How would the new time zones work in practice? Wenche Pedersen, the mayor of Vadsø who authored the letter, is unsure.
“We haven’t thought a lot about that” she said. “The clock will go from 12 to 13… and we have to see how this will go. I don’t think they’re going to say yes so we haven’t thought about all the details.”
Make a proposal without a plan or a feasibility study is peak management. Starting to understand how I end up with projects with very firm deadlines that are only vaguely defined and no one is sure if we have the resources on hand.
In this case I suspect this mayor simply made this proposition to get their town some free publicity. I am more sympathetic to these performative actions if they’re just for the media attention.
When every decision is made by people alienated from every material or functional concern by like ten layers of abstraction, all decisions smell of recent severe skull deforming head trauma.
Political parties are part of the culture war too. The rich don’t fit into a party. They like right wing economics because it keeps them rich, sure, but they push left wing culture because it gets people off their backs. As a whole, they play the two parties against each other, and we probably won’t be able to stop that unless we can get more parties into the running.
Political hatred - probably the most prominent form of hatred in the US - is driven by the dichotomy, the “you’re either with me or against me” that’s made so convenient by the fact that everyone has to fit into one of two buckets anyways. Throw more parties into the mix, and it’s harder to make that distinction because any given party works with you sometimes and against you at other times, and if you label them all as enemies, you’re going up against the majority of the country.
It’s easier said than done, though. Duverger’s law states that the maximum number of viable political parties is the number of seats in a given election + 1. So we can’t just will another political party into viability without booting out one that we already have. We have to change the voting structure. Proportional representation in congressional elections sounds good, and with fewer voting districts, it’s also harder to gerrymander. But that’s gonna be hard to push for.
Once we can accomplish that, the hatred will slowly subside (but not entirely,) and people will be able to see more clearly to deal with the class struggle. Plus, with more parties, we might even be able to vote in candidates who support the actual economic changes we want instead of just paying lip service to the lower classes.
When you’re a trans teen from OK getting beaten to death by classmates, the culture war feels a lot more urgent to focus on in the moment. Survival isn’t something you can be passive about.
Some people partake in the culture war as part of manipulation by the rich… Some people are forced into it by defending themselves from the first group. And some people are compelled into it to protect the second group.
While you’re not wrong about how we got here, it feels like it would be too easy for one side of the culture war to spin this as “Ignore my bigotry, Wall St is the real enemy!”
Soros, Bill Gates and the Bilderbergs, I guess? Probably also that Davos guy who Alex Jones et al TOTALLY aren’t fixated on for antisemitic reasons either, nuh-uh!
In my opinion it would be a movement if facism was the status quo. Given most people are discussing Western nations, which while adopting facism at an alarming pace; are not yet facist. Antifa is not a movement nor an organization. Since not being facist is the status quo and antifa means that you’re not going to support facism, in my opinion antifa is the current “establishment” and being facist is an effort to move the status quo. Aka a movement.
A movement can have members and leaders even without formal organizational hierarchy. It just won’t look the same as something like a corporation, nonprofit, or government. The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader. The people who show up on a cold rainy Saturday instead of staying indoors with a warm cup of tea? Members. Just because membership and leadership is more amorphous doesn’t mean it isn’t there in some form.
The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader
Nahh you got that wrong. What usually happens is that a lot of people who are into politics (which left-extreme people often are) hear about this at the same time (through some press release, some proud boys twitter account who’s rallyin their followers, etc.).
From that point the information spreads over friendsgroups, small discords, tweets, whatsapps, in person, slowly but steadily.
Any left-extreme person who hears this immediately thinks “I’m mad, I wanna show those guys that they’re not welcome”. Granted, some of us think about much more extreme things, but back to the point. The first reaction from that thought is often “is there a counter protest?”. People are then doing the same thing but the other way around, as now everyone is trying to find some tweet, event, whatsapp message screenshot, whatever, of someone saying where the meeting point for an event would be. If none are found, someones gonna create something, which is usuqlly someone who’s got a lot of connections with other left-extremists. Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
Worst case you just have a bunch of friends groups going to the meeting spot of wherever the initial event is happening.
That’s “the antifa”. A massive network of friends and friends of friends of friends who are all pretty aligned in their political views (which is “fuck Nazis”) but who often don’t know more then 5 other antifacists.
Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
This is kind of my point, in a way. It was maybe simplistic to use one person. There is leadership, but there are many leaders, and they don’t have a badge with “Antifa CEO”. Though someone really needs to make stickers with “Antifa CEO”. One of my former managers came from activist circles like antifa. She will always be my favorite manager because she is so great at making sure even shy people feel heard.
People are just nitpicking the meaning of the word Organization. Antifa is an organization in a very loose definition of the word. If you want to be more accurate, you’d call it a Network. Organizations (in the stricter sense) has a single leader and has a very tree-like structure with more power on top (like Corporations!), which Antifa obviously is not.
Though you’re correct in that Antifa is a “movement”.
I find this comment thread horribly ironic, and I hope I can show you why without starting an argument because this is genuinely kind of funny.
Fascism is when a state achieves (or attempts to achieve) totalitarianism through corporatization. All corporations are chartered and controlled through the state, and private industry becomes corporatized.
One of the ways they did this was through legitimizing specific channels of distribution, and labeling all who take a more independent route as illegitimate. Farmers, for example, were coerced into selling their products to state distributors, and pressured out of independent channels. Likewise, farmers who weren’t part of the state organization were often treated with suspicion and derision.
Basically, if you were a _____ and did _____ things, but were not part of the _____ organization, then you weren’t a real ______ no matter how good you are at _____.
Anyway, antifa is a real thing that exists, and that’s the thing people here are talking about. They’re a group that has identifiable goals, and they work together under the label. It’s really funny to me that so many here are appealing to “they’re not even a real org” in the face of dissent, because that’s one of the most fascist mind sets that exist commonplace today.
There is a huge overlap between people who would participate in Antifa and Anarchists, so you can imagine the problems getting a structured organization setup and keeping on task and purpose.
I’m sure that’s part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.
Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they’re not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn’t use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he’s trying to investigate and see what they’re about.
It’s a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don’t mind me asking, if you don’t think the word organization is appropriate, what’s better? I mean I just say group, can’t really be wrong going that general but it also doesn’t say much. Like, when you said “people who participate in Antifa…”, what type of thing are those people participating in?
Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are “organizing” even if no one is in charge. You don’t need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don’t not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don’t understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It’s like saying that the Deadheads aren’t a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.
I haven’t argued anything before that post, but this conversation about the semantics of the word organization means is interesting to me. To answer your question, I’d say Yes? Deadheads were a group of people associating with each other under common interest and intent. They didn’t particularly have leaders or any hierarchical structure, but they gathered in locations of common interest (concert venues and the surrounding local) based solely on individual discussion and desire, participated in the event alongside and with the group, and almost everyone participating identified as a deadhead. I really don’t understand the problem with them falling under the edge of the umbrella of the term organization.
They were an organization when viewed as an association or society: in this case a voluntary association of individuals for common ends. Deadheads were a distinct subculture in and of themselves, and I don’t understand in what universe that wouldn’t qualify. Keeping with the musician fandom, I’d say the same for the Juggalo’s. Being on the outer edge of the Venn diagram is still part of the whole picture.
See those jackasses with swastikas, they hate you. They’re the furthest right. See the people with hammers and sickles or black flags and maltovs? They hate each other almost as much as they hate the rich. They’re the furthest left.
In reality the right wing wants lower taxes, more police, more military, less corporate legislation, and to regulate your sexual and medical decisions every moral panic. They also tend to vote how their preacher tells them.
The left wing wants to regulate businesses, fund public works and social services, try to create a more equal society (the right wants hierarchy), and generally supports freedom except when used for bigotry. We also like unions. The further left you go the more you like unions.
Obligatory Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
What if I want no taxes for the lower class lower taxes for the middle class and small business but much higher taxes on the upper class and large corporations, a very strong military, less but stronger corporate regulation with more teeth, to fund public works and social services with the taxes we bring in, a free and equal society with no hierarchical systems or bigotry, freedom of speech and strong privacy laws with certain restrictions on speech (calls to violence, etc…), very strong unions, a near complete elimination of wall street, and a fair justice system that doesn’t target minorities as prey? Also, guns are fine for self defense in my opinion. Which side do I fall on?
Edit: So if you will read my posts below I talk about how going against groupthink just makes you enemies of the group. Then the group started down voting me down below. I’m really not worried about fake internet points. I just want to make sure that everyone that downvoted me is well aware that my point is well and truly proven. A difference of opinion is not welcome. Even, and especially, if that opinion is, “Stop letting the group think for you. Examine each issue as a separate issue and make fair and reasoned decisions.”
What if I want no taxes for the lower class lower taxes for the middle class and small business but much higher taxes on the upper class and large corporations
Left.
a very strong military
Typically right, but plenty of examples of marxist-leninist states with strong militaries, such as the USSR or China. And on the less authoritarian side you have the YPG in rojava who was very effective at fighting the Islamic state.
but stronger corporate regulation with more teeth
This one’s a little confusing, would probably need more clarification.
to fund public works and social services with the taxes we bring in
Left.
a free and equal society with no hierarchical systems or bigotry, freedom of speech and strong privacy laws with certain restrictions on speech (calls to violence, etc…), very strong unions, a near complete elimination of wall street, and a fair justice system that doesn’t target minorities as prey?
Left-libertarian/anarchist.
Also, guns are fine for self defense in my opinion.
At least in America, the guns issue is typically viewed as a left vs. right issue, but there’s plenty of folks on the far left that are in favor of guns (socialist rifle association, redneck revolt, John Brown gun club, etc).
Karl Marx even has an often cited quote on guns:
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
Which side do I fall on?
Pretty much left. You’re certainly left of the American Democrats. Pretty much the only thing stopping you from being a full on leftist is you don’t seem to be opposed to capitalism itself. Therefore, I’d say most of your positions sound like they fall under social democracy.
Classifications like those just feel kind of arbitrary. Like I get associating with like minded people, but my point was that trying to classify everything in these neat little bottles don’t work. You can make enemies if you don’t check all the opinion boxes no matter where you turn.
For example, I would agree with your military assessment as being left, except that military is never something that should be utilized domestically, unless as a very last resort facing an armed rebellion. Otherwise, its for defense and on the rare occasion offense, but should remain strong, very strong. I would much more readily agree with my conservative acquaintances on this issue and have in the number of conversations I have had as an older fellow.
And I’m not an economist nor a lawyer so any thing that I could really offer as far as corporate regulation would be very general things like, “monopolies bad”. So it would be difficult for me to really collate some kind of list of laws I think we should have, which speaks to the point that most people aren’t experts and just pretend to know the inner workings of systems they have no training in.
I would agree that I fall left of center, but only because it averages out that way. I have some very “conservative” opinions that are dwarfed by the “progressive” opinions that I have. Like, you cant take a bunch of opinions someone has and go, “You are just like those guys!” That will inevitably be proven wrong.
Classifying you as a leftist doesn’t mean that you have to agree with other leftists on everything, or that you aren’t allowed to have a few opinions that are right-wing too. It just means that your opinions tend to fall on the left side of the spectrum.
In other words, people aren’t left wing because they identify as left and then that determines their opinions. They’re left wing because, regardless of how they came to their conclusions on what their opinions should be, those opinions are on the left.
I appreciate your and and your opinion. I feel that it is important that I stress that anything that I type is not meant as an attack and is merely discussion. I love discussion it brings me a greater understanding everytime I am invited to participate. To the point, what you said in your post is something that I find to be untrue and is the point of what I am trying to say.
Firstly, no matter where you go people vote you off the island if you disagree with group think. I have seen it happen a number of times. There are specific issues that will get you ousted much more quickly to be true, but those issues aren’t necessarily core tenets of whatever the group philosophy is.
Secondly, as long as I have been alive I have found people who due to groupthink will always take the group’s ideas as a point of fact, creating the situations I am talking about. I am trying to say that the way that we do politics, separating things into large groups creates more harm than good.
I am not left because my ideas are left wing. I am left wing because you tell me I’m left wing. Then I identify as such, then connect with like minded people. Then group think takes hold and an equilibrium is reached wherein each idea is given a value.
Those in the group that disagree on principle risk being removed from the group or having to stay silent while often harmful ideas are espoused. Because at least our group isn’t that other one.
This last point is the danger, because, suppose it is true that the group we are discussing is truly better than their opponents. That doesn’t then give them immunity from making incorrect choices and espousing dangerous and harmful ideas and tactics. Those arguing for and enacting those can just say, “At least we aren’t those guys. They are evil!!” And then commit atrocities in the name of goodness. Because, “Hey, at least we aren’t those people.”
It’s depressing how many people would be more leftist if America didn’t systemically demonize anything left of mid-right. Instead people feel various ways that Would push them further left (such as pro choice in this image) and instead come up with these logical loops then keep voting Republican because that’s just how they vote.
Almost left wing, could be completely left wing depending on how strong you want unions to be, ie do you still want Capitalism or are you full-on syndicalist.
The left generally wants lower taxes too, just for different people. The left thinks the poorest should pay no taxes, while the right thinks the richest should pay no taxes. (Obviously I’m being hyperbolic, but that’s generally how it plays out.)
Israel has cut off the flow of food, medicine, water and electricity to Gaza, pounded neighborhoods with airstrikes and told the estimated 1 million residents of the north to flee south ahead of Israel’s planned attack. The Gaza Health Ministry said more than 2,300 Palestinians have been killed since the fighting erupted last weekend.
U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan told CNN on Sunday that Israeli officials told him they had turned the water back on in southern Gaza. But the spokesman for Israel’s energy and water ministry, Adir Dahan, said it was only flowing at a single location in southern Gaza. Aid workers in Gaza said they had not yet seen evidence the water was back and a Gaza government spokesperson said it was not flowing.
Hmm! Why would the US spread Israeli misinformation? It’s a mystery! 🙃
About half a million Gaza residents have taken refuge in U.N. shelters across the territory and are running out of water, said Juliette Touma, a spokesperson for the U.N.’s Palestinian refugee agency, known by the acronym UNRWA. “Gaza is running dry,” she said, adding that U.N. teams have also begun to ration water.
Touma said a quarter of a million people in Gaza moved to shelters over the past 24 hours, the majority of which are U.N. schools where “clean water has actually run out,” said Inas Hamdan, another UNRWA spokeswoman.
Across Gaza, families rationed dwindling water supplies, with many forced to drink dirty or brackish water. Many resorted to going to dirty wells and the sea, increasing the risk of dehydration, water borne diseases and more deaths.
“I am very happy that I was able to brush my teeth today, can you imagine what lengths we have reached?” said Shaima al-Farra, in Khan Younis.
I'm curious what disinformation you're talking about given what you quoted? And you implied that it is known, but why do you think said disinformation would be spread?
Also, there are no settlers in Gaza. Haven't been for around 18 years.
The misinformation is the Zionist lie that they turned the water back on, when actual people on the ground in Gaza are telling us they don’t have water.
Also, everyone living on stolen Palestinian land and benefiting from land theft and apartheid is a settler. From the river to the sea.
To be clear, there’s one lie and then that lie got spun into something pro-Israeli.
Jake Sullivan told CNN on Sunday that Israeli officials told him they had turned the water back on in southern Gaza. But the spokesman for Israel’s energy and water ministry, Adir Dahan, said it was only flowing at a single location in southern Gaza.
Sounds like Jake got told the same lie, and he spun it and omitted the “one location” part. Dahan lied (saying it was on at one location when it wasn’t) and Sullivan made it sound even better by conveniently dropping the “one location” part and implying that water is fully restored.
From Sullivans perspective he may be reporting the “truth”, based upon what he knows/knew at the time, but said it in such a way to imply the Israelis are better than he “knows”.
And my questions on race and who qualifies as white? Because I'm guessing you consider yourself a very anti-racist person. But that shit was racist as fuck.
Criminals aren’t going to be using services that comply anyways. They’ll have their own underground ones. This is just a violation of regular citizens rights.
There is a healthy and honest way to appreciate communism, Russia, the CCP and even DPRK.
And then there are people who are completely shilling the CCP Russia DPRK as communist uptopias. These people are tankies.
If you are unable to recoginze the atrocities commited at any point in history, by the USA China, Russia , or any other country for that Matter. You’re a chump.
You engage when i call you a LIB but not when asked questions, like why Sankara is the one good “authoritarian?” or people asking what you about your thoughts on anarchism beside “authoritarian bad.” You just link to wikipedia and use that LIB -ass word tankie
Do you even read the Wikipedia articles you link people to? The Afghans were asking for Soviet aid against insurgents backed by the US. The invasion happened when the USSR feared their allies in Afghanistan were not capable of handling the US supported insurgency that they thought would institute a theocracy there as had happened in Iran. Which is exactly what ended up happening there.
That’s not what happened during the US invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was a cover for war profiteeering, mineral extraction, and opiate production. Rhe US extracted value and resources from that region to enrich capitalists in the imperial core. That’s what makes it imperialist.
Its bullshit to paint an invasion as aid. This is what imperialist do.
The soviets invaded afaganistan for the same reasons as the us did later and Briton did before.
To protect their borders from afar,
To create and protect trade deal favorable to their country,
To spread their ideology.
And by the way I read a book about the history of afaganistan called: Games Without Rules: The Often Interrupted History of Afghanistan.
It outlined how the three main invasion of Afghanistan all followed the same basic lines, motivations and results. They devastated Afghanistan and created a situation where they would be invaded again.
How could the USSR have invaded Afghanistan for the same reason as the US?
The USSR was there to oppose the US by fighting their proxies and defend the socialists in Afghanistan who supported them during the invasion.
The US invaded under the War on Terror pretext as a war profiteering entrerprise. They brought Unaco, Haliburton, KBR, PMCs, and other contractors in to extract value from the region to bring profits to the imperial core.
The issue is that it isn’t imperialist. You are unable to demarcate between what you consider unsavory actions and imperialism.
I’m not saying that i agree with all of the USSR’s actions. I never said i was in support of this particular action for that matter. I am saying that the USSR was not imperialist because it did not engage in capitalist extraction or monopolization.
Soviet period (1979–1989) Edit After a Soviet-backed left-wing government in Afghanistan failed to gain popular support, the Soviets decided to invade. A number of resistance leaders concentrated on increasing opium production in their regions to finance their operations, regardless of its haram Islamic status, in particular Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Mullah Nasim Akhundzada, and Ismat Muslim. The production was doubled to 575 metric tons between 1982 and 1983.[15][16] (At this time the United States was pursuing an “arms-length” supporting strategy of the Mujahideen, the main purpose of which was to cripple the Soviet Union slowly into withdrawal through attrition rather than effect a quick and decisive overthrow.) Hekmatyar, the leading recipient of aid from the CIA and Pakistan, developed at least six heroin refineries in Koh-i-Sultan in southwestern Pakistan, while other warlords were content to sell raw opium. Nasim Akhundzada, who controlled the traditional poppy growing region of northern Helmand, issued quotas for opium production, which he was even rumoured to enforce with torture and extreme violence. To maximise control of trafficking, Nasim maintained an office in Zahidan, Iran.[17]
You asked for more communists i support and I listed some and now Im anti-communist because I don’t support the ones who created police states. Were you just waiting for me to engage so you could call that?
Lol you make me want to call more people like you tankies because it is so applicable.
MLs who think the only path to revolution is thru police states, are authoritarian by nature.
I wouldn’t consider any AES a police state. They are states, they utilize state power to defend themselves from threats from the capitalist class both internally and extermely, because those threats are reality.
Thats why Sankara was assasinated, Rosa Luxembourg was assassinated, why the Black Panthers were assassinated or imprisioned. The capitalist class kills its enemies utilizing the power of the state. And the Black Panthers, Sankara, and Luxembourg were well aware of that.
Believing in using the power of the state is part of ML doctrine, not creating police states, but utilizing that power for the proletariat. I don’t think you actually differentiate between state and police state, or a capitalist state from a socislist one (since you conflate the Russian Federation with the USSR which are not the same thing).
Except, you do seem to able to differentiate, but only in cases were our revolutions failed, like in Burkina Faso, the Black Panthers, and Luxembourg. I’m not sure why all the communists you support are one’s who failed.
What is “authoritarian” communism? Sounds like some political compass bullshit that doesn’t exist in the real world.
Yeah it comes from a disagreement amoung British socialists between people who correctly supported the USSR committing military force to safeguard Hungary from a coup, and some libs who were against it
I’m not acting like you made it up. I answered your question about where it came from accurately. But it gets thrown around today as a meaningless thought terminating cliche like “woke” is by american conservatives/fascists. So, if you’re saying it, I’m going to ask you to clarify, because it doesn’t mean anything, except that you don’t like it.
Resorting to “google it” is such cope“Authoritarian” communism is not a real thing. Its some made political compass bullshit
While the term was invented first to describe the event you have stated.
It is also used to describe the actions of the USSR toward the republic of spain during the spainish Civil war. Specifically how the USSR would not openly support the anarchist government fighting a facist coup backed by nazi germany.
Which is my whole point. The USSR was more freindly toward capitalist governments of Briton & USA at the time. Becuase they are a state and it was more benefical for the USSR to not support an active leftist revolution begging for their help.
This is why I use the term Tankie. Hierarchical goverments regaurdless of their economic principles will enevitablly trend toward fascism and authoritairnism. It is only a matter of time. The ussr cpc and other “communists” conuntries are no exception.
Communists have never truly support anarchist.
“Authoritarian” communism is not a real thing. Its some made political compass bullshit
Honestly reading this statement makes me so depressed. It makes me want to call more communist tankies because it fits so well.
Are you so foolish that you don’t think a large government ran by a small group of people could not become authoritarian?
I think your use of authoritarian is idealist nonsense and has to basis in materialism. I’m a marxist so that is my veiwpoint. If you are a utopian socialist then we will disagree because your veiwpoint is not grounded in a materialist perspective
In fact I find it is a better measure of oppressive goverment than most indicators.
What you really mean to say is most goverments are oppressive and authoritarian. Show me a country with a large prison population and I will show you an authoritarian country.
Please see the zapatistas. For non police state goverment.
If those are your beliefs then they are infantile, and its no wonder you are openly against AES and people who support real world projects in socialism. The new world will be built by people around the world while left anti-communists whine about how they are doing it wrong because they don’t understand the theoretical basis communist are using in these states, and they refuse to understand the real material contexts in which these societies struggle to survive against the US imperialist world order.
There are many anarchist comrades on Hexbear who regularly get called “tankies” by people like you and are able to understand the difference between criticizing some AES without being anti-communist. We have a non-sectarian rule there so we don’t argue about our specific tendencies. You should maybe soeak to some of them to form a more nuanced view of AES. As an ML i can’t really do that, because i do have some fundamental theoretical differences, such as veiwing the term of authoritarian as kind of pointless, thst hoes back to Engels arguing with anarchists about the Paris Commune basically.
If you’re open to a book about left anti-communism and how its driven a wedge between yourself and people you call tankies, i recommend Micheal Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds …wordpress.com/…/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-…
“You see a simple search of reddit will clearly show that my point of view is the chad wojack, while you tankies are the soy wojack.” -this lib probably
We aren’t uncritical of the USSR, China, and the DPRK, we just think they broadly did (and do) much more good than bad.
Also, “CCP” isn’t a country or even a party (CPC), it’s China or the PRC. I assume when you say “Russia” you mean the Soviet Union that hasn’t existed in thirty years as Russia is a capitalist country now.
Communist Party of China, CPC. The country that they are in is China (PRC). A billion people do not live in the “CCP”, that’s like saying Japanese people live in the LDP, and your imprecise use of these terms makes you look uninformed. Unless, of course, you just constantly say “CCP” because you don’t want to recognize that they are the legitimate and popular government of China, you know, a country.
I speak of russia generally so I can include USSR and the current state of affairs. I realize they are different but they are both authoritarian. They be capitalist but they call themselves communists.
This is a meaningless statement. Any government that wields power to accomplish things is “authoritarian”. It’s silly to equate the USSR with the Russian Federation when they are two very different administrations with distinct ideology and policies. Russia for the past 30 years is a capitalist country with an administration originally installed by the US. Putin is a right-wing figure and an anti-communist. I don’t like Putin and the other rightists in charge of Russia, but I hope NATO doesn’t win out in the East because I don’t want the US Empire ruling over the whole world.
saying it like you do, the imperialist media/state department way, puts emphasis on the “Chinese” part, which we object to for reasons that should be obvious
You don’t seem to support anything remotely called communism, except for comrade Sankara. He’s great, but why is he the one good ML? How was he not “authoritarian” like the rest of us?
Am I a tankie? I like socialism but think communism (total state control) is too far. We need, as AOC said, “an end to unregulated capitalism”, but we can’t go the authoritarian route of China or North Korea. I envision socialism as Norway and Sweden, these nations that have achieved harmony through peace and cooperation with liberal capitalism; we need nations that don’t put down pro-democracy protests or have “socialist” attitudes around immigration/investment which restrict genuine freedom. I have seen several “tankies” (I hope I am using this right) say, verbatim, “North Korea is heaven on earth and a genuine utopia in every way”, which really worries me. I tried to show them Yeonmi Park videos and Human Rights in North Korea articles but they all just laugh at me. Honestly I’ve considered leaving this instance, since even anarchism seems too far to me (how will capitalism be regulated without a state?), plus a lot of anarchists here are tankies as well, and they have no regard for human rights or the genocide China is currently committing. My only shining light of hope is the people like you who check these attitudes with credible sources and expose these lies in detail. Slava ukraini and freedom to all!
You’re not a tankie. Tankies deny the oppressive nature of Russia, China, North Korea etc., deflecting all critique with whataboutism by pointing at shortcomings or atrocities of Western nations. Some like to call you Nazi or imperialist if you disagree with them, while in many aspects their ideology and that of their paragon countries is much closer to Nazism than that of liberal democracies like the ones you mentioned.
Some like to call you Nazi or imperialist if you disagree with them, while in many aspects their ideology and that of their paragon countries is much closer to Nazism than that of liberal democracies like the ones you mentioned.
Unsure how this could be the case. Norway and Sweden both exploit the third world and have horribly racist attitudes towards immigration. And of course both cozy up to the United States, the country which inspired Nazi Germany in the first place [1] [2] [3].
I was trolling. Thomas Sankara was executed in a U.S.-backed coup. Do you think maybe he should have exercised more authority, better strengthened defenses and built up a stronger base for combatting imperialism, that he could have avoided this (I don’t have an exact policy path, and it’s not like Sankara didn’t put down certain reactionary movements when necessary)? I’m sympathetic to Sankara of course, but if your ideal system of resisting authority succumbs to counter-authority, then maybe you don’t have grounds to condemn greater authority exercised to these ends. I don’t know how a “communist” could see authority in a vacuum to the point of accepting “authoritarianism” as anything other than the singling out of the authority of certain systems over others in safeguarding and expanding interests.
Your not doing very good job. Your just coming off as an idiot too me.
Do you think maybe he should have exercised more authority, better strengthened defenses and built up a stronger base for combatting imperialism, that he could have avoided this (I don’t have an exact policy path, and it’s not like Sankara didn’t put down certain reactionary movements when necessary)?
Can you be more concise? Your run on sentences make me want to stop talking to you.
Im not here to go over the specifics of Sankaras’s Decisons: But From what I do know. He fought corruption, he pushed literacy programs and fought malnutrition. All While resistsing western imperialsm.
Im sure he made mistakes and did some problematic things. As an anarchist I can appreicate the good things he did and be open to the concept that he also did bad things as well.
Just like the USSR CPC and other communist governments.
I’m sympathetic to Sankara of course, but if your ideal system of resisting authority succumbs to counter-authority, then maybe you don’t have grounds to condemn greater authority exercised to these ends.
Your going to have to rewrite, this i dont understand what you are saying. Are you referring to me or Sankara?
The last part reads as being in reference to you, since the socialist states you hate took measures to survive whereas ones like Allende’s Chile folded and their progress brutally reversed.
If Sankara had been more effective in protecting the revolution, you very likely would hate him too because he would be smeared just like Fidel and the rest as “authoritarian” etc. Imo this wouldn’t be because of whatever specific measures he took, but the mere fact that he would have posed a more substantial ideological threat to the west for living and being able to keep making progress.
Other people understood that I was being sarcastic as well.
Can you be more concise? Your run on sentences make me want to stop talking to you.
And you dishonestly dismissing my direct response proving you were incorrect about Hexbear critiquing Russia/China makes me want to stop talking to you, yet here we are.
Im not here to go over the specifics of Sankaras’s Decisons: But From what I do know. He fought corruption, he pushed literacy programs and fought malnutrition. All While resistsing western imperialsm. Im sure he made mistakes and did some problematic things. As an anarchist I can appreicate the good things he did and be open to the concept that he also did bad things as well. Just like the USSR CPC and other communist governments.
Why did you single Sankara’s Burkina Faso out when speaking of exceptions to authoritarian communism, yet now defend your position by tying it into the CPC, which you specifically called “authoritarian”?
Your going to have to rewrite, this i dont understand what you are saying. Are you referring to me or Sankara?
Rephrased: If your one exception to “authoritarian communism” is a government that was overthrown by imperialism, what does this say about the use of authority in revolutionary states?
Other people understood that I was being sarcastic as well.
Well you got me. Maybe im not in the mood for jokes. I am so tired of having these conversation. It makes me so sad to see people supporting these countries.
Russia and china are not examples of a good government. Neither is the usa. I feel like im taking crazy pills.
Why did you single Sankara’s Burkina Faso out when speaking of exceptions to authoritarian communism
Because i know about him and agree with many things that he did. Not everything, but he didnt build an imperialst nation. He fought for literacy and nutrition and anti corruption.
He didnt build a survelence network or invade another nation to my knowledge.
He fought for his people using the principles revolutionary communism and ML. This I support.
Just like i can recognize that the CPC does provide many valuable things to it citizens . While also recognizing that they are still authoritarnian.
Rephrased: If your one exception to “authoritarian communism” is a government that was overthrown by imperialism, what does this say about the use of authority in revolutionary states?
I dont know. Im not here to tell you how sankara could of avoided assassination. But I do feel that acting like Sankara is the same as the cpc/russia in any real way is kinda absurd.
Cuba is better example of communism than cpc. Once again they have problems.
Ultimately i am an anarchist, i dont think communism is the solution long term, but i would work with communists, As long as they didnt support large authoritarian governments.
It was communist in the sense that it was commanded by a communist party and was oriented towards communism (some would say socialist-oriented rather than socialist), but it had not achieved “communism”, and was squarely in the socialist camp with the proletarian monopoly on capital (USSR literally means United Socialist Workers Republics). I would have no issue with you stating the USSR was communist in the same way Vietnam could be called socialist (in goal and in guidance), but stating that “communism isn’t the solution long term” makes no sense. Do you understand the distinction?
but stating that “communism isn’t the solution long term” makes no sense. Do you understand the distinction?
I feel this is like syamtics. Anarchist are socialists as well. but if some told me “I dont think anarchy is the way foward”
I dont think it would be fair for me to say to " no you mean socialism, Anarchy is the Goal! not the current situation"
It doesnt make sense to think that communism isnt the solution? This makes me feel like communists are unable to have real discussion with anarchists about the flaws within communism.
I feel anarchy is the only real way to gaurentee long term that people will be continually liberated. I think that any real hierarchical system will enventually turn back into a police state. We saw this in the USSR. And we see in in the CPC too.
They once had revolutionary components which I support. But those begin to dwindle the minute they took power and likey before.
From the origins of revolutionary communism came a police state. How do MLs deal with the flaws shown in The USSR? By saying that it wasn’t communist?
This is what I mean when I say i dont think communism is the solution long term. That communists governments have a tendency to turn toward police states. Call it what you want but lenin was a marxist from my understanding and marxist are considered communists. Right?
Syamtics lmao; What are the flaws within communism?
I think that any real hierarchical system will enventually turn back into a police state. We saw this in the USSR. And we see in in the CPC too.
Explain how we saw this; explain how you refute the question of class succession with regards to the state, or the necessity of the state in a revolutionary situation (of which we can point to numerous socialist/anarchist projects that failed due to reactionary intervention; ex. the second the Bolsheviks took power, the imperialist countries backed the white guard army to overthrow them).
I feel anarchy is the only real way to gaurentee long term that people will be continually liberated
We cannot simply look at the best potential system, but must instead analyze what trends exist and what society history is tending towards. This can only be done through the recognition of class struggle/underdevelopment as the motive force, from which it naturally follows that the proletariat will take hold of the state machinery and reconfigure/“smash” the old norms to form a truly mass “state” (which is differentiated from all former states in that it is headed by and protects the interests of the masses against the minority rather than the inverse); see Lenin’s State and Revolution.
They once had revolutionary components which I support. But those begin to dwindle the minute they took power and likey before.
I wonder why the CPC enjoys over 90% support by the people, has been able to eradicate extreme poverty, and may build a state which truly serves the people through the mass party (with ~10% as members) and mass line through all levels. Let’s talk specifics: tell me when these revolutionary components dwindled and in what way.
This is what I mean when I say i dont think communism is the solution long term. That communists governments have a tendency to turn toward police states. Call it what you want but lenin was a marxist from my understanding and marxist are considered communists. Right?
The police perform a markedly different role under the DOTP [ex. “the behavior of the police in China was a revelation to me. They are there to protect and help the people, not to oppress them. Their courtesy was genuine; no division or suspicion exists between them and the citizens. This impressed me so much that when I returned to the United States and was met by the Tactical Squad at the San Francisco airport (they had been called out because nearly a thousand people came to the airport to welcome us back), it was brought home to me all over again that the police in our country are an occupying, repressive force” – Huey P. Newton (founder of the Black Panther Party), Revolutionary S–cide, p. 322]. Yes, Lenin was a communist, and Marxists are by definition communists, but “communism is not the answer”, if you are referring to the method and work (aka. Marxism/ML), is something that you have asserted but not proven. What holes have you exposed in the theory of Marxism? What errors in materialism and class struggle/the principle of state control have you pointed out?
“But of all the revolutionary elements in Russia it is the Anarchists who now suffer the most ruthless and systematic persecution. Their suppression by the Bolsheviki began already in 1918, when — in the month of April of that year — the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow and by the use of machine guns and artillery “liquidated” the whole organisation.”
Lenin’s warfare against Anarchist tendencies has assumed the most revolting Asiatic form of extermination […] it is for the Anarchists and AnarchoSyndicalists, in particular, imperative to take immediate action toward putting a stop to such Asiatic barbarism
Orientalism, plain and simple. Wonderful. I wasn’t able to find much information on the extolled Lev Tchorny, but his wiki states that: “On September 25, 1919, together with a number of leftist social revolutionaries, the Underground Anarchists bombed the headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party during a plenary meeting. Twelve Communists were killed and fifty-five others were wounded, including among the wounded the eminent Bolshevik theorist and Pravda editor Nikolai Bukharin.” So the organization Tev (this wonderful anarchist martyr) was a part of was actively engaging in adventurist terrorism against the communists (and great that “rumors” are suitable for a mention in this article, classic wikipedia). Strange that Goldman adds no mention of anarchist terrorism in her letter, although perhaps this is suitable to the false narrative of Bolshevik betrayal and anarchist victimhood which she is attempting to create.
And let us assume the words of these bigoted children are true: does the undue prosecution of anarchists in the volatile beginning of the revolution when the bolsheviks were being terrorized at all sides from SR assassinations, imperialist-backed white guards, and the landed remnants of Tsardom indicate some foul and total condemnation of Marxism? Plus what relation does this have to the CPC?
the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow
No mention that the latter was mobilizing the Black Guard into a military force against the Bolsheviks. The anarchists are of course a real enemy of Marxism, in that their ultimate goal is to undermine the workers state and create a vacuum of power which may only be filled by the bourgeoisie and DOTB thereof. They are, then, the true enemy of the masses as well, since they deny the revolutionary character of the proletariat and present no alternate scientific historical framework for the inevitability of mass power, suiting themselves instead with taking up the role of the utopian socialists that Marx and Engels had banished into obscurity, then basking in their empty purity; anarchism also lends itself to Euro-fascism from this angle, which you demonstrated with your own source.
We can stop honeslty. if you believe that anarchism is eurofacism we have very little to talk about.
Great rebuttal. “Cherry pick about the racist stuff” yeah no, you clearly didn’t read what I linked about this or you would understand where this “cherrpicking” fits in.
Alls I hear is a lot of what aboutism.
God I hate that term. Demanding the mention of anarchist terrorism (including terrorism by the organization admitting several of the “victims” mentioned) rather than one-sided references to Bolshevik terrorism? A basic call for consistency? Whataboutism! By merely mentioning an informal fallacy I have torn your argument asunder! You are the one who has proven nothing.
Yeah the racist Republicans in the US use whataboutism all the time to skirt around actual critiques. They really hate it when you call them out on it
Did anarchist attack and kill communists during that time period? Yes. Does that make thier critiques about soviet authoritarianism invalid or make emma Goldman letters false. No. It just means there is nuance in history.
I dont categorically support emma goldman. And Im not surprised they said some racist things. Thats why I am able to separate the good things they did while critizing the bad.
You should try it!
It is a known fact that the USSR consolidated power within russia after the october revolution. They killed and jailed anarchists and many other opossing groups.
And when lenin died and stalin took over, he did it too. This is what large goverments must do to maintain power.
The fact that you can’t admit that means you a defintiately a tankie.
By merely mentioning an informal fallacy I have torn your argument asunder! You are the one who has proven nothing.
You sound like a jackass when you write this way. imo.
You didn’t address the connection between the racism in the anarchist critique of Bolshevism and fascism, which I linked a full explanation of. I already discredited Goldman by showing that the “martyr” she was praising was involved in an organization that was actively bombing communist institutions (she didn’t mention this, and pointing this out is not whataboutism but again, a basic call for consistency). You didn’t address this. And “authoritarianism” will never be a real concept; it’s just the ignorance of authority to which the accused movement is responding. No movement or world-historical system maintains itself without authority. I already mentioned the circumstances the Bolsheviks were under, why can’t you dispense with this idea? You know that if they let up authority for a second the white guards and imperialists would decapitate every revolutionary in sight, because revolutions are not a peaceful affair. A bombing is not slight, assassinations of revolutionaries (by SRs) could break apart the worker’s power. Anr I never said anarchist critiques of “Soviet authoritarianism” were discredited by their own use of authority (this is not authoritarian for some reason). I specifically critiqued anarchism in general as well as pointing out terrorism, which proves I never thought the latter refuted anarchist theory. Everyone recognizes that governments must use authority to maintain power, but this is exactly why the blanket opposition to authority is counterrevolutionary (it condemns the DOTB and DOTP on the same grounds and is neither revolutionary nor nuanced).
We’ve read plenty of Sankara, time you to to read a little Jakarta Method
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:
“Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.
If you are unable to recognize atrocity propaganda by the US and/or Nazi collaborators or evangelical wackos who believe God tasked them with destroying a country, you’re a chump.
Its a good thong that that I do recognizes these these events. i just also know that russia has also commited atrocities. Much like most imperialist nations.
There is a healthy and honest way to appreciate communism, Russia, the CCP and even DPRK.
Agreed
And then there are people who are completely shilling the CCP Russia DPRK as communist uptopias. These people are tankies.
I would agree with you, if you simply called them dumbasses instead of using the equivalent of “woke” that’s virtually meaningless now. I have seen communists, anarchists, liberals, and even Zelensky being branded as “tankies”
You all use tankie exactly the same way republicans use woke. As a meaningless thought-terminating cliche deployed against literally everyone to your left to avoid actually learning anything.
Not really? The only thing you ever say to us is “tankie” or accuse us of being bots of some sort. You never actually engage in any discourse. That’s why you have this terminology, it functions as a method of literally dodging any engagement with anything we say, effectively by calling someone a tankie you give yourselves a socially acceptable way to avoid learning anything from socialists. It’s thought-terminating.
If you have anything worth saying that’s actually in good-faith I will completely engage with you. The point is that you deploy this word to avoid any engagement. The tactic is exactly the same tactic as the conservatives use to avoid any right-wing people engaging with anything to the left of them, if it’s “woke” they can switch off their brain and exercise avoidance to learning anything about it that might make them think differently.
Liberals, of both the conservative and democrat variety, both use exactly the same tactic on the people to their left.
Talk to me about something a marxist has just dismissed you on with the use of “lib”. I am happy to talk to you about it. What do you want to say? We call you libs because you ARE libs. You support Liberalism. The ideology of capitalism. Our actual analog to “tankie” is calling you dronies.
It’s a vibes-based invective liberals use the same way chuds use “woke” to dispel any cognitive dissonance that might crop up whenever they discover information they find displeasing because it might mean the rest of the delusions they’re immersed in might not be all that airtight. Just a thought-terminating word with absolutely no meaning. Just like “whataboutism,” it’s a weasel’s way out of addressing someone else’s argument in good faith (which I have yet to see you display in this thread).
Personally, it’s absolutely fucking hilarious to see how much these words get thrown around, especially when it comes from so-called “leftists.” If you truly are one, you ought to quit it with that bullshit.
I know it gets used like shit but do you think there’s any utility in the term ‘whataboutism’ if the definition is strict? Like I always understood it to be pointing out ludicrous pontificating about things that’ll never happen. Obviously that’s not how it’s used at all in reality and your description is much more apt.
I see, my mistake, though from a descriptivist standpoint a meaning that a word long-since lost and one that it never had are virtually the same thing on a functional level
The term (or the term whataboutery, which it emerged from) was originally used by pro-British newspapers during the troubles to complain that when people would whine about IRA activities others would respond by pointing out that their direct opposition, the British, were committing atrocities.
It’s always been a tool for Western hegemony to avoid criticism and accusations of hypocrisy.
Wow that was definitely an enlightening read on the etymology, so the word was fucked from the get go haha…
Sean O’Conaill (1976) - 'I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the “enemy”, and therefore the justice of the Provisionals’ cause: “What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force feeding, army intimidation?”. ’
It’d be tough to get everyone to sign on, but I’d be down for your definition. It sounds like it better matches the word itself. Feels like a term I could use as a synonym for brainstorming, or when I talk about transit expansions in my city
I know it gets used like shit but do you think there’s any utility in the term ‘whataboutism’ if the definition is strict?
Nope. Because the argument always goes like this:
non-neutral party brings up problem about non-western place
someone says “well this is actually a bigger problem in the west” after which they get le downvoted
the rationale is “well we’re not talking about the west right now so that’s whataboutism”
The actual problem starts at step 1, and it’s started by westoids and their news media outlets who constantly a) attack free non-white countries (and Russia) b) stay silent about the (usually much worse) stuff the west is currently doing
For example, how many westoids have ever said anything about the EU overfishing Indian Ocean waters? Instead it’s always China overfishing X, or making Y animal extinct, even though westoids consume 4x more resources per capita and 90% of the rhino and elephant populations were killed by whites since the 1800s. Fuck mayos and fuck anyone who even reasons within their moronic bullshit paradigm
Ok great. Honestly I’m getting tired & running out of steam arguing with people.
Truth is this. When one of the first big lemmy jumps from reddit came I heard that hexbear was cool a leftist space. so hopped on. I was honestly disgusted by the comments i saw. I saw so many people arguing blindly for CPC and DPRK. Saying they were better than the US and calling anybody critiquing the bold claims they were making libs. such as “Cpc is the future socialism.” And "all the bad things people say about the CPC is american propaganda. "
Basically same thing that happend here when I defined tankie as authoritarian communist . In fact I saw this kind of thing on reddit too alot.
I dont give a fuck what you say or what other commenters post. I’ve seen this phenomena myself. I’ve been called a lib, So many times, simply for posting that I don’t support Russia or the CPC in leftist spaces. I’m sick of it.
So what are we arguing about? Is hexbear not as bad as I thought it was? Ok cool. Im wrong.
I know there are people in “your” community that are actual tankies. I’ve argued with them myself. Are you trying to say these people don’t exist? Cuz If you are, You’re the one that is full shit.
Have you ever heard of supporting ideas and not concepts as a whole?
What I’m saying (and I assume others on Hexbear) when I mention CPC, the USSR or DPRK is taking ideas that are meant for empowering the working class, not the whole concept. The problem is that in the current world the CPC have much more empowerment of the working class than say many of the western countries, with the US being one of the worst offenders.
So if you call that blindly supporting the CPC, then I guess we can’t have a conversation about Marxist (or any other political thought) at all.
Like let’s say for example Mao and his views towards landlords mao-aggro-shining it’s not as much the hatred towards a landlord as a person (sure there is some animosity) but more of a hatred towards the idea of landlords.
Honestly if you really are a critical-thinker Hexbear is a place where that critical thought can flourish as you’ll get called out on bullshit as much as you’ll get great sources of information if you ask for them.
Gulag just means prison in Russian. I don’t know what they call prisons in China, but its not gulag. The prison system refered to as “the Gulag” in the west only existed for like 20 years or so. Less people were imprisioned in that system than at any time under Czarist russia, and far less than in the US now.
Just because it has a foreign name doesn’t make it anything other than just a prison. I know you’re an anarchist and for prison abolition, which is cool. But don’t act like there are some kind of extra bad prisons in AES
When did my personal opinions on Russia or China come into any of this lol all I said was that “tankie” has no definitive meaning as used and that leftists using it is dumb and makes them sound like liberals. That the term to you equates to uncritical support of AES and Russia kind of proves the point in both respects.
How do you build a future for leftism if you’re going to just call people tankies and tell them to fuck off back to hexbear and lemmygrad? They’re about the last place I’d expect fascism to be celebrated based on my experience.
Sankara is a tankie by everyone’s definition here. He came to power via a coup, held military tribunals trying people for corruption, formed armed groups to defend the revolution, and was vehemently against NATO, the IMF, and other western powers.
What does anti-authoritarian mean to you if Sankara is anti-authoritarian
Also arrested trade union leaders and got into it with a teacher’s union. I obviously support Sankara, and like you say he’s really not different from any other communist leaders except that he was assassinated and his work undone.
He came to power via a coup, held military tribunals trying people for corruption, formed armed groups to defend the revolution, and was vehemently against NATO, the IMF, and other western powers.
You think trying people for corruption make you authoritarian?
Okay so if being “authoritarian” is bad and means you shouldn’t be supported, and Sankara ran a state, making him authoritarian, by a definition you’re now agreeing with (again, anyone who runs a state) why are you pretending you don’t think he’s an authoritarian and trying to use him as a cudgel against people who actually share an ideology with him?
Is whether or not something is “authoritarian” to you simply determined by vibes, or is it actual actions? By all measures, you should hate Sankara as well. Be consistent.
By all measures, you should hate Sankara as well. Be consistent.
i dont think. so sankara did some really cool things.
The USSR did some cool things too , AT FIRST: then they started murdering anarchist and consolidating power and becoming a police state. As an anarchist I oppose this.
Maybe Sankara would have done the same if he lived. But he didn’t. He was murdered in a US back coup. He was murdered for being an anti imperialist.
The USSR is not anti imperialst. Neither is the CPC. These communists experiments became police states. Sankara didnt.
Sankara fought for nitrution, literacy anticorruption anti imperialism. He put more women in government snd fought against female genital mutilation. Anarchist support all of these things.
What we dont support is police states. Among other things.
Sankara was a supporter of the USSR and a Marxist-Leninist. Sankara isn’t a non-tankie just because he didn’t live to the tankie phase, he was always acting as an ML. If that makes you sympathize more with MLs, or makes you hate Sankara as you do tankies, either is your choice.
Sankara isn’t a non-tankie just because he didn’t live to the tankie phase, he was always acting as an ML.
I believe there is a difference in being ML and having police state aspirations/trending authoritarian. Which is when I use the term tankie.
Maybe I’m wrong tho you tell me. I liked what sankara did and I dont want to negate the cool things he did simply becuase he got murdered and we dont know what he was going to become.
There is nuance in his life that I can accept. But what I cannot accept is modern day MLs who look fondly on the actions of the USSR, russian federation and the modern day CPC. they are large authoritarian states that I cannot support as an anarchist.
Everytime I bring this up tho. I get called a lib.
It’s pretty simple. Most MLs critically support ML states. Almost all of them, for example, hate that Stalin banned homosexuality. At the same time, they can also appreciate how both Mao and the USSR doubled life expectancy and ended famine. By metrics, both states improved rapidly.
As an Anarchist, you can learn a lot from MLs on how to actually get stuff done. Anarchism is a beautiful dream currently, outside of fringe cases like Revolutionary Catalonia it hasn’t actually existed to a meaningful extent. I’m not saying you should become an ML, but MLs typically take their routes because it gets results, even if the Means aren’t pretty at all.
He set up Popular Revolutionary Tribunals to prosecute public officials charged with political crimes[12] and corruption, considering such elements of the state counter-revolutionaries.[15] This led to criticism by Amnesty International for human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions and arbitrary detentions of political opponents.[16]
Statists using tribunals to try other statists is the use of state authority and the use of the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If “Authoritarian” means anything at all then using the power of the state to prosecute people who are doing state stuff in ways you don’t like is authoritarian.
“Communist utopia” is the strawman of any support whatsoever for China and the DPRK, they’re arguing in bad faith. They know this but it will be fun to see their example (probably a shitpost from 2 years ago).
I don’t think I called you racist to start with, but my point was that just because something is called by X name in one context by one group of people and Y in another context by another group does not mean both names are equally valid. When it comes to political entities, typically the belief is that the group itself decides on its own name (like Kiev officially becoming Kyiv in English, to take a recent example). The CPC says that its name is the CPC. Western journos who want their readership to hate the Party call it the CCP. These are not equally valid bases for what to call something.
You’re arguing that it’s okay to call a group a term used almost exclusively by their political enemies who want them completely destroyed, I think it’s pretty obvious that you’re a racist.
We’re mainly waiting for you to say “Yes, I was wrong, Hexbear doesn’t shill for Russia/China/DPRK and call them communist utopias, and I guess tankies is kind of a meaningless term.”. I think that was the point.
I mean as I stated in other comments i went to hexbear a few months ago and saw a bunch of people doing this very thing. So if you want yo say that experiance was a fluke ok. But stop trying to paint me as a liar.
Also tankie has real meaning to anarchist. So I dont feel it is meaningless.
Putin does not care about the well-being of Ukrainian citizens
Of course not, he has never. He is acting in self-interest because Ukraine and the US are escalating violence. Do you remember the lethal aid Biden sent? Where do you think that lethal aid went? Who do you think it was shot at?
we’re teetering on Putin apologia and sharing RT news uncritically.
Putin is a corrupt bastard. I think many on this site cannot tell the difference between not viewing him as satanic vs licking his boot. I wasn’t going to try to argue this until your post came up.
So, China is clearly better than the US, considering that workers in BRI countries complain about price dumping, but countries in the American sphere complain about death squads. That said, we need to listen to workers and socialists who aren’t in power. The NPA says they’re getting shot with Chinese bullets. Workers in China still go on strike. Class struggle still exists in China, even if the state and party buffer it.
Oh wow, it’s almost as if the tiny parcel of land that China controls (less than 10% what the capitalists have) is not sufficient in resources to change the world on its own, so they have to partially adapt to the already existing system in order to have a chance against the west, while still keeping in place socialist policies like eliminating homelessness, small individual plots of farmland, limits on buying real estate on credit, etc
“OMG this POC must hate themselves because they speak english!” <---- This is you
What stops China and the DPRK being utopias is resources, not the CPC or WPK. The CPC and WPK are both forces of good. (What stops Russia from being a communist utopia is that the bourgeois democracy is actively working towards creating a capitalist dystopia).
The act of someone sitting at a brand new Mac, with a never-before-used interface, and immediately clicking the computer icon to drag it to the trash, is such a powerful image for me.
The statement of, “this is what I think of this computer” is so strong, because I have to believe that whomever did that must have been a tech person to be at the event; but perhaps they just thought it was a shortcut and didn’t like shortcuts on their desktop so they tried to remove it? Like, you can do this with Windows… Because the computer object (in Explorer) is immutable, and any reference to it is simply a link to that object.
I prefer the thought of them just being like “this computer is trash” and doing that, and causing the system to crash.
Moments like that are why I belive in timetravel, in the real timeline it took two years to find that bug and it was resolved quietly but of course someone is going to come back and troll them by doing it on day 1.
I think it’s more like they thought they were supposed to do that. I’m guessing they had no idea what to do, and putting an object in trash or recycle is something everyone understands, so that’s what their brain told them to do.
As a programmer, I consider The User to be the enemy. No matter how thoroughly I seemingly test my code, the second the user gets their hands on it, it breaks left and right from all the crazy shit they do.
The command in question recursively changes file ownership to account “user” and group “user” for every file and folder in the system. With linux, where many processes are run as root and on various other accounts (like apache or www-data for web server, mysql for MySql database and so on) and after that command none of the services can access the files they need to function. And as the whole system is broken on a very fundamental level changing everything back would be a huge pain in the rear.
On this ubuntu system I’m using right now I have 53 separate user accounts for various things. Some are obsolete and not in use, but majority are used for something and 15 of them are in active use for different services. Different systems have a bit different numbers, but you’d basically need to track down all the millions of files on your computer and fix each of their permission by hand. It can be done, and if you have similar system to copy privileges from you could write a script to fix most of the things, but in vast majority of cases it’s easier to just wipe the drive and reinstall.
Because I have been completely unable to find it again and this seems like a relevant place to ask: does anyone have a link to an article similar to this, that I believe might have been titled ‘My First Name is My Last Name’? This is made extra hard to look up because I’ve forgotten the specific culture and details it’s talking about, but it’s about the same basic issue with cultural conventions on names.
I used to work with a Greek guy called Argyros Argyros - cool guy, but suspect he was an outlier. Named after his dad, so certainly some people are named that way. Icelandic for instance would traditionally use “Given Name” “Patronym from father” - Magnus Magnusson was quite famous in the UK; Björk Guðmundsdóttir might be the most famous internationally, but she’s not a “double”. There’s quite a few cultures - Hungarian, Chinese, Japanese, … - that write their names as “Family Name” “Given Name” as opposed to the other way around, if that’s what you mean?
Apologies for being so sketchy on the details but I really can’t remember too many of the specifics. I’m fairly certain it wasn’t that his family name came first, because that’s fairly straightforward. I think the author might have been from an east or southeast Asian culture? I think that part of the essay might have been about how addressing him as Mr. Firstname is actually more formal than Mr. Lastname, even though Firstname is not his family name. I don’t want to keep guessing on more details about how the naming conventions were different because I’m probably going to get it wrong, I have fairly low confidence in what I remember from it.
I think that part of the essay might have been about how addressing him as Mr. Firstname is actually more formal than Mr. Lastname, even though Firstname is not his family name
Could it be Turkish? Just stumbled on this section on the Wikipedia article on mononyms
Surnames were introduced in Turkey only after World War I, by the country’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of his Westernization and modernization programs. Common people can be addressed semi-formally by their given name plus the title Bey or Hanım (without surname), whereas politicians are often known by surname only (Ecevit, Demirel).
Paying a bank hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest is also robbery. what did the bank do? Were rich and did paperwork. Wow so irreplaceable and valuable. Think of all the poor people they swindled to get there! Amazing 😍
What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
My controversial (for Lemmy) take is that loans are good for society. They provide an incentive to not hoard resources, but provide them to those who want to put them into action today for future benefit.
A good loan benefits both parties, ie. An auto loan that allows someone to buy a car to get to a job to earn an income that is above the cost of the loan. Without the loan that person couldn’t get to work and whatever service they were providing to society is lost.
All that said - that doesn’t mean the way loans work today is the best solution, but the same functionality of trading current and future resources needs to exist. You don’t have to call it a loan, and it doesn’t have to be performed by private for profit institutions, but if you want a thriving economy I believe you need this function carried out somehow.
The equivalent function in Communism is (or historically has been) a centrally planned resource allocation which very clearly is a horrible idea because of the incentives towards corruption. If you take a literal interpretation of communism (instead of historical) where “the workers own the means of production” trade unions could fulfill this current to future resource allocation function. I do not know if this would create the same corruption as single central authority, but my gut feels is that it would (based on the US labor union and organized crime affiliation of the past.
In short, the current function for trading current and future resources (ie. loans) is far from ideal, but I have not found an alternate that provides more benefits than deficits. I would love to learn about more alternatives, but just saying ‘loans R bad’ makes it sound like you’re advocating getting rid of them with nothing to handle their underlying function, which is a terrible idea.
I think a lot of folks have a fundamental misunderstanding of how loans work. The banks don’t get to just magically conjure up as much money as that want. It is backed by actual money/assets and federal regulations require a certain ratio between what the bank has loaned and the amount of money they have readily on hand.
I agree that it’s not a perfect system, and I definitely think “businesses” that offer those sketchy payday loan arrangements should be illegal, as they often price gouge the shit out of the interest rates (in fact, I believe many states have outlawed them). But I don’t know of a better solution that isn’t dependent on a utopian-esque idea.
Wow, I thought they’d raised it back up after COVID “ended.” How ridiculous, you’d think that would be one of the first tools they’d use to address inflation outside of just raising interest rates.
You are incorrect. Banks do create money from nothing. And I don’t know if it’s unlimited but I’m not sure why it needs to be unlimited to feel weird and/or unfair.
That is not true. This is typically how bank loans work: You make an account at a bank and deposit, say, $1000. Before 2020, the Fed would require the bank to retain something like 10% of that $1000 (just using 10% in this example, I haven’t looked up what the ratio was pre-2020). So they’d deposit $100 of your cash to keep on hand and could then loan out the other $900 to those seeking a loan.
However, the Fed set that reserve ratio to 0% in 2020, which is idiotic in the long-term and also likely a main contributor several banks collapsed in 2022/2023 as the Fed started raising interest rates (I’m no economic expert by any means, so I could be wrong on the main contributing factor).
I think you’re mixing up regular banks with the federal reserve, who definitely can just print money out of thin air.
From the very source you linked–which isn’t even a good source to begin with since very little of the actual responses there use their cited sources correctly, often quoting shit out of context or misinterpreting the source material:
The “out of nothing” aspect of your question is more complex. In my personal view, and I guess that’s only an opinion, is that because banks are government regulated and insured institutions, forced to back each loan with reserves, and regulated to have capital for each of those loans, they cannot really be said to make this private money out of nothing.
But again, that’s just one user’s response. Not a credible source. So here:
Creating money
Banks also create money. They do this because they must hold on reserve, and not lend out, some portion of their deposits—either in cash or in securities that can be quickly converted to cash. The amount of those reserves depends both on the bank’s assessment of its depositors’ need for cash and on the requirements of bank regulators, typically the central bank—a government institution that is at the center of a country’s monetary and banking system. Banks keep those required reserves on deposit with central banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, and the European Central Bank. Banks create money when they lend the rest of the money depositors give them. This money can be used to purchase goods and services and can find its way back into the banking system as a deposit in another bank, which then can lend a fraction of it. The process of relending can repeat itself a number of times in a phenomenon called the multiplier effect. The size of the multiplier—the amount of money created from an initial deposit—depends on the amount of money banks must keep on reserve.
Banks also lend and recycle excess money within the financial system and create, distribute, and trade securities.
Banks have several ways of making money besides pocketing the difference (or spread) between the interest they pay on deposits and borrowed money and the interest they collect from borrowers or securities they hold. They can earn money from
•income from securities they trade; and
•fees for customer services, such as checking accounts, financial and investment banking, loan servicing, and the origination, distribution, and sale of other financial products, such as insurance and mutual funds.
Banks earn on average between 1 and 2 percent of their assets (loans and securities). This is commonly referred to as a bank’s return on assets.
Which is a more detailed explanation of what I originally said. Yes, they create money. But it’s coming from somewhere and backed by something and not just magically imagined.
In the US, the Fed can just print money, and they have numerous times. But that’s because they’re legally allowed to. Banks don’t have the authority to straight up print new cash without something backing it up (e.g. reserves, assets, securities, transactions, etc.)
How is money created? Some is created by the state, but usually in a financial emergency. For instance, the crash gave rise to quantitative easing – money pumped directly into the economy by the government. The vast majority of money (97%) comes into being when a commercial bank extends a loan.
And I’m just curious. Why in the hell did you think you could tell me I am wrong when you clearly knew nothing about the topic? It’s kind of depressing that this thread is full of this shit. It is a backbone concept in our society, and instead of questioning yourselves, you fuckers are in here correcting people, spreading false information.
I mean I get doubting it. It’s insane. But use a damned search engine and question yourself.
You clearly didn’t read. After 20 seconds this page didn’t load, but doesn’t matter… It’s pretty obvious you don’t care about facts so I can’t imagine you understood or read it yourself
What if the bank decides to keep all $1.000 and loan out $10.000? While money wasn’t printed, phantom money was most definitely conjured out of thin air. And with the magic I don’t see how a bank couldn’t have, say, bought Disney with the phantom dollars
You’re misunderstanding the basics of banking like the other fellow I responded to. I provided a link by the IMF that explains the fundamentals in another reply. I’ll provide another one: investopedia.com/…/fractionalreservebanking.asp
Normal commercial banks cannot just print money, which is exactly what you’re implying with “phantom money.” The money has to come from somewhere and/or be backed by something. So no, a bank can’t just magically turn $1000 into $10,000 without something securing the additional money or the extra money coming from other funds. Only the Fed (or other countries’ central banks/governments) can print money on a whim.
I think the most generous interpretation of what they seem to be trying to explain is the “phantom plans” created from loaning loaned money.
A deposits 1k into bank Bank loans B 1k B loans C 500
There’s only 1k in circulation, 500 in B’s hands and 500 in C’s, but there is technically 1500 in total loans.
I could be off base that this is what they’re talking about, and I don’t necessarily think it’s all that relevant to the conversation, just spitballing.
What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
Making things affordable (or just priced within reason) if they are considered a necessity to live in society.
Yes, there are survival necessities ie. food, water, shelter. But in modern society, we can add Internet, phone, car (depending on where you live) or bus pass etc, and probably tuition for at least a bachelor’s degree.
If you want to buy a boat or some shit, then sure, you should have to take out a loan.
Love your optimism, but “making things affordable” is not a valid plan for managing resources. It provides a goal without a solution.
Are you suggesting price fixing? That has a lot of associated outcomes that typically cause worse situations than doing nothing.
You can introduce a guaranteed buyer at fixed price points which alleviate some of the negative consequences, but add others.
These are not simple problems. The reason these problems exist isn’t solely because “rich and powerful people are evil” as nice as that would be. These problems still exist because they’re complicated and ‘one size fits all’ solutions haven’t been found for them.
Again, love the lofty goal you’re setting, but you pretty blatantly don’t mention an alternative system. Easy to point out a problem, much harder to build a real solution.
The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn’t a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.
The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn’t a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.
March of history. When material conditions are right you transition from feudalism to capitalism. When material conditions build up further, you get the transition to socialism and then communism.
I think a better goal may be to make plans affordable. Loans are a valuable tool, if they’re at a decent rate, so restructure them. Interest never compounds. Rates have to be reasonable. Payments always come out of principle, with interest tacked on and paid at the end of the loan’s life. It’s also a reeeeeeally hard task to say just “make things affordable”
I don’t know that the loan concept is what’s broken as much as the idea of the bank itself. To me, the idea of credit unions makes a pretty good alternative to banks. At least every CU I’ve belonged to has been owned by the members, and the profits they made were used to subsidize interest rates for members needing a loan or, in some cases, a portion was paid out as a dividend at the end of the year to members.
Please read on the rent of the land by Smith, and anything by Henry George.
You appear to be advocating for anarchist concepts of free association and contract theory, but I’ve seen no specific citations. Are there any you’d reccomend?
How is money created? Some is created by the state, but usually in a financial emergency. For instance, the crash gave rise to quantitative easing – money pumped directly into the economy by the government. The vast majority of money (97%) comes into being when a commercial bank extends a loan.
I think the answers to the question are generally isaying it isn’t as simple as ‘creatijg money out of nothing’. They may be creating money but that money is backed against assets which they do own.
because banks are government regulated and insured institutions, forced to back each loan with reserves, and regulated to have capital for each of those loans, they cannot really be said to make this private money out of nothing.
The context you left out there said right before that “in my opinion”. In any case though, before it was “backed” by a fraction of the loan. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t new money that did not yet exist. It just means if the bank folded there was something to go toward repaying those whom they owed. But in any case that fraction was reduced to zero in the US under trump. Something I learned in this thread. So really, now that backing doesn’t exist any longer.
How is money created? Some is created by the state, but usually in a financial emergency. For instance, the crash gave rise to quantitative easing – money pumped directly into the economy by the government. The vast majority of money (97%) comes into being when a commercial bank extends a loan.
I agree with you. And yeah it’s bizarre that loans are literally just a privilege that banks get…to create new money out of thin fucking air. I agree–Biggest scam in history.
Simply put, when enough people deposit money into their accounts, banks will simply take the money and lend it to someone else. It is not “their” money, but crunch enough numbers and do enough predictions and you might make it out.
That’s why “run on the bank” is such a feared things - if everyone starts withdrawing cash or sending it to a different bank, the bank can’t really do that because they don’t have the money.
Don’t you worry, they would change their opinion on a dime of someone tried to prosecute Biden. We already know they don’t give a fuck about precedent.
As if they wouldn’t do that anyway if they didn’t have the court locked down already. Please quit acting like we can appease Republicans into acting reasonable.
Motorcycle emissions standards are incredibly lax by today's standards when compared to cars. That Prius just might be releasing less toxic substances than your motorcycle - while being able to cart around more people and stuff.
This is very true, even newer bikes that have more modern emissions are still generally exempt from the same standards as any car.
That being said if you have a high traffic commute it would still be faster for you to use a bike as well as better for everyone else in traffic so pros and cons.
Fortnine has a video that touches on the emissions/trying to be green and riding a motorcycle. The fact is most bikes not made within the last 10 years (and some that are) are carbureted and have little if any emissions control. Sure that Yamaha vstar250 might get 80mpg but that has more to do with having a smaller engine than a lawnmower than it does any modern engineering.
E-motorcycles really are best of both worlds. Small, mobile, and more energy efficient. Plus high torque means it feels powerful. They were available on market several years ago - I remember seeing a Wired piece on one.
They’re very cool but the problem is aero. To build an ev-bike that’s fast enough to be a motorcycle you run into a lot of drag. Ebikes that still go pretty fast but still technically are a bicycle fit this gap nicely.
Another issue is price though. To do my current commute via electric motorcycle id probably need to buy the HD Live Wire Del Mar, which if I remember correctly is about 17k. Do you know what else was 17k? My electric Fiat 500e which is what I generally use to do my commute. On the other end of the scale is pricing for ebikes which isn’t that bad and does start around the 500-800 but can easily get into the tens of thousands of dollars for some very high end options.
While I see there’s a lot of people here that disagree with me on motorcycles being just fine for commuting, it’s important to recognize that not every task needs a car. Motorcycles are not the cleanest way to get around but they do overall have less impact. Sure you can off-road in a Cadillac Escalade, but how much will that tear the trail up compared to my 450lb klr650? You might be able to fit 6 months groceries in the back but you also need to park in the back to find a spot. Sure you can haul 8 people but how often is it just 1?
That Prius, just by being manufactured, had an incredibly toxic environmental impact that it would take a motorcycle hundreds of thousands of miles to equal. Lithium battery manufacture is hell on the environment.
Oil processing is definitely bad for the environment, but think for a moment about the scales. Just in raw materials, ignoring the massive impact of battery manufacture alone, the average motorcycle weighs less than 600 pounds. The Prius weighs about six times that. That means six times the amount of shipping, forming, refining, finishing, et cetera…
The Prius still has an internal combustion engine that burns gasoline, and requires a significant amount of rare-earth minerals for the construction of its catalytic converter. Most motorcycles now have catalytic converters, but they are smaller and thus the environment suffers less damage per vehicle.
I agree that a Prius will burn cleaner while running than probably any motorcycle – but the total amount of damage done just by being built has to be a whole lot more than almost any motorcycle and it can’t be close.
Does this reflect how the platform is actually doing or do we just like the circlejerk of wishing they would fail? Because everything I’ve seen says Reddit has been completely unaffected by the changes made and they’re still getting more user signups, engagements and interaction/posts than ever.
Tik Tok also seems to be growing strong.
Twitter is a genuine laughing stalk and is pulling major shit…but everyone still seems to be using it regularly.
if you have been back to reddit, they might have growing numbers (probably due to shitty practices forcing you to use their app instead of mobile browser) etc. but the quality of discussions and the amount of bots just reposting the same comments skyrocketed.
I mean it’s a huge site, it won’t die, but if you look at it that way, Facebook is still alive, do you have a desire to spend time on that site though?
Pleased to say I haven’t been back to Reddit (except to scrub my entire history there to nuke my account). Reddit quality going completely down the toilet is something seen long before these changes were made. It’s really sad to see that companies aren’t forced to make better products because people will put time and money into these shit platforms regardless.
yeah I already noticed the downhill trend before the API changes but after it really went into a nosedive, expectedly the power users posting good shit just left, so rage bait reposts are the trending things.
I have been back to reddit to check things out from time to time. The quality has definitely degraded, and their changes to not seeing NSFW stuff without logging in or using their app has me visiting less and less.
The comment section is still nice, but I just don’t see the quality it once had.
The burden of proof lies in the eyes of the Christian god! And as a fellow Muslim, I can say nothing about it, but He might speak through me and say that Reddit became a place without much new content.
I don’t save sources in case of future need for references. I haven’t written a thesis on the matter. It came up in a few articles in my tech news RSS feeds. You’re welcome to not believe me and I would readily consider contrary information anyone else offers it.
Only a good 0.1% of reddit actually “creates content” with the rest having only engagement via comments. A good 99% of those also don’t do anything but lurk.
The people that make the content are also the ones more likely to switch to alternatives.
It’s an engagement loop so while the amount of signups and accounts is unchanged, there is simply less content to keep people around and to monetize.
We can take a look at the comment count on major subreddits over time. Using the top 5 most commented listed on Subreddit Stats, and then using Social Rise to see comments per day (go down to “Graph of” and click “comments”).
All except Starfield show comments cratering at the beginning of July, and they’re not coming back. Obviously, Starfield is a special case given the release of the game. AITAH was also just starting to pick up and then had its jugular cut out. Across the board, there looks to be a 3 or 4 times reduction in comment rates.
Now, perhaps the site is still OK among the more niche subreddits. That’d take a lot longer to analyze. But it’s clear the big traffic drivers are not pulling people in anymore.
While I overall agree this seems to be the case at first glance, I do notice that august there’s a huge drop that correlates with school starting up again. Probably need to compare to previous summers.
Edit: looks like it's still pretty huge even accounting for that
Good to know, i was having trouble on mobile with it. Thanks!
I'm glad I left that site. They just view us all as little addicts and have lost any semblance of caring about what made reddit work in the first place.
I just have a hard time believing this when the_donald started on reddit. The site has been an incubator for right wing actors for years. Even the infamous Stormfront recognized the opportunities for recruitment there years ago.
Reddit is driven by search traffic and the results got a lot worse since a lot of good posters quit. They lost the content but not the users yet, I think it’s just going to take a long time before they truly see the damage in their traffic statistics!
Good point. I wonder if there was a way to like auto-transcribe these voice/video comments and automatically embed them in the source code so you have like a written-out comment that people could read.
Heard a lot of this growing up like Seeger, Peter Paul and Mary, Joan Baez, but also Canadians like Lightfoot and Stan Rogers. Lately I’ve enjoyed some of the IWWs compilations of workers’ songs, Utah Philips etc. Phil Ochs is up there too.
My mother’s from an assimilated Mennonite background and it was one of the non-Christian genres that was permissible to her parents, because of the pacifist and civil rights sentiments in a lot of that music at the time. Also it lacked the sex and drugs themes which rock had. “I Aint Marching Anymore” and “Where have all the flowers gone?” I remember hearing quite often.
lemmy.ml
Top