How do I develop relationships/friendships?
So like...I'm not repulsive. People actually really like talking to me. I don't make people upset and no one ever dislikes me. But...no one ever wants to hang out with me or talk to me without me intiating or already being in the same place.
It's not like I'm boring either. I have interests and hobbies and a personality of a sort, but it feels like no matter what I do I'm always having to insert myself into groups and such, and no one ever thinks "hey, i should invite him to do x."
I know you can't give exact answes without knowing me personally, so if anyone has general experience with feeling like this any general advice is appreciated
Good resources/explanations of pre-capitalist class society? (Especially on the transition between these societies as compared to the transition from capitalism to socialism)
A while back, I was trying to read "understanding the French revolution" by Albert Soboul. However, I never finished it, not because it was necessarily bad but because
A.Was swamped with work and classes
B.Pre-capitalist class relations have always kinda alluded me
I've also read origin of the family, private, property and the state, but I dont remember it talking about that in too much detail (although it was very good [and maybe I just can't remember {I have a really bad memory}]).
I know theres the soviet textbook on political economy from the 50s, but I would prefer something I can obtain physically, since I have difficulty reading on computers.
Thanks in advance
Huh, even if it isn't what I'm looking for it looks good. I might check it out
It might be, but at the same time it's not ringing any bells. It does fit all the criteria though, the only issue is that I'm pretty sure the American book and Chinese book had a similar plot, which isn't existent in this case.
But then again, my memory isnt great, so it might be it. Thank you for trying though
Could someone help me find a book?
I remember seeing people talk about the three body problem a while back, and in discussion about censorship someone brought up the book I'm talking about. If i remember right it wasn't censored, but it involved like, conspiracy plots (fictional I mean) and corruption in the cpc (not systemic though). I also think it's either an adaptation or at least has tbe same name as an American novel with a similar plot.
Sorry if that's not enough information, I'm not gonna cry or anything if I can't find it. I'm just curious.
I hate having to quote someone I'm 99% sure is a liberal and 99.9% sure is not a communist, but PhilosophyTube said it best that, "voting with your wallet means that people with no money get no votes."
One of them is going to have to go home and change (hint:it should be the one that's maoist 🤢 and french 🤮🤮🤮)
I don't necessarily hate the French one though, I think I have some books of their's
The European far right and it's future post russia-ukraine peace
The most (or perhaps second most, behind their anti immigration and refugee stance) defining the European far right today seems to be their general pro-russia and pro-trump stance. But now with a possible peace deal underway, I wonder where it's going to go afterwards.
There's of course the most obvious possibility, that the deal goes through and Europe can get back to "normal" per se, thereby engedering parties that opposed the war or sought a deal in the first place. The parties would also possibly be buoyed by the success of Trump in not having the country explode 3 seconds into his presidency.
However, given how negotiations are going and europe bejng cut out, the general lack of incentive for Russia to go back to their previous relationship with Europe, and the fact that the economic policies of the far right are...not great, I wonder if we'll see the opposite effect after a time. If the war ends and even if Le Pen or the AFD or Reform UK come to complete or partial power in some form or another, and conditions dont improve, I wonder if Europeans will actually swing back to the left-left of politics. Communists? Idk, the French are eurocommunists, the British can't figure out what they're doing, and the Germans have they're own suppression of the DKP. But i could imagine Die Linke, Melachon's party and/or some left party in the UK (if Corbyn ever decides to form one) getting some traction.
In any case I dont see the mainstream parties like labour and the spd surviving (good riddance)
The point is that we can't disprove a negative. It's on you and everyone who agrees with you to provide evidence of the fabrication. Otherwise I can also just say "no they wouldnt" and that has the same evidentiary validity as your argument.
I find it funny how the Chinese use the same logical throughlines to come to different conclusions to liberals. Instead of saying that people shouldn't be able to live comfortably in every job, because then people would just do the easy Jobs, the Chinese say that people should be able to live comfortably in all jobs so that people will do them. I also saw one person on 小红书 using the "feed a man a fish" quote, not to argue for taking welfare away, but for actually giving people jobs.
How did China get their suicide rates so low compared to Japan and South Korea?
(Obvious answer is socialism but I would like more specifics)
Often China, South Korea and Japan are treated as the "big three" of stress and expectations. Between their similar college entrance exams, demanding work schedules and environments, and social expectations for people to work hard and get rich and such.
But looking at suicide rates (which are only one piece of the puzzle of course) China places fairly low, at about 6.7 per 100,000 according to Wikipedia, half of Japan's and nearly a quarter of south korea's. Interestingly this is not just a cultural difference, as the Chinese province of Taiwan reports about 16 per 100,000 people, which is even higher than Japan. It also isn't the just case of a high density population compared to low density like Finland and Iceland, since Japan and the ROK fit this designation as well (as well as India, who has a rate even higher than Japan's)
The obvious answer is socialism, but that's a little broad and not how you actually solve things. Not to mention that cuba has a decently high rate too (although considering their current impoverishment it's not surprising). So what happened specifically? Poverty alleviation sure but that can't be all of it, I don't think so anyway.
(Additional notes and questions
A.The DPRK has a rate of 8, nearly a third of the ROK, suck it fake korea
B.Why is venezuala's rate so low? From the source Wikipedia uses its one of the lowest in the world, despite the generally high poverty and instability
C.Why is Afganistan's so low? Unsure if anyone has a concrete answer to this but I'm curious)
Maybe, but my main issue is that it doesn't change anything. Let's say we assume that we are in a simulation...what now? If you had 100% irrefutable proof of it, what would we do? And if you can't convince others, what would change on an individual level? I still feel pain and love and sadness, so it's kinda pointless, i feel anyway.
Honestly I just can't buy it because of the price. Honestly I like the concepts but I think the civ swapping mechanics need to be critically thought about much better. Because I like the idea but every game that has tried always falters. Unsure if it's poor execution or if the concept is doomed to fail.
Also I am begging the Devs to make Sun Yat-sen a leader at some point. Please, thats the closest acceptable thing to modern China we can get. Cmon you've got come Wu Zetian you can do Sun, pleeeeaaasssee Firaxis
Something I find funny
I know that government and governance works very different in socialist states (zero party state and all that), but
It is very funny that the "wholesome 0 1984 totalitarian states" of Vietnam, Cuba, China, Laos, the DPRK, etc. Have more independent seats in their national legislatures than the US does. In the US your program has to be approved by the billionaire controlled parties in order for you to have any influence at the national level, buts that's different cause instead of the government doing it, it's the oligarchs. I love democracy
I hate living in suburbia so fucking much
(Note:rely on the homeowner for income and shelter, can't just move easily and have mental issues)
It's the worst of both worlds. Simultaneously I'm isolated from the city and have to drive to do absolutely anything, all of the people here are racist entitled assholes. Simultaneously its not isolated enough like a small town so theres no way to organize any independence or feel safe from troubles in said city, or to have any sense of community. There's Simultaneously too many people and too little people, too much space and too little space.
You need to have nuance, of course, and say both sides bad no matter the evidence. Even if evidence suggests one side good, that's not nuanced, so both sides bad (ignore how this usually also favors one specific side anyway, but You're nuanced so you feel better about yourself)
I really can't imagine going through the last 20 years (and more) and not seeing censorship as necessary and normal
With rednote being a thing, all the usual dronies of the 1.6 billion dollar army have come out to say "but muh ccp censorship"
To begin, this was a very sudden influx of users onto the site. No shit some of the censorship is heavy handed.
Secondly, Chinese censorship just seems bad because it's more honest. Yeah, you get banned for being a dipshit and you get banned for being a rightist and wrecker. (Being arrested or visited by the police is a rare occurrence at best and a fabrication at worse. Not to mention that JT was visited by and intimidated by the American Gestapo for his supposed free speech too) Over here you might not get banned for it, except in the cases where you do (see:reddot and africa stream for instance), but there's also ways they suppress views without banning people. Age restrictions, aforementioned intimidation, algorithmic suppression, etc. These are just unofficial forms of censorship that aren't as obvious as outright bans. This isn't even mentioning how free speech absolutism is really an American obsession. It's not a thing in Europe and other parts of the world.
There's also the "both sides badddd" argument to this (im looking at you piratesoftware), but again, look at the past 20-30 years. From the mmr scandal to lynchings to J6, etc. You're really going to sit here and be like "oh but slippery slop"
I think this is a fair analysis, although I'm not really sure if it really fulfills the purpose of settler colonialism (which, from my perspective, is living space. In a literal sense it does give white people an advantage in literal space to live, but it doesn't give them an advantage in cheaper resources and petite landowning/Bourgeoisie property ownership.) But i honestly find this very convincing. (Edit: the suburbs and gated communities do help engage in stratification and alienation which might also help in solidifying the definition.)
On the tactics part, however, I would say it doesn't matter too much. Like you said yourself, the life is becoming more and more unstastainable for obvious reasons. More and more people who used to live in suburbs are either going to have their houses crowded when they can't afford living space, or move into traditional inner city homes.
My concern is what to do with them after a revolution. I mean yeah material conditions will change over that time (it's certainly not happening tomorrow) it's just...they're very artificial, but they are homes for people. Idk
I was writing this at like, 3 in the morning dude cut me some slack.
What I mean is that, essentially, class divides are lessened between the classes of settler colonialists. You can see this in Israel, for instance, in that white Israelis get to live in "socialist" kittibutzes (however you spell that infernal thing) while underpaid migrant workers and such do much of the work. Ergo it gives white Israelis much more economic and consequently political and social freedom compared to those oppressed people's.
In the same way imperialism uses super exploitation to create a labor aristocracy. Settler colonialism does something similar with land. If you were a poor prole in America, an option you had was to "go west young man." Land monopolization could be delayed in the western terroritories with the expulsion of natives, while the labor power could be bought cheaper from the waves of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, etc.
This isn't to say that it was "good" or avtually slowed down capitalism at all, in fact I'd argue, concurrently with you, that it did indeed speed up the adoption of capitalism. Its a complete mischaricterization of my response. Class conflict and monopolization still occurred, and mainly occurred in the states settled earliest that weren't dominated by slave owning plantations (like new York, Philadelphia, Ohio, Michigan, etc.) However i argue that it occurred to a lesser extent because of the lack of resource competition on the continent, along with the aforementioned boons of settlement and such. This is my general explanation for the lack of class consciousness for much of American history (combined with other factors of course). I use "reset" as a term in comparison to other states on the two continents. In Mexico and other Spanish colonized states, the encomienda system made lesser even the people considered Spanish who did not come from Spain. Of course they held a higher position than slaves and indigenous peoples, but the land owning class was quickly centralized (at least in comparison to the United states). And so class conflict was accelerated in these nations. I'd argue that you can even see this in the American south, where instead of Yeoman farmers you had the slave ran plantations which stifled the growth of capitalism in these areas.
Ergo, what I was arguing in my comment is that, while the legacy still exists, the American proletariat no longer profits primarily from settler colonialism. Rather I say they benefit mainly from imperialism, same as in Europe (i.e, France and Britain). So while I do think that white Americans definitely benefit from the latent boons, it is just as possible for white Americans to be as revolutionary as white Brits or French people in comparison to Israelis because the class contradictions between them and the Bourgeoisie are greater than the material differences between the white proletariat and the black, Latino, etc. population.
This is of course not ignoring the labor aristocracy created by imperialist super profits and such, and so them being revolutionary is unlikely, but not as impossible as, say, a 1900s Boer or modern Israeli.
I think my main issue with your stance here is that it's based much more in absolutism than actual material conditions.
What does settler colonialism provide for its benefittors? Well, as they themselves will often say, land. I resent the term "reset" but settler colonialism is the closest humanity gets to actually turning back time in class society. It slows down the centralization of capitalism and allows for the creation of a large petite landowning population. Of course as well it makes room for large immigrant populations who are generally more friendly to being the exploited proletariat than either the conquered peoples or the settling population.
The problem is, how much does the American proletariat benefit from these things today? How easy is it for a American proletariat to gain land, how many resources remain completely untapped and can be exploited to increase the rate of profit? Etc.
This isn't to say that America and Americans don't benefit from the legacy of settler colonialism, but I agree with the CPUSA that it is not the primary contradiction. It certainly is an existing contradiction, but it isn't the primary one that determines the material conditions of the American proletariat.
Any biographies/autobiographies you'd recommend or enjoyed?
A little while ago I read Henry Puyi's autobiography and honestly it was beautiful. So just wanted to ask if anyone here had any recommendations. I'll be reading Lyudmila Pavelochenko's memoirs next but after that I don't know. Back when I was a liberal I wanted to read Ulysses S Grant's memoirs, but idk if I'd enjoy them now, so :p
Thoughts on "From victory to defeat" by Pao-yu Ching?
I've seen it recommended a few times, and I generally intend to read it no matter what (unless there is some massively concerning thing about it or the author), but given its "Maoist" stance (not necessarily the most accurate word but whatever) I find it surprising how often I've seen it recommended in generally pro-china places without rebuttel (as compared to, say, J. Sakai's settlers and Grovurr Furr's work).