Nato is as much a “mutual defense” pact as sea lions are lions. These guys bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and countless other nations. The members of Nato have repeatedly cooperated with each other, using the military networks built through the alliance to wage proxy wars, perform coups, destabilise regions of the world at a scale never before seen in human history.

You might as well call the axis a mutual defense alliance lmao.

I mean America is a fascist country though. After all, it still has legalised slavery and killed millions of innocent people in this century alone. It’s only natural for such a country to elect fine specimens just as Trump or Biden.

Would be based if it happened, but it could never happen under the UN as it exists

Complain more on the same internet invented mostly by the country you hate?

Says the guy from the country which is by far the bigger drain of Industrial products in human history (you owe the planet something on the order of $50 trillion from the trade imbalance alone iirc). And that’s not counting for hundreds of millions killed from pollution, poverty, wars, co2 emissions and so on.

No, they’re not the same. None of us are buying it.

The American empire is the American empire regardless of who is in charge. Let’s get off our great-man theory high horse and actually analyze material conditions

There were plenty of mildly progressive candidates that could have done things in power were modern America not a neoliberal hellhole. Beanie, AOC, the squad, Jill stien, Claudia de la cuz. Those are the current ones. Going further back, people like gore or nader could have played the role. But all of these people either got shafted through institutional factors or got cooped and forced to water down even their milquetoast radicalism. Many of these people were neutered by the Democrats.

On the movement level, the Democrats coopted, neutered then mutilated the corpse of the BLM social unrest in 2020, which could have been used to otherwise fuel a lot of progressive changes. Instead, the dems not only killed it, but poured salt on the wounds by increasing police budgets nationwide and even helping to build cop cities and expanding surveillance now!

The fact that the Democrats are less rabid than the Republicans does not make them easier enemies to deal with, but more dangerous. They have more patience and play the long game.

You don’t have a democracy that can be ended. You haven’t had one from the beginning of your republic. America is an aristocracy and anyone deluded enough to believe that it ever had anything approximating a democracy simply hasn’t learnt anything.

I mean, given how far revolutionary socialist movements went, especially in the 20th century, it fucking worked lmao. The ascendant economic and geopolitical power today is ruled by revolutionary socialists. And they achieved turning one of the poorest regions of earth beset by imperial powers on one side and warlords on the other.

If that changes I will be glad to dump them

If genocide doesn’t change the calculus in your mind, then nothing ever will. And genocide is only like the tip of the iceberg in terms of problems with the democratic party.

The Biden admin has single handedly fucked my budget despite me living in europe by bombing the nordstream and the shit they pulled with project Ukraine.

They are actively trying to drag humanity into world war 3 on like 3 different fronts. That’s not getting into the shit the Biden admin is probably pulling in Africa and Latin America (which I am less knowledgeable about).

It’s a lot harder to come up with something better.

We had better options many times in history. They all got shafted by the dems or republicans.

It’s not about defeating the us army lmao. It’s about striking and civil disobedience, even when illegal. That is the basic strategy to win concessions. On a long term basis, there needs to be more pressure on Democrats to maintain standards instead of just electing garbage candidates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis–trans_isomerism

Read this

Some people (I even know one of these types) think “cis” is some kind of slur. It can cause some humorous incidents even, like that time in chemistry class they were forced to use the word cis and trans to describe chemical structures lmao.

There is no such thing as objective morality. One cannot observe that “harmful acts are objectively wrong”. The “wrongness” and “rightness” of an action aren’t observable, measurable or even well defined properties. It is possible to measure the duration of an action, the energy transformations of the action, the location of an action, ect, but not the morality of an action. What units would you even measure it in? Or is morality a dimensionless property?

From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning.

1. Is this objective moral system utilitarian? Deontological? There is no “objective” argument as to why morality should be either.
2. How would your objective moral system weigh against incommensurate harms? Maybe its possible to compare the intensities of 2 different physical pains, but how would you compare physical pain with emotional pain? What about weighing pain between different people?

In this way, ideology can be avoided.

The obsession with being “non-ideological” and reducing everything to base science, also known as “positivism” is also an ideology.

The root problem is never ideology, always material conditions. Ideology arises from material conditions and not the other way around.

Being against “anti-authoritarians” is not the same thing as being “authoritarian” as these categories are not useful in the first place. No marxist considers themselves to be either category.

Authority as indirect or direct force (essentially the engels) argument is the only logical way of definition authority, as the hexbear post argues using the example of the armed mugger. The definition of authority as blind obedience (as defined by the anarchist) is completely flawed in that it doesn’t account for the source of the blind obidelience and isn’t easy to measure.

This is the kind of analysis you get when you have no understanding how organizations work. Mao was not some lone actor who miraculously acquired supreme power, and then starved “half of China” for shits and giggles apparently.

Anyone familiar with the way that Mao operated knows that he made frequent use of the mass line and mass mobilisation. He also made use of the collective leadership of the party, and was often frustrated by their lack of cooperation with him (at one point even threatening to launch a revolution against the party). Even anti-communists who have at least studied China in detail know that the lone dictator nonsense is well, nonsense. It is just great man theory of history. A society is made of many moving parts.

As to the failures of the glf, they were entirely technical. The rush to industrialise in a decentralised manner left agricultural production vulnerable to poor weather conditions. This was compounded with the fact that much of the country at the time had poor transportation and communications, and ruled by corrupt cardie, leading to a disastrous lack of effective coordination across the nation. It is only with higher level organization today that countries can mount effective disaster responses. The glf proves the opposite of your point.

The laws or nature impose required forms of organization upon human society to function. The “double slavery” idea is not some obscure idea. When humans enslave nature to use it for their benefit, nature enslaved humans and imposes specific forms of organisation in turn. The specific form of organization imposed upon a society of large scale industrial producers is large scale centralized organization, in which the will of singular individuals is drowned out.

You are wrong on the factual level.

The role of money in soviet society was always subordinate to material production. Money was necessary only due to the technical limitations of planning a vast economy without sufficient computing power. The sphere of commodity exchange was supressed as much as possible. Much of the soviet citizen’s consumption was either heavily subsidised or free. This went all the way from food, transportation to even fancy entertainment (like spas and theatres). In fact, the heavy distortion of prices in soviet society is often cited as a reason for its eventual collapse.

Therefore, calling the soviet union state capitalist is absurd. Capitalism requires a dominant bourgeois class, the operation of the law of value and the anarchy of production. None of these elements were present in the soviet union.