Your argument seem to imply that only someone who identifies as a woman can talk about feminism, an argument I profoundly disagree. Feminism critiques a concrete structure of our society, patriarchy. It is concrete because it’s materialized through our social relations. The effects of this in society is real, identifiable and produces enough evidences to guarantee that it’s not merely a subjective experience.

If you think about it, this idea that only those who suffer are able to speak about their problems is a form of “individualization” of struggles. The same argument applied elsewhere can easily reveal its logical failures: imagine hearing that “only those who are starving can talk about hunger”, or fight against it.

Also, this is a wonderful community, we really need discussions about feminism from a revolutionary classist understanding.

It’s so outrageous that it’s possible to pay agencies that respond to criticism with no particular ideological relationship with who’s paying. It’s just more ways to make money. I love how the US still manages to impress me with a society as morally corrupt as that bourgeois empire.

Yeah, it’s Facebook, Inc. after all. I have the same suspicion about Instagram and Facebook itself.

It’s known since 2018 that Bolsonaro’s election campaign used mass spreading of WhatsApp messages with false news and defamatory propaganda against the opposition. While it was suspected the internet robots and propaganda network was still being maintained, it’s the first time evidence about it was unearthed, as far as I know.

Is it “okay” in what sense? Is it a legitimate way of working? Why not?

I don’t think going with Patreon beforehand is necessary. Experiment first, see if you’re okay doing it, how periodically can you make videos, etc. Then, if you can make content consistently, you can make a Patreon if your videos are able to reach a wider audience some time.

I say that because setting up those platforms take up time in itself, so if you’re not sure if that’s what your thing, setting up platforms beforehand sounds like work waiting to be wasted

It’s a satirical image, by the way. I couldn’t tell immediately lol

Está disponível para download?

Tupac’s manager and longtime political mentor, Watani Tyehimba, confirmed that Tupac had decided to pretend to be a “gangsta” in order to appeal to gangs and then politicize them

I never heard that before, but if that’s true, no wonder he was assassinated

I can access it for sure. Maybe the link expired? I’ll take a look at it

EDIT: The link was indeed different, possibly because of updates in the Matrix protocol. Should work now

so a large penis circumference

what even is a sigma male

So you’re saying anarchists are analyzing a concept instead of paying attention to the material reality, then they expand their thought based on that idealist premise. In that case, I thoroughly agree with you.

You’re right, authority has a vague meaning, which is why revolutionaries usually don’t spend their time dwelling over that. This is why “anti-authoritarian” is a meaningless political thought, because instead of analyzing the state based on the class interests it serves, anti-authoritarians consider all states authoritarian and end up describing existing socialist states (where workers are in power) as “authoritarian” states.

I’ve seen anarchists defend that position too many times and it’s an example of why this terrible political thought is counter-revolutionary, much like the article above presented.

your central nervous system’s control over your limbs is authoritarian

In that case, a solution would be to remove your brain, which I can only assume these “anti-authoritarians” have already done

Good text. In a way, “anti-authoritarians” make unprincipled criticisms of the form, not the content of authority.

Since you appear to be making a criticism of the text written there, can you show where does it defend “being a bootlicker”? Because in practice, the “anti-authoritarians” are in fact the bootlickers, only they are unaware of that. To defend a revolution is to defend a change in the authority, not the abolishment of authority, because authority will always exist in one form or another. For instance, a person who dedicates 20 years of their life in the study of a particular phenomenon usually tends to become an authority on the subject.

From the text linked, which I assume you didn’t even read apart from the title:

If you’re anti-authoritarian, consider you’ve likely only ever lived under the authority of oppressors. So your understanding of “authority” is itself tainted, and this informs your understanding of the world. But if you’re familiar with revolutionaries and history, you know that’s not the only way authority can be used; revolutionary authority has been used successfully to overthrow corrupt governments and run nations in way far more just than what we’ve experienced in the US. Authority can be used to oppress the people or it can be used to achieve goals to benefit the people.

It’s certainly known (although criminally understated) that adventurism stems from petty-bourgeois mindset, as in, detached from the reality of the masses and the conditions for revolutionary action. The greatest work addressing this phenomenon is the one I cited in the text, from which I quote:

It was, however, different with Bolshevism’s other enemy within the working-class movement. Little is known in other countries of the fact that Bolshevism took shape, developed and became steeled in the long years of struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which smacks of anarchism, or borrows something from the latter and, in all essential matters, does not measure up to the conditions and requirements of a consistently proletarian class struggle.

(link)

If you have a source for it, you can add it yourself, comrade. Or you can send it here and and we’ll send the request to our editors, but that may take a while because we’re lacking active comrades with us.

Poor thing lmao

Yeah, they are usually awful and echo imperialist garbage