[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1693578419130.jpg ( 43.51 KB , 680x472 , infrared-haz-is-unironical….jpg )

 No.472952

No wander leftypol spazzes out at the mention of him

>PROVING LEFTISM IS A RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY.


>On the face of it, it seems completely contradictory to call leftism right-wing. The midwits responding to this will definitely try and remind you of that.


>But at some point in the course of Western history, people forgot about the actual historical tradition of left-wing politics entirely, confusing it for a newer ideology: Leftism.


>The key distinction lies in the 'ism' part of Leftism. In contrast to left-wing politics, leftism is itself an ideology rather than a political position. Jacobinism, Sandinismo, Mao Zedong Thought, etc. for example, can be called ideologies, which are left-wing in political content.


>Leftism, by contrast, is only left-wing in form. In content, it is actually right-wing. And this can be proven easily.


>Instead of referring to any actual concrete left-wing politics, leftism should be understood as a comprehension of the historical left taken in a purely abstract way - a meta-narrative of left-wing politics, if you will.


>This is what makes it outside the actual left-wing: In order to turn left-wing politics into a total IDEAL, you need a necessary conceptual distance from it which is only possible if you are, in fact, a right-winger.


>By contrast, if you are concretely left-wing in political orientation, such an abstraction is meaningless. You are caught up in the ACTUAL CONTENT of a left-wing position.


>Historically, left-wing politics is defined by circumstance and context. It is often defined by political movements making concrete demands - the most common being land reform, nationalization of industry, national independence, political representation, fighting corruption, etc.


>It has nothing to do with some 'idea' of 'leftism.' It has to do with being part of a political movement whose demands or goals happen to align it as left-wing in actual content.


>What are the origins of Leftism?


>During the post-war period of the West, particularly Western Europe, the cold war was well underway. There was more or less an international political division.


>You had a real international left - aligned with the Soviet Union or China, that was characterized by a push toward national independence, land reform, political sovereignty, economic justice, and worker's rights.


>Within the West, you had a strong left-wing political tradition, characterized by an active worker's movement, which tried to keep moneyed interests in check by protecting, safeguarding and furthering the gains of the working class.


>But in the West, you also had a younger generation which, for the first time, seemed relatively homogeneous in class character. Widespread public access to universities and other institutions created a lot of mingling between the children of different social classes.


>This created an environment where children of the elites, whose parents were often times extremely right-wing, establishment cold warriors who even had connections to the state security apparatus itself - started to rebel against their parents and all authority.


>The student movement was led by these children, whose fascination with the international left stemmed from a more underlying desire to rebel against their parents and the norms of society more generally.


>LEFTISM: POLITICAL SATANISM


>Being raised in households and coming from backgrounds where the international left and world Communism was being routinely demonized, children of the ruling class started to pretend to adopt this ideology just to spite their own parents.


>Very similar to how adolescent teenagers, or punk-rock bands become interested in 'satanism' to rebel against their Christian parents.


>Something rather strange happened. The right-wing elites created a STRAW MAN of Communism - calling it insane, destructive, evil and even satanic in order to dupe workers.


>But their rebellious children adopted this straw man, at face value, and started identifying with it directly. Students began to try and comprehend the international left, and the historical left-wing politics, as a holistic and total tradition.


>In events like France's May 68', these students would start to compete with one and another, and at every turn 'out-leftist' the other. This arms race of fashionable posturing is what created 'leftism' in the West as we know it.


>Students began to revive all sorts of bizarre, dead ideologies - like Bakunin's 19th century anarchism, or 'left communism' - while others tried to directly identify with more radical revolutionary trends in the world like Mao's cultural revolution, which they had no real connection to, knowledge of, or resemblance to in their own activities whatsoever.


>French New Wave filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard, for example, keeping up with the fashions of the time, tried to create a film praising Mao's cultural revolution. When the actual Chinese saw this film, they thought it was so degenerate, hideous and disgusting that he nearly killed himself.

(Lol)

>LEFTISM: A RIGHT-WING CARICATURE OF THE LEFT


>These students were not part of any authentic left-wing political tradition. They were just turning it into some kind of fashionable trend, and adopting it as a straw-man.


>They were taking all of the right's slander, mis-characterization, and demonization of the international left at face value and started identifying with it openly. When they were stupid enough to try and meet with actual left-wing figureheads around the world - the latter were so puzzled, confused, and baffled at the lunacy of these Western 'leftists.'


>At the end of the day, left-wing politics entailed positions that scared the shit out of vested, powerful interests. Land reform, nationalizing natural resources and major industries, preventing bankers from looting the entire wealth of a country, fighting on behalf of worker's interests - these kinds of demands DIRECTLY THREATENED the power of the ruling class.


>The ruling class attempted to divert from these SIMPLE, CONCRETE demands by castigating the left as immoral, satanic, anti-Christian, anti-family, and overall degenerate. And it was THEIR OWN CHILDREN who fulfilled the role of CONFIRMING these baseless accusations against the left, by proudly wearing the costume of this caricature.


>Because of this confusion - all political leaders of the worker's movements in the West eventually succumbed to this ideological anarchy. With a weakened leadership, the gains of the working class were almost entirely overturned, and all the 'leftists' grew up to become neoliberal yuppies getting rich off the stock market.


>The working class lost leadership, and worst of all, lost any ideological clarity. Much of the working class was drawn STRAIGHT into the arms of the RIGHT-WING, just because of how distasteful they found the 'leftists.' We saw this with Nixon's moral majority, or how De Gaulle in France actually became MORE popular than before after 68'.


>SO-CALLED 'WOKE LEFTISM'


>But were it not bad enough, this is something that continues to happen regularly. As soon as any semblance of calls for economic justice gain steam, somehow and mysteriously - people from Yale, Harvard, and other Ivy Leagues start shitting it up with 'identity politics.'


>We saw this as recently with the Bernie Sanders movement during 2015. Bernie Sanders was somewhat of an actual, real left-wing figure. He expressed hostility to neoliberal 'open borders,' calling it a 'Koch Brothers' slogan.


>And it was because of this, that the movement he created had to undergo a 'struggle session' by 'leftists' - who accused it of harboring neofascist, 'red-brown,' white supremacist, sexist, etc. tendencies - all since it was not a movement of leftists, but a movement whose demands, like m4all, were actually left-wing IN CONTENT.


>Leftism, since it began in the 1960's, aspires toward an IDEAL of 'left-wing' politics that only the sons and daughters of the bloodsucker elites find important. It is an entirely aristocratic enterprise, based not in the demands of any CONCRETE movement, or in the CONCRETE INTERESTS of the working masses - but in achieving this 'ideal.'


>So of course, when you turn the left-wing into an 'IDEAL,' its demands get characterized by impossible absurdities. When the people demand concrete economic emancipation, the idealist police come and say "Emancipation, you say? Well, the ideal of emancipation must be about fat disabled transgender POC women OR ELSE IT IS BULLSHIT!"


>Of course, it is bullshit - from the perspective of someone who cares more about metaphysical ideals than principles grounded in actual, concrete material reality.


>The aristocratic idealism of the ruling elites replaces the proletarian materialism of the common man.


>That is the source of 'wokeism:' It was CREATED to muddy the waters of worker's demands, which consisted simply in stopping the bloodsucking bankster parasites from raping their country and achieving a more or less dignified means of life.


>Next time RIGHT-WING grifter scum talk about 'wokeism,' remind them of that fact. THEY ARE ALL FULL OF SHIT, AND THE RIGHT-WING GRIFTERS AND THE LEFTISTS HAVE BEEN ON THE SAME TEAM THIS ENTIRE TIME.


>Both of them benefit by this blackmail which makes the most modest and simple of economic demands IMPOSSIBLE.


>Ask Ben Shapiro about seizing our money supply from the hands of the private banking cartel. You know what he'll say? "Ah yes, but what about fat POC disabled trans woman?"


>THE RISE OF A REAL LEFT-WING


>The political re-alignment that is happening in real time amidst the upcoming 2024 election will entail the return of a real, authentic left-wing political current in the USA.


>All the prevailing political ideologies today are RIGHT-WING. Do not get it twisted. We do not have a real left movement in the USA or the West.


>Many people think I am a syncreticist, or seek to combine the 'left and right.' That is wrong. I am fully LEFT-WING; Marxist-Leninist and NOT LEFTIST.


>I seek a restoration of left-wing politics, not by treating it as some ideal, but by waging the concrete class struggle, as every great historical left-wing movement has done in the past.


>The right-wing grifter scum are scam artists and con man. They are selling you on 'anti-wokeism' and showcasing the absurdity of the leftists, when they serve the interests of the same ruling class.


>In the end, RED ARMY IS THE STRONGEST. All who stand in the way of the supremacy of the working class will be destroyed in equal fashion.


I hate to say it. But this retard is right
>>

 No.472957

>>472952
Can't say that i've read the ring lord, were the Orks industrialized ?
>>

 No.472958

>>472952
I'm not reading all that. Haz is a literal retard.
>>

 No.472959

File: 1693590162918.jpg ( 106.81 KB , 960x540 , 23d32d.jpg )

God this guy is such a fucking tool.
Imagine being a communist and having this big of a stick up your own ass. Also being that irrelevant politically and thinking that highly of yourself.
Why are people even still polluting the board with this midget retards ideology?
>>

 No.472986

The problem with Haz(apart from his chumminess with reactionary ideologues like Dugin) is that he tries so hard to fit into the right's idea of progress that he unintentionally commits the same errors. His time at the Trump rally trying to convince people of MAGA Communism involved him not introducing the idea of class struggle or showing how their leader Trump was truly fighting for his own class instad of the workers, but rather just selling them a bog-standard idea of nationalism and calling it communism. He meanders on in this text about the left being full of punks that don't believe in anything(which is to a certain extent true) but he only focuses on the "banking cartel" instead of capitalism itself, obscuring any idea of fighting the profit system or imperialism(which DOES hurt the working class domestically and is even brought up by right-wing thinkers) just as well as the right-wing politicians he's trying to sell himself as an alternative to.

The way that he's selling communism looks no different on its surface than fascism, and considering that fascism has a lot more moneyed interests in it(being the ideology of the petty capitalists rather than the workers) a worker is more likely to see fascism before they see him nor to trust him over the fascists.
>>

 No.472987

>>472986
Not going to comment on "magacommunism" because i haven't investigated.

However you're theory of fascism sucks:
>considering that fascism has a lot more moneyed interests in it(being the ideology of the petty capitalists

Here is the standard Marxist theory of fascism, try that.

The class character of fascism
by Georgi Dimitrov
abridged

>Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.


>It is a government system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practiced upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations.

fascism is acting as the spearhead of international counter-revolution, as the chief instigator of imperialist war

>Fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.


>The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country. In certain countries, principally those in which fascism has no broad mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is rather acute, fascism does not immediately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a modicum of legality. In other countries, where the ruling bourgeoisie fears an early outbreak of revolution, fascism establishes its unrestricted political monopoly, either immediately or by intensifying its reign of terror against and persecution of all rival parties and groups. This does not prevent fascism, when its position becomes particularly acute, from trying to extend its basis and, without altering its class nature, trying to combine open terrorist dictatorship with a crude sham of parliamentarism.


>The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie – bourgeois democracy – by another form – open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, for the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries – measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.


>Comrades, the accession to power of fascism must not be conceived of in so simplified and smooth a form, as though some committee or other of finance capital decided on a certain date to set up a fascist dictatorship. In reality, fascism usually comes to power in the course of a mutual, and at times severe, struggle against the old bourgeois parties, or a definite section of these parties, in the course of a struggle even within the fascist camp itself – a struggle which at times leads to armed clashes. All this, however, does not make less important the fact that, before the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, bourgeois governments usually pass through a number of preliminary stages and adopt a number of reactionary measures which directly facilitate the accession to power of fascism. Whoever does not fight the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie and the growth of fascism at these preparatory stages is not in a position to prevent the victory of fascism, but, on the contrary, facilitates that victory.


>Historical fascist countries failed to recognize in fascism the most bloodthirsty monster of finance capital, their most vicious enemy, and that these masses were not prepared to resist it.


>What is the source of the influence of fascism over the masses? Fascism is able to attract the masses because it demagogically appeals to their most urgent needs and demands. Fascism not only inflames prejudices that are deeply ingrained in the masses, but also plays on the better sentiments of the masses, on their sense of justice and sometimes even on their revolutionary traditions. Lackeys of the bourgeoisie and mortal enemies of socialism, represent themselves to the masses as "Socialists," and depict their accession to power as a "revolution"? Because they try to exploit the faith in revolution and the urge towards socialism that lives in the hearts of the mass of working people


>Fascism acts in the interests of the extreme imperialists, but it presents itself to the masses in a guise. Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses but it approaches them with the most artful demagogy. Surpassing in its cynicism and hypocrisy all other varieties of bourgeois reaction, fascism adapts its demagogy to the national peculiarities of each country, and even to the peculiarities of the various social strata in one and the same country. And the mass of the petty bourgeoisie and even a section of the workers, reduced to despair by want, unemployment and the insecurity of their existence, fall victim to the social and chauvinist demagogy of fascism.


>whatever the masks that fascism adopts, whatever the forms in which it presents itself, whatever the ways by which it comes to power


>Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people;

>Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and predatory war;
>Fascism is rabid reaction and counter-revolution;
>Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people.
>>

 No.473005

>>472986
> which is to a certain extent true
No it’s definitely true. Leftism is a bankrupt illusory identity group. Marxists should take pride in being marxists and communists, not leftists. If Marx hated the idea of a socialist coalition then why would anyone think he would embrace “leftism”
<also haz is just an e celeb. If you were around for his earlier more humble streams, he actually acted like a more devout Marxist Leninist. It wasn’t until he gained a tiny following that he went full e celeb mode and tried to be another counter culture retard
>>

 No.473019

>>473005
Leftists are Marxists and communists though. Look I get what you are saying but this type of self aggrandizing political snobbishness is anti-thetical to building solidarity with the masses. Only the most fringe elements of libs and other "leftist" should be treated as an out group. If people are not where we need them to be we have no one to blame but ourselves and we should work to bring those peoiple further in their understanding of Marxian analysis.
>>

 No.473020

>>473019
<Doesn't go outside
Look, I get it. Leftypol sucks ass. But please don't bring your baggage with you
>>

 No.473022

>>472959
>Haz
>irrelevant
You post on leftychan, which is significantly more irrelevant than leftypol and leftypol is significantly more irrelevant than Haz will ever be.
>>472986
Lots of retarded word salad (typical of communists). Dugin at least tries to introduce new ideas into politics even if he’s heavily schizophrenic. You dumb faggots however still read Jewish bullshit and resentment politics from an era where most people died from tuberculosis and made 2 cents a day digging ditches and working coal mines. Imagine supporting some brain dead, outdated worldview like communism. Goofy ahh.
>>

 No.473031

>>473022
If old = bad in your worldview, then what are your modern ideas? How have the fundamental laws of capitalism changed since those books were written? Considering you felt the need to call it "Jewish," what will replace the ideas of thinkers like Nietzsche and Spengler?
>>

 No.473053

>>473019
>political snobbishness
No retard calling yourself a leftist is literally going against Marx’s reason for distinguish himself from other socialists and literally the main theme of Lenin’s work especially in regards to the party and vanguard. Look if you wanna feel cool and edgy by having a “leftist” political identity go be a dem Soc or anarchist
>>

 No.473061

>Blacks and Fags not STFU about racism and homophobia are why conservatives vote Trump.
There I saved you 30 mins
>>

 No.473062

File: 1693948245303.jpg ( Spoiler Image, 74.8 KB , 571x496 , 1693869309031796.jpg )

>They (the left) were taking all of the right's slander, mis-characterization, and demonization of the international left at face value and started identifying with it openly.
Holy shit no, the left did not turn into the histrionic strawman the right painted them as. This is something some old neoliberal fossil on Prager U would say
>>

 No.473064

>>473061
>>473062
>Liberals have entered the chat
>>

 No.473075

File: 1693997404222.jpg ( 625.63 KB , 1080x1336 , Screenshot_2023-09-06-17-4….jpg )

>>473062
Ya, it was all PragerU who spun this idea out of nothing.
[spoiler]Clown[/spoiler]
>>

 No.478288

>>473061
irony is alot of ethnic and sexual minorities are Trump sympathisers.

Unique IPs: 13

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome