Why is it that proles around the world are by and large so class-cucked? I understand why they don't vote for communist parties due to cultural hegemony, material conditions not being bad enough in the first world etc. But they don't, a lot of the time, even vote for socdem parties - they either don't vote at all or actively support their own class enemies.

In India, Narendra Modi, the right-wing nationalist, is leading polls massively. Whilst in office he has pursued typical neoliberal policies. India is dirt poor and has a large proletariat. Why do they vote for him?
In Britain, polls show Labour leading in the polls for the next general election (not to be confused with EU election). Yet they only take around 35% of the vote, when proles must make up near 90% of the population, and the proper working class (i.e. not PMC's) make up at least 70%.
In America, lots of white proles vote republican, whilst black proles seem to vote democrat (although I can kind of understand that because they are less racist).

I don't think I need to go on. In fact, there are very few countries right now where the left, even just the socdem left, is doing well. Why is this? Obviously a big reason why proles vote against their class interests is because they are religious or nationalistic - typically this applies more to rural proles. But why is that? How are they persuaded to actively vote against their own interests? The typical leftist response I have seen is 'they aren't confronted with a real alternative to traitorous socdems'. But this isn't true any more. In Europe we have Corbyn, Die Linke, France Unbowed and so on, which are all proper demsoc parties, and in the third world you have actual communist parties that are relevant, like the CPI(M) in India. So I don't think the standard answer to my question can be true any more.

Attached: narendra modi.jpg (1280x720, 646.04K)

How do you expect the working class to fight for their interests when they dont even know what their interests are? Its always been up to the Communists since the time of Marx to raise class consciousness among the working class. The reason the proletariat doesn't vote for Stalinists, soc-dems, and liberals is because these groups have consistently betrayed them and as of now there is only the ICFI, SEP, and the WSWS which fights for the working class and their perspective simply is not heard by the vast majority of proles yet. When the proles are not aware of genuine Marxism, sections of them get pulled towards fascism because it offers the most "radical" solution to their problems whilst maintaining capitalist rule.

Hmm yes I'm sure the revolution will come when the proles all start reading the WSWS and hearing a totally new analysis that is completely different from all the thousands of other trot cults out there. I reckon the only thing that stops revolution is the tiny bit of theory that the other communist parties haven't got just right.

I hope you're trolling but I fear you aren't. If you genuinely believe that that is the reason then you are not a Marxist, just some weird cultist who faps over the WSWS

You're vastly underestimating the amount of poor people who simply don't vote. In a lot of first world countries even if voter turnout is generally high the class distribution is often petite-bourg or bourg who of course vote for their class interests. This is by design by the way, with voting being held on workdays, districting, hiring bourgeoise to count the votes, etc etc. Workers who do vote and vote for right wingers do it because much of the Left left behind working class rhetoric and organizing in favor of internal ideological civil wars and retreat into academia, ceding ground to ghouls who posture as populists. Because the Spectacle dominates literally everything now it doesn't matter how these right wingers govern because their appearance is as a man of the people fighting whatever boogeyman other than the real one (capitalism) they've decided to blame working people's problems on

Attached: ouc3odgajkzy.jpg (2000x1500, 426.16K)

Because proles are just as invested in capitalism as the bourgeoisie is.

No, revolutionary conditions come when the objective situation has devolved to a point where the working class needs a revolution to avoid death by war or economic crisis. The job of a Communist is to have a vanguard party in place during those times so the working class has guidance on what needs to be done. Besides the ICFI and SEP, there simply is no other Marxist vanguard in existence.

This is you

Retard, guarantee you're not Working Class.

The only solution is create islamo-trap sects in the name of muhammad.

You're fucking stupid fam

Attached: Holy modes of Production.jpg (532x342, 28.99K)

You should read more trotsky. Lenin's great contribution was the concept of a vanguard party which Trotsky accepted. Difference now is that through the efforts of Trotsky and genuine Marxists, the ICFI has established vanguard parties throughout the world which was not the case during the Russian Revolution and in the final analysis is a decisive factor in the Stalinist degeneration of the USSR with the advancement of the "socialism in one country", a fundamentally anti-marxist conception.

Trotsky's permanent revolution is utopian garbage.

You might as well discard the entire Marxist movement as "utopian garbage". Here is what Marx and Engels wrote in the communist manfiesto:

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

As to why the working class is important, Marx and Engels wrote:
"Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."

Here is a section of Trotsky's Permanent revolution.

"A democratic dictatorship of the prolelariat and peasantry, as a regime that is distinguished from the dictatorship of the proletariat by its class content, might be realized only in a case where an independent revolutionary party could be constituted, expressing the interests of the peasants and in general of petty bourgeois democracy – a party capable of conquering power with this or that degree of aid from the proletariat, and of determining its revolutionary programme. As all modern history attests – especially the Russian experience of the last twenty-five years – an insurmountable obstacle on the road to the creation of a peasants’ party is the petty-bourgeoisie’s lack of economic and political independence and its deep internal differentiation. By reason of this the upper sections of the petty-bourgeoisie (of the peasantry) go along with the big bourgeoisie in all decisive cases, especially in war and in revolution; the lower sections go along with the proletariat; the intermediate section being thus compelled to choose between the two extreme poles. Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik power, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is not and cannot be any intermediate stage, that is, no democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale. This struggle, under the conditions of an overwhelming predominance of capitalist relationships on the world arena, must inevitably lead to explosions, that is, internally to civil wars and externally to revolutionary wars. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism."

The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet."

Trotsky's theory is simply a continuation of Marx and a defense of Marxism against the utopian fantasy that socialism could be achieved within national borders and through the "dictatorship of peasant and worker", which was a policy that Stalinists enforced throughout the world leading to disastrous consequences. Socialist revolution can only rely on the dictatorship of the proletariat unfolding on a world scale, something which Marx asserted as did Trotsky. The unfolding of socialism on a world scale was actively thwarted by the Stalinists because a genuine workers revolution would lead to insurrections within the USSR and throw the bureaucracy off of its privileged position.

Lefties are so patronizing

It literally doesn't though. Trump has maintained and strengthened support among his base despite governing exactly like how McCain would have if he won in 2008 and if dems nominate literally anime other then Bernie he will easily win reelection

I'm not saying working class people who acrually vote wouldn't defect for an actual Left populist im just saying that most working class people dont even focus on politics because of how nebulous it is (which is again by design) and among the ones who do if given the choice between a silicon valley liberal or a limp wristed "moderate" conservative and someone like Trump who presents himself as an enemy of them and what they represent they will vote for Trump every time no matter how much you try to debunk his "man of the people rhetoric.

When you combine that with the support someone like Trump or whoever gets from the porkies and porky jrs who do vote and who control the voting process it's a foregone conclusion because they know Trump isn't actually going to harm them or will harm them very little while also placating a chunk of angry working class voters and redirecting their indignation

Attached: barbara-bush-funeral-four-presidents-four-first-ladies.jpg (500x987 24.77 KB, 239.57K)

I actually think you are vastly overestimating the amount of people that don't vote tbh. For example in the last UK election turnout was nearly 70%. That means that the great majority of people who voted are proles. Also I don't know where you get this thing about bourgs counting votes, they're always just local volunteers in Britain, so usually retired people who probably were working class and certainly are not properly bourg. Also I don't know about where you are from but here Corbyn absolutely engages in class-war rhetoric, and in third world countries like India as I said earlier they have proper communist parties. Most of the industrial proletariat in Britain does vote Labour, it's just that rural proles, really poor proles (even lumpenproles) and proles in towns as opposed to cities don't. This is really the crux of the problem.

if Trotsky was in charge the soviet union would have gotten itself destroyed and fascism would have won ww2.

Stalin killed off the finest generals and soldiers the USSR has, made a disastrous deal with Nazi germany directly leading to operation Barbarossa which led to millions of proletarians dying. The USSR succeeded because of the enormous strength of the USSR working class and peasantry. It won despite Stalinism not because of it. And in the aftermath of WW2 all the revolutionary movements of colonial states was thwarted into support for bourgeois nationalism due to Stalinisms need to suppress genuine working class revolution.

I concede I'm probably overstating some things because I'm a burger and our elections have always been complete farces and have only accelerated in that direction for the last 30 years but to some extent one or more of the things I did or didn't express happen in all of the western "democracies" and pretty much overtly happen in many third world countries

I'm going to repost something I said in the "Soviet democracy" thread here cuz I think it articulates my feelings on the matter of bourgeoisie democracy better than my other post ITT:

Even if the claim that "There was no democracy in the Soviet union" was true there is literally the same or less amount of democracy in capitalist countries (depending on which country we're talking about) In the USA the last 3 presidents were, in order-selected by the Supreme Court, selected by the banking industry, selected by the electoral college. Voting in the USA is disenfranchised and gerrymandered to such a degree that it pretty much guarantees most congressional elections will be a foregone conclusion and even if there is massive voter turnout to counter this it's been proven that voting machines can be rigged to change your vote and so on. Even if you live in a slightly more democratic country the ruling class still decides what is and isn't possible. Look at how Brexit is being handled and the immediate corruption of the 5 Star Movement in Italy. Look at Syriza in Greece or Duterte in the Philippines giving into us imperialism despite winning partially because of his isolationist promises.

And what of Soviet nations that transitioned to capitalism in the late 20th century? Where is all the democracy in Russia or the Ukraine?

Democracy under capitalism is just as mythological as it supposedly was in the USSR

Go read the respomses to your retarded take in the ☭TANKIE☭ general and Blackshirts and Reds before posting again fag

Stalinism is the cancer that led to the suppression of socialism in the 20th century. Fortunately, it has died off in the consciousness of the working class and remains in the deranged minds of middle class NEETS and twitter trolls.

So you aren't going to read any of the responses to the post you deleted in the ☭TANKIE☭ general which completely refuted your retarded accusation that of it wasn't for Stalin we would have full communism by now?

Argue your points here. I’ve looked through that stupid thread and none of the points I raised were refuted because ultimately they can’t be. The working class also went through major periods of revolt within the USSR, the Hungary revolt in 1956 which immediately comes to mind and had to be put down by force. The USSR has to be defended from imperialist aggression but you are a fool if you believe that the bureaucracy which killed off all of the original bolsheviks and thousands of Marxist revolutionaries as well as suppressed democracy and control for the working class and which eventually liquadated itself with the bureaucracy turning themselves into capitalist millionaires and billionaires represented socialism in any way. The prognosis that Trotsky has of the USSR in 1930, of it either reverting to capitalism or having a workers revolution is by far the best prognosis of what the USSR actually was rather than what ☭TANKIE☭s believe it to be

this is true. While the SEP isn’t “the only real Marxist party in existence” the WSWS is easy to read, and makes sense to the typical apolitical prol. This is not true of most Marxist jargon that requires you to have read twenty books beforehand to properly understand. Also the SEP is by far probably the best party in existence.

If Trotsky was in charge the USSR would’ve won WW3.

Either go reply in the ☭TANKIE☭ general or start your own thread you've already derailed this one enough

Trots are more autistic than Maoists confirmed

Failure of working class to embrace socialism is not a failure of the working class but of the revolutionary party. The reason for this was due to the Stalinists betrayal of socialism and tacit support for bourgeois nationalists throughout the globe. Of course this answer generates anger from bootlicking ☭TANKIE☭s like yourself so blinded by the edginess of Stalinism that you refuse to accept reality

Shut up Trotnerd.

While some contempt generals did get purge it was part of reforms that needed to happen.
And it was Stalin who lead the industrialization that made this possible.
how exactly did Stalin repress genuine working class revolution? Reminds of the "talk to people who lived under socialism to see how bad it is"

The only way to survive in capitalism is to put your head down and grind away at a shitty job for an idiot boss you hate. This is hard to do day in day out for 50 years until retirement so people instead will let themselves believe the propaganda - that if they work hard enough they'll be rich some day too, that the existence of starving people proves the fault in those people, not in the system, and so on.

It's too hard to face the reality of the world, so people don't. I mean, I'm sure that the cross-section of this board has a more spotty work history than the average population, mostly because of our class conciousness.

Attached: bfeb8ce34a401d1ea4c1a76d0eac357e78e5cf5cf40bc657887d5b53286028df.jpg (964x768, 258.35K)

color me shocked

Because modern left wing parties have become like non profit organisations and NGOs, they claim to speak *for* the proles, but never *with* them. There is a distinct seperation there and a division of labour even within parties that claim to be explicitly socialist

There are exceptions, but they are few and far between,

Yes for the bureaucracy to consolidate its power. But the purgues and gulags had no use for the working class. The murder of the original Bolsheviks and any principled opposition was definitely of no use to the working class

Stalinists bastardized the five year plans based on the left oppostion of Trotsky after intially siding with Bukharin, then backstabbing and murdering him. Also you saying the "Stalin" was responsible is an anti-marxist conception of class forces. Due to its self imposed isolation, the bureaucracy had no choice but to rapidly industralize through brutal force in order to maintain its national sovereignty. Under a real marxist leadership, there would have been far more focus on buildiing the German vanguard so that Nazism wouldn't attain power in the first place and the spread of German capital and technique in Russia would have made the five year plans far more efficient and without the brutalization of the Russian peasantry.

The hundreds of thousands dying in Gulags, the original marxist leadership being killed off, the temporary ban on factions being made permanent, the destruction of soviet democracy, and the list goes on and on. As trotsky said, the property forms established and the gains of the revolution were to be defended, however the working class would need to overthrow the soviet bureaucracy for there to be true freedom for the Soviet proletariat and the victory of socialism. There was no illusion that capitalism would be worse for the USSR than the bureaucratic dictatorship of Stalin, however this was with the recognition that the role of Stalinism was to suppress the revolutionary sentiment of the USSR working class and essentially work as the labor arm of capitalism by supporting bourgeois nationalist regimes of the third world and abandon the appeals to the working class of developed capitalist nations.

You also should study history. Stalinists betrayed the catalonian workers, sided with bourgeois nationalists in China and India, and killed off all Trotskysists who were attempting to advance the leninist vanguard party and permanent revolution. If Stalinism was a genuine expression of Marxism, why would it feel the need to murder groups calling for the overthrow of capitalism in areas thousands of miles away?

He didn’t fund Communist parties around the world, instead preferring to wage a “cold war.”

How did Stalin screw up in India? Familiar with China but haven't heard the story for India before. From my limited knowledge India ended up with a "halfway" socdem constitution, similar to Weimar Germany or Mexico.

socdems in west

Socdems usually end up cooperating with conservative or right wing parties anyway and give away anything in their program which would help the working class. It has been like this since at least the 90's. Socdems aren't doing well because they stand with big corporations, foreign migrants and only offer virtue signaling while they are simultaneously responsible for stagnant wages and ever increasing cost of living (leading to work giving less overall wealth to the population). A lot of attitudes lower class people have towards those right wing parties is that they know they fuck them but at least they don't get migration and islam so they go with that instead. At least in Europe people are very aware that it doesn't matter whoever they vote they'll be fucked anyway. This has been the case in virtually every western country the last 30 or so years. The entire reason right wing populist anti migrant parties have become big in Europe is attributable first by failures and loss of identity of social democrats.

< expecting voting to affect the system controlled by bilderburgs and banks when everyone's educated to be as dumb as lead and live hand-to-mouth