Not in my Gotham City

Moscow’s continual attempt to cast their struggle as a rerun of World War II against Nazism rings hollow in reality, however. Not only is Ukraine’s president Jewish but far-right extremist parties have near negligible support in national representative politics.

Right Sektor anti-Semite Dmitro Korchynsky saying he was disappointed in the Ukrainian people for electing a Jewish person as president, but points out that it is convenient that the president is Jewish, because it means that it is harder to accuse Ukraine of Nazism

Fuck Zelensky even wears Nazi merch.

The “representative politics” point doesn’t prove anything when you have Nazi paramilitaries in the streets, multiple leaders praising Nazi collaborators and Nazis in the military, and Nazi collaborator monuments protected by the state.

Your “democracy” is not “flawed,” it’s a sham to the core. I’m sure the Afghan children that got drone striked under both Obama and Trump see a meaningful difference between the American political parties anyways; your “democracy” is crap and it would be better for the entire world if the US was carpet bombed.

And the fear-mongering surrounding Jan. 6th is so fundamentally stupid, seriously give me a conceivable way this tiny group of chud idiots who couldn’t even hang Mike Pence for the good of humanity could have fundamentally undone American society.

There are degrees of bad and Trump is worse, of course. “Someone who has fueled a genocide for 6 months with all-you-can-drop bombs” is obviously the lesser evil to the man who sent a bunch of brainless zombies trying to climb a wall with a set of stairs feet away to overthrow the US government.

From Engels’ Anti-Dühring, Pt. 1, Ch. 9:

[…] we find the modern-bourgeois morality and beside it also the proletarian morality of the future, so that in the most advanced European countries alone the past, present and future provide three great groups of moral theories which are in force simultaneously and alongside each other. Which, then, is the true one? Not one of them, in the sense of absolute finality; but certainly that morality contains the maximum elements promising permanence which, in the present, represents the overthrow of the present, represents the future, and that is proletarian morality.

But when we see that the three classes of modern society, the feudal aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, each have a morality of their own, we can only draw the one conclusion: that men, consciously or unconsciously, derive their ethical ideas in the last resort from the practical relations on which their class position is based — from the economic relations in which they carry on production and exchange.

But nevertheless there is great deal which the three moral theories mentioned above have in common—is this not at least a portion of a morality which is fixed once and for all?—These moral theories represent three different stages of the same historical development, have therefore a common historical background, and for that reason alone they necessarily have much in common. Even more. At similar or approximately similar stages of economic development moral theories must of necessity be more or less in agreement. From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this injunction thereby become an eternal moral injunction? By no means. In a society in which all motives for stealing have been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the preacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!

We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. That in this process there has on the whole been progress in morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, no one will doubt. But we have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life.

There are degrees of bad and Trump is worse.

How?

“Our democracy” lmao

Neither side has the moral high ground, they’re both using violence! (don’t ask how the IOF responds to nonviolent protests)

Uhhh, Hamas is a bunch of militant terrorists.

Uhh guys the native population is fighting colonialism and genocide with armed resistance, clearly this is evil terrorism (despite Palestinian armed resistance being permitted under international law, and the fact that Hamas is the govt. in Gaza). Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?

deleted by creator

Oh my God he’s an idiot.

It’s absolutely absurd to compare the Western settler colony of Israel’s “relationship” with Palestine to the Russia’s relationship with Ukraine. Israel, since its inception, has been oriented towards the subjugation, displacement, and slaughter of Palestinians as a whole, whereas Russia is responding to Western-backed Nazi aggressors. Investigate Operation Aerodynamic, NATO’s Operation Gladio, the US and Nazi role in the 2014 coup, hell what do you mean nobody will fight for Ukraine? The CIA have trained soldiers and there has been billions sent in aid by the US.

Everything’s Netanyahu now. Get him out of power and the settler colony will surely stop its war on the native population (ignore all prior history).

Engles himself has analysed the class character behind the desire for decentralisation in more depth

I’m confused, did he individually analyze the thoughts in each of the several billion existing people’s heads to understand why each of them desired for or against decentralization? Otherwise he’s simply engaging in nonsensical ramblings, no different than the armageddon predictions of a crazed preacher.

Authoritarianism is a measure of nothing. Do you not just mean authority? For something to be an ism there has to be something constant about it, but authority is a response to external conditions, and when it comes to the state, can’t take on an independent, alienated character, but must conform to the character of the dominant class. This is precisely what Engels was trying to get across with his comparisons.

Wrt Sukarno’s govt., it wasn’t just pacifism. The CIA worked in the first place by bombing areas wanting to provoke separatism, when, surely, they should have promoted unity? In the final act the non-aligned government was undone by taking advantage of the disunity between the army and government, with gangster squads financed by the former able to spread out their terror and make use of the low centralization to hide their atrocities behind proxy groups.

To be clear, I never assumed anything would be followed “to the letter.” I predicted society will tend towards centralization/socialization and pointed out specific causes of this. Your response is “you can’t know, people have thoughts and feelings and free will!” Where do you think thoughts and feelings and ideals come from? Nothing? Do you think mass movements are a product of people coincidentally independently coming to the same conclusions?

You can’t know the individual thoughts of every person in a centralized system, and therefore can’t make any predictions about the outcome. And, in fact, by creating predictions from trends and tendencies you picked up, you’re being fatalistic (you even use the term “inevitable” in your analysis, which is clearly the sign of prophetic day-dreaming).

You never really even adressed any of the points I made about decentralization

I thought it wasn’t necessary because of how shallow they are, and how they treat external realities as ideological methods of organization.

Terror isn’t just for sustaining a centralized system. There have been more or less decentralized systems oriented against imperialism and they have fallen even quicker to external sabotage as in Indonesia or Guatemala. For authoritarianism, it’s a meaningless word as it makes authority a motive force in itself, which is just a product of not understanding the class character of the state.

If you don’t understand the material trends of society and hold to socialism on that basis as the next step forward, you’re just an idealist with moral indignation against the current system and nothing else.

Sorie 😞

“I have an announcement: I recognize that I stole this hat from you. I’m interested in showcasing the history of this hat when it belonged to you by including images of you on the back of it.”

“Oh cool, but can I just have my hat back?”

“No, it’s too late for that, I’m already wearing it.”

I like Trotsky as much as he believed in the conditional revolutionary character of the Russian peasantry.

Guys it’s not like he’s in charge of the country keeping “Israel” afloat, it’s not like he has blocked Congress to send them bombs so they can continue their genocide; listen, he said he’s really mad, what else do you want? He can’t do anything else, he’s powerless.

And yes, Trump would use his power as President to make the United States a part of Russia.

The entire point of scientific socialism, and what elevated it from utopian pipe dreams, is discovering the elements in society that lead it towards the next, and I pointed out some that lead to centralization. You can’t just say “centralization is a cancer” and be done with it. I guess what you mean is that “everything will somehow work out [without struggle],” and this is sort of my fault for not including struggle between classes directly because I wanted to emphasize that, afterwards, new society isn’t formed out of thin air according to moral ideals but is based upon the momentum of old society.

We understand that the capitalists won’t give up their power willingly even when their system is in decline, and that it must be taken away from them by the people, still, class struggle isn’t divorced from material forces; the proletariat itself was created through the industrial revolution (introduction of machinery in production, concentration of production and labor). Human activity isn’t completely spontaneous, and mass revolution even less so; it’s not a question of anything being automatic or everything somehow working itself out without input—the transition can be sped up or slowed down, the emerging mass state can experience setbacks and victories, but in the end the capitalist rule cannot last forever, proven ex. with the fall of the rate of profit, and in its growing tendencies socialism will take root.