I can’t find it lol. Here’s a related essay: https://sozialistische-gruppe.de/demokratie-die-perfekte-form-buergerlicher-herrschaft-2/

This is my real source: https://ruthlesscriticism.com/undemocratic.htm

In place of the formerly widespread custom of gritting one’s teeth all one’s life and invoking Christian maxims to take on oneself the sacrifice for the family as one’s raison d’être, modern-day women have come up with a new ideal. They take the limitations that their functioning for the aggregate private life of society forces upon them as a reason to insist primarily on recognition of their efforts; demands for the remuneration of their managing of the household have been raised, as if the honoring of this service, carried out fairly in accordance accordance with all the principles of equality, would settle everything.

Some other kinds of discoveries have also conformed to ideas of equality; women’s liberation is suddenly supposed to come about by their getting (even more) work — a wish that is granted in keeping with the needs of the labor market, and of course adhering to the unpleasant rules of “performance-based” pay, which many a woman on the General Motors assembly line can tell a tale about. After all, the fact that confining them to hearth and home represents the the sanctioned way of using womenfolk does not mean conversely that their integration into the hierarchy of labor is a blessing. In view of the truth that men have treated women like servants who have nothing to say and know nothing of the ways of the world, it has also become customary to bank on discussions on an equal footing, so that the ideal of competition has been happily wedded to that of democracy, and the two upheld together with great public appeal as a critique of the role of women.

Repression has become the catchphrase that smothers all the special features of relations between the sexes — while the magnificent battle that is ultimately fought by women’s groups and magazines is against men per se, against “male society,” with salvos like, “How many women hold elected office?” It is sad to see how the decision to stop putting up with the costs of private life has become a citizen’s action committee devoted to “I am woman … I can do anything” — to the point of joyous commitment to motherhood as an experience of the most exquisite naturalness! The idea that there is a right to a specifically specifically womanly happiness, the application of the ideal of compensation that men assert toward women by turning it around, the staging of feminine initiative as a special case of “self-fulfillment” — that is all that constitutes the battle of the sexes.

— Psychology of the Private Individual, GegenStandpunkt

It really was “9/11 2!”

I know you’re trying to persuade liberals, but these arguments seem fairly liberal. Mind you, I’m as far from wanting to see the DPRK color revv’d as you can imagine.

‘I like positive depictions of North Korean people/Korean culture’

“I enjoy seeing romantic perspectives on imperial Japan.”

‘Regardless of what you feel about any place’s government, it is always good to see an increase in standards of living’

“You don’t have to like Andrew Jackson but think of all those settlers with free land!”

any remarks or analysis about sanctions, for example talking about how sanctions don’t actually accomplish the popularly ascribed goals, but instead directly target the most vulnerable people in a society (with the stated goal of “making the people dislike their government” as if that is not the most mask-off thing politicians say)

“It’s good to remind people the long history of the Jewish people’s oppression. Imagine trying to slander Israel when Iran wants to see them gone.”

…

An “ism” seems to get created whenever a leader’s pragmatic activity brings them a following. As you recognize, this following then determines that the leader is right all the time and these “discoveries” apply many places. This may happen again, and even good tactics may be followed, but I don’t think the role of theory is dreaming something new. We should be reading Marx and criticizing existing modernizations to determine what errors we’re making.

I think you latched too hard onto the “ideology shopping” bit. Maoism definitely has as a central piece “success = correct” which it fails. What I said addresses how that’s depressing.

This is still muddled. What does it mean for an ideology to be “wrong?” What does it mean for one to be “right?” If you don’t have a standard you’re judging ML by, how do you know when it’s met? If your standard is “success” I’d question that. Of course Maoism may fail its own standards, but that doesn’t mean something else succeeds them.

You missed my point. You’re viewing ideologies like commodities in a store. “This one’s got a decent success rating, but I’m not sure. What about the others?” It’s opportunist. You see communism as another thing to vote for; a leader to identify with.

Since communism is not currently “successful” (USSR dead and China reformed) you’re no longer sure you can count on them to be a reasonable alternative to “support.”

Communism is the self-liberation of the proletariat. We’re fighting capitalism, not trying to duplicate a far away system.

I can’t say I don’t relate. A few times I’ve thought “without being able to count on AES how do people cope?” I don’t see that as a problem any more. We can abolish capitalism. My task is to spread a powerful understanding and fight errors—not discover the absolute correct doctrine and toss in my support. That doesn’t mean I’m better than China. It means they’re the “real movement” for their country and not mine.

Maybe I’m wrong and you’re really just trying to get in the head of a Maoist, but that’s what I’ll have you consider.

Updating our theory in what respect? First you must show a deficiency that calls for update. I don’t deny the possibility of new “isms,” but again and again I read compelling revisions and then learn that Marx already covered the subject and either criticized the tendency well or gave a similar but less idealist take. That’s not to say Marx was never wrong, but rarely do I see an argument that actually proves the need to leave Marx behind in some respect.

This is the inevitable conclusion of the logic “practical success = correctness.” If something exists it’s “right.” If something doesn’t exist it must be wrong. Scientific socialism isn’t merely something to have faith in. Marx is supposed to show why capitalism sucks for the proletariat and what is necessary to build a world in the proletariat’s interests. I encourage you to cease your ideology shopping and read this: https://ruthlesscriticism.com/Marxism.htm

No problem. I needed to practice explaining such things anyway.

Socially necessary labor time determines the average exchange value of a type of commodity. Automation allows a firm to reduce the labor necessary to produce commodities. Let’s say company 1 produces 100 units of toothpaste with 10 people employed. Company 2 produces 100 units with 5 people. If they both sell each unit for $10 and pay their workers $10 then each have the same gross revenue but company 2 has fewer people to pay and therefore makes more profit. This is because less labor time goes into products than average. For the sake of competition, company 2 may lower prices. This reflects the reduction in labor time. If they sell each unit for $5 then firm 1 is undercut unless they can catch up. Less labor is embodied, so there’s less exchange value, but now firm 1 is producing slower than average. Less socially necessary labor is embodied in their goods despite more real labor going in. If they automate too then the socially necessary labor time is reduced further. Each sells for less than they did before because less labor goes in. Yet, each pay more for machines. These machines produce goods with use values, yet the exchange value declines. Goods get cheaper, yet people still need to work. If no one works then the goods have no use value. Full automation means no profit.

Unemployment has existed since the start of capitalism. The need for people to purchase is another conflict in capitalism because paying workers more means less profit. This doesn’t mean there’s a tendency towards a final crisis. These tendencies are why we have a crises every few years. Each crisis could turn into a revolution if people are organized and motivated, but often they do not. Each crisis calls for war, worse products, more fictitious capital, and so on to keep the shaky machine running.

Belarus is already sort of socialist. I’m pessimistic about Russia.

He liked fascism. He openly said he wished Mussolini’s regime could have survived WWII. The problem for him with the Nazis was that they were getting uppity and trying to be a rival imperialist.