TheOubliette @ TheOubliette @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

1,482

Joined

2 yr. ago

If all it takes to cause famine is one country no longer sending aid, you are extremely vulnerable to that country. The desirable alternative is food sovereignty - under conditions of international pressure there may be scarcity but not starvation.

US whiteness is a social construct that serves to justify and reproduce marginalization: white supremacy. It started out excluding the Irish, Italians, the Spanish, Slavs, etc and shifted over time in order to maintain anti-blackness and anti-indigeneity. So it is far from just one thing and is simultaneously very recent. It would be best described as a culture of domination and capitalism, being a product of the US' industrialization and then economic subjugation of the planet. Whiteness is about who you are better than and how entitled you are to a good life, or at least one better than non-whites. White culture is tolerating and even engaging in genocide so long as it is against non-whites. White culture is trying to pretend oppressions don't need justice on any timeline that might inconvenience a white person. White culture is jingoist. The image of a warlike America has a white face.

As white people were largely drawn from European immigrants, they sometimes have watered-down elements of culture from "the old country", Americanized to the point of being unrecognizable. Those elements were usually watered down because their immigrant ancestors were not considered white at the time so they tried to hide or erase identifiable cultural elements. Name changes. Modifications to food. Going to the whiter church. Skipping traditional holidays.

And of course, much is just white supremacy under capitalism. Processed industrialized foods. Commercialized holidays and events. Workaholic myths of paths to success. Everything cheaper or subsidized to their benefit and treated as an entitlement. National chauvinism and racist warmongering. Colonizer mindsets.

The purpose of these aid programs is cynical: they are to create exactly this kind of dependency. It is why food sovereignty is considered a threat and is actively undermined by the IMF.

What we are seeing is what threat is being made when a country is made dependent on "aid": starvation. Same as in Gaza. This is the calculus the US and its cronies force upon the global south: submit to insecurity and become a dependency or try to go your own path and become villified and a target to be destroyed.

The former path is guaranteed death and suffering, which is why nations led by those with a coherent political program choose the latter and invest in food sovereignty as an anti-imperialist measure.

Thanks!

I would say that if a word has been misused for a century it actually just has a new meaning. And I'm not aware of it ever being used consistently.

Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it's not terrorism if you only destroy property.

Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.

Many people who only damage property are still labeled as terrorists by the powers that be. The dictionary can be quite misleading, as it does not really analyze inconsistent usage, particularly for political or propaganda purposes.

For example, "ecoterrorists". Classically labeled as such even when just destroying property. Or even sometimes just for slowing down logistics. Predominately First Nations protesters and activists were labelled "ecoterrorists" by Rick Orman, citing examples like chaining themselves to equipment.

The inconsistent usage has at least two means of biased use. I've already mentioned one, which is using the term for those damaging private property or slowing down enterprise, i.e. equating damage to private property as violence (when private enterprise seizes land or destroys water this is never called ecoterrorism). The other is in inconsistent application: it is a label only routinely used by the targets of capitalist-run states. When their states destroy entire cities and target civilians, it is not called terrorism. When their targets go after a politician insteas of strictly military installations, suddenly they are terrorists. Hell, they can be called terrorists even when going after only military targets. The actusl use of the term corresponds to the means used and the political and ethnic background of those engaging in the acts more than whether the acts are violence for political (isn't everything political?) ends. Terrorism is when a car bomb and not a JDAM.

The real meaning of terrorism must be understood through describing its actual mainstream use. Descriptivism not prescriptivism, lest we miss the reality of propaganda. This is important because the term will continue to be used as I described and to justify rounding up protesters that occupy buildings or block highways or burn down a Tesla dealership. It doesn't really matter ehat the dictionary says, tge law will say enough, the cops will arrest on orders of preventing "terrorism", the judge will convict and sentence based on calling a dumpster fire terrorism, and one might even get sent to a black site to contain such "dangerous" people, "terrorists".

And this is not new. Anarchists and other cool people were lazily labelled exactly the same way over a century ago for the same types of acts.

lmao trying to pretend that trying to leave a building you've been locked in by force, by cops, is protester violence.

You are, to put it mildly, full of shit. The only violence was the police beating and hurting protesters.

Please try to be more honest going forward.

lmao did you even read what I wrote about conflating private property damage and violence?

Bill Gates? The Epstein guy?

Sure, but let's step back and analyze it a little more.

Protest itself does not achieve political change. Its usefulness is in direct action or in recruiting those present into further action, education, and organizations. Liberal protests are state-sanctioned parades. Real protests tend to have an actual action to take, demands to be met, people to impact, costs to incur on others.

The terminology of "peaceful protest" is already poisoned and should be questioned. The media and politicians - and those propagandized downstream, all conflate private property destruction and violence. If a protest breaks windows, suddenly it is no longer "peaceful" and can be rejected by the propagandized as invalid and not to be supported. The US is full of such good little piggies, happy to align with the ruling class picking their pocket and doing actual violence because they exist exclusively in a world of capitalist propaganda.

Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism. It's already done this for private property destruction by environmentalists, peace activists during all major wars (except WWII, where American Nazis were coddled and of course did not damage private property), labor organizers, anti-segregation organizers, socialists, communists, Mexicans, Chinese, Native Americans, etc. They happily do it again against anti-genocide protesters, particularly because they can play on the islamophobic use of the terrorism label at the same time. Like all fascistic logic, they must frame themselves as the true victims, so they also happily call every critic of Israel an antisemite.

All of this bombards the US population 24/7. Americans exist in a haze of accusations and terms they barely understand, trying to slot it into what could only charitably called an ideology - the naked reactionaries in red and the obfuscated reactionaries in blue.

All of this is to say that the greatest barrier in the US is education, and education begins with agitation, e.g. these protests in any form. Get as many people as possible to show up to the next thing, to organize the next thing, and spread knowledge.

The silly appeals to fallacies and then ignoring basically everything I say is super debatebro.

Is this the second or third recently?

The information is in the thread you are replying to. And no, you actually don't, becauae what we are discussing is your paternalistic liberal response to others refusing to donate to a transphobe and then your leaning on debatebro fallacy misunderstandings when I explained what was wrong with it.

If you can't self-criticize and adapt then just don't respond.

Why do I need to prove a negative? Get your fallacies in order! I also recommend against relying so much on trying to identity fallacies, as we are not exactly engaging in formal modus tollens here and what I am saying to you is intended to get you to critically engage with what you are saying, not be an unassailable treatise on resistance that covers every eventuality.

Societal liberalism reinforces the status quo, or I should really say, reinforces capitalism, and that tends to mean reproducing oppressions that can be leveraged by capital. Even the existence of reactionaries who marginalize others is often in the interests of caputal. "Don't blame the people firing you for losing your job, it must be the immigrants doing this to you! Hey, don't complain about your life, at least you're not [oppressed group]" These serve very practical functions for disunity among people that could otherwise find common ground against the interests of capital.

The liberal tut-tutting of what is supposedly ineffective opposition is part of this as well. It comes from op-eds from ghoulish warmongers, those complicit in genocide, and a political class invested in you not actually aligning against oppressors in any meaningful way. Notice the complete lack of action from yourself in doung anything about this transphobe. Just pushing against those who do. Ask yourself what role you are playing.

How it came together is that Houthis started taking out jets from aircraft carriers and the US ran home, being unable to implement their only remaining military strategy: bombing brown civilians with impunity.

Monarchy and fascism share some characteristics but the things that make fascism what it is don't originate from Monarchism or a revanchism for monarchy in any sense. When fascism qua fascism arose in Europe it was a separate formation from monarchists, for example, who still existed in substantial numbers in those countries back then. Instead, fascism arose from declining material conditions in countries that were losing imperialist status, such as losing colonies or having large foreign debts after World War I, and this situation - and "solution" - were both highly capitalistic. Fascism recruits from the petty bourgeoisie for its foot soldiers at the behest of factions of the haute bourgeoisie.

Capitalism is proto-fascism. Fascism, to the extent that it exists beyond World War II, has often been reinvented for crises of capitalism, whether domestic or imposed through imperialism. And who did the fascists take so much inspuration? For the Nazis, it was the United States, a bourgeoisie democracy (capitalist) premised on genocide and slavery.

Rejecting someone that aligns with oppression is a great way to build against oppression, actually. Do you think Jewish Germans should have donated to the Nazis to build up "good faith" with them? Surely if they just acted like, "good Jews" they would have been spared, right?

This logic is typical status quo liberalism that tells you to tut-tut every oppressed group for not fighting back "the right way". Of course, liberals have never succeeded using the methods they suggest, so this really amounts to telling the oppressed to shut up and die. This talking point is promulgated so that you and others will refuse to work in solidarity with the oppressed. Don't let yourself be manipulated this way.

You have certainly met a trans person if you've met, say, 100 people. You just didn't recognize them from their appearance or voice, either because they are closeted or because they convinced you they were cis from their appearance and voice. Presumably your country is so oppressive towards trans people that they are too afraid of being out, there are no trans events for you to attend in solidarity, or you are just making excuses for reactionary positions.

Trans visibility is not just in the United States. Out and self-identifying trans people are visible around the world, including the two largest countries, China and India. You can't visit either imperialized county without meeting someone that is self-identifying themselves as trans. And one of those countries is run by a communist party.

These responses just sound like a reactionary unwilling to self-crit. And I don't see much in the way of any alt accounts: the people criticizing thoss non-apologies and continued ignorant statements generally don't have any replies.

Do open self-crit and try to learn from those who know better.

There are a wide range of historical works by competent people on China in the 1900s. Much of it will be in the primary literature, published in journals like China Journal, China, etc. You could read 10-30 articles from China Journal alone on this topic to get a basic handle on much of this (piecing together a good understanding will require reading many things, not just a book or two).

For an initial liberal historian's view of The Great Leap Forward, you could read Eating Bitterness by Wemheuer. This would provide a sense of how a competent liberal academic approaches this topic. Of course, liberal academics trying their best to take themselves seriously are still biased animals like everyone, so what someone like Wemheuer will fail to do is contextualize against the underlying century of capitalist deprivation that made China's economy brittle and primed it for agricultural fragility. As a simple liberal historian, Wemheuer will not understand or care much about economy or ecology. So to offset such oversights, I recommend reading critical works alongside liberal books like these. Some may appear in journals like China Journal. I might recommend reading something like Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts to get a more coherent view of what happened in China, to China, and what masses of the global south have struggled against for centuries, with nearly every famine being in some way man-made and of a greater scale than one would understand reading only hacks like parent recommended.

Re: first hand accounts, well yes of course we all know there was famine. Though I would caution against extrapolating from a single family's stories to the experiences of hundreds of millions of people of varying cultures and economic situations over a period of decades.

Mao as, "the reason for it" is ahistorical mythmaking. It's a cartoonish narrarive for liberal ideology that depends on Great Man Theory for storytelling because in cases like these the goal was and us villification and orientalist tropes about ignorant controlled masses. The all actual experiences, who carried out what acts, who killed who, etc, was actually quite complex and administered in a way that varied locally - and was designed and implemented by teams, not just one guy. In addition, there was a cycle of action-reaction-reaction-reaction-(...) of attempting to correct perceived mistakes that is largely ignored in these fairytales. Of recognizing, e.g., the folly of culling sparrows, and reversing the action in response to recommendations from a team of ecologists. Similarly, the positive impact of decimating the other 3 focus "pests" tends to be ignored in these narratives and the negative impact of culling sparrows exaggerared or at least given the least charitable guesswork, simply to fit a narrative.

Dikötter's books are historically revisionist trash. To engage with them critically you need to read actual histories first, otherwise you will come away with wrong and unscholarly ideas - such as that Mao killed 100 million people.