Mmmmvotebiden

What do you mean? Literally every single Communist Party in the US push their members to vote D. Every single one.
>solve the old anarchist problem
The funny thing is the anarchists in Ukraine joined Azov and Right Sector as soon as the invasion happened though.

>The funny thing is the anarchists in Ukraine joined Azov and Right Sector as soon as the invasion happened though.
Lmao that's even better. But arent Azov and Right Sector just a bunch of larpers?

Attached: David-Barsamian-with-Noam-edit.png (2168x1626, 3.31M)

Of cores he has a picture of that smelly faggot on his wall.

based

Its not really surprising; Mahkno is quite famous in Ukrainian nationalist circles, and he was praised by the Ukrainian government, on twitter, dozens of times

I don't think that's necessarily anarchism, even my international relations professor (a Jew) talked about how it was important to give Putin a palatable off ramp so that he's not backed into a corner

Chomsky is still going way out of his way to appease Putin because of a supposed nuclear threat, where he has not done that before. If we follow his logic, Palestinians should just lay down their arms, and anyone fighting the USA should do to, since the alternative is nuclear destruction. But Chomsky has never said that in the past.

Well the theory of international relations actually is anarchy, what he's saying is not that different to Mearshimer

So he just turned into a hard realist when it's a regime he's somewhat sympathetic towards?

It looks like that to me. Is Chomsky sympathetic with Putin? Seemed to me like he was a hard leftist these days

You seem to know things about IR, got any good reading material for someone who's somewhat knowledgeable about it but wants to learn more about it?

Putinism isn’t just a rightoid thing. Consider Xi Jinping, Duterte, Oliver Stone, etc.

Most commies support the Russians because he's against NATO, and anything against NATO is good. Many European communist parties are either supporting the Russians openly or are pussy-footing around it, putting the blame for this war really on NATO.
Chomsky always had a toddler's view of IR; does it benefit the US or Israel? Then it's bad, even when those regimes he's talking about are bordering on fascism.

Communist Parties in the US are feds and have been feds for 60 years

Xi has realpolitik reasons for siding with Putin, I'm curious what does Noam "Put the unvaccinated in ghettos" Chomsky like about him?

Lol tb.h I've only taken a couple courses on IR so I've only really read my IR textbook from Intro to IR. Even that course was kind of low quality, because even though we had a really famous and distinguished professor teaching it, my university shrunk the course from a full year to a half year course. Hard to go over everything in like 3 months. But the textbook was called "The Globalization of World Politics" by John Baylis if you want to pirate it, its on libgen

Better me than Trump and you know it corn pop!

These leftists are a minirity and get called fascists by other leftists

Leftists are a fucking minority of losers and clout goblins seeking social validation through twitter and discord circlejerking and splits. Always have been and always will be. Honestly, who gives a fuck if they minor disagreements? The world would be better off if you were all fucking dead. None of your ideas are worth defending or fighting for.

why?

I don't think the Ukrainian is anarchist

the US has never actually bordered on fascism ever

as far as IR theory, Mearsheimer, Walt, Waltz, Wallerstein, Wendt, Keohane, Hobbes, Grotius, Kant, Brzezinski, Huntington, Morgenthau, Carr

Chomsky is always as realist as it gets when it comes to methodology

trump lost

>what to do when an authoritarian political actor invades
The fact you think Putin is the authoritarian in this case is proof of how effective the propaganda model is. It's funny that Chomsky's stance isn't more critical of the US and NATO's blame in all of this

Russia is an authoritarian actor, there is no doubt about that. But since Chomsky is an anarchist, would he believe that an anarchist society being invaded would also just have to appease any invader, because that's simply "how the world works"?

It isn't random. I said power hungry people are the most competent.

I don't think that's what Chomsky is saying, he's just recognizing the reality. By the way, you're clearly critical of such a view, what is your alternative?

>Russia is an authoritarian actor, there is no doubt about that
Not only do I doubt that Russia is an authoritarian actor, but I doubt that this is an invasion. What I was more alluding to is that Chomsky's lost his mental reasoning faculties with regard to the propaganda model. Because you glossed over it, the most important point I want to make is as follows:

This entire debacle is framed in a way that removes the US of all culpability. It's very easy to do, yes we've stirred the hornet's nest, but look at how the hornets sting that poor little girl! Gah! That's a thorn in my side, that's a stinger in the singer, that's honey from my pot! Those hornets, they're to blame!

Don't believe me? Look at the CUBAN missile crisis, for a clearcut example. It was a crisis that was sparked by US moving missiles into Italy and Turkey. Why wasn't it called the Mediterranean missile crisis? After all, the crisis only originated because of US aggression. Likewise, this is only happening because of NATO aggression. Russia is not taking over, they are not invading. They are ruining Ukraine on purpose, completely wrecking it, so as to deplete it of its resources (economic and otherwise) before Ukraine joins NATO. By doing this, Russia is ensuring its own safety.

Putin is only 'authoritarian' insofar as he seems to be against having his leadership taken by force. By the tone of your argument, you should be siding with Russia, since they're refusing to lay down and appease to an invader, sure they're pre-empting some kind of offensive movement from America, but given the US' track record (Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, etc...), this is a reasonable assumption. The fact that 'backing off' russia is seen as appeasing and rolling over is proof that Western propaganda has effectively brainwashed you to see the story in one way, and one way only.

I'm an outside observer who doesn't watch the news, neither Russian nor Western. All media is inherently propaganda, Western media shines a magnifying glass over one particular issue, and even then it's only one fragment of a fragment of an issue. It's like shining a magnifying glass on a red wine stain on a shirt and saying the entire shirt is red. Sure, that section of it is red, but if you zoom out, there's a whole 70+ year history surrounding this little red wine stain, and you realise the shirt had no option but to be stained. Those who know will know.

>Literally every single Communist Party in the US push their members to vote D.
no communist party does that, just controlled "anti-capitalist" opposition that in reality is just an extension to of the dems, securing the left flank for them.
>The funny thing is the anarchists in Ukraine joined Azov and Right Sector as soon as the invasion happened though.
petty-bourgeois radicals are natural nationalists. it might've still been amusing 100 years ago when anarchists like Mussolini went full ultranationalist, but generally it's 100% expected and gets old fast
communists don't take sides in imperialist war. Lenin:
>If a German under Wilhelm or a Frenchman under Clemenceau says, “It is my right and duty as a socialist to defend my country if it is invaded by an enemy”, he argues not like a socialist, not like an internationalist, not like a revolutionary proletarian, but like a petty-bourgeois nationalist. Because this argument ignores the revolutionary class struggle of the workers against capital, it ignores the appraisal of the war as a whole from the point of view of the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat, that is, it ignores internationalism, and all that remains is miserable and narrow-minded nationalism. My country is being wronged, that is all I care about—that is what this argument amounts to, and that is where its petty-bourgeois, nationalist narrow-mindedness lies.
replace "my country is invaded" with "poor innocent Russia is encroached by NATO". further:
>The socialist, the revolutionary proletarian, the internationalist, argues differently. He says: “The character of the war (whether it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on who the attacker was, or in whose country the ‘enemy’ is stationed; it depends on what class is waging the war, and on what politics this war is a continuation of. If the war is a reactionary, imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world slaughter.

Relax, buddy.

God I love the CIA, he coups commies and niggers and isn’t afraid of anything. MORE MISSILES AND EMBASSYS THE WORLD BELONGS TO US

>Russia's only other option is to BARELY squeak by

Why are most Western critiques still filled with bias like this? Is it "know thy audience?"

>NOOO THOSE AREN'T REAL COMMUNISTS, THOSE ARE REVISIONISTS!
I've heard this same, cringe worthy no true Scotsman argument a bazillion times. Its no wonder you faggots split into dozens of worthless groups.

>The real communists are worthless, nobodies like me with a less > 100 reader sub-stack
Also,
>Lenin
The same fucking loser, dumb kike who owned 9 Rolls Royces, lived in a mansion after the revolution his war communism policies murdered millions? The same guy who said the US postal service is a working example of socialism? That guy fucking loser? Who the fuck cares what he had to say.
>like Mussolini went full ultranationalist,
Actually, nationalism is something they all do when they realize internationalism is utopian non-sense derived from a purely class reductionist world view like yours. That's why Stalin, Mao and most relevant communists were die-hard nationalists and did not one single fuck about "internationalism."

I agree with leftists when they complain about CIA overthrowing leftist governments. That's such a waste of money. The CIA should just have been killing the ones who already exist here. That's where they're a bigger problem.

CIA cant really operate in the USA

We really should change that.

The FBI already handles it

They don't have the ability to waterboard people and kill them in secrecy

this is your brain on marx. sad.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=j0_TDPaUznw

They probably do desu, or some other agency

>The real communists are worthless, nobodies like me with a less > 100 reader sub-stack
the real communists aren't those who hold clearly anti-proletarian positions such as taking sides in war between imperialist blocs or in scuffles between bourgeois parties
>Who the fuck cares what he had to say.
he was right about what the communist position on imperialist war is, so in this case the people who care are those who are interested in what the communist position on imperialist war is
>nationalism is something they all do when they realize internationalism is utopian non-sense
no, it's once they realize that it's no longer useful for them to pretend to be on the side of the proletariat and they proceed to reveal openly what they really were from the beginning: bourgeois stooges. it has nothing to do with a real change of heart and everything to do with a mere change of tactics.
>That's why Stalin, Mao and most relevant communists were die-hard nationalists and did not one single fuck about "internationalism."
they didn't give a single fuck about internationalism because they weren't communists. what they were is the executors of bourgeois revolution in Russia and China, i.e. of building national capitalism there. and building capitalism in a country always means nation building, so it's no wonder they were nationalist.

>HAMBURGERHAMBURGERHAMBURGERRRR

It's very disingenuous whenever people say Stalin and Mao weren't real communists. Stalin was an expert on Marxism, and he could give lectures on the topic

this is the gayest thing I ever saw

THE CHAD SWING VOTER

lol so what? I could read 50 thousand pages on fish, but that wouldn't make me a fish. apparently, however, it would enable me to bullshit random morons who have no understanding of fish into thinking "wow, this guy knows so much about fish! he must be one!"

Why bring up Marx out of nowhere? This is Noam Chomsky not David Harvey.

You seem like a fascist

>I could read 50 thousand pages on fish, but that wouldn't make me a fish

What even is this reply.

kek, based

>communists
>Marxism
It isn’t “disingenuous” user. You just don’t understand what’s going on yet.

Stalin actually accomplished something in the name of gomunism. Something you will never do tranny. You are all talk

See and sit back down

So who is a communist? Has there ever been a communist? I'm actually ok with accepting Stalin wasn't a communist because then leftists would have to admit that their ideology can't exist in the world

See and stand back up

Make me troon.