Leftist twitter says revolution is violent and affects the marginalized

Not to defend them or anything but only the US had an actual war to get rid of slavery. Most other countries just made it illegal paid slave owners for their losses. America had a war over it because the American legal system is an insanely bourgeois institution and as such has no way of effectively eliminating ownership of things previously identified as property.

That's still besides the point. They had to go to war before anything was done.
There's also no way to reform out of capitalism.

Fucking worthless as far as theory and praxis goes. That being said, revolution could only ever happen with crisis under capitalism. Starting a revolution right now under the surveillance state that fortifies capital would be suicidal right now.

Attached: marx fuck off.png (500x375, 237.83K)

Defeatism is counter-revolutionary.

Attached: 1421404233601.jpg (320x241, 19.06K)

Let's play the game:
for all intents and purposes, any revolution is violent violence against muh property lol
there is no historical precedent for this and is basically impossible since 'the system' is multifaceted. you're not going to destroy the government organization on the same day you upend capitalism as a mode of production
people can and will organize to provide for themselves
as if people cannot procreate in the 'communist' future, as if they can procreate in a future where the continents are underwater. also fufufu making assertions of numerical fact based on intuition.

I GUESS IT'S TIME FOR EVERYONE TO READ INTRODUCTION A LA GUERRE CIVILE

This. Even if you won all the elections, the bourgeoisie would toss the constitution out the window, as they have before, and resort to extralegal means to cling to power. A parliamentary communist government being the continuation of the established constitutional order would be nice, and you might even get a decent chunk of the officer corps on your side that way, but you'll still eventually need to fight a war.

Derek Burrow sounds like a fucking pussy

It's a bad sign when a slave owner fighting for lower taxes has better rhetoric than you.

No surprises here. Nothing should be done about retards on the Internet, real stuff will get done IRL

Is this a leftist twitter cringe thread?

Every left-twitter thread is a cringe thread.

amber humphrey is a fucking brainlet

sure

Attached: fsdadf3adfsa.png (611x680 13.68 KB, 115.5K)

Social reproduction theory > intersectionality

It was also the only country (besides Haiti) that solved the slavery problem in a revolutionary way.

Pls don't be a brainlet, the Civil War was a second American Revolution and something many of our forefathers as leftists (and Marxists) fought/gave their lives for. My own ancestors fought for freedom in this conflict. We must defend the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction even if its "eurocentric" or disproportionately "white male" or whatever

Attached: Lincoln.jpg (207x243 657.44 KB, 11.58K)

what does this even mean

So much for the revolutionarily violent left!

lol future liberal in denial

That's a very weird attitude, but honestly it kind of makes sense: when you can't conceive human potential, organization and productivity outside of the current order, as these people seem to, you grow protective of that order. And this entails no longer perceiving it as built on a number of antagonisms. They are then no longer being able to perceive injustice as a construction or design, only as a pre-existing problem that our system tries its best to solve.

Look at pic related: "Big pharma" here is not the agglomerate of companies that, because of how production and distribution are currently organized, own the instruments of labor, the means of technical research, and the economic incentive of pushing medicine to the market. They're synonymous with what they create, as if it couldn't happen without them. So the question stops being "how do we make sure medicine, like everything else, is no longer distributed along commercial lines, that the research doesn't have to attend a market but human needs that often include those who can't afford it and thus create an economic demand, that public initiative alone will develop the tools necessary for its production so a company doesn't have to profit and function like a lemonade stand, etc?" because you can't conceive it being made differently.

Attached: 31289302.jpg (565x297, 45.67K)

Some Russell Brand the revolution starts with you shit.

Don't kid yourself retard these are the types of liberal that join antifa and humiliate you mongoloids on a daily basis. You're still nothing even compared to these people.
They inherited some radicalism from the left and they're insane enough to do shit like this.
chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-health-care-vote-road-rage-20170513-story.html

This is exactly the approach Engels defended later in life btw. Make a series of electoral victories, focus on winning the army and the productive sectors of working class, wait until the bourgeoisie overthrows legality as a mean to preserve itself from reforms, use the momentum to strike.

Everyone can bravely beat up ebul Nazis when they have ZOG Occupied Government police and Jewish capitalists and Jewish lawyers backing them up. Don't flatter yourselves, antifa aren't brave warriors beating up le evil fash they are the Jewish system's junk yard dogs.

Sorry comrade, but I just don't believe that left-twitter identitarians/DSAers are the type to put it on the line by joining something like antifa. While I think that antifa probably has its problems it seems to me that most of its members actually believe in the possibility of revolutionary violent change.

What you posted is an example of a desperate working class person taking things into her own hands and while that is likely to backfire on its own, its still miles above be-the-change shit.

Okay Mister Uber Revolutionary… It seems like you got a firm grasp on putting together the 666th International. I guess all start practicing walking on eggshells in preparation for your totalitarian militaristic personality-theocracy. We can't have any sympathizers putting in 2 bit ideas. Militaristic communist revolutionaries only! Keep me updated on your recruitment numbers!

There are enough people defending a revolutionary approach though. The people on her side are mostly Dem dads talking about their childrun, whose fingers we should fry and eat after the revolution

lmao its this same pathetic excuse every single time. This will be the legacy of the strongman might-is-right alpha male right-wing.
The fact that the war-loving, violence worshiping edgy right-wing even has to pull this bullshit excuse is a victory in some small way. It's comedy.

I can also tell how mad you are by how many times you write Jew in one sentence.

Attached: cop porky.png (500x514 67.56 KB, 46.12K)

She's a democrat who bragged about what she did on facebook

How is the first one wrong though? In my understanding of it socialist intersectionality is understanding how different forms of oppression both stem from and uphold capitalism. What I mean by this is that the intersection of oppression of being, say, black and a prole is that you need to sell your labor-power to survive while also being oppressed by systemic racism designed to divide the working class and uphold the dictatorship of capital as a result. Combined together, as not only black or prole but as a black prole, you experience specific forms of oppression and exploitation, resulting from these two facets of your existence. Yet, you can still relate to workers of other races, and you can relate to other classes of your race.
The same goes for if you're, say, a bourgeois woman. You're oppressed insofar as you're expected to fit into a specific social gender role and experience both benevolent and malevolent misogyny as a result. However, by virtue of being bourgeois, you exploit workers. This results in certain privileges and disadvantages.
What I'm getting at is that socialist intersectionality is vitally necessary to understand how the present state of things exploits people in different ways, how we can relate these experiences of exploitation and oppression to emancipatory struggle, and how we can build a truly united worker's liberation front.
We must absolutely be aware of the dangers of purity spiralling oppression Olympics, however. Class struggle is paramount, because a class system is how these oppressive and exploitative structures came to be in the first place, and liberation cannot exist in any meaningful sense under capitalism.
At least, that's my take on it!

Attached: 439246d.jpg (639x347, 25.82K)

Think a little bit deeper about it though. If she was a republican would it make much difference? We should view things through the class lens and not that of the only nominally opposed bourgeois parties.

Many Republican reps are absolutely terrified of the very people they elected to represent them. I think Sam Williams is right when he points out that Trump was popular because he was the only GOP candidate that didn't promise austerity.

I think workers are slowly disengaging from both parties but its burgerland, there isn't much choice, so it isn't happening all at once.

Do it again, Uncle Billy.

Attached: Bad motherfucker.jpg (1024x1299, 199.87K)

Left twitter isn't the left.
The internet isn't real life.
Getting angry about this is falling for the conservative trap that politics in downstream from culture.

I literally burst out laughing after reading this.

Yes Marxism was always "intersectional" that's the fucking point, the Marxist analyses of how Class relates to Race, Gender etc is already vastly superior. "Intersectionality" is a liberal meme that is wholly devoid of any real substance and when people refer to such they are most certainly not referring to Social Reproduction Theory etc, It is absurd for radlibs to appropriate Marx with such.

How does a bunch of jewish liberal trannies getting hit by cars and beat up humiliate us?
youtu.be/geOmKjZEYKs

There is no socialist intersectionality, for one. The whole thing is based around stand point theory and is inherently liberal. Being black and borg means you are still oppressed, for instance. It's fundamentally idealist in principal, as it takes there are some oppressions that exists outside the scope of capitalism, and the social relations thereof, and puts them on an equal playing field. The "facet" of someone being black only presents these problems because of the class relations that facilitate it. It's like trying to conflate the sea you're swimming in, with its various temperatures. These are not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as equivalent. That's not to say that there aren't instances where its practical application might be useful. Crenshaw originally developed the theory to help social workers, for instance. As a broader unifying theory, I still think it's useless.

It's really not, since we did just fine before this liberal bullshit started getting spewed by the "activist" industry. Anyway, as pointed out, social reproduction theory works much better at explaining it.

Attached: Mark Crispin Miller Knows the Interesting History of Identity Politics.mp4 (540x360, 13.01M)

Remember kids. Don't play in the street.
youtu.be/PC5TU7R0KiY

MADE BY LUCIFERIAN GANG

Murder everyone that says "folk", it has never been used for anything good. The recent history of that word would be the greatest irony to these modern liberals.

Cheers for bothering to explain mine and others posts much better. It's interesting that you bring up Crenshaw because in my view her work in Critical legal studies is kind of the epoch of where this really started to pop up on the internet left a few years back and so many people forget that Intersectionality as a tool is meant to be applied to the bourgeois legal system, and as such does not contain the neccessary framework to make any kind of socialist analysis, the flattening of various kinds of "discrimination" into a series of legal categories has nothing to do with Marxism at all.

Also jesus fucking christ there's 0 way that Laurie Penny isn't an intelligence asset

Attached: IMG_20180603_221518.jpg (1080x1087, 204.51K)

Do it again, Uncle Billy

You're really bragging about the lowest hanging fruit BTFOing the lowest hanging fruit.

Leftists shut down, beat up and block right-wing activists on a weekly if not daily basis across the globe from Germany to Brazil, they're not attacking just inconsequential fuck ups like you.

Example

Attached: 592305832.jpg (594x532 58.86 KB, 275.59K)

who are you quoting

this is so true, stay positive comrades

You know, I never got this whole "punching up, punching down" shit. Does it mean that we cannot protest against injustice or bad ideas if the person doing it is lower on the social ladder? Honestly, the whole concept is stupid. Just protest injustice and stupidity wherever it comes from.

i fucking it too. i can't understand why. maybe cause it's a tryhard attempt to sound populist and "folksy"?

Can I just be honest and say I don't like the term people of color cause whenever that term is brought up I think of my old ass racist ass grandma saying colored people. I mean granted the term is much better than minorities but I still can't stand that the current culture settled on people of color/POC and even more cringe worthy is POC bodies

I think the issue here is people consider that as a part of Marxism. Intersectionality on its own, I'm not sure where that "ends" and where Marxism "starts". Also, why is it always these people that are the most divisive? Why are they always the "college liberal activist" type? If it was such a "unifying" idea, don't you think more real workers would adopt it, outside of Tumblr / Twitter Left /etc.?

I don't see it personally. Most proles can't stand these types of "socialists" because they spend more time dabbling in privilege checking than organizing (form unions, strike actions, work stoppage, etc.).

I've always found this "intersectional" stuff to be counter revolutionary and a waste of time.

There is no value in knowing things like bourgeois women are "oppressed" (imo they aren't, they just aren't) when there is much more pertinent suffering to deal with in the world.

I find it all a waste of time tbh.

Girls like this i really cannot stand.
She is so condescending while explaining her point. It's so fucking irritating to be around people like this. Say your word, but don't be a sarcastic bitch while doing it. The whole "half irony" shit with the Tumblr / Twitter Left / etc. crowd has got to die. It's so cringey and makes me want to break shit.

youtu.be/0rsXlP9Kumk
youtu.be/3kJJnX1orVU

Maybe in more leftist countries they fare better, but not over hear. I guess attacking people for not wanting their race to die out is a dick move and you are liable to get your ass beat

POC bodies is imo racist and fucked up sounding.

I never say that. I just say "black people" "hispanics" or w/e else and people usually know what i'm talking about.

This "POC" thing is strange because I'm a white man and it feels the term was designed solely to "other" people like myself and treat hispanics, asians, blacks, etc., as this abstract happy-go-lucky mass. It is a nice way of pretending that all minorities get along, but it's just "whitey" that is causing all the problems. I find it inherently divisive.

Literal trashcan.

I've been trying to tell people this for a long time. I totally agree but there is always going to be someone that gets offended by you saying this.

I see it with people getting "mad" that trump calls out MS13 as a bunch of violent shit bags. Some liberals seem to use this as a talking point that Trump is "anti Mexican / Latino / whatever" and it makes me cringe.

I don't support trump, but honestly, fuck gang violence and cartel violence. Isn't that common sense?

It seems to be not. For some reason, a lot of people have naively (white liberals especially) bought into the notion that "minorities" and "proletariat" are always the same, and by virtue of being brown/black you are automatically a revolutionary. The 'POC' newspeak is a beautiful way of shifting the dialogue further in that direction.

It is strange that people feel a need to "defend" this kind of garbage, like they haven't murdered innocent people and ruined lives, but there always appears to be a naive reverence for gangsterism when its done by black people or brown people. Of course, if it's white people all of a sudden the narrative is drastically different.

Personally, I don't get that. You should be against gangsterism period, but a lot of fake "Marxists" seem to promote this shit on Twitter as a kind of edgy / ironic hipster sort of thing to show how #woke they are.

Oswald Mosley the face of anglo fascism is just an "old ass black and white picture".

Attached: fag.jpg (1280x720, 64.47K)

everyone who doesn't understand systemic violence should be subjected to overt violence tbh

tbh it feels like britain's method of dealing with slavery has had better long term effects even if it was barely even reformist in nature.
although there are so many different factors in play that it's difficult to say that definitively.

don't punch at all tbh, strangle or if you're really pissed off, immure them in your landlord's wine cellar.

I'd personally murder every single handicapped parker if it meant we got socialism.

All thanks to the bourgeoisie dividing the working class by race and nature

Without minimizing the effects of Jim Crow remember this is a post-reconstruction phenomenon, I would point out that I think that's a hard case to make given that black Caribbean nations affected by abolition, such as Jamaica, are not nearly as prosperous as black America.

It didn't take long for imperial Britain to replace the slave trade with the coolie trade and that is one reason why there is ethnic conflict between Indians and Blacks today in Guyana.

True, you guys didn't lose a million men in some stupid war to protect rich men's property. We wanted to do the same thing but many of the slaveholders in the South were just so greedy that they couldnt be talked into compensated or partially compensated aboltion. American slavery was too successful for its own good and slaveholders had the expectation that the price of slaves would only shoot up forever and ever…

Attached: weekendatbitcoin.jpg (960x1440, 375.86K)

I guess it has something to do with Bonnie Tyler

Twitter is an irredeemable trash heap on every level and is best kept at arms length.

I envy who ever is currently raping those kurdish stronk womyn right now

*Bragging about winning a fight 70 years ago and ever since*
faggoton

It's almost as if you guys never win without the rest of the world backing you up.

Also forgot to mention the Indonesian mass killings. Infanticide is justifiable when dealing with communist babies. What I wouldn't give to dip some communist children in molten aluminum feet first. I bet it would make a mess when their cellular fluid flash vaporizes.

No
No
Fuck no

Don't cut yourself with that edge

Soviet union tried to invade Poland in 1919 and got BTFO
Peasant uprising got crushed
Soviets failed and were humiliated on the world stage. One manlet managed to ice around 700 commies and got elevated to legendary status.

Hmmm

Now this is what I call bad history
They still won that, so they didn't fail

Attached: 6546457.mp4 (480x360, 506.2K)

wait 2-4 years

Isn't this just burger nationalist nonsense? I thought the South seceded because Lincoln might abolish slavery, but that he hesitated throughout the civil war about actually abolishing it. In the end they just did so to support the war effort and sabotage the south.

Long story short, the civil war was about keeping rebellious provinces in, not abolishing slavery, fuck burgers

on the topic of "leftist twitter":

twitter.com/girlziplocked/status/1003410061450989568

this bitch actually used the words "marxplain", said we don't need to read "dead white men from 100 years ago" and says she has a PhD in Marxism from Harvard lol

Someone's been drinking the post-modernist/post-colonialist kool-aid. No surprise that it just happens to dovetail well with southern revisionist scholarship

Lincoln wasn't a radical abolitionist, but both he and the Republican Party were opposed to slavery and when they had the opportunity to abolish it they took it.

Looking at the reconstruction that happened after the war makes it impossible to hold this view.

abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

I argued against the statement that the civil was fought to abolish slavery, not that Lincoln liked it.

...

Okay real talk, as a somewhat middling civil war buff in Burgerland: the civil war was about getting rid of slavery but it's a bit more complicated. Lincoln's election was a shock to the South because while he wasn't radical, he still favored a middle-ground that would block the expansion of slavery into the (un- and semi-settled) western territories. That was a big part of the Lincoln-Douglas debates that made him a national figure.

Lincoln saw blocking slavery's expansion as a way of abolishing slavery gradually, because he recognized (correctly) that slavery required expansion into new territories in order to survive – which is a whole other thing that I don't need to get into, but it comes down to how the economics of slavery function, and it's what was driving Southern "filibusters" (i.e. paid mercs) to launch expeditions into Texas and unsuccessful invasions of further parts of Mexico (like Sonora), Central America and Cuba. In Kansas, this sparked a mini-civil war in the 1850s between pro- and anti-slavery forces. Sort of like a prequel you could say.

The problem was, the slave-owning class in the South recognized this, too, and Lincoln's election tipped the balance of national power to the free North as the Democratic Party cracked up into Northern and Southern halves. The South then seceded, shelled a Union fortress off the South Carolina coast (Lincoln baited them but the Confederacy fired the first shots – which the South decided they needed to do to spark a war, which they wanted to win, in order to get European recognition) and then the battle royale was on.

You also have to keep in mind that to stay in power in the North, Lincoln had to keep pro-Union but (at least implicitly) pro-slavery Northern Democrats on his side. In that letter, Lincoln is saying he *has* to free the slaves to save the Union, because (from her debates with Douglas) the Union cannot be "half-slave and half-free." Also Burgers are good and tasty.

Attached: Lincoln_Douglas_Debates_1958_issue-4c (1).jpg (925x602, 658.54K)

(me)
Him not her. Lincoln isn't trans.

Anyways back to the OP. I guess you should be wary of breaking things before new things can be put into place. Revolutions also don't really seem like "planned" things and they come about as a result of massive, complicated historical forces. So those are my thoughts.

Oh yeah: So the U.S. Civil War you could really say was a pre-emptive counter-revolution. The pre-bourgeois (more semi-feudal) counter-revolutionary forces saw the writing on the wall and went for it, hoping to preempt the (anti-slavery / bourgeois) revolution before it could happen – and then thereby sparking the actual revolution which vanquished chattel slavery.

what they're essentially saying is capitalist propaganda
socialism cannot care for the vulnerable
inversion of argument: capitalism even at the stage ripe for violent revolution still does

they are wrong, plain and simple
not only did the bolsheviks take care of all those who were crippled by the continued terror of the Wars pushed on the population, those people would've been dead if it wasn't for the violent revolution
furthermore they confuse violent revolution with what they see in movies and their wild fantasies and apparently do not grasp the unity of reform and revolution and also have no understanding for when and why violence even becomes a necessity

in short, they're capitalism apologets and very bad ones even

that spastic is obviously just shitposting
he keeps writing "ZOG Occupied Government"
ok, Zig Forumsacks really are retarded to not notice and keep doing the same mistake, but…

nevermind, that guy is just a genuine Zig Forumsack nazi retard

btw it also ignores the thousands of deaths caused by lack of health care and poison sold by pharma corporations
they're not even trying to hide their true colors, those liberals are antisocialist tools and only the most retarded people would fall for this crap, it's very see through propaganda that falls apart on itself, this is just truly pathetic

"The most vulnerable become even more so"
No they don't. Wtf is this shit. If you're on a wheelchair, surely you can hold out for a few days by youself, as long as you have enough food. If you're mentally ill, the worker who takes care of you shouldn't participate on the waves.

How long have you been posting here without realizing ZOG Occupied Government has a word filter attached to it? Are you an actual retard? 90 Autism Level confirmed, no wonder you're a ☭TANKIE☭

i don't speak retarded, so i don't have to worry about word filters for autistic little screechers
no wonder you're so familiar with those

why are dumb people like you always so smug?

A part of the problem with this is the false belief that there's some kind of choice, that some kind of peaceful resolution is on the table when it isn't, that a non-violent socialist movement won't have the violence of the state and counter-revolutionary paramilitaries turned on it the moment it gains some modicum of power and influence.

I agree that starting a revolution right now when the state is strong would be suicide, but whenever the state starts to falter and crack, when we smell blood in the water, we need to be violent. To quote Machieveli:

"War cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the other's advantage"
"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge."