I think the main idea is that the colonial state is going to wither away on its own because zionists are already leaving due to how unsafe it is for them to be there, and by the time a two state solution would be implemented, this will have already reached a point where those people will not return and anyone like them who remains will want to leave even more because they have had their colonial project taken away. This will lead to an inevitable one state for Palestine because all the euros will flee and Palestine will have a majority and keep gaining power in the area, while the colony is fully weakened, loses a lot of population, and by then maybe even a lot of external funding.

China having this position makes sense because they are trying to be taken seriously as a mediator and the two state solution is the closest thing to a good deal for Palestinians that is actually being considered at the moment, but the average communist position should absolutely be an end to the zionist state entirely. If China adopted a one state policy in favor of Palestine, they wouldn't be included in any serious negotiating because that is obviously not something one of the parties in the negotiation wants to accept at the moment.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I would purge any self identifying information but otherwise it doesn't really matter.

yeah they have totally incoherent ideologies which are all centered around selfishness, and again, thinking they are smarter and better than people who don't know whatever they know. They reinvent eugenics every time.

Your premise is that China had already achieved socialism and then went backwards towards capitalism but in reality they were a semi-feudal semi-colonized agrarian state, had a communist revolution, and began building towards socialism which is a process that takes generations. If socialism comes after capitalism and capitalism comes after feudalism, it means that with China being a feudal pre-industrial society during their revolution, they must enter into and move through a capitalist phase to develop and expand the means of production and socialize labor in order to create the conditions to build socialism. Socialism can not be built directly out of feudalism, just like capitalism couldn't come directly out of slave economies.

The key is that the entire capitalist phase of China was controlled by a Communist party with the express goal of building socialism, unlike every capitalist nation without a dictatorship of the proletariat, where the express goal was to build capitalism in order to make money for the capitalists. It should be obvious at this point if you look at the metrics: Chinese people have a higher quality of life, more purchasing power, greater social welfare, and virtually none of the key social problems that the capitalist core countries have, despite the capitalist countries having vastly more developed economies earlier and vastly more resources readily available through colonial plunder and chattel slavery. China is very clearly run by true Communists because if not, they wouldn't have any of these things, and would look more like India or any other nation in the Global South.

I know a lot of free software people and they are fascist, NED regime change type libs who think they are smarter and better than everyone else. Many of them have backgrounds working for the government in some degree or another, and then they move on to NGOs and the like.

Aside from what has been said, it is important to keep in mind that the distribution of apps is controlled by companies that you would likely be boycotting (plus their allies) which could mean that the primary means of getting to people such as the play stores could ban the app and make it highly unlikely to spread very far. Having alternative distribution plans and back up plans for these types of scenarios from the outset would be wise

You need to look up your state's recording consent laws, but generally any place where there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy" is considered legal to record audio, even in states that follow "two party consent" frameworks. Depending on the work place, it could be argued one way or the other and only a lawyer familiar with your state's laws could give a sure answer based on the specifics of your situation. A lot of states don't have any limitations on recording though so if you are in one of those you are obviously in the clear.

They are thinking of Gazpacho, you are thinking of Gallego, and Gonzalo is the blue Muppet with a long nose

TBF sanctions have worked really well against Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK just to name a few. Smaller and isolated economies which have not fully industrialized can artificially be set back decades via sanctions, and while those nations still exist, we can't pretend it hasn't been an immense struggle for them which is almost entirely due to the sanctions. The US thought their war strategies against the Taliban and ISIS would work against Russia and they thought their economic attacks would work the same - not realizing in both instances that Russia isn't a literal or figurative island with a fragile economy.

Doubt it, they are likely trying to win favor with China after sending more boots to Ukraine which I imagine Xi gave Macron an earful about. France is always happy to say something that "goes against the grain" but then still fall in line when the rubber meets the road.

Finally someone with a large platform fucking using it

If you have only a basic understanding of Marxism, its not hard to get to a class reductionist analysis that goes something like: workers in US need to rise up against US imperio-capitalists > there's a huge population of the working class which are very alienated from the left due to propaganda > make propaganda that appeals to them where they are already at to begin pulling them left > eventually enough people will be radicalized to get organized and make an impact.

This is kind of the basic Marxist model right? Unite the workers against the common enemy, the bosses, and fight together for a better world. Why wouldn't you want to bring such a large demographic of workers into the fold instead of rejecting them and thus giving them only one political option in the right? "If only all the rednecks would be like the early 1900's again, we'd be able to make so much change!"

Patsocs realize that there is a large, white working class demographic of people in the US that is only being targeted by right wing media so they are utilizing symbolism and rhetoric that said group already identifies with in order to get content views which they see as radicalizing them towards the left. The reality is that the majority of workers in the US, not even just white ones, would identify with the US and the idea that the US is a legitimate state over the idea that it should be abolished and made into a bunch of smaller nations of some kind, especially anything run by Indigenous people who are such a small percentage of the population that people can't imagine being governed by them.

This all fits nicely into a very antiquated and reductive analysis of Marxism that avoids the concept of settler colonialism and neo-colonialism, and is missing the sub-classes of workers which actually keeps the workers of the US at large, particularly the white ones, in a sort of global labor aristocracy which sees them as fundamentally on the side of capital because they benefit so much from it. Without understanding this reality, it is easy to imagine we can just get all the workers in the US on the same side against their common enemy and thus would want to try to meet them where they are at and guide them towards the light. Instead, the truth is closer that these demographics of US workers are brown shirt sleeper agents who will allow any atrocity to be committed in their name as long as they get to keep their comforts more or less intact. They do not have the same interest as other workers in the US, especially the colonized workers that they exploit domestically like Indigenous people and New Afrikans.

I believe the PatSocs genuinely believe the logical thread I spoke to above and think that they are going to incite the working class white people into some sort of communist ballot box revolution in the US that will usher in a socialist USA. They reject the idea of the US being illegitimate because it has existed for "too long," the people who's land it was are "virtually gone" in the majority of areas of the country and it has and continues to have such a profoundly large global impact that it is firmly cemented in reality as a nation. A lot of Americans don't vote or care about politics but they do identify with America, because they do benefit from imperialism, and the idea of the USA not existing is something I'd bet most US citizens would find totally implausible.

All of this will be very validating to the PatSoc engagement reports for similar reasons that DSA and anarchism has a lot of traction in the US - they don't ask anyone to change their self perception, or beliefs. They don't ask you to commit class or race suicide or even grow as people, you can just adopt a new rhetoric and aesthetic and feel like you are better than anyone to the right or the left of you. This brings money into the PatSoc's bank accounts which affirms their positions and creates a positive feedback loop which keeps them chasing clout/money/power and forces them to become grifters even if they thought they were sincere at some point. I'm sure they go to bed at night thinking "we are spreading communism and socialism farther each day, we are radicalizing the masses, this is the correct thing to be doing," but once you have patreon subscribers paying your bills because they like the content you put out, you are pretty much on that track for life.

Personally I think instead of rejecting them entirely, people need to be engaging with and showing why their rhetoric is undeveloped and backwards.

The USA is a settler colony which requires the elimination of the natives in order to take over as private owners of the land which had been shared in commons by the natives. If the natives exist there in great numbers, they can claim rights to the land, so they have to be taken out. The colonizers of the lands known as USA committed widespread genocide and enslavement of the natives in order to depopulate them, including intentional use of bio weapons. Other ethnic groups can't lay claim to the land so their populations being high doesn't really have the same problem as far as land claims go, aside from maybe New Afrikans although I don't think most USAians are considering that claim seriously anymore/yet.

deleted by creator

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Exterminate All The Brutes

aside from all the ones mentioned

For a brief second I thought this meant Columbia University and was quite surprised