blackpantherparty

It's not just a way to understand what's happening around me, but also to learn about who I truly am. Considering that it's a little related to psychology, the concept is somewhat unclear. Consequently, when I speak about this subject, it sounds vague. That being said, I will try to avoid any of this in this post.

The post is basically about “human nature” and its connection to alienation.

The earliest humans reshaped their environment to overcome the cruelty of nature by improving their living conditions. As a result, they eventually divided themselves into a class system due to limited resources. There were an increasing number of people but not enough resources for everyone, which pushed them into class-societies. Well that's how I see it anyway.

We are social animals, both as individuals and as a society. In the face of life-threatening dangers, we are forced to become selfish and reduce ourselves to individuals. The fact remains, however, that we are significantly more likely to survive when we are living in safe communities. I like to believe that this is the dialectics of morality.

The human brain, combined with its hands, both working together are responsible for our evolution into modern humans. We could have only reached our state of consciousness if this “process” never stopped. Our continuous cooperation with each other was the only possibility for this to be successful.

It is necessary that this process always leads to more effective communication with our comrades, notably developing language, in parallel with improving our living conditions. It is only by doing so, that we will enhance our tools and the process itself. To me, this must be a law in evolution, simply because the transition from ape to man cannot be done without developing our ability to communicate. In other words, we have to be a sort of friendly, loving, and helpful person. Those qualities must have been different for each period of human history, depending on the modes of production. We can see those qualities' benefits as we make our way from capitalism to socialism. However, I can't deny the atrocities committed throughout history. That being said, it does seem like after each change of modes of production it gets better. The opposing forces keep the best aspects of each while simultaneously merging, and putting the seeds of its next collapse. This is why I believe in a dialectics of morality.

To be clear, this camaraderie is certainly not with our opponents, but for each other as comrades. Only those who help us build the new world can genuinely be regarded in this way. Our efforts will attract countless others as we move toward a socialist society. The connection between us is going to be the foundation of this new society we are working to establish. It's a feeling of mutual trust, rather than a competitive distrust.

I always hated the idea of “survival of the fittest”. Without a Marxist perspective, a person cannot understand what it means to be the “fittest”. I am certain the most important factor for our evolution is cooperation, as it has always been and will remain this way. As social animals with consciousness, we are in the hands of our emotions. Yea, I know that's vague.

What we call “self-consciousness” can only be developed with more than a hundred thousand years of cumulative socialization. Our best tool, in the end, is our capacity to connect to those around us in a meaningful way. As we continue to evolve, the physical structure of our bodies no longer appears to benefit our evolutionary success. I believe that our brains are experiencing an evolutionary development, both in the area of intelligence and emotions. There is no doubt that evolution continues to be relevant to this day. And for clarity, I am not talking about an idealist view of evolution, in which humans become one single organism, whether telepathically or technologically.

The nature of humans is to live in peace together, which is undermined by class-society. I believe alienation is a manifestation of such a situation. We're losing control of our collective efforts, and it leaves us feeling lost.

The peace within an individual is connected to the peace within society as a whole. The two cannot function independently of the other. It's the same in a family living together. And as long as the family has any connection with others, such as neighbors, the formula still applies.

In reality, we are not necessarily antagonistic to each other, but to our environment. To conclude, once we win the fight against the cruelty of nature we will find nothing of this cruelty in the communist human beings.

During this entire period, we underwent a massive transformation, which further exacerbated all contradictions.

Currently, the empire is shifting its efforts towards AI technologies for developing new means of production. According to the World Economic Forum, it will eliminate 85 million jobs and create 97 million. Assuming the numbers are correct, the 85 million unemployed will need to get a new education to get jobs related to this industry. Since there is a high cost of living and education, the vast majority of those unemployed people will not be able to learn the necessary related skills. There are normally subscription fees associated with AI apps for content creators, as well. It is inevitable that prices will rise, severely restricting their accessibility to the working class. The wealth of the workers will experience a significant shift towards the bourgeois class located in California's Silicon Valley.

The development of AI will not lead to machines becoming conscious, we must experience material reality for millions of years in order to be anything close to humans. It will, however, deprive the individual of their sense of self.

Streaming services will use the technology to push their own soul-draining AI generated content. Podcasts and audiobooks are going to be voiced by AI, it will be used in music, and images will be unrecognizable from standard ones. Several advanced AI voice services are already available from websites and require an expensive monthly subscription. Blogs, articles and any written content that is profitable will no longer be made by humans. Most AI writing apps require a monthly payment as well. The western internet will be filled with bots spreading propaganda and advertising products relentlessly to consumers. It is inevitable that everyone will be forced out of this AI-dominated environment.

China, however, is a socialist-state and can therefore use these innovations solely for the benefit of its workers, in accordance with government regulations. Only states that are able to prioritize worker interests rather than bourgeois interests will remain relevant during their artificial intelligence development stage. Automation and AI technology, along with Universal Basic Income, are seen by many as the missing parts of capitalism that will allow it to function properly. It will only lead to resentment and despair among workers. Consequently, reformists are exposed as naive.

The bourgeois vampires in Silicon Valley are producing exactly what will end their miserable existence. As our alienation reaches its logical conclusion, the only way we are going to find relief is by reclaiming our humanity outside of the soul-draining apparatus that will surround us, which has existed for ages and now appears to have taken its final manifestation. This new advanced means of production is a threat to the future of our commodities. The long-term effect of artificial intelligence on workers is, to simply put, complete alienation. People who consume anything will cease to see it as a product of the human species, but as a strange product generated entirely from an external force. The worker and the commodity it's supposed to consume, will essentially be detached, existing in separate realities. The forces that dominated us collectively are manifesting themselves in commodities - not as representations of workers' labor, but as manifestations of the bourgeoisie’s miserable existence. I will explain this better later in the post.

Ai technology is expected to provide people with much needed relief, which is why it is currently profitable for the capitalists to invest in it. But relief from what? The bourgeoisie itself! In other words, there is a contradiction. Artificial intelligence will produce commodities workers don't want or need. It won't provide workers with greater independence from their meaningless jobs or improve their material conditions at least as long as the bourgeoisie controls automation and AI.

The importance of this cannot be overstated – social media will be flooded with bots promoting brands or political ideologies – they will present themselves as humans and sell the consumer an "experience". For example, sharing an emotional story about a vacation while mentioning products, or fabricating a negative story against oppressed minorities that incites anger among the target reactionary audience.

The means of production associated with these commodities will show itself as having absolutely zero worker control, and as it happens, it will expose its owners, the bourgeoisie and the state that protects them. By failing to regulate the emerging AI tech under capitalism, the capitalist-state exposes itself for what it is, an instrument for maintaining world hegemony, along with exploitation and violence against the working class. They certainly intend to use AI to spy on us, to spread propaganda, and to inflict physical violence against us by integrating it in their police forces and military.

Capitalists are always looking for cheaper labor, which will lead them to rely on artificial intelligence. When UBI cannot be implemented as well as the global south finally breaking its ties with the empire, the working class will realize they are essentially expendable. The workers can only submit to the capitalist class so long as they feel they can influence the economy. There will come a time when people concede that they cannot control production or the state – at this point, the state should collapse, be overthrown, and the means of production seized.

As society develops, it produces commodities based on its environment. These commodities eventually change the lives of individuals, which in turn reshapes the environment, leading to the production of new commodities, incorporating these changes. A commodity is the result of its environment and humans are a commodity. If we become increasingly alienated during this process, it will be manifested in our commodities.

As the means of production are improved, and inevitably held by fewer people with each advancement, the workers become further alienated from it. Workers gradually lose control over the advancing means of production, which naturally create large amounts of commodities once sufficiently advanced, with a decline in worker involvement.

In the process of improving our means of production, we incorporate our worsening alienation into all its aspects. Our new advanced means of production, namely artificial intelligence, can only produce commodities to satisfy alienated worker-consumers, which in turn make commodities that further alienate them.

In this way, AI tech will merely produce commodities to give some meaning to the emptiness of worker-consumers. When attempting to gain some power in the workplace, workers are seeking to satisfy their real needs - to relieve their feelings of alienation and seize the means of production. It is comparable to climbing up the corporate hierarchy. Since this cannot happen to the near-majority, our false needs will dictate commodities that we, and the bourgeoisie, produce and consume. Basically commodities that give us a sense of purpose, but it can only be a false purpose. The act of escaping reality, such as through ideologies, movies, tv shows, video games, and social media just to name a few.

Our commodities, therefore, do not satisfy workers' real needs, but contribute to our collective alienation. The (false)purpose of our existence becomes manufactured escapism.

It is inevitable to conclude that commodities, themselves becoming gradually alienated in relation to workers, will not make sense to worker-consumers at the end of this mode of production. Both of them should seem to live in a different reality - which is in contradiction with one another. Humans are social animals and cannot live outside reality through escapism. If this continues, mental illness will certainly follow.

In the end, commodities will not give workers’ any satisfactions, instead they are only reflections of our alienation, which has taking the form of worthless commodities and its ads pushed by bots on all social media. This is no longer a workers' commodity, it solely represents its real owner, the bourgeoisie, and becomes a reflection of its meaningless existence.

...or maybe i am completely wrong idk

Its sad the citizens can't see they're being brainwashed by their evil authoritarian government

For those who don't know, Spartacus was a slave who escaped from a gladiator camp and who eventually became an influential leader of a slave rebellion during the times of ancient Rome. Not much is known about him due to the lack of historical records.

I consider "Spartacus" by Stanley Kubrick to be one of the best films ever made. While I haven't personally watched the popular TV series of this historical legend, from what I've observed, it seems to be hypersexualized and glorifying violence for consumerist entertainment. Watching some of the clips on YouTube, I found the heavy metal music quite a contrast to Kubrick's use of a romantic ambiance music for his movie. There is a reason why the movie's main song is called "love theme". Also, keep in mind that my post will contain spoilers for the Kubrick movie and Braveheart, both the endings being compared later.

Recently, I viewed a clip from the TV series where a slave gladiator is approached by a woman who flirts with him. He eventually tells her that love makes a man too weak to fight before a battle and politely turns down her attempts to seduce him. Of course, the scene is also oversexualized.

Kubrick's Spartacus is noticeably different from this scene. Similarly, in the movie, slave owners offer Spartacus a woman slave to have sex with, but he outright refuses. He screams to his captors that he is not an animal. Despite her getting undressed, he still refuses and is clearly uncomfortable, causing his captors to laugh at him. The woman slave and him quickly fall in love together later in the story, and she plays an important role in the plot. I can easily see the differences between the movie and the TV series from viewing both scenes.

Aside from that, the series looks inadequate in portraying the message of liberation, it presents a lot of over sexualization and violence that goes beyond what is needed. It is intended for those who do not wish to participate in rebellions in any way in their lives, but would rather watch them while enjoying themselves with violent and sexual scenes. To put it simply, I will never watch the television series. The movie is romantic and inspirational, both qualities lacking in the series. There seems to be no love in the characters' hearts.

It is as Che Guevara famously said: “The true revolutionaries are guided by the great feelings of love.” He uses the word “true” for a reason. Another legend we can't help but be inspired by is Che, he was a poet, a doctor, a military leader, and a Marxist theorist. An exemplary communist human being. Love can't be idealist, as long as it aligns with Marxist dialectics. Despite the material world coming first, we can still be guided by our feelings. In the end, we are still humans with emotions. Che's life is a testament to the value and necessity of fighting for justice passionately. All that to say the Spartacus TV series looks really bad compared to the movie due to lack of a passion for liberation and being filled with hyper-sexuality and overly violent scenes.

As for the real Spartacus himself, in Karl Marx's view, he considered him to be heroic and the embodiment of the ancient proletariat’s attempt for liberation. Around World War 1, this legend even influenced the Spartacus League, a communist movement from Germany. It was founded by socialists such as Rosa Luxemburg. Also named after Spartacus is the village of Spartak in the Donetsk region of Ukraine.

According to the commonly accepted story about the rebellion, roughly 70 slaves were involved in the initial stages of the revolt. Despite their small numbers, they seized kitchen utensils, fought their way out of the gladiator camp, seized several wagons of weapons and armor, and eventually expanded into an actual army. It was also likely that Spartacus was a Roman soldier before he became a slave. I found it fascinating that they used kitchen stuff to liberate themselves in the very beginning of the revolt. It demonstrates that no matter how dire the situation may be, there is still a way to escape. We should always be inspired to liberate or even just improve ourselves through whatever option is available to us. There is a possibility that it will lead to something that is more effective later on.

The story of Spartacus in Kubrick's movie is the interpretation I admire the most. The revolt was sparked from the kitchen, as mentioned earlier. It's hard for me to recall all the details of the story. However, throughout the movie, Spartacus' motivations are clear: his love for a woman, loyalty to his comrades, and longing for freedom. Quite similar to Braveheart, which I also enjoy, but Mel Gibson's films are very historically inaccurate even with having reliable historical sources for his stories.

The two films have similar iconic endings. In Braveheart, our protagonist dies after screaming out "freedom" as his final words. His comrades stood silently by as he was executed. While in the movie Spartacus, after a final confrontation that ended in a massacre, the Roman soldiers demanded the remaining surviving rebels to identify Spartacus. It is the real one who identifies himself first. Then, one by one, each claimed to be him by shouting "I'm Spartacus!". Crassus has them all sentenced to death by crucifixion along the Via Appia, where the revolt began. From the beginning of the revolt until their tragic death, the former slaves were his true revolutionary comrades. They did not remain silent during their final moments as rebels. Love, loyalty, and the desire for freedom were all values shared by Spartacus and all those who fought alongside him.

Spartacus' story, whether it is real, myth or from a movie, illustrates the necessity of camaraderie and moving forward as one unit. The story inspires us to fight for a better world and to organize, even after centuries, as evidenced by the Spartacus League from Germany.

It is Spartacus' legacy that shows us that any group of people, no matter how weak at the beginning, can expand to become a force to reckon with, and even after being defeated, their valiant efforts resonated across generations, echoing for centuries, which are still influencing us today and with no end in sight.

We all know that the capitalist system is responsible for countless injustices, massacres, and endless suffering. As Communists, we do not call for a revolution based on ideological beliefs that involve excessive violence and power lust, but because our current political system is fundamentally unstable. We're not weirdos who daydream of just wishing to gain power in the way liberals often portray us to be.

A revolution that succeeds is never peaceful, rather it is a violent continuous struggle for power.

It's just like Malcolm X said: “You don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution.”

In addition to the fact that nonviolent revolutions cannot be achieved, violent ones are unavoidable. Individuals who are poor and hopeless will often engage in violent behavior out of desperation. The environment in which a person lives shapes their behavior, and capitalism's inability to end widespread poverty is the reason why revolutionary violence is an inevitable outcome of this political system.

A poor person without hope for their future becomes aggressive against others. In an area where there are many of such individuals, criminal activity is almost certain to increase, leading to numerous justified but futile retaliations against the authorities. If the rest of the working class eventually feels the same way, then they will collectively revolt against the state.

To what extent the subjugated class will employ violence to free itself will depend on how much violence the ruling class unleashes to maintain its power. Under such conditions, the subjugated class engages not in excessive violence, but revolutionary violence. This revolutionary violence is necessary to dismantle the capitalist system that holds most of the world's population in chains. It is essential that we fight relentlessly for our survival by any means necessary, as my role model Malcolm X firmly believed. Peace on earth, a world without exploitation, war and poverty, can only be attained by this approach.

Achieving peaceful coexistence is frequently advocated by liberals, or rather they pretend to be interested in it. To me, however, the idea of living in a peaceful world is an integral part of my “daydreams”. Liberals prefer to assume that we simply have a unjustified desire for power, violent and childish fantasies about revolutions, but what we really love to think about is what happens after a revolution and the peace that comes afterwards. The desire for peace is deeply ingrained in all communists, and it's our goal to bring it to reality.

Unlike liberals, we intend to succeed.

A worker-led dictatorship is unquestionably necessary, as demonstrated by the "tankies". Considering that the establishment of a socialist-state can only be done by the workers themselves, there is little reason to fear a dictatorship of the working class. The working class, who are the majority, has a vested interest in the success and stability of this state, so they should be able to represent the concerns of everyone.

That's without even mentioning the fact that we live under a dictatorship of the capitalists, who are an extremely small minority compared to the working class and are only motivated by their own selfish interests. But libs cannot even comprehend this.

Lately, I easily get frustrated at those who point to countries like Sweden as proof that capitalism works when social safety nets are in place. Those libs fail to see that poverty is currently being exported to the global south in those socdem imperialist nations. Furthermore, when they talk about their fictitious “middle class”, liberals acknowledge that poverty is one of the outcomes of capitalism. They use rhetoric such as "we need to strengthen the middle class" and also hinting at the requirement for a low-income class.

In response to what I said, they will assert that a real liberal democracy wouldn't have poor populations. There is frequent talk about universal basic income, which doesn't even make sense. Capitalists will simply make every product and service more expensive. And they don't fully comprehend imperialism, or they do, but choose not to address it. In contrast to poverty closer to home, they don't experience the horrors of imperialism, but instead reap the benefits of it and can see how it is beneficial to white people. Nevertheless, POC living within the empire can still get some of the scraps from crackkkers' looting of the global south, although only as much as is necessary to keep them quiet.

Libs' inability to improve our material conditions efficiently and quickly enough for everyone is setting the stage for a more powerful Donald Trump-like figure to emerge. No shitlibs, trump is not voldemort, he's the result of the flaws inherent in capitalism. Also, you are not a gryffindor fighting for justice, instead you are an integral component of the injustices perpetrated by the reactionaries. Trump is the manifestation of white supremacy's attempt to maintain power in their empire in decline. The liberals, who are unable to even fucking raise the minimum wage for workers, are complicit in any crimes the fascists commits now and in years to come. It is the inability of governments in liberal democracies to meet the needs of all their citizens that fuels every reactionary ideology.

Liberal ideology dominates all the others. Ideologies have no basis in reality; liberalism should remain in the realm of fantasy. So, it is unsurprising that liberals often ignore the important role of a vanguard and the revolution, instead focusing on the preferred ideological narrative: “Evil authoritarian tankies want to wipe out capitalists and commit acts of violence against innocents.”

Our revolutionary struggles are not a matter of ideology, nor is a communist vanguard evil, but rather practical necessities since our current system cannot be maintained.

I find it offensive when liberals assert that their idea of democracy is the only system where queer rights can be protected. They believe that communists would oppress lgbt people if they gained power in western countries. They ignore the fact that revolutions are shaped by the conditions in which they take place. Like humans, revolutions are shaped by their environments. Since the majority of communists in the west support or are LGBT+ themselves, any western revolution will also include our rights. It is absurd to suggest otherwise, but liberal ideology dulls even the sharpest minds.

The assertion that our queer rights can only be protected in liberal democracies baffles me since liberals are themselves unable to safeguard any rights protecting vulnerable groups. Liberal politicians are hope dealers, and liberal voters are hope addicts. Ideology is most definitely the worst kind of drug. Marginalized communities need self-determination above all else. They must have power, certainly not hope. The concept of political power should not be feared. It's the people who hold authority over us that should be feared, not the concept of authority itself.

The liberals mistakenly believe that all sides have reasonable arguments on any domestic political issue, except for tankies, of course. The same mistake is made when it comes to the struggle for authority. There are those who view the struggle as merely a conflict over ideas, while others understand it as a struggle for survival. In the minds of liberal voters, a constructive debate will convince fascists to give up their reactionary ideologies. In place of addressing the conditions that led them to fascism, this is being attempted instead.

In order to protect lgbt rights, democrats demand all leftists must vote for them; in doing so, they weaponize us. People who dislike liberals for being ineffective with everything will associate these two groups as one. The conflict is both within the country and similar as well with rainbow imperialism. Liberals, being unable to improve the living conditions of workers effectively, will also frequently preach lgbt rights. The democrats' speeches about tolerance are bound to lose their appeal for those suffering by the worsening conditions for the workers.
As a result, they will believe that liberals only care about gays and negating the fact that they do not improve or protect our living standards as well. Republicans in the US also do nothing for the working class. Nevertheless, the two-party system has the capability of blaming the previous administration for all current problems.

Due to this, our community is constantly in danger. Conservative governments and fascists restrict our rights, and liberals exacerbate the problem by preaching even louder. In the US, it is the combination of both political parties that drives the empire even deeper into its fascist decay.

This led to our community becoming a scapegoat for those who aren't part of it, struggling to survive or make any decent progress with their lives. In fact, a similar situation is seen all over the world.

This problem can be seen with rainbow imperialism, where certain countries view lgbt groups as enemies. The use of a military unit with only gay soldiers and publicizing it as a great western achievement will only make people hate gays even more. In those countries affected by imperialism, gays are already oppressed and hidden, so their rights are a western foreign idea to all of them. In Russia, Putin is no doubt aware of this weaponization and uses it to his advantage, blaming “western leftist gay movements” for its government's failures. However, many citizens probably believe this crap. They associate the imperialist western world with anything related to lgbt. It also definitely doesn't help that the CIA uses lgbt associations in foreign countries as a spying hub. A narrative of anti-lgbt hate is pushed by western media when the authorities in those countries become aware of the issue and take action against it.

Our liberal politicians only work for one group: reactionaries. However, they do support queers, by giving us what they consider to be assistance. But for them, empowering the marginalized means giving us the ability to drop bombs for the US empire. Or allowing a person the opportunity to become CEO of imperialism. Gays in Gaza, for example, will surely be grateful for gay-friendly bombs made by a queer girlboss. They also distribute some of the wealth stolen from the global south to lgbt people in the west, which is enough to keep many comfortable with the status quo, unless you are black and lgbt. When this is the case, you are only giving enough to keep quiet, at best.

Ultimately, the marginalized, especially POC, cannot make real progress unless they gain power over capitalists. Appointing them to the board of directors or in a leadership role will have no effect on that. Even making the person president won't make a difference. Changing the race of our oppressors won't improve people's lives. Obama didn't improve the lives of black people, regardless of what white people love to believe.

A peaceful transfer of power will never take place. The ruling class will not allow it. These are people who would rather sabotage and sink their ship than surrender it to others. The tragedy is that the entire planet is their ship.

The purpose of this post was simply to make the point that we are serious about communism, and we are not some edgy contrarians. It would be great if some liberals would read it and learn something, but I doubt it.

It's not a complicated "conflict". Its obviously a genocide. Liberals who say both sides are to blame are participating in the massacres of Palestinians. It doesn't matter if hamas killed any number of Israelis. The so-called crimes that the Palestinians committed can never be equal to the crimes of their oppressors. Especially when their oppressors are killing them with a clear intent of genocide. It is disgusting that zionists hide behind their religion to justify what they do. All the liberals who defend them should get the wall.