Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? - V. I. Lenin

Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

Lenin’s argument was that even if an electoral system is deeply flawed, participation is necessary in order to reach people who are invested in the system. In addition to spreading the message, it also provides a way to assess the strength and popularity of a platform, and it can serve as a means of testing and weeding out prospective leaders who might be opportunists.

Militarize? We already spend more on the military than the next 9 countries combined. And we have 5 different wars going on right now that nobody can even name without googling.

Neither of those is a particularly new situation.

Hmm? I think you’ve got that backwards. Ukraine is the one trying to reclaim lost territory that’s currently under Russia’s control, is it not? What year exactly should we revert world borders back to and why?

I wonder if you can see the problem with the naive solution of trying to “lock in” whatever the present borders are. If a country seizes territory, even without any justification, that territory is now part of the present borders, and therefore would be “locked in” by that standard, suggesting that anyone who tried to take it back is the aggressor (until they succeed in reclaiming it).

I think that what you’re asking is a very complicated and valid question, even if you didn’t mean it in earnest. The question of what makes a country legitimate is quite complicated. I would argue that the “north star” of legitimacy is what outcome is best for the people. In the case of Taiwan, I think the best outcome is to maintain the status quo of de facto independence without rocking the boat with things like formal independence. It’s not worth starting world war 3 over a formality.

But when you have a “country” like the Confederacy or Tibet, which keeps people in bondage under horrible conditions, then obviously the best outcome is for them to be defeated and taken over by someone else. Slavery and serfdom are automatically delegitimizing.

There’s also another reason why reunifying Tibet was justified, which is explained very succinctly by the 1944 US War Department film, “Why We Fight: The Battle For China:” (around 8:20)

But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it’s population, think of conquering China, much less the world?

Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation.

The part of China’s history where it was broken up into these warlord states was part of what they call, “The Century of Humiliation,” when Chinese people were subject to imperialism and aggression from many different countries, worst of all being Imperial Japan. Because the country was so fractured, it was difficult to mount an organized, collective defense. This was understood by basically everyone, by the US, by the communists, and by the nationalists. That’s why the communists and nationalists were willing to form a unified front against the warlord states despite their major ideological differences, because it was obvious to everyone at that time that a unified China - a “One China Policy” - was important and necessary. Even today, both the PRC and ROC formally agree on the idea of a One China Policy, and the US has (in the past at least) as well.

But again, today, I personally believe in maintaining the status quo, where Taiwan is de facto independent. There’s significant precedent that this can maintain peace and keep everyone relatively satisfied. The same precedent did not exist in Tibet or in any of the other warlord states. Furthermore, Taiwan has significantly better human rights and conditions in general than Tibet where you’d die a serf at age 30. The whole “Free Tibet” thing is pure propaganda, only followed by people who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of what life was like there before, and of the history in general.

several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.

Tibet has historically been part of China for a long time, which is probably why Taiwan claims it along with the rest of China (in fact, Taiwan’s claims go further and include Mongolia). Tibet broke away along with a bunch of other warlord states in the chaos following the fall of the Qing dynasty, and was never internationally recognized as an independent country. Its people were freed from the tyrannical, slave owning theocracy and rejoined the country, which led to the doubling of their average life expectancy (along with the rest of China). China’s claim to Tibet is about as valid as the US claim to the Confederate States.

All of that happened over 70 years ago under Mao, before the country shifted focus with major reforms in the 80s. Though to be fair to you, there aren’t exactly a lot of recent wars involving China for you to choose from, are there? Not your fault you have to go back 70 years.

Here, we consciously prioritize the voices of the global majority

Based. Exactly this.

Anyone who considers themself a leftist should dream of a world where one’s birthplace does not determine their political power, and should be outraged at how much global power the US wields, through force, despite comprising such a small segment of the global population. The principle of “one person, one vote” while living in an imperial hegemon means that we have a responsibility to prioritize the voices and perspectives of the global majority, and of the people affected by our countries’ aggression who have no say in our politics.

…even if that means getting called “selfish” by scratched liberals on .world who explicitly say that American lives are more valuable than those of foreigners.

Source? It’s in their constitution.

They’ve been “just recently” talking about how Taiwan is theirs for the past 70 years and haven’t done shit.

I live in a world where basic pattern recognition exists.

Personally, I’m just waiting for the aggressive, expansionist country of Switzerland to end it’s occupation of Zurich.

You should try basing your beliefs on facts and evidence sometime.

Yes, as they have since the war, just as Taiwan claims China. Your point?

Peace with Taiwan has been maintained for nearly a hundred years, with a mutual understanding that nobody would try to force the issue too hard (look up “strategic ambiguity”). In recent years, the US has been recklessly deviating from that understanding and now people treat the status quo as “Chinese aggression,” because of propaganda.

Is it possible for more than two things being true at once?

Scientists recently managed to get three things to be true at once, but it only lasted for a couple seconds. It may be possible for as many as four, even five things to be true at the same time, but that’s purely theoretical at this point.

B-b-b-b-b-but China might, possibly, at some point in the future, try to reclaim Taiwan! Both sides! Two things true at once! Me speculating about something possibly happening is the exact same as the thing actually happening!

Make their jobs hell and fewer people will want to do it, duh.

Wtf is this bullshit, like should we show up with a fresh cup of coffee and donuts for the ICE agents so they don’t “make a mistake?” Fluff their pillows and tuck them in to make sure they get a good night’s rest? We want them to be stressed out, tired, prone to mistakes and outbursts. They kill us when they’re calm and well-rested too.

Banging your drums all night outside an enemy encampment has been a tried and true strategy for thousands of years.

or what happened with Tibet

I’m genuinely speechless.

Please open a fucking history book.

What exactly do you think occurred in Russia in 1991?

So, at least as reputable as anything you say then.

“Their own interests” whose interests, exactly? Who benefitted, and who paid the costs, for the wars in the Middle East? The only people who benefitted seem to be oil companies and war profiteers, while ordinary people (including my own family) paid for it in both money and blood.

The interests of your own country’s bourgeoisie might align sometimes with those of the American bourgeoisie, but neither align with your people or the American people.

So many of these people will play this little game where they pretend to be reluctant, like they care just as much as we do, but as much as it tears them up inside, they’ll make the “rational” choice for the “lesser genocide.”

Then, as soon as the leftists were out of the room, they dropped the facade and started talking about how great and wonderful Harris is and how they couldn’t think of a single reason to dislike her. This wasn’t the only post like that that got 1000+ upvotes, despite Lemmy being full of “reluctant” Harris voters.

A part of me wishes they’d just tell us straight up that they don’t give a shit.

Related, in Star Wars lore, Tarkin got promoted (in the late Republic) after landing a ship on top of a crowd of protesters where were blocking the spaceport on Ghorman.