Just a commie interested in city planning and writing. Always asking pesky questions!
- 10 Posts
- 117 Comments
Western nations and their populations are biased in general. That’s just how human things go. Make sure you ask him to take into consideration his internal and regional biases before making assumptions or statements based on conjecture. Ask him to try to relate to these nations before he judges them.
I think it’s always best to ask directly if they’re willing to make a good-faith conversation that seeks truth and not victory. Be if they’re not willing to put aside bias and prejudice, they will not be willing to change their opinion.
As for you, try to look at it from their perspective. Maybe you were a lib at some point in your life, think of what helped you realize that AES countries aren’t the devil. Go bit by bit, don’t turn it into a tirade against the nation you live in. In general, people will respond better to a relatable and understandable emotional journey than to an article or just straight facts.
América is a white supremacist colonial empire based on black slavery. 48 of the states are practically ethnically cleansed. The process is still ongoing. I find it hard to justify its existence without white-supremacist talking points.
It is a nation that must fall, preferably peacefully, but who knows, there are lots of weapons and anger there.
Yeah, I’m not entirely sure what the Zapatista movement is besides an experiment in indigenous sovereignty. I think that should be respected even if it doesn’t have an explicit ML structure or practice. I think their form of leadership and govt works for them for now, and I trust that they are on the right path for their people and that their govt represents their people. Maybe in time they will change, but maybe they won’t. Regardless of this possibility, their indigenous sovereignty should be above anything we might agree or disagree with since indigenous peoples around the world have historically been denied the privilege of sovereignty.
The Zapatista movement is understandably reclusive and suspicious of outsiders and non natives. They are not going to be super open about how they run things since Mexico is still a very anti-communist, post McCarthyist nation, albeit less so than USA. Cuba didn’t explicitly say that they were socialist until after they rose to power. I’m guessing that the Zapatista movements don’t want to attract CIA attention either. So it’s safer just to say you’re anarchists and call it a day so that you don’t have to worry so much ab getting infiltrated. But that just a few of the possible reasons I could imagine as to why they behave and portray themselves in this way.
Dude, the guardián does a shit job at interpreting Xi. Fuck that newspaper.
But Xi does teach this lil boy a lesson.
Edit: @Aria posted this video with the actual transcript, since the guardian is such a lazy publication.
I think change has to happen from the inside primarily. One aspect that’s powerful about China is that it’s quickly becoming an example to the world. Even libs and cons I’ve spoken to who “hate the govt not the people” think it’s one of the best run countries. This soft eminence of power that it exerts by doing nothing puts pressure on bourgeois democracy and economy to step it up, but they can’t. Their only way out for their bs economies is through war profiteering.
SIDE NOTE: I believe that this whole Ukraine proxy war is waged solely for profit. First push enemies so far that they wage a war on their borders, then you and your buddies sell weapons to your preferred side, then profit. Your “side” doesn’t even need to win! It’s a pretty good scheme.
But tbh America will end by fading away into irrelevance. I think it’s already started happening.
It’s clear to me, short of nuclear Holocaust, America cannot destroy the revolutionary struggle of the masses of the world, and the external pressure of climate change, and wealth inequality will lead to an opportunity and yes, it can be pushed along by the outside, but if it is too explicit and too forceful, it would risk delegitimizing this hypothetical revolution. It is a later stage of revolutionary struggle anyway. Highly desirable, but not necessary. First things first; get popular support.
It’s hard for me to conceive that the political integrity of the nation could be preserved in a revolutionary moment. Undoubtedly, socialism would be preferred in one region over another. Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire come to mind. What if there was strong support in one region over the other, would breaking away seem a realistic outcome to you? America is so bloated, I think at least Puerto Rico could successfully secede in such a scenario. Is it possible or desirable to keep the whole empire, would a revolutionary struggle require the whole nation’s majority support?
I think in the US there needs to be an intensification of ORGANIZED political struggle. Americans in general poll very progressive. Emphasizing things like the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling to the point everyone understands how America is no longer a democracy will go a long way for people to be radicalized. Communists need to strategically call on the first amendment protections to talk about communism. Most American communists are young and urban, yet we claim to support the peasantry. Yet, I hardly ever see an explicit connection between the two in popular American or communist rhetoric. We think of the rural folks as backwards, but who did Mao go to? A simultaneous and non opportunistic campaign to connect urban and rural interests would go very far, further than I think most might think. Selecting strategic rural districts would be more productive.
The problem in America is that the population is highly divided and political orgs tend to fail at emphasizing what unites people, which for us is the right to the fruits of our labor. Maybe the largest hurdle in America would be dismantling those perceived divisions. But, if we are careful and strategic in our efforts, we could connect seemingly disparate topics; a key to any political struggle. This is something the GOP does well, which is why they can have a correct conclusions but for the worst reasons possible, like with Russia, and have great popularity among the working class.
A lot of reactionary talking points about LGBT+ has always been a moving target. Once gays were vilified, then it was same-sex marriage, then it was feminists, then trans people, then it was abortion(not lgbt issue, but a gender issue), what’s next? Same sex marriage again?
A lot of Americans are simply uninformed and don’t have an opinion developed, so a non-combative approach to possibly sensitive topics should be encouraged. When we become overly rigid on pure rhetoric, we open the door to distrust from and of the people. Allow space for people to have the wrong opinions, then address them. I genuinely believe most people are simply ignorant; with patience and compassion, we can get most people’s support. It’s a rule that the most extreme stances are the most fringe, these are the ones that get coverage and attention. Don’t vilify average people!
So if I had to break it down I’d say:
- Patience and resolve; this process will take a long time.
- Clearly and concisely define the shortcomings of the status quo, and why it needs radical change. Be careful not to alienate the people, alienate the bourgeoisie!
- Define and emphasize what unites urban and rural, how that benefits the people and how that connects to revolution. a) create cells in very consciously selected rural areas to spread political theory and education.
- Have compassion for the backward regions and people of the nation.
- Be strategic!!! We have very limited resources and people, but we can overcome that if we pick battles we can realistically win.
It is the status quo which is radical, senile and insane. If we can help people see the truth of that, we will go far. At the very least, people will move out of the way. It should be taken for granted that all this struggle cannot be waged at the expense of PoC, Natives or the LGBT+ community; the most exploited. No tolerance for opportunism or adventurism. That is my slightly informed opinion
Absolutely. Trying to equate tiktok to opium is so horrible. It’s complete projection and a reversal of historical fact. It’s crazy that this is only one example of hundreds of similar equations; all based on projection of western atrocities. I’ve noticed this general trend that the west’s rhetoric around China is based on trying to paint China and the CPC to a colonial power, and westerners making themselves as the victims of this neo-colonial power when nothing could be further from the truth; when the west has yet to answer to most of their barbaric pillaging across the globe and throughout modern history.
That’s why morality has no place in analyzing politics or politicians. It is a Machiavellian game that’s just for power, money and popularity. The gop just happens to have more rhetorical flexibility than dems do on this issue.
When either dems or gop says anything rational it’s not bc they are moral or superior in any way, they are just saying it to get more updoots and to weaken the opposition. It’s pure happenstance that anything they say is “moral” or correct.
Maybe he shit his pants and wanted to be discreet? ¯_(ツ)_/¯ old people stuff… he could have forgotten some medicine or something… why westoid media thinks that Hu would be suddenly purged after decades of involvement with the CPC, at the edge of retirement, is just them trying to portray Xi as some sort of fit-throwing child; as some sort of whimsical dictator; Ghaddafi. Western “journalists” are just social manipulators.
Xi’s “impulse”
“Checks and balances” failing
“Put a hold on Xi”
“A growing personality cult”
These people are so dishonest, it’s disgusting.
They write of Xi as if he was some sort of animal to corral not as a human being. They write about him like some sort of demigod who controls all of China with no democratic legitimacy… meanwhile Angela Merkel ran Germany consistently for sixteen years! What I see here is that when white people do something it’s okay and democracy, but if Asians do it, it’s a totalitarian cult of personality… as*holes.
I like these guys. I watch them almost every day, but I was a little taken aback by their lack of concern for the voting of fan girl Mussolini and now the really odd gesturing of Putin toward right-wingers. I know they are reserved to say things one way or another, but idk. It’s kinda cringe not to say anything when Putin is going off about the nuclear family and “made up” genders in the west.
I get those points are somewhat tangential to the speech, but they still make me feel a bit uneasy.
Yo, I’ve gotten people to describe capitalism whilst trying to describe “communism” lol! That’s my accolade.
Try to not disagree with them, try not to argue or debate. Unless they’re very rational and reasonable and not very emotional. So, not most people, lol. Just listen to them and be an example to them any way you can. Be more patient, be more calm, be smarter or kinder, it doesn’t really matter how you are an example. They will change in time. At some point they will start asking questions, then you can show them the the way, the Engles essay and more. You want them to question the group of anarchism. By avoiding antagonizing yourself and leading by being a positive example, anarchists themselves usually scare people off.
The process of change takes time, practice and patience. Good luck!