The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires, is pursuing a very instructive line in relation to the war. Representatives of advanced capital in the oldest and richest capitalist country, are shedding tears over the war and incessantly voicing a wish for peace. Those Social-Democrats who, together with the opportunists and Kautsky, think that a socialist programme consists in the propaganda of peace, will find proof of their error if they read The Economist. Their programme is not socialist, but bourgeois-pacifist. Dreams of peace, without propaganda of revolutionary action, express only a horror of war, but have nothing in common with socialism.
oldest and richest capitalist country.
Netherlands is the oldest, and the US/Switzerland are the richest.
America can't even beat Russia in a war in Europe, how do they think they can beat China in the South China Sea?
I think we should start a campaign to identify all the Economist writers. I mean some proper linguistic identification (if it's not just A.i generated) and file leaking to find these ghouls.
I can't stand that they're just an anonymous propaganda blob.
Guam, a tourist island and military outpost and literally nothing else.
Who the fuck is going to go to war with Guam? Godzilla? Aquaman? What the are they huffing?
Show
There are some extremely hinged comments in the comments.
Who the fuck is going to go to war with Guam?
America - because "the locals are getting a bit too uppity"
I'm sure everybody is clamoring for a watery grave halfway around the world.
I don't see how anyone thinks there is any real possibility of Taiwan or the West being able to defend that island if China decides to invade it.
I think that would be such a stupid hill to start WW3 on.
The Economist proving Lenin wrong that it’s a journal for [Bri*ish] millionaires (difficulty: impossible)
