🎀товарищ, верь: взойдёт она💫

☭ liza. adult. tme (cis). she/her.

[komsomolka]

spiritually, this is me. the whole look... the instant noodles stand... perfection.

[komsomolka]

Hey! I hope this isn't too big of an ask, but I was wondering if you knew how one would characterise some secession or attempts of independence as legitimate compared to others. For example, the Donbass region seeking to become an autonomous or outright independent from the rest of ukraine. We know this was due to the horrific treatement of the russian ethnic minorities and the violence from the maidan state against the donbass region to the point of continuous acts of genocide. This is from my perspective a completely legitimate and necessary action of donbass. But I have an issue when it comes to arguing for the legitimacy of that secession and ones like tibet. I know for instance that the attempts of tibetan secession came about from the aristocracy reacting to their loss of power post civil war; and whilst for instance I could make the argument against this secession on the grounds of the lamas and aristrocrat's horrific actions against the tibetan people, that could be considered an argument on idealistic grounds; and ultimately if presented with the argument of regardless of the views and politics of a seceding group, their right to autonomy should be respected. how should I approach this kind of argument from a material perspective? As it stands I struggle to argue my case in regards to particularly that last point.

i don't understand why do you equate the legal grounds with the materialist framework which is, in my opinion, impossible to practice without proletarian morality lens to apply towards historically progressive or reactionary events or movements. the current legal international system is upheld by imperialist ruling bourgeois class and can't be solely relied on.

i also don't understand why tibet joining prc even if it was just due to serfs overthrowing oppressor aristocratic class (or crimean/donbass population rising up against western puppet fascist government for that matter) is somehow idealist and thus lacks legitimacy in your eyes. that is historically progressive event which strengthens anti-imperialist cause. that's legitimate grounds in materialist analysis. but tibetan aristocrats were ones to break the existing agreement with prc, revolt and then run away when they failed. that 'purge' due to failed ruling class rebellion and followed serf uprising against that rebellion led to 'progressive nobles' gaining more political power in the government and they negotiated further tibet integration into prc and abolishment of serfdom with cpc leadership in accordance with the wishes of total majority of tibet population. i strongly recommend anna louise strong's when serfs stood up in tibet on that topic. it wasn't all chaos as imperialist propaganda would lead you to believe. and notably tibet is internationally recognized as part of china today (tho mainly due to china cozying up to the west back then maybe. if it was not so i wouldn't be surprised if bourgeoise ruled global institutions pretended it was an illegal annexation like with crimea and donbass when they exerted their self determination rights written un charter). so the fact that you even have those doubts is the result of imperialist propaganda working on you unfortunately.

[komsomolka]

that is just so inch resting how 'the laws are not equal to what is right' rhetoric leaves impcore leftists bodies when its about enemy nations of their imperialist homeland. those nations have to provide bulletproof legal (by imperialist order standards ofc) reasonings for their actions when they go against collective wests interests. or else they're ontologically evil and barbaric. and even if they got them they're still deemed not enough/don't matter to impcorers because the point of it all along was to weaken and destroy those powers as a threat to upholding existing imperialist world order. in stark contrast, for that goal everything is permitted and allowed.

[ssave-baby-life]

OH MY GOD... OH MY GOD... OH MY GOD...

The doctors told me that if nothing changes within the next twelve hours, baby Qais will die. His blood has become critically weak, and every passing minute feels heavier than the last.

[ssave-baby-life]

They explained that he remains dependent on life-support machines, and I was told they cannot keep his treatment going indefinitely because I can no longer cover the overwhelming medical costs. I stood there unable to speak, feeling as though the ground had disappeared beneath me.

[ssave-baby-life]

I am begging you as a persecuted mother in Gaza, watching my baby bleed in front of me, unable to stop it. Please donate now and help me save his life before it’s too late.

Please donate now Gofundme

[ssave-baby-life]

Donations have completely stopped, and today the hospital administration warned they may expel us because I cannot afford my baby Qais’s treatment anymore. Please, I beg you through my tears, donate now before my child is abandoned without care.

[komsomolka]

Hey! I hope this isn't too big of an ask, but I was wondering if you knew how one would characterise some secession or attempts of independence as legitimate compared to others. For example, the Donbass region seeking to become an autonomous or outright independent from the rest of ukraine. We know this was due to the horrific treatement of the russian ethnic minorities and the violence from the maidan state against the donbass region to the point of continuous acts of genocide. This is from my perspective a completely legitimate and necessary action of donbass. But I have an issue when it comes to arguing for the legitimacy of that secession and ones like tibet. I know for instance that the attempts of tibetan secession came about from the aristocracy reacting to their loss of power post civil war; and whilst for instance I could make the argument against this secession on the grounds of the lamas and aristrocrat's horrific actions against the tibetan people, that could be considered an argument on idealistic grounds; and ultimately if presented with the argument of regardless of the views and politics of a seceding group, their right to autonomy should be respected. how should I approach this kind of argument from a material perspective? As it stands I struggle to argue my case in regards to particularly that last point.

i don't understand why do you equate the legal grounds with the materialist framework which is, in my opinion, impossible to practice without proletarian morality lens to apply towards historically progressive or reactionary events or movements. the current legal international system is upheld by imperialist ruling bourgeois class and can't be solely relied on.

i also don't understand why tibet joining prc even if it was just due to serfs overthrowing oppressor aristocratic class (or crimean/donbass population rising up against western puppet fascist government for that matter) is somehow idealist and thus lacks legitimacy in your eyes. that is historically progressive event which strengthens anti-imperialist cause. that's legitimate grounds in materialist analysis. but tibetan aristocrats were ones to break the existing agreement with prc, revolt and then run away when they failed. that 'purge' due to failed ruling class rebellion and followed serf uprising against that rebellion led to 'progressive nobles' gaining more political power in the government and they negotiated further tibet integration into prc and abolishment of serfdom with cpc leadership in accordance with the wishes of total majority of tibet population. i strongly recommend anna louise strong's when serfs stood up in tibet on that topic. it wasn't all chaos as imperialist propaganda would lead you to believe. and notably tibet is internationally recognized as part of china today (tho mainly due to china cozying up to the west back then maybe. if it was not so i wouldn't be surprised if bourgeoise ruled global institutions pretended it was an illegal annexation like with crimea and donbass when they exerted their self determination rights written un charter). so the fact that you even have those doubts is the result of imperialist propaganda working on you unfortunately.

[myfairynuffstuff]

Georg Anton Rasmussen (1842 - 1914) - Norwegian Fjord Landscape. Oil on canvas.

[anton--rayne]

band from socialist country voice omg let's make a nostalgic song about how much we love our socialist country that totally won't get killed by capitalist soon and totally won't be bittersweet in the future

[phobic-human]

Joseph Stalin writes the work "Marxism and the National Question" - Painting by Ivan Vasilevich Evstigneev, 1941.

[stormenos]

as a major book Varys fan… this is everything…

[thelaughingtree]

I do think, as much as I enjoyed play!Lyanna and play!Rhaegar, it's really difficult to reconcile play!R/L with book!R/L, largely because Lyanna feels like she's a young adult in the play (yes I do know an interview says she is sixteen, but she does not read that way in the play). A young one, no older than 19, but there's not a sense of substantial inequality between R/L in terms of age.

For me, I've decided to enjoy the play as its own thing which has its roots in book canon and is faithful to the spirit of book canon. I think as soon as you make Lyanna 15 years old there's a grooming dynamic there especially with the shared psychic link and Rhaegar in her dreams (he's inescapable!), and it makes Rhaegar's flight from responsibility for this teenage girl he's put on a pedestal just feel not just indefensible but like, laughably pathetic and not particularly gripping unless you're playing him as a villain protagonist, especially if there's not even 'I have to fulfil the prophecy' justifying his choice. Rhaegar just looks really unhinged. IDK. Not fun, at least not fun in the way the play is fun, and you'd need to frame it as more of a horror story for it to work in my view.

[freedomofthegull]

"he decided" wow Jaime's really forcing it isn't he

[innerchildabortionclinic]

⬆️

[dimetrodone]

The Great Gatsby

[komsomolka]

notice how evil media has hr initials. harry potter, heated rivalry...

[expressions-of-nature]

by Tommaso Donelli

[thelittlevienna]

Apollo and Daphne at the Kunsthistorisches Museum - Jakob Auer | Vienna

[rehinaonthelow]

Why is everyone on this website actually stupid. Yes even the most marginalised US-American benefits from the privileges afforded to them by living in the Imperial Core. Why do you think Indigenous US-Americans live, on average, in better conditions than Indigenous Americans in Latin America? Why is it that Indigenous US-Americans living on the poorest most isolated and neglected reservations have a better quality of life then the worst off Indigenous Latin American tribe? I’ll answer for you: It’s Imperialism

[sins-of-sodom]

People don't like to hear this but yes even being marginalized in the West is a fucking privilege. Your stories of suffering are STILL centered; maybe you don't feel that way because you're physically surrounded by people who are incentivized not to give a shit about you, but it is still true that you get to platform what's happened to you far more than anyone in the periphery. You're blind to the people below you because your nation has covered your eyes.

Many more people know about the slave trade than the intricacies of the genocide in Donbass.

[maxxie-or-smth]

who do you think i am? looking for recommendations