People just laugh at me when I post 6 book recs at once but I appreciate you!! 🐱

As usual, Americans do things in the most insane, exploitative way possible, and as soon as they’re not able to maintain a monopoly on it, people realize it wasn’t evil, and all of the cultural criticism dreamed up by western idealists was projecting the U.S. situation: a gigantic special economic zone instead of a society.

"The final reason why the importance of ideology in fascism must be denied is the fact that it exists in more than one form. In fact, historically it has proved to have three different faces.

One “out of power" that tends almost to be revolutionary and subversive, anticapitalist and antisocialist.

One "in power but not secure” — this is the sensational aspect of fascism that we see on screen and read of in pulp novels, when the ruling class, through its instrumental regime, is able to suppress the vanguard party of the people’s and workers’ movement.

The third face of fascism exists when it is “in power and securely so.” During this phase some dissent may even be allowed."

• George L. Jackson [Blood In My Eye: Classes At War]

In contrast to Germany, the U.S.A. had a constitution which was democratic from the start. And its ruling class managed, particularly during the imperialist era, to have the democratic forms so effectively preserved that by democratically legal means, it achieved a dictatorship of monopoly capitalism at least as firm as that which Hitler set up with tyrannic procedures. This smoothly functioning democracy, so-called, was created by the Presidential prerogative, the Supreme Court’s authority in constitutional questions, the finance monopoly over the Press, radio, etc., electioneering costs, which successfully prevented really democratic parties from springing up beside the two parties of monopoly capitalism, and lastly the use of terroristic devices (the lynching system). And this democracy could, in substance, realize everything sought by Hitler without needing to break with democracy formally. In addition, there was the incomparably broader and more solid economic basis of monopoly capitalism.

This essay and the book it draws from are brilliant. Since Prof. rockhill’s work is making the rounds everyone must learn ☝️😃 (Destruction of Reason is a precursor but may be better read after Western Marxism by Losurdo & Rockhill’s new cultural cold war book, also Foster has worked with him + Intl Manifesto Group / Geopol Econ FoSC etc the fellas you know)

@demerit@lemmygrad.ml

I really take issue with the language here. You’re saying that China is not utilizing leverage it has within the United Nations because they like the rules too much? In what way do you think they benefit from the precedent being set here? If they do, then why did Russia and China have their own alternate deal that had to be tabled due to US threats?

How can you say China is not fucking around, and in the next breath, say they are fucking around in the United Nations, and they’re fucking around with human life on a scale that should terrify everybody? How can you say that?

I’m sincerely interested if you lay out a comprehensive response I’m going to write it down. I’ve been asking as many people as I can. To lay the cards on the table, I think that what people are doing here by saying they support China even though they think that they support genocide is as harmful the idiots running around saying they’re responsible. I mean, look, you’re probably going to start talking about how they’re the largest trade partner of every country in the world (the US applies unilateral sanctions via its control of the financial system its not a semiperipheral country that survives via selling its labor power to the core (e.g. not semiperipheral like subimperialist Saudi Arabia)), or how there’s an unsourced article saying that they sold literally six less than two fistfuls of drones to the UAE, so focus on the resolution if either of you respond. I’m just focusing on this one Dropsite article and the role of the alt media in western propaganda. This makes no sense on its face based on resistance statements re: PLO or the leverage China has even before considering its the only reason Iran is even around rn

I don’t know what I expected to be honest it’s not like anyone in the US grew out of the Bush era protest movements more anemic than even Vietnam

Elaborate beyond the two reasons before I respond further. You’re wrong, China is in agreement with Hamas and PFLP to back the PLO. You have zero context, why would you feel comfortable doing anything other than asking for more information? Where does the presumptuousness come from?

pretty weak sauce

Elaborate.

we all know how China behaves

Elaborate.

what it’s willing to do and what it isn’t.

Elaborate with reference to examples of leverage China willingly forgoes utilizing. Be specific to the UN resolution first before jumping around to multiple topics. The predominant ideology used to filter these events is coming out of the political science and international relations departments of the west. The majority of the journalism consumed here is part of the western intellectual apparatus. The burden of proof is on the people who fell for the editorialized Drop Site News (state department funded, if that needs to be said) headlines presenting resistance comment on the Russian and Chinese plan which had to be tabled due to zero leverage as being condemnation.

Edited