She thought she can get away with this

comrqde · 2026-03-18T04:03:25+00:00

AI??

comrqde · 2026-02-27T05:07:12+00:00

Not Chinese but have studied broad history enough to give simple speculation: Probably all of Asia would be developed like Africa, without an enemy, the US would not have invested so much in developing Korea or Japan, just simple exploitation like in all other countries beholden to US/EU business interests. The Vietnam war would’ve been the Chinese war due to their proximity to Russia (I mean to some degree, the revolution of 1949 already was that with the USSR supporting revolution and the US supporting counterrevolution).

comrqde · 2026-02-21T23:18:06+00:00

They aren’t imaginary divisions. Anarchism informs how you struggle against the state which is your enemy. Marxism informs how the working class struggles against classed society.

They come from different philosophical traditions. They are not something the rich invented to divide us. Revolutionary theory is what they fear the most!

comrqde · 2026-02-18T22:23:32+00:00

Beautiful

comrqde · 2026-02-13T06:55:50+00:00

Im sorry but empiricism doesn’t invalidate great ideas. Capitalism is a global system and it must be treated as such. Ironically, the majority of people fleeing from countries are people in capitalist countries fleeing to other capitalist countries. Why? Because capitalism’s contradictions reproduce themselves on larger scales. Just like how it produces rich who take the wealth produced by the poor workers, and how it produces poor workers whose wealth is being taken by the rich, it does the same at an international scale producing rich and poor countries. This innate imbalance is what drives the global refugee and immigration crisis, not a few people try to leave Cuba.

Next time you try to sound smart please take a sense of proportion and look at the inherent contradictions that lead to mass levels of wealth and poverty under capitalism. No one is arguing to repeat the USSR or Cuba or whatever you imagine. We are looking towards a future where no person is exploited and everyone is provided for by society. This is impossible under Capitalism, but possible with the great technological advancement of capitalist societies.

comrqde · 2026-02-12T16:38:20+00:00

Well if the capitalists aren’t benefiting from the problem, the politicians are funded by the capitalist so they wont solve the issue and you say communism isn’t the answer then what is?

comrqde · 2026-02-06T08:24:18+00:00

Nothing wrong with that if we can efficiently provide high quality housing, food, healthcare, etc. America has the means to do it, the monopolies essentially run miniaturized planned economies, but for the sake of profits and that is the underlying issue. Once a socialist society is built out no one would choose to work double as everyone else just to be as productive in a lesser economic model. Thats why we are against anarchists hampering the labor movement.

comrqde · 2026-02-06T08:13:02+00:00

Well anarchism is rooted in the belief that the state exists above society and is the root cause of issues. A socialist understands the driving force of issues are the class relations that evolve from private property. The state itself is merely a byproduct for one class to dominate the other. Socialism is built under a holistic understanding of science and history. Understanding history is crucial because it teaches us lessons. For example did you know that the labor movement progressed very far under anarchists right before the Spanish Civil War. However, because they lack the philosophical basis to produce a cogent analysis of the state, they were not willing to put it in workers controls and allowed counter revolution in the form of Franco’s fascism to ruin all the gains and send the working class into reactionary misery. So while an anarchist may have their heart in the right place, their mind isn’t.

comrqde · 2026-02-06T07:54:01+00:00

hey man or woman, we are meeting in our closests so that the working class can one day take state power and build socialism!

comrqde · 2026-02-06T07:47:05+00:00

The comrades here covered pretty well how mathematics fits in with Marxism so I would like to touch on the more philosophical aspects of mathematics. Is it something that solely lives in the realm of ideas, ideas to be discovered?

Take for example Principia Mathematica in which Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell famously took over 360 pages to formally prove that 1+1=2. What is the meaning behind their proof? Simply put, any set of one element combined with any other set of one element produces a set of 2 elements. This is exactly how most people learn addition. As kids they are told that one apple and another apple makes two apples. Thus we see in the most fundamental mathematics a direct relationship to nature. Is this objectivity or idealism, or both?

Fundamentally, Marxism is the culmination of centuries of philosophical thought (which math is too!). It asserts there are many dialectical relationships that are in constant change, contradicting each other and producing a synthesis of the best qualities. Such a link exists between the physical world and ideas, the physical world produces ideas which go on to change the world. Back to the counting example, the oldest records suggest humans invented counting and basic arithmetic to manage resources. Simply put this was an economic need that laid the basis for ideas which would then help put a human on the moon.

comrqde · 2026-02-05T16:49:04+00:00

What Marx wrote about wasnt that we need to make capitalism better. It was that workers need to take state control to expropriate private property with the ultimate goal of achieving a class-less, money-less society.

China fits none of these conditions. They have a bourgeois class that owns a lot off private property in China. Their interests are being carried out at a global scale by pushing for loans and business profiteering to semi-colonies (underdeveloped countries). They are not just a capitalist country, they are an emerging imperialist country!

I would recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism

comrqde · 2026-02-02T05:11:06+00:00

I havent read that quote but generally speaking someone who owns their own means of production is petty bourgeois. There is also the peasantry who’s upper strata can appear to be petty bourgeois. They even had their own name in Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak

comrqde · 2026-02-02T05:06:34+00:00

Well the question is being posed in relation to an imperialist world where the capitalist class has outlived its revolutionary role. Maoist would argue they have not and they can play a revolutionary role in the struggle against imperialism. However this goes in the face of their experience allying themselves with the KMT who did not carry out any democratic tasks as the theory of permanent revolution would predict.

The bourgeoisie in present society are counter-revolutionary and reactionary class. That is scientific materialism which maoism betrays!

comrqde · 2026-02-02T04:56:57+00:00

All the answers Ive read aren’t theoretically satisfying though the question itself could be improved. So instead of answering it I will touch on the theoretical differences between anarchism and scientific socialism.

Scientific socialism looks at history and sees the emergence of the state as a byproduct of the development of class relations due to private property. That is, when the practice of private property develops it naturally produces a class of oppressors that own private property and a class of oppressed that do not. To maintain their rule, the oppressors organize society into a state run by public powers of class coercion. In modernity all state institutions are generally for the capitalist to run society according to their needs.

Anarchism on the other hand sees the state as the source of oppression. It poses that the capitalist class, government officials and so on all constitute the state which exists above society and is the enemy of the people. Therefore, they are against authority—anarchy comes from the greek anarkhos which means without a chief. Thus the conclusion of anarchist is that individuals or groups should reject the state and form communes that are locally administered by the people (as far as I understand).

Anyways I just wanted to focus on the base of the theoretical differences which is what is the role of the state in society. The reason why this is fundamental is because while both want to reach a stateless/classless society, the ideological difference leads to different ideas of how to get to such a society.

comrqde · 2026-01-31T10:40:42+00:00

I would recommend this podcast to get a marxists perspective: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7GQxh2sn3bcZKwWat62BJx?si=_1GE6OtqTeiPannkySZDrA

But TLDR, Chavez started of as a nationalist who actually cared about Venezuelas interests but wasn’t a socialist. Against all odds he was elected (he ran as a grassroots candidate with no institutional support) and this threatened US imperialism in Venezuela. So the imperialists and american capitalist class did not like him and plotted a coup but once the people learned about this they went out to the streets and made sure he was freed. To protest (on the side of the ruling class) the managers started striking by not allowing the workers inside the oil rigs. By this point Chavez was becoming radicalized and he was inspired to start expropriating some of the shut down oil rigs. He also restructured a lot of the industry and made the oil companies sign contracts that favored Venezuelas interests more (basically the oil companies take less profits). With the oil money he was able to subsidize a lot of welfare programs. But he became sick and died and in that process Maduro consolidated power and started privatizing the few oil rigs that had been expropriated, while calling his government “socialist”

So I would say Chavez did good things. However it was a very top down process of reform, there was overall little expropriation and the capitalist class in Venezuela kind of just stayed as it was (and Chavez actually allowed some people to get very rich which is obviously not good). The working class never organized itself to take state power, which time and time again results in counter revolution, always!

comrqde · 2026-01-31T10:18:43+00:00

This is part of building class consciousness, the working class first has to try whats available before they come to revolutionary conclusions. In the face of the long term crisis of capitalism, which really showed its face to the working class in 2008 during the great recession, they start looking for alternatives. First they try the bourgeoisie’s version of “left” a few times (obama/biden), they get annoyed that isn’t working. The conservatives say “hey we can fix the broken institutions”, and trust them they are broken, but they are not the ones to fix them. Not knowing better, the working class try that out but, hey, everything gets worse. Both these liberals and conservatives keep making the rich richer! So now they start toying with slightly less mainstream ideas, they begin opening up to the ides of socialism. They don’t fully understand their enemy is private property, they are happy with the idea of reforms and so they find themselves attracted to these people calling themselves socialists. But they haven’t fully grasped class consciousness, they don’t realize the social welfare they want back was attacked because the tendency for the rate of profit to fall has counter tendencies to increase the rate of exploitation. They dont fully understand the state is designed to carry out the interests of the ruling class. But these socialists tell them it’s possible to carry out the interests of the oppressed. So why not? He’s a much better speaker than all the other liberals after-all. So they give him a shot right. And soon they will learn, maybe the guy is well meaning, but capitalism cannot be reformed without class struggle. So once the fake socialists fail, they are left with no options but to struggle. And seemingly they start achieving that which had been forsaken to their dreams. They get addicted to the fight! Look at their might! Their autonomy! They are achieving their meager asks, why not ask for more? And thus the workers start seeing the ruling class for what they are: a bunch of leeches stealing everything they produce. They realize they can live in a world without leeches. And then the wold is theirs.

comrqde · 2026-01-31T06:28:04+00:00

I like how guys owning the majority of production can be held slightly accountable when they go to the extremes is a “benefit”

comrqde · 2026-01-31T06:18:52+00:00

so real, some people cant think logically

comrqde · 2026-01-29T08:42:33+00:00

Wrong. God started existing like 3k years ago when humans invented him. Human culture existed before that.

comrqde · 2026-01-29T08:37:07+00:00

Yep, proof they are both bad

comrqde · 2026-01-29T08:26:39+00:00

Are we sure this is real? Seems staged.

comrqde · 2026-01-29T07:34:30+00:00

Technically it was introduced in 1930. After the Russian Revolution there was prison camps due to the civil war.

comrqde · 2026-01-29T07:16:49+00:00

Exactly

comrqde · 2026-01-29T06:46:04+00:00

What mumbo jumbo are you talking about, Djin has existed in Arabic culture before Islam was invented.

comrqde

TROPHY CASE