asdf32 posted:

Darwin did an amazing job describing evolution in 1859 with 1859 knowledge and no one actually reads Darwin anymore ot tells other people to read Darwin because it was written in 1859 and tons of better stuff exists on the subject. Except for you weird people clinging to it, the same applies to Marx.

G.C. Furr III posted:

and yet how can a proletarian class identity develop amoung a settler garrison that is fundimentally deproletarianized through being the beneficiary of imperialism?

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

IDK, Peter Daou has a work ethic. I mean, his job is a big scam but the point is he works.

Rated PG-34 posted:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-obama-plotting-a-bolshevik-revolution-against-trump/

well now

namesake posted:

Plutonis posted:

the Revolutionary Alliance of Men that Women find Unattractive

rudatron posted:

every single one of your bullets has missed its mark, so I guess I'll walk.

Every step of the way, you've tried to shift the debate onto something different. Not once, repeat, once did you ever respond to that objection, other than to repeat the same tired old horseshit -they-were-socialist-because-the-party-was-working-class-ergo-the-party-interests-are-working-class-interests- no, gently caress you.

You're not an intellectual, you're just a loving coward.

Before the soviet union, leftism could exist entirely on promises. It could promise that it was seriously working towards a better future, and get people lined up behind that. In the post-soviet ear, those promises are hollow. So I get the incentive to rewrite history. But this is a self deception.

Don't you think it's odd that the soviet system was so easily able to transition into the kleptocratic proto-fascist state of Russia today? Don't you think it's odd that the head, right-wing leaning, autocrat of Russia was a former member of the KGB? It's almost as if...the seeds of the current russian system...existed in the former...that actually, the current oligarchical control, is just a continuation of the oppression that came before, only now friendly with and integrated into the whole global capitalist system.

Marx is dead. Lenin is dead. Stalin is dead. The bolshevik revolution, it's legacy, is dead. The USSR was a lie, the promises it made were broken. That is the hard truth, and that truth is the burden of all leftists today. Suffer that burden.

You don't want to do that, you'd rather go hunting for 'respected sociologists' (read: authors of the pamphlet that justified your confirmation bias) and create an 'alternate truth'.

That is why you're a coward.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

jarofpiss posted:

lol nice try i majored in liberal arts

lancemantis posted:

http://victimsofcommunism.org/new-report-reveals-u-s-attitudes-on-socialism-communism-on-eve-of-2016-election/

quote:

· Many millennials are unfamiliar with communist leaders – Mao: 42%; Guevara: 40%; Stalin: 18%; Lenin: 33%; Putin 18%

Prav posted:

he's the guy who betrayed greece

namesake posted:

Syriza had a dumb as hell strategy which could only have worked by continuing to rally the working class together after their election and either force change in the EUs attitudes towards Greece through using that power against Greek and international ruling classes or convince the working class that it was necessary to leave the Euro (and therefore probably the EU). They did neither so got nowhere in negotiations, got another lovely bail out which solved nothing and lost all their credibility.

Blaming him directly is not fair though.

rudatron posted:

the US system doesn't allow third parties to really work, ergo you have to hijack an existing party, that being the democrats.

indigi posted:

my fav thing about Piss Pig is when tankies were saying he was secretly a CIA/US agent and that the anarchists/PPG were actually secretly allied with US interests

R. Guyovich posted:

https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/852276778416713728

rudatron posted:

Don Watkins is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and coauthor with Yaron Brook of "Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality."

Larry Parrish posted:

Im literally an american exceptionalist commie

Fallen Hamprince posted:

*200 miligrams of black-tar dialectic shoot through red kahina's veins, flooding her cerebral cortex with pure, uncut wokeness*

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Imagine a world where the USSR didn't purge its own military so it wouldn't have to rebuild it.

R. Guyovich posted:

link the post coward

Yossarian-22 posted:

web dubois also supported japanese imperialism so i'm guessing the soviet invasion of manchuria broke his brain

Atrocious Joe posted:

why do all these people have a weird obsession with rania khalek

https://twitter.com/CarlBeijer/status/972360598137769984

i thought this was related to the splc article because khalek gets mentioned there, but apparently people just gossip about her constantly

R. Guyovich posted:

make your own thread, i'll engage in soviet-style imperialism and ban you if this fallout poo poo poisons the last good thread on the forums

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Extreme measures were undertaken for both.

A Spherical Sponge posted:

Hey I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but, do any of you know good books on the atrocities the USSR committed that weren't written by capitalist propagandists seeking to discredit left wing thought? I was having a conversation with some friends of mine, one of whom said that the USSR was more evil than the US during the cold war and more harmful to its client states than the US was. He also said left wing authoritarians were just as awful as right wing authoritarians, whereas I said that both are pretty awful, but right wing authoritarians (ie fascists) are worse, because they purposefully immiserate everyone. He also said left wing authoritarian governments are just as or more likely to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide as right wing governments, but I don't actually know if that's the case, I just know that fascists love ethnic cleansing and genocide. He's a classical liberal, but probably one of the most intelligent people I know, and his positions are all very well thought out as far as I can tell (which probably isn't very well tbh). He says the holodomor was genocide and that the USSR was responsible for 10s of millions of deaths, but he also says the bengal famine was genocide and that churchill was a war criminal so he's consistent with his moral standards at least. Though he did sort of demur when I said by that measure the US was also responsible for 10s of millions of deaths, since he thinks that the fact that the USSR (and china also) had a centrally planned economy makes them more morally culpable for deaths due to famine, which I think is a bit of a reach.

I sort of think the US and USSR were sort of equally bad, though at least the USSR had maternal leave and universal health care, and as far as I know didn't overthrow governments regularly to exploit their resources and maintain sources of cheap labour and protect corporate interests(though I may be wrong about this, like I said it's kind of difficult to find sources on the geopolitical activities of the USSR that weren't written by people explicitly trying to make them look as awful as possible for ideological reasons).

Anyway if anyone can help me be less ignorant on these matters or point me in some sort of direction so I might be able to do so, I would appreciate it very much.

R. Guyovich posted:

sorry about your use of br myers as a reliable source, brutalistmc

https://twitter.com/blake_brunner/status/976505561217777664
https://twitter.com/blake_brunner/status/976505566074871808

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tt8zpTwFSk

GalacticAcid posted:

he's a firm ideological liberal and it shows in his admiration for the US, and I think we'll see this distort his analysis of the postwar order in Volume 3. See his New Yorker review of Hobsbawm's memoir "Interesting Times" from September 2003 -- Left Behind: Is Eric Hobsbawm History?

It's clear he admires Hobsbawm as a historian, but then drops things like this:


so he considers the modern world a 'triumph of stability and prosperity' which, if you're posting in this thread, i imagine you take issue with on some level lol

Jeb! Repetition posted:

The article's right though