CountryBreakfast @ CountryBreakfast @lemmygrad.ml

Anti-colonial Marxism is as good as a country breakfast.

---

Read more

Posts

10

Comments

105

Joined

3 yr. ago

Living your best life.

Honestly I didn't know that

Yeah he is basically a debatebro pedant and policy nerd that is completely discourse poisoned. Now days his gang will call everyone privileged for disagreeing with Democrats. The few times I have had to see his take on something in the last few months I always think about how Blue Maga is truly going to ruin whatever future we have left. Idk maybe he would like Maga communists because at least he will get to keep his precious colonial empire with them.

His hair is worse now too. I know that is a subjective and superficial observation, but I just know he did it to strengthen his brand and I find that to be embarrassing.

Or you could rot in prison instead.

That isnt clear either. I wonder if some people are just routinely negative about major releases? I usually don't have wide expectations and get into games for niche reasons, for settlement and ship building in this case. I'm not really invested in what the more negative gamers have to say because it doesn't have much to do with why I want to play the game. Also I feel like too many are just outrage poisoned so their opinion is just guaranteed to be ridiculous.

I dont think gamers know what they want.

social media

The song is racist and so are you. Populism is corporate you fucking idiot.

they’re pretty flexible on the methods part just because it’s nice to do anything for a change

Yes but it is not just new people it is also seasoned organizers. In my union, for example, which is full of anarchist types, I think it is problematic that when difficulties arise, we are effectively led into just blowing off anxiety and frustration instead of thinking through how our adversaries are challenging us. Action is prioritized over strategy and even though leadership always says they just follow what union members want, it is always the loudest (and most anxious) people calling the shots while everyone else just tries to maintain solidarity and goes along with it. Maybe I am just too cynical tho idk.

I think an example of what is being addressed is found in occupy wall street. The movement had presented itself as self-led, or leaderless, yet it had de facto leaders, particularly David Graeber. In name it was pure democracy but in form it was a shadow leadership choosing its direction. The vanguard approach may or may not be beyond reproach, but it attempts to admit the natural reality of a vanguard which seems to arise regardless. Some people are skilled, persuasive, knowledgeable, and have the time to perform tasks for an organization and these people will either be recognized and put in leadership roles, or will find themselves there haphazardly and further, they may be rejected due to anti-authoritarian dogmatism. The trick is, of course, maintaining a continuity with the people the group is serving, not necessarily determining how decisions are or aren't made.

In my own experience with self-proclaimed anarchists, for example in a small-time prisoner advocacy group, the same problem arises. No one can take responsibility for certain tasks because of a risk for creating a chain of command and thus my partner and I were blocked from taking on roles because roles were seen as problematic by the rest of the group. Of course, the group failed, and I left.

I find that this is partially the result of anarchism as it is usually known and practiced in my community but also, and perhaps more importantly, it is a result of reaction to neoliberalism. Our age of neoliberalism has led to an increase of powerlessness and blatantly corrupt liberal "democracy." People want to combat this by feeling as though everyone has a say and everyone has power. It is the ultimate legitimacy to claim as much. This is achieved, at times, by rejecting anything that even seems "top down." In effect, the organization strategy is usurped by dogma for the purposes of what you might call "owning the authoritarians" in what might be a kind of ideological virtue signaling. I don't usually like the term "populism" but when merely harnessing reactions to neoliberalism, "populism" is usually the result, not democracy, and not socialism.

I will also add that IMO, the most interesting and effective "anarchist" or anti-authoritarian strategies are most effective for survival - expropriation attempts, food sovereignty, squatting on abandoned land etc., but not as effective at consequentially shifting power.

We need to learn how to survive in the society of states that are dominated by capitalist relations and disciplined by markets controlled by colonial powers, but we must also figure out how to address these power structures. IMO ML actually steps up to the plate in this regard by seeking to usurp the state and rediscipline it towards the people. I don't think it's ideal because no solution can be perfect and certainly states (especially peripheral and semi peripheral states under the yoke of imperialism) are subjected to many pitfalls which can potentially erode continuity between the state and the people, or can fall into liberal fallacies, or outside meddling influences, but still, we must do more than reject authoritarianism (TM) to address the problem of the society of states.

One racist joke.

I agree that unfortunately fascists will likely take state power (if they havent already)

I like the idea that we could control small territories in some way during the chaos. It could be that coalition between socialists and the Tribes could be dangerous to the state in combination with pressure from an international coalition but the only way the US runs out of oil is if someone is insane enough to set the Permian basin on fire along with all the refineries along the gulf. The US is a petrol superpower that basically competes with OPEC+ by itself. Thanks Obama.

Its just my opinion, but it's a hard no from me. Even if the US declines nominally on certain fronts, it is not necessarily declining relative to its peers. So it's it's influence is not really declining noticeably enough to signal qualitative change.

Yes there are plenty of things to be optimistic about, such as dedollarization and seeming to fail in Ukraine, but this will not be a fast enough process to blindside it. The US has time to adapt and disrupt the coalitions that are necessary to push forward and there is still time for mistakes on the part of coalition builders, or antagonistic contradictions developing among them.

Basically, even as the US becomes more and more vulnerable, everyone else is still vulnerable as well.

Also, the US has other weapons such as it's propaganda machine and imo it's never been more dangerous than it is right now. It doesn't need to be persuasive either, only disruptive.

Most importantly, very few people in the US seem to actually want it to fall. This important because even if the US seriously stumbles, it is more likley that Americans generally will seek to recover it's footing instead delivering the killing blow and moving forward in a decolonial and anti-imperialist direction.

At the same time, however, I feel like most of the security the US enjoys is something that could collapes relatively quickly. I just think I would be too optimistic to believe this must happen anytime soon instead of under other circumstances such as a highly developed alternative international coalition and an organized front at home. The BRICS still have work to do imo, but indeed the ball is rolling, just gotta pick up the pace.

Yeah it also comes up during election cycles in the US. If you say you don't want to vote Democrat, you might hear someone say that you shouldn't focus on purity and vote pragmatically(TM).

Of course they are either unable to understand that there are different politcal aims at play, or they are trying to extort you.

When the "Republican friend" tries to suggest a moderate or alternative dem for "pragmatic purposes" it's often taken in bad faith. RFK Jr is a decent example of this today, a lot of Dems hate him because he sucks and is an obvious grifter. But if a communist or some other 'lefty' doesn't want to vote for Democrats, they are selling everyone out to Trump because of a dangerous lack of pragmatism.

The main problem that I see is that a lot of people on the left are rejecting effective methods for building a movement that have been proven in the past as being authoritarian.

Occupy Wall Street comes to mind. It's like a natural demobilizing ideaolgy that grows in reaction to neoliberalism. People get focused on grassroots and bottom up approaches, which makes sense and is necessary. But then they get taken over by astroturfing because their leadership is basically unofficial and nothing more than a friend group that got their first. I'm looking at you David Graeber (RIP). And now the whole "99% vs 1%" rhetoric is all but entirely used by the right wing.

Its a huge book for me and after reading it I felt like I actually knew something and had a foundation to learn more. The sheer amount of sources and citations makes it possible to really expand your knowledge on these topics in ways many westerners simply won't.

Supply creates it's own demand. Capital knows this. That's why they push your narrative.

"Just read the first and last sentence of each paragraph"

Seems yall are really not handling things well

Thanks for you transparency but next time please refrain.