We’re back to the old problem again, however. CPRF’s reactionary sexual politics is used to legitimize NATO passive-aggression, when they toe the UR line as much as needed to maintain electoral support and infiltrate the Russian state apparatus.

As I’ve shown with Hamas and the Palestinians, Zionists use the traditional or reactionary politics of Palestinian independence organizations to delegitimize them.

To put it another way, the Orthodox Church was not abolished in the Soviet Union, and the Chinese did not put out foreign religions when they had revolutionary success.

Critical support is not the same as either uncritical support or opposition: we are not opposing Hamas or CPRF based on their traditionalist gender and sexual attitudes, even if we oppose their traditionalist gender and sexual attitudes.

If you cannot critically support revolutionary movements, then you cannot be a Marxist, but instead a neo-conservative, because NATO raping your country is the fastest way to get feminist and LGBTQIA+ policies enacted.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

There’s also a difference between pushing hard for LGBTQIA+ issues and passive support in countries where popular opinion is against you.

I think this is the point of critical support.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_North_Korea

Fact of the matter is, most of BRICS and AES are more retrograde on LGBTQIA+ than Western nations, and China has shown backsliding, with the Global Times editor-in-chief being censored for plugging a transgender talkshow host on his Weibo.

It is a perfectly valid position to take a pro-Western bourgeois democracy stance if you make LGBTQIA+ the core of your politics, but if you don’t, you accept critical support as your main line.

Removed by mod

CPI has 650k members, CPI(M) has 100k members.

CPC is the largest Communist Party in the world.

CPC has almost 100 million members. Are they China campists, Marxist-Leninists, or both?

I’d argue that of the international Communist movement, the majority of party members are Chinese.

Removed by mod

That was literally made and supported by Moffin’, who was, if you trust Zeke Roa (an admin on Getchan) a board developer on Leftypol.

The serious issue I see right now is more a push by “parts of the left” to cancel China using the “anti-campist” line.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia

Slavic culture is relatively homophobic, including during the Soviet era. I’d see this as Socialism with Russian characteristics and not ask Russians to hold a Western attitude toward LGBTQIA+ unless they are in the West.

Campist is a difficult word, given its association with board collapse on Leftypol.

Moreover, you make it difficult for me to try to argue for a more balanced and critical take on China (i.e, avoiding over-idealization that will lead to disapointment on encountering realities), because this aligns with the general Western anti-China take too much.

I support a common-sense level of paranoia. As long as you don’t do something illegal or too threatening, you’re fine.

I don’t think people here are on the verge of crossing the line, whereas on Leftypol you had former posts discussing guns, as well as NAFO glowtrap posts discussing drone terrorism.

TBH, I just think it’s best to assume everything is a glowop and try to focus on useful praxis and useful theory. Even if things aren’t glowops now, if you get enough visibility, security agencies will come after you.

It’s three fabs. Intel, meanwhile, is falling apart.

The important thing, imo, is that the US doesn’t achieve full chip independence before 2030, which allows a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue (i.e, Chinese customs blockade redirecting Taiwanese shipping and passenger traffic to China). I don’t see American reshoring settling the issue early, even though Intel is likely to get automated fabs up by 2028.

I’m probably going to repost a finished version soon, but I’ll leave this comment.

I’m basically trying to import/export socialism with Chinese characteristics to Western contexts.

The only real difference is that we generally do not have control, and are insurgents until we control enough of the economy. And adventurism around the 33% scale becomes viable: i.e, aggressive means to destabilize competitors, like forced unionization, industrial espionage, and financial warfare (hope you liked your CDS in 2008!)

I’ve never said anything about having the right people in charge; this post is about a change in strategy and methods.

I also don’t think I’ve jettisoned the idea of class struggle because the idea of using industrial cooperatives that are also party-owned means that such enterprises are essentially proletarian and proletarian controlled in character, but it moves class struggle from the social and political environment to the economic marketplace.

Destroy Porky’s market share. Kill bourgeois profits. Different mindset, different mechanisms.

I’d like to put out a fuller response, but I’d rather have fully posted the OP.

I think Hazan put out a similar idea for how he’d want to build the ACP, but I think he’s oversimplified things and hasn’t identified the flaws, even at a minimum stage. I think the ACP, in general, is not qualified for his business plan of having party cells operate as enterprises, and it’ll rapidly go down the sink for that reason.

As for your criticism concerning capitalist opposition, the simple way to do it is simply to publicly list the POE / industrial cooperatives (but not the party itself) once the business is viable, taking care to maintain worker / party control, but allow the bourgeoisie to buy stakes.

It’s Dengist insofar as that’s how Deng and China succeeded; capitalists will sell you the rope that will hang them, if they think it’ll make them a quick buck. If, say, Blackrock and/or Goldman own a 30% stake, you essentially have cover from elements of the capitalist system, because they want to protect their investment.

As an addendum, part of the idea is simply to have a lopsided incentives structure (in at least some of the firms within Red Zaibatsu) such that the business HAS to be Marxist in order to function. To cut to the chase, the level of labor discipline and pay is such that you won’t work at a Red Zaibatsu-held firm unless you were ideologically committed, and if these firms somehow lose their Marxist character, it simply no longer makes sense to work at such a company.

It’s what I’d bring up as to how Huawei works (Huawei is abusive insofar as its prospective long-term employees are expected to sign a strivers’ contract pledging dedication to the firm, which includes being assignable across the planet as the company sees fit, and working extremely long hours. Note that Huawei is still a worker’s cooperative with profit sharing).

The ideological commitment to socialism, in my view, is the competitive advantage that allows “vanguard-type” (not all Party-held firms are vanguard-type) firms to defeat their capitalist competitors, and if you destroy the system of worker and party ownership while capitalists are invested, well, you just forced Goldman / Blackrock to take a huge haircut on their investment, because the company is no longer competitive. That protects the Party-owned economy from the wider capitalist system.

Less outrage, more shades of Diem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem , who persecuted Buddhists.

Zelenskyy’s approval rating, likewise, is starting to go down the tubes.

https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-president-s-rating-dropped-to-54-razumkov-center-poll-50430342.html

Iirc my math was for 3x overbuilding on solar and using massive battery banks, although the 4 cents per kwh figure assumes 1.5x overbuilding and enough batteries to capture all of a summer day’s generation.

Fission and solar are actually enemies because the extreme intermittency of solar overloads the grid in the summer, and provides no energy at night. Coal and natgas have fast generation spoolup, whereas nuclear takes too long, hence solar forces nuclear off the grid.

Ultimately, solar is here. At present prices, in China, at least, panels with battery can compete with natgas and coal for total generation.

With further reduction in battery prices (40 USD is the marginal cost of batteries), and multi-junction carbon or carbon silicon, we probably can get solar + batt to completely replace all existing fossil fuels, as well as limit fission and fusion to baseload or strategically crucial power supplies.