/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/

Althusser being destroyed Anonymous 11/21/2020 (Sat) 14:52:52 No. 1157560 [Reply] [Last]
Since it is held in this way, Marxism cannot avoid fluctuating between representing the superstructure as the mere reflection of the base, and representing the superstructure as the very determinant of social organization. He makes this fluctuation a single piece, stating that the base determines the superstructure but, in turn, the superstructure determines the base, but the base determines the superstructure ultimately, but the superstructure has a relative autonomy with an instance dominant, until this string of stated determinations comes to an end with the name "overdetermination." But what is really determining, whatever the instance? What is a relative autonomy? Perhaps the autonomy that a dog has on a chain? (This is not a joke, but a statement actually posted once). Marxism has no answer to these questions, beyond calling a "dialectical relationship" by jumping from the base to the superstructure, and from the superstructure to the base. And not a single step is taken towards the unfolding of the very development of the real need by representing it as a matter of the base "producing" the superstructure and the superstructure "helping" the base; or the mutual "assembly" of the structure "conditioning or limiting" the action, and the action or strategy "recursively reproducing or transforming" the structure or society; 60o that the material productive forces of society have "primacy" on the relations of production and that action is "functional" to the structure "through human rationality", or of social being and social consciousness mediated by "experience." Thus, it is not surprising that all this ends up producing the conception that, since everything determines everything and is determined by everything, conscious revolutionary action must give way to action based on ideology, that is, to its own negation.
20 posts and 2 images omitted.
This thread teaches the basics of dialectics.
>>1159038 I dislike the notion of "tool box" just like i dislike the "theoretical phramework" here: "It may also appear that the revolutionary powers of the working class cannot spring from the subsumption of the worker in capital but, on the contrary, from outside it. From this point of view, it would seem that if capital were the one that determined the workers' consciousness, if it were the whole in the determination of the working class, it should not find strength to liberate from it. It would thus appear that the ability of the working class to overcome the capitalist mode of production can only come from its "autonomy" from it. However, capital is the general social relationship of the working class, that is, the general way in which it - whether it wants it or not - organizes the social production of its life. And this general social relation of his has been inverted as the concrete objectified subject of social production. Capital determines both the working class and its attribute that it is capable of depriving a growing part of it of its natural life. Thus, in order to have a revolutionary power alien to the capitalist mode of production that could impose on it, the working class would have to be the bearer of an even more general social relationship than this mode of production, from which that power arose. Or, put another way, capital should not be the general social relation of the working class, but a concrete form of a way of organizing the production of human life more generic than itself. As it is more than evident that such a social relationship does not exist, the conceptions about the autonomy of the workers' conscience follow two paths. The first consists in founding the revolutionary powers of the working class in a libertarian or egalitarian spirit, a desire to recover the "meaning" of work, imputed to an abstract human nature. Spirits and desires that are adorned with enough power to bypass the way in which humanity has actually been able to organize its material life up to the present. Thus, the "self-valorization" that Negri proposes to the working class arises by case.10 The second way consists in reducing the supposed autonomy of the workers' consciousness to the condition of "relative". The whole secret of relative autonomy comes down to affirming that the accumulation of capital determines the workers 'consciousness, but that, in turn, the workers' consciousness influences the accumulation of capital, although this determines it in the last instance. Thus, the consciousness of the working class has ceased to be a necessary concrete way of realizing the general social relationship. This unit has ideally been replaced by an exterior back and forth. So much so that the attempt to explain the relative autonomy by the movement of a dog chained to a post can be done. Along this path, it ends up concluding that everything determines everything and, therefore, that nothing determines nothing. Thus erasing all real necessity, one goes on to affirm, as Althusser does, that revolutionary action is one provided with a revolutionary "doctrine", and that this is such if it promotes revolutionary action. capitalist production appears to have its need reduced to the abstract development of consciousness.
>>1158914 >path dependence is woowoo >>1159682 >eschatology is not woowoo
>>1159682 >i dislike shit nobody cares
If John wins four boxing matches against Thomas and loses one match, that means John winning against Thomas is not set in stone, it doesn't make them equal. That it can go both ways doesn't imply equality. Base and superstructure influence each other, but the base is more important than the superstructure. That said: One can ask, even while accepting inequality between the two concepts, did Marx and Engels exaggerate this inequality? Consider that a lot of what they wrote was in opposition to very idealistic people, trying to pull readers away from that. I recall old Engels making a statement to that effect, though I can't give you a citation. I believe there is another reason to focus on the base: There are numbers everywhere in it, which makes it easier to scientifically investigate. one can look at the tons of oil a country sells, but measuring strength of spiritual sentiments or something like that looks tricky to impossible.

(55.18 KB 849x685 1604244703157.jpg)
Soviet Constructivism Anonymous 11/21/2020 (Sat) 23:42:57 No. 1158975 [Reply] [Last]
Let's have a thread for the coolest socialist art style. I respect socialist realism but constructivsm will always be number one for me.
>>1158975 This Artwort in Particular is quite good, but I don't think the Movements was the superior one to Socialist Realism
>>1158975 Is Moholy-Nagy welcome?
I've been wanting to get a hold of books on not just constructivism, but the russian avant-garde in general. Here is my tentative reading list: >Russian Art of the Avant-garde: Theory and Criticism, 1902-1934 by John Ellis Bowlt >Malevich Writes: A Theory of Creativity, Cubism to Suprematism by Patricia Railing >Russian Dada 1914-1924 by Margarita Tupitsyn >Art and Production by Boris Arvatov (Edited by John Roberts and Alexei Penzin) >Constructivism by Aleksei Gan (Translated by Christina Lodder) >Russian Constructivism by Christina Lodder >Making Modernism Soviet: The Russian Avant-Garde in the Early Soviet Era, 1918-1928 by Pamela Kachurin >Imagine No Possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism by Christina Kiaer >Gan's Constructivism: Aesthetic Theory for an Embedded Modernism by Kristin Romberg >Tatlin's Tower: Monument to Revolution by Norbert Lynton >The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution by Maria Gough I suspect some of these might be superfluous. If there's anything I should add, or remove, then I'm open to suggestions.
Constructivism will always be the best socialist architecture movement, compared to its retarded brother brutalism and asshole cousin 'socialist realism'. >>1159659 You should get Richard Pare's book, it's got a lot of pictures and makes for a good coffee table book. My favorite is the bread factory he describes halfway through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzP8MBOb1Yg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MfJv9QlXVDo Video by Then&Now concerning Russian Art Movements. If you can blend out the constant "Stalin is a Totalitarian Overlord" then it is a good video

(30.93 KB 460x522 1605864327664.jpg)
Subversion and infiltration Anonymous 11/21/2020 (Sat) 17:46:13 No. 1157949 [Reply] [Last]
How viable is subversion as a strategy? This is not a serious thread just a thought experiment. How viable is becoming a porker under capitalism and then subverting the system by infiltrating literally everything by buying everyone? Having people in Education, justice, military in the pocket?
6 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>1158158 Power is seized collectively for the common good
>>1158158 By inducing the proles to realize that they are the ones that hold all the power. Or, you can ditch the proles, and try to work in the system, which is geared towards fooling proles into giving up their power. So, either be a revolutionary, or a reactionary.
Idk how we are going to subvert anything without any weapons though
>>1159495 Stop larping Christianity
the whole point is that working class cannot easily become a porky the system will be destroyed due to contradiction of capital individual bourgeois behaving ethically will not change anything.

(1.49 MB 640x496 globalism.webm)
globalism vs nationalism Anonymous 11/22/2020 (Sun) 05:24:55 No. 1159442 [Reply] [Last]
I don't really like the idea of nationalism, but I have no knowledge on this sort of thing, so of course, when I said this out loud to a group of rightoids they called me a globalist elite supporter. Anyways. Do you guys have any readings on this? is one more efficient for leftism? Kind of confused
200 posts and 21 images omitted.
>>1160025 Have you ever talked to a migrant worker let alone organized them son?
Also: >200 comments of fighting on globalism vs nationalism <Nobody linking Cockshott's videos on immigration Here you are, OP watch this to grasp the TRUE socialist policies on borders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2zJjJJh_tU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtmfuRzEcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2x9WiWEQKg
>>1160016 >Restricting labour supply for First World Porky forcing him to push for automation which in turn crushes profit rates, while Thrid World states maintain their educated people with no brain drain <Not being a socialist praxis Freedom of movement is neoliberal shit, end of discussion.
>>1159717 I mean the type that was pro unification when Germany was nothing but a bunch of feudal states
>>1159731 t. eco-idealist/fash

(956.86 KB 3888x2592 slices-of-sourdough-bread.jpg)
Mods are asleep Anonymous 11/14/2020 (Sat) 06:12:19 No. 1132002 [Reply] [Last]
Post high resolution pictures of bread
I am awake now
27 posts and 18 images omitted.
Under Communism, dark rye bread and sourdough will be the only types of bread allowed, for these are the people's bread
(119.80 KB 1728x1728 IMG_1582-2.jpeg)
>>1132078 Whole wheat
*saves your thread
locked, also joke ban

(381.27 KB 604x565 3d5v1k.png)
Anonymous 11/22/2020 (Sun) 02:03:35 No. 1159209 [Reply] [Last]
What's the purpose of leftist theory? Isn't this a group of people who are famously 'theorized-out'? When the sum of U.S leftism is voting for Joe Biden -- and this was the landing zone for Chapos, Jacobins, Current Affairs, some of you... -- What exactly is the point? What class mechanism are you upholding? Is it proletariat? No. They're not interested in your fag talk. Even your real world activism is blatantly anti-working class, ineffective, and classist. Aren't you just using "Theory" and regrouping yourself as 'another type of socialist' because you're embarrassed? If you're serious, why do none of you turn theory into policy papers? There are plenty of ignored policy papers, but a lot of the leftist ones are things like the Green New Deal. Your philosophy and niche is never translated into useful, concrete ideas and that's a serious mark of failure. You realize this is your hobby right? That's what it is, your theory occupies the class dynamic of well-read personal punditry. It's a game. In terms of political relevant you're obsessive MMO gamers that never log off. Why haven't you run for office? City Council? Treasury? Parks? Anything? Your full-time occupation is leftist politics and you haven't run for office of any kind, and many of you think it's not worth doing because playing your politic mmo all day is more important. The most popular politicians avoid this shit like the plague, and there's no question that there's a causal relationship there. Popularity is everything. Whether you're a general, a community leader, or a political force you cannot do anything without making the culture of your ideas available to everyone. You're doing the opposite. Yuo're talking like a fag in a corner with your useless faggot friends, people don't even know what this shithole is. If they do, or they read your shitty tweets or reddit posts or youtube comments - they see you as a loser, completely out of touch. Bernie, Corbyn, etc. They don't act like you or talk like you, or talk like faggots. If you're sperging out right now because their 'ideology' is bad - you do not have a mind for politics. popular is what matters. building is what matters. Getting the fascist vote, the online retard vote, the white woman vote, the tech vote, the jobs-and-factories lost to immigration and labor relocation vote, they're all important. Only losers play to their friends, gaining the vote of leftist or impressing other leftists is the least important thing you could possibly do.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

15 posts omitted.
>>1159232 You dont need capital to understand theory. Just read wage labour and capital, and listen to talks explaining capital in simpler terms.
Shit thread >fag fag fag >ure fags >why dont you run to win >blah blah blah Because most far leftists know and do the following >we wont win a majority under current conditions >political power is grounded in being able to assert force and violence. For the bourgoiesie that is through the police, for the left that is through unions and strikes >if we do not have real political power (unions etc), we are still subject to all of the political power held by the bourgoiesie that isnt part of the elected office. The elected office has been declining in actual power since world war 2 in the entire west, more and more of its power has been transferred to non democratic institutions or private corporations and lastly >given the facts above, electoral politics is just one of the avenues we can use, but we should not aim to parttake coalitions as a minority group as principled opposition is more usefull than compromising on basic positions.
>>1159259 >there are [things] >no examples what a waste of bandwidth
>>1159232 Read Arguments for socialism by Cockshott, it's way less dense and has all you need
Anchored Reason: absolutely horrible, irredeemable garbage OP

(104.33 KB 640x427 albania1997guns.jpg)
Amnesties Anonymous 11/20/2020 (Fri) 13:21:04 No. 1154980 [Reply] [Last]
After the revolution in russia, 10s of thousands of people were given amnesty. If it happened in the US, who would you give amnesy to? What kinds of people?
13 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>1158497 Ah, I see.
>>1158501 Well, part of this has to do with it isn't punishment necessarily per se, but simply a method of removing dangerous individuals. So it's not really meant as a way to punish these people, but just as way to silence them, be it through arrest or execution.
>>1158509 Yeah I agree with the goal of removing or incapacitating dangerous individuals. I would generally try to avoid execution though.
>>1158443 >mostly contained in the Marxist-Leninist tendency don't.
>>1158488 you dont have to add /s this isnt reddit where niggas cant take an obvious joke

(101.72 KB 480x341 nebezhin-nemov-proletarians.jpg)
Why is the Proletariat the revolutionary class? Anonymous 11/09/2020 (Mon) 21:14:05 No. 1113099 [Reply] [Last]
I haven't read much but I'm confused as to why Marx and others conceived of the proletariat as the class that would overthrow capitalism. If we look at history through a materialist lense it seems to me that it's only been a third propertied class overthrows the current system of production, not the people without property. For example, it wasn't slaves that overthrew slavery, it was landlords. It wasn't serfs that overthrew feudalism, it was the bourgeoisie. Every revolution calling itself socialist that actually took state power was led by petit-bourgeois intellectuals like Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Fidel Castro and manned mostly not by workers, but by peasants in a semi-colonial semi-feudal relationship to the means of production. Most proletarian movements in advanced capitalist societies have been reformist and class collaborationist. Proles are entirely reliant on the global supply chains since they don't grow their own food or make their own medicine, most would starve if a civil war started. How, after all of this evidence, can we say that the proletariat is the revolutionary class? How can you say the workers have nothing to lose but their chains when they need capitalism to keep going so they can have running water, electricity, the grocery store, the pharmacy, and the spectacle to keep them alive, let alone comfortable?
76 posts and 7 images omitted.
>>1155465 This is not the conclusion Lenin reached: > The New Economic Policy means substituting a tax for the requisitioning of food; it means reverting to capitalism to a considerable extent—to what extent we do not know. Concessions to foreign capitalists (true, only very few have been accepted, especially when compared with the number we have offered) and leasing enterprises to private capitalists definitely mean restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy; for the abolition of the surplus-food appropriation system means allowing the peasants to trade freely in their surplus agricultural produce, in whatever is left over after the tax is collected—and the tax~ takes only a small share of that produce. The peasants constitute a huge section of our population and of our entire economy, and that is why capitalism must grow out of this soil of free trading. >That is the very ABC of economics as taught by the rudiments of that science, and in Russia taught, furthermore, by the profiteer, the creature who needs no economic or political science to teach us economics with. From the point of view of strategy the root question is: who will take advantage of the new situation first? The whole question is—whom will the peasantry follow? The proletariat, which wants to build socialist society? Or the capitalist, who says, 'Let us turn back; it is safer that way; we don’t know anything about this socialism they have invented.'? Lenin knew no country, especially a backward country like Russia, could bypass capitalism.
>>1156942 >This is not the conclusion Lenin reached: But Stalin reached. >Lenin knew no country, especially a backward country like Russia, could bypass capitalism. Bypass and overthrow, these are two different concepts. The Russia of today is different from the Russia of 1917. Nowadays the Russia is a country which has the 90% of socialist mode of production. Without slave immigrants, the Russian capitalist class would have been overthrown by proletariat. Unfortunately, with profits declining overall across the world capitalist system, Russia is less and less attractive to immigrants because it is not at the core of the system. When there are no more immigrants, the correlation of forces will be tilted in favor of the proletariat overwhelmingly. Only miracles will help the Russian capitalist class survive after 2030.
>>1157116 >The Russia of today is different from the Russia of 1917 Yes. More than 100 years later, everywhere is different from 1917. Capitalism is different too. Today, we do not face the material obstacles to communism we faced then. Today, the problem is us, not the material conditions.
>>1157788 >Capitalism is different too. It is decaying. >Today, the problem is us, not the material conditions. Human consciousness is also a form of matter. So is the social consciousness. Because of optimization for profit, the capitalist class will not be able to lead society to overcome environmental disasters (diseases, floods, pollution, ...). If the proletariat does not rise to overthrow the impotent rulers, human society will collapse.
>Every revolution calling itself socialist that actually took state power The key word here is "calling itself" they weren't actually socialist. And being led by (petite) bourgeois is exactly why those movements failed. If we ever want a successful revolution it will have to be democratically led by workers, not by millionaires and billionaires.

Anonymous 11/22/2020 (Sun) 07:14:15 No. 1159521 [Reply] [Last]
can somebody post the mega links to that Ernst Thaelmann movie again? pretty plz?
>>1159521 Is it "Ernst Thälmann: Sohn Seiner Klasse"? If so, here's a youtube link(though it's only partially subbed in english): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulakrb05LgM
Here is the second part "Führer Seiner Klasse", but it has no subtitles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NinS7MIvDL8

Anonymous 11/20/2020 (Fri) 02:01:19 No. 1153638 [Reply] [Last]
>If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease What did German students mean by this?
44 posts and 7 images omitted.
students = fascists
>>1158302 >cops shooting fash literally does not happen
>>1157127 >>1158302 Let me guess, you got mad when finding out Orwell reported MLs to the police.
>>1158302 >I'll still applaud cops shooting fash. When?
>>1158302 >student rioters are fash now Never change /leftypol/

Delete
Report

no cookies?