/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

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. IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(300.81 KB 969x720 1584390095075.jpg)
/leftybritpol/ - Difficulty breathing edition Anonymous 03/18/2020 (Wed) 08:09:03 No. 373107 [Reply] [Last]
Money printer go brrrrr, lungs don't go at all
502 posts and 35 images omitted.
>>378475 It benefits both Britain and Ireland. Britain gets a cheap labour colony to practice military tactics, Irish capitalists get to incite hatred between Britain and Ireland's workers.
>>378482 By 'people' I meant everyone who is under a landlord.
>>378566 >Britain gets a cheap labour colony Ireland has a higher minimum wage than Britain
>>378607 This >>378566 What you're saying may have made some small degree of sense 150 years ago but not now. Regarding the recent troubles I'm pretty sure militant republicans and loyalists were quite good at drumming up hatred all by themselves. It was certainly of no benefit to British or Irish capitalists. It's primarily an ethnic/religious identity issue at this point with little relevance to marxism or left wing politics.
(86.39 KB 663x394 Njuyggr.jpg)
Based Burgon

What Leftist Ideologies are Relevent still? Anonymous 03/13/2020 (Fri) 23:34:32 No. 356055 [Reply] [Last]
Obviously, most of the ideological tendencies of Leftism aren't totally applicable to our modern material conditions; A carbon copy of the Paris Commune or the Bolsheviks or the Chinese Communists would not work in most modern countries (outside of, say, the most maldeveloped countries in Africa). So, what specific tactics and forms of organization are still relevant to our modern conditions of global, late-stage capitalism?
33 posts and 5 images omitted.
>>356163 mind if i ask what your ideology is anon?
(531.57 KB 2250x2167 1575503262639.png)
>>377665 I am a Stratocrat. Stratocracy is a rather in depth topic. However at it's most basic level, it is the organisation of society in such a way as to maximise efficiency. This maximisation of efficiency naturally leads to a maximisation of production, which in itself leads to a minimisation of scarcity. Without the spectre of scarcity haunting humanity, we will finally be free to live our lives to the fullest and enjoy true, shared luxury. The maximisation of human happiness is effectively our desired end-state.
>>356055 Whatever the fuck Mao was doing, really bad results. Maoism seems okay though
>>356055 Really authoritarian eco-communism may be good when the ecological collapse hits

Anonymous 03/19/2020 (Thu) 15:37:28 No. 377845 [Reply] [Last]
Are there any unironic communalists on this board or is Bookchin just a big fat meme?
11 posts omitted.
>>377897 >Would we have managed to stop identity politics by now? Could bernie have won? Maybe. Lol'd way too hard at this.
I moved from platformism/Communalism to left-communism (party-oriented). >>378084 Democratic confederalism is Communalism adapted from its initial context of an industrialized republic (like the US) to instead fit the conditions of contemporary Syria. They pulled a Lenin (adding a capitalist phase before the communistic mode Bookchin described in his revolutionary theory)...
>>377845 there used to be until late 2017/early 2018 when the board split. Bookchin was a meme but most of the former bookchinists became councilcoms because its the same thing but better and without bookchins retarded ideas on localism

(543.89 KB 1320x999 prol.jpg)
questions about class Anonymous 03/19/2020 (Thu) 12:08:52 No. 377171 [Reply] [Last]
How many classes are there in total? What do they do and are there moments when its hard to tell to which class someone belongs?
102 posts and 3 images omitted.
This is part of an article I wrote for the old Marxistpedia site: Marx did not provide a simple definition of class. He used the term loosely, often as a substitute for "faction", "group", or "layer". In one text Marx even uses the terms "ruling class" and "ruling faction" interchangeably.[1] In the Manifesto he speaks of class as "various orders", "social ranks", and even the broad category of "oppressor and oppressed".[2] But Marx's use of the term did imply a certain relationship between specific classes and society as a whole. For example, in Capital vol.3 Marx defines the "three big classes of modern society" in terms of ownership: the owners of labour power, the owners of capital, and land-owners. Unfortunately, Marx's analysis of why these three groups constituted distinct classes was never completed before his death.[3] Definitions of class based on ownership would predominate in the 20th century. Marx's concept of class was deeply tied to his theory of history and human society. In a 1852 letter, Marx wrote: Now as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.[4] In Wage Labour and Capital, Marx describes the growth of social relations, and thus classes, out of material production: "In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place."[5] In Capital vol.3, Marx wrote: "The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers — a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity — which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state."[6]
Lenin's definition provided a direct yet nuanced concept of class incorporating a mixture of ownership, social roles, and ability to appropriate surplus labor. Lenin wrote: "Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy."[7] In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky offered the following definition of "class": "Classes are characterized by their position in the social system of economy, and primarily by their relation to the means of production. In civilized societies, property relations are validated by laws."[8] Trotsky resisted the idea that a bureaucracy, such as that which existed in the Soviet Union, could be a class in the Marxist sense of the word. "The class has an exceptionally important and, moreover, a scientifically restricted meaning to a Marxist. A class is defined not by its participation in the distribution of the national income alone, but by its independent role in the general structure of the economy and by its independent roots in the economic foundation of society. Each class (the feudal nobility, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, the capitalist bourgeoisie and the proletariat) works out its own special forms of property. The bureaucracy lacks all these social traits. It has no independent position in the process of production and distribution. It has no independent property roots."[9] Trotsky further argued that the Soviet bureaucracy was not a class, but a "caste". It existed not by exploitation of the working class but by "parasitism". "Nevertheless, the privileges of the bureaucracy by themselves do not change the bases of the Soviet society, because the bureaucracy derives its privileges not from any special property relations peculiar to it as a “class,” but from those property relations that have been created by the October Revolution and that are fundamentally adequate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. To put it plainly, insofar as the bureaucracy robs the people (and this is done in various ways by every bureaucracy), we have to deal not with class exploitation, in the scientific sense of the word, but with social parasitism, although on a very large scale."[10]
An extended examination of class is presented in Nikolai Bukharin's work on historical materialism. In this account, Bukharin conceptualizes class relationships as being a relationship between persons but expressed in things. Bukharin divides class into two basic categories in human production - those who command and those who execute. "A social class - we have seen - is the aggregate of persons playing the same part in production, standing in the same relation toward other persons in the production process, these relations being also expressed in things (instruments of labor). [...] "why are the persons who are united in a class reproduced as a class? How comes it that - let us say - in capitalist society certain types of income exist? What is the cause for the stability of these "types of income"? The mere putting of these questions shows the true statement of affairs. This stability depends on the relation to the means of production, which, in turn, express the relation between men in the process of production. [...] "The basic classes of a given social form (classes in the proper sense of the word) are two in number: on the one hand, the class which commands, monopolizing the instruments of production; on' the other hand, the executing class, with no means of production, which works for the former. The specific form of this relation of economic exploitation and servitude determines the form of the, given class society." [11] Bukharin's account also includes a short discussion of class and caste: "A class, as we have seen, is a category of persons united by a common role in the production process, a totality in which each member has about the same relative position with regard to the other functions in the production process. A social caste, on the other hand, is a group of persons united by their common position in the juristic or legal order of society. Landlords are a class; the nobility are a caste; the great landlords are defined by a common production type, not so the nobility." [12]
In his work Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, Cohen advances a "structural definition of class. Cohen wrote: "It defines the class with reference to the position of its members in the economic structure, their effective rights and duties within it. A person's class is established by nothing but his objective place in the network of ownership relations, however difficult it may be to identify such places neatly. His consciousness, culture, and politics do not enter the definition of his class position."[13] It should be noticed that Cohen's definition of class, while relying upon the idea of ownership, defines ownership as "not a legal relationship but one of effective control."[14] Richard Wolff and Stephen Resnick advanced the concept of a "surplus labor notion of class", or a "class-qua-surplus" definition. In this theory, the concept of class is defined in terms of different means of "appropriation and distribution of surplus labor." Wolff and Resnick contrast their interpretation of the Marxist theory of class with competing definitions based on ownership and power.[15] Class, in these terms, in conceived of more as a process than a rigid category or rank within society. "As we read Marx's work, class is one distinct process among the many that constitute life. The class process is that "in which unpaid surplus labor is pumped out of direct producers" (Marx 1967a: 3, 791)." [...] "Processes never exist alone; they do not occur by themselves. Rather, the concept of process is an analytical device to pinpoint the constituent aspects of relationships in society. Particular relationships are understood, defined as particular sets of processes."[16] Wolff and Resnick, on the basis of their class-qua-surplus definition, reject entirely that countries like the former Soviet Union achieved communism or even a socialist transition to communism.[17]
>>378280 it got retracted, i can still post, also its not porn, its not supposed to be arousing, it supposed to be a joke, and again she is clearly not under aged

The Time Has Come - Posadism General /pg/ Anonymous 02/17/2020 (Mon) 19:11:56 No. 283188 [Reply] [Last]
While certain terrestialist comrades on here have been following national elections, those of us upholding the mantra of Intergalactic Socialism have been celebrating. As some of you may know, elements of the Pentagon's top secret UFO project have been leaked. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30916275/government-secret-ufo-program-investigation/ Among the many revelations coming from this leak are: >The Pentagon doesn't describe UFO footage as being the aircraft of a foreign, terrestial nation. >The U.S. government is still studying UFOs >UFOs are evidently studying America's nuclear capabilities. In our lifetime, one way or another, we will finally meet our comrades from beyond the stars. As Socialists, we must do whatever we can to contact our galactic comrades with one simple request: that they invade our world and exterminate the bourgeoisie. Aliens are the only Vanguard that truly stands outside history, it's our duty to assist them with whatever they need. AD ASTRA PER ASPERA!
117 posts and 25 images omitted.
>>334884 Well for the communication problem I been tackling, scientists have an idea of how to communicate with the space comrades. Using Binary code which we would assuming the comrades would know how to us. Could translate the binary into whatever form of language they use to get an idea of what we are speaking up. Well Space is supposed to be neutral and basically one giant DMZ around Earth. For good reason though, despite the fact that if you sent nukes into space it wouldn't contaminate the Earth as there is plenty of radiation. >>334887 This is going into the idea of deep meditation to contact the beings telepathically? If so how would you even be able to talk with them, since you have no idea what they are speaking nor would they understand you. So there is that problem, its like that here on our own little Planet. Where we have a hard time talking with someone from a different country with a different mother tongue if we aren't already fluent. This is a best example of the communication problem right here.
>>290746 So where did the "The posadists believe that socialism can only be build after the nuclear holocaust or by nuking the US" I genuinely believed on this because there were posadists in Cuba that wanted to escalate a nuclear war with the US or something like that (that castro didn't go far enough)
>>336686 Basically the idea came during the height of the Cold War, where nuclear War seemed like it be a way to destroy captialism at that point. This is also during the time where there was the Soviet Union unlike now where there is no strong leftist country promoting the idea. But what you mention about the Cuban Posadist is correct, they wanted a nuclear war to happen as back then the World wasn't as globalized and thus hampering the United States in a first strike scenario seemed the best optics for spreading the revolution. But when this didn't occur they became angry with Castro for not accelerating the issue, and blamed the Soviet Union for backing off as well. But now that seems impossible without a strong Leftist country to promote the ideals. China is too busy dealing with its own country than spreading any sort of revolution and the other countries that lived after the Soviet Dissolution are heavily sanctioned by the United States. The conditions have changed and Nuclear War isn't going to happen until a breaking point where Porky can no longer make profits off the dying planet.
do you think china is secretly posadist? maybe they made the virus

(45.66 KB 500x389 Facebook-9df216.png)
Anyone able to do a detailed class breakdown for feudal and slave societies? Anonymous 03/19/2020 (Thu) 15:41:35 No. 377859 [Reply] [Last]
Really liked this >>377273 anon's answer that defined the different classes and subclasses in capitalist society beyond just porkies and wagies, hoping someone can do a similar breakdown for past forms of society
Try asking in >>>/roulette/

Anonymous 03/19/2020 (Thu) 06:34:06 No. 376891 [Reply] [Last]
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.
>>376891 Take it here, bub: >>362972
>>377763 brother
>help randoms Let's save the coms first

(114.84 KB 1032x659 election night.jpg)
How Do We Destroy the Democratic Party? Anonymous 03/18/2020 (Wed) 23:18:10 No. 376000 [Reply] [Last]
Democrats are bungling Coronavirus response in real time, all while fucking over voters under 45. Surely this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to blow it up for good? I know Jacobin/DSA are currently lacking leadership on this front, but if we rally behind Green party or a Tulsi independent run it could force a political crisis.
53 posts and 8 images omitted.
>>376957 They're not political parties; any electoral measures they take are fully cooperative with the DNC. They're Sheepdogs
>>376940 >Voters don't trust them to run the country but they will trust the socialists to fix the potholes. Meanwhile electoralist for 100th time in a row >no no no guys we can totally turn existing parties socialist. what if Bernie and Corbyn failed? We can totally turn gop socialist now. Trump and Boris are totally /ourguys/
>>377379 Because it benefits atm, when it doesn't (which no one seems to think it is).
>>376000 The Democratic party already is destroyed
It seems the Democratic Party is at it's Whigs moment or close to it at this point

(202.95 KB 1080x1080 EDdPpsRXoAI6Tt1.jpg)
/Agitprop/ General Anonymous 01/11/2020 (Sat) 04:00:16 No. 208286 [Reply] [Last]
A thread for sharing agitprop in all forms you've found or created yourself as well as any tips, tricks and general advice for creating and spreading agitprop online and offline.
75 posts and 40 images omitted.
>>229851 This is excellent comrade, I think you've identified a lot of powerful, pragmatic ideas to elevate class consciousness. >We break it down: >democracy >ownership of our tools >Basically those are the things we need to convince people: to demand actual democracy, meaning democracy in our workplace (control of MoP) and over our lives (housing councils, consumer coops); and to demand that we own the tools we use. That's it. This in particular is well-suited to awakening the revolutionary potential of burgers. I know they're dismissed around here, but it reminds me of Democracy at Work
>>215084 good but very broad can be twisted to muh ethical consumerism
>>216641 the thing looks like cancer because almost every other word is in a different size

(2.72 MB 1920x1080 saitama.png)
Anonymous 03/19/2020 (Thu) 13:47:51 No. 377447 [Reply] [Last]
Can we just reflect on the chad shit Trump is doing right now that Obama wasn't willing to do in 2008. He is suspending mortgage foreclosures, likely sending out checks that his administration suggested would be $1,000 a month AT MINIMUM, and invoking war powers to force private companies to produce needed supplies. Yeah sure, he is sending hundreds of billions to business owners and probably bailing out shitty companies like Boeing, he isn't a communist, but he is making liberals look like centrist retards with how quickly he is willing to hit all the emergency levers. If he actually runs to the left of Biden and wins after this crisis it is going to be insane.
biden's right-winged enough that it's easy to "run to the left" of him. and he'll remove all these measures after he wins re-election
>>377447 >chad >d*mpf pick one assmunch


no cookies?