GenZedong KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 93%

www.youtube.com

[Mad lad also sang "Kill the Boer" at this same event](https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1686025436667518976), making crackers all over the world shit themselves. Subsequently comparisons of him and Hitler have popped up all over the place. German newspapers are even reporting on this speech, because supreme whitey Musk criticized it. Gotta love the love for Cuba in his speech too. Combined with Traore's recent Patria o muerte reference, it's amazing to see the lasting effect of Cuba's support of African liberation. Incredible times, comrades.

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 96%

Very interesting guy, region and meeting. Also interesting to see that just like a socialist society still has traces of the capitalist society it emerges from, a capitalist society regressing into socialism still retains some aspects of that too. Namely the USSR's active anti-colonial and anti-imperial efforts around the world and in Africa still aiding Russia today in its foreign relations.

Spicy question maybe, but I'm interested in your takes. Personally, I think there's some major issues with at least the terminology of the 2 phase model of lower/higher stage communism or socialism/communism as the terms are used in classical theory. Specifically the 'lower stage' or 'socialism' term is problematic. In the age of revision and after the success of counterrevolution it has become clear that there is in fact a transitional phase leading up to the classical transitional phase. Societies did not jump from developed capitalism to socialism immediately and even the states that arguably did were forced to roll back some of the core tenets of 'socialism' as it is described in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Namely no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of man by man. To ultras this just means countries following this path aren't socialist. So then China isn't, Cuba isn't, no country still is really and those of us claiming they are then have to be revisionists. And to be fair, if you're dogmatic you can make that point going from the source material. China itself recognizes this inconsistency, thus not seeing itself at the stage of socialism. Yet it's a socialist state. But then what do we actually mean by 'socialism' when we use the term like this? Just a dictatorship of the proletariat? Any country in the process of building socialism? That question comes up all the time and confuses the fuck out of people, because the term is either not applied consistently or as it's defined is lacking. I think discourse in the communist movement and about AES would profit immensely if we had a more consistent definition or usage of the term or a better defined concept of what that transition to socialism is and how we should call it.

Nonsense 🇺🇦 Takes (LOCKED) KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 80%

That whole channel is just the Ukraine equivalent of those "CHINA WILL COLLAPSE IN 15 SECONDS!" videos. Totally unhinged and delusional

GenZhou KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 100%

**How I got here:** ::: spoiler spoiler As some of you might remember, a couple weeks ago I made a post asking for resources on the role of the students in class struggle. I didn't get much, because, as I found out in further research, though there surely is a whole lot of material on it, most of it probably isn't digitized. So I asked some studied older comrades irl. That yielded some results. One of them suggested a lecture by Clara Zetkin from 1924 on the question of the intellectuals. I actually found this almost forgotten speech somewhere in a corner of the web. Great, I thought, let's translate it - doesn't seem that long, should be available for the English speaking comrades and makes me read the text much more deeply. And I did start... until I realized, a good few hours in, I still wasn't even half way done. Well, turns out this 'fairly short speech' actually is over 13k words long. I'll still finish it, but I thought it would be much more engaging to just do it and share it piecemeal with the comrades online. ::: **What's the text about:** As the title says, it's a historical materialist analysis of the role of the intellectuals in class struggle. But it is so thorough, it too develops or at least formulates a very early commentary on the just emerging fascism, on imperialism, on the question of women and much more. It's long for a speech, but it's incredibly insightful, comprehensive, is a highly interesting snapshot of the discussions in the communist world movement in 1924 and a very good example of how to conduct historical materialist analysis. Clara Zetkin today is, unfortunately, a mostly forgotten figure outside of the German far left, even though she was one of the most important members of the German communist movement, of the KPD, an incredibly important figure for the women's movement and all round absolute giga chad who should be remembered at least as much as Rosa. I strongly urge everyone to at least read [her wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Zetkin). The woman had a theory of fascism as a distinct phenomenon less than 2 years after Mussolini seized power. **How's this gonna work:** I'll release the text in (probably) 4 parts, every 2-3 days from now. I'll make a new thread for each part. Whoever feels compelled to read and discuss along can just use the thread for the part. I'll try to be as active and to answer as many questions about it as I can, though I'm using this as an opportunity to really study Zetkin for the first time myself. The translations are works in progress. I wont post total beta versions, but they will not be 100% refined So without further ado **Part I:** ::: spoiler spoiler **Clara Zetkin: The intellectual's question** (7th July 1924, Lecture before the V. Congress of the Communist Internationale) CLARA ZETKIN: Comrades! Sadly I have to begin my lecture with an appeal for apologies. I'm momentarily not very healthy and therefore forced to leave out some of what I'd have to say in my lecture. You will therefore percieve gaps, but I hope to be able to fill these in later. Today the intellectual's question is starting at us from tens and tens of thousands of hungry eyes. It's also screaming at us from the distress of tens and tens of thousands, who in the needs of life, in the needs of this time lost the previous ideal, a supporting internal power are not able to understand their personal experience and suffering in connection with the grand historical developments and to derive energy from it. But in addition to the misery of the intellectuals, which has heightened to the intellectual's crisis, we see another phenomenon: The crumbling face of bourgeois cultur in its death throes. The crisis of the intellectuals too is the crisis of mental labour in bourgeois society. The intellectual's crisis is facing us today in all the capitalist countries, to differing extents of course, with differing force, but is in the historical sense and the direction of development the same everywhere. We too see it in the socialist Soviet states, because there capitalism has been toppled politically, but the transformations of society towards communism are still in their infancy, and on top of that under the greatest difficulties. The intellectuals' question shows itself ultimately as the crisis of mental labour and the culture of bourgeois society itself. It announces to us that bourgeois society is no longer able to be the keeper, developer of its own culture. And with this the intellectuals' question stops being a question of merely the intellectuals or of bourgeois society. It becomes a question of the proletariat, for it is its historical mission to develop all forces of production, of culture beyond the limits set by bourgeois society. If the proletariat wants to fulfill this task, it is faced with another: It has to give account to itself about the relation between the basic forces of historical becoming. On this later. The intellectuals' crisis and the crisis of mental labour are a symptom of the deep and incurable disruption of the capitalist economy and the state based on it, the society it supports. The crisis of mental labour doesn't just show itself as a symptom of the nearing end of capitalism, but as part of the crisis of capitalism itself. In the Soviet states it is an expression of the remaining large gap between the political power conquered by the proletariat and the ramifications of this power via the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transformation of production and the ideological construction of society towards communism. All in all the crisis of mental labour and the intellectuals' crisis proves that there's a strong tension between the already far advanced process of disruption and dissolution of the bourgeois order and the process of the construction of communist production and culture. The intellectuals' crisis reveals that it is not the social contradiction between manual and mental labour which determines the economic condition and social standing of the intellectuals. To many it seems that it is defining for the lot of the intellectuals, the class position of the proletariat seems to prove it. But this assumption is faulty. The social contradiction between mental and manual labour, between intellectuals and proletarians has its roots in the fact that mental labour can't be replaced by a machine, that the mental labourer requires a longer period of vocational training. The mental labourer can thus not be drilled, "trained" as quickly for the exploitation-relations of capitalism as the manual labourer. But the social contrast, which results from this for the intellectuals to the proletariat, is only of secondary and temporary character. It steps back behind the defining fact which is the real basis for the social contradiction between manual and mental labour. That is the contradiction between property and human, between capital and labour, framed socially: the contradiction between rich and poor, between exploiters and the exploited, that social contradiction which found its classic historical expression in the class antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat. The fate of the mental labourer is by no means defined by strong talents or the acquired knowledge and skill in slow, tedious study, but ultimately by the contradiction between capital and labour. The intellectual finds himself in the society of capitalist commodity production, he is subject to its written and unwritten laws. In it he got transformed from a producer of cultural-values into either a seller of "commodities", similar to an artisan, so called as "freelancer" or he enters the market as "salary reciever" like the proletarian, as seller of his own commodity, the commodity labour, to devote to bourgeois culture in service of capitalists, in service of the state. Whether the intellectual is a seller of his produce or seller of his commodity labour, no matter whether as petty bourgeois or as proletarian, he is dominated by the contradictions of the capitalist market. In the "Communist Manifesto" Marx already pointed to this in shining sentences with all sharpness, that the scholar, the artist today is nothing but a trader, a commodity-seller. The mental labourers find themselves, as consequence of their economic relation to capital, not, as they often tell themselves, in an irreconcilable contradiction to the proletariat, they are not at all solidly and intimately connected to the bourgeoisie in social terms. The opposite is true. The intellectual is in reality connected to the proletarian via his opposition to capital; he is irreconcilably divided from the bourgeoisie by his role as small commodity seller or seller of his commodity labour. In whatever form he enters the market as seller, he will be subjugated, the large capitalist will triumph over him. The worry about a piece of bread makes him as unfree as the proletarian of manual labour. The exploitation, the bondage he experiences is nothing but a particular form of the exploitation and bondage of every form of labour by capital. As a consequence the exploitation and bondage of mental labour can only be destroyed when the power of capital is broken, the private ownership of the means of production is done away with and replaced by collective ownership. Only through proletarian revolution can the intellectual, like the manual labourer, gain his freedom. His higher interest demands that he fights on the side of the proletariat the struggle for the overcoming of capitalist production and bourgeois class-domination. Generally this is not the case. On the contrary. The intellectuals fell strongly and solidly connected to bourgeois society. This is explained by the development of the intellectuals as a separate social class, the type of the one-sidedly trained professional, as he fits the conditions of capitalist production with its division of labour and the atomized structure of bourgeois society with its division of social functions. The emergence of the mental labourers as a separate social class is intimately tied to the development of capitalist production and bourgeois class-society. At the beginning of capitalist production stand the achievements of science, of technology, of the great seafarers. Without the discovering and inventing scholar and technologist, without the organizing, scientifically calculating merchant, without the daring seafarer the development of capitalist production is unthinkable. But as science and technology, as organizing and administering were crucial factors for the emergence of capitalist production, inverse capitalist production had the greatest influence on the funding and development of the sciences, namely the natural sciences. Chemistry you can downright call a science of capitalist production. Thanks to that it developed from the phantastical gold-seeking of the medieval ages to a transformative science. The same is true for electrical engineering and other technical disciplines. The bourgeoisie couldn't have lifted production above the limits of feudal science without the most extensive and crucial participation of the mental labourers. Only the bourgeoisie needed the intellectuals for the purpose of its political and social domination. Only with their aid did it become possible, on the basis of the developing new relations of production, to transform the ideological superstructure of feudal society into bourgeois society. The bourgeoisie as a property owning class was able to, even in the frame of the feudal order, ascend to a culture that surpassed the one of the old ruling powers and bound the intellectuals solidly to it. Those became its vanguard, its pioneers in the fight against the ideological space of feudal society and its privileged classes: Church, nobility and absolutist principality. The intellectuals forged and wielded the mental weapons for the overthrow of these bonding and exploiting powers. Their spokespeople in their struggle first reached back for the bible, to the sciences and arts of antiquity; later the primary weapon became English rationalism and especially the philosophy of the encyclopaedists. Intellectuals stood as pioneers, as leaders at the forefront of all reform-movements and revolutionary movements that transformed feudal society into the bourgeois order. Likewise intellectuals were leaders of the most important social-revolutionary sects and peasants movements. The fight of the intellectuals liberated science, art, culture from the chains of feudal society and transformed them from servants of the ruling classes of that order into servants of the bourgeoisie, in transformative forces of bourgeois society. Art and science were "effeminated". The work of the intellectuals for the development of the capitalist economy, for the emancipation and the class domination of the bourgeoisie became ever more significant, the more the bourgeoisie strengthened due to capitalist production, and the more its position of domination solidified even in the frame of feudal society, till it finally emerged as the ruling class through revolutionary struggle. Thus grew the tasks and the importance of the intellectuals for the development of the economy. But so too grew the pressing powers for the transformation of the ideological superstructure, for the creation of a political power-apparatus which the bourgeoisie needed to push through and consolidate as the ruling class. The mental labourers were not only organizers and directors of the capitalist mode of production, they too provided the bourgeoisie for its state and its organs the necessary forces for its legislation, its administration: for all the areas and institutions affected by the bourgeoisie's need for domination over the not and little owning classes and especially over the proletariat. But the bourgeoisie did not reward the intellectuals according to the measure of their historic significance for class domination. It too forgot that it was the intellectuals who created the ideology of bourgeois liberalism and bourgeois democracy, which so long chained and deceived the workers. The bourgeoisie has at every time only valued the intellectuals in so far as they produced immediate surplus. The intellectuals that didn't, the ones performing other societal functions, to the bourgeoisie count as "unproductive workers'', as futile eaters. Especially the great national-economists of the emerging bourgeoisie, Adam Smith and Ricardo, left no doubt that in the eyes of the bourgeoisie productive work is achieved by those who live to increase capital, but not those who live off of the income from capital. Adam Smith eg explained: "Very respectable classes of society achieve as little productive work as the served." And as such "respectable classes of society", which his equated with the served, he listed: The landlords, the officers of the army and navy, the entire army-apparatus, the lawyers, the doctors, other scholars too, finally even opera-singers, actors, poets and ballet-dancers. From this described standpoint has the bourgeoisie looked down upon the mental labourers as an inferior class of futile eaters. Only once the surplus value, which the bourgeoisie extorted from the proletariat, became extraordinarily significant, it allowed itself the luxury of tossing crumbs of its wealth to the "unproductive" intellectuals, who were not immediately involved in the service of production. The low assessment of the intellectuals by the bourgeoisie got its historical expression in that the mental labourers, who created the ideological superstructure of bourgeois society, the ruling ideology, often hungered and lacked. They had to put themselves under the protection of small princes and princelets; they were forced to accept meager, often churchly, positions, despite their free-spiritedness; they bore the servitude of house-teachers, they had to flee to the salons of aristocrats. The history of the bourgeoisie and its fight for emancipation or more accurately of its emancipation fighters in England, France, Germany proves this. The intellectuals did not draw the necessary consequences from this significant disregard of their achievements. They did not feel divorced from the bourgeoisie, but as part of the bourgeoisie itself. They lived in the delusion, that as "free"lancers they represented "free" science, "free" art, a "free" culture. And many of them still do. How can this be explained? Within the intellectuals a social stratification took place that is much more important than the usual superficial tripartition: in privately employed and private clerks, employees and clerks in service of the state, in public service, and freelancers. The uppermost strata of intellectuals got close to the bourgeoisie or originated from it. A minority had worked up into or had "strived up into" the bourgeoisie from outstanding positions in the production-process, in the state, in various areas of cultural life. Beneath these privileged stratas spread a broad class of intellectual existences, who lived in traditional petty bourgeois complacency, but also in petty bourgeois constriction, in economic as well as cultural relations. Beneath both of these stratas there was a third group of mental labourers, who had neither luck nor fortune, who permanently teetered on the border of the lumpenproletariat and often sank down into it. Because this is characteristic for the lot of the intellectuals: If he can't assert himself in a mere or privileged position in proximity to the bourgeoisie, he doesn't fall down into the working proletariat, but the lumpenproletariat. At least the intellectuals had in bourgeois society - compared to the living conditions, to the social position of the working-class - a privileged position. As a result they felt divorced from the proletariat. The interest of the bourgeoisie in profit and accumulation, the interest of domination of the bourgeoisie in state and society could very well not accommodate a privileged position of the mental labourers in the long term. After its historical being it had to strive to break the privileged position of the intellectuals. And it did break it. It did break it by creating the equilibrium between the supply of mental labour and the demand for it. It had contributed to the better social position of the intellectuals, that the development of construction of culture in general was suffering from the chains and limits of feudal society even long after the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie. The number of intellectuals available to the bourgeoisie for the purpose of production and its rule wasn't large. The bourgeoisie requires a larger staff of scientists and engineers, who dedicated their strength to the blossoming of production; it requires a higher culture to command over all kinds of mental state-slaves to justify and underpin its rule ideologically. It needed to have a surplus of mental labourers. A period of foundings, of blossoming of higher educational institutions began, the elementary school-system too had been lifted. The consequence was an overproduction of mental forces, meaning a relative overproduction. Overproduction only existed insofar as more intellectuals emerged from the educational institutions than the bourgeoisie needed for the interests of its profits and rule. There was nothing less than overproduction when thinking about the enormous demand for culture of the broad masses. The bourgeoisie now had the required reserve-army to bring down the pay of the mental labourers, to worsen its conditions. It took full advantage of that. The social tripartition of the intellectuals, which I mentioned earlier, had become sharpened, the differences deepened. The number of mental labourers sharing in the bourgeoisie's splendor, glory and luxury became relatively fewer and fewer, though growing in absolute terms. To what extent the ratio of the second and third group changed isn't statistically measurable. The gentlemen reformists, with Bernstein at the head, in the pre-war period concluded from the strong growth of the intellectuals in economy and state the development of a "new middle-class", which would form a new rampart of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. According to this theory numerous mental labourers would move up socially. The correctness of this opinion hasn't been proven by all statistical figures. Not the lowness or height of salary or wage alone determine the social condition of the different stratas of the intellectuals. Something else adds to it: The accustomed to standard of living, the share in material and cultural opportunities which the intellectual can afford for his wage. From the standpoint one has to conclude the worsening condition of the intellectuals in all the regions and in different countries. The intellectuals' question arose. For bourgeois society it was Medusas' head. It announced that this society had become unable to secure the mental labourers a social standing according to its professional occupation, one that matched its former "befitting" standard of living. The first characteristic mass-phenomenon emerged as proof of the intellectuals' question having arisen in bourgeois society. It was the tedious, passionate fight of the mental labourers against the higher education and employment of women. What was behind the ideological platitudes of the professors, doctors and other fools who took the field against women's emancipation? Primarily nothing but fear of competition. The fight for education and employment of women showed two things: First, that bourgeois society was unable to secure the intellectuals an income allowing to uphold the old "befitting" familial relations. The family in these circles could no longer grant women their livelihoods, nor a serious, dutiful purpose in life. Second, that the mental labourers shied away from the opinion that higher education and employment of women would worsen their own social condition. Facts prove this. In old Russia e.g. the fight for higher education and employment for women hadn't been - as in Western Europe - between men and women, but a fight between different generations, between fathers and sons, between the old ideology of the feudal, despotic order and that liberal ideology of rising bourgeois society. Now, that the intellectuals' crisis reached an unexpected height, the fight against employment of women, in the years before the war almost dormant, has broken out again with highest intensity not only in the "beaten" states, but also in the victorious countries, eg in the US, where the fight for equality for women celebrated its first big victories. Today in some circles there is a rather large counter-tendency against the spread of employment of women dominates certain circles (teachers etc). It is said: "Each step forward for women is a step backwards for men." But another mass-phenomenon proves the development of an intellectuals' question in bourgeois society. Since about the 80s of the past century social reformists of various kinds emerge - like an epidemic illness: podium socialists, land reformers, pacifists, ethicists, Neo-Malthusians, sexual reformers etc. What's characteristic of these social-reformist tendencies? The one shared trait is that most reformers suddenly are discovering the social question and with it the giant shape of the fighting proletariat beginning to move revolutionarily. The position of the intellectuals between the classes, its hybrid position between the two big classes of society, which are gearing up for a general resolution between labour and capital, lets the reformists act as preachers of class-reconciliation. They're urging the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to make peace. That's new and characteristic. Apart from exceptions, earlier societal-reformers mostly just hoped for insight and contemplation of the owners and rulers. The reformers reject class-struggle, they reject above all revolution. They expect everything from reason, as much on the side of the exploiting bourgeoisie as on the side of the exploited and desiring proletariat. The reformist tendencies, which the intellectuals' question affects, get their characteristic expression in Germany, country of "theory", of podium socialism and its manyfold scientific and dilettantic varieties. In France, country of "politics", they affect the increasing trend to dress bourgeois-radical parties in more or less social decorations. Bourgeois parties emerge calling themselves democratic-socialist, radical-socialist or however, the main thing is the word "socialist" has to be in there. The most shining representative of this tendency in France was our comrade Jaurés. He developed from it continuously into a socialist. The vestiges of bourgeois democracy, bourgeois ideology he could still never fully shake off. In England the classic expression of the reformist movements, which developed in connection with the intellectuals' question, is the Fabian Society, so called constructive socialism, as is represented in the Labour Party, especially by intellectuals in it. In every capitalist country the intellectual social-reformers influence the labour aristocracy and its most radical offshoots had their ideas in the opportunism and reformism of the workers-movement. Whatever program these reform-enthusiastic intellectuals developed, they agreed not to touch the foundations of the bourgeois order, not to abolish private ownership and thus not class domination and class antagonism, for whose alleviation they gushed. But the gentlemen needed a basis to make the implementation of their reforms possible. A straight line of development leads from the social-reformers to imperialism. On imperialism Cecil Rhodes, the famous English imperialist, made a characteristic statement: "Imperialism or revolution!" Indeed, that's the way things were. Bourgeois reformers, who wanted to carry out their social reforms to ban revolution, but not at the expense of the holy profits, the domination-basis of the bourgeoisie, had to look for a different economic basis for reforms. They found it outside of their home-countries, in the exploitation of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples, whose ruthless, inhuman plundering and servitude brought supernormal profits, from which the capitalists paid the crumbs of union concessions and social reform they carried out for the "Volksgenossen" [lit. "peoples-comrades", nationalist term for compatriots] in the mothercountry. But another motive was essential for the social reformers to become champions of imperialism. That was the concern for their own existence. In the fatherland many mental labourers no longer found profitable employment, an existence befitting their station. The colonies offered them the perspective of a shining, respected career, for a safe, high income, for adventure and glory. No wonder, as things were, that imperialism found its most passionate advocates right among the intellectuals. From the night watchman to the minister, from the village-school principal to the university professor, from the unknown reporter of a daily paper to the scholarly researcher, everyone discovered imperialism and descended as its champion "down to the people". As the intellectuals earlier were the creators of bourgeois, national ideology, now their younger generation provided the creators of the ideology of imperialism, advocates of dilettantic race-theories, justifying all the contradictions and atrocities of colonial politics; intellectuals became the most fanatical agitators and organizers of imperialism, the most cruel practical representatives of the exploitation and servitude of the peoples in capitalist colonies and half-colonies. Intellectuals proved that in the plundering and enslavement of the colonial peoples they were able to combine the entire hideous brutality of the conquistadores from the time of primal accumulation of capital with the whole refinement of modern cultural- and gentle-men. The intellectuals together with the heavy and finance capitalists in every country bear the highest responsibility for the arms race, for the breakout and the length of the world war. If there are people, beside the grand bourgeois, beside the reformist social-traitors, drenched from top to bottom in the blood of 4 years of slaughter, it's the intellectuals who preached the "greater fatherland". As carriers of the imperialist thought they caused that mass-exhortation, that mass-deception that allowed the arms race of all the so called culture-nations. They created that fateful mass-psychosis under the influence of which the war could be endured for years. It is a historical nemesis that there's hardly a social class who's been hit harder by the consequences of the world war as the class of intellectuals. Because none of the various powers, for whose triumph they prayed and cursed, remained as victor of the world war. The only victor was the grand bourgeoisie of all the countries, the vanquished in truth and deed were, in the victorious and beaten states, the proletariat and petty bourgeoisie and with them too the mental labourers. For their economic condition the expropriation of the petty and middle bourgeoisie by the grand bourgeoisie intertwined with the pauperisation by it. ::: **Part 2 will expand on the crisis of the intellectuals, their worsening material conditions and how that leads to fascism** Hope this is helpful to someone, if not at least there's an English version of it online.

Pics That Go Hard KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 97%

How do you even compete with Villa's and Zapata's mustaches let alone their fucking drip?

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 100%

Comrades, I just got an old 80s theory book from an older comrade as a gift and you're lucky to even find a used print-version anywhere, let alone a pdf version. Even the title of the book itself yields a handful of results at most. So I thought: This shit needs to be digitized. Thing is, I don't have it in me to pull this thing apart just to scan it. Scanning via phone is suboptimal in my experience and doesn't yield the best results to read on a kindle/pdf-reader. I'd be willing to just retype the thing, but at 300 pages that's quite the workload too. Is there a good way to do this that's not super out there, expensive or time consuming?

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 21%

Can someone redpill me on Bukharin for real tho?

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 100%

Sup comrades, Being part of or running a chapter/org sounds mega existing, but as anyone who's done so can attest...the daily work of revolution is much less glorious than you'd think. It's mostly just, well, organizational stuff. Writing emails, delegating tasks, writing protocols, making concepts, etc. Still, that part of political work is just as important as the speeches, discussions, protests, theory work, etc. Like a good supply and logistics system is the base of every military, well organized structures and processes are integral to an effective vanguard party. So what are some tips and best practices you'd give your comrades (without revealing internals obviously), whether they're just building something new or are part of something established Personally: - Seems obvious, but good documentation (opsec etc etc) is damn vital. Especially to anyone starting new, don't push this off - you'll lose an overview of what you've done and why within weeks as soon as the action starts kicking off. It builds institutional knowledge and there's nothing more frustrating having to take over a position or organization without proper documentation - Work conceptually. Don't just "do a thing". Make a concept. State goals, make a real plan and then evaluate the shortcomings and strengths of the concept afterwards. Don't just jump from one thing to the next, you won't build the institutional knowledge that's essential for any organization. You also won't be able to analyze reoccurring patterns and mistakes and grow less effectively because of it - People need tasks. Soon as you get someone even slightly interested, give them a *clear* and *appropriate* task to develop them politically and attach them to the collective body. People will not come back if they don't feel integrated and like they're not playing an important role. Whoever even gets close to a revolutionary organization wants to do stuff - let them. And let them fail too occasionally All fairly basic, but imo essential and unfortunately often overlooked because they seem so obvious.

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 100%

Hey comrades, had this topic with someone recently and think it's quite an interesting one so I'd love to hear your takes on this: **Essentially what's the role or what can the role of the intelligencia and students be in the struggle?** Historically they've played quite an important role. Just look at the '68 movement in Germany and the wider student unrests in Europe in the late 60s and 70s. At the time they certainly played a major part in the revolutionary struggle. This reputation of the revolutionary/rebelling student and university as incubators for revolutionary thought and organiszing has lingered to this day, even though it's far from the truth in the west. Just looking at this sector of society from a materialist POV is quite interesting. Students are in a weird and unique position in society in that they're often one of the most exploited and poor demographics. Today they're mostly in crazy debt, most of them have to work particularily bad jobs to survive university. Universities themselves are increasingly exploiting the labour of students to finance themselves. Jobs after university nowadays often don't guarantee anything above a dead average wage, certainly often earning much less than even traditional trades. At the same time they are naturally among the most educated people in society, still often have much more opportunity to organize and familiarize themselves with revolutionary thought. Yet, they're undoubtedly in a strange limbo of both priviledge and overexploitation. They tend to be from fairly bourgeois backgrounds and even the more exploited ones often think of themselves not as belonging to the working-class people they often work with, but more of a temporarily embarassed petty-bourgeois. This, nowadays, makes for a strangely poor, miserable, student body that doesn't really have a grand, bright, rich future looming, but is also entirely without class consciousness and often extremely apolitical beyond the current radlib topic of the day. Eg trying to organize students in the peace movement is a fools errand. They don't give flying fuck. 100bn for the army while education is crumbling and shutting down classes to save energy costs? Whatever. So what to do? Is this demographic just a lost cause for now or are there ways to build class consciousness among them specifically and to organize this important part of the youth?

GenZhou KommandoGZD • 1 year ago • 100%

Sup comrades, Looking to do a deep dive into current price hikes and inflation with some comrades and looking for resources to explain, critique and solve the problem form a marxist perspective. The term inflation famously doesn't really come up explicitly in Marx, only "money devaluation" afaik, but still if you got relevant material/articles/books/whatever on the topic, I'd love to go through them Cheers

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

>womens day protest in town >sweet, some unions and local antifas participate >none of the usual commie groups but ok >listen to the speaker literally screech about rojava and sex work for 30mins >"The wh*re is the symbol of the destruction of patriarchy" >Like 90% of the people are 20yo university students >Whatever, can hand out some flyers, magazines, etc >'leftoids' almost shit themselves soon as you mention the word socialism >leave Man why do radlibs have to ruin everything with their bougie ass bullshit?

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Not sure where to post. Just curious if any of yous got some best practices for designing flyers in terms of graphics, texts, layout, etc. A lot of people and orgs I work with are mainly made up of seniors and they got absolutely no idea how to even use social media, let alone a design program...as you can imagine, this *really* shows on their flyers and other materials. Shit's literally just a printed out Word page with 2 columns sometimes. So this stuff is increasingly becoming my job and while I can handle a computer, I've never really done short promotional material for political purposes and I rarely have previous materials to go off, because they're just those bland Word documents usually Thanks for the help comrades

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 90%

[Original interview](https://m.bild.de/politik/inland/politik/bundeswehrverband-chef-stellt-deutschland-auf-mega-konflikt-ein-kriegsjahrzehnt-83024962.bildMobile.html)

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Really wrestling with this question due to various personal things lately and just curious where yous draw the line on this? I've done so many things in life that, at the time, I would've described as self-protective in a self-loving way, but where I really was just being a selfish ass. Not out of malice, but out of a lack of self-love or -esteem and total ignorance of it. I've seen so many people do the same thing. And I've tolerated so much shit over the years I thought was self-loving self-protection which was really just people being selfish asses. I've probably also labelled quite a few people selfish which were just caring for themselves in earnest. People are complicated and it's honestly hard as fuck to make this distinction sometimes imo.

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 22%

Not been usind reddit much for the past month, but the shit I see on that sub recently is wild

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 94%

Sup comrades, I was at a decently sized protest today and this Western Maoist lady came up to me and some other comrades and immediately started ranting to us about Ukraine, Russia and our org's position towards them. Russia is imperialist, China is imperialist, yadda yadda, you know the drill. "It's so important to discuss this question these days" You know what? It's fucking not. Our enemy is at home. The Russian comrades - the Russian people have to figure out the question of Russia. Whether Russia can be called imperialist in the Leninist sense is entirely irrelevant to our praxis at home. Endlessly wanking ourselves off about this question does nothing but distract us from building class consciousness at home. Being a good, brave purist and fractionalizing due to muh Russian imperialism does nothing to aid or guide the working class. Bourgeois media does a good enough job talking about this anyway. It is nothing but a convenient excuse for people, especially non-communists, to stay home and not fight the real enemy here, in our communities. It does nothing but distract us from fighting NATO, demanding peace and fighting the MIC at home. It's a pointless, masturbatory exercise in liberal individualism to make dogmatic fuckers feel smug about themselves. "B-but Mao said, b-but Lenin said, b-but Liebknecht said" First, I don't give a fuck, think for yourselves, adapt theory to changing material and historical conditions and direct it in a way to advance the cause of the working class. The Russian question has literally no impact either way on our strategy at home and in our specific localities. Call for peace, that's it. Second, if you want to refer to Liebknecht, he said it best: The main enemy is at home. "Why don't you demand x, y and z of Russia" Because I'm a Germany communist in a local org and I'm neither chauvinistic enough nor do I suffer from Main Character syndrom to such an extent I'd *demand* anything from a country like Russia. How fucking deluded are these people? The 2 communist parties in Germany have about 2k members each, it's fucking pathetic and delusional for any of these fuckers to demand anything from a country of almost 150mio people. Wasting our scarce energy, resources and human potential on shit like this is counterproductive at best, subversive at worst. Shut the fuck up, sit your ass down and organize your community, school, uni or workplace in a meaningful way. If you want to have discussions like this, have them behind closed doors with your comrades at chapter meetings and stop annoying people organizing and taking to the streets in real life every chance you get. Fuck me, I'm tired of this sectarian bullshit ::: spoiler PS Just to be clear, I'm mostly venting here. Discussions about theory are important and I believe there is a need to talk about the concept of imperialism, but not everywhere all the time and especially not as priority #1 ffs :::

GenZhou KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Sup comrades, Over the past couple of weeks I've heard more and more comrades posit something along the lines of: Multipolarity is a material reality resulting from increased levels of **global** socialization of production. I think it's an interesting explanation, because it leads us away from the vague, normative position many liberals and right-wingers are currently adopting when talking about multipolarity. But here's my question/issue: On the regional/national level increased socialization of production leads to greater interdependencies between regions, industries, etc. Okay, we're seeing this on a global scale too. Problem is, from my understanding, these interdependencies and other mechanisms led to increasing levels of centralization of capital. Arguably we've seen this over time leading to the large, centralized modern bourgeois nation-states and monopolies. So the question is - how would this result in anything but unipolarity over time? In fact, we've seen this happen in the first half of the 20th century. Centralization on the national level led to the development of multiple competing "poles" before WW1, then WW2 and then after 1945. However, these, as argued, developed exactly one thing: unipolarity after 1990 and up until today (questionable). **So how does an increase in socialization of production globally explain a move *away* from unipolarity and centralization of capital and power?** Is the contradiction between socialized production vs privatized appropriation that, as marxism argues, brings forth the necessity of socialization of ownership on the regional/national level sufficient to explain this phenomenon globally or what am I missing?

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Comrades, I got some shit to work through that I meant to work through for a while and I'm doing all the usual stuff to process it, but I really feel like expressing my thoughts and feelings in some kind of creative way, I just don't really know what and how. Some years ago I used to draw and that helped a bit, but I could never draw from my head so only really re-drew pictures/drawings. That's not really what I'm looking for atm tho. I used to write creatively many years ago and I'd love to do it now, but I just don't know what and how. Can't think of anything the moment I open a page. Any suggestions how to start? What to start? What are yous doing? Anything that helped you? How did you get started? Cheers

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

www.theguardian.com

Lmao 45 days. Superb democracy lassy

[ARCHIVED] Shit Liberals Say KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

nypost.com

Where have I heard this one before

World News KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

www.reuters.com

Nooo don't pull your troops out of there, alienate Opec, undermine the petro dollar, leave weapons exports to SA to countries like Russia, creating a vested interest in their reorientation noooooo Honestly tho, how the fuck are they still continuing with this? You can't sanction and threaten the entire world (anymore), especially not when your domestic economies are failing and they have leverage over you. Even these imperialist swine have to realize that at this point

World News KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

web.archive.org

Incredible stuff. Thousands of sanctions, hundreds of billions seized and they're mostly cruising with things already bouncing back to normal after only half a year. No matter our opinions on the war, it's fascinating that there is a way beyond Western domination now.

[ARCHIVED] Shit Liberals Say KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Terrorism and nuclear brinkmanship good akshully

Death to NATO KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Autotranslate of a story that's currently circulating on Russian TG channels. Original article has pictures and videos related to the story. Shades of Grozny and paints a shocking picture of the initial invasion and the state of the Russian army. ----------------------------------------- "We were contacted by the participants in the assault on Kharkov from the 2nd Separate Guards Special Purpose Brigade (2nd ObrSpN) to convey the true picture of what was happening during the battles for the city on February 27th. According to the original plan, the forces of the 2nd ObrSpN, the 25th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade (25th Motorized Rifle Brigade) and part of the FSVNG (Rosguard) were supposed to take part in the assault on Kharkov. It sounds solid, however, as it turns out later, neither the motorized riflemen nor the Russian Guardsmen made it into the city itself. According to one version, their columns came under fire on the approach to Kharkov and stood up, according to another, they did not even advance into the city. One way or another, but the special forces soldiers continued to act according to the plan and began to enter the Kharkov streets alone, with the forces of only two companies from different detachments of the brigade. The fighters were given a preliminary order not to open fire on civilians. But already in the city itself, the special forces faced a different reality: armed and unarmed local residents, often without any insignia and uniforms, tried in every possible way to block the columns, disarm the fighters and block traffic routes with the help of tires. The special forces in their "Tigers" desperately meandered along the unfamiliar streets between the barricades, periodically coming under fire from the roofs of neighboring houses by the newly formed Ukrainian defense forces. The whole situation painfully began to resemble the "Fall of the Black Hawk", only without the black hawks themselves, covering the special forces from the air, but with snow on the streets and well-aimed fire from Ukrainian National Guard snipers, who supported the indiscriminate shooting of local residents from the therodefense with machine guns handed out right there on the spot. At one point, a group of four "Tigers" passes along Sidor Kovpak Street, then along Shevchenko, and jumps out in the area of ​​the now infamous School No. 134 , where they finally get up due to breakdowns. The enemy starts shelling such a tasty target and the special forces are forced to leave the armored vehicles on the road. Having lost their transport, the slaughterhouses decide to organize defense within the walls of the school, as they receive information about the approach of the main forces to the rescue. In the meantime, the Ukrainians, having seized the abandoned walkie-talkies, began to listen to the negotiations and even try to get in touch using the callsigns sounding on the air. After this incident, a decision is made to switch to complete radio silence and begin to withdraw from the city. SWAT disappears from the air. Most of the fighting groups successfully make their way back from Kharkov. One of the units under fire left their equipment in the area of ​​the Pavlovo Pole residential area in the north of the city and was already retreating on foot. However, the group that went the farthest in the area of ​​school No. 134 was the least fortunate. The Ukrainians are shouting about the Russian soldiers who have entrenched themselves in the school, and almost all enemy units that are nearby are quickly pulled up to its walls: armored vehicles of the 92nd mechanized brigade, Kord police special forces, the national guard, nationalists from Freikorps and other scattered territorial defense units. A fierce gunfight ensues. At first, the Ukrainians shout for the Russians to surrender - our fighters return fire. The enemy fails to take the entrenched special forces with a swoop, and, having suffered losses, the Ukrainians drive the BTR-4E to the school , which our soldiers quickly burn from the RPG-30 and finish off with a burst from the removed Kord. After that, by the evening, the Ukrainians wait for the T-64BV to approach and begin to fold the building with tank fire. The company commander, another officer and a sergeant decide to make a breakthrough in order to bring help to the blocked unit under radio silence. Two other officers remain with the staff at the school. Alas, the attempt was doomed to failure. The company commander is mortally wounded before he even reaches the fence. Two other commandos try to help him and return, but it's too late. Meanwhile, the fighters remaining at the school are fighting an unequal battle with the enemy, continuing to repulse attacks even when almost all floors in the building were already on fire. Only under the cover of night and smoky smoke from their last refuge, the surviving fighters make a second, this time successful attempt to exit Kharkov in the direction of their forces. In a situation of complete confusion, several special forces soldiers were captured by the enemy in the school area. According to a pre-agreed legend, they told the Ukrainians that they were soldiers of the 25th motorized rifle brigade and gave fictitious names. To date, all captured fighters have been returned home as a result of past exchanges. Thus ended the unsuccessful attempt to storm Kharkov on February 27, 2022. Our soldiers still do not have an answer why they were sent to such an operation alone, why they were supplied with incorrect intelligence, why they did not establish interaction with other units. However, all fighters are proud of their brigade. The enemy had a total numerical superiority, positions in urban areas and had good command of the area. But due to the coherence of the groups, the nature and training of the fighters, the special forces were able to get out of the critical situation with minimal losses. The special forces inflicted painful losses on the Ukrainian formations both during the attempt to storm the school and during the withdrawal from the city. Eternal glory and eternal memory to the soldiers of the 2nd ObrSpN who died during the storming of Kharkov."

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

I've heard people say Meloni's a Pro-EU, Pro-NATO hawk, some rightwingers are convinced she'll push through Italexit and start rapprochement with Russia and whatever else they dream about. What's actually a reasonable expectation for this government's behaviour, especially in regards to foreign policy?

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Thanks comrade Obvious, we know about the Nazi battalions and the rascism of the Ukrainian state. What more's there to discuss? Well, we're scientific socialists and thus our understanding of fascism and our analysis of the state of capitalism in any one moment should be based on materialism. We can't reduce our use of the word "fascism" to that of liberals using it as a generic swear-word hauled at people they don't agree with, even reactionaries. It isn't simply "when rascism", it isn't simply "when nationalism" and it also isn't "when authoritarianism". If we decide to use this word it should be based on a clear assessment of the material conditions and whether they fit the criteria of fascism. Fascism, to keep this short, is a state of capitalism in crisis advanced by the forces of finance capital which is characterized by a total destruction of organized labour brought about by a merging of private and public property. On the ideological side it is naturally and necessarily accompanied by and gives rise to violent anti-communism, racism, sexism and ultra-nationalism. Enter Ukraine. It is ostensibly a capitalist state in deep crisis. Its pretense of seperation between private and public interest, already a sham before the war, has been destroyed in its entirety. Zelensky is a billionaire's puppet, one by the broader bourgeoisie and at this point a comprador for US finance capital. All forms of organized labour have been destroyed and outlawed. Collective bargaining is abolished. Any form of proletarian participation in its fake democracy has been ruled out. The press is gleichgeschaltet. It has opened its gates for the plunder by international finance capital, because the interest of the state and that of finance capital in Ukraine have become synonymous. Symbolically Zelensky himself opened the NY stock exchange a couple weeks ago, inviting the robber barons on wall street to "invest" in the limitless opportunities of exploitation of the wealth of his country with the guarantee of a docile and defenceless working class. [He also wrote an ad-ed in the Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/invest-in-the-future-of-ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-stem-graduates-business-technology-sector-billions-partnerships-11662404585), emphasizing this invitation. That's what fascism means. Fascism isn't some metaphysical quality seperate from all this, it is per definition this state of capitalism. The ideological components should be obvious by now. Zelensky is a fascist, but more importantly Ukraine is a fascist state. Crucially this is an assessment we can now confidently make independent from Russia's narrative, however justified that may be. It is also undoubtedly a victim of US imperialism. Ukraine is also clear evidence that imperialism with its manufacturing of crisis and its exploitation of them via shock therapy measures neccessarily demands and brings about those forces and those conditions we call fascism. This is important, because it increasingly looks like the natural next target of US imperialism, the next crisis it needs to exploit is currently arising and being manufactured in all of Europe. This means the conditions for European fascism are developing as we speak. Being cold is the acute threat we're facing within the next months. But we're at risk of being so literally frozen in shock we'll be missing the neoliberal therapy that's coming for us. Finance capital will not leave this crisis unexploited. This will lead to conditions ever closer to fascism if we don't fight back. I highly recommend [Ben Norton's interview with Michael Hudson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZBOaPKWjw) on the topic and [Multipolarista's reporting on it in general](https://multipolarista.com/2022/09/09/zelensky-selling-ukraine-wall-street/).

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

www.youtube.com

Good geopolitical context for the current flare-up in relation to Russia and US interests. Shocking how blatant it all is really. Also everyone has to read the 2019 RAND report which he constantly quotes. It's essential reading at this point to understand US behaviour in regards to Russia and its frontiers since 2020.

Comradeship // Freechat KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

With things being as crazy as they are and have been the past 2 years I've been seriously considering building up a stock of emergency supplies to last for a week or two ever since the first Covid lockdown. You know, not to survive the apocalypse, but to bridge short-term supply disruptions (eg toilet paper, sunflower oil, pasta, etc) and just to be safe and not rely on delivery services in cases like quarantine. But I'm not exactly loaded, so I've put it off so far to save the money. Winter slowly approaching has me thinking again tho. How do you feel about this? Already got your bunker set up? Think it's a waste of time, space and money? What would you reckon is essential? Any guides/lists?

Death to NATO KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Apparently they withdrew from Izyum behind the Oskol river during the night. Unconfirmed reports are UAF crosses the Siversky Donets river largerly uncontested and are either fighting in or have already pushed the Russians out of Lyman. All of this in the span of a few days without much resistance in crucial areas that took the allies months to take. No idea what to even say to this tbh.

Death to NATO KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

I can't link the relevant Telegram and Twitter posts atm, but reports are about 60 Ukrainian commandos landed just east of the power plant this morning. RAF started shelling the area and engaged them with planes and helicopters. The Russians also claim they sunk 2 more landing ships due west of the plant. Situation isn't yet fully resolved from what I can tell. First, just wtf are these lunatics doing. Second, the inspectors arrived in the region yesterday iirc and were supposed to inspect the plant today or in the coming days. The Russians pulled out their forces from neighboring Enerhodar for this visit. Essentially the Ukrainians used the visit as shield for an amphibious assault on a *nuclear power plant*. That's the least nefarious interpretation here. What in the world would they have done had they seized the plant. Take the inspectors hostage? Do a PR piece for the world showing the planet they themselves shelled and attacked under their controlled to the world, using the inspectors to give the story credit? Just wtf. Edit: Seems like the UAF are currently detaining the column of inspectors at a checkpoint about 20km from the frontline.

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

There's fighting going on in the city that started after Shia militas stormed the Green Zone and the presidential palace. Combat footage is all over twitter right now, talks of civil war is coming up, neighbors are closing their borders, but honestly I don't really get what's going on. Pro-Iran vs Anti-Iran militias and interests are playing a role from what I've gathered, but that's about it. Anyone more familiar with Iraq and today's events?

[ARCHIVED] Shit Liberals Say KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

In case anyone still has a doubt about wiki's leanings

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

[Source](https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1562725207118594048) Bro I don't even know how I'll be able to use my PC let alone heat my house this winter lol

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Despicable, vile freak

Death to NATO KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

With almost 6 months of this war approaching, I think it's time to kinda recap, reevaluate and redicuss this war. Curious what yous think about the state of the armies, the strategies of either side, what are your predictions, what do you think the goals are and who's closer to achieving them? I'll go first and mostly talk about the Russian side to keep it shorter and because it's the active party mostly. # Strategy Honestly even after 6 months I find this incredibly hard to pin down. What are their plans with this war geopolitically and on the ground? Yes, we've heard "demilitarization" and "denazification" when things first started, talk about creating a multipolar world has since started too. But let's be real, that's all incredibly vague and the Russians really aren't communicating anything more specific at all. The liberation of Donbass is the one concrete goal I can make out. Do they want a landlocked Ukraine, destroy it completely, demilitarize and destabilize the entire West, just liberate Donbass? I don't know and to me it feels like they didn't start this war with a clear, concrete goal. Maybe they had one but didn't anticipate the dimensions this would take, maybe it's all going according to plan - I'm just unable to tell and to me it feels like nobody on either side is able to tell either. What's the strategy on the ground? Again, Russia is obv tight lipped about this, but I still can't tell this one either. What feels somewhat certain is the following - The pace is absurdly slow - This whole thing has mostly become a positional artillery war of attrition - Russia is unwilling or incapable of sacrificing large amounts of men, civilians and equipment in big armored assaults - Size of the invasion force has been constant despite Russia being outnumbered So where does that leave us? My most generous interpretation is that Russia is content with shelling the Ukrainians to hell, while fixing its own economy, doing its best to erode US and EU positions around the world and deepening their internal crises. That they're unimpressed with the fallout of sanctions, they don't care about completing things fast at all and really the kinetic war has been relegated to second priority, behind the larger economic and geopolitical calculations. That it's useful, because the West needs to dig itself deeper into the mess the longer this goes on and because it allows Russia to demilitarize NATO at a comfy pace without engaging it directly. The least favourable interpretation is that Russia is not capable of going any faster than it is currently, either because it isn't viable politically (eg declaration of war, higher casualties) or it militarily just can't. That they didn't have a clear plan going into this, got caught off-guard by the Wests rabid response and now don't have the means or the plans to end both the kinetic war and the fires it started. No idea which is closer to the truth and I'm not going to be a smartass and just say it's something in the middle. It doesn't feel super well thought out and planned, it doesn't feel like a panicked, incompetent adventure at all either and it also doesn't feel like some mix of the two. # Predictions Always hard to make in war and politics, but especially so in this war. Just a couple I feel somewhat confident in - This war isn't ending this year - Ukraine doesn't have and won't have any offensive potential - Russian offensives on Kharkiv, Odessa, Nikolaev, etc are hopium. They won't assault them, they won't encircle them and they won't besiege them this year. If they could or wanted to they would've done so early in the war - Bakhmut-Siversk line will take at least another month to take/break - Unless UAF collapses somehow, Slavyansk & Kramatorsk won't fall this year Fall and winter are approaching and I'd imagine that'll slow the absurdly slow pace even further at some point. But I reckon winter will decide this war anyway with the economic and social crisis really kicking the EU in the gut by then. They won't be able to support Ukraine past a point and Ukraine is simply not capable of surviving without foreign help anymore. Other than that I only see a few options how this whole thing could change its dynamic. A declaration of war and mobilization, a collapse of the West, a collapse of the UAF or deployment of Russian reserves in Ukraine after the referendums to free up more regulars for combat. Last one seems most likely, but no idea if that'll really change things that much. # Bottom line Rereading this feels like a whole lot of "idk", but honestly, despite heavily engaging with this conflict almost everyday for the past 6 months, that's still pretty much where I'm at. It's uniquely strange to me and just very hard to really make sense of - propaganda and fog of war certainly aren't helping. Keen on reading your opinions and whether you guys have been able to make more sense of it than my dumbass. Cheers

GenZedong KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

Has there ever been a more based country?

Death to NATO KommandoGZD • 2 years ago • 100%

web.archive.org

>The United States has shipped about a third of its existing arsenal of Stinger anti-air and Javelin anti-armor missiles to Ukraine >Ellen Lord [...] said Stingers cannot be replaced “within the next couple of years” because its production line has been shut down. Even simple items, such as diodes, used to regulate voltage for these systems could be difficult to obtain. >“Even with Javelin, we are probably five years” away from replenishing that stock despite its manufacturing line remaining open, she added. World class economy. 5 years to replenish 1/3 of its stockpile...

So I've had this as audiobook in my library for a while and thought I'd finally give it a go on a long train ride, because I'm out of other stuff to listen to. But my god...there's some useful stuff here, but I'm barely a chapter in and she's already insinuated the Tinyman massacre (on students wanting neoliberal reforms) happened so China could implement neoliberal reforms/shock doctrine, repeatedly compared China's economic model to Russia and the US and coined the term "corporatism", because neoliberalisms natural conlusion "isn't capitalism or neoliberalism or neoconservatism". Is it even worth going through the rest of it or could other works provide the same info without this anti-communist libshit? Edit: >From Chile to China to Iraq torture has been a silent partner in the free-market crusade I'm going insane. Also why in the world would anyone describe torture as a SILENT partner ffs