This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
Serious posts can be posted here and/or in /c/GenZhou.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.
Rules:
(Thread here: https://nitter.fdn.fr/RodericDay/status/1666063389733298176#m) They have some decent stuff, but they are also tailist patsocs. It’s probably better to just read the Black Agenda Report article than buy the book.
I'm out of the loop, who is MWM, who's a patsoc in here and who's written the book?
I would reply to a specific comment but there are too many to choose from - can anyone provide some links that show MWM cozying up with patsocs? I checked their youtube channel and nothing obvious jumps out at me. They recently called for the seizing of the means of production, which I don't think patsocs do - I remember seeing a clip of one patsoc (I don't care enough to know who's who in the fake communist world) on Tucker Carlson claiming that communists don't care about private property anymore.
The book acknowledges lifting its thesis from Jones Manoel (who wrote the original essay about "Fetish for Defeat") and Domenico Losurdo (who wrote "Class Struggle").
But these two writers have a very different idea of what this means: they de-emphasize "workerism."
I am confused by what exactly this guy is saying. It appears that he then quotes Losurdo here, where the writer (whoever it is) criticizes another figure, Tronti, for crassly reducing Lenin to a work-abolitionist trade-unionist with no concern for imperialism, racism, etc., and this attack of Tronti seems entirely correct. What's the connection to this purity book?
A disappointing thread with little substantial criticism. I expected more from Roderic Day, i always enjoyed reading his essays. This just seems to boil down to accusing MWM of associating with "patsocs", ironically falling into the exact same purity fetish that the book criticizes. The national question in the US is highly complex and there is a good argument to be made that for revolutionary progress to be possible the US itself as it currently exists must be dismantled. But this is not a question of moral principles, rather one of strategic necessity, expediency and viability. Is it even possible to build a revolutionary movement on the basis of the "American" settler proletariat? Or conversely, is it even possible WITHOUT it? The answers to these questions will have to be borne out by practice and active revolutionary struggle, they won't be found in theory, essays and books.
