MLRL_Commie [comrade/them, he/him]

Has been my phone background before, I can laugh out loud alone (not just exhale, you know) repeating “Rollin Coal in my Barthole” to myself.

Thats Capital and its direct minions

Wait is this real? I thought I’d seen a similar post before but don’t remember it being from her?

Oh… think it’d be funnier without that one, that’s already enough I think

What’s the gun, sunglasses, and hat backwards one?

I think you could even make the argument stronger: Deng didn’t even act like a capitalist, he wrote and said exactly what the strategy was and looked to the west more like “You can come and do some exploiting of our labor, but we will win from that in the end. You’ll still come though because Capital can’t resist this” and it worked so well that capitalists and western leaders convinced themselves that he didn’t believe himself.

Don’t do this, stay. Were much worse off without you, regardless of how much is or isn’t someone else’s analysis, we need you.

Same, I can feel annoyed by the disagreements but I still find myself enthusiastic to read it. Xioahongshu(2) is a good comrade.

For sure but that’s my point. To throw it in conservatives faces to make yourself feel better, use the stated goals. But, to really understand the problem of the US in the world, the stated goals isn’t relevant and leads one astray in the analysis.

damn this picture fucked met up a bit. I though the woman on the right was wearing the grasses as a skirt, and then though that the woman on the left was bending at some ungodly angle and fitting into the tiny grass skirt that the dude (is that mussolini?) was holding and checking out.

Yeah it just depends on the goal stated, because war is politics. If the political goal in Iraq was overthrowing the government and getting oil, the US won. If it was ending resistance in the middle east, the US failed. If it was to create a chaotic region which can be used for profit and war for the coming centuries, the US won. Libya is almost exactly the same.

The US has several times achieved its material goal while failing its stated goal. They might do that in Iran, too, though I think it’ll be harder than Iraq was because Iran learned from the past decades and I’m unconvinced that the US did

I would also love a link. A colleague sent me some shitty warmongering documentary about these ships going around the European coast and was offended that I said it was probably bullshit overblown Propaganda. I’d love to show it

Copied comment from other thread:

That was such a shocking/funny transition from Thailand to Myanmar. Thailand showed a pool overflowing, a cracked wall, one fallen tile, and ended showing some dust. The close up of the dust followed by a home which had no walls left was such a drastic difference that it seems they are parts of 2 totally different events

Also all that beautiful stuff in Myanmar is like clay/brick with a painted outside? Idk what I expected, honestly, but it did surprise me. Who was gonna make those arches out of marble and gold anyways? Hopefully easier for rebuilding.

Anyways, wishing strength for the impacts people of course.

Damn this made me really go down a rabbit Hole of thought.

Pressure is, of course, a force exerted over an area. We often think of air which can be dense like our atmosphere or sometimes so thin that the pressure can becomes discrete, which makes “pressure” lose its meaning. Because you then are actually just trying to measure particle interactions. (You see the dialectical shift from momentum and particle analyses to statistically insignificant variation as density increases).

But, let’s take a flat surface pushing onto another flat surface (imagine the jaws of the cutter and cable as both flat for my sake). We can easily apply the concept of pressure to this, where a large force might not break something if applied to a huge area (meaning pressure is low). But, let one of the materials become constantly thinner until its width is negligible, and you get a “cutting” action. The pressure goes to infinity, but this also makes the concept of pressure lose meaning, I think. The pressure exerted by the cutting edge to a cable does go up super high, but it just pushes the material to the side. You could imagine this as the material under pushing back and outward because of the cutting edge, and then the pressure from the material causes this. But it’s about as meaningful as describing 100 particles in a room as having “pressure”. It shifts to another thing entirely.

Lol wtf, that sounds like treating football players like Americans do their mercenaries. They fucking honor the football team too? Do they get discounts and line cuts??

Do we have any better estimates of the casualties/displacements now? I’ve heard wildly different numbers and am unsure what to believe. Maybe best to just ask the highs and lows, because this sort of thing is probably never going to be clear

I don’t get the joke.

I absolutely do, though I don’t think he “started the war against the west” in those terms. I resent being accused of such for a claim I’m not convinced you even understand.

Putin and Russia have interests in security on their borders and national security in general, because that stability is in the ruling class interests. For a long while, the assumed greater stability in these interests was to be found in going along with the west instead of confronting them. Due to the west’s continued antagonism, due to Ukraine’s position geographically, politically, and economically relative to Russia, and due to a growing possibility to find stability outside of the unipolar Western Empire (e.g. with China), the greater stability was clearly to be found in negotiating a more advantageous position for Russia through war against the party being used against those interests. The fact that the interests eventually pointed in direct opposition to the Western Empire is not due to any discontinuity in these material interests, but in a slow shift in the effects and future effects of the policies of the west on those material interests.

This is clearly no fundamental shift, and it doesn’t make him some ideological hero (or hero in any real sense), just the representative of a set of interests which became aligned against the west. The US could today guarantee, with material backing (I can’t imagine how at the moment, but I need no example for something that has happened so often in the past) that the interests of the ruling class will be brought in line by a policy shift of the west. And with that guarantee, I’m entirely unconvinced that Putin and the Russian ruling class will maintain your “war against the west”.

I’m no pessimist about this, I think that the US is unlikely to do this and that the interests of the two ruling classes are too fundamentally, in the bases, opposed. The West would have to do some Cold-War level concession-giving, which is too forward thinking than the West is used to at the moment. But that is very different than thinking Putin himself had some fundamental shift.

Seems idealistic to think this. His interests haven’t changed, but how he can/if he can materially gain benefits in those interests has changed. And I shouldn’t even focus on him, this is about the ruling class of Russia. Just because the relationship between the current situation and their material interests has shifted doesn’t mean that those interests have. His “snapping” was due to a realization that those interests were no longer in line with actions in line with Western Empire. That can still shift quickly and easily if the US really chooses to change those conditions. Using the word ‘snapping’ and making this claim insinuates some discontinuity which I just see no evidence for.

Lol the Imperialism reading group coming in handy today