LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Bakery Hill]

Where on Earth did you get that? There are articles and quotes everywhere on his socialism?

He does prescribe against economical systems in the absence of his talks about any sort of political ideology.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[Uxupox]

He does prescribe against economical systems in the absence of his talks about any sort of political ideology.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

This analytical book sums it up pretty well.

A loss of faith in political institutions and, possibly, in democracy itself during the later years of King's life.

What political morality and justice demand of us.

It's about in essence (in the great Dr. King's own words) expanding one's own political philosophy to expand your imagination and a richer set of traditions to help navigate our own “dangerous road.” What is this dangerous road one thinks? It could be your own morality or even as it's described today the "hustlin' that we see much of the youth achieving to the ends of their described life.

[Bakery Hill]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

This analytical book sums it up pretty well.

A loss of faith in political institutions and, possibly, in democracy itself during the later years of King's life.

What political morality and justice demand of us.

It's about in essence (in the great Dr. King's own words) expanding one's own political philosophy to expand your imagination and a richer set of traditions to help navigate our own “dangerous road.” What is this dangerous road one thinks? It could be your own morality or even as it's described today the "hustlin' that we see much of the youth achieving to the ends of their described life.

At first he only spoke of socialism in private letters, because it was the Cold War and that sort of talk could get you killed, those letters are freely available. But as he gets older and more frustrated, he speaks publicly and before large audiences advocating for democratic socialism and against capitalism, including at some of his last speeches before he got killed.

[Torrocca]

This analytical book sums it up pretty well.





It's about in essence (in the great Dr. King's own words) expanding one's own political philosophy to expand your imagination and a richer set of traditions to help navigate our own “dangerous road.” What is this dangerous road one thinks? It could be your own morality or even as it's described today the "hustlin' that we see much of the youth achieving to the ends of their described life.

At first he only spoke of socialism in private letters, because it was the Cold War and that sort of talk could get you killed, those letters are freely available. But as he gets older and more frustrated, he speaks publicly and before large audiences advocating for democratic socialism and against capitalism, including at some of his last speeches before he got killed.

Kinda funny how he got killed as soon as he started talking publicly about Socialism. That's totally not suspicious or anything.

[Uxupox]

At first he only spoke of socialism in private letters, because it was the Cold War and that sort of talk could get you killed, those letters are freely available. But as he gets older and more frustrated, he speaks publicly and before large audiences advocating for democratic socialism and against capitalism, including at some of his last speeches before he got killed.

Kinda funny how he got killed as soon as he started talking publicly about Socialism. That's totally not suspicious or anything.

Like most conspiracies theories it is a coincidence but refuted by evidence and detailed explanations. Dr. King was slain because of a myriad of factors which are topped by a racial bigotry that existed against the black man again once detailed as to how the perpetrator used funds from white nationalists and also tried to escape into a country that had that held that fundamental ideology as part of the state and government.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Kinda funny how he got killed as soon as he started talking publicly about Socialism. That's totally not suspicious or anything.

Speculations on MLK aside, the U.S. has a long history of killing, trying to kill, and ruining the careers of communists and socialists. Considering that I am unarguably the furthest to the Left of any professor here, I am amazed that I have lasted, especially in Kansas, for over 25 years.

[Second Empire of America]

How do you feel about attempts to establish socialist art forms, such as Socialist realism?

Though I'm a Social Democrat, I think Socialist Realism is underrated as an art style. Even though it was the only legal form of art in many Stalinist regimes, it's better than a lot of people give it credit for.

[Paleocon States of America]

How do you feel about attempts to establish socialist art forms, such as Socialist realism?

Though I'm a Social Democrat, I think Socialist Realism is underrated as an art style. Even though it was the only legal form of art in many Stalinist regimes, it's better than a lot of people give it credit for.

Socialist realism is more based than capitalist art.
But this is a criticism of capitalism, not a statement praising socialism.

[Paleocon States of America]

Kinda funny how he got killed as soon as he started talking publicly about Socialism. That's totally not suspicious or anything.

Speculations on MLK aside, the U.S. has a long history of killing, trying to kill, and ruining the careers of communists and socialists. Considering that I am unarguably the furthest to the Left of any professor here, I am amazed that I have lasted, especially in Kansas, for over 25 years.

Then why did we allow so many Trotsky influenced people into politics? there's no denying that the Democrat CIA killed M.L.K., but it's not because he was a socialist, it was because he was a church minister trying to bring racial unity and disrupt divide and conquer.

[Torrocca]

Speculations on MLK aside, the U.S. has a long history of killing, trying to kill, and ruining the careers of communists and socialists. Considering that I am unarguably the furthest to the Left of any professor here, I am amazed that I have lasted, especially in Kansas, for over 25 years.

Then why did we allow so many Trotsky influenced people into politics? there's no denying that the Democrat CIA killed M.L.K., but it's not because he was a socialist, it was because he was a church minister trying to bring racial unity and disrupt divide and conquer.

Nah, he was definitely killed because of the Socialism.

[Torrocca]

Okay, new poll's up! This time for the title of the thread; last poll showed the majority of our comrades here are some breed of far-left Libertarians, which is beyond amazing. <3

[Paleocon States of America]

Then why did we allow so many Trotsky influenced people into politics? there's no denying that the Democrat CIA killed M.L.K., but it's not because he was a socialist, it was because he was a church minister trying to bring racial unity and disrupt divide and conquer.

Nah, he was definitely killed because of the Socialism.

True, the FBI was a lot more right wing at the time.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Then why did we allow so many Trotsky influenced people into politics? there's no denying that the Democrat CIA killed M.L.K., but it's not because he was a socialist, it was because he was a church minister trying to bring racial unity and disrupt divide and conquer.

I never knew that the CIA represented a political party. (Hint: They don't.)

As a former Trotskyist, now a Luxemburgist, I would have been happy if the entire government was run by Trotskyists. Actually, I still wouldn't mind. However, your assertion sounds like some kind of odd right-wing conspiracy theory. I am not aware of any Trotskyists in the U.S. government.

[Dark Socialism]

Then why did we allow so many Trotsky influenced people into politics? there's no denying that the Democrat CIA killed M.L.K., but it's not because he was a socialist, it was because he was a church minister trying to bring racial unity and disrupt divide and conquer.

I never knew that the CIA represented a political party. (Hint: They don't.)

As a former Trotskyist, now a Luxemburgist, I would have been happy if the entire government was run by Trotskyists. Actually, I still wouldn't mind. However, your assertion sounds like some kind of odd right-wing conspiracy theory. I am not aware of any Trotskyists in the U.S. government.

Neo-Conservatives

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Neo-Conservatives

The association between Trotskyists and neocons was debunked in peer-reviewed research a long time ago. Amazingly, it has still continued to be a common view in popular culture.

[Dark Socialism]

Neo-Conservatives

The association between Trotskyists and neocons was debunked in peer-reviewed research a long time ago. Amazingly, it has still continued to be a common view in popular culture.

Can I see some of the research? They're both the same in my view.

[Nekokuni]

At first he only spoke of socialism in private letters, because it was the Cold War and that sort of talk could get you killed, those letters are freely available. But as he gets older and more frustrated, he speaks publicly and before large audiences advocating for democratic socialism and against capitalism, including at some of his last speeches before he got killed.

Kinda funny how he got killed as soon as he started talking publicly about Socialism. That's totally not suspicious or anything.

Because it isn't like he spoke about anything controversial beforehand which would have made people want to kill him. No it was definitely socialism. /s

[Torrocca]

Kinda funny how he got killed as soon as he started talking publicly about Socialism. That's totally not suspicious or anything.

Because it isn't like he spoke about anything controversial beforehand which would have made people want to kill him. No it was definitely socialism. /s

Obviously! I mean, it's not like anyone attempted to kill him with bombs when he started getting uppity about race relations. /s

[Second Empire of America]

[However, your assertion sounds like some kind of odd right-wing conspiracy theory. I am not aware of any Trotskyists in the U.S. government.

There's only one Trotskyist in the American government that I can think of, and she's only a city councilor.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Can I see some of the research? They're both the same in my view.

The same? Even the old proponents of the view you cited never went that far. Here is one example:

“There are four different versions of the ‘Trotskyist neocon’ assertion, all of which have been used extensively in paleoconservative polemics. The flrst is that the genesis or ‘roots’ of neoconservatism lie in the American Trotskyist movement, and, speciflcally, that the flrst generation of neoconservatives were former Trotskyists. In this version special attention is given to Irving Kristol, who is pilloried as the original flfth columnist of Trotskyist influence inside conservatism. The second version holds that members of the second, current generation of neoconservatives were once followers of the heretical Trotskyist Max Shachtman. Through them, it is claimed, neoconservatism has retained some ofthe major principles, albeit in modifled form, of ‘Shachtmanism.’ The third is the claim that neoconservatism has retained the ‘methods’ and ‘characteristics’ of Trotskyism, especially as exhibited by the original neocons, and is therefore a form of ‘inverted’ Trotskyism. The last and perhaps most well-known version is that neoconservatives adhere to Leon Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution, and have put the theory into practice through their roles in the [George W.] Bush administration.…

“… it is clear that there is no substantive link between neoconservatism and American Trotskyism. In order to argue for the existence (and indeed centrality!) of such a link, it is necessary to considerably misrepresent the histories and theories of both movements. A systematic examination of the paleoconservatives’ ‘Trotskyist neocon’ assertion shows that it cannot stand up to scrutiny in light of the easily accessible historical evidence.

“… It may well be that with the paleoconservatives we are seeing the historical low point of debate inside intellectual conservatism. At the very least, it would be fair to say that the ‘Trotskyist neocon’ assertion—historically inaccurate and intellectually sloppy, yet widely popular—is one of the major oddities of recent American intellectual life.”

William F. King, “Neoconservatives and ‘Trotskyism.’” American Communist History. Volume 3, number 2, December 2004. Pages 247-266.

Edit: I went from being a Trotskyist to being a libertarian communist and a Luxemburgist. That, in itself, refutes your statement that Trotskyism and neoconservatism are the same.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

[However, your assertion sounds like some kind of odd right-wing conspiracy theory. I am not aware of any Trotskyists in the U.S. government.

There's only one Trotskyist in the American government that I can think of, and she's only a city councilor.

Who's that?

[Ostroeuropa]

Marxists have long since overrun academia though, that's a matter of historical fact and the consequences have been largely negative. Plenty of people blame the death of the post-war consensus and welfare state on the right wing, but it was the Marxists and the new left who guaranteed its demise by working in collaboration with the new right to undermine it and the consensus it represented.

Over a period of about ten years we went from most left wing academics and officials supporting the continuation and expansion of the welfare state, to them insisting it was only there to prop up capitalism, and undesirable compromise, and so on, doing practically zero work to defend it or encourage people to defend it, no longer educating people on how to determine where welfare is needed, how to apply it and so on, but indoctrinating them with ideas wholly critical and negative about capitalism and the welfare state, thereby instead winding everyone up with their ideological dogmatism (Which has no useful application in terms of fixing societies problems) from their positions of authority and putting out tonnes of negative shit about how the welfare state was a failure and flawed, often their work was co-opted by the right wing to argue the state is inferior to the free market at providing services.

That's the history of the thing. The reason the welfare state ended up receding is that the number of people on the front lines for its continuation and expansion collapsed due to Marxists taking over the left wing. In return we got maybe 1/10th as many people actively in favor of outright replacing capitalism. The marxists also began the idpol shit and its anti-male tendencies due to their class conflict mentality meaning they routinely misdiagnose social problems and polarize things around a dysfunctional understanding of the world.

Both Marxists and Neoliberals took advantage of economic slowdown in the 70s to begin dismantling the welfare state consensus for their own purposes, both driven by ideological dogmatism and therefore hostility to the welfare state and its non-ideological consensus, and the victims have been the working classes and poor.
The application of Marxist mentalities to demographic politics have also been negative in terms of progress compared to alternatives.

For the same reason the post-war consensus and its Academic regime was criticized and overrun by Marxists, the new Marxist regime should be overthrown and their academics marginalized (I.E, it causes demographic inequality from its isolation on the basis of sex and race, it has only defended and furthered the interests of capital and wealth inequality and failed to mount a substantive offence against it.) along with the additional charges that it has polarized society by pushing a conflict mentality on the unfounded assumption that the poor would win such a conflict and no compromise was acceptable or desirable. (Hows that going, by the way?)

The things the Marxists said they could do better than the Fabians they have utterly failed at, and have been worse in practice. That is enough to say they are illegitimate since those things were the basis of their taking over.

It also appears that the new consensus is being built (I.E, the things the new right and the new left are normalizing as a thing supported broadly by both the left and the right establishment), the Marxist-Neoliberal consensus, that focuses on progressive Idpol and neoliberal capitalism, and we've seen how toxic and dysfunctional that is, as well as the sexist, racist, and classist results of it.

The same way, and for the same reasons (racism, sexism, failure to help the poor, demonstrable empirical failure of their model for understanding reality and fixing problems) Marxists drove out the post-war consensus crowd, the marxists must be driven out.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Marxists have long since overrun academia though, that's a matter of historical fact and the consequences have been largely negative. Plenty of people blame the death of the post-war consensus and welfare state on the right wing, but it was the Marxists and the new left who guaranteed its demise by working in collaboration with the new right to undermine it and the consensus it represented.

As someone who has been a full-time professor since 1985 (part-time since 1980), I can tell you that what you said is incorrect. The only departments which are sometimes dominated by Marxists are sociology departments. In my sociology department, we have 5 full-time faculty. All of us are Marxists. Two of us are committed communists. The five of us are also the only Marxists at the college.

[Communist Xomaniax]

"Marxists have overrun academia"

Read: "People who study things tend to be more leftist than I'm comfortable with and that makes me mad!"

[Bakery Hill]

Marxists have long since overrun academia though, that's a matter of historical fact and the consequences have been largely negative. Plenty of people blame the death of the post-war consensus and welfare state on the right wing, but it was the Marxists and the new left who guaranteed its demise by working in collaboration with the new right to undermine it and the consensus it represented.

Over a period of about ten years we went from most left wing academics and officials supporting the continuation and expansion of the welfare state, to them insisting it was only there to prop up capitalism, and undesirable compromise, and so on, doing practically zero work to defend it or encourage people to defend it, no longer educating people on how to determine where welfare is needed, how to apply it and so on, but indoctrinating them with ideas wholly critical and negative about capitalism and the welfare state, thereby instead winding everyone up with their ideological dogmatism (Which has no useful application in terms of fixing societies problems) from their positions of authority and putting out tonnes of negative shit about how the welfare state was a failure and flawed, often their work was co-opted by the right wing to argue the state is inferior to the free market at providing services.

That's the history of the thing. The reason the welfare state ended up receding is that the number of people on the front lines for its continuation and expansion collapsed due to Marxists taking over the left wing. In return we got maybe 1/10th as many people actively in favor of outright replacing capitalism. The marxists also began the idpol shit and its anti-male tendencies due to their class conflict mentality meaning they routinely misdiagnose social problems and polarize things around a dysfunctional understanding of the world.

Both Marxists and Neoliberals took advantage of economic slowdown in the 70s to begin dismantling the welfare state consensus for their own purposes, both driven by ideological dogmatism and therefore hostility to the welfare state and its non-ideological consensus, and the victims have been the working classes and poor.
The application of Marxist mentalities to demographic politics have also been negative in terms of progress compared to alternatives.

For the same reason the post-war consensus and its Academic regime was criticized and overrun by Marxists, the new Marxist regime should be overthrown and their academics marginalized (I.E, it causes demographic inequality from its isolation on the basis of sex and race, it has only defended and furthered the interests of capital and wealth inequality and failed to mount a substantive offence against it.) along with the additional charges that it has polarized society by pushing a conflict mentality on the unfounded assumption that the poor would win such a conflict and no compromise was acceptable or desirable. (Hows that going, by the way?)

The things the Marxists said they could do better than the Fabians they have utterly failed at, and have been worse in practice. That is enough to say they are illegitimate since those things were the basis of their taking over.

It also appears that the new consensus is being built (I.E, the things the new right and the new left are normalizing as a thing supported broadly by both the left and the right establishment), the Marxist-Neoliberal consensus, that focuses on progressive Idpol and neoliberal capitalism, and we've seen how toxic and dysfunctional that is, as well as the sexist, racist, and classist results of it.

The same way, and for the same reasons (racism, sexism, failure to help the poor, demonstrable empirical failure of their model for understanding reality and fixing problems) Marxists drove out the post-war consensus crowd, the marxists must be driven out.

jesus christ ostro this is a bit daft tbh