redtea

What happened there?

I'm curious.

Definitely the last bit. Imagine how funny it will be to push the communism button before Xi.

On the one hand, good.

On the other hand, we know what LM does when it's stocks go down—agitate for more war to raise the price again.

IN 1978, China launched its Three North Shelter Forest (Green Great Wall) Programme, aimed at creating a forest chain extending from Xinjiang in the far north-west to Heilongjiang in the far north-east, to prevent further expansion of the Gobi and Taklimakan deserts. This multi-generational project is scheduled for completion in 2050.

This sent shivers down my spine. Imagine living in a world where the whole world starts multigenerational projects to benefit people whose grandparents are not even born yet. The things we could achieve if this quarter's profits weren't the dominant motivation.

Unfortunately you never really build a tolerance. Thankfully you do build up an energy that Kim can redirect to power his necromancy.

Gentle reminder as I'm curious as to your response.

It seems to me that the simplest aspect of it is that two opposing forces can't both occupy and control the same land at the same time. The colonists decide before they leave home that they are willing to do whatever it takes for absolute control over the colony.

That contradiction is salient because the coloniser is always an oppressor even if they also work. The mere act of going to work in a settler colony involves recreating the settler-colonial relationship. Life might not be great for every settler but any glimpse of prosperity comes at the expense of the indigenous.

I've been through the comments now. I'll refer to Rojava as the western region of Kurdistan and the Rojava Project (RP) as the political institution(s) seeking to carve out an autonomous polity in Rojava.

I did not read @multitotal@lemmygrad.ml as apologising for imperialism or as criticising China. My interpretation of their argument was as follows:

• rejecting the RP outright was hypocritical if the rejection was based on working with the US; lots of countries, including China, have worked alongside the imperialists in the past (they are not criticising China or praising US actions in West Asia)
• the RP is/was an attempt to protect Kurds from their historic oppression, this time coming from militias based in Syria and the constant threat from Turkey
• the RP is not an ethnostate, although it is unwilling to back down on the protection of Kurds
• calling for the destruction of the RP without addressing how otherwise to protect Syrian Kurds is equivalent to calling for, at a minimum, the mass murder and further oppression of Kurds, especially now that they would not be facing Assad's government but whatever ISIS-Zionist-HTS horror is about to happen

@GlueBear@lemmygrad.ml disagrees and sees the RP as:

• an opportunist attempt to wrestle land off Syria
• an attempt to create an ethnostate, out of land that should be governed by the Syrian central government
• (possibly) an extremist US proxy
• partly responsible for Syria's collapse (perhaps for being a thorn in its side and denying essential resources)

There are issues with framing RP as a US proxy, given the nature of democratic confederalism. It's not, or doesn't seem to me to be, an entirely unified bloc. There are clearly elements of the RP willing to work with the US. Maybe there were some who weighed up the pros and cons and aligned despite the disadvantages, as self-preservation, as Multitotal suggests. Maybe there were some who were always compradors willing to support the US' interests if it achieved interim RP goals, regardless of the effect to Syria, as GlueBear suggests. Things may be clearer in a few decades as records get released and the dust settles but it'll be too late by then.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to say who is ultimately correct. GlueBear has certainly challenged my view of Rojava, so I'm going to have to do some research and self-crit before I'm able to conclude as to what the RP is. There's a lot going on, here. The references to China aren't helpful on either side, because it's apples and oranges, although the question of (hypo)critical is a persuasive one. Comparing the successes of a massive, stable China run by communists with those of war-torn Rojava are unfair and it doesn't seem to be what multitotal was asking for. A comparison with the Kurds in Turkey might be illuminating. One main question is whether the RP managed to protect the people of Rojava (more than if the RP hadn't existed). This thread probably isn't the place to try to work it all out.

As for GlueBear's comments about wiping Rojava off the map, I take this to mean the RP rather than the Kurds in the region but it is hard to be sure without asking for clarity. Given the 'temporarily-embarressed ethnostate' I would suggest that GlueBear means the RP rather than the people of Rojava, being opposed to anyone oppressing any ethnicity.

It seems that GlueBear approaches the topic from the perspective of what Rojava has done for Syrian Arabs (and others and general stability in the region) while multitotal approaches it from the perspective of what Rojava has done for Kurds. Easy to see how the one will be distraught and the other hopeful. That's a recipe for disagreement even if both share the approach of 'what's best for stability in the region and worst for US imperialists'. I'm fairly sure both would agree that Anglo-European meddling from before Sykes-Picot to today is a bastard and has a lot to answer for.

The arguments are rather muddied throughout the thread (not just between multi and Glue) with some speaking-past-one-anothoer and irrelevant argumentation. It doesn't seem as though GlueBear wants the Kurds eradicated (at least, I highly doubt it on the face of what's presented), which is the key thing. @AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml hit the nail on the head, I think.

Could be the BBC filter.

Bourgeois Marxism is accepted. But only if you strip out all the radicalism, dunk on AES, and use it as a framework to make impotent 'intellectual' critiques like all the 'Marxist' psychoanalysts. Basically you can freely be Zizek. The few real Marxists struggle and get disparaged every step of the way. Maybe it depends on the field. There is some hope, though, so don't be put off!

There is a right wing presence in Ukraine but it is not that pervasive, especially not in the military and government. … He doesnt know about any anti-Semitism from the [UPA] but …

Proceeds to (1) say something antisemitic, in two different ways, just in case you missed it the first time (2) apologise for nazis and nazi colaborators (3) explain why one and two are justified (4) appeals to ancestors of 800 years ago (because that's not a nazi thing, is it? Do they also have a taste for runes?) (5) explain why it's okay that all this is 'mainstream' in Ukraine and doesn't indicate a right-tendency (6) complains about left wing academics, as if that's not par for the course for someone who downplays the right in general and nazis in particular.

I can see why you're upset, comrade. Sorry you have to go through this gas lighting.

As @bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml said, you're likely dealing with at least one cryptofascist.

Unfortunately, you were always going to have an experience like this. It's a foregone conclusion for anyone who steps to the left of the liberal-colonialist-imperialist-fascist worldview. You can find solace in a few others from the global north and many others in the global south. Just know that you stand with the masses, billions of the masses, who will be delighted to hear that you are willing merely to accept their suffering as a fact; it's validating.

Fortunately, your current feeling of alienation will pass. You will be able to steel yourself as @Giyuu@lemmygrad.ml and I and many others have had to do. Look after yourself. Rest. Keep reading. Read everything critically but inoculate yourself from shit takes and brainworm-inviting arguments by, at times, only reading ML or other Marxist texts. Such works are like a tonic for me. They remind me that I'm not losing my mind, that my eyes and ears do not, in fact, deceive me. Marxist theory can a better form of escapism than fiction.

A couple of Marxist-adjacent people who may be near you or who may have 'followers' near you are perhaps J Maufawad-Paul and Brenna Bhandar. If you find others in Canada who like their work, you may find yourself in good company. You could always get involved with the First Nations, too, and become a vocal advocate – reactionaries and critics will have a tough time gas lighting you for that without being obviously racist dickheads.

That's it. Many people would be glad to work their way up from an entry level position that doesn't need years of higher ed and a pricetag of $000s. Those jobs just don't exist unless you're connected. And if you're connected, you're not really working you're way up, anyway.

I think it's more of a case that Hoxhaists are dogmatic, in the same way that Maoists or any other 'ists' can be, including MLs. It's not that Hoxha didn't have interesting things to say. I've only read a little, mind; and one could read Hoxha every day for the year and still only have read a small portion of what he wrote. The problem is treating what he said as gospel and everyone else as wrong.

Maybe he was right about China and the post-Stalin USSR. In can't say 100% either way as I've not read enough of him. But arguing that Hoxha's analysis of China applies to modern China? That's not sound reasoning.

Even if there are theoretical problems within Mao's thinking, we know that he must have been broadly correct. The CPC had their revolution and kept hold of power. Even if Deng or even Xi can be criticised for their theory, we know that both were, again, broadly correct. China remains socialist and has not suffered the same fate as the USSR.