EatMoreMacroplastics [she/her]

  • 1 Post
  • 161 Comments
Joined 19 days ago
cake
Cake day: September 19th, 2026

help-circle

  • Mostly, yes. The difference is that they actually inconvenience the state enough to make concessions, both due the higher level of militance and the wider public support they can rely on when needed. Protest movements in France are also really good at general strikes for the latter reason. What it boils down to is that they actually inconvenience the state enough to move the needle and get concessions. But the state is very aware of that and good at recuperating the dissent, letting the masses blow off steam and then walking some decisions back in a way that makes the general public think they won - all of this backed up by the state also being able to call on what’s probably the most violent and militarized cops in all of the Western EU.

    So i’d say the key differences i see compared to the US are both broader and deeper organizing and higher militancy on the side of the people and a more calculating, flexible and pragmatic cynicism on behalf of the state. But this is absolutely not a revolutionary movement. Ofc the French haven’t had an actual revolution1 since 1871, so who knows, maybe some day this’ll change. The odds of that are probably better than elsewhere in the West.

    1This only goes for the French mainland. The colonies are a very different matter, as evidenced by the Algerian civil war in the late 1950s.



  • This is basically how the French do liberalism. A little bit of rioting is how the general populace negotiates with their ruling class whenever they plan something. This does mean that they have suffered way less under neoliberalism than comparable nations in Western Europe, just look at the French vs the German age of retirement, but it is very much not revolutionary even when it involves street militancy.






  • Russia had a pretty big revolution or two in 1917 and was part of the imperial core at the time IIRC

    Debatable. Russia barely had any industry and therefore barely any proletariat in the stricter Marxist sense, burgeois liberalism was much less advanced there, it skipped key steps that according to Marx would have been a historical prerequesite for a socialist revolution, which is part of why Lenin and later Mao developed their theories of imperialism - to explain why Russia and later China had a successful revolution as largely pre-industrial societies while the UK or Germany didn’t. At that time, no Marxist in the imperial core would have argued like us, they were convinced that the world revolution would start with them.

    Cuba might not have been an imperial core country but it’s 90 miles from the imperial core so pretty close.

    Cuba was literally a post-colonial brothel / plantation island ran by a puppet government. Imperial Core is not a geographic designation, it’s entirely an economic and political one.


  • Injections are reliable, very easily allow you to do monotherapy without antiandrogens if you dose high enough (which is theoretically possible with any form of estradiol, but easiest with injections) and if you have no problem with poking yourself a little bit they are by far the most convenient. I’ve switched from gel one and a half years ago and never looked back. Only having to dose once a week (enanthate) or twice a week (valerate) is something i appreciate a lot.

    Pills have the downside that a lot of the estradiol is metabolized to estron (especially if you don’t take them sublingually), which is less effective and can be hard on the liver, especially if you need to take a lot of them to get to good E2 levels (which applies to a lot of people). Pills also have the shortest half-life, meaning that most people need to dose 3x a day.

    Patches can be finnicky to use and they are often dosed really low, but i don’t know much about them because the most common transdermal route around these parts is gel.


  • It’s a way for the Russian intelligence service to show that people are being monitored

    Newsflash: When you spy on politicians, you want the kind of surveilance that people don’t notice because it’s actually about gathering information, not about controlling the general populace by means of a panopticon.

    So we can safely conclude that joining NATO has made Finns so unhinged that now they’re blaming Putin when they forget to flush their own shit.