u/Balurith

Here is a playlist of good videos about the history of modern China. All the videos are produced independently (as in, not mainstream western media). https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRXjFAr-wnsZpJV6-SfHy7bzOE7Qya62K

There is also this article in the Progressive International by ecological economist Jason Hickel and Paweł Wargan (the latter of whom is interviewed in a video in the playlist from my other comment).

An important theory thing to note:

In socialist theory, the word "dictatorship" comes up quite a bit. In my opinion, it is best to understand this word as meaning "rulership" even though that isn't really a word. Basically, in most everyday speech, "dictatorship" refers to a state of affairs where one leader and their typically capitalist friends are vested with all state power and ownership of the productive forces. This is not what is meant by "dictatorship" in most political theory.

In socialist theory, "dictatorship" is often found in terms like "bourgeois dictatorship" or "dictatorship of the proletariat". In this theoretical context, the meaning is different from the usual one; "dictatorship" just means control over state functions (in very basic terms). This means that in socialist theory, describing something as "dictatorship" is insufficient. Someone has to be doing the dictating and "dictatorship" is characterized by which classes in society have that power. So when Chinese socialists talk about the "people's democratic dictatorship", they are not referring to a state of affairs where a very small group of rulers are the masters of society and lord it over the rest; they are referring to public ownership, public accountability, and public will (via Mass Line) steering the rudder of the government at all times.

In my opinion, this is a critically important difference, because Chinese political theorists (whether they're Maoist or Dengist) will use "dictatorship" very frequently, and if you pay a lot of attention it becomes very obvious they are not referring to a Pinochet style takeover by an elite group of "chosen" rulers.

Holy fucking based.

It's a video game. Largely irrelevant to the point being made by the OP.

Coming out of reddit hibernation to reply here. Everyone else's recommendations are great. Here are some other books that might be enjoyable and informative starting points for you, sorted by author. I've read most of these, but some of these are still on my to-do list. If you're just looking for one thing to read that isn't on anyone else's list though, the Hickel books are extremely good summaries of recent economic history. And obviously Khalidi is a timely read.

-Jason Hickel

• The Divide
• Less is More

-Rashid Khalidi

• The Hundred Years' War on Palestine

-David Graeber

• Debt: The First Five Thousand Years
• The Dawn of Everything (co-authored by David Wengrow)
• Bullshit Jobs

-David Harvey

• A Brief History of Neoliberalism

-Malcom Harris

• Palo Alto

-Tad Delay

• Against: What Does The White Evangelical Want?

-Angela Davis

• Are Prisons Obsolete?

-bell hooks

• Feminism is for Everybody

-Ruth Wilson Gilmore

• Golden Gulag

-Aime Cesaire

• Discourse on Colonialism

-Frantz Fanon

• The Wretched of The Earth
• Black Skin, White Masks

-Robin D. G. Kelley

• Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression

-Amy Sonnie & James Tracy

• Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power

You're just trolling.

kid

lol

Honestly I don't know why I keep bothering to reply because you don't read.

We know what is already deep in your heart.

And there we go, the goal posts have moved into the next solar system because you have absolutely no ground to stand on. You have completely misinterpreted me and instead of reconsidering your first impression of my original comment, you double down on being wrong because you don't want to admit being wrong.

It was plainly obvious the point I was making. And its premise relies on an analysis of the Soviet Union that sees its industry as distinctly non-capitalist. It is a reading of the Empire in Star Wars that relies on seeing the Soviet Union for what it was, not by equating it to fascism or capitalism.

The entire fucking point of the statement is how they are not the same. If the idea was that they were the same, my argument would have been "The empire is a criticism of capitalist imperialism and therefore also of the soviet union". But it's not that at all. It's that a reading of the Empire as a critique of MORE than just capitalist imperialism could include criticism of Soviet industry. The entire premise of the argument is that Soviet industry IS NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. You are actually braindead or just trolling.

I never said that at all. Your reading comprehension needs serious help, because I was extremely careful with my language. I said that a reading of the Star Wars Empire that sees its arms-industrial excess as being not just a critique of capitalist imperialism but also of Soviet industry is not a ridiculous reading. Tell me: where does this statement equate the Soviet Union with anything?

Edit: also you're actually so stupid because I said this in my original essay:

None of this means the aforementioned left-wing regimes were/are worse than fascism or aren't better than what came before them.

That is quite literally your entire argument.

It's interesting that you can read but can't understand anything. The idea that I equated the Soviet Union to fascism is simply false.

Idiotic reply. I'm not equating anything to anything.

Stalk my post history dumbass.

Edit: that's what I fucking thought, idiot.

Those are American organizations based in the US. Your insistence that they are somehow foreign when they do lobbying just like any other domestic organization is frankly bordering on antisemitic. The US controls Israel. Not the other way around.

Yes, but do keep in mind that the stooges in government pushing pro-Israel politics are doing so because they believe it's in the best interest of the US to continue supporting Israel. Yes they get money from AIPAC and the ADL, but that's not foreign influence.

Thanks!

EDIT: it's absolutely INCREDIBLE how the above commenter just willingly ignores everything I say in every single one of my comments. Apparently criticizing the Soviet Union is tantamount to claiming it was fascist. Incredible levels of intellect we're dealing with here, folks.

Original comment:

Like I say in my original comment, I understand all this. But a cursory look into the philosophy of narrative (specifically thinking of Paul Ricoeur here) reveals that the text exists at the intersection of the different "worlds" of the author and audience. The author contributes to the text undoubtedly, but so does the audience or else the text is not a text at all. Like I said, the author is not the only authority on what a text means. It is important not to place primacy on any of those who are party to a text, be they author, audience, or critic. All of these contributors are extremely important.

Edit: just to be clear, this does not mean that all readings are equally valid; some are certainly worse than others. But also, you can still see the arms-industrial excess of the Empire as being a criticism that's more broad than just capitalist imperialism (which would include the Soviet Union). And also like I said in my other comment, claiming the Empire is socialist would be a great example of a terrible reading.

Of course we can't have sane comments on this post. Of course not. Why would I expect anything different. :\

And he also completely walked back his skepticism once independent reporting concurred with the US figures.

Okay I have way too many thoughts about this.

First of all, it's true that Lucas had the Vietnamese communists in mind when writing the Rebel Alliance and he fashioned the Empire after the US campaign in Vietnam. But the US public saw Star Wars and primarily saw a blockbuster film with amazing practical and special effects for its time. The politics may come through quite strongly in retrospect (at least as far as aesthetics are concerned), but they aren't very fleshed out in the script. This leaves things objectively vague in terms of a material analysis of the Empire (and keep in mind this is a space fantasy/opera; not a genre known for extremely developed political intrigue, Andor notwithstanding).

So really, besides some obvious eastern philosophical influences regarding balance, darkness, and light, (as muddled and haphazard as Star Wars's philosophy is) there's quite a lot of room for people to graft their own predispositions onto the veneer of politics in the text.

Otherwise, conservatives tend to enjoy militant anti-authoritarianism in media. I don't think this is contradictory. I just think it points to conservatives either deliberately or accidentally misinterpreting the media they consume. Sometimes it's a bit of both. But generally, conservatives tend to see big bad empires in media and go "yeah, that's what the left is" even when the empire in question (like in Star Wars) is a far right fascist project.

Additionally, it's worth noting how some left-wing regimes in the past have done some pretty authoritarian things that I would consider worth resisting without question. You don't have to be an anarchist to see the excesses of the Soviet Union, Mao's or even modern China, Cuba under Castro (specifically regarding women and queer folks), etc. None of this means the aforementioned left-wing regimes were/are worse than fascism or aren't better than what came before them. All I'm saying is that if a text (like Star Wars) is vague enough about its political content, there are ways to see its imperialist villains as having any number of different ideologies. In my opinion, it would not be a ridiculous reading of the Star Wars Empire to say that its arms-industrial excess isn't just a critique of capitalist imperialism, but also the excesses of Soviet industry (which was by no stretch of the imagination sustainable). Basically, you don't have to be a conservative to see the Empire in Star Wars and be reminded of more regimes than just the fascist ones.

So basically, even though I understand what Lucas has in mind, the text of Star Wars is read by a global audience who is bringing a colossal amount of different perspectives to the text. It's true that some readings are worse than others; for example, reading the Empire as socialist is nonsense. But some readings that you might not expect aren't necessarily wrong readings to have.

To be absolutely clear, I do think it's funny that conservatives love the aesthetics of resistance in media but lampoon it in real life when conditions make it obligatory. But people tend to compartmentalize as a first impulse. The separation of media and "IRL" is an extremely common one. I.E. "Just because I like rebellion in the movies doesn't mean I should support one IRL." I think a lot of people make this separation even when doing so comes at the cost of understanding. I don't think it's just conservatives who do this.

That said, I could definitely be wrong on some of this. And to be fair, I do think the argument that Star Wars is making gets lost on a lot of people. Which is unfortunate, but kinda inevitable in mass media.

Edit: spelling mistake

The process is their god. You cannot question the process. Anything that happens via the process is completely and fully sanctioned by virtue of it having happened because of the process. Fascism is only bad if and when fascists side step the process. The parliamentarian did their job and remained well within their purview, so liberals don't see the problem with them overruling popular legislation. And even though the parliamentarian has been overruled many times in the past, not doing anything about it now is also acceptable because it's part of the process.

Once you understand that all liberals care about is the imagined sanctity of the process, their complete ineptitude and capitulation to the right start to make more sense. But that doesn't stop all this from being worship of a golden calf. This dogma sends minorities to hell in a handbasket.

Sigh. It's not foreign influence. Israel is a US vassal state. Not the other way around.

I'm fully affirming. I grew up non-affirming and was very actively against queer rights for a long time. What moved me off of this bigotry was simultaneously experiencing an evolution in my politics (after reading Jose Miranda's Communism in the Bible) as well as, and most importantly, getting more familiar with the scholarly consensus on the matter.

If you're looking for information on the scholarly consensus (which does not support the idea that the Bible is anti-queer), I highly recommend Dan McClellan's channel on youtube. He has numerous videos about this topic and discusses the scholarly consensus on what the passages most often used to justify anti-queer hate actually meant at the time those passages were written. Here is a two-part video he released just recently to give you an idea:

Part 1

Part 2

He has a lot more videos on his channel about this if you poke around. Highly recommend it. If you have even the most surface level understanding of the academic consensus, it will become extremely obvious that the anti-queer position is entirely untenable from basically every angle from which you could possibly look at it.

Yeah, I agree that the system doesn't feel great in its current implementation.

bullshit input reading Black Flame attacks

I really hate this boss too, but Zullie the Witch on youtube did a video quite a while back testing to see if the Godskins actually input read and the answer is basically that they don't. You can watch Zullie's video here.