GarbageShootAlt2

The most significant western governments still finance Israel's existence, that doesn't mean every single western person or even country gets along with Israel

Poland is definitely The West too, honestly more than Mexico. It's basically a code for white nations and the vassal states of white nations.

Just removing veto power seems like the simpler solution (not that that would happen either)

Not the person you're responding to

Obviously Israel shouldn't exist at all. It's not a diplomatically expedient thing to say, but it's the only real anti-colonialist answer because Israel is actively a colony. That doesn't mean expelling all the Jews from Palestine -- it might shock you to know there are non-Israeli Jews currently in Palestine -- but it does mean that the proper boarders for Palestine are restored and thus that there is no ethnostate (Jewish or otherwise). Recent additions to the Israeli colony (for they are always recruiting) can be sent back to their homelands. Many of them have been there long enough that they have no connection to those homelands anymore (including the more direct descendants of Holocaust survivors, etc.) and they can stay on the land that was Israel, but a lot of them are only there because they like the Jewish ethnostate thing and will therefore flee of their own will. That volume of people fleeing will probably incite still more to flee, but some will remain and they should be treated humanely and as equal citizens, prosecuting whatever crimes they committed but not being treated like subhumans the way that Israelis treated Palestinian prisoners.

The US is a much more difficult question because unlike Israelis being a minority compared to Palestinians, there are many more Euro-Americans, etc than there are Native Americans because the genocidal project of the US is much more complete. Inevitably some land, the land recently taken and some of the more useful land than what the Natives have been left with, should be returned to them, but obviously deporting all the Euros, etc. is neither viable nor productive, like how (to a much, much smaller extent) deporting all the Israelis is neither viable nor productive.

That said, separate from demographics and land rights, the US government absolutely shouldn't exist because it is terrorizing the world, including through proxies like Israel.

If you were following burden of proof, you could stake your claim on particular billionaires who you say never exploited anyone, and it would then be on the other fellow to prove they did exploit people. Without example billionaires, however, your claim is nebulous and no one has any particular reason to believe in it.

An arrangement where employees bargain collectively with their employer to have more leverage, usually collecting dues from members to help with things like strikes.

I think it's called a "sindicato" in Portuguese, though in English "syndicate" means something a bit different

I mean, my suggestion is to look at any other histories of the two famines, including ones by rabid anti-communists, and you will see that there were many other factors (not that I expect a rabid anticommunist to talk about crop blights or kulak sabotage, but still).

I'm unimpressed. The US has crushed rebellions from its inception, famously including the civil war but also many other attempts, and I would say that the patterns of what some call the New Afrikan nation within the US to revolt, going solidly up to the 1980s or further depending on your interpretation, are perhaps the most important.

As some guy said, "Revolution is not a dinner party" and establishing and maintaining a revolutionary state requires its own violence. No Marxist says otherwise, as it is the famous quote of Engels: "The proletariat uses the State not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the State as such ceases to exist."

This is really pedantic, but conditionals do imply a specific inverted inference. Specifically in this meme though, the correct inversion is "If the billionaire class is not your enemy, then this budgeting is not relevant to you," which I think we'd both agree with.

Billionaires are a political target. It's not about forgoing ideology, but having correct ideology.

Literally what is a single basis for what you're saying? When has the SC ever struck down a law raising prison labor wages on the basis that prisons have a legally-protected right to slave labor? I genuinely think you have no idea what laws are if you can't tell a difference between a sanctioned right and the absence of a prohibition.

The 13th Amendment doesn't say "You must use slave labor" and, in fact, doesn't even say "Prisons have a right to do slave labor," it just says "This stuff we're saying here forbidding slavery doesn't apply to penal labor", it's negative, not positive.

Anyway, my original point is that you absolutely do not need to change the Amendment to amend prison labor laws, hence how prison labor laws have been amended in many states already.