elite incompetence 2024

Unions should 100 percent play both sides no question

Yikes! Predictions sure are hard, especially about the future.

Well, my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined. Looking forward to the next stream, appreciate your commentary.

Glad I’m not the only one that thinks Cutrone and platypus are basically conservatives that say they’re Marxist

@kyledrums

29 күн бұрын

Patscots 🤝 weird Trots

Solid convo, sporadic or not. All what was said seems really blatantly obvious? I think the "doom" is not acknowledging this. 38:14 to which they reply, every time they're confronted with a hole in their logic, "it's all in gods hands" lol 40:40 so just e-beggars.

You mentioned that you think the comparison of USA today to USSR at its collapse isnt the correct comparison. What do you think is a better one?

37:30 re: Jason on Multi-Polarity: Multipolarity is not [the most hegemonic] states doing whatever they want to do.. it's the most hegemonic states doing whatever they want to do without any *single one* of them being *as likely* able to stop any one or more of the rest of them on their own Not suggesting that multiple superpowers vs a single superpower means kumbaya. Although it will probably lead to safer world (very low bar), and only if the previous unipolar superpower is willing to go out in a whisper instead of a bang. 38:00 Varn on MAGA Communists as both stridently pro-China and pro-Trump as being stupid and irrational and contradictory. yes. yes. and yes. but these people jettisoned any commitment to subscribing to any ideology that is rationally defensible by the time they became MAGA Communists

@Sam.Kangarloo

Ай бұрын

​@@jakeb3157 >> How is a situation where the balance of power between the most powerful nation states is more equal likely to create more peace by necessity? Multiple mafia bosses vs. one And not more peace, less violence. Multiple mafia bosses act as a kind of check against each other, trying to ensure that no single one gets too big for its imperial britches (which they all wear btw). I don't support a multi-polarity world of States btw, I just know it'll be preferably to an American owned one with a lot less death and destruction abroad. China's not looking to, for example, invade and occupy the middle east. That's not what One Road One Belt is about. And that's not a defense at all of the Chinese system but a defense of empirically verifiable truth. >> certainly any change in the balance of power will be resisted by the hegemon and it seems a little naive to put that in the realm of choice, there is no choice, the hegemon will do everything in it's power to retain it's position unless or until it is no longer able to do so and then it will be reduced to a smaller regional player competing amongst other smaller regional players unless or until it is somehow replaced by a new hegemon or even less likely a global state. When I talk about with a whimper or a bang, see the rise and fall of previous 'Modern' Superpowers Starting with the Holy Roman Empire in the 16th century; then Spain in the 16th century --> 17th century; France in the 19th century; England 19th --> 20th century, and now the United States since World War II The naivete from my perspective would be in thinking that the United States won't blow up the world before accepting that it's no longer the single ruling hegemon. We are talking about an Imperialist teenager after all. Note: I did not include 18th century because a multipolar world of hegemons existed then. Interesting how that coincided with the Enlightenment back then. Obv. not the case today. Our approachment with a multipolar world now is accompanied by a rise in Fascism. The thing that concerns me is just how many, we'll say, 'practicing' Leftists today don't realize that the goal of these folks is to ultimately join forces. The Nationalist Isolationist stuff is mostly just a holding strategy until enough of these Fash parties take power. Then you'll get a nice little union of international Fascist States that are probably friendly to Russia (as Le Pen already is, tho not Meloni.. at least yet) and antagonistic to China. The whole Fascist project is ultimately a death cult anyway but that's another story. Will respond to the rest when I get chance, thanks!

@Adam-ui3bl

Ай бұрын

@@Sam.Kangarloo I believe you're making an empirical claim that is simply not true: that contending powers (criminal, state, or otherwise) lead to a reduction in violence, compared to hegemony. We don't only have WWI as an example -- What is "The Warring States Period" in China? A case of long multipolarity, remembered for over a thousand years as chaotic and violent. Europe saw a period of brutal war and conflict in the late Medieval / early Modern period, when new proto-empires and religious movements were contending with one another in the decaying Roman (Orthodox) / Roman Catholic inter-national empires. Likewise, as Qing hegemony broke down in China, it entered almost a century of brutal internal warfare, starting with gigantic insurgencies like the Taiping and Boxer rebellions. (In those cases, we have to add religious organizations to the list of powers contending for hegemony) Since you mention criminal gangs, you can look for examples there as well -- internally, parts of Mexico are in a state of "multipolarity." In Chiapas, the govt-police-military, multiple different cartels, and the Zapatistas are warring over "governmentality," who controls the territory, provides services, collects taxes, etc. (Haiti, same thing but more degenerated.) This results (inevitably!) in a high degree of political violence, as you can see in the recent election. You can look at the way gangs in Brazil have increasingly become "governmental" (led first by a sort of post-communist prison gang, the Red Command), and the rise in violence as they contend with each other and the state (and that conflict also results in Red Command losing any shred of revolutionary Marxism it once had) You can see gang wars going back to ancient Rome and Carthage, and you can always find politicians and capitalists to collaborate with gangsters whose own base is large enough to mobilize / utilize -- like the CIA or the British Empire working through the drug trade, the way the Pinkertons were both a para-military for industrialists and a proto-Secret Service, the way collaboration between Milosevic and the Serbian cigarette gangs (at the elite level) and football gangs (at the popular level) helped fuel his nationalist project, or how Chiang Kai-Shek used triads to massacre the CPC I don't see why we would see a "multipolar world" as anything other than "contestation for hegemony," a hegemony over your local "polar" region as well as an expanding hegemony over new territory. We can still speculate whether that will be fruitful in a longue duree sense, but I think the US Empire boosters are probably correct that a declining world hegemony *will* lead to a greater quantity of violence (most likely, anyhow; I don't think any future is pre-determined) I do fully agree w/ what you say about the growing nationalist parties, and how many ("practicing" lol) leftists don't see what's coming

>Jason not saying what is sane, just weaponizing the line between the mad and the not-mad 75 percent less normative discussion please

O man the whole "drop it while it's hot" is so exemplified in Frisco and Lech. The "obligatory take" pull is very strong.