Skip Navigation

ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]

@ ComradeRat @hexbear.net

Posts
5
Comments
169
Joined
6 yr. ago

  • One of the aims of capital with the destruction of proletarian culture from the late 1800s onwards was to destroy the close ties within the working class friend and family groups

    They did this most obviously by literally bulldozing their neighbourhoods, but schools to seperate children from worker parents to indoctrinate them, providing treats to focus on instead and instilling middle class manners ("dont talk about politics at the dinner table, dont ask a man his wage etc") were also key parts of this

    As empire implodes and treats dry up, reproletarianization proceeds and politics returns to children and family

  • 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

  • Based on what they said, I,believe she's alluding to a sorta fetishism of the tactic of centralism, forcing all local groups to interact through the centre despite the centres lack of a capacity to facilitate that interaction

  • Yes

  • LEAK MORE EMAILS PLZ

  • ....is the reason Trump hated obama bc he didnt go to the pedo parties? Havent heard his name mentioned (tho ig it could be one of the many redacted names)

  • I desperately want more elite emails leaked

    Not bc it will do anything, just bc its funny

  • Yeah, I also dont rly see Lot and family as being saved bc he's righteous or godly but bc he is Abram's brother. If anything, the fact that his wife disobeys the angels and lot whines to be allowed to go to another town instead of the mountains makes me think we're supposed to feel ambiguously towards them at best (it was only very late in the 2nd temple period that all the characters in the bible got reinterpretated as exemplars of moral behaviour or pure evil)

  • I like this question a lot. I think I'd agree to an extent that absolutism was a response to the rising capitalist class yeah. In essence they gave in to the burghers economic demands, (pushing towarda capitalist economic relations in England in the 1200s and 1300s, in France in the 1500s and 1600s) but refused to hand over the highest reigns of power. Absolutism is the result of their maintaining the formal political structure of feudalism over top the structures of capitalism, growing more absolutist the greater the burghers power grows.

    My view is that what most people typically think of when they hear "feudalism" and "medieval society" is this proto-absolutist states 1300s-1500s western Europe. So their conception of feudalism is is already feudalism in decay, its economic, social and even political structures rapidly being hollowed out by the emerging bourgeois in the cities.

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

  • The crimes epstein committed and that the USA and its ally-vassals continue to commit are horrifying and depressing

    The fact that he was posting on 4chan, types typos constantly, sending fnaf porn animatics to his friends, despite being so rich is the funniest shit ive seen since musks pathetic livestream from his private jet

  • I wanna emphasise i'm not supporting beria, and i'm pretty sure they have found the corpses of young girls in his backyard, i just wanna share something interesting (at least imo):

    Beria's archives are more locked down and inaccessible than any other soviet leader. They still havent been declassified afaik much less made accesible for study. Idk what it means, but its been stuck in my head since i read it (in On Stalin's Team by Fitzpatrick)

  • We seem to be repeating ourselves at this point, but reposting from what ive said in this chain:

    Again, as ive emphasised repeatedly:

    But again, if I were there in Moscow in august 1939 or June 1941 or whenever with limited information idk what i'd think

    Again, I understand why, with limited info, the soviets would be cautious etc given the fall of france, it made the germans look very scary. The point isnt "the soviet leadership were incompetent" it is "modern communists should study history and learn from their miscalculations using the much broader base of knowledge available so we dont similarly overestimate fascisms power and underestimate revolutionary power"

    And without Soviet oil and other materials, the nazis wouldnt have been in nearly as strong a position in 1940, much less 1941. They gained much more from the pact than the soviets. Without it, their invasion would have faltered much sooner bc the war wasnt just delayed it was made worse and harder.

    Only new things i have to add to this is that looking back from 2026, the conflict between nazi, french, british and american imperialism was inevitable and that MR in no way reduced the chance of western support of the Nazis (e.g. the near declaration of war against the ussr in 1940 described in the previous reply)

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

  • Nah the fear of revolution and preference for fascism was there from the beginning, particularly bc the socialist movement in france was so strong (strong enough that the early 30s attempt at domestic fascism was thwarted).

    Some examples i have offhand from Bambery's book on ww2:

    British refusing to stand up to hitler in 1936 bc they feared revolution. The french agreed.

    Hitler admitting if they hadnt let him remilitarise in 36, he woulda had to back down

    1939, french more worried about revolution and soviet expansion than german takeover

    Britain and France disavowing the reds and democracy and almost declaring war on the soviets in 1940 while refusing to seriously engage the nazis

    I could also point to the french, british, etc, position on the spanish civil war being "its better for us if franco wins" but thats more circumstantial and i feel i've given enough evidence anyways

  • As i understand it, instead of saying "we hate fascism—which is the inevitable result of capitalism etc and thats why while we support and endorse more aid to the ussr in their struggle we do not support American/Canadian/British/etc governments aims or policies in this war and must continue and deepen our struggle against our bourgeois and their fascist policies and will work with liberals (not parties, people) on this" the cpusa said "uncritical support for the USA and international liberal bourgeois states, the great allies of the USSR in the struggle against fascism."

    The former position would prevent them from working under the liberals imo, as in, communists would still be a minority, but they would not be uncritically supporting their bourgeois states and opposing labour action.

  • Trotsky and his earlier supporters get way too much hate imo. Probably because a lot of modern trot orgs suck so the dislike gets applied retroactively.

    The soviet union would have benefited imeasurably if the interpersonal conflicts between trotsky and stalin had been managed better (rip lenin, rip sverdlov) and not blown up into an open intraparty factionalist conflict with all the fuckery that entailed

    Wrt popular vs united front, imo the issue was that rather than allying with liberals to build the communist movement by pulling in their progressive elements, they worked under the liberals to support the goals and efforts of the liberal governments

  • Again, as ive emphasised repeatedly:

    But again, if I were there in Moscow in august 1939 or June 1941 or whenever with limited information idk what i'd think

    Again, I understand why, with limited info, the soviets would be cautious etc given the fall of france, it made the germans look very scary. The point isnt "the soviet leadership were incompetent" it is "modern communists should study history and learn from their miscalculations using the much broader base of knowledge available so we dont similarly overestimate fascisms power and underestimate revolutionary power"

    With this historical knowledge, the fall of france turns out to be 1) partially the soviets fault (bc they supplied and fueled the nazi war machine) and 2) more caused by the unwillingness of the french elites to risk a revolution than by the strength of the german army

    What lesson can we gain from a sober analysis of ww2? That 1) fascism is indeed capitalism in crisis and always looks much stronger than it actually is, to the point that without expansion it will rapidly collapse under its contradictions (and would have collapsed faster if the soviets had supported antifascism instead of the nazis for the first two years of the war when the germans were most isolated) and 2) that liberal democracies, bourgeois states, cannot be trusted to fight fascism bc they fear revolution more; if the war gets too intense, they will surrender to the fascists instead of risking revolution

  • And without Soviet oil and other materials, the nazis wouldnt have been in nearly as strong a position in 1940, much less 1941. They gained much more from the pact than the soviets. Without it, their invasion would have faltered much sooner bc the war wasnt just delayed it was made worse and harder.

    The german war machine was actively supplied and german communists handed over, their eastern border could be left underguarded while they attacked west and the entire international communist movement was directed to suspend antifascist propaganda, etcetc instead of spending two years supporting polish, czechoslovak, french, italian, etc, resistances to fascism.

    This made the reorientation back to antifascism in 41 difficult and less effective, bc many of the most committed and principaled antifascists had left their parties in disgust over endorsing MR.