GenZedong

4048 readers

380 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.

Rules:

No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES anarchism, Gonzaloism, etc.)
We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

The Economist calls Julius Malema 'the most dangerous man in South Africa' because he is for nationalization. (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/02/15/is-julius-malema-the-most-dangerous-man-in-south-africa

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

Nationalisation might be one of their few good proposed policies along with land reform.

And that’s all that is needed. A complete reformation of the relations of production will have a profound effect in elevating the productive forces.

Your critique on the manifesto seems lazy because most bourgeois democracies and their parties over-inflate and exaggerate in their manifestoes. Doesn’t say much about their class character.

Many things can happen when a large mass movement built on consensus is in charge.

I am not saying the EFF is one either, but the critique you bring forward doesn’t showcase your points well.

Bringing back military conscription? For what?

It is answered in the quote you mentioned.

offering life skills and discipline.

Teaching the masses life skills is GOOD.

Military conscription (which in the cited quote doesn’t necessarily imply “conscription”) is not only about invading other countries or protecting sovereignty. That’s colonizer talk.

The army can help with a lot of people’s projects, mobilizing resources for the betterment of the country. Furthermore, most places that have conscription also have options to participate in other governmental bodies, like firefighting. It is not strictly just into the army.

Furthermore, all AES countries have mandatory military conscription.

The countries that do not have military conscription are often those tainted with liberal individualism, prioritising the rights of the “individual” rather than the service to the community especially wrt to Global South countries.

many of which have very little to do with Marxism.

May I get specific examples of which policies “are not relevant” to Marxism? And I want something that is unequivocally and undeniably for the empowerment of the comprador classes and Capital.