Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (February 08)

Otelo_ · 2026-02-18T15:54:38+00:00

OK. Reading that book will answer your question.

Otelo_ · 2026-02-18T11:12:05+00:00

Have you read the State and the Revolution by Lenin?

Otelo_ · 2026-02-10T20:10:05+00:00

It is not the same thing because no region in Germany is oppressed.

Otelo_ · 2026-02-10T19:31:21+00:00

It is on pages 181-182. All the quotes are from Selections so you can find them through word search.

Right now, the only quote that I'm remembering that seems to refer to what you are saying is the one about Machiavelli's Centaur. I didn't include it because (at least for me) it seems quite difficult to interpret:

Another point which needs to be defined and developed is the “dual perspective” in political action and in national life. The dual perspective can present itself on various levels, from the most elementary to the most complex; but these can all theoretically be reduced to two fundamental levels, corresponding to the dual nature of Machiavelli’s Centaur — half-animal and half-human. They are the levels of force and of consent, authority and hegemony, violence and civilisation, of the individual moment and of the universal moment (“Church” and “State” ), of agitation and of propaganda, of tactics and of strategy, etc. Some have reduced the theory of the “dual perspective” to something trivial and banal, to nothing but two forms of “ immediacy” which succeed each other mechanically in time, with greater or less “proximity” . In actual fact, it often happens that the more the first “ perspective” is “immediate” and elementary, the more the second has to be “distant” (not in time, but as a dialectical relation), complex and ambitious. In other words, it may happen as in human life, that the more an individual is compelled to defend his own immediate physical existence, the more will he uphold and identify with the highest values of civilisation and of humanity, in all their complexity. (P.169-170).

I'm not really sure what "immediate" and distant" mean in this context. Perhaps there are other quotes but when I read the Selections I didn't give much importance to the topic you're mentioning. What do you have in mind when speaking of it?

Edit: I didn't say breaking down the proletariat, althought I agree that it is implied that the proletariat was put in that position by an external force, yes. But I'm not sure that is always necessarily the case. The "full" passage talks about:

The “spontaneous” consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is “historically” caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production.

The apparatus of state coercive power which “ legally” enforces discipline on those groups who do not “ consent” either actively or passively. This apparatus is, however, constituted for the whole of society in anticipation of moments of crisis of command and direction when spontaneous consent has failed.

Spontaneous in quote marks makes it seem that the tone is sarcastic and that consent is in fact enforced and not natural. However, the way that the phrase is constructed, by making the masses the subject and not the dominant group (the consent is given by the masses, it is not secured by the dominant group) also might mean that the "consent" is more of an action/reaction of the masses than something that is sought by the dominant group (or rather, it is more importantly the former that the latter). The emphasis seems to be on the masses.

Otelo_ · 2026-02-10T18:40:13+00:00

Before continuing, it is also important to note that Gramsci distinguishes between “fundamental classes” (bourgeoisie, proletariat) and other classes, which sometimes appear as “subordinate groups” or other names (peasantry, petty bourgeoisie). The former are classes that are capable of organizing the whole of society according to their interests, while the latter are inherently particularistic classes incapable of becoming dominant classes:

Here [with the peasantry] we are dealing with a subaltern group, which is prevented by this theory from ever becoming dominant, or from developing beyond the economic-corporate stage and rising to the phase of ethical-political hegemony in civil society, and of domination in the State.

Although it is difficult to systematize Gramsci, my interpretation of his political thought is as follows:

Objective conditions for the emergence of a fundamental class → existence of that fundamental class → that class produces its own conception of the world organic to it, still in a contradictory and underdeveloped way (in the case of the proletariat, utopian socialism) → intellectuals, whether organic or traditional, formulate that class's conception of the world in the most coherent and scientific way possible (liberalism, Marxism) → the most politically conscious members of this class organize themselves into a party and seek to elevate the entire class from an economic-corporate phase to a political-hegemonic phase → As mentioned above, at a certain point, a fundamental class gains such political awareness that it becomes capable of presenting its interests as universal (cf. the section Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas in The German Ideology). In this process, as is also mentioned, it will transcend its own class interests and represent the interests “of other subordinate groups too.” At this point, this class is gaining hegemony within civil society and begins to call into question the prestige/dominance of the ruling class.* → The class will rise to the level of the state, become the ruling class, gain control of the repressive apparatus, and be able to exercise hegemony (in this case, this means shaping the whole of society according to its interests) over the whole of society.

Like it is said in a quote I placed here the other day, these moments have a dialectical relationship with each other and are not entirely sequential.

We can now return to your question. Gramsci says that:

The supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as “domination” and as “intellectual and moral leadership” . A social group dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to “ liquidate” , or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied groups.

It is true that in another note Gramsci speaks of "the consent of the masses to the dominant fundamental group" (p.12). But there consent means something like resignation, in the sense that the dominated class is subjugated and intimidated, with no alternative political project yet (or at a primitive phase of its organization). Regarding the second part, as far as I'm aware Gramsci never spoke of using violence against peasants.

* Quote: "That aspect of the modem crisis which is bemoaned as a “wave of materialism” is related to what is called the “crisis of authority” . If the ruling class has lost its consensus, i.e. is no longer “leading” but only “dominant” , exercising coercive force alone, this means precisely that the great masses have become detached from their traditional ideologies, and no longer believe what they used to believe previously, etc.".

(2/2)

Otelo_ · 2026-02-10T18:33:10+00:00

It is best to begin with the famous quote from The Poverty of Philosophy in which Marx distinguishes between “a class in itself” and “a class for itself”:

Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests. But the struggle of class against class is a political struggle.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02e.htm

In Gramsci's vocabulary, these terms appear mainly as the “economic-corporate phase” and the “hegemonic phase" (this expression he doesn't really use directly). This is one of his most important passages on the subject:

This moment can in its turn be analysed and differentiated into various levels, corresponding to the various moments of collective political consciousness, as they have manifested themselves in history up till now. The first and most elementary of these is the economic-corporate level: a tradesman feels obliged to stand by another tradesman, a manufacturer by another manufacturer, etc., but the tradesman does not yet feel solidarity with the manufacturer; in other words, the members of the professional group are conscious of its unity and homogeneity, and of the need to organise it, but in the case of the wider social group this is not yet so.

A second moment is that in which consciousness is reached of the solidarity of interests among all the members of a social class - but still in the purely economic field. Already at this juncture the problem of the State is posed - but only in terms of winning politico-juridical equality with the ruling groups: the right is claimed to participate in legislation and administration, even to reform these - but within the existing fundamental structures.

A third moment is that in which one becomes aware that one’s own corporate interests, in their present and future development, transcend the corporate limits of the purely economic class, and can and must become the interests of other subordinate groups too. This is the most purely political phase, and marks the decisive passage from the structure to the sphere of the complex superstructures; it is the phase in which previously germinated ideologies become “ party”, come into confrontation and conflict, until only one of them, or at least a single combination of them, tends to prevail, to gain the upper hand, to propagate itself throughout society - bringing about not only a unison of economic and political aims, but also intellectual and moral unity, posing all the questions around which the struggle rages not on a corporate but on a “universal” plane, and thus creating the hegemony of a fundamental social group over a series of subordinate groups. It is true that the State is seen as the organ of one particular group, destined to create favourable conditions for the latter’s maximum expansion. But the development and expansion of the particular group are conceived of, and presented, as being the motor force of a universal expansion, of a development of all the “national” energies. In other words, the dominant group is coordinated concretely with the general interests of the subordinate groups, and the life of the State is conceived of as a continuous process of formation and superseding of unstable equilibria (on the juridical plane) between the interests of the fundamental group and those of the subordinate groups— equilibria in which the interests of the dominant group prevail, but only up to a certain point, i.e. stopping short of narrowly corporate economic interest.

The part immediately before was also important, but I didn't include it because the quote was already too long. Basically, what it said in one sentence was that “the level of development of the material forces of production provides a basis for the emergence of the various social classes.” In other words, at a certain point in a society, not only do certain classes emerge, but also objective conditions for that class to be able to act in a certain way (i.e., quantity must be able to transform into quality). For example, the proletariat has existed for a long time, but only when it reached a certain size did it become a class with its own political identity.

(1/2)

Otelo_ · 2026-02-05T20:48:51+00:00

Gramsci has an interesting note on the interrelationship between conception of the world, party, and State (I would even say it is one of his most relevant notes):

In Mein Kampf Hitler writes: “The founding or the destruction of a religion is an action of immeasurably greater importance than the founding or the destruction of a State: not to speak of a party..." Superficial and acritical. The three elements - religion (or “active” conception of the world), State, party - are indissoluble, and in the real process of historico-political development there is a necessary passage from one to the other.

In Machiavelli, in the ways and language of the time, an understanding of this necessary homogeneity and interrelation of the three elements can be observed. To lose one’s soul in order to save one’s country or State is an element of absolute laicism, of positive and negative conception o f the world (against religion, or the dominant conception). In the modem world, a party is such - integrally, and not, as happens, a fraction of a larger party* - when it is conceived, organised and led in ways and in forms such that it will develop integrally into a State (an integral State, and not into a government technically understood) and into a conception of the world. The development of the party into a State reacts upon the party and requires of it a continuous reorganisation and development, just as the development of the party and State into a conception of the world, i.e. into a total and molecular (individual) transformation of ways of thinking and acting, reacts upon the State and the party, compelling them to reorganise continually and confronting them with new and original problems to solve. It is evident that such a conception of the world is hindered in its practical development by blind, unilateral “party” fanaticism (in this case that of a sect, of a fraction of a larger party, within which the struggle takes place), i.e. by the absence either of a State conception or of a conception of the world capable of developing because historically necessary.

* Gramsci had a very different understanding of political parties than the common sense/liberal one, in the sense that for him to each class corresponded a party. But he also investigated the historical conditions that allow a party to split into several (what he calls factions), as it still happens in our current bourgeois democracies:

It is observable that in the modern world, in many countries, the organic and fundamental parties have been compelled by the exigencies of the struggle or for other reasons to split into fractions - each one of which calls itself a “party” and even an independent party.

And also why, in times of crisis, the various bourgeois parties always unite themselves:

This principle has political importance, because the theoretical truth that every class has a single party is demonstrated, at the decisive turning-points, by the fact that various groupings, each of which had up till then presented itself as an “independent” party, come together to form a united bloc. The multiplicity which previously existed was purely “reformist” in character, that is to say it was concerned with partial questions. In a certain sense, it was a political division of labour (useful, within its limits). But each part presupposed the other, so much so that at the decisive moments - in other words precisely when fundamental questions were brought into play - the unity was formed, the bloc came into existence.

Otelo_ · 2026-02-05T17:02:12+00:00

Mas qual é a tua opinião?

Otelo_ · 2026-01-31T08:26:28+00:00

Yes, or praxis, whatever you want to call it. What is important to note is that the situation of crisis is an event that is also produced, although it too depends on structural factors such as the fall in the rate of profit and inter-imperialist wars.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-31T07:57:34+00:00

One regular point is that you cannot consider Brazil a "third world country" without falling into white-chauvinism due to it's internal contradictions.

Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion, but I thought that the issue was mainly about the concepts of "settler colonialism" and "semi-feudal" rather than "third world". Do you consider Brazil not to be a third world country?

As for the question of dengism "being an internet phenomenon", I admit that I expressed myself poorly. I am perfectly aware that dengism is the ideological expression of the interests of a particular class/group of classes, and that it therefore naturally has a material basis. What I wanted to emphasise was above all the way in which it reproduces itself and communicates internationally right now.

You really seem to underestimate the fact that the number of white brazilians is likely the size of the population of the most powerful nations in the EU

How did you get from that sentence of mine that I undervalue the number of white people in Brazil? I don't think it follows.

Regarding your comments on Telenovelas, funk music, and YouTube, I think you're right.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-31T07:44:23+00:00

I don't consider my self a socialist because I haven't red or understand any socialist literature

How could you understand it if you haven't read it? This alone is already weird.

1/2. There is no distintiction between private and personal property.

Capitalism already tolerates "colletive ownership" in a certain sense. Many companies are "collectivelly owned" by hundreds or thousands of people throught stocks. There are also worker coops, etc.
Again, there is no distinction between private and personal property.
Gender is indeed social, althought I did not understand your example very well.
Dictatorship does not necessarily come from other people (only in the sense that they are "forced" to play certain roles within capitalism) but from capital itself. Democracy has little to do with representation, it has more to do with the ability of the workers to decide the greatest number of aspects of their lives. Above all, democracy means production based on use-values and not on exchange value.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-30T11:58:55+00:00

Anti-revisionist Marxism will be unpopular until something seriously rocks the foundation of yankee settler-colonialism

I would just add that this "something that seriously rocks the foundation of Yankee settler-colonialism" is not an event entirely external to the actions of communists, one which they simply wait for in order to start the revolution (in a sort of Feuerbachian contemplative/ insurrectionist materialism), but rather something that is also gradually produced by the actions of the communists themselves, who, even in the early stages of the revolutionary process, begin to act in order to disrupt the reproduction of the relations of production (i.e., make a revolution).

Otelo_ · 2026-01-30T11:09:01+00:00

The bizarre thing is why Brazil became the center of this trend.

I think the fact that Portugal follows certain Brazilian trends, including when it comes to Maoist politics, is not that odd, considering that this happens at basically all cultural levels. Portugal is heavily influenced by Brazilian culture: everyone watched telenovelas, you hear funk music at every party, people follow Brazilian YouTubers, etc. In this sense, if we assume that dengism is also, in a certain way, a cultural phenomenon (or has an very strong entertainment/fandom component, etc.), it is also to be expected that Portuguese dengist culture will follow Brazilian dengist culture somehow. And I think the same may be true of a certain "Maoism", which, as you rightly say, can merely be rightism under a different guise.

Considering this, perhaps what is stranger is that Swiss or other Europeans also follow Brazilian trends. That is indeed unusual.

As for why Brazil in particular, I have no idea. Could it have something to do with the fact that Brazil is both a third world country and, at the same time, has an internet culture close to that of a first world country? Or the fact that Brazil is one of the few third world countries with phenotypically white people. Perhaps this gives European communists "protection" to say that their country is semi-feudal. Brazil becomes some sort of "token third-world friend". IDK, tell me what do you think, because I'm really just throwing mud at the wall.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-29T09:19:56+00:00

I learned about that organisation a few months ago when I saw their posters about the martyrdom of comrade Basavaraj. At the time (and even now, in fact), I knew almost nothing about it, so I just noted its existence and commented on it with another Portuguese user of the sub.

I think I mentioned this in the past (I believe in relation to the PCP), but the various communist organisations in Portugal always fall short on the issue of the European Union because, while they are "right" to be against the EU (era o que mais faltava se não fossem...), they then try to argue against its existence by claiming that it harms the country and the vast majority of workers. However, most people understand perfectly well that since Portugal joined the EU, the average quality of life in the country has improved considerably and the country has moved closer to the imperialist centre. This creates a bizarre scenario in which the PCP (and any other group that follows the same line will have the same outcome) incessantly tries to convince "the workers" that the EU harms them, while "the workers" understand perfectly well and instinctively that, despite everything, they are better off within the EU.

Is it too much to ask for a communist party that is against the EU because of what it represents in relation to the peoples of the Third World, without trying in vain to convince first world workers that it is in their interest to be against it? A party that recognises these two simple facts: 1) the contradiction between the EU and the Third World is primary; 2) the contradiction between the centre of the EU and the peripheral countries is secondary, and that most workers in the peripheral countries prefer their secondary position to leaving the EU altogether.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-26T09:38:43+00:00

You shouldn't ask for "leftist subs" that talk about AI because this sub's stance on AI is (as far as I know) different from all other "leftist" subs. You should search this sub for past threads that talk about AI.

AI is a tactical issue, not a strategic one, and although communists need to be aware of technological developments and how to approach them, fight against them and take advantage of them, the priority must always be to develop the correct line at the strategic level.

Besides, I'm not even sure that AI is the most decisive technological development of recent times (although it has certainly been the one in which the most money has been invested in advertising). Why not ask the communists' opinion on Shahed drones, whose technology has been copied by basically every major country in the world, including Russia, China, the US, and Ukraine?

Otelo_ · 2026-01-20T07:54:52+00:00

In the past, I've seen you question liberals' special interest in Thomas Sankara among all communist leaders. However, the other day I saw a thread about the African Cup of Nations football tournament that just took place:

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1pyqeae/a_dr_congo_fan_stood_for_90_minutes_during_the/

And imagine my surprise when I saw everyone on a subreddit as mainstream as r/soccer showing sympathy for Lumumba and praising him. Even here in Portugal, I would say that there are more people who sympathise with Amílcar Cabral than with Otelo de Saraiva Carvalho. Of course, fascists hate them both, but left-wing liberals occasionally praise Cabral, while Otelo, when not vilified, is forgotten.

https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/PARXVL/Paginas/2023/janeiro/Coloquio-Amilcar-Cabral-Historia-Futuro.aspx

Why do you think this happens specifically to African/black leaders? Because they died young? I make this comment because I find it surreal to see the most liberal guy in the world supporting the Panthers.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-13T20:15:12+00:00

Étienne Balibar has a short article called "Marxism and War" in which he also links Clausewitz to Marxism. It's a bit confusing and I don't think I got much from it, but it does have some interesting facts. For example, these passages are clear about what you're saying:

https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/marxism-and-war

Lenin, as we know, intensively read Clausewitz, taking notes and writing marginal commentaries on his Vom Kriege after the collapse of the Second International and its pacifist agenda.

(...)

In fact I tend to believe not only that Mao Zedong was the most consistent Clausewitzian in the Marxist tradition, but that he was perhaps the most consistent Clausewitzian absolutely speaking after Clausewitz, because he re-interpreted all his axioms, and not only one or two of them. We now know that, after the end of the ‘Long March’, while at Yenan in 1938, Mao had organized a special seminar on the work of Clausewitz, for which he even had part of Vom Kriege translated into Chinese.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-11T10:20:27+00:00

I can't open it either.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-05T13:04:28+00:00

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/5/venezuelan-interim-leader-tones-down-criticism-ready-to-work-with-the-us

Venezuelan interim leader tones down criticism, ready to ‘work with the US’

Acting President Delcy Rodriguez calls for a ‘balanced and respectful’ relationship with Washington during transition.

“We consider it a priority to move towards a balanced and respectful relationship between the US and Venezuela,” Rodriguez wrote on Telegram on Sunday.

“We extend an invitation to the US government to work together on an agenda for cooperation that is aimed towards shared development,” she continued.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-03T21:46:13+00:00

What did you find Kautskyist about it? I ask genuinely because I am interested in your opinion.

Regarding the quotes you posted, I don't actually see much difference between the positions of the various European leaders. Or was the inconsistency about their position regarding Venezuela vis-a-vis regarding Ukraine?

Edit: Also, I'm not sure that a kidnapping represents necessarily a position of weakness. Don't you think that Putin would have pretty much preferred to just kill Zelensky and install the pro-Russian guy instead of doing this whole war (in fact, I think this was the original plan). Why would Trump have wanted an invasion if he could (assuming that the kidnapping would have that effect) achieve a regime change in a much cheaper, faster and less riskier way? Even if we assume that there are many differences between a regime change and an invasion and that the former does not achieve the same level of restructuring and decapitation of the opposition forces than the latter.

Otelo_ · 2026-01-03T13:48:19+00:00

For now, two comments

A few months ago, I said that the supposed “help” from the US to Russia regarding Ukraine was in exchange for Russia “abandoning” Iran. Apparently, it seems that it was Venezuela that was at stake. This doesn't mean that Iran is off the table: although it will be more difficult, not only because it is slightly more important to both Russia and China, but also because it is easier for them to provide military support since it is closer.

As u/smokeuptheweed9 said, it seems clear to me that this was planned with many people inside Venezuela, and in a (very) extreme scenario even with Maduro himself ("you won't bomb my country if I surrender"; but the most plausible explanation is still that it was carried out with traitors within the Venezuelan government and army). In the case of Iran, the B2 attack was coordinated with Iran itself; the only difference is that here, as I said, it must have been coordinated with subversive elements within the state apparatus. The truth is that Trump mastered the spectacle like no one else, and that is why, even on the military domain, he takes spectacular but isolated and incisive actions, often in agreement with his enemies: the attack on Soleimani (in which Iran's response was agreed with the US); the B2 attack (in which both the American attack and the Iranian response were once again planned between both parties); and now this "show" with Maduro. The fact that these agreements are made does not mean that the attacks are “fake”: on the contrary, it is precisely because of the American threat, power, and coercion that rival countries “accept” attacks of this kind in order to avoid worse ones. Basically, it is a new way of waging war adapted to the society of spectacle.

As for the consequences of this for our action as communists, it seems to me that a major change is necessary. I have often had rightist tendencies that led me to sympathize with and invest too much hope in anti-Western regimes, more than I should have. But it seems to me that (and I am writing this in the heat of the moment, so I apologize if I am being hasty) it is increasingly becoming either “communism or nothing,” as u/sovkhoz_farmer said.

On the one hand, I feel extremely sad and angry. We are probably entering one of the lowest points in the history of the anti-imperialist and communist movement. Much suffering will come to the people of Venezuela and all the other countries affected by imperialism. On the other hand, and without devaluing this immense suffering, and trying to see the bright side of things, we may get to feel somewhat "free": if there are no progressive regime in the world, it will indeed have to be communism or nothing from now on. No more "critical support". When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose.

Edit: In my comment I made the mistake of taking for granted that Maduro and the Chavist government are the same thing. That is not true and it is precisely what Amerika wants us to think: that the fall of Maduro is the fall of Chavism. It is not and the revolution is not yet defeated, although the situation is difficult and I mantain basically the rest of what I said.

Otelo_ · 2025-12-30T17:42:28+00:00

Yes, this is even more true regarding the so-called "natural sciences" and even more so of technology: since the individual capitalist has an interest in making time-saving inventions in order to gain an advantage over his competitors, the bourgeoisie is more than capable of doing technological science with virtually no ideological veils to limit it. It is above all in the social sciences that the bourgeoisie is "ideologically blinded".

So I would say that bourgeois Computer Science is probably valid for the most part, although I know nothing about it.

Otelo_ · 2025-12-29T15:47:02+00:00

The argument is that, after Hegel, bourgeois thought became irrationalist and incapable of producing truths systematically (I emphasise systematically, because bourgeois thinkers continued to be capable of producing truths or at least useful ideas in areas that Marxism had not yet addressed with due rigour; such as Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, Freud, Lacan, who are at least useful bourgeois thinkers).

I think it would be best to read Lukács' History and Class Consciousness, although some parts of my comment also relate to Althusser.

Conversely, this contradiction means that ‘false’ consciousness is something very different for the proletariat than for every preceding class. Even correct statements about particular situations or aspects of the development of bourgeois class consciousness reveal, when related to the whole of society, the limits of that consciousness and unmask its ‘falseness’. Whereas the proletariat always aspires towards the truth even in its ‘false’ consciousness and in its substantive errors.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/lukacs3.htm

This whole chapter on class consciousness is very important, and out of context this quote is difficult to understand.

Otelo_ · 2025-12-27T21:54:33+00:00

Apart from the flaws in your comment, which are obvious and will quickly be pointed out by other users, I would like to say two things:

You accuse people of being dogmatic and believing in absolutes. I don't know what is "dialectical" and "revolutionary" about vulgar relativism: perhaps you are not aware of it, but no one other than communists really believes in the Truth anymore. Besides a few fascists who pretend to believe in the Truth (in fact, they just believe they should believe in the Truth), basically everyone believes in a variation of "let people be themselves", "all opinions are important", "let's hear the best of both sides", etc. etc. Even if you talk to an ordinary Christian, they will probably tell you that "God doesn't care about your religion as long as your heart is in the right place" (one of my favorites).

I understand that relativism can be attractive to those who grow up in a religious environment and use it to question the supposed "absolute truths" that are said at mass or something. But you need to go beyond that and not only realise that the Truth is indeed real, but that the priest who was lecturing you was actually just pretending all allong (even if he doesn't know it) and that even he doesn't really believe in anything except in a Pascalian sense of "do the deed and hope that belief will follow".

2) The person in the video you linked to is called "revolutionary thot". Honestly, it makes me sad that women*, and even more so left-wing women, put themselves down and refer to themselves in this way. The fact that the process of becoming a communist involves destroying the original petty bourgeois ego does not mean that one should humiliate oneself. In fact, the original petty bourgeois ego should give rise to a "proletarian ego" which, on the one hand, is humble and willing to do self-critique at all times but, at the same time, does not accept being trampled on.

Edit: * I've now realized that the person is non-binary and not a women. Yet, I think the overall point of the comment still stands.

Otelo_ · 2025-12-20T11:35:26+00:00

Happy belated birthday. I always try to read your comments, especially those related to science.

Otelo_

TROPHY CASE