this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
97 points (98.0% liked)
GenZedong
4809 readers
152 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Yep, its based on a vibe or the idea of 'solidifying their position' when there is absolutely no material gain the right has from this, if anything they lost one of their main propagandists (which granted is only an issue for them in the short term, if even that). Their position is not 'solidified' and their grounds are not 'stronger,' the resources at their disposal, the propaganda they wield, and the industry they command is the same regardless if this guy is dead or alive. Hell Trump, Vance, Shapiro, everyone on the far right could die tonight and it would not significantly strengthen or weaken their long term political power, it would only cause short term confusion
Your position is solely based on vibes of what sounds like should be correct. This is something people implicitly accept as true without any critical thinking. It feels correct, its what everyone else is saying, and it aligns with how historical development is traditionally understood so it checks off the bias box as well. But make no mistake, this is an idealist view of the world. You absolutely cannot strengthen material power and material goals through ideals alone. Rhetoric does not create material power.
But lets just say that yes, youre correct. That his death really will somehow strengthen the far right overnight (as if they didnt already have the backing of the bourgeoisie with little challenge) and werent already deploying the national guard to major cities. Lets say such a thing not only is possible but even significantly beneficial to the far right as you describe. Would they not just orchestrate a similar event themselves to create the justification anyway? If they really needed it then theyd just do that. Ergo, Kirks death means nothing, because otherwise it wouldve been someone else and the outcome is identical. Because this was the trajectory regardless, and no ideals, rhetoric, sense of petty revenge can change that. No one man can change that by being dead or alive.
Your take is fairly unmaterialist and ignores class struggle in favor of individualism and vibe based idealism
Hurts my feelings you presume to understand my position or suggest I'm not thinking critically. ☹️It's not "what everyone else is saying".
There is no such thing in science as "identical" to an arbitrary degree of certainty. You can take a meter and divide it in half n number of times and take a measurement. You won't get the same measurement twice. It's the infinity of real numbers.
Consider kirk's death to be a perturbation of the larger system that is our society. That perturbation is not identical to an arbitrary degree of freedom as the ben shapiro perturbation or the jordan peterson perturbation. Society may, and most likely will, go to the same equilibrium point.
What you call "the trajectory" is not identical for different initial conditions. The final position may or may not be. Throw two balls with the same velocity at 30 degrees above the horizon and 60 degrees above the horizon. They will both land in the same place, but the one thrown at 30 degrees gets there sooner.
But in reality, you can't land in the same place regardless. You may say that it is the same because it is "close enough", but for the sake of material consideration that may be what "the same" is. It lands somewhere where it destroys the "the same" amount of property.
If however you are approaching this thermodynamically, this system will begin in a state of low multiplicity and evolve to the state of high multiplicity. Entropy. For all intents and purposes, the final system is the same regardless of they way it evolves. But the way the gas expands, its internal properties, and its interaction with the environment are different.
Consider two expansions which could be considered to be analogs to this polical scenario. The adiabatic and the iso thermal process. The public being the gas and politicians et al as the environment. In the adiabatic case, there is no interaction with rhe environment. The gas cools as it expands. The temperature decreases. The isothermal case requires heating to maintain the same temperature. However, both processese do the same amount of work if they begin and end with the same volume.
The final consideration is the efficiency associated with chaining these processes together. The most efficient cycle is what is known as the carnot cycle. It incorporates 2 isotherms and two adiabats. While non physical, it establishes the *maximum possible efficiency". No cycle can be more efficient. I'll leave it as an exercise to reader explain how this relates to the condition of material.
While there may have been very little critical thought in any of this, we've succeasfully established the meaning of "identical", different initial conditions leading to "the same outcome", entropy, work, and effiency. Identical to what everyone else said. It was close enough 😉
Presumptive I'm not thinking critically ☹️. My point is that there is no such thing as identical to an arbitrary level of accuracy. Were I to presume what you mean, you are say