Coal

Liberal on liberal violence 💔

Is it that ridiculous considering the nature of that revolution, and the fact that when it does get used, 99 times out of 100 it’s always some moralist-fueled class collaborationist liberal movement that targets specific “evil” bourgeois individuals (i.e. specific billionaires, elected officials, etc) and calls for their downfall/replacement in particular rather than the class society as a whole?

I mean you can certainly use it in any way you want and there’s nothing stopping you, but for those who aren’t operating just on vibes and who know the historical class-context and the modern use of guillotines, it does have the larp connotation and sometimes can feel like a self-report.

No, it was a literal bourgeois revolution where, in an alliance with underclasses in a popular movement, the bourgeois class revolted against the upper classes of the time in an attempt to destroy feudal social relations and allow capitalism to grow more freely (which these relations harmed).

The liberal freedoms were also, in practice, freedoms for the propertied and the wealthy. This meant no more legal privileges or barriers between people if they wanted to start a business or something (as long as you have enough wealth to actually do it), weakening of the state power meaning that the powers that be can’t just suddenly change taxes, grant monopoly or confiscate property without due process, etc…

As I said, it was historically progressive but not anymore, and calling for guillotines is essentially calling for a replacement of capitalist rule by capitalist rule.

I love it when “anti-capitalist” left glazes capitalist revolutions and their iconography (guillotines), as if toppling of aristocracy and replacing them by rule of capital hasn’t been the status quo for ~150 years at this point

https://ruthlesscriticism.com/environmentalism.htm is a banger article that talks about this, you can bet that whoever says “humanity is responsible for environmental destruction!!” without any care in the world for the existence of classes and their relations as being a secret hitlerite deep in the narratives

Also, to say how tribal primitive societies and its inhabitants were actually “ones with nature” is unhelpful. Not only is the idea veering dangerously close to racism/eugenics, implication being that indigenous were somehow genetically natural and primitive/backwards while peoples of the civilization are naturally cultural, civilized but destructive (in reality it being just a matter of current mode of production and historical development), but there’s also evidence to the contrary given their lack in knowledge and/or limits in their actual interests of preservation.

most serious flavor of anarchism

Unironically though, most socialists have historically been and still are for equality (especially ones who haven’t read Marx and are in it for the vibes), so this is a perfectly valid criticism and one Marx himself made towards Lasallean Socialists in Critique of the Gotha Programme:

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

You’re right when it comes to current day, but you also have to keep in mind that there’s a tendency for profit rate to fall that cannot be simply voted or reformed away, which leads to worsening conditions for the workers as capital tries to stabilize it by making labor hours longer, taking away welfare, reducing wages, war, etc. This is actively observable, especially today with the shrinking of the ‘middle class’ in US and erosion of welfare and certain rights that were once enshrined.

Workers aren’t stupid, if it came to “starve or revolt”, a revolt will always be chosen and it has happened plenty of times in the past.

Would a fundamentally capitalist nation that couldn’t exist without and thus heavily depends on commodity production, capitalist trade, wage labor, one that actively advances the interests of capital and expands it, and one that never had proletarian character to begin with (vast majority of AES countries were a result of peasant or class collaborationist anti-colonial revolutions) that wear red while constantly contradicting Marxism with its actions and rhetoric really decide one day to do a completely 180 on it’s inherent interests and go all in on proletarian world revolution which seeks to abolish everything it relies so heavily on? If magic was real then maybe.

Besides, if the goal is world revolution, then who gives a shit about what bourgeois governments say when you’re essentially declaring a global class war? The mere existence of Soviet Russia had triggered a red scare due to a fear of revolution spreading at home, it’s unavoidable if all one needs to do is exist to be decried.

No, think USSR immediately after October revolution and Lenin actively making contact with communists abroad and having back and forths of tactics and advice, and preparing the red army in case a proletarian revolution abroad needed assistance.

AES on the other hand does the opposite, staying state capitalist or even introducing free markets by choice, with the primary goal being commodity/wealth accumulation to compete/work with capitalist states better, and internationalism being left secondary if being considered at all outside national interests. In other words, it’s just capitalist development wearing red most often for geopolitical reasons (like aligning with USSR and being able to nationalize western buildings for instance), not spreading revolution.

1. Proletarian revolutions aren’t going to happen simultaneously, and they won’t always be successful. International revolution is most likely to start within one state, or a cluster of states, after which their main goal must be to expand the revolution, lead by example and provide guidance or military aid for states that are also undergoing revolutions. This isn’t guaranteed to succeed though, as seen in USSR where most revolutions abroad got extinguished by their national bourgeois, it having to take survival measures to preserve itself and alleviate poverty due to its isolation, then eventually succumbing to counter-revolution and subsequent stalinist nonsense.

2. Revolutions cannot be delayed or for them to be “left to simmer” until perfect conditions arise, since no such thing can exist given uneven developments, different levels of influence national bourgeois have on proletariat and just different historical conditions in general. Proletarian revolutionary crises themselves are largely spontaneous, they happen with or without bodies of power (like councils, parties, etc) organizing them, and all these bodies can really do is choose whether to act upon the revolutionary crisis or not, as in whether to agitate and shape the existing class consciousness to be a fully communist one and/or taking leadership of the movement entirely and ensuring revolutionary success, etc. In other words, they can merely react, not will the revolution into existence.

Well, good job in believing anti-communist liberal narratives I guess. Truly Bolsheviks just fell out of the sky in 1917 and took everything over undemocratically with 0 support and didn’t trust “”“the people”“” (which is literally a bourgeois narrative, there’s no such thing as unified people in a nation, as class divides them).

“you cannot be anarchist and nationalist” just don’t ask anarchists about Catalonia and Rojava

You do realize that ML is far from the only ‘communist’ currents, right? There’s many other currents such as aforementioned Leftcoms (especially Italian leftcom current, growing in size mainly due to ex-ML’s who decided to read Marx) who are highly critical of stalinism and it’s derivatives, and their blatant falsification of Marx, Engels and Lenin?

This includes the rejection of AES as a concept, given how the overthrow of a global mode of production has to be realized globally and not just within one nation, which results in keeping commodity production going for international trade and reproduce the behaviors and interests of capitalist bourgeois states (in other words, historical materialism again which is talked about extensively in Marx’s The German Ideology).

There’s a good video that talks precisely about this if you don’t care for reading theory, AES:Bound to Fail?.

Communists focus mainly on the working class not because they don’t care about queer liberation (so many leftcoms are trans to the point that its become an injoke), but because of historical materialism, the concept that it’s the mode of production and advancements within it that control our behaviors, and not “independent ideas”. The current mode of production that is capitalism depends on the nuclear family structure for reproduction, and queers go against that so the ruling class propagates anti-queer ideas as a result.

Stalinoid and Maoist revolutions (China, Vietnam, other AES countries, etc) weren’t proletarian and instead were explicitly class collaborationist and anti-imperialist (seen in Vietnam’s DOI, Mao’s On New Democracy, etc) often wearing red only to get protection from USSR which has been completely subsumed by the counter-revolution long ago. They would ban gay rights or heavily promote reproduction for expansion of the workforce for national interests precisely because their goal wasn’t to get rid of commodity production or go internationalist (Marxist position), but expansion of capital, be it state owned or otherwise which is the common interest of every bourgeois state.

The only revolution that didn’t result in this was October revolution in Russia, they were almost a hundred years ahead of it’s time in regards to things like women’s and gay rights, and mind you it was still far away from actually reaching communism which they never did due to the failure of going international and subsequent stalinist counter-revolution.

Sorry for a wall of text on this meme, but ts is nonsensical anarchist slander 💔

this bedtime shit getting serious

It’s not “genocide the settlers”, but give them national determination on ethnic grounds aka ethnonationalism, which doesn’t liberate shit other than the national bourgeois of the indigenous groups - for indigenous workers, all it’d change is the color of the gallows, it’s wage labor and oppression all the way for them. Text on left-wing nationalism if interested

Besides, don’t you think this type of nationalism would inherently breed ethnic hatred, since they’re breaking free from oppression on racial rather than class-based grounds? Ask a Serb what they think of the Turkish!

It’s also literally blood and soil hitlerite narrative, as “stolen land” presupposes that land is somehow inherently private property of ethnic groups (private property is invention of class societies) rather than it materially not belonging to anyone.

“Stolen land” narrative isn’t about freedom, it’s a nationalistic delusion that would only breed division.

Ah piss off, you literally wrote an opinion that’s just straight up wrong and directly contradicts Marx’s own writings, and now you’re getting angry that I didn’t spend 100x more effort than you writing up some wall of text that nobody is going to read.

Sorry for the absolutely unreasonable suggestion to actually read and learn before acting like an expert on the topic.

I’m talking in the context of land back movements, as in “stolen land should be given back to make things fair” (i.e. the most wide-spread user of stolen land narratives, whose goal is the creation of many ethnostates), and not about if indigenous people are genetically pro-immigration or whatever.