d4rk

d4rk OP wrote

I'm still in my home country so I would unfortunately get abducted if I disclosed where I got the information. But nonetheless it is definitely in line with Marxism's conception of Scientific Socialism. The idea that the solution to the surplus question (which is one of three that I'm about to post so this isn't the only one) is a scientific process that took humanity 30,000 years [erratum] is definitely in line with Marxism overall, as it, as per Mao, argues that Truth is derived from Facts learned through Social Practice which reflects in theory. If it took 30,000 years of Social Practice to consciously create a systematic solution to the Surplus Question, Then the rest of Marxism falls in line.

3

d4rk OP wrote

Reply to comment by SnowyKnave in National Democracy Summarized by d4rk

the armed struggle is against the state, the legal democratic struggle exists to subvert it. We hold no illusions that the Liberal Democratic State is fair, rather it's institutions will always be in prejudicial preference to the Bourgeoisie and their appendages. Going back to the Marxist SPD, the Legal Democratic Struggle means to use the instruments of the Liberal Democratic State with prejudicial preference to the Working Class and the People's Institutions, it held no illusions that it should achieve power in the reactionary state but to subvert and destroy it entirely.

1

d4rk wrote

So I've ran away, I've been a full time activist for 2 months now, and i'm definitely no longer an anarchist after all of this. Also I miss my mom

5

d4rk OP wrote

Reply to comment by Lettuce in AMA by d4rk

As someone who recently shifted to the mainstream ND line, when we were Anarchists we were always antagonistic of the Party (and rightfully so). What differed Bandilang Itim during my period and the other groups was the fact that we actually did engage in Mass work activities and as far as I know, my ability to do so was never censured by the Party.

The realities of the situation ultimately ran contrary to their lines and although the theoretical developments of prefiguration and autogestion were ultimately approved, without neither mass participation nor a mass base, it was ultimately fruitless. Of all the Anarchist organizations, then or now, only Bandilang Itim would have the "right to speak" as it had the unique opportunity to investigate Philippine conditions.

2

d4rk OP wrote

Reply to comment by asterism in AMA by d4rk

I mean although Karl Marx has a section about Conservative Socialism in the Manifesto itself. Left (in this instance at least) means socialist while Conservatism represents the political attitude rather than the contemporary political ideology.

It differs from overall Marxism because it believes that Revolution isn't necessary in most cases and that the groundwork for a socialist society has already been in place and has been developing for a long time.

It also rejects sectarianism, believing that anarchists, Marxists, syndicalists, and even social democrats can coexist, having different points of view but overall living in an organically created socialist system. The duty now of the socialist is no longer offensive but to defend and conserve socialist society, history, and values.

Lastly, we identify ourselves as the Right-wing of Socialist Society, not the Left-wing of Capitalist Society. This means that we don't engage in or are concerned by developments within our respective liberal democratic regimes and we ought to hold conservative loyalties to our respective Communist Parties or States for while they do differ from our own points of view, their victory was hard fought and their power is unfortunately legitimate, we can always change their policies but the fact that it exists is enough to warrant our support.

1

d4rk wrote

I mean being able to plan out the rest of my life is one thing, but personally, I want to be impulsive and irresponsible and all that without hurting people. I just want to stop making people angry, and sad, and pissed by my very existence. I want to love people and they love me.

7

d4rk OP wrote

Reply to comment by Fool in The Question of Belief in Nihilism by d4rk

On your first point, I guess a negation of the negation would be to socially construct nothing into something and use that to justify whatever acts that you want to do. It is neither Dionysian, since it is bound by an internally consistent although rudimentary, moral code. Nor is it Apollonian, since it (being the something from nothing) can impress its will on others. But this could no longer be a form of Nihilism since Zarathustra preaches against this type of old order of man.

I'd like to thank you for that second point for leading me down the rabbithole of Czechoslovak philosophy. It was definitely a good read considering that they were on the correct side of history.

2

d4rk wrote

well, two years of polsci is about to be over and I'm back. Hopefully I'd get to summer in the dark arts.

4

d4rk wrote

Reply to by !deleted39157

Is it playing the Indila song in the background?

4