Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

sphagnum · Nov 3, 2017

Spiderz said:
Do the rebels have good praxis?

The Alliance to Restore the Republic is a liberal-conservative, nostalgic movement; it is not a revolution but a restoration of the old aristocratic rulers in contrast to the new aristocratic rulers. The New Republic is at best a slightly less corrupt version of the Old Republic, but it is still a capitalist quagmire!

What I'm saying is that the only good rebel is Saw Gerrera.

edit: Bloodline actually discusses the political situation in the ST-era New Republic and it's pretty interesting, largely based on the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. And both parties - the Centrists (Federalists) and Populists (Anti-Federalists) - have explicit right and left wings, so you can assume the left wing Centrists are in favor of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism while the left wing Populists are Space Anarchists. The right wing Centrists are predictably fascist Imperial nostalgics, some of whom are in on the First Order being an up and coming thing, while I guess the right wing Populists are Space Tea Partiers?

Spiderz · Nov 3, 2017

Are Saw and the Onderon rebels comrades?

sphagnum · Nov 3, 2017

Spiderz said:
Are Saw and the Onderon rebels comrades?

Officially I dont recall them ever actually going into his economic views, and I've read/watched everything with him in it. But he's the most radical of the bunch in tsrms of fighting the Empire, and he hates Mon Mothma and the rest of the "moderate rebels", so I doubt he would want a restoration of the old ruling class either.

Of course Saw is also a terrorist who just kills civilians all willy nilly to make a point in Rebel Rising so hmm.

I guess in the old EU the closest thing was the Diversity Alliance which of course was portrayed as crazy reverse speciesists.

(ST era Luke should totally be a space anarchist)

ibyea · Nov 3, 2017

Maybe I am confused about what House of Lightning is talking about, but believe me, all the poor people I knew cared about was just getting through the day. My parents for example, supported S. Korea's dictator because he improved their condition despite the horrible stuff he did. They didn't give a damn about whatever socialist idea. All they knew was their life improved. If that happens through a capitalistic idea, people aren't going to give a damn even if capitalism gives bread crumbs. No socialist revolution is going to spontaneously appear from the proletariat (ugh, I hate these terms), because no one can escape the cultural forces that shape them. The same way that as sympathetic as I am to socialist ideas, I can't escape the cultural forces of capitalism, which is why I vacillate between being a social democrat and a democratic socialist. And frankly, rather than a revolution, I would rather people test economic ideas and then implement them on a wider scale than just winging it like revolutions like to do. I personally feel like these stuff needs a more empirical perspective.

Sibylus · Nov 3, 2017

I reckon my entry into one of these threads is probably overdue.

lmcfigs · Nov 3, 2017

Zizek claims his "black friends" tell him to call them "nigger". Does anybody buy this?

27 minutes in for some context.

sphagnum · Nov 4, 2017

No.

Zizek is kind of dumb.

Shy · Nov 4, 2017

lmcfigs said:
Zizek claims his "black friends" tell him to call them "nigger". Does anybody buy this?

27 minutes in for some context.

Fuck off with that mess.

sphagnum said:
No.

Zizek is kind of dumb.

Yeah, i learned to ignore Ziz when it comes to social matters. Ever since he was pulling his it would be good for Trump to win, bullshit

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

sphagnum said:
How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America.

To supplement that, Trotsky has some work on uneven Capital development. I imagine that book owes much to it.

Zizek is great when it comes to political and social theory. But he's just an old awkward intellectual who lacks exposure to these particular issues.

His comments about Trump were, IIRC, basically saying that Trump would prompt an increase in agitation. We all knew that would happen though so he was basically stating the obvious.

He also has a penchant for saying purposefully provocative things he doesn't really mean. I assume that's a hold over from him being a dissenter under the Tito state.

sphagnum · Nov 4, 2017

Good morning fellow Antifa Super-Soldiers, are you ready for Civil War 2 today? Please report to your designated locations to prepare for the takeover once the doomsday EMP goes off!

louisacommie · Nov 4, 2017

So in star wars, is it possible to do the shoot lightning thing and be a good kind hearted Communist at the same time?

I believe the expanded universes had a light side recolor of force lightning.

Shy · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
His comments about Trump were, IIRC, basically saying that Trump would prompt an increase in agitation. We all knew that would happen though so he was basically stating the obvious.

The problem with the people who were making those arguments, is that weren't going to be effected by Trump at all.

People are suffering because of him. And i don't see any renaissance from the left. (not that would even remotely justify Trump being in power)

I've found the people who made that argument were showing their true colours. That they don't care about P.O.C, Women,LGBTQ and ironically the poor. Cause those are all the people that are suffering under that orange cunt.

But hey, at least the left will grow stronger. -_-

sphagnum said:
Good morning fellow Antifa Super-Soldiers, are you ready for Civil War 2 today? Please report to your designated locations to prepare for the takeover once the doomsday EMP goes off!

I forgot to pre-order Civil War 2. Do i still get the perks ? :P

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

Shy said:
The problem with the people who were making those arguments, is that weren't going to be effected by Trump at all.

People are suffering because of him. And i don't see any renaissance from the left. (not that would even remotely justify Trump being in power)

I've found the people who made that argument were showing their true colours. That they don't care about P.O.C, Women,LGBTQ and ironically the poor. Cause those are all the people that are suffering under that orange cunt.

But hey, at least the left will grow stronger. -_-

People were suffering before Trump. Blatant racism, homophobia, and outright assaults on minorities didn't start happening when Trump was elected, but have been a constant problem and increased under Obama and Hillary's political influence. Trump doesn't prompt this, but is instead a symptom of it, and we have no reason to think that a Hillary regime would have stymied or halted any of this.

Deleted member 721 · Nov 4, 2017

I was hoping antifa supersoldiers would start the revolution today :/

Neto · Nov 4, 2017

Ape Escape and class struggle

Deleted member 873 · Nov 4, 2017

oh. Hello, comrades. I'm glad this OT exists, sometimes I read some stuff and think "oh my god this is so lib".

I'm from Brazil, a country that was freed from a far-right dictatorship in 1989, and after that was governed by two elected right-wing presidents until 2002, when a left-wing candidate won (and then completely shift its agenda to the right, while still attending left-wing demands, like erasing hunter and getting more low-class people into schools and jobs). A controversial but (IMO) good government that ended in a right-wing coup in 2016. That's what happens when you make deals with the bourgeois: they are not ever satisfied and are willing to do anything. Anyway, we have the worst president possible right now until 2018, when a new election comes.

I'm very into communist theory, but I think our centre-left government has done lots of good things in 13 years, so friends call me a traitor and whatnot. Either way, hello. That was a brief introduction to my position. Regarding my political engangement, I would get into it more if I could, but I have to work and study, so I don't have time. And... that's that for now.

Deleted member 721 · Nov 4, 2017

WonderLuigi said:
oh. Hello, comrades. I'm glad this OT exists, sometimes I read some stuff and think "oh my god this is so lib".

I'm from Brazil, a country that was freed from a far-right dictatorship in 1989, and after that was governed by two elected right-wing presidents until 2002, when a left-wing candidate won (and then completely shift its agenda to the right, while still attending left-wing demands, like erasing hunter and getting more low-class people into schools and jobs). A controversial but (IMO) good government that ended in a right-wing coup in 2016. That's what happens when you make deals with the bourgeois: they are not ever satisfied and are willing to do anything. Anyway, we have the worst president possible right now until 2018, when a new election comes.

I'm very into communist theory, but I think our centre-left government has done lots of good things in 13 years, so friends call me a traitor and whatnot. Either way, hello. That was a brief introduction to my position. Regarding my political engangement, I would get into it more if I could, but I have to work and study, so I don't have time. And... that's that for now.

Spiderz · Nov 4, 2017

Dud Bolt was a member of the dirtbag left.

Neto · Nov 4, 2017

WonderLuigi said:
oh. Hello, comrades. I'm glad this OT exists, sometimes I read some stuff and think "oh my god this is so lib".

I'm from Brazil, a country that was freed from a far-right dictatorship in 1989, and after that was governed by two elected right-wing presidents until 2002, when a left-wing candidate won (and then completely shift its agenda to the right, while still attending left-wing demands, like erasing hunter and getting more low-class people into schools and jobs). A controversial but (IMO) good government that ended in a right-wing coup in 2016. That's what happens when you make deals with the bourgeois: they are not ever satisfied and are willing to do anything. Anyway, we have the worst president possible right now until 2018, when a new election comes.

I'm very into communist theory, but I think our centre-left government has done lots of good things in 13 years, so friends call me a traitor and whatnot. Either way, hello. That was a brief introduction to my position. Regarding my political engangement, I would get into it more if I could, but I have to work and study, so I don't have time. And... that's that for now.

Hey man, I share a lot of the sentiments you have.

You should look into the PCdoB and the PCB in your state, see who are their members and show up in their events, where they do discuss the political climate and directions. If you live in a capital, those probably happen fairly frequently, mostly in the university and center areas. The PCdoB and PCB supported the PT for most of their time in the government, were fairly critical when Dilma started to fuck up (Joaquim Levy, Kátia Abreu, ya know..) but never made what PSOL and PSTU did, that was to join the right-winger's agenda that bought us here.

José Paulo Netto (PCB and professor of the UNB) have some amazing classes on marxism. From the PCdoB, Demerval Saviani produced a lot of important works on education. There's also Guilherme Boulos (MTST/PSOL) that, although he started with the wrong feet by joining the ranks of the 2013 protests against Dilma, he is becoming a very interesting (and intelligent) player on the political space. I also like some stuff that Nildo Ouriques (PSOL) have to say about education and the "Revolução Brasileira", but, overall, he's too "accelerationist" for me.

Anyway, this is what I have for you so you don't feel alone in face of your friends.

As a disclaimer, I'm not affiliated with any of these parties, although some of my closest friends joined the PCdoB a couple years ago.

Deleted member 873 · Nov 4, 2017

Neto said:
Hey man, I share a lot of the sentiments you have.

You should look into the PCdoB and the PCB in your state, see who are their members and show up in their events, where they do discuss the political climate and directions. If you live in a capital, those probably happen fairly frequently, mostly in the university and center areas. The PCdoB and PCB supported the PT for most of their time in the government, were fairly critical when Dilma started to fuck up (Joaquim Levy, Kátia Abreu, ya know..) but never made what PSOL and PSTU did, that was to join the right-winger's agenda that bought us here.

José Paulo Netto (PCB and professor of the UNB) have some amazing classes on marxism. From the PCdoB, Demerval Saviani produced a lot of important works on education. There's also Guilherme Boulos (MTST/PSOL) that, although he started with the wrong feet by joining the ranks of the 2013 protests against Dilma, he is becoming a very interesting (and intelligent) player on the political space. I also like some stuff that Nildo Ouriques (PSOL) have to say about education and the "Revolução Brasileira", but, overall, he's too "accelerationist" for me.

Anyway, this is what I have for you so you don't feel alone in face of your friends.

As a disclaimer, I'm not affiliated with any of these parties, although some of my closest friends joined the PCdoB a couple years ago.

Thank you for this!

Also, my friends are all from PCR or PSOL. They call me and PCdoB "pelego"; but the reality is that they scream at walls. PT and PCdoB at least did something.

I'll bookmark all of this. Thanks ;) I'm from Rio BTW.

Neto · Nov 4, 2017

WonderLuigi said:
Thank you for this!

Also, my friends are all from PCR or PSOL. They call me and PCdoB "pelego"; but the reality is that they scream at walls. PT and PCdoB at least did something.

I'll bookmark all of this. Thanks ;) I'm from Rio BTW.

No problem!
I'm a neighbor from ES =)

About PSOL/PCdoB, it's a comprehensible that these parties can't get a long easily (although they share a similar ethics, their epistemology couldn't be farther), but that the militants "hate" so much on each other is a shame.

On the bright side, I think that there's still terrain for them to work together, since I've never heard of physical violence between both groups. Let's hope 2018 make such aliance -- or the so called "Frente de esquerda" -- happen, even if that's through the via of the "common enemy" that the Bolsonaros and Dorias do represent for our future.

Shy · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
People were suffering before Trump. Blatant racism, homophobia, and outright assaults on minorities didn't start happening when Trump was elected, but have been a constant problem and increased under Obama and Hillary's political influence. Trump doesn't prompt this, but is instead a symptom of it, and we have no reason to think that a Hillary regime would have stymied or halted any of this.

Please don't try to draw a moral relativism between the two.

You think Hillary would have enacted a racist Muslim travel ban ?
You think Hilary would have repelled women's healthcare programs ?
You think Nazis would have felt embolden from a Hilary victory ?
You think if Charlottesville happened that Hilary would not have condemned the Nazi scum ?
You think Hilary would be trying to dismantle the ACA ?
You think Hilary would be trying to tear up the Iran deal ?

They're not even remotely the same. So please don't pull a "both sides are the same" argument.

Lafiel · Nov 4, 2017

I think the thing about US politics is before Trump we had Obama who to a lot of liberals would by far the most respectable, best president we've ever had in the United States (even if he was just as clearly part of the establishment as any other president in history)

But his respectable image certainly didn't stop the growth of the following social movements under his presidency.

Black Lives Matter
Stop Dakota Pipeline
Occupy Wall Street
15 Now etc.

The implications of Trump is you still have growing social movements in relation to these causes, but you have the extra threat of the most reactionary far-right forces being empowered as a result of his election and is implementing policy that is being actively celebrated by those reactionary forces! and based on that to argue that Hillary Clinton (as bad as she would have being) would have being worse than Donald Trump is completely false in my opinion, and I fully subscribe to the theory that the election of Trump is a symptom of the failure of modern neoliberal capitalism and establishment governments.

Sibylus · Nov 4, 2017

Where was the doomsday EMP uprising I was promised?

Deleted member 721 · Nov 4, 2017

Sibylus said:
Where was the doomsday EMP uprising I was promised?

Postponed to the centenary day 07, there's a problem in the distribution of super soldier serums in the antifa groups. But i heard its already solved.

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

Shy said:
You think Hillary would have enacted a racist Muslim travel ban ?
You think Hilary would have repelled women's healthcare programs ?
You think Nazis would have felt embolden from a Hilary victory ?
You think if Charlottesville happened that Hilary would not have condemned the Nazi scum ?
You think Hilary would be trying to dismantle the ACA ?
You think Hilary would be trying to tear up the Iran deal ?

They're not even remotely the same. So please don't pull a "both sides are the same" argument.

The Muslim travel ban is complete political theater. It's a shallow do-nothing response to a magnificent foreign policy that results in these conditions and was crafted by Clinton. Clinton not enacting a travel ban on her victims does not absolve her of her crimes nor does it make her an ethical actor.

Clinton has done little to help women who are stuck under the yolk of forced labor and our terrible healthcare system. The ACA is not a solution and shouldn't be considered one.

Clinton doesn't care about women and actively emboldens and enables a serial harasser: her husband.

Nazis would have absolutely been emboldened by a Clinton victory. This is a movement that thrives on the irrational and cognitive dissonance.

Charlottesville happened and Hillary condemned it and nothing has come of it. If her and Trumps roles were reversed they both would have still acted the same and we would still be in the same position. Hillary condemning or not anything is not going to set massive change in motion.

Why do I care about the Iran deal? Why would I support either the US or Iran?

"They're not even remotely the same". You're seeing gulfs of difference between two people who, at best, offer concessions and lip service, and maybe reforms one way or the other.

Socialism is a change in the social and political system of the era. If neither players are a social and political break from our system but instead different methods of reforming the current system then no, I don't see significant difference between the two.

Clinton is an opportunist, an Imperialist, and more importantly, an arch Capitalist. Let's not defend her in a thread that is ostensibly for Socialists and Socialist thought.

Deleted member 873 · Nov 4, 2017

We need to understand that we live in a world that has rules which of course should be questioned, but until then we are under them. Yes, some choices ARE the worst. Criticizing Clinton is something that should be done extensively, but not by saying that she and Trump would be the same. That's 1) a lie, and 2) dishonesty. And that's a big problem with the left: "they are all the same" discourse is unproductive. You end up screaming at a wall while other sectors of society do something.

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

WonderLuigi said:
but not by saying that she and Trump would be the same. T

And no one said that, so I don't know what the problem is.

Mezentine · Nov 4, 2017

Accelerationism always has been and always will be dangerous. The "energized" backlash never quite seems to fully counter the new entrenched awfulness that the "so bad it wakes people up" regime manages to get in place.

"If some people suffer in the short term we'll make long term gains" mostly just seems to result in people suffering in the short term

House_Of_Lightning said:
And no one said that, so I don't know what the problem is.

I mean...it looks like you just wrote a big post about how everything would basically be the same with her in office?

Deleted member 873 · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
And no one said that, so I don't know what the problem is.

It does seem like it. See below. Also, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but that's the way I'm viewing both of your posts: "Clinton doesn't care about <thing>". Yes, I agree, but that doesn't mean she would openly advocate for the anti-<thing> sentiment, and that's a huge difference. Besides, remember that the US is so imperialist that those ideals are spreading throughout the world. In 2018, Brazil will probably have a very similar situation to Hillary vs Trump. This is big.

House_Of_Lightning said:
we have no reason to think that a Hillary regime would have stymied or halted any of this.

Mezentine said:
I mean...it looks like you just wrote a big post about how everything would basically be the same with her in office?

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
I mean...it looks like you just wrote a big post about how everything would basically be the same with her in office?

Hillary isn't some autocratic miracle worker. "Great Man Theory" is a fallacy. Did you expect the tide to turn on November 9th if she had been elected and that all of the political errors and issues and mistakes and contradictions that built up under her and Obama would magically go away?

Fascists weren't going to stop in their tracks and decide to sit at home because their political adversary beat them in an election, an election they had convinced themselves was fraudulent if their particular wing of Capitalism didn't win.

Mezentine · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
Hillary isn't some autocratic miracle worker. "Great Man Theory" is a fallacy. Did you expect the tide to turn on November 9th if she had been elected and that all of the political errors and issues and mistakes and contradictions that built up under her and Obama would magically go away?

Fascists weren't going to stop in their tracks and decide to sit at home because their political adversary beat them in an election, an election they had convinced themselves was fraudulent if their particular wing of Capitalism didn't win.

I would have expected her to further grind away at moving the slider left in American politics.
You can argue, and many will, that there's space for a more dramatic candidate, or rather a more dramatic field of candidates who can swing things more quickly (and I'll continue to have a healthy amount of skepticism about this until I see it bear out) but Trump is actually managing to do some actually terrible things, and his impotence is itself a destructive force as institutions get gutted.
I suppose its possible to view that in a good way if you actually think we need to burn stuff down and start over, but I just don't think that has a good track record.

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

WonderLuigi said:
It does seem like it. See below. Also, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but that's the way I'm viewing both of your posts: "Clinton doesn't care about <thing>". Yes, I agree, but that doesn't mean she would openly advocate for the anti-<thing> sentiment

The issue is when people build up this practical personality cult around a politician.

What Hillary and Trump think is irrelevant outside of them being a representation of the political currents of the masses.

Stating the obvious, that our political situation wouldn't be different with a Clinton presidency, isn't a tacit approval of our political situation, nor does it warrant this knee jerk reaction or defense of her.

Mezentine · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
Stating the obvious, that our political situation wouldn't be different with a Clinton presidency, isn't a tacit approval of our political situation, nor does it warrant this knee jerk reaction or defense of her.

No I just think you're not making a whole lot of sense here frankly. Would things have been different under Clinton or not? Would she have been the same as Trump or not? The two answers should be consistent with each other unless you think the role of the president is entirely impotent by its nature

Deleted member 873 · Nov 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
No I just think you're not making a whole lot of sense here frankly. Would things have been different under Clinton or not? Would she have been the same as Trump or not? The two answers should be consistent with each other unless you think the role of the president is entirely impotent by its nature

and even if it were impotent (which is not), Trump in the presidency is empowering fascists. There is no doubt about it

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
I would have expected her to further grind away at moving the slider left in American politics.

Why would she do that? She is not a Leftists and her politics are not Leftist.

You can argue, and many will, that there's space for a more dramatic candidate, or rather a more dramatic field of candidates who can swing things more quickly (and I'll continue to have a healthy amount of skepticism about this until I see it bear out) but Trump is actually managing to do some actually terrible things, and his impotence is itself a destructive force as institutions get gutted.
I suppose its possible to view that in a good way if you actually think we need to burn stuff down and start over, but I just don't think that has a good track record.

No simple "candidate" is going to solve our issues, nor would they ever want to. Bourgeois democracy is inherently incompatible with Socialism.

Trump can't both "manage to do actually terrible things" and be "impotence". Trump, like Clinton, isn't an autocratic and divine Godhead capable of moving society at their whim. Trump is the culmination of the politics of a mass of people. If there were no Trump it would be another person in his place.

Mezentine · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
No simple "candidate" is going to solve our issues, nor would they ever want to. Bourgeois democracy is inherently incompatible with Socialism.

Trump can't both "manage to do actually terrible things" and be "impotence". Trump, like Clinton, isn't an autocratic and divine Godhead capable of moving society at their whim. Trump is the culmination of the politics of a mass of people. If there were no Trump it would be another person in his place.

I mean if you want to argue that the current state of affairs, encompassing the last 20 or so years of American politics specifically and the entire American history generally, reflects the American people and their toxic resistance to any sort of progressive movement and their willingness to buy into jingoistic nonsense hey man, I am right there with you. But again that's an incredibly cynical position from which to predict transformative change. It is my position, which is why I think progress in this country basically happens when we either manage to smuggle it in or hit the nation over the head with a brick and its why I never ever expect progress to be popular for more than a fleeting moment that we try to capitalize on

Miniature Kaiju · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
No simple "candidate" is going to solve our issues, nor would they ever want to.

There's kind of a whole spectrum of stuff between solving our (socio-political) issues and actively acting in ways that promote further division and inequality.

Both candidates were rubbish (the political system as whole is rubbish), but it's at least disingenuous to pretend one of them isn't more rubbish than the other.

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
No I just think you're not making a whole lot of sense here frankly. Would things have been different under Clinton or not? Would she have been the same as Trump or not? The two answers should be consistent with each other unless you think the role of the president is entirely impotent by its nature

These are two separate questions.

Would things be different under Clinton? No, and there's no reason to think they would be unless you expect some type of divine intervention to accompany a Clinton regime.

Would she have been the same as Trump or not? Her and Trump are both set on entrenching the Capitalist system through various power blocks. Clinton has her constituency of men and women and people of color, Trump has his. Both of them play to the strengths of their base and both of them ignore the sizable base of men, women, and people of color that were disenfranchised by both candidates enough that they couldn't be bothered to vote. Socialism is not compatible with Capitalism, and two candidates who are interested in reforming Capitalism to fit their base's ideal do not qualify as "significantly different".

WonderLuigi said:
and even if it were impotent (which is not), Trump in the presidency is empowering fascists. There is no doubt about it

It's the other way around. We must stop thinking of life in the way of Great Man Theory.

Trump didn't give rise to Fascism, Fascism gave rise to Trump. Without Fascism, there would be no Trump, but without Trump, there would be Fascism.

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
I mean if you want to argue that the current state of affairs, encompassing the last 20 or so years of American politics specifically and the entire American history generally, reflects the American people and their toxic resistance to any sort of progressive movement and their willingness to buy into jingoistic nonsense hey man, I am right there with you. But again that's an incredibly cynical position from which to predict transformative change. It is my position, which is why I think progress in this country basically happens when we either manage to smuggle it in or hit the nation over the head with a brick and its why I never ever expect progress to be popular for more than a fleeting moment that we try to capitalize on

I don't think it is cynical to believe that Capitalism can't be reformed and that the only solution is transformative change. Revolution.

Miniature Kaiju said:
There's kind of a whole spectrum of stuff between solving our (socio-political) issues and actively acting in ways that promote further division and inequality.

Both candidates were rubbish (the political system as whole is rubbish), but it's at least disingenuous to pretend one of them isn't more rubbish than the other.

Capitalism requires division and inequality. Both candidates are Capitalists. One of them can be worse than the other, and each of them have varying qualities that may place one of them more favorable than the other.

But that doesn't qualify the sentiment that they're diametrical opposites, have nothing in common, are significantly different, etc.

Mezentine · Nov 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
I don't think it is cynical to believe that Capitalism can't be reformed and that the only solution is transformative change. Revolution.

Capitalism requires division and inequality. Both candidates are Capitalists. One of them can be worse than the other, and each of them have varying qualities that may place one of them more favorable than the other.

Okay but if your position is that the current entrenched systems of capitalism, inequality, and general malaise are reflections of the politics of the American people, where does the revolution come from? Certainly not from the elites, and the spirit of the people seems to have landed us where we are

House_Of_Lightning · Nov 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
Okay but if your position is that the current entrenched systems of capitalism, inequality, and general malaise are reflections of the politics of the American people, where does the revolution come from? Certainly not from the elites, and the spirit of the people seems to have landed us where we are

Lenin,

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."

Bronx-Man · Nov 5, 2017

November 4th has come and passed, but the Antifa supersoldier uprising didn't come into fruition :(

makingmusic476 · Nov 5, 2017

Bronx-Man said:
November 4th has come and passed, but the Antifa supersoldier uprising didn't come into fruition :(

I did my best. =(

Spiderz · Nov 5, 2017

The 4th was a juke move. We all know what the 7th will bring

Sou Da · Nov 5, 2017

Bronx-Man said:
November 4th has come and passed, but the Antifa supersoldier uprising didn't come into fruition :(

makingmusic476 said:
I did my best. =(

Spiderz said:
The 4th was a juke move. We all know what the 7th will bring

Stay strong, comrades.

Hidden content

HarryHengst · Nov 5, 2017

Bronx-Man said:
November 4th has come and passed, but the Antifa supersoldier uprising didn't come into fruition :(

Totally because the alt-right knew of our secret plans and told everyone on twitter and youtube about it!

Deleted member 721 · Nov 5, 2017

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/0...ould-create-great-safe-space-study-finds.html

Half of millenials think socialism is great, the revolution is coming

Deleted member 873 · Nov 5, 2017

Eylos said:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/0...ould-create-great-safe-space-study-finds.html

Half of millenials think socialism is great, the revolution is coming

The report also found that one in five Americans in their 20s consider former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin a hero, despite his genocide of Ukrainians and Orthodox priests. Over a quarter of millennials polled also thought the same for Vladimir Lenin and Kim Jong Un.

oh i c

we are coming

Spiderz · Nov 5, 2017

A generation of tankies

Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

Anarchism

Marxism

Marxism-Leninism

Left Communism

Democratic Socialism

Social Democracy

Other

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure

User-requested account closure

Self-requested ban

User requested account closure

Self-requested ban

User requested account closure

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

User requested account closure

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure