IceWallowCum

Every fucking time

I'm working my ass off these last few days (including right now) and can't read everytjing, can somebody explain what happened in Lebanon, please?

This should be the official tagline

I think the problem here is defining what communism is supposed to be, or what constitutes these "political structures."

For Marx the "political structure" stems from the mode of production, what we usually call the base. In a very shortened form, it's the interacting between productive forces, means of production and the property regime (and all its consequences). As Capital tries to multiply itself, capitalism has shown a development of the complexity and productivity of the means of production, along with requiring workers that are able to deal with this complex production (specifically, this is dealt with by having multiple people act in unity towards a single product), in other words, developing the productive force. As capitalism develops, it accumulates property under a central command while simultaneously making it a collective tool. So, in capitalism's specific case, we're dealing with private property that is only used by a capacitated collective.

The developing self-consciousness and organization of this productive collective pressures the regime of private property, which will strike back violently to keep existing, in the specific form of blunting the collective organization at all costs, as well as pushing back against the superstructure reflexions of these changes (i.e. fascism). If the self-conscious productive collective is victorious, it has been through a period where: the means of production have been transformed; the productive forces have been transformed; the property regime has been transformed. Thus, we have a new mode of production, and a new "political structure."

This is the tendency of capitalism. But notice that this assumes a more or less constant development of technology, for example. What if climate catastrophes hit too hard too fast in the coming years? Parts of civilization could be severed from eachother, and develop in different ways, depending on what exactly gets destroyed. Would an electricity-starved modern nation still develop factories as we know them? Or would property get fragmented again? What knowledge and techniques would be lost or gained? That we can't predict.

I guess it's because a polio breakout would spill over into Israel itself and neighbouring countries, putting huge pressure over the genocide

It's always the exact same middle-school reading of Marxism, holy shit. Somehow none of these experts figures there's something wrong with comparing an inflammatory political pamphlet for a party and a fully fleshed out technical publishing.

I wonder why these geniuses never criticize the actual technical works Marx did 🤔 it's ALWAYS just the manifesto for a party, and that's it.

Anyway, a rule of thumb: this person doesn't take their own work seriously, so I'm not gonna take their work seriously either.

Let's take a look at a comprehensive list of countries that have used nukes against others:

🇺🇲

Based on this, we conclude that the US is less likely to use nukes against others. I'm very smart

The Zionist of Interest

There was some report a couple of years ago by some subdivision of a government agency about extremist hubs online that included this very site. It was posted here a few times back then, after work I'll check if I saved it.

Imagine some intern getting stuck with having to parse through pits of trying to figure out what kind of terrorist activity it is encouraging

like 'a commodity is a use-value' or 'a commodity is an exchange-value'

How are those contradictory? Or what other things do they contradict?

@[email protected] good call

Taiwan must prepare for the worst possible scenario: a protracted battle on the island itself.

This is not a prediction, it's an order. If a conflict does happen, it will have been completely fabricated by the west so that Taiwan gets destroyed instead of peacefully reintegrated