The Leftist AssemblyBoard

Search

Search

(?)

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .858859860861862863864. . .2,3172,318»
LodgedFromMessages

Post self-deleted by Valator.

Valator

Visslands wrote:I was about to say it. A good idea it seems to me.

Sweet I'm gonna start looking on about the whole thing. And I'll probably get accounts from some people.

Visslands and Deustch republia

Unia riff

I was curious about something . I see we are one of the strongest regions in the world , but I see a very similar region near us called the democratic socialists assembly . Democratic socialists are leftists too , why they didn't join us or why are we separate groups ?

Greylyn and Visslands

The Socialist People's Republics of Kavagrad

Unia riff wrote:I was curious about something . I see we are one of the strongest regions in the world , but I see a very similar region near us called the democratic socialists assembly . Democratic socialists are leftists too , why they didn't join us or why are we separate groups ?

The DSA are an ally of ours, within the larger structure of NSLeft. Each region in NSLeft has it's own long history and community, hence why we remain separate.

Nottinhaps, Greylyn, and Visslands

Tolstoyan commune

Hello

Greylyn, Fevhader, and Visslands

Visslands

Tolstoyan commune wrote:Hello

Greetings comrade!

Greylyn

via The Revolutionary Communist Alliance

The Anarchists Not Marxists of Marxist Canada

Valator wrote:TRCA made a dispatch about their experience with the NSLEFT and it's just against everything that we had said and lies plague the whole dispatch. So frustrated with them. They knew what we had told them and ignored.

I never said anything I wrote was factual, I wrote a story from my personal point of view about how it looked to me. I wrote the dispatch to try to get you and other members to at least see our point of view instead of dismissing it. Nothing I said were truths or lies, they were opinions and poibts of view. It was objective from my point of view, and saying the dispatch was full of lies is completely ignoring the message and the reason I wrote the dispatch. Also, I specifically stated this at the end. I also requested no hostile comments, and you couldve written this message in a way that is not hostile, and empasized that it is what you see so that I can see your point of view.

Valator wrote:What would y'all think I did a dispatch article on this event.

At the end of my dispatch I invited people on your side to write a reverse of what I wrote from your side's point of view. If we can understand what each other think, it will be easier to resolve this understanding.

The People's Republic of Cedoria

You don't need to be told what we think. You already know. If you haven't learned and listened by now we're not going to waste our time further.

Mexican communists, Nottinhaps, Hecknamistan, Kavagrad, and 3 othersTobosarsk, Dawtania, and Great varia

via The Revolutionary Communist Alliance

The Anarchists Not Marxists of Marxist Canada

Cedoria wrote:You don't need to be told what we think. You already know. If you haven't learned and listened by now we're not going to waste our time further.

All that you guys think has previously been presented in hostile, argumentative ways. I wrote a calm dispatch that was meant to simply show what we thought, and how it looked to us. If I went of the messages that your have written to us I would assume that you think we are a vile, evil region of lazy, crazy fascists that whine and moan when they couldve just submitted to your and NSLeft's demands.

Sengran

Vegemiteisgross wrote:
The violence against capitalism is completely justified. Capitalism is a violent system built of the blood of the workers. Violence is an effective form of protest. Antifa has used violence against fascists. And guess what, their rallies have gone down, they find it harder and harder to organise due to violent protest to them. It's all well and good to say that people shouldn't be violent to one another, but the violence of the oppressed against the oppressor is only natural.
"Dr. King’s policy was, if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption. In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none." - Stokely Charmichael. Capitalism does not have a conscience. The capitalist class would sooner sell out the proletariat into the violence of homelessness, joblessness and hunger than take a cut in profits. You heard the Crying Nazi, Christopher Cantwell, he wen't from gunho to crying and shying away from the public due to violence.
The capitalist class will always use terror and violence against the proletariat. We face this violence every day. Thousands of people die from cuts of healthcare. Thousands more from cuts to welfare. Now I know that you're in support of healthcare and welfare etc., but democratic socialism and social democracy have no safeguard against the right wing, who own the media, who own the banks, who own pretty much everything and can so easily turn back any concessions social democrats and democratic socialists make, we've seen this time and time again, the media say that the """left""" are bad economic managers, are running up debt, will crash the economy, then another liberal is put into power who listens to them, or takes money from them, and then deregulates, privatises, and cuts funds. It takes so little for the right to take back anything we win from them.
You failed to address my point of state capitalism. The state owning all the means of production and still using this means of production for capitalist ends is still state capitalism, it would still have exploitation, surplus value extracted for profits, and it would still have wage labour. Nothing changes in the economic relations between proletariat and capitalist. It's not about corruption. It's about the systemic parts of capitalism that doesn't get fixed by the state owning it.

Communists seek the abolition of private property, this is not the same as personal property. Private property is a toothbrush factory, personal property is a toothbrush. Private property is a house used to get rent from the proletariat, personal property is your own house. This is given, no Marxist disputes this because it's literally what we advocate for. I don't understand why you bring this up.

As I said earlier "While lobbying, rallying and etc. is good and socialists should do it, at the end of the day, it only wins concessions from the capitalists. It does not win an overhaul of the economic relations of our lives. As Marx says about the trade union movement..." I'm not saying they aren't important, I'm simply saying that they are only concessions from the bourgeoisie and will not change the economic relations of capitalism. They are small concessions for a reason. The trade union movement is good, and all good communists should be part of theirs. In fact, most communist organisations require the members be part of their union and educate, organise and agitate within that union from a communist standpoint. That being said, the trade union movement has been absolutely devastated by the media, which surprise surprise is owned by the bourgeoisie, endlessly spewing capitalist propaganda. And as I stated earlier, trade unions do not seek to have revolution, they only seek to win concessions from the bourgeoisie, through winning back the power of labour against capital (Wage increases vs inflation and wage decreases) etc.

Your point about business managers is syndicalism, this is fine, but not really relevant to the point I made about state capitalism.

Slave labour is not a voucher system. You are still being compensated for your hours of labour. A labour voucher would not be traded, only used. Therefore it cannot be accrued like money can. You won't have billionaires unless a single person works hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions, of hours in a single day. Slave labour is a different economic system to communism where people are not compensated for their labour and people are sold once to the slave master for their entire lives. Under communism noone is being sold to anyone, there is no market of slaves, and unlike capitalism, the people aren't selling themselves to the capitalist class by the hour.
The DSA are social democrats. From their page:

"Why are there no models of democratic socialism?
Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.

But hasn’t the European Social Democratic experiment failed?
Many northern European countries enjoy tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens—high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making."
AOC can call herself a socialist, just like Sanders can, doesn't mean they are one. I can call myself President of Venezuela, doesn't mean I am.
Social democrats only seek to reform capitalism. 'Capitalism with a human face'
I'll post my earlier comment re: social democracy vs actual leftism.

People forget that every overhaul in economic systems came via violent revolution. Capitalism came about from the English, French and American revolutions, all bourgeois revolutions.Capitalist revolutions took many attempts through the 11th century and onwards until capitalism finally became the dominant system of government. Feudalism was brought about by the slave revolts. Slavery was brought about through the violence and growth of primitive societies. Capitalism too, will require this. The bourgeoisie will sooner turn to fascism than to socialism, as they have shown us in the 20th century with the social democratic party of Germany (Note, this is before the splitting of Socialists from Social Democrats) allying themselves with the Freikorps, this would cause the splitting of socialists from social democrats, Hitler would come into power after the new quelled rebellion and the freikorps would continue to serve faithfully in WW2. Or the Whites in the Russian Revolution, or the many, many CIA-backed coups across the world, one of which we're seeing unfold before our very eyes in Venezuela, a social democracy where a democratic socialist party is in power. Or the 600 times the CIA tried to assassinate Castro. A 'violent coup' happened to Chile when a democratic socialist was elected into parliament, and then we had Augusto Pinochet.
Also, you are running under the false pretense that a 'violent' revolution is not democratic. A revolution is surely the most democratic thing there is, it is the act where the proletariat can finally have their say in the economic system of their lives. In the bourgeois republic and similar capitalist 'democracies' we have somewhat of a choice between which bourgeois politician we can vote for, but we have no say in the economic relations of our lives.

I feel like I've gone into some concepts which haven't quite gotten across. I would recommend these four books, they're all really short and would take less than a couple of hours to read them all:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/
As they go further into what I've been saying but far better than how I could ever say it.
For example, I don't think my point about the abolition of capital has quite come through, nor my point about wage labour, nor exploitation, nor surplus value and some other things.

Although violence may be effective, it is not the only way. Vileonce can solve some problems, but ultimately killing captilists is a slippery slope towards ductatirship and genocide. Not all captilists are bad, and a compromise is the best way to go.



The People's Republic of Cedoria

Marxist Canada wrote:All that you guys think has previously been presented in hostile, argumentative ways. I wrote a calm dispatch that was meant to simply show what we thought, and how it looked to us. If I went of the messages that your have written to us I would assume that you think we are a vile, evil region of lazy, crazy fascists that whine and moan when they couldve just submitted to your and NSLeft's demands.

Only somebody who has not actually seen the messages we sent you could believe this. Since I know you have, I'm only going to have to assume this is what it seems like, lying and misrepresentation of our clearly stated problem with you. And you wonder why we don't want to engage with you? You aren't even capable of good faith representations of the positions that have been clearly expressed to you.

My hope is that your leadership of your region one day has the self-awareness one day to recognise that you don't get to claim friendship and wanting to negotiate while then turning around and misrepresenting every single point your allies and partners make. It's deceptive. We have been straight with you from the beginning about what our problem is with your region. Either you still don't get it, in which case you never will, or you're lying about it, which makes me unwilling to believe your claims of wanting a good faith resolution.

It's Fascism guys, it's not really hard to being one's standards into line. The fact you haven't is your problem, not ours.

Mexican communists, The final horseman, Nottinhaps, Astrophysica, and 8 othersLlorens, Hecknamistan, Kavagrad, Dawtania, Greylyn, Great varia, Visslands, and Deustch republia

Deustch republia

Greeting fellow humans, hope we all have a great time

The final horseman, Astrophysica, Greylyn, Visslands, and 1 otherMarxist socialist union

via The Revolutionary Communist Alliance

The Anarchists Not Marxists of Marxist Canada

Marxist Canada wrote: It was objective from my point of view, and saying the dispatch was full of lies is completely ignoring the message and the reason I wrote the dispatch.

Oh also I mean subjective not objective

Greylyn, Deustch republia, and Marxist socialist union

Union of anarchic states

Ello Peoples. How is every comrade today

Astrophysica, Llorens, Greylyn, Fevhader, and 2 othersVisslands, and Marxist socialist union

The People's Republic of Cedoria

Union of anarchic states wrote:Ello Peoples. How is every comrade today

All is well. Welcome to our great community:) Hope you decide to stay, please let us know if you have any questions

Welcome to TLA.

Nottinhaps, Astrophysica, Greylyn, Fevhader, and 1 otherVisslands

Visslands

Union of anarchic states wrote:Ello Peoples. How is every comrade today

Greetings comrades! It's actually night home, so good night everyone.
And as my fellow comrade @Cedoria already told you, if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask us.
Welcome to TLA.

Cedoria, The final horseman, Astrophysica, Grod Island, and 2 othersGreylyn, and Fevhader

Hecknamistan

A lot happened while I was asleep.

Cedoria and Greylyn

Vegemiteisgross

Greylyn wrote:Okay, that was a loaded response. I will speak to the bit about DSA. Like I said, Democratic Socialists utilize social democracy. It is viewed as a transitional period between capitalism into democratic socialism. Because in our capitalist society, we have all been conditioned by the wealthy oligarchs to believe that success is determined by pitting us against one another. Us vs them. Because they know that if they can divide us, they will maintain the power that they have over us through consumerism and distorting our worldview in such a way that we believe this is the only way the system can work.Democratic socialists realize that the conditioning is so deeply rooted that we have to stick to proposals such as medicare for all, expanding social security, government subsidized education... in such a way as to prepare the public to become more welcoming of other socialist policies. It's like learning how to ride a bike or swimming. You need the training wheels first. And you might need to start in shallow water. With the way things are currently, the populace needs to be eased into things.

Fine, that doesn't really stop the DSA from being glorified social democrats. The DSA have a long history of condemning communist and socialist states and groups. I'll concede that they might keep endorsing social democrats as their "tool" to defeat neoliberal capitalism with... slightly less neoliberal capitalism.

Greylyn wrote:The capitalist class has done a great job of convincing us that any policy that even smells a little bit like collectivism is evil and stealing your freedom. And that's going to take some time to undo. If Bernie or AOC talked about the abolition of private property, they would never be taken seriously by anyone because of just how much the capitalists have succeeded in demonizing socialism. Also, social democracy is essentially a welfare state alongside privatized industry. Otherwise known as a mixed economy. I do not remotely agree with that sentiment. I am not a social democrat so I would appreciate if it weren't implicitly implied as such.

I'm not implying that you are, I'm saying that both of those people are social democrats and what I think of social democrats/social democracy being a sham. AOC and Bernie don't talk about the abolition of private property because that's not what they stand for. They stand for social democratic politics. And yes, I know that social democracy is a "mixed economy", despite government institutions specifically not equaling socialism. It's capitalism with a welfare state, as we've both said.
And the thing is, you seem to be running under the assumption that a revolution will not undo the capitalist ideology. When the proletariat win power and become the ruling class, as the ruling ideology will too change towards a proletarian one.
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”" - Karl Marx
The whole point that the communist argues about the transitional phases between capitalism to socialism to communism is about the reversing of this ideology and preparing society culturally, economically and politically for the next step.

Greylyn wrote:And just as I said before, there is no way that I am going to be convinced that violence is a suitable response for being upset with the current system. We're all upset. That doesn't justify throwing a tantrum and hurting people -- regardless if "it's been done before". That's not a justification and well frankly it's a false equivalency.

As for the state ownership of capital, there would be proposals in place for the even distribution of said wealth. A progressive tax rate would of course be in place. And there would be no privatized industry. It would all be run by unions, business managers, with the help of the government applying certain regulations such as a "wage floor", otherwise known as a living wage that would serve as a baseline for all workplaces. Beyond that, wage raises can be negotiated by individual unions.


The violence of the oppressed against the oppressor is not a false equivalency. A revolution is not a tantrum, a revolution is a change in the economic system. Again, you can say you're against violence like the destruction of property and harming people, that's all well and good, but people are literally dying and waiting on a vote every four years will kill them. How many more people need to die from lack of healthcare and food and homes before it's no longer 'a tantrum'? You can say that you agree with me that they need healthcare and food and homes, but that doesn't change that they don't right now. You can say that you agree with me that we need to combat climate change, but having a vote on it (A contended vote too) every 4 or so years is too slow to fix the problem.

On state capitalism, my point is not coming across. You failed to address my point of state capitalism. The state owning all the means of production and still using this means of production for capitalist ends is still state capitalism, it would still have exploitation, surplus value extracted for profits, and it would still have wage labour. Nothing changes in the economic relations between proletariat and capitalist. It's not about a wage floor, or a wage ceiling, it's not about a living wage, nor wage rises, nor corruption. It's about the exploitation of labour, surplus value being extracted for profit and wage labour. As I've said over and over again, this is inherent to capitalism and will not be fixed by the state owning it. You can have as much syndicalism as you like, as long as it is still working under a capitalist framework (Which it would if the state ran industry without abolishing capital), it's just more capitalism.

Greylyn wrote:Perhaps that is not satisfactory to you. But I would appreciate if you wouldn't insinuate that simply because I do not subscribe to your philosophy I am not a "true" leftist. I despise the current establishment as much as anyone here. But I don't believe in violent revolution or abolition of capital. Democracy isn't rampaging through the streets, destroying property, harming people.

If you bully the bully, that doesn't make you a hero. It makes you the exact thing you swore to fight against. And once again, it's okay to disagree on certain things. It doesn't make us enemies. This is a pan-leftist region, right? So regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, we all have a home here.

And for the last time, democratic socialists are not social democrats. An example of a social democrat would be the likes of Elizatbeth Warren (however progressive she may be), Kamala Harris, and perhaps Hillary Clinton (however elitist she is). Yes, they espouse things like medicare for all and raising the minimum wage, and more regulations, but they very much wish to maintain the privatized economic status quo. They are still capitalists. Expanded government programs doesn't make you automatically a socialist. That is pretty self-evident.

I am saying social democrats aren't true leftists. You've said that you aren't a social democrat.
The abolition of capital (The driving force of capitalism) is what is really being contended here in my last point, keeping capital will just make what you call socialism, capitalism run by the state, state capitalism.
"If you punch a nazi, that just makes you a nazi" is the exact same line and no, it's false. The violence from the 'bully' (the capitalist, be it from state industry of private industry) is still far, far more than the violence of an individual proletarian, as I've explained. You can be against the fast violence of the proletariat fighting against the bourgeoisie, and you can say that you are against the violence of the bourgeoisie, but as Angela Davis says "And than you ask me on whether I approve of violence, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I grew up in Burmingham, Alabama, some very good friends of mine were killed by bombs planted by racists. ... The man who was in complete control of the city government... would often get on the radio and make statements like 'N*****s have moved into a white neighbourhood, we better expect some bloodshed tonght.' and sure enough there would be bloodshed. ... In my neighbourhood all of the men organised themselves into an armed patrol. They had to take their guns and patrol our community every night because they did not want that to happen again. And that's why when someone asks me about violence, I just find it incredible. Because what it means is that [they] have no idea what black people have gone through, what black people have experienced in this country since the time the first person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa."

I know that government programs don't make you a socialist. I'm literally a communist lmao.

Greylyn wrote:I come from a low earning middle class family. I know what it's like to be on food stamps. I know what it's like not to be able to get adequate healthcare coverage because insurance won't cover it. I'm also a double minority (being LGBT+ and Hispanic). It's frustrating, it is. But I will never resort to rampaging through the streets and beating someone to a pulp because they are the capitalist oppressor. Socialism isn't about violent overthrow and hurting people to get "back at the oppressor". That's chaos. There is a class struggle, yes. And people are taken advantage of. And people in Flint, Michigan are still living with contaminated water. That's outrageous, yes.

But we are no better than them if we apply the same measure they place on us. An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

And in case you're going to make a swipe at me saying "an eye for an eye", 1.) My family is religious, yes. 2.) I am not religious.

Cool, you can be an ardent pacifist all you like. Socialism is not about violent overthrow and hurting people to get "back at the oppressor". This is not what I am arguing.
It's not a matter of an eye for an eye, you're misunderstanding my point.
I really couldn't care less about religion, while yes it's nice that you're not religious, it's not relevant to the discussion.

I will probably stop arguing here because my points have not been addressed. Syndicalism doesn't stop inherent parts of capitalism (Exploitation, wage labour, surplus value extracted) even if the capitalism is run by the state (The state owning all the means of production but using it towards a capitalist end, i.e. not abolishing capital), that revolution is not a tantrum, etc.

If people want to make this a dispatch article about it, I would be happy to lend a hand writing it, plus I can publish it under the Editor of the Red Star account, (It'll need to be revived) I have this other article I've been meaning to write anyways. - This does not mean I'm bringing TRS back though.



The Commonwealth of Greylyn

Vegemiteisgross wrote:
Fine, that doesn't really stop the DSA from being glorified social democrats. The DSA have a long history of condemning communist and socialist states and groups. I'll concede that they might keep endorsing social democrats as their "tool" to defeat neoliberal capitalism with... slightly less neoliberal capitalism.
I'm not implying that you are, I'm saying that both of those people are social democrats and what I think of social democrats/social democracy being a sham. AOC and Bernie don't talk about the abolition of private property because that's not what they stand for. They stand for social democratic politics. And yes, I know that social democracy is a "mixed economy", despite government institutions specifically not equaling socialism. It's capitalism with a welfare state, as we've both said.
And the thing is, you seem to be running under the assumption that a revolution will not undo the capitalist ideology. When the proletariat win power and become the ruling class, as the ruling ideology will too change towards a proletarian one.
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”" - Karl Marx
The whole point that the communist argues about the transitional phases between capitalism to socialism to communism is about the reversing of this ideology and preparing society culturally, economically and politically for the next step.
The violence of the oppressed against the oppressor is not a false equivalency. A revolution is not a tantrum, a revolution is a change in the economic system. Again, you can say you're against violence like the destruction of property and harming people, that's all well and good, but people are literally dying and waiting on a vote every four years will kill them. How many more people need to die from lack of healthcare and food and homes before it's no longer 'a tantrum'? You can say that you agree with me that they need healthcare and food and homes, but that doesn't change that they don't right now. You can say that you agree with me that we need to combat climate change, but having a vote on it (A contended vote too) every 4 or so years is too slow to fix the problem.

On state capitalism, my point is not coming across. You failed to address my point of state capitalism. The state owning all the means of production and still using this means of production for capitalist ends is still state capitalism, it would still have exploitation, surplus value extracted for profits, and it would still have wage labour. Nothing changes in the economic relations between proletariat and capitalist. It's not about a wage floor, or a wage ceiling, it's not about a living wage, nor wage rises, nor corruption. It's about the exploitation of labour, surplus value being extracted for profit and wage labour. As I've said over and over again, this is inherent to capitalism and will not be fixed by the state owning it. You can have as much syndicalism as you like, as long as it is still working under a capitalist framework (Which it would if the state ran industry without abolishing capital), it's just more capitalism.

I am saying social democrats aren't true leftists. You've said that you aren't a social democrat.
The abolition of capital (The driving force of capitalism) is what is really being contended here in my last point, keeping capital will just make what you call socialism, capitalism run by the state, state capitalism.
"If you punch a nazi, that just makes you a nazi" is the exact same line and no, it's false. The violence from the 'bully' (the capitalist, be it from state industry of private industry) is still far, far more than the violence of an individual proletarian, as I've explained. You can be against the fast violence of the proletariat fighting against the bourgeoisie, and you can say that you are against the violence of the bourgeoisie, but as Angela Davis says "And than you ask me on whether I approve of violence, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I grew up in Burmingham, Alabama, some very good friends of mine were killed by bombs planted by racists. ... The man who was in complete control of the city government... would often get on the radio and make statements like 'N*****s have moved into a white neighbourhood, we better expect some bloodshed tonght.' and sure enough there would be bloodshed. ... In my neighbourhood all of the men organised themselves into an armed patrol. They had to take their guns and patrol our community every night because they did not want that to happen again. And that's why when someone asks me about violence, I just find it incredible. Because what it means is that [they] have no idea what black people have gone through, what black people have experienced in this country since the time the first person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa."

I know that government programs don't make you a socialist. I'm literally a communist lmao.

Cool, you can be an ardent pacifist all you like. Socialism is not about violent overthrow and hurting people to get "back at the oppressor". This is not what I am arguing.
It's not a matter of an eye for an eye, you're misunderstanding my point.
I really couldn't care less about religion, while yes it's nice that you're not religious, it's not relevant to the discussion.

I will probably stop arguing here because my points have not been addressed. Syndicalism doesn't stop inherent parts of capitalism (Exploitation, wage labour, surplus value extracted) even if the capitalism is run by the state (The state owning all the means of production but using it towards a capitalist end, i.e. not abolishing capital), that revolution is not a tantrum, etc.

If people want to make this a dispatch article about it, I would be happy to lend a hand writing it, plus I can publish it under the Editor of the Red Star account, (It'll need to be revived) I have this other article I've been meaning to write anyways. - This does not mean I'm bringing TRS back though.

Okay, you’ve said your piece and I’ve said mine. And for fear of becoming a broken record, I agree that we should just end it at that. You made some valid points and of course I will take some of what you said into consideration. I’m 17, by the way, and I don’t live in the most progressive of areas. I go to a private Christian school. So a lot of my beliefs I’ve had to gather for myself, which I don’t mean to complain about haha. I believe that we should all develop our own beliefs. But yeah, just saying all that to make it clear that it’s been a long road for me (lol Ik I’m young haha) and my views are continually developing. Not saying I’m going to wake up tomorrow and become a communist haha. But when it comes to certain aspects, yes, things can be fluid. Also, I’m not a pacifist. I do believe in self-defense.

Tobosarsk and Anguense

Show

Post by Anguense suppressed by Hecknamistan.

Llorens

6 billion, yeet. 💪

Grod Island, Tobosarsk, and Fevhader

Free eire

What's all the drama about, I'm new could someone give me a summary?

Fevhader

Free eire wrote:What's all the drama about, I'm new could someone give me a summary?

Same Here



The Melodic Commonwealth of Tobosarsk

Free eire wrote:What's all the drama about, I'm new could someone give me a summary?

The leaving of the TRCA, the principles of communism and other ideologies, blah blah blah, violence, blah blah, trotsky looking like colonel sanders, blah, banana chew toys...

Nottinhaps, Hecknamistan, Greylyn, Great varia, and 1 otherFevhader

The People's Republic of Cedoria

Tobosarsk wrote:The leaving of the TRCA, the principles of communism and other ideologies, blah blah blah, violence, blah blah, trotsky looking like colonel sanders, blah, banana chew toys...

All the stuff we usually talk about. Especially the banana chew toys, I find that topic most schintillating.

Mexican communists, Nottinhaps, Llorens, Hecknamistan, and 4 othersKavagrad, Tobosarsk, Great varia, and Fevhader

«12. . .858859860861862863864. . .2,3172,318»