Skip Navigation

emizeko [they/them]

@ emizeko @hexbear.net

Posts
16
Comments
55
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • you pretty much described what I've been doing on reddit, build a big compilation of quotes and pastas in a profile thread so you can keep everything in one place

    you have to make sure you update them and make sure you tweak and improve them or else you will get trapped in pasta brain

  • ok your anecdote has convinced me, time for America to fund some Nicaraguan death squads by running drugs to US inner cities and selling weapons to Iran. maybe mine the harbor of Managua again? let's put your spouse in charge of the US marine invasion force

  • WaPo is writing hit pieces because they care deeply about the Nicaraguan people, I am an adult who consumes media critically!

  • my spouse is a native citizen of Melmac and definitely not a bourgeois counterrevolutionary

  • if US media outlets are talking about him like this it's for one reason

    Marxists understand that human political leadership in the imperial periphery, whether enlightened or tyrannical, will only be antagonized by empire for one single possible reason: it is getting in the way of market penetration. (source)

    you can make wild claims about "gunning down protestors" all you want I've heard similar bullshit about every US official enemy and have no reason to credit yours

  • I don't have the energy to go drill down into this shit again, but this sounds like somebody intentionally mixed up the western outrage on China's new underage online video game restrictions with the other recent policy document about idol culture that had a single mention of a semi-questionable translation of something close to "sissy"

    for precarious Americans fearmongering about conditions in China is an attractive way to feel better about your continuing decline

  • Stalin pulls blondie aside and says

    The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.

    All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.

    Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

    It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.” [48]

  • please be real

    EDIT: okay the "eltist" bit gives it away

  • South Korea will also open fire on its own citizens if they attempt to cross the DMZ north

  • What about democracy? The "electoral democracy" the US promotes and exports is theatrical. If someone like Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales or Salvador Allende or Olof Palme or Enrico Mattei or Mohammad Mossadegh manages to make inroads against Capital while playing completely by its rules, they simply get taken out, in gangster fashion. People have been taught to love term limits, but term limits, instituted in America only in response to FDR's popular and successful and democratic 12-year presidency (he died in office, was going on for 16), are really quite anti-democratic, and reveal a simple truth about American electoral democracy: The presidency doesn't matter that much. If rotation was important to avoid corruption, corporations and supreme courts would do it too. Term limits ensure that in the miraculous scenario that a scrupulous, charismatic, and intelligent individual becomes political executive, they won't be in power long enough to meaningfully challenge the entrenched power of corporations with CEOs with decades of experience.

    So, the USSR and China and Cuba and Vietnam, with their "One Party States", very obviously have many important lessons for any anti-capitalist in the world, regardless of their self-identification. I arrived at this understanding precisely via the study of the political achievements of Sweden and Canada, such as the development of Universal Health Care. And one conclusion was inescapable: without the much more radical USSR striking fear into capitalists, no social democratic politicians in the West would ever have achieved any of their goals. The USSR was the Malcolm X to social democrats' MLK Jr.

    One last thought on China. In 1902, British imperialist Winston Churchill said: "I believe in the ultimate partition of China — I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph." Now consider how "Free Tibet", "Liberate HK", and "Xinjiang is East Turkestan" have become rallying cries for "progressive" liberals in the West. Is it not obvious why we should study the past?


    source

  • censorship is necessary and justified to defeat international capital reaction and literally every country censors some things, including the one that uses lofty rhetoric about "freedom" as a tool of imperialism

    the only way to get rid of censorship is to get rid of states, and global socialism is the way to achieve that

  • bourgeois democratic "values" where the rich get to control society

    EDIT: could it be any more obvious that the US gives zero shits about privacy and democracy? empty buzzwords in the face of the NSA and the fucking joke of a rigged primary we just had

  • should double down instead of apologizing and looking weak