GarbageShoot [he/him]

any injuries sustained will heal in time.

This just isn’t true, that shit can be permanent depending on what it is.

I dislike that framing unless you mean “the Ukrainian government”, in which case they are certainly pro-.

I think they’ve got dedicated communism comms, but those are probably the only ones. c/Palestine is gonna be better than average, but don’t ever bring up Ukraine there.

I’m not sure where they are but they were really just what I said without any additional details. I remember one of them said something to the effect of “We should give them to a group being eradicated rather than a group doing eradicating” but that’s about it.

Ukraine - Palestine seems good to me. I’ve recently seen multiple lemmitors bemoaning all the military supplies sent to Israel, saying it should instead be sent to Ukraine.

I’d vote for the Korea one if it wasn’t redundant. Also “Why shouldn’t a Jewish state exist?”, A History of Media Manipulation, and Hitler Didn’t Come from Nowhere all seem particularly interesting.

First of all, even Dengists agree to there being a lot of revisionism in the Soviet Union for the majority of its existence, so we can hardly throw the “anti-revisionist” title out just like that. Second, there were and are a lot of Marxists who believed in some approximation of what Mao was doing even towards the end of his life, who see Deng being reinstated from the exile Mao put him in, and seizing power by banishing all the Maoists as being essentially a coup. This was followed by a massive reversal of many different policies, seizing collectively owned land from the people and selling it off, re-establishing the bourgeoisie, and ostensibly abandoning class struggle which you can hopefully forgive them for perceiving as being not very Marxist.

Even if you end up supporting what he did, most SWCC-ers do not deny that he was a right-deviationist, which is a subcategory of revisionism, they just also accuse Mao of being a revisionist to the left in equal measure. How they can both be “70% good” when they were so fundamentally opposed to each other is, uh, difficult math to swing.

For the record, I do think China remains a historically progressive force and should be completely supported over the US, so I guess I haven’t explained what would be the literal meaning of “Anti-China marxism”, but a lot of people use that phrase to ask about Maoists rather than Trots (people who totally oppose China, usually), so I chose that interpretation.

The one is not the other

It’s like, what are the actual implications of baristas doing “unproductive” labor? They’re attaching an emotional meaning to it, but unproductive for Marx only means that the labor does not reproduce capital, the M-C-M’ process is interrupted. So what’s the problem? That capitalism has bullshit jobs? That some people make minimum wage undeservedly?

But this is already ceding too much ground to their bunk analysis, because baristas are obviously productive labor. They make and serve coffee, meaning they are important in getting money out of the cafe (or whatever), the coffee beans, the coffee machines, etc., even if we totally discount the possibility of excess value being extracted from their labor and treat them like instruments of production. They’re part of the circuit, or they wouldn’t be employed!

Calling service economy work unproductive labor isn’t picking a weird corner of Marx’s writing, it’s completely misreading it.

On this chart, Labour is to the left of Lib Dems, 93% to 90%. They are to the right of Greens, who have 96%.

Uyghurs (Chinese Muslims)

It isn’t a common naming format for communist parties for this exact reason.

Basically every communist party you could care to mention names itself after the state it seeks to take over, the specific ordering of words is just a matter of distinguishing itself from other parties using the same words, like the CPUSA vs the PCUSA.

And then his policies did produce polarization and a new bourgeoisie. I think it shouldn’t be controversial to say that he was substantially revisionist, and that a circumstance where some are prosperous and some are not is opposed to the principles of a socialist society because it is the product of stratification of social position in the population, i.e. not conducive to achieving the “classlessness” thing.

He’s often regarded as a right-deviationist for a reason

I mean, I don’t think the war in Donbas was “genocide” by most common definitions. It was the reckless slaughter of a minority group, and that’s borne out just by looking at the magnitude of civilian casualties. imo the argument for invading on behalf of the breakaway regions is not that those regions were being subjected to genocide, but that they should be entitled to self determination in response to ongoing cultural repression, and if Ukraine is going to try to then surpress them militarily, Ukraine should be suppressed militarily (while trying to negotiate for peace, of course).

Such a pathetic thing to say. Even if what they were saying was true, why does the show need to be about the election? Isn’t it, like, a political comedy show? Aren’t there other political issues to talk about? idk, I hate South Park anyway, but it seems like a remarkably stupid thing to say.

Alright, yeah, they’re just really unstable then.

You could post this in c/askchapo or lemmygrads question comm, for future reference. As others have said, here is fine too.

This reads to me like there was some context left out (I assume be accident), possibly communication difficulties that you weren’t aware of. I really need to think there were other things said or maybe wording that implied something you didn’t mean, or something like that, because it’s a very unnatural reaction. Perhaps there is context you weren’t even there for, and this person’s breakdown was motivated by events that you have no knowledge of. College kids are still mostly kids, at least in America.

If what you relayed is the full and accurate picture, the person you are talking to is hopelessly unstable and you did nothing wrong. In the future, to avoid stepping on landmines, it would probably be good to start with some less challenging questions to see how they respond before you give them a prompt as heavy as what you gave. A lot of people aren’t ready to be given such a challenge so abruptly, and might feel like they’ve been ambushed or “put on the spot”.

New inventions in the world of Chavism-Mullenism

Cause if he loses again he’s gonna definitely run again

He’d die mid-campaign if he tried this, and I think he knows it. His second assassin would be a blood clot, and it wouldn’t miss.