i mean if we only disagree on whether a hypothetical communists society in the future could actually abolish authority altogether, then whatever i welcome them they are still wrong but i dont mind. But generally anarchist on the anglosphere internet means radlib who buys into all the western propaganda about socialist countries but still want to be leftists and these types can fuck off, to somewhere where they can read a book.

yep and the current leader admitted to having had something to with it (prolly planed it) on an interview in tv and no one seems to give a shit especially not the pigs.

could have just said "so a slave should not have complained about his conditions because he ate his masters food and worked for him?" or pointed out that everything they have is made in China and everything they wear in Vietnam

support how? like is your org gonna raise money and donate? would that even make a difference? or are u asking if u should be happy for their victories or not give a shit? if u cant do much u probably shouldn't think about it too much, either way just look at what they are upto and decide in a per case basis, that the only thing u can do.

i would prefer socialism u know equality for all not a this messed up changing of the guard shit. i dont want a world where different people are on top i want one where no one is, and if people like that asshole want whites to be an underclass what prevents latino and black people from being next fuck that, this shit sucks but what the fuck is the point of having a "revolution" just to be in the same shit again but with different people at the top.

im not just a by stander because while im not american i live in this shithole and idk if i get to be a citizen in your particular flavor of dystopia as it stands im fucked but im certainly not gonna support a revolution to then also be fucked at the end of it, if its people like u or capitalists, i guess im a splitter but i would much rather just a revolution led by leftists. and two because and maybe its just me but if something is morally wrong then idk im against it.

idk where this magical coalition is at, i certainly i havent seen it around and if u want indigenous supremacy (which if it is according to you their land and therefore they should rule it u clearly do) then i dont see why such a coalition would ever form.

and what makes it their land, who lives where thru out the world has been ever changing why is the rightful snapshot of territory that most be preserved for eternity 1 second before the whites arrived why not a little earlier why not a little later u makes these statements as if they are simply fact but they arent, why should land belong to whoever happen to be living at any one place 400 years ago

yes things are nuanced no socialists country is without blame or a history of sometimes very serious errors and mistakes. but that point is sorta irrelevant socialists countries have historically treated their people and had foreign policy which was so much better than capitalists countries that this nuance mean nothing like china gave the death penalty to a few people who probably didnt deserve it, the west colonized Africa and murdered like half the people living there. China soft censors biased western sources the usa spends billions on non stop propaganda across the entire world. the USSR supported some revolutionaries across the world (which i dont think is bad but its still meddling in other countries) the usa has invaded almost every country on earth tried to overthrow governments in other countries hundreds of times in the past century. there justs isnt a point of comparison here the west is so fucking bad that the things which socialists countries do wrong or we dont like just dont matter atleast not when talking to libs its certainly worth knowing and acknowledging their mistakes but if the question is "AES or the west" the answer isnt "both bad" its "west bad".

1 seem like u are calling me white/american which frankly disrespectful. and 2 all that says is the corporations and rich people need to own a lot less land (non to exact) but it says nothing about the ability of opressed peoples to take and occupy that land u have been saying this statistic as if its prove indigenous people can take on the capitalists state but it just doesnt if 60% of the people in the usa can occupy only 25% of the land what makes u think less than that can occupy 75% of it. also why should a small minority of people control the majority of the land thats like the whole thing that we are against here.

by what metric could u say that 60% people occupy 25% of the land cuz if its 25% of all land then thats kinda stupid like who cares what matters is what percentage of accupiable or worthwhile to occupy land they occupy like who cares if whites dont live on the mountains or in the middle of a forest almost no one lives there or is going to live there. like the other 75% of land isnt occupied by oppressed peoples its mostly not occupied at all and opressed people almost certainly occupy less land than white people because 1 they are just less and 2 most white people live in fucking suburbs why is about as inefficient as land use gets

what makes anyones claim to land legitimate? imma be real with u i dont think people who lived somewhere 200+ years ago have a more legitimate claim to a place than whoever lives there right now

i find it interesting that u fixate so much on the idea that americans benefit from imperialism which is true compared to non americans but i think its worth asking if most americans get more out of the systems than they are required to give to it, probably not. Either way whats really interesting is that u are absolutely convinced that poor/working class americans CAN NOT be radicalized atleast not in numbers because they have this privileged position but all people who live in the usa enjoy a privileged position compared to the global south, for example latin american people in the usa have a median income of around 35k whereas the same people earn 6 times less just across the border in Mexico and even less in other parts of latin america, same thing with black people the usa and africa or indigenous people in the usa and south america.

so then question is if white people can not be radicalize because of their benefiting from imperialism can other peoples? and if they can why not white people and what of asian people who are even more privileged than whites in the west but generally oppressed outside of the west. I just dont think that there is as little potential as u think in whites and that "anti colonial" struggles are not necessary anti capitalist or even anti imperialist