Dolores [love/loves] @ Dolores @hexbear.net

![amerikkka](https://www.hexbear.net/pictrs/image/6dedb145-206a-4b35-ab5e-c

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

133

Joined

3 yr. ago

Say, what would the data show if we measured cumulatively instead of pretending history began in the 1990s?

46% of s. Koreans support unification versus 26% against, the United States constitutes the single greatest obstacle to this & Korean soverignty

military presence in the country is pretty different from occupation

45 fucking years the US propped up, armed, and aided the dictatorial rule of conservative and military governments in South Korea. South Korea's army still comes under US control in wartime, but sure 2 decades of just mostly corrupt "democracy" means they can just opt-out of US military garrisons. nothing bad would happen to the government that demands that, no matter how popular it is with the Korean people

if you're not willing to concede anything

the US won't concede basic demands like moving their troops off the border! fucking ridiculous equating Korea's refusal to expose itself to attack with US bases thousands of miles away from the US

chronic food shortage stricken, ostracized

i wonder why a country under economic sanction from the US & its allies for decades might have economic trouble. i wonder why they're rude to the US after the US bombed and murdered their people for 3 years & still occupy the southern half of their country

they'll sell us the rope and so on,

people's republic of california is coming

they were nationalists, their national interests were incompatible, they fought.

i don't get why this trips communists up so bad that different anticommunists subscribing to nationalist ideologies fundamentally couldn't work together against communism, because their nations had competing claims, grudges, and interests

this is something i'm quite convinced you'll never produce a consensus on except in the most particular of crowds.

"work in nonconsensual, sexwork cannot be consensual" is a fairly impenetrable logic, and people decide from that from sexwork must be illegal because nonconsensual sex is wrong.

or you can separate an economic imperative a bit from sexual consent and concede that reality doesn't align perfectly with what we'd like. i'd never tell someone who believes their sexwork to be consensual that it actually wasn't because of the abstract construction of the economy, myself. i also won't advocate for hounding people selling sex with cops, even if they're Good Socialist Cops. if things are ever so good that sexwork need not exist, i don't think there'd be any reason to criminalize it, because nobody would partake. it was an exercise in obscene idealism for the Soviet Union to pretend prostitution couldn't exist so long as deficiencies existed in the economy, and it will continue to be until a socialist economy makes the fulfillment of everyone's needs a reality

"i put gas in my car, i support oil spills!"

in places like California

so a government can run a DMV well? if such a thing is specific to some places and not others, you cannot make it a general rule, can you?

government businesses like the DMV

the DMV is not a business.

the "Soviets were going to attack" defense for the nazis is just a nazi lie. but what i want to know is why would that fucking matter to anyone discussing this now? only a nazi defends the concept of nazi "self-defense" in the knowledge that all europe, soon the americas, and the soviet union all fought these guys while the nazis were committing the worst atrocities in history. if the soviets entered the war earlier it would've been a good thing.

but to be clear the lack of military preparedness on the border, besides disproving allegations of invasion-preparation, is one of the chief military blunders of the 20th century. there really is no excuse for so many soldiers and equipment (and it wasn't that antique or terrible equipment, the germans were running a lot of older shit too) to be lost so quickly, through the failure to deny german intelligence and initiative.

i thought it was well known small scale imsurgency continued years after the civil war officially ended in central asia? i mean obviously the new nationalists wanted to make them martyrs but i don't buy it being surprising or particularly secret lol

white folks who have had their brains rewired to justify the genocidal histories of their peoples always think genocide is the default, against all fucking evidence

can't blame Israel

i most certainly can. the instigator of violence always has the option to not continue and to make reparations. israelis are only targets for violence so long as they make life intolerable for palestinians.

executing a coup d'etat in 1976 and just sitting on my thumb for 4 years until i become leader

in westminster parliamentary procedure, when there is a disagreement the two partisan groups get together and competitively row in a race up the Thames, winner taking the victorious position on the matter.

the article would imbue it with sentiments about government confidence and legitimacy. since it's France (ignore the enormous popular uprisings against this government in recent years) it's simple a 'political row' unrelated to the things people have been violently complaining about for years

the problem is not ignoring anti-communist motivations from 1917, it's you not understanding that those interests got contradicted and disrupted by ww2.

the US arming, assisting, and requesting the Soviet entry against Japan makes no sense when you're trying to analyze this through the lense of future Korean war. why the fuck would they do that? why did the US give the Soviets any resources at any point if the goal of them fighting the nazis was entirely because they were losing to the Soviets? if these stated motivations exist, why would these events have taken place?