• 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 7th, 2024

help-circle
  • What does that have to do with the internal collapse of the USSR?

    you’ve still not made any actual assertions. “The internal collapse of the USSR” makes it seem like you’re gesturing toward having some actual knowledge, which you’re refusing to disclose, instead making smug assertions that this hidden vague knowledge that you refuse to declare means you’re right. So, what does “the internal collapse of the USSR” actually mean to you? What are you imagining (the pictures and words in your brain) when you say “the internal collapse of the USSR,” and what were the causes in your opinion for whatever you’re imagining?

    It doesn’t seem like you actually know what you’re talking about, because you’re desperately avoiding making real substantive statements in any of these comments, instead throwing tantrums when pressed on what you actually think. Tell us your actual positions, without petulant ‘McCarthy-if-he-was-a-redditor’ tantrums, or otherwise stop pretending to have any.


  • But we both know that’s not why it collapsed.

    okay, then tell us why you think it collapsed? These vague insinuations and gesturing don’t prove your point, they make it seem like you’re unsure of the basis of your own assertions.

    Edit: And for the record, the first ever experiment of a modern socialist country in history, with no earlier examples to work off of, succumbing to a series of both external and internal contradictions doesn’t say anything concretely about the viability of socialism as a whole. In fact, their massively successful strides toward constructing new relations of society, and the betterment of living standards for the vast masses of its people, and the provided security of housing, employment, nutrition, community, and healthcare which was established after fully collectivizing and industrializing (industrializing in 1/10 of the time it took the west to industrialize, without the fundamental basis of primitive accumulation through global colonialism, settler-colonialism, genocide, chattel slavery, child labor, aggressive wars, and malthusian sanitation practices that under-girded the western industrial revolution; and doing so after suffering such destruction in WWI and the civil and counter-revolutionary-interventionist war no less) proves there are extremely strong cases for it being a model of success to learn from and build off of, while learning from its shortcomings and mistakes.



  • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlD) all of the above
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The “middle class” never existed. The “middle class” is an invented wedge to split the working class and try to turn segments of itself, against itself. It has no material basis. It is the ‘myth of upward mobility under capitalism’ distilled into a propaganda phrase to obscure the dualistic and antagonistic class relations in capitalist society between the PROPERTIED and UNPROPERTIED (those who own capital and those who do not), and the contradictions and conflicts therein.

    It is false consciousness; personified by and in the ‘middle manager’ who is PROPERTYLESS (proletarian), but paid more and promised the “opportunity of more to come” to align themselves with the interests of the PROPERTIED, and take on the role of a low-level overseer – to function as both a compliance enforcer and a mediative focus-dulling pain-sponge standing in the middle of, and soaking up the conflict between, the ONLY REAL TWO CLASSES IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY: The Worker, and the Capitalist.

    “Middle class” is liberal sleight-of-hand in its core and conception, and a term to be derided and discarded in all use, except as a magnifying glass to show the ways capitalism distorts and deceives about the real nature of its own properties and relations; and how the ruling class generates and contributes to the development of false consciousness through their reframing of production’s own characteristics, in order to reify into political “identities” to be captured and capitalized upon those roles which naturally manifest out of the laws of functional industrial-productive logistics, ie. the need for ‘managers’ to administrate complex or large-scale productive and distributive tasks. This serves double roles in the laws of colonial and imperial relations in places like the USA, as this distinction is also in practice highly racialized and rooted in the ongoing historical unfolding of these basal-and-superstructural systems of exploitation.

    Make note of the conspicuous absences and obfuscations when duopolist-exploiter X or Y says they “fight for the middle class;” that they are not fighting for you or me in the working class, but pandering to those “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” that they’ve bought off enough or otherwise tricked into this false consciousness, to give them their ever-shrinking electoral margins they require and fight each other over so they don’t have to pay any mind to the working class masses who make up the majority; because they in reality work for the big bourgeois, the capitalists, and the petty-bourgeois “small business tyrants” who think of themselves as capitalists — all at the expense of the working class domestically and abroad.







  • That article is literally just reporting what the president did. How does that mean they’re “pro-gun control?” Do you not even read the articles and just seethe and shit yourself about what you think about the wording of headlines? You are such a raging rightist ideologue you have been blinded to all reality and don’t even understand the things that you are mad at. Is this satire? Are you a real person who engages in media and politics like this or have I been trolled?

    If you’re serious, the US must have gasoline in the water or something (but ah that would be COMMUNIST to regulate that; or even report on it!)



  • No, neolibs have figured out how to placate segments of the (ever-shrinking) petty bourgeois and defeatist windbags (like you’ve allowed yourself to become in saying these things, but can still self-criticize and grow from), who lack or otherwise benefit from not having an active dialectical consideration of the circumstances before us — in the bare-faced exposure of the sharpened contradictions between mass political movements in society; here between the reactionary bourgeois establishment and its allies, and the advancing of progressive segments and theirs; which itself in the arena of parliamentary and protest politics, and how the media reports on it, are significant representations of wider political trends.

    And by not thinking before speaking, and engaging in this liberal and reactionary rhetoric you actively stand in the way of building communism and working class momentum more than Macron does, and you are perpetrating the same “keeping people unaware” that you say the media is. I don’t think you should trust what it “sounds like” to you, because I don’t think you’ve given serious thought to any of this. How does the media “keep the majority unaware” when we’re, all of us even outside of France, hearing about and talking about it?

    And “Things aren’t bad enough” for what? For an immediate revolution and dragging Macron to the guillotine right here and now, like we’re remotely in a stage of things in material reality where that’s what you think “building the communist movement” is? In what way is that, to you, a reasonable framework to analyze the current material conditions and consequences for communists and how to orient within them? And how is it not just unthoughtful and inattentive idealist tripe completely disconnected from the material reality and trajectories that currently exist, and which only serves to justify sitting on your hands and telling others to sit on their hands because you’re waiting for… What, exactly? Some utopian revolutionary miracle to pop into existence on its own out of thin air and awake the placated masses (of which surely you’re not a part?)? Revolution is built; and its building takes dedicated and active long-term political engagement among the progressive elements of society with communists, even if not yet in the position to dominate its most visible “official” leadership channels, still always at the forefront of the struggle as members of the most politically advanced segment of the working class.

    How do you expect to create revolutionaries before having them even come to recognize revolution as, not only an option, but a necessity; which can only be done through these kinds of lived political experiences highlighting and vindicating through agitation and propaganda the correct analyses of the communists, that bourgeois parliament will not and can not be the instrument to achieve their aims?

    You’re contributing to and advocating placation. Your “it’s hopeless why bother” attitude is the “copium” (internet-poisoned term), which serves nothing but to take (and worse, try to further in others’ minds) a lazy capitulation into your own placation. Comrade it is not only wrong, but it is intolerable opportunism. It is a reactionary and defeatist attitude, and is not in any way a cogent recognition of the reality — which is that the amount of rage and disaffection over this in the masses of the working class left-wing (and even just ‘not right-wing’) populace of France, which were able to mobilize as they did to get such results to compel these self-exposing acts in the ruling class, spills visibly through even the bourgeois-media articles about it. You have to close your eyes and plug your ears to not hear mention of the anger, frustration, exasperation, and that’s just what they do mention. I guarantee they couldn’t and wouldn’t be scratching the surface of those masses that aren’t being interviewed who harbor more severe sentiments or would, with proper political education, having experienced this. Many of even the petty-bourgeois reformist leaders of these parties are calling for obstruction and protest as less motivated, more opportunist, and bourgeois-aligned representatives of their much-more pissed off bases who carry much greater potential.

    I’ve worked with and organized alongside US communists that became communists out of their experiences and disaffection over how the DNC and Democrat Clinton campaign undermined and slandered Bernie Sanders and his supporters in that grassroots groundswell. And Bernie and that whole experience was milquetoast and petty compared to this, and had more comprehensive targeted propaganda. And still it made many communists, some of whom have contributed more as more capable Marxists than even I had managed at the time, to elevating the consciousness of the working class and movement-building in their communities, instilling communist political understandings, analytical methodologies of theory and practice, and organizational principles in action around peoples lived material realities and experiences at the hands of the system.

    People are pissed, and more than you allow yourself to recognize have, by the reality of the situation and living this political experience, come to or are primed but haven’t-yet-been politically educated to understand and advocate, some of the first and most important recognitions, conclusions, and emotions toward bourgeois politicians and their system, and of its bourgeois class character, inherent and unchangeable without smashing it and putting in its place a proletarian dictatorship to maintain power against the these-and-worse bourgeois machinations and reactions.

    Just because the masses aren’t immediately fulfilling your idealist projections of what you unrealistically ‘require’ of them to “prove” to you personally that this is a progressive development for the communists (which is opportunist — rather than trying to engage actively as the most politically advanced segment of the working class to make and lead people to the proper conclusions, you are tailing behind mass movements among and as a member of the least advanced, soaking blankets to throw on the advancing segments in the most critically significant and educational moments); like they’re not immediately revolting and dragging Macron to the guillotine over this when that’s not the phase that things are in doesn’t mean that this is not a progressive development for the communists. I strongly suggest you consider all of this and correct these opportunist and defeatist attitudes, which are misaligned with reality and run counter to progress.


  • because nothing seems to be working.

    This is an inspiring sign for communists. No reason for pessimism. A large mobilization of masses of engaged politically active workers in a state where the masses still largely believe in parliamentarism; who formed sprawling coalitions into a large left national upswelling that also made international headlines, now have themselves and onlookers been shown, better than any propaganda alone ever could, why bourgeois liberal democracy is an impediment to progress rather than a channel for it; and that the Liberals will side with the fascists to keep the left from getting an inch. This has made more communists than you probably realize. Especially if your communists have been reading their Lenin and agitating on this point, which probably a lot of workers didn’t even need much agitation to expect this because of the state of things and how just… unbearably awful Macron is in every way

    VI Lenin: LWC Chapter 9: “Left-Wing” Communism in Great Britian

    Lloyd George Macron entered into a polemic… with those Liberals who want, not a coalition with the Conservatives, but closer relations with the Labour Party New Popular Front (NPF)… Lloyd George Macron argued that a coalition—and a close coalition at that—between the Liberals and the Conservatives was essential, otherwise there might be a victory for the Labour Party NPF which Lloyd George Macron prefers to call “Socialist” … “In Germany it was called socialism, and in Russia it is called Bolshevism,” he went on to say. To Liberals this is unacceptable on principle, Lloyd George Macron explained, because they stand in principle for private property. “Civilisation is in jeopardy,” the speaker declared, and consequently Liberals and Conservatives must unite. . . .

    … Thus the liberal bourgeoisie are abandoning the historical system of “two parties” (of exploiters), which has been hallowed by centuries of experience and has been extremely advantageous to the exploiters, and consider it necessary for these two parties to join forces against the Labour Party NPF.


    At present, British French Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson Castets and Mélenchon and against Lloyd George Macron and Le Pen they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill Barnier and Le Pen (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois “democracy”), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson Castets and the NPF in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man—that the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons Castets will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons Castetses and the Snowdens Mélenchons just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany.


    It is a good day friend. Communism will win, and these liberal politicians are helping it do so. Don’t let the systems and their media and propaganda make you believe otherwise in their lies. They’re trying to convince you of your own defeat because of the implications if you don’t believe you have been, and instead realize they’re selling you the rope they will be hanged with; and you push harder in smarter ways that they can’t keep up with, using connections built in these mass movements and coalitions which invariably have radical new elements that just need drawn together.

    You’re ahead of them in this. They’ve, in a very real dialectical way, undermined liberal democracy and created more enemies to the capitalist systems and institutions than they made allies, by their own blunders in being incapable of conceding anything to intelligently reify socialists back into feckless parliamentary legitimization of bourgeois democracy, and their failures to navigate contradictions in ways that aren’t so short-sighted to look absolutely villainous to huge swathes of the population (and internationally, because this was a large enough movement to make headlines around the world; with a knock-on effect for the international proles who see parallels). Macron’s so scared of radical politics he’s making them everywhere he steps.


  • I’m hoping the Communists in France have been reading their Lenin. I can’t think of a better gift Macron could have given the communists. “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder

    Chapter 9: “Left-Wing” Communism in Great Britian

    Lloyd George Macron entered into a polemic… with those Liberals who want, not a coalition with the Conservatives, but closer relations with the Labour Party New Popular Front (NPF)… Lloyd George Macron argued that a coalition—and a close coalition at that—between the Liberals and the Conservatives was essential, otherwise there might be a victory for the Labour Party NPF which Lloyd George Macron prefers to call “Socialist” … “In Germany it was called socialism, and in Russia it is called Bolshevism,” he went on to say. To Liberals this is unacceptable on principle, Lloyd George Macron explained, because they stand in principle for private property. “Civilisation is in jeopardy,” the speaker declared, and consequently Liberals and Conservatives must unite. . . .

    … Thus the liberal bourgeoisie are abandoning the historical system of “two parties” (of exploiters), which has been hallowed by centuries of experience and has been extremely advantageous to the exploiters, and consider it necessary for these two parties to join forces against the Labour Party NPF.


    At present, British French Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson Castets and Mélenchon and against Lloyd George Macron and Le Pen they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill Barnier and Le Pen (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois “democracy”), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson Castets and the NPF in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man—that the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons Castets will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons Castetses and the Snowdens Mélenchons just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany.


    This has stripped more and more active and engaged and hopeful people of their illusions about bourgeois democracy than even bernie-clinton 2016 nonsense. Which even that created a lot of communists; and that was relatively milquetoast compared to this huge national mobilization and upswell and coalition movement which was big enough to make international headlines no less. If the French communists have been reading their Lenin and agitating on this stuff even before it happened (as you said, very predictable) then the communist movement has gained 10x more than any eurosocialist thinks “the left” lost.




  • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlThe Struggle Is Real
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I suggest Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution to break people out first, less scary than Lenin, and a I think a “woman’s touch” does a thing for peoples minds under patriarchal norms, with the assumption that they’re somehow less capable of all of the things they’re afraid of. It was critical in my political education when I was starting off grabbing from everywhere to see what gripped the road I saw us flying down (Conquest of Bread sucked, never read more ‘kum-ba-ya’ utopian idealist tripe in my life, and I could tell that having barely even read much Marx at that point); and Reform or Revolution is more focused on dismantling the single topic. From there, once the reader are forced to mull on that reform will never save us, haunted by their discomfort and spurred by the sprouting seeds of their discontent the only logical next step is to try to find out “okay, well then what is to be done?”

    But you have to give a background lesson first if the book/site of it you send them doesn’t explain in the preface, the whole thing that in the context of her book “Social-democrat” meant socialists in general; both revolutionary and the Bernstien-type ‘voting in socialism through reform’ revisonists; because this was in like 1900, before the failure of the second international and resultant split of the communists. It’s only after all of that and the 3rd international and the betrayal of Rosa and the communist KPD by the reformists that that the “social democrats” came to be understood as we know them today, reformist welfare liberals (which, incidentally, thoroughly and undeniably vindicates Luxemburg, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, et al and their criticisms of reformism).



  • at the same time as ever more nuclear brinksmanship against Russia at the expense of who knows how many hundred thousands people on and between both ‘sides’ of the shitshow in Ukraine. THIS is the “damage control” candidate in the US?

    lmfao I’m voting PSL fuck all of these people. Democrats going around congress twice to shovel as many guns and bombs as they can hoping Israel finishes off Gaza before the elections, Trump only being different in that he’s open about the same; Palestinians have said both candidates and parties are the same for them, and they’ve been the same for us.


    • “lesser evilism” and voting for the Democrats
    • thinking liberal bourgeois ‘democracy’ is a solution against fascism
      (as if fascism is a person and can be “voted out,” as if all of the things Democrats are supposed to “save us from” wrt Trump aren’t still happening with no resistance, as if the Democrats aren’t outflanking the Republicans on the right of issues like immigration, and as if they aren’t just as genocidal and barely even bothering to play empty-rhetoric games to pretend otherwise, and as if both parties aren’t part of, financed by, and working for the capitalist class and petty bourgeois who historically back fascism anyway, when economic crises create threats against their system and status for which fascism is the system’s immune response against the rise of socialism. “first they came for the communists…”)