Ba'athists were originally Marxists and scientific socialists (they have since grown into "big tents"). They split with the Comintern communists in West Asia due to those parties being weak on French and British Imperialism as well as the early Comintern lines on Israel. They are primarily focused on building socialist states in the region to eventually merge into an Arab Socialist nation. It's a decolonization movement. However, Bashar's father was a revisionist who caused MLs to leave the Ba'ath in Syria. The Iraqi Ba'athists held the original lines up until they were ousted in 2003. Overall they are very watered down on the ML side and more-so focused on the NatLib side of things.
One more thing that made them keep a distance from other Socialist movements was the religion question. Iraq and Syria are very diverse countries and have communities practicing some of the oldest religions in the world. They were secular but did not have an anti-religious line and in fact believed religions in the region could play a revolutionary role against colonialism.
He writes on the role of fascist escapees and their role in the Ukrainian diaspora in the US, CA, and AU. As well as the US contacts with the far right in Ukraine.
There is also the Plast scouting organization. They have existed since before WW1 and created Bandera and he would later recruit from the scouts to the OUN-B which would field the members of the SS Galicia Division with the sponsorship of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which also funded Plast and continues to do so in Ukraine, the US, CA, and AU. Canada's Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland went through the Plast program as her grandfather helped found the Canadian chapters. She also helped her uncle [iirc] write her grandfather's memoirs, he ran a pro-Nazi rag in Nazi occupied Poland.
Low key you can even search my profile for Ukraine, I've written some summaries about the situation generally.
Quality of materials only matters when taken broadly in the economy. When Capitalists find cheaper materials, they can sell the commodity for more than it's worth for a short time before others find cheaper sources and undercut the price. Eventually the prices will balance and so will the sourcing of materials.
However, materials are also commodities, and their price is tied to the price of labor. What Capitalists can do in the real world is find a place or a people where labor is cheaper. They can pay nationally oppressed workers cheaper (i.e. Black American pay gap) and lower their cost of living which translates to wage. They can pay workers from another country much cheaper wages as their cost of living is lower from underdevelopment, i.e. Imperialism. They can even import workers but maintain a state machine that allows imported workers to be paid less than the national standard (i.e. undocumented and slave work).
The employee actually puts in 3 LH to build the chair but is only paid by the Capitalist for 1 of them leaving a 2 LH profit for the Capitalist. The sale price of the commodity when supply matches demand is the real value of the commodity.
The "trick" the Capitalist does is to negotiate a wage smaller per unit of time than the value a worker can produce in that time, but it must be at least equal to the cost of reproducing the worker.
Frankly if we're talking about the western continents, it's because nobody has seriously studied the history and conditions of the land underneath their feet. PatSocs are superficially "close" to the Communists here because they do zero investigation of the internal structures of the continent, and view outward facing Imperialism from the Americans as an obstacle to "American Socialism". So like many of the other parties in the US, they focus on protesting foreign intervention.
Hot take, the other parties are pretty much the same. Where they differ is that PatSocs dream of a great assimilation into American so-called culture, so subjugation of Black and Indigenous peoples is a focal point, and it's why they are willing to work with the right opportunistically. The other parties expect to take full control of the leftovers of America, but with "respecting treaties" and giving "self-determination" and the ability to "secede", secede from what tho? If the PatSocs are settler-chauvinists then this is settler-blindness. PatSocs succeed in grifting because the other parties have yet to put out real theories on how to destroy the empire from within, so they just appeal to the American (or Canadian, Mexican) chauvinist extremes.
In ML terms the settlers are not the subject of revolution. National Liberation for the prisons of nations beneath the Empire is primary. Policing, enclosure, ecological exploitation. Spontaneity from the colonized masses and even Anarchists is focused at the symptoms of settler-colonialism, and until Communists study their conditions and give direction to these people we can only alienate and frustrate them when telling them to vote or show up to a protest at city hall. It's extremely frustrating for Natives when they ask for solidarity from settlers against megacorps looting their lands only for the unions to back the corps for jobs and then for Communists to agitate about unionization and maybe a "land acknowledgement".
Communists need to connect with the workers being gentrified out of their homes, connect with the Natives of their locales, unite these struggles, that's the unity. What we think about China is a discussion to be had in a party that comes together to liberate the colonized nations. Settler-chauvinism, and setter-blindness (I also like "Left-PatSoc") are the deal-breakers for unity.
National Chauvinism, Capitalism, and Patriarchy make up Colonialism. Gender based oppression in most places is directly rooted in Colonialism. Decolonization means attacking all fronts meaning we cannot negotiate with chauvinists, opportunists, and sexists (whether male chauvinist, TERF, NB-phobic, homophobic, etc.).
Existing indigenous nations govern the land. Even the neo-Colonial IRA governments are at the forefront of fighting climate change, habitat destruction, and mass extinctions (almost all biodiversity is on indigenous managed land). There are Communists in these nations trying to build them into radical socialist projects. Some nations are very radical.
The settlers will be governed by a joint dictatorship of the oppressed nations, but will have political rights within revolutionary institutions for women, LGBTQ2S+, youth, workers, etc. Much the same as how the CPC rules China, the dictatorship will be selective in who it elevates into the state machine but will stay in touch with the masses through mass organizations like those listed above.
EFF is basically setting up for a collapse of the ANC government and either taking power electorally as the failing ANC capitulates to their popular front or by guiding the next crisis into a revolution.
The KPRF has no crisis to leverage for themselves as both URP and the KPRF are looking good for their support of the SMO. If the URP starts fucking up the SMO you can expect the KPRF to gain more traction especially in the new republics and the borderlands. I'm not kidding when I say that Russia could electorally come back into Socialism since it has such a weak bourgeoisie that's totally reliant on state intervention and the international trade system. Having already been a workers' state the nation has the muscle memory for it. They just need a vanguard to awaken it.
The Donbas is actually the least agriculture intensive region of Ukraine, iirc about 10% of production. Ukraine is using DU because they know they are going to lose and wish to simply punish the Donbas for an eternity.
The infected soils won't just stay in Donbas, but the Westerly wind will generally take these soils further EAST into Russia and the steppe.
They think European consumption being equalized with Africans means that they'll have to eat bugs, because this is their view of Africa...
And not shit like, chocolate being more expensive (relative to wages) and less available because African farmers aren't being superexploited by Neo-Colonialism.
Communists in the settler and Imperialist countries can't seem to grasp their contradictions. They need to step back and research the material conditions to find their actual mass base and primary contradictions.
For Brazil the settler population owns most of the property and the largest vehicle for "wealth creation" is expropriating and exploiting indigenous land and labor for international markets. This process is fueling the Brazilian middle class which has so far shown itself to be very reactionary. This is not coincidentally why Bolsonaro's camp has been destroying the Amazon and murdering activist land protectors (mostly indigenous). Communists in Brazil who don't see this will cause fractures in their parties and movements.
Authoritarianism isn't real. Every state aggressively defends its class base. If you don't face repression from your capitalist country, that says a lot about how the state sees you.
These socialist states aggressively defend the project of socialism in their countries because it represents the working classes.
I'm updating to this one now, but honestly no it's not worth it. I'm on P6P and weird stuff like my call notification just not showing up and random gesture nav freezes has turned me off of participating in future betas. Missing phone calls because I can't see them has been problematic in multiple events these last few months. I'm going to reset my phone come the official update.
Ba'athists were originally Marxists and scientific socialists (they have since grown into "big tents"). They split with the Comintern communists in West Asia due to those parties being weak on French and British Imperialism as well as the early Comintern lines on Israel. They are primarily focused on building socialist states in the region to eventually merge into an Arab Socialist nation. It's a decolonization movement. However, Bashar's father was a revisionist who caused MLs to leave the Ba'ath in Syria. The Iraqi Ba'athists held the original lines up until they were ousted in 2003. Overall they are very watered down on the ML side and more-so focused on the NatLib side of things.
One more thing that made them keep a distance from other Socialist movements was the religion question. Iraq and Syria are very diverse countries and have communities practicing some of the oldest religions in the world. They were secular but did not have an anti-religious line and in fact believed religions in the region could play a revolutionary role against colonialism.