engels_gibs

Lets rewrite this in the way the media would report if it was russian (or chinese) software:

"Russia continues to undermine western democracies and infiltrate our media and public institutions. In the latest development, Putin is using russian hacking software to spy on our citizens. This shows that Russia and Chinese software continue to be a threat to civil liberties everywhere.

In other news, 20 hamas-linked students were arrested for organizing a protest against peaceful israeli intervention in the Middle East..."

But remember folks: China is spying you!

Is not that "it isnt perfect". It never existed. The Hague was created to persecute backwater third world shithole warlords or at best the enemies of NATO. Not to persecute Bush, Obama or Netanyahu.

You can thank the reduction in warfare killing to the existence of the Soviet Union, which united much of the western imperialist powers (Europe, America and its vessel states like Japan, Australia or South Korea) against the first real menace against capitalism in history. That's pretty much the reason why inter-european warfare stopped after WWII. They function as an imperialist block with the same interests. It has little to do with the supposed existence of "rules" or an imaginary "order".

Yaya, I read how he "addressed" my points. "It isnt perfect but is the best we got" yadayada. "Rules based international order" never existed. It's just a buzzword promoted by NATO apologists to defend their imperialist expoliation. It never existed. There are no "international rules" for the powerful, the Hague was created to persecute poor third-world warlords or at best the enemies of NATO. It was not created to persecute Bush, Obama or Netanyahu. The WTO was created to sustain american capitalism and benefit american interests, when China started outgrowing american influence then suddenly the WTO is the enemy. There are no rules at all that stopped NATO to bomb Yugoslavia, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Its just a buzzword, a talking point parroted by american apologists. Never existed in the past and it certainly doesnt exist now. "Rules based international order" in practice means: NATO gets to do whatever the shit they want, as they have always done. That's it. That's the whole rules in actual practice.

And regarding the supposed reduction in warfare after WWII:

You can thank the existence of the Soviet Union, which united much of the western imperialist powers (Europe, America and its vessel states like Japan, Australia or South Korea) against the first real menace against capitalism in history. That's pretty much the reason why inter-european warfare stopped after WWII. And they focused on warfare against the third world (Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, South America, Central America, etc.) They function as an imperialist block with the same interests. It has little to do with the supposed existence of "rules" or an imaginary "order".

"autoritarian regimes"

"Rules based international order"

This guy has the mind so brainwashed by western media talking points he cannot even understand the propaganda he cheerfully chews on.

Poor innocent 'rules based' order :(. I am sure the "rules based international order" prevented the USA from invading Iraq based on lies, right? Oh wait, the rules didnt work that time. But at least they are preventing Israel of massacring thousands of babies and toddlers in Gaza! Wait, also no. But at least they stopped the USA from deploying a mass surveillance system to spy on every citizen of the world, like Snowden revealed. Uhm, also no. The "rules based international order" is for suckers.

But remember friends: China is a surveillance state, unlike freedom loving west.

The real news is how anyone would believe that Israel says the truth about anything at all.

The real news is how the BBC, Guardian, NYP and all mainstream media repeats and amplifies israeli discourse taking it at face value as objective truth

On the contrary. How arresting people for being "anti-israel" could be a good thing?

She was detained for writing a pro-palestinean op-ed and being considered "anti-Israel". Why is that information not mentioned in the headline?

That's like 10% of the story. There are dozens of countries that moved to a more capital oriented economy yet there is only one China. The philipines, Indonesia, Malasia, the whole continent of Africa or South America. All capitalist economies, even neoliberal. Yet none of those countries that "allowed capitalism" come close to 1% of China's GDP. What's the difference? The difference is that in China the Communist Party governs. Society rules over Capital, not the other way around. That made the whole difference.

In which country did you live?

I don't think anyone with even a basic understanding of history can say that communism has been bad for the working class. Really? Communism transformed the Soviet Union into a global superpower in just a few decades. It turned a rural, agrarian society into one that launched the first satellite into space. It provided free housing and education to people who, for generations, couldn't even read. It achieved groundbreaking advancements in nuclear energy and developed the atomic bomb.

China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, is now #1 in science, technology, and industry. Its success as a superpower is thanks to communism. And before you argue, "but China isn't communist!!!11," please shut up. Yes, it is. If it were just another average capitalist country, it wouldn't have achieved even 1% of what it has. It would have been exploited by imperialist powers, just like Latin America and Africa. China's rise to #1 is due to the Communist Party's strict control over capital.

The Soviet bloc did decline and collapsed in the late 20th century. You likely lived through that time, as its collapse was caused by competition from the West, bureaucratization of the revolution, and a lack of innovation. However, saying "the revolution stagnated" because "communism was a failure" is entirely false. It wasn't a failure; the most significant story of the 20th century is the resounding success of communism wherever it was applied.

Even if you lived in a capitalist country, as a worker, you have communism to thank. The fear of communism forced the West to implement a welfare state and make reforms that benefited workers they otherwise wouldn't have. They poured billions into workers' hands to prevent them from embracing communism. Communism led to the creation of the Welfare State and the Marshall Plan. Competition with the Soviet Union is why South Korea and Japan received hundreds of billions from the USA. The fear of a revolution was very real, prompting many third-world countries to adopt nationalist and welfare-state policies that improved millions' lives.

Your argument simply doesn't hold up. It is demonstrably false.

Thats patently false. Some people do control other people, some people do control whole societies. What stoicism does is: for the underclass, it tells them to accept such control. Lying that "you have no control" over working conditions, exploitation, misery, hunger, suffering, etc. Do nothing, because nothing you do will matter.

And for the capitalists upper class what it does is to validate the atroicities they commit: "the universe is an eternal good entity, everything happens for a reason. Sixty thousand children killed in Gaza? Its just the universe changing colors, changing quantity, some people turned from alive to unalive, but in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. You are just doing your role".

The first, true and only philosophy for the working class, the exploited, the proletarians and the dispossessed is marxism. Teaching "stoicism" to people who barely can afford food, to slaves in the Congo, to overworked uber eats cyclists that work 12 hours a day for pennies, is not only ridiculous, it's criminal.

Standing silent or content in the face of exploitation, injustice and the threat of destruction of humanity is indeed an ethics that benefit the rich and powerful. "Be content, stay quiet, dont make noise, dont revolt, dont organize, accept your place in the universe.".

Marx was the first philosopher that recognized that philosophy is a product of material conditions, and that it servers the interests of the economic system that contains it. That's why marxism would have been impossible in ancient greece and there was never a greek philosopher that advocated revolution or seizing political power.