Breaking News Protests across Cuba against the Cuban Regime

[Cultural Posadism]

I cant believe the US government who has satellites and other advanced technology doesn't know anything of what is happening in Cuba right now? to take the necessary actions needed? They can order military air strikes at Cuban government military targets? So civilians are not hurt.

Why is it that the people who have the biggest hardon for American military interventionism are often the same people who know the least about the reality of warfare?

[Salus Maior]

You forget Hitler and the Nazis came to power via democracy.

That's not completely true.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he wasn't elected. But the Nazis were a significant and growing presence among the seats of the Reichstag, yes.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

First, to assert that current USA policy is anything remotely like colonialism is absurd on its face.

Wrong, even recent wars like Iraq and Libya are products of US imperialism.

Moreover, all of the authoritarian regimes the USA supported were removed from power after the collapse of the USSR and global communism. Laughably you cited Chile and South Korea, yet both nations are among the most free and stable on the geopolitic.

They were removed from power by the protests and demonstrations of the people, without any US intervention. Again, Chile have a massive inequality problem, and South Korea just barely got out of a corruption scandal. Most free and stable my ass.

Second, of course the USA subvert and toppled pro-communist regimes irrespective of whether they were democratically elected, or not.

Excusing US imperialism is not a good look on you, chief.

You forget Hitler and the Nazis came to power via democracy.

Both Mossadegh and Allende were not Hitler. Both did not have dreams of global domination or invasion whatsoever. Stop making up lie after lie to support a BS narrative.

Also Hitler did not become Chancellor by virtue of his party being the majority or negotiated a coalition government, he was appointed by Hindenburg after a majority coalition failed to form after the November 1932 election. The previous Chancellor, Franz von Papen, made a deal with the devil (Hitler) to return to power as Vice Chancellor after being replaced by General Kurt von Schleicher for his failure to form a government, falsely believing that he could tame Hitler while in office. Then Hitler and the Nazis seized power through the Enabling Acts and the rest is history.

The point of removing these governments was to combat the brutal global cancer of communism that had subjugated over a billions innocents souls and killed tens of millions more.

At the cost of hundreds of thousands to over a million deaths? The Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 lists 500,000 to 1 million deaths due to Suharto's purge. About 3,000 people were killed and 30,000 others were tortured under Pinochet. And various other dictatorships.

indeed, after the end of the Cold War, nations still in the USA fold became representative governments with more freedoms and stability than at anytime in their tumultuous and violent past.

Only because the people grew tired of living under dictatorships led by US puppets and started to fight back.

Third, without benevolent US hegemonic support there would be no representative government in Asia, Europe or South America.

Bullshit. The people created the democracies, not the US. The very same creations of the US, those dictatorships, were overthrown by the people.

The default position of government is autocratic. It was not until 1776 that democracy begin to bloom. It was not until 1945 that it bloomed in Europe and the Asian Pacific Rim. And it was not until 1989 that freedom begin to proliferate around the globe in an unprecedented fashion in human history. Wherever the USA holds sway, liberty, stability and relative prosperity are the norm.

The whole course of the Cold War and numerous US interventions says otherwise.

Fourth, sure if you look at a snapshot, there is poverty and inequality and statism abroad, but it is far less pronounced in regions were the USA maintains hegemony.

Russia and several East European countries are still suffering from the 90s shock therapy that the US prescribed to them. South America remains a hellhole.

However, no rational, objective and informed analyst would assert that Eastern Europe is worse off today than in 1989?

Russia and shock therapy say otherwise.

Similarly, no sane person would assert that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. is worse off today than in 1945.

Without US intervention did they become better, in the case of South Korea and Taiwan. Taiwan was also recently a dictatorship until the early 1990s.

Also, I challenge you to cited any period in history when South America was more free, prosperous and stable than today?

Brazil remains a hellhole. Columbia is a hellhole. Argentina is a hellhole. Bolivia is a hellhole. Chile's top 20% owns over 60% of its GDP.

In sum, all of Europe would be speaking German or Russian if not for the United States. Those nations on the Asian Pacific Rim would be under the brutal iron boot of either Japanese or Chinese rule. And South America would be an autocratic hellhole ruled by various nation-states competing for limited spoils as it was before American hegemony cast out statist interlopers from Europe.

South America, Eastern Europe and South East Asia are still reeling from the legacy of US intervention.

I mean, the Iranian PM did break a treaty. Didn't mean the shah had to become a dictator though.

[Proctopeo]

The OP: GMS Crazy Cuban Alberto:
A 2 minutes Video Link by the Populist Political Party of Spain - By Santiago Abascal of The Populist Political Party of Spain.

The "populist political party" in question is Vox. And it's a fascist party. You're not doing the Cuban people any favours by highlighting Abascal's support for them.

Ehhhh... looking it over, they appear rather far-right, but not fascist (or Falangist, for that matter). Still, likely not the greatest idea to focus on their support.

It does make me wonder what countries and political parties support which side, though.

You forget Hitler and the Nazis came to power via democracy.

That's not completely true.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he wasn't elected. But the Nazis were a significant and growing presence among the seats of the Reichstag, yes.

It also didn't help that the Weimar Government was a rather dysfunctional democracy from its inception.

[Salus Maior]

Why are we tied to that system? Why can't we rethink it? Why do I need to do bullshit just to justify my survival?

You're not justifying your own survival. You're earning your own money for yourself, just like every other able person. Maybe you deserve more for your work, sure, or better hours, but how is it fair for an able someone to completely live off of the labor of other people? Isn't that why we hate the 1%?

[Cannot think of a name]

Why are we tied to that system? Why can't we rethink it? Why do I need to do bullshit just to justify my survival?

You're not justifying your own survival. You're earning your own money for yourself, just like every other able person. Maybe you deserve more for your work, sure, or better hours, but how is it fair for an able someone to completely live off of the labor of other people? Isn't that why we hate the 1%?

You keep saying "we have to do it this way because this is the way we do it."

[Cultural Posadism]

The "populist political party" in question is Vox. And it's a fascist party. You're not doing the Cuban people any favours by highlighting Abascal's support for them.

Ehhhh... looking it over, they appear rather far-right, but not fascist (or Falangist, for that matter). Still, likely not the greatest idea to focus on their support.

It does make me wonder what countries and political parties support which side, though.

Well, over here it's been like this:

- The Peronists (i.e. the government) are giving the Cuban government their lukewarm support, which is consistent with their past support for Maduro in the name of vaguely leftist nationalism/anti-imperialism.
- The right-wing anti-Peronists (i.e. the mainstream opposition) are siding with the protesters and their supporters are salivating over the fantasy of some sort of huge anti-leftist uprising throughout Latin America.
- The left-wing anti-Peronists (i.e. the Trotskyists of the Workers' Left Front) are siding with the protesters while also rejecting any sort of unilateral American or OAS intervention, which is consistent with their past opposition to Maduro. They may hate American imperialism, but they're also libertarian leftists, so they're not gonna excuse left-wing authoritarianism either.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Ehhhh... looking it over, they appear rather far-right, but not fascist (or Falangist, for that matter). Still, likely not the greatest idea to focus on their support.

It does make me wonder what countries and political parties support which side, though.

the Trotskyists

I was under the impression that Trotskyism is still an authleft ideology, albeit less so than Stalinism.

[Salus Maior]

You're not justifying your own survival. You're earning your own money for yourself, just like every other able person. Maybe you deserve more for your work, sure, or better hours, but how is it fair for an able someone to completely live off of the labor of other people? Isn't that why we hate the 1%?

You keep saying "we have to do it this way because this is the way we do it."

I'm saying it's what's fair.

Or would you prefer to work while I live off your labor and do nothing?

[Picairn]

I mean, the Iranian PM did break a treaty. Didn't mean the shah had to become a dictator though.

You mean the oil agreement signed by the Shah in 1933 that allowed the Brits to monopolize Iran's oil supply? Yeah right.

[Cannot think of a name]

You keep saying "we have to do it this way because this is the way we do it."

I'm saying it's what's fair.

Or would you prefer to work while I live off your labor and do nothing?

You see, you're still stuck in the paradigm of how it is is how it must be. Does your labor matter more if to get it I go to a room and move boxes from one side to the other and back again first? What has that done for you, exactly?

[Cultural Posadism]

the Trotskyists

I was under the impression that Trotskyism is still an authleft ideology, albeit less so than Stalinism.

Maybe on paper, but for whatever reason the local Trotskyists are remarkably consistent about their support for human rights. It's gotten to the point where local right-wing libertarians get a bit confused and occasionally simp for them, thinking that the Trots might secretly be their guys.

[Salus Maior]

I'm saying it's what's fair.

Or would you prefer to work while I live off your labor and do nothing?

You see, you're still stuck in the paradigm of how it is is how it must be. Does your labor matter more if to get it I go to a room and move boxes from one side to the other and back again first? What has that done for you, exactly?

It means that I'm not providing for you, I'm providing for myself and my interests. Which is the whole point of why I'm working in the first place. If you're able to work, you can provide for yourself and thus are not forcing other people to provide for you with their labor. Whether you find particular meaning in your work is irrelevant, I don't either beyond its purpose to earn a check and to be less of a burden to others.

How do you have a claim to the fruits of my labor?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I mean, the Iranian PM did break a treaty. Didn't mean the shah had to become a dictator though.

You mean the oil agreement signed by the Shah in 1933 that allowed the Brits to monopolize Iran's oil supply? Yeah right.

I mean, it was a treaty. He probably should've started negotiations before the nationalization law passed. Might've allowed a mix of his and Stokes' and Mossadeghs' proposals on August 13th. Stokes proposal did seem overall beneficial to Iran, and the only part of the counter proposal I feel was necessary was that technicians received the same salary as they did under the old company. Dragging foreign nations into it was unnecessary.

[Proctopeo]

Ehhhh... looking it over, they appear rather far-right, but not fascist (or Falangist, for that matter). Still, likely not the greatest idea to focus on their support.

It does make me wonder what countries and political parties support which side, though.

Well, over here it's been like this:

- The Peronists (i.e. the government) are giving the Cuban government their lukewarm support, which is consistent with their past support for Maduro in the name of vaguely leftist nationalism/anti-imperialism.
- The right-wing anti-Peronists (i.e. the mainstream opposition) are siding with the protesters and their supporters are salivating over the fantasy of some sort of huge anti-leftist uprising throughout Latin America.
- The left-wing anti-Peronists (i.e. the Trotskyists of the Workers' Left Front) are siding with the protesters while also rejecting any sort of unilateral American or OAS intervention, which is consistent with their past opposition to Maduro. They may hate American imperialism, but they're also libertarian leftists, so they're not gonna excuse left-wing authoritarianism either.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

the Trotskyists

I was under the impression that Trotskyism is still an authleft ideology, albeit less so than Stalinism.

It is, generally, what with supporting a vanguard party and all that jazz. Just with a layer of criticism for the excess authoritarianism of Stalin and the Soviet Union at large.

I was under the impression that Trotskyism is still an authleft ideology, albeit less so than Stalinism.

Maybe on paper, but for whatever reason the local Trotskyists are remarkably consistent about their support for human rights. It's gotten to the point where local right-wing libertarians get a bit confused and occasionally simp for them, thinking that the Trots might secretly be their guys.

I think it's just Argentine politics being quite topsy-turvy. Having Trotskyists as a visible political force at all should be a signal of that; the only thing weirder would be if they were syndies.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh thank fuck I figured out my Google Fu.

To catch people up, I half remembered some notion that only a small portion of us are doing anything that matters and the rest of us are just moving pieces about because we built a system around the Puritan Work Ethic and now can't manage to see past it and think of ways to reorganize society that doesn't leave people to die because they couldn't find some fucking nonsense to do that someone would pay them for.

Since I couldn't remember it exactly and couldn't find it, I also entertained the possibility that it was 'just some bullshit someone said.'

Somehow, with two options, I managed to be right both times. What I was thinking of was the bullshit jobs theory which has, as it turns out, many flaws (not the least of which how a job was determined to be bullshit in forming the theory, but no one seems as bothered by that as I am.

The so-called 'bullshit jobs theory' – which argues that a large and rapidly increasing number of workers are undertaking jobs that they themselves recognize as being useless and of no social value—contains several major flaws, argue researchers from the universities of Cambridge and Birmingham.

Even so, writing in Work, Employment and Society, the academics applaud its proponent, American anthropologist David Graeber, who died in September 2020, for highlighting the link between a sense of purpose in one's job and psychological wellbeing.

Graeber initially put forward the concept of 'bullshit jobs' – jobs that even those who do them view as worthless—in his 2013 essay The Democracy Project. He further expanded this theory in his 2018 book Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, looking at possible reasons for the existence of such jobs.

Jobs that Graeber described as bullshit (BS) jobs range from doormen and receptionists to lobbyists and public relations specialists through to those in the legal profession, particularly corporate lawyers and legal consultants.

Dr. Magdalena Soffia from the University of Cambridge and the What Works Center for Wellbeing, one of the authors of the article, said: "There's something appealing about the bullshit jobs theory. The fact that many people have worked in such jobs at some point may explain why Graeber's work resonates with so many people who can relate to the accounts he gives. But his theory is not based on any reliable empirical data, even though he puts forward several propositions, all of which are testable."

The tl/dr thing is that when tested it didn't quite come up the way he predicted.

But.

Not everything that Graeber suggested was wrong, however. He argued, for example, that BS jobs are a form of 'spiritual violence' that lead to anxiety, depression and misery among workers. The team found strong evidence between the perception of one's job as useless and an individual's psychological wellbeing, albeit a correlation rather than necessarily a causal link. In the UK in 2015, workers who felt their job was not useful scored significantly lower on the World Health Organization Well-Being Index than those who felt they were doing useful work (a mean average of 49.3 compared with 64.5). There was a similar gap across other EU nations.

Dr. Alex Wood from the University of Birmingham said: "When we looked at readily-available data from a large cohort of people across Europe, it quickly became apparent to us that very few of the key propositions in Graeber's theory can be sustained—and this is the case in every country we looked at, to varying degrees. But one of his most important propositions—that BS jobs are a form of 'spiritual violence' – does seem to be supported by the data."

Anyway. Didn't want to leave that hanging, especially since it was both flawed and not exactly how I presented it. Not that anyone's paying that close attention.

[Cannot think of a name]

You see, you're still stuck in the paradigm of how it is is how it must be. Does your labor matter more if to get it I go to a room and move boxes from one side to the other and back again first? What has that done for you, exactly?

It means that I'm not providing for you, I'm providing for myself and my interests. Which is the whole point of why I'm working in the first place. If you're able to work, you can provide for yourself and thus are not forcing other people to provide for you with their labor. Whether you find particular meaning in your work is irrelevant, I don't either beyond its purpose to earn a check and to be less of a burden to others.

How do you have a claim to the fruits of my labor?

Why do you think you're the one that's gonna be holding shit together? Why do you think this is just about you and me? Honestly, we'd both be out apologizing to some dude breaking his back picking crops.

[Salus Maior]

Not everything that Graeber suggested was wrong, however. He argued, for example, that BS jobs are a form of 'spiritual violence' that lead to anxiety, depression and misery among workers. The team found strong evidence between the perception of one's job as useless and an individual's psychological wellbeing, albeit a correlation rather than necessarily a causal link. In the UK in 2015, workers who felt their job was not useful scored significantly lower on the World Health Organization Well-Being Index than those who felt they were doing useful work (a mean average of 49.3 compared with 64.5). There was a similar gap across other EU nations.

Dr. Alex Wood from the University of Birmingham said: "When we looked at readily-available data from a large cohort of people across Europe, it quickly became apparent to us that very few of the key propositions in Graeber's theory can be sustained—and this is the case in every country we looked at, to varying degrees. But one of his most important propositions—that BS jobs are a form of 'spiritual violence' – does seem to be supported by the data."

Anyway. Didn't want to leave that hanging, especially since it was both flawed and not exactly how I presented it. Not that anyone's paying that close attention.

Yes, I know that's a real problem. But that's a problem of not having satisfying work to do, rather than work being a problem in and of itself, which honestly is just an issue of modernity. I think that can be alleviated a number of ways, but that has little to do with what we've been arguing about.

[Salus Maior]

It means that I'm not providing for you, I'm providing for myself and my interests. Which is the whole point of why I'm working in the first place. If you're able to work, you can provide for yourself and thus are not forcing other people to provide for you with their labor. Whether you find particular meaning in your work is irrelevant, I don't either beyond its purpose to earn a check and to be less of a burden to others.

How do you have a claim to the fruits of my labor?

Why do you think you're the one that's gonna be holding shit together? Why do you think this is just about you and me? Honestly, we'd both be out apologizing to some dude breaking his back picking crops.

Yeah, and I don't want that either. Which is why I would prefer to work to make his burden less and not more by getting my own paycheck.

[Picairn]

Iran, Trotskyism, and the BS jobs theory - not how I pictured the thread would go.

[Cannot think of a name]

Why do you think you're the one that's gonna be holding shit together? Why do you think this is just about you and me? Honestly, we'd both be out apologizing to some dude breaking his back picking crops.

Yeah, and I don't want that either. Which is why I would prefer to work to make his burden less and not more by getting my own paycheck.

I would argue that by organizing the system the way it is, you have made his burden much, much more and robbed him of his proper compensation to boot.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, and I don't want that either. Which is why I would prefer to work to make his burden less and not more by getting my own paycheck.

I would argue that by organizing the system the way it is, you have made his burden much, much more and robbed him of his proper compensation to boot.

I would also say that the system, as it is, has some major problems.

I'm just not going about it the way you are.

[Great Algerstonia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/sabrod123/st ... 1658896391

BLM loves police regimes and brutality as long as they aren't American

[Cannot think of a name]

I would argue that by organizing the system the way it is, you have made his burden much, much more and robbed him of his proper compensation to boot.

I would also say that the system, as it is, has some major problems.

I'm just not going about it the way you are.

Yeah, you still want people to move boxes from one side of the room to the other because somehow that makes it worth it for you.

Sometimes things need a complete teardown and rebuild. Or at least a long hard look.

[Salus Maior]

https://mobile.twitter.com/sabrod123/status/1415496641658896391

BLM loves police regimes and brutality as long as they aren't American

Hypocrisy is a pretty popular human feature.