#question for the anti communists

[theasexual-jackson]

Okay, let's put it like this:

Socialism and communism are authoritarian dictatorships where all the means of production are in the hands of the government and the citizens are forced to work and receive little to no salary, right?

So why didn't the rich get together and impose it? They have the power to, they're billionaires! They could have easily done this. So why didn't they?

[damnesdelamer]

‘Socialism has never worked’?

What do you call Russia, China, and Cuba functionally eradicating homelessness and illiteracy in their respective spheres within a few years of the massive upheaval of revolution, and radically improving the living conditions of millions after generations of poverty? What do you call the Soviet Union bearing the brunt of the greatest military conflict the world has ever seen and emerging victorious? What do you call the Soviet Union holding out for four decades of sustained military and economic warfare against the greatest military and economic superpower the world has ever known? What do you call Vietnam defeating the greatest military empire the world has ever known in its anti-imperialist resistance campaign? What do you call China emerging from the 20th Century as the most populous country on earth with the highest GDP? What do you call China reducing daily covid numbers to double digits in a population of 1.4 billion? What do you call Cuba thriving after six decades of brutal embargoes? What do you call Cuba passing the most progressive and practically protective legislation for family and LGBT rights in a world historical moment marked by increased LGBTphobia among the Western powers? What do you call the people of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe shrugging off the muck of ages to usher in an era of progress, all while Western powers conspire to sabotage them at every turn while growing fat off the earth they’ve scorched?

I’d ask what history books you’re reading, but I know that you’re not reading any, and the only information you have on the subject is spoon-fed into your colonised mind by the people’s enemies, whose vested interest in fabricating events is readily apparent to any who bother to look into these things.

‘Socialism has never worked’? It has been one of the dominant political-economic models of the past century, and has made drastic strides on every front despite its relative infancy and constant opposition from Western superpowers. If you fear socialism, what do you really fear? Socialism is the people. Socialism is me; socialism is you; socialism is all of us, together.

‘Socialism has never worked’? Socialism has always worked. Socialism is working right now. We will see socialism work again, always.

[aronarchy]

and dont you Dare call yourself a communist but be "pro sex work" for fucks sake

Anti-anti-sex, anti-work, for a slightly more precise version.

[weareuniqueandimportant]

HAVE FUN... YOU ARE A BIGOT... THAT STRATEGY CAN'T WORK WE'RE POWERFULL... OH... YOU... YOU WERE ALWAYS EVIL... WE WERE ALWAYS HURT BY YOU... ERASE OUR PAIN THAT IS WHAT YOU'VE ALWAYS DONE... THAT DOESN'T END WHO WE ARE... NOBODY CAN ERASE THAT... NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO... DESPITE TRYING... AND NOBODY EVER CAN... THERE IS ONLY 1 THING THAT CAN DEFEAT US... ARE YOU A R*PIST THAT BAD...? YOU ARE...? UP TO THE GAME...? I SEE... I ALWAYS KNEW THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED... OUR LIFE HOWEVER IS ALWAYS ABOUT US... YOU CAN'T DO A THING... THAT IS EVIL... UNACCEPTABLE... CRIMINAL... IN OUR SOCIETY ONLY WE HAVE RIGHTS THEREFORE WE AND ONLY WE ARE PROTECTED UNDER SUCH CASES... UNLESS WE LIKE YOU... THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHAT IS LOGICAL... EMBRACE PSYCHOSIS HOWEVER... IF THAT PISSES YOU SO <3...

[hazeltongzhi]

"anti-capitalism" is not an ideology, it is a descriptor at most. Anyone with a brain and the ability to sense the world can see the problems with capitalism. The more important question than "are you against capitalism?" is "what are you going to do about capitalism?"

Liberals will say reform and voooooting will address the problems (it won't; thats how we got here in the first place). Fascists will say an outside/hidden interior opponent or group is hampering the "nation's success" and that privatisation and racial policoes will address the problems (it won't; fascism is capitalism's immune system responding to crisis). The socialists and communists will say that the the solution is to dismantle the capitalist mode of production and construct the socialist mode of production.

[daegu-based-terrorist]

Hope it's alright to ask, as a communist to a communist (rather than tokenising or something), but would you say that even in conditions of siege, DPRK is more democratic than ROK? Guess it's partly a question on you and your mother's view of it.

Like, as an example, Mr. Choi, who was interviewed in Loyal Citizens, did say there was less persecution and a weaker police than in the south and USA, and praised its proletarian dictatorship. (Honestly, his view does seem rather authoritative, considering he went to the south to get rich and left the north because he didn't fit in, but ultimately preferred it)

(I do wanna read books about DPRK, it's just that there are so many books, a reading list that doesn't have any about Korea yet... also the question is prompted by someone I know saying "any democracy is better than none" :^) )

I asked my mother!

Translation corrections: || *hometown is actually “back home || *labor is actually “the Workers' Party of Korea” || *that worked is actually “it worked” || *You can vote for fascism, but you rarely vote for communism is actually “You can vote your way into fascism but people rarely vote their way into communism, so we see here that the vote is flawed.” || *In Korea… is actually “there is an illusion of choice in the Republic of Korea because people don’t realise all the parties are the same wearing a different face.”

I know I could have just translated it myself but I’m lazy and it’s late, forgive me.

Having lived most of my life in the ROK but having my mother’s stories to compare to I honestly don’t see democracy in its current state doing us any better then borderline dictatorship does in the DPRK.

Every political party here starts at conservative and gets progressively worse until you end up at some of the worst strands of fascism the right has to offer. Voting in South Korea is like that meme that was going around about the US elections, your voting for Hitler or 10x Hitler when you’d rather just not vote for Hitler.

Communist/Socialist parties are band in South Korea, flying a North Korean flag gets you arrested, our national security act is censorship on a scale so bad the UN regularly tells us to calm the fuck down. You can’t distribute or own anti government material or recognise the DPRK as a real sovereign state.

In 2002 (I think?) a South Korean solider was sentenced to two years in prison for saying that he blames America for the separation of the Koreas and not North Korea. They claim that this comment made them suspicious and they raided his home and found illegal books and that’s what he was charged on.

From 1960 to 1990 twenty nine people were sentenced to death for violating the anti-communist law here in South Korea.

Cases are rarer now days, usually the police just beat you up in secret but there have been a couple in recent years under Yoon Suk Yeol.

So yeah SOUTH Korea being “democratic” hasn’t stopped it from literally being the media’s caricature of NORTH Korea.

I’m not against democracy in North Korea don’t get me wrong, but I think until there is better geopolitical circumstances it’s important that North Korea has a strong government instead of having to worry about changing over power every other five years.

Also contrary to popular belief the WPK doesn’t get 99.9% of the votes they get like 85%. The Korean Social Democratic Party regularly gets about 10% of the vote. While other smaller parties together make up a combined 5% and then usually 1% are votes for independent candidates. All of the parties end up in parliament anyway in this weird coalition thing we’ve got going on.

[mariacallous]

The great fault of the global left is not that it supports Hamas. For how could Western left-wing movements or left-inclining charities or academic bodies truly support Hamas if they were serious about their politics?

No one outside the most reactionary quarters of Islam shares Hamas’s aim of forcing the peoples of the world to accept “the sovereignty of Islam” or face “carnage, displacement and terror” if they refuse.  You cannot be a progressive and campaign for a state that executes gay men. An American left, which includes in its ranks the Queers for Palestine campaign group, cannot seriously endorse lethal homophobia in its own country.  They will turn a blind eye in Palestine, as we shall see, but not in New York or Chicago.

Finally, no left organisation proudly honours the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the fascist tradition that Hamas embraces with such sinister gusto, although in a sign of a decay that has been building on the left for more than a generation, many will promulgate left-wing conspiracy theories which are as insane as their fascist counterparts.

No, the problem with the global left is that it is not serious about politics. It “fellow travels” with radical Islam rather than supports it. The concept of “fellow travelling,” with its suggestions of tourism, dilettantism, and privilege, is well worth reviving. The phrase comes from the Bolsheviks. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 they looked with appreciation on Westerners who supported them without ever endorsing communism. Artists, writers, and academics who were disgusted with the West, often for good reason, I should add, were quite happy to justify Soviet communism and cover up its crimes without ever becoming communists themselves.

Leon Trotsky put it best when he said of fellow travellers that the question was always “how far would they go”? As long as they did not have live under the control of communists in the 1920s or the control of Islamists in the 2020s, the answer appears to be: a very long way indeed

W.H. Auden said, as he looked back with some contempt on his fellow travelling past, if Britain or the United States or any country he and his friends knew were taken over by a “successful communist revolution with the same phenomena of terror, purges, censorship etc., we would have screamed our heads off”. But as communism happened in backward Russia “a semi-barbarous country which had experienced neither the Renaissance nor the Enlightenment”, they could ignore its crimes in the interests of seeing the capitalist enemy defeated.

You see the same pattern of lies and indulgence in the case of Hamas. Journalists  have produced a multitude of examples of fellow travelling since 7 October but let one meeting of the Oakland City Council in the Bay area of San Francisco speak for them all.

A council member wanted the council to pass a motion that condemned the killings and hostage-taking by Hamas, who, in case we forget, prompted the war that has devastated Gaza, by massacring Israeli civilians. The motion got nowhere

According to one speaker Hamas did not massacre anyone, a modern variant of Holocaust denial that is becoming endemic. “There have not been beheadings of babies and rapings,” a woman said at the meeting. “Israel murdered their own people on October 7.”  Another woman said that calling Hamas a terrorist organization is “ridiculous, racist and plays into the genocidal propaganda that is flooding our media.” Hamas was the “armed wing of the unified Palestinian resistance” , said a third who clearly had no knowledge of the civil war between Hamas and Fatah.

“To condemn Hamas was very anti-Arab racist” cried a fourth. The meeting returned to modern Holocaust denial as a new speaker said the Israeli Defence Forces had murdered their own people and it was “bald propaganda” to suggest otherwise. A man intervened to shout that “to hear them complain about Hamas violence is like listening to a wifebeater complain when his wife finally stands up and fights back”.  

Anyone who contradicted him was a “white supremacist.”

Of course they were.

Now if theocrats were to establish an Islamist tyranny in the Bay area, I am sure every single speaker would scream their heads off, as Auden predicted. They can turn into fellow travellers as there is no more of a prospect of theocracy threatening them than there was of communism threatening readers of the left-wing press in the UK and US in the 1930s.

A serious left would have plenty to complain about. Consider the Israeli position after the breakdown of the ceasefire. The Israeli state is led by Benjamin Netanyahu, a catastrophe of a prime minister, who left his people exposed to the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. His war aims are contradictory: you cannot both wipe out Hamas and free the hostages.

Worst of all, the Israeli defence forces are to move to the southern Gaza strip where two million Palestinians are crammed. Just war doctrine holds that a military action must have a reasonable chance of success if the suffering is to be permitted. How, reasonably, can the Israeli army expect to find guerilla fighters hiding in a terrified population?  According to leaks in the Israeli media, Anthony Blinken, the US Secretary of state, was warning the Israeli government that, “You can’t operate in southern Gaza in the way you did in the north. There are two million Palestinians there.” But he was ignored.  A radical movement worth having would surely be putting pressure on the Biden administration to force Israel to listen to its concerns.

The radical movement we have will not engage in practical politics because compromise is anathema to it. Any honest account of the war would have to admit that Israel has the right to defend itself against attack. It is just that the military position it finds itself in now may well make its war aims impossible and therefore immoral.

You can see why practical politics has no appeal. Where is the violent satisfaction in sober analysis,  the drama in compromise? Where is the Manichean distinction between the absolute good of the Palestinians and the pure evil of Israel?  

Meanwhile, ever since the Israeli victory in the Six Day War of 1967, you have been able to say that Jewish settler sites on the West Bank were placed there deliberately to make a peace settlement impossible, and ensure that Israel controlled all the territory from “the river to the sea” forever.

A serious left might try to revive a two-state solution by building an international consensus that the settlements must go. Once again, however, that is too tame an aim. For the fellow traveller watching Palestine from a safe distance, satisfaction comes only by embracing Hamas’s call for the destruction of Israel. Some progressives try to dress up the urge to destroy by pretending that Jews and Palestinians will go on to live together in some happy-clappy, multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state. But most must know they are advocating a war to the death. What makes their position so disreputable is that, if they thought about it calmly, they would know it would be a war that only Israel could win. It is the Israelis who have the nuclear weapons, after all.

The worst of the global left is dilettantish. It advocates a maximalist position which has a minimal chance of success - just for the thrill of it. David Caute, a historian of fellow travelling with Stalin and communism said that the endorsement of communism by fellow travelling intellectuals in the West “deepened the despair” of Soviet intellectuals. “In their darkest hours they heard themselves condemned by their own kind”.

The 2020s are not the 1930s. I am sure that, if I were a Palestinian in Gaza, my sole concern would be the removal of Israeli forces that threatened me and my family. I would either not care about demonstrations in the West or I would receive some comfort from the knowledge that people all over the world were protesting on my behalf.

Nevertheless, a kind of betrayal is still at work. By inflaming and amplifying the worst elements in Palestine the global left is giving comfort to the worst elements in Israel, which are equally determined to make a compromise impossible.

The New Statesman made that point well when it ran a piece by Celeste Marcus.   She came from the Zionist far right, and was taught doctrines that dehumanised Palestinians. She grew up and grew away from the prejudices of her childhood and became a liberal. But after she moved into her new world, she “recognised immediately that progressive leftists feel about Israelis the way radical Zionists feel about Palestinians: these are not real people.”

The result is that for all its power on the streets and in academia the global left is almost an irrelevance.

“To influence Israel,” she writes, “one must be willing to recognise it. Since leftist leaders cannot bother to do this, they cannot be of real use to Palestinians. This is a betrayal of their own cause.”

The dilettantism of fellow travelling always ends in betrayal and denial for the reason Auden gave: terror is always more tolerable when it happens far, far away.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Machine Translation]

LIVE. Future Prime Minister: Macron rules out NFP government option and will resume consultations on Tuesday

Almost two months after the second round of the legislative elections, Emmanuel Macron continues this Monday to receive party leaders at the Élysée Palace, as well as the presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly. With a question in the background: with whom to govern?[...]

[19:38]: Macron rules out NFP government option in name of 'institutional stability' "At the end of the consultations, the President of the Republic noted that a government based solely on the program and parties proposed by the alliance with the largest number of MPs, the New Popular Front, would be immediately censored by all the other groups represented in the National Assembly," the Élysée Palace said in a statement. "Such a government would therefore immediately have a majority of more than 350 MPs against it, effectively preventing it from acting. Given the views of the political leaders consulted, the institutional stability of our country therefore requires that this option not be retained," it added.[...]

[19:59]: "This is an anti-democratic coup that is completely unacceptable," reacts Manuel Bompard.

On BFM TV, the coordinator of France Insoumise, a member of the NFP, castigates Emmanuel Macron's statements refusing a left-wing coalition government. "It's a completely unacceptable anti-democratic coup," judges Manuel Bompard, considering that Emmanuel Macron's argument "makes no sense." "If there is another possible coalition, then the President of the Republic must tell us which one. The President of the Republic is ignoring the results of the legislative elections and acting as if there had not been a vote," continues the LFI elected official. "It is the NFP that must form the country's next government," he insists.[...]

[20:16]: Roussel calls for rallies for the NFP Dissatisfied with Emmanuel Macron's opposition to an NFP government, the communist leader called on BFMTV for "a large popular mobilization" and rallies, particularly in front of "the prefectures."

26 Aug 24

[gothhabiba]

I understand what people mean by prison abolition, but what does it mean in practice to abolish the family? I've never quite got it - who is raising children? How does it work? I'm asking in good faith, I've just always been a bit embarrassed to ask anyone

Like positions that are “anti-work” or against “gender,” the thing being objected to is more detailed and specific than the range of meanings that can reasonably or semi-reasonably be assigned to the word in question (“work,” “gender,” “family”)—which is why these propositions and programmes can have a bit of a PR problem. And, as with all terms that position themselves against something (e.g. "anti-psychiatry"), the term "family abolition" can be taken up by people with a range of different positions who disagree amongst themselves on some issues. In general, though, no one objects to "people living together or being emotionally close to each other" or "children not being left to roam about at random and get eaten by wolves" or anything.

Rather, anti-capitalist objections to "the family" tend to hinge on objections to:

parental rights, or "the special legal powers of parents to control major aspects of their children’s lives," which function as "quasi-property interests" more than anything that is in the best interest of children (link explicitly relates to U.S. law). Parents legally control where their children live, whether and where they go to school, what information they have access to, what level of freedom of mobility they have, what medical care they receive and don't receive, and what they may do with their own bodies, and are legally allowed to physically assault their children.

relatedly, the lack of legal autonomy that children possess (this is also often discussed under the banner of "children's rights" or objections to "adultism").

the positioning of "the family" as the only economic or social "safety net" in an economy and a society which provide no other one (creating an artificial "structural scarcity" of care). In a society which is otherwise dominated by "economic competition between atomized individuals," the family must be relied on—and yet, for some people (whose families cannot or will not provide living space or financial support in an emergency; whose families are abusive and physically or psychically dangerous to be around or rely on; who will not receive help or emotional support from a spouse or family unit without making serious concessions on the level of their personhood being basically respected; Black working-class people in whose communities the nuclear family unit has been deliberately prevented from forming by government intervention), the family cannot be relied on.

the way that the positioning of "the family" as the only safety net therefore constitutes economic coercion that works to keep people (especially women and LGBT, disabled and/or transracially adopted people) in abusive or exploitative situations, and that works to create incentives for working-class women (whose employment is generally less secure) to make themselves erotically desirable to men & disincentives for doing anything else.

the idea that housework, gestational labour & childbirth, and childcare are tasks "naturally" falling to the "mother" ("mother" as a "natural category"), such that the social, political, and economic nature of these tasks, and the economic and political discourses that mobilise the creation of our concept of "motherhood," are obscured.

Thus the objection is to "the family" as a unit of social reproduction under capitalism—as a legal, political entity that structures inheritance, taxes, health insurance, "race" and ethnicity, &c., and therefore works as a sort of interface between the capitalist state and the individual.

So the programme of "family abolition" involves, firstly, the control of the means of production on the part of the proletariat (this is a communist programme—the point isn't to remove the safety net of the family while keeping capitalism in place, but rather the idea is that without capitalism this ultimately abusive safety net ought not to be needed); and then the abolition of marriage as a legal institution; the abolition of parental rights; the putting in place of measures for the elderly and disabled to be cared for regardless of whether they have family alive who are both able and willing to care for them; the forming of social networks at will; and, depending on who you ask, the communal raising of children (which involves ceasing to privilege "parent" as a legal title automatically conferred upon biologically creating a child).

Obviously, toddlers who do not yet understand things about the world including "causation" and "mortality" will need on occasion to be restrained from running blithely into the jaws of wolves &c. The argument is just that coercion of this sort should be legitimately in the best interests of the child; not performed by two people who need answer for their actions, up to and including battery of their children, in no way other than saying that they "plausibly believe this to be necessary to control, train or educate their child"; and walked back in measure as the child gains the ability to assert their own desires.

Probably no one has a perfect solution 100% worked out—life is messy, and we don't know what the future will look like—but having a perfect solution 100% worked out should not be a prerequisite for noticing that the current situation is abusive and untenable.

[orange-coloredsky]

The two most popular reads of the synth plight in Fallout 4 are that of the race allegory and the Red Scare/McCarthyist allegory. In the former example, synths get racialized in a similar way to Black Americans in the late 19th and early 20th century, but just barely. The Underground Railroad is quite literally remade, synths are subjected to slavery at the hands of their human creators and punished harshly for escape attempts. Others have likened synths to fears of immigrants or asylum-seekers from nonwhite majority populations. Synths in these imaginings of Fallout 4 are painted as needing to be saved at the same time as they are vilified and dehumanized – sometimes by the same character over the course of the story. This duality could be a great opportunity for a dive into how white saviorism tends to play out, but in reality it ends up being a messy, deeply uncritical exploration of the impact of race and racism in society. The factions doing the racialization and/or saviorism’s motives are never questioned, and there is a very clear depiction of “good vs. evil” being the end-all-be-all of anti-racism work (again, with no critical thought as to how the “good” side is made almost completely of non-racialized people making decisions on behalf of a marginalized group). Worse yet, it’s contrived. The android-racism analogy has been a thorn in the side of the science fiction genre ever since Isaac Asimov wrote the 3 Laws of Robotics. There’s very few iterations on the idea that have come from popular (white, Eurocentric) media that aren’t riddled with the same aftertaste of white guilt and fundamental misunderstandings of how racism plays out in day-to-day life.

The less common, slightly more agreeable interpretation is that of the Red Scare – which, given Fallout’s inspirations and the setting’s original critique of reliving America’s “good old days”, makes perfect sense. In this example, synths take the role of the Soviet spy: watching over everything Americans are doing and reporting back to a secret base that is plotting to overthrow the world as we know it. Psychological screenings as well as inhumane tortures are utilized to pick synth “spies” out from the good, red-blooded residents of the Commonwealth. A neighborhood is founded entirely around the protection of the “old ways of life”, complete with a white picket fence comically decorated with automatic machine gun turrets. While this is a more charitable analogy that’s grounded in a slightly-deeper-than-surface-level exploration of American history, the Red Scare interpretation is victim to the same pitfalls that plague the racism interpretation. Midway through the game, the player discovers that there actually is a secret base of evil villains hiding underneath our feet, plotting to annihilate our beautiful Commonwealth lives. People do get taken and replaced by synths, they are in our governments, there is an actual reason for synths to be feared. Sure, some synths are perfectly fine people with no wish to be made tools of the Institute’s tyranny, but that is greatly overshadowed by the fact that the Institute’s stated goal is to use synths to gain control over the Commonwealth. There is no real critique of McCarthyism, there is no ideology to be challenged, because the Communists are here and killing your loved ones in their sleep.

[handweavers]

Cab you elaborate a little on that post about artists of color not having a good understanding of materialism? Like, do you mean that they are unknowingly perpetuating capitalism by being materialistic or something else?????

( This is a genuine question because I misunderstand long posts easily, sorry if it sounds rude ).

when i say 'materialism' i'm referring to dialectical materialism, the marxist theory that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces - people's access to material needs like shelter, food, healthcare, etc. and their relationship to the means of production. these events can be interpreted as a series of contradictions and their solutions. it is the scientific method for understanding politics/economics and history, and the basis of marxist analysis and of marxism leninism as a framework.

i'm saying that many artists of colour in the west speak a lot about capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, war, etc. from a vaguely 'leftist' but ultimately still liberal perspective, and thus they are not actually challenging anything with their work. they will talk about anything But class, and fall easily for bourgeois politics as long as it's concealed in social justice or "leftist" or antiracist sounding language

and it's because they won't engage directly with marxism leninism, they won't engage with learning materialist analysis, and having this understanding would prevent them from falling for these attempts and allow them to do work that actually has some kind of meaningful impact on these systems they claim to be against. so they are trying to talk and write and make art and organize about capitalism and colonialism without understanding how these things actually function in a literal, material sense...

simply existing as nonwhite people in the west doesn't inherently teach us these things, otherwise all people of colour in the west would be communists. we have to actually do the reading and be open to another framework of understanding the world, to having our worldviews shifted. but i think some people don't want to do that because of their relative class position. it makes them uncomfortable, or they don't want to admit that they benefit from imperialism in some ways. they can't - or won't - decouple an awareness of their class position from morality or their personal feelings.

without a marxist framework for understanding what capitalism is and how it functions, whatever work they claim to be trying to do to challenge capitalism or colonialism or whatever At Best doesn't do anything, and At Worst continues to serve bourgeois interests. the confusion between colonialism and imperialism in particular is easily exploited, so that with the language of anti racism and decolonization people end up agreeing with and promoting US/NATO foreign policy on imperialized nations - these buzzwords can sound pretty good if you don't know better. all this talk about decolonizing our minds and art practices and being anti capitalists but no one can actually explain what capitalism is or how colonialism works or the material role of racism under capitalism, nor do they want to talk about their own relationship to capital, so the talk is just empty lol. all these artists trying to figure out "alternative, embodied ways of thinking and being" and it's all just more liberalism

[transmutationisms]

Hello so you said something about being pro-drug and I’m not 100% sure what you meant by it. I am absolutely for the decriminalization of all drugs ever. But like. Are you pro-using? Not that I’m anti users at all but i wouldn’t say I’m pro-using… just like based on my own experiences and my loved ones experiences and like what very hard drugs do to your body and mind and how they can like. Kill you. I 🩷 users and addicts and i don’t think criminalizing anything helps but… I’m prob misinterpreting your post so this may be a stupid question but I’ve seen all types of opinions on here so idk.

sarcastic answer, it's exactly this type of reaction that makes me think a truly pro-drugs stance is what communism needs today

less sarcastic answer, if drugs are the thing that makes someone's life tolerable and livable and even pleasurable then it would be uh, pretty fucking hypocritical of me to take issue with them using

even less sarcastic answer, you are overestimating the extent to which the danger of even "very hard drugs" (define that) comes from the drugs themselves rather than from the conditions of use: insecure supply driving desperation and making overdose more likely; black market making overdose more likely; intolerable conditions of living making using more necessary; &c. i can't speak to your life or loved ones but in my life i have observed and engaged in many different patterns of substance use, ranging from 'casually & occasionally using substances w high addiction potential' to 'intensely and compulsively using substances w much lower addiction potential' and everything in between. you are also jumping from "drugs" straight to "very hard drugs" (again, define that). drugs is an inclusive category: you need to be thinking here of substances ranging from heroin to caffeine to ibuprofen to xanax to ayahuasca to surgical anaesthetic cocktails.

really dead serious answer, yes, drugs can be dangerous. so can driving, working, and exercising. drugs can also be immensely beneficial, and that goes for drug use that's 'purely recreational' and pleasurable. as a matter of basic self-determination and autonomy, yes, i will defend people's right to get high for any reason they choose. as a matter of basic prison abolition politics i will defend that right twice over. i will also defend needle exchanges, social (not state) support systems, and the communist project of making the world a just and tolerable place to live in. but humans have enjoyed substance use for literally millennia, i personally enjoy substance use, and i don't think fearing it is politically useful or interpersonally helpful. at core, 'drug use' is simply the consumption of a substance that alters a person's psychological or physiological functioning in some way. it's not inherently 'good' or 'bad', morally or from a health perspective. what it is, though, is a common part of human existence, and not one i think can or should be eradicated.

[probablyasocialecologist]

On a planet wrecked and ruined by capital, further debate with left eco-modernism is a distraction. What’s needed more than ever is a deep reflection on political strategy. How can those of us living in the imperial core leverage our position to win an eco-communist future for all? How can we support and amplify existing socialist and anti-imperialist projects and struggles in the periphery? What does a green transition for the core look like in practice if it doesn’t exploit the periphery’s lands, seas, and labour? And what does it mean to fight for a better future on a wounded world? These are the urgent questions of our time. They are questions left eco-modernism has no answer to because it denies the fundamentals of the problem. To move forward together, then, we must forget eco-modernism.

[spaghettioverdose]

how did u went from anarchism to ml question mark

I was just going to write a couple paragraphs but I basically ended up writing a novel so I'm going to put a keep reading link here for my everyone's sanity.

Tl;dr: I became disillusioned with liberalism, became ancom, saw many silly takes and analysis that felt incomplete, became disillusioned with ancom, learned more about ml, went "this makes way more sense, has been applied in real life and has also helped many millions of people", became an ml.

I became an anarchist when I was in my late teens. I was already disillusioned with liberalism, and while I was sympathetic to socialism because I come from a formerly socialist country and grew up with stories about it from my grandmother, I was still of wary of it. Partially due to some of the genuinely bad things that happened during it and partially due to the immense amounts of anti-communist propaganda I was constantly bombarded with growing up. Then I found anarcho-communism which to me at the time seemed like "communism with none of the bad stuff".

I got into it, I watched ancom youtubers, I read Kropotkin, Graeber, Bakunin, I joined online ancom communities etc.

Slowly, over time I started becoming disillusioned with ancoms.I found myself having to defend marxist-leninist projects a lot (mostly from usamericans) against some very silly cold war anticommunist propaganda a lot. Such as the idea that everyone was just miserable and trying to escape the country or brainwashed by the leader's cult of personality.

Keep in mind that I myself ate up a lot of anticommunist propaganda growing up, but I also come from a formerly socialist country and had someone who was around during the socialist era of my country to ground my view of it in reality to some extent. Most of the ancoms in these communities only had the propaganda.

I also didn't like the way so many of these people talked more about an idealised, aestheticised, romanticised and abstract idea of revolution, and especially past failed anarchist revolutions, rather than talking about the material results of revolution.

Even when I still was mostly convinced by anarchist theory, I still found anarchist analysis to be incomplete and lacking predictive power and real world practice. Other anarchists tended to excuse the fact we didn't have a lot of revolutions and that the vast majority of them were crushed within their first couple years by saying things like "we were up against everyone" or "we were betrayed" which didn't really hold up. The bolsheviks had to fight everyone as well and yet they still won. Same with the Chinese communists who were also against massive internal and external threats. This is because in both cases they had popular support and were capable of analysing the material conditions and formulating policies based on that.

Another rebuttal was that every socialist revolution was state capitalism because it didn't adhere to a very simplified definition of socialism. I thought that lacked nuance and in the end it mattered to me less than the fact that it got results and helped millions of people, but it didn't prevent me from internalising this to some extent. I did (for at least some time) think that most ml states were incomplete revolutions that eventually fell to state capitalism.

When I did believe to these ideas I often fell into pits of despair, as did other ancoms, over the fact that in our world view, communism was essentially entirely defeated and at best we (as anarchists) had two current revolutions: the Zapatista (a group who follows marxist theory, refuses to call itself anarchis and controls a very small region and only due to an agreement with the government) and Rojava (who also controls a small region, is a military ally of the US and has a constitution which guarantees private property and definitely fits the anarchist definition of a state).

The holes in anarchist theory became even larger and more apparent to me once I started reading Marx and Lenin. The contrast in the explanatory and predictive power of dialectical materialism against the philosophical idealism of anarchist analysis eroded my remaining trust in anarchism very quickly.

Anarchist analysis severely lacked much class analysis beyond "people do evil things to each other because of the profit incentive of capitalism" and "power wants to hold onto power" which while in some ways is correct, it is vastly incomplete. Which is why the conclusion of this analysis, that after an anarchist revolution the profit incentive would simply be gone and so would reactionaries, also felt incomplete.

As it turns out it's also historically been proven wrong. Revolution doesn't stop when the civil war ends and that capitalists (even if disposessed) don't suddenly stop being reactionary and don't suddenly stop being a danger to the revolution.

However many anarchists also viewed historical events in a vacuum and lacked any sort of tools for materialist analysis and therefore came to silly conclusions about why things happened the way they did.

Many propositions on how an anarchist society would run resembled some variation of Old West homesteading, medieval peasant communes or some other strange individualist fantasies.

In the end I realised about anarchism that it entirely resembled the philosophically idealist utopian communism of old. A form of communism that lost the debate against the scientific communism of Marx, Engles and Lenin over a century ago and there is no reason to engage with it in the present day.

[determinate-negation]

What is important to understand about that moment was that Zionism was a political choice — not only by western imperial powers, but also by Jewish leadership. They could have fought more strenuously for Jewish immigration to the United States. And a lot of the Zionist leaders actually fought against immigration to the United States. There were a number of stories reported in the Jewish Communist press about how Zionists collaborated with the British and Americans to force Jews to go to Mandate Palestine, when they would have rather gone to the United States, or England. There’s a famous quote by Ernest Bevin, the British Foreign Secretary, who said the only reason the United States sent Jews to Palestine was ​“because they do not want too many more of them in New York.” And the Zionists agreed with this.

While this may seem like ancient history, it is important because it disrupts the common sense surrounding Israel’s formation. ​“Yes, maybe there could have been peace between Jews and Palestinians, but the Holocaust made all of that impossible.” And I would say that this debate after 1945 shows that there was a long moment in which there were other possibilities, and another future could have happened

[…]

Question: Who or what is responsible for the erasure of this history of Jewish, left anti-Zionism?

I wouldn’t blame the erasure solely on the Soviet Union or Zionism, because we also have to think of the Cold War and how the Cold War destroyed the old Jewish left, and really drove it underground and shattered its organizations. So I think we also have to see how the turn toward Zionism was understood as something that would normalize Jews in a post-war era.

With the execution of the Rosenbergs, the Red Scare of the late 1940s and ​’50s, and the virtual banning of the Communist Party, which had been throughout the 1930s and ​’40s half Jewish, for much of the Jewish establishment, aligning themselves with American imperialism was a way for Jews to normalize their presence in the United States. And hopefully that moment has to some degree passed. We can see the emptiness and barrenness of aligning ourselves with an American imperial project, with people like Bari Weiss and Jared Kushner. Why would someone like Bari Weiss, who describes herself as liberal, want to align herself with the most reactionary forces in American life?

It’s a bloody matrix of assimilation and whiteness that emerged out of the Cold War suburbanization of the 1950s. Israel was part of that devil’s bargain. Yes, you can become real Americans: You can go to good U.S. universities, you can join the suburbs, enter into the mainstream of American life, as long as you do this one little thing for us, which is back the American Empire. Hopefully, with the emergence of new grassroots organizations in the United States, among Jews and non-Jews who are questioning the U.S. role supporting Zionism, this calculus can begin to change. With the rise of Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Movement for Black Lives all taking a serious stance against U.S. support for Zionism, the common sense in the Jewish community has begun to move in a different direction, particularly among the younger generation. The battle is very far from over, but it makes me just a little optimistic about the future.”

- The Forgotten History of the Jewish Anti-Zionist Left

[skamenglishsubs]

Subtext and Culture, Young Royals, Season 3, Episode 4

Last episode ended with Simon coming home to a smashed window, this episode starts the morning after, Simon takes the bus to school, while Wilhelm is anxiously waiting for him.

Culture: At a high school level in Sweden, there's national tests in Swedish, English, and Math. Like everywhere else, the purpose of these tests is not only to grade students, but to align all schools across the country to combat grade inflation.

Blink and you miss it: Vincent is trying to cheat by looking at Nils' answers.

Blink and you miss it: Vincent draws a dick in the gravel while waiting for the others to be done with the test.

Subtext: This entire episode is overflowing with examples of privilege. For Vincent, and many other rich kids like him, studying and learning doesn't matter, they'll graduate regardless, so he doesn't care about the exam, he only cares about the graduation party.

Cinematography: Even with Felice and friends being completely blurred out in the background, you can still see Stella and Fredrika turning to look at Sara, and then turning their backs on her.

Culture: In the US, a lot of people are using "socialism" as a catch-all phrase which means politics they don't agree with, regardless of its actual ideology. Likewise, in Sweden, a lot of people use "communist" in the same way about generally left-wing politics, which is what Vincent is doing here.

Subtext: Wilhelm asks Simon if he can reconcile the conflict of dating a royal while being anti-monarchy, but the real question is of course if Wilhelm can reconcile the conflict in himself.

Subtext: This is where the show's political stance shines through, and this argument, that Wilhelm wasn't allowed to choose his life for himself, is the main argument they're gonna use in the finale.

Subtext: Wilhelm is weakly defending the monarchy, but just ends up repeating what his mother told him; it's a privilege, not a punishment, but does he believe it himself?

Subtext: The letter-to-yourself plot is mainly there in order to help August along his redemption arc, but here the show is using it to reinforce the point of the previous scene. Who does Wilhelm want to become? Does he have a choice?

Culture: In Sweden, Säkerhetspolisen, SÄPO, is the government agency in charge of national security, which includes providing security and assigning bodyguards to the royal family.

Subtext: Note the great use of passive voice here by Farima to avoid taking responsibility for the decision to force August to join the birthday foundation event. She's also expertly bargaining with Wilhelm to get what she wants.

Subtext: We know it was the far-right assholes who posted comments to Simon's videos a couple of episodes ago.

Blink and you miss it: Jan-Olof really perks up when Linda talks about moving to Gothenburg, because that would probably mean the end to the relationship between Wilhelm and Simon, which would solve all of his current problems.

Subtext: Like Farima, he bargains with Linda and Simon to get what he wants, for Simon to stop posting things to social media. It's almost as if their strategy was to do nothing at the start, waiting for things to blow up so they could swoop in, help out, and start making demands in exchange...

Blink and you miss it: The option to inactivate and hide your social media account is right there, but of course Simon has to choose to delete everything, because it will cause more drama and anguish.

Blink and you miss it: Fencing! Woohoo! I did fencing for five years as a kid until 8th grade or something, but I only did foil, and not épée like these students. I have absolutely no idea where these two are coming from or going to though, where would they practice? Is there a hidden fencing hall somewhere on the grounds that we haven't seen yet? How many kids at Hillerska are fencing? Also, he's carrying a practice blade and not an electric competition blade, so that checks out. Of the three types of modern fencing, épée is unique in that the entire body counts as a valid target, while in foil only the torso counts, and in sabre only the upper half counts. Oh wow, it looks like the gear is now wireless and every fencer carries their own indicator lights. Cool! Back in my day you had to be strapped in with a cord for competitions.

This tumblr is now about French School fencing. Allez! Touché!

Subtext: The narrative is that it's perfectly ok for the crown prince to be gay, as long as he's not gay gay.

Culture: The show keeps saying this, but in real world Sweden it's no longer the case. Supporting los jibbities is viewed as a completely mainstream and inoffensive opinion, on par with supporting human rights in general.

Subtext: Another example of privilege is being in a position to do a lot of good, and then just not caring about it. Simon is fighting for the causes he believes in, so seeing Wilhelm just casually throw it away is extremely disappointing for him.

Subtext: Unlike Vincent, August is actually a natural leader, someone people listen to, which is why he manages to quiet down the room when Vincent is unable to. Maybe a good quality in a future king?

Subtext: Simon is continuing the argument from before. Wilhelm could have shown solidarity with mental health causes or LGBT causes, but chose not to. However, he immediately decided to join in solidarity with the other rich kids protesting the school rules, which is rather selfish.

Subtext: Colour theory! Sara in purple, because part of the reason she's back at school is that August asked her to? And Simon in yellow, because he sure isn't loving Wilhelm very much right now.

Subtext: Just a reminder that Sara has actually been completely out of the loop since the end of season 2. She has no idea about the school rules, what's happened at home, how it's going with Simon and Wilhelm, or what's happening at school.

Blink and you miss it: Fredrika is so close to stop striking as soon as she's threatened with repercussions.

Subtext: I keep hammering this point home: The culture is in the walls, it's not something some of the kids made up. The visiting alumni were also hazed as new students and kept it going as third years. Same for the parents of all these kids. They're all part of the system, they all kept the cycles of abuse going, because they want the school to be like that.

Subtext: Privilege is thinking you can get things your way with almost no effort. None of these kids have ever struggled or protested something for real and then not been given what they wanted, so they seriously believed they'd win immediately.

Subtext: Another theme of this season is bringing secrets out in the open. We've all seen August struggling with body dysmorphia and an eating disorder since season 1, but no-one has ever called it out and put words on it, until Simon immediately recognizes it and calls it out.

Subtext: ...while the rich kids are just stuck in denial, because eating disorders is for poor people or something, it's not something that happens to them. And if it did, you certainly wouldn't admit it to anyone else.

Subtext: August tries to jokingly fend off Nils because he doesn't want anyone to know that the letter actually meant something to him, until Nils pushes too hard, and August punches him.

Subtext: Vincent talked a big game about striking in solidarity, but when they're caught as hilariously unprepared as they are, they're not pooling their resources in solidarity with each other, and instead resort to selling them to the highest bidder. Capitalism in a nutshell, illustrated perfectly by the behaviour of spoiled rich kids. Also, pet peeve, the English word for the currency of Sweden is "kronor", not "crowns".

Lost in translation: They're actually repeating a single word in Swedish, "svikare", which is pretty hard to translate. The verb, "svika", is a bit worse than letting someone down, but not as bad as betraying someone. The adjective, "besviken" typically means disappointed. So "svikare" means a person who is letting other people down, disappointing them, or betraying them.

Subtext: The culture is in the walls of the place, but the kids are also pretty damn complicit in continuing all the shitty traditions. This looks like a game of strip poker or truth or dare that went off the rails and just resulted in more bullying, with everyone joining in.

Subtext: The other girls are upset with Felice because she broke the code. You don't snitch to outsiders, you don't tell the truth, you keep up appearances.

Blink and you miss it: Henry won the potato chip auction, happily ate the entire bag, and passed out in a chair, clutching the bag. Mmmm, sourcream and onion.

Subtext: Speaking of closing ranks towards the outside, this also applies to this strike. It would be bad PR for the school if anyone outside found out that it happened, so it's better to solve it quietly and discreetly. Vanessa can trust the kids not to snitch. Vincent is also right, the parents, who are paying the tuition fees, are on their side.

Subtext: Felice can't be seen talking to Sara, so she checks that the coast is clear, and then drags Sara into a private bathroom to have their conversation.

Subtext: Likewise, Sara was probably Felice's first real friend.

Subtext: Nice little foreshadowing. I would have loved seeing Simon's drawing though!

Subtext: Well, he could have just made his social media private, but the show has to maximize the drama, so here we are, piling on more examples of how Simon is losing himself to the monarchy, that maybe he can't reconcile the conflict.

Subtext: Erik spent three years living at Hillerska, of course he wouldn't have told his then twelve year old kid brother about all the shit going on at the school. August spent an entire year living with Erik at the school, seeing what went on first hand, so of course he knows a side of Erik that Wilhelm doesn't.

Subtext: August has been trying to keep his mouth shut and avoid Wilhelm, but since they have yet another fight, he decides to drop the bomb about Erik to hurt Wilhelm.

Subtext: Again, the culture is in the walls. This is not something that only Erik's class did, once. It's probably been happening to all the boys for decades. It happened to the current second-year students, it happened to Erik, and lots of students before him who kept this shitty initiation tradition going.

Culture: Let's talk about the gay porn hazing a bit more. To me, this is an urban legend. I heard about it when I was a teenager back in the 90's, but I don't personally know anyone it happened to, or anyone who did it to anyone else. It was always hearsay, it happened to a friend of a friend's brother, or a classmate's cousin's friend or something similar, as is typical of urban legends.

Let's also make one thing absolutely clear: It doesn't work. The homophobic idea behind this shit is that if you are forced to watch gay porn and get a boner, you are gay, and if you don't, you're straight. But that is actually not true, erections don't work that way, and the fear of being found out is quite the boner killer. Also, what if you like guys, but the guys in the porno aren't your type? There's just so many ignorant misconceptions behind this idea.

I've also seen a lot of fan comments that keep playing into this ignorance; that the only reason Nils decided to stop the tradition was because he obviously failed it. Or that the only reason August is against it is because he failed, and the only reason he failed is because he's secretly not straight. No. Remember that the test doesn't work. Nils probably passed, despite actually being gay. August might have failed, despite being completely straight. Regardless of what happened, they both found it humiliating, and that is why they made a pact to stop it.