Search

Roberto Motta stated that socialism, Marxism, communism, and progressivism were, in practice, the same ideology, which he claimed was based on resentment, hatred, and conflict and had accumulated moral, political, and economic misunderstandings since its inception. #socialismo #marxismo #comunismo (translated)

Verônica Domingues stated that she never advocated for nudity as empowering or revolutionary and said that, as a Marxist, she did not consider any individual action capable of promoting a revolution. For her, showing breasts was an expression of sexuality or part of her work with adult content, and no work would be empowering under capitalism. The author said that blaming women for their objectification for wearing short clothes or posting nude photos was misogynistic, and emphasized the importance of consent. Regarding publishing images with a Lula sticker during the campaign, she assessed that this would probably not change votes, but argued that art did not need to have only a utilitarian purpose. Domingues also stated that she used other social networks, including Instagram and TikTok, to raise awareness and bring the left closer to Marxism. She criticized radical feminists who, according to her, treated sex as immoral and scrutinized the bodies of women who consented to appear nude. She also said that the revolution depended on the collective organization of the working class, not on showing or covering breasts. #Feminismo #Marxismo #DireitosDasMulheres (translated)

The author stated that the death of Anwar Shaikh marked the farewell of the leading contemporary Marxist economist. He added that Shaikh's work over several decades was condensed in *Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises* (2016), where, he wrote, the functioning of the system was explained through real and turbulent competition. (translated)

Socialist Diary pointed out that searches for "The Communist Manifesto" in Spain increased by more than 5,000%. It added that interest in the text by Marx and Engels on Google peaked on September 27, coinciding with the Sol encampment. https://t.co/E8ukiZY2C7 #ElManifiestoComunista #Marxismo #Historia (translated)

The author welcomed a review by the PHILOSOPHERS NEWS editorial board of their recent article, “Marxist Case for the Technofeudal Hypothesis”. They wrote that the stakes went far beyond a question of wording and invoked humanity’s struggle for existence. #Filosofía #Marxismo #Tecnología #PH

En muchas conversaciones escucho desde hace tiempo que marxismo/ comunismo/socialismo es la solución para México y Latinoamérica y que se debe analizar el Mundo aplicando las ideas del materialismo histórico y de la lucha de clases. Es una gran mentira que están difundiendo #Marxismo #Comunismo #Mentiras #MX #LA

Cristianismo e esquerdismo são incompatíveis. Não há nada mais hipócrita do que um esquerdista falando da religião cristã. É impossível ser cristão e esquerdista ao mesmo tempo porque o cristianismo e o marxismo defendem visões irreconciliáveis do mundo. Segundo o cristianismo, o ser humano é imperfeito e marcado pelo pecado original. Precisamos amar a Deus e ao próximo. Nossa recompensa é a vida eterna. Não existe justiça neste mundo, só no Reino de Deus. Já para o marxismo, o homem vai ser aperfeiçoado quando a humanidade avançar para a sociedade socialista, sem classes e sem propriedade privada. Para os marxistas, não existe nada além da matéria; não existe alma imortal e nao existe Deus. Segundo a teoria marxista, religiões são ilusões criadas para legitimar a ordem social. Quem se diz cristão de esquerda está enganado, ou está tentando te enganar, ou as duas coisas juntas. Esse é o caso dos políticos de esquerda que usam religião para se eleger. Uma das primeiras coisas que os socialistas/marxistas/comunistas SEMPRE fazem quando chegam ao poder é perseguir as religiões. [Se essa postagem foi útil a você, considere a possibilidade de fazer uma assinatura do perfil - e muito obrigado] #Cristianismo #Esquerdismo #Marxismo

Who Owned the Word “Socialism”? One of the great distortions of twentieth-century political history is the claim that because Nazis and fascists fought Marxists and communists, they must therefore have been their political opposites — and hence “right-wing.” That conclusion does not follow. Marxists, communists, fascists and National Socialists all described their movements in socialist or collectivist terms, though they understood socialism very differently. The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, while fascism emerged partly from the revolutionary socialist milieu and retained strong anti-liberal, anti-capitalist and collectivist elements. The crucial development was that Marxists and communists increasingly established themselves as the authoritative owners of the word “socialism.” As Marxism became the dominant form of revolutionary socialism, “socialist” increasingly came to mean specifically Marxist, class-based and internationalist socialism. Movements that rejected Marxism could therefore appear to be its political opposite simply because they fought Marxists. But political enemies are not necessarily ideological opposites. Nazis and fascists competed with communists and other socialists for overlapping constituencies — workers, lower-middle-class voters and people alienated by liberal capitalism and parliamentary politics. Their conflict was therefore not simply socialism versus its opposite, but also a struggle between rival forms of post-liberal collectivism. This is where Hayek and Mises matter. Neither claimed that communism, fascism and Nazism were identical. Their argument was that these movements belonged to a broader anti-liberal, collectivist tradition, despite their profound differences and mutual hostility. A socialist movement can fight another socialist movement. Communists and social democrats did precisely that. So the question cannot be settled by asking whom the Nazis and fascists persecuted. It must be settled by examining the principles and political objectives they themselves advocated. “They fought socialists, therefore they were right-wing” is not an argument. It is a conclusion disguised as one.

Leszek Kołakowski: Marxism, Historical Truth, and the Dangers of Political Absolutism Kołakowski was a major intellectual figure because he combined serious philosophical training, firsthand experience of communism, and the courage to revise his own convictions. He was not an anti-communist attacking Marxism from outside. He had once believed in Marxism and understood its appeal from within. After the 1956 thaw, he initially tried to recover a more humane Marxism based on freedom, dignity, and opposition to bureaucratic tyranny. His later criticism therefore carried unusual weight: it came from someone who had taken the doctrine seriously and tried to save it. His importance also lies in the distinctions he made. He did not simply equate Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and every form of socialism. In *Main Currents of Marxism*, he traced the development of Marxist ideas and examined how concepts such as historical necessity, class conflict, ideological truth, and the revolutionary party could encourage political intolerance. His central warning was that a movement claiming privileged access to historical truth may eventually treat disagreement not as legitimate opinion but as error, reaction, or treason. Once one party claims to represent history or humanity, it can justify controlling the press, courts, universities, civil society, and private life. This helps explain why communist regimes so often produced censorship, one-party rule, political policing, and coercive social transformation. My evaluation is that Kołakowski identified a genuine danger in Marxist political theory: the tendency to subordinate individual freedom and institutional pluralism to an allegedly necessary historical goal. His critique also makes the phrase “that was not real Marxism” inadequate on its own. Kołakowski’s greatest achievement was therefore not proving that “Marxism equals terror.” It was showing why a doctrine promising total liberation can become dangerous when it also claims total knowledge and gives one political organization the authority to impose that promise.

A educação brasileira não pode continuar sendo usada como instrumento de formação político-partidária de nossas crianças e adolescentes. Combato esse problema há mais de uma década, não apenas no discurso, mas por meio de propostas concretas apresentadas durante minha atuação parlamentar. Fui autor do projeto que instituiu o Programa Escola sem Partido, defendendo o direito do aluno de não ser submetido à propaganda político-partidária dentro da sala de aula e o direito das famílias de participarem ativamente da formação de seus filhos. Também apresentei proposta de adesão a uma política de alfabetização baseada em evidências científicas, buscando priorizar métodos que efetivamente ensinem nossas crianças a ler e escrever. Defendi ainda o homeschooling, garantindo às famílias a possibilidade de escolher a educação domiciliar dentro de regras estabelecidas e ampliando a liberdade dos pais sobre a formação educacional de seus filhos. Durante a pandemia, propus reconhecer escolas públicas e privadas como serviços essenciais, porque sempre entendi que a educação não pode ser colocada em segundo plano. Também apresentei iniciativas para preservar o correto ensino da língua portuguesa e combater alterações ideológicas impostas à linguagem dentro de instituições públicas e escolares. Outra proposta de minha autoria buscou impedir que conteúdos relacionados a marxismo, socialismo, comunismo, gramscismo e outras correntes ideológicas fossem utilizados como instrumentos de militância na educação infantil e fundamental, estabelecendo que esses assuntos fossem tratados dentro do conteúdo pedagógico adequado e oficialmente previsto. Também me posicionei contra mecanismos que fortaleciam o monopólio da UNE na concessão de benefícios estudantis e participei de propostas voltadas à prevenção às drogas entre crianças e jovens. Minha linha de atuação sempre foi clara: liberdade das famílias, respeito aos alunos, combate à militância político-partidária, alfabetização de qualidade, proteção das crianças e valorização do conhecimento. E é exatamente essa luta que quero levar ao Senado Federal. Em Brasília, quero ampliar a participação dos pais na educação de seus filhos, defender a liberdade de consciência dos estudantes, avançar na regulamentação nacional do homeschooling, fortalecer políticas de alfabetização baseadas em evidências, fiscalizar os recursos destinados à educação e enfrentar qualquer tentativa de transformar escolas em espaços de doutrinação político-partidária. A escola deve ensinar português, matemática, ciências, história, geografia, tecnologia e preparar nossos jovens para a vida. Professor deve ensinar. Aluno deve aprender. E os pais jamais podem ser afastados da educação dos próprios filhos. Nossas crianças pertencem às suas famílias, não a partidos políticos, movimentos ideológicos ou projetos de poder. Educação é conhecimento, liberdade, responsabilidade e futuro. É pelo futuro de nossos filhos e netos que essa batalha precisa ser enfrentada também no Senado Federal. 🇧🇷 #Educação #Liberdade #Alfabetização

Leszek Kołakowski: Marxism, Historical Truth, and the Dangers of Political Absolutism Kołakowski was a major intellectual figure because he combined serious philosophical training, firsthand experience of communism, and the courage to revise his own convictions. He was not an anti-communist attacking Marxism from outside. He had once believed in Marxism and understood its appeal from within. After the 1956 thaw, he initially tried to recover a more humane Marxism based on freedom, dignity, and opposition to bureaucratic tyranny. His later criticism therefore carried unusual weight: it came from someone who had taken the doctrine seriously and tried to save it. His importance also lies in the distinctions he made. He did not simply equate Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and every form of socialism. In *Main Currents of Marxism*, he traced the development of Marxist ideas and examined how concepts such as historical necessity, class conflict, ideological truth, and the revolutionary party could encourage political intolerance. His central warning was that a movement claiming privileged access to historical truth may eventually treat disagreement not as legitimate opinion but as error, reaction, or treason. Once one party claims to represent history or humanity, it can justify controlling the press, courts, universities, civil society, and private life. This helps explain why communist regimes so often produced censorship, one-party rule, political policing, and coercive social transformation. My evaluation is that Kołakowski identified a genuine danger in Marxist political theory: the tendency to subordinate individual freedom and institutional pluralism to an allegedly necessary historical goal. His critique also makes the phrase “that was not real Marxism” inadequate on its own. Kołakowski’s greatest achievement was therefore not proving that “Marxism equals terror.” It was showing why a doctrine promising total liberation can become dangerous when it also claims total knowledge and gives one political organization the authority to impose that promise.

“Who Owned the Word “Socialism”? One of the great distortions of twentieth-century political history is the claim that because Nazis and fascists fought Marxists and communists, they must therefore have been their political opposites — and hence “right-wing.” That conclusion does not follow. Marxists, communists, fascists and National Socialists all described their movements in socialist or collectivist terms, though they understood socialism very differently. The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, while fascism emerged partly from the revolutionary socialist milieu and retained strong anti-liberal, anti-capitalist and collectivist elements. The crucial development was that Marxists and communists increasingly established themselves as the authoritative owners of the word “socialism.” As Marxism became the dominant form of revolutionary socialism, “socialist” increasingly came to mean specifically Marxist, class-based and internationalist socialism. Movements that rejected Marxism could therefore appear to be its political opposite simply because they fought Marxists. But political enemies are not necessarily ideological opposites. Nazis and fascists competed with communists and other socialists for overlapping constituencies — workers, lower-middle-class voters and people alienated by liberal capitalism and parliamentary politics. Their conflict was therefore not simply socialism versus its opposite, but also a struggle between rival forms of post-liberal collectivism. This is where Hayek and Mises matter. Neither claimed that communism, fascism and Nazism were identical. Their argument was that these movements belonged to a broader anti-liberal, collectivist tradition, despite their profound differences and mutual hostility. A socialist movement can fight another socialist movement. Communists and social democrats did precisely that. So the question cannot be settled by asking whom the Nazis and fascists persecuted. It must be settled by examining the principles and political objectives they themselves advocated. “They fought socialists, therefore they were right-wing” is not an argument. It is a conclusion disguised as one” - ChatGPT

Vantaan imaami Sharmarke Said Aw-Mussen kommentti Heikki Vestmannin islamia koskevaan julkaisuun on jälleen laadukasta, Aw-Musselle tuttua kaavaa - islamissa sallittua joustavuutta petoksen suhteen edistääkseen islamin asiaa. Islamilainen pelikirja on aina sama, se noudattaa DARVO:n taktiikoita. DARVO tulee sanoista Deny, Attack and Reverse Victim Order. Ensin kiistetään syytökset, jonka jälkeen syytös peilataan takaisin alkuperäiseen syyttäjään. Syytöksen kohde maalataan uhriksi ja syytösten esittäjä alistajaksi. Niin myös imaami Sharmarke Said Aw-Mussen tuoreimmassa, jossa hän luonehtii Vestmanin kirjoitksen "vastuuttomaksi" ja hänen "motiivinsa" kyseenalaiseksi; pohtii mikä oli motiivi "julkaistu tällainen kirjoitus juuri nyt". Turun ilmapiiri on kuulemma "jo valmiiksi jännittynyt". "Juuri tällaisina aikona" ja vielä Vestamin asemassa Aw-Musse kertoo odottavansa "harkintaa eikä vastakkainasettelua lisääviä yleistyksiä". "Samalla ihmettelen sitä itsevarmuutta, jolla Pj. ryhtyy määrittelemään islamia, shariaa ja islamilaista oikeusoppia, vaikka hänellä ei tietääkseni ole minkäänlaista asiantuntemusta islamilaisesta teologiasta tai oikeustieteestä." Islamin kritisointi tavan kansalaisena kun ei sovi imaamin näkemykseen. Eihän tavantallaaja voi tietää mitä Koraanissa ja haditheissa "oikeasti" sanotaan eikä mitä niillä "oikeasti" tarkoitetaan. Sharmarken mukaan islamilainen oikeusperinne "ei yksiselitteisesti opeta" etteikö muslimi "voisi elää" maallisen lainsäädännön alaisuudessa. Ei opetakaan. Muslimi kyllä "voi elää" mallisen lainsäädännön alaisuudessa. Ne historialliset sopimukset, joihin Sharmarke viittaa, ovat juurikin väliaikaisia maallisia sopimuksia (hudna). Kuten Sharmarke itse sanoo, "islamin historiassa tunnetaan vahvasti sopimusten ja yhteiskunnan järjestyksen kunnioittaminen"... niin pitkään kuin on tarpeen. "Eikä tietääkseni kukaan ole vaatimassa Suomeen erillistä oikeusjärjestelmää." "Tietääkseni" on mielenkiintoinen ilmaisu. Kuten myös "erillistä oikeusjärjestelmää". Islamin opinkappaleet ja sotalordin käskyt ovat selvät: koko maailman on alistuttava Allahin käskyjen alle. Siten ei voida puhua "erillisestä" oikeusjärjestelmästä, vaan "korvaavasta". Shariasta. Tietääkseni imaami Aw-Mussen kyllä ymmärtää tämän. "Juuri siksi olen huolissani keskustelusta, joissa näitä oikeuksia pyritään kaventamaan tai niiden oikeutusta kyseenalaistamaan islamia koskevien uhkakuvien kautta." Aivan kuten hijab-, niqab- ja burkhakeskustelussa, Aw-Musse kääntää uskonnonvapauden inversioksi niin, että kuvaa naisten ja tyttöjen kuolonkankaisiin käärimisen estämisen olevan uskonvapauden vastaista. Samoin kun koulussa paastoamaan pakotettuja lapsia on "vain vähän" ja heidän uskonnonvapauttaan on kunnioitettava niin, ettei heidän paastoamistaan saa estää. "Perustuslakivaliokunnan Pj. jos kenen pitäisi ymmärtää, ettei perustuslakia puolusteta tekemällä kokonaisesta uskonnollisesta perinteestä tai ihmisryhmästä uhkakuvaa." Edelleen, islamin opinkappaleiden ja sen käytännön sovellusten arviointi ei ole yksittäisten muslimien demonisointia. Esimerkiksi ainoastaan islamista inspiroituneiden terroristien, jihadistien, toimien arviointi voidaan leimata "kielteiseksi stereotypioinniksi ja islamofobiaksi". Siten estää keskustelu ainoastaan islamista ja islamisaatiosta puhkeavista ongelmista. "Toivon erityisesti päättäjiltä vastuuullisuutta sanoissaan. Vähemmistöjä demonisoiva, epäluuloa ruokkiva ja vastakkainasettelua syventävä puhe ei vahvista Suomea eikä niitä arvoja, joille yhteiskuntamme rakentuu." Perusoikeuksien näkökulmasta toinen mielenkiintoinen kysymys on islamin järjestelmällinen naisten ja tyttöjen alisteinen asema, joka on lähtökohtaisesti täydellisen ristiriidassa sen suhteen mitä Suomessa ja suomalaisessa yhteiskunnassa on pidetty arvoina. Ylipäätään burkhiin ja niqabeihin pukeutuvia tyttöjä näkyy "vain vähän", kuulemma ketään ei "pakoteta" pukeutumaan kangaskahleeseen ja on osa tytön uskonvapautta kääriytyä kankaaseen. Vaikka kaupungeilla tulee vastaan naisia ja pieniä tyttöjä kaavuissa, kuulemme usein puheita miten "pieniä tyttöjä ei oikeasti käytä islamilaisia kaapuja". Tosin hiljalleen tässäkin on edetty jo kohtaan "pieniä tyttöjä, jotka käyttävät islamilaisia kaapuja, on todellisuudessa niin vähän, ettei asiaan kannata puuttua". Tästä huolestuttavan konkreettisena esimerkkinä toimii Iltalehden Ida Erämaan artikkeli heinäkuulta 2025: "Tervetuloa kouluun, burkha?" joka noudattaa täsmälleen tätä ennaltamäärättyä kaavaa. Ilmiöön puuttuminen kuvataan uskonvapauden rikkomisena ja kaapuihin peitettyjen tyttöjen uskonvapauden viemisenä. Kun islamilaisten hautajaisten kohdalla keväällä 2026 nousi esiin keskustelu miksei miehet ja naiset saata olla edes samalla nurmella, keskustelu kehystettiin "rasistiseksi", "islamofobiseksi" ja "ennakkoluuloiseksi". Kun ramadanin aikaan nousee esiin kuinka lapset pakotetaan paastoamaan, tämän sanotaan "rajoittavan lasten vapautta harjottaa uskontoaan". Ylen studiossa kun keskustelija toi esiin miten islamissa on sallittua vääräuskoiselle valehtelu islamin asian edistämiseksi, toimittaja lopetti keskustelun seinään. "Täällä ei ole islaminuskoista kantaansa puolustamassa". Termillä "islamofobia" ei ole muuta funktiota kuin lakkauttaa keskustelu islamin todellisista ongelmista ja ennaltaehkäistä kaikki kritiikki islamia kohtaan. Vaikka miten perusteltu ja aiheellinen. EU:n valmistelussa oleva "Anti-Muslim hatred" pyrkii laajentamaan tätä määritelmää vielä entisestään. Joten kun imaami Aw-Musse lopussa viittaa Suomen pohjalla virtaaviin arvoihin... ehkä niitä todella on syytä pohtia. Jos uskonnonvapauden nimissä ajetaan poliittisen ja uskonnollisen siiven sisältävää ideologiaa, jonka keskeisenä tarkoituksena on vallitsevan yhteiskuntajärjestelmän korvaaminen toisella, on enemmän kuin perusteltua pohtia kuuluuko sen ajaminen uskonnonvapauteen. Eikä tämä rajoitu vain islamiin, vaan esimerkiksi marxismiin aivan yhtä lailla. Molempien ideologioiden mukaan kun moraali määrittyy sen mukaan mikä edistää vallankaappausta. Siksi niiden epäpyhä liitto toimiikin niin hyvin yhteen. Sillä kun sitä ei ymmärretä, ei osata argumentoida eikä perustella minkä takia islamilainen maailmankuva tai vaikkapa marxistien ja sosialistien ajama maailmankuva ei ole yhteensopiva länsimaisen eetoksen kanssa. #Islam #Uskonnonvapaus #Suomi

Spotify-grundaren Martin Lorentzon har gett sig in i valrörelsen med en debatttext i Expressen. Vad vill han? Inte betala förmögenhetsskatt. Stor chock. Nåväl, texten ger en intressant inblick i hur de superrika tänker. För Lorentzon är hans privata förmögenhet samma sak som produktivt kapital. Dessutom tror han att Sveriges välstånd är beroende av att hans förmögenhet får fortsätta växa. Men inget av det där är ju sant. Om Stockholmsbörsen på måndag värderar Lorentzons aktier dubbelt så högt som i fredags så har hans förmögenhet måhända ökat med 100 miljoner. Men Spotify har inte fått 100 miljoner mer att använda i verksamheten. Det gäller för hela ekonomin. När en aktie stiger i värde på börsen betyder det att människor är beredda att betala mer för att äga en del av företaget. Det betyder inte att motsvarande summa pengar går in i företaget. Ingen nyanställning sker och ingen ny satsning görs bara därför att aktiekursen stiger. Om staten i stället beskattar en miljardär med 100 miljoner kronor betyder det inte heller att svenska företags investeringar minskar med 100 miljoner. Men visst, för ett växande svenskt välstånd behövs företag som bygger ut sin verksamhet. Det gör de när de tror att det finns pengar att tjäna på att producera mer. Då behövs kunder som har råd att konsumera, utbildad arbetskraft, energi, forskning och fungerande infrastruktur. Och hur skapar man ett sådant klimat? Jo, genom offentliga - skattefinansierade! - satsningar på skola, sjukvård, socialförsäkringar, forskningsanslag och vägar. Utan allt detta skulle Lorentzon varken ha några kunder eller anställda. En förmögenhetsskatt är på så sätt inte nödvändigtvis ett hot mot tillväxten utan kan tvärtom bidra till framtida tillväxt. Det märkligaste i texten är ändå hur Lorentzon försöker göra en poäng av att anhängare av förmögenhetsskatt tror att ekonomin är en kaka som varken kan växa eller krympa. Vad är det för trams? Alla vänsteranalyser värda namnet tar fasta på hur kapitalismen expanderar produktionen, höjer produktiviteten och skapar allt större rikedomar. Det är liksom grunden i marxismen. Konflikten handlar om något annat: vem kan göra anspråk på den växande kakan? Ska mer gå till löner eller vinster? Till välfärd eller privata förmögenheter? Ska den som arbetar få en större del av det som produceras eller ska ännu mer gå till den som äger? Det är motsättningen mellan arbete och kapital i sin enklaste form. Lorentzon vill få diskussionen att handla om huruvida Sverige ska bli rikare. Det vill alla. Den politiska konflikten handlar om vem som ska få del av den växande rikedomen och vem som ska ha makten över den. Det är därför vi över huvud taget diskuterar förmögenhetsskatt. #Förmögenhetsskatt #Ekonomi #Politik

Ráj na zemi, který proletariátu sliboval marxismus-leninismus, se nedostavil. Zřízení mělo za cil, aby rostl a sílil ruský stat. To píše autor, ktereho Putin v nepřítomnosti (žije v Londýně), odsoudil coby teroristu a extremistu a knihu zakázal https://t.co/xZ1ZE8RnJI https://t.co/fDaZsx31Kp #Marxismus #Putin #SvobodaSlova #RU #GB