bigdialecticenergy.bsky.social
He/him, Teamster, a silly goofy guy who enjoys eating a good cheese or two and seeing the successes of the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist struggles. Join a union, uphold BDS, get organized, and defeat the liberal who lives inside you.
846 posts
112 followers
86 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
ABC News are cowards
comment in response to
post
Nah, the book got it right, you guys got it wrong. Private equity is a drain on the shit we want to have an economy for, and everyone who works there is a ghoul who would better serve the public if they exclusively cleaned the homes of sex workers so the sex workers could just relax.
comment in response to
post
This Scott Jennings has a face that really needs to be stomped. That kind of smug, self-satisfied hatred has only one cure.
And make no mistake, his position is the same position as every centrist Democrat who opposes Medicare for the same dumbass reasons.
comment in response to
post
It's a bait and switch, you can and should always use "whomst"
comment in response to
post
Eh, America was only not openly and proudly racist for like 15 minutes collectively in its history.
comment in response to
post
Do they believe that never so much as attempting to mitigate, let alone oppose, Israel's genocide of Palestinians, denouncing protestors against the genocide, accusing black lives matter protestors of making shitty centrists lose elections, are outweighed by whatever tokens of inclusion they offered
comment in response to
post
But, you see, people can at least eat food. A cheeseburger is definitely not the most efficient use of resources, or the most reasonable choice for a meal.
But compared to literally any use of "AI" hype bullshit, a cheeseburger is fucking perfect. Because it provides *some* value, unlike "AI" crap
comment in response to
post
How about: nobody who uses violence to advance the whims of the capitalist-owned state has a right to privacy
comment in response to
post
That makes sense. What was Kim Il Sing thinking founding a country so close to OUR military bases!?
comment in response to
post
Okay so you've substituted "authoritarian communism" for "Marxism-Leninism" without justifying why you've made that substitution or why anyone should accept your framing as valid.
comment in response to
post
That's a reasonable question. My take is boring. Basically, I think it will take time to see if it was worth it. If over the next years and decades China manages to de liberalize the economy and move into a more mature kind of socialism, then those reforms were necessary. If not, they're just bad
comment in response to
post
Eh, that goes a bit further than I think is defensible, but the phenomenon of liberalization in many AES countries following the dissolution of the USSR is real. I don't think that makes them capitalist countries, but moving to a more capitalistic modality was a thing.
comment in response to
post
Lol, labeled so by whom? Dumbass libs in the internet who've never read a book or visited one of these countries? Dork ass motherfuckers who looked at the political compass website as a work of political theory?
How does the DPRK's power grid have anything to do with whether they are my enemy?
comment in response to
post
In what way is my failure to be rhetorically convinced by your uncharismatic ass "drunk on Kim dynasty Kool-Aid."
My position is that the DPRK is not my enemy, and the alacrity of alleged lefties to take a shit it or even defend the US when the DPRK is involved is fucking gross.
comment in response to
post
I mean that's a fair question to ask if you had come to your judgement about North Korea because of actual evidence and not the weird combination of signal and mostly noise that westerners are fed, combined with your pre-existing animus toward anything labeled communist.
comment in response to
post
Truly, such a weird way to view Korea.
It's what happens when you're determined to come to a very angry anticommunist conclusion about a given historical event, and work backwards. A really liberal method of reading history.
comment in response to
post
You're reaching for 1950s propaganda is what you're doing
comment in response to
post
You can keep insisting on this terminology if you really want.
It doesn't make you look not stupid, or aware of what year it is, or not like a liberal, but you sure can keep saying words. None of them, you know, work together the way you're using them, but it's cute anyway. Like Koko.
comment in response to
post
"Indie organic revolution" motherfucker what are you talking about? I don't give a shit how much gluten or seed oils the fucking revolution has, I care that it exists. I do not live in a fantasy world where resistance capitalist hegemony must be or even can be perfect. I live on earth.
comment in response to
post
Bruh, you're digging deep to justify your hatred for a country that combines your interest in orientalism with your interest in anticommunism.
I get that you're a liberal and all this feels like common sense, but I haven't picked a hill to die on, you're just shooting at a hill for no reason
comment in response to
post
How can they *still* be Russia's client state when Russia wasn't a state they could be a client of them they formed their own government?
comment in response to
post
Damn, Stalin personally built the North Korean state? No wonder he had to eat all that grain!
comment in response to
post
Are...are you of the opinion that the D.O.P. represents the end goal of communism?
My man, if you're going to call Marx naive and stubborn you've got to at least read *some* Marx. Because you're really demonstrating some profound ignorance.
comment in response to
post
No, you'll just regurgitate US propaganda and the US narrative about the Korean War. You just align with US foreign policy goals, but surely that doesn't have anything to do with defending the USA or capitalism at all!
🤡
comment in response to
post
No communist anywhere claims that any existing state is an example of successful communism. Such a thing would be a contradiction in terms. Which is why I didn't say it and it's weird that you would try to pretend I did.
How is the DPRK a failed Russian vassal state? Russia wasn't a country then.
comment in response to
post
Also, super fuckin blinkered understanding of the Korean War. Damn what a shame that those dirty commies tried to unite their whole country under one banner instead of letting the US's hand picked dictator run things, what a tragedy, good thing the US bombed them so much, phew
comment in response to
post
The entire reason the west is opposed to them is that their revolution did not fail.
The alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat is the absence of dictatorship. It's the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the current state of affairs. D.O.P. just means the workers are in power, not owners.
comment in response to
post
No my angle here is that your hyper fixation on them dirty reds from the east is based on modern day propaganda that is just as racist and ignorant as yellow peril pulp novels
comment in response to
post
What kind of anarchist confuses the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, disguised under the name of "liberal democracy" with any kind of actual democratic society?
comment in response to
post
I mean, I guess I get why you like South Korea so much considering its long history of military dictatorship characterised by rabid violence against communists, but calling the DPRK imperialist is real fuckin wild. I didn't know the DPRK was monopoly capitalist and exploited the global south
comment in response to
post
If your flavor of anarchism is more comfortable with supporting the line of the US state department than it is with the existence of other communists who actually succeeded at their revolution, then it makes no more sense to call it anarchism than it does to put durian and tomato in a fruit salad
comment in response to
post
Damn, tell me more about Eastern Imperialism Mr. Sax Rohmer
comment in response to
post
I want justice and freedom and self determination for all the people of Korea. That means a reunification which addresses harms on both sides, which allows for the end of South Korea's bleak and oppressive hyper capitalist regime, and has no role for the US.
comment in response to
post
There's a big difference between denial of human rights abuse and skepticism of the narrative of the US government that highlights those claims.
The way you're framing the question reifies the claims of the imperialist core to a level of objective fact. That's rarely if ever a good idea.
comment in response to
post
Sure, we can make whatever model judgements we want. However, if North Korea is really even on your radar as a threat to human freedom that's politically relevant to you while we still live under monopoly capitalism and imperialism in a context of American hegemony, then charitably you should focus
comment in response to
post
That isn't exactly wrong, but it ignores the very real fact that if we want a better world we have to identify the primary contradiction in the world and in our own society, the principle aspect of that contradiction, and our primary task for defeating that principle aspect.
comment in response to
post
That's a thoughtful question, but we have to recognize that we can't view the world as individuals analysing individual countries and systems and picking individual good and bad ones. We can make whatever judgements we like, but we have to prioritize a primary task. Fighting the DPRK is not it.
comment in response to
post
Talking about purity tests when your prescribe your greatest enemy to not be the monopoly capitalist or the imperialist powers, but someone who signs with a different flavor of communist than you.
I, as whatever a tankie is, don't see anarchists as an enemy! That's your liberalism
comment in response to
post
You're really pretending to be an anarchist huh. Still focusing on irrelevant minutiae, and you're still misunderstanding this entire interaction.
You have more hate for actually existing socialist countries and for communists in your own country than you do for your own ruling class.
comment in response to
post
You have an uncanny ability to focus on irrelevant minutae in order to avoid getting the point.
You're a liberal with delusions of radicalism
comment in response to
post
You can recognize this is possible when it comes to preserving the desired vibe of a business, but have a problem with it when it comes to protecting a revolutionary project, to the point where you have more hate for whatever you think a tankie is than you have for the actual enemy
comment in response to
post
I think you aren't getting the analogy here, which isn't surprising.
In this analogy, the punks are the dastardly tankies, the bouncers are the evil vanguard party, and the Nazis are actually still just Nazis.
The point is, the punks fighting fascists are using those "authoritarian means" to do good
comment in response to
post
We wouldn't call someone an authoritarian for kicking Nazis out of the punk bar. We wouldn't call someone an authoritarian for kicking Nazis out of the neighborhood, or the union, or some other form of social organization in a revolutionary context. A revolutionary project has to be defended.
comment in response to
post
So, sometimes it is necessary to use violence (like the bouncer throwing out Nazis) to protect your community (the punk bar), even when your ability to do this comes from an inherently unjist state of affairs (private property rights of the bar owners under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie).
comment in response to
post
What difference does it make how many owners the bar in this analogy has? Their *authority* to kick someone out, the fact that they have a *legal right* to kick someone out comes from private property rights, an inherently authoritarian and bourgeois construct.
It's also a good thing to do!
comment in response to
post
No because a crowbar is necessary to get anything through your thick liberal skull
comment in response to
post
And where is there a more centralized power than in the absolute dictatorship of the business owner over what goes on inside the business?
comment in response to
post
Yes, a private venue. By what right does someone get to use violence on another person, merely for owning a bar? Are you saying private property isn't authoritarian?
comment in response to
post
Gramsci saw the necessity of crafting a proletarian counter-hegemony, but to say he believed it to be sufficient is really reaching.
Meanwhile you're swimming in the ocean of American capitalist hegemony and refuse to acknowledge the water around you.