That the rate of exploitation is higher in the West? That’s his argument against unequal exchange, it was some YT video but I can’t watch YT right now, away from home.

He also repeatedly calls sex workers “wh___s” in his writings. And argues that Western workers are exploited to a higher rate than those in the global South.

you asked “What does this add to discussion?” what discussion? it’s just a meme.

of course China under the CPC is the most peaceful powerful nation in history and USA is the most warlike but that AI pic made my stomach turn so I commented on that

it’s just a meme

did it have to be AI slop tho

It seems to show UK with another public holiday which falls on the 1st of May but that’s incorrect, there’s a public holiday which falls on the first Monday of May, e.g. this year it’s tomorrow on the 4th of May, 1st of May was a regular working day.

UK doesn’t celebrate it either

Those “principles” are more fascist than what the current wave of far right Western parties are proposing. I used to think CPRF is controlled opposition, now I think they are “national socialist”, thank you for educating me.

I read the posts you linked and they literally propagate the replacement theory, e.g. this critique of the govt migration policy:

Let’s take, for example, the demographic strategy. The situation is catastrophic: there is a brazen replacement of the Russian and other indigenous peoples of our country. Yet even in the long term, the document does not set the goal of achieving even a simple restoration of the native population. How can something like this be written?

Or take the term “the supporting role of migration.” In developing the new concept, the authorities speak of restrictions, so that migrants come without their families. It seems, on the face of it, correct.

Just to add in case it’s interesting: you can’t compare modern US soldiers to early 20th century Russian soldiers. In the Russian Empire, soldiers were drafted against their will. There was a long tradition of avoiding draft, sometimes men from a village would hide in a forest, secretly supported by their families until the drafters leave the area. Service was extremely long, 25 years in the 19th century (although much shorter in the 20th). The service could take you anywhere in the Russian Empire which was huge with virtually no roads or transport connecting many areas. You could be discharged anywhere, thousands of miles from home, without money or means of getting back to your family. Many settled where they were discharged, others walked home, surviving by doing odd jobs on the way - this could take years due to having to take up work on the way, mountain ridges inaccessible in winter, etc. A soldier walking home was one of archetypes of Russian folklore - by the way, in Russian folklore the Kulak and the Priest were greedy villains oppressing the villages while the traveling soldier was the hero, using his cunning and wit to scam the greedy rich out of things he needed to get by. In the revolution, soldiers were the backbone along with the workers and the peasants, with revolutionary Soviets organised in factories, villages, and army units. Russian soldiers did not demand a thank you for their service, they rebelled and dismantled capitalism.

Edit: a classic tale every Russian child knew: https://detskie-skazki.com/en/russian-fairy-tales/porridge-from-an-axe.html

Same as when Assad got replaced by a literal ISIS leader. If Putin got replaced by that nazi Navalny they would also be celebrating “the defeat of fascism”. I also remember very well how libs celebrated the fascist coup in Ukraine. It’s the same story every time.

How did you outgrow her? She’s a great journalist doing very important work.

I’m not an anarchist, but a lot of people here are misrepresenting anarchism. Anarchists don’t reject coordination or planning, only hierarchical state control. Large infrastructure would be built by federated councils, unions, and communes, with common plans and technical bodies coordinated by accountable, recallable delegates. Central coordination without a state hierarchy is entirely possible.

My disagreement with anarchism is different: I think only a state with a strong coercive apparatus can survive sustained imperial pressure and capitalist encirclement.

“Everyone should do as they please” is such entitled bullshit.

People were provided homes, jobs, education, healthcare, maternal leave, holidays for children in pioneer camps, and so on and forth, in a poor country that didn’t benefit from imperialism and didn’t exploit other nations.

To achieve that, able-bodied people were expected to contribute and parasitism was not tolerated.

(Edit) You probably grew up in a capitalist society so maybe you just have trouble imagining a different one.

Under capitalism, the most vulnerable people end up homeless and unemployed, but in the USSR nobody was left behind, vulnerable people were provided homes and given jobs they were able to perform. People with mental health issues were treated, as a matter of fact Western propaganda painted the high number of hospitalised people as an example of how repressive USSR is, instead of recognising that in the West many of those people would be homeless, freezing to death in winter and suffering all kinds of abuse.

Hospitalisation was not the first thing to do either - USSR had a huge “sanatorium” industry, with entire towns built in beautiful locations like seaside, mountain ranges, etc. Workers who were suffering from stress, anxiety etc would be sent there by their doctors to rest and rehabilitate from entire USSR in hundreds of thousands - someting only the rich could afford in the West at the time. Of course now those huge sanatorium complexes are mostly empty ruins, one of the most striking examples is Tskhaltubo in Georgia (https://wander-lush.org/visit-tskaltubo-travel-guide-tips/)

If people were unhappy with their housing situation they could apply to change it and enter a queue for a new accomodation, similarly those unhappy with their jobs had all kinds of free evening education courses available, re-training schemes, and so forth.

Laws against vagrancy and parasitism didn’t victimise the vulnerable, rather they existed to control the criminality. If you didn’t work legally, where were you getting money from? If you didn’t live under your registered address, how did you get an unregistered accomodation?

What do you mean “still”, of course that’s a good thing.

Unironically, being homeless or unemployed was illegal in the USSR, everyone was provided with a place to live and a job and if you instead chose vagrancy or parasitism you could serve time.