It seems that the kind of discussion OP wants would be well aligned with the spirit of [email protected]. However, the community unfortunately seems to be inactive.

Truman oversaw the establishment of the postwar order, through which vanquished and depleted nations became loci for investment of capital, and for containment of China and the Soviet Union.

Impunity and nonaccountability for presidents is deeply embedded in the framework of American society. Unless they target corporations and the wealthy, they are securely protected despite their evildoing.

I think any realistic outcome would entail an acceptance that the settler population will remain living on stolen land. The objective should be full parity among all current occupants, which is inclusive of the “right of return”, Palestinians moving freely throughout the entire territory.

Is advocacy for a “two-state solution” necessarily in itself Zionism?

I agree with the essence of your objections, but being misguided or misinformed is not in itself trolling, especially if the opportunity remains open for discussion and education.

Understanding the past developments with clarity opens a chance to achieve effective solutions for the most serious problems.

Society will not return to the past.

The consensus of uneasy contentment with the status quo has been shattered, and the pressures toward change are immense.

The way forward, whether it develops favorably or unfavorably, will be new and different.

The reactionary entrenchment in the government, and the oppression of the native population, are directly consequences, and as such, inseparable from, Israel’s nature as a settler-colonial ethnostate.

Israel was established by ethnic cleansing called the Nakba, on a premise of Jewish supremacy. Palestinians were displaced, murdered, and encaged. There is no possibility of such an entity developing along a path that is liberatory or egalitarian.

There is no possibility, either, of an entity that starves children also authentically originating from a premise of self defense.

I am simply explaining the situation. No one is making excuses. The situation is not ideal in Cuba, the same as everywhere around the world, but it is much less severe than you represent.

Raul is now retired. He had served as the head of the Party, which is a position elected from within the Party, and as the president, which is elected by the National Assembly, itself elected popularly. All of his political power was through such formal positions, which others were free to seek as his replacement.

Also, union participation is nearly universal. As such, an unpopular government is obviously unlikely to remain in power except by capitulating to worker demands. Moreover, workers wield more power, relative to the state, than mostly everywhere in the world, including the states that style themselves as the most free. Thus, even high-ranking offices carry limited power in practice.

The Castros rule Cuba in the same sense that the Windsors rule the UK. The role is effectively only ceremonial, with a minimum of formal powers.

The government and revolution are both immensely popular among Cubans.

The government monitors and represses subversive activities, but so does every other state.

Union participation is nearly universal, and laws are passed by a national popular assembly.

The Family Code was recently revised, through a process of nationwide contribution and referendum, which serves as an example of functional democracy.

All was achieved despite constant colonial bombardment by the US. Cubans correctly identify as their enemy the US government, not the government of Cuba.

At minimum, it would be necessary to dismantle settler-colonialism in Palestine, meaning an end to the “Jewish state”.

I repeat that Russia wants not simply to dismantle US imperialism, but also would establish itself as hegemon at any opportunity, however absurdly remote such possibility may seem. Thus, defending Russia is an error.

I agree that NATO and the US carry tremendous responsibility, and that the best outcome from the present would be territorial concession as a condition for both sides concluding belligerence.

I honestly fail to understand the meaning of “black theory”, but I would understand Black liberation as a body of theory generally aligned with my position.

Before colonization, much of Africa was stateless. The expansionist ambitions of European states gave rise to the slave trade. Slavery became entrenched as a foundational element of states established in the New World. Most of the New World also had been stateless, before colonization, and free of slavery.

Russia is motivated not simply by dismantling the imperial core, but by becoming hegemonic. The imperial periphery would gain nothing by trading one overseas hegemon for another.

The alternative, literally, is the working class developing power.

Russian expansion may seem appealing because US expansion is problematic, but Russian expansion is problematic all the same.

Even if the weakening of US hegemony hastens the advent of socialism, atrocities against civilian populations in no way resembles the world we want to build.

I think it is a difficult case that the invasion was a net benefit in overall humanitarian terms.

The invasion occurred suddenly, without any final demands articulated to avoid war.

NATO expansion was a cause. Russian expansion was a cause. I oppose both, and take issue with the campist position of denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.

It is a mistake to divide the world by bad states versus good states. We can sympathize with workers oppressed by Ukraine, but our side should not be Russia. Our side is the international workers of the world.

Marginalization only may occur in state society.

Stateless society lacks the systems of enforcement through which marginalization is sustained.

The marginalization of Black people originated from colonialism and slavery, which develop from states.

At issue is whether to support the invasion, and whether the reasons for such support validate denying or underplaying atrocities committed by Russia.

The situation for some may have improved, or be hoped to improve, as a consequence of the invasion, but the overarching calamity across the region overshadows such particular gains. The overall humanitarian situation unequivocally has deteriorated due to the invasion.

We need to be careful with terms. “Ethnically suppressed” is vague. Russian-speaking Ukrainians were not selected for internment or elimination. Ethnic cleansing certainly seems an inappropriate allegation. What was the experience that made resistance worth the cost?

Also, fascism has a particular meaning. Ukraine has fascist militias. The regime is reactionary, installed through a coup, and a puppet of the US. All are alarming, but also common throughout the world, and their convergence still does not amount to the regime being fascist.