Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Why would any state be concerned about casus beli (FYI you keep misspelling it) when the big dog in the room doesn’t give a shit?

Because international politics is still politics. Your argument doesn’t make sense in the same way that “Iran’s only goal ever is to wipe Israel off the map and if we don’t do something right now they’ll do it tomorrow” doesn’t make sense. It’s because every country weighs the risks and consequences of an action. These things matter in as much as the reaction to them by other states. That’s literally the lynch pin of international law. There is no big mommy, the only potential mommy is a complex calculus of geopolitics.

You’re arguing international law like we’re in some kind of 4X.

If you don’t understand that’s what Russia (and Kuchinich) is also doing and from a point of realpolitik rather than international law then this conversation is pointless. I did not drag us to this crossroads. I merely saw some people yelling and decided to join in the fun.

If the problem Russia has is that it feels NATO is attacking it, then in reality Russia has no real leg to stand on, because it’s complaints are “this is a shadow war”, and a rectification of that is to just make it into a real war. They’re pushing an issue they would heavily stand to lose in if they actually believed it was a real issue.

To rephrase Russia is only making the case that NATO is being unfair by playing in the shadows because it has extreme certainty that NATO is not going to enter the war over Ukraine, and it also knows that the Russian escalation that they are threatening would change that calculus for all NATO countries overnight. Also the situation that they themselves would use that escalation in, isn’t happening and is not going to happen unless NATO heavily joins the war and digs into Russian territory. So it’s not going to actually make good on its threats.

While I agree that NATO should not provoke Russia, understanding the motives behind these political plays and consequences of what could happen in response shows that Russia itself doesn’t believe this is a provocation. What’s happening right now is there’s 3 kids in a back seat one is 5, one is 12, and one is 16. The 12 year old is beating the shit out of the 5 year old for agreeing with the 16 year old who goaded the 5 year old to do so. The 16 year old is doing the “I’m not touching you” to the 12 year old and the 12 year old while still beating the shit out of the 5 year old is saying “MOM HE’S TOUCHING ME”.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Matt Gaetz really thought he was playing 4 dimensional chess when he was like “Hey let’s do that thing where we imply the Venmo transaction is illegal. It will be so funny!” Meanwhile the 17 year olds he’s hanging out with were “no wtf dude” be normal.

Yeah and a national budget is like a family budget so that’s why you must do austerity.

Wow. Just wow. I sure hope they get something more out of that, because 1200 dollars for fucking up who knows how many shitty chinese android boxes is worse than doing it for free. From a related article from TF:

Bug bounties and hackathons are notorious for being the coding equivalent of working for exposure. These are inherently cost savings programs so that companies don’t feel like they need to purchase these assets at market price.

What if Elon releases a Trump Tesla tho?

Removed by mod

You guys wanna take bets on if she’s gonna be pro or anti fracking in 2028?

Not supporting the good guy (The Democratic Party) is supporting the oppressor (whoever we’re mad at right now).

Listen everything Scalia wrote was ideologically consistent because it used the same verbiage as Bush V Gore, “limited to present circumstances”.

Yeah Antonin Scalia was a textualist until he wasn’t, until he was again, until he wasn’t.

Butterchurn is Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow. It’s because local ispolkoms could add criteria to the list and poor rural areas added butterchurns. It’s not like it doesn’t make sense or is out of the ordinary. Look at the difference between family 1 and family 2 in the image. Family one owns a couple of hand tools, family 2 owns a horse and a plow and a couple pieces of non mechanized farm machinery. Family 2 is not part of the alliance according to Lenin cuz they’re middle peasants. It all literally adds up, that’s how butterchurns get on these lists.

Like yeah that happened, that didn’t preclude the modernization of the country under the USSR, modernization happened in spite of Stalinist mismanagement.

You want more fun stories here’s a secondary Russian source detailing how marrying the sons of someone who was considered a kulak and even if that kulak was dispossessed, made the women who married the sons, and their parents kulaks.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071007122505/http://hist.web.tstu.ru/12_2004_1.html

you underestimate how specific a criticism I was making, just because I support one of Lenin’s premises in a defective argument does not mean I support every premise, every inference, and every conclusion

The criticism makes no sense because Marxist-Leninist conception it’s based on makes no sense. Lenin and Stalin repressed the peasants reflexively before an owner-worker form could bootstrap among the class. The issue that Mao points out is that there was a feudal relationship between the peasants of the USSR and the USSR itself, minimum quotas and obligatory sales are literally painting a landlord peasant relationship red.

The reason I’m upset is that this is such a lazy, annoying and tiring line of argument when people are like ‘what do you mean the Stalinist repressions were repressive and ridiculous?’ or ‘what do you mean Bolsheviks completely fucked up with the peasants? I’m posting “Mao Zedong Thought” here’. It’s reflexively defensive because just because I’m not writing praise at every immediate moment I must be a SECRET LIB.

And in reality guess what all states fuck their people up, in fact my actual position on this is that industrial production is incredibly morally difficult and society in general has only very recently even been able to create the most basic tools to understand how to more equitably do it, and I’m still not sure if it’s actually possible to have a fully moral industrial production.

I literally recommended The New Class /The Industrial Society/ The Affluent Society in another part of this post, (which are books written on different sides of the iron curtain by different people that point out the same organic developments among industrialized economies one capitalist, one socialist) and you’re here expecting a point by point defense of every single accusation levied against Stalin of all people. Literally the communist that was hated by almost every other communist in reality.

I’m going to address one or two points because it’s unique and the rest is just copy and pasting from classic apologia, and if we start looking at the feasibility of best case Soviet side through numbers, you’ll just start saying Big Black Book of Gommunism.

This is just a silly thing for you to say. “Proletarian” does not mean the same thing as “worker,” it refers to someone who is reliant on selling their labor for wages. Peasants and proletarians are both workers, and it’s a basic feature of the development of (e.g. European) capitalism that there were successive stages of owning and working classes.

There is no practical difference between a proletarian who sells his labor for a wage, and a tenant farmer who takes on debt for land. You’re merely comodifying the means of production in sharecropping. In fact there’s a composite of this relationship at some of the most exploitative shops where workers also have to rent tools from their bosses. In 2024 it’s on its face ridiculous to attempt to segregate farm labor from industrial labor rather than advocate for labor solidarity, that’s exactly how I know you’re writing apologia.

Obviously, Mao handled the peasant question much better, it’s probably what he is given the most credit for, but he does something similar in his ““cosmology”” in terms of dividing the peasantry into three major types, (poor, middle, rich) and aligning himself fundamentally with the poor while accepting collaboration with the middle, making distinctions about “well-to-do middle peasants” and so on

Mao is writing from 1955 when the rewards of the revolution have been realized by the peasantry, the literal beginning of what you’ve linked states, that rich peasants emerged from the middle and middle from the poor as a result of the revolution. This is adressing accumulation of wealth under a system that has already brought benefits to its people. Under Lenin and Stalin peasantry literally didn’t realize the benefits of the revolution until after WW2.

Not only that but Mao consistently self criticized his own leadership about bringing more development to the rural areas, a tradition that is still passed down in the CCP today despite Dengism.

Also Mao himself writes a critique of the explicit problems of Bolshevik revolution in On the Ten Major Relationships (1956 literally one year later) which mirror mine (I wonder where I stole them), and serve as a second source to back up the reasons for material conditions made in claims from the 1955 piece.

The Soviet Union has adopted measures which squeeze the peasants very hard. It takes away too much from the peasants at too low a price through its system of so-called obligatory sales [2] and other measures. This method of capital accumulation has seriously dampened the peasants’ enthusiasm for production. You want the hen to lay more eggs and yet you don’t feed it, you want the horse to run fast and yet you don’t let it graze. What kind of logic is that!

Our policies towards the peasants differ from those of the Soviet Union and take into account the interests of both the state and the peasants. Our agricultural tax has always been relatively low. In the exchange of industrial and agricultural products we follow a policy of narrowing the price scissors, a policy of exchanging equal or roughly equal values. The state buys agricultural products at standard prices while the peasants suffer no loss, and, what is more, our purchase prices are gradually being raised. In supplying the peasants with manufactured goods we follow a policy of larger sales at a small profit and of stabilizing or appropriately reducing their prices; in supplying grain to the peasants in grain-deficient areas we generally subsidize such sales to a certain extent. Even so, mistakes of one kind or another will occur if we are not careful. In view of the grave mistakes made by the Soviet Union on this question, we must take greater care and handle the relationship between the state and the peasants well.

Similarly, the relationship between the co-operative and the peasants should be well handled. What proportion of the earnings of a co-operative should go to the state, to the co-operative and to the peasants respectively and in what form should be determined properly. The amount that goes to the co-operative is used directly to serve the peasants. Production expenses need no explanation, management expenses are also necessary, the accumulation fund is for expanded reproduction and the public welfare fund is for the peasants’ well-being. However, together with the peasants, we should work out equitable ratios among these items. We must strictly economize on production and management expenses. The accumulation fund and the public welfare fund must also be kept within limits, and one shouldn’t expect all good things to be done in a single year.

Except in case of extraordinary natural disasters, we must see to it that, given increased agricultural production, go per cent of the co-operative members get some increase in their income and the other lo per cent break even each year, and if the latter’s income should fall, ways must be found to solve the problem in good time.

In short, consideration must be given to both sides, not to just one, whether they are the state and the factory, the state and the worker, the factory and the worker, the state and the co-operative, the state and the peasant, or the co-operative and the peasant. To give consideration to only one side, whichever it may be, is harmful to socialism and to the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a big question which concerns 600 million people, and it calls for repeated education in the whole Party and the whole nation.

And by the way what was promised to the peasantry by Lenin in Proletariat and Peasantry was never delivered, not by Lenin and certainly not by Stalin.

Toodles.