#socialist initiative

[workersolidarity]

Putin comments on grain deal after meeting with Erdogan

Putin comments on grain deal after meeting with Erdogan https://www.rt.com/russia/582353-putin-erdogan-grain-deal/

This is exactly why the Ukraine War became inevitable.

The entire Western Bloc countries are thoroughly unreliable. They do not keep to their agreements, and, led by the United States, they engage in deception, with no intention of fulfilling their responsibilities under agreements they make. This is leading most independent countries outside the West to conclude that negotiating with the West on any of their vital interests is a pointless and fruitless endeavor.

Russia and China especially have learned this lesson over and over again. And it's no wonder neither country's leaders will even show up to conferences where they might be swarmed by American negotiators and politically cornered into agreements they know won't be upheld by the American or European side.

Russian experience with the West on Agreements such as the Minsk 1 & 2 Accords and the Black Sea Grain Deal make it obvious that any negotiated settlement to the Ukraine crisis would have eventually ended in the same way, with their Western counterparts stringing the Russians along indefinitely, while never implementing their side of the agreement.

And you see this behavior in Western Agreements across the globe: from violations of WTO Agreements originally pushed BY the US to begin with, to implementation of illegal sanctions against countries without UN agreement, the sudden rejection of the Iran Nuclear deal, the fraud of Minsk 1 & 2, the Black Sea Grain Deal nominally for the poorest countries where 70% of the grain went to wealthy EU Countries, to the expansion of NATO despite a pledge not to expand beyond the borders of East Germany. The United States has made it Crystal clear to the entire world that it is not a good faith actor and you cannot trust anything we say or any agreements we sign onto.

[astrabear]

Eugene V. Debs deserved better than for my brain to parse his name as a court case every. single. time. I see it.

[lowpolypaws]

its so funny that the us went thru a period of time where they were seeking out and detaining random ass civilians who were communists like damn r u scared lol????

[mostlysignssomeportents]

A taxonomy of corporate bullshit

Next Tuesday (Oct 31) at 10hPT, the Internet Archive is livestreaming my presentation on my recent book, The Internet Con.

There are six lies that corporations have told since time immemorial, and Nick Hanauer, Joan Walsh and Donald Cohen's new book Corporate Bullsht: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America* provides an essential taxonomy of this dirty six:

https://thenewpress.com/books/corporate-bullsht

In his review for The American Prospect, David Dayen summarizes how these six lies "offer a civic-minded, reasonable-sounding justification for positions that in fact are motivated entirely by self-interest":

https://prospect.org/culture/books/2023-10-27-lies-my-corporation-told-me-hanauer-walsh-cohen-review/

I. Pure denial

As far back as the slave trade, corporate apologists and mouthpieces have led by asserting that true things are false, and vice-versa. In 1837, John Calhoun asserted that "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually." George Fitzhugh called enslaved Africans in America "the freest people in the world."

This tactic never went away. Children sent to work in factories are "perfectly happy." Polluted water is "purer than the water that came from the river before we used it." Poor families "don't really exist." Pesticides don't lead to "illness or death." Climate change is "beneficial." Lead "helps guard your health."

II. Markets can solve problems, governments can't

Alan Greenspan made a career out of blithely asserting that markets self-correct. It was only after the world economy imploded in 2008 that he admitted that his doctrine had a "flaw":

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/greenspan-admits-flaw-to-congress-predicts-more-economic-problems

No matter how serious a problem is, the market will fix it. In 1973, the US Chamber of Commerce railed against safety regulations, because "safety is good business," and could be left to the market. If unsafe products persist in the market, it's because consumers choose to trade safety off "for a lower price tag" (Chamber spox Laurence Kraus). Racism can't be corrected with anti-discrimination laws. It's only when "the market" realizes that racism is bad for business that it will finally be abolished.

III. Consumers and workers are to blame

In 1946, the National Coal Association blamed rampant deaths and maimings in the country's coal-mines on "carelessness on the part of men." In 2003, the National Restaurant Association sang the same tune, condemning nutritional labels because "there are not good or bad foods. There are good and bad diets." Reagan's interior secretary Donald Hodel counseled personal responsibility to address a thinning ozone layer: "people who don’t stand out in the sun—it doesn’t affect them."

IV. Government cures are always worse than the disease

Lee Iacocca called 1970's Clean Air Act "a threat to the entire American economy and to every person in America." Every labor and consumer protection before and since has been damned as a plague on American jobs and prosperity. The incentive to work can't survive Social Security, welfare or unemployment insurance. Minimum wages kill jobs, etc etc.

V. Helping people only hurts them

Medicare will "destroy private initiative for our aged to protect themselves with insurance" (Republican Senator Milward Simpson, 1965). Covid relief is unfair to people that are currently in the workforce" (Republican Governor Brian Kemp, 2021). Welfare produces "learned helplessness."

VI. Everyone who disagrees with me is a socialist

Grover Cleveland's 2% on top incomes is "communistic warfare against rights of property" (NY Tribune, 1895). "Socialized medicine" will leave "our children and our children’s children [asking] what it once was like in America when men were free" (Reagan, 1961).

Everything is "socialism": anti-child labor laws, Social Security, minimum wages, family and medical leave. Even fascism is socialism! In 1938, the National Association of Manufacturers called labor rights "communism, bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism."

As Dayen says, it's refreshing to see how the right hasn't had an original idea in 150 years, and simply relies on repeating the same nonsense with minor updates. Right wing ideological innovation consists of finding new ways to say, "actually, your boss is right."

The left's great curse is object permanence: the ability to remember things, like the fact that it used to be possible for a worker to support a family of five on a single income, or that the economy once experienced decades of growth with a 90%+ top rate of income tax (other things the left manages to remember: the "intelligence community" are sociopathic monsters, not Trump-slaying heroes).

When the business lobby rails against long-overdue antitrust action against Amazon and Google, object permanence puts it all in perspective. The talking points about this being job-destroying socialism are the same warmed-over nonsense used to defend rail-barons and Rockefeller. "If you don't like it, shop elsewhere," has been the corporate apologist's line since slavery times.

As Dayen says, Corporate Bullshit is a "reference book for conservative debating points, in an attempt to rob them of their rhetorical power." It will be out on Halloween:

https://bookshop.org/a/54985/9781620977514

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/27/six-sells/#youre-holding-it-wrong

[othervee]

Finale thoughts!

Interesting to find out that Hillerska has had multiple warnings over several years and still didn't pull their heads in. Clearly they thought they were invincible.

Vincent and Nils stepping up to the plate when they see August's genuine distress, the way Vincent is stroking his arm. There's real friendship and love to be found, but you only see it when you're honest. Similarly, their reactions when they find out that August is backup. August receiving the posioned chalice. What else can he do now, though? He's lost Arnas, or at least part of it. He has to do the military service; he's in the position Wille has been in.

Haha, the housemaster having a drink with the boys. What else is he going to do?

Loved the scene with Felice dragging Wille to the party. Her facial expressions, she's so cute. Wille negotiating with Malin shows a level of maturity, but the male bodyguard is SO not impressed as he follows them to the palace, LOL.

LOVE that Simon brought Rosh and Ayub to the white party. And Ayub reassuring Rosh, after Stella shows herself for who she is. She's chosen the Hillerska way, all the way.

The scene between Wille and August in the clubroom. He didn't know it, but that was the closure he needed. THat they both needed. They've made peace, they can even develop a familial relationship again into the future, but right now this is as close to peace as they can have at this stage.

Nils, you giant dork. And also... They're shocked he didn't say anything earlier,  but would things have been different if he had?

No Royal house, no Prince, no socialist, no drama. No before. No later. Only now. As the previous song said, back to basics. Back to the pure connection they have with each other.

The lake scene. So beautiful.

Simon's Song! Did Felice initiate that, do we think? A few of the choir were smiling at Simon. Nice to see they all (or most of them) wanted that and not the musty old version.

Oh, Kristina, that really is too little too late, but I'm glad you came through in the end.

The little token the Queen and Duke put around August's neck is a frog prince. The symbolism would be a sledgehammer if the direction or script drew attention to that, but they don't.

In the car, Wille beginning to feel the panic attack happening, the constriction of the collar around his neck, and realising what that means. This is an unhealthy system and if he stays in it, this will be his life. The constriction, the desperation, literally struggling to breathe. Echoing Simon's words to him, "I've seen how it makes you feel". Being calm because he's no longer coming from a place of despair, a place where he has no control. And Kristina knows it. It was important for Wille to tell his parents he loves them. He's coming to terms and making peace with everyone.

That closing scene, oh my god. The montage was cheesy as fuck and I am here for it. The dialogue and the execution were not cheesy. They established the important things. Wille is doing this for his sake, not for Simon's. For the first time in his life he is making an informed, calm, active choice.

Simon's FACE. OMG. The shock, barely daring to believe it, but knowing when Wille says 'For my own sake' that this is it. It's real. And then! The tears, the gasping, the incredulous joy! Omar is a natural who stepped it up even more this season, and I do hope he continues to take on acting roles because he is amazing.

Wille's FACE. The joy but more importantly the PEACE.  His entire being, his posture, his aura changes and he radiates rightness. Edvin is incredible.

Also? They both look so, SO beautiful in this episode. This closing sequence, but really the entire episode.

Heading off into the sun, in white, whooping and cheering, Felice with her legs up on the dashboard, free.

And now I want LOADS of future fic about The Adventures of Wille, Simon, Sara och Felice. Tack, Lisa, for leaving it so open for us to do that!

[philsmeatylegss]

I’ve seen a few people, mostly non-American, who don’t know who Henry Kissinger is or what he did. So your local history student and nerd is going to try to give a quick summary of the main atrocities he committed.

-Role in the Vietnam War: this is the first and biggest reason most people have for hating Kissinger. He unnecessarily extended and expanded the war prolonging the already frivolous conflict. He purposefully delayed negotiations. He approved large scale carpet bombings done with the use of B-52 bombs killed thousands to millions of innocent civilians. The Christmas Bombing was an intense, focused bombing that caused large civilian deaths in a short period of time. He engaged in negotiations with the North Vietnamese often without permission or knowledge from the US government. He was the National Security Advisor and overall had much knowledge about 1) how useless the war was 2) the travesties happening to both the North Vietnamese and South, as well as America’s own soldiers.

-Secret Bombing and Invasion in Cambodia: Kissinger (and Nixon) lead secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia aimed to destroy North Vietnamese trails and routes that ran through the country. Cambodia originally pursued neutrality in the war. Its citizens were not involved.

-Invasion and Bombing of Laos: Laos also held North Vietnamese routes, so Kissinger led Operation Lam Son which was a full scale invasion supplied with American air power and weapons. Not that it would matter, but this invasion did little to interrupt the trade routes. The North Vietnamese, made up of people who lived and knew the landscape of Vietnam, were able to adapt and find new routes. There was also secret bombings carried out in Laos, authorized by Kissinger, aimed to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail, which, once again, wasn’t disrupted and just took innocent civilian lives in Laos. Laos also remained neutral in the Vietnam War. They were not involved, yet they were punished.

-Involvement in the Bangladesh Liberation War: this was a war between Bangladesh and Pakistan. Kissinger remained in a close relationship with Pakistan which, by now, was known to be committing horrendous human rights abuses, including large scale killings of the Bangladeshis. In fact, Kissinger and America provided funding for them. America was aligned in the first place because of bullshit Cold War alliances.

-Supporting and funding a dictator over an elected president: Chile had elected a *gasp* socialist president that really made Kissinger piss his pants. Project FUBELT, directly under Kissinger’s guidance, initiated covert actions to undermine and prevent the socialist President, Salvador Allende, from rising to power. Financial support was provided to anti-Allende groups and would eventually provided support to a military coup who would kill Allende. The leader of the coup, Augusto Pinochet, would then assume power and take rule an authoritarian government and become a dictator for 17 years. Under his rule, torture and executions were carried out against political dissidents and others. This wasn’t a secret.

-Supported the brutal invasion of East Timor: Indonesia would invade and occupy East Timor in 1975. Kissinger and Nixon had knowledge of the invasion beforehand and provided military support despite the knowledge of human rights abuses already taking place in East Timor by the Indonesians, abuses often using US weapons. Massacres, forced displacement, suppression of political dissents, torture, sexual abuse, restrictions of religious and cultural practices, and scorched earth policies are just some examples.

To my knowledge, these are usually the largest reasons cited, but please add more if I’m wrong. There are also lesser known atrocities either supported or funded by Kissinger, many taking place in Africa, that I thoroughly implore you to read about. Please correct any inaccurate things I said.

[beardedmrbean]

I bet the last thing Bernie Sanders expected upon his arrival in Ireland and Britain was to be met by angry protesters—to find himself heckled and damned as a sellout by the kind of radicals who would have been shouting his praises just six months ago. And yet that is what happened: Some of Britain's Bernie Bros have morphed into Bernie bashers.

Why? Because he refuses to describe Israel's war on Hamas as a "genocide" and he doesn't approve of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel.

Quick—cast him out. Unperson him. He has ventured outside the parameters of acceptable Left-wing thought and must be punished.

It all kicked off in Dublin. Senator Sanders, who is on these isles to promote his book, Why It's OK To Be Angry About Capitalism, was speaking at University College Dublin. A group of pro-Palestine protesters assembled at the entrance to the venue, all wearing the uniform of the virtuous: a keffiyeh. "It's OK to be angry about capitalism, what about Zionism?" they chanted.

It got heated inside, too. Sanders was interrupted by audience members. "Resistance is an obligation in the face of occupation!" one shouted. "Occupation is terrorism!" yelled another.

Sanders kept his cool with his reply: "Good slogan, but slogans are not solutions," he said.

It continued at Trinity College the next day. Sanders was in conversation with the Irish journalist Fintan O'Toole. Outside, a small but noisy gaggle of anti-Israel agitators displayed a banner that said: "Boycott Apartheid Israel."

"Free Palestine!" they chanted. (Deliciously, a woman who was queuing for the Sanders event bellowed "from Hamas!" every time they said it.)

Again, Sanders was heckled by hotheads. "Ceasefire now!" they shouted. At one point, in the words of Trinity News, Sanders "threw up his right arm in frustration and looked at O'Toole, as if to ask him what would be done."

It is little wonder he felt frustrated. Sanders was there to talk about capitalism, yet angry youths kept badgering him about Zionism. He is used to a fawning response from Socialist twentysomethings, and yet now some were effectively accusing him of being complicit in a "genocide." It's quite the downfall for one of the West's best-known leftists.

The turn on Bernie is underpinned by a belief that he is too soft on Israel. The radical Left will never forgive him for initially supporting Israel's war on Hamas. Even his more recent position—he now says there should be a ceasefire—is not good enough for these people, who seem to measure an individual's moral worth by how much he hates the Jewish State.

They want Bernie to say the G-word. They want him to damn Israel as uniquely barbarous. They want him to agree with them that it is right and proper to single Israel out for boycotts and sanctions.

In short, they want him to fall into line. They want him to bend the knee to their Israelophobic ideology.

These illiberal demands on Bernie to bow down to correct-think continued when he arrived in the U.K. A group of communists protested against him in Liverpool. Normally, Sanders would have been shown only love in a historically radical city like Liverpool, said the Liverpool Echo, but this time, "the atmosphere was different," for one simple reason: "his refusal to brand Israel's actions in Gaza as 'genocide'."

Sanders' resistance of the G-word haunted him in his media interviews, too. Ash Sarkar of Novara Media, a key outlet of Britain's bourgeois Left, asked him three times if he would call Israel's war on Hamas a "genocide." He refused and it went viral. Armies of ersrtwhile Bernie fans damned him as a "genocide denier."

There is something quite nauseating in this spectacle of an elderly Jewish man being pressured to denounce the world's only Jewish State as genocidal. Millennial Gentiles who want to trend online might be happy to throw around the G-word. But Senator Sanders, who lost family in the Holocaust, clearly has a deeper moral and historical understanding of what genocide is. And it seems he is not willing to sacrifice that understanding at the altar of retweets or an easy ride.

Good for him.

Sanders' father was born in Poland, where most of his family were exterminated by the Nazis. Sanders is a son of the Shoah, a descendant of survivors of the greatest crime in history. To subject him to the modern equivalent of a showtrial in which you demand that he scream "Genocide!" at Israel feels unconscionable. As does branding him a "genocide denier."

Why won't he call Israel's war on Hamas a "genocide"? Maybe, says a writer for the Jewish Chronicle, it's because he lost so much of his family to Hitler's gas chambers and therefore he "knows what a genocide is, what a war crime is." He knows that while the war in Gaza, a war started by Hamas, is "horrible," to use his word, it cannot in any way be compared to the Nazis' conscious efforts to vaporize an entire ethnic group.

There has been a Inquisition vibe to some of the Bernie-bashing in Britain. At times it has felt cruel. The sight of fashionable, privileged Israel-bashers haranguing a man who will have heard stories from his own father about the genocidal mania of the Nazis has come across like Jew-taunting rather than political critique.

More broadly, this unseemly episode gives us a glimpse into the authoritarian impulses behind the Left's obsessive opposition to Israel. Israelophobia, it seems, is less a rational political stance than a borderline religious conviction. There are true believers, who dutifully repeat the G-word like a mantra, and sinful outliers, who refuse to treat Israel as uniquely "problematic."

One's moral fitness for radical society is increasingly judged by one's willingness to treat Israel as the most wicked nation in existence. The dangers of making hostility to the Jewish State a requirement of being a Good Leftist should be clear to everyone.

Sanders is wise to resist this tyrannical zeitgeist, and to say what he believes rather than what he believes will be popular.

Brendan O'Neill is the chief political writer of spiked. His new book, A Heretic's Manifesto: Essays on the Unsayable, is available now.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

[lucabyte]

thinking about the very specific reading of isat i had during act 3 for the most part

anyway yeah ill ramble here about this. since it actually explains my headcanons for what the disappearing island wish was

disclaimer: taken as a whole this is way too allegorical for what i'd consider a holistic reading of isat, but it was part of my running theories at the time.

anyway my guess for the real-world equivalent of the island ended up being French Polynesia by the end of the game. I had initially thrown a dart at siffrin being greek wrt europe, sisyphus allusion, enjoyment of plays and seafairing-- but the moment that little guy started getting real weird about stars and specified they were from an island i switched my guess to him being polynesian. And then that reading only really strengthened from there (and i was pretty close, tbf!)

but yeah during act 3, especially the king plotline, i started thinking about the themes of cultural erasure + lack of identity that the game has and how that plays wrt vaugarde's extremely welcoming and diverse nature.

reading far too much into it but it made me wonder if they are the results of a fallen empire of some kind. somewhere that gathered people from across the globe (as empires are known to do) before dissolving into what seems to be a localised theocracy of some kind?

like. vaugarde is basically the Good End for an empire. Fully demilitarised (they barely have use for police to the point where the defenders are surprised by burglaries, and almost CERTAINLY have zero army), extremely diverse, not caring where one comes from.

(either that or they've been a socialist utopia like, forever? and thus just aquired migrants perpetually... but ka bue is characterised as harsher by odile in a lot of respects so one can assume its not that the whole planet is Niceys All The Time.)

this lines up pretty well with the um. Whole France Thing. Boy do they own a lot of islands still that they maybe shouldn't. Also lines up with bonnie's word-of-god french creole dialect. So Vaugarde as the welcoming, ideal form of former-colonialiser-nation is like. one i vibe with if we're gonna read too hard into the worldbuilding as presented.

Anyway all this to say I did for a time wonder if the Northern Island wish was 'For The Island To Be Safe'. Assuming this world to have any level of inter-country conflict-- Wish craft is powerful stuff, and a singular island might not be able to defend itself against those seeking to take it by force. Hiding the island from the world would protect it.

... though that felt like an unusually cruel read. The implication that cloistering away like that is a 'valid' strategy for a culture to be safe (albeit with the splash damage of hurting any diaspora).

Plus, wish craft is superbly powerful, with evidently its use on the island only becoming more widespread after it was discovered how to make it work Consistently.

(i work here under the assumption that Siffrin's growing cloak is imbued with wish craft, assumedly the same as the king's armour? Since there's no way that was created at that scale...)

So it almost makes more sense, to me, for the wish to be to 'Protect The World (universe) From Us' or to 'Keep The Universe Safe'.

Wish craft being so second nature to the Islanders (See: Siffrin, favour tree), that a wish that breaks the universe is almost inevitable were the knowledge to become widespread and ingrained.

This too is an oddly cruel read, that a culture's rituals can be dangerous to that degree, but ... ? Dunno. Like I said, reading it as hard allegory makes it fall apart somewhat. Symbols can mean many different things at once until you flatten them for direct analysis like this. I don't think it's quite so 1-to-1, and it's honestly slightly too 'no story only lore' for my tastes, so I did push a lot of this stuff out of my analytical mind once I started getting to the back and of act 3 and into act 4.

Anyway. Not the most coherent explanation in the world, but still some thoughts I had mid-game that i figure i should put somewhere at least, even if I don't think they are really what the game is going for.

As a bonus, the discussions on what the island wish were in this context also lead my friend @samhainian to speculation on the colour wish that i really enjoy. Which is....

The wish that removed colour from humans perception of the world being something along the lines of:

"I wish the world was simpler"

ergo, removing colour as an invocation of Nuiance VS Black and White Morality. The world is simpler, easier to understand.

I think it's a fun headcanon! I like it.

Well anyway. A work is more than the sum of its parts and dissecting something so sloppily as this often does it a disservice. So don't take my theorising as anything more than a general rundown of where my head was at mid-game before i had all the pieces. The emotional core of the story is far more where it's at for ISAT sooooo. [Shrugs and scampers away]

[16woodsequ]

Things People Seem to Forget About Steve Rogers (aka the past is complex)

Things in the future didn't happen in a vacuum, and while Steve missed a lot of stuff while he was in the ice, he would have seen the roots of things like the Civil Rights, Women's Rights and even LGBTQ+ Rights movements in his time.

While I'm sure Steve encountered a lot of people expecting certain right-wing behaviours from him, due to his birth year and the things he missed in the ice, this doesn't mean he would act that way—even right out of the ice.

But first lets take a look at the things Steve missed and see what he did in fact know:

The atom bomb. Steve never saw the atomic fallout, but what did he see? Hydra bombs literally being flown to his home city. There is also a possibility that as a specialty team, he learned about the German Nuclear Program during the war. His unit was tied to the Strategic Science Reserve, so I wouldn't be surprised if between that, and Hydra's bomb initiatives, Steve was well aware of the potential of a bomb threat. I doubt Steve has clearance to know about the Manhattan project, and I think he would be horrified to learn about the impact of the atom bomb on Japan (especially since he essentially thwarted the same thing from happening to New York) but majorly powerful bombs would not surprise him.

• The Cold War. Steve may not have experience the Cold War, but he grew up surrounded by the outcome of the First World War after the Communist take over of Russia. The debates surrounding Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism aren't new. Steve would have grown up with them and would probably be familiar with American pro-capitalist, anti-communist rhetoric. But would he agree?

Here's some things we know about Steve: He's an artist, he grew up during the Depression which was heavily mitigated by socialist measures, he grew up poor, he grew up disabled. As an artist Steve would be well aware of the debates between the political movements, and with his background, and the success of Roosevelt's New Deal reforms, it would not surprise me if Steve leaned more towards the Socialist side of the scale.

All this to say: Steve would not be unfamiliar with the tension between Russia and the USA. Especially since even though they were allies during the war, there were already concerns that the USSR wasn't so much 'liberating' the countries they drove Germany out of, as putting them under new management.

Steve would be familiar with the tensions underlying the Cold War, and his background might lead him to have a critical view of some of the pro-Capitalist propaganda that came out during the Cold War. While I don't think Steve would approve of Russia's methods and the ultimate outcome of Communism there, I don't think he would approve of the Red Scare Witch Hunt that happened in the States either.

• Civil Rights Movement. While Steve missed the major changes that occurred during the 50s and 60s, he would not be unfamiliar with movements for equality. Steve would also not be unaware of the inequality that minorities faced in his country.

For example:

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was established in 1909 and is still run today. The NAACP fought and fights against discrimination and advocates for equality.

In the 30s President Roosevelt responded to "to charges that many blacks were the "last hired and first fired," [his administration] instituted changes that enabled people of all races to obtain needed job training and employment. These programs brought public works employment opportunities to African Americans, especially in the North" (Link)

"The first precedent-setting local and state level court cases to desegregate Mexican and African American schooling were decided during [the late 1930s]" (Link)

In 1941 thousands of Black Americans threatened to march on Washington for equal employments rights which pushed Roosevelt to issue an executive order that "opened national defense jobs and other government jobs to all Americans regardless of race, creed, color or national origin." (Link)

The Double Victory or Double V Campaign during the war was an explicit campaign to win the war against fascism in Europe and the war against racism as home.

All this to say, Steve would not be unfamiliar with many of the issues tackled during the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s.

Not only that, but Steve led a multi-racial special unit during the war during a time of active army segregation. Not only does he have a Black man on his team, but also a Japanese man. This would have most definitely led to backlash from higher command as well as discrimination from other units against Jones and Morita. Steve and the entire Howling Commandos would be explicitly aware of prejudice against two of their members and likely had to fight for them many times.

• Anything space travel. It's true Steve wouldn't know anything about attempts to reach the moon. But there were still several space discoveries he could know about, especially since he and Bucky are clearly interested in scientific discoveries, considering how they went to the Stark Exbo before Bucky shipped out.

Some discoveries:

Hubble's Law: In 1929 Hubble published evidence for an ever expanding universe, and thus provided evidence of the Big Bang theory.

1930: Discovery of Pluto (makes me chuckle to think this is a relatively new discovery for Steve and he wakes up to find it is a dwarf-planet now. You think Millennials are protective of Pluto? I think Steve would be too 😆.)

1937: "the first intimation that most matter in the universe is `dark matter'"

Personally I think Steve would be absolutely amazed by the advances in space travel.

• Women's Rights. Like with Civil Rights, while Steve may have missed the large movements during the 50s and 60s, he was around for the early movements. The 60s movement is called Second Wave Feminism for a reason. This is because there was already many pushes for women equality in Steve's time.

For example:

1920: White women win the right to vote. This means Steve's mother first voted in his lifetime. I feel this alone would make Steve heavily aware of inequality faced by women. (As a side note I feel that Sarah always emphasized voting to Steve since it was such a major development in her lifetime.)

Also in the 20s the Flapper trend rose, along with hemlines. Women's skirts were shorter and they smoked and drank with men. Middle-class and working-class women also worked outside of the home. The 1920s-1930s 'modern' woman is very different from the Victorian vision of a woman in petticoats and skirts.

Early Birth Control movement: Was "initiated by a public health nurse, Margaret Sanger, just as the suffrage drive was nearing its victory. The idea of woman���s right to control her own body, and especially to control her own reproduction and sexuality, added a visionary new dimension to the ideas of women’s emancipation. This movement not only endorsed educating women about existing birth control methods. It also spread the conviction that meaningful freedom for modern women meant they must be able to decide for themselves whether they would become mothers, and when."

1936: A Supreme Court decision declassified birth control information as obscene. Legalised doctor-prescribed contraceptives.

WW2 Watershed: Women serve in the army and work factory jobs. The government establishes universal childcare while women work.

Women also wore pants and form fitting clothes to work in factories. We also see Peggy wearing pants during the last assault on Hydra. While Steve may need to get used to modern fashion, he would already be familiar with the 'morale outrage' over women's clothes in his time, and probably try to manage his surprise in private as well as possible.

• LGBTQ+ Rights. Like with the rest of the equality movements, LGBTQ+ rights movements also started before the late 1900s.

1924: "Society for Human Rights is founded by Henry Gerber in Chicago. The society is the first gay rights organization as well as the oldest documented in America." This organisation was broken up soon after founding due to arrests, but it published "the first American publication for homosexuals, Friendship and Freedom."

In the 1920s and 30s "the gay and lesbian movement started taking shape. Social analysts began rejecting prior medical definitions of "inversion" or "homosexuality" as deviant.

Communities of men and women with same-sex affiliations began to grow in urban areas. Their right to gather in public places such as bars was tenuous, and police raids and harassment were common." (Link)

WW2 Watershed: While many LGBTQ people lived in rural areas or outside 'queer neighbourhoods' the war brought people from all backgrounds together. "As with most young soldiers, many had never left their homes before, and the war provided them an opportunity to find community, camaraderie, and, in some cases, first loves. These new friendships gave gay and lesbian GIs refuge from the hostility that surrounded them and allowed for a distinct subculture to develop within the military."

They still had to hide their identities for fear of persecution and a 'blue discharge', however "Gay and lesbian veterans of World War II became some of the first to fight military discrimination and blue discharges in the years following the war."

It's unclear how much Steve would have known about the gay and lesbian rights movement. But in the comics he has a gay friend Arnie Roth, and there are many meta posts (X X X) about how Steve may have lived in a queer neighbourhood.

And, according to my history professor, gay and lesbian soldiers were often protected by their friends in the army instead of outed. This is not to downplay the discrimination and pain outed veterans faced, but there was a comaraderie and understanding that developed between soldiers that protected many gay soldiers.

• Computer and the internet. The seeds of modern computers began during World War Two. Arguably it began earlier with Ada Lovelace. While technology has changed a lot for Steve, there is a long history of it's development.

Colossus Computer: Kept secret until the 70s, it's unclear if Steve's association with the SSR, Peggy (who was a code breaker before SSR) and Howard, would have led him to know anything about the "the world's first programmable, electronic, digital computer", but we see electric screens and machines being used in Captain America: The First Avenger. So he would know something of those mechanisms.

Also the first American TV was broadcasted in the 1939 World Fair, And since Steve and Bucky are already shown going to a science fair, I believe it is reasonable for Steve to know about the concept of television, though it looks much different in modern day.

• Rise of Neo-Nazis. Steve already saw the rise of fascism in his own country before the war, so while I think he would be horrified and saddened to learn of the Neo-Nazi movement, I don't think he would be surprised.

Because:

Eugenics: A large part of the Nazi campaign, this part of the movement originated and was inspired by the United States Eugenics movement. "It is important to appreciate that within the U.S. and European scientific communities these ideas were not fringe but widely held and taught in universities."

Lobotomies and institutionalisations were part of the treatments for disabled and 'weak-minded' individuals during Steve's time. With Sarah being a nurse it is likely Steve knew of these treatments and more. And as a disabled child of immigrants, I have no doubts Steve brushed up with eugenics beliefs many times.

1939: More than 20,000 people attended a Nazi rally in Madison Square while "[a]bout 100,000 anti-Nazi protesters gathered around the arena in protest".

In the comics Steve canonically has a Jewish friend, Arnie Roth. If he wasn't part of the protests against the Nazi rally, he would have heard about it and known about the rise of antisemitic sentiment in the US before the outbreak of the war.

So Where Does That Leave Us?

Steve has a history of anti-racist behaviour. While he would still have a lot to learn from the Civil Rights Movement and no doubt has unconscious biases he grew up with, he also explicitly builds a multi-racial team that would have led to clashes with systemic racism in the army. This would have inevitably led to him and the Howling Commandos taking an anti-racist stance in protection of their members.

Would Steve say the N-word? Likely not. The N-Word already held negative connotations by the 19th and early-20th century. I doubt Jones would be willing to follow a man who would knowing use the insult. 'Coloured' or 'Negro' were seen as the more acceptable terms. So Steve may use those words at first, instead of 'Black' or 'African-American'. 'Negro' is a controversial term for some Black Americans, so this would be something for him to learn, but he would not purposely by insulting or hurtful. And I believe he would adapt as quickly as possible upon learning.

Steve saw the early steps of many social movements. Given what we know about Steve—artist, disabled, immigrant, poor, raised by a single mom, gay and Jewish friend, potentially lived around queer people, worked with Peggy and smiled when she punched a sexiest, and built a multi-racial team—Steve would not only be aware of the social movements of his time, but he would be happy to learn of the developments after he went into the ice.

While it would take some time for him to learn all the changes that happened, Steve's background would led him to be pleased with the changes in society. This is the opposite of being racist, sexist, and homophobic. Some things might take some adjusting for Steve to get used to, but he is already open-minded and has a frame of reference for many of the social changes that happened.

People sometimes bring up Steve's Catholic upbringing to argue about some beliefs he might have. But while I do think this upbringing would lead to some biases, I think Steve's life experience helped counter, or helped him unlearn some of those biases, even before he hit the ice.

Also, as an Irish-Catholic, Steve would have faced some discrimination of his own. It is most certainly not on the same level as other minorities, and things were better in the 20th century. Being very clear, any discrimination Steve faced for being Irish-Catholic would not be systemic or commonplace like racism. But adding his heritage to the rest of Steve's background helps give us a better idea of why he was already open to social movements like the Civil Rights movement before the ice. And it may have made him already more understanding of LGBTQ+ people, who he may have lived around, even if he grew up being taught certain biases.

Other Things We Forget About Steve

He is quite tech-savvy. While Steve would have a lot to learn, we know he is capable. There are a lot of jokes about his technical know-how in Avengers, but I think he's actually managing very well considering it's probably only been a few weeks or months since he came out of the ice.

Examples:

Deleted scene where we see Steve using a laptop in his apartment. He presses the spacebar to pause a video, which is a keyboard shortcut. So not only can he set up a laptop to watch a video, but he already knows key shortcuts.

Deleted scene where waitress mentions 'wireless'. Steve is confused and thinks she means radio. But I think he actually knows about wi-fi at this point, but probably had never heard it referred to as 'wireless' before. By this point he knows radio is not as common, so his real confusion is why the waitress is offering him 'free radio'. If she had said free wi-fi (the more typical phrase in my opinion) I think he would have understood.

Canon scene of Steve helping Tony fix the Helicarrier engines. This is my favourite evidence because Tony asks Steve to look at the relays and Steve makes a quip that they 'seem to run on some sort of electricity' indicating he is out of his depth. But we never see Tony tell Steve what to do. Steve figures out how to fix the relays himself. Tony is busy with the debris in the rotors and the next thing we see is Steve telling Tony the relays are all good.

Steve is much better at adapting and figuring out technology than we give him credit for. This doesn't mean he won't be anxious or uncomfortable with the sheer amount of stuff he has to learn (especially if everyone keeps making jokes about it to him). But by 2014, it's clear he's already mastered all of it, which is amazing when you think about it, because that's only two years of learning.

Steve is very book smart. In the comics Steve goes to art college, implying he finished high school. Even if he did drop out of high school to work, we know Steve is very smart.

We see him unloading a whole suitcase of books in the barracks before he got the serum.

The mental math is must take to throw the shield at the right angles for it to bounce back is insane.

Steve is also known as a master tactician. So it is clear he has the brains and smarts to run his team during the war. Not only that, but he is not just Captain in name. He actually has that rank, which means he passed the Captain's exam. I also have a feeling he would have needed to pass some kind of evaluation to get the serum in the first place.

We see in Steve's 2014 apartment that his bookshelves are full of history books. Steve is a veracious reader and spends a lot of his time catching up on what he missed. Things he didn't learn or were taught differently growing up would definitely exist, but Steve is actively working to counter that.

Steve would swear. Swearing has been a constant throughout all of history. So too, the backlash against profanity. Even if Steve grew up being told not to swear he would have heard it. And, Steve became a soldier. If he didn't swear before the war, he most definitely picked up some of it then.

I think Captain America isn't supposed to swear, and I think Steve would be aware of this perception of the symbol of him. But I think when Steve is comfortable with people, he would swear. We see in Avengers he doesn't swear, but in Avengers: Age of Ultron, he does.

We joke about Steve and the "Language" line, but I think that line has something to do with Steve's history of being perceived as a symbol and as Captain America since he said it 'just slipped out'. So, while Steve may have been encouraged not to swear growing up, and expected not to swear as Captain America, I fully believe that soldier, veteran, and Irish man Steve Rogers does swear.

Wrap up

I hope you liked this deep dive into Steve's history and character.

I think it can be easy to take the past as a lump sum and view everyone in the past through one lens. We know the past was racist, sexist, and homophobic, so we view everyone from the past that way.

And while it's true things were different back then, people were most definitely fighting for change and aware of the issues. There is also a lot of nuance to the past, and a lot that can be gleaned from what we know about Steve.

It's true that Steve would have a lot to learn when it comes to terminology and specific technology, but I believe Steve's background would prepare him for a lot of the social changes that happened after he went into the ice.

[yuri-alexseygaybitch]

I've spent the past couple years hearing from the American left that prisons, police, the death penalty, etc. should be abolished. However, recently I've heard a number Communists saying that these things shouldn't be abolished. I understand the argument put forward by my fellow Communists, that abolitionism is unrealistic and prisons, police, the death penalty, etc. are necessary for a socialist state in order to combat Fascism, but I find it hard to believe that a truly just justice system which benefits society is possible given the nightmarish acts of state violence and police brutality which I've seen.

You are making the mistake of preceding from an ideal, i.e. "a truly just justice system", rather than the material facts of reality. We can sit here all day and come up with what the features of a "just", "abolitionist", etc. society would look like and state our desire to move from the currently existing society to that one, but if we do not pay attention to how we can begin to move from this one to another one it is literally worthless. This is why anarchism and (rad)liberalism are political dead ends with nothing to offer - there is no coherent roadmap from "capitalist death cult" to "tolerable for human life" beyond the desire to abolish, to do away with, to say "this is what a just society looks like" and think if people stay on the streets long enough it will manifest.

Communists don't manifest, they build power to protect the interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie. Building that power under the material conditions as they presently exist means utilizing the raw power of the state (i.e. the military, police, and prisons - the "special bodies of armed men" in Lenin's words) to defend against the onslaught of the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary forces, which as history has shown, will immediately and relentlessly assault a DOTP from the moment of its inception. No socialist society has lasted more than a year without exercising its ability to defend itself.

So yes, we can sit here and say "in a truly just society there will be no cops, no prisons, no death penalty" and I'd agree with you. My hatred for the "justice" system and how nakedly it acts as an instrument of suppression of workers, anti-fascists, land defenders, and marginalized people is what initially radicalized me away from liberalism to begin with. However we must contend with reality and the need for socialist projects to defend themselves. I want a revolution that last more than a day.

[tikkunolamresistance]

The fact so many of you take the United States as a moral arbiter is concerning…

You should always challenge, question and investigate both alignment and interests.

For a nation who has historically funded, aided, initiated genocides across the globe, staged military coups to tear apart socialist nations, and pushed the red scare to protect imperial interests— a lot of you fail to be critical about why the USA are doing the most to ensure the State of Israel’s success.

Genocidal regimes don’t just one day decide that they care about a group of people, that they care about human rights. There’s geopolitical interests in the Middle East on the table; this is NOT and never has been about protecting the Jewish people— and we’re fully aware that Zionists foam at the mouth when we say that.

There is no safety from the hands of the genocidal Capitalist hegemony.

[txttletale]

hi followers of various countries. are there any cool communist or socialist or anticolonialist groups or organizations or initiatives that happened in your country's history that you're proud of or think get overlooked. tell me about em. we hear so much about usamerican labour history on this site but i wanna hear everything else for once

[radiofreederry]

Happy birthday, Fidel Castro! (August 13, 1926)

The longtime leader of the revolution in Cuba, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was born in Birán to a well-off family. Castro was radicalized during his legal studies at the University of Havana, coming to embrace anti-imperialism and opposition to US interference in the Caribbean and Latin America. Castro traveled abroad to participate in rebellions against right-wing governments in the Dominican Republic and Colombia, before returning to Cuba and setting his sights on freeing it from right-wing rule and US domination. After an initial abortive rebellion against Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista failed, Castro spent several years in prison along with his comrades, who went on to form the nucleus of the 26th of July Movement. Released on amnesty, Castro went right back to revolutionary activity, spending time in exile. While away from Cuba, he met Che Guevara, who would go on to play a pivotal role in the revolution. On December 2, 1956, Castro landed with around 80 men on the Cuban shore, using a rickety and decrepit old yacht. The revolutionaries were ambushed by Batista's forces shortly thereafter, and their numbers slashed down to only around 20. From these 20 revolutionaries, Castro built up a revolutionary movement which swept Batista from power and liberated Cuba from imperialist control for the first time in history. Declaring himself a Marxist-Leninist, Castro went about radically transforming Cuba on a socialist model, instituting extensive land reform, a highly-effective literacy program, universal healthcare, and other such policies. He led Cuba through the heady early years of the revolution, in which the US constantly plotted to overthrow his government and assassinate him personally, through the Cuban Missile Crisis in which US bullishness came close to unleashing nuclear war, and through the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Cuba's ally the USSR. Castro instituted Cuba's celebrated policy of medical diplomacy, and in the Havana Declaration he expressed Cuba's intentions to support revolutionary movements abroad. Castro continued to lead Cuba until 2008, when he stepped down in favor of his brother Raul, and he died in 2016. Reviled in the United States and the imperial core, Castro remains a beloved and celebrated figure in the Global South, a symbol of anti-imperialism, resistance to US aggression, and hope for a better world.

"A revolution is not a trail of roses…. A revolution is a fight to the death between the future and the past."

[tamamita]

(apologies ahead of time if this is something you already talked about) you're very invested in this conflict and I am genuinely confused by some things, you seem to support hamas but from my pov they're a fascist organization that took power with military might, and oppress their own people. according to people I know living in israel they've been kidnapping, r@#!ing, and killing civilians. and I've been told any palestinians who speak against it or try to escape are labeled as traitors and executed. basically what I want to know is if you support hamas despite all that, why? what am I missing here? is everything people are saying despite being documented or even personal expereince from people I know is a lie? I understand not supporting israel and I understand supporting palestinians but I don't understand supporting hamas

I'm disappointed, because you say that you've been in touch with a bunch of Israelis, yet you've made no efforts to consult with a Palestinan. The Israelis aren't suffering; the Palestinians are and have been ever since the Nakba of 1948 (which I hope your Israeli friends mentioned), 105 years if we count the Belfour declaration. So next time, please consult with a Palestinian if you want to understand the occupation better than to consult with a bunch of privileged people living in an illegal settler colonial state. It's even more evident that you'll hastly accept any information from Western and Israeli-sponsored media, e.g Hamas mass r*pe, beheaded children, etc, despite the fact that they've been debunked to death now.

I support violent resistence against colonialism and imperialism. Israel has been occupying Palestine for 75 years, so the Palestinians have actively been resisting the ever expanding settler colonial regime. Once again, Hamas at its conception was initially funded by Israel as an attempt to undermine the secular and socialist resistance groups in Palestine. Indeed, the former IOF Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev confessed to Mehdi Hassan that Israel funded Hamas (thus being complicit in the creation of its outdated 1988 charter). The Israelis did not expect the blowback when Hamas grew to power after they secured power in Gaza. Hamas, for me, is just a resistance group that continuous to uphold its legacy of decolonization by actively fighting against the apartheid regime. Now you may ask, why not peaceful resistance? Habibi, the last time a peaceful protest was held, 200+ Palestinians were shot to death during the Great March of Return. Israel seeks to undermine any attempts for Palestinian self-determination.

As for the death and kidnapping of those Israelis. This was inevitable. Israel is NOT a safe & peaceful country, it is keeping an entire population of people inside a cage, while blocking them from food, water, electricity and humanitarian aid. Even UN secretary general António Guterres said, what happened on October the 7th, did not happen out of a vacuum, that was the culimination of 75 years of oppression against the Palestinians. It was obvious that the resistance movement would fight back, it is the government's damn fault for putting its citizens and settler villages close to world's largest open-air prison, while expecting everything to run smoothly. Indeed, surveys show that Israelis are blaming the IOF and the government for the lack of security which resulted in the death of the Israelis.

Now, even if Hamas was removed from the equation, did you forget about the Palestinians in the West Bank who are constantly being targeted by violent settlers? Do you think Palestinians have no right to self-defense when they are being subjected to harassment, torment and systematic oppression? Palestinian children and women are constantly kidnapped, r*ped, tortured to death, blackmailed, jailed for life under a conviction rate of 99% under Israeli courts. You tell me how Palestinians feel first before you consult with a bunch of Israelis who will never suffer a fraction of what the oppressed are going through.

[yourtongzhihazel]

Why did China keep diplomatic relations with the US or with any other country that supports Palestinians genocide? They could just cut off US trading and cripple our economy until we stop funding genocide

As much as the world economy runs on PRC production and labor, it is nowhere near the power needed to being the imperialists to heel. The PRC's share of global manufacturing is ~30%; a large share, no doubt! But given that the global socialist block is fairly small now, it is simply not enough. This, in addition to the USD being the default currency of the world and global manufacturing chains including parts produced in the west (though not on the same level as western parts in the PRC), would also put the PRC at risk should they attempt to do anything on that scale. These issues are why the BRI initiative is so disruptive to imperialism; dedolarization + the connection of the global south to the world's largest manufacturer, bypassing the west would deal a massive blow to imperialism. For now, the PRC's stance (something I disagree with deeply) is of non-interventionism, largely to skirt the mire of western imperialist institutions. We shall see how long that can last in this political-economic climate. The good news is that the PRC has "unofficial" trade restrictions in place on israel following October 7th.