Of course but we are all Muslims, I don't feel any hatred. IMO Iran and Hezbollah are doing more for our cause than the Sunni countries do

NFTs are money laundering

seeing u in the crypto thread to posting this here, what happened mane

CAPITAL happened.......

From the murder capital where they murder for capital

Bad trading day maybe

our friend woke up

Some communist history for y'all: Marx is often described as just a thinker - a lot of people forget he was active in politics too.

Marx wrote this party program for the French Workers Party. He specifically penned the preamble and co-wrote the demands: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

What we notice: Marx has maximum demands, meaning long-term goals, as well as minimum demands, meaning short-term goals.

The preamble:

Considering,
That the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of s***or race;
That the producers can be free only when they are in possession of the means of production;
That there are only two forms under which the means of production can belong to them

1. The individual form which has never existed in a general state and which is increasingly eliminated by industrial progress;
2. The collective form the material and intellectual elements of which are constituted by the very development of capitalist society;

Considering,
That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party;
That a such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation;
The French socialist workers, in adopting as the aim of their efforts the political and economic expropriation of the capitalist class and the return to community of all the means of production, have decided, as a means of organization and struggle, to enter the elections with the following immediate demands:

Here we can see that Marx advocates for a revolution - but he doesn't leave it at that. He makes more specific, short-term demands, that are still recognizably from a communist point of view, but can be reached without the need for a proletarian revolution, such as:

Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;
Equal pay for equal work, for workers of both sexes;
Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;
Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there

After this program came out, his step-son with which he wrote it said that the reform demands would lure people away from Marxism and distract them from their actual goal, which is the revolution. Marx responded that his stepson is just doing "revolutionary phase-mongering" and denying the value of reformist struggles. He said that if their politics represented Marxism, then Marx himself is "certainly not a Marxist".

TLDR: According to Marx, we need both minimum goals and maximum goals, one without the other doesn't work.

Fax.. revolution vs reform is a false dichotomy

"Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromises and to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well as anybody else that in a certain sense "every little helps," that under certain conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular, are necessary and useful.

"To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie," says Lenin, "a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted, and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to maneuver, to utilise the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies, to reject agreements and compromises with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies-is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not as though, when making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain, we were to refuse beforehand ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace our steps, ever to abandon the course once selected and to try others?" (see Vol. XXV, p. 210).

Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of reforms or of compromises and agreements, but of the use people make of reforms and agreements.

To a reformist, reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitability transformed into an instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution.

To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms are a by-product of the revolution. That is why, with revolutionary tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an instrument for strengthening the revolution, into a strongpoint for the further development of the revolutionary movement.

The revolutionary will accept a reform in order to use it as an aid in combining legal work with illegal work to intensify, under its cover, the illegal work for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie."

xenophobia against americans is the funniest s*** i have heard all day

Americans once u criticize an aspect of their country

The schism ran just as deep far before Western intervention.

It's a f***ing stupid division imo, but what can you do? Folks will divide over anything.

The Ottomans managed to suppress a lot of it though for quite a while

Ehhhh. Comes with the imperial iron fist I guess lol

Ottomans themselves encouraged it when politically convenient as well

From a US Navy training document

I wonder whats the answer

why are anarchists here as if they're actually a threat?

It was political terrorists actually lol

Or as if they should be labeled as terrorists in the first place

Or that anarchists and socialists should even be in the same category with Nazis

f***ing absurd

not me