Fair enough. There’s no account of Jesus being homophobic in the Gospels, but the Church, excluding a minority of LGBTQ+ affirming denominations, is very much a homophobic institution. I’ve heard Christians justify or condemn practically every act known to man using Jesus’ words, so depending on who you listen to, he very well might have been a homophobe.

It is changing the subject (and derailing the conversation) because it has nothing to do with my original comment. Where in the principles of communism (as they were understood in the 1930s and 40s) does it say which position one should take on homosexuality? As far as i am aware Marx for example never wrote a single word on the subject.

There are many good communists around the world even today who hold conservative views on sex. It’s regrettable but the majority of the world outside of the West is more conservative on these issues. Are you going to dismiss them all as well? They may be wrong to hold these views but this does not make them unprincipled as communists. Their principles, which are influenced by their own specific material and cultural conditions, are just slightly different than ours.

Marxism-Leninism is a science, not a dogma. Science can get things wrong but science also progresses. The Soviets acted according to the understanding of these issues that was available to them at the time. Communists are not omniscient, we are all a product of our cultures and societies. You are mistakenly extrapolating our contemporary western understanding now in the 21st century to the 1930s and 40s Soviet Union.

You said he was unshakeably principled.

Yes, he was a principled marxist. Marx didn’t really write about gay people. LGBT rights weren’t on the radar of the average marxist (or much of anybody really) in the early 20th century.

I swear it’s like Terminally Online Anarchists are in a competition to see who could say the dumbest shit possible and get downvoted the fastest. You ever heard of a transitionary state? You ever heard of scientific Marxism? You ever heard of the process? You ever thought about the fact that the USSR may have skipped quite a few steps? Right? Because you’re supposed to go from capitalism to socialism to communism. Right? Right. This is like basic shit. This is very obvious shit. Well they went from peasant class, industrialized, into communism. Right? They weren’t even industrialized when communism took place. That’s on top of western sabatage, economic pressures and beat the fucking Nazis.

The irony is that you think that a real communist, right, who wants to go from a state to a stateless society all overnight, essentially, is what you’re saying. That’s a real communist. Maybe we call them anarchists. Well, you know, the irony here is that there are anarchist derivative movements that are happening right now. You have Rojova, you have the Zapatistas. Both of these ideologies acknowledge that a state system not only is compatible with them, although (democratic confederalism would prefer there not to be a state), they even go as far as to understand that the necessity of a state, or a state-like entity, within the framework of our current global material conditions, because everything else is defined by the nation-state system. Look, I’m drunk. But I had to get on ya ass.

I keep telling people the needle has already been threaded, that anarchism and communism should no longer be opposed, modern thinkers have threaded the needle, but then I see a dumbass motherfucker like you posting and I go, well, maybe not.

Good luck abolishing the state with the West breathing down your neck. I’m sure the people you deposed will also never try and regain that power. Think ffs

And those of us who actually believe in the power of communism and want to do a communist revolution right away are called anarchists.

You misspelled “liberal”

Dialectical materialism, things as a process, is the foundation of communist theory.

You can’t call yourself a communist while completely disregarding the foundation, youre obviously just an idealist. Your “immediate revolution” will only be succesful in fiction.

You’re a fucking idiot. Walking into a room filled with people who know the material you’re too lazy to look at once and explaining their own ideology to them.

I can’t begin to understand what delusions you tell about yourself that you can just intuit an entire ideology and the scientific attempts to understand history and political economy without suborning yourself to learn from the century and a half of people who came before you. Infantile.

Please, stop talking nonsense. You have no right to speak without having investigated for yourself the topic you want to speak on.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2sntNn5jQO8vF7ai9x0fna3PV

If you can’t make yourself sit down and read, make yourself listen while driving or w/e. Just stop talking nonsense you radlib wrecker.

How do you define “state”?

They don’t trust the idea of just doing communism outright, they don’t believe in communism’s ability to fend for itself at the beginning. These careful moderates are called Stalinists

Genuine questions.

Do you think that if Soviet Union instead immediately dissolved the state apparatus and had smaller communes (for lack of a better word) that it would have been able to defend itself from its civil wars and the imperialist nations, and moreover Nazi Germany’s war machine?

Also, what do you believe ‘Communism’ is? Or, how do you get there? Do you really think a stateless, mostly agrarian and unindustrialized land the size of a continent could just do “communism outright”?

Still curious if you could please answer my questions now that things cooled down?