Wikipedia page goes BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

He's so weird

He posts all this stuff like ironically but his actual stances aren't really so different that it works

I rly hate vaush bro

You know how much you can find out just by scrolling thru linkedin?

Whenever Max Blumenthal etc expose mfs for coming up in NED funded thinktanks they get it from there lmao, they're so proud of being spooks

Shaun King's political PAC used donor cash to purchase a $40,000 dog that King used as a family pet, according to a Monday report.

King's PAC, Grassroots Law, has handed over the sum in a pair of payments to Potrero Performance Dogs in California since December, the Washington Free Beacon reported. The PAC paid Protero $10,000 in December, followed by a $30,650 payment in February.

Days after the second payment, King posted on Facebook about welcoming a "new member of the King family," a Mastiff and prize show dog named Marz.

The post has since been deleted or made private.

The Grassroots PAC is ostensibly aimed at boosting political campaigns for candidates aligned with King's soft-on-crime mentality, but the organization spent nearly as much on the dog as it has on candidates.

Grassroots contributed a total of $56,000 to various political campaigns since 2021, just $16,000 more than it reportedly spent on the animal.

Man what dog is worth 40k

My dawg would prolly do it for a louis belt.....

40k he must’ve got one of those Boston Dynamics dogs

Man Che was spitting in this fr recommend you all read it it's short but POWERFUL

marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm

Now, I would like to explain the role played by the personality, by men and women as individuals leading the masses that make history. This is our experience; it is not a prescription.

Fidel gave the revolution its impulse in the first years, and also its leadership.49 He always set its tone; but there is a good group of revolutionaries who are developing along the same road as the central leader. And there is a great mass that follows its leaders because it has faith in them. It has faith in those leaders because they have known how to interpret its aspirations.

It is not a matter of how many kilograms of meat one has to eat, or of how many times a year someone can go to the beach, or how many pretty things from abroad you might be able to buy with present-day wages. It is a matter of making the individual feel more complete, with much more inner wealth and much more responsibility.

People in our country know that the glorious period in which they happen to live is one of sacrifice; they are familiar with sacrifice. The first ones came to know it in the Sierra Maestra and wherever they fought; later, everyone in Cuba came to know it. Cuba is the vanguard of America and must make sacrifices because it occupies the post of advance guard, because it shows the masses of Latin America the road to full freedom. Within the country the leadership has to carry out its vanguard role. **It must be said with all sincerity that in a real revolution, to which one gives his or her all and from which one expects no material reward, the task of the vanguard revolutionary is both magnificent and agonizing.

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.

The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to say “daddy”; their wives, too, must be part of the general sacrifice of their lives in order to take the revolution to its destiny. The circle of their friends is limited strictly to the circle of comrades in the revolution. There is no life outside of it.

In these circumstances one must have a large dose of humanity, a large dose of a sense of justice and truth in order to avoid dogmatic extremes, cold scholasticism, or an isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity is transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.

I think a lot of Marxists kind of discount any talk about morality as idealist and I don't think that's correct, it's true that Marxism isn't a theory of morality, but that doesn't mean that morality doesn't play any part in building socialism.

The way I see it the argument against moralism should mostly be confined to the fact that a materialist a***ysis has nothing to do with morality, that the contradictions of capitalism and what will lead to its eventual demise is rooted in that material a***ysis and not morality, that the fact of workers being exploited is a material reality and not a moral claim etc.

But Marx making a material critique of capitalism instead of a moral one like many previous utopian socialists doesn't mean that morality has no place at all, I think that's a misreading. You can read Marx and agree with his a***ysis of capitalism, but all of that doesn't say anything about how to carry out a revolution, or why you would even need to carry out a revolution in the first place. You can agree 100% with Marx's a***ysis of capitalism and just be like "that's crayz, that means I should be a capitalist and not a worker because I don't want to be exploited".

People say that contrary to what capitalists say, socialism is indeed about self-interest, and that's true. But still, as a worker, you can be completely class conscious, self-interested, and still not take any collective action without having any ideological illusions to blame. Why not try to climb up the ladder in bourgeois society, and maybe even try to become bourgeois yourself? In fact this is objectively the most effective way to pursue your own material self-interest as an individual.

But that's only your self-interest as an individual, and obviously the material base of capitalism shapes a superstructure where morally the pursuit individual self-interest trumps that of any collective interest, of class interest. Would it then not only be logical to say that a socialist material base would shape a socialist superstructure which promotes a morality where the self-interest that should be pursuit is a self-interest that goes beyond the individual? And that in the same way that despite the fact that racism can largely be explained as a result of the capitalist base shaping the superstructure, conscious anti-racism shouldn't be denounced as idealism or moralism, socialists consciously promoting a new morality over the capitalist one shouldn't be denounced as moralistic either? And to go even further, that a new morality is actually necessary to be able to build socialism?

Raw thoughts what u think @Womanpuncher69 @cloud_rap @deadac @Donahuekirb @krishna_bound

I agree to some degree that you're right, but it's a complex topic you really need to write dissertations on to explain correctly (which luckily we're in the ktt2 socialism thread so that's exactly what we're gonna do).
While marxism isn't about morality, it obviously isn't devoid of it; any form of decision making or behavioral process will intrinsically involve ethics (even if it's just "natural ethics" or "natural law") to some degree. Like the observations and theory of Marx isn't really meant to be ethical but the extrapolation of the theory into praxis is inherently going to be. If we assume Marxism is a science, then the indication of morality is no different than say, the science of medicine. For example, identifying COVID and its viral properties is not moralistic - however, extrapolating those viral properties into public health handling is. I don't see how the extrapolation of Marxist theory into revolutionary rhetoric and/or social politics would be any different.
I think the people who over-emphasize the lack of morality in Marxism are caught up in the materialist element of it as a literal encompassing view; it's almost the same internal affirmation of the external critique of Marxism as "atheistic". In a way it's not dissimilar from the common misunderstanding (again both internally & externally) of Nietszche - the reddit "omg bruh god is dead xD do whatever you want!!!" bs when in reality Nietszche was saying the death of religion heeded the need for a societal replacement of order or existential purpose. I don't think it's a shock thus that Marx can have some levels of parallels drawn to Kierkegaard's critique of German Idealism, where Kierkegaard himself was an existentialist who discussed the grey area of science and morality.
With that said, I don't think the differing areas of human ethics and material science are a contradiction; after all, the mythos of human nature far precedes that of capitalism, and it's not like capitalism completely stripped humans of pre-capitalist behavior and social conditioning. Materialism compounds this which is obviously why Marxism is a dialectic of cross-influence between as you say the base & superstructure rather than it literally just being the base. Anyone going overboard w/ anti-morality crusades is ignoring the existence of the superstructure in the dialectic - I also think similarly this is why people like Baudillard still carry some value even if their writing is almost solely structural, because like, they're still extrapolating on ideas that aren't contradictory to recognition of the base, they're simply discussion the layered imposed on top of scientific understanding, the same way believing in a buddhist 8-fold path doesn't mean you don't believe in physics or something.
I do think though that there needs to be a recognition that obviously while the core fundamentals of Marxism are a science, it's not like everything ever Marx & Engels wrote was solely contributive to the scientific method; obviously there was refinement over time esp. as capitalism further developed, which is why we recognize contributions of others like Lenin. After all, Marx & Engels cited Darwin, and Darwin's evolutionary theory has been tweaked through further discovery as well; the same can be said of the leap from a***og physics to quantum physics. Now I'm not just saying this all for no reason, and I'm not saying it to obsfucate Marxist thought or anything or invalid parts people disagree with, I say it more from the perspective of why I don't think any form of ideological discourse is an automatic nullification of marxist science. After all, it's widely agreed upon (even in this thread) that not all immaterial problems in the superstructure have material solutions stemming from the base.
With that said, I do think it likely begs more questions than it solves, but like, I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. For example, with your point about anti-racism; Engels wrote about tribal native american identities in proto-communism. Anyone who thinks communism or socialism will solve racism is delusional, which is often the problem imposed by ideological discourse, the mixing of the two rather than the dialectical recognition of such. Socialism/communism solves systematic racism to a large degree simply because of reform of societal structure; it does not however stop someone from literally holding racist beliefs or calling someone a slur in a faux-tribal fashion. Of course, the idealistic view of a socialist society where any existing worker syndicate is fully not racist on a global scale is probably unlikely, but the point would at least be the lack of systematic function of this as syndication/socialism provides communal options. None of this means championing anti-racism is bad, but this is my point about the separation - in fact, even getting to that stage to begin with obviously is heeded foremost by the requirement of cooperation in the base. But, this is where the grey area exists - humans aren't perfect beings, and they're almost reflective of current material conditions by a parallel Darwinistic extent. So the idea of social views as being hyper-universalized rather than being an applicable morality is hard to imagine stemming beyond the realm of idealism.
I was gonna write more extrapolating from the above on some further ideas talking about how Karl Popper ruined a lot of western discourse of this and also trying the grey area of morality & idealism into the theory of the partisan but ill make that a separate post later since i have to go do a few things lol

I blocked him but people keep QT and screenshotting him on to my timeline he's like a demon

i agree with like 90% of what you said however on this one point

Would it then not only be logical to say that a socialist material base would shape a socialist superstructure which promotes a morality

i don’t think it’s that simple the new society will born with the birthmarks of its old, and i don’t think having a just a socialist base is enough to change let’s say racism in individuals and an active change in the superstructure is needed as well, the relationship between them a dialectics with the base being primary, the base doesn’t outright dominant and any change in the base would mean that the superstructure would follow one to one, we see this in the socialist period in China with the base being socialist but the superstructure well i wouldnt call it capitalist but needed to be updated, in the same way that each bourgeoisie revolution saw the bourgeoisie getting better at handling the state

No I agree with that maybe I coulda worded it better, that's why I said that it's even necessary to promote that new morality and not just expect the material wipe out the old one.

He's got so much content about pedophilia specifically

Man's a one issue voter

Wow

The fact he hasn't been cancelled shows me he probably has fed connections somewhere

I really don't see the Fed thing with him. The reason he hasn't been cancelled is because cancelation isn't a real thing and he's in a niche echochamber where everybody agrees with him anyways.

He's a leftist "libertarian socialist" who completely runs a fed line on every single issue imaginable

If ContraPoints got funding from the state why shouldnt he

And cancellation is a real thing amongst hyperonline wokescolds, many of which call themselves libertarian socialists et cetera

Vaush could very well be on the feds payroll, we just don't know ...yet

Somebody find his linkedin

what’s worse being paid to be a fed or managing to do the feds job for em for free

Gay marriage is illegal in greece? How the turntables

runs a fed line on every single issue imaginable

You would be surprised at how many people do that for free. And even among wokescolds it's not a thing, they only do it to outgroups. If one of them gets exposed for having a filipino child slave or more recently being a nepotism hire at Lockheed Martin, they actually run to their defense. And what's this thing about Contrapoints getting state funding?

I think it was philosophy tube not contrapoints