AHopeOnceMore [he/him]

SWCC is more about the direction China took under Deng, which can be anything from praise to neutral to derisive depending on what someone thinks of Deng and that direction (I think it’s worked out reasonably well, personally). It is heavily drawn from the direction under Mao, and by necessity cites Mao, so they aren’t purely distinct but I would say that means learning about SWCC should involve reading Mao but you can read Mao without SWCC. e.g., the Black Panthers were inspired by Mao’s writings and built on them, but did not build on Deng / SWCC.

Americans when no overwhelming air superiority

Radlib is a term whose meaning depends on the person using it.

To a DSA baby DemSoc, a radlib is someone like Elizabeth Warren, someone that coopts anti-capitalist criticisms into milquetoast, explicitly pro-capitalist reforms.

To various kinds of commie, all forms of capitalist reformism or incrementalism might be criticized as radlib, so e.g. they might criticize Bolivia’s MAS as radlib (hopefully quietly and behind closed doors).

I think we don’t know much about CK. It’s at least a good thing for “black liberation is incompatible with capitalism” to be a more popular sentiment.

Cuba? Monoethnic? Like… if there’s one thing people know about ethnicity in Cuba it’s the contributions of Afrocubans to the revolution

I think 2/3 will drift back to Reddit

Authoritarianism is when the left has a government

What is going here? Is this all post Soviet world building lore generated by nato?

It’s that and the fact that the Soviets didn’t go far enough to purge/reeducate Balts that were, at minimum, 100% fine with the Nazis. A pretty common pattern, actually: the USSR plays something soft for good will and gets smacked because the other side were unredeemably fascist.

More like basedball

CHEckout deez nuts

What nationalism does to a mf

As a reaction, I think its underlying impetus is islamophobic renaissance broughy to the forefront by 9/11 and the associated media and political response. Angloids latched on, in part, to Christianity because it was proximal, but in terms of the material changes that were happening, and what consent needed to br manufactured, it really revolved around the question of how to dehumanize muslims and make them deserving targets of violence.

Some of the new atheists were pretty explicit that islam was their primary enemy and doubler and tripled and quadrupled down on islamophobic rhetoric even as people stopped caring about atheist stuff. That crowd is the same one that also went down the misogynist path.

Just a biy of yellowish dust in the air would make the sky a bit green. Happens in earth all the time. Especially near sunset, when scattering shifts to a lower wavelength spectrum.

This was created by an ML so if you’re a communist you’re required to like it.

And now you’re problematic. Checkmate, tankies.

The dirge in the last episode makes me feel emotions. Feels like real solidarity, real people, real pain I’ve shared before, and real outrage stemming from that pain.

To be honest I think they’re just outsmarting themselves with labels.

That’s a bubble that will burst once it actually needs to be used for anything mission-critical.

I wanna know what kinda guy made this

The term is new but the concept is not. It picked up in liberal academic circles because they’re constantly rediscovering things that communists and anarchists already knew 150 years ago and forcing it through the lens of liberal “progress” as if it’s a brand new insight. The important part is to remove the socialism aspect.

It ends up working as a form of recuperation, a toothless mimic of organising for social change that is frequently wielded against socialists that say, “economics too” (which, incidentally, was included in the original liberal definition).

Anyways I still use the term to communicate with liberals as a shorthand for “I’m not a reactionary, how about you?”