davel

What violence has actually sprung from leftist internet memes? You give them way too much credit.

You know that claims of a rising tide of “far-left violence” are fake news, yeah? This bullshit narrative is pumped out by the far-right and by corporate media (otherwise known as the bourgeois press) and by NGOs who get their funding from the bourgeoisie.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad-jacketing

Bad-jacketing is a term for planting doubt on the authenticity of an individual's bona fides or identity. An example would be creating suspicion through spreading false rumors, manufacturing evidence, etc., that falsely portray someone in a community organization as an informant, or member of law enforcement, or guilty of malfeasance such as skimming organization funds.

Fed-jacketing, and Snitch-jacketing are variants of bad-jacketing that specifically aim to present the target as an informer.

There’s !meta@lemmy.ml, but it’s not really a hangout joint. It’s more for housekeeping.

lemmy.ml doesn’t really have a main-like community. For better or worse, I don’t think lemmy.ml really has an overarching sense of community like say hexbear or lemmygrad do. It’s more “general purpose.”

A community of privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by Lemmy’s developers
What is lemmy.ml

BTW, !asklemmy@lemmy.ml rule #3:

Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below

I think the point is, don’t trust what anti-communists claim they said; read what they actually said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mao really said that, where the quote is taken out of context. https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Oppose_Book_Worship

Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalist attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.

The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalization of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.

How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation.

If only Maoists would take Mao’s own advice…

Have they really? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pallets-of-bricks-protest-sites/

That’s the least of bourgeois democracy’s problems, and such suffrage gatekeeping was banned for very good reasons.
Previously.

This is about the party, not the party’s constituency.

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Inciting violence. Explicitly saying to mutilate another human being by throwing an actual brick at them

*Clutches pearls*

Which is their entire platform, which is why the whole thing keeps going further right.

Except the Democratic party doesn’t just block leftward movement. It turns the crank in the same direction, just slower.