Red_Scare [he/him]
“spetsnaz” is Russian for “special forces” so the whole meme is literally just: THING = :) THIИG = :(
Finally some good news, thank you CPC and comrade Xi for shining a bit of light through the clouds of current world affairs.
So when the CPC achieves a “staggering success in combating pollution” while capitalist South Asian states become the “global pollution epicentre”, how is it framed?
The Communist Party of China is not mentioned even once, not even as “the CCP”, Xi Jinping is never mentioned, the article only talks about vague “Beijing”, “Chinese government”, “Chinese leaders”.
Systemic differences between the way China is governed vs India and Pakistan are never brought up, instead “the progress made in China shows that change is possible, if the government and its people are willing and able to put in the work”: clearly South Asians just don’t want breathable air enough to “put in the work”.
Are systemic solutions ever mentioned? Maybe South Asia needs to stop being the Wests sweatshop so that they can start healing their land? Nope, they just need a handout: “Aid from international organizations and private donors could go a long way.”
They also talk about how “China remains the world’s 13th most polluted country”, of course without a mention that this pollution was caused primarily by manufacture for Western markets and in many cases by the Western owned companies, so that the West could in many cases double dip: on the one hand, by exploiting cheap but well educated labour (that education bankrolled by the Communists, mind you) so that they could sell necessities to workers in the West at ridiculously low prices, allowing them to suppress wages in the West without guillotines wooshing; and on the other hand by exporting the profits of the entire production chain back to the West where the company is owned.
If the pollution in China was getting worse you can bet your ass they would be talking about “the CCP” and Xi Jinping personally, and the solution would be nothing short of the outright regime change.
Copying my comment from another thread: when I need to discuss “change through bourgeois electoralism” with libs I love sharing this interview:
It’s so perfect; it’s a reputable Western newspaper so you can share it in almost any setting, just preface it for plausible deniability with something like: “It’s a hilarious read, one of the greatest modern liberal intellectuals debates a genocidal maniac frothing at the mouth!”
Libs love the idea and usually swallow the bait expecting funzies, they looooove them a stuck-up Brit “speaking truth to power” and handing out “hitchslaps”.
And then Stalin absolutely demolishes Wells and it really fucks with their world. Wells says FDR’s New Deal will bring about socialism in the USA and Stalin’s like nah cause the economy is in the hands of capitalists so at most you will get some concessions which capitalists will keep fighting to revert. Stalin’s arguments are so clear and concise, and his predictions are so plainly correct, while Wells is just being confidently wrong and terribly smug about it.
I had some success with it too, including one well-meaning lib literally telling me the next day, “Stalin was right” which are the three words I would not expect a lib utter under any circumstances.
Lol holy fuck…
OK so they find the term “Global South” confusing geographically (South Korea is in the ‘Global North’, and North Korea in the ‘Global South’, what a conundrum) and economically (tax havens have high GDP which apparently means they’re rich lol).
Of course they proceed using the term “Western states” repeatedly without getting confused over implied geography! Germany is to the east of France and China is to the west of Japan, how do you tell which ones are Western?
They also repeatedly use the term “neo-imperialist” in relation to China and Russia not bothering to explain what “neo-imperialism” is supposed to be and how those states fit that description.
Anyway, their actual gripes are with the following:
- The concept of “Global South” delegitimises the international order and the West’s place within in
- Instead of pursuing hard-nosed strategies driven by their own interests, Western states are expected to consider what the ‘Global South’ wants – be that climate reparations, slavery indemnities, or multilateral institution reform
- The West is trading its “hard power” for “soft power”, “interests for values”.
The horror! The rightful place of The West as slave owners and colonisers is under attack, and other nations expect their needs to be heard rather than The West rolling over everything as they did for centuries. The West needs to exercise some of that good old military “hard power” against them, no more mister nice guy!
But enough about what they don’t like! What would they actually like? The answer to that is in the link at the bottom, here are my highlights:
- Create units in the National Security Secretariat and FCDO to counter the anti-Western ‘Global South’ narrative.
- Ringfence 75% of the aid budget for projects which clearly serve Western overseas national interests.
- Increase UK diplomatic presence across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania.
- Make the competition with (China and Russia) a key objective of the Government’s foreign policy.
In short - more of the good old imperialism to combat the “neo-imperialism”! More removed, more propaganda, more meddling both diplomatic and economic via “aid” programs… And first and foremost, more escalation against China and Russia.
Sorry but that’s BS, lots of Western anarchists glorify Bookchin which can’t be said about tankies and Pol Pot.
I got instantly perma-banned from anarchist subreddits simply for quoting some of his Zionist ideas (with sources) to add a bit of context to posts promoting him.
No communist space will ban you for critisizing Pol Pot, quite the opposite, they will ban Pol Pot sympathisers.
Several layers to unpack in that explanation:
- “The idea of the nation” is “Ідея Нації” in Ukrainian, so the symbol would have to be superimposed I and H, not superimposed I and N which doesn’t even exist in Ukrainian alphabet. Trying to derive it from the stylised medieval Cyrillic calligraphy is frankly laughable cause it still looks nothing like Latin N.
So this is false on the face of it, the symbol is just an SS Wolfsangel.
-
This symbol was used by neo-Nazi, self described “National Socialist” political groups in Ukraine since the late 90s, and there is direct lineage from them to Azov. It’s simply the same people still using the same symbol.
-
He seems to think N is a Ukrainian letter for S, or that the fascist slogan “idea of nation” would have some Ukrainian words starting with S, when it’s simply “ideya naziyi” cause neither word is of Ukrainian origin. In fact, them choosing to use “naziya” instead of much more commonly used Ukrainian word “narid” is particularly telling.
They try to reverse-explain a nazi symbol and can’t come up with anything better than a fascist slogan.
next up: metal deficits force closures of the few remaining US manufacturing plants
About Trump and Harris:
Their approaches to turmoil in the Middle East are also expected to be at least rhetorically different.
But no matter who wins in November, the United States will continue to prepare for war with China.
Not even pretending anymore lol
Lenin was very serious about staying true to Marx, to the point of quoting entire pages to be sure he’s not taking things out of context. His work is Marx’s thought applied to economical and political developments Marx couldn’t have foreseen, but it’s in no way revisionist. I think this is why Stalin called it “Marxism-Leninism”, to make sure it’s clear this is Marxism.
Still you have “orthodox Marxists” who will claim ML is not really Marxism but I think if it was called just “Leninism” it would’ve been even easier for them to claim Leninism isn’t even Marxism.
