/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6182699]

There is not emancipatory, progressive revolution anywhere in sight, the opposite is true: Around the world, regressive, reactionary movements are gaining traction and seek to destroy the accomplishments of civil society. Since those accomplishments are the basis for the possibility of emancipation, one must defend the status quo against regression, which is a far more pressing issue than making the revolution happen. To be radical today is to be conservative in the best sense.


Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.6182707]

CUCKMMUNISTS
BTFO
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.6182735]

The lines are just being drawn out better on both sides. There was only so long they could keep up the project of confusion. The pieces are falling explicitly between the friends of class rule for itself, and it's enemies. On one hand they're getting wise enough to realize this, and it makes it easier for everyone.

But no matter what, Reactionaries are always paper tigers. Revolution has to become identified explicitly with making sure the status quo doesn't need to be defended.

[Anonymous No.6182951]

Dude. Stalinist Catholicism. I'm telling you. It's the only way.
Even if the Vatican condemns any kind of communism, the pope could potentially redact it. So applying dialectical thinking properly, we just have to show off how good we're capable of being and he'll let us off.

[Anonymous No.6182954]

6181172→

[Anonymous No.6182973]

>>6182699
Not really. Reaction is just a symptom of the breakdown of the capitalist power structure and those movements may be on the rise but so are the Left movements, even in the First world. This is THE time to press revolution, when the contradictions are most visible.

[Anonymous No.6182982]

>>6182699
>based Grigat
That guy, like him a lot. Any thoughts on the new issue of Bahamas?
>>6182707
Retard, Grigat is a communist, and that last line is a Horkheimer quote.

[Anonymous No.6182991]

>>6182973
Yeah, that already worked out fantastic in the 1930s and 40s.

[Anonymous No.6183088]

>>6182991
Exactly my point: the Left didn't organize and act sufficiently, allowing the reactionaries to spread their disease, leading to cataclysmic world war. Thankfully the USSR and China were able to hold of and defeat the Axis, but the situation didn't have to happen to begin with.

[Anonymous No.6183094]

>>6183088
>the USSR and China were able to defeat the axis
That's a nice little glimpse of the stone-age leftist mind right there.

[Anonymous No.6183095]

>>6182707
this meme is obnoxious

[Anonymous No.6183174]

>>6183094
No matter how many times you watch Saving Private Ryan or Pearl Harbor it's not going to change that the USSR and China paid the most and gave the most effort to actually fighting Germany and Japan respectively. The US navy was indeed decisive in the defeat of the Japanese navy, but the fact remains that the US entered the war too late to be affected by the war, hence their overtaking the European empires and becoming the world power.

[Anonymous No.6183178]

>>6183174
If England hadn't held out against the german assault, or given in without a fight, the third reich could have survived by concentrating all forces in the east.
And saying that china defeated Japan is just plain retarded.

[Anonymous No.6183214]

>>6183174
China was flattened by Japan. Flattened.
That's how the a handful of guerillas came to power there in the first place. There was absolutely no resistance in the formerly occupied areas of China, which were all the large coastal cities. and most of the inland ones. Just filling a void.

"Paid the most." That's an interesting way of saying "got slaughtered the most brutally." I suppose you believe the blood of martyrs exerts magical power, or something? Hence the flag colour?

The Soviets fought hard, no denying that, but they had no air force to speak of. If Germany hadn't been bombed to ash, I doubt they'd have been able to regain Poland, let alone take eastern Germany. They may well have been able to preserve most of their territorial integrity if the bombing never started, but a Western front remained, however, if it was just Germany versus Russia, it would not have ended well for them at all.

[Anonymous No.6183223]

>>6183214
Except that Mao hid in the woods while Chang Kai Shek did all the fighting.

[Anonymous No.6183231]

>>6183223
meant to quote >>6183174

[Anonymous No.6183234]

>>6183178
>If England hadn't held out against the german assault, or given in without a fight, the third reich could have survived by concentrating all forces in the east.
Could be, but it doesn't change that the heaviest fighting was in the East and that it was the USSR and partisans that seized the Eastern front and pushed the Nazis back to Berlin.
>And saying that china defeated Japan is just plain retarded.
Not really, the Chinese took the main brunt of violence from Imperial Japan and did the most to fight them as they invaded, occupied, and slaughtered. The Americans did deplete Japan's naval power, though, and the defeat of Germany lead Japan to surrender since the USSR refocused in the East. (The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, of course, had nothing to do with it. The US knew the Japanese military council was ready to surrender long before planning the first bomb's drop, but Truman wanted to dissolve FDR's friendly relations with the USSR by a show of force.)

[Anonymous No.6183241]

>>6183174
the US overtook the european empires because their population, industrial base, wealth per capita, efficiency and GDP were drastically bigger

>>6183178
>>6183214

>the third reich could have survived by concentrating all forces in the east

nah. again, germany was outclassed in population, industry, natural resources, size of the army ... the germans underestimated the size of the soviet military by three times

this thread needs to read adam tooze's "wages of destruction: the making and breaking of the nazi war economy"

[Anonymous No.6183250]

>>6183223
>Except that Mao hid in the woods while Chang Kai Shek did all the fighting.
That's disingenuous. It was Kai-Shek that purged the Communists of the ranks of the KMT, caused the conditions of civil war, and initially welcomed Japan in fear of its power. Eventually it was the CPC, doing far more than "hiding in the woods" that offered to form the United Front, which Kai-Shek was very stupidly against and had to be curtailed by those directly under him.

[Anonymous No.6183251]

>>6183241
>the US overtook the european empires because their population, industrial base, wealth per capita, efficiency and GDP were drastically bigger
Right, because the US didn't have to sacrifice any of these for the war. No one can deny that US war effort was important when it came, but it came late in the game when all sides were at their end and the US lives spent were nothing compared to its continental allies and enemies.

[Anonymous No.6183256]

At the end of the day, christianism is right. It's just the old gnostic vs. faith, jesus vs. satan, good vs. evil stuff.

[Anonymous No.6183264]

>>6182951
This. If there are Catholic Nazis, there can certainly be Catholic Stalinists, and Stalinism is far more in line with Christian morality, whereas Nazism is some pseudo Nietzschean pagan shit.

[Anonymous No.6183280]

>>6182951
>>6183264
Communism is utopia, it's Heaven on Earth.
Christianism is not about seeking heaven on earth.

Communism and christianism are two contradictory worldviews.

[Anonymous No.6183286]

>>6183251
>Right, because the US didn't have to sacrifice any of these for the war.
no, because the USA occupied its own continent on the other side of the world, had more than twice as many people and richer and more industrialized by any imaginable metric. WWII had nothing to do with it, WWI had nothing to do with it. Germany could never have afforded tanks, ships, airplanes, artillery, guns, ammunition or any other war-essential equipment in anywhere near competitive amounts even if they had had access to the raw materials, which they didn't.

The other European powers were in the exact same situation as the Germans in that their populations were too small, too poor and too rural to catch up with the Americans. Look up GDPs, look up GDP per capita, export value per capita, worker efficiency, foreign trade balances, any fucking number you can think of and you'll see how far ahead the US was before the war and after

[Anonymous No.6183312]

>>6183280
That's why Judaism is so interesting, it's not a coincidence so many revolutionary authors were jewish: While Christians already live in a saved world and just need to accept their savior, Judaism teaches that the messiah (aka the revolution) has yet to come

[Anonymous No.6183319]

>you will never live in a society that gives you a place and a mission from birth
>you will never live in a society that gives you both the ability and the responsibility to glorify yourself and people
>you will never live in a society that forges men from boys and raises a new class worthy of reaching to the stars
>you will never live in a society that gives every person the right and the opportunity to work
>you will never live in a society that values ideals over money
>you will never live in a society that understands duty, valour,greater good and glory
>you will never live in a society that would have given you something to be proud of and fight for by the age you are right now
>you will always live in a bourgeois plutocratic ochlocracy that turns men into women with progressive newspeak
>you will always live in a society where strength and pride are disdained
>you will always live in a society that forces you to hate your class but love those of bourgeois
>you will always live in a society where hedonism and materialism are the sole aims
>you will always live in a society where obese libertarian manchildren and degenerate self-mutilating sexual fetishists are considered honorary first citizens and normal, hardworking people are considered boring and regressive
>you will never experience a masculine culture
>you will never know the thrill of battle for a state and people you love

Why even live if you can`t give your life for workers paradise?

[Anonymous No.6183323]

>>6183280
Marxism is not utopian, though, that's the whole point. No one says everyone would be happy, but it's certainly the most Christian way to live. Hell, the Mondragon corporation was started by Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.6183332]

>>6183312
There were pretty much no major revolutionary authors who were practicing Jews.

[Anonymous No.6183334]

>>6183312
Actually, Nietzsche compares the Revolution to the Second Coming, and I think that's closer to the mark here, the day of reckoning.

[Anonymous No.6183358]

>>6183319
Woah dude, what you describe sounds more like fascism. Read Wilde's Soul of Man under Socialism, it will scar your soul, not that it deserves better.

[Anonymous No.6183360]

>>6183323
>Marxism is not utopian
It is, for christians. This is why they're incompatible.

>the most Christian way to live
Just no.

''At that time the disciples* approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
b and said, “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children,* you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
* And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.''

Matthew 18, 1-5

[Anonymous No.6183372]

>>6183358
ultimately I`m just authoritarian, but I want some collectivist virtues form left without the traditionalism of right-wing politics for my ideal state

[Anonymous No.6183375]

>>6183360
>It is, for christians. This is why they're incompatible.
No it isn't, because I'm a Christian and I don't think it's utopian. It's full retard to say we can't better our conditions because some people might see something better as utopian. No doubt people from a thousand years ago would call what we have today "utopian", that doesn't mean we have to live like the Middle Ages.

>Just no.
All this reinforces my point. In Stalinism, we all become as children.

[Anonymous No.6183392]

>>6183372
Sounds pretty gay tbh. In the political sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.6183402]

>>6183372
That is fascism, at least Giovanni Gentile's fascism.

[Anonymous No.6183409]

>>6183319
You know why you won't? Because you. You bearded banjo Mumford and Sons motherfuckers are the reason we can't reach communist utopia. Because you have to be all alpha and always reach for the pussy like the fat kid on the cookie jar. Your fucking male gender is the leash capital has on you, it forms the basis of capitalism and capitalism can never be shed without it. As long as you are riveted so deeply in capitalistic gender mores and superstitions, you will continue to be a victim. You bastards just want to clutter up some butter gutter and if you think they don't know that then you deserve the worst the bougie can do to you. Nothing you mentioned cannot be purchased, either with your money or with your soul. Your refusal to determine your own identity will be your downfall, as well as your reliance on those structures of power. They already know you, they already own you.

[Anonymous No.6183410]

>>6183375
Ok, just stop calling yourself christian, gnostic friend.
.