Reddit's backup wants to be an echochamber which controls all content..you don't say

A strike I admire since it is in opposition to AI generated content. One of the mods makes a good point when they point out Stack Exchange is a site which is designed around real, substantive, quality answers from real professionals in their fields answering questions with the upmost truth. They go on to explain that AI functions as a parrot (not unlike radlibs who follow the CIAs every word) uncritically forwarding information regardless of it's accuracy or even logical sense, which contradicts the site's current purpose in the information space. They go on to say this would reduce the value of the site to 0. I believe it would simply transform the site into Facebook without families. (All bullshit, no IRL social connection)

Regardless, solidarity with the striking workers.

Oh they're here. They're to us in our spaces as MAGA is to mainstream neoliberal spaces - they invade to sabotage, they seek to destroy. We could move to Mars and they'd send space drones with propaganda blasting from speakers.

The reason why the healthcare system is parasitic is because it is controlled by the bourgeoisie and so it serves their interests. We must control it or create an alternative and protect it from the state. As per always the creation of proletarian power starts with unionization and organizing a radical proletarian political party. This is the work to be done to counteract, change, or create conditions.

This is why we see so many unionization efforts underway, from Marxists to anarcho syndicalists, to the preexisting labor bureau/aristocratic unions expanding and striking. This conversation has already been had. It's a race to unionize.

A similar race is taking place in the political sphere however this race is much more competitive than the union race. This is because there are many 'false prophets', wolves in sheeps clothings operating so as to sabotage our class' efforts towards liberation.

Digressing, the work is already being carried out, our task is to continue this work and intensify it by building our organizations and thus our class' potential power. For this power to be realized and utilized it must be guided in a revolutionary manner.

"So what is Marxism? Do I fit in here?"

It is ok if you are not a 10th degree grand master of Marxonomics, all you have to have to be welcome here is respect for the community and a willingness to learn. We will teach you.

Marxism is highly complex however the basic concept of it is:

Capitalism is fundamentally flawed, isn't reformable, and requires a working class revolution to solve the constant revolving crisis' of capitalism.

If you agree with the above statement you belong here.

Marxism takes a scientific and pragmatic approach towards solving this issue (organize, educate, agitate) as opposed to an idealistic one (we'll just do a revolution and everything will be fixed!).

Welcome all new leftists! As per always, it is best to study works of our most successful comrades (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao) and their works can be found at Marxists.org for free.

"Wokeness" is a campaign by the global classical liberal pette bourgeois, mainly orchestrated by Russia, and American and British classical liberals. The social reaction appears to be in response to multiculturalism with a particularly outright rejection of LGBT (lgb T <- !! ) culture instilled by neoliberalism. It's an extension of their economic interests, however they confuse this popularization of the LGBT by neoliberal big bourgeoisie with LGBT itself. Unsurprisingly they do not study history. Why this is particularly dangerous is the relative success neoliberalism has had via LGBT virtue signalling, making the LGBT a comfortable scapegoat for the classical liberal pette bourgeois (the pette bourgeois in general being the historic base for fascism)

For comrades already here, I wasn't sure how to go about this sort of welcome post as I'm not entirely sure what to expect/who will be incoming, so I tried to cast a wide net.

1. An oligarch did not start this war, a group of them did. Bourgeois are a class, not kings who act alone.

2. Putin is not an oligarch, he is a labor aristocrat as all politicians are.

3. Putin is far from the richest man in the world. As far as free capital (PPP) goes, I believe it has been continuously fluctuating between Musk and Bezos. As far as value of total assets goes, this by far goes to the US bourgeoisie as they effectively own and control the entire west and command servitude from much of the developing nations, defacto owning those as well. (basically not literally)

4. Typically warlords participate in battles, no? If this is the case, then I do not believe Putin is to be classified as a warlord.

5. Putin has invaded many nations around him, yes, but not due to megalomania, this is an anarchist/radlib belief which is injected to fill the void left by lack of understanding. NATO has couped the governments of the pette bourgeois nations surrounding Russia in attempts to make them as how we see Ukraine today in an attempt to invade, defeat, and ultimately seize the assets of Russia to fulfill the necessity of profit, to counteract the falling rate of profit, and to eliminate a major global competitor thus reinforcing and magnifying their own monopoly in preparation towards going on to attack China for the same reasons. Russia was defending it's national security by invading, as they are doing so in Ukraine. As well, they are defending AES nations such as China and Cuba from US imperialism. They are like batman; not the hero we want, but the hero we need have.

6. Yes no war but class war, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Pragmatically speaking, anyone and I mean anyone fighting imperial capital which currently holds a practical worldwide monopoly is essential to creating open spaces for revolutions to flourish. As well, we must reject trotskyism which asserts that a world revolution lead by the west seeking it's own unimpeded interests is the way towards communism.

7. Thank you for voicing your opinion maturely and respectfully, it helps legitimate conversion on matters to be had.

CPUSA is explicitly named. Any other org would indeed be covered under colour of law (this law specifically) however it would require a court case to resolve such an invocation of colour of law which is always a gamble.

Depending on how much constitution ours have in OK, challenging such a movement not explicitly named in the referenced law in a court of law could end very badly for the prosecution. However, considering if our efforts were so substantial in OK I would not have to question the constitution of it would I?

Aside from being a gamble, all one has to do is consult law-practicing comrades to create a play list of legal foot dragging to be utilized in each and every single case so as to cost the state as much time and effort as possible challenging every single group from the PSL to the ABCDEFG. Until neoliberalism falls, money is no object to the regime, however this would create publicity for all of the left movements involved, which gives birth to more continuity, as well it would take up space in the legal process which could be used to fuck over our class.

Sounds like Lemmy should do to Beehaw as Beehaw has done to us. For the sake of the space the developers have created.

Admittedly it did not seem that way, but reading their replies I'm inclined to agree. One looking to learn is open and objective. One looking to spread propaganda and institute narrative change does so. This behavior unfortunately will be seen again due to this Reddit fiasco.

"As Marxists we must oppose everything the west approves of and approve of everything the west opposes"?

TIL Marxism is when contrarianism

Study and play to your strengths. If you're someone people lean on for help, help them understand the real causes of their misery. If you're someone who is good at math, perhaps create propaganda which demonstrates the math of capitalism and socialism. If you're someone who is popular perhaps educate your peers. Etc...

You are young and likely still requiring essential education and to develop experience. The job of the youth is always learn and socialize no matter what form society takes. Simply apply Marxism to this paradigm 👍

The only real question is what is this movement willing and ready to do when (not if) the bourgeois state's electoral/voting system (yet again) rejects the needs of the people?

👏🏆

😂

This is very true

We do as we've always done, and because it is our interests we represent, not the bourgeois'.

Get some sleep comrade, we all get this way some times

::: spoiler spoiler "The first major indication that this is what the PSL’s practice has become appeared in 2020, when Becker announced a policy of critical support for Bernie Sanders in the primary and a refusal to run the party’s candidate in swing states if Sanders won the nomination. Becker’s reasoning was that even though he recognized Sanders held reactionary stances in certain important areas, supporting him represented a net gain for the socialist movement due to Sanders supposedly being an overall progressive force. As in a force that was hurting the DNC more than he was helping it. Becker concluded: “Tactics can never be absolute, designed for all situations or last forever. On the contrary, revolutionaries must combine a rock-hard adherence to core principles with tactical suppleness to advance the movement for socialism under varying conditions and on shifting terrain. For now, the Sanders campaign represents a dynamic insurgency promoting radical social changes in the face of increasingly stiff headwinds from a criminal ruling class that fears the loosening of its absolute grip over U.S. politics and the economy. We support the insurgency against the reactionaries.”

The problem with this calculus was that for years by that point, it had been evident Sanders was more of a help than a hindrance to the DNC. He had made a non-aggression pact with Clinton prior to running in 2016, he had tried to bring his base into the Democratic Party by endorsing Clinton, then he had furthered this project to leverage his platform in favor of reformism by promoting the new cold war with Russia. Becker either directly or implicitly recognized that Sanders had committed these offenses, yet he felt in spite of this that Sanders was worth supporting. Not because Sanders himself was a friend to revolutionary politics, but because his project supposedly represented something which brought revolution closer.

The flaw in Becker’s argument about Sanders weakening the DNC is clear when you see what Becker didn’t want to admit: that the effect the Sanders campaigns had is one where their leader brought many ideologically developing individuals into a reformist project, then reinforced the anti-Russian biases the media had previously begun instilling these individuals. The Sanders campaigns were a net negative for the revolutionary cause, because they overall reinforced the DNC’s grip. The only ways they weakened the DNC were when many Sanders supporters broke away from his cult of personality, and came to view him as a dishonorable enabler of corruption and imperialism. By calling for PSL members to come into pro-Sanders circles and recruit them into the party, Becker was rationalizing supporting Sanders by asserting that Marxists can bring Sanders supporters to Marxism via this strategy."

:::

"The problems with this plan, and with the parallel reformist actions the PSL has taken since then, were 1) that backing Sanders meant backing a project which had a net negative impact for the revolutionary cause, and 2) that the PSL’s reformist tendencies made it unable to bring whatever Sanders supporters it recruited into a genuinely revolutionary organization."

There is a third actually that I see: He places his party in a weakened position first by telling them to support Bernie, then by telling them to infiltrate Bernie groups and explain to them why Bernie is inferior to the PSL. But he just ordered PSL to support Bernie, this is a contradictory set of orders and it places his followers in a weakened position when discussing the subject of Bernie and social democracy vs revolutionary socialism in general. A leader who seeks the revolutionary success of his party would not do this. he would seek to insulate his party members from revisionism, not make them more susceptible to it.

Exactly. Big difference. Ask Molotov, he had a front row view