Why should class vs. class be thought of as the main dialectical cleavage in today's society if, in several places, the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat are both oppressed by ruling elites of other countries? A "class vs. class" perspective in Assad's Syria or Nasser's Egypt for example would have you siding with Imperialism unwittingly.
Hard mode: Don't just go "read Marx", explain why Marx was right.
Maoists would tell you Marx was wrong.
When you become a level 5 MTW you start saying that anti-imperialism proves Marx wrong
.>>2700624
Because at the end of the day, 90% of people stand something to gain from communism.
Because the national bourgeoisie has no revolutionary potential anymore. They're now just compradors and collaborate on an international level with the bourgeoisie of other nations.
If that was the case then all imperialist endeavor would be superfluous.
Yes, Nigerian and Chinese billionaires are oppressed souls trapped in their $100 million London and New York condos
Wtf I love Saudi Arabia now(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Too vague. Imperialized countries have a fascist comprador bourgeoisie. Countries that are targets of imperialism have a national bourgeoisie that the imperialists try to bribe and coerce over and/or partially dissolve. However, the national bourgeoisie will never be an oppressed class, other than under socialism.
That's an orcs verse humans map.
Blue being the orcs
They are inter-bourgeois conflicts of the same type as in WW1. There is no justification for class collaboration just cause the bourgeoisie of different countries oppose eachother.
It's also worth noting that even if the national bourgeoisie of a country take an anti-imperialist position, they will still bend to the logic of capital in relatively short order. Remember that before the war Assad was not only opening up to western porky businesses, he was torturing people on behalf of the CIA. Rouhani in Iran is looking for sanctions relief not only to benefit the Iranian people, but also to allow for western investment in the country. Egypt is also a good example, with Nasser's successor's being all to eager to become a western puppet. Basically speaking, the national bourgeoisie may rebel against imperialism from time to time, but its only ever a temporary revolt designed, not to liberate their country, but to get themselves a better deal from the imperialist countries.
The ruling class does not share common interests in the same way as the working class, only a common enemy that they do not need unity to repress. They already have the power, so it only makes sense that they will fight each other for it.
And the fact nations can, and dedicate a lot of money into, exploiting other nations completely goes against this thesis. You're re-afirming the Marxist dogma without proving why it's right. Just because the ruling classes of most countries are bourgeois we're supposed to sit aside and let the US exploit whoever they want? This is ludicrous.
Literal "the working class has iphones" tier argument
i'm just so tired of third worldists
they are the the worst fucking morons of them all, by far
anyone i can tolerate, but not them
they can go fucking off themself
So the working class of the U.S. and Iran have the same common interests?
How so?
i'm pretty sure dumb shit like that is banworthy
thats the problem with third worldists
they have such a shit understanding of antiimperialism, they go full retarded
there's just no fixing you guys, is there?
You sound really, really stupid.
i have no idea how to explain it if something clearly stated in the OP contradicting everything he says doesn't hit you in the face as obvious enough
you're lack of reading comprehension is just beyond me
Nice way of saying "I don't really know".
Is BO now critically supporting Saudi Arabia against Yemeni school-bus imperialism or something?
this.
The struggle of certain isolated examples of national bourgeoisie currently on the receiving end of some form of American aggression are struggling precisely to integrate themselves into the global capitalist system. Unfortunately, some of these bourgeoisie live in countries that, for geopolitical concerns, cannot fully integrate themselves into the global economy. But this has nothing to do with principles of political economy like a worker's struggle might.
There is a case to be made regarding "imperialism" in its modern form but one must recognize that most of the world's bourgeoisie (here i refer to capitalists proper and not simply a vaguely affluent strata) is itself international. The bourgeoisie of many developing countries are often educated abroad and own property and residences in places like the US, Canada, or Europe. These people are not oppressed - they are a well-integrated part of the global capitalist machine. If one argued that, in general, the national bourgeoisie of the third world or developing countries were somehow oppressed, they would be completely wrong. The difficulties that many immigrants and guest-workers have in obtaining legal status are often simply a question of money. I have met members of the national bourgeoisie in developing countries. They are often fabulously wealthy and enjoy lives far different than their fellow countrymen. You can travel to a mid-sized town in the countryside that is, for the most part, very poor. But hidden behind gated communities are modern luxurious homes. If you know where you look you can find fancy department stores and designer-brand clothing. These people are not oppressed.
you really are, so i guess it makes sense that to someone lacking basic reading comprehension anything sensible would sound stupid
yeah, go chase your own rat tail my friend
All classes and all economies are already integrated into global capitalism, and it has been so long enough for Parvus and Trotsky to deem the nation-state historically superfluous a century ago. But, say, a foreign company owning another country's most precious resources by force without giving anything back, that country's own bourgeoisie owning those resources and paying taxes/responding to union struggles, and the native bourgeois state owning those resources so it can turn its profits into social means or aid for its national bourgeoisie of other sectors, are all three very different forms of integration, and I just find it absurd that we're not supposed to have preference among them because the class character remains essentially the same. It goes to prove, imo, that class is not the complete analytical tool of the contradictions of post-feudal society as Marx claimed.
whatever m8
because imperialists would never want to take those guys shit away from them
yeah
because they visit western schools, i guess
big brain take.
great argument, why don't you explain it? i thought losing words to an obvious idiot is what you're all about, since you were just so insistent on me doing just that
fucks sake you people…
wew…
National bourgeoisie seeks to be on an equal footing, it can be tricked into bad deals. You highlight these compromises (intended to stave off invasions, sanctions, and terrorist ops), but notice that all the deals fell through (and similar ones with Russia)– not because of Assad or Rouhani screwing anything up, but because such equal-footing deals are actually not acceptable to the imperialists in the least. So you are overstating it, and subtly slandering them here.
the nerve!
Slandering the few countries and leaders that are actively and intensely struggling against the empire. Iranian and Syrian leaders have done more to fight the USA, Israel, etc than you probably ever will. And their theory is better than yours too.
Theory of Islamic Guardians of Iran is the guiding light of socialism
Palestine comes to mind, but that's about it. When it comes to porky, the world is already pretty flat.
The U.S. and other countries often place sanctions against countries in order to reduce their access and integration to global markets. Do you even follow the news? The national bourgeoisie of these targeted countries want to better integrate themselves into the global economy.
That's true, although I think some of these situations are pretty non-existent. The idea that a national bourgeoisie supports "union struggles" via taxes is pretty absurd. In Mexico, the national bourgeoisie helps create "ghost" unions that only exist on paper so that foreign investors can claim to operate factories with legal protections for workers. The entire setup is done so that the national bourgeoisie can better exploit the working class of their own country. None of the profits they make are going to be spent helping to further the cause of working people. Likewise, foreign capitalists exploit the workforce of different countries only because the national bourgeoisie arranges the process.
As a worker it makes no difference to me whether I'm being exploited by a foreign capitalist or a domestic one. The end result is the same: they profit from my exploitation. In some cases, one may provide better working conditions and wages than another, but this has nothing to do with whether the capitalist belongs to this or that nationality (which for many of them is simply a matter of paperwork.)
I don't think that either Marx or Engels ever claimed that class was the "complete analytical tool" to understand all aspects of society. The basic idea is that the form of reproducing daily life, in a material sense, forms the basis of any society on which everything else can be constructed. Which is why matters of basic political economy, such as access to capital and markets, tends to dominate every country's domestic and foreign policy no matter what the government's nominal ideology may be.
Imperialism is capitalism's main driving force today.
For any communist movement to gain momentum in an imperialized country, getting rid of imperialism is a requirement and should be an immediate goal.
In imperialist countries, reducing the influence of their country while getting the favor of the lower strata, while getting ready for the revolution is needed.
If the picture of the OP is meaning to separate imperialist countries from non imperialist, I would disagree with the inclusion of southern Europe and south Korea and the exclusion of China.
Hey what is the relation between this board and >>>/caco/?
Maybe someone has developed this theory already, but I came up with something similar to this. Basically, it's like boss-worker relations but with nations. For example, even though practically the entire world is composed of bourgeois nation-states, if we compare them to class relations, there are "boss nations" and "prole nations". For example, the US is a boss nation of many countries, and those countries, regardless of being capitalist nations are "prole nations" if we look at it through this analysis. France, Mexico, Chile, South Korea, etc etc etc could all be considered the proles of the american nation-state boss.
You are just using those terms arbitrarily.
There is a theory and it is called imperialism in marxist terms. There are imperialist nations that push their markets worldwide with any means and there's subject nations.
Literally Khameni and Nasrallah have more in common with serious Marxist-Leninists than any socdem, Trot, or anarchist. They're not Marxists or the second coming of Lenin or whatever, but they are correct on many of the most important issues.
That's an, uh, interesting claim
Mexico is a fascist comprador puppet state, it does not have an independent national bourgeoisie– half of its bourgeoisie isn't even fully legal, it's cartels.
It does make a difference when you are a literal slave or killed by drones, foreign contras, etc. You have to be insane if you think proles in Iran and Syria aren't far better off right now than they would be if the USA, Saudi Arabia, and Israel got their way.
Porkies in imperialized countries sell production power, not commodities, when they are subcontracted or outsourced to. They ship their commodities out below their value, which materializes in prices in the imperialist core. In return, the comprador porkies still get a relatively nice slice of the pie, but not the full profits. This is enforced via fascism, meddling, IP law, and borders.
Trots, anarkiddies, and socdems:
Assad, Nasrallah, Khameni:
This alone makes the latter far more aligned with Marxism than the former. Fuck you.
That is not true, there wouldn't be a profit if that was the case. There is a higher proportion of surplus extraction, that is the cause of lower market price in these products.
Like I support Iran and Syria of course but saying that they're Marxist is beyond schizophreniac. You sound a bit like an anarkiddy falseflag yourself with this shit.
Material, not cultural interests.
They are anti imperialist for contingent reasons, but let's be real: Velayat-e faqih is a corporatist principle, it's pretty fash.
Why not? They don't have to get the full value to get part of the profit or reproduce their existing capital (break-even).
You get a higher surplus by lowering the price of labor power or reducing constant capital costs (Air conditioning, structural integrity, safety). Increasing surplus extraction does not reduce prices, as the prices are based on the total labor value.
You are beyond schizophrenic if you think I said they are Marxist. You are being a dishonest little weasel.
Preventing the mass murder, enslavement, and plunder of their people is "contingent"?
Fascism is not "things I don't like," it is a material relation that serves imperialism. It is imperialism turned inwards by a government. Every fascist government in history has either been imperialist or comprador. Iran is neither imperialist nor comprador and can't be fascist as a result.
That's why I said corporatist. You are not even a good pedant. And of course their anti imperialism is contingent - any Iranian government bent on an independent course would face the same obstacles regardless if they were communist, an Islamic republic, or a bourgeois republic. It is not inherent to the state ideology, but contingent on Iran's geopolitical position vis a vis the hegemonic imperial power, the US.
...
[1/2]
You said fash too you stupid fuck. "Corporatist" is a meme.
Anti-imperialism is in fact in their state ideology, the Iranian government is a revolutionary government.
Wew I guess it's not fascist to murder striking workers and teachers in droves.
The end-game for the current governments of Syria, Iran, and Venezuela is sovereignty. The ruling parties of Syria and Venezuela are fighting for socialism.
Focus on your own fucking country you Trot. That "system" in Syria, Iran, and Venezuela that you want to "abolish" is HELPING destroy the American and European empires if that was your honest goal you would understand they're your allies.
Cockshott is simply wrong on that. He's even framing it wrong. It isn't "unequal exchange." 3rd world contractor factories are selling production power, not commodities.
As an aside, Marx repeatedly mentions in Capital Vol 1 that it is possible to hire workers below the price of labor power, and that it is commonly done (either by paying below outright, or through unpaid overtime that borrows against future labor power). EG:
"This result, however, would be obtained only by lowering the wages of the labourer below the value of his labour-power. With the four shillings and sixpence which he produces in nine hours, he commands one-tenth less of the necessaries of life than before, and consequently the proper reproduction of his labour-power is crippled. The surplus-labour would in this case be prolonged only by an overstepping of its normal limits; its domain would be extended only by a usurpation of part of the domain of necessary labour-time. Despite the important part which this method plays in actual practice, we are excluded from considering it in this place, by our assumption, that all commodities, including labour-power, are bought and sold at their full value."
marxists.org
I like Cockshott, but he is brainlet-tier on this issue.
[2/2]
Here's a very simple example:
"In The China Price, Tony Norfield recounts the story of a T-shirt made in Bangladesh
and sold in Germany for €4.95 by the Swedish retailer Hennes & Mauritz (H&M). 11
H&M pays the Bangladeshi manufacturer €1.35 for each T-shirt, 28 percent of the
final sale price, 40¢ of which covers the cost of 400g of cotton raw material imported
from the United States; shipping to Hamburg adds another 6¢ per shirt. Thus €0.95 of
the final sale price remains in Bangladesh, to be shared between the factory owner,
the workers, the suppliers of inputs and services and the Bangladeshi government,
expanding Bangladesh’s GDP by this amount. The remaining €3.54 counts toward the
GDP of Germany, the country where the T-shirt is consumed, and is broken down as
follows: €2.05 provides for the costs and profits of German transporters, wholesalers,
retailers, advertisers, etc. (some of which will revert to the state through various
taxes); H&M makes 60¢ profit per shirt; the German state captures 79¢ of the sale
price through VAT at 19 percent; 16¢ covers sundry “other items.” Thus, in Norfield’s
words, “a large chunk of the revenue from the selling price goes to the state in taxes
and to a wide range of workers, executives, landlords, and businesses in Germany.
The cheap T-shirts, and a wide range of other imported goods, are both affordable for
consumers and an important source of income for the state and for all the people in
the richer countries.”"
Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century, John Smith
Note, you are out of your mind if you think Western labor somehow added €3.54 of value to the shirt.
What, do these workers live off air and sunlight? Are they impervious to heat and cold? They are simply living off of less. No emaciated worker who lives in a sewer slum is being paid the price of labor power, period.
The only reason why they are fighting the imperialists instead of joining them is because they think they'd get a better deal from Chinese or Russian porkies than they will from American or European ones.
Are you a Marxist or a Christian saint? You want Iran and Syria to fight imperialism for no self-interested purpose at all? Even proles won't do that.
Anarchists are fighting Al Queda retard. Where are all the brave twitter ☭TANKIE☭s? Where are the international brigades of the SAA?
The point is that national bourgeoisie never fight imperialism out of some opposition to it in principle. They only do so because they don't want to share the spoils of exploitation with their imperial overlords. The conflict between local bourgeois and global imperialist bourgeois is equivalent to the conflict between kings and nobles about how to divide up taxes taken from the peasantry.
Contain your autism.
Care to elaborate how they are revolutionary, beyond the already mentioned purely contingent anti imperialism? Wage labour, private property, and markets all operate within Iran, as does vicious exploitation of migrant labour from Afghanistan.
This gave me cancer
It all comes back to class though. Any anti-imperialist worker's movement must understand that the national bourg will need to be liquidated once the imperialists are gone. This includes any liberals that might be in the movement itself. Also the only imperialist power that actually matters today is America. They are the heart of all imperialism in contemporary times. Once they are forced to retreat we will have to start building socialism once again. If we are too close to the national bourg we will be purged.
You say a lot of shit I hate but every once in a while you come up with some based takes. Good job christcom user.
It's debatable whether the first world working class would stand to gain from communism. Communists tend to be fine with open border migration. As a first world poor working class individual, I would stand to lose in that scenario. The earth doesn't have the natural resources to sustain a first world standard of living for 7.6 billion people.
Fascism is not defined by shooting people.
Again, as a worker, some kind of geopolitical game is no concern of mine unless it leads to socialism.
Only in a nominal sense… Venezuela has had 20 years to implement some kind of socialist program and it hasn't even transitioned the country into any system resembling socialism. They failed to even reach some kind of Yugoslavia-tier market socialism. I don't even know on what basis Syria could be said to be "fighting for socialism."
1. I'm not a Trot.
2. I have no country.
The only thing that would destroy the U.S. as a world power would be some kind of domestic revolution or civil war. Syria, Iran, and Venezuela pose zero real threat to U.S. hegemony. Also, there are no proper empires. The British Empire dissolved itself, the German Empire collapsed, the Russian Empire collapsed, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese empires all crumbled over time, etc.
But even if they could destroy U.S. hegemony, that would only be incidental to socialism and what brings it about.
Good find… but Marx in the same section goes on to say:
"In the example we have taken, it is necessary that the value of labour-power should actually fall by one-tenth, in order that the necessary labour-time may be diminished by one-tenth, i.e., from ten hours to nine, and in order that the surplus labour may consequently be prolonged from two hours to three. Such a fall in the value of labour-power implies, however, that the same necessaries of life which were formerly produced in ten hours, can now be produced in nine hours. But this is impossible without an increase in the productiveness of labour."
The value of a workers wages can not fall below the SNLT needed to reproduce that labor-power or else they would see a continually reduced standard of living. If you could prove that then I'd unironically like to see it.
The t-shirt example would only support your case if you could prove that the wages paid to workers in shirt factories were below the level required to reproduce their labor-power.
No, obviously they must have food, water, and sufficient shelter to keep them from dying of exposure to elements. If their wages can pay for that and whatever other costs of reproduction exist then they are being paid the value of their labour-power according to Marxist political economy.
This is an appeal to emotion, nothing more. You and I may agree that sewer slums shouldn't exist in the 21st century, but it doesn't alter the basic laws of motion in capitalism.
Marx pretty clearly supported progressive liberal reforms in the lack of a socialist movement. its absolutely Marxist praxis to advocate underdeveloped countries to throw off imperialist exploitation and build their own economies.
If they were no different from imperial overlords, these governments wouldn't have the backing of the people, to whom it wouldn't matter either way. And they'd collapse very quickly.
Huh I wonder
en.wikipedia.org
True, it's defined by many other things, some of which I mentioned ITT, which all apply to Mexico.
You can say that from your comfy dorm, when you don't have to worry that ISIS will come and chop off your head. Meanwhile in the real world, Iranian and Syrian workers overwhelmingly support their governments because they KNOW they are a defense against imperialist terrorism.
When the US is deprived of expansion and expanding profits, the empire will break down into that civil war, and the resistance is by definition depriving it of that expansion.
Read Lenin.
That passage doesn't say that at all. That passage is talking about reduction in labor power price by reduction in the price of things needed to reproduce it.
Again: nobody living in a slum barely subsisting off of meager rations is being paid the price of their labor power, but that is the condition of hundreds of millions of workers.
No, actually, since my point is that the factory as a whole is being paid for its productive power. The underpaid workers are just what sweeten the deal.
So, have you heard of a sweat shop? Do you know why it's called that?
What do you think is the life expectancy of these people??? It's below 40, even below 30! That's at least twenty years of their potential labor power that is being destroyed for profits.
...
If it's just a spooking contest by two equally shitty options, the one with more money (empire) would win.
Here you can see the wild classcuck in its natural habitat
Which is why these governments often impose strict censorship to keep imperialist spooks at bay and propagate their own spooks. It's also entirely possible for governments to rule through fear to a large degree. I should also probably point out that literally any opposition to these governments is denounced on leftypol as a CIA plot.
kys
The ABSOLUTE state of you
...
land, including fertile land, is a finite resources. petroleum, water, electricity. the more people you have living a first-world standard of living, the less of these natural resources will be available for the first world. it is simple mathematics. you can't just create real estate and petroleum out of thin air.
I didn’t say that they should let the CIA in. I said that your earlier post about people supporting these governments and them being genuinely anti imperialist is wrong. People may support the governments even if those governments act against their interests, and censorship of criticism is a tool that allows regimes to manufacture that consent more easily. In addition, any time people begin to withdraw their support for these governments people like you immediately assume it’s a CIA plot, as if the CIA can just swoop in and magically conjure up mass unrest among of a happy and prosperous population. Very often these governments are highly unpopular, and even if the CIA is involved they usually opprunistically build on already existing, often legitimate anger. Basically your statement doesn’t take into account false consciousness and is effectively unfalsifiable because you write off all evidence contrary to your position as a CIA conspiracy.
Get your head out of your ass. We are not in the business of giving everyone plywood/paper-thin drywall McMansions and F-150s or relying on fossil fuels anymore. Immigration does not happen because niggers and spics are just so fucking dumb, their conditions exist at present because of geographical location and their history with colonialism and imperialism. The first world ceasing to grind third world countries to death via resource depletion, war, and brain drain (meaning stealing all of their best minds because they can get paid more in burgerville) will slow immigration tremendously. Immigration under capitalism, under the profit motive benefits only the rich kikes, cucks, faggots, whatever you want to call them. So they can pay practically nothing to these highly precarious workers. Now that America is turning into a 3rd world country itself (because of its ridiculous income inequality) some of these people will finally get the "land of opportunity" meme out of their heads. Every job created is garbage and every boomer who retires has their position eliminated.
The job created for the third world immigrant is garbage. But I see it with my own eyes. They would rather be at the bottom of the totem pole here in Canada than be middle-class back in India. Look at whose behind the counter. Brown, brown, brown, brown, brown. My neighbourhood is literally less than 30% white now. I don't care about the racial makeup. But the housing prices and rents are so fucking high there because the poor brown people who come here are willing to live like a clown car. If you want a 1 bedroom apartment, forget it. You need to get 4-5 room mates and live like a brown person.
>en.wikipedia.org
Brainlet supreme.
Are you seriously going to compare blocks of empires (Central Powers vs. Allied Powers) with the power imbalance that is the contradiction between the global north and the global south?! You sound like a Kenyan shop owner is on the same level as a multi-national corporation from the US and when the latter fucks the former its an "inter-bourgeois" conflict.
Really, Negri is an idiot with his concept of a global bourgeoisie. That almost gets in tinfoil hat territory. Face it, most of the countries of the Third World don't have a national bourgeoisie that accumulates capital.
False. Your sweatshop owner is a bourg. That he lives comparatively less luxurious is irrelevant, he's still living of owning MOP
Not many Third World countries have sweatshops, that's a myth. That's mostly a feature of threshold countries, like India or Brazil. Most Third World countries face resource exploitation and then have the materials sold back to them as commodities produced somewhere else to a higher price. Therefore, there is no incentive for economic diversification, because an emerging national bourgeoisie can not accumulate capital as they can't compete with the comprador bourgeoisie. Just have a look at Africa, it is a sleeping giant, there is an emerging market for literally everything, trillions of profits could be made, but it is not in the interest of the comprador bourgeoisie and the economic relations they have with the First World prevent them to do something about it. Go ahead, name a sub-saharan porky or corporation that comes even close to a middle-sized national company in the West.
Secondly, if there are sweatshops, most of them are managed by proxies. H&M for example doesn't officially own sweatshops, but they only acquire their stuff from sweatshops in Bangladesh and Cambodia that are completely dependent on them.
what about a porky land owner or a mine foreman?
It's telling that you had to add the qualifier sub saharan african. Is that what the third world has been reduced to now? I could give scores of south asian, south american, middle eastern companies, but I suppose 'no, not that third world', eh?
Landlords are not capitalists, they are a remnant from feudal times. They will be replaced by real esate bourgeoisie whenever the archaic order is crushed. I don't know why you'd consider a mine foreman anything else but a proletarian.
Depends. There is a difference between threshold countries and Third World countries.
Strange how all those third world countries reached threshold status if their national bourgeoisie couldn't accumulate capital. The ways of mtw theory sure are mysterious
cough..cough….dangote …cough…zenith and any other bank..cough
All of these countries had strong customs, nationalized core industry and strong state investment programs. Please learn basic economics.
This is a very big thonk thread
Mexico is not a fascist state. There have an elected government, even if it's a corrupt one, the police have very limited powers (they aren't allowed to enter homes, unlike US police), there are routinely student and worker marches in the capital, etc.
I live in a third world country in a neighborhood where shootings and murders happen on a daily basis not some comfy dorm room. Stop projecting.
When Lenin was alive the British Empire still existed and many countries were still European colonies. That's no longer true today. Saying "read lenin" ignores the past hundred years of changes.
Whatever. I literally quoted the passage in which Marx says that the only way to pay workers below their labor-power is to reduce the SNLT necessary to produce their means of subsistence.
This is your opinion and not an economic law. If you're going to argue that the entire third world is being paid less than the value of its labor power then you need to show how this could operate.
…they aren't called sweat shops because the workers die in droves every.
Proof? Evidence? Facts?
I am not a Third Worldist. I merely said that adhering the Negrist conception of a "global bourgeoisie" is revisionist and anti-materialist.
Duh, it does help most underdevelop countries to develop, Tariffs, nationalized core industry and state investment programs are literally considered "radical" in the neoliberal era of "free trade" and "investor protection clauses".
but it literally does. all of the food that we put into compost would feed the entire world population.
and lack of quality of life in the third world is largely due to the setbacks in infrastructure development that comes from interstate exploitation.
You never stop showing your sympathies, do you?
I’m more talking about his third worldist tendencies and hatred of literally anything related to the US. Anti imperialism is great, my problem is when it degenerates into fellating third world kleptocrats or non-Western imperialism.
So this is the power of "leftists" that support assad and other fascist regimes.
Shut the fuck up, liberal.
Ba’athism also has a lot of historical and ideological connections to fascism, although it has more and less fascistic incarnations. Assad is probably one of the less reactionary Ba’athists, with Saddam being far more reactionary and various others being various other levels of fash.
we already have a housing crisis where I live (metropolitan Toronto). The vacancy rate for rental units is very low. Housing and rent is very expensive. And guess what? 80+% of the jobs in my province are created in Metropolitan Toronto. So if you think that moving to the boonies for the cheap housing/rent is going to solve your problems, you better hope that you can actually get a job in the boonies.
Why would I willingly want to make the housing supply situation even worse by bringing more immigrants in? To virtue signal on the internet about what a great person I am? I'm not going to go against my own material self-interests. That's why the left is losing.
