“The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production… but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism” — Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Voting for Democrats is also voting for those that give power to the rich. But this must be looked at in the larger context of the U.S. political system, which shows that it’s not a problem of voters but of the essence of the state itself.
All of the issues in your analysis were explained over a century ago: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
I think her explanation is awful. She amounts objections to her signing the resolution to “squabble over 3rd degree acknowledgment IHRA exists.” This is a complete lie.
A subclause references a separate state dept guideline which noncommittally references IHRA (many degrees). It says EXPLICITLY that it is nonbinding.
It directly references the IHRA definition of antisemitism (I have no idea what she’s getting at with the degree of removal of referencing a separate state dept guideline which itself references the IHRA definition, since if she’s referring to the “Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism,” which the resolution “welcomes” and “calls upon states and international bodies to endors[e] and embrac[e],” this is just another reference and not at all just “acknowledgment IHRA exists,” instead citing their definition of antisemitism as the most authoritative and providing no other examples) and calls it “an important internationally recognized tool to increase understanding of antisemitism.” This is obviously the definition of antisemitism that is used within the resolution. How is this just an “acknowledgement IHRA exists,” much less separated by 3 degrees because a 2/3 degree separated reference happens later in the resolution? Are we supposed to ignore the direct reference? How has nobody pointed this out? Am I misunderstanding something?
Yes, it explicitly says the definition is nonbinding. The resolution is nothing but rhetoric. I don’t see how this is a defense. So you signed your “Hamas terrorist attack against Israel” resolution for no material reason. She justifies her signing of the resolution by saying:
Because many in my district are genuinely & in good faith concerned about antisemitism they experience and need reassurance from their rep[…] There will never be a perfect vehicle so we choose which imperfect one
This isn’t simply an “imperfect vehicle”–the entire basis of the guidelines and of the resolution is the IHRA definition. Your condemnation of “antisemitism” is slop that dilutes the term and will help nobody.
Taiwan’s airline is China Airlines, Taiwan’s banking is China Trust, Taiwan’s oil is China Petroleum, Taiwan’s communications are China Telecom; Taiwan speaks Chinese and has the same dialect as across the strait, Taiwan’s streets are named after mainland cities (unlike Hong Kong), the “local cuisine” is Chinese cuisine (and Taiwan competes in the Olympics as “Chinese Taipei”).
It’s strange you bring up Taiwan having “its own currency” when Hong Kong has the same and is by all accounts not an “independent country.” Obviously having one’s “own currency” does not automatically translate to national independence, and nearly every country, and the UN officially, recognizes Taiwan as a part of the PRC.
Operation Gladio by Paul L. Williams
Gladio: NATO’s Dagger Through the Heart of Europe by Richard Cottrell
*details on NATO false-flag terrorism in Italy to frame communists and rig elections against them (so that Italy wouldn’t increase ties to the USSR chiefly), NATO Nazi stay-behind armies in numerous states that were used to crush left-wing movements, etc.
How NATO Worked With Fascists to Crush the Left in Turkey
NATO controlled the very forces in the countries that would guarantee its stay there, rigging elections against and terrorizing movements that could potentially throw them out. You are sanitizing a Nazi fascist organization by omitting this aspect and simplifying NATO membership to a straightforwardly consensual relationship and I think you should be banned, along with everyone who liked your comment if that’s the policy now.
Show it then? It would be much more effective than “yes there is.”
Wrt doing “nothing”:
(and below)
Wrt “covertly manipulating their neighbor’s politics to elevate Nazis”:
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17nC9epcFDOYcVDIcJyWx0udBGPOJiNanuAUu8jxUvmU/edit
And wrt “bomb[ing] Russian speakers”:
North Korea could not have been forced to use their troops to attack Ukraine if Kim Jong Un did not want them too.
Truly brilliant. Also there is no evidence the DPRK is deploying troops to attack Ukraine.
I don’t know how the world should deal with Biden, truly. Russia is not the power that is issuing threats. NATO did exactly what they recognized for decades would push Russia to invade. Ask how Russia should deal with a foreign power covertly manipulating their neighbor’s politics to elevate Nazis who would go on to bomb Russian speakers.
Iran and the DPRK are in no position to allow Russia to do anything.
Your ideology has zero explanatory power in the real world. “Fanatic” means nothing now.
Even in the very beginning you see the Western brainworms dangled in your face, but there are good aspects to the book.
Clearly you weren’t talking ab the U.S. or implying the legitimacy of U.S. democracy.