WSWS slanders pisspiggrandad

WSWS is generally all right but there are some subjects with which they must be taken with a significant grain of salt.

...

Oops I thought it said wsj

You can't expect them to be experts on weird left twitter idiosyncrasies. They do news and analysis.

Everything that doesn't mention him directly in that article is solid. Everywhere it does, it's tangential and the "misunderstandings" don't really undermine any arguments. You're just circlejerking about how you know more niche pop culture than the people who do theory as a profession.

I dunno lol but Wooswoos has been used in /leftygang/ news threads since forever

let's be honest here, how many of us have walked the same path? He's literally fighting ISIS, who cares if he did some dumb shit 10 years ago?

Who?

Getting shit on by the proto-neocons at wewswews is an honor.

Some american Jew who joined the YPG

(You)

Going by what he says: he and edgy friends were in a high school punk band and this being the Bay Area during the bush years there were a lot of angry leftists and liberals. Wanting to stand out they presented themselves as right wing heels

kek, should've thought of that sooner

I unironically wish a terrorist would attack wooswoos.

This is why everyone hates trots. Why do they spend so much time writing hit pieces on other leftists?

see

Can you name a single "leftist" they've been wrong about?

Podemos? Betrayed the working class
Syriza? Betrayed the working class
Bernie? Betrayed the working class
Salt? Betrayed the working class

I'd hardly call it a "hit piece." Did you read the article? But to answer your question
There are several reasons:
1. The failures of past "leftist" movements, and the success of diversionary tactics of the bourgeoisie (i.e. social democracy, the post-70s "new left" focus on identity) are inextricably bound up with their deficient theoretical foundations and the practice they inform - up to the unprecedented "socialism in one country" experiment and the fate of the postcolonial third world.
2. Workers' movements which do not recognize capitalism as an inherently international thing to be dismantled on the international scale, or their rival as global capital, but instead frame their struggles as those of "national liberation," are doomed to failure as they fail to resolve the contradictions of capitalism and then crumble under their weight as the bourgeoisie continues to pursue its self-interest through policy avenues as always. This has become more, not less, clear in the neocon age.
3. Those with these flawed foundations (namely Stalinists, but the German SPD and several others as well) played a key role in undermining and suppressing genuine revolutionary currents and thought in much of modern history, as idpol does now. It makes sense to acknowledge things like this as threats, because of the real function they have. Furthermore, capitalism thrives on reincorporating dissent back into safe, established channels, and makes it profitable for people to do so (MSM, "alternative" media, "career activist" organizers, bourgeois third parties) so it's prudent to be aware of this influence on "left" discourse.
4. Naive, undisciplined optimism leads to demoralization. In the radical student movements of the 60s, many people were convinced they had latched onto the key issues of their day and that revolution was just around the corner. When it never came and dissent was seamlessly reincorporated into the status quo, they, rather than coming around to the weakness of their own theoretical foundations, declared socialism itself was flawed and became liberal hacks in a "post-historical" world. We see this happen in almost every social movement. Far too often people take aim at those who criticize this false optimism and call them "demoralizing," but this is a deeply flawed way of thinking that absolutely must be challenged and overcome in moving forward.

Honestly, some of the people who call out WSWS strike me as the type who'd've shit on Lenin's polemics against Kautsky, or the fact that Marx critiqued the Gotha Program.

This too. Their whole thing is they don't make bombastic or speculative claims they can't defend. They've never really been wrong on matters like this. But their attention to rigor makes them "autistic," and that's baaaaaad.
COINTELPRO hard at work on Holla Forums, as always.

Whoa they must be like omniscient or something

Death to Molly Klein

No

Molly get on cum town before you die

I don't get what their problem is with a communist volunteer helping the YPG

That's fucking pointlessly nitpicky.

They should focus on other "problematic" volunteers like Tim the Cannibal

The fact that they would write means either that the writer has autism and therefore cannot pick up on social ques, unable to tell when a person is joking, or that the writer is just like the rest of the liberal media and intentionally misinterprets humor as being literal so that they can paint their victim as an evil evil bad guy whom the journalist is being a good guy by exposing.

lol

...

I love when people on the internet speculate who is and is not "unhinged" he barely even posts besides jokes and cuddling with puppies and posting pictures

These people are fucking whacked out. Everyone needs to stop playing fucking toys r us Halloween costume psychologist for ages 6 and younger

...

These jokes are the biggest conspiracy since watergate

I bet he's a Freemason too, on top of being CIA, FBI, DEA, NSA

...

Told you bros.

Read other things like Monthly Review, the ICC website (en.internationalism.org/), Chuang or even fucking Jacobin. wooswoos is Trot garbage.

I doubt Belden was actually a fascist but making fun of it by overidentifying with the ideology, I bet you think Laibach is a Fascist band too

Article was fine beyond the PPG crap. Complain in their comments section about their inability to pick up on irony or sarcasm.

Weird how they just forgot to include the part where he explained in another interview (archive.is/xdWbx) how it was an accident.

This reads like … my god, this reads like Tankie twitter.

Will common hatred for PPG finally unite Stalinists and Trots?

Relevant trots (CWI, IMT, etc) aren't autistic, it's just the SEP, Sparts, and other shite ultraleft "trotskyist" sects that are.

Why won't they just switch to being full-blown ultras anyways? I want to see bordicucks suffer from severe second-hand embarrassment.

I love that ultraleft is an insult from people that abandon Marx.

This is not a thing.

What's the difference between a leftcom and a trotskyist?

Leftcom = orthodox Marxism.
Trotskyism = workers' state.

Everything. For example leftcoms oppose entryism and parlimentary politics which is the Trotskyist bread and butter.

I see. I was confused because I know that DSA gets labeled as many things, ranging from SocDem to Trotskyists, due to their work with the ISO and PSL. However, after speaking to several members of my local DSA chapter, it seems most of them fall into Luxemburgism, a form of Orthodox Marxism.

I don't know how you can be a Luxemburgist and still be labeled a Trotskyist.

there is literally nothing on WSWS that shouldn't be taken with a mountain of salt

in fact, just dont go to WSWS

Were the people accusing DSA of trotskyism tankmen?

Luxemburgism isn't a real ideology.

Yes. Tankies claim that DSA is trotskyist. Some trotskyists claim that DSA is SocDem.

DSA members I spoke too claim to be big tent, but all of them seemed to me Luxemburgists.

It seems like they're Orthodox Marxists then. At least the Left Caucus of DSA. (the right wing caucus are the types that would endorse Elizabeth Warren or something)

anyone who takes a US-Israeli-Saudi psyop seriously enough to go fight against it while helping facilitate arms trafficking, human trafficking, drug running and illegal oil smuggling is a fucking faggot

Holla Forums is gross for constantly standing up for weird twitter goons who steal content and have family ties to nat security state

Glad to see you found your way back, Phil.

I've honestly always found Trots to be twice as toxic, sectarian, and generally autistic then any tankie I've met irl. But a lot of that might have to do with interacting with Sparts one too many times.

pretty sure the ppg is actually building socialism

A lot of the DSA, particularly older members, are still Harrington-style SocDems, and a little anti-communist as a result, but over the past few years younger members, and an influx of Marxists have been pushing the group further to the Left, and further to revolutionary politics. I assume the only reason they'd get labeled Trots is for having close ties with SALT and ISO? But I feel like they work with PSL and WWP too and no one calls them tankies kek, so idk. Either way, the Left caucus is promising, and the idea of a big tent Socialist organization is great, I don't know why sectarians are so enraged by the prospect of mass support and converting moderates and liberals to Socialism

I am thinking of joining DSA. No one has even mentioned Harrington to me, when I've been to their meetings.
Is Harrington worth reading? Just to get to SuxDem perspective?

What's Chuang comrade? Never heard of it.

Ultra-left periodical on the Chinese working class and labour movements against the state there: chuangcn.org/. Written by people close to Chinese organisers and by those people themselves too sometimes.

This journal of theirs is probably one of the best things written in the past few years on the current state of China: chuangcn.org/journal/one/.

I'd say anything's worth reading for perspective. But only the oldest members of the party still seem to read him, and it's mostly FDR-style New Deal stuff, so it's not too bad, but I don't know how relevant it is to our current moment. It might be better to just brush up on Marx, but I think everyone should be doing that so I'm biased.

oh shit, this website's web 2.0 as fuck, I will definitely be checking this out

I linked to the front side of the page and the journal section, but here is the blog side: chuangcn.org/blog/. Yesterday came a new entry on Amazon in China. That section will be most worth checking out, as it is the place with the most content. Good luck user.

PPG is an edgy fuck, but
What means of production does he work in addition to using wage labor to run?
I expected better from WSWS.

Leftism is infantile and retarded, doesn't mean Marxism is necessarily bad. There is such a thing as Right Communism, you know

Such as?

Stalinism.

but dem kulaks, bruh. totes deserves it.

Actual socialism that has worked, ie USSR, DPRK, PRC, ect

Leftcoms reject entryism and stagism, they're skeptical of the Trot and ML approach to the seizure of State power in order to nationalize the economy and create top-down reforms, as well as the idea that there needs to be a protracted "stage" of Socialism before we can achieve Communism, Leftcoms believe that the revolution must prefigure the conditions of Communism itself. Trotskyists, on the other hand mostly believe the same things Mls believe as far as I've ever seen, the only difference is that they're extremely critical of the Soviet Union and Stalin (far more so then Trotsky himself while he lived).

so, not communism
not even socialism

You just named three Socialist Republics that were never capable of actually achieving Communism. I don't personally think it's as simple as waving my hand and saying "totalitarianism" but they did fail. You do realize there's no such thing as "right communism" right? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, all of these people believed in the "fairy tale" of a completely stateless, classless society with the absence of exploitative social relations, they're end goals weren't to create authoritarian State Socialism.

You can't just make up terms to describe those systems. I'm no tankie but the USSR for example was certainly leftist, although it did not achieve communism or socialism. But whether something can be considered left or right is dependent on its ideological stance towards the economy and social relations, which the USSR sought to transform, contrasted with the extreme right for example which is understood to be a conservative revolution in the form of fascism.

Hello reddit

They were socialism, plane and simple. The means of production were owned by the state on the behalf of the workers, that's LITERALLY the definition of socialism. Sorry they were mean to gay people or whatever, but them's simply the facts.

It was socialist economically, but traditionalist in political and social terms.

That's not the definition of socialism. Why do tankies never read Marx?

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

So yeah, it was just capitalism, or "state capitalism" if we want to be redundant.

Pisspig: getting shot at defending a cause to protect the interests of the YPG and working to push back ISIS. Likes cumtown

These assholes: preferably should take pisspig's place with no training whatsoever, dropped in naked. So up their own ass they think Chapo is over rated. Hates cum town.

Lol none of those guys betrayed anybody. Ever heard of working in the system? What the fuck did UP and SA even do

Only a matter of time until they go Neocon. Typical Trots

...

A communist helping a nationalist movement, whether it's a progressive one or not, is always going to be kind of a problem.

What surprised me was that this wasn't the angle of the article worked on at all. It was all just whining about muh lifestyle and muh yuppie creds.

The question is one of the YPG's political character.
There's nothing objectively "wrong" per se with helping the YPG and shooting hajji fascists - although admitting as much might (in other contexts) bring us perilously close to the "neocon apologism" trots are constantly accused of because Christopher Hitchens was apparently a trot once upon a time - but is their model a suitable way to challenge international capital and achieve socialism? And what is the class character of this movement?

Yeah, I don't think PPG is psychotic. But sometimes, people call others "unhinged" when they act oddly or erratically (to their own point of view) like for instance, a cavalier attitude towards theory, news, and political practice steeped in le ebin pre-post-inverse-meta-irony. So, I mean, there's a culture shock here, since serious leftists don't all prowl weird left twitter to scoop up the dankest memes, but focusing on it and not the content of the article is exactly the shortsighted nitpicking you're accusing the WSWS of.

Wouldn't that just make him look more "unhinged," though?

This. It's not like they built any arguments around features of his personality. Literally not a stumbling block to anyone who comes into this not already determined to hate the site.
They don't even treat his comments as literal in the first place.

Top kek
Yeah man, we can't have self-professed "Trotskyists" who actually follow Trotsky's line, that would be far too gauche.

Into the trash it goes!

>Petite bourgeoisie (French pronunciation: ​[pətit buʁʒwazi]), also petty bourgeoisie (literally small bourgeoisie), is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance in times of socioeconomic stability is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate. [1]
>The term is politico-economic, and references historical materialism. It originally denoted a sub-stratum of the middle classes in the 18th and early-19th centuries. In the mid-19th century, the pre-eminient theorist of socio-politico-economy, Karl Marx, and other Marxist theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that comprised small-scale capitalists such as shop-keepers and workers who manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers. [2][3]
I expected better.
It's like how universities will require courses in intersectionality and then drum that up as a marketing highlight. It works as one because the social mores of the bourgeoisie signal status and success, and in attempting to study and adopt them, people chase this outward expression of success and believe on some level it will bring them closer to material success. The liberals who see "social justice training" as a personal asset are petite-bourgeoisie in this sense. Liberals who style themselves "radicals" are often chasing the bourgeois-fabricated "legacy" of civil rights greats and social justice leaders. When someone presents themselves as "leftist because I'm so radical and bohemian and ironic, fight the power, man!" instead of "leftist because I believe this explanation of society is the correct one," it naturally raises some concerns about 1. their theoretical foundations and 2. their personal motivation and political reliability. See
Not to say that such people have no place in revolution, that there are two archetypes and everyone falls into one or the other, or that PPG is necessarily one, but the socialist movement in general has been severely hampered by insufficient awareness on this matter.
It's not something I expected to be controversial. It's merely the idpol issue in broader scope. Why is idpol diversionary? What are the actual class forces behind its success? Where else do we see these same forces at work, and what are their effects? The SEP had this appropriately generalized before Occupy Wall Street, which was my turning point on the "identity" question and I'm sure many others'.

Stalinism, SocDem-ism, market socialism, etc. Generally the "pragmatic" or opportunistic strains which involve some elements of liberalism and/or class-collaborationism, like for instance "socialism in one country" or Khrushchev's "peaceful coexistence" doctrine.

Every time

The class characters of the movements are the same as those of Communalism in general, meaning they exist and are considered very important, but primarily within the sector of municipal politics.
This means that they believe that they only way to abolish classes, races, genders ect. is to put the main focus on municipal direct democracy, because emancipatory politics can only be done in tangible communities rather than intagible ones.