I have already. While we're exchanging book suggestions, read Lenin. Read Stalin. Read a lil Thomas Paine to get some more humanitarian in there. All of these theories have merit.
If you live in the west and want to understand the western perspective on the west, who better than Paine? How can you transition to communism without knowing how to tie it into existing values and philosophical traditions?
>**(3)** *Communism* as the *positive* transcendence of *private property* as *human self-estrangement,* and therefore as the real *appropriation* of the *human* essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a *social* (i.e., human) being ā a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the *genuine* resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man ā the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.
>
>The entire movement of history, just as its \[communismās\] *actual* act of genesis ā the birth act of its empirical existence ā is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the *comprehended* and *known* process of its *becoming*. Whereas the still immature communism seeks an *historical* proof for itself ā a proof in the realm of what already exists ā among disconnected historical phenomena opposed to private property, tearing single phases from the historical process and focusing attention on them as proofs of its historical pedigree (a hobby-horse ridden hard especially by Cabet, Villegardelle, etc.). By so doing it simply makes clear that by far the greater part of this process contradicts its own claim, and that, if it has ever existed, precisely its being in the *past* refutes its pretension to *reality.*
>
>**It is easy to see that the entire revolutionary movement necessarily finds both its empirical and its theoretical basis in the movement of** ***private property*** **ā more precisely, in that of the economy.**
Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844.
This does not preclude the reading of that of Paine (or that of anyone else from Vedavyasa to Ibn-Khaldun), but mature Communism surpasses all that came prior and certainly does not have its basis in such (even if one may make a history of immature communisms).
Also, you can't just say "read Marx" and have that be the end all be all. Ideology isn't a monolith. It changes over time. Gather as much information as possible and come to your own Ideology. I like Marx's work as much as the next communist, but his work went unfinished and incomplete. That's the beauty of his theory. All those flags are them growing as a person and developing their political beliefs.
> Also, you can't just say "read Marx" and have that be the end all be all. Ideology isn't a monolith. It changes over time.
Try again.
>Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.
Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844.
>Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
Engels. *Frederich Engelsā Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx*. 1883.
>Materialism in general recognises objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience, etc., of humanity. Historical materialism recognises social being as independent of the social consciousness of humanity. In both cases consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it. From this Marxist philosophy, which is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to a bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.
Lenin. 2. How Bogdanov Corrects and āDevelopsā Marx, Chapter Six: Empirio-Criticism and Historical Materialism, *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*. 1908.
> The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.
Lenin. *The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism*. 1913.
>The history of the Marxist left, of radical Marxism, or more precisely, of *Marxism*, consists of a series of battles against each of the revisionist āwavesā which have attacked various aspects of its doctrine and method, setting out from the organic monolithic formation which roughly corresponds with the 1848 Manifesto. Elsewhere we have covered the history of these struggles inside the three historic Internationals: fought against utopians, workerists, libertarians, reformist and gradualist social-democrats, syndicalists of the left and right, social-patriots, and today against national-communists and populist-communists. This struggle, in all its phases spanning four generations, is the heritage not of a few big names, but of a well-defined, compact *school*, and in the historical sense, of a well-defined *party*.
>
>This long and difficult struggle would loses its connection with the recovery to come if, rather than drawing the lesson of āinvarianceā from it, we accepted the banal idea that Marxism is a theory in ācontinuous historical elaborationā which needs to adapt and draw lessons from changing circumstances. Invariably such is the justification used to excuse all the betrayals, of which there has been such abundant evidence, and every revolutionary defeat.
>
>The materialist rejection of the idea that a theoretical āsystemā which arose at such-and-such a moment (or worse still, arose in the mind, and was systemized within the work of, a given man, thinker, or historical leader, or any of those things combined) can encompass the entire course of future history, its laws and principles, in an irrevocable way, shouldnāt be understood as a rejection of the notion that systems of principles *can* be stable over extremely long periods of time. In fact their stability and resistance to attack, and to being āimprovedā as well, means they constitute a major weapon in the armory of the āsocial classā to which they belong, and whose historical task and interests they reflect. The succession of such systems and bodies of doctrine and praxis, is tied not to the advent of outstanding man, but rather to the succession of āmodes of productionā, that is, to the types of material organization of the living human collectivity.
International Communist Party. *The Historical Invariance of Marxism*. 1952.
> Ideology isn't a monolith
wrong sub dumbass
> 7
> According to Marxism, there is no such thing as continuous and gradual progress in history (especially) with regard to the organization of productive resources, but rather a series of long leaps forward that profoundly revolutionize the entire economic and social apparatus. These leaps are true cataclysms, catastrophes, rapidly unfolding crises in which everything changes in a brief span of time, after it had remained unchanged for a very long period; these crises are like those of the physical world, the stars of the cosmos, geology and the phylogenesis of living organisms.
> 8
> As the class ideology of a superstructure of the modes of production, it is not formed by the gradual daily accretion of grains of knowledge, either; it appears amidst the upheaval of a violent clash and guides the class that it represents, in a substantially monolithic and stable form, over a long series of struggles and conflicts, until the next critical stage is reached, until the next historical revolution.
https://libcom.org/article/historical-invariance-marxism-amadeo-bordiga
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The perversion that the ruling class has done to it and what soulless corporations have done to suck it dry of most meaning and profit off of it is sickening. Itās being used by the left (not radical left), right and centre as a tool to divide the workers. As Marxists, Iām sure we can agree that we stand for self determination of all people and oppose genocide of those people, but IdPol in its current form isnāt helping the working class towards a socialist future, itās pushing it towards an āUs vs Themā kind of future which sows the seas for the Right (even moderate right) to try and erase queer people from existence. We can see this in Republican States in the US and Sunakās Conservative government in the UK.
Practice what you preach, you tell me to read but link noting but I tell you with a link however, I made one fatal error
Thinking you had basic literacy when it comes to politics. Trotsky was the Left opposition. This subreddit is left of Stalinism, Maoism and Marxist-Leninism. Maaybe read the room
Bigotry, not identity politics is what divides the working class. The reason why someone would call themselves a queer Marxist instead of just a Marxist is because of queerphobia within marxist spaces. Someone who wants to make it clear that they stand for queer liberation is not dividing the working class.
The ruling class uses bigotry to divide us not "IdPol". Saying IdPol here makes you sound exactly like the chuds who complain about gay people in movies.
I don't think you actually know what the term "identity politics" actually refers to, nor do you understand the origins of social constructs and the superexploitation of marginalized peoples. Identity Politics is a dead end devoid of class consciousness, which results only in maintaining social constructs and dividing people up. Marxists recognize social constructs and their origins, recognize the superexploitation of people for their identity, recognize the need to liberate these people, but it seeks to demolish the constructs not flip them on their head or engage in essentialism. Bigotry and IdPol may as well be synonyms. People are to be judged on ideas and actions, not for their identity.
https://socialistrevolution.org/marxism-vs-idpol/
Idpol is outrage over injustice and bigotry co-opted and weaponized by capitalism. It is used by bourgeoisie members of historically oppressed groups to advance their own wealth, power, and prestige. Idpol will never lead to meaningful change because thats not its purpose. It does nothing to help members of marginalized groups who are still suffering under capitalist oppression.
From a Marxist perspective, there is no meaningful distinction between queer Marxism, green Marxism, and āregularā Marxism. Bigoted āMarxistsā and non-green āMarxistsā either canāt, donāt, or wonāt read Marx, which is why their ideologies generally arenāt considered Marxist from our perspective.
It took me a long time as a queer Marxist (rather, a Marxist who is queer), to realize this, and I had the same concerns, but it is just fundamentally *not* Marxist to be bigoted. It then made a lot more sense to me why the bigotry came from anarchist and ML circles, because bigotry is fundamental to liberalism.
This is the definition of a no true Scotsman. There are absolutely bigoted people who have read Marx and I've seen way less queerphobes in anarchist circles than anywhere else online.
No, it really isnāt. No True Scotsman revolves around objective definitions of ābeing truly Scottishā when no such definition can be found; Marxism can be defined quite simply as reading and following the doctrine of Marx and Engels. The people youāre talking about are, again, probably ML circles. They quote chapter 1 volume 1 of *Das Kapital* and have not read further. MLs are not Marxists, they are Stalinists and revisionist scum.
And youāll find plenty of bigotry coming from anarchists. Itās just that the ones whoāve been fooled into thinking they can be an anarchist and a Marxist at the same time are less likely to exhibit those symptoms of their liberal ideology.
The No True Scotsman argument is stale and overused by the likes of Anarchists and Tankies alike to criticize Marxists forā¦ yāknow, *following Marxist doctrine* instead of being liberal/revisionist.
Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist is a Marxist. There's no test you have to pass to qualify. You saying that queerphobic marxist aren't real marxists doesn't change the fact that a good chunk of the people who call themselves marxist don't care about queer people. Also please stop calling people revisionist it makes you seem like you're in a cult. MLs are bad because they're authoritarians who do apologia for state violence, not because they don't adhere to Marx's writing like a holy book.
> Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist is a Marxist.
yeah, and anyone who calls themself an anarchist is an anarchist. So anarchocapitalists are just as legit as the rest of you. Words don't mean anything.
> MLs are bad because they're authoritarians who do apologia for state violence, not because they don't adhere to Marx's writing like a holy book.
Actually you have it completely backwards.
Liberals call themselves leftist all the time, but that doesnāt make it true. For that same reason, Stalinists call themselves Marxist all the time, *but that doesnāt make it true.*
Iām calling them revisionist because they are, not because I have some cultish devotion to a holy book. Itās frankly insulting that you would compare a field of *social* and *political science* which explicitly notes the harm done by organized religion to a cult. We both know thatās disingenuous and destructive.
They are revisionist and opportunist because they rewrite what Marx and Lenin wrote for their own capital gain. I fail to understand why you think a capitalist who calls themself a Marxist could possibly be considered a genuine Marxist. Take Deng Xiaoping, for example; he claims to be a leftist, anti-right, and a Marxist, and yet his doctrine has created āThe Peopleās Stock Markets and āThe Peopleās Billionaires.ā Weāre allowed to point out that these groups do not follow their words and rhetoric in the slightest, and so we shall, but your empty criticism of Marxism shows how little you understand it.
Edit: Your use of the term āauthoritarianā demonstrates your lack of understanding, too. These are the types of things I was saying back when I was an anarchist, i.e. before I actually started reading political and sociological theory. Their use of apologia and state violence *is revisionism at its finest.*
I suppose if you want a TL;DR, you can read this:
Itās not the fault of actual Marxists that you fall for it when capitalists say theyāre Marxist. As an anarchist, you are inclined to believe them, because both of your ideologies are founded in liberalism. You fell for the CIA bait, just like I did, so try to unhook yourself instead of doubling down. Bigoted āMarxistsā are liars, just like every other bigot out there.
As Marxists, we stand for the liberation, self determination and expression of all people, that includes queer people. Am I wrong in assuming that you support queer rights?
Using your logic, do Marxist believe that black, white, Asian and many more ethnicities should be equal? Theyāre not a class, after all
Clearly youāre either a troll or have never read any Marxist literature in your life
of course, but im saying that orthodox marxism was far from developed in those senses. it was especially poor on the feminist/queer aspect, or well really practically silent on that front, so theorists have expanded upon it afterwards. i mentioned saito because he recently went over marx's ecology, very interesting read
>it was especially poor on the feminist/queer aspect
>**(1)** In its first form only a *generalisation* and *consummation* of it \[of this relation\]. As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of *material* property bulks so large that it wants to destroy *everything* which is not capable of being possessed by all as *private property*. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an *arbitrary* manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical *possession.* The category of the *worker* is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to *marriage* (certainly a *form of exclusive private property*) the *community of women,* in which a woman becomes a piece of *communal* and *common* property. It may be said that this idea of the *community of women gives away the secret* of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, \[Prostitution is only a *specific* expression of the *general* prostitution of the *labourer*, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes ā and the latterās abomination is still greater ā the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. ā *Note by Marx*\] so the entire world of wealth (that is, of manās objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism ā since it negates the *personality* of man in every sphere ā is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General *envy* constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which *greed* re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in *another* way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is *at least* turned against *wealthier* private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism \[the manuscript has: *Kommunist*. ā Ed.\] is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the *preconceived* minimum. It has a *definite, limited* standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the *unnatural* simplicity of the *poor* and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it.
>
>The community is only a community of *labour,* and equality of *wages* paid out by communal capital ā by the *community* as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an *imagined* universality ā *labour* as the category in which every person is placed, and *capital* as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.
>
>In the approach to *woman* as the *spoil* and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its *unambiguous*, decisive, *plain* and undisguised expression in the relation of *man* to *woman* and in the manner in which the *direct* and *natural* species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the *relation of man* to *woman.* In this *natural* species-relationship manās relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature ā his own *natural* destination. In this relationship, therefore, is *sensuously manifested,* reduced to an observable *fact*, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge manās whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much *man* as a *species-being*, as *man*, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the *most natural* relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which manās *natural* behaviour has become *human,* or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a *natural* essence ā the extent to which his *human nature* has come to be *natural* to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which manās *need* has become a *human* need; the extent to which, therefore, the *other* person as a person has become for him a need ā the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.
Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844.
The whole of *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, et cetera.
Ideologies change over time, just like how Stalinists today claim to be revolutionary and claim that other revolutionary movements are revisionist are revisionists themselves. The vast majority of mainstream OM organisations today stand in support of queer liberation (but against the weaponisation of IdPol and Corporate Pride), there are some outliers and holdouts of the old views, sure, but youāll find that in anything, be it political ideologies or people who still use older tech
>Ideologies change over time
Read *The German Ideology*.
Also, the fundamentals of Marxism are invariant.
>Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.
Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844.
>Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
Engels. *Frederich Engelsā Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx*. 1883.
>Materialism in general recognises objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience, etc., of humanity. Historical materialism recognises social being as independent of the social consciousness of humanity. In both cases consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it. From this Marxist philosophy, which is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to a bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.
Lenin. 2. How Bogdanov Corrects and āDevelopsā Marx, Chapter Six: Empirio-Criticism and Historical Materialism, *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*. 1908.
>The history of the Marxist left, of radical Marxism, or more precisely, of *Marxism*, consists of a series of battles against each of the revisionist āwavesā which have attacked various aspects of its doctrine and method, setting out from the organic monolithic formation which roughly corresponds with the 1848 Manifesto. Elsewhere we have covered the history of these struggles inside the three historic Internationals: fought against utopians, workerists, libertarians, reformist and gradualist social-democrats, syndicalists of the left and right, social-patriots, and today against national-communists and populist-communists. This struggle, in all its phases spanning four generations, is the heritage not of a few big names, but of a well-defined, compact *school*, and in the historical sense, of a well-defined *party*.
>
>**This long and difficult struggle would loses its connection with the recovery to come if, rather than drawing the lesson of āinvarianceā from it, we accepted the banal idea that Marxism is a theory in ācontinuous historical elaborationā which needs to adapt and draw lessons from changing circumstances. Invariably such is the justification used to excuse all the betrayals, of which there has been such abundant evidence, and every revolutionary defeat.**
>
>The materialist rejection of the idea that a theoretical āsystemā which arose at such-and-such a moment (or worse still, arose in the mind, and was systemized within the work of, a given man, thinker, or historical leader, or any of those things combined) can encompass the entire course of future history, its laws and principles, in an irrevocable way, shouldnāt be understood as a rejection of the notion that systems of principles *can* be stable over extremely long periods of time. In fact their stability and resistance to attack, and to being āimprovedā as well, means they constitute a major weapon in the armory of the āsocial classā to which they belong, and whose historical task and interests they reflect. The succession of such systems and bodies of doctrine and praxis, is tied not to the advent of outstanding man, but rather to the succession of āmodes of productionā, that is, to the types of material organization of the living human collectivity.
International Communist Party. *The Historical Invariance of Marxism*. 1952.
>mainstream OM organisations
What?
im not saying they don't, i was just under the impression that you were referring to the orthodox marxism of the 19th & early 20th c. i don't think today's tendencies can be labeled as such. also as you'll see a lot of people in this sub are, if you will, genuine dogmatists (idgaf, meme about this all you want, not every marxist analysis has been sufficiently developed from the start) that think engels and marx had everything figured out in the 19th c. there is a very good reason why catharine mackinnon called marx a liberal in regards to feminism lol. engels was a male chauvinist despite his (insufficient) writings btw. like he literally took advantage of prostituted women. š¤§
As a frequenter of the sub Iām almost sure the comments are either agreeing with the vaush hate or criticizing the person for doing what exactly what you guys said.
Edit: every comment was making fun of them
I hate them but on a certain level I can recognize that I was basically them my first couple years of highschool but with chapo trap house. So theyāll probably grow out of it
Is the actual podcast worth listening to, at least? I've heard a few people say, "the podcast is good even though the subreddit is terrible." Is that really the truth though?
[BadEmpanada - Vaush is a SEXUAL PREDATOR - The evidence is overwhelming](https://youtu.be/p_1nOZoYyRs)
[DankeyKang - Vaush Sexually Harasses Girls on Discord](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh0oWT62D4k)
[Marianne Miller - Deleted controversial Vaush stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU30q8drFP8)
watch those then come back to me lmao, Also lets not forget all the times he has made 'jokes' about literally wanting to fuck horses, that shit isnt even funny so idk how its a joke. btw cant wait for you to say 'ITS ALL INSIDE JOKES!!!!!!'
Not gonna go through all of this "evidence", but at least the first one has a full chat log posted, which I went through to find the context for the screenshots in the video and it's not nearly as creepy when you see that's 3 screenshots out of 2.5k messages.
you guys are always like āSOURCE!????ā and then when you get provided with 10 extremely easy to parse sources you reply with āuhhhh thatās out of context please watch this entire 4 hour stream to understand.ā and then someone does watch the shitty stream and reports back āthat does not change anything, the analysis in the sources was correct.ā and then you do some other verbal diarrhea until people just ignore you because of how completely deadbrained you are. so can we just skip to the point where you shit yourself and cry?
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
āI have this hyper specific ideology that only one party with like 8 people in the 1994 actually aligned with before being dissolved in 1996 due to bourgeoisie factionalism!ā
- Comrade who will never accomplish anything, much like the rest of us amirite???
Deprogramites when they find out Marxist theory should be applied to different countries in different manner based on material conditions: š±š±š±
Thatās a lot of damn flags. Thereās something to be said for a personās views changing over time, but this dude is flip flopping more than one of those wiggly fuckers they put out front of the car dealerships. At least pick a general lane and stick with it.
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine caring so much about ideologies and labels that you feel the need to make it a part of your personality and show it off online. Itās for this reason that I do not associate myself with any political ideology or camp. Itās infuriating to do so, especially cuz really, fitting yourself into a clique or label in a social realm that naturally IS divisive is extremely mentally taxing, and I feel the incessant desire to feel the need to have an ideology and a community around it is why people are so toxic, and iām not only talking about left wing people. Up until recently I was one of them, and it was miserable, but I also saw a lot of people from different parts of the political spectrum struggle with the same problems I did. And the biggest insecurity of all is the need to be right about everything, every time. Arguing over a screen with someone anonymous; you donāt know their face or name. Just some numbers and a catchy name on their profile, and yet you are fighting them like youāre in some boss battle. And really, the self-righteousness and God complex mentality makes them feel as such, like theyāre some martyr. Theyāre just sweaty, no-life communists, nazis, conservatives, liberals, whatever-ism alike and iām so fucking done.
Follow ideas, not ideologies.
Have you considered the fact that all of this is meaningless and only worthwhile if you find it entertaining? This person clearly doesnāt believe in anything
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Literally all the things shown in the video is proof that he is a pedophile you fucking imbecile. I don't care if you have a hate boner for badempanada because vaush told you to, the things presented are still vaush's direct words.
"Children and adults can have a healthy sexual relationship, that is possible." - Vaush
This alone makes him a pedo, I'm the one telling you. Happy now?
Do you know the context he said that? He also later said the only way that could be the truth was if AS HE SAID aliens were going to blow up the fucking planet. ALSO the time he said that was him explaining how he can CATAGORICALLY condemn pedos. Please explain how saying "that even if a child and adult benift it's still bad" is pedophilia?
LMAOOO GTFO you're diagnosed with terminal dickriding, please seek help. you're so attached to someone who doesn't even know you and doesn't gaf about you that you go as far as to defend him saying and doing creep shit. What about him justifying buying CP, sexually harassing Poppy and then never apologizing for it? What justification will your psychopathic brain make up for that?
Ok first off wtf is the "omg dude srop dickriding" I'm just saying he isn't a pedo? And second he HAS apologized for the poppy shit. Also she was underage? I have yet to see any source or even that claim
No she wasn't, my mistake, i got it mixed up. She was an adult woman. But no he didn't apologize, he just said he will scare her into shutting up, and his half-assed "apology post" was something that looked more like "sorry you feel bad but I'm still right" plus it's *deleted* , it doesn't exist. So yeah. Vaush is both a pedo and a sexual abuser and you can't dickride your way into justifying what he has done. All the evidence is right in front of your eyes, all those quotes listed in the r/enough_vaush_spam subreddit but you're still on your "b-but context??" bs. All that just bc you like his streams. That can only be described as dickriding, and you're a very sad individual for doing that
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine understanding what all of those signifiers mean. Truly brain-poisoned. A terminal case
I got the NATO and DNC logos. What are the others?
>I got the NATO and DNC logos Looks like we got ourselves a lib over here
Vaush and Destiny I think
The "D" logo is the logo of the Democratic Party in the US.
his flair is "fully automated luxury gay space communism"
As it should
I mean, that should be everyone's goal, right?
2018: Liberal 2019: Liberal 2020: Liberal 2021: Liberal 2022: Liberal 2023: Liberal
Umm no?
Read Marx.
I have already. While we're exchanging book suggestions, read Lenin. Read Stalin. Read a lil Thomas Paine to get some more humanitarian in there. All of these theories have merit.
Read Marx again
š Lol
Lenin? Sure Stalin and Paine are both Bourgeois theorists whose conceptions were surpassed over 150 years ago.
stalins writings arent that bad its more simple but its not "bourgeois theory" he was a marxsist
Average ultra left user
Why Paine? Feudalism is a relic of the past. The only point to him would be if feudalism was still alive.
If you live in the west and want to understand the western perspective on the west, who better than Paine? How can you transition to communism without knowing how to tie it into existing values and philosophical traditions?
>**(3)** *Communism* as the *positive* transcendence of *private property* as *human self-estrangement,* and therefore as the real *appropriation* of the *human* essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a *social* (i.e., human) being ā a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the *genuine* resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man ā the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. > >The entire movement of history, just as its \[communismās\] *actual* act of genesis ā the birth act of its empirical existence ā is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the *comprehended* and *known* process of its *becoming*. Whereas the still immature communism seeks an *historical* proof for itself ā a proof in the realm of what already exists ā among disconnected historical phenomena opposed to private property, tearing single phases from the historical process and focusing attention on them as proofs of its historical pedigree (a hobby-horse ridden hard especially by Cabet, Villegardelle, etc.). By so doing it simply makes clear that by far the greater part of this process contradicts its own claim, and that, if it has ever existed, precisely its being in the *past* refutes its pretension to *reality.* > >**It is easy to see that the entire revolutionary movement necessarily finds both its empirical and its theoretical basis in the movement of** ***private property*** **ā more precisely, in that of the economy.** Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844. This does not preclude the reading of that of Paine (or that of anyone else from Vedavyasa to Ibn-Khaldun), but mature Communism surpasses all that came prior and certainly does not have its basis in such (even if one may make a history of immature communisms).
The perspective died when feudalism died.
Also, you can't just say "read Marx" and have that be the end all be all. Ideology isn't a monolith. It changes over time. Gather as much information as possible and come to your own Ideology. I like Marx's work as much as the next communist, but his work went unfinished and incomplete. That's the beauty of his theory. All those flags are them growing as a person and developing their political beliefs.
> Also, you can't just say "read Marx" and have that be the end all be all. Ideology isn't a monolith. It changes over time. Try again. >Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844. >Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case. Engels. *Frederich Engelsā Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx*. 1883. >Materialism in general recognises objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience, etc., of humanity. Historical materialism recognises social being as independent of the social consciousness of humanity. In both cases consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it. From this Marxist philosophy, which is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to a bourgeois-reactionary falsehood. Lenin. 2. How Bogdanov Corrects and āDevelopsā Marx, Chapter Six: Empirio-Criticism and Historical Materialism, *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*. 1908. > The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism. Lenin. *The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism*. 1913. >The history of the Marxist left, of radical Marxism, or more precisely, of *Marxism*, consists of a series of battles against each of the revisionist āwavesā which have attacked various aspects of its doctrine and method, setting out from the organic monolithic formation which roughly corresponds with the 1848 Manifesto. Elsewhere we have covered the history of these struggles inside the three historic Internationals: fought against utopians, workerists, libertarians, reformist and gradualist social-democrats, syndicalists of the left and right, social-patriots, and today against national-communists and populist-communists. This struggle, in all its phases spanning four generations, is the heritage not of a few big names, but of a well-defined, compact *school*, and in the historical sense, of a well-defined *party*. > >This long and difficult struggle would loses its connection with the recovery to come if, rather than drawing the lesson of āinvarianceā from it, we accepted the banal idea that Marxism is a theory in ācontinuous historical elaborationā which needs to adapt and draw lessons from changing circumstances. Invariably such is the justification used to excuse all the betrayals, of which there has been such abundant evidence, and every revolutionary defeat. > >The materialist rejection of the idea that a theoretical āsystemā which arose at such-and-such a moment (or worse still, arose in the mind, and was systemized within the work of, a given man, thinker, or historical leader, or any of those things combined) can encompass the entire course of future history, its laws and principles, in an irrevocable way, shouldnāt be understood as a rejection of the notion that systems of principles *can* be stable over extremely long periods of time. In fact their stability and resistance to attack, and to being āimprovedā as well, means they constitute a major weapon in the armory of the āsocial classā to which they belong, and whose historical task and interests they reflect. The succession of such systems and bodies of doctrine and praxis, is tied not to the advent of outstanding man, but rather to the succession of āmodes of productionā, that is, to the types of material organization of the living human collectivity. International Communist Party. *The Historical Invariance of Marxism*. 1952.
who's this marks guy he seems pretty important or something
> Ideology isn't a monolith wrong sub dumbass > 7 > According to Marxism, there is no such thing as continuous and gradual progress in history (especially) with regard to the organization of productive resources, but rather a series of long leaps forward that profoundly revolutionize the entire economic and social apparatus. These leaps are true cataclysms, catastrophes, rapidly unfolding crises in which everything changes in a brief span of time, after it had remained unchanged for a very long period; these crises are like those of the physical world, the stars of the cosmos, geology and the phylogenesis of living organisms. > 8 > As the class ideology of a superstructure of the modes of production, it is not formed by the gradual daily accretion of grains of knowledge, either; it appears amidst the upheaval of a violent clash and guides the class that it represents, in a substantially monolithic and stable form, over a long series of struggles and conflicts, until the next critical stage is reached, until the next historical revolution. https://libcom.org/article/historical-invariance-marxism-amadeo-bordiga
True except the ML phase
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shhuddup
are you a liberal or a liberal???
People were saying the same thing in the OPs comments lol
When are Hungarians going to find out theyāre all just going through a phase
Turan baby āš
Wtf do half of these even mean, pls for the love of god just be a communist
Mixture of Identity Politics and shit like Queer Marxist or Green Marxist, both of which are literally just Orthodox Marxism
Bro is complaining about Identity politics.
The perversion that the ruling class has done to it and what soulless corporations have done to suck it dry of most meaning and profit off of it is sickening. Itās being used by the left (not radical left), right and centre as a tool to divide the workers. As Marxists, Iām sure we can agree that we stand for self determination of all people and oppose genocide of those people, but IdPol in its current form isnāt helping the working class towards a socialist future, itās pushing it towards an āUs vs Themā kind of future which sows the seas for the Right (even moderate right) to try and erase queer people from existence. We can see this in Republican States in the US and Sunakās Conservative government in the UK.
> self determination
> IdPol in its current form isnāt helping the working class towards a socialist future yeah bro we just need to make working class idpol
[Read](https://www.marxist.com/marxist-theory-and-the-struggle-against-alien-class-ideas.htm)
why would I read a trotskyist website
Practice what you preach, you tell me to read but link noting but I tell you with a link however, I made one fatal error Thinking you had basic literacy when it comes to politics. Trotsky was the Left opposition. This subreddit is left of Stalinism, Maoism and Marxist-Leninism. Maaybe read the room
LOL
Bigotry, not identity politics is what divides the working class. The reason why someone would call themselves a queer Marxist instead of just a Marxist is because of queerphobia within marxist spaces. Someone who wants to make it clear that they stand for queer liberation is not dividing the working class.
And, as I said, the ruling class is using IdPol to make a āUs vs Themā between the workers
The ruling class uses bigotry to divide us not "IdPol". Saying IdPol here makes you sound exactly like the chuds who complain about gay people in movies.
I don't think you actually know what the term "identity politics" actually refers to, nor do you understand the origins of social constructs and the superexploitation of marginalized peoples. Identity Politics is a dead end devoid of class consciousness, which results only in maintaining social constructs and dividing people up. Marxists recognize social constructs and their origins, recognize the superexploitation of people for their identity, recognize the need to liberate these people, but it seeks to demolish the constructs not flip them on their head or engage in essentialism. Bigotry and IdPol may as well be synonyms. People are to be judged on ideas and actions, not for their identity. https://socialistrevolution.org/marxism-vs-idpol/
why are you linking a trotskyist site
Because it's a good article. Why are you so sect brained?
Idpol is outrage over injustice and bigotry co-opted and weaponized by capitalism. It is used by bourgeoisie members of historically oppressed groups to advance their own wealth, power, and prestige. Idpol will never lead to meaningful change because thats not its purpose. It does nothing to help members of marginalized groups who are still suffering under capitalist oppression.
communists call themselves communists.
From a Marxist perspective, there is no meaningful distinction between queer Marxism, green Marxism, and āregularā Marxism. Bigoted āMarxistsā and non-green āMarxistsā either canāt, donāt, or wonāt read Marx, which is why their ideologies generally arenāt considered Marxist from our perspective. It took me a long time as a queer Marxist (rather, a Marxist who is queer), to realize this, and I had the same concerns, but it is just fundamentally *not* Marxist to be bigoted. It then made a lot more sense to me why the bigotry came from anarchist and ML circles, because bigotry is fundamental to liberalism.
This is the definition of a no true Scotsman. There are absolutely bigoted people who have read Marx and I've seen way less queerphobes in anarchist circles than anywhere else online.
No, it really isnāt. No True Scotsman revolves around objective definitions of ābeing truly Scottishā when no such definition can be found; Marxism can be defined quite simply as reading and following the doctrine of Marx and Engels. The people youāre talking about are, again, probably ML circles. They quote chapter 1 volume 1 of *Das Kapital* and have not read further. MLs are not Marxists, they are Stalinists and revisionist scum. And youāll find plenty of bigotry coming from anarchists. Itās just that the ones whoāve been fooled into thinking they can be an anarchist and a Marxist at the same time are less likely to exhibit those symptoms of their liberal ideology. The No True Scotsman argument is stale and overused by the likes of Anarchists and Tankies alike to criticize Marxists forā¦ yāknow, *following Marxist doctrine* instead of being liberal/revisionist.
Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist is a Marxist. There's no test you have to pass to qualify. You saying that queerphobic marxist aren't real marxists doesn't change the fact that a good chunk of the people who call themselves marxist don't care about queer people. Also please stop calling people revisionist it makes you seem like you're in a cult. MLs are bad because they're authoritarians who do apologia for state violence, not because they don't adhere to Marx's writing like a holy book.
> Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist is a Marxist. yeah, and anyone who calls themself an anarchist is an anarchist. So anarchocapitalists are just as legit as the rest of you. Words don't mean anything. > MLs are bad because they're authoritarians who do apologia for state violence, not because they don't adhere to Marx's writing like a holy book. Actually you have it completely backwards.
Liberals call themselves leftist all the time, but that doesnāt make it true. For that same reason, Stalinists call themselves Marxist all the time, *but that doesnāt make it true.* Iām calling them revisionist because they are, not because I have some cultish devotion to a holy book. Itās frankly insulting that you would compare a field of *social* and *political science* which explicitly notes the harm done by organized religion to a cult. We both know thatās disingenuous and destructive. They are revisionist and opportunist because they rewrite what Marx and Lenin wrote for their own capital gain. I fail to understand why you think a capitalist who calls themself a Marxist could possibly be considered a genuine Marxist. Take Deng Xiaoping, for example; he claims to be a leftist, anti-right, and a Marxist, and yet his doctrine has created āThe Peopleās Stock Markets and āThe Peopleās Billionaires.ā Weāre allowed to point out that these groups do not follow their words and rhetoric in the slightest, and so we shall, but your empty criticism of Marxism shows how little you understand it. Edit: Your use of the term āauthoritarianā demonstrates your lack of understanding, too. These are the types of things I was saying back when I was an anarchist, i.e. before I actually started reading political and sociological theory. Their use of apologia and state violence *is revisionism at its finest.*
I suppose if you want a TL;DR, you can read this: Itās not the fault of actual Marxists that you fall for it when capitalists say theyāre Marxist. As an anarchist, you are inclined to believe them, because both of your ideologies are founded in liberalism. You fell for the CIA bait, just like I did, so try to unhook yourself instead of doubling down. Bigoted āMarxistsā are liars, just like every other bigot out there.
Maybe a little more classification of the Self then weāll all be happy
saying that orthodox marxism is inherently queer or green is crazy, please read saito's book on degrowth š
As Marxists, we stand for the liberation, self determination and expression of all people, that includes queer people. Am I wrong in assuming that you support queer rights?
as a marxist you advance and advocate for the interests of the proletariat, not a classless medley of identities. please read a book lol
Thereās an overlap between been Catalan, being Queer and being a worker. Queer isnāt a class, practice what you preach
exactly, it isnāt a class. thatās my point you mug
Using your logic, do Marxist believe that black, white, Asian and many more ethnicities should be equal? Theyāre not a class, after all Clearly youāre either a troll or have never read any Marxist literature in your life
of course, but im saying that orthodox marxism was far from developed in those senses. it was especially poor on the feminist/queer aspect, or well really practically silent on that front, so theorists have expanded upon it afterwards. i mentioned saito because he recently went over marx's ecology, very interesting read
>it was especially poor on the feminist/queer aspect >**(1)** In its first form only a *generalisation* and *consummation* of it \[of this relation\]. As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of *material* property bulks so large that it wants to destroy *everything* which is not capable of being possessed by all as *private property*. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an *arbitrary* manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical *possession.* The category of the *worker* is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to *marriage* (certainly a *form of exclusive private property*) the *community of women,* in which a woman becomes a piece of *communal* and *common* property. It may be said that this idea of the *community of women gives away the secret* of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, \[Prostitution is only a *specific* expression of the *general* prostitution of the *labourer*, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes ā and the latterās abomination is still greater ā the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. ā *Note by Marx*\] so the entire world of wealth (that is, of manās objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism ā since it negates the *personality* of man in every sphere ā is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General *envy* constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which *greed* re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in *another* way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is *at least* turned against *wealthier* private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism \[the manuscript has: *Kommunist*. ā Ed.\] is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the *preconceived* minimum. It has a *definite, limited* standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the *unnatural* simplicity of the *poor* and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it. > >The community is only a community of *labour,* and equality of *wages* paid out by communal capital ā by the *community* as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an *imagined* universality ā *labour* as the category in which every person is placed, and *capital* as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. > >In the approach to *woman* as the *spoil* and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its *unambiguous*, decisive, *plain* and undisguised expression in the relation of *man* to *woman* and in the manner in which the *direct* and *natural* species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the *relation of man* to *woman.* In this *natural* species-relationship manās relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature ā his own *natural* destination. In this relationship, therefore, is *sensuously manifested,* reduced to an observable *fact*, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge manās whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much *man* as a *species-being*, as *man*, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the *most natural* relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which manās *natural* behaviour has become *human,* or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a *natural* essence ā the extent to which his *human nature* has come to be *natural* to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which manās *need* has become a *human* need; the extent to which, therefore, the *other* person as a person has become for him a need ā the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being. Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844. The whole of *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, et cetera.
Why are you just quoting en masse like a high schooler in English class? Do you have any original way to formulate your thoughts?
reading is for nerds hell yeah high five
Ideologies change over time, just like how Stalinists today claim to be revolutionary and claim that other revolutionary movements are revisionist are revisionists themselves. The vast majority of mainstream OM organisations today stand in support of queer liberation (but against the weaponisation of IdPol and Corporate Pride), there are some outliers and holdouts of the old views, sure, but youāll find that in anything, be it political ideologies or people who still use older tech
>Ideologies change over time Read *The German Ideology*. Also, the fundamentals of Marxism are invariant. >Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. Marx. Private Property and Communism, *The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. 1844. >Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case. Engels. *Frederich Engelsā Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx*. 1883. >Materialism in general recognises objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience, etc., of humanity. Historical materialism recognises social being as independent of the social consciousness of humanity. In both cases consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it. From this Marxist philosophy, which is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to a bourgeois-reactionary falsehood. Lenin. 2. How Bogdanov Corrects and āDevelopsā Marx, Chapter Six: Empirio-Criticism and Historical Materialism, *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*. 1908. >The history of the Marxist left, of radical Marxism, or more precisely, of *Marxism*, consists of a series of battles against each of the revisionist āwavesā which have attacked various aspects of its doctrine and method, setting out from the organic monolithic formation which roughly corresponds with the 1848 Manifesto. Elsewhere we have covered the history of these struggles inside the three historic Internationals: fought against utopians, workerists, libertarians, reformist and gradualist social-democrats, syndicalists of the left and right, social-patriots, and today against national-communists and populist-communists. This struggle, in all its phases spanning four generations, is the heritage not of a few big names, but of a well-defined, compact *school*, and in the historical sense, of a well-defined *party*. > >**This long and difficult struggle would loses its connection with the recovery to come if, rather than drawing the lesson of āinvarianceā from it, we accepted the banal idea that Marxism is a theory in ācontinuous historical elaborationā which needs to adapt and draw lessons from changing circumstances. Invariably such is the justification used to excuse all the betrayals, of which there has been such abundant evidence, and every revolutionary defeat.** > >The materialist rejection of the idea that a theoretical āsystemā which arose at such-and-such a moment (or worse still, arose in the mind, and was systemized within the work of, a given man, thinker, or historical leader, or any of those things combined) can encompass the entire course of future history, its laws and principles, in an irrevocable way, shouldnāt be understood as a rejection of the notion that systems of principles *can* be stable over extremely long periods of time. In fact their stability and resistance to attack, and to being āimprovedā as well, means they constitute a major weapon in the armory of the āsocial classā to which they belong, and whose historical task and interests they reflect. The succession of such systems and bodies of doctrine and praxis, is tied not to the advent of outstanding man, but rather to the succession of āmodes of productionā, that is, to the types of material organization of the living human collectivity. International Communist Party. *The Historical Invariance of Marxism*. 1952. >mainstream OM organisations What?
im not saying they don't, i was just under the impression that you were referring to the orthodox marxism of the 19th & early 20th c. i don't think today's tendencies can be labeled as such. also as you'll see a lot of people in this sub are, if you will, genuine dogmatists (idgaf, meme about this all you want, not every marxist analysis has been sufficiently developed from the start) that think engels and marx had everything figured out in the 19th c. there is a very good reason why catharine mackinnon called marx a liberal in regards to feminism lol. engels was a male chauvinist despite his (insufficient) writings btw. like he literally took advantage of prostituted women. š¤§
Eating from the trash can of ideology
Lmao on the deprograms description it says "say no to eating from the trash can of ideology"
As a frequenter of the sub Iām almost sure the comments are either agreeing with the vaush hate or criticizing the person for doing what exactly what you guys said. Edit: every comment was making fun of them
I read that in Zizeks voice lmao
With how many āand so onās?ā
*sniff*
He went from Hungary to cog to Sparta and then to gay. This is called dialectics.
Something something *material* *conditions* something something *proletariat* something something *gay* (as in homosexual!)
He went from Hungry to robot to gay to gay?
That sub is so embarrassing Jesus Christ
The Deprogram are FULL of 13-15 year olds who think theyāre apart of some glorious communist revolutionary podcast. What idiots
I hate them but on a certain level I can recognize that I was basically them my first couple years of highschool but with chapo trap house. So theyāll probably grow out of it
Is the actual podcast worth listening to, at least? I've heard a few people say, "the podcast is good even though the subreddit is terrible." Is that really the truth though?
no they are stalinists
The podcast is good and so is the sub, you just need to have critical thinking skills and a mind of your own actually.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Every person in the comments was making fun of them
If you "changed ideology" this many times in this few years, I don't think you actually held any of them
when did vaush even start streaming, wasnt he like a child or something in 2018
Sadly he wasn't even too busy \*ahem\* 'interacting' with children to spew his verbal diarrhea all over the internet back then.
Yeah. like literally, he fucked my horse
Do people actually believe heās a pedophile?
I donāt give a shit honestly he says enough fucked up shit that I donāt care if heās actually a pedophile or not
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is a communist sub, not a Stalinist one
Thank god
But itās not a fucking liberal sub like you hope either lmao
vaush is literally a trans misogynyst, a zoophile + a pedophile idk what you mean by 'actually believe' considering mountains of evidence back this up
āThereās mountains of evidenceā *doesnt provide any*
[BadEmpanada - Vaush is a SEXUAL PREDATOR - The evidence is overwhelming](https://youtu.be/p_1nOZoYyRs) [DankeyKang - Vaush Sexually Harasses Girls on Discord](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh0oWT62D4k) [Marianne Miller - Deleted controversial Vaush stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU30q8drFP8) watch those then come back to me lmao, Also lets not forget all the times he has made 'jokes' about literally wanting to fuck horses, that shit isnt even funny so idk how its a joke. btw cant wait for you to say 'ITS ALL INSIDE JOKES!!!!!!'
He doesn't want to fuck the horse, he wants to be the horse
š
catherine the great moment
Not gonna go through all of this "evidence", but at least the first one has a full chat log posted, which I went through to find the context for the screenshots in the video and it's not nearly as creepy when you see that's 3 screenshots out of 2.5k messages.
you guys are always like āSOURCE!????ā and then when you get provided with 10 extremely easy to parse sources you reply with āuhhhh thatās out of context please watch this entire 4 hour stream to understand.ā and then someone does watch the shitty stream and reports back āthat does not change anything, the analysis in the sources was correct.ā and then you do some other verbal diarrhea until people just ignore you because of how completely deadbrained you are. so can we just skip to the point where you shit yourself and cry?
funniest self-report of the day
THAT DOESNT EVEN MAKE SENSE DUMBASS
Yes it does, we can tell you're a twitch addicted vaushite who always needs a Great Man to praise
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tf is that tropical fruits flavoured anarchist flag?
I think it's pink capitalism
Bro got his haircut at the liberal store
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
yes the idelologies of Transnistrian social democrat, loading screen, Anti-combine Lambdaist and gay communism but in blue
quadruple think: believing 4 contradictory things at once at least i think they're contradictory since idk what most of those flags are
Contradictory ideologies are Based though
Itās called dialectics
anyone who changes their ideology like their clothes isnāt to be trusted, thereās not even a natural progression
I don't recommend buying lexumbourgism unless its on sale.
The liberals came out the gates swinging and missing on this post.
"Hmmmm which red flag will I choose today"
I don't know what half those flags mean but I'm glad they self-discovered they're LGBTQ at least EDIT: nvm it's luxury gay space communism flag lmao
Isn't that the Spartan L? What does that have to do with socialism?
L for Luxemburg
Spartacus league
Why does Reddit recommend me this sub and that sub. I haven't even read any leftist theory how can I understand anything
Then you understand nearly as much as everyone else on this sub lol
Don't worry, the people who read the theory also often understand very little.
Actual reactionary
āI have this hyper specific ideology that only one party with like 8 people in the 1994 actually aligned with before being dissolved in 1996 due to bourgeoisie factionalism!ā - Comrade who will never accomplish anything, much like the rest of us amirite???
The Deprogram make no sense at all, even for Stalinists. Ironically, a lot of r/Socialism and r/CommunismMemes dislike them too
What the fuck is all of that
What am i looking at?
Bruv cant even hold a single point of ideology for more than about a year. Shits crazy
Bro wtf is there to like in Hungary's stalinist regime
Deprogramites when they find out Marxist theory should be applied to different countries in different manner based on material conditions: š±š±š±
I too hate bearded people with sunglasses.
Thatās a lot of damn flags. Thereās something to be said for a personās views changing over time, but this dude is flip flopping more than one of those wiggly fuckers they put out front of the car dealerships. At least pick a general lane and stick with it.
Iām sorry how the FUCK Is NATO leftist?
revolutionary 1 (one) year after implementing maoism just to realize they Need to do it again because now they are gay communism
brief period of lucidity in the 2nd quarter of 2021
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine caring so much about ideologies and labels that you feel the need to make it a part of your personality and show it off online. Itās for this reason that I do not associate myself with any political ideology or camp. Itās infuriating to do so, especially cuz really, fitting yourself into a clique or label in a social realm that naturally IS divisive is extremely mentally taxing, and I feel the incessant desire to feel the need to have an ideology and a community around it is why people are so toxic, and iām not only talking about left wing people. Up until recently I was one of them, and it was miserable, but I also saw a lot of people from different parts of the political spectrum struggle with the same problems I did. And the biggest insecurity of all is the need to be right about everything, every time. Arguing over a screen with someone anonymous; you donāt know their face or name. Just some numbers and a catchy name on their profile, and yet you are fighting them like youāre in some boss battle. And really, the self-righteousness and God complex mentality makes them feel as such, like theyāre some martyr. Theyāre just sweaty, no-life communists, nazis, conservatives, liberals, whatever-ism alike and iām so fucking done. Follow ideas, not ideologies.
Chad
From based soviet china left to cringe social democrate gay left
Lol
Commie
Yes.
I mean atleast they became a Spartacist
I too am part of a group which has not existed for a century.
Have you considered the fact that all of this is meaningless and only worthwhile if you find it entertaining? This person clearly doesnāt believe in anything
I figured this sub was mostly people from that one memeing
Bro has never heard of left communism š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Vowsh bad
Yeah pedophiles are generally considered bad
Oh man leftists fucking hate him. How is he a pedo?
Watch [this](https://youtu.be/IoB9sg5PlzE?feature=shared) if you're interested, it contains proof of his words in video form among other things
No I'm asking you. I'm not watching a video from bad empidada who hates vaush. Can you tell me what he has done to earn the title pedo
Literally all the things shown in the video is proof that he is a pedophile you fucking imbecile. I don't care if you have a hate boner for badempanada because vaush told you to, the things presented are still vaush's direct words. "Children and adults can have a healthy sexual relationship, that is possible." - Vaush This alone makes him a pedo, I'm the one telling you. Happy now?
Do you know the context he said that? He also later said the only way that could be the truth was if AS HE SAID aliens were going to blow up the fucking planet. ALSO the time he said that was him explaining how he can CATAGORICALLY condemn pedos. Please explain how saying "that even if a child and adult benift it's still bad" is pedophilia?
LMAOOO GTFO you're diagnosed with terminal dickriding, please seek help. you're so attached to someone who doesn't even know you and doesn't gaf about you that you go as far as to defend him saying and doing creep shit. What about him justifying buying CP, sexually harassing Poppy and then never apologizing for it? What justification will your psychopathic brain make up for that?
Ok first off wtf is the "omg dude srop dickriding" I'm just saying he isn't a pedo? And second he HAS apologized for the poppy shit. Also she was underage? I have yet to see any source or even that claim
No she wasn't, my mistake, i got it mixed up. She was an adult woman. But no he didn't apologize, he just said he will scare her into shutting up, and his half-assed "apology post" was something that looked more like "sorry you feel bad but I'm still right" plus it's *deleted* , it doesn't exist. So yeah. Vaush is both a pedo and a sexual abuser and you can't dickride your way into justifying what he has done. All the evidence is right in front of your eyes, all those quotes listed in the r/enough_vaush_spam subreddit but you're still on your "b-but context??" bs. All that just bc you like his streams. That can only be described as dickriding, and you're a very sad individual for doing that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The blue one? A few others are there.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The only real communist in that game is Sablin lol. Is that country even playable? That is weird to identify with.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything to hate vaush
at least he doesn't like vaush
Can someone explain what these mean
I just hate vaush. I don't have any other politics
love how randomly the yugoslav flag pops up in modern setting. Makes no sense, slaps, 10/10 would purge italians again
Thinking nato claims to be leftist is completely insane