Image is of the Preah Vihear Temple on the Cambodian border. Image sourced from the UNESCO World Heritage website.
Over the last few days, Thailand and Cambodia entered into a heightened stage of conflict due to a long-running border dispute. Like many problems on this planet, Europeans are ultimately to blame - specifically France. Certain sections of the border drawn up by France about a century ago were not fully agreed upon by both sides, with the ownership of some Khmer temples being the most visible points of disagreement.
Despite interventions in favor of Cambodia in the 1960s and later 2010s by the ICJ - one of the mainly mostly useless global institutions that liberals periodically disown - the border conflict has simmered at a generally low level. Of the two countries, Thailand is significantly more militarily and economically powerful.
Last Wednesday, a Thai soldier lost his leg by stepping on a landmine, prompting a rapid escalation between Cambodia and Thailand that has since resulted in dozens of deaths and tens of thousands displaced. Cambodia was willing to come to the negotiating table fairly quickly, but Thailand was more hesitant. International pressure on the two countries by Malaysia, China, and the United States eventually forced Thailand to the table, and they have recently agreed to an immediate ceasefire courtesy of ASEAN.
Notably, Trump refused to hold trade talks with either country until they agreed to peace, which suggests that he really wants a Nobel Peace Prize - which he seems a shoe-in for given that he’s met the two most important requirements that several Nobel Peace Prize recipients have needed to meet in the past, which are: 1) start at least one war, and 2) accelerate the genocide of millions of people as billions more people watch on. His policies vis-a-vis ICE creating a domestic terror regime only further increase his chances of winning the prize.
Last week’s thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against Israel. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on Israel’s destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
English-language PalestineResist telegram channel.
More telegram channels here for those interested.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia’s youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don’t want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it’s just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists’ side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR’s former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR’s forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster’s telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a ‘propaganda tax’, if you don’t believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
Ah yes, he’s hiding his power level
I don’t understand why anyone is arguing about this. Nobody argues that Mick Lynch or Corbyn weren’t hiding their power levels. Lynch specifically said it’s ridiculous that the media were calling him a communist when he absolutely 110% is lmao
I don’t see what is different here. Zohran is definitely personally left of what his electoral policies and media presentation are going to be.
Do you know him yourself?
Do I know Zohran? Or Lynch and Corbyn?
It’s simple, Zohran is the candidate they always claimed to want and he’s winning, but that invalidates the anti-electoral ideology so many here use as a comfort blanket and it makes them ROYALLY PISSED
I mean, I don’t think electoralism will achieve socialism so i’m with them on that one.
I do think demonstrating electoralism will not achieve socialism is a necessary prerequisite to revolution though.
If demonstrating the “failure” of electoralism is a prerequite for revolution, then that means electoralism is in fact a crucial tactic that will help achieve socialism
This isn’t semantics, the failure of analysis from the doomer faction is assuming the “demonstration of failure” arises from losing elections, it doesn’t, the demonstration effect is only possible after you win
Reformists IN POWER being undermined is not the same thing as reformists losing elections
Opposition in power polarizes and energizes the base, losing demoralizes and leads to demobilization
To demonstrate to the masses the anti-worker solidarity of the ruling class, socialists and their allies have to be in some position of power to manifest that anti-worker opposition in the first place
WE HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS
I agree with this, but it’s also fraught with danger. Chile being the fundamental example of what we do not want to replicate.
With that said, a socialist winning within the democrat party is not the same thing at all. We must win in socialist parties. Although I am not even sure if that is possible in the american system.
You know what happens when socialists take over a significant portion of the democratic party? Centrists will leave and form third parties and just like that we tricked the capitalists into creating a viable third party ecosystem within the US
But we have to win first, the democratic party is a husk and breaking it is the prerequisite for creating a socialist party and a good way to break it is to have socialists win elections, counterintuitive but you have to factor in the ideological rigidity of neolibs and use it to our advantage
That is not what happened over here in the UK. I can’t really agree with the belief that this will happen.
I’m gonna be honest with you, I don’t take anything that happens in Britain as a lesson of what not to do or to do, the country is a historical outlier
Corbyn had the advantage and let it slip from his fingers because he couldn’t articulate a coherent brexit position and couldn’t an obvious coup in his own party, that’s incompetence
what is this entryist nonsense? you cant take over a bourgeois party. that will never happen. have you seen what happened to UK labour with Corbyn?
Chasing out centrists from a party or splitting their party is not an entryist position, working with them and compromising your socialist POLICIES are the factors that define entryism
What I’m describing is a fuckin coup from the grassroots, if you want to be obtuse and call that entryism then go ahead, at that point even creating an independent workers party would classify as entryism since you’re participating in the system and accepting election results
Is there a historical precedent to base this claim on?
Yeah it’s called the Goldwater effect, his loss (Bernie) ironically transformed the Republican party by opening it up to its radical fascist wing which allowed them to capture the base and take over the party
The left has taken over the democratic base, now we need a Ronald Reagan-like avatar to leverage that capture and weather the centrist backlash, is it Zohran, maybe, it certainly isn’t AOC or Bernie
I just don’t understand why you want democrats to win elections. Why you identify with democratic party in the first place. They are not the opposition
I don’t care about the democratic party, if a socialist wins and forces the party neolibs to bend the knee then so be it, our objectives are achieved regardless
The party is an empty husk and using its reach and penatration to win elections is no skin off our back, all that’s required is the candidate is an actaul socialist willing to fight
our (communists) goal should not be to elect good democrats, it should be to build a workers party. democrats winning does not do anything to build a workers party
I do think things like the hostile Democratic Party reaction to socialist candidates can help turn people away from the Democratic Party, though. It gives a big platform to get out socialist policies, gets people used to the word and forces traditional Dems to fight against it, which can get people to look for alternatives to the Democratic Party. Then, you can get those candidates to run as a separate party once their name is out there thanks to the fact that people only pay attention to the two big parties (like what Corbyn is doing).
The only reason to consider running as a Democrat is for ballot access. If you try to run third party, the Dems eventually come for you by changing ballot access rules for third parties. This is a good example of how electoralism is an energy suck and not effective for mass organization: the bourgeois electoralists will change “the rules” on you constantly and make you spend all of your energy on elections, leaving no room for actually organizing the masses.
DSA electoralists have reversed the power equation, thinking that electoralism is primary for growing a movement. They are wrong, and so every “win” they gain is easily subverted and reversed because they absolutely, 100%, do not build a mass movement from their electoralism. The movement needs to be built more directly with known effective organizing methods, particularly org membership, education, and actions.
I want to have hope sooo bad… and I understand you’ve helped with his campaign and say he’s the real deal. But I thought the “reform or revolution” question was already answered. Are we wrong about that?
Like, I don’t see how this ends well unless it’s all part of a much larger plan to get a revolution going. Is there a larger plan? You don’t have to say what it is, if it’s like op sec or whatever.
I could see it if it’s like, a plan to radicalize more people:
Mayor tries to do objectively good shit and gets ratfucked --> people get angrier and say fuck the system (but they could just end up getting more fascist)
Mayor gets some good things done --> hey socialism is cool, maybe we should join! (join what exactly tho? no vanguard party?)
???
Fuck hope, we’re past hope, wrestle despair into rage and fear into defiance, wouldn’t matter if Zohran was a CIA clone, if he wins under a mantle of socialism and pro-palestine sentiment WE STILL WIN
Most online leftists never understood the debate to begin with, the question was not about “reform or revolution” it was about whether reform will kill revolution or will reform trigger revolution and historically the question has been answered in favor of the latter
Lenin overthrew the reformists not the Czar, reforms genuine reforms gives us the space and time we need to pull it off
Zohran winning under Trump is the best possible combination for us, the heat of the fascist furnace with a forward socialist base in New York, we’ll explode in numbers
This is an interesting perspective on it, as a DemSoc invariably has to go back on their principles in favour of the status quo, it does leave the door open for genuine socialist movements to speak to the masses and encourage a movement where the people actually do get what they want.
I would be a bit worried though, based on what I understand about the US, that such a thing is more likely to just leave people jaded and switch off to the idea that things could ever get better, and not trust a socialist promising better things, because electoralist demsocs have let them down too many times. (For examples, just look at some of your other replies!)
I think the trick is that he will have to use his bully pulpit as the mayor of America’s biggest city to constantly point the blame not just at Republicans, but also the systems in place that will make his reforms impossible, and that will have to include capitalism and the Dems themselves. At the very least, even if he can’t get all his good things passed, if he can get more people to give up on the Democratic Party to instead prime them for some future workers party, that would still be a good and worthy contribution to the revolution. Getting normies to accept a third party in the US has been like pulling teeth, it’s felt nearly impossible, but that’s what needs to be done.
You have no idea what you are talking about
Fantastic argument from the DDD brigade, you really got me there
What is the DDD brigade
Devil Dumper Doris brigade
Removed by mod
Thanks for answerin
I don’t think he’s going to expose it if he is. As an official he is and will be a DemSoc and should be treated accordingly.
Read the details of his policy proposals and you’ll see he is
None of you anti Zohran wreckers even realized his police policy would in fact cut their budget despite his “pro cop” rhetoric and we’re supposed to take you all seriously when it comes to evaluating his power levels?
Just because hiding your power level hasn’t happened much historically doesn’t make it impossible.
You know what has happened historically repeatedly, over and over? Credulous leftists being fooled by Soc dem social fascism because they delude themselves into believing there’s “5D chess” or “hiding power levels” going on
The western left has learned zero lessons from AOCIA
Did anyone that calls themselves a communist actually ever believe AOC was further left than socdem liberal? I don’t feel like anyone ever did.
Yes this forum was full of AOC supporters, as was the subreddit that spawned it. Just like the Iraq War, they all admit it’s a mistake years later in retrospect but won’t admit they supported her with the exact same enthusiasm, logic and rhetoric as they do Mamdani. It was the “DSA” and it was “harm reduction” and it was “a foot in the door” and it was “expanding the Overton window” et al.
This forum was 80% AOC content on the front page back in 2021 lol.
It was really only after the Ukraine war started that, I’d like to think driven by the news mega, that people started to pay attention to international news, that there is actually a world outside of America.
Even then, there were many that regurgitated Western/NATO propaganda about Ukraine and Russia in the early days of the war and I remember some of us here having to fight those comments time and time again. It took until September 2022 (six months after the war started) that the broader Western left changed their tune to the slightly better “actually we shouldn’t be funding NATO war machines” take.
I remember the whole “revolutionary defeatism” and “russia is an akshually tsarist empire and smol bean uwukraine needs our help!”. Memory holing isnt just done by libs, we have that in spades a plenty.
Hell liberal zionism was even something that persisted until the last two years here on “our side”.
So many people here fell for that fake “feminist” protests in Iran.
We’re currrently in the cope stage where people insist that a radlib politician is actually a secret communist.
Excited for two years from now when we reach the backpedaling stage (part 1) and everyone feverishly insists they never said he was going to do anything, and three years from now for the backpedaling stage (part 2) where everyone insists they had criticized him from the beginning.
And five years from now, we’ll get not-AOC #3, and go through the cycle again.
Truth is rarely appreciated and celebrated.
lol we have 5D chess, hiding power levels, etc arguments and parasocial pretzel-twisting and gaslighting to defend the honor of a socdem “israel has the right to exist” politician, sheepdogging the pro-Palestine movement towards a liberal zionist position. Simultaneously championing him as a paragon of pro-Palestinianism while saying it doesn’t matter because he’s only running for mayor of New York. Guys he said he’s going to arrest Bibi, also who cares about foreign policy he’s only running for mayor! Transparent bad faith rhetoric. Literally going “yeah he said that but it was actually a top secret dogwhistle designed to get zionists to argue against human rights thereby collapsing zionism globally”. At first I laughed it off as bad faith BS but now I’m struggling with the realization that it’s a sincerely held belief.
Someone give me a nobel prize because I’ve successfully time travelled back to 2018.
it wasnt just aoc back then, the original subreddit was founded on bernie memes. i remember it all. i would like to be proven wrong, but the western left are long time winners of the “fell for it again” award, ive never seen a more consistent and impressive streak. back then people were debating abt the “ugyhur genocide” before 2023…
i don’t think he’s a secret commie, i think he’ll improve things somewhat and that’s a damn sight better than the sex-pest grandparent killer, the pig, or the vigilante actual republican.
I don’t remember AOC or Bernie ever threatening to arrest Bibi
You can’t draw comparisons between two politicians unless they promise the exact same thing
AOC didn’t threaten to arrest Bibi because the average American didn’t give a shit about Gaza 7 years ago. She also wasn’t running for Mayor of New York.
AOC has a safe seat and isn’t running for election, so Zohran has far less incentive to make that declaration than AOC, and yet he did
You cannot sit there claiming the man is an opportunist after he does the most anti-opportunist thing imaginable, like promising to arrest America’s number one allied head of state
You are the one who brought up AOC’s campaign promises but now we’re comparing Mamdani to post-election AOC for some reason? I guarantee you if AOC was getting her start now running for Mayor of New York she would promise the same.
It’s the same pattern: outsider radical comes in promising radical change, gets publicly railroaded by prominent DNC figures, gets stopped at every turn by whichever variant of the Parliamentarian is applicable, and becomes a DNC cog within 5 years.
Mamdani has far more incentive to promise radical policies than someone already in power, because he still needs to get elected. AOC promising to arrest Bibi, which she wouldn’t do anyway because that’s not something she can even technically do, would derail her promising DNC career, and she would also have to answer for why someone in power is promising things and then not doing them.
But he can’t be an opportunist because he promises things? Are you serious?
AOC has more incentive than Zohran to talk radical about Palestine and yet she doesn’t and HE DOES, that’s why I brought her up
It’s almost like we have to look at their policies and their support and in AOC’s case lack of support for socialism to distinguish them from each other. Zohran’s policies are not the policies of a centrist in hiding; rent freeze, defunding the cops, state supermarkets, PRO-PALESTINE, in what universe are these the promises of opportunists, this shit pisses off the rich in ways screaming about free healthcare does not
Imao the incentive after winning the primary is in the opposite direction, if the secret goal is to suck to power
According to your calculations Zohran should be backtracking on his policies and yet he hasn’t budged on anything, so what now, are you gonna claim there isn’t massive pressure for him to backtrack right now?
If she was a centrist sure, which is WHY she’s isn’t doing it, but if she was a socialist it would skyrocket her popularity and enegerize the progressive base as Zohran has proved, but again she’s won’t and yet Mamdani will, your thesis is bust
It’s almost like the crucial emphasis is on WHAT “THINGS” he’s promising
Let me ask you this, in your worldview if the “real deal” ever did show up how the fuck would you be able to distinguish them from a fake, cause apparently your ideology doesn’t seem to have a mechanism to distinguish actual socialists from fakes
A major, common error in thinking is the presumption that socialist politics is crossing your fingers that one figure ends up not being a piece of shit or incompetent. This is actually a bourgeois way of engaging with politics, where a common person’s role is basically to be a fan or support a candidate, and the candidate has inordinate sway over what that actually ends up entailing, both strategically and in terms of what their political statements and programs are.
This is a fundamental hurdle that any growing socialist must overcome in order to become competent. If your org depends on just one person, it is not a successful or sustainable project, let alone a socialist one. The org must focus on populating itself with competent people and to collectively decide on strategy and actions and for those implementing them to be subordinate to the competent body at large.
This lesson seemingly needs to be painfully learned over and over again. This is a big part of why vanguardism and demcent were emphasized by Bolsheviks. They recognized that the chaos of undisciplined organization made them weak to bourgeois tendencies, including listening too much to just one guy, and they were constantly losing their "just one guy"s to execution and imprisonment and exile. In modern imperial core bourgeois electoralism, the (much less serious) electoral socialists lose their "just one guy"s predominately to self-interested climber (petty bourgeois) tendencies and naivete like suddenly learning that you will be killed without 24/7 security so you better get friendly with the bourgeois state.
If you were in Mamdani’s shoes what would you do differently?
Personally, I would hide my power level to get elected and then start improving people’s lives and building a socialist movement.
why is getting elected a prerequisite to building a socialist movement
It’s not, but it’s a hell of a lot easier if you wield institutional power.
sure, but you’re putting the cart before the horse. taking power should be the end goal of a movement
It doesn’t have to be. See Hugo Chávez or Huey Long (though not really a socialist) for historical examples.
Chavez was part of a socialist movement before taking power. It didn’t magically materialize from him being in office.