It’s a reply picture to their question, the Red Army defeated the Nazis and took Berlin. PragerU didn’t post the picture, though they certainly would see the defeat of Nazism as a bad thing of course. Dennis Prager has spelled it out as such, claiming Nazis were better people than Palestinians.

What do you mean?

In most revolutions, there isn’t an outright war, usually the millitary gives in and small cells remain. In some, there is a protracted war, but the Leftists usually have nothing to lose and the millitary is only in it for the paycheck so desertion becomes incredibly common. It’s worth reading the real histories of revolutions.

“Finally?” Organizing and taking up arms has happened for a long, long time. The Black Panther Party is an easy and recognizable example.

Yep, I’m kind of shocked how they openly are justifying and minimizing Imperialism, it’s rare to see someone so forthright with it like this.

Where do you think nationalism comes from in colonized and Imperialized countries? A desire to overthrow their oppressors. Read The Wretched of the Earth.

I did not say that only the US has used slaves. I am explaining that colonialism and Imperialism have been ongoing processes for the last several centuries and explain where the wealth in the Global North comes from, and it’s from stealing it from the Global South. You seem to be intentionally missing the point out of a sense of contrarianism.

What do you mean? It’s commonly known that Western Europe and the US colonized the world and rode on the backs of slavery for centuries, the modern form of which is Imperialism. Cuba is a great example, the US installed the Batista regime to profit off of slave labor and tried to send death squads to thwart the Cuban Revolution, which ultimately failed, leaving Cubans free from direct exploitation by the US Empire. Cuba is still subject to brutal embargo because the US Empire never forgave Cubans for freeing themselves from slavery and hurting US profits.

Countries are made up of people. People care about their fellow countrymen, the difference here is that Africa and Latin America have been utterly looted and colonized for centuries, the colonizers setting up skeleton states to maintain imperialism and neocolonialism. This is not a culture issue, a race issue, or a moral failing, but an economic problem caused by centuries of looting and pillaging.

As for BRICS? China had a Communist revolution to throw out the Imperialists, same as Russia (who re-nationalized after the West swooped in during the fall of the USSR, now resulting in Nationalist Capitalism), India largely has had an incomplete overthrow of Imperialists and as such has seen further impoverishment, and more.

You actually agree with us and with Chinese Communists, who believe everyone’s path to a better society will be different. However, where we differ is that we have spent the time studying history, theory new and old, and have come to the conclusion that all of these different solutions will come in the form of Socialism with various Characteristics. Additionally, we don’t blame victims, but oppressors.

No, you have it opposite. More powerful nations come in and set up corrupt structures to maintain it, such as the Fascist Batista in Cuba for US interests before he was overthrown by the Communists.

That entirely contradicts yourself though. You don’t support Capitalism, but you don’t support the only way it has been replaced historically.

Depending on countries to “overcome incredible odds,” ie violently eject colonizers and imperialists, and tacitly supporting said system of Imperialism makes little sense. Their success happened because of violently ejecting Imperialists.

Secondly, I am not talking about exploitation within Imperialized countries, but by Imperialist countries. Shacking up countries in debt traps and using loopholes to sieze infrastructure like ports and natural resources is how the Global North violently steals from the Global South, and maintains this with many military bases to prevent resistance.

Gotcha, so you agree that Capitalists should not be able to steal from workers and you no longer support Imperialism, right?

It’s extremely simple, the Capitalist countries wealthier than China are wealthier because they colonize and loot the world. This isn’t delusion, but fact. China has solved their major poverty issues as I linked, it seems you think that the instant a country adopts a system it instantaneously takes on the form of a maximally developed version of itself as if time doesn’t exist. The PRC is growing at a far faster rate than the dying Capitalist countries in the Global North.

As for the USSR, it’s not at all a problem to appropriate housing from the gentry, and wealth disparity dramatically lowered. Both the PRC and USSR are real examples of Socialism, handing out food to those who need it and ending famine in a country where famine was cyclical under the Tsar is a good thing.

As for USians, the majority would get wealthier without Capitalists expropriating from them like Bezos and Musk, I have no idea where you think wealth would evaporate to. By owning production in common and directing among a common plan, median wealth rises, as happens in AES coutries.

It’s pretty disingenuous when you pretend Communists and Socialists to only be interested in enriching themselves when you have been given many primary and scholarly secondary sources proving much the opposite. I have done what you wanted and checked your sources, but despite your claims that you would check out the sources others have listed it’s clear you actually haven’t. The only conclusion, therefore, is that you don’t actually care, and just want to argue online.

Again, I don’t know how to explain this in clearer terms, the Global South has been intentionally overexploited and looted by the Global North for centuries. It is the fault of countries you uphold as role models as well as others like the United States.

Liberalism is the ideological component of Capitalism. It usually espouses principles like individualism, freedom, etc regardless of how poorly Capitalism achieves these aims, and does so on the basis of Private Property Rights. Liberalism has major roots in the French Revolution and was popularized by the Bourgeoisie to cement themselves as the next ruling class.

Ultimately, there’s a difference between social media and an organized party, if we aren’t bound by DemCent and aren’t speaking with comrades, but anyone from fascists to liberals, there’s little to be done in the way of productive tone policing. It’s a nuanced issue, transphobes, racists, fascists, etc shouldn’t really be protected out of “civility.” Moreover, telling people expressing anger towards reactionaries to “tone it down” and keep being patient can backfire, especially in the case of marginalized comrades who are used to being silenced by reactionaries.

Yep, exactly. That’s why it’s good to have these conversations, but the manner and context matters a lot too. There’s a good deal of nuance involved.

Weird and unnecessary thing to call out, but you do you I guess. Guess the spectre of Communism is haunting this thread.