/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

Mode: Thread

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join our matrix! https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org

(73.45 KB 650x433 MpNpFKYd3AgClJwT_m7YyA.jpg)
Religion Anonymous 07/05/2020 (Sun) 15:25:35 No. 668221 [Reply] [Last]
Why are most marxists hostile towards religion? People will allways want an answer to the nature and purpose of the world, and according to logic* atheism can't provide it. Adding religion as a justification for communism is also very easy for christianity, like "when all humans are equal under god, so should they be on earth". *atheism can only logicly answer the creation of the world with an uncaused cause (might as well be callled supernatural) or that it allways existed (a non-answer)
76 posts and 12 images omitted.
Agnosticism is the answer. For now. It is the ultimate materialist take on religion and God.
>>669175 most cosmological questions are not really that important in daily life
>>669325 that comic makes me want to study gnosticism less
I will defend militant atheism in the USSR and Catalonia to death, because it was historically justified. In those countries at the time, the Church was a powerful land holder that actively funded anti-communist death squads and was part and parcel of the capitalist state and indoctrination machine. Nowadays, though, fedora-tipping is a LARP. In the first world (and I'd argue in most of the world), religion barely registers. Idpol, new age woo and mass media have become the new opium of the people. Actively fighting religion in this day and age is wasteful and counter-productive. It'll die out once socialism is established anyway.
>>669984 Evangelical Christianity is still a massive satan for any communist movement though.

(56.45 KB 783x1000 Mao.jpg)
Maoism and the Sino Soviet Split Anonymous 07/05/2020 (Sun) 17:25:28 No. 668458 [Reply] [Last]
So i've got some maoist friends who have some interesting takes on the post-Stalin USSR to say the least, and last night I had a discussion with one of them about it. He said that the USSR ceased to be socialist in the early 1960s because more power was given to the managers and because there were some factories that were operating according to profits, and you had executives that were having goods produced for the profit motive. On the other hand, in a lot of the propaganda going on during the cultural revolution, Brezhnev was frequently compared Hitler and the USSR was accused of being a dictatorship of the german fascist type. And finally, my Maoist friends brought up the concept of social imperialism and said that the USSR was imperialist, not in the capitalist sense of the word, but 'social imperialist'. They also said that Soviet imperialism was worse than US imperialism because the soviets were pretending to be socialist when they actually weren't and distorting marxism in the process. I honestly still don't know what "social imperialism" means. I just have a series of questions that id like to have answered: 1) Why did relations between the Chinese and the Soviets deteriorate so much after the death of Stalin? 2) Is there anything that could have been done to prevent the sino-soviet split? 3) Is Khrushchev revisionist? And if so, how were his policies revisionist? And when did he restore capitalism to the soviet union? 4) Why do maoists consider the Soviet Union a dictatorship of the German fascist type? 5) What is social imperialism? Can I have some examples of the soviets doing it? 6) If the cultural revolution is the answer to revisionism, how come it didn't work? 7) Was the Soviet Union state capitalist under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko? 8) If capitalism was restored in the 1960s USSR, how come it didn't experience business cycles, reserve army of labor, huge gaps in income inequality, or any of the other symptoms of capitalism if this is true? 9) Can somebody link me to some books or resources for further reading on the topic? 10) and finally, why are Maoists so hostile towards other leftists orgs and so rigidly sectarian?
16 posts and 9 images omitted.
>>669851 >1) Why did relations between the Chinese and the Soviets deteriorate so much after the death of Stalin? they didn't. relations were at their peak in 1953-1958, only beginning to sour at the end of the decade. as to why this happened, there are several causes, namely conflicting interests between the two, china feeling "mistreated" by the USSR, and direct actions like the removal of engineers. lots of coercion and chauvanism on both sides, and it's just as likely a split may have occured regardless of what went down between khrushchev and mao. >2) Is there anything that could have been done to prevent the sino-soviet split? honestly can't say, because china obviously had its own ambitions. the USSR could have made more concessions but its effects would have very likely been futile. >3) Is Khrushchev revisionist? And if so, how were his policies revisionist? And when did he restore capitalism to the soviet union? he didn't revise marxism, if not only because he didn't really write anything lol. he was just another soviet communist and examples of his "revisionism" are mostly semantical and based not on material realities but what he chose to refer to things as (see: whole people's state.) capitalism was restored in the USSR not in a swift blow, but in a proccess throughout the late 80s and early 90s. if you want an exact year—which is usually advise against, because stuff like "capitalism got restored in 1924/53/56 is anti-materialist larp—it'd depend on how you classify it. for me, i'd say the intensification of perestroika and legalisation of business for profit in 1987 would be the one. or, you could say it was 1985 when gorbachev was elected by the CPSU (though, like the larp examples, it doesn't make sense since it's not like him just coming to power instantly made the USSR capitalist) or in 1991 when the CPSU was banned and the socialist state as a whole being flushed down the toilet. >4) Why do maoists consider the Soviet Union a dictatorship of the German fascist type? polemical larp. it's mostly just the crazy ones; maoists i know personally realise equating the USSR with hitler is both wrong and borderline shameful, considering this was the same USSR which made the greatest sacrifice against nazism. >5) What is social imperialism? Can I have some examples of the soviets doing it? explained this already >6) If the cultural revolution is the answer to revisionism, how come it didn't work? the cultural revolution served mostly to solidify mao's power and to make chinese society more socialist and "radical." it didn't work in combatting deng because for one its drawbacks gave rise to his reforms, and just attacking individuals you deem as holding incorrect views does nothing to change the material conditions for such views to arise. this goes for people who think the solution to actual revisionism is just "durrrrr just purge over and over and over" instead of addressing the cause directly. >7) Was the Soviet Union state capitalist under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko? it was state capitalist under none of them. state capitalism in this case seems to just be "socialist state that is no longer socialist in my eyes but it still has big state control therefore it is state capitalism" which is not what state capitalism is. >8) If capitalism was restored in the 1960s USSR, how come it didn't experience business cycles, reserve army of labor, huge gaps in income inequality, or any of the other symptoms of capitalism if this is true?

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>>668879 >In Stalins times workers could fire their bosses in the factories but Kruschev turned that around. workers could still veto or even fire managers if they had valid reason just as easily in the 60s as under stalin. the act of doing so was not removed by any law or constitutional ammendment by khrushchev, so where you got this notion is beyond me. >He shut down the tractor stations ...and gave them directly to farmers, which goes against the implied tone of khrushchev hindering worker's rights or whatever? the MTS debacle was handled poorly but it's got zilch to do with revisionism (i didn't know making bad policy that has nothing to do with theoretical matters = revisionism.) >>669756 >It must be understood that Khruschev's ascension to power was, in effect, an internal coup. He spent his career climbing ladders and securing offices all the while holding some radically different views from your typical Marxist-Leninist of the era like? khrushchev was no more "radical" than others like beria. >nobody could fill Stalin's shoes. He was the only individual capable of keeping the CPSU and the wider Soviet populace willing to remain constantly vigilant against the threat of capitalist restoration. this is just great man theory. to suggest stalin was the ONLY one capable of maintaing the USSR on the "right course" or what have you is insane. keeping the population vigilant against capitalist restoration is not something which can be achieved by infallible leadership, and stalin would have had to deal with the exact same hurdles khrushchev and his successors did. >That said, Khrushchev revised Marxist-Leninist doctrine in a way that I would argue negatively affected the USSR. His secret speech of 1956 was a massive blow to morale (not to mention mostly false) and was made primarily with the objective of winning the support of certain party members who were either passed over for promotion if not declared internal enemies during the Stalin years. the secret speech was a consolidation of power, yes. however to characterise it as a revisionist act makes no sense since A) there was no revision of marxism involved; and B) his criticism of stalin was made from the perspective of a general supporter, not a detractor. he noted that stalin's mistakes were done not in malice but in what he believed to serve the USSR. regardless of this, it hardly matters since criticism or denounciation of some of stalin's decisions isn't revising marxism, and could only be considered revisionist if it's from the angle of "he was bad because he was too authoritarian and distorted true socialism, unlike me" which is basically what gorbachev said. >Following the end of his rule, the Kosygin reforms were introduced which were the first material, economic steps towards capitalism. the kosygin reforms, like i mentioned earlier, was not capitalistic—outright restoration or a "step towards" restoration. they came about to the new realities facing the soviet economy and how to deal with them; they did not overturn socialist relations of production, and were shelved due to their shortcomings. again it'd be interesting to see what maoists would have to say for this kind of thing: a supposed capitalist restoration being essentially stopped in its track by the very same leadership. >[claims of social imperialism] might have been somewhat accurate in the case of East Germany where the industry was literally stripped away and used to rebuild elsewhere that was under stalin, for one. such measures were ceased in the 50s, and under the "social imperialist regime" the DDR flourished economically.
(12.25 KB 500x417 idealist-unicorn.png)
>>669845 >Who is being idealist here? It's definitively you, for thinking you're going to get anything more than token gestures out of corporations. Are you that naive? Do you really think you can manipulate the capitalists into building socialism, by nudging their budgets allocation Or are you just that cynicle ?
>>669682 >or a more practical leader leading China LIKE CHEN YUN based >the picture history books paint is that he was a tragically human character: often brash and insensitive in diplomacy, true believer in human welfare and terrified of war. As he had fought on the Eastern Front I'd say that fear was more than justified, but it did also mean that he was too accommodating with the US - a major reason why he was deposed was his reluctance to defend Vietnam sauce on the bit about vietnam? the key reasons i've read for his removal was, as you mentioned, his brashness—he could be very unprofessional (though stuff he said was funny ngl.) that, and his centralisation of power wasn't appreciated. >[social imperialism is] Socialist countries violating other countries' self-determination and sovereignty to serve their geopolitical interests that's more hegemonism than social imperialism. >AFAIK the changes in Soviet economic structure were already present in the late Stalin years rather, the soviet economy hardly differed in 1972 from the soviet economy in 1952. this is not because of changes made in stalin's last years, but rather the completion of building socialism and post-war reconstruction. by the time stalin died the USSR has basically set up the "default" (if you will) which was worked upon from then on. >there was a realignment towards light industry from heavy industry. not much. the USSR still prioritsed heavy industry and military tech over their uh, at times lacking light industries (namely consumer goods.) a greater focus on light industry was proposed by the likes of malenkov, and would have been more prevelant had he or beria maintained influence in the 50s-60s.
>>669852 >>669851 Best response in the thread. Thank you, comrade.

Anonymous 07/05/2020 (Sun) 07:05:26 No. 667655 [Reply] [Last]
>tfw I just want healthcare for gods sake why is /leftypol/ so opposed to socdems? Revolution while I support when is it gonna come? In the meantime why is reform and trying to shift to overton window left so bad?
292 posts and 37 images omitted.
>>669465 >What social democrat victories led into revolt? Legalization of strikes, unions, free expression, democracy, parties, soviets, various industrial regulations and other human rights, etc. >Where? When? From the 1880s onward the above sorts of reforms passed in countries all over the world, which in spite of radical leftism being stomped flat on a number of occasions, they repeatedly rebuilt their numbers and pressed forward. Aside from rising union membership and various utopian experiments, this also resulted in instances of terrorism, general strikes/riots/battles, and outright civil wars from the heart of European empires to the most remote colonial peripheries. >Most people who actually lived through that when they were of working age and experienced its negatives are still significantly pro-capitalis I don't think that's true. There has been significant shift in boomer political opinion from when they were younger, to now that they're older. Further, this is true of ALL generations.
>>669396 🤔 Despite being granted 2/3 of their claims, Maoist-Third-Worldists' butts accumulate 90 % of the hurt. >>669461 The very early socdem groups were socialists. And Leninists claim them for inspiration. When people talk about socdems without giving an explicit date, they don't mean those. And modern socdem parties have nothing to do with them (and I don't just mean since the Blair era). When you say those guys were cool, you are basically saying Leninists are cool.
(274.92 KB 1089x1467 Hippies to yuppies.jpg)
>>669465 Oh, and this is the sort of thing I'm thinking of. I'll admit the data is a bit mixed: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/ If my interpretation holds true, this portends very badly for the future performance of Zoomers.
>>668421 Brilliant strawman. Congratulations on your bullshit abilities
>>669932 Do you believe Brits are doing more Imperialism right now than Burgers, yes or no?

(28.31 KB 615x410 93296_615x410.jpg)
Will we ever see the formation of a new International? Anonymous 07/04/2020 (Sat) 23:56:13 No. 666972 [Reply] [Last]
Imo the last true International was the Comintern or Third International, the guys that famously survived the Second International's commie civil war, defeated fascism, engaged in the Cold War confrontation, and finally split in the 60s leading to its eventual defeat Trot Fourth International doesnt count That being said, which decade do you think this new International might form, why will it form, how, which countries will lead it, how will you react?
10 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>667112 This, also bunkerchan is not ironically the most international leftist place i know of, maybe this is the real International after all
(62.13 KB 256x256 flushed-face.png)
>>667030 >Xi >XI >11 Bros after the 11th Internationale we'll have full communism
>>667120 no, it's II=2, indicating that the second international was the true one all along. rip.
Time for the true International. Time for Posadist international.
>>667119 Maybe the real International was the shitposts we baited along the way

(185.09 KB 680x680 D4ISGOVU8AEk1-m.png)
hong kong btfo Anonymous 07/04/2020 (Sat) 03:27:08 No. 665315 [Reply] [Last]
This one should make the dengoids happy. Looks like uncle xi passed a new national security law and the honkers are deleting their social media and shit. https://archive.is/ddSqL
36 posts and 6 images omitted.
>>667692 Is the SCMP a reliable source? The Wikipedia article is a bit all over the place.
>>667741 Not according to the USA.
>>665484 The accelerationist position in China right now is still pro-CCP though.
>>665451 >>665451 HK police were fucking pussycats compared to anywhere in the west. They should have been more brutal.
>>666039 I mean technically the Tianamen square protests were also mostly maoist students, basically all of Deng's system has been built on supressing maoist thought.

(46.66 KB 967x504 NEVA GANG.jpg)
NEVA GANG Anonymous 07/06/2020 (Mon) 09:06:18 No. 669867 [Reply] [Last]
i made a flag for pechora air defense i call it neva gang flag

OC Thread 5.0 Anonymous 04/05/2020 (Sun) 16:12:47 No. 419177 [Reply] [Last]
New thread dedicated to /leftypol/ original content Post original content you've made, or OC someone else recently made which you want to share. Or ITT collaborate on improving content already made. Archived Thread : >>8622 https://leftypics.booru.org/
Edited last time by krates on 04/14/2020 (Tue) 01:09:51.
245 posts and 182 images omitted.
(190.25 KB 1322x1945 EF6E6TgWsAESOXY.jpg)
Gangut says:
I have an idea. can someone edit this clip with the characters saying "so are you a left winger or a right winger" "No, I'm third positionist blah blah blah!" https://youtu.be/d_CaZ4EAexQ
(12.73 KB 400x389 bunkerchan quality.png)
anime is cringe

maxwell Anonymous 07/06/2020 (Mon) 08:02:04 No. 669827 [Reply] [Last]
is she gonna rat out all the other porkies? if she doesn't die how many rich bastards is she going to take with her?
she will "kill herself"
duplicate thread: >>661184

(223.90 KB 1440x900 warhol-mao-2.jpg)
Maoist movie reviews Anonymous 07/05/2020 (Sun) 03:24:55 No. 667400 [Reply] [Last]
Blast from the past for you Commie-Zoomers. https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/movies/
13 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>667413 they dissolved in 2008 but their prison chapter still exists
Based af
Since when are Maoism and Feminism compatible?
>>669795 since ever
>>667440 >Mother Courage and Her Children is a play written by the German anti- militarist Bertolt Brecht during World War II. The title character tries everything she can in the context of war and capitalism to keep her children alive, but by the end of the play, war has killed them all. The play was intended as a critique of Mother Courage and a reminder that suffering the horrors of war was not enough to teach people how to avoid it in the future. When it premiered in the rubble of Berlin after the war, however, audiences hailed Mother Courage as a heroic character, indicative of the persistence of ordinary Germans to carry on with their lives as they always had despite the trauma of defeat. >Although perhaps intended to challenge oppressor-nation complacency, as Mother Courage was, Grave never goes beyond sentimental humanism. Interesting point here. I wonder how they would view Takahata's Ponpoko, which has a more anti-colonial bent, though mixed with a pessimism that they would surely criticize.

(280.67 KB 1055x1622 ceaucescu.jpg)
Anonymous 07/06/2020 (Mon) 00:13:25 No. 669224 [Reply] [Last]
Was Ceausescu nazbol?
15 posts and 3 images omitted.
>>669702 >Define Nazbol One who renders proper tribute to the Nazbol gods, preferably through the human sacrifice of 100 white liberals.
>>669659 elaborate??
idk he makes liberals seethe he's cool
>>669674 NAM is, frankly, the closest thing to nazbol I can think of irl.


no cookies?