Yea, agree with the description for this post. This is an example of a worker cooperative, which is certainly a form of business that usually is much better for the workers involved, but calling it Communist is certainly a stretch, as Communism is more about full public ownership of an economy than it is carving a niche out of a broader Capitalist system. Not saying it’s bad! Just that the title is definitely toungue-in-cheek, if I’m going to be annoyingly nitpicky.

For anyone who hasn’t read Parenti yet, I recommend Blackshirts and Reds, the first chapter is an excellent analysis of fascism, what causes it, and why.

They used to be more competent, funny enough.

The nukes sent to Cuba through Operation Anadyr were because

1. The Soviets were responding to nuclear Jupiter missiles the US placed in Turkey (right on the USSR’s doorstep, and which Kruschev managed to negotiate a withdrawal of alongside the nukes sent to Cuba as a deal on the condition that this withdrawal remain secret so Kennedy could protect his image)

2. As a response to West Germany violating the agreed upon borders and placing a NATO base in East German territory, and

3. To prevent a full-scale invasion of Cuba that the US was preparing for.

No, lmao. The Russian Federation is nowhere near powerful enough for that, nor do they have an actual material nor ideological reason for that. It’s pretty clear that the Russian Federation simply hates NATO being on its border, especially Ukraine, and is thus trying to demillitarize Ukraine by any means necessary so that it can no longer consider it a potential threat.

There aren’t grand delusions of world conquest, nor is there any evidence of a larger plan. If they wanted World Domination, then they would have expanded beyond Ukraine by now in the Russo-Ukrainian war. They haven’t, and instead we are seeing pushes for peace talks now that it looks like such talks will be clearly in Russia’s favor. If they wanted global conquest, why stop before taking all of Ukraine? Why Ukraine specifically?

I understand detesting the invasion on moral grounds, but inventing reasons just because they sound more scary doesn’t get you any closer to solving the problem and ending the war.

Other way around, the US supports Israel because it secures the US Empire’s interests in the region. Israel does not have nearly the power necessary to control the US, this line of thinking fails to analyze the real standings of the two countries. Presumably unintentionally on your part, the “Israel controls the US” narrative is actually pushed heavily by anti-semites, it perpetuates the notion that Jewish people control the world in a manner that recognizes the genocide of Palestinians. This is why correct analysis is important, as false conclusions aid the fascists. Anti-Zionism is correct, as is Palestinian liberation, but the US is not a victim here but is intentionally perpetuating it.

As for NATO and Ukraine, NATO countries are “helping out” not out of any moral reason, but to make hefty profits off of IMF loans and resource/mineral contracts. Additionally, Russia is not the US Empire’s largest rival on the world stage, China is. It’s true that Russia goes against the US, but it hasn’t been a world power since the dissolution of the USSR, when the reintroduction of Capitalism obliterated Russia’s economy.

We can look back on the history of the two nations, and we can look on the history of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. The major difference is that Israel was formed as a genocidal ethnostate on Palestinian land, whereas the invasion of Ukraine seems to be a proxy war for the US to carve out as many IMF loans as possible while Russia tries to thoroughly demillitarize Ukraine.

Why did Palestine strike back against Israel on October 7th? Why did Russia invade Ukraine?

That points to October 7th, 2023. The settler-colonial genocide of Palestinians has been going on for a century.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

The US Empire failing to raise successors that understand how it works will end up playing a key role in its downfall.

Generalizations will always miss finer details, I agree, but this is a phenomenon I have noticed.

I don’t think you’re accurately describing the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, the material reality points more towards Russia wanting to thoroughly demillitarize Ukraine by any means necessary and certify Ukrainian neutrality with NATO, rather than joining it.

As for standing for Socialism and the liberation of the working class, the majority of Marxists believe that the current largest obstacle in that path globally is the US Empire, and US Hegemony. Russia poses less of a threat to Socialism worldwide than the US by virtue of not having nearly the power of the US. I have no doubt that the Russian Federation would be just as exploitative of the Global South if they were in the same position as the US Empire, but they aren’t, and instead their path to further profits relies on dethroning the US. This dethroning of the US is also necessary for Socialists, hence critical support insofar as it appears to be working against the US Empire.

Let’s consider the opposite viewpoint, though. What happens if Ukraine, against all odds, succeeds in beating back Russia, maintains millitarization, and joins NATO? Russia further weakens, and becomes folded into subjugation under the US Empire. This likely results in opening up of some of Russia’s assets to foreign plundering, strengthens NATO (the US Empire’s millitary wing, essentially), and thus also weakens the position of the Global South.

What most Marxists support is a quick end to the war, via peace deals. The US continuing the war in order to shackle Ukraine with massive IMF loans and secure ownership of key resources and minerals stands in the way of that, and wishes to prolong the war so they can carve out as much value out of Ukraine as they can. Increasingly, Ukrainians themselves want the war to end, rather than sacrificing themselves for US profits, even if it means Russian victory. There is no actual path to victory for Ukraine without NATO full-on joining in, causing a catastrophic level of death and destruction.

What should a Socialist side with, in this situation? Where is the path to the best possible outcome, in your opinion?

Reporting for what, exactly? Which part is misinformation, that Palestinians are fighting a national liberation movement against genocide, or that Ukraine has a non-trivial amount of Nazi brigades like Azov?

To be clear, Lemmy is developed and maintained by Communists, there are going to be many Communists on Lemmy in general. Going around and calling Communists McCarthyian terms like “commie” is just stoking rage, I don’t see what that fixes.

The correct answer when someone tells you that you misgendered them is “oh, sorry, thanks for letting me know, I’ll use the correct pronouns in the future,” not “actually, a historically male-oriented word is gender-neutral and I am absolved of all guilt.” It’s likely not a big deal, so there’s no need to defend yourself over it, acknowledge it and move on.

Both work against US Imperial Hegemony. Palestinian liberation is fully supported as it’s a national liberation movement for people subjected to settler-colonial genocide, critical support for Russia is due to it currently working against US dominance, which is the primary obstacle for Humanity to progress economically into a more equitable global system.

If you’re describing Marxist-Leninists as being interchangeable with “tankies,” and MLs are by far the most common form of Marxist and Socialist world-wide, what’s the point in denoting the top-left quadrant as “Socialist/Anarchist?” Moreover, Anarchists are not a monolith, many don’t support continuing the war.

I think the original is more generous, anti-war-ism is genuinely a relatively positive way of putting it even if critical support for Russia is deemed to be “fully knowledgeable.” The original fully acknowledges the principles of never striking first millitarily as a viewpoint with understandable moral basis, while also suggesting that that isn’t the complete picture.

I don’t really see the point of this meme, there’s a difference between a user accidentally adding someone to a chat that shouldn’t be there, and a security flaw being taken advantage of to gain access to the chat. In this instance, it was on the users themselves, the security of Signal played no part in it, yet this meme makes it seem like it was hacked, and by Russia for some reason?

To be clear, that’s a user issue (even if it was intentional, which it may have been), that’s not a problem with Signal itself like the meme implies. Signal wasn’t hacked, in this case it was entirely on the users themselves.