Anarchists take over Brazilian town

No data but I have a strong feeling it doesn't correlate as much with amount of guns than education and income level. Downtown detroit won't have many guns/person but a shit ton of shootings, while richberg switzerland will be armed to the teeth yet have no crime.

It's time

Welcome in the bizarro world of anti Marxism-Leninism.

Everyone will just copy what anyone else said bad about the Soviet Union and Stalin and copy the "argument" without a care, so anarkiddies using trotskyite propaganda like in this case, despite not being coherent with their own ideology, really isn't that rare of a sight.

what does that even mean? more people killed? because I'd like some proof of that statement.

What a surprise.

Nice

this thread is being slid

I guarantee it is not like this and this language makes me doubt the source

If there are no cops I bet there is a bit of street justice going on. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking that the bourgeois and petite bourgeois there are getting their due.

BBC has reported on it.

Clearly the problem is that the weapons aren't sufficiently destructive. Give everyone a block of C4, a push-button detonator, and a dead-man switch. Gun crime would vanish overnight.

The BBC are known to falsify news reports to serve the UK government.

BBC are full of shit, Bong here

bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38879775

reuters.com/article/us-brazil-violence-espirito-santo-idUSKBN15L26A

thesun.co.uk/news/2799002/lawless-brazil-looted-burnt-bodies-cops-strike/

Probably legit.

The problem with "socialism in one country" is that it's doomed to fail, and so is this town. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy it while it lasts.

I'm not doubting there is violence. I am doubting that it is 'like the purge'

Oh yeah, but I imagine any police strike in Brazil of all places is chaotic. I thought you meant the strike in general.

wew

It clearly isn't saying that. Try again.

finally, some good news

Eeh?
No, man. It's just some criminals taking over now that the police is on strike. Espirito Santo is a brazilian state that borders Rio de Janeiro, where drug dealers are heavy armed. They're terrorizing the people. There's no organization between the workers, not anarchism.

Why? This makes as much sense as saying "socialism one one planet is doomed to fail." How does socialism scale, exactly?

revolucja!

87 people have died so far, which is probably a small but significant increase of how many people would have died under normal circumstances. And in poorer neighborhoods there has been the sort of shoplifting you see when there's breakdown of order even in the US or the UK.

So yeah, they're being a bit sensationalist but not entirely wrong.

There's not much politics involved here. The strike began with policemen's families blocking police vehicles, and it's mostly about low salaries.

That's the joke you fucking idiot

You measure it according to the leeway it gives to counter-reaction. And since even capitalist countries fail when they are systematically excluded from global patterns of trade, investment and diplomacy, a socialist one that above all threatens them politically will not last long without collapsing or transforming itself into something different.

Socialism in one country makes about as much sense as socialism is one backyard.

There was a reddit comment explaining how Temer's goverment has not been paying to any public worker and other stuff but seems it was brigaded, deleted and ceddit has a virus so I can't dig it up.
I'm dissapoint

Based huehuehues

BR here. The worst part is seeing all the retarded bootlickers praising the army intervention happening right now, while at the same time going full lolbert and demanding private security.

...

...

Which one is it? Will Anarchists decide "it's not the right time yet" when police gets paid?

Why?

Because when ideas are translated into practice they must deal with the imperfections of reality, and that includes mundane economic and political issues that pretty much dictate the raise and fall of nations even if they agree on the boundaries of the economic system.

I mean, a tankie must, in the very least, know how the threat of british military invasion in the late 20's and the inability of the Soviet government to compete in foreign markets with its relatively underdeveloped industry pretty much shaped Soviet political economy in its first decade, including for Bukharin's reevaluation of the kulaks and Stalin's left turn. These are all obstacles that shouldn't be there in a revolutionary period if the preconditions of Internationalism and bourgoeis development that Marx discussed were there. To put it shortly, the revolution had to transform itself in order to accomodate itself to its boundaries and the realities of the capitalist world beyond it.

Revolutions must stay international in character, otherwise the most exploitative mode of production will win.

It doesn't have anything to do with "Anarchists", what's happening is that the wives of the cops got fed up with their husbands low wages and now they are stopping their husbands from working. The "strike" it's actually being done by an angry mob of waifus hue. This has caused the cities in Espírito Santo to revert into pure jungle savagery.

Authoritarian socialist being a gun grabber, who saw that coming? Not me I swear.

pick one and ONLY one faggot

I.e. dogmatic statements take a back seat to reality.

What you should be comparing is not "what should've been done during my perfect revolution" vs "what was done". What you should be considering is what could've been done in the given circumstances.

Do you argue for declaring war on Poland, Germany, France, Italy, and everyone else in 1925?

> These are all obstacles that shouldn't be there in a revolutionary period if the preconditions of Internationalism and bourgoeis development that Marx discussed were there.
Elaborate this bit. What do you mean "shouldn't be there"? Does this mean that revolution shouldn't have been attempted?

1) Dogma that does not take into account actual circumstances.
2) It's the most efficient, not exploitative. And Socialism was more efficient. See WWII - while German companies were busy trying to get more funding or stealing supplies from each other, Soviets were building tanks.

How do write this without realising that this validates what I've just said?

The circumstances shape the character and form of the revolution, therefore revolutionary activity must be mindful of the circumstances it will find itself in. Socialism in one country will, materially and politically, limit its scope through self-segregation. A country excluded from global economic activity will not be able to sustain enough productivity to manage capitalism, let alone attempt socialism.

I assume you've never done any reading on the topic? Because this is not what opposition to Socialism in One Country called for.

It means that the revolution ended up in circumstances it couldn't end up in, of economic underdevelopment and isolation. Bolsheviks were aware of this when the revolution started, which is why the prospects of German revolution was so important for them. Once the german communists were defeated, the necessary preparations for the exportation of the revolution was vital.

There's no dogma here, only concern for practical questions.

lol. This is youtube comments section talk.

Preferable to the capitalists taking over, lest we have a repeat of the Montreal Limo/Taxi war.

No idea. Maybe you didn't explain properly what you said?

So … hypothetically speaking, USSR will be unable to sustain enough productivity to fight off invasion of some Capitalist state? Like Germany, for example?

None whatsoever, I assure you. Not a single book or article. You are uncovering an undiscovered world for me right now.

There is more than one way to critique it. What exactly to do you argue for? That was your second post that didn't give an answer - an answer that should've been included in the post before I even asked, if I may be honest about this.

What do you mean "couldn't end up in"? Was it physically impossible for Revolution to end up in such circumstances?

And how exactly should've this "exportation of the revolution" proceeded? Apparently, you are against military invasion.

I beg to differ. You make some hard assumptions.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable argument. Within non-revisionist Marxist discourse silly tankie talks, of course.

I assume you believe that Historical Materialism is Stalin's personal invention and Socialist mode of production is inherently inferior to Capitalist, which is why it is necessary for Revolution to win on the whole planet - otherwise Socialist states will be conquered by Capitalist states?

Maybe, and maybe Stalinists just have a hard time digesting basic marxism.

Are you saying that because the Soviet Union was among the winners of WW2 (along with shitload of capitalist nations) the disputes between the Soviet Union and the capitalist world were over and they won? Also, are you saying in the end western capitalism wasn't able to outproduce the Marxist-Leninist nations that had accepted Stalin's idea of building socialism under any circumstances?

I'm not even asking those rhetorically. You sound like someone who is studying the history of the world chronologically and you've stopped by 1946. I don't want to spoil anything.

Also, all you're saying leads us to an important question: Why did the Soviet Union collapse, in your view, if it was indeed able to construct Socialism under Stalin (so we can't blame its "deformed character" arriving from its agrarian and feudal conditions, as I would) and it was, as you suggest, not threatened by the west and the other capitalist nations at all (so we can't blame imperialism, intervention or sabotage)? Was Socialism then just not … good enough? If so, the liberals are right and we against history.

And literally none of those called for a world war. You've just invented an opposition to be able to defend your theory against. What the actual, historical opposition to these ideas said about the impossibility of building Socialism in one country seem so vindicated by subsequent events that I don't even know what's the point of defending SIOC other than to LARP as a 1930's Comintern moron.

Basically, what literally every Bolshevik other than Stalin argued for. Internationalist revolution, revolution past national boundaries, and revolution occuring in enough economically and industrially developed places to be able to dictate global affairs.

i.e. I argue for Marxism.

If you struggle this much with semantics you will have a hard time when you actually try to read Marx.

Why exactly do you think an International of communist parties following a pro-Moscow line was created, other than to serve as an instrument for that?

But then again, chances that you actually read on Comintern policies globally and you know how these policies reflected Stalinist views are 0, so there's no point discussing this here.

Assumptions about what? I'm saying proletarian revolutions should occur where bourgeois development is already advanced (e.g. Marxism, and a point that Lenin and Stalin agreed with) and that any country regardless of political economy works better if it can count with as many economic and diplomatic ties as possible. What is dogmatic about this, other than to say that this piece of common sense doesn't apply because one dictator decades ago said it shouldn't?

Nothing of what you've said is Historical Materialism. Like I said, this is youtube comments section talk. It's a logic that collapses when applied past the dimension of a Hearts of Iron game.

You don't even have to study Marxism and have an economic view of history to acknowledge that, if country X and Y start with two different modes of productions and two different class characters, the preexistent conditions and preexistent material circumstances might affect their outcome.

"Win on the whole planet" is hyperbole and, once again, you showing a lack of understanding of Marxism, because to say the entire planet is ready to take the same equal step towards the same direction is to assume they are all economically, and materially, ready to take this step. In reality, different countries are at different stages of development, demanding different policies with different class character.

Revolution doesn't need to happen in the entire world, but it needs to occur in (or eventually affect) the core capitalist countries, and in enough countries to be able to sustain itself without having to change its political economy to adapt itself to a capitalist global system. The specifics I've mentioned a bove.

It can be conquered, it can be sabotaged, it can fall on its own after failing to match the rest of the capitalist world, as much as some of us which this would not have been the case.

fuck off liberal

This always baffles me. How unaware some leftist are that the 20th century left is dead as fuck. In some way you're still eating from the trashcan.

I don't know how it works for anarchists, but socialists tend to think guns are essential for self-defense when you're still building left-wing institutions and networks within capitalism.

We're concerned with paramilitary shit, with the affiliation of crime and capital, with a police force that thinks we can't fight back and so on, all while we're doing legal, legitimate organizing that we should be allowed to, by law. Things like that have happened in history, and still happen today. Here in South America for example it's pretty usual for the police to coordinate with groups in attacking protesters, unionists, etc. This is where gun ownership is important.

As far as revolution itself goes, most would agree that a significant part of the army needs to be on our side. So we're not talking about launching a war with the shit we can buy at Walmart.

It might be an allergy to Revisionism. Or false pretences.

Let's sum it up:
1) You don't know much about ComIntern.
2) You don't know much about Left Opposition.
3) You don't know much about Lenin nor Stalin.
4) You don't know much about Historical Materialism.
5) Your economic argument about SiOC had been made invalid ~70 years ago.
6) You seem to suffer from delusion that it is possible to ascertain Revolution without Civil War.

On top of this all you are unable to work with sources. Ergo, you are useless despite the impression you've been trying to give. Apologies for wasting your time, I honestly expected more.

If you need a convincing story, you can visit /marx/. Though, I would ask you to discuss things in "questions about USSR" thread, not general Marxist theory (Marxism and Revisionism): it's been getting off-topic lately. I might have to ask Ismail to clean things up a bit.

Explain where I'm wrong

Explain where I'm wrong

Explain where I'm wrong

Explain where I'm wrong

Explain where I'm wrong

I haven't even said anything even close to this lmao

I can easily start sourcing shit, and I tried to avoid quoting since the posts were already lenghty enough without them. I'm trying to save our time here.

But please, start expanding on your previous positions with sources.

It's so freaking cute to imagine you trying to reply to my previous post, deciding not to, fooling yourself into thinking you could but you just don't "feel like doing it", then trying to ignore it for hours until you suddenly thought "no! I can't let him have the last word!" so you decide to come back and pathetically type insults like this, as if they would land anywhere.

I know this will come as news, but having trips and a consistent series of bad posts here doesn't mean you have a reputation to uphold or anything. You can just fuck off without consequences.

It was a joke? What the fuck…

Samefagging? You made your post eight minutes after he made his.

You made your post eight minutes after he made his.
>>>/marx/5192
>>>/marx/5193
>>>/marx/5194

I always am simultaneously enraged and amused by this picture.

Discourage gun ownership with fear tactics. Ban carrying guns into places that people are shot. Then point out that being able to carry guns hasn't stopped shootings.

No shit.

Also if someone carrying a concealed firearm actually stops what would have been a mass shooting then it obviously would not be reported as a mass shooting.

He's not.

makes you think