ComradeRat

joined 5 years ago
[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nah, its even actively harmful / wasteful imo. Under socialism and communism, with society controlled by the workers, it will be difficult to make people do tons of mining, smelting, transport, etc, polluting their land and waters and destroying wildlife, just to allow some scientists far away to do fun rocket building and flying around

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/01.htm

England seems to be the rock which breaks the revolutionary waves, the country where the new society is stifled before it is born. England dominates the world market. Any upheaval in economic relations in any country of the European continent, in the whole European continent without England, is a storm in a teacup. Industrial and commercial relations within each nation are governed by its intercourse with other nations, and depend on its relations with the world market. But the world market is dominated by England and England is dominated by the bourgeoisie.

Thus, the liberation of Europe, whether brought about by the struggle of the oppressed nationalities for their independence or by overthrowing feudal absolutism, depends on the successful uprising of the French working class. Every social upheaval in France, however, is bound to be thwarted by the English bourgeoisie, by Great Britain’s industrial and commercial domination of the world. Every partial social reform in France or on the European continent as a whole, if designed to be lasting, is merely a pious wish. Only a world war can break old England, as only this can provide the Chartists, the party of the organized English workers, with the conditions for a successful rising against their powerful oppressors. Only when the Chartists head the English government will the social revolution pass from the sphere of utopia to that of reality.

For england read "the imperial hegemon", for france read "the link in the imperialist chain that breaks"

Revolutionary dictatorship gotta press the reactionary hegemon hard and fight a world war against them. Otherwise there will be no global revolution and no communism, just endless counterrevolutions forever

 

been reading Barbara Allen's biography of Shlyapnikov. Very well written and sourced almost entirely by archival stuff. But depressing because the workers' opposition gets run roughshod over by basically everyone in power (Lenin, Bukharin, Stalin, Trotsky, Molotov, etcetc). Been wondering what others' have read on the workers' opposition and what your takes are.

The 1930s have been by far the most depressing

But even the late 10s and early 20s have some "dude wtf" moments from leadership imo

Somewhat relatedly, what do folks think of the Democratic Centralists? I've actually never heard of that faction in the 1919-21 debates before

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 0 points 2 months ago

The union army sent captured confederates west to build railroads, kill buffalos and shoot natives during the civil war, as an example of how they were on the same side as settlers

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 0 points 2 months ago

Beria's in particular is closed and has never been opened to scholars afaik, unlike all the other stalin era leaders

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The bourgeois literally pay people to think for them, im not surprised their interpersonal communications read so shitty

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

This genocide is in no way beneficial to the empire.

They want the Gaza Marine Gas field. They don't want the financial risk of the Palestinian people attacking the facilities and transportation.

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

kind of them to send manure to help out the south's agriculture

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

Khrushchev? What good has Khrushchev ever done?

-Deng, 1980