We’re back to the old problem again, however. CPRF’s reactionary sexual politics is used to legitimize NATO passive-aggression, when they toe the UR line as much as needed to maintain electoral support and infiltrate the Russian state apparatus.
As I’ve shown with Hamas and the Palestinians, Zionists use the traditional or reactionary politics of Palestinian independence organizations to delegitimize them.
To put it another way, the Orthodox Church was not abolished in the Soviet Union, and the Chinese did not put out foreign religions when they had revolutionary success.
Critical support is not the same as either uncritical support or opposition: we are not opposing Hamas or CPRF based on their traditionalist gender and sexual attitudes, even if we oppose their traditionalist gender and sexual attitudes.
If you cannot critically support revolutionary movements, then you cannot be a Marxist, but instead a neo-conservative, because NATO raping your country is the fastest way to get feminist and LGBTQIA+ policies enacted.
Fact of the matter is, most of BRICS and AES are more retrograde on LGBTQIA+ than Western nations, and China has shown backsliding, with the Global Times editor-in-chief being censored for plugging a transgender talkshow host on his Weibo.
It is a perfectly valid position to take a pro-Western bourgeois democracy stance if you make LGBTQIA+ the core of your politics, but if you don’t, you accept critical support as your main line.
Slavic culture is relatively homophobic, including during the Soviet era. I’d see this as Socialism with Russian characteristics and not ask Russians to hold a Western attitude toward LGBTQIA+ unless they are in the West.
I support a common-sense level of paranoia. As long as you don’t do something illegal or too threatening, you’re fine.
I don’t think people here are on the verge of crossing the line, whereas on Leftypol you had former posts discussing guns, as well as NAFO glowtrap posts discussing drone terrorism.
TBH, I just think it’s best to assume everything is a glowop and try to focus on useful praxis and useful theory. Even if things aren’t glowops now, if you get enough visibility, security agencies will come after you.
I’m probably going to repost a finished version soon, but I’ll leave this comment.
I’m basically trying to import/export socialism with Chinese characteristics to Western contexts.
The only real difference is that we generally do not have control, and are insurgents until we control enough of the economy. And adventurism around the 33% scale becomes viable: i.e, aggressive means to destabilize competitors, like forced unionization, industrial espionage, and financial warfare (hope you liked your CDS in 2008!)
I’ve never said anything about having the right people in charge; this post is about a change in strategy and methods.
I also don’t think I’ve jettisoned the idea of class struggle because the idea of using industrial cooperatives that are also party-owned means that such enterprises are essentially proletarian and proletarian controlled in character, but it moves class struggle from the social and political environment to the economic marketplace.
Destroy Porky’s market share. Kill bourgeois profits. Different mindset, different mechanisms.
I’d like to put out a fuller response, but I’d rather have fully posted the OP.
I think Hazan put out a similar idea for how he’d want to build the ACP, but I think he’s oversimplified things and hasn’t identified the flaws, even at a minimum stage. I think the ACP, in general, is not qualified for his business plan of having party cells operate as enterprises, and it’ll rapidly go down the sink for that reason.
As for your criticism concerning capitalist opposition, the simple way to do it is simply to publicly list the POE / industrial cooperatives (but not the party itself) once the business is viable, taking care to maintain worker / party control, but allow the bourgeoisie to buy stakes.
It’s Dengist insofar as that’s how Deng and China succeeded; capitalists will sell you the rope that will hang them, if they think it’ll make them a quick buck. If, say, Blackrock and/or Goldman own a 30% stake, you essentially have cover from elements of the capitalist system, because they want to protect their investment.
As an addendum, part of the idea is simply to have a lopsided incentives structure (in at least some of the firms within Red Zaibatsu) such that the business HAS to be Marxist in order to function. To cut to the chase, the level of labor discipline and pay is such that you won’t work at a Red Zaibatsu-held firm unless you were ideologically committed, and if these firms somehow lose their Marxist character, it simply no longer makes sense to work at such a company.
It’s what I’d bring up as to how Huawei works (Huawei is abusive insofar as its prospective long-term employees are expected to sign a strivers’ contract pledging dedication to the firm, which includes being assignable across the planet as the company sees fit, and working extremely long hours. Note that Huawei is still a worker’s cooperative with profit sharing).
The ideological commitment to socialism, in my view, is the competitive advantage that allows “vanguard-type” (not all Party-held firms are vanguard-type) firms to defeat their capitalist competitors, and if you destroy the system of worker and party ownership while capitalists are invested, well, you just forced Goldman / Blackrock to take a huge haircut on their investment, because the company is no longer competitive. That protects the Party-owned economy from the wider capitalist system.
What’s the use of leftychan if it’s just as bad as leftypol?
Sigh, and apparently a NAFO troll recently killed himself, ex-infantry (not sure if he had MOS changed to psyops afterwards). The rumor was that he was sexually accosting an underage girl, got reported, and well…
But I can’t find any substantiation or investigation of the rumor, and I can’t ask on Leftypol because it’s no longer under friendly control (now we’re getting people calling materialist dialectics stupid).
Would have been a fun scoop though if he was still working professionally, had his designation changed to psyops, AND was sexually harassing minors.
Leftypol and CSAM is more an issue of Leftypol being immersed in chan culture, where dumping CSAM is a common troll, and the fact that Leftypol’s moderation staff is rarely active. Not only can CSAM exist for way too long, anti-semitic material can take hours before moderation responds.
And yeah, the pro-NATO posters doing the raid had moderator support, so to me, it’s support for your hypothesis that the thing is a government honeytrap.
bloodgasm is actually supporting the NAFO guys trying to brigade “revolutionary defeatism” and “anti-campism”. That should explain all you need to know about why people might consider migrating.
I’m up to Chapter 4, after having preread Chapter 14 (last chapter).
TBH, honestly, it sounds like the cultural DNA of the United States is extremely diseased (being based on bourgeois settlers living off enslaved Africans on land expropriated from Amerindians in a most brutal fashion, and having voted, similar to the current Israelis, for a monster). I wonder if having done a decent course in Marxist American studies would have saved the Soviet leadership from attempting to negotiate with the Americans, and when that failed, to have the Soviets commit suicide in an attempt to bring peace.
I mean, I’m mildly familiar with other histories of demographic expansion, but you can draw a straight line from the genocide of Amerindians to modern American imperialism. Some things never change.
Transpeople should be socially accepted and supported.
Settlers; any suggestion for a particular reading strategy? As a soon-to-be-former Leftypoler, I’m way too familiar with a pessimistic view to history, so the notion of Americans dehumanizing, decimating， and displacing Amerindians is a bit trite. What elements should I focus on to expand my understanding? The psychology of colonialism, like the self-defense mechanisms settlers used to consider themselves human despite the violence they inflicted on other human beings? The seguing of violence: how by dehumanizing and committing atrocities on others, the inhibitions against violence on one’s own ingroup was reduced? The anatomy of moderate defeat: how humanists tried and failed to stem the tide of their less humane countrymen, and were ostracized in turn for opposing “progress”?
Looks way more interesting (IIRC I had confused it for some other history of American colonization), and the questions I have for reading it (i.e, psychology and sociology of a labor aristocracy) are better.
2·8 days ago
We’re back to the old problem again, however. CPRF’s reactionary sexual politics is used to legitimize NATO passive-aggression, when they toe the UR line as much as needed to maintain electoral support and infiltrate the Russian state apparatus.
As I’ve shown with Hamas and the Palestinians, Zionists use the traditional or reactionary politics of Palestinian independence organizations to delegitimize them.
To put it another way, the Orthodox Church was not abolished in the Soviet Union, and the Chinese did not put out foreign religions when they had revolutionary success.
Critical support is not the same as either uncritical support or opposition: we are not opposing Hamas or CPRF based on their traditionalist gender and sexual attitudes, even if we oppose their traditionalist gender and sexual attitudes.
If you cannot critically support revolutionary movements, then you cannot be a Marxist, but instead a neo-conservative, because NATO raping your country is the fastest way to get feminist and LGBTQIA+ policies enacted.