AlbigensianGhoul

I mean, if you're going to include made up ideologies like Pantherism and Castroism, you might as well include "Stalinism" as a subcurrent of Marxism-Leninism. I think the infographic is a bit confused between historical factions and ideologies.

One of my favourite things about lemmygrad is seeing informed comrades accurately predicting the near future through careful study. None of this "constant bewildered redditor" nonsense. I don't remember all the users predicting this, but well done y'all.

Often my issues with therapy is how much there's little to be done, specially when they decide that "actually you should consult a psychiatrist". There are sorts of problems that are too common, specially for disabled people, that could easily be solved by some intervention. But oftentimes the only solutions are individual, not because of therapy itself but rather because the social services for those are rather scarce or nonexistent.

Took a massive break from work and organising due to burnout. Couldn't sleep at all at night. Now I'm back to work and as soon as I get home all I think of is getting going straight to bed.

Polygon's "How Call of Duty turned war into a circus" is also pretty good.

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak?

The interface is reddit-like, you must click the small image to view it properly. Not being logged in has nothing to do with it.

If you want something visual, this short video (15:12) gives a more practical explanation for labour theory of value.

This relatively short section of "Wage Labour and Capital" addresses the specific issue of how labour value translates into prices in a straightforward way.

That is pretty much it, and it's ironic that the Democrats antagonising Putin at every turn (see Bernie Sanders calling him a "murderer" in every speech) might benefit the world by preventing that alliance. I think at this point we shouldn't stake all our hopes on China for international revolution.

This is however absurd. China is not imperialist, they will not willingly be imperialist. They are trying their hardest to free the world of imperialism and they will not be invited to any speculative US-Russia imperialism club or offered a seat there as there are no extra profits to be shared by the western capitalists who are desperate at this point because of the falling rates of profit and collapsing neo-colonialism.

I wouldn't argue that China is imperialist in character right now, though its economy certainly benefits to a certain extent from the North-South divide and the dependent capitalist economies of peripheral countries. Its bourgeoisie also engages in capital exportation and financialization for hyper-exploited sectors, for example in ride-sharing apps or soybean farming. But it's not imperialist in character simply because its state apparatus does not enforce this dependency by any means and it respects foreign nations when they intervene in their own economies.

But in case these shifting alliances ever create the occasional alignments where Russia and the US enforce conditions for Chinese bourgeois profipts with no intervention from the Party, I believe it would be fair to see China as complicit in imperialism. Though I already don't think the Russia alignment is likely, this one is more a worry than anything.

Trudeau dropped another nice effect of the Trump tariffs. When applied to economies that produce stuff in Canada or Europe, some companies may fail and be bought by US corpos. I don't know if that would nullify the tariffs for them, but the US will them be able to turn around and proclaim "more jobs for US companies" despite those still operating abroad. Besides that, it's monopoly capital doing it's favourite thing.

The very concept of "healthcare insurance" is capitalist. Medical care is reduced to a commodity that can be valued monetarily and "bought" from hospitals or clinics. There's nothing inherently commodifiable about individual healthcare services to the point that they get a price tag that later has to be covered by insurance, public or private. Contrast that with medicine which has a very specific and calculable labour value required to create it, though it's actually quite low as patents and trademarks inflate prices.

Rather it's much more in line with the development of an efficient healthcare system to have it be national and funded through tax or other state revenue-collection methods, and available to all citizens (and possibly non-citizens) without any sort of attached price tag. That also solves this problem of old people, chronically ill, disabled people or whichever sorts of people statistically require more medical help without negative impact.

And this is not some idealistic notion off the top of my head. In Brazil we have a national healthcare system that functions on an availablity and queue basis, without any "insurance" or price tag, funded through federal and state budget allocations from taxes. Sadly it's underfunded due to the private insurance lobby and our horrible political situation, but it's still leagues more accessible and egalitarian than whatever insurance system. I think Cuba works that way too.