Read history. The US was built on a mass genocide so epic it inspired the Nazis, just so that they could start slavery so epic it made the Spanish blush, to create a military so epic that it made China sweat, so they could export fascism so epic that no country compares. If you think there's anything good about the US, you are a chauvinist who buys into the myth of American Exceptionalism, plain and simple. It's an illegitimate state.
The belief that America is so exceptional that it is impossible to liberate it through Revolution, to undialectically think the American people are so completely unredeemable, to think that Capitalism in America is so entrenched that it is impossible to dislodged is the position that goes against the analysis' Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and all the historical leaders of the Communist movement.
The chauvinists for whom the term Stalin in 1929 coined "heresy of American exceptionalism", being Jay Lovestone's clique, believed exactly that and were appropriately ridiculed for thinking that America somehow falls outside of reality as the Great Depression illustrated.
The storm of the economic crisis in the United States blew down the house of cards of American exceptionalism and the whole system of opportunistic theories and illusions that had been built upon American capitalist 'prosperity.'"
Tell me then, who is the exceptionalist? Was Lenin a Russian exceptionalist - for looking upon the history of the genocidal Tsarist empire whom subjugated and annihilated entire nations and tribes in it'd blood-filled eastward conquest, an empire who's people, to demonstrate the power of their firearms, would lined up scores of Alaskan native men then shot through them with a single round to terrorize them into submission - for wishing to liberate his motherland from the clutches of the imperial mongrels? Why didn't he simply "Read history" of the Russian Empire
and think it was so completely irredeemable that the only thing he should do nothing else but shout "Death to Russia".
Should we also discuss whether or not Mao was a Chinese Exceptionalist - for thinking that a country who's creation as a unified region of common language and culture was formed from centuries of wars of subjugation and cultural genocides - for his yearning to break the yoke round the neck of his countrymen? Should he have simply "Read history" of the bloody past of China and completely write off his countrymen as completely irredeemable philistines and instead of writing the book Combating Liberalism choose to engage in it instead?
I'll finish off with a simple phrase. Before you can learn to truely accept, care for, and love others you must learn to accept, care for, and love yourself - which itself is also a balancing act to avoid narcissism and servicing. This is the same for the international proletariat and the proletariat within your own nation.
The belief that America is so exceptional that it is impossible to liberate it through Revolution, to undialectically think the American people are so completely unredeemable, to think that Capitalism in America is so entrenched that it is impossible to dislodged is the position that goes against the analysis’ Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and all the historical leaders of the Communist movement.
This reminds me of a paragraph I read in Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution" recently.
Revisionist theory thus places itself in a dilemma. Either the socialist transformation is, as was admitted up to now, the consequence of the internal contradictions of capitalism, and with the growth of capitalism will develop its inner contradictions, resulting inevitably, at some point, in its collapse, (in that case the “means of adaptation” are ineffective and the theory of collapse is correct); or the “means of adaptation” will really stop the collapse of the capitalist system and thereby enable capitalism to maintain itself by suppressing its own contradictions. In that case socialism ceases to be an historic necessity. It then becomes anything you want to call it, but it is no longer the result of the material development of society.
That's a fascinating passage. I haven't had a chance to read through any of Luxembourg's works yet so every time I come across a bit of her work in the wild makes me move her works up my reading list.
Sorry I don't align myself with genocidal regimes. I don't care if you see good in it, that speaks of a moral failing within yourself, not with me. When I look at pro-America leftists, all I see are progressive Nazis.
Huh. Didn't know that leftists were beholden to the same bullshit respectability politics as liberals.
If you expect me to be nice to someone siding with a genocidal state, I will put you on the same level I put liberals who force me to apologize to neo-Nazis for hurting their feelings. (read: calling them out)
Read history. The US was built on a mass genocide so epic it inspired the Nazis, just so that they could start slavery so epic it made the Spanish blush, to create a military so epic that it made China sweat, so they could export fascism so epic that no country compares. If you think there's anything good about the US, you are a chauvinist who buys into the myth of American Exceptionalism, plain and simple. It's an illegitimate state.
The belief that America is so exceptional that it is impossible to liberate it through Revolution, to undialectically think the American people are so completely unredeemable, to think that Capitalism in America is so entrenched that it is impossible to dislodged is the position that goes against the analysis' Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and all the historical leaders of the Communist movement.
The chauvinists for whom the term Stalin in 1929 coined "heresy of American exceptionalism", being Jay Lovestone's clique, believed exactly that and were appropriately ridiculed for thinking that America somehow falls outside of reality as the Great Depression illustrated.
Tell me then, who is the exceptionalist? Was Lenin a Russian exceptionalist - for looking upon the history of the genocidal Tsarist empire whom subjugated and annihilated entire nations and tribes in it'd blood-filled eastward conquest, an empire who's people, to demonstrate the power of their firearms, would lined up scores of Alaskan native men then shot through them with a single round to terrorize them into submission - for wishing to liberate his motherland from the clutches of the imperial mongrels? Why didn't he simply "Read history" of the Russian Empire and think it was so completely irredeemable that the only thing he should do nothing else but shout "Death to Russia".
Should we also discuss whether or not Mao was a Chinese Exceptionalist - for thinking that a country who's creation as a unified region of common language and culture was formed from centuries of wars of subjugation and cultural genocides - for his yearning to break the yoke round the neck of his countrymen? Should he have simply "Read history" of the bloody past of China and completely write off his countrymen as completely irredeemable philistines and instead of writing the book Combating Liberalism choose to engage in it instead?
I'll finish off with a simple phrase. Before you can learn to truely accept, care for, and love others you must learn to accept, care for, and love yourself - which itself is also a balancing act to avoid narcissism and servicing. This is the same for the international proletariat and the proletariat within your own nation.
This reminds me of a paragraph I read in Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution" recently.
That's a fascinating passage. I haven't had a chance to read through any of Luxembourg's works yet so every time I come across a bit of her work in the wild makes me move her works up my reading list.
Sorry I don't align myself with genocidal regimes. I don't care if you see good in it, that speaks of a moral failing within yourself, not with me. When I look at pro-America leftists, all I see are progressive Nazis.
Equating the entirety of the American proletariat with the government itself is dumb and wrong. You're making up a guy to get mad at right now. Chill.
Last time I checked I wasn't the one conflating the American people and empire.
They are talking about liberation of the oppressed people within, you're the one that brought up the "support for the 'regime'"
What even is your point here?
I forced myself to read their drivel (it was painful) and they quite clearly were referring to the nation itself, not the people within it.
I think you're willfully misreading their statement and being hostile and rude at the same time.
Huh. Didn't know that leftists were beholden to the same bullshit respectability politics as liberals.
If you expect me to be nice to someone siding with a genocidal state, I will put you on the same level I put liberals who force me to apologize to neo-Nazis for hurting their feelings. (read: calling them out)
Uh huh, don't talk to me ever again.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod