The UN is stepping up its emergency response in Gaza, releasing $11 million from its Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to meet urgent needs before winter – a move that underscores both the expanding humanitarian effort and the funding shortfall …
The UN is stepping up its emergency response in Gaza, releasing $11 million from its Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to meet urgent needs before winter – a move that underscores both the expanding humanitarian effort and the funding shortfall …
The UN is stepping up its emergency response in Gaza, releasing $11 million from its Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to meet urgent needs before winter – a move that underscores both the expanding humanitarian effort and the funding shortfall …
Why don't you think that? Wouldn't it make sense that convincing groups to decimate and alienate themselves from the main body would benefit them politically? Or is this just a case of the left going off of vibes hopes and dreams
I don't think the rich are creating communist orgs that accurately explain the problems today just to divide liberals from the left, considering liberalism by nature already supports the system the capitalists profit off of. If anything, your suggestion is going off of vibes, hopes, and dreams.
This is just lazy rhetoric equating me to people we both don't like. Why is it that you claim my opinion is similar to theirs? They voted for their guy, and he's in office, no? Seems they think electoralism does work.
Because they were manipulated and coaxed into moving the needle right. It's your turn now and the fact your opinion is the same as theirs prior to 2016 is just more examples of this. Lemmy is severely astro-turfed. The longer I'm on here the more evident it is. .ml is a place to workshop for these groups. Just like r/the_donald was
My opinion isn't the same as Trump supporters prior to 2016, this is another case where you just make an accusation without backing anything up. I don't have any power over any "needle." You have no evidence that Lemmy is astroturfed, you're trying to rationalize why your opinions are unpopular here by inventing conspiracy theories.
Yes it is. The framework is the exact same. Elections are bogus. This is the base where they started. Democracy doesn't work for you. Disenfranchise and alienate.
Electoralism is bogus, yes. The concept of voting itself isn't bad, it's the idea that voting within a capitalist state would ever meaningfully change that to a socialist one. If this is what you mean by saying leftists are the same as Trump supporters pre-2016, then you need to pay more attention to what leftists are actually saying.
Please go engage with a leftist organization in real life. You'll quickly see how wrong this is. Arguing on the Internet is rarely productive and it's obvious you haven't engaged with leftist literature. If you want to make these sweeping accusations, do yourself a favor and go see the reality of the situation.
Most of the people you are arguing against have been involved in both liberal and socialist organizations. They aren't pulling their information from nowhere.
I'm not the stupid one here. Bring something of substance otherwise it's like speaking to any trump supporter. You're speaking with your feelings over substance. I get you're upset. That isn't new information.
Liberals call Trump a communist on daily basis. Why should we trust these malicious and stupid people who can't even differentiate socialism from fascism?
Liberalism is an ideology founded in a few core principles. Capitalism and the right to own property, the power of the government originating from the masses rather than god, and inalienable rights for its citizens.
You guys are the ones redefining old words cause you don't like the idea of not being considered leftist anymore. The overton window has shifted since the 1700s, yall are centrists now.
Liberal policies aren't just a singular thing. Because of these groups astro turfing they're getting the usual gang of idiots to say there is only one group and that is the one that shares a few center right policies.
We aren't saying there aren't different kinds of liberals, what we are trying to tell you is that liberalism is not a left wing ideology anymore. It is centrist and anti-communist. Yes you have left leaning liberals and right leaning. But that still only makes yall center-left and center-right.
Leftists issues with liberals is because liberals, no matter what are pro-capitalist and anti-communist. Communists are anti-property and liberals are pro-property. Yes a leftist has more in common with a left leaning liberal than they do a right leaning liberal, but that does not make their interests aligned. Historically anytime liberals and communists team up, communists get backstabbed. And more often than not, it never even gets to teaming up. Historically, liberals are the ones to team up with authoritarians to crush communists.
And I'm an anarchist. I trust Marxist communists just about as much as I do liberals. That is to say not much. And I have more interests aligned with a Marxist than I do a liberal
Hey I don't trust yall, but I still give yall the opportunity to prove me wrong (and so far I have been proven wrong by some individuals, so its not impossible). Same as I do with a liberal. I'm just prepared to get backstabbed.
Unfortunately the difference between anarchists and Marxists (pro-state or anti-state) seems to be a disagreement that ends in anarchists getting betrayed, disenfranchized, and shot. So I gotta stay diligent cause I'd rather learn from history rather than repeat it.
Historically, it hasn't really been the case that Marxists have hunted down anarchists for having anarchist beliefs. What normally happens is Marxists wage war ideologically on anarchism, and some anarchists take up arms or form cells to oppose the socialist state the Marxists have set up. The anarchists have historically had far more agency than simply being hunted down, and in many cases anarchists have worked alongside Marxists for mutual benefit.
I aint saying anarchists dont have agency, but its because Marxists insist on it being their way or the highway and use positions of power to disenfranchize anarchists. Anarchists obviously do not like this and resist. That is not the anarchists fault. It wasnt the CNT-FAI's fault for not wanting to disband their militias and integrate them into the Spanish Republican military structure, and it wasn't the Kronstadt Rebellion's fault for wanting the worker's soviets and freedom of speech to be brough back after Lenin centralized control to the Bolshevik party. And it certainly wasn't the Ukrainian Black Army's fault when Trotsky decided they had no use for them anymore and turned the rifle on them. Anarchists and marxists have and still do work together, the issue is the relationship is not built on mutual respect and cooperation. Marxists seem to see anarchists as a tool, that when its use is no longer needed, is expected to go back to the drawer and sit quietly while the marxists take over.
I definitely could see a situation where marxists and anarchists could cooperate on a mutual and equal level. I just do not expect it to happen.
Personally I would want protections for anarchists to freely establish anarchist organized communes and other organizations like workplaces that are independent and autonomous from the marxist state. The two would still share resources and have open borders, but the two would be free to manage their own internal affairs. To me this meets anarchist principles of free association, and still allows for a marxist state to exist. Plus I feel it would meet the marxist's principle of a transitionary state. The marxist state pops up, and the state would wither away to a stateless, classless, and moneyless society as people transition to the autonomous anarchist communes.
Do I think this would work? Possibly. Do I think an agreement like that would ever be made? No, not likely. The anarchists would still have the threat of being betrayed, and maybe even possibly the anarchists try to betray the marxist state. It would be an uneasy dynamic. And historically, marxists have shown they don't want to make room for anarchists. But unless some sort of guarantee and protections were to be placed for anarchists in some way, I don't see anarchists and marxists to ever get along.
Kronstadt wasn't an anarchist revolt, nor was it about "freedom of speech," it was a group of sailors that wanted privledged positions that destabilized the war effort that was led by a Tsarist that later joined the white army, Stepan Petrichenko.
Either way, I think the biggest struggle is that the ends are not the same at all, which is a common misconception. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primary about collectivization of production.
When I say "communalization," I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity's cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx's beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
Anarchists see the state as another system of class. A socialist state does not create a classless society, it changes the class dynamic from capitalists and workers to bureaucrats and workers. The workers themselves do not own the means of production and have to answer to the politicians and bureaucrats that manage the means of production.
And if that is your perspective then I do not see how anarchists and marxists could ever cooperate, as you said our goals are not aligned. Which is to say I do not see how you could be surprised by anarchists not trusting marxists. Doesnt sound like we have enough in common from your perspective to work together without one of us betraying the other.
Also no the Kronstadt Rebellion was an anarchist revolt, freedom of the press and speech for socialists including anarchists was one of the demands of the rebellion and so was bringing back the workers soviets that Lenin got rid of, among other things that, to me, are just asking for a more democratic and free system that doesnt centralize all the power to one party. The link I attached is the demands of the rebellion and it has nothing like you speak of.
Demands of the Kronstadt Insurgents. February 28, 1921 Demands expressed in the “Resolution of the General Meeting of the Crews of the Ships of the Line, Kronstadt” Original Sour…
Administration is not a class, just as managers at companies are not owners. Collectivized production and distribution has equal ownership, but also contains administrators, foremen, etc as are necessary for global, interconnected production and distribution.
As for Marxists and anarchists working together, we share capitalists as a common enemy, and can work together as such. Right now, imperialism is the highest contradiction, so we share common interest in the downfall of the US Empire.
Returning to Kronstadt, in the context of a bloody and brutal civil war against a dozen invading capitalist nations and a strong Tsarist white army, their demands were suicide for the socialists:
To abolish all Political Departments, because no single party may enjoy privileges in the propagation of its ideas and receive funds from the state for this purpose. Instead of these Departments, locally elected cultural-educational commissions must be established and supported by the state. This is the reason for the inclusion of this document in a collection otherwise devoted entirely to official publications.
All ‘cordon detachments” are to be abolished immediately.
To abolish all Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various Communist guards at factories. If such detachments and guards are needed they may be chosen from the companies in military units and in the factories according to the judgment of the workers.
They wanted the bolsheviks to be stopped, and tie their hands and let the Tsarists and capitalists win. This was absolutely suicidal. Further, Lenin did not disband the soviets, the point raised by the sailors was that they "didn't represent the will of the people:"
In view of the fact that the present soviets do not represent the will of the workers and peasants, to re-elect the soviets immediately by secret voting, with free canvassing among all workers and peasants before the elections.
They wanted the bolsheviks disbanded, and replaced by SRs, mensheviks, anarchists, etc. The soviets were there, they just didn't like how they were made up.
Further, they were led by a council containing Stepan Petrichenko, who claimed to be an "anarcho-syndicalist" but officially joined the Tsarist White Army a year after his failed terrorist attack. In addition, 2 former capitalists were included in the council, and they arrested 300 communists in their mutiny.
I really don't think you want to claim this as genuinely anarchist.
Yes we have a common enemy, and I never said we shouldn't work together to fight it. But that cooperation to me is coming with a ten foot pole cause I know that as soon as it stops being advantageous I'll be stepped on
I do not agree those demands would have been suicide, and I ain't claiming Stepan is a perfect individual. I definitely think he made stupid decisions. But it is incorrect that he officially joined the white army. He tried to, but was denied because of his former Bolshevik affiliation. Plus he ended up coming back to the soviet union and joined the Red Army Intelligence Agency, which is something else I criticize him for along side trying to join the White Army. I do not hold any anarchist on a pedestal just because they are anarchist. Proudhon was a piece of shit, and Bakunin was an antisemite. They are flawed people and exactly why I am an anarchist. Because anarchism does not rely on people being perfect as it doesnt allow anyone to hold power over anyone else.
Lastly, soviets ruled by only bolsheviks is not a soviet, thats a one party system and yes does not properly represent the workers like the Kronstadt stated.
In any event I wish to move on. I will say this was a more pleasant debate than I usually have with marxists, so thank you for that. Ciao comrade, I will be expecting your boot when the day comes lol
As for the soviets, they were democratic. Getting rid of a unitary democracy based on social cohesion and common interest over competing parties and outlawing bolshevik representation is both antidemocratic and horribly flawed in the context of a bloody civil war where the bolsheviks were the most supported group. Had the mutiny succeeded, the lack of cohesion would have led to the socialists getting trounced by fascists near-instantly.
All in all though, good luck yourself. I have no intention of being a "boot," I want a better world for everyone, where we as a society can collectively produce and distrubute according to a common plan for the good of all. Basically Star Trek.
I believe .ml is just another form of it with "liberals are right politically"
The purpose of .ml is to create views and opinions alternate and divide the left. It's a toxic place with more support than should be warranted by it's values.
Same political groups that create walkway and bernbros. It's your heritage foundation, Koch Bros, freedom alliance this or that. Same political groups it's always been. The left are being pushed to decimate its own numbers by alienating itself from itself. It's clear as day when viewing places like .ml and other Lemmy instances
Sure looks like the left has been growing in numbers from my time in leftist orgs. I'm also not sure the likelihood of the heritage foundation taking a chance on accidentally initiating Black Panthers 2.0 in the US.
Just because you don't agree with people on this platform, you should probably understand that lemmy, a place that can't be swayed by an algorithm controlled by billionaires, and notably created by communist developers, would attract other communists here. You came into our space questioned our legitimacy here. The fuck
Do you think groups on the right were behind things like walkaway and bernbros?
Astroturfing is when groups deceptively create content in digital spaces to manipulate and influence those spaces to believe a movement or initiative is derived from a grassroots or organic origin. The goal is to move the group whatever the vested interest wants them to be.
I bet you were going to argue Lemmy isn't on anyone's radar because it's so small and we're all just super grass roots and organic.
The bernie movement was notably organic with a lot of volunteer activity and not astroturfed. That's why the nomination going to Hillary was such a big upset.
The main developers of lemmy are funded by individual donations and the instances largely as well. The only exception I think of is lemmy.world if I remember correctly. Precisely which organisations do you think are astroturfing on lemmy?
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
I get your point but in the spirit of we all just don't have time in our lives, it can be similar to say .ml as a whole trends towards certain things. Even if it's a bad way to argue things. From the posts I've seen and the way the people agree on certain topics, .ml is showing red flags for being a type of generator for certain things that I saw in other places online.
.ml as a whole trends towards being right about a lot of things that supporters of the american empire don't want to hear, if you had coherent arguments against those things you wouldn't have to resort to gesturing vaguely in the direction of the instance
I would disagree. I would say they're passionate more than knowledge. They're also easily manipulated because of that passion. They are more similar to radicalized pockets that existed on the right pre 2016. They are the bending of the reed left as the_Donald was bending it right. The goal is to snap the reed.
I think it's similar to how immigration is maintained as a key target on the right. It's a right leaning issue. On the right the topic of immigration is made out to be a bigger issue than it is. Because it serves a purpose to pass new laws and actions that people normally wouldn't support.
You need to think about it for even a minute. The right have a lot of invested interest groups online. The left do not. There is a lot of money being used to push messages and ideas across the Internet. Lemmy isn't a tiny digital space. These groups that target Reddit are going to be here on lemmy. They don't target moderate Lemmy they go for the dumb radicals. The ones with more passion than brains. That is .ml
So these issues are left positions in the same way immigration concerns are a right leaning issue. But they're strategic left issues that when pushed serve the goals of the invested interest more than it helps the left. Places like .ml are being groomed to become the poison pill for the next election cycle. They're drip feeding them right now. It'll ratchet up over time.
Yea look .ml as an instance is not the same. Just arguing semantics is pointless. Look at hexbear. Some instances are clearly different. Regardless if you acknowledge it. That's your problem if you choose not to.
No, do you often get your arguments from Trump supporters? It's such a vapid thing you say. I'm very specific about .ml and why. Dance around it all you like
you’re being coaxed by the rich to create all these dividing groups
"Bad People tricked you into thinking that way" is such a shit way of engaging anyone politically.
It simultaneously serves to call the audience stupid and insert some nebulous outside agency as the scapegoat for failing to make your own case.
Like, if you want to rally people to all agree you fucking suck, there's really no better way than to go to every individual group and say "I'm right, its obvious, and you're just too dumb to notice."
Didn't answer what I asked. Being stupid is ignoring a question like this because of ego
And I don't want to rally people. I'm honestly giving up on the left. I've watched them slash tires to protest ... Cars. I've seen them defend blocking traffic even when we see how counter productive it is when it always produces footage of regular folks and emergency vehicles getting delayed. I've watched them Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I have seen zero effective strategies. But now I'm tired and things I wouldn't call it I'll say it now because I'm so fucking done watching people not realize this stuff. It's walkaway 2.0
I've watched the left turn into something that is extremely toxic. There's no social awareness. If you think what I'm saying is toxic or lacking in social awareness congratulations, that's the strategy the left uses every single day now. There's no effort, no consistency day to day other than areas that divide. It's an ideology about burning bridges and purity tests
I mean, you gotta define your spectrum. If you want to get French with it, the Monarchists are on the right and the Liberals are on the Left. The communists won't really exist for another fifty years (as a European economic school).
Liberalism only exists "on the right-wing" in the modern era thanks to over a century of Socialist nation building. Even then, the very term is muddled by decades of fascist rebranding - first as Anarcho-Capitalists and then as National Socialists and then as Neo-Conservatives and then as Neo-Liberals and now in a return to White Nationalism - with "liberal" being embraced or rejected in turns as our corporate media needed it to be.
As a case in point, I challenge you to tell me whether liberals are libertarian. In Europe and Asia, they functionally are. In the Americas, they couldn't be further from it in mainstream politics.
The political spectrum is full of double-speak. "Liberal" is a textbook case. It can mean anything and nothing.
it’s an ideology centering private property and capitalism
That's the economic angle. But it also promises a host of libertarian social reforms included within the free market system. What's more, liberalism isn't just an attempt to yank socialists back from their economic progressivism. They're often efforts to balkinize the power base of local dictatorships and feudal aristocracies.
The original liberals were trying to break up the Old World feudal system, establish economic mobility through cross-border trade, and secularize states that had historically been married to a single branch of a particular religion. All of that was incredibly left-wing from the perspective of the theocrats and monarchists.
Hell, the whole pitch aimed at The Dictatorship of the Proletariat that liberals make is that Socialists/Communists are just Monarchists in disguise. Unipolar parties aren't really democratic. Centrally planned economies aren't really communally owned or beneficial. And atheist leaders are just advancing their lack-of-religion as its own kind of faith.
::: spoiler Are these liberals full of shit? Yes :::
But the political spectrum is wide, and they're nowhere near the right-most end of it.
I feel that this is just a consequence of trying to firmly place ideologies on a spectrum beyond whether they affirm capitalism or affirm socialism. I don't tend to bother trying to compare how right or how left ideologies are, but instead judge the various left and right ideologies on their own propositions, which can't be easily graphed.
Liberalism has been highjacked by conservatism and is actually a left leaning ideology
'In most countries, classical liberalism is thought of as a right-wing ideology, but when classical liberal ideas made their debut, they were thought of as leftist.'
The death toll from communism comes from the black book of communism which was written by a staunch anti-communist who seeked out to prove communism killed 100 million people which is why it includes nazi deaths and people who weren't even born as victims of communism.
Because it intentionally neglects the harm caused by the Great Leap Forward, or various soviet famines. The statement is designed to deflect attention and responsibility from A to B and use hyperbole to create outrage.
Its possible to argue that both China and the Soviet Union were not actually communism but rather authoritarianism but for the sake of common understanding we will refer to them as they refer(ed) to themselves.
So did millions of people die because of "communism?" the facts say yes. So do millions of people die because of Capitalism? the facts say yes.
Both are true statements, and using hyperbole and outrage to deflect or minimize one or the other is in bad faith.
This is pure projection. The meme doesn't 'neglect' anything.
The statement is designed to deflect attention and responsibility from A to B and use hyperbole to create outrage.
Your objection is essentially that you want to label something as 'bad' but not allow the necessary discussion of 'relative to what?'
Your system deliberately murders an order of magnitude more people but we're not allowed to talk about it because you say so and we all give a huge shit what you have to say because you're so well read on the subject lol
I think that's because we have a difference of perspective on degrees of bad. I think all deaths caused by capitalism are bad, and equal bad to all the deaths that are the result of authoritarian countries calling themselves communist.
So i fundamentally disagree with the "relative to what" because a life is worth the same regardless of where they live and who they are.
We are able to, and I am talking about the harm, and I am pointing out that this meme is designed to create an emotional response to the 2nd point and not to both points. Thats all, its manipulative and propagandist which makes it in bad faith, and you are welcome to defend either position, I will just disagree.
I think all deaths caused by capitalism are bad, and equal bad to all the deaths that are the result of authoritarian countries calling themselves communist.
You want to obscure the larger number because you want the smaller number to look bad. We're not allowed to talk about the larger number. We're not allowed to criticize your side.
So what you just said is a fucking lie, isn't it? If they were equal you would permit both be examined. You would admit that the one with the larger death count is worse. That's the exact opposite of what you're pushing for. Your agenda is at odds with reality.
You don't actually care about people dying. Your actions betray your rhetoric.
So i fundamentally disagree with the “relative to what” because a life is worth the same regardless of where they live and who they are.
And there you go doubling down. Hollow rhetoric sidestepping the actual objection. Cynical. Deliberate.
I will just disagree.
And I think we can all put together why you disagree (you're a nazi).
You want to obscure the larger number because you want the smaller number to look bad. We’re not allowed to talk about the larger number. We’re not allowed to criticize your side.
Not my side, and no I dont want to diminish the larger number, same as I dont want to diminish the smaller number. People should not have to die for political or economic system to function.
I am examining both, and I am pointing out that the image posted does not examine both, it deliberately attempts to shape the discussion around ignoring self proclaimed communist deaths.
You don’t actually care about people dying. Your actions betray your rhetoric.
What? I am sorry what actions am i taking that betray my values?
And I think we can all put together why you disagree (you’re a nazi).
I dont know how you came to the conclusion that I am a Nazi, but I can assure you I am not. I dont want to kill or marginalize any group, and I have actually been working for years to cast off my inherited privilege or use it for reparations.
Only in so far as you mouth the words that you don't support them while rhetorically supporting them.
and no I dont want to diminish the larger number
Yet you are. Belligerently so at this point.
People should not have to die for political or economic system to function.
Mind palace baby brain. Once again flattening all context and history to equate a system that literally functions by killing people and one that you wish to paint as equal because mortality continued to exist under it.
If you were doing that out of ignorance one would hope you would have the humility to not dig your heels in so I assume you're doing it deliberately to advocate your side. Because you're a nazi.
What? I am sorry what actions am i taking that betray my values?
You're not betraying your values; you're lying about what your values are.
I can assure you I am not. I dont want to kill or marginalize any group
And I bet you could convince sleepwalkers who aren't paying close attention that you actually mean this shit. But you do indeed want people to die, and you want them to die by the tens of millions each year. That's the functional position you're taking by defending those deaths. And you can't pretend you're not defending them by hiding them behind a curtain while you demonize the alternative that costs fewer lives.
You're a nazi because you want to use violence to defend capitalism. That's pretty much the textbook definition of fascism.
China is by far the closest country on Earth to that Star Trek future. No other country is as developed and is presently socialist. It has a long way to go, but is already overtaking capitalist countries.
there is no amount of propaganda that would make this believable. The fact that there is forced labor, and decent is punished is just as unacceptable in China as it is in the US. When I can freely and safely criticize Xi Jinping I might be interested. There are lots of aspects of China that I love and want to see but the authoritarian government and regional provincial governors are NOT something i want to risk.
China has outlawed slavery and forced labor. Capitalists trying to manipulate the media is punished, correct, but that's something widely supported by the people. China is democratic, and the people support their system, because it works:
All states are "authoritarian," in that all are embedded within class struggle and represent the ruling class. Dissent is punished in the US and in China, the difference is that the capitalist class is oppressing workers in the US, while the working class is oppressing capitalists in China.
You owe it to yourself as someone desiring a socialist future to genuinely try to understand the Chinese system, and why it's so widely supported by its people.
I have a hard time giving weight to a self reported survey like the one you linked. I dont doubt that people in china feel like they are free, and I suspect that many also ranked their freedom highly because they fear reprisal if they say otherwise.
Many aspects of China are democratic, other parts are not, Xi Jinping is a life time dictator and cannot be replaced by democratic systems. He is an authoritarian and Bourgeoisie, your suggestion that the working class oppresses capitalists is demonstrably false en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_… for example. These were western capitalists treating workers with raw brutality. The CCP was complicit and did not protect their workers because it was seen as generally beneficial to have these manufacturing contracts.
You don't know me, you are making assumptions about my knowledge, experience, and connection to China based on a few responses on lemmy.
I hope China is able to return to the ideals that were espoused through the revolution, and I will cheer if they truly reach a level of equality not yet seen in humanity.
As for Foxconn, it sparked widespread protests and backlash, and has been responded to. Even then, the suicide rate at Foxconn was lower than China's overall rate, which is lower than the US's overall rate. China isn't a perfect society, it's the regular and continuous improvement that makes it much better.
You're right, I don't know you. What I do know is informed by the incorrect statements you make, and that shapes the level of knowledge I believe you have.
We can disagree on Xi being an authoritarian/dictator, from my perspective and experience he is effectively a dictator.
I was actually happy with some of the improvements made as a result of these suicides but more still needs to be done, and the Uyghurs people are still suffering under the regime.
Xinjiang has similar levels of approval of the PRC and CPC from what I've seen. Where are you finding this alternative information? You keep claiming things that don't appear to be backed up by reality, just vibes.
It is a perception that is so common that its on Wikipedia. Its not just vibes, its researchers, journalists, academics, and other organizations that have a similar perspective.
Yes, it's a perception deliberately pushed in western countries and the english speaking world. I have given you hard numbers and studies, you've told me that westerners think he's bad. That's not exactly a solid case, right?
your hard numbers and studies were based on self reported surveys.
World wide consensus, it could be wrong but I have not seen any evidence that its not. I wont deny that any western source is at risk of bias, that is part of the problem with freedom, people with too much power can buy the stories they want.
Read the links, there is consistent support for the CPC within China. Your only counter is based on vibes and western consensus, who are actively hostile to communists.
Motherfucker, did you even see the source of that claim against communism? It comes from a book that counted people who died under British and other European colonialism, the Third Reich soldiers who died in ww2, UN and NATO bombings ordered by the USA, and every war casualty in 20th century wars.
Yep according to them every hunger related death under a communist government is communists fault but the many famines under capitalism don't count against their favorite system.
Also failure of public works, like a train crash that kills 20 people, means that trains are bad. Clearly this program isn't working and should be privatized. But 20 people killed daily on the highways, well those people are just idiots. Never mind the structural issues.
This message brought to you by the people who stand to benefit and also, by coincidence, own the newspapers.
You might be getting closer with that, but this still doesn't account for the deaths caused by the fallout of decisions under feudal or capitalist systems before switching to communism that took years to repair or deaths caused by imperialist meddling (sanctions, wars, coups).
When you ignore established agricultural science because it's too capitalist, and your crops fail, starving a significant portion of your country, yeah that's kinda the governments fault.
Sitting alone in the highest tower of your mind palace, curtains drawn, coming up with things that happened in the outside world through pure wisdom and common sense
"What exactly am I talking about?" you say, "Well isn't it obvious?! Everybody knows!"
"communists hate science after all!" you add after a moment's pause.
The Soviet response to the famine is actually a really interesting topic. I’ve fascinated people with examples of faminerelief, and Pavel Luk’ianenko is an especially interesting historical figure. The class war involving the rural petite‐bourgeoisie sounds like it was pretty intense, too. It’s a shame that teaching this history is so stigmatized in the West.
The difference is that for the people dying under capitalism, the system is working as intended, and for the people dying under communism, it is not. In both cases, the leaders don't really care, because it works for them.
Tankies gonna Tankie i guess. I actually lived under a communist regime, i didn’t grow up in American stupidity and comfort. I actually lived your dream communism and it sucked. Don’t mean I like capitalism
I grew up in South America, not in the suburbs like you. I grew up with American funded death squads and communist guerillas going at it. I know you think it’s impossible that a brown person would exist but it’s true, we do exist and we did indeed live under communism. But keep up the racism colonizer Tankie
Are you talking about the Shining Path of Peru? The Gonzaloite terrorists? I don't think anyone on Lemmy actually supports them, at least not that I've seen, and they never actually implemented anything but instead just slaughtered peasants and performed terrorist attacks.
Recent years have seen a resurgence in nostalgia for the British empire. High-profile books such as Niall Ferguson’s Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, and Bruce Gilley’s The Last Imperialist, have claimed that British colonialism brought prosperity and development to India and other colonies. Two years ago, a YouGov poll found that 32 percent of people in Britain are actively proud of the nation’s colonial history.
This rosy picture of colonialism conflicts dramatically with the historical record. According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, extreme poverty in India increased under British rule, from 23 percent in 1810 to more than 50 percent in the mid-20th century. Real wages declined during the British colonial period, reaching a nadir in the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly. Far from benefitting the Indian people, colonialism was a human tragedy with few parallels in recorded history.
Experts agree that the period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. Comprehensive population censuses carried out by the colonial regime beginning in the 1880s reveal that the death rate increased considerably during this period, from 37.2 deaths per 1,000 people in the 1880s to 44.2 in the 1910s. Life expectancy declined from 26.7 years to 21.9 years.
In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades. Robust data on mortality rates in India only exists from the 1880s. If we use this as the baseline for “normal” mortality, we find that some 50 million excess deaths occurred under the aegis of British colonialism during the period from 1891 to 1920.
Fifty million deaths is a staggering figure, and yet this is a conservative estimate. Data on real wages indicates that by 1880, living standards in colonial India had already declined dramatically from their previous levels. Allen and other scholars argue that prior to colonialism, Indian living standards may have been “on a par with the developing parts of Western Europe.” We do not know for sure what India’s pre-colonial mortality rate was, but if we assume it was similar to that of England in the 16th and 17th centuries (27.18 deaths per 1,000 people), we find that 165 million excess deaths occurred in India during the period from 1881 to 1920.
While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia.
How did British rule cause this tremendous loss of life? There were several mechanisms. For one, Britain effectively destroyed India’s manufacturing sector. Prior to colonisation, India was one of the largest industrial producers in the world, exporting high-quality textiles to all corners of the globe. The tawdry cloth produced in England simply could not compete. This began to change, however, when the British East India Company assumed control of Bengal in 1757.
According to the historian Madhusree Mukerjee, the colonial regime practically eliminated Indian tariffs, allowing British goods to flood the domestic market, but created a system of exorbitant taxes and internal duties that prevented Indians from selling cloth within their own country, let alone exporting it.
This unequal trade regime crushed Indian manufacturers and effectively de-industrialised the country. As the chairman of East India and China Association boasted to the English parliament in 1840: “This company has succeeded in converting India from a manufacturing country into a country exporting raw produce.” English manufacturers gained a tremendous advantage, while India was reduced to poverty and its people were made vulnerable to hunger and disease.
To make matters worse, British colonisers established a system of legal plunder, known to contemporaries as the “drain of wealth.” Britain taxed the Indian population and then used the revenues to buy Indian products – indigo, grain, cotton, and opium – thus obtaining these goods for free. These goods were then either consumed within Britain or re-exported abroad, with the revenues pocketed by the British state and used to finance the industrial development of Britain and its settler colonies – the United States, Canada and Australia.
This system drained India of goods worth trillions of dollars in today’s money. The British were merciless in imposing the drain, forcing India to export food even when drought or floods threatened local food security. Historians have established that tens of millions of Indians died of starvation during several considerable policy-induced famines in the late 19th century, as their resources were syphoned off to Britain and its settler colonies.
Get instant alerts and updates based on your interests. Be the first to know when big stories happen. Yes, keep me updated Colonial administrators were fully aware of the consequences of their policies. They watched as millions starved and yet they did not change course. They continued to knowingly deprive people of resources necessary for survival. The extraordinary mortality crisis of the late Victorian period was no accident. The historian Mike Davis argues that Britain’s imperial policies “were often the exact moral equivalents of bombs dropped from 18,000 feet.”
Our research finds that Britain’s exploitative policies were associated with approximately 100 million excess deaths during the 1881-1920 period. This is a straightforward case for reparations, with strong precedent in international law. Following World War II, Germany signed reparations agreements to compensate the victims of the Holocaust and more recently agreed to pay reparations to Namibia for colonial crimes perpetrated there in the early 1900s. In the wake of apartheid, South Africa paid reparations to people who had been terrorised by the white-minority government.
History cannot be changed, and the crimes of the British empire cannot be erased. But reparations can help address the legacy of deprivation and inequity that colonialism produced. It is a critical step towards justice and healing.
About two years ago, I had an argument with a random dude who was vehemently denying the fact that it was effectively Churchill and the decisions of the British government that caused the Bengal famine - there was a lot of back and forth, a lot of citing.
Ultimately he came to the conclusion that the famine happened not because of the British, no Churchill was a saint - it was because of lack of biological "food storage" within Bengalis or some bullshit.
It's kinda shocking how the tactics of colonialism end up mirroring itself throughout history. The occupation and destruction of Gaza and the occupation and destruction of the Indian Mughal empire are devastatingly similar.
The beginning of the end for the Mughal happened during the Indian rebellion in 1857 when troops of the Mughal empire rebelled against the British East India company. It started as a popular uprising against the military of the company, but after an incident akin to Oct 7th around 200 British women and children were taken hostage and eventually killed by a small group of rebels.
In response the British went on a retribution campaign that would end up killing upwards to 800k Indians, most of which were civilians. During the retribution campaign there were motifs we can recognize today being implemented in modern colonialism.
Particularly the use of false allegations in media to justify retributive violence and sexual assault against women.
"British soldiers also committed sexual violence against Indian women as a form of retaliation against the rebellion.[163][164] As towns and cities were captured from the sepoys, the British soldiers took their revenge on Indian civilians by committing atrocities and rapes against Indian women."
"Incidents of rape allegedly committed by Indian rebels against British women and girls appalled the British public. These atrocities were often used to justify the British reaction to the rebellion. British newspapers printed various eyewitness accounts of the rape of English women and girls. One such account was published by The Times, regarding an incident where 48 English girls as young as 10 had been raped by Indian rebels in Delhi. Karl Marx criticized this story as false propaganda, and pointed out that the story was written by a clergyman in Bangalore, far from the events of the rebellion, with no evidence to support his allegation."
"During the aftermath of the rebellion, a series of exhaustive investigations were carried out by British police and intelligence officials into reports that British women prisoners had been "dishonoured" at the Bibighar and elsewhere. One such detailed enquiry was at the direction of Lord Canning. The consensus was that there was no convincing evidence of such crimes having been committed, although numbers of British women and children had been killed outright.[181]"
Communists are liberals, it’s funny seeing how many liberals in the fediverse use it as a slur. Even the anarchists look down on the anti-government people.
And yeah Libertarians are liberal as well, the problem is including everyone else that isn’t authoritarian.
Communists aren’t authoritarian and the concept predates communism. (Communism is a reaction against oppression so arguing criticism against oppression is anti-communist doesn’t make sense)
Maybe you can wipe your ass with those books for all the good they did you.
I took political science classes in college too. They taught the political compass. They lamented 'polarization.'
If you were too stupid as a child to see that you were being fed slop you can be forgiven. It's time to use your adult brain to reexamine those things.
Liberalism is an ideology supporting private property and individualism. Communism doesn't have a state, but it does have administration, which some consider government, and communism lacks private property.
Can the administration control what the commune does? Laws? Policing?
If so then given time the people who seek it will elevate that position.
Public ownership under communism doesn’t mean the government (or administration to use your term without a difference) owns it. It means the population has control over whether it is helping (keep) or hurting (remove) society. And the workers are at the forefront of that not politicians or owners.
You’re aware that liberalism views landowners as a scourge of society because they make money without adding anything to the world but you cannot view said viewpoint from a communist perspective.
I’ll give you another crazy idea; political parties/governments are corporations. They will put their own survival above that of the people they represent.
Yes, and all are equal, but some more equal. Particularly, anyone that was part of the administration of the soviet union was more equal than anyone not close to the administration.
Communism has never been about "equalitarianism." Communism is about suiting the needs of all with everyone's productive capacity, not trying to make sure everyone has the same thing. Over time things will trend towards more evenness, but fundamental characreristic differences in ability will still remain, differences in need, etc.
Private property in the sense the government can't seize your home or car or rollerskates without due process. It is not the main caveat of liberalism, which is pro liberty, aka pro human rights. It is an ideology independent of economic system
Also they will claim that the death of communism is some widely agreed upon number that is corroborated by numerous organizations and sources.
In reality it is literally like the one single 'study' that proved the autism/vaccine connection. It came entirely from the Black Book of Communism in 1999, and all but the main author disavowed it, and despite the obsession with wanting to reach 100 million. The absolute max it could find was 94 million with a 'most likely' number of 64 million.
So when they give a death toll of 'conservatively 100 million' they are literally pulling it out of nowhere.
China in the 21st century is getting farther and farther from communism. Hell, they protected TESLA from concerned citizens. Not just a corporation, but a foreign corporation.
The PRC is developing further and further along in socialism. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economy, and they are regularly improving. They aren't just capitulatory to Tesla, more often than not they control and block foreign capital from doing as it pleases.
China is not moving away from communism. I don't know what you're referring to with tesla, but tesla has almost no sales in the PRC, and is considered a laughing stock. They stopped presenting at electric car shows in the PRC years ago because they're too far behind.
The long read: Much of modern China’s epic growth was driven by private enterprise – but under Xi Jinping, the Communist party has returned to being the ultimate authority in business as well as politics
Business interests go above human rights in China and if a rich person is imprisoned or executed, it's so the "communists" could save face after a scandal. Normally they're completely fine with billionaires existing for some reason.
Smells very "corporations are people too" to me. Like the US, but with better infrastructure because Americans can't even get that right.
Tesla has sued its own customers and journalists in China for defamation – and won just about every time. Elon Musk's company has pioneered an aggressive legal strategy there.
Sometimes surprised, sometimes mad, either way anti-communists that try to pull out the Black Book of Communism are generally making the point that socialism is more lethal than capitalism, when historically it's the opposite both in total and by ratio.
The US military conducted yet another strike on a boat alleged to be trafficking drugs off the coast of Venezuela, killing six people on board, President Donald Trump announced Tuesday.
Trump said that the vessel was “affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization” but did not name any organization or provide evidence to back up the assertion.
The US military conducted yet another strike on a boat alleged to be trafficking drugs off the coast of Venezuela, killing six people on board, President Donald Trump announced Tuesday.
Trump said that the vessel was “affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization” but did not name any organization or provide evidence to back up the assertion.
De politieke voorstanders van kernenergie in Nederland willen daar steeds minder geld aan uitgeven, blijkt uit debatten en doorrekeningen. Dat maakt uitvoering van de plannen zo goed als onmogelijk. In Den Haag kwamen maandagavond vertegenwoordigers van zes politieke partijen samen voor een stevig inhoudelijk debat over de toekomst van de Nederlandse energietransitie. Onder de titel Door met Duurzaam gingen GroenLinks-PvdA, VVD, Volt, SP, Partij voor de Dieren, en BIJ1 met elkaar in gesprek over hoe Nederland koers houdt richting een schoon, eerlijk en betaalbaar energiesysteem. Het debat werd georganiseerd door Fossielvrij NL en WISE Nederland. “Vooral de stelling over kernenergie was interessant omdat de twee voorstanders – Volt en de VVD – een stuk minder positief waren dan verwacht”, zegt Lisanne Boersma, directeur van WISE.
WASHINGTON – One day after his trip to the Middle East to celebrate a ceasefire agreement, President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that Hamas would disarm in “a reasonable period of time” or the U.S. will disarm them "perhaps violently."
“If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them and it will happen quickly and perhaps violently,” Trump said. “But they will disarm.”
Trump was asked how he would disarm Hamas, if it came to that. “I don’t have to explain that to you,” Trump replied. “They know I’m not playing games.”
WASHINGTON – One day after his trip to the Middle East to celebrate a ceasefire agreement, President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that Hamas would disarm in “a reasonable period of time” or the U.S. will disarm them "perhaps violently."
“If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them and it will happen quickly and perhaps violently,” Trump said. “But they will disarm.”
Trump was asked how he would disarm Hamas, if it came to that. “I don’t have to explain that to you,” Trump replied. “They know I’m not playing games.”
Yes most "communist systems" have not been very communist. They are almost entirely conservative, even if they have a few token progressive issues, and tend to be authoritarian instead of democratic and anarchistic. Also it's hard to call a country communist if they don't even have the freedom to speak and assemble without the states permission.
What usually happens is the people go communist, and the world powers implement an authoritarian regime that calls itself communist, but isn't even remotely. Also socialism is better than communism.
In case you haven’t received an email from Google (or you haven’t noticed an ugly notification “reCAPTCHA terms are changing” on all of your widgets), reCAPTCHA
I'm not that knowledgeable on networking, but I do remember that if a device is connected to a wired network, it can end up receiving packets not meant for it because switches will flood all the ports for packets they don't know how to route. But I also heard that Wi-Fi is supposedly smarter than that and a device connected to it should never receive a packet not meant for it.
Is this true? And in practice, does this mean it's preferable should keep computers with invasive operating systems (which might decide to record foreign packets sent to it in its telemetry) on Wi-Fi instead of on the wired network?
Also, how exactly does Wi-Fi prevent devices from receiving the wrong packets when it's a radio based system and any suitable antenna can receive any Wi-Fi signal? Does each device get assigned a unique encryption key and so is only capable of decrypting packets meant for it? How secure is it actually?
Yes that's true, sort of. There are many layers to it, but generally unmanaged wired switches are less strict. Most modern wifi systems enable client isolation by default.
it can end up receiving packets not meant for it because switches will flood all the ports for packets they don’t know how to route
This is only applicable to IPv4 networking and is very much "the old way" of doing things. If you have properly designed and set up your own home network, you shouldn't be having broadcast traffic happen at all, because all your switches should have a MAC table that includes all the devices you have physically connected. Especially if you have bothered to take the time to hand out static addresses tied to the MAC address. A broadcast should generally only be happening if there is an unknown destination on the LAN, and an unknown destination only happens when there is a new device added at an unknown location. Once a broadcast packet has been sent and replied to, the switch fills it's MAC table with the information on the new device, now knowing it's location.
Wi-Fi's packets can be intercepted by anyone, it's technically sending all packets on blast as radio waves at all times. Sure, modern Wi-Fi can be encrypted, but that encryption can also often be broken.
Finally, IPv6 doesn't use broadcast packets at all, instead using multicasting, which is similar to a broadcast but doesn't flood every port in the wired network and is a bit more tightly directed.
The flooding a network thing really isn’t an issue, they’ll only flood for the first packet just to find the way and then it stops. Fire up Wireshark on a different machine and transfer a file between two other machines, you won’t see anything. I don’t know too much about WiFi but it probably does the same, it’s just a bridge to the same network.
Wired is probably better because machines can estimate your location from the SSID and they can leak the password giving access to the network.
Fire up Wireshark on a different machine and transfer a file between two other machines, you won’t see anything.
This is true, but only because we've replaced Ethernet hubs with switches.
An Ethernet hub was a dumber, cheaper device that imitated a switch, but with a fundamental difference: all connected devices were in the same collision domain.
I don’t know too much about WiFi but it probably does the same, it’s just a bridge to the same network.
Wireless communication has the same problem as Ethernet hubs, with no real solution like a switch though. Any wireless transmission involves an antenna, and transmitting is similar to standing in your yard with a bull horn to talk to your buddy two houses down. Anyone with an antenna can receive the wireless signal you send out. Period.
So some really smart people found ways to keep the stuff you send private, but anyone can sit nearby and capture data going through the air, it's just not anything you can use because of the encryption.
Worth highlighting WiFi blasts all your data in all directions, and unless you're using enterprise/WPA3 encryption with a strong password, someone determined enough can break in.
If someone wanted to they could park near your house and run aircrack (or whatever the modern suite is called) without you ever knowing. FWIW this is why it's good to set up a way of getting notified about new devices on your network (most modern non-ISP routers support a way of doing this)
Conversely, I believe most ethernet NICs discard any packet not intended for it at hardware level, they're super optimised for speed, it would be much slower to leave that for software. I'm not 100% if that's universal however, so I'd try and double check that
If someone wanted to they could park near your house and run aircrack
Aircrack-ng can only try to guess the simple shared password (pre-shared key). So when you run your airodump-ng, it's got to show the network as having type PSK, or you're pissing up a rope. With WEP, you could collect IVs, however, with WPA/WPA2, there are no IVs to collect. So you have to guess the password one by one. The only clue you get is when a device performs a handshake with the Wi-Fi. You need to capture that handshake to even start guessing. WPA/WPA2 passwords can be/should be quite long, like up to 63 letters, numbers, or symbols. If the password is a simple word like "cat" or "password," aircrack-ng might guess it if it’s in the dictionary.
So it behooves the Wi-Fi owner to create a very long, complicated, password with all the bells and whistles. If you are using WEP, you might as well be holding up a sheet of single ply, no brand toilet paper. Also, turn off WPS and UPnP ffs.
I vaguely remember getting into a WPA network (that I owned!) using kismet about 15 years ago with relative ease, but I'm struggling to remember details about that process.
I also remember reading that WPA2 non-enterprise was broken a while ago, however I just looked into it and both of the main exploits I can find were patchable (and have been patched) at client OS level (They were the KRACK and FragAttacks). Seems like there has already been something found wrong with WPA3 too that's also been addressed.
So yeah as you say back to brute forcing for the most part. Forcing reconnects was a pretty easy way to get more handshakes to record back when I last tried, so I assume that still has decent levels of success, given the prevalence of mesh networks. Looking further it seems people use a tool called hashcat today to get pretty rapid results doing the actual brute forcing using a modern GPU.
But yes very good advice all in all, long passwords and the highest WPA version you can get away with are going to make an attackers job harder.
Thanks for the reply, you got me to go back down an interesting rabbit hole I've not looked at in a while
but I’m struggling to remember details about that process.
At 71, I struggle sometimes remembering what I had for breakfast. LOL It is a very interesting rabbit hole for me as well. Wasn't trying to correct you, I'm an expert at nothing. Your comment just spurred a memory of a long forgotten era of my life as a wannabe haxor.
I vaguely remember getting into a WPA network (that I owned!) using kismet about 15 years ago with relative ease, but I’m struggling to remember details about that process.
The 4-way handshake crack was the only key recovery attack until 2018 when the PMKID-based attack was discovered (here: hashcat.net/forum/thread-7717.…). The PMKID crack attack still required brute-forcing the key, but it didn't require the 4-way handshake so you didn't have to depend on a de-authentication attack to get started.
At that time there was another WPA vulnerability, if you were using WPA-TKIP, but it only allowed sending a few small packets every 10-12 minutes so it wouldn't allow you to gain access to the network.
Later there were a few WPS-based attacks but they were slow (4 hours to recover the WPS PIN) and/or limited to specific manufacturers (weak hardware random number generation).
If you use some WFP manager you can block all incoming connections and also block all OS connections... I basically only let my browser communicating with the internet, the rest has no business online.
Also, how exactly does Wi-Fi prevent devices from receiving the wrong packets when it’s a radio based system and any suitable antenna can receive any Wi-Fi signal?
Your device, say an iphone, has a MAC address. It sends a request to the Wi-Fi access point. The Wi-Fi router also has a MAC address and responds with a packet that contains the destination MAC address (your iphone). All devices listen to all Wi-Fi signals but only processes packets where the destination MAC matches its own. If the MAC doesn’t match, it ignores the packet. This happens at the data link level or commonly referred to as Layer 2 of the OSI model.
No. For the purposes you’re talking about wired is fine.
How your network is managed and set up makes it possible to get more security from WiFi using a bunch of new technologies added to recent WiFi protocols but you’d have to be actually have set all that up and have compatible networking stacks on the computers.
Also, and I say this as no great lover of Microsoft or its products, windows isn’t snooping network traffic not meant for it and bundling it up in its telemetry uploads.
The Dutch court document said records from a June 12 meeting between U.S. Commerce Department officials and the Dutch Foreign Ministry showed rising pressure to remove Nexperia's Chinese CEO to help keep the company off the list.
"The fact that the company's CEO is still the same Chinese owner is problematic," the filing said, citing minutes from the Dutch-U.S. meeting. "It is almost certain the CEO will have to be replaced to qualify for the exemption from the entity list."
Nexperia is caught between the U.S. and China, with U.S. President Donald Trump ratcheting up pressure on tech as part of a broader trade war in which he threatened 100% tariffs on China's exports last week. Beijing has announced curbs on exports of rare earths.
The Creator Program wasn’t just a feature, it was a full blown movement that rocked Reddit, on the blockchain no less. You all built communities. You created art. Your art became memes. You put a cone on it. You even got paid (a first!). At the end of the day, you all made magic.
Lemmy (and Piefed) have avatars and bio, and Piefed also has the custom fields thing that Mastodon has, but not all clients show this stuff. Voyager is probably the best Lemmy/Piefed client that basically has no support for profile details.
One of the things that bug me about Fediverse is that the amount of profile features varies so much between the services and it's kinda inconsistent too.
I feel like I joined Reddit so long ago that I can't really remember the sign up process but I do dimly seem to remember that I had to unsubscribe from a bunch of stuff your default subscribe to because it was all garbage.
So probably what happened is they only advertised it in the stupid subs like that one where they still think lol catz is peak humour.
Honestly they're leaving money on the table by not doing this. They have a horde of mindless whales that are physically unable to stop themselves from buying the Golden LaSnooSnoo and posting about making it "moon", the place is crypto bro idiot headquarters
Reddit already got on my bad side when they got rid of their Public Access TV thing, the only good idea they've had in years; removing 3rd party apps was the last straw for me.
Blows my mind that more people didn't leave over that. I was expecting a mass exodus, a la Digg.
I wasn't expecting say, a mass exodus. But I was certainly surprised at how few people made the jump. Unsurprisingly, a lot of the best content creators and bot defenders didn't continue using reddit, so the quality dropped like a stone.
A BOOX device is basically an Android tablet with an eye-friendly e-ink screen. The nice part is that you can install whatever book store you want on it, you can get the Kindle, the Kobo, Libby for library books, Moon+ Reader, or any other reading app you want. You're not locked into one ecosystem.
The other thing is that BOOX devices are for writing and productivity, not just reading. They have stylus support and fantastic note-taking apps built in. So you can mark up a PDF, take meeting notes, or split the screen to have a book open on one side and your notes on the other.
So, while a typical ebook vendor gives you a closed device to consume their content, BOOX gives you an open, flexible tool that you can use anyway you like.
I hate articles about market success but I love my boox device... it's sooo much better than the alternatives it's not even close. It's a pity their tablets are becoming more expensive.
My partner has a BOOX and loves it. I still like my Kobo, but I admit that the BOOX is pretty neat with all the other stuff it can do since it has android.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) joins Meet the Press to respond to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ words about him in her new book — questioning whether he had been tested on the national stage — and weighs in on whether she should run for president a…
Our steadfast people, this stage represents an opportunity to enhance social solidarity within the Gaza Strip by supporting affected families, securing the necessities of daily life and activating frameworks of cooperation between factions, society and relevant local and international institutions, creating a resilient and unified environment capable of facing all challenges and preserving our people’s steadfastness.
We renew the call for unity and national responsibility, to embark on a unified national political path with all powers and factions. We are working in cooperation with gracious Egyptian efforts to hold an urgent and comprehensive national meeting for the next step after the ceasefire to unify the Palestinian position, formulate a comprehensive national strategy and rebuild our national institutions on the foundations of partnership, credibility and transparency.
We also stress our categorical rejection of any foreign guardianship and affirm that determining the form of governance for the Gaza Strip and the foundations of its institutions’ work is an internal Palestinian matter to be jointly decided by the national components of our people. We are prepared to benefit from Arab and international participation in the areas of reconstruction, recovery and development support, in a way that promotes a dignified life for our people and preserves their rights to their land.
In conclusion, at this decisive historical moment, we renew our loyalty to the martyrs, prisoners, wounded and resistance fighters. We affirm our unwavering adherence to our people’s rights to their land, homeland, holy sites and dignity and our insistence on continuing the resistance in all its forms until all our rights are achieved, foremost among them the removal of the occupation, self-determination and the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent state with Al-Quds as its capital.
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — the three powers — issued a joint statement on Oct. 10, 2025, posted by Resistance News Network.
We're excited to announce that Loops now federates with the fediverse. After months of development, ActivityPub support has officially entered beta. Your loops can now travel across the open social web.
I tried searching for @loops.video users on three separate mastodon instances and the only ones that pop up are the "official" accounts (@dansup@loops.video and @loops.video@loops.video).
Anyone else have better luck federating with loops?
When Iran struck a series of targets in the heart of north Tel Aviv with ballistic missiles on June 13, Israeli authorities immediately cordoned off the area to prevent journalists from filming the damage. “The building on this compound was just hit,” Trey Yingst of Fox News reported as he arrived that evening at the site of HaKirya, Israel’s Defense Ministry headquarters, and the nearby Azrieli Center. But within seconds, Israeli police officers arrived to aggressively shunt Yingst away from where he was standing, just north of the HaKirya Bridge on the west side of Menachem Begin Road.
That day, Iranian missiles struck the north tower of the Da Vinci apartment complex roughly 550 meters southwest of Yingst’s location. The Grayzone has determined that the building sits immediately south of the “Canarit” / “Kannarit” Israeli Air Force towers and above an underground military intelligence bunker jointly administered by the US and Israeli militaries. According to an analysis of leaked emails, public documents, and Israeli news reports, the location is host to a highly secretive, electromagnetically shielded intelligence facility known as “Site 81.”
Israel aggressively censors information relating to its urban military and intelligence facilities while simultaneously accusing its adversaries of engaging in ‘human shielding’ – a practice of protecting military targets with civilian populations that is prohibited by international humanitarian law. While the existence of a U.S. Army project to expand Site 81 to a 6,000 square-meter facility was widely reported from government records circa 2013, the specific location remained unknown.
Everyone in the corporate press is framing China's rare earth controls as just another trade war escalation. They're missing the point entirely, probably on purpose. China is directly dismantling the US war machine's supply chain.
The US has been burning through its weapons stockpiles in proxy wars for years. Now, just as the Pentagon desperately needs to rebuild, China moves to restrict the very materials needed to make advanced weapons like F-35 jets, missiles, drones, you name it. China controls over 90% of the global supply for this stuff, and restricting output is a strategic move to defang the imperial core.
And the beautiful part is how they're doing it. They're using the US's own playbook of "national security" export controls, highlighting the blatant hypocrisy. They're not even doing a full ban, just forcing licenses that will block military use. So all the hand-wringing in Washington is pure theater. They're angry because their ability to produce weapons for future interventions in Venezuela or Iran is being critically hampered.
We're seeing a fundamental shift here. China insulated its own supply chains first, and is now using its economic sovereignty to challenge US military dominance at its weakest point. They're actively constraining the empire's capacity for violence. This is a win for global peace, and the panic in the imperial press proves it.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
We're seeing a fundamental shift here. China insulated its own supply chains first, and is now using its economic sovereignty to challenge US military dominance at its weakest point. They're actively constraining the empire's capacity for violence. This is a win for global peace, and the panic in the imperial press proves it.
Let's hope they follow through and deliver. I'm not confident they won't accept some trade concessions and withdraw these export controls.
Expanding on the Finnish President's remarks at the UN General Assembly, this is one way China is seeking to gain greater leverage as the next world order takes shape within the next 10-20 years or so.
Which country benefits from this the most? Russia. Which country suffers the most? Ukraine.
That said, if China wants the US to become a rare earths giant, this is the way. The oil crisis of the 1970's and 1980's created the economic conditions needed for American oil to become a dominating industry.
Ukraine relies on US, UK, France, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Canada, and a bunch of other countries to survive and repel the unjust invader Russia. China doesn't want Russia to lose but also doesn't want them to win. Too much money to be made by Chinese businesses profiting by the unjust invasion. Plus, it'll be terribly convenient for them if the US is distracted when China invades Taiwan.
Good job listing US vassals there kiddo. What China actually doesn't want is for NATO to turn Russia into China's Ukraine and start surrounding China from the west. Also, not sure how China would invade a province of China there champ. the days of wasps playing world police are over.
Yes, because we are going to cross 11 time zones to setup in western China when the logistics of that area make trade between Russia & China difficult when they are on good terms. Before anything else, the US military is a logistics organization and your fantasy is quite unrealistic. I doubt China fears any such thing, knowing that what you suggest is entirely unrealistic.
You're such an utter ignoramus. Here are all the Burger Reich bases that are already surrounding China. Everybody with even a minimally functioning brain understands that you chuds would do exactly the same in Russia if you got your way.
Meanwhile, RAND literally publishes policy papers on how you chuds plan to attack China.
You may have noticed that all these military bases are easily supplied through naval support. My prior comment was about supply lines. You are never going to get reliable supply lines for American military through 11 time zones of difficult to transit Russian territory. Your map is also a bit bogus. There's no military base in Pakistan. A small one operated until 2017, to support troops in Afghanistan, but was not sustainable. There's never been a US military base inside India.
Yes, China has the geopolitical challenge of US bases in the Pacific. These are easily resupplied and support supply chains. It should also be noted that US military presence does not harm China's ability to conduct trade, execute domestic policy, or retain her sovereignty. China gripes about US "freedom of seas" navigations, because China has naval claims nobody else recognizes, but that's not a problem any other nation on the globe cares about.
You may have noticed that if Russia was balkanized as this RAND paper suggests, then the military bases in the new puppet states could be easily supplied through Europe. Claiming that supplying bases across the ocean is easier than across land is the height of idiocy by the way.
Also, weird how China is geopolitical challenge for the Burger Reich half way across the world from the Burger Reich. Maybe you chuds should just stay home and mind your own fucking business. It is also obvious that the US wants to have the ability blockade China's trade and has openly written policy papers detailing that.
The original point was that China will not allow Russia to fall because they know full well what you fuckheadsd want, and you're not gonna get it.
I'm saying western capital made a fuckton of money with the proxy war in Ukraine. NATO is a very profitable market for weapons producers. And in fact since 2022 Rheinmetall, palantir, etc exploded in stock price because the EU is spending 100s of billions of Eur on defense.
The money that you claim that Chinese Business make in order to draw a apparently their interest in the war is just projection. Actually it's in Chinas interest to stop the war because China is both Russias and Ukraines biggest trading partner and it's disrupting trade.
Amid report after report of increasingly aggressive tactics used by federal immigration enforcement, a pair of Portland medical workers say that an agent threatened to shoot them as they tried to transport an injured protester last week.
According to publicly archived dispatch records reported by Willamette Week, an ambulance crew was attempting to transport a protester with a broken or dislocated collarbone from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in southern Portland on October 5.
The facility has been a flashpoint in recent weeks as the site of several small but persistent protests, which the Trump administration has attempted to characterize as violent provocations by “antifa” in order to justify its deployment of military troops.
Amid report after report of increasingly aggressive tactics used by federal immigration enforcement, a pair of Portland medical workers say that an agent threatened to shoot them as they tried to transport an injured protester last week.
According to publicly archived dispatch records reported by Willamette Week, an ambulance crew was attempting to transport a protester with a broken or dislocated collarbone from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in southern Portland on October 5.
The facility has been a flashpoint in recent weeks as the site of several small but persistent protests, which the Trump administration has attempted to characterize as violent provocations by “antifa” in order to justify its deployment of military troops.
NEW YORK — Leaders of Young Republican groups throughout the country worried what would happen if their Telegram chat ever got leaked, but they kept typing anyway.
They referred to Black people as monkeys and “the watermelon people” and mused about putting their political opponents in gas chambers. They talked about raping their enemies and driving them to suicide and lauded Republicans who they believed support slavery.
I'd love to say this surprises me, but it does not in the slightest.
The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas on Tuesday accused Israel of violating the ceasefire agreement after several residents of the Gaza Strip were killed in Israeli strikes and gunfire, according to multiple Palestinian media outlets.
Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said the Israeli army’s actions constituted “a clear violation of the ceasefire,” following reports of civilian deaths in different parts of Gaza.
“The Israeli occupation army’s killing of a number of Gaza Strip residents this morning through shelling and gunfire is a violation of the ceasefire agreement,” Qassem said, as quoted by the Quds News Network. He called on mediators to monitor Israel’s conduct and “prevent it from evading its commitments to end the war on the Gaza Strip.”
The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas on Tuesday accused Israel of violating the ceasefire agreement after several residents of the Gaza Strip were killed in Israeli strikes and gunfire, according to multiple Palestinian media outlets.
Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said the Israeli army’s actions constituted “a clear violation of the ceasefire,” following reports of civilian deaths in different parts of Gaza.
“The Israeli occupation army’s killing of a number of Gaza Strip residents this morning through shelling and gunfire is a violation of the ceasefire agreement,” Qassem said, as quoted by the Quds News Network. He called on mediators to monitor Israel’s conduct and “prevent it from evading its commitments to end the war on the Gaza Strip.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed he believes that the call to "internationalise the intifada" is a "call to attack Jewish communities around the world".
Conservative MP Julian Lewis asked Starmer in parliament on Tuesday afternoon whether he accepted that there was no possible interpretation of "internationalise the intifada" other than as "a call to attack Jewish communities around the world".
Lewis seemed to be referring to the popular chant "globalise the intifada", often used at pro-Palestine protests. Starmer replied: "There's no other interpretation." He added that he was glad Lewis had raised the point.
Pro-Palestine activists have strongly denied that "globalise the intifada" is antisemitic or a call for violence, and British Jews have been prominent in pro-Palestine marches in the UK.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed he believes that the call to "internationalise the intifada" is a "call to attack Jewish communities around the world".
Conservative MP Julian Lewis asked Starmer in parliament on Tuesday afternoon whether he accepted that there was no possible interpretation of "internationalise the intifada" other than as "a call to attack Jewish communities around the world".
Lewis seemed to be referring to the popular chant "globalise the intifada", often used at pro-Palestine protests. Starmer replied: "There's no other interpretation." He added that he was glad Lewis had raised the point.
Pro-Palestine activists have strongly denied that "globalise the intifada" is antisemitic or a call for violence, and British Jews have been prominent in pro-Palestine marches in the UK.
Support us at https://www.turnleftmedia.co.uk/support
-------
Turn Left is part of the Independent Media Association
Official Turn Left Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/TurnLeftMediaUK
Nice. NATO is an offensive alliance responsible for the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and more, all by using lies as pretenses for their invasion.
Can't see this being a popular move with the majority of the population while Russia keeps antagonising Europe and the US being so temperamental right now.
A European army is a far more sensible move than NATO. The US is an extremely unreliable partner. If Russia acually invades EU (which it won't because the EU already spends 4x more money on military than Russia right now) you can bet America will sit back and call it a day or do some top tier blackmail in exchange for helping.
What's the difference though? It would essentially be the same thing as NATO just without the US and Canada. We'd still have the same commitments. Canada is a reliable partner and it's only really Trumps reign where the US has been a bit weird but ultimately it's still a huge strength to have the US within the pact.
Europe’s most senior human rights official has urged the British government to review its protest laws over the recent proscription of Palestine Action as a terror organisation.
Michael O'Flaherty, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, said in a letter to British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood that the UK's legal framework allows authorities to "impose excessive limits on freedom of assembly and expression, and risk overpolicing".
His intervention comes after Middle East Eye revealed last month that four times as many people had been charged in the UK under Section 13 counterterrorism powers since Palestine Action was proscribed in July as during the entire "war on terror" since 2001.
this week’s fediverse news:
- a closer look at the Tumblr-like platform Wafrn, which connects to both activitypub and atproto. Their latest update allows people to migrate their #bluesky account to wafrn, joining the fediverse while staying connected to t
this week's fediverse news: - a closer look at the Tumblr-like platform Wafrn, which connects to both activitypub and atproto. Their latest update allows people to migrate their #bluesky account to wafrn, joining the fediverse while staying connected to their bluesky network - Loops is getting closer to joining the fediverse
WeDistribute has published an extensive overview and review of Wafrn, the Tumblr-like platform that is both on the fediverse as well as on ATProto. Wafrn is a unique platform in the open social web, and it is the first and only platform that fully integrates both protocols. The name Wafrn explains the tone of the project well: it stands for ‘We Allow Female Representing Nipples’, which is a reference to the language Tumblr used when they banned porn. Because Wafrn natively integrates both protocols, there is no bridging involved like there is with Bridgy Fed, and a Wafrn account connects with all accounts on both networks, although the ATProto features are somewhat limited and not all implemented. Wafrn also recently released a new feature to migrate your Bluesky account to a Wafrn server. This gives another option for people who are looking to move away from Bluesky and are interested in the fediverse, without having to give up their connection to the rest of the Bluesky network.
Short-form video platform Loops has announced it is joining the fediverse. In an announcement post, creator Daniel Supernault explains that Loops has now implemented support for ActivityPub. The marketing on Loops and the fediverse was always a bit fuzzy, while it was advertised as a fediverse platform, the actual fediverse integration was still in development. With this update, Loops is now using ActivityPub. However, this does not go for the main Loops server, Loops.video, just yet, as Supernault says that he is “working on an updated app build that supports the new APIs and other servers besides just the hardcoded loops.video server!” Supernault says that this will happen ‘this week’, although the project has missed deadlines before. Still, for those people who are self-hosting a Loops server, the code for federation is now indeed available.
In the update, Supernault also talks about some of the technical design choices that he’s made for federation with Loops. Loops servers use the ‘Note’ content type to send out the videos. This means that a Loops video is effectively quite similar to a microblog made on a platform like Mastodon or Misskey, which also use the ‘Note’ type. Most platforms indeed use ‘Note’, as this allows for compatibility with Mastodon. ActivityPub allows for a wide variety of content types (called Activities, which is where the protocol gets its name from), but in practice most platforms fall back to ‘Note’, even when other types (like ‘video’ for Loops) would make more sense. It indicates one of the challenges of the open-ended nature of how ActivityPub works: the protocol allows for a diverse set of Activities, but in practice it is more beneficial for most platforms to fall back to a single type, that all other platforms also use.
An excellent overview of last week’s FediForum by Richard MacManus for The New Stack. MacManus covers the keynote speech, as well as some of the products that were demoed at the event: alternative app store AltStore, how you can now move your Mastodon account to Bluesky with Bounce, as well as two platforms currently in development that are getting close to release: the privacy-focused photo sharing app Frequency, and the monetisation platform CrowdBucks.
Pandacap is a single-user artwork gallery and feed reading platform, that supports a wide range of protocols. It supports ActivityPub, ATProto, RSS. It also has the option to crosspost your image posts and text posts to attached DeviantArt, Fur Affinity, or Weasyl accounts. Pandacap does not have a timeline like most platform, instead opting for a design that centers around an inbox, similar to feed reading apps for RSS. Pandacap has been around for a bit, but I had completely missed it and don’t think I had ever covered it before.
PeerTube is now officially recognised as a Digital Public Good. A digital public good recognized by the Digital Public Goods Alliance is an open-source resource that uses approved open licenses and demonstrably supports at least one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). For PeerTube this means that it contributes to SDG 9, which aims to “significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries. PeerTube also contributes to the SDG for developing “effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels” and ensuring “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”
Fedify, the ActivityPub server framework that secured two sources of funding last week, has a major new update, with security enhancements, improved DX, and expanded framework support.
An extensive interview with the creators of event planning app Mobilizon. Mobilizon got created by Framasoft, the organisation who also builds PeerTube. Framasoft saw the project as completed, and handed the further development over to Kaihuri, a small French organisation who also runs one of the most active Mobilizon instances. The Project Libres podcast interviews Alexandra, one of the two people behind Kaihuri, in French, but a transcript in English is available.
The Solo Instance Problem – a PeerTube video by FediHost in which they talk about some of the challenges for self-hosting a solo instance for the fediverse.
The Social Web Foundation talks with Ghost CEO John O’Nolan about Ghost 6 and ActivityPub.
DiscoverFedi.app is a new site that lets you explore other instance’s timelines in various manners, with an accompanying blog post explaining the project.
Yes, I’ve still got four tracks left to construct for my next album that’ll be releasing here in a few weeks. Don’t worry! I feel like I can get it done.
We're excited to announce that Loops now federates with the fediverse. After months of development, ActivityPub support has officially entered beta. Your loops can now travel across the open social web.
Neat! Been meaning to flesh out my social media usage to other federated platforms, and hopefully not be so reliant on Lemmy in general. So far, only on Lemmy, but want to join Pixelfed, Mastodon, etc, just not sure where to make an account.
I've been trying Mastodon for as long as Lemmy but it's not nearly as good due to the "who to follow" problem and the lack of ability to sort a topic by amount of interaction. E.g. can sub to say #Canada but within that, there's no good way to surface highly faved or replied-to posts. The upcoming Starter Packs should help a lot because you'd be able to follow bunch people who tend to discuss some topic, which means you'd get the more active posts in your feed by means of those people intercting with it. It doesn't replace the need for sorting algos but it addresses the problem partially. Perhaps it would be good enough. Circles (same concept) worked wonders in Google+.
For Mastodon, I'd recommend just joining any large instance that's been around for a while. You can always move accounts if you decide on a different one later. Mastodon makes it pretty easy, and can automatically notify your followers if you hop to a different one. You can also run your own with masto.host for like 6 bucks a month. I'm on pixelfed.social, and been pretty happy with it.
I know todon.nl is a good leftist instance for mastodon. hachyderm.io is general but nice admin team; and wetdry.world is general purpose and has a really modified (and fun!) fork of mastodon, and I vaguely recall seeing a couple Marxists there.
That's AFAIK for mastodon. I'm not sure about the rest since I only use lemmy, piefed and matrix as my socials anyway, and even that's a stretch lol.
Radical leftist anti-authoritarian. For anarchists, socialists, (climate) activists, LGBTQIA+, anti-racists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists, intersectionalists, human rights, animal rights, etc. Anno 2017.
Thanks, I'll add them to the list to check out! I've also seen matopacos.dog, hosted by a Hexbear user, so that's another I have my eye on.
Yea, right now I only use Lemmy, and YouTube if you count that (though only as a watcher). Having content that isn't as focused on discussion might help me balance my social media usage more, I hope!
Also, love the New Vegas pfp, one of my favorite games of all time.
I tried searching for @loops.video users on three separate mastodon instances and the only ones that pop up are the "official" accounts (@dansup@loops.video and @loops.video@loops.video).
Anyone else have better luck federating with loops?
That's just how the fediverse works. Your instance only know accounts from other instances by boosting or directly searching for them. Not seeing most accounts from newly federated instances is by design.
I did also try directly searching for accounts from loops, i.e. @eickertv@loops.video and Rudygardea@loops.video, and neither of those popped up either.
n3m37h
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •Liberal and communism are left ideals...
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to n3m37h • • •like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Comrade1917
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •causepix
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •They are when your definition of a liberal is material rather than aesthetic.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •MeowZedong
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Please go engage with a leftist organization in real life. You'll quickly see how wrong this is. Arguing on the Internet is rarely productive and it's obvious you haven't engaged with leftist literature. If you want to make these sweeping accusations, do yourself a favor and go see the reality of the situation.
Most of the people you are arguing against have been involved in both liberal and socialist organizations. They aren't pulling their information from nowhere.
AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •You eat with your mouth and poop with your but
....JUST LIKE HITLER
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •"hur dur lol cope"
Shut up stupid
"HEY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT EFFORT IN YOUR REPLIES SO I CAN LOOK AT THEM AND FEEL SMUG WITHOUT AN ARTICULABLE REASON WHY"
No seriously. You're a fucking idiot. Shut the fuck up.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Jesus come on. Stop coping.
I'm not the stupid one here.
Bring something of substance.
You're the same as bad thing.
You don't speak intelligently you only speak with your feelings.
Lol u mad.
Look at my responses and look at yours.
Look at them.
BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to BrainInABox • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Saymaz
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Saymaz
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •like this
TVA likes this.
SpaceNoodle
in reply to ∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name] • • •Comrade_Spood
in reply to SpaceNoodle • • •Dude do you even know what liberal means?
Liberalism is an ideology founded in a few core principles. Capitalism and the right to own property, the power of the government originating from the masses rather than god, and inalienable rights for its citizens.
You guys are the ones redefining old words cause you don't like the idea of not being considered leftist anymore. The overton window has shifted since the 1700s, yall are centrists now.
like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Comrade_Spood • • •Comrade_Spood
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •We aren't saying there aren't different kinds of liberals, what we are trying to tell you is that liberalism is not a left wing ideology anymore. It is centrist and anti-communist. Yes you have left leaning liberals and right leaning. But that still only makes yall center-left and center-right.
Leftists issues with liberals is because liberals, no matter what are pro-capitalist and anti-communist. Communists are anti-property and liberals are pro-property. Yes a leftist has more in common with a left leaning liberal than they do a right leaning liberal, but that does not make their interests aligned. Historically anytime liberals and communists team up, communists get backstabbed. And more often than not, it never even gets to teaming up. Historically, liberals are the ones to team up with authoritarians to crush communists.
And I'm an anarchist. I trust Marxist communists just about as much as I do liberals. That is to say not much. And I have more interests aligned with a Marxist than I do a liberal
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Comrade_Spood • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Comrade_Spood • • •😢
Comrade_Spood
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Hey I don't trust yall, but I still give yall the opportunity to prove me wrong (and so far I have been proven wrong by some individuals, so its not impossible). Same as I do with a liberal. I'm just prepared to get backstabbed.
Unfortunately the difference between anarchists and Marxists (pro-state or anti-state) seems to be a disagreement that ends in anarchists getting betrayed, disenfranchized, and shot. So I gotta stay diligent cause I'd rather learn from history rather than repeat it.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Comrade_Spood • • •Historically, it hasn't really been the case that Marxists have hunted down anarchists for having anarchist beliefs. What normally happens is Marxists wage war ideologically on anarchism, and some anarchists take up arms or form cells to oppose the socialist state the Marxists have set up. The anarchists have historically had far more agency than simply being hunted down, and in many cases anarchists have worked alongside Marxists for mutual benefit.
Just wanted to give you fresh perspective.
Comrade_Spood
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I aint saying anarchists dont have agency, but its because Marxists insist on it being their way or the highway and use positions of power to disenfranchize anarchists. Anarchists obviously do not like this and resist. That is not the anarchists fault. It wasnt the CNT-FAI's fault for not wanting to disband their militias and integrate them into the Spanish Republican military structure, and it wasn't the Kronstadt Rebellion's fault for wanting the worker's soviets and freedom of speech to be brough back after Lenin centralized control to the Bolshevik party. And it certainly wasn't the Ukrainian Black Army's fault when Trotsky decided they had no use for them anymore and turned the rifle on them. Anarchists and marxists have and still do work together, the issue is the relationship is not built on mutual respect and cooperation. Marxists seem to see anarchists as a tool, that when its use is no longer needed, is expected to go back to the drawer and sit quietly while the marxists take over.
I definitely could see a situation where marxists and anarchists could cooperate on a mutual and equal level. I just do not expect it to happen.
Personally I would want protections for anarchists to freely establish anarchist organized communes and other organizations like workplaces that are independent and autonomous from the marxist state. The two would still share resources and have open borders, but the two would be free to manage their own internal affairs. To me this meets anarchist principles of free association, and still allows for a marxist state to exist. Plus I feel it would meet the marxist's principle of a transitionary state. The marxist state pops up, and the state would wither away to a stateless, classless, and moneyless society as people transition to the autonomous anarchist communes.
Do I think this would work? Possibly. Do I think an agreement like that would ever be made? No, not likely. The anarchists would still have the threat of being betrayed, and maybe even possibly the anarchists try to betray the marxist state. It would be an uneasy dynamic. And historically, marxists have shown they don't want to make room for anarchists. But unless some sort of guarantee and protections were to be placed for anarchists in some way, I don't see anarchists and marxists to ever get along.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Comrade_Spood • • •Kronstadt wasn't an anarchist revolt, nor was it about "freedom of speech," it was a group of sailors that wanted privledged positions that destabilized the war effort that was led by a Tsarist that later joined the white army, Stepan Petrichenko.
Either way, I think the biggest struggle is that the ends are not the same at all, which is a common misconception. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primary about collectivization of production.
When I say "communalization," I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity's cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx's beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
Comrade_Spood
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Anarchists see the state as another system of class. A socialist state does not create a classless society, it changes the class dynamic from capitalists and workers to bureaucrats and workers. The workers themselves do not own the means of production and have to answer to the politicians and bureaucrats that manage the means of production.
And if that is your perspective then I do not see how anarchists and marxists could ever cooperate, as you said our goals are not aligned. Which is to say I do not see how you could be surprised by anarchists not trusting marxists. Doesnt sound like we have enough in common from your perspective to work together without one of us betraying the other.
Also no the Kronstadt Rebellion was an anarchist revolt, freedom of the press and speech for socialists including anarchists was one of the demands of the rebellion and so was bringing back the workers soviets that Lenin got rid of, among other things that, to me, are just asking for a more democratic and free system that doesnt centralize all the power to one party. The link I attached is the demands of the rebellion and it has nothing like you speak of.
soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/k…
Demands of the Kronstadt Insurgents
Seventeen Moments in Soviet HistoryCowbee [he/they]
in reply to Comrade_Spood • • •Administration is not a class, just as managers at companies are not owners. Collectivized production and distribution has equal ownership, but also contains administrators, foremen, etc as are necessary for global, interconnected production and distribution.
As for Marxists and anarchists working together, we share capitalists as a common enemy, and can work together as such. Right now, imperialism is the highest contradiction, so we share common interest in the downfall of the US Empire.
Returning to Kronstadt, in the context of a bloody and brutal civil war against a dozen invading capitalist nations and a strong Tsarist white army, their demands were suicide for the socialists:
They wanted the bolsheviks to be stopped, and tie their hands and let the Tsarists and capitalists win. This was absolutely suicidal. Further, Lenin did not disband the soviets, the point raised by the sailors was that they "didn't represent the will of the people:"
They wanted the bolsheviks disbanded, and replaced by SRs, mensheviks, anarchists, etc. The soviets were there, they just didn't like how they were made up.
Further, they were led by a council containing Stepan Petrichenko, who claimed to be an "anarcho-syndicalist" but officially joined the Tsarist White Army a year after his failed terrorist attack. In addition, 2 former capitalists were included in the council, and they arrested 300 communists in their mutiny.
I really don't think you want to claim this as genuinely anarchist.
Comrade_Spood
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Yes we have a common enemy, and I never said we shouldn't work together to fight it. But that cooperation to me is coming with a ten foot pole cause I know that as soon as it stops being advantageous I'll be stepped on
I do not agree those demands would have been suicide, and I ain't claiming Stepan is a perfect individual. I definitely think he made stupid decisions. But it is incorrect that he officially joined the white army. He tried to, but was denied because of his former Bolshevik affiliation. Plus he ended up coming back to the soviet union and joined the Red Army Intelligence Agency, which is something else I criticize him for along side trying to join the White Army. I do not hold any anarchist on a pedestal just because they are anarchist. Proudhon was a piece of shit, and Bakunin was an antisemite. They are flawed people and exactly why I am an anarchist. Because anarchism does not rely on people being perfect as it doesnt allow anyone to hold power over anyone else.
Lastly, soviets ruled by only bolsheviks is not a soviet, thats a one party system and yes does not properly represent the workers like the Kronstadt stated.
In any event I wish to move on. I will say this was a more pleasant debate than I usually have with marxists, so thank you for that. Ciao comrade, I will be expecting your boot when the day comes lol
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Comrade_Spood • • •According to Paul Avrich, Petrichenko was denied in his attempt before Kronstadt, but was allowed in May, under general Pyotr Wrangel. My point is not to say that anarchists are bad people or anything, but that the Kronstadt mutiny was hardly anarchist, it was clearly opportunist in nature. The Spanish anarchists were real anarchists.
As for the soviets, they were democratic. Getting rid of a unitary democracy based on social cohesion and common interest over competing parties and outlawing bolshevik representation is both antidemocratic and horribly flawed in the context of a bloody civil war where the bolsheviks were the most supported group. Had the mutiny succeeded, the lack of cohesion would have led to the socialists getting trounced by fascists near-instantly.
All in all though, good luck yourself. I have no intention of being a "boot," I want a better world for everyone, where we as a society can collectively produce and distrubute according to a common plan for the good of all. Basically Star Trek.
mathemachristian[he]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •Let's start with if you can recognize this is something that occurs in the first place.
Do you remember www.reddit.com/r/walkaway/
mathemachristian[he]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •I believe .ml is just another form of it with "liberals are right politically"
The purpose of .ml is to create views and opinions alternate and divide the left. It's a toxic place with more support than should be warranted by it's values.
mathemachristian[he]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •Jentu
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Sure looks like the left has been growing in numbers from my time in leftist orgs. I'm also not sure the likelihood of the heritage foundation taking a chance on accidentally initiating Black Panthers 2.0 in the US.
Just because you don't agree with people on this platform, you should probably understand that lemmy, a place that can't be swayed by an algorithm controlled by billionaires, and notably created by communist developers, would attract other communists here. You came into our space questioned our legitimacy here. The fuck
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Jentu • • •Lol oh yea, you guys are black Panther 2.0
Come on. You're a poison pill not a black Panther.
Jentu
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Jentu • • •mathemachristian[he]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •Do you think groups on the right were behind things like walkaway and bernbros?
Astroturfing is when groups deceptively create content in digital spaces to manipulate and influence those spaces to believe a movement or initiative is derived from a grassroots or organic origin. The goal is to move the group whatever the vested interest wants them to be.
I bet you were going to argue Lemmy isn't on anyone's radar because it's so small and we're all just super grass roots and organic.
mathemachristian[he]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Behind walkaway absolutely:
The bernie movement was notably organic with a lot of volunteer activity and not astroturfed. That's why the nomination going to Hillary was such a big upset.
The main developers of lemmy are funded by individual donations and the instances largely as well. The only exception I think of is lemmy.world if I remember correctly. Precisely which organisations do you think are astroturfing on lemmy?
- YouTube
www.youtube.comgoferking (he/him)
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to SpaceNoodle • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to ∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Comrade1917
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •😆 .ml
There's the issue
BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Saymaz
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •What is this?
Do you like r/thr_donald? Does not liking them invalidate your criticism for them.
Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •So you do think those things are meant to bend left not are actually left positions?
Really aren't making any sense in this thread
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •I think it's similar to how immigration is maintained as a key target on the right. It's a right leaning issue. On the right the topic of immigration is made out to be a bigger issue than it is. Because it serves a purpose to pass new laws and actions that people normally wouldn't support.
You need to think about it for even a minute. The right have a lot of invested interest groups online. The left do not. There is a lot of money being used to push messages and ideas across the Internet. Lemmy isn't a tiny digital space. These groups that target Reddit are going to be here on lemmy. They don't target moderate Lemmy they go for the dumb radicals. The ones with more passion than brains. That is .ml
So these issues are left positions in the same way immigration concerns are a right leaning issue. But they're strategic left issues that when pushed serve the goals of the invested interest more than it helps the left. Places like .ml are being groomed to become the poison pill for the next election cycle. They're drip feeding them right now. It'll ratchet up over time.
goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Again pointing out how silly that assumption is especially when on world.
I can't understand if can't see the hypocrisy or just don't care because it fits your view
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to goferking (he/him) • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •So it's trump supporters Astros Turfing?
None of this makes sense
Saymaz
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •*comments on a com at lemmy.ml
*complains about a user having a lemmy.ml account
True shitlib moment!
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •"Bad People tricked you into thinking that way" is such a shit way of engaging anyone politically.
It simultaneously serves to call the audience stupid and insert some nebulous outside agency as the scapegoat for failing to make your own case.
Like, if you want to rally people to all agree you fucking suck, there's really no better way than to go to every individual group and say "I'm right, its obvious, and you're just too dumb to notice."
like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •Didn't answer what I asked. Being stupid is ignoring a question like this because of ego
And I don't want to rally people. I'm honestly giving up on the left. I've watched them slash tires to protest ... Cars. I've seen them defend blocking traffic even when we see how counter productive it is when it always produces footage of regular folks and emergency vehicles getting delayed. I've watched them Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I have seen zero effective strategies. But now I'm tired and things I wouldn't call it I'll say it now because I'm so fucking done watching people not realize this stuff. It's walkaway 2.0
I've watched the left turn into something that is extremely toxic. There's no social awareness. If you think what I'm saying is toxic or lacking in social awareness congratulations, that's the strategy the left uses every single day now. There's no effort, no consistency day to day other than areas that divide. It's an ideology about burning bridges and purity tests
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Bro, what?
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Lol. Maybe try projecting less hard
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I mean, you gotta define your spectrum. If you want to get French with it, the Monarchists are on the right and the Liberals are on the Left. The communists won't really exist for another fifty years (as a European economic school).
Liberalism only exists "on the right-wing" in the modern era thanks to over a century of Socialist nation building. Even then, the very term is muddled by decades of fascist rebranding - first as Anarcho-Capitalists and then as National Socialists and then as Neo-Conservatives and then as Neo-Liberals and now in a return to White Nationalism - with "liberal" being embraced or rejected in turns as our corporate media needed it to be.
As a case in point, I challenge you to tell me whether liberals are libertarian. In Europe and Asia, they functionally are. In the Americas, they couldn't be further from it in mainstream politics.
The political spectrum is full of double-speak. "Liberal" is a textbook case. It can mean anything and nothing.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •like this
Maeve e TVA like this.
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •That's the economic angle. But it also promises a host of libertarian social reforms included within the free market system. What's more, liberalism isn't just an attempt to yank socialists back from their economic progressivism. They're often efforts to balkinize the power base of local dictatorships and feudal aristocracies.
The original liberals were trying to break up the Old World feudal system, establish economic mobility through cross-border trade, and secularize states that had historically been married to a single branch of a particular religion. All of that was incredibly left-wing from the perspective of the theocrats and monarchists.
Hell, the whole pitch aimed at The Dictatorship of the Proletariat that liberals make is that Socialists/Communists are just Monarchists in disguise. Unipolar parties aren't really democratic. Centrally planned economies aren't really communally owned or beneficial. And atheist leaders are just advancing their lack-of-religion as its own kind of faith.
::: spoiler Are these liberals full of shit?
Yes
:::
But the political spectrum is wide, and they're nowhere near the right-most end of it.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Abrinoxus
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •like this
TVA likes this.
AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •It's not a spectrum
Saymaz
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •The left starts at anti-capitalism, bozo.
Now go read a book.
n3m37h
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Liberalism has been highjacked by conservatism and is actually a left leaning ideology
'In most countries, classical liberalism is thought of as a right-wing ideology, but when classical liberal ideas made their debut, they were thought of as leftist.'
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to n3m37h • • •ceoofanarchism
in reply to n3m37h • • •proper
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •dubyakay
in reply to proper • • •infinitevalence
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
Oppopity
in reply to infinitevalence • • •ceoofanarchism
in reply to infinitevalence • • •infinitevalence
in reply to ceoofanarchism • • •Because it intentionally neglects the harm caused by the Great Leap Forward, or various soviet famines. The statement is designed to deflect attention and responsibility from A to B and use hyperbole to create outrage.
Its possible to argue that both China and the Soviet Union were not actually communism but rather authoritarianism but for the sake of common understanding we will refer to them as they refer(ed) to themselves.
So did millions of people die because of "communism?" the facts say yes.
So do millions of people die because of Capitalism? the facts say yes.
Both are true statements, and using hyperbole and outrage to deflect or minimize one or the other is in bad faith.
AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to infinitevalence • • •This is pure projection. The meme doesn't 'neglect' anything.
Your objection is essentially that you want to label something as 'bad' but not allow the necessary discussion of 'relative to what?'
Your system deliberately murders an order of magnitude more people but we're not allowed to talk about it because you say so and we all give a huge shit what you have to say because you're so well read on the subject lol
infinitevalence
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •We are talking about it, and its not my system its the one I am trapped in, and I still would not want to live in either Russia or China.
I also dont want to live in the US, I want the Star Trek future now, all people have value.
AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to infinitevalence • • •kinda don't give a shit what you have to say in response to my criticism when you aren't going to respond to the criticism at all
you can claim to love all good things and hate all bad things
literally zero bearing on what you said or what I said in response
infinitevalence
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •I think that's because we have a difference of perspective on degrees of bad. I think all deaths caused by capitalism are bad, and equal bad to all the deaths that are the result of authoritarian countries calling themselves communist.
So i fundamentally disagree with the "relative to what" because a life is worth the same regardless of where they live and who they are.
We are able to, and I am talking about the harm, and I am pointing out that this meme is designed to create an emotional response to the 2nd point and not to both points. Thats all, its manipulative and propagandist which makes it in bad faith, and you are welcome to defend either position, I will just disagree.
AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to infinitevalence • • •You want to obscure the larger number because you want the smaller number to look bad. We're not allowed to talk about the larger number. We're not allowed to criticize your side.
So what you just said is a fucking lie, isn't it? If they were equal you would permit both be examined. You would admit that the one with the larger death count is worse. That's the exact opposite of what you're pushing for. Your agenda is at odds with reality.
You don't actually care about people dying. Your actions betray your rhetoric.
And there you go doubling down. Hollow rhetoric sidestepping the actual objection. Cynical. Deliberate.
And I think we can all put together why you disagree (you're a nazi).
infinitevalence
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •Not my side, and no I dont want to diminish the larger number, same as I dont want to diminish the smaller number. People should not have to die for political or economic system to function.
I am examining both, and I am pointing out that the image posted does not examine both, it deliberately attempts to shape the discussion around ignoring self proclaimed communist deaths.
What? I am sorry what actions am i taking that betray my values?
I dont know how you came to the conclusion that I am a Nazi, but I can assure you I am not. I dont want to kill or marginalize any group, and I have actually been working for years to cast off my inherited privilege or use it for reparations.
AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to infinitevalence • • •Only in so far as you mouth the words that you don't support them while rhetorically supporting them.
Yet you are. Belligerently so at this point.
Mind palace baby brain. Once again flattening all context and history to equate a system that literally functions by killing people and one that you wish to paint as equal because mortality continued to exist under it.
If you were doing that out of ignorance one would hope you would have the humility to not dig your heels in so I assume you're doing it deliberately to advocate your side. Because you're a nazi.
You're not betraying your values; you're lying about what your values are.
And I bet you could convince sleepwalkers who aren't paying close attention that you actually mean this shit. But you do indeed want people to die, and you want them to die by the tens of millions each year. That's the functional position you're taking by defending those deaths. And you can't pretend you're not defending them by hiding them behind a curtain while you demonize the alternative that costs fewer lives.
You're a nazi because you want to use violence to defend capitalism. That's pretty much the textbook definition of fascism.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to infinitevalence • • •infinitevalence
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to infinitevalence • • •China has outlawed slavery and forced labor. Capitalists trying to manipulate the media is punished, correct, but that's something widely supported by the people. China is democratic, and the people support their system, because it works:
All states are "authoritarian," in that all are embedded within class struggle and represent the ruling class. Dissent is punished in the US and in China, the difference is that the capitalist class is oppressing workers in the US, while the working class is oppressing capitalists in China.
You owe it to yourself as someone desiring a socialist future to genuinely try to understand the Chinese system, and why it's so widely supported by its people.
infinitevalence
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I have a hard time giving weight to a self reported survey like the one you linked. I dont doubt that people in china feel like they are free, and I suspect that many also ranked their freedom highly because they fear reprisal if they say otherwise.
Many aspects of China are democratic, other parts are not, Xi Jinping is a life time dictator and cannot be replaced by democratic systems. He is an authoritarian and Bourgeoisie, your suggestion that the working class oppresses capitalists is demonstrably false en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_… for example. These were western capitalists treating workers with raw brutality. The CCP was complicit and did not protect their workers because it was seen as generally beneficial to have these manufacturing contracts.
You don't know me, you are making assumptions about my knowledge, experience, and connection to China based on a few responses on lemmy.
I hope China is able to return to the ideals that were espoused through the revolution, and I will cheer if they truly reach a level of equality not yet seen in humanity.
series of deaths in Foxconn City, China
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to infinitevalence • • •It isn't just one survey, it's regularly and repeatedly affirmed that the people of China support their system. Xi is not a dictator and can be removed democratically. He is further not bourgeoisie, he owns no businesses. This is all vibes-based and does not correspond to reality.
As for Foxconn, it sparked widespread protests and backlash, and has been responded to. Even then, the suicide rate at Foxconn was lower than China's overall rate, which is lower than the US's overall rate. China isn't a perfect society, it's the regular and continuous improvement that makes it much better.
You're right, I don't know you. What I do know is informed by the incorrect statements you make, and that shapes the level of knowledge I believe you have.
Studies show strong public support for China’s political system
Jason Hickelinfinitevalence
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •We can disagree on Xi being an authoritarian/dictator, from my perspective and experience he is effectively a dictator.
I was actually happy with some of the improvements made as a result of these suicides but more still needs to be done, and the Uyghurs people are still suffering under the regime.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to infinitevalence • • •infinitevalence
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinpi…
It is a perception that is so common that its on Wikipedia. Its not just vibes, its researchers, journalists, academics, and other organizations that have a similar perspective.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to infinitevalence • • •infinitevalence
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •your hard numbers and studies were based on self reported surveys.
World wide consensus, it could be wrong but I have not seen any evidence that its not. I wont deny that any western source is at risk of bias, that is part of the problem with freedom, people with too much power can buy the stories they want.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to infinitevalence • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to infinitevalence • • •like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
infinitevalence
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •formal fallacy
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Amnesigenic
in reply to infinitevalence • • •goferking (he/him)
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Even BBC doesn't have it as one of their 7 ways to check
bbc.com/future/article/2024070…
Logical fallacies: Seven ways to spot a bad argument
Amanda Ruggeri (BBC)AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to infinitevalence • • •Saymaz
in reply to infinitevalence • • •Yeah, buddy. I agree with you.
(I am also severely historically illiterate.)
Saymaz
in reply to infinitevalence • • •"Both are true."
Motherfucker, did you even see the source of that claim against communism? It comes from a book that counted people who died under British and other European colonialism, the Third Reich soldiers who died in ww2, UN and NATO bombings ordered by the USA, and every war casualty in 20th century wars.
Why are you people so allergic to reading books?
ceoofanarchism
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •小莱卡
in reply to ceoofanarchism • • •MoonMelon
in reply to 小莱卡 • • •Also failure of public works, like a train crash that kills 20 people, means that trains are bad. Clearly this program isn't working and should be privatized. But 20 people killed daily on the highways, well those people are just idiots. Never mind the structural issues.
This message brought to you by the people who stand to benefit and also, by coincidence, own the newspapers.
goferking (he/him)
in reply to MoonMelon • • •☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to 小莱卡 • • •小莱卡
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •ZombiFrancis
in reply to ceoofanarchism • • •RaivoKulli
in reply to ceoofanarchism • • •MeowZedong
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •Rooskie91
in reply to ceoofanarchism • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to Rooskie91 • • •Sitting alone in the highest tower of your mind palace, curtains drawn, coming up with things that happened in the outside world through pure wisdom and common sense
"What exactly am I talking about?" you say, "Well isn't it obvious?! Everybody knows!"
"communists hate science after all!" you add after a moment's pause.
ShinkanTrain
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •Anarcho-Bolshevik
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •KimBongUn420
in reply to Rooskie91 • • •turdcollector69
in reply to Rooskie91 • • •p3n
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •KimBongUn420
in reply to p3n • • •p3n
in reply to KimBongUn420 • • •KimBongUn420
in reply to p3n • • •But_my_mom_says_im_cool
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
Amnesigenic
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •But_my_mom_says_im_cool
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •I actually lived under a communist regime, i didn’t grow up in American stupidity and comfort. I actually lived your dream communism and it sucked. Don’t mean I like capitalism
Amnesigenic
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •But_my_mom_says_im_cool
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Amnesigenic
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •ShinkanTrain
in reply to Amnesigenic • • •Could it be that the imperialist puppet sending death squads has something to do with things being bad?
No, it's the communists who are bad
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •☂️-
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •ThunderComplex
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •silly goose meekah
in reply to ThunderComplex • • •Theres like 3 different tags in the image.
Too bad they're all laid over each other so you can't read them.
Not that it would lead to the source, anyways
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to ThunderComplex • • •ThunderComplex
in reply to ∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name] • • •Saymaz
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •Saymaz
in reply to Saymaz • • •Recent years have seen a resurgence in nostalgia for the British empire. High-profile books such as Niall Ferguson’s Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, and Bruce Gilley’s The Last Imperialist, have claimed that British colonialism brought prosperity and development to India and other colonies. Two years ago, a YouGov poll found that 32 percent of people in Britain are actively proud of the nation’s colonial history.
This rosy picture of colonialism conflicts dramatically with the historical record. According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, extreme poverty in India increased under British rule, from 23 percent in 1810 to more than 50 percent in the mid-20th century. Real wages declined during the British colonial period, reaching a nadir in the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly. Far from benefitting the Indian people, colonialism was a human tragedy with few parallels in recorded history.
Experts agree that the period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. Comprehensive population censuses carried out by the colonial regime beginning in the 1880s reveal that the death rate increased considerably during this period, from 37.2 deaths per 1,000 people in the 1880s to 44.2 in the 1910s. Life expectancy declined from 26.7 years to 21.9 years.
In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades. Robust data on mortality rates in India only exists from the 1880s. If we use this as the baseline for “normal” mortality, we find that some 50 million excess deaths occurred under the aegis of British colonialism during the period from 1891 to 1920.
Fifty million deaths is a staggering figure, and yet this is a conservative estimate. Data on real wages indicates that by 1880, living standards in colonial India had already declined dramatically from their previous levels. Allen and other scholars argue that prior to colonialism, Indian living standards may have been “on a par with the developing parts of Western Europe.” We do not know for sure what India’s pre-colonial mortality rate was, but if we assume it was similar to that of England in the 16th and 17th centuries (27.18 deaths per 1,000 people), we find that 165 million excess deaths occurred in India during the period from 1881 to 1920.
While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia.
How did British rule cause this tremendous loss of life? There were several mechanisms. For one, Britain effectively destroyed India’s manufacturing sector. Prior to colonisation, India was one of the largest industrial producers in the world, exporting high-quality textiles to all corners of the globe. The tawdry cloth produced in England simply could not compete. This began to change, however, when the British East India Company assumed control of Bengal in 1757.
According to the historian Madhusree Mukerjee, the colonial regime practically eliminated Indian tariffs, allowing British goods to flood the domestic market, but created a system of exorbitant taxes and internal duties that prevented Indians from selling cloth within their own country, let alone exporting it.
This unequal trade regime crushed Indian manufacturers and effectively de-industrialised the country. As the chairman of East India and China Association boasted to the English parliament in 1840: “This company has succeeded in converting India from a manufacturing country into a country exporting raw produce.” English manufacturers gained a tremendous advantage, while India was reduced to poverty and its people were made vulnerable to hunger and disease.
To make matters worse, British colonisers established a system of legal plunder, known to contemporaries as the “drain of wealth.” Britain taxed the Indian population and then used the revenues to buy Indian products – indigo, grain, cotton, and opium – thus obtaining these goods for free. These goods were then either consumed within Britain or re-exported abroad, with the revenues pocketed by the British state and used to finance the industrial development of Britain and its settler colonies – the United States, Canada and Australia.
This system drained India of goods worth trillions of dollars in today’s money. The British were merciless in imposing the drain, forcing India to export food even when drought or floods threatened local food security. Historians have established that tens of millions of Indians died of starvation during several considerable policy-induced famines in the late 19th century, as their resources were syphoned off to Britain and its settler colonies.
Get instant alerts and updates based on your interests. Be the first to know when big stories happen.
Yes, keep me updated
Colonial administrators were fully aware of the consequences of their policies. They watched as millions starved and yet they did not change course. They continued to knowingly deprive people of resources necessary for survival. The extraordinary mortality crisis of the late Victorian period was no accident. The historian Mike Davis argues that Britain’s imperial policies “were often the exact moral equivalents of bombs dropped from 18,000 feet.”
Our research finds that Britain’s exploitative policies were associated with approximately 100 million excess deaths during the 1881-1920 period. This is a straightforward case for reparations, with strong precedent in international law. Following World War II, Germany signed reparations agreements to compensate the victims of the Holocaust and more recently agreed to pay reparations to Namibia for colonial crimes perpetrated there in the early 1900s. In the wake of apartheid, South Africa paid reparations to people who had been terrorised by the white-minority government.
History cannot be changed, and the crimes of the British empire cannot be erased. But reparations can help address the legacy of deprivation and inequity that colonialism produced. It is a critical step towards justice and healing.
By Dylan Sullivan and Jason Hickel.
redhilsha
in reply to Saymaz • • •About two years ago, I had an argument with a random dude who was vehemently denying the fact that it was effectively Churchill and the decisions of the British government that caused the Bengal famine - there was a lot of back and forth, a lot of citing.
Ultimately he came to the conclusion that the famine happened not because of the British, no Churchill was a saint - it was because of lack of biological "food storage" within Bengalis or some bullshit.
TranscendentalEmpire
in reply to Saymaz • • •It's kinda shocking how the tactics of colonialism end up mirroring itself throughout history. The occupation and destruction of Gaza and the occupation and destruction of the Indian Mughal empire are devastatingly similar.
The beginning of the end for the Mughal happened during the Indian rebellion in 1857 when troops of the Mughal empire rebelled against the British East India company. It started as a popular uprising against the military of the company, but after an incident akin to Oct 7th around 200 British women and children were taken hostage and eventually killed by a small group of rebels.
In response the British went on a retribution campaign that would end up killing upwards to 800k Indians, most of which were civilians. During the retribution campaign there were motifs we can recognize today being implemented in modern colonialism.
Particularly the use of false allegations in media to justify retributive violence and sexual assault against women.
"British soldiers also committed sexual violence against Indian women as a form of retaliation against the rebellion.[163][164] As towns and cities were captured from the sepoys, the British soldiers took their revenge on Indian civilians by committing atrocities and rapes against Indian women."
"Incidents of rape allegedly committed by Indian rebels against British women and girls appalled the British public. These atrocities were often used to justify the British reaction to the rebellion. British newspapers printed various eyewitness accounts of the rape of English women and girls. One such account was published by The Times, regarding an incident where 48 English girls as young as 10 had been raped by Indian rebels in Delhi. Karl Marx criticized this story as false propaganda, and pointed out that the story was written by a clergyman in Bangalore, far from the events of the rebellion, with no evidence to support his allegation."
"During the aftermath of the rebellion, a series of exhaustive investigations were carried out by British police and intelligence officials into reports that British women prisoners had been "dishonoured" at the Bibighar and elsewhere. One such detailed enquiry was at the direction of Lord Canning. The consensus was that there was no convincing evidence of such crimes having been committed, although numbers of British women and children had been killed outright.[181]"
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •Liberals crying about the death toll from communism, when said made up number includes Nazis killed in the Easter theatre.
Liberals mourning nazis out of sheer ignorance seems telling
Jankatarch
in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉 • • •ShinkanTrain
in reply to Jankatarch • • •NutWrench
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to NutWrench • • •Communists are liberals, it’s funny seeing how many liberals in the fediverse use it as a slur. Even the anarchists look down on the anti-government people.
And yeah Libertarians are liberal as well, the problem is including everyone else that isn’t authoritarian.
Jankatarch
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •bubblybubbles
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •Made up western anti-communist propaganda term
ILikeBoobies
in reply to bubblybubbles • • •Quadhammer
in reply to bubblybubbles • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to AntiOutsideAktion • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •You are indeed incorrectly calling people out.
Maybe you can wipe your ass with those books for all the good they did you.
I took political science classes in college too. They taught the political compass. They lamented 'polarization.'
If you were too stupid as a child to see that you were being fed slop you can be forgiven. It's time to use your adult brain to reexamine those things.
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •Ah, that explains it
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •See you don’t know what the term liberal means.
It has nothing to do with capitalism.
Communism doesn’t have a government, that makes them liberals.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •If you have an administration then you create a class struggle that will lead to oppression.
You have private property because the state (public) doesn’t own it, the people do. (That’s private since you seem confused)
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Can the administration control what the commune does? Laws? Policing?
If so then given time the people who seek it will elevate that position.
Public ownership under communism doesn’t mean the government (or administration to use your term without a difference) owns it. It means the population has control over whether it is helping (keep) or hurting (remove) society. And the workers are at the forefront of that not politicians or owners.
You’re aware that liberalism views landowners as a scourge of society because they make money without adding anything to the world but you cannot view said viewpoint from a communist perspective.
I’ll give you another crazy idea; political parties/governments are corporations. They will put their own survival above that of the people they represent.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •boonhet
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Yes, and all are equal, but some more equal. Particularly, anyone that was part of the administration of the soviet union was more equal than anyone not close to the administration.
Administration needs to be humanless.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to boonhet • • •Quadhammer
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Quadhammer • • •ZeroHora
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to ZeroHora • • •Yes but it’s a range. The more liberal, the less power government has until it doesn’t exist.
At least in the political sense of the word.
Quadhammer
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •Quadhammer
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Rachelhazideas
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •nimrod06
in reply to Rachelhazideas • • •sangeteria
in reply to Rachelhazideas • • •HarneyToker
in reply to Rachelhazideas • • •ArmchairAce1944
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •They don't care.
Also they will claim that the death of communism is some widely agreed upon number that is corroborated by numerous organizations and sources.
In reality it is literally like the one single 'study' that proved the autism/vaccine connection. It came entirely from the Black Book of Communism in 1999, and all but the main author disavowed it, and despite the obsession with wanting to reach 100 million. The absolute max it could find was 94 million with a 'most likely' number of 64 million.
So when they give a death toll of 'conservatively 100 million' they are literally pulling it out of nowhere.
Hikermick
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Hikermick • • •Hikermick
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Hikermick • • •Hikermick
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Hikermick • • •HarneyToker
in reply to Hikermick • • •“What communist country would you like to live in?”
question is answered
“That’s not what I asked”
Hahahahaha!!
Dessalines
in reply to Hikermick • • •boonhet
in reply to Dessalines • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to boonhet • • •Dessalines
in reply to boonhet • • •China is not moving away from communism. I don't know what you're referring to with tesla, but tesla has almost no sales in the PRC, and is considered a laughing stock. They stopped presenting at electric car shows in the PRC years ago because they're too far behind.
Is China State Capitalist?
How the state runs business in China
Richard McGregor (The Guardian)boonhet
in reply to Dessalines • • •I'm specifically mentioning Tesla because China allowed them to silence critics to protect their business interests. Yes, I know that it was done so that Chinese companies could learn from them and later surpass them in making EVs. I wouldn't call BYD and the like great cars, but neither is Tesla and Tesla still has the gall to charge an arm and a leg for a motorized smart refrigerator.
Some dairy industry execs were imprisoned and/or executed to save face so that's nice, but parents were also detained for trying to bring attention to the matter in the big formula scandal. Some said that doctors told them to keep quiet.
Business interests go above human rights in China and if a rich person is imprisoned or executed, it's so the "communists" could save face after a scandal. Normally they're completely fine with billionaires existing for some reason.
Smells very "corporations are people too" to me. Like the US, but with better infrastructure because Americans can't even get that right.
Tesla has sued customers and journalists in China — and won most times, review finds
CBS NewsUltraword
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to Ultraword • • •136+ million
Edit: wait your saying Soviet Russia which means only the RSFSR
demographics of country
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Soktopraegaeawayok
in reply to Comrade1917 • • •And why would liberals be either one of those?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Soktopraegaeawayok • • •