The issue with studying the collapse of the USSR is that everyone has an opinion on it and very few are principled Marxist-Leninist assessments, as K&K describe in the first chapter.

I'd recommend Carlos Martinez's Why Doesn’t the Soviet Union Exist Anymore? for a brief but updated synthesis of K&K's work once you're finished, it helps in hammering in the main points.

The reality is that we still exist in the nightmare pangs of a world where the failsons of the past 500 years of imperialism and genocide strut around acting like the moral leaders of the planet. You enter into a sort of mental paralysis despair spiral when you read about the atrocities committed by those who built this western "civilization" through the genocide of the New World, the subjugation of the entire planet and see the chauvinism and nonchalance of how this west conducts itself today.

There has never been such a degree of inhumanity as what followed when the west got its grubby little hands on gunpowder and the compass and to have them now hide the butcher's knife behind their back and act the saint today, gloatingly prancing about like peacocks about being the "first world," one built with the inherited loot of 5 centuries of imperialism, gives you a wrenching dissonance at the Kafkaesque parody of a world "order" we now inhabit.

The most farcical aspect of this is that we of the West are the most filial children this species has ever produced. The institutional propaganda purpose of western academia and all those prestigious University Presses in terms of the humanities is to print out endless slop degrading the historical past of designated enemy nations and lionizing our own. It's viewed as a great triumph to see designated enemy nations so self-conscious in casting down their forefathers as Khruschev did to Stalin and as feckless diaspora reactionaries fantasize about doing to Fidel and Mao.

Meanwhile, the 2020 BLM protests showed how the west would fight tooth and nail to defend every single inch of the historical pantheon of slave owning founding fathers and colonizers. A few like Robert E Lee were (grudgingly) cast down (sporadically) as a concession, but any wider challenge against the likes of Washington, Jefferson, the 19th century Oxbridge imperialism-abbetting dons and even a freak like Rhodes were slapped down. This is what all the pearl-clutching around the statues and the paintings and the named buildings were really about at its core.

This cognitive battle for historical memory is the bedrock of contemporary western chauvinism. The aim is to ensure that only the history of the west is worth being proud of. In the former socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the educational curriculum drills in the historical shame of the socialist half-century, ensuring that the people will always feel wretched about their socialist past while the west still gets to parade around Cold War war criminal Presidents, Prime Ministers and Chancellors as their heroes "with flaws." The end result is that the past of former socialist states today is a blank nihilistic void with nothing of dignity to draw upon except going back centuries to fawn over inbred royalty or those Nazi-collaborationist freaks who terrorized their forefathers for their choice of socialism or just outright Westanbetung.

In the former DDR, it's no surprise that the choice has become the far-right AfD. In this societal self-flagellation where the "Stasi" past is denounced, there's not even some "post-Nazism redemption story" to grasp, like the fiction which the BRD parades around, because the socialist past is consigned to oblivion, equated almost on par with Hitler-fascism. Consequently, the only source of historical self-worth for many then can only inevitably come from LARPing as generic white people and importing American far-right and neo-Nazism as mimicry, vicariously associating with "Europe" and "the West" for that sense of post-socialist Europe pride that comes from being patted on the shoulder as being "semi-white" and "semi-European," which has become the principal aspiration for those people.

The mental colonization that this represents is so pervasive that MLs are no exception to falling into this trap of helping to aggrandize western memory and denounce that of the designated enemies. In the nihilistic despair of the 90s and early 00s, Michael Parenti would praise Julius Caesar as a "hero for his time" for his cynical appropriation of Roman populism and yet condemned Deng Xiaoping in a fit of western Marxist paranoia. His example shows how easy it is for absolutely anyone to fall into this well worn groove and "cognitive comfort" that comes from accepting the western narrative of all things.

This is the cognitive dimension of why western hegemony is the primary contradiction of the contemporary world and must be recognized as such. Such a recognition accepts, and will never let go, of the historical fact of the west's 500 year past of savagery. It steadfastly refuses the west's song and dance at propagating historical nihilism (as Chinese comrades have fittingly coined) to the populace of its designated enemies while simultaneously patting itself on the back for being the failsons of war criminals and colonizing butchers. To awaken to this truth is a form of cognitive liberation, a moment of clarity that pulls the wool from one's eyes. Even within the fragmented landscape of contemporary western "Marxism," individuals in the suffocating midst of the imperial core can contribute to this principled stance.

Why should they? The resolution is a cynical pantomime act: a "genocide remembrance" proposal co-sponsored by two of the most vicious genocidal states of the 20th century. A Western-backed resolution urging the world to "commemorate genocide" at a moment when there's an active genocide against Palestinians is the height of moral bankruptcy.

The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina are undoubtedly real and Yugoslav/Serbian actors are directly culpable, but the vicious swath of ethnic cleansing that followed the catastrophic disintegration of SFR Yugoslavia were committed from all sides. The tunnel visioning on the Yugoslav/Serbian atrocities against Bosnians (and Kosovans) is a deliberate narrative aimed at absolving NATO and its regional underlings of any fault and pinning the entirety of the blame in the historical "canon" on the remnants of the last socialist state in Europe.

Kate Hudson's work "Breaking the South Slav Dream: The Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia" quotes a LA Times article covering the 2002 Hague Tribunal which rather remarkably declared at the time that "Milosevic, as a scapegoat in a show trial with a predestined outcome, would be a perfect medium to exorcise the guilt of those who are trying to obliterate their complicity in provoking the Balkan Wars." So it is as well with the Yugoslav/Serbian atrocities whose single-mindedly focus by Western Human Rights scholars and "Genocide Studies" academics for the past decades is meant to whitewash the crimes of all others involved.

The infamous Srebrenica episode itself exemplifies the typical atrocity narrative structure that Western scholars and journalists employ where they blow up a single isolated incident on the big screen and toss out the rest of the film strip with the background context and prelude, the usual "Last Thursdayism" gimmick where history only began, Book of Genesis-style, at the moment the designated adversary committed the act in question. As Hudson writes:

Serbian atrocities in Srebrenica in 1995 – including the alleged massacre of over 7,000 Muslim men and boys – were widely publicized, although it is notable that by the end of the 1990s only a tiny fraction of the anticipated number of bodies had been found. The fact that Serbs had previously been brutally driven out of Srebrenica by the Muslim leader Oric, and had suffered atrocities at Muslim hands – such as the massacre of 500 Serb civilians on the Orthodox Christmas Eve in 1993 – were not widely reported.

Most states don't care enough to challenge this Western narrative, which is why a resolution like this will likely pass, but for those countries which understand the cynical rationale behind this blame-shifting whitewash, where victims and perpetrators are selectively remembered, there's absolutely no reason to play along. If everything in its entirety regarding the collapse of Yugoslavia was commemorated, Clinton, Kohl, Albright and all the Western war criminals would be pinned alongside Milosevic. Their aim is to prevent that so this selective remembrance narrative is the end result.

Meanwhile, the West will happily talk endlessly about Bosnia's past while at the very present, the country is still non-sovereign and governed by a NATO appointed colonial viceroy, the "High Representative," who can toss out election results and depose Bosnian elected officials at will.

Just looked and apparently, there's some really based content uploaded on Google Maps for Karl Marx House.

Chinese tourist sings the Internationale

Abandon Ayn Rand, Embrace Chadism-Leninism

Alright, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. In a world where Western "Marxists" are largely ultra LARP freaks who sell out to Western academia and University Presses to publish anticommunist propaganda, Roderic is a comrade and is a genuine AES-upholding ML.

His work on RedSails is an invaluable compendium of literature given how other leftist writing repository like Marxists.org are hijacked by Trots.

People need to understand that just because someone is a proper ML doesn't mean you'll be best friends with them. Expecting that is the fastest way to being disillusioned in real world organizing and praxis, when you inevitably meet some ideological comrade you don't necessarily vibe with. The history of socialism in praxis is filled with people who both learned, and failed to learn, to acknowledge others who are near entirely ideologically aligned yet clash with on a personal and social level.

Roderic has an abrasive online personality and has made L takes on frankly tangential subjects through his Twitter debatebro addiction. This just makes him another case of the 70%/30%.

Additionally, his thesis on Redsails that emphasizes the buy-in nature of Western propaganda, if that is what you are referring to, is an absolutely cogent interpretation of the dynamics between propaganda and its recipients in the Western paradigm.

The absolute funniest thing is that whenever something like this happens, including the literal day after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in Feb 2022, there's the current crop of "realist" Kissinger/Brzezinski wannabes like that Meerswhatever freak screaming in ghoulish rags like Foreign Affairs "not to forget about China!" and waving around RAND Corp PDFs trying to remind the Washington blob that "China is still the real long term adversary!"

They've been getting completely sidelined for the past two years in every subsequent geopolitical moment since Ukraine because they don't understand that the irrational greed inherent of US hegemony can't stand getting challenged on a single inch of its imperial sway anywhere on the planet.

That's just the pre-New Cold War early-mid 2010s reddit r/worldnews top comment copypasta that would appear every time in a DPRK-related thread. "Oh, the only reason South Korea isn't reincorporating the DPRK East Germany-style is because China fears the North Korean hordes ("Norks") flooding in and uncontrollably eating all the grain in China with giant spoons after having been famined by "rocketman" Kim."

Sino-Korean relations are actually a very fascinating study that go beyond Western propaganda's vibes based assertions of "dependence" and "vassalage."

It's important to establish a macroscopic view of the Sino-Korean relationship to understand the material conditions which underpin it today. The basis of the relationship dynamics between China and the DPRK go back to the late Qing Dynasty which, to be plain, completely abandoned Korea to the predations of Japanese imperialism. The Korean Joseon government had refused to establish relations with Japan explicitly due to their loyalty to China and (misplaced) faith in its capacity to come to Korea's rescue as the Ming once did against Japan's invasion in the late 16th century. The Qing, having just lost their own war against Japan, were in no position to do so. The Japanese pretext for initiating its imperialist assault on Korea actually began with the pretext of "opening it up" as a direct result of this Korean diplomatic refusal. This soon forced Korea to sign its first unequal treaty with Japan and began the catastrophically traumatic Japanese invasion of Korea. The sense of Qing China having failed to live up to its obligations, and with such calamitous consequences for Korea, is the historical essence which permeates both Chinese and Korean perceptions.

This sense of past failure in historical obligations alongside socialist solidarity, a further indebtedness to Korean aid against Japan in Northeast China and, yes, pragmatic realpolitik calculus towards counter-containing the expansion of the American containment doctrine from reaching the Yalu River, were the reasons why China intervened in the Korean War. Following this, the China-DPRK relationship was actually the inverse of the big nation-small nation power dynamic for most of the 20th century, precisely because both sides were deeply historically cognizant of not making the relationship seem like such, particularly since China, following the Sino-Soviet split, had a vested interest in not making itself also appear to be the overbearing big brother when it was simultaneously accusing the USSR of being a "big nation chauvinist" within the socialist world.

To this end, the power asymmetry of the relationship under Mao actually came to skew towards the DPRK, with Mao personally offering Kim Il Sung de facto military and administrative control of Northeast China as the DPRK's "great hinterland" and the border around Mount Paektu/Changbaishan was amended so that the DPRK would possess half of the mountain alongside its highest peak. At a time where the Sino-Soviet rupture had isolated China from fraternal nations that sided with the USSR, such as Mongolia and Vietnam, it became imperative for China to maintain its friendship with the DPRK. The DPRK under Kim Il Sung therefore not only benefitted from such asymmetry, but also could always fall back on the triangular relationship with the USSR to further cushion its position.

The Chinese perception of the Mao era relationship here is very telling, because Deng Xiaoping actually articulated it when the DPRK tried to block China's normalization process with South Korea: "We should draw lessons from our dealings with North Korea. We should not give the North Koreans the wrong impression that whatever they ask for we will give them."

Deng saw China's relationship with the DPRK as not only asymmetric, but also the teleological next domino to fall over after the ruptures in similar relationships where China once gave great sacrifices to maintain: “Of course, the North Koreans are unhappy. Let it be. We should prevent them from dragging us into trouble. We have made huge efforts to aid Vietnam, Albania, and North Korea. Now Vietnam and Albania have fallen out with us. We should be prepared for the third one [North Korea] to fall out with us, though we should try our best to prevent that from happening.”

This perception, became coupled with revisionist views of the Korean War brought about through Western narratives that "if only China didn't intervene (and humiliate America and the 'United Nations' coalition by fighting them to a stalemate), America might have even let China have Taiwan back," which resonated particularly in the midst of the 3rd Taiwan Strait Crisis in the 1990s.

When China's FM informed Kim Il Sung that it was going to normalize relations with South Korea, Kim allegedly responded "The DPRK will adhere to socialism and will overcome any difficulties on its own.” This mindset, along with the collapse of the USSR, is what led the DPRK to pursue an independent nuclear program outside of China's nuclear umbrella. The disappearence of the USSR, its abandonment by Yeltsin's Russia and the semi-estrangement with China following the latter's normalization with the South at the end of the 20th century would have held undeniable parallels to the Qing failure to rescue Joseon Korea at the end of the 19th century. This justified, from the DPRK's perspective, the idea that only with its own nuclear capabilities, could it be truly safe.

The explicit statement that the DPRK could not depend on China's nuclear umbrella would have undoubtedly stung, which is one reason why China's response against the nuclear missile tests in the 2000s was explicit condemnation, but I'd argue the more important reason, and the reason why Russia also joined China in supporting the American annual renewal of sanctions in the UNSC is the, in their view, disastrous precedent in terms of non-proliferation. If the DPRK could argue that the Chinese and Russian nuclear umbrellas were no longer sufficient, US-aligned lackeys like Japan and South Korea could also use it as a pretext to develop their own nuclear weapons. The nuclear proliferation of the DPRK has been the defining impediment hamstringing the last two decades which contributes to the undercurrents of tension in the Sino-Korean relationship. To be clear, the two countries are still allies and China's treaty with the DPRK is the only explicit alliance it has in effect today, though Western propaganda and Chinese liberals have both tried to downplay its durability (the latter out of the typical Chinese liberal behavior of wanting to Gorbachev China's interests to throw to the West in return for a pat on the back).

The New Cold War has changed the dynamics of East Asian geopolitics considerably as both Japan and South Korea (under its latest President who shifted his country's entire foreign policy position to outright fealty to the US and Japan through his stirring democratic mandate of a 0.73% margin victory) have now openly sided with the US. This outright alignment with the US lessens China's fear of condoning DPRK proliferation in affecting its bilateral decision making. This fear, that condonement would lead to the proliferation of the US vassals, is now less significant as there's now a non-trivial chance they'll do it regardless of what China's position is or if the DPRK has nukes, since their principal target has now shifted explicitly to China itself.

Last week, actually, the biggest diplomatic shift for the DPRK occurred in that this year, when the annual March DPRK sanction supervision UNSC resolution came up for renewal, it was vetoed by Russia and abstained by China. This is a promising sign that the necessity to comply with the punitive sanctions by China (and Russia, for that matter), which has hamstrung the enhancement of Sino-Korean relations since, may now begin to be alleviated.

For further readings, I'd reccommend Shen, Z. and Xia, Y. 2018. A Misunderstood Friendship: Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung, and Sino-North Korean Relations, 1949-1976. Columbia University Press. As can be guessed by the "Western University Press" publishing association, this is a fairly lib take by Chinese liberals who I surmise, through the overarching narrative in this work, wanted to make a case to sell out the DPRK to the Trump era US in hopes of this somehow improving China-US relations, so their modus operandi is to downplay the resilience of the Sino-Korean relationship and to highlight Chinese grievances. However, the fact that they're university professors tenured in China prevents them from making any outright chud takes and so the work is useful and informative so long as this is kept in mind.

UNSC resolutions are prima facie binding unless stated otherwise. It's a opt-out circumstance. Article 25 of the UN Charter simply states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." See this post for the legal explanation: https://verfassungsblog.de/why-todays-un-security-council-resolution-demanding-an-immediate-ceasefire-is-legally-binding/

The US claim that the resolution is "non-binding" is simply the expression of a cynical disdain for the real international legal order under the UN Charter prevailing for once over the interests of its "rules-based order."

The US position is simply trying to eat its cake and have it too: they want to escape the international notoriety of imposing yet another veto, thereby forcing them to abstain, and yet "narratively veto" the resolution by claiming it's actually "non-binding" and thus as worthless in promulgation as it would have been if it was actually vetoed by the US.

I don't think it's possible to separate this idea's specific nature of appeal in the contemporary age from its modern roots as a latent fear in the West that there will come an inevitable day where the 500 years of genocide, settler-colonialism and imperialist butchery that they've commited will come back to roost. Most "peaceful" decolonialization movements in the 20th century were only permitted by the former Western colonial power because the new leaders at the top promised to turn the other cheek with regards to the collective trauma and destruction inflicted by the West.

India is the most notable example of this where the British promoted "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Gandhi as the spiritual voice of the new Indian nation. There's a self-serving calculus to why the West treats figures like Gandhi with such hyperbolic praise, even successfully shooing off pressures for assessing his anti-African racism during the brief 2020 moment of racial consciousness, where he's one of the only post-colonial leaders the Western educational standard curriculum will ever cover in a positive light. He's the poster boy of the West's ideal attitude for what their formerly colonized should adopt.

The repressed collective retributive desires of the new South Asian nations in the post-colonial era, rather than disappearing, were then redirected from the target of Britain towards each other and their neighbours which has resulted in many conflicts since.

I always felt it was interesting from an intellectual sense how much that contemporary Western political philosophies and media loves to revisit the "retributive justice ("revenge") is bad" trope. It wasn't until I started learning about post-colonial movements - which ones succeed, which ones failed, who were the leaders feted by the West and which were the ones silenced (nearly always the communist groups) - that I begun to connect the dots. It's no surprise that there was such an overreaction and fixation on the Oct 7th uprising by the West, when the oppressed ignored Gandhi and went for the eye, and why the West cared little for patient explanations of the history that led up to that moment.

This is not to say that the idea of "revenge is bad" should be inherently discredited, but the fixation upon this narrative as an article of faith and a philosophical mantra in the Western media, and collective consciousness in general, should be recognized. Its appropriation as a means to tautologically condemn ("revenge is bad because, well, revenge is bad") any retributive justice character of decolonial movements is a way to invalidate and dismiss the history which led up to it through the inherent "ontological evil" nature of that retributive character itself. This process is both a historical and ongoing motif.

It's not going to happen.

Nor would its proposed forced sale be "level headed" or a good "long term strategy." The rightful focus from leftists on the social health impact of short form apps has apparently also consequently given tunnel vision from seeing what's really at stake in the eyes of the American state apparatus.

Yes, Bytedance's CEO is a complete wannabe comprador who constantly stated how much he worships the West before his company got into the crosshairs, but we've been seeing the "Tiktok Forced Sale" skit happening for 4 years now. Trump first tried to do it before in the summer of 2020 as a last feather in his cap before the election. His attempt failed as well.

At that time, in reaction to the attack on Tiktok actually, China released a technology export law restricting the sale or transfer of sensitive algorithms. That's what this is really about on the business side, the US wanting to steal a free lunch from China and setting a long lasting precedent through Tiktok's forced sale so that future Chinese tech can be expropriated. This happened to France when Alstom was forcibly sold to GE back in 2015. That export law is what's going to ultimately block this forced sale attempt. It would be better in China's interests for Tiktok to be banned than allowed to be stolen by the US.

Additionally, what should be said is that Tiktok really is a "threat" to the US state apparatus. All the whitewashing, misdirection and partisanship over the Twitter Files evidently has successfully misdirected people from the real bombshell confirmations they showed. Companies like Twitter and Facebook have active communication channels with US state officials, where they algorithmically boost accounts and content created by the US and suppress the visibility of contrary content via email contact directives.

Tiktok USA/Global, while basically controlled by US personnel, including ex-NSA officials, at this point, is still ultimately connected to its parent company. This makes Tiktok a "perpetual outsider" and the establishment of similar censorship channels much more vulnerable to exposure, at least psychologically. The existence of Tiktok is, with no exaggeration, a massive challenge to the US state's complete hegemonic monopoly on social media platforms in the English speaking world.

This is why the attempts to ban Tiktok are currently the predominant "China" concern and have been for the past 4 years.

The top brass crème of compradors have had that happen to them once they got to the land of milk and honey. The former finance minister of Afghanistan now does Uber driving in DC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/18/afghanistans-last-finance-minister-now-dc-uber-driver-ponders-what-went-wrong/

The race trope in D&D was inherited from Tolkein's racializations in his LOTR. To preface, I don't care for the work nor for the author. LOTR was way before my time and I never vibed with the weird insistence from the r/fantasy crowd that I need to "like" it to get their "fantasy fan starter pack."

Tolkien was a massive racist POS for the racializing and racial coding in his works. Orcs are, by his own admission, inspired by 19th and 20th European racial caricatures of Asian and African peoples. He sees no problem with characterizing them all as canonically irredeemable and the definition of "evil," this coming from a clown who apparently professed to be a "Roman Catholic," who should then know then the importance of the Christian redemption doctrine. He himself later admitted it was problematic that he antithetically made the orcs irredeemably evil when the LOTR is supposed to be a Christianity referenced work... but then did nothing about it.

Fantasy today portrays goblins and orcs and trolls and whatever races as inherently vile, down to even their physical appearance. This is a racial characterization that has absolutely no material basis in reality other than in the racist caricatures of every non Anglo-American race during Tolkein's time which he directly lifted from in his work. Seeing a non-white person back then produced the same conditioned revulsion that fantasy today makes people feel about those "monster" races.

It's very interesting that fantasy, starting with Tolkein in the mid 20th century, rather than casting off the racist tradition of racial caricaturization that authors could no longer get away with applying to real world peoples as an outdated and monstrous way of perceiving "other" peoples, simply continued it within the confines of "fictionalized" races (which conveniently have a massive spoonful of real world racial coding embedded, as Tolkein admitted).

All this would have just been a simple rant on a problematic media tradition if it isn't now being reverse applied onto real world designated enemy groups, like how Russians are now being called "orcs." Fantasy through this trope has basically preserved through fictionalized cryo-statis, the conviction that an entire race can be genocided so long as they look "monstrous" and act "pure evil" used at the height of 19th and 20th century settler-colonial imperialism.

Without exaggeration, I'd argue it has contributed to how easy it has been for regimes like Israel and their Western apologists to resurrect the "shut your brain off, the entire population is inherently monstrous and worth exterminating" mentality, embedded particularly in the younger generations through media consumption of the fantasy genre, by invoking atrocity propaganda (similar to how "evil" races always have the inciting incident in the first chapter/episode where they do "the bad thing" to justify their subsequent extermination by the "hero" protagonists) to justify the Palestinian genocide.