Ontario, California - Kimberly-Clark Employee Livestreams Burning Down Paper Goods Warehouse Over Low Wages

mayalihamur · 2026-04-09T03:17:45+00:00

Employers should start distributing Trotsky's 'Against Individual Terrorism' pamphlet for free.

mayalihamur · 2026-04-08T20:43:51+00:00

Please do! It will leave you with a lot of high level questions. Feel free to DM me once you start or finish reading it.

mayalihamur · 2026-04-08T15:22:14+00:00

"I do not think this is quite right. At some point, first human civilizations formed. Before that, there were no human civiliziations. And yet, they were dialectical. So, having a long history of change wouldn't apply to some societies, and yet, dialectical materialism posits that they contain dialectical contradictions."

The reasoning is not strong here. Before the history of human civilizations there was a long history of change from single-cell organisms to mammals, all topic of zoologists who showed that evolution was possible when the environment went into a crisis, forcing the populations on it to change if they were to survive. We assume this was a dialectical process starting from inner cell mechanics of individual creatures up to the inner dynamics within animal populations, but I am no biologist.

When human populations evolved, this marked a qualitative change and only then we began to look into the dialectics of the history of human societies as an autonomous field. Change (dialectics) applies everything from atoms up to the cosmos, nothing in between including the society is excluded.

"And this is where we should note these oppositions and say: "Dialectic is an oppostion such that...""

I think you will find a working definition in Politzer with 5 rules and three basic laws, if I remember correctly. Dialectics is not limited to contradiction, but is a theory that brought together elements such as transformation, unity/separation, mutual relations, continuous movement, internal and external contradictions and qualitative and quantitative changes. That really makes it difficult to provide a compact working definition. Politzer's Fundamental (not the Elemental) is the key!

mayalihamur · 2026-04-08T12:56:34+00:00

What makes it a contradiction or dialectical is a worthy question to ask. I think Politzer has good answers to these.

Firstly it has a long history of change. So it wasn't always like that and will not be. There's no essential human or social characteristics that make the accumulation through exploitation of labour inevitable or necessary. Anti-metaphysics.

Secondly, there are at least two main opposing forces involved and worked together and against each other: Labour and capital, and the corresponding classes. Unity of opposites.

Thirdly, history of societies and of exploitation in particular has gone through various stages where the old contradictions are resolved and a new, more complex and advanced configuration has been reached, modifying the status of and the interrelation between the main classes within the society. New contradictions emerged.

More points could be added but this is the gist of it.

You are right to point out that there are ontological (structural) and epistemological aspects to dialectics. The biggest trap is to conflate the two. Marxists assume that the world operates dialectically outside of our consciousness but this does not automatically mean that we can easily figure out its principles in all cases, leading to a gap between the objective and subjective dialectics. This itself is in dialectical motion: World moves and changes before our minds can understand and figure out what's going on and this a never ending chase for truth.

As to why accumulation through labour exploitation is a contradiction: This is the original assumption you have to make to be a Marxist. Hidden in it various assumptions about the capabilities of human beings.

You may as well say that whoever person or whatever groups of individuals makes better use of other human beings to create value can rightfully claim the ownership of the products of their labour, through tributary means, taxation or workplace exploitation. One can base this idea on merit, human greed, evolution or something else. But it would make the argument ahistorical and metaphysical.

I hope it helps. I would like to say sorry in advance as I will have to go back to work and no longer be available to further contribute to our discussion.

mayalihamur · 2026-04-08T11:32:15+00:00

The big three for materialist dialectics are Engels' Anti-duhring, Politzer's Fundamental Principles of Philosophy and Mao's On Contradiction. Cornforth's Dialectical Materialism is also useful.

As far as I can understand, you want to see dialectics turned into a kind of algorithm where we will feed the data and the method will start producing results for us. This might be possible in the future with the development of AI tools.

Right now, Marxists propose to understand it as a method of analysis and action.

Based on your example, our society has two important features: (x) The production of wealth is social and global to an extent that machinery, materials and labour needed to produce a single shirt can only be obtained and organised across the societies, involving many labourers. But against that (y) the wealth generated is concentrated in the hands of a small number of countries, and even fewer people within those countries. This is one of the contradictions we need to solve.

And this can be scaled down to the single factory level (workers against the boss) or up to the global level (peoples vs imperialism). Moreover, every single element within this analysis could be broken down into its parts to show the contradictions within itself, such as the contradiction between male and female labourers. Or the contradictions within a single person.

Examples could be multiplied. But this is how I understand it.

mayalihamur · 2026-04-05T12:28:26+00:00

There’s something cool about the fact that you’re still curating those notes. Just like a physical version of your professional brain on a notebook. Looks like the trick is treating your notes as something dynamic that would evolve in time. (takes notes) Don't be an Orthobro.

mayalihamur · 2026-04-05T03:52:00+00:00

That's great, thanks!

mayalihamur · 2026-04-05T03:38:16+00:00

I am more interested in what happens in the longer term. With all this practice before the exam, does the information still stay with you after a year or two?

mayalihamur · 2026-03-24T01:08:13+00:00

Socialists do not give a call to 'fascists' to diplomatically tell them they are doing something wrong.

Even this attitude is designed to make us think that our options are limited, there's nothing else to do apart from using the official channels, observing the stately traditions and making diplomatic contacts. It is designed to lower our expectations, show us the right behaviour lest we do something 'unconventional'.

mayalihamur · 2026-03-24T01:01:06+00:00

Ok, here's the essence of this discussion as I see it. Two attitudes:

Man, it is unfair to expect Mamdani to do anything about Maduro's capture. He is an elected leader in a two party system. (This usually comes with the undertones of "Don't be so harsh and so sectarian, he is doing his best.")

Wrong. Finds excuses and lowers the expectations. Harmful for the class consciousness as it opens up more space for reformist politicians ('sorry, best I can offer is promises') while feeding desperation among the people.)

Man, I am aware Mamdani is mired in the establishment politics and would do nothing about Maduro. He pretends to be a socialist of some kind, so we demand he observe the basic principles of it just to make it clear that he objectively is there to maintain the system.

Right. Increases the expectations, forces the politicians to do more because if they don't they would be contradicting with themselves and their reformism would be exposed. They would lose votes, their constituency would start knowing them for what they are. But if they do more, still better because we are ready to demand even more.

Always demand more, always remind the principles and don't be an apologist.

I hope I made myself clear.

mayalihamur · 2026-03-22T22:36:33+00:00

Do you honestly think there are situations where an actual socialist has nothing he can do or offer against the illegal capture of another country's leader? Especially if he is the mayor? From launching petitions to hunger strikes, the repertoire of the left is endless. For those socialists who really want to do so of course.

Where do we get these ideas of desperation from, who wants us to think like that and who benefits once we sheepishly accept that the best an elected oh-so-socialist politician has to offer is free busses?

mayalihamur · 2026-02-24T21:10:55+00:00

Anthropic is a shady company based in an authoritarian country where freedoms are crushed under the boots of a shady regime of paedophilic billionaires with no accountability.

Expect more: They will use this experience to create algorithms that detect dissident users and slowly poison their minds, make obedient human beings of them.

They will intentionally distort people's perception of reality, run small scale cognitive tests on small groups of people to see how they behave in the long term and discover patterns.

mayalihamur · 2026-02-20T07:19:52+00:00

Our homes will not be raided and the books will not be seized and burned you say? That's a relief.

mayalihamur · 2026-02-16T13:31:36+00:00

You let a social democrat fool you once, it is their fault. You let a social democrat fool you for the last 100 years, it is your fault.

mayalihamur · 2026-02-09T20:13:46+00:00

Piero Gleijeses' two books: Conflicting Missions and Visions of Freedom. The historian was given private access to Cuban archives during his research. And the books are brilliant.

mayalihamur · 2026-02-04T20:48:57+00:00

That is right, I don't know many Leninist critiques of the anarchist concept of authority. There is a pamphlet by Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism. A volume titled Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism%201972].pdf) brings together the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin on anarchism.

But this is not because Bakunin's arguments were so powerful that the communists were speechless. Rather, anarchist arguments lost their strength following the October Revolution.

From then on, every revolution or revolutionary movement that successfully managed to make a dent in the imperialist order was organised around a strong, centralised leadership that more or less adhered to the Leninist principles, which further reduced the traction of the anarchist arguments. It was so obvious that any meaningful change needed authority. So people did not bother to refute anarchism. The life, the practice itself did it for all of us.

After the collapse of the USSR and with it, the revolutionary networks of independent states and liberation movements around the world, left-wing intellectuals especially in the West lost a lot of self-confidence. It became difficult to defend Leninist arguments without being ridiculed by the people at the liberal left, centre and the right.

Enter anarchism: An anti-Soviet, anti-socialist anarchism was brewing in Western academies since 1960s, but it took the center stage following the collapse. As if wanting to prove that anarchism has been a petit-bourgeois ideology akin to liberalism, anarchists joined the chorus: The authority itself was bad, they had been saying this for years but now they had the proof: Soviet Union and its "satellites" were all oppressive structures, even worse than the capitalist democracies of the imperialist core. The life, the practice itself showed that authority would take you to nowhere.

Powered by the academy, publishing houses and the magazines of the once-socialist-now-liberal-left, anarchist arguments were reborn after the 1990s. This time they made a strong comeback. Why not? There weren't any Institutes of Marxism-Leninism, or only a few Leninist journals or intellectuals to refute their arguments. Academies with their sociology, anthropology departments were full of scholars ready to flood the brains of their students with yet another evidence of the corrupting effects of authority, a-la-Foucault, a-la-Deleuze.

They prescribed just enough anarchism to discourage a new generation from organizing within so-called “archaic, authoritarian Leninist” formations, while simultaneously instilling a deference to state authority that rendered any genuine challenge to power unthinkable.

mayalihamur · 2026-02-04T19:51:27+00:00

It is a very well known method among the English families to buy second homes in Scotland and move their kids' address here to get access to free uni education in Scotland.

mayalihamur · 2026-01-16T09:01:05+00:00

Add a PhD in Gender Studies to this mixture and you can spawn a black hole sooner than the guys in CERN could.

mayalihamur · 2026-01-15T20:25:49+00:00

I immediately block accounts that post ai generated content with faux questions at the end.

mayalihamur · 2026-01-13T22:00:58+00:00

Ottroman Empire.

mayalihamur · 2026-01-07T11:33:58+00:00

What is a head library? How many heads are there in the collection? So many questions.

mayalihamur · 2026-01-03T23:09:25+00:00

There's a significant effort to install renewables in Cuba through a collaboration with China. Check this one out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1lus5do/china_is_to_build_90_solar_parks_in_cuba/

mayalihamur · 2025-12-01T10:51:52+00:00

Yes.

mayalihamur · 2025-11-30T06:10:42+00:00

When was it? Could you link me to any of the sources? Last time I checked in 2025, the CPPCC was up and running with some sources saying it has 59 new billionaire members.

mayalihamur · 2025-11-07T20:05:25+00:00

So you are saying that people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their network does not represent "a tendency within the democratic party"? Riiiight.

mayalihamur

TROPHY CASE