>Since when is that the definition?
That's the Marxist definition of the Working Class[0], although nowadays some Marxists would programmers, lawyers etc. "Professional Managerial Class" to distinguish them from the workerist idea of the Working Class.
Marx was writing in the very specific context of then-emerging industrial factory production. In Marx's dichotomy, there's workers and those that "own the means of production." That dichotomy makes no sense as applied to what we would call today knowledge workers, and it's probably a misreading of Marx to apply his terminology to them.
In Marx's dichotomy, ownership of the means of production is critical because workers are utterly dependent on that capital to be able to produce anything. That's not true of knowledge workers. A programmer, like a doctor or a lawyer, isn't dependent on a capital owner to produce the thing they sell.
Which is tragic considering that the Nazis did not see any future for those people other than dead or slaves.
Somehow people forget that the Nazis wanted to kill or enslave all Slavs[1] within their "lebensraum" territories.
[1] They also considered Estonians and Finns as "Mongoloids" and as such subhuman although both were elevated to "Aryan" status following the winter war.
Nazis wanted to enslave Slavs, not kill them. USSR wanted to kill anyone that had above elementary school education - basically killing the head. Which was much better end strategy, because there wouldn't be anyone to revolt.
While it is not 1:1 with regards to human rights there was a pivot in the media away from Ukraine's "Problem with far right violence"[1] after the war started[2] into "Azov battalion is only 10% Nazi so there are no Nazis in Ukraine"
Calling all citizens to a crazy war to die in pride for their lands and forbidding men to leave to country also is a very nationalist move for a non nationalist country IMO
The problem here is that when you give a defensive alliance a mandate to defend entities that are not covered by it's mandate it becomes a de-facto offensive alliance.
No it does not. They did not initiate the aggression.
There's a question of semantics here of course. We're contrasting aggressive and defensive military action. I don't see how characterising military action in defence of others as aggressive is a useful or meaningful characterisation. It's defensive, just not defensive of yourself.
Also let's look at the objectives. The intention in Kosovo wasn't to invade Serbia but to end ethnic cleansing. The fact it took force to achieve that was a means to and end, not an end in itself. Without the ethnic cleansing there would have been no military action, so it wasn't about territory or aggression.
>NATO was defending Kosovo from a war of aggression and ongoing genocide.
Except that Kosovo was not a part of NATO so you can't say that NATO is a defensive alliance unless you are going the Roman way of pre-emptive defence[1].
[1] All Roman wars were officially defensive because they believed gods would not support an offensive war
Living on a different continent, I'm relatively unfamiliar with the details, but with the information I have, I do support Catalan independence.
The Spanish police reaction detailed in your linked article tells us much and gives reason in itself to support it. (The only thing that would change my mind is sound information that it is not the a grassroots people's movement that it appears and is instead some sponsored fascist movement like Brexit)
It's largely because Finland has never felt a need to be in NATO.
During the cold war Finland was firmly Soviet aligned despite all the claims of neutrality, the Finnish president, Urho Kekkonen, was de facto a dictator who stayed in power through Kremlin's support (although he wasn't really bad for Finland) and Finland had a defence guarantee from the Soviet Union in the form of the YYK-agreement.
After the Cold War Russia was expected to become a western liberal democracy and as such not a threat, and even after it became clear that it wouldn't become one people still understood it as a "known threat" and a bully which would act tough and try to intimidate but who would never actually hit you.
The largest reason for why joining NATO got a surge in polls is that most people weren't expecting the Invasion of Ukraine (I myself believed that they would've limited themselves to just Donbass and Luhansk).
I expect, although I may be wrong, that once people calm down support for joining NATO will fall, although the FUD spread by NATO supporters about how we would need to fight Russia alone if were not in NATO despite being covered by EU's article 42.7 may keep it high.
> It's largely because Finland has never felt a need to be in NATO.
Well, at least Finland never said it felt a need to be in NATO... But there are more reasons not to say you feel something than not actually feeling it.
> During the cold war Finland was firmly Soviet aligned despite all the claims of neutrality,
At least it certainly behaved like it was "firmly Soviet aligned"... But there are more reasons to behave some particular way than one's own volition or conviction.
> the Finnish president, Urho Kekkonen, was de facto a dictator
Whoa! Yeah, sure, that's one way of putting it... But certainly the most drastic possible one. There are other equally valid and significantly less drastic words for him.
> who stayed in power through Kremlin's support
Well, or through the Finnish people's and politicians' trust that he was the best suited, through personal connections and enjoying the Kremlin's trust in him personally, at navigating the tricky relationship with the big neighbour. OK, that's kind of "through [the][1] Kremlin's support", but only indirectly and mainly as modulated through the Finns' own confidence in him. Above all, when the time came to retire him, they did (although given the slight farce of those last few years, yes, it could have come some years earlier).
> (although he wasn't really bad for Finland)
> and Finland had a defence guarantee from the Soviet Union in the form of the YYK-agreement.
Well, it's hard to claim that was much of a useful "guarantee", given who the only plausible aggressor one could have had to defend against was... It's not like Sweden or Norway were ever very likely to attack, and Estonia didn't exist as an independent nation a the time. The only nation that had ever attacked Finland was the Soviet Union. So that was pretty much a null clause of the agreement.
> After the Cold War Russia was expected to become a western liberal democracy and as such not a threat, and even after it became clear that it wouldn't become one people still understood it as a "known threat" and a bully which would act tough and try to intimidate but who would never actually hit you.
Hmmnyeah, OK, that was pretty much the consensus -- at least as far as what was possible to gather from public political debate, so the official "consensus" -- but there certainly were also other currents among the population at large, from at least as early as the fall of the Soviet Union.
> The largest reason for why joining NATO got a surge in polls is that most people weren't expecting the Invasion of Ukraine (I myself believed that they would've limited themselves to just Donbass and Luhansk).
The largest reason for it surging now, definitely. But...
> I expect, although I may be wrong, that once people calm down support for joining NATO will fall,
...but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll fall back to earlier levels once this war fades from the front pages and the top of the TV evening news: It may have raised the ground level permanently, by convincing at least some of the erstwhile NATO-naysayers that they had been too optimistic about Russia.[2] As you say you were. Would you now say the invasion of Ukraine has changed your personal assessment of risk from Russia permanently, or will you in the future think it's only as dangerous as you thought before?
> although the FUD spread by NATO supporters about how we would need to fight Russia alone if were not in NATO despite being covered by EU's article 42.7 may keep it high.
Sigh... It's not "FUD"; it's the folks yelling "EU 42.7 is just as good as NATO 5!" who are spreading a falsehood. Dunno if they actually believe it or are consciously spreading deceitful anti-NATO propaganda; probably some of this, some of that, and possibly even some in the middle who aren't even sure themselves.
___
[1]: Ootsä suomalainen? Teilläkin on slaavien kanssa tuo article-ongelma yhteistä. No juu, muu tekstisi alla ainakin viittaa melko vahvasti siihen suuntaan että olisit. Mutta olitko elossa Kekkosen aikana? (Itse olin, mutten Suomessa.)
[2]: It's hard to tell, since I personally never was. I can't think of any old dateable writings to prove it, but I've been expecting the other shoe to drop on Ukraine since at least the invasion of Crimea.
Not the person you're responding to but I wouldn't call a T61p brand new, it was released in 2012 after all.