You can't study communism without studying capitalism, yet somehow liberals think they know both better than us, having studied neither.

communism is not merely "good", it is a necessity. But to get an understanding of what that means one has to make themselves familiar with the contradictions inherent to capitalism and understanding that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of overcoming them.

To give an example: Crippling economic crises arise within capitalism periodically because it is incapable of overcoming the contradiction between the "organization of production" in one company and the "anarchy of production" (unguided production) within all of society.

Capitalism can't overcome this contradiction because the underlying reason for it is the contradiction between a socialized production and a private appropriation. This contradiction is the defining characteristic of capitalism however, so it can't ever be resolved without abolishing the system. And we see this prediction of Marx play out time and time again.

Now you may think periodic crises are acceptable (why you would think that is beyond me as they are really truly not necessary). However there are many other realities that contradict capitalism like limited resources, limited capacity of our planet to absorb emissions, the inevitability of the global south's independence and self-determination (very incomplete list)

Whatever type of capitalism you support, it requires some kind of externality that just isn't real: infinite natural resources, an ocean that doesn't care how much is dumped into it, an atmosphere that absorbs all emissions, a domestic working class that accepts exploitation, colonies / the global south to outsource exploitation to, etc. all of those things run out. This kind of "externality" is exposed as an illusion of bourgeois thought.

These contradictions (and more) are creating tensions like tectonic plates during a tectonic shift and we will surely see some more earthquakes. Possibilities include:

• Not being able to safe large parts of the planetary ecosystem.
• Countries falling into fascism to guarantee their national capitalists their profit rate as their main profit guarantor, the US, looses its imperial grip on the planet.
• More imperial wars

The alternative is: The abolition of the capitalist system, hence I spoke of necessity.

Or in Rosa Luxemburg's words: "[It's] Socialism or Barbarism"

Rarely two sides can both be right, but they can easily both be wrong.

Can I infer from your statement that you're advocating against voting for Biden? Maybe you should figure out you contradictions

Kinda surprised to see Germany at 4

That is incorrect. Stages of grief do not only apply to terminal conditions where acceptance is fatalistic.

Say you suffer the loss of a loved one. Accepting that they are gone holds within itself the key to continue your live. Acceptance, plain and simple, is a necessity to deal with reality.

Similarly the acceptance that the capitalist system is inherently "broken" enables us to figure out how to deal with that reality, how to overcome its contradictions.

Denying that many of humanities problems are rooted in capitalism does not. The comparison is valid

I totally get your perspective too: you could swap acceptance and denial. Capitalists accept the justification of the status quo while MLs deny it.

In the context of grieve I think Yogthos' perspective is more fitting: "Denial" is the denial that anything is wrong with the system and "Acceptance" of both facts, that the system is fundamentally flawed and that a pursuit of any idealistic one doesn't bear fruit is the necessary precursor for conducting a sober analysis

Ppl might be reading this wrong (or am I?)

incident reported to OPCW by the Government of Syria

In this instance it looks like it was the Syrian gov who reported to the OPCW an incident where they were alleging the use of chemical weapons by ISIS against Aknaf group.

So it OPCW seems to say that the Syrian govs accusations are false

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!

You're right, it is not to be overexagerated.

But honestly partys bending to pressure from the base is amongst the best things we can hope for in a bourgeoise republic in the imperial core currently

From a German perspective the Irish situation looks like a major Win, we struggle from a completely marginalized perspective currently. Palestinian solidarity is niche and is facing huge state repression. A slim majority would probably support a ceasefire, but people are silent. All partys are Zionist.

Even the leftmost party is light years away from Palestinian solidarity, after initial dogshit reactions, they were able at some point to adopt a ceasefire stance while being booed by huge parts of the party. They don't call for a stop of German weapons exports to Israel, they call for Germany to put pressure on Qatar to, in turn, stop supporting Hamas.

Whenever we try to get them to helpnus with local ceasefire protests they make up some bullshit excuse while on a national level the criticize the gov for not pressuring Egypt enough to let the Gazans into Sinai like their only fucking job is to support Zionists in their genocide without people noticing.

And holy shit, Clare Daly, it is completely unthinkable how someone as based as her manages to be elected. I don't know what'd have to happen in Germany for that to occur

Dreaming of a job, of creating surplus for your capitalist and thanking him for that opportunity, is shit.

Dreaming of labour however? Imagine you work in a Socialist society, whatever that means to you. However you imagine trustworthy Socialist leadership/guidance to look like, imagine it exists, you experiencing it, maybe you are a part of it.

Now ofc society still faces challenges, not everything is bliss. But people feel hopeful, encouraged by the changes they see happening around them. Changes, in fact, that they bring about with their labour. Housing being built, and populated. People being lifted out of poverty.

Maybe people come together in socialist meetings eager to engage, they feel their voices being heard, their needs being met. Maye they just want to connect. Without the alienating forces of capitalism people open up to one another, creating understanding among each other.

Renewable energy and public transportation advances. Maybe new means of production are envisioned. Reaction is on the backfoot. People unlearn the concept of externality, realizing we, workers on this planet, are all in this together and that that is the only way to progress. It sets in: We can't create prosperity through externalization, not through slavery, not by exploiting an externalized global south, not by dumping trash in an "infinite" ocean, not by pumping CO2 into an "infinite" atmosphere, not by pushing the burden onto a gender, race or religion.

As all externality vanishes even the backwards start to wonder why that is not a problem? There is no need for squeezing the life out of someone "other" and isolating ourselves with the fruits of their labour. With modern forces of production our labour creates plenty. Nothing is siphoned off by the ruling class, the ruling class are the workers, it flows to where people need it most according to a Marxist analysis.

Whatever you imagine your labour is directly contributing. Maybe you're a scientist and work on cold fusion or you optimize new ways to grow crop, without straining the environment through monocultures etc. Or you try to cure rare but harsh diseases whatever the case your funding isn't cancelled bc you are not making anyone any money.

Or you are a teacher or construction worker, only you earn a lot and you know you help give to the people what they desperately need, whats more the people know it too, they even build you statues and of course you, like everyone else can rest peacefully knowing they have their health covered by the labour of other people.

You are a gear in a machine, but not in an imperial war machine, but in a cooperative machine that cures cancer, educates, struggles against oppression and aims to liberate every single person to allow them to live their life summoning their creative, mental, physical potential.

I would love to work and work and work in such a world. Unfortunately we have to work towards such a world and that means working in a hostile environment which turns the work into struggle, which makes it so much harder.

But dreaming of labour I can understand

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

They host a podcast at buzzsprout as well:

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1890340

This is the file my podcast app pulls: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1890340/13989881-episode-105-free-palestine-ft-decolonize-palestine.mp3

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