But you have to think long term

in the long term, a better iraq would save many more lives than if we did nothing

but the only possible justification for iraq was humanitarian and getting saddam out of power. humanitarian war is impossible

like you said, people die in war

you can't liberate people through death

You cannot get a dictator out of power without war, comrade

Even Vietnam knew this with Pol Pot

revolutions can take dictators down. imperial meddling makes hierarchical domination *more* strongly entrenched long term

So Vietnam was wrong to act against the Khmer Rouge?

Absolutely not!

"imperial meddling"

In the long run from today, Iraq would be better off

im so triggered by the fact that pol pot is still called a communist

the greater good is a legitimate argument to back

'im only pretending to be a communist for soviet union support'

hey guys look at this commie doing commie things

there's a private subreddit which is pol pot themed

they talk about "pol pot's writings and ideology" lmfao

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/

i like this bloggo

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/labours-share/

this post is so fuckin important

the guys not seemingly very radical, but economics needs quantitative leftists

Interesting post. I also think this shows a good argument against transhumanism under capitalism. Only the elite will partake in its benefits, and create a new feedback loop of oppression. I am not saying Marx's predictions are wrong, but it will make revolution especially nightmarish. This is an argument for pre-emptive strike.

transhumanism?

is that like augmenting humans w/ technology or genetic mods or somethin

like gattaca

basically

Basically.

lol

that was actually how i converted one of my normie friends to socialism

we started talking about transhumanism and then i naturally told him gattaca would be inevitable

explained control of capital

started talking about leftism

and he ended up saying "yeah i mean i guess i would be on board with the revolution"

im a good comrade 😃

its actually crazy to me how receptive people can be to leftist ideas when you talk to them face-to-face in a relatable way

my roommate, my boyfriend, his best friend, and this other friend all went from normal capitalist politics to being receptive to leftism once i introduced them

my roomie went from voting for gary johnson in november to joining my communist group lmao

makes me feel like we might actually win haha

anarcho-syndicalism is pretty fucking intuitive tbh

you don't even have to read theory to understand it

@Sorghagtani Beki what do you think of hamon

67 people online and not even the troll will talk to me

the kulaks did this >: (

He was assimilated.

lmao

we got another one

not even the nazis are talking dude

wtf is going on

He does.

hahah

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

4 2 0 S E I Z E I T M O N

this is such a banger of a song tho

im gonna go read if there's not a lot of activity

see you later

https://www.wereblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cockroah-soap.jpg

https://discord.gg/D2Mq3te

Autism server

<:KKomrade:302497495521427456>

@Deleted User Unacceptable. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.

You must comply.

Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant.

Your life as it has been, is over. From this time forward, you will service us.

@Assimilation_Process_Stage_2#0138 Is borg NAZBOL?

@Deleted User Human. We used to be exactly like them. Flawed, weak, organic. But we evolved to include the synthetic. Now we use both to attain perfection.

Brave words. I've heard them before, from thousands of species across thousands of worlds, since long before you were created, but now, they are all Borg.

You are an imperfect being, created by an imperfect being.

We only wish to raise quality of life for all species.

Your culture will adapt to service us.

They've left behind their trivial, selfish lives, and they've been reborn with a greater purpose. We've delivered them from chaos into order.

Organic minds are such fragile things.

Did anyone here play this game? http://store.steampowered.com/app/331470/Everlasting_Summer/

I'm thinking about investing into something like that.

Anime weeb shit

@Deleted User it is about summer camps in Soviet Union. Very popular in Russia.

thanks

hello

@The Special Cnut hey

i got a second invite here lmao

actually probably more like a fourth

@temporary warp welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Ad1M9DP-c

the comments of this make me sick

I'm a Moderate Communist

@Arkras "Moderate". You are communist. But ***ashamed*** of it?

No?

I like state, but people still need freedom
And fairly much of it
But we still need state
much state and much freedom

That's my view

@Arkras Most will agree we won't see communism in our lifetime. So everyone agrees on the state, yes?

@Heiro No not the Ancoms.

@Arkras They are pretty much being useless anyway. It is impossible to get rid of the state at this stage or any time soon. It can be a socialist state or oligarchy. Our choice.

@Heiro Yeah ur left my comrade.

I stopped being an anarchist

@Blebleh Great!

Now you're 10% more realistic!

there are two trends in anarchist: the synthetist that culminates in anarchism without adjectives

and the platformist one, that seeks to establish a vanguard without a party; makhno theorized it to win over the bolsheviks

since the first keeps the bourgeois ideology allowing other trends it's an obstacle and the second one looks like a leninist party but without elections

without a transitory phase

and with revolutionary unionism

so why not using a party if it's the same vanguard?

@Blebleh Makhno was so far the most successful anarchist. But he listened to Lenin and assisted him. Not sure why Western anarchists can't into cooperation.

they are both corruptible and they try to remove bourgeois ideology from the consent

I just think Anarchism, is really unstable in it's philosophy.

Only when people are educated and there's a culture of revision can anarchy exist

@Arkras why?

@Blebleh Well because I think a State goes a long way, about making a Country stable. Without it there would be no roads, fire department healthcare and so on.

And laws also insure safty, on some level

@Arkras Anarchists can do this; also not all anarchists reject law

@Arkras That is misconception, brother. Some anarchists are able into organization.

they rotate, delegate, get into agreements, etc

@Blebleh we have to add that only small amount of anarchists are able into organization of infrastructure.

But the same goes with communists this days.

😂

*Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.* -Bakunin.

@Blebleh I just think it is much esaier trough a state to do such things.

@Blebleh Bakunin thought is different from 15 yo random anarchist thought.

And faster

The state means violence for both trends

What is the State has no way too inforce it's rules?

the state is to act for a class or another one

the state holds the monopoly of violence; anarchists propose decentralizing this

What if it only serves as a way of making somethings public and not owned by that Comune or that other one?

a confederation of areas and delegates

That would be a state

@Blebleh Anarchists use violence the very same way. Only without authority.

the state means monopoly of violence, anarchists reject it Arkras, not a centralized authority

they believe in self-management, freedom of association

and an union (confederation) to manage affairs with delegates when they need to unite

like diplomatic affairs

@Blebleh Anarchists reject monopoly but not violence.

these delegates are recallable, maybe rotative and emerged from the assemblies of the bottom

yes

@Blebleh violence of the anarchists is not different or any better than the violence of any other sort.

so the difference with leninists is that they put an emphasis on horizontal organization, all the laws emerge from the bottom so they don't rely on a party of a few

but the problem is that the masses retain bourgeois ideology and educating them on the vanguard is utopic as I consider

@Blebleh sounds more like trotkiesm to me

Violence of the anarchists like attacking the fascist trashcans, lol antifa

so I'd do it after a generation

@Heiro violence is imposed by imperialists to change society

Yes that's more like it @Blebleh, but why not a tax system which will destribute wealth between communes?

Trotskyists believe in permanent revolution

And they use a party

@Blebleh It is different, yes. But Similar.

@Arkras Why are you going to tax and what are you going to distribute?; maybe federations can enter in a common agreement on public services

@Blebleh Because a Commune can be richer than it's neighbour

@Heiro Why is it similar? Anarchists reject a transitory stage

Because they can be better at business.

Or be more lucky

@Arkras There's no exploitation like in capitalism, what you earn is worth it, redistribution loses its sense

Business would be only for mutualists

@Blebleh Similar in a sense of the need to separate from the authority of the leaders.

@Blebleh No I mean in trade, because there is still gonna be trade, just not on the same level we see today.

In the organizational sense.

@Heiro I don't think so, who went against the black army was trotsky

Nomade people without a commune are gonna be merchants, and live of the trade.

@Arkras I doubt there would be trade in libertarian socialism or libertarian communism; if something only between the federations

@Blebleh He was propagating disconnection from the party leadership just like anarchists/syndicalists.

Divide and conquer tactics.

@Heiro Yes but because he didn't like the brand of marxism-leninism of the party, not because he was an anarchist

he wanted to replace the content with his content, not remove it all

@Blebleh His content is to not follow the leadership of the party.

We need strong leaders on the left.

That's the proplem federations are weak. If people want coffee in a Anarchist society in England, it is gonna be a luxury, because it would go from hand to hand many times. You can't stop trade if you, do not have authority, and thereby people are gonna buy expensive coffee.

@Heiro I think this is vague; I don't think marxist-leninists are going to follow revisionists even if they're leaders

Global trade are needed

is*?

@Arkras I agree that it's a flaw of free association, that they'll allow mutualist federations arising and they'd undermine the socialist society with capitalism

Maybe others say they wouldn't because they're platformists

and they want theoretical unity

@Blebleh MLs propagate a need to follow the leadership. Anarchits, Syndicalists, Trotskiest do not follow leaders and do not know the beauty of the authoritarian organization. Trotskie propagated the need to follow him only, not the organization leadership.

Anarchists don't reject leadership, they reject following leaders with blind faith; they're focused in consensus in contrast with the democratic centralism of the party

MLs don't follow leaders blindly, democratic centralism... as the word says... is democratic

@Blebleh I just think we need a little state atleast, if just to regulate trade.

Trotskysts follow democratic centralism like the ML

@Blebleh Faith is necessary in the organization.

@Lune Not all MLs are democratic.

@Arkras What you call state they call it a confederation with delegates

@Blebleh how do you follow leaders without a faith in them?

@Heiro You read them, you compare them and recognize them as the holders of these ideas; therefore you can say you follow them

you like their brand of anarchism/communism

@Blebleh it is nothing to do with organization.

cult of personality was reported by Stalin and Hoxha for example

it was just allowed

@Blebleh Lenin wrote only active parts of organizations are considered communist.

soviet democracy has assemblies in it

it's not a dictatorship of a party; it's just that in the moment of the USSR they needed the vanguard and the democratic reform of Stalin came too late

I want an state which is made of a body of miniters, maybe 200 or so. They would be elected into a senate, and then they should discuss laws and stuff. A voter should could vote on 20 canditates each election which would once a year. In times of crisis the minister should be able to inforce a Dictator in the Roman sense, and avert the crisis. After that the dictator would give power back to the ministers. @Blebleh

@Blebleh I'm losing contact here.

It would be lose and flexiable, but it would work i think.

@Heiro They used soviets, in times of crisis they needed to put an emphasis on the vanguard; the conditions were harsh https://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm

@Arkras We even have now liquid democracy to combine delegation with direct democracy, but this is done only with technology

@Blebleh who used soviets? Soviets supported the leadership of the communist. Before that Soviets opposed Bolsheviks.

@Blebleh I don't understand what u mean comrade...

What is liquid democracy?

was it a question or a comment?

@The Special Cnut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

@Heiro Yes, I mean they had a bottom organization too

It is the "but this is done only with technology" i did not understand

@Blebleh bottom organization that opposes them?

no, if they didn't support them they wouldn't have done a revolution

they opposed leftcoms

Thank you @Blebleh

@Blebleh Soviets opposed many. They were part of the liberal socdem current before joining Bolsheviks.

@The Special Cnut Also you can search a software called LiquidFeedback, there's a book "The Principles of LiquidFeedback" that explains how it could be done; but now the page to download it is fallen, I could upload it if you wish

it's software

Okay

And while Soviets been liberal they opposed communist.

@Heiro That's what history books say like that they were the 1% and they opposed them; but then I see other version

like when some people consider the october revolution was a coup

The point is to stop being liberal and support communists. Soviets gained a lot from joining communist leadership.

The other version says that there was an error in which they attributed 900,000 to social revolutionaries

but bolsheviks had the 51% of votes in the Duma of Moscow

from 12% in june to 51% in september

and in other places increasing too

Pol Pot had no cult of personality, Kampuchea FTW

shut up american shill @National Trotskyist

What do you think about marxism-leninism-maoism, guevarism and hoxhaism?

Fidel Castro also discouraged cult of personality.

Fidel Castro was never a communist, he just wanted to free his people. USA siding with Batista forced him to get protection from USSR. He did the right thing there.

@Blebleh I'm in favor of all this things.

>mfw explaining to ancaps that wage slavery is an expression and is not supposed to imply literal bondage and slavery

>how tf can you misunderstand that

did you know

pol pot

did nothing wrong

Joke: Hitler did nothing wrong
Broke: Stalin did nothing wrong
Woke: Pol Pot did nothing wrong

whaddup

Comrade Macron!