Translation: Iran having unwavering deterrence against imperialist attack going forward may be the biggest threat to the declining empire’s current strategy for destroying a pillar of anti-imperialist resistance in the world.
Or in simpler language:
Empire attacks country. Country defends itself. Empire throws tantrum, uses DARVO.
🥺 Incredible work on their part. Thank you for sharing about it.
Well I was trying to be polite about asking what it’s adding because it seems to be the kind of comment that distracts from the point of the thread, which is to call attention to the US brutality as compared to China, like you say.
I’m not trying to be rude when I say I honestly do not get how the pic is stomach turning or what AI has to do with it. Memes are generally varying degrees of low quality to look at. And I’ll be honest, for me personally, comments about stuff being “AI slop” get rather tiresome. Like what is the actual criticism? It looks bad? So do most memes. It looks uncanny valley or something? I’d rather people say that if that’s what it is. “It’s slop” has lost all meaning, even if it had any to begin with.
I think it’s fair to ask whether a piece of agitprop is really effective and criticize it if we think the structure of it is more off-putting than insightful. But I don’t see comments about AI slop helping to assess that. Sometimes people aren’t even correct that a thing is AI in the first place.
I’m not sure what you mean. If you’re saying the pic is just a meme so shouldn’t be AI. Or your comment is a meme (but if it is, does that mean you’re joking or?).
What does this add to discussion?
And I think that’s the real power of dialectical materialism, it creates a level of understanding that makes you immune to the sophistry that the propagandists use.
Yes, well said. The science of it is a huge deal in political literacy. It’s much easier to be deceived without it because without it we’re depending on bougie science like idealism and metaphysics, and as those are insufficient to explain things, trying to wrack one’s brains to work things out through them tends to end up with a lot of going in circles and a lot of “I guess people are stupid or something”. When you’re armed with the science of it, normally incomprehensible behavior has an explanatory process behind it that can be investigated and analyzed, one of clashing contradictions and development through phases. Things that seemed like impenetrable mysteries before become a lot more doable to understand.
I remember watching Richard Wolff’s “Let’s Talk About Socialism” as a pivotal moment of “oh maybe it isn’t terrible.” Nowadays I’d probably say that lecture is mediocre, cause IIRC he was kinda downplaying the USSR’s accomplishments and advocating for worker co-ops or something. But at the time it was a solid pipeline moment to get me to reconsider. For a time after that, I was into “libertarian socialism,” which basically meant that I thought AES states were too top down and that we were going to do it differently by being more bottom up or something.
I think reading State and Revolution was the real turning point away from that, where Lenin kinda lays out the blueprint for AES states and it became a lot more clear what all the terms mean and why people practicing it did the stuff that they did. I still had a lot more growing to do after that though and do to this day. But this place helped me transform from “I’m probably ML” to “I don’t see any proven alternative to ML.” And helped me transform from “I don’t quite understand what states like Russia are doing, it’s confusing” to “imperialism is the primary contradiction and critical support for anti-imperialist states.”
This place also helped me understand dialectical and historical materialism better. It’s still something that slides off my brain a bit, but I think that’s just from not enough actual application of it.
He already did a more strongly worded letter when he said the thing about a civilization that would be destroyed some time ago (I can’t remember when, time moves weirdly these days) and then I think it was not long after that the ceasefire was negotiated.
Guy has really fallen off with his threats. What is he gonna say next, that he’s going to count to 3 and Iran better be in the same room by the time he’s done?
They’re practicing getting shot out of the sky for future attacks on Iran.
That makes sense to me as a line to draw. I will bookmark the book to look into it more.
Thank you for taking the time to put it in clearer context.
Now, this is my criticism regarding the Venezuelan gov’t but this is a moral failure. There was no need to deport him and, if he did commit any crime, then he should be trialed IN Venezuela. Ugh, things really are complicated. Honestly, I didn’t like this move.
Yeah, it’s a strange decision to me. I was hoping further context might make the decision make more sense, but it only seems stranger in a way with more context. The only strategic explanation I can think of (that is not some form of intentional capitulation) is that the Venezuelan leadership is hoping for the US legal show to drag on as a distraction from doing worse things to them while giving them time to prepare for a more overt confrontation.
The angle that they are intentionally capitulating for their own (the leadership’s) interests is darker to consider, but the strategy of that would be strange in its own way if so. Typically US imperialism is not exactly subtle about changes in power and resulting changes in policy, and Trump is anything but subtle himself. Overall, it seems to me like the goal is to keep the revolution intact. But what kind of compromise is too far? This seems to cross a line for people on here, though I’m unsure how everyday Venezuelan people feel about it.
I’m curious, what’s your assessment (if you have one) of the implications of this given everything you’ve read/posted about Venezuela in the past? It’s easy for me to read it as a capitulation of some kind on the surface, but I don’t know anything about Saab’s actual history and whether he has meaningful ties to the revolution. The reuters source has this:
Saab could provide U.S. authorities with information to strengthen their criminal case against Maduro, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken to New York in January to face criminal charges, including conspiracy to commit narcoterrorism. They deny the charges.
But like, what would this even mean substantively. Maduro is obviously not a “narcoterrorist.” But is Saab an important figure in Venezuelan political power or is this chasing ghosts and that’s why the Venezuelan government is willing to go along with it? I guess the crux of what I’m wondering is, is it a move that consolidates power of a new order or is it a performative survival move to keep distracting the US from worse pressures? Like what is the material result of doing this.
I’m trying to find a better source on this than reuters. Here is where the statement appears to originate from: https://www.instagram.com/p/DYampbnN8fG/
the mission that Trump is undertaking.
What, is he going to Mission Impossible style break into Iran? I think he’d need a stunt double for that at the very least.
(I’m assuming Hegseth means “mission that US military members are being ordered to carry out” but it sounds so goofy the phrasing, like it’s Trump taking on risk personally)
I hope any “negotiations” would include denazification of Ukraine. Otherwise, it’s just kicking the can down the road. Like making a ceasefire with israel.
What is this referencing? I’m guessing some kind of deviationist tendency, but not sure what.
I hope this is a sign that the US’s soft power influence is truly in the shitter and not going to make a comeback.
Yep, good points. And if we look at successful communist revolutions in history, it was never like, “They got along swell with the ruling classes and then they did a peaceful of transfer of power after defeating the rulers in public debate.” It’s always, “They got in varying degrees of trouble with the law; often had to go underground to build and survive; some faced exile, imprisonment, or worse; and they succeeded not through better ideas in the abstract but through better practice: theory and organizing as a coupled dynamic, willingness to take power seriously, and making use of every advantage they could get from evolving conditions.”
In a word, the ones who seek to liberate from an exploitative power structure are always, in a sense, fugitives; if not in the beginning, they become that as their power and influence grows among the masses. It is not that they seek to be fugitives, not that they seek to violate the law, but that by opposing the exploitative system, a series of confrontations becomes inevitable, due to the unwillingness of the existing system to allow an alternative that unseats them from power. Those who seek to be only compatible and “change the system from within” are allowed more freedom of movement precisely because the exploiting classes know they can dilute and flatten some reformists on the inside with relative ease. What they can’t do with ease is manage the ones who refuse to comply, who insist there is a better alternative than what we have that is proven to be better in practice, and that the exploiting classes are only in it for themselves and are refusing a better life for millions for this selfish reason.
The rehabilitation of Stalin’s image is less about the rehabilitation of Stalin as a historical individual and more about defending and upholding Marxism.
Exactly.
Put it this way: If we as communists cannot defend practicing communists, then what business do we have being communists? Of course this does not mean we should dogmatically and religiously defend anyone who claims to be communist. But, broadly speaking, if all we can do is defend communism in the abstract, then we might as well go join a pacifist commune and cover our ears about what’s going on in the world.
And if our starting point for what’s “valid” to defend is what the imperialists, the colonizers, and the capitalists have said is valid to defend, then we’re left with no meaningful practicing communism to defend in the first place!
It’s absurd to look at a system that is exploiting you and go, “I’ll only criticize what they say is okay to criticize and only support who they say is okay to support.” It’s the stuff of newbie “leftists” who are dipping a foot in, who still believe in the system and what it taught them. They’re mad, but they haven’t yet come to terms with the idea that they’ve been lied to about a lot. In this sense, rehabilitation isn’t even the right word. It’s shoveling the lies out of the way so that people can see clearly. It’s challenging slander.
Yeah it sounds completely absurd. Like imagine if it was about a different kind of resource…
“Hey let us host your water.”
“That means you have control over our water now…”
“No, no, we’re ‘hosting’ it.”
“So we still have full control over it and can use it whenever we want?”
“Well…”
“Cause if so, why would we keep it at your place.”
“For uh, diplomatic reasons.”
“Which are?”
“Well this asshole in the neighborhood doesn’t want you to have water. So I just figured if we hold your water for you, that may calm him.”
“And it never occurred to you that he’s the problem?”
“Look, both sides are angry.”
“Fuck off.”