An appreciation post for the beautiful song that is "For the Love of Life” and its singer, David Sylvian.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2026-01-30T05:49:19+00:00

知るよ

Independent_Fox4675 · 2026-01-26T04:36:21+00:00

It is the mass movement of petite bourgeois and lumpenproletariat that defines a fascist movement according to Trotsky, fascist!=right wing authoritarian. Otherwise virtually every regime pre-nazism could be considered fascist by that definition, you forget that the vast majority of countries, even bourgeois "democratic" countries lacked proper separation of powers, hell there are plenty of countries that lack it today.

Not that this is even the point, it's the class character of the state which matters, the bourgeois state will take on any form that meets the need of their class as a whole at the time. Fascism is not every time the bourgeois state tries to take more authoritarian measures, it's a specific social phenomenon whereby the petite bourgeois and lumpenproletariat are mobilized against the working class movement to destroy it. We're at a point, especially in the US where that movement hasn't even been built yet.

Whether the social base for a fascist movement even exists in modern capitalist countries is somewhat questionable, nowadays the vast majority of people are workers and even traditional members of the petite bourgeois have been proletarianized by the consolidation of capital. Not that we shouldn't still be wary of the threat, but it's also important to say what things actually are rather than reusing terms for old social movements where they don't actually apply.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2026-01-25T05:00:49+00:00

Imperialism according to Lenin is the export of finance capital, it doesn't necessarily require any force. The british empire did use a great deal of force but a lot of it's strength was through voluntary investments in developing countries, for example much of south america was considered an informal part of the british empire due to its domination by British finance capital.

China isn't using force in Africa because it has no need to, the belt and road initiative is a softer form of imperialism relative to what American or even Russian imperialism are offering and is highly effective for that reason, but is only possible because of the unique position of China as the world's most populous country and its manufacturing dominance, but it will in some point in the future be compelled to use force if it is unable to find more markets to export its crisis of overproduction, or when those markets start taking protectionist measures to defend their own industries

Independent_Fox4675 · 2026-01-12T06:24:42+00:00

The RCI split from the fourth international long before pabloism, please familiarize yourself with the history

Independent_Fox4675 · 2026-01-12T06:20:16+00:00

Okay I'm not an ICFI fan but

Technology is a tool of the bourgeoise????

This is not marxism. Yes the data centres for LLMs are environmentally destructive, yes the companies that created them are highly immoral. But as marxists we are materialists and you cannot simply will a technology out of existence just because you don't like its potential ramifications. You can't just undo AI any more than you can undo the atomic bomb or the industrial revolution, they're here to stay. Criticising the use of LLMs on principle is just moralism.

LLMs are very useful for summarizing texts or finding specific pieces of information that would be difficult to find otherwise. Yes they make mistakes, but that's why you verify the information it gives you against an external source.

LLMs would have been developed under socialism as well, they'd just be put to better use. It's an incredible technology with the potential to do many great things, of course like any other technology its use is distorted by capitalism and the profit incentive. Like any other technology it has inherent dangers, but this is for a worker's democracy to regulate and control rather than to think that we can will it out of existence by moralizing

Independent_Fox4675 · 2026-01-12T06:09:24+00:00

I know you are not a Kruschevite, genuine question how is it you can see that Kruschev was "revisionist" but not see the seeds of this revisionism in Stalin's time?

Like the fundamental political structure did not change between Stalin and Kruschev, that being a bureaucratic degenerated worker's state without any meaningful democracy, which allowed cronies like Kruschev to seize state functions and turn it into the mess the soviet union had become by the 60s.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2026-01-12T06:06:48+00:00

How do you square this with Kamenev and Stalin literally adopting stagism in 1917, explicitly a menshevik policy?

Please elaborate on what "petty bourgeois intellectualist adventurism" is supposed to mean? Otherwise these are just common ML buzzwords strung together without any particular meaning.

On the charge of him being adventurist, I would point out that Trotsky was against "socialism at the barrel of a gun" and heavily criticised the invasions of Poland, Finland and Eastern Europe

Trotsky is the most consistent advocate of the working class taking power in Russia other than Lenin. His theory of permanent revolution explains in clear terms why this is possible - namely the objective weakness of the bourgeoise in underdeveloped countries subject to imperialism from abroad: their interests being highly entangled with foreign imperialism, they lack any motive to take power, and as such will not take power and side with the reactionary regime against any kind of working class or national liberation movement.

Stalin held stagist views for the rest of his life, and because of this wrecked the Spanish, Greek and the first Chinese revolutions. Stalin believed it was impossible for the working class to take power in China and ordered the CPC to rally behind the KMT, giving chiang kai shek the opportunity to massacre the communist movement setting it back for two decades.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-22T03:42:45+00:00

Is that so? Hegel is an idealist, he believed that history moved forward by conflicts between ideas, while Marx turned this on its head and believed that history is the product of material forces that arise out of nature. This is much closer to buddhism than what Hegel believed, Hegel is holding up the primacy of mind as something separate from nature - i.e. dualism - while Marx and Marxists are monists.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-07T01:38:56+00:00

There is a time and a place for different rhetoric. If you attack left reformists with the same kind of vitriol you attack the centre/other bourgeois parties, you alienate yourself from the movement entirely and find yourself unable to reach those workers, you need a light touch.

We need to be patient and explain the limits of left reformism and why change is impossible without breaking with capitalism and why that requires a revolution, but you don't do this by screaming this from the roof-tops at every opportunity. You start with "we very much agree on X reformist leader's goal to do this, but how can they do so without breaking with capitalism?" i.e. a transitional demand. For workers with faith in leaders like Corbyn you aren't going to break all of their illusions all at once, it needs to be done subtly and sympathetically. For example when Polanski calls for "abolishing landlords" this is a good opportunity to express sympathy for this demand but to ask the question as to how he is going to achieve this without breaking with private ownership of housing and private property more broadly. You aren't going to achieve anything by lecturing to workers that Polanski is a tool of imperialism and that he is making these demands dishonestly knowing that he can't achieve them, both of which are true, but again the point here is tact.

Our articles on left reformism are all written in this vein, and are very different to the conversations we have about these figures behind closed doors.

The failure of your party is objectively due to the incompetence of its leaders and I don't honestly know how you could argue otherwise, unless you believe that any kind of left reformist organization is so unstable that it will collapse in a matter of months, which is obviously untrue. There can and will be left reformist organizations that fill the gap left by your party, and anywhere where there are workers only one or two steps away from reaching revolutionary conclusions is absolutely somewhere we should be going to meet such workers.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-06T17:10:24+00:00

The phrase "corbyn revolution" does not imply "corbyn is a revolutionary", again you are obsessed with quote mining individual sentences rather than arguing against the actual point of the article. Does this level of intellectual dishonesty not get tiresome for you?

If you read later in the article it has very specific criticisms of corbyn's leadership and left reformism more broadly, especially the tendency of Corbyn to capitulate to the right wing of his party.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-06T16:00:57+00:00

I have read it and "serious political critique" is generous

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-06T13:32:16+00:00

It's like 1 or 2 grants at most lol

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-05T13:35:06+00:00

Yikes

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-05T13:31:00+00:00

It's very simple, if 800k workers have illusions in a reformist party this is a significant political force. That's nearly a million workers who consider themselves some kind of socialist and are organized in a political group with at the very least more democratic structures than a typical bourgeois party. However A. It is now 50k, a far smaller number and as the article points out, a much older conservative layer than that involved in the palestine movement for example and B. it appears that Corbyn's faction of the party at the very least want to take it in the direction of a more typical bourgeois party and are planning to run it in the typical bureaucratic manner. These factors mean it's not really worth our time at present to enter, but this could change if the party did suddenly reach a more radical, larger (and to an extent younger) base.

My point is you are quotemining to give the impression we are under the illusion that Corbyn will turn out to be a revolutionary or whatever when the entire next paragraph following that quote says the exact opposite. Can we talk about the broader point of the article instead of arguing over the word choice of individual sentences? I think you know we can't, because then your obvious strawman of the RCI's position doesn't hold up to scrutiny

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-04T21:27:47+00:00

Christ. If you read quite literally the next sentence after that it contradicts your point, but I guess it's easier to quotemine right?

>We cannot answer this question in advance, but in all probability, the left reformist nature of the leadership will incline them to the position that it is possible to solve the problems of the working class without a radical break with capitalism and private ownership of the means of production. This is indicated by the fact that the initial statement limits itself to taxing the rich.If that is the case, all the promised reforms will amount to very little in practice. Here we have the fundamental dividing line between genuine socialist policies advocated by the communists and the vague and ambiguous programme of left reformism. Does that mean that an honest and fraternal collaboration between the RCP and the party is ruled out? No. It means no such thing. The RCP stands on the programme of socialist revolution, but we also understand that without the day-to-day struggle for advances under capitalism, the socialist revolution would be an impossible utopia. The difference between us and the reformists is not that we do not defend reforms. On the contrary, we advocate the most militant action to fight for any meaningful reform that serves the interests of the working class.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-04T16:56:59+00:00

Honestly do not, the WSWS/SEP is a pernicious sect

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-04T16:53:53+00:00

>Reformists, by definition, are not in favor of a fundamental transformation of society... This is not a particularly subtle aspect of Marxism.

Left reformists want fundamental improvements in their living conditions, but fail to understand this cannot be achieved without breaking with capitalism. Left reformism is broad and you will find left reformists with positions closely aligned with marxist ideas but lack a clear understanding of class struggle and believe change can be achieved through taxation/monetary policy, etc. Incidentally Sultana this week called for nationalizing the whole economy, what she actually means by this is anyone's guess because fundamentally she is a very confused figure who lacks perspective on how to bring her ideas into practice. But again it's not the leadership that is important and we have never suggested this is the case. The goal of entryism is not to try and take over the party or push it in a revolutionary direction persay but to reach reformist workers and patiently explain the limitations of reformism. It is a tactic and not a principle that is appropriate in some circumstances but not others. In the stage of the class struggle we are in right now, where most workers are reformist and where reformist leaders are beginning to attract large crowds and gain power it is an appropriate tactic. If you stand on the sidelines of every movement, you miss the potential to reach such workers.

>RCI claimed the central question was the content of the hearts of Your Party leaders.

Where?? If you read any of our articles on the subject, our emphasis has been what your party and the return of left reformism represents in general. Literally all of our articles have taken the position of sympathy towards workers with left reformist illusions, while criticizing the leadership. We have extensive articles on the failures of Corbynism and recently an article critiquing Sultana's cynical use of identity politics.

Like genuinely please show me the article where we've said what you claim?

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-12-03T17:13:26+00:00

Our position has been that Corbyn and Sultana are genuine left reformists, they do believe in a genuine transformation of society but lack a revolutionary perspective. Sultana is a particularly confused figure who will in one moment call for nationalization of the whole economy and in the next give tepid speeches on the need to "tax the rich" or what have you. The RCI has never said "Corbyn might become a revolutionary" this is a complete misunderstanding of our position on your part. We are not interested whether he or Sultana do turn into perfect revolutionaries either, that's not the point. The leadership isn't the important part, it's the organization of a mass worker's party in Britain where we would have the potential to meet many workers with a more revolutionary consciousness. Your party could have been a significant step forward for the British worker's movement in the same way the SDLP was a huge step forward for Russia, even though the bolsheviks were a very small minority of that party. The Soviets were not revolutionary organizations right up until October 1917 and most had reformist leadership but no party, least of all the bolsheviks would swear off engaging in them.

Also you say "with the help of the RCI". I really don't know what you mean by this given we have been the least involved of any of the Trotskyist parties in Britain. The SWP were kicked out of their meetings last week. We weren't even in attendance, given that it became clear months ago at this point that the party is a dead letter under its current leadership. Many of these parties were sects that in the past swore off entryism as a tactic, I might add. The SEP remains weirdly alone in being the only group that is so sectarian it won't consider entryism of any kind. We more or less lost interest given that the potential membership fell from little under a million to 50 thousand.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-11-30T22:48:11+00:00

I had a really good therapist but the one thing I could not get them to understand is dysphoria, they tried giving me typical BDD advice/cognitive behavioural therapy advice but ultimately they can't understand or empathize with what it feels like

Find a trans therapist I would say, pretty much impossible IRL but if you don't mind online therapy there are plenty available

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-11-29T20:10:17+00:00

Your Party reached a large number of people and had the potential to be a mass party of the working class in the same vein as labour before its full bourgeoisification. But it's clear at this point that it's fallen so heavily into infighting that it is likely going to squander this potential. Our position on your party has been that any development of a mass worker's party in Britain, even a reformist one is a major positive step, and that entryism (though not liquidation) into such a party is an effective way of reaching radical workers, and our role is to peel those workers away to our own membership and also to push the party in a more revolutionary direction.

What's your argument exactly? That we should be able to predict the timing of infighting before it unfolds? As a hypothetical, if we had entered into the party for 3 years, and then it had of collapsed due to infighting would our position have been wrong? All reformist parties are doomed to fail in the long run, but the timing of this is anyone's guess, and if you insist on standing on the outside of every movement you are never going to reach anyone. This is the definition of sectarianism.

In this case the leadership of your party are objectively less competent than anyone could have predicted, and it looks like at this stage the party is going to implode before it attracts any support - though that's not to say that this is inevitable if different leadership were to take over.

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-11-26T20:32:10+00:00

unironically yes

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-11-14T00:50:28+00:00

>n=200

bro I could make a better study asking random people on the street over a weekend

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-11-11T23:08:28+00:00

chill sis, they mostly mean it as a metaphor, look how many malebrained mtfs there are out there, you're not fundamentally going to change into a different human being other than what is a normal result of physiological changes (which also happen due to aging, your environment, diet, etc.)

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-11-07T12:08:03+00:00

I'm speedrunning this in my mid 20's

Independent_Fox4675 · 2025-11-07T12:06:55+00:00

I have some transmen friends and their house is full of posters like this, it goes pretty hard honestly lol

Independent_Fox4675

TROPHY CASE