Russia is absolutely not deliberately inflicting group conditions calculated to bring their destruction. Compare civilian casualty rates in the US invasion of Iraq vs Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. You are grasping at individual instances, not widespread practices.
The “estimated 20.000” figure comes directly from the Ukrainian government, and as I claimed, hasn’t been independently verified. The 1.200 by OHCHR is likely true as they claim are confirmed independently (thank you for your source), and while I thoroughly condemn it, I wouldn’t argue it amounts to genocide. Forcible removals of custody from children are something Roma people are forced to in Europe very regularly, and while a disgusting practice, I wouldn’t agree that it amounts to genocide.
But statesian republicans don’t advocate for the end of capitalism and an implosion of the country. They’re disgusting, but they’re not accelerationists, they defend hard policy to defend the status quo.
Well, yes, there are a few individuals doing it, that doesn’t affect my main question “how many are doing it? Is it significant?”
I mean, the post says “capitalism bad” so I assumed that the green man is not from the right wing.
The right wing is not really collapsing the system IMO, they’re just taking off its mask and showing how it truly is and has been.
Relocating children?
The main source for this claim is the Ukrainian government though, there’s no independent journalistic reporting confirming that this is happening at scale
Only allow the Russian language in occupied areas?
Likely true, haven’t done any research but sounds plausible
Deny that Ukrainians have their own culture and are/should be part of the Motherlandtm?
That’s what Ukraine was doing In eastern Ukraine but backwards, and it’s very bad policy in both cases. However, this unfortunately happens in essentially every modern nation state (look at Occitan/Breton in France as an example).
In conclusion: Russia is engaging in Russian nationalist policy, and homogenization of culture, which is policy I hate and condemn, but not enough to call genocide unless we say that most modern atates are engaging in genocide.
“Autocratic monarchy can continue to exist if people want it” ass comment
Believe it or not, that’s exactly why a meaningful wealth tax with such consequences will never be passed and maintained without a literal revolution.
More accurate: the US nukes world’s poorest nation in order for it to stop being a nation at all
You’re right, Israel-Palestine cannot be equated to the Russian invasion of Ukraine because the former is a genocide whereas the latter isn’t. This makes the comparison even more relevant though: “if you call for war reparations here arguing from international law, how are you not calling for even more reparations there from genocide under international law?”
This is kinda mostly a strawman though, no serious political movement advocates for accelerationism, it’s just a strawman used against people further to the left than oneself.
There are a few weird fringe cults who are accelerationist like Posadists (who believe nuclear war or aliens will bring communism), but it’s not by any means a position that holds a good footing in any serious political project.
The strawman often takes claims like “there is not a big practical difference between these two political parties” and twists them into “I would rather have the worse party win”. Also takes descriptive statements like “people usually revolt when hungry” and attributes an intentionality to them, like “I wish more people would go hungry so that they starve more”, as if making an observation about the nature of protest and revolt implied supporting the conditions that create it.
Doesn’t help that the social democrats had murdered the more moderate leaders of the communists (like Rosa Luxembourg) just a few years before that and funded the Freikorps with government funds. How is a small party (KPD) without access to government more accelerationist than the big party in government (SPD) actively funding Nazi death squads to murder communists already a decade before?
Also, the SPD leaders literally flipped its anti-militarist stance overnight when WW1 broke out. Again, who’s the accelerationist, the one protesting against that and being murdered by fascists or the party in government funding said fascists and supporting WW1?
Fully agreed but why the particular focus on the offending nation? You could give similar statistics about, say, Belarus or Poland. To me it’s not morally the same when a Nazi German soldier is killed in combat to when a Belarusian civilian is starved to death in a Nazi concentration camp.
This isn’t even the stupidest point of accelerationism
Agreed, but like, there are no actual accelerationists, it’s mostly a strawman used to misrepresent people who are more radical. Sure, there may be a few random accelerationists around, but there’s no serious political movement anywhere with accelerationism in their policy because it is a very bad idea.
It does, but barely anybody calls themselves an accelerationist, it’s mostly a fringe position and, more commonly, a strawman
No revolution required - just a better electoral process. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Why would the ruling capitalist class allow an electoral process that represents the working class against their own interests, if they haven’t allowed this anywhere at any time?
How many actual Bernie supporters voted for Trump? Or are you just making up a strawman to blame the left for the Democrats being incapable of winning the elections to a sex criminal or at the very least banning a fascist from elections during their mandate?
Lenin was much the same. He knew a revolution wouldn’t happen if things got better, so he did everything he could to make things as bad as humanly possible
You are abso-fucking-lutely making that up. The Bolsheviks had support from workers and soldiers precisely because they advocated from the start on an unconditional retreat from WW1, which was leading to massive casualty numbers and famine. Pulling your country out of imperialist war (which they did immediately after Bolshevism won the revolution btw) is literally the opposite of accelerationism.
When the provisional government came along, granted free speech rights and universal suffrage, Lenin was vehemently opposed to it
If by “universal” you mean male suffrage, female suffrage was I actually first implemented in the former Russian empire by the communists. The Bolsheviks organized a coup against the provisional government to pull the RSFSR out of imperialist war, and the fact that a bunch of former political prisoners and exiles had the military support to do this and maintain a stable state (and win the upcoming civil war) proves that it was the correct choice. The unelected provisional government barely survived the fascist coups that sought to reinstate the Tsar and society was growing exhausted of famine and poverty due to the wartime conditions, if you support the provisional government you’re literally arguing for Russian nationalism and militarism, blows my mind that you’d be doing this on 2026.
Look up the dates for the independence of Finland or Estonia, and tell me whether they line up with the Provisional Government or with the October Revolution, then tell me again which government was more democratic, the one keeping them under their thumb or the one drafting a constitution granting the unilateral right to self-determination and secession.
You can already mostly safely eat those, it was one of my party tricks at my previous job. Don’t follow medical advice on the internet, ofc, myself included.
Oh, sorry, I get it now, thanks for explaining