I’m out after this, whatever, I’m not a part of whatever fight this is. I just noticed when you brought up Mossadegh that the discussion was off the wires and tried to help.

I pointed it out to you and you responded and he didn’t. I’ve said “talking past each other” and also pointed out how you specifically talked past him, which is a requirement for you both to talk past each other. ZPoster didn’t respond to me, so I didnt go further. I don’t think I agree with either of you after having time to think on it.

I think you’re upset generally at this discussion, not at me. So I’m gonna leave this discussion because I don’t care near enough about it to have a heated discussion

Me harassing? What are you talking about? If I harassed you, let me know where and I’ll explain and applogize. Looking at my comments I can’t see where I did?. I came into the discussion with really only the point of making clear how it seemed you were talking past each other. I many times said I’m not convinced on ZPosters position. Your arguments just aren’t connecting with that position, which made it clear to me that you were talking past one another.

Was hoping at the beginning that I could help clear that up and let you discuss or argue in a way which helped others understand.

But now you’re making an argument that there is just any sort of difference at all, when ZPoster seems to be talking about its effectiveness for realizing changes we want (and I’m assuming, following ZPosters posting for a while) looking at a long term perspective. Of course the individual policies will be different to appease different groups of the Bourgeoisie and whatever you want to call the middle class labor aristocracy. But the argument against electoralism is clearly that the gains are indefensible against reaction. And so, in the global south (according to ZPoster) elections can go against the hegemonic forces of the west and then the forces for defense can also be coopted for that goal through that electoral process. In the west, that last step will never happen and the class politics prevent such a defense.

Nobody thinks that Kamala and Trump would be 100% the same. That’s not what anybody is arguing. But looking at imperial strategy, little has changed. Only the tactics.

Short term, sure. But long term it makes very little difference, as the exact same forces are attempting to fulfill the needs of the exact same class using slightly different methods. Kamala would’ve preferred to slowly force the world to kneel before the US and Trump wanted it quickly. Might make a difference in how quickly things happen (accelerationist argument) but Kamala would’ve just allowed the use of economic methods to do what trump tries through political/direct force means.

You misunderstand here that the point ZPoster is making is that US elections have almost no impact on global politics (because both parties agree on the vast majority or topics on that stage and collaborate to maintain that), while global southern elections can put people into power who will fight against that hegemon. It’s still limited and not the answer to anything in itself (like you mean with Mossadegh, it wasn’t enough) but it’s at least something with impact. Hamas was elected, and that has had very vast effects relative to the choice between Trump or Kamala.

I’m not entirely convinced that the politics of Hamas and Mossadegh didn’t precede elections and make them unnecessary (haven’t thought that part out yet). But this is at leats where you are talking past ZPoster

Mossadegh didn’t defend the gains, but if he has defended the gains against the west it would’ve been successful electoralism.

I’m not convinced of the distinction that Zposter is making, but it really feels like you’re stuck in a universal ideal discussion (elections always bad or always aren’t bad) when ZPoster is describing the material conditions that would change how electoralism functions

Oh yeah I forgot about defectors like her… I guess I should say that I can’t imagine someone living their whole lives there becoming Zionists lol

In the DPRK Zionists have to be such a nonsensical small group to believe that shit propaganda from such an outside perspective. I can’t really imagine how someone growing up there would come to that position except by just hating everything about the DPRK with no principles at all

Sorry, I can confirm that I’ve never started liking them after at least a decade of weekly inclusion in fitness. They just aren’t fun for some reason. But they are definitely healthy for you

This isn’t new at all? He did the same thing about Hillary and said the same shit last time. Pretty sure the same “we can never work together again” was said during Reagan and then immediately centrism ruled again further right than ever before

“want to beat Trump”

The Democratic system benefits from Americans experiencing trump and becoming generally more radicalized towards the right because their political goals get to be more “radically opposed” without having to do any changes. Trump wins, middle-of-the-road Dems get to do more liberalism and maintain the fear that further right will win again to solicit money.

He is both concise and then detailed in a way that is very legible, agreed.

Where did you see this definition? He said “A… component of modern underdevelopment is that it expresses a particular relationship of… exploitation of one country by another”

You have a vast gap of knowledge between your analyses and what Rodney is saying if you read this line as “exploitation of nation by nation” and should humble yourself to that as opposed to dismissing Rodney as “useful as a primer”. That’s almost offensive to say about such a scholar, theorist, and practician. Especially when you’ve changed almost every term and its context into something else to support your dismissal.

Nation=/=country first of all, and this distinction is very clearly defined in the way he uses them. But your limited view of nations should be informed by Stalin and now Losurdo if this is your position on nations. I also think you misread Fanon if you conclude that ambivalence to the nation is what Fanon was prescribing instead of national liberation starting at the level of a nation. It seems you flipped that one on its head too? Or would you like to cite in Fanon why you think he said that? Was this in Black Skin White Masks? Or The Wretched of Earth?

And Underdevelopment =/= imperialism. He’s pretty clear on the relationship between these.

Gotta first upvote the ratio, then leave the slap fight before anyone notices

I have since changed my opinion to liking this ratio more. I also prefer reading to videos for this sort of thing but I am able to accept when I’m not the target group/its just not my thing. Leroy seems unable or unwilling and deserves the ratio

I up-beard not because I have a strong opinion, but because I’ve not yet seen a ratio request in such a low-stakes comment section and want to see how large this will get

Yeah this dismissiveness is understandable to not base our positions on conjecture, but I will stake my hedge that we find covert or “unintended” support reaching them. I only base this on the timing and focus of their recent attacks

Good video. I like JohntheDuncan a lot! Would recommend him doing some new/fun things in videos because I find myself not able to listen to the whole thing, unfortunately, because it’s interesting but doesn’t keep my attention all that well relative to other informative podcasts. The content it insightful but I find myself wanting an article for the information sometimes

I’m still trying to wait for how this plays out, but I’m sort of convinced that right now Zelensky is actually siding with the nationalist faction against the liberal/NGO groups. Not sure how that relates to the stab in the back yet, maybe that is a stronger tendency than current actions can affect.

Damn it, I read ‘Kill the Boer’ and got excited