Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
From the 2nd paragraph of the Communist manifesto from fucking 1848. Liberals never change.
OP should just find a better audio player or figure out how to enable loudness normalization.
Yeah I figured it was an issue with my software.
The “genocide Joe memers” forcing the Democrats to be unrepentant capitalist mass murders who hate their own voter base:
The west is literally commiting a genocide. They are mass disappearing people into the afterlife. Mind boggling that in 2025 we still have incredulous libs who believe in western exceptionalism.
Are you going to lay track on every street?
Not necessary. You can walk a few hundred meters to your end destination. It’s actually good for your health.
Not to mention, laying tons of tracks on streets for a light rail network is a thing that’s been around since before personalised cars.
For the non-worlders seeing this message,
Politics isn’t about your identity. It isn’t about getting a “leftist” in power (which is just an identity label). Politics is about making useful things happen. And having a congresswoman who cons dissenting opinions into pointless liberalism is dangerous and counter-productive.
76 comments as of now. This will be good
I’m stupid. I completely forgot that the worlders have enforced an authoritarian tankie censorship regime 😔
From a basic labor theory of value perspective, bitcoin requires labor to produce because mining it requires massive amounts of compute power. This computer power is supplied using GPUs and electricity, both of which require labor to produce.
If you use this calculator, and enter the values 67 TH/s (tera hashes per second, the rate at which you are mining), 2680 watts for electricity consumption rate, and 5 cents per kilo watt hour as prices, you will see
4.25 USD revenue per day 3.22 USD cost per day Profit rate = 32.0%
To make the values of the the hash rate and energy consumption rate realistic, I consulted the specs of the machine antminer S17, which is aparantly a machine used in the bitcoin mining world (I ain’t into crypto mining). The cost of electricty comes from Kazakhstan, which has cheap electricty and substantial mining operations.
So basically, at the current price of bitcoin can support a gross profit rate of 32% for the people who produce bitcoin, assuming you keep all the profit (no taxes, interest, rent), have no employees or maintainable costs. This is the price currently settled at based on the technological conditions and level of competition.
It is nothing too crazy of a price, and the rapid growth of price in bitcoin is due to how the currency was designed. Basically, once a certain number of bitcoin have been mined, the bitcoin generation rate per mined block halves. This forces an exponential rise in the difficulty of mining bitcoin, and therefore an exponential rise in its price.
Most probably, if bitcoin was designed to have a constant difficulty of producing, its price wouldn’t have increased at all.
I’ll bite. This is a genuinely new take I haven’t seen before, despite 3 years of the war. Would you mind explaining how exactly Russia is an American minion?
Biased, politicised science is real science. Not the platonic ideal you have in your head.
That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.
Respectfully, this is a weak sauce excuse, and a completely unscientific attitude. Scientists do not establish arbitrary barriers between different fields.
These kinds of statements 99% of the time come from people who don’t even do science, and whose understanding of science consists of “take down data points, analyse data points, be neutral” (paraphrasing your comment).
In reality, scientific names are usually given to honor specific people. The idea that the community just gives names to people who discovered things is simply ignorant of history. There are literally cases of people purchasing name recognition. There are also cases of people being honored by having their name on a phenomena they didn’t even discover, or a unit they did not create (typical for units, which are standardised by committees and not named after people in the standardisation committee)
Not something worth respecting in the first place
I mean the ruling class of Russia, China, and Iran, can also be my enemy.
The ruling classes of maybe Russia and Iran can be considered “enemies” (although if you live in the west, they don’t have any power and little influence over you), while the ruling class of China is neutral for westerners (and positive for the Chinese) in the most cynical reading.
Furthermore
No need to be choosy when you can instead have solidarity with the mistreated and exploited around the world :)
The exploited and mistreated of the world in general have a net positive perception of Russia, and China precisely because these countries have a continued track record of helping these countries. And this is especially true with China.
It’s absolutely possible for the UK to increase its defence spending while also not harming civilians, in the Middle East or anywhere else.
Not for imperial Britain. It’s possible for other countries, but not for imperialists. If you have the slightest concern for the people of Britain and people in other countries, you should oppose all attempts made by the imperialists to arm themselves. I oppose the imperial British arming themselves for the same reason I oppose nazi Germany arming itself.
Has there been a single year in my entire life where the western powers were not at war against some third world country? If the British really can be trusted with a military, they should prove it.
justified
Literally never even implied that. I’m sorry that your political education was limited to watching marvel movies with battles between good and evil.
Ukraine, a relatively weak country, joined NATO, it wouldn’t make a massive difference to the capabilities of NATO.
On the contrary, it would. Allowing western military infrastructure on an indefensible border would have been a catastrophic strategic error.
Also, kind of amazing to see liberal now hyping up Russian military capabilities when earlier in the war, they were calling it a “gas station with nukes”. Maybe the threat of these “advanced military capabilities” should have played a role in the political calculations of sending Ukrainians into an unwinnable war.
The reason some Ukrainians want to join NATO is because of the very real existential threat that Russia has posed to the state of Ukraine.
There was no such strategic or existential threat in the aftermath of the cold war where the west basically lotted and puppeteered Russia. Even putin had naively tried to join nato believing that this would alleviate western attempts at putting military pressure on Russia back in 2008 or 7, don’t remember the exact year.
I don’t know why you think Russia should be trusted to launch no more invasions of Europe.
Trusted is the wrong word. Prediction is better. The overwhelming majority of wars occur around previously predictable flashpoints. This does not mean that wars do not break out without reason, but this is rare. The same goes with Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had been predicted all the way back in Clinton’s time, with some of his advisors explicitly being concerned that arming Ukraine would undermine the post-cold war order and security in Europe.
Next time it might be another former-USSR country, like one of the Baltics.
On what basis, and for what gain?
The UK is of course obliged by its NATO membership to help the Baltics if they are invaded.
Precisely. You are positing that the Russians will invade and fight against NATO, triggering WW3. But why? What would the geopolitical drive be for such an action on the Russian part?
Also you mention “the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders” as if that’s a legitimate excuse for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and Georgia.
The behaviors of states and nations have nothing to do with “legitimacy”, which is a made up concept. On the Russian side, western military encroachment into Ukraine was viewed as an existential threat, and they had communicated this view over and over to the west even before Putin’s rise to power. When dialogue failed to produce results, and the maidan coup happened, the Russians supported the separatists in the Donbass. Even then, they signed 2 ceasefires (Minsk 1 and Minsk 2), both of which were still broken. The Russians thought that Trump would solve the situation, but he didn’t because he generally tends to fumble just about everything.
Then after all that, they decided to launch basically a decapitation strike on Ukraine in Feb 2022. By April 2022, the strike hadn’t worked, but the Ukrainians and Russians were in the process of another treaty, which as far as I remember, Boris Johnson convinced the Ukrainians to not take. It was only then that the attrition war mess started.
My point is, western powers had many many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. Russia also had the choice of not invading, but every Russian leader made it clear that a Ukraine militarily integreated into the west is a national security catastrophe for them. That includes everyone from Gobachev (the one who dissolved the USSR on behalf of the west), Yeltsin (the one installed by the west), and Putin (the Russian liberal who initially wanted to join NATO until the west made it clear that they basically wanted to continue the cold war).
In essence, every russian leader since the late 1980s started out as pro-west, and yet the west simply does not want to end the cold war. So now you’re back to the same situation as before the dissolution of the USSR. The formation of 2 competing blocs that engage in proxy wars to contain each other’s power. And let’s be clear, Russia is not the only taking military action. The west’s military adventurism in west asia directly threatens the security of Russia and China, and India, and Europe. Part of the reason for the west’s fanatical levels of support for Israel is precisely because it is a convenient launching pad for de-stabilization actions taken in the heart of Eurasia.
it is perfectly possible for the UK to increase its defence capabilities, while also refraining from attacks upon the Middle East
This is for a hypothetical UK that has divested from the imperial system in west asia, a hypothetical UK that does not exist.
I think that’s a separate issue from the UK and its allies spending more on defence in order to protect themselves from Russia, though.
It very much isn’t. You don’t have 2 seperate militaries, one for defense against Russia and one for use against everyone else.
Don’t you know? Americans can’t be racist and stupid!