Industrializing without help from already industrialized nations tends to be messy and horrendous for the environment! Who would’ve guessed? Its not like the country that’s been developing the most green infrastructure, energy, and industry is socialist or anything.

If I ever write a fantasy book (no thanks) this is how magic is going to work.

What all of the wonders of modern technology and none of the “efficiency” of capitalism does to a mf

If history ever ends before heat death, something has gone horribly wrong.

Ok. What have you done to weaken US hegemony, then? If we don’t need Russia surely there is a much better marxist alternative already militarily weakening the US, right? Because if so I’m happy to drop all support for Putin.

I would absolutely love it if the communist party of russia (putin’s only relevant opposition) managed to pull off a coup, but until that happens we work with what we got.

Sanctions don’t hurt dictators, only people. This only makes a country’s population like their dictator more than the US.

It’s not that China’s living in the future; the US/Canada/Europe/etc are stuck in the past.

Or at the very least Asian-Americans should start arming themselves. Escaping America is not always an option.

They literally waltz in here, call us bots, and then proceed to act exactly like a bot would. 5 year old behaviour.

Are you literate? How old are you?

You’re a really good example of this statistic. Literally every time a lib can’t make an argument they resort to calling anyone who disagrees with them bots, paid actors, or propagandized with no self awareness whatsoever. It’s really funny.

The USA has global hegemony right now, while Russia doesn’t have the economic capacity to be a hegemon. The USA has been bombing and destroying countries for its entire existence and is currently using Ukraine to try to do the same to Russia. It is powerful enough and dangerous enough that nearly any action that opposes US hegemony is a good thing for the rest of the planet. It’s already caused enough damage that it is now fundamentally an existential threat to humanity.

In this lens, who does it make sense to support? Russia, who has repeatedly asked NATO to not expand eastwards after its application to join NATO twice got rejected, or Ukraine, who had a US-backed coup back in 2014 that was unpopular enough that Crimea and the Donbass voted to leave Ukraine? A coup that replaced the democratically elected pro-Russian government with an anti-Russian one who has been shelling the Donbass for almost a decade. The Ukraine border is geographically the hardest for Russia to defend (which is why they aren’t particularly worried about Finland joining NATO), a weakness exploited by Operation Barbarossa. Which side has Azov again?

We support Russia because we support any and all actions that bring an end to the war in the Donbass as soon as possible. We support them because it was Ukraine who violated the Minsk agreements, proving that they can’t be trusted to not push into Russia and extend its shelling of russian-speakers in the Donbass into the entirety of Russia as soon as they somehow won against Russia. More importantly, Russia losing would mean it at best becoming a puppet state to the US and at worse being balkanized. Both outcomes would be objectively bad for China and every country that currently depends on Russia to resist US aggression (Cuba, Iran, Syria, everyone currently being sanctioned etc.).

We don’t support Russia because we think it’s good or is a worker’s paradise. We support it because supporting US-backed Ukraine is objectively the wrong position to take. You can’t ignore a nation’s national security concerns and not expect them to react violently when said concerns are violated.

deleted by creator

Literally always have.

IK, I just thought it’d be funny and was making a joke. I’ll put /s, sorry 'bout that.

Lemmy = Minecraft 2???🤔🤔🤔

Extremely important: teach them the word “tankie”. Once they start using it the exact same way “leftists” use it the “leftists” will literally shit themselves, cry, and then be forced to spend a few years inventing a new word for anyone they find insufferable.

Once they invent another word, we can teach that to the right too. Rinse and repeat and the “leftists” and right will be too busy fighting each other to fight us.

Edit: /s

Accusing our opponents of being liberals is something we are already proficient at. It’s not our fault if they have never read a dictionary and don’t realize we’re talking about something different to what they are.

I don’t think they will try something like nuclear war, not even the MIC can profit off a nuclear wasteland. Nukes will likely be their very last resort. All we need to do is be not stupid, not corner the nuclear armed wild animal, and ensure that they understand that surrendering to socialist revolution is an option. We’re going to have to work with the bourgeoisie to re-industrialize the US and Canada anyways so we just need to get them to understand that before they nuke the world out of spite (“I’m gonna die anyways, why not go out in a blaze of ‘glory’?”).

I don’t even think WW3 would go nuclear. China and Russia combined have the industrial capacity to sustain a war against the US and NATO for at least a decade, so all they’d need to do is not lose long enough for revolution to come to the core. Not win, because the US would certainly go nuclear if they were threatened existentially, just not lose.

Perhaps the American Revolution/Second Civil War/whatever would in the first few years take control of vast parts of the US (maybe Canada too), and then there could be a long ‘detente’ of sorts to prevent the bourgeoisie from nuking everything. Along with this ‘Cold Civil War’ the American revolutionaries could make something similar to the NEP or SWCC to slowly bring the bourgeoisie to their side. Eventually the remains of the US would collapse by itself. When this happens the bourgeoisie will be left with a choice: nuke everything and try to profit inside a bunker, or profit inside a far more stable socialist economy?

I doubt thinks will play out anything like in the above paragraph, I am not educated enough to predict the course of a revolution or the conditions in place when in happens, but the things to note is that: 1. it is possible for the US to be destroyed without the US nuking everything even if WW3 starts, 2. this is likely only possible with a strong socialist movement, 3. revolution in a nuclear armed country will require a radically different approach to all previous revolutions, and 4. we must start seriously considering how to have a revolution inside a nuclear armed power both during WW3 and if WW3 doesn’t happen. We should also probably consider how to revolt in an openly fascist Nazi Germany style state.

Things would be much easier if the UK, France, or Israel have a revolution before the US does, because then we’d have a chance to test various approaches and study them. Israel in particular is ideal as the conditions in the US are more similar to Israel than the UK and France, while not having anywhere near the number of nukes that UK/US/France have.

Of course everything would be much easier if China or Russia found a way to disable the US’s nuclear arsenal (how detectable are hypersonic missiles? is it possible to make them completely undetectable? do China or Russia know where all the nukes are? could a electronic attack (emp or computer virus) disable their arsenal?), because that would simplify things to being a standard socialist revolution instead of one in a paranoid nuclear power. We must operate under the assumption that this will not be the case though.

If the US starts lynching its own children then it has no future.