Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
84
Comments
406
Joined
6 yr. ago

    • Like a true loser the US and UK will make it seem like they left of their own accord.
    • Half of Ukraine will be a Russian-controlled oblast.
    • Europe moves on, and increasingly allies with China and Russia over the US, and accepts the new oblast.
  • Wear every downvote over on the reddit island of lemmy like a badge.

  • To do otherwise would be authoritarian.

  • I believe so, but I don't watch too much youtube so I'm not sure.

  • One other thing I'd like to add because I don't think it's been mentioned yet:

    One of the main aims of imperial-core organizing should be to build a strong anti-war movement. A major focus of the US/western propaganda machine is to spends tons of resources manipulating public opinion to build support for its current and future wars.

    Where do anarchists and Maoists stand on two of the west's current primary enemies, Russia and China? Near-complete support for war on the basis of western chauvinism. Hell, If you check armed anarchist-dominated online spaces (such as /r/SRA), they're all ready to join the US army to fight Russia.

    Clearly US propagandists have gotten a return on their investment, and scored a major propaganda win, by turning the western anarchist movement (who were mildly anti-war during the bush era), into western crusaders for NATO.

    Maoists (and liberals duped by western propaganda into thinking china is killing muslims just like their own countries are doing) also are serving the same role, but for the other US target: China.

    An anti-war movement can only harm itself by opportunistically trying to "unite" with pro-war western chauvinists.

    Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin were all pretty smart, and it should be noted that they all railed against Anarchism, and left-unity compromisers. Read through their arguments to learn why they did so.

  • A pretty easy indicator here is that maoists foreign policy is indistinguishable from US imperialists, anarchists, ultralefts, western socdems, liberals... a complete denunciation of all AES states, from Cuba, to China, to the DPRK.

    Maoists clearly fall into the camp of distorters of Marxism, as described by Engels and Lenin.

  • Maoists are really just "red anarchists", adopting the failed tactics and organizing strategies of anarchists, while basing their entire ideology on opposition to socialist states, also like anarchists.

    You have to look past what these groups call themselves, and not judge a book by its cover.

    Similarly, patsocs call themselves marxists, while completely whitewashing western colonialism and indigenous genocide.

    Marx, Engels and Lenin all stated in different forms, that what we need is unity among Marxists, not with anarchists and the distorters of Marxism (such as maoists).

    Also a reminder that anarchism is not a socialist ideology.

  • Sure, diamat would say that in the age of super-imperialism that we're now in, where the majority of surplus value comes from super-exploited global-south proletarians, demands that one or a group of countries must use violence to enforce that order, and keep the exploited countries weak and poor.

    Capitalism's current enforcer is the US, with its military might, dollar hegemony, and media monopoly. That is why the US has so many external military bases. They don't have them because they're fun to build.

  • Fellow Delegates, we are all convinced that our work will go down in the history of mankind, demonstrating that the Chinese people, comprising one quarter of humanity, have now stood up. The Chinese have always been a great, courageous and industrious nation; it is only in modern times that they have fallen behind. And that was due entirely to oppression and exploitation by foreign imperialism and domestic reactionary governments. For over a century our forefathers never stopped waging unyielding struggles against domestic and foreign oppressors, including the Revolution of 1911 led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, our great forerunner in the Chinese revolution. Our forefathers enjoined us to carry out their unfulfilled will. And we have acted accordingly. We have closed our ranks and defeated both domestic and foreign oppressors through the People's War of Liberation and the great people's revolution, and now we are proclaiming the founding of the People's Republic of China. From now on our nation will belong to the community of the peace-loving and freedom-loving nations of the world and work courageously and industriously to foster its own civilization and well-being and at the same time to promote world peace and freedom. Ours will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up. Our revolution has won the sympathy and acclaim of the people of all countries. We have friends all over the world.

    [...] Let the domestic and foreign reactionaries tremble before us! Let them say we are no good at this and no good at that. By our own indomitable efforts we the Chinese people will unswervingly reach our goal.

    The heroes of the people who laid down their lives in the People's War of Liberation and the people's revolution shall live for ever in our memory!

    Hail the victory of the People's War of Liberation and the people's revolution!

    Hail the founding of the People's Republic of China!

  • I crossposted this to lemmy.ml and it got like 10 downvotes right away lol. Westerners cannot fathom the possibility that a another country isn't as evil as theirs is.

    I've been reading Losurdo lately, and part of the western project of whitewashing their own legacy, is to accuse others of their own faults, even their own specific faults.

    IE the anti-semitism rampant in the west and Germany must be associated also with the USSR and Stalin. Nowdays, the islamophobia and bombing of muslim countries that the west has been doing for decades must be associated with China.

  • Look at the downvotes here too. Lemmy has a serious orientalism problem. Anglos just cannot accept even the possibility that another country is not as evil as theirs is. For them, its psychologically satisfying for the victims of hundreds of years of colonialism to be morally equal to the colonialists. Outright racism, pure and simple.

  • FDR's Dustbowl genocide

  • Its best when you think of these parties as opportunist / opposition foils in a theatre play. Bourgeois democracy isn't much more than a reality TV show with the script written by their capitalist puppetmasters.

  • Nice

  • The majority of the world (notably the vast majority of Muslim countries, who would be burdened with a refugee crisis if there were an actual genocide) doesn't think China is killing Uyghurs. Only the imperial core countries, that have been bombing Muslims for decades think that:

    Here's the people telling you that China is killing Muslims:

  • An Excerpt from Parenti - Blackshirts and reds:


    The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world–as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.

    First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West [even more so when compared with today’s grotesque compensation packages to the executive and financial elites.—Eds], as were their personal incomes and lifestyles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess. {Nor could they transfer such “wealth” by inheritance or gift to friends and kin, as is often the case with Western magnates and enriched political leaders. Just vide Tony Blair.—Eds]

    The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy.

    Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.

    Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance.

    Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India.

    All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States.

    But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

    The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.