Sovietfangirl

...

...

If Nazi Germany existed nowadays people would praise them for being anti-imperialist.

Tell us something new, these lads praise the fucking DPRK.

Not the anarchists, probably.

dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html
libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.nl/2011/05/manifesto-of-sixteen-1916.html

Holla Forums's anti-imperialist qt is better.

This is the point when I know TwitterTankies are just attention seekers. Even PhilGreaves doesn't go as far to say DPRK is socialist but does support it because anti-imperalism

Phil Greaves has ideological convictions and pursues them to the point of being deranged, but he still has ideological convictions. Most twitter tankies aren't on his level and just LARP and masturbate over anything non Western because it's edgy.

who is this ayy lmao

How well does she compare with /ourgal/ in the alphabet department

Syrian girl.

Have you pledged your (critical) support of Hitler yet in his fight against soviet imperialism?
t. trotskyists

Yeah, Phil made a lifelong commitment to sad, autistic, fringe political groups. Woke Tankie-ism is just people born in the mid to late 90s having a phase.

GTFO

Trotsky said the Soviet Union should have invaded Germany when it was still fighting on another front in France breh. He also defended its invasion of Finland.

That slang for chebs?

tbf Trot orgs never really pursue a coherent line these days. Like I've seen different Trot orgs voice support for literallly every different faction in Syria, including ISIS.

I started following random comrades on twitter and holy fuck, the amount of pro-dprk shit I see now is outrageous

phil thinks syria is socialist

Yes

Mimi a cute!

Arab Socialism is not socialism?

Bashar isn't practising Arab Socialism lmao

No. Read Marx.

i want to breed those lips

This is so fucking tiring so I'll just finish the conversation with myself.

Where exactly was Socialism defined EXCLUSIVELY as 'worker owned memes of production' and in what way is that sit relevant today?

...

Your understanding of ML is meme-tier.

Nowhere, because that's not the definition of socialism.

Do you think socialism starts with the way profits are distributed or with equal shareholding?

b8

ML *is* meme-tier.

Shes bad but not the worst by far. That Jacobin tweet today took me into some of the worst "radical" corners of Twitter I have ever seen.

Your webm sums it up nicely. Real socialism™ is a utopian fantasy. Actual working 'socialism' is limited to state capitalism, coops or redistribution. Unless you have something else?

I think they mean that sovietfangirl and her beta orbiters have a meme tier understanding of ML, and use it just to make themselves feel good

No, "working socialism" is the utopian vision, because it retains all characteristics of capitalism in but a new form: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

And you're out of luck, because that webm was merely part 1.

May I interest you in this novel form of information exchange called 'book'. There are some really interesting ones out there. You might be able to actually learn something rather than be a socdem cuck all your life

Exactly.

ayyy lmao

Toppu kekko.

...

DSL

why are the few female tankies always complete thots?

Looks to me like its part 15. Your Marx-speak is not helping me see what real Socialism would/should look like. My real issue here is that so many posters disown what was done in the name of Socialism in the past yet offer no alternative model for what an acceptable Socialism looks like.

DELETE!!!!

I would put my dick between those tits.

...

Watch the whole thing: youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7.

There's your first problem: thinking socialism is to be designed at the drawing board. Just like capitalism, bourgeois revolutions did not establish capitalism as we know it today. What happened was that they abolished the institutions and functions of feudalism icongruent with their class interests and slowly but surely, a mercantile mode of production based on proprietorship and production for market exchange was established.

It seems to me like your problems could all be solved by spending a few hours investigating basic Marxist texts on the subject, but that the problem before that lies in what is either illiteracy or a wilful desire to remain ignorant.

...

YOU WOULD LIKE THAT WOULDN'T YOU

So even this.
How do we abolish the current owner-rentee/employer-employee relations? Sincerely, I wanna know.
rude… I read as far as this
And it got m thinking, was Marx the first anti-positivist?

yeah man

i doing it and you can't stop me

We engage in revolution, establishing a dictatorship of our class (the proletarian class) which systematically abolishes all elements pertinent to the capitalist mode of production, ushering in a socialist mode of production, synonymously known as the lower phase of communism. Depending on which kind of socialist you ask, Marxist, Leninist, anarchist, etc. the road towards the insurrection and the shape this insurrection should take will differ, but the desired end result is all the same: a society without the state, money and wage labor.

Marx was one, but probably not the first anti-positivist. What he was in general was the anti-everything, because he saw that people who do not take a constitutive worldview through the lens of materialist discourse analysis will always fall into myopic idealist thinking.

His most famous work, Capital, was subtitled "critique of political economy". In this, Marx was not just critiquing capitalism, but the entire field that preoccupies itself with economic analysis under capitalism. This is because in its efforts to analyze the economy as an atomized and immutable thing, they (economists) too fell for worldviews in which the present state of things is eternal, which is why all economists almost unanymously stood for little more than reforming the current mode of production or fooled themselves into thinking that their novel ideas to change it would always fundamentally fail to see this mode of production for what it is in its entirety, with all of its elements. A part of Engels' work I linked here also opposes precisely the kind of so-called socialists who think as such economists; social democrats, Lassalleans, Kautskyists, Taylorists, etc.

Can't argue with those digits. Enjoy.

...

How tho. This is the bit I've not seen satisfactorily answered. Ever. And I'm not being obtuse here. I mean literally, how? Most money today is digital. Behind digital is property. Digital money is easy to out a state if things go tits up and property is only valuable if somebody is willing to pay for it. A revolution on a national scale will see these assets disappear. So I get why most of you here are internationalist. Now this raises the question, how do you unify a global movement and make sure that hidden agenda entrists don't jew you out of it? We're left with either Stalin it and win or wait for a change in human nature/product of environment/both.

I appreciate the spoonfeeding and realise I should be thinking through this shit for myself but when I do I cannot get over the massive gulf in cultural practice and tradition around the world, and how at present this is a stumbling block. And so I land on a Nationalist solution centring around self-sufficiency.

I don't know who she is, but from the looks of it, poor hygiene and fish lips.

Investigate what each tendency of socialists have to suggest. Marx himself never really laid out more than a rough sketch of things, and this came to be what many socialists devised an actual programme on, but near-exclusively Marxist communists. What you're asking me to do here is lay out something massive, something also dependent on the present condition of capitalism we are faced with, et cetera. There's mounds of literature to read for this in various flavors.

Most money has formally been digital in the sense that it is a method of enumerating exchange value, perhaps even primitivaly "digital" in the literal sense when we look at how accounting functioned without actual cash transaction for years.

Money is a commodity with an entirely fictitious, socially upheld basis that serves the function of exchange value approximator. Money's functionality is upheld single-handedly by the bourgeois state, because it is this bourgeois state that institutionally validates the value of money.

We are internationalist because we recognize that socialism and capitalism cannot live side by side, because capitalism is predatory and needs to forever expand. This is why
is a utopian vision. You assume that the class of proprietors has any form of true allegiance to the nation that goes beyond its function in profiteering. It is then only logical that those who spoke of a localist solution, be it the national "socialists" in Germany or Stalin's "'socialism' in one country", all needed an ideological scapegoat to traverse this fantasy. For the former it was the Jews making national finance impossible, for Stalin it was the kulaks and revisionists impeding the otherwise perfect way of things. The nation-state is but a tool of bourgeois role; when it serves its function and the rate of profit needs to be upheld, national boundaries will be trespassed because it is the way to keeping the rate of profit healthy.

marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1959/09/nationalism.htm

LARPING Teen tankie that will probably become a liberal in a few years

She got some lips I'll give her that

judging by her mouth her problem is that she's taken a few too many punches from someone

probably an abusive father

There's more to it than this. Sure, the state (any state) will be subverted by money/gold/blowjobs but the actual foundation of a state requires something more than this. Look at Sudan and the newly formed South Sudan. You could certainly pick out an 'ideological scapegoat' if you wanted to but to say there was nothing deeper is crazy. Being poor as fuck no doubt played a part but cultural conflict was and remains real.

Tbh those are an enviable pear of lips

Some people in life aren't that lucky

Hizbollah is communism, right???

(At least she puts ISIS into the "evil" category, which is already astonishing for a Twitter anti-imperialist.)

They all h8 isis m8, it's made by the CIA

oh god you don't want to fuck her do you?

the worst of Holla Forums with the worst of teen dengist twitter, a true nightmare

Hoochie, no more soviet tit pics forthcoming. post your tits.

I'm trying to imagine making a post as obnoxious as this but even I can't

Start making sense any time now.

guess you don't read your own post then m8

Making a joke about someone's lack of lips on a skeleton shaped skull wrapped with skin on it is wanting to fuck someone.

POST 👏 YOUR 👏 TITS👏

No

reminder that Sam Kriss capped your posts and now the whole left internet thinks you're the biggest Nazi here

...