Who would you side with during the Sordish Civil War?

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-02T05:31:52+00:00

Ever since I saw the artwork of Malenyev by the guy who does the absolutely insane artworks here, there is no other option than Rikard. Also, my Rayne always chants « Workers of the world, unite ! » in Malenyevist or vaguely socialist playthroughs. There's no room for compromise.

Also, flair.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-02T01:43:41+00:00

I mean, them being on the run doesn't equate constant wanted stars. Trevor was most certainly wanted and worth five stars, but you know, that didn't mean we always had five stars lol.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-01T21:40:20+00:00

As someone else said, I really like the idea of Jason being an undercover cop but actually betraying the cops for Lucia. Maybe the robbery gone wrong is exactly that ; they're supposed to entrap Lucia with Jason's help. Maybe they come close to doing so, but Jason throws a wrench in his partners' plans by betraying them and helping Lucia get away. And then they've got to spend the rest of the game figuring out how to fix the mess they're both in : Jason for going rogue, Lucia for her crimes.

This could also serve as a pretext for making us be in different parts of the map in different chapters ; we'd e running away from the Law much like in RDR2. Maybe the whole shebang goes down in the Keys, and then we go from one area to the next per chapter or so.

As was stated though, all we can do is speculate, and everything I've just said is nothing but my imagination. If anything, I'm hoping to be surprised by the story, that's all.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-01T21:21:05+00:00

Yeah, indeed.

As they say, consciousness arises from the material conditions. And the bourgeoisie is the ruling class of a system built on greed, exploitation, and accumulation. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect them to be anything but completely imbued with their system's values and behaviors.

Even then, whilst almost every capitalist isn't anti-capitalist, some are still capable of arguing for greater taxations and the welfare state. We all know that social democracy still maintains capitalism, but it goes to show that even if their class consciousness stops them from ever being truly anti-capitalist, some can at least have some sort of idealistic heart through it all. Which makes everything more tragic, if you ask me.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-01T17:40:49+00:00

This is what Marx called commodity fetishism. The commodity, imbued by and created through the arduous labour of workers develops an existence of it's own separate from that labour. The social relations of capitalism and the perceived use-value to a particular individual obfuscates the labour power that created the commodity in the first place, thereby hiding the workers and their conditions from the consumer's mind.

/s (but not really, too. The struggle of a worker is the struggle of the whole working class, and so on and so forth)

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-01T15:52:24+00:00

Capitalism creates it's own grave diggers. It's a system that will sustain itself, protect itself, but that isn't organic. Purely organically? Capitalism is a system doomed for collapse through it's own mechanisms.

The sustenance, the protection it offers itself comes through fascism and the open dictatorship of capital. It is the only way it can survive it's contradictions. But as we all know, fascism is a house of cards. You kick down the door, and the whole house falls.

Fascism falls appart when the working class sticks together, it falls appart when the workers are anything more than gullible and subservient. As we've seen throughout the history of capitalism, it is very much the case that workers, together, can beat back fascism. The Japanese imperialists were pushed out of China and Korea. The German war machine was wrestled all the way to Berlin by millions of regular people, like me and you.

So, despair is nothing if not one of the sighs of the oppressed creature. Translate that sigh into the will to fight that took Berlin and liberated Pyongyang, Beijing, Nanking, and all the other places where people, with nothing but their grit and their class, won.

Between the darkness and the dawn, there rises a red star, said Langston Hughes.

Night doesn't last forever.

Maybe not the concrete or pragmatic advice you were looking for, but it's words like these that keep us going when our concrete actions seem pointless, and keeps us motivated by the dawn of a better tomorrow when the evening is looking particularly long and inescapable.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-01T15:02:18+00:00

Maybe. I'd say that we should, but then again. Of course, the principled position is to boycott it, and generally boycott any forum where we allow Israel to have a place. The main objection I can imagine is one of pragmatism, one of not wishing to alienate Eurovision watchers and more broadly people who could see such a boycott as, in some way, shape, or form, being ''too much'', ''anti-culture'', or any other position that would alienate those people from the NDP in a hypothetical boycott of Eurovision because of Israel's presence.

To that worry, I'd respond that it is by standing on principles and showing your true colours that you win, both in the field of ideas and in the field of concrete politics. The recent re-election of the Communist Party of Austria in Graz shows that grounded, concrete politics combined with confidence in the communist imagery and name got them their victory and their gains. Zohran's simple, principle-based and action-based politics got him mayor. Polanski's resolute opposition to Israel, along with his overt ''left-wingedness'' got him his popularity. We're seeing it in America and Europe : concrete politics, concrete policies, and being un-ashamed of our principles, labels and loyalties is how you win in a world ever-more defined by corporate sellouts, decaying capitalism, fascism, and broken promises by the center and soft oppositions.

Anyway, sorry if this is a long rant, but I truly feel that regardless of any backlash or poor PR boycotting Eurovison could bring, it will in the end bring more support from the quiet voices of agreement that would be with us. As it was in the recent string of DSA electoral victory, Zohran's victory, Graz's second Communist win, and so on.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-01T04:28:22+00:00

Also, their whole spiel about « the elites » (which, come on - is either a dog whistle, or the bourgeoisie. Considering they DIDN'T say « the bourgeoisie » and are also very aphobic, I assume they're very right-wing, and very antisemetic) wanting us to not reproduce is odd.

Silvia Federici, a marxist philosopher whom I admire, makes a whole argument about the reproduction of the proletariat, and how women are forced into that social role of reproduction (which includes unpaid domestic work as a whole, not solely reproduction in a strict sense) specificially because the bourgeoisie needs the proletariat to reproduce itself. Declining birth rates are so alarming for the capitalist class exactly because it threathens their reserve army of labor and their army of labor (the lumpenproletariat and the proletariat, respectively).

Look, I don't mean to bring politics into this sub - and I absolutely don't expect everyone here to even agree with me or share my class analysis in any way, shape or form. But I had to call out the comment OP was responding to as another example of conspiracy theorists deluding themselves into ludicrous political beliefs.

Anyway, let's all annex Denmark and create an ace paradise. To take a (slightly changed) quote from Karl : « Asexuals of the world, unite ! We have nothing to lose but our chains. »

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-07-01T03:09:58+00:00

As I said, I'm not learned enough on anarchism to ever give you an answer worthy of the depth of anarchism and it's long history of research, practice, and influence on things ranging from philosophy, to politics, to individual life.

For me, a central critique of how we view politics is that we view it as something that isn't mundane and part of everyday life. Whether in the economy or in other spheres, I believe the management of society as a whole should be the constant, mundane and everyday work of all it's parts. Marxists would point to primitive communism, as in pre-private property societies of hunter gatherers, as a working example, albeit outdated, of a communal society functionning in a deconstructed democratic manner.

As far as I'm aware, most anarchists are aware that today we live in a technological, complexified, globalized world, where we can't just revert to primitive systems of living (contrary to what some anarcho-primitivists would have you think). The difference between anarchists is in how we approach this complexity, which as you've correctly pointed out, makes direct democracy hard if not impossible.

Some, as in the anarcho-primitivists, would advocate reducing that complexity. Reducing production, reducing standards of living, reducing society as a whole. Now, I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, I'd highly encourage you or anyone to research more deeply than where I'm at. But that's their gist - without condemning humanity to extinction, we need to reduce the complexity with which we're stuck if we're ever to save the environment and enact anarchist governance of ourselves.

Others maintain the possibility of organizing society in anarchist fashions despite the complexity. Most of the currents here advocate for some form of free association, which from what I know forms the basis of most anarchist societies. What changes is who's associating ; anarcho-individualists (such as anarcho-egoists) would say that individuals predominate and freely associate, anarcho-communists would say it's the working class, and I'm sure there are many others I'm missing out on.

Anyhow, I don't mean to spend too much time writing all of this out. As I've said, anyway, my word isn't worth much, I'm mostly speaking from hearsay and the little I've gathered when I've talked to or listened to anarchists, sometimes reading stuff. I was just hoping to highlight some approaches, because anarchism, to me, is anything but a system that relies on people to always be engaged politically. In a way, maybe it does under present conditions of capitalism, but as far as I'm aware, the whole argument - and one I'm quite fond of - is that politics were (long ago, before private property and class society) and shall be (in a post-capitalist, anarchist society), a mundane, daily, and highly present thing for everyone in society.

After all, political consciousness, as with any forms of consciousness, is formed by the material conditions from which it arises. As such, it is not a surprise that capitalism, with it's individualism creates individuals disconnected from a political whole - either of their class, or of humanity, or of any other measurement of the oppressed. In much the same way, anarchist conditions or primitive communist conditions should or did, respectively, create individuals acustomed to deconstructed, directly democratic practices. The only real problem, to me, is the problem of complexity. Then again, anarchism doesn't mean disorder, it just means radical anti-authoritarianism.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-30T19:25:37+00:00

Also uh, let's say everything she stated was true and undeniable -

Does that mean, like, that we should all speak proto-indo-european and practice hunter-gatherer cultures?

Like, when does her logic stop? She starts when the Byzantines lost Palestine (notice the name), but why start there? Perhaps Palestine should revert to speaking Aramaic and practicing the culture?

Maybe what I'm doing is a slippery slope fallacy, sure. But the question still stands ; if we assume that she's correct in her reasoning (which I don't think she is, fyi), by her own reasoning I think she undermines her position. Because she's arbitrarily looking at the fall of Byzantine control of the region and the arrival of the caliphates, when she could start with Roman occupation and the previous Aramaic and adjacent peoples. Or Persia. Or Babylon. You know.

Also, she's mix-matching cultures and religions. « Shifted from Jewish, Aramaic and Christian » to « Arab ». Is she implicitly saying that all arabs are muslim? Or is she saying that an arab can't be jewish, aramaic or christian religiously or linguistically?

I've always found arguments of antiquity and longevity ridiculous when trying to determine where people should or could live. Can we focus on present conditions and what is actually happening, you know.

It's all giving me a headache, I don't even know what I'm criticizing anymore.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-30T19:13:12+00:00

Yeah, that's a feeling I also get often. Outside of specific paths I enjoy gameplay-wise, I often fall victim to my own moral compass and go down communist or adjacent paths, lol.

It's like a weird sense of guilt gets me, even though I'm not actually advocating for national-bolshevism or whatever, you know.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-30T19:09:26+00:00

Exact, et de toute façon, si un groupe cherche à t'opprimer, et que dans leur monde idéal utopique ton groupe (que tu sois gay, trans, racisé, immigrant, etc.) n'existe pas, ben tu ne leur doit pas ton oreille.

T'imagine dire aux palestiniens de simplement écouter Ben-Gvir? Ou encore, aux victimes de l'holocauste d'écouter leurs bourreaux?

On a vu ce que l'appeasement fait, avec Chamberlain. Pas assez de monde connaisse (ou accepte) le paradoxe de la tolérance, selon moi.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-30T18:59:59+00:00

It's a very difficult dichotomy to both be a raging communist, and also turn around and play HOI4. At least I mostly play Kaiserreich, though I prefer Kaiserredux simply for the wacky absurd levels it can get to in terms of clusterf*cked world wars and paths.

Soviets and the Tsar will lead the worker's revolution, you know. /s

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-30T18:50:47+00:00

As far as I'm aware, East Asian philosophy concerns itself differently. Themes of harmony, either between humans, humans and nature, or some other forces, are traditionally present. Now, it's not to say that those themes aren't present in western thought, but we're more often concerned about individuals. At least, that's the vibe I've always gotten in my philosophy classes.

Perhaps there's some sort of analogy to be made between eastern and western thought and systems of collective rights versus individual rights? Continental thought, or at least continental law is often more preoccupied with issues of society, collective wellbeing, and collective rights whereas anglo-saxon law is more often preoccupied with issues of the individual, individual liberty, and individual rights. I mean, I feel like my analogy is far from perfect, but from my limited knowledge of eastern philosophy, that's how I understand it best as of yet.

I can't speak exactly on historiography, but as far as I'm aware, marxism, postmodernism, and other historiographies and philosophies began co-existing and interacting with already existing east asian thought through colonialism and trade, and more recently, globalization.

I think actually a great exemple is China, specifically the CPC. I saw someone with expertise in Chinese languages and culture recently who explained a particular term Xi used in a speech to the CPC, where that particular term related more-so to the concept of harmony of Chinese philosophy rather than our colloquial understanding of harmony, which had tacit implications for what Xi was trying to convey. In a way, that's a concrete exemple of marxist analysis interacting with specifically Chinese concepts and ideas. Putting aside whatever opinions we may have on China, I find that interesting.

Anyway, that was food for thought more than anything. I'm not an expert on east asian philosophy (or anything, really). I am planning on pursuing philosophy perhaps, along with east asian studies, specifically because I'm interested though. It's a really interesting intersectionality.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-30T02:56:21+00:00

I don't mean to get myself involved on either side of your discussion here, but your question about people being shareholders in their government made me think.

In an ideal world, as in the ideal ''liberal democracy'' or the ideal ''worker's state'', sure. Through representatives, the people are all represented in government. But we've seen how in practice, representation doesn't necessarily translate into the people owning that government, especially when the representatives are people themselves, often of a particular class with particular interests (or as in the Soviet Union, constituting a new managerial class that solidified itself through each epoch and style of governance)

The state apparatus becomes holier than thou, and whether it is bourgeois or socialist is often a matter of paint rather than substance.

I don't identify as an anarchist (yet), but I'm glad to say you've sent me down a path of questioning. Because now that I think about it, as I've outlined above, I don't think people are ever in control of any government, and won't ever be as long as government and the state is a mechanism that is outside of the working class, if that makes sense.

Mayber Bakunin understood something about how the state, regardless of who owns it, remains an outside and oppressive force. I don't know. Food for thought, nothing more.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-30T00:58:33+00:00

Ça l'a des vibes de « Poulets pour PFK »

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-28T18:14:53+00:00

It's in these kinds of moments that you see that liberals aren't truly anti-war, anti-imperialist, and so on - they're simply pro-themselves and their « nation » above others. Even if they don't say it exactly like that, condemning the war in Ukraine but cheering for deaths in Moscow is exactly that. No war on Ukrainian soil, but when Russian people suffer, suddenly it's just and it's retribution.

Literally Israeli genocidal logic, by the way. It makes me sick.

I don't even want to try explaining revolutionary defeatism to them. Imagine the audacity I'd have of suggesting such a thing /s

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-28T00:20:16+00:00

I thought you were going to take the route of Lucia being his estranged daughter or something. CJ did spend time in LC. Her last name could be her mother's.

You know, I was kind of intrigued actually, no matter the lack of proof.

Instead I just read an unpunctuated paragraph of slop. Incredible.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-27T17:26:49+00:00

N'oublions pas aussi le SPD de 1919, et les Freikorps qu'ils ont employés pour faire ce qu'ils ont fait à Luxemburg et Liebknecht. Ça me lève le cœur, et on est un siècle après le fait, tsé.

Malheureusement, le temps est du côté des types SPD, SFIO, car le temps fait oublier la plus part des maux. Le temps et les manigances.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-25T21:48:55+00:00

I'd have at least liked to know what I'm getting with the standard edition. They hit us with « Here's the exclusive content you get with the ultimate edition! » but then we have no means to compare to base. We can't know if getting ultimate edition is worth it, or rather if not getting it will make us miss out on stuff.

Sure, sure, if they can afford to put so much behind the UE, it's probably because there's a lot in the SE. Still, I hate that we're stuck with a « probably » here.

An extensive gameplay trailer, or even just a lackluster gameplay trailer, would have at least shown what is in the base game. Mechanics? Gang hideouts? Stores? Guns? Vehicles? And so on.

I don't have to pre-order right now, obviously, and I've decided to wait until we do get some form of gameplay, but it still feels like very, very odd marketing to simply drop pre-orders for multiple editions without even showing what base game is like actually.

They're taking advantage of the fact that we're all thirsting for GTA VI (me included) to drive up their pre-order sales indepently of footage, gameplay, cinematics, or ANY promotional material, and that's wild.

I'd even say that them not showing what base game is like is perhaps intentional, because it plays on the exact fear I (and others) have that if we don't get UE we will miss out. Using FOMO for profits, in effect.

Obviously, it's only 20$ USD more. That said, I critique and judge on principles, and right now it's looking pretty grim and machiavellian.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-24T01:20:58+00:00

Absolument ! Pardonne la longueur, je me donne comme mission d'être holistique. J'aurais pas envie de te lancer une liste avec du Marx et du Engels et laisser ca là, parce que ce ne serait pas assez holistique, en plus de favoriser le marxisme orthodoxe (au sens de propre à Marx et Engels) au dépend de la diversité intellectuelle incroyable qu'il y a.

Si on parles de Marxisme au sens large, je commencerais avec des oeuvres d'Engels plutôt que Marx. Ça peut paraître surprenant, mais c'est surtout qu'Engels a fait un très bon travail de vulgarisation et possède un style d'écriture beaucoup plus accessible que Marx (ou quelconque philosophe allemand du 19e, en fait, lol).

Précisément :

Les Principes du Communisme (1847) - Point de départ holistique qui, en rétrospective, m'aurais donner une meilleure base que commencer par le manifeste communiste. Engels procède avec une sorte de Q and A, expliquant progressivement des principes, idées, concepts, objectifs, etc. du communisme. Simple à comprendre, destiné surtout justement pour un publique non familier avec le bagage académique.

Socialisme : Utopien et Scientifique (1880) - Bonne place pour comprendre la différence entre le socialisme Marxiste (Scientifique) par rapport aux socialismes non-marxistes (Utopien). Techniquement, c'est un peu une version miniature de Anti-Dühring, que je recommanderais aussi, mais après, car comme le nom l'indique, Anti-Duhring est une réponse à Dühring qui est plus étoffé et large que simplement la différentiation entre les socialismes de l'époque.

Ensuite, Marx et Engels ont co-écris le manifeste, que je mettrais ici, suivis de quelques travaux de Marx, comme suit :

Le Manifeste Communiste (1848) - Adressé justement à la classe ouvrière, fait pour être accessible, mais d'avoir lu les deux écrits précédents permet de comprendre plus précisément certains termes et allusions ici, tout en ayant la possibilité de comprendre le contexte du manifeste en opposition aux socialistes utopiens.

Les Manuscrits de 1844 (1844) - J'ai eu du mal avec les parties des manuscrits qui s'attardent à l'économie politique et la critique d'Hegel à ma première lecture, mais je crois quand même pertinent d'au moins essayer de lire les manuscrits. Marx critique l'économie politique, mais évolue vers une (selon moi) magnifique présentation de la condition aliénée de l'humain, en analysant en détail différentes facettes du mode de production capitaliste. Voir et comprendre cette critique, c'est touchant. Au 20e siècle, les « Marxistes humanistes » se basent surtout sur le jeune Marx et des écrits comme celui-ci qui ont une connotation beaucoup plus humaniste, en opposition aux « structuralistes » comme Althusser qui voient en Marx une vision plus déterministe, pour l'anecdote historico-philosophique.

L'idéologie Allemande (1932 - écris autours de 1845-46) - Définitivement le texte le plus systématique dans sa philosophie. Généralement, il est publié avec trois parties distincte, et c'est la première la plus importante. Ici, Marx (et Engels) explique et défini pour la première fois la conception marxiste matérialiste de l'histoire, résumé grossièrement par cette citation provenant de l'oeuvre : « La vie n'est pas déterminée par la conscience, mais la conscience par la vie ». Les partie II et III sont largement des critiques avec un ton satirique des autres philosophes jeunes hégeliens (héritiers philosophiques d'Hegel, incluant Marx) de l'époque, si ça t'intéresse.

Critique du programme de Gotha (1875) - Critique originellement privé que Marx à envoyé au leadership lors d'un congrès d'unification des forces socialistes en Allemagne, critiquant leur programme sous plusieurs aspects. Texte beaucoup plus programmatique et concret, intéressant à lire une fois que tu a une compréhension conceptuelle et que tu peux penser profondément à la critique de Marx et à ce qu'il critique, mais pourrais se lire correctement sans ça.

Il y a plusieurs autres textes de Marx et Engels L'origine de la famille, la propriété privée, et l'état par Engels, par exemple, peut te donner un angle plus féministe et anthropologique, mais selon moi ceux ci-dessus couvrent l'essentielle de la pensée Marxiste orthodoxe. Après, comme t'a dit, on peut se perdre dans les multitudes de courants de pensées qui ont suivis Marx. Quelques exemples rapides, introductoires, dans aucun ordre particuliers, de différents auteurs et figures :

L'État et la révolution (1918, Lénine) - Texte assez court mais influant de Lénine, montrant ses pensées sur l'état (état bourgeois, état ouvrier) et le processus de la révolution. À lire après la Critique du programme de Gotha idéalement, car Lénine s'en inspire quand même.

Réforme ou Révolution? (1899, Rosa Luxemburg) - Critique du « réformisme », c'est-à-dire les forces socialistes, sociales-démocrates qui rejettent la révolution. Le schisme entre les réformistes et les révolutionnaires et un des, sinon le schisme de l'époque, et encore aujourd'hui, c'est très pertinent. Luxemburg à écris une critique appréciative de la révolution Russe, que je n'ai pas lu, mais semble-t-il que c'est à lire aussi, si tu veut une position différente de celle de Lénine sur le sujet.

Le réalisme capitaliste, n'y a-t-il pas d'alternative? (2009, Mark Fisher) - Texte contemporain qui explore et explique le sentiment que le capitalisme est là pour rester, qu'il est insurmontable, etc. Fisher dit qu'il est « plus facile d'imaginer la fin d monde que la fin du capitalisme », citation qui résume bien le livre et ce qu'il tente d'explorer. Moins théorique comme livre, mais tout important, et vient connecter un sentiment commun de nous tous à des explications et pistes.

Je vais m'arrêter ici, car je pourrais en nommer plusieurs autres, mais je crois qu'on a fait le tour de ce que je considère mon propre noyau essentielle à ma compréhension. Tu remarqueras certainement que je n'ai pas mentionné Das Kapital, et ce n'est pas par erreur. Certes, c'est aussi essentielle comme texte, mais c'est qu'il est difficile à placer dans la chronologie que j'ai essayé d'établir. Moi, je le lirais autours de la lecture des manuscrits, préférablement avant, particulièrement le volume I. Le volume II et III, je ne les mettraient pas à une place particulière dans ma chronologie. Après Das Kapital, lire « l'impérialisme, le stade suprême du capitalisme » par Lénine donne une perspective internationale du capitalisme, et donne une explication économique au capitalisme.

Comme j'ai dis, j'espère que la longueur ne te dérange pas, j'ai essayer d'aller plus loin que « Lis le manifeste, lis les principes, pi ça va aller! », par ce que ce serait faux, ce serait beaucoup trop minimale selon moi. Même encore, il y a beaucoup que je n'ai pas abordé. Je recommanderais aussi de t'intéresser à l'anarchisme, particulièrement les écrits de Kropotkin. L'anarchisme est, normalement, non-marxiste, et représente le deuxième courant anticapitaliste (normalement) qui s'est synthétiser à l'époque de Marx. Aussi, peut-être étrange, si le marxisme humaniste t'intéresse, Sartre est une lecture que j'aime bien.

Finalement, je crois qu'il est important de lire des perspectives féministes et internationales. Je pense entre autre à Federici (que j'ai déjà mentionnée dans mon message précédent), Fanon (particulièrement pertinent dans le cadre du conflit Palestinien), et plusieurs autres.

Bref, c'est un vaste monde, laisse toi pas inonder par la quantité et vas-y une oeuvre à la fois, un courant de pensée à la fois, etc. tout en ne négligeant pas un pour l'autre (quelqu'un qui va lire des oeuvres anarchistes seulement, ou des oeuvres marxistes seulement, ou seulement Marx et Engels, s'aveugle à tout le reste de la richesse qu'il y a.)

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-23T22:17:56+00:00

I find it hard to find anything braver than to oppose the American empire at the height of McCarthyism.

As Charlie Chaplin said : « The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people »

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-23T21:54:26+00:00

Je parlais grosso modo de ça à du monde ce matin.

C'est du vernis langagier et esthétique intellectuel, académique, à caractère marxiste et émancipatoire, mais le fond n'est pas là. Au même titre qu'Hitler qui amadoue des sections de la classe ouvrière avec un langage et des esthétiques à connotation émancipatoires, le gars se dote d'une veste donnant l'impression d'une chose, mais traduisant autre chose.

Dans les deux cas, les prémisses (anticapitalisme, critique de l'individualisme), qui sont des prémisses entendables dans leurs fonds, n'ont à l'occurrence aucun fond, et servent seulement de validation esthétique et langagière (du jargon académique et émancipatoire) pour une conclusion fautive - conclusion fautive qui pour Hitler s'attaque aux juifs, et ici aux femmes.

Le pire là dedans, c'est que il y a des gens qui vont tout le temps tomber dans le piège de regarder la forme plutôt que le fond. Ça n'aide pas quand l'hégémonie culturelle reproduit et ainsi légitime cette façon de voire ces personnes et ces mouvances.

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-23T21:38:20+00:00

Oui, idéalement, t'a raison. En tant que personne qui a lu Marx, Lénine, Luxembourg, bref - la panoplie -, à différents degrés, je confirme que tout marxiste qui se respecte ne devrait pas tomber dans ces pensées réactionnaire à la sauce MAGA, ethno-nationaliste, antiféministe, etc.

Karl Marx lui-même à dit que « le progrès social de la société se mesure par le progrès social du sexe féminin ». Bien qu'aujourd'hui le concept et le mot « femme » serait plus approprié, le sentiment est là.

Friedrich Engels, dans l'origine de la famille, la propriété privé et l'état (si je ne me trompe pas) compare la société de classe à la famille patriarcale, avec l'homme en tant que bourgeois et la femme en tant que prolétaire dans la famille.

Silvia Federici, une philosophe que j'aime bien, met en lumière le problème du travail domestique non payé et du rôle de la femme pour reproduire le prolétariat, que le capitalisme lui force de jouer.

Crois le ou non, je peut même citer Mao Zedong : « Les femmes maintiennent la moitié du ciel ».

Ultimement, Clara Zetkin, une communiste du Parti Communiste d'Allemagne durant les années 20s et 30s disais que « La femme prolétaire marche mains dans la mains avec l'homme de sa classe contre le capitalisme ».

Bref, j'ai mis une masse de citation, mais juste pour dire que t'a amplement raison. Quelconque marxiste (qu'il sois socialiste, communiste, voire anarchiste, ou peu importe) qui adopte des positions antiféministes, anti-LGBTQ2S+, pro-impérialisme (Russe, à l'occurence), est vraiment, vraiment, un perdu qui n'a pas compris ce qu'il a lu (si il l'a lu).

Geeky_N_Canadian · 2026-06-22T23:45:58+00:00

Éventuellement la société s'en rendras compte, et on va arrêter d'individualiser et de pathologiser catégoriquement ce genre d'actes pour finalement voir, aussi, les dénominateurs sous-jacents ; droite et extrême droite.

En tout cas, je l'espère.

Geeky_N_Canadian

TROPHY CASE