TAVAR

You can't study communism without studying capitalism, yet somehow liberals think they know both better than us, having studied neither.

communism is not merely "good", it is a necessity. But to get an understanding of what that means one has to make themselves familiar with the contradictions inherent to capitalism and understanding that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of overcoming them.

To give an example: Crippling economic crises arise within capitalism periodically because it is incapable of overcoming the contradiction between the "organization of production" in one company and the "anarchy of production" (unguided production) within all of society.

Capitalism can't overcome this contradiction because the underlying reason for it is the contradiction between a socialized production and a private appropriation. This contradiction is the defining characteristic of capitalism however, so it can't ever be resolved without abolishing the system. And we see this prediction of Marx play out time and time again.

Now you may think periodic crises are acceptable (why you would think that is beyond me as they are really truly not necessary). However there are many other realities that contradict capitalism like limited resources, limited capacity of our planet to absorb emissions, the inevitability of the global south's independence and self-determination (very incomplete list)

Whatever type of capitalism you support, it requires some kind of externality that just isn't real: infinite natural resources, an ocean that doesn't care how much is dumped into it, an atmosphere that absorbs all emissions, a domestic working class that accepts exploitation, colonies / the global south to outsource exploitation to, etc. all of those things run out. This kind of "externality" is exposed as an illusion of bourgeois thought.

These contradictions (and more) are creating tensions like tectonic plates during a tectonic shift and we will surely see some more earthquakes. Possibilities include:

• Not being able to safe large parts of the planetary ecosystem.
• Countries falling into fascism to guarantee their national capitalists their profit rate as their main profit guarantor, the US, looses its imperial grip on the planet.
• More imperial wars

The alternative is: The abolition of the capitalist system, hence I spoke of necessity.

Or in Rosa Luxemburg's words: "[It's] Socialism or Barbarism"

Rarely two sides can both be right, but they can easily both be wrong.

Can I infer from your statement that you're advocating against voting for Biden? Maybe you should figure out you contradictions

Kinda surprised to see Germany at 4

That is incorrect. Stages of grief do not only apply to terminal conditions where acceptance is fatalistic.

Say you suffer the loss of a loved one. Accepting that they are gone holds within itself the key to continue your live. Acceptance, plain and simple, is a necessity to deal with reality.

Similarly the acceptance that the capitalist system is inherently "broken" enables us to figure out how to deal with that reality, how to overcome its contradictions.

Denying that many of humanities problems are rooted in capitalism does not. The comparison is valid

I totally get your perspective too: you could swap acceptance and denial. Capitalists accept the justification of the status quo while MLs deny it.

In the context of grieve I think Yogthos' perspective is more fitting: "Denial" is the denial that anything is wrong with the system and "Acceptance" of both facts, that the system is fundamentally flawed and that a pursuit of any idealistic one doesn't bear fruit is the necessary precursor for conducting a sober analysis

Really?

Which good reason is there that would not be way better be dealt with with generalized legislation, like privacy regulations?

Just to be clear: You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound

Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both were justified with "national security" (what else is a military for after all)

Well one is the response to a hostile superpower inciting a nazi-powered coup + civil war on your border with the aim of eventually regime changing you.

And the other one is you being the hegemonic superpower devastating a country on the other side of the planet without any threat at all, on a whim (well imperialism actually)

Ofc both amounted to one country imposing their interests over another, but whose were more justified? What threatens "national security" more? A civil war on the border or peace in some far-away country?

Like I said: Oppose both: ok. But it needs pointing out, that people who justify the invasion of Iraq are categorically more bloodthirsty and warlike than those who justify the invasion if Ukraine.

Ofc I realize you didn't justify the invasion of Iraq. But you also alluded to the US as a protective power while calling out Russia as belligerent, implying Russia would be more warlike than the West, the most murderous power structure humanity was ever doomed with.

The metaphysical need to isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn't practical in discussions about geopolitics.

It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant discussions, as evidenced...

Its so unfortunate that so many people, like yourself, have not been paying attention to Ukraine in the last decades.

With Russia finally having reacted violently, our war propagandists are having a field day with your brains.

Chances are you already are immune to historic fact and prefer some Neocon giving you their speculation on a foreign leaders psyche instead.

It was in fact the US-centered, imperial power structure which tried its hardest to make peace impossible.

On the off chance that you can still tell information from garbage read some influential imperial strategists from 2019 for an introduction:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

This was my last, longer comment about her (party).

While it would be absurd for a Socialist to mistake her for a comrade, your scepticism towards her "problematization" (especially by liberals) is very warranted.

It depends on who you compare her to. 30 years ago, she was a Socialist, compared to that modern day Wagenknecht is very bad.

However if you compare her party to the German Bundestag, then 99+/-1% are more "problematic". As an example: for the longest time her new party stood alone in the parliament in opposing weapons exports that facilitate an active genocide (her old left party recently managed to overcome internal resistance and silently join her in that conclusion, though I wonder if its members know).

I share and understand the frustration comrades have with some of her stances / rhetoric, but if you view imperialism or more specifically hyper-imperialism (as tricontinental calls it) as the main contradiction of our time - which I do - then both become clear: why she is in no way among the most "problematic" and also why she is constantly made out to be by the transatlantic media

So yeah a comrades criticism of her is very valid (as I guess they don't support any other party in the parliament either), a liberals is - as always - massively hypocritical

Ppl might be reading this wrong (or am I?)

incident reported to OPCW by the Government of Syria

In this instance it looks like it was the Syrian gov who reported to the OPCW an incident where they were alleging the use of chemical weapons by ISIS against Aknaf group.

So it OPCW seems to say that the Syrian govs accusations are false

He even said Khamas