CindyTheSkull

I mean, that is their dream, that is indeed the ultimate capitalist goal that you're right they have largely achieved. But an important aspect of that capitalist dream world would be to do that in perpetuity, with all this kept in a stable balance they forever control from the top. That is where the dream can never be truly realized. They do have to struggle to maintain it, and while they have been doing an astoundingly good job of that for the most part (despite how well all of us here can see the gaping contradictions, we also rightly lament how communists are an insignificant minority in the west/core and how captured by capital nearly every institution is), that struggle still demands they have to keep inventing increasingly complex and stratified apparatus to keep their contradiction-riddled structure of exploitation afloat.

And that's what we're really talking about here. At what point does that corrosion from the countless contradictions become so extensive that maintenance of the structure becomes a truly lost cause? Where is the point where the downward slide back out of their capitalist dreamworld (the proletarian nightmare) accelerate into the certainty of waking up from it? The answer is necessarily subjective, since we can all pin different moments where we think this has or will happen. But it is an inevitability.

You were asking about the shifting nature of the meaning of the term whiteness. Go up and read your own comment to see how you related that to authoritarianism. If you can't follow your own train of thought, then I can't help you because it makes it apparent you're not asking in good faith.

You're saying "authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc"

What I'm trying to explain to you is that "we" are not saying that. The people who use whiteness to justify their actions and otherize their enemies are saying that. This isn't difficult.

Why not skip the middle step?

Go ask the NATO bloc and their supporters. The obvious and surface answer is that it has to do with making for an easy "us-vs-them" identifier. "Of course they're bad, they aren't white like us good wholesome folk are, who are inherently good and wholesome because we're white, and being good and wholesome makes us right and correct in what we do and you can tell because we're white. The ones who are bad clearly aren't like us. They're not white!" Yes, it is circular reasoning and garbage logic. But I don't know why you're getting pissy at us for that instead of the dipshits white people who keep moving the goalposts on the meaning of whiteness, as they always have done to suit their agenda. Take it up with them.

No one is making anything "sound easy," we're just pointing out the fact that education is not and never has been a prerequisite for revolution. It's ignorant, ahistortical, and bordering on chauvinism to say that's the reason "all the poor countries" haven't had revolutions. It's ridiculous on it's face when you actually look at history and see that almost all successful revolutions that became AES countries did so with the support and participation of their largely uneducated populous. Or no, I guess the masses of peasantry in rural China all went to uni otherwise the Chinese revolution could never have happened. 🙄

Not true. You may need an educated vanguard party, but not an educated population. Even then, the vanguard need only be "educated" in legitimate theory. An "educated population" that has been educated mostly in capitalist propaganda like in the US is a hindrance to revolution, definitely not a requirement. "Uneducated" people aren't dumb, they can still recognize inequality and the injustice of not being able to eat while a small elite wallows in the wealth made off their labor.

This is the right answer. Several of the the comments in this thread have correctly identified climate change as an important factor, but it seems like they aren't recognizing how much of an accelerant for revolution it really is. Maybe revolution is not the perfect term here so much as radical and extreme political change because as you say, it can go in the direction of communism or fascism depending as always on the material conditions. Either way, the current status quo for every nation on the planet doesn't have long left, and its death is going to happen faster and faster in the coming few decades.

Exactly. And in turn, revolutions in the periphery weakens the core and increases the possibility of eventual revolution there as well. All of these systems have built-in feedback loops that need to be considered and exploited.

I think what you're failing to take into consideration is that all those poor countries that haven't had communist revolutions have had the weight of the most powerful empire ever to exist on earth bearing down on them and doing its best to ensure any communist revolution was strangled in its crib. Yet despite this, some of them succeeded in communist revolutions anyway! The lack of revolutions in the periphery since the advent of capitalism is not evidence for the lack of revolutionary potential in a starving population. Saying it is is just not taking all the material conditions into account.

They can take that long, even longer, but there is no law of empires that states collapse can't happen extremely quickly either. The material circumstances on the global scale that we find ourselves in are different in significant ways from the way things were historically during the collapse of the other large hegemonic empires. One of these important differences is the speed of information. And the increasing rate that climate change is drastically altering the world helps ensure that geopolitical change will also unavoidably be seeing rapid changes as a result. Don't forget what Lenin said about decades and weeks.

And DPRK. Oh and Libya. Also Iraq. And... ah shit, it's a long list.

I would say that your answer is hidden in the way you phrased the question.

The idea that revenge is bad is indeed liberal idealist bullshit. What matters is, as usual, the material reality of whatever the circumstances are. Will revenge being taken in the specific circumstances you're talking about end up doing more material harm than good? Revenge is not an inherently bad thing and it can be an extremely good motivating force behind very good and necessary actions. It can also be detrimental and end up harming people even in completely unintended ways, including the ones who are trying to enact their vengeance for entirely justifiable reasons.

It all depends on the situation. But I think we can safely say that revenge as an idea being either good or bad is a liberal-style framing or misunderstanding.

Claims to have read books then proceeds to demonstrate in front of everyone that they have never read a book about the very thing they're talking about.

Even fucking wikipedia, that most extreme of pro-Russian & tankie propagandist sites, reveals how fucking unlearned and full of shit you are:

The Soviet government of the Russian Soviet Republic (RSFSR) decriminalised homosexuality in December 1917, following the October Revolution and the discarding of the Legal Code of Tsarist Russia.

The legalisation of homosexuality was confirmed in the RSFSR Penal Code of 1922, and following its redrafting in 1926. According to Dan Healey, archival material that became widely available following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 "demonstrates a principled intent to decriminalize the act between consenting adults, expressed from the earliest efforts to write a socialist criminal code in 1918 to the eventual adoption of legislation in 1922."