Americanos are pissed that they can't have bananas year round if #degrowth/ #communism/ #anarchy happens. Banana availability has its roots in imperialism, destructive monocropping, and grueling agricultural labor/slavery.
We literally have a word for client states of #imperialism for the export of bananas: banana republic. Banana imports to the West is drenched in the blood of thousands massacred for your God damn commodities. In the #Philippines, companies told this instruction to banana worker syndicalists: “turn them into fertilizers for the bananas.”
On top of that is the steep ecological and carbon costs to actually shipping the damn things. Do you really need bananas year round?
There's also the problem of monocropping which destroys the biodiversity of forests to make way for plantations, even if we discount the slave labor. Monocropping has made Cavendish plantations at high risk of diseases. It could very well be that Cavendishes would become an endangered species just like the Gros Michel after nature erases its scourge. Maybe the extinction of the Cavendish is already a matter of time, rendering banana disocorse moot.
Americanos just don't understand that in a liberated world, maybe people won't be breaking their backs for some Americano to get their god damn banana. Of course degrowth/communism/anarchism means that relations to luxuries will change.
Besides, Cavendishes suck. They literally taste terrible. Y'all seriously live like this? Lakatan, Señorita, and Sabah tastes way better. Yeah, they can't be exported, boohoo. Not everything has to be a commodity, much less to please some Americano half a world away.
Errico Malatesta issue on Anarchy provides a good point to understand the concepts, concerns, and critiques.
He was an Italian anarchist that personally met Bakunin and Kropotkin. He was also persecuted during Fascist Italy.
He had his own ideologically inclusive form of libertarian communism (see 2/3), and believed in a labour movement that brought together disparate groups in order to form stronger unions (see 3/3)
Here's a challenge. Talk to at least one different person IRL a week about socialism or communism. It can be about anything. Working class struggles, free healthcare/education, revolution, anything. We can no longer relegate our activity solely to the internet. As useful as the internet is, real change can only be made by going outside and interacting with people in real life. Go! Change the world! #communism#socialism
Our comrade #FionaLali just launched a campaign for the coming #ukelection as MP for Stratford and Bow.
As communists we should have no illusions that the problems of the working class can be resolved by parliamentary means. This campaign will be used at every turn to expose the #tory and #labourparty alike as war criminals complicit in British #imperialism.
For healthcare, not warfare!
For books, not bombs!
Kick out the war criminals!
If you haven't yet had a look, check us out now! The book is free as in speech, and free as in beer! And if you like what you see, please rate us, review us, and tell your friends! (or foes!)
Alternative history. If the US had just given up at this point of war, all of (united) Korea would probably be in the same stage as Vietnam today. That is: just fine.
But they went on for 3 years. Killing 2-3 million Koreans to save them from communism.
Then they killed 1-3 million Vietnamese to try to save them from #communism and lost.
Seriously, let's say the #ww3 the US/EU/NATO/ISRAEL/UKRAINE have been provoking to start eventually starts and you are stuck in a country that you feel is in the wrong side of the war-front?
What do you do?
Engage in guerrilla warfare against the people around you who blindly conform to their state? Become vocal and suicidal as a peace activist? Run away to a strange country on the other side of the war front?
From my Cold War primary source shelves: J. Edgar Hoover’s Masters of Deceit (1958) replete with high school student scholarship contest! #history#ColdWar#books#America#Communism
Jonathan Chait is real mad that leftists aren't taking liberal shit anymore. I got the link from archive.is to avoid giving his BS any extra clicks. It's way longer than it needs to be. This paragraph caught my attention though because it's at least an attempt at clarifying what liberals see as leftism and why they're wrong (which is why they should shut the fuck up, because they have been proven so very fucking wrong, so often, and for so long):
I don’t want to bore you...
lol
by attempting the umpteenth definition of liberalism,
Funny how liberals hate defining liberalism
so I will lay out the distinction as briefly as possible. On economic questions, leftists have an overwhelming bias for state action over markets, while liberals are more selective.
This is incorrect. Leftists differ radically on how much state action over markets is needed. What unites leftists is the belief that we need democracy in economic realms as well as political ones. (I personally don't accept fully authoritarian MLs as leftists, one can debate that, but that's where I stand.) Liberals think it's just fine for us to have democratic politics but for most people to work for institutions that are run as dictatorships.
...On politics, liberals take very seriously notions of individual rights and universally applicable principles, while leftists tend to criticize political liberalism as a recipe for maintaining inequalities of power between the privileged and the oppressed.
Sort of true, but Chait tellingly leaves out the substance of the leftist critique, the reason why they think that political liberalism is a recipe for maintaining inequality, to wit: the lack of democracy in most people's workplaces. If economic power is concentrated while political power is distributed, then inevitably political power will become concentrated as well. Because money is power.
Anyway, Chait hates "Solidarity" the book and he also hates solidarity the concept. Of course he gets paid to represent left-of-center thought at major USA publications. Feel free to discuss your disgust for this type of guy further in replies.
Digging into this paper by Sullivan and Hickel, and I am a bit distressed by the way authors misrepresent and distort their sources to fit their political narrative.
They mix and match statistics whenever it suits their narrative. They talk about a rapid increase in life expectancy in Maoist China and attribute that to expanded public health care and education, but when it comes to citing numbers, they cite the death rate.