why left-wing parties harm socialism/communism more

[Whitefeminineboy]

I recently watched the communist YouTuber Avantgarde.
He represents an opinion of communism that actually goes back to its original origins, according to Lenin and Marx.
I also share this view.
He believes that left-wing parties would do more harm to communism because they appear to be a less radical solution and thus act as an opposing party to communism by selling a less radical solution.
Left-wing parties are system parties that completely distort the fight against capital.
Today's left-wing parties are not left-wing.
As soon as they come to power, they reverse their polarity and suddenly become system parties.
We live in a pseudo-democracy, so an opposition is needed.
Once a left-wing party comes to power, its task is to betray the proletariat and completely subordinate itself to capitalism.
In Germany, a left-wing party was in power.
At that time, they were strictly against arms deliveries to war zones.
Once it was, it suddenly became the largest arms supplier and openly advocated for arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Left-wing parties distort the actual goal, namely the destruction of a capitalist society.
Instead, they draw attention to LGBTQ and the environment, something Karl Marx never had anything to do with.
This opinion is hated in the left-wing bubble because most leftists trust left-wing parties and don't understand that these are necessary oppositions that serve the system to create the impression of democracy.
If a party were actually to emerge that wanted to implement the communist idea, it would have long since been classified as anti-system and banned, just as happened with the KPD in Germany in 1957.
Left-wing parties distort the actual problem and themselves become a massive problem for genuine left-wing ideas because, like the opium of the people, they manipulate voters and distract from the real problem.
Just look at the left-wing parties. There aren't even any ordinary workers there; the top ranks consist of an elite who have studied and come from wealthy households.

Left-wing parties are a lie. I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any left-wing parties, as they were banned long ago because they were hostile to the system.
What you see isn't left-wing, but the system wants you to believe it is so that you don't question the system and resign yourself to your fate.
They have distorted being left-wing so much that it's barely recognizable, and no one knows the true origins of the ideas, but only what so-called left-wing parties say.
You are being lied to and deceived; you must never know what communist ideas imply, because that would be a danger to any system.
The system won't tell you how to destroy it - why should it?
It will do its best to maintain the status quo and protect capital.
There is no country today that allows communist ideas, because these ideas are always directed against the existing system, and no one wants to lose their power.
Don't believe what they're trying to sell you as left-wing.
Karl Marx wasn't an LGBTQ supporter, and Lenin didn't found a gay party.
That was never the point, just as it wasn't about mass migration. They're trying to sell you something left-wing that it isn't.
That was never left-wing and never will be.
The main goal has always been the destruction of capital and the transfer of land and production goods to the people.
Russia is no longer a communist country, although they like to inscribe the victories of communism on their flag.
The Russian flag was always considered an enemy flag.
The USSR no longer exists; only its fruits live on, inscribing false snakes on their flags.
The ideas live on, only attempts are being made to distort and rewrite them so that they become compatible with the system.

View: https://youtu.be/oZKlO7d-QZI?feature=shared

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

View: https://youtu.be/sqSA-SY5Hro?feature=shared

 

[anglocelticcel]

What puts me off left wing parties:
Taxes being spunked
Having my pants pulled down
Getting nicked for defend against crime
Discrimination against my race,gender and accent

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

What puts me off left wing parties:
Taxes being spunked
Having my pants pulled down
Getting nicked for defend against crime
Discrimination against my race,gender and accent

Left-wing parties are a lie.

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

Usually half of the party gets bought once in power, that's why you have to take precaitions to abolish the system as a whole.
On the otherhand we need to build connections and use parliamentary parties as a steping stone. We also can't built trust or a movement, if things get socially such bad everyone goes fascist. The socialists ate not in a strong enough position for that.

Wouldn't say those are not communist issues. The question is to what degree it is idealism not to put the democratization itself as the utmost important goal and advertise secondary issues.

Mass migration is a byproduct of classwarfare and imperialism though.

Won't harm to talk about these things internally.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=61B2oN5tV3M&pp=ygUSS2xhc3NlbmZlaW4gYnJlY2h0

 

[LeFrenchCel]

The main problem about left-wing parties nowadays is that all of their focus have switched from real problems like wealth distribution, class struggle and tax fraud, to bullshit stuff like muh lgbt defense, muh feminism.

 

[antirojetes]

Turns out when you base your ideology on class struggle and endless dialectics, all you end up with are rainbow flags on bombs dropped by defense contractors. What do I know, right? It's always fun watching reds complain about the monster they created being too liberal for their tastes

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

The main problem about left-wing parties nowadays is that all of their focus have switched from real problems like wealth distribution, class struggle and tax fraud, to bullshit stuff like muh lgbt defense, muh feminism.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I recently watched the communist YouTuber Avantgarde.
He represents an opinion of communism that actually goes back to its original origins, according to Lenin and Marx.
I also share this view.
He believes that left-wing parties would do more harm to communism because they appear to be a less radical solution and thus act as an opposing party to communism by selling a less radical solution.
Left-wing parties are system parties that completely distort the fight against capital.
Today's left-wing parties are not left-wing.
As soon as they come to power, they reverse their polarity and suddenly become system parties.
We live in a pseudo-democracy, so an opposition is needed.
Once a left-wing party comes to power, its task is to betray the proletariat and completely subordinate itself to capitalism.
In Germany, a left-wing party was in power.
At that time, they were strictly against arms deliveries to war zones.
Once it was, it suddenly became the largest arms supplier and openly advocated for arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Left-wing parties distort the actual goal, namely the destruction of a capitalist society.
Instead, they draw attention to LGBTQ and the environment, something Karl Marx never had anything to do with.
This opinion is hated in the left-wing bubble because most leftists trust left-wing parties and don't understand that these are necessary oppositions that serve the system to create the impression of democracy.
If a party were actually to emerge that wanted to implement the communist idea, it would have long since been classified as anti-system and banned, just as happened with the KPD in Germany in 1957.
Left-wing parties distort the actual problem and themselves become a massive problem for genuine left-wing ideas because, like the opium of the people, they manipulate voters and distract from the real problem.
Just look at the left-wing parties. There aren't even any ordinary workers there; the top ranks consist of an elite who have studied and come from wealthy households.

Left-wing parties are a lie. I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any left-wing parties, as they were banned long ago because they were hostile to the system.
What you see isn't left-wing, but the system wants you to believe it is so that you don't question the system and resign yourself to your fate.
They have distorted being left-wing so much that it's barely recognizable, and no one knows the true origins of the ideas, but only what so-called left-wing parties say.
You are being lied to and deceived; you must never know what communist ideas imply, because that would be a danger to any system.
The system won't tell you how to destroy it - why should it?
It will do its best to maintain the status quo and protect capital.
There is no country today that allows communist ideas, because these ideas are always directed against the existing system, and no one wants to lose their power.
Don't believe what they're trying to sell you as left-wing.
Karl Marx wasn't an LGBTQ supporter, and Lenin didn't found a gay party.
That was never the point, just as it wasn't about mass migration. They're trying to sell you something left-wing that it isn't.
That was never left-wing and never will be.
The main goal has always been the destruction of capital and the transfer of land and production goods to the people.
Russia is no longer a communist country, although they like to inscribe the victories of communism on their flag.
The Russian flag was always considered an enemy flag.
The USSR no longer exists; only its fruits live on, inscribing false snakes on their flags.
The ideas live on, only attempts are being made to distort and rewrite them so that they become compatible with the system.

View: https://youtu.be/oZKlO7d-QZI?feature=shared

Because in the 1960s, there was a mutation in Marxism as an ideology. Because white male workers in usa and western Europe the 1950s and 1960s were satisfied with everything and did not want any revolution, because they enjoyed the prosperity of that time. Therefore, the left has mutated into the new left. Now they are not interested in the class conflict between workers and the bourgeoisie or the conflict between the poor and the rich, because from their point of view, white male workers have failed them, because this group is easy to satisfy. But women, racial and sexual minorities, have become the new revolutionary element of the new left, and they have taken the place of the proletariat (factory workers), because fags, foids, and niggers are greedy and insatiable, and therefore they can never be satisfied, because once they get one thing, they immediately demand more benefits, more quotas, and more privileges.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Because in the 1960s, there was a mutation in Marxism as an ideology. Because white male workers in usa and western Europe the 1950s and 1960s were satisfied with everything and did not want any revolution, because they enjoyed the prosperity of that time. Therefore, the left has mutated into the new left. Now they are not interested in the class conflict between workers and the bourgeoisie or the conflict between the poor and the rich, because from their point of view, white male workers have failed them, because this group is easy to satisfy. But women, racial and sexual minorities, have become the new revolutionary element of the new left, and they have taken the place of the proletariat (factory workers), because fags, foids, and niggers are greedy and insatiable, and therefore they can never be satisfied, because once they get one thing, they immediately demand more benefits, more quotas, and more privileges.

I think that Marxist don't even actually need or want revolution anymore. Their main goals are:
1. Abolish the family unit
2. Abolish "gender"/gender roles
3. Abolish race, nations, and borders
4. To each according to their need.

All of these are already being achieved without any immediate violent revolution that would be visible and obvious.
The family unit? Destroyed by feminism and women's rights
Gender? Destroyed by transexuality and sexual liberation
Race? Abolished by mass immigration so everyone will be brown and have no racial identity and heritage to want to preserve.
To each according to their need? Mass welfare from taxing whites and giving it all to immigrants/nonwhites or foreign third world countries.

Communism isn't even about revolution anymore, it's about cultural Marxism.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

The main problem about left-wing parties nowadays is that all of their focus have switched from real problems like wealth distribution, class struggle and tax fraud, to bullshit stuff like muh lgbt defense, muh feminism.

We should stop calling these people left-wing...they are anything but left-wing, these educated, rich, and fun-loving idiots.
They were never left-wing and never will be.
As soon as they're supposed to show solidarity with the poor, they fail.
They will never join forces with the ugly workers; left-wing Chad is too good for that.
They aren't left-wing and never will be...
Left-wing Chad wants to keep his lifestyle, drive around in his dad's Mercedes on the weekends and live his privileged life, while the worker spends the weekends crying drunk in the shower because he can't stand life anymore...
Brutal? Yes! Is that right? Pretty sure!

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

I think that Marxist don't even actually need or want revolution anymore.

According to Marx, revolution is necessary to overcome capitalism, so no one can call themselves a Marxist who does not want this...

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

1. Abolish the family unit
2. Abolish "gender"/gender roles
3. Abolish race, nations, and borders
4. To each according to their need.

Sounds more like capitalism...
1.) Destroying the family so that the worker lives only for his work.
2.) Introducing women into work for profit.
3.) Recruiting workers from other countries so that lower wages can be paid and the capitalist can make more money.
Where is that on left, please?
Sounds like top-notch capitalism to me...

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I think that Marxist don't even actually need or want revolution anymore. Their main goals are:
1. Abolish the family unit
2. Abolish "gender"/gender roles
3. Abolish race, nations, and borders
4. To each according to their need.

All of these are already being achieved without any immediate violent revolution that would be visible and obvious.
The family unit? Destroyed by feminism and women's rights
Gender? Destroyed by transexuality and sexual liberation
Race? Abolished by mass immigration so everyone will be brown and have no racial identity and heritage to want to preserve.
To each according to their need? Mass welfare from taxing whites and giving it all to immigrants/nonwhites or foreign third world countries.

Communism isn't even about revolution anymore, it's about cultural Marxism.

Yes, but what is commonly referred to as cultural Marxism, I prefer to call it left-wing liberalism. Essentially, unlike Marxists, there is no problem with the wealthy. There is a neoliberal consensus between all the right-wing and left-wing parties. The destruction of the family is also beneficial to capitalism, as single individuals spend more money, and the presence of foids in the labor market allows for lower wages. The influx of non-white migrants erodes trust in Western societies, making it impossible for people to unite against the Elite. During the Cold War, there was an idea of convergence, that communism and capitalism would absorb each other, thereby eliminating the flaws of both systems. However, after 1991, there was a reverse convergence, where communism and capitalism merged, but also absorbed the flaws of both systems.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

According to Marx, revolution is necessary to overcome capitalism, so no one can call themselves a Marxist who does not want this...

Marx was a lazy Jewish idiot and he also wasn't an incel if that's what you think of him. Capitalism vs communism is a false dichotomy. They are both controlled by globalist Jews that want the same end: the extinction of the white race. Go find the third option

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Essentially, unlike Marxists, there is no problem with the wealthy.

The ussr didn't have a problem with wealth either. Their party members could have literal manors with hundreds of servants and plenty of wealth. Wealth was ALWAYS distributed unevenly.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

The ussr didn't have a problem with wealth either. Their party members could have literal manors with hundreds of servants and plenty of wealth. Wealth was ALWAYS distributed unevenly.

In the USSR, entrepreneurs and the upper class were expropriated.
Stalin sent his son to war, who fought side by side with ordinary soldiers...

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

The ussr didn't have a problem with wealth either. Their party members could have literal manors with hundreds of servants and plenty of wealth. Wealth was ALWAYS distributed unevenly.

Yes, but it started in 1964 with the arrival of Brezhnev, and it was customary to hide and conceal this wealth. Having Western cars, Western clothing, and Western electronics, such as video recorders, televisions, and other high-ranking party members, they could not display these items to the public. Instead, it was customary to conceal the wealth.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Sounds more like capitalism...
1.) Destroying the family so that the worker lives only for his work.
2.) Introducing women into work for profit.
3.) Recruiting workers from other countries so that lower wages can be paid and the capitalist can make more money.
Where is that on left, please?

Marx literally wrote he wanted to abolish the family unit and a main goal of communism is a completely universal global society with no borders. It's a false dichotomy

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Yes, but it started in 1964 with the arrival of Brezhnev, and it was customary to hide and conceal this wealth. Having Western cars, Western clothing, and Western electronics, such as video recorders, televisions, and other high-ranking party members, they could not display these items to the public. Instead, it was customary to conceal the wealth.

No. I read a communist book about Stalin that mostly takes excerpts from people who personally knew him and lived in the ussr. I remember in one chapter, i believe this one was titled "pigs in the garden" or something, it talked about how khrustev and other party members at the time under Stalin (i believe the 30s-40s) had multiple personal manors with many servants that they would live at and enjoy luxurious life

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

National Socialism? It doesn't make any sense at its core. I've already written articles about why it's essentially an ideology that makes no sense at all...

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

No. I read a communist book about Stalin that mostly takes excerpts from people who personally knew him and lived in the ussr. I remember in one chapter, i believe this one was titled "pigs in the garden" or something, it talked about how khrustev and other party members at the time under Stalin (i believe the 30s-40s) had multiple personal manors with many servants that they would live at and enjoy luxurious life

Yes. I'm too read about this.

He began to read an excellent book "Americans in Moscow. 1930-1940».
On the help of Americans in building the USSR.
There are memories of the US ambassador to the USSR Davis - he arrived in Moscow in January 1937, and then did not miss a single court session over the highest Bolsheviks - "enemies of the people." Davis supported Stalin and his policies with both hands. Davis was married to America's richest woman, Marjorie, who arrived with him in Moscow. In 1941, he released memoirs about his work in the USSR. And in 1946, the book of his personal driver was published in the USA, Ciliberti is already a look at the USSR not through the eyes of the boss, but hard workers.

I liked the description of Ambassador Davis, as he described the luxurious image of the highest Stalinist authorities.
"On February 5 (1937), Ciliberti took Mr. and Mrs. Davis to the country house of the People's Commissar of Foreign Trade A.P. Rosengolz. Charlie, who drove Marjorie Post Davis in his homeland, saw the luxurious mansions of American millionaires and could judge that Rosengoltz's "commissar dacha" was not inferior to the homes of millionaires on Long Island. " True, there were also its own features - a "tower with a sentry," "a high green fence with barbed wire on top surrounding the estate," guards, an evil dog on a chain near the garage (Charlie saw such an angry dog for the first time), which Rosengolz fed himself and did not allow anyone else to do this. Ciliberti was curious to know what cars were in the garage of the Soviet boss. He lists: "16-cylinder Cadillac Sedan, 8-cylinder Packard Sedan and Soviet M-1 Fordsedan." Equipped with a garage, in his professional opinion, was no worse than that of some American millionaire. While Siliberti was waiting for the ambassador, he saw countless footmen and waiters scurrying back and forth and thought: "Not bad for a servant of the people in socialist Russia, where everyone should be equal."

Ambassador Davis also noted that "these commissioners do not offend themselves." Davis was pleased with the "unusual and interesting lunch" at Rosengoltz's dacha. He liked the large, comfortable house, well and tastefully furnished with heavy German style furniture, and the owner of the house, a man, in his opinion, extremely business. "I think he might be of use to us," he wrote in a letter to Roosevelt's press secretary, Stephen Earley. The ambassador also liked the guests of Rosengolts - Voroshilov, who struck him with military straightening and intelligence, "calm, dispassionate, highly educated, capable, wise" Vyshinsky, "swift like rapier" Mikoyan.

An interesting record of a visit to Rosengolz, his guests and, in particular, about Mikoyan was left by Mrs. Davis.
This was the first exit of the ambassador's wife to the Moscow "light," and, naturally, she was interested in new people, their manners, behavior, appearance. She could not help but be surprised when Mikoyan invited her stepdaughter, twenty-year-old Emlen Knight Davis, to drain a glass of vodka: "Drink to the bottom!" After lunch, everyone moved to the living room, where they were waiting for "a huge puff cake and coffee." "Mikoyan," Marjorie writes, "set about charting his tour of the Frosted Foods factories with delight." A member of the board of directors of General Foods, which was also engaged in the production and distribution of frozen foods, she knew about the business trip of the People's Commissar of the food industry Mikoyan to America in 1936, when he visited, among other things, the freezing factories.

In America, she had several luxurious residences, including Villa Mar-a-Lago in Florida (currently owned by Donald Trump). Probably, hence her special, almost professional interest in the interiors of commissar cottages. While Charlie was looking at cars in the garage, Marjorie looked into the Rosengolz bedroom: "The bedroom has the most modern furniture, a giant bed, a lace bedspread; a huge bathroom with a large white couch, an old-fashioned toilet with a tank on top, a Russian washbasin, a deep bath, two-yard-long towels with brushes, "she recorded her impressions."

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

View attachment 1475930

A puppet of capital.
As soon as capital is threatened, it uses unfair means like fascism to continue to protect and maintain the capitalist system through violence.
Why was he disgusted by the Slavs but at the same time stole children from occupied Poland because they looked more Aryan than the Germans?
His ideology makes no sense.
He found Muslims attractive even though they were also Semites.
There are more and more contradictions in this ideology...

 

[outerdarkness]

Don’t care.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

A puppet of capital.
As soon as capital is threatened, it uses unfair means like fascism to continue to protect and maintain the capitalist system through violence.

No. Hitler led a racial revolution, which is the only one that mattered. I actually would rather live in a country with wealthy intelligent white people than a billion retarded violent foreigners who hate my nation and race and will stab me while burning my city.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

No. Hitler led a racial revolution, which is the only one that mattered. I actually would rather live in a country with wealthy intelligent white people than a billion retarded violent foreigners who hate my nation and race and will stab me while burning my city.

I've added something to my post. Reload the page to see it.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I think that Marxist don't even actually need or want revolution anymore. Their main goals are:
1. Abolish the family unit
2. Abolish "gender"/gender roles
3. Abolish race, nations, and borders
4. To each according to their need.

All of these are already being achieved without any immediate violent revolution that would be visible and obvious.
The family unit? Destroyed by feminism and women's rights
Gender? Destroyed by transexuality and sexual liberation
Race? Abolished by mass immigration so everyone will be brown and have no racial identity and heritage to want to preserve.
To each according to their need? Mass welfare from taxing whites and giving it all to immigrants/nonwhites or foreign third world countries.

Communism isn't even about revolution anymore, it's about cultural Marxism.

I just wanted to emphasize that classical Marxism mutated somewhere in the 1960s, influenced by the fact that left-wing intellectuals became disillusioned with white, straight, working-class men, as they were content with their lives and did not want any revolution. However, black people, foids, and homosexuals are insatiable and will always demand more money, privileges, and so on. You can see today that the foids in the west, with their privileges, can still complain about sexism, or the blacks can complain about racism, and the fags can complain about homophobia, which is why they have become the new oppressed class, as they are always ready to start a revolution because their desires are limitless. Remember 2020 and BLM, which was a small revolution.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Why was he disgusted by the Slavs but at the same time stole children from occupied Poland because they looked more Aryan than the Germans?

I don't think slavs are nonwhite or anything, he was mostly upset with them because of WW1 i believe. Regardless, the blonde hair blue eyed Aryan race theory is true. Also hitler never wanted WW2 to even happen according to himself, it was supposed to just be a war against the Bolsheviks.

He found Muslims attractive even though they were also Semites.

Attractive? I don't think he said that necessarily. But they were accepted into the SS because why not? If they wanted to help then good for them, he didn't want to kill all nonwhites in the middle east for no reason or something. Also don't act like they are the same as Jews. They are different and look different regardless of "semetism".

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

Remember 2020 and BLM, which was a small revolution.

Where did Marx write about race, gay rights movements, and migration?
He kept his works purely economic.
Anyone who refers to Marx should also focus on capital.
I can't say I refer to Jesus while watching a porno (I hope you understand my analogy).
As soon as I refer to someone, I shouldn't distort or misuse their ideas...

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

I just wanted to emphasize that classical Marxism mutated somewhere in the 1960s

Yes it did but i dont think the actual end goal changed. It always wanted the same outcome of a global communism, it's just through different means now

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I think that Marxist don't even actually need or want revolution anymore. Their main goals are:
1. Abolish the family unit
2. Abolish "gender"/gender roles
3. Abolish race, nations, and borders
4. To each according to their need.

All of these are already being achieved without any immediate violent revolution that would be visible and obvious.
The family unit? Destroyed by feminism and women's rights
Gender? Destroyed by transexuality and sexual liberation
Race? Abolished by mass immigration so everyone will be brown and have no racial identity and heritage to want to preserve.
To each according to their need? Mass welfare from taxing whites and giving it all to immigrants/nonwhites or foreign third world countries.

Communism isn't even about revolution anymore, it's about cultural Marxism.

All of America was on fire, store windows were being broken, and the police were kneeling before the rioters. It was a revolution, or a rehearsal for a revolution. It was caused by a drug addict who had overdosed, but the masses of black people who took to the streets, burning and destroying everything in their path, forced the court to imprison the police officer. It was a small revolution, but it was a revolution nonetheless or repetition of revolutionary.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

Also hitler never wanted WW2 to even happen according to himself, it was supposed to just be a war against the Bolsheviks.

He wrote in Mein Kampf that he wanted to invade the East to prove the superiority of the West...
He had always strived for war because he thought he could conquer any nation with his wonder weapons, and the Soviets looked weak at the time, as Russia was in ruins under the Tsarist Empire and needed to rebuild itself.
In the end, he was surprised at how much the Soviets had invested in weapons...

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Where did Marx write about race, gay rights movements, and migration?
He kept his works purely economic.
Anyone who refers to Marx should also focus on capital.
I can't say I refer to Jesus while watching a porno (I hope you understand my analogy).
As soon as I refer to someone, I shouldn't distort or misuse their ideas...

Its was revolution of new lefties. In the lens of the new left, which is a mutation of Marxism, blacks, foids, and gays are the oppressed class, and white straight men are the bourgeoisie, and that blacks, gays, and foids will eventually make a revolution.

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Where did Marx write about race, gay rights movements, and migration?

Those things were just a natural consequence of Marxist ideology. Because Marxist believe in dialectical materialism, ie the idea that all human developments, social norms, and history/actions/culture as a whole is entirely materially driven and basically all just a social construct that comes from some sort of class interest, it's logical to conclude all the things we see today. It's also atheist. Why have gender roles when there is no family unit? Why homophobia when there's no gender roles? Why have race when there's no nation or borders? After all, everything is just a capitalist social construct that must be abolished.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

It was a small revolution

It wasn't a revolution, but violence.
A revolution changes a system; there's a before and after...

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

It wasn't a revolution, but violence.
A revolution changes a system; there's a before and after...

That is true, it wasn't a revolution. It was just a chimp out in order to make white people feel helpless and afraid, and it was funded by rich Jews.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

and white straight men are the bourgeoisie,

They're not interested in the white poor?

Then how are they socialists?

Marx directed his works primarily at the West and not at the Third World, since they can't even properly implement capitalism.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

It wasn't a revolution, but violence.
A revolution changes a system; there's a before and after...

This revolution was aimed at bending the US government to the wishes of the masses, and they were successful. A police officer who had done nothing wrong was imprisoned for many years. This was because if the court had acquitted him, the black people would have burned the entire country to the ground.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

Why have race when there's no nation or borders?

It's funny, because the USSR, in particular, often speaks of different nations in its songs and has drawn clear boundaries.
I think that being left-wing doesn't negate nations, but rather affirms their existence.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

They're not interested in the white poor?

Then how are they socialists?

Marx directed his works primarily at the West and not at the Third World, since they can't even properly implement capitalism.

I repeat that the New Left is not a classical Marxist. It is simply a branch of Marxism, a mutation that originated from classical Marxism but was greatly influenced by the conditions of the 1960s, such as the struggle for civil rights for African Americans, the sexual revolution, and more. If a father does one thing and his son does the opposite, it does not negate the familial bond between them, and the same applies to communism (old Marxism) and left-wing liberalism (new Marxism).

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

It's funny, because the USSR, in particular, often speaks of different peoples in its songs and has drawn clear boundaries.
I think that being left-wing doesn't negate peoples, but rather affirms their existence.

I read stalins book on the national question. His idea was that, in order for communism to be accepted, it could not be forced on any national group of people. Nation states were created by the bourgeois revolution against feudalism, they exist to serve bourgeois interest, but their proles cannot have Marxism forced on them. They need to be class conscious and materially ready for communism in order for it to work.

The end goal of communism abolishing all nations and races was not changed, he just realized it couldn't be forced during the dictatorship of the proletariat, it had to happen naturally.

Also, stalins favorite book was about a black immigrant who went to Russia and married a white woman and had mixed kids and sheeit. He loved race mixing and was very anti segregation. He didn't actually care about preserving nations or races, he just knew it wasn't possible at the moment..

Also he was a hypocrite. He protected the muslim people's right to Sharia law in Dagestan, but was complicit with half of all churches in Russia being destroyed. Also, you claim he respected nations and borders, but he mass deported and cleansed many different ethnic groups of the ussr and also russified Kazakhstan.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

If a father does one thing and his son does the opposite

I disagree...
So I can found a new religion out of Christianity and hold orgies, worship multiple gods, and oppose all Christian morality, and still refer to Jesus?
You wouldn't say this new religion has anything to do with Jesus and would clearly distinguish it from Christianity, right?

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I read stalins book on the national question. His idea was that, in order for communism to be accepted, it could not be forced on any national group of people. Nation states were created by the bourgeois revolution against feudalism, they exist to serve bourgeois interest, but their proles cannot have Marxism forced on them. They need to be class conscious and materially ready for communism in order for it to work.

The end goal of communism abolishing all nations and races was not changed, he just realized it couldn't be forced during the dictatorship of the proletariat, it had to happen naturally.

Also, stalins favorite book was about a black immigrant who went to Russia and married a white woman and had mixed kids and sheeit. He loved race mixing and was very anti segregation. He didn't actually care about preserving nations or races, he just knew it wasn't possible at the moment..

Also he was a hypocrite. He protected the muslim people's right to Sharia law in Dagestan, but was complicit with half of all churches in Russia being destroyed. Also, you claim he respected nations and borders, but he mass deported and cleansed many different ethnic groups of the ussr and also russified Kazakhstan.

Stalin moved different ethnic groups under the influence of politics. For the first time, he deported the Koreans from the Far East in 1937, as Japan and the USSR were fighting at Lake Hassan, and the USSR considered the Koreans living in the USSR to be Japanese spies. Later, he deported the Volga Germans to Kazakhstan during the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, followed by the deportation of the Crimean Tatars and Chechens and Ingush, as they were sabotaging the recruitment for the Red Army. Stalin also created an autonomous region for the Jews in the Far East, in the city of Birobidzhan.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I disagree...
So I can found a new religion out of Christianity and hold orgies, worship multiple gods, and oppose all Christian morality, and still refer to Jesus?
You wouldn't say this new religion has anything to do with Jesus and would clearly distinguish it from Christianity, right?

Yes, It's already happening. Progressive LGBT churches have been around for a long time, and they continue to reference Jesus and the Bible.

View: https://youtu.be/u1LTm6P8mhE?si=md1wi6kCmVeEdnbM

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

I read stalins book on the national question. His idea was that, in order for communism to be accepted, it could not be forced on any national group of people. Nation states were created by the bourgeois revolution against feudalism, they exist to serve bourgeois interest, but their proles cannot have Marxism forced on them. They need to be class conscious and materially ready for communism in order for it to work.

The end goal of communism abolishing all nations and races was not changed, he just realized it couldn't be forced during the dictatorship of the proletariat, it had to happen naturally.

Also, stalins favorite book was about a black immigrant who went to Russia and married a white woman and had mixed kids and sheeit. He loved race mixing and was very anti segregation. He didn't actually care about preserving nations or races, he just knew it wasn't possible at the moment..

Also he was a hypocrite. He protected the muslim people's right to Sharia law in Dagestan, but was complicit with half of all churches in Russia being destroyed. Also, you claim he respected nations and borders, but he mass deported and cleansed many different ethnic groups of the ussr and also russified Kazakhstan.

For me, there's a difference between a folk and a state.
A region is populated by a particular ethnic group, and no leftist would disagree with that.
Every ethnic group should be allowed to have its own homeland.
I wouldn't necessarily look at Stalin as an example, but rather Marx. Stalin was an exception and, in that sense, was even an obstacle to communism.
But since the Soviets found themselves in an exceptional situation, Stalin was needed as a strong man.
Look at Marx instead.
If leftists were against peoples, why do they support Palestine as a people?
Peoples are allowed to exist... only artificial borders without any people should be abolished, since they are not the territory of a people but were drawn by capitalists.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

Yes, It's already happening. Progressive LGBT churches have been around for a long time, and they continue to reference Jesus and the Bible.

View: https://youtu.be/u1LTm6P8mhE?si=md1wi6kCmVeEdnbM

The question is, would you call something like that Christian?
What if someone masturbates naked on the street and invokes Christ? Would this also be a Christian for you just because they inscribe it on their flag?
Or someone who beats homeless people, would this also be a Christian for you just because they inscribe it on their flag?

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

For me, there's a difference between a folk and a state.
A region is populated by a particular ethnic group, and no leftist would disagree with that.
Every ethnic group should be allowed to have its own homeland.
I wouldn't necessarily look at Stalin as an example, but rather Marx. Stalin was an exception and, in that sense, was even an obstacle to communism.
But since the Soviets found themselves in an exceptional situation, Stalin was needed as a strong man.
Look at Marx instead.
If leftists were against peoples, why do they support Palestine as a people?
Peoples are allowed to exist... only artificial borders without any people should be abolished, since they are not the territory of a people but were drawn by capitalists.

Ethnics group exists as long as it has its culture, its language, its religion, its traditional clothing, and its traditions. The Bolsheviks dreamed of a global revolution, which is why the USSR's coat of arms features a globe, and Lenin also planned to make Esperanto the language of the USSR as a universal means of communication, as he believed that revolutions would continue in Europe and that Soviet republics would be established there, which would then join the USSR. Therefore, a universal language was necessary.

 

[Whitefeminineboy]

its religion

not really... I don't think I need to give you examples of how a religion does not make a nation.

, its traditional clothing,

the entire west has the same clothing, yet no one would say that these ethnic groups do not exist.

Esperanto the language of the USSR as a universal means of communication,

Esperanto was a funny idea and was intended to replace English as a world language...

Therefore, a universal language was necessary.

The USSR simply chose Russian as its common language...nothing special.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

The question is, would you call something like that Christian?
What if someone masturbates naked on the street and invokes Christ? Would this also be a Christian for you just because they inscribe it on their flag?
Or someone who beats homeless people, would this also be a Christian for you just because they inscribe it on their flag?

The Bolsheviks also wanted to create a universal human being, ideally suited for building communism, i.e. Homo Sovieticus. In the early USSR, they tried to create a Soviet nation, and babies were given names based on communism. These names were abbreviations. For example, Damir ("Long live peace!"), Delesh ("Lenin's cause lives on!"), Dalis ("Long live Lenin and Stalin!").

Names of Soviet origin - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Deleted Member 8090]

Every ethnic group should be allowed to have its own homeland.

If we remove all borders then that will not be preserved. Trust me.

If leftists were against peoples, why do they support Palestine as a people

Reality is because they see Israelis as white and Palestinians as brown, and they hold resentment for white people. But if we look at it from their artificial Marxist perspective, what Stalin said on this once again is that the development of communism is linear, in order for it to work they must go through the bourgeois development of nation states and self determination until they are class conscious and materially ready for communism, after which it will happen naturally as their nation state dissolves.