I’m very conflicted on Corbyn, because on the one hand he is one of the few politicians on the planet outside of a socialist country that I do have genuine fondness for, but on the other hand, his leadership simply wasn’t that effective. He might have won in 2019 had the media not totally banded against him, but he should have been much stricter on the party. It’s the Western “anti-authoritarian” liberal brainworms in action I suppose - you enact any discipline as a left-winger and an instant later, people are photoshopping ushankas and Stalin’s mustache onto you, but that’s just what you need to do as a goddamn leader sometimes, and he’s simply not a very good leader in that regard. So I don’t think it would be a good idea for him to actually lead some kind of third party. Create one with his influence, absolutely - and he’s a coward for not doing that - but actually lead it? Unless he’s learned his lessons, then no.

It’s a shame that Galloway has his socially conservative views, because he’s exactly the kind of brash personality that I and many others have been wanting for so long.

Depends what you mean I guess. They have thousands of years of history as bordering nations so I imagine there’s been tense times here and there but as far as I’m aware, things have been mostly chill up until China became an economic powerhouse and gave India big trade deficits, which is a fairly understandable thing to get antsy about. So it doesn’t seem the case to me that like, the West poisoned their relationship, but more that there were already increasing tensions with the economy and Tibet and the West is just taking advantage of it. Personally I’d be very surprised if it ever turned into a real warzone - for one thing, the terrain fucking sucks - but I can totally imagine India giving the US some significant if perhaps covert help if Taiwan ever pops off

personally if I was Iran and I wanted to develop nukes, I wouldn’t tell anybody I was doing it and only when I was pretty sure I had them, or was at the point where I had to do a nuclear test (which will virtually certainly be detected regardless of how it’s done), would I say that I had nukes. so it’s possible that Iran is actually constructing nukes right now and will only reveal them if the conflict reaches a critical point, of which the recent Israeli strike was a bold/idiotic step towards. but the constant boy-who-cried-wolf effect of “IRAN IS 0.45 NANOSECONDS FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!” will mean that we can’t really trust rumors in the same way that we could (even if many of us on Hexbear didn’t) when US intelligence agencies were correctly predicting a Russian invasion of Ukraine

This development occurred after the Turkish ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) suffered a defeat in the 31 March local elections, losing votes to the Turkish Islamist New Welfare Party (YRP), which managed to secure victories over the AKP in several cities. There is a consensus that the country’s economic problems, including declining real pensions and salaries amid runaway inflation, played a primary role in the AKP’s electoral defeat.

While Turkey’s continuing trade with Israel was not the biggest issue prompting conservative voters to stay home or switch parties, it was a factor among others, which even Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan acknowledged during a party meeting earlier this week on the election results, according to party sources. Speaking about the AKP’s worst election defeat since 2002, Erdogan said on last week: “Unfortunately, even on an issue like the Gaza crisis, for which we did everything we could and paid the price, we failed to fend off political attacks and convince some people.”

an ominous omen for various western democracies who are entering elections this year

it’s worth it for the techniques they bring to the battlefield. for example, they excel in hand-to-hand combat with both their tactical water-pulse flowers that blind attackers, and they can tie up Russian soldiers into various animal shapes, like they do with balloons

not only that, but the abilities of a clown car to transport many dozens of troops in a single civilian car should be utilized to get troops around Ukraine efficiently if NATO wants to win this war

There’s definitely something there. I think there’s essentially two moments for an idea or new ideological movement or way of organizing society - the first point is where the new idea first becomes feasible, and the second point is where the old idea cannot be kept afloat any longer and necessarily collapses. And there can be a gap - sometimes a very big gap - between those two moments. For example, Napoleon might have represented the point at which his set of ideas which replaced the old aristocracy first became feasible (somebody more historically literate than me can inform me whether there was another major predecessor that I’m unaware of), but European monarchies having real power continued to be a phenomenon for decades afterwards until the concept could not continue existing and collapsed. Similarly, the Russian Revolution and the USSR might well be viewed as the moment where socialism first became feasible, but the old order fought back as it wasn’t quite ready to collapse, and that second, true collapse moment is in the years, probably decades ahead.

As such, a person calling the concept of socialist organization a failure merely because the USSR fell and thus socialism cannot exist because of capitalist realism will be viewed as similarly ridiculous as somebody saying that it’s simply not feasible for liberal democracies to exist because of, idk, divine-right-of-kings realism.

And it’ll probably be the case in the future that the transition from socialism to communism will experience something similar - a “socialist realism” which posits that a truly stateless, moneyless, classless society simply cannot work; a failed truly communist experiment in a world of generally socialist nations which is regarded as proof that communism doesn’t work and socialism is the only possible current reality, before socialism then cannot keep existing due to the contradictions and global communism arrives. And perhaps future conditions will introduce further contradictions, maybe aliens come along and that introduces a new stage to progress through, and so on for all of future human existence.

From Desai’s Geopolitical Economy, in 2013:

Crises teasingly hold out the possibility of dramatic reversals only to be followed by surreal continuity as the old order cadaverously fights back. So far in the current crisis military fight-back appears to be failing. Multipolarity and the shift in the world’s centre of gravity to the emerging economies opened the way for the toppling of US-supported dictators in Egypt and Tunisia. Though Western intervention in Libya could not be prevented, it was stalled in Syria. However, there were more worrying signs of continuity in political economy and geopolitical economy. Announcements of the return of the state and of the ‘Master’, Keynes, which came with initial flurry of bailouts and stimuli were followed by austerity, signalling ‘the strange non-death of neoliberalism’.

We really shouldn’t have put all our solar panels in an area precisely matching the trajectory of a solar eclipse seemingly moving across the Earth’s surface. was bound to catch up to us eventually

To quote @[email protected]:

Fast food chains are using algorithms to cooperatively fix prices

Hotel chains are using algorithms to cooperatively fix prices

Meat processors are using algorithms to cooperatively fix prices

Landlords are using algorithms to cooperatively coordinate rent increases

Amazon is using an algorithm to specifically coordinate cooperative price rises with Target

The current era of inflation is due to capitalist GOSPLANning.

If there was ever a time when we could hypothetically pretend that we were living in a free market (and any serious economist knows that we never did), that time is now unequivocally over. The benefits of economic planning are too juicy and efficient, and, ironically enough, the free hand of the market cannot resist planning. Both the US and China are “non-market systems,” the US is just bitter that China is using planning to actually benefit the population and society at large, rather than make the easiest profit for the worst parasites in society.

this is the lore for Miyazaki’s next hit game, Biden Ring

• How socially progressive or conservative is the country generally? To what degree is there equality between men and women, as well as different races and ethnic groups? Are LGBTQIA+ rights protected?

The UK is about as equal as most Western democracies are, in both the better and worse ways. Racism and sexism very obviously still exist, there are areas in various cities where poverty is rampant and structural racism places people in colour in those environments, and so on, but pride marches are a thing and few politicians are outwardly saying that women deserve less rights or anything, just in the more covert ways. An overwhelming majority of people support the right to an abortion. The main issue that dominates recent discussion is about trans rights; most here will be familiar with the designation of the UK as “TERF Island”, which is about right. The right for trans people to exist is hotly debated, as if this isn’t an inherently dehumanizing discussion. The other major social issue that conservatives love to discuss is immigration, with the mere existence of a lifeboat containing a dozen or two brown-skinned people arriving on the shores of a country containing nearly 70 million treated as a DEFCON 1 event signalling the end of British civilization as we know it. Despite immigration numbers being pretty low compared to the current population; despite the UK’s long history of taking over foreign nations and thus prompting migrating between those places; and despite the UK playing a proud role in destabilizing and bombing their way through countries whose citizens flee and try and find refuge in the UK; the discussion about immigration is only limited to the typical rhetoric about how every person of color is a benefits-hoarding dragon keeping 36 jobs in their attic and keeping them from “real” (read: white) British citizens, and how they’re not allowed to oppress our gays - only WE’RE allowed to do that!

Going to reverse the last two bulletpoints:

• If you want, go even further back in history. Were there any kingdoms or empires that once governed the area?

Britain once had indigneous people who inhabited the island, though I’m very unfamiliar with the pre-Roman history; needless to say that the Romans came along in AD 43 and had taken the place over in about a generation. Like in most places the Romans went, much of their institutions and even structures had a large impact of our history - so large that it’s often difficult to determine what doesn’t somehow originate from the Roman Empire. Once Rome collapsed, as far as I’m aware, the UK had a similar history as the rest of the continent - keeping some of the Roman institutions, watching them decay, repairing what could be repaired and otherwise surviving, with the cultural group which existed during this time being called the Anglo Saxons. The UK became an arena in 1066 in the Norman Conquest, resulting in the Viking force being defeated and the Normans taking control. These were then replaced by the Plantagenets, to whom Richard the Lionheart of Crusades fame belonged. Then came the Tudors, the Stuarts, and finally Oliver Cromwell in the mid 17th century, who started a civil war and won, creating the Commonwealth, but his failson fucked up and the royalty came back de jure (really it still existed de facto). Then came the monarchs that people, including myself, actually give a modicum of a shit about, including George III who presided over the defeat to America and Victoria I, who had a whole period named after her.

During this period, the British Empire rose, presiding in four main arenas: North America, Africa, India and surrounding areas, and the Pacific - though not necessarily concurrently. Britain and other European nations had a lot of interest in the Caribbean due to the potential profit of cash crops, transporting and enslaving tens of millions of African and Caribbean-indigneous slaves in the worst atrocities on the planet up to that point in history. Britain and France also bickered over America and Canada, while Britain and the Netherlands bickered over India, creating their respective East India Companies. Eventually, a British focus on naval prowess and a relatively more modern economy, as well as the advantages of industrialization and early capitalism, led to them taking a commanding lead over their European counterparts overseas, with Britain generally coming out on top in wars. There was never a substantial period of consistent supremacy - Britain was deeply afraid of a European invasion and thus made even more ships than necessary in order to handle both a sprawling foreign empire and their foes right next to them. India became their economic “jewel” in the 19th century as America achieved and maintained independence and slavery was abolished, while directly causing mass famines both in India and around the world which killed tens of millions more people, and then they ventured further into Africa and killed yet more fucking people. This obviously culminated in World War 1 as European nations had less territory to exploit and had to fight each other more directly than ever before for supremacy, and again in World War 2.

By this time, the British Empire was very clearly declining as America’s neoimperialist star rose. In the decades that followed, nations declared independence and despite some very brutal fights in some cases, the trend was generally that Britain would, as it imagined, very magnanimously let these new infant nations which they had “raised” or “uplifted” have independence; things would go well for a short period of time; and then inevitably collapse into infighting as the legacies of colonialism and the still very much still existing neocolonialism and capitalist exploitation kept them in poverty and subservience to Britain and the United States, thus fueling narratives that Britain was “the only empire that fell without very much bloodshed,” and also racist ideas, upon watching these nations fall into infighting, that this was somehow their true nature coming out as soon as the paternalistic figure stepped away.

• Give a basic overview of the last 50 or 100 years. What’s the historical trend of politics, the economy, social issues, etc - rise or decline? Were they always independent or were they once occupied, and how have things been since independence if applicable?

As stated, nations withdrew from the British Empire, with Britain left with the spoils of centuries of obscene quantities of exploitation, leaving them in a good position. These riches were never remotely evenly distributed, but the complex web of social and economic factors from the empire, as well as propaganda, created a country which was considerably less radical than various other nations at the time of WW1. This is not to say that socialist and even communist groups did not gain prominence in the inter-war period, because some did. However, for a variety of reasons (such as the goddamn Sankey Committee and the missed opportunities there) the environment never turned as revolutionary as it did in Russia or Italy, and the optimistic post-war period crashed into an purposefully-caused economic recession due to the fucking neoclassical economists which then curtailed hope of creating a better country until World War 2, more or less. After this, the contradictions were difficult to contain much longer and institutions like the National Health Service were created to reform the country rather than risk revolution as the Soviets pressured Europe into improving worker conditions or tempt revolution. Thatcher came along and dramatically reformed the country in the other direction, crushing the miners’ strikes and truly inaugurating the period of exporting everything that isn’t nailed down to places with less labour rights, which is the same period we are in a good 50 years on.

Given that this is my home country, I figure I’ll give an answer to the questions that I posit to others.

• What is the general ideology of the political elite? Do they tend to be protectionist nationalists, or are they more free trade globalists? Are they compradors put there by foreign powers? Are they socialists with wide support by the population?

The UK political elite range from protectionists to globalists. The Brexit vote was at least partially founded on the idea of turning inwards, bringing power to domestic industries and not allowing as much European influence. It’s obviously more complicated than that, because the UK was not about to become autarkic - instead, the proposed plan was to abandon EU deals that were perceived as limiting and engage more with the rest of the world, so in reality, it was almost contradictorily protectionist and globalist. It goes without saying that this “plan” was more-or-less smoke and mirrors for all but a few true believers, merely intended for profit and, of course, to ride on racist sentiments. In practice, at the end of the day, the UK elite are pretty firmly globalists. They were among the original practitioners of neoliberalism and have similarly exported industries abroad, with Thatcher’s reign being especially intense in terms of deindustrialization but the trend has not been appreciably slowed except when there was not much else to export. Nowadays, the UK economy is based generally on high-end industrial products and finance capital, insurance, etc etc. Socialists do exist and actually have made more grounds than in America, a country which the UK is very reasonably compared to, with Corbyn’s control of the Labour party in the late 2010s being the best recent example, but socialism here tends to be tainted with social conservatism, as Galloway is a good example of.

• What are the most important domestic political issues that make the country different from other places in the region or world? Are there any peculiar problems that have continued existing despite years or decades with different parties?

Britain deals with several legacies. The most unique of which is that they were once the center of the world’s largest empire before the United States. When things fell apart in the 20th century, their power waned, but the artifacts and memory of this legacy still remain in the population, especially in older people who were educated about the UK as a world-bestriding colossus, or were taught by people who grew up in that era and with that propaganda. There is a general feeling in the political sphere - often unarticulated but detectable with the right lens - that the UK, or even the world, is a worse place now that their very visible and formal imperialism has collapsed, and people pine for the “good old days” even if they don’t explicitly state it; this is comparable to older people in the US who are nostalgic for a simpler and more united time such as the, uh, 1950s and 1960s before black people obtained de jure rights.

Another legacy is that of their conflict with Ireland over the centuries, and particularly the most recent conflict called The Troubles, which Thatcher tragically survived. However, I personally haven’t seen anybody think that trying to reclaim or fight Ireland is a good idea right now and seem pretty content to just let things be. Things are a little more complicated when talking about Northern Ireland, and people probably don’t want to hand that over to Ireland, but that’s outside of my current knowledge so I’m not gonna talk much further on it. Scottish independence is another domestic political issue which has been much less violent, though there are many in Scotland who are passionate about it. Scotland has its own party called the SNP which usually achieves large numbers of votes, but there’s also always been support for Labour and the Conservatives too.

There is, finally, the Brexit vote, which I’ve already pointed out, where the UK sought to leave the EU due to a perceived sense of getting a bad deal (for what it’s worth, the UK has always had benefits from the EU not afforded to other nations inside it; it’s been allowed to keep its currency and not adopt the euro, for example, which Greece would be jealous of). It’s been an issue that dominated British political discourse since at least 2016 after the vote for it narrowly succeeded, and doesn’t neatly fall upon the Conservative-Labour divide. In fact, it seems almost perpendicular to it, with pro and anti-Brexit Labour and Conservative voters, with everybody each having their own collection of reasons why they think it’s a good or bad idea. Nowadays, with the UK outside of the EU, the issue has predictably died down, with plenty of people supporting either side still but with a general sense of being disappointed by the results (“They went too hard!” or “They didn’t go hard enough!” etc).

• Is the country generally stable? Are there large daily protests or are things calm on average? Is the ruling party/coalition generally harmonious or are there frequent arguments or even threats?

The UK is relatively stable. There are large protests especially recently due to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, but there is no sense of a fracturing political scene in the sense of “Oh shit, the government might possibly collapse!” There have been a couple points where the government has seemed a little shakier than usual - the first being in 2019 when there were rumblings that if Corbyn were to win, that the military (and probably the Central Bank and other such institutions) would rebel against his rule, but he failed to win for other reasons. The second was when Liz Truss was briefly made Prime Minister in late 2022, before resigning very shortly after and being replaced by her unelected main rival Rishi Sunak. With Keir Starmer taking control of the Labour Party, the two main parties have maintained the Western democracy pantomime of pretending to have big disagreements while actually agreeing on most things and being a one-party state. There are, of course, lots of arguments between politicians - neither party is a monolith - but nothing that threatens stability meaningfully.

• Is there a particular country to which this country has a very impactful relationship over the years, for good or bad reasons? Which one, and why?

The UK has had a LOT of relationships due to the nature of being an empire, although the UK probably cares much less about them than they care about the UK. All of the independence days around the world celebrating them breaking off from the UK are proof of that. That all being said, to keep things brief, I would say that the UK has had a strong relationship with the USA (first adversarial due to the colonial relationship, and then gradually becoming allied in the 19th and 20th centuries); Argentina (the Falklands War); France (centuries-long history of alliances and wars); Israel (selling the territory that would become the occupied state of Palestine to Zionists); China (the Opium Wars); and Australia (similar to the USA, except without a war to separate the two countries; Australia was once a penal colony for the UK).

• What are the political factions in the country? What are the major parties, and what segments of the country do they attract?

The UK’s political factions are composed of the Conservatives, the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrats. Regional parties in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland also exist, and there are plenty of tiny parties that gain little support. I’m not very familiar with the history of the Conservatives, but the analogy sometimes made that they’re approximately the same as the Democrats are in America isn’t too far from the truth. Labour has shifted over time from a more genuinely socialist-oriented party albeit more reformist than revolutionary in the first half of the 20th century, to the “New Left” Labour which took power at the turn of the millennium under Tony Blair which essentially surrendered to the Conservative ideology and merely argued that they could steer the ship more competently. As stated before, there was a brief socialist resurgence under Corbyn, but for a variety of reasons (which are still debated to this day), he failed to create a party that could defeat the Conservatives, and since 2020, the Labour Party has once again fallen into the “New Left”, or perhaps now the New New New Left.

The Liberal Democrats are the party that I’m the least familiar with but are really the third party in England, forming coalitions to allow one party or another to gain a majority. I’m not precisely sure what they claim to believe in, but in practice they seem to float around; sometimes being in the center, sometimes being on the center-left, and sometimes being on the center-right. The only “event” that I’m strongly aware of in recent history is when Nick Clegg, who led the party from 2007 to 2015, basically let everybody after forming a coalition with the Conservatives and not getting some big promises out of them. I can’t say I’ve particularly cared about them since then.

• Are there any smaller parties that nonetheless have had significant influence? Are there notable separatist movements?

I’ve already mentioned the Northern Ireland parties that have sought independence and also the Scottish National Party, but for the latter, their independence referendum was voted down 45-55 in 2014, which has dampened enthusiasm for the project. There was rumblings during the Brexit days that Scotland might try and declare independence to re-join the EU but those only remained rumblings. The SNP experienced a fall from grace due to a controversary that I only half-remember which prompted the leader, Nicola Sturgeon, to resign in 2023, then being replaced by Humza Yousaf. Once again, they’re the majority party but not the only party in Scotland; certainly not in the Scottish Parliament.

The Country of the Week is the United Kingdom!

Feel free to post or recommend any books, essays, studies, articles, and even stories related to the UK.

If you know a lot about the country and want to share your knowledge and opinions, here are some questions to get you started if you wish:

• What is the general ideology of the political elite? Do they tend to be protectionist nationalists, or are they more free trade globalists? Are they compradors put there by foreign powers? Are they socialists with wide support by the population?
• What are the most important domestic political issues that make the country different from other places in the region or world? Are there any peculiar problems that have continued existing despite years or decades with different parties?
• Is the country generally stable? Are there large daily protests or are things calm on average? Is the ruling party/coalition generally harmonious or are there frequent arguments or even threats?
• Is there a particular country to which this country has a very impactful relationship over the years, for good or bad reasons? Which one, and why?
• What are the political factions in the country? What are the major parties, and what segments of the country do they attract?
• Are there any smaller parties that nonetheless have had significant influence? Are there notable separatist movements?
• How socially progressive or conservative is the country generally? To what degree is there equality between men and women, as well as different races and ethnic groups? Are LGBTQIA+ rights protected?
• Give a basic overview of the last 50 or 100 years. What’s the historical trend of politics, the economy, social issues, etc - rise or decline? Were they always independent or were they once occupied, and how have things been since independence if applicable?
• If you want, go even further back in history. Were there any kingdoms or empires that once governed the area?

These books focus on Britain before the British Empire:

• From Chiefs to Landlords: Social and Economic Change in the Western Isles and Highlands by Robert Dodgshon (1998).
• Pagan Britain by Ronald Hutton (2013).
• The Making of Oliver Cromwell by Ronald Hutton (2021).

These books focus on the British Empire domestically:

• The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714, by Christopher Hill (1961).
• The Making of the English Working Class by E. P. Thomson (1963).
• The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property and Social Transition by Alan Macfarlane (1978).
• The Capital Order by Clara E. Mattei (2022).

These books focus on the British Empire outside of Britain itself:

• Burdens of History: British Feminists, Indian Women, and Imperial Culture, 1865–1915 by Antoinette Burton (1994).
• Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya by Caroline Elkins (2005).
• Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire by David Anderson (2005).
• The Blood Never Dried: A People’s History of the British Empire by John Newsinger (2006).
• Women’s Orients: English Women and the Middle East, 1718–1918: Sexuality, Religion and Work by Billie Melman (2016).
• Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes by Tariq Ali (2022).
• Empire, Incorporated: The Corporations That Built British Colonialism by Philip J. Stern (2023).

These books focus on post-Empire Britain:

• The Enemy Within: The Secret War Against the Miners by Seumas Milne (1994).
• Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot (2000).
• We’re Here Because You Were There: Immigration and the End of Empire by Ian Patel (2021).

These books focus on left-wing movements:

• Futures of Socialism: ‘Modernisation’, the Labour Party, and the British Left by Colm Murphy (2023).

Next thread here.

That would rule, chuds would definitely do Jan 6th again but bigger

I’m having trouble imagining what a bigger (and very probably stupider) Jan 6th would even look like. maybe chuds across the country would start occupying their local Starbucks because the true power of the world-spanning American Empire is controlled by blue-haired baristas earning barely enough money to stay alive? do you have people struggling to climb over the barricades put in front of the White House and getting sniped?

while the era of petit bourgeois “movements” against neoliberalism out of fear of state-mandated pronouns and estrogen in the water supply or whatever the fuck (in contrast to the more typically fascist movements/orgs that focus on race and eugenics and anti-communism) probably isn’t over, it really peaked at more-or-less the same moment it began on January 6th and every attempt afterwards (like in Brazil) has been even more abject and hilarious failures, so seeing the movement boomerang back at America on January 6th 2025 (nobody would predict it!) after a hypothetical Biden victory would be objectively very funny

I suppose if you’re going to continue to use capitalist production (as opposed to pressing the big red socialism button), then using the inevitable crises of overproduction to create absolutely massive stockpiles of solar panels and electric vehicles is about the best thing you can do with it. Definitely better than like, making unprofitable dumpsterfuls of fast fashion and funko pops

forget 2 months after Russia began the SMO, honestly: Israel killed more civilians in a few months than Russia killed in Ukraine in two years, and that’s not even talking about the apocalyptic destruction of houses and buildings and infrastructure in Gaza versus Russia not even attempting to target internet or power inside Ukraine for six fucking months

comparing damage and civilian deaths on a day-by-day basis, the wars aren’t even comparable. Russia kills like 6 people across the whole of Ukraine in a missile strike involving over a hundred missiles and your average even considerably-left-of-center-liberal is like “I can’t believe all these bloodthirsty warmongerers are just getting away with all these crimes, what an awful planet we live on, fuck Putin”, whereas Israel kills hundreds of people in a single day in a single strike and it’s just like “well hey now, let’s hold on a minute here, let’s think about whether the Israeli military perhaps made a slight miscalculation instead of jumping to conclusions…” it’s gotten to the point where even the very residual and dim hope that perhaps self-describing liberals could one day see the light and stop being such propagandized shitty little treatfiends that I had somehow kept alive until October 7th has been completely snuffed out. there is no possible redemption for most of them.

liberals looking at the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria on the one end of the Russian SMO and then Israel’s genocide in Gaza on the other end as comparison points really reveals the enormously stark differences between these wars, and bundling them up together if you’re trying to write something on modern conflicts is overly simplistic to the point of dishonesty in representing them, IMO. you’re not even comparing apples and oranges, you’re comparing a flower vase and like, the fucking planet Jupiter. that’s not to say that the war in Ukraine is even remotely humanitarian. it certainly goddamn isn’t; towns have been levelled and hundreds of thousands of men, conscripted to become soldiers, have been killed for literally nothing. it’s just that Western wars are uniquely hyperfascistic.

in a very strange sort of way, all the US involvement in Latin America is kind of encouraging.

like, compare Europe and Latin America. how much violent force is needed in each continent to stop socialist and anti-American governments from arising? in Europe, it’s not zero force obviously, but the benefits of imperialism keeping the population treat-fed means that anti-American sentiment is kept pretty low in most cases.

in Latin America, however, every decade or two you get a new wave of socialist thought and leaders and parties. there are issues each time - often quite glaring issues, in fact - but the fact that it keeps happening, that the population remains simmering despite horrific and intimidating atrocities and forced impoverishment by fascists like Pinochet and Milei and Boluarte etc and the Monroe Doctrine remaining in place after all this time - implies that if the hold that the empire has on the continent can be even moderately reduced, then socialism is inevitable.

compare that to Europe, where I struggle to imagine how the continent could turn socialist without either extreme external force or an absolutely colossal re-education campaign, what with all those centuries of white privilege and supremacism imbedded in the histories of many of the countries there

No

the good (bad?) old days

I remember waking up on February 24th to the very first megathread with hundreds of comments already and having the same jarring feeling of a historical earthquake taking place overnight as I did when I was a mere socdem seeing that Trump was elected when I woke up that day. the steady clockwork universe of capitalist realism getting hit by a wrecking ball.

unironically yes

I read every comment in the megathread even when they aren’t replies to me directly

originally I intended the COTW to have more democratic input (and once polling is eventually added to lemmy, that idea could come back, or perhaps we can alter the concept a little now that we’ve had a good half a year of seeing how might work), but that kind of fell to the wayside as I don’t think we all have like, substantially different opinions about what country is relevant this week. nobody needed to tell me to make Palestine the COTW when October 7th kicked off, nor for each major election this year, and so on. and when nothing of major significance is occurring, it would all just be a bunch of conflicting opinions about what country it should be anyway.

so basically if anybody has a strong enough opinion that they’re commenting “man, when X country is made COTW I will be able to rant on and on about it” then I will very strongly consider it, so long as the Week-To-Decade Convertinator isn’t making a loud buzzing noise somewhere in the world