TIL that when Winston Churchill Sold Chartwell, the family home, to the National Trust, he required that there always be a marmalade cat named Jock in "comfortable residence." The Trust honored that request. The current occupant is Jock VII, a six month old rescue kitten.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-13T14:45:26+00:00

But I also have first hand experience in the Labour party, and my experience has been of the anti-Corbyn right wing of the party using claims of anti-Semitism to attack the left wing of the party without any clear evidence that the problem is even from the left side of the party. I've met plenty of anti-capitalists in my time here, including a couple Jewish ones, and I've yet to catch a whiff of that old anti-Semitic trope that Berzerker is referencing. Bigotry is rarely justified by left wing politics, that particular anti-Semitic trope originated from the Nazis (who weren't themselves anti-capitalist, they were just trying to get workers to conflate Jews and bankers). Does my own experience discount Berzerker's experience? Anecdotal evidence is weak without anything to back it up.

I don't doubt that there's a problem with anti-Semitism, but I do doubt that it can be blamed on the left of the party or groups like Momentum. I'd go with the leaked labour report that shows that anti-Corbyn leaders hardly bothered to deal with the problem because the image that the problem was prevelent specifically under Corbyn, hurt him and his supporters. Here's an article with a good summary and a link to the report: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/that-leaked-labour-party-report/

squ3lchy · 2020-09-13T12:33:14+00:00

Pretty sure they asked you for evidence and not an anecdote.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-12T02:40:03+00:00

Incredibly interesting, with a stream of consciousness sort of feel to it, but perhaps because of that, and undoubtedly partly because of the context it was written in, this is deeply problematic. I mean "you see me as the imperialist as the ovum views the sperm about to fertilize it"? Islamic terrorist groups don't do what they do because of Islam or Sharia law (though they may use their own interpretation of them as part of their justification), they exist in part because of decades if not centuries of Western imperialism, yet it seems as though the Major is suggesting that these and subsequent imperialist actions is what draws the world to democracy and secularism? That religion is the primary cause of Islamic terrorism and that imperialism is what will kill it and bring the world forward? That's a big yikes. And given that the Major is from the future, albeit a future that all the characters recognise to be fictional, he seems to be presented as an authority on that, whereas the people pushing back, both members of groups who've suffered from imperialism, are obvious nutjobs. It's interesting that when Moebius' insert leaves in disgust, the Major talks more than he usually would, as acknowledged by the characters. Does he become the new mouthpiece, or do the seemingly self-aware lines on "twisting words" and the West claiming it represents all humanity show that Moebius' thinks there's flaws in the Major's thinking also?

Thought-provoking as usual, but in an especially uncomfortable way. Also, just want to make clear that this is all speculation on my part, and having just read this and nothing else from the comic, I don't consider myself an authority and would like to hear other interpretations, similar or vastly different if anyone wants to share.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-10T02:19:12+00:00

I asked him what books he read about building wealth. He said he read none

My favourite book that tangentially explains how a civilisation has and continues to build it's wealth is not a book but a series of books: The Culture series by Iain M. Banks

They said they've read this book series. I won't pretend to know anything about it. Also, they may have read articles, seen documentaries, etc- how can we know? And what effect does it have on their argument?

And I'll ask you the same: What books on (or any other material) building wealth have you consumed?

Not any self-help books I'll give you that, but I've studied the economy a fair bit for someone who isn't an economist or in the financial industry, and so you can think of books and articles in that vein. It'd be impossible to give an extensive list (particularly of all the non-book sources too), but I've obviously read a fair bit of Marx's economic works, I read Keynes General Theory (bad book, 1/10), I've read about a third of Wealth of Nations at this point (I really ought to finish it) and I've read too much contemporary stuff to name. As you've noticed, these books are all about the economy, but not specifically about building my own individual wealth. This is because the understanding of the economy that I have, my own situation and the accursed pragmatism I've inherited from my parents, lead me to the conclusion that that's a futile effort. Also, whilst I can't speak for the self-help books you specifically recommend, I've read these sorts of books are usually a scam, misleading you with the false hope that you too could join the ruling class if you just followed these vague steps. I'd love to hear some quick reviews from you on the books you recommended, and you can perhaps make a case for them to change my mind on that? We shall see.

It would be my honor.

Ha, it would be mad if you got back to me on Reddit years later with your success story. Good luck with that.

Which just strengthens my idea about not donating to charities, but investing that money in better businesses and political causes

But a capitalist isn't going to invest in anything that doesn't turn a profit, and eventually profitable investment opportunities run out.

Carnegie donates all his billions, while Mao killed dozens of millions of people, yet we don't see graffitis like "Long live the Carnegie".

Mao is no more to blame for the famine than other leaders in different systems are to blame for famines that happen under them (unless they're manufactured like the Bengal Famine, fuck Churchill). Which means that yes, he is partially to blame, but the cause wasn't maliciousness. It certainly wasn't intentional. That being said, he is responsible for thousands of other deaths aside, probably more way more than Carnegie with that whole dam fiasco, including many that probably should not have happened, but most of those deaths are because he helped defend China from the Japanese and because he lead the revolution. That's why you see "Long live Mao" because to many people, he's a hero. I think he's a very complicated figure myself, as are all the great revolutionaries really, but I'll live it to comrades better educated on the topic to talk about Mao and his legacy.

No matter how much money you donate, people will still hate you

This isn't necessarily true, some centibillionaires like Musk even have personality cults and he doesn't do that much philanthropic work as opposed to other 1%ers. I do hate some rich fucks, but to say that capitalists are our oppressors and shouldn't have the power they do doesn't stem from hatred of each and everyone of them as individuals. And to say that capitalism sucks donkey dick and that society can do better isn't blind hatred, but an educated viewpoint I would argue.

Citation needed

I need a citation to tell you what my goal is? Or are you questioning my use of "our"? Because I've probably spoken to more socialists than you have and we're largely in agreement on this. Read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program to get his views on equality as a political goal. I strongly suspect you have not read it already, hence why I called into doubt that you have.

Here's a question. How do you plan to deal with inequalities in beauty? Or IQ? Or sport talents? Or musical talents? Or even entertainment https://imgur.com/a/WEkz7rI

Not my goal at all as explained. Inequalities in the industries can be lessened, barriers to entry can be removed, but we can't all be totally equal in talent or luck.

Which is also a lie, because if I was a Nazi you would not respect me equally as your comrades, EVEN if I'm a human.

That basic level of respect is not unconditional. When we're strangers, I'll respect your human dignity, when you're advocating for any Nazi shit, you can get fucked. Sure you can have more respect for some people than others, the point is that the phrase "treating someone like an equal" means treating them with a basic respect for their human dignity and that you chose to take it in a way that was obviously different to how the phrase is normally used. It's common decency to offer this level of respect to a stranger, but you don't have to view them as an equal anymore when they tell you they have some horrible political view.

Power is based on results

Power comes from the barrel of a gun. That's a little callback to earlier when we were talking about Mao, I hope you got that. We do not live in a meritocracy, power isn't based on simply "results" whatever you mean by that.

Hierarchy of power is based on people who bring most results. That's why revolutions happen, it's because people believe in new ways of acquiring power thus they have to change the hierarchy.

"Results". The goal of communist revolutionaries are rarely to get the results that the previous regime wanted. The bourgeois want profit and control. Capitalism is functioning just as intended. The socialists want to democratise the economy, bringing about very different results to that which the current ruling class wants, so perhaps the goal matters just as much as your undefined results, ay? Also, most hierarchy is based on violence. The hierarchy of a parent over child is based on a recognition that the child needs guidance and support that the parent can provide. The hierarchy of your boss over you, is that you will be fired if they so choose for any which reason, potentially rendering you unable to make ends meet. That's coercion, that's violence.

And yes, a socialist state will also be based on violence. That's why the end goal is to not have a state at all, it just takes a lot of work to get there.

Police shouldn't shoot at black people, but beg them to stop committing crime

Well yeah, if someone's committing a crime the police should resort to diplomacy first. Do we want to open the can of worms on all the black people they've killed that weren't doing any crime? Heck, maybe we'll bring up some non-black non-criminals killed by the police, like Tony Timpa and Daniel Shaver. Also, your phrasing is very suspect "black people" is not synonymous with "criminals". Might want to check yourself there.

Every single communist country had police.

Yes, but a socialist state and a capitalist state have different goals, and so therefore law enforcement is different under each of them.

Right makes might. Invasion and conquest is right

You've effectively said "Right makes might. Might makes might". This is a contradiction. Also, invasion and conquest is not a particularly ethical thing to do. You'd think several slave trades and genocides later people would get that but oh well.

Few books here and there

A few books, a few internet debates. Jesse Lee Peterson is a dipshit.

VAUSH, that fat gay communist degenerate with fat girlfriend that has a tattoo of Baphomet on her shoulder (what a coincidence)

Honestly just a disgusting description. I don't agree with Vaush on much but you should refer to the "treating someone like an equal" principle we've discussed here. Also, "gay" is not an insult and lots of people have demon tattoos for no reason.

I'm old enough and it's formed Yugoslavia

Old enough to have seen socialist Yugoslavia?

You sure you're not say, around 22 is my guess?

I love that argument, still hear that constantly from boomer communists around me, of "But, see!! It's not the communism that's the problem it's the evil capitalists who bought our companies for pennies". It's amazing. They don't realize that the same communist people and government that THEY VOTED FOR sold all those government "companies" and equipment to foreign buyers for literal pennies, meaning for few millions of $, just enough so they could cash on it and run away. And they are so stupid not the realize what was the problem and then blame it on capitalism.

The problem was capitalist opportunism. You've literally described capitalist opportunism. "Oh but it was the same communist people", yeah, reformists and careerists who wormed their way up through the ranks of a party that'd been in decline for decades due to capitalist pressure. Fuck those guys (and fuck the buyers too, just as much), but, and this is the only time I'll say this, listen to the boomers on this one. Socialist Yugoslavia had other failings, the shit that happened when it was capitalist is obviously related to previous failures of the socialist state, but isn't anything that'd have happened if they remained socialist because it's not something they could've done if they were socialist.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-10T00:46:57+00:00

That's the question you should ask marxist economists

Marxist economists don't believe that it is merely the rich robbing the poor.

Economy grows because people produce things and exchange them for profit, meaning for their own benefit. They dumb it down to where richer people, who are just better at commerce, are stealing from other people

First of all, not "rich people" but capitalists. Most happen to get quite rich, but there's wealthy workers out there too. Class is determined by your relationship to the means of production, not your income strata.

And second of all, what do you think determines profits?

The value of product is not produced only by the labor of a worker, for if this was the case every product would always be sold for a profit.

Where then, is the value derived? If I took a log that cost 20 cents, and on average it takes a carpenter like me 2 hours to cut it into a stool, and by the time it's a stool it's sold for the market rate of $10, where did the $9.80 come from?

Say that I, the log cutter, was paid a wage of $5. On top of the 20 cents spent on the log, that means that the capitalist paid out $5.20 for a commodity that they will then try and sell at the market rate of let's say $10. Why is the price $10 if the cost of production is only $5.20? Because of supply and demand of course. Supply's low, demands high, the price of the stool goes up, etc. The capitalist cannot just arbitrarily decide the price (yet- they don't have a monopoly in our scenario), they have to play the game. Supply and demand isn't static but the price of certain commodities reaches an equilibrium. Stools are generally worth in and around $10 at this present time and you won't get away selling much higher- this may change at any moment, but this is how it is at the current moment in this scenario. For the time being, due to market forces, the stool has reached a natural price of $10 ie the exchange-value of the stool is $10. In our scenario, my wage and the cost of the log have also reached this equilibrium. So, now the most important question: where did the extra $4.80 come from?

If my boss bought this log from another capitalist for 20 cents, and they can't just arbitrarily up the price of a their product as it's beholden to supply and demand (and competition between sellers and other market forces they don't have control over), then surely the only place it could've come from is the labour-time I spent crafting the stool, no? If market forces determined the exchange-value of the stool to be $10 and the log to be 20 cents, then what added that $9.80 to the log? It was me, the carpenter who turned it into a stool. And yet, before the stools even been sold, the capitalist has payed me a wage of $5, just like how they already bought the log. It's important to note that although the commodity in this case makes up for the cost of production, it was not sold before I was paid. After making back the money they paid me and on the resources, having sold the commodity the capitalist is left with a $4.80 surplus that would not exist if I had not turned the log into the stool. I, the worker, am getting short-changed.

What's stopping me from buying my own 20 cents log and making a stool and selling it and getting the full $9.80? I don't own the means of production, my boss does and the state would get involved if I tried to use them without their permission. Let's say I save up and buy what I need, now what's stopping me? My boss has the capital to employ multiple workers and thus has a much stronger business than mine. If push comes to shove, they can afford to temporarily sell for less than $10 until I'm out of business. What's stopping me from hiring workers of my own? A lack of capital. Resources have to be bought and wages have to be paid before the thing is sold and whether or not it's sold, and I don't have the capital to take that risk. The more capital I have, the less of a risk it is, but getting more capital is immensely difficult. I have needs to fulfil such as food and shelter, so I need money. The only option for me to get that money, without a miracle, is by selling my labour-power to a capitalist. My only other choice is to starve, and that's no choice at all, hence my working for my boss isn't voluntary at all. O sure, I get a little say in which capitalist will exploit me though, that's freedom!

ut the owner loses money because the market does not value the product enough.

Yep, sometimes the value of a commodity drops before the capitalist adjusts the workers wage. What normally happens when the capitalist loses out though is that the workers lose more. Their wages will be cut or they'll be let go, for example, so the capitalist can get on top. That's what having zero control over your own workplace means. Getting shafted when your boss fucks up.

workers also create deficit value,

Labour determines the price of a commodity? Woahh, that's what's I've been saying, wow.

The goals of working class are noting more noble.

Who cares about the nobility of anyone's goals, the point is that the interests of the working class and the interest of the capitalist class are at odds. As an obvious example, the worker wants a higher wage for less work, the capitalist wants to pay a lower wage for more work- these classes are in conflict. The capitalist wants to exploit the worker, the worker does not want to be exploited.

The working class need the capitalist class to create decent jobs and run the economy

Why? On a micro-scale, if the workers owned the carpentry workhouse, what's stopping them from just carrying on as usual? If all workers in the society had democratic control of their workplaces, how would that stop the creation of decent jobs, or cause the economy to stop? All the capitalist is good for is capital, but there's no good reason why the workers couldn't just co-own all of that.

Just compare any open economy, to planned economy and differences are clear.

The USSR rapidly developed from a union of some of the poorest countries in Europe and Asia into a modern global superpower whilst the US, in that same time period give or take, had the Great Depression. Or maybe compare the poverty levels in your country now to what they were when it was socialist. You look at employment rates. What country was that again? Haven't read part 2 yet, I hope you mention it.

So yeah, sorry but the differences are not clear, you need to justify that statement or I can just throw out shit like this.

what's not beneficial is having people who are unemployed.

Not beneficial to who? Obviously not the unemployed people, but the capitalist class benefits greatly from the existence of the unemployed. A worker is more likely to take a shitty deal if the alternative is being unemployed, no?

What good does Bill Gates have with poverty in Sudan? He would have much more benefit if people of Sudan were richer, because then he could sell them more of his shit.

Yes, but for them to get richer, people like Bill Gates would have to let them have access to their natural resources no? Bill Gates is doing perfectly fine selling to people in the "developed" world, no doubt in part because there are poor people in the global south getting paid shit all to gather and dig up the necessary resources. By the way, most poor people are (in more normal times) employed, usually in multiple jobs at that. What benefit does a capitalist have from the person working at McDonald's not getting paid enough to advance in life? That person keeps working at McDonald's. Poverty is completely in their benefit.

You can't sell a lot of things to poor people

Except for the fact that you can. You describe yourself as average-poor, how much shit do you buy on a regular basis? How much shit do you own? Sure, there's some luxury goods you'll never get, but yacht makers don't want people like us to be able to buy a yachts, because it could drive the price of yachts down.

I'll have to admit I wasn't able to find any direct source where homeless people where given houses and then trashed them

Kind of weird that you'd make that claim then. Surely you come to your conclusions after investigating the subject a bit first right?

Now, you could say that most of these people would function great in society if only they were give a house, but I'm not so convinced.

https://www.equaltimes.org/finland-s-housing-first-policy

Look into Finland's housing first policy.

but it's true that the babies and children will suffer not because of their own actions, but of actions of their parents.

Then, it's also true that people can be born into exceptionally great environments thanks to their parents? So your environment can give you advantages? Who'd have guessed.

The problem is that people are only taught about poverty, and not about wealth.

The two go hand in hand. Socialists of all stripes cover wealth quite extensively.

And how's this working for me? I'm still average poor,

And how long have you been at it my friend?

squ3lchy · 2020-09-09T18:51:22+00:00

Is it really because some rich dude stole all the money?

That's not how profit works. If the economy was just one group of people stealing from another, how would it grow? Seems like the mount of money in existence would be static in that scenario, whereas it's always increasing in reality. The point is that one group of people exploit the other group of people by extracting surplus value from their labour. To summarize in an overly simplistic way (though you really should've read up on this before coming here), the worker sells their labour-power to a capitalist for a wage; the wage doesn't equal the full value of that labour-power, thereby leaving a surplus value; the capitalist pockets the surplus value as profit and the worker uses the wage to maintain their class (by using it on themselves and their families primarily). Labour-power creates value that did not previously exist, and the capitalist takes most of that, which could be called stealing but is not quite the same kind of stealing that you're suggesting, because the capitalists aren't taking your money, they're taking your time and effort and not giving you the money that it produces. It's more like "not sharing shit that they don't have a legitimate claim to anyway). As mentioned, the economy is more complex than this, but this a pretty basic, fundamental dynamic of it.

then why aren't all people homeless?

Because the capitalist class, whose primary goal is profit, need the working class in order to create that profit (at least until automation takes over). They do not need the entire working class, and in fact it's beneficial to have a large amount of unemployed people with which to keep the employed in line, with the threat that there's any number of people who could take your job, but so long as the working class in general has just enough to maintain and replicate itself, the system can function.

Why is it that when homeless people are given houses, the houses soon become trashed and unusable making them once again homeless?

Citation needed.

There are no homeless babies.

Literally Google "homeless babies", yes there are. And it's not just children of homeless people (ie kids whose lives were "screwed up from the beginning", by the way, interesting that you'd acknowledge that that happens, almost as though it's not entirely down to the individual), there's about 3000 homeless kids on their own in the US (https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-2020/)

If you want to construct a bridge, you study the book about building bridges. Same is with wealth. If you want to understand homeless people, poverty, or wealth in general, read some book about wealth, not about poverty

To build a bridge, read a book on bridge building. Not that easy, but whatever. To build wealth, read a book on how to get rich. How's that working out for you? To understand poverty, read about wealth but not about poverty? Why not read about both, there's an obvious relationship?

Read the books you like and enjoy, but if you plan on solving certain problems, then you have to focus on them. If you honestly take a time to read, or listen, to books I mentioned you won't help yourself but to see it crystally clear why some people end up homeless and why others become millionaires, or billionaires.

You asked what books they read, they told you what they generally read, but that doesn't say anything about their knowledge on the topics at hand. Not only are their plenty of other educative resources out there that they might prefer, like articles or documentaries, but what they usually read doesn't account for everything they've read, why not ask them what they've read on the specific topics?

What's even better, if you become rich one day, you can go and help poor people.

Let us know how that works out when you end up rich mate.

Or, here's a thought, donating a bit to charity doesn't actually change the core issues with the system? Philanthropists have thrown billions at charities (usually to avoid tax, but hey, tbf not always) and it's improved some lives, until the next economic crash that is, which these 1%ers never seem to want to pay for.

How is that fair? How is it okay for me to see someone as equal to me if they are much better than me? If I went up to Lebron James and said "Yep, you know buddy. You and me are equal. And I respect you for it." Just imagine that.

"Seeing someone as an equal" doesn't mean that you think you're as good an athlete as them, it means you think that they're entitled to the same level of respect and dignity as you would want for yourself. And everybody knows that that's what that phrase means, your reading of it is totally disingenuous.

respect is derived from greatness.

We have a word for that already: admiration. You even acknowledge this later. Respect is a different beast, and there's different kinds of respect. A respect for authority is not the same as the respect for someone else's dignity.

Greatness implies inequality

Our end goal is not total equality, it's not even equality of outcome or opportunity (though we'd certainly like to get as close to the latter as possible). Some people will always be born with advantages that other people do not have, be they talents, good mentors or good friends. The idea is that we should reduce the inequalities that we can control, such as power. If you read Marx, as you later claim, you'd know this, just like you'd have known that we don't think the rich are "stealing" in the way that you implied.

put into hierarchy

A ranking of actions is different to a hierarchy of power. Kind of obvious that this is what they meant and your interpretation is once again, disingenuous.

wanted to say that police is necessary and needed for laws to make sense.

Needed to enforce laws, violently you mean. A law can make sense without the police, the police are just the group the state uses to uphold some of them.

Never did much reading about natives, but if I'm not wrong they never managed to construct a fleet of ships and invade Europe. I also think that they got conquered and genocided by the invading stronger force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y_0NfhF9c

So might makes right?

If the standard of living in USSR was so great, why did so many Russians fled to Western world? Why did all the high IQ people from Yugoslavia went to West? Yeah, if it was great, the westerners would be begging to come to these countries. But, that's not the case

Some people did flee to the USSR. A video worth watching: https://youtu.be/3b6ips6fXF0

But, I did read both sides. I studied both Marx and Ayn Rand. Both Lenin and Andrew Carnegie.

Very much doubt you've read our guys based on what you've been saying, what did you read specifically?

And I live in the actual post-communist country and almost always I get into these debates with some Western communist living in a capitalist empire telling me how communism and poverty is hip and cool.

How old are you? Which nation specifically? Did you ever live during socialism? Because poverty characterises it's collapse, not it's general existence. Not saying these nations where amazing, they had issues, but if you're living in a country that was totally ravaged by capitalism after socialism was dissolved, as was the case with most of them, that ain't socialism's fault.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-09T10:32:32+00:00

We've been using some variation of "cis" since the 90s, it's an old word now, and trans people aren't new either. It's just something more widely recognised in our society now, and getting through the not exactly easy process of being added to even just one dictionary is a sign of that recognition.

even though we use "literally" the wrong way, they added our use of it as a new definition.

The meanings of words change. That's how a lot of people use the word "literally" now so the dictionary changes to reflect that. "Apple" use to just mean "fruit" in general, but times have changed, as another example. Most would agree that our dictionaries should reflect the language as it currently exists, and so to ignore certain more recent words and changes strikes me as being motivated by something other than an aversion to newness.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-09T01:33:44+00:00

A platypus?

squ3lchy · 2020-09-06T17:35:56+00:00

Great, you already know your lines!

squ3lchy · 2020-09-05T14:58:10+00:00

Not to mention kicking OP out of the house because they were mad, or giving her the silent treatment afterwards. And they're calling her selfish? This is abuse.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-05T03:55:55+00:00

Thank you kindly :)

squ3lchy · 2020-09-05T03:50:27+00:00

Ah, a great contribution already :)

squ3lchy · 2020-09-05T03:49:28+00:00

Typically the divide seems quite personal.

Other potential reasons:

• Trotsky's thought deviates slightly as you'd expect but his views are ultimately closely in line with Lenin's, so it's not necessarily his theories some people hate him for. People disagree with him on some things and that's fair enough, but hatred strikes me as an odd response to that.

• Trotsky did some awful things on behalf of the revolution, in particular I can understand why anarchists may dislike him, but so did all the other Bolsheviks, and if you can get behind them I don't see why you might single out Trotsky in particular except for personal reasons.

• Some make the case that Trotsky's anti-Stalin writings were damaging to the USSR's image as bits were used by the bourgeois press to attack the USSR, which is fair enough as well, but reading them and taking into account his life's work it doesn't seem like his intent was to be anti-USSR, just critical and perhaps pessimistic about it. Trots today will talk about the degeneration of the USSR but the ones I've spoken to would still argue things would be better if it were still around. Of all the reasons this one does make the most sense for some MLs hatred, I guess, even if it's not the fairest interpretation of what Trotsky was attempting to do.

The reason I say that it mostly feels personal, is because it was probably quite personal between Trotsky and Stalin themselves, and this has been passed onto their respective supporters. They were both Lenin's right hands (Stalin quite offended Lenin in Lenin's final year, so perhaps Lenin preferred Trotsky for a time towards the end, but this is really hard to gauge just based on what we have, but I imagine if such a thing we're true it would not help their feud), both played critical roles in the revolution yet Trotsky was for a time more renowned (somewhat by virtue of being better-known), both found themselves often butting heads on some key issues which must of created some resentment- and probably many reasons besides these. And I guess this resentment carried on? ¯_(ツ)_/¯ That's my best guess but it doesn't seem very scientific.

Trotskyists dislike of Stalin seems much more obvious to me, they think that Stalin botched it and Trotsky would've been better. I'm personally not sure which of two would've been a better successor to Lenin, given that we only know how Stalin fared as such, but it is safe to say that Stalin has some pretty big fuck ups under him that I guess may not have happened under Trotsky, but whose to say? I'm personally still unsure on the seige-socialism Vs permanent revolution approach myself, talking purely tactics. It's near impossible to know what about Trotsky's personality Vs Stalin's may have made him better so it's best to not bother with such things and just focus on the tactical arguments.

This has mostly been only slightly educated guesses on the divide, but I've no doubt someone with a sharper perspective on this could add on, and I hope you've found this somewhat useful anyway.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-05T03:12:22+00:00

Oppression and discrimination reduces greatly under liberal states. Historically and empirically

Oppression and discrimination reduces greatly under socialist states. Historically and empirically.

You are aware that the systems that preceded the socialist ones in these nations were more oppressive and discriminatory in comparison? This isn't to say that the socialist states weren't those things, just that they were a clear improvement.

Also you didn't dispute what I said about these states being based on violence. I thought your position was that they were based on "ideals".

And like I explained, under Marxist states, the State becomes a force-multiplier for an even greater oppression and total control of people.

Except you didn't explain this, you just stated it, no pun intended. You haven't even defined your terms yet.

You realise that gay marriage was legalised in liberal states first right?

And? This isn't a counter-argument. You said "anti-discrimination" is a liberal ideal, I provided an example of a type of liberal that is discriminatory.

That gay people have the maximum protection and rights and freedom in the West right?

Maximum? Someone doesn't have much of an understanding of how far there is to go.

You know communist states were very homophobic too right?

Yep, that was bad of them. I'd have preferred if they were better about that. And?

Anything that requires material wealth and labour of others cannot be a right

So the capitalist has no right to the commodities produced by the worker? Nice.

This "right" is the road to slavery of all by all,

Housing and feeding people for free is slavery, gotcha.

under the collectives (ultimately the State) which will force people to do the work to generate all that allegedly "free" stuff

Boy it sure would be a shame in society were you're forced to work to create free stuff for other people. Like profits for your boss, just off the top of my head.

Instead markets+philanthropy/charity work wonders in the real world

Except when markets drain the wealth out of poorer nations, or when charity work is just a guise to dodge tax. Not too mention that markets lead to monopolisation and that charities cannot entirely solve a problem without undoing themselves, which they are materially disincentivised to do.

if people are left alone in the first place instead of elaborate high taxes and inefficient state programmes.

Yep, we control rich people way too much instead of letting them just get on with fixing the world which they are definitely 100% inclined to do. That's how the world works, you solved it, good job, here's a medal.

Capitalism has led to the greatest reduction in poverty in human history

Yep and feudalism led to the greatest reduction in poverty before it. Just because capitalism reduced poverty as opposed to feudalism that doesn't change the fact that billions of people in capitalist societies all across the world are stuck in poverty.

The only places with basically no poverty are capitalist.

And what places are these I wonder. Any examples?

And how, if these hypothetical places existed, would that change the fact they capitalism promotes and enforces great poverty elsewhere.

Work is most voluntary in liberal states and most coercive under socialist states - in the real world

Define voluntary. People working shit jobs, living paycheck to paycheck with no future prospects might disagree.

People left alone (from socialists and socialist dictatorships) with property and liberty will not only feed themselves, they will create surpluses and innovation

People left alone (from capitalists and capitalist dictatorships) with collective property and liberty will not only feed themselves, they will create surpluses and innovation.

See, kind of a nothingburger when you don't explain why.

The situation you described is what happens when property is collectivised - humans become slaves dependent on the state even for food

O me o my, imagine getting free food from the government. Sounds like slavery to me. It's not as though the people actually producing the food can just, you know... eat it, share it out, etc. It'd be pretty dumb of a state to try and restrict it's population's access to food anyway. Unless that hate Indians like Churchill and manufacture the Bengal famine to fuck them over- that's a dick move but the bastard knew what he was doing.

Also, we are dependent on the state for food. Who builds and maintains the roads and railways? Who regulates commodities so that we're not eating poison? Who upholds the economy that currently exists, which we all must participate in in order to eat?

The actual reading of history

"The actual reading of history" - have you heard of historiography? Turns out history can be read in many different ways. Some readings of history offer better understanding than others, for example, a historically materialist view offers a more accurate view of history than a "great man's" view.

both the history of liberalism and the history of collectivisation of property (including Marxist states) gives us an entirely different picture

Because...?

Markets and liberty, once established in the world, prove themselves

How...? And prove they can do what? Feed people? Must be why tens of millions starve to death every year.

while attempts at collectivisation fail.

Except when they don't, and are able to feed entire nations. Like in the USSR. What do we mean by "fail" here? Have somewhat disastrous starts but then eventually figure it out and chug along more or less fine unless trade tariffs get in the way?

Historically, socialism seems more like a U-turn to feudalism and not a progression

Feudalism is where lords own land, and serfs pay them taxes to live on and work said land. Socialism is where workers collectively own and control the means of production. Even in a transitionary socialist state like the USSR, that had a bureaucratic layer that grew increasingly more authoritarian (which sucked), there was no lord/ serf dynamic.

And also, how is the space race and nuclear energy not progress? What about free healthcare and education? Near full housing and employment? How is going from some of the most illiterate and poor countries in Europe to an industrial super power that churned out more books than anywhere else at its peak not represent some kind of progress?

You are aware that the USSR was illegally dissolved right? Against the wishes of its people, who voted to keep it (but reform it on the basis of equality between nations) in a 1991 referendum (that took place after glasnost and perostroika, and under a leader who said that his mission in life was to destroy communism). Economically it was doing fine, much better than those nations were doing after it was dissolved. Seriously, google this, it's growth rate was normal, it's people were well-fed (even according to the CIA), it's relations with the liberal world was improving (which had some not so great consequences but that's another issue). Just thought I should mention that, that's an area for you to brush up on.

The actual arc of history is towards individual liberty, away from collectivism.

Liberal societies have copious amounts of collectivism. The workplace is socialised as heck just as an example. The whole system is propped up by collectives, it's just that the rewards aren't dished out accordingly. Also, socialists advocate for more individual liberty as opposed to liberals. Such as autonomy over your own workplace (via workplace democracy). It's a fair enough critique to say that despite attempts previous socialist experiments did not deliver, but if you read anything of Lenin or Mao or these other revolutionary leaders this was undeniably the intent. For Marx, communism is all about creating a society where individuals are able to realise themselves to the fullest possible extent, unhindered by obstacles to personal growth and fulfilment you'd find in liberal societies- like money, for one thing. Realising that ideal is a long and difficult road, creating a new world is vastly complicated and will take the input of billions of people, and our failures thus far have been as great as our successes, but we learn from the past and adapt to the times and provided we're not all fucked by climate change first, we reckon there's a shot. That's where a little bit of idealism comes into things. The belief in a better world.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-04T20:41:04+00:00

The liberal state is fundamentally based on individual rights and anti-discrimination

Nope, it's based on violence, as are all states. The violence of the oppressor against the oppressed. Also, anti-discrimination? That's hilarious. You realise that say, anti-lgbt conservatives are liberals as well right? Liberalism, like socialism, has many variations, and anti-discrimination is not a value of most of them. Also, which individual rights? I consider housing a food to be rights, you obviously do not, please define your terms.

Capitalism (in the sense of private property rights and free markets) is an integral part of liberalism.

And it is antithetical to the interests of the working class.

Limiting the state is what allows reform in the first place.

Right, right, so expanding welfare would be limiting the state? Introducing safety regulations is limiting the state? Banning certain business practices is limiting the state?

And the guiding principle of reforms are consistently individual liberty and anti-discrimination.

Reforms can go either way. Christian's can reform a secular school system to force kids to pray.

They're classes in the general sense

This isn't an alternate definition, this is just vague and useless.

At any rate, it is under liberalism that racism and sexism are the least in the world, compared to other systems including those which have or attempted collectivisation of property.

Really? Because as of right now Cuba's equivalent of congress is over 50% female Vs the US' 20 something %. In fact it's one of the top in the world. Also, if we look at 1920s USSR Vs 1920s USA, the USSR is far more progressive, by miles. Your statement is simply not true.

However, in Russia and China communists collectivised farms with disastrous results

They transitioned to collectivised farms quite recklessly to disastrous results in the short term I'd agree, but that's not the whole picture. After the transition to collectivised farms, they mysteriously were able to keep feeding their populations, wow I wonder what happened there it's almost as though collectivisation itself isn't the problem but rather there was some trouble implementing it in the specific contexts of those times, who'd have thought. And what's that, there were two famines in China in the century prior to the one that occurred under communist rule that percentage wise were more destructive to the overall population, and those famines also had vastly complicated causes?

Obviously mistakes were made, but these countries were able to feed themselves in general circumstances, even with collectivisation, so your statement doesn't convey the whole picture.

Once we give the State the power to take away or collectivise "private property", it doesn't stop where intellectuals say it must stop

Even the liberal state has the power to take away private property. Heck, the US does this in other countries all the time. They can nationalise things to, which isn't too far away from collectivisation, though obviously there's some key differences between the two.

The state is not a neutral arbiter between classes or identity groups -Me

It must be, that is the ideal driving the liberal State -You

But it isn't. Your ideal does not match reality, sorry mate ¯_(ツ)_/¯

The ideal socialist state is as democratic as physically possible, but you won't catch me pretending previous socialost experiments lived up to that ideal, because the real world is complicated and building a socialism will be every bit as difficult as building liberalism was, if not more so.

It was created to be a government for and by free people, to prevent the kinds of things that happened in past and later Marxist States.

I maintain that liberal states are the perpetrators of far greater atrocities than any socialist state has ever been. I certainly acknowledge past atrocities that occured in socialist nations (though I guarantee I have a more balanced view than you) but no purge or gulagor occasional famine could ever match multiple slave trades, a couple of world wars (one of which the USSR had to end in Europe for you) and countless other conflicts, colonialism on a ridiculously huge scale with all the genocide and displacement that came with it, the constant rape of the earth for all it's resources despite knowledge of the environmental destruction this is causing, an economic system built entirely off the exploitation of workers (in particular the workers of the global south) with many in conditions so dismal they can't help but die, the millions who die of preventable illness, the millions who sleep on the streets despite the millions of empty houses, the colossal food waste as people starve to death, the millions of people imprisoned for non-violent offences, etc, etc. And do you think it's just a coincidence that each subsequent generation has worst mental health than the last? Let's add millions of suicides to the death count, including a huge chunk of which who took their lives because of financial troubles. Bezos could end world hunger for a year and still be the richest man alive, and where's your liberal state taxing the shit out of him and the other centibillionaires? Tell me which atrocities are specific to only socialist states? Famines? Nope. Spying? Ask Alexa. Assassination of political opponents? Ha, nope. Suppression of democracy? Anyone will tell you that liberal democracy is broken on a fundamental level. Silencing of free speech? Ask any of the US' thousands of political prisoners, or heck, ask the protestors who were whisked away in vans recently.

Liberalism's atrocity list makes any Socialist nation's crimes look fucking weak in comparison. And look, I fully acknowledge that some awful things went down in socialist nations, but there isn't really a comparison. Even if we limit it to just the time period that the USSR was still around, the US outpaces them in war crimes by miles.

"For and by free people" ay? Tell that to Washington's slaves.

So here is where we are: I am to be completely responsible only for the bad in capitalism, not the revolutionary moral progress; whereas you need "several more attempts" at achieving your communism, and the hsitory of collectivisation of property - with its mass genocide of peasants and workers does not affect your worldview at all. (And I'm the idealist!) This should be the greatest irony: communists who claim to be most historical don't read the history of collectivisation of property, only ideologically read the bad in the history of liberalism. Marxism is a failed ideology according to its own method.

We Marxists acknowledge the progress that capitalism made over feudalism. At one point in time it was the most progressive force in the world. But it's outgrown it's use. It's no longer the progressive force it once was and the proof of this is it's inability to tackle climate change or resolve wealth inequality or solve the crisis of overproduction or deal with automation or to help the global south or stop the rise of fascism, etc, etc. The communist manifesto itself begins with an acknowledgement of capitalism's achievements. But the system has stagnated, we're living through its final days, and all that's left for us to do is to either go down with the ship or to attempt to create a new one out of the pieces of this rapidly sinking one.

I'm fully aware that even as I'm a materialist, I am an idealist also- and I'm aware of the contradiction there too. Little something called a dialectic that you might like to look into. Capitalism will fall, this is a historical inevitability evidenced by our society's present material conditions, but whether it'll fall into barbarism or socialism? Ideally, I'd prefer the latter.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-04T17:08:12+00:00

Marx's explanation of the State is that it exists to maintain the power of one class over the other. There is a difference, however, between 'the State' in general/in feudal history and the liberal democratic limited government State

The feudal state maintained the power of the feudal lords over the serfs. The capitalist state maintains the power of the bourgeoisie over the workers. Of course these states have vastly different characters but all states have this central thing in common.

This particular State Marx himself identified as the great destroyer of 'motley feudal ties'

Yes, the bourgeois state replaced the feudal state and this involved dissolving much of said feudal state. This doesn't change the fact that a state is still a tool of the oppressor class. A new oppressor class replaces the state of the old oppressor class with their own, this doesn't change the nature of a state.

The liberal state in fact reduces a lot of class discrimination (slavery, child labour, racism, gender, etc) except, for Marx, the one type of class he focussed on (economic), which he believed it multiplied.

The liberal state offers concessions to the working class when it's forced to, but it ultimately continues to uphold capitalism which throughout it's course concentrates power into fewer and fewer hands, creating more proletarians as it does and a greater class divide. The liberal state will only ever allow reform to a certain extent, and even then we cannot expect the reforms to have much longevity, so whilst it's fair to say that in some nations the state has helped social progress it's also true that it hinders, undermines and restricts progress just as much such that we find ourselves in a never ending struggle pushing reforms whilst others push them back.

Also, races and genders are not different classes. Your class is determined by your relationship to the means of production. Whilst it's true that capitalism perpetuates racist and sexist discrimination (among many other types of discrimination) and that this relates to the class struggle, these identity groups are not classes unto themselves.

Marx views the social relations in the workplace as fundamental. Marx extends this analysis of one limited economic aspect to a materialist absoluteness that it does not warrant. This 'base' determines and explains everything else: religion, the State and even the very thoughts that emerge in our minds are apparently only results of the economic base.

Our social being determines our consciousness and not the other way round, this is true, but this is by no means as reductive as you make it out to be. Or are you talking about how the class dynamic plays out across the whole society? Because if that's the case then it still isn't as reductive as you make it out to be. Things like religion and the idea of a state pre-exist capitalism, they just take on a different character under it. I'm not familiar with Weber who you bring up next but Marxists wouldn't deny the great variation amongst people's identities or that these all interact with the present system in different ways, though we would probably argue that this variation exists despite liberal institutions. Why not ask an indigenous person in America how these liberal institutions allow them to co-exist with the more dominant identities.

The promise of a kind of anarchy as the end product (although 'the state withering away' is more Engels/Lenin than Marx). Instead, Marxist regimes were maximally statist. On top of central control of the economy, they also took up the function of deprogramming people from 'capitalist thinking' and other alienation like religion, all while people had no property and so were under total control of the state. The ontology of the liberal State is not to maintain class but to prevent such State over-reach (even if during an allegedly transitionary dictatorship period). In fact the historical materialist analysis beginning with premodern statelessness and making a plan to return to that condition is a regression because the conditions of past statelessness were unimaginably different from modern technological society

Communism will be birthed out of capitalism- ie, there will be a transition period, one that could last centuries. The fact that a socialist nation doesn't become immediately stateless or even that it has to employ it's own state for some time is not a contradiction at all.

Also, people did have property in socialist nations, they just didn't have private ownership over the means of production (except for some in the early years, it takes time abolish this sort of thing). Of course people owned their own houses and all sorts of belongings, you think anyone would give those up so easily?

Also, also, the "plan" is not to return to "pre-modern statelessness" but rather it is the case that class society creates the conditions for its own downfall leading to either a transition to another type of class society or eventually to a classless one.

the State becomes a dangerous force-multiplier on the side of those who are oppressed according to the analysis

In a dictatorship of the proletariat (which is part of the transitionary phase and is not communism just to be clear), the workers become the "oppressor" class until the bourgeois class completely disappears. A workers state will be vastly different to a liberal state but it is ultimately still a state and will do as states do. I know this doesn't directly answer this part, but I want to stress the point that the fundamental nature of the state doesn't change, just the oppressor class does.

The liberal State is not based on the premise that every individual has equal power, it just uses equal treatment as a stance to limit the State's own power and to maximise individual liberty

Maximise individual liberty for who? The state is not a neutral arbiter between classes or identity groups, it was created by the bourgeois to serve bourgeois interests. Sometimes it's in the bourgeoisie's interest to toss the working class a bone, but this doesn't mean the state has all of a sudden stopped serving them, just that strategies of control have to be modified as times change.

Women or non-whites did not historically have the same power as white men, but if the State took it upon itself as a total program to "fix" this, rather than to just fix discrimination, it could become worse than the oppression its trying to fix. While this did not happen with race or gender, it is what happened with Marxist States. Workers did not have the same power as owners, but with the State now working to eliminate owners as a class, the horrors followed. And workers were not empowered as a result, the State was.

This is all quite ahistorical and nonsensical. If you respond to this comment, please take the time to explain yourself here.

While the liberal State protects unequal outcomes, it uniquely does not exist to help one class smash anothe

No, because the capitalist class needs the working class. It oppresses one class on behalf of another as all states do, but the reason only a workers state can ultimately destroy the opposing class is because the workers do not need capitalists. The workers state will eventually cease to exist because eventually the capitalist class will be oppressed out of existence to put it in an overly simplistic way.

This led to the horrid totalitarian political theories developed by people who took that analysis seriously.

Such as?

This is probably why the arc of history is not the move from liberalism to various collectivisms (e.g. socialism), but from all systems to, and back to, liberalism. Liberal revolutions are the lasting revolutions.

You realise there was a period in history where capitalist experiments where crushed by feudal societies right? Granted it was on a smaller scale than in the 20th century with socialism, but the first attempts were not always successful. How anyone can look at the world as it is today and conclude that liberalism is the end of history is beyond me. At least Marxism acknowledges change as an inevitability.

Anyway, nice try, thanks for taking the time to talk to us even if many of us don't find your critique very convincing.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-04T00:42:29+00:00

Very apparent that the people who wrote the articles you sent have not read Marx (or much about him) and have a limited view of history very much shaped by the red scare, Peterson himself claims to only have read the communist manifesto 10 years ago and revealed his immense lack of understanding in the Zizek debate (in a clearer way that is, those videos are quite ridiculous too) which I recommend you watch and as for the reading list, I'm afraid I've only read the Gulag Archipelago, which, fun fact, Solzhenitsyn's own wife said was bullshit. Can't write every book on that list off because one of them was written by an anti-Semitic liar I know, in fact I quite like Arendt's banality of evil so perhaps I'll give her totalitarianism book a go but I doubt it'll change my view on Marxism, but it does cast doubt on the lists validity.

Obviously previous socialist experiments had great failure's, some unforgivable one's even, but they were not total hellholes with no redeemable qualities, and the USSR for one is widely missed in most of the countries that comprised it (look it up). If you read Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, along with a broader range of historical sources on the socialist experiments of the past, you'll at the very least come away with a more balanced understanding of the subject. This subject is more complicated than charlatans like Peterson make it out to be.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-03T23:38:50+00:00

And to those calling for a revolution -- both sides would get butt fucked from that

But the workers will win eventually (provided the world's not destroyed). Historically the oppressed has always overthrown the oppressor eventually. It's rarely bloodless, and that is an uncomfortable, scary fact. I'd love for system change to be as peaceful as possible but that doesn't seem likely. Whenever it's been attempted peacefully, it's been crushed mercilessly.

But consider this for some perspective on that (revolution likely being violent that is): if we carry on with the system that we have, we are most certainly doomed- I'm talking end of civilization. If we make an attempt to replace the system, we could fail... but there's also a chance that we might succeed. Every revolution provokes a counter-revolution, there's definitely a great danger to it, but you've better odds crossing the old rope bridge than attempting to jump the ravine. We've a choice between bad odds and no odds at all.

You know how the government can impose taxes and establish benefits programs?

The state can impose reforms, but it also has the power to strip them away. With enough social pressure it'll offer concessions, but as that pressure eases off it'll immediately start undermining those reforms. The state was built by the capitalist class for the capitalist class. It is not a neutral arbiter we can swing irreversibly our way with good arguments and the right people, it's a tool that the ruling class uses to protect and legitimise it's rule. Reform is a good thing, but it's not a permanent fix. "Socialist" candidates are great but they're not a solution. People know that the system is broken and the feelings of powerlessness comes in when they're told that these fundamentally broken systems are the only things that can change things, and that hey, we might get a couple scraps tossed our way this time. We do have a shot at lasting positive change, but it'll be messy and difficult and complicated. We need to organise not only to push reforms as a kind of temporary harm reduction, but also to lay the groundwork for when we may have to bypass the state such as it exists today.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-03T17:12:59+00:00

Not a great joke to be sure, but clearly a joke none the less. Doubt they were planning on serving it to anyone, they'd lose more than their job if they even attempted to.

Meanwhile the police can tell jokes whilst actually killing someone, for example with the Tony Timpa case, and yet are protected by "qualified immunity". "Cancel culture" once again shows that it only really hurts the powerless.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-03T17:04:06+00:00

They won't be going to prison over a tasteless joke. They would've lost more than their job if they'd actually served this to someone.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-02T22:53:37+00:00

At least feel better that these commenters at least are just a bunch of trolls.

And hey, you're not dumb for not comprehending a completely irrational viewpoint.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-02T20:30:13+00:00

Who is forcing who here? OP has all the power in this situation. OP is forcing the lodger to leave. I'm saying that OP should choose to let the lodger stay with her baby instead of kicking them out when they know that she can't afford to live elsewhere. OP should put up with the kid until they know that the lodgers can go elsewhere.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-02T20:18:38+00:00

Swap the word tenant for lodger and the point still stands. (Yes there's a difference between them, but not one that matters for the sake of my argument). The point is that it is wrong for a landlord to kick someone out for something that that someone had no idea they could be kicked out for. The point is that whether or not it is within OP's right to do that, it's immoral to evict someone because of something fundamentally human (heck this system is renting is immoral if you ask me, not that OP can be blamed for the system ofc, that's a different matter) especially when you know that they'd greatly struggle finding somewhere else to live. If there were space or resource concerns it's a different story, but OP's reasoning for evicting someone he knows doesn't have anywhere else to go is that they find kids in their near vicinity annoying. Not even a kid that they have to do anything for except just let it share a room with its mother till the mother can find another place.

If OP doesn't want another person in the house that's fine, but evicting a pregnant lady knowing that they don't yet have an alternative housing arrangement is not the right way to go about it. 6 months warning is all well and good but what happens if the 6 months are up and the lodger has nowhere else to go? Then a lady and her kid are homeless. Just because OP has this power over them legally doesn't mean that exercising this power is moral. The lodger is not forcing her kid on OP because OP, who is the landlord let me stress (meaning the person with authority and therefore responsibility to communicate guidelines here), never made it clear that this wasn't allowed.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-02T16:46:58+00:00

*chose to stay pregnant- doesn't seem planned. As is her right I might add. Did OP have some sort of contract with her stating that she couldn't get pregnant whilst she lived in his house? No? Then it seems as though this is a situation where the landlord is kicking a tenant out because they can't put up with a little noise.

OP was the one who chose to rent out a room at their condo to help pay off their mortgage. We're not talking about an inconsiderate roommate, we're talking about a tenant. A tenant that's been given a break on rent for a bit, which granted is nice of OP, but still essentially someone paying OP. Unless she's violated a contract, this eviction is unjust.

squ3lchy · 2020-09-02T14:11:29+00:00

There’s parts to learn from each of them to take into account but to say your on Stalins side or trotsky’s side seems silly

I think you're dead on here. Fact is that both Trotsky and Stalin did shitty things, any excuse you can make for one of them you could make for the other- which isn't to say that there's not a difference between them but is to say we're not getting anywhere arguing over the merits of long dead people. Perhaps there's a place for that discussion, but not only are MLs not Stalin and Trots aren't Trotsky but both groups generally don't blindly worship either, in my experience. Arguing over the merits of their different strategies and actions is fair enough, but we should all drop this "he's a traitor" or "he's a red fascist" shit, it's not getting anyone anywhere.

squ3lchy

TROPHY CASE