For an actual explanation for what happened in 1971, economically and monetarily at least, go ahead and read Michael Hudson’s Superimperialism and Global Fracture. Superimperialism was so prescient at its original publishing that the US government itself used the book and the theory as a manual on how to be better superimperialists right back around 1971, and hired Hudson as a consultant.
I won’t comment on the fascist economics presented in the linked website.
Full disclosure, I’m not a metalhead by any means, and Metallica isn’t always considered pure metal, but this one hits just right.
Private property.
This reminds me in broad strokes of the thesis of Sakai’s Settlers, which is roughly contemporary. In the introduction Sakai similarly calls out social sciences like “African American studies” and “Asian American studies” for what they are, the societal position and historiography of these peoples from the perspective of the white settler. Settlers thus aims to discuss the white settler in similar terms, ie. as the subject of such “science.”
Private property.
Cixin Liu. Not only is the Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy (Three Body Problem) epic, his short stories are really fun reads.
I don’t usually go for cocktails, but when I do I really like a peaty whiskey sour, or a boilermaker with Guinness or a session IPA and again a peaty whiskey.
I usually feel the worst first thing in the morning. It gets better over the day. Try to sleep and repeat for a few days.
I couldn’t agree more.
Trade deficit is most certainly not a farce. Just because the US has gotten away with having one for over a generation doesn’t mean that it’s nothing.
A large portion of GDP coming from services is incredibly unsustainable, as we see in the US as well as increasingly in the UK and Germany, with western Europe following in due course. What good is an economy if it doesn’t produce the goods people and businesses need every day?
This isn’t to say that exports are the only source for growth, just that the arguments for that position aren’t the ones that you’ve presented.
The switch to Forgejo is super easy, if you don’t mind everything being called “Gitea” you can just switch out the Docker image and carry on.
I just switched recently, maybe around version 1.19.
Forgejo is also working on federation which will give the system an advantage moving forwards. They’re also sticking with Gitea as an upstream source so reasonable changes Gitea makes should make their way to Forgejo pretty quickly.
Without more info it’ll be hard to help.
I got it working in principle, but the Raspberry Pi I wanted to host it on isn’t powerful enough to handle the necessary computing.
The forces being applied to tyres are orders of magnitude higher than the forces being applied to your clothes. Tyre plastic compounds are also designed to wear a certain amount, or in other words they must be relatively soft and therefore subject to wear, in order to provide friction sufficient to keep hundreds of kilograms safely connected to the road surface at high speed.
It’s time to bring back the corporate death penalty.
Edit: IIRC Standard Oil, the predecessor of Exxon, was instrumental in abolishing the US corporate death penalty.
This guy:
It’s pretty common for business owners to be fascist, class interests and all that.
Also worth noting that the Nazis didn’t really lose, and the West German state was built with their help.
I would be careful not to mix up what I’ll distinguish here as liberal social progressivism and communist societal progressivism. I’m sure there are more established terms for these concepts but I don’t know them or can’t think of them.
The imbalance we see in the liberal version is because it is, just like social conservatism, a reaction to current material conditions without a proper (ie dialectic) understanding of these how these conditions came to be and how they can be changed. Therefore it falls into the same paradigms and pitfalls which liberalism itself does, and is incapable of actually fixing the issues of the day. Then they get all caught up in things like “traditional” vs “modern” values, distinctions which are meaningless since both broad groups have been enforced across history in intimate relation to the reigning ruling class ideology of the time.
Whereas the type of progressivism we communists see as necessary is a holistic remaking of society, not limited to pushing for equal treatment of out groups, but banishing even the concept of out groups to the scrapheap of history, just to give one example. We go even further though, not in an “endless growth” type of sociopathic way, but in a strategic and structured way so as to fundamentally change the structure of society around us also on the political and economic levels, so that we can peacefully coexist on a human level rather than constantly struggling for who gets the upper hand.
From my reading Hudson’s Superimperialism is an more an extension of Lenin’s Imperialism, based on how material conditions had evolved over the interim fifty years and the lessons learned from (at initial publication) the first generation or so of US dollar hegemony. To simplify it maybe too much, it adds a monetary dimension to the already established framework of finance capital being the driving force behind imperialism.
Superimperialism is indeed the same English term often used for Kautsky’s Überimperialismus hypothesis. Yet apart from the initial parallel of a global cartel, ie. dollar hegemony, I don’t see much of Kautsky’s ideas represented in Hudson’s work, but I’m also not terribly familiar with überimperialism.