Recuperation.
- Posts
- 23
- Comments
- 305
- Joined
- 6 yr. ago
- Posts
- 23
- Comments
- 305
- Joined
- 6 yr. ago
The US has an exceptionally good position in terms of geography basically.
Two oceans, tons of very fertile land, enough of it nothernly that it will still be viable with work under the conditions of climate change. That and the country is big enough, and spans enough climates that though parts of it like the southwest and parts of the south will become brutal and deadly in summer, there's still huge amounts of it for the amount of people that live within the borders far north of that in safer areas. Add on no real desertification problems, fairly plentiful water from rivers replenished by snowpacks (yes it's not enough for all the capitalist greed but it's still a lot). And many other factors and I've read (not a climate expert) in multiple places that the US is kind of uniquely well situated to suffer among the least from climate change (more landmass immune to natural disasters brought on by it, lower risk of famine or crop failure sufficient to truly cause mass starvation or want, plentiful fresh water, plentiful fertile top-soil, and fewer climate refugees and more easily controlled thanks to only the southern Mexican border being relevant).
China by contrast even without climate change has large amounts of desert, not as much high quality fertile soil areas with water access compared to the amount in the US (they're a big importer of food from the US while the US is a huge food exporter to China and many other places). They're in a latitude that's closer to the equator and so more vulnerable to extreme heat in summers through most of their land. Add on the fact that large parts of China given their location are more vulnerable to high humidity and the danger of regions there hitting wet bulb temperature is higher than in most of the US outside of Louisiana and the rest of the immediate gulf area plus Florida. They're combating desertification but it is still something they have to contend with, that is a large amount of their land is part of or borders a desert, the regions that don't which are more amenable to growing are more concentrated by the sea so more vulnerable to extreme storms, typhoons, flooding events, and the aforementioned wet bulb.
The west will in the near term likely descend into barbarism, open reaction, what fascism was in the 20th century Europe. (That or it'll pull off some sort of miraculous crushing of the global south and buying capitalism breathing room for another 40 years)
So I think we could see a revolution the next 20 years, I just don't think it'll be a socialist one.
I also don't discount the real possibility that the bourgeoisie in the west try to take their ball and go home, try and do dark enlightenment, neo-feudalism, and just build a high fence around it. What that actually ends up looking like in practice I wouldn't know but I think it's truly possible they find a way to keep the situation miserable but stable for another hundred years with the current power structure mostly the same. Climate change is certainly set to come in on the side of the US. Technology like AI and more specifically robotics dangles the promise of automation that's good enough to serve as a control mechanism on the population, total information control, total surveillance, etc from which the ultimate breaking free would likely only come about from the decay of such systems out of neglect and greed.
I certainly HOPE there is a revolution, a Marxist one in the global north in the next 60 years. I'd like to see that before I die, I'd like for it to come sooner than that as in 60 years I have a pretty good chance of being dead of natural causes.
But we must remember how hard it is to predict history. Asked 100 years ago socialists in our place would have said Germany or Britain, etc would probably experience a revolution in their lifetime and they were wrong. Lenin thought he'd never live to see the revolution and he was wrong about that. We must however take from the past century how adaptable capitalism is. They have our playbook, they have experience correcting for, adjusting to many of their problems that give rise to revolutionary potential and they have a century of anti-communism propaganda messaging as well as 30 years of end of history messaging.
It seems unknowable, too many variables. It really hinges on can China become a communist super-power, avoid being crushed by the west, avoid being nuked by the west, avoid being strangled and can it exert power including trade and friendship better than the west can extend neo-colonialism, color revolutions, fomented extremism and terrorism/separatism to the rest of the world? If it can, if the west's grasp on the rest of the world slips then short of the west deciding to use nuclear weapons and destroy human civilization then sooner or later I think we'll have won. I think we'll know the results of this within 10 years by 2035 we'll see the fruits of the west's plans or China's plans.
The west is trying delaying actions because climate change is coming in on their side so that's a big unknown, that could really hit China hard regardless of all their efforts and become a real drain while the US is almost certain to weather that new reality among the best of all nations.
Counterpoint: As the victor of the Ukraine conflict Russia can afford to be magnanimous towards its defeated enemies. Some leadership in Russia may even foolishly believe they've already survived the worst the west can throw at them so they can re-integrate from a position of strength. I think there are very strong ties between Russia and China but I also think the nature of Russia as a capitalist nation that desires to integrate with and ultimately influence to its benefit (and profit) the capitalist EU should not be overlooked.
They are anti-imperialists by circumstances alone. If Putin died next week (quite possible, he's not that young) there could be power struggles that could lead to a faction that favors this gaining power. If the US is willing to throw EU under the bus, if the US pushes through reactionary parties winning across the board in the EU, parties friendly to Russia who say turn on the Russian gas again, who come to Russia offering deals and money, and opportunities for profit, and who allow Russian influence penetration, I wouldn't be so sure.
Never say never. After all within living memory of those who currently rule were people who sold out the USSR, sold out a flawed but more equitable state for Pizza Hut, Coco-Cola, etc and the siren song of the west.
I don't think Russia will have a Sino-Soviet split moment where they turn antagonistic towards China but I think if the US plays its cards right, if things align, and if the Russian leadership are greedy as well as realpolitik embracers who don't want to be the junior partner in a BRICS relationship instead of the "big man of Europe" in a partnership with the west that Russia might be swayed into a more west friendly position as the west antagonizes China. Not directly aiding the assault of the west but not aiding China, slinking away when the time comes for China to count its friends in a vote at the UN. That type of thing.
Never trust capitalists who were after all foolish enough to allow all that has happened to happen. They were fooled for many years by the west and though they may have learned on matters of their border security and NATO encroachment not to take suspicious vague promises from the west but only solid agreements. Doesn't mean they can't be fooled on other things when profit, the greed of their eyes would have them believe otherwise and point to say some change in their power over Europe as evidence that a Ukraine situation will never happen again and that they can profit from the west and act "neutral" towards China. Neutral in secretly selling the west advanced military tech (not production, knowledge) for example.
They waited a month. They gave a month grace period and kept it working. It expired on the 12th of January.
I have to agree. There will come a point where the US navy will do something like throw up a blockade and just steal any Chinese ships that attempt to approach Africa to buy raw minerals and China can either try and construct the most elaborate smuggling scheme in the world or they have to confront NATO with force, maybe sink some ships, maybe just escort their own and start providing military assistance to friendly African or other states who risk being couped or attacked by western forces. It'll likely be very low confrontation and framed as defensive and limited in nature to start as I don't see China wanting to war with the west even if the west takes off both gauntlets and slaps them repeatedly across the face. It then becomes a question of whether Chinese assistance can overcome centuries of western expertise and experience couping, dividing and conquering, creating proxy forces, sectarian strife fostering, blackmail, and destabilizing regions for profit and imperialism. It tends to be easier to destroy than to build so it's going to be rough.
Why are you spamming this as a reply to everyone in the thread?
Encouraging dating and misogynistic slurs for women in one? Oh baby, it's a wonder the DSA is so male. Everyone knows ladies all love both creeps and misogyny. /s
Following up some comments given it's been said I'm pessimistic.
I tend to see it as realism checking run-away revolutionary optimism which I think is necessary as if you keep telling yourself you'll get a pony year after year and year after year it doesn't happen you risk losing any hope at all and just checking out of that idea entirely which is something that does happen. I live in the imperial core. I'd love to see the revolution, I'd love to see it next year but I have to be realistic and hope I can temper the expectations and thinking of comrades to see the world not as they wish it to be steadily rushing towards revolution but a more complex situation. The hope burns eternal in us but we have a duty to our comrades to while being rosy also be pragmatic and honest about the world in our analysis and not get too far ahead of ourselves in rosy predictions, to temper them with not so rosy possibilities and keep an open mind about how things are unfolding and what it means.
Also in getting back to the original post there is media through the years that's less fascist and openly reactionary. Take Star Trek up through The Next Generation (I'd start there in fact, 60s show is weird about women and a few other things) at least which can be read as a hopeful post scarcity communist civilization. Even things like DS9 and Voyager aren't totally bad though they started the shows decline into capitalist realism with the gambling and fiat currency being commonly used. Lower Decks (despite having some love letters to stuff I consider capitalist degeneration series after the 90s) is fairly upbeat and watchable. They even had an episode fighting some capitalists on a new post-scarcity planet (though it was of course liberal coded with the resolution). Things like Andor despite being on the surface Star Wars slop have a solid story of resistance against a strong, reactionary empire. There are many movies that can be read positively as well even if many of them are engaging in recouperation.
I think the point is not to consume it uncritically. To avoid the worst of it that’s just pure cop apologia or fascist love letters type of thing.
And to not of course become too enamored with it to the point of not understanding it’s function as propaganda and the need to enjoy more than just that in life.
Fact is there is not going to be a cultural revolution in the west anytime soon. Acting like this person acts is a prescription for despair and being seen as weird by the masses for most people. Part of me of course says good on her and people like her might be of great use in an eventual revolutionary situation and might be leadership material. But right now there is a need to engage with the masses where they are and being able to shoot the shit about a few popular shows isn’t a bad thing.
It’s IMO much more useful to be able to talk to your average person about specific problems that are big propaganda in a given show than just go around screaming how it’s all bourgeois propaganda. One presents an in for class awareness education. The other makes people roll their eyes.
The revolutionary moment is I’m sorry to say probably decades away in the imperial core. Most people would burn out after years or decades of this.
They’re part of a western backed color revolution.
There are rumors about lemmygrad as well,
Rumors from the people who were on a website that was an op? That doesn't seem credible. Anyways there's always that risk. If you live in the west and post here you shouldn't post anything that breaks the law under the assumption the admins are literally CIA agents and actively hostile. Now there's no evidence of this. Dessalines has a long history of being an ML with correct lines on the anti-imperialist struggle on reddit for years before they developed Lemmy and launched this website.
Frankly though there will always be an air of distrust given the history of infiltration and subversion in the west. However, the fact that Dessalines has not tried to ever push reactionary social thought or imperialist positions, the fact they don't instigate struggle sessions and try and split people up or cause strife and in-fighting are all strong indicators that those who run this website are likely not feds or anti-communist activists (like feds but not paid and no badge or security clearance). That doesn't mean this website isn't under surveillance.
The surest way to out glowies is they serve the interests of empire. They were usually find it acceptable to push anti-capitalist positions so long as they also can push at least some pro-empire positions. Things that appeal to liberals, things like the Hong Kong color revolution or Ukraine which they can try and approach from a faux left position of claiming Russia is imperialist. They can bend on things like Gaza where it's just not possible to do otherwise as even liberals would shame them. If someone consistently takes a correct anti-imperialist line 100% of the time and takes an anti-capitalist line 100% of the time and understands the US is the main issue and espouses this then they are working against the US 100% and the only way to be of utility as an asset in that situation is to engineer splits via struggles over some minor point that they enlarge into a raging flame-war intentionally. Such a person would not seek peace or issue a line and put the discussion off limits but attempt to keep it raging.
Strongly agree with most of what you're saying.
A country must have enough nukes to ensure decently proportional retaliation. If the USA can kill 1 million Chinese, China should be able to immediately do the same ad infinitum. Otherwise, the calculus breaks down in one side’s favor. Let’s assume a nuclear exchange between China and the USA based on Wikipedia’s stockpile numbers for each.
The calculus for China is even more complex. They need the ability not just to take x lives for x lives. They need the ability to suppress US and NATO capabilities globally. It's not enough to suppress the US mainland when the US stations nukes and has military forces, bases, reserves, pawns all over western Europe, as well as smaller bases in the middle east in places like Jordan, as well as places in Asia itself like Japan, occupied Korea, etc, etc. Nukes could come from anywhere including a pawn which the US disavows.
China needs a nuclear capability that is enough they can wipe out the US in a tit for tat mainland attack but also have enough that if they start with attacking US assets outside the US, they'll have enough after finishing that to still finish the US and the UK. I'd say 1500 bare minimum. Luckily they are on their way to 1000 though it will take time, time in which they're under greater threat.
They must also consider interceptor tech or the math that not all warheads will reach their destination if this is in response to a first strike by the US who is now waiting fully prepared to mitigate as much as possible (to say nothing of the possibility of the US actually managing to take out a chunk of their warhead stock in the first strike). So you need to allocate at least 10-20% more warheads than you think you need, maybe as high as 30%. Having reserves never hurts. Of course this is alleviated somewhat by putting such warheads on hypersonic missiles/delivery systems but I don't think the Chinese have entirely switched their nuclear arsenal over to those yet as they are still kind of a beta product and may not be considered ready for that duty. But even those there's still the chance the US could launch counter-nukes into the atmosphere in the path of incoming weapons to destroy them and a hypersonic missile if caught close enough would be destroyed just the same as a regular one (though I admit given the plasma around them they probably have an advantage in being able to be closer to such a blast and continue than normal missiles).
And I've mentioned this before they need enough to hit all these places plus New Zealand. Why NZ? Because it's where all the big western bourgeoisie have their bunkers and will likely flee and they need to know they'll die because China will drop 3 nukes one on top of the other on them and bury them alive in their now tombs.
It doesn't matter.
It is a FACT that Iran has murdered many communists, especially in the aftermath of the successful Islamic revolution when they were solidifying power but also afterwards I'm sure.
It is a fact that Iran is run by reactionary socially backwards forces.
And it is a fact that it is never-the-less an important part of the international anti-imperialist bloc.
It is a fact that there is no near term hopes for a communist revolution in Iran, that if the current regime were to be overthrown that it would be by pro-US, pro-west compradors who'd sell out the people, sell out the region, and do their utmost to help the west destroy BRICS and the new emerging multipolarity. Thus that the best we can hope for is continued weakening of the US, of the zionist settler outpost occupying Palestine, and continuing growth of the power of China and Russia and that as that progresses there might be space for weakening of the grip reactionaries have on Iran over time.
There's no particular reason to mourn the dead president of Iran. He was no progressive force and from what I've read was from the more conservative elements of the government. Neither is there reason to celebrate his death, which has not materially changed anything important. It won't lead to better women's rights or gay rights or tolerance of communists in Iran. He was but one part of a larger and entrenched state.
A lot to say without much actual proof. Those things COULD be used to persecute the LGBTQ+ community but that doesn't mean they are. As could many things, a country could selectively enforce all kinds of much more neutral sounding laws exclusively on gay people as a means of persecution.
I'm sorry but without any proof I'm not ready to go throwing them out and cede to liberals and reactionary anti-communist rainbow-washing forces that they are actually indeed so. There's so much misinformation about the DPRK it's not even funny.
If being gay is considered a decadent act by the government
That one IF is doing a huge amount of lifting, your argument falls apart when you take it out.
which it likely is,
Proof, we need proof, not "I feel like it is". And yes all countries have persons in them, including those attached to the party who hold backwards views on a variety of things.
In particular I'll note Eastern notions of frowning on something are not the same as western active persecution. There are also issues of things lost in translation. China doesn't criminalize being gay but they very much crack down on LGBTQ-CIA organizations (we need a Buttigieg rat emoji) that advance a western, liberal slant.
I make no claims they are some bastion of rights for queer people as they're likely not given their history and material circumstances but I think this whole post is making a mountain out of a molehill of evidence. You can't just leap from one conclusion to another more severe one.
At the end of the day cfgaussian's take is mine but I think OP jumped the shark with a sweeping and unsupported by evidence alarmist proclamation.
Simply say the magic words in the right order "please president Xi, help us rebuild our bridge" and later of course "Biden don't, but Xi do" and presto after the immigration permits are issued you'll have a new even better bridge in 6 months, they'll even throw in a rail crossing for only a little more and no extra time. And be sure to ask about excellent deals on Chinese state rail company rolling stock while you're at it.
It gets a bit tiresome going over this so many times so excuse the short answer.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Russia https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Imperialism
https://mronline.org/2019/01/02/is-russia-imperialist/
The short of it is, no. Russia is NOT imperialist. It does not fit Lenin's criteria.
It tried to join the imperialist bloc of western NATO nations after the fall of the USSR several times but was rebuffed and rejected bluntly. It then tried coexistence, integration and as we can see that has all fallen apart.
Throughout the post-soviet period Russia has maintained friendship with nations of the global south including China, Cuba, Venezuela, and other members of the group of resisting nations to western hegemony and imperialism including Iran.
Russia acts as a counter-weight to western imperialism. It is by action anti-imperialist. This was not its choice but the consequence of historical realities and choices made by the west as well as its own choices.
Russia is in fact a victim of the ruling imperialist bloc's violence and attempts to destroy it and subjugate it's peoples.
Russian capitalists have no choice but to be part of this alliance against imperialism. It's either that or be destroyed and made either very junior partners with a tiny share of the plunder or liquidated entirely as a class by the western bourgeoisie in favor of their nation being split up and ruled by various comprador types.
A thread from Genzhou (archived) on this: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/232591
Nah, I think Cornel West is genuine.
A genuine preacher hawking radicalism but actually selling fascism. A snake oil salesman. A fraud and a con who goes around calling everyone brother this, sister that like we can't see through his act, his transparent, dishonest attempt at disarming with his benevolent preacher act. A guy reliving the US 60s civil right movement perpetually, perpetually deluded into thinking that peaceful protest changes anything and hating on the USSR which along with militant radicals who refused to renounce violence like Malcolm X were the real reason for the civil rights movement partially succeeding.
Liberal academics are class enemies.
Title is questionable. Article itself is fairly informative.
Definitely some so bad its good things to it. The director was a notorious Hollywood reactionary who was competent at making films at least. It's not a great film, it's clearly a propaganda screed and kind of laughable these days.
If you're looking for other bad reactionary anti-communist films I'd suggest "If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horses Do?" if you can find a copy which was a kind of church/preacher-made fearmongering film about the threat of communism and a hypothetical scenario of what if they won in the US. It has this delightful scene where a communist commissar supposedly trying to indoctrinate a bunch of children prays to Fidel and "glorious Fidel" brings the children "all the candy they can eat" which consists of a guy walking in through a door and bringing a sack of candy the guy proceeds to throw at the children, telling them it is a miracle, not of "your Jesus Christ" but of Fidel Castro. This is a truly bad film unlike Red Dawn, Red Dawn tries and has correct communist iconography whereas the hammer and sickles in Footmen are badly done and everything is cheap.