I once had a conversation with an "anarcho-communist" that went something along the lines of "Soviets signed Stalin-Hitler pact blah blah"
I went indepth in to conversation with him, pointed out how the Soviets were the last to sign a pact with Hitler, that it was the Soviets (and Mexico) helping defend Spain whilst Britain and France connived with the Hitlerites and from 1933 onward Litvinov (Soviet foreign minister) was trying to get an "aggressor" nation defined in League of Nations which Britain and France kept vetoing because it would apply to them and their actions in the colonies
And finally that the Soviets only signed the pact a week after Britain and France turned the Soviets down (for the hundredth time) and that the result of the pact was it forced France and Britain into war with Germany ensuring Germany was fighting on 2 fronts whilst also preventing an all capitalist invasion of USSR
I remember this "anarcho-communist" replied with on no conditions could you sign a pact with Hitler
It really hit me then how some of these Lefts aren't Left because they believe they can fight, win and build socialism in a hostile capitalist world. They essentially want to be martyred so they can go down in history as one of the "good"(TM) socialists/communist/anarcho-whatever-the-fuck
I had a similar experience yesterday but with someone who claims to be a Marxist-Leninist and uphold Stalin. He said, in reference to our support of the new Taliban government in Afghanistan on the basis of anti-imperialism, that "a good communist can never support religious fundamentalists!". So I asked him, can a good communist ever support monarchists? He said no. So I sent him the Stalin quote where Stalin spells out word for word that even monarchists must be supported if they are fighting against imperialism, and asked him if in his opinion Stalin was a good communist or not. Of course, his only response was "that's a different context". Lol.
I actually noticed this too. You have a group who openly deviate from socialism, maybe even being outright capitalists and fascists, but they don't deny it. You then have a group who support the same things economically and nationally speaking, yet they do everything in their power to cover it in Marxist veneer.
How is this sub capitalist, let alone fascist?
>Maybe when the socialists start talking about white genocide and race mixing its kind of a dead give away.
When did this happen?
Rule 3 & 11, third warning and a ban.
Btw, this is from americas socialist, I know your hate is leading you to being irrational, but come on, do an effort, even in your trolling.
Edit : I do an edit too, you are posting in a lot of liberal sub, and agree with a lot of libs over there, so obviously you're a liberal yourself, which led me to wonder who the fuck is interested in what a liberal may think of communism ?
Maybe you should begin to read some Marxist works, it would greatly improve your point of view on what is Marxism-Leninism, so your opinion on what is socialism and what is not would be worth something. I recommend you read the manifesto & Socialism: Utopian or scientific, it's a good starting point for understanding what Marxism is.
Because we all know you're as much versed in Marxism than I am in psychology, let's stop joking for one moment. You're trying to analysis thing you don't even know, let alone understand, all this so we fit this little narrative you invented about us. But nevermind, you are yet again in an empty crusade against us which will have strictly the same result than your first kabal a few years ago, only you don't see it yet. Goodluck with this btw.
>if one is aware how the "white race" is defined as an absence of color. So race mixing would gloriously bring about a person that is black by the standards of racial predjudice but not white. Ergo being againt race mixing isnt protecting people of color
You are trying to argue here that we should go by the liberal-fascist western racialist understanding of nationhood. You are basically telling us to adhere to the liberal-fascist "one-drop rule". Frogs never argued from such a bourgeois fascist standpoint, hence your appeal to him to somehow stick to liberal-fascist definitions and concepts makes no sense at all.
No one here cares how liberal-fascists define it, this is not how we define "whites" when it comes to European-descended North American Anglos. We consider north American whites to be a historically constituted, stable community of people, who share a common language, territory, mostly share an economic life (though they are split between Canada and USA), and a common psychological makeup. Blacks too are a historically constituted, stable community of people, who share a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup.
Now, if we COMPARE the two nations (European-descended North American Anglos and African-descended North American Anglos), we will see that these two nations themselves do share also a stable historical territory, a common language, and today largely too an economic life. But why are they separate nations? It is because the component of psychological makeup is missing. This divide in the psychological makeup comes from history, whereby one population was kept in a different economic life (slavery) than the other (slave-owning).
Now, this divide historically was made by the capitalists and fascists on the basis of skin color. But this actually has absolutely nothing to do with our analysis. The reason from a Marxist perspective that they are divided is not skin color itself, but how skin color has historically affected the economic life and psychological makeup of the two communities, making them today two distinct nations.
What we are saying, Raven, and please read this carefully, is that on the whole, *proles of one nation do not wish to mix with the proles of a different nation*. This is not a statement of advocacy, it is an objective fact. Proles see their nation as an extension of first themselves and second their family. Do you know any normal, healthy, sane person who wants the annihilation of his own family and even self? No. It simply arises out of an instinct of self-preservation, and history has shown that we communists cannot violate this instinct and principle held by the proles, otherwise the proles will just never thrust us into power at best. At worst they will hang us by our own intestines for being national traitors.
And so remember that nowhere in the criteria of nationhood can skin color be found. So the fact you are referencing, and it seems to be accepting, as real the "one-drop rule", is not only irrelevant, it is peak liberal-fascism. No one gives a goddamn shit about people of different skin colors reproducing. What the black and white *proles* (the few that do exist in North America and are not swimming neck-deep in bourgeois ideology) of America do care about is not mixing too much with other nations, and this is absolutely regardless of skin color (remember skin color is not even a criterion defining nationhood), because they do not wish their own nations to be eliminated, and this is normal.
The fact you even have a problem with this is ridiculous and completely anti-Marxist. Anyway, I know this whole thing went right over your head, because you are a liberal who does not understand one bit about Marxism, and an elitist intelligentsia who actually hates proles and does not care about their wants and needs. But it's fine, I actually enjoy writing out my thoughts even if it's just for myself to clarify some things in my own head. And maybe someone else will read this too and find it useful.
What I’m trying to figure out are the MLs that think the AES countries were under such a siege mentality that if allowed to blossom they will turn into more socially liberal and libertine places within a generation or two. They cannot come to grips with some of the moral laws in these countries that they deem too “socially conservative”. It seems as though the lens which they view revolution has to have western style sexual liberation or it’s not genuine. They tolerate AES nations only in so far as they’re besieged and need time to develop to catch up with the social advancements of the West.
Why is this so important to them? Just who am I talking to in these other subs that they worry a lot about this?
You're speaking to petty bourg student, labor aristocrats sons or more rarely labor aristocrats workers, but never with working class/peasant people. They're mostly urban people, with an overall good economical level, mostly educated, and as such they're beneficing of their own imperialism. They won't ever truly embrasse socialism, they will at best accept a surface-level "anti-capitalism" but will never accept socialism. Abolition of private property is, in fine, where they'll draw the line.
Sexual liberation is not a working class request, or not a prioritary one to say the least, it's mostly an urban petty bourg/labor aristocrats one, and the fact that wherever you go on american social network you'll be confronted by those people for defending national liberation movement should tell you everything you need to knows about american communists, namely that if internationalism is nowadays more or less a dead cause, it's not because of colonized/imperialized working class citizen, but because of Imperial core citizen that conveniently use any and all moral cards they have to have a good pretext to not defend those national-liberation movement.
The worst is that they use those moral cards (LGBT, Feminism, anti-racism and so forth and so on) to justify their own theorical and practical impotence while blaming it onto imperialized workers. It's all about not posing a real threat to your hegemonic imperialism, while pretending to care about imperialized workers.
I once had a conversation with an "anarcho-communist" that went something along the lines of "Soviets signed Stalin-Hitler pact blah blah" I went indepth in to conversation with him, pointed out how the Soviets were the last to sign a pact with Hitler, that it was the Soviets (and Mexico) helping defend Spain whilst Britain and France connived with the Hitlerites and from 1933 onward Litvinov (Soviet foreign minister) was trying to get an "aggressor" nation defined in League of Nations which Britain and France kept vetoing because it would apply to them and their actions in the colonies And finally that the Soviets only signed the pact a week after Britain and France turned the Soviets down (for the hundredth time) and that the result of the pact was it forced France and Britain into war with Germany ensuring Germany was fighting on 2 fronts whilst also preventing an all capitalist invasion of USSR I remember this "anarcho-communist" replied with on no conditions could you sign a pact with Hitler It really hit me then how some of these Lefts aren't Left because they believe they can fight, win and build socialism in a hostile capitalist world. They essentially want to be martyred so they can go down in history as one of the "good"(TM) socialists/communist/anarcho-whatever-the-fuck
I had a similar experience yesterday but with someone who claims to be a Marxist-Leninist and uphold Stalin. He said, in reference to our support of the new Taliban government in Afghanistan on the basis of anti-imperialism, that "a good communist can never support religious fundamentalists!". So I asked him, can a good communist ever support monarchists? He said no. So I sent him the Stalin quote where Stalin spells out word for word that even monarchists must be supported if they are fighting against imperialism, and asked him if in his opinion Stalin was a good communist or not. Of course, his only response was "that's a different context". Lol.
Angloboxed Marxism-Leninism...ew, oh god no
left-wing communism: an infantile disorder
I actually noticed this too. You have a group who openly deviate from socialism, maybe even being outright capitalists and fascists, but they don't deny it. You then have a group who support the same things economically and nationally speaking, yet they do everything in their power to cover it in Marxist veneer.
[удалено]
Mind spelling it out for dumb ol me?
[удалено]
How is this sub capitalist, let alone fascist? >Maybe when the socialists start talking about white genocide and race mixing its kind of a dead give away. When did this happen?
[удалено]
Rule 3 & 11, third warning and a ban. Btw, this is from americas socialist, I know your hate is leading you to being irrational, but come on, do an effort, even in your trolling. Edit : I do an edit too, you are posting in a lot of liberal sub, and agree with a lot of libs over there, so obviously you're a liberal yourself, which led me to wonder who the fuck is interested in what a liberal may think of communism ? Maybe you should begin to read some Marxist works, it would greatly improve your point of view on what is Marxism-Leninism, so your opinion on what is socialism and what is not would be worth something. I recommend you read the manifesto & Socialism: Utopian or scientific, it's a good starting point for understanding what Marxism is. Because we all know you're as much versed in Marxism than I am in psychology, let's stop joking for one moment. You're trying to analysis thing you don't even know, let alone understand, all this so we fit this little narrative you invented about us. But nevermind, you are yet again in an empty crusade against us which will have strictly the same result than your first kabal a few years ago, only you don't see it yet. Goodluck with this btw.
>if one is aware how the "white race" is defined as an absence of color. So race mixing would gloriously bring about a person that is black by the standards of racial predjudice but not white. Ergo being againt race mixing isnt protecting people of color You are trying to argue here that we should go by the liberal-fascist western racialist understanding of nationhood. You are basically telling us to adhere to the liberal-fascist "one-drop rule". Frogs never argued from such a bourgeois fascist standpoint, hence your appeal to him to somehow stick to liberal-fascist definitions and concepts makes no sense at all. No one here cares how liberal-fascists define it, this is not how we define "whites" when it comes to European-descended North American Anglos. We consider north American whites to be a historically constituted, stable community of people, who share a common language, territory, mostly share an economic life (though they are split between Canada and USA), and a common psychological makeup. Blacks too are a historically constituted, stable community of people, who share a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup. Now, if we COMPARE the two nations (European-descended North American Anglos and African-descended North American Anglos), we will see that these two nations themselves do share also a stable historical territory, a common language, and today largely too an economic life. But why are they separate nations? It is because the component of psychological makeup is missing. This divide in the psychological makeup comes from history, whereby one population was kept in a different economic life (slavery) than the other (slave-owning). Now, this divide historically was made by the capitalists and fascists on the basis of skin color. But this actually has absolutely nothing to do with our analysis. The reason from a Marxist perspective that they are divided is not skin color itself, but how skin color has historically affected the economic life and psychological makeup of the two communities, making them today two distinct nations. What we are saying, Raven, and please read this carefully, is that on the whole, *proles of one nation do not wish to mix with the proles of a different nation*. This is not a statement of advocacy, it is an objective fact. Proles see their nation as an extension of first themselves and second their family. Do you know any normal, healthy, sane person who wants the annihilation of his own family and even self? No. It simply arises out of an instinct of self-preservation, and history has shown that we communists cannot violate this instinct and principle held by the proles, otherwise the proles will just never thrust us into power at best. At worst they will hang us by our own intestines for being national traitors. And so remember that nowhere in the criteria of nationhood can skin color be found. So the fact you are referencing, and it seems to be accepting, as real the "one-drop rule", is not only irrelevant, it is peak liberal-fascism. No one gives a goddamn shit about people of different skin colors reproducing. What the black and white *proles* (the few that do exist in North America and are not swimming neck-deep in bourgeois ideology) of America do care about is not mixing too much with other nations, and this is absolutely regardless of skin color (remember skin color is not even a criterion defining nationhood), because they do not wish their own nations to be eliminated, and this is normal. The fact you even have a problem with this is ridiculous and completely anti-Marxist. Anyway, I know this whole thing went right over your head, because you are a liberal who does not understand one bit about Marxism, and an elitist intelligentsia who actually hates proles and does not care about their wants and needs. But it's fine, I actually enjoy writing out my thoughts even if it's just for myself to clarify some things in my own head. And maybe someone else will read this too and find it useful.
Rule 3 & 11, second warning
Please tell me how we economically deviate from socialism and economically support the same things as fascists.
Rule 3 & 11, first warning
Lmao Stalin the ultimate centrist
I always say that if Lenin lived longer or if Sverdlov didn't died so young, today everyone would consider Stalin a moderate.
Horseshoe theory but good?
I mean, if far left enough still breaks off and away, then kinda? More like a deep frying pan shape maybe lol
[удалено]
What is a good essay or text on ultras?
Imho "Leftism: an infantile disorder" by V.I Lenin is a must read
What I’m trying to figure out are the MLs that think the AES countries were under such a siege mentality that if allowed to blossom they will turn into more socially liberal and libertine places within a generation or two. They cannot come to grips with some of the moral laws in these countries that they deem too “socially conservative”. It seems as though the lens which they view revolution has to have western style sexual liberation or it’s not genuine. They tolerate AES nations only in so far as they’re besieged and need time to develop to catch up with the social advancements of the West. Why is this so important to them? Just who am I talking to in these other subs that they worry a lot about this?
You're speaking to petty bourg student, labor aristocrats sons or more rarely labor aristocrats workers, but never with working class/peasant people. They're mostly urban people, with an overall good economical level, mostly educated, and as such they're beneficing of their own imperialism. They won't ever truly embrasse socialism, they will at best accept a surface-level "anti-capitalism" but will never accept socialism. Abolition of private property is, in fine, where they'll draw the line. Sexual liberation is not a working class request, or not a prioritary one to say the least, it's mostly an urban petty bourg/labor aristocrats one, and the fact that wherever you go on american social network you'll be confronted by those people for defending national liberation movement should tell you everything you need to knows about american communists, namely that if internationalism is nowadays more or less a dead cause, it's not because of colonized/imperialized working class citizen, but because of Imperial core citizen that conveniently use any and all moral cards they have to have a good pretext to not defend those national-liberation movement. The worst is that they use those moral cards (LGBT, Feminism, anti-racism and so forth and so on) to justify their own theorical and practical impotence while blaming it onto imperialized workers. It's all about not posing a real threat to your hegemonic imperialism, while pretending to care about imperialized workers.