(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
If you've given up on the possibility of justice then let the eternal force of revenge power you forward in the class struggle.
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
But seriously, things are pretty dire but they've always been pretty dire right before a revolutionary situation because that's what makes it a revolutionary situation - unavoidable pressures emerging from the capitalist system force crisis and that's what gives opportunities to make sudden leaps. Minor strands of political thought which hadn't made an exceptional mark on the political landscape before suddenly find they have the right tools and the right voice to operate in whatever situation they've all be thrust into and that allows them to outmatch the previously unassailable forces - all you've got to do is use Marxist analysis and knowledge built in struggle now to be confident that you can be that force.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Marx correctly deconstructs the idea of the worker ever getting 'the full fruit of their labour' in the Critique of the Gotha Programme though. Replenishment of capital used in production has to come from the value they produce unless they're running the business down and there are social deductions to make like maintaining public goods or supporting non-value producing people (kids, elderly, sick, full time students, etc) so I don't see the argument of 'market conditions creating the need for competitive levels of investment' being different from that. It's just an argument for why syndicalism and co-op market socialism or whatever is inherently flawed rather than capitalist exploitation frameworks.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Moon Shrimp posted:The difference to my mind is that the market is insatiable; in order to compete well you must keep exploiting to the maximum amount allowable and reinvesting and growing. In a system like Marx describes in his critique this value that's set aside for maintaining things and supporting those who can't work is a set amount. The point is to rebut any moral argument about a system being bad because the worker doesn't receive the full value they produce and implying systemic theft that should be undone - there's almost no conceivable system where a worker receives the full value they produce. The issue with any economic system lies in how the value is removed from the worker and what it goes towards, and so market socialism falls into the same bracket as capitalism in that there is a systematic drive to increase the total value produced and increase the difference between that amount and the amount the worker personally gets to spend on themselves, even without a comparable class structure and exploitation created by private property etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
The only successful way to create a self sustaining cultural movement like that is to have an audience gather itself in a politically conscious fashion first and then work to connect and share the artists emerging from that movement. The Durham Miners Gala and the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival are long running cultural-political events with direct connections to unions and the concept of unionisation as a powerful force, there's no possible way they could come before the union movement and a movement that projected power and was a source of pride for its members. A more contemporary version would be The World Transformed which is a more educational focused festival tailing the Labour Party conference after Corbyn won the leadership but also has cultural components to it and also creates that public accessible and visible 'leftwing space'. It's also created much smaller spin off Transformed festivals in other cities. Important to this point though is the failure of Labour Live where the Labour Party itself tried to put on a festival but ran it too much like a standard music festival and so it was just too rudderless to generate that sustained energy. Material conditions create the space for cultural output so there's no point in thinking about how to set up a cool lefty cultural zone outside of the actually existing left-wing movements - what do they like, what art are they themselves making? Thats the key because it's showing that the active forces in society, driven by the conditions and the classes, are pushing these elements together and that's the basis you have to start from to get anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
The Bolsheviks were demanding peace with no territorial concessions until they won power and in practice Germany wouldn't accept that because why would they? There was quite a bit of overpromising at the time of the revolution sadly.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
I'm fine with a lot of utopianism and naive exuberance from the Bolsheviks tbh. They'd just launched the first successful socialist revolution in one of the worst places to do it, surely that'll inspire the rest of the socialist world into revolution too, despite their shameful actions voting for the war. I think a few more organisations could do with some dreamers, at the very least so that big picture visions of society appear again.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Moving past the moralism around drug use that I imagine most of us carry to a small degree at least I think a lot of the attitude depends on how much you think we can change society and how quickly. The utopian concept is 'we'll all be happy with how things generally are so will not need to resort to the mind altering substances which come with hangovers/serious physiological harm and be more resistant to addiction forming due to less social pressures etc so let it all flow and we'll manage ourselves properly', basically the Culture. However unless that's done instanteously then what do you do during the transition, where only socialism exists at various levels? Then it's more of an issue of creating a society actively building communism rather than building adequate salves for the current imperfections - if you can't get high to escape your problems then the only solution available to you is to work to fix them (assuming you're really an empowered worker). So there's a general issue for a liberatory project acknowledging that something conceptualised as a salve to terrible material conditions is essential to the people in the project or something that delays the creation of that utopia is just allowed to happen. Or you take a less utopian attitude and realise that even in quite free situations people will make really awful decisions if given enough bad options and so understand that actually realised freedom isn't a lack of structure and rules but a society with rules aimed to free you. This can be an excessively dour attitude though, it's equally valid about most cultural output and has a totalising view of society. People are not building socialism when they're on the toilet, as a crude example, but it is not socialism to abolish the toilet. So what sort of attitude can you actually take? I'd take the approach of viewing it within society rather than a thing itself - the drug itself is mostly irrelevant, only the resources dedicated to it and the impact it has need to be monitored. I've worked while drunk from lunch but I work in an office and I was still capable of working - that's not a problem. It's different if operating machinery or caring for the vulnerable in some way which requires the best attention you can muster. Are there suddenly being a large shift in manufacturing capacity being shifted to these drugs? That sounds like a signal that something significant has changed in the social environment which might need directed intervention to fix, better check it out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:the fix is to move you and others like you to productive labor which gives everyone a 10-20 hr work and more time to imbibe on their extended weekends while removing your privilege to drink on the clock Fair enough, 'don't you threaten me with a different kind of good time' and all that. I didn't say my work was unimportant or non productive though, just that there's no danger in doing it in a slightly altered mental state.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
Black Legend isn't particularly good. Selected quotations from contemporaries, Stalin himself and occasional modern historians reveals what they thought at the moment but doesn't legitimise whether their perspectives were remotely appropriate for the actual conditions they faced and/or we're aware of. Take the persisting threat of sabotage argument, sure it was a tool that the Russians used for a long time and might have continued to be used under Soviet rule. Is there any analysis on the reality and the use of sabotage in the USSR? Nope. Rehabilitating a person from 'malevolent great man of history' to 'human acting within the historical context to the best of their ability even if that makes them monstrous' cannot simply base itself on what the person committed to paper at the time. Sure, fascists and bigots will place their hatred on the page without hesitation but any argument relating to justifying brutal action as prudent requires showing that the actions at least appeared prudent at the time, not just that the person thought so. The chapter about the difficulties of battling against utopian thought post revolution when having to actually deal with the reality of power was really good though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2021 10:27
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i didn't see that as a problem with black legend, in part because i'd already read Ludo Martens' "Another View of Stalin", and that book goes into the ongoing frequent sabotage in much more depth. that said i didn't think losurdo's book really swung that heavily on the sabotage since it had so much else to say about both internecine left conflicts and the general historical context at the time (comparing stalin to churchill and fdr, for instance) Ferrinus posted:and to add on a bit i think losurdo's book is less about how stalin was justified in whatever repression and more about how that "furious faith" was actually part of the popular soviet will at the time, justified or otherwise The sabotaging was just the clearest example I remembered thinking was completely unsupported in the book. It seems to be a massive oversight to not even reference something which covers it more thoroughly as you did and that was my general take away from it - an assumed understanding, bolstered with some anecdotes, between author and reader that conditions were such that Stalins freedom of action was limited to such a degree that his actual actions were the best available and then quotes from rivals to demonstrate their intent (with their capacity to follow through assumed to be true) or from Stalin showing some capacity for reflection in a general sense. If it is best as a companion work with other more evaluative books then more obvious referencing would have helped immensely. The comparisons to the UK and USA are fair but trying to argue that the USSRs actions were on a similar footing to them seems to me to be ignoring the incredibly obvious point that they were bourgeois imperialist states and the USSR was created to not be that. If we are to say that Stalin is just another Churchill of the time then he's on the level with an alcoholic racist who botched a number of command decisions, it's a pisspoor rehabilitation. Perhaps it's true but it's not a change in character that I would get excited over, it's certainly of no political advantage at this moment. Worse still if popular soviet socialist will goads on such characters. I guess as a rebuttal to Arendts totalitarianism concept it's fine, plenty of evidence to show contradictory criticisms of Stalin and the USSR changing to fit exterior political needs but I just found it very hard to get to grips with what that then validated about Stalin himself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Don't be making a reverse transformation problem error either - the mass of profits can increase while the rate of profitability falls. This is because profitability in the Marxist sense is about value, not monetary or accounting returns. The production cost of something falls due to increased capital usage which lessens the amount of value in each commodity (because productivity is higher so less labour hours are used to make it so the socially necessary labour time is less). However the sale price is different from SNLT so there's a widening gap between the two for a variable amount of total production and monetary profits seem to explode but it comes at the cost of changing the amount of value added - capital substitutes for new labour and so the Marxist measure of profitability- surplus value extracted from workers - is reduced. It's this that is squeezing capitalists and is the cause of crisis because they have all these massive expensive machines already in place, boatloads of cash coming in and suddenly find there's no way they can spend all the money to get suitable returns any more. Yes there's always some hypothetical investment offering a return but without connecting to value the money just spirals off either into crazy bubbles like we have now or the crisis hits and suddenly capital becomes so much cheaper that acquiring the dead labour in it and accessing the newly freed up, usually desperate and cheaper, labour means there are sources of value that are worth buying again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Moon Shrimp posted:Ok I see now, you guys are talking about there being fewer opportunities to reinvest profits. It's a little more complicated than just that though. If they had a free hand then without opportunities to make even more money they would just spend the excess on building more ridiculous houses and paedo billionaire islands. The source of crisis is that structurally they can't do that - the nature of capitalist economy means they have to try and use this mass of cash and find more and more ways to get more value for it. It's the massive deployment of spending on capital which makes that harder and harder and so builds to crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Underground greenhouses are growing weed in abandoned bomb shelters and nuclear missile silos. And good luck to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:is this a breakdown in the M-C phase or the C-M phase, or is that the wrong way to think about it? I'd say it's a failure of the C-M' stage but because the system knows that that part isn't working it doesn't even initiate the M-C part of the circulation. There's always the possibility of buying more C - always workers with some spare time somewhere and machinery can always be ordered - but throwing more labour into their operations would lower productivity overall and there doesn't seem to be any opportunity to expand their markets which would make a large amount of capital investment worthwhile any more. It's a good point about thinking of already existing capital as the stagnant lump though, really demonstrates the 'dead labour' part of capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
Yeah the calculation debate was won by the socialists because even when an economy is reduced to the circulation of goods for a monetary equivalent, which is what the Austrian and Neoclassical schools try to present as the totality of it all, then systems which abolish private property into whatever form of collective ownership the socialist was arguing for and even when the monetary equivalent was replaced with a socialist alternative like exchange in kind then these 'market' mechanisms operate and clear in much the same way as the capitalist theorists said money and prices were required for. It's moot really except for the argument about how planning national or global economies is supposedly beyond reasonable or possible calculation and so separate warring capitalism is the only real choice, and we have both theoretical and real world demonstrations about just how viable it is now. namesake has issued a correction as of 23:58 on Jun 20, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Send a copy of the time machine to Einstein, doh. Is the Red Alert universe better than our current one?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
Yeah I think some of you going all WOW PRESIDENT XI are getting a bit carried away by a speech that positively refers to socialism and socialist figures rather than what is being said. To say that China is anything other than socialist would be to break from the revolution and obviously there's no point in admitting that when they're wielding authority in the name of the revolutionary legacy just fine. Admitting that 'a long period of cooperation and of conflict between [capitalism and socialism]' is the current state of affairs isn't a theoretically justified point (it certainly isn't dialetical) and seems to be just stating the obvious with the implication that it was planned for. Finally while it's certainly necessary to observe the strengths of capitalism happening elsewhere in the world, why are the particular chinese characteristics of socialism more akin to copying them rather than finding socialist methods to surpass them? The basis of socialism isn't just high levels of industrial development, it's the social relations established during their development and use - if you've already won your revolution then why are you using a wage labour force to maintain it when the need to have a proletarian consciousness around struggle has generally been surpassed by the need to create a socialist consciousness focusing on collective development and production?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Wow thanks for repeating literally every criticism about the speech on this page but with 500x the words. In my defence this is the 'use too many words about Marxism' thread. I'm pretty sure they'd claim they did though?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
Socialism and capitalism do not have a dialectical relationship, socialism is the synthesis of capitalist contradictions. It's true that the period of synthesis could be a long time to complete and so there is a period of coexistence but co-operation? Like I said, socialist states should only look to the particulars of the capitalist world as a situation to overcome, not to integrate into themselves. That may not mean immediate and continuous open warfare between socialism and capitalism but decades of attempting collectivist production being replaced by free labour and stock markets should give anyone pause to say this is a progression of socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:aren't you thinking of them as abstract instead of modes of production, though? They don't theoretically inform each other though. If the capitalist world makes a breakthrough in material science or whatever then of course the socialist world should try their hardest to acquire that knowledge but that's very different from adopting Taylorism and one man management systems. It's the reproduction of social relations from capitalist society which should be viewed with great suspicion because they're essentially creating an enemy within. It's not a disaster to sometimes end up selling things on the world market, it is a disaster to start imbedding commodity production and free labour in your society as that's creating conditions for capitalist capital accumulation. That has obviously happened in China and we're left with the evaluation of what that's done to it. The argument about billionaires getting got is trying to answer the question of what did they challenge and lose against and that is an important question but the fact that they can lose doesn't automatically mean they took on a workers state. Ferrinus posted:eh, i wouldn't say so. in practical terms china is basically a social democracy right now, with the unusual distinction of having drawn in most of the capital that sustains its burgeoning social programs from more advanced nations that have historically exploited it rather than weaker nations that it was able to plunder. however i think it's pretty unquestionably under the control of the cpc rather than the bourgeoisie as a class, because if it actually were the bourgeoisie calling the shots there'd be a lot of things the government simply could not do that it's doing now You're right and that's why your article concludes there's a bureaucratic collectivist thing going on. As a system it has a real degree of autonomy from serving capital but is not dogmatically hostile to it. Bourgeois states have also shown the ability to discipline capital on occasion (not recently but it happens) but never for so long, similarly the workers under China has seen extreme material gains on one hand but extreme neglect on the other. It's not an easy fit into the usual dichotomy as it is without historical parallel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:If China were dogmatically hostile to capital, then it would be isolated as a pariah state and cut off from world markets. For China to pursue development in the absence of a 2nd World means navigating the existing hegemony of capital. Your first sentence is true but China didn't have the 2nd world to rely on since the split anyway. They'd been operating without any firm foreign support for several years at that point and opening up as and when they did was a choice. It might even have been the best choice available to the Chinese people as a whole rather than isolation, war and balkanisation, but it's important to understand what that actually means. SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Really feel like yall would be happier if the revolution stayed 'pure' and then failed tbh. There's a reason everyone likes Allende and it's because he didn't live to actually rule. I thought we'd managed to stick mostly to descriptive analysis rather than moralistic ones. If something continues to exist but that's because it no longer pursues a socialist path that's really important to clear up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:https://twitter.com/AmbZhengZeguang/status/1408786709324648448?s=20 The ruling party aren't ashamed to call themselves communists because they get to decide what communism means. You're free to take them at their word but there's nothing stopping you applying a bit of analysis to the situation either.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You are the one who's trying to gatekeep communism with all this undialectical nonsense where we argue over a strict definition of what socialism is. It's hardly strict when we see all kinds of collective production being replaced by wage labour causing massive inequalities in society as the new business owners literally profit from their employees work. Seems like the sort of thing socialists should raise eyebrows at. Pener Kropoopkin posted:I wish we could have anti-revisionist conversations about communist countries other than China. How about Cuba or Nepal? It's like eating breakfast cereal every day for every meal. I don't know anything about Nepal but Cuba seems to be adaptive to its circumstances like isolation from world markets in a way that's much easier to say is closer to socialist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Ok, man. My eyebrows are raised. I'm giving Xi Jinping the Dreamworks face. Still not sure how this proves China isn't socialist, except by going off a dogmatic and inflexible definition of it. Something that would directly contradict the social dynamic of socialism. It's their prerogative to determine how to build socialism within conditions as they actually exist. All of this hemming and hawing over whether China is truly socialist for real means nothing. I'm not saying I've got some slamdunk political economy which neatly sorts out the economies of 2021, but the reintroduction of various core components of capital accumulation with the promise that the superstructure of the state will always be able to rein in the economic structure of China should raise doubt about whether this is actually a viable path to developing socialism. Evidently it doesn't for you but there's not much more I can say or do about that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
The English Civil War and America War of Independence series are just school history books on tape really. The French one is when some historical materialist analysis starts getting added and it gets good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2021 11:26
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:yeah that's the key - the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie doesn't mean individual bourgeoisie have political power but that all politics runs to their benefit. marx writes in 18th brumaire about how the wealthy had to be stripped of governing power for their own good and insofar as a fascist government seizes the reins more tightly than a "democratic" one did it's to that same end Given that it's a bit hard to see why Dimitrovs definition holds true. What was it about the Italian and then German situations which meant reactionary financial capital needs take centre stage? Italian fascists, being in control of a very young country, were still driven by needs to forge a national identity and the Weimar state also seemed to be undergoing a real identity crisis at the time but what's the link to finance over other capitalist formations which would have a more direct association with the nation? That kind of seems to be drawing a connection between two modern things - finance and fascism - based only on their modernity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2021 09:39
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:if you want to admit of degrees of or tendencies in or whatever for fascism, and if you accept the thesis that capitalism is the condition that allows for fascism then all capitalist states are fascist and the more unbridled their capitalism, the more fascist they are. if there's some qualitative shift that occurs after an accumulation of x amount of fascism that labels a state as fascist the united states has hit that water mark But that's why it's not a matter of degrees. Liberalism completely permits racism, segregation, banning of worker organisation, electoral disenfranchisement, etc. For centuries before fascism existed they were the norm of liberalism. Fascism is a state of reaction to the failures of liberalism but isn't a liberal philosophy - it's not just a bad form of liberalism, it's a bad form of illiberalism. Many elements of liberalism can be transposed into fascist society but it's a complete transformation of the meaning of those elements, not just a qualitative shift.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:yet we have the problem that for historical analysis or reasoning we're left with actual material things to look at, violence, treatment of labor, movement of wealth, things that have observable nonsubjective effects. so if the essence of fascism is some shift in attitude among the citizenship that removes any kind of evidence for it that can be pointed at and makes room for no true fascman fallacies where the evidence is purely speculation and conjecture. if it walks like a fasc and quacks like a fasc it's a fasc. if fascism has to be one of those words that's retroactively applied after it's meaning has been established, so be it. That's not true. Value in a capitalist system has no inherent material qualities at all and yet is the central component of capitalism as it pulls all the social and material forces around it. Fascism doesn't have, or at least hasn't been theorised yet, such a concept to anchor analysis around but that's the problem with the defining of fascism up to this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
Yeah if class struggle is a permanent feature of class society then the shaping of the proletariat as a revolutionary political force is also permanently ongoing. Even the necessity of a vanguard and the ability of the bourgeois to destroy the vanguard won't affect that dynamic so it's a case of 'we only have to be lucky once, they have to be lucky every time' which creates the inevitability of it all either ending in revolution or destruction of both sides as an end to the class dynamic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Peasants are completely different from workers - peasants work land they have established use rights to and produce their own means of subsistence and sell any surplus. They live an extremely hard and precarious life but aren't exploited except by their landlords. Their economic mindset wants low rents and high prices for the goods they sell at markets. Workers, having to go to those markets for food, want low prices and low rents. The political union between workers and peasants is jointly against rent extraction and a delicate balance over agricultural prices which hopefully keeps both sides fed and happy. Many peasants were/are also agricultural workers though who were exploited just like industrial workers in large estates so the union often came easier than it could have been.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Yaffes book seems to be very much 'the case for Cuba' I suspect you won't find a lot of negatives being presented in it. That isn't to say she's wrong or being misleading in what she is saying, but it's not a critical evaluation of all of Cuba.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2021 08:16
|
|
|
Good to see that basic source analysis is now liberalism or something. I'm not even arguing with what is being said!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2021 09:12
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:this is the only revolutionary music ever made and if you like jazz you’re a dirty reactionary Wrong! It's Maoist disco - https://youtu.be/x5RAvDZZyCI
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Michael Ellman. Like, I'm not beyond reading things that are critical of the USSR, and the previous book I read about the Soviet planned economy was that, but I sort of have to draw the line at Robert Conquest-level poo poo. Ellman is a capitalist economist and that's clear well before his conclusions but the book demonstrates the importance of understanding than an economic plan isn't inherently a map of reality. His subsequent analysis relies way more on the real criticisms found in the Traditional Model chapter around imperfect information and inevitable internal political priorities found in any system rather than his discrediting anything due to uncaring Communist dictators. If you like tables and graphs it will make you think about how non-profit driving planning functions (or can function). Also I'm doing the Prison Notebooks with a small group and discussing it in small chunks helps. vvv Oh yes absolutely. It's literally a series of notes on topics, do not read things you're not interested in. That said it's all coded Marxism so Machieavelli is code for Marx, as an example, so sometimes stick with a section until the end or you might miss a good bit. namesake has issued a correction as of 19:27 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Sylink posted:The workers do everything has never made sense anyway. I've seen a few books about Marxism have a similar explanation where workers are supposed to control everything democratically yet there is also a strong central govt directing all these communal businesses for production. It is and it has to be to actually get to a socialist mode of production and that's the tension that drives socialism into communism. If you completely remove either of them from production then you either get syndicalism (as workers organise themselves in their units of production and produce under systems of competition) or some form of oppressive mode of production (as the isolated central organisation creates its own production goals independent of the workers yet requires them to fulfill them). 'Socialism' is the society which (roughly) strikes the balance between the two oppositional demands of the sub collectives of workers fully determining the specifics of their production (ending alienation) and the society as one big collective performing the necessary productive, distributive and defensive actions to reproduce itself. Workers must be free to be able to examine and change at least some of their working practices collectively as that reveals the hard limits of their productive powers to themselves and they must also be able to meaningfully challenge the state with their desires, both from their workplace output but also democratically, as they use their knowledge of the limitations imposed by the physical realities of work and their desires for improvement to shape the developmental path of socialist society together.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
They have to host a good party of their own. Drinks, nibbles, things like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:yeah what is the justification for calling literal revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg a reformist The strongest argument would be 'criticised the Bolsheviks who had done a revolution' but lol if you're that loving myopic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Poland has a long hatred of Russia and had a crap Soviet government - it's not so surprising they would think anything is better than that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2021 11:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
While utterly useless for organising purposes and terrible at education they at least... Hmmm. But seriously its just political gutter media, all movements produce it as an ideology enters public consciousness and some people decide to use that audience as a source of attention and revenue. Its apolitical politics but its inherently reactive, never spontaneous, and so basically can be ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 16:50
|
|