we have those where I work, and things are fine

life goes on

Daniel De Leon

it's more or less fairly in tune with other leftist philosophies that existed prior to Leninism

what, a fairness doctrine but for posting

I think to ask "has _X_ philosophy lead to ideologies that have become violent?" could apply to just about anything

Marx, though, did explicitly call for the armed overthrow of capitalism. In an address to the Communist League in 1850 he said that "under no pretext" should the working class surrender their arms to the bourgeoisie.

Why not? An address he gives to an ideological club on his political analysis is just as valid as anything he wrote down in a book or pamphlet.

That would be like saying a speech a politician gives isn't indicative of their beliefs.

He is talking about specific events, the revolutions of 1848, but is doing so speaking to the broader need for the left to be armed: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

" _ In the coming revolutionary struggle, which will put them in a dominant position_ "

In this section he elaborates: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising."

And analyzing those events to call for broad political action.

In fact, it is in this speech that Marx describes his ideas about permanent revolution.

Which is a tenant of Marxism, with this address to the Communist League serving as a comprehensive insight into his ideas around that.

Which, if Marxism is the study of the philosophical teachings and thoughts of Karl Marx, I would think that this would be perfectly acceptable as "a part" of Marxism.

Marx himself wasn't exactly a "violent" person insofar as he called for the beheading of capitalists and actively organized armed insurrections, but I think he understood that revolution would inevitably bring with it violence.

And that in such a conflict, the working class must be prepared and organized to respond and win.

Marx was a supporter of the Union and believed that they were just in their conquest of Southern states to defeat the institution of slavery. He and Lincoln corresponded many times throughout his presidency.

how exactly does that strike happen, and what is its desired effect?

that everybody instead listens to one particular set of media platforms, or to simply delegitimize existing ones, or... ?

It's a pointless question since all ideologies are violent.

An anarchist interpretation of that question would be that violence exists so as long as a state apparatus exists.

Differing ideologies simply dictate and prioritize what violence occurs, for what reasons, and to which people.

And how does this 'strike' hope to make that happen?

Because 'left propaganda' is vague. Many wouldn't consider CNN to be leftist, but others would. Who makes that determination?

like which thinktanks

like the Heritage Foundation

oh ok so you're having people take IQ tests first to make sure

if I understand you right

what did I do wrong

I'm just asking you questions directly responding to what you said

you said high IQ people and I just wanted to know how you could tell

like that's not trolling, just curiosity

oh ok, I'm sorry, so this archive is gonna lead to the removal of leftist propaganda, right?

ok, so having a collection of links is gonna change immigration policy, do I understand that right?

I'm afraid I'm never gonna know what the strike is and how it's gonna change things

tbh it sounds like a way to collect a bunch of information to feel some sense of control or understanding around what's happening

aw what did I do

hey nothing I've done is against the rules

don't be rude

nobody is gonna talk about the strike

are they

ok i'll come back later to ask about the strike

oh maybe i should leave then

sounds like this is a server for teens

and i'm not one

I mean, yeah, probably

figured that was plainly evident from the start lol

if he's doing it all for other people, he sure has a funny way of showing it lmao

his reemergence into politics was on birtherism, and if he wasn't doing that to boost his own profile, i'm not sure who else he was doing it for lol

i thought i said what i think

but let me find it

tbh it sounds like a way to collect a bunch of information to feel some sense of control or understanding around what's happening

but there are no clear objectives, @WAR , you may want to work more on those details

but please let us know what progress you make on your theories

we'd love to hear about it

and help, too

that's right @WAR , it's not a strike

it's a movement

Yeah, probably, and he's said himself he didn't expect to win

everybody thought he was gonna lose then start a TV network

he didn't, so instead he just has people stay at his DC hotel lol

no @WAR even better

jewish

I mean, FiveThirtyEight did always maintain that there was a sizable chance of a Trump win

going into the election, I think they predicted a 1-in-3 chance

not like a 88% vote for Hillary lmao

you're forgiven @L0GAN

imagine calling people degenerate when you're fucking _fifteen_ lmao

c'mon bro

smoke some weed and _chill_

hey @WAR since you have them blocked, i wanted to make sure you could see this

you got it bud

he was also echoing the rhetoric of other politically involved businessmen at the time like Ross Perot, who was saying exactly the same stuff

so it wasn’t a unique statement or prophetic or anything

plus: publicity! one of Trump’s hallmark moves is a “maybe” or “we’ll see” which is definitely what his calculation was saying that in, what, the early 90s?

it's probably an ad that's paid for through the Amazon platform, like Google AdSense

Amazon also hosted ads for Breitbart, and I think continue to

do you remember what it was for? an app?

ok, well you can rest assured that Amazon and Bezos personally still donate to Republicans and Republican campaigns

I mean, no, they're all violent. One would consider socialism's public ownership of the means of production to be violent because it would involve the redistribution of wealth and seizure of some private enterprises, others would consider capitalism to be violent in how it exploits the value of labor in order to generate a profit on the behalf of capital and creates a system whereby you must sell your labor to capital to live.

I mean, I feel like the communistic way to approach it would be to simply nationalize social networking sites and place them directly under the oversight of government

and then guarantee free speech by means of public ownership

yeah but it's pretty clear that's the implication here

I don't think she's going to, nor do I think she would be able to win the nomination if she did tbh

the staffing of the DNC and state parties have changed substantially since 2015-2016, she doesn't have the support of people in control of primaries and caucuses to tilt the race in her favor. plus, she would have to convince Democratic voters that _this_ will be the time she gets it right, which I don't think many are eager to hear out

do all the hurricanes in the South also mean something Biblical

I dunno, Ocasio-Cortez is p cute

brb playing the world's smallest violin

Democratic policies imo are cowardly liberal compromises that only reinforce the existing structures that are grinding us all into dust

_"The best way to solve sexism in the workplace is by hiring more female board members and CEOs! Time for the age of the Lady Boss™"_

Like, no, honey, the best way to do that is to build worker power through unions and undermine the power of capital.

what do you mean?

I mean, I think it would be a good idea for corporate boards to be more democratic and representative of their workforce. The corporate board should, at least, proportionally match the gender composition of their workforce. Like, that isn't a super radical thing, imo

But my point is that liberals often than that just including more identity representation in capitalistic institutions is somehow going to fix them.

I mean, that's a whole discussion on it's own, but I think you're misunderstanding that I'm not necessarily saying that hiring should be decided on gender and identifies alone lmao

The idea that, I dunno, having more Lady Bankers would prevent things like massive mortgage fraud by gigantic investment banks is silly.

Or that having more women on the front lines is gonna solve America's militaristic attitudes in our foreign policy.