It purely exists for advertisers to profile age groups, and for capitalists to use generational warfare to distract the working class from their real enemy. Shit is fucking stupid.

  • Redbolshevik2 [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Right yes the revolutionary potential of various nations, not necessarily individual actors within these nations.

    Nations are made of people. I don't see why this is a necessary distinction.

    Yes.

    Making guns and being shot by guns are completely different things with completely different relations. I don't even know how to address this. Violent dispossession happens at the end of the barrel, not the butt.

    Turn of the century, around when I estimate the current neoliberal world order was established and solidified.

    Alright. I don't know any that match that criterion.

    Backwards yes but no less mighty afaik, the Russian Empire was a world superpower at the time with a military force that the even the british empire was worried about.

    Might is extremely difficult to quantify. Moreover, it's not a nation's might or lack thereof that primarily leads to revolution, it's the conditions of the people. Russia sending millions of peasants to die was the primary contradiction.

    That said, a nation's lack of might can very well lead to poor conditions for the people, as with China's Century of Humiliation.

    None but other than Nepal no other nation had an armed socialist revolution since 2000 right?

    None that I know of.

    • SuperNovaCouchGuy2 [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Nations are made of people. I don’t see why this is a necessary distinction.

      It is because nations are more than individuals, they are made up of groups of people, histories, traditions, culture, socioeconomic systems of governance, not just individual population units. I don't think there is much use in analyzing things based on an individual case by case basis. Individuals don't matter in the grand scheme of things, revolutions don't spring up because all of a sudden everyone decides to have a revolution right?

      Might is extremely difficult to quantify.

      According to muh wikipedia the Russian Empire was the third largest empire in modern history. The angloids were scared of them invading India.

      Moreover, it’s not a nation’s might or lack thereof that primarily leads to revolution, it’s the conditions of the people.

      Idk whether this is the primary reason but it certainly plays a part. Problem is that there are many countries around the world where the populations live in worsening miserable slavery, however there have been no revolutions post 2000 save for Nepal. However, what points of hope do you see from the third world?