Unpopular opinion thread

i don't know about that.
The chinese communist party cares first and foremost in staying in power.
If it felt like capitalism was threatening its grip it would go back to regular marxist leninism.

Thx for copying my thread shithead

I'm gay and I don't even know what the "LGBTQ community" is.

Well i am bi and i mean lgbt+ people

It was a bad term from the very beginning, and now it's become a joke. "Queer" means the same thing, essentially non-heteronormative identities that seek social recognition, and it's a good thing that it was reclaimed from a slur. Academic works use Queer regularly and it's immediately obvious what they mean. LGBTIQ is beyond awkward at this point.

Every online leftist community, is either trash, or has yet to become trash.

What did he mean by this?

Entryism isn't to run as a Communist in the Party, it's to pretend to be that party while being a Communist. And set up a network that will lead to the overthrow of the bougerious democracy.

My unpopular opinion is that 90% of Zig Forums users do not know what they are talking about, and are just rad-radlibs. They harp about automation, historical certainties, and any number of """"""philosophical"""""" or """""""marxist""""""" ideas, but they actually know nothing and are, functionally, not revolutionaries in any sense of the word, because they perpetuate misinformation and thusly perpetuate failing """socialists""".
Take your thread for example. "There needs to be a large scale philosophical reconsideration…"
By who? A crack Zig Forums squad? All of those totally Marxist professors? The 10 trillion """socialists"""? A distributed group of Anarchists attemtping to come up with a philosphically decentralized viewpoint? Who?
And furthermore (and more importantly), why? Why does the philosophy need to be "reconsidered"(whatever that means)? I mean, if you have read the philosophy and found it needs to be reconsidered, tell us the reconsiderations! If you have read the philosophy, and found it doesnt need reconsideration, then why in the hell did you say this? But here, the third option, you havent read the philosophy, you do NOT know what you are talking about, and you are just uselessly navelgazing about the potential incorrectness of the philosophy, probably because someone argued with you once. You are, almost certainly, 90% of idiots on Zig Forums who say this useless, inane shit that is just so utterly and completely without use.
But here, let me get dialectical. What if, you arent one, two, or three? What if you are, in fact, one, two, and three!
I think it is likely that you are perspective 1, in that you think you have some great take on society (fit for reconsideration of past philosophy). You are perspective two, in that you """agree with""" some "Marxist"(?) philosophy. (This is where the most ebin of genius socialist critics exist.) But, in fact, you have these incredibly mangled "theories" to disseminate.
And finally, you are the third perspective, because, even though you have not read the philosophy, you act like there is need for some(?) sort of "reconsideration".

Zizek is one of the, if not the most, important thinkers to Marxism in the modern world, and he consistently pokes holes in and exposes the issues that make up the pathetic modern left as it is. It’s grating to the mind that anyone can call themselves a Communist, yet not engage with the history and tradition of what that means, that is study and try to fully understand the philosophical framework that allows one to reach Marxist conclusions, and to even reinterpret them correctly in the modern context.