Was more of a vent post than anything. I don’t feel like an enemy of the people, an enemy would want what’s worst for them, to the contrary I want what’s best for all of us. I don’t expect people to be automatically Marxist either, that would be commandist of me. But it grinds my gears how closed minded people are to class consciousness; it seems as if they are impervious to it.

But all this only emphasises the importance of a vanguard, and kills the idea of spontaneity. It seems that no matter how severely capitalism harms a person, it doesn’t mean they’re open to Marxist ideas; there’s no tipping point where conditions will be bad enough that people will automatically do a socialist revolution.

oh i see

He’s also against the theory of unequal exchange. He doesn’t just have one or two mistakes, he consistently makes errors; there’s a big difference. Bravo to Cockshott for inventing his own Marxist deviation that nobody follows.

Also, what’s the source for the latter?

He’s also a homophobe:

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/class-and-the-lgtb-lobby/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.11.1.0095

He’s also against dialectical materialism, as if all socialists from from Engels to Mao have missed something this fundamental: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhEbKt3hFRs

Being an ethnic minority, I can’t relate one bit with this whole fear-mongering about becoming a minority. The only issue with being a minority is discrimination, of which the people who make these talking points often perpetrate.

I find “replacement” to be a massive hyperbole anyway, it’s not like there’s a settler genocide being perpetrated by brown people in the first world aiming to establish their own state. “Invasion” is even worse, there’s no invasion without a military, it has never happened in history.

By that I mean I remember liking both writings, though admittedly its been a long time since I’ve read either (especially the latter), and perhaps I’d be able to see the issues with them now that I have a more firm grasp of theory.

I take back what I said about the latter being a banger, I have re-read the Grand Alibi, and though initially I liked it because it gave a materialist analysis of the holocaust, I now see that it’s overly mechanistic and practically ignores the superstructure. That being said, the critique from Mitchell Abidor leaves much to offer, what does this critic propose instead as the material basis for the holocaust and German anti-semitism?

I’ve read Bordiga’s Report on Fascism and Auschwitz or the Grand Alibi, I thought they were bangers.

I’ve also read his Dialogue with Stalin and I remember thinking it was disingenuous. Bordiga does indeed have some good writings, but by and large I do believe he is a dogmatist and even more so a commandist. I have no interested in reading Mattick, Pannekoek, or any of the Dutch-German Leftcoms, but nevertheless I am always open to reading recommendations.

I don’t get why people call the police. They’re a rather untrustworthy bunch in most countries.

anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are ideologies of the petit-bourgeoisie, they are too weak of a class to actually impose their ideologies on the world. the only thing you get from libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in the real world is the big bourgeoisie using it as justification when its convenient, meanwhile they hypocritically use the government for their own benefit.

I’m not vegan myself, but it’s very funny seeing people get triggered by vegans.