Cowbee

Seriously though, DiaMat and Historical Materialism need to be the first subjects studied by Marxists.

I am once again begging anti-Dengists to explain Historical Materialism

Yep, the person I am referring to doesn't list her pronouns, she tries to mask more online more often than not. Same concept.

Great work! Re: low cis women, I know one of them IRL, and she's trying to basically wean off all Social Media, so she very rarely posts or comments here (but she did respond to the survey). Not sure how to get more ciswomen or transmen to join, honestly, but it's great to see that everyone feels safe here!

Edit: it's clear that misogyny is one of the most commonly pointed out issues with this site, based on reading replies and input from other comrades. I am fully in favor of a purge, even if it would be unpopular, it's better to confront issues and remove the problem elements. It's important for every user to feel as safe and comfortable in every bit of this site (except the EM/POC community threads for whites and trans community threads for cis, obviously safe spaces would be maintained as such). Maybe another weekly megathread as a safe space? A Feminism community sounds cool too and would be a good place to hold that, I think. Maybe include comm sidebars with feminist literature and theory? Just spitballing here.

On that note, if anyone has felt that I have been guilty of misogyny, I'd greatly appreciate being re-educated so I can be a better comrade and make this a safer space for women, enbies, and other non-masculine comrades.

Damn, that's good shit

Innuendo can be trashy, but fine bepis? A delicacy.

You need to listen to Blowback, and you'll fucking hate his team of war criminals.

His party really only has himself as the head, the Communist Party is the second most popular (even if it's less radical than the name would have you believe). A joint Communist-beamed Putin and Communist Party alliance would definitely be pushed back against by the domestic bourgeoisie, but the basis for Soviet nostalgia is strong enough in the public.

But seriously: if you're not voting for Biden, does that mean you instead vote for Trump? Or do you not vote at all? What if that results in another Trump presidency? What is the argument against voting for the lesser evil? Is it a matter of principle, then?

1. No, lmao.

2. Maybe, or maybe vote for Jill Stein of the Greens or Claudia De La Cruz of PSL.

3. Leftists voting for leftists will not be what results in a Trump presidency. What will is Biden killing his own chances by doubling down on failing liberalism and genocide, blaming voters for disengaging from one genocidal party is wrong.

4. The argument against voting for the lesser of 2 evils is only applicable if electoralism actually works. Historically, backing genocide and failing liberalism instead of taking a principled stance just results in further evil the next time around.

5. It isn't a matter of "principle," per se. If I were to ask you if you would rather vote for 50 genocides, 100 genocides, or 0 genocides, even if 0 genocides hasn't been elected yet, would you back the 50 genocide candidate or assume it to be a lost cause? What about 1 genocide, 1 genocide, and 0 genocides? When do you jump ship? People against voting for Biden think 1 genocide is enough to ditch him over.

Unless you think Trump is the superior candidate, in which case I am not really interested in talking to you.

Nobody here really thinks that except people who think Trump would destabilize NATO.

I mean, yes, it would be better if instead of Biden they ran someone younger and more progressive. And even better would be if the ridiculous two-party system was replaced altogether. But slim as the chance of that happening with Biden is, it is surely even more unlikely for that to happen with the Republicans and Trump in power, right?

What makes you think the Democrats would change the system that works for them? Neither the DNC nor GOP are interested in fielding Leftist candidates or passing major electoral reform. The first option harms their donors, and the second harms their electoral chances, as most people prefer third party policies.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just genuinely confused as it seems I'm missing something that's perhaps obvious to you.

You're missing the core throughline that people here believe positive change is impossible electorally at the federal level, and change instead comes from unionizing, protesting, organizing, and generally performing direct action. Read The State and Revolution if you're serious about learning.

South Korean incels are on another level of misogyny, partially brought on by a historical tradition of patriarchy combined with rapidly moving women into the work force.

Women in South Korea are generally far more progressive as a consequence, and men have not been able to keep up with this as a whole. Instead, they are even more reactionary, it's a magnified version of what exists in countries like America.

That's a perfect answer, really. Doing it on anyone currently in power in the US would just toss aside their power, that's not how the US can be used. Swift would be hilarious.