That sounds amazing, haha. I’ve only seen them in nature docs!

I fucking love the pika, they’re just little flower bandits

Hey everyone, it’s time to come discuss Capital again!

Join comrade oscardejarjayes’ 2026 run if you haven’t already!

Cute and brave space doggies!

It is quite a fad with some to claim that the book is an instrument of labour and not a means for developing one’s world outlook. “The book,” these people say, “is for productive work and not for acquisition of knowledge, not for ‘the development of a harmonious world outlook,’ as it was said before. That is what should be our motto.” They say, “We must make the book serve the hammer and sickle.”

These words are sweeping but senseless. What is the meaning of “the book is for productive work and not for acquisition of knowledge”? What in the world can that signify? The book serves precisely to acquire knowledge, which makes work more productive. And further there is the claim that “the book is for productive work and … not for ‘the development of a harmonious world outlook.’” Wrong again. What is a world outlook? It is this or that solution of the fundamental questions that determine our attitude to environment and Nature. Can we leave these fundamental questions unsolved? We cannot, for if we do, we shall not understand anything in life and shall be like blind kittens. What is a “harmonious” world outlook? It is one that is well considered, one that has answers to all the fundamental questions, answers that do not contradict but harmonize with each other, answers that form a sort of a whole. Is it good or bad when a man has considered all the fundamental questions and does not contradict himself? Good, especially when he has solved them correctly. Such a man knows what he must do and why, he is what we call a “class-conscious man.” There is every reason to believe that the work of a class-conscious man will be more productive than that of a man who does not know what is what. Consequently, one should not think that working out a correct world outlook for oneself is something archaic or delinquent. A Communist, at any rate, tries to be a good Marxist, a staunch exponent of the materialistic world outlook. He believes that this will help him to work and act with greater expediency, and, therefore, with greater efficiency.

• The Organization of Self-Education

Nadezhda Krupskaya has some banger quotes.

Absurd.

Nice, happy for you, comrade!

Oh that’ll be funny

This post seems to be targeting other Hexbear users. While I do see new communists tend to try to flex fancy terms on non-communists, most of us do try to simplify a bit. When OP is discussing how capitalists use culture to socially reinforce anti-intellectualism in the public, it’s pretty clear to us what she means, but I doubt OP is going to use that same terminology when talking to someone outside the communist sphere.

You’re not dumb, nor illiterate, just likely unfamiliar.

Thanks, comrade!

You will soon! What goes down comes up!

Sorry

In a weirdly good mood today.

It’s basically solipsism.

If they actually start getting organized, then they can vote as a treat.

A couple dozen, for context. Real coalition of the willing here.

Agreed! It’s a price hike over something like just using an OXO Rapid Brewer or old french press, but it’s absolutely worth it for daily coffee preparation. It’s also just a pleasant morning ritual!

They tried. There’s only so much correctly analyzing can do, there’s always room for failure, and the SPD allying with the state and murdering the communists damaged the KPD greatly.

SPD sided with the state against the communists in Germany, while in Russia most supported overthrowing the provisional government and codifying the soviets. Germany didn’t have the same soviet system or comparable one in place, and lost the power struggle in the Sparticist Uprising.

That’s oversimplifying it though, but the moral is to distrust socdems every time.

@thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net happy cake day buddy!