me and my friends are both amerilards and we want to start a business because none of us want to be wage cucks either. How do we go about making the most democratic workplace, or the best working structure? no one wants to be ceo. we already looked at co-ops but we also have no fucking clue how those work so if you got some resources for that, send em. i already know like half of you are gonna say "kys revisionist" but i dont care we just want to be able to make our own product to escape the hell of alienation capitalism creates. if not this, then what do we do?

One of the major flaws of the Soviet Union was its lack of political pluralism. It was ruled by one party, a party that issued a "temporary" ban on factions that lasted until 1989. One of the main factors that seems to be responsible for the lack of political pluralism in the Soviet Union was the repression off non-Bolshevik leftist factions. With this in mind, I have 4 questions: 1. Why do the Bolsheviks repress other left-wing factions? 2. Was such repression necessary? 3. Was such repression justified? 4. How can socialists in the future avoid going down the same path as the Bolsheviks and create a pluralistic political system? Don't feel compelled to answer all 4 questions. Just answer the ones you feel like answering.

102 years ago today, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were murdered by Freikorps soldiers on orders from the Social-democratic government. Press F to pay respects.

Chapo.chat is dying because the mod team is permaban happy and the trans community gets to be as toxic as they want with no kickback. Nothing wrong with trans people, but if you carry around that much pain, you're going to vent it somehow. In lefty communities it's always "you can never stop being transphobic" bullshit. Even if that's true, it can't dominate every fucking discussion. It's the working class versus the rich, you can't just cancel the ones with bad opinions. It's maddening to find how many lefties are just rich white kids conpletely afraid of fucking dumb chuds. What use are you in anything if that scares you?

In his erratic grasping at power, outgoing US President Donald Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The undemocratic electoral system needs to be dismantled, but he doesn’t have the good of his supporters in mind. When the district judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected the US demand to extradite Julian Assange, many Leftist and liberal critics commented on this decision in terms which recall the famous lines from T.S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral: “The last temptation is the greatest treason / To do the right deed for the wrong reason.” In the play, Becket is afraid that his “right thing” (the decision to resist the king and sacrifice himself) is grounded in a “wrong reason” (his egotist search for the glory of sainthood). Hegel would have answered to this predicament that what matters in our acts is their public content: if I do a heroic sacrifice, this is what counts, independently of the private motives for doing it, which may be pathological. But the refusal to extradite Assange to the US is a different case: it was obviously the right thing to do, but what is wrong are the publicly stated reasons for doing it. The judge fully endorsed the US authorities’ assertion that Assange’s activities fell outside of the realm of journalism, and justified her decision purely on mental health grounds – she said: “The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man, who is genuinely fearful about his future.” She added that Assange's high level of intelligence means he would probably succeed in taking his own life. Evoking mental health is thus an excuse to deliver justice - the implicit but clear public message of the judge is: “I know the accusation is wrong, but I am not ready to admit it, so I prefer to focus on mental health.” (Plus, now that the court also rejected bail for Assange, he will remain in the solitary confinement in prison which brought him to suicidal despair…) Assange’s life is (maybe) saved, but his Cause – the freedom of the press, the struggle for the right to render public any state crimes – remains a crime. This is an indicative example of what the humanitarianism of our courts really amounts to. But all this is common knowledge – what we should do is apply T.S. Eliot’s lines to two other recent political events. Is the comedy that took place in Washington on January 6 not the final proof – if one were needed – that Assange should not be extradited to the US? It would be like extraditing dissidents who escaped Hong Kong back to China. The first event: when Trump put pressure on Mike Pence, his vice-president, not to certify electoral votes, he also asked Pence to do the right thing for the wrong reason: yes, the US electoral system is rigged and corrupted, it is one big fake, organized and controlled by the ‘deep state.’ The implications of Trump’s demand are interesting: he argued that Pence, instead of simply acting in his constitutionally-prescribed proforma role, could delay or obstruct the Electoral College certification in Congress. After the votes are counted, the vice-president has just to declare the result, whose content is determined in advance – but Trump wanted Pence to act as if he is making an actual decision… What Trump demanded was not a revolution but a desperate attempt to save his day by forcing Pence to act within the institutional order, taking the letter of the law more literally than it was meant. The second event: when pro-Trump protesters invaded Capitol on January 6, they also did the right thing for the wrong reasons. They were right in protesting the US electoral system, with its complicated mechanisms whose aim is to render impossible a direct expression of popular dissatisfaction (this was clearly stated by the Founding Fathers themselves). But their attempt was not a Fascist coup – prior to taking power, Fascists make a deal with big business, but now “Trump should be removed from office to preserve democracy, business leaders say.” So did Trump incite the protesters against big business? Not really: recall that Steve Bannon was thrown out of the White House when he not only opposed Trump’s tax plan but openly advocated raising taxes for the rich to 40 per cent, plus he argued that rescuing banks with public money is “socialism for the rich.”

Most modern leftists, since OWS, have been focused on identity politics and spent the last 4 years screeching about Twitter shitposts of Donald Trump than actual issues. The divide and conquer strategy of the elites against the working class worked amazingly so far. It is insane. The working class has never been this divided in recent American history, and I see no reason why the elite would stop after Trump is out of office. How can we even make the population return to OWS days where we actually targeted those responsible than minoe non-issues in the larger scale? Or is the best play to sit back and watch it collapse?

What does /leftypol/ think about the ALQ: the anarcho-liberal question? Unfortunately there's a huge population of both "left" content creators and people out there that watched 1-2 Richard Wolff videos about workers COOPs, and now think that socialism is just basic left-liberalism or light social democracy with workers coops, and basically reproduce neoclassical arguments about markets being efficient, competition causing innovation, inequality being an incentive, etc. Its just liberalism with workers coops inserted, and all it takes is one argument about the productivity of coops, to turn them back into basically liberals. If you take out the LTV, planning replacing markets, and even historical materialism, then what are you even left with from socialism? The greatest enemy of socialism today isn't the fascist, the kochs, Jeff Bezos, or even the neoliberal economics grad student on /r/neoliberal, its the huge mass of midwit theorylet half-liberal half-socialist pseuds who think they're socialist while shilling liberalism and get their ideas from a bunch of half remembered Chomsky and Wolff videos, petit booj breadtubers, and edgy radlib twitch streamers they listen to for hours while gaming or doing other shit, combined with a bunch of outdated and recycled, idealist, or re-invented ideas from 19th century socialist thought. WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

So now that Biden is trying to pass the new Patriot Act that will be dedicated towards fighting domestic terrorism, it's going to make the last one look like a fucking joke. Basically, America is going to become a surveillance state because of this. But there's more because you now have the insurrection act which will also be passed and they're stopping all flights to the D.C. area and putting it on lockdown in time for the inauguration. I've seen some people say that fascists can't mobilize because they're too small in number, but the events on 1/6/21 proved everybody wrong in that not only can they organize, they can also act on the offense for once. Let me just give you a quick history lesson about America: >1960s/70s - white supremacy is in it's final days at a time when it was more of a political bloc than anything. >1980s/90s - white supremacy is dead. The only ways that people can get the message out at this time is through rallies, leaflets, pickets, fliers, and AM radio stations that can kinda sneak in their viewpoints every here and there. At this time for the handful of white nationalists that existed, they were almost entirely weird "wignat" types, like the Aryan Nations, who only became "redpilled" by deliberately seeking said information out. >2000 - 2007: again, dead. >2008 - present: massive political change starts to take place, with the global economic crash when people started to realize for once that it was the bankers, the term "alternative right" is coined and Obama gets elected, which only further galvanizes the right. In 2014/15 it exploded during Gamergate and by 2016, Trump gets elected. And you can figure the rest out from there. As of right now, we're at phase 1 of popularization. It's getting back to the way things were in the 60s and 70s in that it's starting to become like a political bloc again. Next step would be the 40s/50s where it was mainstream and then the 30s and prior when it becomes the rule of law again. So that's 3 phases. We've already made it past phase one. I predict that by the end of this decade that we could probably make it back to phase three again if this goes unchecked. If Biden's efforts fail, that might as well become a reality, because Antifa so far has only served to annoy them but not actually kill them off. The recent events are testimony to this. If anything, Antifa has only radicalized them further so that Biden's efforts will probably become futile anyways. I don't know.

A tread to exchange theory, ideas or for answering any questions people might have on anarchism hard mode: no loaded questions or useless insults without actually saying anything FAQ: Q. What is anarchism? A. Anarchism (from Ancient Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos: ἀ- = "no", ἀρχός = "ruler") is a philosophical and political theory that is in constant opposition to authority. Be it government, capitalism, patriarchy, racism, or any of the many other systems of oppression, anarchists will resist and strive to organize our lives based on free association and the ability for every individual to live the life they want without the suppression of one against the other This is a simplistic definition that might ignore some outliers but can give you a general idea. It is also the definition I wrote for the upcoming website of a anarchist group I'm member of Q. What even is a state? A. Ask 10 anarchists and you will get 11 different answers, but this is what malatesta defined it: <Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end. Q. What would a anarchist society look like? A. There is a wide variety of opinions on the topic, so you can't get into too much detail without showing any personal bias. But this model includes some popular ideas: A society that reflects anarchism values the rules you live under (since cooperation with other humans and a structure to keep them together is needed if you dont want to live as a animal) will not be decided by anyone else for you, whether that is from a ruling minority or a majority agreeing to do things a certain way. Instead groups would be formed by mutual interest and goals (free association), and the program and decisions this association will take will be decided by the group through discussion until a general agreement is reached. However, since these free associations (also sometimes called "communes" or "syndicates") can, by their design, not be large enough to be self sustainable, they will form confederations with other free association, and those confederations can in turn make confederations of confederations, et cetera. Q. Where can I read up on anarchism?

Communist Party of the Philippines founder Jose Maria Sison warns of Duterte imposing fascist dictatorship Mr. Sison said current President Rodrigo Duterte — “an openly brutal and corrupt reactionary politician” — is now “hell-bent on imposing a fascist dictatorship on the people.”Earlier this month the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, a coalition of revolutionary organisations, appealed to foreign governments to remove the CPP and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), from their terror lists. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/communist-party-philippines-founder-jose-maria-sison-warns-fascist-dictatorship-being Indian court suspends new agriculture laws after mass protests After two days of deliberation, the supreme court ruled on Tuesday to suspend the laws. Judges ordered the creation of a four-man committee to look into farmers’ grievances over the laws, saying they were “extremely disappointed” with how negotiations had gone so far. The judges also expressed concern at the lack of consultation with farmers when passing the law. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/indian-court-suspends-new-agriculture-laws-after-mass-protests Royalty protest turns violent in Nepal Riot police in Nepal clashed for hours Monday with thousands of protesters demanding a return of the monarchy that was abolished more than a decade ago and the reinstatement of a Hindu state. https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/jan/12/pro-royalty-protest-turns-violent-in-nepal-n/ https://archive.is/291az Bolsonaro Sells National Parks To Private Companies According to the 30 years contract, the Construcap group assumes the maintenance and security of the parks and its commercial exploitation from the collection of entrance fees to a range of services within those areas including river and air transport. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Bolsonaro-Sells-National-Parks-To-Private-Companies-20210112-0023.html