So Cuba should dissolve a government widely approved of by the people and return to client state gang run institutions for the ability to receive food? You’re a fucking idiot. Calling people sith lords, please learn to engage in world politics by using meaningful vocabulary instead of trying to equate everything to your favorite work of fiction
China should run port blockade
I kept wondering if they believed that as well or was purely for the rubes. Like isn’t the whole point of guerilla warfare that it’s decentralized and somewhat grassroots via pockets of resistance fighters with varying degrees of coordination
Speculation it was deleted in part due to the laptop showing a picture of an IOF member which is blurred in the current one
So tired of “protests are useless” posting. There are good ways to make a critique of a movements but this is not it.
The past decade around the globe protest movements exploded into radical restructuring of various countries’ way of governing. This particular protest doesn’t seem like it will evolve into that, but no one ever predicted the outcome of past eruptions.
A protest isn’t a reliable or advisable way to create a revolution, but they are still great organizing opportunities and solidarity building events.
Please stop with the nihilism
Had the misfortune of listening to State Department and White House policy ghouls talk to a class recently. They don’t believe moving to less fossil fuels quickly is viable because we’d become “dangerously dependent on Chinese minerals for batteries and solar cells” ignoring the fact that the entire globe is “dangerously dependent” on a liveable climate
With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. How could they be the initiators, if they themselves are the result of violence? How could they be the sponsors of something objective whose objective inauguration called forth their existence as oppressed? There would be no oppressed had there been no prior of violence to establish their subjugation.
And it is clear that in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The starving peasant, outside the class system is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization a simply a question of relative strength.
Get this into your head: if violence were only a thing of the future, if exploitation and oppression never existed on earth, perhaps displays of nonviolence might relieve the conflict. But if the entire regime, even your nonviolent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors.
You live in the US, how are you not being bribed to think the way you do?
You’re such a redditor
It’s also kinda hard to have 99% of people dislike China if 18% of the global population lives there and is very satisfied with their government, not even counting anyone in Russia, other parts of Asia and the Pacific, Central and South America, or Africa.
You’re really showing whose opinions you actually care about. A bunch of propagandized to the brim, comfortable Americans, Canadians, and Europeans
Time for you to go make friends with the fascists and shitlibs who share your opinions I guess
What an awful analogy that misses any sort of context or nuance about the situation.
That’s the problem with liberals like you, that you think things can be understood by imagining it as something superficially similar.
Do you understand what historical materialism is?
Sounds like there needs to be an active, maybe kinetic, effort to maintain the peace