Ecosocialists are revolting

 Bellamy Foster and the MR could do for green Marxism what Ed Said did for orientalism.

No moron left behind.

In 1973, Bill Warren introduced in New Left Review the notion that Marx in the "The Future Results of the British Rule in India" (1853) had seen imperialism as a progressive force, a view that, Warren declared, was later mistakenly reversed by Lenin.66  Marx, beginning in the early 1860s, had recognized the way in which colonialism blocked development in the colonies.67 Nevertheless, the notion that Marx, and even Lenin, had adopted the view of Imperialism [as the] Pioneer of Capitalism—the title/subtitle of Warren's book published posthumously in 1980—became a commonly accepted postulate on the left.

Stalinism. The highest stage of Leninism

 Grigory Zinoviev didn't just talk about killing millions of Russians but helped enable many.

Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky ordered the use of chemical weapons, including chlorine gas, against the peasants involved in the Tambov Rebellion in 1921. 

The Tambov Rebellion (1920-1921) was a large-scale peasant uprising against the Bolshevik government's "War Communism" policies, specifically the forced requisition of grain.

Zinoviev had obtained the chlorine gas bombs from Germans in Halle at an antisocial socialists conference. 

https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1319/zinoviev-in-halle/

" We take what we need "

Grigory Zinoviev in 1919 regarding the Soviet government's policy towards non-Russian regions like Azerbaijan and Turkestan justifying resource extraction. 

The quote, as cited in Donald Rayfield's book Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him, is:

"We cannot do without Azerbaijan's oil or Turkestan's cotton. We take these things which we need, but not in the guise of the old imperialism . . ."

This statement expressed Lenin's idea for Soviet centralization with "inimitable cynicism", illustrating the Bolsheviks' view on the economic integration of peripheral regions into the Soviet state, regardless of local sentiment. 

Stalin did not fall from the sky. 

Morons Review

 The MR stands for the proposition that one nation can grow rich at the expense of another. We also stand for the proposition all modern states act as branch officers for one class. Is this contradictory?

Yes, it is contradictory. But it is no more contradictory than support for the revolutionary state of Iran and the antique, neo-Platonic, dialectical prayer-wheel we Marxist morons swear by.

A double game

Lenin took millions in gold coins from imperialists. Why Kautsky suggested he knew so much about imperialism from constant practise. 

En passant, Kamenev was a fan of Machiavelli as well as Lenin.

Fosters choice

 Given a choice between low sectarian polemic and works like the communist manifesto

https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left

The low, slimy, dishonest left fascist should always choose the marginalia

" . .  The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.. . "

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

1. ↩ Karl Marx, "On the Question of Free Trade," in Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1963), 223.

Hand to hand combat with atomization

 Here ,at last, is a genuine crisis. However the remedies are also at hand. 

Thanks to the securely encrypted communications now avallable online , combined with hyper intelligent safety instructions for their use, all those concerned about the atomized humanity crisis may now organize popular recreational drug parties. Music festivals and sex orgies.

Morpheous could even give a little speech about smashing hard drives under supervision by machine regulators.

Keeping Mum

 concerns about an automated state were bubbling up all over the place. In 1966, in The Myth of the Machine, the American critic Lewis Mumford lamented the rise of “cybernetic intelligence”, warning that under its “automatic operation … man will become a passive, purposeless, machine-conditioned animal whose proper functions, as technicians now interpret man’s role, will either be fed into the machine or strictly limited and controlled for the benefit of depersonalised, collective organisations”.

Mumford described technological determinism – the idea that machines determine the course of history and represent a march of progress – as “a radical misinterpretation of the whole course of human development”. This mistaken belief, he wrote in The New Yorker the next year, had to be abandoned “if we are to get an adequate grip on our mechanised culture before we lose both our consciousness of human purpose and our confidence in being able to control our own creations”.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/aug/18/the-long-read-democracy-v-the-machine-digital-age-warnings-computer-history-technology

Now assuming techdet is an unstoppable force our immovable object could be a Mumfordian sized polity limited to 512 sentient entities. 

How else can democracy steer science?

That is a purely rhetorical question btw.  No reply rules.  You knew that.

Look, if its any consolation the Tang dynasty may be disappeared.

Those who control the present!

24 years in free fall

I heard another netstate has its problems

 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/aug/19/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-artificial-state-by-jill-lepore-review-an-ominous-warning-of-tech-takeover

I am an enemy of the netstate.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.