Lemmywinks

Oh no, some strangers on the Internet have downvoted me, how ever will I cope?

Only one person responded in a meaningful way to anything I said, and even then my point about Russia being a capitalist hellhole was not disputed in any way, which was the only point I was actually really making. Getting dogpiled by a bunch of butthurt fanboys because I ‘insulted’ daddy Putin doesn’t bother me even a tiny little bit.

It was an option, but the fact there’s an article about it suggests he got caught, and I imagine the consequences will be worse than having to attend a work party.

Other options (with consequences of varying severities) include: jumping out of a window; never quiting the job until you die so they can’t throw you any parties; not showing up for the last day of work; telling your colleagues you don’t want a leaving party.

Fyi, playing dumb after getting owned is a quintessential liberal move.

Owned? Oh, I get it, you’re a literal child.

Your friend referenced emojis I’ve never even heard of as thought that somehow rebutted any of my points, which is not how you do discourse. If you want people to take your ideas seriously you need to demonstrate an understanding of those ideas, not resort to school-yard insults.

You seem to believe that communists are forbidden from supporting non-communist things. (I’m not sure demagogue was the right word choice for this. Maybe dogmatist or cultist fits better)

No, but vocally supporting the polar opposite of communism is a strange position for communists to take. (You are correct that demogogue nonsensical word to use, and you used it several times. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they clearly don’t know what point they are even trying to make).

Not only that, you demand communists to stop supporting all non-communist things. Both of these things show your complete maleducation regarding communism.

When did I do that? I’ve been a socialist for decades, it just annoys me when little kids cosplaying as soviets act like they’re the only ones that understand communism, while demonstrating they don’t even know the definitions of the words they are using.

What does that even mean?

deleted by creator

Since when is the WSJ European?

Yes, he uses nationalism to manipulate the masses, but that doesn’t mean he himself believes (and the fact that you bundle white supremacy with nationalism only supports my point that nationalism is a xenophobic ideology).

Is there a particular work of Fanon’s that you would recommend?

Trump isn’t a nationalist though. He is deliberately gutting the United States. The lense of ‘nation vs nation’ is constantly promoted to us through capitalist mass media because seeing the world in this way prevents us from effectively fighting for our own interests. Divide and conquer, it is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

See, this is the point where you start to deny manifest reality and/or move the goalposts to deny examplles which contradict your claims. Trump first started agitating to end NATO about thirty years ago, immediately after his first business trip to Russia.

Also, these Chilean nationalists that I’m talking about are very much working class people, you can’t suddenly decide that they don’t come from the global south just because that doesn’t fit your narrative - they sure as fuck don’t come from the global north.

Edit to add: as for your statement that ‘Trump’s problems and interests are of American origin’: this habit of viewing the elites through the lense of their national origin is fatally flawed, as the elites themselves do not see the world through this lense. The reason the billionaires are winning the class war is because they are the only ones that are actually fighting it from a class perspective. As I have tried to get across, nationalism only exists to divide and conquer the working classes.

Trump has been an explicit supporter of Russian business interests for a lot longer than he has been involved in politics: this is not a conspiracy theory, or is a statement of fact.

Be wary of making such generalisations about nationalism, even in the global south. Like I said, I have personal experience of Latin American nationalists partaking in racially motivated violence against indigenous people, and so therefore very much opposed to internationalism.

Can you demonstrate any point at which I have promoted liberalism, or any comment in which I have suggested that all communists are demagogues?

Trump definitely has worked towards removing sanctions from Russia, and has several times promoted Russian ‘peace deals’ which would gift them chunks of Ukraine (an imperialist aim of Russia’s). He can’t do literally anything he wants, which is why this hasn’t happened. His reasons for being a Russian ally go back decades to his longstanding business interests, which have been entwined with Russia for decades.

Also, my experience of nationalism in the global south suggests otherwise. Take Latin America, for example: nationalist movements may have been instrumental in developing support for independence from Spain, but actual independence from Spain was won by transnational movements not limited to any one state or ethnic identify. Moreover, the modern day nationalists in each state are basically racist movements which do nothing but undermine working class solidarity (Chilean nationalists, for example, are known to carry out acts of violence against anyone whose skin is dark enough that they might conceivably be Peruvian or Bolivian, despite the fact that this includes many Chileans with indigenous ancestry).

As for Trump, this is just BlueAnon conspiracy theory. Trump is self-interested. If Trump was a Russian ally, Trump would have erased sanctions and forced an end to the Russo-Ukrainian war, would have dissolved NATO already, and more.

But he has tried his hardest to do all of tgose things. The only reason he hasn’t succeeded (yet) is because he isn’t a dictator and so doesn’t have absolute power (again, yet).

The national bourgeoisie are those that are largely constrained within the domestic markets, not international financiers.

The petty bourgeoisie are themselves part of the working class, much as they may deny it.

Nationalism in the imperial core protects imperialism, but national liberation in the global south opposes imperialism. Palestinian nationalism is progressive, as is the nationalism of Burkina Faso, as was Vietnamese and Cuban nationalism. The National liberation movement is a progressive one against imperialism and therefore assists the transition to socialism.

I don’t agree with this at all, ‘nationalist solidarity’ is a trap designed to pervert true class solidarity. The revolution is either international or it is doomed to fail.

I think we basically have to agree to disagree, though I do commend you for taking the time to have an actual discussion, rather than just accusing me of being a liberal and resorting to cheap insults :)

Imperialism is a stage of capitalism, an essential stage in which all capitalists would engage if only given the opportunity: whether they be from America, Russia, Mexico, or even Burkina Faso. Ownership of the means of production (or owing shares in the corporations that own the means of production) is available to capitalists of every nationality.

If Trump isn’t an ally of Russia’s capitalists then why did he declare that Russia posed no cybersecurity threat to the US and then dissolve the wing of the pentagon that worked to counter such a threat.

The idea that denying the fact that the capitalists have no personal belief in nationalism somehow magically negates international solidarity is nonsensical: the truth is that nationalism is just codified xenophobia, and is a tool used by the capitalists (and relentlessly promoted through their mass media empires) in order to divide the workers, this preventing cooperation across national and ethnic ‘borders’.

Edit to add: Russia’s markets were opened to capitalists 35 years ago (which was the point of my original post on this thread), the idea that Russia is somehow separate from the global imperialist program is pure disinformation.

Capitalism is a global movement, the idea that elites of different nation states are ‘at war’ with one another is an illusion designed to keep the masses fighting amongst ourselves rather than against our common enemies: i.e the capitalist class. This has never been more clear than today, with the US president doing everything he can to support his allies in Russia.

I’m the one who’s comment is being replied to, so I’m the one that defined the argument. You’ve got some nerve calling other people stupid 😂

Capitalism and imperialism are essentially the same thing, lack of opportunity for imperialist projects is in no way evidence of opposition to imperialism. If you believe the elites in Russia have any ideological objections to imperialism then I have a bridge to sell you.

Nationalism (like all populist ideologies) exists purely as a means of controlling the masses, the oligarchs who control every capitalist state are interested only in how much money/power they are personally able to amass.

Source?

No, the fact that OP posts about a dozen times per day in outspoken support of Russia is why I accused them of supporting Russia.