Post(s) tagged with "revolution"

M

Ya no basta con rezar [Enough Praying] (Aldo Francia - 1972)

Source: mutualassureddistraction

Ya no basta con rezar [Enough Praying] (Aldo Francia - 1972)

Ya no basta con rezar [Enough Praying] (Aldo Francia - 1972)

Source: mutualassureddistraction

La Commune (Paris, 1871)

Source: mutualassureddistraction

La Commune (Paris, 1871)

La Commune (Paris, 1871)

Source: mutualassureddistraction

La dignidad de los nadies [The Dignity of the Nobodies] (Pino Solanas - 2005)

Source: mutualassureddistraction

LNDLL

LNDLL

Source: mutualassureddistraction

recriweb:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

Trotsky’s train
Trotsky’s train was set up in the night from 7 to August 8, 1918 in Moscow by the Moscow-Kazan railway. Initially it was called the People’s Commissar train, and after the appointment of Trotsky to the presidency created by the Revolutionary Military Council in September, it was called the train of the President of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic.
This train, as evidenced by documents, consisted of 12 wagons, while always traveling from east to west and from south to north, with 232 people, including 30 of the Latvian Soviet infantry regiment, seven of armored car crew, eighteen soldiers of the fighting marine detachment, nine troopers, twenty-one in the machine-gun squad, seven telephone operators, four of the telegraph Narkomputsoobsch, six representatives of Vikzhedora, five representatives of Okrvoenkom, a man of Glavnachsnabzh, three Rights of Voenzakonsoveta, Moscow depot brigade of twenty-four, ten drivers, five cyclists, five motorcyclists, thirty-seven agitators (naturally, all with weapons), eight signalmen OPERODa, seven employees in the dining car, a commandant, six medical staff, ten in saloon car number 431, five in the saloon car number 432.
Thanks to Grover Furr for the link.

Trotsky’s train

recriweb:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

Trotsky’s train

Trotsky’s train was set up in the night from 7 to August 8, 1918 in Moscow by the Moscow-Kazan railway. Initially it was called the People’s Commissar train, and after the appointment of Trotsky to the presidency created by the Revolutionary Military Council in September, it was called the train of the President of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic.

This train, as evidenced by documents, consisted of 12 wagons, while always traveling from east to west and from south to north, with 232 people, including 30 of the Latvian Soviet infantry regiment, seven of armored car crew, eighteen soldiers of the fighting marine detachment, nine troopers, twenty-one in the machine-gun squad, seven telephone operators, four of the telegraph Narkomputsoobsch, six representatives of Vikzhedora, five representatives of Okrvoenkom, a man of Glavnachsnabzh, three Rights of Voenzakonsoveta, Moscow depot brigade of twenty-four, ten drivers, five cyclists, five motorcyclists, thirty-seven agitators (naturally, all with weapons), eight signalmen OPERODa, seven employees in the dining car, a commandant, six medical staff, ten in saloon car number 431, five in the saloon car number 432.

Thanks to Grover Furr for the link.

Trotsky’s train

Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism

anarchistdiary:

The bestiality of imperialism, a bestiality that knows no limits, that has no national frontiers. The bestiality of Hitlers armies, is like the North American bestiality, like that of the Belgian paratroopers and that of the French imperialists in Algeria. For it is the very essence of imperialism to turn men into wild, blood thirsty animals determined to slaughter, kill, murder and destroy the very last vestige of the image of the revolutionary or the partisan in any regime, that they crush under their boots because it fights for freedom. The statue of Lumumba destroyed today but rebuilt tomorrow, remind us of the tragic story of this martyr of the world revolution and make sure that we never trust imperialism in no way at all. 

revolutionarydecadence:

Slavoj Zizek vs. David Horowitz on Julian Assange’s The World Tomorrow.

hurtador:

nlakesh:

imagino a mi abuela tirando la piedra y gritando “HIJO DE LA GRAN PUTA”

La revolución no va en la edad!

hurtador:

nlakesh:

imagino a mi abuela tirando la piedra y gritando “HIJO DE LA GRAN PUTA”

La revolución no va en la edad!

Source: randomweas

Source: amerikkkan-stories

When Mao mockingly refers to “synthesizing” as the destruction of the enemy or his subordination, his mistake resides in this very mocking attitude - he doesn’t see that this IS the true Hegelian synthesis… that is to say, what is the Hegelian “negation of negation”? First, the old order is negated within its own ideologico-political form; then, this form itself has to be negated. Those who oscillate, those who afraid to make the second step of overcoming this form itself, are those who (to repeat Robespierre) want a “revolution without revolution” - and Lenin displays all the strength of his “hermeneutics of suspicion” in discerning the different forms of this retreat. The true victory (the true “negation of negation”) occurs when the enemy talks your language. In this sense, a true victory is a victory in defeat: it occurs when one’s specific message is accepted as a universal ground, even by the enemy. (Say, in the case of rational science versus belief, the true victory of science takes place when the church starts to defend itself in the language of science.) Or, in contemporary politics of the United Kingdom, as many a perspicuous commentator observed, the Thatcher revolution was in itself chaotic, impulsive, marked by unpredictable contingencies, and it was only the “Third Way” Blairite government who was able to institutionalize it, to stabilize it into new institutional forms, or, to put it in Hegelese, to raise (what first appeared as) a contingency, a historical accident, into necessity. In this sense, Blair repeated Thatcherism, elevating it into a concept, in the same way that, for Hegel, Augustus repeated Caesar, transforming-sublating a (contingent) personal name into a concept, a title. Thatcher was not a Thatcherite, she was just herself - it was only Blair (more than John Major) who truly formed Thatcherism as a notion. The dialectical irony of history is that only a (nominal) ideologico-political enemy can do this to you, can elevate you into a concept - the empirical instigator has to be knocked off (Julius Caesar had to be murdered, Thatcher had to be ignominously deposed).

- Žižek’s “Mao Zedong: the Marxist Lord of Misrule”  (via marxandsparks)

vivabertaga:

adailyriot:

wondercalmer:

adailyriot:

“If you throw one stone, it’s a punishable offense. If 1,000 stones are thrown, it’s political action. If you set a car on fire, it’s a punishable offense. If hundreds of cars are set on fire, it’s a political action. Protest is when I say I don’t agree with something. Resistance is when I ensure that things with which I disagree no longer take place.“ 

thischarmingman1981:


The price that some on the Left pay for ignoring this “complication” of class struggle is, among other things, an all-too-easy and uncritical acceptance of anti-american and anti-western Muslim groups as representing “progressive” forms of struggle, as automatic allies: groups like Hamas and Hezbollah all of a sudden appear as revolutionary agents, even though their idiology is explicitly anti-modern, rejecting the entire egalitarian legacy of the French revolution. (Things have gone so far here that some of the contemporary Left consider even an emphasis on atheism as a Western colonialist plot.) Against this temptation, we should insist on the unconditional right to conduct a public critical analysis of all religions, Islam included, and the saddest thing is that one should even have to mention this. While many leftist would concede this point, he or she would be quick to add that any such critique must be carried out in a respectful way, in order to avoid a patronizing cultural imperialism, wich de facto means that every real critique is to be abandoned, since a genuine critique of religion will by definition be “disrespectful” of the latter’s sacred character and truth claims.


Slavoj Zizek

thischarmingman1981:

The price that some on the Left pay for ignoring this “complication” of class struggle is, among other things, an all-too-easy and uncritical acceptance of anti-american and anti-western Muslim groups as representing “progressive” forms of struggle, as automatic allies: groups like Hamas and Hezbollah all of a sudden appear as revolutionary agents, even though their idiology is explicitly anti-modern, rejecting the entire egalitarian legacy of the French revolution. (Things have gone so far here that some of the contemporary Left consider even an emphasis on atheism as a Western colonialist plot.) Against this temptation, we should insist on the unconditional right to conduct a public critical analysis of all religions, Islam included, and the saddest thing is that one should even have to mention this. While many leftist would concede this point, he or she would be quick to add that any such critique must be carried out in a respectful way, in order to avoid a patronizing cultural imperialism, wich de facto means that every real critique is to be abandoned, since a genuine critique of religion will by definition be “disrespectful” of the latter’s sacred character and truth claims.

Slavoj Zizek


Loading more posts

I cannot give a definition about myself. I'm a changing phenomenon like you.

I cannot give a definition about myself. I'm a changing phenomenon like you. 


Ask me anything Submit

Ask

Members

Following