#like his policies should not be dictated

[telesilla]

So California now has an out Black lesbian senator!

[ceilidhtransing]

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

[contemplatingoutlander]

The Supreme Court began another term this week. Most court watchers and other analysts have been reluctant to accept the truth of something I’ve long argued: that the Roberts Court is as agenda-driven as the House or Senate Republican caucuses. They have already put their thumbs on the scale in this election and are poised to intervene again if the results don’t suit them. 

We are at least a decade past the point when we should be convinced of what Abraham Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address: 

"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.1 " [emphasis added]

[...] The interests behind the Federalist Society (FedSoc) – in particular the Kochs, Leonard Leo, and other plutocrats and theocrats – are the same interests who have spent the 21st century funding and organizing the MAGA takeover of the Republican Party. I’ve coined the portmanteau “plutotheocratic” as a compact way of describing this coalition of interests. (See the Appendix for a brief overview of the history and major players in the plutotheocratic coalition.)  The six FedSoc justices are properly understood not as “umpires” scrupulously “calling balls and strikes,” but as politicians in robes. However, it’s important to recognize what kinds of politicians��we are dealing with. The FedSoc Six are first and foremost Federalist Society operatives. That means that they usually act in the interests of the Republican Party – except when the partisan agenda of the day conflicts with the long-term plutotheocratic agenda.  [...]

Creating a Death Spiral for Democracy 

For about 40 years, we saw a fairly predictable ebb and flow in the federal commitment to advancing greater freedom and equality and to constraining corporate threats to consumers, working people, and the environment. Under Republicans, this commitment would ebb; under Democrats, it would flow. But beginning in 2010 with the Citizens United decision, if not a bit earlier, Roberts’s agenda-driven majority turned that ebb and flow into a death spiral for American democracy. 

Decision after decision shifted more and more electoral power to the FedSoc Six’s plutotheocratic sponsors – who in turn used that power to take greater control of Red state governments and purge Republican congressional caucuses of RINOs – which in turn was used to place more and more Federalist Society true believers on the Federal bench, and eventually the Supreme Court. 

[See more excerpts below the cut.]

[...] The Supreme Court has, of course, made many rulings that overturned previous major precedents or led to significant social change. But consider:

Brown v. Board of Education - Earl Warren and the other eight justices joining him did not owe their positions to a cabal of civil rights activists who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns.

Roe v. Wade - Harry Blackmun and the six justices joining him on Roe v. Wade did not owe their positions to a cabal of pro-choice activists who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns. 

Gideon v. Wainwright - Hugo Black and the eight other justices joining him did not owe their positions to a cabal of indigent prison inmates who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns.  

But the members of the Roberts majority do owe their positions to a cabal of plutocrats, who directly benefited from rulings like Citizens United and Loper Bright, and theocrats, who have a fierce ideological commitment to outcomes like Dobbs and Hobby Lobby, who together have contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns. Again, per Lincoln, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

The Federalist Society literally planned and executed an unprecedented transfer of unchecked political power to their own loyalists.5 They brag about this in unguarded moments and in their “safe spaces.”

[lividbrunette]

I am so sick and tired of seeing all these “I know biden is bad, I know biden has done some bad things but vote for biden because trump will destroy our democracy” posts bc a) clearly our democracy is a sham and b) STOP DEFENDING BIDEN, STOP DOWNPLAYING WHAT HE HAS DONE! you do not need to, nor should you, defend biden to any degree. you can say that we cannot let trump win without that other bullshit. biden is pure evil, he is scum. and part of what makes him so horrendous and disturbing is the charade he puts on like he’s the good guy and trump is the evil, the bad to his good. quite literally the only thing that he has going for him is that his opponent is somehow even worse than him. that his opponent has no pretense of even trying to act like he doesn’t want to fully be a dictator. stop fucking defending biden. stop fucking downplaying all the horrendous, despicable, evil things he has done and is continuing to do. he is fully funding and supporting and enabling a genocide. it helps no one.

and if/when biden loses, he only has himself to blame.

ideally we would all rally behind a third party candidate and the electoral college wouldn’t exist. ideally these wouldn’t be our “choices”. idfk what to do because trump cannot win but how can any of us in good conscience vote for biden’s evil, fascistic, decrepit ass ??

what makes biden so different from or better than trump? nothing!!

- he is unconditionally supporting netanyahu and his genocide of Palestinians

- democrats have done nothing to protect nor help us as roe v. wade was overturned, we still have student loan debt, the cost of living is unaffordable and the minimum wage remains unchanged, biden has increased police presence and funding for police (more so than in 2020, despite the eruption of BLM protests and the murder of George Floyd and his promise to George Floyd’s family that he wouldn’t let his murder become just another number, another hashtag), and so. much. more.

- biden is building off of trump’s policies - specifically and most recently, biden has just announced an executive order to deny asylum requests. the increase in police funding and the further militarization of police was also built off of trump’s policies

the u.s. is an evil sham of a country.

as ethel cain said …

[eowyntheavenger]

Palestine and the US election

I’m done with Twitter soundbite takes that voting blue = supporting genocide. I see a lot of people making an argument that goes like this: "Biden has sent arms to Israel, helping its government commit genocide against Palestine. Therefore, voting for him in the 2024 US election, if he is the Democratic nominee, is supporting genocide, and NOT voting for him helps Palestine." There's a lot wrong with this view, so let's break it down.

It's true that Biden has sent a lot of arms to Israel and bypassed Congress multiple times to do it, and it's indefensible. I'm ashamed that any US politician would help Israel wage its brutal, genocidal war against the Palestinian people. As one of Israel's closest partners, the US could actually be using its leverage right now to put pressure on Israel’s government—I’m thinking about how apartheid in South Africa fell, in part, because of international pressure. That's what should be happening, but instead the US government is literally just helping Israel kill Palestinians.

I wish there were a strong pro-Palestine candidate in the upcoming election. The best bet in that regard would probably be Bernie Sanders, since he's prominent enough, well-liked enough, and has good ideas, not just on this issue but on many things (and yeah, he's way too old, but so are the current frontrunners). But he's already ruled out another run. Unless an amazing candidate materializes and wins the Democratic nomination (please vote in the primaries where you live), it will probably be Biden running against Trump. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s likely.

Here's what people need to understand: the election will not be "genocide Joe" vs. "pro-Palestine candidate." It will most likely be a choice between these two candidates:

On the one hand, Biden, who has armed Israel, but can be pressured to change his policies because he can be pushed left; who is not a wannabe dictator; who will not destroy what's left of the country's democratic norms; who will not encourage coups, political assassinations, or jail his political opponents; who will not utterly stifle dissent.

Or on the other hand, Trump, who is beholden to a fanatical evangelical base that backs Israel no matter what, that actually wants more conflict because they are part of a death cult. Trump, who is not susceptible in any way to pressure from the left, but is susceptible to pressure from the right and the far right. Trump, who has been clear all along about his desire to be a dictator; who will destroy what's left of democratic norms; who has already encouraged a coup to overthrow a democratic election, encouraged the assassination of his own vice president, and is openly planning to jail his political opponents if he returns to the White House.

(This isn't even touching on Trump's positions on trans rights, gay rights, women's rights, the environment, policing, immigration, or his racism against every group he could be racist against, or his liability for sexual assault, or a whole bunch of other issues).

There's a very convincing argument that Netanyahu actually wants Biden to lose the US election and Trump to win. That's because Netanyahu knows that Biden has in the past responded to pressure from his own party and the public. If there are a lot of people criticizing his policies, it gives him pause. Trump doesn't operate like that. If millions of Americans criticize his policies as inhumane he just lashes out at them. In short, Biden views criticism from the left as a liability that he has to act on. Trump views criticism from the left as an incentive to be even worse.

Biden is not the candidate I want. But you need to understand that if Trump wins the election, he won't just arm Israel like Biden is doing now: he will do that and more. Not only will he help Israel escalate its war, your very freedom of speech to support Palestine will be under attack. Trump might even decide that financial support for Palestinians or charities that help Palestine = financially supporting terrorism, and use that as a pretext to arrest and jail people. You think he and his far right goons wouldn't go that far? If Trump wins this election, you shouldn't be surprised if this kind of thing happens, and much worse.

Do you want the US to accept Palestinian refugees? Because it won't accept them under a Trump presidency. A key Republican talking point in this election is "the US shouldn't take Palestinian refugees because they're probably all terrorists." This isn't just a Trump thing, it's something other Republicans are saying, but obviously you can imagine where Trump would fall on this issue given his infamous Muslim ban and conflating refugees with terrorists. These are just a few examples of how Trump would actually be even worse for Palestine than Biden—which is saying something.

In this upcoming election there is no neutral option. There is no morally pure option. There just isn't, I'm sorry. Refusing to vote will not help Palestine. Refusing to vote will only help Trump win, and will give every single person in the United States who is fighting for a better world a significantly harder battle to fight.

It goes without saying that there are things everyone should do to help Palestine besides voting in an election. But I'm writing this post that is about voting because I'm genuinely worried by how many so-called leftists want to give up their right to vote—a right that older generations had to fight tooth and nail for—because they think it won't achieve anything. If voting didn't achieve anything, Republicans wouldn't be trying so hard to suppress your vote.

I'll conclude by saying that nuance is not this site's specialty, but please try to understand what I'm actually saying here before attacking me in the notes. Finally, people being antisemitic or islamophobic on this post will be blocked. People denying that Israel is committing genocide against Palestine will be blocked. Trump supporters, tankies, and people who say that Biden and Trump are the same will be blocked. So will people who say "voting is pointless" or "but Biden did this bad thing—" Biden fucking sucks, I know that very well, so if you're going to try to make that argument to me then stop right now and read the post again.

[deadpresidents]

"Mr. Trump's election demonstrates how American tolerance for the unacceptable is nearly infinite. There are hundreds of absolutely mind-boggling things I could point to from the past decade...But three election in a row, Mr. Trump has been a viable Presidential candidate and our democracy has few guardrails to protect the country from the clear and present danger he and his political appointees will continue to confer upon us. Clearly, Mr. Trump is successful because of his faults, not despite them, because we do not live in a just world...And now Republicans will control the executive branch, the Senate and the House of Representatives. There will be few checks and balances...

...Mr. Trump's voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

As Mr. Trump assembles his cabinet of loyalists and outlines the alarming policies he means to enact, it's hard not to imagine the worst, not out of paranoia but as a means of preparation. The incoming President has clearly articulated that he may dismantle the Department of Education and appears to be giving the wealthiest man in the world unfettered access to the Oval Office. He plans to begin mass deportations immediately and has announced his pick of a Fox News host as the defense secretary -- the list goes on, each promise more appalling than the last.

We would like to believe that many of the ideas on Mr. Trump's demented wish list won't actually come to fruition and that our democracy can once more withstand the new President and the people with whom he surrounds himself. But that is just desperate, wishful thinking. As of yet, there is nothing that will break the iron grip Mr. Trump has on his base, and Vice President-elect JD Vance is young enough to carry the mantle going forward for political cycles to come.

Absolutely anything is possible, and we must acknowledge this, not out of surrender, but as a means of readying ourselves for the impossible fights ahead."

-- Roxane Gay, "Enough", The New York Times, November 17, 2024.

This is one of the best, most spot-on pieces about where we are and what we must prepare ourselves for in the aftermath of Donald Trump's re-election to the Presidency. These gift links will allow you to bypass the NYT paywall and read the entire article, and I urge you to share these links with as many people as you'd like.

[mesetacadre]

Hey do you think you could watch and give your throughts on youtuber Jonas Čeika video "marx was not a statist"?

Thank you

Quite honestly, the title alone already betrays some amount of anarchist metaphysics, the concept of stateism is a purely idealist notion which only works if you are a liberal about authority. But regardless, I still watched the full thing.

The video starts with a very semantic-focused discourse on how marx never used "socialism" to mean the lower phase of communism, and way too much time on the terms transitionary period/DotP as if they weren't two terms that refer to the same thing. In the case of socialism/lower phase of communism, I think he's obfuscating. He focuses the discussion on whether Marx used a certain term in the same way we do now. This would be like spending a good 5 minutes of a video presenting, with an almost accusatory disposition against modern communists, how the bolsheviks called themselves social-democrats, pretending like the terms haven't simply evolved. He promises an "active engagement with marxist theory" and he starts by arguing semantics. He even acknowledges this possible criticism, but you also then have to defend why that criticism is not valid, instead he acts like merely acknowledging it will make that criticism invalid. I'm also spending this time on this specific point because, later, he also forgets how Marx used the word "socialism".

When he does define the lower stage of communism, he engages in a very mechanic and economicist view, with the simple train of thought: No money (replaced with vouchers) > no capital to accumulate > no classes > no state. I think that just by asking how these vouchers will be regulated and how access to wealth restricted to the use of those vouchers, the conclusion that the substitution of money necessarily leads through that chain to the disappearance of the state becomes, very transparently, downright infantile.

In his point about how the Paris Commune changed Marx's view on the state, he cites excerpts in a very misleading way. The whole point starts by pointing out that, in the preface to the 1872 edition, the experience of the Paris Commune led Marx and Engels to the following analysis: "...the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes". This, along with a disregard of the importance of the specific policy points they outlined in the manifesto, and the importance of absolute centralization, means to him that Marx and Engels, actually, completely disregarded the use of the state on the road to communism. To quote Lenin: "Listen, comrade from Tiflis, one may prevaricate, but one should know the limit...."

What the video doesn't directly address (and although he talks about the text extensively, It's important to cite ideas where they actually come from), is that this quote, although it appeared in the 1872 edition of the manifesto, comes from Civil War in France, a longer text on the Paris Commune. This is a more complete context of that quote that the video never gives [ID in alt text]

That quote is the beginning of a chapter in which Marx describes how the Paris Commune governed itself, and how it broke with the series of revolts that happened throughout the period of feudalism, how the class character of the Commune marked it as the significant event that it is. It is true that the Commune's aspirations for the entire world was for its form to be replicated even in the smallest hamlet, and it may even be true that this influenced Marx to generally reject centralization of the state. However, what the breadtuber obviates throughout the entire video, is that a small state is still a state, and furthermore, that revolutionary strategy is not dictated by what is right or wrong, but by what can be done to advance the cause of the emancipation of the working class. It is one thing to reject the state outright, and another very different thing to acknowledge that it is necessary to take control of the state to emancipate the working class, even if you abstractly oppose the concept of a state. Not only to take control of the state, which is the point of the original quote, it is necessary to create our own worker's state, in whichever form it best suits the concrete reality: "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes". Jonas says that the proletariat should, instead, create "radically democratic working class institutions". These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.

Instead of understanding that point, he goes even further. Jonas has understood that, by praising the measures taken by the Paris Commune (which, let's remember, failed after two months!), Marx and Engels began to believe that "[the state] is by nature bourgeois". Maybe Jonas started reading Bakunin instead of Marx without realizing, this is perhaps the most liberal and historically illiterate portion of the 30+ minute video essay. Again, comrade from breadtube, one may prevaricate, but one should know the limit. In fact, Marx even says in the same text being discussed: "It is generally the fate of completely new historical creations to be mistaken for the counterparts of older, and even defunct, forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness". The irony needn't be explained.

As if Jonas hadn't misconstrued the text and Marx enough, he shows the quote: "... although there is nothing socialist in them except their tendency...". At first I was unable to find this specific quote in Civil War in France, not in any chapter nor in the footnotes. As it turns out, this quote is not from Civil War in France, as Jonas so succinctly cites it, but from the draft of the text. First, it's simply dishonest to cite such a cherrypicked line from a draft and passing it off as something Marx published.

There might be a myriad of possible reasons why this idea did not make it into the final text, but in order for the audience to correctly follow along, it's necessary for them to know where an idea comes from. Beyond this, which I find misleading enough, the video makes the point that with this line, Marx is clearly differentiating between a dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. But hang on, didn't Jonas spend the first 5 minutes of the video explaining that, in the times of Marx, socialism was understood to be a reformist and petit-bourgeois stance? So, then, how could this out of context, unpublished line be Marx making a distinction between lower-phase communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat? This is the phrase's context [ID in alt text]:

The actual point of this portion is not even related to what Jonas makes it out to be. Here, using "socialist" as another name for utopians, Marx makes the distinction between previous movements of utopians, those socialist sects, and the Paris Commune, because even though their goals, the emancipation of labor, may appear similar, there is nothing socialist [utopian] in them because their means are not utopian, but the beginnings of scientific communism. So, then, not only did Jonas go back on the first point of the video to dunk on the evil stalinists, and not only did he completely remove the context of a phrase by failing to cite properly, but he also failed to even understand the points made in the text he's cherrypicking. Is this what passes for "active engaging with marxist texts" in breadtube?

After this portion, which I still consider the better half of the video, he veers into talking about socialism in one country, first by, again, very blatantly removing important parts of the texts he talks about. The quote he shows, from Principles of Communism, is as follows: "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth [...] into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others [...] It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries [...] It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range." It is true that Engels states that communist revolutions cannot be confined to the national scale, but those ommissions hide a lot of nuance that is very relevant to discussing Marx and Engels' positions on the national/international question. This is the full quote [ID in alt text]:

Marx and Engels were unable to completely and correctly analyze the imperialist form of capitalism, which hadn't yet fully crystallized, economically speaking. According to them, since capitalism was the most developed in places like England or France, the proletariat was also more developed, and the socialist revolution would happen first in these places, and propagate outwards. This notion was proved false by both theory (Lenin's imperialism) and by practice. Lenin identified that, as imperialism settled down as the highest stage of capitalism, the imperialist chain could only be broken at the weakest link, which was Russia at the time. I'm insisting on Lenin's theories because Jonas also claims Lenin to the "not statist" camp, and the video very quickly loses any originality by defaulting to the narrative of Stalin betraying Marx and Lenin by rejecting the world-wide revolution in the short-medium term as a pre-requisite for the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I think that going more in depth into this will only make this response unnecessary longer, but to end it, I think it's apt to end with a Lenin quote which directly refutes this anti-Lenin betrayal notion:

A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn  struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, V. I. Lenin (1915)

Overall, I think this video lacks any kind of rigor or respect for the texts discussed. Citations are pretty predominantly misleading or incomplete in some way, he extrapolates fantastical ideas from texts he doesn't appear to understand, and more in general, the way the video is concienved reeks of dogmatism, the arguments overwhelmingly boil down to "Marx said this (according to me), so it must be true". There is no actual engagement with texts, but there isn't even a will to engage with history. Marxism does not end with Marx and Engels, it's a philosophical and political framework that extends beyond the gospel of incomplete quotes. Even if Marx and Engels really did believe such anti-materialist ideas as "the state is bourgeois by nature", it would not change the facts that the history and experiences after the Paris Commune should also have weight in order to reach conclusions.

[leaderwonim]

𝐇𝐈𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇𝐘 — twelve: I’m sure lots of people would want to be friends with you

𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠. lee heeseung x fem!reader, park sunghoon x fem!reader

𝐬���𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲. Y/N always knew that her high school was dominated by wealth and privilege. Upon having a one night stand with popular athlete Lee Heeseung, she uncovers that Heeseung's friend group controls not only social dynamics but also school policies and local affairs, revealing a hidden world of power and manipulation behind their so called perfectly polished exteriors

masterlist | previous | next

“So, what’s wrong?” Riki puts down his chopsticks, looking directly into your eyes.

“What do you mean?”

He scoffs. “I mean, you wouldn’t just drive me to eat noodles at 9pm at night.”

“I can’t drive you to eat for some sibling bonding time?” You furrow your eyebrows.

“You know that’s not it.”

You sigh. “Fine. Someone sent me a picture of Giselle with Heeseung.”

“Heeseung? You mean the guy you keep fawning over in your spam?”

“That’s Sunghoon.”

Riki throws his hands in the air exasperatedly. “I don’t keep up with these Korean dudes you like noona.”

“Noona?” Your eyes widen at that. “You’re already using Korean phrases?”

Your little brother smiled sheepishly, rubbing his neck in an awkward manner. “Yeah, first day of school I made a friend who was also a foreigner. Her name’s Danielle.”

No fucking way.

“Danielle?” Your mouth runs dry, but you don’t want to ruin things for your brother. He’s made a new friend, and Danielle doesn’t seem half as bad as Hanni.

“Why? Is there a problem with her?”

You shake your head quickly. “No. As long as she’s nice to you then I’m happy for you.”

Riki nods, picking up his chopsticks to dig into his ramen bowl once again. “You need to take me out every weekend.”

“Who said?”

“Mom!”

The next day at school had Lee Heeseung dreading his entire life. Not only were things awkward ever since he told Hanni he’s loved her, but you were still ignoring him.

And as a cherry on top, he had quite literally had a meltdown in your best friend’s arms, who, despite reassuring him it wasn’t embarrassing, still made him feel like the biggest loser of them all.

“Hey guys,” Heeseung says, making his way over to Seojun.

The boy clears his throat awkwardly, looking at everywhere else but Heeseung.

“Hey Hee.” At least Danielle was kind enough to greet him. She was always like that, kind and bubbly. It’s a real shame Heeseung and her were under what felt like a dictator friendship.

“Hey man, we were talking last night and uh,” Seojun scratches his neck awkwardly. “We think it’s best if you take a break from our group, you know, for just a little while.”

Heeseung swears his heart just drops at that moment. All the way to the ground.

“What? Why?”

He notices how Hanni looks at her newly polished nails while Seojun and Danielle both have a slumped look on their faces.

“Well you’re kind of the most emotional person we’ve ever met.” Sunghoon says, and Heeseung has to stop himself from letting out a huge scoff because who the fuck does Park Sunghoon think he is?

Heeseung knew all of them first. Heeseung was friends with all of them first, and now Sunghoon was speaking for the rest of them and essentially kicking him out of his own group of friends?

“And no offense, but you’re really ruining the group dynamic.”

He was ruining the group dynamic? Him? After all he’s done to keep the friendship in tacked, after all he’s done to make sure his feelings for Hanni didn’t get in the way of his friendship with Sunghoon, after he let Hanni slam the dork in his face so she wouldn’t feel weird about his confession? He was the one that ruined the group dynamic?

“So you’re blowing me off just because of that?”

Seojun puts his hands on Heeseung’s shoulder, which should bring comfort, but it only feels like burns being printed on his skin. “Once you get over this sad emotional phase, I’m sure lots of people would want to be friends with you.”

Heeseung now scoffs, eyes rolling to the back of his head from the nonsense that he was hearing. “Fine. This is what you want, right? Hanni? Danielle?”

Danielle doesn’t say anything, she just frowns and looks away.

“It’s for the best.” Hanni says. “It’s not like it’s permanent Hee.”

“Don’t call me that.” Heeseung turns around, practically radiating anger as he walks away from the group.

He doesn’t look where he’s going, too blinded by the hurt he felt at his own friends’ words.

Suddenly hit by another body, Heeseung falls backwards, slamming into the floor.

“Oh my God—I am so sorry,” he mutters out, grabbing the textbook of the person he bumped into on the floor.

“It’s okay really,”

He knows that voice. He fucking knows it.

“Y/N?”

You cringe at the realization that you’ve just bumped into Lee Heeseung, and almost as if he knows you’re going to try to leave him, he holds onto your wrist.

“Please, let me talk to you.”

“I’m busy.” You say, eyes scanning the room for your friends. “Heeseung, let go.”

“No, please. Just let me talk to you for 5 minutes, I’ll leave you alone forever after that if that’s what you want.”

You sigh, watching his defeated eyes bore into yours. No matter how much it hurt that night at the Gala when you saw Heeseung leave with Hanni, you still have feelings for him buried underneath you.

“Okay.” You say, and that’s enough to make Heeseung’s heartbroken face turn into a smiling one.

“Thank you Y/N, thank you.”

And who knows, maybe this would be the biggest mistake of your life, but whatever happens, happens.

AUTHOR’s NOTE: oh!!! it just gets worse and worse for heeseung 😭😭

taglist 1 (closed) @lilyuwon @soobeboobe @immelissaaa @coqhee @shuichi-sama @ssukiyakii @deobitifull @sunpov @anittamaxwynnn @minjaexvz @katarinamae @capri-cuntz @jooniesbears-blog @sakanelli-afc @lvlyjisung @cherlv @mnxnii @llvrhee @b0bbl3s @lwavander @txtlyn @heartheejake @realrintaro @wonyoungsvirus @hyuckies18 @thinkinboutbin @yoonjise @rikizm @cinnamon-won @samouryed @moon4moony @jakesfurry @yunjinhuhjennifer @viagumi

[sepublic]

The Collector’s story is so sad to me because they really do try!!! They are putting in the effort to be better!!! They defy the other collectors’ policy of imprisonment and genocide, for the sake of the Titans! They go along with Philip’s plans, giving him the draining spell and a bunch of other magic! And they listen to King’s Owl House rules, they’re gradually adjusting their behavior according to his advice, respecting his boundaries, even letting him get away with Eda and Lilith!

He’s learning. He really is doing all he can to improve, he’s listening. But the Collector isn’t doing it fast enough, they haven’t figured it out quickly; So it feels like for the adults and everyone else around them, they don’t want to put in the effort to teach and rehabilitate this kid. That’s too long and arduous, it’s much easier to stick him in a prison and hide it, or even kill the kid.

The Collector invests so much good-faith effort into changing for people, but those around him? They don’t want to reciprocate the same effort to understand him in return, that’s how it feels. They demand so much but give nothing back, use the Collector. And would rather take the easy route of punishing the kid to make him shut up for their convenience, instead of really working to talk with him at his level, and explain how to get better. There’s this silent, genuine, hurt and confused question echoing from the Collector; “What did I do wrong?”

It really does feel like one big metaphor for neurodivergent kids, and children in general, who are seen as misbehaving troublemakers. And rather than taking the time to understand their perspectives, and communicate to them about the problem, adults would rather just hit them until they’re quiet.

Because it’s easier, more convenient that way, like sweeping dust under the rug. Even if it just makes this kid who IS willing to improve feel neglected, unappreciated; Allows their problems to fester untouched and unseen, until it boils over and explodes later in life. And suddenly adults are all shocked because He was such a quiet, obedient kid, who could’ve seen this coming?!

The Collector feels like the collective wrath of so many kids who were treated like inconveniences to deal with, rather than growing children who needed help and guidance. And boy is the Collector messy about it, because they’re tired of playing by other people’s rules and trying to appeal to them with good behavior, in exchange for compassion, because that clearly hasn’t worked out and never will.

They are every child who has asked Why about a rule, and instead of being treated like a person with an honest need to know, was just told Because I said so. They want to get it, but people just prefer them being blindly subservient; People don’t care what the Collector thinks, so why should he feel the same for their judgment? The kid is panicked when he insists King focus on the revision he made to the storybook, the lesson he learned, but he’s still being put away for what others wrote.

“You can trust me” is something Philip and King have both told them, and maybe that parallels how adults insist children follow their seemingly arbitrary rules even without knowing why, because “It’s the rules” and authority dictates all. So after struggling under that command, of course the Collector is eager to be the one wielding it this time, with his rules...

The rules of a game. The rules of behavior. Both are laws dictated for people to follow, with someone often deciding and being able to change them as they see fit, especially with childrens’ playground games. Life is a big game and the Collector wants to play his own, after all this time following others’ rules; His people’s, the Titans’, Philip’s, and finally King’s.

There’s a lot to be said about how we expected the Collector to have been someone who didn’t play by any rules, did whatever he pleased. But it might just be the opposite, the kid has never had true freedom, always subject and listening to what someone else tells them, because they’re in charge or it’s the moral thing to do. They’ve been imprisoned their whole life, literally even, and now their desire for agency has burst free.

The Collector wasn’t the god of chaos we thought they were, but now they will be and we’ve seen why; It’s not because there weren’t any rules for them, it’s because there were too many, and the more you tighten your grip, the more something slips free. Too much authority, too little, the kid needs a proper balance of contradictory lessons, like so many in this show...

[writefightandflightclub]

Sugar

Grad student!Nathan Bateman x older!fem!reader

Author’s note: I AM IN LOVE WITH THIS CONCEPT TBH BUT DON’T WANT TO GIVE SPOILERS SO WARNINGS ARE NON-EXHAUSTIVE. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK I GUESS? (As ever, minors DNI, thank you!) And I blame Oscar at MEFCC in the black polo and @nowritingonthewall’s hc of young!Nathan sneaking into tech conferences for this one. (I’m imagining him as getting towards his mid twenties here.)

Word count: just a short one!

Warnings: power / wealth imbalance, and slight warning for dub-con due to this. Sexual touching (slightly public). Infidelity. Alcohol consumption (reader). As mentioned above, warnings are non-exhaustive this time to avoid spoilers. If you do need further info, however, you are welcome to DM or send an ask.

“Not touching the oysters?” Nathan asks in as suave a tone as he can muster. The only oyster he’s personally sampled, so far, is the oyster sauce at his favourite downtown take-out.

Your plate of extravagant buffet food is discarded next to you, however, as you pore over a stack of documents at the hotel bar, a martini in a tall, flared glass languishing in your free hand.

You whip your head towards Nathan and look him up and down; as though deciding whether he’s worth the time of day, or whether you should immediately summon security to remove him from your field of vision. You seem to find him relatively inoffensive, at least, and grant him permission to remain in your orbit; for now. You hum contemplatively. “Decided I’ve had my fill of vile sensations for today,” you announce in a cool, assured tone. “I had to fuck my husband this morning. Twice.”

Nathan emits a low whistle. As much as he tries to take it in his stride - to act like he’s accustomed to affluent, worldly, cut-throat women like you - he isn’t. Honestly, he’s barely accustomed to anyone at all lately, since he’s immersed himself entirely in getting his start-up off the ground.

You’re older. Older than him, at least. Older than any woman he’s been with so far, he can’t help but think. That, along with your candidness, is refreshing. You’re not all giggly and earnest and chaotic like the young women he’s met around campus - which sounds far less exhausting to him, if he’s honest.

He looks you up and down in return. And, yeah. Shit. He definitely wants to fuck you.

“He doesn’t get you off?” Nathan asks, crude and casual, as though he has any business asking. However, he’s found that a complete disregard for social norms can -oddly- sometimes pan out in his favour. Sometimes. Besides, on this occasion he has to risk it, or social norms would dictate that he shouldn’t approach you at all. At least not before he’s in possession of an invitation-only credit card, or, has made a hard-to-come by appointment via your PA at the very least.

You take a sip of your drink and eye him over the brim. He likes that move. Your eyes are full of deliciously dark amusement as you appraise him. He thinks you may even like what you see. Might even find him refreshing too. “Well. It’s not love - or anything else so impractical. It’s strictly a business arrangement,” you explain, as though you have been waiting for an opportunity to vent and no-one has actually bothered to ask you. “He pays for my lifestyle and I put out. And occassionally have to, you know, run his fucking company, attend boring conferences to schmooze his investors, and generally mask his total ineptitude.” You gesture around you vaguely. From the tiredness in your tone, it makes sense that you’re hiding out in this deserted hotel bar, Nathan thinks.

He knows fine well who your husband is too. A guy many, many years your senior. Obscenely rich fucker too. CEO and founder of a huge ass telecoms company, recently diversified into various markets across the tech world. The company is running an agressive acquisition policy, buying out start-ups and hoping to find something that sticks. The “next big thing”. It hasn’t succeeded yet. Projections look mediocre at best.

Nathan, who very much considers his innovation the “next big thing” - the only game in town - had tried to corner your husband at the end of his rather lacklustre panel. After all, he’d done his research. Had identified the highest value targets he could network with in attempts to drum up some investment. He is trying to bolster his sorely under-funded start-up… which, if he is honest, has barely even “started” at all. He knows the tech. The code. He’s a certified genius, for God’s sake. He was just a fool for thinking that that alone would be enough. Frustratingly for him, it’s the schmoozing and understanding of the cold realities of the business world he struggles with. He seems to rub people up the wrong way, for some reason. Probably because they’re all assholes. Or, maybe, because they view him as too young or too rough around the edges to know what he’s talking about. Or, most likely, because they’re uninspired bastards incapable of comprehending his world-changing vision. Maybe all of the above.

So much then, for the supposed merits of the free market and the idea that the best ideas will prosper. His idea is the best, and he’s floundering simply because his daddy can’t buy him his way in. Instead of a reliance on the strength of the product, networks and power and money and nepotism appear to be king in this world. And, Nathan possesses none of these advantages. Even with the buzz around him at his faculty, and his full ride scholarship at 17 for being a fucking genius.

Anyway, after a failed attempt to schmooze your asshole husband, Nathan had quickly put together that the guy didn’t have a goddamn clue. That you were the brains (and beauty, by the way) behind the operation, and he was likely little more than the funds.

Also, the guy definitely didn’t seem like he’d be a pleasant fuck, by any stretch.

He grimaces somewhat at the thought.

“That’s what they say isn’t it?” You take a breezy sip of your drink. “Fake it until you make it? They’re talking about orgasms, sweetheart, and my last performance paid for these shoes.” You kick out your appealing leg, your shins bare and smooth beneath your pencil skirt, and you briefly show off your shiny, black, red-soled heels.

They’re nice. Sexy, on you.

Nathan briefly wonders why you’re being so forthcoming with him, a complete stranger; but you don’t strike him as someone who gives a shit in the slightest what other people think. You also strike him as someone who can make people think whatever you want them to think. One day, he hopes to have as much power over a room as you do - and that’s for starters.

He slips into the bar stool beside you then, uninvited, and you scoff. “Are you even old enough to drink, baby face?”

He bristles at that, thick brows pinching and nods slowly, peeking at you from over the brim of his glasses, his own eyes now dancing with a subtle, dark amusement.

You’ve already turned away though. It frustrates him that he can’t entirely hold your attention.

“Nathan Bateman. Student, MIT.” You gesture to his name tag with a perfectly manicured finger, and without looking back up from your stack of documents.

Now, Nathan glumly reassesses his earlier conclusion. You are being forthcoming because it really doesn’t matter what he, specifically, thinks. Because you’ve already estimated that he’s the guy in the room with least influence. For now, at least. You’ll see. “Better to check. Especially before you start hitting on me.”

He swallows. “Is that what you think’s happening?” Shit. Do you want that to happen?

“Isn’t it?”

He’d make some dig about you flattering yourself. But he knows fine well it’s the most likely reason any hot-blooded guy would be sidling up to you. You’re hot and unobtainable; which makes you even hotter.

Nathan watches as you idly spin your wedding band around and around. He’s surprised you can even lift your arm with that rock attached. When he notices it, he wants to fuck you even more than he did before, but he definitely can’t afford you.

“Actually. I wanted to pick your brains on something. You seem the kinda person who knows a good idea when she sees one.” Unlike the other idiots at this conference who’ve refused to give him the time of day. Maybe he should reconsider his pitch.

You scoff, still not looking up at him. “Honey,” you deliver in a silken, condescending tone, which he is surprised to learn makes him half-hard in his pants. “I charge for that too, and I get the feeling I’m a little beyond your budget.”

“Call it corporate social responsibility then. Supporting the students.”

“Sweetheart. I pay someone else to do that sort of thing for me.”

“Okay.” He takes it in his stride. Wants to show he isn’t fazed by you, even if he is. “Then I guess I am hitting on you. Unless that’s gonna cost me.”

You finally turn back towards him. Look him up and down again as if to remind yourself exactly what you’re dealing with. You study his cheap suit and his mop of curls and his freshly grown-out beard, and he is surprised how exhilarating he finds it to be under your scope.

Your lips curl with subtle amusement, your gaze growing downright wolfish as you survey him.

Fucking unreal.

You look like could eat him up and spit him out. Or… you could swallow, he fantasises briefly, gaze dipping down to your plush mouth.

You do like what you’re seeing, don’t you? Are intrigued by him. Finally. He encounters someone with some good sense.

“What’s it like?” he delivers with a smirk, feeling a resurgence of his familiar confidence as he successfully holds your attention.

You eyeball his fit again. “What? Tailoring?”

He bristles at your dig, but again, aims to present an unbothered exterior. “No. I mean.” His palm waves through the air. “Being a sugar baby.”

You tut at him. “Why, are you interested in a position?”

He arcs a single, thick brow. “I could be.”

“I don’t think my husband’s recruiting. Unless you want a 60-hour a week unpaid internship with zero healthcare and no dental.”

“No. I mean that…” His tie feels awfully constrictive around his neck all of a sudden. This is a bold move but… you have to speculate to accumulate, right? “…I could be yours.”

You clearly weren’t expecting that. And, as much as you try to pass-off that you’re used to jumped-up, cocky little shits like him offering to be your sugar baby, he can plainly see it throws you for a moment. Still, you compose yourself beautifully in no time at all. “I already have one man who saps my time and comes in two minutes flat. What would make you any different, honey?”

Nathan offers you a lopsided smile, opting not to contain the dark, lust-blown gaze smouldering behind his lenses. What does he have to offer, exactly, in this scenario? He purses his lips while he thinks, and then he lands on it: “I’m… hot.”

You look him up and down again, conceding - with a tilt of your head - that his argument is at least halfway compelling. “Hmm. Do you imagine, though, that I struggle for offers from hot, younger men?”

“Not in the slightest. You’re gorgeous.” And rich. “But I think you can do better.”

“Better like you? What makes you so special?” You’re having fun with this. He can tell from the glow in your eyes and the curve of your appealing mouth.

He offers you his best smoulder. It isn’t hard - there’s an easy chemistry between the two of you, he thinks. “There are things I don’t give away for free either.”

“Well,” you ask, leaning in close to him and cupping his chin firmly in your hand as you dip your painted lips towards the shell of his ear. “If I was to take you up on your very generous offer… What pretty things would you want me to buy you with the money, baby boy?”

Fuck. You smell good.

You smell edible, and his suit pants definitely fit far less well than they did when he donned them this morning. In fact, they’re getting increasingly tight around his crotch as his arousal swells for you.

With a tight swallow dipping down his neck and a rare nervous sweat dampening his shirt, he twists to gather some documents out of his backpack. You scrape your nails down his beard as he turns out of reach, and fuck, you’re doing it for him.

Then, gathering his cool, entering the domain he is expert in and is sure of, he flips to the page on costings in his business plan, sliding it across the bar to you.

He gives you a moment to study the text. The list of the equipment, personnel, marketing budgets and so on he needs to realise his rather extensive ambitions. Then, he leans in to you in return as you pore over his plan. He dips his mouth until his beard is tickling the shell of your ear.

“This would be a good start… Mommy.”

As you look back at him with a dark, lust-laden stare, looking as hungry as he feels, he wonders if he might leave this conference with some start-up funds after all.

If this comes off, then… fuck. He hopes you are as ferocious in the bedroom as it strikes him you are in other areas.

Your head is angled towards him, your lips parted in mild surprise. Your gaze briefly dips to the tenting arousal between his legs, and he doesn’t even attempt to hide it.

He has no idea where this will lead; but that’s the fun, isn’t it? Nathan is rather fond of experiments.

A hard swallow dips down your neck and you cross your legs, pressing your thighs together as you take in the substantial swell of him.

You gather a smile, and your composure. “Your business plan looks impressive, Nathan.” His name sounds good in your mouth. He wonders how his cock might feel in there too.

You hand the documents back to him, and you quickly gather up your things, slinging your stack of documents under one arm. With the other, you reach out your hand, offering it to him to shake. He obliges. “I’m certain we could come to some sort of… arrangement.” You free a business card from the holder in your tote and slip it gracefully into his top pocket.

He’s a little disappointed it isn’t your hotel room key, if he’s honest. He’d love to work on his current… problem… right away. “When would you like to… discuss things further?” he asks, as you dangle the promise in front of him.

“You’ll have to make an appointment with my PA,” you dismiss with a smirk. However, you seem keen to guarantee that he does. You’ll be fun to play with, Nathan thinks. “Will you do that for me, Nathan?”

He thinks about it. Decides it’s a no-brainer. “Yes.”

To his surprise, you then reach your hand down towards his crotch, pausing before you touch him and allowing him opportunity to protest. He doesn’t. And so, you settle your palm over the aching bulge between his legs. The warmth of you bleeds through the fabric, and Nathan struggles not to react to the pressure you apply, managing to limit himself to a ragged intake of breath. His eyes flutter shut, lashes fanning against his cheek. When he opens them again, he half expects his glasses to have steamed up.

“Yes, what?” you purr, giving him an abrupt squeeze.

“Y-yes, Mommy,” he stutters, almost choking on his words, and with that, you look very satisfied indeed.

He wagers, from the expression on your face, that you’ll definitely be motivated to seal the deal.

You sweep out and Nathan watches your ass sway in that tight pencil skirt as you go.

Fucking unreal.

[sophieinwonderland]

Many Americans I have seen: *Says they are pro freedom and democracy.*

Also many Americans: *Votes for a guy who doesn't believe in democracy when he doesn't win, and who literally wants to be a dictator and has taken great measures (like what he did with supreme court) to ensure he becomes one.*

Maybe it's just me, but I, a non-American, can't comprehend the logic here lol...

Well, here is one thing that I can clear up. Republicans don't support democracy.

At least not over the past few elections.

You could see this most notably whenever the topic would come up of the electoral college. Democrats would point out the fundamental problems with the winner of the presidency being somebody who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and how undemocratic it is. A popular response then became that America is not a democracy. That we are a "republic."

This is an incredibly stupid talking point because a republic is a representative democracy. The idea behind a republic is just that the people elect representatives to represent them rather than voting on legislation directly. It does not somehow make it anymore logical to have a president who was elected by a minority of the population.

But the anti-democracy talking points have been big with Republicans ever since the 2016 election.

To get more to the point... Rural Republicans feel threatened by the fact that the country's policies are being decided by large cities. They believe that because they occupy the most land, that they should be the ones in charge of the country rather than these concentrated areas with the densest population.

They view the very concept of democracy as tyranny of the majority. The irony being missed is that what they are actually supporting is a tyranny of the minority.

And let me say... I can understand where some of them are coming from. You come up to rural Oregon, for example, and one of the biggest issues is the logging industry regulations.

Oregon has been a logging state since forever. Heavy environmental regulations have destroyed countless jobs throughout the rural parts of the state. And these regulations haven't been coming from the places that are actually affected. They are coming from the big cities where forests aren't something you live near and around, but are a rare novelty you get to see when you travel.

I am not saying that environmental protections are bad. But the people who passed the environmental regulations didn't replace the jobs they destroyed with anything. If families in rural communities go hungry or lose their homes because logging restrictions destroyed their industries, that's not going to be a problem to anyone living in the city. They wouldn't even know about it, but if they did, they probably wouldn't care much.

So democracy, to Republicans, really just means that people who are living far away from them get to decide what happens to their communities.

But... Having pointed out some of the reasoning for why Republicans feel the way that they do, I also need to point out how much worse they actually are in this regard.

Their problem with the perceived tyranny of the majority isn't the tyranny. It's that the other guys get to be the tyrants.

Because while it is true that decisions made by people who aren't living in the areas affected can unintentionally be harmful to those areas... Much of the current Republican mentality is designed intentionally to hurt people and exert control.

When a Republican area needs disaster relief, this isn't a partisan issue. If part of the country is hurting, we mobilize and do what we can for them. But when people like Trump threaten to cut funding to fight wildfires in California and just let it burn, he is met with resounding applause from his base.

For as much as they claim to be against a tyranny of the majority... Republicans would happily cut off all disaster relief funding from liberal areas just out of pure spite.

As another example of conservative opinions on Democracy and freedom, you might look to this quote which they love to misattribute to Ben Franklin.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote”

That certainly sounds reasonable... until you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it.

If the lamb is the only one armed, then what is there to stop the lamb from imposing his will on others? For all the flaws democracy has... "liberty is using threats of violence to impose your will on the majority" sounds like the worst form of government. It's a military dictatorship.

There's also another version of the quote, one from the Los Angeles Times in 1992, that conservatives desperately need take a look at.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

The point of this quote is that freedom requites acknowledgment that some rights need to be protected and are too important to leave up to the majority.

Freedom requires that those be preserved.

But Republicans aren't a party that care about freedom for anyone but themselves. Much of their platform is designed around taking rights from people. Especially from marginalized communities. Limiting the ability to vote, to marry, to have autonomy over your own body, even to use the bathroom of your choice!

This was a long post, but the TL;DR is this: Modern Republicans openly hate Democracy, and only pretend to support freedom while actively trying to strip people of their liberties.

[writingquestionsanswered]

Showing Character's Confusion

Anonymous asked: My protagonist learns his friend is a doppelgänger and I'm trying to describe the "off" feeling he gets when they reconnect (at the beginning of my story) and he realizes something is wrong. I'm not sure if I should show vs tell since the reader doesn't have experience with the non-doppelgänger version of the friend. I have visual cues that he isn't the same person, but I want to illustrate the unease the protagonist feels around him even though he knows he shouldn't feel that way around his "friend." I thought about having the "friend" hesitate about things he should know, but I don't want to do that all the time. I hope this all makes sense!

[Ask edited for length]

Doppelgängers are portrayed in a variety of ways in folklore and stories, so it's important that you flesh out the rules and conventions by which this doppelgänger operates. For example, does this character know anything about their double? Only some things? What dictates what they do and don't know? Or how much they know? It's important to flesh this out, because you need to know what behaviors (beyond not remembering certain things) serve as red flags to your character that show there's something off.

Think about things like the friend's likes and dislikes, pet peeves, fears, desires, dreams, goals, hobbies and interests, skills and knowledge, past experiences, etc. This will give you some ideas of things the doppelgänger might behave strangely about. For example, maybe the friend hates chips and salsa, but the doppelgänger eagerly gobbles some up one night at dinner. Maybe the friend eats a lot of Mexican food and took Spanish in high school, so it's very concerning when they order a "kwes-uh-dill-uh" rather than saying quesadilla properly. Perhaps the friend loves dogs, but the doppelgänger seems to be afraid of them.

These different aspects of personality can show up in a variety of ways in our lives, so they offer lots of possibilities for showing this character's unexpected behavior rather than you outright stating it. The only other thing you have to do is make sure the reader sees that your character is confused. This can be accomplished a few different ways. For the sake of the example, we'll go with the scenario of the friend (who'd wanted to be a lawyer) scoffing at the notion of seeing a popular legal personality speak. Let's say your character suggests it, and this is their response... "Uh, no thanks," Doppelgänger said with a dismissive wave. "I don't know who Marcia Shapian is and I'm not interested in hearing her speak."

Here are different ways you could show your character's confusion and feeling that something is off: -- Exposition, Telling: It struck Larry as odd that Pete wouldn't jump at the chance to go see Marcia Shapian speak.

-- Exposition, Showing: Larry's brow crumpled. "Yeah, no worries," he said, trying not to frown. "We can go to a movie instead."

-- Internal Monologue: "Yeah, no worries," Larry said. That. Was. Weird. Pete loves Marcia Shapian...

-- Dialogue: "Really? You don't want to see Marcia Shapian? You used to worship the ground she walked on. I feel like I don't even know you anymore."

Happy writing!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

LEARN MORE about WQA

SEE MY ask policies

VISIT MY Master List of Top Posts

COFFEE & FEEDBACK COMMISSIONS ko-fi.com/wqa

[uboat53]

Well, as expected, Trump can't keep his focus on policy attacks against the Harris-Walz ticket and keeps wandering off into racist/sexist/bizarre personal attacks. Many say that this is a Trump problem, but I think it's a lot bigger than him in a way that's going to keep hurting Republicans long after he's gone. LONG RANT (TM) time?

INTRODUCTION

I'm sure you've noticed the Very Serious (TM) Republicans like Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio and Very Serious (TM) conservative media outlets like the Wall Street Journal that keep talking about how Donald Trump would absolutely destroy Kamala Harris in November if only he could keep focused on policy instead of pursuing personal attacks and angry vendettas. Of course, all of them are missing the main reason Trump isn't talking about policy; Republican policy is overwhelmingly unpopular.

Look, I don't give Trump a lot of credit. I don't think he's very intelligent or insightful and I doubt his ability to focus on anything but his own personal vendettas for more than a few minutes, but the man knows popular. You can see him at work at his rallies, he'll start spitballing on something and play with it back and forth with the crowd until he finds something that resonates, it's what he does.

If Trump isn't running on policy, there's a good reason for it. Of course, we should look at specifics to illustrate the issue.

ECONOMICS

To put it bluntly, the Republicans don't have much of an economic policy anymore. Maybe the used to, but that's all gone. There are only two policies they have left, two things you can guarantee will happen under any Republican administration with a minimally compliant Congress: (1) they'll cut taxes for rich people and corporations and (2) they'll try to undo regulations.

That's it, that's all they've got. Now go around and ask people if they think cutting taxes for rich people and corporations is a good idea. I'll bet you don't get many positive responses and you'll get more than few profanities. Even cutting regulations doesn't do so well when you actually get specific about which regulations. People dislike the idea of regulations in general, but they like those regulations that keep the air and water clean.

Now, there was a point where Republican policy had some grounding. Back in the 70s when the Laffer Curve was first proposed, no one knew where the point at the top of the curve was.

(For those who are unaware, the Laffer Curve is the idea that there is some optimal tax rate. Taxing below that rate raises less money for the government, but taxing above that rate also raises less money because it overtaxes the economy. You should look it up, it's a very interesting concept.)

Nowadays, of course, we've got 40+ years of research on it and we have a pretty good idea that the optimum top marginal tax rate is about 70%. In other words, there is, at current tax rates, no way to grow the economy by cutting taxes, but Republicans keep doing it anyways. It's like a zombie policy that's immune to evidence and reason and just keeps on going from sheer inertia.

Of course, that's just the evidence about the economy as a whole. We also know that, starting in the 1980s with a wave of tax cuts and deregulation, worker pay stopped increasing with productivity. In fact, we've seen decades of stagnating wages and increasing income inequality under Republican economic policy to the point where you can actually look at graphs of economic data and point to where Ronald Reagan was elected based on where things started getting bad for average people.

Yet, still, Republicans hold to this economic policy. Despite all of the evidence and the very real consequences it has had for our economy, Republicans cling to the economic policy of Reagan circa 1980 with no interest in creating something new that they could hang their hats on. It really does speak to the state of ideas in the party.

FOREIGN POLICY

And foreign policy? Yeah, Trump can't talk about that either. Dictators like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin aren't very popular and NATO and democratic countries are. Heck, support for Ukraine has fallen since its peak, but it's still more popular than Trump himself.

Maybe there's a case to be made that the views of Cold War-style Republicans like Rubio and Graham who are pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine, and anti-Russia, are popular, but that's not Trump's policy. His foreign policy runs pretty hard against what most Americans think our foreign policy should be.

The one thing in his foreign policy that has even a little bit of positive approval is his plan for tariffs, but even that would fall apart in the details. Most people who support it do so with the vague idea that it would protect US jobs, but how many of them would still support it if they knew how likely it is to turbo-charge inflation? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it'd sink like a lead balloon if he talked about it enough that it actually started getting coverage.

DOMESTIC POLICY

Okay, so there's economic policy, there's foreign policy, and there's domestic policy which basically comes down to "everything else". I'm going to take his domestic policy ideas from Agenda 47, Trump's official campaign site, instead of Project 2025 because Trump is pretending not to know anything about the latter (despite cheerleading it behind the scenes for years), but they're really not all that different.

Trump wants to "certify teachers by their patriotism", abolish teacher tenure, cut funding to any school that doesn't teach subjects the way he wants them to, re-introduce prayer in schools, and close the Department of Education. He wants to establish a commission stocked with conspiracy theorists to investigate autism, he's both approved of and opposed plans to negotiate drug prices, and he's planning to deport tens of millions of undocumented immigrants. He wants to dramatically expand the death penalty, end any government involvement in civil rights, and try to use federal health care money to prevent people from getting transgender surgery even if they pay for it themselves.

None of these things are popular and all of them would be even less so if he actually went around promoting them or worse, tried to actually follow through on them. And Project 2025, which he has disavowed even while maintaining close ties with those who wrote it, is even worse. If you think targeting transgender people polls badly, wait until they come for abortion, birth control, IVF, and pornography.

MESSAGING

You can see all of that in the way that people who only live in a conservative world try to attack liberals. The Wall Street Journal, for example, recently tried to attack Gov. Walz, now Kamala Harris' VP pick, for creating a state system of family and medical leave, providing free college for kids under a certain income threshold, making it easier to vote, and providing school lunches.

These only sound like bad things if you live in a bubble of conservative media that separates you from the real world. Real people love feeding hungry children and letting caretakers take time off to care for loved ones!

POPULARITY

We need to pause for a moment here and address one thing. You see, Trump and Republican's economic policies are unpopular, yet more Americans say they trust Trump to keep the economy strong than trust Harris. How can that be?

Well, there's an old saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that people are Republicans in theory, Democrats in practice. In other words, they like the vibe of Republicans and they like the sound bites but, once you actually start to talk about the details of any given policy, they don't like Republican ideas at all.

I'm pretty sure that's what's going on here and it's one more big reason Trump doesn't want to talk policy.

CONCLUSION

Look, I get the instinct from Republicans that they'd like their presidential candidate to be more serious, but if they ever want that to happen they're going to have to grapple with the fact that the policies they want are not anything that would ever win an election. Trump is running on personal attacks and vendettas because he knows that these are all way more popular than the actual policies that he and Republicans actually want to put in place if they were to win and the only way to keep any sort of advantage on any policy is to keep it vague.

Until that changes, don't expect any Republican candidate to make a serious policy based argument for their election, even after the age of Trump.

[chamerionwrites]

I should log the fuck off but like. The tyranny, the violence that you’re so terrified of? I’ve seen some of it up close. I’ve lived in the aftermath of a right wing coup. I’ve attended five funerals in the space of a week, of much-too-young men (with much-too-young children) who were killed by US government policy in a very real and direct way.

And then I have returned home to an election between Hillary Clinton - who openly bragged in her memoir of helping to facilitate said right-wing coup - and Donald Trump, whose entire campaign revolved around demonizing my former neighbors and friends, and promising to wield the violence of the American state against them and people like them. I have held my nose and voted for Hillary fucking Clinton, because I know a would-be fascist dictator when I see one and I understand what harm reduction is.

And then I have gone to immigration protest after immigration protest after immigration protest. In fact it’s no exaggeration to say that basically all of my human contact during the entire pandemic year was weekly immigration protests. I’ve stood up and argued against off-brand Richard Spencer fuckheads in city hall meetings and stared them down when they showed up to counter protest and intimidate. I have cried more tears than I’ve probably cried during the entire rest of my adult life over murdered and brutalized immigrant children who could so so so terrifyingly easily have been children that I personally know and love.

I’ve voted for Biden and hoped that he might keep his promises and dreaded that he wouldn’t - because I know what the Democratic party’s track record is, because I’ve worked with immigration activists who are many decades older than me and who have been betrayed over and over and over. I’ve watched over four years, sickened but not shocked, as the Biden administration did exactly that. I’ve watched Harris’ unbelievably callous response to asylum seekers fleeing for their lives (“Do not come”). I’ve watched as the New York Times and other media that screamed condemnation from the rooftops about Trump’s immigration policies justified those exact same policies with the tiniest bit of airbrushing, and anytime I criticized those policies I’ve gotten the predictable crowd of DNC fans having hysterics at me about how I must want Trump to win again. To my own shame I’ve been quieter than I probably should have been in my criticisms because I was so sick of dealing with those people.

And then I’ve held my nose and voted for Harris and STILL gotten accused of being a vote-abstaining traitor who should be deported the moment I expressed the tiniest ounce of frustration with the Democratic party - because you needed somewhere to put your rage, and you either don’t understand or (even more ghoulishly) don’t care what the violence of deportation entails, and because apparently anything less than choking myself on the DNC’s dick makes Donald Trump my fault.

I do not wish any of this on you, because I’m not a fucking monster.

Instead I wish you enough moral and mental and emotional clarity to understand exactly what it is that you’ve said, and enough scraps of conscience to regret it as you ought.

[demontruth]

Prison Time for Trump is needed and this Why...

Y'all, I just did the math (if I did it correctly), I just realized something Trump could get 136 years in prison!! Because each of 34 counts comes with a maximum of 4 years if the Judge decided that Trump should do them separatly boom 134 years! Which fingers crossed. I know that highly unlikely but still the thought makes me so incredibly happy!! However I do think the Judge should give 'No Longer Teflon Don' some prison time.

Here's my thoughts on that. Because no matter the amount of time it's gonna fuck with Trump's head psychologically, as I see it. He's gonna be put in handcuffs taken out of the court room, hopefully. Put on a prison bus, once again hopefully. He's gonna be taken to a prison, maybe it be white collar or please let be federal prison. They're still gonna take all this clothes from him and anything that he has like his expensive ass watch and everything else he has on his person. Then they're going to strip searching him, which I feel extremely bad for whatever prison guard that may end up having do that. Give that man bonus, no joke. That's gonna have to do that. But still just that experience is going to be humiliating and demoralizing which I'm sorry he deserves in my opinion. Maybe but doubtful it will teach him some humility. Then they're going to make him get into whatever color jumpsuit, may it be orange, oh please Jesus let it be orange! Then those he going have to put on those lovely prison shoes. Then they're gonna take his ass to a cell where he's gonna have a celly no doubt. Hopefully its someone that fucking dislike him strongly and not one of his MAGA asshole. And then they're going to close the cell door. That sound alone I would imagine would have a profound effect on him mentally. Because he's the arrogant, a narcissist, egotistical, sociopathic. In that prison he's just like everybody else. He's can't stand up there thinking he's the big man having all his loyal MAGA cult followers screaming and cheeringfor him. That's going to mess with him like nothing else. And put him on a level with what he considers common people is going to mess with him in a way that nothing else ever could. Because he won't get special treatment, the prison guards aren'tgoing to treat him better then the other prisoners shit they might treat him worse if he acts up. Ithink it's so important that it happens to this motherfucker. It's time he brought down to the level he deserves. The level he's been running from forever. Because has anyone seen him now? I have no by choice, just watching the news and of course he's all over the news. He looks so defeated, pathetic, sad, old, beaten, tried, as he would say zero energy. As evil as this may sound and I really don't care... I fucking love it!! Give more of it!!

Now we just HAVE TO DEFEAT him in the Presidential election!! Biden may not be what we want either but it better then a man that's going be hell bent on revenge on everyone that disagrees with him, but on trial, who still want to but him on trial. Remember he still has at least 2 more trials coming and if gets back in the White House he'll do everything in his power to squash them. He'll go after the FBI, the DOJ and every other agency that investigated him. He will literally go on a witch hunt! Don't be mistaken and don't be stupid enough to believe he will not go full Dictator if he gets back into the white house. Trump likes/loves power far too much either far actual prison time with more criminal trials down the road he'll use that power to make sure that don't happen. See the whole I want to President again is just a Red Herring, to distract everyone from his criminal trials and a way to make them go away.

Once again I'm saying something I've been saying since before Trump became President the first time omg I'm tried. But anyway. Trump doesn't give a flying monkey shit about anyone but himself! Not the us the American people, not our Foreign policy, not climate crisis, not gun control, not education... nothing!! The only reason his sides with the Conservatives is because they kiss his ass. I completely understand why us on the left will not. But it does put us in the position of Trump not doing that we need him to do. So as much as I hate this we should pick somebody on the left that would be willing to kiss his ass so hopefully he would start doing what we want him to do. And you have no idea how much that pains me to actually write that!

But we on the left need to start fighting like we did in the last Presidential election! Grass root efforts, hitting the streets, online, fucking everywhere, especially with swing voters! We have get Biden re-elected no matter what because this another election of our life times that will matter in more then just 4 year from now!!

[mesetacadre]

Regarding your post on Stalin and Lenin, I want to ask in good faith: how can honest Communists, in good conscience, acknowledge the material harm and the death tolls of the deportations of the Crimean Tatars, Soviet Koreans, and Chechens + Ingush carried out by Stalin's administration?

I at least understand why Marxist-Leninists dispute calling the Holodomor and Kazakh famines genocides, on the grounds that they came about as a mix of failed policy, bad weather, and unintended consequences.

However, while Stalin's influence on the Famines is debatable, allowing the deportations to be carried out (which DO constitute a genocide) must certainly fall on his head. This is doubly so because Lavrentiy Beria - the principal architect of the Crimean Tatar and Chechen deportations - was a close ally of Stalin.

A big reason I ask this is because I frequently see other communists either gloss over the material harm of these deportations, or treat them as a regrettable footnote in an otherwise proud career. I find both approaches problematic, because I do not see them as an honest assessment of Stalin's wrongdoing with regards to ethnic minorities within the Soviet Union.

I thank you for your time, and I look forward to reading your assessment, should you chose to answer it. Have a good day.

[context]

I'll get to the ask itself in a moment, but first I want to point out how you're doing exactly what the post you're replying to is criticizing, how every mistake and imperfect policy of the USSR between 1924 and 1953 is scapegoated to Stalin. You're ignoring both the very important structures of democracy and accountability within the party as well as in the administration of the state. He wasn't a dictator and policy was not a direct extension of the man's thoughts. The party leadership was a collective organ made up of at least a dozen people, of which Stalin was simply the chairman, with the same vote as everyone else. And every single one of these members were beholden to democratic recall at any time.

Let's start on the common ground, we understand that the famine which struck Ukraine, southern Russia and western Kazakhstan in the early 1930s has a context of cyclical famines, grain hoarding, rushed collectivization, and bad weather. There has been a strong effort on the part of capitalist powers to both exaggerate the effects of the famine and to place it all with intent to exterminate Ukranians specifically. The policy of collectivization and antagonism towards the grain-hoarding rich peasants was one approved by and carried out by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. We can debate the degree of maliciousness, the severity of its effects, etc. But what is indisputable once you know just a little of how the USSR worked, to pretend that it could all be carried out by Stalin's sole will is absurd.

And what is the context of the deportations? The fascist invasion of the USSR. This is an extraordinary circumstance, every facet of the USSR was being attacked and threatened with sabotage. It wasn't even the first time they had had to deal with internal sabotage, like it was revealed in the trials following the assassination of Kirov. Throughout the 30s, Nazi Germany's strongarm diplomacy was practically enabled by their ability to create fifth columns, to instigate conflict and to infiltrate. They were in the process of setting up a coup d'etat in Lithuania when, with only a week to spare, it was voted that Lithuania would join the USSR. So, the fear that, as the front advanced, the nazis would do everything in their power to turn the tapestry of nationalities close to the front against the USSR, wasn't only unfounded, it was certain. Fascists are also quite famously brutal against the minorities in the territories they conquered. Their modus operandi whenever they captured a population was to kill any elected leaders and start to instigate anti-semitism.

This was the rationale that drove the policy of resettlement. It was a rushed wartime decision, such was the context, and people definitely died unnecessarily in transport. They decided that the negative consequences of resettlement outweighed the risk of sabotage, destroyed supply lines, and of a completely certain brutal destiny for these minorities if the front advanced past them. It was not a genocide, and it had nothing to do with whatever personal relationship you think Stalin had with Beria. (As a tangent, in this interview, Stalin's bodyguard said that Beria was "neither his [Stalin's] right hand man or left hand man"). I reiterate though, the personal relationships of one man did not dictate the policy decided on democratically by the CPSU.

I don't see the problem in understanding the context of these decisions and understanding the rationale behind them without kneejerking into discounting Stalin's competency. It's very easy to criticize a decision with 80 years of hindsight, without the pressure of the largest land invasion ever carried out advancing steadily. You can't understand the policies of a country containing hundreds of millions of people and hundreds of nationalities through the lens of a single man's personal failings, especially in wartime. Admitting these mistakes, but understanding the context in which they were made, is the only way to learn from other attempts at developing socialism. What is not productive is to insist on pinning every mistake, every unnecessary pain, every inefficiency, as the wrongdoings of a single man. It's dishonest to both the past, and to how communists organize today.