More languages
More actions
FIRST
1. I was an editor for Wikipedia and my breaking point was that my Helldivers 2 edit was deleted by some anon for "left wing propaganda" by mentioning that some game critics consider it a critique of fascism... went looking for other wikis cuz I just cannot do this anymore man. I'm not super familiar with ProleWiki but have a good grasp of the history of the 20th century; would love to help with a "this day in history" like Wikipedia. 2. I think I'm generically Leninist. I guess I was raised to be an enlightened centrist, but then Bernie came along I got into DSA, and when his campaign failed I realized we faced was a deeper institutional problem. I became a HasanAbi head on Jan 6th to watch the livestream, and his community helped out. I had read marx but was just full of us propaganda about the ussr, let alone china, doubly let alone dprk lmao. Studied history for a while and realized I was so misinformed. 3. Yep I did! I agree wholeheartedly. Would the haz/hinkle maga-communist crowd be considered larouchites? 4. Gender I understand as a voluntary identity different from sex. I don't really have any opinions on it, do whatever. Same with sexuality. It makes sense to support minorities in general because of the correlation between the economic and the social, but I don't think getting hillary or obama into any office did anything lol. But yes I'm anti-reactionary definitely. As far as familiarity with theory, I'm more versed in black liberation than with queer or feminist works, but am happy to learn. 5. Based. For the purposes of giving a fair-sided view, I think I could, like with anyone, find flaws, but when we're talking about world-historical figures, and 99.9% of the writing about them is just the most awful cia prop out there, on the interest of giving a balanced view, I think it's a waste of time to dwell on their shortcomings from like a leftcom perspective. I haven't read much trotsky. I know twitter hates him but I don't know exactly why. The stereotype is that he is ultraleft I guess? I am anti-that. But I'm not like a rabid anti-trot either. That's why I'm sticking with just generically Leninist for now. If I think someone's genuinely socialist I wanna hear them out, and have a lot of worry about excessive infighting and factionalism, though I read combat liberalism and understand the problems with big tent politics. 6. Sure I think they're socialist. When I was starting out, ie my brief DSA era, I would've probably said no, but like, I can't be anti-literally everything, on account of them not being perfect. They have my pretty much uncritical support unless they really heelturn somehow. If it weren't for Xi honestly I might have given up on politics altogether as a sort of pipe dream. He probably did the most to convince me there's still hope. 7. I guess most basically it's an even more violent/strong kind of colonialism, wherin indigenously are physically displaced by settlers. Obviously Israel stands out uniquely. I'm not as up to date on Africa as I'd like to be (ie as I am on Eurasia), but I know there are dozens of armed conflicts there so probably one of them is bound to be settler colonial. 8. I have never felt in my heart a firmer conviction than my opposition to the genocide of palestinians. Free Palestine by any means. It's so one-sided I can hardly even consider "both" sides of a conflict. There's occupation and resistance. There really isn't even much in the way of internal class analysis. Palestine is so purely (lumpen)proletariat, and Israel so purely (petit)bourgeoisie, that I have no qualms in feeling nationalism for Palestine.
SECOND
1. I would say it takes the dialectics of Hegel and applies it to material reality. Instead of the contradictions being between ideas (and I have read Fichte!), they can be between people, classes, modes of production, and so on. It informs historical materialism, which is just how history evolves, again not in terms of like religion or interests, at least not inherently, but rather in terms of physical tangible things. 2. I support it if it serves the communist movement. I think land back would largely be in line with this. As far as feasibility goes though I don't think it will happen from a capitalist's generosity, so there's that. For national liberation I guess the question is, "from what?" Like the idea of being "pro-freedom," freedom to do what? Hopefully not the freedom to harm others. So free palestine? Obviously. I don't know if there's any of this crowd left or if it fizzled out in the 90s but advocating for like "free tibet" seems ridiculous to me. From what? Aid? Up the 'RA though. 5. My country is the good ol US of A, so our parties are effectively nonexistent. I follow the CPUSA, IMT, and PSL somewhat. Revcom people creep me out. I have no idea how to organize us but I think there's a decent chunk of us out there so I'd support any reasonable attempts at doing so. 6. I mean there are a lot of ways to be anti-capitalist. You could be anti capitalist in that capitalism isn't capitalist enough and just want it to become fascism already. You could support a feudal system of economic organization for instance. Marxism is a very specific, historically informed anti-capitalism that seeks to replace it with something better for humanity, something without oppression. 7. IMF/World Bank further neocolonialism by profiteering off crises they cause. Belt and Road offers the only real alternative to that, and as far as I can tell it is far more moral, forgiving, mutually beneficial, and effective at actual infrastructure development than western finance.
OPTIONAL
1. Love you guys thank you for taking the time to do all this. 2. I'm familiar with MediaWiki! It's been a long time since I coded but I could relearn if needed.