Fuck me lol

Totalling a high-tech plane is easy as shit. I have no knowledge about explosives and such, but I do know that scratches a few kilometers deep on multiple locations make such aircraft unusable without absurd costs for fixing

I meant milimeters :denguin:

Lol well I hadn't gotten a workable answer for the problem yet so now at least I havea another option :D

Don't tell me to read Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism like it's some obscure takedown against a comrade disagreeing about which contradiction is primary w.r.t. imperialism. Makes you look like an asshole unecessarily, because our disagreement isn't found in that pamphlet and I'm not some unread person you can walk over with a reference to Lenin. Your understanding of that it is shallow and overshadowed by other ideas if you think it supports your argument that dollarization is in some way primary.

Just a quick hypothetical: does it not also defeat Imperialism if we keep using the dollar everywhere but the Global South just refuses paying the debts and protects itself afterwards? Is this de-dollarization as a means or as a result of Class Struggle against Imperialism? The answer matters because de-dollarization as a means can be powerful, but seeing a struggle through the lens of a means is short-sighted.

Your view of imperialism loses all sight of class struggle (including Anti-Imperialism as a form of it) when you simplify it to Finance Capital and dollarization. You lose sight of how this global class struggle works outside of Finance as a means. You confuse the form and content of class struggle within imperialism. Read Losurdo's Class Struggle, it's obscure enough that I feel comfortable recommending it thinking you may not have read it, considering the position you're taking.

It's just not good dialectics or materialism when something like "dollarization' is central to your understanding of varied events. It's a useful lense sometimes, and it CAN be projected on everything to have an interesting view of imperialism, but it's NOT the most legitimate way to something. Remember it's distance from the material base of labor, resources, products, and means. It's still a form of Capital used in a unique way (which changes much about it, but it still doesn't replace the labor or any basic material thing).

You can also analyze everything through the lens of feminism, and you'll come to similar conclusions always, but it's not the complete picture for the exact same reasons.

Take an example of a nation accepting the dollar to build a factory. Afterwards, a period of time is needed with the use of dollars to pay the debt, but it is paid and now the factory is entirely owned in the nation and run there. Was dollarization the most useful lens here? I think not, because the dollar was used but avoided as a pitfall. Instead, analyzing the labor needed to pay back the factory and the commodities which will be produced after that gives a much clearer image of what happened. Stopping halfway and naming it a win for the dollar misses the point that they got a factory out of it and can move form the dollar now to some other means.

@redline@lemmygrad.ml @mkultrawide I'm pretty sure we do, but it's not very common to be asked to be linked

:deng-cowboy: howdy do comrade!

oh damn, that "reliant... on the technology improving at an unrealistic pace".... not to give too much info on myself, but i have a background of research in aerospace in the West. The amount of academic cope that exists around hypersonic rockets and commercial supersonic jets is astounding, and it feels exactly like that. Every article about how close we are just says "we just need materials to maintain the exact benefits of current ones and be 60% lighter, then we are there, so we are basically already there". I wrote one of those papers with that conclusion and just felt like I was just lying for the credit, then everyone was excited like it mattered at all lol

I think this is just a super broad phenomenon when it comes to slowed research held back by other fields. But I also dont think western capitalist countries have many methods to get around this except for secret and centralized organisations, but those have dwindled to almost not existing in the context of scientific and technological creation

Sorry, I'm not understanding your comment I think. What do you agree with and agree less with? The video or something in my comment? For now: assuming you meant the video, in which case: yes Comrade, good agreement with me, who is always correct.

Been convinced for a while that Ecclesiastes a pretty good philosophy book is for the time. At least a super interesting view of the period from someone thinking deeply about the zeitgeist. Definitely not a book of the people, though I have no idea how the average person thought back then

I was surprised about the anarchist's positions on all of the heriarchical resistance movements of Palestine. Didn't once call them authoritarian, I think. Seems pretty good in that regard. But the glorifying of the protests in the US seems weak. I wanted them to do good and be good but they ultimately achieved little if anything at all, and should be seen in that light. Not as some glorious bonking of police heads.. Otherwise its good agitprop in that this person clearly speaks and understands Hebrew, is jewish, knows of Israelis that lost family, and is taking the correct side on genocide anyways.

I literally can't imagine a better method of destroying the US empire than these sanctions

Its a nice simple intro to how China sees State mechanisms relating to Market Mechanisms in its overal strategy. It also clearly reinforces that China is socialist, because it's use of these mechanisms is entirely in line with goals above profit and bourgeois interests, namely, proletarian interests and Chinese interests.

:denguin: Ok comrade

I'm about 50/50 on parts of that being sarcastic vs. all very serious.

If you (poster above OP) are serious: there is a lot to learn about Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and about the history of socialist countries in general, which could help you make sense of this stuff. I'm big into Losurdo, but I think Roland Boer had lots of good stuff on how this works which can be helpful at this stage. China is entirely socialist while utilizing some mechanisms developed during capitalism in order to grow and develop China economically.

Maybe, but this principle feels still reactionary in this case, depending on your presented solution. For now, we are more progressive towards our communist goals and better off with the self-checkout. It is a more centralized and efficient option in general. The problem isn't the fact that we are doing work for free that someone else should be paid for, it's that we should socialize the results of that free work in dropping prices and investing that labour elsewhere. Otherwise we're just re-privatizing the half of a process that's closer to socialization.

I don't think I'm necessarily complaining about your position here, you could just be using this phrase and agreeing, but I often see this phrasing followed by the reactionary "we can finally have normal lines and clerks like we used to have". Giving them that job back now (in full amounts, like before self-checkout lowered the amount) just results in even lower pay for those people and decreases every other benefit from it. There's never a going back in these cases which won't result in much worse things and further from a workable position strategically..

Trotskyourballs

Let's go Loko's! Is 3-0 a significant win? Is Lada any good or did we kick some weak team's ass?

Proud of our strong filter. It's the strongest filter, isn't it?

But I also have no idea what word that was. It feels weird to be thinking so hard about it but "...rdly" just gets me. I have no idea what word could come before that and be a slur

I guess my slur-dar is not very good

Lokomotiv? I know nothing of hockey and KHL but that team has my vote too. Keep me updated on our success