Prunebutt @ Prunebutt @slrpnk.net

Posts

62

Comments

2,878

Joined

2 yr. ago

This reeks of a conservative shitpost.

What do you mean exactly? Socialism or the transitional society?

For MLs, socialism is when the dictatorship of the proletariat is established and the state is run by "the proletariat" in order to lead to communism. Anarchists (ever since Bakunin) would point out that this would make them stop being the proletariat, but rather a class of bureaucrats. Also, means ends unity would dictate that this will not lead to a stateless society.

For me, "socialism" means worker control of the means of production.

The anarchist transitionary period is way harder to describe, since

1. There are too many anarchist flavors for a consistent "prediction" or what have you
2. The anarchist approach is generally less theleological. Therefore, they "predict" less and think that the people in the transitional period need to find out the rules of said society when they get the most feedback for it, i.e. when it's happening.
3. I haven't put too much thought into how this would go about, to be honest.

However, the most important part is IMHO that the revolutionary cells working for communism are structured with horizontal hierarchies.

Most anarchists agree that there is need for some kind of transitional society. Just not what tankies call "socialism".

I can understand that not all devs are artists. But just add a stick figure drawing of the generated image or something. Or go to fiverr. Everything's better that using AI slop.

Banner is AI Sslop. Good luck convincing anyone this is worth something when you broadcast "I don't care about artistic integrity". /s

Poe's law struck again.

She's back! 🤩🤩🤩

Stalin in S tier? Lol.

Why is there blood? Does Batman slap Robin bloody? 😧

You too. Hope you learned something. Although I doubt it.

What do youthink "imperialism" means?

If you say so...

Disengage

That's what you're doing.

If you say so. As I said: I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists and I don't have the power to influence anything in Russia. That's why I'm focusing on the imperialist that I can affect (even if just slightly).

I could accuse you of the same. Why keep replying?

Since you obviously didn't get the 'main enemy' bit

Edit: So, apparently condemning both Russian and western imperialism makes you a "vatnik", huh. /s Should I call you a Yankee, then?

You would've been the best cannon fodder in WW1.

Agreed, the ruzzian-funded puppets in their own country

🙄

Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence?

Why is that so absurd? Donetsk and Luhansk are russian-speaking and were vitally economically dependant on Russia. They were afraid that Kyiv politically focusing on Europe would be disastrous for their economy.

I'm not arguing that Russia didn't have any interests there, that Russia didn't do some weird insurgency crap. I'm also not saying that it payed of for the poor sods who lived there. But believing that Ukraine would have been completely united after Euromaidan (which was allegedly also helped by western forces) if it weren't for Putin is naive.

You don't have to be "good" to be incomparably better than ruzzia

I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists. I oppose them all. And my (very limited) sphere of influence doesn't reach into Russia. I can't do anything against Putin. I am however living in a NATO member counrty. And Karl Liebknechtput it best:

The main enemy of every people is in their own country