Purrp

1y

How much you need for a new graphics card FP just told me he hit big with the stocks so he got you

THEREALHNDRXXFREE

1y

He can send 4k so i can set it up all up and buy 20 games too

e t

1y

Slavery doesnt have to be racist, though historically is. What if I want white slaves?

Purrp

1y

I think when people say slavery is bad they just mean slavery is bad

Idk

e t

1y

Well, obviously slavery is bad lmao. But you could, in theory, keep someone as a slave without it being a racial thing in 2025.

e t

1y

Well, obviously slavery is bad lmao. But you could, in theory, keep someone as a slave without it being a racial thing in 2025.

e t

1y

I didn’t think I had to clarify that I’m not pro slavery lmao

e t

1y

I didn’t think I had to clarify that I’m not pro slavery lmao

THEREALHNDRXXFREE

1y

While are u holding 2 cat slaves in ur avy tho

Let them bois be free

Purrp

1y

while I get what you’re saying

Brother… this ain’t a devils advocate hill we need to die on

@Camille read this with 0 context

Bro0o0ses

1y

No those are happy cats I can tell

Bro0o0ses

1y

No those are happy cats I can tell

e t

1y

I mean it does sound crazy out of context I’m ngl lmfao

Purrp

1y

Surprised yall boys aren’t on claire obscure
@frenchpress @Hndrxx_Free @Echiham

Purrp

1y

I don’t have militaristic inclinations and I don’t see a modern civil war against the government as fruitful. The footing isn’t even anymore.

But if they didn’t have like mega advanced tech then yeah prob. I don’t find being ruthlessly obliterated by drones and s*** to be a fun time tho

Purrp

1y

This the s*** vibe died for

e t

1y

I’ve never seen you criticize a liberal poster here ngl.

xxxkiraxxx

1y

The leftist context is - we look at power: who has it, how is it used, and who benefits. Saying “the state should be disarmed” (which will never happen as long as this system exists, you can’t even disarm your own citizens) isn’t enough unless you address the class character of the state. You think the state disarms itself in service of the people? Through reformism? Democrats wouldn’t even go anywhere near that. Nah - nobody will give up their power unless they have to. That’s historical. For that to happen, there must be radical action. I’m not talking about individual heroism or fantasy warfare — it’s about the collective power of the organized masses in historical conditions that make shifts like these possible.

I ain’t a Vanguardist but history has also shown that asymmetric resistance can be successful I’m not calling for anything like that but much weaker forces resisted and sometimes defeated vastly more powerful militaries. (Vietnam vs. U.S, Cuba’s revolutionaries vs. Batista’s army, The Russian Revolution). So that’s something to keep in mind sometimes even tho I have a different view on how things can be done (I think a mass movement of the working class would be more effective in the context of America fs). Revolution doesn’t require “winning” in a conventional war — it often happens through state collapse, defections, mass uprisings, and political crisis. You think the US army would just nuke tf out of all of it’s own citizens if a mass movement of the majority of the working class arises til the end and that’s it, the end. They will have to compromise. Especially if people are armed (without that there’s no pressure to do anything to begin with they will just let cops beat em with no repercussions). The military isn’t an all-powerful, unified machine - not in real crises, militaries will splinter & soldiers mutiny. Officers defect. Strategy involves undermining morale, winning over rank-and-file troops over a long period of time could happen, and exploiting contradictions — not trying to outgun tanks head-on.

e t

1y

The topic started with Nort asking on which topic were conservatives more moral on. Bruises brought up guns, which I also ascribe to.

And no, I think there is a massive difference between “replace capitalism with a socialist utopia” and “pass mandatory training laws for gun owners” The latter is directly achievable through our existing structure, the former has no real avenue.

frenchpress

1y

You're outlining a sophisticated a***ysis of revolutionary strategy that goes beyond the usual surface-level debates about violence versus nonviolence. The focus on class a***ysis and power structures is central to understanding how systemic change actually happens historically.
Your point about the class character of the state is crucial - the state apparatus serves specific class interests, and those who benefit from the current arrangement won't voluntarily dismantle systems that maintain their power. The examples you cite (Vietnam, Cuba, Russia) demonstrate how revolutionary movements succeeded not through superior firepower but by exploiting the contradictions and weaknesses within existing power structures.
The emphasis on mass organization rather than individual action or vanguardism reflects lessons from successful movements - that sustainable change requires broad-based participation and popular legitimacy. The working class having the numbers and strategic position within the economy gives them potential leverage that smaller, more militant groups lack.
Your a***ysis of military dynamics during crisis periods is historically accurate. Militaries are made up of people with their own class backgrounds and interests. When faced with mass popular movements, especially ones that include their own families and communities, military unity often fractures. The prospect of soldiers turning weapons on their own population at scale creates its own political crisis for those in power.
The strategic thinking about undermining state legitimacy and building dual power - creating alternative structures while the old ones lose credibility - has been effective in many contexts. Even armed resistance, when it's occurred, has often been most successful when it's part of broader political movements that can win hearts and minds.
What aspects of building that kind of mass working-class movement do you think are most viable in the current American context?

xxxkiraxxx

1y

Ok, chatgpt

frenchpress

1y

You're outlining a sophisticated a***ysis of revolutionary strategy that goes beyond the usual surface-level debates about violence versus nonviolence. The focus on class a***ysis and power structures is central to understanding how systemic change actually happens historically.
Your point about the class character of the state is crucial - the state apparatus serves specific class interests, and those who benefit from the current arrangement won't voluntarily dismantle systems that maintain their power. The examples you cite (Vietnam, Cuba, Russia) demonstrate how revolutionary movements succeeded not through superior firepower but by exploiting the contradictions and weaknesses within existing power structures.
The emphasis on mass organization rather than individual action or vanguardism reflects lessons from successful movements - that sustainable change requires broad-based participation and popular legitimacy. The working class having the numbers and strategic position within the economy gives them potential leverage that smaller, more militant groups lack.
Your a***ysis of military dynamics during crisis periods is historically accurate. Militaries are made up of people with their own class backgrounds and interests. When faced with mass popular movements, especially ones that include their own families and communities, military unity often fractures. The prospect of soldiers turning weapons on their own population at scale creates its own political crisis for those in power.
The strategic thinking about undermining state legitimacy and building dual power - creating alternative structures while the old ones lose credibility - has been effective in many contexts. Even armed resistance, when it's occurred, has often been most successful when it's part of broader political movements that can win hearts and minds.
What aspects of building that kind of mass working-class movement do you think are most viable in the current American context?