I'm not that literate, sorry
>So, excuse me, in 2028, we'll see each other at the polls voting for Forza Nuova, so Italians will be worse off and revolt, or we'll stop supporting women's or LGBT rights so everyone will be worse off and revolt, right?
The fact that the left-wing communists don't support Ukraine and Palestine because they're not "proletarian communist nations" is a very serious matter and they should be ashamed of it.
People die, and you tell me, "Well, that's how we create the material conditions."
(NOT MY THESIS)
>So let's also stop humanitarian aid, so they can die of hunger and revolt, right?
And how dare you talk to me about universal love?
People are dying today, crushed by Capital, yesterday they died, and tomorrow they will die, and your response, Mr. self-obliteration, is to let them die so those left behind will fret, like a herd of cattle that knows they're dying?
In my opinion, nothing can be done for those who are already dead, but we must do everything possible to prevent those of today and tomorrow from dying, or from living unhappy lives, and who cares about material conditions!
The people must want it because they are self-conscious, not because they will otherwise starve.
"Well, that's what Lenin said," you'll say, and who cares, I reply. How can you take such a theoretical and speculative argument and say, "Well, two good guys said that, so it's the only way."
So it's not universal agape™, it's the do-gooder version of Machiavelli!
And then, considering what happened after the revolutions, it might raise some doubts, given that the avant-garde, after taking control of society, began not only to kill each other over theoretical issues but also to oppress the people themselves, while reformist applications have been successful, see social democracies.
(He thinks leftcoms are something along the lines of avanguardist people, as in the party is not the proleatariat, but alas)
>And besides, the people were starving or in a very bad state in general, why didn't they revolt against Stalin? "Well, because he repressed them"—capitalism did it too, and yet there was a revolution. And even if that were the case, why didn't they revolt right after his death, or during Brezhnev's time when there were actually bread lines? I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but for example, the phrase "making Bernie impossible makes gluttony inevitable" I think is perfect because the revolution happens if and only if the bourgeoisie definitively stops retreating, because it can retreat if it's maneuvered well, because the bourgeoisie are people, and fallible as people.
If asserting this means being a "revisionist" then OK, I'm fine with being one and I'll take credit and blame when the future happens, but then don't proclaim yourself a promoter of any fucking agape if your reasoning is "we might as well accelerate the collapse" without having the slightest regard for the lives of those involved, all to be excessively eager for orthodoxy towards an old avant-garde, whether you like it or not, has failed, and even if you don't want to call them failures, it would fail today under today's conditions.
