This may be useful, because its a good breakdown of how Marxists vs anarchists view production:

"Communist society is, as such, a stateless society. If this is the case — and there is no doubt that it is — then what, in reality, does the distinction between anarchists and Marxist communists consist of? Does the distinction, as such, vanish at least when it comes to examining the problem of the society to come and the “ultimate goal”? No, the distinction does exist; but it is to be found elsewhere; and can be defined as a distinction between production centralised under large trusts and small, decentralised production.

We communists believe not only that the society of the future must free itself of the exploitation of man, but also that it will have to ensure for man the greatest possible independence of the nature that surrounds him, that it will reduce to a minimum “the time spent of socially necessary labour”, developing the social forces of production to a maximum and likewise the productivity itself of social labour.

Our ideal solution to this is centralised production, methodically organised in large units and, in the final analysis, the organisation of the world economy as a whole. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a completely different type of relations of production; their ideal consists of tiny communes which by their very structure are disqualified from managing any large enterprises, but reach “agreements” with one another and link up through a network of free contracts. From an economic point of view, that sort of system of production is clearly closer to the medieval communes, rather than the mode of production destined to supplant the capitalist system. But this system is not merely a retrograde step: it is also utterly utopian.

The society of the future will not be conjured out of a void, nor will it be brought by a heavenly angel. It will arise out of the old society, out of the relations created by the gigantic apparatus of finance capital. Any new order is possible and useful only insofar as it leads to the further development of the productive forces of the order which is to disappear. Naturally, further development of the productive forces is only conceivable as the continuation of the tendency of the productive process of centralisation, as an intensified degree of organisation in the “administration of things” that replaces the bygone “government of men”."

Nikolai Bukharin, [Anarchy and Scientific Communism] (https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/ps.htm).

Can’t help but shoot themselves in the foot, even when they have “good” news (obvi gdp isn’t a good metric for how your population is actually doing).

We’re lucky China has captured a lot of the world’s manufacturing, because if they didn’t, the climate would truly be fucked. China’s emissions are scheduled to peak by 2025-30, and only go down from there.

Outside of that, the tech stuff is incredibly exciting, because of the silicon valley stranglehold on tech hardware and IP, especially processors / chips. Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Nvidia have no rivals anywhere, but loongson, alibaba, and Huawei are all starting to develop home-grown chips. The expertise and tech transfer will continue.

Engels does such a good job of calling out calling out the anarchist tendency to constantly try renaming / rebranding things just because of how they function under capitalism.

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that’s true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

Work? Alienating under capitalism, so lets cancel all work! Or lets call it something else!

Authority? Bosses and leaders only act in their self interest, never in the communal interest, so lets cancel all hierarchical structures!

Police? Lets rebrand them as community defense coalitions!

States / Organizations? Now they’re decentralized autonomous coops!

Prisons? They’re now participatory rehabilitation centers!

Organized production? No more, now its done by decentralized anarcho-syndicates!

Daaang, I see it went private to deal with brigades.

Side point but I feed so bad for the countries / cities who rely on tourism, especially the carribbean countries.

???

Has that not worked for over a year? This isn’t the first pandemic China has had to deal with: they learned from swine flu, that catching these early and quarantining regions was the best way to prevent deaths. Zero tolerance has worked and will continue to work.

Sure, here’s a short 10 min video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zZwhGHeIYM&t=696

So many classics from this:

And the Chinese health care system simply is not equipped to care for millions of people sickened by the virus.

All of this seems like an enormous success when compared with the messy and often chaotic response to the virus in the United States, where more than 860,000 people have died and some 2,000 more die each day. Many hospitals are under siege. The economy has been disrupted. But this may very well be the future China is facing. Its pursuit of zero Covid will prove to be a huge mistake. The policy has left it wholly unprepared for what will become endemic Covid.

China doing the opposite strategy of the US, so it’s going to have the same results?

But a zero-Covid policy means the Chinese will always be chasing an ever moving target. And they will never win.

I love how we have to be “tolerant” towards deadly viruses, and zero-covid policy is somehow seen as a negative. You could replace every instance of covid with heart disease or cancer in this article and it would sound just as deranged.

But a zero-Covid policy is a losing long-term strategy.

Their zero-covid policy means that the country has opened up internally and been done with covid since mid-2020. Their strategy has proven correct.

Denmark, Germany and some other European countries, as well as Australia, have achieved strong immunity without suffering the U.S. death rate. They used effective vaccines, made smarter decisions about when and where to impose lockdowns and protected the most vulnerable — older people and those with compromised immune systems. Community spread resulted, but it would have been inevitable, even with longer or more severe lockdowns, and it allowed those countries to build up immunity.

Denmark, germany, australia all have tons of new infections, they are all struggling. Those countries aren’t doing anywhere near as well as China, in terms of deaths or cases / population

Like what? Why shouldn’t we have a no-tolerance policy for a deadly virus?

It is wild. Good article on all this US aid to the ukrainian neo-nazis that’s been happening for years now.

edit: another

Those “google this for more info” ones do usually last a lot longer.

Thanks comrade, this is very necessary, as its likely to become the most popular leftish sub.

One issue is that the countries lecturing newly industrializing nations are doing absolutely nothing to decrease their own emissions. They’re happy to export production and act as a monopsony, putting all the pressure to fix climate change on the poorer nations who don’t have anywhere near the same amount of wealth to invest in costlier and more eco friendly production techniques. Who’s more to blame, western finance capital demanding low prices for garments at any costs, while hypocritically demanding that someone else pay to fix climate change, or the bangladeshi small capitalist who’s trying to bring some value into their country in any way they can?

You can even look at current CO2 emissions per capita, and see that some of the richest countries on earth are still currently the biggest polluters. And we can’t ignore the historical legacy of theft and environmental destruction which gives them absolutely no room to talk.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

Nope.

• Did Stalin / the USSR intentionally wreck the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War / Revolutionary Catalonia? , 2
• Did the early USSR repress anarchists? What about Nestor Makhno and the Free territory of Ukraine?

Anarchists when a subreddit is threatened with communist infiltrators.

This is akin to the argument that "I don’t see how colonialism is relevant now… most of that happened hundreds of years ago.

2 things wrong here. Western countries are polluting more per capita currently, one of the world’s biggest polluters is the US military for example. Secondly just as hundreds of years of theft made western countries richer at the expense of those they colonized, climate change is a result of decades of damage to the environment by countries who now want to point fingers at anyone but themselves.

This essay by bob black is pretty much the underpinning for it. It proposes “everlasting revelry” instead of people working lol. Really makes anarchists and anti work people look like spoiled toddlers who want to play instead of clean their room.

That’s right. Most of the biggest “leftist” reddit subs are just doomer venting spaces with no real life organization to try to make things better.