Previous thread: >>1946727
Dump all the seemingly pointless, dubious, and frivolous questions that don't deserve their own shitty threads.
Got a question that's probably been asked a million times before? You're in the right landfill, buddy. Post it here.
Threads that otherwise might go in here will eventually find themselves become merged to this thread.
340 posts and 30 image replies omitted.>>2237203Think the rough argument is those that hold the power aren't stupid enough to be boiled like a frog.
The history of Latin America and the Middle East rife with this over even relatively minor things.
Given this with imperialist support, but you still need some local group to support for that to work.
>>22378534chan got closed down. This is an anonymous forum. VPNs are easily accessible. You do the math.
Nobody wants Nazis to be here. Not even other Nazis.
>>2237853>why does leftypol welcome so many rightypol ideasIn part because of the belief that by engaging with them it's possible to change the minds of those that also possess similar beliefs. In another part it is a development resulting from other leftist forums like r/socialism or hexbear where you are immediately banned for not adhering to site orthodoxy on various issues.
It's a stance that has at times been beneficial and arguably successful and at others severely annoying because it's essentially a never ending conflict against rightist bullshit, and in recent times arguably less beneficial due to the decreasing amount of people left to effortpost contrary viewpoints from positions of authority.
This might deserve it's own thread, dunno. What's the principled Marxist position on immigration. Just posted in
>>>/labor/734 that Marx thought that Irish reduced wages. But he thought it was worse that it divided the working class in the fight for higher wages. The article linked also thought there might be an imperialist negative pressure to immigration. So that NAFTA in harming native agriculturalists created immigration pressure. What's all this mean for policy though? Obviously one can continue to oppose it on the basis of the violence committed. Is the idea just to ignore the negatives and focus on organizing?
>>2240671Got anything that criticizes Social Anarchism and the modern movement?
I don't think anything you recommended was useful at all. What you recommended either doesn't accurately tackle the critique of the time or reflect the strain I'm talking about in the current movement.
>>2240835it wasn't "rad fems" it was 1 single bourgeois woman from the united states who wanted to make female emancipation and suffrage in bourgeois society the
primary issue of the international workingmen's association. It wasn't that Marx was opposed to female emancipation, it was that he did not think true emancipation was possible under bourgeois society. Woodhull was a reformist and a business owner. The idea of "rad fems" (who are reformist and liberal but not necessarily bourgeois in their class character) wouldn't exist until much later. The excerpt you are thinking of from a book written by a liberal American in the 1990s after the fall of the USSR so I honestly wouldn't trust the way it frames that event.
>>2240879I don't think you quite understand. Most of the anarchists I speak with today understand and agree with Marx on dialectical materialism. Anarchism just doesn't only take class into account and directly critiques power.Are you just saying anarchism is not proletarian because it challenges your world view? How is anarchism bourgeois?
I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm asking for or what anarchism is.
>>2240879Anarchist and communist share the same goal - a classless, stateless, and moneyless society. We disagree with communist only in the details; primarily over whether a state remains necessary in the transition towards communism or if it is possible to dissolve the state prior to achieving post-scarcity.
If you don't think a classless, stateless, and moneyless society is possible then you're not a communist, though perhaps you could belong to some other strain of leftist (read: anti-capitalist) thought.
>>2241279you're just a retard getting mad at a strawman
pro imperialist retard like you are loosing though, which is exactly why you're the ones crying, so its all fine for me if you seethe impotently about multipolarity while accusing people of holding beliefs they dont have
>>2241295The idea of a "sufficiently large vanguard" as the DotP almost sounds workable.
To be clear my problem isn't with vanguard, or democratic centralism, but vanguard as DotP. This may sound ridiculous, but could the vanguard as DotP just be the voting half of the proletariate?
>>2241800>>2241851Just can't manage to make the leap.
Seem to be able to support everything but the vanguard as DotP.
Well, that and an unprovoked (non-defensive) violent revolution.
Guess this is pretty radlib or fedpilled.
>>2241864>Well, that and an unprovoked violent revolution.This probably doesn't amount to much.
You conduct action, and then the cops are called.
All the sudden you've got people trying to violently oppress you.
You can either run or fight, or whatever, depending on circumstance.
It really does just come down to the singular point of the
vanguard as DotP.
Unique IPs: 24