• 2 Posts
Joined 9M ago
Cake day: Mar 05, 2022


I dont know much or really anything about them, so the joke is going right over my ignorant head. Could you explain the joke, thus ruining it provide context, comrade?

Sometimes I wonder why the IMCWP even allows them past the door with takes like that am I being harsh?

Had China maintained a better stance of solidarity during those times the USSR might still be around. Of course this is what if and not our material reality. Deal with the hand were dealt I suppose.


We say abolish the rich to mean "abolish the idea of an owning class so you cant have a tiny group of stakeholders getting rich off the labor of the workers in the companies the stakeholders own. The ultra-wealthy will just need to live like everyone else, which will be a reasonable middle class sort of lifestyle after the factories and warehouses and farms and stores and everything else that makes society tick are put in the hands of the people and used for the people. Unless they stand in the way of the revolution when it happens, in which case they get fucking eliminated.

Oh dont get me wrong, I never said nor meant to imply any sort of structure or effectiveness from the various privacy advocacy orgs, just that many tend to be distrustful of the government.

You will see them calling Snowden traitor and Assange a Russian agent, on first sight. Cory Doctorow and friends did something really bad to Naomi SexyCyborg Wu as far as privacy is concerned.

During my time as a class traitor in military intelligence it was usually those folks I was surrounded with then who were referring to Snowden and Assange as traitors and spies and so forth. I was in during the height of all that. However, most privacy advocates praise them, and in some cases further their causes by involving themselves in the Linux open-source world, the EFF, Tor, Privacy International, decentralized application development, etc.

I work in tech and can say tech people can and do get very political, including with the tech itself. How often I need to try to debunk my co-workers misconceptions about well the world its exhausting.

Also, privacy advocates arent usually saying USA = good. They are usually very suspicious of the US, or any government, almost to a conspiratorial level. Many are libertarians or conservative liberals/Trump folks who dislike basically any government anything.

Even the code written by developers holds the biases of the company within it. Where data is sent and received from, how algorithms feed information to people, who hold backdoors and who are the primary clients of a tech entity, it is all politics.

There are communists in office spaces as well, both with decent office jobs and shit office jobs.

As I like to say after having seen another comrade say something similar, Never argue with someone John Brown would simply shoot.

Im a union team lead at the factory and make plenty, in addition to my healthcare being provided for and access to numerous other resources. Experiencing the benefits of worker organizing has only made me more of a communist since I believe everyone should have the same - or better - benefits, protections, and privileges I have.

Not every communist has a dead end job, there are many solidly working class jobs that pay well and have many benefits and protections, often due to the efforts of communists/socialists, and syndicalists before them. Even when I was working at a UAW (United Auto Workers) plant, during orientation, which was run by union guys, we had a portion which talked about the history of the UAW and they discussed how it was founded by communists. They went on numerous strikes and fought hard to get what we had at the plant. Cops fired into the crowd of strikers at one point even, so the strikers seized on of the plants and used the tools there to make improvised slingshots where they lobbed large chunks of metal and other plant materials at the pigs. The founders of the UAW were assassinated by the Mafia, hired by Ford Motors (yes, that Ford, the same Ford founded by Henry Ford, renowned jew hating eugenicist and inspiration for Hitler. The same company that was making light armored vehicles for the Nazis throughout the entire war).

Anyway, I digressed a bit, so Ill stop here.

EDIT: Added content. ANOTHER EDIT: Added more content.

First, here are some disclaimers! I do not support the use of underage peoples in war or work or whatever. Honestly, war is abominable, though sometimes necessary to defend the working class from oppressors. Even normal war killing between grown adults is a terrible thing, but sometimes there is no other choice.

Here is my best insight regarding the involvement of people under 18 in war:

For starters, we should differentiate between someone close to 18, like a 16 or 17 year old, being involved in war, and say a 6 year old. The age of 18 is semi-arbitrary and was set by the west as the age of adulthood/voting/die-for-your-imperial-masters-if-things-are-still-mostly-stable-domestically, but the actual physical difference between a 17 year old and 18 year old, or even a 16 year old and 18 year old, is mostly negligible, physically anyway. This is why in many places even in the west the age of consent is often set to 15 or 16, usually with the caveat that if one of the participants in that relationship is older, they must not exceed a certain age gap. Even in the US, if someone graduates high school early, they can often join the military at 17. So including those ages as child soldiers means basically everyone everywhere has child soldiers.

Now, when participants in war have children, as in 6 year olds, or 9 year olds, 10 year olds, or other very fucking young people, involved in the violence, there is a lot of nuance that is necessary. For one, while many comrades on here referred to it as a loser strategy, I dont think loser is as accurate as desperate, which is often the case in a revolution.

Revolutions are almost always a form of asymmetric warfare and insurgency with specific definitions. Asymmetric warfare is a war strategy employed when one or more participants VASTLY overpowers their adversaries, such as when the US was fighting against Vietnamese communist forces, or more recently Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. The US had more fighting personnel, more industry, more financing, higher technology levels, and allies with similar conditions, meanwhile the Vietnamese, Al Qaeda, and Taliban were poorly armed, trained, equipped, fed, and had very little civil infrastructure to rely on. Also, state actors can also engage in asymmetric warfare if their adversary is in a superior position, often employing such tactics in tandem with conventional warfare tactics. Inversely, particularly with insurgent revolutions, if an entity which started off utilizing asymmetric warfare from the disadvantaged position begins to gain the upper hand, they will tend to transition to more conventional methods of warfare.

A group entity is considered an insurgency when the group aspires to replace the existing government - including colonial governments - with one of their own or one they support. Al Qaeda wanted the US and Western influence out of the areas in which they operated (they wanted to eject existing colonial governments) and replace it with a government with their version of Islam and their cultural values at the fore (though with Al Qaeda, it didnt need to be them specifically, just one with their values). With the Taliban, they wanted the US and company out and they wanted to replace that colonial government with a Taliban government. The Vietnamese Communists wanted the French and US out and their government in charge. Even the US war for independence was an insurgency; the USian entities wanted Britain out to be replaced by their own government.

So, revolutionaries almost always find themselves at a disadvantage at first. They lack funding, infrastructure, membership, and other cogs which allow them to conduct warfare as equals. They usually start off desperate and stay as such for the bulk of the war. This leads them to use desperate tactics, and this is especially true when fighting an enemy like the US who has no qualms about killing innocents, often openly justifying or bragging (see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) about it.

For example, there were children fighting against the Amerikkkans on the side of the Communists during that war. However, the Amerikkkans were massacring village after village after village, men, women, children, and even livestock. So entire villages had to defend themselves at all costs, because the cost was going to be everything if they lost. Children cant go to school or have a fulfilling childhood if they are being killed in systematic genocide. However, as the Communists gained ground and started pushing the Amerikkkans out, there were fewer and fewer child soldiers, and by time the Vietnamese could declare victory, their forces looked very much like conventional forces and conducted themselves as such (they were using less boobytraps, wooden bullets, etc.). They had the means to do so.

That said, a grand majority of insurgencies, communist or not, do not use the very young kind of children, since even from a strategic perspective they cant provide much assistance, not to mention the moral implications or the impact forcing children into war when it isnt necessary can have on a cause and its chances of success. It is usually in circumstances like what I described with Vietnam in which the young kind of children become involved, and in that case I feel it says more about the US and company than it does about the Vietnamese communists.

Now, Im going to repeat my disclaimer since it may have been forgotten after reading this.

I do not support the use of underage peoples in war or work or whatever. War as a whole is abominable, though sometimes necessary to defend the working class from oppressors. Even normal war killing between grown adults is a terrible thing, but sometimes there is no other choice.

I will try my best not to express bias one way or another, but full disclosure, I am a former Maoist and as of now dont really know exactly where I stand since I am not fully convinced any particular ~ism is suitable to the material conditions here inside the imperial core yet. If you want more on this, feel free to ask. Now to the question and my best attempt at an answer:

Maoists still consider themselves Marxists, which is why they label themselves MLM (Marxist - Leninst - Maoist).

The way to think about it is roughly like this:

In physics, Newton is often credited as a sort of founder, much like Marx is credited as the founder of Communism. Then you have other physicists contribute to the science, adding on to it and amending the mistakes of predecessors, leading up to Michio Kaku or Hawking or Penrose or Hooft or what have you of today.

The same with Marxism. Marxs analysis, while a great foundation, was not enough to explain the material conditions in Russia, so Lenin and company added to the science by including their own analysis. Then China happened, and the contributions of Marx, Lenin, and others werent enough to explain the material conditions adequately in China, so Mao and company added their own analysis.

Just as in certain circumstances in physics it is best to invoke principles of Newtonian physics to best analyze a certain physical problem, while in other circumstances principles of Einsteinian Relativity or Kakus String Theory might be best applied, so too in Marxism do we often invoke principles laid out in the foundational Marx original analysis, while sometimes Lenin has the best answer, and sometimes Mao.

I hope this helps answer your question as to why Maoists still refer to themselves as Marxists.

EDIT: Didnt see the [BANNED] thing and that this comment was made one month ago. Whoops. Well then hopefully this helps anyone else looking for answers to this question.

It doesnt even pass as communism. It is like the wolf in sheeps clothing, except were all looking at the wolf like, bruh, we see you.

When I watched this movie I did not expect what I got but fuck I was not disappointed! Loved this film!

So, just wondering why the symbol for the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a union, was used for this sublemmy (sorry, don't know what else to call it yet). I mean, I'm supportive of the IWW and am a dues paying wobbly myself. I also support cooperatives and hope to one day be a cofounder and worker/resident at one. However I'm not seeing a direct correlation between the IWW, a majority of whose members are not in a cooperative and cooperatives, a majority of which are not unionized with the IWW, if they are unionized in the first place.