Looked into the country, these Nepalese 'Communists' Are More akind to Neo-Libs rather than Actual Dictator of the Proletariat. Damn, That sucks. Is there any More info ?

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6090028

Please see corresponding end notes below.

By Carlos L. Garrido

Western leftists misapply Lenin’s theory, as today imperialism is embodied solely in US hegemonism, while Russia and China act as anti-imperialist powers resisting it.

There are today many sectors of the Western “left” – from Trotskyites, to Western “Marxists,” to Dogmatic Marxist-Leninists – who classify Russia and China as imperialist based on criteria they abstract from Lenin’s famous 1917 text, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. At the root of this classification – which I consider to be not only erroneous, but topsy-turvy – is a dogmatic understanding of Lenin’s views on imperialism, as I will explore below.

The way the title itself has been translated is misleading, for it suggests a teleological tone which depicts the stage of capitalism Lenin is writing about as the final form the mode of life will take. However, the original Russian, Новейший, suggests instead of the final or last stage, the latest stage, as in, the most advanced stage – so far – of capitalism. While Lenin understood imperialism to be moribund capitalism and corresponded to the age of working class and anti-colonial revolution, there is nothing in his work suggesting that imperialism itself is not capable of evolving.

In Lenin’s time imperialism was characterized as monopoly capitalism, where the dominance of finance capital emerges, where export of capital – instead of commodities (as with the British Empire) – becomes primary, and where the world is partitioned amongst great imperialist powers struggling to expand their spheres of influence. This predicament produced fertile ground for inter-imperialist conflicts, where different great powers would clash with each other over how their imperial spoils – i.e., their colonization of the global south – would be divided. The carnage of the First World War was the immediate example Lenin had before him, as bullets were still flying at the time of his writing of Imperialism.

For his time, Lenin could not have been more correct. Imperialism was not simply a political policy (as the Kautskyites held), but an integral development of the capitalist mode of life itself. It was not leading towards peace between an international cartel of great imperialist powers, neatly collaborating as they dominated and looted the whole world. Spoils were still up for grabs, and while capitalism had entered its monopoly stage, in its most embryonic form it still contained within it the remnants of competition, that is, the competition of great powers over the partition of the world.

War, therefore, was not only a possibility but a necessary outcome of this deadlock. It took two forms: 1) wars of national liberation, which would include wars of colonized peoples against imperialism, but also, after the Bolshevik Revolution, wars between the Socialist and Capitalist blocs, and 2) wars between great imperialist powers, given that the “winner” in the global partition of the colonized world had not yet been settled. When Lenin speaks of inter-imperialist conflicts and of the corresponding positions workers should take in the face of these, he is speaking within a specific context that cannot be forgotten.

As with all things in Marxism, the Marxist analysis of imperialism has its life sucked out of it if it is reduced to the conclusions Lenin arrived at in his specific context. The heart and soul of Marxism are not these conclusions, but the method, the worldview, through which all affairs come to be understood. For Marxism, the world is in a constant state of change propelled by immanent contradictions. All things in that world are interconnected and interdependent to all other things. Nothing, for Marxism, could be accurately understood if abstracted from its context, from the dynamic environment it is embedded in, and from how that environment changes and is changed by the intercourse of the contradictions that make up entities-in-processes and those that situate their setting.

In other words, dogmatism is, by its very essence, contrary to Marxism. To hold as sacrosanct contextual statements made by Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and then to foist those onto contexts which are sustained by new, more refined contradictions and relations, is to participate in the most un-Marxist form of thinking – it is to think through what I have called the purity fetish, i.e., through the idealization of an abstract pure ideal which you disconnect from the context it was developed in and hold superior to reality itself.

This is precisely what the Western “leftists” do when they classify contemporary Russia or China as “imperialist.” Hence, something like the special military operation – which in reality is anti-imperialist through and through – comes to be considered as an “inter-imperialist” conflict. How is such an inversion of the world accomplished? Through dogmatism, that is, through abstracting the famous five “characteristics” that Lenin articulated about the imperialism of his time, and foisting these onto Russia or China. This is fetishistic thinking through and through, since it treats these characteristics in a reified manner which gives them qualities of their own suspended from the relations they are premised on, and the larger system that establishes these relations. Lenin was not “defining” imperialism through these characteristics, but analyzing – through an ascension from the abstract to the concrete – the imperialist system which constituted the latest stage of capitalism he was able to observe, and wherein these characteristics obtained specific functions to reproduce the system as a whole. It is not those five characteristics which constitute what imperialism is, it is the system as a whole which constitutes the meaning those characteristics will have for its reproduction.

When Western “Leftists” try to checklist characteristics in Russia or China’s international relations to map it onto Lenin’s five characteristics, the relation of effectivity, or the indices of effectivity (as Althusser called it), which Lenin operated with is inversed. Instead of the system as a whole having primacy over certain characteristics it comes to employ for its reproduction, the characteristics themselves are considered as primary, that is, as that which comes to determine what the system is. This is the same problem of abstract universal thinking which individuals who consider markets to be the same as capitalism perform. Instead of seeing markets as a universal institutional form that functions differently in accordance with the particular social system it is embedded in (i.e., an understanding of them as concrete or rooted universal), it abstracts an institutional form from a larger social system, and then sophistically turns the one into the other. This is little different than saying a monastery is a nightclub just because it has music.

The real question which is never posed by the dogmatist of the Western “Left” is the question every actual Marxist-Leninist must continuously ask themselves: how has the world evolved, and therefore, how must our theoretical apparatus for understanding it correspondingly develop.

It appears to me that the imperialist stage Lenin correctly assessed in 1917 undergoes a partially qualitative development in the post-war years with the development of the Bretton Woods system. This does not make Lenin “wrong,” it simply means that his object of study – which he correctly assessed at his time of writing – has undertaken developments which force any person committed to the same Marxist worldview to correspondingly refine their understanding of imperialism. Bretton Woods transforms imperialism from an international to a global phenomenon, embodied no longer through imperialist great powers, but through global financial institutions (the IMF and the World Bank) controlled by the U.S. and structured with dollar hegemony at its core.

With Bretton Woods, and then with Nixon’s 1971 move away from the gold-standard, imperialism becomes synonymous with U.S. unipolarity and hegemonism. This means that the dominance of finance which Lenin wrote about, had intensified into a U.S. dominated global financial system. Whether we want to call this transition super imperialism – as Michael Hudson does – or something else is largely irrelevant. What matters is that capitalism has developed into a higher stage, that the imperialism Lenin wrote of is no longer the “latest” stage of capitalism, that it has given way – through its immanent dialectical development – to a new form marked by a deepening of its characteristic foundation in finance capital. We are finally in the era of capitalist-imperialism Marx predicted in Volume Three of Capital, where the dominant logic of accumulation has fully transformed from M-C-M’ to M-M’, that is, from productive capital to interest-bearing, parasitic finance capital.

Today, the lion’s share of profits made by the imperialist system are accumulated through debt and interest. The U.S. can run perpetual deficits without the normal constraints other nations face, effectively getting the rest of the world to finance its military spending and overseas investments. Instead of weakening the U.S., the deficits tie other countries’ financial systems to the dollar, reinforcing its geopolitical and economic dominance. The U.S. could print in less than a second more money than any country could produce in a span of years of real investment in labor, resources, and time. This is what imperialism is today. Its skeletal body are the global financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, institutions that only the U.S. has – in the last instance – control over. Neither China nor Russia could leverage these global financial apparatuses to enforce their so-called “imperial” interests. On the contrary, these institutions are often utilized by the U.S. as a weapon against them and their allies.

With such an understanding of how capitalism has developed into a higher stage of super imperialism, and consequently, of what imperialism actually looks like today, it is absurd to speak about Russian, Chinese, or any other type of imperialism that is not U.S. imperialism (which includes, of course, its puppets in Europe and the Zionist entity). Imperialism today is nothing more than U.S. hegemonism and unipolar power. There is no longer any possibility of “inter-imperialist” conflict. War today is between the U.S. empire and its lackeys, and the anti-imperialist bloc – which is ideologically, politically, and economically heterogeneous.

The U.S. dominated capitalist-imperialist global system situates Russia and China not as imperialist powers, but as anti-imperialist great powers (a category Hugo Chavez long ago developed). The Russian SMO, China’s unwillingness to fold under U.S. imperial pressure, the axis of resistance in West Asia, all of these (and many more) are coordinate points where the contradictions in the world – between the U.S. imperial bloc and the heterogeneous anti-imperialist states of the global south – work themselves out. Today the planet as a whole develops on the basis of the unfolding of the contradictions present in the struggle between U.S. imperialism and global anti-imperialism.

Therefore, far from Russia and China being imperialist, they are, on the contrary, the cutting edge of anti-imperialist struggles. Just as we cannot stay neutral to the form the class struggle takes within the nation between capitalists and workers, that is, just as we must all reckon with Florence Reece’s question (popularized by Pete Seeger): “which side are you on?” – globally we are faced with the same question, “which side are you on… are you with U.S. imperialism, or with the heterogenous and impure collection of states struggling against it?” There is no third alternative, just as the petty-bourgeois position of rejecting the class struggle between the workers and capitalists is an indirect way of supporting the principal aspect of that contradiction, i.e., the capitalists. Today the Western “Leftist” discourse of Russian and Chinese imperialism is simply another form of objectively supporting the greatest evil on this planet, the dominant world system – U.S. hegemonic imperialism.

"Salem travels to Lebanon for the first time ever from Palestine. He explores the past and present of colonialism in the region and how lines drawn in the sand by empires ended up f*ucking this region up."

If you want the descriptions of what it was like just after the Atomic bombings in Hiroshima, the source I read got their excerpts from "To hell and back: last train to Hiroshima." [I think it's factually fine. The original book got retracted but I haven't seen anyone object to the second printing, and most of the issues related to the stories of the Enola Gay or the science and not the stories of victims].

As I was reading these horror stories, there was something in my mind that kept just weeping. This was a terrorist attack. Not just against the Japanese but against the whole world. Hundreds of thousands of people died, either instantly vaporized or agononizingly slowly over the course of hours to years. Elderly, women, children, disabled, and even Korean victims of Japanese slavery. All of that was done so the US could intimidate the world [more specifically, the USSR]. It wasn't an unfortunate sacrifice, it wasnt a mistake. It was an act of pure and unfettered terrorism, that gets justified in schools and propaganda outlets.

And they wanted to do it again. Douglas MacArthur wanted to drop 50 along the Korean-chinese border, Eisenhower (or people in the government associated with him at least) essentially threatened the chinese with the same thing. The soviets were threatened on a scale of thousands of hiroshimas before the Cuban missile crisis.

The way I felt when I was reading the accounts of these attacks was the same way I felt when reading about the Nanjing massacre. Almost incomprehensible horrors.

I get not a lot of people will disagree with me here but I just had to get it out because fuck I'm depressed

Edit:I forgot to add. I know this wasn't the worst crime during the war. I don't feel like ranking crimes against humanity but the crimes committed during the Holocaust and the Japanese war of aggression in China were obviously worse. I just wanted to say that because occasionally I get accused of being one of those "Japan [as a whole] is a victim" people

The Western world developed a tendency to universalize concepts—for instance, moral absolutism or human rights—which are considered to have the same underlying impulse governing their motion, wherein no external agent is needed, and which are the authors of their own movement and change. Caitlin Johnstone, writer of a popular blog, never tires of accusing the rich of being mentally ill and that most people live in the 'Matrix.’ Indeed, she even wrote a book called Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix. This tendency to view oneself as living in reality while others live in unreality permeates Western thinking, including materialism. By virtue of a superficial materialism, those who disagree must represent the opposite of materialism; and, under the spell of their own seductive rationality, they consider any opposition to be irrational and often mentally ill as well. Our socialism is scientific and requires a particular education—mostly self-education since our educational institutions in the West are bourgeois in nature. Yet many who are educated, coders for example, regard their political opinions as more valuable, as if a relative education and a subjective higher intelligence lend truth to any opinions they happen to hold. Just as a mathematical equation requires numerous numbers in a specific sequence, rational thinking is interpreted in a universalistic key—thus its results are considered absolute and unchanging. Whatever opinion they hold becomes an absolute truth, as they then become the arbiters of reality, holding the torch of enlightenment and bringing light to those still in the dark and lit afire all who disagree. They reject the dialectical relationship between reason and the emotions/senses, the former being the master and regulator of the latter, and instead embrace rationality alone, denying in advance any biases or prejudices they may have. For them, the general population represents ignorance, a homogenous blob antithetical to reason—the uncivilized, the rabble, the mob, the childlike masses, or however they call them—who are always prone to hysterical, contagious psychosis. Conversely, the truth-peddlers consider themselves to be stoic and purely rational, relegating everybody else to an inferior rank and going as far as to accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being a ‘petulant child.’ The result of this mechanical rationality becomes universal, radiating pure enlightenment, apparently so pure as to instantly convert anyone who dares to learn its truths into a believer. It is in the nature of materialism to analyze more concretely, with a focus on the content rather than the form, yet without rejecting the relationship between the two. However, we are still vulnerable to making mistakes here and there. Most importantly, it does not mean we live in reality while others live in unreality. Generally speaking, many will analyze the form of a phenomenon in isolation from anything else and treat it as the agent of its own development. Consequently, liberals are prone to criticizing culture with culture. A danger thus emerges: the idea of the clash of civilizations. Another danger is stereotypical formations—that is, unchanging identities such as races, sexuality or sex. Hence, we should reject absolutes and uphold dialectical thinking. Confusing an effect for its cause is often the liberal’s most common mistake and it is a dangerous mistake too. We cannot remove our truth—the truth that capitalism is the problem—from the process that gave rise to it and from our personal experiences. And we certainly cannot say, “Here is our truth; now bow down before it.” The realization that capitalism must be changed is not a universal process. There is no magical formula to turn someone into a socialist instantly; a person must be given the right tools and live through the process themselves. Each of our developments is different and yet shares many similarities. Many of us became socialists through the dehumanization nature of capitalism. Plenty of others, however, became as such from capitalism’s never-ending exploitation. It is often said that as long as the Western proletariat doesn’t suffer enough, they will never revolt. Let’s not forget the phenomenon whereby liberals flock to fascism at the smallest scratch done to them; therefore it follows that, due to their better material conditions, it will take much less for them to revolt. And since all other revolutions began in a state of poverty before anything of historical importance happened, any comparison must take into account the relative poverty in each case. On a related note, the American ruling class has announced its intent to ban the trans population from gun ownership. Through rhetorical accusations of mental illness, they might succeed in the long run. It appears to me that the idea that “liberalism is a mental illness,” promoted by reactionaries all over the internet in the 2010s, is now being used by the ruling class. History has proven to us that when oppressed classes attempt to fight back, they are viewed as hysterical and mentally ill. Gustave Le Bon’s Psychologie des Foules comes to mind, which was an inspiration for some of Freud’s theories as well. Unfortunately, those theories have had a significant influence on Western thought. It is in the nature of revolutions to fight against the status quo; by going against the grain, it is perceived by many as abnormal behavior. With this political artifice, our bourgeoisie intends to legalize the disarmament of dissidents, to isolate them from society at large, and to institutionalize anyone deemed mentally ill and dangerous. By subsuming gender diversity and Leftism under the umbrella of mental illness, mental illness itself becomes an ideological category. Those who suffer from any mental conditions are now devalued by both sides: from the left by their accusations that the reactionaries are actually the ones who are mentally ill, and from the right with their usual victim-blaming. BadEmpanada recently claimed that OCD is not real and is a made-up thing created by the “upper classes” in the West. Due to a superficial materialism, he confines OCD to the realm of ideology. It seems the mistake these people make is the brave acknowledgment that only the physical world exists, thus claiming that anything else is merely a delusion. Yet studies have shown us that PTSD, for instance, has very real, physical manifestations that consequently change parts of the victims’ brains. I don't really know how to end this so that's all I guess. Thank you for reading my post.

Haitian theory from the man himself.

Embrace Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Babekyu Thought.

Hello and welcome to back to our groups time honored tradition the Weekly Discussion Thread. Please [Make witty comment here, man it would be embarrassing if I forgot to fill this section when I post, I hope no one calls me out on it]. And enjoy our Weekly Discussion Thread

• Matrix homeserver and space
• Theory discussion group now on Lemmygrad
• Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive, libgen

This is a basic preliminary post to something that I'm hoping to actually make into something more professional.

To preface: This is a thought I've been meaning to share after BE's "don't join a union" post over on Twitter. I generally just ignore his stuff for the purpose of left unity, especially in these trying times, but his sentiment is something ive seen a lot and something I don't particularly agree with.

Post in question:

To define accelerationism on the left, it's

The belief that in order for a revolution to happen, material conditions must worsen and, ergo, the goal of socialists should be to make those material conditions worse.

This is my definition but it's not a new one or esoteric, at least I don't think it is. And it makes sense from the first go around, and generally confers to marxist theory*

*except that it doesn't.

The problem with this idea is a few things.

1. Yes, standards of living decreasing generally makes people more agitated, and even more class conscious. But this is not a guarantee. Just look at Nazi Germany. Weren't living standards horrible? During the Weimar era, shouldn't have there been (another) communist uprising? How did capitalism keep going when living standards were so bad. This basically applies most places.

2.This leads to the second, and main, point. This is economism, pure and simple.

When I first heard Antonio Gramsci being described as a "marxist humanist," I was skeptical of his work. Is this some form of "left nietzchein" or "left hegelian?" (I.e Zizek?) No, Gramsci is extremely important reading for any modern leftist. They must understand they are a part of the human social system, the same as everyone else, and must work to break down the Bourgeois hegemony that exists. The key to this thought is how people develop consciousness. They develop it by being given a way out, and hand to help them out of a pit of despair.

To get more specific, the four main points are

A.No reasonable offline person believes this.

No really, imagine trying to convince some person, no matter their race or geographic origin, and your argument is "we should sit on our asses, not join a union, not agitate, let fascism get worse to own the libs, and fight for welfare getting dismantled." Yeah, I'm sure whoever you're trying to convince is going to follow marxism if that's the goal.

B. This is the same logic economism-ites used to say "there is nothing we can do."

This happens a lot unfortunately, but it's especially annoying seeing it repeated in the other direction. Economists in communist parties essentially believe they hold an outside role on the changes in social order and production. That they are simply to sit there and wait for economic crisis to hit and then to spring into action. This happened in Norway (I actually reccomend a YouTuber named Fredda if you're more interested in this period) and of course it happened in many other places. Accelerationism is just the opposite side of this, that there is no point in agitation or trying to foment consciousness if the economic conditions aren't bad enough yet. It only took me a minute to realize that what the accelerationists were saying was very familiar. Maybe they're still better than economism-ists, but only by a small margin. The idea is that you, and every other soldier for the working class, is part of the great historical movements, and these great historical movements only gain momentum by the exposing of contradictions and the proposing of alternatives to the masses.

C.You...just need something eith organizational capacity dumbass.

This is more specific to BE, but in order to have a revolution, nay, even just to fight against the imperialist actions of the nation you live in, then you need organizational capacity.

Yes, there are bad and reactionary unions. But there are also bad and reactionary "left" parties. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be joining parties. How do you get people to strike against delivering Israeli cargo? How do you get boycotts and work stoppages and wildcat strikes? How do you do these things without an organization like a union? The simple answer is that you can't.

And how do you deliver results to the people without fighting for them? This isn't to say we should stop of social democratic reforms, obviously, but who is to take credit for successful policies or increases in wages and such? Without organizational capabilities then employers can just choose to give concessions occasionally and get worker love for pennies, because they don't know they can have it all.

D. A great way to make conflict occur is protecting welfare.

To oversimplify a lot, let's say the state and Bourgeoisie has a combined leftover budget of 1 million dollars. If they have no resistance to policies and such that make things worse, they can use that 1 million dollars on weapons of war or militarized police forces or other things to engender imperialism and such, while dismantling social security or safety laws to make up the difference. But, let's say hypothetically, the state and Bourgeoisie has to fight to get rid of these institutions, or let's say employers have to fight tooth and nail with Unions to cut pay and workers and safety measures. That's certainly going to make the entire world genocide thing a lot harder isn't it? And of course, what's going to radicalize someone more? Life just getting worse, or the mask of humanity falling from the Bourgeoisie's face as they unite to take away their maternity leave or work breaks?

Again, this is preliminary. I'd prefer to write a full polemic on this at better times, but knowing BE and the world, he'll probably say something else stupid before the world gets better. Also sorry for any mistakes and such, I'm writing this late and i don't feel like proof checking againt.

And also, I want to repeat that I know this is mainly said by people online, but I've seen it enough that I'm starting to get concerned how many people don't engage with the world because they think everything beings worse will make things better automatically.

And lastly, this is not an argument against anti-imperialism. I know if I was brainded enough to be on Twitter then people would definitely accuse me of making an argument for social imperialism. These are not separate things, but accelerationism is a different argument. Anti imperialism does argue for restricting the potential super profits that are used to bribe labor aristocracy, but that's not exclusive to accerationist ideas. And after all, shouldn't an accelerationist want more wars? After all, more war means worse conditions and worse conditions means revolution. Just look at Russian and Germany in world War one obviously.

https://xcancel.com/chenweihua/status/1961962635060302240

I want to be wrong about this, but I've been watching things, and this is where i see the path theyre on going.

America has various "problems" i quote it because these are problems of Empire. Fabricated things, or things that wouldnt be an issue were they not an empire.

The one's I'll be addressing are as follows:

1. A lack of cheap domestic labor.
2. Supply chains reliant on political enemies.
3. A lack of cheap natural resources.
4. an overextended military

The US elites are struggling to fix these "problems", and I think I know their plan to do so.

Recently the US deployed troops to the caribbean. This was seen by latin american leaders as a very dangerous and provacative move. I think it's preperations for an invasion of Venezuela.

Why invade Venezuela? Well they have a lot of oil, are close to the US, and their oil is mostly on the coast. So i think the US wants to occupy the oil infrastucture, and then bomb the rest of the country to keep it in chaos while they extract the oil. Not a full occupation. Just a targetted one to get resources. The strategy for doing this is something they've perfected over the years. This solves their cheap oil problem. They can flood the market with this oil, and plunge energy prices. Something they've been asking OPEC+ to do, but they've refused.

US Oil companies go along with it because they get free oil to sell. It's free money the bill is footed by the US govt.

This though will just be the first step of the plan. The United states has been flying recon drones over Mexico, and authorized it's military to take action "against the cartels" there too.

They've been doing this for months.

This implies they are creating a map of the country. Especially the northern parts. Which they'd be able to use for any operations there.

I think they are planning an occupation of the northern parts of Mexico. They will surge across the border Blitz style, and use political pressure to get the Mexican govt to capitulate, or just claim it's cartel controlled, and destroy it themselves.

The goal of this will be twofold. Create a highly militarized buffer zone between the US, and latin america. This means that as climate change worsens, and their military operations in latin america get more extreme they don't have a european style refugee crisis. This buffer zone also works as one giant concentration camp. They deport anyone they want into it, and since it isn't US soil legally they can do anything they want. They'll use this to create their cheap labor pool. Companies can build factories here, and have plenty of cheap labor. Essentially slave labor. They will likely start programs for migrants to "work for residency". Where they will be told if they spend 10 years working in the buffer zone they'll be allowed into the US proper. This will rarely actually happen of course.

Now they're in a position where they can move industry back near the US, and without losing their cheap labor. They can scale down military actions in the middle east because they have access to Venezuelan oil, and they can focus fully on maintaining control of the America's and the Pacific. While using Europe as a buffer against Russia, and a captive market for US weapons.

So to go back to their "problems"

1. A lack of cheap domestic labor. Slave labor in northern mexico. "Solved."
2. Supply chains reliant on political enemies. Northern Mexico as new industrial hub. "Solved."
3. A lack of cheap natural resources. Extract resources for free from occupied regions. "Solved."
4. an overextended military Get's to focus on China, and on a very nearby war which makes supply lines easier while delegating many duties to the EU, and abandoning the middle east. Likely delegating it to Israel. "Solved."

It is a horrific, and evil plan so i think it's exactly what they intend to do. From the perspective of a souless blood sucking American leech it puts them in a much better position. The EU can't do anything to protest since theyd be reliant on US weapons. Israel would love to be let loose on the middle east. Major potential enemies are kept busy. Russia has to stay on alert against a newly militarized EU, China has to worry about a growing US presence in the pacific, and Iran is busy fighting Israel. There's nobody in the Americas who can stop them. Brazil is the only one who might be able to do something, but theyre far enough away, and would likely be paid off in cheap oil so they arent likely to do anything. Then domestically the AmeriKKKans will be eating up the anti-immigrant, and "anti-Cartel military operation" line. Plus they'll be seeing lower gas prices, and new imported treats from the slave labor zone. So they'll be content.

I hope I'm wrong, and if anyone disagrees i would love to hear why. I really do see this as atleast what they will attempt. Will they succeed? I hope not.

For those Who Need Context what is Going on :

My Country Indonesia is in Deep shit, The Neoliberal Clown Government lead by Prabowo Subianto, A Former Military General and the Son in-Law of the US Backed Dictator Suharto. And right Now Clowns at DPR (Parliement) Has Recently introduce getting Their Members salary Up to 50 Million Rupiah (Around 3.000 USD) which is Clownish and Amazingly Shit (For Comparison, Average Indonesian Minimum Wage is 3 to 12 Million Rupiah which is 182 to 730 USD). And yeah That me and pretty Much everyone here is pretty fucking Pissed

And we protested, Mostly In Jakarta, But One incident on the night of 28 August One Innocent Online Taxi Bike Rider was Not involved In the protest But was delivering food, Got Rammed Over By Indonesian Police Truck, he Didn't Make it (RIP). This Incident spark The Fire That Activated the Bomb, Heavier Protests All Over Different cities In My country.

As for the Protestors and Activists.., i am Supportive, However some... Oppositions are As Shit as The Neo-Lib Government, I Mean Really Shit, (Like Majority of the Oppositions Online are Anti-China Rhetoric, Anti-Communists, and fill with Liberals, Unfortunatly). As for Communists/Socialists Movement..., Pretty Much Non-Existance since Suharto Pretty Much wiped Out all Communist/Socialists During His Reign.

Yeah I am in Deep Shit. Ugh.. we were so close to become a Red State in the 60s. And now Here we are, 1965 Happened. Boom Gone