darkernations

You have now got a problem, either marxism-leninism as a science of political theory is inadequate or your understanding is incomplete (including what you quoted).

Let's take your Australian as example. Let's make him a white male factory worker. Could he, despite being a proleterian, subjugate women or non-whites? If he were to do so, does he do so as individual or as part of a class with systemic features that allows him to enact his power? What do we say is the first division of labor? What is the relationship of the proleteriat in the imperial cores with those from the peripheries? How would a liberal answer these questions? What do you make of Losurdo (or Sankara? Claudia Jones? Kollontai? Fonesca? Fanon? Rodney?)

These aren't gotchas. And I'm side-stepping your condescension in attempt to answer in good faith but my patience is thin. (It's fine not to know and explore. It is not fine to confidently double down on ignorance, which is the impression you are giving off)

Would you be happy for me to use your responses and turn it into a post? I'm sure you are not the only one who thinks like this.

As a westerner, you are part of a class that subjugates the global south.

Nations of peoples and genders are definitely classes.

Genders are definitely not a class. Also not a nations. This is wild, where did you read it?

I mean you could at least feign reading what I wrote.

If one is not to consider nations as classes then what part of marxism would national liberation theory come from? What of Engel's Orgin of the Family with regards to gender (which has since been developed further)? Think about the consequences here if you do not think about them as classes.

This is not wild stuff. This is basic marxism. Otherwise you will end up with the likes of the ACP and Trots

The history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggles. - Marx

There were subjugated non-proleteriat classes now and then.

The term class is not something categorically distinct and opposed to gender and nation. Genders and nations are classes for example.

Dominic Losurdo's class struggles is a good one for further reading if interested.

Ultimately it is difficult to brainwash people against their perceived material interests. People latch on to narratives where the perceived cost going against it is worse than going with it.

"Blame" may end up being an attempt to draw a clean line between a person and their environment where none such exists. If, for example a class of people refuse to support a peoples' self determination and progression then they probably have a vested interest against it, and then attempting to convince the former to against their perceived interests maybe futile.

If you can make a narrative reflecting the truth where the target person could potentially see benefits within the short term and ends up being a material benefit to the cause, then it may be worth it. I just have very little sympathy for those who managed to level up to the very minimum of humanity by being sorry for their participation in war crimes. If they are truly sorry then they can join the resistance* (actual not nominal).

We should be materialists and not based on vibes. Growing up in the west and attempting to shed liberal frameworks is not easy because for a lot of us it goes against our class interests.

(*I don't believe in idealistic nonsense about submitting oneself to some imagined neutral court to be "punished" for said war crimes. Make yourself useful instead.)

Implicit in their definition of white is the subjugation of the other, and therefore equality is perceived painful; the reduction of the exploitation of the other becomes a loss of a privilege and material benefits to the self, and this is true - the bourgoisie are class conscious.

Equality starts with reading speed :)

I was going to post BE's video on how the US inspired Nazism, instead some Redsails articles of interest:

• Mein Kampf: Hitler’s Love Letter to Western Imperialism, Joe Emersberger, 18 minutes: https://redsails.org/emersberger-on-mein-kampf/
• Really Existing Fascism, Roderic Day, 88 minutes: https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/
• Fascism at Home and Colonialism Abroad, Walter Rodney, 8 minutes: https://redsails.org/fascism-at-home-and-colonialism-abroad/

The perspectives espoused are relatively new for me; previously how free speech and "propaganda" was understood was influenced by Chomsky's Manufacuring Consent and Parenti's (better written) Inventing Reality. The latter is still a good book but the understanding of how this stuff works has evolved.

We have to sometimes take a step back in order to not overestimate an individual's agency/power over society's class relations (which is really damn hard for us Westerners - not matter the color - because of how much indvidualism is ingrained in our cultures); it is partly why class betrayal is a big thing. Learning dialectics (still learning, to be honest) and this article made a big impact:

https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

Thanks for engaging and hope you have a good one.

In a nutshell socialism (at least the early stages) is state capitalism at the service of the proleteriat (Lenin), for more reading:

https://x.com/RodericDay/status/1247950065165111296

Hope that helps.

(If Giddaffi's Lybia was going to engage in scientific socialism in governance it would sooner or later would have to become marxist-leninist. Marxist-Leninism is the science of economic development; in the same way "Einsteinian physics" is just physics, we only have to put a qualifier because mainstream Western economics (which currently hold the most powerful cultural hegemony, though that is slowly ebbing away) is pseudo-scientific. If a Gaddafi's Libya did not make that hypothetical turn then it would have remained under the spell of capital and the bourgoisie: https://redsails.org/why-marxism/)

At this point for Russia to "betray" China would be economic suicide; the US and Europe would have to provide the cruical replacement trade which they clearly do not have the capacity to do so at this stage.

The capital factions in Russia that prefer trade with China over ones that prefer trade with the West now have the upper hand, and there is a massive sunk cost in establishing trade routes such as in the Arctic Circle for trading with the global south that is effectively enabled by China. What can the West offer at this point? Crypto? They can't buy gas, oil and metals at volumes that could replace a growing market of the global south compared to the stganant markets of Europe and US.

Everything else; such as concessions with Nato and territorial claims all hinge on the above trade concerns. Remember capitalists serve at the altar of capital, including Russian ones.

This is the man who tried to explain that the transatlantic slave trade could not have possibly provided surplus value for the industrial revolution. I still watch his videos in the same way I watch liberal media but with a critical eye. The reason he has any appeal is because we are signficantly uneducated in more sophisticated marxist economics growing up in the West so we latch on to the likes of Cockshott and Harvey when it is clear they are just different versions of the Western Marxist.

Maybe but includes more scalable societies including whole nations and alliance of nations, and censorship could be de facto or de jure.

The choice to opt in and out depends on the class perspective in bourgoisie society; the more subjugated one is the less of a choice that will feel. If one can imagine a censorship in favour of the dictatorship of the bourgoisie then why not in one favor for the dictatorship of the proleteriat?

If a formal censorship is not declared it does not mean an informal does not exist, one which is dictated by class relations within that society (this is itself one of the criticisms against anarchist ideas of post-capitalism ie not based on science but on utopia/idealism of the assumption of lack of formal hierarchies would free mankind's innate nature for freedom or some such Bakunin nonsense. Our nature is in a relationship with nature outside us, each constantly changing the other - ie it is dialectical. )