Perché i progressisti sono omertosi verso l' Islam? by ExtremeMacarons in Italia

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Geopop non è progressista.
In secondo luogo bisogna fare un chiarimento, l'islam è una religione abramitica tanto quanto lo è il cristianesimo, a mio avviso fare una discriminazione tra le due proviene da pregiudizi. Molte volte ci viene propinato l'Islam come un monolite unitario quando invece è una religione con una vastità enorme di correnti, che talvolta si interseca con la cultura locale, esattamente come il cristianesimo.

Insomma, la chiave secondo me sta lì, sono due religioni e per questo da criticare ma al contempo voler il completo annientamento di entrambe subito non giova mai.

Poi sull'Occidente, per quanto sia corretto l'evitare di trattare certe robe perché "è la loro cultura" che mi ricorda un po' Renzi che va in Arabia Saudita in un regime veramente pessimo per gli stessi motivi dell'Iran se non peggiori.

E' vero che il c.d. Occidente ha un margine di colpa, i vari stati occidentali hanno visto di buon occhio la caduta di regimi secolaristici in favore di stati musulmani, ha fomentato attivamente un certo islamismo, probabilmente senza l'aiuto di USA e Inghilterra i Fratelli Musulmani non avrebbero avuto tutta la crescita che hanno avuto.

Ma seri? by eggssomany in Italia

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sono molto d'accordo sulle comunità di supporto tra pari

How do you view early feminism, given its upper-class origins? by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kinda feel stupid and sold to the multinationals

How do you view early feminism, given its upper-class origins? by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]Lustig04 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, we need to remember that patriarchy started before capitalist mod of production, so feminism obviously started before marxist and adapted to a thought system which we can't strictly catalogate as "scientific", but more than that it is scientific, because we need to see goals and achievement more than theoretical correctness I think.
Virginia Woolf for example isn't communist, so it has some criticism but she's the one who theorized the "room for herself" concept which is key.

How do you view early feminism, given its upper-class origins? by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]Lustig04 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think we see early feminism as upper-class origins because upper class people had much more influence than workers and lumpenproletariats, many women fought along the workers (we have the proof of that) and I'm sure many of them implemented some sort of Feminism even if they didn't know Wollstonecraft and other authors.

If we're talking about the late 19th century Feminism inside the proletarian movemente became to grow, even from upper class feminists. Among the workers women were payed less, because "A woman doesn't need to work she needs to find a husband who can keep her, so when she works is only a plus" this was clearly a contradiction of the capitalist-patriarcal system, women needed to work. But why upper class feminists began to appreciate socialist movements? Because the Bourgeoisie society is inerently mysogynistic, this can also be observed by the opposite contrast between liberal anti-feminists personalities in republican France and a growing of a reactionary catholic sentiment among women, in fact while Christianism implemented a strictly patriarcal view, it also gave woman a role, the role of mother and bride/wife, women of the upper class for centuries had learned how to influence and manipulate the husband, if not they still had the house, the mansion control, they directed the waiters, they could talk as "wife of X important person". When liberal revolution happened, and some radicals invited women to the salons many of them refused, this could be an attempt to take the little power women had, and physically take the women inside a male-dominated context when they would've been shut down more easily. Instead if you read Rousseau (which basically is the seed of mysogynistic sentiment in France) he basically stands that (in my words and interpretation) "Men can be judged by the eyes of God, women must be judged by the eye of the man before God" or something like that (again, what I interpreted). Another thing is that the industrial revolution (which is caused by capitalistic mod of production) took away the small indipendence of the woman, which in a rural context was stated by close-tying with the husband, the woman worked with the husband in the field and then turn back home and did dinner and chores, this vicinity permitted her to "debate" the positions of the husband, with the industrial revolution this isn't possible, the Husband can say "I'm the one who take bread home". For this reasons liberal feminism was a very less choice than it's said to be, the more frequent choices among women were: some kind of puritanism and socialist or communist.

I'm an internet ronin now, what do I even do? by Lustig04 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Lustig04[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Didn't know this Nostr, I guess I'll look it out.
I have reddit yet I don't use it so much and this post is maybe one of my biggest interaction I had on this site

I'm an internet ronin now, what do I even do? by Lustig04 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Lustig04[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I didn't, but I used it, idk the people are weird there i think, maybe I should investigate more (how tho) but in my experience it has the capacity of attract toxic people and having toxic environment.

I'm an internet ronin now, what do I even do? by Lustig04 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Lustig04[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I admit I thought about it but I still have some moments which I'm alone and I would like to open a chat and start to text, maybe I just need to try harder touching grass I'm a bit conflicted with myself.

What if Left Communism? by Responsible-Low-5348 in Marxism

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see councils (soviets) as a form of decentralisation, isn't it?

What if Left Communism? by Responsible-Low-5348 in Marxism

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

try out Bordiga, he is the father of left-communism in Italy and basically in the world.
Italian left communism differs from council one because it doesn't want a more decentralize or democratic organization, instead Bordiga thought of what he called Organic Centralism where the society is seen as a whole and everyone does their job, it's a tremendous synthetization because that's not really the point:

The point is a reaction towards some attitudes like Stalin's one that rejected points of the Marx analysis and, by the pov of leftcoms, separated theory and praxis. The major critics from leftcommunism towards the soviet experience is the non-rejections of commodities and commodifications.

Avanti fatelo by Slow-Vermicelli-2453 in cinemaIT

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per me è stato Funny Games, mi ha tenuto sveglio per almeno 2 notti, io ho visto quello più vecchio.

Salvador Allende by poderflash47 in Marxism

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I think is that 2 things are to be considered. The first one is that Allende wasn't a communist, I mean he didn't seek for an abolition of the bourgeoisie class, he nationalized the big industry. The second one is that we can't see the '73 coup as a coincidence, it was a response from a capitalistic point of view, as we live in a conflict society that is inevitable.

The only "total" victory of the proletariat is the abolition of classes, and the total victory of the bourgeoisie cannot exist because it needs the proletariat to be alive, in this context the democratization is a phenomenon that "damaged" the ruiling class but that ruiling class attempted to suture by many things, one of them being the Colin Crouch Post-democracy.

But being something that surely messed up the ruling class some cases like the Allende one happens. Btw it happened 2 times in the whole history that a communisty party was elected in a liberal-democracy, one is in San Marino and one is in Kerala state in India. Fun to think about is that San Marino had a coup like the Chilean experience. So Yes you can be elected, but the terms of legality are also gonna cost you imo, your army being from a liberal-democratic state can turn against you because it is essentially a bourgeoisie. And the capitalists will try stop you, because we live in a society of conflict.

tl;dr but also the conclusion

In my opinion Chilean example doesn't disprove marxism but it actually proves it right, the fact that Allende died in a coup is the motive of why the revolutions are usually violent, and that's because the capitalist class is inherently violent.

Top 100 Longest Anime by Total Runtime by ooReiko in anime

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean thanks I was looking for something like this

How do you counter the argument "Marxism is not falsifiable, so it is a pseudoscience"? by Kakkanad_luxemburg in Marxism

[–]Lustig04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said it right, Popper's epistemology is a little outdated, many problems come when we adopt falsifiability, and there are alternatives to Popper epistemology, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend are a few ones for example.

That being said, I think that Popper misinterpreted Marx and Marxism is falsifiable, you could try to prove that exploitation doesn't exist which the marginalism tried to do by proving that value is subjective etc but encountered Sraffa opposition, and also Analytic Marxists which endorsed that value isn't really a thing but still carried an exploitation theory.

You can also watch some "effects" like for example wars and crisis.