I think this is a good example to highlight when engaging with libs about climate change, and how while actions like the Green New Deal aren’t bad, per se; it’s just that problem is capitalism and when push comes to shove capitalist governments will choose profits over saving the earth every time.
Do you happen to know if there are any books or articles that detail all of Lenin’s contributions, as you’ve outlined here? I know it’s all contained within State & Revolution, Imperialism, et al, but I’ve been looking for one source that summarizes it all.
He was firing on all his (remaining) cylinders.
Kamala was (relatively) more popular when she was performatively distancing herself from Biden. Now that she’s changed tack and moved in lockstep with Biden and his brand of centrist fascism, she’s become unpopular.
The author of this article thinks the only reason Biden wasn’t viable was because of that debate performance. This ignores the fact that Biden was already even less popular than Trump was at this point in his presidency, and well below where LBJ was when he figured he was too unpopular to win reelection and dropped out.
In 1933, Hitler and the German Zionist Federation signed the Haavara Agreement, which oversaw the gradual transfer of German Jews to Palestine.
I seem to remember in Losurdo’s Stalin book, that this event is what led to the Grand Mufti reaching out to Hitler and trying to engage with him. It’s critical to point out that this happened only after the Haavara Agreement; because that correctly frames it as a defensive maneuver by the Grand Mufti who was only concerned with more settlers showing up in Palestine (for those who may not know, it’s a popular hasbara talking point to suggest that the Grand Mufti was “allied” with Hitler and the Nazis. This serves to imply that the Palestinians are in some way responsible for the Holocaust and thus it’s justified to steal their land).
It really is that simple.
This isn't meant to be "the" answer, just one part of whole.
The major fault line in the antebellum period wasn't allow slavery / abolish slavery, it was whether or not to allow slavery in the "territories" i.e. the western parts of the US that were claimed by the US but not yet considered states. Well, the southern slavers did worry about the wholesale abolition of slavery, but that's because they were always paranoid about that. But for the southern slavers, what happened in the territories was critical because 1.) if more states are created that do not allow slavery, eventually the southern states would be outvoted in the senate and lose their disproportionate power since the senate was created in part as a way to keep the southerners happy. But also 2.) these southern slavers were making huge profits, and those profits needed to be reinvested. These slavers looked at the western territories and had dreams of using their profits to buy land and recreate the plantation system all across the west. Just because slavery was the mode of production, these southern plantations were creating tremendous amounts of capital. Where under capitalism, you might reinvest that capital in better equipment to be more productive with less labor, slavers had no such incentive because their slave labor was so cheap. But you still have to reinvest your capital (the southern economy was, after all, not a pure slavery system and it had plenty of elements of capitalism in it just by being part of a larger capitalist economy). Thus they were desperate to open up the west to slavery.
Up in the north, though, I don't think too many people really were focused on abolishing slavery in the south. The idea that the war was fought to abolish slavery is a myth (that's different from saying the war was about slavery, which it was). You had three slave states join the union cause, the emancipation proclamation wasn't declared until well into the war, and Lincoln himself I believe offered to let the slave states keep slavery forever if they stayed in the union (which again, considering what I said above, wasn't much of a consolation prize to the slavers who needed to be able to expand slavery into the territories). None of that is consistent with the union wanting to abolish slavery nationwide. Instead, what the northerners cared about was "Free Soil". The Free Soil Movement is critical to understand in order to understand the source of the conflict. We all know that America was founded on stealing indigenous land and using that as a "release valve" on class conflict. As we approach the civil war, the amount of land available for the taking was starting to get low. Everyone knew there would be a massive amount of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and then eventually new lands for further settler colonialism. But if slavery was allowed in these newly stolen lands, everyone knew that there was no way the yeoman farmer could compete with the plantation system. Not only that, but both the existing capital stocks as well as the super profits generated by the plantation system meant that the slavers could potentially buy up vastly disproportionate amounts of land, squeezing out the would-be yeoman farmers and capitalist farmers for that matter. The Free Soil Movement was the idea the idea that slavery should not be allowed in the territories, not because of moral indignation, but because both these would-be farmers as well as capitalist investors wanted it all for themselves.
So ultimately, I think a lot of the battle over the abolition of slavery came down to a power struggle between northern capitalism (with an understanding that they needed to keep the masses in north happy with the prospect of "free real estate) and southern slavery. Abolishment came as a way to break the political, social, and economic power of the slavers. Not dissimilar to how the emerging bourgeoisie in Europe had to overthrown the political, social, and economic primacy of the aristocrats. In Europe, the defeat of the aristocrats didn't mean they lost their wealth and power, just that they had to be subordinated. And likewise in the US, the plantation owners by and large still did fine for themselves after slavery was abolished; they just no longer were allowed to share power more or less equally with the industrial capitalists.
So I’ve been debating whether to buy a “Free Palestine” shirt or a “From the river to the sea” shirt. I think I’ve settled on the former. Of course, my heart is with the later, I think it’s the better and more correct message.
But, I’ve been asking myself, what’s the purpose of even wearing it? I’m hoping that it will be useful to find likeminded people and maybe even engage strangers who want to understand what’s going better (I’ve been shocked by just how many people out there will admit they don’t know the first thing about Palestine, but if you seem like someone who knows things they will listen). As much as I love the “from the river to sea” chant, I think its message is completely lost on anyone not familiar with what’s going on there. I think it will just get ignored because those words have no meaning to 98% of Americans. But “free Palestine” is a simple message that tells people “hey this is something I care about and I might know a thing or two about it.”
Probably overthinking it but w/e.
Probably noting deeper than “you root against America and NATO, the Taliban is America’s enemy. Q.E.D. you support the Taliban.
That sounds like a panic attack. I get them, but in a different contexts from protests. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has helped me. You don’t have to pay for a therapist, plenty of resources online. I try and pay attention to what I am feeling. Just observe it without judging it/myself. Like, ok I am now feeling short of breath. So I’m just “observing” my breathing. It helps me keep calm and not to spiral towards more panic.
This was maybe the first video in over a year that I couldn’t bring myself to watch. Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
I think it’s the best theory out there that explains the nature of money and how it works in the economy. In my opinion it provides superior explanations for how money works compared to what neoliberalism can provide.
Do liberals like to latch onto it in order to come up with dreams of social democracy that works by printing money? Sure, and they’re wrong. But in terms of its explanatory power for a theory of money? Yeah it’s pretty dope.
We’re not going to be eliminating the money form any time soon. I think the central banks in Beijing, Pyongyang, Havana etc would do well to study and apply MMT.
I have to partially disagree that proponents of MMT don’t talk about imperialism. I mean, yes, a lot don’t. But Marxists or Marxist-adjacent folks like Michael Hudson or Steve Grumbine talk about it all the time.
They know the French won’t do anything about it, either.
“A Kubrick stare involves an actor looking out from under the brow line and tilting their head towards the camera. Sometimes, the actor will smile in a sinister fashion. It is often used to convey that a character has become dangerously mentally unstable… It often heralds that something "intense" will soon take place”