Well there’s more to the right than just fascism. Catholic integralism is a hot topic right now. For a real head scratcher try George Fitzhugh. He was a pro slavery anti-capitalist who liked socialism because he thought it was the ultimate form of slavery.
Oh yeah don’t get me started on the left’s residual Christian thinking. The amount of barely veiled protestant thinking is too damn high. The obsession with splitting is a perfect example.
People here should read more right wing theory. I think its very easy to get the impression that the only right wingers that exist are Shapiro or Alex Jones types and so when people on the left encounter a right winger who isn’t a total moron/grifter they can be overly impressed and more easily swayed by them.
Case in point being Aleksandr Dugin. While he’s not as influential since the ACP was founded, I used to hear some his talking points on here a whole lot. He explicitly talks about using internet marxists as a 5th column to push right wing ideas. So inoculate yourselves.
like when people try to argue that the PRC’s economy is currently socialist
The easiest counter to this is that the PRC itself does not consider its economy to be socialist.
People also seem to unfortunately like to come to a conclusion first, and then try to fit the facts to match that conclusion
Exhibit A: The whole “Western Marxist” debate. A whole lot of people will look for someone else to blame before they blame themselves or their group.
The solution is obvious. We must transition to HeptBear. Adding another vertex is the only way to grow the website. We must keep adding vertices until we approach infinite vertices at which point HexBear will become CircleBear, enclosing including everyone on Earth in it.
Of course this plan carries the risk that there will be a struggle session (perhaps several!) on whether to use Latin or Greek prefixes for Bear which will inevitably cause splits and a loss of vertices. However I think it is a risk worth taking.
You sure Freud isn’t haunting you?
The dynamics of capital. It’s a given, which is why I caveated it with ‘if they continue capital accumulation’.
Could they be nicer about? Perhaps, but that would be due to technological development allowing them to carry out their exploitation with less direct violence, not because they are somehow morally superior for having been colonized. Just as the American Empire is/was less brutal than the British.
China did not industrialize on the basis of a colonial empire
It didn’t industrialize directly from a colonial empire, yes. However the capital that flowed into it certainly was, if China had not opened itself up to foreign capital it would not have industrialized anywhere near as fast as it did.
since the south will eventually get richer despite colonialism
Until they saturate their markets and start to look outside their borders for new markets.
while the north will struggle because it doesn’t know how to develop without colonialism
Colonialism is a product of capitalism, if you got rid of the entire global north but let the global south continue capital accumulation they would recreate colonialism, by necessity. No one knows how to develop without colonialism because no one knows how to develop without capitalism.
World systems theorists being methodologically nationalist, quelle surprise.
To be clear I’m sure their findings are close to the truth anyway but it just shows the limitations of the data/approach, like in what world is Singapore in the ‘global south’. But that’s on the data collectors.
But even disregarding that, including China in the ‘global south’ post 2008 is patently ridiculous. I really want to see what these percentages would say if China was included in the ‘global north’.
I’m converting to PMC Maoism.
I love (by which I mean hate) how ‘purity test’ has just come to refer to having any uncompromising moral position whatsoever.
Again it’s one of those cliche situations of the left wants to not kill Palestinians and the right wants to kill all of them and liberals are like, “but you gotta compromise to get what you want …”
Though hearing the Biden superpacs are focusing almost entirely on digital stuff makes me hope that most of these are just shills, even the downvoting is inconsistent, like the horde missed some comments or misinterpreted some of the commenters to think they’re pro-lib when they’re not. Very strange either way.
Oh it’s absolutely pathetic. They should have cut ties with her when she backpedaled her first marginally pro-palestine interview shortly after she got elected (if I’m remembering correctly, could’ve been before). But the DSA isn’t a serious organization so we get this too little too late severing.
File those performative articles of impeachment against Clarence Thomas.
And, “it’s what the unions wanted!” about the railroad strike.
But that’s the kind of power we lost! How horrible …
There was one berating the OOP about how, now that they’ve cut ties with her, the DSA has less power. Like how could they be so stupid as to do that.
Completely missing the point that they never had her ‘power’ to begin with, I swear people didn’t use to be this dumb about politics but here we are …
Who could’ve thought that Leigh Phillips would write something like this … lol. Is he even pretending to be a socialist still?
edit: I don’t know how to spell
Oh yeah it wouldn’t change a god damn thing, arguing about it would be literally pointless. Same thing as arguing against free-will, either it exists or it doesn’t. Debating it is pointless, finding out one way or the other is pointless since in both cases nothing changes.
Fortunately there’s a new funny science youtube who also seems to have at least decent if not verging on pretty good politics.
From when I still watched her, Superdeterminism seemed to be her thing. Its a non-theory, totally unprovable. I don’t think she’s a MOND believer, could be wrong though but either way she’s not a cosmologist.
I’ll give it a shot.
China can discipline individual capitalists but it cannot discipline Capital (in more vulgar terms, international capital).
Since it lacks this capacity China is therefore dependent on Capital cooperating with it to achieve its vision of Socialism.
Thus it will not achieve Socialism with its current trajectory.
Certainly of Soviet style planned economies. Though just the existence of computers refutes a lot of his so called problems.
Theoretically literate right wingers don’t go around proselytizing because that would go against their theory of power. You don’t teach the peasants, you use them. I would argue that policy wise the popular ‘theorists’ are only now making in roads because no one reads anything anymore, left or right.