Who said anything about Trump besides you?
I swear, libs make up their own narrative to punch left regardless of what Leftists do.
while telling us how trump did some good things…
Where did that happen?
Geezuz. Nobody had to say it. I'm saying if people do that, then yes they are.
People. Learn how to read. Understand.
Do you only read the first sentence of a comment?
The density is suffocating.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
I don't think it's OK, but I think it was entirely expected. I agree that his prosecution was political, and that most other defendants would have gotten much less focus. I also agree that he broke the law and should serve his time.
Ultimately, our entire system is corrupt and we should do something to fix it. Sadly, we'll have to wait at least two years for the next election to hopefully at least take back the House and/or Senate. But even if Dems take both, nobody seems to be interested in actually addressing the injustice baked into our government.
It's like we don't even have a direction anymore. Vote to stop the trump agenda? He has all three branches, if there is anything locking up congress will do it will be fringe. They run on not passing legislation. Stop a trump third term, sorry he's not allowed a third term and if he's running for one I don't imagine the DNC can do much to stop it because major fuckery is going down.
Ok well maybe it's not all about trump. Alright, what is is about? Maintaining the status quo and never implementing any change?
My favorite postmortem take so far has been "why don't democrats get in line like republicans do??"
It's just such perfect mask-off liberalism, I just want to make a supercut of it for next election when libs are whining about why their unpopular candidate/policies aren't winning.
Worst performance since the Republicans took California but hey who knows, could've been even worse somehow if they did anything differently. Clearly the right play is to learn absolutely nothing from this. Even the really obvious stuff like the fact that virtually everyone in the country hates Dick Cheney's guts with extremely good reason.
Also is it still hindsight if a bunch of people were screaming that it was a terrible move before it blew up in her face? Because that kinda seems more like foresight.
Again, you put me in a room with democratic leadership and I'll scream their flaws in their face. But this isn't a room of democratic leadership. How exactly does screaming about the flaws of the DNC to the voters accomplish anything?
It's in the best interest of the DNC to adopt policies and campaign approaches that have the best chance of winning. It's in the best interest of leftist voters to keep fascists out of office.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that yelling about it here is not only ineffective, it's counterproductive. I'm not DNC leadership, and I'd wager good money that no one else on this site is DNC leadership. So yelling about their flaws here doesn't communicate with them, all it does is discourage the voters that are here from big tenting against the fascists.
But clearly the right play is to learn nothing from this, and continue to fracture the left and foement apathy in leftist voters. That's been working great so far, right?
To win an election, you have to convince the conservatives that it is in their best interest to vote for the progressive candidate. That might sound like a tall order, but we already know how to do it. We already see the gameplan that works on all conservatives. We have seen how centrists and moderates and neoliberals win in conservative strongholds.
it's not that tall of an order since we did it with obama and can do something similar again with bernie if the dnc doesn't cockblock him again.
Progressives just need to start lying.
they have been; to themselves if not to us.
Yeah, meanwhile the only actual tankies are the ones who cheerlead the USSR and PRC.
As an anti authoritarian, while I can see some redeeming qualities in those countries, overall I’m not a fan. Though I do love me some propaganda art from the time.
To be clear, the vast majority of Marxists support the PRC and USSR. The only major exceptions are Trots, who are mostly found in the Western Left due to their anti-AES slant aligning with the overall liberal Western hegemony, and small pockets in South America. Trots have produced no successful revolutions, so they pose little threat. Though I do think it's funny that Trots love newspapers.
As for "anti-authoritarian," I'm not really sure what that means unless you are either an Anarchist or have an arbitrary level of government you deem unacceptable.
this is so backwards. the republicans are acting like democrats not the other way around
republicans -> MAGAcrats.
It’s in the best interest of the DNC to adopt policies and campaign approaches that have the best chance of winning.
The donors and the consultants making the bulk of the decisions disagree. The donors are motivated to shape policy, not win elections. The consultants are motivated to raise money, not win elections. They literally tell us they would rather loose than be disloyal to Biden by criticizing his legacy.
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn't mean it can't be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
Very false. They both represent capital yes, but one is objectively more opposed to leftist policy than the other. Republicans are more anti-Union, more against single payer healthcare, etc.
Voting isn't about choosing who best represents you, that person isn't going to win. Voting is about choosing who you're going to be fighting for the next 4 years. I'd rather push left against the Democrats than the Republicans.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Marxists believe that Central Planning and Public Ownership is necessary in the long run, yes. This centralism, however, derives its power from the masses, and flows from below. It isn't a cabal of all-powerful and unaccountable individuals in theory nor in practice. Anarchism, meanwhile, only has theory, and not yet practice outside of a few short periods. Anarchism at its core retains the ability for different cooperatives or communes to develop at different rates and allow the resurgance of Capitalism on the basis of those differences, Marxism does not.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor
Most people in the West want that, thanks to the prevailing ideologies surrounding individualism under Capitalism stemming from liberalism. In different modes of production, this is not the standard.
Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Why? On the contrary, it seems to me that it's less likely to accomplish anything, so far. Anarchists do great work, and many are excellent comrades, but to proclaim Marxism as "authoritarian" and Anarchism as "more likely" to do anything is a failure to recognize the historic shortcomings thus far of Anarchist theory and praxis.
We don't have to debate, but I do think you should give this more thought. If you want to learn more about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist reading list you can check out. Open for feedback!
If you can't tell the difference between bad and worse, I can't help you. They're both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions. The Republicans not only won't do that, they'll double down on authoritarianism.
The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don't care about the institutions at all, they'll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity. I'd rather fight neoliberals than Christo-fascists, and I'm not sure why you wouldn't.
But go ahead, don't vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I'm sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
So you agree that both are hostile to the left, glad to see you come around.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions
Are meager, nominal concessions enough?
But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
You haven't explained how they are easier to defeat. The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.
I happen to believe in a little something called "The Truth." I don't believe that everything I say should have to serve an immediate strategic purpose. In fact, I don't think it's at all sensible to even set a strategic purpose until you have first clearly identified and laid out the truth. Even if the truth is inconvenient or counterproductive, I'm not really interested in a political project that's based on ignorance or deception.
If the truth isn't enough to get people to back your political project, then perhaps your political project isn't worth backing. Regardless, it's likely the truth will come out eventually, at which point you will lose credibility to the opposition. And if the left doesn't speak out for fear of hurting the democrats' chances, then the only opposition will be from the right.
Furthermore, people having correct political ideas and a clear understanding of the world is more important than any election, which is of secondary concern. A person's political actions (or lack thereof) do not end at the ballot box, and when a person has correct ideas they are more likely to participate in productive actions and avoid harmful ones. Collective action, boycotts, protests, etc have more capacity to effect change than a political system designed by slaveowners explicitly to subvert the popular will.
I didn't do shit. The unwavering support of Israel is the natural extension of the exact same foreign policy we've adopted since Israel was founded. And don't pretend it's magically gonna get better now that Dems lost. Talk to Palestinians, they're terrified of Trump's bromance with Bibi.
Both parties are the enemy. Democrats are an easier to defeat enemy. Why would you want to fight the harder enemy? The odds are already stacked against the left, why make them worse?
I didn't do shit. The Palestinian genocide is a built in feature of both parties. I support one of them.
Talk to Palestinians, they’re terrified of Trump’s bromance with Bibi.
Fuck you just making shit up to win an internet argument. Bloodless fucking ghoul.
Democrats are an easier to defeat enemy.
Based on what? How for 3 out of every 4 years it's fucking forbidden to say a bad word about them and how they siphon off everyone who would otherwise have human morals from actual good work? How the fucking shit are you having the goddamned fucking gall to say this shit when the only fighting you want to do against them is telling people to vote for them?
Well good news! They got beat, so now we can move on, right??
I also believe in the truth, but I won't let a fixation on it increase suffering. We're fighting a well-oiled propaganda machine directly opposing us. If the truth doesn't actually reach people, it doesn't do them much good.
To be clear, nowhere did I suggest lying. I'm just advocating a little rhetorical tact. The other side isn't fact-checking their dog in the race. They're blatantly lying, and their supporters whistle and look the other way. When one side says their candidate is the Messiah, and the other side says their own candidate is deeply flawed, where does that push someone on the fence?
Support the easier enemy in the election, highlight their success and shut up about their flaws. After the election, switch that up and shout the truth from the rooftops.
It's not about who deserves to win, it's about choosing which of the two that are going to win is a more favorable enemy. When we have 80 million voters on our side, then we can start pushing the good candidate.
glad to see you come around.
I didn't come around, that was always my view. We disagree on relative degree.
Are meager, nominal concessions enough?
Who said anything about "enough"? Again, relative degree. Meager, nominal concessions are better than Christo-fascism.
The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.
I never said that. Their gloves are the same, but the Republicans are wearing brass knuckles.
"Support" and "damage mitigation" are two very different things.
Fuck you just making shit up to win an internet argument.
I've been donating directly to Palestinians distributing aid for years. I talk to them, that's what they say. But sure, you know better.
the only fighting you want to do against them is telling people to vote for them?
Who said anything about "only"? I'm talking about setting the floor and working from there. Look at the two options on election day, and vote for the better starting point.
The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don't care about the institutions at all, they'll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity.
When one side says their candidate is the Messiah, and the other side says their own candidate is deeply flawed, where does that push someone on the fence?
Probably the one that admits to their candidate's flaws. The side claiming that their side is the Messiah can only reach people who are willing to believe that narrative. It tends to be very alienating to the average voter.
What's baffling to me is that there seem to be a lot of people on the democratic side who simultaneously believe all kinds of contradictory things. Trump voters are all blindly devoted to their cult leader, but if we just shift a few more degrees to the right, that will win them over, somehow. Or, the key to winning elections is by winning over moderate swing voters who don't feel attached to either party, and the way to do that is to demand blind devotion to our candidate while screaming that the other side is Hitler and anyone who even considers them is a fascist. It's absurdity. And yet, no matter how many times these strategies fail, people refuse to learn from them.
I happen to come from a conservative family, and that made it immediately obvious that even the best attempts by someone like Biden or Harris to win over the right were doomed to fail, and the Dick Cheney strategy was absolutely not even close to "the best attempt." The reason is that Biden and Harris look and sound like typical, mainstream democrats, who their entire political identity is built on opposing. Of course, my parents are always going to vote Republican, but the one person on the Democratic side I've ever heard them say they respect is Bernie Sanders. DNC strategists and their loyalists cannot comprehend this.
So many people adhere to this overly simplistic ideological model as if it's just a truism - that the things people support are more or less innate characteristics randomly developing from birth and the combination of those things makes everyone fall someone on a one dimensional spectrum from left to right, and everyone votes according to who's closest to them ideologically. And so the only way to win is to assume the far left votes will fall in line behind you while you move right to appeal to the centrist swing voters. But that whole model is bullshit, and it has been proven to be bullshit time and time again.
A large part of Trump's appeal is that he's able to present himself as an outsider. Moving right and shaking hands with Cheney, trying to be like, "See, the whole political establishment hates Trump," merely reinforces Trump's credibility as an outsider while also tying Harris to the disastrous policies including the War on Terror. The failure of the Bush administration is a part of why conservatives turned to Trump in the first place! It's insanity.
If you wanna win by peeling off Trump voters, the best way to do that is by targeting people with libertarian values and running on isolationism and staying out of foreign entanglements. But that would require actually doing that, or at the very least, it would require not painting everyone who disagrees with your interventionist policies with the same brush of being a "Russian bot." Alternatively, you can say, "screw Trump voters, we'll win by mobilizing the base," but that would require adopting popular leftist policies that would hurt their donors' profits.
So, being unwilling to actually play the game, all that's left is to put forward the same platform of interventionism and neoliberalism that has simply outlived it's moment and does not have enough adherents to win.
Don't listen to the Palestinians who correctly observe that they're being exterminated with a democrat in charge. Listen to the Palestinians I claim exist who support the democrats that are committing a genocide against them. The people of Palestine want Juan Guiado as their president.
Who said anything about “only”? I’m talking about setting the floor and working from there. Look at the two options on election day, and vote for the better starting point.
No one said shit. I'm watching what you actually do and what happened the last 4 years when you got what you wanted. It puts the lie to all the hollow bullshit you've repeated to death here.
You distributed aid with one hand and you voted for their extermination with the other. I don't give a fuck what you have to say or what percentage of it is not a lie. I'm sure you're telling the truth about the last part. You're a nazi.
Probably the one that admits to their candidate's flaws.
This is woefully ignorant of reality. People are not immune to propaganda. It's noble that you think most people are rational and politically informed, but that's very clearly not the case. Rhetoric has been extensively studied and developed for literally millennia, there's a reason.
The side claiming that their side is the Messiah can only reach people who are willing to believe that narrative. It tends to be very alienating to the average voter.
80 million people voted for that.
Trump voters are all blindly devoted to their cult leader, but if we just shift a few more degrees to the right, that will win them over, somehow.
No one has suggested that. Shifting a few degrees to the right isn't supposed to win over Trump voters, it's supposed to win over moderate conservatives that don't care for Trump.
the way to do that is to demand blind devotion to our candidate while screaming that the other side is Hitler and anyone who even considers them is a fascist.
What happened to caring about The Truth over all?
This is woefully ignorant of reality. People are not immune to propaganda. It’s noble that you think most people are rational and politically informed, but that’s very clearly not the case. Rhetoric has been extensively studied and developed for literally millennia, there’s a reason.
Of course. Which is why effective propaganda and rhetoric is generally more sophisticated than just "our side good."
80 million people voted for that.
More like 158 million.
No one has suggested that. Shifting a few degrees to the right isn’t supposed to win over Trump voters, it’s supposed to win over moderate conservatives that don’t care for Trump.
So... Trump voters.
What happened to caring about The Truth over all?
What happened to pragmatism over truth?
I don't consider it true that everyone who votes for Trump is a fascist. There are plenty of reluctant Trump voters who are primarily motivated by negative partisanship, which is to say, voting against the Democrats.
Don't listen to the Palestinians who correctly observe that they're being exterminated with a democrat in charge.
I listen to both. Neither party will end this. One party will expand and accelerate it. Both things are true. That's what they have been saying, that Biden's policies, and by presumptive extension Kamala's, were horrific, but Trump would be even worse. And you claim the voices saying that are a rhetorical fabrication. Erasing victims of genocide in an impossible situation pleading to mitigate the damage, because that conflicts with your Internet argument. Who is the bloodless ghoul?
I'm watching what you actually do and what happened the last 4 years when you got what you wanted.
You don't know the first thing about what I actually do and what I want. I don't want the Democrats. I just want MAGA even less, and no one else has 80 million votes.
You distributed aid with one hand and you voted for their extermination with the other.
I voted to keep out the greater evil, but sure. Pretend that if Biden lost and Trump was in office on Oct 8, Palestine would be better off. One thing is true, the genocide would have ended much sooner. Get out of your Internet bubble.
To win an election, you have to convince the conservatives that it is in their best interest to vote for the progressive candidate.
I disagree with you, to win an election, you need to convince voters to vote for you. That's it. Democrats have tried to win over conservatives in at least 2024 and the start of the 2020 campaign (before Biden worked with Bernie's campaign to run on more progressive stuff).
And they keep losing. If what everyone on Lemmy keeps saying is true, roughly 1/3rd of the country voted Dem, 1/3rd voted Rep, and 1/3rd didn't vote. And if we're to believe people who say "both parties" genuinely feel that way, and those people are likely to belong to the 1/3rd who don't vote...
Why are Dems trying to win over the conservatives at all? Show the 1/3rd of the populace who doesn't vote that you're not both the same. No, you're never going to get 100% voter turnout, but if 77 million (Trump's popular vote count) is 1/3rd, that means there's roughly 77 million people that can be won over to vote.
So the Dems need to go after them, and they need to start running on actual progressive policy and positive change for the average American. They need to stop letting Republicans control the narrative for them on their ideas and policies. Obama won on the message of Hope, Biden won on the back of Bernie's progressive policies, and Trump has won twice now on change.
The common denominator is change, the current system isn't working for the average American, and people aren't going to support the status quo. We can sit here and insult Magas and conservatives and comment on how empty their brains are or how selfish they may be or ignorant or incestual or whatever. I get it, I've done it, but I bet you at their core, they want something in this country to change for the better.
So they gambled on Trump in 2016, and regardless of your opinion on it, Trump spent four years showing people that you can change things, you can get things done, you just have to break all the rules and norms to do it. Biden gave people hope in 2020 (plus the COVID handling by Trump) so they rebuked Trump.
After four years of the average American seeing no material improvement to their lives (that's all I'm arguing here, not whether or not Biden actually got anything done), and the Dem candidate running on "I'm going to maintain the course," people stayed home. They showed the Dems in 2020 that progressive policies win, and yet the Dems still tried to win over voters from the other side as opposed to winning over the roughly 77 million who stay home.
It almost feels like willful ignorance on the behalf of these so-called liberal elite. The simpler explanation, though, is probably money, and that's why people say "both sides are the same." It's because money: both sides of the aisle still insider trade despite it's unpopularity with Americans, both sides of the aisle still hold expensive campaign dinners with the wealthy elite, and both sides still accept billions of dollars in campaign funds from the oligarchs. My cousin supports Bernie with his heart of hearts, but will not vote because "both sides are the same, I want actual change."
Progressives need to take the helm from the liberals of the DNC and get PAC and oligarch money out of their organization (which will never happen). They need to show the American people that they not only believe in change, they will get it done, and it will benefit the people. They need to ditch this air of superiority and moral enlightenment and just get things done, stop condescending to your voting base, and make your constituency feel like you hear them.
Anecdotally, my dad and I were talking the other day about the election. He supported Trump in 2016 with some enthusiasm (just because Trump wasn't a politician and "I make more when Repubs are in office"). Him and I stopped talking for almost 2 years after the election. But the other day, he kinda surprised me by saying, "Y'know, I don't like Trump, I think he's an asshole, I didn't want to vote for him... But I just can't vote for those pompous Democrats."
I told him how disappointed I was in the DNC, and he said he liked Kamala, but didn't trust the Dems (I know, the irony is not lost on me). I asked him how he felt about Bernie, and surprisingly, he made a joke about how we'd all have to learn to talk with our hands if he won. But talking policy ideas, my dad supports all of Bernie's stuff, he just thinks the Dems are out of touch with blue collar folks like himself.
He doesn't care that you've written a letter condoning the breaking of precedent to the Parliamentarian, and through the process of Habeas Corpus and Secretariat, after 12 years maybe they'll acknowledge they did wrong. Doesn't make sense to you, right?
Well, that's because it's nonsense, which is basically what the average American hears whenever the Dems get on their pulpit and start finger pointing and blaming everyone but themselves about why they couldn't get things done. The average American living paycheck to paycheck, who doesn't have a college degree, and likely hasn't taken a civics class since high school, doesn't care about all of these little caveats and the intricacies of an arbitrary system of rules and norms that they created. They aren't going to sit down and research various political theories and then do a deep dive on the various roles and powers each different tiny figurehead amongst the federal government has and does not have, rounding out the night with a hefty portion of the history and precedent surrounding constitutional law.
They're just not, and we need to stop pretending they will, or that people will even do the bare minimum of understanding how a bill becomes a law. So run on things they understand, and then actually get them done.
But lying? Nah, look at the division Biden pardoning his son has caused on Lemmy, lying isn't the answer. They need to run on actual, positive change, and then work to actually make it happen, not these half-assed attempts we keep getting like the ACA.
This turned into a book, but I liked your write up.
Do you know what a union is? It's a worker coalition designed to give those workers a voice in their workplace.
Do you know what workers rights are? They're regulatory protections that mitigate a portion of the exploitation inherent to capitalism.
Do you know what capital gains taxes are? They are taxes that siphon a portion of capital from the bourgeoise.
These are all in conflict with the interest of capital. They don't go far enough, but they go farther than the other party. The other party opposes them. Capitalism + pro-worker social policies > capitalism - human rights. This isn't a difficult concept.
You can link all the Marxist literature you want, it won't get us closer to communism, or even socialism. This country will not vote for socialism anytime soon. If they're not going to fill in a bubble once every couple years, they sure as hell aren't going to take to the streets in armed rebellion.
These policies are the first baby steps in a larger transition. First it's unions and higher federal minimum wage, then it's more robust worker protections and socialized healthcare so workers have mobility, then it's enabling worker co-ops, then it's encouraging co-ops, then it's mandating exclusive employee ownership. One step at a time, gradually demonstrating to the proletariat that these policies improve their lives and empower them, until they're ready to support more dramatic change.
What's your plan to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital?
These policies are the first baby steps in a larger transition
No it isnt. NO IT ISNT. read reform or revolution read state and revolution. REFORM WILL NEVER WORK
That is a totally unfounded claim. I'd like for it to be true. I just know too much about the average American to believe it.
Capitalists will always keep us just comfortable enough to make revolution unsavory. Bread and circuses. Capitalist entrenchment at the time of Lenin was a pup compared to the global beast it has become in the interceding century.
The USSR devolved into state capitalism, the CCP devolved into state capitalism. Capitalism is insidious. Reform is the only way. I'm not going to pretend the musings of theory-crafters 100 years ago are sacrosanct physical laws, and if you actually want to get closer to the goal in your lifetime I suggest you consider the same.
The odds are already stacked against the left, why make them worse?
Because to performative "leftists", the point isn't to help people, the point is to suffer in conflict against a great foe. They want the greatest foe so they can suffer the most. In their ethical system, that's virtue. And if that results in a few million Palestinians dying, that's an acceptable cost of doing business.
If you think one genocide is just as bad as 3, when the difference is millions of lives, then you have no heart.
Drag gets it, okay? "Just as bad" is a great soundbite. It gets people riled up and ready to take action. But it's also false, because it erases millions of genocide victims. And drag wants to know whether you've thought about the millions of genocide victims you're erasing to accomplish your goals. Has it not crossed your mind yet, or did you make a conscious choice to use genocide-denying rhetoric?
Unions are good. Wholly insufficient by themselves for achieving Socialism, of course, but good nonetheless and an example of Worker Organization, the establishment of which can achieve Socialism. Your beginning few points on mild Social Programs in general, however, really doesn't mean anything in this context. Everything approved under a Capitalist system is with the consent of the bourgeoisie.
You can link all the Marxist literature you want, it won’t get us closer to communism, or even socialism. This country will not vote for socialism anytime soon
Since when has Marxism been about voting for Socialism? Marx and Marxists have always been revolutionary. You're right, even if everyone read theory we wouldn't be closer to Socialism, it takes theory and organization to do so. That doesn't mean revolutionary theory isn't a requirement.
These policies are the first baby steps in a larger transition.
Can't wait to see you finally elaborate on your plans.
First it’s unions and higher federal minimum wage, then it’s more robust worker protections and socialized healthcare so workers have mobility, then it’s enabling worker co-ops, then it’s encouraging co-ops, then it’s mandating exclusive employee ownership.
Quite a huge leap there, isn't it? There's hundreds of years of history proving why that hasn't worked yet, just look at the Nordic Countries and their decaying conditions. You can't establish Socialism by asking for it through purely legal avenues, the question of reform or revolution has been answered already and the answer is revolution. You're asking the bourgeoisie to let their ground gradually whither without pushing the fascism button like which happened in Italy and Germany to much bloodshed to prevent what you're speaking of from happening.
One step at a time, gradually demonstrating to the proletariat that these policies improve their lives and empower them, until they’re ready to support more dramatic change.
The Proletariat has historically proven to be far more radical than you give them credit for, if you refuse to analyze prior successful revolutions then you refuse to work with knowledge. You're blindly guessing here when you don't need to, we already know your method has no practical basis.
What’s your plan to translate to Worker supremacy over Capital?
I already told you, I'm a Marxist. You could read my list, even. Building up a revolutionary party operating on a Mass Line to overthrow the bourgeoisie. This is a protracted process, and requires combining legal and illegal work, working with trade unions and others to build up a mass movement. The Dems are not a part of this and have never been. We must look to what has worked and analyze what's similar and what's different about our own conditions.
imagine thinking 'don't genocide' is playing hard to get. also:
talk about delusions. remind me what disaffected republican voters. reminder: you're party lost and hard because they're trash at least the republicans give their voters what they want someone to blame.
Its not rational to hold to a position that was empirically shown to be false. remember the askes were mostly: stop being a cunt to palestintians, stop shipping weapons to genocidal regimes, and have policies that actually help american workers. like committing to ms khan, maybe a fucking min wage increase, maybe a single payer option, restoration of various corporate tax policies we've gutted regan.
but sure keep blindly carrying water for a dead party. thats definitely rational.
Your first statement is pretty silly. For starters, Anarchists have had nowhere near the level of influence achieved by Marxists, so they haven't even had a chance to make mistakes. Secondly, who are you referring to when you say Communists have "murdered millions?" Fascists? The Nazis during WWII, 80% of which were killed by the antifascist Red Army? The fascist slaver Batista and his goons? The landlords? Tsarists? Elaborate, because your only argument here is that Anarchists get to remain "pure" because they have never had widespread success. This is pointless sectarianism, Marxists are your allies.
Secondly, the Marxist conception of a State is not the same as the Anarchist conception. For Marxists, the State is a tool of class oppression, while for Anarchists the State is a monopoly on violence. Communism is a world Socialist Republic, because full public ownership eliminates class distinctions and thus the state. The State withers away as it gradually appropriates Private Property and folds it into the public sector.
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
-Engels, Socialism and Scientific
I think of Maos Cultural Revolution, or all the Korean civilians caught up in the Korean War murdered for being seen as “collaborators”
I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.
Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”. My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.
I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.
Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.
Most Communists agree that the Cultural Revolution was at minimum was misguided. The famines were avoidable, and government mismanagement was greatly to blame. However, ultimately the CPC ended famine and even under Mao, life expectancy doubled.
Secondly, the idea that it was the North Koreans doing the indiscriminate killings while the US bombed 85% of all buildings in North Korea and dropped more tons of bombs on it than the entire pacific theater of WWII, slaughtered countless villiahws of North and South Koreans, as well as the South Korean Dictator Chun Doo-Hwan murdering thousands of schoolchildren and college students for protesting for democracy is monstrous.
You really need to read up on your history.
I’m not a fan of centralized state power, period. Any time there’s a lot of concentrated power there’s abuse of that power.
You've stated this, yes, but have done nothing to respond to my valid critiques of communes and cooperatives potentially giving rise to Capitalism again, nor to my statement that corruption can be fought just like hunger and poverty.
Your argument is “anarchism has yet to really happen therefore it can’t”.
It is not. My argument is that you can't claim Anarchism "solves" anything until we see it in practice, if ever. I seem to have a better opinion of modern Anarchists than you do, as recognizing the failures and successes of former Anarchist movements is necessary to move on.
My argument is “authoritarian communism has been tried and failed and a whole lot of people suffered in the process”.
What do you mean by "failed?" Is it a failure to double life expectancy, as happened in the USSR and PRC? What about going from vast illiteracy to near 100% literacy rates, as happened in Cuba, the PRC, USSR, and many others? What about increased housing, free healthcare, lower working times, eradication of famine, or even now with the PRC being the largest economy in the world with respect to Purchasing Power Parity?
Moreover, you're implying support for the Tsars, the fascist Batista, the agrarian Nationalist Kuomintang, the French Colonizers of Vietnam, and so forth. Would you tell the people overthrowing these regimes that they "failed?"
I don’t even want to argue, I find leftists who post long books of theory like what you just did to be completely insufferable. It’s so off putting to the general public.
So if you're not going to argue, but are going to take unsourced, unsubstantiated potshots and respond to no points, and moreover refuse to read theory out of principle, what's your point? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is an essay, by no means a "long book," so I am not even sure what you mean here. Do you expect to just have knowledge beamed into everyone's heads? I tried to explain Marxism to you and you promptly ignored and took sectarian potshots.
Meanwhile, we have the Kurds practicing anarchism, we’ve got some anarcho syndicalism going on with the mondragon corp, they’re small examples but they’re good examples not full of controversy.
Yes, safely inoffensive for not being threatening in any capacity to the Capitalist order, meanwhile much larger and more successful Marxist states like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and so forth continuously work to improve the lives of the whole of society. Silly.
You don't need to do this sectarian nonsense.
Since when has Marxism been about voting for Socialism? Marx and Marxists have always been revolutionary
Good job cropping out the very next sentence.
If they're not going to fill in a bubble once every couple years, they sure as hell aren't going to take to the streets in armed rebellion.
The organization isn't there. I don't see a fraction of the organization necessary for that. And we've been organizing for what, a century? How long until we're sufficiently organized, another five centuries? 10? 100? I don't even see a fraction of the theory literacy to so much as start the process.
Quite a huge leap there, isn't it?
No, not really. Each of those steps follows naturally from the previous one.
There's hundreds of years of history proving why that hasn't worked yet
And what of the hundreds of years of history proving revolution doesn't work. The USSR? Nice idea, turned into authoritarian state capitalism, then straight up oligarchy inside of a century. The CCP? Authoritarian state capitalism, let's see how long until oligarchy.
I'm sure you're about to say "That's just because the intelligence agencies leashed by American Capital interests interfered!", as if they're not way more likely to interfere with an American socialist revolution.
The Proletariat has historically proven to be far more radical than you give them credit for
Starving 19-20th century peasants? Sure. 21st century Americans? Yeah they're struggling, but they've got Amazon and fast food, not to mention propaganda telling them socialism will make their lives even worse. We're not hitting revolutionary levels of desperation anytime soon. A quarter of the voters in this country voted for the poster child of the bourgeoise because they thought he was an everyman. Even more than that couldn't be bothered to get off the couch. These are your radical revolutionaries. I'm not holding my breath.
My concern is improving the material conditions of the working class, and elevating their voice and stake in the workplace. Maybe in another century they'll have the class consciousness to act on revolutionary theory.
I’ve said multiple times I’m not interested and you continue to bombard me with theory. I’m not reading it and I don’t care. Go mansplain leftism to someone else.
Marxists ain’t gonna do shit in the US.
I "bombarded" you with zero theory here, all of that was just Cowbee. You say you aren't interested, but you're more than happy to peddle nonsense.
Why do you think Marxists aren't going to do anything in the US?
Good job cropping out the very next sentence.
It doesn't change anything, even if I did include it. Electoralism in liberal democracy is not a measure of outright support for Socialism, given the abundance of liberals who would otherwise support Socialists voting Dem.
The organization isn’t there. I don’t see a fraction of the organization necessary for that. And we’ve been organizing for what, a century? How long until we’re sufficiently organized, another five centuries? 10? 100? I don’t even see a fraction of the theory literacy to so much as start the process.
FRSO, Red Star Caucus, PSL, and other groups are doing great org work. Imperialism has inflated living conditions for a long time, but even still conditions are deteriorating and Socialism is gaining in popularity among the advanced of the masses.
No, not really. Each of those steps follows naturally from the previous one.
They don't. You added steps like "force worker ownership" where they are logical leaps.
And what of the hundreds of years of history proving revolution doesn’t work. The USSR? Nice idea, turned into authoritarian state capitalism, then straight up oligarchy inside of a century. The CCP? Authoritarian state capitalism, let’s see how long until oligarchy.
See, this "authoritarian state Capitalism" bit is exactly why you need to read theory. The USSR and PRC are both examples of Socialism, with huge public sectors and central planning. Can you explain how they are examples of "state capitalism?"
I’m sure you’re about to say “That’s just because the intelligence agencies leashed by American Capital interests interfered!”, as if they’re not way more likely to interfere with an American socialist revolution.
No, actually, though the USSR was invaded by 14 Capitalist nations at its founding. My point is that your previous paragraph is nonsense and devoid of knowledge of Marxism to begin with.
Starving 19-20th century peasants? Sure. 21st century Americans? Yeah they’re struggling, but they’ve got Amazon and fast food, not to mention propaganda telling them socialism will make their lives even worse. We’re not hitting revolutionary levels of desperation anytime soon. A quarter of the voters in this country voted for the poster child of the bourgeoise because they thought he was an everyman. Even more than that couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch. These are your radical revolutionaries. I’m not holding my breath.
Another quarter of voters voted for a different poster child of the bourgeoisie because they thought she was an everywoman. Electoralism isn't a measure of revolutionary fervor, people abstained because Electoralism doesn't work.
My concern is improving the material conditions of the working class, and elevating their voice and stake in the workplace. Maybe in another century they’ll have the class consciousness to act on revolutionary theory.
So tepid Capitalism until it crumbles as it inevitably will? You have no plans of substance.
The thing that really pisses me off about you revolutionary absolutists, the core reason I don't respect you, despise you even, isn't because you're smugly wrong. And you are, smugly wrong, overlooking every time revolution hasn't worked, or worked briefly before collapsing.
The real despicable thing about you is that you know, deep down even when you don't admit it, that revolution won't happen without widespread, incredible suffering. Every "successful" revolution has been the result of starvation, abysmal poverty, and authoritarianism. They all lead to widespread death on both sides during the revolution itself. People don't just overthrow the government on a lark, no matter how much they read. Misery is necessary to inspire people to revolt.
But you don't care. You want things to get worse. You want people to suffer so much that they're willing to do anything, that they'll have nothing left to lose, and you're hoping they choose your path to salvation.
Based on how much time you have to post online, you're definitely comfortable. Intellectually you crave revolution, but materially you'll be fine either way. You don't care about what the proletariat, the ones who aren't comfortable, will have to go through on your accelerationist path. As long as you get your revolution, damn the consequences for everyone else. The survivors will live in paradise, however long that lasts.
Didn't pretend it'll be bloodless. America quashed revolutions in other countries, they won't hesitate to do the same at home. People will die. Many, many people. The only way the rest won't lose their resolve is if the threat of death isn't really worse than their living conditions. Sure, people are struggling now, but not risk-death-for-a-chance-at-change suffering. We have a long, long way to go before a critical mass of revolutionaries are desperate enough to try.
I want to show people glimpses of a better future, and bit by bit claw their way to better material conditions, alive and intact. You want their lives to get so horrific they literally have no other choice. It's selfish and cruel. It spits in the face of the compassion for the proletariat which should be sacrosanct to the left.
Yet you sit in your leftist online spaces, elevating century old theory to religious dogma, intellectualizing the fineries of glorious revolution with no empathy for those who will suffer it. Every person who suffers on the descent into misery is righteous fuel for the revolutionary flame. Not you though, you're comfortable, it's all theory to you. The blood will be someone else's blood, if you think about it at all.
This is not a plan of substance. It's selfish and callous. And that sets aside the consequences of failure, or success followed by collapse.
I don't respect it. It isn't respectable. It's cosplay blind to consequence. I want communism too, but I'm not going to push the people into misery to achieve communism for communism's sake. The whole point is to elevate the working class, it doesn't count if you decimate and subjugate them first.
I'm done with this. Keep cosplaying, you're going to anyway. The grown ups will keep working on solutions that aren't predicted on misery.
Wow, not once in your incoherent rant did you manage to do anything except beat a strawman to death. Not once did you speak anything truthful. Not once have I indicated that I'm an accelerationist, nor have I denied that Capitalism mechanically must decay. Bravo, I guess? I'll mirror your words back to you:
I’m done with this. Keep cosplaying, you’re going to anyway. The grown ups will keep working on solutions that aren’t predicted on misery.
"boo reading is hard"
this kinda shit is why you dorks get called anarkiddies
meanwhile marxists are the only ones who have staged successful large-scale revolutions, so they were obviously doing something right in regards to appealing to the general public in ways anarchists haven't been able to. might be getting results and maintaining them for longer than a few years? idk
The supreme court, after such an amendment miraculously passes:
"Well actually, this sentence doesn't mention the president of the United States in particular, so it means every president of every company ever. But a company president doesn't have pardoning powers, so this makes no sense. So this amendment is invalid!"
Pretty dumb question ask after this particular election. Let's see, if you had stock in a company who only sold a product once every four years, should you complain about the company and its products during the sale? Hmmm. Hmmm.
Only if you're privileged enough that the failure of success of the sale won't affect you. Yeah, we see you.
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Fuck off with seppo politics in every fucking comm
I had to look that one up. It means yankee/burgerstanian. I guess reporter doesn’t know how to curate their feed, so they complained to the manager instead.
Pastor trained in MMA fights off ax-wielding burglar who broke into church on Thanksgiving
Pastor trained in MMA fights off ax-wielding burglar who broke into church on Thanksgiving
“If he had come a couple of days earlier, he would have been blessed and get some food and be cared for,” the pastor said.Patrick Reilly (New York Post)
Pastor trained in MMA fights off ax-wielding burglar who broke into church on Thanksgiving
Pastor trained in MMA fights off ax-wielding burglar who broke into church on Thanksgiving
“If he had come a couple of days earlier, he would have been blessed and get some food and be cared for,” the pastor said.Patrick Reilly (New York Post)
Unexplained Heat-Wave ‘Hotspots’ are Popping Up Across the Globe
Earth’s hottest recorded year was 2023, at 2.12 degrees F above the 20th-century average. This surpassed the previous record set in 2016. So far, the 10 hottest yearly average temperatures have occurred in the past decade. And, with the hottest summer and hottest single day, 2024 is on track to set yet another record.
All this may not be breaking news to everyone, but amid this upward march in average temperatures, a striking new phenomenon is emerging: distinct regions are seeing repeated heat waves that are so extreme, they fall far beyond what any model of global warming can predict or explain. A new study provides the first worldwide map of such regions, which show up on every continent except Antarctica like giant, angry skin blotches. In recent years, these heat waves have killed tens of thousands of people, withered crops and forests, and sparked devastating wildfires.
Unexplained Heat-Wave ‘Hotspots’ Are Popping Up Across the Globe
Distinct regions are seeing repeated heat waves so extreme, they cannot be explained by climate models.Kevin Krajick (State of the Planet)
Something squirrelly about this chart.
I live in Western Australia where it shows grey areas bigger than some countries. The grey colours are presumably missing data, except that smack in the middle of those is the capital of Western Australia, Perth and several other populations centers.
Sorry, I deleted my comment because when I zoomed in even further, I discovered that the grey areas didn't specifically include Perth. I tried to reinstate it.
My original comment was:
Something squirrelly about this chart.I live in Western Australia where it shows grey areas bigger than some countries. The grey colours are presumably missing data, except that smack in the middle of those is the capital of Western Australia, Perth and several other populations centers.
I can't link the grey to isolated, since much of the continent is sparsely populated. The lower south west of Australia has a higher population than the rest of that state, but that's in contrast with the north west where there's not many people as all.
‘Appalling’: ICC president says threats, sanctions put court in jeopardy
‘Appalling’: ICC president says threats, sanctions put court in jeopardy
US politicians are threatening to sanction court officials over the arrest warrant against Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.Al Jazeera
Pastor trained in MMA fights off ax-wielding burglar who broke into church on Thanksgiving
Pastor trained in MMA fights off ax-wielding burglar who broke into church on Thanksgiving
“If he had come a couple of days earlier, he would have been blessed and get some food and be cared for,” the pastor said.Patrick Reilly (New York Post)
Hezbollah says carried out “warning” attack on “Israel” for ceasefire breaches
Hezbollah said Monday it fired a warning strike in response to repeated “Israeli” violations of the ceasefire agreement that came into effect last Wednesday.
“The strike targeting the Roueisat Al-Alam military site in the occupied Lebanese hills of Kfar Shuba,” the statement by the Lebanese group said.
It added that the “Israeli” violations of the ceasefire included “gunfire on civilians, airstrikes across various parts of Lebanon leading to civilian casualties and injuries, and continuous breaches of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft reaching the capital, Beirut” which prompted this action.
“Despite multiple appeals to relevant authorities to halt these aggressions, no resolution was achieved.”
Black Friday Actions in 30+ Countries Aim to ‘Make Amazon Pay’
Amazon workers and their allies are participating in a series of global actions aimed at holding the online retailer “accountable for labor abuses, environmental degradation, and threats to democracy,” according to the labor group UNI Global Union.
Dubbed “Make Amazon Pay,” the campaign is set to last from November 29 to December 2 and will include strikes and protests across six continents, according to the group—and is timed to disrupt Black Friday (or “Make Amazon Pay Day”) and Cyber Monday, two of the busiest online shopping days of the year.
Black Friday Actions in 30+ Countries Aim to ‘Make Amazon Pay’
“When we announced our intention to protest today, our management attempted to stop us in multiple ways. We want to say to Amazon—you could not stop us today, you cannot stop us in the future…scheerpost.com
the pardon is for tax and gun charges, right? no drug charges?
at this point I don't give a fuck, I just don't want to hear the words "democrat" and "strategist" in the same sentence anymore.
What happened in 2014, Joe?[
LeBron James, the Los Angeles Lakers and the three-year search for a 'laser'
LeBron James, the Los Angeles Lakers and the three-year search for a 'laser' in Dalton Knecht - ESPN
For years the Lakers have tried -- and failed -- to find a consistent long-range threat to complement LeBron James and Anthony Davis. In rookie Dalton Knecht, that search might be over.Dave McMenamin (ESPN)
Which Filaments are generally safe for contact with Food? What do you recommend?
As one of my first ever self designed Prints and 3D Models, I wanna do a big organiser for my Kitchen! This is my current progress on that:
One of my friends gave me a word of caution to use the right filament when it comes to storing things like Sugar, Pepper, Salts and Tea Bags with Printed Plastics. So I wanted to ask if any of you have Good Safe Filament Recommendation for this type of thing? I heard PETG is supposedly safe, is that true?
Thanks!
Never change, Clintonian dynasty swamp monsters.
- I still believe Anita Hill.
Joe Biden Expresses Regret to Anita Hill, but She Says ‘I’m Sorry’ Is Not Enough - Why were you paid $1M/year from 2014 to 2019 as a board member of Ukrainian energy company Barisma, Hunter?
How Joe Biden’s Kin Profited Off the Family Name. ‘The Big Guy Is Calling Me.’
Fundamental problems with privately owned social media platforms
We must remember who owns these platforms and whose interests they ultimately represent. These are not neutral and unbiased channels that allow for the free flow of information. The content on these sites is carefully curated. Views and opinions that are unpalatable to the owners of these platforms are often suppressed, and sometimes outright banned. When the content that a user produces does not fit with the interests of the platform it gets removed and communities end up being destroyed.
Another problem is that user data constitutes a significant source of revenue for corporate social media platforms. The information collected about the users can reveal a lot more about the individual than most people realize. It's possible for the owners of the platforms to identify users based on the address of the device they're using, see their location, who they interact with, and so on. This creates a comprehensive profile of the person along with the network of individuals whom they interact with.
This information is shared with the affiliates of the platform as well as government entities. For example, a leak from RCMP shows how this kind of information is used to spy on Canadian citizens.
It's clear that commercial platforms do not respect user privacy, nor are the users in control of their content. While it can be useful to participate on such platforms in order to agitate, educate, and recruit comrades, they should not be seen as open forums.
Open source platforms provide a viable alternative to corporate social media. These platforms are developed on a non-profit basis and are hosted by volunteers across the globe. A growing number of such platforms are available today and millions of people are using them already.
From that perspective I think that open platforms like Lemmy and Mastodon should be the focus. Instead of all users having accounts on the same server, federated platforms have many servers that all talk to each other to create the network. If you have the technical expertise, it's even possible to run your own.
One important aspect of the Fediverse is that it's much harder to censor and manipulate content than it is with centralized networks such as BlueSky. There is no single company deciding what content can go on the network, and servers are hosted by regular people across many different countries and jurisdictions.
Open platforms explicitly avoid tracking users and collecting their data. Not only are these platforms better at respecting user privacy, they also tend to provide a better user experience without annoying ads and popups.
Another interesting aspect of the Fediverse is that it promotes collaboration. Traditional commercial platforms like Facebook or Youtube have no incentive to allow users to move data between them. They directly compete for users in a zero sum game and go out of their way to make it difficult to share content across them. This is the reason we often see screenshots from one site being posted on another.
On the other hand, a federated network that's developed in the open and largely hosted non-profit results in a positive-sum game environment. Users joining any of the platforms on the network help grow the entire network.
Having many different sites hosted by individuals was the way the internet was intended to work in the first place, it's actually quite impressive how corporations took the open network of the internet and managed to turn it into a series of walled gardens.
Marxist theory states that in order to be free, the workers must own the means of production. This idea is directly applicable in the context of social media. Only when we own the platforms that we use will we be free to post our thoughts and ideas without having to worry about them being censored by corporate interests.
No matter how great a commercial platform might be, sooner or later it's going to either disappear or change in a way that doesn't suit you because companies must constantly chase profit in order to survive. This is a bad situation to be in as a user since you have little control over the evolution of a platform.
On the other hand, open source has a very different dynamic. Projects can survive with little or no commercial incentive because they're developed by people who themselves benefit from their work. Projects can also be easily forked and taken in different directions by different groups of users if there is a disagreement regarding the direction of the platform. Even when projects become abandoned, they can be picked up again by new teams as long as there is an interested community of users around them.
It's time for us to get serious about owning our tools and start using communication platforms built by the people and for the people.
Very good points! Ultimately, we’ve got to rid ourselves of corporate social media.
BTW, if you haven’t seen the EFF article on the Fediverse it makes similar arguments.
Lastly, it’s incumbent on all of us to evangelize the fediverse whenever and wherever we can. Most people aren’t aware of the open social web and its myriad benefits.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Nigerian president Bola Tinubu enforced violent crackdown on hunger protests to satisfy IMF demands
Nigerian president Bola Tinubu enforced violent crackdown on hunger protests to satisfy IMF demands : Peoples Dispatch
Nigerian President and alleged CIA asset Bola Tinubu implemented a nation-wide crackdown on protests against hunger and the cost-of-living crisis, resulting in dozens of deathsPavan Kulkarni (Peoples Dispatch)
Middle East conflict live updates: Syria’s military counterattacks after rebels seize Aleppo
Middle East conflict live updates: Syria’s military counterattacks after rebels seize Aleppo
Follow NBC News live updates for the latest on the fighting between rebels and government forces in Syria and the wider conflict in the Middle East.NBC News
Middle East conflict live updates: Syria’s military counterattacks after rebels seize Aleppo
Middle East conflict live updates: Syria’s military counterattacks after rebels seize Aleppo
Follow NBC News live updates for the latest on the fighting between rebels and government forces in Syria and the wider conflict in the Middle East.NBC News
KRAVEN THE HUNTER - Opening 8 Minutes
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.www.youtube.com
I'm not watching this because I don't like spoilers but it's gotta be good if they're willing to post clips of it online.
Somehow I'm actually hearing about hype for this movie. I thought I was the only one, knowing about him from his appearance in the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon on Disney XD I watched as a kid, but some people seem to know him from a recent videogame that I haven't played yet.
partial_accumen
in reply to joelthelion • • •Even if the return of mobility is very minor, I would think the ability for a paralyzed persons to sense their immobile limbs would be a huge win for health.
renegadespork
in reply to joelthelion • • •Dasus
in reply to joelthelion • • •