Much as I hate chuds, there's something about the smug, pretentious, condescending, obnoxious tone and content that these bourgeois liberals all seem to have that makes me understand why a bunch of white working class people just get driven into the arms of cultural nationalists like the Republicans who refuse to abide by the same absurd language and standards. Like my instinctive repulsion and contempt is stronger in a way when I see a pretentious lib talk than a ridiculous Republican. The latter I still fear and would like to see merked in minecraft, but there's something more especially intuitively infuriating about liberals.

The lesser evil argument for Biden is very weird to me because as a non-American it doesn't materially seem better than Trump. Objectively it's been equally bad if not worse, and while not all of that is due to particular features of Trump or the Dems, a think a decent amount is due to how viciously hawkish and shamelessly imperialist the Biden regime has been, from Ukraine to Israel and a lot more in between. Like on the international level I'd argue that Biden has been demonstrably more destructive.

The most convincing 'lesser-evil' argument seems to me to basically be that a Trump presidency would be worse for minorities, for immigrants, non-white people, and LGBT people. Now I agree that they would be more likely to introduce federal-level legislation if they could, but I also haven't seen any real effort by the Biden gov to combat transphobic legislation by fascistic Republicans at the state or local level, or to do anything real for them for that matter. Again LGBT folks and racial minorities are a woke virtue-signalling marketing asset to be invested in for the Dems, as they base their electoral campaigns now no longer on class points, no longer appealing to working class interests (whereas the Republicans have positioned themselves as doing so), but instead appealing to those with college educations. I have comrades who argue that Trump would crack down harder on the left and make it more difficult to organize, but I'm not completely convinced by this. It's not become easier under Biden.

In any event, I don't know how people can make a non-nationalist lesser-evil argument once you've seen Biden literally go on stage with Bibi and give unconditional support to apartheid, settler-colonialism and ethinic cleansing.

History has really been speaking volumes about how intrinsically the West is coming to see its interests as politically demanding fascism.

How this applies to Ukraine is no mystery here.

Nor should it be applied to Israel to anyone who knows much about it. Now we're seeing openly fascist Israeli politicians call openly for bringing about a 'New Nakhba', openly calling for mass genocide and the massacre of children, after 80 years of already murdering them and all the West can say is: "uncritical support to Israel".

Israel is one of the most depraved societies to ever exist.

Apparently the German government are 'reconsidering their aid to the Palestinian territories'.

Death to Deutschland.

Netanyahu has just said live on television that they will 'turn Gaza into a deserted island'.

I'm hearing very indirectly along grapevines that among Israelis, including liberals, the mood is becoming - and I quote verbatim - "kill them all".

In Israel, the yearly open warfare against Gaza is known as 'mowing the lawn'.

Make of that what you will.

The more Marx (or good Marxist theory more generally) that you read, the more you realise how detached from reality liberal discourse about anything even remotely connected to Marxist thought is. This is blindingly obvious in mainstream economics departments, where the average professor or TA normally manages to combine both shocking ignorance of any economic theory beyond their barrenly narrow purview, and depressing naivety when it comes to the apparent self-evidence of their arguments.

That being said, economics is only the most obvious example. Set foot inside the average history, sociology or anthropology department and the epistemic consequences of a lack of Marxist approaches becomes immediately obvious when you see the low quality of alot of the work being produced and ask why that's the case.

History probably has the best showing, although it's nothing like it was in the 1960's or 70's, and I suspect that that's because history is an area where the necessity of a materialist analysis makes itself the most immediately obvious, and because the results in this area achieved by Marxist are obviously superior and so more easily form the basis for further productive historical analysis. For example the debates around the origins of capitalism out of late feudalism cannot avoid the Brenner Debate. You see the influence of materialist thought here even in thinkers who are not explicitly Marxist. Historians who are otherwise not rigorously materialist and politically liberal will still sometimes readily recognise the validity, or make use of, class-analysis.

Sociology is interesting because it's mainstream's basic methods seem deeply idealistic to me despite the fact that Marx is also one of the key figures in the development of modern sociology, and given that Marx's political economy, as opposed to modern neoclassical economics, recognises that you cannot really engage in productive economic analysis beyond a very superficial level if you do not recognise that it's essential to talk about the economic sociology, the economic institutions and social structures that serve differnent socio-economic functions and fit together in certain contexts to distribute the socio-economics functions amongst themselves, including the fundamentally important point of noting how different societies and different modes of production will see different social structures serve as the social relations of production. Otherwise you end up with an idealist theory of economic production.

Honestly though you also see this among self-described leftists or even 'Marxists' who do not understand the meaning of the term 'value' in Marx, i.e. that it is a technical economic concept, not a moral one (though through its social and political implications we are obviously naturally going to attach normative value to how it functions or affects us).

Another think that both liberals and soc dems do when discussing Marxism is taking quotes completely out of context and radically misunderstanding or misinterpreting what it being claimed or discussed. Which just makes all the more obvious the need for reeducation in the fundamentals of Marxism.

It's fascinating to see these people come to something of an understanding, albeit superficial, of some of the most obvious realist motives and calculations behind the US's essential involvement in Ukraine as if they were stumbling onto a revelation, which should have been not only obvious before it even began (the US's foreign policy in this regard hasn't changed in 30 years) but should have made obvious how incomparably dangerous the US is, only for them to then say: "actually this is smart and good, I love paying top $$$ to impoverish Slavs and Chinese people".

As a communist, it's a remarkable feeling shouting to the wind about the self-evident Nazification of Ukraine and the support by the West for its fascist client states, while being called a Russian bot in the flesh, only to then have every point you've made been proven utterly correct and for no-one to recognise it even when they have to clean up after themselves after having shit the bed.

Oh wait it's called Cassandra complex.

9/11 was proof that America is one of the most self-absorbed, narcissistic societies to ever exist. They suffer what they inflict upon others in an afternoon of ignorance or infantile righteous judgement, and they start foaming at the mouth to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, gloating over how they will 'send them back to the stone age'. It's sometimes difficult to put into words how repulsive Americans can be.

Does that mean that everyone who died on 9/11 had it comin? No. But the event was beyond illuminating of how America is an imperialist beast with a Narcissus complex.

Your tone is that of a teenager and I suspect you do not know how to define state capitalist, or alternatively you don't know as much as you think about the Chinese economy.