CINO

Although NATO expansion doesn’t seem to be an actual cause; notably, it didn’t matter when Baltic states joined NATO. However, the embarrassment from a failed coup with pro-Russian Yanukovych in 2004 and later him getting ousted in 2014 could be the sparks for vengeance.

Russia’s actions reflect its own imperial ambitions. Rather than supporting the Ukrainian working class in determining its future, Russia has sought to dominate Ukraine through economic pressure, political manipulation, and military force. This mirrors classic imperialist behavior, where a dominant power suppresses national self-determination to maintain its own sphere of influence. The war in Ukraine is not a struggle against the West but a competition between capitalist empires, with Ukraine caught in the middle.

It’s also accurate as everything reactionaries don’t like is woke

The Wagner private military organization – Openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion

Why isn’t the first described like the second

deleted by creator

I appreciate the change in direction with the correction, regardless of the circumstances 👁️

Transnistria is a thousand miles from Odessa, twice as far as St. Petersberg, and Pskov is about 400 miles away.

Vibes, vibes, vibes.

No. The material reality is that Transnistria is roughly 100–150 km from Odessa and not the thousand miles being claimed.

Pskov is near the Estonian border, and St. Petersburg is on the Baltic Sea. Neither of these cities is close to Moldova, so they are largely irrelevant to any invasion plans in that region.

It’s important to rely on concrete conditions and verifiable data rather than hyperbolic claims and vibing.

Removed by mod

Under this deal, Putin gets to annex key territories while Ukraine is kept out of NATO and left without American peacekeepers, forcing Europe to buy U.S. military gear. Imperialist powers divide and weaken working people by keeping nations in chaos and under constant threat. This brief period of “peace” isn’t for long as capitalist interests allow Russia to regroup and rearm. Ukraine remains in a disordered, free-for-all state under imperialist influences. In time, this setup could let Russia launch an invasion through Odessa to connect with Transnistria.

A thriving capitalist country can still be fascist. Fascism isn’t just about economic decay, it’s a way for capitalism to protect itself when it’s threatened. Even in a strong economy, if the ruling class sees socialism or worker power as a danger, they can turn to fascism to crush opposition and keep control.

In Russia’s case, the government serves capitalist oligarchs, suppresses worker movements, and wages war for imperial gain. Fighting between capitalist states, whether Russia or NATO-backed Ukraine, is not a fight for workers. The real struggle is against both systems.

In the U.S., everything is right wing and there are no liberals. The Overton window in the U.S. is so far to the right that even basic civil rights, democracy, and freedoms that exist elsewhere are seen as radical.

Right-wingers and capitalists have rebranded their system as “neoliberalism,” pretending it is about freedom. But real freedom: civil rights and human rights, democracy, secularism, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion… they cannot exist under capitalism, where a small class rules over the majority. True democracy means workers control society, not just picking which capitalist will exploit them.

And as Russia is ingrained with Wagner, Rusich etc. does that also declare Putin fascist, with the invasion being fascist infighting?

It’s a good idea and countries started that with Russia though it’s still continuing. USA would just follow that model

Democracy is demagogue-prone. That’s a disease to which electoral systems are vulnerable. Yet demagogues are easy to identify. They gesture a lot and speak with pulpit rhythms, using words that ring of religious fervor and god-fearing sincerity.

The practice can always be detected by anyone who learns the signs: Repetition. Great attempts to keep your attention on words. You must pay no attention to words. Watch what the person does. That way you learn the motives.

They create a system where most people are dissatisfied, vaguely or deeply. This builds up widespread feelings of vindictive anger. Then they supply targets for that anger as they need them—as distraction. Don’t give time to question.

They bury mistakes in more laws. Traffic in illusion. Bullring tactics. Wave the pretty cape. People will charge it and be confused when there’s no matador behind the thing. That dulls the electorate just as it dulls the bull.

Fewer people use their vote intelligently next time.

There appears to be a rule of nature that says it’s almost impossible for self-serving groups to act enlightened, flowing with the forces of life, adjusting your actions that life may continue. With the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number, of course.

The risks of democracy and how to prevent them paraphrased from Dune.

Apparent everywhere, Trump is just one in this path of centuries.

Focus on actions, not promises, and unite against inequality and division. Systems should be simple, transparent, and work for everyone, not just the wealthy or powerful. Educating and organizing workers, holding leaders accountable, and building solidarity across all groups are essential for achieving fairness. Lasting change comes from addressing root causes, not chasing temporary fixes.

Maybe the next century will show results somewhere.

Thank you for acknowledging this is going nowhere. As said multiple times, there are no perfection requirements, only an emphasis on aligning with Marxist principles. Beyond that, this has always been just forum posting, not a debate to win.

One thread is enough

The state is supposed to wither away as the working class takes control of production. Engels and Marx argued that the state, under capitalism, is a tool for maintaining class divisions, and this should end in socialism.

Socialism requires large-scale planning, but the key difference is that it must be managed democratically by workers, not a central bureaucracy. Lenin criticized the Soviet bureaucracy because it hindered true worker control.

The USSR state managed the economy without giving workers control. Even after the NEP, the state still controlled production without real worker participation.

For Marx, socialism means the working class collectively controls the economy, which wasn’t realized in the Soviet system. While there were gains, they came from a centralized authority, not workers themselves.

Despite state planning, the Soviet system concentrated power in the hands of a few.

Socialism is direct rule by the working class where the state fades away, as Engels described. A state acting as a proxy concentrates power in a minority and keeps workers from controlling production. Marx argued that the proletariat must destroy the old state machinery, not rely on it to act for them. The Soviet state kept a hierarchical structure that directed workers rather than enabling their control.

Material benefits do not prove workers were in control. Marx warned that state capitalism could produce growth while keeping power out of workers’ hands. Lenin himself criticized the growing Soviet bureaucracy after 1917. By the 1920s, workers’ councils had lost power to the Party and state officials. Gains can exist under exploitation if workers do not democratically run production.

Dialectical analysis means critically studying contradictions in a system. The USSR had contradictions like inequality and bureaucracy, which Marx predicted under state capitalism. Marxism evolves through testing theory against reality, not just following the majority, even when it challenges what many believe as socialism.

Socialism is more than material development. Marx and Lenin argued it requires the working class to democratically control production. Electrification or industrial progress is a tool, not proof of socialism.

High satisfaction with governance doesn’t prove proletarian rule. Lenin noted that oppressed classes can feel represented under non-socialist regimes. The Harvard study shows approval but doesn’t demonstrate that the PRC is run by and for workers.

Socialism requires more than material gains or approval ratings. Workers would collectively control production and the state to validate proletarian power.

Marxism emphasizes understanding the deeper class dynamics of society, not just surface-level opinions. Marx and Engels critiqued relying solely on immediate public sentiment because it can be shaped by ruling class ideology (eg., The German Ideology). A proletarian state requires scientific analysis of material conditions, not just popularity metrics. Insulting someone as “anti-communist” ignores Marxist principles of material critique over ad hominem attacks.

Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don’t prove proletarian control, as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.

Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion. Experience matters, and it must be tested against material conditions and theory. The opinions of the majority cannot substitute for class analysis. Even Lenin argued that revolutionary theory develops.