Egregoros

@sun @nyx @winterklaus

Yeah the context is very specific and important, one must keep in mind during the 2nd international up until 1917 all of the marxists were 'social democrats' -- the Bolshevicks were part of the All Russian Social Democratic Party -- and the SPD was truly a mass party that included the majority of the german voting population, WWI comes around the SPD support the war by and large, being bootlicking Germans. When the War is lost the leftwing of the party breaks off, start the German Communist Party, who are then crushed by the Friekorps and betrayed by the SPD establishment. Lenin was talking about the german Komunistes in *Left wing Socialism: a an infantile disorder* for basically jumping the gun trying to go full revolution when the conditions were yet ripe.

So Wiemar is established as an truce between the right of the SPD and the conservatives, and the Stalinist/Comintern line about "social fascism" that's a reference to this state of affairs, that the Social Democrats were at best reformists and liberals at worst. In the late 20's there were calls for a united front between Social Democrats and Komunists against nazis which the Comintern opposed using that "Social Fascist" line.

In retrospect this was clearly, obviously, the wrong line lmao, but interesting to note that the Comintern took the exact opposite line in reference to Spain 36' where they called for a united front with petite bourgeois liberals and denounced the ultras and anarchists for being wreckers. Also the wrong line in retrospect.

What I take from that is that there is no such thing as a trans-historical correct position, sometimes you gotta ally yourself with socdems, other times not so much. You gotta do the whole 'concrete analysis of concrete conditions' and not just repeat cliches by rote, as Lenin was always saying.

@nyx @sun @winterklaus

but to better characterize Democratic Socialism, the terms Lenin or Luxemberg would use would be opportunist ( a class collaboration between the workers, and progressive elements of the bourgeoisie ) reformist in that it seeks fundamentally to tweek the capitalist state, rather than overthrow it, and revisionist in that it proposes a kind of gradual progression towards socialism, completely ignoring the historic necessity of the workers to expropriate the expropriators. They also kind of soft-imperialists / national chauvenists generally, their anti-imperialism is basically just isolationism in most cases, they don't really advocate international revolution, or any revolution, it's a substitute for revolution.

EOF

@georgia @scathach

also sex for 'a higher purpose' wtf, like yes procreation is a consequence of hetero sex, but there's actually no way of knowing if a single act of intercourse will lead to pregnancy because there's various factors at play like a women's cycle or sperm count... so like even couples who are explicitly trying to make a baby may try for weeks or months, the idea that people specifically arange a sexual encounter for the sole purpose of breeding is just silly, people fuck because it's pleasurable to do so and reproduction is a consequence of that.