1037
yearly reminder rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 6 days ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
240 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 6 days ago* (16 children)

I'm not doing anything to swap managers. My goal is to destroy the orphan crushing machine and to do that I am a member of a party focused on politically educating the working class and agitating for revolution. You can find our platform here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Nah, you're a putin boot licker.

    Funnily we rarely see your like except before elections.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 6 days ago

    That user actually happens to be one of the most well known names on Lemmy. Moreso on the leftist side these days, though.

    Liberals just tend to be more insufferable leading up to elections, which causes a lot of conflict between libs and leftists, but it's also just really fun to bait libs when they're riled up about an election, so that does tend to happen too

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago (11 children)

    That sounds about right for a party that hasn’t put a single candidate into office.

    Best of luck to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 6 days ago* (10 children)

    My goal is to destroy the orphan crushing machine

    Candidates do not get elected on the platform of "The American working class needs to violently oppose their oppressors and remove them from power by any means necessary". Socialists have tried seizing power through parliamentarianism and it hasn't worked a single time. In fact, in many cases it resulted in the complete abandonment of their principles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    I’d vote for that candidate in a heart beat.

    If you somehow convince everyone who chooses not to vote for socialism into physically overthrowing our system, call me up. I’m down for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

    I would too but they are legally disqualified from holding office according to Article 6 clause 3 and Article 4 section 4 of the constitution. Yes, you can argue that Republicans also violate these parts of the constitution and they still hold office but this is because they uphold Capitalism and are supported by Capitalists with significant power. I guarantee you these would be used against a genuine Communist candidate because they do not have such powerful support and actively oppose the system that creates that power.

    There is also the Communist Control Act which has admittedly been somewhat gutted but I don't believe for a second there wouldn't be bipartisan support for bringing it back the moment Communists become a real political threat.

    Our efforts would be expediated if people like you joined the cause and supported revolution instead of waiting for it to fall into your lap.

    To quote the lovely Mrs. Luxembourg, "It’s not that we fear for socialists the dangers and the difficulties of ministerial activity; we must not back away from any danger or difficulty attached to the post in which we are placed by the interests of the proletariat. But a ministry is not, in general, a field of action for a party of the struggle of the proletarian classes. The character of a bourgeois government isn’t determined by the personal character of its members, but by its organic function in bourgeois society. The government of the modern state is essentially an organization of class domination, the regular functioning of which is one of the conditions of existence of the class state. With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn’t transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister." [source]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Idk what you mean by “people like you” bc you absolutely do not know me, comrade.

    I’m a militant socialist and I’m already on a lot of lists bc of my efforts to organize.

    Until such time as others join me, yeah, I’m pushing better “managers.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    I apologize, the way you phrased your comment implied otherwise ❤️

    We only differ in that I will personally only vocally support anti-imperialists. I think to do otherwise is harmful. The primary goal of socialists in the imperial core is the destruction of Western (Specifically US) hegemony so that the burdens of our comrades in the global south are lessened.

    Until candidates are running on a platform of closing US military bases and cancelling poverty inducing debts imposed upon foreign peoples I won't be advocating for voting as a genuinely impactful form of political engagement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 5 days ago (5 children)

    Socialists have tried seizing power through parliamentarianism and it hasn't worked a single time

    They've also tried seizing power through direct action and that also ends in abandonment of principles (when it doesn't end in full on collapse or terminal impoverishment). Sounds like the only thing the authoritarian left can do is make other people miserable before they choke on the dust of overwhelming failure and then die. I'm glad I will see my ideas continue to work instead of tearfully insisting they haven't been tried yet for decades of increasing irrelevance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

    The Soviets took an agrarian backwater where most people were illiterate and didn't own shoes to space in roughly 40 years. During that sime time they were devastated by WW1, immediately invaded by at least 138,350 troops from 10 different nations who backed their oppressors, suffered from a civil war, dealt with literally constant industrial sabatoge, and were brutally invaded by the Germans. They didn't just liberate Europe from fascism, the made themselves into an industrial powerhouse at the same time. They had universal literacy, more doctors per capita than anywhere in the world (a title now taken by Cuba), universal healthcare, 3 years of paid maternity leave (eventually), and not just the right to paid vacations but the requirement that they take them. By no means was it wonderful and pleasant all the time for everyone but to simplify their history to "making everyone miserable before they choke on the dust of overwhelming failure and then die" is incredibly disrespectful. With the constant aggression they faced is it any surprise they had to wield authority? It reflects how little you know about socialist history beyond what your bourgeois society has spoonfed you.

    China is responsible for lifting 800 million people out of poverty and returning to them the dignity which had been stolen by imperialists. Can you say the same about your government? Is it responsible for reducing poverty or creating it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 5 days ago (3 children)

    They didn't just liberate Europe from fascism, the made themselves into an industrial powerhouse at the same time.

    Joey "the purge" Stalin, Li'l Krusha, and Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov (all of whom I'll point out knew a hell of a lot more about the great patriotic war than you do) were in unanimous agreement that the USSR would have been utterly fucked without the >17 million tons of shit with which the United States bankrolled their war effort. The Soviet Union continued to exist because of the intrinsically superior nature of market economics, which bailed the failed Soviet state out of otherwise guaranteed annihilation because the USSR was more useful alive than as suffering just deserts after their perfidity to Poland.

    is incredibly disrespectful

    Why state the obvious? I have no respect for losers and failures when they aren't practicing authoritarianism, let alone when they so abrogate their humanity. They have no respect in death and will rot on the trash heap of history like their grandsons rot unburied in Ukraine.

    China is responsible for lifting 800 million people out of poverty and

    and killing about 60 million by doing stupid shit for no good reason. Rome was able to ply the masses with free bread for generations, as well as genociding minority cultures.

    but what about YOUR culture, HUH?

    LOL

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

    I was entirely aware of the assistance the USSR received from western powers. Doesn't change the fact the USSR was responsible for 80% of Nazi deaths and sacrificed more than anyone to do so. I am not asking you to respect the state and the representatives within it. I am asking you to respect the millions of people within the Soviet Union who toiled everyday to build a better life for each other and their descendents. I am asking you to respect the people who believed a better world was possible, spent every day working for it, and truly accomplished it without the imperialist plunder western empires engaged in for centuries before they decided workers deserve a smidgin of rights if they promise not to kill their oppressors.

    The Soviet Union had market forces starting with the NEP in 1921. It is a legitimate method of building up the productive forces within the dictatorship of the proletariat. It didn't "bail them out" it was a strategy that communists have used and continue to use to their benefit. Market economies are only "intrinsically superior" if your goal is to industrialize quickly. They are not intrinsically superior if you are trying to immediately provide the best conditions for working people. If your measurement of success is measured by how much stuff you can produce is quickly as possible it is because you have bought in to bourgeois values.

    I won't deny that China made some mistakes that are retrospectively obvious. It is important to note that the obviousness is retrospective and external to the Chinese experience however. This doesn't change the fact that the Communist Party of China is responsible for one of the greatest poverty alleviation efforts in human history and that this results from their interest in providing for working people as representatives of the proletariat.

    I mean it when I say what about your society. If Communism is so inherently awful every time why has it done these things? Why hasn't Capitalism? If Capitalism is so preferable to Communism why does it rely on the systematic impoverishment of the global south? You often hear the claim that Communism killed 100 million people and this is obviously false when you actually investigate the source (The Black Book of Communism) but say we accept that claim. Let's say Communism did kill 100 million people. Capitalism is STILL worse. Britain killed at least 100 million if not 160 million in India alone all in the interest of profit. source (seriously read this paper it has a lot more than that in it) That's one imperialist state out of many in only one of the regions they exploited. This is to say, at the worst most propagandistic estimation of how many people Communism has killed, it still fails to beat the deaths caused by Capitalism in just one region. Sure, some people died because of Communism but lets not sit around pretending its success depends on slaughter like Capitalism does.

    I want you to seriously think about Africa for a minute. It's colonization is a pretty recent thing, only really kicking off in 1884. The states responsible were Capitalist. Marx was dead before the Berlin Conference. Capitalism raped an entire continent. The population of the Congo was reduced by nearly half in only 23 years. CAPITALISM IS A FUCKING DEATH CULT! THE FACT THIS YOU DO NOT LIVE WITH AN UNDYING ANGER FOR IT AND THE PEOPLE WHO ADMINISTER IT RUNS ME UP THE FUCKING WALLS!

    I really try not to get mad at liberals online as I think its bad form but holy shit just writing this last part out raised my blood pressure. It sickens me that people like you can act smug online and butcher the history of people who fought for a better world they genuinely believed in because capitalist bloodbaths secure their little treats and semi-comfortable lives. The people of Gaza are being eviscerated and starved to protect your "inherently superior market system". Iranian schoolgirls were blown to bits and the Cuban people have suffered under siege for decades for your fucking treats. Fuck you

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    I hear there may be better methods of destroying orphan crushing machines than clogging them with orphans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

    Electing more effective administrators of the orphan crushing machine isn't one of them. Electing administrators who give you a bigger cut of the profits produced by the orphan crushing machine also is not one of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent