The_Terrible_Humbaba

I already said this in reply to your other comment, but I'll repeat it here.

Lenin appointed Trotsky as Vice-chairman, and it's believed Lenin wanted Trotsky as his successor; you can't just shift all blame from one to another and pretend Lenin lived in a different reality when he was leader of the party.

To be clear, I never used the "genocidal" label, but imperialist dictator does apply. You yourself say he led "the faction" that carried out "repression", admit it was "terrible", but then in the next breath you act like he had no responsibility.

You also say:

If it wasn’t for the Bolsheviks, Makhno would have rotted away in prison

That's like saying, "if it wasn't for the people who wanted to kill him and put him in prison, he would be in prison"; followed by:

and Ukraine would have been crushed even more harshly by the actual imperialists

"More" and "actual" don't really fit here. In the same breath, you admit they were imperialists, but then essentially argue they are not true imperialists because it could have been worse.

Your entire comment is essentially trying to take everything that was bad about the party and their rule and separate it away from Lenin - the leader of the party that was ruling - and act like it was all done by a separate faction existing in a different reality; specifically you try to pin it all on Trotsky, who Lenin wished to appoint as Vice-chairman, and who historians believe Lenin wanted as a successor.

After the civil war Lenin was sick and by Feb 1924 he would be dead

And the anarchist arrests and killings were happening right after the revolution, and everything that happened with the Black Army of Ukraine also happened well before then.

You talk as if there was only the White Army and then the Red Army standing up to the White Army, but there were plenty of other socialists that Lenin put his imperial boot on.

It's not, just read about Anarcho-Syndycalists, or Anarcho-Communists, to get different perspectives.

This is post is about ML specifically, only really the first and last panels are about socialism in general.

Was Stalin the ~~dictator~~ elected leader at the time of the betrayal and destruction of the Black Army of Ukraine? Was Stalin the one in power right after the revolution when they started killing and arresting anarchists?

Fuck Lenin.

This is really just a very specific type of socialism, as indicated by Lenin being here; an authoritarian who killed other socialists. This is about ML.

The first and last panels are right, but, for example, according to this post Anarcho-Communists don't exist. They don't believe in "evolving to a point" as the third panel says, they believe in jumping straight to that point. Also, Libertarian Socialists wouldn't really be fond of "elected committees" controlling things, as the second panel talks about; maybe electing people into leadership positions inside of a company/cooperative, or maybe even having unions make those decisions, but nothing above that.

We currently live in a system where the owner class (capitalists) makes several times what you do and horde it, while you can barely afford to live.

I really don't understand how your main criticism of a system where the workers make the decisions and take the profits, is that the workers might also horde the relatively smaller amounts that they produced. It's still several times better than what we have now.

I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too".

I agree with you, but Kamala will probably still be the most left leaning president the USA ever had by quite a bit (AFAIK), and has a good chance to start shifting the Overton Window; if only by showing the Democratic Party that choosing more left leaning candidates actually gives them better chances of winning.

One problem no one has mentioned, is that it also makes life a lot harder for homeless people. I guess they need to open a bank account and start writing their account number on a cardboard.

This actually reminds me of when I went to a restaurant a while ago. I had some physical money to spend, so I figured I'd take it with me and pay with that. At the end of the meal, while my friends paid with a card, I asked if I could pay with cash. Immediately, the waiter's demeanor changed and he looked almost... disgusted? I don't even know. Then he asked me in a tone that matched his expression if I didn't have a card, and I answered something like "Well, I do, but it would be more convenient for me to pay with cash, if that's okay". Then he, for some reason, repeated the question, and I answered similarly. He didn't say anything and just avoided looking at me. While a friend next to me was paying I asked again, "so, can I pay with cash?", and without looking at me, he just barely shook his head yes. So I paid with cash, and then I awaited my 3€ change back (in my country it's not usually custom to tip because waiters actually get paid full salaries). Eventually he came back with our receipt, but no change. I just left without saying anything - at this point I wasn't going to argue about 3€ - but I'm most definitely not coming back to that place.

Still don't know what the dude's problem was, but it did leave me wondering how are homeless people expected to pay for anything, if even a person who isn't homeless can receive such cold treatment just for choosing to pay with cash.

I don't know much about her, but directly from the wiki:

The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[76] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[76]

It sounds like her position on weed is not exactly what people are painting it as. At least these comments make it seem much worse than it is according to the wiki.

EDIT:

According to this, she even supported a bill in 2019 to legalize marijuana at a federal level, tax it, and use that money to (according to this):

Create a community reinvestment fund to reinvest in communities most impacted by the failed War on Drugs and allow those funds to be invested in the following programs:

Job training;

Reentry services;

Expenses related to the expungement of convictions;

Public libraries;

Community centers;

Programs and opportunities dedicated to youth; and

Health education

I don't know if it's on purpose, but you are definitely spreading misinformation.

If you explore the dynamics of people migrating en masse and severe drought causing crop failures and small countries mismanaging famines

That's kinda the premise of interstellar, but people sort of ignore it and just focus on the space part. My cynical guess is that a movie such as you describe would have audiences mostly focus and care about the war aspect, while ignoring the setup and premise.