comfy

Make no mistake, this is far beyond one dude/ette. You'd need a whole (non-electoral) well-organized party to educate and agitate, and earn the support of many thousands or even millions of citizens through their actions, in order to build the necessary movement.

Again, it's been done before and under more oppressive conditions, but it's a tough road.

And holy fuck, is it hard to find good, solid, well-sourced information about how to do that safely.

I have a similar experience with some basic fermenting (e.g. kombucha, pickling). I'm growing cultures of microbes like yeast and bacteria and while I've been able to spot some obvious unwanted cultures on failed batches, there's a surprising absence of reputable info and unfortunately I've had to get by on the brewing equivalent of gym broscience, mostly on reddit, some of which I've spotted is misinformation. The SEO AI-generated articles plaguing search results don't help either.

affect (effect??)

Yeah, I think 'affect' is right. 'Affect' (verb) means 'to change', while an 'effect' (noun) is the result. Shining a light on your face will affect you by creating a blinding effect. I may be oversimplifying it but there are plenty of articles about the two often-confused words that go into more detail if you care.

I even have hope for the slight voting majority which put Trump back in power. [whole paragraph]

Many of them, probably the majority of them, have core mutual interests with us at the end of the day. We are the worker class. Once you're able to strip away culture war crap and electoralist talking points, there's a large amount of shared ground.

There truly are some people who are too far gone, and some other people who benefit from looting the country, but if you can find shared ground and teach instead of argue, picking battles, I'd say there's a better shot at reaching through to some of them. In fact, to prove the point through exaggeration, if you're a decent communicator who's able to explain technical concepts in familiar language, you can straight-up outline Marxist economic theory to them without triggering an argument. This is more a playful example than a strong example, but it gets the point across, that you can sometimes draw out some smart insights from the rubble, because many of them are oppressed by the same system and fed up at it, they've simply been encouraged by that mass media towards the wrong way targets or the wrong solutions. For a personal example, I've seen union members complaining about legitimate grievances at work and the company's abuse of progressive language (e.g. abusing the term "diversity" as a cover to outsource jobs to unqualified cheaper foreign labor) but unfortunately haven't learned the tactful language to properly express their critique, so one could understandably mistake it for reactionary "them chinese took er jerbs!" rhetoric, falsely accuse them of racist values and push this person further anti-left. It's certainly important to be aware of wolfwhistles and red flags, but it's also important to not jump to conclusions either.

There are some lovely, smart and aware people in that huge country. It's not homogeneous. But overall? It won't get much better without a revolution. And that's a huge ask. It's possible, other countries have managed despite police repression and mass illiteracy, but it's a long journey, and I wouldn't be surprised if the people with the awareness and the means will just try fleeing instead.

Your post implied that all countries outside of the west sided with China when this is clearly not true.

I didn't mean to imply all countries, and it's my mistake for phrasing it like that, sorry.

Even in Africa there is a lot of pushback among the population (not necessarily the elites) against Chinese imperialism. Sri Lanka is another example where there is a measures of opposition to jingoistic Chinese meddling.

That's true. It's also important to note, at least with Africa, that there is also pushback against ongoing European imperialism, so when it comes to a "do you prefer US or China more" situation like OP, they might still pick one of them while also giving pushback.

Cool stuff, thanks for sharing!

please don’t shuffle blame away as if there was some giant institutional force preventing them from voting

My point isn't that the giant institutional force prevented people from voting (although voter suppression is, incidentally, a huge issue too).

All the US federal elections are a popularity contest, where rich people have ludicrous amounts of power to determine which politicians even end up as viable options on the ballot, through tools such as lobbying parties, mass media ownership, flak and advertising [wikipedia: further reading] to influence the exposure and framing of candidates. How many candidates does the typical citizen even learn about from the news or pop culture? Probably a number between 1 and 4, and only two will be endorsed by the major parties and therefore viable options in practice. That's the institutional power in action. One can't look at Clinton, Biden and Trump in 2016 and 2020 and pretend any were the best (or even decent) choices for a country's leader. These candidates rise to the top because of institutional pressures, hence, pay-to-win - the owning class decide on the options that citizens can vote on.

IIRC, Australia (I'm assuming you're from there because of your instance?) has a voting system where at least the minor parties are a viable option and independent candidates have a real chance. That's not the case in the US federal election. There's no option but the big two, the parties beholden to billionaires and mega-millionaires through tools like lobbying and mass media needed to win the popularity contest.

Obviously the PRC also has major influence over which candidates citizens can vote for, and they don't have direct federal elections for party leaders (they're elected by the local members who are elected by citizens), but the main difference is that it's not a popularity contest where celebrities like Trump, Reagan and Schwarzenegger end up as political decision makers partly due to name recognition rather than credentials and trust, or where money decides the available options.

Left wing voters didn’t show up

I find it hard to believe that Gaza protest votes were anywhere near enough to sway the election, we're talking IIRC about a 15 million drop. The Democrats weren't delivering. Voter turnout from both parties went down.

Many countries in Asia have suffered from invasions and conflicts with China.

Yes, that's a reason why some don't side with China.

Africa and the Middle East and South America and other Asian countries didn't have conflicts with China (in fact, they're typically invaded by European countries and/or the US) and so have tended to side with China.

I don't see where we're disagreeing or how what I said was any more simplistic than your reply.

The USSR (Soviet Union) and the PRC (China). The USSR is not Russia, and it doesn't exist anymore.

And of course it's fair, and in fact important to criticize them. We have the benefit of hindsight and can see how some of their decisions were serious mistakes. On the other hand, it's also important to analyze what they did good and learn from that too. Neither was perfect, both were improvements, and the terrible fates of Russia and Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union is proof of how much good the SU was for its citizens.

which don’t respect the needs of there citizens.

They both inherited countries plagued with regular famine and have both eliminated it. In fact, in 1983 the CIA documented the SU as having a better typical diet than the USA. Clearly they respected the food security of their citizens.

The SU managed to rapidly build low-cost housing after repelling a HUGE invasion of extermination from Nazi Germany. The "commieblocks" were critical in housing people after war. China has also made huge strides in home ownership and elimination of poverty. Meanwhile, poverty and homelessness is increasing under capitalist countries, with them doing little to resolve their housing crises. Clearly they respected the need for shelter of their citizens.

Keep in mind, that both these countries were devastated by world wars and civil wars. Their countries started off in serious crisis and had already had revolutions. If they didn't respect the needs of their citizens, they would have ended up failed states overthrown by their desperate population or quickly collapsing to invasions.

As for China, the government, despite censorship and political repression, still remains popular among its citizens, according to censorship-resistant US studies^[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/]. It's largely avoided war, hugely reduced poverty, and has become a world leader in technology.

There are many valid reasons to criticize these countries and it's important we do that. But they clearly respected the basic needs of their citizens. There are few other countries which have done more to reduce poverty and homelessness than them.

On the other hand, this isn't exactly news to them. Countries outside of the Western world and Asian neighbors have been siding with China over the US for a while now, probably due to all the invasions and coups.

The PRC has a pretty clear ideological basis. Many of its leaders have written theoretical works about economics and governance. The direction might veer one way or another over the years but it's the same party running the show. So at the end of the day, one thing they have going for them is consistency. You can know what to expect. From an international perspective, they're an appealing trade partner.

The US ran a pay-to-win popularity contest to give the keys to a reality show failed-businessman backed by a weird mix of alienated mega-millionaire and billionaires who clearly have little idea of how the levers work, alongside the vicious selfish bigots who ally with them. It was already an inconsistent system for a long time, but now there's no more facade of professionalism to keep them half-rational. It's pretty much the 1930s all over again.

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."