What's the most insane, batshit crazy, mentally unhinged, downright psychotic, delusional, extremely stupid, just plain dumb and wrong, opinions and takes you ever read here?
From the top of my head are: people supporting, unirnocally, Mao and his action or being a plain crazy Maoist, and I even read some borderline delusional and probably mentally ill people here defending, UNIRONICALLY, Pol Pot actions,
64 posts and 30 image replies omitted.>>2165758Marxism thus far has been the doctrine of decolonization, anti imperialism. Those communist projects that have not focused on perpetuating the socialist project by understanding the context in which they exist and instead have tried to naively do away with commodity production have failed miserably or live in absolute toil.
To think that socialism is when you do away with commodity production is to misunderstand Marxism, to be a utopian socialist, and ultimately to be counter revolutionary. Socialism is the doctrine of the liberation of humanity. Not some instruction booklet to be assembled.
The curse of the western antirevolutionary leftist is a deep ignorance in Marxism, history, and geopolitical economy (and I realize I said the same thing three times, but you have to know your audience).
>>2165764Was Marx trying to decolonize England? Germany? France? C'mon.
>Socialism is the doctrine of the liberation of humanityIncorrect. Engels defines it as the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat, and that's a big difference.
The rest of your post is correct however.
>>2165840Everything in existence is imperialist.
Amoeba? Imperialist.
Lion? Imperialist.
Gazelle? Imperialist.
Supernova? Imperialist.
Big Bang? Imperialist.
>>2165785>Marx trying to do [x]Marxism =/= Marx. Marx could've been gooning all his life for all I care.
>proletariat, not humanityThanks for reading my post and supporting it another Marxist author's opinion on the matter.
>>2165787Nothing gold can stay, ponyboy. The projects that have walked it back were essentially forced to. Even the indigenist zapatistas have turned to commodity production. If you know of an example where this hasn't happened, I would like to know.
>>2165806What zero history knowledge does to a MF.
>>2165807Big boy didn't even do the basic reading. Give a proper critique or STFU.
>>2165844Wrong, you forgot Canada, Australia, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, and their sub-imperialist allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey, UAE, Kenya, Egypt, Jordan, Singapore. I am increasingly validated that I am the only serious person who has ever come to this site, and nobody else is capable of more than incoherent adderall rants and insinuating jokes like this
>>2165854It's a braindead criticism of illiterate people who think that the criticism of imperialism is just anti americanism. They do this because the US is behind most shenanigans, they're historically illiterate so they think it's about picking on the US. The purpose of this criticism "imperialism is when america" is to then say Russia, Iran, China, and even other more ridiculous examples like Iraq or whatever, are imperialist.
You're getting into actual theory of imperialism and sub-imperialism. Sub-imperialism has been recuperated to mean "a little imperialist", again to say that Russia, China, Iran etc are imperialists.
The underlying justification being that leftists are morally obligated to be anti-imperialist all the time wherever they see imperialism (neither NATO or Beijing), because imperialism is morally the highest sin there is. Lenin (PBUH) said so or whoever, doesn't really matter to these people.
>>2165864>they're historically illiterate so they think it's about picking on the USI suspect it's more nefarious than that, it's an unfortunate reality that most American/Western leftists have found their way to "Socialism" as a blanket term via the liberalism that is proclaimed as just "leftism" in the west, after becoming disillusioned with the social democratic parties.
The problem is that their disillusionment almost always comes from the idealism that such parties could be doing more but are simply choosing not too for various vapid reasonings, but because social liberalism is more developed and held in higher regard in the west than most other places (or at least the west sells itself on that) it therefore suggests that despite all the ways the US/West leaves these people wanting, they nevertheless still feel like they live in the most left-wing societies to have ever existed and thus cannot comprehend why a self-proclaimed leftists wouldn't side with the west against socially conservative nations like Russia, Iran, China, etc.
Unironically, the support for western imperialism is actually quite strong amongst the western left on the basis that even if these nations end up being run by a western-controlled comprador government, that should come with more social liberalism, democracy and free speech that in turn would therefore make them more left-wing and thus a victory in the eyes of western Democratic Socialists.
That the western bourgeoisie has no interest in rocking the boat with populations that are socially conservative, don't want to risk nationalist movements coming to prominence in free elections by utilising protected free speech in favour of keeping control over their ill gotten territories as amicable as possible, is intentionally lost on such DemSocs.
>>2165921Well said. Yeah that rings true.
>That the western bourgeoisie has no interest in rocking the boat with populations that are socially conservative, don't want to risk nationalist movements coming to prominence in free elections by utilising protected free speech in favour of keeping control over their ill gotten territories as amicable as possible, is intentionally lost on such DemSocs.I didn't understand this paragraph. Would you mind rephrasing it?
>>2167016>abolishment of capitalism, commody production and wage labour weren't always a core component of marxist demands and objectivesThe whole question is how. Not even Marx knew. He never lived to see an even moderately successful socialist insurgency. He has literally nothing of value to say as to the how, since Marx and Marxism are always about the concrete real experience informing theory.
Please could you clarify this point?
>>2165921>The problem is that their disillusionment almost always comes from the idealism that such parties could be doing more but are simply choosing not too for various vapid reasoningsI think that's a good description. The left often positions itself as trying to influence the ruling class. I'm not even referring to people who focus on electing social democrats, but the people protesting outside the DNC who consider themselves leftists and radicals and anti-imperialists. It's like "we demand you listen to us" (but they're not listening).
>they nevertheless still feel like they live in the most left-wing societies to have ever existed and thus cannot comprehend why a self-proclaimed leftists wouldn't side with the west against socially conservative nations like Russia, Iran, China, etc.I can understand this criticism of Western leftists who throw in with the Western camp as like a bloc, but the problem is that the Russian government also pisses these people off by funding all kinds of idiotic political slop (Tim Pool and Black Hammer were being funded by Russia) and encouraging an atmosphere of irrationalism (which I think is corrosive to the left), and communicating more generally to these people with socially liberal values that the Russian government does not like them. What else are you supposed to think?
There is what anti-imperialists who support Russia say what Russia is like, and there is what the Russian government says what Russia is like. But China doesn't do that. I'm not even talking about the gay stuff specifically, but just not actively trying to piss off the Western left and present them as an enemy in their outward-facing media channels. Why does Russia do this? It makes them look like utter jerks, and to these Western leftists like people in their own countries who don't like democracy and talk about why we need an ancap monarchy run by the techlords (who seem willing to make a deal with Putin) or whatever.
What in Russia are they going to look at and see as an alternative to their own situation? In China, they can actually see things. Unfortunately, the people in the West who see an alternative in Russia tend to be on the right. Of course, Westerners project a lot onto Russia. It's either all bad, or it's much better than it really is, or wishcast that Putin is about to say something they like rather than talking about the Middle Ages. Either way, these leftists see the Russian government as representing negative trends like their own countries which they don't like.
Now, as to why Russia does this, one reason is because the government sees influencing Western conservatives as a more fruitful method of building soft power. But I also think the Russian government wants some level of antagonism for internal political reasons. The generation that came to power after the collapse of the USSR is getting old and they need to reform and transition to a new version of Russia and hand off power to the next generation, but they can't do this kind of economic and political restructuring without a war because it's not the USSR and they can't just order things to happen (nothing will get done), the system doesn't work that way. But with the SMO, Putin can secure another term without protests, create a bloc of patriotic forces who will support him, select the people are "in" and who are "out" (power transition), and reduce the country's reliance on foreign trade (which is part of a global phenomenon), and so on.
To be fair, Putin is in a very tough situation because Russia is a madhouse and he has to keep a lot of different people happy or they'll get rid of him, and the alternative is complete and utter humiliation for Russia, which would not be good. So I don't like him, but I don't call him monke or whatever. He doesn't seem like he has a very fun job.
>>2163760There are people here who will call those who affirm the most basic tenets of the communist project (family abolition, proletarian internationalism, atheism, etc.) left-communists or ultras. You don't have to be a western armchair communist to have basic reading comprehension and political understanding of what a classless, moneyless, and stateless society entails.
Also, the Cultural Revolution was one of the most innovative and progressive socialist experiments in history and people who hate on Mao for muh 25 million are retards.
>>2204747Are you retarded? marx stated that by "family abolition" he was referring to the bourgeois fetishisation of family as a tool to keep wealth locked up by grooming heirs to capital.
As for religion, the reason he disliked it was because it was being shilled as an alternative to improving the living standards of the proles, not because there was anything ontologically evil about faith.
It's just kind of obvious that you're basically just trying to be edgy, as is evidenced by your Mao gluck-gluck. Mega cringe.
>>2204747Western sources claim like 1-10 million in a country of 700 million people; the lower bounds are less deaths than COVID in the United States.
You can get up to 30 million more easily with the Great Leap Forward, but Deng claimed it wasn't Mao's sole responsibility (and Mao wrote self-criticism after the disaster), and while the party used to attest to the figure in the Dengist period, it's now closer to 3 million (demographic loss) under Xi.
Unique IPs: 34