We aren't going to tolerate intolerance in this instance. I personally don't have a problem with communists. But I do have a problem with authoritarian communists. If you think me making this distinction is acting in bad faith, then you might run into more issues than just me here.
I personally don't have a problem with communists. But
Sounds like you have a problem with communists, or do you think that the country with the biggest army, police force, and imprisoned population (disproportionately of racial minorities) is somehow not authoritarian?
We have a federal presidential constitutional republic or FPCR in the US. It has three branches of government at the federal level that ideally work as checks and balances on each other. Then there are many subordinate state governments that act as a means of delegating responsibility for the federal government. Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population. We the people rule in America. The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.
Democracy is when 7% of the population has faith in the governance, and the more people believe they are being heard the more authoritarian you are
We are circling the fascist drain. A fascist take over could happen in the 2024 election cycle next year. It's not really surprising how low confidence is in our intuitions when Republicans are actively dismantling them for power.
The Democrats have been active participants in that though. They've been in power since 2020 and they fucked around making up excuses about imaginary roadblocks (like the parliamentarian) to doing shit people actually wanted. Their inaction and abject failure has hurt a lot of people who voted for Democrats in real ways and that's why people are losing faith in governance, among many, many other things.
Democrats had a tight majority because of flaws in our democracy that allow Republicans to disproportionately represent themselves. Democrats had to negotiate around Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. It honestly impressive Democrats got anything done at all, but the legislation they did pass is not enough on its own. If we don't fix the issues with our democracy soon we are going to lose it, because Republicans are going to keep exploiting everything they can until they get total power.
I legit don't care if we lose it at this point because it seems like it's been pretty worthless all along. At least as a democracy for anyone other than slave/property owners.
I really care. Without democracy, people like me and the people I care about are going to end up in death camps. American prisons are probably where it will happen. Once Republicans ram through the death penalty everywhere.
How exactly has the democracy prevented that? The American 'democracy' has overseen many genocides in its past, I don't see this as a deviation from form. I've pretty sure I'd be on the chopping block too, but the key distinction is I'm not putting my faith in voting as a preventative measure for that
Non-violent means to prevent violence should be cherished. It's true, the US committed genocide against Native Americans. That is obviously morally wrong. We haven't been doing that in the 20th or 21st centuries though.
How exactly has the democracy prevented that?
Elected politicians are beholden to the people, so they can't go around killing all of their voters.
It's true, the US committed genocide against Native Americans. That is obviously morally wrong. We haven't been doing that in the 20th or 21st centuries though.
The US has committed genocidal war against Koreans and Vietnamese and Afghans and Iraqis among others in the 20th and 21st centuries.
As robot pointed out, the killing never stopped- the US killed approximately a third of the population of North Korea, dropping more bombs on that part of the peninsula than on all of Europe.
Elected politicians are beholden to the people, so they can't go around killing all of their voters.
Conveniently, the millions of people killed and displaced by Americas warmongering don't get a fucking vote lol.
I mean the killings stopped after the cease fire that ended the fighting in the Korean War if not the war itself. Yeah, it seems like America was over inclusive on what were military targets in the Korean War.
Conveniently, the millions of people killed and displaced by Americas warmongering don’t get a fucking vote lol.
Yes, if you're not in a democracy you don't get a vote. I don't get the practicality of being completely anti-war. Wars are an inevitable part of human society. Atrocities committed in war don't undermine the value of democracy. In fact, I would argue that democratic societies experience fewer atrocities because their governments are beholden to the people and do not have absolute power.
The PRC has the same three branches of government, including a President at the head of the executive branch, and a constitution that lays out their roles (more thoroughly than the US does the power of the judiciary), and it also holds direct elections for municipal offices. Neither country directly elects its President, as the PRC has elected officials vote and the US has the Electoral College say "just trust me bro" before giving the election to the other guy half the time (based on elections this century).
We can see how the electoral college votes, just as we can see that China's elections are a sham. Loyalty to Xi is the only thing that matters in Chinese politics now.
We can see how the electoral college votes, hence why I wasn't worried about asserting that it just hands the votes to the other guy half the time, because if you are going to have a popular vote anyway, there's not much cause to just tip the scales in the direction of land owners unless you were against democracy.
Have you ever made the slightest effort to investigate China's elections? Or do you just believe what the western press tells you about them? There's that saying that there is no need to burn books if you can just persuade people not to read them and we have here a demonstration why.
The electoral college is one of the flaws I would like to see fixed. We should abolish the electoral college. It disproportionally benefits Republicans because they control more land, as you said. Representative democracy is supposed to represent the majority of people not a minority.
I read a variety of what the free press has to offer about China. Xi has clearly consolidated power around him. It's not a secret.
free press
A press thats 100% controlled by the capitalist class and expresses their interests cannot reasonably be described as free.
Non-profit does not mean its not run by capitalist interest
While the Sandler Foundation provided ProPublica with significant financial support, it also has received funding from the Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Atlantic Philanthropies.
Can't find anything about funding right now, and I'm tired. But I do know they routinely publish articles inconsistent with the values of their namesake.
But I need to go to bed. Ive been doing this all day.
I don't see why you feel the need to be so picky. Any story can be cross referenced from multiple sources. Regardless, we can always argue later. Please get sleep. =)
The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.
We literally had a bunch of unelected people in robes declare the president, just over 2 decades ago.
Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population.
ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don't. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that's often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.
Again, the unelected people in robes declared that money is speech, not only swaying elections but allowing influence to be bought directly. How is that a democracy?
You seem to be conflating the concept of 'democracy' with the freedom to spend money however it may hurt someone else structurally. That's pretty authoritarian if you're someone without money.
The Supreme Court has numerous issues. For starters, they aren't elected so they aren't beholden to the people. They have minimal ethics guidelines so they can accept bribes from billionaires. They don't have term limits, so they are effectively 9 kings and queens. The electoral college allowing two presidents to win their first term without the popular vote and the Senate giving conservative states over representation has allowed conservatives to capture the court. edit: typo
These compounding issues are destroying our democracy. If we don't fix these issues we will not have democracy. The Supreme Court is already stripping rights from people, it's only a matter of time before Republicans win back the Congress and the Presidency. If the Republicans are still controlled by fascists then and we haven't fixed these problems we are going to be trouble.
ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don’t. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that’s often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.
Yeah, rent is way too expensive. Another reason for socialism to the pile. edit: spacing
I would make the case that the supreme court has never been anything other than a reactionary institution, and it sounds like you agree.
I would go on to point out that the rights 'won' by the supreme court are ephemeral and can be snatched away at any moment-
Take some of the examples of 'liberal' rulings- Roe vs wade came about the whole question of abortion from a liberal angle of privacy. Rather than simply providing a universal standard of prenatal healthcare to people, they opted for this sideshow. It's never been about life, maternal mortality is ridiculously high in the the US, it's about maintaining the profitable status quo.
The gay marriage ruling is another example of how worthless rights won by supreme court are- and how we should expect them to be retracted at any moment.
Yeah, with the way the Supreme Court is now definitely. The concept of settled law was bullshit. It's nine votes and whoever has the most wins. McConnell understood that better than most apparently. Hopefully we will be able to fix this in time to stop a fascist take over.
You might run into more issues than just this thread by casually tossing out the "authoritarian" label like you did on Reddit where the groups in question couldn't defend themselves
I think you'll find that goes both ways. We can defend ourselves too. You are not on Hexbear. This is Blahaj.
Defend what? I don't think the parallel you want to draw works quite as well as you think. My point is that Redditors can cast stones in their ignorance at people who they would struggle to string a whole sentence together to describe without buzzwords because they know jack shit about what those people actually think. Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
Defend what?
ourselves
they know jack shit about what those people actually think
I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
I'm not sure how they can be if they think everyone to the right of them is a liberal.
But defend yourselves from what?
Not everyone to the right is a liberal, people like theocrats exist, but the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal (with influence from those evangelical theocrats), which is a subset of the larger political-philosophical category of liberalism. We can point to some differences between Republican and Democrat, but they are overwhelmingly of style and PR, not the substance. There are very specific issues, like abortion, where you can pretty reliably see differences, but even here the difference is overstated and this is evidenced by the fact Obama didn't even try to codify Roe when he got elected and had Dems controlling congress.
Why is this? Well, I think you can avoid needing to offer people a carrot if you can just offer them not getting the stick, but if you make them secure then they'll start asking for carrots. But that's personal speculation.
More important is the overwhelming consensus seen on a variety of issues when you look at their actions. Biden has over and over had the chance to let Trump-Era executive orders simply die, but he has repeatedly signed on to their continuation or even expansion. All the power that Trump unfortunately wielded in office to push EOs and theoretically to veto seems to have evaporated when they touched old Joe's hands. Why is that? It can't be ignorance.
I knew people who thought Joe would be less hawkish on China, since that is traditionally the role of Republicans, but he in fact has been more hawkish! He has done a better job of stabilizing relationships with America's North Atlanticist allies, but the imperial policies under Trump and Obama have continued aside from pulling out of Afghanistan (which Trump began working on but was too much of a coward to follow through on, we need only see the media backlash to Biden doing so to understand why).
I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
But defend yourselves from what?
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
In order: learn how federation works, oh no you poor thing, and Ben Shapiro wants his shtick back.
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
You don't need to tell a communist that the people are to the left of the politicians, but apparently a communist needs to tell you that as far as engaging with individuals go, that means shit if they are too occupied with the same "gommunism no food" talking points the politicians to their right fed them.
As an aside, Denmark is still liberal, capital is the dominant power there as much as in the US.
I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
I said "consider," you have the right to be willfully ignorant and undercut your professed interests, those freedoms are some of the few that really are protected in the US. Regarding speech, it is only free if it doesn't matter and otherwise you're in jail or shot, and you need only look at Assange for evidence of that.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world, overthrowing whatever country it deems too much of a problem unless that country hardens itself remarkably against external threats. Huh, I wonder if there's some throughline here?
Your argument is getting throughly scattered and devoid of meaning. You might as well say, "I'm trolling you.", and save yourself the effort.
I said “consider,”
I did.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world
I don't agree with the US cold war policy of toppling socialist countries and instating capitalist dictatorships. Thankfully modern US foreign policy is about supporting democracies. edit: spacing
Do you, like, investigate any of this? Are you not familiar with the attempts to topple Venezuela, the brief coup government in Bolivia that massacred protestors, or anything that isn't a White House Press Release? Do you think the bombs dropped on Yemen were for democracy? Do you think the continued colonizing of Palestine is for that purpose?
Weirdly I can see the actions you're describing as wrong, but still understand the benefits of American democracy.
Just so we can move on and not talk in circles, is that you tacitly admitting that the US FP is not about "supporting democracy"?
Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.
The cotton workers and the train workers should seize the means of production via their democracy. If they don't have a democracy, they should perform a revolution to establish one.
Referring to a revolution by the people as authoritarian is like saying the oppression of a king is freedom. It doesn't make sense under closer observation. Using force to achieve freedom does not invalidate that freedom. Once the revolution has been won, the people rule themselves. Any authority over them is a temporary construct of their own making that can be removed and replaced.
I completely agree, do you see why I linked it in response to the use of authoritarian?
Not really, sorry. It's legit going over my head. =(
Authority isn't necessarily bad. For example, suppressing the free speech and ability to congregate for nazis is good.
I think hate speech, threatening violence against another person based on inherent characteristics or for any reason really, should not be allowed. Nor should people be allowed to storm the capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Other than that though I think people deserve free speech and freedom of assembly even if I disagree with the speech or reason for assembly. Nazis tend to say a lot of hate speech and storm the capital so it isn't really necessary or good to make an exception for them specifically.
I'm not interested in proactively suppressing Nazis, as that would make us no different than them. To put it another way, I'm not interested in rounding people up solely based on their political views. I am for punishing Nazi's for their hate speech and insurrection. I think there should be consequences for actions and hate speech. I am also for educating people and getting Fox News off the air.
The authority vested in democratic leaders is ephemeral enough that it is the only desirable form of authority. At the end of the day, it's the people who rule, not their leaders. By comparison the authority that dictators wield is very enduring and hard to get rid of. They make every decision and the dictators' egos are what everyone around them has to be loyal to.
I'm not interested in proactively suppressing Nazis, as that would make us no different than them.
No, the people who suppressed nazi sympathizers during ww2 are not the same as people committing the holocaust. Nazis weren't bad just because they targeted their political enemies. I would recommend reading blackshirts and reds and then the economics and class structure of german fascism.
The authority vested in democratic leaders is ephemeral enough that it is the only desirable form of authority. At the end of the day, it's the people who rule, not their leaders.
All these "authoritarian" socialist societies had democracies. They are more democratic than any western democracy. Look at how Cuba's family code was drafted before it passed by referendum.
No, the people who suppressed nazi sympathizers during ww2 are not the same as people committing the holocaust.
The Allies were fighting a war against the Axis powers. While the Nazis rounded up civilians for all kind of reasons, including political views.
We aren't in a civil war in America right now. There is no basis to take action against modern fascists outside of the numerous acts of domestic terrorism they commit. Rounding up fascists solely based on their political views make us like the Nazis and is unbecoming of any free society.
All these “authoritarian” socialist societies had democracies.
Not the USSR, China, or North Korea which is what I was referring to by authoritarian communists.
We aren't in a civil war in America right now. There is no basis to take action against modern fascists outside of the numerous acts of domestic terrorism they commit. Rounding up fascists solely based on their political views make us like the Nazis and is unbecoming of any free society.
People who are trying to start a pogrom on trans people, Jewish people, etc should be prosecuted actually, regardless of whether they're actually successful. You can't wait for the nazis to win before you crush them, by that point it will be too late.
Not the USSR, China, or North Korea which is what I was referring to by authoritarian communists.
What about these countries governments are different structurally from Cuba's government?
People who are trying to start a pogrom on trans people, Jewish people, etc should be prosecuted actually, regardless of whether they’re actually successful. You can’t wait for the nazis to win before you crush them, by that point it will be too late.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If we go that route we are going to become the thing we are trying to prevent.
What about these countries governments are different structurally from Cuba’s government?
Rather than a difference in government structure, I would point to a difference in leadership. I personally believe Castro really did believe in socialism and had the best interests of the Cuban people at heart. As great as that is, a system of government that depends on the benevolence of its leaders is not one I want to live under.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If we go that route we are going to become the thing we are trying to prevent.
No, we will become people who suppress nazis, which is not the same as being a nazi. For an allegory, killing a serial killer in self defense (but before he actually kills you, gasp) does not make you a serial killer.
Rather than a difference in government structure, I would point to a difference in leadership. I personally believe Castro really did believe in socialism and had the best interests of the Cuban people at heart. As great as that is, a system of government that depends on the benevolence of its leaders is not one I want to live under.
So why don't you believe any of the other leaders believed in socialism?
Also this is great man theory taken to an extreme.
Also I dont know how you can look at any of their government structures and claim that the people were reliant on the benevolence of the leadership.
For an allegory, killing a serial killer in self defense (but before he actually kills you, gasp) does not make you a serial killer.
While this is a true statement it does not follow that preventive actions against people who hold fascist views, but do not act on them, is anyway different what the Nazis did to people.
So why don’t you believe any of the other leaders believed in socialism?
The USSR Politburo only cared about itself. Same with the CCP and the Kim family. These are extractive institutions that are only self serving. They are not beholden to anyone so they have no incentive to care what the people want.
Also this is great man theory taken to an extreme.
He didn't get the right to lead from inherently being a great man. He got it by leading his people in a revolution against a dictator. His policies benefited enough people so they continued support him. Castro actions were based on his personal moral compass. The fact Cuba didn't become like North Korea is great. If Cubans aren't giving meaningful mechanisms for dissent going forward, they will have little recourse to prevent their government from becoming like the Kim regime.
We aren't going to tolerate intolerance in this instance. I personally don't have a problem with communists. But I do have a problem with authoritarian communists. If you think me making this distinction is acting in bad faith, then you might run into more issues than just me here.
Sounds like you have a problem with communists, or do you think that the country with the biggest army, police force, and imprisoned population (disproportionately of racial minorities) is somehow not authoritarian?
We have a federal presidential constitutional republic or FPCR in the US. It has three branches of government at the federal level that ideally work as checks and balances on each other. Then there are many subordinate state governments that act as a means of delegating responsibility for the federal government. Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population. We the people rule in America. The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.
Democracy is when 7% of the population has faith in the governance, and the more people believe they are being heard the more authoritarian you are
We are circling the fascist drain. A fascist take over could happen in the 2024 election cycle next year. It's not really surprising how low confidence is in our intuitions when Republicans are actively dismantling them for power.
The Democrats have been active participants in that though. They've been in power since 2020 and they fucked around making up excuses about imaginary roadblocks (like the parliamentarian) to doing shit people actually wanted. Their inaction and abject failure has hurt a lot of people who voted for Democrats in real ways and that's why people are losing faith in governance, among many, many other things.
Democrats had a tight majority because of flaws in our democracy that allow Republicans to disproportionately represent themselves. Democrats had to negotiate around Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. It honestly impressive Democrats got anything done at all, but the legislation they did pass is not enough on its own. If we don't fix the issues with our democracy soon we are going to lose it, because Republicans are going to keep exploiting everything they can until they get total power.
I legit don't care if we lose it at this point because it seems like it's been pretty worthless all along. At least as a democracy for anyone other than slave/property owners.
I really care. Without democracy, people like me and the people I care about are going to end up in death camps. American prisons are probably where it will happen. Once Republicans ram through the death penalty everywhere.
How exactly has the democracy prevented that? The American 'democracy' has overseen many genocides in its past, I don't see this as a deviation from form. I've pretty sure I'd be on the chopping block too, but the key distinction is I'm not putting my faith in voting as a preventative measure for that
Non-violent means to prevent violence should be cherished. It's true, the US committed genocide against Native Americans. That is obviously morally wrong. We haven't been doing that in the 20th or 21st centuries though.
How exactly has the democracy prevented that? Elected politicians are beholden to the people, so they can't go around killing all of their voters.
The US has committed genocidal war against Koreans and Vietnamese and Afghans and Iraqis among others in the 20th and 21st centuries.
As robot pointed out, the killing never stopped- the US killed approximately a third of the population of North Korea, dropping more bombs on that part of the peninsula than on all of Europe.
Conveniently, the millions of people killed and displaced by Americas warmongering don't get a fucking vote lol.
I mean the killings stopped after the cease fire that ended the fighting in the Korean War if not the war itself. Yeah, it seems like America was over inclusive on what were military targets in the Korean War.
Yes, if you're not in a democracy you don't get a vote. I don't get the practicality of being completely anti-war. Wars are an inevitable part of human society. Atrocities committed in war don't undermine the value of democracy. In fact, I would argue that democratic societies experience fewer atrocities because their governments are beholden to the people and do not have absolute power.
The PRC has the same three branches of government, including a President at the head of the executive branch, and a constitution that lays out their roles (more thoroughly than the US does the power of the judiciary), and it also holds direct elections for municipal offices. Neither country directly elects its President, as the PRC has elected officials vote and the US has the Electoral College say "just trust me bro" before giving the election to the other guy half the time (based on elections this century).
We can see how the electoral college votes, just as we can see that China's elections are a sham. Loyalty to Xi is the only thing that matters in Chinese politics now.
We can see how the electoral college votes, hence why I wasn't worried about asserting that it just hands the votes to the other guy half the time, because if you are going to have a popular vote anyway, there's not much cause to just tip the scales in the direction of land owners unless you were against democracy.
Have you ever made the slightest effort to investigate China's elections? Or do you just believe what the western press tells you about them? There's that saying that there is no need to burn books if you can just persuade people not to read them and we have here a demonstration why.
The electoral college is one of the flaws I would like to see fixed. We should abolish the electoral college. It disproportionally benefits Republicans because they control more land, as you said. Representative democracy is supposed to represent the majority of people not a minority.
I read a variety of what the free press has to offer about China. Xi has clearly consolidated power around him. It's not a secret.
A press thats 100% controlled by the capitalist class and expresses their interests cannot reasonably be described as free.
Read a non-profit news source then.
https://www.propublica.org/
Non-profit does not mean its not run by capitalist interest
How about another one then?
https://www.motherjones.com/
Can't find anything about funding right now, and I'm tired. But I do know they routinely publish articles inconsistent with the values of their namesake.
But I need to go to bed. Ive been doing this all day.
I don't see why you feel the need to be so picky. Any story can be cross referenced from multiple sources. Regardless, we can always argue later. Please get sleep. =)
We literally had a bunch of unelected people in robes declare the president, just over 2 decades ago.
ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don't. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that's often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.
Again, the unelected people in robes declared that money is speech, not only swaying elections but allowing influence to be bought directly. How is that a democracy?
You seem to be conflating the concept of 'democracy' with the freedom to spend money however it may hurt someone else structurally. That's pretty authoritarian if you're someone without money.
The Supreme Court has numerous issues. For starters, they aren't elected so they aren't beholden to the people. They have minimal ethics guidelines so they can accept bribes from billionaires. They don't have term limits, so they are effectively 9 kings and queens. The electoral college allowing two presidents to win their first term without the popular vote and the Senate giving conservative states over representation has allowed conservatives to capture the court. edit: typo
These compounding issues are destroying our democracy. If we don't fix these issues we will not have democracy. The Supreme Court is already stripping rights from people, it's only a matter of time before Republicans win back the Congress and the Presidency. If the Republicans are still controlled by fascists then and we haven't fixed these problems we are going to be trouble.
Yeah, rent is way too expensive. Another reason for socialism to the pile. edit: spacing
I would make the case that the supreme court has never been anything other than a reactionary institution, and it sounds like you agree.
I would go on to point out that the rights 'won' by the supreme court are ephemeral and can be snatched away at any moment-
Take some of the examples of 'liberal' rulings- Roe vs wade came about the whole question of abortion from a liberal angle of privacy. Rather than simply providing a universal standard of prenatal healthcare to people, they opted for this sideshow. It's never been about life, maternal mortality is ridiculously high in the the US, it's about maintaining the profitable status quo.
The gay marriage ruling is another example of how worthless rights won by supreme court are- and how we should expect them to be retracted at any moment.
Yeah, with the way the Supreme Court is now definitely. The concept of settled law was bullshit. It's nine votes and whoever has the most wins. McConnell understood that better than most apparently. Hopefully we will be able to fix this in time to stop a fascist take over.
You might run into more issues than just this thread by casually tossing out the "authoritarian" label like you did on Reddit where the groups in question couldn't defend themselves
I think you'll find that goes both ways. We can defend ourselves too. You are not on Hexbear. This is Blahaj.
Defend what? I don't think the parallel you want to draw works quite as well as you think. My point is that Redditors can cast stones in their ignorance at people who they would struggle to string a whole sentence together to describe without buzzwords because they know jack shit about what those people actually think. Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
I'm not sure how they can be if they think everyone to the right of them is a liberal.
But defend yourselves from what?
Not everyone to the right is a liberal, people like theocrats exist, but the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal (with influence from those evangelical theocrats), which is a subset of the larger political-philosophical category of liberalism. We can point to some differences between Republican and Democrat, but they are overwhelmingly of style and PR, not the substance. There are very specific issues, like abortion, where you can pretty reliably see differences, but even here the difference is overstated and this is evidenced by the fact Obama didn't even try to codify Roe when he got elected and had Dems controlling congress.
Why is this? Well, I think you can avoid needing to offer people a carrot if you can just offer them not getting the stick, but if you make them secure then they'll start asking for carrots. But that's personal speculation.
More important is the overwhelming consensus seen on a variety of issues when you look at their actions. Biden has over and over had the chance to let Trump-Era executive orders simply die, but he has repeatedly signed on to their continuation or even expansion. All the power that Trump unfortunately wielded in office to push EOs and theoretically to veto seems to have evaporated when they touched old Joe's hands. Why is that? It can't be ignorance.
I knew people who thought Joe would be less hawkish on China, since that is traditionally the role of Republicans, but he in fact has been more hawkish! He has done a better job of stabilizing relationships with America's North Atlanticist allies, but the imperial policies under Trump and Obama have continued aside from pulling out of Afghanistan (which Trump began working on but was too much of a coward to follow through on, we need only see the media backlash to Biden doing so to understand why).
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
https://www.citizen.org/news/progressive-policies-are-popular-policies/
I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
In order: learn how federation works, oh no you poor thing, and Ben Shapiro wants his shtick back.
You don't need to tell a communist that the people are to the left of the politicians, but apparently a communist needs to tell you that as far as engaging with individuals go, that means shit if they are too occupied with the same "gommunism no food" talking points the politicians to their right fed them.
As an aside, Denmark is still liberal, capital is the dominant power there as much as in the US.
I said "consider," you have the right to be willfully ignorant and undercut your professed interests, those freedoms are some of the few that really are protected in the US. Regarding speech, it is only free if it doesn't matter and otherwise you're in jail or shot, and you need only look at Assange for evidence of that.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world, overthrowing whatever country it deems too much of a problem unless that country hardens itself remarkably against external threats. Huh, I wonder if there's some throughline here?
Your argument is getting throughly scattered and devoid of meaning. You might as well say, "I'm trolling you.", and save yourself the effort.
I did.
I don't agree with the US cold war policy of toppling socialist countries and instating capitalist dictatorships. Thankfully modern US foreign policy is about supporting democracies. edit: spacing
Do you, like, investigate any of this? Are you not familiar with the attempts to topple Venezuela, the brief coup government in Bolivia that massacred protestors, or anything that isn't a White House Press Release? Do you think the bombs dropped on Yemen were for democracy? Do you think the continued colonizing of Palestine is for that purpose?
Weirdly I can see the actions you're describing as wrong, but still understand the benefits of American democracy.
Just so we can move on and not talk in circles, is that you tacitly admitting that the US FP is not about "supporting democracy"?
Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
The cotton workers and the train workers should seize the means of production via their democracy. If they don't have a democracy, they should perform a revolution to establish one.
Referring to a revolution by the people as authoritarian is like saying the oppression of a king is freedom. It doesn't make sense under closer observation. Using force to achieve freedom does not invalidate that freedom. Once the revolution has been won, the people rule themselves. Any authority over them is a temporary construct of their own making that can be removed and replaced.
I completely agree, do you see why I linked it in response to the use of authoritarian?
Not really, sorry. It's legit going over my head. =(
Authority isn't necessarily bad. For example, suppressing the free speech and ability to congregate for nazis is good.
I think hate speech, threatening violence against another person based on inherent characteristics or for any reason really, should not be allowed. Nor should people be allowed to storm the capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Other than that though I think people deserve free speech and freedom of assembly even if I disagree with the speech or reason for assembly. Nazis tend to say a lot of hate speech and storm the capital so it isn't really necessary or good to make an exception for them specifically.
I'm not interested in proactively suppressing Nazis, as that would make us no different than them. To put it another way, I'm not interested in rounding people up solely based on their political views. I am for punishing Nazi's for their hate speech and insurrection. I think there should be consequences for actions and hate speech. I am also for educating people and getting Fox News off the air.
The authority vested in democratic leaders is ephemeral enough that it is the only desirable form of authority. At the end of the day, it's the people who rule, not their leaders. By comparison the authority that dictators wield is very enduring and hard to get rid of. They make every decision and the dictators' egos are what everyone around them has to be loyal to.
No, the people who suppressed nazi sympathizers during ww2 are not the same as people committing the holocaust. Nazis weren't bad just because they targeted their political enemies. I would recommend reading blackshirts and reds and then the economics and class structure of german fascism.
All these "authoritarian" socialist societies had democracies. They are more democratic than any western democracy. Look at how Cuba's family code was drafted before it passed by referendum.
The Allies were fighting a war against the Axis powers. While the Nazis rounded up civilians for all kind of reasons, including political views.
We aren't in a civil war in America right now. There is no basis to take action against modern fascists outside of the numerous acts of domestic terrorism they commit. Rounding up fascists solely based on their political views make us like the Nazis and is unbecoming of any free society.
Not the USSR, China, or North Korea which is what I was referring to by authoritarian communists.
People who are trying to start a pogrom on trans people, Jewish people, etc should be prosecuted actually, regardless of whether they're actually successful. You can't wait for the nazis to win before you crush them, by that point it will be too late.
What about these countries governments are different structurally from Cuba's government?
Two wrongs don't make a right. If we go that route we are going to become the thing we are trying to prevent.
Rather than a difference in government structure, I would point to a difference in leadership. I personally believe Castro really did believe in socialism and had the best interests of the Cuban people at heart. As great as that is, a system of government that depends on the benevolence of its leaders is not one I want to live under.
No, we will become people who suppress nazis, which is not the same as being a nazi. For an allegory, killing a serial killer in self defense (but before he actually kills you, gasp) does not make you a serial killer.
So why don't you believe any of the other leaders believed in socialism?
Also this is great man theory taken to an extreme.
Also I dont know how you can look at any of their government structures and claim that the people were reliant on the benevolence of the leadership.
While this is a true statement it does not follow that preventive actions against people who hold fascist views, but do not act on them, is anyway different what the Nazis did to people.
The USSR Politburo only cared about itself. Same with the CCP and the Kim family. These are extractive institutions that are only self serving. They are not beholden to anyone so they have no incentive to care what the people want.
He didn't get the right to lead from inherently being a great man. He got it by leading his people in a revolution against a dictator. His policies benefited enough people so they continued support him. Castro actions were based on his personal moral compass. The fact Cuba didn't become like North Korea is great. If Cubans aren't giving meaningful mechanisms for dissent going forward, they will have little recourse to prevent their government from becoming like the Kim regime.