state apparatus

american jews must rid our communities of the so-called progressive except palestine ideology that has embedded itself among our community. behind black americans, we are the second left-most voting bloc in this country. we have stood against the robber baron for exploiting working classes, against the marine for serving american empire, against the riot cop for enforcing white supremacy, and yet—somehow we decided the robber baron is fine if he has a jewish name? the marine is fine if she is in jerusalem? the riot cop is fine if he has hebrew script on his riot shield?

when the israeli state was founded, we became k'chol ha'goyim, like all other nations, equipped with a repressive police-state apparatus and an imperialist army and a national bourgeoisie. [we in diaspora didn’t, but it appears some of us still haven’t realized they don’t care about galutim.]
while being unlike all other nations made [and in diaspora, makes] us dependent on the goodwill of goyim for safety, who subjected us to pogrom after pogrom and expulsion after expulsion, it is morally repugnant to support violent institutions we have always opposed, whether they were run by president harding or tsar nicholas or emperor titus, just because they are staffed by jews there

it is an ineffable embarrassment to our people to see stone-wielding children teargassed by tanks with loshn koydesh written on them

it is an ineffable embarrassment to our people to make gaza into a ghetto after hundreds of years of our own ghettoization

it is an ineffable embarrassment to our people to call jews who care about universal human rights antisemites or self-haters while likud hosts front national and freiheitliche partei österreichs, both founded by nazis and collaborators, in jerusalem

the desire to be k'chol ha'goyim and wield force to defend ourselves is strong and i think clearly understandable, but can we hold ourselves to a better standard than becoming our oppressors?

one major reason why trump’s muslim ban is going to fall pretty swiftly is that it reeks of poor management of imperialism. obama managed to keep muslims out of america pretty darn well, and liberals never complained (he even bombed thousands of them without a peep). “Pew Research Center said last October 38,901 Muslim refugees entered the United States in fiscal year 2016 from all countries - almost the same number of Christian refugees, 37,521.” the incoming syrian refugee total was 1% of lebanon’s, and again biased towards christians. the bush presidency actually built a database aimed at collecting as much biometric data on muslims as possible and subjecting them to numerous migration restrictions. obama kept it for 3 years and then suspended it because another biometric program pulled even more data and did so for everyone, not just muslims. none of this aroused any kind of anger or mass protests from liberals the way the current muslim ban is, and that was just how the american state apparatus preferred it. more than likely, this ban will fall in due time, and we’ll sit around crowing about how we defeated evil once again, while the previously mentioned issues will continue to plague muslims attempting to come to america.

This is my first guide post ever since I’ve been idle on studyblr (my previous studyblr was dreamingnotes btw!!). I took ALevel last year and currently I’ve been accepted to a local university and received unconditional offers from two universities. 


The subjects I took were all humanities and essay subjects which are : Sociology, Psychology and Literature. While I admit I’m better at writing essays than doing calculations, I also have difficulties with memorizing stuffs. So back then, I used to simplify my notes and it helps me so much- that one day, I was very lazy to study for my Sociology and Psychology mid terms exam so I just read my simplified notes and I got A for Sociology and B for Psychology (which I did not expect!!)


Sooo below are steps on how I usually make simplified notes! (Since it’s a bit long and I don’t want to trouble my followers, it will be under keep reading) :

Keep reading

mattykinsel  asked:

How is rent theft? Thanks! :)

For the same reasons that profit is theft – a property owner (whether it be a capitalist or a landlord) hierarchically controls a necessary utility that masses of people need to access for survival. Workers have no choice but to work beneath bosses; workers generate all the goods but the grand majority of their labor product goes to the boss by virtue of their ownership of the property. Tenants have no choice but to rent out housing beneath landlords; tenants are workers who already have major chunks of their labor product taken from them by their bosses, and then they need to give up more of their paychecks to landlords who demand rent by virtue of their ownership of the property. In short, capitalists and landlords accumulate wealth through their property ownership, not through any tangible labor that benefits society. In the grand scheme of things, society would be better off without bosses or landlords, because it could finally introduce a scenario where the actual people affected by social realities can control those social realities – workers democratically control their workplaces without bosses hierarchically owning the property and deciding what to do with the produced material surplus, and tenants democratically control their housing complexes without landlords hierarchically owning the property and demanding rent for their benefit. 

There’s a common argument among right-wingers that taxation is theft in this same way. While I ultimately do agree that taxation is theft in a certain capacity, there is a major difference: when taxation works ideally, it is in service to the infrastructure of a community and benefits each person; when rent or profit works ideally, it is in service to a property owner who enacts class tyranny over the masses of people, a scenario where they reap the overwhelming majority of the benefits. I dove a bit more into this on the LDR Facebook page:

As long as the state exists in some capacity, I will always support taxation over profit and rent. Yes, they are all theft in some way. But at least taxation is democratically-conceived (in theory, at least) – taxation in a capitalist or socialist society helps provide for things like social welfare and viable infrastructure. Profit and rent are autocratically-conceived in theory and in practice – bosses and landlords get to decide what to do with the stolen product and it overwhelmingly only benefits them. If we have no choice but to pay tax, then we *also* have no choice but to pay rent and have the bulk of our labor product appropriated by a boss or property owner; the individual relinquishes chunks of their product for some socially-conceived reason, but at least the former is largely in service to the society that sustains them, while the latter is a class relationship of the few dominating the many. Yes, ideally, we’ll reach communism and the state and taxation will become obsolete, giving way to voluntary organizations of collective action, but as long as we have a state apparatus to enforce the will of the class with social power, then we need taxation as part of society’s collective building process.

So I reiterate the central point of the leftist project: let’s work to abolish class altogether so that the state loses its coercive, undemocratic character. Then we can have libertarian communism and a ‘state’ better understood as a horizontal ‘administration of things’.

Leftists fight for social conditions where people are in control of the things they use in their everyday lives, democratically controlling the collectively-operated utilities of society and individually controlling their own lives from there. Democratic control over the means of production and housing, creating a world where we can participate according to our abilities and receive according to our needs, liberated from class tyranny. Rent and profit are present-day manifestations of this class tyranny that we must overcome.

-Daividh

that article sucks to read, but pay attention to the wording these law enforcement groups are using here, they’re giving away quite a bit. for one thing, there’s basically no ideological opposition to white supremacy (notice the number of times “lawfully organized white supremacist events” appears, as well as the significant relaxing of surveillance and pursuit of white supremacist terrorists after trump was elected).

more tactically useful, they’re having trouble with the decentralized nature of antifa action, and are still looking for hierarchical organizations that they can infiltrate (this has worked for them historically, and so its no surprise its their go-to tactic).

furthermore they’re very “worried” about the prospect of more direct terrorist action (bombings and the like), which, while historically an anarchist tactic, arent really likely to arise in the current climate imo. keep in mind also that one of their primary tactics in recent years has been entrapment, whereby government agents or informants convince people (in recent years its mostly been muslim men) to attempt terrorist acts, and then arrest them for participating in the plots that the cops suggested to them.

the more successful that antifa is (and leftist organization in general) over the next few years, the more the full force of the repressive state apparatus will be brought to bare against it. be careful, and be prepared.

anonymous asked:

How do u counter the people who say violent riots are bad bc ppl are destroying their own city?

The people who say “violent protests are wrong and immoral, and property damage does nothing” are the same types of people who think MLK ended racism in the US or some other mystified nonsense.

What a lot of people fail to understand is politics is inherently violent. It deals with people’s lives–whether they receive proper care and security or find themselves cast out into the elements. And if state/corporate power is threatening the livelihood of vulnerable people, then these people have a right to be hostile.

To those who say “property damage is dishonorable,” I say “you value property over people’s lives?” Its easier to rebuild or replace trashcans, windows, or cars than it is to rebuild a broken and vulnerable human existence. If this society which robs me of my access to health, security, or education values property over my participation in that society or my precarious living situation in it, you’re gonna see what its like to lose whats precious to you.

These are people’s lives. We care more about seeing tomorrow than having clean streets or aesthetically pleasing shop exteriors.

And to those who say “violence and riots are dishonorable,” i say “look at history. You will see time and time again that all social struggles were won through riots and acts of violence against state and capitalist power.” No where in history have we won concessions from the state by being complacent or polite. If we dont make any demands or follow through to show how much we need it, then the state/capitalists will never show us the light of day. Because why could the capitalist state bother to give us any amount of power or concessions that would put the hegemony at a disadvantage unless they were threatened?

We have a minimum wage because of riots. We got rid of child labor because of riots. We got women’s suffragr because of riots. Slavery ended because of riots. Segregation ended because of riots. We have worker rights and the 8 hour day because of riots. We have LGBT+ rights because of riots.

Never in the history of the bourgeois state apparatus have those in power ever peacefully granted us concessions. It was always taken by force. Merely being polite and gentle makes it easier for others to step on us, and see us as less than a bother to be taken seriously.

“I speak on behalf of the millions of human beings who are in ghettos because they have black skin or because they come from different cultures, and who enjoy status barely above that of an animal.

I suffer on behalf of the Indians who have been massacred, crushed, humiliated, and confined for centuries on reservations in order to prevent them from aspiring to any rights and to prevent them from enriching their culture through joyful union with other cultures, including the culture of the invader.

I cry out on behalf of those thrown out of work by a system that is structurally unjust and periodically unhinged, who are reduced to only glimpsing in life a reflection of the lives of the affluent.

I speak on behalf of women the world over, who suffer from a male-imposed system of exploitation. As far as we’re concerned, we are ready to welcome suggestions from anywhere in the world that enable us to achieve the total fulfillment of Burkinabè women. In exchange, we offer to share with all countries the positive experience we have begun, with women now present at every level of the state apparatus and social life in Burkina Faso. Women who struggle and who proclaim with us that the slave who is not able to take charge of his own revolt deserves no pity for his lot. This harbors illusions in the dubious generosity of a master pretending to set him free. Freedom can be won only through struggle, and we call on all our sisters of all races to go on the offensive to conquer their rights.

I speak on behalf of the mothers of our destitute countries who watch their children die of malaria or diarrhea, unaware that simple means to save them exist. The science of the multinationals does not offer them these means, preferring to invest in cosmetics laboratories and plastic surgery to satisfy the whims of a few women or men whose smart appearance is threatened by too many calories in their overly rich meals, the regularity of which would make you—or rather us from the Sahel—dizzy. We have decided to adopt and popularize these simple means, recommended by the WHO and UNICEF.

I speak, too, on behalf of the child. The child of a poor man who is hungry and who furtively eyes the accumulation of abundance in a store for the rich. The store protected by a thick plate glass window. The window protected by impregnable shutters. The shutters guarded by a policeman with a helmet, gloves, and armed with a billy club. The policeman posted there by the father of another child, who will come and serve himself—or rather be served—because he offers guarantees of representing the capitalistic norms of the system, which he corresponds to.

I speak on behalf of artists—poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, and actors—good men who see their art prostituted by the alchemy of show-business tricks.

I cry out on behalf of journalists who are either reduced to silence or to lies in order to not suffer the harsh low of unemployment.

I protest on behalf of the athletes of the entire world whose muscles are exploited by political systems or by modern-day slave merchants.

My country is brimming with all the misfortunes of the people of the world, a painful synthesis of all humanity’s suffering, but also—and above all—of the promise of our struggles. This is why my heart beats naturally on behalf of the sick who anxiously scan the horizons of science monopolized by arms merchants.

My thoughts go out to all of those affected by the destruction of nature and to those 30 million who will die as they do each year, struck down by the formidable weapon of hunger. As a military man, I cannot forget the soldier who is obeying orders, his finger on the trigger, who knows the bullet being fired bears only the message of death.

Finally, it fills me with indignation to think of the Palestinians, who an inhuman humanity has decided to replace with another people—a people martyred only yesterday. I think of this valiant Palestinian people, that is, these shattered families wandering across the world in search of refuge. Courageous, determined, stoic, and untiring, the Palestinians remind every human conscience of the moral necessity and obligation to respect the rights of a people. Along with their Jewish brothers, they are anti-Zionist.

At the side of my brother soldiers of Iran and Iraq who are dying in a fratricidal and suicidal war, I wish also to feel close to my comrades of Nicaragua, whose harbors are mined, whose villages are bombed, and who, despite everything, face their destiny with courage and clear-headedness. I suffer with all those in Latin America who suffer from the stranglehold of imperialism.

I wish to stand on the side of the Afghan and Irish peoples, on the side of the peoples of Granada and East Timor, each of whom is searching for happiness based on their dignity and the laws of their own culture.

I protest on behalf of all those who vainly seek a forum in this world where they can make their voice heard and have it genuinely taken into consideration. Many have preceded me at this podium and others will follow. But only a few will make the decisions. Yet we are officially presented as being equals. Well, I am acting as spokesperson for all those who vainly see a forum in this world where they can make themselves heard. So yes, I wish to speak on behalf of all “those left behind,” for “I am human, nothing that is human is alien to me.”

Our revolution in Burkina Faso embraces misfortunes of all peoples. It also draws inspiration from all of man’s experiences since his first breath. We wish to be the heirs of all the world’s revolutions and all the liberation struggles of the peoples of the Third World. Our eyes are on the profound upheavals that have transformed the world. We draw the lessons of the American Revolution, the lessons of its victory over colonial domination and the consequences of that victory. We adopt as our own the affirmation of the Doctrine whereby Europeans must not intervene in American affairs, nor Americans in European affairs. Just as Monroe proclaimed “America to the Americans” in 1823, we echo this today by saying “Africa to the Africans,” “Burkina to the Burkinabè.”“

| Thomas Sankara

[excerpt from his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on October 4th, 1984]


Long live Sankara.

anonymous asked:

How can you be anti-capitalist and in support of decentralization? Seems pretty backward if you ask me

Well the first assumption that needs to be dissected in your ask is the assumption that capitalism is inherently decentralized in setup.

Capitalism is defined, both theoretically and realistically, by private ownership over the means of production and sustenance. Workplaces, apartments, natural commons – they’re all controlled in top-down fashion by property-owners who determine the use of them based on their own self-interest. “Top-down” is the key phrase there, because it is qualitatively important to include the individuals who aren’t lucky enough to own property under capitalism (most people) if you want a full picture of the system, something ideological text pieces celebrating capitalism deliberately leave out; it’s always empty praise about how the “decentralized market transactions” of job-creators and consumers lead to the best state of affairs. But the situation I described – top-down control of necessary, collectively-operated resources by property-owners – is a situation where power is heavily concentrated. By definition, class stratification is centralized power, a scenario where a ruling class commands infinitely more power than the working class by virtue of controlling the stuff necessary to reproduce society. You can call it “decentralized” because there are a bunch of competing property-owners rather than one hyper-centralized center of power in a state apparatus, but the point remains that you merely end up with a small handful of power concentrations in practice instead. 

The great majority of people under capitalism – the people who are not lucky enough to own capital – have no choice but to assume a subordinate role beneath the aforementioned property-owners. At work? No say in the decisions, forced to hand over their labor product to those at the top, with a tiny siphoned-off chunk of their total energies given back to them in the form of a paycheck. In living arrangements? Forking over large chunks of their already-slim paychecks to the landlords, landlords who do nothing other than own a piece of paper declaring the property theirs, living in other locations trying to maximize their gains at the expense of the actual tenants. You can argue that they can always “just go to another property-owner that treats them better,” but you’re still ultimately arguing within the confines of a system that irrationally hopes for the benevolent deeds of its most powerful class. The same argument could be expanded to include states – “if a nation is treating its citizens poorly, then they should just leave.” Most people are born into situations where they have very limited mobility to better those situations, because they are, again, locked into those situations of subordination beneath property-owners – forced to sell their time and energies to the centralized powers that be. These class relationships make up the majority of our lives; a lack of democracy in this realm of existence carries far more weight than an empty spectacle of democracy every two to four years, where we essentially just ratify decisions that have already been made and pick from a pre-arranged set of out-of-touch elites from the political class. (And it’s worth mentioning that these politicians have every incentive to prolong the aforementioned class relationships – the state acts in the long-term interests of capital accumulation when the disparate competing of capitalists leads to economic crisis and civil unrest. Far from being the antagonist to “free-market capitalism,” the state and capitalism actually have an intensely symbiotic relationship – concentrated power fuels more concentrated power.)

This leads us to the second assumption to unpack: that the alternative to capitalism must be inherently centralized. 

On the contrary, the only effective counter to capitalism must be a decentralized system, where power is distributed to all individuals in the community, based around a system of broader direct democracy at work and in the structuring of society. Collective operations ought to be controlled by their collective participants, democratically arriving at conclusions that benefit all and each. Living quarters ought to be managed by the actual tenants, not by some absentee owner with an incentive to privatize gains and socialize losses. This is how you decentralize power, this is how you reconcile the creative freedom of the individual with the collective justice of the community. 

The material conditions are already demanding a system change anyway:

  • Automation of menial work is a terrifying phenomena under capitalism because it means millions of people losing jobs and therefore access to livelihood; under a libertarian socialist system of production for use, there are essentially no downsides to it because it means that so much work can be automated away and communities can then divvy up the otherwise necessary work that can’t be automated, which would result in incredibly short shifts for people. More leisure time means more freedom to pursue what you want to pursue on your own terms, something capitalism fetishizes but never fulfills for the majority of people. Seriously, the libertarian socialist way of organizing things is both more efficient and more rational, two things capitalism loves to claim it has a monopoly on. Democratize the automation.
  • The rise of digital post-scarcity and its parallel capitalist development of intellectual property laws create a major contradiction that has been central to capitalism since its beginning: the forcing of scarcity onto resources that are otherwise not scarce. Scarcity is beneficial to property-owners because it means greater ability to milk profits out of workers and consumers. This can be seen with physical resources when sellers lock up dumpsters to prevent people from getting to thrown out goods and when they intentionally destroy excess goods in order to desaturate markets, rather than give the goods away according to community needs. We have recently started seeing that trend applied to immaterial information patterns, things that can be endlessly duplicated and shared, things that scream “communist open-sourcing potential.” Intellectual property law is capital’s attempt to make scarce and commodify digital patterns that defy traditional notions of scarcity. With the bureaucratic enforcement of intellectual property law abolished, this vast pool of information can be made accessible to all people, a beautiful digital parallel to communism’s aims of physical post-scarcity.
  • Global climate change exacerbated by infinite capital accumulation on a planet of finite resources is setting us on a dangerous path towards ecological collapse and widespread species extinctions. The logic of infinite market growth – the logic of a cancerous tumor – must be called into question and cast aside in favor of a new system that generates goods on a stable-state basis for human need and use, rather than on some conception of unlimited expansion for a small elite’s profits. We’d still probably have some work to do under a new system of libertarian socialism, but we could more readily tackle the problems without having to cross our fingers and hope “green capitalism” is graciously passed down to us by our benevolent job-creators. Climate change can only be dealt with through more democracy and participation, not through band-aid government regulations in an otherwise capitalist economy. 

TLDR: Libertarian socialism is the viable alternative to capitalism. It ought to be readily embraced for its expansion of freedom, equality, and solidarity; for its ability to more effectively deal with the contradictions laid out by capitalism; and of course for its decentralized/horizontal organizational structure. Capitalism is a highly centralized economic/political system both in theory and in practice, and the only way around its concentration of power is to disperse power down to the individual through a more robust system of direct consensus democracy and worker self-management. Democratize workplaces, democratize living arrangements, democratize the infrastructure. Our choices are socialism or more barbarism at this point. 

-Daividh

heres the rules: if amerika likes your country then the apparatus the state uses to spy on people is called a “security agency". if amerika doesn’t like your country then it’s called “the secret police”.

2

Anti-AK Parti / Anti-Erdogan posters seen in Istanbul.

Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP party have ruled Turkey for the past 15 years. In that period he has increasingly centralised power around himself, purging thousands of civil servants, judges, military figures, from the state apparatus, replacing them with party loyalists.

He is now campaigning to further strengthen his executive power in an upcoming referendum.

remedialaction  asked:

So, can you actually define 'enclosure' or 'capital' or 'means of production' in a way that isn't arbitrary and can't be absolutely applied to literal any object?

Capital: Material wealth used to generate more wealth; land, machinery

Means of production: The collectively-operated utilities that generate society’s goods; the stuff needed to reproduce society daily; factories, workplaces

Enclosures: The use of state apparatus to privatize common resources for the benefit of a property-owning capitalist class; the ongoing process capitalism utilizes to dispossess people of access to common resources so that those resources can be made artificially scarce and a source of profit for property-owners

None of these concepts apply to basic commodity items that people use in their leisure time or to people’s homes that they directly use. A clear line in the sand can be drawn – if at least due to the fact that huge wealth and power inequality is created between those with access to capital/means of production/enclosures and those without. (It should of course be noted that access to those three things gives you the ability to accrue more wealth, and thus the ability to accrue more personal possessions – so private property and personal possessions aren’t completely unrelated in that sense.)

Why I'm no longer an Anarchist (I think)

Arguably I got into Anarchism too quickly, being an An-cap prior I suddenly realised my beliefs were flawed, and with Stalin not being an option I figured Anarcho-Communism was the only place left to go.

However about a year into it all I started again finding holes, which as you can imagine frustrated me further. As of this point I’ve done some more research and feel ready to admit I don’t consider my views worthy of being labeled ‘Anarchist’ anymore.

Currently I find that the Anarchist goal, whilst definitely noble and ideally, the best system, I have bring my concerns to how this would work out in actuality, in other words I find it a little Utopian.
By Utopian I must address that this does not mean the cliche of Infantile Rainbows and Unicorns, after all if I could prove to you a method of getting to that goal it wouldn’t be Utopian would it? What is indeed meant by this is the effective ways to achieve the end goal.
Anarchism doesn’t view the state as a tool to achieve Communism but rather a plague that needs to be gotten rid of, this can become problematic.

Without a doubt I don’t want a state, but then nobody does, at the far end of the spectrum I’m fairly certain that the most reverent beholder of Marxism-Leninism doesn’t want a state. The only reason why so many Marxists put a large emphasis on the necessity of a state apparatus is because of its effectiveness.
With a state you can very easily coordinate resources, respond effectively to disasters, and most importantly, defend against external threats.

When you remove an entity so prevalent in the thousands of years of civilisation, and indeed the entity that allows society in its present to function properly, people don’t just suddenly go “Oh ok we’re stateless now, and there are no markets, lets just commune together” theres going to be bloodshed, theres going to be backlash. This method of bringing both down together doesn’t suddenly result in you having a stateless, classless society, what it creates is a power vacuum, and if you’re not ready to fill it in someone else will.

A lot of my movement away from Anarchism has actually been inspired from watching the state of Libertarianism slowly die and fade into irrelevance in this highly political age. People who just 2-3 years ago were preaching the love of non aggression, are now vehemently supporting things that nobody would have believed in any way fitted the stereotype of a Libertarian. Yet ironically, this brand of Libertarianism is quite possibly the most fitting, and most effective.
As time has gone on, they’ve realised that even though they love their NAP, other people don’t and are not going to be becoming Libertarians any time soon. Larken Rose can go on all he wants about how all we need is to just reject the state and accept voluntarism, but society isn’t created upon Liberty alone.
What is going to happen when another group of people who decide to use very ‘collectivist’ tactics against his homestead? He’s going to die thats what, and no matter of owning a few dozen rifles is going to protect you from a coordinated military who can block off your supply lines and bomb you with drones.
As of such, those who reject the idealism of American Libertarianism will be the ones who survive and gain progress, even though their philosophy of xenophobia and racism is barbaric in this modern age, it is what lends itself towards further support for their objectives. 1 Far-Right populist is more effective than 20 Arm Chair Libertarians.

Now I’m not going to say that Anarchists in any way are as ineffective as Libertarians, far from it, but the Libertarian transformation has been very eye-opening.
Anarchism has really been a historical failure. We can go on all we like about how the Soviet Union failed in 1917 when they become authoritarian, but fact of the matter is they survived and at least managed to improve their people’s livelihood somewhat, as it did in China, Cuba and elsewhere.
The same cannot be said for Anarchist societies, we overemphasise Catalonia to an almost comedic extent, its not to say that a lot of good didn’t come from it, but if 1-2 years of a highly fragile society is the best Anarchism has to offer we might want to have a look at why they always ended up failing in the first place.
The Fascists did indeed massively overwhelm the Catalans, but thats an argument that you make towards Liberals not other Socialists. We have to win, and if we’re serious about that then we cannot just waltz around the failure in Spain and cherry pick things to learn from it. When you are faced with a massive army over the hill there is no time to be complacent, ideals have to be surrendered for a short while or else everything you have been doing it for nought.

Whats interesting is that I have found many of my, ugh, ‘comrades’ (I hate the casual use of that word) make excuses for the ongoing experiment in Rojava, which still operates in a highly authoritarian state. They claim that because of the on going war its understandable why they do need to operate in a more Auth fashion, but why do we not say the same then for the Russian Revolution? Lenin never wanted to have a standing army, he wanted there to be as little authoritarian measures in place, but when he found that 12 other countries and rebels disagreed with him he didn’t have any other option.
If the Bolshie’s had lost because they acted like the Catalans I could only guess that people like me would have been heralding the Bolshevik failure as a great attempt by the workers to crush the state, and if the Kurds win and take up practices similar to the Soviets in our timeline we will probably be denouncing them, its an endless cycle of ideals.

I find too often that we get preoccupied on abstract notions of what our ideal society would look like, and not about how to counter present barriers towards that goal. If you asked me a year ago who I would have preferred in power, Maduro or a US puppet, I would have responded by saying “I wouldn’t want either” but thats a terrible answer because that is the reality of the situation in Venezuela right now, sometimes there are no easy options and we have to settle with whats available. Have you ever lived under a Fascist dictatorship? Spain was left to suffer under one for 40 years, and I highly doubt most of those Spaniards would have looked upon you kindly when you go around hinting that a Fascist regime is preferable to a State-Socialist one. This isn’t just rhetoric, I’ve genuinely heard people say this.

A lesser qualm I have is with the state of online youtube, it was a sobering moment when I found that ‘The Black Rose’ became an Anarchist after watching Libertarian Socialist Rants, and now presently he is a sort of Maoist. I too became an Anarchist after viewing LSR, as did others. This isn’t a criticism of anyone, but its highly interesting that many of us got into this school of thought not by reading the theory, not by researching the history of the movement, but through just 1 popular friend of mine, but then maybe thats just me being angsty.

Sometimes I just figure when it comes to Anarchism “Go that way and Die” because as good as our ideals might be, when it comes to people who are not going to fight on our terms, its always ended up in bloodbath.

I am still frankly unsure as to whether I’ve got this right or not, I might be missing a few areas here and there and I’m welcome to being corrected, but I am interested in winning, and if that means taking upon views that aren’t the Anarchist view, so be it. As time has gone on I’m not interested in specifically labelling myself anymore, I want to win, and I think you should too.

Side Notes:

- Nope, this doesn’t mean I’m ML, MLM, or Juche the Mooch, I’m currently in the privileged position of uncertainty.

- I still love Anarchist culture and prefer it to Vanguard stuff. And this doesn’t mean I don’t find a great amount of good from Anarchist theory and practice.

- This is not an attack on anybody, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t try and berate me for it.

- Yes I still support Social Justice, sorry NazBols.

The BBC was found to be overly reliant on government statistics, using them 73% of the time, failing to challenge them, and not giving them proper context. Do not watch the BBC for your news, do not trust its statistics, its reporters or its commentary. The BBC is simply a state puppet.

A disturbingly large amount of theory seems explicitly to undertake the proliferation of only one affect, or maybe two, of whatever kind – whether ecstasy, sublimity, self-shattering, jouissance, suspicion, abjection, knowingness, horror, grim satisfaction, or righteous indignation. It’s like the old joke: ‘Comes the revolution, Comrade, everyone gets to eat roast beef every day.’ ‘But Comrade, I don’t like roast beef.’ “Comes the revolution, Comrade, you’ll like roast beef.’ Comes the revolution, Comrade, you’ll be tickled pink by those deconstructive jokes; you’ll faint from ennui every minute you’re not smashing the state apparatus; you’ll definitely want hot sex twenty to thirty times a day. You’ll be mournful and militant. You’ll never want to tell Deleuze and Guattari, ‘Not tonight, dears, I have a headache.
— 

Sedgwick, “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, You’re So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay is About You” in Touching Feeling, p. 146

This continues to be one of the most incredible things ever said about theory/theorizing

People talking about Jews being rich and “greedy” ignoring that Jews have been forced to work in fields of money for centuries because it was easy to scapegoat them and liquidize their wealth without anyone really raising a fuss. Or the complex interaction between Jews, wealth, and the state apparatus with money as both a target and their only form of protection.

People literally built their economies over jew exploitation. The modern banking system is a direct descendant of that. And then people have the gall to say “well, the jews are the bankers, so that means they have and do control the world”. Get the fuck out.

In person, it can sometimes be tough to jump right into a debate with someone who adamantly defends the status quo, someone who uses extensive bourgeois ideology and “common sense” to defend the capitalist mode of production. We all naturally get frazzled because it’s an uphill battle trying to win people over, away from the safe ideology they’ve grown up absorbing. Not only that, but there’s also a whole set of ideas and facts (noted in the above picture) that probably need to come together for someone of that nature to arrive at socialism. Trying to condense all of the above facts into quick little soundbites is a super uphill battle, and I wish there was some way we could have this process made easier for the lot of us. 

Most capitalism-apologists rely on a few basic ideological points, each of them off-base. Here are eight of perhaps the most important:

  1. Capitalism is about voluntary exchange and it’s pretty much any economic activity that doesn’t involve the state
  2. Capitalism is the end of history and the pinnacle of human development
  3. Capitalism is the same thing as markets
  4. The state is antithetical to the interests of the capitalist class
  5. Socialism is when the government does stuff; the more stuff the government does, the socialister it is
  6. “Small government” and anarchism imply laissez-faire capitalism
  7. There can only be top-down control of the economy by a bunch of separate capitalists (private capitalism) or top-down control of the economy by a concentrated state apparatus (state capitalism)
  8. Imperialism is caused by corrupt politicians, disconnected from an economic system that demands endless growth and capital accumulation among elites

I feel like the above picture covers most of these ideas in a very quick way and puts them to rest; further elaboration on each of the points is necessary of course, but that’s to be expected. Destroying these bullshit claims ought to be of paramount importance if you ever find yourself in some kind of political argument with a cappy. 

All being said, I can totally understand if there are those of you who just have no fucking interest in debating cappies. It’s a draining, disheartening process. Avoiding debate can be a self-care tactic, honestly. I generally only recommend it if you think there is any chance of converting them – if they’re running around in expensive suits handing out Cato Institute newspapers, then our arguments about capitalism being a particular historical development rooted in bloody conquest will probably have little to no effect whatsoever. There are, however, plenty of working-class and middle-class people who may be much more receptive if you meet them where they’re at, point to history, and commit some time and energy to talking to them about the topic; usually this works best with people you already know. 

Any further input on this topic is encouraged and appreciated.

I think Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is one of the most creative tendencies of Marxism. I say this with the full acknowledgement that Maoism is often put forward as a stock answer to complex questions. “Mass line” “cultural revolution” and so on. Theoretical ideas that, within their dictionary definitions, satisfy the questions they’re responding to in a way that seems almost too easy. And yet within those ideas there is a lot of tension and a lot of nuance that builds off of history in a more materialist way than you might think. 

I remember considering that the idea of cultural revolution, in theory, was abstracted from the actual events of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to a degree that was almost unhelpful or obscuring. I had thought that the idea of cultural revolution hinged so much on changing old ideas that it didn’t have a real plan of action to change these ideas. After all, in the abstract world of opinions or ideas, it isn’t always the correct one that wins out. And to me it was not a coherent strategy against the sheer power of a state apparatus set on revisionism. The mass line can’t be expected to be kept to by sheer benevolence on behalf of the communist party. That’s very clear idealism. 

That’s when I took a second look at what the productive manifestation of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was in history, and to me it was the idea of empowering people at a very direct, local level with the revolutionary committees. Only with a platform, with a tool of empowerment of all people in cooperation, can a truly communist ideology be created. Direct democracy, a realistic degree of local autonomy with regards to production, a culture not of complacency, of liberalism, but of justice for all, and furthermore of innovation in achieving that. 

Anarchists are completely correct in their assessment that a new hierarchy cannot dissolve the old hierarchies. That workers being alienated from production by local and national hierarchies is both disastrous (The Great Leap Forward) and un-socialist. Where they miss the mark is the rejection of the state. The state is a tool, and the most vital one in coordinating socialism across a large area, of consolidating it against the very real material force of capitalism. 

The communist party is in service to the people, but it is a service that must be kept in line, on a leash. The people make the mass line. The people make the cultural revolution. The communist party is the set of tools given to the masses, and as the communist party builds a communist consciousness among the people it soon becomes quite a bit more complex, and before long it is the people that keeps the party communist. This give and take is what defines the Maoist theory most vitally. 

In my mind it gets to the heart of socialism, the socialism that is often labeled libertarian or autonomist or so on to differentiate it from Marxism-Leninism. But it gets to that heart through a way that actually deals with the pragmatics of power. It isn’t about abolishing power. It is about creating people’s power. The people’s power that is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the people’s power that is the local institutions of direct democracy. 

You may draw connections to many other tendencies of Marxism from my evaluation but none of them have seemed to me quite so living and open, or for that matter, modernly relevant. If it seems to you that I’ve strayed too far from what is popularly considered Maoism than either you’re a dogmatist or I’m a revisionist, either way, studying the events of the Chinese Revolution (in a very amateur capacity) has showed me to this conclusion, and taking that my conclusion is very much supported within the theory, I am very much a Maoist, and in my life I hope I see Maoism thrive against imperialism and capitalism. I leave you with a relevant quote from Mao:

“Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, “Show me where it’s written in the book.” When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership” but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.” 

from Oppose Book Worship

Right-Libertarian: why care about the lower classes when we’re the ones raining down social and economic wealth in the country?

Communist: mainly because the lower classes can never afford the same quality and quantity of luxuries “created” by you.

Right-libertarian: that’s because the state intervenes in our businesses and taxes the people and bleeds us all dry!

Communist: no, the state intervenes in the capitalist system because dozens of historical social movements led by the people demanded it–if the state never intervened and never gave concessions to the people, the state risks constant revolt.

Communist: also if it weren’t for these movements in the first place, individual capitalists would shift worker wages around, forcing laborers to work either long hours or short hours for variable pay; enforced workplace condition standards would disappear, child labor would still exist, mandatory breaks wouldn’t exist, legal business practices wouldn’t exist, monopolies would be everywhere and on everything, recurring great depressions would happen, unethical business practices would largely go unpunished, etc.

Communist: honestly without a state apparatus, capitalism would be a truly chaotic system.

Right-libertarian: okay but why would Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul lie to me :/

Communist: because you wanna be edgy but not lose daddy’s credit card privileges.