|
Ormi posted:Global capital does not "want" to keep countries at a lower level of development, if anything it desperately seeks the opposite because it enables secure, high-growth investments and the employment of ever-cheaper labor.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
swampman posted:What? Highly developed countries provide ever-cheaper labor? So like, American labor is less expensive than Bangladeshi labor? One of us is confused No, I'm referring to the fact that there are very large and expensive infrastructural requirements that need to be met before a country adds its labor pool to the global market, something the great majority of developing countries struggle with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Ormi posted:No, I'm referring to the fact that there are very large and expensive infrastructural requirements that need to be met before a country adds its labor pool to the global market, something the great majority of developing countries struggle with. Oh, what are those "infrastructural" requirements, and can you explain how global capital worked towards them when attempting coups in China, Albania, Syria, East Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Egypt, Indonesia, the Congo, British Guiana, Cuba, Iraq, Ecuador, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Brazil, Bolivia, France, Ghana, Greece, Australia, Angola, Portugal, Jamaica, Afghanistan, Grenada, Chad, South Yemen, Suriname, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Panama, Bulgaria, Albania, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, Libya, Ukraine, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, Uruguay, Argentina, and Turkey? I suppose those were all attempts to force good solid infrastructure on backwards dictatorships too greedy and afraid to modernize? swampman fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Widespread electrification, water supply and sanitation, denser urban housing around new manufacturing, transportation facilities including expanded wet and dry ports, highways, primary education, basic health care, stable bureaucracy and other anti-corruption measures, rule of law and national defense to name a few. I don't believe that global interventionism by the West has been executed with the primary aim of aiding development of this infrastructure, only that it hasn't been executed with the aim of preventing it, which is the argument that necessarily follows from the idea of redistributed superprofits from global unequal exchange.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I don't believe that global interventionism by the West has been executed with the primary aim of aiding development of this infrastructure, only that it hasn't been executed with the aim of preventing it, which is the argument that necessarily follows from the idea of redistributed superprofits from global unequal exchange. What about the United States' mass-scale employment of landmines, cluster bombs and depleted uranium? What about the deliberate targeting of infrastructure, behind terms like "no-fly zone" which means bombing of all transportation and electricity networks? I think any form of intervention that destroys infrastructure at a mass scale, has the mass destruction of infrastructure as its primary goal - that's tautological - and if we say that infrastructure is the key to successful development, then a war against infrastructure is a war against the country's development.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
It seems like a critically important distinction to me. I mean, why stop there? Why not blow up the Mosul Dam right this second? Is it the watchful eye of the international left making Uncle Sam sweat where no other unjustified act of brutality unveiled could succeed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Ormi posted:It seems like a critically important distinction to me. I mean, why stop there? Why not blow up the Mosul Dam right this second? Is it the watchful eye of the international left making Uncle Sam sweat where no other unjustified act of brutality unveiled could succeed? More like the watchful eye of normal human people who would not be able to call that kind of act anything other than genocide. But that's not to say that it was ever off the table - ISIS is doing a pretty good impression of a CIA op, and they were fine to let the dam collapse when they controlled it in 2014...
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Hm. No. just dumb poo poo i wrote that should not be repeated Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:hm yes You're an idiot. Ormi posted:Unfortunately, international development is way more complicated than a just-so story of the winners kicking down the losers. Global capital does not "want" to keep countries at a lower level of development, if anything it desperately seeks the opposite because it enables secure, high-growth investments and the employment of ever-cheaper labor. There's not really any such thing as "Global" capital. All Capital has national characteristics. Allowing a third world country to develop successfully may be a better long-term investment from a purely financial perspective, but not from the perspective of resource extraction and labor exploitation. A country that develops too much no longer has the "comparative advantage" of cheap labor, as workers begin to agitate for better wages and benefits. Developed nations also drive up the demand for, and price of, vital resources which are needed to drive continued development and consumption in the First World. The political agenda is therefore to suppress Third World development, and only allow it as far as to make its resources exploitable without allowing Capital to be realized in the exploitated country itself. That's why Third World development is almost always contingent on First World capital - government indebtedness makes them permanent thralls to First World interests, and because First Worlders own all of the capital recently developed the profits float up into the Global North. The First World lifestyle is unsustainable without imperialism. You don't even need to be a Marxist in order to understand these international relations. Ha Joon Chang built the case for it in Kicking Away the Ladder. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You're an idiot.  all that salt for a mass murderer
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:
I'm not a big Stalin fan or anything, but claiming that "Stalinism" was Slavic Fascism is some Grade A reductionist bullshit. It's literally what my Libertarian history professor tried to sell us at a satellite college.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
'Bolshevik discipline' can refer to a lot of things, but given that it's probably democratic centralism, that absolutely is a prerequisite for a successful organization. If you do the whole anarchist splits-forever ala Occupy, you get what happened to Occupy, every loving time. It doesn't have to lead to Stalin, and probably shouldn't if done properly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I'm not a big Stalin fan or anything, but claiming that "Stalinism" was Slavic Fascism is some Grade A reductionist bullshit. It's literally what my Libertarian history professor tried to sell us at a satellite college. .. Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:'Bolshevik discipline' can refer to a lot of things, but given that it's probably democratic centralism, that absolutely is a prerequisite for a successful organization. If you do the whole anarchist splits-forever ala Occupy, you get what happened to Occupy, every loving time. It doesn't have to lead to Stalin, and probably shouldn't if done properly. ... Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:democratic centralism has a tendency to devolve into political cultism and bureaucracy it's very important to rehabilitate the legacy of every mass murderer who ever said something bad about the united $nake$ of amerikkka
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:Your libertarian professor is a damned idiot I have no doubt, most likely aping some bullshit he skimmed from the Black Book of Communism but Bolshevism as red fascism has been a thing in social anarchism for a while now and they are basically right. Fascism is a movement centred around ultra-nationalism, chauvinism, militarism and a corporatist conception of society. The Bolsheviks were not particularly militaristic (the entire reason they were able to take power was because they opposed the Great War) and they were enemies of the other three ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:democratic centralism has a tendency to devolve into political cultism and bureaucracy no one brought up the ussr or the prc itt until dork anticoms decided to trundle in and whine about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Behold my shame: a serious post. Enjoy posted:Fascism is a movement centred around ultra-nationalism, chauvinism, militarism and a corporatist conception of society. I am always saddened when people understand socialism but are completely baffled by fascism. Fascism is revolutionary "socialist nationalism". It is a degenerate offshoot of revolutionary socialism (yellow socialism), and at some point believed that it was the evolution of socialism. so its really important that you don't treat fascism like an alien ideology. Robert Michels, for example, believed that socialism was tamed by the ruling elites and co opted into the liberal framework that required a vanguardist proletarian elite to lead a national syndicalist revolution, because the masses had immense energy but no will to shape social evolution. A lot a of fascists were former socialists dissatisfied with the failure of international revolution and hated the diffusion of energy, futility and failure of trying to organize an international workers struggle. They wanted to find a solution to the "social problem" as it was defined within the nation state and did this by exchanging class solidarity for national solidarity while using Marxist language to inspire violent revolution. Their analysis is basically Marxist but anti-communist within a wide spectrum of mild to virulent antisemitism: 1.) a weak bourgeoisie state beholden to conflicting international capitalist (Jewish) interest that needed to be overthrown for their failure and replaced by a strong vital heroism 2.) social chaos caused by the failure of capitalist economics that allowed international (Bolshevik/Jewish) forces to destabilize the country and lose its national identity as defined by its petty bourgeoisie leadership. Here is what actually constituted fascism: Anti-capitalism: Capitalism was associated with international finance (not private property) that preyed on a weak bourgeoisie state. The elites had hampered change for too long and a popular dictatorial national revitalization would be necessary to stop the looting of national wealth. Heroism: A liberal democratic parliament represented a weak state beholden to conflicting interests. Elections rotated a failing ruling class while stifling real change through bureaucracy. The proletariat (petty bourgeoisie in reality) could only find respite in a true revolutionary overthrow of the liberal state. The masses needed a charismatic authority who would use the power of the state to intercede on their behalf. Heroism meant action instead of deliberation and the rule of law and unity of purpose instead of factionalism. Elitism: This is where many people fall off and confuse it with corporatism. Fascism didn't really have an economic policy. It had a social goal and that goal was worker repression. Unionism, workers self management and cooperativism was destroyed by fascist policies and subordinated to industrial giants with the backing of the state. Gaetano Mosca's Elite Theory described a natural scientific social order where a minority class of enlightened controlled a passive majority of workers with the wholesale backing of the state apparatus which would win "labor peace" through the guarantee of full employment and some social services. Fascists believed in a natural order of gifted men to rule the population as long as the social order had mechanisms to replace the elite, those with superior organizational skills, who failed to rule wisely. The revolution would not stop the natural cyclical nature of elites or the pyramid structure of society. On a side note, Michal Kalecki made a very interesting analysis on the political implication of full employment and why full employment has only been seen in fascist states. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kalecki220510.html International Struggle: The class struggle envisioned by Marxism was turned into the struggle of the nation state against international enemies. The state became the worker and the world the capitalist class against which the nation was to be eternally aggrieved. Society would be regimented against enemies who wanted to weaken it from within or without. erased a bunch of dumb bullshit Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:no one brought up the ussr or the prc itt until dork anticoms decided to trundle in and whine about it ,... Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:Behold my shame: a serious post. this is a really good post just FYI
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:Behold my shame: a serious post. This is pathetic. Playing word association ("socialism in one country sounds similar to nationalism!") doesn't prove anything at all. And most fascists were not ex-socialists. For example, in the July 1932 German election, only 2% of the Nazi vote were former Communist voters, and 10% former Socialists. Mussolini is a single exception who was ejected from his party because his ideas were not compatible with socialism. Fascists formed alliances (the Harzburg Front, the National Blocs, the Spanish nationalists) with other right-wing groups because they were ideologically similar to them. The defining features of fascism are ultra-nationalism, chauvinism, militarism and corporatism, and the Bolsheviks showed none of these traits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:this is a really good post just FYI thanks just to clarify fascists believed in the overthrow of the liberal state because it entrenched elites that failed to protect the state against the predations of what was widely seen as failed late capitalism. Socialism was on the rise and every popular sentiment understood that socialism in some form will replace it or become much more prominent. It was seen as inevitable Fascism was the co-option of socialism in the same way that the aristocracy co-opted capitalism after the French Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:thanks Apparently Stalin was right, and the social democrats really were fascists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:This is pathetic. Playing word association ("socialism in one country sounds similar to nationalism!") doesn't prove anything at all. And most fascists were not ex-socialists. For example, in the July 1932 German election, only 2% of the Nazi vote were former Communist voters, and 10% former Socialists. Mussolini is a single exception who was ejected from his party because his ideas were not compatible with socialism. Fascists formed alliances (the Harzburg Front, the National Blocs, the Spanish nationalists) with other right-wing groups because they were ideologically similar to them. What the hell are you talking about? National socialism was a syndicalist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialism Here. I am give this book out to everyone who repeats their incomprehension about fascism. http://tinyurl.com/hd7swb9 socialism in one country is national socialism. You want to talk about the KPD? OK. Ernst Thälmann was Stalin's lemming in Germany and he followed the "social fascism" dictate against social democrats by allying with the SA as "working people's comrades" against the Social Democrats. Go read about the Red Referendum and the KPD's plan's to overthrow the Nazis after voting for them en masse, not as ex communists but because it would lead to an accelerationist communist revolution. http://www.marxist.com/oldsite/germany/chapter7.html "After Hitler, our turn!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Apparently Stalin was right, and the social democrats really were fascists. lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:What the hell are you talking about? National socialism was a syndicalist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialism Socialism in one country was a stupid blunder by Stalin but it isn't equivalent to fascism. That's the logical conclusion of your argument. If fascism is mostly about the origins of the movement rather than the expressed goals of the fascists, then every state is basically the same as every other state, and every ideology is equivalent, because they've all had influences on one another.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
"socialism in one country is national socialism." Lol. People, this is what happens when you think you know what you're talking about, but you don't. "Oh, did you know that oil-producing nations are typically unified, see the United States and the United Arab Emirates both produce oil...." You jump around from "bolshevism" to "Leninism/Stalinism" to "socialism" to "communism" and use obscurantist terms like "yellow socialism" which have many different meanings. By your own account "yellow socialists" rejected Marxist socialism, in fact they were hated by Marxists. Eventually they invaded USSR and killed 30 million people, is your enlightened perspective a century later that it was all predicated on a trivial semantic policy difference that eluded the Nazis and the Russians alike, or they would have thrown down their arms and worked together for the Third Reich? Look at the big brain on the historically insightful poster
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
For anyone looking to catch up on this whole thread, the forum consensus is that if the PSL has their way, we will have a Holodomor, because communism is the same as fascism, whereas if Sanders, Clinton, or Trump are elected, things would not be as bad as if we elect Stalin, so we need to be careful not to elect Gloria la Stalin
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Actually it's not even that, it's that the PSL doesn't deserve a second look because "some" of its membership holds wacky views about...??? Like absolutely none of this has actually been about the PSL platform or candidates or organization, just about the opinions of undefined segments of its membership regarding historical events. For a "political discussion" its almost totally divorced from actual, you know, "politics." DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Socialism in one country was a stupid blunder by Stalin but it isn't equivalent to fascism. Benito Mussolini positively reviewed Stalinism as having transformed Soviet Bolshevism into a Slavic fascism. http://imgur.com/71oxrEu like recognizes like. quote:That's the logical conclusion of your argument. I loled because i just posted a link on how social fascism theory plunged Germany into Hitler's control. It's another reason to learn from history. quote:If fascism is mostly about the origins of the movement rather than the expressed goals of the fascists, then every state is basically the same as every other state, and every ideology is equivalent, because they've all had influences on one another. I provided a historical origin of fascism because it is important to recognize and understand their arguments. It is especially important when Werner Sombart, one of the great Marxians, to the point where Karl Marx said that he understood his writings better than anyone, later made a turn to what became the national socialist movement. Also, you can't just smear nationalism when at that age of imperial rule it was considered a fairly democratic ideology and war was a natural state of diplomacy. There was nothing remarkable in the age of imperialism that an ideology was talking about war as diplomacy or trying to achieve liberal nationalist goals. It was the fusion of nationalism with the popularity of socialism that was unique. Fascism was incredibly popular at the beginning of the 20th century and its popularity was related to its origins. That means that there is a thin wedge in the switch between revolutionary socialism and fascism. That's why its important to recognize the symptoms. The goals are irrelevant, only the results. As Stafford Beer said: The purpose of a system is what it does. Both Bolshevism and fascism suppressed democratic workers movements and constructed an authoritarian nationalist social model based on vanguardist elitism. they could call themselves whatever they wanted. The thin wedge was crossed with Bolshevism. Socialism is when workers get democratic self management. Anything else is just degrees of oppression. "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." -Mikhail Bakunin yep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Actually it's not even that, it's that the PSL doesn't deserve a second look because "some" of its membership holds wacky views about...??? Like absolutely none of this has actually been about the PSL platform or candidates or organization, just about the opinions of undefined segments of its membership regarding historical events. We could start adding up the American genocides from the 30s onward - millions each from North Korea, North Vietnam, and Iraq, plus direct sponsorship of successful and attempted coups in over 50 nations in that time; we could show how America funded and armed the Nazis until the war ended, then they put Nazis into positions of power in the CIA and US military; we could compare the prevalence of racism in the USA and in the USSR over the past century; but in this context, the facts are irrelevant, because any individual "fact" can be clipped from any context and thrown out as a smear against the PSL. The funny thing is that if I had to contort the PSL to fit into a present-day American analogue to the rise of Bolshevism, they would at best be the Provisional Government and la Riva would be Kerensky, and I would almost hope that she would try doggedly to compromise with the DoD on a long, structured withdrawal until the war-weary populace replaced the entire American government. The same kind of idiotic fantasizing, I admit, but from someone who actually reads their Marx, Lenin and Mao instead of lying about them to defend my class comforts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:Benito Mussolini positively reviewed Stalinism as having transformed Soviet Bolshevism into a Slavic fascism. And Tony Blair was pals with Gaddafi, so bourgeois social democracy is basically the same thing as Arab nationalism. Top City Homo posted:I loled because i just posted a link on how social fascism theory plunged Germany into Hitler's control. It's another reason to learn from history. I know that's what happened, which is why I said it's what you believe, because it's retarded, like you. Top City Homo posted:I provided a historical origin of fascism because it is important to recognize and understand their arguments. It is especially important when Werner Sombart, one of the great Marxians, to the point where Karl Marx said that he understood his writings better than anyone, later made a turn to what became the national socialist movement. Also, you can't just smear nationalism when at that age of imperial rule it was considered a fairly democratic ideology and war was a natural state of diplomacy. Bolsheviks and fascists also breathed air, another striking similarity. Suppressing rival ideologies isn't proof that ideologies are similar. Having an authoritarian state isn't proof ideologies are similar. Having political parties with membership based on adherence to an ideology isn't a special thing. Fascism is first and foremost an expression of ultra-nationalism. The fact Stalin and Bukharin exploited the Comintern and ruined the German and Spanish parties with their garbage theory of SIOC as a means of destroying rival politicians isn't proof they were fascists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
this forum as a whole is actually fairly favorable to socialism, but when you post indefensibly stupid first-year polisci student poo poo like sucking up to Stalin, talking about dispersing first workers through the third world, achieving change through electoral politics but with only black people being allowed to vote etc it makes it really easy to disregard the 10% of your posting that's worthwhile
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
swampman posted:"socialism in one country is national socialism." Lol. People, this is what happens when you think you know what you're talking about, but you don't. "Oh, did you know that oil-producing nations are typically unified, see the United States and the United Arab Emirates both produce oil...." You jump around from "bolshevism" to "Leninism/Stalinism" to "socialism" to "communism" and use obscurantist terms like "yellow socialism" which have many different meanings. By your own account "yellow socialists" rejected Marxist socialism, in fact they were hated by Marxists. Eventually they invaded USSR and killed 30 million people, is your enlightened perspective a century later that it was all predicated on a trivial semantic policy difference that eluded the Nazis and the Russians alike, or they would have thrown down their arms and worked together for the Third Reich? Look at the big brain on the historically insightful poster I don't understand what is so confusing. Leninism started out as authoritarian socialism (still based on worldwide revolution) and continued on its logical course to red fascism with Stalinism (national socialism; purely pragmatic goals; abandonment of worldwide revolution). Stalin only continued what Lenin started https://libcom.org/library/lenins-terror-bolshevik-party-maximov Hitler and Stalin did work together. They cut up Poland and Finland between each other and Hitler had a deal on Eastern Europe with with Ribbentrop. I don't really why they would have to work together for eternity anymore than Mao decided to stop working with the USSR or Tito or anyone else. They all had ideological differences. The reason this discussion even started is because someone mentioned democratic centralism to get discipline in socialist parties. I said that democratic centralism is elitist and has never provided for socialism which is defined as democratic worker control of the means of production. Every so called vanguardist intermediate state theory has so far provided us with worker oppression no different than the fascists so i suggest trying another form of organization. peace
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:
This is nonsense, especially since "Bolshevism" is not the name of an ideology, it's the name of a political party that was active from 1905 until 1952 when it did not even dissolve but changed its name. Even if you can provide an example from one point in history, the deciding moment for the Bolsheviks was based on their full support of democratic workers movements, they were opposed to the Mensheviks in that they represented the working classes and not the liberal bourgeois. In the classic 10 Days That Shook the World, Reed notes again and again that the victories of the Bolsheviks were won by the worker's soviets, period. The question is not "at some point in their history was the promise of Bolshevism undermined" (because yes it was, by the CIA agent Khrushchev), but rather "were the Bolsheviks effective at improving conditions for the working classes in contrast to the previous regime, given the circumstances they faced" and the answer is undeniably Yes and the PSL could not possibly hope for more than to equal the Bolsheviks' accomplishments in America. So do you actually have an opinion on the PSL, or do you just mutter in circles about how because fascists and communists have both used AKs, they probably had the same grandmas? swampman fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:Hitler and Stalin did work together. They cut up Poland and Finland between each other and Hitler had a deal on Eastern Europe with with Ribbentrop. Another Lie http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Lies-Evidence-Accusation-Bloodlands/dp/0692200991 Order Now
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:The goals are irrelevant Wow, there's really no point in replying to you is there
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:And Tony Blair was pals with Gaddafi, so bourgeois social democracy is basically the same thing as Arab nationalism. I told you already I don't care about ideology. The party structure and mentality that thrived in both systems fostered decision making that gave similar policy results as fascism. That's why you don't organize a party around vanguardist democratic centralist bullshit unless you want to destroy worker movements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:this forum as a whole is actually fairly favorable to socialism, but when you post indefensibly stupid first-year polisci student poo poo like sucking up to Stalin, talking about dispersing first workers through the third world, achieving change through electoral politics but with only black people being allowed to vote etc it makes it really easy to disregard the 10% of your posting that's worthwhile Pointing out that the lies about Stalin and the USSR are lies is not "sucking up" to Stalin. There are also lots of lies about Saddam Hussein, if someone posts "Well we didn't have much choice but to invade Iraq, right? Saddam had WMDs after all," it is not sucking up or idolizing to correct this. Grover Furr's books are not histrionic or unrealistic, they contain some of the most thorough scholarship you will ever read. Oh, and the JDPON is a real concept that you only find absurd because you don't think American imperialism can collapse in your lifetime, well I do. Obviously it has little relevance to the PSL, that's why I pasted the classic paragraph about it in the other thread, where I am just stunting with some real live leftism, if it annoys you, don't click on that thread dummy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Top City Homo posted:I told you already I don't care about ideology. The party structure and mentality that thrived in both systems fostered decision making that gave similar policy results as fascism. That's why you don't organize a party around vanguardist democratic centralist bullshit unless you want to destroy worker movements. So your position really is that everything authoritarian is fascist. You've seen a caricature of a dumb anarchist and said "looks reasonable to me".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:22
|
|