated classes to what was happening, because they could invisibilize the consequences of their educational regime and their ethos. If it fucked them over personally, it was just a bad beat. It it fucked over the poors, in one way or another they deserved it. There was a need for more professionals and so there was some upward mobility for a time. It was far more an interest of the professionals to deal with the poor and their own class than it was for them to deal with the rich, because the rich were in some way their benefactors, and the rich knew their numbers couldn't successfully control the professional class. The rich could only co-opt them and join with them, and rule through them. This doesn't stop the rich from working out the most extreme of their cockamamie schemes to take over the world, but the greatest extremes of the rich proprietors' ideology can be seen for what they are. No one actually believes lolbertarianism is a viable economic model, and every time it has been tried the result has been predictable disaster. The only reason the extreme, Porkiest ideololgies are allowed to fester is because they serve a useful role in controlling public opinion, and they can be used by the professionals and lower classes as an ethos to tear each other down. At this point, the rich, old money families have themselves taken on the professional ethos. It's not that the professionals had an alien, oligarchic capitalist idea forced onto them by some insidious brainwashing. The professionals and the rich rather conspired to build something together that was far more insidious than the simple ideology of the proprietors or the clever scheming of the professionals and intellectuals. A predatory group within that alliance saw what they could do, and pushed for a maximal program within that system. This has pushed out anyone in the alliance that would have doubts or questions about the trajectory of the program, relegating them to the fringe. That's where the Eugenics alliance originates in the late 19th century. The eugenists were not at first drawn from the capitalists, but from intellectuals of a particular persuasion who called for political reforms enshrining their class in the governments of the capitalist world. The capitalists would see what this group and others like it could do for them. Simply put, Eugenics was the most readily available way to preserve a stratified society in the modern era, and so that was the dominant ethos to be promoted. All other ethics were to be eliminated as much as possible, and no criticism of the eugenists would be allowed to persist if it crossed a line calling for violent resistance. That is one reason why the "non-violence principle" became a religious shibboleth. It was intended specifically to defend eugenists, so that they would enjoy a monopoly on violence.

There's a lot more going into Eugenics and what resulted from it - that it was in many ways a continuation of chattel slavery and the caste system rolled into one, and made into a scientific profession apart from any other.


So in closing, my argument is that you don't have socialism in any sense you guys would appreciate unless you're contending with this eugenics question, among many others. Those are the questions that are studiously avoided when push comes to shove, and those are questions that would need to be answered. Just saying "capitalism bad" doesn't change why capitalism seemed like a good idea in the first place, and why especially defenses of capitalism were almost entirely defenses of Social Darwinism and a biological politics that upheld elitism as a doctrine. Any defense of capitalism as a genuinely productive arrangement was pretty much dead by the early 20th century, so much that after the first world war, it was nearly impossible to defend capitalism as it existed. That's why the formation of this alliance of the rich and professionals came about, hints of it in the late 19th/early 20th century and in a big way just before WW1. The war was the final piece necessary to establish the alliance as a formal entity, and after the war, what had been established in a somewhat ad hoc way would be made permanent. That's what the Marxists either couldn't get about WW1, or deliberately chose to ignore.


I think that socialism is already in development in the east. The west is lagging behind in class consciousness by about as much as their states spend on propaganda.

To make economic decisions as leftists, the left needs real power. It's putting the cart before the horse to do so without having first dealt with the problem of the ruling class.

So my thoughts on actually undermining the ruling class are currently this: the west is economically failing more rapidly than ever before in recent history. The left has truth on it's side, we just need people to align with what is actually good for them. For example, I'm going to try and convince people I meet to be more critical of propaganda, and the first step is to teach them to identify propaganda.

Many liberals believe propaganda from other countries like Russia and China are aimed at them, they think that propaganda is a force exerted by countries onto other countries instead of inward against their own population for their control.

We can't have a popular movement without at least this idea becoming popular: that an actual movement outside the establishment is necessary

If proles realized just how twisted the real world gets by the time it arrives in their face, they might (this is the hypothesis) become more open to marxist ideas. This is the hypothesis I am going to test anyway.


Propaganda and action is easy its the theory that is lacking due to dogmatism.


>What's your current thoughts on strategies towards socialism?
Any strategy must adhere to rational thinking.

We can not be slaves to prior tradition, culture or whims if evidence should suggest otherwise.

Look upon those governments that turned away from scientific reality when it came to the pandemic. Places such as China, Russia, Brazil, India and even America during it's early stages. Those governments have been harmed by their failure (and continued failures).

A socialist government that does not adhere to scientific reality shall not be a socialist government for long.


Truth has never won a single battle simply by wishing everyone would see it. This is a common fallacy of political neophytes. I can tell you the truth though that communism in China is on the way out, just as Putin is pushing decommunization of the former USSR. What's being offered as "communism" is some substitute that will be withdrawn as soon as the old people who remember the USSR or Mao are gone, that the older generation know is bullshit. It's something sold to impressionable zoom zooms who don't know history.


He who controls history…


History may be written by the victors, but the truth of the past is felt every day. Neoliberal society has been premised on the belief that everything the common people believe will be a carefully constructed lie spread en masse, but that sort of thinking has cause - deliberately - severe damage, to the point where people can no longer function at all. The only way that sort of reality control can work is alongside a great depopulation project, where the objective of the ruling institutions is to destroy as quickly as possible the general population. It wouldn't make a stable society at all, but a society in rapid decay where the rot has to be continually reinforced. That's what the extractive rent-economy of neoliberalism is there for - to make people suffer and die. It serves no other purpose, and isn't even particularly effective at ruling. The actual ruling is done behind the curtain, in a place where the plebs are not permitted access. Hence, all the lying for the sake of lying, where dumb pissants tell themselves how clever they are for making the world a hellhole. It's insanity.


>even America

okay lib


File: 1651957089137.png (35.81 KB, 600x600, neoswaztika-lineage.png)

socialism can be achieved only in a small comunity, and it's still quite gay, we need anarcho-militarism, and within it we need legionarism/national-socialism/some family-centered ideology. Majority of us, expecially on what is believed to be the "left" side of politics, have lacked a good family or don't understand how one should work as our families have been retarded/shit/stupid/some other stuff that is bad.

Definition : Anarcho-Militarism

Anarcho-Militarism (abreviate as "anmil") is a socio-political ideology in which the nation doesn't have a centralized state, but multiple different independent militaristic groups, of different political ideologies, controlling different zones, them uniting as one when a war starts between their nation and outsiders, having the best of the best out of every region be part of a military council which would bring an easy victory with minimum damage done to their own troops, as well as the civilian popultion. This ideology is mostly a neat dream, as this would unlawfully allow theives and nation-wreckers to do whatever they want to cause chaos and wars between different militaristic groups, creating fbi.gov and in-fighting.

By this definition, our current coalitions such as NATO and EU are anarcho-militaristic in nature, tho this is debatable.

In our current state, there are Partisans, the ZOG Goverments and the Normies, in each nation/country.
(this is my post from telegram)


>socialism can be achieved only in a small comunity
Big misconception, socialism scales quite well.

You do realize that "national socialism" or fascism had nothing to do with socialism, right ? Hitler privatized most of the German economy and created hyperinflation.

I don't understand what you want with anarcho militarism


show me a socialist country that wasn't a capitalistic monarchy with "socialism" painted of it, like USSR or any other country, I'll be waiting for your answer

national socialism is based on socialism, doesn't have to be socialism, it's known that national socialists were quite frenly to marxists before Hitler starting WWII when polish AA started to attack german civilian planes and destroyed a radio antenna. it's also known that NatSoc and Marxists were trying to perfect this ideology called socialism


damn, its good old religious wars + balkan countries suddenly unite agains common enemy (who ?) (by themselfves…)


>show me a socialist country that wasn't a capitalistic monarchy with "socialism" painted of it.
There have been no socialist countries that were monarchies. You may want to check up what a monarchy is. One very striking feature of monarchical systems is formal hereditary rule. The only socialist country where important political figures came from the same family more than once is the Democratic people's republic of Korea. They have intra party elections that just turned out that way, not a formal hereditary succession. And no member of the Un family actually held the same position. By claiming the Soviet Union was a monarchie you'd be saying that Lenin, Stalin, Malenkov, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev were all related.

Some socialist countries use capitalist elements in their economy because they do not yet have a sufficiently developed techno industrial base to switch to a fully socialist mode of production.

>national socialism is based on socialism

No it wasn't, they just called them self socialist, but they were fascist. The Fascist economic policies had more in common with neo-liberlaism than anything else. Both Fascism and neo-liberalism like to privatize a lot of the economy, increase exploitation of the workers, reduce worker earnings, and spend a lot on military. Both have issues with inflation.

>it's known that national socialists were quite frenly to marxists before Hitler

It's not known to me, but since we know how history turned out that can't have been genuine friendship.

>it's also known that NatSoc and Marxists were trying to perfect this ideology called socialism

Known to whom ? I have never heard of this. I have read a lot of Marxists from that time they don't write anything about this.


The revolution will happen when it happens. Normal people will never read manifestos or theory we will be a very very small minority always no strategy towards socialism is based in reality.




The best strategy when you are not quite certain how capitalism will contort as its contradictions become fatal is to keep an open mind and always attempt to get as much of the means of subsistence and the means of production under the control of workers as possible. Shit isn't going to play out according to plan. Just stay focused on the goal, and take what opportunities present themselves.

Unique IPs: 13

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]