Yes, after the fact. Your use of “context” without justification implies that OP’s specific situation, in an alternate context, would be fine, not that an alternate situation may be different.

You’re forgiven. Try to add to the conversation from the beginning next time, otherwise it looks like you’re disagreeing that this is an instance of racism and exerting power over workers

Yes, it was unclear.

You didn’t add, though. By just saying “it depends on the context” without providing the alternative situation you were talking about, it implies that the OP’s situation may be fine with different context. Now you’re acting demeaning and pretending I must not understand how message boards work.

Here’s an example of what you could have done:

I agree that in this case it’s probably due to racism or to prevent unionization, but there are good reasons to speak a common language at work, such as if the OP’s charge was being shut out of conversations they were involved with.

This makes it clear that you’re talking about a different context, and prevents this entire back and forth.

The context in the OP outright states anger at any use of spanish, period. This has nothing to do with “politeness,” and is always some form of racism or worker control. If OP had stated that this was only the case when said charge was involved in the conversations and felt left out, then this is a different context from the one OP provided.

You came in here trying to invent a situation that is, at its fundamentals, unique from what OP described.

It is always negative in the case of the user’s context with the information we have. You implied an entirely different situation, meaning it’s an entirely different question.

It isn’t the context brought up in the post body, so no, it doesn’t completely negate my point. The post is talking about banning any and all use of spanish, period, and the other user came in trying to talk about a different situation entirely.

I am directly replying to the context listed out by the user, which in this case seems to be racist and anti-worker.

The post references any usage of spanish as bannable. There’s a difference between workers speaking spanish with each other while someone who only speaks English is present, and workers speaking spanish with each other when nobody else is involved with the conversation. I also worked at a company with a huge portion of speakers that were uncomfortable with speaking English despite myself only speaking English, any attempt to ban their language would hurt the company.

I can’t really imagine a context where it would be a politeness thing unless the English-only speaker was actively involved in the conversation but was being intentionally shut-out, and not because it was easier to convey in non-English languages but deliberately for spite.

I don’t agree. Forcing people to use a language they are less comfortable with just so others can eavesdrop has nothing to do with “politeness.”

Capitalism is a mode of production, so is socialism and communism. These are real, material things, and form the base structure of society. Ideology is how we interpret these things, we don’t decide them based on ideology. Ideology is a reinforcing aspect of the superstructure that justifies the mode of production, but it arises from material conditions.

In other words, the way we interact with production shapes our experiences, and thus the way we think and act, not the other way around.

As for class, you’re extending its meaning beyond its intent. It refers to relations to production and distribution, communism fully acknowledges the differences in people’s abilities, wants, and needs. A classless society is one in which all production has been sublimated into collectivized and planned production with equal ownership, ie one economy collectively run and planned.

Racist, and a way for management to know if workers are discussing unionization.

Ideology is superstructure, not base. The ideology of capitalism, for example, is largely liberalism, which justifies it. Socialism and communism are modes of production, their ideologies are things like Marxism-Leninism.

All 3 of the countries you bring up are different. Russia is the most likely to have a revolution, while the PRC and DPRK are the least likely, less likely than countries like the US or UK.

Russia is currently in the position its in because capitalism was devastating for them. The west came in and plundered and looted the former productive forces until the nationalists kicked them out (Putin’s faction), running themselves into an even more hostile situation with the west. Communist party membership is rising, soviet nostalgia is rising, and now even the ruling class is paying lip service to Lenin, Stalin, and their soviet heritage.

China is not going to have a revolution because it’s socialist and the system works for the people. It’s plain and simple, the people support their system at a far higher rate than western countries:.

The DPRK is in a situation similar to Cuba. It’s heavily sanctioned, but does fairly well when considering just how devastating both the Korean War and the Arduous March were (in the 90s, when the Soviet Union fell). Its economy is growing around 3.5%-4% per year, and food is relatively secure now too. The people blame the US Empire for the lack of their ability to trade and sell outside, though they now do trade heavily with Russia and China, meaning they are less likely than ever to revolt.

Neither the PRC nor the DPRK are perfect, of course, but they are far from revolution, not because of something like “propaganda” but because their systems don’t work like you think they do.

No, this is closer to fantasy than reality, you need to turn off Fox News. Regarding the treatment of Uyghurs, read Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation, and there isn’t excessice state violence against workers organizing for better conditions. In fact, the state most often sides with the workers against capitalists.

China is comprehensively democratic as well, and has high approval rates for it:

Appreciate the kind words, thanks!

No problem! It’s a fair bit into the list because imperialism is both the number 1 most important contradiction in the world today, and quite an advanced topic when first delving into Marxism. If you already have the list saved, and have the time and willingness, I suggest following it the standard way - it’s much easier to understand when you have the background info!

Iran is under intense sanctions and is targeted heavily by fascist warmongering, which also stunts social progress. They’d be set back if they fell to western imperialism. You could just as easily point to Cuba, whose family code is now among the most progressive in the world. Meanwhile, you’re advocating for the genocide of Palestinians and siding with fascists. Do some major self-crit, you’re indistinguishable from fascists.