The US has never been democratic for the working classes, and certainly not for indigenous peoples. Even if the US taxes billionaires, it will still not be able to stop the inherent crisis of profitability that is to come.

Closer ties to European imperialists simply for profits for the capitalist class in Europe and compradors in Ukraine were supported by far-right nationalists that uphold Stepan Bandera. Going with the EU over the much better Russian offer was purely a move to sell out the country to imperialism, and this saw widespread protect in Eastern Ukraine, which supported Yanukovych:

The language suppression isn’t disproven, even though European imperialists desperately wish it wasn’t. More Russian speakers live in Eastern Ukraine, and thus the nationalists taking power and oppressing them caused a schism:

The entire Ukrainian military is right-wing, but special units like Azov retain their neonazi heritage:

No idea why you’re batting for fascists so hard.

The coup in 2014 was spearheaded by Banderites, those who uphold Stepan Bandera, Ukrainian fascist. Neonazi battalions like Azov have been folded into the military in more official capacities, anti-communism has been at the forefront of post-2014 Ukrainian politics, and ethnic Russians have been persecuted in the Donbass region.

It’s completely understandable that the people that saw their elected president overthrown by fascists would want to secede.

Eastern Ukraine generally supports Russia over Kiev, which is why the Ukrainian Civil War was going on for a decade prior to Russia’s entry. From most people’s perspective, this is liberation for them. The Ukrainian hardliners have generally moved westward, those that remain are generally waiting for Russia’s advance.

China’s a socialist country on the path to communism. Newsweek is mocking social democrats by depicting them as though they are socialists and communists. The implication is that they are socialists, and not social democrats.

Are we in agreement, then? Reading your comment, it seems you think they are socialists.

Socialist democracy is just democracy in socialist countries, which has nothing to do with the article or those depicted on the cover. I thought you were talking about social democracy, considering these are social democrats.

Socialism is inherently democratic, and is also inherently a pre-communist, transitional form of society. Social democracy is not “socialist democracy,” it is capitalism with welfare.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No, but I support a mass library system
4. No, I try to avoid Starbucks to begin with
5. Yes
6. No, but this is irrelevant
7. Nationalization in capitalist states is not socialism, just like marketization in socialist states is not capitalism. Washington owning Intel would be better for them, but this is a social democratic reformist measure, not a socialist one.
8. Never been on X/Twitter
9. No
10. No
11. Yes
12. In a socialist society? Yes. In the present-day? More than a private company, sure.
13. Yes.
14. I hate both.
15. Yes.
16. I’d do it if they were the same price, of course I’d do it if they were cheaper.
17. Yes
18. Yes, but more than that the entire capitalist state needs to be broken and replaced with a socialist one, not simply tweaking the system that co-evolved with capitalism from its inception
19. Kinda? Odd question.
20. Yes.

Overall, completely horrendous tabloid quiz.

Would be better, but is both near-impossible to pass with the current state of the US Empire’s falling global domination, and would still perpetuate imperialism if it was passed without a transition to socialism.

The spectre haunts! 👻

I read works from Kwame Nkrumah, Michael Hudson, etc. Even if they aren’t strictly Marxist-Leninist, many progressives have good analysis that you can sharpen with your own understanding of dialectical materialism.

The Nordic Model isn’t “socialist ideals” keeping “capitalism in check,” it’s welfare capitalism using the spoils of imperialism to placate the working classes. As it is a capitalist system, it has structural contradictions that run into boom and bust, crises of profitability, and problems like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. This is all not to even speak of imperialism, which is where these social democracies rely on.

The proletariat is in power in socialist countries run by communist parties. You are treating job positions as though they are classes, but that’s not how Marxists see class. Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, not simply a managerial position being a class.

There is no hard line between church and state, or business and state. Interconnection exists between all things. The idea that businesses are free and independent really means that the state does not interfere in their ability to run, only in protecting them.

More than attempt, the socialist countries run by communist parties, the ones attempting to build towards communism, have been responsible for some of the most rapid improvements in living conditions in history. Socialism and communism aren’t like birds and ducks, but more like a sprout and a tree. Socialism is a transitional process between capitalism and communism, where production and distribution are gradually collectivized into communism.

No problem! Feel free to leave any comments or questions you may have if you choose the reading list option. The Marxism portal approach should take around an hour for the whole thing (minus the mini reading list it also recommends) so that’s also helpful if you just want to know the basics.

Great rec!

Marxism did not deal strictly with factory work, but with proletarianized labor, which persists today as the dominant form of labor. Further, I am really not sure what you mean by saying communism is “pie in the sky” or that human ambition is in opposition to communism. The manifesto is a pamphlet for agitation, it isn’t really the core of Marxism.

You have to understand both. Understanding why communist parties took the actions they have and do today is critical for understanding the courses different socialist countries have gone through. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other.

Yep, that would be great! I think a good place to start would be this reading list I put together. You can just check out the first couple sections:

Of course, I recommend the whole thing. Alternatively, Prolewiki’s Marxism portal contains a fantastic short list of articles that help explain the absolute basics quickly.

No? I have no idea where you got these ideas. Revolutionary organizing doesn’t necessarily mean throwing your life away, it means building an explicitly revolutionary and disciplined organization of cadre. These revolutionary organizations can participate in elections to advertise their platforms and grow the movement, but the understanding is always that you cannot establish socialism through reform. Marx himself was a revolutionary, not a reformist.

Again, I am not some Hasan hater. He’s not an anti-communist, but his positions are those of a social democrat sympathetic to communism and socialism. That’s not “silly,” it’s taking a consistent stance based in Marxist understandings of revolutionary change and the class nature of the state.

Revolution doesn’t just “happen,” you have to organize for it directly. Crisis is not the same as an assured revolution, to actually get revolution you need a revolutionary party leading the charge.