|
the precarious situation of migrant laborers is a deliberate domestic and foreign policy choice. to have a class you can superexploit you need to bomb the source country and build a wall and set up camps. both parties in the US seem to be on board. you can tell it’s a deliberate policy because the solution to the issue (of migrant laborers that you would rather not have) in this status quo would be to not bomb or destabilize the source country, give migrant labor total parity with citizen labor in the courts, and go after exploitative employers. currently, we are doing the exact opposite. i mean this as a critique of current US policies and how you can tell what politicians are saying is a lie, not the ‘the solution’ I stated above is necessarily the best one. Torpor fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 20, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/communistsusa/status/1318208019205902337
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
-__-
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
Malkina_ posted:The American cultural, political, and media establishments have done everything they can post-WWII to convince the planet that racism and organized religion are NOT fundamental factors in the maintenance and entrenchment of global capitalism, and it has worked — just look at Hamilton if you don’t believe me: we have black people literally playing historical American slaveowners and white supremacists, and no one important seems to give a poo poo at all. the lack of curiosity about the history of religion in the US is really interesting to me. Even the historicity of race and racism is being explored and contested in recent years in the mainstream press. Meanwhile, the extent of historical religious discussion I can recall in the mainstream over the past 20 years are liberals trying to figure out why Evangelicals started voting, and the US state being forced by military conflict to realize that there are different types of Islam. For a country that seems more religious than other developed countries, their doesn't seem to be much intellectual force behind it in the mainstream. it get's really interesting when you consider the role that evangelical Christianity has played in promoting reactionary politics in Latin America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Hands Off Bolivia Hands On The Ballot!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
BEB (Bolivian Electoral 🅱️ictory)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
Lol https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1318737296120778752?s=19 https://twitter.com/WASBAPPIN/status/1318744049528963073?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 09:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i noticed that this quote of my post from back in july (?!) ended at a place that gave it kind of a weird cadence, so i decided to go back and see what you were actually responding to. there, on page 989, i discovered that the actual paragraph you're quoting does not place a period at the end of "WRONG" but rather goes on as follows: It wasn't my intent to edit your words. I'm phone posting and I may have hosed up the quote by accident. My apologies. I'm not denying that USSR accomplished all of that, I mentioned it at the end of my post. My point is not that they weren't able to accomplish what seem almost like miracles in retrospect, my point is that it was all for nothing. You're writing like it's still the 60s and all of these achievements actually did anything long term. It's 2020 now, and it's all gone man. All of it. Russia is a reactionary shithole now, and the anti-communist propaganda program is completely dominant. Revolutionary praxis starts with a clear eyed analysis of current conditions, and with the exception of a few scattered people's war fronts and the Cuban project, we're dead in the water. All that the USSR matters to anybody anymore is the lessons its failure can teach we communists who understand the necessity of trying again and again until we succeed. quote:
I'm very aware actual scarcity of consumer goods was a late stage result of neoliberalization, but I wasn't talking about the 80s, I was talking about the early five year plans. There was certainly enough material necessities to go around, and this is indeed successful UV planning. What it was not was a model that was able to outproduce or out-innovate the Western capital core. My point about the barely controlled chaos still stands - it was enough to feed, clothe, and house everybody for a few generations, it was not enough to compete as a firm on the world market, which it still had to do. So the question is, why? quote:besides disingenuous, you also seem to be weak on the theory here. you say "without exchange value, they were unable to locate use value." but if you're a marxist, you know that exchange value and use-value are in no way commensurate. gold has incredible exchange value but its use-value is very different from the use-value of a tractor, which is why exchanging russian gold for american tractors was an extremely good idea for the early soviets. you've just wound back up at boilerplate liberal pablum about irreplaceable market efficiencies or whatever. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, I'm attempting to engage in good faith. UV and EV are both in no way commensurate and also interdependent - it's dialectical, comrade. My position is not that value form dominated liberal societies are 'more efficient' (or efficient in any way whatsoever except killing planets). My position is that it is not enough to just delete EV and roll with UV, you need a new form that includes UV and a a metric to actually measure and locate it that is not EV. I think this is absolutely possible in practice, and we should all of us try immediately. quote:
Fair enough on the definition, I guess, but there are still many different ways to plan for UV, and the USSR only tried a few. They also didn't have networked computers, which makes their success even more dizzying. We can obviously do better than they did. Again, they successes were only temporarily spectacular, ultimately they were failures. quote:
I'll just repeat what I already posted: I sure hope not, because it objectively did not get the world or even Russia to communism. Not a single UV oriented planning system has lasted more than 80 years. Is your plan just to repeat the past? What is your analysis for why the USSR is gone? And if it's liberals in the leadership, how did it they get there? Where can you see a lower stage of communism now? Where is communism? quote:okay, you have to get why this is stupid, right? like aside from your tacit admission that there actually was a mass civilian base in the form of the proletariat and peasantry. in the 1930s, the ussr had a population of roughly 170 million people. during world war 2, the red army numbered approximately 3 million men. 1.7% of a population can't actually rule the other 98.3% with sheer force of arms. it doesn't work. soldiers need to eat. soldiers need to be equipped. soldiers have families. i needn't remind you that we're talking about a population that has already violently overthrown its tyrannical rulers within most of its members' lifetimes. The choice for the vast majority of the population in the 20s was red terror or white terror - you're drat right most of them kept their heads down and did their jobs. You don't have to point a gun at every single person to rule by force. The population in the 30s or the size of the red army in the 40s is totally besides the point of the class analysis I was making, which is that the proletariat that actually accomplished the revolution against the tsar was not the same proletariat that worked the first few five year plans. The former was a tiny fraction of Russia's population at the time, the latter an explosive growth drawn from the peasantry. quote:some of the old bolsheviks killed others of the old bolsheviks because it turns out that insurrections and revolutions are carried out by coalitions of convenience whose constituent parts enter the project with all sorts of personal creeds and ultimate aims. bukharin and stalin agreed on whether tsar nicholas should remain in power. they disagreed on whether farms should be collectivized or allowed to liberalize further. this doesn't mean bukharin wasn't a hero of the revolution or whatever, just that times change and every transformation into a new state brings forth a new set of contradictions which will themselves give rise to another transformation and so forth. and this was a reason to loving murder bukharin??? Jesus Christ. Again, there needed to be open, legal factions with some agreed upon method of deciding between more NEP agriculture or collectivization. You don't loving execute the opposition for disagreeing with the plan, the second you do that everybody with any initiative or courage is gonna flee for the nearest border and you get a state full of cynical careerists. Stalin's faction didn't just purge some of the old Bolsheviks, they purged the Deborites and the Machists and loving anybody or anything that didn't toe not just the political-economic line but a loving static ontological line, ending theoretical development within the project for decades and making a mockery of dialectical materialism, which must never stop developing if it is not to betray itself. Theory and Practice advance through contradiction. If you remove contradictions, you stagnate. If you stagnate, you fail. quote:a big lie you're telling me right now is that the ussr pretended that class struggle stops in socialism. Actually that's Mao. You callin Mao a liar? He made sure there were always factions and even tried a second revolution against his own bureaucracy. He was critically learning from the Soviet experience, why won't you? quote:but in fact lenin explicitly wrote, and stalin quoted, that class struggle only sharpens under socialism, hence the continued need for a repressive apparatus to defend the revolution. But the locus of the antagonism shifts after the revolution. For Stalin, class struggle continued as the fight of the apparatus against internal and external bourgeois threats. For the actual working class outside the apparatus, there was no way to continue the struggle. They couldn't even organize. quote:remember, you're writing about real, actual people who are just as good at noticing that things are amiss as you are, and just as capable as you are of talking about it amongst themselves and at least trying out solutions. these aren't cartoon characters or video game NPCs. Real, actual people's perspectival horizon is overdetermined by their social practice relative to the totality of social relations, or we are no longer Marxists. The state apparatus could not see new axes of antagonism that had formed within the project, because it did not allow these perspectives to organize and represent themselves. We can only understand ourselves through the mediation of the other. The Soviet state was a state in complete denial that it had an internal other whatsoever. Workers interests were the state apparatuses interests, and that was that. quote:"factions" being formally allowed or banned doesn't actually have bearing on this because there's always going to be internal discussion and debate and there are always going to lines of consensus which no one is allowed to cross without expulsion or violence. all the other stuff you're giving me about monoliths and rule through fear is orwell poo poo Orwell is a grotesque exaggeration of an unfortunately all-too-real phenomenom. Again, if the penalty for disagreement is death, you get stagnation and spineless careerism. You become blind. My analysis is attempting to diagnose problems like the spread of paranoia leading to self-destructive purges, the Lysenko affair, the lack of worker agency and organization, and the stagnation and collapse of the whole project. I have also suggested a solution to these problems - that the structure of any communist political apparatus must itself be self-consciousnessly dialectical. I have offered an (admittedly distasteful) model for this - 2 faction structure of the America Bourgeois dictatorship. You have only responded to my diagnosis with defensive denial, and have ignored my proposed solution. History is the laboratory and the final arbiter of success. The USSR failed. Why do you think it failed, and how do you think we can do better next time? emTme3 fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 10:12
|
|
|
The USSR failed because they failed to export the revolution. You can never be free while the slavers still live. Their attempts to avoid conflict with NATO are truly admirable but unfortunately, the result clearly tells us that allowing capitalist superpowers to exist in harmony is a utopian dream, and is only harmful to the cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 11:58
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:The USSR failed because they failed to export the revolution. You can never be free while the slavers still live. Their attempts to avoid conflict with NATO are truly admirable but unfortunately, the result clearly tells us that allowing capitalist superpowers to exist in harmony is a utopian dream, and is only harmful to the cause. nuclear weaponry showed up just in time to save capital, tbh like one of the driving motives in the arms race was serious doubts that the earlier generations of nukes would be enough to stop sheer amount of tanks which give "tankies" their name
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 12:20
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:like one of the driving motives in the arms race was serious doubts that the earlier generations of nukes would be enough to stop sheer amount of tanks which give "tankies" their name aaaa
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
is this actually some dumb poo poo i picked up without realizing it, or are you just reacting to the sheer horror of the implications?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
“tankies” refers to the clean reservoirs communists would build in poor communities in eastern europe, providing them safe and clean drinking water from giant steel “tanks”
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
THS posted:“tankies” refers to the clean reservoirs communists would build in poor communities in eastern europe, providing them safe and clean drinking water from giant steel “tanks” 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:is this actually some dumb poo poo i picked up without realizing it, or are you just reacting to the sheer horror of the implications? Yes, that's not the origin of the term. It originated as a way to describe communists in the English-speaking world who supported the USSR crushing the Hungarian Revolution/Counter-revolution in 1956. The USSR rolled in the tanks to put it down, hence, tankie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Yes, that's not the origin of the term. It originated as a way to describe communists in the English-speaking world who supported the USSR crushing the Hungarian Revolution/Counter-revolution in 1956. The USSR rolled in the tanks to put it down, hence, tankie. ah, gotcha its actually kind of hard for me to guage whether america was actually afraid of anything they claimed they needed to fund a particular project because if theres one thing america excells in its dedication to never breaking kayfabe
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
splifyphus posted:It wasn't my intent to edit your words. I'm phone posting and I may have hosed up the quote by accident. My apologies. "it was all for nothing" is a flatly ridiculous statement. it was obviously not all for nothing because in the first place there were tremendous increases in soviet quality of life, in the second place the nazis were defeated, in the third place numerous smaller socialist states either formed themselves or remained afloat thanks to soviet aid, and in the fourth place the soviet union was an objective, empirical, historical example that a socialist revolution that established a planned economy could compete with and even defeat capitalist nations while improving its own standard of living faster than capitalism has ever managed. the ussr's successes are as important as its failures, and if you try to paint as failures what were objectively successes you actually end up sabotaging or at least slowing future revolutionary efforts, because you start imagining that things which were actually good, workable ideas are actually "authoritarianism" and must be avoided at all costs because of what's ultimately liberal rights-based discourse quote:I'm very aware actual scarcity of consumer goods was a late stage result of neoliberalization, but I wasn't talking about the 80s, I was talking about the early five year plans. There was certainly enough material necessities to go around, and this is indeed successful UV planning. What it was not was a model that was able to outproduce or out-innovate the Western capital core. My point about the barely controlled chaos still stands - it was enough to feed, clothe, and house everybody for a few generations, it was not enough to compete as a firm on the world market, which it still had to do. So the question is, why? uhh the early five year plans worked. not only did they feed, clothe, and house everybody but they were able to compete as a military machine such that fascist germany could be stopped, routed, and crushed. your basic premise that the planned economy failed is bunkum! quote:I'm not trying to be disingenuous, I'm attempting to engage in good faith. UV and EV are both in no way commensurate and also interdependent - it's dialectical, comrade. My position is not that value form dominated liberal societies are 'more efficient' (or efficient in any way whatsoever except killing planets). My position is that it is not enough to just delete EV and roll with UV, you need a new form that includes UV and a a metric to actually measure and locate it that is not EV. I think this is absolutely possible in practice, and we should all of us try immediately. the mistake you're making here is assuming that socialist projects with planned, use-value based economies must have failed because of those use-value based economies, rather than that they even lasted as long as they did because of their UV-based economies and would have crashed and burned even harder and faster if they tried to liberalize or otherwise introduce mechanisms besides use-value to the determination of what they produced. you think it's absolutely possible in practice? yes, it obviously is, because people did it in the ussr and other numerous historical examples. tank production facilities weren't built in the urals because of the exchange value of a t-34, and they also weren't built because of some mystical third property yet to be discovered by dialecticians. they were built because the use-value of a military apparatus - killing fascists - was democratically determined to be important at the present moment and so the economy was oriented around getting it done. centrally-planned economies aren't appropriate for any and all conditions and trade relations a socialist country might exist in - they make it harder to bait foreign capitalists into giving you resources, for instance - but they're the heart of how marx himself described lower-stage communism and of proven effectiveness right now i'd place communism in cuba, vietnam, and china among other countries or places i'm less familiar with (venezuela and bolivia too, maybe? the zapatista territories...?), communism here meaning the really-existing movement towards the end of class society and not a really-existing classless society free from want or internal struggle. due to external context many if not all of these places have been forced, or at least judged that it's best to open themselves up to world markets and therefore reduce the degree of central planning. but there is no magic third thing they can be doing instead that would be better than either that we just haven't discovered yet, unless you count the hypothetical future in which there is such abundance that there's no need for resource allocation all together, whether through the anarchy of the market or through deliberation quote:The choice for the vast majority of the population in the 20s was red terror or white terror - you're drat right most of them kept their heads down and did their jobs. You don't have to point a gun at every single person to rule by force. The population in the 30s or the size of the red army in the 40s is totally besides the point of the class analysis I was making, which is that the proletariat that actually accomplished the revolution against the tsar was not the same proletariat that worked the first few five year plans. The former was a tiny fraction of Russia's population at the time, the latter an explosive growth drawn from the peasantry. you made several points, one of which was that the soviet state ruled through fear, which is stupid and not true except insofar as every state ever technically rules through fear because technically the police and army are waiting in the wings to serve as the last line of defense against any non-compliance. no state can sustain itself without a material base, no modern state maintains that base purely through force of arms. the soviet union wasn't a military dictatorship or a police state - certainly not in any sense unique to the rest of the world quote:and this was a reason to loving murder bukharin??? Jesus Christ. Again, there needed to be open, legal factions with some agreed upon method of deciding between more NEP agriculture or collectivization. You don't loving execute the opposition for disagreeing with the plan, the second you do that everybody with any initiative or courage is gonna flee for the nearest border and you get a state full of cynical careerists. Stalin's faction didn't just purge some of the old Bolsheviks, they purged the Deborites and the Machists and loving anybody or anything that didn't toe not just the political-economic line but a loving static ontological line, ending theoretical development within the project for decades and making a mockery of dialectical materialism, which must never stop developing if it is not to betray itself. Theory and Practice advance through contradiction. If you remove contradictions, you stagnate. If you stagnate, you fail. orwell is the grotesque exaggeration that "the penalty for disagreement is death". but the penalty for disagreement wasn't death. the casual and matter-of-fact execution of anyone who stepped wrong or spoke out of turn is a liberal fantasy, a caricature of the soviet system. the ban on formal, explicit factions which would be willing to defy demcent was not a ban on internal discussion and debate, as is plainly seen by copious records of internal discussion and debate within the party before, during, and after whatever specific historical period is the one in which you imagine the ussr stopped being really, truly socialist it's certainly true that the soviet state took its interests and the interests of the working class to be the same, such that real "class struggle" was between the people working honestly at magnitogorsk and the people sabotaging prouction at magnitogorsk rather than between the people working at magnitogorsk and the people managing magnitogorsk. this means that there was an additional cudgel to bring to bear against rank and file workers who wanted shorter shifts or whatever - that they were betraying their fellow workers, themselves counterrevolutionary, etc. this kind of thinking is always going to have collateral damage, lead to unjust prosecutions, and so forth. but it is also not avoidable for any worker's state, because the administration of any worker's state is by necessity going to have to treat its own decisions, however they're reached, as at least a moderately accurate representation of what The People actually want and need such that they have a mandate from those people to carry those decisions out. if those decisions really don't flow from the people then there will be a struggle until that contradiction is resolved in one direction or another, because it's impossible to turn off dialectics no matter what you call yourself or how you frame your actions. these struggles are unavoidable results of scale - there is simply no way to run a state apparatus big enough to fight in world wars or launch space rockets without internecine conflict of this kind, in the same way that you'll never have a family in which no one ever gets mad at anyone else. it's the cost of doing business quote:My analysis is attempting to diagnose problems like the spread of paranoia leading to self-destructive purges, the Lysenko affair, the lack of worker agency and organization, and the stagnation and collapse of the whole project. I have also suggested a solution to these problems - that the structure of any communist political apparatus must itself be self-consciousnessly dialectical. I have offered an (admittedly distasteful) model for this - 2 faction structure of the America Bourgeois dictatorship. You have only responded to my diagnosis with defensive denial, and have ignored my proposed solution. as we can plainly observe for ourselves, any 2-faction structure is a shell game designed to pacify rubes. imagine if they had allowed capital-f Factions in the early to mid soviet union. do you think that stalin versus bukharin would have played out any differently? basically every history of the struggles between stalin and trotsky on one side and stalin and trotsky on the other make it clear that there were obvious teams with well-known leaders and that ultimately one, uhhhhh, tendency won out over the other through some combination of genuine popularity and bureaucratic maneuver. if you truly believe that the leadership of the ussr had ossified into a parasitic bureaucracy, then surely you wouldn't be such a sucker as to think that any "political parties" within the greater CPSU wouldn't mostly end up as some combination of controlled opposition or identical to each other in all but name, just as with the democrats and republicans in the united states. you end up at the same problem - outsized control by a few bad actors who are able to manipulate the rest of the bureaucracy to their liking! if i had to go back in time and theorycraft ways for early socialism to better carry itself into the world of modern socialism i'd probably try to alter the diplomatic approach of russia to china and vice versa in order to avert the sino-soviet split or stuff like that, not attempt to brainstorm a hidden X-factor which suddenly makes central planning work (because again, to be clear, central planning did work and does work and this is why e.g. every existing corporation is rigorously centrally planned) Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:BEB (Bolivian Electoral 🅱️ictory)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
What would it mean for a corporation to not be centrally planned?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
the notorious example you can look up is Sears, which had an Objectivist / libertarian nutjob CEO who attempted to reorganize the entire company around internal markets and competing divisions. this failed, of course. everyone lied to eachother and hosed eachother internally, even moreso than is usual in a large corporation. all the data and reporting became unreliable, profits went way down, total disaster
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
THS posted:the notorious example you can look up is Sears, which had an Objectivist / libertarian nutjob CEO who attempted to reorganize the entire company around internal markets and competing divisions. this failed, of course. everyone lied to eachother and hosed eachother internally, even moreso than is usual in a large corporation. all the data and reporting became unreliable, profits went way down, total disaster And naturally he escaped with a golden parachute That said, he could have been what Bezos was if he didn't run Sears into the ground. The logistical infrastructure it had would have out it miles ahead of Amazon had they entered online retail competently. It would have been a natural progression from their origin as a catalog order company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Yeah, to say that the Soviet Union (i.e October Revolution) had no lasting-influence on the world seems pretty off even if the US was hegemonic (at least for a time) if anything parts of the world are starting to turn around (look at Bolivia or rapid development in Africa). Moreover, I think the op is pretty off-base about modern-day Russia and is confusing Putin with the Russian population and they are too very different things. If anything there is a strong leftward movement in Russian politics even if the structure of the state has stayed the same. The government is increasingly worried as well, they backed off austerity measures and are actually dumping money from the military budget back into social spending. It remains to be seen if any real material progress will occur, but I expect there to be more social pressure going forward from below.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:BEB (Bolivian Electoral 🅱️ictory)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:BEB (Bolivian Electoral 🅱️ictory)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If anything there is a strong leftward movement in Russian politics even if the structure of the state has stayed the same. The government is increasingly worried as well, they backed off austerity measures and are actually dumping money from the military budget back into social spending. It remains to be seen if any real material progress will occur, but I expect there to be more social pressure going forward from below. i didn't know that, that's cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
If there’s a good essay on that aspect of Russian politics I’d like to read it
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:If there’s a good essay on that aspect of Russian politics I’d like to read it Unfortunately, I really haven't seen anything in English (that said if you live in Russia you can certainly see a shift in opinion), the recent Moscow election results have shown a hard swing to both the Russian Communist Party as well as a split Communist Party (which is the Communist Party of Communists - Russia....I think they need a new name) which got 36% of the vote. In addition, I would say there is broad dissatisfaction with the current economic state of things that the liberals have not been able to capitalize on. That said, literally, almost English language article/publication on modern-day Russia I have seen has taken a standard Western line. Even English-speaking left (Grayzone) has gotten quite a bit wrong even if they get the real gist of Washington's intentions in the region. Btw to be real, that doesn't mean there isn't a liberal opposition (largely located in Moscow), supporters of the current regime, as well as all sorts of random reactionaries, if not fascists in Russia but the situation is significantly more complex than has been presented in English (which is generally the liberals versus Putin and thats it).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
How does leftist resistance to Putin look like? Are there groups against Russian intervention in Syria for example? Edit: Also am I crazy but does anyone else feel that Marxist scholars like Vijay Prashad don't take climate change seriously as an existential threat. I've read Bookchin but are there more orthodox Marxist works on enviromentalism? ToxicAcne fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:How does leftist resistance to Putin look like? Are there groups against Russian intervention in Syria for example? Yeah, lots of Russian leftists and leftists the world over frankly are against Russian intervention in Syria. That famous leftist rallying cry. "Carve up Syria!" I think it goes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
So what you are saying is that because western imperialists want to carve up Syria, then that means Leftists must support, thick or thin, Russian intervention in Syria? All hail the Great Lion, liberator of Al Sham!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Unfortunately, I really haven't seen anything in English (that said if you live in Russia you can certainly see a shift in opinion), the recent Moscow election results have shown a hard swing to both the Russian Communist Party as well as a split Communist Party (which is the Communist Party of Communists - Russia....I think they need a new name) which got 36% of the vote. In addition, I would say there is broad dissatisfaction with the current economic state of things that the liberals have not been able to capitalize on. Word thanks. I know Peoples World has run a few things on the Communist opposition in Russia and some interviews with party members and such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PurelyPurgatory/status/1318198854366482433 https://mobile.twitter.com/PurelyPurgatory/status/1318211845191311361 you could get a lot of mileage by making an account calling the PRF-MLM revisionists and insist that another, smaller clique is the authentic bolivian MLM force. also insist in very strong terms that a country that's actually already led by a socialist party (or hopefully will be) under assault from the global hegemon -- and winning -- is bad. we need another group of chodes in the forest to wage war on them. obviously communism will benefit from that, not the hegemon. it worked in peru, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:https://twitter.com/PurelyPurgatory/status/1318198854366482433 https://twitter.com/JM_1871/status/1318093388948844546?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
LibCum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
libcops
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
lib. dot. com.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:https://twitter.com/PurelyPurgatory/status/1318198854366482433 the party of the main candidate running against MAS in this election was the Revolutionary Left Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Left_Front_(Bolivia) quote:FRI was composed of the Communist Party of Bolivia (Marxist–Leninist) (PCB(ML)), Revolutionary Party of the Nationalist Left (PRIN), Revolutionary Party of the Workers of Bolivia (PRTB), POR-Combate, Vanguardia Comunista del POR (the latter two were Trotskyist groups) and an independent grouping led by Manuel Morales Dávila.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
FRI has, I believe, moved significantly to the right since that period, and is now a liberal party to the right of MAS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
e-dt posted:FRI has, I believe, moved significantly to the right since that period, and is now a liberal party to the right of MAS. yeah i know its just funny
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 06:32
|
|