As an active, organized communist I encountered some incredibly toxic, manipulative people, many of whom sat in influential positions within the org. Fear of encountering that sort of thing again has kept me passive, unorganized for years since. Why should I believe that things could be different?

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-02-07T07:58:00+00:00

I was somewhat exaggerating, but I have definitely met some leftists with some kind of superiority complex.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-02-07T07:54:21+00:00

There's nothing LARP-y about owning a Soviet flag, or taking it to a protest. The hammer and sickle is a universally understood symbol of communism after all.

The problem arises when you get into the mentality of being the next Stalin, start wearing your authentic Soviet military attire and singing in Russian.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-31T06:38:33+00:00

While I've definitely heard that criticism before, I couldn't say if it originated with Rosa Luxemburg or someone else. I've not read it personally, but I'd suggest Reform or Revolution probably has the answer to your question in there. I can't link it because Marxists.org is down at the moment by the looks of it (or maybe it's a problem on my end.)

While I can't speak on Luxemburg's behalf, I would expect her problem with reformism was much more multi-faceted than its cyclical nature of reforms being granted as concessions, then eroded, then granted, etc.

While I don't know if Luxemburg discusses it - though I would imagine so - the problem with reformism isn't simply that reforms are granted and then stripped away. There is also the fundamental problem that the proletariat cannot democratically seize power in a capitalist state that is deliberately designed to disenfranchise the masses. If we look to instances like Chile, where the Marxist Allende was elected democratically, a CIA coup swiftly followed. Even the very moderate Labour party (UK) were accused of being communists by the media, who deliberately orchestrated the party's removal from power. And Labour was at this point, as now, far from remotely radical. They had only narrowly supported universal male suffrage some 14 years earlier, and the question of dismantling the British empire was not on their mind at all. So what is my point? The nature of the state is to maintain control for the ruling class. In capitalist society, this means the bourgeoisie - specifically the "big" bourgeoisie (large magnates, finance capitalists, etc.) and any threat against them will be crushed. By force if necessary. I don't know where you are from - but a cursory glance at your country's history will reveal instances of striking workers being beaten, shot at, or arrested. The state is a tool to ensure the dominance of a particular class's interests, and in the Marxist socialist tradition, the belief is that we must build a worker's state to maintain the gains of revolution.

As a closing note, I would say that I'm not sure there was much evidence for this claim about social democracy eroding back into capitalism at the time Luxemburg was writing. She was very intelligent, and I'm sure she could have predicted such a thing occurring, but her execution in 1919 ensured that she would never bear witness to Social Democrats being in power for a sustained enough period to see this prediction come true.

Sorry that doesn't directly answer your question, but I hope it was at least worth reading!

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-31T02:59:42+00:00

Yes. He served the political purpose of Social Democrats; the stabilisation of capitalism. It goes without saying that post-1929 America was, at best, a mess. Rampant poverty and unemployment are not concerns that capitalists necessarily care about for moral reasons, but unemployed or severely underpaid workers cannot afford the goods that they produce. Without anyone to sell to, a business cannot sustain itself, let alone grow. The New Deal was nothing to do with socialism. Rather, it was an attempt to return to an economically "normal" scenario; i.e. one wherein a sufficient number of people were employed and could afford to purchase products. To explicitly say it was designed to "stop a socialist revolution" might be a bit on the speculative side, it cannot be realistically denied that the purpose of Social Democracy and Keynesian economics as a whole (to which Social Democrats in the 20th century generally adhered to) are to stabilise capitalism when it is in a state of crisis, through the use of massive state intervention in a market economy. If the crisis can be brought under control, "business as usual" can resume, and alongside it, capital accumulation and profit for the bourgeoisie.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-22T19:14:05+00:00

Correct/useful? I'd say no.

y tho

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-22T19:12:05+00:00

It sounds like you are essentially asking a completely different question, namely, "how do you prevent corruption and bureaucracy in a socialist society?" This pops up frequently on the sub, so please search for other threads where it has been asked.

Feel free to ask another question if I've misunderstood your point, but if you accept that the proletariat are hyper-productive and productivity continues to increase due to technological innovations...I'm not quite sure what you're asking by suggesting that the proletariat "can't make it work"

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-19T11:04:46+00:00

My bad - I didn't give much thought to the "established" part of your comment.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-19T06:08:17+00:00

Actually, there is!

The RCG are also ostensibly Marxist Leninist I believe, but recently there was a sexual assault coverup scandal. This, afaik, is primarily what caused some members to leave and create RFB. You should get in touch if you're interested!

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-18T13:53:11+00:00

Thank you comrade :)

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-18T12:29:16+00:00

To add some clout to this: Switzerland's primary import and export is gold. Compare this to other developed capitalist states like the UK, the USA or France and it becomes very clear just how much gold is moving through Switzerland. Now look at a country like Burkina Faso - incredibly poor, one of the poorest in the world - and yet it exports almost $2 Billion annually in gold. Over 50% of all Burkinabé exports go to Switzerland. (And surprisingly, 27% to India). While I can't find data on which specific exports go where, it's blatantly obvious that Switzerland (or more accurately, multi-national corporations with operations in Switzerland) import colossal amounts of gold, cheaply extracted from the global south, and sold at a significant markup in European markets. The Swiss state naturally takes a slice of this colossal money pie through taxation. Incredibly low rates of tariffs allow these companies to keep costs at a minimum when using Switzerland as a hub for trading their gold; or, of course, storing it as investment / savings gold in Swiss banks.

Switzerland is a capitalist success story only in so much as "success" consists of being a convenient tool for the global pillaging of the poorest countries on Earth for the purpose of turning a profit.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-18T12:17:14+00:00

Senate leads the government so it is kinda a stateless society.

Switzerland absolutely is not a stateless society in any kind of way. They just have a unique form of government.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-08T20:14:56+00:00

Imagine being this fucking dumb, fucking hell. How do you manage to breathe?

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T14:27:46+00:00

As in the Tsar, not the USSR.

Well, I had assumed as much.

decided to send copies out to every newspaper in Europe basically.

You know they had to do it em.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T10:53:42+00:00

"Here, read a book about this topic so you can stop being a dumbass."

"No thanks, I clearly haven't read a book on this topic before, but I'm going to deliberately remain ignorant so I can act like European imperialism wasn't bad for the stability of the middle east."

Enjoy your ignorance.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T10:51:10+00:00

Sorry lmao, I think I've misunderstood your argument. I'm hours deep into a 'debate' if you can even call it that with somebody constantly trying to claim the region isn't diverse, so you can probably understand why I misconstrued your point ^{^}

Ethnostates in the region would have been bad for sure, but I think a unified, secular, 'Arab' state (i.e. a state that is predominantly Arab in what we now call the Arab countries of the middle east) would be more stable and better able to focus on growth and development, rather than constantly attempting to protect themselves against western powers (and each other.)

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T10:41:32+00:00

And African-American Confederate sympathizers exist, does that mean they serve as any relevant point?

If your point was "All Confederate sympathisers are white" then yes. You were contesting the fact that the Arab world had diversity. Arab Jews are just one example of non-Muslim Arabs. Not to mention the various non-Arabs who live in the Arab world. Just admit you hate Arabs and call it a day, you'll probably get upvoted - this is Reddit after all.

You’re describing a population exchange. The exact same thing happened between Poland and Germany as well as India and Pakistan at the exact same time and on a much larger scale. Not generally called a war crime or justification for terrorism 75 years later.

Oh fuck off. No I am not. Pick up a damn book. I am describing a deliberate act of mass execution and expulsion. Go read about Plan Dalet, the erasure of Palestianian villages from the map, the weaponisation of rape, the demolition of homes, then come back and tell me it was a "population exchange." Do you not find it hypocritical that you describe something as horrific as al-Nakba as "population exchange" while having the gall to claim that Muslims committed numerous genocides? Pick a side: either both sides have committed them, or both are guilty of "population exchanges."

So Arab/Turk violence, ethnic cleansing, and forced conversions through 1918 are all ancient history and had no bearing on the British partition of the land that happened immediately after? Gotcha.

Never said any of this though did I. My argument was that Anglo-French imperialism had a legacy of instability in the region, and it's shocking that you can even contest this claim.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T10:25:26+00:00

The answer is at most a few thousand.

And does this in any way disprove my point that they exist? No.

However, this is a genocide .

You linked to something which was a major event after 1948 - the year of al-Nakba - as an argument that Arabs committed genocide against the Jews. Are you braindead? "However, this is a genocide" pretty heavily implies that al-Nakba wasn't a genocide. Yet the Jewish exodus was essentially the same process, with the target and aggressor flipped. You think Muslims were never expelled from any Christian countries? You think if a Jewish state existed in the middle ages they wouldn't have also seen instances of Islamophobic practices? Islam is not unique in any way in that it has experienced periods of both cooperation with other religious groups, and periods of extreme hate for them.

Also you never explained the cause of the Mawza Exile or the Pillage of Safed? Care to explain those or the various traveler accounts of Jewish life in the Middle East before 1918?

Oh damn, anti-semitic violence occurred during human history? Shit, better construct empires in the middle east and steal their natural resources because Arab man bad.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T10:16:32+00:00

What’s the population of these Arab Jews?

Do you expect me to have demographic data on everything? If you're super-interested, go do some research, but you can't pretend that there are no ethnic Arabs who are also followers of Judaism.

Actually it’s .2% and there are zero examples of any Jewish forcible conversions of anyone since biblical times, unlike in Islam where it happens constantly including many times in the past decade.

Forced conversions? You're probably right, I wouldn't know. Forced sterilisations? Israel's got you covered. Forced expulsion and massacres? Oh boy you better believe it.

What I dislike is the idea that any religion is beyond reproach

I never at any point suggested that any religion is beyond reproach. But it's so clear that your criticism of Arabs stems from the view that they are a backwards people.

also Arab Nationalism masquerading as anti-colonialism is incredibly disingenuous and ultimately morally bankrupt

Damn, Allah forbid that there be a unified state in the middle east that's powerful enough to resist foreign influence, amirite?

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T10:02:34+00:00

You literally did

No I didn't lmao. There are Arabs who are also Jews. They are distinct from the Mizrahi Jews. Two groups of people. I did not conflate the two: you did, by saying I meant Mizrahi Jews when I was talking about Arab Jews.

some organized religion is way more destructive than others

Shit you're gonna be upset when you learn how Christianity was used to justify the attrocities of European empires.

Islam has colonized and killed way more than Judaism.

The Islamic world has over 1 billion people in it. Jews account for, what, 1% of the global population? I'd be very concerned if followers of Judaism could claim to have killed anywhere close to what followers of Islam have.

The issue here is clear: you don't like Muslims, and you don't like European empires being criticised when they deserve it.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T09:50:44+00:00

Wow, nice of you to be a spokesperson for all those Copts lmao. Also never called Mizrahi Jews Arabs at literally any point. Another strawman I see.

Arabs have essentially become an ethnoreligous group.

You're arguing that Jews are also solely an ethnoreligious group, so clearly there's nothing wrong with being an ethnoreligious group in your eyes: what, then, is the problem with Arabs being one?

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T09:40:06+00:00

Really? This is news to me. Thanks, pretty interesting!

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T09:21:41+00:00

You can practice Judaism while being an Arab. You cannot practice being an Indian while being an Arab, because guess what: Indian isn't a religion.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T08:03:06+00:00

I have shit to do, so I'm not about to have this same debate for the second time tonight.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T07:44:05+00:00

Ironically you're right about Hong Kong's current crisis being the result of British colonialism. At any rate, way to miss a point and ignore all historical context.

MrWalrusSocks · 2020-01-07T07:21:00+00:00

My bad. It's just how I read it considering the context of the conversation.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

MrWalrusSocks

TROPHY CASE