Redp

what is the source? so i can post it on other groups and give credits to the author

by “far-left” he means wokescold liberals or just socially progressives judging by his other tweets, he doesn’t mean revolutionary socialists who are tipically associated with “far-left”, tho that only makes it even worse because he seems to be pandering into that very reactionary “muh political correctness” bunch.

Based, Brazilian comrade, check out the yt channels “história pública” and “soberana”, they’re relatively small but they make amazing content and are growing quick.

it’s convenient how you ignore most of what i said about the soviet union, and i’m not even going to talk about what’s the deal with the polish lol. and look at the reply you gave me when you talked about how the terms you use don’t change reality and it’s only a matter of communication. done with your pathetic pedantry, sophistic efort and insane magical idealism, i’ll stop with this otherwise it will keep going on forever.

Mathematicians insist on very formal and precise definition because they shouldn’t cause confusion and dissonance between them, it’s not like i or this community here is the only one with this definition of liberals, liberal in a lot of third world countries (south american countries for example) are very much considered reactionary.

There is no communication (exchange of information) without exchanging matter/energy. The two are connected.

this is the weirdest thing you said, not gonna comment on that.

…and probably the most unpleasant, unfortunately. It caused far more suffering than the Yugoslav approach. People also liked the Yugoslav approach better.

sigh, you might a liberal, you’re just forgetting the Soviet Union was the major target for basically every single capitalist country in the world because it was the country exporting the revolution around the world and leading global communism, not to mention the soviet union did to massivaly improve the conditions of the avarage worker and peasant living in the Soviet Union who were constantly brutalized by the monarchist state and had to constantly face massive periodic crisis of hunger until the bolcheviks industrialized, build all the infrastructure and create a system where everyone has access to literacy, jobs, equal oportunity and decent social wealth, you’re judging their struggles and discounting their material conditions and historical development, you’re being stupid and showing slight anticommunist bias if i interpret you in the most good faith, not to mention, WHAT PEOPLE think yugoslavia was better? the people in the balkans? the people in your country? in ex-yugoslav countries? no shit, stupid ass, historians and marxist intelectuals on the other hand? that’s a whole other story, not to mention how much critic yugoslavia is also deserving for, like how you kept tooking IMF loans, Tito never had a successor, never managed to resolve the major national problems and the country broke down in war later, but i don’t want to shit on yugoslavia and i hold it’s historical existence and experience very dear to my heart too, however i would advise thinking twice and seeking to educate yourself more before proclaiming to have had a superior experience to the Soviet Union.

What is “ideal” about an object not moving? Why is it impossible for a thing not to move?

i’m not sure i’m confusing the terms here, the thing is how you use einstein’s equation, for example to calculate relativistic mass of objects in extreme high speed or to smash particles in a nuclear reactor, the E=MC² is not a pratical equation.

I believe the electricity in my home is not a mathematical abstraction, and the chemical energy in my laptop and electrical screwdriver battery is also not an abstraction. How does that make me less materialist?

The electricity on your laptop is a result of electrons moving and their eletric forces interacting with objects in the system, chemical energy is also the mathematical abstraction for a complex physical development of a chemical system oxidating an reducting substances in the battery, energy is not this magical “thing” that is present in matter, it’s a mathematical construct to describe and predict the development of physical systems that would be incredibly complex and hard to describe without it.

Will you please stop debating me? we’re already finished with your semantics and the liberal question.

there is no typo, read it again, and the other form of the equation is just in a ideal case scenario which is impossible, but i didn’t even need to bring it up anyway, and you are wrong, it is a mathetical abstraction and you’re not a materialist if you believe it isn’t, or you just don’t undertand physics, people will agree with you calling yugoslav more “liberal” because it was what we call (or some of us) “market socialism”, not because it was more progressive, as a matter of fact it could be the opposite considering the dialectical model of history.

and i’m not going to enter into that discussion, it’s not about how i would name the yugoslav socialism, socialism is a progress of shaping the economy and material reality with a dialectical analysis, eventually the goal is abolish the commodity-form and what the soviet union did probably was the quickest path to that as you need somewhat of a planed economy to abolish the commodity-form although it was very much a thing that was made specific for their material conditions at the time while the yugoslavia had another historical and material context and this is very important to have in mind, but what matters is if yugoslavia could move to socialism as a model of production eventually and not if they were strictly socialists at the time, that’s a big complex discussion and yugoslavia very sadly doesn’t exist anymore, for multiple reasons from erros by the communist party (which were many and should be criticized) but also counterrevolutions, exterior interferences and a terrible geopolitical context.

but all of that is besides the point, i’m not talking about that

and like i said > the words you use to describe things doesn’t matter, they don’t affect the material reality, it’s just a tool of communication, if you keep changing the meaning of things and pretending you’re doing something you’re only going to create confusion and embarrassment, all you’re doing is having a different meaning than everyone else inside your head but you’re communicating as if the definition you give to a word matters in a clash of ideas.

I’m toning down my aggressiveness but i can’t avoid to comment how you seem to think you’re smarter than you are, but that’s okay, the thing is not all energy does work but yet it still exists, energy is a mathematical abstraction and not a material thing, the definition of energy is much more complex than that and it’s most modern accepeted definition in academia is mostly by Emmy Noether as the quantity that is conserved in a system with time translation invariance, and Albert Einstein’s relativty is not even E=mc^2 but E =√((mc²⁾2+(pc)^2), it only refutes the conservation of energy of a system but it is not a different definition of energy and that is not how epistemology for natural sciences works, because how limited the theory is to the things you observe you’re not reinterpreting a meaning, you’re creating a new theory. This doesn’t works in political theory works, the Marxist theory adapts to the material reality because of dialectical materialism and the different conditions they migh find themselves in but it doesn’t get reintrepeted like it is a fucking bible, fuck it, you might even do a little revisionism from time to time if you think it’s better. Not to mention what a grotesque error it would be to try and compare marxist theory with natural sciences.

Listen, if you’re a liberal just call yourself such and stop calling yourself a socialist or if you’re a socialist don’t call yourself a liberal, have in mind this: the words you use to describe things doesn’t matter, they don’t reflect the material reality, it’s just a tool of communication, if you keep changing the meaning of things and pretending you’re doing something you’re only going to create confusion and embarrassment, all you’re doing is having a different meaning than everyone else inside your head but you’re communicating as if the definition you give to a word matters in a clash of ideas.

although i’m pretty sure your actual politics will end up being liberalism because you seem to be a proud idealist.

That’s not my world view. Physicists are materialists, yet they can also insist on alternative interpretations. For example, energy is the ability to do work, but according to a relativistic interpretation, it is also equivalent to matter.

…that’s just not how natural sciences work, that’s not even what energy is, those are not different interpretation for the same thing and i’m afraid to ask how that translates into politics, that’s the dumbest thing i’ve read, i’m just done with you. This isn’t even about what liberalism is anymore, so whatever.

It’s interesting that Vaush says something before about how what adam says do not represent his own opinion and he doesn’t take responsability for what he says, like Vaush is somewhat conscious about how adam is going batshit insane recently and he is preventively washing his own hands.

Creating socialism is not about interpreting a bible and it has nothing to do with this, you’re using different meaning for a word that has a well stabilished meaning and you keep insisting on it like it changes anything in the material world, not to mention you keep conveniently ignoring half the shit people tell you and then act in so much bad faith, let me explain it again: reactionary does mean going in a reverse direction but acording to a dialetical understanding of models of production, going back from capitalist to becoming socialist is not reactionary, i feel like you have such an insanely idealist world view when you act like the word you use shapes the material reality. And again you ignored what i said about you’re being the one using the United States definition of what is liberal.

you could just send me the minute where he talks about the embargo on Cuba, i couldn’t watch past the part where he cites the statement of die linke about Russia and the war on donbass but instead of Russia he uses nazi Germany and instead of Ukraine and the Donbass he uses Poland and Czechoslovakia and then after he is like “hahaha, i pulled the rug on you, this is actually Die Linke talking about Russia and not nazi Germany”, WHAT KIND OF INSANE RHETORIC IS THAT? actually, nevermind, i’m not watching anything about this brainded fuck anymore.

ok, i’d think that’s a bit too much even for a vaushite type, noone has to gain anything with this kinda of shit, do you have a source or screenshot you can send where he defends the embargo on Cuba? just to feed my hate on him in case it’s true

no, stupid mfer, YOU are the one using the “popular” american definition, which is liberal = socially progressive and is very overly simplistic and disconected with historical materialism. it feels like you don’t even read what people are telling you in the comments of this post, and that definition of “reactionary” doesn’t make sense either because reactionary means to move back according to the dialectical model of history, not to a more progressive country, i can only assume this is a product of westernization and decommunization that was forced on every country of the eastern block.

i feel like i should put it in another way, think like this: liberalism was a progressive force in the past creating the democratic institutions we live in today and abolishing the previous monarchist and feudal order, but nowadays, even when they see the same social symptons and anxieties as us, they want to deal with those problems by EXPANDING and “democratizing” those institutions further, either because they’re stupid and idealist or they don’t want to sacrifice the privileges those institutions provide them, it is completely opposite to us because we want to completely ABOLISH those same institutions, you can still argue reformists (“democratic socialists”) are marginally better and opposite to liberals because they supposedly want to change those institutions through liberal democratic reform, but it should be very clear why liberals are reactionary opposition for revolutionary socialists.

You’re the one who’s using the american definition of “liberal” as the progressive side of a conservative or liberal dichotomy, but like many pointed here, liberal also has a materialist historical definition and was a progressive force in the past but now it’s a reactionary ideology that seeks to defend capitalist institutions and offer only symbolic and hyper-individualistic “solutions” to social problems (it mainly does that in order to coopt social anxieties and protect the system) our world view and political doctrine is a complete rupture of liberal ideology and we seek to end those institutions that were historically formed (liberal democracy, private property, market economy, the bourgeois capitalist press, liberal economic “freedom”). Stop saying we’re the extension of liberalism, you almost sound like fucking Vaush, and we don’t want to retorically present ourselves as the extension of liberalism either because we want to completely disrupt the liberal world view, not build a bridge while slowly progressing foward on their failed institutions. i’ll leave here an infographic from leftypol i found on gzd, i’s not perfect and looks a little class reductionist but it might help.

lmao, i don’t get it either, maybe because i said we could attract liberals? and i actually got the downvote almost immediately when i made the comment so maybe it’s a bug?

Creating a community to dunk on Elon is actually a great Idea, we would have plenty of posts and we could even attract the attention of other people who deslike Elon, including moderate leftists and some libs, and expose them to communist ideas on lemmygrad.

Aren’t they joking? very cringe anyway, the political compass and it’s consequences were a disaster to the human race.

As i read your comment a Brazilian comrade just got banned on Twitter for debunking the holodomor, i wasn’t even expecting that because i thought Twitter was a little more tolerant, i could only guess it’s because the holodomor serves for the western war propaganda and he was attracting a lot of attention.

being called unamerican actually feels very good