Remember when Obama saw the largest transfer of wealth away from black US citizens to the wealthy in the history of the United States?
Remember when he set the precedent that it us cool to assassinate US citizens in the open (as opposed to covertly) without trial?
Honestly I get being mad at "Obama's biggest controversy was the mustard"
I work in software development. Almost all modern architecture would collapse without the open source ecosystem.
Come for the dirt bag leftism, stay for the aggressive anti-bigotry initiatives and correct takes.
Weren't you ome of the people we asked a bunch of Marxism 101 questions to without any response?
It is pretty chauvinist to say you know better than basically all non-white socialists on how to do socialism without any successful socialist projects under your movement's belt, if you are part of a movement.
Okay, so you would be willing to explain some basic marxist ideas to the viewer then?
Great!
How do fixed capital, ttotroptf, and the primary mode of worker alienation under capital intersect?(As described by Marx and not successfully criticized up to the present day) This has multiple answers and one of them can be a one word answer.
That out of the way, on a personal note;
I work on two different grassroots campaigns because a nearby hospital is closing and the lead pipes are poisoning the community's children. I am heading up internal reorganization to make my org safer, and am donating most of my salary from my bullshit job that lets me post and organize for most of the day to socialist orgs, while surviving as a multiracial trans woman in a rural area of a deep red state. I'm currently reading socialist and anarchist texts written in the last 5 years, on hiatus from reading a book about the soviet dual monetary system because it is machine translated from Russian and is a slog.
I have more respect for the least educated hexbear slacktivists than I do for anti-communist "socialists" like yourself.
Log the fuck off and start from the basics again, because you've obviously misunderstood them based on all the dogshit takes I've seen from you. All the anarcho syndies I know who actually do shit would not get along with your sorry ass.
I can't tell how many layers of irony this is except that it is an odd number
196 was creepy and chaser-y about trans folks?
Also the 
emoji is just making fun of how openly or (poorly) covertly white supremacist reddit is in general.
No, marxism is a lense through which to analyze capitalism. It isnt communist by itself, although marx was a communist.
Which one are you referring to?
Yeah buddy, I'm not your monkey.
I'm sure you can definitely answer it, mhmm. Very believable.
autocracy doesn't do jack shit to resolve exploitation via labor alienation and commodification, I'm here for it.
This demonstrates a lack of basic knowledge of theory as well as data on how AES have developed their workplaces.
But who knows, might be wrong. What did you read that lead you to this conclusion?
Or if you want to go over why the complete lack of actionable framework for curating the political agency of the individual is, in fact, one of the most glaring and widely discussed holes in Marxist orthodoxy
Who is an orthodox marxist though? Also, youre going to have to define individual agency if you dont think AES states don't cultivate it.
But if you are just going to be another smug sectarian
Literally in a left unity instance, you're the one claiming the vast majority of socialists throughout the world are bad when you claim they're all autocratic.
Are you just looking to dunk without actually absorbing what was actually said? If so, go back to reddit.
If you've actually misunderstood me, I never claimed Obama caused the recession. His policies after just massively looted the proletariat to benefit the bourgeoisie, and in particular looted black proletariat.
Much more harmful in the imperial core, at least. They both love their violence outside of it.
suppose you could make an argument that a non-communist dialectical materialist is also a Marxist
That's my argument
though I’ve never seen it used that way in practice.
Sometimes capitalists spout marxist shit and it is recorded. Marxist capitalists are the worst because they have an understanding of the contradictions their counterparts dont. More commonly there are non communist Marxists in philosophy.
I agree that almost all Marxists are communists, I just felt your initial response was a simplification that lost more meaning in the simplification than it necessarily needed to.
Yes, people who unironically support Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism are supporters of autocratic, and in many cases tyrannical politics. These are first principles for the vast majority of people who study politics, all over the world.
Most socialists in the world are some type of ml or maoist. Yes, I bet they teach in capitalist schools all over the world that the enemies of capitalism are some kind of monsters. But people actually exposed to socialism in practice seem to think much differently. The CPC has a 95 percent approval rating according to international pollsters. But Im guessing you know better than 1.3 billion Chinese folks about their government.
Really, the only thing which is confusing to me is why anyone who espouses egalitarian and queer friendly principles would associate with people who actively promote a global alliance of countries who would exterminate them.
Ah yes, the GDR and Cuba, well noted for their exterminationist policies.
Socialist countries have a better track record with trans issues than capitalist countries at similar levels of wealth. Socialist countries also don't create far right death squads all over the world that just happen to also exterminate queer folks. There is a reason why so many maoists in the Philippines are queer.
The bourgeois elections are the least important part of politics
Ah, gotcha
I'm not interested in proactively suppressing Nazis, as that would make us no different than them.
No, the people who suppressed nazi sympathizers during ww2 are not the same as people committing the holocaust. Nazis weren't bad just because they targeted their political enemies. I would recommend reading blackshirts and reds and then the economics and class structure of german fascism.
The authority vested in democratic leaders is ephemeral enough that it is the only desirable form of authority. At the end of the day, it's the people who rule, not their leaders.
All these "authoritarian" socialist societies had democracies. They are more democratic than any western democracy. Look at how Cuba's family code was drafted before it passed by referendum.
Okay? And?
Who owns the "free" press again?
Do you generally have a hard time telling people from chatbots? It isnt hard, chatbots aren't that good.
I completely agree, do you see why I linked it in response to the use of authoritarian?
Authority isn't necessarily bad. For example, suppressing the free speech and ability to congregate for nazis is good.
Wasn't the way he implemented centralized light industry pretty bad? Like didn't it destroy a lot of already existing organizations?
What I meant was that if we didn't have it to start with, things would've likely still developed albeit much more slowly.
I dont think we will ever know, but Im not sure I agree. I dont know what the landscape would look like without relying on open source and patent theft. A lot of the stuff would probably not be financially viable.
Yeah, you get central planning (ussr) networked planning (Allende before the US murdered him) worker co-ops like Yugoslavia and dual co-op/planned workplaces like the DPRK
Also the Soviets weren't responsible for arming and training the taliban, the US was lol.
:gulp:
I have no formal training in philosophy maybe I need to read less philosophy if philosophy undergrads aren't being exposed to it
Two wrongs don't make a right. If we go that route we are going to become the thing we are trying to prevent.
No, we will become people who suppress nazis, which is not the same as being a nazi. For an allegory, killing a serial killer in self defense (but before he actually kills you, gasp) does not make you a serial killer.
Rather than a difference in government structure, I would point to a difference in leadership. I personally believe Castro really did believe in socialism and had the best interests of the Cuban people at heart. As great as that is, a system of government that depends on the benevolence of its leaders is not one I want to live under.
So why don't you believe any of the other leaders believed in socialism?
Also this is great man theory taken to an extreme.
Also I dont know how you can look at any of their government structures and claim that the people were reliant on the benevolence of the leadership.
While this is a true statement it does not follow that preventive actions against people who hold fascist views, but do not act on them, is anyway different what the Nazis did to people.
You know the nazis just killed people on the scale of millions for being Jewish or gay or disabled right? It is not equivalent to suppress nazi rallies and arrest nazi leadership, because they can always stop being nazis, or learn to shut the fuck up about it.
The USSR Politburo only cared about itself. Same with the CCP and the Kim family. These are extractive institutions that are only self serving. They are not beholden to anyone so they have no incentive to care what the people want.
These are just claims. If the USSR politburo cared only for itself, why give regional and ethnic autonomy? Why increase standards of living and give women more rights?
If the CPC cared only about itself why didn't it just do what the KMT was doing prior to their victory?
Kim was a revolutionary fighting the Japanese. He could have joined the nationalists where self enrichment was more likely if he won. Also, the DPRK implemented even more directly democratic programs than other socialist States. Unions and the state jointly oversaw all medium and large production lines, with supervision from the women's league among others.
He didn't get the right to lead from inherently being a great man.
Great man theory isn't this. Great man theory is analyzing history from the top down, where the personalities of leadership is overly emphasized over structures of power.
The fact Cuba didn't become like North Korea is great. If Cubans aren't giving meaningful mechanisms for dissent going forward, they will have little recourse to prevent their government from becoming like the Kim regime.
Yes, I'm glad the US didn't brutally occupy half of Cuba and then kill twenty percent of Cuba when the other half fought to liberate their country.
You know Cubans are free to criticize their government right? The current president literally walked the streets and talked to protestors recently. Could you imagine a US president going to Minneapolis and talking to BLM protestors in the street?
We aren't in a civil war in America right now. There is no basis to take action against modern fascists outside of the numerous acts of domestic terrorism they commit. Rounding up fascists solely based on their political views make us like the Nazis and is unbecoming of any free society.
People who are trying to start a pogrom on trans people, Jewish people, etc should be prosecuted actually, regardless of whether they're actually successful. You can't wait for the nazis to win before you crush them, by that point it will be too late.
Not the USSR, China, or North Korea which is what I was referring to by authoritarian communists.
What about these countries governments are different structurally from Cuba's government?
Very considerate of them
I'd argue you're just describing vulgar idealist(as opposed to materialism, not cynicism) philosophy.
I know what the Nazis did thanks.
You sure don't fucking act like it if your comparing what they did to suppressing fascism.
Yes.
During the protests and not absolutely surrounded by gun wielding guards.
Also without open source the capitalist tech sector would collapse