sniper

5y

I'm not a fan of the red statist rhetoric being identical to American nationalist right-wingers, which should speak volumes.

Scratchin Mamba

5y

Vaush gonna turn fascist in before the end of the 2024 elections

Just a prediction

Scratchin Mamba

5y

"But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundamentals as to leave little room for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism–not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience–could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture?"

Scratchin Mamba

5y

"But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundamentals as to leave little room for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism–not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience–could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture?"

Yuzzy

5y

Just go on Letterboxd and filter by films where Portuguese is spoken

Bestowed

5y

@spacecadet yo thanks for the recommendations. I found this film called Besouro. it looks like a heater (at least right up my ally lol)

Trailer & Full Movie Below

sniper

5y

I beg of y'all to understand, no one is asking for socialism to be built on a whim. We just don't believe in the state to do it, and we believe the state will actively work against socialism, no matter what aesthetic you put it under. LibSocs and Anarchists advocate for people-ran horizontal autonomous dual-power structures (much like pre-Bolshevik worker soviets) to be built under capitalism (This is something the Panthers did right, and why they got so popular.) to enact social change and to build people more amenable and welcoming and understanding to it. These did exist in the past, especially around the time of the Russian Revolution, but they were destroyed by Lenin on his warpath to rule of the state (The crushing of factory committees, which basically was suppressing worker control in favor of the state controlling everything. Every time, worker's control rose in popular support, they had to blame it on "anarchism", when it was just people asking for what they fought for in the war for socialism.

Every time autonomous revolutionary workers rose up in a state capitalist society, and threatened the red state, because they were lied to, they got brutalized.

State capitalist societies only like vassal states and vassal organizations, if they dissent from the state in any way or threaten the power of the ruling "vanguard" bureaucratic class, they are damned.

space0cadet

5y

Marxist-Leninist Perspectives on Black Liberation and Socialism by Frank Chapman

Washington Bullets by Vijay Prashad (also read The Darker Nations)

Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney

Night-Vision: Illuminating War & Class on the Neo-Colonial Terrain by Butch Lee

First marxist-leninist book I ever read was Blackshirts and Reds, would recommend you to do the same

spongebob

5y

cant wait to read more of these

americana

5y

Is he really just a soap boxer. I thought he talks about theory and s*** in parts of his stream

space0cadet

5y

man this guy didnt deserve so much hate for buying a house like who gives a f***

sniper

5y

I beg of y'all to understand, no one is asking for socialism to be built on a whim. We just don't believe in the state to do it, and we believe the state will actively work against socialism, no matter what aesthetic you put it under. LibSocs and Anarchists advocate for people-ran horizontal autonomous dual-power structures (much like pre-Bolshevik worker soviets) to be built under capitalism (This is something the Panthers did right, and why they got so popular.) to enact social change and to build people more amenable and welcoming and understanding to it. These did exist in the past, especially around the time of the Russian Revolution, but they were destroyed by Lenin on his warpath to rule of the state (The crushing of factory committees, which basically was suppressing worker control in favor of the state controlling everything. Every time, worker's control rose in popular support, they had to blame it on "anarchism", when it was just people asking for what they fought for in the war for socialism.

Every time autonomous revolutionary workers rose up in a state capitalist society, and threatened the red state, because they were lied to, they got brutalized.

State capitalist societies only like vassal states and vassal organizations, if they dissent from the state in any way or threaten the power of the ruling "vanguard" bureaucratic class, they are damned.

sniper

5y

The fact that I even have to argue for what socialism is and is not, is quite sad in a "socialist" thread.

The fact that state capitalist "socialists" have even thrown out the definition of worker control, in favor of a warped Leninist definition is quite sad.

What happened to doing away with labor alienation and stuff like that?

space0cadet

5y

man this guy didnt deserve so much hate for buying a house like who gives a f***