Without the label, I assumed the driver was Mamdani, but then the label made me think it’s Hasan. Now you have me thinking the steamroller itself is Hasan

Mom:

we have at home

at home:

Liberals are in the comments repeating Jordan Peterson talking points, only inverted about Trump

What no theory does to a mf

I think about that line a lot tbh. “What no theory does do a mf”

Agreed. Frankly people adjust to things really quickly, things that they swear they would die to prevent. But already, today, they routinely read about bullshit that they don’t like, and they don’t lift a finger. Turns out that abstractions are not that motivating. But one or two missed meals is all it takes to motivate someone to act.

There is no need to build total consensus before a revolution

It isn’t mentioned who called the cops. Presumably the homeowner was inside sleeping, and then scared shitless by a deep-voiced drunk man frantically ringing the doorbell and going around the house, maybe shouting dumb drunk things like “I’m gonna kill you guys for this”

Then homeowner calls 911 saying they think someone’s gonna kill them. Either legitimately or because of ‘Murica frontier mindset (because someone definitely wants to steal your 2007 Ford Focus and raid your Minion t shirts)

Sad situation all around. The officer should be charged.

There are several angles to consider it. You are getting somewhere with that.

My rough idea is that there are at least two dialectics involved.

The first dialectic is between (hu)man and nature. Man is alienated from nature from the moment that civilization begins. Then birding and hunting express two strategies to resolve back to the actual unity, man and nature. For birding, the strategy is to dissolve man into nature, by means of immersion and ego suppression. For hunting, the strategy is to dissolve nature into man, by means of consumption and by appropriation as property.

The second dialectic is the classic one between use-value and exchange-value. Birding conceives nature as use-value, hunting conceives nature as exchange-value.

The tasks are similar, the difference is in the evaluation. A hunter will rave about how they’re able to “bag one more” if they upgrade to the larger objective size that lets in more light for dusk.

And don’t get me started how the term “glassing” (ie, looking through optics) is an immediate tell that the person is a hunter. The whole “sport” seems to be drenched in silly masculine terminology.

I appreciate your insight into Lula. I desire not to place blame, but to insist a correct attitude and interpretation of events from my own western perspective, against what I think are other western perspectives. Maybe I’m out of place given the comm, I don’t mean to deny critical discussion among LatAm folks who are directly involved in the struggle.

The ethos I try to embody is that communists can never be let down by the people. Only the people can be let down by the communists. To think otherwise is to adopt the Kamala liberal habit of locating the fault outside of oneself, to blame the people for failing to act, for failing to manifest one’s theory.

If historical materialism is to be believed, the material conditions determine the sphere of possibility of human will to “swerve” history in a different direction. The focus of communists should be always on those conditions, not on the strength of will alone, and certainly not on the will of other people facing harsher conditions than oneself.

First, yes we are pretty much in agreement. No worries about any negative feelings.

It is great advice that I, too, try to live by. People are attracted to political work from many backgrounds, with varying interpersonal skills and potentially toxic behavior, not least of which is liberal civility. The advice is useful in daily life for that very reason that it was meant to raise the wisdom of individual party members.

It’s only in the context of party work that mere advice develops into obligation and moral code because, as Mao emphasizes on each point, there are objective harms to organized political work when not followed. And party members are obliged to follow these rules because they have themselves committed to the work. It’s not a standard held to the “masses”, and indeed not every person can or should commit themselves to party work.

Frankly, most people are just trying to survive. I cannot ask anyone to combat liberalism unless they have the capacity to do that.

Clarification: This applies only between party rank-and-file, ie between politically active comrades who are working together. It’s wrong to conceive of this site as a party or even directed toward any actionable goal. Users on this site don’t need to be held to the standards of party members. It is good advice, but no one is obliged to be dragged into online arguments.

“how do you do, fellow hunters?”

Your idea sounds cool to me, still. I think you should give it a try one day. I doubt every person there will be into hunting.

Aw man. RIP.

no gulag. Straight into the bird feeder

The Walmartificafion of the global economy

Born to shit, forced to wipe too poor to wipe

Not pictured:

• Ocean gate submersible

The decisions of the Venezuelan leadership are plausibly consistent with a nation that has suffered a strategic defeat and are minimizing the loss.

When the empire parks the Death Star in your orbit and demonstrates the weapon on a moon before pointing it at your feet, there is no meaningful resistance. You beg them not to push the button and try to salvage whatever dignity you have from the situation.

it was this easy to crush Venezuelan resistance

Idk, it’s much easier to resist when alive than dead, in a not-fully-destroyed country. The US struggles against Iran for well known reasons, but Venezuela? That kind of warfare is the bread and butter of the US military. Just drop bombs forever until the society is fundamentally destroyed. It’s easy. They don’t even have to fly far, it’s practically nextdoor. The Venezuelan military can resist an invasion, but they cannot resist an enemy that lobs infinite missiles without ever setting foot on the ground.

If resistance still exists in Venezuela, then they can learn something from the loss, maybe for example developing missile infrastructure á la Iran which could withstand a long term bombing campaign. Or they don’t, that’s up to them. They don’t owe it to me to end US hegemony.

The people who should feel ashamed at the moment are US Americans, for allowing their government to do this to Venezuela and forgetting about it after a couple news cycles.

The positive side of historical materialism is that the world is changeable. The negative side is that history largely sets the terms and timeline on which change occurs.

If humanism forms any part of your Marxism then you have to understand that not every moment is revolutionary, and surely every historical revolution was preceded by years of danger, loss, hope, loss, worsening conditions, and more loss; and that denying this causes additional, unnecessary suffering by forcing a revolution against the facts.

Marxists should be comfortable thinking in terms of generations and even centuries. That’s how long most things take to change. We got lucky a few times, but mostly things are heartbreaking and glacially slow. Is it possible that disappointment and impatience cause you to judge the people suffering defeat?

The point I think Jabril and Carminecatboy2 are making is that Venezuela actually has suffered a strategic loss, and that trying to wriggle out of that loss will not meaningfully change the situation, and only cause more suffering for the Venezuelans.

If Delcy has betrayed the country, then honestly where are the protests? Where is the mutiny from PSUV? I don’t think anyone sees a strategic opening that would be more than symbolic.