That depends on the nature of the struggle and which overseas countries dominate.

That’s good because a socialist America requires the death of the USA first.

What countru do you live in and how much should you be punished for living in it?

Github is basically social media but for tech nerds. Social media networks naturally monopolize, as they primarily have value because everyone else is already there. If you put your project on Github and it is popular you might get 2k “stars” and regular pull requests. If you put your project on an alternative you might get 10X less of both. So people make decisions about the trade-offs between exposure and avoiding Microsoft

The US has been punishing open source contributors from countries they don’t like.

Google Maps can, and we’re just hearing this live now, “get fucked”.

And I was noting that the USSR had a tendency to shift their ethnic populations around to wipe out (still don’t understand how you took that term to mean anything other than killing local populations, it’s “wipe out” as in “erase”)

You still don’t understand the difference between forced migration and mass killing? The latter can be a consequence of the former but it is not always. If you need me to explain the difference between moving to a different location versus dying I think there are even deeper issues in conceptualization that are preventing communication, here.

other local ethnic populations.

In the period of this graph? Like I’ve already suggested twice, tell me more about Latvia from the 1970s and on. I know the factual history re: migration in Latvia and what you are suggesting is, to put it simply, bullshit. This may be why I didn’t understand your reference to something that didn’t happen there - except by the Nazis, who got their shit kicked in by the Soviets, a fact for which reactionary Latvian nationalists never forgave them.

This is why you should try clearly stating your point. We are 4-5 commrnts deep and I guess you don’t really have one outside of an ahistorical reference with no relevance to the graphic.

We saw the numbers increase until the USSR splintered and then fall off because there was no longer a system to support that shifting of ethnic populations.

Here you are conflating ethnic Russians living in Latvia and ethnic cleansing. This is not a rational point and is again why you should try explicitly stating your ideas. You might notice that they do not make sense if you actually did so. You kind of already know this, right? It’s why you don’t respond to 90% of the things I say to you. I’m not stupid or obtuse, I am giving you opportunities to gracefully bail on what you might be implying with incomplete thoughts.

This crowd should know about it unless they only believe in or talk about the beneficial parts of communism and ignore the ugly parts that regularly get implemented.

I keep asking you to specifically describe Latvian migration and just state your point clearly and you keep chickening out and trying to ignore those requests along with most of whay I say. Now you are trying to pretend I’m avoiding the reality of those things. I’m just waiting on you, bud.

I notice you’re not going after OP for his vague title with picture, but I’m fair game.

OP is just noting that “under communism” the population was increasing and aftetwards it was decreasing. And making a joke about some anticommunist orgs. Easy to understand for the intended audience. Happy to explain more if you don’t understand.

To make it abundantly clear (which you can infer from the other chart posted in the thread), the population change was mostly non-Latvians entering before the USSR splintered and leaving afterwards.

Yes someone posted a graph from Wikipedia. It refers to ethnicity. And it does not discriminate between entering, leaving, or having children / dying, though a lot is likely migration.

This was your point? It seems like a pointless fact.

I made a reference to habits in that region of wiping out locals and replacing them with ethnic “russians” to rebut the vague sarcastic “the decline was after the USSR splintered so communism=good” title.

Oh? Is that what the graphs are showing? Tell me about the ethnic cleansing of Latvians from 1970-1990.

Or were you saying something that has nothing to do with either graphic? Are you confused about timelines or are you confused about events? It’s one or the other.

Was that clear enough?

Well I still don’t see any coherent point so I’m going to go with no. You also ignored everything I said in my reply. So I think you should consider working on your communication skills.

I clearly had “moved populations around to wipe out ethnic locals” in my first post.

Forced migration is not the same as killing. Are you trying to say it is? Was that what everyone was supposed to automatically understand as part of your still instated point?

I’m sorry if you can’t understand that to mean that USSR was doing a genocide (killing) a lot of the enthic minorities and replacing them with their main ethnic group.

So is that your point? You see a graph of Estonian population decline starting around the fall of the USSR and say it has something to do with the USSR killing ethnic minorities and replacing them? First, that was opaque. Second, tell me those that happened around 1990, O Great Sleuth.

It’s one reason why Russia today keeps saying that countries adjacent to them (who were former USSR like Ukraine) are ethnically Russians and belong as part of the Russian state.

It actually is not. And the USSR itself was pivotal in the creation of the Ukrainian identity and republic, per Lenin’s advocacy for semi-autonomous member states for, get this, ethnic minorities. Eastern Ukraine has had ethnic Russians (previously termed things like Muscovites or Cissacks depending on how uou wsnt to split hairs) for hundreds of years, primarily moving there after proto-Russia pushed out Nogais. In terms of displacing ethnic Ukrainians, this primarily occurred by anticommunist Poland during the civil war following the October Revolution where surrounding powers invaded the former Russian Empire. Poland took large regions to their East and South and forced Ukrainians out of acquired lands. This contributed to Ukrainian nationalist revanchism that ended up rhetorically fueling Banderites, who killed masses of ethnic Poles when given the chance - which was ended by the Soviets. Incidentally, modern Estonia supports modern Banderites.

So tell me more about your theory of what happened around 1990.

Kindly pick up some reading comprehension.

Oh I have no trouble with this. You just speak like a Redditor, expecting people to fill in your vague emotional content with their own context. Please do some self-criticism in this regard. Note that we are 3 comments in and you have yet to clearly make a point about what this has to do with OP’s graph.

What would I be projecting, exactly?

And I’m not being obtuse, their point is actually unclear aside from snark and a vague allusion. Re-read OP and tell me what specific events in Estonia around 1990 they might be referring to. Have fun trying to figure it out.

You think my replies were walls of text?

Have you ever read… one page of one book?

My point was to ask for additional specific data that concerns population size/dynamics. Then I brought up a historical USSR/Russian empir

That’s not a poinyt. It is a question. But it seems like you wanted to use the question to make a point. Something negative.

But I’m not going to try and pull teeth to get you to be straightforward.

Then I brought up a historical USSR/Russian empire move where they killed an ethnic minority population in a region and moved in “ethnic russians” to replace them for better comrade-ing.

You also framed this as a question, actually. And you didn’t say anything about killing. You are also being vague.

So clearly you do have something to say. But something is keeping you from just plainly stating your point. I think it’s the snarky Redditor in your brain that has made you forget how to communicate with other people.

Kill the Redditor in your brain. It gives people second hand embarrassment.

I recommend that you simply state your position. I’m sure you think your point is obvious, but it really is not.

Some of this is good advice but I recommend evaluating every protest, having a real plan for transportation and a buddy system, and trying to be as secure as possible by default and only making exceptions when necessary.

Most of the guide is about phones and how they can leak information. The only surefire way to prevent your phone from leaking location information to show you were at a protest is to leave it at home. That should be your default. The next option is to use a burner, but you must be very careful about when you charge your burner and turn it on, as you never want it to be on near where you live or work. Cell signals can be triangulated to a few block radius. The next option is put your phone in airplane mode and turn it off. Your phone is now an emergency device, you won’t turn it in at the protest unless a safety critical situation develops, such as being separated from your group by police or other right wing violence. Under no circumstances should you use your main phone to coordinate day-of at any event. If you are an organizer, use a burner to do this. This is also a reason to not use Signal for day-of coordination, as it will pressure you to either turn your burner on at home so that you can coordinate or associate your signal account with other devices traceable to your home or work. Walky talkies are best but Signal alternatives like davel suggested are also better.

Also, cover your face and wear sunglasses.

Hi friend!

For what Marxist instance would be best given your background, well there are only two total, to my knowledge, so you could just try out both and see what you like best! They are Hexbear and Lemmygrad. Lemmygrad is smaller but is more focused on Marxism-Leninism in particular. Hexbear has a ML-ancom and everything in between left unity stance and places great emphasis on making the space safe for people of marginalized groups. Lemmy.ml has many Marxists but is not explicitly commie.

For reading recommendations, this can be a difficult question to answer because there are many important texts in the Marxist tradition and some of them, particularly the foundational ones, are dense and challenging to read. I do strongly recommend reading the core works of Marx and Engels, since they define Marxism and later works are based on them. The order in which to read books really depends on how you prefet to read and learn.

I prefer to read from “the beginning” and already knew the relevant philosophical background so I just read Das Kapital right after The Communist Manifesto. But reading Das Kapital takes a long time. Reading groups dedicate months just to Volume 1. If you prefer a faster introduction and summaries, then I recommend Heinrich’s companion text. Heinrich inserts some of his own opinions, but you can balance these out by reading Marxists critical of Heinrich, like Michael Roberts. If you want an even faster and simpler introduction, you can work backwards by reading short overviews from newer texts and blogs and so on and then make sure to try and tackle Capital later. But remember that the farther from the original works you get, the more likely that you will learn something incorrect about them without being in a position to notice it.

Another strategy is to start with Lenin, particularly his own notes on Hegel and Marx, and proceed to Stalin’s overview of Marxism-Leninism, which includes an overview of Marxism. These are much easier to read than the source texts. All of the works so far will have Portuguese translations.

Regarding tolerance of Catholic faith, both instances will likely not care so long as this does not mean contradicting community standards, e.g. a vocal tradcath would contradict the feminist stances of both instances. Both instances have Christian comms, similar to subreddits. Lemmygrad’s all seem to be inactive, though. Hexbear is, generally speaking, against insufferable New Atheist contrarianism (and so many of its original proponents became reactionary).

Regarding having Latin American context, both instances of course have a good amount of comrades from Latin America. I know that Hexbear has an active Latin America comm.

Ethnofascist? JFC.

Don’t listen to this person. You can trust me, I’m actually a commune of 13 Uyghurs that writes like a Redditor and parrots US propaganda right down to its terminology. Ask me about lived experience.

Should probably organize something then, eh Bernie? Use that clout to build an org?

Information density and transmission is polluted by the fears of not being convincing enough and not sounding radical enough.

It is just rhetoric on Johnstone’s website. It is a position piece. In what way are you being manipulated? This is actually more honest and direct than the faux-objectivity of typical articles.

[…] major world events do not occur independently of the actions of the major world powers who have a vested interest in their outcomes.

Sure, but this does not explain why Assad, North Korea or Putin are good enough for an opposition or even the seed of that.

It is unclear to me why you are quoting and arguing with that. Do you think I am Johnstone?

Not even the claim was on the books

Haha what if we apply more US bad to world events

Then you would have a more correct understanding of geopolitics.

No, seriously, that article is manipulative AF.

I have no idea what that means