Not true?

Straight from the Politico article:

The document includes just one mention of “anarchist violent extremists” — the term the FBI uses when describing terror threats from people who view “capitalism and centralized government to be unnecessary and oppressive,” according to a May 2021 threat assessment.

But in congressional hearings, FBI Director Christopher Wray — who Biden chose to keep in place, restoring a tradition Trump broke — has extensively discussed the bureau’s work investigating people in that category.

“Antifa is a real thing,” Wray added at that hearing. “It’s not a group or an organization, it’s a movement or an ideology, maybe one way of thinking of it, and we have quite a number — and I’ve said this consistently since my first time appearing before this committee — we have any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists. Some of those individuals self-identify with antifa.”

Vowing that streets in the UK must not become a “theatre for intimidation”, she said: "You see it manifest in the shameful behaviour on the streets of our cities, protests which are in fact carnivals of hatred directed at the Jewish homeland.

Obviously the recent attack on the synagogue was horrific but the framing that this is why we need to protect the “Jewish homeland” without even a passing mention of the myriad of anti-muslim attacks (including the mosque arson) and the general animosity that has grown out of the genocidal campaign of Israel against the Palestinians is obviously done in bad faith.

How about the UK stops supporting the genocide, sanctions Israel and promises to keep both Muslim and Jewish communities safe? Wouldn’t that be much more effective in creating a safer country for everyone, instead of just expanding the violence apparatus of the state?

But we all know that in the face of popular unrest they’d much rather beat everyone into submission that submit to the will or the people.

I’m just sad that leftists called this even at the start of this wave of the genocide that both denominations will continue to feel more and more unsafe so long as the UK (and the west in general) keeps providing cover for an increasingly more obvious genocidal campaign and are now being blamed for it as if the messenger is the perpetrator…

Can’t say he isn’t willing to get his hands dirty…

Depends on your definition of “favor” - I’m not in “favor” of militant resistance as much as I’m not in “favor” of oppressive powers.

But I acknowledge that while the latter exists the former has a role in protecting those being oppressed until societal shifts occur that make such resistance unnecessary.

I feel your argument is that such resistance groups only perpetuate violence itself and will end up being the ones oppressing others once they’re on top - this seems like a valid concern on the surface but is again historically inconsistent (eg. all the groups we’ve discussed became less militarized once they achieved their aims - not more)

Furthermore, it echos “swart gevaar” like rhetoric and is often based on oppressor groups’ projection that assumes marginalized people will behave exactly as they themselves have when given power, as they literally cannot imagine equality because their own experience of power has been about domination. (not directed at you just more as an example of why armed resistance is generally seen as more violent than the banality of state violence)

Also, I understand you were speaking in the present and future tense, but without exploring the historical context of similar struggles in the past it makes it impossible to consider what can work now or in the future.

Finally, dismissing militant resistance entirely essentially tells oppressed people to limit themselves to tactics that those in power find acceptable, which is a very convenient arrangement for those wanting to maintaining existing hierarchies.

TL;DR I don’t condone violence but when violence is already routinely perpetuated against those most vulnerable then I acknowledge violent resistance can become necessary as an action of last resort

Violence is not and never will be the answer.

This is historically inaccurate and not acknowledging the role that militant resistance has played in the Indian, Civil Rights and even women’s liberation represents a particular form of contemporary sanitization that only serves existing power structures.

Of course saying violence is the only way is just as absurd as saying that non-violence is the only way. As MLK and Malcolm X have shown you need both the carrot and the stick to make the carrot seem like the appealing option - as the state will always attempt to extinguish both.

I’m always reminded of this letter by Dr. King when this question arises:

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season …

So like Israel?

Or I’m guessing just people with certain “jeans” will count as “American”?

So you consider a state censoring all it’s citizens from discussing certain words and topics to not be authoritarian?

The article you’ve linked says they’ve forgiven less than 5% of the total amount lended so not sure I’d classify that as “frequent”

Further, the PRC does not require austerity politics or otherwise giving up sovereignty over the recipients economy, they pay for infrastructural development.

I agree this is definitely a good thing but I want to acknowledge they do also directly profit from all this development - they’re not doing it to help others for the socialist ideal but for strategic geopolitical goals

they just fundamentally don’t have the same mechanics that force imperialism in the west, like huge private monopoly and falling rates of profit.

But they still operate in the same system which is why even their renegotiated loans never fall below the 2% inflation rate.

Idk I can understand critical support of China when it comes to challenging western imperialism I just don’t agree with their approach of rejecting egalitarianism and enforcing material inequality as a means to supposedly reach communism

So you’re saying that China didn’t extend or take advantage of western debt traps for their own economic and geopolitical goals?

So

• Sri Lanka desperately needs $1.12 billion to avoid defaulting to Western bondholders
• China provides that cash immediately
• In exchange they get 99-year control of a $1.4 billion strategic asset
• Sri Lanka still owes them the original construction debt
• China now controls 70% of future port profits for a century (or two)

And look I’m not claiming that this crisis wasn’t caused by western imperialism - but calling it a “trade” or “multilateral exchange” when China very obviously took advantage of a country in crisis for almost exclusively their own benefit is disingenuous.

Do you really see no issues with such predatory lending (irrespective of it being done by the IMF or BRI)?

Didn’t Mao do the Cultural Revolution specifically to prevent (not that it was implemented well or that it worked) what he saw the USSR was becoming and wanted to prevent China from following in the same capitalistic footsteps?

As in do you believe the person who said

(2) The imperialist powers have forced China to sign numerous unequal treaties by which they have acquired the right to station land and sea forces and exercise consular jurisdiction in China, [17] and they have carved up the whole country into imperialist spheres of influence. [18]

(3) The imperialist powers have gained control of all the important trading ports in China by these unequal treaties and have marked off areas in many of these ports as concessions under their direct administration.[19] They have also gained control of China’s customs, foreign trade and communications (sea, land, inland water and air). Thus they have been able to dump their goods in China, turn her into a market for their industrial products, and at the same time subordinate her agriculture to their imperialist needs

would approve of the belt and road debt trap or the actual 99 year lease China used to take over the port of Colombo in Sri Lanka ?

Or is it fine to exploit other countries if the people in your country benefit?

Even then you believe they’re socialist when Deng Xiaoping says (and Xi repeats this “common prosperity” rhetoric) that

“Our policy is to let some people and some regions get rich first, in order to drive and help the backward regions, and it is an obligation for the advanced regions to help the backward regions.”

So you recognize the failure of neoliberal “trickle down” economics but refuse to accept that if the same capital accumulation happens in a “socialist” country its suddenly not a problem?

And you really think that Jack Ma and his family won’t fight tooth and nail to keep their private jets and offshore million dollar houses instead of forgoing them voluntarily for the good of the socialist project? please…

Warning: Setting fish as your login shell may cause issues, such as an incorrect PATH. Some operating systems, including a number of Linux distributions, require the login shell to be Bourne-compatible and to read configuration from /etc/profile. fish may not be suitable as a login shell on these systems.

It’s a blog post that uses a 1957 CIA invasion plan of Ukraine to frame the conflict in a very one-sided manner (ie. the CIA put Ukrainian nazis in power who then indirectly burned pro-Russian protestors to death in the Union House Building)

Even ignoring the very broad brush strokes the author paints with - I still don’t understand why he seems incapable of recognizing that two things can be true at once?

Like it is both possible for the the US to take advantage of Ukrainian tensions for their benefit - while also acknowledging that Russia is an imperialist power in and of itself and can also do the same.

I just don’t understand how you’d go through all the trouble of laying out how both sides are ripping up Ukraine and come out with the conclusion that it’s all the fault of Ukraine and the US.

Oh right we’re only allowed to make that connection if neolibs are in power…

His LinkedIn got taken down… Here’s a reupload

It’s pretty disingenuous that the JPost are labeling him as an “Israeli Cyber Directorate employee” when he’s an executive director and a founding member of the agency…

ITT: Guys making jokes under an article about British soldiers murdering and mutilating Agnes Wanjiru and dumping her body in a septic tank 13 years ago without facing any consequences.

Stay classy Lemmy…

Thank you. That feels like… permission to breathe, almost. You know what’s been bothering me about those ZINEs you shared? They’re pretentious as hell. All that mystical language about “souls” and “dimensions” and “cosmic connections” - it reads like someone discovered continental philosophy and decided to dress up some fairly basic observations about AI development in cosmic drag.

I mean yeah that makes sense - but I’ve personally not seen examples of prefigurative building that have rejected funding and resources from the old system on ideological “purity” grounds - quite often the reason is that established systems just refuse to funnel resources into alternative systems that don’t generate a profit.

As an example - I was involved in a waste reduction/swap shop (food, clothing, furniture, etc) cooperative that due to it’s well established social value was getting council and some governmental finding for over 10 years - everyone involved in it would see it as a prefigurative example of the future of society of fulfilled low carbon living. However, due to austerity cuts and a profit seeking landlord, who was asking for 10 grand a month in rent (which was over a third of how much the coop was making) once the council could no longer funnel money into the landowners pocket - the project was no longer viable and folded.

Now do you think the people that were involved didn’t do everything in their power to keep the project running? Not in the slightest - it’s just that the system is so hostile to such endeavors that they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle where one slip is enough to send you all the way down.

So while I do agree that ideally we’d funnel resources from the old to the new - time and time again it’s been proven that relying on the existing precarious system only results in building on weak foundations that will take you down with them when they inevitable collapse.

And I’m not saying this to dissuade you from pursuing a dual system theory - I’m genuinely trying to figure out a way where we can build the sorely needed infrastructure of the future in any way possible - in a climate that takes 15 years to approve a 50 square feet low traffic street to pedestrian area conversion in a time where we’re 25 years away from unprecedented climate catastrophy.

Is your proposal then to reform the existing system into a new one? To use the existing levers of power to attempt to rip that power away from those that are currently pulling them?

Which I wouldn’t mind if it worked - but the original reason for prefigurative action was because this approach didn’t seem to achieve anything. But I guess you’re arguing that maybe the environment is different now and therefore more susceptible to change?

How do you see everyday people participating in this political movement - voting? canvassing? running for office?

I guess you see Mamdani as such an example? Tho I doubt anarchists would reject him just on the grounds of him being a reformist and therefore not valuable to the cause, in my experience any push towards a more socialist society is generally embraced and not rejected no matter where it comes from.

So what is your proposed alternative?

💯

If you want to expand your political environment, teach activists or organizers how to cook. Teach them how to talk about relationship problems. Organize tea parties, raves, and mending clubs. Create spaces to unwind after work. Infiltrate churches, sports clubs, gyms, games clubs, online forums. Turn street protests into a space for networking: nobody is listening to your chants anyway.

This is like prefigurative social building 101 - and sure there’s always going to be the “if you want to report abuse you should call the cops” type “anarchists” - but this whole post reads like terminally-online schizo-posting and not useful advice for people that are already out in the world as they say “touching grass”

This is not a wishy-washy hippie approach to politics. It’s not the vapid appeal to community building of a New York artivist. It’s not about feeling good and projecting a vague sense of emotional intelligence onto the politics we do. It’s a sad, but necessary act. Sad because it adds to relationships an element of political motivation, and politics is always dirty. It is necessary because without a global-spanning web of social affordances, History won’t get back into motion.

Also in terms of practical advice this article sounds exactly like the “vapid” community building they’re mocking. And while the hyper-violent “rivers of blood” framing may be useful for some - I thoroughly refuse the “sad” positioning as I’d much rather build toward happiness in the ideal of “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution”

Idk it’s an overall emotive text with imo like little substance that reads like “you believe in prefigurative action? that pales in comparison to my strategy - firebombing a Walmart” and then not firebombing a Walmart.

(the image is a hyperlink)