NikkiB

Everyone here knows the Parenti quote referenced in the title by now.

"During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence."

That is to say, if the Soviet Union does something bad, that's bad. If the Soviet Union does something good, that's also bad. "Communism is evil" is an implicit truism Americans and westerners carry with them everywhere.

Parenti was writing for the audience of late 20th century America, before the maturation of the internet. Now, in the 21st century, we still see this thinking (or lack thereof) applied against the PRC, the DPRK, Cuba, and even modern Russia. Even so, it has changed with the times and the media technology available.

For most of the 20th century, there was a relative dearth of information. You only got your news from television broadcast or even radio if not newspaper, meaning geography and language constituted a significant limitation to the information you could even theoretically receive. There are no such barriers anymore. The world wide web lives up to its name, and google will translate anything for you with the click of a button. Forums also allow distant people who would have never met thirty years ago to talk to each other in real time about subjects never discussed in a person-to-person setting, often with a metaphorical crowd of onlookers. Now, there's too much information to make sense of, too many different perspectives, coming from everywhere.

This makes control of information by governments, corporations and police forces extremely difficult. For every person decrying the barbarity of Hamas, the five genocides conducted simultaneously by the evil Chinese Commie Party, Putin's unprompted aggression in Ukraine, etc, there are naysayers in the comments, alternative media outlets contesting these claims, "Russian trolls" in your twitter feed, and so on. Twentieth-century unfalsifiable orthodoxy requires a set of shared data to act upon. Now, we don't have that.

So you want to demonize the Chinese communists, but it's increasingly difficult to persuade anyone of anything, at least consistently. You can trick HBO viewers into buying into Uighur genocide as quickly as they bought HBO, sure, but what about all the people who aren't idiots? In my observations, "unfalsifiable orthodoxy" now resembles splattering paint over a canvas randomly and seeing what emerges from the chaos. It relies less on objective events and more on the preexisting anticommunism embedded in the American political consciousness, and the possibility of something bad happening rather than the possibility of something that happened being bad.

I once argued with a redditor while browsing a gardening subreddit. Someone made a post claiming they were shipped "mysterious" seeds of unknown species, package said they were from China, didn't remember ordering them. Said redditor posted a comment, claiming it was a Chinese bioweapon designed to destroy the Usonian ecosystem. I asked him to give evidence, and they cited the police response to the then-recent Hong Kong riots.

Bill Maher, a couple months back, called China "the new Islam," saying "the left" "couldn't be honest about them." He went on to claim that Covid-19 was a bioweapon cooked up in a lab. Evidence? "China does some bad things!"

It is not anymore "USSR bad, therefore the thing they did (objectively) was bad in some way." It is now "China bad, therefore China did something bad. If there's no evidence of anything happening, it's being hidden." This bad thing that China did can itself become evidence of a different bad thing China also did. "What do you mean no Chinese bioweapon? Hong Kong! Uighurs!"

Eventually, it becomes impossible to dissuade someone of any claim about China's atrocities, because it's embedded in a dozen other falsehoods assumed true themselves based on other unproven accusations. It's fractal, identical all the way down forever.

The need for actual data has been conveniently boiled away. China could have performed any act of villainy simply because it seems like the kind of thing they might do. Since they could have, and since it seems like they would do it if they could, they did. What did they do? Something. Anything at all. There are no wrong answers.

So be watchful of people doing this, note it when it happens. I don't know how to stop them from doing it. Sometimes listening to liberals feels like talking to cultists.

Gratifying, indeed.

Living in the States has me genuinely frightened. I'm not so naive as to suppose it's not always been rough, but it's clear we've entered a qualitatively different era. The moderate wing of fascism has died, and barbarism is all that remains.

I want to fight back in a substantive way, even if it's small. I want to participate in institutions which protect the vulnerable, myself included. I don't want to lock my doors and peek out the windows, but I know better than to engage in adventurist, individual "resistance." I also don't want to be in a social club where we sit and congratulate each other on having the right opinions. I'm past wanting to be on the "right side of history," where I content myself with personally disagreeing with the nightmare we live in. Something needs to be done; the window for taking action is swinging shut.

I have almost no experience in organizing. I've attended a handful of protests which mostly felt like a venting of frustrations for everyone there. I've associated with a few comrades who had good intentions, but never accomplished much. That's about it.

How do I actually go about being a part of something effective?

World Systems Theory and related concepts often come up whenever people try to explain why Westerners are psychotic counterrevolutionary scum, etc. It's often suggested that white Americans in particular love third-world exploitation because it directly benefits those same white Americans. We might say "White Minnesotan Joe Cracker wants child slavery in southern Africa so he can get his cheap electronics." And yeah, that makes sense up to a point...

But Joe Cracker might not understand the relevant supply chain or even the basic composition of his smartphone. He probably doesn't even know about the existence of said exploitation, much less its nature or purpose. Maybe Joe Cracker WILL revolt without his cheap goods, but he probably doesn't actually know what goes into producing them or keeping the prices down. So what decisions is he making that render him "complicit" in the profiteering of some massive international corporation like Apple? Falling for their ads?

It's also worth pointing out that his iPhone doesn't actually make him richer any more than a Hulu membership does. It's a cute little toy, but it doesn't obtain food, housing, medicine or fuel. It's a cell phone with a billion bells and whistles and a monthly subscription fee. One could starve to death with it in hand. Is this really the "wealth transfer" we keep talking about? This is the socialized bribery Americans perfected?

It seems to me that Joe Cracker is complicit in fuck-all. He doesn't materially benefit from low wages in southeast Asian textile plants even if he wears one of those shirts they make every single day. It seems that he's just a different kind of poor from the Bangladeshi serfs who make his sneakers, the kind of poor with tap water, McDonalds, and WiFi. Poor overseas workers make the stupid shit, poor Americans buy the stupid shit, and they both struggle, but at least Joe Cracker has some killer kicks to go along with the Taco Bell and the wireless internet in his shitty apartment. The Nike execs, meanwhile, can smoke cigars and watch the line go up from the VIP lounge.

"Bread and Circuses" seems like a much better explanation for the behavior of these Westerners. Who says Joe Cracker has a good reason for throwing his verbal weight behind an ongoing genocide in Gaza, screaming about nuking Moscow over a slice of Ukraine, and pearl-clutching about the 100 billion victims of Communism in Xinjiang?

This article is indistinguishable from satire. I know that's cliche, but this is honest-to-god something someone here would have banged out in an afternoon as a niche joke. I don't have anything clever to say, you just have to read it.

Oh God, my eyes.

"Read theory."

We say this all the time. It's basically an expression, isn't it? It can be advise, bragging, scorn, mockery. It's all become a bit ephemeral.

That's not to say that people shouldn't read theory. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. Even so, isn't it a bit silly to suggest, even implicitly, that being a Marxist or communist boils down to a familiarity with the source material? If that's not book worship, I don't know what is.

I understand that this is, on some level, an accusation. I am suggesting that many of our communities are caught up in a somewhat liberal, idealist mindset. We all have an ideology, a set of opinions about the world which we express and propagate at the expense of our competitors. Can we seriously deny this is what we are doing?

If Marxism-Leninism is a science, there must be some technical aspect. What are we supposed to do in the world? How do we do it? And how do we know if it's working?