For all your boycotting needs. I’m sure there’s some mods caught in lemmy.ml’s top 10 that are perfectly upstanding and reasonable people, my condolences for the cross-fire.

  1. [email protected] and [email protected]. Or of course communities that rule.
  2. [email protected]
  3. [email protected]. Quite small, plenty of more specific ones available. Also linux is inescapable on lemmy anyway :)
  4. [email protected]
  5. [email protected]
  6. [email protected] and maybe [email protected], lemmy.one itself seems to be up in the air. [email protected] says [email protected]. They really seem to be hiding even from another, those tinfoil hats :)
  7. [email protected]
  8. Seems like [email protected] and [email protected], various smaller comic-specifc communities as well as [email protected]
  9. [email protected]
  10. [email protected]

(Out of the loop? Here’s a thread on lemmy.ml mods and their questionable behaviour)

  • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    01·
    4 months ago

    yeah, alt-hist stuff isn’t all that productive

    the thing I meant was, that the ppl who defend China as well as China itself, have forsaken Marxism and should not be called that

    it means a complete revision of the understanding of class struggle (being replaced with class collaborationism and often the CPC taking up the role of the bourgeoisie) and thus dialectical/historical materialism

    which is why I am referring to them as “social democrats at best”

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

      100% agreed on Alt-History, no questions from me on that.

      However, I do want to flip this around just a bit, for the sake of a thought experiment. For critical supporters of the PRC, it seems that opposing US hedgemony and creating a multipolar world is the primary means by which Lenin’s Imperialism can be fought in our present moment, even if we lack any hardline Marxist powers.

      In your eyes, what should these Marxists instead be supporting? The US? It seems everyone is agreed on supporting the Global South, but when it comes to countries with any real influence on global geopolitics, are all of them bad and unworthy of even critical support, generally, or is there a force you believe is on somewhat of the right track, as a Marxist?

      This isn’t a gotcha, I am genuinely interested in this conversation.

      • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        I’d say that you don’t have to support either side in an inter-imperialist conflict.

        Just because China’s ruling elites have virtually no military bases abroad (compared to the USA), doesn’t mean that they aren’t imperialist. Only that they are “smarter” in that regard.

        To use Jimmy Carters words (about the “smarter”-part):

        “Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None. And we have stayed at war.” The U.S., he noted, has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history, making the country “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” Carter said. This is, he said, because of America’s tendency to force other nations to “adopt our American principles.”

        In China, meanwhile, the economic benefits of peace were clear to the eye. “How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” he asked. While China has some 18,000 miles of high-speed rail, the U.S. has “wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on military spending. “It’s more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every way.”

        “And I think the difference is if you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure you’d probably have $2 trillion leftover. We’d have high-speed railroad. We’d have bridges that aren’t collapsing, we’d have roads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of say South Korea or Hong Kong,” Carter told the congregation.

        China might be a so called “social democracy”. It is, however, - in contrast to the European model - in large parts funded internally: most prominently the coastal cities and their SEZs (special economic zones), which host abhorrent labour/environmental laws, red-tape-cutting corruption and whatever else international investment capital needs (or be it internal one, like the allowing 996 culture at Huawei or Chinas tech sector in general)

        To quote Michael Parenti:

        Regional bureaucrats milk the country dry, extorting graft from the populace and looting local treasuries. Land grabbing in cities and countryside by avaricious developers and corrupt officials at the expense of the populace are almost everyday occurrences. […]

        Workers in China who try to organize labor unions in the corporate dominated “business zones” risk losing their jobs or getting beaten and imprisoned. Millions of business zone workers toil twelve-hour days at subsistence wages. With the health care system now being privatized, free or affordable medical treatment is no longer available for millions. Men have tramped into the cities in search of work, leaving an increasingly impoverished countryside populated by women, children, and the elderly. The suicide rate has increased dramatically, especially among women.

        I’m not sure whether an integrated periphery constitutes imperialism., their export of financial capital, however, definitely does! (eg. their debt traps and following decade-long leases)

        So yes, from my POV the Global South or rather the periphery in general, (unfortunately) have no strong advocate on the geopolitical stage

        (Please bear in mind that I do not claim to have studied the addressed topics in proper detail and all this being my ad hoc take)