GarbageShoot [he/him]

I’d more say that the military occupation was done for the sake of confrontation (this is similar to the official Chinese line). It was a really senseless invasion, as far as I can tell (and I disagree with the Vietnamese line that the war was expansionist).

Come on, you’re more well-read than this. You know that military occupation and annexation are not the same thing.

If I was just complaining about border skirmishes, then I’d mention India or something. The attack on Vietnam was more than just a “minor border skirmish”.

the map is far more accurate than it is not though

Come on, Yog, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than this. It’d be so easy to just color in Vietnam and then you’d be set, but by posting it in its current form you are actively lying.

deleted by creator

The one is not the other

Arendt is one of the more overrated authors in America short of the founders, but she has a point about how, when you are removed from the brutal nature of the violence, you can just sort of shuffle it into your day-to-day activities. Sure, you can certify the paperwork, it’s just letters on a screen. Hell, you can even administer the needle, as it’s not your job to concern yourself with his innocence or guilt, it’s your job to use this specific set of injections to kill him in a visually benign way. Separating arbiters from brutalizing and brutalizers from arbitration makes the flagrant injustice much more palatable to both parties.

It’s like, what are the actual implications of baristas doing “unproductive” labor? They’re attaching an emotional meaning to it, but unproductive for Marx only means that the labor does not reproduce capital, the M-C-M’ process is interrupted. So what’s the problem? That capitalism has bullshit jobs? That some people make minimum wage undeservedly?

But this is already ceding too much ground to their bunk analysis, because baristas are obviously productive labor. They make and serve coffee, meaning they are important in getting money out of the cafe (or whatever), the coffee beans, the coffee machines, etc., even if we totally discount the possibility of excess value being extracted from their labor and treat them like instruments of production. They’re part of the circuit, or they wouldn’t be employed!

Calling service economy work unproductive labor isn’t picking a weird corner of Marx’s writing, it’s completely misreading it.

Individually, yes, but collectively, it must be possible, since we are the material basis for the system existing in the first place.

On this chart, Labour is to the left of Lib Dems, 93% to 90%. They are to the right of Greens, who have 96%.

Ah, I see what you’re saying now I think, so it would still be benefiting the capitalists (expanding the labor pool does that) but, in terms of direct finances, it doesn’t really intersect with them.

In the west, they increase the retirement age to funnel more money to capitalists. With no capitalists to finance in China, this money is going into pension funds for a 1.6 billion population.

What do you mean “with no capitalists to finance in China”?! There is objectively and obviously a Chinese bourgoisie, and this is therefore funneling money to them just like it would be doing anywhere else in the world.

What is quoted after is of course true of the USSR between the end of the NEP and the revisionists restoring capitalism, but we already have overwhelmingly widespread capitalism (privately owned MoP producing commodities, extracting surplus value through wage labor) in China, the two systems are extremely different.

That’s a limp deflection. Is it really so difficult to not go around mocking people for typing errors like a 13-year-old?

Go back to Reddit

Whatever problems you might have with low-effort digital art, the two are not remotely comparable.

Uyghurs (Chinese Muslims)

It isn’t a common naming format for communist parties for this exact reason.

Basically every communist party you could care to mention names itself after the state it seeks to take over, the specific ordering of words is just a matter of distinguishing itself from other parties using the same words, like the CPUSA vs the PCUSA.

And then his policies did produce polarization and a new bourgeoisie. I think it shouldn’t be controversial to say that he was substantially revisionist, and that a circumstance where some are prosperous and some are not is opposed to the principles of a socialist society because it is the product of stratification of social position in the population, i.e. not conducive to achieving the “classlessness” thing.

He’s often regarded as a right-deviationist for a reason