We're going to learn that the same people who blew up nordstream took out Navalny, aren't we?

Is 70ft far enough when it comes to the British?

If they're self-declared anti-Semites it's a problem. There's also a lot of problematic, latent anti-Semitism that we should and must stamp out, too.

I think the bigger issue is saying that anyone who doesn't want to fight Palestinians is automatically anti-Semitic. That's even more of a stretch than saying that anyone who opposes Zionism is anti-Semitic.

Both claims mask real anti-Semites and let them hide in plain sight with what they think they can project as a legitimate reason to be anti-Semitic. Those people are just as likely to be Islamophobic as they are anti-Semitic.

While we might be happy that US soldiers have found a war they don't want to fight in, I don't think we should brush off the fact that it stems from anti-Semitism (to the extent that it does) just because there's a positive outcome in this instance. Because ignoring that anti-Semitism will come back to bite us round the corner; it's the same kind that sees people support Israel because it encourages Jews to emigrate, which makes life worse for Palestinians and Jews everywhere.

It's also worth noting that Zionism is anti-Semitic and does not protect Jews from anti-Semitism. It could even be anti-Semitic itself. Both types of anti-Semitism, Zionist and anti-Zionist, should be opposed.

I think this is markedly different to 'necessary alliances', like between a national bourgeoisie and a national proletariat against an international bourgeoisie. I think we should be extremely careful about even appearing to be willing to ally with racists even if it seems that our goals align for a brief moment.

I'd keep them censored. They're openly speaking in public already but advertising their names on a platform they didn't choose to speak on will open them to vitriol from a wider audience than they might expect.

Hmm it can't be 'cosplaying as Hitler with Nazi mis-en-scène' or 'cheering for Nazi "war heros"' or 'funding fascists like in the run up to WWII' or… damn, it's a long list.

Sounds like a dictatorship to anyone with 4 brain cells

Indeed. lmao. Bold of you to confirm it. 😂😂

This appears to be another… Wikipedia link?

Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for 'conquest', 'annexation', 'empire' (not that I'm saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn't relevant, here).

When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it's vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there's little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.

We can discuss that if you like. I'll likely need others to chip in. I'm not proposing that I have all the answers. It's not something with a clear answer. But we can't have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what's being said. It's just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn't.

I'll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you've read.

I don't know what you think I'm trying to justify. You said:

When you see people on the hard left screeching about Ukrainian Nazis or advancing absurd peace deals then they’ve been gotten at.

I explained that the 'hard left' has been concerned about Nazis in Ukraine for a long time. You can understand that communists are going to keep a close eye on countries that ban communist parties. Yes other places have a far right problem too. Communists keep an eye on reactionaries elsewhere as well but it's hardly germane to a conversation about the circumstances of a war in Ukraine, is it?

I don't think you know how this cheese works. The rind is edible. It has the strongest flavour, so it's what's used in sauces, etc. If you ever had parmesan in a sauce e.g. at a restaurant, you ate the rind. Hence the need to put an edible microchip in it – because people are expected to eat it.

This thread is evidence of it. The quiet part gets shouted and rather than accepting that this is what MLs have been saying for two years, the libs are doubling down. Will they now accept the truth behind the quip, 'To the last Ukrainian?' Not a chance. Oblivious.

built on the principles of full transparency

"We don't gaf if you know how much wealth we're stealing"