Mfw accelerationism is finally kicking in

Other urls found in this thread:


Socialists or "liberalssocialists"?

The Dore-Zizek hypothesis was right. The diamat rises.

Who needs meme magic when we have diamat



A great time for Social Democracy.

50/50 but the libs are getting radicalized

DSA is being taken over by Leninists internally. The SocDems are buthurt over it.

oh yeah? sauce? would be fucking good

I do hope you're telling the truth, user.

Well that's much better than being the party with the ideology that killed Rosa Luxembourg


I am a member of DSA. My local chapter has members in high positions and more importantly, everyone knows that Jacobin is the official propaganda tool of DSA. They're moving further and further to the left. The recent Jacobin issue had articles encouraging party building with a Leninst framework in mind.

Of course I am not saying that DSA will become a typical Leninist cadre-centered party, but they are without a doubt breaking away with their Obama-endorsing bullshit.

We'll have to pretend SocDems aren't scum for long enough to win over the Berniefags to genuine socialism.

it's in the rolling stone too

How is this possible? They were supposed to start getting redpilled not becoming fucking cucks

They better have the right priorities, or this will be a huge waste of momentum.

I'll just come out and say it: I hope they don't focus on idpol.

Delicious tear

Not a very convincing false flag, comrade. Holla Forums is far too arrogant and high off their 'victory' in getting Trump elected to respond in such a way.

Bruh, it's called redpilling for a reason.


Class consciousness intensifies



Fucking nice

Go for it Yankbros

I think he was jokeposting TBH.

The same magazine that just makes up rape stories?

Next you'll be linking me infowars.

Lenin was like the first idpoller. He was the one who fell for the nationalism spook like an idiot and insisted on the creation a federation of socialist "nations" instead of just transcending that bullshit and creating a unitary state.

Illiterate anarkiddy detected

How dare him offend Saint Lenin

It was a whole lot more complicated than that.

In essence, Lenin was an imbecile when it came to the question of nationality. He should have listened more to the expert Stalin.

Illiterate anarkiddy confirmed.

t. Joseph Stalin

Next time we interact it will be about Mr. Strangelove's "objective beliefs."

How many Ave Marys do Inhave to pray to Saint Lenin for forgiveness?

t. illiterate anarkiddy



The anarkiddy diarreahposting is strong with this one.


I was also affected by accelerationsim. Was a classical liberal pre-election. Now I'm a full communist gulager type.

Against Federalism
March 28, 1917
Delo Naroda proposes to repeat in Russia the experience of the United States of 1776. But is there even a remote analogy between the United States of 1776 and the Russia of today?

The United States was at that time a congeries of independent colonies, unconnected with one another and desirous of linking themselves together at least in the form of a confederation. And that desire was quite natural. Is the situation in any way similar in present-day Russia? Of course, not! It is clear to everyone that the regions (border districts) of Russia are linked with Central Russia by economic and political ties, and that the more democratic Russia becomes, the stronger these ties will be.

Further, in order to establish a confederation or federation in America, it was necessary to unite colonies which were unconnected with one another. And that was in the interest of the economic development of the United States. But in order to convert Russia into a federation, it would be necessary to break the already existing economic and political ties connecting the regions with one another, which would be absolutely unwise and reactionary.

Lastly, America (like Canada and Switzerland) is divided into states (cantons) not on national, but on geographical lines. The states evolved from colonial communities, irrespective of their national composition. There are several dozen states in the United States, but only seven or eight national groups. There are 25 cantons (regions) in Switzerland, but only three national groups. Not so in Russia. What in Russia are called regions which need, say, autonomy (the Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Siberia, Turkestan, etc.), are not simply geographical regions, as the Urals or the Volga area are; they are definite parts of Russia, each with its own definite way of life and a population of definite (non-Russian) national composition. Precisely for this reason autonomy (or federation) of the states in America or Switzerland, far from being a solution for the national problem (this, in fact, is not its aim!), does not even raise the question. But, in Russia, autonomy (or federation) of the regions is proposed precisely in order to raise and solve the national problem, because Russia is divided into regions on national lines.

Is it not clear then that the analogy between the United States of 1776 and the Russia of today is artificial and foolish?

Is it not clear that in Russia federalism would not, and cannot, solve the national problem, that it would only confuse and complicate it by quixotic attempts to turn back the wheel of history?

No, the proposal to repeat in Russia the experience of America of 1776 will positively not do. The transitional half-measure, federation, does not and cannot satisfy the interests of democracy.

The solution of the national problem must be as practicable as it is radical and final, viz.:

1) The right of secession for the nations inhabiting certain regions of Russia who cannot remain, or who do not desire to remain, within the integral framework;

2) Political autonomy within the framework of the single (integral) state, with uniform constitutional provisions, for the regions which have a specific nationalcomposition and which remain within the integral framework.

It is in this way, and in this way alone, that the problem of the regions should be solved in Russia.*

Author's Note

* This article reflects the attitude of disapproval towards a federal form of state which prevailed in our Party at that time. The objection to constitutional federalism was most distinctly expressed in Lenin's letter to Shaumyan of November 1913. "We," Lenin said in that letter, "stand for democratic centralism, unreservedly. We are opposed to federation. . . . We are opposed to federation in principle—it weakens economic ties, and is unsuitable for what is one state. You want to secede? Well, go to the devil if you can bring yourself to sever economic ties, or, rather, if the burden and friction of ‘cohabitation' are such that they poison and corrode economic ties. You don't want to secede? Good, but then don't decide for me, and don't think you have the ‘right' to federation" (see Vol. XVII, p. 90).

It is noteworthy that in the resolution on the national question adopted by the April Conference of the Party in 1917, 3 the question of a federal structure was not even mentioned. The resolution spoke of the right of nations to secession, of autonomy for national regions within the framework of the integral (unitary) state, and, lastly, of the enactment of a fundamental law prohibiting all national muh privileges whatsoever, but not a word was said about the permissibility of a federal structure of the state.

In Lenin's book, The State and Revolution (August 1917), the Party, in the person of Lenin, made the first serious step towards recognition of the permissibility of federation, as a transitional form "to a centralized republic," this recognition, however, being accompanied by a number of substantial reservations.

"Approaching the matter from the point of view of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution," Lenin says in this book, "Engels, like Marx, upheld democratic centralism, the republic — one and indivisible. He regarded the federal republic either as an exception and a hindrance to development, or as a transitional form from a monarchy to a centralized republic, as a ‘step forward' under certain special conditions. And, as one of these special conditions, he mentions the national question. . . . Even in regard to England, where geographical conditions, a common language and the history of many centuries would seem to have ‘put an end' to the national question in the separate small divisions of England—even in regard to that country, Engels reckoned with the patent fact that the national question was not yet a thing of the past, and recognized in consequence that the establishment of a federal republic would be a ‘step forward.' Of course, there is not the slightest hint here of Engels abandoning the criticism of the shortcomings of a federal republic or that he abandoned the most determined propaganda and struggle for a unified and centralized democratic republic" (see Vol. XXI, p. 419).

Only after the October Revolution did the Party firmly and definitely adopt the position of state federation, advancing it as its own plan for the constitution of the Soviet Republics in the transitional period. This position was expressed for the first time in January 1918, in the "Declaration of Rights of the Toiling and Exploited People," written by Lenin and approved by the Central Committee of the Party. This declaration said: "The Russian Soviet Republic is established on the principle of a free union of free nations, as a federation of Soviet national republics" (see Vol. XXII, p. 174).

Officially, this position was affirmed by the Party at its Eighth Congress (1919).4 It was at this congress, as we know, that the program of the Russian Communist Party was adopted. The program says: "As one of the transitional forms towards complete unity, the Party recommends a federal amalgamation of states organized on the Soviet pattern" (see Program of the R.C.P.).

Thus the Party traversed the path from denial of federation to recognition of federation as "a transitional form to the complete unity of the working people of the various nations" (see "Theses on the National Question" 5 adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern).

This evolution in our Party's views on the question of a federal state is to be attributed to three causes.

First, the fact that at the time of the October Revolution a number of the nationalities of Russia were actually in a state of complete secession and complete isolation from one another, and, in view of this, federation represented a step forward from the division of the working masses of these nationalities to their closer union, their amalgamation.

Secondly, the fact that the very forms of federation which suggested themselves in the course of Soviet development proved by no means so contradictory to the aim of closer economic unity between the working masses of the nationalities of Russia as might have appeared formerly, and even did not contradict this aim at all, as was subsequently demonstrated in practice.

Thirdly, the fact that the national movement proved to be far more weighty a factor, and the process of amalgamation of nations far more complicated a matter than might have appeared formerly, in the period prior to the war, or in the period prior to the October Revolution.

J. St.

December 1924

Same here bro, but I was a centrist liberal.

You mean the fairytales of marx as his bourgy buddy engels?


i'll send a request to the central party HQ to oficially call this the Dore-zizek effect


That dialectic really is in motion. I knew some libertarians were our friends.


ITT people who are unable to differentiate democratic socialism and social democracy

It's still shit, ask Allende how it went.


For the record DSA, while having an explicitly anti-racist/anti-sexist stance, is so heavily focused currently on local level union building and other community projects and initiatives that they are called brocialists by other socialist orgs just for not prioritizing idpol fights.

Most chapters are divided by subcommittees that focus on different explicit goals so they don't step on each others' toes anyway so worst case scenario you just don't join the "anti-racism" subcommittee or whatever

Jacobin has had some pretty good articles about the pit falls of liberal idpol and deeply triggering and problematic rhetoric and supposedly they and the DSA are affiliated.

Honestly though I think a balance has to be found. Leftists shouldn't act like hysterical SJW's and use there type of extreme rhetoric and hyperbole.

At the same time though if we can portray ourselves as effective defenders of the non-white working class this would be great propaganda for liberals, an effective recruiting
tool in those communities, and a way to live up to our anti-racist principles.

haha did not realize anti-w*hite → deeply triggering and excellent

Thats pretty clever mods

Yeah the new left friendly term circling all the socialist orgs is "performative allyship"

Which basically means "virtue signaling" but without being so broad as to encompass all possible expressions of virtue. Things like Amy Schumer/Taylor Swift style feminist bullshit

Go away, Democrat. You bourglibs don't give the orders anymore.

not an argument

what part of what I said do you disagree with?

You've got a lot to learn, newfriend

That's interesting. Its why I support the smashies somewhat, even though it alienates a lot of people. I hope if shit gets fucked for muslims/hispanics with Trump people remember who was causing ruckus on his inauguration day.

Things are definitely moving in that direction. Our local #NoBanNoWall event was almost entirely dominated by speakers talking about american hegemony and the influence of capital on these sorts of oppressive policies

DSA joined.

1a. Who the fuck is "us"? Who in the fuck are you presuming to speak for?
1b. Liberals are far-right disease vectors with a desire to evangelize their personal house-slave status as divine and coerce other people into working out that liberal's personal dramas. What, exactly, do we need them for, and why, exactly, do we need to treat them as peers instead of the hollow, arrogant figureheads they are?
1c. Human shields aside, their predictable and tediously egoistic voices are worse than useless and leftism has no need for them without them shutting the fuck up with their crackwhore ideology.
2. Aspirationalism and progressivism are teleological bullshit that have no business in the reality-based community, let alone the reality-based left.
In sum,
*** Liberal ideology is a cancer that sucks everything to the right.
I would hope that people strutting their missionary fervor to bring the Good News to the classcucks of the world will fucking decontaminate these people before letting them "in."

I meant what I said. Not just any liberals. Those liberals.

Who the fuck are you even quoting? That whole post was a really long-winded way to say "I don't like liberals" without actually making any substantive points about anything anyone here is actually saying.

If you don't want to do stuff IRL that's find no one's making you but don't pretend it's because every single organization is just secret liberals. Hell if you hate the DSA so much I encourage you to join the ISO or SA or IWW or fucking anything.

Great. We get to see the mistakes of the new left all over again.

If only it were a matter of not liking liberals. I simply think they are terminally cucked by their ideology and insufficiently peer-oriented to stop themselves hindering socialism by imposing their small-minded dramas on it and demanding everyone else cater to them as if their essence were important.
I see how an explicitly anti-communist ideology of perpetual struggle toward individual excellence is insidious to any form of collectivism. Do you? What purpose does their crap ideology serve?
They can come in when they stop trying to please their betters like lickspittle Commonwealthers and dump dissatisfaction as an identity. Until then, they are entitled to nothing from us.

Again, no one is advocating this. Even the use of the word "propaganda" has a connotation of changing their beliefs, not assimilating or incorporating them.

Like it or not you have to convince the working class to have a working class movement, and the vast majority of the working class are liberals of different stripes (including right-libertarians and conservatives who somehow thing they aren't liberals). Having a discussion about how to best proselytize to those people doesn't make one a liberal.

I don't even like anarchists but holy shit dude. watching unruhe doesn't count as reading

Do it. Become a comrade m8.

Are you part?

Whew, straight into the fucking trash it goes. I was actually thinking of joining them recently.

Do it breh. Biggest, most based marxist party in the USA, and it is growing.

DSA is brimming full of left-liberals. They will recruit virtually anyone who lies to the left of the democrats.

Meh I recruit for DSA and actively encourage people to check out both. I literally give zero fucks where someone ends up as long as they end up in an active org. At the local level 95% of the fights and activity are exactly the same anyway

I'm a reluctant tankie and I'm going to a DSA meeting next week.


what the fuck is that image


Pretty great until the CIA and the fascists stepped in.

I'm in the same international, the Australian section called the Socialist Party. Confusingly there is a socialist alternative in Australia too but thats a cliffite group.

No one in SPUSA here?

muh small party :'(

i just wanted to join something and help. these people are serious about revolutionary socialism and see violence as the most probable way it could be established, but they are also full force IdPol


Check out the Socialist Equality Party. They probably have the most theoretically sound and hardline stance on idpol, and place a huge emphasis on the lessons of history, especially applied to the various """leftist""" orgs that turn to class collaborationism and diversionary politics.

Please have mercy on me!

don't expect such luck, even if it's your sexual fantasy.

kill the ugly nationalist crackers which are 99.9% of the nationalists.

Fourth International

Not an argument xDDDDDDDDDD

I say the 4th international was the biggest cause of splitting the movement (other than the adhesion thing in the 3rd), and that Trots have generally been impotent and sectarian in the interim
Fight me

Are you actually arguing that the anti-Stalinist left "split the movement" in rejecting Stalinism? That's kinda begging the question, innit?

What cities is DSA largest in?

NYC and SF I believe, though we've had rapid influxes recently so this could easily have changed.

too bad most of them are just edgy liberal larpers who wouldn't have cared at all if there was a democrat in the white house.
when democrats wins 2020 they will go back to normal again.
just look how liberals went from being anti-war under the Bush era to either pro-war (or just ignoring the wars) under Obama.
and no i'm not saying Trump and his followers are any better.

And then turn them into liberal parties.

Something similar happened during the Bush era and guess what? Not only was he reelected, they all fucked off when Obama appeared.

Why? Plain Marxism should be enough.

Unfortunately just because a SJW group of whiners calls themselves socialist does not mean they even have a clue about it more than the average righty does.

Literally just a news outlet ran by a capitalist.

SEP are a sad joke.


i mostly hate liberals tbh

Fair enough.
Anyway stop sperging out over why people get radicalized and take advantage of it. I bet no one on the far right is that particular about who's allowed to be radicalized into their movement at the "right" time

but they aren't really radicalized.
just as a previous poster pointed out, the same shit happend under Bush, but when Obama came they disapeared.
I have a hard time believing this wont happend this time.
let's be honest. these protesters aren't upset at capitalism, or americas imperialism. thats not what they are protesting against.
They are angry because Trump won't pander to their liberal idpol.

This is a unique opportunity to radicalize. People did not turn to socialism even in name after Bush won. And despite your memory of his overall presidency it can be hard to remember he was overall very popular until after the Iraq War disaster.

What we're seeing now is unprecedented. I can tell you now I've been in anti-imperialist demonstrations and groups for a long time and the ones for Bush came nowhere near to what we're seeing today. Also keep in mind we're in the post-OWS world, which was an explicitly leftist movement formed in opposition to establishment Democrats. That along with the recent Bernie campaign shows that the class-divide rhetoric is there and has ample support, even if those two movements themselves weren't properly socialist.

There was an anti-war movement against Bush and to it's credit it was fast and harsh against him, as Chomsky points out it was the first time in history a war was protested before it was even really "declared." Aside from that the Clinton and Bush years were a fucking dreadful time to be politically active.

Other than the anti-war sentiment there was still a general faith in the system. People were high on clintonism, the bubbles hadn't burst Obama hadn't goatzee'd for Wall Street after the biggest financial crash since the Great depression. People thought if one party failed the other might save them…. I think you would be hard pressed to find a significant number that truly believe that still. There are still delusional people but there is an awareness I think most people have across the political spectrum that politics as usual is broken and simply wont do anymore. Trump and Brexit are results of that, they're misguided revolutionary potential being shunted sideways.

People want other options but they don't know where to go. The faith they had once before is gone and even the people they want to trust are irredeemably corrupt. That is why this is a radical moment and the Bush Era wasn't. There is a convergence between knowing things don't work at all and knowing the traditional options given will be a failure.

lol weak af

Allahu Akbar


kys faggot

More like socdem support groups.

For shame smh.

Holy fuck. I haven't seen that word in 15 years.

Trots are basically idpolers?

Socialists = niggers and kikes

Real americans aka whites are actually getting more right wing by every generation

really made me think

Trump got less votes than Romney.

Just think about that for a second, before you open your dumb mouth.

lurk more retard

wtf I hate socialism now

So basically, what you're saying here is that the only way you can have your revolution is by using sub-humans.


Ok and what is your point?


Trump is a Stalinist commissar though.

This, basically.

It's supposed to be a part of the "Transitional Program"

Who cares tho? These are some of the most unfit, least maintained groups on the planet.
Literally zero of them have ANY sort of technical background, and also zero of them have basic military training.

Those feminists will never be able to lift as much as men, this is a fact, their biology does not allow them same lung capacity, bone density, or muscle mass.
Those trannies are mentally ill, doesnt matter what gender they are or are trying to be, it wont be as fit as a proper male.
Those niggers and shitskins other than Asians will never be as intelligent as your average white person, check out the bell curve.
This is a sad gathering of women and limp wristed hipster 'males'. Welfare rabble. Fat people. Junkies.

Say what you want about those right wingers, but even the lowest of the low over there need to abide by some general rules, rules that make people better. It gives people some ideals that are positive. Anti-welfare for example forces even the worst of them to do their best and get some shitty job. Anti-degeneracy creates peer pressure not to do any drugs. Fitness is encouraged.
More serious of them join the army and volunteer for wars or peace missions just to get some fighting experience they can carry back to their groups, that's some dedication.

In case of any serious conflicts, I dont think these social media activists virtue signalling sheep would hold their own against those innawoods fanatic ammo stockpiles all over the country gun hoarding anti drugs fit lifters who did six years in the army. These people know how to use mortars, and radio each other, coordinate, fix your position in a cover with a machine gun fire while the other team flanks you and throws a grenade at you, relocating after small bursts, shoot at you without the barrel sticking out the window, etc etc.

What's the point of any kind of marching with flags if only one or two people in the whole movement can enforce any political demand, and zero are equipped to do so??

is this a pasta or did someone let Holla Forums out of the cage again


Look at the picture. What are half of these women and faggots gonna do? Hell, that isnt even a fucking march, they are all just kinda standing there. You can tell them all 'fuck off' and that would pretty much did it. Zero consequences of ignoring them all. Zero real power.

Meanwhile look at those white nationalist people.


Did you even get anywhere near accomplishing other than this nigger did with his life?

Yeah . . . your movement is looking real "white" right now.

comrade jeb would like to have a word with you

You have to post pics to prove you are white.

just take a look at your average right wing organized movement
they tend to get shit done

Scandis have these 'Sons of Odin' that goes around police no-go zones and protect its citizens.
Serb volunteer paramilitaries and irregulars pulled off genocides, displaced ~10 million people.
Whole eastern Europe in general is pretty insane, Ukraine even got the whole country overthrown.
American ones tend to be fat but well equipped, they even managed to successfully bomb FBI building a while back.
In Germany, basically half of wehrmacht is kept on the list because nobody but right wing nationalists ever join the army.
Etc etc.



This getting good man. Liberals are getting cucked. Middle of the road people are now opening up Marx. Conservatives and Holla Forums blinded by their victory of the least popular democrat nominee in a long time. Trump is clearly senile and losing it more day by .

Dude you've had a 30 year head start. Get your ass ready.

In principal o agree with Lenin here but it still would have been nice to have a system in Russia where there are "laboratories of socialism" where they are all allowed to experiment with different versions of socialism to figure out what works best kinda like what happens in America with all the different state governments having different sets of laws.

kek, that webm

I'm probably going to join

Looking to join DSA once I have some spare cash. Hopefully I can start a chapter and get it going where I'm at before I move later this year.

The fact that I knew what it was like under Bush should have indicated to you I'm too old to be here.

Holla Forums is none of these things!

You wish. Most people here don't even read Marx, so I don't see why Libshits would. And even if they did, they'd probably just reinterpret him not to offend the hegemony of thought within which they function.

You really underestimate the dialectics in motion lad

If WW1 followed by the Great Depression weren't enough to wake people up, neither will the present troubles.


But those events did work people up and wake them to the problems of Capitalism. Next to Russia America had the most violent labor movement of the time.

It started getting more and more popular everywhere, why else did you think the red scare happened to flush them out and associate them with Hollywood and not the actual violent laborers like the miners?

Historically speaking this is a blink of an eye.

While violence probably isn't on the menu, I doubt collective labor rights won't.

But they did user, that is why America had to spend thirty years starting in the thirties/ forties doing internal purges at home and in Europe.

To be fair, liberalism presupposes a "guiding class" to infantilize those who might have self-interests in opposition to the order. Communication is, for now and in some ways, easier and less intermediated than then, which routes around that self-absorbed, entitled bourgeoisie.
In the meantime, work on getting your samizdat channels established.

You are never too old, comrade. You are also never too young.

So after the apocalyptic murder of an entire generation by the bourgeoisie followed by the complete failure of the system, we got nothing but a strong but not essentially revolutionary labor movement which was subsequently crushed. Now the circumstances are far less dire and the power of the state is far greater. Not seeing much cause for celebration here.

That's why you realize working out how to take over the United States is some pointless shit, and you pool your money together in order to establish a policed commune free of state.

It would be amorphous enough through the internet and instant communication not to be so much a centralized place as previous communes have but a decentralized one, to match an equally decentralized state.

You just have to think of strategies. There's more than you think there are.

Unrhue is a maotist, not a stalinist.


Sounds like pointless lifestylism.

leftypol sounds like pointless lifestylism

Meh. Federations are as good as their communication links and their ability to exclude infil traitors.



You have discovered the hidden preamble to every feminist's theory.

Well lets be clear I'm optimistic but I'm not crazy optimistic. There are good signs that people are waking up and that our ideas are being taken more seriously. There is one small difference though, people had a taste of a better life they never had in the early part of the last century. Losing something you had is far worse than losing something you never had before. The economic well being for most Americans is gone and wont be returning any time soon under the current order of things. I think most people under stand that now as I talked about here

You are under playing what happened here in 10's 20's and 30's America didn't just have a strong communist party we were considered the country most likely "to go USSR" for a few decades in the early part of the last century. It took a lot of propaganda, concessions, violence and shaming to stop this. A lot of that violence was also done in secret, something that would be harder to do now.

On the downswing we don't know how bad things will get in this particular arc of history. Trump being president isn't a normal circumstance we mask that a lot here. It is probably so we don't don't scream about the insanity but this is truly a bizarre turn of events. I doubt he will be the fascism 2.0 liberals think he will be but what I do expect him to be is a massive disaster policy wise. Just how bad is the real question. A lot of the situations happening today mirror those of previous bad times. Secret alliances, next level corruption, capitalism going full retard on ideology.

Things have to be tried, you can shame it at it's inception, but merely just hating on other peoples attempts to make a better world isn't enough to make shit happen.

What would you call an American tankie ?
Yank tanks

Oh I have a point, it's just leftypol sucks at getting anything done and its pointless lifestyle shit

I could come up with a list of things unrelated to collectivism you want to focus on more than collectivism

It sure is a fuck of a lot

A traitor.

Glad that gopher looking albinoid is dead

It's not even that. This is just a place to relax and shitpost. Don't take imageboards so seriously.

You are part of the problem.

Oh fuck off liberal. Engels was a capitalist, does that make the First International shit?

I'm trying to do shit in real life. You're retarded if you think we should do anything productive here beyond produce memes.

Trump appears to be bringing the contradictions of capitalism to the fore with his protectionism and plans to engage in a trade war with China. Amusingly China is under internal as well as external pressures to balance its economy towards internal consumerism, as it is too export and investment-heavy. It is very likely that China will let RMB appreciate and focus more on developing its internal markets.
The US chooses this very moment to engage in a trade war? Seems irrational.



That's where you're wrong. Organizations and meetups help quite a bit with longevity and staying power. You'd need that in a protracted ideological trench war lasting 4 or 8 years.

I'm usually the first to call people out in a thread on people saying the alphabet soup isn't a real threat. No they are a threat and you need to be aware of that. That being said the opposite extreme of doing nothing because you're paralyzed by fear with government spooks is also dangerous. Governments constant surveillance and attempts to infiltrate organizations is a reality, if you let that stop you from doing any actions or attempting any change nothing will ever get done. You have to feign freedom in an unfree world and hope for the best.

Already been responded to by actual trots

Stop posting this frog.
It's a racist and homophobic meme(USER WAS SENT BACK TO THE ADL FOR THIS POST)

Lasting until democrats win and they forget radical lolitics forever.

These fags can never resist the urge to smear the Green Party can they?

Look at me.

Look at me.

I'm the Red Menace now.

How appropriate

It's shit precisely because it didn't have an answer when reactionaries were actually willing to use force; Allende was reluctant to arm the workers (even passing a gun control act) and to do anything without the Congress. All while the masses (mostly under guidance of the MIR) were seizing factories and farms, and building embrionary organs of dual power (the cordones industriales)

t. Chilean

Would Pinoche have been able to successfully seize power without US backing?

Your a cuck

if ur an aus pls dont


I know the facts, so their analysis is wrong. Typical no true scotsman sectarian Trot bullshit.

Truly a compelling argument you have set forth, COINTELPRO

Are we going to see these facts?


The facts are that the US Greens just passed an anti-capitalist plank with nearly unanimous support and applause at their last national meeting. At said convention it was described as "the most important plank we have ever passed". And having been around national leaders it's very clear to me that the majority opinion among individuals is the same. Calling them a "bourgeois party" and saying that they're hostile to class struggle is hysteric hyperbole.

And here is a facebook sample of one of the national Green party co-chairs. It may be misguided smashie shit, but you can't sincerely call this bourgeois apologism.

Of course the next line will be "it's not real socialism, these people are just virtue signalling".

You say they just passed it. Immediately prior the language read:
Truly a paragon of revolutionary socialism
So has the leadership or essential class character of the party meaningfully changed in the meantime? No?

You unsurprisingly focus on the plank and not the full program, which has its own issues

I know the facts, probably better than you. I say "are we going to see them?" so that you have to prove your claims, rather than alluding to some proof that exists "somewhere."

I guess you think the Democratic and Republican parties are the same as when they were formed then too. People change and so do parties, especially when an influx of new people arrives.

Even the fucks in your pics look like fucking ex-cons, which they probably are.


How is the PSL group, it's the only group in my area?

No, of course not. Cause when you pay attention to history, you tend not to miss things like that.

So I direct you to my earlier question. What has changed, in the party's leadership or essential class character?

i know who you are :^)

PSL is nice and very focused on explicitly revolutionary socialism. They do have stalinist tendencies in that I believe they still support DPRK and Cuba totally.


The Spectacle is catching up, Zizek was right

They have never and probably will never have a working-class base because their connections between class struggle and environmentalist struggles are weak.

They are at best a placeholder for a working-class party (which is what it should be called: worker's party, labor party, socialist party, not "green party) which leftists can utilize when they want to do electoral stuff.

Right now the best thing that the green party could do is abolish itself or merge with a major socialist org.

Also, their fetish w/ electoral politics in general is sad and building the broader socialist left is way more important then spending time and effort taking on impossibly difficult voting laws for third parties.

That's kind of the point of a political party. You do realize the Greens engage in non-electoral activism and outreach all the time though right?


Oh nice I can get over those points for an active revolutionary group. Kinda odd that only a hardcore group is around in the middle of the south

Well said.

This is what counts as "deep lyrics" to Clinton liberals.

>That's kind of the point of a bourgeois political party
The point of a leftist party is not the electoral charade, as electing socialists to the bourgeois apparatus doesn't fundamentally change its function, but building mass rank and file opposition to capitalism in the schools and workplaces, and organs of workplace democracy to take over for the capitalist state.

You need these, regardless of how and when the actual revolution comes about. Whether "spontaneous," whether through a military coup, whether the product of a program of "transitional demands," whatever. Beyond the notional "organizing" efforts, which have come to mean just about any kind of agitation, there is a definitive need for the working class to actually be organized.

People seem to latch on to any "exception that proves the rule" to defend their pet orgs. A statement nominally opposing capitalism just isn't enough, as the ISO, CPUSA, Syriza, and a myriad of other pseudo-left groups have shown time and again.

I know this might count as a problem to liberals but I'm really not comfortable

What do you mean catching up?

Good. It's the 23rd most trending video on youtube and has some semblance of class-consciousness.

Also, the Larry Website guy who's one of the "faces" of DSA, was on Delete Your Account and said his end goal is to basically get people to join with Sanders-style politics, and then get them into Marxism.