U/Goldstein_Goldberg
Thats a Nazi.
this has to be parody… pretty sure even Slava Ukraini-heads know clusterbombs are a bad look
This does come off a bit too hard to be legitimate I think, especially the “responsible investing” bit. I don’t think an actual warmonger would phrase it like that.
On the other hand, I have absolutely seen people who think clusterbombs are a totally fine weapon to use. I am related to one. His argument was that they’d end the war faster and save more lives. Which…I don’t think I need to say that I disagree with that.
I’m also curious what “massed Russian infantry attacks” daily videos he had seen.
This is someone who sees how much money is going to be made after the war when the west loots and plunders Ukraine and wants in on it. The “Help them win” stuff is just them trying to cover their own guilty conscience.
capitalist brainrot has convinced most normal people to go against the basic, child-level understanding of war being a bad thing. instead being against war is somehow juvenile and naïve. so it’s just normal to wonder how you can fund the results of your labor into killing machines. it’s just okay. it’s fine, i guess. nothing needs to improve here
That’s it I’m posting my articles to that subreddit next.
Do it! Now!
I dove into this a couple years ago trying to find some not-aggregious ETFs to invest in. There were very very very few mixed-industry ETFs that excluded both fossil fuels and weapons, which is a really low bar to clear.
Also that’s what banks say but then their “green” ETFs still include weapons and fossil fuels.
There’s this ESG standard (Environment, Social, corporate Governance) that’s supposed to be an easy indicator for investors but it’s so useless it’s not even funny anymore.
It’s so bad that hardcore imperial publications like the Financial Times have railed against ESG with completely liberal arguments. Even plurality owner of the empire Blackrock has internal dissent at the highest level towards the construct.
Now even after your stomach accommodates to the sheer amount of raw evil pouring forth from this, you will find that the Murder ETF is a nonsensical product that has no market. People buy ETFs because they are supposed to be a safe long-term investment representing a large cross-section of the economy, if your goal is financial stability why would you go gamble on the outcomes of military battles?
you aren’t gambling on the outcomes of military battles you are gambling on the military buying more weapons
Agreed. It’s like how the investors in private prisons aren’t wagering that there’ll be more crime, there wagering that the capitalist state will imprison more people. If you ask any Marxist whether the American Empire will buy more weapons and imprison more people, the vast majority would say yes.
My comrade in christ there are bitcoin ETFs
What is ETF?
Exchange traded fund. It’s basically a lot of different stocks bundled together into one Stock that you buy. It usally covers a specific part of the global market. So you can buy an ETF that represents the entire US market (this would be similar to buying stocks in every Dow Jones company), an ETF that represents the retail market (so you get shares of Walmart, Target, TraderJoes etc.), or in this case an ETF that represents the Weapons Manufacturing market (so Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Rheinmetall etc.).
Usually they’re great investment devices as because they don’t lean too much on a single company, they just tend to have more stability and better returns overall
It’s an index fund except set up in a way so that middlemen can make more money.
Universal Basic Warcrimes
Sustainable Organic Fair Trade Vegan Cluster Munitions
At this point, I’ve seen people on all sides of the political spectrum advocate for the killing of civilians and dehumanising whoever is their enemy. Not surprised unfortunately.
where have you seen communists advocating for the killing of civilians?
It has been a few weeks, but I did see a post clearly stating that the ends do justify the means
stating that the ends justify the means isn’t advocating for the killing of civilians (even if I wouldn’t personally use that phrase); I don’t know what the post was referring to, but if it was about the war in Ukraine, my guess would be that it was acknowledging that civilian deaths (on one side or the other) are unavoidable and that the alternative – e.g. doing nothing to stop the slaughter of civilians in the Donbas and ignoring the threat of a US proxy on its border – would be worse
