D2. Socialism

Permainan slot online sering dianggap sepenuhnya bergantung pada keberuntungan. Namun, pemain berpengalaman memahami bahwa ada beberapa indikator penting yang dapat dianalisis untuk membaca ritme permainan secara lebih efektif. Istilah seperti RTP, volatilitas, hit frequency, hingga pola bonus sebenarnya bukan mitos semata, melainkan bagian dari sistem matematis yang membentuk perilaku sebuah game slot.

Meski demikian, penting untuk memahami satu hal sejak awal: slot online modern bekerja sehingga tidak ada pola pasti yang dapat menjamin kemenangan. Yang bisa dilakukan pemain adalah membaca karakteristik permainan untuk meningkatkan efisiensi bermain dan mengelola risiko dengan lebih cerdas.

Apa yang Dimaksud dengan “Pola Slot”?

Dalam praktik komunitas pemain, “pola slot” biasanya mengacu pada:

• Frekuensi munculnya scatter
• Jarak antar bonus
• Perubahan ritme kemenangan kecil
• Pola taruhan tertentu
• Perilaku volatilitas game

Secara teknis, pola ini bukan rumus pasti, melainkan observasi statistik terhadap perilaku game dalam periode tertentu.

Pemain profesional umumnya tidak percaya pada “kode rahasia slot”, tetapi lebih fokus membaca:

• jenis volatilitas,
• distribusi pembayaran,
• RTP,
• dan momentum permainan.

Faktor Penting untuk Membaca Pola Slot 1. RTP (Return to Player)

RTP adalah persentase teoritis pengembalian dana kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang.

Contoh sederhana:

RTP=96%=96100RTP = 96\% = \frac{96}{100}RTP=96%=10096​

Artinya, dari total taruhan 100 unit, game secara teori mengembalikan 96 unit kepada pemain dalam jutaan putaran. Namun RTP bukan jaminan hasil sesi pribadi.

Cara Menggunakan RTP untuk Membaca Pola

• RTP tinggi (>96%) biasanya lebih stabil
• RTP rendah cenderung lebih agresif terhadap bankroll
• RTP tinggi cocok untuk permainan jangka panjang

Pemain berpengalaman sering memilih game dengan RTP tinggi untuk mengurangi risiko kehilangan modal terlalu cepat.

2. Volatilitas Slot

Volatilitas menentukan bagaimana slot membayar kemenangan.

Volatilitas Rendah

• Menang lebih sering
• Nilai kemenangan kecil
• Cocok untuk modal kecil

Volatilitas Tinggi

• Kemenangan lebih jarang
• Potensi jackpot besar
• Membutuhkan modal lebih kuat

Hubungan RTP dan volatilitas sering disalahpahami. Dua slot bisa memiliki RTP sama tetapi pengalaman bermain sangat berbeda.

Analogi Praktis

Bayangkan dua game memiliki RTP 96%:

• Slot A memberi kemenangan kecil setiap beberapa spin
• Slot B jarang menang tetapi sekali menang nilainya besar

Inilah mengapa pemain perlu membaca “karakter game”, bukan hanya angka RTP.

Cara Membaca Momentum Slot Secara Praktis 1. Perhatikan Hit Frequency

Hit frequency adalah seberapa sering kemenangan muncul.

Ciri slot dengan hit frequency tinggi:

• Banyak kemenangan kecil
• Balance lebih stabil
• Bonus muncul lebih konsisten

Sedangkan hit frequency rendah biasanya:

• Banyak spin kosong
• Bonus sulit muncul
• Potensi payout besar saat menang

Pemain berpengalaman biasanya melakukan 20–50 spin awal untuk membaca ritme game sebelum meningkatkan taruhan.

2. Analisis Pola Scatter dan Bonus

Scatter menjadi indikator penting dalam observasi pola slot.

Beberapa tanda yang sering diperhatikan:

• Scatter muncul berulang di reel tertentu
• Bonus hampir aktif beberapa kali
• Free spin mulai lebih sering muncul

Meskipun tetap acak, banyak pemain menggunakan observasi ini untuk menentukan:

• lanjut bermain,
• pindah game,
• atau menurunkan taruhan.

Membaca Slot Volatilitas Tinggi

Misalkan seorang pemain mencoba game dengan:

• RTP 96,5%
• volatilitas tinggi,
• max win besar.

Dalam 100 spin pertama:

• 70 spin kosong
• 20 kemenangan kecil
• 8 kemenangan sedang
• 2 bonus free spin

Bagi pemain baru, pola ini terlihat buruk. Namun bagi pemain berpengalaman, ini normal untuk slot volatilitas tinggi.

Game jenis ini sering:

• menyimpan payout besar,
• memiliki fase “kering”,
• lalu memberikan lonjakan kemenangan besar.

Karena itu, pemain profesional biasanya:

• menyiapkan bankroll lebih panjang,
• menggunakan taruhan stabil,
• dan tidak langsung mengejar kekalahan.

Mengikuti Pola Tanpa Memahami Volatilitas

Banyak pemain mengikuti “pola gacor” tanpa memahami tipe game.

Padahal:

• pola taruhan cocok di slot rendah volatilitas belum tentu efektif di slot tinggi volatilitas,
• setiap provider memiliki algoritma distribusi berbeda.

Bermain Emosional

Ketika kalah beruntun, banyak pemain:

• menaikkan taruhan,
• mengejar kekalahan,
• kehilangan kontrol bankroll.

Dalam analisis profesional, pengelolaan modal justru lebih penting dibanding mencari pola.

Strategi Membaca Pola Secara Efektif Gunakan Pendekatan Statistik

Fokus pada:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• dan distribusi bonus.

Jangan terpaku pada mitos komunitas semata.

Catat Performa Game

Pemain serius sering membuat catatan:

• jumlah spin,
• frekuensi scatter,
• waktu bonus muncul,
• pola kemenangan besar.

Data sederhana ini membantu memahami karakter masing-masing game.

Tetapkan Batas Bermain

Strategi terbaik tetap berasal dari kontrol diri:

• tentukan target kemenangan,
• tentukan batas kekalahan,
• berhenti saat target tercapai.

Mengapa Pola Slot Tetap Menarik Dipelajari?

Walaupun slot berbasis, pola perilaku matematis tetap bisa dianalisis secara statistik. Inilah alasan mengapa:

• streamer slot,
• analis kasino,
• hingga komunitas pemain profesional
  sering membahas RTP, volatilitas, dan momentum permainan.

Namun para ahli juga sepakat bahwa:

• tidak ada sistem pasti untuk menang,
• tidak ada jam gacor universal,
• dan tidak ada pola yang bisa mengalahkan RNG secara konsisten.

Kesimpulan

Membaca pola slot online secara efektif bukan berarti mencari trik rahasia untuk menang terus-menerus. Pendekatan yang benar adalah memahami cara kerja game melalui:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• serta perilaku bonus.

Pemain yang cerdas tidak hanya mengandalkan insting, tetapi juga menggunakan observasi, manajemen modal, dan pemahaman statistik sederhana untuk mengambil keputusan bermain yang lebih rasional.

Pada akhirnya, slot online tetap merupakan permainan berbasis probabilitas. Semakin baik pemain memahami struktur matematis di balik permainan, semakin kecil kemungkinan terjebak dalam keputusan emosional dan mitos yang menyesatkan.

In February, the Department of Homeland Security purchased an idle 250,000 square foot warehouse.

Romulus, Michigan is a city of 25,000 people 23 miles outside of Detroit and home to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. In February,  the Department of Homeland Security purchased an idle 250,000 square foot warehouse in Romulus for $34.7 million. City leaders and the community were kept in the dark as rumors circulated about the sale, including that it was sold at 56 percent more than the previous purchase price. After initial reporting on this sale, 300 Romulus High School students walked out and a thousand people gathered outside Romulus City Hall in late February when the reports were confirmed. On No Kings Day, March 28, another 350 to 400 people gathered for the Romulus No Kings at the warehouse. On Saturday, April 25, hundreds more gathered there for the Communities Not Cages National Day of Action.

A Coalition to Shut the Camps has developed out of weekly pickets at the planned detention center location. This coalition has produced a regulatory punch list and a package of letters sent to various state and local agencies demanding full transparency on all proposals and the opportunity for public meetings. The coalition has been leafleting homes and schools in the area, encouraging people to join weekly meetings and protests. Thirty-three organizations have signed onto the letters, and some are becoming partners in “Solidarity Saturdays,” collaborative events co-hosted by coalition members and other community organizations.

The National Day of Action on April 25 was called by the national coalition Detention Watch Network and involved the participation of other national organizations like Indivisible, Workers Circle, Public Citizen, MoveOn and many others. More than 200 events around the nation transpired as a result. The core campaign demands are to cancel the warehouse detention plan and stop conversions immediately; reject all public funding, approvals, and local resources for detention expansion; and require transparency and community consent before any federal detention action. In Romulus, the Metro Detroit Democratic Socialists of America, No Detention Centers in Michigan (NDCM), the People’s Assembly of Detroit, Southfield Neighborhood Action Committee (SNAC), and Community Aid for Empowerment (CAFE) from Pontiac came together with the Coalition to Shut the Camps to center the experiences of those at risk of being detained and those detained or recently released from detention.

The day of action in Romulus coincided with a hunger strike and work stoppage that began April 20 at the GEO Group owned-and-operated North Lake Processing Facility in the Village of Baldwin, Michigan (population < 1,000). The hunger strike and work stoppage were responses to the intensification of abuse in ICE detention, reflected by deaths in ICE detention entering a record high, and a continuation of unrest at the isolated Northern Michigan facility. From 2019-2022, there were multiple deaths and six separate hunger strikes at this immigrant-only federal prison.

Built in 1999 as the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility, North Lake has closed and reopened four times. Since reopening in June 2025 as the largest ICE detention center in the Midwest, North Lake has consistently imprisoned over a thousand people, many found by federal judges to be unlawfully detained. In recent months, a combination of reports of an increasingly unsafe environment, medical issues going unaddressed, and a steep decline in judicial approval of bonds has brought the North Lake detention center into the international spotlight. Following the death last December of Nenko Gantchev, an immigrant from Bulgaria who lived in the US for over 30 years, and the sharp increase in incidents requiring an EMS response, immigrants detained in Baldwin are demanding better medical care, adequate food, and their constitutional right to timely due process. They are also demanding conditions that allow for adequate sleep and an end to arbitrary rules.

No Detention Centers in Michigan (NDCM) has recently organized multiple protests and is calling for additional actions outside the Baldwin facility in solidarity with those incarcerated, such as blasting song requests from detainees with a loudspeaker to the inside. The strike has spurred calls from the ACLU of Michigan and Michigan Immigrant Rights Center for Congress to conduct formal independent investigations into neglectful and abusive conditions at North Lake.

The strike had been renewed as of April 27, despite claims by ICE denying any such assertion of the rights and dignity of those confined. A statement from a recently released immigrant affirming the courageous act of collective resistance by hundreds of immigrant men across multiple units in North Lake was read at the action in Romulus on April 25. A statement was also read there from Women’s Collective Civil Action, a group of women from another unit at North Lake who filed a joint habeas corpus petition earlier in the month. Many attendees of the Romulus demonstration made the 3.5 hour trek across the state to Baldwin the following day to express solidarity with those kidnapped from the broader region and subjected to the brutality of the state.

As Ale Rojas of NDCM put it, “This courageous collective action is a response to the dehumanization and abuse that are endemic to ICE detention, where immigrants are used as scapegoats so corporations like the GEO Group may continue to build their profits unchecked. Centering our humanity and the humanity of every person who has been kidnapped by ICE is the only way forward.”

Worsening conditions of confinement around the country and the expansion of ICE presence in Michigan with the purchase of the warehouse in Romulus has given rise to a deepened sense of alarm and more community opposition. The Ban Warehouse Detention Act would prohibit DHS from establishing, operating, expanding, converting, or renovating any warehouse or similar building for the purpose of detaining people. Congressmember Rashida Tlaib’s announcement of the bill on April 23 was a direct response to ICE’s expansion in Romulus and Southfield. She herself attended the Romulus No Kings demonstration organized by the Coalition to Shut the Camps on March 28 as well as demonstrations in Southfield opposing the leasing of office space to ICE. Her bill also addresses ICE’s plans to convert 23 such warehouses nationwide into new immigration detention and processing facilities, a plan that would expand the federal agency’s detention capacity significantly.

This legislation was drafted in partnership with Detention Watch Network and cites the likelihood that confining large amounts of people to spaces not meant for human habitation will increase the spread of illness and put people’s health at risk, increasing the chance for abuse and death in ICE custody. The group also suggests that such expansion normalizes mass confinement and will result in an increase in unlawful arrests, violations of due process rights and widespread family separation.

On April 25 in Romulus, the tenth demonstration since the end of February occurred in the city against the purchase of the warehouse by the federal government. The City of Romulus unanimously passed a resolution opposing the sale, citing proximity to nearby elementary and middle schools; negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of Romulus residents; and negative impacts on economic development. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has also joined with the City of Romulus in a lawsuit against DHS and ICE, alleging the federal agency failed to complete necessary environmental reviews and to consider alternatives.

The Communities Not Cages demonstration featured a teach-in with speakers from No Detention Centers in Michigan, the Coalition to Shut the Camps, Detroit DSA, People’s Assembly, CAFE, and SNAC. Organizers discussed the work they have been doing to address ICE activity in Michigan, the needs for future work, how to keep building out the organizing, and how different organizations can work together effectively.

Another demonstration and march occurred earlier in the day organized by local Indivisible groups. Between the two events, roughly 500 people demonstrated throughout the day against the plans for a detention warehouse in metro Detroit.

As in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis, the potential for social upheaval has led to action, in this case Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s suit against the DHS. The lesson taken from experiences around the country has been that local officials respond to organized mass pressure from below. With May Day following the day of action against warehouse detention, there was an opportunity to deepen the involvement of organized workers. The Metro Detroit AFL-CIO recognized International Workers’ Day for the first time in decade. Members organized a post-rally march to the Detroit ICE office, with a contingent for immigrants’ rights and against wars abroad.

Union support against immigrant detentions is crucial. For example, in the nearby city of Wayne, the No Kings Day event was held at UAW Local 900, a major Ford production complex not far from the Romulus detention center project. That No Kings Day was largely focused on the movement against ICE. At a March 16 demonstration outside the Romulus warehouse, a member of UAW Local 900 expressed opposition to the warehouse detention plans. Ron Lare, a retired Ford worker and member of UAW Local 600 at the Ford Rouge plant, held a sign that read, “UAW members and leaders –– join the resistance in the streets!” Lare urged UAW members and leaders to come out to the protests at the detention center project in Romulus. “The union is supposed to stand for the principle that ‘An injury to one is an injury to all.’ It is inevitable that if this detention center opens, some UAW members will be detained inside.”

Ron Lare, a retired Ford worker and member of UAW Local 600 at the Ford Rouge plant, held this sign at the March 16 demonstration.

Against the violence and brutality of the state, there is space for exposing connections to attacks by the ruling class on people throughout the world. It is possible to deepen bonds of international solidarity that pose an alternative to the reactionary ethno-nationalism of the ruling class. The emergence of a detention state with a renewed focus on borders and exclusion is the latest phase of a long history of racialized criminalization essential to stratifying and regulating the labor-market that produces the wealth of capitalist society. Immigration enforcement is a tool of capitalist exploitation that creates a tiered labor market, providing employers with a pool of cheap, exploitable labor and exerting a downward pressure on wages and working conditions, limiting the bargaining power of the working class.

The creation of ICE in 2003, following the post-9/11 reorganization of immigration services, consolidated and militarized longstanding practices rooted in history. The struggle for immigrants’ rights must be rooted in multiracial solidarity that shatters the myth of American exceptionalism and exposes the violent foundations of capitalism and US imperial dominance. Only a united working class has the power to reorganize society on the basis of real democratic control and defend against the inevitable disappointment entailed by elite cooptation.

We must reject any hollow attempt to paint over the historical existence of racial capitalism and recognize it as the key task for socialists to actively strengthen and learn from the struggle for abolition. We must understand, as CLR James did, that those most oppressed in the class struggle “carry the hatred of bourgeois society and the readiness to destroy it” to a greater degree than other sections of the population. It is an essential question of strategy and power to center and uplift such voices in a bottom-up struggle that targets the foundations of capitalism.

The struggle against oppression is the prerequisite for organizing a democratic mass movement capable of confronting the ruling class. A socialist vision for immigration recognizes freedom of movement as a fundamental human right. Only such a vision can address global inequities that drive migration and fuel the fight to extend full labor rights to all workers, removing the incentive for employers to exploit undocumented labor. A genuinely internationalist solidarity can unite workers across borders and advance the global struggle against exploitation.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Ben Solis/Michigan Advance; modified by Tempest.

The post Communities not cages appeared first on Tempest.

Ardi masih ingat momen ketika simbol-simbol berkilau itu berhenti berputar dan layar menampilkan tulisan “Congratulations! You’ve Won Free Spins.” Ada rasa penasaran bercampur antusias. Tanpa benar-benar memahami cara kerjanya, ia menekan tombol mulai—dan di situlah perjalanan eksplorasinya dimulai.

Dari Coba-Coba Jadi Paham Pola

Pada putaran pertama free spin, Ardi tidak mengeluarkan saldo sedikit pun. Itu yang membuatnya terkejut. “Ini seperti bermain tanpa risiko,” pikirnya. Namun, setelah beberapa kali mencoba, ia mulai memahami bahwa free spin bukan sekadar hadiah acak. Ada mekanisme yang dirancang dengan sistematis.

Dalam slot online modern, free spin biasanya dipicu oleh kombinasi simbol tertentu—sering disebut sebagai scatter. Ketika simbol ini muncul dalam jumlah yang cukup, sistem otomatis memberikan sejumlah putaran gratis. Ardi mulai memperhatikan pola ini, mencatat kapan fitur tersebut muncul, dan bagaimana hasilnya berbeda dari putaran biasa.

Memahami Sistem di Balik Layar

Seiring waktu, Ardi tidak lagi sekadar bermain. Ia belajar. Ia membaca panduan permainan, menonton ulasan dari pemain lain, bahkan mencoba berbagai jenis slot untuk membandingkan fitur free spin.

Ia menemukan bahwa:

• Beberapa slot menawarkan multiplier saat free spin aktif.
• Ada juga yang memberikan expanding wilds atau simbol khusus yang meningkatkan peluang menang.
• Bahkan, beberapa game menghadirkan sistem retrigger, di mana pemain bisa mendapatkan tambahan free spin selama fitur berlangsung.

Dari sini, Ardi memahami bahwa free spin dirancang untuk meningkatkan pengalaman bermain sekaligus memberi peluang menang tanpa menambah taruhan.

Bagaimana Sistem Ini Dirancang

Dalam industri game online modern, pengembang perangkat lunak merancang fitur free spin menggunakan algoritma. Sistem ini memastikan bahwa setiap putaran bersifat acak dan adil.

Namun, free spin tetap memiliki konfigurasi khusus:

• Volatilitas: Menentukan seberapa sering kemenangan muncul.
• RTP (Return to Player): Persentase teoretis pengembalian kepada pemain.
• Fitur tambahan: Seperti bonus mini-game atau pengganda kemenangan.

Dengan kata lain, meskipun terlihat seperti keberuntungan semata, ada struktur matematis yang mengatur semuanya.

Antara Harapan dan Kendali Diri

Di balik semua keseruan itu, Ardi juga belajar satu hal penting: kendali diri. Ia menyadari bahwa free spin memang memberikan peluang ekstra, tetapi bukan jaminan kemenangan besar.

Ia mulai menetapkan batas waktu bermain, mengelola saldo dengan lebih bijak, dan melihat game ini sebagai hiburan, bukan sumber penghasilan utama. Pengalaman ini membuatnya lebih dewasa dalam mengambil keputusan.

Sebuah Perjalanan, Bukan Sekadar Permainan

Malam semakin larut, dan hujan pun berhenti. Ardi menutup laptopnya dengan perasaan berbeda. Ia tidak lagi melihat slot online sebagai permainan acak tanpa makna. Baginya, free spin adalah pintu masuk untuk memahami sistem, strategi, dan batasan dalam dunia digital yang terus berkembang.

3 Cards. Game berbasis kartu ini menghadirkan konsep sederhana namun tetap menantang, sehingga mampu menarik pemain dari berbagai kalangan, mulai dari pemula hingga pemain berpengalaman.

Pengalaman Bermain yang Cepat dan Interaktif

Permainan 3 Cards menawarkan pengalaman bermain yang cepat dan tidak bertele-tele. Pemain hanya perlu memahami aturan dasar yang relatif sederhana, lalu langsung terjun ke dalam permainan. Setiap ronde berlangsung singkat, tetapi tetap memacu adrenalin karena hasilnya ditentukan dalam hitungan detik.

Banyak pemain mengaku tertarik karena ritme permainan yang dinamis. Tidak seperti permainan kartu tradisional yang membutuhkan waktu lama, 3 Cards justru memberikan sensasi instan yang sesuai dengan gaya hidup digital masa kini.

Sederhana Tapi Strategis

Meski terlihat mudah, 3 Cards tetap mengandung unsur strategi. Beberapa pengamat industri game digital menilai bahwa permainan ini menggabungkan keberuntungan dengan pengambilan keputusan yang cepat. Pemain dituntut untuk membaca pola permainan serta mengatur langkah secara tepat.

Selain itu, algoritma yang digunakan dalam sistem permainan kini semakin canggih. Platform casino online modern telah mengadopsi teknologi untuk memastikan setiap hasil permainan berlangsung adil dan transparan.

Teknologi dan Keamanan Jadi Prioritas

Platform penyedia 3 Cards saat ini tidak hanya fokus pada hiburan, tetapi juga memperkuat sistem keamanan. Banyak situs telah menggunakan enkripsi data tingkat tinggi untuk melindungi informasi pengguna dari potensi kebocoran.

Teknologi berbasis autentikasi berlapis menjadi standar baru dalam industri ini. Langkah ini menunjukkan bahwa penyedia layanan semakin serius dalam menjaga kepercayaan pemain, terutama di tengah meningkatnya aktivitas digital global.

Perubahan Kebiasaan di Era Digital

Seiring berkembangnya teknologi, kebiasaan pemain juga mengalami perubahan signifikan. Kini, pengguna lebih memilih platform yang menawarkan akses cepat, tampilan mobile-friendly, serta sistem transaksi yang praktis dan aman.

3 Cards menjadi salah satu pilihan favorit karena dapat dimainkan kapan saja dan di mana saja melalui perangkat mobile. Fleksibilitas ini membuat permainan semakin relevan dengan gaya hidup modern yang serba cepat.

Selain itu, transparansi sistem dan reputasi platform menjadi faktor utama dalam membangun kepercayaan. Pemain cenderung memilih layanan yang memiliki ulasan positif serta rekam jejak yang jelas di industri.

Integrasi Teknologi yang Semakin Canggih

Ke depan, permainan seperti 3 Cards diprediksi akan semakin berkembang dengan integrasi teknologi dan pengalaman berbasis live streaming. Inovasi ini berpotensi menghadirkan interaksi yang lebih realistis dan personal bagi setiap pemain.

Dengan kombinasi antara kesederhanaan permainan, dukungan teknologi modern, serta sistem keamanan yang kuat, 3 Cards tidak hanya menjadi hiburan semata, tetapi juga simbol evolusi industri casino online di era digital.

Kesimpulan

3 Cards berhasil menciptakan sensasi permainan kartu yang ringan, cepat, dan menarik. Didukung oleh teknologi canggih serta sistem keamanan yang semakin baik, game ini menjadi salah satu pilihan utama di dunia casino online saat ini. Perubahan perilaku pengguna digital turut memperkuat posisi permainan ini sebagai hiburan yang relevan dan terus berkembang.

Platform ini sering disebut sebagai “jalan menuju profit” bagi para penggemar taruhan olahraga online.

Namun, benarkah demikian? Artikel ini mengulas CMD Sport secara objektif, mendalam, dan transparan, berdasarkan pengalaman penggunaan, analisis ahli, serta perbandingan dengan standar industri.

Apa Itu CMD Sport?

CMD Sport dikenal sebagai platform yang membantu pengguna mengakses berbagai layanan sportsbook dalam satu ekosistem. Fokus utamanya adalah memberikan kemudahan dalam:

• Membandingkan odds (nilai taruhan)
• Menilai kualitas platform sportsbook
• Menyediakan informasi bonus dan promosi
• Mempermudah akses ke pasar taruhan olahraga

Dengan kata lain, CMD Sport bukan hanya tempat bermain, tetapi juga alat bantu pengambilan keputusan.

Pengalaman Penggunaan CMD Sport Kelebihan

Dari sisi pengguna, CMD Sport menawarkan beberapa hal menarik:

• Navigasi sederhana dan cepat
  Pengguna dapat langsung menemukan pertandingan dan opsi taruhan tanpa proses rumit.
• Informasi ringkas dan relevan
  Data seperti odds, jenis taruhan, dan event olahraga disajikan secara jelas.
• Cocok untuk pemula
  Interface yang tidak kompleks memudahkan pengguna baru memahami sistem.

Kekurangan

Namun, ada beberapa catatan penting:

• Tidak sepenuhnya mandiri
  CMD Sport bergantung pada platform pihak ketiga.
• Minim analisis mendalam
  Kurang cocok untuk pengguna profesional yang membutuhkan data statistik lengkap.
• Potensi bias afiliasi
  Rekomendasi platform bisa saja dipengaruhi kerja sama tertentu.

Apakah CMD Sport Bisa Menghasilkan Profit?

Banyak pengguna tergoda dengan klaim profit dari platform seperti CMD Sport. Namun secara realistis:

Tidak ada platform taruhan yang bisa menjamin keuntungan.

CMD Sport hanya membantu dalam:

• Menemukan odds yang lebih kompetitif
• Menghindari situs yang tidak terpercaya
• Memberikan gambaran dasar pasar taruhan

Profit tetap bergantung pada:

• Strategi taruhan
• Manajemen modal
• Analisis pertandingan yang akurat

Perbandingan dengan Standar Industri

Jika dibandingkan dengan platform sejenis, CMD Sport memiliki posisi sebagai berikut:

Setara Dalam:

• Kemudahan penggunaan
• Informasi dasar taruhan
• Akses ke berbagai event olahraga

Masih Tertinggal Dalam:

• Kedalaman data statistik
• Fitur komunitas dan diskusi
• Transparansi sistem rekomendasi

Artinya, CMD Sport lebih unggul sebagai alat praktis, bukan sebagai pusat analisis profesional.

Risiko yang Perlu Diperhatikan

Dalam dunia olahraga digital, risiko tetap menjadi faktor utama. Beberapa hal yang perlu diperhatikan:

• Ketergantungan pada pihak ketiga (agent/broker)
• Perbedaan pengalaman antar pengguna
• Risiko kerugian finansial jika tanpa strategi

Pengguna disarankan untuk tetap bermain secara bijak dan terkontrol.

Layak atau Tidak? Layak Digunakan Jika:

Ingin membandingkan sportsbook dengan cepat
Mencari platform yang lebih aman
Baru memulai di dunia taruhan olahraga

Kurang Cocok Jika:

Mencari profit instan
Membutuhkan analisis data mendalam
Mengandalkan sistem otomatis

Verdict Akhir

CMD Sport bukan mesin uang, tetapi bisa menjadi:

Alat bantu yang efektif untuk meningkatkan kualitas keputusan dalam taruhan olahraga digital.

Dengan pendekatan yang tepat, platform ini dapat membantu pengguna lebih terarah. Namun, hasil akhir tetap bergantung pada strategi dan disiplin masing-masing.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on an ambitious agenda that won him the enthusiastic support of a broad coalition of voters. His charisma and boundless energy has helped to raise the hopes and expectations of many. The agenda itself should be applauded, and the emergence of this coalition, with its hopes and expectations, is a positive development that has helped create a growing audience for socialist politics.

Yet winning Mamdani’s agenda requires more than the election of a progressive politician—in this case a democratic socialist—to executive office. Arrayed against it are New York’s capitalist class, which includes the powerful real estate and financial interests based in New York City and the politicians who represent them. Without a countervailing force in the form of an organized popular movement capable of defending its own underlying class interests, and which is able, when necessary, to engage in targeted, disruptive action, strong and sustainable  progressive reform is not possible.

After almost four months in office, both Mamdani’s governing style and strategy and political events beyond his control—including the outcome of the budget battle currently being waged in Albany—have revealed how unlikely it is that his agenda will be realized. In fact, some of it has already been abandoned. And Mamdani’s responses have illustrated that while he wants to establish his bona fides as a trusted and efficient manager of New York City, there is much less evidence that he has any interest in building a movement to defend the interest of New York City’s diverse working class.

The means to, and meaning of, “Tax the Rich”

Mamdani’s “affordability agenda”—universal free childcare, free buses, a rent freeze for stabilized apartments, and an explosive growth in the number of affordable housing units—has mass support but carries with it a hefty price tag. New York City is legally unable to raise its own taxes without approval from the state. Candidate Mamdani’s explicit call to raise income taxes on the wealthy and on corporations in order to fund this agenda was (and remains) extremely popular, and was of course intended to put pressure on the New York State legislature and more particularly the governor. Without a revenue increase of many billions, achieving this agenda will be impossible.

Whether increased taxes on the wealthy can actually be won by the usual political means is now playing out in Albany. On April 22 the state legislature passed its sixth “budget extender” of the season after negotiations to resolve the state’s budget blew past the April 1 deadline. It’s not unusual for the budget to be late—last year it took until May 9—but this year negotiators have not yet gotten beyond bitter struggles over implementing climate goals and reforming auto insurance laws to more fiscally significant issues. Prominent among these are (separate) proposals by the state senate and state assembly to raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul has been adamant in her opposition to such tax increases.

Every year, New York State’s governor and each of the two houses of its legislature devise separate budget proposals. The three proposals are a basis for the negotiations among the leaders of the two houses and the governor (a process formerly gendered as “three men in a room”—this year the only man among them is Assembly Speaker Democrat Carl Heastie). In recent years, it has become common for the legislature’s “one house budgets” to include a proposal to raise taxes on high earners, and some form of such increases has occasionally passed. This year, though, those proposals have taken on increased significance.

The revenue the city would receive under both senate and assembly tax proposals is somewhat less than under Mamdani’s own, but those amounts are nevertheless enough to have heartened his supporters. Governor Hochul, though, has not hesitated to repeat her strong opposition, and it’s hard to see where pressure sufficient to move her can come from. She dismisses passionate chants from crowds demanding these tax increases, unconcerned about any potential electoral weakness coming from their opposition, and is likely to remain firm as the budget negotiations drag on. (The pied-à-terre tax on luxury second homes that Hochul finally announced—and Mamdani applauded—on April 15 would only raise $500 million annually, while the legislature’s proposals would raise $3 billion in city income taxes and an additional $1-2 billion in direct state funding for the city. By contrast, in a document labeled “How to Pay for the Mamdani Agenda,” the mayor-to-be offered a plan to raise $10 billion.

It was never likely that a robust form of “tax the rich” would get over the hurdles that the State’s power structure imposes. Mirroring the U.S. constitutional order as a whole, the structure of New York government is notorious for serving to insulate the powerful from democratic control. The “three men in a room” is but one problem. The business lobby has made sure to fund lavishly the re-election campaigns of Hochul and others, and has made its objections to taxation publicly known. According to Crain’s, even the proposed pied-à-terre tax on second homes in New York City, “is certain to prompt a massive fight in Albany from the real estate industry in particular and delay the already delayed state budget much further”. Like the governor herself, business leaders are predicting that businesses would leave New York if their taxes are raised. Predictably, in an April 6 letter to shareholders, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon argued that cities and businesses needed to “compete,” and blamed high local taxes for his own corporation’s shifting of some jobs to Texas.

Although it is technically possible that the legislature could pass tax legislation outside of the context of the budget process, the access of New York’s capitalist class to the halls of power, and the usual nervousness of legislators looking over their shoulders in an election year, prevent any serious consideration of such legislation which would in any case require veto-proof majorities.

The Mamdani administration has no real strategy to try to overcome these obstacles. The option of cohering a sustainable mass movement to disrupt business as usual, and grow popular participation and organization, has not been on the table. To be sure, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and its sister organization, the nonprofit Our Time, have been consistent in their organizing efforts on the issue, but the tactics they have used—door-knocking and phone-banking—have done nothing to move New Yorkers beyond the atomization of individual voters calling legislators. Tactics that worked, in a particular moment, to get a democratic socialist elected are not sufficient to win a serious reform agenda.

Tactics that worked, in a particular moment, to get a democratic socialist elected are not sufficient to win a serious reform agenda.

The limitations of DSA’s strategy are apparent in the diminishing returns of its tactics. Well-planned phone-banking efforts failed to get more than about 1,700 people to ride buses to “take over” Albany on February 25, far short of what was hoped for (this at a time when millions can be mobilized to demonstrate against Trump). And having won his election, Mamdani has proven ambivalent in his support of his DSA allies’ tactics. By mid-February, the mayor made it clear that he himself would not be taking part in such “tax the rich” events. Thus, he avoided attending the Albany “takeover” and the March 29 tax-the-rich rally in the Bronx headlined by Bernie Sanders.

The mayor’s February 5 endorsement of Hochul for re-election—and the resultant demise of the campaign of her primary challenger, Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado—removed a significant source of leverage over the governor and signaled still further Mamdani’s intention to collaborate as much as possible with the powerful as an elected executive, rather than attempt to lead a popular movement against the state’s rulers and its Democratic Party machine.  NYC-DSA, for its part, distanced itself from Mamdani while indicating in a statement that the governor was not worthy of the endorsement.

Mamdani’s efforts to distance himself from his DSA allies have become apparent within the tax-the-rich movement. Winning the “affordability agenda”—or at least part of it—has remained DSA’s goal. In its messages asking members and supporters to urge their legislators to support taxing the rich, the appeal was always in the name of achieving parts of the agenda—usually, free child care. The organization pointed out, correctly, that the January agreement between Hochul and Mamdani on universal childcare was limited to funding pilot programs and the early stages of a phase-in of the program.

But Mamdani has had to retreat to using whatever new revenue he can get from the state to fill a $5.4 billion gap in the city’s budget, which he is legally required to balance. His appeal to the legislature on “Tin Cup Day”—the day in February each year on which officials from around the state make their case for state assistance—included a request for a 2 percent tax increase on high earners, but in his testimony he mentioned no other goal than that of achieving a balanced budget.

Mamdani’s strategy in action

In order to pressure Hochul to support the 2 percent increase, it may have been possible for the mayor to encourage the organization of activities beyond phone calls to legislators. He might have attempted, for example, to bring together unions, nonprofit advocacy groups, and other organizations to mobilize their members and engage in activities such as protests at her New York offices or holding marches in each of the city’s boroughs. Even at the level of electoral politics, he might have sought leverage by offering more support for insurgent democratic socialist candidates.

Instead Mamdani resorted to a threat to raise property taxes (which the city can do without state approval), seeking to pressure the governor into an income tax hike as a lesser evil. This was a serious miscalculation. Not only did it “greatly anger” Hochul, who viewed it as a breach of his promise to tone down his tax-the-rich rhetoric, but it backfired in the eyes of many whom the mayor should have seen as allies. The city’s property taxes are notoriously regressive, and this move left middle class homeowners—overwhelmingly in favor of taxes on the rich—feeling unsupported by the mayor. Black homeowners in Queens publicly protested and spoke to their city council representative on the matter, and this seems to have been enough for Mamdani to back off of this property tax hike proposal.

These miscues—angering a powerful Democrat he hoped to keep as an ally (despite their differences on his signature campaign promise), and alienating an important electoral constituency—can be viewed as understandable errors of an inexperienced executive. But perhaps it is more instructive to consider them as natural consequences of his strategy: From early in his candidacy Mamdani has tried to combine a style of friendly negotiations between himself and powerful players with an attempt to represent the interests of working people.

Mamdani is not responsible for the city’s fiscal woes. His predecessor Eric Adams had been overestimating revenues and resorting to accounting tricks to balance the budget. Nonetheless he clearly needed a “Plan B” (perhaps better thought of as “Plan A”) and for that he first turned to the all-too-familiar playbook of seeking systematic cuts. Even before his trip to Albany he issued an executive order mandating that every city agency appoint a chief savings officer, tasked with proposing ways to slash hundreds of millions from the budget. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that under these circumstances reforms like a robust free child care program and free buses are fast receding from what is likely.

More recently, Mamdani has found himself in a battle with the city council over his proposed budget. He has resorted to the highly unusual tactic of tapping the city’s reserve fund to avoid a deficit. Council Speaker Julie Menin, a “moderate” Democrat, defended the council’s own proposal, which includes a supposed $6 billion in savings, and argued that dipping into the reserve fund will damage the city’s credit rating and spike its borrowing costs. Each side has attacked the other’s proposal as requiring cuts in essential services.

Charm the Rich

Mamdani’s strategic approach started becoming clear after he won the election primary last year. In June of 2025, he met with business leaders from the Partnership for New York City and the Association for a Better New York, assuaging their fears about “socialism” and assuring them that his administration will behave as a partner in pursuing their shared goals of a prosperous and affordable city. He also promised to consider retaining Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch (a billionaire from the business class herself), a move which he eventually made despite his stated opposition to Tisch’s collaboration with former Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul in rolling back progressive criminal justice reforms.

Mamdani’s positioning himself as a “reasonable” politician, willing to learn from experts rather than following a particular ideological program, has also extended to the electoral arena. His endorsement of Hochul followed their joint announcement of the free child care program. The governor had made it clear that affordable child care was a goal of hers as well, and many of the state’s business leaders (with an interest in having their employees able to come to work rather than attend to the kids) backed her on this, as long as state treasuries could fund it without a tax increase. Rather than emphasize the inadequacy of the partial and temporary funding Hochul was able to come up with, Mamdani chose to cheerlead alongside her. His endorsement of her re-election was an indication of his approach and desire not to have the kind of contentious relationship with the governor that former mayor Bill DeBlasio had with Andrew Cuomo.

Mamdani [has] position[ed] himself as a “reasonable” politician, willing to learn from experts rather than following a particular ideological program…

The other leaders of New York’s Democratic Party establishment—U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—were much sharper than Hochul in their opposition to Mamdani during the election. Nonetheless, Mamdani urged his fellow DSA members not to endorse one of their own—city council member Chi Ossé—to challenge Jeffries in the 2026 primary. In a close vote, the organization denied Ossé their endorsement.

Given this background, it’s not surprising that Mamdani relied on his ability to appear reasonable and friendly, and to use a strong dose of flattery, during his infamous November Oval Office visit with Donald Trump. In October, he had similarly flattered the members of the Association for a Better New York as “some of the most forward-thinking leaders within our city.” Despite his inexperience, Mamdani is a very skilled tactical politician and careful student of recent political relationships. New York City’s mayors have always had to rely on a positive relationship with Washington (as they have with Albany), and Mamdani had clearly observed Trump well enough to know that if any money was to flow from D.C. to New York, that relationship had to be nurtured early on.

If Mamdani’s intent has been to establish a good working relationship with the business community, he has probably succeeded. Crain’s New York Business issued a scorecard on the Mayor’s first one hundred days, rating him on several metrics. On business confidence in the new administration, he was given a mixed review, applauding his responsiveness and attempts to be engaging. On the other side of their ledger, the piece mentioned aspects such as the “one-sidedness” of his approach to “bad” landlords. But whether his friendliness to business leaders will enable him to implement his costly agenda is another matter.

The police and community safety

Mamdani has also been careful to ensure a positive relationship with the NYPD. Eric Adams, of course, began his career as a police officer, but before him Bill DeBlasio was famously despised by the cops for his support for reform measures meant to minimize killings by police. To avoid such a chilly relationship, Mamdani re-framed the purpose of his proposed Department of Community Safety as premised on removing burdens on the police in responding to emergencies involving mentally ill people, i.e., by having social workers among those responding. Police would thus be allowed to do “their actual jobs” while professionals trained to work with the mentally ill would have a different role to play.

But the new mayor was apparently overeager in this regard. In late January, the mother of a  22-year old mentally ill Queens man, Jabez Chakraborty, called 911 requesting an ambulance when her son, who lived with her, experienced a rageful crisis. Only the police responded, without an ambulance, and when the young man brandished a kitchen knife the cops shot him four times. Mamdani’s first public statement on the matter (which he later retracted) was that he was “grateful to the first responders who put themselves on the line each day to keep our communities safe.”

Chakraborty himself wound up in the hospital, in critical condition, handcuffed and shackled. The group Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM), which advocates for South Asian immigrant workers and which had provided important support for Mamdani during the election campaign, published a statement by the family strongly critical of the NYPD and the mayor’s praise of them.

This case offered the purest possible example of a mental health emergency requiring a non-police response. Chakraborty’s mother did not report being in danger, and the entire incident took place inside their home. It potentially offered a perfect illustration of how Mamdani’s promise to adopt a “public health approach to safety” made sense. Instead it was perhaps the first indication that his plan for a Department of Community Safety was in trouble.

The proposed new department was meant to address crises involving mental health, domestic violence, the threat of gun violence, hate crimes, and outreach to the unhoused by relying on trained professionals to diffuse the crisis, rather than just summoning the police. Creating the department would have required City Council approval, and its billion dollar budget made that unlikely, more so as the city’s deficit became clearer. The mayor wound up retreating in mid-March by creating a scaled-down Office of Community Safety (not a deparment), which he can do by executive order.

A recent article in Gothamist detailed additional ways Mamdani has pulled back on some of his public safety initiatives. Although he remains on record as wanting to disband the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group (SRG—known for its violence against peaceful protesters) and end its gang database, both moves are strongly opposed by Commissioner Tisch. In an April 8 New York Times interview, the mayor said that in cases of disagreement between him and the Commissioner, final decisions would be his. But according to Gothamist, he has recently “tempered his rhetoric” on the SRG and failed to speak up when Tisch defended the gang database. While some have defended the mayor’s approach as necessary to “build trust” with the police, long-standing activists have demanded a different approach. They rightly argue that the mayor should take his lead from those “directly impacted by the city’s failed police-based mental health response and the organizations led by and accountable to them.”

Whether these retreats are consequences of Mamdani’s retention of Tisch in particular, or simply of his concern that he avoid the kind of conflict with the NYPD that DeBlasio experienced, is not particularly important. More significant is what they reveal about a politician attempting to undertake radical changes by relying on a passive electorate. Power must be confronted in order to make these changes, and to do so requires a self-conscious movement with clear objectives, democratic mechanisms to determine strategy and tactics, and a focus on broadening its reach and increasing its popular strength. Mere political maneuvering within an undemocratic political system, established to insulate the powerful, will inevitably fall short in winning meaningful reforms, let alone the more fundamental change sought by socialists of all stripes.

Affordable housing

Mamdani entered office having made the fight for affordable housing a central policy promise. And it’s likely Mamdani will achieve one of his goals: a rent freeze for the approximately one-third of New Yorkers living in apartments covered by the city’s rent stabilization laws. He has been able to appoint members to the Rent Guidelines Board—the agency which each year determines a maximum percentage by which rents in stabilized units may legally rise—who are sympathetic to the concerns of tenants squeezed between small wage increases and more rapid inflation. Mamdani was able to overcome the plans of outgoing Mayor Adams who almost succeeded, on his way out of office, in appointing enough landlord-friendly members to ensure landlord concerns would prevail on the board for the next several years.

But the rent freeze was hardly the only proposal in Mamdani’s platform intended to increase housing affordability. The platform promised to use city funds for the construction of 200,000 new units over ten years. “[F]or decades,” it read, “New York City has relied almost entirely on changing the zoning code to entice private development—with results that can fall short of the big promises.” Most of his plan’s funding—$70 billion out of $100 billion—was to be raised by a proposed sale of municipal bonds.

Mamdani’s ultimate support of ballot measures fast-tracking and otherwise smoothing the path for developers relies on the same market-based methods of constructing for-profit housing that have failed, over those same decades, to produce very many units of housing that most New Yorkers—certainly the vast majority of working-class New Yorkers can actually afford. (Ben Rosenfield and Holden Taylor, in an article in the Marxist journal Spectre and summarized in a Tempest interview, dig into this dynamic, and its recent history, in great detail.)

The ballot measures were backed by a coalition including developers and real estate firms, who funneled millions of dollars into the campaigns. Of course, and as Rosenfield and Taylor note, whatever housing goals Mamdani may personally favor, he “will have to navigate the limitations and contradictions of the capitalist city and state.”

Another early sign of his apparent change in approach on housing came during Mamdani’s October speech to the Association for a Better New York (co-founded in 1970 by leading real estate investor and developer Lewis Rudin). Mamdani stated that business leaders had approached him with concerns about the “affordability crisis” and their inability to employ people in an “expensive New York.” “As rents soar,” Mamdani continued, “it becomes almost impossible to attract the very kind of top talent that we need to see in this city.” One can imagine that the “top talent” people that these business leaders look to attract have a very different limit on the rent they can pay from that of the median working class New Yorker.

As for the project to build a deck over the Sunnyside rail yards which Mamdani theatrically pitched to the Developer-in-Chief in another Oval Office meeting (in February 2026), even if Trump comes through with the promised $21 billion in federal funds, the 12,000 homes it would eventually support would only become a reality several decades into the future. The housing construction itself would be separately funded.

Samuel Stein of the Community Service Society of New York, writing in Jewish Currents, runs through some of the financial limitations that a strong public housing program would face: Raising large sums on the bond market strains the city’s budget as debt comes due, and a downgrade by credit rating agencies may well increase interest payments on that debt. Paying union-scale wages on city construction projects while keeping rents low and maintaining buildings well adds further strain.

The city’s deficit—now a top concern for Mamdani—adds a new dimension to these limitations. The mayor recently broke a promise to implement a measure passed by the city council in 2023 that would expand CityFHEPS, a program providing housing vouchers intended to move homeless people from shelters into permanent housing. Eric Adams challenged the measure, and Mamdani is now continuing that challenge, saying that the city cannot afford it and battling the council—and advocates for the homeless—in court. The issue has attracted quite a bit of public attention: A recent article in Gothamist profiled several individuals fearing that they will wind up in the revolving door between homeless shelters and the streets.

Conclusions

In one sense, Mamdani himself is not to blame for the failure of his agenda. The obstacles to achieving it are not of his making. The Mayor could be criticized, though, for not pointing out to his voters how formidable these obstacles are, and thereby raising the question of what it might actually take to win. Eric Blanc and Bhaskhar Sunkara—strong Mamdani supporters very wary of (even hostile to) left critiques—warned in a December article in Jacobin against overestimating the Left’s strength based just on an electoral victory. “To push Hochul and other establishment politicians to fund reforms,” they wrote, “New York’s Left will need more popular depth and breadth. Without such a working-class movement, there’s a real danger that Zohran’s agenda will get blocked.”

As a DSA member himself (like Blanc and Sunkara), Mamdani is surely aware of this argument. He could have spoken up himself on the need to build popular power in order to prevent his agenda being blocked. But it’s clear, after his absence from tax-the-rich rallies and other events challenging New York’s Democrats, that his choice not to alienate himself from them—and from the business class—has prevented a full-throated call for a movement opposing the powerful.

Blanc and others close to him are very troubled by what they see as merely empty criticisms with no proposed solutions—attacking Mamdani (and others) from the Left, without taking responsibility for building real, lasting coalitions. But rather than taking aim at leftist critics, the socialist movement needs an open and thoroughgoing debate about how we offer a strategic alternative to what Mamdani is offering.

It is certainly not too late—especially at a time of heightened activism—for numbers of people to begin building the kind of forceful pushback that can eventually make the Mamdani agenda a reality.

The New York Times, in its “first hundred days” piece on Mamdani, didn’t hesitate to point out that “he has quickly retreated from one campaign promise after another” and that he “has little actual power to impose that ideology [democratic socialism] on city government”. But while this article has criticized Mamdani in similar respects, more important than passing judgement on the man is to point out the reality of what it will take to build and maintain the kind of power that can win what Mamdani’s voters eagerly wished for.

In a matter of weeks, it will be clear how much revenue the city can expect from Albany this year. Under any likely scenario, a tax on the wealthy sufficient to plug the budget gap and also move the needle on meaningful reforms, e.g., free buses or significant numbers of truly affordable publicly-owned apartments, will not happen. Hochul’s wildly inadequate concession in the form of a pied-à-terre tax—especially after Mamdani essentially declared victory, saying “today we’re taxing the rich”—will almost certainly be as far as she is willing to go. But in itself, this won’t necessarily lead to discouragement and lowered expectations. The outcome will depend on what conclusions people draw. It is certainly not too late—especially at a time of heightened activism—for numbers of people to begin building the kind of forceful pushback that can eventually make the Mamdani agenda a reality.

The capitalist class is powerful—New York City’s real estate and financial interests particularly so—and its political reach extensive. Without strong and growing institutions of resistance that can fight for working people’s needs, gains promised by an individual maverick politician can’t be won against such power, except in muted form. Many DSA members, as well as others on the Left who watch events closely, may find ways to come together and help build those institutions. But a different strategic vision will be required. If this happens, the momentum triggered by Mamdani’s campaign and election, rather than dissipating, will build. Otherwise, we risk the type of disillusionment with “progressive” politics, the result of which we are all too familiar with in Trump’s “America.”

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Karamccurdy; modified by Tempest.

The post Mayor Mamdani’s program in peril?  appeared first on Tempest.

Anderson Bean: Could you start by introducing yourself and your role in the Guilford County Schools?

Carla Harris: I am a high school science educator. I have been teaching for the past 10 years, all in North Carolina. I am also a member of the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE), and I do a lot of organizing work with them.

AB: How would you describe the current state of public education in North Carolina for both teachers and students?

CH: One word that comes to mind is abysmal. The last study I saw ranked North Carolina 50th in public school funding out of all the states, so it’s pretty difficult right now. In 2008 North Carolina was 25th in teacher pay, today it is 43rd, $14,000 less than the national average. North Carolina is also currently the only state that has not passed a state budget.

You have a lot of people in this profession who really love what we do, but it’s getting really hard for people to stay. Within the past 20 years, the General Assembly has been chipping away at the public school system in many different ways. For example, they eliminated master’s pay starting in 2014, so educators with advanced degrees now earn the same as colleagues without them. For anyone entering the system after 2021, there are no longer state-provided health benefits in retirement, which discourages people from joining the profession. North Carolina has also eliminated traditional tenure and weakened due process protections for teachers. At the same time, the pay scale is structured so that salaries increase early on but then flatten out for much of a teacher’s career, with little to no meaningful raises between, roughly, years fifteen and twenty-four.

My own health insurance costs doubled this past year. Classified staff—bus drivers, custodians, and cafeteria workers—until recently weren’t even making $15 an hour. That leads to shortages, vacancies, and burnout across the board.

Conditions inside schools are also very difficult. Because of low state funding, maintenance is not always addressed in a timely way. In my school, there are several places where every time it rains, ceiling tiles have to be replaced within a couple of days. There are ongoing leaks. In a neighboring county, schools couldn’t open on time one year because of mold in multiple buildings after air conditioning was cut over the summer to save money.

Resources are scarce. Most teachers buy their own basic supplies, tissues, pencils, hand sanitizer, things that used to be provided by the school.

Health insurance has also worsened. Costs have gone up while coverage has gone down. Starting teacher salaries are so low that, when you factor in the hours worked, they fall below a living wage, which makes it even harder to bring new people into the profession.

Most schools only have a nurse one to two days a week, with nurses split across multiple buildings. That makes it difficult for them to really know students and their health needs. Mental health services are even harder to access.

These problems are tied to broader policy decisions. Legislators have chosen to maintain one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the country, with plans to reduce it to zero by 2030. At the same time, funding is being diverted away from public schools. Over the past few years, there has been a sharp increase in private school vouchers, also known as Opportunity Scholarships. This year alone, over $500 million in taxpayer dollars has gone to these vouchers, effectively siphoning money away from public schools. And the majority of recipients are already from wealthier families.

AB: What is NCAE organizing for May Day, and what are the main goals of the action?

CH: To coincide with the nationwide call to action on May Day this year, NCAE has organized a day of action under the slogan “Kids Over Corporations.” They are inviting all school employees, along with the broader community, to come to the Capitol in Raleigh. The goal is not only to stand in solidarity with one another, but also to get legislators’ attention and begin shifting policy back in our direction.

School employees are being asked to call out of work that day. The central demands are for increased funding for public education by redirecting money away from corporate tax cuts and private school vouchers.

It has been made clear that this is not a strike, but a one-day action that can serve as a step toward larger actions in the future. A longer-term goal of NCAE is to become a formalized union and win collective bargaining rights, and this action is part of building toward that.

To coincide with the nationwide call to action on May Day this year, NCAE has organized a day of action under the slogan “Kids Over Corporations.”…School employees are being asked to call out of work that day. The central demands are for increased funding for public education by redirecting money away from corporate tax cuts and private school vouchers.

So far, over fifteen school districts have been forced to close for the day. This happens when enough workers put in absences that there are not enough substitutes to cover positions, which forces districts to convert the day into an optional teacher workday. We expect that number to grow, and there are also educators participating from districts that have not officially closed.

These decisions are made at the county level. Some districts have made the day an optional teacher workday, while others have required employees to use annual leave. These kinds of responses reflect attempts to limit collective worker action.

AB: How does this year’s May Day action compare to the 2018 “Red for Ed” mobilizations in North Carolina? What feels continuous, what’s different, and how does this moment compare to being part of the broader national wave back then?

CH: North Carolina had similar actions in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, there was a national teacher strike wave across multiple states, including Arizona and West Virginia. That created a lot of momentum, and people here were ready to take action because they could see what was possible when educators organized collectively.

Now, we are building on the lessons learned from those experiences. In both moments, there has been a strong emphasis on grassroots organizing—attending local meetings, connecting with educators across districts, and collectively developing strategy. It’s often a year-long process to build toward actions like this.

This year, one of the key strategies has been organizing coordinated absences. In some districts, educators formally entered their absences into the system, while in others, workers signed commitment forms indicating they would do so if necessary. In my district alone, there were nearly 800 commitments, which was enough for the school board to act before everyone even formally submitted their absences. The collective action itself was enough to force a response.

While the numbers may be smaller so far than in 2018, we are seeing broader connections with other organizations this time. There has been collaboration with immigrant rights groups, voting rights groups, and other community organizations. There have been art builds to create banners and materials, as well as coordinated actions like banner drops and rallies. There is also a larger coalition coming together for events around May Day.

So while 2018 was defined by a powerful national wave of teacher strikes, this moment is characterized more by coalition-building and deeper connections across movements.

While [the 2018 “Red for Ed” mobilizations in North Carolina were] defined by a powerful national wave of teacher strikes, this moment is characterized more by coalition-building and deeper connections across movements.

AB: GCAE has also been active in the Triad labor movement, including solidarity with UAW struggles. Can you talk about the importance of cross-union solidarity in the region? [The Piedmont Triad is a metropolitan region in the north-central part of North Carolina that make up three cities: Greensboro, Winston Salem and High Point. – EDS]

CH: GCAE, as a local chapter of the statewide union, has supported UAW organizing efforts. That connection is very real, UAW workers manufacture our school buses, and their children attend our schools. It highlights how interconnected working-class struggles really are.

We’re all working under the same system, and we recognize that the system is not working for us. Organizing around public schools is a powerful way for people to connect because over 80 percent of working-class families send their children to public schools. Most people have some connection to a public school, which creates natural links between different struggles. Schools become a central place where broader working-class solidarity can grow.

AB: How are the struggles of other school workers, like bus drivers, cafeteria staff, and support personnel, intersecting with those of teachers right now?

CH: There’s a misconception that this action is just about teachers. NCAE represents all public school workers, so when we are asking for more funding, we are asking for better pay and improved conditions across the board.

When school funding increases, salaries can go up for everyone, and conditions improve for all school employees.

We’ve seen this in recent struggles. In Guilford County, school nutrition staff organized a two-day walkout in 2023 to demand higher wages. That action led to raises, though there were still concerns about how those increases were structured.

Even before that walkout, GCAE spent over two years organizing to raise classified staff wages to $15 an hour. That campaign shows how long it can take to win even modest gains. When we push for larger changes now, we understand that this is a long-term fight.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Anthony Crider; modified by Tempest.

The post Kids Over Corporations appeared first on Tempest.

When we speak of a revolution’s failure, we usually mean that it did not fulfill its stated aims. In the case of Iran’s 1979 revolution, however, the failure runs far deeper. That revolution not only failed to achieve its declared objectives; it failed in the most profound sense. It brought to power a force even more reactionary than the one it overthrew. What occurred was not simply a transfer of power but a historical regression whose consequences endure to this day. This regression extended beyond politics into the social and cultural fabric and even reshaped the intellectual horizons of society, setting the trajectory of development sharply backward.

It is within this context that the discussion of the “bleak scenario” versus the “bright scenario” acquires meaning. This distinction does not stem from naïve optimism about revolutionary processes, but from a concrete historical concern. In classical—and, to some extent, ideological—communist theory, political change is typically imagined as a revolutionary process in which the working class and organized popular forces seize power from the bourgeoisie to establish a new order. This vision presupposes a minimum level of social organization, continuity of production, and the capacity for political reconstruction. In other words, even amid revolution, it assumes that society does not disintegrate entirely and that the essential foundations for rebuilding remain intact.

A coherent state in the conventional sense has never fully taken shape within the Islamic regime. What exists instead is a constellation of rival power factions.

The realities of Iranian society under the Islamic regime cast doubt on such assumptions. The systematic and often brutal destruction of every form of independent organization has rendered such social structuring practically impossible. For nearly five decades, the regime has crushed collective organization with extraordinary severity: dismantling political parties, dissolving councils, erasing labor unions, and imprisoning anyone who attempted to organize. Under such conditions, the idea of a coherent, conscious transfer of power to emancipatory forces seems less a political possibility than an expression of hope divorced from reality.

At the same time, Iranian society is caught in a structural deadlock. The Islamic Republic has reached a point where it can neither retreat nor advance. There is no clear horizon for resolving its intertwined economic, political, and social crises. Structural reform has become unfeasible, yet maintaining the status quo demands ever-deeper repression. This stalemate creates a situation where social explosions are always possible, but the organizational capacity to direct them is extremely weak—if not entirely absent. This tension between an explosive potential and the absence of conscious direction forms the primary foundation of the “bleak scenario.”

Moreover, the very structure of the Islamic regime has evolved into a permanent source of instability. From its inception, the system has been anchored in an apocalyptic religious ideology that has shaped not only politics but also economic life, culture, and foreign policy. This ideology, animated by a self-ascribed historical mission, transcends the rational logic of a modern state. Decision-making, therefore, has been guided not by functional necessities but by ideological and security imperatives. (I have increasingly come to believe that the Islamic regime does not perceive itself as a conventional state. Instead, it acts as a marginal, semi-insurgent force with nothing to lose—resembling groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, or Hashd al-Shaabi. Interestingly, Putin once referred to it in similar terms as a “rogue” entity.)

Continuous repression has destroyed parties and civil institutions, creating an ever-wider gulf between society and the state.

Over the following decades, segments of the ruling establishment began to recognize this contradiction. They understood that governing a complex society in the 21st century through rigid, theological instruments was unsustainable. Attempts were made—under banners such as “reconstruction” and “reform”—to adjust the system, yet always within the same ideological limits. Each time demands for change surfaced, core power centers and autonomous hardline networks blocked them. Thus emerged a dual reality: the necessity of change, and the structural impossibility of realizing it from within. The result has been the cumulative deepening of crises and a progressive erosion of governing capacity.

Consequently, a coherent state in the conventional sense has never fully taken shape within the Islamic regime. What exists instead is a constellation of rival power factions, shifting with each presidential administration, each seeking to consolidate its own position and privileges. These are not merely political rivals, but entrenched networks embedded across institutions. With each change at the top, these networks are reshuffled while the underlying logic persists. Each faction strives to expand its grip over resources—from state contracts to financial assets. Over time, this dynamic has produced a rentier, predatory political economy. Economic decisions serve factional interests, not societal needs. Development projects function primarily as mechanisms for distributing rents. Public wealth is systematically siphoned into private networks—oil rigs can vanish overnight. In such an environment, long-term planning becomes meaningless. Even at managerial levels, instability reigns: each political shift brings sweeping replacements, erasing institutional memory and undermining policy continuity.

A transition beyond the Islamic Republic will not, by necessity, produce a more progressive or stable order—though such a future remains possible and desirable.

The real danger becomes evident when this exhausted structure faces an acute crisis. The same factions now competing over resources may become the drivers of the “bleak scenario” during collapse. Importantly, this scenario is not chiefly produced by opposition groups. While external opposition may play a role, the core threat stems from forces currently inside the system. Each network, in its bid for survival, may resort to violence—some through direct repression, others through paramilitary or localized armed groups. In such conditions, rivalry over resources may evolve into open conflict. Past experiences—the brutal crackdowns of January 2018 and November 2019, and the regime’s intervention in Syria—show that the ruling establishment recognizes no limits when it comes to violence. This violence is not merely reactive but intrinsic to its mode of survival. When real solutions are unavailable, repression becomes the only remaining tool—not to resolve crises, but to buy time. Yet this delay yields nothing: there is neither a strategy for exit nor the will for transformation. Each new wave of repression only deepens the crisis and moves society closer to explosion.

For this reason, whether in the context of external war or mass protest, the risk of widespread violence is very real. The ruling factions see themselves as the rightful owners of the country—and particularly its wealth—and perceive no viable path toward relinquishing power or achieving peaceful transition. Meanwhile, a society deprived of organization and intermediary institutions lacks the means to manage a complex transition. Continuous repression has destroyed parties and civil institutions, creating an ever-wider gulf between society and the state. In such conditions, large-scale protests risk encountering both extreme violence and the absence of structures capable of guiding them. This volatile mix is what makes the “bleak scenario” genuinely possible. At the regional level, the Islamic Republic’s close ties to aligned militant groups only heighten this risk, allowing domestic crises to escalate and spill beyond borders.

The central question … is how to carve out a … path amid this dark horizon … that neither rests on revolutionary illusions nor surrenders to the existing order.

Thus, discussing the “bleak scenario” is not an abstract exercise but a sober warning. It underscores that a transition beyond the Islamic Republic will not, by necessity, produce a more progressive or stable order—though such a future remains possible and desirable. The immediate aftermath may involve instability, violence, or even social fragmentation. Yet this is not a historical dead end. Eventually, society will be compelled to move beyond it. The crucial point is that this transition—whether imminent or delayed—will inevitably carry immense tension and cost. The current structure is incapable of stepping aside or yielding peacefully. The longer the transition is postponed, the deeper and more destructive the coming crisis is likely to be. Hence, the issue is not one of when, but of how—of the quality and character of that transition.

The central question now is how to carve out a genuine path amid this dark horizon—a path that neither rests on revolutionary illusions nor surrenders to the existing order. A path that, even under these harsh conditions, can nurture organization, solidarity, and conscious agency. Addressing this question demands further analysis, which I hope to undertake in a future piece.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Khamenei.ir; modified by Tempest.

The post Iran’s “bleak scenario” appeared first on Tempest.

This May Day will come after nearly sixteen months of authoritarian rule marked by brutal domestic and global violence.

At home, the state has deployed terror against the most vulnerable members of the working class—our immigrant neighbors—and anti-ICE protesters.

World politics has entered a new era with the illegal and unconstitutional U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. The ongoing war is yet another morbid symptom of the late American empire. Conscious of its declining power and driven by a lunatic narcissism reminiscent of Caligula or Nero, the Trump administration seeks to demonstrate its virility through violence. The war’s horror is only matched by its absurdity, as it becomes increasingly clear how little the U.S. state thought through the consequences of their reckless actions.

This disastrous war is a great setback for the regime. But as Trump and company become weaker, they also become more volatile and dangerous.

With Trump’s approval ratings sinking and likely to fall lower given the shock to the economy, the midterm elections pose an existential threat to his administration. The likelihood of a manufactured crisis being used as a pretext to destroy democratic rights looks increasingly probable.

In the face of war and authoritarianism, most workers realize we must act to stop this regime, and many are looking for alternative political strategies.

Building the resistance

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The question is how to transform broad yet diffuse opposition to Trumpism into the kind of organized labor action that can take powerful and decisive action against the regime.

We have seen resistance in varied spaces, from mass protests like No Kings to neighborhood networks to community and labor activism. While all these play a role, unions are of particular importance because they remain the one organized section of the working class with mass numbers, even while unionization levels are low. Organized labor’s reawakening to politics, uneven and contradictory as it may be, represents a significant breach in the post-war consensus that has dominated the movement for the better part of a century.

The resistance in Minneapolis, culminating in mass strikes at the end of January, gave us a glimpse of potential working-class power.

The primary task for activists is to enter all these arenas and help build them out into democratic infrastructures of dissent, spaces and networks where we can further discover our strength as workers. We want to build a left-moving pole of attraction based on class independence, broad democratic decision-making and collective action.

Building these structures is a precondition for resisting the threat of authoritarianism and the entire right-wing political system, and for articulating firm political demands that resist co-optation by the Democratic Party.

The labor-led coalition May Day Strong offers a potential alternative to politics as usual, one that reawakens a long-neglected tradition of political working-class activity and, especially, an orientation on strikes—the only weapon available to us with the power to stop the regime.

Ironically, the authoritarian onslaught is spurring organized labor to reconnect with its power and its ability to change the world.

Towards a general strike

The call for this May Day, “Workers over Billionaires: No Work, No School, No Shopping,” connects with a powerful radical tradition based on independent working-class power. Although its origins are in the United States, International Workers’ Day has largely been a forgotten holiday here. This is not an accident but a result of the deeply anti-worker and anti-socialist nature of the U.S. state, which has actively divorced organized labor from projects against capitalism and for universal human liberation.

Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day marks an important moment in the process of rejoining labor to its unique ability to fundamentally transform society. The violent and tyrannical capitalist system gave birth to Trumpism and has worse horrors in store if we do not alter its course. Our labor creates and recreates this system, but by refusing to work, we can shut it down.

While we have seen some significant May Days in recent history, most notably the 2006 “Day Without an Immigrant,” this May 1st promises to be a celebration of working-class strength like nothing we have seen in decades. Spearheaded by the Chicago Teachers Union, the May Day Strong Coalition is organizing major unions to turn out for this holiday in a way not seen in living memory. Some strikes have even been called against the Trump administration’s policies, including a shutdown of all the ports on the West Coast, from Alaska to San Diego.

It is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

But we are also seeing attempts by conservative forces— Indivisible, the NGO bureaucracy and labor officialdom—to steer all the energy of the anti-Trump resistance back into efforts to elect the Democratic Party. We cannot entrust our precious rights to the very people who got us into this mess in the first place and who have waged no substantive opposition to the far right. Their aim is to restore the bankrupt status quo that germinated Trump. Regardless of what we do at the ballot box, when it comes to organizing, it is crucial that we maintain our independence from the bankrupt two-party system and build our own numbers and power from below.

The symbolic and practical significance of reclaiming May Day in these ways is hard to overstate.

The tasks of the moment

May Day will highlight the potential of working-class power to resist war and authoritarianism while resurrecting a radical labor tradition. But the prospect of mass political strikes that pose a tangible threat to the economic order remains distant.

We still have low levels of workplace organization, in terms of both formal unionization and informal activity. In the current climate calls for general strikes will be hollow if they are not backed up by mass collective organization, disciplined preparation, education and training. Small groups cannot will a general strike in to being, and verbal radicalism cannot substitute for sustained organizing.

This May Day and beyond presents the opportunity to foster our collective strength and become strike-ready. We do this through collective activities such as attending protests as a contingent with T-shirts and banners, pursuing workplace grievances, launching union drives, holding strike schools and forming rank and file groups prepared to push for radical action even in the face of reluctant union officials.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us.

We can only unite as a class if we challenge all the oppressions our rulers use to divide us. If we are to uphold the great slogan of the labor movement, “An injury to one is an injury to all,” we must defend anyone who is under attack without exception. This includes forming emergency defense networks against ICE raids, standing with survivors of sexual violence, and advocating for trans rights, reproductive rights, Palestinian liberation and more.

These are the conditions in which we can build grounded socialist organizations that offer a genuine alternative.

Trumpism cannot be stopped with a vote or a promise. We must rip up its very roots by challenging the capitalist system that created it. There are no short cuts to this goal, but the keywords are organization, political independence, and working-class power.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Walter Crane, Walter Crane; modified by Tempest.

The post The cause of labor is the hope of the world appeared first on Tempest.

Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, pemain beralih dari platform tidak jelas menuju layanan slot resmi. Mereka mencari keamanan data, keadilan permainan, serta kepastian sistem. Operator pun merespons tren ini dengan meningkatkan teknologi dan standar operasional.

Pengalaman Pengguna Jadi Prioritas

Banyak platform slot resmi kini berfokus pada pengalaman pengguna. Mereka mengembangkan antarmuka yang intuitif, responsif di berbagai perangkat, dan mendukung transaksi cepat. Pengguna dapat mengakses permainan melalui smartphone tanpa hambatan berarti.

Selain itu, sistem navigasi dibuat lebih sederhana. Pemain bisa langsung memilih jenis permainan, melihat riwayat transaksi, hingga mengatur batas permainan. Pendekatan ini menunjukkan bahwa operator memahami perilaku digital modern yang menuntut efisiensi.

Sistem RNG dan Transparansi Teknis

Slot resmi menggunakan teknologi Random Number Generator (RNG) untuk memastikan hasil permainan tetap acak dan adil. Sistem ini bekerja secara algoritmik dan telah melewati pengujian dari lembaga independen.

Beberapa platform bahkan mempublikasikan Return to Player (RTP) sebagai bentuk transparansi. RTP memberi gambaran persentase kemenangan dalam jangka panjang. Walau tidak menjamin hasil instan, data ini membantu pemain membuat keputusan yang lebih rasional.

Regulasi dan Legalitas Jadi Pembeda

Keunggulan utama slot resmi terletak pada aspek legalitas. Platform yang beroperasi secara resmi biasanya memiliki lisensi dari otoritas tertentu. Lisensi ini menuntut mereka untuk mengikuti standar keamanan, audit rutin, dan perlindungan pengguna.

Regulasi juga memaksa operator menjaga integritas sistem. Mereka harus menyediakan enkripsi data, metode pembayaran aman, serta mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa. Hal ini menciptakan ekosistem yang lebih sehat dibandingkan layanan ilegal.

Kepercayaan Dibangun dari Konsistensi

Kepercayaan pengguna tidak muncul secara instan. Platform slot resmi harus menjaga konsistensi layanan, mulai dari kecepatan transaksi hingga kualitas dukungan pelanggan. Ketika pengguna merasa aman dan dihargai, loyalitas akan terbentuk secara alami.

Kesimpulan

Slot resmi telah berkembang menjadi bagian dari ekosistem hiburan digital yang lebih terstruktur dan profesional. Dengan dukungan teknologi, regulasi, serta fokus pada pengguna, platform ini menawarkan pengalaman yang lebih aman dan transparan.

As a Chicago Public School parent, I am proud and thrilled that the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) has called for May 1 2026 to be a day of civic action. Teachers taking the lead in calling for action to defend public education against federal attacks and to stand up to demand that ICE get out of our cities is good for Chicago and good for my child. From this perspective, I find that the Chicago Tribune editorial board’s March 13 piece attacking the CTU presents a narrow and shortsighted view of what education is.

I do agree with the Tribune editorial that “education starts with the basics.” It is an obvious fact that core skills, like math and reading, are fundamental. However, describing education as being about only the basics is a rote and wooden depiction of what learning actually is. I send my kid to school to not just learn the A,B,Cs and the 1,2,3s but to learn the rich lessons beyond that: how to get along with others, make friends, navigate relationships, resolve conflicts, and discover who they are and what they want to be. We want our children to learn how the world works and how to participate in society.

We want our children to learn how the world works and how to participate in society.

Last May 1, I took my elementary-school-aged kid out of school to attend the large mass march that many of Chicago’s immigrant organizations and labor groups had called. I felt like it was an educational experience about the world. I emailed my child’s teacher to tell her, and she asked that I send pictures. I sent pictures, and she used them on the fly to have an impromptu lesson about protest and democracy with the rest of the class. They talked about how to raise your voice and act to make the school and the world better. They drew pictures of themselves with protest signs and practiced writing (the basics) what kind of things they would write on their sign or banner. Dropping off my child the next day I was struck by how electric my kid’s classmates were. In wanting to talk about my kid’s experience, many of them showed me their pictures, and it was clear that they learned a different lesson about their participation in the world–and also practiced writing as well. The teacher’s creativity is the reason she is beloved by my kid and the rest of the class. This is the kind of learning that is dynamic; it connects the basics with deeper lessons about critical thinking and the world.

There are crucial lessons to be learned by taking a day, along with people around the country, to engage in civic participation around issues that are completely intertwined in schools and education. These issues are not outside the classroom, but rather profoundly impact the classroom, our children, our teachers, and yes, the basics.

The Trump administration is carrying out a massive attack on public education. Per the Center for American Progress, he has withheld more than $4 billion from public education since the start of the 2025-2026 school year. These cuts especially threaten support for youth with disabilities. I know that many of the parents at our school who have kids with IEPs have been in a state of panic in anticipation of loss of critical support. This is paired with the administration’s assault on protections for LGBTQIA youth. I again know many parents and youth to whom this feels very very threatening and scary.

Second, classrooms around the country are feeling the impact of the ICE raids that have been happening around the country, here in Chicago last fall and in Minnesota, the scene of the high-profile murders by federal agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. I have received numerous emails from my child’s teacher letting parents know about the “hard conversations” and fear that our elementary-school aged kids are bringing up in the classroom. Our school is 85 percent non-white and around 80 percent economically disadvantaged. Families are directly impacted by the ICE raids targeting those communities. And even if they are not directly targeted by phenomena that can seem distant and outside the classroom, it is us, or it is our friends, our classmates, and our neighbors who are living under the fear of masked armed agents stealing away our loved ones. How does one “stick to the basics” in that context?

What is to be done about these serious issues? On January 23, more than 75,000 Minnesotans came out into the streets in subzero temperatures in a general strike demanding ICE out. Hundreds of businesses were closed and one in four Minnesotans took part in the strike or knew someone who did. Regular people came together to raise their voices against the violence and murder being carried out by federal agents. This mass pressure was a large factor in Trump’s drawing down agents from Minneapolis, forcing Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino into retirement, and firing DHS head Kristi Noem.

Much more is needed to stop the ICE surges, raids, and arrests of thousands of people with no criminal records. Hundreds of children are being detained in concentration camps– writing letters wishing they could go back to school, and hoping–as nine-year-old Deiver Henao Jimenez told popular child educator Ms. Rachel–to leave in time to make it to his spelling bee. What about the educational “basics” for those children? The Tribune editorial board says, “Don’t worry about it, stay in school.” The Chicago Teachers Union–like the huge number of people around the country marching, participating in community ICE watches, raising money, and engaging in mutual aid to help our neighbors say we should stop business as usual and stand for justice for our schools, our neighbors, and our communities.

We should reject the notion that things like fighting for equitable and enriching public education, defending LGBTQIA folks, and trying to stop ICE from carrying out their bullying raids, kidnapping, and murder is something that is distant political work only to be carried out in governmental buildings.

By calling for May 1 to be a Day of Civic Action–that yes, would close schools for a day–Chicago teachers are providing the opportunity for learning important lessons about what it means to participate in a democratic society, what it means to play an active role in trying to make the world better, what it means to use your voice, and what it means to stand up together in community and solidarity. These lessons are impactful, educational, and, I would argue, vital. There is a call for similar actions taking place in cities around the country.

The Tribune editorial condescendingly argues otherwise, absurdly claiming that Chicago’s teachers are “one of the greatest threats to public education” because one day of missed traditional instruction would critically damage our kids’ education and that any advocacy around education should only be done in distant “legislatures” and government buildings. Given this mindset, I am glad that the Tribune editorial board is not teaching my child. The notion that Chicago’s kids are one day away from failure is profoundly pessimistic, and we should reject the notion that things like fighting for equitable and enriching public education, defending LGBTQIA folks, and trying to stop ICE from carrying out their bullying raids, kidnapping, and murder is something that is distant political work only to be carried out in governmental buildings.

On the contrary, we should seek to instill in our kids and in our communities the conviction that we all have a role to play and that we can make change and better the world collectively, together. Indeed, as we know from all the movements for justice in this country that the Tribune editorial board may have missed in history class, this indeed is what it always takes to change the world. At this current historical moment, with the nightmare of Trump’s actions and policies swirling around us, it is urgent that Chicago’s teachers are joining with others around the country to say now is the moment, and that we can all participate–indeed we should participate–in raising our voice and playing an active role in history.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Environmental Protection Agency; modified by Tempest.

The post The <em>Tribune</em> gets it wrong on the CTU appeared first on Tempest.

termasuk dalam sektor hiburan daring seperti SEXYGEMING. Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, tren ini menunjukkan peningkatan signifikan, didorong oleh kemajuan teknologi serta perubahan perilaku pengguna yang semakin mengutamakan kecepatan dan keamanan dalam mengakses layanan.

Berdasarkan pengamatan di lapangan, para pemain kini tidak lagi hanya mencari hiburan semata. Mereka mulai selektif dalam memilih platform yang mampu memberikan pengalaman stabil, respons cepat, dan perlindungan data yang terjamin. Hal ini menjadi faktor penting yang mendorong kompetisi antar penyedia layanan semakin ketat.

Dari sisi, banyak pengguna mengaku lebih nyaman menggunakan platform yang memiliki tampilan sederhana namun responsif. Akses yang cepat tanpa hambatan teknis menjadi nilai tambah utama. Selain itu, fitur navigasi yang jelas membantu pemain menghemat waktu saat mencari permainan favorit mereka.

Dalam aspek, para pengembang platform SEXYGEMING terus berinovasi dengan menghadirkan sistem yang lebih canggih. Mereka memanfaatkan teknologi enkripsi serta optimalisasi server agar mampu menangani lonjakan pengguna tanpa mengorbankan performa. Keahlian ini terlihat dari kemampuan platform dalam menjaga kestabilan layanan, bahkan saat jam sibuk.

Sementara itu, juga semakin terlihat melalui kehadiran platform-platform yang telah dikenal luas oleh komunitas pemain. Reputasi yang baik biasanya dibangun dari konsistensi layanan, transparansi sistem, serta dukungan pelanggan yang responsif. Pemain cenderung memilih layanan yang sudah memiliki rekam jejak jelas dibandingkan yang belum terbukti.

Di sisi lain, faktor menjadi kunci utama dalam pertumbuhan industri ini. Pemain kini lebih waspada terhadap risiko keamanan digital. Oleh karena itu, mereka lebih memilih platform yang menyediakan sistem perlindungan data, metode transaksi aman, serta kebijakan privasi yang transparan. Kepercayaan ini tidak terbentuk secara instan, melainkan melalui pengalaman penggunaan yang positif secara berkelanjutan.

Menariknya, tren terbaru menunjukkan bahwa akses melalui perangkat mobile semakin mendominasi. Kemudahan bermain kapan saja dan di mana saja membuat pemain lebih aktif. Hal ini mendorong penyedia layanan untuk terus mengoptimalkan versi mobile agar tetap ringan, cepat, dan aman digunakan.

Dengan semua perkembangan ini, industri SEXYGEMING diprediksi akan terus tumbuh dalam beberapa tahun ke depan. Namun, pemain tetap perlu bijak dalam memilih platform. Akses cepat memang penting, tetapi keamanan dan kepercayaan harus tetap menjadi prioritas utama.

Sebagai penutup, perubahan perilaku pemain telah mendorong industri ini ke arah yang lebih profesional dan kompetitif. Platform yang mampu menjawab kebutuhan akan kecepatan dan keamanan akan bertahan, sementara yang tidak mampu beradaptasi perlahan akan ditinggalkan.

Deeper Grounds, Darker Shadows is the remarkable memoir of Eddie L. Quitoriano, a Filipino revolutionary who traveled across four different continents to find support for the struggle in his home-country. A book filled with stories of subterfuge and encounters with outlaws and dictators, it sheds new light on the history of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the limitations of its revolutionary strategy.

Starting in 1986, for around eight years Quitoriano’s revolutionary work was essentially that of an international networker. After moving out of the Philippines, Quitoriano was based largely in a safe house in Belgrade, in former Yugoslavia. Attempting to find support for the CPP, he visited a large number of countries, including Nicaragua, Syria, North-Korea and Cuba.

Comrades from Japan

One of the surprising revelations made by Quitoriano concerns the extent of his cooperation with the Japanese Red Army (JRA), and its leader Fusako Shigenobu. The JRA is today best known for the 1972 Lod attack when three JRA members opened fire on people in the waiting area of what is now Ben Gurion International Airport. The attack was carried out in cooperation with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and this cooperation of Japanese and Palestinian militants drew considerable attention. But since 2001, when Shigenobu announced the dissolving of the JRA from prison, the organisation had largely been forgotten.

One could wonder what the JRA had to offer the CPP. The JRA was an “urban guerilla group” with at most dozens of members. The CPP, when it was at its height in the 1980s, was a movement with tens of thousands of cadres and a mass base numbering in the millions. Its armed wing, the New People’s Army or NPA had thousands of full-time combatants and could mobilize many thousands more in its militia.

But the JRA could offer international contacts, and this is what the CPP was lacking. Founded in 1968, the CPP declared it was “very fortunate” to be close to China, the “iron bastion of socialism.” But after the CPP, in the early 1970s, botched attempts to ship weapons to the NPA from China, material support ceased and by the mid-1980s the Chinese government was referring to Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos as an “old friend.” Just when the CPP seemed to become a serious contender for power, it found itself isolated internationally.

In April 1986, Quitoriano met Shigenobu in an apartment in Manila where she offered to help in establishing international contacts. It was the JRA who initiated the relationship with the CPP, through a member of a Japanese solidarity group. It was largely because of the support of the JRA and Fusako Shigenobu that Quitoriano could play the role of international emissary for the CPP. Shigenobu supplied Quitoriano with forged documents, cash, practical advice and contacts. The way that Quitoriano tells the story, the JRA had decided to shift from undertaking armed attacks to focus on facilitating international links between armed groups in the service of “world revolution.”

Only months before this meeting, in February 1986, Ferdinand Marcos had been overthrown in a popular uprising. This followed years of a deepening crisis of the regime after the 1983 assignation of Benigno Aquino, a leader of the bourgeois opposition. This crisis of the Marcos regime opened up new possibilities for growth of the CPP.

The myth of people’s war

To understand Quitoriano’s international travels one needs to consider the CPP’s strategy of “protracted people’s war.” The PPW was supposed to be structured in three stages. It would start with small armed propaganda squads in the countryside and limited hit-and-run attacks. Gradually and systematically the NPA would organize support and recruit fighters to “accumulate the strength to win bigger battles and campaigns to be able to move up to a higher stage of the war.” In this second stage, “the strategic stalemate”, the NPA would incorporate elements of regular warfare and its “strength shall be more or less on an equal footing with the enemy’s.” The third stage would be “the strategic offensive, when the enemy shall have been profoundly weakened.”

The PPW strategy posited that revolution in the Philippines would be an essentially military struggle. The populist rhetoric about “serving the people” did not change the fact that the CPP’s vision of revolution was never a process of self-emancipation but rather a substitutionist seizure of power by the party on behalf of “the people.” For the CPP, this strategy was the immediate consequence of its analysis of the Philippine social formation. The Philippines was assumed to be a country in which imperialism had locked social-economic development in a ‘semi-feudal’ stage, and the masses of landless peasants, born of that economic stagnation, were to be the base of the people’s army.

As the regime went into crisis and the movement grew, the limitations of this strategy became clear. On Mindanao, the large island in the south of the Philippine archipelago, there were more recruits than weapons. And to move from the first to the second stage, the fighters needed the kind of weapons that would allow them to engage government forces in longer battles. Quitoriano shows the NPA’s dilemma in a chapter describing an attack by the NPA. After combining several units, the NPA ambushed an army transport. Well executed, the attack was initially successful and the guerrillas pinned down the government forces. But as soon as the government troops received reinforcements, the guerrillas were forced to retreat. Armed with nothing more than rifles, the NPA fighters were no match for a single armored vehicle.

Without shoes

At the time of this attack, Quitoriano had been a party member for several years. He grew up in Misamis Oriental in northeastern Mindanao and was born in a farmer’s family of small land-owners. Although considered better off because they owned their land, life was difficult. But Quitoriano was able to attend school and for college he entered a seminary. It is through Church circles that Quitoriano became politicized in the seventies. Initially, he was associated with the Khi Rho, a group of Catholic social-democrats. But the radical ideas propounded by the CPP and its satellite organizations became influential in progressive Catholic circles and Quitoriano ended up joining the armed struggle. There was no dramatic moment of radicalization or of opting for Maoism. For someone of his social background, this process of radicalization and the importance of progressive Catholicism was not atypical.

In the first part of Deeper Grounds, Darker Shadows Quitoriano narrates his years as a party member in the Philippines, describing his joining the armed struggle as well as his arrest, imprisonment and torture. Quitoriano also introduces a recurring theme in the book; his ‘selfishness’ in wanting children while dedicating his life to the party, leaving his partner Agnes with the responsibility of caring for them. The CPP did not support families of those who worked full-time for the revolution. Such activists were expected to be able to organize the necessary support themselves. In practice this meant that many fell back on traditional patterns and women ended up carrying most of the burden of the care work that made the full time political engagement of men possible.

The first part of the book gives an insider view of the movement in the Philippines. In only six pages, the chapter ‘Way sapatos’, meaning ‘without shoes’, gives a fascinating picture of the early development of the NPA. The title refers to how upon joining the guerrilla, Quitoriano was told to get rid of ‘petty-bourgeois’ possessions like shoes and tooth-brush. Adopting a lifestyle that was poorer than many of the peasants they wanted to organize was propagandistically useful as it showed the revolutionaries’ selflessness and dedication. But local realities do not match the crude categories of Maoist “class analysis”, as was for example shown by a conversation with a leader of a indigenous community. After explaining to him the evils of the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, Quitoriano and his comrade were politely asked, “who this Marcos was.” The community was so isolated that roaming wild boars were a more pressing issue.

“Way sapatos” also mentions a darker side to the NPA’s functioning. To gain the support of local people, the NPA needed to make itself useful. Like other NPA members, Quitoriano “assumed various roles”; “health worker, legal advisor, marriage counselor, soldier and political broker.” The NPA also “got rid” of “thieves, rapists, usurers and cattle rustlers.” In the absence of a prison system, “the accused would face capital punishment and burial in unmarked graves.” The cavalier way in which the NPA assumed the role of executioner would come back to haunt the movement in the “purges”that wrecked it in the eighties.

World traveler for the revolution

When Shigenobu offered to facilitate international travel for Quitoriano, his commander, Romulo “Rolly” Kinatanar did not hesitate for a second. After the 1977 arrest of the CPP’s first chairman and ideologue Jose Maria “Joma” Sison, a new leadership led the party to greater heights. Kintanar, who would be killed in 2003 by his former comrades, became the overall commander of the NPA and built an overall command structure. It was Kintanar who asked Quitoriano to join this “general command” and gave him the blessing to travel abroad.

Whether Quitoriano visited the North-Korean Workers Party, Muammar Gaddafi, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas or Palestinian organizations sheltered by Syria, his pitch was the same: the NPA was fighting a U.S.-backed government, so any support they could give would weaken a common enemy. As a representative of the NPA’s “general command”, Quitoriano was not in a position to discuss political links. Quitoriano portrays himself as a loyal soldier, carrying out his assignment. But when describing the Byzantine worship of the Kim dynasty in North-Korea or Gaddafi’s insistence that it is necessary to target the children of the enemy, it is clear what Quitoriano’s feelings are.

The concrete results of Quitoriano’s travels were modest, or even useless, like the Libyans training NPA-members to drive tanks they did not have. Already in the late Cold War years, it was difficult to find a power that was willing and able to provide decisive support to the NPA.

On paper, the CPP was a monolithic organization. Reality was more complicated. The archipelagic character of the country and the poor infrastructure made it difficult to concentrate forces but also provided the NPA with opportunities to evade government troops. The CPP adopted what it called “centralized leadership and decentralized operations.” Cadre were responsible for specific regions and had to implement a “general line” decided upon by the top leadership but to a large degree they were left to their own devices. They could go for months or sometimes even years without contact with the central leadership. Command structures often had an improvised character. The NPA was supposed to be led by a military commission but this commission was never convened. Kintanar instead formed the “general command” from people he picked.

When, after his release from prison in 1986, Sison again became party chairperson, he attempted to assert his authority over the NPA. But by this time, Sison was in exile in the Dutch city of Utrecht. According to Quitoriano, Kintanar “worked hard to enable Sison to return home with his safety and security assured.” But Sison was “unwilling, preferring Utrecht’s safe distance from the Philippine military.” The result was deepening resentment between the two and conflicts over authority.

Kintanar was first of all a soldier trying to address the question of how to move from one phase of “people’s war” to another, a move that required specific skills and resources. The party’s ideology was of little help here. It assumed that the growth of popular support and NPA military strength would correspond to each other in a process of linear development. The inspiration for this was a mythologized view of the Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions, one that did not, among other factors, recognize the role of insurrections, foreign support, as well as international solidarity, and diplomacy.

In the early 1980s the development of the revolutionary movement threw up questions that could not be addressed by the stereotyped notions of the Protracted Peoples’ War. Urban protests and the mass movement outpaced predictions. And especially after the so-called “green revolution”, the capitalist character of social relations in the country-side became more pronounced. The growth of a rural proletariat accelerated. Some activists, such as the head of the party’s Mindanao commission, Edgar Jopson, tried to develop alternative strategic notions. Rather than seeing the rural guerrilla as, per PPW definition, “the highest form of struggle” the role of mass struggles, legal work and urban insurrections was re-evaluated.

The principle of “centralized leadership and decentralized operations” allowed a considerable degree of pluralism in practice but experiences that contradicted the PPW-strategy did not lead to a change in the party’s orientation. The leadership rather tried to force the analysis of developments in the PPW framework. The PPW orthodoxy was not working out, but neither was an alternative strategy elaborated for the party.

Things fall apart

In January 2003, two gunmen killed Kintanar inside a restaurant. The CPP claimed responsibility, declaring a “people’s court” had sentenced Kinatanar to the “maximum penalty” a decade earlier. Arrested in 1991, Kintanar had not rejoined the movement after his 1992 release. According to the CPP, Kintanar had been working for the government. The assination of Kintanar was part of a series of killings by the CPP of former members and other leftists.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a debate about strategy began to take place but this was cut short when Sison and his faction, supporters of Maoist orthodoxy and PPW, began expelling those they disagreed with. In 1992, Sison sent a statement to Philippine newspapers accusing Kintanar and others of being enemy agents.

Quitoriano portrays Jose Maria Sison as arrogant and out of his depth in international exchanges, a judgment that corresponds with that of others. On the other hand, Quitoriano admires Kintanar, stressing his bravery and integrity. But some of Kintanar’s decisions show questionable political instincts. According to Quitoriano, the NPA’s 1987 announcement of a coming “general offensive” was a ruse, an attempt to distract the government army during an ultimately failed attempt by the NPA at bringing in weapons from North Korea. But what were the costs in terms of morale and credibility of announcing an offensive that never came? The single-minded pursuit of material resources also motivated what Quitoriano describes as “diving deep in the pernicious shadow economy”; to “encourage more daring” efforts by militants, they were given “incentives”; “they could use part of their loot – cars, houses, guns and entertainment – as long as these things were justified as part of their operations.” Such practices damaged the revolutionaries’ credibility.

In the end, it was the search for financial resources that would be the end of Quitoriano’s revolutionary engagement. One of the concrete results of Quitoriano’s travels was a gift of one million dollars from Gaddafi. Quitoriano describes how this money became mixed up with forged dollars supplied through the JRA. When a Dutch contact tried to deposit the sum in Swiss bank accounts, the forged bills were detected. The Dutch intermediary was arrested, the party lost access to over a million dollars. In the Netherlands, the affair triggered a scandal over the use of development aid to funnel money to armed revolutionaries. Quitoriano, whose association with Kintanar already made him suspect in Sison’s eyes, was held responsible for the debacle.

The book closes with an epilogue looking back at the purges mentioned before. Although Quitoriano was not involved directly, he does well not to ignore this horrible episode. At several points during the 1980s, CPP leaders became convinced that setbacks of the movement could be explained only as the result of sabotage from within. This led to hunts for so-called “deep penetration agents.” Not only were suspects assumed to be guilty, torture was frequently used to make them “confess” the names of co-conspirators. Predictably, this led to snowballing accusations as terrified victims said whatever they assumed their tormentors wanted to hear. Such “confessions” were sufficient reason to murder people. Especially in Mindanao, the movement “mutilated itself.” Well over 1000 people were murdered by their own comrades.

Deeper Grounds, Darker Shadows could be read as a morality tale. What started out as a heroic endeavor by shoeless guerrillas who as a kind of militant mendicant monks wanted to serve the people, ended up in criminal affairs and fratricidal murder. But such an interpretation would leave out other aspects, equally essential to the history Quitoriano describes. For example, how armed struggle, with all its demands, was essential to maintain resistance against the Marcos regime, even if the specific strategy of the People’s War turned out to be a dead end. The CPP rose to be a mass movement, driven forward by ordinary people fighting for a better life for the poor and oppressed. Its successes, its failure and also its crimes are part of the development of the Philippine Left and need to be kept in mind by those working for a socialist alternative.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.””

The post Searching for international solidarity appeared first on Tempest.

Jika sebelumnya aktivitas ini dilakukan secara konvensional, kini kehadiran platform digital membuat semuanya terasa lebih cepat, praktis, dan mudah diakses kapan saja.

Fenomena ini berkembang seiring meningkatnya penetrasi internet dan penggunaan smartphone. Banyak pengguna kini beralih ke sistem online karena dinilai lebih efisien. Hanya dengan beberapa langkah sederhana, pemain sudah bisa mengakses layanan tanpa batas ruang dan waktu. Hal ini menciptakan perubahan perilaku yang cukup signifikan di kalangan pengguna digital.

Pengguna yang Semakin Modern dan Praktis

Berdasarkan berbagai pengguna, platform togel digital menawarkan kemudahan yang tidak bisa ditemukan pada sistem lama. Proses registrasi kini berlangsung cepat dan tidak berbelit. Pengguna hanya perlu mengisi data dasar, lalu akun bisa langsung digunakan.

navigasi sistem terasa mudah dipahami. Selain itu, layanan pelanggan biasanya tersedia selama 24 jam, sehingga pengguna bisa mendapatkan bantuan kapan saja saat dibutuhkan.

Tidak hanya itu, kecepatan transaksi menjadi salah satu keunggulan utama. Deposit dan penarikan dana dapat diproses dalam waktu singkat. Inilah yang membuat banyak pengguna merasa lebih nyaman dan memilih beralih ke platform digital.

Peran Teknologi dalam Meningkatkan Sistem

Di balik kemudahan tersebut, teknologi memegang peranan penting. Platform modern kini menggunakan sistem keamanan berlapis untuk melindungi data pengguna. Enkripsi tingkat tinggi menjadi standar utama dalam menjaga informasi pribadi tetap aman.

Selain itu, beberapa platform juga mulai mengadopsi sistem berbasis algoritma untuk memastikan transparansi. Teknologi ini membantu meningkatkan akurasi sistem serta mengurangi potensi kesalahan.

Penggunaan server yang stabil juga menjadi faktor pendukung. Dengan sistem yang kuat, gangguan teknis dapat diminimalisir sehingga pengguna bisa menikmati layanan tanpa hambatan berarti.

Kredibilitas Platform Menjadi Faktor Penentu

Seiring meningkatnya jumlah platform yang tersedia, pengguna dituntut untuk lebih selektif dalam memilih layanan. Kredibilitas menjadi faktor utama yang harus diperhatikan. Platform yang terpercaya biasanya memiliki sistem yang transparan, informasi yang jelas, serta layanan yang konsisten.

Selain itu, reputasi juga berperan penting. Platform yang sudah dikenal luas cenderung memiliki standar operasional yang lebih baik. Hal ini memberikan rasa aman bagi pengguna dalam menjalankan aktivitasnya.

Pengamat industri digital menilai bahwa kepercayaan pengguna tidak dibangun secara instan. Dibutuhkan konsistensi layanan, kualitas sistem, serta komunikasi yang baik untuk mempertahankan reputasi di tengah persaingan yang ketat.

Perubahan Pola Perilaku di Era Digital

Transformasi digital tidak hanya mengubah sistem, tetapi juga memengaruhi pola perilaku pengguna. Akses yang mudah membuat aktivitas ini menjadi lebih cepat dan intens.

Di sisi lain, kemajuan teknologi juga membuka peluang untuk edukasi digital. Pengguna kini memiliki akses luas terhadap informasi.

Penutup

Togel digital telah berkembang menjadi bagian dari ekosistem hiburan modern yang menawarkan kemudahan dan kecepatan.

Pendahuluan
Perkembangan teknologi finansial di Indonesia terus menunjukkan tren positif. Masyarakat kini semakin terbiasa menggunakan dompet digital untuk berbagai kebutuhan, mulai dari pembayaran transportasi hingga belanja online. Di tengah perubahan tersebut, penggunaan slot GoPay mulai banyak dibicarakan sebagai salah satu metode transaksi dalam layanan hiburan digital. Kemudahan, kecepatan, dan fleksibilitas menjadi alasan utama meningkatnya minat pengguna terhadap metode ini.

Fenomena ini tidak hanya mencerminkan perubahan gaya hidup masyarakat, tetapi juga menunjukkan bagaimana teknologi mampu mengubah cara orang bertransaksi secara signifikan. Slot GoPay menjadi bagian dari tren yang lebih luas, yaitu integrasi pembayaran digital dalam berbagai platform online.

Pengalaman Pengguna (Experience)
Banyak pengguna mengungkapkan bahwa penggunaan GoPay dalam layanan slot online memberikan pengalaman yang lebih sederhana dibandingkan metode konvensional. Mereka tidak perlu lagi membuka aplikasi perbankan atau melakukan transfer manual yang terkadang memerlukan waktu lebih lama.

Seorang pengguna aktif menyatakan bahwa proses deposit menggunakan GoPay terasa lebih praktis karena semuanya dapat dilakukan dalam satu genggaman. Ia hanya perlu membuka aplikasi, memasukkan nominal, dan menyelesaikan transaksi dalam hitungan detik. Pengalaman ini dinilai sangat membantu, terutama bagi pengguna yang menginginkan kecepatan dan efisiensi.

Selain itu, beberapa pengguna juga menilai bahwa penggunaan dompet digital membantu mereka mengontrol pengeluaran dengan lebih baik. Riwayat transaksi yang tercatat secara otomatis memudahkan mereka untuk memantau aktivitas keuangan secara lebih transparan.

Keahlian dalam Sistem Pembayaran Digital (Expertise)
Dari sisi teknologi, GoPay telah mengembangkan sistem pembayaran yang cukup canggih. Platform ini menggunakan berbagai lapisan keamanan seperti PIN, verifikasi perangkat, hingga notifikasi real-time untuk setiap transaksi. Sistem ini dirancang untuk meminimalkan risiko penyalahgunaan akun dan menjaga keamanan data pengguna.

Dalam konteks slot GoPay, integrasi sistem pembayaran dilakukan melalui teknologi API yang memungkinkan transaksi berlangsung secara instan. Artinya, ketika pengguna melakukan deposit, saldo dapat langsung masuk tanpa perlu menunggu proses verifikasi manual. Hal ini menjadi nilai tambah yang signifikan dibandingkan metode pembayaran tradisional.

Selain itu, teknologi ini juga mendukung skalabilitas, sehingga mampu menangani jumlah transaksi yang besar dalam waktu bersamaan. Dengan demikian, pengguna tetap dapat menikmati layanan tanpa hambatan meskipun terjadi lonjakan aktivitas.

Otoritas dan Tren Industri (Authoritativeness)
Tren penggunaan dompet digital di Indonesia terus meningkat seiring dengan penetrasi internet dan smartphone yang semakin luas. Banyak pelaku industri digital mulai mengadopsi metode pembayaran seperti GoPay untuk menjangkau lebih banyak pengguna.

Pengamat industri melihat bahwa kemudahan transaksi menjadi salah satu faktor utama dalam mempertahankan loyalitas pengguna. Dalam hal ini, slot GoPay menjadi contoh bagaimana inovasi dalam sistem pembayaran dapat memberikan dampak langsung terhadap pertumbuhan platform digital.

Selain itu, beberapa platform juga mulai berkompetisi dalam menyediakan metode pembayaran yang paling efisien dan ramah pengguna. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa peran dompet digital tidak lagi sekadar pelengkap, melainkan menjadi bagian penting dalam ekosistem layanan online.

Kepercayaan dan Keamanan (Trustworthiness)
Kepercayaan pengguna menjadi faktor krusial dalam penggunaan layanan digital, termasuk dalam transaksi slot GoPay. GoPay sendiri telah dikenal sebagai salah satu layanan pembayaran digital yang memiliki sistem keamanan yang kuat. Penggunaan enkripsi data dan sistem autentikasi berlapis membantu menjaga kerahasiaan informasi pengguna.

Namun demikian, pengguna tetap perlu memiliki kesadaran akan pentingnya keamanan digital. Mereka disarankan untuk tidak membagikan kode OTP, menjaga kerahasiaan PIN, serta memastikan bahwa mereka hanya menggunakan platform yang terpercaya.

Selain itu, penting bagi pengguna untuk memahami risiko yang mungkin muncul dalam aktivitas online. Dengan memiliki pemahaman yang baik, pengguna dapat mengambil keputusan yang lebih bijak dan menghindari potensi kerugian.

Dampak terhadap Perilaku Konsumen
Kemunculan slot GoPay juga membawa perubahan pada perilaku konsumen. Pengguna kini cenderung memilih layanan yang menawarkan kemudahan dan kecepatan. Mereka tidak lagi ingin terhambat oleh proses transaksi yang rumit atau memakan waktu.

Hal ini mendorong penyedia layanan untuk terus berinovasi dan meningkatkan kualitas sistem mereka. Dalam jangka panjang, tren ini dapat mempercepat transformasi digital di berbagai sektor, tidak hanya dalam hiburan tetapi juga dalam layanan lainnya.

Tantangan dan Prospek ke Depan
Meskipun memiliki banyak keunggulan, penggunaan slot GoPay juga menghadapi beberapa tantangan. Salah satunya adalah kebutuhan untuk terus meningkatkan edukasi pengguna terkait keamanan digital. Selain itu, regulasi yang mengatur transaksi digital juga menjadi faktor penting yang perlu diperhatikan oleh semua pihak.

Ke depan, prospek penggunaan dompet digital seperti GoPay diperkirakan akan terus berkembang. Inovasi teknologi dan peningkatan infrastruktur digital akan semakin memperkuat posisi metode pembayaran ini dalam kehidupan sehari-hari masyarakat.

Kesimpulan
Slot GoPay menjadi salah satu contoh nyata bagaimana teknologi finansial mampu mengubah cara masyarakat bertransaksi. Dengan menawarkan kemudahan, kecepatan, dan keamanan, metode ini berhasil menarik perhatian banyak pengguna.

Namun, di balik kemudahan tersebut, pengguna tetap perlu bersikap bijak dan waspada. Dengan memahami cara kerja sistem dan menjaga keamanan data pribadi, mereka dapat memanfaatkan teknologi ini secara optimal.

Perkembangan slot GoPay tidak hanya mencerminkan tren sesaat, tetapi juga menjadi bagian dari transformasi digital yang lebih luas. Ke depan, peran dompet digital diperkirakan akan semakin penting dalam mendukung berbagai aktivitas masyarakat modern.

Perkembangan hiburan digital terus menunjukkan tren yang semakin dinamis. Salah satu istilah yang belakangan banyak dicari pengguna internet adalah SLOT JEPANG. Fenomena ini muncul seiring meningkatnya minat masyarakat terhadap permainan digital bertema visual modern dengan nuansa khas Jepang.

Dalam laporan perkembangan industri hiburan digital, SLOT JEPANG sering disebut sebagai salah satu kategori yang menarik perhatian karena menggabungkan desain visual, teknologi animasi, dan konsep permainan yang terus diperbarui oleh pengembang.

Experience (Pengalaman): Perubahan Tren Pengguna Digital

Berdasarkan pengamatan di berbagai komunitas pengguna game online, banyak pemain menyebut bahwa SLOT JEPANG menawarkan pengalaman visual yang lebih hidup dibandingkan tema permainan lain. Pengguna merasakan adanya peningkatan kualitas grafis, efek suara yang lebih detail, serta karakter bergaya anime yang membuat permainan terasa lebih interaktif.

Sejumlah pemain juga mengungkapkan bahwa mereka lebih sering memilih tema Jepang karena tampilannya dianggap lebih menarik dan tidak membosankan. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa pengalaman pengguna menjadi faktor utama dalam meningkatnya popularitas SLOT JEPANG di berbagai platform hiburan digital.

Expertise (Keahlian): Peran Pengembang dalam Inovasi

Para pengembang game digital berperan besar dalam membentuk tren SLOT JEPANG. Mereka menggunakan teknologi desain modern seperti animasi 3D, sistem algoritma berbasis RNG (Random Number Generator), dan pengoptimalan antarmuka pengguna agar permainan berjalan lebih halus.

Selain itu, pengembang juga terus melakukan pembaruan fitur untuk meningkatkan kenyamanan pengguna. Mereka menambahkan elemen visual khas budaya Jepang seperti ikon tradisional, karakter anime, hingga latar kota modern Tokyo yang memberikan kesan berbeda dalam setiap permainan.

Dengan pendekatan ini, SLOT JEPANG berkembang bukan hanya sebagai hiburan visual, tetapi juga sebagai hasil inovasi teknologi yang terus diperbarui.

Authoritativeness (Otoritas): Dukungan Industri Game Global

Dalam skala industri global, tema Jepang memang sudah lama menjadi inspirasi dalam berbagai produk hiburan digital. Banyak studio game internasional yang mengadaptasi elemen budaya Jepang karena memiliki daya tarik pasar yang kuat.

Beberapa platform hiburan digital juga secara resmi memasukkan SLOT JEPANG sebagai kategori permainan bertema khusus. Hal ini memperkuat posisi SLOT JEPANG sebagai salah satu konsep yang memiliki pengaruh dalam industri game modern.

Selain itu, komunitas gamer internasional turut memperkuat popularitasnya melalui ulasan, forum diskusi, dan konten media sosial yang membahas pengalaman mereka.

Trustworthiness (Kepercayaan): Informasi dan Persepsi Pengguna

Meskipun SLOT JEPANG semakin populer, penting untuk memahami bahwa informasi yang beredar di internet sering kali berasal dari berbagai sumber komunitas. Oleh karena itu, pengguna perlu lebih selektif dalam menerima informasi.

Beberapa platform hiburan digital menyediakan deskripsi resmi terkait fitur dan mekanisme permainan. Pengguna disarankan untuk selalu membaca informasi dari sumber terpercaya sebelum mengikuti atau menggunakan platform tertentu.

Transparansi dari pengembang juga menjadi faktor penting dalam membangun kepercayaan pengguna. Dengan adanya penjelasan fitur yang jelas, pengguna dapat memahami cara kerja sistem permainan dengan lebih baik.

Kesimpulan

Fenomena SLOT JEPANG menunjukkan bagaimana industri hiburan digital terus berkembang mengikuti selera pasar. Dengan kombinasi visual menarik, inovasi teknologi, dan pengaruh budaya Jepang yang kuat, tren ini berhasil menarik perhatian banyak pengguna.

Namun, seperti bentuk hiburan digital lainnya, pengguna tetap perlu bersikap bijak dalam mengakses informasi dan memilih platform yang terpercaya. Perkembangan ini diperkirakan akan terus berlanjut seiring meningkatnya inovasi dalam industri game global.

Vijay Prashad and Tings Chak’s article in Monthly Review, “The Idea of the ‘Uyghur Genocide’ and the Realities of Xinjiang,” is among the more substantial recent efforts on the international Left to defend China’s repressive policies in Xinjiang and dismiss the grievances of local Muslim peoples. Their article strikes a similar tone to the Chinese government sources that they often rely on, featuring the same questionable historical narratives and narrow focus on a few individual critics and their affiliations. By the end of the piece, I was noting signs of intellectual sloppiness. As I did my due diligence and dug into its sources, my suspicions were confirmed.

Prashad and Chak now edit the international edition of the journal Wenhua Zongheng 文化纵横. This has brought them into dialogue with Chinese intellectuals such as Wang Hui 汪晖, and it was unsurprising to see the article’s conclusion riffing off Wang’s critique of technocratic governance in the PRC. Wang was cited here for the view that “[g]enuine ethnic unity cannot be achieved through depoliticization, but must be built on recognition of history, diversity, and substantive equality.” I found this a well-meaning note to end on, even if the article itself had done little to advance these objectives.

But as has now been confirmed through an exchange with Prashad online, Wang did not write these lines. The “landmark essay” attributed to him was made up. It also emerged that the authors had invented a book by Wang Ke 王柯, a scholar of Xinjiang who works in Japan, and a Grayzone article by Max Blumenthal.

I’m unsure how much weight to give all this. Needless to say, I found it dismaying to find a left forum like Monthly Review infected by the same fake sourcing that I now must watch out for in the undergraduate essays I receive. Prashad says that there was no AI use involved in their article. Only he and his co-author know the truth of that. He has also said that the flaws in its referencing do not materially impact the substance of the article. Here we agree. Let us note this shortcoming and move on. Any debate should indeed focus on points of substance. On that, I’m afraid to say, my conclusion is that the article’s substance is as deficient as its referencing.

Misusing history

Take the authors’ sketch of Xinjiang’s history. Like every State Council White Paper, they repeat a version of the mantra that this territory has been part of China since ancient times. They claim that not only Xinjiang, but Tibet as well, were part of China during the Eastern Han dynasty (25–229 CE)—and also during the Tang (618–907), Yuan (1271–1368), Ming (1368–1644), and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties.

Before going on, I must pause to note how absurd it is for Prashad and Chak to drag us onto this terrain of debate at all. Since when has the Left considered the political status of a territory millennia in the past to have any bearing on the justice of its political configuration in the present? What business is it of today’s radicals to plumb dynastic chronicles to decide whether this or that piece of land rightfully “belongs” to a modern state? Prashad and Chak would not appreciate the comparison, but the similarity between this kind of argumentation and the logic of Zionism is striking.

Since when has the Left considered the political status of a territory millennia in the past to have any bearing on the justice of its political configuration in the present?

Space precludes a full dissection of the specific claims. Briefly, though, the Han and Tang participated in multisided rivalries in the Tarim Basin, both establishing intermittent control there across a century or so—i.e., for less than half their existence. As for the “Yuan,” this was the Chinese name for the “Great Mongol Empire,” i.e., it was a Mongol, not a Chinese dynasty. In any case, the Toluid family ruling the Yuan were mostly kept out of Xinjiang by their Ögedeid and Chaghatayid cousins. The Ming then garrisoned Hami, on the very eastern edge of Xinjiang, for a century or so before the Islamised Chaghatayid Mongols drove them out. Finally, while maintaining that Xinjiang “belonged” to the Qing, the authors acknowledge that it was only after the destruction of the Junghar khanate (1634–1758) that this empire was able to tax it. The admission brings them close to recognizing the obvious reality: that the Qing dynasty’s mid-eighteenth-century incorporation of Xinjiang was an act of imperial conquest.

The difficulty for the authors is that the Chinese government line on Xinjiang has evolved in the last decade, in line with the heightened repression. The official position today is not that some dynasties had control of Xinjiang, but that they all did. The State Council report that Prashad and Chak cite says that Xinjiang became “Chinese territory” in the Han Dynasty and that all dynasties since “exercised the right of jurisdiction” there. This is where things get truly awkward for anyone interested in preserving their credibility as a historian, and Prashad and Chak decide to dodge the issue by shifting to questions of ideology. “Chinese political thought,” they argue, “is not rooted in fixed territory but in a more abstract idea of belonging.” All Chinese empires had documents that “suggested” their rule in Xinjiang, grounded in the civilizational notion of “all under Heaven”, i.e. Tianxia.

There is a term for a style of analysis that rests on a stark binary between Eastern and Western ways of thinking and doing. Edward Said once wrote a book about it. But the fact is, there is nothing particularly unique about the universalist pretensions exhibited by China’s dynasties. The Holy Roman Empire once claimed to rule all “Christendom,” even though its actual writ was far more limited.

What the imperial self-aggrandizing of the past might have to do with the rights and wrongs of policies in the present is again something the authors entirely fail to explain.

At this point Prashad and Chak add a final disclaimer: that the historical literature on Xinjiang is vast and “beyond our command to interpret.” Were they genuinely so perplexed, the appropriate thing to do would be to present various sides of the debate. But this they have studiously avoided doing. The only version of history they have presented is the distorted one preferred by Beijing. Their closing gesture towards the inscrutable Orient is a last-ditch effort to restore some distance between themselves and the obviously false claims they have rehashed.

Are we reinventing here the category of “non-historic” peoples, destined to be swept aside by those with more viable national movements?

We move from here to an equally common talking point in official publications: that the notion of “East Turkistan” was a foreign invention. I can assure the authors that well before any Russian influence, the notion that Xinjiang was part of “Turkistan” was commonplace. It is also true that modern nationalism came relatively late to Central Asia, and that when it did, local imaginings of nation and place were part of a trans-Eurasian dialogue, connecting to intellectual trends among Muslims and non-Muslims in Russia and the Ottoman Empire. There is nothing particularly unique in such a story. Entering the twentieth century, activists in or from Xinjiang laid claim to the territory using a mixture of old and new vocabulary: Uyghuristan, East Turkistan, Altishahr, occasionally even the archaic “Moghulistan.”

So what? Again, I am reminded of the way that Zionists try to discredit the Palestinian cause by claiming that “Palestine” was not a well-defined, or meaningful geographic unit for the inhabitants of the region at the time of Zionist colonization. Those facts are in dispute, but even assuming this was the case, what follows? Are people to be punished for arriving late to a fully elaborated nationalist program? Are we reinventing here the category of “non-historic” peoples, destined to be swept aside by those with more viable national movements?

The fact is, Prashad and Chak show no serious interest in the complex political history of the region they are discussing. They skip the entire history of Islamic reformism and Soviet-aligned Uyghur nationalism; there is no mention of Comintern strategies towards Xinjiang, which saw various schemes to extend the Russian revolution there; nothing on Uyghur labor organizing or cultural radicalism in Soviet Central Asia. Their “left” analysis sets all this aside to commence a narrative of “secession” movements at the time of the Sino-Soviet split, aligning with a trend in China today to reduce Uyghur nationalism to a tool of Russian/Soviet intrigue. They devote two long paragraphs to the relatively insignificant figure of Yusupbek Mukhlisi (1920–2004), with only a brief nod to the Second East Turkistan Republic as part of his life story. They inform us that Mukhlisi’s Kazakhstan-centered network claimed responsibility for attacks in China in the 1990s, neglecting to mention that not even the Chinese government took these claims seriously. Prashad and Chak’s narrative of more recent militancy likewise zooms in on individuals and organizations at the expense of any consideration of social conditions. No one denies that jihadists have emerged from discontented sections of Xinjiang’s populace, and that some of these have engaged in unconscionable attacks on ordinary Chinese civilians. But simply recycling official narratives on the scale and nature of these attacks adds little clarity to the discussion.

Counter-terrorism and repression

The authors’ master narrative of recent years is of a Communist Party gradually shifting from a counter-terrorism crackdown to recognizing the social and economic grievances that generated support for Uyghur militancy and addressing these through development schemes. There is a grain of truth here, and recent improvements in basic living standards in Xinjiang have indeed been impressive. But the party has long had grand designs for Xinjiang’s economy. The relevant policy shift between the first and second decades of the twenty-first century was not from counterterrorism to development, but from militarized counterterrorist policing to a far more wide-ranging “de-radicalization” paradigm. This involved a panoply of War on Terror techniques: predictive policing (on the basis of Islamophobic “indicators” of radicalization), surveillance of social media and domestic space, public loyalty ceremonies, and of course mass ideological re-education carried out through detention centers.

At the same time, a Stalinist purge hit Xinjiang’s institutions, targeting non-Han elites deemed insufficiently loyal. As one Chinese commentator described it in 2020: “Xinjiang has punished a large number of ‘two-faced people’ and ‘two-faced factions’ in the fields of public security, prosecution, law, education, publishing, propaganda and culture.” The Chinese government has itself publicized stories of Uyghur intellectuals imprisoned for publications that were once approved by state censors, but which now fall foul of tightening ideological standards. Alongside this, there is ample evidence of people receiving devastating sentences for acts as simple as providing religious instruction at home or maintaining contact with relatives outside China.

The authors would have us believe that stories of repression in Xinjiang originate in a narrow circle of U.S.-aligned diaspora activists.

All this is grossly minimized by Prashad and Chak. In the only mention of formal incarceration in their entire article, they note in passing that “several people” were imprisoned from 2014 to 2019 for “violent activities.” “Several people”? Total prosecutions in Xinjiang soared during this period, jumping from 41,305 in 2016 to 215,823 in 2017, and increased in average length. China has not hidden the fact that thousands have been convicted for “terrorism” offenses—keeping in mind that a UN review of available judicial documentation described “judgments referring to conduct being ‘extremist’ despite none of the formal charges being related to terrorism or “extremism.’” This was seen as indicative “of an approach that considers any type of violation of law committed by a Muslim person as presumptively “extremist.’”

The authors would have us believe that stories of repression in Xinjiang originate in a narrow circle of U.S.-aligned diaspora activists. But some of the most chilling stories I have encountered—of family members ripped from their beds at night, eventually returning months or years later as broken individuals—have been from people who studiously avoid all involvement in diaspora politics. Against such narratives, the authors counterpose the glowing reports that China has received from bodies such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. I suppose if China’s State Council is a trustworthy source on human rights in Xinjiang, then why not Egyptian or Indonesian diplomats?

In the end, Prashad and Chak fall back on a form of whataboutism: Sure, the camps might have been coercive, but China’s counter-terrorism policies were still preferable to Russia’s in Chechnya, America’s in Iraq, or Israel’s in Palestine. This is true enough. China has not engaged in the mass slaughter of Uyghurs and Kazakhs. Gaza stands in ruins, while Xinjiang’s modern infrastructure grows. But the comparison strikes me as odd, given the earlier insistence that Xinjiang has been part of China for millennia. If so, why are imperialist wars and colonial genocides the points of reference here?

The question of “genocide”

Which brings me to the question: Is this genocide? This often sits at the center of debate on Xinjiang, but in my opinion it need not. When public discourse shifted to talk of “genocide” in Xinjiang, I was among those who were wary. The hope that accusing China of the crime of crimes might prompt international action was understandable, if misplaced. But it was equally obvious that the claim would serve as a lightning rod for skeptical critique, and risk obscuring the wider question of mass repression and cultural erasure. Some adopt capacious definitions of genocide that may arguably capture the Xinjiang case. Personally, I use the term in its common-language sense of the deliberate destruction of a people. While some have died in China’s camps and prisons, I am not convinced that “genocide” best describes the situation.

I can also concur with the authors that talk of genocide in Xinjiang has been cynically exploited by governments that have no business lecturing anyone on human rights, implicated as they are in their own horrific crimes. Liberal human rights organizations have often been too quick to make common cause with China hawks. The Left should have no truck with any of this.

Aligning as they do with official Chinese government positions, Prashad and Chak’s argumentation draws more on the logic of nationalism than left traditions of debate on the national question.

But equally, the Left should not allow criticism of genocide claims to smuggle in an attitude of indifference to the human suffering that those claims point to—precisely what Prashad and Chak are trying to do. In their hands, talk of genocide is reduced to the work of a handful of individuals affiliated with right-wing think tanks, a move that allows them to focus on cultivating a sense that the entire Xinjiang issue is a construct of funding sources and self-interest. This will pass for “materialism” in some circles, but it is the sort of analysis that Gramsci had in mind when he complained of the reduction of Marxism to “economic superstition.” In such thinking, “‘Critical’ activity is reduced to the exposure of swindles, to creating scandals, and to prying into the pockets of public figures.”

Sadly, far too much of today’s China debate has this feel to it. Prashad and his co-thinkers are often enough on the receiving end themselves of critiques focusing on funding sources. It is a pity that instead of elevating the discussion above this level, they choose to descend to it.

Concluding

Aligning as they do with official Chinese government positions, Prashad and Chak’s argumentation draws more on the logic of nationalism than left traditions of debate on the national question. They are quite often wrong, but just as often they present talking points with little obvious relevance to determining where the Left should stand on  the situation in Xinjiang. Wang Hui’s critique of “depoliticization,” which the authors embrace in their conclusion, expresses a desire for more dialogue and debate to build trust among the peoples of Xinjiang. Well and good. But who do they imagine participating in this dialogue? Minzu University Professor Ilham Tohti once tried to initiate such an exchange, and is now serving a life sentence in prison for separatism. Any comment from the authors on that?

Marxists have always insisted that the only way to build trust amid national antagonisms is through the forthright defense of national rights—something that is entirely missing from Prashad and Chak’s lengthy presentation. In the absence of this, what is the import of a call for more “politicized” governance in Xinjiang? After all, Xinjiang has seen plenty of politics in the last decade: relentless ideological bullying, the constriction of non-Han languages and cultural expression, and life-destroying punishments for anyone who steps out of line. The full implications of China’s new Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress remain to be seen, but it looks likely to involve more of the same. Some may choose to keep downplaying all this in the name of anti-imperialism. I think the Left needs to tell the truth.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Preston Rhea; modified by Tempest.

The post Dismissing China’s repression in Xinjiang appeared first on Tempest.

Judi Online Deposit Kecil Terpercaya Dicari karena Akses Lebih Terjangkau

Judi online deposit kecil terpercaya menjadi topik yang sering dicari karena banyak pengguna menginginkan akses yang lebih terjangkau. Dengan nominal yang relatif rendah, pengguna dapat mencoba layanan tanpa harus mengeluarkan biaya besar. Oleh karena itu, tren ini terus berkembang di berbagai platform digital.

Judi Online Deposit Kecil Terpercaya Dipengaruhi Kemudahan Transaksi Digital

Kemajuan teknologi pembayaran digital turut mendorong pertumbuhan judi online deposit kecil terpercaya. Dompet digital dan transfer instan memungkinkan transaksi berlangsung dengan cepat dan efisien. Dengan demikian, pengguna semakin mudah mengakses layanan tanpa proses yang rumit.

Judi Online Deposit Kecil Terpercaya Harus Diperhatikan dari Segi Keamanan

Di sisi lain, keamanan tetap menjadi perhatian utama dalam memilih judi online deposit kecil terpercaya. Tidak semua layanan memiliki sistem perlindungan yang baik. Oleh sebab itu, pengguna perlu memastikan platform memiliki reputasi yang jelas dan sistem keamanan yang memadai.

Judi Online Deposit Kecil Terpercaya Berkaitan dengan Risiko dan Regulasi

Selain kemudahan, terdapat risiko yang perlu diperhatikan dalam judi online deposit kecil terpercaya. Regulasi di berbagai wilayah sering membatasi aktivitas tersebut. Oleh karena itu, pemahaman terhadap aturan yang berlaku menjadi hal penting sebelum terlibat lebih jauh.

Judi Online Deposit Kecil Terpercaya Membutuhkan Kontrol dan Kesadaran Pengguna

Pada akhirnya, kontrol diri menjadi faktor kunci dalam menggunakan layanan judi online deposit kecil terpercaya. Pengguna perlu mengatur anggaran dan menghindari keputusan impulsif. Dengan pendekatan yang rasional, risiko kerugian dapat ditekan seminimal mungkin.

Tempest Collective: We have seen mass deployment of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) across the country—but also mass resistance to this, notably in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis. This has opened some conversations about how we understand the role of ICE agents in the context of a broader shift in policing strategies after the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.

Alec Karakatsanis: The most important thing to do in this situation is to understand that whatever institution of repression we’re talking about—whether it’s a local police force, or state troopers, or the traditional federal so-called intelligence agencies, or border patrol, or what’s now called ICE—these are all very similar institutions that have very similar goals, functions, and purposes. If you take a longer historical view and if you take a more functional, materialist perspective on what role these institutions play in any unequal society, they’re all essentially doing the same thing.

So, I think it’s a mistake to talk about ICE as if it’s separate from all of these other institutions of repression. Speaking, obviously very crudely, the main function of these institutions is to preserve distributions of inequality along various dimensions. Some of these institutions are targeted at preserving inequality along more narrow, specific dimensions, each of these institutions has their focus on a different segment of marginalized people, and each has a different kind of justification in terms of the mythologies that are told to society about why a particular institution, like ICE, exists. In general, they’re all doing the same thing. They’re trying to control people who don’t have any power and to preserve the ability of people who own things in our society to exclude other people from the things that they own.

I think we’re in the middle of a couple of big overall shifts. Again, speaking in broad brushstrokes, we are seeing a shift from an era of mass human caging to an era where that kind of mass human caging is seen by people in power and powerful institutions as less necessary than before, and we’re moving into more of an era of control through increasingly centralized forms of surveillance. They are all deploying these technological platforms—the databases, the cloud computing, the artificial intelligence, the voice recognition, the face recognition, the body cameras, all of that stuff—and all of the same vendors and multinational corporations, and investors and are involved at every level of the policing and ICE continuum. And that’s happening across what I’ll call the repressive bureaucracies.

The second big shift over the last few years and in the next five to ten years is from a focus on mass criminalization through the formal domestic legal system to a focus on borders and exclusion and capacity for mass detention through less formal means.

I think that we will see more and more of the oppressive architecture of the state directed at preventing the chaos that is being unleashed around the world in terms of climate catastrophe, in terms of the so-called foreign policy decisions of the Western countries. We will probably see a lot of energy focused on blocking all forms of human mobility and migration and militarizing the borders through that surveillance, primarily.

National ID databases provide more and more ability to exclude anyone you want—as India is doing, for example—from voting, from opening a bank account, from essentially having any kind of economic life. We’re gonna see that kind of system create these digital borders, as well. And then there will need to be large concentration-camp like facilities to warehouse those people who are prevented from living any kind of flourishing life.

In the process, I think domestic criminalization becomes a little bit less of the focus of the widespread obsession of their oppressive bureaucracies, but redefining who is part of the political community and then excluding other people from that community is going to be an increasing focus of these bureaucracies.

brian bean: I would describe the expanding presence and role of ICE agents as a component of the broader trend of a shifting intensification of the police state, of the police, of the different tools and institutions used for repression, and the other “main function[s]” that Alec describes. Since 2008, the always crisis-prone system of capitalism has been in a period of protracted crisis, which has continued to unravel. The inability to resolve this crisis on the level of global politics meant that more and more of the impact has fallen on regular working people, the exploited, and the dispossessed. It has created political shockwaves paving the way for the rise of far right political parties around the world. The instability has also been met with global waves of revolt and uprising against states and governments that are more and more seen as illegitimate.

In that context, the police are more and more the main “solution” being used to keep things in check, ensure that the wheels of profit keep churning, and squelch any resistance. This is the trend that we see in the increase of police funding overall. One example of this is that under Biden, police budgets went up 40 percent, with a third of that being on the federal level. Another is the terrifying expansion of forms of surveillance that Alec mentions, and a general centralization and militarization of existing police bodies. The massive funding increase for ICE—a federal police agency—is mind boggling. Trump has increased the budget to $85 billion, 14 times what it was ten years ago, putting the annual spending for ICE on par with the total military budget of the country of Brazil.

“It is basically a scientific fact in policing that strategies constructed to target one part of the population finds its way to be used on other sections of the exploited and oppressed.”

The expansion of policing in the form of ICE is an expansion of violent tools being used to regulate and order working people. Of course, ICE’s official focus is on increasing the deportability of immigrant workers, to feed the racist xenophobia that is on the rise around the world, and blame the system’s failures for regular people on immigrant workers rather than the vampiric billionaires. However, we should have no illusions that only those folks will feel the impacts. The goal is also to create a body loyal to the executive that can be used to intimidate and dominate political opponents. And it is basically a scientific fact in policing that strategies constructed to target one part of the population finds its way to be used on other sections of the exploited and oppressed. All the U.S. citizens wrongfully placed in immigrant detention, as well as the tragic cases of Alex Pretti and Renée Good, are just the beginning.

TC: We have also seen the construction of new prisons to house asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants, as well as other people whose immigration status has been criminalized. What is your analysis of this expansion of carceral capacity, and how can we effectively resist it?

bb: The first thing to be said about the expansion of carceral capacity is to point to its grim continuity. Donald Trump is rightly receiving the focus now because of how he has mutated ICE, but that weapon was already forged by previous presidents, both Democrat and Republican. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, was of course given the highest civil service award by Barack Obama for the policy of creating the camps and the policy of family separation. Biden continued building Trump’s “border wall” and deported more people than Trump had previously. Leading into the last presidential election, the Democrats took an even more hawkish approach and called the Republicans “too weak” for refusing to vote on their draconian border spending bill.

“Donald Trump is rightly receiving the focus now because of how he has mutated ICE, but that weapon was already forged by previous presidents, both Democrat and Republican.”

All the things that we’re seeing Trump do are a dramatic escalation of tactics that were already being used. With that, the carceral expansion creates a real, dangerous situation. We see the new jails, the solidifying links with existing jails, the use of facilities outside of U.S. borders, and the creation of these kinds of mega-center detention facilities. Some $38 billion is being allocated to the repurposing of large warehouses. And per the logic of capitalism, if you build beds, then they will find a way to fill those beds.

This is the frightening terror that Trump has unlocked. There has been resistance against this terror in numerous places. In Kansas City, Oklahoma City and small towns like Merrimack, New Hampshire, pressure has pushed back and stopped several facilities. At the announcement of a plan in Hagerstown, Maryland, protests popped up in Baltimore. These new concentration camps are frightening expansions and exacerbations of the previous concentration camps, but are being met with resistance that really is just the beginning.

AK: I very much agree with brian. Especially the point that once you build these institutions, they will get used. And they almost always are used for populations that are much broader than the population that is initially targeted.

We’re now told that they’re for warehousing “violent,” “illegal” immigrants, as the Trump administration is calling these human beings. Obviously, the vast majority right now of people that are going to be thrown into these dungeons and concentration camps are gonna be immigrants who have never been accused of any crime or anything like that. That claim about criminality has always characterized the Democratic or Republican party approaches to immigration strategy over the last couple decades. It doesn’t make any sense for us on the Left to even talk about these distinctions, but I’m just pointing out that the justifications that are being given to the public are false from the very beginning.

And then they’re going to be expanded much, much more to non-immigrants, to political enemies, to dissidents, to anybody who is seen as posing any kind of threat to the ruling class elite and to the fascist program.

I don’t think this is in tension with what I was saying earlier about the increasing reliance of these repressive bureaucracies on surveillance, though, and less on caging. I would be surprised if the overall human caging population in the United States grew substantially. I think what we’re going to see is an attempt to use the combination of the massive increase in surveillance and the more kind of arbitrary detentions targeted at a cascading list of supposed enemies. The combination of those two things works very well for the fascists. The fact that it can be arbitrary at any given time, but also the fact that anybody who does certain things to challenge anyone in power knows they’re going to be targeted.

I think we’re gonna see that used and weaponized in ways that try to shape public behavior without resorting to the kind of mass human caging that we necessarily saw over the last several decades. I think what we’re seeing now in terms of the attempting to buy warehouses, I see that not as trying to increase the long-term capacity of detention, but to centralize control over detention away from state and local governments, and toward sort of a sort of modern Brown-shirt and Gestapo-like collaboration that becomes its own federal force that has its own capacity to act without trying to coordinate all of these other local and state agencies and institutions that have their own pressures and administrative and local kind of “inefficiencies.”

I also want to make another point. I think brian was getting at something very important with the fact that these things are not new. I want to add that the only way this kind of thing is possible is through a profound, pervasive, cultural desensitization to mass imprisonment, to mass human caging, to mass surveillance, particularly of vulnerable and marginalized populations. The U.S. public has been so desensitized to this, right? The U.S. has been caging five to 10 times the rate of our population as other comparable countries and putting Black people in cages at six times the rate of South Africa at the height of apartheid for the last few decades.

This has so normalized the idea that the government can put human beings in cages for the flimsiest of reasons, or indeed for no reason at all, and with no evidence that it does anyone any good, and with massive evidence that it does extraordinary amount of harm to the even possibility of a decent life. As of right now, the excess human caging in the United States compared to other countries, and even its own historical average from 1980, is actually costing about two years of life expectancy overall for all people in the United States.

It’s doing that in spite of all those consequences, and what that’s done is it has altered and mangled our psyches and our collective sense of what government and what society are. What scares me a lot is we now have a more overtly and more all-encompassing fascist movement that is going to take that cultural preparatory work that has been done by Democrats and Republicans alike for the last few decades, and it’s going to supercharge it in ways that are unconstrained by some of the liberal constraints that might have been on these systems beforehand.

So, it’s extremely important in this moment that we resist, in every possible location. We need to be, basically, everywhere around the country, standing up and saying, human beings matter, human connection matters, state violence matters. Any attempt by the government to put someone in a cage, to separate them from their families, to control their lives, to surveil and monitor and harass them—any attempt to do that is a violation of the most sacred principles that any human society that cares about flourishing and freedom and equality and justice has to hold dear.

“It’s extremely important in this moment that we resist, in every possible location. We need to be, basically, everywhere around the country, standing up and saying, human beings matter, human connection matters, state violence matters.”

It’s only going to be the thousands and thousands of communities coming together and articulating that that has a chance of changing the cultural zeitgeist, because I think we’re at a really dangerous time when people feel really cynical, people feel really hopeless, people feel like maybe none of it matters. We have to find a way in that resistance to reassert that these things do matter—and indeed they are all that matters in a society that values a decent life.

TC: How do you see the propaganda specific to ICE in this moment and the narratives that are being used to legitimize their violence, including brazen murder of people who’ve shown up in acts of witness, community defense, and protest?

AK: Let me start by saying that none of this would be possible without decades of propaganda. In fact, over the last five or six years, since the uprisings in 2020, extraordinary, bipartisan propaganda, particularly from the so-called liberal news media, from academic institutions, and from nonprofits, created this completely false idea that we’re in the middle of some kind of crime wave and played upon those fears.

Let me just give you a couple of pieces of information that I think you need to understand the moment that we’re in from a propaganda perspective. Over the last 25 years, police-reported crime has been going down almost every single year. And in the polling of the public, people believe crime is going up almost every single year. When I say police-reported crime, as I talk about in my book, I’m talking about the crimes that the police choose to track. I’m not talking about crimes committed by wealthy and powerful people, or corporations, or corruption. I’m talking about the crimes that you see on the nightly news in high volume, crimes that the police associate with the poorest people in our society. That is at historic lows. Like, like a 50-, 60-, 70-year low since we started really tracking this stuff in the modern era. So, according to their own information, society is the safest it’s ever been.

“[S]ince the uprisings in 2020, extraordinary, bipartisan propaganda, particularly from the so-called liberal news media, from academic institutions, and from nonprofits, created this completely false idea that we’re in the middle of some kind of crime wave and played upon those fears.”

I could do the same thing with immigrants, by the way. This fear-mongering around waves of migration, caravans, and all of this stuff that we’ve seen over the last ten years. This is basically fabricated. Every suggestion that either there’s an increase in crime, or that any increases that there are in short-term fluctuations are associated with some kind of progressive policy is like climate science denial. It’s completely fabricated, and yet that is the water that we’re all swimming in.

So, the fundamental and first thing to understand about the lay of the land before the ICE murders in Minnesota is that the population has been brought to a level of fear such that they are willing to accept forms of repression that they wouldn’t otherwise accept. That’s one of the goals of fear-based propaganda.

The second thing I want to say, though, is that in Copaganda and in general, my most significant intellectual interest is actually not in far-right propaganda. I’m a lot less interested in the New York Post or Fox News. Particularly, I’m not as interested intellectually in the propaganda of Tom Homan, or Kristi Noem, or Stephen Miller, or Donald Trump. I think that is crucially important, but I actually think it’s relatively easy to understand what they’re saying and doing about ICE. I actually think that propaganda has been relatively ineffective for most of the population. They’re not trying to influence most of the population when they come out and say the things they did about the agents that killed Renée Good and Alex Pretti. They’re directing that propaganda at their right-wing base. That’s propaganda designed to foment anger and fear and hostility and bloodlust among a very organized and smaller portion of the population.

Speaking only personally and in terms of my own role concerning where I feel I can make a difference, I’m much more interested in identifying and talking about the propaganda that we’ve seen within what I’ll call the kind of broader antifascist segment of the population: from mainstream corporate news and apologists for genocide and human caging and repression, like Ezra Klein, all the way to the Left. I’m interested in the mythologies and stories and propaganda that is being weaponized against ordinary non-fascist people in this moment.

To me, the most important one is that they are trying to tell us that ICE is somehow different from and unrelated to all these other repressive institutions. That it’s different from the FBI and the DEA and the local police, and the fusion centers, and it’s different from what ICE used to be several years ago with Obama, when they gave awards to Tom Homan. They’re trying to tell us the same things they told us in the wake of Michael Brown’s killing in Ferguson, the same thing they told us after Breonna Taylor was killed, the same thing they told us after George Floyd was killed, which is that these institutions just need a little bit of reform.

ICE needs to be given body cameras. They need to be given better training. Never mind the fact that the person who killed Renée Good was literally filming himself and that he was a firearms trainer. So, there’s this attempt in the wake of all this to tell liberals and well-meaning people and people to the left of the antifascist coalition, “There’s a few bad apples here. And, yes, they’ve done some bad things, but what we need to do is reinvest in these systems. We will give them more resources, and they’ll be able to correct themselves. Let’s put the Democrats back in charge of these institutions, and everything will be okay.” That’s the kind of propaganda that I spend my book analyzing, and I pick it apart because it’s so essential that we understand that all of it is alluring but false.

These issues go way deeper, and it’s a distraction to get people focused on little tweaks when we need to be dismantling and abolishing these systems. Which is a very good transition to your new book, brian.

bb: I agree. An anecdote that to me is really telling about the propaganda and the racist dog-whistling attacks on immigrants is the story of Iryna Zarutska. Zarutska was a Ukrainian refugee who was stabbed to death in Charlotte, North Carolina last year. Her murder became this cause célèbre of Trump and all the right-wingers, with Trump highlighting her in the State of the Union address and promoting the story that her death was the result of open borders. In North Carolina, in response, they passed a state law that made it harder for people to get bail.

This is linked to what Alec points out really well in his book about one of the functions of copaganda being to obscure what the real harm is. And so, in this story of this woman who was murdered, it wasn’t an immigrant who killed Zarutska, but a man who had severe mental health issues. A few months prior the man, Decarlos Brown, called 911 in an attempt to get help and be hospitalized. Not not only did they refuse to hospitalize him, but they charged him with the crime of “misusing 911” and then released him again without the services he needed. Then he stabs Iryna Zarutska.

So this story that’s used by Trump to promote the idea “open borders got this refugee woman killed” actually is a story about the severe lack of mental health services in this country and the intense carceralization of all responses to the mental health crisis. This mythology is so pervasive in the lies that Alec just described.

The second point in what Alec is talking about is essential—the liberal mythologies seeking to distance ICE from regular policing that are dangerous. For example, look at the 10-point plan that the Democrats are putting forward. These reforms, if enacted, include introducing use of body cameras, the wearing of common uniforms with proper visible badges and identification, ending the use of masks to hide agents faces, mandating use of judicial warrants, applying use for force guidelines. These so-called reforms essentially just make ICE more like cops.

“Look at the 10-point plan that the Democrats are putting forward.(…) These so-called reforms essentially just make ICE more like cops.”

But if we have any understanding about what cops do and how much social harm they cause, we see that these reforms are not a solution at all. Cops kill more people every year and have done so for the past several years. They have no real effect on crime rates. They don’t resolve social issues like the mental health crisis and domestic violence. They are a brutal, useless institution. We can go on and on and on.

So, the notion of reforming ICE in this way—to make this massively bloated expansion of state repression look more like cops—legitimizes ICE and institutionalizes what should be seen as an intensification of the police state, an expansion of potential fascism, and something that needs to be contested thoroughly and pulled out from the roots. The copaganda that presents anything less than abolishing ICE as productive is something we have to militantly reject.

AK: I wrote a separate study of 10 years of body camera propaganda in particular, called The Body Camera: The Language of Our Dreams, and I have a little bit about this in the Copaganda book. I think the body camera is the most successful propaganda campaign in modern history. It’s a great way to understand so many other aspects of liberal reformist discourse. It’s something that the multi-billion dollar surveillance industry and cops and prosecutors wanted desperately for a long time, and they actually couldn’t get the billions of dollars it would take, until they reframed it as something that they all wanted into something that was about accountability.

It’s a fascinating story, and it’s important that people understand the role that liberal nonprofits like the ACLU, a lot of university professors, and the mainstream news media played. All of which, including Vox and the New York Times and all these institutions and people who are portrayed as liberal, are the ones that sold the public on body cameras as a mechanism of “reform,” even though they are probably the most successful expansion of police surveillance technology and are used almost exclusively against the poorest people in our society in low-level cases every single day. From ten years of research, we know they do not make the police any less violent or accountable.

I mean, these are facts. It’s actually the official position, by the way, of the United States Department of Justice, that body cameras don’t work. In spite of that, it’s one of the main things the Democratic Party is saying right now, and you have to understand this as part of a much broader propaganda effort across a lot of domains that basically does one thing: it uses the violence, corruption, and incompetence of the punishment bureaucracy as an excuse to get that bureaucracy more resources.

“I think the body camera is the most successful propaganda campaign in modern history.”

The corporate entities that are parasitic on that bureaucracy, multi-billion dollar industries, at every stage have become very adept at working with the police, prosecutors, and lobbyists to convert their own violence into more money.

I’ll just point out the incredible research of the economist Bocar Ba at Duke University, who did one of the most important and illuminating studies on this, where he and some other folks looked at the stock prices of policing industry companies. And in the very short window after high-profile police killings of Black people in the United States, the police surveillance industry stocks outperform the market and go up.

A lot of liberals would say, oh, well, you know, all these policing companies, their stock should go down right after the police kill someone, right? But the market and sophisticated investors and these companies understand that actually this violence is good for them, because they’re so good at taking liberal lack of understanding and liberal propaganda around these systems, and converting that into more money for them when they do horrific things.

bb: As the abolitionist Naomi Murakawa said, reforms do work . . . for the police.

TC: The abolitionist movement swelled into the mainstream in 2020 through the uprisings for Black Lives in an unprecedented way. Since then, we’ve seen and experienced the state’s backlash against those uprisings, the genocide of Palestine by Israel, the mass expansion of ICE, and the criminalization of anyone who stands against these things. What do you feel is the state of the struggle towards abolition today?

bb: In 2020, the burning down of a police precinct in Minneapolis was more popular than both presidential candidates of the two major parties. The impact of what the New York Times identified as the largest protest movement in the history of the country was really shocking to the ruling class. That’s why in response you saw the Republicans go bananas with an avalanche of cooked-up doom and gloom, apocalyptic stories of crime waves and unmanageable cities.

At the same time we saw the Democrats go full court press to try to bury any notion of defunding the police—for all its limitations, the organic demand of the uprising and one potentially struck at the core of police legitimacy. They got Obama off the bench to chastise the movement and say that this is not a responsible position to have. Biden met with a series of civil rights leaders directly after his election to say, “I’m not going to defund.” The late, great Mike Davis described the moment this way: “Trayvon Martin and George Floyd are now just roadkill rapidly vanishing from sight in the rear-view mirror of the presidential limousine as Biden rushes around reassuring the cops that he’s their best friend.”

That is the context for some of the difficulties that the abolitionist movement has had in organizing sustainable vessels after 2020. While there is very little organizational infrastructure that we were able to pull together out of this truly mass movement, it is also the case that there was a really powerful change in consciousness that you mentioned in your question. Of the literal tens of millions of people who participated in this movement, among many there is an abolitionist sense that, hey, maybe police don’t keep us safe. Maybe there are other ways to handle these social ills that the police are ostensibly for. The challenge is how we organize an independent force that can fight for demands, be clear in its goals, and provide an alternative political vision and counterforce to the dominance of liberal reformism. I think that the completely traitorous behavior of the Democratic Party needs to be seen as such and that the movement that is built, that is organized, is politically independent. I think this is really, really necessary.

If you think about the context of Palestine, you see another wave of that. Palestine was sand in the eye of the Democrats because it also spoke to the other weakness of the party, which as an imperialist party has been as Zionist as they come. And it lost them the election against Trump. Police—and, by extension, ICE—and imperialism are at the root of these twin radicalisms that really cut to the core about how undemocratic and violent the U.S. state is that I think needs further and deeper independent organization.

The movement opposing ICE is a really powerful arena to try to bring those politics, and connect up a lot of these questions and threads that Alec and I are both talking about. We need to link the sentiment of anger and opposition to ICE kidnapping our neighbors with the question of policing, the question of state violence as a whole.

Michael Macher called the expansion of ICE Trump’s “domestic policing omniforce.” The explicitly antagonistic police state that was always there before, that we see that every time they repress our protests in the streets, every time they harass and murder Black folk, is now more blatant and flirting with fascism. It needs to be opposed, smashed, torn down.

“The explicitly antagonistic police state that was always there before…needs to be opposed, smashed, torn down.”

All the people who flooded into the streets in Minneapolis and elsewhere after the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti have to be connected with a project that is firmly opposed, and abolitionist in orientation, toward the question of the police, toward the question of state, and in building an antagonistic force, independently, from below. Of course, that is a really big challenge, but just being in the streets in 2020, seeing the protests around Palestine, the student encampments, and seeing my neighbors in Chicago swell into the streets with whistles anytime ICE comes by, shows the potential and the possibility. I think abolitionist politics have a really important role to play in trying to push and connect things up to the larger questions of state violence, of the police, and building an independent movement.

AK: That was really well said. Before I say some positive words about the state of abolition, I want to acknowledge we are in a very dangerous time. We are in a time of extreme mobility of the fascist corners of our society. They’re highly organized, they’re in power, they sense an opportunity. So, while I think, for the reasons I’ll describe in a minute, there is opportunity for us on the Left—and opportunity particularly in abolitionist circles—there’s also extraordinary opportunity for the fascists. Part of that is because of the collapse of some of the institutional and ideological frameworks that propped up the neoliberal state.

So, I think there’s opportunity on both sides. I’m obviously, again, being oversimplistic, but I just want to say there are reasons to be very afraid right now.

I’m going to focus, though, on some things that I think are reasons to be optimistic or things that are new that I see as potential opportunities for the abolitionist movement.

Number one, over the last few years, especially since Michael Brown’s killing in Ferguson, but even before that, with a lot of the organizing and intellectual work done around the system of mass human caging in our society, there has been extraordinary increase in the level of consciousness of people about the police and what they do, and about prisons and what goes on there. About family separation and how horrific it is. That is a really good development.

Many, many, many more people are engaged in some way around these issues than when I began working in these areas. That’s important. A lot of people, as brian mentioned, were out in the streets in 2020. They learned something. Their consciousness was changed and that is still there. Maybe it’s dormant now in some ways, you know, we’re under siege in so many ways, and it doesn’t feel like we have the same energy that we did a few years ago, but a transformation happened. And it’s there, it’s latent, it’s waiting for the next iteration in our movements. It’s waiting for the next moment of the whirlwind.

“[W]e’re under siege in so many ways, and it doesn’t feel like we have the same energy that we did a few years ago, but a transformation happened. And it’s there, it’s latent, it’s waiting for the next iteration in our movements.”

And we might be entering such a moment with ICE. I think that there is tremendous energy around our society with respect to ICE, with respect to artificial intelligence, and the loss of control that people feel, not just over their own lives and their own brains, which are under relentless assault, but also their own communities. We talked a little bit earlier about the warehouses that ICE is trying to buy everywhere, but they’re also trying to build data centers everywhere. All of this is related.

There’s also a sense that, in many communities, a lot of this stuff is made possible by a certain alienation, a certain loneliness, a certain lack of relationship with others. And we’re seeing really exciting, nascent movements, like brian mentioned Chicago, but also, another just obvious example is Minnesota. Not just Minneapolis, but across Minnesota. People came together and built these incredible networks, and were getting groceries for their neighbors. We’re having chains where the one bag of groceries was handled in three different ways so no one could be followed to its ultimate destination, and that takes sophisticated work. In the process of that, a lot of relationships were built, and a deep level of consciousness was created about the beauty and the power of coming together in our own community to solve problems.

So, those are all really positive, because people are experiencing that right now. And whenever a new city is announced as the next ground for ICE, I’m hearing lots of stories from local organizers about the preparation that they’re doing, about the extraordinary levels of interest, people calling in, coming to events, asking to be part of phone trees, asking where they can sign up to bring groceries, following ICE. So, that’s all really exciting.

Another positive I think is an area of consciousness that has been increasingly growing is that the old liberal solutions to all these problems—trumpted in philanthropy and liberal media—are totally failed. Any legitimate social movement that’s going to create a vastly more equal society is not going to be primarily organized by the richest people in our society giving away small crumbs from what they make.

So, what I’ve seen on the Left, even just in the course of the last 15 years that I’ve been really engaged in this community, is a deeper and more sophisticated understanding among a much larger number of people about how we need to be solving these problems ourselves, without relying on grants from philanthropy. That’s not to say that there is no good charitable work being done—and I obviously run a nonprofit organization that does get grants. I’m talking about the overall consciousness about the kinds of activities that are going to actually lead to widespread liberation.

The same is true with respect to the media. I think the traditional establishment, capitalist, neoliberal, corporate media has lost a lot of their seemingly impenetrable wall of dominance. That’s an opportunity for us, as well.

Then, I think, finally, this is a little bit more inchoate: there’s a really deep sense in which people are yearning for the truth. Especially post-genocide—and the way in which the Democratic Party cheer-led and participated in and was complicit in the most horrific crime of all, which is genocide, and the way it distracted and lied about it.

I think people are really yearning for a new kind of political moment where people just treat them as adults and tell them the truth. And that’s very promising. Maybe not in the Democratic Party’s actual membership in terms of, like, national elected office, but at the grassroots level in communities that I’m in all over the country, I see a much more concerted effort on behalf of the grassroots base to call it like it is, to tell the truth, to say 2 plus 2 equals 4. And to build a new politics around that. That, in my crude assessment, is the heart of why Zohran Mamdani was so popular and won the New York mayor’s race. I think people saw him as somebody willing to just say certain truths in a few basic ways.

I’m not saying that everything he said is true or that I support everything he did in the campaign, but I’m just saying there was this sense that his campaign resonated with some core truths, both factually and more moral truths in a rejection of the lies of the standard Democratic establishment. Those are just some broader themes that make me a little bit optimistic.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Tony Webster; modified by Tempest.

The post ICE and the Police State appeared first on Tempest.

No Neutrals There is an important contribution to organizing the power of labor in support of Palestinian liberation. It also helps us understand the connection between labor officialdom’s advocacy for Israel, and U.S. labor’s decline domestically.

In October 2023, a coalition of Palestinian unions called on unions internationally to take action to prevent genocide in Gaza. They called on the organized working class to stop the production and transport of arms to Israel, and to pressure governments to end military support.

International dock workers in several instances refused to handle weapons bound for Israel. In contrast, the union of U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast dock workers on a 3-day strike in 2024 made an exception to load military cargo. But seven unions representing half a million workers sent an open letter to then-President Biden asking for a halt to military aid to Israel and a ceasefire. Academic workers at the University of California went on strike to defend Palestinian rights organizing. These are welcome steps toward breaking the hold of Zionism on U.S. labor.

In response to the common rejoinder that Palestine is an out-of-bounds or divisive issue, No Neutrals There shows that U.S. labor has a reprehensible hundred-year history of official engagement in support of Zionism and Israeli colonization of Palestine. This includes pro-Zionist propaganda, fundraising through the purchase of Israel bonds, and lobbying to support military aid to Israel.

…No Neutrals There shows that U.S. labor has a reprehensible hundred-year history of official engagement in support of Zionism and Israeli colonization of Palestine.

In 1950, William Green and Philip Murray, presidents of the AFL and CIO, lobbied the Truman White House for arms to Israel. They proclaimed in a joint statement, “As unionists and as believers in the continuance of the peace and in democratic opportunity, we trust that our government will stand against further aggression directed at the State of Israel and its courageous enlightened people who, like we, are seeking to achieve a decent economy and full utilization of the resource of nature for the benefit on mankind.”

U.S. labor leaders cultivated strong ties to the Histadrut, labor Zionism’s “union” federation serving as a colonizing institution that provided jobs, housing, and social welfare to its Jewish-only members. They rallied workers’ support for Israel through union fundraising campaigns for health centers and other settler infrastructure.

“[U.S. labor leaders] rallied workers’ support for Israel through union fundraising campaigns for health centers and other settler infrastructure.” According to the Israel bonds website, organized labor was among the earliest investors in Israel bonds. The above billboard depicts an early call to action.

There was resistance. Led by the Arab Workers Caucus, auto workers in 1973 campaigned against United Auto Workers’ (UAW) purchase of Israel bonds. In a program, the caucus stated, “UAW should stand firmly in support of all workers and people struggling in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In the Middle East, UAW should support the principle of establishing a secular, non-theocratic, democratic state in Palestine for all people, Jews and Arabs, and stand against any outside intervention.”

In the following years, official U.S. labor doubled down on support for Israel. AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland in 1979 set a high bar for racist denial of Palestinian rights, fulminating that, “A Palestinian state would…be a terrorist state that employs assassins, kidnappers and bomb-throwers as a matter of official policy,” and that it would be a “knife at the throat of human decency.”

While this vile rhetoric is no longer acceptable from a national labor leader, for the most part, the alignment of business unionism with Israel and imperialism in West Asia remains. This is labor nationalism more concerned with aligning with the foreign policy interests of U.S. corporations than with fighting back against our exploiters. The international solidarity we need would instead embrace multiracial class struggle at home and abroad against capitalist rulers.

Recent decades of organizing have weakened the ideological stranglehold of Zionism in the U.S. working class. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, Labor for Palestine, and popular support for Palestinian liberation have grown significantly since 2023.

But there is still a historical debt to be paid. Official U.S. labor, by backing apartheid, has supported enormous injustice and helped lay the groundwork for genocide and the U.S. war on Iran.

No Neutrals There documents this repugnant legacy and the history of those challenging it. It helps forge a new direction for U.S. labor.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: delayed gratification; modified by Tempest.

The post U.S. Labor’s long history of Zionism appeared first on Tempest.