ExotiqueMatter

Turkey is cooking.

These are the facts and I could give you charts with the soviet export.

Why say I could and not do it? If you have sources, give them. You haven't linked any source whatsoever in this entire thread to back up your wild claims.

Ha yes, you can just do that. It's totally not out of reach for all the peoples who have to work 2~3 jobs at once and still can't save any money because even the basic necessities for survival are sold at extortion prices not to mention possible medical, college debt or mortgages.

You're confusing private property with personal property. While this is a very common mistake, you can't claim to have an informed opinion about communism while still making it, it's 101 level stuff.

Further, you are also making the other very common error of assuming the state is oppressive because it is like some kind of monolith somehow cut off from the rest of society as though the peoples staffing it weren't as much part of society as everyone else, this is not the case, whether a state apparatus is oppressive and against whom it is oppressive is dictated by the class character of the state, a factor that is systematically neglected by the peoples using variations of "power always corrupt" truisms to "analyze" a state.

tl;dr: you're knowledge of communism and communist theory and praxis is very surface level at best, go read some reading list from prolewiki's library, To criticize something you need to know at least the basics of it first.

Yes but not only, small business owners, small landlords and "casual traders" who own some stocks but not enough to be considered rich or have influence in the company the stocks are from are also part of the petty bourgeoisie.

Generally, the petty bourgeoisie are peoples who technically own means of productions and may even have a few employee working for them, but don't make quite enough from that to not have to work anymore. They are constantly under the threat of being out-competed by larger businesses, especially corporations owned by the high bourgeoisie, and becoming a proletarian.

Basically, they are the subclass at the boundary between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. They are better off than the proletariat and own means of production and private property but are under constant threat to lose these privileges and become part of the proletariat, especially in time of crisis.

They are the source of the overwhelming majority of fascists as I've said, because they still benefit from capitalism and generally aspire to become part of the high bourgeoisie even tough they are very much the underdogs. The bourgeois state will intentionally let fascism grow unopposed so that if the bourgeoisie feels their privileges are threatened by working class movements, they can give power to the fascists who will crackdown on the proletariat and protect the capitalist system from being overthrown.

Material analysis is an analysis using the method of dialectical materialism and historical materialism.

To put in in a grossly oversimplified way, one of the most important concepts of dialectical materialism is that ideas aren't independent from society. Peoples don't pull ideas out of some Platonist void, their ideas are shaped by and consequences of the society and material conditions they live in.

For example, writing didn't appear just because some guy one day said "what if we drew funny shapes in clay and pretended the shapes are words?". When the first human societies started accumulating reserves of food, lumber, domestic animals and materials and to exchange these with other groups of humans, keeping track of everything was becoming a problem. The first writing systems were invented as a way to solve that problem, they figured out that by associating each resource with a symbol they could easily keep track of what they had and how much of it they had.

The same logic apply to fascism. Fascism didn't appear because some guy woke up one day and decided to be an asshole for no,reason. As the contradictions of capitalism worsened (contradictions are also a concept from dialectical materialism btw), peoples were becoming radicalized against capitalism and the bourgeoisie which created the threat of a potential revolution overthrowing capitalism, in order to protect capitalism from that threat, the petty bourgeoisie tried to hide the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by fabricating a fake struggle against a group of the proletariat (typically a "race") that they could point to to divert attention from the class struggle.

This is what is meant in this context. Since liberalism is the main ideology of capitalism, when the contradictions of capitalism inevitably makes everything break down, liberals will either be radicalized to the left and stop being liberals, or defend capitalism to the end by slipping more and more to the right until they become indistinguishable from fascists.

Forcible suppression of opposition

Democrats kicked the Party for Socialism and Liberation off the ballot in Georgia already, so while we aren’t all the way there, signs of it are showing up

Don't forget all the times they broke strikes, sent the cop beat up protesters, arrested peoples who spoke against Israel, etc...

Militarisation of society

Not there yet, sure.

Normalizing wars for resources and geopolitical influence, cohering poor peoples to join the army by having military service be the only way to not fall into decades long crippling debt to pay for college, continuing to throw more and more money at the military industrial complex even though they already give it more than the next 10 biggest military spending combined and justifying it with fearmongering about Russia/China/whatever country they don't like invading them and their allies. They already seem pretty militaristic to me.

"The evil is gonna step on us, but the lesser evil is also gonna step on us but with clean boots, which is totally better!"

It seems like they took Kursk without losing much.

Pretty sure they lost at least 3 columns trying to take some towns there.

Now they have a bargaining chip for peace talks...

No they don't. For the territories they occupy to be a bargaining chip, the territories would need to be strategically important enough for their capture to threaten Russia's ability to fight this war (they aren't) and Ukraine would have to be able to guaranty that Russia can't get them back by fighting and is forced to negotiate to get them back (highly doubtful given that Ukraine can't even stop Russian advances in their own territory, only slow them down at best).

...and possibly diverted attention away from the main front.

Last I've heard Russia haven't even diverted troops from the main front line in Ukraine, so no, it didn't even achieve that. Which makes sense when you know that Russia has way more manpower and equipment than Ukraine right now, this isn't the stare of the war when Ukraine's army was motivated and received billion dollars arms shipments every week anymore.

Forcing the enemy army to split over more front lines only works if you have the resources to maintain more front lines better than your enemy can. Which is why it's Ukraine who are getting stretched thin by their own shenanigans here, not Russia, the Kursk invasion was objectively not a smart move.

The western reporting may also get under Putins skin.

That's cute, but war is won with steel and blood, not twitter ratios. "owning Putin" is at best going to be a very short moral boost that's only gonna last until the soldiers on the front line notice that they are still getting shredded en mass by Russian shells all the same as before.

This drawing will never cease to be relevant until the fall of the empire

Okay you are clearly refusing to face facts. Whatever the Dems do, the Reps say ‘they should have done more’. You are fixated on the Dems being the ones signing solely because they are in power when the Reps ENTIRE FUCKING PLATFORM is that Israel needs more support.

None of the facts you presented show that the Republicans would do worse.

Of course they're saying the Dems aren't supporting Israel enough, the Reps' whole electoral strategy is to whine about the Democrats and blame them for everything they think is wrong. Just because they say the Democrats support Israel less than them doesn't make it true.

Again, the Democrat's actions show clearly that they are unconditionally supporting the genocide with every resource they have.

You aren’t arguing in good faith

I am though.

I go through every argument you made point by point, and explain point by point in detail why they don't convince me, the problems I have with them, my perspective, so that you can come with better more convincing arguments.

That's arguing in good faith.

But instead crafting better arguments to counter the points I raised you just keep repeating over and over that the Dems are better without ever demonstrating it. So far you've given just 2 sources, of which only the second was relevant to my main point, and no actual argument of your own as far as the subject matter is concerned.

I dare suppose that this is because you don't actually have any answers to the many points I raised, or if you do you're certainly not showing it.

and just repeating the same tired ‘Dems did bad stuff tho’ instead of acknowledging that the Reps would absolutely do worse, in their own words, supported by their own actions, happily.

'Course they say they would do worst. Complaining about the Dems posturing as progressive is their all thing. Doesn't make it true. See first point.

This unwillingness to get beyond past wrongs to see how you’re own myopic actions only make things worse is a running theme with the Anti-Zionists so I guess in a way this is my fault for trying to educate the unwilling.

This is not just past wrongs, this is above all current wrongs, the genocide is going on right now, and the Democrats are supporting it right now.

Again, this point is only valid if you believe that the Democrats are less bad than the Republicans, which I don't believe and which is what I've asked you to provide evidence of, which you didn't do.

Also, your smug attitude since the beginning certainly isn't isn't a sign of good faith on your part.

Don’t listen. Keep sawing away at that nose. You aren’t worth arguing with at this point unless you agree the Reps outright say they want to do more for Israel than the Dems have and admit the only reason they haven’t is solely because they aren’t in power. We’ll just have to wait for the Rep leopards to be voted in and start eating your faces. At which point the metaphorical screams of pain will be little consolation.

I've listened, I've read the things you linked and responded to the points you tried to make with them.

To me, it's you who don't seem worth arguing with or willing to hear a different perspective.

I doubt you even opened any of the many links I gave, or again, if you did, you sure aren't showing you did.

I mean, look at this line:

You aren’t worth arguing with at this point unless you agree the Reps outright say they want to do more for Israel than the Dems

That's the whole thing we are arguing about tough. You're basically saying that I'm not worth arguing with if I don't already agree with you on the thing we're arguing about. If that isn't bad faith, I don't know what is.

And again with that smug attitude, as well as wishing harm on me for not wanting to support your favorite genocider club to top it all, how very blue MAGA of you.

Weather or not you respond, I'm done here.

I’ve done nothing but provide evidence the Republicans are worse, in their own words, if you’d read it.

No, you didn't. Once again you're focusing on what the parties and their voters are saying and ignoring what they are doing.

I've already addressed why the article you linked don't prove that the Democrats are less bad 👈 This is what I've requested evidence for, in case you forgot. I don't need you to tell me the Republicans are bad, I already know that.

The very fact you say ‘no, the Dems are worse’ proves you support republicans because at this point it is one or the other.

An other strawman. When did I say that the Dems were worst? I said they were both bad. That's my whole point since the beginning: that there isn't any lesser evil between the two. They are both equally bad, only the optics, the presentation, the aesthetic is different.

Throwing a tantrum because the Dems are technically the ones in power and so you place all the blame on them is weak tea.

It does put the blame on them though. As president, Biden is the chief of the entire US military, he could literally send one e-mail and end all shipment to Israel immediately, he has that power right now he just chose not to use it.

And that's just what the president alone has the power to do. Let alone the entire Democrat party with all the senators and governors that have.

The House vote Republicans initiated to force the Dems to stop delaying the release of weapon shipments had 16 Dems vote for it, versus 208 Reps.

That's meaningless lip-service once again.

If the bill don't pass, they'll maybe do one or two more bullshit pause in the shipments and boast that they're so fucking great and progressive for it even though it doesn't even bother the ongoing genocide in any meaningful capacity for the reasons I explained.

If the bill do pass, they'll get a free excuse to continue to unconditionally support Israel while getting to pose as great progressives for the even cheaper price of simply crying crocodile tears on TV and social medias about the bill, while not actually doing anything against said bill.

In both cases they get their voters (you) to berate everyone about the Democrats just because they didn't vote for a Republican bill they at best feel neutral toward.

Press releases by Republican Senators calling the Dems “weak Palestinians” in a blatantly racist attempt to belittle their hesitation.

Yes, the Republican don't care if you see them for what they are while the Democrats are scrambling to convince their voter base that their evil actions somehow don't makes them the 'bad guys'. Again, nothing new, and nothing that contradict my position.

If you have two racist KKK members uncles coming to Christmas eve, would you say that the one who at least shut up during dinner is better than the one who vomit racism on the table, or that it doesn't matter because at the end of the day they are still both KKK members and you should kick out both? I say the second option.

What the Fuck more do you need? Them to get into power and start invading Palestine with American troops? Get a clue, come on.

They won't do that. The American military know they would lose an open war in the region and that if they lose it would be the end of Israel. I know that Trump is a dumb fuck, but he's not alone, there are corporations, handlers and generals behind him who won't let Trump wreck Israel by his stupidity.

The only way the US would send the army is if Iran, Hezbollah and Yemen attack Israel first, in which case the Democrats would sent the army too.

Your argument sits on what ifs with no basis in reality.