I just realized you are also Spanish and I have a funny old story for you. Some decades ago the woman I was with had a mother who was Spanish, father was from a Caribbean island and they lived in the US. The mother was born in Tangir Morocco from Spanish parents, I knew of this for a while but didn't think much more of it. At some period elections were coming up and between joke and casual discussion the mother said she was and will always vote republican (the more conservative of the two conservative parties dominating US elections). I dared asked why and she said my father was republican so I am a republican too. Republico in Spain in her father's time meant he was against fascism and Franco. To confirm how much of a republico he was she explained that his friends (fishermen) called him Rojo. So I returned and I said that not only was he an anti-fascist he must have been a communist. She went crazy and didn't want to hear about it, but she said the entire family and many relatives were exiled from Spain because they were "republican".

The youngest son in early teen age, somehow paid extra attention and found this discussion interesting, so I offered to bring him books or what to ask for in library. I guess because he never met his grandfather but had his name became overly interested on what all this really meant. A few years later he has a music group playing songs about class war, filling up his school and neighborhood walls with graffiti about class war, and dedicated his life to radical anti-capitalism.

I had a cat named rojo for a while and many times I thought of this story when I used his name.

Rojo Vive no struggle is ever waste ... it travels through time and generations, it is a seed that grows and replants itself and will never be uprooted.

You make it sound as coming out of the closet :)

Realities vary so much from different parts of the world, in some social situations it would be a shame not to be one due to the history of the family, the community. Although in many such realities many people were communist without really deeply knowing what this meant, and had many contradicting practices between what they claimed and what they really were. There were religious communists, communists who did nothing else in their life than enterprise and devise ways to make more money (and exploiting everyone around them), some were family abusers, cheaters, cons, etc. To make things worse some were even racist and ethnocentric, while defending their communist identity. But there are such places, social situations.

I had even witnessed an entire village of communists calling the cops to do a massive blockade of a beach and arresting and fining young people for free camping, because they owned campgrounds and rented rooms to tourists and this was bad competition, to be camping free near "their beach".

Hopefully, since it is by choice and not by birth or origin, you will take your new public identity with more respect and live accordingly.

US liberals in particular tend to dig a tiny hole on sand during war that other liberals started, and pretend there is no war. Sand is supplied freely by Saudis together with loudspeakers to emphasize oppressive Chinese social policy and human right violations.

If it wasn't for liberals capitalism would have ended long ago.

True, media weaponized. It serves as conditioning for the majority of passive participants through the planet. The individualist, the apolitical, the apathetic, the "I choose not to participate in political discussion", all programmed into the media, social or otherwise. In exchange for this passivity there is the sense of control, "I can rub my screen and get things done, because I am a smart android user". I wonder if there is a joke about it being called android.

If conditions in the US force people to behave a certain way, the rest of the world will pretend they are American as well. So you have people in india on a 50cc scooter double up, waiting for an order of fries to share, in the drive through of Indian McD. They feel like Liam Nieson for a moment.

People sitting in a corner passing out a political leaflet? Pathetic losers. The world wants to be on the side of winners for a change, since everything else in their life is turning to shit.

The sad part is left wing minded progressive social psychologists did studies to provide this system with tools to manipulate people.

I think this talk calls for more theoretical analysis of what this "US" really is, which I believe is much more complex than just another capitalist state.

I think there are layers of what the US really is. There is a "low layer" of a government regulating and managing people within its borders, just like all others. There is US capital where the prime actors are actually based, living, operating from the US, and there is capital managed by US financial institutions but for actors outside the US. In general the vast majority of global capital is somehow linked with US based financial institutions (industry, energy, transportation, commodities, communication -capital) and those fin.inst. act as a lobby to the US governement to have as a priority to protect their interests globally.

This later part appeals to a layer of the US as "defense" which has little to do with internal/border defense but is a global capital defense mechanism. This layer and the other local/internal layer are not really connected or in coordination with each other.

Then there is the US as people, a country geared and operating as to constantly be overproducing an army to serve this external army layer. It is almost as if the only reason the US exists is as a producer of military personnel, and the rest of society is just a necessary evil for producing such an army. The rhetoric of nationalism, the love of the flag, the religious connection between god and America (capitalism against the evil of communism) is all connected to this industrialized soldier manufacturing plant.

If you think of all other social policy of the US this model explains education, health, transport, construction, media. It is a big base and some people outside the base supporting those on the base.

Otherwise adorable hardworking people doing what they were taught to do best. So when we speak of the US we should specify what aspect and layer of the US are we speaking about.

Burning without the slightest form of organization never hurt any capitalists or their puppet gov/admins. Insurance goes up for office space, cars, shops, inflation (economic development) more construction and repaid contracts handed out, and things ALWAYS return to a much worse condition than before.

Why worse? Because police has the justification for more police, for better armed police, for even more aggressive police, and this same repressive mechanism works on worker unions striking and protesting, as it is always easy to convert any protest to an "Algerian youth uprising".

The show also gives populists of the far right more leverage to affect the idiots who vote them and eventually place them in power. Cops know and feed this frenzy, abuse, but don't prevent it from happening.

Macron is too liberal, a neo-fascist is overdue from being elected in EU's #2 political/economic power.

Nice of you to say this, I am very attached to my toothbrush, and my guitar and bicycle. But where is this distincion made, do you know? To what extant do we see limits where personal ends and public property begins?

For example, one can claim his land of 5 generations back is 24 hectares, but he is not using it for production, he takes care of it, uses a patch for growing personal/family food, the rest is for walks, riding a horse or a bike around, Is this personal? A 4 person family globally relates to about 3 hectares of land that can be culrivated, and maybe 6-7 more that is useless for agriculture. If one person has 10 times as much as personal, that would create a deficiency for available land to grow food for everyone else.

With basic hand-tools one person can barely work a land that is half a hectare, no matter what grows in it. Most of us can barely deal with the work needed for 1/10 of a hectare 1000sq,.m

The other extreme would be to have a 400sq.m house that you pretend is personal but at times you could exploit a traveler or a visitor to charge rent.

I was browsing the boards up and down before reading this, and my first reaction was "haven't you read who Engels was and what he did for a living?", but others had the same response as well.

The reason I was searching and browsing threads was to locate reading material about "private property" and the distinction of it being owenrship of means of production or property you couldn't exploit anyone's labor with.

I am firm and clear about production means not being private, but what if someone creates/builds something for their own use. It can be a cabin,house, or it can be a raw boat, a violin, a bicycle... without any intention of renting them, using them to exploit others. What can be wrong with it? I am thinking more about the amount of resources needed, that they would have to become private to be used, so building a 6 story 1000 sq.m building "for yourself" is an overkill and abuse of resources, but even painting on a piece of canvas also needs privatization of "materials". So there has to be a cut-off.

But banning all private property makes no sense at all, it is nearly inhumane to enforce such policy.

If I am not mistaken this party is aligned with the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) which in last week's election received 7.8% of the vote and 20 out of 300 seats in parliament. This may mean that the KKE has larger membership than CPUSA, not that this really matters.

The word revolution hasn't been in the vocabulary of this party for decades, not even by mistake. The material conditions must have not reached optimal ripe status.

Carters' peanuts :)

Nutritious is very relative to industrialized food production. The most nutritious natural products are perceived as wild and are not objects of agriculture. Basically the objects of agriculture were selected on the ease of reproduction, not their nutritious value, or their cost. It just so happened that those that were easy to plant and grow were the leanest in quantity and complexity of nutrients. Many of the most nutritious seeds, fruits, and vegetables are becoming extinct with the elimination of natural forests. Planted forests would take thousands of years to stabilize as ecosystems (if ever) and be concidered sustainable food sources.

Cheap means the industry hasn't been able to monopolize, but labor is very exploitable (see bannana republics, tea and coffee plantations). It also means the quantities produced have saturated the markets and the product is in abundance (wheat, corn, soy,..).

Delicious ... only N.Europeans (and their N.Am. Oceania descendants) would consider eating a single element alone and judge it by taste. The rest of the world eat what they can get, spice it up, mix it, and make taste a final product of a mixture of things with a labor intensive process of preparing it. The dairy industry (waste of nutritients and exponentially waste of land use) and the sugar industry (it should have been banned under substance abuse addictive product that is a health hazzard as well) have blurred what "delicious" really means. Take as an example banana split ice cream, there is little nutritious value, if not harmful as a whole, made of three industrial products that maximize labor exploitation. If it wasn't for capitalism nobody in their right mind would have come up with this one. It only exists because of capitalism.

Nutrition has been a dead end disaster since its early days of being industrialized.

Please edit and post a real title instead of a link

It is all the Red Army's fault for stopping in Berlin and not continuing west till they got back to Russia.