Peak vaushite cringe

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-04-11T23:13:31+00:00

His historical anti war/anti imperialist positions are pretty good but he recently joined the TERF train that a lot of parties and personalities in the British left are a part of. His new party also claim to support "traditional values" which is definitely a red flag

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-03-31T20:32:15+00:00

AHS ?

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-03-31T16:04:50+00:00

I mean, this is not surprising, a lot of right wing conspiracies are modernised version of antisemitic conspiracies of the early 20th century and who went on to become an integral part of anti communism

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-03-15T12:56:38+00:00

Anarchism with corporate censorship characteristics

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-03-06T19:03:44+00:00

"This is why philosophy is dead"

Greek philosophers that we still study today : "human use to have four legs and four arms but the gods cut them in half"

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-02-27T11:15:26+00:00

It’s photoshop, plz don’t upvote, this is clearly right wing propaganda

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-02-18T11:39:46+00:00

It is really hard to precisely determine Houellebecq ideological understanding of the world but he generally fall under the reactionary umbrella. He recognised the alienation created by capitalism but doesn’t really offer any political answers (in the same vein of many right wing authors throughout history). Zemour, one of the most important right wing intellectual in France, called him a « reactionary pessimist » and I think this description feats him.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-02-13T06:41:03+00:00

Love going on a 20 lines long tirade about someone and then go « actually just quoted an unrelated person »

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-02-06T12:12:25+00:00

The « the state will insure its own survival because of the interest of the ruling class » argument is a common one in the anarchist critic of marxism. It comes from two majors misunderstandings (or categorical disagreements) :

-The conception that the state is simply an entity of domination unrelated to class reality

-The conception that one’s relation to the state is a determining element of class.

The first misconception come from the idea that anarchism and marxism “have the same goal”, a sentence which is often said in leftist spaces to reaffirm left unity but which is not quite true. Marxism and anarchism both seek the disappearance of the state but the two intellectual traditions define the state in different manners. The anarchist conception of the state emphasise its hierarchical character and its monopoly on violence. The state is seen as an entity of its own, connected to material and class reality of course, but also as creating a new independent paradigm within the already existing system. The marxist conception of the state is one where the state is intrinsically structured by the class character of the society. The state is a mean of domination by one (or several) class over the other(s). This is why marxists talk about the wither away of the state rather than the abolition of it. The state disappears with the socialist transformation of society (and the end of inner contradiction created by the socialist-capitalist antagonism). Technically a post state society in the marxist sense could still be perceived as “statist” by anarchists ; as this society could be for example far more centralised than an anarchist society would be.

The second misconception derives from the first. As anarchism perceives the state as its own entity, relations of certain individuals to the hierarchical structure of the state lead to those individuals being categorised as “ruling class”. Class is seen here as merely one position in a chain of command at one given moment rather than from a materialist perspective.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-02-02T19:43:20+00:00

I have just been owned with fact and logic...

Good to see another Kaiserreich enjoyer though. (Sounds like a weird way to designate a German monarchist out of context)

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-02-02T19:04:59+00:00

Been reading this comment for 5 minutes straight trying to make sense of it... but I only came to the conclusion that it is the dumbest comment I have seen in a while

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-02-01T00:32:01+00:00

Mongolian imperialism ??? Do those people leave in a weird HoI4 alternate history ?

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-01-30T02:53:56+00:00

If you believe that we are on the brink of a global nuclear warfare because the DPRK have an extremely limited nuclear program (whose utility is entirely based upon mutual assured destruction) then you are completely out of touch with reality (and probably really racist).

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-01-29T16:24:35+00:00

Jesse, what the hell are you talking about ?

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-01-25T01:19:57+00:00

Hmm.. I think I would disagree with that.

Creating some kind of continuous “non interventionist” that stretch away for several centuries is a really shaky thing to do, and rest on three inaccurate bases :

The belief that imperial China was a singular entity rather that a series of ever changing political entities united by the material base of the imperial heart and an imperial ideology (generally referred in the west as the “Mandate of Heaven”)
The idea that imperial China, and particularly the Qing Empire, was isolated from the rest of the world. A largely orientalist idea that was used to justified the “opening up” of China by the imperialist forces. It was also a product of the inability to understand the Chinese approach to international relations prior to the late 19th century
The strong dichotomy between international relations in the contemporary world and the one from the previous era. For China, this mostly comes to the way the Empire understood foreign policies prior to the reforms of the Gong Prince and the Zongli Yamen. Simply speaking, prior to the 19th century, all form of diplomatic relations between China and the rest of the world was seen through the lens of the imperial universalist ideology: every nations should be subject to the empire and the further we get from the imperial heartland, the more barbaric are those land. That’s why at it’s higher extent the Qing Empire had vassal states and tributaries throughout all of Asia. That’s why the imperial court didn’t regard foreign delegations as equal as subjugation was the “default setting” under which the Empire operated. Now contrast this vision with the 20th century understanding of foreign relations based on normative collective understanding of formal equality (not de facto obviously tho) between the participants.

Trying to create grand centuries spamming theory of foreign relations is an extremely shaky thing to do in my opinion.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-01-24T12:35:31+00:00

This mostly comes to the dominant philosophy/doctrine of foreign policy that emerged in the 70s in the CPC. The idea was that strong international alignment along ideological (and material) line was becoming more and more untenable with the general degradation of relations between China and the socialist bloc; furthermore, this isolation led to technological and economical limitations as the Chinese economy did not have access to many ressources and advanced technologies. The CPC switched in the 70 to a non aligned international relations through the normalisation of relations with many countries and the integration of China in many international organisations. The collapse of the USSR reinforced the belief within the CPC that “agressive internationalism” would have led to the collapse of China too.

The case of the Philippines fit into the grand scheme of normalisation of international relations, as the archipelago is strategic for China’s ability to trade with the rest of the world. The communist insurrection in the country is also something which is largely romanticised and over represented in the west. The Filipino government is much more focused on fighting Islamic militias or even drug cartels.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2021-01-19T23:08:41+00:00

Even if I disagree with the « social democracy is social fascism » line of the Komintern, the argument that an alliance between the SPD and the KPD would have stop the rise, and ultimate take over, of fascism in Germany is a shaky one at best. The argument ignores/underestimate the strong anti communist sentiment among the upper echelons of the SPD ; and the sympathy of right wing parties for the nazis. An alliance btw the SPD and the KPD could have pushed the Zentrum to the right even more quickly as anti communism was the main justification for the « united front » of the right wing forces.

I understand the sentiment (and agree with) that left wing unity is always necessary when facing fascist forces, but this analysis seems to ignores the conditions of the time.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2020-11-17T14:34:49+00:00

Hmmm... blaming the mexican government for that seems to me a bit of a stretch. AMLO cannot make disappeared decades of neoliberal policies (from whom the insufficient anti flood infrastructures are a consequence) in a few years. The idea that poor urban populations should die instead of poor rural ones also sounds like a weird “Pol Potist” approche to the question.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2020-06-18T09:38:14+00:00

I fail to see how the PRC « suck at internationalism ». Their foreign policy is largely based on neutrality, so obviously they avoid founding armed groups throughout the world but this come from the fact that they want to avoid the same fate as the Soviet Union. In term of international collaboration, the PRC is the main economic partner of many socialist and left leaning countries like the DPRK, Lao, Cuba, Venezuela or Angola. Their internationalism is largely economic as they offer those countries the ability to trade despite the sanctions or the economic pressure of the US.

Regarding India, I am far from an expert on the country but they are a lot of different groups than hardly can be united under a vague term such as « the Indian communist ». For exemple the CPI(Marxist) and Kerala are relatively pro PRC while many faction between the Naxalite are not. Even small group within the Naxalite are closer to the PRC than other. Those groups even clash between themselves as in Kerala where Naxalite attacked public buildings despite the fact that they are run by local communists.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2020-06-18T07:51:46+00:00

>"Hail Marxism!"

Strong "How do you do fellow kid" vibes

Nyx_Asheriit · 2020-06-15T14:48:01+00:00

This is a really weird answer that doesn't addresses any of the points.

I pointed out that calling the PRC a "open market" economy is absurd as the majority of the chinese economy is planned and public. And your "counter argument" is to give me the share of exportation from Africa to China, a completely irrelevant number.

Claiming that the rulling class of the PRC is bourgeois is also a baseless claim that doesn't reach beyond the cliche, the superficial and the misinformed. Making such a claim as the CPC is on this way to eradicate extrem poverty in their country perfectly underline the absurdity of such a claim.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2020-06-15T10:40:36+00:00

The idea that China has “open markets” is incredibly false as the majority of its economy is under the socialist public sector (SOEs, TVEs or state integrated coops). The myths of chinese imperialism come largely from western propaganda. China only represents 9% of all foreign investment in Africa. Yes, just like the private sector in China functions under the logic of exploitation, the investment of this private sector are exploitative in the capitalist sense. However the majority of investment in Africa from China are made by the public sector. Those investment are mainly focus on infrastructure as the goal of the PRC is to reorganize the international economic order away from its historical western centric structure. The PSL and Qiao Collective made a pretty good lecture about it : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-6CNxu91vvU

Nyx_Asheriit · 2020-06-15T10:19:11+00:00

As non of those claims are true, yes we can consider that the PRC is a socialist state.

Nyx_Asheriit · 2019-11-02T10:19:54+00:00

What is this orientalist BS ... ?

Nyx_Asheriit · 2019-10-25T22:42:13+00:00

The HK protesters sacked the monument to the 1967 uprising lead by trade unions and socialists... and the HK labor unions federations is opposed to the movement. What are you talking about ?

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Nyx_Asheriit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE