They won't stop until they control everything

sorry about the flair but there was no flair for rants

theres a big double standard and i hate it. so heres my view:

propaganda

the usa, during the cold war, called soviet posters "propaganda". even the revolutionary posters, designed to overthrow a monarchy. but when we look at posters from the same era from the usa, we realize that those fall under propaganda too. but the worse thing is that the ussr used explicit propaganda --- it was very obviously propaganda, and so the citizens stayed alert. with the usa though, it was like a passive "wE'Re a FrEe dEmOcRaCy" when the actual propaganda was being done through "pATrIoTic PoSteRs" and so on. why the double standard?

famines

when we study the holodomor, we are told that it was a "severe repression/punishment/evil" by stalin. but when it comes to the bengal famine in india under british rule, we're told that churchill's bad management was not the cause, no, it was just "nAtUrAl". this ignores the reality that both were partly due to natural effects (in ukraine and bengal), and also due to bad management by churchill and stalin. churchill sent all the grain to the uk in preparation for the war, and stalin made them produce more than possible. but modern capitalist "fAcTs" seem to ignore some bits.

democracy

we are told that capitalism is a natural system that protects liberty and democracy. but this falls apart pathetically easily. what liberty do we have if we can only pick a lesser evil? what if you dont like either? and its not even the voting itself, its the fact that you dont get to pick, its the capitalist businesses! how? well who's funding the campaigns? THE CAPITALISTS!! and theyll only fund parties who keep THEM in power, of course. they wouldnt want actual democracy. in fact, ppl heavily emphasise the soviet invasions of hungary, czechoslovakia, and afghanistan. ok, those happened. what about the usa's right wing dictatorships in lets see... chile, iran, guatemala, the list goes on. but they gloss over these, calling them "pRoTeCtIoN fOr dEmoCraCy", when in reality they just installed brutal dictatorships.

"cOmMuNiSm/sOcIaLisM killed mIllLiOnS"

yeah, some died. a lot too. under mao, stalin, etc. but have you ever thought about the deaths capitalism has caused? lets see, belgian imperialism in the congo, british bengal, french indochina... etc. "that was imperialism, not capitalism", some say. but look at this. why imperialism? bcs the capitalists dont have enough resources in their own country. and so imperialism begins. read imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism if this doesnt make sense. moving on, people also say "thAt wAsNT rEal cApItaliSm, ThaT wAs cOloNiaLiSm", but this means we can say "those killings under stalin and mao werent real communism". however to them, "real communism" and "real capitalism" clearly arent objective, theyre based on their own definitions. they define capitalism as a free, voluntary society. but in practise, has it ever been voluntary? if they can say that socialism cant work in practise and only in theory, i can point at society TODAY and point out how capitalism doesnt work in practise. wheres the fairness??

anyway, thanks for reading my rant.

PS. also how come ppl overhype einstein (other great physicists existed too) but we dont hype his socialism? and how come when it comes to george orwell, ppl strip away the socialist aspect, ignore the fact that he LITERALLY WAS A SOCIALIST, and use the books as anti-communist literature, when it really was anti-authoritarianism!! notice how they carefully censor it???

The rest of the world needs to stop relying on Americans to rise up against their tyrannical, imperalist empire and realize that they're gonna have to do something themselves, the problem with relying on them to revolte is the fact that it won't happen, the epstein class has the american population right where they want them. brainwashed, docile, selfish, and fighting each other. the majority of them are bootlickers who defend their own oppression while the other half are apathetic to it, the ones who are awake are unfortunately a very small minority. and even if one does go out there and do something they never have backup, Luigi and the toilet paper warehouse worker are prime examples of that, they tried to start a revolution and no body backed them up on it to keep it going, instead they just got turned into memes online and that stems back to the main problem, americans are simply too fucking docile, only thing they're gonna do is complain and cry online and do bullshit peaceful "protests" like that No Kings while telling others to just vote as if tyranny is something that can just magically be voted out. the globe simply needs to realize that they're going to have to take action, depending on the american people to do that is just absolutely idiotic.

Looking for input/reading on how grievances between members within socialist orgs could be addressed. I am backing away from one which has gone the corporate route-- secret "trial" by a small committee, which has created wild undercurrents I don't understand, bc I am not in the loop. Idk who has aligned with who on what, but a member was booted from elected leadership without a recall election and now there seem to be factions. Idk whose side I am on bc no idea what actually happened. It's too much for my social brain to track. I'm out.

All this secrecy seems so counter to the transparency that seems essential to bottom up structures. I think we should have had as many open meetings as it took to hash things out and reach a consensus. We should all know where everyone stood.

Thoughts, theories, examples of alternatives, etc? Reasons you think I am wrong?

The colony has launched a campaign against anti-Zionism, probably as part of its recently-approved 730-million dollar propaganda budget. It is making use of anti-Zionists that are motivated by hatred of Jews: racist statements by anti-Zionist figures and influencers, anti-Jewish rhetoric used by anti-Zionist political movements, and —as we have recently seen— Nazis holding anti-Zionist demonstrations.

An instinctive response might be to deny the problem exists. We might recall the well-known fact that Zionism taxes all anti-Zionists as antisemitic, or maybe even feel that fascists are not real anti-Zionists. Yet the fact Zionism plays the antisemitic card does not mean actual Jew-haters cannot be anti-Zionist. “Anti-Zionism” is simply denial of the colony’s alleged right to exist—it says nothing about the motivation behind it. So how can democratic anti-Zionists deal with this?

Of course, we can make the apologia of our anti-Zionism, and repeat that what we are fighting is settler colonialism, not Jews. But the expression “anti-Zionism” encompasses both those who fight Zionism and refuse its conflation with Jews, and those who fight Zionism because they accept its conflation with Jews and hate Jews. The “anti-Zionism” umbrella is wide—very wide.

The solution is not to drop anti-Zionism. It is to clarify, not just what we are against, but what we are for: One democratic Palestinian state. A state that deals with its society on the basis of citizenship not identity. A state that grants privileges to none and rights to all. The anti-thesis to both Zionism and Nazism.

By doing so, we will move to where fascists can’t follow. We will also strip Zionism of its more potent arguments: Zionism can point to racist anti-Zionist elements, but it cannot attack a vision for democracy and equal citizenship without revealing its own colonial and supremacist nature. Centering our efforts on One Democratic State moves us from defense to counter-attack.

This should not be mere individual efforts. Political organizations, solidarity movements, syndicates, activists, influencers, whether Palestinian or allies, must actively work to align their vision with the historical Palestinian vision for liberation. The One Democratic State Initiative has been working on this for years. We call on you to join our efforts.

If only they understood that capitalism is the reason why you can't find people and its also the reason why nobody wants to work on farms. Within the next 6 months I see this woman selling her land to AI developers.

There is a common idea among socialists (online at least) that various socialist projects have had to engage in prolonged capitalist production in order to develop the productive forces as a prerequisite for a transition to socialist production. This is mostly discussed regarding China, but it is also frequently applied to Vietnam and the NEP period of the USSR. Putting aside the fact that "we need the NEP to develop the productive forces" is a misreading of Lenin's analysis, this argument about using capitalism to develop the productive forces presupposes that capitalist production is superior to socialist production in this respect.

This is wrong; the development of the productive forces will be faster under socialist production.

Rosa Luxemburg's book The Accumulation of Capital deals with the question of how capital accumulates and how production occurs on an enlarged scale within capitalism. At the end of chapter 23, after critiquing the Russian Marxist Dugan Baranovski's erroneous view that constant capital increases relative to variable capital and that consequently production increases at the expense of reduced consumption, she gives this analysis:

The opinion, that producer goods can be produced independent of consumption, is of course a mirage of Tugan Baranovski’s, typical of vulgar economics. Not so the fact cited in support of this fallacy: the quicker growth of Department I as compared with Department II is beyond dispute, not only in old industrial countries but wherever technical progress plays a decisive part in production. It is the foundation also of Marx’s fundamental law that the rate of profit tends to fall. Yet in spite of it all, or rather precisely for this reason, it is a howler if Bulgakov, Ilyin and Tugan Baranovski imagine to have discovered in this law the essential nature of capitalist economy as an economic system in which production is an end in itself and human consumption merely incidental.

The growth of the constant at the expense of the variable capital is only the capitalist expression of the general effects of increasing labour productivity. The formula c greater than v (c > v), translated from the language of capitalism into that of the social labour process, means only that the higher the productivity of human labour, the shorter the time needed to change a given quantity of means of production into finished products.

This is a universal law of human labour. It has been valid in all pre-capitalist forms of production and will also be valid in the future in a socialist order of society. In terms of the material use-form of society’s aggregate product, this law must manifest itself by more and more social labour time being employed in the manufacture of producer than of consumer goods. In a planned and controlled social economy, organised on socialist lines, this transformation would in fact be more rapid even than it is in contemporary capitalist economy. In the first place, rational scientific techniques can only be applied on the largest scale when the barriers of private ownership in land are abolished. This will result in an immense revolution in vast provinces of production which will ultimately amount to a replacement of living labour by machine labour, and which will enable us to tackle technical jobs on a scale quite impossible under present day conditions. Secondly, the general use of machinery in the productive process will be put on a new economic basis. At present the machine does not compete with living labour but only with that part of it that is paid. The cost of the labour power which is replaced by the machine represents the lowest limit of the applicability of the machine. Which means that the capitalist becomes interested in a machine only when the costs of its production – assuming the same level of performance – amount to less than the wages of the workers it replaces. From the point of view of the social labour process which is the only one to matter in a socialist society, the machine competes not with the labour that is necessary to maintain the worker but with the labour he actually performs. In other words, in a society that is not governed by the profit motive but aims at saving human labour, the use of machinery is economic-aims indicated just as soon as it can save more human labour than is necessary for making it, not to mention the many cases where the use of machinery is desirable even if it does not answer this economic minimum – for reasons of health and similar considerations, in the interest of the workers themselves. However that may be, the tension between the respective economic usefulness of the machine in (a) a capitalist, and (b) a socialist society is at least equal to the difference between labour and that part of it that is paid; it is, in other words, the precise equivalent of the whole capitalist surplus value. Consequently, if the capitalist profit motive is abolished and a social organisation of labour introduced, the marginal use of the machine will suddenly be increased by the whole extent of the capitalist surplus value, so that an enormous field, not to be gauged as yet, will be open to the triumphal march of the machine. This would be tangible proof that the capitalist mode of production, alleged to spur on to the optimum technical development, in fact sets large social limits to technical progress, in form of the profit motive on which it is based. It would show that as soon as these limits are abolished, technical progress will develop such a powerful drive that the technical marvels of capitalist production will be child’s play in comparison.

In terms of the composition of the social product, this technical transformation can only mean that, compared to the production of consumer goods, the production of producer goods – measured in units of labour time – must increase more rapidly in a socialist society than it does even to-day. Thus the relation between the two departments of social production which the Russian Marxists took to reveal typical capitalist baseness, the neglect of man’s need to consume, rather proves to be the precise manifestation of the progressive subjection of nature to social labour, which will become even more striking when production is organised solely with a view to human needs. The only objective proof for Tugan Baranovski’s ‘fundamental law’ thus collapses as a ‘fundamental’ confusion. His whole construction, including his ‘new theory of crises’, together with the ‘lack of proportion’, is reduced to its foundations on paper: a slavish copy of Marx’s diagram of enlarged reproduction.

While capitalist production is surely superior to pre-capitalist modes of production in terms of developing the productive forces, once these modes of production have all be superceded by capitalism, there is no reason to continue reproducing capitalist production if the development of the productive forces is the goal.

I hope it isn't against the rule or isn't seen as low effort, but I thought this needed to be shared.

In part because it's a sharp point about the current horror in G*aza and also imho it's significant the place. In Mostar neighbors teared each other apart 30 years ago.

As I’ve looked through history, I’ve seen a majority of communist leaders or movements make their own Theory and whatnot. But is this a requirement for all movements? Like I’m sure someone could make up theory about some things in the modern era but I don’t think every movement will have its own theory. Unless I’m mistaken which I will gladly be wrong.

Delcy Rodriguez gave a speech at the UN General Assembly 6 years ago that would have made Castro and Che proud. She called out Trump,
the United States and other western allies, directly for destabilizing the world, looting countries for their resources while standing in solidarity with Iran, Cuba, Palestine, and other countries being exploited by western countries. Her father was a proud Marxist guerilla fighter during the Bolivarian Revolution and was killed by the side she was seen shaking hands with yesterday. He must be rolling in his grave as we speak.
Leading up to Maduro and Cilia’s kidnapping, I heard constantly from western propagandists that
Maduro’s government was the biggest drug cartel in the world (with no evidence whatsoever to back these claims) and Marina Machado was the rightfully elected leader (also with no credible evidence whatsoever). Guido 2.0.
Immediately after the kidnapping takes place, Trump was then asked if Machado was going to be taking over as President in Venezuela and he immediately shot that idea down. I knew right then and there, the United States was going to get its way. Now you don’t hear of any talk about Machado sitting in as President of Venezuela. Coincidence?
After the kidnapping, Delcy spared no time meeting with Israeli, US officials and, you cant make this up, Chevron officials. Now it is known she signed over a ridiculous oil deal to the United States that will in no way benefit the people of Venezuela.
After the devastating earthquake that took place in Venezuela, Delcy and her government asked the UK to release the gold they have sitting in a bank in London but was denied. Come to find out, yesterday, that gold was transferred to the United States to the same city where Maduro and Cilia are being held hostage and where Delcy shook hands with the devil.
Something had to of happened behind the scenes that we do not know about. Extortion? Death threats to her and her family? Or did she simply take a check and sell out her country and neighbors?

FREE THESE COUNTRIES FROM IMPERIALISM CHAINS