Yes, that’s true. I wouldn’t call them Nazis, just fascists.

Being a Muslim is not an ethnicity, it’s a religion. Neither is being German, it’s a nationality. Despite the ideology around the maternal line, there are many different ethnicities among Jewish people in “Israel” alone. Many of which experience intense racism by white European Jews, often based on their skin color.

Being a German during the Nazi rule came with the immense privilege of profiting from forced labor, stolen land, stolen resources, getting to live in or sell the houses of victims of the Holocaust, getting to go through their stuff and steal it and much more. Just being a German in Germany was very much morally problematic unless you take very concrete steps to reject this privilege. Migrating, resisting, hiding people, etc.

It’s the same for white people now. Just being white is a huge privilege, that comes with the responsibility to reject that privilege and use it to help racialized people. The same goes for abled people, neurotypical people, cis people, people in imperial core countries and so on.

Within any religion, there’s a contrast between institutions and personal believes. Being Jewish in today’s world comes with the privilege of being able to move to occupied Palestine, steal land, steal a house and the stuff in it, profit from cheap apartheid labor, etc. It’s a privilege to even just have this option, even if it is not used. This privilege has nothing to do with private believes, but it is actively and monetarily supported by many (not all) Jewish institutions. Being Jewish today therefore comes with the responsibility to reject those institutions (not the believes) and to build Jewish institutions, that do not aid genocide. That’s why it is a relevant category to speak of, but, as you said, not to criticize in general, as that would be antisemitic.

They fit every definition of fascism.

The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear in the population beyond the immediate victims and their families. This is done to achieve political gains by intimidation that align with the terrorist actors agenda in the region. Terrorist organizations, like the US military and intelligence agencies, figuratively and literally use the blood of their victims to write a clear message visible to all the world: “submit!”. Critically, they want their victims to give up all hope and cower in fear instead of resisting.

Thank you!

And if there are some things in your life that don’t suck as badly as they could, you probably owe that to the USSR. Like if you’re not (yet) forced to work 75 hours a week:

It depends, but thankfully, there is a really simple test you can do. Just ask yourself: am I organizing a sports event that in any way excludes boys or girls, or men or women, who happen to be trans? Or people who are non-binary? Well, then simply cancel the event, because it doesn’t deserve to exist and should die. Human rights are more important than selling tickets.

I remember reading this, it’s really impressive. Also, I love Quanta magazines articles on math.

Yes, but the theorem you mention is about much more than just about colors. The whole thing about colors on a map is just one accessible illustration of a very deep and general property of graphs. It has many more applications.

Those won’t require id

He’s representing the green party. The green party sees itself as being “left”. The green party is more popular than the social democratic “die Linke” or any other party that styles itself as “left”. The right “realpolitik” wing of the green party has consistently dominated the party line almost since it’s inception. So yes, he does indeed represent a big part of what passes as left in german media discourse and in parliament. Truly left movements in Germany have to look outside their leftist bubbles and acknowledge the poor state of class consciousness and organizing in Germany, if they want any hope to improve it.

This again. In real life, almost every anarchist is communist.

Yeah, I remember a while back I introduced a friend to some simple basic facts about capitalism and it just made him really sad to the point of passivity and not wanting to learn any more. I guess my approach was wrong at the time. I have more success now, but I’m not sure what I do differently. Maybe contradictions have just increased.

The slogan “oppose all equally” may sound revolutionary in its refusal to compromise, but detached from dialectical and historical materialism it collapses into abstract moralism that objectively serves the very hegemony it claims to reject.

Yes! Say it louder for the people in the back. Even some well meaning western marxists really struggle with this, because it touches on their privilege.

Sounds like you seek to be compatible with capitalist oppression while you wait for something that will never simply arise on it’s own without a fierce revolutionary struggle. I’m sure the material conditions will be right any decade now. Surely before the climate catastrophe becomes unbearable or the imperialist war machine steamrolls us all.

Because I said most anarchists are communists? Anarchists want a stateless classless society. That’s the textbook definition of communism. Have you ever heard of the anarchists Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Makhno? None of them were marxists, but they were, all of them, communists. And they said so. You should try learning some basics about the movement you identify with.

Critical Theory naturally predicts the outcome we historically observe of this bureaucracy becoming a new oppressive class

That’s not what a class is and Critical Theory as a historical ideological project always functioned to defang dissenting voices and produce “compatible leftists”. The Frankfurt school was funded by the CIA.

A Marxist-Leninist state voluntarily becoming stateless is as absurd as a capitalist state voluntarily becoming communist.

It’s not absurd, it’s just hard to imagine in the current historical moment where the strength of reactionary forces means, that it is far off, but necessary in the future.

Anarchism doesn’t oppress class interests, it unmakes classes so that the people who used to constituted them have interests that align with others. Within an anarchist commune, there are no capitalists to oppress others

No, but they are right outside the commune loading up their cannons to crush it like the Paris commune. If the defence is successful, it will have forced their will violently on the attackers, who constitute a different class (capitalists). Yes, only on defence, yes that is a legitimate form of organized violence. That’s the point.

And sure, people that volunteer a lot to defend others could become a class that can attempt oppression (whether as a junta, or just as demanding privileges for their noble task). But the same risk holds for any profession, and anarchy always works to subvert it.

Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism. It doesn’t always work. There were historical failures and mistakes, as has happened in almost every anarchist project. For example the Spanish anarchists reversed their progress in woman’s liberation to appeal to liberals. It didn’t work. The kurdish anarchists sold out to the US empire and were betrayed by it again and again. Marxists did wrong too. But because of Marxisms principled stance based on material class analysis, it’s much less likely to dissolve, succumb to error or become a tool to reactionary forces.

Not if these decentralized militias are able to defend themselves against reactionaries. Then it precisely fits the definition that marxists use: they violently force their will (to survive and to defend the anarchist project) on to another class (usually fascist capitalists).

I know, that’s a key theoretical difference between marxists and anarchists. However it is the definition that marxists actually use. And it is precisely what makes marxists want to work together together with Anarchists under many circumstances. So even if anarchists have a different one, they should still be aware of what marxists mean, when they talk about state for one simple reason: to not discard potential allies simply because of a misunderstand in terms. Because marxists believe in this definition, they see no fundamentals contradiction with Anarchists, no class antagonism, only differences in strategy.

Now there are good reasons to use this definition, because it’s rooted in material facts, class analysis, productive forces and ultimately in how a society reproduces itself. It’s a natural definition. The anarchists definition is vague, idealist and ahistorical.

Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.

The only words that are not vague in this definition are “structures”, “with” and “of”. What is rigid? How much plasticity is need? What is hierarchical? What about the unspoken, inofficial, undemocratic hierarchies that dominate every anarchist project? What is authoritarian? Isn’t it authoritarian to defend against fascism? Aren’t anarchists who defend their projects violently forcing their own will on those reactionaries who would love to crush them and exploit them? What’s a monopoly of violence? Do the Zapatistas have a monopoly of violence in their territory? The “checks and balances” and “control instances” and all that bullshit of modern capitalists state are not enough to not speak of a monopoly of violence, right? What’s violence? Do you include structural violence? The threat of violence?

The Marxist definition is clear, simple, historically applicable across the ages, based in material facts and leads to clear conclusions for how to conduct struggle and who to ally with. Like anarchists for example.

No, that’s just a misunderstanding about the definition of a state. Anarchists often define it as a monopoly to violence in a territory. This definition has its flaws. Marxists define it differently as anything that can suppress a class.

Anarchism has real enemies. Marxists generally want to work together with Anarchists. Those enemies do not. Their interests are fundamentally opposed to anarchism and Marxism. They constitute a class, because they are defined by their control over exploitative production. Defending against them is suppressing their class interests. Many Marxists are open about an how this struggle is fought. Anarchists will have to fight it too and they will use their own strategies. Whatever those are, if they are effective, than they constitute a state in the eyes of marxists.

Every time I think communists can’t get any fucking stupider, you guys really go the extra mile to prove me wrong

Almost all real life Anarchists are communists too. Did you just insult basically all anarchists that aren’t terminally online?