Tag Archives: capitalism

Golden Heart Misanthropy

When it comes to beasts the bourgeois have the tenderness of angels. They feel themselves to be closer relatives of beasts than of workers.

-Paul Lafargue, Bourgeois Sentimentalism, 1881

The above quotation is how Paul Lafargue begins the short piece Bourgeois Sentimentalism, and that is the very topic I want to try to cover today–bourgeois sentimentalism. That mask of tear-jerking, charitable philanthropy hiding the bourgeoisie’s at best indifferent, at worst disdainful view of the mass of humanity, the toiling oppressed.

The label “philanthropist” is a quick and easy defense mechanism for the oppressors to use whenever their oppression is being exposed. More CEOs, finance giants, celebrities, and other members or allies of the owning class are more well known in the social world for their “humble philanthropy” than their ruthless exploitation of workers around the world. We’re supposed to applaud the wealthy minority whenever they “give back” that which they have stolen, or when they take some small step to “make up for” the disasters enacted by their class and the system it oversees.

But even in this, there is something of a hierarchy of good-heartedness. We hear more about those members of the bourgeois who give a fraction of their wealth to help animal life than we do about those who give to organizations who feed the hungry. This isn’t to say that those who do the latter should be called heroes, when it is their class that allows so many to go hungry in the first place. (The problem is that we live in a society where these insufficient charities are necessary.) The point is that the bourgeoisie can’t hide their hate towards the working masses, because, if they did try to hide it, the people might start feeling empowered themselves. Bourgeois sentimentalism towards beasts is a better form of propaganda, casting humanity as the “evil” and thus hindering the formation of mass unity in the name of what basically comes down to misanthropy.

Bourgeois sentimentalism is for everything and everyone, except for the oppressed.

I’m sure that by now everyone knows the name of Harambe, the silverback gorilla that was recently shot at the Cincinnati Zoo. The incident was, indeed, a tragedy. An endangered species lost one of its members. There is nothing fun or entertaining in that. However, what I find bothersome are the reactions of many people following the incident. This is the latest evidence in the case against bourgeois sentimentalism and its social effects.

I am not a zoologist or an expert in any way. But neither are a lot of people, though some seem to think using a hashtag is all the training they would need. They read a few articles meant to tug at their heartstrings, and now they seem to think they would have handled the situation perfectly. Some claim they have come up with a method where no child or animal could have been hurt(much like the gun-toting conservatives who respond to any case of mass shooting with “If I had been there…”). And some others have thought of a much more gruesome(and telling) solution–let the kid die because the parents were “stupid”.

Yes, since the parents weren’t as intelligent as some person posting a status on Facebook, a child should have been left to the mercies of a gorilla ten times his size.

There is nothing wrong with mourning the death of a beautiful animal, but there is most certainly something wrong with putting the life of that animal above the life of a human child. And this is exactly what is wrong with bourgeois sentimentalism–heartlessness behind a veil of a very conditional form of caring. Human life is already trumped by the profit motive, so why not put it beneath animal life as well?

I don’t want to enter the pointless, retrospective debate about what should have been done. But I do want to say that there was no “good” outcome in the realm of possiblities. If the gorilla had turned violent, there would still be people blaming the zoo(and rightfully so, in that case). The mother of the child would still be shamed by the keyboard warriors. And those calling for the release of these endangered animals seem to forget where and how these creatures became endangered in the first place. Yes, the zoo needs more protective barriers. But the fact is that we can’t go back in time–the kid fell in and a decision had to be made. I believe the zookeepers made the right call, but that’s neither here nor there.

Anyway, I’m not one to compete in the Edginess Olympics by saying that everyone needs to worry about everything equally. But that doesn’t apply when it comes to human rights versus animal rights, especially when the former is being sacrificed for the latter. This is the strength of bourgeois sentimentalism: Among the politically apathetic, there are always spikes in caring about one issue or another, but never when those issues affect human life. Those who can go about their lives never thinking about the plight of the oppressed will put everything on hold when an animal is harmed, or when a natural space is being invaded by us terrible humans. They wait for the right opportunity to show off their enormous hearts, but only when it doesn’t step on their angsty, misanthropic personas.

Whenever the Chinese festival of Yulin comes around, I have to prepare myself for the avalanche of racist comments coming from these golden-hearted liberals. This is when their national-cultural chauvinism really comes out. Now, personally, I love dogs, but I understand that this connection is a cultural norm where I live, and that there are different cultures and traditions all around the world. Not every culture views certain animals in the same way we do, nor should they be forced to.

If you don’t see the problem, let me spell it out. People who never show any interest for any movement working for the betterment of human life(who often, actually, show a clear disdain for such movements) will suddenly become temporary internet activists. They’ll scroll right past videos of police brutalizing an African-American and search for videos of dead animals to share around in their moment of caring. Even worse, they’ll repeat the words of a pretentious rock icon and call the Chinese people “less than human.”

Let’s get this straight, folks who are angry that animals are being eaten decide that the best way to criticize it is by making incredibly racist comments, call a billion humans a “subspecies,” and all in the name of creatures who are legitimately of another species. Not only is that horrifically offensive, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it shows the real ideology behind bourgeois sentimentalism. Reactionary, privileged, and fascistic.

image

In case you needed to see another example of what I'm talking about.

The faux-progressivism created by bourgeois sentimentalism is felt everywhere. In my city, there is a campaign going on to save an historic piece of land from being used for overflow parking for the local zoo. There is nothing at all intrinsically wrong with that. Sure, it’s frustrating to see a bunch of people going on picnics and calling it a “protest,” but they aren’t hurting anyone in doing so. But the problem becomes evident when you see the numbers these people can bring out, and then compare it to the relatively smaller turnout for protests against low wages or police brutality. When I and others have brought this up, the default response has been, “Well, we can care about both poverty and the park!” And that is a true statement. But the fact is, they only act on one and not the other. I told everyone I knew who participated in that campaign about an upcoming Fight for $15 rally. Not a single one of them showed up, even those who said they would. I complimented their efforts in their campaign and told them that we could use their skills in organizing, but they had apparently given all they had to that field of grass.

I’m not trying to be an elitist here, but I won’t stop saying that the human condition is of more importance than shallow sentimentalism. I don’t think of myself as better than any of those people, but I certainly get the feeling that they think that way towards anyone who doesn’t share their militancy on that particular issue.

So, this is what bourgeois sentimentalism results in: A false sense of nobility in caring about anything except the oppressed masses. A cheap attempt at feigning empathy. Indifference, racism, and anti-workerism disguised as good deeds. A way to make the people feel as if they are doing something when they aren’t fighting the sources of the world’s problems or uprooting this oppressive, exploitative system.

If you don’t care about your fellow humans, don’t pretend to care at all. We see right through you.

-SFB

Advertisements

Turning the Tables: Short and Sweet

Bourgeois anti-Communism knows no bounds when it comes to unreliable, irrational and unfounded criticism. Anti-communists will jump onto anything they can find that makes communism out to be monstrous and bloodthirsty. I’ve written before about their use of “yellow media” and even Nazi propaganda. But that isn’t the only ridiculous source they have utilized. Recently, Snopes had to debunk an article from the fucking Onion about Cuba because anti-communists were leaping onto it as if it was true. It occasionally gets so bad that even bourgeois outlets like The Guardian have had to admit that most coverage of North Korea is bogus, as, time and again, those people reported to have been executed in the DPRK have shown up alive and well on television, and defectors are often offered higher pay for scarier stories. The same is true for the coverage of the socialist states of the past as well.

What most of this proves, also, is that socialist or perceived socialist states are held up to standards that the bourgeois intellectuals never set for their favored capitalist states. It is well known that the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, higher than the USSR ever had, and yet we are told to think of the Soviet Union as some bloated police state and the US as some bastion of freedom. Bourgeois historians often cite suicide rates as proof of “state oppression,” but only when it can be applied to socialist or “unfavorable” states. Suicide in capitalist countries are just “isolated incidents” of sadness, having nothing to do with the system as a whole, except when that system isn’t to the bourgeoisie’s liking. For bourgeois anti-communists, socialism must work absolutely perfectly in order to be considered anything other than barbaric, but capitalism’s crimes and inefficiencies are just quirks that are part of the beautiful unpredictability of the free market, or whatever.

Not only is socialism held to higher standards than capitalism in large-scale matters, but also, and most annoyingly, in anecdotal commentary. “It works on paper, but…”, “It goes against human nature,” “It discourages innovation.” If I were to point out how it raised the standards of living for the vast majority of people living under socialism, I am told it is inefficient. If I point out how socialism effectively industrialized backwater nations faster than capitalism ever has, proving its efficiency, I am told that it did so at the expense of the people’s well-being. Do you see the contradiction there?

All of this becomes even more clear when the workers in capitalist countries start fighting for their class interests. Every time there is a spike in the Fight for $15 movement, the anti-workerists start spouting off reasons why raising the minimum wage wouldn’t work, and in doing so they mistakenly provide support for socialism by proving that their precious system of exploitation doesn’t work, either in treatment of the people or economically. If a system is to be judged by how it provides for the people or in economic efficiency, the right-wingers’ are basically admitting that capitalism does neither very well.

Let’s take a minute to turn the tables on the various arguments that Rightists use in their opposition to workers’ rights, and put it up to the same standards against which they judge socialism. (Note: I am not trying to imply that the following is anything more than anecdotal. These are not legitimate or useful arguments when I use them, but they aren’t legitimate or useful when anti-communists use them either, which is my whole point.)

Rightist: “If workers are paid more, prices would sky-rocket.”
Response: Then capitalism isn’t efficient enough to care for the people–which is the whole point of every -ism.

Rightist: “If employers are forced to pay their workers higher wages, they will just cut jobs.”
Response: Then capitalism must only work on paper.

Rightist: “Fast food jobs are supposed to be temporary, but too many people are using them as full-time jobs.”
Response: Then capitalism must go against human nature.

Rightist: “No one has any work ethic anymore, they’re all lazy.”
Response: Same as above.

Rightist: “If workers have to be paid more, more jobs will just become automated.”
Response: Then. Capitalism. Doesn’t. Work.

How do these anti-worker reactionaries not see the logical conclusions of what they’re saying? In all of these standard arguments, they admit that capitalism lacks the efficiency to take care of the people, and they shout it like it’s a good thing. Like it somehow proves capitalism’s “inherent goodness,” when it does the very opposite. They are proving they care more about defending their ideology than about how well it works(or doesn’t work).

In all seriousness, anecdotal bullshit aside, the Rightists have to admit one of two things if they take their own words seriously: either 1) Capitalism isn’t capable of doing the very thing they claim it does best–providing equal opportunity and being efficient enough that the people’s basic needs are met, or 2) It is capable of providing a living wage and benefits, but such measures are being blocked by the capitalist owners of industry.

Because, you see, none of these reactionaries complain about price hikes when executives are given millions of dollars in bonuses or raises. No one complains about the bourgeois bosses making 5-digits every hour, when most of those bosses have never produced a single thing in their lives. No one whines when those who don’t produce reap the benefits of production. The arguments against a higher wage all revolve around “work ethic,” but where is the work ethic of the CEOs who profit from labor they don’t take part in?

This is the real capitalist work ethic: Try your best to get others to do the work for you so you can sit in an office and make a profit from their labor. Undeserved luxury, inherited wealth, exploitation–these are the virtues of capitalist “work ethic.” The workers making $7.25 an hour are not lazy for wanting a bigger piece of the pie for their labor, the bosses of industry are the lazy ones, and they’re who we are supposed to look up to. No one points a finger at them for not working while they rake in the profits. And yet, socialism allegedly “brainwashes” people into “blind acceptance of authority.”

No, the fact that the bourgeoisie has people pointing fingers at those who actually do the work is more than enough proof that it is they who are propagating falsehoods. It is they who despise any form of “work ethic,” and this is no more apparent than in their hatred of workers.

The above anecdotes may not be genuine, honest arguments, but the gist of them is essentially true when applied to capitalism. The argument that the capitalist economy can’t handle the pressure of providing for the people is just proof of a critical point Marx and Engels bring up in the Communist Manifesto:

“Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeoisie, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeoisie. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to ensure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

So, just for a moment, let’s assume that raising the minimum wage under capitalism is impossible(it’s not impossible, just not favorable to the ruling class and its dictatorship). If we take the reactionary’s word for it, if we are to believe that it is, indeed, impossible for the wages to be raised without “destroying the economy,” then all this does is, once again, prove that Marx got it right over a century ago. It only further validates the theories of communism that the rule of the bourgeoisie, capitalism, has run its course and that it is no longer useful–but is, rather, a hindrance–to society’s development.

The reactionaries, with almost every breath, prove the necessity of a socialist revolution, even if they don’t realize it. Thanks for the ammunition. You are continuously giving the workers the tools we need to dig your grave.

-SFB

Rightists Are Too Fucking Sensitive

In my last post, I discussed the current state of the American Left. I talked about the problems stemming from lazy discourse and the refusal of some to face the world head-on, as we are supposed to if we want to call ourselves revolutionaries. My main issues with that mindset are 1) the sectarianism of “call-out culture”, and 2) the rejection of the class struggle in favor of identitarianism. But I did not mean it to be an attack against my comrades. I simply don’t want us to lose sight of our goals.

But today I want to go a little deeper into this issue of sensitivity. How it affects discourse, how it shuts down conversations, and who is actually doing all the damage. I’m about to say something that goes against the mainstream portrayal of who’s “too sensitive,” but it is something that has become more and more obvious as the days go by:

No one is more sensitive, whiny, mouth-foamingly insecure as right-wingers. They win the Biggest Cry Baby Award by a longshot. Seriously, it’s gotten so bad that talking to them is almost pointless. They will get offended at even the most innocent claim or question. They will call others names like they think they’re in a VH1 reality show shouting match rather than a debate. They’ll use sarcasm rather than argument. They’ll cry about “MY TAX MONEY!!” when that doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion (it’s like their default response when backed into a corner).

Don’t believe me? Ok, next time a Rightist tells you that the Left is “too sensitive,” remind them that Harriet Tubman is going to be on our currency, or that cops sometimes murder innocent people, or just show them a Beyonce music video. When they’re done flipping the fuck out and shivering with anger, ask them who’s too sensitive.

While the Left is getting mad and fighting back against racism, misogynistic violence, discrimination, murder-by-cop, and perpetual war, the Rightists are collectively crying about having to eventually see someone’s face on a piece of paper that looks different than them, or who gets to take a shit in which bathroom, or science being taught in science class, or someone using an EBT card, or other people following a religion of their choice (or none at all), or the existence of humans who think differently than them. They’ll laugh at those suffering from PTSD, and then get “triggered” themselves just because *GASP* there are people out there who aren’t exactly like them. THE HORROR!

Besides everything listed above, there is a new demon the right-wingers feel the need to exorcise: the dreaded millenials. Yes, apparently all of the world’s problems can be blamed on a generation that has only been in adulthood for less than a decade. None of us hold any public office. None of us are writing legislation. None of us really have any political power–as far as the bourgeois state goes. We’ve been of voting age for two presidential elections at most, in races run by boomers. But I guess at some point in our childhood or teen years, we really fucked up. I’m not sure how we put the economy in the tank while we were on the school playground, or how we incarcerated millions of people while we were at summer camp, or how we started so many wars and acts of military aggression while we were learning how to drive. But, apparently, it’s all our fault.

Not really, though.

This is just an example of the Rightists shifting the blame onto others, and it has got to be one of the strangest cases of scapegoating in history. For you right-wingers who seem to have forgotten all about the concept of time, let me spell it out for you in the simplest way I can: As far as the political/economic/social scene goes, we just got here. It’s like we millenials were forced to go to a house party that we really didn’t want to attend because the people throwing it are notorious for making everything terrible, and before we even arrived some shitbag from Texas broke a lamp and pissed all over the living room floor. Then, as soon as we walked through the door, the hosts of the party started screaming at us to clean up the mess and telling us that Texas Shitbag wouldn’t have done any of that if we had dressed appropriately and didn’t use our goddamn phones so much. (By the way, who invented the smart-phone? Which generation created such an evil device and sold it for profit?)

Blaming any specific generation for society’s shortcomings is a new level of ignorance. The boomers can’t be entirely blamed for the actions of the past–many of them fought against the issues of their time, and continue to do so. Same with us and every other generation. Not a single generation in history was monolithic when it came to political ideology or action. Economic crises, imperialist war, class oppression–none of these are the fault of any given generation, they are the products of capitalism. But millenials are seen as the exception to this fact, for reasons that are never given.

Ok, I’m getting off of this whole generation thing now. I just have one more thing to say on the subject: Right-wingers, please, please, PLEASE keep doing this. By demonizing the up-and-coming generations, by alienating them, by ridiculing them, by rejecting them, you are basically ensuring your own downfall. You are doing the Left’s job for us. I may call you an ignorant asshole for it, but I also want to thank you for isolating yourselves. It’s probably the best thing you have ever done for the people and our future. Good work.

Anyway. We can clearly see that it isn’t the Left that is “too sensitive.” The Right is mistaking “sensitivity” for “not gonna take your shit anymore.” If anything, when looking at the history of the Left, and the struggles we have waged in past and present, it is us who have the stronger backbone. Revolutions, mass strikes, facing off against the most powerful institutions in existence–this is our legacy. The legacy of the reactionaries? Fear of change, complacency, stepping on the downtrodden, hiding behind the barricades of the bourgeoisie’s military and police apparatus–the actions of cowards. When college students want to prevent and put an end to rape on campus, they are laughed at. When a Rightist witnesses something as simple as a parent using food stamps to feed their children, they act so traumatized that they feel the need to explode in rage. So, sexual violence is “no big deal” and the Leftists “need to stop whining about it,” but GOD FUCKING FORBID ANYONE BUY A SNICKERS BAR WITH EBT.

All of this is an example of the more general problems with bourgeois, reactionary ideology. There are plenty of others. For instance, last month, when millions of workers around the world protested low wages and demanded higher pay and a union, the Rightists, once again, got all worked up. At the demonstration in my city, hundreds of people stood outside of a McDonald’s, holding signs and chanting. We received mostly positive responses from those driving by, but we also got a few pieces of that sage right-wing advice from drivers who were so upset at what they saw that they felt the need to take their eyes off the road, roll down their windows, scream at us while giving us the finger and almost cause a wreck. Now that is what I would call “too sensitive.” We all laughed at them and just chanted louder.

But reactionary inconsistency doesn’t end with their whining. Something else I noticed in the reactions to the Fight for $15 protests were the oddly familiar arguments the capitalists used. They said that fast food jobs are supposed to be temporary, but that “lazy people” weren’t moving on. Now, if I were to turn the tables, I could say that, by their own arguments, they are proving two things: 1) Capitalism isn’t working the way it’s supposed to (or, “it only works on paper”), and 2) Then capitalism must go against “human nature.” Strange how I feel like I’ve heard these two arguments used before, except they were used against socialism. Very weird, but that is a subject for another day.

So, in conclusion, I hope this rambling, disorganized rant of mine set some things straight. The Left isn’t “weak,” or “too sensitive,” or “sheltered” by fighting and speaking out against oppression and exploitation. It is the Right that has filled its ranks with people who are utterly terrified of change, who shake at the thought of anyone being different than them, who cry when they aren’t allowed to control the bodies and lives of others. They even go so far as being afraid of people who are younger than them.

As the political environment becomes more and more polarized and the Left grows by the day, the reactionaries are shaking in their boots while they laugh nervously. They may be playing arrogant right now, but when that horrifying Red Tide comes to shore, they’ll be clamoring for a safe space of their own. Good luck.

-SFB

Dear Conservatives: Modern Russia is Exactly What You Wanted

image

Reagan and Gorbachev

“If you’re a Communist and you hate America so much, why don’t you just move to Russia?”

The above question is something I have been asked way too much in my short 8 years of calling myself a Communist. Not only because it is annoying and probably the absolute laziest excuse for an argument ever uttered, but because it reflects a mass delusion in regards to communist theory, Russian history, world history, and the events of just a few decades ago. Granted, thanks to bourgeois hegemony, ignorance to the theories of Marxism-Leninism is a long-held tradition that took nearly a century to fully solidify in the minds of the masses of people living under capitalism, so I’m not exactly surprised by the anti-Communist sentiment within the above statement. What I’m suprised at is the embarrassingly ignorant forgetfulness of the people who say such things to me about what went down 26 to 27 years ago, especially when most of these people were old enough to pay attention to the news in those years.

I was born in 1990, in the midst of the chaos that ensued with the collapse of the USSR and the other socialist-turned-revisionist states of Eastern Europe. I wasn’t even old enough to walk by the time these states collapsed, and yet, for some odd reason, my memory seems to serve me better than those who were fully-functioning adults when all of this happened. Well, it’s not really my memory that has served me, but this little thing called history that we are supposed to learn about in school. But even that has failed many people, since it isn’t solely previous generations who tell me and others to “move to Russia”, many people around my age have told me the same thing.

I will make it easy for you and just tell you what happened (with a fancy link to the Wikipedia article so you can look for yourself): The USSR no longer exists and Russia is now a capitalist state.

It is astounding that I have to explain this very well-known fact to so many people, some of whom probably even watched the Berlin Wall fall on live television.

There seems to be a problem with understanding history, both among the Right and the Left. On one hand, we have folks who believe that today’s Communists must support Russia, because McCarthy said so half a century ago and his influence just won’t go away. On the other hand, we have angsty “Leftists” who support anything that even slightly rubs the US government the wrong way. I won’t really go into the latter here, as that would require another post entirely, but both sides are forgetting one simple fact: Imperialists are often in conflict with each other. Just because one capitalist-imperialist state is in conflict, or even at war, with another state, does not mean the other state is not capitalist-imperialist. Competition is a driving force of capitalism. Inter-capitalist or inter-imperialist conflicts aren’t just characteristics of capitalism, they are an intrinsic aspect of capitalism-imperialism. Meaning, just because the US and the Russian Federation are competing capitalist powers does not mean that one is somehow anti-capitalist, even if one of those powers is named “Russia”.

Back to my original point. Many of the conservatives and neoliberals who praised the fall of the Berlin Wall have since forgotten that today’s Russia is exactly what they had wished for, not something we Communists wanted. So–pardon my language–why the fuck would I, a communist, have any interest in moving to Russia? Why would I have any inclination to support a state full of traitors and oligarchs? Why would I praise a state which Reagan endorsed?

I have talked about the ironies of anti-Communism before, but isn’t it funny how the illogical conservatives will call the bourgeois US government “socialist”, praise the fall of the USSR, and yet still tell communists to “move to Russia”? Shouldn’t they be the ones packing their bags, if they are craving an impoverished, homophobic, xenophobic, ultra-nationalist, oligarchal, anti-Communist, ultra-conservative state, such as the current Russian state, which they adored so much not too long ago?

I mean, when you look at it, the Russian Federation is all these conservatives ever wanted: an anti-Communist, homophobic, xenophobic state with close ties to far-Right organizations and which is favored by right-wing figures within the US such as Alex Jones and Donald Trump.

In short, no, just because the US and Russia have their differences does not mean that I prefer one over the other, it simply means that imperialism is still functioning the same as it always has: greedy conflicts that inevitably only really hurt the oppressed people living on both sides of said conflict.

I understand that this is a rather random topic to bring up, and seemingly unimportant to many people. But its importance comes with espousing Marxism-Leninism. While Putin and his cronies are waving hammers and sickles for purely populist and nationalist reasons, he, and the state of which he is the head, is dragging the name of Communism through the mud. He will bash Marxist revolutionaries and leaders, especially Lenin, while stealing the imagery they inspired, attempting to separate the successes of the Soviet Union from the theory which guided those successes (Marxism-Leninism).

So what I am getting at is, the Russian Federation is precisely what the conservatives were dreaming of from 1917-1990, Putin’s rule is the logical outcome of what the conservatives supported 3 decades ago. Modern Russia is your ideal paradise, not ours. So stop equating Communist theory with the things you wanted to happen in Russia.

Now, either you can side with the pseudo-fascistic Russian oligarchy, or you can admit that capitalism is a failure and that the Russian people were better off living under the banner of Marxism-Leninism. And, for the love of god, stop telling us Communists where to move, because we are working class people who can barely afford a vacation 4 hours away from our homes, much less the ability (or desire) to move into the capitalist hellhole you helped to create.

-SFB