They are actively supporting the attacks by US and Israel.

The funny thing is that nobody even asked Ukraine for help, Zelenskyy just volunteered it. Very odd timing, as one would expect Ukraine to need all the resources it has, and more, at this moment.

Oh come on!

(You had me in the first half ngl)

An excellent and very clear answer comrade, but don’t you have any book recommendations that are more on the commenter’s level? Roland Boer is great but it takes a pretty advanced level of political econ and history knowledge to grasp. Do you know of any simpler books on the subject? Or would you recommend just listening to Hasan Piker to someone at that stage of the journey?

Very good point. Parenti had something to say about that in “Power and the Powerless” pp. 10-12:

"Usually the least powerful party in an exchange relation is the one who stands in greatest need. The worker who is desperate to maintain his job, and who can easily be replaced by someone else, has a greater interest in the relationship than the employer who can readily replace him. The boss, having a lesser need for the worker than the latter has for his job, enjoys an advantage in the relationship. That is what has been described as ‘‘the principle of least interest,’’'? or, if taken from the perspective of the underdog, what I would describe as ‘‘the princi- ple of the greater need.”’ The choice for people in subordinate positions is more apt to be one of relative deprivations, that is, the lesser of two undesirable choices, than one of relative advantages. Indeed, one way we deter- mine that a person is in a subordinate or weaker position is by observ- ing that her choices vis-a-vis another are predominantly ones of rela- tive deprivation, for instance, compliance in an underpaid, exhausting job as opposed to unemployment. Implicit in such exchanges is the element of coercion, for if the subordinate party had her way, presumably she would choose neither of the deprivations. She submits to conditions not to her liking out of fear of having to face worse ones. Habit and custom are such, however, that we frequently do not recognize the element of coercion involved in most social relations. But once divested of the affirmative aura of legitimacy, these ex- changes reveal their asymmetrical and coercive quality. Consider one of the more blatant examples of social coercion, a relationship traditionally represented as one of glory and duty by those who do the coercing: specifically, that situation in which a ruling sovereign (whether king, dictator, or elected assembly) demands two or more years of a young man’s life in military service under penalty of law. Whether he chooses the army, jail, or exile, he is confronted with an exchange relationship not of his making; he is the weaker party faced with a coercive choice of relative deprivations. In such situations, assuming the absence of irrational ties to ultimate and purely affectual values of the kind Weber mentioned, the individual will comply only as long as he remains convinced that obedience has its returns, specifically the ‘‘reward’’ of being able to escape a still greater deprivation. The deprivations suffered by less fortunate persons in an asym- metrical exchange relationship are not immutable, that is, the ex- change could get better or worse. If the fortunes of the superior take an ill turn, the fortunes of the subordinate may suffer also. Hence, one can speak of a ‘‘forced collusive interest’’ between both parties, as between the slave and master, serf and lord, worker and owner. I say ‘*forced’’ because the subordinate party accepts the relationship at great cost to himself only because the alternative threatens an even greater cost: painful obedience instead of death, poor wages instead of starvation, and the like. To pursue the earlier example: suppose a young man decides to go into the army rather than suffer imprisonment or exile, or suppose he selects jail or exile as the preferred course, in what sense can it be said that he has chosen what is ‘‘best for his own interests’’? In fact, his own interests, as he might want to define them, would rule out all three choices and would demand a situation free of compulsory mili- tary service. His ‘‘real interest,’’ that is, his real or first preference, were he free to set his own agenda, might be to have nothing to do with conscription. But that alternative is, in the immediate situation, an ‘‘unrealistic’’ one, and he does not get the opportunity to consider his real preference. In facing the draft, he finds his interest range has been defined by others. The point is that power is used not only to pursue interest but is a crucial factor in defining interest or predefin- ing the field of choice within which one must then define one’s in- terests. You are free to ‘‘worship at the church of your choice,’’ or ‘‘vote for the party of your choice (Republican or Democratic).’’ The exercise of choice may be so narrow, so much a matter of relative deprivations, so tightly circumscribed by power conditions serving in- terests other than one’s own that the ‘‘choice’’ may be more a mani- festation of powerlessness than of power. A distinction should be made between one’s immediate interests within a narrow range of alternatives fixed by politico-economic and institutional forces (e.g., procuring a job with a firm that manufac- tures a highly profitable and ecologically damaging product) and one’s long-term interests (e.g., protecting the environment from dam- age by the manufactured product, working in a kind of productive system that rules out profits as the primary goal, etc.). A characteristic of our social system is its ability to oblige people to make choices that violate their broader long-term interests in order to satisfy their more immediate ones. To give no attention to how interests are prefigured by power, how social choice is predetermined by the politico-economic forces controlling society’s resources and institutions, is to begin in the middle of the story—or toward the end. When we treat interests as given and then focus only on the decision process in which these in- terests are played out, we fail to see how the decision process is limited to issue choices that themselves are products of the broader conditions of power. A study of these broader conditions is ruled out at the start if we treat each ‘‘interest’’ as self-generated rather than shaped in a context of social relationships, and if we treat each policy conflict as a ‘*new issue’ stirring in the body politic.

The US Constitution seemed to have this idea in mind with its intent, though it’s evolved into the same old concentration of power over time. Doesn’t matter which party either. The reality is power is so concentrated now that there are no true parties anymore. This is a mafia that transcends both sides.

So no China is no proof of anything except improper concentration of power. Mostly capitalist by the way.

If your opinion is that power is concentrated in the hands of the few in both the USA and China, how do you explain the difference between how bad it’s going for America rn vs. how good it’s going for China rn? Sure, both have their problems, no country is perfect, but it really looks like the USA is completely falling apart while China is having technological breakthrough after technological breakthrough.

Thanks for your response btw, the original commenter is right that people who downvote and leave don’t contribute anything to the conversation, unlike you.

That Putin is a bourgeois leader lol. It probably sounds simple to you but it was a breakthrough for me, based on where I’m coming from.

On a related note- what’s your take on Iran’s Supreme Leader? Is he also bourgeois? Or how does religion fit into the mix?

Hey I had to come back here and thank you for this comment. I didn’t get it at first but after doing some reading on the topic I got the framework where this makes sense and it’s a very clear answer to the question I posted. So thanks!

But does North Korea have foreign funded political parties? No? That’s right, authoritarianism akshually

Very interesting. Thank you for the info!

Thanks for your answer. If I may ask- what kind of social safety net do Russians have? Do you have free school lunches for children? Free healthcare? Housing guarantee? How is life for pensioners? I mentioned that I am completely propagandized when it comes to Russia, but would love to know how the situation on the ground is. Tbh I suppose it’s a lot like in the US- tough life for 90%, nice life for 9.9%, dream come true for 0.1%.

Whoah thanks for this answer, it’s just what I was hoping for (although I didn’t know it).

Omg ok yea, case closed. French please.

username checks out

But they have control over where and when their labor power is utilized, which is what makes their situation different.

This is a good question, thanks for asking it. It makes me realize there is more of a spectrum between lumpenproletariat and monopoly capitalist, although there are actors that are very clearly in one category, there are areas where it blends. And of course it’s always in flux.

lol nice, the metal gear solid to communism pipeline in one comment

Because they control more than just their labor power (some capital), but not enough capital to not have to work. They will get crushed in a downturn so I guess that’s where the size reference comes in- bigger bourgeoisie can withstand bigger downturns.

Not sure why we have to use French words but c’est la vie I guess!

I’m by no means an expert on this, but Zelensky is a sucker. I’m sure he’s ok as a person, imperfect as all of us, but I think he’s involved in stuff he has no idea about and in way over his head, and I think he will never know the truth of his position. It’s especially absurd considering his TV role, his ownership with oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi of the TV production studio (Kolomoyskyi is now chillin in Israel with his billions btw, leaving Ukraine to get rekt), and his desire to get close to the West while not instituting the Minsk agreements.

But as to what he is getting out of it? My opinion: nothing. He’s the guy that sits at the table and asks who the sucker is.

It is a revolutionary’s job to educate people. Good thing is that we have so much blatant, undeniable evidence in the news at this very moment:

1. How come the world’s most powerful men use Gmail to openly discuss illegal and heinous things, while talking online about these same things results in censorship?

2. Why should I care about Muslims from China and simultaneously not gaf about Muslims from Palestine?

3. Why am I, as an American, more concerned with the fate of Taiwan than the fate of Puerto Rico?

Looking at these issues through a liberal, logical lens results in glaring contradictions, but looking at them through a class lens within the context of a dictatorship of capital, it all makes sense.

1. Only things that threaten capital accumulation are wrong. The state will be activated to stop wrongdoing.

2. China does not support Western hegemony, while Israel is an important part of the Empire. Therefore, the great mass of people must be against China and in support of Israel.

3. Same as #2 with the addition that Puerto Rico acts as the Empire’s reserve army of soldiers. It used to be about sugar and slaves, but times have changed. PR does continue to be a buffer zone protecting the mainland though.

I’ve had the same experience (I think a lot of us have) but you have to remember that the USA has the best propaganda in the world, and a lot of people are totally hypnotized by it. In fact, I was too. I was a chud and a lib. Nobody’s born a good comrade, we have to read and struggle. I think you’re a good comrade. Don’t give up!

Edit: One more example- the reason we chant “Slava Ukraini!” is because the US’s share of LNG shipments to Europe rose from 5% pre-war to 27% now and still climbing. The unexamined mind will find itself with positions that support Western capital 10 out of 10 times, such as replacing Russia as Europe’s main energy dealer. The vast majority of people really dgaf about this, but we are compelled to care by the ruling class, for the ruling class.

As a practical example (which even works with MAGAs) I usually inject into a conversation something like “don’t you think people (‘a man’ if I’m dealing with chuds) have the right to the fruits of their labor, and nobody has the right to the fruits of someone else’s labor?” which is enthusiastically agreed with 100% of the time. Of course a majority of the time people are either too preoccupied with survival or somehow walk away still blaming women and minorities, but I know that’s not my fault and that I did what I could. The fault lies with the very efficient media and culture arm of the bourgeoisie.