sovietsnake

I think Heraclitus case is more based since he literally speaks about the inherent dialectics in all sense of life, and the fact that they cannot understand it, which is literally what happens with liberals, not being able to understand dialectical materialism, so the resonance is bigger. While people say Heraclitus thought that fire was the arche, it honestly was just a metaphor for the logos (dialectics).

The only surviving texts by Heraclitus are called "Fragments" which are surviving pieces of supposedly the only written book by him. All of these were scattered from others sources such as citations and paraphrasing of his text. For II and III Kahn refers to fragments 2 and 3 of his ordering of the fragments (there is a debate about the ordering except for I where there are 2 other sources of his time that declare that fragment as the beginning of Heraclitus' book).

They appear in the screenshot, but I will paste them as text below:

II (D. 34) Not comprehending, they hear like the deaf. The saying bears witness to them: absent while present.

III (D. 2) Although the account (logos) is shared, most men live as though their thinking (phronesis) were a private possession.

The D. # refers to the Diels-Kranz numbering, which is what's been used as the default before and even after Kahn's. If you have any doubt about the meaning let me know, but I'd argue reading Heraclitus is really good for understanding dialectics and his philosophy still holds true in some way until today.

cerra el orto entonces vende patria

In my work I've had to fill out that kind of forms a couple of times for Latinos and some have this options "Cuban, Hispanic, Mexican, Puerto Rican". It makes total sense.

Who's the one in the photo? I don't understand.

Report that bastard.

pretty pretty preeeeeeetty good

Well, I didn't understand exactly what did you mean by not supporting him. The only thing I'm saying is I'd rather have him than Bolsonaro. I never aid revolution can be built by neoliberal governments, only that having them can achieve more things in international geopolitics than a Bolsonaro could.

Of course, I didn't say that's the only thing we should do, and precisely while we wait the masses need to be organized, educated and radicalised.

The national bourgeoisie in the global south is subservient to imperialist capital and has no revolutionary potential, this is a read any serious communist party has. Also, he does not oppose liberalism at all, he is liberalism. Domestic policy is hardly better than Biden and he’s not nearly as combative a Kirchner/Fernandez

It is subservient and opposes it at the same time, but you cannot make any movement against the national bourgeoisie if the international bourgeoisie has so much hold in the country. The revolutionary potential it has is its opposition to the West, when it comes to the national level, they of course are reactionaries, but as I mentioned, I my opinion, given the current climate crisis, what we should strive for is the collapse of the West first, that will give space for more revolutionary movements to take place. Right now, there's no way a true combative process could take place without it diverging into something worse by outside influence. I know he is a liberal, that does not mean there can't be two factions of the same force where one's opposition to the other could be of benefit to the working class. I don't know if by Fernandez you mean Cristina or Alberto, but Alberto is the biggest lackey Peronism has produced, Cristina was indeed pretty based all in all.

That is a straight up anti-revolutionary reading but go off

Communists should unequivocally oppose Lula and push for radical and mass means, because he doesn’t do any of that. In fact his purpose is to disorganize our class

Edit: ofc this doesn’t mean letting the fascists defeat him either. Making the proletariat more class conscious will only make our life easier, and to do that we must stand against Lula’s neoliberal policies

I understand that, but at the moment I don't think producing that is feasible, and I think the working class can benefit more with having Lula on power than by having a failed socialist revolution followed by a fascist instalment by the West. The only thing I'm saying is we should wait for the West's collapse, which I don't think will take much longer, and in the meanwhile educate the classes, organize and be in a better position for the time where a revolution can indeed happen. It doesn't matter how much we want for something to actually happen if it is materially impossible, and trying to achieve it while these conditions are not met is what Mao or Deng called "leftist adventurism."

I get your point, but I think that what's more worth in this cases with such leaders, I'm from Argentina, so we have something very similar here with the Peronists, is that their national policies are trash, but they tend to have relatively good international policies and that's what's more pressing at this time with the geopolitical events that are taking place. Of course a Lula or a Kirchner will never truly do something that should be done under a socialist revolution, but I also think the conditions are not met for some real movement to be done in any of these countries, we have been fucked by fascist regimes and neoliberal propaganda and the working class is highly unorganized and politically apathetic. Furthermore, meaningful policies by left wing liberal governments such as these cannot go too far because they risk being intervened by the West, and it is better to have some stability while the empire collapses.

I think in this cases what happens is that we give critical support, we have ideological disagreements with governments such as the ones in Syria, Iran, Russia, etc, but critical support is necessary because in those cases they accomplish a revolutionary role by opposing liberalism, even though indeed their ideologies are reactionary. Lula represents the national bourgeoisie of Brazil, but they are, in the global affairs, playing a revolutionary role by opposing the West, but of course they shouldn't be considered true comrades. Given the economical and geopolitical condition globally, what we should strive for first is the collapse of the empire and the construction of a multi polar world, without a power such as the US pushing its rules based order real revolutionary movements can be built and emancipation achieved, but at least from my understanding (from my country and yours) that is something that cannot happen right now and it is better to strive for some economic stability.

Boy Boy, they are communists.