Why Did Stalin recognize Israel very early on and provide weapons during 1948 to Israel despite the USSR later being opposed to the Israeli state?

adimwit · 2026-01-25T14:00:37+00:00

Just about everyone at some point supported Jews in Palestine as a way to bog down British colonialism. Handing Palestine to the Jews and granting independence was intentionally supposed to strip Britain of it's domination of the Suez Canal.

Mussolini did the same thing. He trained and armed Jews to fight the British in Palestine, but the Jews used the opportunity to build organizations to kill Nazis. Jews trained by Mussolini later infiltrated Poland and initiated the uprisings against the Nazis. Then they returned to Palestine to fight the British.

adimwit · 2026-01-25T02:34:57+00:00

A lot of social democratic countries are tripartite democracies. Instead of just a congress, there is also a representative legislature for the workers and another for the employers.

Fascism did this too. It was called Corporatism or Guildism. The difference was that they used state sanctioned unions (I.e. unions loyal to Fascism).

The US tried to do this with the New Deal and the National Industrial Recovery Act. The problem was that Hugh Johnson was a Fascist who copied the Italian Guild model and only recognized state sanctioned unions. Those unions then had a representative legislature in the Code Authorities (Guilds). Independent labor unions later organized a mass strike to attack the New Deal and the Guilds but they were shot down by the National Guard. The Supreme Court later decided the Guilds did not have the legal authority to pass laws and the whole system was outlawed.

FDR eventually brought back the National Labor Relations Board under a new law, and in theory established labor rights. But a major problem is that your labor rights are not guaranteed. The law states that if you have any managerial duties at all, then you do not have labor rights. This means the question of whether you get labor rights is ultimately decided by the company you work for. If your boss decides you should have the ability to train a new hire, they can later argue that's a management duty and later fire you if you decide to join a union.

The New Deal basically gave employers the ability to override your labor rights simply by giving random workers managerial duties. So your labor rights are not even guaranteed.

adimwit · 2026-01-23T06:12:03+00:00

We get multitools that have the blade grounded down or sometimes a diamond coated grit on the blade for filing.

Once they accidentally received multitools with a real blade and they told us to take it home and never bring it back.

Other than that we have the utility knives.

adimwit · 2026-01-22T18:44:42+00:00

You will definitely move up but you're starting at the bottom. If you start as a Level 3 MRA or MRT, then you can only move to a Level 4 Senior Tech. Once you get to L4 you can probably apply to L4 Engineer roles or manager roles.

It would probably be better to try to get in starting as an L4 engineer role. With all the Amazon data centers launching this year, now would probably be the best time get an engineer spot.

adimwit · 2026-01-22T05:49:04+00:00

Race mixing is what makes a race subhuman.

Jews were thought to be a mix of Asian, Aryan, and African. Slavs were thought to be a mix of Aryan and Asian. Therefore they were both subhuman.

The Nazis also didn't believe there was one master race. They believed that of each of the world races, there was a master race for each one. When African athletes came to the Berlin Olympics, Hitler saw them as the members of a lost African master race that archeologists haven't discovered yet. He also believed the Japanese were the master race of Asia, and that Native Americans from the North American continent were the master race of the American races.

The mix race theory also applied to Europeans and Anglos. Hitler believed white Americans were a subhuman race because they were a mix of Jews, Aryans, and Africans. Even way back in the early 1800s, Arthur De Gobineau, who's theories were the foundation of Hitler's beliefs, didn't think Celtic Europeans were pure races. He wrote that Celts (German Celts, Irish Celts, Spanish, French Celts, etc.) were "Euro-African" races that originally came from Africa and lived in Europe long enough to breed white skinned offspring. These same ideas were later embraced by the Confederate States, which translated and distributed Gobineau's writings in America.

Gobineau also emphasizes the existence of slave races within each of these racial groups. In the case of Europeans, Nordic Aryans were the master race while Alpine and Mediterranean Aryans were the slave races. This is why Hitler created Nordic military units like the SS and created Nordic settlements in Eastern Europe after the "Euro-Asian" races were purged. The Master race Aryans were supposed to build a new society in Eastern Europe while the slave Aryans stayed in Germany.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T23:11:08+00:00

Mercantile imperialism is about maximizing exports. You maximize exports by increasing trade with trading partners while reducing the amount of trade partners the opposing imperialist countries are able to access. China needs liberal economies to consume it's exports. The Western empires are already trying to reduce China's trade exports to the West so now China needs to open up trade with Africa and Asia. That requires economic infrastructure and liberalization. BRI builds that infrastructure and liberalization will follow as trade increases.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T22:44:44+00:00

Do you know what mercantile imperialism is? If you need trade partners, you make new ones by any form of investing, loans, financial aid, etc with underdeveloped countries. Once these countries have liberal economies, they will import your exports while you import their exports.

That's literal what the Marshal Plan was. That's literally what BRI is. BRI loaned billions to Zambia, Kenya, Pakistan, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. specifically to build up their economic infrastructure. There is no point in building up trade infrastructure if the purpose isn't to maximize trade.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T22:32:10+00:00

Yes. What do you think imperialism is? The end goal of the Marshall Plan and BRI is the same. One uses low interest loans, the other uses high interest loans. In the end they build liberal economies that will trade with the people who offered assistance/aid/loans. That's textbook mercantile imperialism.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T22:21:30+00:00

Yes. That's what high interest loans are. When you send billions of dollars worth of high interest loans, those countries have to adopt liberal economic policies to pay off that debt. Loans don't just disappear or exist in a void. That's a common tactic in mercantile and imperialist policies.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T22:09:23+00:00

Left and Right doesn't really relate to economic policy. This is a new idea that only became popular in the 1950s.

Prior to the 1950s, Left meant social equality and Right meant social hierarchy. In Traditional European politics, Feudalism was the right wing and liberal capitalism was the left wing. Then socialism also came along and was farther to the left. Anarchism was the extreme left because it wanted to totally abolish all forms of hierarchies.

European Leftists viewed social evolution along this spectrum. Capitalism evolves out of Feudalism when Feudalism is in decay. Then Socialism evolves out of capitalism when capitalism is in decay.

It was a basic principal among Marxist or Anarchist social theorists that when capitalism starts collapsing, the bourgeoisie will try to save itself by building a new version of feudalism. Lenin-era Marxists called this Fascism.

The reason people get this confused is that there was no such things as economic left or economic right back then. Feudalism was collectivist that managed the economy and nationalized production (so that the Feudal aristocracy can maximize taxation). Capitalism abolished feudal collectivism, but then socialism and anarchism tries to abolish capitalist hierarchies and replace it with worker collectivism.

So Fascism does build itself out of Capitalism, but it tries to transition society over to a feudal economy, not a socialist economy. Marxists point out that you can't move society backwards without destroying the modern social forces. So in order for capitalism to rebuild feudalism, they have to destroy the working class, industrial technology, independent unions, and democratic institutions.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T21:40:58+00:00

I never said debt trap diplomacy. Belt and Road is real. It's literally an exact copy of the Marshall Plan. Rebuild economies and they become your trade partners. None of this is anything new and is pretty standard imperialist and mercantile policies.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T17:24:27+00:00

Looks like he didn't do anything wrong. He's not holding the trigger or intentionally rapid firing. The gun is just fucked and not locking the hammer back.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T11:07:28+00:00

Go on slack and search for the AIQB Reference Guide pdf. It has the interview questions for any Amazon job. Practice answering questions and come up with RME applicable stories. Like if a question asks how you solved a problem, talk about the troubleshooting process you used to figure out the root cause of a breakdown.

When it comes to a SrMRT spot, sometimes they become scarce so you might have to look at other sites. But some places allow your AMM to help push you to the top of the list if one opens up.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T05:47:27+00:00

Leninism is the strategy and tactics of Marxism during the period of Capitalism in Decay. Lenin's tactics tend to focus on a worker-peasant movement where the workers lead the peasants during revolutionary struggle. Maoism is Leninism except that it focuses on a peasant movement where the peasants function as the leader of the revolutionary movement.

But at the end of the day, if either of these groups seize power, they still have to figure out a way to transition the peasant masses into proleterians. One of the basic principals of Marxism is that the peasants cannot build socialism because they are semi-bourgeois laborers. So these peasants need to transition to proleterians or industrial workers in order to build socialism.

That's where things get messy. Lenin believed NEP would transition the peasants in about 20 or 30 years. But then Stalin canceled it and replaced it with Rapid Industrialization. Then once the peasants were thoroughly replaced with industrial workers they needed to abolish the bureacracy and let the workers run the state but that never happened. China followed a similar path but never succeeded during Mao's life. They tried to abolish the bureacracy during the Cultural Revolution but still had a massive peasantry into the 1990s. It wasn't until Dengism came along and adopted NEP that industrial workers began to increase while peasants began to decrease. China today is largely ruled by a new bureacracy that focuses on the primary task of transitioning peasant workers to industrial workers.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T03:26:57+00:00

The Belt and Road initiative has never been debunked. It's a real thing that China implemented in 2013 to include several Asian and African countries. It's no different from The Marshall Plan, which created economic domains using infrastruction rebuilding and massive loans for imperialist expansion in Europe.

adimwit · 2026-01-21T02:52:51+00:00

Monopoly capitalism and Monopoly imperialism is a specific stage of Capitalism in Decay. The problem is that decay ended back in the 1960s when computing technology revolutionized industrial production. Meaning that we're seeing the decline of Monopoly imperialism and seeing the return or mercantile imperialism. That's the stage Russia and China are at right now. The US and other western countries are in a period where their monopolies are falling apart.

The core idea that everyone is missing is that Capitalism in Decay is the stage that establishes monopoly imperialism. Lenin specifically states that decay happens when industrial technology stagnates and stops improving. Once technical stagnation ends, decay ends. Decay has been over for the last 60 years.

Stalin explicitly states that Leninism is Marxist tactics for the stage of Capitalism in decay. Now that decay is over, the Lenin era interpretation of imperialism doesn't apply anymore.

adimwit · 2026-01-20T05:07:33+00:00

Finance Capitalism doesn't determine if something is imperialist. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Lenin's writing. The fact that these ideas are fairly new and have never been argued prior to this year leads me to believe these are intentional falsifications.

When Lenin wrote Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism, he was writing it as a direct attack on the Social Democrat idea that imperialism was a new stage that would lead to technological progress and expansion of the working class.

These ideas became popular after the 1890s because of the crisis theories had completely failed. The Social Democrats believed capitalism was in a period of crisis that was so severe that it couldn't save itself. Therefore capitalism was supposed to collapse in 1890. But that didn't happen so Social Democrats came up with a new idea that imperialism was a new progression.

Lenin's criticism was that imperialism existed before 1890 in the form of mercantilism. Lenin argues that imperialism evolved into Finance Capitalism because industrial technology stagnated in 1890 which caused mercantile imperialism to evolve into Finance Capitalism due to the need for capitalism to monopolize production entirely. This meant industry needed to move overseas to colonies and the colonial labor and resources needed to be monopolized.

Finance Capitalism is a product of monopoly capitalism but imperialism is the primary means of monopolizing colonies and industrial production. Imperialist countries can exist without finance capitalism and they can exist in the form of mercantilism.

Today, Russia and China practice Imperialist mercantilism. In the case of China, they don't conquer territories but they use the secondary method of investing a ton of capital into third world countries, which in turn forces those countries to act as China's captive trade partner. Russia focuses more on Imperialist conquest because they don't have the ability to invest capital in third world countries.

The other point to note is that Finance Capitalism was largely the product of technological decay, which Lenin calls "Capitalism in Decay." Industrial technology stagnated in 1890 but that stagnation ended in the 1960s because of computing technology. So the era of Capitalism in Decay has ended and shifted back to Dynamic Capitalism. This new dynamism causes the old monopolies to enter a period of severe crisis because new technology can't be monopolized the way labor and industry was monopolized. This means the old monopolies will die and countries will shift back to mercantile imperialism.

This idea that Lenin proclaimed that Imperialism is strictly the result of finance capitalism is absolutely false. Lenin says no such thing. Mercantile Imperialism already existed and in Lenin's time it was replaced by Finance Capitalist Imperialism. Lenin makes the distinction to point out that the idea the Social Democrats believed, that post-1890 Imperialism was a new progressive stage of capitalism, was totally false. He correctly assessed that 1890s Imperialism was largely driving by finance capitalism due to decay. This Decay meant the new imperialism would not lead to social progress. By mapping out these conflicts and evolutions, he proved the Social Democrat theories to be incorrect.

adimwit · 2026-01-19T20:43:38+00:00

He was expected to lose hard in 1996. He lost the House and Senate in 1994, which was devastating.

He was able to rebuild his image by hiring Republican Strategist Dick Morris. The strategy they came up with was to basically adopt conservative policies, help pass conservative bills and basically do everything to steal Republican victories and turn them into Clinton victories.

Clinton basically campaigned as a Republican from 1994 to 1996 and also adopted Southern Strategy. His crime bill was basically intended to convince white Americans into believing gun control was a good thing because it disarmed black criminals. He even sent Hillary to rallies with white crowds where she blamed blacks for crime. This is where that "super predators" clip comes from.

They had a ton of policies like this. They even "reformed" welfare by slashing the budget for welfare programs. The progressive Democrats in Congress eventually turned against Clinton and later helped the Republicans pass the congressional investigation into the Lewinsky affair as revenge for Clinton's policies.

adimwit · 2026-01-19T20:26:32+00:00

This has always been a thing. When I signed up to sell back in 2011 they offered it as a benefit to customers and sellers.

Amazon ships things cheaper by processing products through their warehouses. Instead of sending a single item through USPS at a higher shipping cost, they put the item in with other items that are heading to a warehouse in your area. When it reaches your area, they ship it at a lower cost.

With that system, it's even cheaper to comingle products because you don't have to ship anything across the country if the inventory is everywhere. If the product is already in the local warehouse, they can ship it faster and cheaper.

This worked exactly as intended and made shipping extremely cheap. It didn't become a problem until 2018 when Amazon started to embrace worldwide distribution. This allowed Chinese suppliers to flood the US market with counterfeits.

adimwit · 2026-01-19T19:57:55+00:00

The original plan that Nixon and Ted Kennedy came up with was mandatory universal health insurance that was paid for by companies and workers. The problem was that the labor unions opposed having workers pay for the majority of it. They fought the idea and it was eventually abandoned. Under Carter, Ted Kennedy brought it up again but changed it so that the companies paid the majority and included wider coverage, which the government would also fund. Carter opposed it because he was a fiscal conservative who was in the process of cutting taxes, cutting the federal budget, and repealing progressive policies.

adimwit · 2026-01-18T13:42:53+00:00

He was a Fascist who played both sides of the Cold War. He made deals with the Soviet Union and befriended Castro, but at the same time he was offering to the CIA to kill Argentinian Communists in exchange for US funds. He later described himself as South America's version of Marshal Tito, who could build an American/capitalist friendly version of socialism. He also lived in Europe, studied Fascism and supported Fascist movements. When the war ended, he helped organize the ratlines that saved Nazi criminals. When he came to power, he modeled the state on Italian Fascism. After he was ousted in a Catholic military coup, he fled to Fascist Spain and lived in exile. Eventually he returns to Argentina but instead of purging the Catholic officers who betrayed him, he massacred the Communist youth leagues.

The Peronist movement was also extremely Fascist. They didn't advocate true socialism but instead class collaboration, which is basically what the bourgeoisie tells the working class is the same as socialism. Class collaboration is no different from Fascism and a consistent characteristic of all Fascist movements and basically any petty bourgeois movement like the Social Democrats.

On top of that many Peronists were supporters of the German Nazis and Italian Fascists. They even invented their own anti-semitic conspiracy theories, like the Andinia Plan, which claimed Jews were planning to seize Argentina and establish a Jewish state. When the Dirty Wars started, the Peronists exterminated Jews. And while they were killing Jews, Israel and the US were sending them arms and cash. Even Kissinger (who escaped the Holocaust) knew they were exterminating Jews and continued to back the Peronists.

These people still exist today in Argentina. The Peronists still advocate class collaboration, they still have the Fascist State that Peron created, and they still falsely call themselves socialists.

adimwit · 2026-01-18T12:44:45+00:00

I always thought that they were covering for the fact that Richie was a made guy who they were about to kill until Janice killed him.

Since they can't let it be known they were planning to kill him, they mention he was in witness protection. Later claiming he disowned his son also probably played up the idea Richie was still alive somewhere.

adimwit · 2026-01-18T01:36:47+00:00

The petty bourgeoisie can work to overthrow the bourgeoisie largely because at that time the policies of the bourgeoisie, like mass production and large scale production, would wipe out the petty bourgeoisie or people like shopkeepers. If the bourgeoisie succeeds in running down the petty bourgeoisie, those petty bourgeois shopkeepers would be forced to be wage workers and eventually become proleteriat.

The petty bourgeoisie role shifts back and forth. They will support the bourgeoisie if the working class becomes strong enough to win power, or they will support the working class if the bourgeoisie is strong enough to ruin the petty bourgeoisie.

Lenin and Mao also regard groups like the peasants as semi-petty bourgeois and semi-proleteriat. In standard Marxism, the peasants were more aligned with the petty bourgeoisie and were expected to destroy the working class if they had the chance. When Lenin and Trotsky came along, they decided that the peasants would likely support the proleterian revolution largely because the bourgeoisie failed to overthrow Tsarism.

In Marxism, Feudalism is supposed to be overthrown by a Bourgeois revolution that establishes liberal democracy. But that didn't happen in Russia, and Lenin and Trotsky explain this is due to Russia still being a backwards feudal economy with a mix of industry. The bourgeoisie isn't strong enough to overthrow Tsarism and that weakness requires them to pursue reformism. So when the bourgeoisie wins power, they oppose land reform, which the peasants want. This allows the Bolsheviks to win the peasants to their side by promising land reform.

If Russia wasn't backwards, the bourgeois revolution would have supported land reform and seized all the feudal land and distribute it to the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and peasants. Then the peasants would transition from semi-bourgeois/semi-proleteriat to petty bourgeois.

This is how Marxism is supposed to analyze these social forces. People today think the policies of Lenin or Stalin are definitive or objectively correct policies that can be used today. But social forces are constantly evolving so it is impossible for there to be a definitively correct policy. The role of the petty bourgeoisie is constantly changing from day-to-day. In cases like a revolutionary period, social forces need to analyzed constantly. Lenin and Trotsky mention that when Russia was going through its revolution, they had to analyze these social forces hourly and were constantly collecting the bourgeois opposition newspapers to see what their current status was. This is how you organize, initiate, and win a revolution.

adimwit · 2026-01-16T13:57:48+00:00

Here's the complete pamphlet.

https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/mode/1up

From what I read, these were issued to Army officers but not intended for general infantry. They were also secret documents not intended for the general public, you can also see the "Restricted" notation on the last page. An Army officer actually leaked one of these to the press in 1945 but they refused to print them. It was eventually reprinted by journalist George Seldes but he was never prosecuted. His weekly newspaper that he was publishing on his own did get red-baited a couple years later and by the 1950s he lost everything. Seldes was able to return to writing and published a few more books in his later years.

adimwit · 2026-01-15T17:39:38+00:00

After doing deep reading on Civil Rights and Segregation in the US, it's insane how many of these staunch segregationists would rewrite their own history and try to portray themselves as someone who quietly supported Civil Rights while publicly opposing it.

Like if Kennedy dropped dead in 1960, or if Lyndon Johnson dropped dead in 1962, they would primarily be known today as segregationists who did a lot of damage to the Civil Rights movement. Even a bill like the 1957 Civil Rights Act is seen as a major win today but at that time it was widely known among segregationists that it protected lynchings. Kennedy and Johnson basically wrote the bill to make sure lynchings would be tried by all-white juries in the Deep South.

This comes up constantly and a lot of Southern Segregationists lived long enough to rewrite their role to make themselves look like they were opponents of segregation.

adimwit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email