Pretty sure Egon means this: Ukraine: The Avoidable War, which if I remember correctly, has a decent run-through of American interference in 90's Russia, but is not specifically about that. Correct me if you meant a different video, Egon. If so, I'd like to see it too.
DictatrshipOfTheseus
joined 3 years ago
I'm just going to toss out a relevant excerpt from The Jakarta Method:
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
I would also suggest Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth which we happen to be reading right now in Hexbear's book club. We're a couple chapters in already, but it's a slow schedule so easy to catch up for anyone interested. (Thanks to @[email protected] for cluing me in on it).
Does a link directly to the pertinent image work for you?
https://archive.is/tgXRb/66db743718e9277d76256a497f02785d141f979d/scr.png
Certain antivirus software seems to have been blocking the archive sites for no good reason. I assume the real reason is because those sites are the easiest way to bypass paywalls.
I don't know, I don't think there's anything really wrong with using the word as an insult because I don't think it's actually a slur. If anyone can point me to something that shows "troglodyte" in particular is used to refer to any disadvantaged group (like people with DS), I will retract this and never use it again. Like several other comrades who have already commented, I've used troglodyte for years to refer to the same people we all tend to call chuds here. In fact, cannibalistic humanoid underground dweller is pretty damn close to troglodyte. Speaking of which...
If you're going to dehumanize a person, I think it's best to call them something that's entirely unhuman (e.g. demon, ghoul, etc.) rather than something human-like (e.g. orc, ape, etc.)
That's not really the problem, as I see it. There's no line between "unhuman" and "human-like." How is ghoul or demon any different than orc in that respect? Not to be cliche, but it really is all about the context. Orc in general wasn't bad to use per se, but now that it's being used to specifically refer to Russians or more generally, Asians, it has become problematic. Ape is pretty obviously not a good word to use in most cases because of the history of it's use to dehumanize people based on race. But even then, I wouldn't consider it a slur if I were to playfully say to my large, muscular, white friend "you big ape!"
All that said, as always I'm open to being shown where I might be wrong.
If I'm understanding HornyOnMain (OP) correctly, she's not trying to say it shouldn't be used, just that it's odd and suspicious that libs seem to have suddenly picked up on it and are throwing it around incessantly. I fully agree on that.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I think you missed the whole point of GarbageShoot asking you specifically about Allende.
just based on a small snippet of reading about them, I think in general [...]
I think this is the main problem here: a lack of knowledge about the historical context of "authoritarian" socialist projects, but nevertheless making generalized statements about them without even considering the material reasons why they were by necessity "authoritarian." Read up more about the history of Chile and consider what happened to Allende and the hope of a socialist Chile. Who came after Allende (and almost as important, who installed that successor)? Why do these events seem so familiar when learning about every other attempt, successful or not, to bring about a communist society? When you've done that, you will at the very least have a leg to stand on when criticizing so-called tankie authoritarianism.
I'd also suggest reading The Jakarta Method. Here's a somewhat relevant quote from it:
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
I plugged it into an anagram solver in the hopes of something funny (I'm sure I'm not the only one), but no words use all the letters, at least in English. 
If only using S for Saudi Arabia and the U for UAE, there's "causeries" but that doesn't include Brazil. If you use all the letters with SA and UAE, the closest English word is scarabaeus but that's also leaving out a few letters.
late edit because I'm a nerd:
But there are a ton if you allow two words.
Because Siri (ugh), Because Iris, Biases Curie, Icier Subsea, Iberis Sauce, etc.
And literally tens of thousands if you allow 3 or more words. I liked Bi Curie Seas, or Bi Curia Sees, and AI is be curse!
This. The key is letting people think that they have arrived at these conclusions themselves, as then they become receptive to expanding their knowledge on those ideas. That may sound kind of arrogant, or like you're tricking them, but it's not a trick, as they really are coming to conclusions themselves, you're just paving the path ahead of them to make it easy. In this case, if through your (Babs') gentle line of questioning they come to view it accurately as genuine self defense, then the framing of "violent revolution" starts taking on a different, more acceptable shape in their mind. At least that's the case from my experience.
I would argue some also misplace their hopes in false solutions, such as multipolarity or the BRICS trading bloc (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa)… The idea that social revolution is inconceivable and that the best we can hope for is an end to US/Western hegemony and the emergence of a multipolar world has been gaining ground among opponents of Western imperialism around the world.
From my understanding, it's not that those who put their hopes in multipolarity/BRICS think that social revolution is inconceivable, it's that we recognize that you have to have the right conditions for revolution before it can happen. Multipolarity is the best way of bringing about those conditions. Like has been said so often here, it's about giving the global south the breathing room to be able to express its agency in the world, which in turn could allow the social revolution he's talking about to happen without it being immediately obliterated by the sole world hegemon. The author is talking like it's an either/or situation, when it's not that at all. It's a process that takes more than just a single fucking step, lol. And what (actual) leftist thinks an end to US hegemony "is the best we can hope for"?
In reality, a multipolar capitalist world, a world of rival hegemons and would-be hegemons contesting for power, is a world at war.
And a sudden world wide revolution wouldn't be?
Totally worth it imo.
Go get a mic and slap a 
on it and hold it up while you shoot some video with people going into the summit building over your shoulder.
Personally, I would look forward to hearing 72T trying to pronounce your name. "Thanks aaaaaaadjsf 'ayyyyy... aid-jeff ssfuh?' that was illuminating. There you have it, folks. In other news, stay tuned, because in our top story tonight..."
I'm not the person you're responding to, but... A liberal viewpoint (in this context) is one that is idealist, not materialist. A liberal will point at a policy ostensibly drawn up to address some given issue, and whether that policy is effective or not, or even whether the policy is enforced, will claim that "something is being done" to address that issue. In a liberal framework, it is the policy itself that satisfies the condition that the issue has been addressed, not any actual action that makes a real material difference to solve or change the issue. Again, it's just idealism vs materialism. Liberalism is a philosophy based on the former, communism is (among other things) a philosophy based on the latter.