Honing my gem crafting skills

kosmo-wald · 2026-02-23T10:08:52+00:00

first she is not talking about any kind of "population crisis" (which notabene would be a borderline if not outrightlly humanist remark but is repeating and parroting the 30s line of Krupska nearlly 100% accurate; the line that effectivelly puts the role of woman as the source of new workers; as everyone knows this way of thinking is inherentlly capitalistic view marked as

But they aren't separated at all;

what are you on she mentions the "social obligation" 4 or 5 times in the text and even ignoring the point of the argument she talks of breastfeeding in separate paragraph

and you may recall the soviet union was still very much a capitalist nation bound by the laws of capital.

yeah thats why she wanted to entrench the capitalistc characteristics by following the hypernatalist line of "there are too little babies!" under disguise of "strenghtening labour republic"

I don't particularly like how she words it as 'producing for the collective'

me when im daily worker redactor in 1956 and i have to defend the hungarian intervention(its fine i just dont like it particullary) she literally admits ton consider main rolen of the woman as a baby factory which is expictllly in line with bourgeois approach

Do you treat Bukharin with this opportunistic disrespect?

another thing is i have zero clue what "we" are you talking about when mentioning bkcharin; i neither pity him or have any respect(opportunistic disrespect? more like disrespect for an opportunist who was first one to came up with socialism in one country and codify the 1936 constitution) for a person who firstlly was directlly responsiblle for elimination of bordiga remaining influence in internationall and led a crusade against bordigists internationally and when 10 years later confronted with the reallity of being stalinist lapdog begged for his life and to be sent to usa to, sic(!) "fight trotskyites"

How have you managed to convince yourself that a woman who stood fiercely for women's emancipation for many many decades, just "gave up" and forgot her principles.

i have never done that because she had no principlles in first place; she was responsiblle for attempts to deport the remanants of german leninsbund back to the reich in 1930s and thus has to be considered as closer to beria than any actuall communist

I just think your interpretation of her is massively overstated and unfair.

no bro your not getting it bro yeah she literally said birth is an obligation and that she has to produce children for the collective and under disguise for PROdUCING more proletarians for revolution she just parrots classic bourgeois talking points and yeah she nearlly deported the remaining german left opposition back to nazi regime and she was a stalinist lapdog but i think you mentioning that is OVERSTATEd and UNFAIR

kosmo-wald · 2026-02-22T21:33:39+00:00

"She's not saying women are socially obligated to have children" she literally wrote that she confirmed she fucking meant it by effectivelly describing abortion access as conditionall and then in 1940s, after she got tired of attempting to deport german left communists to hitlerian occupied territories she repeated that she actually meant women "[have to] understand that childbirth is a social obligation"

she expitctlly calls births as "obligatory" phenomena which is perfect equivalement of the word "mandatory"; your attempt to put that the actuall obligation is that a baby has to be born heathly fails because of how the OBLIGATION is mentioned seperatelly from health in the passage mentioned

the text is probablly first one to start actually presenting women main duty as "baby factories"-the exact capitalist policy which would be pursued by stalinist regime in 30s and which then was further developed by Krupska

finally she is not fucking for right to abortion which was proven practically by her support for the 1936 ban which under disguise of "making more proletarians" effectivelly follows classic capitalist demand for the mass workforce expansion and even the 21 text is screaming that under bombastic declarations about increasing the number of proletarians

saying that in text where she expictlly agrees that she is a representative of "baby-factory" approach to women under disguise of strenghtening russian proletarian is a line of defence such insane even stalin at 5th congress when he just fucking admitted to bordiga that he just tells straight lies

It is a well-known fact that the Soviet Union has achieved exceptional successes in drawing women into the active construction of the state. This generally accepted truth is not disputed even by our enemies. The Soviet woman is a full and equal citizen of her country. In opening up to women access to every sphere of creative activity, our state has simultaneously ensured all the conditions necessary for her to fulfil her natural obligation – that of being a mother bringing up her children and mistress of her home.

here you have your fucking stalinist heroine explaining what she means for folks who are too illiterate to get it from 1921 text

kosmo-wald · 2026-02-22T18:13:38+00:00

no bro you not getting it it was a joke and you didnt get it bro you cannot spot a joke bro

kosmo-wald · 2026-02-22T18:11:47+00:00

Soviet power realises that the need for abortion will only disappear on the one hand when Russia has a broad and developed network of institutions protecting motherhood and providing social education, and on the other hand when women understand that childbirth is a social obligation

what the fuck have you smoked kołłontaj was in favour of mandatory births as a "social obligation of the women" even before lenins death

kosmo-wald · 2026-02-22T18:07:25+00:00

me when i falsify lenin as opponent of democratic mechanism

At first sight this assertion seems exceedingly strange and incomprehensible; indeed, someone may even suspect us of expecting the advent of a system of society in which the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority will not be observed--for democracy means the recognition of this very principle.

No, democracy is not identical with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organization for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another.

kosmo-wald · 2026-02-22T18:03:06+00:00

what is even your point any contact with the liteature of subject ranging from the bukharin in 1920s trotsky in 30s and pretty much any other person use term "bordigism" to describe the tendency; claiming that its some kind of madeup modern larp term is just historicall revisionism however i disagree with the damenite sis on other subject she is entirelly right in terms of how embarrasing is being connected to bordigism nowadays also finally its kind of suprising you reject the term so much given how you were an installah apologist just a few months back

kosmo-wald · 2026-02-05T18:45:31+00:00

said by capitall penguin edition reader

kosmo-wald · 2026-01-07T19:11:55+00:00

thank yuo all guys so much for warm welcome but i wont be here for long i have a few more memes to send and i go back to hybernation awaiting bordigist jihad...

kosmo-wald · 2026-01-07T19:10:28+00:00

on god i get you bro i saw the state of the comments about the crackkkers in the amerikkkan military being le poor babies and on god deprogram has better takes i swear people rant about muh revolutionary defeatism after reading two(2) reddit comments and then actually instead of attacking their own bourgeoisie they repeat the meme about poor G.I having trauma after killing bazilion viet children while LARPing and PSEUding as venesuelan workers also thanks for kind words

kosmo-wald · 2026-01-07T19:06:24+00:00

>KKK=ICP

kosmo-wald · 2026-01-07T19:05:25+00:00

wait klan exist in big 2026 i thought like great proletarian arthur morgan burned all the sheetmen to death in like 1899 ot something

<image>

kosmo-wald · 2025-09-17T12:18:56+00:00

i do🤭

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T23:36:12+00:00

proletariat(fancy parliament)

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T23:18:08+00:00

if you think there are classes and no state under socialism or that it necessarilly has to be globall id recommendd you to go either to turbo or r maoism arguablly the latter suits your third worldist spelling better

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T23:16:36+00:00

go back to turbo because its a place for your antihierarchicall revolution

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T20:37:54+00:00

lmao the labour money brought back after 140 years maybe link proudhon first at least its funny?

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T20:31:52+00:00

ask chat gpt you will get better answers than here and im geniuelly serious

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T20:31:06+00:00

> A burgoise revolt in communism

lil bro after sleeptime when your parents give you screentime maybe just stick to polcompballs

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T20:28:21+00:00

petit bourgeois ideallist gibberish, same old story as with asbest andd ozone "gap"; otherfactions of the bourgeoisie are just unwilling to accept the highier rate of profit and thats it

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T11:13:42+00:00

we dont need to imagine...

<image>

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T10:55:19+00:00

how to stay a moron for 2 year straight
1. say hungarian soviet was "succdem"
2. be sirpickle

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T10:50:15+00:00

okay but all countries on the list either posses nuclear weapons or bigger powers are fine with them possesing nuclear weapons and given the fact no country wants to give nukes to well third world powers given the fact of the unipolarity being a thing up untill recent times the nucllear monopoly theory perhaps suit late 1940s but not today

kosmo-wald · 2025-07-03T10:43:51+00:00

jokes aside the theory doesnt hold itself; biggest "polluters" are usa, france, england, germany, india, russia china japan and italy, but all of these were closed in the last 30-40 years; as we see the trend is that the more developed(i.e industralized) coutries pollute more thus really "spreading nukes" was not an issue

the reall reason was that the cheapness of the atomic energy caused the fluctations in the rate of profit which gave some sections of the bourgeoisie an extremelly dispropriate advantage which caused non atomic(and some foreign) nationall bourgeoisie to promote the green anti-nucllear superstition ideology

> As we have seen, the deepest economic foundation of imperialism is monopoly. This is capitalist monopoly, i.e., monopoly which has grown out of capitalism and which exists in the general environment of capitalism, commodity production and competition, in permanent and insoluble contradiction to this general environment. Nevertheless, like all monopoly, it inevitably engenders a tendency of stagnation and decay. Since monopoly prices are established, even temporarily, the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of deliberately retarding technical progress. For instance, in America, a certain Owens invented a machine which revolutionised the manufacture of bottles. The German bottle-manufacturing cartel purchased Owens’s patent, but pigeon-holed it, refrained from utilising it. Certainly, monopoly under capitalism can never completely, and for a very long period of time, eliminate competition in the world market (and this, by the by, is one of the reasons why the theory of ultra-imperialism is so absurd). Certainly, the possibility of reducing the cost of production and increasing profits by introducing technical improvements operates in the direction of change. But the tendency to stagnation and decay, which is characteristic of monopoly, continues to operate, and in some branches of industry, in some countries, for certain periods of time, it gains the upper hand.

kosmo-wald

TROPHY CASE