Why is the left so obsessed with infighting? The right wing might have it's disagreements with eachother...

Why is the left so obsessed with infighting? The right wing might have it's disagreements with eachother, but they all agree on one thing: it's more important to fight the liberal/commie/nigger/atheist/jew boogieman first, before turning on eachother. With the left it's the opposite though.

It's always ⛏️rotsky this, ☭TANKIE☭ that, DemSoc this, Brocialist that, IdPol this. No one outside of your circle even knows what any of that shit means, and no one gives a flying fuck.

I wonder what would happen if Kruschev rose from the grave and was standing on the street corner handing out original Russian made AKs that had a special grenade launcher that could shoot down drones. I bet half of you wouldn't go. you'd say "WAAAAAAAAH CORN MAN WAAAAAHHHH HE'S NOT STALIN WAAAAAAHHH TROTANCAPBROCIALIST GET OUT!"

Not only will the left not win a civil war, they won't even be a factor in it's execution. You will be but an anthill trapped under a stampede of elephants.

Fuck I'm guilty of it too. I think Antifa are a bunch of fags, but honestly I'd fight alongside them if a worthy enemy came along, but i doubt they would do the same, they are too stuck in their purity tests like everyone else.

Attached: DhNLDA5X4AAktqB.jpg (1000x800 81.47 KB, 737.53K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mGC3uJadXh0
youtube.com/watch?v=nHy1gIFOCsc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Tbh when you are actually in a broadchurch party people don't give a shit about if you prefer ⛏️rotsky or Stalin or bukharin, they care you you think you will better their lives.

Sure, sectarianism is rife, but it always has been and we've had some success nonetheless in spite of all the backstabbing and betrayals and divergent lines. Moreover i think that in today's post-soviet world in which we can with some certitude say 'October is over, we do it over again now' we have a good deal more 'left unity' than we've had in the best. Certainly whenever this question has been asked on Zig Forums before or most online or irl meetings of leftists the overwhelming sentiment is 'i would support and fight alongside which ever tendency leads the revolution'. I would be the first to rally beneath a black or black-red banner just as i would beneath the hammer and sickle and i think this remains the dominant viewpoint.
Sure we'll have disagreements and some of them will be settled in a civil and productive way, others may well unfortunately lead to expulsions or even fratricide in the revolutionary camp. But all we can do is hope and work towards our shared aim. All of us want to see private property abolished. All of us want to see communism.
The problem of the left today and its role in transformative/revolutionary change is a question of lack of organisation far more than it is of sectarianism imo.
Moreover in a revolutionary situation sectarianism become irrelevant altogether. The radicalising masses will support the party with the revolutionary program and theory. The rest will simply fall in line or be left behind.

The right wing lacks division because ultimately they're willing to compromise, even if they aren't anti semitic they'll let Israel get nuked if Zig Forums ever comes into power. Same with the "Based blacks" type.
But an anarchist will never let there be a state for two decades they'll want direct anarchy and ML's will never let Anarchists ever come into being without a state first.

were trying to get our infighting out of the way so that we dont cannibalise ourselves once in power like most right win regimes do

Attached: 77c51468156e9fd548324bb47c125285e1c458de1bf722022d0b668d22a6d702.jpg (700x818, 167.66K)

Attached: thonksundestroystheearth.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

because you don't have any genuine beliefs

your just book clubniks with wealthy parents huffing your own farts, communism is just a consumerist identity to you

Why are you describing the average poltard and then bich about commies?
Are you a centrist

People seriously need to chill.
Fortunately it seems to be more of an internet phenomen, as the barrier for sperging out is quite a bit lower on-line than irl. People tend to respectfully disagree out on the streets and while fighting a common foe, and most internal conflicts are spawned in an atmosphere which is eighter drunk on alcohol, in a bar or such, or drunk on power, such as at an important meeting. In the latter case it's surprisingly often the near-autistic hardliners that force a schism by pushing a black and white set of ideals and directions rather than being reasonable and pragmatic without abandoning their position.
You see, sometimes it's better to go and do the "wrong" thing together and survive trough united strenght and cooperation, than for everyone to do their own "right" and be eaten as weak prey one-by-one.

Attached: 831358_1315954065754_full.jpg (800x800, 215.17K)

I seriously need to chill while typing, too.

When did that happen


Exactly, radical enough to be hip with the youths not too radical that they lose access to the trust fund.

communism btfo

honestly I think it's because there hasn't really been a chance to "unite" yet
we're all too focused on stupid internet bullshit

Attached: bRTH.png (960x576, 315.26K)

...

*all fold

fuck off officer, there is pretty much constant opposition in real life and online, you lack reading comprehension
but there's not any "revolutionary potential" right now

Attached: hehm.png (607x554, 229.62K)

That's exactly what I mean. If you think anything you're facing now is opposition, societal breakdown hits….OH LAWWDY LAWWDY!

when shit hit's the fan is pretty much the perfect time for revolution though
I don't understand what you're getting at, is "societal breakdown" supposed to be bad for commies?

Attached: tails smoking.jpg (523x400, 198.53K)

Nigga I'm saying YOU have zero revolutionary potential smug animeman, now and in the future.

I'm saying if you expect to accomplish anything in that scenario you have to get a lot less pansyish in the present.

read a history book or something

you have no idea what you are talking about youtube.com/watch?v=mGC3uJadXh0

aren't you like the same guys who piss and moan about fucking antifa of all groups? and consider every punch some sort of massive victory?
also spergs on the internet yelling at eachother doesn't mean leftism will just crumble as soon as there's a situation to take control

Attached: 1529740689167.jpg (467x531, 47.97K)

The "right wing" is already in power. The original fascists were paid agents of the bourgeoisie who broke strikes and terrorized workers, but modern cops and business unions serve the same function and are much more efficient and less unpredictable. The grifters and weirdos that make up the modern right wing are irrelevant because they serve no purpose for the state. At most they'll serve as auxiliaries and patsies during actual civil unrest.

this is actually a really good point, thank you

I think the idea is to prevent that.

Yes.

That's it. "Yes."

I think leftypol classicTM (alive in our hearts) has the right idea. Idpol and the mainstream "left" (the weird liberals who are somehow not socially entirely liberal or particularly economically progressive and just cling to the term "socialism" and then proceed to shit on anyone who actually discusses it) is the foremost divide right now. Labor pragmatism and social pragmatism have been compromised for partisan pragmatism and Hollywood-esque bullshit. We actually can purge idpol devotees, and in doing so we can win a fuckton of people over whose perspective of the left was tainted by all that. It doesn't mean we can't work with idpol folks, but they have to be willing to work with us - a unified left which won't buckle to any reactionary racial/neo-national identity bullshit. Self-determination is good, but if you want a new planet for your special clique to live on you can go ahead and blast yourself into the void. We can't all rally behind divisions, it's not viable. And in this way, some "infighting" is necessary in the sense that some disagreement is necessary. But the actual infighting, the stupid squabbling, is not necessary - we're effectively arguing with spooky ghosts. A sentence or two is more than enough just to be sure we aren't hiding from them and their audience can see us.

But either way, we have to get ahead of them, and the key to that is work. Those anarchists in Oregon fixing potholes have the right idea. Come together to labor, come together for the community, put idle hands to work, and discuss theory with consideration for what you are building and what will work.

I think this video explains this pretty well
youtube.com/watch?v=nHy1gIFOCsc

Attached: C89-Mousou-Colosseum-Oda-non-H-na-Toshiue-24.jpg (2096x3000, 2.15M)

The correct answer is that the focus of the right is on problems, about which they all agree, whereas the left focuses on solutions, on which there is no agreement.

The vast majority of discussion on the right is on how they can bring about - and win - the Nazi masturbation fantasy, and they very rarely argue about how society ought to be organised after the kikes have been gassed and the niggers have been lynched. The majority of leftist discussion is on what we should do after capitalism has been destroyed, rather than on how we can bring that scenario about.

How to bring it about and what will be after is integral. And the reason there is so much disagreement on theory is because it's not as simple as just removing undesirables or "logistics" on posting memes.

he's projecting, you should know that by now.

I agree. I wasn't criticising, just answering the question in the OP. I think leftists are in a tough spot.

Right wingers are even more incremental than that. They are worrying about how to keep their current president in office, and perhaps bring about another kent state massacre by provoking antifa.

Think about that for a second, you have nazis supporting an ultrazionist who's administration is literally trying to criminalize boycotts of Israel.

I love people on the left talking about how "SHTF will fix it"

I don't think you realize how bad we have it. If S where to HTF, we would have a two front war on our hands. The government would most likely become a mix of China and the UK's government. hypercapitalist, hyperauthoritarian and heavily reliant on the tech industry. They'd probably make a deal with idpol too. You support us in stamping out these rebels and we'll kick down doors of people who make tweets you don't like. In terms of rebels the biggest faction would be christfags, and they would be most likely to win. They'd be able to pull people in using the Jordan Peterson method "you might not believe in god, but help us shoot commies"

I've been advocating for a red/brown anticapitalist union for a long time. It's not going to happen. Too much ideology on both sides.

Because you stupid fucking cunts aren't "anticapitalist."

Probably has a lot to do with leftist having fluid definitions of everything.

Hi Zig Forums welcome to the board.

Lurk more, idiot

Highly doubt i'd come back here, very inactive full of faggot ass leftist arguing with other leftist that think they're rational because they dont get offended as easily lmao

Why does every single leftist pretend to be the rational one, you're all the same. Thats how the world sees you guys. Until you guys call out the homosexual non binary left, you guys will be grouped with them.

No one cares what your irrational reactionary faggot ass has to say, moron.

You're projecting and it's weird, but for a minute or two I'll entertain ya:

The idpol problem is itself something pushed - not every "leftist" you meet who espouses high-idpol is a fraud, but a lot of their idols are - and it's often only permissive attitudes that allow those types to repeat this trash among leftists. Usually in the context of Twitter and other such trash-tier mediums where discussion is limited by design.

And while it is a problem, make no mistake, right-wingers consistently use it to misrepresent the left and circlejerk over outrage porn in their torture chamberes. To this demographic, it's exaggerated, which is part of why when Jordan Peterson tried to call out Zizek it was immediately clear that the former had absolutely no clue about the stances of the latter - Zizek is a renowned (if infamous) communist philosopher, whereas Peterson is a cushy pop-psy guy whose chief purpose is to serve a right-wing niche. A lot of you guys never leave the niche, and have really poor exposure to the rest of the world.

So there are, in reality, a number of places where idpol is more of a factor and a number of places where it is much less of one. That said, loads of people here would already call out the "homosexual non-binary left" - assuming you mean jackasses and not just fags. Some here would call out fags, but mostly we don't care - hating fags is also idpol and Berzerkerstan retarded.

Anyway, a moment to evangelize and give you a bit about what I actually like:

Eliminate all taxes, replace them with a single-tax based on unimproved land values to discourage land speculation. End mass surveillance, curb the state, stop invading people.

Attached: a537082606409fb9cc53dfda5a31eee77f31fd568781c954a83df23c340cbada.jpg (1200x1200, 254.35K)

Just be a nihilist anarchist and do whatever you want untill your dead. Nothing gonna change.

Same is very true for nazi pollocks

I wouldn't.
There are some things more important than your given political ideology, and one of those is the ability to fight ideas with words, not fists. Another is the ability for people you disagree with to peacefully assemble.
Seeing as how ANTIFA groups do nothing but use violence to censor other people's events, then I will stand with literally any group ANTIFA tries to violently censor.

I wish antifa had the balls to use lethal violence and kill some fucking fascists already. Unfortunately it won't accomplish much because antifa cannot plan for shit.

Because all porkys are trying to do is keep things the way they are or go back to specific time. That's all happened, we know what it looks like. Communists are trying to build the future, an uncertain task, with many different material conditions, and everyone has their own ideas on how that future should look. Fact is, we're never going to get along. In fact, tbh, I hate other leftists and can't organize with them because they annoy me. I get on with apolitical people the best.

You really don't. ANTIFA makes the left look bad enough as it is, showing up clad in all black to try and fight people, and losing. Increasing escalation by trying to out-gun "gun nuts" will just result in dead anarchists, and even more support for the right when they defend themselves.

That's why you don't beat your chest and try to win a public fight. If you wanna kill fascists, you have to become a terrorist. Bomb their homes, bomb their weddings, sabotage their cars; fuck with them lethally and send the message that if you align with openly fascist groups, you're fair game, and being a shadowy group you don't really have a command structure to target, just small cells.

That would require modern antifa to be something it isn't though, and recruiting would be difficult since the best recruits for this (at least in Burgerland) are being drawn to the rightists or are actively shunned by leftists for stupid reasons (usually idpol/virtue signaling reasons).

Liberal

if you do nothing USA will become an even shittier place. Do something!

This is bait, right? If not then kys

No, you gorilla.
The best way to possibly fight against the right would be to hold your own rally, that's a lot more friendly and cool than whatever rally the right is holding.
But the more I see of this place, the more I realize that's never going to happen, because you're all a bunch of angry, violent losers.

There's both disagreement on what to do once the dust has a settled, and how to bring that scenario about.
But it's not just theoretical disagreements here that foment schisms. It's that revolutionary "leftism" (socialism) is - fundamentally - born from resentment. It stems from material inadequacy, and social inequality. Thus - with few exceptions - it attracts a certain type of follower.
Specifically, the sort that's never really comfortable with "betters" lording over them. Or anyone having (or being perceived to have) more than they have.
As a result "leftist" groups are notorious dens of vipers - always looking to backstab and sabotage one another - a condition which rots revolutionary movements from the inside out.

Sure, NatPops have their share of resentment too, but it's the sort born from an imagined other depriving them of what - they think - is their god-given right. Or merely the thought of the other trying to steal their - jobs, homes, or whatever.
In short, while "leftists" resent The Man on principle, the "right" resents no longer/not being The Man. The right fears loss. (Fear in general being an element here) While the "left" resents hierarchy and exploitation. For one the enemy comes from the outside, for the other the enemy is systematic and always above.
It's this world view - bereft of class struggle - that allows a prole to join forces with the kleptocrat. All you have to do is to pretend that your (petite/middle class) target group is being "attacked," and their position is being threatened. For good measure you can also pull in the unconscious (in the class sense) masses of disenfranchised workers. Who - deprived of political education - will gladly take up the banner as well.
It's the sort of setup that allows unironic nazis to prop up a zionist billionaire. No, it's not that capitalism is ripping them off. It's that the niggers/jews/migrants/foreigners/faggots are stealing from them and threatening their position. If they just rid themselves of this "corrupting" element, everything will return to being just fine. The (imagined) loss privilege is fundamental here.

And while both have had their share of purges, for NatPops those were purges of their useful idiots. The working class muscle swept up in reactionary conspiracy theories, who really believed that they were "fighting" the "elites", or the subversive foreign element. Little did they know that they'd ultimately be disposed of.
This is what happened in Germany, as in Italy, as in Spain, Romania, Brazil and elsewhere. For workers on the NatPop train, it never ends well.


If by "brown" you mean "fascist" here, it's not going happen. The aims of fascism run contrary to those of communism, one aiming to restore and prop up capitalism, the other seeking to abolish it.

Attached: 1e3d170418160d94a98e72cd81404af11a88507bb9d9db8961c2680378a56f32.png (1435x460, 163.45K)

...

...

Literally every political system uses violence to maintain itself. This will only stop "when, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character". In other words, a Communist society is the only one which does not use violence and coercion to maintain itself.

I think you're a bit naive if you think this. If the far left is rife with infighting, so too is the far right. I'd argue that the less mainstream a political movement is, the more likely it will be rife with people trying to prove how ideologically pure they are.

Attached: db8d6fc1a48f54feff35f56b78a4934ba3ff20a0fd48b06fe53c21f87c03cc67.jpg (191x255, 11.14K)

you sound like an amerimutt.

FYI they wonder the same thing about you. Infighting is a feature of radical politics.
Liberals have a great deal of unity, but neither the left nor right wants anything to do with them, so each attributes that lack of infighting to their enemies.

Really? You're going to believe Zig Forums memes rather than what someone is actually telling you about their own beliefs?

Shitposting aside, when a Nazi is telling you he's anticapitalist, it usually means that he want to get rid of bankers which happens to be Jews.
That is not enough to qualify as anticapitalist.

The "left" isn't some unified entity, it's an arbitrary grouping. Many people and organizations either call themselves left or are called left by others while being pro-capitalist. So if you defy the "left" by the minimum standard of being anti-capitalist, your main split is basically communists and anarchists. These 2 "groups" have major ideological differences that drastically affect pretty much everything, from their ideals to their methodology.

As for further fractions, within anarchism there are further subgroups that have no problem working with each other. As for communists, all the fractions you see today are basically splitters that betrayed the comintern and became anti-communist on some degree. MLs and MLMs are still the only ones that ever had any relative relevance and base their praxis on theory.

The right lacks division because it has no actual theory or thought behind it other than muh wrong generation and preserve the status quo. One exception is libertarians and those actually get shat on by other rightists all of the time.

This
Trust fund babies trying to start a class war on behalf of people who would kill them for their expensive shoes.

Social policies are all well and good but outright socialism is just asking for trouble. Expecting any one ideology to have all the answers is plain stupid.

...

Socialism will never succeed just because the people are too retarded to take power into their own hands. Capitalism is fucked as well because of resource depletion and a drive towards nuclear war. The best we can hope for is the world to get nuked and pockets of humanity surviving and starting over.

The reason the left has so much infighting is because soc-dems are actually center(because they want to maintain the integrity of capitalism) and actual socialists are split on the role of the state in creating socialism. The left is divided on the the question of freedom vs state control. The right doesn't really care about civil liberties or freedom because to them the most important thing is property rights and thus anarcho capitalists, fascists, and neoliberals will band together for the preservation of private property….alongside social democrats.

You are one dumb fucker.

There's infighting because the left became pussified over the 20th century.
As people grow sorrounded by capitalism and american globalism, communist parties begun to lose power and were replaced by big tent "leftist" parties
These big tent parties support EU, are more concerned with idpol than worker rights.

the left want to build a better world, the right want to fight a perceived decline in the world. even when dominant and in power, the right is able to retain this paranoid element.
also the right have much greater recourse to "natural" principles that mean that the "wrong" people will inevitably fail or be punished regardless, while for the left it's much easier to fall into pessimism that if the opportunity is squandered then a worse world is in waiting. if a christian conservative legislates massive economic regulation, the ancap can still say "well, the market will sort them eventually" and the christian can say of the ancap's child brothels that satan will flay them in the afterlife. there's little such recourse (except the fun of saying "told you so") for the left.

Who let all these fucking brainlets in here.

Spotted the succdem

Nigga im a carpenter and my mother was a delivery driver and i dont have a dad.

Im a communist because noone can show me actual flaws in the ideology that arent either strawmen or horseshit that got debunked 70 years ago but right wingers keep repeating it.

Because there are in fact funamental differences between the ideologies. I personally view Stalinists as identical to Nazis, so why tf would I fight alongside them?

Do different anarchist ideologies (not counting Ancap and NatCap) work well with each other?

How about Ancoms and other ancoms?

NatAn*

The right usually values dominating the opposition above all else, whereas the left usually places certain values (such justice, equality, rights, worker organisation) over the temporary need to dominate the reactionary opposition. As a result libertarian-leaning leftists will usually perceive followers of more authoritarian tendencies as violating those values and vice versa. In consequence these groups will refuse to organise together.

On the right, they may have key disagreements but they can put those aside for the short-term benefit of "owning the libtards" or whatever which is what they value the most.