[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 34 points 8 months ago

It depends what you mean by align.

The far right is sometimes correct for the wrong reasons. Lacking in dialectics and materialist analysis, the far right often identifies valid social ills yet has zero comprehension of where the problems come from, leading its followers to flail at the wrong targets.

For example, wages are suppressed and stagnated. The far right blame immigrants. The evidence is right, there: all that surplus value is stolen by the bourgeoisie. The far right complain about taxes because they're 'used' to pay for the 'lazy' via welfare. As a general statement, it's correct but only because the biggest recipients of state financing are the haute bourgeoisie. The amount spent on ordinary people struggling to pay bills is miniscule. (Also, that's not quite how taxes work, and without state expenditure money doesn't exist at all, but they're more complicated issue.) Etc, etc.

Bear in mind, too, that we consider 'liberals' and conservatives to be in the same camp. They're all liberals because they support capitalism. Liberalism being the ideology of capitalism. The difference between the far right and the 'centre left' is negligible. As the saying goes, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. Meaning that fascism is liberalism's self-defence against inevitable progress towards socialism / communism.

So when you ask if our views align with the far right's, the question is slightly misframed for implying that (a) there's any significant difference between the right and the left within bourgeois politics (bourgeois being related to commodity production i.e. capitalism, i.e. liberalism) and (b) we wouldn't be equally disgusted to find that our views align with 'progressive' liberals.

It's a distinction without a difference. For example, the 'progressive' might agree that gender inequality is bad and propose more women promotions, etc. That's not a bad start but the next question is what happens to the other billions of women who continue to be disproportionally oppressed? Having a woman CEO call the shots or put in the order for another military contract isn't much consolation.

The liberal doesn't see anything fundamentally wrong with capitalism, only the need for minor fixes towards an idealist 'perfect' capitalism. Applying dialectical materialism, two things are clear. One, capitalism is irredeemable and irredeemably the cause of 99% of current social problems. Two, anyone who supports capitalism is just as bad as anyone else who supports capitalism, notwithstanding their surface level decoration.

Worse, all those liberals with the decorative decorum drop the facade as soon as any oppressed person or group decides that they're unwilling to wait for multiple more generations for the end of their oppression. In sum, any alignment between our views and the far right's (a view sometimes called 'horseshoe theory') is merely incidental, and as incidental as any alignment between our views and those of more progressive liberals. ((Non-)alignment with ultras, leftcoms, Trotskyists, anarchists, etc, is a story for another day.)

If you're left of liberal, please stick around. Having sampled what's on offer, I can tell you that Marxism-Leninism has the answers you're looking for. It's the only successful revolutionary theory. It stopped the Nazis, lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, and helped liberate millions more from colonialism. We have reading lists and resources, if you're interested.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 41 points 8 months ago

This is beautiful, thanks.

Is that what the 'C' in CIA stands for, 'centre-left'?

You know Aria was being literal, right? That RFA, with RFE, and VOA are CIA outlets? Funded through the NED (which also funds many more outlets but to a lesser extent). RFA isn't in any sense a 'news' organisations at all. The impressive thing is that Media Fact Check Bias apparently isn't capable of distinguishing real media from fake. That's a bigger problem than bias.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 41 points 9 months ago

There's going to be a wave of reactionaries after that Navalny money.

Pick me, CIA, pick me.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 42 points 9 months ago

If it wasn't collapsing, it wouldn't be in the red.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 45 points 11 months ago

Rather than looking at trains and thinking, if we build those we can sell tickets, they looked at shareholders and the government and thought, I bet we could fleece them. We're seeing the military effects of this, too, with neoliberales looking shocked as to why more and more funding doesn't automatically equal more and more armaments. Commodity production detached from anything with the use value that makes the commodity a commodity.

I think the practical is the most important factor, here. It's hard to know how one of the world's richest billionaires can get so deep into a project that has an exchange value but no use value. This is what happens when imperialists dismiss productive capital, and become parasitic on government grants, defrauded shareholders, and asset stripping. It was the same with crypto and nfts.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 1 year ago

Look at those soldiers looking at Himmler, thinking 'why is this guy here, I didn't know the SS had anything to do with the Nazis' and Himmler thinking, 'why are these neutral soldiers dressed in my uniform?'

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 38 points 1 year ago

9 salty libs and counting who don't like to have their inner contradictions revealed.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 35 points 1 year ago

Will the ordinary public really fall for this shit?

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 39 points 1 year ago

Seems to me like a politician worthy of respect would own what happened and say we need to watch out for Nazis and western disinformation that tries to hide Nazis in plain sight. Instead we get this worm doing western disinformation and trying to hide Nazis in plain sight by sending us to look somewhere else for something that is right in front of us.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 1 year ago

claiming that USSR or current Russia are your friends seems insane

The USSR is gone. It's not around to be anyone's friend. This means that communists who talk highly of the USSR are analysing the USSR and concluding that it was the greatest experiment in raising living standards in history. (Maybe that's now China, but it's going to be a difficult and possibility incoherent comparison.)

Compare the standard of living before and after the Soviets gained power. Success is the only word for it, even if they're are valid criticisms. (Do not do that silly thing where you compare life for the average person at any time in the Soviet Union with the life of the most decadent and rich person in the US. That's not logical.)

I doubt there are many communists who see Russia as a friend. What you see instead are communists acknowledging that Russia is fighting US imperialism. Considering how much death, tragedy, and destruction the US brings and has brought to the world, any work against the US is a net positive for humanity.

(To preclude misunderstanding, no I am not saying that people dying in the Ukraine war is a good thing. Except die hard Nazis. They can get fucked. It's up to the reader to decide where they think the Nazis are.)

I want to emphasise and follow up something that KiG V2 said:

What these countries do crack down on is when fascists, capitalist opportunists, and foreign intelligence agents work actively to try and destroy, divide, and sabotage them.

Liberals tend to read things like this and say that it is a 'conspiracy'. But think about it like this: if we know one thing for a fact, it is that "capitalist opportunists, and foreign intelligence agents work[ed] actively to … destroy, divide, and sabotage" the USSR until they won. The capitalists won. They got what they wanted. They got what the communists were saying that the reactionaries wanted all along—the end of the USSR.

Now we have 30 years of evidence of how capitalists would run the regions of the USSR differently. If you can compare what life in the USSR looked like before and after the Soviets gained power, you can also compare what life was like before and after the Soviets lost power.

So what happened after the Berlin wall fell? Can you honestly look at the statistics, the records, the economy, the stories, and say that life got better?

If you can, I'd ask you to look again at all segments of society, not just the lucky few in the middle and upper classes. If you think life got worse after the USSR (it did—living standards plummeted), ask: what changed? You, too, will answer that for all it's flaws, the change was from socialism to capitalism and that socialism was by far a superior system for the mass of people.

(PS using 'insane' as a way of criticising something is ableism.)

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 37 points 1 year ago

I love it when liberals use 'illiberal' as a criticism. Begging the question much? Of course we're illiberal we're anti-capitalists!

Don't whisper it in hushed tones as if we're being shy about it and might be embarrassed. Liberalism is the cause of so much misery in the world I'd be more embarrassed to be called a liberal.

The best of it is that even liberals accept that liberal society is atrocious; they just throw up their hands, claim that it's the only option, and benefit decadently from the system while the world burns as if nothing could or should be done about it. The nerve.

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 43 points 1 year ago

Lmao who tf is

endors[ing], defend[ing], or deny[ing] the crimes committed by [notable] communist leaders such as … Pol Pot[?]

0

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/971805

Sources for all claims in link.

I wrote in December that to call China the "world leader in renewable energy" was a colossal understatement.

Even the Western press considers the PRC's climate target to be all-important to preventing complete global disaster. It was estimated to reduce projected temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius, the largest drop ever calculated by climate models.

Anyone doubting that the PRC is willing and capable of not just fulfilling, but exceeding, its goals is not paying attention.

Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.)

In December, ground was broken on the world's largest desert renewable energy project in Inner Mongolia.

The IEA estimated China would add 80GW of new solar capacity in 2023; in February, the China Photovoltaic Industry Association said between 95 and 120

Both are already wrong. In the first four months of 2023, nearly THREE TIMES as much new solar capacity had been installed than in the same period in 2022. China's NEW solar capacity installed this year will exceed the entire TOTAL in the US.

In May, the chairman of Tongwei Solar predicted that new installations might fall between 200 and 300 gigawatts in 2024—almost TWICE the current US total.

It's not just solar energy that China does well. In 2021, China installed more offshore wind capacity in one year than the rest of the world combined had in the past five. As of January 2022, China operated half of all the world’s offshore wind turbines.

According a report by Global Energy Monitor in June, China is currently on track to DOUBLE its entire renewable energy capacity by 2025—five years earlier than the government's original target date of 2030.

China’s “nuclear pipeline” or the total capacity of all its new reactors under development, is also as big as the rest of the world’s combined, at ~250 GW. In 2021, 19 new reactors were under construction, 43 awaiting permits, and another 166 were planned.

In April 2022, plans for another 6 new reactors were announced. China also has the most advanced and efficient reactors in the world, with no need for water cooling; in 2022, for example, the first “fourth-generation” reactor came online in Shandong.

… In fact, proportional to their share, the US contribution was 0.05% of China’s in 2021.

Energy is only one aspect of the climate solution, though; China is ALSO far and away the world leader in EVERY OTHER aspect.

Since 1980, China doubled its forest coverage, planting more new trees than the rest of the world combined.

Per the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, between 2010 and 2020 China had an average annual net gain in forest area of almost 2 million hectares, over 4 times as much as Australia’s (2nd-largest) and nearly 20 times as much as the United States’.

In 2021, the government set a new target rate of afforestation of 36,000 square kilometers per year—or 3.6 million hectares, nearly double its previous rate, or enough new trees to cover the land area of Belgium.

China's shift to a green economy isn't just happening fast—it's still accelerating.

From 2016-2018, EV sales in China jumped from 1% to 5%. They reached 20% in 2022—three years ahead of schedule. (The US finally reached 5% in 2022.)

As of 2022, 98% of all electric buses in the world were deployed in Chinese cities.

China's electric high-speed rail network is longer than every other country's combined, and continues to expand. In 2007 China had virtually no HSR; today, if they had been placed in one line, China's high-speed railways could wrap around the circumference of the Earth.

According to the Paulson Institute in Chicago, when accounting for not just revenue but passenger time and airline trips saved, China's HSR had generated a net surplus of nearly $400 billion as of 2022.

No other country is forcing China to lead the world in the conversion to a sustainable economy—in fact, the United States government has been trying to STOP it, for example by placing sanctions on China's photovoltaic manufacturing.

China's goal was peak emissions before 2030 and carbon-neutrality by 2060. Given how much Chinese renewables have overperformed recently, the peak will likely come sooner rather than later—maybe within the next two years. It may even already be passed.

China's emissions are mainly from coal. But Chinese coal-fired power plants are much different from Western plants.

Chinese coal plants have set the world record for efficiency, approaching 50%, compared with a typical Australian plant’s 30% efficiency.

The PRC’s clean air policies not only cut air pollution almost in half between 2013 and 2020, but also drove a global decline in air pollution. (I.e. if China’s contribution were tallied separately, the overall rate would have increased, not decreased.)

Violating China's environmental policies can lead to real punishment. In March 2021, four major steel mills in Hebei were caught falsifying records to evade carbon emission limits; the next year, dozens of executives responsible were sentenced to prison.

In contrast, though the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe killed several workers and was the largest marine oil spill in history, no one from BP spent even a day in jail.

As of this tweet, Norfolk Southern faces no criminal charges for the East Palestine train disaster in February.

Last summer, after weeks of struggle, the wildfires besieging Chongqing were driven back and extinguished; not just by water, sand, chemicals, or controlled burns, but by community.

Twenty thousand civil servants and volunteers climbed or biked up and down the mountain in the sweltering heat to deliver supplies and construct fire barriers; through their collective action, the cities were saved.

The solutions to the climate apocalypse are collective and mundane—economic planning, technological development, and the redistribution of resources—but the freedom to pursue those solutions is very rare and very dear.

Presently, China alone seems to have this freedom.

Also in China is the largest economic engine in history controlled by a Communist Party and a workers' state, that is not required by class interest to seek profit above all else.

Probably just a coincidence or something, idk.

0
submitted 1 year ago by redtea@lemmygrad.ml to c/china@lemmy.ml

Sources for all claims in link.

I wrote in December that to call China the "world leader in renewable energy" was a colossal understatement.

Even the Western press considers the PRC's climate target to be all-important to preventing complete global disaster. It was estimated to reduce projected temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius, the largest drop ever calculated by climate models.

Anyone doubting that the PRC is willing and capable of not just fulfilling, but exceeding, its goals is not paying attention.

Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.)

In December, ground was broken on the world's largest desert renewable energy project in Inner Mongolia.

The IEA estimated China would add 80GW of new solar capacity in 2023; in February, the China Photovoltaic Industry Association said between 95 and 120

Both are already wrong. In the first four months of 2023, nearly THREE TIMES as much new solar capacity had been installed than in the same period in 2022. China's NEW solar capacity installed this year will exceed the entire TOTAL in the US.

In May, the chairman of Tongwei Solar predicted that new installations might fall between 200 and 300 gigawatts in 2024—almost TWICE the current US total.

It's not just solar energy that China does well. In 2021, China installed more offshore wind capacity in one year than the rest of the world combined had in the past five. As of January 2022, China operated half of all the world’s offshore wind turbines.

According a report by Global Energy Monitor in June, China is currently on track to DOUBLE its entire renewable energy capacity by 2025—five years earlier than the government's original target date of 2030.

China’s “nuclear pipeline” or the total capacity of all its new reactors under development, is also as big as the rest of the world’s combined, at ~250 GW. In 2021, 19 new reactors were under construction, 43 awaiting permits, and another 166 were planned.

In April 2022, plans for another 6 new reactors were announced. China also has the most advanced and efficient reactors in the world, with no need for water cooling; in 2022, for example, the first “fourth-generation” reactor came online in Shandong.

… In fact, proportional to their share, the US contribution was 0.05% of China’s in 2021.

Energy is only one aspect of the climate solution, though; China is ALSO far and away the world leader in EVERY OTHER aspect.

Since 1980, China doubled its forest coverage, planting more new trees than the rest of the world combined.

Per the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, between 2010 and 2020 China had an average annual net gain in forest area of almost 2 million hectares, over 4 times as much as Australia’s (2nd-largest) and nearly 20 times as much as the United States’.

In 2021, the government set a new target rate of afforestation of 36,000 square kilometers per year—or 3.6 million hectares, nearly double its previous rate, or enough new trees to cover the land area of Belgium.

China's shift to a green economy isn't just happening fast—it's still accelerating.

From 2016-2018, EV sales in China jumped from 1% to 5%. They reached 20% in 2022—three years ahead of schedule. (The US finally reached 5% in 2022.)

As of 2022, 98% of all electric buses in the world were deployed in Chinese cities.

China's electric high-speed rail network is longer than every other country's combined, and continues to expand. In 2007 China had virtually no HSR; today, if they had been placed in one line, China's high-speed railways could wrap around the circumference of the Earth.

According to the Paulson Institute in Chicago, when accounting for not just revenue but passenger time and airline trips saved, China's HSR had generated a net surplus of nearly $400 billion as of 2022.

No other country is forcing China to lead the world in the conversion to a sustainable economy—in fact, the United States government has been trying to STOP it, for example by placing sanctions on China's photovoltaic manufacturing.

China's goal was peak emissions before 2030 and carbon-neutrality by 2060. Given how much Chinese renewables have overperformed recently, the peak will likely come sooner rather than later—maybe within the next two years. It may even already be passed.

China's emissions are mainly from coal. But Chinese coal-fired power plants are much different from Western plants.

Chinese coal plants have set the world record for efficiency, approaching 50%, compared with a typical Australian plant’s 30% efficiency.

The PRC’s clean air policies not only cut air pollution almost in half between 2013 and 2020, but also drove a global decline in air pollution. (I.e. if China’s contribution were tallied separately, the overall rate would have increased, not decreased.)

Violating China's environmental policies can lead to real punishment. In March 2021, four major steel mills in Hebei were caught falsifying records to evade carbon emission limits; the next year, dozens of executives responsible were sentenced to prison.

In contrast, though the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe killed several workers and was the largest marine oil spill in history, no one from BP spent even a day in jail.

As of this tweet, Norfolk Southern faces no criminal charges for the East Palestine train disaster in February.

Last summer, after weeks of struggle, the wildfires besieging Chongqing were driven back and extinguished; not just by water, sand, chemicals, or controlled burns, but by community.

Twenty thousand civil servants and volunteers climbed or biked up and down the mountain in the sweltering heat to deliver supplies and construct fire barriers; through their collective action, the cities were saved.

The solutions to the climate apocalypse are collective and mundane—economic planning, technological development, and the redistribution of resources—but the freedom to pursue those solutions is very rare and very dear.

Presently, China alone seems to have this freedom.

Also in China is the largest economic engine in history controlled by a Communist Party and a workers' state, that is not required by class interest to seek profit above all else.

Probably just a coincidence or something, idk.

2

Someone curious asked:

Do you know of any resources where I can hear the options of average Soviet citizens during the time of the USSR?

I linked Dessaline's GitHub page: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#did-the-citizens-of-the-soviet-union-dislike-their-government.

And I suggested Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds but I don't think it quite fits the description.

Can anyone think of other resources, maybe a peoples' history kind of thing?

0

This is a contentious subject. Please keep the discussion respectful. I think this will get more traction, here, but I'll cross-post it to !Communism, too.

Workers who sell their labour power for a wage are part of the working class, right? They are wage-workers because they work for a wage. Are they wage-labourers?

“They’re proletariat,” I hear some of you shout.

“Not in the imperial core! Those are labour aristocrats,” others reply.

So what are the workers in the imperial core? Are they irredeemable labour aristocrats, the inseparable managers and professionals of the ruling class? Or are they proletarian, the salt of the earth just trying to get by?

It’s an important distinction, even if the workers in any country are not a homogenous bloc. The answer determines whether workers in the global north are natural allies or enemies of the oppressed in the global south.

The problem is as follows.

There is no doubt that people in the global north are, in general, more privileged than people in the global south. In many cases, the difference in privilege is vast, even among the wage-workers. This is not to discount the suffering of oppressed people in the global north. This is not to brush away the privilege of national bourgeois in the global south.

For some workers in the global north, privilege amounts to basic access to water, energy, food, education, healthcare, and shelter, streetlights, paved highways, etc. As much as austerity has eroded access to these basics, they are still the reality for the majority of people in the north even, to my knowledge, in the US.

Are these privileges enough to move someone from the ranks of the proletariat and into the labour aristocracy or the petit-bourgeois?

I’m going to discuss some sources and leave some quotes in comments, below. This may look a bit spammy, but I’m hoping it will help us to work through the several arguments, that make up the whole. The sources:

  • Settlers by J Sakai
  • Corona, Climate, and Chronic Emergency by Andreas Malm
  • The Wealth of Nations by Zac Cope
  • ‘Decolonization is Not a Metaphor’ by Eve Tuck and K Wayne Yang.

I have my own views on all this, but I have tried to phrase the points and the questions in a ’neutral’ way because I want us to discuss the issues and see if we can work out where and why we conflict and how to move forwards with our thinking (neutral to Marxists, at least). I am not trying to state my position by stating the questions below, so please do not attack me for the assumptions in the questions. By all means attack the assumptions and the questions.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

redtea

joined 2 years ago