she didn't even publish "The Russian Revolution" and supported Lenin and his revolution, and lets no forget that it was written before she undertook her own revolution, thus before she had to actually face running it
what was the last successful "anti authoritarian" revolution then? How will counter revolutionaries within and without be dealt with in a non"authoritarian" way? Authoritarianism may be an evil buts its a necessary one
If AMLO decided that the Zapatistas existing was a threat to Mexican Capital he could crush them in one day. They are allowed to exist, they're not "liberated".
I mean yeah. We are powerless. They could kill every single one of us tonight and it wouldn't even make the news. I would never say we were successful at liberating literally anyone.
I suppose part of my point is that we exist in a sort of equilibrium, where the state and its capitalist analogs do not simply smother us- out of a combination of a) not recognizing us as a threat, and b) not being willing to casually slaughter its own citizens. And there are both ideological and material components of both a and b.
This might sound liberal, but we have an ability to build things up from the individual and small-collective level, and our personal choices can point in a revolutionary direction. We are stuck in hegemonic liberalism (which is not going to change any time soon), and as such our survival is largely connected to staying in the good graces of liberals, of maintaining a position such that in a cost-benefit analysis, it wouldn't make sense to kill us off.
We can make noise about what foreign countries are "advancing socialism" all we like, and it's not going to do anything more than make the target on us less blurry. We can form unions and party structures (which are good, although capitalist institutions in this country have 80+ years of success in getting the better of them), and potentially accrue big victories but also become a choicier target to crack down on. We can go full insurrectionary and get totally merked. Or, we can build anti-capitalist ways of living in ways that are not ostentatious, but directly secure most of the means of production of decent lives organically, and in a way that will allow us to resist climate change, attract people, and maybe even start a PPW from.
I am sympathetic to all of these but I favor the latter.
Vietnam isn't inside US territory, it's across an ocean lol, not quite the same thing as a region inside Mexico.
Vietnam was the underdog but they still had at least some form of weaponry and an actual army (as well as aid from USSR and China), Zapatistas have a population of 360K people and no real military equipment.
This is true but it has nothing to do with the Zapatistas. Cartels are the only force that breaks that monopoly on violence. Honestly a cartel could probably eradicate the EZLN
Al Qaeda literally had weapons and money from the CIA laying around when they became "enemies" of the US, and continued to receive funding from Saudi billionaires with seemingly limitless wealth. Also, they are willing to kill 100 innocents to kill one infidel. Zapatistas have ancient bolt-action rifles and make their money selling $60 bags of coffee to white liberals. They are allowed to exist by the Mexican state.
The zapatistas are to be admired yes, but have they actually expanded out of Chiapas? Not denying that they are doing very important things, but they can't even get out of a single province. Now imagine running the biggest country in the world
Iran literally executes people in public daily. When western backed protestors were rioting, they used live rounds on them. How in the fuck is Iran not "authoritarian" lol
idk if they could be considered "civil" considering that the Supreme leader and the Parliament have considerable power compared to other countries plus they are a right wing theocracy who should only be supported due to their anti imperialism
If Rosa would have succeeded, how much freedom could she have given the fascists, the restaurative monarchists and the tradcaths in Germany, or the industrial magnates whose assets she was about to expropriate and who could've picked from a giant pool of reactionary WW1 vets to be hired as mercenaries? While her state would've been seen as at least as much of a threat by the US and UK as they saw in the Soviet Union? At a time where the reaction in Germany brought machine guns to protests and signs saying "if you pass here, you'll be shot"? As she said herself, die Revolution wird so gewaltsam, wie es die herrschende Klasse nötig macht. The revolution will be as violent as the ruling class makes it necessary. This is the ruling class that funded and enabled Hitler. How much violence would they have made necessary in this case?
We're not talking about stable and pacified societies here. They are necessarily something else than that if they have conditions that enable a socialist revolution. In societies about to be gripped by revolution, defining freedom as the freedom of the people who'd murder you gets you fucking murdered.
Sure, once you've got a socialism going and it's reasonably safe from outside threats, things look different. It's a good discussion to have how to ensure that the structures that were necessary to bring about revolution and make it succeed don't become too entrenched, too overreaching for a society that is not at war with itself anymore and not under constant threat from hostile outside powers dominated by bourgeoise class interests who want to destroy you. But a socialist society to which that applies is as much a hypothetical as a parallel universe in which Luxemburg and Liebknecht overthrew the bourgeoise state. It is something that has never applied to any existing socialist project so far. So we'd also have to deal with the question how to get to that point, and i'm not saying that to pile more burden of proof onto you, i'm saying that because it's at least as important as the question when and how to cut back the power of the party.
If Rosa would have succeeded, how much freedom could she have given the fascists, the restaurative monarchists and the tradcaths in Germany, or the industrial magnates whose assets she was about to expropriate
Any of these is just as easy to assassinate as an anti-capitalist.
Centralized decision-making has its weaknesses and bottlenecks, no matter what ideology it's in service to. In contrast, you can't reliably take down a hive just by killing the "queen".
That's why I tried to allude to bees instead of ants.
Entomology gang can into relevant! Reality has a progressive bias, and socialist persuasions can be bolstered not just by philosophy and critical theory, but by all of the social sciences and even much of the natural sciences.
Rosa had small disagreements with Lenin on the USSR and suddenly she's an anarchist lmao, you really can track who anarchists/liberals support by if their revolution succeeded or if it failed/they died early.
one could call this childish idealism that is diametrically opposed to the material dialectical analyses that marxists like.. well, liebknecht, used to apply.
people use "authoritarianism" as a scare tactic & ham-fisted way to shut down debate... not as a worthy criticism.
if former capitalists & their toadies have to serve jail time & do hard labor for exploiting & oppressing workers, then this isn't "authoritarianism", no more than the reality of wage compulsion is "authoritarian"
in fact, it's much less authoritarian and is actually ethically justified because of the nature of wage relations in the old system
workers will have to continue class struggle, it's a struggle afterall and not a PMC board meeting or personal grievance airing
the state & legitimizing authority is simply the state... it's like the firmament fixed & eternal
labor is rehabilitating for capitalists who never did labor before, that's the point. it's not about punishment, it's about serving the community & removing class distinctions... i didn't say they would toil endlessly without reprieve
it's not illegal to criticize the government, it's illegal to incite violence against the larger community
the state protects workers from the market in the ideal social democratic model.
the state oppresses the exploiters in the ideal socialist model
I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for other men.
Raised the perfect girl? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man who had nothing to do with the way she grew up, who marries her. He gets to ravage her every night. He gets the benefits of her kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised her.
As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically.
oh you mean Trotsky who literally sought help from fascist Japan & NS Germany was rooted out by actual Mexican communists who knew how dastardly and underhanded he was being?
The Moscow trials are public record. Feel free to examine the evidence and the court transcripts yourself. They have been translated into every imaginable language.
Read the transcripts. I promise you they were neither tortured nor was the confession forced. After the prosecutor proved each point, some of them confessed in hopes of manipulating the soviets. Also, I bet you never learned about the derailed trains or the miners who suffocated to death. THe difference is that in capitalist America, the supervisor at the mine gets to be free and run for the Senate. In the USSR, the workers themselves headed the investigation committee and did such a thorough investigation that they found the plot. Then, mostly it was people snitching on others in hopes of leniency, but because the USSR was a worker state, the people were like "F this shit" and they got no leniency.
why don't you actually come up with evidence or sources, or a counter-argument, or at least some sort of analytical framing rather than just remain set in your propagandized anti-communist ways?
5 libs downvoted this lol
:LIB:
:LIB:
:LIB:
:LIB:
:LIB:
You can't lie to me I know 11 libs downvoted it
Waiting for Enver to inevitably show up and start flinging shit around.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
i think both of you are wrong
deleted by creator
Take Liebknechts name out of your username, lib.
Removed by mod
she had more in common with Lenin than with any "libertarian"
Removed by mod
she didn't even publish "The Russian Revolution" and supported Lenin and his revolution, and lets no forget that it was written before she undertook her own revolution, thus before she had to actually face running it
deleted by creator
what was the last successful "anti authoritarian" revolution then? How will counter revolutionaries within and without be dealt with in a non"authoritarian" way? Authoritarianism may be an evil buts its a necessary one
deleted by creator
If AMLO decided that the Zapatistas existing was a threat to Mexican Capital he could crush them in one day. They are allowed to exist, they're not "liberated".
You could say that about a lot of communists in the West too.
Each of us are "allowed to exist", our organizations are "allowed to exist".
I mean yeah. We are powerless. They could kill every single one of us tonight and it wouldn't even make the news. I would never say we were successful at liberating literally anyone.
I suppose part of my point is that we exist in a sort of equilibrium, where the state and its capitalist analogs do not simply smother us- out of a combination of a) not recognizing us as a threat, and b) not being willing to casually slaughter its own citizens. And there are both ideological and material components of both a and b.
This might sound liberal, but we have an ability to build things up from the individual and small-collective level, and our personal choices can point in a revolutionary direction. We are stuck in hegemonic liberalism (which is not going to change any time soon), and as such our survival is largely connected to staying in the good graces of liberals, of maintaining a position such that in a cost-benefit analysis, it wouldn't make sense to kill us off.
We can make noise about what foreign countries are "advancing socialism" all we like, and it's not going to do anything more than make the target on us less blurry. We can form unions and party structures (which are good, although capitalist institutions in this country have 80+ years of success in getting the better of them), and potentially accrue big victories but also become a choicier target to crack down on. We can go full insurrectionary and get totally merked. Or, we can build anti-capitalist ways of living in ways that are not ostentatious, but directly secure most of the means of production of decent lives organically, and in a way that will allow us to resist climate change, attract people, and maybe even start a PPW from.
I am sympathetic to all of these but I favor the latter.
deleted by creator
Mexico has planes with bombs, they could obliterate the Zapatistas
deleted by creator
Vietnam isn't inside US territory, it's across an ocean lol, not quite the same thing as a region inside Mexico.
Vietnam was the underdog but they still had at least some form of weaponry and an actual army (as well as aid from USSR and China), Zapatistas have a population of 360K people and no real military equipment.
deleted by creator
This is true but it has nothing to do with the Zapatistas. Cartels are the only force that breaks that monopoly on violence. Honestly a cartel could probably eradicate the EZLN
deleted by creator
Lol vietnam was a country of dozens of millions of people being armed and funded by a global superpower.
deleted by creator
Al Qaeda literally had weapons and money from the CIA laying around when they became "enemies" of the US, and continued to receive funding from Saudi billionaires with seemingly limitless wealth. Also, they are willing to kill 100 innocents to kill one infidel. Zapatistas have ancient bolt-action rifles and make their money selling $60 bags of coffee to white liberals. They are allowed to exist by the Mexican state.
deleted by creator
The zapatistas are to be admired yes, but have they actually expanded out of Chiapas? Not denying that they are doing very important things, but they can't even get out of a single province. Now imagine running the biggest country in the world
deleted by creator
Are these huge capitalist countries under attack by sanctions and sabatoeurs?
deleted by creator
Iran literally executes people in public daily. When western backed protestors were rioting, they used live rounds on them. How in the fuck is Iran not "authoritarian" lol
deleted by creator
At this point you're just being obtuse
deleted by creator
Lol. There is no valid argument for our against aUtHoRiTaRiAnIsM because it's not a thing
deleted by creator
ahh yes because communist/socialist countries were famously hindered, whats a venezuela?
let's get this back on topic, a Venezuela is when the government does things
& the more things it does, the more Venez, well, a governmental entity is
deleted by creator
you started talking about Iran for some reason while the discussion was on socialist countries
deleted by creator
idk if they could be considered "civil" considering that the Supreme leader and the Parliament have considerable power compared to other countries plus they are a right wing theocracy who should only be supported due to their anti imperialism
deleted by creator
fair
If Rosa would have succeeded, how much freedom could she have given the fascists, the restaurative monarchists and the tradcaths in Germany, or the industrial magnates whose assets she was about to expropriate and who could've picked from a giant pool of reactionary WW1 vets to be hired as mercenaries? While her state would've been seen as at least as much of a threat by the US and UK as they saw in the Soviet Union? At a time where the reaction in Germany brought machine guns to protests and signs saying "if you pass here, you'll be shot"? As she said herself, die Revolution wird so gewaltsam, wie es die herrschende Klasse nötig macht. The revolution will be as violent as the ruling class makes it necessary. This is the ruling class that funded and enabled Hitler. How much violence would they have made necessary in this case?
We're not talking about stable and pacified societies here. They are necessarily something else than that if they have conditions that enable a socialist revolution. In societies about to be gripped by revolution, defining freedom as the freedom of the people who'd murder you gets you fucking murdered.
Sure, once you've got a socialism going and it's reasonably safe from outside threats, things look different. It's a good discussion to have how to ensure that the structures that were necessary to bring about revolution and make it succeed don't become too entrenched, too overreaching for a society that is not at war with itself anymore and not under constant threat from hostile outside powers dominated by bourgeoise class interests who want to destroy you. But a socialist society to which that applies is as much a hypothetical as a parallel universe in which Luxemburg and Liebknecht overthrew the bourgeoise state. It is something that has never applied to any existing socialist project so far. So we'd also have to deal with the question how to get to that point, and i'm not saying that to pile more burden of proof onto you, i'm saying that because it's at least as important as the question when and how to cut back the power of the party.
deleted by creator
Any of these is just as easy to assassinate as an anti-capitalist.
Centralized decision-making has its weaknesses and bottlenecks, no matter what ideology it's in service to. In contrast, you can't reliably take down a hive just by killing the "queen".
deleted by creator
That's why I tried to allude to bees instead of ants.
Entomology gang can into relevant! Reality has a progressive bias, and socialist persuasions can be bolstered not just by philosophy and critical theory, but by all of the social sciences and even much of the natural sciences.
Rosa had small disagreements with Lenin on the USSR and suddenly she's an anarchist lmao, you really can track who anarchists/liberals support by if their revolution succeeded or if it failed/they died early.
deleted by creator
Make another passive aggressive edit and people will agree with you.
deleted by creator
Yes.
deleted by creator
There's no such thing as authoritarianism, you dweeb. That's just horseshoe theory! Can't wait until you ambush your first forestry service cop lol
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
personal experience with bullying should not colour one's analysis of authority in left structures
deleted by creator
elaborate
deleted by creator
dont buy it. that experience is so unfathomably narrow in comparison to the questions we try to resolve
deleted by creator
one could call this childish idealism that is diametrically opposed to the material dialectical analyses that marxists like.. well, liebknecht, used to apply.
deleted by creator
likewise
people use "authoritarianism" as a scare tactic & ham-fisted way to shut down debate... not as a worthy criticism.
if former capitalists & their toadies have to serve jail time & do hard labor for exploiting & oppressing workers, then this isn't "authoritarianism", no more than the reality of wage compulsion is "authoritarian"
in fact, it's much less authoritarian and is actually ethically justified because of the nature of wage relations in the old system
workers will have to continue class struggle, it's a struggle afterall and not a PMC board meeting or personal grievance airing
deleted by creator
the state & legitimizing authority is simply the state... it's like the firmament fixed & eternal
labor is rehabilitating for capitalists who never did labor before, that's the point. it's not about punishment, it's about serving the community & removing class distinctions... i didn't say they would toil endlessly without reprieve
it's not illegal to criticize the government, it's illegal to incite violence against the larger community
the state protects workers from the market in the ideal social democratic model.
the state oppresses the exploiters in the ideal socialist model
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
no one was killed for criticizing the government in USSR lol, I don't know what you're talking about
Usually, it was for protesting the government's policy of redistribution by exterminating all the jews in the village with a shovel!
deleted by creator
Here is all the contemporary working class POV on Trotsky . William Hearst and other fascists loved him as a cudgel against USSR.
The working class thought he was an enemy!
Heck, Trostky was the ultimate cuck. This woman literally slept with him yet she chose Stalin over him! Check out her Stalin portrait! Image
deleted by creator
No, raising a daughter is.
I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for other men.
Raised the perfect girl? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man who had nothing to do with the way she grew up, who marries her. He gets to ravage her every night. He gets the benefits of her kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised her.
As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically.
oh you mean Trotsky who literally sought help from fascist Japan & NS Germany was rooted out by actual Mexican communists who knew how dastardly and underhanded he was being?
Trotsky is an anti-communist figure lol
deleted by creator
Zinoviev and Bukharin admitted guilt lol
Tukhachevsky was plotting against the state, what's wrong with you?
deleted by creator
The Moscow trials are public record. Feel free to examine the evidence and the court transcripts yourself. They have been translated into every imaginable language.
deleted by creator
Defined by Capitalists? I would highly recommend that you read some gramsci on hegemony!
deleted by creator
Read the transcripts. I promise you they were neither tortured nor was the confession forced. After the prosecutor proved each point, some of them confessed in hopes of manipulating the soviets. Also, I bet you never learned about the derailed trains or the miners who suffocated to death. THe difference is that in capitalist America, the supervisor at the mine gets to be free and run for the Senate. In the USSR, the workers themselves headed the investigation committee and did such a thorough investigation that they found the plot. Then, mostly it was people snitching on others in hopes of leniency, but because the USSR was a worker state, the people were like "F this shit" and they got no leniency.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
It's true
Kamenev and Zinoviev and Bukharin were convicted criminals, believe all the sob stories you want to
Mensheviks were not comrades, they were bourgeois fancy lads
Trotsky sought help from NS Germany and fascist Japan
deleted by creator
"Show" trials = Public trials. Not "fake trials"
they're actual trials with actual evidence and actual witnesses
only anti-USSR propaganda calls them "show trials", because it's literal Western anti-USSR propaganda
but sure, the Western imperialist's propaganda is completely without issue
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
no, you're just not actually providing any evidence to your case, and only mentioned a source that literally exaggerates beyond recognition
you know that Western Sovietology is built around exaggeration and caricature and demonization, and yet you still accept all of its premises?
deleted by creator
okay, idiot
you're deflecting again
deleted by creator
and you have nothing here
you're just bleating out anti-communist nonsense every chance you get
and I personally think it's pathetic and abusive to be on a radical left forum and only spew anti-communist canards
deleted by creator
okay, that's why you keep responding i guess?
why don't you actually come up with evidence or sources, or a counter-argument, or at least some sort of analytical framing rather than just remain set in your propagandized anti-communist ways?
deleted by creator
okay, cope more
not sure what you think you're doing here whining about "USSR bad" as though that's a legitimate take at all
deleted by creator
you're the reactionary & counterrevolutionary idiot who regurgitates anti-communist lies & exaggerations
so that's abusive in and of itself, but I'm not going to pretend to be personally affronted by your ignorance
deleted by creator
likewise
deleted by creator
cry more about it I guess? or clutch pearls?
makes no real difference to me
deleted by creator
you're the one who acts in bad faith and never actually supports any of your positions
not sure why you're even here if you're just so offended and disrespected on a fundamental level lol
deleted by creator
okay, then walk away lol
not sure why that's hard for you