What did he mean by this?
Western ‘leftist’ cringe general
even Chomsky the kike supports us intervention in Syria
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧really pops your pop corn ehhhhh🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧?
i know those fucking anglos always fucking shit up
I guess idpol as a whole in America, you have either subreddits that wholly support it (r/socialism), subreddits that engage in it but criticize it but still engage in it so it doesn't matter (r/chapotraphouse) and finally you have the ones based exclusively on arguing about idpol (r/stupidpol)
Yes. "Sovereign Nation" is a spook. There is no sovereign and there is no nation. I bet you would be shilling against invading Nazi Germany as well.
I’d imagine most of us here would ‘shilling’ for the Countries that Nazi Germany invaded like Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, the Netherlands and the U.S.S.R against fascist imperialism except for you of course.
Your argument against Nation States is nonsense if you consider the subjugation of the global south by imperialist powers and the right for indigenous self determination.
Tbf, most CP lines just before WWII was opposition (apart from the countries that got invaded ofc).
I'm against invading Venezuela Iraq Syria etc because they are not a threat to anyone and the US is far more powerful and wants to destroy their governments for it's own benefit. However I'm not in principle against the West killing some niggas. Like if fuvking Russia decides to start annexing East European countries I'm fully in favor of NATO bringing the hammer down on that agressive reactionary shithole
I grew up in the south so I can say "y'all" all I want.
"young socialists" in germany
At least show me some pics of Die Linke people
they seem cute and nice, except for israel flag what the fuck is that
That'll be a yuck from me.
Fuck that. I'd much rather be ruled from Moscow and Beijing than Washington.
You take after Kropotkin, I see
you are probably an ignorant retard or a libtard who thinks everything is subjective.
not all invasions or interventions are the same. US interventions in other countries are mostly for self benefit mostly economically but they ignored any morals, ethics, etc while Russians mostly do it for gaining allies and getting a bigger sphere of influence.
nazi germany violated international agreements invaded Czechoslovakia without any problem until they declared war.
the us wasn't planning on joining until the japs hit them.
the soviet union wanted to do what they believed to be saving other countries from capitalism but they also did it to become bigger and stronger.
consensual shared interest is different from one sided forced interest (imperialism) and both are different from defending yourself from a country that declared war on you and is growing in power
You mean like Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk where the ethnic population choose to secede Ukraine and join Russia to escape the murderous Nazi regime in Kiev? I think NATO getting involved in that conflict would be catastrophic and likely lead to WW3 and the extinction of mankind. Try again Hillary.
Beijing maybe, Moscow no. As far as running my day-to-day life, I'll much rather do that under a liberal democracy as much as I hate it, than under a fascist oligharcy.
All wars are shit and anons wrong, but watching RSS India get nuked would make me laugh, tbh.
Socialist Zionism is proof that there's no god
"Without justice without peace, just a dream become a beast."
Interesting thing on Semetic action.
One thing I've always considered are creating "reverse Kibbutzim": aka Kibbutzim within Green Line Israel that invite Palestinian refugees into them, building a proletarian commune that simultaneously solves the issue of the right to return.
oh boy you are naive like babby
Oh no not existing ones, founding new ones.
Shitty thread and the fact that its surpassed the "what are you reading" thread is depressing
I hope the Maoist bodybuilders in Germany take over just to see what they do to those anti-Deutsche pussies
Oh how the freikorps have fallen.
Just notice the little LGBT-Israel flag on the right of the picture
Israel and communism is an oxymoron, a brief history will show you why
if israel became communist that means the us will probably stop its support and they will get annihilated by every arab nation (i hope so)
Not communists as much as they were the left wing of Zionism. Was fairly popular at first but anglo and mutt influence put a gradual end to that.
Wut? They won.
You will get banned for supporting communism over dystopian totalitarianism. Its Marx&Lenin who were naive about state and how power corrupts the human soul. Hierarchy is the opposite of equality. Muh anti-imperialism is nothing else than chavinist nationalism of 3rd world countries.
how else are workers supposed to own the means of production, if not through the power of daddy state?
Collective ownership. How else are capitalist able to own private property without daddy statism?
And how does one enforce and protect the collective ownership of property while the former capitalist class is trying their best to get it back?
Its billions of workers versus few porkies. They cant do shit without a state apparatus to enforce private property.
Quite the opposite, the ‘human soul’ is inherently corrupt and will always act out of self interest so therefore a revolutionary worker controlled state is necessary for the transition between capitalism and socialism in order to prevent counter revolution and ideas harmful to the revolution. Your notion that hierarchy is inherently corrupt reeks of western liberalism, rejects dialectical and historical materialism and appears to be dangerously utopian.
Your position against third world anti-imperialist struggle is absurd and reeks of parasitic first worldism. What would you say to the people’s of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine and the many other countries occupied by foreign imperialist powers? Sovereign Statehood and the removal of foreign interference are the first steps of self-determination which may allow the expansion of productive forces and fermentation of socialist ideology.
Is that the guy who created Yangism (eastern Stirner)?
Shang Yang, a founding figure in the house of Fa (Chinese Legalism).
lmaoing at u
how are you not just an anti-western reactionary
He is, but the reality is that western imperialism is itself a form of hierarchy and thus should be opposed in all its forms.
A state apparatus is needed to enforce *all* property rights for as long as class conflict goes on. "Billions" of workers organising to suppress a "few" capitalists is still one class using organised force to suppress another class - i.e., it's still a state, no matter what you call it. The difference is the specific class character of that state.
States also set themselves up to control, maintain, and reproduce the population of the controlled and suppressed class such that the controlled class's efforts go to the benefit of the controlling class.
What socialist group has done anything except attempt to eradicate the capitalist class? When have they ever attempted to keep capitalists around for the sake of using them for the benefit of the workers in a long term sense?
What I am saying is that hierarchy is necessary in historical progress, examples being; slaver societies to feudalism, feudalism to capitalism and capitalism to socialism. By claiming that hierarchy is inherently corrupt you are engaging in anti-materialist dogma.
In each of those cases, hierarchies have been reduced, mitigated, and made more porous.
Hierarchy has been steadily dismantled more and more over time ever since it has arisen on a global sense even as the forces keeping it in place have grown.
Where did I ever mention that? No, seriously, how do you get "we should keep capitalists around to benefit the workers" from "a state is the tool used by one class for the suppression of another, and that state has a definite class character based on the class that wields state power"?
I agree with what you are saying however (this is where we may ideologically differ), I am of the firm belief that a hierarchy via the Cental Committee of the Communist Party is necessary during the transition between Capitalism and Socialism. Ultimately Communism with no hierarchy is the goal we both want.
Because this is a definitive quality of a state. States exist to maintain and regulate a certain classed status quo, and to an extent, work to ameliorate and reduce class antagonisms (without ever actually removing the classed society).
If you reduce a "state" to nothing more than "a tool used for class suppression" then you are missing out on a huge amount of what states are used for and why.
By which metric, exactly? Are you implying that past socialist experiments have been stateless?
The entire field of sociobiology disagrees with you and Kropotkin is laughing in his grave at you;
That’s a very low energy argument and you appear to be sidestepping the issue that changing hierarchies have played a progressive role in the evolution of human development and society. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with the notion that early primitive-communist societies did not have hierarchies but to use that as an argument in modern geo-politics is quite frankly silly.
I don’t care about dead liberals.
the cognitive dissonance never stops with tanks
Even Lenin had some respect for the bread boy.
This is absolutely not true. Slave society to feudalism mayhaps, but early capitalism was in many ways far more tyrannical than late feudalism. Royalists were more inclined towards abolitionism or atleast providing colonial slaves with some forms of rights than early liberals. Early capitalism was fueled by industrial scale chattel slavery far more than feudalism. There's lots of stories about just how much worse bourgeois landowners were to their tenants with the conversion to capitalist agriculture than the earlier noble landlords. Hell, as it stands today the gap between the rich and the poor has never been larger than anytime before in the history of mankind, which is a tyranny all of its own.
To add also: this reeks of the naive Chomskyite idea that the overarching trend in history is towards more freedom and justice.