woodenghost [comrade/them]

Yes, we’re comrades who share a common struggle. But do you mean anarchists and marxists? Cause every single anarchist I know in real life is also a communist. And ever anarchist movement or org or squatting place or whatever too. Only online do I ever find anarchists who distance themselves from the idea of a stateless classless society (the universally accepted definition of communism). Like I assume you’re okay with society being stateless. So you want it to have classes? Not really, right? Marxists and anarchists have different strategies for how to get there, but clearly every anarchists who wants a classless stateless society (i.e. communism) is also a communist.

Source: any place anyone writes anything about the Paris commune. It was a major thing. You can read about it in Marx writing, or you know, just Wikipedia or any history book about the timeframe.

That’s cool! It’s not always easy as a child to make sense of contrasting messages from home vs from school and wider society.

You’ve felt bad about what? Your childhood drawings?

Maybe you should link to these fatwas, if you want a serious answer. Who made that judgment matters, because there is no universally acknowledged worldly central authority in Islam and there are many schools even within a given tradition.

You speak of the transition to a non-capitalist economy that’s a kind of socialism for the few against the majority, so it wouldn’t fully resolve the contradictions of capitalism. I guess how stable that would be depends on the details of how production is organized. But it seems like the ruling class has made their choice for how to manage the crisis: using fascism to enforce an ultra capitalist logic of accumulation through expropriation and overexploitation by violent means.

Thank you. It’s not like I completely thought of it myself. I mostly got it from David Harveys lectures/podcast. Yes, maybe I am underestimating it. It could be a better way to sink value than war, so it might happen. But there’s no consumer market in space. No one to sell to who’s not already part of capitalist circulation like India was during the industrialization. There’s no one in space who can buy the surplus product. War has the double benefit of destroying value (like space projects) and opening up markets on top of it (for selling surplus and for unequal exchange). Space exploration is also very capital intensive and has low actual human labor involved. Since all profit comes from human labor, it would drive down profit rates further. For example, robots successfully mining asteroids would make one single company rich for a time and lower profits for many companies, as prices drop.

Historically, funding for space related ventures has mostly been an offshoot of funding for war, with lots of dual use technologies. I don’t really see that relationship reversing soon. It’s not just rockets. For example, intelligence agencies have discarded several surplus telescopes for spy satellites with capabilities that surpass Hubble. They have more advanced ones in operation.

Yes, I think it does. Not saying people consciously plan it like that, it’s just the one option left once you discard everything that capital might not like. For capitalists, war promise a stabilizing effect in the face of deep crisis. But leftists in the imperial core can turn the effects of war against the ruling class by waging struggles over who should pay for the blowback. Strikes against inflation, social cuts and against war funding in general. The war will end, when it no longer seems to promise profit opportunities.

No, the capitalists can’t consume the surplus product. This has been considered and it has been proved not to work (eg by Luxemburg). The reason is, that capitalists are in competition with each other and are thus forced to invest in constant capital (machines etc) expanding circulation and making the problem worse. Capitalists who only consume the surplus are outcompeted and cease to be capitalists.

One real way that this contradiction is (temporarily) dealt with, is to expand to markets who are not yet fully under the capitalist mode of production (colonialism/imperialism). When England ran into this problem with their textile industry, they destroyed Indias textile industry, forced them to buy English textiles, forced them to sell opium to China to pay for the textiles and forced China to buy the opium and pay with silver that the English wanted. There aren’t many white spots left on the globe though so this “solution” is starting to run into problems.

Another tried and proven way to deal with the crisis of overproduction and get rid of the surplus product, is to destroy lots of value. Like in war. This unclogs the arteries of capital circulation and gets things flowing again. The state can help expropriate people via taxes or inflation and funnel that directly to the military industrial complex. Crucially, this has to happen without providing any use value to anyone or it would cut into profits. So the state funding weapons to blow stuff up works, but building useful things like schools or railways or housing doesn’t, because it would lower the profits of private companies.

Another big one is debt and financialization. Just gamble on future generations being able to afford the present surplus product. Debt is a claim on future labor, so to realize it, the productivity of labor has to go up. But oops, this again increases the surplus product. So no permanent solution.

The only thing, that genuinely works is war. The more destructive the better. Or, you know, getting rid of capitalism.

That’s what I like about hexbear:“fuck Nazis” is not controversial. We got that very least common denominator of basic human decency down.

Wow! It’s much easier to remember with all the context you gave!

Germany’s “Green” party actually green-lighted this (no pun intended). Can’t destroy the environment if there’s none of it left.

Also that’s what the famous mud wizard was protesting.

There is a lot of racism in Israel from white Jews against non-white Jews.

They never say: “If you don’t like how the resistance operates, why don’t you join it and try to change it from the inside?”

Thanks for sharing. It’s not bad, except for the lack of class analysis. Assuming the Democrats are principled and will always be opposed to fascism, is sadly wrong. They are exactly like those conservatives who always prefer fascism to socialism.

I think it’s more about fighting imperialism were you actually can fight it, you know, in your own country. Everything else is performative at best and often just support for the empire to protect ones own privilege.

In the Red autumn,

brittle leafs fall. Just like the

shareholder value.

Saved! I’ll show this to people, if it ever comes up.

In Germany, libs don’t support Palestine.

Russia being messed up doesn’t contradict the meme at all. People in the imperial core can be happy, every time comrades in Russia (or Ukraine) have a success against their government and their oligarchy. But the best thing every anti-imperialist can do, is fight the imperialists they can actually fight: the ones in their own country. If you’re in a NATO country, that means your priority should be to fight NATO and the US oligarchs who benefit from it’s constant wars all over the world. If workers on both sides just continue to fall for the propaganda, they’ll never stop killing each other.

I’m not just randomly claiming, that this strategy is what works best. Have you heard of Lenins revolutionary defeatism? It’s the method, that made the revolution possible.

Have you heard of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht? They were both killed for their anti-war stance and their commitment against national-chauvinism. Liebknechts famous line was: “the main enemy stands at home”, by which he meant the national oligarchs and imperialists profiting from the war.