Family abolition has always been something a core component of the communist revolution. Clearly it’s changed over the past few centuries. It’s funny to see Marxist-Leninists decry talk about family abolition when Marx and Engels repeatedly state that the family would be abolished and replaced with new, expansive, liberatory kinship structures.

I don’t know about your figures about how many families are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But ultimately I agree with the idea that youth liberation is both necessary for building a revolutionary movement and intrinsic to communism (or anti-market anarchism/socialism)

This is now up on Marxists Internet Archive!

Neat. It’s nice to see more peertube instances popping up.

Yeah.

Thanks for the extra image description

I don’t think this is a very good comparison, to be honest. While both are targets of genocide, the modes of genocide are different. Uyghers are facing the islamophobia reminiscent of the early '00s and a cultural attack. Palestinians are enduring a settler colonial genocide and apartheid beyond what the Uyghers are facing. Equating them like you did, not to speak even of comparisons, is, as you said, extremely roughly put.

I’m curious why people decided to downvote.

It’s an open, comradely reply to Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism.”

Ostensibly its aim is, because it purports to be aiming to a ‘communism’. However, its idea of full communism is utopian to the extent that they believe it will take centuries to reach.
Really, it’s just the state ideology of the USSR under Stalin, which wanted to call itself socialist/communist despite being state capitalist. It revises plenty of other stuff in Marxist theory as well, laying the groundwork for class collaborationist Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Dengism, and whatever the fuck neo-Dengism is.

I’d say that Lenin was the first to revise the typical marxist idea of communism though. In State & Rev he describes lower-phase communism as needing some kind of state apparatus to maintain it while communist society still suffered from some bourgeois ‘birthmarks’. This was something he’d added to the typical narrative, however. For Marx and Engels (as well as their friends and anarchist frenemies) communism was totally stateless, and the proletarian dictatorship was for them a state in the process of destroying itself as much as it was for destroying class society.

I’ve seen USian before (today, actually).

Add these images next to me speaking in post production? No, I don’t think so. I’ll just stand on a ladder next to a power point’s projection shining directly into my eyes, thank you.

Interesting video though

Yeah the framing in this article is crazy. Appealing to climate concerns to prop up a ‘climate chauvinism’ is nauseating

This was cross-posted to /c/socialism and fared well (considering that it’s only marginally smaller than this community), but here in c/anarchism it receives 3 downvotes. This struck me as a strange thing to downvote. I wonder if anyone could maybe express why they decided to downvote it…

I’ll interpret that as Marxism-Leninism I guess.

I agree with what poVoq said but I still have a question. What do you mean by communism? Are you meaning Marxism-Leninism? Actual communism is stateless, so it’d be described as an anarchy (unless you’re an individualist anarchist or something where a pizza party is the state).

No socialism has ruled in any country, to be clear. I’ll assume that you mean in terms of being ruled by Marxist-Leninist parties, in which case that’s only really half true. Leninism and Marxist-Leninism are distinct tendencies.

is a socialism*

I have only read Volume 1. I read it in college in a reading circle as part of an independent study.

rimshot

She deserves better than UFO for that shit

When I was younger I’d shoplift prolifically. I don’t shoplift anymore, mostly because I don’t want to risk arrest for something as stupid and superfluous as shoplifting.

That said, while I’ve worked in retail, I’ve let people get away with shoplifting. If it’s too obvious though and they’re shoplifting so obviously and poorly that if I felt that if I’d let them get away with it’d cost me my job, I’d have to do something.

In my opinion shoplifting is a trivial thing to worry about. A lot of people depend on shoplifting or other theft in order to sustain themselves, which means it’s a symptom of the broader issue of poverty wages and unemployment. If in a discussion someone were to bring up shoplifting somehow I’d bend the argument there or simply the easy twist towards the argument about originary accumulation and how property itself rests on theft.