Anarchism TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

Fight Fascism Wherever it Arises

That's it. That's the post.

GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 98%

Lemmy decided to go soft on the wolfballs admin

Some real joker shit happening in here. 

www.youtube.com

Ancient wisdom still needs to be repeated, apparently.

Socialism TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

DEAD KENNEDYS - Nazi Punks Fuck Off

www.youtube.com

Ancient wisdom still needs to be repeated, apparently.

Anarchism TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

DEAD KENNEDYS - Nazi Punks Fuck Off

www.youtube.com

Ancient wisdom still needs to be repeated, apparently.

Communism TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

COMBAT LIBERALISM

September 7, 1937 We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism. To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type. To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type. Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type. To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type. To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type. To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type. To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type. To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type. To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type. We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution. We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist. All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

Socialism TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

COMBAT LIBERALISM

September 7, 1937 We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism. To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type. To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type. Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type. To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type. To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type. To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type. To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type. To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type. To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type. We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution. We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist. All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 93%

White People: "I'm not racist, I respect everybody!" Also white people:

> My neighborhood is about 30% black, 30% white, and 30% latino. It gives my white neighbors daily opportunities to demonstrate whether they learned anything from putting BLM signs in their yards in 2020, or if they still have 911 on speed dial and universally white social circles. > > At least once a month, somebody makes a gross show of posting security video of a “suspicious” black kid walking through an alley in a neighborhood “safety” Facebook group, or posting complaints about fireworks a couple doors down instead of just talking to their neighbors. > > This is well studied in places that are getting whiter, where transplants police the lives of those who came before them. Here it’s a little different - the white population has been declining for decades. But the dynamics are quite the same, especially where intent meets action. > > White people who move here often think of themselves as anti-racist. They’ve self-selected to live in a diverse neighborhood, in a part of the city that won’t cater to their whiteness anytime soon. But many of them don’t turn progressive self-conception into anything concrete. > > So you get a concentration of a certain type of white newcomer who admires the work of many black and latino artists, donates money to POC-led organizations, and has all the aesthetics of anti-racism, but still fails to even know the names of their nonwhite neighbors. > > And when something disturbs their peace, like somebody’s uncle waiting on a nearby porch step until family arrives or kids hanging out in the street, they still have such a mental remove from nonwhite people that field all their internal inquiries through calls to the cops. > > The most painful part, frequently, is when a black or latino neighbor feels the need to reply to a scared white person’s post in a Facebook group explaining that the blurry security footage of “a man casing my house” is their 14-year-old son delivering the neighborhood newspaper. > > And again, these are people who “believe the right things”. Who understand prejudice intellectually. So they’ll apologize, and they’ll mean it. But then weeks later they’ll be back at it with a new perceived threat. All because they don’t truly know their nonwhite neighbors.

GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

Lift off of the Long March 5B carrying the Wentian space station experiment module

www.youtube.com

It's happening!

Memes TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

Always salute the workers at your local drive thru


# The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto [[Español]](https://libcom.org/article/el-manifesto-de-aceleracionismo-de-genero) [[Download]](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto) I expect this to be a bit controversial. I actually went into this article a bit skeptical of its scope. Intersectional feminism is already pretty heavily written about. But what our authors have done is figure out how to remove the liberalism. In removing liberalism, however, what remains is a proposition far more radical than most people would have ever conceived. We're going to take the *"abolish gender"* slogan seriously at face value, because doing so is the only way to alleviate the contradictions of gender norms under capitalism. Some choice quotes: > Material relations are relations of production. That is, they are the way we relate to the various ways we labor and produce things. All of society is based upon these relations of production and they produce all of our social systems. Gender is no different. > > So where does gender’s material base lie? Gender is produced primarily by the division of reproductive labor. Reproductive labor is any labor that helps to produce the next generation, including sex, birth, childcare, and homemaking, and gender is defined by how this labor is divided up, with the different genders being distinct classes which are expected to perform specific sorts of tasks regarding reproductive labor. > Gender is the earliest class systems and, as a result, it precedes the state, even in its earliest most basic form. This means that, unlike capitalism, race, neuronormativity, and the various other class systems, the state is not the primary means by which gender is imposed upon people. This isn’t to say that the state doesn’t impose gender, but it is supplementary, not primary. By the time states were cropping up, gender had already solidified itself and become quite adept at imposing itself upon others. > As has been referenced previously, gender is a system of class, and is one defined by the domination of manhood over society. This is why another name for the gender class system is patriarchy. Gender as a social system is patriarchy and patriarchy is the social class system of gender. Within this class system, we find three distinct classes, two accepted and one subversive. > This class dynamic of man over woman is the principal dynamic of patriarchy, but they do not comprise the only two classes. Instead, we find that some people relate to reproductive labor differently than how it’s imposed upon the population. This is especially the case with regards to sex, when someone engages in sexual relations that do not fit with the dynamics imposed by patriarchy. This includes people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender (gay/lesbian people), of multiple genders (bisexual/pansexual people), or no gender (asexual people). In addition, people whose gender is different from the one patriarchy assigns to them can’t be classed as neatly as people who accept the assignment by gender. While they might be personally men or women, they aren’t treated by society in quite the same way so they comprise a distinct social class. Characteristic to this is the detachment of sex and romance from reproducing the next generation. While it’s still possible for all of these groups to reproduce the next generation, it is no longer a necessary part of sex and romance. > > Since this third class is defined by it’s difference from those of the first two classes, it is named queer. Queer people are all those who relate differently to the division of reproductive labor assigned to them by patriarchy. Because of the different relations, queer people are inherently subversive to the class system as a whole and constitute the revolutionary class under patriarchy. > Class, class, class. We are dominated and controlled. Sorted and divided. But where do we factor into all this? People see class like this as merely imposed, but that fails to account for the ways we actually interact with it. It isn’t simply imposed upon us. We are active participants within it, we perform it. > This is hardly done freely. The violence of the system is inherent and systemic. We perform these acts surrounded by the violence of gender. But we still perform them. Gender isn’t content with forcing itself upon us. Instead, it forces us to say “yes” to it. > > This serves as a method of control and reproduction. Gender isn’t inherent, but it spreads by assigning us to a class and forcing us to say yes to that class. “Yes, I am a man. It is who I am and who I always have been. I cannot escape it or deny it. I am a man.” This is nothing but a lie we are forced to repeat. But by repeating it enough, we come to believe it. Gender becomes natural, inescapable, eternal. It ceases to be an imposed identity and becomes an eternal part of who we are. By objecting to my gender, you are objecting to that which is inherently me. > > Here lies one of gender’s greatest defense mechanisms: Ourselves. We insist upon it and reject those who turn away from it. It becomes an unholy act for those who turn from the path. Indeed, it seems to us as if there’s no other option. We say yes because that’s all we can say. It is made inconceivable that it could be any other way.

GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

Gorbachev Feels His Life's Work Being Destroyed by Putin, Close Friend Says

Looks like liberalism Out-Pizza'd the Hut. You could say Dem policies Succ'd. With America's tendency for inflation, it's surprising he thought NATO would keep those numbers down. He's really Lenin in to his ignorance of history. The war seems to really be Putin the fall of the USSR into perspective. Okay I'm done being cringe.

GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

China's space telescope, with view field 350 times larger than Hubble's, to be operational in 2024

US: Announces replacement for aging Hubble in 1996. Fails first project and downsizes in 2002. Spends 20 years pushing the project back 2-3 years. Finally launches in 2021. China: Announces project in 2016, with launch planned for 2021. Setback to 2023-24. 8 years.

GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

One in five US adults condone ‘justified’ political violence, mega-survey finds


GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

376 vs 1 - WHO WOULD WIN?

www.youtube.com

[In case you don't get it](https://nitter.net/seungminkim/status/1548734152178110466?t=Hoig3eKDr5fpkwN7SritVA&s=19)

GenZedong TheConquestOfBed • Now • 100%

When someone asks a native what their spirit animal is

vm.tiktok.com

This was so good I had to make it into a full post.

Communism TheConquestOfBed • Now • 93%

Neo-feudalism is Idealist: We are Witnessing the Re-proletarianization of the Labor Aristocracy Under Neocolonial Fascist Rule — Hexbear

The link is just a CTH/Hexbear post without citations, but it pretty well explains something that's been rolling around in my brain the past few days. I think the patsoc obsession with pandering to conservatives and the anarchist obsession with pandering to liberals are both fundamentally flawed for the same reason: they divide the proletariat into aesthetic/ideological camps rather than attempt to assess them based on class indicators. Who is more likely to abandon their principles during a strike? Liberals or conservatives? Right away, you can see how this thought process breaks down. Liberals and conservatives have both unionized, historically and in the present day. Both ideologies have pro union and anti union elements. Both ideologies have organized reactionary protest movements and strikes. The question we should be asking instead is: who has more to lose if a union strike is drawn out or starts to go south? Who is more likely to scab? People with more wealth and larger paychecks or people with very little wealth and smaller paychecks? Who is more likely to empathize with a fellow proletarian and who is more likely to simp for bourgoise influencers? A. A computer engineer with a comfortable lifestyle, and few at-home struggles \ B. A programmer doing grunt work for the engineer on a temp assignment Take another example: Who is more likely to fight harder for abortion rights? A. Someone who can afford medical tourism \ B. Someone who can't afford medical tourism Material conditions are key. FDR's reforms took some of the wind out of the sails of American socialist movements. India has recently been investing in infrastructure and schooling in Naxalite regions with some success. All the 'socialist' nordic countries are in the cultural sphere of the former USSR for a reason. We cannot allow ourselves to get distracted by the illusions put in place by liberalism. When asking whether a potential comrade will be radicalizable, we should not be focusing on their favorite neolib team, including radlib anarchists. We should instead focus on their actual material place in society: Are they wealthy? What's their financial situation compared to their family's/their childhood? Are they subject to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc and are they excluded from resources and wealth due to said bigotry? Is it normalized for people of their race/ethnicity to be racist to others? Are their finances tied up in investment capital or digital assets? Have they experienced food insecurity or homelessness? Do they work more than one job or side gig? Do they struggle to provide for their children? Do their finances affect their ability to form relationships or start a family? Do they have mental health issues and can they afford to treat them? In essence, I think whether a person is radicalizable actually has very little to do with politics and everything to do with their intersectional position in society.