It will align your interests with those of companies, since your wealth will go up and down based on company valuation.

So if the company you work at does well because they’ve cut salaries and their stock valuation goes up, then you’ll get that dopamine hit even though you’ll be worse off overall.

I will also tell you that the stock market returns vary greatly from 52% to -43%. So unless you’ve got the capital to weather these downturns, it’s not a good way to live.

These percentages are also deceptive in that a return of -50% means you need a return of 100% to get back to where you were.

I can’t tell you if it’s good or bad, because investing as a retail investor won’t change your class, but this is what you’re getting into.

Also, if you’re not a Marxist, how did you get past the vetting?

I did not realize he was this divisive.

At the time, the US was invading Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. China at the time (1970-75) viewed the Khmer Rouge the same as the Vietnamese communists, and offered aid and support in both their struggles against Western imperialism.

This sentiment is expressed by Mao and Zhuo as follows:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_86.htm

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/zhou-enlai/1972/03/19.htm

It seems like they were aware of the formation of a ‘third way’ within the anti-imperialists.

What calls for special attention is that at the present time certain powers are creating a so-called “Khmer third force” to carry out activities for a compromise in a vain attempt to split the National United Front of Cambodia and undermine the militant unity of the Cambodian people and the Indochinese peoples

But I don’t think they recognized it as a nationalist movement at the time.

Also nobody mentions that the Khmer Rouge was supported by the Vietnamese as well, at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Civil_War

If there were any questions as to the nature of Khmer Rouge, any Marxist should be able to critique Pol Pot’s ideology and understand it to be reactionary:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pol-pot/1977/september-29.htm

I’m on social media way too much.

You’re missing the point. Even if you get elected, the class nature of the state is still bourgeois.

That’s why you’re able to be removed through legal or illegal means even if you win through election. You haven’t won state power. Instead, you are elected to execute bourgeois class interests, and you’ll be fired if you don’t do your job.

Quoting from state and revolution, we have the following:

“The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution.”

From this, we can see the end-goal is not to capture the bourgeois state, but to 1. create a proletarian state and 2. for the proletarian state to supersede the bourgeois state.

So, the laws passed in a government should aim to 1. remove barriers / promote in organizing proletarian institutions into a parallel government, 2. remove barriers impeding / promote the legitimacy of said proletarian government, 3. impede capitalist accumulation, because an accumulation of capital is also the accumulation of political power.

Regarding the part about violent revolution, I have a theory that it might not necessarily be violent, but I need more research to prove or disprove that.

Did you get your history from grave of the fireflies?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were heavily industrialized and wealthy cities. The victims weren’t starving. This was a society who imported slave labour from conquered territories to work those factories and left them to die after the bombing.

All of these resources extracted from their colonies were used to genocide the people within those colonies, including my great grandparents and the great grandparents of tens of millions of others.

China suffered the (second) greatest number of civilians deaths by country, with the total death count at 19.5 million (possibly an underestimate), exactly because the Japanese were trying to ethnically cleanse the Chinese. The atom bombs killed a maximum of 250k people. Even if 8 more atom bombs were dropped (1M deaths), it would be less than a 1/10 of what the Japanese did.

We’re seeing history repeat itself because two bombs obviously wasn’t enough. Their society had not even quantitatively changed from back then, just that WWII had imposed a pecking order in the west. Given the opportunity, they’d do it again with the majority of their population supporting it.

So yea, I can joke about nuking Japan (more), because nuking Japan 10 more times wouldn’t even be a proportional response.

Two nukes literally was not enough.

Yes, but it’s not systemic.

It’s white people who dictate the system, and who enforces systemic racism.

So that should be the main focus.

I was thinking the same thing.

Probably they’ll elect a more liberal Zionist leader

lol, such is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

I think it’s fine. People are diverse and idealistic. IMO it’s equally important as a ML to be able to understand and critique these ideas.

It would be possible to integrate AI into some of the lower-level components. But applying concepts to novel problems is something that AI can’t do.

I remember when a chef in our canteen made ghost pepper jelly and liberally slathered it on our fries off the menu.

It was delicious.

IMO, you should learn how to characterize imperialism, exploitation and socialism in terms of macro-economic indicators.

For example, imperialism is the highest form of capitalism, characterized by the exploitation of an entire country. How would that manifest? Inevitably, there will be disputes between the investor and the state, as contradictions arise between capital concentration/export, and the state’s need to provide for their people. This is tracked through investor-state dispute settlements.

I did a post on this a few years ago.

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/3066117

What’s notable about China is that despite being the country with the second most imports in the world, it has significantly less ISDS cases as a claimant state, less than Russia and comparable to Greece and Belgium. (circa 2023)

https://imgur.com/a/qiko10x

The policies themselves aren’t all that important. What’s important is that we have the political power to implement those policies, and others.

I was in the US, and I was talking to this guy who was gloating about how he adopted this Chinese girl, and he acted like he was doing charity.

There are so many layers to this, I don’t even know where to begin.

Generally speaking, when someone talks about culture or degeneracy, especially when they bring it up as a topic of conversation, usually it’s because they’re a fascist or they’re listening to fascists.

Like that palentir manifesto

Like, they might, they might not. But it is something to look out for

Yea, they say hedonism, but I think they meant degeneracy.

They’re definitely a cryptofascist.