Fellas, is it idealist to want to create the conditions for something in order to build it?

Should we now create a high-rise building without a foundation?

Anarchists are only useful insofar as they can be pulled leftwards to Marxism-Leninism.

Anarchism is a fruitless ideology with no future.

I don’t think she’s talking about literal paint 😭

she’s saying the only good commie is a dead one

Being an ethnic minority, I can’t relate one bit with this whole fear-mongering about becoming a minority. The only issue with being a minority is discrimination, of which the people who make these talking points often perpetrate.

I find “replacement” to be a massive hyperbole anyway, it’s not like there’s a settler genocide being perpetrated by brown people in the first world aiming to establish their own state. “Invasion” is even worse, there’s no invasion without a military, it has never happened in history.

By that I mean I remember liking both writings, though admittedly its been a long time since I’ve read either (especially the latter), and perhaps I’d be able to see the issues with them now that I have a more firm grasp of theory.

I take back what I said about the latter being a banger, I have re-read the Grand Alibi, and though initially I liked it because it gave a materialist analysis of the holocaust, I now see that it’s overly mechanistic and practically ignores the superstructure. That being said, the critique from Mitchell Abidor leaves much to offer, what does this critic propose instead as the material basis for the holocaust and German anti-semitism?

I’ve read Bordiga’s Report on Fascism and Auschwitz or the Grand Alibi, I thought they were bangers.

I’ve also read his Dialogue with Stalin and I remember thinking it was disingenuous. Bordiga does indeed have some good writings, but by and large I do believe he is a dogmatist and even more so a commandist. I have no interested in reading Mattick, Pannekoek, or any of the Dutch-German Leftcoms, but nevertheless I am always open to reading recommendations.

How do people reverse course from ML to Ancom or Left-Com? How do you go from an ideology derived from the experiences of real revolution, tested all across the world, to an ideology with no fruits whatsoever?

I hate to say this, but it has to do with them being First-Worlders, right?

I don’t remember Marx ever espousing a singular imminent world revolution, or that the state will wither away under current conditions, or that class will override nationalism. If he did, then indeed he was wrong about those subjects.

Nevertheless there were socialist revolutions all across the world that encompassed a good chunk of the planet for a time; and in many countries that didn’t end up becoming socialist, there were revolutionary conditions that weren’t turned into a changing of class relations due to lack of a proper vanguard party because socialism isn’t that automatic and deterministic. Even if it doesn’t look like it right now, all of the world will eventually be encompassed by socialism; reactionaries don’t see round two coming, but it will, mark my words.

haha 67

fym “>99%” 😭

I think OOP is mistaking workers for the bourgeoisie

Oh, wow, that’s… not a great look.

Those are straight up reactionary talking points wtf. In the first one, the person he’s replying to didn’t even use being trans as a talking point or anything; why tf is he going after her marginalized identity when the issue is that she’s a ZioNazi pig. You just know he wouldn’t say “being a woman is mostly a way to claim a marginalized identity to hide behind” unprompted if she was cis.

He has insulted people for their looks and being fat before, and I’m just like cmon; yes, its common in our society, but its still childish and we don’t want to propagate that being ugly and fat is a moral failing.

I didn’t expect this to gain so much traction tbh.

I suggest any non-communists to just turn a blind eye to this post and its comments, its just going to read like insane people talk and its not going to lead to anything productive imo.

That being said, I don’t agree with the Stalin administration’s deportation policies, and many of their policies as a matter of fact. But Kulaks were not a race or anything of that sort, they were a class of wealthier peasants and in class war there can be excessive violence of that sort. Additionally, most gulag deaths happened in the second world war, when supply chains broke causing many to starve.

There are numbers that are just straight up pulled out of a magicians hat too, like if you’ve ever heard of the 60 million deaths figure, that’s just baseless. Even the 20 million deaths estimate counted German soldiers as well as soviet casualties as if Stalin was the one who killed them and not Hitler.

These horror stories of Stalin are an incredibly effective way of keeping people from the class struggle, because if it leads to a genocidal dystopia every time, may as well just accept the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, may as well let wage slavery continue knowing that the alternative is hell incarnate on earth.

What LeninZedong said basically, you can find similar condemnations of Stalin in quite a few of his other books as well as his talks as if it was a formality.

Keep in mind that I say he has a poor understanding of revisionism and not no understanding of revisionism. This is because he did correctly identify that there was a weakening of ideology in the latter soviet union and that this was one of the causes of its collapse, but he did not correctly identify that this ideological degradation started under Khrushchev (and emerged in germ form under Stalin, though it wasn’t dominant). Instead he blamed the ideological weakening on external pressures more so, the grand image of the west and so on.

Again, this is not a total condemnation of Parenti, these are simply the facts of the matter. I think his books are great, but as Marxists, we don’t shy away from critique.

99% of adventurists quit right before they achieve proletarian revolution

Sorry but as much I like Parenti, he was a Khruschevite and had a poor understanding of revisionism. He also routinely condemned Stalin’s administration in his books and talks. So I can see how Chemical Minds could have gotten influenced by that. Rockhill is an ML though, so it still is a bit strange.

L O L

I don’t think anybody supports Stalin’s actions regarding Israel; it was well and truly opportunist.

But cmon, that’s just whataboutism. The core issue is Zohran is not a communist, he’s a democratic party entryist, and I’m tired of communists falling for Social Democrats.

anarchist W because supply chains are authoritarian they let us have all the supplies

I notice a peculiar phenomena where some leftists will agree with base and superstructure theory as well as nod along at the quote “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” but for some reason they don’t consistently apply them.

Needless to say, the dominant press is the bourgeois press. The dominant historiography is bourgeois historiography. Hell, even the dominant Marxism is an impotent bourgeois Marxism.

Some leftist want to look ‘reasonable’, but in this epoch it’s a choice between being right and looking ‘reasonable’. Demanding an end to private property is not ‘reasonable’, calling to armed struggle against the ruling class is not ‘reasonable’, wanting more than concessions is not ‘reasonable’; any true Marxist will not ever be ‘reasonable’ in the eyes of the dominant ideology.

Yes! Yes! The revolution will spontaneously happen, the proletariat will organize itself. Nothing is to be done!

I don’t get why people call the police. They’re a rather untrustworthy bunch in most countries.