The one US politician that tries to be decent on the most obvious international issue is the opposite way in the neighboring country, but the suffering of the Syrian people isn’t as televised (not that the media wants to show Palestinians suffering, but they are forced to by grassroots pressure).
Fascism’s not that different from liberalism, so it doesn’t matter too much, but he does endorse “great replacement theory” among other fascist talking points.
Critical support doesn’t mean we should go join Russia as mercenaries and spend all our days being obnoxious on their behalf like some “MLs” do. What is means is that we recognize the role Russia and China are playing in challenging unipolar dominance and try to be pragmatic, using whatever progressive force to our advantage. In the west there isn’t that much we can do towards revolution besides try to plant seeds in the intelligent and oppressed people around us. What we can do even better in the interests of the international oppressed is to support groups fighting imperialist hegemony. That means Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba and so on solidarity. Who is helping these countries the most at the moment? Progressive but non-socialist countries like Iran and Russia. Russia intervened on behalf of the anti-colonial socdems of both Venezuela and Syria. All these countries are building the foundations global economy that doesn’t rely on the west. That is why we must critically support them. Revolutions happen at the weakest chains of imperialism, so we should weaken all the chains we can.
Silly Demoncracy, the government doesn’t care about effectiveness and smoothness or keeping the deficit in check, it exists to protect private property.
I’ve read imperialism and know the gist of WWI. I don’t imagine Russia is benevolent or anything. My understanding is that it, as a minor power defended its interests against the fascists who control the world. I know I’ve heard a thorough debunking of the imperialism argument, but I’ll see what I can do here.
For the first part, do you think China’s imperialist because they meet your same standard? https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/china-imperialist If China’s as non-interventionist and anti-hegemonic as they proclaim and is shown by fact, then why would they allow their ally to become the opposite?
Maybe Russia would like to do imperialism if it had the chance, but right now it is on the side of the colonized fighting against the greatest hegemon.
The main goal of the SMO as far as I can tell was to avoid having a fascist NATO puppet that could get nukes right on the border.
In terms of foreign involvement, the west is at least a hundred times as bad.
Didn’t Lenin advocate revolutionary defeatism? As most of us our westerners we should hope that the bloody states we live under should be defeated by Russia in order to help the liberatory movements of us and others under the boot of US and euro imperialism.
Ask yourself who benefits if each side wins. If the US can beat Russia through its Ukrainian proxy it will be emboldened to take China and other anti-imperialist countries. It will carve them up giving decades to their brutal imperialist system. If Russia beats Ukraine the west will have wasted a lot of resources. The west will be shown to be even weaker than they seemed. Their imperialist system will continue to crumble while the global south has a chance to breath free while they develop in a multipolar world.
Edit: also, “they’d be doing even eviler things if they had power instead of the people who do” is not a good argument. It’s the same as “white genocide” people use. The US can only be the hegemon because had the most beneficial outcome from WWII and the old European empires passed the reins to them.
argument that there are too few children for adoption
That’s an insane problem to have. Mfs like “I want my own physical being to take care of and put tons of effort into in addition to my work.” This problem calls for less traditional family norms, not more. Have these revisionists not even read the manifesto?
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family!
Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
-Karl Marx
Earlier he notes:
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
Your Greek opportunists do not understand that we are trying to move past capitalism, not to revert to earlier relations.
One more thing. I’m sure one of the worries is the “demographic crisis.” The solution they should be putting forward is making the bourgeoisie lower the cost of living. Criminalizing gay people isn’t going to make them be straight and have kids.
All I know about them is Rainer Shea was using them as a proxy to shit on PSL.