GarbageShoot [he/him] @ GarbageShoot @hexbear.net

Posts

13

Comments

4,025

Joined

3 yr. ago

Posts inflammatory bile directed at the entire community, and nothing besides

Bet you're gonna censor me too, huh

Someone being interested in seeing your dick is not homophobic

There's the issue that it could be read in bad faith by Zionists, as we saw here, and, I mean, it is kind of sexual harassment. There's gotta be catchphrase to harass people with that's better.

lmao @ requesting a dick pic being "homophobic". It's really not HB's best custom, but your contrived grievances betray your status as a concern troll.

It's such a rhetorical gift that the self-designated hexbear hate account conflates decolonization with genocide.

Blaming people's personalities as though it is and will remain the prime mover is not very materialist.

I clearly acknowledged Marx could be wrong and how productive critique that remained Marxist was performed, my point was obviously that the vagaries about Marx being able to be wrong disguise that there is a difference between different contradiction to Marx, whether they are criticizing some application of the system as being incorrect or they are revising the basic system itself. Do you understand? There are different types of "critique" and some of them are revisionist, the latter kind specifically. Keeping in epistemic suspense about if Marxism is actually correct, that doesn't make the revisionists ipso facto wrong, but it makes them not Marxists, just Marxist-inspired maybe-socialists.

You can find lots of helpful information about the utility of centralization even in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. My apologies for not providing a reference. Not everything the Bolsheviks did was due to innovations by Lenin, and I argue that here it was a straightforward application of Marx's model of development and the "victory of democracy".

Edit: furthermore, and I suppose this is my fault for not being specific, I didn't mean that an existing petite-bourgeois class that is an element of the polity of a newly-socialist nation-state would do a revolt like Ukraine did, though it's not a completely inappropriate comparison, I meant that under some decentralized mode of production in a communist global order, there is nothing preventing the more advantages collectives from developing practically petite-bourgeois relationships as coops exploiting their neighbors. It is true that this bears some similarity to Stalin's view on how to minimize racial violence (or so I've been told), but I'm not getting it from him, just the bare facts of the situation as-stipulated.

I object to the claim of sectarianism. You can be an anarchist, I don't give a shit, but I don't like people wearing Marx's skin.

A lot of this is plainly obscurantist, whether you mean it that way or not. The basic handwave of "Marx was wrong about some things" without actually investigating the character and defensibility of any given claim that is contrary to Marx (it being contrary to Marx isn't even the point, claims need to be evaluated just in general) is a line of deceptive rhetoric useful only to create arbitrary confusion and slip in bad ideas if not into people's beliefs then at least into respectability. It's a tool of revisionism (that thing that Lenin was constantly banging on about, remember?).

It's such a ridiculous strawman on top of it because absolutely no one on this board is a classical Marxist. We probably have more genuine Posadists than classical Marxists. This is a critique for impressing idiots.

I would furthermore say that throwing out centralization is throwing out Marx's model of development, his idea that capitalism must collapse or necessarily develop into socialism. The whole point of it is that monopolies a) give workers a working machine for centralized production that b) can be directed in a socialized manner like production is already "socialized" under capitalists.

Without centralized production, which is a key point of Marx, a revolution can only be petite-bourgeois. Without a robust system of controls on the relations between little polities or however big you think is okay for centralization (since it's still centralization, just of more, fragmented entities), there is nothing stopping the ones with more or more-critical natural wealth from exploiting the poorer ones, since production still exists on a large scale even if government does not. There is nothing preventing them from allowing their poorer neighbors to collapse and then proletarianizing them. At least, nothing but charity, but as has been established for centuries under capitalism, if your system is dependent on charity to function, it doesn't really function and is waiting to fail. In short, centralization is needed to prevent individual petite-bourgeois cooperative polities from subjugating their neighbors.

Are you a Marxist, or an eclectic anarchist who fancies some of what Marxists happen to say? If you're an anarchist, go off, site rules dictate that that is none of my business, but don't pretend to be a Marxist because you co-opted passages from Marxists that you enjoy why using obscurantist bullshit to excuse dismissing what you don't like.

A vote for Claudia is, or so I've been told, a vote for Trump, so it's probably much more morally sound to vote for Claudia and you'll get your fight anyway.

Defensible sentence technically, but I think it's actually plausible with three hads and the second past perfect makes the sentence unnatural.

Yeah, but no western imperialist is going to call Russia democratic

Let's be fair here, adolescent apes are extremely curious

We should not compromise the validity of our arguments with hyperbole. We should state what is correct and not exceed those bounds for the sake of rhetorical effect.

You say "you have to", but what actual reason to believe this do you have besides that some other condescending prick told you so? When I look at historical liberation movements (and I can't say I know all of them, granted), they never got by on entryism and, at their most normative, still conformed to Marx's advice of establishing an independent political party, though often they were much more underground than that, often branded terrorists, etc. They certainly didn't fucking campaign for their own opposition like you're supposedly doing now (though in reality I don't think you really are in opposition to Harris) and generating more of a popular mandate for the establishment.

just like political asshats shouldn’t be controlling abortion rights.

You're the jackass talking about "the universe experiencing itself" and then act like rights are not a political construct. God or Nature or whoever else you think rights come from isn't going to magically project those rights into existence.

What state do you live in where you have a ballot option for "Not Trump"? Oh, what's this? You're planning to pick "Harris"? But I thought you said you weren't voting for her . . . . Oh! I see, so you're doing the same thing a "real" Harris supporter does but you just are renouncing it in your heart as you tell everyone else to do the same? That's weird, usually the people saying "vote Harris" talk about hating "purity politics," but I can hardly imagine something that better fits that phrase better than imagining that holding an ideal of moral purity in your heart means absolutely anything to identical political actions.

Talking about whether these people "deserve" to talk to you when the question is how to make political progress wrt Gaza is fucking ridiculous. No one is asking who should have the honor of your presence, they are asking what to do to fix the problem that you see as disqualifying people from having Pete association privileges.

If you want to do agitation but can't tolerate that most of the people talking to you hold the most normalized views of their society, let me save you the effort and inform you that you should quit.

Because that's an extremely easy position to argue against; It's the strawman of leftist attitudes on elections that liberals constantly pretend we have. Voting is incredibly easy for the vast majority of us, so we may as well vote third party to voice the popularity of leftism.

We both know the answer in most cases is "None, they can all die"