Did I say that all authoritarians are enabled by liberals? What agenda are you trying to push by misconstruing my words? Like seriously what point are you trying to reach here?
But that =/= “every fascist is and always has been enabled by liberals.”
They’re saying that it’s very common for liberals to side with a rising fascist over the left in a misguided attempt to maintain the status quo. They’d typically rather move to the right instead of giving any quarter to the left, because the left wants to upend the structures of oppression, while the right wants to bolster them—while scapegoating an out-group.
Look at what macron is doing in France right now. Moving to the right to build a coalition with them to go against the majority left coalition that won the election.
Eh, that doesn’t change much. “The liberals who enable them” specifically targets at liberals who enable fascism. If you removed ‘the’, it would be liberals in general
You seem to be under the impression that liberals have a logically and ethically consistent belief structure.
The realization that liberals are unscratched fascists is a tough one, but you are one of the few intelligent folks able to recognize it… it’s a curse.
Your use of tankie is exactly like the conservative use of woke. You’re not even close to superior to those you mock. Hopefully one day you realize that and actually apply that human brain of yours.
Just to be clear, you don’t think I should be against liberals enabling fascism? You don’t see anything wrong with the slow march to the far right that’s happening in so many parts of the world recently?
I’m just really annoyed by “liberal” constantly being equated with “fascist enabler” round here. If anyone calls themselves a liberal while supporting fascists, they’re just fascists in disguise. While there are people like that, that’s not what liberalism means, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
It’s a language issue. You’re likely from the United States, where liberal is used to suggest an adherent to classical liberalism or progressivism. Most of the rest of the English speaking world means neoliberal, as in an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism, deregulation, and the reduction of government spending.
Please, enlighten me about what you think liberalism means. In my view (as an anarchist) liberalism is at best ineffective at preventing fascism from taking over. It enables colonialism and imperialism, and offers no solution to the horrors of capitalism. Liberal ideology is one of state violence and compromise with literal fascists.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Did… Did you really just copy Wikipedia’s page on liberalism here? You think that’s conductive of a meaningful conversation? Try reading a book and maybe you’ll be able to imagine a better world than what the ruling class has decided for us. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey might be a good place to start. It’s often taught in university but is well written and accessible compared to some of the more lofty rhetoric you might find.
Liberal hence Libertarianism is definitialy a shortening of Economic Liberal. What you’re quoting is the colloquial/slang/propaganda definition. Modern “liberals” are absolutely better than classic liberals. Simply by virtue of their tepid support for social safety nets. That isn’t their failing. Their failing is that despite being “liberals” they’re still, and more importantly more committed to economic liberalism than they are social investment. And as such, eager to reach across the aisle to normalize and work with bigots, proto fascists, and full fledged fascists. Just to appear bipartisan.
Yeah. That’s pretty spot on. Personally I’d also put more emphasis on social and economic justice, but to achieve these I consider the human rights, representative democracy, free and fair elections and the rule of law absolutely indispensable preconditions.
imperialism is the subjugation of one country for the benefit of the first. DPRK is not imperialist (how could it be under UN sanctions), PRC is not imperialist, USSR was not imperialist.
Communists critically support the DPRK, the USSR, and the PCR, progressive liberals uncritically support Obama, Biden, conservative liberals uncritically support Trump, Bush, etc
Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
Poland and most of eastern Europe would like a word
I’ve answered already to someone else making the example of Estonia, but I’ll answer you too so that you can see my take.
After 30+ years of anti-communist propaganda, of course many countries in Eastern Europe may “disagree”. As a currently ongoing example, the other day there was an article ( paywalled, but you can read it pasting the link in 12ft.io ) in the Spanish newspaper “El País” about a new museum in Moldova dedicated to the forcibly relocated to other parts of the USSR during the late 30s. The article talks about the horrors of Stalinism and how 90k people from the region were forcibly relocated in 1937-1941, although the majority were allowed to return in the 50s. All that’s good, having a memory of our history is a good thing. But then, the article goes on with some conversation with the “Director of the National Agency of Archives in Moldova”, Igor Casu. I’ll translate to Spanish:
Casu considers that the war in neighboring Ukraine started by Russia has made the [Moldovan] citizens begin to perceive the Soviet regime as one of occupation and colonisation
So, basically, conflating the current imperialist capitalist Russia with communist USSR. But the funny part comes now, when they actually quote Casu:
“We hope that if the deportations keep being exposed ni the following five years, we’ll achieve that a solid part of the population will be really informed, and, at the same time, that they’ll consolidate a national identity”
So, they’re going FULL mask-off, and basically saying “we want to show this particular side of history not with the objective of remembrance of victims, but actually to create a new national identity based on the independence from supposedly oppressive Russia”. Fostering nationalism and anti-Russian sentiment as part of the new national identity. This is the recipe that’s been successfully applied to most of Eastern Europe for the past 30+ years, and you can see the results by asking any Polish person what they think of Russians. If this isn’t clear enough, the article reminds us:
During the last years, under the rule of the pro-European government, this ex-Soviet republic has been making efforts to propagate knowledge of the suffering created by the phenomenon of “Russification” that took place […]
Mind you, not a single reference in the article or the monument, to the 140.000 Jews deported by the Nazis during the 1940s invasion in Moldova, of whom 90.000+ were murdered in concentration camps. Let’s remember the victims of horrors of our history, but only those politically convenient to us now. Since we want to get closer to western Europe, including Germany, let’s put those killed by Nazis (many more than by Soviets) aside for now.
If you look at historical evidence, you can’t possibly make the argument that Estonia was subjugated and exploited by the USSR. The local language was preserved and there was an abundance of written publications in Estonian, people were allowed to study in the local language, the salaries were similar to those in the rest of the USSR (or higher actually), industrialization rates were equal or higher to those of the rest of the USSR, number of doctors/teachers and hospital beds per capita were equal… really, none of the telltales of imperialism are there. If you want to see a discussion with actual data regarding this, I suggest you have a look at “Human Rights in the Soviet Union” by Albert Szymanski, a wonderful book filled to the brim with data and a rather nuanced discussion.
So let’s not pretend that there hasn’t been a strong effort from pro-western authorities in all of Eastern Europe into pushing the narrative that this made-up historically continuous “Russia” has been exploiting and colonising Eastern Europe, and let’s not pretend that the opinion of most people in Eastern Europe who’ve been exposed to this campaign for the past 3 decades is unbiased and historically accurate (because public opinion never is).
Oh, and Tibet, Taiwan
Funny that you mention those two as well. Taiwan’s national identity, again, has been manufactured from the ground up over the past 30+ years. The data that western countries celebrate of Taiwanese people mostly declaring themselves to be “only Taiwanese”, is a fairly recent trend. From the link above:
According to the latest survey by National Chengchi University in Taipei (June 2023), 62.8 percent of the inhabitants of the Republic of China perceive themselves as “Taiwanese only,” 30.5 percent “both Taiwanese and Chinese,” and 2.5 percent “Chinese only.” In 1992, when surveys began, 25.5 percent described themselves as “Chinese only” and 17.6 percent “Taiwanese only,” with the remaining 46.4 percent “both Taiwanese and Chinese.”
So the country has gone from a 17.6% of “Taiwanese only” and a 25.5% of “both Taiwanese and Chinese” in 1992, to 63% of “Taiwanese only” and 2.5% of “Chinese only”. Funny how it’s the exact same process that I was describing above for Estonia and Moldova, in which 30+ years of propaganda can generate a new national identity and generate negative feelings towards previously friendly neighboring countries!
Regarding Tibet, I don’t think I’ll find such polls about national identity. However, until the Sino-Tibetan war, Tibet was literally a feudal country in which an aristocracy owned the lands and serfs were legally bound to the land as workers. When you criticise the lack of Tibet’s autonomy after the Sino-Tibetan war, remember that you’re arguing in favor of a literal feudal regime with aristocrats and serfs.
After 30+ years of anti-communist propaganda, of course many countries in Eastern Europe may “disagree”. As a currently ongoing example, the other day there was an article ( paywalled, but you can read it pasting the link in 12ft.io ) in the Spanish newspaper “El País” about a new museum in Moldova dedicated to the forcibly relocated to other parts of the USSR during the late 30s. The article talks about the horrors of Stalinism and how 90k people from the region were forcibly relocated in 1937-1941, although the majority were allowed to return in the 50s. All that’s good, having a memory of our history is a good thing. But then, the article goes on with some conversation with the “Director of the National Agency of Archives in Moldova”, Igor Casu. I’ll translate to Spanish:
Casu considers that the war in neighboring Ukraine started by Russia has made the [Moldovan] citizens begin to perceive the Soviet regime as one of occupation and colonisation
So, basically, conflating the current imperialist capitalist Russia with communist USSR. But the funny part comes now, when they actually quote Casu:
“We hope that if the deportations keep being exposed ni the following five years, we’ll achieve that a solid part of the population will be really informed, and, at the same time, that they’ll consolidate a national identity”
So, they’re going FULL mask-off, and basically saying “we want to show this particular side of history not with the objective of remembrance of victims, but actually to create a new national identity based on the independence from supposedly oppressive Russia”. Fostering nationalism and anti-Russian sentiment as part of the new national identity. This is the recipe that’s been successfully applied to most of Eastern Europe for the past 30+ years, and you can see the results by asking any Polish person what they think of Russians. If this isn’t clear enough, the article reminds us:
During the last years, under the rule of the pro-European government, this ex-Soviet republic has been making efforts to propagate knowledge of the suffering created by the phenomenon of “Russification” that took place […]
Mind you, not a single reference in the article or the monument, to the 140.000 Jews deported by the Nazis during the 1940s invasion in Moldova, of whom 90.000+ were murdered in concentration camps. Let’s remember the victims of horrors of our history, but only those politically convenient to us now. Since we want to get closer to western Europe, including Germany, let’s put those killed by Nazis (many more than by Soviets) aside for now.
If you look at historical evidence, you can’t possibly make the argument that Estonia was subjugated and exploited by the USSR. The local language was preserved and there was an abundance of written publications in Estonian, people were allowed to study in the local language, the salaries were similar to those in the rest of the USSR (or higher actually), industrialization rates were equal or higher to those of the rest of the USSR, number of doctors/teachers and hospital beds per capita were equal… really, none of the telltales of imperialism are there. If you want to see a discussion with actual data regarding this, I suggest you have a look at “Human Rights in the Soviet Union” by Albert Szymanski, a wonderful book filled to the brim with data and a rather nuanced discussion.
So let’s not pretend that there hasn’t been a strong effort from pro-western authorities in all of Eastern Europe into pushing the narrative that this made-up historically continuous “Russia” has been exploiting and colonising Eastern Europe, and let’s not pretend that the opinion of most people in Eastern Europe who’ve been exposed to this campaign for the past 3 decades is unbiased and historically accurate (because public opinion never is).
Invading another country preventively in the wake of WW2 and the threat of Nazism =/= imperialism, I’m sorry buddy. Not defending the invasion of Estonia, but categorising it as imperialism is dumb and ahistorical.
Look dude I’ve worked with many MLs and MLMs. I’ve read some of both Lenin and Mao’s works. I think the recent rhetoric of calling communists fascist is wholely harmful to the left and I don’t participate in it. I never called the DPRK imperialist for obvious reasons. I didn’t even call the PRC imperialist because I do recognize that western media is not a reliable source on the matter. I recognize my own ignorance in these matters and don’t take part in uncritically decrying post-revolution communist states.
We disagree on the way a just society should be structured, or the methods of achieving that end. I consider authoritarianism and unjust hierarchies as a problem of both capitalism and state communism, but as long as my viewpoints can be heard and addressed, I personally don’t have issue with MLs and MLMs. The atrocities of capitalism far outweigh the failures of established communist states.
Communism is neither left nor right. It is just a construct of governance. While it was originally promoted by leftists, it can be either left or right. Some communists are conservative and/or fascist (ex. China).
The Left/Right divide is about property. Should it be collectivized, or individually owned and traded, ie Socialism vs Capitalism. Communism, therefore, must be left-wing.
It is just a construct of governance.
Yes and no. Communism is also economic in nature.
While it was originally promoted by leftists, it can be either left or right.
You cannot have Right-Wing Communists.
Some communists are conservative and/or fascist (ex. China).
The PRC is socially conservative, yes. Economically, it is Socialist, though certainly not yet Lower-Stage Communist. This does not make China “fascist” or right-wing. It is a socially reactionary, economicaly progressive state.
Fuck all imperialist and hierarchical power structures. Fuck colonialism and fuck the police. Fuck fascists and the libs that enable them.
Xi Jinping is a fascist, and I don’t think it was liberals that enabled him
Xi’s also an imperialist and implemented a hierarchical government. Nothing I said was paradoxical. Fuck 'em all.
What liberals enabled Xi??
Did I say that all authoritarians are enabled by liberals? What agenda are you trying to push by misconstruing my words? Like seriously what point are you trying to reach here?
I think it was this part where you link fascists to liberal enablers.
But that =/= “every fascist is and always has been enabled by liberals.”
They’re saying that it’s very common for liberals to side with a rising fascist over the left in a misguided attempt to maintain the status quo. They’d typically rather move to the right instead of giving any quarter to the left, because the left wants to upend the structures of oppression, while the right wants to bolster them—while scapegoating an out-group.
Look at what macron is doing in France right now. Moving to the right to build a coalition with them to go against the majority left coalition that won the election.
I didn’t stutter. Fuck every liberal enabling the rise of fascism.
Ah I see. Your point would have been clearer if it was “ fuck the fascists and
theany liberals who enable them”Eh, that doesn’t change much. “The liberals who enable them” specifically targets at liberals who enable fascism. If you removed ‘the’, it would be liberals in general
Nixon
The only country actually running over people with tanks is Israel and does it with the unconditional support of the US
Liberals as always don’t see Arabs as people. Don’t you dare come asking for our votes.
Do Arabs get to vote in the US?
Or if you mean Arabs that chose to go live in the US, I don’t think they care too much about a country that, well, murdered all the natives
Yes, Arab Americans do and are enough to swing elections in Michigan and a few other states
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/29/arab-american-voter-defections-biden-2024
Hear fuckin hear!
How many billionaires before a country is a liberal shit-hole?
600?
675?
Idk man, one seems like too many to me.
China’s around 695, guessing the threshold is 700. That’s when the tankies will turn on it for sure.
Here here
Punk is not dead
‘The Libs,’ LOL!!!
From a anon American, it’s hilarious seeing the hick come out. ‘the Libs hur durrr.’
Hahaha that shits always funny
You’re replying to a leftist, not a conservative “hick.”
And by “liberal” you mean anyone who dares criticise Daddy Putin and Supreme Leader Xi, amirite?
Dude my very first sentence was “Fuck all imperialist and hierarchical power structures.” How can you think that I support China or Russia?
Uh oh, you’ve activated the libs. Now they’ll make wild assumptions and other fabrications instead of actually addressing anything you’ve said.
FTFY, lib
You seem to be under the impression that liberals have a logically and ethically consistent belief structure.
The realization that liberals are unscratched fascists is a tough one, but you are one of the few intelligent folks able to recognize it… it’s a curse.
you’re such an online edgelord that you’re fighting straw men of your own creation. sign off, your family probably misses you.
Oops. Posted on tankie news again. Always forget to check.
Edit: actually, i retract that. I got mixed up with another thread.
Your use of tankie is exactly like the conservative use of woke. You’re not even close to superior to those you mock. Hopefully one day you realize that and actually apply that human brain of yours.
Just to be clear, you don’t think I should be against liberals enabling fascism? You don’t see anything wrong with the slow march to the far right that’s happening in so many parts of the world recently?
The irony of a liberal calling an anarchist authoritarian… Liberals are simps for an authoritarian economic system
I’m just really annoyed by “liberal” constantly being equated with “fascist enabler” round here. If anyone calls themselves a liberal while supporting fascists, they’re just fascists in disguise. While there are people like that, that’s not what liberalism means, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
It’s a language issue. You’re likely from the United States, where liberal is used to suggest an adherent to classical liberalism or progressivism. Most of the rest of the English speaking world means neoliberal, as in an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism, deregulation, and the reduction of government spending.
I’m fortunately not from the US. But you’re right. A lot of people equate liberal with neoliberal or libertarian. Which is a real bummer.
Please, enlighten me about what you think liberalism means. In my view (as an anarchist) liberalism is at best ineffective at preventing fascism from taking over. It enables colonialism and imperialism, and offers no solution to the horrors of capitalism. Liberal ideology is one of state violence and compromise with literal fascists.
Did… Did you really just copy Wikipedia’s page on liberalism here? You think that’s conductive of a meaningful conversation? Try reading a book and maybe you’ll be able to imagine a better world than what the ruling class has decided for us. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey might be a good place to start. It’s often taught in university but is well written and accessible compared to some of the more lofty rhetoric you might find.
Edit: its->it’s
Liberal hence Libertarianism is definitialy a shortening of Economic Liberal. What you’re quoting is the colloquial/slang/propaganda definition. Modern “liberals” are absolutely better than classic liberals. Simply by virtue of their tepid support for social safety nets. That isn’t their failing. Their failing is that despite being “liberals” they’re still, and more importantly more committed to economic liberalism than they are social investment. And as such, eager to reach across the aisle to normalize and work with bigots, proto fascists, and full fledged fascists. Just to appear bipartisan.
Yeah. That’s pretty spot on. Personally I’d also put more emphasis on social and economic justice, but to achieve these I consider the human rights, representative democracy, free and fair elections and the rule of law absolutely indispensable preconditions.
focusing on voting as the only allowed political action, supporting capitalism, valuing order over justice…
Dude, liberals literally helped Hitler become Reichskanzler.
For anyone not familiar, that was in no small part thanks to Paul von Hindenburg. If only he had instead gone the way of the zeppelin named after him.
So many of them on Lemmy lol
They clearly wrote fuck hierarchical powers. Fuck any supreme leader.
They think liberal is the same as neoliberal
imperialism is the subjugation of one country for the benefit of the first. DPRK is not imperialist (how could it be under UN sanctions), PRC is not imperialist, USSR was not imperialist.
Communists critically support the DPRK, the USSR, and the PCR, progressive liberals uncritically support Obama, Biden, conservative liberals uncritically support Trump, Bush, etc
read lenin.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm
The instance you use is named after an Ikea plush. I will not debate you.
The South China Sea, Poland and most of eastern Europe would like a word…
Edit: Oh, and Tibet, Taiwan, etc…
I’ve answered already to someone else making the example of Estonia, but I’ll answer you too so that you can see my take.
After 30+ years of anti-communist propaganda, of course many countries in Eastern Europe may “disagree”. As a currently ongoing example, the other day there was an article ( paywalled, but you can read it pasting the link in 12ft.io ) in the Spanish newspaper “El País” about a new museum in Moldova dedicated to the forcibly relocated to other parts of the USSR during the late 30s. The article talks about the horrors of Stalinism and how 90k people from the region were forcibly relocated in 1937-1941, although the majority were allowed to return in the 50s. All that’s good, having a memory of our history is a good thing. But then, the article goes on with some conversation with the “Director of the National Agency of Archives in Moldova”, Igor Casu. I’ll translate to Spanish:
So, basically, conflating the current imperialist capitalist Russia with communist USSR. But the funny part comes now, when they actually quote Casu:
So, they’re going FULL mask-off, and basically saying “we want to show this particular side of history not with the objective of remembrance of victims, but actually to create a new national identity based on the independence from supposedly oppressive Russia”. Fostering nationalism and anti-Russian sentiment as part of the new national identity. This is the recipe that’s been successfully applied to most of Eastern Europe for the past 30+ years, and you can see the results by asking any Polish person what they think of Russians. If this isn’t clear enough, the article reminds us:
Mind you, not a single reference in the article or the monument, to the 140.000 Jews deported by the Nazis during the 1940s invasion in Moldova, of whom 90.000+ were murdered in concentration camps. Let’s remember the victims of horrors of our history, but only those politically convenient to us now. Since we want to get closer to western Europe, including Germany, let’s put those killed by Nazis (many more than by Soviets) aside for now.
If you look at historical evidence, you can’t possibly make the argument that Estonia was subjugated and exploited by the USSR. The local language was preserved and there was an abundance of written publications in Estonian, people were allowed to study in the local language, the salaries were similar to those in the rest of the USSR (or higher actually), industrialization rates were equal or higher to those of the rest of the USSR, number of doctors/teachers and hospital beds per capita were equal… really, none of the telltales of imperialism are there. If you want to see a discussion with actual data regarding this, I suggest you have a look at “Human Rights in the Soviet Union” by Albert Szymanski, a wonderful book filled to the brim with data and a rather nuanced discussion.
So let’s not pretend that there hasn’t been a strong effort from pro-western authorities in all of Eastern Europe into pushing the narrative that this made-up historically continuous “Russia” has been exploiting and colonising Eastern Europe, and let’s not pretend that the opinion of most people in Eastern Europe who’ve been exposed to this campaign for the past 3 decades is unbiased and historically accurate (because public opinion never is).
Funny that you mention those two as well. Taiwan’s national identity, again, has been manufactured from the ground up over the past 30+ years. The data that western countries celebrate of Taiwanese people mostly declaring themselves to be “only Taiwanese”, is a fairly recent trend. From the link above:
So the country has gone from a 17.6% of “Taiwanese only” and a 25.5% of “both Taiwanese and Chinese” in 1992, to 63% of “Taiwanese only” and 2.5% of “Chinese only”. Funny how it’s the exact same process that I was describing above for Estonia and Moldova, in which 30+ years of propaganda can generate a new national identity and generate negative feelings towards previously friendly neighboring countries!
Regarding Tibet, I don’t think I’ll find such polls about national identity. However, until the Sino-Tibetan war, Tibet was literally a feudal country in which an aristocracy owned the lands and serfs were legally bound to the land as workers. When you criticise the lack of Tibet’s autonomy after the Sino-Tibetan war, remember that you’re arguing in favor of a literal feudal regime with aristocrats and serfs.
Countries like Estonia might disagree with you there, buddy.
After 30+ years of anti-communist propaganda, of course many countries in Eastern Europe may “disagree”. As a currently ongoing example, the other day there was an article ( paywalled, but you can read it pasting the link in 12ft.io ) in the Spanish newspaper “El País” about a new museum in Moldova dedicated to the forcibly relocated to other parts of the USSR during the late 30s. The article talks about the horrors of Stalinism and how 90k people from the region were forcibly relocated in 1937-1941, although the majority were allowed to return in the 50s. All that’s good, having a memory of our history is a good thing. But then, the article goes on with some conversation with the “Director of the National Agency of Archives in Moldova”, Igor Casu. I’ll translate to Spanish:
So, basically, conflating the current imperialist capitalist Russia with communist USSR. But the funny part comes now, when they actually quote Casu:
So, they’re going FULL mask-off, and basically saying “we want to show this particular side of history not with the objective of remembrance of victims, but actually to create a new national identity based on the independence from supposedly oppressive Russia”. Fostering nationalism and anti-Russian sentiment as part of the new national identity. This is the recipe that’s been successfully applied to most of Eastern Europe for the past 30+ years, and you can see the results by asking any Polish person what they think of Russians. If this isn’t clear enough, the article reminds us:
Mind you, not a single reference in the article or the monument, to the 140.000 Jews deported by the Nazis during the 1940s invasion in Moldova, of whom 90.000+ were murdered in concentration camps. Let’s remember the victims of horrors of our history, but only those politically convenient to us now. Since we want to get closer to western Europe, including Germany, let’s put those killed by Nazis (many more than by Soviets) aside for now.
If you look at historical evidence, you can’t possibly make the argument that Estonia was subjugated and exploited by the USSR. The local language was preserved and there was an abundance of written publications in Estonian, people were allowed to study in the local language, the salaries were similar to those in the rest of the USSR (or higher actually), industrialization rates were equal or higher to those of the rest of the USSR, number of doctors/teachers and hospital beds per capita were equal… really, none of the telltales of imperialism are there. If you want to see a discussion with actual data regarding this, I suggest you have a look at “Human Rights in the Soviet Union” by Albert Szymanski, a wonderful book filled to the brim with data and a rather nuanced discussion.
So let’s not pretend that there hasn’t been a strong effort from pro-western authorities in all of Eastern Europe into pushing the narrative that this made-up historically continuous “Russia” has been exploiting and colonising Eastern Europe, and let’s not pretend that the opinion of most people in Eastern Europe who’ve been exposed to this campaign for the past 3 decades is unbiased and historically accurate (because public opinion never is).
Cool. The USSR still invaded and annexed Estonia. And Lithuania. And Latvia. And Armenia. Shall I go on?
Military invasion =/= imperialism, I’m surprised I have to explain this to a leftist.
Funny, invading multiple countries and making them part of your country sure sounds like it fits that definition to me.
Invading another country preventively in the wake of WW2 and the threat of Nazism =/= imperialism, I’m sorry buddy. Not defending the invasion of Estonia, but categorising it as imperialism is dumb and ahistorical.
That’s quite the excuse. Seems to me Putin is using the same one about Ukraine right now…
Also, what did annexing Armenia prevent? How about annexing Uzbekistan?
Look dude I’ve worked with many MLs and MLMs. I’ve read some of both Lenin and Mao’s works. I think the recent rhetoric of calling communists fascist is wholely harmful to the left and I don’t participate in it. I never called the DPRK imperialist for obvious reasons. I didn’t even call the PRC imperialist because I do recognize that western media is not a reliable source on the matter. I recognize my own ignorance in these matters and don’t take part in uncritically decrying post-revolution communist states.
We disagree on the way a just society should be structured, or the methods of achieving that end. I consider authoritarianism and unjust hierarchies as a problem of both capitalism and state communism, but as long as my viewpoints can be heard and addressed, I personally don’t have issue with MLs and MLMs. The atrocities of capitalism far outweigh the failures of established communist states.
Communism is neither left nor right. It is just a construct of governance. While it was originally promoted by leftists, it can be either left or right. Some communists are conservative and/or fascist (ex. China).
The Left/Right divide is about property. Should it be collectivized, or individually owned and traded, ie Socialism vs Capitalism. Communism, therefore, must be left-wing.
Yes and no. Communism is also economic in nature.
You cannot have Right-Wing Communists.
The PRC is socially conservative, yes. Economically, it is Socialist, though certainly not yet Lower-Stage Communist. This does not make China “fascist” or right-wing. It is a socially reactionary, economicaly progressive state.
‘The instance you use is named after an Ikea plush. I will not debate you.’
This JK Rowling?
I think you proved their point. Also, your ad hominem attack (or ad urbem attack) could be construed as transphobic.
Lmao