[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1614081578279.png (231.2 KB, 500x566, this not that.png)

 No.91010[Last 50 Posts]

He is a treasure. I was thus far more intersted on what he has to say about the media and contemporary capitalism, but his work on Roman history is also great. Am just watching his lecture on the assasination of Ceasar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o

Say something nice about Michael Parenti.
>>

 No.91015

>>91010
Aside from his politics, he is just a genuine Chad. He gives passionate but informed speeches and literary works. He doesn't cares too much about the haters, but still somewhat engages with them.
I wish this guy was my grandpa or something
>>

 No.91017

And I also forgott to mention that he wrote about the media and "manufacturing consent" before Chomsky and Herman stole the whole concept.
>>

 No.91043

This is stupid to say they stole the whole concept, both books, manufacturing consent and inventing reality are different enough although they talk roughly about the same thing. Chomsky is also not anti communist, he's just a libertarian one. Both are worthwhile to read tbh.
>>

 No.91058

>>91043
He’s a left anticommunist
>>

 No.91061

File: 1614087010063.jpg (114.84 KB, 828x522, 1phxuahzkxt51.jpg)

>>91058
would a left anticommunist defend pol pot
>>

 No.91066

>>91043
Chomsky is good to read, I don't say that. Only that his takes on communist struggles in history around the world are stupid.
>>

 No.91068

>>91061
>well, you see, pol pot is against the soviet union and his regime will probably fail in a couple of years so he must be a real socialist
>>

 No.91082

>>91061
yes
an anti-communist would defend an anti-communist

just kidding, i don't know if chomsky is an anti-communist
>>

 No.91122

File: 1614092956485.jpeg (21.57 KB, 400x300, mred.jpeg)

>language is innate to humans
>only humans can talk
I would like to see Parenti BTFO Chomsky's insultingly speciesist linguistics theories.
>>

 No.91248

File: 1614103753206.png (223.38 KB, 525x350, chadsky.png)

CHAD incomin'
>>

 No.91250

Parenti was once a friend of Bernie Sanders, with whom he later split over Sanders's support for the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
>>

 No.91251

>>91250
lmao yeah i read that on wikipedia
why did bernie support bombing on yugoslavia
>>

 No.91252

>>

 No.91256

>>

 No.91258

>>91251
Because he is a Jew and there was a genocide going on.
>>

 No.91262

>>91258
then why did parenti oppose the bombing
did he consider breaking up with a friend as some valid form of resisting american hegemony and considered that to be more important than a genocide being stopped?
>>

 No.91264

>>91262
Parenti doesn't believe in the genocide
>>

 No.91268

>>91262
This is the most faggoted question I have ever seen. Do you really think he thought his break-up with bernie would have any real impact on the situation on Yugoslavia? No, Bernie was just an annoying faggot to him.
>>

 No.91288

“Communism did work” gives me chills to this day.
>>

 No.91290

Parenti is usually pretty good but his Stalinist apologism is weak. He likes to make excuses for lack of democracy and bureaucratic systems guaranteed to devolve back into capitalism as "they fed the children so it's okay". Slave masters fed their slaves' children too, that doesn't justify the system.
>>

 No.91293

>>91290
You clearly never read him his defense for "stalinist systems" is much more than that
It's just a phrase in his videos a metaphor for the betterment of the material conditions for the people
>>

 No.91294

>>91290
To be fair, he did mention that Stalin had a lot of excesses while in power. Nevertheless, he was still a Stalin stan, as any ML should be.
>>

 No.91295

File: 1614107360212.mp4 (146.6 KB, 256x250, 1610670551729.mp4)

>>

 No.91296

>>91293
I've read several of his books but none on Stalinist communism. Heard many talks though. Are you saying he hides behind disingenuous rhetoric in his talks but his books on communism have more substance?
>>

 No.91299

>>91295
Got an argument?
>>

 No.91301

>>91264
Good, there was no genocide. There was inter-ethnic violence betewen Kosovo's Albanian and Serbian populations. In majority Albanian areas Albanians commited violence against Serbs and in Serb majority areas Serbs commited violence against Albanians. Very similar shit to Bosnia, where Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs commited grusome acts against one another.
>>

 No.91302

>>91299
You are asking for an argument while spewing argumentless nonsense yourself? Nice one.
>>

 No.91303

>>91296
A talk is neccesaraly less in depth than a book
>>

 No.91310

>>91302
<Slave masters fed their slaves' children too, that doesn't justify the system.
Awaiting your rebuttal.
>>

 No.91317

File: 1614107878314.webm (11.17 MB, 640x360, chomsky does growth justi….webm)

As a matter of fact Chomsky himself has a good takedown of this line of reasoning.
>>

 No.91335

>>91310
It's not an intellectual argument it's a populist anti imperialist talking point read one of his books and come back
>>

 No.91342

>>91335
>someone else made your argument so it's invalid
That's a fallacy, try harder. If you're so convinced by the arguments in his books you should have no trouble putting some of them forth.
>>

 No.91351

>>91342
Whats a fallacy?
What are you even talking about
>>

 No.91411

File: 1614109321203.png (14.57 KB, 348x145, index.png)

>>91290
>stalinist apologism
Have you even read Parenti? He's willing to criticize Stalin more than most of the retard MLs on this website. Even Parenti can admit the ethnic cleansings were unjustified, something a lot of leftypol-er aesthetic MLs can't seem to come to grips with lol
>>

 No.91425

File: 1614109492870.jpg (106.15 KB, 1200x628, Ej1O-OEUYAA_r_U.jpg)

>>

 No.91429

>>91317
chomsky is a retard.
>>

 No.91436

>>91429
imb4 someone says "not an argument", fucking chomsky doing the CIA's work (not for free since he technically gets paid by them).
>>

 No.91440

>>91436
>One of the most ruthless critics of the CIA is doing the CIA's work because he said a couple of mean things about the Soviet Union
Ok, if you say so
>>

 No.91441

>>91425
>defends communist repression
When does he explicitly do this
>>

 No.91444

>>91441
lol idk, I didn't make it.
>>

 No.91445

>>91436
faggot all chomsky talks about is the CIA, if that man is a glowie then even parenti is fair game
>>

 No.91447

File: 1614109763627.mp4 (6.67 MB, 854x480, What role did Iran play ag….mp4)

>>91301
>Good, there was no genocide.
>>

 No.91451

>>

 No.91457

>>91451
Can you explain why?
>>

 No.91465

>>91444
parenti is not a stalinist
>>

 No.91474

>>91436
>>91440
>>91445

https://redsails.org/on-chomsky/

>All this negativity raises the question: does anyone ever get it right? Who does Chomsky like? What kind of institutions or individuals would he put forward as role models?


>Well, Chomsky begins his career with US military funding in the mid-1950s:


<I would like to express my gratitude to the Society of Fellows for having provided me with the freedom to carry on this research.


<This work was supported in part by the U.S.A. Army (Signal Corps), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research and Development Command), and the Navy (Office of Naval Research); and in part by the National Science Foundation and the Eastman Kodak Corporation.


>He was pretty grateful then. And, in 1995, he had this to say to a NYT interviewer about the appointment of his MIT peer John M. Deutch as head of the CIA:


<[Deutch] has more honesty and integrity than anyone I’ve ever met in academic life, or any other life. If somebody’s got to be running the CIA, I’m glad it’s him.


>Deutch now serves on the Board of Directors of Citigroup, Cummins, Raytheon, and Schlumberger. Great guy!


>Another thing Chomsky is a fan of is Rojava. From an interview with Mehdi Hasan in 2016:


<I’m not an absolute pacifist, I think there are times when the use of military forces defensively is [legitimate] and ISIL is one of them. Defending the Kurds against the ISIL attacks? Yes, that’s legitimate.


>So we do have options that fit with the Chomsky framework: funding people like him, becoming director of the CIA, or perhaps signing up for deployment to areas like Syria, where the US is attempting regime change operations.
>>

 No.91509

>>91474
Ah I see, I guess he has some skeletons in the closet.
>>

 No.91522

>>91509
Was Chomsky on the Lolita plane? Kek
>>

 No.91550

>>91457
"pragmatic anarchism" has been a crypto-liberal bs since way way way back.

Remember that Chomsky was against the USSR when it mattered. If he's been consistent about something it has been about being an anti-leftist.
Remember that Chomsky was "anti-stalinist" when the "scary stalinists" with their "hierarchies" were actually fighting for shit with guns in the US, Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, etc etc.
While Chomsky was "saying mean things about the USSR" the CIA was actively killing MLs who in some cases received aid from the USSR around the world.
Remember that since the dissolution of the USSR world power have taken it to mean free reign to do whatever the fuck they want, which is why unions are non-existent in many places around the world.

All this time, Chomsky has been shilling for "justified hierarchies" in anarco-syndicalist unions who have all cucked out left and right and he continues to shit on actual leftists.

Also he entirely dismisses leftist authors on bogus claims, including Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Plus the entire continental philosophy.
>>

 No.91567

>>91295
Stalin is an important figure and still needs to be discussed in our modern age.
>>

 No.91589

>>91550
>Remember that Chomsky was against the USSR when it mattered. If he's been consistent about something it has been about being an anti-leftist.
>Remember that Chomsky was "anti-stalinist" when the "scary stalinists" with their "hierarchies" were actually fighting for shit with guns in the US, Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, etc etc.
>While Chomsky was "saying mean things about the USSR" the CIA was actively killing MLs who in some cases received aid from the USSR around the world.
The thing though is that Chomsky opposed America aggression against those groups. He may not have always supported them per se, but he opposed the main force that was getting in their way. If you live in the United States and you want to make things easier for groups opposing American imperialism, what is the best thing you can do? Oppose American imperialism. Now he may not have been 100% consistent in his opposition to American imperialism, but, overall, he was a staunch critic of it.
>>

 No.91617

>>91589
"both sides bad" is what is currently used to combat Xinjiang misinformation. That was what chomsky has been doing for his entire career as an """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""activist"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>

 No.91626

>>91589
I understand where you're coming from, but if you only oppose imperialism without supporting an organization that can wield power to actively combat that imperialism, then your opposition ultimately amounts to nothing.
>>

 No.91638

>>91617
I think you missed my point. Maybe Chomsky is not 100% supportive of actually-existing socialism, but he is strongly opposed to the main force that has historically gotten in its way, American imperialism. Suppose the United States suddenly abandoned all the policies that Chomsky has criticized. Would this benefit or hurt those movements?

>>91626
I agree that offering some sort of support to those organizations would be good, but opposing their main enemy is just as good if not better. Bear in mind that the average American can probably do more to fight American foreign policy at home than it can to help groups that are being hurt by it in other countries.
>>

 No.91646

>>91429
What's wrong with his argument in the clip though?
>>

 No.91652

>>91425
>another newfag completely misinterpreting this meme
The chad isn't supposed to be a role model you masculinity-worshipping idiots.
>>

 No.91659

File: 1614113086245.jpg (25.71 KB, 252x346, chortling hi res lad.jpg)

>>91638
>actually-existing socialism
>>

 No.91676

>>91638
>I agree that offering some sort of support to those organizations would be good, but opposing their main enemy is just as good if not better.
That's the thing, though. His opposition only exists in the form of criticizing the status quo without actually providing a prescriptive means to combat it. By attacking the ideologies that pose a threat to capitalist hegemony and misdirecting his readers energies towards political dead-ends like anarcho-syndicalism he ultimately perpetuates the very thing he claims to oppose. His work has been nothing but hurtful to the western socialist movement.
>>

 No.91677

>>91262
>Pretending like NATO gives half a shit about “preventing genocide”
>>

 No.91684

>>91652
NTA, but you must be fun at parties
>>

 No.91689

>>91676
Chomsky supports anarcho-syndicalism? I'm not sure I've ever even heard him utter a word about the IWW.
>>

 No.91704

File: 1614114311243.mp4 (2.75 MB, 854x468, JVCHE.mp4)

>>91659
Yes you fucking faggot
>>

 No.91728

>>91689
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky

>Noam Chomsky describes himself as an anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist


>He identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism in particular cases, and is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World.
>>

 No.91732

>>916464
He's saying that the improvements of people's live under stalinism was not justified because muh repression. Also he discredits MLs when they've been instrumental to labor rights in the US and abroad. "Similar [justifying slavery] arguments were given for bolshevism" that's incredibly dishonest. It is incredibly disingenuous to believe that the revolutionaries in Russia were going to make Chomsky's anarco-syndicalism. Chomsky wasn't even alive to give his shit takes on what was to be done after the revolution. It's pure utopianism of the worst kind. He's basically saying "tsarists were just as repressive as the bolshevics", ignoring tons of historical context. Might as well say that the bolshevics were bad because they violated the NAP.

Growth itself is obviously not an argument for fascism or for any other political system. Capitalism means growth for primarily the rich, on account of everybody else. Fascism might mean growth for the rich primarily, also for the rest of the country, on account of all other countries that will get invaded and killed. It's incredibly disingenuous to discredit the soviet system because they grew, and conflating arguments for growth of fascism and capitalism as being that same as arguments of growth for soviet style economies.

>>91676
Exactly. He's a sophisticated Vaush-ite, not even exaggerating.

>>91689
Only half-heartidly. He pays lip service to "anarchism" and jacks off to hating "unjustified hierarchies". He's never done anything substantial except be edgy against CNN etc. He has a book about anarchism which is the most wet rag leftist book I have ever read. He proposes absolutely NOTHING in the book. It's 100% virtue signaling. There is no word in that book that's end purpose isn't to virute signal.
>>

 No.91734

>>91676
>That's the thing, though. His opposition only exists in the form of criticizing the status quo without actually providing a prescriptive means to combat it.
Not true. He supported the protests against the Vietnam War, which arguably constituted the most successful anti-imperialist movement in the United States since WWII.
>>

 No.91751

File: 1614115604369.jpg (113.43 KB, 1200x630, kurt-vonnegut-quote-lbg2p2….jpg)

>>91734
>the most successful anti-imperialist movement in the United States since WWII.

That's… not exactly a high bar, and really, did the Vietnam protests accomplish anything other than giving American New Left boomers a sense of undeserved moral superiority?
>>

 No.91767

>>91751
It did help put an end to the war, even if it took a long time. I do agree that future antiwar movements need some bigger guns, like general strikes, if they hope to succeed in a more timely manner.
>>

 No.91773

>>91290
His Milosevic apologist is more frightening to me
>>

 No.91782

>>91773
Milosevic was based
>>

 No.91787

>>

 No.91788

>>91787
He fought the non serbs
>>

 No.91790

File: 1614116969661-0.png (494.57 KB, 3400x2400, Life expectancy 1770 to 20….png)

File: 1614116969661-1.png (318.42 KB, 3400x2400, Literate and illiterate wo….png)

File: 1614116969661-2.png (444.99 KB, 3400x2400, Number of people with and ….png)

File: 1614116969661-3.png (420.28 KB, 3400x2400, Number of people with and ….png)

File: 1614116969661-4.png (435.14 KB, 3400x2400, Share of people who are un….png)

Just a friendly reminder, the "The revolution that feeds the children gets my support" logic can be used as an argument in favor of neoliberalism.
>>

 No.91804

>>91767
>It did help put an end to the war, even if it took a long time.
What helped more, losing the war, or passive aggressive chomsky-remarks?
>I do agree that future antiwar movements need some bigger guns, like general strikes
Weren't most labor unions (read: all except the IWW and socialist ones) in favor or silent about the vietnam war?
>>91790
Any system "feeds some children". The revolution "that feeds ALL of the children" is a good revolution, not one that reduces undernourishment in a 20 year period, and that is only one part of the puzzle, as you say suggest.
So, neoliberalism isn't actually "feeding the children".
To be fair though, life has gotten "better" in all of these regards, but not in many others. I'm bearish on these "improvements" continuing.
>>

 No.91824

>>91804
>What helped more, losing the war, or passive aggressive chomsky-remarks?
America lost when it withdrew, and it withdrew largely because the protests. Chomsky by himself had no ability to end the war, but he could support the mass movement against it.
>Weren't most labor unions (read: all except the IWW and socialist ones) in favor or silent about the vietnam war?
Mainstream unions like the AFL-CIO varied a lot in their stance on the war, but I do believe the more radical unions like the IWW were consistently opposed to it. Reforming mainstream unions to be more radical or building up new ones would be a good idea though if you want to make them willing to do things like general strikes. Passing pro-union legislation like the PRO Act and gutting anti-union legislation like the Taft-Hartley Act could help too.
>Any system "feeds some children". The revolution "that feeds ALL of the children" is a good revolution
Well a lot of Marxist-Leninist states didn't exactly achieve that either, especially in their early years.
>I'm bearish on these "improvements" continuing.
I agree with you here.
>>

 No.91831

>>91824
>America lost when it withdrew,
Why did it withdraw?
>Well a lot of Marxist-Leninist states didn't exactly achieve that either, especially in their early years.
Was there enough food for everyone? Or was the system withholding food from the citizenry like under neoliberalism?

I'm not against unions, but I'm not "muh unions" either.
>>

 No.91837

>>91790
I'm not accusing you of it, but neoliberals who present these things as being the primary result of their counterrevolution should be garotted with piano wire.
The benefits of opening up international trade are relatively clean and clear cut. Their macroeconomic approach, however, has been ruinous. Increasing liberalization of international trade was built into the post-1945 capitalist consensus (GATT has existed since 1947), for neoliberals to take credit for it is grotesque.

I'm not setting the eschatron as postwar consensus capitalism here, it's just the most useful comparison.
>>

 No.91846

>>91788
The kebabs ought to remove you, cunt.
>>

 No.91849

>>91831
>Why did it withdraw?
Lack of progress against the Vietnamese (due to their fierce resistance) and opposition at home
>Was there enough food for everyone? Or was the system withholding food from the citizenry like under neoliberalism?
In the case of the Soviet Union, yes. The Soviet Union exported grain during famines to fund industrialization. The forced collectivization also incentivized a lot of peasants to destroy or withhold crops. They also criminalized gleaning, refused to provide aid to starving peasants, and didn't allow starving peasants to leave their villages to find food elsewhere. Things did eventually improve though with no more famines occurring after 1950. Maoist China also made some policy fuckups that caused famine, like the Four Pests. However, China only experienced one major famine and has been doing much better since.

>>91837
Ah, so it has more to do with the post-1945 capitalist consensus. I am not surprised, considering that really big famines like the 1943 Bengal Famine seem to have mostly stopped after WWII.
>>

 No.91888

>>91790
Life expectancy for Americans has actually gone down for the fourth or fifth year in a row now.
>>

 No.91895

>>

 No.91916

>>91849
Are you implying the Soviet Union starved people on purpose?
>>

 No.91921

File: 1614124608881.jpeg (33.68 KB, 558x614, EF5F408D-24F6-429D-9377-4….jpeg)

>>91916
Yes
90% of online anarchists are unironic glowing niggas
>>

 No.91922

>>91010
Parenti is a pseud tbh, he hasn't written anything unique or interesting, just polemics.
>>

 No.91923

>>91010
Parenti is a pseud tbh, he hasn't written anything unique or interesting, just polemics.
>>

 No.91926

>>91916
Not sure if they did it on purpose, but they did make decisions that caused and/or exacerbated famines.

>>91921
I'm not an anarchist.
>>

 No.91930

>>91926
>Caused
<Commies starved trillions lmao
Just fuck off
>>

 No.91931

File: 1614125508263.jpg (41.36 KB, 500x392, tumblr_inline_p7tnkhAL401r….jpg)

Not going to lie, Michael Parenti to MLs, is what Chomsky is to Anarchists.

While both do have fantastic critiques of anti-imperialism, both wind up either 1. being apologetics for reactionary institutions, 2. strawman opposing leftist thought 3. have outright denied genocide.

THAT BEING SAID
i find the left tends to wind up simping for figureheads as opposed to critically engaging with their ideas. Using Chomsky to point out US war crimes isn't bad, nor is using Parenti. This is just high-school clique tier posturing. No leftist thinker is without their fair share of brainlet moments. Chomsky and Parenti are no exceptions to this rule.
>>

 No.91933

>>91931
>Implying the holodomor or cambodia was genocide

Ok Nazi.
>>

 No.91935

File: 1614125737959.jpg (143.44 KB, 1121x876, 94556c7458f1cd8fe8a45e9fd8….jpg)

>>91921
>y-you're the real glowies
going to need a citation on that, agent smith.
>>

 No.91937

File: 1614125853761.png (180.67 KB, 376x439, 973.png)

>>91933
>implying I was talking about the holodomor
>not the bosnian genocide
<defending pol pot while calling others glowie

Whatever you're smoking lad, I'm willing to take a hit.
>>

 No.91938

>>91937
Not sure where Parenti denied genocide in Bosnia. If he didn't, maybe you shouldn't group the two together like a fucking retard
>>

 No.91939

>>91937
Do you even know what the fuck a glowie is? I can kind of tell you don't, according to your retarded picrel >>91935. Usually these sorts of things is anarcho-cope
>>

 No.91941

File: 1614126310177.jpeg (247.15 KB, 1543x705, 033546E7-3775-42D6-ABC2-C….jpeg)

>>91935
When you continuously push US state propaganda against historical socialist states up to and including the idea that communists caused the famines that occurred in agrarian countries with histories of major famines, then yes, you glow bright as the Sun friendo
>>

 No.91943

>>91938
>not sure where Parenti denied genocide in Bosnia
https://genocideinbosnia.blogspot.com/2005/07/proving-genocide-in-bosnia.html

http://instituteforgenocide.org/?p=2557#_edn2

>>91939
>do you even know what a glowie is, you dumb anarkiddie.
1. Not an anarchist
2.I don't know agent smith, you tell me.

>>91941
I've literally never said anything about communists intentionally causing famines. Quit acting like a fuckwit and calm down.

Is Parenti a glowie because the man actively criticised the USSR for ethnic deportations as seen here?

>>91411
>>

 No.91945

>>91930
Nice strawman bro
>>

 No.91947

>>91930
Dude, initial Soviet policy (also combined with Kulak sabotage and poor weather conditions) regarding collectivisation utterly backfired, but that's to be expected when you have people trying to apply "dialectic materialism" to plants.

Without a doubt, the USSR got their shit together in the latter half and there were no further famines, which certainly shows that they didn't intend to starve people for the sake of wiping them out ethnically, however you can't deny that this initial policy was disastrous.
>>

 No.91948

File: 1614126797711.png (89.39 KB, 255x170, D065A88E-B382-4DC0-97B0-B7….png)

>>91943
> Is Parenti a glowie because the man actively criticised the USSR for ethnic deportations as seen here?
No because based Parenti doesn’t spread CIA talking points devoid of nuance glow nigga
>>

 No.91951

File: 1614126883779.png (98 KB, 232x217, 1F7749AC-3035-4811-BC3A-0E….png)

>>91947
The glowing nigga shit comes in when you pretend as though there wasn’t already a famine occurring in that region of the world by the time of collectivization
>>

 No.91955

>>91951
>>91948
And I'm not providing nuance how? Again, I do not view the Holodomor as a genocide, but you have to concede that as the famine was happening the initial soviet reaction to it was poor. Again, I've made a point to say that they got their shit together in the latter half, but to say that I'm spreading "CIA propaganda" for criticising the USSR and Parenti is a huge case of you being perpetually online.
>>

 No.91958

>>91943
Those are all secondary sources. From the "institute for genocide"….in Canada of all places.
>>

 No.91961

>>91958
Wikipedia says 8372 people were victims. A tragedy, but not on Nazi tier of denial.
>>

 No.91965

>>91958
>Those are all secondary sources.
Which are responses to Parenti's work, while providing evidence to counter Parenti's claims made in his book, not to mention in the other article "Proving Genocide in Bosnia" they make citations of reports and primary sources in the documents.

>but it's from canada

Poisoning the well is not an argument, not to mention you're conveniently glossing over the other article showing that these were in fact Genocides.

Seriously, get the campist mentality out of your head and actually practice what you preach: approaching subject matters with nuance.
>>

 No.91976

>>91941
>historical socialist states
But this is an oxymoron, there are no states in the history of the Earth that have ever implemented a socialist mode of production. Just because they're governed by communist parties doesn't make them socialist states.
>>

 No.91992

File: 1614129300376.webm (4.79 MB, 400x225, osmium alloy bomb.webm)

>>

 No.91994

File: 1614129336025.png (20.16 KB, 255x142, tiredpepe.png)

>>

 No.92079

>>91947
>apply "dialectic materialism" to plants.
what the fuck are you talking about? I hope you're not talking abut lysenko, and implying his researched caused famines …………
>>

 No.92137

>>91264
Why

>>91268
This is the most triggered answer I have ever seen. Is he your grandpa or something?

>>91677
I don't think NATO gives a shit about the genocide. And I don't understand how a bombing would stop the genocide, who was doing the genocide in the first place?
>>

 No.92223

>>91937
And the bombing of Yugoslavia has nothing to do with the Bosnian war, but with violence in Kosovo.
>>

 No.92245

>>91264
Neither does Chomsky. That is one thing they both agree on.
>>

 No.92341

>>92245
What is their reason for that
>>

 No.96077

bump. we need more parenti simps.
>>

 No.96080

Parenti brought me out of my succdem post-Bernie box and taught me that communism is actually based.

Unique IPs: 39

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]