You must log in or register to comment.
Nah, it’s just filled with PR speak to make it look like there’s ethics when asked
Reforms to restrain the rent-seeking class were always an alternative to the preferred method of killing them and redistributing their wealth.
She’s right, but given our situation this misses the point. The ruling class wants you to think reforms are a “replacement” to revolution, but we don’t need to accept that premise. Reforms weaken the ruling class, otherwise they would already be enacted. So I ask, por que dos?
No los
I too am suspicious of the number two. Two faced mf
relevant quote
The revolutionary struggle is the very antithesis of the parliamentary struggle. In Germany, for four decades we had nothing but parliamentary “victories.” We practically walked from victory to victory. And when faced with the great historical test of August 4, 1914, the result was the devastating political and moral defeat, an outrageous debacle and rot without parallel. To date, revolutions have given us nothing but defeats. Yet these unavoidable defeats pile up guarantee upon guarantee of the future final victory.
Abolish US crony capitalism.
You can just say capitalism
Except it isn’t companies are colluding on pricing which drives up prices for the consumer. And Chinese import tariffs are artificially inflating the price of vehicles.
I was taught that capitalism is about fair competition for consumers, and that really hasn’t been the case.
Capitalism will never be fair because it requires infinite growth in a finite world at all costs.
Infinite growth AND a perfect competition environment. Neither things is achievable, let alone sustainable.
Yep. It’s absolutely not sustainable in any form. That’s what people don’t realize. It’s why we’re seeing enshittification of everything now. Companies are hitting a ceiling where innovation stalls but they’re still required to grow regardless. So they resort to essentially slowly burning down their own house and shitting where they eat. Marx and others predicted this ages ago and now we’re seeing it play out in real time.
The problem with capitalism is that we have one giant bucket for companies to pull from and none of those companies give a flying fuck about the bucket itself. So they keep taking from it collectively. Eventually the bucket will be empty and none of them will be held responsible. This is exactly why we had the Great Depression and the 2008 housing market crash. The capitalists redlined every engine until they were non-functioning. Now the working class is forced to clean up the mess, while facing the repercussions of it all.
It’s not even a hard thing to comprehend. This is how parasites work. They drain the host until it’s either dead or useless to them, then they move to a new host. The problem is that earth is the host and unless capitalists figure out how to start space mining, we’re all fucked. Because, again, they continue to take resources while taking no responsibility.
This is Capitalism still.
Capitalism itself doesn’t care what consumers want, you’re referring to Liberalism the ideology.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find any example of capitalism ever being anything different, in terms of collusion and gouging.
The idea that it could ever be even remotely fair, let alone competitive, is more utopian than anything you’ll see in post-structural socialism.
The thing is, while inflation is actually going down, prices are not, simply because corporations decided to keep them high. We have had the data to prove this for a while, and we are now getting corporations admitting to it. So if none of them have decided to work against this, to compete, as it would be a shoe-in to take some of the other corps’ customers, then what is it other than a wide scale, mutual decision, to not drop prices, or even stop raising them. The there are also things like the service landlords are using to determine how much they should set their rent rates too, that is literally a collusion app.
What if reform the classist society? Checkmate Luxemburg.
Just more casual references to violence. It’s cool when the left does it.
There is a distinct difference between progressive and reactionary violence
The rule of “law and order” takes constant systemic violence to upkeep, to protect the ruling class, their private (not personal!) property and interests.
This violence of the ruling classes is normalised, even legalized/codified in law. Standing up against it, however, and enacting systemic change is branded by their lackeys as “terrorism” or “violent chaos”.
Class struggle is a constant fight of one class to oppress another. Currently in most of the world, the exploitative classes oppress the exploited ones. For society to progress, the exploited must suppress the exploiters.
(Or for the expropriators to be expropriated as Marx put it. But that’s just the same in fancy)After all
One person’s terrorist is another one’s partisan
Mao put it quite well, which is why all following quotes are from him
(btw jsyk: quoting someone on a specific issues doesn’t mean supporting their views in general/every other aspect)“War is the continuation of politics.” In this sense, war is politics and war itself is a political action; since ancient times there has never been a war that did not have a political character… However, war has its own particular characteristics and in this sense, it cannot be equated with politics in general. “War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means.” When politics develops to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by the usual means, war breaks out to sweep the obstacles from the way… When the obstacle is removed and our political aim attained the war will stop. Nevertheless, if the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue until the aim is fully accomplished… It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. - “On Protracted War” (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 152-53 *
Revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society, and without them it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power. - “On Contradiction” (August1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 344.*
War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes. - “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War” (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.
This is why only after the abolition of classes, private property and states (ie. communism), will the contradictions, which are the root cause of virtually all large scale violence, be resolved.
Which in turn is why:
We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun. - “Problems of War and Strategy” (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 225.
👌👍
I- what does this even mean? TwT
It means they’re too lazy and uninformed to respond. They’d rather attack you with argument counterpoints manufactured by the right wing, as opposed to using their brain and digging deeper into the “why” behind something.
You peddled a right wing argument talking point. Nobody likes violence but sometimes it becomes inevitable. History shows it. When we’re all reduced to renting forever and essentially being serfs to corporate America, do you think voting is going to solve all of our problems? The ruling class will never allow you to vote away their power.
2/3rds of American own their own home. Home purchasing rates are up for Gen z compared to millennials
Try again to justify your violence but use actual data.
I don’t need to justify anything. History has already shown us how this will go, even if it’s a slow, arduous process.
Keep trying to paint “the left” with sweeping generalizations as violence lovers while claiming not to be right wing.
removed by mod
Short hand for the following:
Removing power from the ruling class can be done without violence. In fact, whenever people have tried exactly that, with purely democratic and peaceful means (eg, Allende in Chile) it has been the ruling class that has resorted to violence.
Arguably in a hi-tech media saturated and highly networked era like ours, violent revolution is actually not a practical approach at least for advanced economies. Rosa Luxemburg was talking about her era, just like Saint-Just was talking about his.
Sure, I’ll just ignore the rest of this thread and replies to me. You should probably inform your community they are saying the quite part out loud .
What can I say, welcome to the part of internet where people post memes and shitposts.
It is, it has a hero’s tail kinda vibe, terminator perhaps. Whereas the right tend to come off as SkyNet in their violence.
to come back to a serious point though, read History of The Russian Revolution and you will soon see the violence is a reaction to the class antagonism, these striking workers were peaceful till the police started shooting.
point to where the violence is
im not looking to abolish capitalism just limit it to things that don’t really matter. like how nice a tv folks have.
