#Leftwing

[andysouldancer]

Happy #SocialistSunday everyone.

There is a better way. A better way to run the economy. A way for the many and not just the few.

#socialism #socialist #leftwing #leftist #society #SocialJustice #equity #Equality

[barely-coherent-anarchist]

punk is an inherently left wing subculture.

it grew out of the collective disillusionment of marginalised communities the world over. whether you were a person of colour, working class, a part of the LGBTQIA+ community, or any combination of these and other communities, punk was and still is for the most part a scene which welcomes everyone.

right wing politics are, by their definition, opposed to everything punk stands for: anti-establishment belief, radical acceptance, and anti-consumerism.

so don't forget what dead kennedy's said in that absolutely amazing song, 'nazi punks fuck off':

"You still think swastikas look cool

The real Nazis run your schools

They're coaches, businessmen and cops

In a real fourth Reich you'll be the first to go"

and if any right wing 'punks' see this post, all i can really say is cope harder lmao.

[gregoriaofnyssa]

The Forgotten Cost of Immigration

I'm not really anti-immigration. My ancestors are immigrants, and most of my greatest friends are either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants. I am actually kind of indifferent, politically, to immigration. But there is a fruit of immigration that I think does not get spoken about often enough-- in fact, I've never heard it spoken about. Immigration tears children away from their homelands. It is a naive, liberal fantasy to say people do not possess blood memory, to say that land does not carry a spirit and does not imbue that lasting spirit in its people. It does. We can all feel it.

My most recent non-domestically (US) born ancestors were my great-grandparents, who came from Western Armenia and Iran. This is on my Father's side. I am far removed from that place, but I still ache to see, to touch, to smell my homeland. I love my country, yes-- America is the place that raised me. But my blood never spilled to protect this land. I mourn the factors that drove my family away from the places that raised them, and the land over which their blood did spill. Today, many immigrants come to America because of conflicts that America caused or exasterbated.

I have to wonder why, instead of accepting immigrants, why we don't try to put to a stop, at least to our part, of what is causing their need to migrate. It is a tragedy to leave one's homeland. It is a tragedy to raise children away from where their blood was designed to be. It creates a feeling of lifelong mourning. Americans complain sometimes of the recent influx of Palestinian immigrants. If it bothers you so, why not advocate against the billions and billions of dollars America lavishes upon the israeli war machine, which is the very thing causing those migrants in the first place? I know, because I have seen it, because I know them, they don't want to come here. They want to live in the place their blood belongs. No one really wants to leave their homeland-- they want to leave conflict, poverty, and danger.

I am mourning a past I never possessed. A heritage I will never be able to fully embrace.

[notaplaceofhonour]

i think there is some connection between this post and this post

the increasing tendency to treat flaws as justification to declare something wholly “problematic” is a big piece of the anti-intellectualism on the left

the entire point of criticism in academia is to refine & improve understanding in your field. when you level criticism, you are seeking to create dialogue, not shut it down—you engage in criticism to understand not just that a thing has problems, but to seek to understand those problems so you can contribute to a solution

it’s for that reason that the once valid image of a bunch of rich white dudes sitting around smoking cigars in a white tower isn’t accurate anymore. by no means does that mean all problems of systemic inequality are fully “solved”, but we live in a world where academia can and does adjust to criticism, and is now full of diverse perspectives from all intersections of minority voices

but when your approach to criticism is just finding any flaws to declare something wholly “problematic” and the only solution you have is “throw it all out!” “burn it all down!” the fact that institutions of higher learning are flawed and can be criticized leads you to embracing anti-intellectualism. rather than seeing the limitations of privileged perspectives as just that—limitations, which need to be filled out by combining them with perspectives that historically were overlooked—any perspective that may have been privileged in the past becomes trash that needs to be thrown out entirely

[tiefrotemaus]

What are you gonna find here?

OPs political views

OPs statements about political issiues of the world

blatantly radical leftist posts

For your Information: OP is a european leftist, so some views might be considered communist in the US, even if they aren't over here in europe.

[eaglesnick]

“Beware of over concern for money, or position, or glory. Someday you will meet a man who cares for none of these things. Then you will know how poor you are." - Rudyard Kipling

Keir Starmer, the man who would be king, has been flexing his authoritarian muscle again.

A few weeks ago he suspended 7 left-wing Labour MP’s who voted for an amendment to the King’s Speech supporting the abolition of the two-child benefit cap.

Yesterday Diane Abbott accused Starmer of failing to support her after a Tory donor made racist comments including the statement that she “should be shot".

Diane Abbott claims Keir Starmer "treated her as a non-person."  (Metro: 17/09/24)

Given the UK has witnessed two political assassinations in recent years you would expect something better from the leader of the Labour Party, but no. Why is this? Why was Sir Kier Starmer so unmoved by a call to assassinate one of the most prominent and instantly recognisable members of his own party?

I have a theory. It is only a theory but worryingly Starmer seems to display many of the symptoms of what psychologists term the authoritarian personally.

One of the signs of this personality disorder is the need to dominate. These individuals have a strong need for order and control and often display an aggression and hostility towards those that oppose them. The authoritarian personality has zero tolerance for differences in opinion or dissent.

This may well explain why Starmer was so reluctant to support Diane Abbott. She is on the left of the Labour Party and by definition an “enemy” of  Blairite Starmer. This would also explain why Starmer has been waging war against the left ever since he was elected leader

“What the brutal purge of the Labour left reveals about Sir Keir and his Starmtroopers. The Labour leader has been even more ruthless in imposing his favoured candidates on local parties than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown” (Independent: 30/05/24)

The article concludes that Starmer “shows a seriousness about power and how to wield it” but gives no explanation as to why he is so ruthless and undemocratic in his use of power. I suggest that it is because he is authoritarian.

The authoritarian personality type genuinely sees themselves as superior to others. An example of this is Starmer’s condemnation of cronyism and sleaze in the Tory party while indulging in the same immoral practices himself.

Since 2019 Starmer has received £76,000 worth of personal free gifts from cronies, including concert and football tickets, designer clothes for his wife, and  "£18,685 worth of work clothes and several pairs of glasses". By failing to declare all of these “gifts” Starmer was in breach of the MP’s code of conduct. Despite the rules being breached No 10 issued a statement saying the Parliamentary Standards watchdog would not be investigating whether Starmer broke the rules or not.

The superior Starmer can break the rules but woe betides anyone else who does so.

Many psychologists believe that all of the negative traits displayed by the authoritarian personality stem from hate and the need to punish.

“A  research headline is that authoritarians are fueled by hatred and by a powerful need to punish. Much else that we have come to associate with authoritarianism flows from this basic hate-and-punish agenda."  (Psychology Today:  08/11/17)

So far Starmer has displayed little out-and-out hatred towards people but his  need to punish, which if the psychologists are to be believed stems from hatred, is more obvious.

Not  only have we seen 7 left-wing Labour Party MP’s suspended because they supported an amendment to one of Starmer’s King's Speech policies, but more recently, he has threatened the career prospects of his fellow Labour MP’s if they don’t vote the way he tells them to.

“Sir Keir Starmer has been condemned by a Labour MP after it emerged his whips have warned last week’s winter fuel payment rebels that their careers will be held back as a result of their actions.”  Express: 17/09/24)

The world is full of authoritarian dictators at the moment. We must not let Starmer become one of them.

[oceanicmarxist]

asking u cuz u seem at least a few notches above ur average tumblr “communist”. what (if anything) works of kautsky are worth reading?

The Class Struggle, The Social Revolution & The Road to Power

Will add that Kautsky made some hard breaks with Marxism through the 1910s and 1920s (this is why Lenin and Luxemburg criticize him for), so late Kautsky and early Kautsky read like two different people sometimes.

Also recommend Mike Macnair's Revolutionary Strategy (he derives a lot of his politics from Marx, Kautsky and Lenin).

[thatheathen]

Portland, OR

[highprogressive]

who remembers this?

[psychiatric-warfare]

i stg some of yall need to learn how to think critically... white supremacist ideology is starting to seep thru some of yalls posts ffs

"boycore/girlcore" "masc-coded/femme-coded" and yes even some of the "the masculine/feminine urge to..." posts are the same as pink is for girls and blue is for boys with progressive language

"starseeds" in spiritual spaces Actually means jewish and/or neurodivergent. no one fell to this planet and are secret aliens in disguise that's literally just ableism sprinkled on top of age-old antisemitic conspiracy theories

"put disabled people out of their misery" is genocide. there's literally no other word for it, you want disabled people dead.

"narcissistic abuse" is ableist and spreads the idea that neurodivergence is dangerous and should be gotten rid of (which, yes, is also genocide!!)

"well why does [insert minority group here] just leave if that place is so bad?" is exactly what whote supremacists want. they want minorities to run off scared because it shows them they have power and they will use that power to eradicate groups of people

"these poor muslim women are FORCED to wear hijabs" stop. stop. thats just islamophobia pretending to be feminism. if you want to fight for islamic women then fight for their right to choose, don't claim they shouldn't wear one at all.

"let's get rid of organised religion entirely" MORE!! GENOCIDE!! when you say shit like this, you're implying we should get rid of jews and muslims as well which is a part of cultural christianity - a tool of white supremacists

feel free to add any more i missed bc jfc this is a serious issue that yall need to work on. please for the love of humanity THINK about your thoughts when you have them, dissect your thoughts and assess why you might have them before posting pseudo progressive posts that actually just push white supremacist ideals

[andysouldancer]

Happy #SocialistSunday everyone. The fact we even have a category called the "The Working Poor", should tell you that something is wrong ! There is a better way. A better way to run the economy. A way for the many and not just the few. #socialism #socialist #leftwing #leftist #society #SocialJustice #equity #Equality

[barely-coherent-anarchist]

reminder that praxis is, and i cannot stress this enough, extremely important to anti-capitalism as a movement.

sure, reading theory is important, but what's the point of reading said theory if you don't put it into practice in some way?

now, that doesn't mean that theory is useless, in fact i'd say the opposite. Theory is the basis for which IRL direct action is predicted on, but without putting said theory into practice, nothing will change.

join a union, organise in your local community, practice mutual aid, join a picket line, donate to mutual aid and strike funds if possible, spread leftist ideas however you can.

but remember that theory is nothing without praxis, and praxis is nothing without theory.

[crookedtimetravelhideout]

"just some thoughts"

CN: us politics, racism, political ideology, radical leftwing views.

Just watched of a progressive influencer, about some rightwing fascist influencer couple, and my head went literally with the classic fallout WTF meme.

I'm gone put the Links down here:

The YouTube Video: they talk about some pretty racist shit the people spoke about say, so if racist bullcrap does greatly affect your mental well-being, I would refrain from watching it. https://youtu.be/iosnlals77o?si=yX6E8gtHDRoahVRE The meme i wrote about: https://i.imgflip.com/2hozlb.jpg

[unblinded-by-nostalgia-blog]

This is not going to be easy...

Plague Dogs is one of those films that that leaves an distinct impact on you after you watch it. Very few films leave you so emotionally drained after seeing it. And the book has also been praised by pretty much everyone who has read it, and it is also hard for reviewers to properly review it without having an emotional breakdown.

I two, struggled to write a review, not because of the emotional impact. It's because... I don't like the original novel...at all.

Yes, I said it. The film adaptation is better than the novel, and there are many reasons why the film succeeds and the novel falls by the wayside. And no, it's not because it was a sad novel. I have read much more darker and depressing novels than this (E.G. NO.6 by Atsuko Asano).

The reason I hate this novel is for reasons that are shocking and makes you wonder how propaganda like this still runs rampant even to this day...

The Story and Characters

The story is about two dogs that escape an animal research centre and try to survive out in the wild.

But the novel doesn't focus on the dogs, only less than a third of the book actually follows the dogs. No, the main part of this book is to describe backgrounds in the Lake District and to make humans look like the worst thing in existence.

I am not kidding when I say that none of the human characters are likeable. Not one are redeemable in any way. One of the Characters, Digby Driver, is one of the most Despicable characters I have EVER read about. If your curious, read his backstory on Wikipedia! The novel makes his actions 10x worse here than a webpage can describe it.

The dogs are given no memorable traits. They are just blank slates that the readers can project their dogs onto. Which gives the novel a sense of manipulation.

From the very first page when the dog drowns in the tank, the reader knows that this is not going to have a happy ending and that it clearly has a left-wing, PETA-Like agenda against ALL forms of animal testing.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in these facilities, but most of them are given suitable habitats, and other than the test that they will go through, they live relatively normal lives.

Before you PETA fanatic go at me and call me an animal hater, let me make one thing clear...

I have lived with a lot of animals since childhood and I am currently taking an animal care course, and a science GCSE. I have read a lot about the different experiments they have given to animals, and all the animals have one thing in common...

They are healthy test subjects.

If the scientists had cruelly treated the animals and they were already sick, how would they know that the test (in this novel's case, medicine and disease control) was successful or they need to go back to the drawing board and try again.

Would I rather see other means of testing medication, of course I do. But until that day comes, we need to preform this necessary evil for the good of all. Clearly Richard Adams didn't do his research!

The entire novel only gives you one side of the argument without actually giving any viable reasons to agree with them. The author is so immature about the subject of animal testing, that he gave the animal research centre the acronym, A.R.S.E (a British slang for you buttocks!).

The fact that a reader complained about the ending of this novel speaks VOLUMES about this novel and how happy he was to give the work a "happy ending", people say that the first printing keeps the original ending. Luckily, my library has the first edition, and it is simply not true.

I did a bit more research and it was at the manuscript phase that the novel was changed to give the dogs a happy ending and add a scene where a girl who is seriously ill talks about the good of medical research in a childish way with her father.

The worst thing by far (other than the clear manipulation through guilt) is the character, Tod. What have they done to you, Tod? He is the only reason I read as far as he did, but the final nail in the coffin was his death.

The film gave The Tod a heroic death when he is trying to lead the police dogs away from the two main leads. In the book, he is killed by the gunman who gets eaten by the dogs.

It is the most disgusting scene I have ever read, not only did Rowf go out of character and eat the man in explicit detail. The Tod is captured and killed by the dogs, the gunman looks at his body, and throws at his hunting dogs to tear apart...

I am the only person disgusted by this novel? I mean, I know where Richard Adams is coming from, and I'm sure he had only the best intentions in mind, but why did he let the dogs die?

Well, if (and when) the dogs survived, they would of stopped being a construct and started becoming actual characters. They would of had to go through survivors guilt and Snitter recovering from his brain operation. It would of made it harder to project their own animals onto the two dogs. It would become Snitter and Rowf's story, not the reader's beloved animals. So the two dogs drown and all their troubles in life die with them.

The fact he wrote a "happy" ending angers me. He doesn't focus on the dog's recovery or what happened after they were rescued by the boatmen. The ending focuses on a father and little girl reading DR.Dolittle.

Richard Adams didn't care about the dogs, all he cared about was the message, and it isn't a good one.

The Illustrations

The illustrations are the only redeemable thing in this novel, the detail on them is beautiful. But later prints are removing the illustrations in later prints is confusing.

Even though they are only backgrounds and don't really fit into the story all that well, it is respite from the slog that is this novel. But now they are gone unless you hunt down an old copy, and they are getting harder to find for a reasonable price.

Final Thoughts

I am amazed that the film became a masterpiece despite the odds, and I still enjoy the film even after reading this novel.

The novel is a stark reminder how even today, people can easily manipulate you. And with a controversial topic like animal testing, we need someone with more of a neutral opinion about this topic, and not a left-wing activist preaching the word of PETA and god outside of these facilitie, harassing the workers who look after these animals...

The Story 0.5/5 The Characters 0/5 The Illustrations (No Longer Available)

Overall 0/5

[loncaslerbixby]

"What’s Wrong with the… Right? - Unleash Your Left-Wing Frustrations in This Blank Gag Journal"

Embark on a humorous journey into political banter with this 100-page, intentionally blank gag notebook.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQ86JLFK

[wadelancaster]

LEFT WING RIGHT WING

At the well of souls, we dip our bucket in. And fill the bowl with the goodness from within. The eagle knows it takes two wings to fly. Down the well or in the sky.