There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

«‹›1217 »

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

jarofpiss posted:

i think on point 3. there's also a distinction between what controls on speech would look like in a socialist society vs our current state. im certainly not going to support/advocate for further empowering the american state to censor speech in the same way i'm not going to support increasing funding to the fbi in the hopes they use it to stop right wing militias. that doesn't mean i won't be happy to see the existing state used against fascists though, because it's good when bad things happen to them.

i think people often conflate the two when they're arguing about principles. like the places i want my principles to be reflected in the american state are in places where they undermine the strength of capital, not in the areas that they could be further used against me. i want medicare for all, i don't want the us government hate speech laws that will ultimately make cops a protected class.

Yeah, I think I agree with what you're saying.

I don't cheer when social media corps ban leftists, and I do cheer when the same happens to fascists, but I also don't think "wow cool that that happened" represents in any way "support" or "endorsement" of these practices in such broad fashion that it could be taken to mean that I think social media corps should be able to ban people in the way that liberals always warn us is about to happen.

And even if "cheerleading" were to count as active or tacit support that broadly, it already is happening, which is why we have a vision of a better, more democratized world where it wouldn't.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 14:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 17:57

jarofpiss: May 16, 2009

gradenko_2000 posted:

Yeah, I think I agree with what you're saying.

I don't cheer when social media corps ban leftists, and I do cheer when the same happens to fascists, but I also don't think "wow cool that that happened" represents in any way "support" or "endorsement" of these practices in such broad fashion that it could be taken to mean that I think social media corps should be able to ban people in the way that liberals always warn us is about to happen.

And even if "cheerleading" were to count as active or tacit support that broadly, it already is happening, which is why we have a vision of a better, more democratized world where it wouldn't.

there is a liberal complex about hypocrisy that makes their brains short circuit. i think at the root of it is judging consistency within a framework that treats all ideas as equal and all positions as equal. the right wing in this country doesn't do that, it's why they are more effectively able to wield power. mitch mcconnel doesn't care that liberals think he's a hypocrite, because he's not. he's consistent with his position that the right wing should wield power, and the democrats shouldn't. there's also a whole other spectrum where the right wing in this country gets political enjoyment through transgression (hypocrisy), it's how they will rally behind trump even though he's a literal avatar of everything they say is destroying the country (multi divorced atheist billionaire running casinos and paying for abortions on the side), they respond to the transgression on some visceral level. same reason every super right wing homophobic politician eventually gets caught in a gay bathhouse or whatever.

the inverse of that is the liberal political expression which while on the surface appears to encourage the breaking down of social limits (civil rights, lgbtq acceptance, etc), it actually is one of the most rigid and dogmatic forms of political enjoyment. the boundaries are extremely strict and anything that transgresses their boundaries will be exiled/canceled/whatever. it's why al franken has to resign and donald trump gets to be president, the framework of the liberal perspective requires them to sacrifice their ability to wield power for the appearance of consistency.

the left shouldn't fall into that liberal trap where we assume that all speech is equal. speech that furthers our project is good and speech that hinders it is bad. there's no need to try and frame a position around "free speech" because it's ultimately a liberal framework that is easily undermined by anyone willing to build power in bad faith. the right wing fundamentally has the more effective approach to the political discourse in this country, and they've taken the transgression so far that they don't even have to say things that are ostensibly "true".

i think there's room for some nuance on morally what kind of propaganda/tactics/limits on speech should the left employ if in some bizzaro world the left actually had power. but as things stand now, it's good when twitter bans right wingers and facebook deletes militia pages and it's bad when they do the same to the left. my judgment is a pragmatic one, not about some sort of moral consistency within a liberal worldview.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 14:29

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

ToxicAcne posted:

This isn't the case at all?!?

Didn't know that asking questions in the Marxist theory thread made me a bad faith poster.

welcome to cspam

# ? Nov 13, 2020 15:18

uncop: Oct 23, 2010

jarofpiss posted:

there is a liberal complex about hypocrisy that makes their brains short circuit. i think at the root of it is judging consistency within a framework that treats all ideas as equal and all positions as equal. the right wing in this country doesn't do that, it's why they are more effectively able to wield power. mitch mcconnel doesn't care that liberals think he's a hypocrite, because he's not. he's consistent with his position that the right wing should wield power, and the democrats shouldn't. there's also a whole other spectrum where the right wing in this country gets political enjoyment through transgression (hypocrisy), it's how they will rally behind trump even though he's a literal avatar of everything they say is destroying the country (multi divorced atheist billionaire running casinos and paying for abortions on the side), they respond to the transgression on some visceral level. same reason every super right wing homophobic politician eventually gets caught in a gay bathhouse or whatever.

the inverse of that is the liberal political expression which while on the surface appears to encourage the breaking down of social limits (civil rights, lgbtq acceptance, etc), it actually is one of the most rigid and dogmatic forms of political enjoyment. the boundaries are extremely strict and anything that transgresses their boundaries will be exiled/canceled/whatever. it's why al franken has to resign and donald trump gets to be president, the framework of the liberal perspective requires them to sacrifice their ability to wield power for the appearance of consistency.

the left shouldn't fall into that liberal trap where we assume that all speech is equal. speech that furthers our project is good and speech that hinders it is bad. there's no need to try and frame a position around "free speech" because it's ultimately a liberal framework that is easily undermined by anyone willing to build power in bad faith. the right wing fundamentally has the more effective approach to the political discourse in this country, and they've taken the transgression so far that they don't even have to say things that are ostensibly "true".

i think there's room for some nuance on morally what kind of propaganda/tactics/limits on speech should the left employ if in some bizzaro world the left actually had power. but as things stand now, it's good when twitter bans right wingers and facebook deletes militia pages and it's bad when they do the same to the left. my judgment is a pragmatic one, not about some sort of moral consistency within a liberal worldview.

Pragmatism that dances around the limitations of concrete reality isn't marxist though. You can't just claim that speech furthering our project is good and speech hindering it is bad, so we can both cheer for and condemn twitter bans simply depending on the target. The claim is literally too good to be true, it's a salesman's pitch that contradicts marxist theory.

"Speech" itself in this context is an abstraction that means lots of different and opposed things that people sneakily cherrypick based on what they like most, so marxists can't just talk about "speech" in abstract, but have to reveal the concrete rights people are arguing for and against. The twitter ban example doesn't work out because there's no such option in reality to argue for as "the right for twitter to ban your enemies but not your allies". Supporting any right for the bourgeoisie to circumvent the liberal equal rights principle to punish someone you hate is in practice support for their proto-fascist section, who will immediately turn any such rights against you.

Also, when you argue that speech is good or bad depending on the consequences, concretely you are arguing for a (rather alien) morality that people should adopt. But morality is a factor of material reality that marxists can't just produce and bring to the people like idealists imagine they could. It's a social system determined by scientific laws that need to be learned through practice. Marxists can't determine that something is "good" or "bad", they can only find sections of masses that already think that it's good or bad, and decide whether and how to support and unite them with other sections against their common enemy.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 15:58

Mr. Lobe: Feb 23, 2007; ... Dry bones...

Larry Parrish posted:

i respect you greatly gradenko but im pretty sure he's trying to get big posts so we waste time on it. well said however.

What the hell is this take? Even if the original poster was asking the question in bad faith, which nothing indicates that they were, it's a topic worth consideration

Free speech may be a notion that the right has coopted and postured as its own in recent years but it really got put on the map in the public consciousness of America during the 1960s the Berkley Free Speech Movement, which pushed back against universities that acted to suppress the civil rights and antiwar political activity of the time. It was the starting point of the New Left because it was the first major counternovement against the stifling censorship imposed by the red scare era.

In general, the suppression of free speech is against the interests of Marxists. Control of discourse and the formal delineation of "acceptable ideas" generally serves the interests of the entrenched powers, and is primarily weaponized against those who want to undermine those entrenched powers. You see this kind of suppression applied towards the left because the left, and the radical left in particular, presents a threat to those entrenched powers.

On the other hand, the extent to which nazis and the far-right are suppressed is more of a question of maintaining the veneer of legitimacy, but it still serves the interests of the ruling class. It runs against that "decorum" they won't shut up about, the etiquette and social practices that are recognized as the markers of civil authority in the west. What falls into that etiquette is the domain of the culture war, which somewhat orthogonal to class war, and therefore less of an existential threat.

As Marxists, should we succeed in establishing a workers state, we would also want to delineate the range of acceptable ideas, though ideally we would do so in a way that is democratically accountable to the working class. Refusing to give formal platform to Nazis, for instance, would make sense, though we would be doing so in the service of our collective interests (Nazi's are bad for working people, I think, we can all agree) rather than to maintain the comedy of manners that is the bourgeois state's pretense of legitimacy.

Mr. Lobe fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Nov 13, 2020

# ? Nov 13, 2020 15:59

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

GalacticAcid posted:

Lotta hostility in here today...time to take a "chill pill"

A spectre is haunting cspam, time to take a "chill pill"

# ? Nov 13, 2020 17:26

jarofpiss: May 16, 2009

uncop posted:

Pragmatism that dances around the limitations of concrete reality isn't marxist though. You can't just claim that speech furthering our project is good and speech hindering it is bad, so we can both cheer for and condemn twitter bans simply depending on the target. The claim is literally too good to be true, it's a salesman's pitch that contradicts marxist theory.

"Speech" itself in this context is an abstraction that means lots of different and opposed things that people sneakily cherrypick based on what they like most, so marxists can't just talk about "speech" in abstract, but have to reveal the concrete rights people are arguing for and against. The twitter ban example doesn't work out because there's no such option in reality to argue for as "the right for twitter to ban your enemies but not your allies". Supporting any right for the bourgeoisie to circumvent the liberal equal rights principle to punish someone you hate is in practice support for their proto-fascist section, who will immediately turn any such rights against you.

Also, when you argue that speech is good or bad depending on the consequences, concretely you are arguing for a (rather alien) morality that people should adopt. But morality is a factor of material reality that marxists can't just produce and bring to the people like idealists imagine they could. It's a social system determined by scientific laws that need to be learned through practice. Marxists can't determine that something is "good" or "bad", they can only find sections of masses that already think that it's good or bad, and decide whether and how to support and unite them with other sections against their common enemy.

appreciate the critique

i didnt mean to sound like i�m arguing for rights or not around this stuff. i think what im trying to get at is that if we�re fundamentally opposed to the economic/state status quo, we don�t make moral judgements through the framework they provide. so i wouldn�t engage in a �twitter rights� campaign outside of how it materially impacts my socialist project.

so i wouldn�t push the aclu to defend nazis in free speech court, but i also wouldn�t advocate for the current state to be further empowered in the hope that would allow it to come down on those same nazis. but if they did get put in free speech jail or whatever, im not above saying that was �good�

im trying to draw distinctions between what is moral under a bourgeois state and what is moral under a socialist state even if they�re ostensibly the same basic law. this is a distinction that i think gets missed when discussing these sorts of issues with liberals.

like i am anti gun control under the current american state, but would probably be very pro under a socialist state.

ultimately the question for me is �would i organize around an issue because it furthers my project� and i don�t really care what twitter does to nazis and certainly wouldn�t organize around it

# ? Nov 13, 2020 18:08

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 85 days!

lol @ giving a single poo poo who gets banned off twitter and why

# ? Nov 13, 2020 18:53

T-man: Aug 22, 2010; Talk shit, get bzzzt.

if you haven't been banned on twitter you're not posting good enough

# ? Nov 13, 2020 19:27

A4R8: Feb 28, 2020

https://twitter.com/hijodelcuervo/status/1327030471067381761?s=21

This is the end result of holding liberty as a value

# ? Nov 13, 2020 20:48

A4R8: Feb 28, 2020

Liberalism/neoliberalism is a form of fascism; especially in the 21st century � it relentlessly tears apart, destroys, and seeks to replace the very basic social bonds among humans with the cult of the individual to the point where entire populations are completely oblivious to capital grinding them into dust. But at least you got pornhub, netflix, and Reality TV out of it.

Edit:

This is the form of fascism the American establishment consciously pursued after the Civil Rights Movement/Hart-Celler Act in 1965. They dropped �official white fascism� in favor of neoliberalism because it�s much more profitable to commodify every aspect of reality than to uphold a white ethnostate. It also allowed the establishment to exploit white nationalism without being held �accountable� for it; see the Richard Nixon and Donald Trump campaigns.

The Powel Memo in 1971 is proof of this transition. https://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

A4R8 fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 13, 2020

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:18

smarxist: Jul 26, 2018; by Fluffdaddy

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:50

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

uncop posted:

Marxists can't determine that something is "good" or "bad", they can only find sections of masses that already think that it's good or bad, and decide whether and how to support and unite them with other sections against their common enemy.

how is this not a determination of what is "good" or "bad" (serious question)

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:57

smarxist: Jul 26, 2018; by Fluffdaddy

indigi posted:

how is this not a determination of what is "good" or "bad" (serious question)

as an individual phenomenon it is suborned to the bourgeois and used for their ends, so as a concept it can't be evaluated for merit until destroyed and rebuilt in a classless society

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:07

Trash Ops: Jun 19, 2012; im having fun, isnt everyone else?

A4R8 posted:

Liberalism/neoliberalism is a form of fascism; especially in the 21st century � it relentlessly tears apart, destroys, and seeks to replace the very basic social bonds among humans with the cult of the individual to the point where entire populations are completely oblivious to capital grinding them into dust. But at least you got pornhub, netflix, and Reality TV out of it.

Edit:

This is the form of fascism the American establishment consciously pursued after the Civil Rights Movement/Hart-Celler Act in 1965. They dropped �official white fascism� in favor of neoliberalism because it�s much more profitable to commodify every aspect of reality than to uphold a white ethnostate. It also allowed the establishment to exploit white nationalism without being held �accountable� for it; see the Richard Nixon and Donald Trump campaigns.

The Powel Memo in 1971 is proof of this transition. https://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

lmao did you read anything other than the wikipedia page on social fascism

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:19

A4R8: Feb 28, 2020

Trash Ops posted:

lmao did you read anything other than the wikipedia page on social fascism

Well your moms head was really good earlier, I might have missed something because of it

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:23

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

lol are you 19

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:24

A4R8: Feb 28, 2020

indigi posted:

lol are you 19

No, but it�s curious you�re apparently mocking an age group who has been hosed by capital more than any other generation in american history thanks to boomers. But at least you got a good burn in here

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:27

Emmideer: Oct 20, 2011; Lovely night, no?; Grimey Drawer

-_-

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:28

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Trash Ops posted:

lmao did you read anything other than the wikipedia page on social fascism

is there a need to read anything else?

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:30

VictualSquid: Feb 29, 2012; Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.

smarxist posted:

as an individual phenomenon it is suborned to the bourgeois and used for their ends, so as a concept it can't be evaluated for merit until destroyed and rebuilt in a classless society

Sure it can. For example Marx does that evaluation in his analysis of democracy. He concludes that democracy is generally good, that is the problems of bourgeois democracy are the fault of the bourgeois and not the fault of democracy. In contrast to his analysis of capitalism, where he does conclude that the problems are inherent in capitalism and can not be removed by fixing another part of society.

Nevertheless, the analysis might still be excessively difficult or excessively theoretical.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:38

lumpentroll: Mar 4, 2020

Raskolnikov38 posted:

is there a need to read anything else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlers:_The_Mythology_of_the_White_Proletariat

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:41

A4R8: Feb 28, 2020

lumpentroll posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlers:_The_Mythology_of_the_White_Proletariat

this book single-handedly proves MLM is the most sophisticated communist ideology out there imo, if anyone gives a poo poo about labels and theory

chairman mao also understand liberalism very well and why it is so deceptive and toxic as an ideology, who�s essay COMBAT LIBERALISM needs to reposted here for recent morons:

quote:

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:52

Trash Ops: Jun 19, 2012; im having fun, isnt everyone else?

stop posting things you havent read, liberal

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:56

T-man: Aug 22, 2010; Talk shit, get bzzzt.

liberals performatively hate on liberals to hide in cspam, anyone accused of being a lib is a lib and so is their accuser. we cannot escape our liberalism. namaste

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:57

A4R8: Feb 28, 2020

Trash Ops posted:

stop posting things you havent read, liberal

# ? Nov 13, 2020 23:05

THS: Sep 15, 2017

you�re all liberals

# ? Nov 13, 2020 23:09

Emmideer: Oct 20, 2011; Lovely night, no?; Grimey Drawer

Calling each other libs
v--------------------------------^
Discussing communism

# ? Nov 13, 2020 23:24

T-man: Aug 22, 2010; Talk shit, get bzzzt.

why are most MLs so much like liberals? can someone give me a six paragraph answer? tia

# ? Nov 13, 2020 23:25

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 85 days!

A4R8 posted:

chairman mao also understand liberalism very well and why it is so deceptive and toxic as an ideology, who�s essay COMBAT LIBERALISM needs to reposted here for recent morons:

quoting mao like a dog

# ? Nov 13, 2020 23:27

sleeptalker: Feb 17, 2011

Nuanced mainstream public discussion of Marxism for this thread's consideration:

https://twitter.com/ofctimallen/status/1327364021855522816

# ? Nov 13, 2020 23:32

T-man: Aug 22, 2010; Talk shit, get bzzzt.

sleeptalker posted:

Nuanced mainstream public discussion of Marxism for this thread's consideration:

https://twitter.com/ofctimallen/status/1327364021855522816

aaaaarugh?

# ? Nov 13, 2020 23:47

Trash Ops: Jun 19, 2012; im having fun, isnt everyone else?

sleeptalker posted:

Nuanced mainstream public discussion of Marxism for this thread's consideration:

https://twitter.com/ofctimallen/status/1327364021855522816

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:02

jarofpiss: May 16, 2009

wait is mao saying ad hominem is liberalism

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:06

T-man: Aug 22, 2010; Talk shit, get bzzzt.

no he's giving you advice on the meaning of fatherhood via misremembered Kant quotes

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:07

Edmond Dants0000: Sep 24, 2009; It's necessary to have wished for death in order to know how good it is to live.

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:26

Mr. Lobe: Feb 23, 2007; ... Dry bones...

Like Phil Ochs sang, "Love me, love me, love me"...

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:30

Edmond Dants0000: Sep 24, 2009; It's necessary to have wished for death in order to know how good it is to live.

chain all liberals and swamp maoists to this thread for the ultimate dialectics struggle session

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:32

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

T-man posted:

why are most MLs so much like liberals? can someone give me a six paragraph answer? tia

ML actually stands for Mega Liberal

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 17:57

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

sleeptalker posted:

Nuanced mainstream public discussion of Marxism for this thread's consideration:

https://twitter.com/ofctimallen/status/1327364021855522816

whats marx's position on being a federal snitch after getting busted with a key

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:47

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

«‹›1217 »