Lol, I too delivered in a Honda Civic. I feel like there were like 4 vehicles back then with decent mpg.
Though my tape deck was broken, so I had to use one of those things you plugged into the cig lighter and tuned to an unused radio frequency. Oddly good times, when I think back to it.
It wasn't even that long ago, I delivered for Papa John's in the late 00s. Some of the guys had tomtoms, but they were always out of date, and would lead you astray more often than not.
We mostly just used a giant laminated map of our delivery area that was attached to the heat shield of the pizza oven. You'd be surprised how quickly you can memorize the layout of a small city when your pay is dependent on it.
I haven't been back to that town since college like 20 years ago, but if you gave me an address there, I could still prob pin point it on a blank map.
Someone needs to start a Trotsky decoy. There is no stronger reflex in tanky culture than to pursue leftist infighting.
Not necessarily, just that post industrialized nations tend to swing harder right when people begin to lose faith in the democratic process.
I think part of that is due to the lack of strong mutual aid groups and worker organizations that industrialization creates as a byproduct.
If we look at revolutionary movements in the 20th century for the most part the industrialized nations were the ones who were overtaken by fascism, while unindustrialized countries like Russia and China transitioned to socialism.
It was one of the wildcards that early socialist didn't really forsee, which is why everyone was so surprised that the first revolution to succeed was in Russia instead of Germany.
Well first, I think it depends on your perspective. The French revolution and the 1rst Republic were overthrown by Napoleon. While Napoleon was one of the more liberal dictators, he was still an agent of some pretty terrible imperialism.
Secondly, there's a reason why I specified post industrial societies. The most successful leftist governments had the advantage of being able to industrialize their nations. Being able to increase the power of a centralized government while simultaneously improving the quality of life of its citizens is one of the more powerful carrots in the revolutionary arsenal.
I mean, it kinda depends on what you think will make things better..... Accelerationist ideology is mostly only effective for fascist. Fascism gains power by blaming current problems on the ineffectiveness of parliamentary governments, promising to provide stability with the use of a strong leader.
The left on the other hand relies on ideas like mutual cooperation and mutual aid, things that require more political and structural organization to bear fruit.
In post industrialized nations, it's hard to imagine why things would have to regress in order to eventually progress from the current status quo.
My understanding of these trophy hunts is that they only allow people to shoot the animals that are no longer contributing to the gene pool.
For now..... A lot of these "conservation groups" putting out these types of studies are actually just hunting lodges owned by rich families. They claim that they are preserving the land, and that they use the proceeds from these types of hunts to protect the land.
However, these "conservationist" are typically just poachers with a marketing team. For the most part their goal is to legitimize the illegal hunts they are already committing.
Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist
So, just a vibe check then?
In what manner? Vibes?
Lol, in the same way as the Khmer Rouge....you never extrapolated how they were feudal to begin with.
Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!
First of all, I don't think anyone can rightly claim Mao wasn't a nationalist. He was an ardent anti imperialist and he wasn't an ethno-nationalist, but still a nationalist at heart. Secondly progress is relative to the revolution, Cambodia prior to the revolution was for the most part dependent on substance farming. Adapting a centralized apparatus to control the economy is still progress.
but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.
They didn't deindustrialze, they were never industrialized to begin with.
More vibes.
Hilarious considering your arguments have been completely vibe based. Even when I ask you specify your claims.... Nope just vibes.
He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism.
When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?
Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.
His "agrarian Communism" was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism
Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.
you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist.
Lol, that's not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80's as well.
I think it's pretty obvious that we're just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.
don't believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn't accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.
I think what's pertinent to the original argument was that they were communist while the Khmer Rouge were committing their atrocities. Labeling a country that transitioned from communism to fascism as a purely fascist government is misleading and reductive.
Also, being opposed to a communist government does not mean you're automatically a fascist. As we know communist China attacked communist Vietnam right after the US Vietnam war.
The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment
It's no more complicated than the history of European geopolitics. As an Asian person, I get told this by western people a lot. I think it's just a hold over from the western interpretation of the east being based in mystery. Also, the complications of any topic does not validate the type of misleading/reductive comment you made.
my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn't a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.
I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50's, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.
Pol Pot didn't really divert from communism until the 80's and that was a last ditch effort to get the west to support his failing regime. I don't particularly believe that "We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way." constitutes as denouncing Marxism.
China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.
You haven't supported the argument that the Khmer Rouge were never communist...... Now I'm willing to compromise and say they transitioned away from communism as did the Russians, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they were communist at some point.
How exactly was Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge not communist in the 50s-70's?
Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
I think that's a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.
The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.
Also, PolPot wasn't criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80's, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in "deviations from Marxism-Leninism"
The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.
"Michelle Cox was in disbelief when a U.S. Department of Labor official told her earlier this year she was violating federal law by employing 14- and 15-year-olds past 7 p.m. on school nights.
Cox, the owner of a Subway franchise in Maquoketa, Iowa, knew the state legislature had made substantial changes to state labor laws in 2023 to allow younger teens to work later on weekdays."
"She thinks the federal government is unfairly targeting Iowa, which she says was only trying to support small businesses"
Since when was subway a "small business"?
The whole point of the labour law is to get kids back home on time to where they can actively participate in school. There are plenty of parents out there who will force their kids to work as much as possible as soon as they can, and it is awful for their education.
The only people who have the audacity to claim this isn't harmful to children are people who've never had to go to school and hold down a full time job. Fuck that lady, I hope the Fed takes all her shitty sandwiche money.