It won't achieve that without unionisation efforts. And we are not capable of doing that work. Any european travelling over there would stand out like a sore thumb and get picked up as a salt by internal sniffers. The primary work that the US needs is unionisation work. One of the things that stands out to me is how much positivity for unions I see in online spaces like this one but I think that 90% of the americans in these spaces writing pro-union things are themselves not unionised or not actively working to create a union. It's like they all expect someone else to do it for them.
This attitude of "someone will do it for me" comes from the electoralism spewed by the liberals. This obsession they have with their political involvement being ticking a box once every few years and that being the extent of it creates a mindset in which they defer any and all political power to a "representative" and expect that to be that. They all carry this mindset into everything else. It creates inaction, none of them take any responsibility for the lack of these things. Nobody else will build it for them, nobody else can, they MUST be chastised into building it themselves. They clearly already support it, but they're not doing anything to take part in building it.
With unionisation increases and real radical leadership you would very very quickly see a landscape change in politics, as these union leaders would carry significantly more influence with the workers they represent than the local politicians. The pressure this would place on local politicians to engratiate themselves to the union leaders would be significant, you would rapidly see concessions occur.
The US has to build its own left it can't just import ours, I think most of the european left would be rejected and called "tankies" too anyway in the latest red scare shit.
Frankly the idea is absurd though and the right wing in Europe would never let it happen anyway, take the UK for example, if it happened here the left would move into nationalism and we'd suddenly have every frothing at the mouth red faced gammon standing by us on the riot barricades screaming INGLIIIIIIIN as we seek to liberate the country. Which is precisely why the right wouldn't let it happen.
With that said there was some more context there. The USSR sought to deploy missiles in Cuba because the US was deploying them in Turkey. Missiles were removed from Turkey and everything chilled out.
You can't end these things without addressing all of the causes. Do you or do you not think the US should stop interfering? If you don't, then you aren't really trying to stop this you're just trying to advance US interests. Trying to stand on the moral high ground while supporting the cause.
Calling one of France's last remaining colonies democratic is absolutely absurd. Do you also argue that Batista was democratically elected?
I thought it was a bit of a joke that many westerners are still supporters of colonialism but it's apparently true. That or there is really no understanding of history here. Niger was literally still a colony of France, unlike many other African nations that managed to break free of colonial dominance with the help of the soviets through the 60s-80s it did not. France is the last remaining operator of colonies around the world.
Who said I want an invasion to happen? Drum beating and invasion are very different things. I would like the US to fuck off and mind its own business as it is causing all of this. The result of which achieves avoiding both of the above.
You clearly don't support that though? Which makes me question whether you're actually committed to avoiding war or whether your real interest here is in advancing US interests.
Are we going to go around in circles here? Because the drum beating is being driven by the foreign interference. If the US steps back from trying to interfere with it politically then there will no longer be any need to beat the drums. In the preceding 50 years there was basically no problem because the US had a largely pro-China policy and wasn't interfering. This didn't start spontaneously without material conditions that drive it.
Which is again much like my understanding of why the US beat its drums when the USSR interfered with Cuba. I don't condemn the US for drum beating over that event (despite my obvious distaste for the US and support for Cuba), its extremely obvious what caused it and it's extremely obvious what is causing this.
You either have to believe the new state is becoming a colony of Russia(it obviously isn't), or accept that its improved from the colonial arrangement and that's what makes it attractive to make deals with Russia.
Russia gets plenty out of it without doing anything colonial. The export deals France had were basically stripping the country of all of its wealth, Uranium and Gold in particular, which Niger are nationalising.
Russia will certainly get some beneficial deals out of their help offered but don't have to make themselves as bad as France to come out on top of this, and in fact simply the act of weakening France and by extension the rest of the western bloc is a win for them by itself. I don't see Russia as anywhere near as good as the Soviets were but the Soviet strategy was basically "liberate african countries entirely in order to weaken the west who are the colonial holders of these countries". The history of soviet liberation of africa is also the primary reason many in africa still hold a lot of positivity to Russia, even though the two are not remotely comparable.
We won't get to 2100 before things really get awful either. We'll get to 2035-2050 and then things like cascading crop failure will happen, causing a global collapse in the food supply.
If we reach that event occurring it will functionally prevent governments from cooperating to reduce carbon emissions. They will all be focused internally on turmoil and massive unrest generated by mass famine. Many will turn up the carbon dial in order to try and address this. Others will simply have revolutions that take considerable time afterwards to stabilise making organised effort unviable.
Huh? No it's not cultural insensitivity preventing me from having an opinion on that, it's having very little contextual knowledge.
Why are you saying something that I did not say? The part that was probably culturally insensitive was clearly the part about indigenous people owning the island, I have no idea what they want, whether that's true, or whether nationalism is even compatible with their culture.
You are doing the thing people do on reddit where they ignore what someone actually writes and then substitute it with the worst possible interpretation that you want to attack. You're really not having a conversation with me in good faith are you? The hostility is entirely unnecessary, childish even.
I think the peak 4 degrees this century is extremely possible. A lot of the community studying this now thinks we have underestimated feedback loops, much of what is currently happening was not supposed to happen as quickly as it has.
Watching France lose control of its remaining colonial holdings while the French population simultaneously cause chaos at home is a pleasure I did not expect to get until at least 2030.
Someone told me the other day that the US/Canada and Europe should become one federal entity and that this would benefit everyone living in it. My response was that having america be the largest economic entity in that block imposing the "american values" of restoring child labour, lack of healthcare, removing abortion and the complete and total eradication of worker protections on Europeans absolutely would not benefit us. Maybe if america had a left to speak of things would change.
Getting people to listen over here in Europe is relatively easy. Getting americans to listen is incredibly difficult. After multiple red scares and a cultural legacy of immense amounts of propaganda they are far more resistant to hearing basic facts, their brains are filled with false shit, and they performatively do things to show how good and moral they are (like the tankie shit), actively helping capitalists prevent people from hearing leftist thought. There are good books that do a lot of deprogramming, Blackshirts and Reds takes like 2 hours to read and deprograms people from all that shit immediately. The problem there is also that americans don't read, and 21% of americans are illiterate making it impossible to reach a lot of them through this method. I suspect this is also responsible for much of the reading-comprehension errors I see everyday from them on social media. Video works, but is a medium that requires a far greater amount of skill than writing books so we have far fewer people doing it. The boys at /r/thedeprogram podcast being probably the best at the moment, hakim, JT/secondthought and yugopnik.
I'm like mega confused here. My position has always been that the misuse of the word genocide by libs is dangerous to its intended goal of protecting marginalised peoples and preventing another holocaust. I don't know how exactly we disagree here.
Ok so... Are you just reinforcing the point I was making then? I can't read context because the site is doing nothing whenever I click the context button. I literally can't read up and see what this is about and since it's like 2 weeks old now I'm just confused.
However, one of the sources in that graph, The Crisis of the Late Tsarist Penal System, does not really support the miscalculation:
The number of tsarist executions is clearly minute in comparison with the later Soviet figures, and the scale of katorga and exile is also extremely low. While this is undeniable, it is important to stress the remarkable changes and deterioration in the tsarist prison systems that came about in the last decade of tsarist rule.
This doesn't imply the figures in the graph are wrong. It implies that the later soviet figures had higher numbers. The graph is not of total numbers of deaths it is of the mortality rate, providing a comparison of the overall conditions. The soviets undoubtedly had massively more raw numbers, particularly in ww2 when they held many millions.
It won't achieve that without unionisation efforts. And we are not capable of doing that work. Any european travelling over there would stand out like a sore thumb and get picked up as a salt by internal sniffers. The primary work that the US needs is unionisation work. One of the things that stands out to me is how much positivity for unions I see in online spaces like this one but I think that 90% of the americans in these spaces writing pro-union things are themselves not unionised or not actively working to create a union. It's like they all expect someone else to do it for them.
This attitude of "someone will do it for me" comes from the electoralism spewed by the liberals. This obsession they have with their political involvement being ticking a box once every few years and that being the extent of it creates a mindset in which they defer any and all political power to a "representative" and expect that to be that. They all carry this mindset into everything else. It creates inaction, none of them take any responsibility for the lack of these things. Nobody else will build it for them, nobody else can, they MUST be chastised into building it themselves. They clearly already support it, but they're not doing anything to take part in building it.
With unionisation increases and real radical leadership you would very very quickly see a landscape change in politics, as these union leaders would carry significantly more influence with the workers they represent than the local politicians. The pressure this would place on local politicians to engratiate themselves to the union leaders would be significant, you would rapidly see concessions occur.