this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
102 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

774 readers
507 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Community: "free of ML influence"

One post:

or "I TOTALLY SUPPORT THE ANARCHISTS DOING TERROR ATTACKS ON THE MARXIST-LENINISTS SAVING US FROM FASCISM!"

Another post:

What a lack of Marxism-Leninism and historical materialism does to a mf. Literal kindergarten level leftism. These are the same people who will argue that it's the Bolsheviks ackchually who made it possible for fascists to win the Spanish civil war by repressing anarchists (no sources provided)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Keld@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The USSR is no longer around and the primary espouser of Taylorism in the USSR was purged in 1939.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Are you seriously arguing that if the USSR had just never dabbled with Taylorism, it would still be around today?

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I have no way of knowing. I am merely telling you your utilitarian argument of justifying something solely by looking at the results is flawed. Given that the outcome was bad.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

justifying something solely by looking at the results

How else are we supposed to justify things?

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Is that a serious question? I don't want to sound condescending if it is. But it's just a very odd question. We are literally discussing a text now that is justifying something without a priori knowledge of the outcome. Or do you mean it in the broader sense of everything is justified solely by arguing for a potential outcome or looking to am achieved outcome? Because that's... i don't know man, like consequentialism is a fine enough philosophy but it's just odd to believe it's the only school of thought.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago

It is, as far as I know, a necessary part of materialist thought. It's why the common refrain of "that wasn't real capitalism" is laughable, because it appeals to some ethereal platonic ideal of capitalism rather than looking at how the system manifests itself in and impacts the real world.