Currently living revolutionaries

Favorite currently living leftist revolutionaries or leaders?
Gotta be Subcomandante Marcos for me

Attached: C79ECC4F-4B48-4587-B68B-285D481E2B6E.PNG (480x483, 156.21K)

I dont know
Whoever Runs Rojava?
Whoever Runs the Naxalities?


Attached: 563be1c9fb388495d9b457767c9969c035a7cc4af8a167a2563763f9dcbc6c25.png (816x596, 28.85K)

The proletariat.

Attached: porfismorevolucion.jpg (1280x720, 85.9K)


Attached: hunter.png (761x815, 405.73K)

Pope Francis.

The proletariat would be nothing without titans like Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao to guide them. It's an uncomfortable fact, but it's true.

Attached: 522796.gif (500x270, 975.19K)

The great man theory is idealistic nonsense, mate. Let it go.

They're being hyperbolic but the substance of what their saying has merit. There's no denying that having intelligent strategists with good PR skills allows movements to achieve things that would not occur spontaneously.

Don't you find it strange that in every civil war, there's plenty of young generals getting made? And those generals tend to be as competent as those who rose much slower. It's almost as if people rise to the occasion every time. It's almost as if it's systemic, inherent to our function. It's almost like we're shaped by environmental conditions to a larger degree than we are capable of shaping them ourselves. It's almost as if control is an illusion, and all we see are inevitabilities taking place exactly where, when, and how they're supposed to. It's almost as if revolution is a process, and we're just its subroutines. A wonder.

It's called marx-ism for a reason.

It's almost like every thing is one among an endless multitude of things with there being no overarching thing (be it capitalism, a leader, a principle or anything else for that matter) that is the active substance with the rest being passive followers.

Do you really believe Marx to have been special? That's just sad. To live in the shadow of a dead man, I mean. Depressing, even.
There is the system that is the universe. Everything boils down to cause and effect. Nothing is random. Nothing is unpredictable. Nothing is undetermined. The reason you want to believe in great men is because you've deluded yourself into thinking that there exist points where the system is the weakest, and those points, if pushed properly, would unravel the whole thing. There's no unravelling existence itself. You're just a variable in an equation that's already been solved. It's depressing to think about it, but hey, they believed that they could fix the world thousands of years ago. I can't help but be sad for them, too. But hey, we both know that the age between the invention of smart phones and before total global ecological catastrophe is the true time to be alive. After all, it's the one age which we don't view with the benefits of hindsight.

Marx was a prophet, without him there would be no marxism. A contradiction that remains wisely unaddressed by marxists, who claim marxism to be an organic development spawned by the machinations of history like the modules of capitalism and feudalism that came before it.
Nothing in the law of cause and effect contradicts the notion that one man can make an enormous difference, it is in fact the rejection of this notion that is at odd with the physical reality universe, since it claims that history has the qualities of a physical law as well, which is pure mysticism.
Visions of the (soon-to-be) apocalypse are one the most arch-typical conceptions of all peoples that developed a notion of history. We need our stories to have an end, none of the great stories and novels would be as meaningful if their latter half were to be ripped out and replaced with and what happened then, we don't know. The story we imagine ourselves to be part of is no different.

top lel

Yeah there called partisan hacks.

Jimmy "Arm the Poor for Revolutionary War" Dore

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1920x1080, 89.66K)

Just started freshman philosophy I see. Everything from your writing style to the unprofound worldview your pushing gives it away. You're really failing to the implication of what you're saying.

*failing to see

Miguel Díaz-Canel.

[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]

They haven't started shit. Even reading one philosophical paper would make it obvious that philosophers don't state grand propositions such as "Nothing is unpredictable" so matter-of-factly that they then feel warranted in using that proposition as a premise in their argument and from that premise form a conclusion. Furthermore, they don't feel the need to even explain statements like "Nothing is undetermined" because to them it is an evident truth.

Signs of a rigid mind that thinks they have it all figured out. Worse yet, they feel the need to share their 'realisations' on the internet so we can all bask in their wisdom.

Attached: b.jpeg (628x314, 29.33K)

Mates, I'm not paid to be an idealist. I don't have to make three disclaimers per sentence, "oh, but objective truth cannot really be determined", "well, cause and effect may or may not be all there is", "determinism cannot be said to be a thing because Heisenberg", I mean come on.
Oh, Lord forbid. I was simply talking on his level. Not that there's much above that when it comes to philosophy.

Attached: 9fef4e663138c0e7a1dc321b69f15985c7a41650b3697244c1f3d8e28756af9e.jpg (1024x595, 73.58K)

Quantuum mechanics kinda contradicts you.