[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / dempart / doomer / eirepol / flutter / kc / leftpol ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 07c9e4a0f6d2df9⋯.jpeg (249.88 KB, 684x1026, 2:3, 219D23EF-D34D-47C5-B947-6….jpeg)

 No.137211

What’s wrong with gradualism? Should we just take Marx and Lenin’s word for it? I understand the argument that any sort of liberal ideas are co-opted by capitalism and incorporated into the master class’s system, but do you not agree that there are strains in American liberalism that satisfy leftist leanings? For instance, the constitution right now ensures, with the help of organizations like the ACLU (pre-gun ban red fascism), the existence of certain individual liberties such as freedom of speech and right to due process among others.

If there were a violent revolution do you really think modern leftists, even the espoused Marxists, would retain these laws? They already want to destroy the electoral college, scrap the second amendment and appoint former cops (Kamala Harris) as your elected officials! I don’t think any revolution beyond a small d democratic revolution within the existing system will work. Bernie Sanders has the right idea working through the Democratic Party to change it fundamentally toward socialism. The progress has been rapid - in fact probably more rapid than any sort of organized extrajudicial revolution even could be. However, the question with him is whether he and his acolytes will conserve basic freedoms?

Right now conservatards have the upper hand when it comes to the insistence of individual liberty, but don’t think I believe this is always the case. I remember the smarmy Christian faggots from both Bush administrations who would like to pass obscenity laws if they could. Anyway, do you think the Democratic Party can be an appropriate vessel for political change? Why or why not?

 No.137220

yes, we need to violently rape those capitalist women


 No.137224

>>137220

Which capitalist women?


 No.137229

I never encountered maggots who voluntarily left the rotting lard after asking nicely.


 No.137231

There is a very small possibility that electoral politics could overturn the capitalist order, if the situation were dire enough that it would be literally impossible to maintain capitalism as a system (say, the money system collapses, hyperinflation across the world occurs, and it becomes impossible to do anything but rule by fiat to maintain the current assholes in power).

It won't come from the Democrats though, that's for sure. It's a conservative party antithetical to anything socialist, the leaders of the party have said so multiple times. Nor will reform happen through the socdem parties or candidates like Bernie. You're talking about a ruling class that is absolutely committed to austerity, even though their own economists will tell them austerity is a terrible, horrible idea the way it has been implemented thus far (and every austerity measure implemented so far has been predictably disastrous, for the people and even for the interests of the rulers, except for a small group of robbers who exemplify the uselessness of the capitalist class).

Also your "freedoms" don't really exist, and never did. Ask yourself how free you are when the corrupt city council sends a court goon to beat you up if you dare protest at city hall. Your freedom only extends as far as the government (a government of the capitalists) cares to allow you to be free. You don't need a damn piece of paper to be free to speak; even the framers of the U.S. Constitution understood those rights to be natural, and the Bill of Rights is effectively saying "okay, we give up, we're going to let you all have this".

You basically don't have a fourth amendment right against search and seizure any more, not even in a legal sense. Nor do you have due process in the Kafkaesque court system (a court system which is supplemented by shit like "family" courts which are not in any way even legitimate and produce all sorts of bizarre rulings that should terrify people). Never mind stuff like the Espionage Act which takes a giant shit on any concept of your supposed rights (which was, and still is, well recognized as such), or the newer "Patriot" Act which openly strips people of any rights whatsoever.


 No.137240

File: de8989b0ff936a6⋯.jpg (28 KB, 346x352, 173:176, you could have avoided thi….jpg)

>If there were a violent revolution do you really think modern leftists, even the espoused Marxists, would retain these laws? They already want to destroy the electoral college, scrap the second amendment and appoint former cops (Kamala Harris) as your elected officials!

Let me explain this in a language you'll understand!

Those are not Marxists those are red liberals who operate under the belief that they can use the fact that they read Marx (very poorly) to promote other beliefs.

No true Marxist would ever revoke free speech, guns, and appoint former cops. I say this as someone who respectfully disagrees with many Marxist positions.

Likewise these positions are not important, the Us government has become this sick abomination against God, overrun with Jews, Israelis, and capitalists. I'm not kidding, there are actual employed CEO's of corporations in the government right now, the tax code itself is made to reward the rich and keep poor poor. We are literally living in a dystopian future, free speech is already dead. These people must not only be overthrown but killed and their beliefs preserved only to be demonized by future generations as humanities greatest evils.


 No.137249

>>137211

>Should we just take Marx and Lenin’s word for it?

If your "goals" are the same as theirs, then obviously, the very concept of wage labor being peacefully legislated away through the parliament bills sounds more improbable than a civil war.


 No.137301

File: 5ee561a36be05c8⋯.jpg (269.67 KB, 1107x802, 1107:802, cwgun.jpg)

>>137211

I'm in. The fuckers on the right are more than willing to kill us (llike that faggot Christopher Cuntwell), so we might as well take down a couple of those sacks of shit.


 No.137316

>>137301

>Christopher Cuntwell

The guy who had a complete mental breakdown after being told he was about to be arrested?

I don't think we need to worry about retards like him Anon, but you're right they certainly are more than willing to kill us, we need to kill them first or this never ends.


 No.137325

No


 No.137329

File: 3345fb58b4296be⋯.jpeg (125.51 KB, 1024x791, 1024:791, 1069D23D-6FAB-4213-ADC4-F….jpeg)

File: 3a215fd038e7418⋯.jpeg (126.01 KB, 1024x614, 512:307, 52F8DAE0-39D3-4D11-A5F0-8….jpeg)

>What’s wrong with gradualism?

We don’t have time anymore. Maybe you can slowly reform capitalism away with PR campaigns and voting for Bernie’s corpse every four years, but that doesn’t matter if by the time you win we don’t have a world to live in.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/


 No.137345

>>137301

Christopher Cuntwell would've been the first person to die if people at the Unite the Hwite actually started shooting. He's a walking burgerlard target.


 No.137420

Obviously a violent revolution is actively detrimental to the goals of revolution. A successful revolution is a natural takeover by the people. This requires gradualism as in gradual building of public support and self-organization, which is not to be confused with top-down political action. Political action should be pursued because it's beneficial in the present, it should never be expected to lead us anywhere further than what the present system allows, and it does not allow for much. (So, to answer your question, no, a political party is not an appropriate vessel for a change.)

Individual liberty versus subordination to hierarchy, law and tradition is the very basis of the left-right divide and the fact that conservatives nowadays appear more credible in defending it merely shows how entrenched in liberalist worldview, intellectually and morally bankrupt the contemporary "leftists" are. Before we proceed with changing the world, we need to clean our own house.


 No.137429

>>137420

How do you recommend starting that cleaning process?


 No.137432

Gradualism doesn't work. You elect succdems and they reliably, mysteriously, move so far to the right of their voters on policy that you end up needing to form a new succdem party to replace them. I'm not sure if even electoralism is viable at this point, but if you are going to engage in it you need people willing to make radical changes from day 1.


 No.137476

If the capitalist class is still around (i.e. if capitalism hasn't collapsed), they will violently resist any attempt at revolution, reform, activism, parallel organizations and dual power, etc. That and capitalism is itself already violent in its systemic denial of basic needs to poor people.

So you're asking the wrong question. Any revolution will be made violent by the ruling class (crushing pacifists who don't fight back), and we are already in an undeclared siege-like war. Getting hung up on how to avoid direct, personal violence from us radicals against the state/capital/class traitors is distracting you from how we can avoid violence in general, of which the overwhelming majority is directed at the poor and working class by the system. If you don't like violence, you should start with preventing the ongoing large-scale violence built into the system rather than the occasional violent outburst of a few people fighting back.


 No.137501

How could a revolution be anything but violent? Did you eat up the capitalist propaganda about the iPhone being revolutionary or what?


 No.137518

>>137301

he's actually an asshole to me even though we share social views. he hates the poor though.


 No.137519

"muh helicopters"




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / dempart / doomer / eirepol / flutter / kc / leftpol ]