Oh don’t worry, I read it. Pro-western outlets like Kyiv Post reported that story, while at the same time failing to produce evidence that the referendums were unpopular after all.

1. The Donbass region is largely pro-Russian, and is ethnically Russian.

2. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics have been fighting Kyiv for a decade

3. Kyiv has been shelling Donetsk and Luhansk for a decade.

All of these are not only widely reported in non-western media, but also acknowledged by western media as well. It’s something the west and non-west can agree on, which means you rejecting it is akin to conspiracy theory.

This hits the nail on the head. Settlers fear, above all, being treated anywhere near as badly as we’ve treated indigenous peoples, when they have been infinitely kinder. The last shall be first, that doesn’t mean they will kill of us or deport all of us, but it means the decisions will be driven by indigenous people first and foremost.

It’s telling of the settler mindset that they immediately assume decolonization entails being treated almost as horribly as settlers have treated indigenous peoples.

Read or take a dose of melatonin.

The last will be first. Landback and decolonization means putting the reigns into the hands of the indigenous people’s hands, and letting go of the reigns, not just holding onto the reigns but giving the colonized people some of the reigns. The best settlers can hope for is to be treated kinder than they have treated the people whose land they stole. I myself was born in the US, and am still a settler here, just because I was born here does not absolve my role. It means I have a historic duty to help carry out decolonization and land back, from the back, not as a leading role.

Read Fanon.

“Vuvuzela no iphone 100 gorillion dead” is a meme because what you describe is such a pervasive phenomenon. Really, as Roderic Day asserts, people just want a license to believe that the system that they believe benefits them is morally just. The way out is showing that a better world is indeed possible.

Yep! Marx himself said that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, after all. Feudalism does have a lot in common with capitalism, but what makes Marx interesting is how he analyzed how capitalism is different. Many leftists of his era were focused on the similarity between capitalism and feudalism, Marx focused on the opposite, how it’s different, and this is what propelled him into scientific socialism, socialism as it emerges from capitalism.

And no problem for the reading list! It’s designed to be completed in order, and is focused on taking someone freshly radicalized but with no experience with leftist theory, and leave them as someone with a firm grasp on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and how to behave as an organized leftist! It also has audiobooks, queer and feminist theory, a good dose of basic history, and more. Since you mentioned philosophy, the 2nd section goes over Dialectical Materialism, so it might be a really good fit for you if that’s your current interest! Still read section 1 before 2, but 2 is a fun section once you get there!

And great to hear you plan on getting organized! Really, that’s step 1, but obviously not everyone can do so immediately due to life events and whatnot. Just do what you can!

Seems the meme isn’t displaying properly on my end.

Edit: now that it’s displaying properly, lmao. Cute hamster!

All socialism is democratic, “democratic socialism” normally refers to reformist socialism. The corruption, in that case, makes sense, as reformism is usually conceding to the status quo.

1. Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, etc. Socialism works.

2. China 100% counts as socialist. The Gang of Four diverged from Marxism-Leninism into ultraleft dogmatism. Ultraleftism is not “pure socialism,” there is no such thing as “pure” socialism, capitalism, etc. The PRC under Mao had markets, private property, etc, as did the USSR. As a consequence, the modern CPC is course-corrected to a standard Marxist-Leninist outlook. Both Mao and Stalin are seen as 70% good by the modern CPC.

3. The claims of “authoritarianism” are the repression of capitalists.

4. Yes, I’ve read Capital, volume 1. I’m on volume 2 right now. More importantly, I’ve read a ton of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and far more Marxist authors, all who speak about Dialectical Materialism and socialism, how to bring about communism, and more, all of which you won’t find in Capital. I’m skeptical that you’ve even read Volume 1, to be honest, your understanding of Marxism is incredibly poor. Using “I’ve read Capital” as an “I win the argument” tool is incredibly poor rhetoric, if you have a good argument, make it, don’t appeal to your own authority.

5. Yes, political theory isn’t a religion, you seem to think it is though.

This is nonsense, again.

1. The Soviet economy worked very well, and was one of the fastest growing economies of the 20th century. The difference between the wealthiest and the poorest was about 5 times, compared to hundreds to thousands in capitalist countries (and even more).

2. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, the large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. They are pragmatic and learned, which is why they maintained socialism.

3. Yes, the PRC is proof that socialism works astoundingly well.

4. Again, you return to vibes-based nonsense. The Soviet Union was more democratic than capitalist countries, and the PRC is as well.

This is just you replacing sound economic analysis with vibes-based idealism, ironically you’re divorcing yourself from reality while claiming others need to see it better. A quick example is that socialism has resulted in far lower inequality while maintaining stable growth than capitalism has, yet you pretend they are the same in disparity. Connect with reality.

I’m not misunderstanding you, I simply disagree with you and your frame of analysis. Not everyone you speak to that disagrees is misunderstanding you, same with me.

You have a very idealist frame of analysis. Capitalism’s persistence is not due to ideas, but material conditions. The compulsion for socialism isn’t something won over because some people have socialist ideas, but because capitalism necessarily paves the way for socialism and creates its own demise.

Plus, the PRC is the largest economy in BRICS, and is a socialist country. Even if your frame of analysis requiring BRICS to have large socialist elements to supplant capitalism was correct, it’s already correct, China eclipses every other economy in BRICS.

The reason the GOP won is because the DNC ran to the right in a country where the working class is increasingly radicalized. The largest block of society outright doesn’t vote because they don’t see a material difference in the outcome of the election, or because voting in their state doesn’t matter as its solidly red or blue to begin with. Both parties support the bourgeoisie. Even if the DNC won, we would still be in the same mess, because the problems with our system is that it’s a dying capitalist empire.

The only one supporting horseshoe theory is you, as you blame Marxists for the problems caused by both parties in a dying capitalist empire.

This is a very myopic, eurocentric point of view. Capitalism in the global north is sustained by imperialism. The global south, and its suffering, is what keeps prices artificially low in the global north. This system is crumbling, and disparity is rising faster than ever in the global north as a consequence. Countries like Burkina Faso are kicking out occupiers like France, and BRICS is gaining as the west is falling in relevance.

Further, the UK did not go socialist, unless I’m misreading your meaning. Socialism, as it exists in the real world, can be found in countries like the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR. I’m not talking about welfare.

Further, the US is seeing normalization of socialism. Mamdani may be a socdem, but has implied a far more socialist line, ie collectivizing production. The assassination of the United Healthcare CEO is being met with united support among the working class, and parties like the Party for Socialism and Liberation are reporting record member growth.

Opinions aren’t what drive social change, material conditions evolving and changing do. The material conditions of capitalism in the west are declining, and socialism is gaining. The global south is increasingly throwing off the shackles of imperialism. If you take a very myopic, eurocentric view, then it can be easy to only see companies getting larger and larger and disparity rising, but if you zoom out this very system is pushing the profit motive and capitalism with it to the brink.

Modes of production are historical phenomena, guided by technological advancements. Capitalism wasn’t a choice, but a result of growing industrial bourgeois production resolving its contradiction with feudal agrarian production. The steam engine is what accelerated this process. Zooming out, capital is the real master of capitalists, capitalists are merely the high priests of capital best guessing at what it wants, but ultimately are slaves to the profit motive and how to best extract it.

And no worries! One thing that’s helpful, is that the centralization of capitalism over time is exactly what creates a large class capable of collectively planning and running production in the interests of all. The profit motive destroys the profit motive. I try to maintain revolutionary optimism, doomerism is more of a product of the capitalist class trying to remove revolutionary fervor.

Based on your final paragraph, you’d do well with reading leftist theory! I already said I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I actually made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you want to spend some time on theory, but you can explore whatever leftist tendencies you want to. The two biggest umbrellas are anarchism and Marxism, the former being about decentralization and horizontalism, the latter being about centralization and collectivization (to massively oversimplify), and the biggest tendency in Marxism is Marxism-Leninism. If you want to learn more about what makes these distinct, feel free to ask, I used to be an anarchist myself.

Also, if you can, join an org! If you’re US-based, I recommend something like The Party for Socialism and Liberation. There are probably other orgs local to you, though, so do some shopping around. Getting organized is the only way out of this mess, and into the new. A better world is possible!

The capitalists have always had control of governments within capitalism. States are not distinct from the ruling class, but an extension. What we are seeing is not a shift from capitalism to neofeudalism, but the consequences of the dying stages of capitalism before socialism. Capitalism has decayed and is dying due to monopolization and centralization of capital, and due to imperialism, but these same conditions prep capitalism for revolution and collective ownership and planning, into socialism.

New York Times, reporting on Kiev using cluster bombs in the Donbass region in 2014

According to wikipedia, the vast majority of the donbass region voted for independence from Ukraine.

Wikipedia article, going over the Euromaidan coup from a pro-western perspective

Vice news, 9 years ago, in the Donetsk People’s Republic

All of these are pro-Western sources that do a better job of acknowledging the reality of the situation better than you do. You seem to not only only accept pro-western news, but exclusively pro-western news that goes against the western consensus on the Donbass Region.

Incredible, lmao.

Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass region, is very pro-Russia and very anti-Ukraine. Western Ukraine was shelling them for a decade, post-2014 coup, due to the hard shift from being aligned with Russia to being aligned with NATO. For these citizens, Russian presence is a good thing. Western Ukraine certainly hates that Russia has invaded, but the “hysteria” I am referring to is the kind that thinks even Eastern Ukraine opposes the Russian Federation.

So no, this isn’t a “pro-Russian” stance, in my opinion. Recognizing western-Ukraine’s shelling of civilians in eastern-ukraine for a decade, and the overwhelming support for Russian annexation of the Donbass region among Donbass residents in Donetsk and Luhansk, is something that even pro-NATO people need to recognize in order to figure out how to best deal with that underlying fact.

Being anti-NATO and not falling for the current hysteria that overplays the negative aspects of the RF and underplays the negative aspects of NATO-aligned countries is being “pro-Russian?” I’m far more willing to say I’m pro-PRC, or pro-Cuba, than I would be to say I’m pro-Russian, but I do understand that a lot of countries I support, like Burkina Faso, do rely quite a bit on the RF, and if the RF fell, the west would have a much stronger position in terrorizing the global south.