p0is0n

becomes present to all, a direct and clear struggle. It is only through war, real war, not the intercapitalist conflicts glorified by pseudo-militarists, that there is change. Modern liberals fear political violence (that is, outside the jurisdiction of the all-righteous state) because it poses a direct threat to the legitimacy and hegemony of the bourgeois state. Will a liberal be shaken abruptly at the sight of the bourgeois state exercising violence? A police raid on a drug facility, violence against demonstrators, the launching of foreign wars? No doubt they will do their part and condemn some of this, but their comfort remains intact, their hearts ever more content. The liberals are just as much, if not more of enemies to our movement than the Fascists.

I'll get around to it. I'm quite busy at the moment

My attacks on moralism thus are attacks on moral criticisms which mean absolutely nothing for our struggle. Attacks on moral criticism in general as a substitute for a materialist analysis, i.e. "Had Stalin had a better sense of morality, killings would be much less". This is complete bullshit. And it means absolutely nothing. Why did Stalin have a 'poor sense of morality'? What systemic contradictions, what structural movement demanded or opened up the space for acts which you deem immoral? These are questions that should be asked.

-Continued: Consciously developed moral frameworks are absolutely pointless as they do not represent any sort of social relation, i.e. A 'socialist' (Utopian, Idealist) morality divorced from proletarian morality will never have any inherent function and will never, how do I say, 'work'. But a proletarian morality developed as a result of direct struggle for emancipation carries leverage (against slavery, sexism and so on) because in the same way that struggle for emancipation targets the social power of the bourgeois class, a proletarian morality birthed as a result of which directly threatens the ideological hegemony of the bourgeois class (i.e. Bourgeois morality).

To Marxists, morality has no essence divorced from the social relations from which it was developed. A universal morality, to Marxists, does not exist. We do recognize that things necessitated by virtually all modes of production, i.e. stability, the absence of theft, murder and sometimes rape (Though, for example, forced marriages can very well be rape) are deemed morally positive. Morality is not sinister in the sense that the ruling class directly decides what is moral or immoral (aside from ancient Greek philophers, clergy etc. but this is only superficial), but that morality develops as a symbolic reflection of the social power of an existing class.

I consider myself an Orthodox Marxist, yet I am greatly appreciative of the contributions to materialism made by Marxists ranging from vulgarists (a grain of salt) to good Marxists like Althusser.

Absolutely. The Italian Left Communists were basically a group of badasses. They were a bunch of thugs preparing for civil war with the fascists in there country. They got in gun fights on the streets with the fascists and Bordiga called Stalin the "gravedigger of the revolution" to his face.

Well, someday came kinda fast, it turns out one of my ancestors married a Cherokee woman and that's where it started. My sister found it out through her grandfather-in-law, who does that Ancestry.com thing.

I am currently trying to figure that out, and it doesn't help that my great-grandmother put a fake father on my grandfather's birth certificate.

But hopefully I will find out where my roots start, someday.