/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain't driving 20 minutes to riot."

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Captcha
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

(21.58 KB 377x264 Cultural_Revolution_poster.jpg)
Cultural Revolution 10/16/2020 (Fri) 00:54:55 No. 1003492 [Reply] [Last]
So that was a fucking mess.
16 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>1003499 Are "revisionists" the ML "Jew"?
>>1003498 Mao was brain damaged. Anyone that says nuclear apocalypse is fine because "they can't kill us all!" should never be called anything close resembling the word "intellectual".
>>1013791 Did he really?
(55.86 KB 640x480 1551821593593.jpg)
>>1013791 >>1013813 You have it wrong. He was 100% right, the nuclear threats were paper tigers. They couldn't destroy China if they wanted it to serve their imperialist interests, and you can't let them get in the way of revolution.

(48.54 KB 441x599 441px-Ho_Chi_Minh_1946.jpg)
Anonymous 10/14/2020 (Wed) 23:08:19 No. 998711 [Reply] [Last]
I never see /leftypol/ discuss Ho Chi Minh. Why? He seems absolutely based.
103 posts and 14 images omitted.
based vietanon 1v5ing these fucking nerds
>>1003980 Many people think that the founder of Confucianism is Confucius (孔夫子-Kǒng Fūzǐ or Master Kǒng). However, the fact that ideas of Confucianism formed before Master Kong at least 1500 years. Sima Qian wrote about the debate between Gaoyao and Yu about how to rule the country in the Records of the Grand Historian. Gaoyao's thought was expressed through his saying: "If a man sincerely follows the path of duty and virtue, his counsellors will be intelligent, and those who aid him will act in harmony". Meanwhile, Yu said that "I aim at being assiduous from day to day". He continued to expain "assiduous" that: "When the flood assailed the heavens, and in its vast expanse encompassed the mountains and overtopped the hills, so that the common people were overcome by the water, I travelled on dry land in a carriage, went about on the water in a boat, in miry places I used a sledge, while in going over the hills I used spikes. All along the hills I hewed paths through the woods, and together with Yi supplied the people with paddy and fresh meat. In order to drain the nine streams into the four seas, I deepened the channels and canals, and connected them with the rivers, and together with 'Millet' and the people in general when it was difficult to obtain food, and when food was scarce I bartered the surplus stock to make up for deficiencies, and removed the stores. Thus the people were quieted, and the various states properly governed". Gaoyao believed that rule of the country is basically based on virtue and duty - this is the early ideology of Confucianism. Yu believed that rule of the country needs to solve problems of nationality and livelihood such as floods, food, trade, irrigation, and reserves, "I bartered the surplus stock to make up for deficiencies" - this is the early ideology of Socialism. However, Confucianism splits into 2 branches. One branch that upholds the responsibility and duty of the inferiors (the people) towards the superiors (kings and nobles). The virtue of the inferiors is to obey orders from superiors. This branch formed the Neo-Confucianism or Song Confucianism ideology that has dominated China for the past thousand years. Another branch, on the other hand, emphasizes the superior's responsibility and duty towards their inferiors. The emperor and the mandarin must take care of the lives of their own people below, just like parents taking care of their children. This branch was once the more powerful branch of original Confucian thought, but it is increasingly overwhelmed by the opposing branch and is later completely overwhelmed by the Neo-Confucians on mainland China. Five hundred years before Confucius, The Duke of Zhou was credited with elaborating the doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven, which does not require a legitimate ruler to be of noble birth but how well that person can rule, depending on the just and able performance of the rulers and their heirs. Chinese dynasties such as the Han and Ming were founded by men of common origins, but they were seen as having succeeded because they had gained the Mandate of Heaven. The concept is in some ways similar to the European concept of the divine right of kings; however, unlike the European concept, it does not confer an unconditional right to rule. Intrinsic to the concept of the Mandate of Heaven was the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler. This shows that, in the original Confucian ideology, the emperor was not absolute power, and the people were also not obliged to serve unconditionally. People have the right to rebellion if their lives go down. (to be continued)
>>998761 There is some mostly on bannedthought.net https://www.bannedthought.net/Vietnam/index.htm
(40.89 KB 539x369 Pol Ho Lao.jpg)
can you still be banned in vietnam for showing this undoctored photo
>>998757 he literally slaughtered the trots, never forget ironic for a "stalinist" whose party would later side with krhushchev

Could the threat of global nuclear war be the glden opportunity for a global socialist revolution? Anonymous 10/18/2020 (Sun) 22:45:22 No. 1012581 [Reply] [Last]
Hear me out. I'm not trying to argue for this from the Posadist perspective of "lmao aliens", what instead I'm trying to do is to analyze what the next global imperialist conflict, which will certainly involve nukes. So, we know that capitalist imperialist countries are today facing an unprecedented crisis of low profitability and high income inequality, and that the only path of this crisis the imperial bourgeoisie knows is to keep expanding their empire to more and more land, at the same time there are also emerging competing imperial blocks that are more and more influence on the global stage like the European Union, Russia, India, potentially China, Japan, Turkey and last but not least Brazil, thus it's only a matter of time that all these imperial powers will enter into conflict with each other to decide who gets a bigger share of the pie. We also know that if there was a war to be fought between these countries it would involve nuclear mutually assured destruction and global societal collapse, thus it's not in anyone but the imperialist financial bourgoisie's (the so-called 1%) to enter such a war. In 1917, the bolshevik party in Russia successfully led a revolution against the Russian state and seized control of the state for the proletariat. They were successful for a myriad of reasons, but one reason in particular that really propelled their support forward among the widest base of the Russian people, even non-proletarians, was their opposition to the war. The key here is that all other parties, reactionary and reformist, were locked in a war that was pretty much devastating for the whole Russian nation, particularly the workers and the peasantry, and thus had the war continued on it would've spelled disaster for everyone. Thus the bolsheviks, the most popular anti-war party was supported in the revolution even by people who were not particularly invested in revolutionary socialism. Their slogan "Peace, land and bread" is what won the bolsheviks and the working class the revolution. Another point is a criticism Trotsky made of the USSR after its establishment which is that because it was developed on the backs of the undeveloped mass of peasantry and that it had to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of industrial production the development of socialism stagnated and opportunist and revisionist elements were able to take over the state and steer it back towards capitalism. This he attributes to the fact that the USSR was isolated from the rest of the world in the first half of its existence, thus he argues that the only path forward for socialism to prevail is for the revolution to happen all over the world and not be limited to one country. Of course due to the limitations the USSR found itself under and the global reaction it received from western imperialist countries the project of expanding socialism to the rest of the world was inherently limited. Thus, I arrive at this conclusion. -If global nuclear war is inevitable. -If it also posits a devastating and existential problem for the citizens (of which the workers are the absolute majority) of all the world. -If the imperialist financial bourgeoisie is the only class that would realistically support such a war. -If communist revolutionaries are historically most successful when they oppose imperialist wars, even more so when such wars are devastating for the majority of people. -And if socialism can only prevail when the majority of countries are able to successfully transition to socialism. Then that means that global socialist revolution can only happen if vanguard communist parties the world over oppose the coming global nuclear war. If nothing else, it will at least ensure that a majority of countries have turned to socialism and thus the rule of capital will be significantly weakened, thus it will be finally on the way out. What socialist countries especially have an advantage in over imperialist capitalist ones is solidarity and mutual aid which will definitely ensure that they will stand with each other while the old capitalist order tears itself into shreds.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

5 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>1013358 lol this mf means some garbage like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA
>>1013360 Nuclear weapons are a fascist fraud. Read Mao. >>1013426 Nothing to do with nuclear weapons, you're a retard.
>>1012581 >thus it's not in anyone but the imperialist financial bourgoisie's (the so-called 1%) to enter such a war. Interesting theory, is not possible to aim a few of those nukeboys at stock exchanges to incentivize peace.

(53.67 KB 678x452 20201019_181428.jpg)
Anonymous 10/19/2020 (Mon) 11:40:36 No. 1013445 [Reply] [Last]
1. How and when were you red pilled on democracy? 2. How do I efficiently red pill liberals on democracy without having to write a 20 page long article and have them say "commie propoganda"?
2 posts omitted.
(358.42 KB 720x546 1602407456260.png)
>>1013462 I've seen the video(and I think it's great) but the people who I'm trying to red pill is my country men. Who I imagine would speak almost to zero english. Maybe I should learn how to add subtitles.
Proletarian democracy
I was unironically almost born woke I read some children books on the history of feudalism, the start of the industrial revolution and labour unions, and made a proto marxist analysis that barely anything changed and that because there is corruption we dont have a democracy.
>>1013493 (when i was 8) (yes i was bullied a lot as a kid)
>>1013493 lmao fucking nerd

(1.24 MB 1920x1080 laborwave.jpg)
/labourwave/ Anonymous 10/04/2020 (Sun) 04:29:26 No. 949697 [Reply] [Last]
We need a labourwave/anarchowave thread. I'll start.
55 posts and 27 images omitted.
(573.12 KB 532x800 l b o u r w a v e m a r x.jpg)
(791.00 KB 1920x1200 S T I R N E R W A V E.jpg)
(16.24 MB 640x454 Scared Fascist gif.gif)
>>949697 These three are the best I've made thus far
>>982872 >red fash shut the fuck up
>>982906 >militaristic bullshit just the fuck up already hippie
>>1004381 >Mauzer the guy's pretty good
>>1013464 He posted this the other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoCjUrVAFG0 Didn't even think to post it ITT, just put it in /DPRK/. Probably be more appreciated here.

Long March Anonymous 10/19/2020 (Mon) 04:01:34 No. 1012865 [Reply] [Last]
What exactly is wrong with der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen? (as a strategy) Did Marx overcomplicated shit? Maybe the left needs Blanquism. a secret society and go full hail hydra? >inb4 pol shows up to say the left already did this because they think neoliberal radlibs are the ""left""
1 post omitted.
I'm not sure it was much of a plan, more like "welp, the revolution ain't happening, and I don't have anything else going on so might as well go to grad school." If anything, just as much of the reverse was happening back in the 1970s with some of the Maoist oriented ultra-left groups opted to leave academia and to go get industrial jobs.
Surely if this was some long-term master plan that is now blossoming into a beautiful red flower of Kultural Bolshevism that has turned the frogs gay, it was all laid down somewhere, right? I mean you can go back and read what leftist sects were writing back in the 70s... I haven't seen it, though. They wrote a lot about what was going on in Mozambique though.
>>1012865 I mean secret societies already failed at Marx's time. Liberal revolutionaries tried it after the restoration up to 1848, but they couldn't do shit so they just change strategies. First example of this that comes in mind for me is Giuseppe Mazzini and the italian Carboneria, but there are others, another one if i'm not wrong is russian decembrism.
>>1012974 >I mean secret societies already failed at Marx's time well but could one possibly succeed? surely there are third world revolutions where socialists took power via coup?
>>1012865 The problem with this stuff is that as socialists we require to keep contact with the people (so secret societies are not a good thing) and we have to act on the base because on the superstructure we'll always be at a disadvantage (that's why socialist think tanks can't change shit on policy and are useful only as a propaganda/ theory building vehicle). A separate chapter should be made for Blanquism though: even if not for a coup or shit we NEED to have /ourguys/ embdedded in military/intelligence institutions.

(114.95 KB 741x486 sf2-thumb.jpg)
On Contradiction Anonymous 10/17/2020 (Sat) 14:05:47 No. 1008714 [Reply] [Last]
In August 1937, Mao published the essay "On Contradiction" on the subject of dialectics and how "dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects." I'm currently reading On Contradiction and wanted to share some notes about it. First of all, it's important to stress that contradiction is universal and exists in all things. In math, there is (+) and (-). In mechanics, action and reaction. In war, there is offense and defense, victory and defeat. Life and death. Axis vs. Allies. In bourgeois American politics, Republicans and Democrats. Bourgeois and proletariat. Tankies and Anarkiddies. Some contradictions are antagonistic (and can only be resolved through struggle), while others are not (they can be resolved through debate). Being able to observe and determine non-antagonistic from antagonistic contradictions is very important. Secondly, Mao contrasts the dialectical worldview with the metaphysical, idealist world view: >The metaphysical .... world outlook sees things as isolated, static and one-sided. It regards all things in the universe, their forms and their species, as eternally isolated from one another and immutable. Such change as there is can only be an increase or decrease in quantity or a change of place. This relates to liberal philosophy which does not believe that "the point, however, is to change it" (Marx). Liberal philosophy, which in the class interest of the bourgeoisie, views a subject as an independent observer who contemplates a social totality. This cannot become dialectical materialism, the intellectual weapon of the proletariat, wherein knowledge is only possible as the subject modifies the environment. For example: >They contend that a thing can only keep on repeating itself as the same kind of thing and cannot change into anything different. In their opinion, capitalist exploitation, capitalist competition, the individualist ideology of capitalist society, and so on, can all be found in ancient slave society, or even in primitive society, and will exist for ever unchanged. They ascribe the causes of social development to factors external to society, such as geography and climate. They search in an over-simplified way outside a thing for the causes of its development, and they deny the theory of materialist dialectics which holds that development arises from the contradictions inside a thing. This reminds me of several things, like ancaps and libertarians such as Peter Schiff who will say capitalism has always existed and will always exist. Or Amity Shlaes from the other day: "I still believe in markets. Markets do not fail us. We fail markets." More on this in a second but another important thing in On Contradiction is how change occurs: >As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes. Another way of saying this is that:

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

1 post and 1 image omitted.
Beyond based thread >What are some other contradictions you can think of? I haven't read "On Contradiction" yet, but from your analysis i think we can also apply the same logic to the sino-soviet split: The internal contradictions in the politics of the USSR has interacted with the internal contradiction of the politics in China which intensified in the sino-soviet split. probably will expand on this when i read On Contraction. Also the glossary page has some pretty good and short info: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics
>>1008714 I like this, would you be interested in developing it into an article? It reminded me a little of this article I've been reading by Pries in which he separates absolutist space from relative space, which I would associate with idealist and dialectical space respectively. >ancaps and libertarians such as Peter Schiff who will say capitalism has always exist I'd go further and say that this isn't just a fringe theory but the basis for the entirety of western modernity, and especially historiography. I'd argue that one of the challenges for marxist historians isn't to locate instances of communism throughout history, but to see whether the social system of capitalism (which as a social system or production is an outlier and not natural) ever existed before 18th century England. Ellen Meiksins Wood's book The Origin of Capitalism has been good on pointing out just how unnatural capitalism is.
>>1008714 >In math, there is (+) and (-). That's only if there is an inverse element in the algebra, so, not in semirings for example, I think. Nice write-up. This is my personal critique. I don't like the metaphysical ascription of contradictions as essential elements of all things that exist and have existed. As I see it, contradition is only a motor of change for things that are not changed externally. Speaking about secondary contradictions seems weird, I don't understand how it all fits together.
>>1011568 >I like this, would you be interested in developing it into an article? OP here. Possibly could do that, but I think it'd have to be more focused on a specific example of event (like the Eastern Front or whatever) as the subject of the article rather than scattered notes. >>1011610 Yeah, neither do I. It's obviously very complicated and I am just beginning to explore it.
>>1012677 that would be great., I think having a specific focus would help give analytical depth, particularly if it's a topic you know about.

(80.03 KB 512x512 Pentagram.png)
Anonymous 10/19/2020 (Mon) 01:25:47 No. 1012728 [Reply] [Last]
Friendly greetings from https://8channel.bz/b/index.html
(124.56 KB 820x1073 963-9632392_post-pepe-dab-gif.png)
Shut up, bitch
>>1012730 >pepe Ok rightist scum.
Shit board
>>1012728 who? lmao

How do libs deal with the sheer popularity of "Ostalgie"? Anonymous 10/19/2020 (Mon) 02:38:38 No. 1012807 [Reply] [Last]
Honestly trying to figure out how liberals can continue portraying Communist countries as cartoonish depictions of constant surveillance and disappearances when it's already widespread knowledge that their own societies function in this way and when nostalgia for socialism in post-communist countries is so widespread. Particularly in East Germany, in fact, often held up by NATO cucks as the ultimate example of "totalitarianism". How do they further deal with the fact that such a phenomenon of widespread nostalgia and longing didn't exist on the same scale for fascism?
There is nostalgia for fascism, just by a different class than those who are nostalgic for socialism (workers).
(326.97 KB 800x404 47239749823749823.png)
My favorite Ostalgie act: https://youtu.be/Riog8YrWI94 Worked at a fitness studio in the DDR because the DDR was all about sports and athletics. Also for the social reactionaries, half his videos are him hanging out with trans women in East Berlin because that's just how Germany rolls.
>>1012807 >How do they further deal with the fact that such a phenomenon of widespread nostalgia and longing didn't exist on the same scale for fascism? It did exist. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/20/why-there-are-no-nazi-statues-in-germany-215510 Read this.
>>1012838 That article is pure libshit
>>1012807 They write articles about how the DDR was "totally baaaad guyz!"

Anonymous 10/12/2020 (Mon) 15:41:20 No. 987941 [Reply] [Last]
Back in 2016, Bernie was the most popular Democrat candidate. He should have been the Democrat nominee. The 2016 US election should have been Trump vs. Bernie. But the Democrats in Washington didn't like the man so they cheated Bernie out of the nomination and gave it to Hillary instead. The same thing happened all over again this election cycle. Bernie was the second most popular candidate during the primaries after Biden. During the primaries, Biden had 2,687 delegates, Bernie got 1,071 and Kamala got a total of 0. Bernie was polling 25%+ in the primaries while Kamala was polling less than 1%. Bernie should have gotten the VP slot. But the Democrats in Washington didn't like the man so they decided to cheat him again and gave the VP slot to Kamala instead. Why do you keep supporting the Democrats when they just screw you over again and again? At this point you're basically a bunch of cucks. There is literally nothing the Democrats can do to you, without you crawling back and licking their boots. Biden is an old man. He is already past the life expectancy of a white male in the united states. Chances are that if he wins the election he will either die in office from old age or have to retire due to health problems. If Bernie was VP and this happened then he would become President. There could literally have been a Bernie Sanders Presidency in a year or two. All your dreams could have come true. But you're all just gonna let it go, aren't you? The Dems screwed you over AGAIN but you're still going to lick their boots. You'll rationalise it, by claiming that it's all about the election, that anything is justified to stop the big orange meanie from having a second term. But the fact is that the day after the election, after the issue has been settled, you'll still be acting like a bunch of cucks. Do any of you plan on growing a spine and holding the Democrats to account for the poor way they treated Bernie, or do you plan to continue acting like bootlickers until the next election cycle when the Dems screw you all over again?
56 posts and 6 images omitted.
>>1012703 >those is pretty clear to me the choice is pretty clear to me*
>>1012703 >You guys may insist that they are more or less the same The history of fascism would indicate that liberalism is absolutely proto-fascism. Fascism tends to grow out of liberalism. See: Weimar Republic
>>1012776 >Fascism tends to grow out of liberalism. So does socialism. Marx was writing in the midst of the liberal Revolutions of 1848. The 1918-1919 German Revolution took place in a liberal democracy. From what I can tell, socialist movements have taken root in every liberal democracy in the world. >Weimar Republic Not every liberal democracy is the Weimar Republic. Let's just take a look at other liberal democracies from the same time period. Did the United Kingdom go fascist? No. Did France go fascist? No. Did the United States go fascist? No. Did Sweden go fascist? No. A lot more liberal democracies remained liberal than went fascist during the 1920s and 1930s. Also, if you vote for a proto-fascist or take votes away from a proto-fascist's most viable opponent, you effectively accelerating the process at which fascism can take hold. You seem to have this idea that all liberal democracies inevitably become fascist, but, so far, history indicates that this is simply not the case. It takes more than just a big economic crisis for a liberal country to go fash.
>>1012703 >proto-fascism You keep calling Trump that, but where's your evidence or reasoning? The United States is nowhere near fascism.
>>1012787 He has some fascist traits (nationalist, right-wing, authoritarian) but isn't hardcore enough for him to rightfully called a fully-fledged fascist. He also exhibits very crucial fascist trait known as "palingenetic ultranationalism", i.e. the idea that the nation has fallen from grace and needs to be reborn. The slogan "Make America Great Again" fits the bill for palingenetic ultranationalism fairly well. I use term "proto-fascist" to refer to politicians who have some fascist traits but are not extreme enough to be accurately labeled a fascist. I generally consider right-wing populists to be proto-fascists. Other examples of proto-fascists from around the world are Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil), Viktor Orban (Hungary), and Narenda Modi (India). None of this is to say that countries led by right-wing populists/proto-fascists are destined to become fascist in the future, but they are probably in greater danger of doing so than countries led by liberals or social democrats. I also keep bringing up Trump being proto-fascist to demonstrate why I think him being elected is more likely to bring about fascism in the near future than electing a liberal like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

Delete
Report

no cookies?