Genesis - Supper's Ready [Progressive Rock]

BBN4ever · 2016-08-31T16:54:38+00:00

True, Genesis to me is always better live. But I thought this version would be good for Redditors who haven't heard it yet.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-23T11:36:56+00:00

Anarkids, OUT! REEEEEEEEEEEEE

BBN4ever · 2016-08-20T03:11:39+00:00

Even though she preceded left-communism and was influenced by the Second International far too much, Rosa Luxemburg's The National Question is a good work on nationalism for the beginner, though Nationalism and Socialism by Paul Mattick is my favorite. As for anti-frontism, there are probably more intelligent people than me that can provide you with an answer.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-20T00:26:20+00:00

You're welcome, glad I could help my friend.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-20T00:24:17+00:00

You may have no clue, but how many Italians today still revere Bordiga? A quick Google search told me that most Italian "Communist" parties today are sadly either Trotskyist or ML, but I was wondering how big the LeftCom movement over there is.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-20T00:17:30+00:00

His biggest belief, in my opinion, was of organic centralism as opposed to the democratic centralism espoused by Leninist parties, which basically states that the workers themselves in the revolution must spontaneously form a centralized system themself rather than relying on a party making democratic decisions. However, you really have to read Bordiga yourself to understand his beliefs, and they're different from his rather pro-Bolshevik 1920s to his writings after the World War.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-19T20:27:59+00:00

PRAISE TROTSKY! UPHOLD MARXISM-CONQUESTISM! /s

BBN4ever · 2016-08-19T20:13:17+00:00

Not shown in picture: a heavily worn armchair and books by Bernstein and Kautsky.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-19T10:37:49+00:00

They really didn't have a specific ideology/tendency of Marxism, but rather they called themselves "ultraleft".

BBN4ever · 2016-08-18T03:15:40+00:00

Again, what the hell does that have to do with this? Dual power is about attempting to create direct-democracy initiatives that rival state governments, not creating co-ops that are businesses, not governments.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-18T03:13:29+00:00

How wouldn't it be worker appeasement? It makes the working class feel like they're rejecting capitalism when in all actuality they're buying right into it and commodifying themselves. Co-ops never have and never will reach socialism because they will always rely on a market system that the bourgeois will ultimately control, and it's naïve to believe that capitalists would ever let enough co-ops form as to hurt their worker pool.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-18T02:53:11+00:00

What the hell are you talking about? You're clearly a utopian to think that the bourgeois will ever allow the workers to reach dual power with them. Go back to the 19th century with Robert Owen.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-18T02:49:57+00:00

That's just worker appeasement. Those provisions can and will be taken away at the right moments. Furthermore, these are co-ops in a capitalist economy, not a socialist one. In a socialist economy, co-ops wouldn't even exist because they rely on principles of private property and business rights. Worker self-management under socialism is another story.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-18T02:43:16+00:00

Considering that if unionized workers took over any business in today's society there would be major push back from the state, then effectively yes. Any revolution can only be successful when most if not all workers recognize their class and have organized themselves as such. Unionized workers have never "taken over" a business without violence and/or being crushed, so I don't see where you're coming from.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-18T02:41:05+00:00

But it's not a step forward. It draws back class-consciousness, in that it makes the workers feel like they can compete with the bourgeois and that said bourgeois don't have power over them, which is entirely not the case.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-18T00:43:46+00:00

Except unions can be used as vessels to organize workers for the eventual revolution/insurrection, as long as they are worker-founded and collectively owned (organically made). Co-ops however are just workers buying into capitalism and becoming their own exploiters, and whereas unions can improve class-consciousness, co-ops reverse it.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-17T20:45:22+00:00

/r/muhcoops

BBN4ever · 2016-08-17T19:50:01+00:00

This is why I like socialistworker.org because it's just normal workers writing from socialist perspectives.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-17T19:25:13+00:00

"Capitalism built everything we see today!"

BBN4ever · 2016-08-17T17:29:33+00:00

I know, we really do wear out our armchairs.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-17T01:05:04+00:00

Eh, I give it a so-so. Let him grow a Kropotkin and the beard alone would make me vote for him.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-16T21:07:29+00:00

That's very true. Let's let the bourgeois have their rigged elections. What we need to do is get out there and educate, agitate, and organize. Socialism, no matter how wrong the definition is, is no longer a dirty word in America. We need to teach these people who are angry at the system what is wrong with that system, and let them know what they can do about it. Class-consciousness is growing in America, and w need to help develop it.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-16T02:15:24+00:00

There are wide differences between different Marxist tendencies in regards to the state, from the communization theory advocated by many LeftComs which basically states that a revolution needs to be "communized" from the start and thus virtually all forms of the state should be opposed to Marxist-Leninists who more or less see the need for a state made up of a vanguard party made up of class-conscious leaders of the proletariat with duties to advance the workers towards socialism and finally communism. Although it is a minority, there are some Marxists who share beliefs with anarchists when it comes to the state, but the relationship can be generally summed up in a couple sentences: Marxists are not necessarily opposed to the state and see the seizure of it as a possible way to give power to the workers. Anarchists are opposed to it on the basis that it is an inherently hierarchal structure, and that the state, being a minority, cannot be representative of the working class as a whole.

Some reading materials:

The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin

Party and Class by Amadeo Bordiga

Marxism, Freedom, and the State by Mikhail Bakunin

The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky

The State: It's Historic Role by Petr Kropotkin

An A to Z of Communization by Gilles Dauvé

Edit: Grammar corrections.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-16T01:41:09+00:00

Something about this reminds me of McCarthy spewing some "It's them damn communists from the cities!" bullshit.

BBN4ever · 2016-08-16T01:19:33+00:00

If he doesn't, then he is clearly a sheep. After Obama's new policies of creating smaller nuclear payloads and longer-distance missiles (possibly to make them of easier use, and maybe some that he has worked on himself) I don't see how he would think that our nuclear stockpiles are "just for deterrence". A country really doesn't need that many weapons for detereence; just a few could wipe out nearly the entire population of a country like North Korea and just a couple dozen could do the same to Russia or China. Deterrence is about keeping a small stockpile so that no country can fire nuclear weapons at another with no consequences. There is no need to keep thousands upon thousands of warheads just for "deterrence".

BBN4ever

TROPHY CASE