Where I saw it first, people honed in on the “We don’t have the right to ​repeat [1917]” part as further proof of the CPRF being controlled opposition or “SPD in WW1” social chauvinists, pointing to other instances of “Zyuganov asking Putin to do socialism”. However people on Lemmygrad and other communist parties seem to view them favourably. I remember hearing more young people becoming members. Then there’s the mess of establishment Russian politics being essentially this photo: Three massive flagpoles in Saint-Petersburg, flying the flags of the Romanovs (beloved by ultranationalists), USSR and Russian Federation; behind them is the supertall headquarters of Gazprom.

So what is the situation with the CPRF? What do they stand for and would they be more than socially conservative social democrats if they ever supplant United Russia, electorally? Is the party evolving behind the scenes? And are their pleas to the bourgeoisie just political theater and not to be taken seriously?

A day before the vote, around 5,000 people demonstrated outside the parliament, carrying signs reading “Hands off the Istanbul Convention” and “Latvia is not Russia.”

Tamar Dekanosidze, the Eurasia regional representative for women’s rights NGO Equality Now, said the bill attempted to reframe gender equality initiatives as pushing an “LGBTQ agenda,” adopting a Kremlin-style narrative that allows politicians to portray themselves as defenders of “national values” ahead of elections.

“This would mean that, in terms of values, legal systems and governance, Latvia would be more aligned with Russia than with the European Union and Western countries,” she said, adding that this “directly serves Russia’s interests in the country.”

“What are we, a bunch of RUSSIANS?” Very predictable.

My mind first went to the OG

Takaichi often cites Margaret Thatcher as a role model. Takaichi also has the nickname “Iron Lady”, like Thatcher.

I divided China’s change in emissions since 2015 by the global change in emissions in 2015.

(12533.4 - 10355.2) / (40812.4 - 37467.3) = 2198.2 / 3345.1 which is… 65.7%, far from 90 percent. If they mistakingly used the graph of CO2 emissions that excludes other greenhouse gasses it still only gives 74.3 percent.

At this point I give up where they pulled that from

Sidenote: doing the same for 2023-2024 gives China a share of just 33 percent of increase in emissions.

Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There’s no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.