this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
85 points (96.7% liked)
World News
2347 readers
174 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At what point, does world war become preferable? In Gaza I would argue that point has been reached long ago; now for Russia, here is yet another provocation. Meanwhile US troops are violating Chinese sovereignty, across rogue Taipei and even Kinmen island.
Eventually, I'm almost certain it will come- frankly, it may likely be preferable even when and as it comes, if not now already, for all the human cost (that I can and do recognize). The neocons and the western establishment writ large are every bit as deranged as the historical Nazis, if not more so- and their bloodthirst has shown itself over the decades (if one isn't simply counting centuries) to be every bit its equal as well. It must end.
World war is never preferable. The human losses in these conflicts are minuscule compared to an all out world war with the current weaponry, a world war in this era will be the most bloody event hitherto.
I disagree; world war is preferable to turning the other cheek (overly much, anyways), and this will increasingly become the case when and as things become more dire, and the west more deranged.
World war was preferable to accepting Japanese or Nazi suzerainty for the Soviets and China; it is certainly preferable for over 1 million Gazans starving to death as we speak- and now, with the west escalating yet again, no doubt it is becoming closer and closer to a reality in Russia, and in due time when and as they turn their attention east, China. The nuclear deterrent only works for so long as both sides are willing to use it- and I think, as socialists, but also simply as humans, we must never abandon the option entirely, not so long as it exists for the other side.
I agree with China and Russia's present approach of cautious engagement- time is on their side, on humanity's side. But when and as things ramp up- and it seems increasingly likely that they will, and it will almost certainly be western aggression as always that causes it to- eventually, there will come a point it crosses a line, where an equal or greater strike will be preferable, where outright war- even world war- will be preferable. And IMO it would be an abandonment of everything- every value, hope, and dream of the people, and the very essence of self-preservation and dignity, etc- to not strike with full and equal force should things come to that point.
World War is never the preferable option. Millions of people will die in a very very short time.
Well, I'd rather not die in an artillery bombardment if it's all the same to you.
I have good news, it's far more likely we'll die from radiation poisoning or starve to death once the nuclear winter sets in.
Maybe for Gaza, but most other places are doing alot better than Gaza. The biosphere of this planet is quite delicate and a nuclear war might destroy all parts of the biosphere that support human life. A worse outcome than a genocide of one people.
You can understand, perhaps, how some people- or likely many, if we're talking those suffering the conditions of Gaza right now- would disagree, and act accordingly, though.
Personally I would also disagree- Gaza, and Palestine at large, survives for now, but should the total eradication of Gazans, akin to what was done across the eastern seaboard of the US, near its endgoal, I fully and utterly hope that war, to whatever extent necessary (world war included) begins to end the genocide, even if it risks the species and biosphere altogether.
I would rather humanity dies on its feet, than on its knees. To me, while I can accept, understand, and support biding one's time (when and if it is beneficial- as it is for now, for China and perhaps for Russia alike), ultimately, in the whole picture, I think there is nothing more abhorrent, more inhumane, than turning the other cheek permanently and unilaterally- as even famous pacifists like Gandhi spoke against (the "emasculation of a whole race," or in this case, the whole of humanity, the global south, and the working classes). And the imperialists in particular are undeniably the enemies of humanity, a very real and well-recognized threat to the biosphere in their own right. If it is not put down, sooner or later capitalism, imperialism in particular, will likely kill us all the same.
Any rash actions by Palestinians is understandable. They are people without power acting out of desperation to have some sense of agency in their lives. Killing people that kill your family indiscriminately for entertainment is perfectly reasonable. I suspect the most effective means to destroy the Imperial core is to utilize its internal contradictions to undermine its stability and build institutions that serve the people better than the garbage current institutions. They have prepared for war, but the treats to the imperial core people proletarians are stopping. They need to feed the imperial core Bourgeoisie. That is where I think the Leftists must focus their attention in the imperial core. China is making deals and cutting off the imperialist superprofits. While the imperial core armies are very expensive they are overpriced for what they are paid for. They can't win the wars to enforce the superprofits. As long as China can keep their Bourgeoisie in check, the collective of humanity has the opportunity to build communism.
As unsatisfying as it would be for the imperial core not to be subject to the same external horrors that they've inflicted on the rest of humanity, the world should not need to stoop to the level of the colonizers. The imperial core will continue to grow weaker as China and successive countries that develop continue to build an alternative model of global coexistence. These Western colonizers will then cannibalize their own and eventually succumb to the movements led by their own exploited populaces. At least, that's the best case scenario for the world.
For America, there will be horrors. So many bastards died to keep black people in chains. Those bastards decendants will fight to the death for white supremacy upheld even if it is against their own self interest. Most likely through random acts of terrorism. However this plays out, even if the United States falls peacefully out of existence, the homegrown terrorists will fight for their right to abuse people differently than them. A cultural revolution against white supremecy is in order to stop the spread of fascism to the next generation.
You are absolutely correct, but I think the war is already happening, just that the other side hasn't fully taken off the gloves in the same sense that they called it a cold war yet millions of people died. Imagine telling Yemenis, Iraqis, or Palestinians, etc that there is no war. They are coming for everyone, they would turn Iran, China, Russia, etc into Gaza if they could. They are probably planning ways to do that constantly.
The antiwar narrative at this point means to protect the earth/ species we have to surrender it to white supremacy/ western domination. Essentially that's the choice the west is giving the world. May be time to call their bluff and tell them you go down also.
Agreed, in many ways the war is already here. And this time, unlike the "cold" war, humanity must win. And soon if not now already, it's time to call their bluff- this time with the whole world on one side, and the western elites on the other.
If there's to be an antiwar narrative, it must be on the west's side- they are and have always been the aggressors; they are the one committing genocide in Gaza, instigating it in eastern Ukraine, trying to plunge the world on multiple fronts into war, backing terrorists, separatists, tribalists, and fascists wherever they exist. There is not an inch to be given on the global south's side. If the west cannot learn to mind their business, perhaps our species is better off seeing how accurate the theories of nuclear winter and other such catastrophe really is.