Cowbee [he/they]

Direct action requires organizing. The Bolsheviks combined legal with illegal work, and this was the key to successful revolution. Adventurism, like the Socialist Revolutionaries tried to use, never made a real difference in the end, while organizing did.

It is much easier to do so through labor organizing and millitancy than spreading random terror. We can laugh and jest about a brutal CEO getting his just desserts, but we must move beyond simple adventurism. The fact that everyone appears united on this topic is only further evidence that revolution is a real and popular option.

Politicians don’t control the sharks, it’s the inverse. They are incapable of changing the system.

Lemmy.ml is more broadly federated than Lemmy.world, what are you talking about?

Social Programs within a Capitalist framework are concessions. In the European Countries, these social programs have been eroding over time, because the Workers do not have control. Moreover, the European Countries (and US, of course) rely on Imperialism, ie hyper-exploiting the Global South by exporting Capital and intentionally engaging in unequal exchange. These are parasitic countries that do not fund their safety nets inwardly, but externally, they only work like a leech works to produce food for itself, by taking from others.

Mega liberal, ie a radical supporter of Capitalism.

Markets, not Capitalism, can be useful at lower stages of development. However, over time, they become more and more exploitative and inefficient, transforming into Imperialism across international lines. Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more efficient with respect to the level of development of market industries.

What do you mean “socialist country thay works,” in a manner opposed to Communism? Are you calling the Nordic Countries “socialist,” despite reliance on hyper-exploitation of the global south and sliding worker protections, as a means to discredit AES countries?

Social programs are not “socialism,” nor are markets “capitalism.” What determines the nature of an economy is what is dominant, the will of Capital or the will of the People. That’s why Social Democracies are sliding into austerity, because the Workers never actually siezed control Capital still dominates the system and disparity rises as a consequence.

It’s been pretty common among the Left.

They usually have lemmy.world handles. Not saying you are, but the admins and many of the mods of .world are said turbolibs and shaped their instance around it

The Bourgeoisie was the “middle class” when the aristocracy were the upper class. The majority of the world is under Bourgeois rule, not aristocratic rule, any longer, ergo the Bourgeoisie is the upper class.

Bourgeoisie does not simply mean “middle class,” it refers to a class of Capitalists. You don’t adjust what the word means, but its context.

No, I literally stated that the goal isn’t to kill people, but collectivize property. If your only way of dealing with alternative viewpoints is to lie about them, then you should reconsider your own viewpoints.

Aristocrats were an offshoot of feudalism, the bourgeoisie are the Capital Owners. The “middle class” is the petite bourgeoisie, who are Capital Owners that must labor, ie small business owners. This was the bourgeoisie, not an aristocrat.

Yep, seriously confusing behavior.

Thanks! 🫡

What do you mean “middle class is bourgeoisie?”

Sieze it. If you’re interested, I have an introductory Marxist reading list.

It’s, again, a relation to production. Capital Owners, ie business owners and whatnot, are bourgeoisie. I suggest reading the first section in my introductory Marxist reading list.

Class is about relation to the Means of Production, not simple wealth. The US is largely made up of labor aristocracy who benefit from Imperialism, like you pointed out, but aren’t bourgeoisie.

Secondly, putting people to death isn’t the goal, changing property relations is. Adventurism is cool to see, but doesn’t actually change anything.