Possibly they meant that she is not a communist?

but Hungary are hardcore Zionists as well.

I know. I never claimed otherwise.

The US demanded a commitment not to build a nuclear bomb, and Iran declined.

According to who? I’m not saying this is impossible, but if the Americans are saying this then i would be extremely skeptical. They have lied about this before. Why take them at their word? Can we have this corroborated by Iran or Pakistan? By all credible accounts it looks more likely that the US just made some ridiculously excessive demands as if they are the ones with the leverage here, such as that Iran give up all its uranium, and got butthurt when Iran categorically refused.

What an absurd, ridiculous framing. As if Hungary is the only obstacle to EU doing anything at all that goes against “Israel”. Newsflash: Germany exists. Germany will never allow “Israel” to be sanctioned. Europe is full of diehard Zionists at the elite level. If they use Orban as the spoiler on this it’s only because they don’t want to take the PR hit themselves. The only effect this will actually have is to let them be even more suicidal in their policies toward Russia, which is where Orban actually played a meaningful role in blocking EU stupidity.

This is another transparent attempt to try and sway the election against Orban, this time by exploiting people’s pro-Palestinian sentiment to spin this story that if only we got rid of Orban suddenly the EU would stop supporting apartheid and genocide.

They are a nuclear power. They have a real degree of autonomy and are not always aligned with US imperial policy. The main thing is that the military are the ones in charge and they have their own interests for which they sometimes need the US, but they also for example have very close military and economic ties to China and they also don’t want chaos in the region. The coup against Imran Khan represented a convergence of interests between the Pakistani military and the US.

Arguing with people like this is ultimately pointless because they just live in an alternate reality where the words they use don’t have the same definition as the rest of us use. Their axiomatic framework is some fantastical mind-construct rather than objective reality. It’s like arguing about gravity with someone who has a completely alternative definition of what even gravity is and doesn’t acknowledge basic principles of physics.

The first part is pure nonsense that has nothing to do with the Leninist definition of imperialism.

The second part is just circular reasoning:

“all capitalist states have to be imperialist because if they were not this would mean some of their wars are defensive and justified, which they cannot be because all capitalist states are imperialist”.

“Iran is just as imperialist as the USA” is not a serious argument and does not deserve a response.

How stupid do you have to be to literally post the quote that explicitly debunks your own argument?

For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.

It says it right there: “sympathize with the oppressed, unequal states against the predatory great power.” What is Iran waging if not literally a just and defensive war? Lenin goes even further: Iran would be waging a just and defensive war even if they had attacked first, which they didn’t. Lenin also says this in the previous chapter:

We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism) to study each war separately. In history there have been numerous wars which, in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and reactionary institutions

It could not be clearer, the point he is making about how Revolutionary Defeatism only applies to inter-imperialist wars and not legitimate defensive and progressive wars. It very much does not “apply across the board”, Lenin is crystal clear about this. (And so is Stalin, btw).

You can read the whole piece here, it’s not that long.

Little Chinese school kids as usual being better educated than most American adults.

Stay in school. You will regret it otherwise later if you don’t. You might be able to find a program offering a semester or year abroad. I would absolutely take that opportunity. It will open up many other possibilities for you, including, should you wish it, moving to another country. There are countries where tuition is free or very low.

Thank you for writing this, it is very interesting and educational about a point of view/topic that is not often talked about. I don’t have a specific position on the question of Occitan nationalism, but i just want to make a general point here which is that the question of whether or not to support separatism in my view also includes an element of strategic expediency. What i mean by this is simply that i think that as communists we should also consider the effect that separatism and balkanization of larger states has on their ability to sustain themselves as independent entities and their ability to project power in the world.

For instance, a country which may be capable of a considerable degree of self-sufficiency before, if balkanized might result in states are are too small to be able to sustain enough agriculture and industry to exist without becoming dependent on other states. The result can be that these smaller states then become more vulnerable to imperialist subjugation and capture of their political system (it is easier to bribe/threaten smaller countries than big ones), such as happened in the wake of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I am sure that many of those people who supported the dissolution of these states thought much the same as you do about their culture, but did their formal independence result in their overall conditions improving?

On the other hand, you can also argue that if the chances of an imperial core state, such as the US or UK, becoming socialist are very low and if the role they are likely to continue to play in the world in the future is undoubtedly a malicious one, using their strength to pursue an imperialist agenda, then is it not in the interest of the greater global good for them to disintegrate so that their remnants can no longer do the same damage to the world? Would the world be a better place with a weaker, smaller France? Or is it better for socialists to hold out hope that France can turn socialist and anti-imperialist, in which case a strong France would be preferable?

Lenin also explained how “advance and retreat” even applies more broadly to a revolutionary party:

The revolutionary parties had to complete their education. They were learning how to attack. Now they had to realise that such knowledge must be supplemented with the knowledge of how to retreat in good order. They had to realise—and it is from bitter experience that the revolutionary class learns to realise this—that victory is impossible unless one has learned how to attack and retreat properly.

Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks effected the most orderly retreat, with the least loss to their “army”, with its core best preserved, with the least significant splits (in point of depth and incurability), with the least demoralisation, and in the best condition to resume work on the broadest scale and in the most correct and energetic manner.

The Bolsheviks achieved this only because they ruthlessly exposed and expelled the revolutionary phrase-mongers, those who did not wish to understand that one had to retreat, that one had to know how to retreat, and that one had absolutely to learn how to work legally in the most reactionary of parliaments, in the most reactionary of trade unions, co-operative and insurance societies and similar organisations.

The Principal Stages in the History of Bolshevism

In war as in politics, retreats are not always a sign of defeat, they can be necessary tactical maneuvers on the road to victory.

This is something a lot of people commenting on current conflicts need to hear (especially some Russian commentators on various Telegram channels). Stop assuming that you know better than the people actually conducting the war. You probably don’t.

This is far from the first time Chinese Belt and Road assets have been attacked. It’s usually not this directly by a state actor, usually the US uses terrorist proxies to do it, but they have definitely been doing this for years and years. Chinese engineers have been killed and Chinese built infrastructure has been bombed by groups that are very clearly American backed proxies, across Pakistan, Myanmar and more. So China understands the game being played.

Can’t hurt to try. No one says it’s forbidden for meat eaters to also eat vegan products. As the saying goes, diversity is the spice of life.

My thoughts exactly. How much longer will the military tolerate a traitorous government for?

He just genuinely seems so much happier when he is out planting trees and meeting people:

Very good explanation of Marx’s dialectical method and the history of it. In essence, Marx’s dialectical and historical materialism was simply the first systematic application of the scientific method to the study of economy, society and history (which are all intertwined and cannot be separated from one another).

💯