We do not accept the genocide, whether Trump, Biden, or Harris is in office. The situation would not be better with any of those 3 in office, because the genocide isn’t a personal preference of whoever sits in the White House but instead a systemic aspect of Israel’s settler-colonial project.

We aren’t accelerationists, nor do we think Trump is a force for good. Trump is a symptom of a broader, systemic problem.

Welcome to Lemmy.ml the idea is that trump accelerates the decline of the west, which is more important than anything else here, including the lives of Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuelans etc.

Nobody believes this. We believe that the DNC is not meaningfully better for Palestinians, Iranians, and Venezuelans, because both parties are imperialist.

The argument is that it’s not as bad when Trump does it because “at least he’s not a hypocrite”.

Nobody has made this point. People have said that liberals hate Trump more because he’s more naked about his bloodthirst, because liberals do the same shit with a polite face to it.

Social issues in the west (lgbtq rights, worker’s rights) have no significance at all here, if anything the worse the proletariat has it in the west, the sooner they will instigate or at least support a revolution that will hail in the era of global communism, that seems to be the thinking here.

While true that worsening conditions does radicalize people, nobody here is advocating for strategically acting to make things worse, ie accelerationism, but instead organizing.

Edit: the other option is that it’s a far right US or Russian psyop because it’s hard to tell the difference but I say that jokingly as a lot of people posting do seem to care. Just not about the west

Communists are neither far-right nor a Russian psyop.

The reason this cliché is utterly unconvincing to me is because it’s incomplete. Nobody seems to be able to genuinely prove how both statements are true, whenever hypocricy is pointed out. It isn’t at all grand and revealing to say that 2 things can be true, what matters is investigating the truth of the 2 things.

Well-said. LLMs do have some useful applications, but they cannot replace human creativity nor are they omniscient.

Everyone wants better, my issue is with letting perfect ideals be the enemy of real good.

They were and are fully Marxist-Leninist.

Yes, always have been.

This group is Marxist-Leninist.

You’ve been vague and cagey, though. Nobody is saying that you have to support every single action imperfect countries take. How could socialist countries behave differently to the point that you would like them?

So then what materially needs to be different for you to support socialism in real life over opposing it?

Socialist countries do uphold that, though, to the extent physically possible. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union. Are you just opposing revolution, because overthrowing the capitalists, fascists, slavers and tsarists requires infringing on their rights? In that case, certainly you’re upholding the systems that allow them to destroy human dignity each and every day?

Their first part is about Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR, but they leap from ideological impurity to the false belief that the bourgeoisie controlled the USSR, when it lacked a domestic bourgeoisie. They then conflate disparity with bourgeois control, despite the fact that it was not meaningfully higher:

Then they point to having a large millitary to defend against the US Empire as evidence of imperialist intent, and point to trade as “imperialism.” They then go on to use logical gymnastics to explain why socialists should support the US Empire over the USSR. You’re upholding ultraleftists lacking in genuine materialist analysis and utterly confused about class struggle, who support Pol Pot’s Cambodia against Vietnam and the US over the USSR, purely because you think it will help your point.

As explained earlier, your supposed “anti-imperialist socialists” were upholding Pol Pot in Cambodia against Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR, while the USSR was supporting Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba, Algeria, and more. The groups siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.

The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.

You’re posting an article written during the height of the Sino-Soviet split, upholding the PRC which attacked Vietnam and upholded Pol Pot in Cambodia, sided with the US over the USSR, and took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.

The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.

Communists can have our own spaces, just like y’all can have your own. Communists tend to not be particularly fond of Lemmy.world either.

Lmao

“Russification” was stopped by the soviets, and there was a two-fold effort to promote an internationalist “soviet” identity while preserving national identities. Derussifying surnames was not a priority, but numerous gains were made for cultural preservation.

You’re also confusing culture with imperialism, which is a form of international exploitation on an economic basis typically reinforced by methods like couping, installing compradors, etc.

The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.

Interesting, it’s your one and only comment in a one month old account.

The USSR was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the Russian Federation inhereted no colonies of the tsarist Russian Empire because of this. There was no “soviet imperialism.”

Nice