Because OP literally only asked who’s seen it all the answers here are plain yes/no ay?

This “you have to experience something to comment on it” is liberal individualism anyway. I don’t have to be a farmer to comment on the impact of climate change on farming or climate change more broadly.

You’d have a point if I had commented on the movie’s writing, aesthetic, picture, acting performances, score, etc. But I didn’t. I made a general point about the nature of cultural products under capitalism and the laws that govern this movie as much as any other.

Haven’t seen it, don’t plan to, don’t care to tbh.

But having talked to some people about it, this is my takeaway: “Messaging” is simply a new tool of marketing, especially “subversive” messaging. You’re not buying a car - you’re committing a revolutionary act of activism against climate change and fossil capitalism. You’re not buying an ethically farmed, grass-fed, local steak, you’re fighting animal cruelty and big farming lobbies with your consumption. You’re not simply dressing up skandidly in pink to watch a multi-hundred million dollar Hollywood production of Barbie produced and approved of by its parent company, giving new legitimacy to that old rubber toy franchise and boosting sales numbers. You’re totally subverting gender roles and criticizing capitalism by doing so.

Imo you’re not. You’re just buying a new car, munching another steak and going to the movies again promoting one of the most famous IPs of all time. It’s the same thing we’ve done our entire lives. Changing the messaging around the act without changing the act, doesn’t change the act. You’re just doing the thing.

There can’t be anything really subversive coming out of the hegemonic culture industry. By the very nature of its production, via the commodification it undergoes, it has already become toothless and assimilated. Neoliberal anti-capitalism is just the newest sales-pitch. It’s along the lines of “diverse” CIA targeting officer recruitment ads. Just like capitalism can’t produce true anti-war movies, it can’t produce anti-capitalist or real anti-gender-role movies. It would be self-defeating if it did.

That being said, if you enjoy it more power to you. Nobody needs a grand narrative of subversion and messaging to go see and enjoy a movie at the theater. If you get something deeper out of it, even better.

Same honestly. At the very least it would’ve taken longer or gone via very different routes. I was already very far in radicalization before I found that sub, but it did play a big part in transfering that radical energy into praxis. But GZD was explicitly not about discussing with libs, it was dunking and meming on them. It was the discussions among comrades that I found most valuable to me. Comrades talking about their organizing efforts in the real world that got me motivated. That was something I had not experienced in real-life before and that’s what I sought and found in real organizing.

Basically if there were patty’s with some teeth they would enforce party discipline and education and that would lead to higher quality discourse online.

Not necessarily. Comrades that engage in actual praxis in RL mostly just don’t care enough to engage in discussions online. I can certainly attest to that. Since I started organizing offline my interest in engaging with libs online has stopped almost entirely. It’s time consuming, annoying, unpleasant and for the most part simply unproductive. 99% of people of any political affiliation do not engage in good-faith debate online - including me and most comrades here. The time I have for political activism is sparse and I can do more productive things with it than talk to a liberal who’s just gonna reply with a sissy-pee social credit meme to a comment I took 30mins to write. RL discussions for the most part are much better in this regard, because the human component shines through much more and you tend to pre-select the people you engage with to a much larger extent. Getting into political discussions with people completely opposed to your view doesn’t happen that much, whereas it is the standard online.

Is there anyway to work on like, an online party discipline?

For existing real-life parties going online maybe, but their energy is used much better elsewhere. For a bunch of randos like us? I don’t think so tbh. We are not organized, there’s no discipline, no organizational structure, no mechanisms to enforce things, no participation to come to conclusions and analysis.

I agree that communists in 2023 have to use the online space productively. Creating platforms like lemmygrad, producing content like podcasts, videos, articles, streams, etc is just much more worth-while (and even that’s limited) and lends itself more to concerted efforts than discussions with dorky libs.

US bases, uranium and gold for France and the EU and transfer country for a planned 20bln cube gas pipeline from Nigeria to Algeria (and then the EU).

Essentially they’re mad about the stream of critical colonial loot drying up.

Fuckin hell that comment section is such a cesspool I had to comment there for the first time. If I bust a vein from that stress you’ll be responsible for that lethal dose of liberalism, comrade

Forcible suppression of opposition: The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, during 1989. The protests started on 15 April and lasted until 4 June, at which point Chinese government troops carried out a crackdown on the demonstrators around the city and the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre. (Better scrub your history for that one before the CCP sees that link)

You don’t even know the proper name of the Communist Party of China, but somehow are qualified to talk about the nature of this state and, again, as argument you link a wikipedia article? Linking an article isn’t an argument.

And again, suppression of capitalist and counter-revolutionary movements is inevitable in class struggle. You can’t be a revolutionary if you can’t defend your revolution. You can’t be a communist if your refuse to suppress and fight your exploiters. China engaging in this class struggle makes the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.

Also le ebin funni CPC will arrest you for reading Tinyman link meme. +500 FICO score for your incredible wit and ingenuity.

Ignore btw the absurd violence the imperialist subject the world to in their neocolonial holdings. Those millions upon millions, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that get brutalized at home for such existential things as “please police don’t kill us” or “we don’t want to work till we’re dead”, sacrifized on the altar of profit in the name of capital pale in comparison to those peaceful, soldier burning reactionaries surrounding the 1989 events. Bashing thousands of heads when the actually suppressed minority in the US rises up against the permanent violence inflicted on it by liberals like you, is a fact of life. The governments committing this violence totally wouldn’t crack down on subversive movements murdering the representatives of that government. Never.

Belief in a natural social hierarchy: Han nationalism is a form of ethnic nationalism asserting ethnically Han people as the exclusive constituents of the Chinese nation. (See also: Genocides against non-Han, as mentioned above)

Saying something exists isn’t proof of that thing existing as a policy of a state. Me linking your a Wikipedia article to Nazi apologia and White Supremacy, isn’t a proof that you’re a white supremacists or Nazi apologist. Though your chauvinistic, reactionary comment is making that argument perfectly fine.

See also: Exemptions for the 1 child policy of non-Hans, the birthrates of those non-hans. The genocide that has no victims, isn’t traceable, not filmable, not provable, but totally exists and isn’t simply another cooked-up non-story for chauvinistic Western liberals in their endless quest to render the word genocide entirely meaningless and therefore to minimize the singular horror of the Holocaust.

Subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race: Chinese workers allege forced labor, abuses in Xi’s ‘Belt and Road’ program.

Again, linking an article to a singular alleged cases of labour abuses are not proof of ‘subordination of individual interests for the percieved good of the nation and race’. These to do not follow from each other. Me linking you an article of child labour abuses in the US wouldn’t be an argument for the US operating under a paradigm of ‘subordination of individual interests for the percieved good of the nation and race’.

That you’re even attempting this argument only, again, shows that you don’t have a clue about the character of either ‘rightwing’ nor ‘leftwing’. The right-wing does not subordinate the individual interest for the perceived good of the nation and race. It very much subordinates the national interest, the interest of the majority, that of the working-class under that of the individual interest of the power-wielding exploiters ie capitalists. So you’re not making the point China is right-wing, because you do not understand what right-wing even is.

So either China is right-wing or it subordinates individual material interests for the good of the majority.

If it does the later, congratulations, you again made the point that China is engaging in class struggle against the individual interests of the exploiter class, which is the defining characteristic of ‘left-wing’. If you don’t engage in class struggle against that class, you’re not a communist.

Not to mention you do not understand the relationship of the individual and the collective in left-wing thought. Which is fine, but disqualifies you from talking about left-wing thought.

Strong regimentation of society and the economy: While the Chinese economy maintains a large state sector, the state-owned enterprises operate like private-sector firms and retain all profits without remitting them to the government to benefit the entire population.

I’m not sure what your point even is. China isn’t a neoliberal capitalist economy…therefore it is right-wing?

Yes, socialist countries regiment society and the economy. What is your point?

Also imagine taxation is the only way of remitting social gain. “How does that cheap, reliable, widespread high-speed rail benefit society without taxation???” It remits profit by the very fact of existing.

Not sure either how this non-remitting point supports the claim that China has strong regimentation of society and the economy. It’s making the exact opposite point.

But go on. Tell me that’s not fascism.

You do not understand what fascism is. You don’t understand what communism is. You don’t even understand the useless, vague labels like “left-wing” or “right-wing”. So I’ll go on: That’s not fascism.

Authoritarian: Elections in the People’s Republic of China occur under a one-party authoritarian political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Direct elections, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, occur only at the local level people’s congresses and village committees, with all candidate nominations preapproved by the CCP.

Authoritarian is a meaningless buzzword, communism isn’t opposed to authority and the use of authority to suppress counter-revolutionaries and the still existing bourgeoisie in the transitional phase isn’t only materially necessary, it’s use is prerequisite for any revolutionary organisation. If you’re unwilling to suppress the exploiter-class of capitalists, you are not waging class war against that class, you are therefore not building socialism and you’re most definitely not working towards the abolition of said exploiter class and therefore class society itself. You are therefore not a communist.

Hence saying ‘authoritarian’ and ‘communist’ exist on opposite ends of the spectrum betrays simply your total lack of understanding of both terms. Insinuating the working class and its organization suppressing the exploiter class is equivalent to the most violent forms of the exploiter class suppressing the exploited, is legitimization of that violence. In its ultimate consequence it’s just literal horseshoe Nazi apologia.

Ultranationalist: Using Chinese nationalism, the CCP began to suppress separatism and secessionist attitudes in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and among the Uyghurs, a Turkic minority in the far-west province of Xinjiang, an issue that persists. (Also: Taiwan.)

Nationalism isn’t per se right-wing. If you had any understanding of people’s liberation struggles in history you’d understand this. Nationalism of the victims of colonialism and imperialism isn’t equivalent of the nationalism of the colonialists and imperialists. Nationalism as a tool to suppress the actual counter-revolutionary ethno-nationalist movements isn’t right-wing in any way and simply linking a Wikipedia article, as if that were an argument, is embarrassing.

Also: Taiwan is the product of the literal fascist, reactionary movement in China fleeing the successful revolution of the people it was opressing and only still exist due to the US imperialists protection of said reactionary tendency. Using that counterrevolutionary tendency’s existence as an argument to…show that China is - right-wing somehow is ludicrous.

Dictatorial leader: China’s Xi allowed to remain ‘president for life’ as term limits removed

There are no term limits in Germany. Was Merkel therefore a dictatorial leader?

Centralized autocracy: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC), is the founding and sole ruling party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Yes, communists don’t allow reactionaries and capitalists in their countries. How you thought not allowing right-wingers in China’s political system is a good argument for China’s supposed right-wing character, is beyond me. ‘right-wing’ isn’t defined by ‘have many party or no’, but by the class character of the tendency, movement, organization or state. China being a dictatorship of the proletariat, which your own point proves since it oppresses the bourgeoisie, is the single best argument for its communist character. You not understanding this simply means you do not understand class, class struggle or what states are and this honestly simply disqualifies you from talking about this in any serious capacity.

Militarism: Chinese coastguard and navy ships intruded into Malaysian waters in the disputed South China Sea 89 times between 2016 to 2019, and often remained in the area even after being turned away by the Malaysian navy. (See also: Taiwan.)

Militarism is when navy in contested water. Not that a wikipedia-citing liberal is expected to argue on a higher level than this…but come on.

And again, the militarism of communists to struggle against imperialism is not only not right-wing, it is in fact tantamount to anything revolutionary and communist. Militant struggle against capital and imperialism and the struggle of capital and imperialism to exploit are not the same, believe it or not. The armed struggle of the slave against his master isn’t the same as the threat of that master’s whip.

See also: Taiwan. China not allowing the imperialists to arm a secessionist movement within its own recognized borders isn’t right-wing. Imperialism arming reactionary, secessionist movements within socialist countries, however, is. So too, if you want to talk about reactionary militarism, is the encroachment, encirclement of China and the countless provocations in its waters and on its land by the imperialists.

Niger has suspended the export of gold and uranium to France this Sunday with immediate effect

Jesus Christ, I’m getting brainworms reading those comments

So you can’t quote it, because you made it up, gotcha. Can you then at least quote me expressing sympathy for the AFU? Like quote the whole sentence where I did that.

Quote me talking about Azov, Aidar, C14 and dismissing Donbass Russians being shelled and raped.

Literally who’s saying any of that?

The implicit chauvinism in this whole ‘NATO training’ narrative is astounding anyway. If someone should be training and learning frome someone, it should be NATO from Ukraine, not the other way around. Outside of the US NATO countries have literally 0 institutional experience with conventional peer warfare. Even the US is over 30 years removed from anything resembling that. Their entire docrine and structure is geared towards fighting irregular forces in the periphery with total air, artillery, intelligence and every other superiority. Which isn’t the case in Ukraine in any fucking way.

The AFU has that experience, knowledge and doctrine. If it wasn’t such a reactionary puppet shithole I’d feel bad for the AFU soldiers fighting that war for 8 years and then being schooled by some NATO wanker who’s maybe shot at a peasant with an AK once. What’s some German officer gonna teach the Ukrainian military? The Bundeswehr has been playing logistics and practicing sitting in bases while their equipment rots away since WW2 and padded itself on the shoulders for leaving the little combat to Nazi SOF or the Yanks. They have 0 experience relevant to this conflict. It’s madness that Westoids are so deluded they believe the issue isn’t with them.

Relevant is some Ukrainian soldier in an interview with the WaPo (iirc) telling a story how they asked their German trainers how they should deal with minefields and the guy telling them they should ‘just bypass them’. That’s the training these guys are getting for the slaughterhouse.

Only hope is this gets smashed so quickly and thoroughly it has ripple effects that end or at least significantly decrease the level of fighting and dying in Ukraine as soon as possible. There should be nothing left materially after this and this push to the Sea of Azov is the only strategic possibility for something like a military succes for the AFU. If this fails, there is no possibility of military victory for them left and someone somewhere would have to realize that.

And how is that working out?

Haven’t really seen it yet, have we? It’s a fairly new concept and countries like the UK struggle with even procuring the vehicles necessary. The UAF got enough for like half a brigade, but interestingly afaik no Strykers have yet appeared anywhere on the fronts. In general I’d imagine they’d work out about as well as the current Ukrainian forces since they’re predicated on air and artillery supperiority and space to maneuver. Bashing them against fortified positions isn’t the point from what I understand. Which just makes the “NATO would beat Russia ezpz” fantasy even more laughable since NATOs state of the art structure isn’t at all suited to conventional peer warfare.

Preeeetty sure they’ve stopped being the main breakthrough force since WW1.

Sure, combined arms yadda yadda. They were still a breakthrough weapon and still are used as such. They just don’t seem to work that well in this role anymore.

If anything, Ukraine war and the aforementioned extensive usage of drones just goes to show that artillery is still king.

Definitely. Very long range fire capabilities dominate this war, but surprisingly infantry remains incredibly important at the same time.

SPGs = Self-propelled guns

Big wheeled or tracked artillery guns. Eg French Caesar, German PzH2000, Russian Msta-S, etc

AD is just Air Defence. Million systems for different roles and ranges on the battlefield in Ukraine right now.

Do bullets make infantry obsolete? Humans die really quickly to bullets and the cost relation is horrible

Tanks might become obsolete, in fact NATO has been developing the concept of Strike/Stryker brigades as their main meat for a long time and those function mostly without MBTs as their primary armor. If they become obsolete it won’t simply be because of drones, but because their tactical role will be filled by other systems or concepts.

Heavy armor in large columns has a big problem in modern peer conflicts in general. Minefields and high precision weapons combined with constant satelite and UAV surveillance make them incredibly vulnerable. Both Ukraine and Russia have struggled massively with this. Both have resorted to small scale infantry teams to circumvent this problem. Cluster munitions should, however, make this manpower intensive strategy even more costly and difficult. So that doesn’t seem to be a good solution either in an age where manpower is sparse as hell due to demographic shifts.

The tank’s role in this seems to have shifted too tho. From what we can see they’re less effective as breakthrough weapons and more as short-range, direct fire, mobile artillery. In times of immense focus on artillery that still gives them a highly important role that drones don’t really impact any more than they do howitzers, SPGs or AD for that matter.

Personally I think long term drones will mostly impact the role of the airforce. Planes are absurdly expensive to build ($80mio for a single F35, bombers can cost close to a billion), operate and maintain, so are pilots. Much more so than tanks and their crews. Missiles, drones and integrated AD, to me, seem much more economical than huge fleets of jets and bombers operated by incredibly vulnerable human meat while filling similar tactical roles. We can see this in Ukraine where air power plays a pretty small role, while tanks are still all present and sought after.

AOC Is Just a Regular Old Democrat Now

Good wrap up of ‘left’ Dem politicians and AOC in particular, but especially fascinating to me just how close libs can get to realizing the futility of electoralism without ever actually getting there.

The absolute effect of liberalism on women’s perception of themselves and their role in the world

want something out of the dems? Put a real leftist in charge

Imagine looking at the past 200 years and still believing this fairytale nonsense.