That’s the problem with a movement which has no leader. Everyone who picks up the logo can say things for it. And a lot of “Anarchists” have started saying they hecking love regime change. Are they mostly bots? Probably. But a few real figures have disappointed as well.
Anyone can, and does, call themselves an ML and out of the myriad I’ve seen online there’s but a handful who have not only read theory but actually understand it, instead of regurgitating empty quotes and/or engaging in purity politics.
I don’t see MLs supporting regime change, nor rejecting the utility of leaders. I’m not sure who you count as the handful that not only read theory but actually understand it, but I certainly don’t see support for the Mossad/CIA influence in Iranian protests nor kidnapping Maduro.
It is absolutely hilarious for a person who refuses on principle to support actually existing revolutionary movements and governments to accuse anyone else of purity politics
ML’s also quote Marx or Lenin when it comes to imperialism which are their leaders. I don’t think I’ve seen any self-proclaimed ML’s advocate for a military invasion of Iran so I guess that’s the difference here. Though a lot of self-proclaimed ML’s are not following those books as religiously when China does something contradicting them.
For geneva_convenience, weak allies are enemies, and imperialism is being insufficiently anti-imperialist. When presented with this, they blocked me and spammed a bunch of unrelated Bad Empanada tweets. The importance of the distinction between weak anti-imperialism and imperialism proper is between working for and hoping for better anti-imperialism in the existing system vs actively needing to dismantle the PRC, which is why I felt it necessary to address in the first place.
Figured this targeted vaguery needed to be addressed, even if geneva can’t see it. The only reason I gently reached out in the first place was because they are generally more reasonable, but seems like they were poisoned by Bad Empanada thinking, just taking the most inflammatory stance possible and burning bridges with people over slight disagreements.
This isn’t even a “read theory” argument, it’s that geneva believes they can dictate who does and doesn’t understand Marx and Lenin based on watching Bad Empanada videos and tweets, without doing any reading on their own part or trying to come to a deeper understanding. This is also why geneva started claiming Hexbear is “Transzionist,” and that Hexbear defends contrapoints on Israel because she’s trans, which is blatantly false: Hexbear is anti-contrapoints and anti-Zionist. This corresponds with geneva_convenience’s love for Bad Empanada:
All in all incredibly disappointing to see from someone who usually has decent political instincts, such as not falling for Mossad and CIA propaganda surrounding regime change in Iran. They seem to love to argue and don’t block even the most reactionary of people, so the only reason I can think of for blocking me is because they didn’t want to confront the idea that they are mistaken about imperialism. The bright side is that I can still interact with their comments, even if they can’t see my responses.
Thanks! Yep, it’s really disappointing, especially becayse they’re usually right about things. The problem is that they don’t take it seriously enough to study, and instead fill in the gaps on their own, which results in false conclusions from time to time.
It isn’t, assuming we are following Leninist analysis, and I’d argue that we should follow Leninist analysis of imperialism due to the depth of understanding it provides, how it works, why it arises, and how to stop it, all of which have been repeatedly tested in reality.
In short, BRI does not at all steal the surplus and prevent development of countries within the program, unlike what the West does, because BRI is about long-term cooperation and not about short-term superprofits. Capitalism can’t realistically fight the urge for immediate gratification, which is why it coups, bombs, and installs compradors, while socialist China focuses on win-win development that creates better contributors to the global market through shared development.
In other words, even the most cynical view of BRI, when viewed objectively, China’s strategy for personal benefit rests on long term delayed gratification, and it can make these choices because people have power over capital in China, rather than inverse in capitalist countries.
No? It’s not imperialism because it’s mutual development. Joining BRI results in large development without China stealing surplus value or installing compradors, which is what the west does. That’s why countries like the Congo are so poor despite being so resource rich when they are imperialized by the west. The fact that the result is mutual development and enrichment, and not one country plundering another, is why it isn’t imperialism.
You’re confusing the reasoning I gave for why China doesn’t have the same economic compulsion towards imperialism as the west does with evidence of it not being imperialist. Are you legitimately making the argument that mutual cooperation for long-term results for both countries is imperialism, or did you misread my comment?
I do criticize China. For example, I don’t think they go far enough when it comes to foreign policy, and they are still lagging behind countries like Cuba when it comes to social progressivism. I know the younger generation in the PRC is more socially progressive and internationally millitant, so the continued progress in China is likely to continue.
Can you explain why you belive BRI to be imperialist? You just said it’s “pretty imperialist” and “naked imperialism,” but haven’t justified why you believe so, other than an implied belief that any mutual cooperation for mutual gain between a more developed and less developed country is imperialism. You haven’t actually stated that, in fairness, which is why I’m asking for you to explain in your own words so I don’t have to read between the lines and assume.
They’re trapping poor African nations in a debt trap. It’s naked imperialism, and I just don’t believe that you’re stupid enough to believe they’re not going to use that leverage for personal gain.
B-b-but the chinese must be bad otherwise westerners aren’t superior anymore…
If only I could get everyone I see to believe that china is bad then reality would bend to my will and my order would be restored, but you ruined it! You don’t believe! Its your fault that the west is inferior now!
It’s only imperialist if it’s actually harmful and extractive. Otherwise all mutual aid is imperialist, Cuba sending doctors throughout the world is imperialist, disaster relief organizations are imperialist. It’s nonsense
That’s the problem with a movement which has no leader. Everyone who picks up the logo can say things for it. And a lot of “Anarchists” have started saying they hecking love regime change. Are they mostly bots? Probably. But a few real figures have disappointed as well.
How are MLs any different?
Anyone can, and does, call themselves an ML and out of the myriad I’ve seen online there’s but a handful who have not only read theory but actually understand it, instead of regurgitating empty quotes and/or engaging in purity politics.
I don’t see MLs supporting regime change, nor rejecting the utility of leaders. I’m not sure who you count as the handful that not only read theory but actually understand it, but I certainly don’t see support for the Mossad/CIA influence in Iranian protests nor kidnapping Maduro.
It is absolutely hilarious for a person who refuses on principle to support actually existing revolutionary movements and governments to accuse anyone else of purity politics
Point to on the doll where I’ve “refused on principal to support actual existing revolutionary movements”
Get your head out of your arse kid. Huffing your own jenkum at the source is messing with your head
Classic weird SA shit
You presumably self identify as an anarchist or ultraleftist of some kind, no?
Huff my jenkum, loser
ML’s also quote Marx or Lenin when it comes to imperialism which are their leaders. I don’t think I’ve seen any self-proclaimed ML’s advocate for a military invasion of Iran so I guess that’s the difference here. Though a lot of self-proclaimed ML’s are not following those books as religiously when China does something contradicting them.
For clarity, geneva_convenience hasn’t read Marx nor Lenin but believes China is imperialist, according to Lenin, without actually proving how, purely because they abstained from the UNSC vote on the TRUST plan for Palestine. geneva_convenience blocked me after contextualizing it and proving that, while certainly not what I would have wanted the PRC to do, does not change that they are not an imperialist country.
For geneva_convenience, weak allies are enemies, and imperialism is being insufficiently anti-imperialist. When presented with this, they blocked me and spammed a bunch of unrelated Bad Empanada tweets. The importance of the distinction between weak anti-imperialism and imperialism proper is between working for and hoping for better anti-imperialism in the existing system vs actively needing to dismantle the PRC, which is why I felt it necessary to address in the first place.
Figured this targeted vaguery needed to be addressed, even if geneva can’t see it. The only reason I gently reached out in the first place was because they are generally more reasonable, but seems like they were poisoned by Bad Empanada thinking, just taking the most inflammatory stance possible and burning bridges with people over slight disagreements.
This isn’t even a “read theory” argument, it’s that geneva believes they can dictate who does and doesn’t understand Marx and Lenin based on watching Bad Empanada videos and tweets, without doing any reading on their own part or trying to come to a deeper understanding. This is also why geneva started claiming Hexbear is “Transzionist,” and that Hexbear defends contrapoints on Israel because she’s trans, which is blatantly false: Hexbear is anti-contrapoints and anti-Zionist. This corresponds with geneva_convenience’s love for Bad Empanada:
All in all incredibly disappointing to see from someone who usually has decent political instincts, such as not falling for Mossad and CIA propaganda surrounding regime change in Iran. They seem to love to argue and don’t block even the most reactionary of people, so the only reason I can think of for blocking me is because they didn’t want to confront the idea that they are mistaken about imperialism. The bright side is that I can still interact with their comments, even if they can’t see my responses.
I am so embarrassed for u/geneva_convenience after reading this
Comrade Cowbee is one of the most patient and couragous members of this community
Thanks! Yep, it’s really disappointing, especially becayse they’re usually right about things. The problem is that they don’t take it seriously enough to study, and instead fill in the gaps on their own, which results in false conclusions from time to time.
Belt and road is pretty imperialist
It isn’t, assuming we are following Leninist analysis, and I’d argue that we should follow Leninist analysis of imperialism due to the depth of understanding it provides, how it works, why it arises, and how to stop it, all of which have been repeatedly tested in reality.
In short, BRI does not at all steal the surplus and prevent development of countries within the program, unlike what the West does, because BRI is about long-term cooperation and not about short-term superprofits. Capitalism can’t realistically fight the urge for immediate gratification, which is why it coups, bombs, and installs compradors, while socialist China focuses on win-win development that creates better contributors to the global market through shared development.
In other words, even the most cynical view of BRI, when viewed objectively, China’s strategy for personal benefit rests on long term delayed gratification, and it can make these choices because people have power over capital in China, rather than inverse in capitalist countries.
So it’s only imperialist if it’s for short term gain?
Imagine believing that they’re doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and don’t expect anything in return.
Why can’t you criticize anything they do, even when it’s naked imperialism?
No? It’s not imperialism because it’s mutual development. Joining BRI results in large development without China stealing surplus value or installing compradors, which is what the west does. That’s why countries like the Congo are so poor despite being so resource rich when they are imperialized by the west. The fact that the result is mutual development and enrichment, and not one country plundering another, is why it isn’t imperialism.
You’re confusing the reasoning I gave for why China doesn’t have the same economic compulsion towards imperialism as the west does with evidence of it not being imperialist. Are you legitimately making the argument that mutual cooperation for long-term results for both countries is imperialism, or did you misread my comment?
I do criticize China. For example, I don’t think they go far enough when it comes to foreign policy, and they are still lagging behind countries like Cuba when it comes to social progressivism. I know the younger generation in the PRC is more socially progressive and internationally millitant, so the continued progress in China is likely to continue.
Can you explain why you belive BRI to be imperialist? You just said it’s “pretty imperialist” and “naked imperialism,” but haven’t justified why you believe so, other than an implied belief that any mutual cooperation for mutual gain between a more developed and less developed country is imperialism. You haven’t actually stated that, in fairness, which is why I’m asking for you to explain in your own words so I don’t have to read between the lines and assume.
They’re trapping poor African nations in a debt trap. It’s naked imperialism, and I just don’t believe that you’re stupid enough to believe they’re not going to use that leverage for personal gain.
B-b-but the chinese must be bad otherwise westerners aren’t superior anymore…
If only I could get everyone I see to believe that china is bad then reality would bend to my will and my order would be restored, but you ruined it! You don’t believe! Its your fault that the west is inferior now!
(What I believe goes on in liberals’ heads)
It’s only imperialist if it’s actually harmful and extractive. Otherwise all mutual aid is imperialist, Cuba sending doctors throughout the world is imperialist, disaster relief organizations are imperialist. It’s nonsense
China is not building up African infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts, and I’m pretty sure you know this.