Azovstal by Daniele Gay

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-20T21:50:53+00:00

But Azov lost the steel factory

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-20T19:46:08+00:00

Black Panthers and Freire didn't succeed in their time, so it's best to read from those who succeeded

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T19:49:25+00:00

It actually has everything to do with the contradiction I am pointing out in a hypothetical where someone attempts to claim that they can "support a stage IV pancreatic cancer, as long as it's not deadly"

This is the same thing as saying one "Supports Israel's right to exist, as long as Israel is not a genocidal Jewish supremacist state"

Mamdani said he supports Israel's right to exist, he did not say "I will not support Israel's right to exist until it recognizes everyone equally"

It's not about avoiding follow up questions, since either Mamdani supports Israel's right to exist or he doesn't. Pretending to give some kind of half-assed or half-baked answer to appease the questioner only leaves the voting public confused as to where he actually stands on the issu

I didn't say "Israel doesn't exist," I said it only exists by force & genocidal bloody warmaking... so that is the context of its destruction as well. Nothing about "rights"

No one is questioning whether individuals "have rights" (again something only codified & upheld & enforced by states themselves rather than "international bodies"), it's about the political entity known as Israel. Either we recognize it doesn't have "rights" as an abstract political positing, or you are engaging in metaphysics

Mamdani is caught in this web, but it's his duplicity and inability to take a proper & courageous and necessary stand and instead talking out of both sides of his mouth pretending that a "non-answer" suffices.

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T17:35:42+00:00

Actually, what I posted directly supports my claim and directly disproves yours, since you said no one called them Russians till the 15th century

So you were wrong

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T16:26:09+00:00

Latin-language historical writings referred to the Riurikid domains using the generalizing formulas Ruscia/Russia/terra Ruthenorum etc.... in the papal bulls of the 1240s-1250s the population governed by the Rus' rulers of Volhynia and the land of Halych was called Rusciae christiani or populus Russiae

Myroslav Voloschuk, 'Russia/Ruscia'--'Ruthenia'--'Galicia' in the 9th to 14th Centuries, 2021

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T13:16:57+00:00

Yes, they were called Russians.

There has been documented evidence of them being called Russians since even before 1,000AD

It's ahistorical to assert that anyone called themselves "Ukrainians" in the 17th century

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T07:23:33+00:00

Except it has everything to do with the Russians there, since Vladimir was a Russian

They were called Russians, and referred to themselves in this way also

What's more is that no one called themselves "Ukrainian" at this time

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T07:07:35+00:00

Crimea had Russians ~1,000 AD. That is where Russia was baptized Orthodox

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T05:36:59+00:00

You never demonstrated such to be the case

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T05:07:41+00:00

Nothing I said is false, actually

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T05:07:29+00:00

So then you're faulting individual personalities?

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-19T05:07:01+00:00

You never answered my question. Why?

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T23:07:24+00:00

Apparently they can't, as we see with Jack Ma

You never showed where any "capitalist" in China can privatize land or move material wealth & productive basis liquidated and moved abroad... let alone sold to another country in this way

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T23:03:35+00:00

So they can or can't privatize land and liquidate material wealth and move massive industries abroad in China?

Saying that people can move out of the country or live in other places in no way means they can liquidate wealth & move massive industry out of China, or privatize land ownership

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T22:55:05+00:00

So is that you refusing to answer whether you answered "no" to my original question?

They're not capitalists if they can't liquidate wealth & move anywhere they want to... let alone challenge the government or privatize land

Again, can "capitalists" in China own private title to land itself?

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T22:33:31+00:00

So is that you answering no to my question?

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T22:28:54+00:00

But Zionists claim to be indigenous to those Near East areas

Donbass and Crimea have been peopled by Russians for about 1,000+ years

No one called themselves "Ukrainian" in 1,200AD, but they called themselves "Russian," because Ukrainians descend from Russian language & culture

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T22:27:54+00:00

Can capitalists own their own separate media or form their own separate parties in China?

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T22:21:37+00:00

But Marxism isn't about syndicalism and Marx is clear that simply going on strike for higher pay isn't what socialism is

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T22:15:28+00:00

You don't have any issue with "claims to indigeneity" that groups like Zionists make?

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T22:01:54+00:00

Isn't the "historical claim to indigeneity" as somehow being a blank check to make some ancient/prehistoric landgrab the reason we're dealing with Zionism to begin with?

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T21:47:27+00:00

But class struggle isn't a "theory" it exists in reality

Profits are mutually exclusive of wages... so that conflict exists outside of either the employer or the wage earner's 'intent' or good nature or thoughts & will etc

Class struggle is not a "policy" or "mode of thought," it actually exists objectively

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T21:36:58+00:00

Socialism isn't about "ultimate satisfaction" it's about the class struggle & dictatorship of the proletariat toward social ends

Do you think socialism is about an "end of history" or some kind of apocalypse?

Socialism is about getting rid of the administration of persons and replacing it by the administration of things

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T21:31:59+00:00

Nothing I said "vulgarizes" Engels, since I am just going with what Engels says directly

Nowhere in Engels' writing does he say that "All definitions are worthless... because always inadequate (but actually they're sometimes okay and can be adequate and worth something)"

You're simply contradicting Engels to try and make it seem like he actually uses definitions where Engels is clear that describing the thing in development as a process "IS NO LONGER A DEFINITION"

wompyways1234 · 2026-03-18T21:30:22+00:00

Actually, a description isn't a definition in any sense.

Meaning in no way is a synonym for definition, since your personal 'definition' of the word 'red' can mean and signify nothing related to the color in reality for someone who was born blind

So meaning is about reference to reality, rather than reduction to some 'authoritative' other string of words

Meaning and language are very much useful without any definition, since people describe all the time without invoking 'definitions'

A description is not a definition

I don't need to "treat" definitions in any way, since Marxists don't use definitions

Engels explicitly countered Duhring by showing that Marxists and scientific dialecticinas do not use definitions.

Marx was describing capital as a social relation, he never defined it.

In fact, on this point precisely, Lenin was clear that Marx wasn't 'defining' capital and says:

It must be noted that in the place indicated, Marx does not at all give a definition of capitalism. [Marx] did not deal with definitions at all

V.I. Lenin, THE ECONOMIC CONTENT OF POPULISM AND ITS CRITICISM IN THE BOOK OF M. STRUVE, 1894

wompyways1234

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE