• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why don’t you apply dialectical materialism and tell me what you think. You’d get a lot farther than using a thought-terminating cliché.

    Or put a little more directly, what makes more sense in taking down that behemoth: finding common ground with people who ultimately want the same thing as you, or dying on a hill and banishing anyone who disagrees with something that isn’t even relevant in this day and age?

    It’s a deeply reactionary urge to want to win the ideal at the cost of the material. It’s why liberalism has gotten as far as it has.

    • Muad'DibberOP
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sure, diamat would say that in the age of super-imperialism that we’re now in, where the majority of surplus value comes from super-exploited global-south proletarians, demands that one or a group of countries must use violence to enforce that order, and keep the exploited countries weak and poor.

      Capitalism’s current enforcer is the US, with its military might, dollar hegemony, and media monopoly. That is why the US has so many external military bases. They don’t have them because they’re fun to build.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then you can see how people would want to go from hyperexploitation to no exploitation, rather than daydreaming of the lesser of two evils.

        Actually, most people are libs who genuinely got off twitter so they could join bluesky, so they want slightly less hyperexploitation 😒