Camarada Forte @ felipeforte @lemmygrad.ml

Forward, comrade!

---

Read more

Posts

21

Comments

13

Joined

6 yr. ago

Moderating

---

If anything, the focus of the NYT was to divide people on the matters of race in response to the protests. I think it's interesting to correlate this with the Wall Street protests.

It would make sense if you linked Hexbear in a post specifically about Hexbear.

It doesn't make sense to link to a Hexbear post if you can very well repost the image here.

Let's wait until Hexbear and Lemmygrad are federated so we can interact between each other

I don't usually drink alcohol and I agree it's very harmful to your health, including your neurological health. Also this was 3 years ago lol

no, too much shitposting, pls shitpost less

but at the end of the day Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, isn’t it?

Yes, the Russian side is the aggressor in the case of the invasion. In the case of war, which began in 2014, the US/NATO are the aggressors, there can be no doubt about it. They actively supported the rise of a neo-nazi government which was storing missiles in the border of Russia, building a puppet state controlled by nations which has been actively hostile towards Russia for decades. Russia could've not attacked in the name of its moral and it could have been later attacked by a much stronger Ukrainian army and the media would've portrayed Russia as an aggressor anyways. What would have been the point?

Like I don’t want to see Ukranian and Russian citizens to go through the destruction and devastation that war brings. You feel me?

No one likes war. Perhaps the arms industry like wars very much. But for us, war is a brutal and horrible thing. The amount of suffering caused by wars stays for generations, it's a tragedy that should be avoided at all costs. In the face of an existential threat, what should a nation do? No one likes wars, but they have existed throughout all history. So what is left is to understand why wars happen. I also don't want Russians and Ukrainians to fight in a war which is not in the interests of anyone, except US/NATO. Which is exactly why we should denounce the US/NATO side because they are the real causes of the war in Ukraine. So I channel my indignation towards the US/NATO side, not Russia, like some Western Marxists have been doing.

it doesn’t prove or disprove the “Russia is imperialist” side of the argument.

The character of the Russian economy is irrelevant to the question of the character of the war. Irrespective of the imperialist features of the Russian economy, whether it was a socialist or a imperialist capitalist nation in the place of Russia, this war would be justified given the historical context.

Now, as soon as the war becomes a war of plunder, then we should definitely object to it. But as far as the interests of the Russian state, government and bourgeoisie goes, there is certainly interest from Russian imperialists involved, but they have not been the determinant force. There are Russian capitalists who have something to earn through this war. Irrespective of those, it's also in the interests of the Russian people and the peoples of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts to stop aggression of NATO against Eastern Europe.

Lenin's theory of imperialism is very important in delineating a form of capital accumulation and exploitation unknown at the time. But more than a hundred years ago these ideas were discussed. Both our collective knowledge of the new forms of imperialism has expanded as well as our collective ignorance about it. One important contribution was Wallerstein's work about the world-system, how early capitalist accumulation began in early 1500's through colonization, and a world-market was established since then. This was already the beginning of imperialism, it was just something we were unaware of in literature since Lenin (or more precisely since Hobson). This movement of imperialist extraction of surplus value from periphery countries through debts, control of shares, lobbying, and outright colonization and wars, was the historical background of North Atlantic countries, which the majority of countries in the world are themselves are victims of it.

Purely through Lenin's definition of imperialism, you can be inclined to consider Brazil an imperialist nation. It has monopolies and banks playing a huge a part in economic life, a financial oligarchy, export of capital, and everything. These qualities do not help us consider the role Brazil plays in the world-market, as a dependent capitalist state with very low economic complexity and over-exploitation of workers, as well as subordination to an international division of labor which pressures the country in producing and exporting food and iron among other mineral resources. By looking at its economy in isolation, you might conclude Brazil is an imperialist country, which would help us understand some immediate aspects of our economy, but how does Brazil relate in the world-market becomes obscure.

The same goes for Russia, you might be inclined to conclude it is an imperialist country, and you'll be right. However, this does not explain the peculiarities of Russia or ex-Soviet countries in general, neither is revealing of this war in my opinion. Ex-Soviet economies have a different historical background and their role in geopolitics is still very abstract, but Russia's intervention, the subsequent abandonment of the dollar and the slow reorganization of world economies has been positive outcomes as a consequence of this war, at least in geopolitical aspects.

I also don’t think categorizing the conflict as inter-imperialist would make a ‘both-sides equal’ argument, because, again, imperialism in the Marxist sense isn’t really a normative term and not derogatory, but a technical descriptor.

I agree, you would be technically right, but it wouldn't actually capture the essence of the war. "Inter-imperialist" conflict gives the idea both sides are fighting because they are imperialist and they are driven by an imperialist drive. But this is not the main motivation of the Russian state, even if a handful of bourgeois elements might directly benefit from this war. But is nothing compared to the bloodthirsty profits of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. This war is nothing like the WWI which Lenin described as inter-imperialist wars, the demands of the Russian state are extremely reasonable whether they are imperialist or not.

I ultimately don’t think it really matters all that much either to communists outside of Ukraine and Russia. Communists in the US, Germany or wherever have to fight their domestic class antagonist. Liebknecht’s parole is applicable as ever - Der Hauptfeind steht im eigenen Land! The main enemy is at home!

I couldn't agree more, comrade! Thank you for that comment. It's true, our true enemy is our internal bourgeoisie. It's okay to discuss these subjects as long as it does not distract us from our immediate concrete struggles. But we should not close our eyes to the world, too. We should understand the external international relations between countries so that we know how to position ourselves in face of similar problems. In some cases, there is no contradiction between external affairs and internal enemies. If you live in the US, for instance, to promote awareness and try to influence public opinion on the role of US and NATO in the war on Ukraine, give them a more accurate picture, is to slowly undermine the moral for continuation of this war.

But again, I agree with you, we should focus on our internal problems as communists and focus on building our revolution. But since this is an instance with people from all over, I don't think the majority of people would be interested, say, in the internal politics of Brazil. So we tend to discuss subjects on the international arena

I like my country, Brazil. I am attached to my people and my culture, I prefer to live and die struggling for socialism here

BUT, since this is an exercise in fantasy, I would choose post WWII Soviet Union

Communists these days are younger and younger

I'd say the main quality of your character would have to be that they are stubborn. In jail, Lenin would write using milk or lemon written iirc in toilet paper, which would reveal only when the paper was heated

Also, no idea why you or your DM chose a fourteen year old girl to roleplay as. That's an odd choice lol

At Engels' time, rural communities were largely peasants who produced for themselves and sold the excess. This condition is largely shared through family, in which the children inherit from their parents, and it's still the case for many rural communities nowadays, but not all.

Ending the contradiction between rural and urban populations, as I see it, means decentralizing the production of food from rural areas, and improving the livelihood and conditions of the rural population so that they have similar opportunities to the urban population

Social-democrats will say anything to justify doing nothing for the revolution of their countries

Yes, and every communist able to do so should have kids because you have the opportunity to educate your children so that they question the world around them. We should reproduce our ideas through all means, because our fight is for the future of humanity, so having/adopting children is not only ethical, but in my view a duty as a communist

This may be interesting:

This is the comment section shown to me logged off from Twitter:
\

This is the comment section "tailored for me" by Twitter's algorithm:
\

Interesting, isn't it?