It really was “9/11 2!”

I know you’re trying to persuade liberals, but these arguments seem fairly liberal. Mind you, I’m as far from wanting to see the DPRK color revv’d as you can imagine.

‘I like positive depictions of North Korean people/Korean culture’

“I enjoy seeing romantic perspectives on imperial Japan.”

‘Regardless of what you feel about any place’s government, it is always good to see an increase in standards of living’

“You don’t have to like Andrew Jackson but think of all those settlers with free land!”

any remarks or analysis about sanctions, for example talking about how sanctions don’t actually accomplish the popularly ascribed goals, but instead directly target the most vulnerable people in a society (with the stated goal of “making the people dislike their government” as if that is not the most mask-off thing politicians say)

“It’s good to remind people the long history of the Jewish people’s oppression. Imagine trying to slander Israel when Iran wants to see them gone.”

…

An “ism” seems to get created whenever a leader’s pragmatic activity brings them a following. As you recognize, this following then determines that the leader is right all the time and these “discoveries” apply many places. This may happen again, and even good tactics may be followed, but I don’t think the role of theory is dreaming something new. We should be reading Marx and criticizing existing modernizations to determine what errors we’re making.

I think you latched too hard onto the “ideology shopping” bit. Maoism definitely has as a central piece “success = correct” which it fails. What I said addresses how that’s depressing.

This is still muddled. What does it mean for an ideology to be “wrong?” What does it mean for one to be “right?” If you don’t have a standard you’re judging ML by, how do you know when it’s met? If your standard is “success” I’d question that. Of course Maoism may fail its own standards, but that doesn’t mean something else succeeds them.

You missed my point. You’re viewing ideologies like commodities in a store. “This one’s got a decent success rating, but I’m not sure. What about the others?” It’s opportunist. You see communism as another thing to vote for; a leader to identify with.

Since communism is not currently “successful” (USSR dead and China reformed) you’re no longer sure you can count on them to be a reasonable alternative to “support.”

Communism is the self-liberation of the proletariat. We’re fighting capitalism, not trying to duplicate a far away system.

I can’t say I don’t relate. A few times I’ve thought “without being able to count on AES how do people cope?” I don’t see that as a problem any more. We can abolish capitalism. My task is to spread a powerful understanding and fight errors—not discover the absolute correct doctrine and toss in my support. That doesn’t mean I’m better than China. It means they’re the “real movement” for their country and not mine.

Maybe I’m wrong and you’re really just trying to get in the head of a Maoist, but that’s what I’ll have you consider.

consumerist lifestyles…absolutely worth denigrating

Why? Some puritanical ritual? What’s the point of attacking people for looking for their own enjoyment through commodities in an alienated society? Can you really build a movement based on shame? The problem with capitalism is that people are poor in spite of the abundance of private wealth. We want to end poverty, have workers turn production towards their own needs/desires. We might need to ration and remove excesses, but you can hardly blame someone today for pursuing their own interests. Socialism is about pursuing our own interests as a class.

I’ve been thinking of writing a critique of the Settlers thesis, but I’ll try to reply with some thoughts here.

Communism is “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” Entertainment and food are needs. An immense amount of competing commodities produced with only ‘taking advantage of needs to get money’ in mind is not necessary. Capitalism perpetually creates more and more use values but each can make less profit. We get cheaper and cheaper goods yet have to work more and more. Living in the US sucks for a lot of people. That’s why we have Trump. “Everything is fine” doesn’t make sense to millions of Amerikans living paycheck to paycheck. The problem is how they explain this suffering. If they understand the problem inherent with working for a wage to produce commodities then they can seize power and build a more rational society. If they find immigrants a good enough explanation then they’re nothing but bootlickers.

A lot of leftists are intellectuals. Their class interests are opposed to the bourgeoisie and proletariat. If they understand what’s actually wrong with capitalism instead of succumbing to the moralism of their own elitist outlook then they can learn to communicate the necessary understanding for realizing working class interests rather than preaching about their “duty” to own up to all the evil in the world.

The “cope” is thinking our problem is that people are just “too well off.” There are many worse off countries that are less revolutionary. We need to criticize the errors in our movement so that we can be ready when the next crisis hits (and it will). “The masses” need to know that they don’t have to endlessly consent to different bosses.

Updating our theory in what respect? First you must show a deficiency that calls for update. I don’t deny the possibility of new “isms,” but again and again I read compelling revisions and then learn that Marx already covered the subject and either criticized the tendency well or gave a similar but less idealist take. That’s not to say Marx was never wrong, but rarely do I see an argument that actually proves the need to leave Marx behind in some respect.

This is the inevitable conclusion of the logic “practical success = correctness.” If something exists it’s “right.” If something doesn’t exist it must be wrong. Scientific socialism isn’t merely something to have faith in. Marx is supposed to show why capitalism sucks for the proletariat and what is necessary to build a world in the proletariat’s interests. I encourage you to cease your ideology shopping and read this: https://ruthlesscriticism.com/Marxism.htm

No problem. I needed to practice explaining such things anyway.

Socially necessary labor time determines the average exchange value of a type of commodity. Automation allows a firm to reduce the labor necessary to produce commodities. Let’s say company 1 produces 100 units of toothpaste with 10 people employed. Company 2 produces 100 units with 5 people. If they both sell each unit for $10 and pay their workers $10 then each have the same gross revenue but company 2 has fewer people to pay and therefore makes more profit. This is because less labor time goes into products than average. For the sake of competition, company 2 may lower prices. This reflects the reduction in labor time. If they sell each unit for $5 then firm 1 is undercut unless they can catch up. Less labor is embodied, so there’s less exchange value, but now firm 1 is producing slower than average. Less socially necessary labor is embodied in their goods despite more real labor going in. If they automate too then the socially necessary labor time is reduced further. Each sells for less than they did before because less labor goes in. Yet, each pay more for machines. These machines produce goods with use values, yet the exchange value declines. Goods get cheaper, yet people still need to work. If no one works then the goods have no use value. Full automation means no profit.

Unemployment has existed since the start of capitalism. The need for people to purchase is another conflict in capitalism because paying workers more means less profit. This doesn’t mean there’s a tendency towards a final crisis. These tendencies are why we have a crises every few years. Each crisis could turn into a revolution if people are organized and motivated, but often they do not. Each crisis calls for war, worse products, more fictitious capital, and so on to keep the shaky machine running.

Fanny Kaplan. Socialist Revolutionary Party. Tried to kill Lenin.

A bit of a placeholder, tbh, but she’s pretty and opportunists always call me “ultra left,” so yeah.

Fixed it. Simone Weil.

“You were made to dominate and these [slur]s have taken that from you.” Vs “Society lied to you, you aren’t superior.” Vs (libs, what they mostly hear) “what are you talking about? Everything’s fine, esp for you. Let’s just do more pink capitalism.”

Belarus is already sort of socialist. I’m pessimistic about Russia.

Pls China, give me AI omniscient Lenin.

He liked fascism. He openly said he wished Mussolini’s regime could have survived WWII. The problem for him with the Nazis was that they were getting uppity and trying to be a rival imperialist.

When they unironically say “based” or use “Marxist” or positively (multiple of my teachers have done this, I’m super lucky to live in a relatively non hell hole part of the US). Also when they say “communist” positively or talk about how they like Cuba (my peers have done these). A more subtle way is if they talk about dialectics or “people’s history.”

Also, the way you’d pick me out is my “toadal commie” shirt, my “death to amerikkka” shirt, my baret with a red star on it, or my Lenin pin on my backpack. That’s by looks, assuming you haven’t heard how I always talk about communism whenever I get the chance.

Edit: almost forgot the pro-union/Sankara/antifa stickers and patches.