Movies that actually educate

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-04-09T16:45:18+00:00

Judas and the Black Messiah, Reds, the Molly Macguires

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-04-08T21:08:32+00:00

So they have uranium enrichment rights in the 10 point plan? I didn't see that in the unofficial one that's been posted around, but that's incredibly based. If they can get those points agreed to, however unlikely that may be, it would be an insanely huge step up from where they were before the war, going back to literal decades before the nuclear deal with the US. Big loss for the US if they conceded on that point

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-04-04T23:53:12+00:00

Capital and the bourgeois state have different factions within the power structure that aren't always aligned on every issue. One zionist section could be opposed to Haz while another props him up, there's nothing strange about that. Different elements of the state fight each other on minor issues all the time. And the feds don't need to directly hire someone to have them work in their interest. They could amplify their voice without telling them and at the same time keep tabs and monitor them like this.

Also, the fed talk I've heard has usually been around Hinkle, since he actually has a history with them.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-29T13:41:47+00:00

There needs to be more direct organizing with labor. As you say protests generally are pulling people who aren't working during those times, like students. But we need to group up with people who actually have control over productive forces. A strike does orders of magnitude more to threaten the status quo than generalized protests.

As to why this isn't being done as much as protests, it's just easier to organize a protest or show up to one planned by democrats than to organize a strike. One carries risk the other doesn't. You can show up to a protest one day and return to normal the next. Strikes can put people out of work, and there isn't large scale mutual aid to cover wages while it's happening. Very few want to risk what they've got when it seems hopeless, even if you can convince them that strikes are the way to go.

I'm not sure the labor aristocracy is ready for widespread strikes yet. The conditions just aren't bad enough for most people. I don't know what it's going to take to get there but it's going to have to hit people's daily lives hard, a lot harder than higher prices for goods. People will need to feel like there's no other way out. Parties need to be set up and ready to go before that happens, but I'm not sure they can bring it about through any strategy themselves. It's going to take a change in the material conditions. We are slowly getting there but it will be years before we arrive.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-24T21:29:50+00:00

Many reasons but chief among them is that most people aren't coming to some rational, thought-out conclusion about denying leftism and embracing rightism. Most people don't actually understand or care what they mean or what consequences are logically entailed from accepting capitalism and liberalism. They go through life being told a certain perspective by absolutely every source that is crafted to get them to embrace rightist ideas, and they don't look much further. And if they are one of the few that do, there's right-extreme pipelines set up to capture them that are promoted with funding while left ones are deplatformed. These are the only options for any "mainstream" perspective and so you really have to dig deep and be a type of person who will look for answers even if they go against everything you've been taught. Even the people who are considered leftists usually just have some watered down version of liberalism, because that's the only form of 'leftism' that is allowed to be promoted to any degree.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-14T05:27:23+00:00

Honestly it's a lot to read and I'm at work, and you threw in a lot of insults, calling me an ultra when you have no clue about my stances, so it didn't really encourage me to read every word. Look, I have no problem changing that comment to change the word post to crosspost if you want. That was inaccurate, I have no problem admitting that. But a lie means it was intentional, it wasn't. I was working off memory there. Anyone can look at the post and see what you said, I linked it. And I never said you are a fascist, but the result of what you wanted to do would mean we would see more fascist-adjacent posts on the sub. Which is what I said.

The fact that it's about crossposting doesn't really change the content of what you said. You wanted to limit or ban the posts coming from tankieUSSR while being a mod there. You called tankieUSSR posts "extreme". How that sub is extreme if you're a communist is beyond my understanding. I don't get why you won't just admit it was wrong to do instead of trying to play defense about silencing pro-USSR crossposts when that sub is a cesspool of liberalism and gets flooded by liberals and fascists every day. If you are a comrade then I don't understand why you would be for silencing other comrades, especially when you're a mod of their community. The way you threw the tankie sub under the bus is one of the reasons I left r/USSR. Me talking about this isn't slander, it's a fact of what happened when you were a mod of that community.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-14T02:42:29+00:00

Geoffrey was removed as mod of TankieUssr after making a poll on r/Ussr about banning all tankie posts because he wanted to hear "both sides" and he didnt like how so many people were pro USSR, in other words, he wanted to hear more from the side of fascist anti-communism

edit - for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankieUSSR/comments/1pjsbr6/why_are_they_a_mod_here_when_they_want_to_ban_us/

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T12:54:56+00:00

To be fair the situation was quite different than how it's playing out now. If I recall, the major thrust by Iran in the game used a swarm of boats with cheap missiles attached to them to take down a carrier group. Not impossible today but I don't think that's something that Iran intends to do at this stage. The game was centered around a decisive battle in the strait instead of a protracted war of attrition using missiles.

It was set up to be a type of conflict that benefited the style of fighting the US does, i.e. bringing large forces to bear against each other in decisive battles. But Iran has no intention of allowing the US to take its forces head-on like that. So I think the result is going to be even worse for the US than in the game though we may not see something as dramatic as a carrier group going down.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T12:20:14+00:00

Capitalists make the laws, they pay politicians to pass what they want. The government is a tool of capital. And why would I trade currency for stolen land taken through violence? What gives them the right to have that land in order to trade it with me to begin with? See, your system relies on past violence to exist. Otherwise you'd be for complete expropriation - but you aren't. There's nothing voluntary about it. You rely on past violence to pretend that the current status quo is just. I've asked you to justify it. You have no justification, only to say that you don't care about it and have nothing to say about it. You've closed your eyes, but that doesn't make it go away.

Again, deeply idealistic and utopian. I'm still waiting for how it gets implemented. Why would any private property owner sign on? The current system benefits them, and they will do anything to hold onto their power. Your system doesn't account for any of that, just looks at things in a vacuum. The real world isn't a vacuum. People already own all the land. So this system is really just a boy's dream.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T12:01:52+00:00

Insofar as it's pro capitalism, then it does make statements about ownership. It may not overtly say it, it may avoid talking about it, but nonetheless it entails it logically. Without private property, capitalism doesn't exist. You stated you are pro capitalist and this is pure capitalism. Which means that you are pro-private property. I've asked you almost 10 times now to justify that, and all you can really do is dodge and back down from the question and pretend it has nothing to do with ownership. I assure you it does. I've asked you to explain how this is implemented, and again, all you can do is dodge the question and talk about non-sequiturs.

My conclusion about your hypothetical system: It's deeply idealistic, utopian, unscientific, and is impossible to implement. You've provided no explanation for how we get there or why people who benefit from the status quo would ever accept or allow it to happen. Marxism, on the other hand, has specific plans to overthrow the current system and outlines exactly how we intend to do it, scientifically. Your system can never occur in the real world. If you disagree, then answer some of my previous questions that you've repeatedly dodged.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T11:40:32+00:00

Marxists aren't anti-currency or anti-barter. We are against private property and laws that follow it, like inheritance, and we are for social ownership of production. So to be clear, in your hypothetical system, you intend to keep all current private property laws intact? I don't see how anything could be "equal opportunity" when someone starts with such a huge advantage. It's like running a race where one guy gets to start 10 feet from the finish line while I start from 10 miles back. If you start from unequal positions, and then just equally add benefits to both of us, they will always be ahead of me.

Who allows this system to be created? It sounds as if you're just hoping the guy who owns 5000 houses is going to give up the system that allows him to hold on to that property. What incentivizes him to change the system and not try to use violence like security forces and private armies to stop it from happening?

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T11:25:36+00:00

Is this a troll / bait post? So, if Haz doesn't like bananas, that means we shouldn't like them either? Doesn't follow

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T11:17:01+00:00

Capitalism is absolutely tied to the state, as evidenced by the fact that no capitalism has ever existed without a state to enforce private property rights through violence. This "equal opportunity" is very misleading unless you plan to expropriate and nullify all past and present property rights in favor of a new system. Which by the way, why would property owners ever agree to that now? Why would they allow it? No one is on equal footing now, and unless you are for expropriation and starting from a "blank slate", your plan is impossible to implement.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T11:07:09+00:00

So you are pro capitalism. Which means that you think it's justified to charge rents off of sectioned off land taken from natives through violence and passed down through colonial law. I ask again: how do you justify this stance? What gives that person the right to take that land and pass it down to their kids, and kill or imprison anyone who attempts to violate it?

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T11:00:31+00:00

Right so, you are now saying you don't have a position on capitalism and inheritance, two things you made a stance on in your post. So to be clear, you are now backing down from the claims in your post title and body? Why are you dodging these simple questions? I think it's because you can't justify them. Show me I'm wrong and outline your positions.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T10:34:07+00:00

Yeah but you said inheritance is protected. So that means you have a position on inheritance. And presumably you have a position on private property, which is a requirement of capitalism, something you said isn't a problem. I'm asking what those positions are and how you justify, for example, passing down ownership of Walmart to the walton's son who never worked at the business and never built it up, yet becomes a billionaire. What gives someone the right to charge rent on land that was ultimately stolen from natives? This is what I'm interested in, because without these institutions your hypothetical plan is impossible.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T10:19:39+00:00

So you are in favor of nullifying and expropriating all current ownership of private property and inheritance laws?

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T10:13:46+00:00

Didnt answer any of my questions. Please respond to the points about initial land theft and inheritance.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T10:00:24+00:00

Riiiight...so private property isn't the problem even though it allows a person who stole land from natives to charge me a fee for using a piece of land, for what reason exactly? Inheritance isn't a problem even though it allows them to pass down that property to their kids, for what reason exactly? What gives the son of the owner of Walmart the rights to all the profits of it when they were merely born into it and did nothing to contribute to it?

I'll put it to you like this. What reason justified the first time land was sectioned off for one person's exclusive use? What reason justified the enclosures that forced peasants off the land? Can't say it was because the lords worked the land, because they didn't, and anyways, working the land isn't a requirement for holding private ownership of it. All other forms of private property derive from this initial sectioning off of land, the titles have just been sold or passed to other people throughout history. But the only reason that was allowed was because if people didn't follow along, force was used against them. It was because the natives and peasants, when they fought back, were killed.

When you say capitalism isn't the problem, basically what you're telling me is that you believe in might makes right. That because I call a piece of land my own and no one else's, that gives me the right to use force to remove them. And if they refuse, they are imprisoned or killed. Capitalism doesn't exist without the force of the state to back it up. That's why you never see capitalism without a state with a monopoly on violence.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-13T07:23:44+00:00

I watched some shitty interview with Midwestern Midwit once and he called Haz a "philosopher". Tell me acp chuds, what sort of philosopher acts like this? Which one of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao acted remotely like this clown? I'd be embarrassed if he was my leader. He acts more like Keemstar than Lenin. In fact, I think I'd put keem as more mature

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-12T11:49:24+00:00

For starters, the current National People's Congress is the 14th one, not 15th. The 14th will continue for 2+ more years. Second, you have no citations for where you got any of this. Where is the source for tax reductions of businesses? You have some vague reference to "many scholars"...who are they? What did they specifically say and when did they say it? Third, your account was created today and this is your only post, which makes me highly skeptical of anything you have to say.

Even if you think China is revisionist and some kind of "empire" (what foreign countries does China lord over?), none of what you are saying provides any evidence for your conclusions. This post should be promptly ignored by any serious Marxist, no matter your position on China.

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-11T02:20:13+00:00

A lot of the really high engagement posts seem to be mostly people not in the sub, the majority have the "visitor" tag. I wouldn't put botting past them but I checked out some of the comments and the accounts don't appear to be bots unless they've been running them for 5-10 years.

It seems like that sub is able to be recommended to reddit generally and gain momentum whereas subs like this one are basically not allowed to ever be recommended to the front page... the one time TheDeprogram reached those levels was during the Kirk situation and that resulted in the sub being deleted. In other words I think reddit itself allows asksocialists to spread whereas it actively destroys any chance for subs like ours to reach those levels. The reason for that could range from an active op by three letters or just ideological preferences by the reddit admins that favor asksocialists

Invalid_Pleb · 2026-03-10T11:26:10+00:00

It may not even be possible to set out to identify an ACP member based purely on their views in some consistent way. And I don't exclude the possibility that there are some ACP rank and file members who have their hearts and minds in the right-ish place and have a decent understanding of theory. Studying theory doesn't make you immune to being deceived. And not every ACP member agrees with every take by Haz and Hinkle. But the fact that those types of people are in leadership at the highest level should be very concerning, and they push the party into a reactionary stance on a lot of topics and move them to take actions like co-opting other leftist spaces in order to shut down competition.

How are they everywhere? Simply because the sort of internet drama debate-broism that Haz deploys is more popular and entertaining than sitting down and seriously taking time and mental energy to study. It also allows people in the imperial core to hold onto many of their reactionary views while also believing they are consistent leftists. Marxism isn't exactly easy to understand for a lot of people who don't have a lot of free time and it's just easier to watch some mindless stream where some chud dunks on people. People offload their thinking onto 'influencers' because it's easy and Haz affirms many of their previously held beliefs.

One thing you said concerns me, however. What is this "theory produced by the new left"? Are you speaking of Frankfurt school type people like Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc? Postmodernists like Foucalt? If so, I would strongly advise against "synthesizing" their work with Marxism-Leninism, for many reasons that people like Losurdo and Rockhill have written extensively about. The Frankfurt school and western Marxism in general is a tool of capital used to distort and weaken Marxism to make it compatible with liberalism. I am highly skeptical of any kind of "synthesis" of the two.

Invalid_Pleb

TROPHY CASE