Is it better for the working class to starve/defend against the outside factor or to capitulate to the outside invader?
I think history can conclusively answer this for us - it’s always better to repel the US. No one benefits when the US comes bringing “”“freedom”“”. All levels of society must be mobilized to repel the invasion or risk being enslaved to the empire.
Anyone who sides with the US in their invasion is the enemy, and I’d prefer my enemies to be censored.
Yes, I explicitly said “undercover” because the minute the censorship is exposed then it becomes counterproductive. China has made censorship “business as usual”, you have a whole system of public officials doing the work without it being at all something that is “undercover”.
And China is doing fine, what are you talking about? It’s certainly effective to keep the censorship hidden, but it’s hardly necessary. I think you’re wish-casting, you wish that open censorship would make people rise up. It doesn’t. Censorship is an effective tool whether it is hidden or blatant. If censorship didn’t work, no one would do it.
I think history can conclusively answer this for us - it’s always better to repel the US. No one benefits when the US comes bringing “”“freedom”“”.
Do you think Japan should have continued to repel and antagonize the US after the H bomb? Would they have been better off if they had continued?
I agree that no one benefits when the an outside force exerts pressure, but US not attacking is not an option in the outside invader scenario.
This entirely depends on the level of pressure and the consequences. It’s very possible that in most cases repelling might be the right choice… but this depends a lot on the situation and on what the population is willing to sacrifice.
And China is doing fine
This is not what I was contesting, even the most authoritative and controlling state can “do fine” and get 90% approval. But by principle, controlling and manipulating the working class is against the idea of letting the working class be the ones, in community, who decide their own destiny on their own will. As mature people who have “come of age”. As Marx put it, "censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.”
Do you think Japan should have continued to attack the US after the H bomb?
Categorically different situation, that was before the US empire was firmly established as the hegemon.
The US isn’t specifically just an evil bad guy country, it’s the imperial core in the current world system.
And sacrificing sovereignty to let the empire win is always bad, 100% of the time, no question.
This is not what I was contesting, even the most authoritative and controlling state can “do fine” and get 90% approval. But by principle, controlling and manipulating the working class is against the idea of letting the working class be the ones, in community, who decide their own destiny.
Right, you’re an idealist. You prefer the idea of not having censorship, and are not confronting the consequences of this idea.
I’m not an idealist, my politics are not based in ideas but on history and my understanding of the current historical moment. I understand that, without censorship, you get counterrevolution and imperial domination and slavery and death. If Cuba falls to US aggression, things will get much worse. My hope is that Cuba can survive long enough for us on the outside to provide a more global / international solution. They need censorship for that.
Categorically different situation, that was before the US empire was firmly established as the hegemon.
The situation was: people having a need / cause of suffering “imposed from the outside by factors outside of the system’s control”.
Whether the outside oppressor is an “hegemon” under some third party point of view is not necessarily relevant if the consequences are the same. If I’m pushed to the limit, I don’t care who it is that makes me go past my breaking point or threatens to murder me and my family, hegemon or not, they would get the same reaction from me.
What’s worse: being forced into american “freedom”… or death?
But either way, our answers to that don’t matter. Cos my point was that this is a decision for the working class of that country to make. Not for you, not for me, not for any political leader, not even for the political leader that governs that country.
The government & the country are there to serve the workers, it’s not the workers the ones that have to listen to what the “leaders” say, it’s the other way around.
I’m not an idealist, my politics are not based in ideas but on history. I understand that, without censorship, you get counterrevolution and imperial domination and slavery and death.
Do you think the counterrevolutionaries, the imperialists, the slavers and the killers don’t use censorship and manipulation as tools?
I’m not an idealist, my politics are not based in ideas but on history. I understand that, with censorship, you get counterrevolution and imperial domination and slavery and death.
So far, there has not been in history a system that was fully transparent and allowed their citizens to be aware of everything that goes on, owners of their own decisions.
A strong form of slavery/domination to me, would be getting connected to a matrix-like machine that constantly supplies me with chemicals to keep me happy, but renders me unable to take decisions by myself, just left in a state of happy comma, at the mercy of a benevolent machine dictator … would you agree with that being undesirable? …or is it compatible with your ideal state?
If you think a benevolent dictator acting with good intentions and keeping people happy is enough, then you are the idealist… in Marxist materialism, that is still a form of alienation, where the masses are robbed of real agency over their own material lives.
“The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.”
To Marx, any freedom granted by a ruler (benevolent or otherwise) was fragile and fundamentally anti-revolutionary because it kept the people in a state of passive “political childhood.”
For a Marxist, “benevolence” is just a subjective idea that masks an objective and real power structure.
I think history can conclusively answer this for us - it’s always better to repel the US. No one benefits when the US comes bringing “”“freedom”“”. All levels of society must be mobilized to repel the invasion or risk being enslaved to the empire.
Anyone who sides with the US in their invasion is the enemy, and I’d prefer my enemies to be censored.
And China is doing fine, what are you talking about? It’s certainly effective to keep the censorship hidden, but it’s hardly necessary. I think you’re wish-casting, you wish that open censorship would make people rise up. It doesn’t. Censorship is an effective tool whether it is hidden or blatant. If censorship didn’t work, no one would do it.
Do you think Japan should have continued to repel and antagonize the US after the H bomb? Would they have been better off if they had continued?
I agree that no one benefits when the an outside force exerts pressure, but US not attacking is not an option in the outside invader scenario.
This entirely depends on the level of pressure and the consequences. It’s very possible that in most cases repelling might be the right choice… but this depends a lot on the situation and on what the population is willing to sacrifice.
This is not what I was contesting, even the most authoritative and controlling state can “do fine” and get 90% approval. But by principle, controlling and manipulating the working class is against the idea of letting the working class be the ones, in community, who decide their own destiny on their own will. As mature people who have “come of age”. As Marx put it, "censorship is a most reasonable means of hindering the human race from coming of age.”
Categorically different situation, that was before the US empire was firmly established as the hegemon.
The US isn’t specifically just an evil bad guy country, it’s the imperial core in the current world system.
And sacrificing sovereignty to let the empire win is always bad, 100% of the time, no question.
Right, you’re an idealist. You prefer the idea of not having censorship, and are not confronting the consequences of this idea.
I’m not an idealist, my politics are not based in ideas but on history and my understanding of the current historical moment. I understand that, without censorship, you get counterrevolution and imperial domination and slavery and death. If Cuba falls to US aggression, things will get much worse. My hope is that Cuba can survive long enough for us on the outside to provide a more global / international solution. They need censorship for that.
The situation was: people having a need / cause of suffering “imposed from the outside by factors outside of the system’s control”.
Whether the outside oppressor is an “hegemon” under some third party point of view is not necessarily relevant if the consequences are the same. If I’m pushed to the limit, I don’t care who it is that makes me go past my breaking point or threatens to murder me and my family, hegemon or not, they would get the same reaction from me.
What’s worse: being forced into american “freedom”… or death?
But either way, our answers to that don’t matter. Cos my point was that this is a decision for the working class of that country to make. Not for you, not for me, not for any political leader, not even for the political leader that governs that country.
The government & the country are there to serve the workers, it’s not the workers the ones that have to listen to what the “leaders” say, it’s the other way around.
Do you think the counterrevolutionaries, the imperialists, the slavers and the killers don’t use censorship and manipulation as tools?
I’m not an idealist, my politics are not based in ideas but on history. I understand that, with censorship, you get counterrevolution and imperial domination and slavery and death.
So far, there has not been in history a system that was fully transparent and allowed their citizens to be aware of everything that goes on, owners of their own decisions.
A strong form of slavery/domination to me, would be getting connected to a matrix-like machine that constantly supplies me with chemicals to keep me happy, but renders me unable to take decisions by myself, just left in a state of happy comma, at the mercy of a benevolent machine dictator … would you agree with that being undesirable? …or is it compatible with your ideal state?
If you think a benevolent dictator acting with good intentions and keeping people happy is enough, then you are the idealist… in Marxist materialism, that is still a form of alienation, where the masses are robbed of real agency over their own material lives.
“The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.”
To Marx, any freedom granted by a ruler (benevolent or otherwise) was fragile and fundamentally anti-revolutionary because it kept the people in a state of passive “political childhood.”
For a Marxist, “benevolence” is just a subjective idea that masks an objective and real power structure.