#this will be prioritized in the communist revolution | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tagapagsalaysay · 5 days ago

Text

I'm literally too lazy to write a full on Article so ill just run it down in like a bulleted list

Jerry's ggg notes... VERY LONG SPOILERS. No shade

Scale — Gods to humans, many characters as a selling point for a narrative game

I think they stretched themselves thin with the number of characters they had to write.

The chapters of the game are episodic which is not bad, but a lot of the human characters' relevancy just goes away when they help the town out. Only a few make it to the ending.

A lot of my critique is just about how the human characters are either flat or lack agency. Makes sense to write followers dedicated to their Gods but I thought this was about questioning authority? Most of them are just kinda there to aid the character development of gods tbh.

The formula of a LL character having quirky, unique features that make them stand out is nice in isolation. But in this case some just become wacky caricatures that their contribution to the plot is mainly preachy stuff and wisecracks

Most recurring characters had depth. I think Razzma had depth as a character but aside from offering a few words fo kindness, her character development does not involve us directly. I was disappointed that she wasn't even involved in truth seeking especially about her closest friend. She was just there as an observer. I don't even think she was at the ending

The irony is I feel like the game is too short for the complexity it's trying to present.

Violence, Revolution, Making Art

I've concluded that I think the way revolution is portrayed here is just corny.

I can't deny they did a lot of work evoking a lot of fascism and authoritarianism wrt Inspekta and the bizzyboys. Looking through propaganda, using the art styles in a manner that isnt too anachronistic, the rhetoric behind why fascists hate modern art was present.

A lot of this work feels very undermined by the guerilla artists bit. Yes, the pun is funny, but it feels like they don't think art, education, and militancy can coexist.

They can't reconcile with the violence necessary to revolt. I think part of this is because of the game design. "Words are your weapons", etc. The only people seen to be violent onscreen are the Bizzyboys vs you with the Megapon, as well as Inspekta. I feel this is just a limitation of the game: some characters do threaten you and others, but the only legitimized violence that can break an autocrat is words.

Art can be political and violent. I think it was demonstrated okay in the game, but it being equated to actual warfare is a bit much. Didn't like it. Thought it was corny to omit it like that.

I compared it to Grim Fandango before, which mainly allowed itself to examine the rules of the underworld because they came to terms with the violence that came with death. Also, it was done in an artsy way (flowers blooming, relevancy to culture), so there's kinda no excuse.

The revolutionaries in GF were more entangled with Manny, the main character. They were introduced relatively soon, but he didn't work with them until late game. This is more of a nitpick, because Lulu was present early-game, but you didn't even get to talk to her until you finally enter their bunker. The problem of other human characters developing in isolation from your actions also seeps through here.

The social commentary that's prevalent in the game is clearly about art. But there are two similar but different messages I'm getting here. If they picked which to prioritize between the consequences of democratization of art and revolutionary/protest art it would have been clearer.

It was a joke but they decided not to call that one red book communist so, idrk.

I almost forgot the tidbit that they VOTE the next person to become the next god every 33 years. That's crazy.

Why are there gods?

You guys need to bear with me here. I know the damn game will not exist without the very concept of godhood. But this part troubled me the most after wrestling with the previous two points.

Yes I approached initially that the game was a cautionary tale about authority, image, and information. But even if it didn't pan out in the way I expected that's not necessarily bad. There are parts to really step back and evaluate though.

I understood that the apocalypse represented accelerationism on Inspekta's end. But when I was still speculating on why King would disrupt the order in the grove, it's not really strange to assume that she questioned godhood itself. It's literally divine right of kings stuff. If you adopt language like "the old world struggles to be born", it doesn't help the player think it's not related to the rift at all.

Which is why I was shocked by the ending in the first place. Yes, Inspekta steps away from godhood, but the structure of being a god is never questioned itself. Why should there be gods at all? Why shouldn't everyone become a god? Yes, gods are meant to guide humanity and be altruistic, but it's just so against the politics it's trying to use. From the in-game division between god and man, to something more doylist like, the narrative of humans in this game only serve for the improvement of the gods... it's just not there.

King just constantly haunted the narrative. The game makes a whole point about her not being able to defend herself from being defamed by Inspekta, about not having a voice. But the way she was treated through the entire ending was just so confusing in my head. Yes, she chooses her words wisely. But she barely speaks for herself in the end and I feel like a lot of her character development was just sucked out towards Inspekta/Hector for being insecure. Salt in the wound, but despite the point of the game being the danger of deifying someone to the point where their image is not at all similar to who they are, she leans into this role... and there lies any attempt to reevaluate why gods exist at all.

Again if they reevaluated their priority in the story in the first place they could have gone for a less muddy ending. Different from the arts context though— do they want to highlight character development and interpersonal relationships or do they want to lean into social commentary? You can have both, but I don't think this one works

Bonus: Why was this game so cagey about death when it was the main motivator for why Inspekta became a fascist? What's up with that? I don't really know.....

#post #ggg spoilers #i just realized a lot of this is 'this is so us american... am i the right audience?'

16 notes · View notes

read-marx-and-lenin · 7 months ago

Note

I hope you don't mind my asking, you seem well-read and reasonable so I thought you might be able to help here - I'm a British communist trying to find a good organisation to join, there's tons of communist parties here but every time I search for opinions on one I either find out they're transphobic or see a bunch of people dismiss them as Trotskyist timewasters. Forgive me if the question seems a bit naïve, but how much do you think that sectarianism really matters these days?

I don't presently claim to be any specific form of communist, I've just read some Marx and some Lenin and agree with what they say, and when trying to familiarise myself with the various inter-factional conflicts I'm just not really seeing how relevant it is here - yes, some American Trots in the 50s ended up reactionary, and some MLs are concerningly eager to downplay the harm their favourite leaders caused, and everyone argues over the current state of China, but...how much does any of this really matter to building a revolutionary movement in 21st century Britain? Isn't it better to just find an active group and get to work building class consciousness than to dismiss each other for having the wrong opinions on shit that happened 70 years ago?

I can't recommend any British orgs as I don't live in the UK, but in general, if you find an organization that is actively doing work in your community that you agree with and want to support, then you should consider joining them even if they don't 100% align with your beliefs. Joining an organization is not a permanent life-altering decision, and you can leave if it turns out it's not for you.

I don't think you're conflating transphobia and sectarianism here, but I feel like I need to state that bigotry in general is not petty sectarianism, it's just bigotry. Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise reactionary orgs are not worth your time, even if you like the other things they say or do. We've all seen what happens when supposedly leftist organizations pander to social conservatives.

I don't think an organization has to take a stance on Soviet foreign policy or the events of the Russian Revolution in order to be a good organization. I think an organization can talk shit about Stalin or Mao and still be worthwhile to participate in, even if I think they're parroting Western propaganda. As long as they have are class-conscious, in favor of revolution and are doing good work in the community, then they're already better than the liberals and reformists. Even working with reformists can be a good first step when you're dealing with a lack of decent left-wing organization. I wouldn't work directly with liberal orgs, though, they're dead ends.

No organization will ever match your own personal politics and opinions. Organizations are made up of people who will naturally have a variety of different beliefs and opinions. It is a matter of organizational discipline to be able to handle these disputes and turn them into something productive. Low discipline is what creates splits and factionalism.

An organization that is hyper-focused on one specific and dogmatic ideological line that cares more about ideological purity than about actually doing real work is just as bad as a big tent party that prioritizes raw numbers above a coherent message and platform. Some sectarianism is necessary to ensure an organization even has a point to its existence. If you can't reliably and honestly say "we are not liberals", for instance, then what actually distinguishes you from liberals beyond the color of your rhetoric? Too much sectarianism, and you end up excluding folks who would otherwise be willing to support your cause over petty nonsense.

If an organization isn't dismissing you for ideological reasons and you see that they're doing good work, then I would say give them a shot. If they're not doing good work or they won't accept the help of someone who isn't already in line with their specific ideology, then why should you want to join them?

A counter-productive org is worse than no org, but no org is worse than a less-than-perfect org. Honest mistakes and shortcomings can be corrected over time. So long as the organization is demonstrably dedicated to dismantling capitalism and liberating the working class, then I don't see why you shouldn't consider working with them.

#anon ask #communism #socialism #leftism #anti capitalism

16 notes · View notes

rotationalsymmetry · 4 months ago

Text

(bouncing off of some discourse that I'm not reblogging) it's not just that the great communist revolution won't stop autism/depression/whatever from existing and being inconvenient, it's also that no human society in existence has ever been without issues and none ever will be. Revolution is rolling the dice and saying "I think a different set of issues would be better, and moreover sufficiently better to be worth the various lives, innocent and not really, that would be lost in a revolution."

Personally, I think changes implemented by people with guns tend to make things worse. The main exception is if a land is being occupied by an invader and people have a pretty clear idea of how things would work if the invader was no longer in power. That's not the case under capitalism in majority-white societies. I know the basic communist concept is analogizing between being an oppressed nation/an invading nation and the working class/the capitalists, but it just doesn't work that way.

And disabled people are notoriously less likely to be among the people holding the guns, even more than certain other marginalized groups eg women. A society, movement, army, anything that is forced to prioritize fighting ability, tends to not prioritize the needs and wants of people who can't fight!

#I realize this is very simplistic but I do not think it is wrong #power is power is power #and when the most effective route to power is force of arms this has fairly predictable outcomes #(this is also an issue with power deriving from labor unions but a less severe issue)

7 notes · View notes

lacefuneral · 6 months ago

Text

you know disco elysium is a good game because i'm willing to play through the exact same plot and side quests and puzzles over and over and over again. not to solve a murder mystery but because i'm fascinated with trying out alternate universe versions of harry du bois

what if he was a centrist honor cop that is also an outspoken feminist that chainsmokes. what if he was a sloppy sloppy party boy drunk doing every drug he sees, and he thinks the world is going to end. what if he was a horribly bigoted fascist - how does he exist in this world with a gay partner of color, how does he reconcile his white supremacist beliefs with that of measurehead's black supremacist beliefs (which he ends up adopting)? what if he was an outspoken communist bisexual that actively hates being a police officer at every single step and is going to resign the second the game ends, and he's been sober the entire time? what if he has 1 in every skill and spends his entire time crying, throwing up, apologizing, and passing out.

and also... do any of these men know their own name? what do they prioritize, in terms of memory recall? how do they choose to dress and present themselves to the world? does he shave? why or why not?

if they all pick the same dialogue option, are they saying it and meaning it in the same way? our protagonist is not voiced. he could be sincere, sarcastic, bitter, manic, bureaucratic, empathetic.

it's such a good study in people and ideology. regardless of beliefs, all of my characters have taken bribes. they've helped the union leader. they cozy up to the ultraliberal. even the cop trying to be the most Ethical. the most Fuck The Police. ends up abusing his own power. ends up killing people. ends up stealing. invades privacy. because its what is dictated by the job. by the narrative.

when you try to be apolitical, you still do all of those things. and, in fact, if you're apolitical enough you can abandon martinaise entirely and you get assassinated by the moralintern for Knowing Too Much about the pale.

if you play a communist you still have dros at the end telling you that you're not a real communist because you haven't fought for revolution. you're a wannabe

if you play a fascist dros even tells you that you're not a real fascist because you haven't enacted enough fascist violence. you're a wannabe

if you're a liberal you're shielding the fascists

you cannot be "a good guy" in disco elysium and you cannot "win." a "good" ending is getting recruited back to the force, and you can still manage to do that if you don't drink and kim is by your side. you can be brutal and awful and violent to everyone and everything. and they let you back.

even "good cops" cannot choose to resign. you must be kicked out of the force. which you do by hurting yourself and letting others get hurt

you can only resign if you take enough Morale Damage that you abandon not just the force but the entire community. and you get a game over screen

man. this fucking game....

#my personal favorite harry will always be the first one i played #this was kafka's metamorphosis to him. he's like. i'm a cop? why? that's horrifying #he gave speed to a child because he didn't want that child to go through withdrawal #he fucked up a check one time where he said something racist #and spent the entirety of the game working towards being antiracist #he loved loose flowy clothing. and he had a fear of germs. so he always wore his bright yellow gloves #he was weak as shit. measurehead kicked his ass over and over and over and over again #he joined a communist book club #he came out as bisexual and didn't have a nightmare about his wife #he stayed sober the entire time. even though withdrawal was hard #he read every book in the store. he played boardgames with kim #he loved cryptids.#that is harry to me. that guy #but there are many harries.

9 notes · View notes

needlesscontrarian · 10 months ago

Text

Because Disco Elysium has an unshakable grasp on my soul, playing a shit ton of Baldur's Gate 3 has led to me also thinking a lot about Disco Elysium again, specifically about character creation.

So, in BG3, your character is fully customizable. You get to decide everything from where they're from to what they do and believe. And that's great, because it's D&D and freedom of choice is a huge part of D&D. But it also feels kind of weird because the story is full of characters and references to things that happened hundreds of years ago. No matter what your internal backstory for your character is, as far as the game is concerned, you just got to the party and you're extremely late. This isn't a criticism; that feeling of being a more or less average person who must grow to fit the heroism that has been thrust upon them works for the story that is being told (and is the inevitable result of being a sequel that also functions as a standalone game, but I digress).

Now, DE also has you playing as someone who is late to the party (the party being everything in the world up to now), but that is a direct function of the plot and the fact that you can't decide who you are. No matter what skills you decide to prioritize at the beginning, you will always be Harry DuBois, alcoholic disaster cop. The Revacholian Revolution will always have failed. The things that led to you losing all of your memory will always have happened and they will always be a part of you. The person who used to wear your body and speak for you chose to occupy a certain place in a system, and just because the person you are now doesn't agree with that system doesn't mean that you get to take it all back. You only get to decide what you do next and try to understand what it is that brought you here in the first place.

And while you have a huge number of options for how to conduct yourself, your ability to have a meaningful impact on that system is nonexistent. There is no ending where you become king of Revachol or transform it into some sort of communist utopia. You get to decide whether to send an insane old man to prison and whether to stay a cop. That's your lot. Maybe you can help a few people work through their personal problems or shift the balance of power to whatever you think is the lesser of two evils, but you do not get to save the world. Because you are Harry Du Bois, alcoholic disaster cop, and that's all you ever get to be.

#disco elysium #baldur's gate 3 #one day one of my friends will play de and talk to me about it and free me from my mind prison

13 notes · View notes

posttexasstressdisorder · 8 months ago

Text

Subscriptions

PLAY GAMES. RAW WORD DAILY

SUBSCRIBE FOR $1

About usGamesUS NEWSInvestigationsOpinionvideoHELPget the newsletter

RawStory+ Login

PLAY RAW WORD DAILY.

SUBSCRIBE FOR $1

Home

Shop to Support Independent Journalism

Trump

U.S. News

World

Science

Video

Investigations

Ethics Policy

RawStory+ Login

Why has America tolerated 6 illegitimate Republican presidents?

Thom Hartmann

April 15, 2024 9:11AM ET

"Ronald and Nancy Reagan, 1964” image showing The Reagans aboard an unidentified boat in this 1964 photo released on June 1, 2016. Courtesy The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation/Handout via REUTERS

As we watch the Trump campaign prepare to replace 50,000 civil servants with fascist toadies if he wins the White House, it’s important to remember that Dwight Eisenhower was the last Republican president who believed in democracy, the rule of law, and that government should prioritize what the people want.

From 1960 to today a series of leaders within the Republican Party have abandoned the democracy that American soldiers fought the Revolutionary War to secure, the Civil War to defend here at home, and World War II in Europe and the Pacific to defend around the world.

This has brought us a series of criminal Republican presidents and corrupt Republican Supreme Court justices, who’ve legalized political bribery while devastating voting and civil rights.

None of this was a mistake or an accident, because none of these people truly believed in democracy.

This rejection of democracy and turn toward criminality and it’s logical end-point, fascism, started in the modern GOP with Richard Nixon.

He took millions in now-well-documented bribes both while Vice President to Eisenhower and as President (his VP, Spiro Agnew, resigned rather than go to prison for taking bribes). Nixon saw public service as a way to bathe himself in money, power, and adulation.

He didn’t care a bit about democracy.

As Lamar Waldron and I point out in detail in Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination, then-President Eisenhower’s then-Vice President, Richard Nixon, was getting beat up badly in the 1960 election by his opponent, Senator John F. Kennedy.

Most of it had to do with Cuba, where mobsters affiliated with Nixon for decades had just lost fortunes, millions and millions of dollars in annual revenue.

After the Cuban revolution of 1959, Castro came to the US to seek military and economic aid for his island nation; Eisenhower left town, forcing Castro to meet instead with VP Nixon.

Given that Castro had just overthrown the dictator Batista, a friend of both Nixon and Nixon’s mafia patrons, the Vice President essentially blew off Castro, sending him into the welcoming arms of Nikita Khrushchev’s Soviet Union.

Thus, throughout the 1960 presidential race, Senator Kennedy pounded on Vice President Nixon for having “let Cuba go communist” on his watch. In response, Vice President Nixon put together a series of CIA and Mafia plots to assassinate Castro, timed to happen before the November 1960 election.

His hope was that if the Eisenhower/Nixon administration could be seen as having successfully overthrown Castro in 1960 it would de-fang JFK’s attacks and make Nixon — who Eisenhower had put in charge of Cuba policy — a national hero just in time for the election.

Nixon figured that would be enough to help him beat JFK at the polls. It was going to be his “October Surprise.” (The remnant of this scheme was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.)

For Nixon democracy was just an inconvenience, an obstacle to be conquered. He never really believed in it.

You can imagine Nixon’s frustration when plot after plot was bungled or foiled and, by election day, Castro was still happily ensconced in the Havana presidential palace. This appears to be the moment Nixon decided that, if he had a chance to run for president again, he’d not just consider a CIA-Mafia plot but would embrace far more extreme measures.

Thus began the first Republican plot to commit full-out treason to win a presidential election.

It started in the summer of 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson was desperately trying to end the Vietnam war. It had turned into both a personal and political nightmare for him, and his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, was running for President in the election that year against a “reinvented” Richard Nixon.

Johnson spent most of late 1967 and early 1968 working back-channels to North and South Vietnam, and by the summer of 1968 had a tentative agreement from both for what promised to be a lasting peace deal they’d both sign that fall.

But Richard Nixon knew that if he could block that peace deal, it would kill VP Hubert Humphrey’s chances of winning the 1968 election. So, Nixon sent envoys from his campaign to talk to South Vietnamese leaders to encourage them not to attend upcoming peace talks in Paris.

The bribe was straightforward: Nixon promised South Vietnam’s corrupt politicians that he’d give them a richer deal when he was President than LBJ could give them then.

The FBI had been wiretapping these international communications and told LBJ about Nixon’s effort to prolong the Vietnam War. Thus, just three days before the 1968 election, President Johnson phoned the Republican Senate leader, Everett Dirksen, (you can listen to the entire conversation here):

President Johnson: “Some of our folks, including some of the old China lobby, are going to the Vietnamese embassy and saying please notify the [South Vietnamese] president that if he’ll hold out ’til November 2nd they could get a better deal. Now, I’m reading their hand. I don’t want to get this in the campaign. And they oughtn’t to be doin’ this, Everett. This is treason.” Sen. Dirksen: “I know.”

Those tapes were only released by the LBJ library in the past decade, and that’s Richard Nixon who Lyndon Johnson was accusing of treason.

At that point, for President Johnson, it was no longer about getting Humphrey elected. By then Nixon’s plan had already worked and Humphrey was way down in the polls because the war was ongoing.

Instead, Johnson was desperately trying to salvage the peace talks to stop the death and carnage as soon as possible. He literally couldn’t sleep.

In a phone call to Nixon himself just before the election, LBJ begged him to stop sabotaging the peace process, noting that he was almost certainly going to win the election and inherit the war anyway. Instead, Nixon publicly announced that LBJ’s efforts were “in shambles.”

But South Vietnam had taken Nixon’s deal and boycotted the peace talks, the war continued, and Nixon won the White House thanks to it.

An additional twenty-two thousand American soldiers, and an additional million-plus Vietnamese died because of Nixon’s 1968 treason, and he left it to Jerry Ford to end the war and evacuate the American soldiers.

Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court, pushing it hard to the right and setting up the predecessors of Citizens United.

Rehnquist, we later learned, didn’t believe any more in democracy than did Nixon. He’d made his chops in the GOP with Operation Eagle Eye, standing outside polling places in Hispanic and Native American precincts in Arizona challenging every voter who showed up there’s right to cast a ballot.

Nixon was never held to account for that treason, and when the LBJ library released the tapes and documentation long after his and LBJ’s deaths it was barely noticed by the American press.

Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon, was never elected to the White House (he was appointed to replace VP Spiro Agnew, after Agnew was indicted for decades of taking bribes), and thus would never have been President had it not been for Richard Nixon’s treason.

Ford pardoned Nixon and appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court.

Next up was Ronald Reagan. He not only didn’t believe in democracy, he didn’t even believe in the American government.

Like Trump, he ridiculed public service like joining the military or getting a job with a government agency; he joked that there were no smart or competent people in government because if there had been, private industry would have already hired them away.

So, if you don’t believe in democracy and you think the US government is a joke, it’s not a big deal to betray your country to get the wealth, power, and fame that goes with the presidency.

During the Carter/Reagan election battle of 1980, then-President Carter had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr to release the fifty-two hostages held by students at the American Embassy in Tehran.

Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as he explained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitor, successfully ran for President that summer on the popular position of releasing the hostages:

“I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign…. I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote…. Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking].”

Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr’s help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.

But, like Nixon, behind Carter’s back the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the head of Iran’s radical faction — Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini — to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election. Khomeini needed spare parts for American weapons systems the Shah had purchased for Iran, and the Reagan campaign was happy to promise them.

This was the second act of treason by a Republican wanting to become president.

The Reagan campaign’s secret negotiations with Khomeini — the so-called 1980 “Iran/Contra Scandal” — sabotaged President Carter’s and Iranian President Bani-Sadr’s attempts to free the hostages. As President Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of 2013:

“After arriving in France [in 1981], I told a BBC reporter that I had left Iran to expose the symbiotic relationship between Khomeinism and Reaganism.

“Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the ‘October Surprise,’ which prevented the attempts by myself and then-US President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 US presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”

And Reagan’s treason — just like Nixon’s treason — worked perfectly, putting a third Republican president in office after Nixon and Ford. Neither Nixon nor Reagan believed in or held up democracy and the rule of law that underpins it as a value.

The Iran hostage crisis continued and torpedoed Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes. And the same day Reagan took the oath of office — to the minute, as Reagan put his hand on the bible, by way of Iran’s acknowledging the deal — the American hostages in Iran were released.

Keeping his side of the deal, Reagan began selling the Iranians weapons and spare parts in 1981 (and using the money to illegally fund rightwing neofascist death squad “Contras” in Nicaragua) and continued until he was busted for it in 1986, producing the so-called “Iran Contra” scandal.

Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, solidifying its rightwing tilt. We’d learn, in the Bush v Gore case in 2000 when they awarded the White House to the son of Reagan’s VP, that none of the three of them valued democracy.

And, like Nixon, Reagan was never held to account for the criminal and treasonous actions that brought him to office.

After Reagan, Bush senior was elected but, like Jerry Ford, Bush was only President because he’d served as Vice President under Reagan. And, of course, the naked racism of his Willie Horton ads helped keep him in office.

The criminal investigation into Iran/Contra came to a head with independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh subpoenaing President George HW Bush after having already obtained convictions for Weinberger, Ollie North and others.

For the first time in history, the President of the United States could go to jail for criminal conspiracy. Bush was sweating.

George HW Bush’s attorney general, Bill Barr (yes, the same guy Trump hired), suggested he pardon all six co-conspirators — who could point a finger at Bush — to kill the investigation. Bush did it on Christmas Eve, hoping to avoid the news cycle because of the holiday.

Nonetheless, the screaming headline across the New York Times front page on December 25, 1992, said it all: “THE PARDONS: BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, ABORTING A WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR ASSAILS 'COVER-UP’”

If the October Surprise hadn’t hoodwinked voters in 1980, you can bet Bush senior would never have been elected in 1988.

That’s four illegitimate Republican presidents.

President GHW Bush appointed Clarence Thomas and David Souter to the Supreme Court. We learned quickly that Thomas doesn’t value democracy. We now know his wife actively worked to subvert it, in fact.

Which brings us to George W. Bush, the man who was given the White House by five Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court.

In the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount and thus handed George W. Bush the presidency, Justice Antonin Scalia (appointed by Bush’s father’s boss) wrote in his opinion:

“The counting of votes … does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”

Apparently, denying the presidency to Al Gore, the guy who actually won the most votes in Florida and won the popular vote nationwide by over a half-million, did not constitute “irreparable harm” to Scalia or the media.

And apparently it wasn’t important that Scalia’s son worked for a law firm that was defending George W. Bush before the high court (with no Scalia recusal).

Just like it wasn’t important that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife worked on the Bush transition team — before the Supreme Court shut down the recount in Florida — and was busy accepting resumes from people who would serve in the Bush White House if her husband stopped the recount in Florida…which he did. There was no Thomas recusal, either.

None of them believed in democracy.

More than a year after the election a consortium of newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today did their own recount of the vote in Florida — manually counting every vote in a process that took almost a year — and concluded that Al Gore did indeed win the presidency in 2000.

As the November 12th, 2001 article in The New York Times read:

“If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won.”

That little bit of info was slipped into the seventeenth paragraph of the Times story so that it would attract as little attention as possible, because the 9/11 attacks had happened just weeks earlier and the publishers of the big newspapers feared that burdening Americans with the plain truth that George W. Bush lost the election would further hurt a nation already in crisis.

To compound the crime, Bush could only have gotten as close to Gore in the election as he did because his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, had ordered his Secretary of State, Kathrine Harris, to purge at least 57,000 mostly-Black voters from the state’s voter rolls just before the election.

Tens of thousands of African Americans showed up to vote and were turned away from the polls in that election in Florida. BBC covered it extensively, although the American media didn’t seem interested.

So, for the third time in 4 decades, Republicans took the White House under illegitimate electoral circumstances. Even President Carter was shocked by the brazenness of that one. And Jeb Bush and the GOP were never held to account for that crime against democracy.*

President George W. Bush appointed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Alito not only doesn’t believe in democracy, he also doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to get an abortion. He’d put a judge like himself between a woman and her doctor, with a police officer and a prison to enforce his decree.

Most recently, in 2016, Trump ally Kris Kobach and Republican Secretaries of State across the nation used Interstate Crosscheck to purge millions of legitimate voters — most people of color — from the voting rolls just in time for the Clinton/Trump election.

Meanwhile, Russian oligarchs and the Russian state, and possibly pro-Trump groups or nations in the Middle East, funded a widespread program to flood social media with pro-Trump, anti-Clinton messages from accounts posing as Americans, as documented by Robert Mueller’s investigation.

And on top of that, we learned in 2020 that Republican campaign data on the 2016 election, including which states needed a little help via phony influencers on Facebook and other social media, was not only given to Russian spy and oligarch Konstantin Kilimnik by Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort, but Kilimnik transferred it to Russian intelligence.

Even with all that treasonous help from Russia, Donald Trump still lost the national vote by nearly 3 million votes but came to power in 2016 through the electoral college, an artifact of the Founding era designed to keep slavery safe in colonial America.**

And then, in 2021, after losing to Joe Biden by 7 million votes, Trump mounted a seditious effort to overturn the election he’d just lost.

Trump didn’t believe in democracy in the least; he openly fawned over autocratic and fascistic states and their leaders.

After Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans blocked President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump filled Garland’s spot with Neil Gorsuch, the son of Reagan’s disgraced former EPA administrator, Anne Gorsuch.

For reasons that are still unclear, shortly after Trump mentioned Kennedy’s son to him publicly at the Gorsuch ceremony, Justice Kennedy decided to resign. Whether it had anything to do with young Justin Kennedy — then working at Deutsche Bank and having signed off on over a billion dollars in corrupt loans to Trump — is still unknown, and Kennedy, still in good health, isn’t talking.

Kennedy was replaced by “Blackout” Brett Kavanaugh, who had previously worked in the Bush White House. Republicans refused to turn over 95 percent of Kavanaugh’s papers to the Senate Judiciary Committee and jammed through his nomination after an epic meltdown on live television.

When Ruth Bader Ginsberg died just before the 2020 election, McConnell decided his “Garland Rule” was irrelevant and jammed through Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in about six weeks; she was sworn in on October 27, 2020. When Democrats raised questions about Barrett’s role as a “Handmaid” (what she called herself) in a bizarre Catholic cult they were brushed aside.

Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanuagh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. We now know none of the three of them believe in democracy, either.

Fifty-four years of Republican presidents using treason to achieve the White House (or inheriting it from one who did) has transformed America and dramatically weakened our democracy.

Those presidents have contributed their own damages to the rule of law and democracy in America, but their cynical Supreme Court appointments have arguably done the most lasting damage.

Republican appointees on the Court during this time have gutted the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, union rights, the Affordable Care Act, and legalized Republican voter purges. They legalized the bribery of politicians by billionaires and corporations.

In short, they’ve done everything they can to weaken democracy and enforce minority rule in America.

One of their wives appears to have been involved in the January 6th attempted overthrow of our electoral process and thus our republic. Republican justices and judges openly flaunt the judicial code of ethics and routinely hand decisions to the GOP’s largest donors.

Today’s fascistic behavior by elected Republicans and their appointees on the courts has a long history, deeply rooted in multiple acts of treachery and treason. “Power at any cost” has been their slogan ever since Nixon’s attempts to assassinate Castro in 1960 to beat JFK in that year’s election.

Democracy? They laugh.

Which is why it’s time to call the Republican Party what it is: a criminal enterprise embracing fascism to hang onto power, a threat to our republic, and a danger to all life on Earth.

*For more detail, this is extensively documented and footnoted in my book The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America.

**This is covered in depth in my book The Hidden History of the War On Voting.

7 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years ago

Text

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan offered his “lesson number one about America” in his farewell address to the nation: “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” The same is true in China. One of the first steps of the Maoist revolution was forced collective dining, but reform and opening up of the country revolutionized Chinese households’ dinner options with an array of diverse delicacies from Dutch cheese and Norwegian salmon to Mexican avocados and Rainier cherries.

Tang Renjian, China’s minister of agriculture and rural affairs, accounted that, every day, China’s 1.4 billion people consume a staggering 700,000 tons of grain, 98,000 tons of edible oil, 1.92 million tons of vegetables, and 230,000 tons of meat. The leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) understand that “to the emperor, the people is heaven; to the people, food is heaven,” as the traditional saying goes, and they have prioritized food security as a prerequisite to maintaining power, especially after the calamitous famines of the Maoist era. For decades, coupons were necessary to buy any food—a system not fully ended until 1995, although largely dead in the cities by the mid-1980s. Despite China’s emergence as the world’s factory, the country’s No. 1 central document, the first policy statement issued by the top authorities each year, has centered on food security and the three issues of agriculture, the countryside, and farmers since 2004.

This year is no exception, as the Central Committee of the CCP and the State Council jointly released the highly anticipated No. 1 document for 2023 on Feb. 13. The document, which carries enormous weight, sets forth two critical priorities: safeguarding national food security and protecting farmland. While previous No.1 documents touched on these issues between 2004 and 2012, it was not until 2013, when Xi Jinping assumed leadership, that the annual No. 1 document established a consistent and resolute focus on food security and farmland preservation.

The 2013 No.1 document marked Xi’s first policy statement as China’s top leader and laid out his roadmap for enhancing China’s food security. At its core was ensuring China’s national food supply to strengthen food self-sufficiency. The document called for a robust supervision system to improve China’s food safety. It also unprecedentedly urged the need to “implement the most stringent farmland protection system and promote the development of high-standard farmland.”

Xi’s steadfast prioritization of food security is not misplaced, as China’s political system remains vulnerable to food insecurity. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, collective grievances aggravated by disruptions in the food supply and lockdown-induced food shortages sparked a wave of protests in more than a dozen cities, with demonstrators demanding, “We want food, not COVID tests.” Such public expressions of dissent have been rare in China since the mass Tiananmen protests in 1989. Given such alarming circumstances, Xi has underscored that China’s growing dependence on imported food presents a national security concern, even though China so far has been able to feed its 1.4 billion people.

Since taking office in 2013, Xi has stressed that “the rice bowls of the Chinese people must always be held firmly in our own hand and filled mainly with Chinese grain.” His approach to safeguarding national food security rests on achieving self-sufficiency by increasing domestic supply. At the Central Economic Work Conference in December 2022, Xi reiterated the importance of bolstering China’s capacity to ensure food security and self-sufficiency.

Xi is correct to recognize that preserving farmland is an indispensable factor in the quest to achieve food self-sufficiency. China has experienced alarming levels of farmland loss and deterioration in recent years. The most recent land use survey showed that China’s total arable land decreased from 334 million acres in 2013 to 316 million acres in 2019, a loss of more than 5 percent in just six years. Shockingly, more than one-third of China’s remaining arable land (660 million mu, a traditional unit of land measurement in China and equal to roughly 109 million acres, slightly larger than Montana) suffers from problems of degradation, acidification, and salinization.

The land has been eroding faster in recent years. The annual net decrease of arable land has risen from about 6 million mu (about 988,421 acres) from 1957 to 1996 to more than 11 million mu (about 1.8 million acres) from 2009 to 2019. This means that between 2009 and 2019, China lost farmland equal to about the size of South Carolina. China’s diminishing farmland is also losing productivity due to over-cultivation and excess use of fertilizers. China’s fertilizer usage in 2018 was 6.4 times that of 1978, but grain yield in 2018 was only 2.2 times that of 1978.

As in many other countries, such as the United States and India, a major cause for China’s farmland deterioration has been its land-intensive industrialization and urbanization over the past three decades. Farmland has been expropriated to meet the strong demand for land to support the expansion of manufacturing, infrastructure, and urban development. Competing interests for land use have resulted in arable land being expropriated for more lucrative development projects. In the contest for land use among food growers, cash-crop planters, and property developers, profit maximization often trumps the needs of food farmers, especially when imported foods are much cheaper than locally grown options.

Satellite monitoring data shows that grain planting accounts for about 70 percent of China’s existing arable land, while the remainder is used for growing cash crops, gardens, forestry, or left fallow. Several Chinese researchers, such as scholars from Anhui and a team from China Agricultural University and China’s Ministry of Natural Resources, have independently reached the same conclusion that by the time China achieves an urbanization rate of 70 percent by 2030, the country is likely to lose about 20 million mu (about 3.3 million acres) of high-quality arable land..

In March 2022, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the Standardization Administration of China jointly issued “General Rules for Well-Facilitated Farmland Construction,” which set quantifiable criteria for high-quality farmland for different Chinese regions. The Chinese government aims to develop 1.2 billion mu of high-quality farmland (about 198 million acres) by 2030, an area larger than Texas. The government plans to increase investment in high-standard farmland to an annual average of 3,000 yuan per mu nationwide, which requires a yearly investment of at least 75 billion yuan for 2023-2030. However, current investment significantly falls short at only 1,458 yuan per mu, less than half of the target, due to local government fiscal difficulties and declining central government subsidies.

Yet, however necessary it might be, Xi’s prioritization of food security and farmland protection does not and cannot come for free. Implementing restrictive farmland protection policies will inevitably reduce local governments’ fiscal capacity because revenue from land-use-right sales constitutes the majority of local government revenue—as it has done since fiscal reforms in the 1990s left regular tax income flowing toward the central government, not local authorities. In 2022, local governments’ land-related income fell for the first time in six years, primarily due to declined revenue from land-use-right sales.

According to China’s Ministry of Finance, local government revenue from land-use-right sales fell from a record high of 8.7 trillion yuan in 2021 to 6.68 trillion yuan in 2022, a reduction of 23.3 percent. Given that revenue from land-use-right sales remained as high as 51.29 percent of local government revenue, any further decrease in this revenue source will worsen their fiscal capability to finance public expenditures, including funding the development of high-quality farmland urged by Xi.

In addition, the massive nationwide spending on COVID controls in 2020-2022, which the BBC reported to be somewhere between 520 billion yuan and 1.56 trillion yuan, coupled with the decline in local government revenue, suggests that neither the central authorities nor local governments will have the fiscal capacity to increase expenditure on farmland protection without increasing their debt. Allocating money to finance farmland protection with debt proceeds is particularly challenging when the government has another more urgent priority: boosting economic recovery by encouraging Chinese households to expand their consumption.

Stripped of financial resources, local governments are more incentivized to boost land sales and increase revenue than to abandon selling farmland, especially when the immediate priority is to jump-start an economic rebound. To this end, in November 2022, the People’s Bank of China and China’s Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission jointly issued a set of 16 measures to revive the country’s distressed property market and help developers secure financing. This policy change suggests the party-state is once again betting on the property market’s recovery to restore growth.

Over the past two years, Chinese private property developers such as Evergrande and Vanke have pulled back from aggressive land purchasing due to stringent restrictions. While this reduced demand from private property developers should have helped alleviate the temptation to appropriate farmland for property development, much of the demand void has been filled by state-owned enterprises and government-backed developers or companies, such as local government financing vehicles (LGFVs). LGFVs allow local governments to raise off-balance-sheet debt through bond issuance to fund long-term infrastructure investment without increasing their on-the-book leverage ratio. A report by Haitong Securities, a Shanghai-based securities brokerage firm, showed that in 2022 more than 80 percent of the 100 largest land-purchasing companies were state-owned enterprises.

The share of LGFVs’ land purchases in local government land sale revenue increased to nearly 20 percent in 2022, up from 14.5 percent in 2021, suggesting that LGFVs likely have provided a false revenue source and exacerbated local governments’ off-balance-sheet debt problem. Similarly, The Wall Street Journal reported cases in Zhengzhou, Shenyang, and Suzhou where half to three-quarters of land sold by the city governments were bought by local government-controlled companies, many of which were set up just days or weeks after the announcement of the land auctions. In essence, local authorities are borrowing illicitly to fund their own revenue, mortgaging their financial and pastoral future in order to stay afloat. Boosting land sales through government-owned or government-controlled entities when demand from private developers is low provides a politically convenient channel for local governments to raise revenue at limited costs.

Investing limited fiscal resources in farmland protection, in contrast, does not generate immediate political and financial returns, making it a tough sell for local officials who are under pressure to deliver a rapid economic recovery. While safeguarding farmland is an important cause in the long term, and one backed from the top in Beijing in theory, it costs money from the pockets of local governments and subsidies from the central authorities. For local officials, the more pressing challenge consuming their attention and resources is to restore economic growth.

These cost-benefit calculations mean local officials are likely to revert to their most familiar playbook of increasing revenue by expanding land sales and converting farmlands to factories and houses to accelerate rural industrialization and urbanization. This immediate-term expansion in land sales implies that China could have an excess housing supply that may lead to another housing market crash in the next five to 10 years if demand for housing fails to catch up.

Limited domestic farmland availability combined with the pursuit of food security dictates that China would expand its overseas farmland investment and advance its strategy of farming out. The 2007 No. 1 document set farming and agriculture “going out” into the rest of the world as a national strategy for the first time, but the focus back then was exports. The 2016 No.1 document updated guidelines on international agriculture cooperation, focusing on agricultural investment and supporting Chinese companies’ overseas operations.

According to Land Matrix, a European land-monitoring organization, Chinese companies have gained control of 6.48 million hectares (16 million acres) in foreign territories, which is nearly the size of Ireland. This number dwarfs the combined 1.56 million hectares controlled by British companies, the 860,000 hectares held by U.S. companies, and the 420,000 hectares owned by Japanese companies. Chinese investment in U.S. farmland has already triggered concerns in Washington, even though China currently only holds less than 1 percent of foreign-owned U.S. farmland. Republican lawmakers have already drafted a bill to ban Chinese purchases of American farmland, while in states like Texas measures are even more advanced. China not only owns farmland in the United States but also in U.S. allies’ territory, such as the United Kingdom, France, and Australia.

If China’s economic recovery and its continued growth are fueled by land sales and its property market, Xi’s prioritization of food security means Chinese entities will have to embark on more aggressive overseas land purchases. While the current theater of U.S.-China competition has been centered on the chips and semiconductors industry, a new front may emerge in the form of competition over farmland and agriculture technology. The party can survive setbacks in the chip war, but the stakes are much higher in the fight for food security. Failure on the food security front will threaten the survival of the regime.

2 notes · View notes

impossiblyatomictiger-blog · 17 days ago

Text

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism in this context, as in, someone who supports the perpetuation of the current system. Liberal ideology starts with three principals: life, liberty, and property. Liberalism is individualist, believes in some amount of "economic freedom", i.e., private property, and the use thereof to make a profit, believes that those that succeed do so on their own merits (historically also due to their breeding), and so on.

Liberalism and fascism are not opposites in the slightest. They both prioritize private property and those who own, at baseline, and fascisms enemy narratives are incredibly useful to the capitalist, as it helps divide the working class and keep wages low. The middle americans are the liberals that iasirene is talking about.

Like, the US has been putting immigrants in camps for a while now, and they are used to keep construction and agricultural labor prices low; we have been using prisons to provide cheap labor to factories, road work, and other areas since the end of chattel slavery; we've criminalized being poor in public with loitering laws, curfews, anti-homeless laws, etc; being a kid in public is criminalized with the afformentioned laws; zoning laws prevented non-white people from leaving the city after white flight; the whole fear of criminals thing; stranger danger; anti-communist sentiment; NIMBYism; slap-on-the-wrist punishments for white collar and corporate crime; the faking it disability argument; etc.

And also, fascism is based on eugenics, a very classic liberal idea that no one could possibly argue for, exept for the fact that eugenics is normalized. Telling someone to get out of the gene pool for bad grammar in Word Crimes by Weird Al; the disability narrative in Cars 2; Darwin awards, which is especially blatant as Eugenics is based on social darwinism; how many countries are using euthenasia to just get rid of disabled individuals; Trans people being required to get sterilized in much of Europe; calling people inbred in the context of the american south; the narrative of the welfare queen; degeneracy narratives.

Fascism grew out of liberalism in response to attempted communist revolutions in much of Europe and in Japan in the 1920s and 30s, with full support from ideological liberals. The US supported fascist and other reactionary leaders in the middle east, south and central america, southeast asia, and in Europe because they supported the liberal system and benefitted from our imperialism, and we did this as recently as 2011 with the war in Libya, and did it with fascist Spain, and in Greece, and with Pinochet in Chile, and Iran, and Costa Rica; and fascism grew in the United States because, unlike leftist politics like socialism and anarchism, it isn't a threat to the dictatorship of the bourgeousie. See how the FBI and CIA treated the new left in the 60s and 70s.

Absolute fucking banger, liberals will always side with fascism, time and time again. So many liberals have been showing their ass after this election. I’ve seen countless posts about “I hope Latinos who voted Trump get deported.” “I hope Gaza gets turned into a parking lot.” “Who’s going to fix your roof if there’s a mass deportation?” Liberals see immigrants as cheap labor, not as human beings. And they wonder why they lose- time and time again.

8K notes · View notes

yasirarman · 7 hours ago

Text

*THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT – REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRATIC CURRENT (SPLM - RDC)*

*EMERGENCY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL MEETING: ASSESSMENT OF TAGDUM LEADERSHIP MEETING OUTCOMES*

⭕ Our priorities are the humanitarian catastrophe and the formation of a wider civilian front.

⭕ Our position on the roundtable.

⭕ Our position on the question of legitimacy and the formation a new government.

The leadership council of the SPLM - RDC convened an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening - December 11, 2024 - to discuss and assess the most important outcomes of Tagdum’s leadership meeting held in Entebbe, Uganda from December 3rd to 6th 2024. This included discussion of the memorandum submitted by the SPLM - RDC on issues of reforms developing political vision and direction, organizational issues, and the practical proposals we presented.

The meeting started by honouring the sixth anniversary of the December Revolution, saluted the martyrs of the Sudanese revolutions, and recognized the sacrifices and struggles of our people.

It affirmed that SPLM - RDC is a product of the historical experience of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, the forces of the New Sudan, and the glorious December Revolution.

*1. THE SPLM - RDC MEMORANDUM:*

In the SPLM - RDC leadership council meeting, we positively assessed the discussions by Tagdum’s leadership and its executive council on our memorandum. We value Tagdum’s leadership stance on prioritizing the humanitarian agendas and addressing human rights violations and crimes, as an entry point to a comprehensive roadmap to stop and end the war, focusing on the internal agenda within Sudan as primary issues.

We emphasised on the importance of the adoption and formation of a political mechanism aimed at addressing the complexities of the humanitarian catastrophe, streamlining political processes, and reconnecting with the December Revolution. Significant effort was noted in addressing the concerns of resistance committees, civil society, and ensuring representation of Sudan’s diversity, women, and organizational reforms. We look forward to the Tagdum Chairperson issuing decrees to this effect.

*2. THE HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE, WAR CRIMES, AND HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATIONS*

Based on our experiences in Sudan and elsewhere, humanitarian aid must precede politics, and humanitarian agendas must take precedence over political ones. Stopping the war and bloodshed is the gateway to ending the war and addressing its roots.

We call on all Sudanese, both men and women, opposed to the war to unite in a broader campaign to halt the war and its crimes. We must not settle for mere sympathies or war reporting, but instead devise practical ways to combat these crimes, support displaced persons and refugees, and escalate activities through humanitarian organizations, protests, and petitions to influential entities. This should mirror the mobilization efforts of the December Revolution.

The brutal killing, loss of lives, and increasing atrocities demand that our resistance is similarly escalated in practical and effective ways.

*3. TOWARDS A WIDER ANTI-WAR CIVILIAN FRONT*

The meeting highly valued the communications, stances, and statements issued by all civil and political forces aligned with the December Revolution. Particular recognition was given to the Nairobi Declaration signed between the leaders of Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the SPLM-North - Abdelaziz Al-Hilu and Abdelwahid Mohamed Nour - and Dr. Abdalla Hamdok.

Furthermore, acknowledgment was made of the communications initiated by the original Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party and the statement issued by the Sudanese Communist Party’s Political Bureau on the sixth anniversary of the December Revolution.

A new atmosphere is emerging, one capable of shifting the balance of power in favor of the revolutionary civilian forces through mutual concessions to counter the forces of war. The revolutionary forces must unite to ensure their efforts are not dispersed and divided among the warring factions. These revolutionary forces are independent of either side in the war, with a mission to complete the revolution and establish a functional state on a new basis.

*4. THE ROUNDTABLE*

The concept of the roundtable, as we understand it, starts by uniting the revolutionary forces before engaging with those who disrupted the transition, drove the country toward the coup and war, and are now seeking political laundering and power sharing.

Any political platform solely seeking power without addressing the humanitarian catastrophe and war crimes is unacceptable. The priority must be to unify the revolutionary forces before engaging with those who undermined the transition. This unity is both the starting point and the correct approach for dealing with those responsible for the failure of the transition.

*5. OUR POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY AND FORMATION OF A NEW GOVERNMENT*

Neither side in the war holds legitimacy. Their legitimacy ended with the October 25, 2021 coup and the April 15, 2023 war. In both cases, the National Congress Party (NCP) and its affiliates bear the greatest responsibility for the coup and the war.

The semblance of legitimacy granted to the Port Sudan faction, along with the quasi-recognition they receive from some regional and international circles, is due to the international community’s reluctance to declare Sudan stateless as that would impose obligations on regional and global entities.

We witnessed firsthand how legitimacy in Syria collapsed without any international outcry. The true legitimacy lies with the December Revolution and the sacrifices of our people.

We oppose the formation of a government for several reasons, including its potential to legitimize Sudan’s fragmentation, prolong the war, and worsen civilian suffering under both factions’ claims of legitimacy. Priority should be given to stopping and ending the war, isolating those calling for its continuation, preserving the unity and sovereignty of the state, addressing the humanitarian catastrophe, and protecting civilians.

We refuse to become partners in war. Our aim is to bring peace to our people, complete the revolution, and build a democratic state founded on citizenship without discrimination.

• Long live Sudan’s unity and revolution • The revolution will outlast the war • Victory to the masses *December 12, 2024.*

*THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT – REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRATIC CURRENT (SPLM - RDC)*

*EMERGENCY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL MEETING: ASSESSMENT OF TAGDUM LEADERSHIP MEETING OUTCOMES*

⭕ Our priorities are the humanitarian catastrophe and the formation of a wider civilian front.

⭕ Our position on the roundtable.

⭕ Our position on the question of legitimacy and the formation a new government.

The meeting started by honouring the sixth anniversary of the December Revolution, saluted the martyrs of the Sudanese revolutions, and recognized the sacrifices and struggles of our people.

It affirmed that SPLM - RDC is a product of the historical experience of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, the forces of the New Sudan, and the glorious December Revolution.

*1. THE SPLM - RDC MEMORANDUM:*

*2. THE HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE, WAR CRIMES, AND HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATIONS*

The brutal killing, loss of lives, and increasing atrocities demand that our resistance is similarly escalated in practical and effective ways.

*3. TOWARDS A WIDER ANTI-WAR CIVILIAN FRONT*

*4. THE ROUNDTABLE*

*5. OUR POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY AND FORMATION OF A NEW GOVERNMENT*

We witnessed firsthand how legitimacy in Syria collapsed without any international outcry. The true legitimacy lies with the December Revolution and the sacrifices of our people.

We refuse to become partners in war. Our aim is to bring peace to our people, complete the revolution, and build a democratic state founded on citizenship without discrimination.

• Long live Sudan’s unity and revolution

• The revolution will outlast the war

• Victory to the masses

*December 12, 2024.*

This material is distributed by Esther Sprague on behalf of Sudan People's Liberation Movement - Revolutionary Democratic Current. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC..

#sudan

1 note · View note

religionandhistory · 19 days ago

Text

Communism and National Socialism (Nazism) are two distinct ideologies that emerged in the 20th century, each with its own goals, principles, and methods.

### Core Ideologies

**Communism:**

- **Economic System:** Advocates for a classless society where the means of production are owned collectively or by the state. The goal is to eliminate private property and promote equality.

- **Political System:** Typically associated with a single-party state that aims to represent the working class. Communism emphasizes internationalism and the idea of a global proletarian revolution.

- **Key Figures:** Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are foundational thinkers, promoting ideas in works like "The Communist Manifesto."

**National Socialism (Nazism):**

- **Economic System:** While it allowed for private property and capitalism, it emphasized state control over the economy and industries, particularly during times of war. The focus was on national strength and self-sufficiency.

- **Political System:** Centered on a totalitarian regime led by a single leader (Adolf Hitler in Germany). It promoted extreme nationalism, racial purity, and expansionism, often at the expense of other nations and ethnic groups.

- **Key Figures:** Adolf Hitler, whose book "Mein Kampf" outlines the principles of Nazism.

### Key Differences

1. **Class vs. Race:**

- **Communism** focuses on class struggle, aiming to unite workers of all nations against the bourgeoisie.

- **National Socialism** emphasizes racial hierarchy and the superiority of the Aryan race, advocating for the exclusion, persecution, and extermination of those deemed inferior.

2. **Internationalism vs. Nationalism:**

- **Communism** seeks to abolish national boundaries and promote a global revolution.

- **National Socialism** is intensely nationalist, prioritizing the interests and supremacy of the nation-state over international cooperation.

3. **Economic Control:**

- **Communism** seeks to abolish private property and establish communal ownership.

- **National Socialism** allows for private property but under strict state control, focusing on the interests of the nation rather than class struggle.

4. **Methods of Governance:**

- **Communist regimes** often employ authoritarian measures to suppress dissent in pursuit of a stateless, classless society.

- **Nazi regimes** used brutal repression, propaganda, and militarism to maintain control, with a focus on racial purity and national expansion.

### Conclusion

While both ideologies employ authoritarianism and seek to reshape society fundamentally, they diverge significantly in their foundational principles—communism emphasizes class struggle and internationalism, whereas National Socialism prioritizes racial identity and nationalism. These differences have led to starkly different historical outcomes and legacies.

0 notes

yarilogarden · 3 months ago

Text

Brief Comments on the Revolutionary Process in China and the Military Question

Now that I have more time to carry out a higher quality study on the Revolutionary Process in China (at first primarily based on the works Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong and On the Protracted People's War), I come to make these brief comments.

Some aspects that immediately stand out to me include, for example, the treatment of the Military Question:

After the founding of the People's Liberation Army, the armed wing of the Communist Party of China, a profound modernization of the armed forces was carried out, not only placing the Army on a level of comparison with modern Western armies, nor only by combining Regular War with the Irregular Guerrilla War, but also, for example, by the prohibition of the feudal practices of physical punishment and insults, which in the old State and in the old culture commonly came from army officers and fell on low-ranking soldiers and the population.

This aspect of the modernization is highlighted by Chairman Mao Zedong in his quotes:

"The political work of the Eighth Route Army is guided by three basic principles. First, the principle of unity between officers and men, which means eradicating feudal practices in the army, prohibiting beating and abuse, building up a conscious discipline, and sharing weal and woe - as a result of which the entire army is closely united. Second, the principle of unity between the army and the people, which means maintaining a discipline that forbids the slightest violation of the people's interests, conducting propaganda among the masses, organizing and arming them, lightening their economic burdens and suppressing the traitors and collaborators who do harm to the army and the people - as a result of which the army is closely united with the people and welcomed everywhere. Third, the principle of disintegrating the enemy troops and giving lenient treatment to prisoners of war. Our victory depends not only upon our military operations but also upon the disintegration of the enemy troops." (Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong. Chapter 12. Political Work)

In this quote, it is also possible to note how this political work contributed to the unity between the Masses and the Army, as will be discussed later.

The modernization process can also be seen in the treatment of prisoners of war, who should now be treated with dignity and respect, and, when possible, released again.

This stance may even be surprising for Communist cadres with greater tendencies towards confrontation and Militarism (“Left-Wing” Militarism, in this case, means the prioritization of armed struggle over other spheres of political struggle).

Regarding prisoners of war, Chairman Mao Zedong says:

"Our policy towards prisoners captured from the Japanese, puppet or anti-Communist troops is to set them all free, except for those who have incurred the bitter hatred of the masses and must receive capital punishment and whose death sentence has been approved by the higher authorities. Among the prisoners, those who were coerced into joining the reactionary forces but who are more or less inclined towards the revolution should be won over in large numbers to work for our army. The rest should be released and, if they fight us and are captured again, should again be set free. We should not insult them, take away their personal effects or try to exact recant taxation from them, but without exception should treat them sincerely and kindly. This should be our policy, however reactionary they may be. It is a very effective way of isolating the camp of reaction." (Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong. Chapter 12. Political Work)

In this excerpt, it is also evident that the good treatment of prisoners of war makes it possible to insert them into the revolutionary forces, creating a split in the repressive forces of the reaction.

Another aspect that greatly differentiates the People's Liberation Army from the Reactionary Capitalist Armies is the fact that the Working Class Army is inserted in material production. In this way, troops who are not actively involved in combat can dedicate themselves to activities such as food production, planting and harvesting; production and maintenance of uniforms and other military equipment, etc.

Regarding the Army as part of production, Chairman Mao Zedong says:

"Production by the army for its own support has not only improved the army's living conditions and lightened the burden on the people, thereby making it possible further to expand the army. In addition, it has had many immediate side effects. They are as follows: (1) Improved relations between officers and men. Officers and men work together in production and become like brothers. (2) Better attitude to labour.... since the army began to produce for its own support, the attitude to labour has improved and loafer ways have been overcome. (3) Strengthened discipline. Far from weakening discipline in battle and in army life, labour discipline in production actually strengthens it. (4) Improved relations between the army and the people. Once an armed force begins to "keep house" for itself, encroachments upon the property of the people seldom or never occur. As the army and the people exchange labour and help each other in production, the friendship between them is strengthened. (5) Less grumbling in the army about the government and improved relations between the two. (6) An impetus to the great production campaign of the people. Once the army engages in production, the need for government and other organizations to do likewise becomes more obvious, and they do so more energetically; also, the need for a universal campaign of the whole people to increase production naturally becomes more obvious, and this too is carried on more energetically." (Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong. Chapter 20. Building Our Country Through Diligence and Frugality)

Here it is also possible to note how this insertion of the Army in the production process, as well as the other modernizations together, contribute to bringing the Masses and the Army closer together. In this case, a self-sufficient Army inhibits, for example, the contradiction between the Masses and the Army on the issue of requisitioning supplies (food, medicine, clothing, etc.), something that has historically always had the potential to generate hostilities and sharpen contradictions between the two groups.

To conclude these comments, it is worth making a brief comparison between the origins of the People's Liberation Army and the origins of the Reactionary Capitalist Armies in the third world.

In addition to the socialist modernizations mentioned above, the Working Class Army arises from the genuine need of this class to defend itself and advance towards Socialist Revolution. Therefore, this army was not only composed of workers and peasants who, in clandestine work, rebelled against the old State and joined the revolutionary ranks (at that time, still in the Guerrilla War phase), but also of from those leaving the ranks of the Reactionary Capitalist Army itself, who deserted and joined the Communists, also fed up with the terrible living and working conditions they experienced, as well as fed up with the situation of widespread poverty that was plaguing the entire country.

These revolutionary forces, in turn, actually entered into long and difficult battles against the reactionary forces, won, and became the armed wing of the Socialist Revolutionary Government that was subsequently established.

The Reactionary Capitalist Armies, mainly in the Capitalist countries in the third world, in turn, has very different origins.

In the case of former colonies on the American continent, mainly in Latin America, for example, the origins of the Army and security forces in general are almost always linked to one factor: colonial racial slavery.

These Reactionary Armies emerge to locate, pursue, and capture fleeing enslaved individuals, as well as to guarantee the integrity of the private property of the means of production (in this case, in their majority, large monoculture, unproductive rural lands, owned by local landlords).

This structure of combating the “internal subversive enemy”, heavily charged with racism, permeates these military structures to this day.

Finally, the example of dealing with the Military Question during the Chinese Revolution can offer valuable lessons for the development of creative Military Theories and for the treatment of the Military Question by Communists from all countries.

#marxism #chinese history #maoism

1 note · View note

hauntedkingdomrising · 1 year ago

Text

"According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption."

The principle was enunciated in the Russian Constitution of 1918,[9] and also article twelve of the 1936 Soviet Constitution:

In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat".

Joseph Stalin had quoted Vladimir Lenin during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 declaring: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'This perspective is argued by economic professor Michael Ellman to have influenced official policy during the famine, with those deemed to be idlers being disfavored in aid distribution as compared to those deemed 'conscientiously working collective farmers'; in this vein, Olga Andriewsky states that Soviet archives indicate that aid in Ukraine was primarily distributed to preserve the collective farm system and only the most productive workers were prioritized for receiving it. Criticizing Stalin, Leon Trotsky wrote that: 'The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.'

559 notes · View notes

hong-kong-art-man · 2 years ago

Text

The 4 Future Cultural Policies Of China: Cultural Consumption, Cultural Ecology, Cultural Digitalization & Rural Cultures

Have you given a thought to the 2 kinds of countries in the world? Scholars said some countries are considered ‘feminine cultures’. They are like Sweden, Norway and Costa Rica. Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. On the other hand, countries like United States, Korea and Japan represent ‘masculine cultures’. They tend to prioritize money, materialistic success and power.

Power, dominant power, without a nation's mellow charm, is nothing. This is perhaps why 2 national goals are common for a country namely: ‘hard power’ and ‘soft power’. Hard power is the extent of political, economic and military influence which can earn the respect, if not submission or capitulation, from other countries. Soft power is a persuasive and gentle approach to international relations, typically involving the use of educational, cultural and artistic influence. Writer Kurt Vonnegut put it humorously, “Charm was a scheme for making strangers like and trust a person immediately, no matter what the charmer had in mind.” For example, the American comic superheroes sway the beliefs of billions of young people in the world with lasting cultural implications.

In history, Chinese dynasties conquered numerous foreign states. Some were at a great distance away in the Middle East. There were important times that Chinese culture once spread to almost every part in Asia. In the 1800s, the Qing dynasty started to struggle and mourn. Poverty and invasion by foreign powers led to the collapse of Qing China in 1911 after a successful revolution led by Dr Sun Yat-sen(孫中山). Ever since then and only until recent decades, China had been poor and lost nearly all her flows of cultural influence to other parts of the world. In December 1978, the great leader Deng Xiaoping(鄧小平) announced a new national policy, the ‘Open Door Policy’, to open China's communist economy to private enterprises, instead of only state corporations, and foreign businesses. Now, China's economic and political influences have grown to those of one of the most powerful nations. Yet in her international cultural footprints, China may still be considered a developing country.

Chinese culture is no doubt rich and consists of profound history, philosophy, literature, traditions, artifacts, martial arts, dances, painting, handicrafts, costumes, cuisine and ways of living for thousands of years. Her culture can be ancient or modern, fine or popular and representational or abstract. The emphasis of Chinese culture is on the beauty of nature and the harmony of humans with nature. Chinese believe in symmetry, order and destiny. Our core values are duty before freedom, obedience before rights, community before individual and peace before conflict. Regrettably, how many foreigners can really understand our Chinese culture, let alone accept or adore it? The future cultural development and expansion of China must therefore encompass the objective as to why other people would appreciate our culture.

In the recent 14th National People's Congress (第十四屆全國人民代表大會)，Premier Li Keqiang (李克強) expressed the 4 future policies of cultural aspiration for the country.

1. China shall expand domestic demands for arts and cultures and increase the number of cultural consumers (‘cultural consumption’ refers to the avid interest in and spending on art, books, music and live cultural events etc. within a society);

2. China shall accelerate building up a conducive environment for the development of cultural and creative industries. It will boost the energy of cultural markets and economy in the country;

3. China shall employ strategies to facilitate the development of creative ideas into cultural products, services or new business especially in the area of innovative digital technologies; and

4. China shall fully explore the potential of her cultural beauty and promote rural economies which, apart from agricultural, will include the non-agricultural industries such as cultural tourism and cultural activities.

Culture is the solid foundation embodying all ‘soft powers’ of a nation. China will not be the most respectable country if it does not communicate softly and beautifully with other countries by using her ampleness in cultural, historical and contemporary treasures. The 4 national cultural directions are timely—and most importantly, they mark the second phase of China’s development i.e., from economic success to cultural attainment and prosperity.

Propaganda is not soft power. Education is. Enriching the brains of others gently with our ravishing cultures is the way to replace a prejudiced mind with an equitable one.

Maurice Lee

Chinese Version 中文版: https://www.patreon.com/posts/tan-kan-zhong-li-82074146?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

Jazz/Chinese Dance https://youtu.be/ClLoQ2l4cQg Acknowledgement Kevin Shin

Street Performance of Chinese Music in the West https://youtu.be/E3QZWCdVmlU Acknowledgement-碰碰彭碰彭Jingxuan

China from Above https://youtu.be/vTGR2tUt0m0 Acknowledgement-Stef Hoffer

Chinese Paintings https://youtu.be/1QacGJDSlEc Acknowledgement - A Chinese in Canada

0 notes

punziejack · 2 years ago

Text

⭕Capitalism, Modern Socialism and Modern Communism.⭕

_________________________________

❌PRIMITIVE VS MODERN✅

It's important to be clear that today we defend Modern Socialism and Modern Communism.

The primitive idea of communism ( utopic communism) is linked to a total rupture with everything that has to do with what Capitalism offers ( objects , clothes). That happens because through history we have a lot of types of communism. Even before Marx. ( utopic socialists, utopic communism...etc)

This idea has nothing to do with marxist communism.

Marxist communism understands we live in a capitalist society and the main objective is to overcome this reality.

Marxs mainly studied Capitalism system l rather than the ideas of Communism ( if we look for Communist Manifesto we'll find out that there are fewer pages than "The Capital".

_________________________________

💲 EXPLAINING CAPITALIST SYSTEM💲

According to Marx and Engels vision:

-Means of production : produce products are necessary for society to survive/population (big industries, big farms) - We're talking about a big society ( for a country, for the world.)

So.... small industries , small trading cannot be included.

In Capitalism , the means of production are private property. And the people who rule means of procuction are called bourgeoisie.

☆The bourgeoisie is the dominant class in big societies(economically and politically) because they decided about production directions. (What is produced, how is produced and where do the products go.)

The products of the means of production aren't made to help those in need. It is sold in return for money. AND A LOT OF MONEY.

In Capitalism, we have THE STATE

which is It is an organ of domination and oppression of one class over another.

So if the dominant class changes, The State changes too.

Nowadays we live in the Bourgeoise's state

________________________________

💰WHAT IS CAPITALISM?💰

Social and political system in which society is divided by classes and the bourgeoises take control of the means of production.

-Its dynamics vary from country to country

_________________________________

♦️Socialism♦️

- initial state of communism (society in transition)

-overcoming of the capitalist system and its inequalities

-abolition of the private property.(mean of production) - "life is prioritized over private property " - means of production will be coletive.

- Everything will be shared by people. ( The big industries ,farmers will be in command of the ones who work there and so on).

-expropriation of the riches of the dominant class ( bourgeoisie)

-rupture with the actual system

-nationalize big properties( such as banks)

-The State is guided by everyone. ( the people)

-The main objective is to reach Communism

- ★THE STATE AND SOCIAL CLASSES STILL EXIST - The people will "control state"

( The State will gradually be destroyed as the differences between classes extinguish. ~ Engels)

-The dominant class is the people. ( from a revolution the people take the politic and economic power from the current dominant class.)

★★By people, we include EVERYONE. From the most poor to the most rich person.

- Vary from country to country ( EVERY COUNTRY HAS ITS PARTICULARITIES)

_________________________________

♦️Communism♦️

-is an evolution of socialism

- at this rate, the society is advanced. So social classes, State don't exist anymore.

-Everyone will have to work. ( working will not be poorly paid, exausting or unfair.) We will work for society only, and not to just get food or to have the minimum to survive.

-Everybody's necessities will be supplied. Cause the ones that are working are the ones who decide.

- society will be organized in communes/ communities. NOT IN STATES, NATIONS OR COUNTRIES.

_________________________________

🗨Communism never worked?🗨

Communism never existed . Today we only have socialist countries, such as North Korea and Cuba.

_______________________________

"THE PROBLEM IS SOCIALISM!!!"❌❌

Is it?

Let's look at Cuba's past:

Cuba's historic past

- 1492 "discovered" by europeans

- 1959- Cuban revolution

-500 years of exploration, capitalism , colonialism, slavery and imperialism

-Socialism is gradually being built for 60 years.

Resume:

Revolution will not be a miracle that will solve everything this fast. If the country sufferred all this time, then this will bring bad consequences nowadays even if a socialist revolution happens.

_______________________________

👏🏻SITUATION IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES👏🏻

In north korea, health insurance doesn't exist. It's for everyone. Habitation,education (100% of population is literate),potable water, basic sanitation and transportation are also offered for everyone.

In Cuba we have 100% of population being literate. And it is recognized by the World Bank as the best educational system of Latino America. And yet, the country suffers from economic blockade from the United States for 60 years.

"...The World Bank recently published a report with the results of an in-depth investigation into the educational system in Latin American and Caribbean countries, also pointing out the main challenges to be overcome. According to the document, no Latin American school system, with the exception of Cuba, can be included within the parameters that govern quality education at global levels..."

"...the World Bank report points out that there is a low average quality of teachers in Latin America, which prevents the advancement of quality education. Academic contents are inadequate and practices inefficient...."

"...The result of the survey is relentless: no faculty in the region can be considered of high quality compared to world standards. The only exception is Cuba.

On the Caribbean island, where education has been an absolute priority since the 1959 revolution, there is an efficient educational system with high-quality teachers. Cuba is, in the world, the country that invests the most in education, reserving 13% of its national budget for this..."

"Since the revolution in 1959 and the creation of a communist government, the country has created a system of social services that guarantees full access to education and health. This model allowed the island to achieve universal literacy, end certain diseases, provide general access to clean water and basic sanitation, having one of the lowest mortality rates on the continent and one of the highest life expectancies”.

With information from Cubadebate."

Sources:

https://iela.ufsc.br/banco-mundial-sistema-educativo-cubano-e-o-melhor-da-america-latina/

https://iela.ufsc.br/categoria/educacao/

Tiktok:

Thiago Salvador - É você que acha que o comunismo nunca deu certo?

Youtube:

Chavoso da USP - Comunismo, Socialismo e Capitalismo

Chavoso da USP's indicated bibliography:

* HUBERMAN, Leo. "História da riqueza do homem"

* ENGELS, Friedrich. "Do socialismo utópico ao socialismo científico"

PRADO JÚNIOR, Caio. "História econômica do Brasil"

CARLOS MAZZEO, Antonio. "Estado e burguesia no Brasil: Origens da autocracia burguesa"

HARVEY, David. "17 contradições e o fim do capitalismo"

HOBSBAWN, Eric. "A era do capital: 1848-1875"

* ENGELS, Friedrich. "Princípios básicos do comunismo"

* LEFEBVRE, Henri. "Marxismo"

* MARX, Karl & ENGELS, Friedrich. "Manifesto do Partido Comunista"

MARX, Karl. "O capital" (três volumes)

* BUKHARIN, Nikolai & PREOBRAJENSKI, Ievguêni. "ABC do Comunismo"

* "O que é capitalismo"; "O que é socialismo"; "O que é comunismo", os três da Coleção Primeiros Passos

ENGELS, Friedrich. "A origem da família, da propriedade privada e do Estado"

LENIN, Vladimir. "O Estado e a revolução"

LUXEMBURGO, Rosa. "Reforma ou revolução?"

MARX, Karl & ENGELS, Friedrich. "A ideologia alemã"

FERNANDES, Florestan. "O que é revolução"

FERNANDO AYERBE Luis. "A revolução cubana", coleção Revoluções do Século 20, da Editora Unesp

LOSURDO, Domenico. "Contra-história do liberalismo"

TRÓTSKI, Leon. "Programa de Transição"

TRÓTSKI, Leon. "A revolução permanente"

FISHER, Mark. "Realismo capitalista"

ANDERSON, Perry. "Linhagens do Estado absolutista"

WILLIAMS, Eric. "Capitalismo e escravidão"

FERNANDES, Florestan. "Sociedade de classes e subdesenvolvimento"

GALEANO, Eduardo. "As veias abertas da América Latina"

HOBSBAWN, Eric. "A era das revoluções: 1789 - 1848"

OLIN WRIGHT, Erik. "Como ser anticapitalista no século XXI?" (o livro apresenta diferentes tipos de socialismo; apesar de o autor não defender o mesmo que eu, não acho o livro inútil);

DAVIS, Angela. "Mulheres, raça e classe".

#communism #politics

0 notes