Homework Explainer posted:

Omar al-Bishie posted:

My issue with how left wingers and left liberals debate on twitter is that it leaks onto other social media platforms and then into real life

a slew of left-ish facebook groups exploded recently for people to gently caress around and laugh as a coping mechanism and the inevitable infighting that seems to take place gives off the impression that these people all hate each other more than they hate the people who literally want to kill them

who would want to be recruited by any organization that allows members to tear each other to shreds on public platforms over lapses of judgement or misunderstandings over social issues that are constantly evolving?

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

wow it sounds like this violent revolutionary group fighting a war may not Play By All The Rules as set by the worlds most moral army

Atrocious Joe posted:

DrProsek posted:

Republicans say block 100℅ of abortions. Leftists say block 0℅ of abortions. The dialectical answer is clearly to order doctors to arbitrarily deny every other woman who comes in for an abortion.

*Alienates his base*

*Loses election to orange Benito*

At least I got poo poo done.

Weeping Wound posted:

quietly, I'm integrating myself with the PSL. not easy, they don't share the same beliefs I do, but we do believe in Marxist-Leninism, and we're getting along

loudly, I post in this thread

Enjoy posted:

What do you mean by countries

rudatron posted:

Dunno if you realize this but China and Russia only happened because of two little things called WW1 and WW2. What's the probability of such a conflict occurring again? Effectively zero.

The other countries had the material support of either the Soviet Russia or Mao's China. They couldn't have survived without them.

But now, both China and Russia are capitalist oligarchies. Socialist strategy must adapt to these new circumstances, not simply follow reflexively the patterns of the past.

G.C. Furr III posted:

just quoting this because I missed it, and its wrong. imperialism is the political and military effort by the major capitalist countries countries to siphon and extort surplus-value from foriegn lands and imperialism quite hapily exports its "core manurfacturing base" away from the country itself

Done throughdomination of trade, monopoly and capital export, where capital export is central to international capitalism

edit:

this is what Grossman had to say on imperialism, and basically why I keep banging on about it


https://www.marxists.org/archive/grossman/1929/breakdown/ch02.htm

G.C. Furr III posted:

wot are u talking about m8; I am refering specifically to rudatrons definition of imperialism as the extraction of resources from the periphery to supply a protected core manurfacturing base which is not the marxist conception of imperialism and you start on the whole USSR schtick apropos of my butt

I mean what do you think of when marxists say imperialism?

G.C. Furr III posted:

still you seem to be bringing in all sorts of stuff irelevant to the original comment on a specific marxist definition of what imperialism is, which would only be resolved if you explained how your conception of imperialism differed from the leninist one. You're the one who keeps bringing up soviet imperialism or lack of despite me saying nothing about it.

Odobenidae posted:

You most certainly do have settlers in those countries where you have military bases. For example in Germany they've been there since WWII to stave off the ~communist threat~ and even today there's enough US nationals in one place to open up a loving Chili's just for them.

US military bases are not "officially" part of the US Empire? What?

Fiction posted:

you're alright baloogan

also what is HE's opinion on the 1956 hungarian (counter)revolution i'm genuinely curious

rudatron posted:

Just because your mode of production is not capitalist, doesn't mean that it's socialist, that's not the 'default'. You have to do the work that there is a meaningful relationship of control between the workers (population) and capital/economic life, which simply wasn't the case under the USSR. The party leadership had control over every state function, and capital was state property and treated as such - the surplus value generated by its use was directed by towards goals that were set by the Gosplan. The distinction between capitalist and politician in a capitalist economy exists, because there is a codified relationship of exclusive control & use of property, that is granted to the capitalist, to do what they see fit with it (within reason), enforced by a legal system under the threat of violence. The workers had no such control over state property, collectively, nor did they have any direct control over the Party, which claimed to manage that property in their interests. That claimed intent, while itself dubious, is nonetheless totally irrelevant as to whether or not there is a relationship of ownership between the workers and capital. Under any meaningful definition of ownership, the means of production remained under state control, and that state remained under party control, and the party answered only to itself.

rudatron posted:

I don't think abolishing money is necessary for socialism though, which was the point of contention. It's also more of a minor goal in the grand scheme of things, it's the power relationships that it's absolutely critical to get right.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries cool article about imperialism here

jarofpiss posted:

it harms the free expansion of capital across the globe so it is good. this does not mean there are no downsides.

DrProsek posted:

This is true. My best guess is Trump/his people are just so stuck on post-WWII thinking they believe America being the center of the global economy/political world is just a given as long as America basically exists and has its army deployed outside its borders at all times, not really realizing that the only things that keep the USA's influence going is its economic power (which will be incredibly muted if it tries to become a manufacturing giant via protectionism) and its ability to sell military protection as a service (which doesn't work if there's no great "Other" like Russia or terrorism to protect against).


I could see this happening, but I just wonder what would his reelection campaign look like then; "Your job is still in Mexico/China, the wall became a fence that we paid for, and I'm pretty sure half of my voters died after I repealed Obamacare and replaced it with a free pair of bootstraps. Trump 2020"?

Enjoy posted:

Fascism and social democracy are also both capitalism, we can still choose to side with one over the other

Enjoy posted:

So maybe writing off all capitalism as equally bad isn't appropriate

Enjoy posted:

Not relevant to my argument


This was the attitude that allowed the Nazis to take power

Saladin Rising posted:

Good news everyone:
https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/826448176320225280
Supporting communists is now a bipartisan affair.

Fallen Hamprince posted:

"Where should I learn more about Marxism"

"From the guy who killed more Marxists than hitler,, my dude. my bro"

Ruzihm posted:

I'm the bag of newspapers

Ruzihm posted:

Thug Lessons posted:

GMIL is funny sometimes but at its core it's some leftcom/libcom/whatever rear end in a top hat grinding ax after ax

SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:

Wow hamprince made a good post

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Black Pill is like the Red Pill, except you think the world is actually a grimdark fantasy and the only thing that can be saved is yourself.

steinrokkan posted:

did somebody itt seriously call hungarian communists cia plants

i thought this sort of ultratankie was extinct

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Trotsky was the world's first permabanned poster.