From: “Red Rosa: A Graphic Biography of Rosa Luxemburg” by Kate Evans.
The hexbears won’t like this one.
But I do! Good post, OP.
Believe it or not, but hexbear has a variety of leftist ideologies, including those friendly to the work of Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman
Yet somehow only the smelliest turds float to the top…
There’s a great episode of Rev Left Radio with the author, highly recommend!
This is going to make a lot of people from instances that end in .ml very angry.
Prepare for the textwalls!
Not seeing a lot of textwalls.
I think a large part of the reason why is these guys defederated the riff-raff pretty early on.
What’s annoying is that we probably would be a whole lot closer to actual communism and anarchism if the bolsheviks never took power and destroy all the communism that was happening during the Russian revolution.
Yup, and for a deep dive into the history of how this happened in both the USSR and Maoist China, I’d recommend Anark’s series The State is Counterrevolutionary.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The State is Counterrevolutionary
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
MLs: “The only way to socialism is through violent, top-down revolution.”
Syndicalists, getting every W known to man: “Are we a joke to you??”
What on earth is a top-down revolution? Wouldn’t that just be a coup?
Yup, also called a bourgeois revolution.
The idea is to reverse the pyramid of power, so that the working class, which is usually at the bottom, becomes the top and the ruling class gets at the bottom. That way it would break any hierarchies
Rosa Luxemburg was based as hell. And that’s coming from an anarchist.
Dr. Wolff made a great video today about this very topic! It essentially boiled down to saying that a socialist revolution can only succeed if there is also a revolution in the workplace. Workers need to elect their managers, and have a strong union to coordinate production between industries.
That was a really great episode, thanks for the shoutout! I usually only catch Economic Update on my local Leftist radio, but with that description I just had to seek it out, and I’m glad I did.
A tankie will tell you to “read theory” and then get miffed if you read Rosa Luxemburg.
Not in my experience, but we’re all entitled to our own experiences, so I can’t fault you for yours.
“Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” – Benjamin Franklin
Trading liberty for safety is the entire point of a society, you absolute dunce.
Toxic child
I’m betting this one goes well over your head, lol
What’s gone over my head, exactly? The entire purpose of a rules based society is you’re protected, mostly from other people.
So please, explain it.
“Temporary” is the key word in that sentence. Benjamin Franklin said this famous quote in response to the governor of Pennsylvania being asked to levy a new tax to support the French and Indian war, which an old money family, the Penns, who ruled from afar, were trying to bribe him to veto. Ben Franklin was very much in favor of this tax and very much pro big government, so long as it was being done by the people (contrary to what all the libertarians who quote him seem to think). His argument was that if the governor kept taking bribes from the Penns, and just rolling over and doing whatever they told him to do, consequences to the state be damned, just so the Penns would keep the money flowing, he deserved whatever was coming to him when they decided to stop.
Imagine being this dense
You heard it first from old Ben, stop saving money for retirement, you’re just giving up on your current liberty to have some temporary safety later in life.
The irony that in this quote he was supporting the authority of government specifically on taxation for long term defense. “Temporary” was kind of the whole point.
Which is precisely why it works in this context. He was talking about the Pennsylvania governor’s ability to levy a new tax which some Englanders who ruled from afar were trying to bribe him to veto. His argument was that if people gave up their ability to govern themselves and let some faraway Leviathan do it in the hopes that said Leviathan would keep them safe, they deserved whatever was coming to them. I think this translates nicely onto “Socialism is not some Christmas gift for those who accept a dictator now in the hopes of achieving freedom in the future.”
