this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

5218 readers
37 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've seen this word said a lot, specifically for Americans. I understand the basic throughline, that Americans benefit from imperialism and thus are complicit in its crimes.

But...what would be the difference in action if they weren't?

There is land back, but that doesn't include what happened in Africa and the middle east. If the average American is complicit in the genocide of Palestinians, what do you do about it? Is it just supposed to guilttrip them? Is it reparations? Is it a mass trial of a couple hundred million people...?

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 week ago

It's mostly to explain the unwillingness to confront their own bias and move forward as a revolutionary.

[–] Angry_Fuck@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As a non-Statesian, I get a lot of angry thoughts and try to elaborate rants in my head, but I can never find something coherent enough to post. Maybe, one day I'll start working it down and see if I can make a nice writeup. For now, you'll have to bear with me the key points of the rants:

  • Nowhere in the world the populance can have guns this easily and legally;
  • And even to add insult to injury, usually, the most reactionaries love in states where the gun laws are the loosest;
  • I do believe that the ruling class believes that they can get away with it because the amount of propaganda, so people don't rebel and can't connect the dots that some violence with proper ML thought could just topple everything;
  • And even when someone does connect the dots, either they can't act on it, due to getting on a list, or be assassinated like the Panthers were.

Again, this is too simplistic and too emotion-laden to be a proper analysis, but I believe my sentiment of complicity stems from this.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

People can barely afford food, and the most basic gun is 500 dollars minimum without ammunition or additional equipment, or learning how to operate and clean the gun. That is nearly 80 hours of wages for the gun alone, pre-tax, for a worker making 15 dollars an hour.

There’s also an idea of what they’ll even do with the gun. Run around and dome their local sheriff? Based. An assassination? That’s essentially suicide. At the end of the day this is all just random propaganda of the deed acts. Guns mean nothing without a class consciousness or organized labour movement.

[–] davel@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think it means whatever someone meant, but often that isn’t elaborated, so often I don’t really know.

I think sometimes they mean that we benefit from imperialism, while other times they mean that we’re jointly and severally guilty of it and/or responsible for it.

I think that many—perhaps most—people think in a moral framework, while others don’t.

I’d say that most of us benefit from it and ought to struggle against it, but I wouldn’t say that each and every one of us is “guilty” of it. Bourgeois democracy is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Not every Russian peasant was guilty of the Tsarist empire’s crimes.

The reparations question I feel is above my pay grade, and the answers probably depend on the material conditions post-dissolution/revolution, and I can’t see that far ahead.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think all Amerikkkans share some level of guilt, while the average amerikkkan has a large amount of fault.

When I was growing up it felt like everyone had a family member in the military.

Even then, a perfect example of our guilt would be something as simple as buying bananas. It seems innocent enough to buy a bushel of bananas for $1.50, but how much suffering was enacted to ensure the price of those banana?

We can say the same about our gas prices, cheap phones, chocolate, coffee, the list can go on forever if we're being honest.

A lot of amerikkkans seem to forget just how much privilege we have in regard to the abundance of cheap goods at our disposal.

When my parents travel overseas they make sure to fill an entire checked bag with OTC medicine, chocolates, even clothes. My mom even buys phones and other electronics for my relatives before she goes lol.

[–] vyitnoomyr@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago

People are under the impression that the goods cannot be underpriced because of the ramp-up in rentier extraction. I think this mostly just hardens Americans against any course of action that isn't just making more dealz for the superprofits

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don't think it tends to mean much in practice beyond resolving contradictions. So like, settlers either leaving occupied land or at least having to give back a lot of stewardship to the indigenous. Participant Nazis having to answer for war crimes where feasible, but not every kid in Germany being put on trial.

Some of it just comes down to what's practical. It is not practical to try to hold everybody living in a particular region accountable for something and they would be a strange level of organized and on the same page if they were, in fact, all provable responsible in terms of sharing in the decision-making. Even if you made a moral argument for it and ran with that, it's still impractical to try to hold all of their feet to the fire instead of focusing on the worst offenders and focusing on dismantling the power structures that create and reproduce oppression.

So one could argue, for example, that many of us the world over are in certain ways complicit in capitalism because we buy into it rather than collectively refusing. But even if you can make an airtight moral argument for this, it doesn't make it any more logistically feasible to hold hundreds of millions of people across the world accountable for being complicit in it. Even revolution carries with it elements of the old society into the new one. You can't wipe it clean and start fresh. So if one's goal is to guilt people on purchasing decisions, or guilt them on going along to get along, then maybe arguing for complicity on a very broad scale is useful. But if the goal is to defeat the exploiting classes, it will always come back to limited resources and going after the worst offenders before anything else.

I could be misunderstanding history, but I would figure most of the time, this is the way people think about war, is going after high value targets under heavy material constraints. But colonialism has a different kind of culture, of using technological/military superiority to mass murder or even genocide an entire people. So the calculus for viewing the "offenses" of a people and the complicity of them is completely different; colonialism will say that what one does wrong, the others are responsible for, and use this to justify killing anyone and everyone (and it is possible for colonial-minded people to turn this worldview inward).

[–] opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

its quite easy for americans to dish this out but impossible for them to accept it. largely malnourished and psychologically ruined japanese populace had the choice to revolt against hirohito so the bombs are ok and also we send them orders to evacuate. russians should dislike their government and home country because we said so, sanctions and racism against them is ok.

we revolt against government? well, we are frail little californian boys and we cant get guns here. we are brainwashed little southerners so we are incapable of turning on our government (even though we are armed to the teeth and dont hesitate to shoot minorities and kids). its not safe for me to be out in the streets, i have so and so disability, i dont wanna lose my job, i have a dog to take care of etc.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Did you really have to throw disabled people under the bus in the last section? That’s extremely disgusting and ableist.

The people saying they wouldn’t be able to participate in a revolution because of their disability were most likely radicalized by the insane systemic discrimination the disabled face. Crushing medical debt, untreated illnesses, and so on.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah, disabled people are hardly the ones to be criticizing for inaction. How debilitating a disability is can vary; some people would be more able to help than others. But even if someone is on the less disabled range of disabled, it's still shitty to portray it like they're making an excuse for inaction. Recognizing that disabilities make it harder to take various actions for the person, that they can't simply overcome this with willpower, is like half the battle with fighting against ableism. Now sometimes a disabled person may be able to get help that makes it easier to overcome the limitations of their disability, but that's far from a bootstraps thing. It should be a community responsibility to help them out.

But individualism can tripped up on thinking people are supposed to individually arrive at the correct place of their own volition (literally or figuratively), which is far less effective and highly unreliable compared to organizing them.

Like imagine if I said "people should really be meeting me at xyz address at n time of day" and I pushed this as a view online for years on end. And then I showed up at that address at that time every day. I might get some people to show up now and then (and god knows who), but it would not be anything resembling a reliable organization. Point being, we can try to steer people in the right direction (ex: with political education), but we can't organize them via individualist proclamations about responsibility and neglect of it.

[–] opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

its not ableist and i myself have a disability. im only pointing out that americans can understand practical issues when it comes to them and not other people.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Claiming that people use disabilities as a "Get out of jail free card" and a way to avoid blame is absolutely ableist. Having a disability also does not preclude someone from making ableist statements.

Understanding practical issues is also not a uniquely American phenomenon. Everything you stated is easily applicable to quite literally every single group on the planet. But singling out disabled people is vile.

[–] opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

im not talking about disabled people as a whole, im talking about americans who dont have empathy for victims of imperialism but all the empathy for themselves. but i guess u must be american if u got this offended. i hope u dont talk negatively about israelis and ukrainians then

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

No, I got offended because I’m disabled, and that’s an ableist statement.

[–] opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

well im also disabled and i dont think its an ableist statement

[–] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

I'm not asking US-ians though, I'm asking everyone here