TΛVΛR
You may be confusing me wthe other person. I just piggybacked onto the discussion.
But yeah, my read was that settler colonial projects either manage to “complete” their genocide or end in liberation. But maybe there is an argument to be made that one shouldn’t view any settler colonial project as “finished” until it is liberated, that thought peaked my curiosity and prompted my question.
At the same time it still seems to me that a part of the analysis must be, that the US/Canada/Australia/… are more stable settler colonies than Israel.
Is your argument with the nuclear reactors about the stability? Or did I misinterpret that?
It seems a little ultra to say they are between Strasserism and Nazbol.
IMO they are classic “Christdemokraten” minus the religious invocation, their policy is exactly that of Helmut Kohl in nearly every regard.
What is different is the media and societal context they are embedded in. Large parts of society are reactionary about immigration and the media love themselves a “red/brown” alliance, creating a feedback loop. And that they broke from the left created mechanisms of its own that play a role.
Its still concerning, but remember sending military to Mali and creating Frontex is well within the realm of socdem anti-immigration action.
I am concerned about what they say and some of the support they draw but so far their rhetoric has been qualitatively significantly different to the likes of the AfD (I think?) in that its not ethno-popular/“völkisch”
IMO what they say is well within what socdems say/do. But its not my rabbit hole, if you can educate me otherwise I definitely would want to know (German texts are fine too)
That is incorrect. Stages of grief do not only apply to terminal conditions where acceptance is fatalistic.
Say you suffer the loss of a loved one. Accepting that they are gone holds within itself the key to continue your live. Acceptance, plain and simple, is a necessity to deal with reality.
Similarly the acceptance that the capitalist system is inherently “broken” enables us to figure out how to deal with that reality, how to overcome its contradictions.
Denying that many of humanities problems are rooted in capitalism does not. The comparison is valid
Was Lenin talking about the impacts of those concepts?
Bc I would even consider diamat foundational to CS (which would only strengthen your point)
Anyway there is a more central issue in their argument though:
If I make a good faith attempt at understanding the point of this other person: they could be talking about CS bc of its central role in driving historical progress. In that sense their focus on CS (vs LTV/diamat) is understandable, “replacing” that with “national struggle” is not admissible for a marxist.
But it can’t be denied that what Lenin (the staunch geopolitical analyst that he was) did constituted an extension to Marxism that recognizes state/imperial competition (what they mean when they say “national struggle”) as a driving historical force. Considering nation states are a tool of the ruling class this doesn’t constitute a break from Marxism. So they were creating a false dichotomy.
Lenins additon has some grave consequences however when it comes to interpreting how class struggle manifests. Some trots apparently consider the Palestinian struggle in an utterly perverted way, where the Palestinian working class needs to rise up against their ruling class (and they don’t mean the Israeli class that is ruling over them), while a Leninist correctly identifies thei national struggle as anti-imperialist and consistent with class struggle overall.
So maybe the person you encountered was just affected by trot brainrot but I believe they were just not liking your opinions shying away from an argument and cowardly retreating into ostensibly principled territory, a behaviour that always creates a shitload of confusion and toxicity, pushes a movement towards dogmatism and harms the ideological struggle in general. This sounds exaggerated in this case, but I really can’t stand this “reaching for a priciple” just to feel safe. Same reason why they immediately compared you to fascists. Whoever reads this, don’t fucking do this.
Of course Marxists can write/discuss about quantitaive production of munition, the depleation of weapons stockpile, logistics in war. Barring us from doing that is barring us from assessing at what is going on, in a way it is them that are turning away from scientific socialism and from Marxsim towards idealism.
I hope with you, and I am trying to do my part here (so that hopefully you guys don’t have to do all the work again…).
Off topic but while I have the chance: thank you comrade for your tremendous work here. But also in FP and Clojure. It was a fun realization that you are the same person;)
Ppl might be reading this wrong (or am I?)
incident reported to OPCW by the Government of Syria
In this instance it looks like it was the Syrian gov who reported to the OPCW an incident where they were alleging the use of chemical weapons by ISIS against Aknaf group.
So it OPCW seems to say that the Syrian govs accusations are false
I totally get your perspective too: you could swap acceptance and denial. Capitalists accept the justification of the status quo while MLs deny it.
In the context of grieve I think Yogthos’ perspective is more fitting: “Denial” is the denial that anything is wrong with the system and “Acceptance” of both facts, that the system is fundamentally flawed and that a pursuit of any idealistic one doesn’t bear fruit is the necessary precursor for conducting a sober analysis
I mean, If I can hope for the KMT to win against the DPP in Taiwan for strategic reasons, in this case I could bury the hatch with the SPD just deep enough to accept a strategic benefit would there be one.
But there isn’t: The defining difference seems to be that BSW will obstruct US-led Western Imperialism through rapprochement with RU and CN and will not give weapons to IL while the SPD will do the opposite of all that