• 12 Posts
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Feb 28, 2021

September 7, 1937 We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism. To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type. To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type. Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type. To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type. To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type. To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type. To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type. To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type. To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type. We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution. We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist. All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

It’s tied with China’s Belt and Road Forum or “BaRF” among the world’s silly acronyms.

The UK is part of AUKUS, which is a cultural/military (read “white supremacist”) alliance between the US, UK, and AUS. It seems that the US considers the UK one of its closest allies and will continue to strengthen that bond as it doesn’t take nonwhite allies seriously (like India) or abuses its non-anglo allies (basically Western Europe). There is an expanded version of this called AUSCANNZUKUS which includes Canada and New Zealand. All of these countries could be considered part of the new “Imperial Core” centered around the US.

My take is that, as the US loses power projection and allies, it will double down on these anglo alliances based on ‘shared heritage’ and tie them to the sinking ship. Some might break off and survive as regional powers, but for now they exist to funnel money into the American project. I think after the European Union suffers enough abuse from conflicts with Russia, they will start to notice they’re not part of the ‘elite’ AUKUS club and will start to call for cultural/political independence from the US (“hey, what are all these yankee military bases doing here, anyway?” they’ll say as America’s military budget deflates). But given how their economies are tied, it will become something more like a client state where they begrudgingly depend on the US/UK for energy and AUS for mineral resources, esp as their neocolonies increase trade with China. When the memory of the Ukraine War starts fading, they’ll probably start buying Russian gas again, minus their American contracts.

The UK itself, though, seems to be extremely interlinked with the American economy and political sphere that it seems like they would necessarily follow the same path of America’s ups and downs. So many British Bourgeoisie are tied up in American companies and so many British politicians are influenced by US-Funded think tanks that it feels like almost an honorary US State at this point. Brexit will continue to increase the gap between the rich and the poor, so it will definitely feel like the country is collapsing before it actually does. But before that happens there will be that “sublime moment in history” where the British and American 1% have funneled more wealth upward than ever before, and they will say the economy is working exactly as intended. We can see this sort of thing happening already.

I think it’s fun that all the “cool” lib brands are the ones getting called out. Really breaks the sanitized perception of them. Now we gotta get the dirty jobs too, because they always try to stay unknown.

The same thing I’m doing now, probably. But minus the shitty owners.

I thought marx or lenin said something like socialism is a stepping stone to Communism? Is that not the same revealing process?

No, because your goals are stated outright from the outset. Communists tell reactionary elements of society to get with the program, and then drag them along anyway when they become a threat to proletarian dominance over the bourgeoise. If you allow the bourgeoisie to accumulate wealth, they will abuse it and try to recreate liberalism.

Xi Xinping, for example, has released several books recently about China’s 100 Year Plan and his programs to bring the country closer to true Marxism. Their bourgeoisie class has been forewarned that the country will be less tolerant of them going foreward. Meanwhile their poverty alleviation programs have singlehandedly altered global poverty statistics and have raised their homeownership rate to 90%.

Compare with the Nazis or Alt-Right leaders who meet with their corporate sponsers in secret, tie it up in dark money, and hide the details from their on-the-ground members. Many Germans and Americans still don’t know that American corporations helped fund the rise of the Nazi party.

This is basically Bernie or bust philosophy. Or left wing accelerationism.

It’s not my fault white people suck at solidarity. Read Settlers.

Liberal states historically used drugs to increase usage of colonial currencies among colonized people. It’s an easy in to destabilize the local economy.

Well yeah, but lib culture has all these “stop picking on my favorite bourgeoisie 😭” stans and they need to see the divide in class interests with their own eyeballs, apparently.

Fascists always lie. Certain prominent philosophers in Germany around the time the Nazi party was formed (and who were supported by the party when it rose to power) had this belief that the truth must necessarily be revealed over time. This concept of “revealing” was very important to them (what is a corporate brand but a revealing of a mass-manufactured item behind a thin veneer of cheap art? Coke’s branding makes it appear more exciting than a fruit tisane, when it lacks the same depth of the homemade item).

We equate Naziism with obvious fascistic tendencies today, because we have the clarity of hindsight. But in order to understand how these tendencies came into public consciousness, we have to understand the historical background of the period. Most of Western Europe had undergone some form of Social Democratic reform around or after WWI. These reforms opened European countries up to socialist thought and made attempts to appease the growing workers’ movements that had reached critical mass sometime in the 1880s-1890s and had only grown further for decades.

So these liberal governments made some milquetoast reforms, but nothing to the degree that it would keep their post-war economies from collapsing in the Great Depression. People were, understandably, upset, and the workers’ movements and talk of socialism chugged along, with the USSR’s ComIntern occasionally adding money or advice to the growing local parties. It was a generally very chaotic time and most people were a lot more politically active (and less tied-down by political ideology) than they are now, at times even risking their own lives because the police used live bullets back then.

So in 1922 Mussolini comes in to March on Rome with his Fascist party. The word “fascism” comes from the “fasces” which was a symbol of magisterial power in ancient Roman Italy. Italians saw this symbol as a recognition of their local history and they saw Mussolini (a former socialist) as someone capable of speaking for common Italian people. He borrowed the Prussian concept of the Corporate State which was very new, and sounded very scientific at the time. Proponents of the corporate state believed that Marx was a hack and that to truly empower the workers, rather than build a workers’ state, you needed to empower local corporate bodies by absorbing them into the state apparatus. Thus, corporations and the state would become one in the same.

Hitler’s first attempt to pull a Mussolini (his Beerhall putsch) failed, as the German state was a little more savvy. In the years following his prison sentence, he worked out a way to disguise his nationalist/fascist project as a run-of-the-mill worker’s party (which conspicuously managed to gain financial backing from big corporations in both Germany and America). As most of us know, the word Nazi is short for Nationalsozialismus or “National Socialism”. His party took on the idea of right-socialism, which was extremely nationalist and labor aristocratic and flat-out rejected Marxism. But Marxists (particularly competing workers parties) were not purged from the country until a few nights after the Nazis were voted into majority power. Some of the Nazi party’s reforms also didn’t seem that much out of the ordinary at first. For example, arrests of lgbt people were already occurring in the social democratic Weimar Republic a couple years before Hitler’s purges of queer people.

The thing is, the class character of these political units can’t just be considered as the thing in itself, you also have to look at the surrounding culture. The alt-right was able to follow the fascistic pattern of “revealing” its true intentions over several years because modern liberal culture is just generally tolerant of bigotry, so long as the bigots are correctly categorized. Conservatives get a free pass to be bigots, and no more is that illuminated than in the US Democratic party’s kid-glove-handling of Republican policy. This permissiveness is slowly filtering down into rank-and-file liberals from the top down. They’re starting to believe conservative groomer narratives, and they’re starting to openly fear racial minorities again.

Appealing to the reactionary aesthetics of the existing culture will always be labor aristocratic and nationalistic in the global north. Appealing to these self-serving biases will always work in favor of conservatism and the degrading of liberalism into fascism. You cannot push this left with aesthetics because the fascism is built-in. The death drive is always lurking around in the background of liberal forms of being and appearing.

In order to adopt a revolutionary attitude, one must reject the reaction. In the global north, it just will not be popular until material conditions sufficiently decay and liberalism truly begins to break down. When the time is ripe for socialism will simultaneously be when the dominant culture is most vulnerable to fascism. If we adopt the strategies of fascists, of this slow revealing, we will ourselves be caught up in the fascist current of liberal ideology. Just before Marxists in Germany were executed, imprisoned, and scattered through Europe, their ideology had shifted in a labor aristocratic direction in a similar manner to the Nazi party. They didn’t espouse the corporate state, but they prioritized nationalism over internationalism. They prioritized the German over the human. They allowed themselves to be liberalized to appeal to local workers.

When they failed, socialism died in the west and the USSR turned its eyes toward Asia, where wars against colonialism were beginning to come to a head.

Being overconcerned with aesthetics rather than praxis is the same pitfall patsocs fall into. A lasting institution does not fear itself or try to falsely impersonate something it isn’t to trick the average person into agreement. Lying in this way not only discredits you but makes you no better than the monsters you fight.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

The word Anarchy comes from the Greek and its literal meaning is without government: the condition of a people who live without a constituted authority, without government. Before such an organisation had begun to be considered both possible and desirable by a whole school of thinkers and accepted as the objective of a party, which has now become one of the most important factors in the social struggles of our time, the word anarchy was universally used in the sense of disorder and confusion; and it is to this day used in that sense by the uninformed as well as by political opponents with an interest in distorting the truth.

We will not enter into a philological discussion, since the question is historical and not philological. The common interpretation of the word recognises its true and etymological meaning; but it is a derivative of that meaning due to the prejudiced view that government was a necessary organ of social life, and that consequently a society without government would be at the mercy of disorder, and fluctuate between the unbridled arrogance of some, and the blind vengeance of others.

The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the public’s definition of the word anarchy, is easily explained. Man, like all living beings, adapts and accustoms himself to the conditions under which he lives, and passes on acquired habits. Thus, having being born and bred in bondage, when the descendants of a long line of slaves started to think, they believed that slavery was an essential condition of life, and freedom seemed impossible to them. Similarly, workers who for centuries were obliged, and therefore accustomed, to depend for work, that is bread, on the goodwill of the master, and to see their lives always at the mercy of the owners of the land and of capital, ended by believing that it is the master who feeds them, and ingenuously ask one how would it be possible to live if there were no masters. In the same way, someone whose legs had been bound from birth but had managed nevertheless to walk as best he could, might attribute his ability to move to those very bonds which in fact serve only to weaken and paralyse the muscular energy of his legs.

If to the normal effects of habit is then added the kind of education offered by the master, the priest, the teacher, etc., who have a vested interest in preaching that the masters and the government are necessary; if one were to add the judge and the policeman who are at pains to reduce to silence those who might think differently and be tempted to propagate their ideas, then it will not be difficult to understand how the prejudiced view of the usefulness of, and the necessity for, the master and the government took root in the unsophisticated minds of the labouring masses.

Just imagine if the doctor were to expound to our fictional man with the bound legs a theory, cleverly illustrated with a thousand invented cases to prove that if his legs were freed he would be unable to walk and would not live, then that man would ferociously defend his bonds and consider as his enemy anyone who tried to remove them.

So, since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order.

Nor is the phenomenon without parallel in the history of words. In times and in countries where the people believed in the need for government by one man (monarchy), the word republic, which is government by many, was in fact used in the sense of disorder and confusion — and this meaning is still to be found in the popular language of almost all countries.

Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity.

Those who say therefore that the anarchists have badly chosen their name because it is wrongly interpreted by the masses and lends itself to wrong interpretations, are mistaken. The error does not come from the word but from the thing; and the difficulties anarchists face in their propaganda do not depend on the name they have taken, but on the fact that their concept clashes with all the public’s long established prejudices on the function of government, or the State as it is also called.

Sorry if I offended you, but I think we’re talking about different things. Fully blind people use screen readers which are designed to read web elements that conform to a certain standard, and going against that standard makes the screenreader behave unexpectedly, which can be confusing for someone reading the page in a linear audio or braille format.

For your situation I’d recommend something like Link Alert on Firefox. This sort of thing should be standard browser behavior, tbh. Putting it on webdevs is bad practice.

You know by “accessibility” they mean making the site easier to use for blind and differently abled people, right? You can set firefox to automatically open all links in a new tab if it’s that important.

Fuckin 13th ammendment exception never went away. We still got chaingangs in the cyberpunk era.

Neo-feudalism is Idealist: We are Witnessing the Re-proletarianization of the Labor Aristocracy Under Neocolonial Fascist Rule — Hexbear
The link is just a CTH/Hexbear post without citations, but it pretty well explains something that's been rolling around in my brain the past few days. I think the patsoc obsession with pandering to conservatives and the anarchist obsession with pandering to liberals are both fundamentally flawed for the same reason: they divide the proletariat into aesthetic/ideological camps rather than attempt to assess them based on class indicators. Who is more likely to abandon their principles during a strike? Liberals or conservatives? Right away, you can see how this thought process breaks down. Liberals and conservatives have both unionized, historically and in the present day. Both ideologies have pro union and anti union elements. Both ideologies have organized reactionary protest movements and strikes. The question we should be asking instead is: who has more to lose if a union strike is drawn out or starts to go south? Who is more likely to scab? People with more wealth and larger paychecks or people with very little wealth and smaller paychecks? Who is more likely to empathize with a fellow proletarian and who is more likely to simp for bourgoise influencers? A. A computer engineer with a comfortable lifestyle, and few at-home struggles \ B. A programmer doing grunt work for the engineer on a temp assignment Take another example: Who is more likely to fight harder for abortion rights? A. Someone who can afford medical tourism \ B. Someone who can't afford medical tourism Material conditions are key. FDR's reforms took some of the wind out of the sails of American socialist movements. India has recently been investing in infrastructure and schooling in Naxalite regions with some success. All the 'socialist' nordic countries are in the cultural sphere of the former USSR for a reason. We cannot allow ourselves to get distracted by the illusions put in place by liberalism. When asking whether a potential comrade will be radicalizable, we should not be focusing on their favorite neolib team, including radlib anarchists. We should instead focus on their actual material place in society: Are they wealthy? What's their financial situation compared to their family's/their childhood? Are they subject to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc and are they excluded from resources and wealth due to said bigotry? Is it normalized for people of their race/ethnicity to be racist to others? Are their finances tied up in investment capital or digital assets? Have they experienced food insecurity or homelessness? Do they work more than one job or side gig? Do they struggle to provide for their children? Do their finances affect their ability to form relationships or start a family? Do they have mental health issues and can they afford to treat them? In essence, I think whether a person is radicalizable actually has very little to do with politics and everything to do with their intersectional position in society.

[Original Portuguese (pdf)](

Left Reckoning - AMLO’s Fight Against Colonialism And For Public Power
Surprise surprise, American think tanks are funding right wing groups in Mexico.


Question about personal word filters.
Hi, so I swear I've seen discussions about personal word filters on here, and I thought Dess and Nutomic confirmed that this was in the works. But I can't find the post (I could just be losing my mind, lol). This is unrelated to the slur filter. Is there going to be a feature where you can go into your profile, add a word to a list, and then all posts containing that word will be filtered from your own view of the TL?

Help, I have no personality.

Question Regarding Spam
So I've seen spam posts make it close to the top of the federated TL recently. It got me to look into the modlog and it seems that the vast majority of removed posts are straight up advertising spam, usually multiple per day. I've seen this sort of thing go unchecked and take over Plume and servers. Does Lemmy have any mechanisms to keep this contained? I know a traditional method is to only allow users to post after they've made a few comments first. I could also be overreacting?

Orisha Land is an autonomous zone that has popped up in Austin, TX. It was established in response to the murder of Jordan Walton, but with the goal of providing aid to the community's unhoused population. I thought seeing another CHAZ-like community pop up so soon is a bit unexpected but it's exciting to see two in one year! This is primarily by and for the black community of Austin, but they have resources where the general public can provide support.

Every Rose Has Its Thorn -
Saw this on masto. I think this sort of discourse should be discussed more in online leftist spaces. I've seen pretty frequently that communities tend to struggle with class reductionism that quickly alienates minorities in the movement, including me personally. Hopefully in the future leftists learn how to manage a disparity of views and opinions in a way that's universally beneficial.