[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Analysis I don't agree with = coping and malding?

129
Based JT on Russia (hexbear.net)
[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago

This was a phrase I first saw used by Daniel Bessner.

So what message would the average fourteen-year-old take away from Black Ops Cold War? To riff on a phrase coined by Mark Fisher, the game evinces an “imperialist realism” that can’t quite justify American actions abroad, but also can’t imagine a world outside of a militarily dominant U.S. empire. This idea is clearly expressed in Bell’s trigger phrase (“We’ve got a job to do”), which implicitly affirms that in the Cold War, and perhaps in every war, all a soldier can do is put his or her head down and get to work. Though nothing — not the CIA, not the Soviet Union, not even one’s own mind — can be trusted, no other world is possible, so you might as well support your own empire. https://www.thedriftmag.com/the-cultural-contradictions-of-call-of-duty/

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago

The biggest degrowth guy is Kohei Saito. Check out his book, Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

I mean, we live in an incoherent time, which can make incoherent ideas like MAGA Communism become relevant. Haz and Hinkle are probably supported by a LaRouchite group (is that itself an op?), but are they funded by some elites to tarnish communism with conservatism? I'm open to that possibility if there was concrete evidence to suggest it

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

Sounds a bit conspiracy brained to me

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 21 points 3 months ago

Start making love instead

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

My two favorite Democrat sheepdogs

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

Huh, that's a much more sophisticated understanding than what I've learned in school. I'll check out the dialectical biologist

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah you're right, this is not really that rigorous

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 12 points 3 months ago

That graph is interesting but I think it's beside the point for this discussion. The question is not the level of income inequality but which families occupy the high status positions/accumulate the most wealth in a given society. In the case of China, 'elite' simply refers to the families that had status/wealth before the Cultural Revolution, lost it for a generation during the CR, and somehow got it back a generation afterwards.

68

Full Twitter thread unrolled -> https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1792267464258048408

This person basically uses a bunch of graphs to argue that status of elite groups persist under even the most extreme cases. For example, the elites targeted in the PRC and the Soviet Union bounced back in elite status after a generation or two, how many elite southern planter families regained their status after the Civil War, how formally interned Japanese Americans reached the same homeownership rate as the non-interned Japanese Americans after a decade, etc.

But then they suggest that

So status persists throughout history even in the most extreme scenarios. What explains this? Genes play a major role. Consider how status persists when the status is accurized purely through chance.

Is this really a reasonable conclusion to draw? I saw one tweet criticizing this, saying

this information is very interesting, but it's nonsense to think this implies genetics/talent/effort causes success. i see this as evidence that social/human capital is persistent and important for economic development, so inequality on this dimension breeds economic inequality https://x.com/leonveliezer/status/1792413175301935124

Which seems like a good objection to me.

What do you all think?

159

https://slavoj.substack.com/p/a-leftist-plea-for-new-imperialist

He's earnestly advocating for imperialism.

I'm just going to post the last paragraphs and bold of the most eyebrow raising sentences.

So how are we to act in this depressive situation? We should above all avoid the false “public use of reason” which advises neutrality and the search for peace through negotiations. The most disgusting thing to do at this moment is to repeat with triumph the old motif “we were telling you for years that Ukraine cannot win…” – obviously true, but whatever the final outcome will be, Ukraine achieved an unexpected miracle in resisting Russia for such a long time. Another stupidity is the idea that the Ukrainian war is just a moment of the conflict between Russia and NATO, with thousands of Ukrainians sacrificed to the NATO interests to weaken Russia. Are Ukrainians really so stupid to play this role while they could have enjoyed peace? What peace? Russian occupation which would annihilate them as a nation… This is why the alternative “peace through negotiations or war” is a false one: Ukraine will be in a position to negotiate only if it will remain strong enough to present a real obstacle to Russian invasion.

In such a predicament, the only serious option is to finally accept that we are entering a global emergency state: we are at war and only a full Western commitment can give Ukraine a chance. The same holds for Gaza - here again only the US military intervention can save things. Not long ago a picture circulated from inside Gaza showing smoke billowing from the explosion of a US-supplied bomb, and discernible in the background was the outline of eight black parachutes dropping US aid in precisely the same neighborhood.[2] This photo renders perfectly the opportunism of the US politics: supplying the arms to bomb Gaza and then helping the people whose lives were ruined by these same bombs – this is what humanitarian help means today.

The US has been humiliated again and again. As crazy as this may sound, the fact that the US are no longer able to act as a global superpower also has its bad aspects - history repeats itself, just recall the US army’s withdrawal from north Syria to protect the Kurds, as well as the premature withdrawal from Afghanistan. **As I already suggested in a recent text of mine, ideally the US (with some allies) should simply invade Gaza from the sea, establish its own power zone there where millions of civilian refugees will be safe, providing for their elementary welfare and in this way constrain Israeli power - it is a safe bet that Israel would not risk an open conflict with the US. In crazy times, crazy acts are needed. **Before you dismiss this idea as madness, think realistically what would happen! It would be a great relief for millions of starved and bombed civilians. Similarly, one should take the risk to raise the Ukrainian war to a higher level, setting clear red lines that Russia should not overrun. One should, of course, proceed very carefully not to provoke a global war – but, again, the only way to prevent a new global war is to take calculated risks now.

Will something like this happen? The one thing one can rely on is that the US regularly miss the opportunity to use (whatever remains of) its global imperialist power for a good cause.

[-] HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

Why BLM and the statistics book?

84

And what's an example of a non-atomized society?

139

https://twitter.com/itamarbengvir/status/1788458123436433783

Reality stranger than fiction etc etc...

258
49

Why was it removed monke-beepboop

81
258
130

Dripped out George Washington:

277
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
87
The one funny lib (hexbear.net)
view more: next ›

HeavenAndEarth

joined 8 months ago