Exh mulerporeop

 I agree with these views from reddit below on Multipolarism:

Historically, it is a multipolar world, not a unipolar world, that has given class movements in multiple countries political momentum. You don't have to read fascist trash from Dugin to appreciate this.

Well before the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union, the "lesser evil" imperial power to provide critical support was Imperial Germany, trying to stick it to the Entente and their colonial shit. Friedrich Engels himself suggested conditional support for Imperial Germany if it were attacked.


The crucial timing that needs to be emphasized is whether there's a revolutionary period for the working class or not. If it's not a revolutionary period, support "lesser evil" geopolitical realpolitik / campism. If it is a revolutionary period, do not support "lesser evil" geopolitical realpolitik / campism.


Karl "John Kerry" Marx got it wrong. He supported German unification under Bismarck in 1870-1871, then flipped-flopped. It was not a revolutionary period for the working class. Moreover, German victory was a key catalyst to none other than the Paris Commune.


Both August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht got it wrong. They should have been "social patriots" in German unification at France's expense. Instead, they voted against war. It was their anti-unification antics that brought about the Anti-Socialist Laws!


On the other hand, Alexander Parvus got it woefully wrong. He supported a German victory in WWI. However, it was a revolutionary period for the working class.


P.S. - I'm writing this as a critique of Jacobin's recent article on the Russian Left, particularly the dissing of the Left Front's anti-Maidan stance.


I don't think it's that useful to focus on who to support if you're a regular pleb outside of the region. Better try to analyze the situation rather than pick a side among imperialists.

I'd put it slightly differently: If there isn't potential for revolution, support the universal development of productive forces. (The German Ideology, "Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism.") US imperialism in its current form suppresses this development in many parts of the world, as did the "Kleinstaaterei" in Germany before unification.


BTW, Bebel and Liebknecht were for unification but against Prussia leading and forcing the issue militarily. (Which of course didn't change the course of history.)

BTW, Bebel and Liebknecht were for unification but against Prussia leading and forcing the issue militarily. (Which of course didn't change the course of history.)


Like I said, it was a politically dangerous mistake on their part.


At least you understand my case for "critical campism." I know it's a big debate in the DSA right now.


https://breachmedia.ca/is-the-enemy-of-my-enemy-my-friend/


I also know that uncritical campism is the kind that, at best, will lead to single-issue "anti-imperialist" crap orgs like ANSWER - and, at worst, to red-brown shit:


https://louisproyect.org/2018/03/15/the-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment/


"marxists" being anti-trust libs on foreign policy is probably partly responsible for why they've brought it back home and now defend the sanctity of small business


WTF does it mean to be "anti-trust" on foreign policy


LOL! [I'm not a defender of the First World petit-bourgeoisie in any way, shape or form.]


I'm not kidding, though. The "social patriotic" Lassalleans of the ADAV had the correct political position on German unification, even one under Prussian rule.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Exh demwmw

Saying that Joe Biden is better choice for the left wing than DJT instead of saying they are equally bad choices for the left wing, is excessive centrism and condemnable  Republicans take 10 steps backwards, Democrats take 1 step forward. Liberal 2.0ers call that progress. Leftists like me call it a f*cking disgrace. A lot of things that the Democrats campaign on and take credit for, were by and large grassroots campaigns by progressive groups. For example, the DNC really fought a lot of state-wide decriminalization attempts, that's why the first legalized states had to use voter referendums. Then you got issues like abortion and gay marriage, which were undone by the courts and NEVER codified into law by the Democrats, despite having many opportunities to do so. The DNC are NOT allies to us leftists, they are dangerous. Perhaps the Democrats are more dangerous than the GOP, since the Democrats take up the space of a left party, while they ignore grassroots leftist organizing and g
Read more

Exh bizaroousay

(from  Wikipedia ): "Despite their differences, Bizarro and Superman have teamed up on occasion. One notable example happened in Superman #379, when a strange creature appeared to be devouring Bizarros. Fearing he would end up alone Bizarro tried to steal Superman's duplicator ray. Superman convinced Bizarro he would be better off trying to stop the monster before making any more Bizarros.  The creature eventually devoured Bizarro, but Superman soon figured out that the creature was not trying to kill the Bizarros, but using their combined strength to defeat another creature which was trying to destroy htraE. The first creature was created as part of a plan developed by none other than the Bizarro Lex Luthor, who Bizarro referred to as a "punk hero." "In the imaginary story, Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, which served as an ending to Silver Age Superman continuity, Bizarro #1 (the original Bizarro and the world's leader/greatest hero),
Read more

Exh libfemdfni

from here There is a practical component to all of this. The question of humanism vs antihumanism is the question upon which the debate between liberal feminism and nihilist gender abolitionism will be based. The liberal feminist says “I am a woman” and by that means that they are spiritually, ontologically, metaphysically, genetically, or any other modes of “essentially” a woman. The gender nihilist says “I am a woman” and means that they are located within a certain position in a matrix of power which constitutes them as such. The liberal feminist is not aware of the ways power creates gender, and thus clings to gender as a means of legitimizing themselves in the eyes of power. They rely on trying to use various systems of knowledge (genetic sciences, metaphysical claims about the soul, kantian ontology) in order to prove to power they can operate within it. The gender nihilist, the gender abolitionist, looks at the system of gender itself and see’s the violence at its core. We say n
Read more