Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, together in the Confederation of Sahel states are where so much of my hope and interest lie for the future. These revolutions need to be studied, as I believe in a decade's time we are going to see some truly glorious achievements.

They shall be a center of progress for African revolutionaries to look towards and inspire a new generation.

I think many people, even other communists, are going to be blind sided to the strides the AES makes by the end of 2035.

This just makes me extremely sad for the kids who ended up falling down this rabbit hole.

Utterly tragic, and I truly sympathize with the parents. Losing a child in such a deplorable way is not something anyone should face.

Seeing people discuss the viability of a nuclear strike on Russia or vice versa, has left me fucking terrified of the future. People in my industry, even the most staunchly conservative bigoted fucks, don't even take a moment to consider the sheer scale destruction nuclear war would bring, they simply shoot down any rhetoric that looks to normalize it. If me and the guy wgi thinks the USSR was Satan incarnate are able to 100% agree on a topic, I think it's pretty clear that topic has a definite scientific consensus.

I honestly don't believe the NFL story. He specifically went to the 33rd floor where the CEO was located. The NFL story reads to me as the media learning from last time that the people just sympathize with CEO weed wacking. So I assume they're trying to obfuscate in an attempt to curb support for this behavior.

There actually is some consideration for nuclear powered tankers for this exact purpose, along with the fact that refueling would not be much of an issue, there's less need to stop. Iirc China has done a small amount of work on this concept a few years ago but I don't habe anything saved unfortunately.

The largest issues that were being discussed actually didn't habe to do with geopolitics, but the economic feasibility of it. Even if they were to be more efficient, oil isn't at a price where nuclear tankers are economically superior.

The other issue was in regards to environmental concerns I case a tanker happened to sink, but honestly that same issue applies to oil, and nuclear material in the ocean is honestly less dangerous then oil when it comes to a habitat, though the danger would likely come from tracking decay material moving along with a current, which could contaminate food.

Geopolitics would probably become a concern if a suitable design was finished, because then it would no longer be a theoretical concept but an actual practical technology. I'd imagine different countries, especially the US, would oppose other countries using it while Fearing that if a ship gotten taken due to piracy (or stopping a genocide perhaps) it would then give the ones apprehending the ships a nuclear reactor, nuclear fuel, nuclear decay and products.

Though I could imagine China building a few at some point if they can streamline its production and oil prices surge for a considerable amount of time (like if the US invaded Iran). The technology isn't exactly in its infancy, considering air craft carriers and submarines use the same nuclear power process, it's political/economic will.

This is why I try to create discussions within my mosque, and why I've found campus organizing to be useful. Marginalized communities often don't trust white organizers in the first place, which is fair and something I myself hold suspicion over, therefore there needs to be internal organizing. It's also helpful for white organizers to actually listen to what leftists in those communities have to say about intercommunal contradictions.

Personally I've got some amount of faith that things will go better then we expect the next few decades, but vigilance is important. As much as we all rag on its clear that public opinion has turned against Israel largely due to the efforts of Palestinian advocates winning the information war. Any time I've had tge displeasure of speaking to a zionist among a public audience, they've been thoroughly trounced by their terrible arguments and public disconnect.

It's really amazing, I must say, how easy it is to draw a parallel with Palestine on nearly every issue concerning capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism. People are receptive to it as well, and can be led to make socialist conclusions, on their own even, when you outline the Palestinian struggle.

We are at the start of a paradigm shift in the west at the moment, and I truly believe we can bring this momentum into something tangible.

I think your understanding is correct and that in order to create a more sustainable system adjustments need to be made, such as rebuilding production facilities in the US and redirecting the service sector towards this production. Also wages, especially for labor aristocrats, will need to decrease or stagnate. These things are being represented as sacrifices, however the policies of a socialist program would oughtweigh their effects. It's not as if a socialist US (I know it's problematic to refer to as such but for the sake of convention I'll use it) would implement this wage stagnation without also implementing affordable rent control, seizure of agricultural products/land (which far an away enough to geed everyone), allow access the health care (only expensive due to insurance/pharmaceutical corporations), reorganizing workplaces into a representative state structure (this would likely remove the bloat of executives so it would potentially improve the wages of non-labor aristocrats).

The financialization of the American economy will have consequences in our restructuring of it, however those consequences won't only be bad for American workers, in fact they'd beneficial. The trap is in assuming these can coexist with imperialism, which they cannot, and would be unsustainable.

Your analysis is correct, but if we want the west to have an organized left, that analysis must be framed in a way that makes people understand why socialism is to their ultimate benifet. Framing things as sacrifices, rhetorically implies that the current system is superior in certain individual ways. This suggests that economic systems are atomized individual processes all remote from another. We know, however, that they are in fact interdependent dynamic processes that collectively move forward.

If we reframe again, what exactly determines that our proposals are sacrifices, but doesn't label the daily alienation of workers as a sacrifice? Why is having less options of shitty fast food considered a sacrifice, but being forced to go hungry in order to pay rent isn't called out as a sacrifice? What makes having to work where the state tells you a sacrifice, but not having the option to work is somehow not a sacrifice people make to capitalism?

I'm just commenting this for the sake f understanding how rhetoric Luke our own can sometimes capitulate to capitalists when we really don't need to, and a simple reframing of the discussion exposes this hypocrisy.

I'm going to speak on the US as I'm familiar with it.

These things are a bare minimum for it to be on the right track and some of these things may mean more instability for a while and some sacrifices made while rebuilding more so the local capabilities of the region for self-sustenance and caretaking of the environment.

But to people who are working a hard job, burning out, and for whom imperialism is largely an invisible bunch of mechanisms, this may sound like a lot of "I'm supposed to sacrifice even more because of stuff I never wanted or knew was happening in the first place."

Apologies but I think a part of the problem is that even we here in thus chat are capitulation to right wing framing, or are incapable of reframing what these "sacrifices" are. If you tell a working class American struggling to survive they must "sacrifice" for the sake of internationalism, of course they are going to react n a hostile manner.

Are there hints that Americans will lose out on? Yes, we know that, but why are we framing this as if it's purely a losx and that nothing will be gained from socialism. The reason that Americans keep falling for Soc Dems isn't because they outwardly say "we are going to do imperialism to sustain dollar hedgomony with a progressive face." Maybe socdem supporters say that but that's not why they were attracted to the Social democratic charlatans.

They were attracted becuase those socdems told them, and this us largely true, that the stark inequality of wealth is the cause of the People's issues, and if things were even slightly reorganized, their lives would improve.

Most people on the US who struggle want their basic necessities met. They want access to affordable food, to be housed without exorbitant rent, to have access to medical care without going into debt, to be able to go to school and not graduate with loans, to have any damn say in their own work places.

None of these core necessities are impossible to achieve without imperialism, and its proven by the fact that there are Global South nations that do it while suffering from imperialism. The treats and luxuries that Americans will suffer, especially the petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, are dependent on the system of imperialism.

Most Americans, if they actually experienced the boons of socialism, won't see what are argued as sacrifices as actual sacrifices.

We need to stop framing anti-imperialism as purely a sacrifice on behalf of the global south (this should never be severed but focusing on it purely is a rhetorically uphill battle), but instead frame it how it's structure prevents progress in the US. That is:

"If You (Americans) want to be housed, want food (that we over produce) to be affordable, want to stop getting involved in foreign conflicts, and want to never have to worry about having employment, then it can't be built on the faulty foundation of imperialism. Anyone who tells you differenty is trying to remove these guarantees and just wants you to shut up."

However, I agree with you that the hardest part of trying to mobilize for socialism in the US is getting people to confront the settler structure and whiteness. Those are the things I genuinely see as the most difficult to get Americans to understand, though I've had success when using Palestine as a jumping off point, as more and more people are willing to listen when you act like an authority on a conflict they are sympathetic to but woefully uninformed about.

Americans are stubborn and annoying yes, however we often shoot ourselves in the foot by, ironically, not bringing forth the interrelatedness of imperialism to instability at the core of our propaganda. If the narrative people must confront forces them to choose between;

have your necessities completely guaranteed but need to work harder or get cheap McDonald's while live out of a car and still working hard

Most people will choose the former. The problem is we don't rhetorically corner them into this choice, and instead get bogged down entirely on individually explaining particular sacrifices.

Another way to put it:

If Americans want to live like humans then their state must be human.

If their state acts like a beast, then Americans will be treated like beasts.

I don't disagree with your comment comrade but I've found that we more often then not frame tge sacrifices of the west as you described in your comment. As if we are asking people to "sacrifice for things I never wanted in the first place." Rather then asking "this is what you would need to give up so your sacrifice can actually be rewarded."

So much of capitalist propaganda is obfuscating what Socialism actually is, and many people attacking us are attacking out of a misunderstanding. I know this because its one of the main things that comes into play whenever my mother and I disagree. Often she's simply misunderstanding the point I am making because she's conditioned to frame it in a bourgeois manner, however when I'm able to clear up the misunderstanding she nearly always comes to agree, and states how she was incorrect in her understanding. I've had this experience with others as well, and I think many of us face a similar predicament.

A lot of this statement reminds me of Malcom X's words:

You don't stick a knife in a man's back 9 inches then pull it out 6 inches there's no progress. If you pull it out all the way that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that's below, that the blow made. And they haven't even begun to pull the knife out, much less pull, heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.

It's kind of solemn in a way honestly. It's perfectly logical but I can't help feel at least a little melancholic after that last sentence.

The US has stabbed a knife so far into Korea that it can only really be amputated now. A needless separation that's morphed into an unrecognizable state of affairs.

It's these more benign evils that result from capitalist imperialism that I think churn my stomach the most. They just stick with me for some reason and instill a greater sense of hopelessness than any of the brutality. At least the viciousness can fuel spite, whereas sad slow crumbling offers a numbness to the senses.

I get a similar feeling in between my rage whenever I think of Syria, and how I will likely never have the opportunity to visit again on my lifetime. Just faded memories a decade and a half past is all I have for experiencing my father's homeland.

I've heard people call it Burkina before as well.

The end of this article reads like Western Marxist cope. It's not as negative or hyperbolic as most western media, however it still uses talking points that misframe China's future. The implication that China might become imperialist to maintain economic growth would only hold true if the Chinese bourgeoisie was becoming increasingly powerful politically. However the article explained previously, almost begrudgingly, that the opposite is clearly happening.

A thorough dezionism campaign is going to be needed in liberated Palestine, becuase no remnants if this ideology should be allowed to exist. Anyone who opposes it should not be allowed to participate in the new society.