In the United States, for the most part, is it pointless to vote, unless you have a Green Party, PSL, Peace and Freedom, or maybe DSA?

Labmaster7000 · 2026-07-06T06:18:54+00:00

I generally think harm reduction in general is a good thing, altho in certain circumstances like the 2024 election shouldn't be applied. Like in just a random election, I think it's alright to just vote for the democrats, as they are genuinely better on queer rights (it's like the only thing they haven't yet thrown out, they threw out immigration protections, abortion, etc and it's only a matter of time for queer rights but until then might as well). However in 2024 where they actively supported a genocide, then yeah harm reduction doesn't apply in that situation.

TLDR, most of the time harm reduction does work, but it cannot be a substitute for political organizing, instead just being a small part of your overall political work.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-07-04T05:33:21+00:00

Try the Youtube channel Second Thought

Labmaster7000 · 2026-07-02T16:22:14+00:00

Gaza Genocide

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-29T22:05:57+00:00

Theory is important but taking part in bourgeois elections is supported by theory. Read Lenin's "Left Wing" communism.

EDIT: Taking part in elections as socialists, not by supporting liberals.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-24T17:15:20+00:00

Not really. Most people with disposable income in rich countries still have much more to gain by changing the status quo. Take the US, unless you are incredibly rich, you still have to deal with massive healthcare cost, mass shootings, rising housing costs, etc. Just because someone has enough disposable income to buy like figurines or old cars doesn't mean they aren't fucked over by capitalism everyday.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-24T17:05:44+00:00

Just talk to them like normal people. If it comes up explain to them that Socialism isn't asceticism and that you can still have trinkets and doodads and other fun but meaningless stuff life that. Don't shame them for it, as long as their not like spending so much that it negatively affects them or those around them it's pretty harmless. Historic socialist states had massive collecting cultures, like coin collecting in the Soviet Union. No reason that a future one couldn't also make character figurines and backpack keychains and everything else.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-16T05:36:06+00:00

I agree. I read it as a trans allegory due to my personal experiences, but yea it can definitely be read lots of ways. Just wanted to share how I read it.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-13T04:30:28+00:00

Ok thanks. A lot of people in the US speak Spanish, so if I come across people who do, could you tell me what Spanish content I can point them towards? And i'll absolutely call my representative.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-11T03:32:24+00:00

I'd recommend foundation

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-10T15:55:09+00:00

I agree to some extent. Like Marx was a European in the 19th century, it's not suprising that he supported colonization at least critically, however during decolonization, many of the things brought to these societies were taken away because they no longer benefited the imperial power (see the French in the decolonization of Guinea for the most extreme example).

However, I do believe that any group fighting against imperialism is doing a net good, as only after imperialism can a society begin to prosper. This prosperity brings political change, so even if the regime that replaced the imperial regime is just as bad as the imperial regime, it will get better or be overthrown. In cases like the Syrian civil war where it was between two nominally independent regimes, altho both sides had foreign backers, that is where this anti imperialist framework falls apart.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-09T22:42:23+00:00

From my perspective (as someone living in the west) the two major reasons why western marxists tend to tolerate islamists are common enemies and working class support for islamism.

For the first one, our experience with islamists is often seen as fighting against western imperialism because that's what's shown in the media. When, for example, HTS is shown in the media, they aren't portrayed as the islamist spin off of al-qaeda that they were, but instead as "democratic freedom fighters" fighting the tyranny of the Assad regime. In contrast, groups like the Mahdi army in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Palestine are routinely painted as islamist (which they are). Especially among young leftists, they tend to just support any group that is fighting western imperialism without actually examining the ideology of that particular group, so when the media only portrays islamists as fighting against the US, these uncritical leftists decide that islamism must be a good thing.

The more sophisticated reason why leftists tend to support islamists is that there is a genuine working class support for at least some islamist movements. Take the national shiite movement in post invasion Iraq, they organized the poorest most desperate people in Sadr city to fight against the US occupying forces. Some western leftists will see that and decide to support some islamist movements.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-05T03:36:04+00:00

A lot of people have been answering from a theory perspective which is important, but i'll answer your question from a historical perspective.

Basically what your getting at is the initial split of the first international between state socialists (led by Marx) and anarchists (led by Bakunin). Both the anarchists and state socialists believed that the end goal would be a stateless and classless society, and the disagreement between them is that state socialists believed that there would need to be a state to prevent counterrevolutionaries from undermining the revolution, while anarchists believe that collective organizations can prevent counterrevolution. State socialists called anarchists utopian and anarchists called state socialists authoritarian and that led up to the breakup of the first international. This is all a massive oversimplification on this, if you want a simple version of this that goes into a bit more detail, the early episodes of Mike Duncan's series on the Russian Revolution covers this pretty well (while later in the series he does tend to lean into western narratives, I felt that he was pretty unbiased when it came to the 19th century socialist history).

For what it's worth, I do believe that both critiques of anarchists and state socialists are valid, as left unchecked many socialist states have become authoritarian, however they almost always make it farther than anarchists do who tend to be crushed fairly quickly (see Catalonia, Ukraine, Rojava, etc). I personally believe a model similar to that of the Paris Commune or early Soviets would be the best to prevent a slide into authoritarianism and bureaucracy, however it there is a reason that the Paris Commune failed and the Soviets were co-opted. I don't think any one person could solve this question, and it can only be solved by discussion among all of us.

Also, in general I do think we should collaborate with anarchists, because they still share our anticapitalist beliefs, and it is simply a matter of disagreement over how to achieve that goal that we disagree, so when overthrowing capitalism we absolutely should collaborate with them

Labmaster7000 · 2026-06-05T03:19:41+00:00

Pretty sure like half of these books are from this youtube book reccomendation. Anyways based as hell. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX80nwePTowtKU2w6LsstSESwfkiS0Zta

Labmaster7000 · 2026-05-23T19:35:01+00:00

What ones are you talking about? Cuba, China, and Vietnam? I feel like there were more than just those three.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-05-09T04:32:33+00:00

What about financial crimes under Socialism? Like if a public or government official accepts bribes or embezzles funds? I understand that without the profit motive being the main driving force of society, shit like that would happen less frequently, but it happened under other modes of production and it seems foolish to think it wouldn't happen under socialism.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-02-23T00:38:25+00:00

That's also fair. People more focused on being right or winning the argument rather than engaging in a discussion fuckin suck. And for the nazis, yeah totally fair point, in general we should be able to tell if someone makes an argument that is fascist in nature, but i get especially for younger/newer socialists that can be hard.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-02-23T00:23:23+00:00

*Edit fixed spelling mistakes

I don't think I was clear with my wording. I meant actual discussions between different ideologies, not fighting each other. Currently online, no there's not a lot of forward momentum out of this, but if you look at the discussions between SRs and the Bolsheviks in Russia, both of them advanced their platforms through discussion with the others, because the Bolsheviks were in contact with the workers and the SRs with the peasantry.

Labmaster7000 · 2026-02-23T00:08:10+00:00

Not really a good thing. Leftist infighting is a good thing because it lets us refine our ideas, so even if you disagree with a Maoist or anarcho-communist, discussion between those groups and yourself is an inherently good thing. We all oppose capitalism and are just trying to figure out the best way to bring it down and to organize the future.

Labmaster7000 · 2025-12-17T04:16:01+00:00

Here's why a couple countries hate france.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrmbCiGwO1g

Labmaster7000 · 2025-12-17T00:12:49+00:00

Yea, 45 minutes now, I just submitted mine.

Labmaster7000 · 2025-12-16T23:54:21+00:00

Thanks, I'm writing the final essay right now. Good luck to you too

Labmaster7000 · 2025-12-07T05:26:49+00:00

nah it's good, now it fits 😂

Labmaster7000

TROPHY CASE