• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
Cake day: November 14th, 2023
  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoShit Reactionaries Say@lemmygrad.ml•Does anyone actually believe this is going to end with a Rafah invasion?
    1·
    2 months ago

    You may be confusing me wthe other person. I just piggybacked onto the discussion.

    But yeah, my read was that settler colonial projects either manage to “complete” their genocide or end in liberation. But maybe there is an argument to be made that one shouldn’t view any settler colonial project as “finished” until it is liberated, that thought peaked my curiosity and prompted my question.

    At the same time it still seems to me that a part of the analysis must be, that the US/Canada/Australia/… are more stable settler colonies than Israel.

    Is your argument with the nuclear reactors about the stability? Or did I misinterpret that?

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoShit Reactionaries Say@lemmygrad.ml•Does anyone actually believe this is going to end with a Rafah invasion?
    8·
    2 months ago

    This is borderline patsoc talking point btw.

    Can you elaborate? This got me thinking…

    Is it bc patsocs use fatalism regarding the struggle of indigenous nations as an “argument” to oppose it? Or is it that its reproducing fatalism regarding a just struggle that needs our solidarity and “pessimism” isn’t helping?

    (I hope I am not being insensitive. Pardon me if I don’t have the best read on this. I am not a USian and not super exposed to this and I know far too little about the topic)

    I obviously agree that its important to stand in solidarity with the struggle of indigenous nations in the land under US occupation! But I too would think that the Zionist regime would be happy to have their settler colony achieve US levels of “completion” of their genocide (which I also don’t see happening, but that’s besides the point)

    I don’t see a contradiction between both. It would simply mean that one deems the struggle against the US settler colony, the struggle for liberation, harder as of yet. Which seems to be an unfortunate but fair analysis or not?

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoShit Reactionaries Say@lemmygrad.ml•Patsocs defending their ideology on Twitter
    7·
    3 months ago

    Seems like one moral of the story, is that eclecticism is a problem. Never confuse a bunch of quotes with understanding theory.

    Yes, the anti imperial struggle in the periphery can utilize nationalism to a revolutionary end.

    And no you can’t compare your conditions in the US to those of Ho Chi Minh and Mao.

    We are not liberals anymore where an action is judged outside of its material conditions.

    Not the most knowledgeable on the topic, it might be fair to demand a more complete / consistent theory of nationalism in Marxism, but Lenin’s distinction between revolutionary and reactionary national movements is still pretty clear in this case

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmygrad.ml•This meme will always be relevant (for the foraeeable future at least)
    19·
    3 months ago

    communism is not merely “good”, it is a necessity. But to get an understanding of what that means one has to make themselves familiar with the contradictions inherent to capitalism and understanding that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of overcoming them.

    To give an example: Crippling economic crises arise within capitalism periodically because it is incapable of overcoming the contradiction between the “organization of production” in one company and the “anarchy of production” (unguided production) within all of society.

    Capitalism can’t overcome this contradiction because the underlying reason for it is the contradiction between a socialized production and a private appropriation. This contradiction is the defining characteristic of capitalism however, so it can’t ever be resolved without abolishing the system. And we see this prediction of Marx play out time and time again.

    Now you may think periodic crises are acceptable (why you would think that is beyond me as they are really truly not necessary). However there are many other realities that contradict capitalism like limited resources, limited capacity of our planet to absorb emissions, the inevitability of the global south’s independence and self-determination (very incomplete list)

    Whatever type of capitalism you support, it requires some kind of externality that just isn’t real: infinite natural resources, an ocean that doesn’t care how much is dumped into it, an atmosphere that absorbs all emissions, a domestic working class that accepts exploitation, colonies / the global south to outsource exploitation to, etc. all of those things run out. This kind of “externality” is exposed as an illusion of bourgeois thought.

    These contradictions (and more) are creating tensions like tectonic plates during a tectonic shift and we will surely see some more earthquakes. Possibilities include:

    • Not being able to safe large parts of the planetary ecosystem.
    • Countries falling into fascism to guarantee their national capitalists their profit rate as their main profit guarantor, the US, looses its imperial grip on the planet.
    • More imperial wars

    The alternative is: The abolition of the capitalist system, hence I spoke of necessity.

    Or in Rosa Luxemburg’s words: “[It’s] Socialism or Barbarism”

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmygrad.ml•Stages of Grief
    1·
    3 months ago

    That is incorrect. Stages of grief do not only apply to terminal conditions where acceptance is fatalistic.

    Say you suffer the loss of a loved one. Accepting that they are gone holds within itself the key to continue your live. Acceptance, plain and simple, is a necessity to deal with reality.

    Similarly the acceptance that the capitalist system is inherently “broken” enables us to figure out how to deal with that reality, how to overcome its contradictions.

    Denying that many of humanities problems are rooted in capitalism does not. The comparison is valid

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmygrad.ml•Stages of Grief
    3·
    3 months ago

    I totally get your perspective too: you could swap acceptance and denial. Capitalists accept the justification of the status quo while MLs deny it.

    In the context of grieve I think Yogthos’ perspective is more fitting: “Denial” is the denial that anything is wrong with the system and “Acceptance” of both facts, that the system is fundamentally flawed and that a pursuit of any idealistic one doesn’t bear fruit is the necessary precursor for conducting a sober analysis

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoShit Reactionaries Say@lemmygrad.ml•Another example of how low Sinfest has gotten
    6·
    4 months ago

    I feel like whats desperately missing is a proper critique of capital.

    If you reject it (bc “commies / tankies / Nth iteration of red-scare”) you simply won’t be able to understand the world, period.

    Instead what you end up with invariably will be an “explanation” rooted in grave error, blaming an ethnic group, “globalists”,…

    Ofc by suppressing Marxist lessons the ruling ideology incentivizes this reaction (as does liberalism being rooted in metaphysics even)

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmygrad.ml•dream job
    20·
    6 months ago

    Dreaming of a job, of creating surplus for your capitalist and thanking him for that opportunity, is shit.

    Dreaming of labour however? Imagine you work in a Socialist society, whatever that means to you. However you imagine trustworthy Socialist leadership/guidance to look like, imagine it exists, you experiencing it, maybe you are a part of it.

    Now ofc society still faces challenges, not everything is bliss. But people feel hopeful, encouraged by the changes they see happening around them. Changes, in fact, that they bring about with their labour. Housing being built, and populated. People being lifted out of poverty.

    Maybe people come together in socialist meetings eager to engage, they feel their voices being heard, their needs being met. Maye they just want to connect. Without the alienating forces of capitalism people open up to one another, creating understanding among each other.

    Renewable energy and public transportation advances. Maybe new means of production are envisioned. Reaction is on the backfoot. People unlearn the concept of externality, realizing we, workers on this planet, are all in this together and that that is the only way to progress. It sets in: We can’t create prosperity through externalization, not through slavery, not by exploiting an externalized global south, not by dumping trash in an “infinite” ocean, not by pumping CO2 into an “infinite” atmosphere, not by pushing the burden onto a gender, race or religion.

    As all externality vanishes even the backwards start to wonder why that is not a problem? There is no need for squeezing the life out of someone “other” and isolating ourselves with the fruits of their labour. With modern forces of production our labour creates plenty. Nothing is siphoned off by the ruling class, the ruling class are the workers, it flows to where people need it most according to a Marxist analysis.

    Whatever you imagine your labour is directly contributing. Maybe you’re a scientist and work on cold fusion or you optimize new ways to grow crop, without straining the environment through monocultures etc. Or you try to cure rare but harsh diseases whatever the case your funding isn’t cancelled bc you are not making anyone any money.

    Or you are a teacher or construction worker, only you earn a lot and you know you help give to the people what they desperately need, whats more the people know it too, they even build you statues and of course you, like everyone else can rest peacefully knowing they have their health covered by the labour of other people.

    You are a gear in a machine, but not in an imperial war machine, but in a cooperative machine that cures cancer, educates, struggles against oppression and aims to liberate every single person to allow them to live their life summoning their creative, mental, physical potential.

    I would love to work and work and work in such a world. Unfortunately we have to work towards such a world and that means working in a hostile environment which turns the work into struggle, which makes it so much harder.

    But dreaming of labour I can understand

  • TΛVΛR@lemmygrad.mltoGenZedong@lemmygrad.ml•It's like west took a big L in human history
    221·
    6 months ago

    Tried calling Putin, he didn’t answer. Its almost as if I have zero influence on him

    After Stoltenberg and David Arakhamia admitted it, everybody has realized by now that Nato membership always was at the core of this conflict.

    So, no, there is not only one person who can end this war. Not even liberals should be dumb enough to believe that line to begin with.

    Assuming you don’t live in a dream world: What exactly is the realistic goal you have that more bloodshed will achieve?

    If my fellow Western idiots had listened to us, Ukraine would have 20% more land and hundreds of thousands more people would be alive and Germanys tanking economy with military keynesianism knocking wouldn’t be at risk of turning the 30s of the 21st century into the 30s of the 20th century

    You’re playing a little game that you pretend is fueled by care for Ukrainians (- those in Donbas and leftists), whose country you could not point to on a map 3 years ago, but is actually fueled by a media-induced need to see Putin humiliated.

    This is the fucking real world where people aren’t just flag-emojis and nuclear weapons aren’t a boardgame that you can smugly flip over and where the “bad guys” aren’t cackling in secret about doing evil but where real contexts are distorted for propagandistic purposes.

    Snap the fuck out of your infantile world view and start trying to understand war in order to prevent it or take the blue pill and accept that politics just isn’t your cup of tea.

    There is too much at stake. We can never stop explaining but we can’t parent people either