Rebrand Leftism: Form a new party

I have found the words "socialism," "communism," even "leftism," create an unnecessary barrier to entry for when I'm trying to get the theory to somebody. It creates an extra layer of suspicion and preconceived notions that wouldn't be there had I used some other neutral name to describe the theory, and I've lost people on the name alone.

Some of you might thing that's not important, you'd be wrong. Psychology is very important, and I don't have magical powers to control how they have been programmed to react to these words. If the word is working against you, is it really worth it to hold onto?

First we should really ask ourselves if we WANT the normies. Do not fall for the party myth of fishing for recruits, normies who show even a mild interest in leftism will remain normies, will have stupid, wrong, and plain obnoxious opinions on any given number of things, will act in unpredictable ways and may even make us look bad regularly.
I mention this because some leftists still cling to the notion that the only true leftist movement is one in which everyone holds an universal interpretation of an universal dogma, and all official business is in principle predictable and preventable. Also, "Read a fucking book", while a phrase often heard from the mouths of illiterate morons, is not wrong in concept. And a normie movement, in this day and age, is a movement of people who don't read.

I think the alt-right in general have several advantages when it comes to further its narrative:
It's easier to blame categories of people than concepts (you can touch a jew, a nigger, but not the iherent contradictions of capitalism)
The alt right scapegoats have more visibility and are more marketable (everybody saw race riots on tv, acts of terrorism, but who saw directly pory signing a paper depriving thousands of their jobs, and even if it was recorded, it wouldn't be as spectcular.)
Last but not least, the terms they use have very basic definitions (muh property right vs private/personnal property).
The simplicity of message also have the huge advantage or being very little TIME consuming and time is, more than intelligence, the limitation of the average Joe's political reflexion.

We need to simplify the message,, giving flesh to what we fight, and expressing our ideas using commons definitions.

This is true. That's why I said we need to rebrand the concept and separate ourself from all marxian terms. So, maybe think of a new name for a theory?

We can never succeed without vague support from the masses. The fact is: yes normies don't read( I mean sometimes reading is a chore for me, been taking me quite some time to get through this history of western phil book), but we can't be so pedantic.

Times has changed, and as an alt-rightist would say "it's the CURRENT YEAR"; if we don't get with it, we will fade into oblivion.

So we can try and get some form of support from the unwashed normies and then even if they fuck it up, it wouldn't be any worse than our fate as of now.

Yes! I'm not saying to imitate them, but condense our doctrine into such a way that they can understand it.

(I'm hoping someone more politically literate than me, or who has photoshop skills will jump in soon)

For example: make an infrograph on the alternatives to currency etc.

The alt-left is essentially nationalistic leftists. It already exists, it just hasn't turned into a popular movement at this point in time.

I was just switching up terms there. I don't think we should try and latch onto neo-Nazbol ideology. As pointed out above, it would just as likely turn into a totalitarian regime if it succeeded.

Satan here has the right idea. If you explicitly say you are on the far left, people who already have political biases will assume you're either an angry student with no foresight or just trying to be edgy. Sometimes it is best to describe socialism without mentioning socialism at all.

Another thing is that scapegoats are much easier to explain and correlate with issues than concepts. "Look at all these rich jews, look at all of these problems" is a lot quicker to swallow than "Look at all of these systems and learn the contradictions of them.".

What I'm saying is, it's easy to simplify the message when it's already a simplistic one in the first place.

I'm not sure it this is the right thread for that, but i'm looking into it, the more i'm under the impression than mankind never made it past the "kinship" interpersonnals bond. The only thing that changed is the scale of said kinship. (clan tribe, city country…). It's not a coincidence that the french had to add fraternité (brotherhood) to liberty and equality.

So anyway the right is overplaying the kinship card plentifully. So i wonder: should we find a way to overcome kinship? Or working to enlarge it once more?

Yeah. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to simplify it. A "Quick Guide: The Contradictions of Capitalism" that's a series of infographs for example…

Bipartisan racist here.

Socialism would require high social trust, which can only exist in either homogeneous, or very small-scale societies (a lot of societal problems seem to grow non-polynomial with respect to population), as per Putnam's diversity studies and Pleasureman's SCALE theories.

You can't ignore the race issue.

No.

Excellent argument, friend. I will have to think long and hard about what you've said.

Do you have said studies? And i mean the original paers, not some comments.

Refer to any race thread by any Holla Forumslack for a refutation. We've already been through this time and time again and refuted that pseudoscience.

We are not a racist movement. If you would like to be one, start your own racist leftist thread. I could coexist perfectly with black people or whoever you want to scapegoat. If you can't, then speak for yourself.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

I already have my own movement, and your OP has done an okay job of pointing out some of its successes. I'm just trying to give some advice, given that I agree with some of the points made here.

Of coursh! Simplifying things and allowing people to read up on the guts behind it on their own terms is very important.

However, the moment you start mentioning capitalism and socialism, people who are not familiar with the definitions of both terms usually start turning up their noses and going "hahaha dumb commies dont you know marxism doesn't work? just look at norway and venezuela". If it's going to reach a large audience, it probably needs to be neutral. But how can one point out the contradictions of capitalism without seeming politically biased?

What we need to do is get rid of the iconography, not the ideas. Come up with new symbols, new slogans.

If we walk around in public with hammer-and-sickle emblems on our clothes, people won't think of us for our ideological views. They will get Cold War flashbacks and assume we want to wantonly murder people for no other reason than to indulge in suffering.

Do you even read what you send out? Creating an identity for everyone to latch onto and join together as brothers is part of the movement.

I'm the OP, I used to be a Holla Forumsyp. After spending even a week away from that site and reading contrasting and contradicting materials you start to see nonsense for what it really. is.

Of course, the Putnam study is interesting but correlation does not equal causation my friend.

And I know what you are. No leftist is a racist. You can tell when someones a crypto-polack by the way they type, thinking they will convert us or something.

This is something we can try to accomplish in the thread. We don't have to be neutral, just appear neutral.

Fuck, i need a burner. Thx still.

They're talking about people like Italians and Germans there. I forgot what the actual communities were, but all of the "long-term good" communities were white or asian (though, with Asians, there was still less trust).

Putnam is still fully on-board with the diversity meme and has only doubled down, but all of the actual data he found doesn't support that.

Trying to find a copy of the PDF. Academic databases are really bad for DRM…

Sounds A-ok.

Or maybe, he isn't a reactionary and realizes you can't just isolate something like "race" as the scapegoat for all the worlds problems

Why can't you guys fuck off, honestly.

As opposed to isolating something like "class" as the scapegoat for all the worlds problems? Is that better?

"Every time we've measured it, objects have accelerated towards the earth at around 9.8 meters per second per second, but since correlation does not imply causation, I guess we really don't know anything."

That's you.

The bulk of scientific knowledge is either based on correlations that we've found, or was discovered as a result of correlations we've found.

I'm not a leftist, and I never claimed I was a leftist. I used the phrase "bipartisan racist."

I simply don't have any strong feelings about which economic system we should have, because I believe that under the right circumstances, we could make most of them work reasonably well.

There's a difference between talking about groups of people(ethnic groups) and talking about the intricacies of a system, how that system works and how that system functions globally, and how contradictions within that system can manifest themselves as the system becomes grander, and going "lol it's da niggers".

We aren't the same.

When you're talking about something as complex as social interaction, you can't just isolate one variable as the cause by race. This is something Putnam understands but you don't.

I read a few interviews with him btw. He points out examples where people were able to overcome their biasses and live together functionally. I'm gonna go with what the researcher thinks about his own research, than what the Holla Forumsyp thinks the implications are.

Now fuck off back to Holla Forums if you think we can make capitalism "work" under the "right" circumstances. You've very clearly never read any leftist literature Get out to his thread.

as the cause* example: race.

Anyway, I'm not interested in talking about "race" any longer. So to answer your question: yes we are going to ignore the aspect of race.

That was literally half of my original point.
Anyone can effortlessly misrepresent an argument. Observe:
"lol it's da rich people. yachts are causing poverty guyz!!!!!!"

If that's the case (and I agree that it is), then you can't completely ignore a variable either - especially when we have evidence that there is an interaction with that variable - as you have said that you are willing to do.

You mean anecdotes? Sure, they exist. But statistically, most people will converge towards the expected outcome (95% of the population will fall within 2 standard deviations, to be more precise). When modelling a large-scale system, you should be more concerned about the overarching trends, rather than the convenient exceptions.

How about you go with the data itself? Putnam has biases just like I do.

At least you're honest.

I'm a former Holla Forumsyp as I said before. I've spent enough time on the board to know of "nigger hate threads". 95% of arguments on the board are "lol its da niggers".

And you wouldn't be misrepresenting our argument by saying "it's the rich people", Just overly simplifying it heavily.

Fine if you want to think this. But please stop derailing threads here.

Yes correlation is not enough to prove causation.

Oh god no.
Are you twelve years old OP ?

Even if race is a spook, you just can't dismiss it when more and more people are falling for it. Pushing a narrative is no enough, you must destray the other side's narrative.

You're still missing the point. This is still strong evidence that there could be a causal link here. The best you can say is "we don't know for sure yet".

Given that, since diversity is pretty fucking difficult to reverse once it gets past a certain point (traditionally, it has involved ethnic cleansing), wouldn't it be reasonable to stop it now and wait until we actually know?

Not every multiethnic society is prone to violence y'know?
If i remember right, a counterexample disprove a causation.

A counter-example is indeed a disproof, but only against a claim of the form "all x have the property y", which is not what I was making.

I'm claiming that 'diverse' communities, at scale, will tend to follow this trend. There will be exceptions, but a strong majority will fit the profile.

For a disproof, you'd need to take a reasonable sample of many different communities of all different types, with varying diversity levels, then quantify the trust in all of their neighborhoods, and show that there is either no correlation, or only a very weak correlation between
diversity and distrust.

Also, to be clear, I didn't mention violence - I mentioned distrust. Putnam didn't find diverse areas to be more violent, which honestly surprised me a lot and challenged some of my preconceived notions, but that's what he found.

Oh, and inb4 no example provided, La Réunion: population 800000, Whites, Niggers, muslims Pajeets and Gooks. You're welcome.

A good example is this:
Men tend to be taller than women. This is a biological fact. Yes, there are men who are shorter than the average women, and there are women who are taller than the average man, but the tendency is still there.

The narrative changes so fucking much that it is impossible to end decisively. Race is such a common spook because it is highly effective.

People need an alternative worldview to push the spooks out because race effectively is their worldview.

This is actually pretty interesting tbh.

The "diversity and social cohesion" thing is a meme created by liberals that ended up shooting themselves in the foot. It falsely implies that race and ethnicity are benign, subconscious sociological factors when they are constantly being politicized to the point where mass media tries to make people conscious of it whenever possible. This is something that liberals will never admit to.

And even people trying to research the topic admit that it is only an issue when a community is segregated, which is extremely more common than people think. When people of different races live in the same neighborhood, nobody actually cares.

academia.edu/25259346/Wider-Community_Segregation_and_the_Effect_of_Neighbourhood_Ethnic_Diversity_on_Social_Capital_an_Investigation_into_Intra-Neighbourhood_Trust_in_Great_Britain_and_London

Simply put, it is a political issue through and through.

So this is Anglo multiculturalism/communautarism vs civic intergration?

Cheers for the paper. I'll have to go through this.

why you call whites whites and anything else a slur?

no, that's what alt- right crypto fascists do, that's what stormfags with their "muh (NA)tional so(ZI)alism"

Some people will figure it out regardless of how carefully you avoid trigger words. I've been taking this approach for a while and it's worth it despite that though.

A number of times I've used some local event as a jumping off point to talk about what I think (say, expropriation and collectivization of manufacturing industry as a response to capital flight) only to have someone say at the end "you sound like a communist" even though I've been very careful to couch it in everyday terminology. What's surprising though is that the response at that point is not always negative, especially with younger (sub 40) people. I've had more people exit that kind of conversation with an improved impression of "communism" than with dismissal of the concept. People are becoming more receptive now, cold war triggers or no, than I've seen in the decade I've been interested in radical politics.

As far the hammer and sickle, ancom star and stuff like that goes though, it's cancer. I love them and they are great for memeing but they are a liability when dealing with everyday people. Even when people don't flip out at "socialism", iconography associated with the USSR or with what many see as playacting children (pretty much any anarchist shit that Antifa street thugs or old punk bands used) is a huge turn off.

Keeping in mind that the alt-right has turned 'cultural marxism' into a meme meaning essentially 'anything enjoyed by girls and/or brown people', it actually provides a very succinct summary of non-traditional (i.e. cultural) entryism. Undermining spooks like the family and heteronormativity will eliminate a lot of pre-existing biases that would prevent critically examining material conditions.

Because i don't know racial slurs applying to Whites you sperg.

Beside, it' not tricking if the message stays the same. Fighting for a flag is nonsense, you fight for the ideas it represents

I will help you, I know many:
Betty, Bird Shit, Caveman, Cheesehead, Cocksauce, Cracker, Devil, Honkie, Lice-head, Mayonnaise, Pinky.

...

the alt right has gotten big because they appeal to the pethos of insecure middle class guys
leftists only know how to talk to the logos and that is what has sunken them so low

I do think we should be intellectually dishonest like all fascists are but we need a good rhetorical tactic to not commit the same mistakes as before.

I think it's important that the left its own group of internet memers to oppose the alt-right, since mass politics is currently taking place online, not in the streets. I don't think that abandoning leftist names and iconography is a good idea at all, it's better to wear them with pride so that we can normalize them. Abandoning them is chickenshit and it would leave us open to compromise on ideology, letting people turn it into another racist movement or something.

That's true. The Alt-right is slowly making the faces and swastika more acceptable again.

Exactly. I'm an INTP. I don't think emotionally( or not very much). Most people are ENTP and if you want to appeal to that, you need to have some strategy or you'll fade into obscurity.

Sage

...

This. We may as well admit there's no chance at communism if we give up the iconography. Treating it like it's some dirty thing to avoid is going to give people that exact idea.

Also, the idea that we can 'rebrand' socialism by splitting into a new wave or party is so fucking stupid. There's literally a fucking monty python skit about that exact thing.

This doesn't mean we shouldnt look at organizations who aren't doing fuck all good for the leftist movement and change them. The CPUSA is a good example.

What's the skit called?

youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY

Kek.

but only idiots view them as extreme, the alt right works because it is the sentiment of the vast majority of people.

I think you have the wrong flag.

why? what i say is true, the vast majority of people were born into nationalism and religion. The vast majority of people have right wing values, and to call them extreme is bullshit, they are the norm, they are the majority.

That doesn't make them right.
Where I live, they are very much a minority but I live in Canada.

We need a union of egoists. I think we should call it the union of egoists.

I'm sure a well-done infograph about Co-Ops and Mondragon could shut up a bunch of the "socialism would never work without a perfect AI computer" fags.

Mondragon is not totally perfect because it start to compromise because of globalist stress tough

Pretty much everyone in this thread seems to be forgetting what leftypol's number one export is and how it might be our most powerful weapon against the right and alt-right. Stirner.

Take a look at this graph.
google.com/trends/explore#cmpt=q&geo=US&q=leftypol, /m/0slqn

Leftypol has been driving the popularity of Stirner in the united states to levels unseen in almost 10 years. Stirner is the ultimate weapons against the alti-right since they can only really rely on spooks to make their arguments. Burkian style conservatism that relies on the status quo has been thrown by the wayside of most right wingers, which means they have practically no defense against stirnerism.

The history of the popularity of Stirner shows that he becomes popular whenever there is a lot of unrest and radical ideologies are rising, this is because in times like these people tend to recognize the madness of the things people do for spooks and start to reject that madness. I have an article about this in the pipes.

Perhaps we can weaponize stirnerism in a way to beat back the alt-right an establish ourselves apart from identity politics liberals. While using spooks as an offensive tool to tear down their ideologies, we use other philosophies to bring in others to our fold.

We must have a proper answer to every ideology.

Libertarians and ancaps are vulnerable to Proudhon.

Alt-rightists and pretty much any strain of identity politics, as I have said, are vulnerable to Stirner.

Run of the mill nationalists and liberals are vulnerable to Zizek.

Establishment Conservatives are vulnerable to Wolff.

Monarchists are vulnerable to Rousseau.

Religious conservatives are vulnerable to liberation theology as well as pre-marxist christian socialism.

The important thing is not to show our hand too quickly, don't bring up Marx or describe yourself as a radical leftist at first. like this user said:

Start with battling over points and foundations, more info-graphs and such would be helpful, and if you come across someone who wants to learn exactly what socialism is send them here: s3.jacobinmag.com/issues/jacobin-abcs.pdf
and have them read the first two chapters and whatever other relevant chapters you can think of.

...

This is true. Memes are our only path to victory.

Joking aside, it's suprising how a relatively unknown and very niche young hegelian, whose entire philosophy got destroyed by Marx himself, has actually got such a surge in popularity on the internet.

It's also true that it's hard to fit in the pre-made misconceptions and propaganda the alt-right loves to adopt, and that the concept of spook is poorly understood by them, if not completely alien. At least, judging from the poor attempts at spookposting or debating Stirner I've read from alt-right people.

I agree that Stirner is quite useful, bu he's a double edged sword. He also REKT some Leftists schools…

I haven't read Marx's critique of Stirner yet, and while I find some of Stirner's claims to be a bit ridiculous, I think his critique of fixed ideas is pretty spot on.

Definitely, they just don't know how to handle him. The only time I found someone on pol who actually knew his philosophy was an evola follower who said that if we was working on pure reasoning he'd be more inclined to side with stirner, but that his emotions compelled him to go with evola.

Sure like ML but I'm not going to shed a tear over that. I have made arguments in the past that the main tenements of Stirner's egoism is compatible with Rousseau's social contract and Bookchin's communalism.

Did you made a copypasta? I'd like to see that.

What makes you so sure that Stirner can't be adopted by the new right? (not the alt-right)

And in the process of destroying their spooks, this might just make them stronger and more determined, more radical.

This is point on, particularly the infographs point. If you guys really wish to swat the common apolitical everyman to your side you need easily digested tidbits of information and propaganda.

But being realist a lot of your guys who "know theory" are basically the snobby book reader stereotype. Those guys don't want you to read the books, they just want to feel superior and intellectual.

Not a leftist by the way.

I'm sorry, do you mean it would strenghten their spooks or do you mean loosing them would make rightists run amok?

What flag should we use???

This one

nvm, this one

The few who are softboiled in ideology would be terrified and left confused, but those who are of a stronger core could certainly take for themselves the mantle of the egoist

Should they replace their morals with somethig much more potent, like the "ought" of belief for the "I" of the lustful ego. What would that make them in your face?

To go From "I should do what I should" To "I want what I want" that's what could happen, imagine them unrestrained by spooks, free of the lies they tell themselves.

I'm pretty fond of gweilo tbh

We already had a #leftrevival and alt-left.

I'm not doing anything that helps people compare us to Holla Forums and a bunch of idiot racists even more.

It's gotta be the memes.

How is that a bad thing? Do you think they are savage beasts and their spooks are some kind of leash? If they're truly adopting Milkman's philosophy, there is no reason they would behave worse than the average Stirnerfag.

Those are some very harsh words, but for simplicity's sake, lets say that yes this is the case.

This is just a hypothetical scenario, mind you.

Well i don't know how a few psychopath murderhoboing would be worse than organized fanatics formenting genocide.

I would think that they would have to concede that they are fighting not for some deeper objective reason(one of the ways they attract the masses), but because they want that out of their own sick desires.

It was for a college essay, I'll see if I have it on my hard drive when I get off mobile.

What is a nationalist without a nation? What is a liberal without mankind? What is a racist without race? What is a tankie without historical necessity?

There's a reason why only libertarians and anarchists have adopted stirner

Irl Holla Forums for teh lulz??

Okay, I'm suddenly much more interested in these other counters you bring forward. I personally believe the alt-right will take a big kick in the nuts anyway when Trump loses to Clinton, so we need to worry more about slimy liberal politicians etc.

I still believe Stirnerists can be useful but we need to prepare for a future where the neolib spectacle reigns supreme, which is much more likely than a fascist uprising.

So who's starting a new reading group thread? Fuck it, you could even start a steam group just for sticking it out with each other, peer pressuring people away from their vidya habits and back to theory.

All this brexit business had me thinking about leftism and what is left of it in the 21st century,i mean real leftism not tumblr.txt shit.
And i came to the epiphany, the people called sjw's the ones everyone hates from the far right to the far left are not left wing, they are globalists who are upholding capitalism and the elite while wearing the mask of liberalism, sjw's aren't the working class, they are upper class, college educated liberals who live in gated communnities who are trying to preserve their power whether they are conscious of it or not.

So for leftism to survive in the 21st century it has to differentiate itself from these false leftists called sjw's and retake the throne of leftism.

Wow, thanks for the stunning insight

We have to play it a little more cleverly than just yelling at all the undergrads that they're spoiled hypocrites. I personally believe their brains are rotting from an overdose of twitter "activism" and other such influences, leading them to develop an obsession with narcissistic identity politics "it's about what I am, not what I have! :DDD" rather than anything economical.

So, just get the college kids away from stupid, angry mobs on the internet. Wish I knew how, though.

Neoliberals are pretty standard, a combination of wolff, proudhon and zizek is effective at dismantling their arguments. Keep in mind they mostly rely on neoclassical economics to work. You can use zizeks analysis of consumerism and how modern capitalism makes it your duty to both reproduce capital and find enjoyment in commodities with otherwise little value to deconstruct their idea of the utility maximizing rational individual at the heart of neoclassical economics and then use wolff to show how neoliberal economics leads to more inequality which in of itself leads to more crisis. Look at his book contending economic theories, free pdf online, and the scenes about Starbucks and Coca-Cola in the perverts guide to ideology. Proudhon in general shows how calling capitalists job creators is pure ideology and how private property was essentially created to make class and inequality as does Rousseau in the discourse on inequality. For normies, show them the essay on taxing the rich in jacobins abc's of socialism

No, sjws need to be humiliated and beaten into submission with meme's and actual footwork.

The alt right defeated their jew foe known as the neocons with the election of trump.

Right now the working class is crying out for hope, a savior, anyone, even trump, and its happening in every western country.

There is a quote from mao.

“Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.”
― Mao Tse-tung

How is it that the supposed idiots on pol where more organized and able to strike.

We are living in the chaos era, we need chaos thought, we need the real left shitting on sjw's 24/7 revealing them for the fools they are, we need confederate communism, we need the left to talk to the real working class not the east and west coast elites.
Stop preaching to the choir and get deep into the shit.

SJWs are what is known as 'useful idiots'. In The Right of Nations to Self Determination, Lenin discusses using nationalism and ethno-nationalism as a counter-imperialist tactic. These movements are susceptible to being shaped along more socialist lines, which can be useful in bringing down global capitalism.
Then we can deal with them after the revolution.

Because that worked out so well last time

Im serious when i say the left needs to stop preaching to the choir, dont go to a college campus, go to a church.
Dont go to California go to south Carolina.
Yeah, you might be called a commie faggots, assaulted, and no one will listen to you.
But you need to actually talk to the impoverished.
Dont go to the cities, go to the country.

mao pls go

Good luck. Not saying there's no point in reaching out to rural areas, but you're mostly going to be arguing at a brick wall against Kulaks and counter-revolutionaries. There either needs to be a huge shift in material conditions or a serious cultural entryist effort before the region can be helpful and not a hindrance to the revolution.

So I don't have it down anywhere but the jist of it is that both Rousseau and Bookchin aimed to create a vision for a state that gave to its citizens more freedom than whatever they gave up to create the state.

I'm not sure if Bookchin had read or believed in Rousseau's project, but I think that in his attempts to make a viable socialist state that escaped the problems of parliamentary politics preventing meaningful change he inadvertently came to similar conclusions, since only a system in which people have direct control over their laws in a significant way.

Under a system such as this there be no need for abstractions such as nations, races, ect, it's a system that does not rely on spooks but on talking with your neighbors every now and then. Where it makes abstractions it is in the creation of laws, but the body politic makes these abstractions knowing full well what they are, just vague statements. It is the responsibility of the government to carry out these laws in the particular. The reason these abstractions have force is because they come from me, to Rousseau, the only credible way you can be free under a state is if you can credibly be said to be a part of the formation of laws. This is impossible under representative democracy and other forms of states. Bookchin's system is one way to implement that principle.

However, Stirner does reject even this kind of state, saying that even if he did create the laws he lives under, he would not follow them if he changed his mind. This is what I think Stirner's silliest statement is. If I must live with my past self's decisions to live under a state which protects my freedom and also creates stability, then I'm ok with that.

aka nonsense by people no one takes seriously

Bump

Calling attention to my previews post

Oh, but you can! People do so every day. The contradictions of capitalism are manifested physically. That material reality is what the communist angle of attack must be. The brilliant thing is that once people see the relationship between labor and what it produces they can never stop seeing it.

But they are less obvious than some minority commiting crime. Ence the need to devolop a discourse "fleshing" it more.

go take your meds, /int/

bump

Cap this.

Stay out of the view of the media till things grow enough to help avoid early slanderous lies that would cripple growth. Set up a youth political sect of the party. Set up a charity program that helps pay for or provide free of charge travel for the lower economic classes to get to voting registration and polling no matter what their view is to get in a good support. Tell the nations people we want to help them become more self reliant from corporate entities, giving them a whole new level of freedom. Let them know we will restore humanity to something of end value instead of just a resource. Let it be known that we love our nations people and are in disgust with those who seek to take advantage of or harm those people.

Fucking this, this is how Nsdap and muslim brotherhood won a large support base despite their shitiness.

I realized a hole I left out. Helping people get to voting will mostly just benefit those without jobs and those who can afford a day off. Those people who do have jobs, the lower their economic class the more unlikely they are to take the day off to vote. So because of this we need to help propose and pass a bill to make voting days national holidays. the people who really cant afford to take the time off will then be able to have it and be heard.

Why would I want to distance myself from Marxism?

Strength, charisma, intelligence, the truth, and a disdain for liberals of all political creeds right from left.

Most people don't even know what Marxism is. People are very cautious about it and afraid.

Let's have a wing of the organization that specializes in spreading information about what Marxism is, especially addressing misconceptions about it.

That would make starting a new party pointless if you are going for Marxism. There already is a communist party.

I kind of assumed an organization founded by Holla Forums would be more of a pan-leftist group focused on education and tactical voting campaigns

Yeah nah

We already have this.

It's called the post-left

Any graphic artist on leftypol wanna offer a party symbol up?

Could incorporate leftist symbolism or nah

But the post-left is completely ineffectual.

It would be a good idea if they avoid all symbols with negative political associations with them. No red or yellow star, no hammer and sickle. What about just a balanced scale to represent equality and a balanced stance? Also make the scale look somewhat cross like to invoke the power of that symbol making people feel drawn to it unconsciously. Make it both red and blue or just white so people can't tell what policy it represents at first so they get drawn in to look more. It's better to focus on policy instead of aesthetics of flag design at first though.

help

I can't either. I tried.

There already is an alt-left. It's a bunch of SWPLS that like HBD, socialism and poopdick.

altleft.com/

I liek this user :D

What about the "United Social Workers Party" for the name.

Are you trying to vert unsubtley hide your socialism, or are you trying to masquerade as a union for social workers?

Hide in plain sight m8

I say give it a name that hides things more and appeal to a lot of people who normally don't go for these things. Maybe something like the Passionate Peoples Party (P3 for short).

The Game of Thrones Party. Netflix and Chill Party. The Harambe Party.

this, it's not yahts causing poverty, it's privately owned property used to leech labor power from workers.

If you get rid of private property that sounds too threatening to people. That is like saying you want the government to take peoples land and homes away from them. It takes away the rights of people to inherit land that was their ancestors and Ive known people freak out about this. It would be more accepted to keep private property for individuals. The only thing you might stand a chance on is worker ownership of means of production but even then that is too big a step for many people to take. Dont think radical, think smart. No point in making a party that will never win.

How about some slogans:
Workplace for the workers?
Workers rule?
Makings for the makers?

Democracy in the workplace?
Sorry Wolff-kun

A few problems I see with your plan here Holla Forums

1. What differentiates the new party from any existing leftist third party? (Greens, CPUSA, etc)

2. How do you stop SJWS from coopting it? Would you even want to? They, not callous-handed, trump supporting blue collar types, are going to be your most eager/common applicants.

Show a support of certain social causes and specify the methods but show a disapproval of more harmful, self defeating, annoying, wrong methods used by SJWs. Don't call anyone a SJW though. So basically you show a support for certain causes but not certain methods. You should also explain how certain methods are self defeating.

No, you boot SJWs out. The party is standing already for their causes and its not compromising over the solution.

Okay, but what stops them from taking over? You've had years to convert them. They will outnumber you. If you bar them from leadership, on what grounds do you do it? How do you prevent them from voting in new rules?

This seems like a more principled stance. But then who are you recruiting from? And how do you prevent mainstream leftists from getting in and subverting you by degrees?

SJW is not even a real group its a totally meaningless word from how poorly defined it is. It would only harm such a party to even mention it. It's not a compromise to intelligently word things to not chase everyone away. You keep the people and boot the methodology.

You can say certain methods of approaching things goes against what the party represents and it only would become a redundancy if it is not set apart from other parties. You say if they really care about certain issues then they should be able to let go of what they originally thought was the solution because the party has the real solution. So some will change their minds, some will leave.

An SJW is quite simply someone who chooses to act as the morality police and wants the state and every institution, -private or public- to regulate people's reactions and relationships with eachother based on identity and arbitrary distinctions. The existance of social issues is worth far more to them than solving the root causes.

SJWs are inherently statist bourgeois liberals who are obsessed with censoring language and curving discussion to adress their topics.
.

You're right, this is a matter of backroom politics. "Yo wegotta Icepick these bastards".

I didn't mean my post to be an apology of rude speech. Indeed one should have at least *some* tact when dealing with matters that personally affect party-members, but this can never and under no circumstance pave the way for tje hijacking of efforts and discussion by these sectarians. In fact, it should be quite the opposite, the party should hijack all causes of personal freedom and frame them under the Party's goals.

When I join a political party, it is understood that I align myself with its ultimate goals because they align with mine. To disagree on methods and so on is perfectly fine, as long as I am fostering honest and fruitful debate and not stalling concrete action.

However I do not think these moderate liberal SJWs are of any worth whatsoever to the ultimate goals. They frame both the issues they care about and their supposed solutions straight under a capitalist lens. They dont say "[GROUP] will be free after Capitalism ends" but rather: "The revolution will bring a state that guarantees [GROUP] liberation an criminalization of discrimination". To fight for social equality under capitslism -besides being an oxymoron- is the exact opposite of fighting against capitalism. It would be like fighting for kinder slavemasters and pink shakles.

If anything, should these people get their way, should indeed the state grant their wishes, then what revolutionary incentive is there left in them? They used the party to satisfy their commodity fetishism, and now they are entrenched in the ranks lf the ideological defenders of the system they once fought. They Accomplished absolutely nothing but make the prisson more comfortable, all because ultimately, they were naught but spooked faggots who wanted their rights granted to them by the hierarchy.

You're over complicating things. A SJW is just any leftist you don't agree with on a social issue ( or non issue). Not all of them are authoritarian statists, some just harass or shame people to change without wanting to change any laws.

Then what are you worried about? They would do the same thing. I never said to specifically seek out SJW's. I just suggested some might like it still and join and if they were to they probably are more fine to compromise some of their more extreme or authoritarian views otherwise they would have gone to some other group that panders to them.

...