Tachanka
I used the revisionism to destroy the revisionism.
just like heckin thandos in the adventures 
such brevity and clarity
How do you counter the assertion: "Asymmetrical trade deals and resource extraction are justified because client states approve of it" ?
all bourgeois transactions are coerced. you should counter this the same way that you counter reactionaries who claim that the relationship between owner and worker is "consensual" because the worker "freely" fills out an application and "asks" the business owner for a job, as though the job itself were an object of desire, rather than something the worker seeks out because the alternative (homelessness, poverty, starvation, death) is even worse. No worker wants to be exploited by a capitalist for surplus value.
As for client states and imperial core states... well it's similar, just on a bigger level. But you also have the element of the "comprador bourgeoisie" (who fuck over their own nations' development to feed superprofits to the imperial core capitalist) who are distinct from the "national bourgeoisie" (who exploit the proletariat but still perform the true historical role of the bourgeoisie which is to break up pre-capitalist economic formations and develop productive forces.)
Excerpt of Condition of the Working Class in England, by Engels, 1845
from the section titled "The Attitude of the Bourgeoisie Towards the Proletariat"
Let no one believe, however, that the "cultivated" Englishman openly brags with his egotism. On the contrary, he conceals it under the vilest hypocrisy. What? The wealthy English fail to remember the poor? They who have founded philanthropic institutions, such as no other country can boast of! Philanthropic institutions forsooth! As though you rendered the proletarians a service in first sucking out their very life-blood and then practising your self-complacent, Pharisaic philanthropy upon them, placing yourselves before the world as mighty benefactors of humanity when you give back to the plundered victims the hundredth part of what belongs to them! Charity which degrades him who gives more than him who takes; charity which treads the downtrodden still deeper in the dust, which demands that the degraded, the pariah cast out by society, shall first surrender the last that remains to him, his very claim to manhood, shall first beg for mercy before your mercy deigns to press, in the shape of an alms, the brand of degradation upon his brow. But let us hear the English bourgeoisie's own words. It is not yet a year since I read in the Manchester Guardian the following letter to the editor, which was published without comment as a perfectly natural, reasonable thing:
"MR. EDITOR,– For some time past our main streets are haunted by swarms of beggars, who try to awaken the pity of the passers-by in a most shameless and annoying manner, by exposing their tattered clothing, sickly aspect, and disgusting wounds and deformities. I should think that when one not only pays the poor-rate, but also contributes largely to the charitable institutions, one had done enough to earn a right to be spared such disagreeable and impertinent molestations. And why else do we pay such high rates for the maintenance of the municipal police, if they do not even protect us so far as to make it possible to go to or out of town in peace? I hope the publication of these lines in your widely- circulated paper may induce the authorities to remove this nuisance; and I remain,– Your obedient servant, "A Lady."
There you have it! The English bourgeoisie is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: "If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen, this I require, this I purchase with my subscription of twenty pounds for the infirmary!" It is infamous, this charity of a Christian bourgeois! And so writes "A Lady"; she does well to sign herself such, well that she has lost the courage to call herself a woman! But if the "Ladies" are such as this, what must the "Gentlemen" be? It will be said that this is a single case; but no, the foregoing letter expresses the temper of the great majority of the English bourgeoisie, or the editor would not have accepted it, and some reply would have been made to it, which I watched for in vain in the succeeding numbers. And as to the efficiency of this philanthropy, Canon Parkinson himself says that the poor are relieved much more by the poor than by the bourgeoisie; and such relief given by an honest proletarian who knows himself what it is to be hungry, for whom sharing his scanty meal is really a sacrifice, but a sacrifice borne with pleasure, such help has a wholly different ring to it from the carelessly-tossed alms of the luxurious bourgeois.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm
i would just assume they were lying since a good 90% of elected democrats are members of the bourgeois class, and they own financial assets like stocks, and it is therefore in their class interests to make sure working class debt to corporations is not attacked. Such a promise to their voters would merely be bait. They would forget all such promises after getting elected, and would blame circumstances, procedure and/or opposition for not fulfilling their promises.
he is much like the horse who, upon being tied to a plastic chair, stays put, because he does not realize that it is lightweight, and not firmly attached to the ground.
ah yes, if we merely concede 5-10% of our territory to our opponents, they will look favorably upon us and compromise with us, rather than taking advantage of our weakness
a bad take for the proletariat is a good take for the bourgeoisie. he is simply an embodiment of bourgeois class consciousness.
I know this post is ancient but I was searching for discussion of OGAS on hexbear and came across this thread. The mods deleted this great post.
So I found an archive of it. I'm going to report the post in the hopes that a moderator changes the link of the thread to the archive.
Why was my comment removed?
for being reactionary and not responding to anything anyone said
CW: Breadtube