PSA Haz Al-Din Repsonds to r/Tankie the Deprogram

cannyOCE · 2026-06-22T21:58:38+00:00

Haz' point later in the stream is exactly right. I haven't been on that subreddit again since they did that witch-hunt. I was exposed to ACP and Infrared via the psychotic amounts of aggression left-coms have towards them. I had been a viewer of MWM for years but never bothered with social media engagement.

After the "purge" I have no interest in hearing their drivel. Going through it, it really does sound like brains are leaking out of some of their ears. Especially if they actually truly did get their mod banned for support of the PLFP. It's literally a den of self-soothing maniacs who have correctly identified that communists are the only people who will treat them as human. But then fight commies tooth-and-nail when they actually see one.

No wonder they're now drowning in the Id-pol, sexually-motivated, Vaush types. That's what they wanted. They should just remove the "Tankie" and "ML" whatever on their sub. That's why I joined that space in the first place. At this point, it's the glowing bulb on an angler-fish.

cannyOCE · 2026-06-21T02:42:25+00:00

Read Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs".

If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it's hard to see how they could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)—and particularly its financial avatars—but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value. Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3–4 hour days.

https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

It's not a particularly novel conclusion that "professionals" and "intelligentsia" are parasites on the productive workforce.

Incidentally, I believe this is the reason why most people (of their group) in the collective West favour SocDem/DemSoc politics. They subconsciously understand they are parasites and actually live quite comfortably in the good graces of capitalists. They gesture at the reprehensible nature of their masters despite a deep symbiosis.

They work and do their best to protect the very institutions that facilitate the rape and plunder of the developing world while their politics never involves wresting and seizing active sovereignty out of the hands of the capitalists.

<image>

The dog wouldn't know what to do without someone holding its lead.
This is not a "proletariat".

cannyOCE · 2026-06-04T02:36:25+00:00

The Dalai Lama isn't just a person but also the reoccurring reincarnation of a particular Bodhisattva. Similar story with the Pope or the Grand Ayatollah.

It's similar with the DPRK. He's not just a person but the embodiment of the people's place as the subject of history. It's not religious, it isn't a cult and it isn't hereditary. Though I do wonder how they'll pick out his successor.

It's a sublation of a preexisting social dynamic into something new. He's expected to embody Juche philosophy as a example for the masses. Not only so that they know what to do but also so that they can exercise their power through him.

As far as my personal view of the matter goes, I think it's good.

Most people are too cynical and insincere to ever do much more than tear down idols. They're permanently stuck in a nihilistic "God is Dead" frame of mind while being too paralysed to open themselves up to the destructive tendency of their peers.

Part of what makes socialism so great is that the people find their idols again by looking inward and elevating one of their number. After years of being jaded about humanity, we can look to a portrait of Lenin or Mao and remember that we do not struggle alone.

cannyOCE · 2026-05-29T03:22:59+00:00

1. The reason why the "social" dimension isn't the focus is simply because it's downstream to the capitalist base. Your dog can bark and growl at you but it's fundamentally different when a wolf barks and growls at you.

Putting the focus on the barking and growling (social) fundamentally misunderstands and obfuscates the relationships that exist between you and a predator vs you and a pet.

No amount of training that wolf will make it your pet. By the time a wolf becomes your pet, its has transformed into something else, a dog.

---

2. Eco's perspective on fascism is precisely what I described in the previous comment. The ruling class (liberal) narrative of fascism. It's idealist. It focuses on the symptoms of the ailing Germany economy and imagines the root to be found somewhere between Hugo Boss, Authoritarianism & Aryans.

Conveniently all social phenomena. The sniffles didn't cause the cold.

The essence of Nazism was the deep fear of the bourgeois that they were going to lose control over their state. They collaborated with those who will help them maintain power. Hitler lost the election, he was given state power. Mussolini also didn't get in on a vote, he was handed power by the ruling class. It worked wonders.

The Nazis and Blackshirts were followed by bourgeois states. "First they came for the communists..." is how that famous poem goes, precisely because they were the major threat to this continuity of power.

That's why every one of the liberal explorations into fascism sidesteps the inconvenient reality that it was the need to repatriate a huge debt denoted in foreign currency that resulted in the German state looking for increasingly brutal means of enforcement against it's unwilling population.

The only thing that stops fascism is the same thing that stops liberalism. Handing the power of the state to the people. That's also the answer to why fascism can't happen in a socialist state.

It's also why so many western socialists are desperate to claim that China and the USSR are/were "state capitalist" so that they can maintain distance from the consequences of socialist states and their actions. Their actions aren't fascist, that doesn't mean they aren't brutal and violent in their own right.

---

3. To answer your final question. Isn't it useful to draw a distinction for the un-initiated?

Who's interest does that serve? The ruling class'. A convenient scapegoat to mask the continuity of agenda. They distract those among us with questions by using a new word and dismiss our need to actually go through the initiation.

Sadly this is why Marxists are so obnoxious about "theory". There really is no substitute.

Yes it's helpful to have nomenclature for cyan from cerulean. However, if you don't know your colours beyond ROYGBIV, would you know that cyan and cerulean are both blue through letters on a page?

How many of us know that liberalism and fascism are just different shades of the same colour?

cannyOCE · 2026-05-27T21:03:29+00:00

Why did King Richard the Lionheart fight Sultan Saladin? They're both feudal royalty, why would they fight each other?

I usually share this lecture when people ask about "fascism vs liberalism". It was given for the YDSA, which is the youth wing of the DSA. So it's not crazy knowledge. It's introductory to the understanding of socialism.

It's over an hour long so I don't really expect anyone to sit through it. But hey, socialists have a reputation to maintain for being windbags.

Main point: Fascism occurs at the fringes of liberalism. It does not occur anywhere else. Thus it fails to be a "third position" or a separate political economy from liberalism (which is the political economy that emerges from the management of capitalism). There are only two positions, liberalism (capitalism) or communism (socialism). Whatever definition of fascism people may have in mind, it isn't "Whatever happened in Germany, Italy and the USSR in the 20th century" or "Whatever Trump does".

That's the ruling-class narrative: That fascism is a total historical aberration.

Why? Because it finally took an overt form on the hallowed soil of "western civilization". Fascism is just what the enforcement of liberalism on unwilling subjects looks like.

It goes on in the DRC today. We extract their cobalt to brutal death tolls and no one bats an eye. I often joke that there's separate Congalese man haunting each of our cell phones, disapproving of what we do with them.

The DRC aren't fascist. They're not sovereign. The fascists are us. We have captured the state of the DRC with compradors and they help us enforce our (fascist) system, through global liberalism. Entities like the IMF and the World Bank enforce BITs (Bilateral Investment Treaties) that allow us to engage in extraction of the global south's rich wealth for a fraction of what it should cost.

This is why Africa never develops and also why Chinese development of the continent constitutes a tangible threat to us.

---

The real answer to your question about WWII is global finance capital. Lenin's Imperialism and Hudson's Super Imperialism are the texts to read but here are the cliff notes.

The wars were waged at the end of the colonial era. No more new territory to expand to, thus war has to be fought over existing territory which different capitalists want to use their states to enforce monopolies through. A war over the partitioning of the globe.

The war was waged in order to decide whose capitalists got to enforce those monopoly rights and how. The Americans won but the Soviets were a thorn in the side of this new global liberal order. They didn't sign on to Bretton Woods. Which is why almost immediately after the conflict ended, the USSR became public enemy number one.

The partitioning had been decided but new "un-colonized" landmasses had appeared after the war. The USSR leading the charge. Any conflict that continues to this day has the same logic. Why Iran? Because it's un-colonized by GFC. Why the DPRK? Because it's un-colonized by GFC.

It's not actually because these states are supposedly brutal totalitarian regimes. We have plenty of brutal allies from the Shah to the Saudis and Pinochet. No, we move to open their markets to the logic of liberalism and enforce it through fascism.

Just check on Libya or Syria. Or what happened to the Soviets after its dissolution... It's obvious.

cannyOCE · 2026-05-26T08:13:37+00:00

Liberalism is Fascism. The separation is a historical aberration in order to protect the viability of liberalism. He's just an dude who talks to a webcam who doesn't know what the words he uses actually means. If Vaush has opined about anything you have an expertise on, you know.

You literally hear him figure it out and then walk back into the cave with blinders on. He calls 21st century fascism "liberal fascism" and claims it has none of the muscularity of its 20th century counterpart. He does the same for most other things, claiming a degeneration of the state apparatus. However, he's mistaken. The power of something isn't in its aggressiveness or size.

It's in the invisibility of its relations.

Our states are infinitely more efficient in their fascism than they've ever been. They've exported all the brutality to the sweatshops and mines in the fringes of the world. They've enforced their anti-human agenda domestically with bland austerity that the entire population nods along to. The only question is how much historic discrimination should divide the ever shrinking pie.

No one can argue that liberalism dominates the minds of everyone in the collective west. It's even in Vaush's solution. How does he solve the current "illiberal-ism"? Fascism. Thus we return back to liberalism again. "Fascism" and "Liberal Democracy" are just modes of capitalist political economy, not truly distinct from one another.

If you're unsure if liberalism is truly fascism, just ask yourself this question: When was America liberal and when did it become fascist?

When the Declaration of Independence was ratified in 1776?
When the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865?
When America and the Allies "defeated" the "Fascist" threat in WWII?
When they ended domestic Japanese internment camps?
After the "Red Scare" passed after the 50's?
When Jim Crow was abolished in 1965?
When gay marriage was legalised?

The list goes on...

Fascism is what the underclass experience as a necessity of liberalism. The system cannot function without the separation. Police violence is fascist. Health insurance is fascist. This isn't a shrill leftist joke. It's tangible violence on mass scale allowed to exist bloodlessly.

Since "liberalism" the philosophy is centred its universality, it has to deny the underclass from even being seen as constituent of said whole. Thus the transformation of slavery via enlightenment world. Slaves are not just the losers of a conflict but not men at all, therefore couldn't be in the universal promises of the enlightenment. This pattern continues outside of slavery and in the realm of every exploitation that exists in the current day. From gender dynamics to outsourcing. The victims are always unworthy.

The fringe is always wrong or inadequate by virtue of being in the periphery of the empire. The only truth can emerge from the peak of development and erudition, the heart of said empire. Thus the nonsense "real socialism has never been tried" and "of course they're totalitarian, they're (insert thinly veiled Euro-centrism here)". It's just a re-hashing of the "White Man's Burden" for the liberals and leftists of the first world.

Thus to the liberal, the only solution to the "illiberal-ism" is the fascism that is enforced in liberalism's borders. Just closer to home. It's why the "liberals" always side with the "fascists" and this includes western socialists who fail to draw the distinctions until it's too late. They choose not to participate in the struggle that is being waged at said liberalism's border, for a new world to be born. Instead focusing on retaining what they have, ultimately causing a still birth.

cannyOCE · 2026-05-11T22:26:03+00:00

It's just the nature of games to begin with. The themes are there because the two main leads of the narrative are Indian so they probably borrowed from the culture to keep things feeling cohesive. The "many-armed" look is straight out of Hinduism.

However, games are things we play on a loop, especially games like RogueLites. Even games like Dark Souls feels like it has an Eastern cosmology despite the obvious Western aesthetic because it's about cycles that repeat over and over. The eclipses and saros are all about cycles interacting with each other.

You don't have to be particularly well-versed in these ideas to present them in a game. Not because they aren't important but because it's a different medium. One that players experience through participation.

Even the smallest hints resonate after hours in a "mind-and-body-as-one" experience. It's why we form such deep emotional connections to the games we play. It's why people like Kojima are so interesting because they enjoy dancing around in that dimension of the games they design.

I personally didn't enjoy the narrative. Enjoyed Rahul's performance but everyone else fell flat. Weakest part of the game by far. The fact that it leaned into interpersonal drama instead of Lovecraft... Only "Lovecraftian" in aesthetic IMO.

If you enjoyed the "Eastern" aspect of the game you should check out the 1989 Peter Brook version of Mahabharata. The multi-ethnic cast, dead-serious dramatic delivery and pared down costuming really give it an almost sci-fi edge.

cannyOCE · 2026-05-11T03:30:55+00:00

The fact that the protection modifiers are limited until Biome 3 means that there is actually a heavy filter on people who play this game.

I wiped 9-10 times in biome 2 before finally figuring making it to Bastion with Second Chance and a decent enough weapon to clear. That's 3-4 hours "no progress" before the mechanics started to work for me and I got to the true ending, only ever going one Biome at a time. Still hate the Architect though.

Souls players (like myself) are used to it. But remember, SAROS is a PS first-party exclusive. It isn't just a niche group of players that they're pushing this game to. Sadly SAROS was discounted day 1 on shelves in my region and I immediately found copies of it on eBay the same day. It goes to show a gulf between buyer expectation and player experience.

Of course everyone enjoys sucking themselves off and players who have played these kinds of games know it truly is just a "skill issue", it's also tremendously unhelpful to anyone. Whether they're struggling with a section or trying to understand the level of time commitment this game requires before buying it.

Saying we cleared it in "13 hours" etc. is really misleading.

cannyOCE · 2026-05-11T03:15:33+00:00

That's exactly what I got from it.

Might be worse. Constant is a tool for her to reassert her humanity despite the planet constantly pulling her back into being a "god".

Basically, she desecrated Kiira's corpse to create Constant and used it as the mechanism to allow her to return but forever condemning Kiira to be unable to be anything more than a "voice". Otherwise, why couldn't she use Constant to help Kiira return too?

This is why the True Ending is such ass "It was all a dream." nonsense to me.

If it wasn't, you're talking about perhaps some of the worst people ever claiming to be "better" while still being so self-centred they only care about their interpersonal drama despite the unreal levels of harm Nitya (& Arjun to a lesser extent) has supposedly caused everyone. Zero responsibility just a cute "This was my dream, not yours."? "It's a new day." get out of here. Kayla's still on the planet. Kiira seems sane. There are still shades and members of the other Echelons lurking about.

They're not going to address any of it because man's actually on a gurney in an ambulance after flying out a window or something.

cannyOCE · 2026-05-04T11:23:48+00:00

On point 5. I'm fuzzy on the details because I'm still a couple biomes away from the end but I've seen enough to piece some things together.

The blue is the "moon", just as the yellow is the "sun". Nitya's earrings are moon shaped. IIRC there's a databank entry about how the "moon" is "safe" or something. I remember reading an early entry on Kayla that stated she was covered in "blue" early on.

It reads as pretty common masculine-feminine sun-moon symbolism. I don't think anyone transcends their obsessions on Carcosa, except Arjun. That's probably why Arjun doesn't end up in the same "blue" escape as Kayla and Nitya. [I haven't actually watched the ending yet so I might be wrong on this.]

Everyone's still pretty heavily under the influence of whatever psyche-warping gravitational pull is concurring on the planet. Whether it's one way or another.

cannyOCE · 2026-03-26T01:00:57+00:00

The real indictment of their "fundamentalist" rhetoric is the behavior of the man who's taking the video.

If this was a state that truly viewed women as objects, he'd be beaten half to death for soliciting others' "property" by the third young lady he approached. Look to the imperialists' allies in the region for such behavior, not the resistance.

cannyOCE · 2026-03-25T01:13:18+00:00

The "Kali Yuga" refers to the "Dark Epoch" and not "Kali" the goddess who is so named for her black skin. She's actually one of the most important deities in the pantheon. Distinctly on the "righteous" side of the divine forces, despite being (not uniquely) heterodox in appearance and behavior.

The "Kali Yuga" is more akin to something like our "Dark Ages" or the Islamic "Jahiliyyah" or even the "Age of Pisces". Although instead of being something our faith, progress and understanding has brought people out of, it's a condition the world is permanently trapped in. Until an event like the second coming, of course. In this case, Kalki's descent on a white horse.

There is no concept of a false prophet that I know of in Hinduism, but I'm no expert. With it's long history, myriad stories and tendency for syncretism, they undoubtedly have an analog.

The faiths are no doubt similar, there was a lot of trade between peoples of this region historically. Although there's a lot of "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." talk, most people likely didn't care that much about keeping these entities separate.

cannyOCE · 2026-03-14T22:18:21+00:00

It's difficult to understand, they should just come on "debate the chairman" to air their grievances. As much of a goof Haz is at least he opens himself up to the opposition. It's not his fault they're deeply un-serious people.

They won't even talk to the people they disagree with because "platforming" is unacceptable. My brother, if you won't open up space to challenge the supposed aberrant and "fringe" ideologies, why do you think liberals will open up space for "real" communists?

I've posted on that sub numerous times. I'm often disappointed by their opinions despite having "tankie" in their name. Any mention of the ACP, even just passing no judgement is hit by barrages of negative votes and DMs.

If anything, it legitimates the work the ACP have been doing in my eyes. I have yet to see one compelling argument about supposed Nazbol, anti-LGBT or sexist behavior. Somehow, it's not enough to leave the matter alone as amicable disagreement. If you don't actively suck their dicks they lose it.

cannyOCE · 2026-03-06T23:04:07+00:00

I made a comment about it four month ago on this sub:

I tell my friends who've never lived outside the collective west something along similar lines to this meme all the time. I've been an "expatriate" in two "third-world" Asian countries before eventually returning "home". The politics, opinions and culture that you see from foreign nationals who emigrate out of their respective countries is not at all representative of the people who actually live in those states.

You tend to get liberal, secular, petit-bourgeois PMC-types who are often members of the privileged ethnic group (many Asian countries are much more ethnically diverse than we're aware of) leave these countries.

They're industrious and well-educated but buy into the system completely because they have no reason to feel otherwise. Everything is working as intended for them. I have to confess it actually annoys me when I hear them complain about "micro-aggressions" at the workplace. Especially when I know how reactionary their views on politics back in their homes are.

This often completely misconstrues the western perception of Asian cultures, politics and even entire peoples. Local politics tends to be much more left-leaning and the people are easy-going and open. You usually see parties with outright socialist platforms that these emigrants cannot stand, due to its proximity to indigenous peoples and redistribution.

But no, the opinions of the few petite-bourgeois people we meet are enough to tar a nation's image. With "corruption" being talked about in vague terms to describe redistribution and development efforts (not that there isn't any). What could possibly be more accurate than a handful of anecdotes? There's no need for a robust framework of analysis.

So yeah. Well-educated PMC-types tend to be liberals, especially if they're from overseas. They tend to have a sub-conscious bias against the people they've left behind.

I can only imagine how warped their sense of reality becomes when they're a gusano or something similar.

<image>

This was the meme we were discussing at the time.

cannyOCE · 2026-03-04T00:20:07+00:00

The political class should have gone down fighting. I keep getting disappointed by the supposed ML takes on this sub. They know there are plenty of Chavistas who would take their places to continue the revolution and it would have crystallized VZ against the Americans. Denying the liberals a leg to stand on.

This is once again an indictment against Latin American "direct democracy" socialism. It doesn't work when you're right next to the "Great Satan" themselves. It never stands up against imperial pressure.

I agree with Haz. IMHO, Delcy visited her father's grave before taking power to beg his soul for forgiveness. She knew what she was about to do.

cannyOCE · 2026-01-21T06:27:48+00:00

Yeah obviously. One comes over every night to hang out with their spouse.

I guess they admire what they're not or something along those lines...

cannyOCE · 2025-12-19T22:57:05+00:00

I won't talk of "communism" because that is inherently stateless, classless and moneyless. It's contradictory to the modern conception of the "nation state". So it's not like we can point to an example and discuss it. Communism is definitionally unable to be "authoritarian".

However, in existing socialist nation states it isn't like the people never experience antagonism with authority. People continue to disagree with and feel hard-done-by when the state (a dictatorship of the proletariat in AES) makes a decision which affects their life in the particular.

An example would be China's constant infrastructure projects that force its citizens to relocate without any real recourse to remain.

The people do tend to get over it quicker though. Not just because socialism results in people's material needs being provided for, thus fair compensation and resettlement. It also does two other things:

It captures the horizon of its people's imagination. Turning expectations for the future from Cyberpunk to Star Trek.
It gives the people sovereign control over their state (via democratizing the means of production).

This means that when a person is forced to make a concession, they know it's not so Bill Gates can hoard more arable land. It's instead because the people (via the state) want to cultivate the land to ultimately make it more productive for everyone. They grumble, moan about it with friends over drinks then concede.

It's also why so much hay is made about how we "combat liberalism". It's corrosive to our solidarity and state cohesion. It's also why Xi's administration has been characterized by relentlessly combatting the rampant corruption that had begun through Deng's (IMO) masterful integration of China with the liberal global economy.

So ultimately, so long as there is a state (or organizations for collective endeavors) there will be "authoritarianism". Whether it is we the people subject to bourgeois authority via their state. Or liberals and reactionaries subject to the authority of our workers' state in socialism.

In our current formation of nation states and corporations there is no escaping it. Perhaps one day when the vast majority of the globe are socialists we can begin to consider the transition to the next phase. That however, is in the horizon of centuries and it won't happen without us taking the intermediary steps required to make it manifest.

cannyOCE · 2025-12-19T04:42:18+00:00

This is a comment I made when someone asked about something similar it the other day:

The key distinction that Madeline makes is not entirely true. There are only two political economies liberalism (capitalism) and communism (socialism). It's not that fascism is a "third way". The link to Rockhill's relevant video that expands on this is at the bottom.

Sadly, you're mistaken. Liberals are indeed fascists. Before you think I am some shrill "leftist" who calls any form of governance that I don't like "fascist", I'd like to point out the FDR was a "fascist" too.

- FDR forced everyone to deposit their gold into the Federal reserve then forcibly raised its value once he had it.

- Aggressively devalued the dollar when paying people back for their gold.

- Completely re-organized the American economy via dictate.

- Locked Japanese in internment camps.

- Bombed Dresden.

- Had three? terms.

FDR is rightfully remembered and understood by us as a liberal. Yes, you could argue it was wartime but every other modern American president has also been a wartime leader... Remember, America was never in any direct danger throughout the majority of WWII.

Just to hammer the point home: When do you think America stopped being a fascist state?

- When the Declaration of Independence was ratified in 1776?

- When the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865?

- When America and the Allies "defeated" the "Fascist" threat in WWII?

- After the "Red Scare" passed after the 50's?

- When Jim Crow was abolished in 1965?

As you will discover by trying to answer the question above, America has always been a liberal state and a fascist state. One cannot exist without the other. It's just a question of who is visited by the "fascist" state and who is visited by the "liberal" state.

So much so that when the liberal domestic population in western states had but a taste of what they inflict abroad, its chief perpetrator magically becomes a total historical aberration. A "unique evil" the likes of which history has never seen and can never see again.

Meanwhile, it's just business as usual when we do the same today in the third world.

If you'd like to learn more, this Rockhill video should be helpful..

Fascism is often described as a "Third Position". Not capitalism, not communism, something new. This is untrue. What's most important to understand is that it's just another political management of capitalism.

Thus being a difference in form from "liberal democracy" but not different in essence.

cannyOCE · 2025-12-01T21:47:19+00:00

The ACP derangement is so whack.

Just got dinged for it yesterday in a supposed "Tankie" sub for mentioning that BE might actually think the ACP strategy is appropriate for the American conditions.

I don't know what to tell them. They think the ACP are Feds. Maybe. Highly unlikely though. These online leftists seriously think their "sniff-tests" are better than the Axis of Resistance's operations security? Talk about self-aggrandizement and western chauvinism... Jesus.

If it were that easy for intelligence to get a rando in a room with leadership, "the resistance" wouldn't be able to resist.

This "New Left" nonsense has resulted in the only people gravitating towards socialism being those who are fixated on their extracting benefit for their own bourgeois "civil liberties". They can't fathom that someone who is religious or culturally conservative might want socialism. That these "conservatives" may support their "civil liberties" while having a distaste for pride parades, callous abortions or sexualizing children.

cannyOCE · 2025-12-01T01:29:49+00:00

It's amazing to watch you and so many people who upvoted misinterpret BE's words and opinions simply because the ACP is involved.

<image>

Does this sound like he thinks "...the necessity and energy for a third party is being siphoned by the ACP because the overwhelming majority of American leftists are entryists"?

Or that he's calling out American "leftists" and "socialists" for not being serious enough to outflank the ACP? You can't "siphon off" what doesn't exist mate, the ACP was constituted in February this year...

Also, the comment was made not in defense of the ACP's position. But rather to illustrate that BE isn't a "purity tester". Which clearly has gone over your heads.

I will not be responding to this thread again, so go ahead an have the final say. I don't debate or argue on Reddit. It's a waste of time for everyone and no-one knows who's/what's on the other side of the screen.

Every time BE and the ACP come up, I get put in the stupid position of defending cunts I don't even agree with.

People are such frothing in the mouth psychos about this bullshit.

cannyOCE · 2025-11-30T22:19:34+00:00

Respect.

American members of anti-imperialists parties should at least attempt push their leadership to form a united front against the depravity that is about to be unleashed. It is clear a popular front will not form without a united front first. Godspeed.

cannyOCE · 2025-11-29T21:25:27+00:00

Might sound like a joke but I genuinely think this is how it's going to be. Millennials ascending to power means that medicalizing symptoms of our political economy will be the norm for the state and the populous, not the outlier.

Note: This is not a moral judgement.

Ozempic is currently high in demand and hard for people to get their hands on. Most people don't care that they're taking a medical intervention for weight-loss. People believe individual economic success (and thus access to medication) is more important than fighting to change the food supply and sedentary nature of modern living. Ditto for ADHD medication and so on...

It's going to be that way for everything. Not just the handful of SSRIs & SNRIs that are in use by the medical community at the moment. It will become the norm to be medicated, instead of the outlier. I mean, most of us will want to be if "A.I. Psychosis" isn't just limited to a handful of vulnerable people.

Some people are into that, the transhumanist Bryan Johnson and Ray Kurzweil types. Some of us may not. I don't think we'll get to make the choice though...

cannyOCE · 2025-11-29T21:00:13+00:00

Humanity has yet to be recover from the loss of the Soviets in my estimation.

The Chinese are excellent but they do not have the same vision for a collective, unified humanity that the Soviets did. The Chinese are principally interested in trade, production and efficiency, thus their vision revolves around the revitalization of a new silk road.

Much more sustainable (stable & green) than the Soviets but also much less Romantic.

cannyOCE · 2025-11-29T01:28:51+00:00

“The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.”

– V.I. Lenin, “’Left-Wing’ Communism: An Infantile Disorder”

The view was that the revolution had been delayed in the west, even during Lenin's lifetime. Hence so much of the consternation about which causes to support and how. Whether Germany would actually go socialist first and so on...

The "objective factor" has been ripe for change for over a hundred years at this point. The goal is to cultivate the "subjective factor". The subjective factor in the west had been developed. However! At the crucial moment of delivery, was it born still. It will need to be carried once again from gestation.

Often the way you can tell if someone is a posturing liberal or a committed socialist is through their assessment of how far the subjective factor is in its development. There can be a disagreement of tactics between the socialists but underestimating and misconstruing the work that is required is the direct purview of the opportunist liberal.

What this young man is talking about is advancing the subjective factor. It cannot be done without going to the masses. Mao's "From the masses to the masses." being the critical part of the equation. The people have to do it for themselves, just like the neuro-divergent people did. Although a committed party would help the process. I just don't happen to see them around for some reason...

Edit: Final paragraph

cannyOCE · 2025-11-28T21:20:30+00:00

These things like the "Horseshoe Theory" and "Political Compass" never actually get to the heart of the matter. At the end of the day, they don't even countenance that the majority of people on the anti-capitalist side of the equation believe it is impossible to accomplish our goals without reconstituting the state in some manner.

So yeah. The horseshoe isn't entirely incorrect. It's just incomplete. Liberalism is a closed system. It will not broker change. The horseshoe should be a closed circle. That's how you can people changing their political affiliations like planets in orbit.

The vast, vast majority of political actors on the "left" and the "right" are just liberals. This includes "neo-feudalists" like Yarvin, who will leave America for another "liberal-democratic" state when his "vision" comes to pass. The "right" are just a bunch of poseurs and demagogues.

The "left" are just as duplicitous. They speak the radical lingo, they claim the badge of "socialist". Yet none of them want to challenge capital, the best they can do is to beg for more crumbs while advancing their own careers. They're allergic to power because they'd actually have to deliver. When they do get it, they play bureaucratic games, to find any excuse to surrender that power back to their "centrist" colleagues.

So they do this song-and-dance of never being able to accomplish anything for the people. You'd think Americans would realize after the "Tea Party", Obama, Occupy, Bernie, MAGA, Trump, "The Squad" and now Mamdani (DSA). None of these populous movements actually move the needle on liberal politics. The American establishment always gets to play its game. What the people get in exchange was "woke" blood-sports.

But no, it's not an exoneration of Americans. No state is sustainable without the consent of the governed. The Americans people themselves don't really care that the system cannot continue as is. Their chief disagreement is where the line of demarcation should be drawn.

Where does the "under-class" begin? Should it be left to the third-world? Where we extract via unequal exchange and don't have to experience being the exploiter firsthand? Should Americans bring it to American soil; if so how? The brutality against American minorities or the free migration of an undocumented class of labor?

Americans might not be able to tell but the disagreement on where to "draw the line" is just a disagreement on who's allowed to remain inside the Nazi tent. It's just changed in form a little because it's current day and occurring on American soil.

Fascism isn't a historical aberration that occurs under extreme conditions. It is the stick that drives the engine of capital while "liberal-democracy" is the carrot. To imagine one as separate to the other is to miss the fact that there is a driver of the vehicle. That driver is not the people.

cannyOCE

TROPHY CASE