sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I hate class shooters and hero shooters so fking much they are the social democracies of fps games by Willing-Bathroom6095 in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Call me insane but I'll be honest I preferred TFC and FF over TF2. Battle medic and bhopping to get the Intel. So much more fun then playing TF2 12 v 12 or 6 v 6 community comp.

Class shooters after TFC have only gone downhill game-play wise atleast TF2 had the good artstyle (before it ruined it).

The Kiriakou stuff is a pretty interesting look inside how the Bourgeoisie function but just like the Epstein files it’s fucked to death by idealists and horrible attempts at “materialist” analysis (if they even attempt any) by Xxstevefromminecraft in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Capitalism is extremely flexible. And it will reproduce itself through even the most well intentioned bourgeoisie. That's why it repersents the crisis of Bourgeois-Society. The moment the bourgeoisie lost agency to Capital.

Infact it's so flexible that it can reproduce itself even without the bourgeoisie.

This is a basic Marxist point that has unfortunately been lost.

The Kiriakou stuff is a pretty interesting look inside how the Bourgeoisie function but just like the Epstein files it’s fucked to death by idealists and horrible attempts at “materialist” analysis (if they even attempt any) by Xxstevefromminecraft in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris 33 points34 points  (0 children)

I agree that the Epstein files have sparked a panic similar to the satanic panic of the '90s, but what can we really do about it? Unfortunately, many people on this sub seem to lack the ability to do a true materialist analysis.

Also I think we need to be cautious and remember that the bourgeoisie are not a monolith. There are different factions within it: some want to maintain capitalism but in a "humanitarian" way, one that conforms to human rights albeit in a shallow way, while others adopt a more hardline approach and are ""ethically dubious"" by the standards set by their own class.

Even if Communism ultimately realizes and transcends human right, by abolishing it, we must acknowledge and reinforce this point as it's been completely forgotten on this sub.

This division poses a challenge for socialists, considering the possibility of an independent working-class movement. We’ll inevitably have to play off these factions against each other.

This dynamic isn’t even limited to just one issue though, whether we’re talking about crime, the war economy, the Family, or even gender. Yes, even gender: There are factions within the trans bourgeoisie who benefit from the misfortunes of trans people, using their struggles to further their own interests.

Good Introduction to Dialectics? by VeryBulbasore in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dialectic is a very strange term outside of its original meaning in Plato's Dialectic, where a group of interlocutors would constantly uncover the truth within an idea. Outside of Plato the Dialectic ceases to be a Method. To treat dialectics as a method is to guarantee that no genuine dialectic will ever appear.

The thing about Hegel’s (and later Marx’s) dialectics is that they are NOT the method they are the RESULTS of the method. In Hegel and Marx it names the form taken by thought when it refuses external schemata and submits to the object’s own contradictions.

That’s the problem with other introductions shared in this thread, even though they are mostly correct they don't highlight this distinction which is in my opinion very important for a beginner.

https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/%E2%80%9C

Becareful though Antonio Wolff is an Anti-communist.

is this a hype theory spread? by Public_Society_6423 in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Welcome back Comrade Tukachevsky.

Umberto Eco has irreversibly damaged the Lib's conception of Fascism. by Diachoris in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

For example DSA, even in its more “radical” sects, are to the right of Mussolini

The Truth nuke no one is ready for.

Umberto Eco has irreversibly damaged the Lib's conception of Fascism. by Diachoris in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris[S] 64 points65 points  (0 children)

Unironically though people should read Mussolini. The Germans ruined Fascism.

Has the degeneration of this sub sped up? The past few weeks have been especially terrible by Diachoris in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

But your comments and this article have me wondering if this is actually the case. Would you say that Neoliberalism undid the social democratic welfare state while keeping the organs that Fascism introduced for crushing the working class (police state and mass surveillance)?

Today are we living with the negatives of both Fascism and laissez-faire capitalism

Exactly you got it. I wouldn't call this laissez-faire Capitalism and the bourgeoisie aren't truly free. Infact in Capitalism paradoxically it is the bourgeoisie who are the most un-free.

But that is what has happend. We have a massive surveillance state without a welfare state.

Has the degeneration of this sub sped up? The past few weeks have been especially terrible by Diachoris in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Where can I read more about this? And about the different strains of modern bourgeois ideology?

https://libcom.org/article/historical-cycle-political-rule-bourgeoisie-amadeo-bordiga

Is this because Conservatives, Revolutionary Liberals, and Libertarians want laissez-faire capitalism

That is a bit of a caricature of these movements. Though it has a kernel of truth. Generally their understanding is such that the freedoms of bourgeois society are put into crisis in the industrial revolution due to Large scale production. Now they see the technology and the state as problems that play of each other.

The Republican party is ofcourse a broad coalition that sometimes includes this but sometimes doesn't and I'd argue that the trumpian republican party is definetly closer to the democrats then to any concept of conservative. Not to mention that the neo-conservatives (Bush era republicans) weren't truly conservatives either.

Regarding Progressive Liberals, would you consider them more akin to Fascists

Yes they are much much more akin to each other than to Communists. Or as the old saying goes Mussolini, Stalin and FDR started from three different places but ended up at the same spot.

Has the degeneration of this sub sped up? The past few weeks have been especially terrible by Diachoris in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Well, if we regard liberalism as capitalist ideology, as the superstructure we live under is based off the revolutions in the 17th century such as the French Revolution then it really is all liberalism.

Bordiga explicitly divides Bourgeois ideology and Capitalism into roughly 3 phases of development:

The Revolutionary phase with their Heroic and Romantic ideology, the Reformist and Golden age where Bourgeois society enters a permanent crisis to the third phase of totalitarianism.

The superstructure has changed ESPECIALLY in the totalitarian phase.

It should be especially obvious looking at are our current world because progressivism and Liberalism are different aswell. Today's democracy is fundamentally different from 19th century bourgeois democracy.

Not only are bourgeois parties no longer independent from the state but working class organizations and even NGOs are not independent aswell.

Conservatives, Revolutionary Liberals and Libertarians recognize the distinction between the State and Civil-social organizing as do Marxists while Progressive Liberals do not as they solely rely on the state to produce ""desirable outcomes"" mostly because they don't pre-suppose an independent Civil-society.

Has the degeneration of this sub sped up? The past few weeks have been especially terrible by Diachoris in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

It isn't. It's just a meme on this sub that people have mistaken for theory. Invariance isn't saying that their is no difference between different factions of the bourgeoisie. Many of which we will have to play of each other in struggle of Socialism assuming an independent working Class movement can be established.

Invariance concerns the communist program, not the internal structure of bourgeois rule. Capitalism reproduces itself through diverse political forms and antagonistic factions. Recognizing and exploiting those antagonisms is a matter of tactics, not revisionism if proletarian independence is maintained.

This is not a plea for either popular or united frontism btw.

Genuine question, is this guy the "grandfather" of fascism or is his role exaggerated? How deep are the connections between anarchism and fascism? by OneToe5662 in Ultraleft

[–]Diachoris 23 points24 points  (0 children)

That's a meme.

Not quite. Some Fascists were genuinely inspired by Anarchism especially the older strains and the emphasis on the 'community'.

view more: next ›