|
i kinda want to sign up with these pissle dudes but tbh looking at american workers today and how reactionary/lacking in class consciousness they are its probably a better use of my time to stay home and play xcom than trying to agitate for a revolution
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
marxism is a deadend in the west imo you're better off throw in your lot with the naxalites/nepalese/leftists ousting capitalist roaders from chinese communist party/etc etc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:were you looking at them in a mirror there is no reflective surfaces near me, my monitor is on, i am not signing my posts, etc etc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:a majority longs for the days of the soviet union and this is the right strategy for the people of russia.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
the standard western media line, which is that putin is a mad man hellbent on resurrecting soviet union, and the russian masses simply blindly follows him because of nationalism, is very unconvincing in my view. Putin's support base is not made out of fanatical eurasianist youth (in fact young people are the most likely to oppose him as the demographic of the 2011-13 protests will show), but of people most screwed over by shock therapy i.e. pensioners, state employees, lower level intelligentsia like doctors and teachers, etc. And putin is certainly not butting heads with the US just to relive the cold war glory days, but because a nato member state right on russia's doorstep is strategically intolerable. In any case, here's a cool interview with putin's ex-chief propagandist who elaborates on putin's world view: http://newleftreview.org/II/88/gleb-pavlovsky-putin-s-world-outlook
goatse.cx fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
I don't have the time to read right now, is that the Russian study where the author uses the same methodology (use birth rate pre famine to arrive at a projected population, then compare it with the actual population post famine) that western scholars used to arrive at the estimate '40m starved to death under Stalin, 70m starved under Mao', finding that multiple millions Americans starved to death during dust bowl? I've been looking for it for ages!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
I can't believe you guys wasted so many pages debating whether Bolshevism and fascism are the same. Of course they aren't, why even waste anytime on it. What would be more interesting is if someone could explain why is it at all worthwhile to join Psl and what they hope to accomplish, when there is clearly zero audience for their 'Soviet Union was good' line i namerica at the present
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
I've been thinking, maybe the leninist vanguard party is just not suited for the kind of society we're in now. I mean in late tsarist russia where authority has basically crumbled and reactionary forces were getting ready to pounce it makes sense to have a small cadre of revolutionary shock troops with iron discipline to lead the working class radicalized by years of war. But in modern day west where most people are (too some degree) content with the arrangement and thinks 'radical=crazy', and where authority is strong and in control, the model seems hopeless and doomed to irrelevancy. Lenin's bolsheviks ballooned from a thousand people to a quarter million within a year by chanting 'bread, peace, and land for the farmers' while modern western communist parties remain microsects with 30 people and 10 of those are undercover FBI. I just don't know, if there's a better marxist posting here please call me an opportunist piece of poo poo and tell me what alternative there is to collaborationism before the next crisis rolls around
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:I have heard this line of reasoning a lot, but you are going to have to back this idea up for me. What makes a welfare state unsustainable? Ultimately all societies will eventually fall apart. So what makes Social Democracy more volatile in the short term? Please try to explain using language a non marxist would understand. Third-worldist marxists also object to social democracy because it is only sustainable through expropriating surplus value from third world countries, the value which is then partly redistributed to first world workers as welfare and cheap goods, though I'm not well-read in this line of thinking. goatse.cx fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Rudatron put it much better than I could but I will also add that the marxist argument for the need for socialism is very much rooted in the self-interest of the working class, not highfalutin principles or preachy moralism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
The idea that China today could still be called socialist is impossible for me to accept. Everything is fully marketized despite the presence of large SOEs (which are being privatized piecemeal btw), very meager social provisions, general ideological inflection toward nationalism from leftism, despite the constant name-dropping of Marxist-Leninism without discussing its meaning and implications and the opening of 'schools of marxism' where students are taught that sweat shops are socialist as hell. It is true that state sector still plays a heavy role in the economy, but you're going to have to explain to me how that necessarily cognates with 'socialist'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
I don't know how religious activities are regulated in USSR but in China, free practice of religion is permitted on the part of citizens but religious organizations are heavily restricted from expansion and proselytizing, like go to church and praise jesus all day long if you want but you can't go around handing out pamphlets or build new churches without state approval. Which is frankly how I prefer it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
well what about those latin american liberation theology movements then. It seems basically dead now but it used to be a fairly potent force of revolutionary left.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:i added quotation marks to make the point obvious, but is there some sort of problem with that statement Uhh cuz radicalism is like, inherently bad dude. Its like in bioshock infinite the reds just started killing everyone for no reason after you domed like a hundred cops for them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I met Chinese marxists who organize factory workers for better wages and conditions, access to healthcare and education for their children etc. Many of these workers are internal migrants who have been proletarianized by the enclosure and privatization of the peasant communes the revolution had created and now have to get jobs in capitalist industries to survive or to escape inheritance-motivated arranged marriages, in regions where they have zero rights or protections thanks to China's internal borders system. All the activities of these marxist labour activists, including the bare minimum like simply holding assemblies of workers to just discuss conditions, are considered illegal by the state and some have received threats to their families and friends by the secret police. Meanwhile the "official" state-approved and legal unions do nothing to represent the concerns of workers and do little more than lobby for capitalist investment in their sector of the economy. Solidarnosc had more or less soured me on the idea of self-organizing workers independently bringing about socialism, unfortunately
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Lenin was pretty cool and Bolshevik propaganda owned but that stuff is never going to shake off a century's worth of Western propaganda attacks yeah i see what you're saying and i kinda agree but it seems that as long as you're honest about your aims of bringing about socialism you're gonna get redbaited regardless
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:what's up with Marxists writing so many loving words, why can't they just upload youtube videos like more modern and sophisticated philosophers got you covered, comrade 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
When I was in college, the only lefty org around was the spartacist league. What're their bona-fides?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
I'm reading the beenie sanders thread and the one lesson they took away from this ordeal is that 'we can still transform the Democratic Party if we try harder in the future! look how close we got this time!' 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
I'd love reading about that as well. I read about liberation theology in mccaines blog and he seemed to think that it's for chumps.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Ok, after the discussion earlier in the thread I've done more reading on China, and I'm much more willing to entertain the idea that China is some 'compromise' form of socialism. Namely (1) the state has complete control over investment via ownership of all the major banks, effectively a form of central planning (2) objectively impressive achievement in poverty eradication, health and education especially compared to Eastern European ex-Soviet states where capitalism DID revive and all those indices fell (3) successfully averted the 2008 finance collapse, showing that the capitalist law of value do not yet prevail in its economy. With that said, the ideological decay both Inside the party and the general populace is absolutely severe and if you read any news article about China recently you would learn that the cause of the recent slump in Chinese economy has been identified as 'excessive productivity' and privitization and closure of state enterprises is being proudly pushed by Xi and the CCP leadership as the solution. Also just a couple of days ago the premier li keqiang met with Christianne lagarde where he promised further financialization of the Chinese economy and more integration with world market. I guess it could be the case that they're just saying what the west want to hear but I doubt it. goatse.cx fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:yeah i mean china still being socialist doesn't mean we can't criticize it, though we need to acknowledge imperialism's likely influence on these developments. but when talking about this stuff with anticoms it's important to put up a united front. Oh for sure, i'm just really anxious about the country's future is all. Stalin was absolutely correct about one thing: should the soviet union ever fall, the world would be gripped by a hundred years of the darkest reaction. that is most certainly what we're living through right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Depends what you mean by reaction, decolonisation hasn't been reversed and many of the military and fascist dictatorships have liberalised yeah i mean we aren't quite seeing the new hitler yet but right nationalism is definitely coming back, and big F fascism is sure to follow
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:No, Stalin was not a great leader. Mods???!!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Al! posted:Good to see even socialists have to deal with the guy who's like "did you know black people were better off in the antebellum south than under reconstruction?" but on a global scale. Not necessarily agreeing with horselord but you're mischaracterizing his statement badly. "black people were better off in the antebellum than under reconstruction" = black people had it better before the emancipation so peaceful slavery is preferable horselord is saying that colonialism persisted in the form of neol1beral superexploitation and imperialist interventions, which does not imply he prefers old colonialism or that people were better off under it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
lmao neol1beral wordfilters to n-word. a casualty of the sanders v clinton race i presume?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Countdown until 'Russians hacked the polls/sanders pulled clinton too far to the left'?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
For the learned marxists and Americans in this thread, I being neither, posit the question that's been in the back of my mind since the beginning of this election: from whence came this idea that class politics is the province of priviledged whites and how do we dispel it? The decolonization movement is almost entirely led under socialist red banners. Mandela buddied around with Soviet Union. Black panthers were maoists. But now, people seem quite convinced that a program for the worker's struggle necessarily equates to jettisoning the agenda of the minorities. How did this idea arise?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:i don't know enough about venezuelian politics, but the vibe i've gotten is that maduro poo poo on chavez legacy this article explains it really well https://newleftreview.org/II/99/julia-buxton-venezuela-after-chavez
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:i just feel like a group that endorsed obama is probably not that socialist, idk. DSA does swear fealty to marx and socialism but they're very married to the western 'anti-authoritarian left' tradition which means periodical naivete about parliamentary reformism, all you need to do is to take a peak at jacobin mag (essentially their propaganda arm) to see what i mean
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Deimus posted:The Dem Autopsy thread is hilarious in a 'liberals will never learn and it's pathetic and sad' kinda way. let me guess, 'american whites are so intractably racist that no amount of offering free poo poo will win them over', asserted as self-evident fact over and over. i'm not gonna read it for sake of my health btw.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:34
|
|