Not every war can be compared to WW2.

Russia isn't Nazi Germany, the situation is far more akin to the WW1.

There is nothing funny about the situation.

Ukraine is enacting mass conscription now, is including their medical staff, is trying to make students leave their studies to join up, has expanded conscription to 16 year olds and grandads, and is actively trying to draw in EU/NATO countries in the frey risking all out war (Romania is the latest one).

Shit's absolutely fucked. We are talking hundreds of thousands of casualties, an entire generation of Ukrainian either maimed, dead, or gone from Ukraine out right,mass sweeping liberalization reforms in an already poor as fuck country destroying the few labour rights that existed before the war. Members of pacifist organizations are being put on trial. And that's the state that you libs are defending?

The war is not going well.

And to be clear, neither is it for Russia. Principled communists and anti-war people are being arrested too, and the initial partial mobilization brought people to th front who would rather have not. There is similar repression, and economic hardship to the common people. There also was mass emigration (particularly to Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, and others).

What is it you want really?

Have more common people die for nothing? Escalate things to "deal with Russia" which means inherently an overt NATO/Russia war (which it seems barring the Baltic members, no one wants) inevitably leading to all out nuclear war?

Are you mad?? This isn't a sport's game. Be serious. You are deeply propagandized and itts leading you to deeply irrational positions.

Libya today is a haven for islamic terrorism and slaver markets. Regardless of the "legality" of the NATO (mostly french and US led) intervention, it threw the entire region in outright chaos, and was enormously damaging to the working class of Lybia, but also of the entire fucking Sahel.

No the real answer is these people somehow think their constant egging on escalation instead of some sort of diplomatic resolution, won't eventually lead inevitably to the war escaping its proxy status and evolve into a REAL inter-imperialist direct confrontation with all of what it implies (it implies nukes)

Someone has read Lenin hihi

(Lenin exactly refers to the Belgium question in WW1 in "Socialism and the War")

Exactly this.

Revolutionary defeatism is the name of the word. Those who should be concerned with Russian imperialism must be russian working class people.

We in the west have to fight against our own imperalists. It's very simple and in the end very logical.

The famed counter offensive that western media has now described as incapable because of "ukrainians are too soviet brained" (the racism really did jump out lately), due to it absolutely failing to acheive its stated objectives, and leading to a situation far more reminsicent to WW1 murderous slog, and probably would have been even worse had Ukraine actually applied to a T the nonsense the US and more broadly NATO was telling them to do?

Brother it's been months and we are talking few kms of wins, it's longer than the already absolutely ridiculous Russian assault on Bakhmut, for far less.

It's time to end this shit. A diplomatic resolution is crucial, and in terms of the POV of working class people in the west, we must stop the endless billions sent to maintain a steady flow of ukraiian and russian soldiers to the meat grinder, particularly given our own issues.

You debatebroed the debate bro with actual fact and logics, holy hell

(notice how they haven't responded after lol)

lmao sorry I missed it, the full version is way better

"nerves kicking in?" bouhahahaha

I think it might be this https://twitter.com/heelvsbabyface/status/1698457945711739062

Guy is an immense fucking baby

Oh I trust Dodi too, and from what I gather a lot of fitgirl's repacks are from them, but she has a knack in really lowering the download weight of the files.

I'm runnng BG3 at the lowest of the lowest lmao so I'd rather save some bandwidth with her eventual repack in the case its unplayable on my laptop, less costly.

soup it is then :D

Easy mushroom soup with green beans, sauted tofu, red-eye chilis, and baguette toasts

Or (less easy) garlicy cherry tomato pasta with a vegetarian bolognese ?

If it can weight the judgement its currently 14 degrees celcius)

I'm waiting until Fitgirl ngl, and even then I'll have to purge half my hard drive presumably :/

I'll first continue BG3 and maybe consider trying Starfield, tbh not even sure I can run it at all

Yo-ho-ho it's a pirate life for meeee

Just had an honestly really nice interaction with a non hexbear user on the question of theory, marxism, and imperialism and it feels nice !

No worries at all, it's really my pleasure. As you said, establishing nonemclature within its theoretical and academic context really goes a long way, otherwise it's super easy to find oneself in a "dialogue amongst deafs`" (idk if it makes sense, it's a saying in my first language), and everyone speaks past each other while assuming the worst from one another.

Really happy to hear that other hexbear users were patient too, and I hope you get to brush up on your Marx notes (and include the Lenin texts I linked you, being serious they are very important, Marx only ever alluded to what Lenin ended up theorizing about !)

I am referring to the Marxist-Leninist definition of the term, see these two texts: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ and https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/index.htm

To be clear its not some cooky ideologically driven fantasy, the marxist analysis of imperialism and subsequent impacts on geopolitical and international political analysis is a well recognized analytical and theoretical model in IR theory.

From that perspective "imperialism" does not predate capitalism. It does not refer to "empires" in the vague sense of "Roman Empire, French empire, etc". The mechanics are vastly different. Aggressive expansion of feudal states in europe and their colonial expansion around the world (funnily enough that second one directly fueling feudalism's demise, serving as the "primitive accumulation of capital" that allowed the emergent bourgeois class to gain gradual economic hegemony, and eventual state hegemony) is not the same as the form of imperialism that emerges out of the most "advanced" expression of capitalism). It's understood as the monopoly stage of capital wherein bank and industrial capital merge, forming large scale monopolies, seeking new markets, and leading the state to engage in imperial plunder of less economically advanced states, and direct confrontation with other imperialist entities.

Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an "invention" nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the "word" for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).

Yes it would be. A very strong argument can be made that Russia fits to a T the 5 conditions to be imperialist as set by Lenin. To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it's an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.

I would argue that while the thesis "the war in Ukraine is a provoked (by the west) interimperialist confrontation", holds a lot of merit, it does fail to account sufficiently for the extent this war was provoked, for the remaining fact the western imperialist alliances and particularly the US, remain hegemonic af, and for the more minute analysis of the Russian economy. That being said, if Russia isn't an imperialist state, it is at the very least an aspiring-imperialist one (and in certain regions very much already acts as one).

Regardless these two variations of analysis are FAR more accurate than those which aim to posit Russia as ANTI imperialist somehow, that one is just caricatural campist nonsense that isn't rooten in an honest materialist analysis, and which echo a lot the (erroneous) thesis of "super-imperialism" that Kautsky put forward.

In all the above this doesn't change the role of communists in the west tho: revolutionary defeatism, fight our own imperialists. It does raise question about those who go further and give concrete support towards Russia (an IMO very damaging position that harms anti-imperialist organizing here), and it does change the attitude for say, Russian and Ukrainian communists ought to have with regards to the war ( attitude being a choice between revolutionary defeatism or critical support).

Umm okay?

What tankie tears are you referring to? This entire post is everyone joking around and generally not giving a FUCK that a PMC far right oligarch got got.

Also you ARE aware that the vast majority of communist parties are not pro-Russia whatsoever right? That the "critical support to Russia" people are ultra minoritarian in the world communist movement, whereas the majority condemns BOTH NATO's role since 2014 (and prior) in precipating the situation leading to the Russian invasion, AND Russia for well, invading? Some even saying this war is one of inter-imperialist competition or close to one? That there is no good side but that of seeking peace asap for the sake of the working class, given the possibility of turning this bourgeois war into a revolutionary class war in both Ukraine, Russia, and the west is impossible atm?

Slava Ukraini! Slava NATO!

Deeply embarassing behavior. It's a war dude, not a sport match.