No it wasn't, it was suggested with no evidence or grounding in reality, things required of a refutation to refute anything. You have a metaphysical idea that because people in the imperial core are workers somehow they will fight against the system they benefit from because on the other side of that fight the wealth distribution would benefit them more. This rejects a century of communist theory. You have taken out all context and material analysis of the condition of those workers and done class reductionism. People like myself who have actually been doing labor and tenant organizing in the US for years know this from experience. People have had the opportunity to organize the whole time, we have had labor and tenant unions for a long time. People join them to get more for themselves and when they do they move on. These are essentially charities and non profits in the modern context, not tools of political power. workers in the US won't be organizing shit until the empire collapses, largely due to it's own weight and not because of any organizing being done. Communists need to be organizing now in preparation for that collapse, but it won't be until things are incredibly dire that the average imperial core resident are counted among us. Until then it's going to be a very small amount of people who actually understand what it means to be a communist and will subscribe to that notion, and even many of those will still be plagued with metaphysical thinking and liberal brain rot
Jabril
Wealth is one factor but removing the social and cultural context doesn't do any favors. It isn't just wealth that indicates someone's relationship to capital, and in the imperial core even people who make less than a person outside the core have access to certain luxuries and treats and ideological crutches that keep them yoked to imperialism. People are addicted to treats and ideas here that do not plague other places, they have no national identity, they have no relationship with their neighbors and no reason to have them. Of course we can say that all people will benefit from redistribution of wealth, even wealthy people since it will resolve the existential threat they too face from issues like climate change, but it is not enough to explain who will be interested in overthrowing imperialism and why
It really felt like the perfect choice, I stand by it!
Half the people not voting has nothing to do with the material reality that those same people benefit from imperialism and an economic incentive to keep it going. It is a false assumption to say that because they didn't vote, they must have some revolutionary potential just waiting to be activated. They are part of a global labor aristocracy and will not do anything more than fight for the gains that improve their own lives, which come directly from exploiting other people. Until those benefits are removed through economic collapse and are no longer affordable for the ruling class, the labor aristocracy will continue and they will not go out of their way to end that privilege
Reread what I said and try again
Over half the nation who voted chose for Trump and the other half chose Harris - these people need imperialism and will not give it up until the conditions get so bad due to economic collapse that they aren't getting the benefits of imperialism anymore
I think you are correct that if they aren't in the camp mentioned by Nakoichi, they are in the camp of "getting all our enemies together in a single ethnostates makes them easier to conquer"
I'm not reading the thread but being in favor of communism works in theory, but in practice (lol) all these settlers will actually lose their quality of life if we were to have a revolution since we would have to dismantle imperialism and the benefits it provides. Few westerners are going to accept that, and so they will choose the treat button 9/10 times. Revolution happens in places where they have nothing to lose but their chains, but losing brunch and U2 at the Vegas sphere is not gonna fly
Yes and the senate and house and presidency, if only the were truly pro worker, would be great for labor. It's almost if we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the state is a tool of the ruling class to oppress the working class or something
Again, the NLRB affects 10% of workers, it is already meaningless to the most marginalized and oppressed workers; to nearly every worker. The union itself should be the organizational power, but the NLRB means they the power rests in a government body instead of the workers themself. What power did workers have before the NLRB? Considering it was their power that forced the government to create the NLRB in response, obviously it was a lot. The idea that anyone is rooting for this in hopes of it helping is naive and misguided, the point is that it is happening anyway and contradictions are getting sharper for many reasons, this being one of them. That is happening and we need to incorporate that into our analysis and be prepared to organize with that reality in mind
Wouldn't the expectation be that generations of workers are getting better educated and over qualified for factory jobs? I don't think this is a problem for Chinese workers in the same way it would be for America if they still had factories
Personally I would get the backing track together, put it on a loop, figure out a melody and then just keep looping and freestyle riffing on that loop until some coherent words come out that sound good. just revise from there until it feels complete