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.)
for me, the section that changes the most goes last…
in a whole year, the YYYY never changes, the MM changes only 12 times… i never implementing the day… there’s only so many possibilities i could have had for saved files in June. i just go straight to description
I like that for files, but not for written documents. When I label things I try to use the most intuitive/least confusing way I can think of: DD mmm YYYY. This comment is posted on 23 NOV 2023, for example.
I do prefer the abbreviated month with the yyyy mmm dd format. It makes things relatively easy to sort but you also don’t have to worry about confusing others if you are referring to the 10th month or day for example.
Gets you to slow down and pay attention to your surroundings, doesn’t it? That’s the point, if you build roads that feel cramped to drivers they’ll naturally drive slower (i.e. actually the speed limit). Building all streets like they’re highways is a good way to get people going 50-60 mph on roads with houses directly on them.
No, that’s explicitly the reason for it, and it’s been shown to reduce the severity of crashes because people drive the speed limit when they feel it’s risky to go faster.
so swerving into oncoming traffic is safe? i had numerous near crashes because people overtook a bike driver coming my way. the netherlands do it better, the bikes have their own separated lane.
So, there’s a balance. If you don’t build enough room to do anything but drive slow to be safe, the moment someone is fast, the chances of a crash are very high.
If you build a road that has too much clearance, you end up with people driving faster, which is okay because there’s more room for people to be out of the way, likely reducing the amount of crashes. The drawback to this is, if people drive faster, the fewer crashes that do occur are at higher speeds, which are more deadly.
So the ratio of number of crashes to severity of crashes is what the end result is.
Granted, I live in the US where single lane country back-roads will have people in trucks going down at 50MPH randomly, so I don’t know if Europeans drive more cautiously. I know their driving tests are more comprehensive for sure.
11:17 is the timestamp that is most relevant here, separated bike paths should be the norm. and not the shitty “fahrradschutzsstreifen” bullshit they are pulling in germany. i have to swerve around people going not even 20km/h when i’m going 50. there’s no way that reduces accidents. the netherlands rock. i went on a vacation there a few years ago. public transport is so much better there. (key phrase “viable alternative”)
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.
Yeah… this isn’t a meme, it’s literally children being sold.
As I recall it, the family were facing eviction, and the kids were indeed sold, including the one she was pregnant with. A couple of them ended up basically being slaves on a farm somewhere.
I’ll laugh at plenty of things I probably shouldn’t but this isn’t one of them.
My grandfather was sold into what amounted to slavery during this time period under similar circumstances. Many of these children were treated with incredible cruelty, then grew up and were shipped off to war. Mostly voluntarily, given that war was actually a quality of life improvement where they got perks like socks and food.
A heel dragging regressive policy opinion should always be met as such. The world will never go back to the Wild West with gun laws, whites owning everything, women are property etc; to have a political viewpoint desiring these things and feel that it is correct is laughable.
What free market? All I have ever known is corporate socialism. Subsidize business with taxpayer dollars. Regulatory capture to prevent competitors from entering the market.
Somehow it’s not socialist when you prop up corporate entities with billion dollar handouts a few times a decade everytime they fuck up but a single mom getting $100 only usable for food because she was let go from her job of 5 years with 10 minutes notice is a communist plot single handedly destroying America.
Lmfao imagine simping so hard you believe nobody goes to jail in the name of capitalism in the land of the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.
Or gets taken out.
Or has their government interfered with or overthrown.
Just one example, Democratic Confederalism. There are endless possibilities, even within the scope of ‘communism’. To think free-market capitalism is the best that can be come up with is a severe underestimation of the powers of human ingenuity.
That is one of my biggest gripes with political discourse of all varieties, lack of creativity. I admit don’t know enough about the ‘democratic confederalism’ to fully support it, but from what I’ve heard it is compelling, it just comes to mind when I think of the question of capitalism vs communism.
I’d be interested to hear what you think communism is but I digress.
My better system starts with providing universal healthcare, education and housing.
That’s it. I want people to not go bankrupt for going to the hospital, not take out huge loans for university education and not have to pay exorbitant housing costs.
If you think this is fairy land dreams you have no comprehension of how much money is currently being redirected from these very things into the hands of capitalists so they can have a bigger yacht.
What makes you say that? As a random example, leaded gasoline existed for 50 years longer than it should have. We’ve known lead was toxic since the Roman empire, and the only reason it was invented was to increase profits.
Pretty much the whole world used leaded gasoline and capitalist countries were the first to phase it out. US phased it out relatively early compared to others, Japan was afaik the first to outright ban it in 86. My ex-eastern bloc country only fully banned it in 2002.
I recall a significant event that happened to the Eastern bloc not long after countries started banning leaded gas, could it be that the collapse of an entire political system prevented those countries from handling that?
What does the usage have to do with it? It was invented strictly for profit, and as such, leaded gas was the only thing being manufactured. Cars had to be specifically tuned to use it.
Romans died from lead in the aqueducts by the tens of thousands in Pompeii so saying they “knew” is misrepresentative to say the least. They didn’t know why. Do you really need hyperbole to make your point?
Before modern germ theory, we thought nightshade killed us because it unbalanced our humors. The why isn’t important, it’s the understanding of toxicity.
You see all these people out here suffering and still say this? Where in the world can I get what you are taking because I’d love to be able to tune out everything that hard.
It's not that capitalism doesn't have flaws. It's that all the other systems so far have had worse and bigger flaws. Regulated capitalism with welfare is the least bad system by a wide margin.
If I start talking to random people in a bar odds are I won’t meet a single one who will start calling me a Nazi because I believe in the Uyghur genocide…
Everybody loves jerking off about failed states but leave out how they always have to make it a vacuum while constantly under fire, conspiracy, and embargo by every capitalist state on the planet.
True, I’d expect pretty wild conspiracies like flat earth and chemtrails to be laughed at here, but a disturbing number of lemmings and even progressives in general follow a set of less outlandish - but more insidious - conspiracies that usually fall into the “collusion and malice” type. I could say that General Motors et al. killed most of the US passenger rail and streetcar systems, and most people here would accept that as a fact. Case closed, capitalism is evil and should be abolished, every bad thing is cause by someone with I’ll intentions making it worse.
I, however, tend to be suspicious of those sorts of takes in general. Returning to the alleged “streetcar conspiracy”I’ve actually done quite a lot of research into this and can decidedly say that the primary cause of the decline of mass transit in the US was… There were at least 5 primary causes, none of which were shadowy groups deliberately working to destroy it. Rather it was killed by a changing urban environment, failures to adapt to modal shifts, legacy streetcar systems just generally sucking, and local governments taking transit for granted and assuming that they can hold streetcar companies to exacting standards while expecting them to remain solvent, all while not considering it their problem.
I could go on, and can send some sources and references (maybe not direct links though) if you’d like to learn more. But my main point is that far too many people assume there’s a nefarious actor pulling the strings the whole time when it’s usually several factors lining up all the holes in the Swiss cheese and creating a negative externality we still talk about to this day.
There (usually) isn’t a conspiracy, and if there is it’s unlikely to be anywhere near as all-encompassing as you think. People say there is because it gives them someone to blame, helps channel their anger at something tangible, and just makes a good story.
Honestly, this place is full of communists. I’m not the biggest fan of communists, to be frank. There is a lot of backwards ideas that get accepted as “leftist,” when they’re really statist. Particularly revisionist history statist. If a communist party said it, you gotta defend it kinda thing.
I don’t identify as a communist. I just don’t want life to be unreasonably difficult for people. Thats it. I just what the promise of what labor was supposed to be. I want it to free us from the shackles of work or die. Guess that is extreme left now even with tankies around the corner from us.
Exactly. We have 50 years of computer driven exponential growth and not a fucking thing is better for us. We don’t work less, travel more, be richer, live a better life, or have a better future for the planet. It should make everyone anti-capitalist.
For one, the fact their work (which took significantly less time) lead to a real, objective difference and benefit in their society. There’s also the fact that anyone not enslaved had partial or complete ownership of their lands. Not to be underestimated, as well, is the fact their society wasn’t immediately doomed to collapse from worldwide catastrophes.
This. When I was younger I considered myself pretty centrist, generally people would agree. My views never really changed, but the Overton window has shot so far right I now get called a commie (I guess here I’m a tankie? Still dunno wtf that’s about except a slur for ‘left of Biden’) because I think a 40 hour work week should put a basic roof over your head, whether an efficency on your own or a roomie in a nicer spot.
(I guess here I’m a tankie? Still dunno wtf that’s about except a slur for ‘left of Biden’)
As far as I can make out, tankies are people who support communist governments even when they go way too far. So even though leaders like Jinping are essentially dictators, because they’re ostensibly communist the tankies support them.
At least that’s what I’ve seen from a few weeks on lemmy. I’m sure some tankies will be along to correct me soon.
Ah, so the thing I still haven’t seen happen except for everyone saying it happens to attack leftist instances.
Oh, and people attacking others for worshipping someone all in when they point to any particular point of a particular person (IE “In regards to X, Lenin said Y” “Oh HeRe We gO aNoThEr LeNiN wOrShiPpInG tAnKiE”)
Of course, I’m sure there’s SOMEBODY out here simping for China or whatever, but if that silly small percentage paints all leftists then by their own logic all capitalists should be branded as fascists - WAY more “right” people calling for fascism around here than China worshipperss and whatnot.
Not extreme left but it’s socialist and isn’t consistent with American ideals. You can bitch about that shit if you want but we’re in the decay phase after a gluttonous society and you think the answer is communism? You do, you think everyone and everything should be “fair” but life and this country don’t work like that.
Could be if we tried. The democrats have been neo-lib appeasement artists because they are a part of the ruling class. This system cannot hold. Something will change. We just have to wait and see which way it breaks. Either way, I’m already doing the work to see a world I want. I don’t care about the noise. Arguments like “Life ain’t fair” are a poor substitute for putting yourself out there. I used to think much the same way. But, I had to do something about how bad it is getting.
Define ‘full of communists’… cause it sounds like such an american phrase and perspective. To me, it’s just a more leftwing centered space. The real communists are a minority. At least on the biggest Lemmy servers.
Lol I’m not crying “SOCIALISM!” because someone recommended taking care of poor people. And maybe it’s just the communities on lemm.ee, maybe it’s because I interact with the communities more because I can’t bite my tongue. But I come across way more communist communities than anything else. Your instance matters. I see a lot of communist communities. As an anarchist, the prevalence of communism on lemmy is troubling to me because I see huge flaws in the thinking and i want to see the left not follow down a doomed hierarchical road that has proven to be a failure over and over and over again.
Lemmy.world I think has banned most tankie subs. It wasn’t until the endless problems with lemmy.world that I switched over to lemm.ee and I see way more communist shit, but have way fewer connectivity issues.
What system do you think they are referring to as an anarchist? Anarchism is simply opposition to hierarchies that allow control over others, such as the control capitalists have over workers by owning the means of production and political forces. The system that anarchists advance in place of that can take an unlimited number of forms.
Anarchism is simply opposition to hierarchies that allow control over others, such as the control capitalists have over workers
Or the control the hierarchical entity (state) must have over a populous to stop thievery and violence. Even in a perfectly idealized world, anarchism only just barely gets to work, teetering on the brink of collapse.
We have a state now though, has thievery and violence been stopped? How many thousands are in poverty, how many are killed in global wars waged in the name of profits? There are states where theft and murder are extremely rare, and states where it is common. What is the difference between the conditions where it is common and uncommon? Is a top-down control and manipulation the only way to reduce violence?
Anarchism works all the time. It’s more than a political structure, it’s an idea about how to organize relations between people, and there already are many groups that are active that function on anarchist principles.
Any group that collects itself in the modern world as anarchist, like anarchist groups in the Spanish Civil War, are heavily repressed by state forces. Capitalist states work together to discourage anarchist ideals even more so than communism because of the possibility it has for threatening traditional power structures.
the possibility it has for threatening traditional power structures.
You mean the possibility of completely collapsing civilization as a whole.
We have a state now though, has thievery and violence been stopped?
Fallacious reasoning, and pretty obvious at that. I give you a cup of water - some water has been poisoned by heavy metals. If you drink the cup of water, will you get metal poisoning? The only intellectually honest answer is: the question is flawed. The same way it doesn’t follow that
Some water is poisoned ⇏ All water is poisoned
It also doesn’t follow that
The suppression of violence begets control ⇏ All control suppresses violence.
This is further proven by your following statement
What is the difference between the conditions where it is common and uncommon?
You said a state must have control to stop thievery and murder, but I’ve never heard of a state that successfully stopped those things, is what I was getting at. The point about conditions where violence is common or less common is that there are more primary factors to violence than whether or not someone will be punished by state forces for that violence. There are more effective ways to combat violence and theft than a police state.
I just checked and you’re instance isn’t federated with Hexbear so you don’t see their users’ comments, my instance was federated with them for a couple of days and it made the Lemmy experience a mess.
There is a lot of backwards ideas that get accepted as “leftist,” when they’re really statist.
This is my objection too.
All too many people here don't seem to even begin to understand the inherent threats of institutionalized authority, so in their rush to head off the recreation of the Third Reich, they're basically advocating for the recreation of the Khmer Rouge instead.
I’m not sure how I identify philosophically but I wholeheartedly beleive that I should have the iron fisted power to drive all the radical christofascist conservatives and their enablers bloody and screaming back into their hovels or over a very high rocky cliff.
And I dream of a world in which, instead of merely wishing to oppress and murder this group of people instead of that one, people don't wish to oppress and murder anyone.
Tell that to Voat, or Gab. There’s plenty of offshoot free speech platforms that got flooded with actual racists and Nazis the same way that Lemmy got flooded with actual communists and anarchists.
They mean it’s not as precise or relatable as farenheit for talking about the weather. Like in farenheit 0 is cold and 100 is hot. Also more precise from one degree to the next. I just assumed that’s what they mean from reading this topic many times before, but I don’t agree with it, I can kind of understand, but the relatable part is just based on what you’re used to, and the precision is moot, you can go after the decimal point in Celsius if you need further precision, which you really don’t when talking about the weather anyway.
Digital randomness vs physical randomness for one. Code can be subtly weighted easily in the direction and degree you want without regulation or oversight. Your roulette wheel’s loss of randomness is random itself and tampering is easy to see for regulators who absolutely exist and are inspecting. Even digital slot machines are heavily regulated. Your trust isn’t in the casino, it’s in the state it occurs in. And like yeah something fishy might be happening in a casino in your state. But nobody has stricter statisticians than the Nevada government. Their state’s economy relies on it.
Also physical gambling sells an experience outside the home in a specific atmosphere. Online gambling feels like the equivalent of getting a vodka faucet ran into your house next to the water. Sure you can indulge responsibly in that situation, but it’s not made for that purpose and it’s going to be much easier to find you’ve slipped into a serious addiction that’s harder to avoid.
Another big thing is that in the US at least, recovering addicts can go to the casino and tell them to not take their money anymore. These safeguards aren’t present in offshore online gambling sites.
Usually they promise you something like extra money on your first deposit, daily free spins, or something else to get you hooked.
A former coworker claimed to have a scheme on one casino to use those perks for guaranteed free money (of variable amounts per month), buuuut never told me much about it. Given that, it might even have been legit.
Haven’t really tried it myself, I have ADHD so I’m afraid of addictive things. I already have alcohol, nicotine and caffeine in my life, I don’t want to add gambling.
I understand why people do emotionally, but working in tech I just know there’s no such thing as “online gambling”. Even random number generators can’t be 100% random. This takes that and adds on businesses that want to be profitable and minimal oversite.
I don’t know how people can believe it’s fair and not rigged. You’re telling me out of all of those millions of lines of code, nothing in there skews a bit to the house to screw you over? Nah, they’ll keep your money. Any wins you may have are because they let you have them.
It depends on your definition of rigged. There are many “provably fair” online casinos where they use hashes and user generated seeds that influence the outcome such that it makes it 100% verifiably fair but you will still lose over time because the house edge. If you call the house edge “rigged” then offline gambling is equally rigged
Offline casinos can also make money on drinks/snacks/entrance fee/hotels rooms. Theoretically it would be possible to run an offline casinos with loosing odds. (They don’t)
Offline casinos have a much higher margin (called house edge) than online casinos. This is because they need to pay rent, business rates, salaries, security, etc. Online casinos can survive on a skeleton crew with a cloud based turn key solution. Thus their house edge is usually lower. The lower the house edge is, the more players win. The more players win, the more players you have.
It's all rigged, technically. If you go to a real life casino, slots are certified to pay out some percentage of plays. It's like, 8%.
If you play craps, roulette - the house always has the edge because there's more results favorable to them.
The only "casino" game where the house doesn't have an edge is poker because that's player against player. The house doesn't really have a stake in any outcome, they're just being paid to host the game.
Besides your examples there are only a handful of games where the player has so much as an even chance against the casino and even then it requires doing extra skill based efforts. One example is card counting in blackjack, using basic strategy you can lower the house edge to something like 1% or even a little lower depending on the rules of the table. Counting is the only way to push the edge in the players favor in blackjack. Even then, its taking what is around a 48% chance for favorable player outcomes and barely nudging it to a 50-51% chance for the player. Roulette has some of the best odds, something like a 7-8% chance to land on any one number and with hedge bets those odds go up without any input from either side but even then the house edge in that is still ludicrously high by comparison to blackjack, baccarat or poker.
Physical slots "feel" less likely to be rigged than digital slots but as another commenter said it depends on the jurisdiction one finds themselves in as to whether that is true or not. The state would like their cut too so most regulators want to keep the games fair as fair games draw players in. Rigged games eventually lose casinos business cause word spreads among the players. Overall digital slots just feel less trustworthy and most likely are less trustworthy.
There’s also blackjack, but you have to start with a large sum, and count cards. Technically there’s nothing wrong with that, but you’ll get kicked out.
Edit: woops. Yeah the other guy already made my point.
Oh agreed, it’s just to me there isn’t even the illusion of chance now. That “deck of cards” could have all the face cards “missing” out of it and no one would know. The slots could literally be programmed to pay out only if you seem like you’re getting bored. it’s just too easy
but working in tech I just know there’s no such thing as “online gambling”.
I wouldn’t call pseudorandomess(if that’s what you’re implying) as disqualifying something from being gambling - it only needs to be random enough with an even distribution.
If instead you’re talking about odds being slightly in favor of the house then… that’s literally no different than gambling irl either. At which point, I have to question what you even define as “gambling”.
Online casinos are not rigged. But there’s a lot of math behind them. And this math tells you exactly how much money the casino will make. There’s literally no point rigging anything when you have a super stable source of income.
No, it’s not gaming, it’s gambling. Gaming is if you get exactly what was promised for exactly what you payed. Gambling is if you maybe get what was promised while being disguised in gaming mechanics to be more appealing. And yes, loot boxes in games are gambling and should be banned.
The law governing gambling is referred to as Gaming Law
That’s by design to make it sound like a good thing. The more accurate “gambling” has gotten deservedly negative connotations and the even more accurate “almost certainly being tricked into throwing your money away based on misleading information from predatory rich people” is a bit of a mouthful.
All gambling games also meet the definition for ‘games’, which is likely why they also use that term.
The Battle of The Bulge also met the definition for “exercise”, doesn’t mean people who sold it as a way to get fit wouldn’t be fraudsters.
let me play blackjack sometimes
Sure! But that’s not what casinos do, that’s not how they get their money. They’re inherently predatory and fraudulent. “The House Always Wins” because the “games” are rigged.
Nonono, you don’t understand, dude. See, there’s these hats, right? But sometimes, the hat has this super rare effect, see? And, if I spend $2.50 per crate key, I can sell that unusual hat for more than I spent on the key, making profit. OR — hear me out — or: I could spend the unusual i unbox on MORE crates and keys, and get more unusuals.
But I DID also have a shady key guy I paid through PayPal who gave me keys for 1.20USD, so I was very lucky.
I hate gambling, but I LOVED pixely hats. I’ve been to a casino only a few times in my life and it was almost always super boring. But the rush when there was a full server ceasefire so everyone could come stare at the firey hat I had just opened…
The same could be said for the show that is being discussed in the parent comment. I would hope you see my point by now but I’m going to guess you don’t.
Except laborers are also capitalists. I’m a laborer, and trust me when I say there’s plenty of people here on Lemmy who think I’m a dirty fucking useless capitalist because I need to spend money to survive, or chose to purchase a luxury, or offset my labor by requesting compensation in money form from another person.
90,000 different definitions here on Lemmy of what people think capitalism is and what a capitalist is, I’m weary at this point from all the disparate ideas of what this notion even is. It’s ludicrous. It doesn’t matter to people what it ACTUALLY MEANS becuase its become a sudonym for people hatred of money in general (which I share).
So no, you don’t get to have a world where somebody drew a comic for fun and profited off of it, but that’s somehow NOT capitalism, then somehow when Netflix making a live show, is 100% different and suddenly capitalism. It’s fucking stupid to even suggest. They are both capitalists. Even if the artist is not the IP holder, they have been a cog in the system which holds the IP regardless and as such are constituent.
You just don’t have class consciousness my friend and some of the terminology associated. That’s fair, it’s not always easy and it’s also purposely obscured from you.
It’s easiest to think about people in two classes. Workers and Owners. There’s a bit of gray area, but it’s a very useful distinction. How do you make most of your money; owning property/factories/ip, or selling your labor for a wage?
Profit is not the same thing as “making money”. It’s explicitly the extra money made by the capitalist after material and labor is paid. You pay 3 dollars of labor and 2 dollars of materials to make 6 dollars of revenue, you have made 1 dollar of profit. Arguably that dollar of value was made by the worker, but extracted by the capitalist.
Obviously the workers don’t do it for free, but the capitalist still isn’t making the art. **The workers do. You aren’t a capitalist. You have false solidarity with your masters.
It’s about $17 million dollars an episode and there are about 1059 episodes to adapt. If they keep pace it will only cost about 18 billion dollars to adapt the current anime series.
Well, it’s not like an anime episode is the same as a live action episode though.
An anime episode is like 20 minutes of content after you remove the opening and recap and ending. And if you remove all the filler and repeating scenes, it’s maybe 5-10 minutes of actual content. They adapted like 45-50 episodes into 8, and the first saga is probably one of the most dense in terms of content.
For the future, I fully expect a 10:1 ratio between anime episodes and live episodes. Maybe even more.
That would still mean more than 12 seasons to go, before catching up to now, with who knows how many more before the series ends.
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).
Lol the best part about that is, it spawned from floppy disks. It hasn’t changed. And there’s no official docs on why. Instead search results are literally StackOverflow and forum questions on why it’s not a thing.
The best part about this is that the keyboard company likely followed tutorials for building their device drivers and never substituted the default image (which is a fictitious company called Fabrikam):
You probably meant /dev/cdrom which as far as I know is just a link to CD-ROM drive. In case of SATA and SCSI drives it links to /dev/sr(number) and in case of IDE drive to /dev/hd(letter).
Yeah, but I have nothing against Debian. At the time, my family was on dialup, so being able to order the entire apt repo on 7 CDs was very handy. Back then, the default kernel didn’t include sound drivers… fun times!
I recently returned to Debian (unstable) on my Linux laptop and it’s been nice.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.