Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

        • DiscoPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          de-encyclopedia — The Council for Foreign Relations rose to prominence in the 1930’s, after receiving millions of dollars in donations from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. A subset within the Council known as the “security and armaments group” was lead by Allen Dulles, who would later go on to become the director of the CIA. 57% of United States government officials were members of the Council during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency, leading many of the Councils “non-partisan” beliefs to almost-exclusively reflect those of the sitting government. In 1979, David Rockefeller — then-chairman of the Council — used his position to pressure Jimmy Carter to admit the Shah of Iran into an American hospital to be treated for lymphoma, enraging Iranians who believed this was a sign of a coming US-backed coup; the Iran Hostage Crisis began just thirteen days later.

          • JohnDClay
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see how that connects? I’m just confused.

            • DiscoPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              ·
              1 year ago

              de-rhetoric — You’re citing atrocity propaganda about the current largest enemy of the United States as written by a group directly funded by United States military intelligence and posing it as a legitimate source. The Council for Foreign Relations have been documented to have directly incited multiple international diplomatic incidents and have solved none. Other sources you’ve linked elsewhere in the thread have suffered similar problems; the CFR has direct funding from the CIA, the Jamestown Foundation has direct funding from the Department of Defense, the ASPI has direct funding from Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. All of these groups that you cite demonstrate clear conflicts of interest when they publish articles that are frothingly anti-China while filling their pockets with money from those who want nothing more than a casus belli to try dismantling China.

        • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          A response to my multitude of points that I collected for a week in this source is… an article from a single Washington think tank with deep ties to the U.S. state department (almost all members have held positions in the U.S. government).

          The article repeatedly incorrectly refers to the Communist Party of China (CPC) as the “Chinese Communist Party (CCP).” Whatever, what sources are used? U.S. government officials and the line of the U.S. government; “satellite images” which tell you absolutely nothing about what is going on inside these buildings, and certainly don’t prove the claim of genocide; a report by ASPI, a propaganda arm of the western military industrial complex, which has already been disproven; the OHCHR report, which has been critiqued on several grounds [1] [2]; a Washington Post article which cites Radio Free Asia, a CIA propaganda arm funded by U.S. Congress; a BBC report relying on unsworn testimony (which contradicts earlier testimony by the same person) and verification by Adrian Zenz (discussed in the carrd I made and linked); a New York Times report (using fraudulent documents) that purposely misrepresented a speech by Xi Jinping is cited for a continuation of this misrepresentation; the ASPI “Uyghurs for Sale” report, which has already been refuted; another ASPI report which uses satellite imagery to prove the demolition of mosques, you can understand by skepticism with ASPI and this method; Adrian Zenz’s report on “forced sterilization” which misrepresents the issue [1] [2]; the bs Xinjiang Police Files.

          There is no mention of U.S. support for terrorism in Xinjiang (see the carrd) when terrorism is discussed (and evidence for the ETIM not being active for a decade is the U.S. government saying it’s not active for a decade, because these sycophantic parrots think this is all that is necessary). Honestly fair try attempting to skip the reading, but unfortunately it didn’t work.

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m a Marxist. My perspective on history, my theory of change, beliefs about capitalism and socialism, do not require morality.

      The belief in the role the proletariat will play in transforming society is not based on moral superiority. It is based on the existence of class conflict and that they are the class with revolutionary potentional.

      Capitalism is not a stable or static system, and it cannot sustain itself forever because its existence demands perpetual growth. As it reaches this endpoint, the contridictions in this system heighten, as will the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois. The proletariat will prevail, not for any moral reason, but because they are the class on which the entire system relies.

      As a human being i feel its a vastly morally superior project. But my feeling is completely immaterial, as is whatever judgment you place on my opinion

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So why work for communism if it’s inevitable?

        • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          because it’s the end of capitalism that’s inevitable, not communism. we could also wind up with the common ruin of the contending classes and a dead world

          • JohnDClay
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hmm. Okay, so capitalism will drive us to extinction unless stopped?

            • RedDawn [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not necessarily extinction, but certainly ruin. It’s already doing that with the climate crisis, but even if we could make that magically disappear today, the contradictions of capitalism lead only to a) the overthrow of capitalism and the capitalist class by the workers (socialism/communism) or b) the capitalist class resorts to ultraviolence to maintain its power and brings ruination to society (fascism)

              • JohnDClay
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t think small appeasement of the masses is possible? I think the apparatus has gotten pretty good at giving just enough comfort that it’s too much work to shift the status quo.

                • RedDawn [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It has been possible so far in the imperial core, owing to superprofits gained by exploiting the workers of other countries outside of the imperial core. However, the inherent contradictions of capitalism like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall mean that this can’t be sustained indefinitely, especially not once the third world shakes off the imperialists and refuses to be exploited any longer.

          • JohnDClay
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But why struggle for it? If it’s going to happen anyways, may as well do what’s best for yourself and not stick your head up.

            • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because I’m not a lib like you.

              But seriously, the point i was making was not about inevitability. It was making a distinction that Marxism as an ideology is based on scientific principles (this was a differentiation from early utopian socialists). We believe in theory, practice, and refinement of theory informed by practice.

              While i as an individual believe that communism is morally correct, that belief is immaterial from the truth that Marxism illuminates

              • JohnDClay
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So how does the truth Marxism illuminates determine policy decisions?

                • RedDawn [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Can you rephrase the question? Are you asking how Marxists in positions of power, like in the former USSR or China use Marxism to determine policy?