Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
40
Comments
324
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Damn, didn’t realize Khrushchev was a dirty Stalinist./s

  • I’ve had other issues on brave, but not that.

  • Sure you might think the two proxy wars we’re already in are important, but we really gotta start a new war with the power that wants nothing more than peaceful cooperation.

  • High ranking diplomats have already sounded the alarms that the global south has permanently closed bridges to the west, that’s now completely certain

    Didn’t realized the Ron Paul institute liked the Naked Capitalism blog, strange.

  • “It’s the organization that currently runs Gaza”

    I wish, lol

  • It’s a satirical article and I didn’t know where else to post

  • Didn’t he write a lot of stuff? Surely you can give me a couple of suggestions or a place to start.

  • The thing the article is complaining about is evil climate regulation trying to stop industrial agriculture (which greatly pollutes and robs the soil while requiring vast inputs).

  • Link it? Sakai is far better than Zizek. Sure he’s a little overrated here, but he’s worth reading as long as you’re critical and reading more recent stuff with better specific analysis too. I agree there are a lot of other authors like Amine that deserve more attention.

  • All I’m saying is it has some decent history and it’s pessimism made sense for the time. Writing a book and getting some dogmatic and uncritical followers is different from starting a cult. That’s like blaming mao’s writing for polpot and Gonzalo.

  • Saying something’s a decent book doesn’t mean one agrees with everything. Most of the people in here include caveats in their support for the book. In my opinion it’s mostly factually and emotionally accurate for the time. But things have changed since then, neoliberalism is proletarianizing white people to a large extent. The text is also sadly lacking dialectics. We do not have no hope in the white working class. We know there is some hope that they will fight for the right side in wars of national liberation. However, settlers must know the revolution is not theirs. We will no doubt benefit (surviving climate change, transitioning to a healthier sustainable lifestyle, avoiding pollution, less queerphobia, workers democracy, and so on), the only caveat being it’s not their nation and they don’t have the possibility to own land (not that most of us have any land anyway). We will fight for it alongside the oppressed nations, and others who were previously neutral will join.

  • You can look up “x propaganda posters” online and in stock image websites. Otherwise, all I know of is you can look back through the leftist aesthetics community here or in r/propagandaposters among others if you dare go on

  • I saw where you referenced the link. Average people don’t own any land so it’s only the bourgeois that will have reason to complain. Recall the part of the communist manifesto where Marx clarifies that private property is already abolished for 99% of people so abolition of private property would bring nothing but good to the masses. Decolonization does not mean they will cut off our food supply or slaughter us. Recall it was they who welcomed the first settlers before they got stabbed in the back. Settlers are the genocidal ones. They do not want to genocide us back. It’s annoying how settlers constantly assume this and decolonial Marxists have to clarify this point. Never have I heard an unironic call for white genocide. For land, decolonization will mean a lot of rewilding according to indigenous stuardship. There will be drastic cuts in animal agriculture as it takes up a great amount of land and emissions, but that would happen whether socialism is with indigenous leadership or not if we want to survive climate change. Great swaths of industrial monocrops are grown solely for the purpose of feeding animals. For settlers this black and native leadership would simply mean adopting healthier plant based diets and improved wildlife and environment for settlers. It also means public transportation instead of cars, which is necessary but may be hard at first. We will have workers democracy internally and some representation, but we are lucky to be allowed any seat at the table after what our people has done.

    As you should be able to tell this is normal socialism but we are making sure the land goes to whom it belongs. It should be no harder to convince people of if not easier as it appeals far more to those who are specially oppressed under Amerikkkan capitalism.

    Also, on the bit about everything having failed so we’re practically back at square one. The Black Panthers were about the closest we’ve gotten to revolution and they failed because new counter intelligence tactics were used. We know how to combat those better now. We also can take advantage of new advances in the Palestinian and South African struggles. The US will be at its weakest in a while in the coming years as it’s economy is based on imperialism while the periphery drifts away. We have a chance at decolonial socialism here, and frankly it may be our only shot at avoiding total barbarism.

  • In colonialism there are oppressed and oppressor nations. Whether ruling or working within the nation a colonized worker remains lower than the colonizer worker and same with owner. I doubt you’d venture to say an “Israeli” worker is the same as a Palestinian worker. It’s the same here, the foundation of the US of A is settler colonialism and that has not been changed. The contradiction between colonized and colonizer can only be solved by a war of national liberation.

  • Lol, you didn’t read the links or understand my point about decolonization being better than normal communist aims in addition to being more beneficial to all, while not being any more difficult to attain than the normal communist aims. Also:

  • There is a nothing patsoc tendency I see in you, the aversion to sounding radical. They don’t want to be seen as extreme they just want healthcare and to be seen as reasonable by regular (read: white) working people. But as Gramsci reminds us, “What is to be done? Nothing more than to destroy the present form of civilization.” Our aims are in to totally restructure society, we are not going to compromise on the solution of the primary contradiction. The total abolition of private property is undeniably a radical goal and people will be afraid of it at first. After that, who’s going to care if the communal land (which no one lives on) is cared for by the people to whom this land belongs? We know that to solve climate change we will need to drastically cut imperial core consumption of electricity and meat. Is landback really a stretch too far? Indigenous stewardship also plays a vital role in maintaining healthy ecosystems considering 80% of the world’s biodiversity is on native land. I and many (white) people I know would support landback. If we are going to convince the masses of communism how harder can it be to add decolonial thought? (Harder than it should considering MWM exists, but still, settlers will join the movement l)

    Edit: sources added

  • This specific conflict because it’s about a colonized people liberating themselves from a highly geo-strategically important fascist regime. This conflict isn’t about religion. It’s about colonialism. I’m agnostic and many Palestinians are Jewish or Christian. Most of the Zionists are secular and don’t even care about the Torah, they just want to colonize. There are also many Jews who oppose “Israel.” I care about this conflict because “Israel is doing collective punishment by indescriminately killing civilians and the fall of this apartheid entity would be a major blow to the US empire.

  • Lol, you have no idea who you’re talking to, do you. It’s funny how libs’ only argument against leftists is “actually, you’re just like the guy over there [who’s on the opposite side of the political spectrum and has almost no views in common.]

  • I doubt most of them are anti-Semitic. I’m guessing it’s mostly “don’t want to die for “Israel?” You’re an anti-Semite.”