CriticalResist8 @ CriticalResist8 @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

77

Comments

330

Joined

6 yr. ago

wtffffff

The copy wasn't the most difficult to find; a pdf is freely available on the National Library of Peru but the link is dead. You just have to be able to navigate the website a little bit to find it.

edit: they fixed the link some time ago lol, I definitely had more trouble finding it (you can now just google the name and the first link is the PDF).

It's now been uploaded to the Spanish instance of ProleWiki as well as its library for posterity and to find it more easily in the future.

Thanks, the maoists on twitter are predictably malding over it without even having opened the link lol

They already were when we dropped the title lol

Riveting discourse happening on lemmygrad dot ml

Depends where you get it from, I hope they're not paying 100$ a year for it when you can get a .com for 10 bucks a year lol.

They also paid for hosting since they had a lemmy instance on it which was taken away pretty quickly since it's a phishing website (trying to look like us but not us), so... they paid for a hosting plan which got taken away lol. Pretty pathetic.

Owning the commies by paying for a domain name out of their own pocket

Under an imperialist UK independence of the constituent nations can only be beneficial. Mind you Scotland has happily participated in that imperialism in the past, but they also got crossed with brexit during the independence referendums. In this way I can only see a supposedly communist figure denying this independence to be an opportunist. Now, a socialist Scotland could certainly be part of a socialist Britain with a socialist England. But this is something they can renegotiate once they become socialist.

This guy is a British patsoc and he's doing little more than playing electoralism. His constitution is tiny by British standards, and he's a known transphobe. He sent two different letters in the leading to election day, one to his white constituents and one to Muslims. In the second one he only talks about Palestine. In the first one he begins by saying he "has no difficulty defining what a woman is" and does not mention Palestine even once.

He also opposes Scottish independence and is proud of it.

Edit: he received 12000 votes and the UK adult population is 45 million. 0.01% of the country voted for him.

He's not a communist and frankly by his superficial opinions it seems he's not a Marxist either, at least I hope he doesn't call himself one. He's just playing politician.

Yes, they just need some Leninism in their life 😎

That's the problem with these machine-learning-based studies, r/communism gets a lot of liberals wandering in because of course it's gonna be their first step when looking up communism on reddit. Since they don't discriminate the dataset in any way, they have all this junk data. Hence r/communism might not appear to be as left as some other subreddits.

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Portal:Marxism check out this portal and associated reading list if you're interested in learning more

new tagline?

Marxism/Leninism implies that you divide Marxism by Leninism which what would that even look like? That would be Trotskyism!

It's actually kind of too calm for me here since most lib instances defederated from us. Having them chime in also allowed me to keep up with what they believe in currently.

We're irrevocably on the far-left. Overall we want things to get better for everyone and for the world. A world without colonialism, without imperialism, without exploitation for everyone.

Yes, sometimes we lump all "libs" in the same basket and need to vent about it, and fascists lump all the "normies" in the same basket and vent about it too.

But the thing about horseshoe theory, which the global network article in the OP is circling around, is that it seems to make the conclusions and then observe the behavior. In other words, is it that the far-left and far-right have similar ideas, or is it that ideological minorities tend to be more vocal about their beliefs?

The right is very good at adopting left arguments and repackaging them in their weird worldview. I attribute that to two components:

First, reality is dialectical and materialist. It follows then that some people will eventually reach a dialectical materialist POV on issues. Something as simple as "The US does wars for oil" counts; their material conditions ("we can't exist as is without a rich bourgeoisie and oil makes the world go round") leads them to their ideas (make war).

Second, they don't believe in words and so it's really easy for them to just say shit and have it stick somewhere. They don't care about being antisemitic when talking about Palestine for example, and say whatever goes through their mind, which finds an audience. They don't care about alienating some people with these statements because they'll turn around in two minutes and say something completely different. If you fling enough paint at the wall, eventually, the whole wall will be painted.

If I want to write about Israel for example, I have to be careful about my language and properly explain Zionism every time and situate that the US is controlling Israel, and not the other way around. Right-wingers can just say "isn't it weird that we keep sending 3 billion dollars to fund Israel every year???" and you see in that what you want to see.

Nowadays for example, more and more right-wingers are talking about anti-imperialism. But anti-imperialism was championed and carried out by communists. The USSR was the longest and most successful anti-imperialist project. Many communist parties in the West have now abandoned this stance, or that of the class struggle, which has let the right pick it up in their own chauvinist way which is still unfolding.

Accordingly to this diamat worldview we have let's say "ideological enemies" and recognize them as such. This dates as far back as Marx and Engels, who reformed the Communist League into the First International, changing their utopian (idealist) slogan of "All men are brothers" to "workers of the world, unite!" because they realized that not all men are brothers; there is, in class society, a class of people who want to oppress you and do oppress you when they have the power to do so.

We're very pragmatic because we understand how the material conditions drive historical change (which is not a blank check to do whatever we like under the justification that it's just the logical conclusion, mind you). For example, we don't want war. I think all the conflicts currently existing show that war is not something one should wish on themselves. But we understand it as part of the material world, as something that exists out of certain conditions. Clausewitz for example (who was dialectical but lived far before socialism was even a thing) said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means"; he saw war as part of a process, something that exists because this process had been allowed to reach a certain point. He didn't see war as something people could talk themselves out of if they believed in peace hard enough, and accordingly war will not be solved by wishing for it to end. It needs pragmatic, real world conditions to stop.

I think this is what drives a wedge between the "moderate" left if I may call it that, and communists. We don't want people to die needlessly and we want to build rather than destroy, but we understand that sometimes, stuff we don't want to happen still happens.

Send

We should instead publish our own response paper accusing them of being tankies. That's a thing academics do, right? Like diss tracks?

that's because the authors don't understand what they're talking about; they think their APIs can answer all those questions for them.

You're right, they go out there and meet incels and fascists and try to dress the portrait of the "misunderstood kid", meanwhile we get reduced to a congealed mass that exists solely on the computer screen (but is somehow still very dangerous)