iByteABit

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Syria (maybe?), Russia (maybe?), and Iran (maybe?)

We might critically support these states as anti-imperialist forces, but that does not mean that we support the way they govern their own people and the class they represent. At best they would be just as democratic as the western "democracies", a bourgeois democracy where the capitalists have the freedom to pursue the maximization of profits with as little resistance possible while using the state forces against the oppressed proletariat.

True 100% democracy can't exist while classes also exist. Until they fade away into history the best implementation of democracy will be the dictatorship of the proletariat, a democracy by the working class for the working class. Capitalists have no place in it, unless they willfully sacrifice their privileges and join the working class without plotting to subvert this new reality. That's what made the Soviet Union a democracy, everyone would participate through their unions and have equal rights to be elected to them and upwards. A former capitalist's opinion on their factory being taken away on the other hand, would be instantly discarded.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 6 days ago (1 children)

First off about Carcosa stepping down, if this is not about your mental health, please don't. This isn't on you, if anything you have more than proved your capability of being a great admin by remaining civil and keeping a cool head despite the clusterfuck of a thread that was the last one.

I think everyone here can agree that the old comm had racist connotations once researching the name, I also had no idea until I looked it up. The real problem with the changes is that you're essentially trying to force a culture change on the site. While I'm personally not at all opposed to having a community for doing more serious counterpropaganda work in an organized manner, this doesn't cover the need most users here (including myself) have of simply taking a dump on stuff we see that pisses us off, without having to do serious Marxist analysis and refer to sources etc.

I believe we should keep the dredge tank just like it is, rename the dunk tank to one of the names proposed already in a recent post about it, and open up a new community for serious counterpropaganda work.

[–] [email protected] 104 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We can ban X AND get kicked out of NATO? This is the greatest deal in the history of deals a-little-trolling

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Who knows what the fuck will be going on in 4 years, shit is looking grim doomer

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

Maoists really silent after this dropped

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 week ago (3 children)

No I love our Lemmygrad comrades stalin-heart

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

We have free coffee but the shitty French kind from a machine, still better than nothing though I guess

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If the lever controls nothing, by which you probably mean elections in which case I totally agree, then doesn't that also mean that the material effects of pulling it don't exist?

This isn't a democracy and capitalists will still do what capital needs after the election. If that is genocide, then genocide it is. Real change cannot happen from within capitalist institutions, it happens by workers organizing.

Even if elections did matter, what exactly have the Democrats done to prove that they aren't willing to do just as much as their counterparts? The "debates" were literally a contest of who is more willing to spend more on the war machine, instead of things like public health and housing, things that the working class really need and care about.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is an important point and the most genuine argument topic between anarchists and communists imo.

The thing to understand here is that a worker state was never really included in the Marxist definition of communism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, all very clearly oppose the existence of the state and believe that the final liberation of humanity will require its long term dissolution. Socialism, as the premature stage of communism, requires a state as a means of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Being against the state is not incompatible with being a communist, on the contrary it is necessary for socialism to progress and evolve. But it is purely utopian to believe that you can have socialism without a worker state, when classes are still an existing thing. Just look at the past century to see the relentless effort of the bourgeoisie to regain control. Do you really think you have a chance against that without a means of their oppression?

That, I believe, is the major ideological difference we have with anarchists, the rest is purely a result of anticommunist propaganda.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Is the "holier than thou attitude" refusing to be Hitler lite?

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This guy's whole existence has to be a bit

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago

About time they stopped pretending to care now that the election has gone to shit, just be honest and say that you'd happily vote fascists in to keep your treats

 
 

It's not that I want them to betray the people and lay the red carpet for fascism but I'll be pretty smug about it when it inevitably happens

 

How dare North Korea produce things albeit with less quality instead of importing everything and being economically enslaved?

 

While Second World communism was suffering from fissures, the Third World was further united by a bit of First World bumbling. After Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, France and Britain invaded—against Washington’s wishes—to reassert control of the waterway and oust the Egyptian leader. They were joined by the young state of Israel, whose creation had been supported by both Washington and Moscow, but eventually had to back down because of US pressure. Despite Eisenhower’s anger with the new Jewish state, Washington steadily increased support for Israel from the middle of the 1950s for Cold War reasons. It was the nascent alliances between the USSR and radical Arab nationalist regimes, we know now, that formed the basis for a growing US-Israel alliance.6

Is this true? It seems very detached from reality and no sources are given aside from a note that is kinda irrelevant to the question. Since when was the US "angry" about the foundation of Isntreal and since when was the USSR a supporter of it or even neutral to it at all? This feels like bullshit

 

Breaking news is either some useless nonsense like this, or that China is about to collapse, or that China is doing too good and must chill so that the Western economy survives

 

Is there any truth to the claim that Yugoslavia slaughtered people from Kosovo or is it just another Uyghur thing?

(Even if relatively true it still doesn't make the bombing of Yugoslavia justified)

 

I read the tiny Wikipedia article on it but I couldn't draw any conclusions from it and not sure how accurate it is

 

Shamelessly equating the two, judging from the video one might also say that they say fascism was a little better. It makes sense, fascism doesn't get in the way of what they really stand for which is absolutely not democracy.

Remember to vote kids, that will keep the Nazis away even if they're already running the European Union.

 

I'm supposing it was in an effort to challenge the USA and keep them from getting a huge strategic advantage, but I don't know for sure

 

Communism is when the "free thinking individual" that thinks he lives in a separate universe to the rest gets rewarded immensely while the people who work together get to share the crumbs of mr. Individual between them. ~Wait...~

12
Lobbying in the Eurozone (m-902-gr.translate.goog)
 

Translated by Google Translate from the news platform of KKE

 

xi-cooking

view more: ‹ prev next ›