/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>459920
>If a dictatorship of the proletariat ever emerges in the anglosphere, it m
stopped reading there

>>459956
The Third-Worldists are wrong.

>>459956
Retarded

>>460005
Retarded, maybe
Faggot, definitely

<Socialism is not a revenge fantasy for self hating low t whites

>>460006
We should do a psychological profile on the thirdworldist mindset.

>>460006
Oh, it's a revenge fantasy alright. A thirst for vengeance. A thirst for justice. For centuries of bondage and humiliation - death!
You better run when this fantasy starts to become reality, or you might end up like your fellow petty bourgeois kulaks - on the other end of the state monopolized violence. Forever bitter.

>>460009
Larpy white faggot

>Muh white people bad except me because I tell you white people bad. Now make revolution for me, tobie

>>460014
It's all a LARP, until it isn't.
There are weeks, when decades happen.

>>460020
Nah, it's just a larp

>>460020
Mao was a fag. Long live Marx.

>>460024
You're right comrade. That video and painting is just like you!!! Definitely not a fantasy of someone who is socially maladjusted. I'm sure once the revolution comes through global people's war, the third world proletariat will not only thank you for your contributions but also appoint you to oversee the gulags!

>>460026
lol, why so passive aggressive like a bitch? Those paintings rustled you jimmies? Made you uncomfortable?

Here, have another - your precious "white people" dying in a fucking ditch like dogs.

>>460027
Why do you care so much about white people?
Racist!

>>460024
if you outright reject the possibility of a DotP in the west, then yes it is just a LARP

>>460031
>Why do you care so much about white people?
<asks a fag who brought up "muh hwite people" out of nowhere

>>460032
>if you outright reject the possibility of a DotP in the west
I don't reject anything.
All I know is that there will be ww3 and some weakest link will break again.
It might as well be US for all I know lol.

Tho I think it might be England if we take the core. It would be the supreme irony if the death of capitalism starts in the same place where it was born.

>>460027
>Yt bad, except me cuz I done told u yt bad

Pathetic larping for preening faggots with nothing to offer but an edgy opinion

>>460034
Not a "supreme irony", but a near necessity. There has to be a revolution in the imperial core if the workers of the world are to dominate global capitalism.

>>460049
>There has to be a revolution in the imperial core if the workers of the world are to dominate global capitalism.
Here I have to disagree.
You want to tell me that China needs revolution in the west to try to build socialism?

Think of it like a military operation - you first need to get a foothold in the enemy territory, a beachhead.
I don't see why you assume this beachhead needs to be in the core, or why the whole operation couldn't take hundreds of years of slow dedicated fighting.

>>460059
>Claims to oppose the global division of labor
>Demands that third worlders do the heavy lifting of revolution

Is there anything more ghey and hypocritical while simultaneously self sacrosanct than a third Worldist?

>>460060
I don't demand anything.
All I'm saying is that proletarian revolutions in the periphery are not automatically doomed by the simple fact of them being in the periphery.

>>460059
China is not socialist and is not building socialism. Socialism is not when the government does stuff. A dictatorship of the proletariat is not when the ruling party claims to be a workers party.
Even if the CCP was genuinely interested in socialism, it would not be possible to transition to socialism just by exerting power over the capitalist state. Hell, this is true even if the bourgeois parties were in favor of socialism.
Socialism is a movement wherein the workers seize power, and ultimately come to dominate capitalism. The scale of such a movement cannot be restricted to one country, one nation-state. The workers do need a socialist party, but the party is not enough and can only so so much. State power is not the only form of power, and there is a social realm outside of both government and business that must be fought over, if only because such is the realm where the bourgoisie traditionally rule.

>>460063
>China is not socialist and is not building socialism.
But it can start building socialism if there is a political will.

>Socialism is not when the government does stuff.
Yes.
Socialism is when government does stuff in the interests of the proletarian class.

>A dictatorship of the proletariat is not when the ruling party claims to be a workers party.
DotP is when state power is in the hands of the proletarian class as a whole. What political form facilitates this arrangement is another question.

>Even if the CCP was genuinely interested in socialism, it would not be possible to transition to socialism just by exerting power over the capitalist state.
Why? Because you say so, lol?

>Hell, this is true even if the bourgeois parties were in favor of socialism.
How can bourgeois parties be in favor of socialism lmao? Or are we talking about """socialism""" here, ie petty bourgeois proudonism of the small producer?

>Socialism is a movement wherein the workers seize power, and ultimately come to dominate capitalism.
Workers don't just seize abstract "power" you absolute idealist lol. They seize concrete state institutions to enforce their dictat, ie concrete policies that are backed by the state monopoly on violence.


>The scale of such a movement cannot be restricted to one country, one nation-state.
Lmao.
What is a "country"? China and Malta are both "countries", does that mean they both have equal opportunities?
Behind every "country" there are factories, people, roads, naval fleets, agricultural land etc etc

Is it really much to ask for a self-proclaimed marxist to be a materialst in this day and age lol?

>The workers do need a socialist party
Why? Is political party the only possible vehicle for class mobilization?

>State power is not the only form of power, and there is a social realm outside of both government and business
lol, like what?
The rule of the thumb is if something is outside the interests of the state - it has no relevance to the actual material life that matters.
Tho I can't even give you an example of such a situation lol. Everything has relevance and everything is an interest to the state.

You can't hide from the state you little petty bourgeois idealist, I thought this was obvious for everyone in our day and age lol.
You need to face the state and take control of it. If proletariat doesn't take state power - it will be taken by the bourgeoisie. There is no vacuum here.

>>459920
You are correct that identity politics will be used as a weapon against political organization of workers. But i don't trust you, because you are still using the language of the identitarians, like rattling off the list of all the identities. It makes me think that you are more identity-conscious than class conscious. It makes me think that you are still invested in the battle of identities, that the bourgeois political circus still has a hold over your mind.

>>460065
>But it can start building socialism if there is a political will.
I agree, but not through the organs of the state alone.
>Socialism is when government does stuff in the interests of the proletarian class.
>DotP is when state power is in the hands of the proletarian class as a whole.
This is exactly how people come to say that social democracy is the same as socialism. Indeed, if China has achieved anything, it would be the most successful form of social democracy in history. But it is not socialist. A socialist party, and in turn a socialist state, is nothing without a movement that goes beyond the state. A socialist movement ought to encompass the state, economy and civil society, the latter of which being the most important of all.
>How can bourgeois parties be in favor of socialism lmao
You missed the point.
>Workers don't just seize abstract "power" you absolute idealist lol. They seize concrete state institutions to enforce their dictat, ie concrete policies that are backed by the state monopoly on violence.
The point I am making is that power is not merely state power. Did you read my post?
>What is a "country"? China and Malta are both "countries", does that mean they both have equal opportunities?
>Behind every "country" there are factories, people, roads, naval fleets, agricultural land etc etc
>Is it really much to ask for a self-proclaimed marxist to be a materialst in this day and age lol?
I guess by your arguments, Stalin was not a Marxist due to his championing of socialism in one country. This has been standard Marxist-Leninist practice throughout most of the 20th century.
>Why? Is political party the only possible vehicle for class mobilization?
Anon, if you actually read anything that I wrote, you would understand that I'm arguing for the opposite.
>The rule of the thumb is if something is outside the interests of the state - it has no relevance to the actual material life that matters.
This is not Marxist, nor even materialist. If you can't understand something as simple as the difference between a trade union controlled by workers versus a trade union controlled by the state, then we shouldn't bother discussing any further.
>You need to face the state and take control of it. If proletariat doesn't take state power - it will be taken by the bourgeoisie. There is no vacuum here.
I already agree with this. It seems like you didn't read much of my posts at all. The point is that seizing state power simply isn't enough.

>>460067
Explain to me how I can discuss the perspective of identity politics without making any references to even a single of their terms. Of course I have to do stuff like "rattling off the list of all the identities" if I want to provide clear examples of how the bourgeois ideologues interpret the working class. That's the whole point of this thread anon.

>>460069
>I agree, but not through the organs of the state alone.
what other organs?
state organs have state monopoly on violence backing them to actually enforce their policies

other non-state organs don't have the means to enforce their policies, ie they are useless

>This is exactly how people come to say that social democracy is the same as socialism.
How? In social democracy government is still doing stuff in the interests of the bourgeoisie lol.
Because if it doesn't there would be massive economic and social consequences.

>A socialist party, and in turn a socialist state, is nothing without a movement that goes beyond the state. A socialist movement ought to encompass the state, economy and civil society, the latter of which being the most important of all.
There is nothing "beyond" the state. The state is everywhere, in every facet of life. It's there when you drive to work, when you buy a cup of coffee, and when you go for a drink after work.

>You missed the point.
Then spell out your point clearly without dancing around.

>The point I am making is that power is not merely state power. Did you read my post?
What other "power" is there other than the power on the tips of the bayonets? A "power" to flee and freeze in the hope that you don't get noticed by a predator?

>I guess by your arguments, Stalin was not a Marxist due to his championing of socialism in one country. This has been standard Marxist-Leninist practice throughout most of the 20th century.
Are you retarded? Stalin viewed countries as production systems. As do many marxists. When he talked about socialist countries he meant countries with a planned economy first and foremost.

>Anon, if you actually read anything that I wrote, you would understand that I'm arguing for the opposite.
I've no clue for what you're arguing. I doubt even you have lol, you're all over the place.

>This is not Marxist, nor even materialist.
wat
How is the state being an instrument of class struggle not marxist? How are class antagonisms permeating all aspects of life not marxist?
State is everywhere, because class antagonisms are everywhere. Deal with it.

>If you can't understand something as simple as the difference between a trade union controlled by workers versus a trade union controlled by the state, then we shouldn't bother discussing any further.
And if you can't grasp something as simple as the difference between a state controlled by the proletariat and a state controlled by the bourgeoisie, then indeed we shouldn't bother discussing any further.

>The point is that seizing state power simply isn't enough.
Simply seizing it is not enough, yes.
You need to use this seized state power to enact policies for socialist transformation. You don't just sit on it, lol.

>>460071
>Explain to me how
If you reference their identities, you play on their turf by their rules, and you will loose.
You have to describe what they are doing in neutral objective language.

>>460076
>what other organs?
Civil society.
>other non-state organs don't have the means to enforce their policies, ie they are useless
<trade unions are useless because they aren't part of the state
>In social democracy government is still doing stuff in the interests of the bourgeoisie
The aim of social democracy has traditionally been to achieve socialism through state mediation of proletarian interests. Of course there are contradictions here that lead to support for bourgeois interests as well, which is why I am not a proponent of social democracy. The point is to illustrate how the government doing stuff in the interests of the proletariat isn't good enough.
>There is nothing "beyond" the state. The state is everywhere, in every facet of life. It's there when you drive to work, when you buy a cup of coffee, and when you go for a drink after work.
>State is everywhere, because class antagonisms are everywhere. Deal with it.
Again, missing the point. Of course the state has influence over other parts of a society. But the state is not the totality of society. This collapse of economy and civil society into the state is an illusion. They all influence one another, but they are not the same.
>Then spell out your point clearly without dancing around.
<I can't read
>What other "power" is there other than the power on the tips of the bayonets? A "power" to flee and freeze in the hope that you don't get noticed by a predator?
Workers don't have to fire a single weapon in order to go on strike and make demands to their bosses. Likewise, the bourgeoisie doesn't have to fire a single weapon to destroy class consciousness. Violence is only used precisely when such forms of power break down. The proletariat is forced by the bourgeoisie to use violence in order to achieve revolution, not because violence is the only means of exerting power.
>Stalin viewed countries as production systems. As do many marxists. When he talked about socialist countries he meant countries with a planned economy first and foremost.
You are avoiding the reason why he advocated for socialism in one country.
>I've no clue for what you're arguing. I doubt even you have lol, you're all over the place.
Okay, let me restate it for you in simpler terms:
The working class must seize control of the state, economy and civil society. Thus requiring more than just a socialist party seizing state power.
>How is the state being an instrument of class struggle not marxist? How are class antagonisms permeating all aspects of life not marxist?
Again, the point is that the state is not the only instrument of class struggle. How many times do I have to repeat this?
>And if you can't grasp something as simple as the difference between a state controlled by the proletariat and a state controlled by the bourgeoisie, then indeed we shouldn't bother discussing any further.
What makes you think I don't?
>You need to use this seized state power to enact policies for socialist transformation. You don't just sit on it, lol.
I agree. But state policy alone will not result in socialist transformation.

>>460080
>Civil society.
what do you mean by it? And how is the state not a central part of this "civil society"?

>trade unions are useless because they aren't part of the state
lol
unions are useful only to the degree that they are militant, ie willing to challenge the state monopoly on violence

generally no society would tolerate the undermining of this fundamental principle of monopolized violence, at least not for a long time

so either trade unions challenge this monopoly and win and become the new state, or they get btfod and pacified

As you may guess, so far it was always the latter, therefore we can conclude that they are limpdick useless for all intends and purposes
A conclusion that was made by Lenin a century ago already

>The aim of social democracy has traditionally been to achieve socialism through state mediation of proletarian interests.
The aim of social democracy in practice always was to pacify the proletariat so that capitalism can keep on going.

>The point is to illustrate how the government doing stuff in the interests of the proletariat isn't good enough.
Again, social democracy is government still doing staff in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It's no coincidence that it collapsed the moment post-war boom ended and profit margins got threatened.

>But the state is not the totality of society. This collapse of economy and civil society into the state is an illusion.
The large corporations are essentially a part of the state. I don't see what kind of "civil soyciety" is left there when you take out this whole government-corporate complex. With the internet of things and the death of the general computing it's only gonna get worse lol.
But you keep chasing that chimera of independent "civil society" somewhere out there lmao.

>I can't read
nah, you just can't express your thought for shit

>Workers don't have to fire a single weapon in order to go on strike and make demands to their bosses.
You can demand whatever you want lol. But if you overstep your boundaries and forget your place you will get a Thatcher and Reagan treatment. Or something even worse like south american death squads lol.

As long as capital can move out to somewhere with more repressive labor laws you have nothing to worry about other than losing your job, but if there is no way to let out pressure - you better do what you are told if you're not ready to die lol.

>Likewise, the bourgeoisie doesn't have to fire a single weapon to destroy class consciousness.
I'm sure all that militarized police and massive propaganda efforts is because they don't expect to fire a single weapon lol.
Pity that bourgs are not as retarded as you are.

>Violence is only used precisely when such forms of power break down.
Violence is used every day to maintain capitalist system. You just live in a bubble with your blinkers on.

>The proletariat is forced by the bourgeoisie to use violence in order to achieve revolution, not because violence is the only means of exerting power.
Proletariat is forced to use violence because bourgeoisie is forced to use violence. Exploitation can't exist without violence. Violence is the only way to change anything in such a situation.

>You are avoiding the reason why he advocated for socialism in one country.
He advocated it because that was just a fact of reality. USSR was just a country.

>The working class must seize control of the state, economy and civil society.
how are all those things not just a part of the overall state? wtf is a civil society? how can there be some civil society without laws? and how laws are not permeating every aspect of this mythical "civil society" already?

>Thus requiring more than just a socialist party seizing state power.
That requires civil state administration, laws, courts, government bodies, research institutions etc etc, ie the many constituent parts of what one would call a "state". It doesn't require some amorphic "civil soyciety" lol

>Again, the point is that the state is not the only instrument of class struggle. How many times do I have to repeat this?
It is the only instrument that actually matters in the final analysis, because of its monopoly on violence.
You're free to present actual arguments anytime instead of repeating your dogmas like a broken record.

>I agree. But state policy alone will not result in socialist transformation.
I disagree.
State policy can fundamentally transform society, because state is an expression of society, it's what gives it structure to transform human environment. That's the sheer power of state as a mechanism of complex political human organization.

>>460081
That's not really a reply.
I think that the identitarian politics can be disarmed when you shift the focus on what they are doing instead of what they calling them selves.

>>460095
>how are all those things not just a part of the overall state?
>economy
>part of the state
>society
>not merely a function of the mode of production
How many levels of idealism are you on?

>>460095
Do you think that the state generates capitalism, or that capitalism generates the state?

>>460098
>economy
>part of the state
how are large corporations not a part of the state de facto? Is FBI and CIA being at odds with each other means they are not a part of the state?

you're just splitting hairs here
what's good for general motors is good for America

>society
>not merely a function of the mode of production
lmao
you can go straight back to 18th century with you vulgar linear mechanism

In the same mode of production there coexists plentiful of different political organizational forms

>>460101
>Do you think that the state generates capitalism, or that capitalism generates the state?
State existed before capitalism.
State started spreading capitalism when the new bourgeoisie started to take over the state machinery from the old feudal aristocracy.

This latent takeover always took a violent turn in the end - English revolution, French revolution and American revolution, with the new class taking over the state completely, and then spreading capitalism further by the force of the arms.

>>460116
Are you a Marxist?

>>460117
retarded question

would you also ask a person who tells you how some races are inherently inferior to others and should serve them "Are you a racist?"

>>460118
Then are you aware that Marx, Engels and Lenin all argued that the state is a product of society and not the other way around? That the specific form of the state under capitalism - the capitalist state - emerges from the class antagonisms of the capitalist mode of production - capitalist society?

>>460119
>Then are you aware that Marx, Engels and Lenin all argued that the state is a product of society and not the other way around?
Lenin clearly argued that the state is an instrument of class struggle. Engels too in his Origins as far as I can tell, tho obviously he concentrates on how this tool is used by the exploiting classes.
Specific characteristics of the State is a product of the dominant mode of production with its own dominant class who uses this state.

It just a fact of life that capitalism got spread with the force of arms after it got an initial foothold in England and France.

>>460121
But by asserting that the state is a product of capitalist society, you must recognize that there is something beyond the state, that there is a fundamental non-identity between the capitalist state and capitalist society. The two are simply not the same. The fact that a society can even exist without the state implies this.

>>460121
Capitalism spread because it outmoded fuedalism and could, through revolutionizing the general means of production, better produce the means of expansion/conquest.

The Spanish - the last great fuedal empire - reinvested gold into the church and armada. The English reinvested into developing the means of production.

We've kinda reached a tipping point where once again and preponderance of economic surplus is devoted into developing and expanding the bare means of control rather than production. Call it what you will: neotributary, neofuedalism, or the managerial state.

>>460116
>how are large corporations not a part of the state de facto?
It is more accurate to say that the state is a function of large corporations, although to say that they are both fucntions of capital and that large corporations direct the state in the interest of capital would be the most accurate.
>you're just splitting hairs here
No, I am arguing an opposite position.
>what's good for general motors is good for America
Top-fuckiing-kek. Genral Motors doesn't even make anythign in America anymore.
>In the same mode of production there coexists plentiful of different political organizational forms
Bullshit. In the end, they all function the same way with no substantial difference.
>State existed before capitalism.
Not the state as we now know it. The state as it is now conceived began to appear on the political scene as the ancien regime was in its death throes, hence why Louis XIV said, "l'etat c'est moi." He was rejecting the notion that the state was anything other than the king, which his son discovered was not entirely accurate in 1789.

>>460121
>Lenin clearly argued that the state is an instrument of class struggle.
He made the arguable claim that the state can be used for class struggle. If anything, the past century has proven Engels' assessment to have been more accurate.
>The Spanish - the last great fuedal empire
Oh, hell no. Spain left the conquest and rulership of New Spain to bastards, second sons, criminals, and adventurers. Spain never practically controlled any of it. Land and wealth in the New World belonged to whomever could take and hold it. There was nothing feudal about it. On the contrary, it was the first capitalist empire as it was ruled entirely by the production of commodities (eg. silver, sugar, cotton). They didn't even rely on Spanish ships to transport their commodities; Dutch captains took up most of that work. The speed with which the viceroys of New Spain eclipsed kings of Old Spain in power and wealth should tell you just how "feudal" that empire was.

>>460127
Forgot the link to >>460123 there.

This just happened.

A kid is getting cancelled/harrassed after dressing up as an east German soldier at a university Halloween costume contest, with confused faggot liberals (including CPUSA members, lol) chimping out and believing he was a Nazi

https://twitter.com/tmg__alex/status/1588354080069783552

>>460177
Please try not to derail the thread, thanks.

>>460178
Okay, I'll just let it stay dead then.

>>460216
Fine by me.

>>460125
It is extremely embarrassing that so many self-described Marxists are clueless about how the capitalist state functions. I blame Marx's lazy ass for this.

>>463512
Thanks for volunteering yourself as an example.

>>463515
cope

>>463548
Yes, I will cope with you having no idea what you are talking about.

>>463556
seethe