TΛVΛR

You may be confusing me wthe other person. I just piggybacked onto the discussion.

But yeah, my read was that settler colonial projects either manage to “complete” their genocide or end in liberation. But maybe there is an argument to be made that one shouldn’t view any settler colonial project as “finished” until it is liberated, that thought peaked my curiosity and prompted my question.

At the same time it still seems to me that a part of the analysis must be, that the US/Canada/Australia/… are more stable settler colonies than Israel.

Is your argument with the nuclear reactors about the stability? Or did I misinterpret that?

This is borderline patsoc talking point btw.

Can you elaborate? This got me thinking…

Is it bc patsocs use fatalism regarding the struggle of indigenous nations as an “argument” to oppose it? Or is it that its reproducing fatalism regarding a just struggle that needs our solidarity and “pessimism” isn’t helping?

(I hope I am not being insensitive. Pardon me if I don’t have the best read on this. I am not a USian and not super exposed to this and I know far too little about the topic)

I obviously agree that its important to stand in solidarity with the struggle of indigenous nations in the land under US occupation! But I too would think that the Zionist regime would be happy to have their settler colony achieve US levels of “completion” of their genocide (which I also don’t see happening, but that’s besides the point)

I don’t see a contradiction between both. It would simply mean that one deems the struggle against the US settler colony, the struggle for liberation, harder as of yet. Which seems to be an unfortunate but fair analysis or not?

“Look, you said its okay when this starving person stole food from Walmart, so why can’t I steal this poor guys bike? Both are stealing.”

Ten commandments level of complexity is where their comprehension tops out

Seems like one moral of the story, is that eclecticism is a problem. Never confuse a bunch of quotes with understanding theory.

Yes, the anti imperial struggle in the periphery can utilize nationalism to a revolutionary end.

And no you can’t compare your conditions in the US to those of Ho Chi Minh and Mao.

We are not liberals anymore where an action is judged outside of its material conditions.

Not the most knowledgeable on the topic, it might be fair to demand a more complete / consistent theory of nationalism in Marxism, but Lenin’s distinction between revolutionary and reactionary national movements is still pretty clear in this case

What. The. Fuck. this is the worst comment section I have seen in a long time.

Extermination fantasies all the way down, sprinkled with antisemitism, occasional holocaust denialism and the most vile anti-muslim racism.

I can’t think of any other major organization with an “X” symbol.

Elon Musk is controlling Reagans corpse with a neuralink implant in Reagans brain

I feel like whats desperately missing is a proper critique of capital.

If you reject it (bc “commies / tankies / Nth iteration of red-scare”) you simply won’t be able to understand the world, period.

Instead what you end up with invariably will be an “explanation” rooted in grave error, blaming an ethnic group, “globalists”,…

Ofc by suppressing Marxist lessons the ruling ideology incentivizes this reaction (as does liberalism being rooted in metaphysics even)

He even said Khamas

Emacs keybinds are fine, used them for some years. But once I tried modal bindings I never wanted to go back, “key-chords” just add strain.

Fortunately emacs has many options for modal keybindings, I prefer meow over vim personally

Every president is Trump. Trump is the fucking face America always had. People who say Biden is better just don’t want to look into the mirror.

I am gobsmacked by how bottomless the pit of liberal idiocy is. Even they should see the argument of putting pressure on Biden to make him stop a genocide.

But that’s supposedly unreasonable. Liberals don’t even see that possibility. Apparently it is the other way around pressure needs to be applied on those who are against genocide as genocide is just a given. How fucking dare they.

Consequently they see even less potential for political participation than I do, yet they call the US democratic and I don’t.

They want to get it in your head that there is nothing you can do to prevent your representative from genociding, but that that doesn’t mean he doesn’t still represent your interests, “C’mon man”.

“If your representative doesn’t represent your interests, then we have to work on your interests! Especially if you have a problem with genocide.”

There must be a way to wake up from this fucking nightmare. Or better yet wake everyone else up!

6 weeks? They held the trifecta for 2 years! From 01/09 to 01/11.

If you give the Dems a supermajority even more Senators will have “health problems” for way longer

Look, I know my instance gives it away, but from Marxist to self proclaimed angry commie: You are dead wrong comrade.

Dems under Obama didn’t not do anything bc of “enough Senators with health problems” but because they are beholden to their bourgeoise donors. In essence they are a party representing the bourgeoisie who only occasionally throw you a bone when they are pressured to do so

And you pressure them not by voting harder for them but by doing political work outside of both parties.

The harder you vote blue, the less they’ll do for you!

A bit oversimplified but I like the ring of it so I’ll run with it.

NaN makes for a better Chaotic Evil, QED could just as well be Neutral Evil.

However QED always stands in the bottom right corner, I guess that makes the author of this chart lawfully evil

True for all the lisps without explicit false (in the others its more or less a technicality)

Gotta love though that when lisp is concise it does so without overloading syntax

Knifes, forks, a spoon…

Seems like Stalin made the west shit itself with the whole arsenal of a typical kitchen shelf

that article

I thought you might have meant that, I just recalled the 3 sources and seem to have forgotten about the 3 components. I will repent and re-read.

I wholeheartedly support everything you say! The rest of this comment will be me agreeing with you. While that may be boring I want to express that it is not insignificant to me as where I live (a somewhat provincial city in Germany) it is next to impossible to find any reasonable opinions on geopolitics from people interested in it (aside from some people into who’s understanding I have put significant effort in).

The word Geopolitics now is just an easy way to say “what’s happening in the world and why” and I don’t see any reason we can’t use it our own way

Absolutely. Before I took it out, I’ve had a paragraph in my second comment saying the exact same thing!

I also use geopolitics instead of imperialism exactly not to scare off people too quickly

A totally valid strategy, I do the same! The need to resolve contradictions in geopolitics (and the reporting on it) was what eventually led me to adopt a Marxist analysis why should it not work for others!?

On a side note: In Germany it is an incredibly long journey to arrive at one (has been for me at least).

I think one reason are the relatively okay material conditions many people find themselves in compared to other countries (in Europe but certainly the US). But I believe an important reason is that a Marxist perspective has been purged so effectively from public thought here (“Radikalenerlasse”, “Congress for cultural freedom”, transatlantic networks, etc.), which I believe one can link back to the importance of Germany in the cold war / capitalist Imperialist project. I believe (and hope) the situation is improving with English-speaking content becoming more prevalent on social media but it is often a long and lonely road, hence my appreciation for the sanity expressed in your opinions!

Or they suddenly start talking about the ‘globalists’ out of nowhere

Omfg, yes! It is frustrating as hell to finally see dissidence in public opinion and then realize it is channeled into this pit of inconsistent thought. Unfortunately such “globalist” commentators are much more prevalent when one first diverges from the mainstream liberal opinion. For what its worth the WEF is, of course, an institution worthy of opposition but it is a consequence of the problem and without it nothing fundamental would change.

It is so glaringly obvious how desperately people are in need of a critique of capital.

But what about a stronger NATO …

This whole paragraph is on point and it again points to how people lack the holistic approach that a dialectic approach provides.

It’s funny you mention Trots […] “what about the proletariat in both countries?”

I appreciate the tip of the hat to my Trot comment, lol. For what its worth: I agree. The problem this seems to be indicative of might be an inability to perceive remaining contradictions or an unwillingness to tackle them? The understanding of Marxism as a scientific approach and historical materialism as a progression that cannot be stopped at the turn of the 20th century. In that sense it is the same mistake that people stopping at “globalists are the root cause” are making, only that they happened to stumble across Marx. I have yet to read Mao on contradictions / reaction within the people, I am curious in his analysis in this regard though, I know I have a long way ahead of me too.

Having had these experiences I understand your desire of reaching more people outside of Marxist thought and I totally agree. Historically I’ve found myself, instinctively, wishing and working for a broad understanding basically with everybody I meet, being cautious to alienate nobody basically rallying for the biggest consensus possible for any specific strategic issue (From a US perspective this certainly sounds ridiculous, I hope you understand what I am trying to say). However this always kept me on the back foot and after the issue was resolved or faded into irrelevancy nothing remained to build on.

So increasingly I wonder if an “inwards” turn, an appeal to leftists (not necessarily Marxists yet) primarily is something more effective. Similarly to how Lenin made out the peasantry as the most likely ally of the proletariat, I wonder who the most probable allies are nowadays in Germany. Undoubtedly they must then be the main target of “communist propaganda”, accepting that other groups might not relate and react with scorn and reaction.

Initially I added a couple paragraphs about my strategic speculations, but that is a huge digression so I saved them elsewhere. I guess I just really had to spell out my thoughts out on this.

But well, I’m still finding my voice and who exactly I’m writing for. But I can’t imagine a world where it’s better to have fewer anti-imperialist writers.

For sure! Best of luck in your endeavors, comrade!:) I’ll see to it that I follow your development

Was Lenin talking about the impacts of those concepts?

Bc I would even consider diamat foundational to CS (which would only strengthen your point)

Anyway there is a more central issue in their argument though:

If I make a good faith attempt at understanding the point of this other person: they could be talking about CS bc of its central role in driving historical progress. In that sense their focus on CS (vs LTV/diamat) is understandable, “replacing” that with “national struggle” is not admissible for a marxist.

But it can’t be denied that what Lenin (the staunch geopolitical analyst that he was) did constituted an extension to Marxism that recognizes state/imperial competition (what they mean when they say “national struggle”) as a driving historical force. Considering nation states are a tool of the ruling class this doesn’t constitute a break from Marxism. So they were creating a false dichotomy.

Lenins additon has some grave consequences however when it comes to interpreting how class struggle manifests. Some trots apparently consider the Palestinian struggle in an utterly perverted way, where the Palestinian working class needs to rise up against their ruling class (and they don’t mean the Israeli class that is ruling over them), while a Leninist correctly identifies thei national struggle as anti-imperialist and consistent with class struggle overall.

So maybe the person you encountered was just affected by trot brainrot but I believe they were just not liking your opinions shying away from an argument and cowardly retreating into ostensibly principled territory, a behaviour that always creates a shitload of confusion and toxicity, pushes a movement towards dogmatism and harms the ideological struggle in general. This sounds exaggerated in this case, but I really can’t stand this “reaching for a priciple” just to feel safe. Same reason why they immediately compared you to fascists. Whoever reads this, don’t fucking do this.

Of course Marxists can write/discuss about quantitaive production of munition, the depleation of weapons stockpile, logistics in war. Barring us from doing that is barring us from assessing at what is going on, in a way it is them that are turning away from scientific socialism and from Marxsim towards idealism.

lol I just realized it was them that brought up the term in the conversation. In their defense it says in your substack description "I write about geopolitics,… " so maybe that’s where they got it from. But I agree calling you a “geopolitical analyst” was putting words in your mouth for the purpose of slander.

Damn. Their last “stance” was like them eagerly byting on a cyanide capsule after somebody asked them for the time.

Geopolitics […] is obviously reactionary to everyone who understands Marxism

TIL Lenin didn’t understand Marxism and was reactionary