RockBottomIs your child far left?
You forgot “unconditionally supports russian imperialism and repeats its propaganda incessently” … wait, this isn’t lemmy.ml 🫠
Oh, in your history books the Soviet Union does still exist. Tell me more!
FrjttrIt looks like it still exists for Lavrov too
Lavrov Sparks Western Outrage Wearing CCCP Sweatshirt in Alaska
Sergey Lavrov’s sweatshirt drew the attention of media and Western circles during the meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska. According to Rokna, Lavrov, a seasoned diplomat with two decades of experience in the foreign policy apparatus of Russian President Vladimir Putin, captured the attention of Western media by wearing a sweatshirt bearing the abbreviation of the Soviet Union in Russian, “CCCP.” Lavrov entered Alaska in informal attire. Many Western experts, following Lavrov’s appearance in Alaska wearing this “sweatshirt,” argue that the act was not accidental and carried a clear message, and that Lavrov knew exactly what he was doing. Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, commented on Lavrov’s sweatshirt on his X (Twitter) account, saying: “He does not do this by accident.” An analyst from the British newspaper The Guardian also interpreted Lavrov’s action as mocking the West, writing: “This 75-year-old Russian diplomat, who was once regarded in Western capitals as a pragmatic and skilled diplomat, in recent years (after the war in Ukraine) has reflected the Kremlin’s radical policies through an increasingly confrontational tone and resorting to mockery.”
That prompts an interesting question: Is there a symbol for international communism that’s recognizable to the general public?
I don’t think there is a single one, but there are definitely styles that make you think it. Red themes, tools and machinery, fists in the air, etc.
This one of my favorites for Fully Automated Luxury Gay/Queer Space Communism. I doubt how widely it’s known, though.
Wow, what a… memorable flag. Are these scythes with other scythes as a handle ? doubling as Saturn and its moons ?
Yeah, it’s definitely a reference to the hammer and sickle symbol. I think it’s either the Earth, the Moon and Mars or else non-specific planets and/or moons. I had to zoom in to take a closer look:
DigitPS,
We never needed rockets.
Follow the tech arc from Michael Faraday through to Nikola Tesla, passing by at least the Sonora Aero Club (and Charles Dellschau’s 1850 drawings) and the german bell and foo-fighters, and you shall see… we never needed rockets. What wonders developed since. Zero inertia propulsion, zero-point energy, can print another of itself instantly, safe enough for a 2 year old to fly home safely in, able to sustain human life indefinitely… but sure, lets keep pretending like space is hard to do, and that rockets are the best we can do it by. XD
That does sound fascinating. I’m only vaguely aware of some of those concepts. Internet search results have been somewhat conflicting. Do you mind sharing links to your preferred site for explanations of these things?
Alas, I learned of such things over 20 years ago… scattershot across too many sources to have retained any… largely forums that likely no longer exist, or sites that the corporate search engines no longer list (I say cynically). I cant even think of any books to point to. Best of luck.
One other tidbit that sprung to mind, the wing tips of various once-secret black stealth fighter planes had basically the same tech along their wing tips, to increase the rate at which they could turn. Oh, and then there’s the TR-3B that’s been defacto desecreted for over a decade now, at least to those interested enough to look and not reflexively disbelieve because it’s outside the world view they stubbornly incuriously cling to. Just for a couple examples of this stuff since Nikola Tesla’s time, in “real world” for those disinclined to entertain the idea.
Sorry, I could have just said, “no, sorry, I don’t”. But… further to this ramble, a couple of interesting quotes (especially interesting considering who said them, and who they work(ed) for), adding some context, dashing hope, then re-availing hope of a kind:
“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity… anything you can imagine we already know how to do.” — Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works
“It is easier for us to pay a private contractor to re-invent something so it will come out at a lower classification level, than to try to declassify it.” – Bennett Hart, then Deputy Director of the National Reconnaissance Organization
(I should really look up and add the dates for those two quotes, since I throw them around so much. I think the former from the 1990s, and the latter from the early '00s).
That must be the closest thing. It’s absent on communist/socialist national flags, but most of their dominant parties seem to use it.
The initialism there is more unfortunate than the symbol.
Yeah, I don’t like how it excludes potential allies or how it’s focused on suddenly achieving its end state more than the idea that constructive change is an incremental, continuous process. How about, “Communists and Socialists for Advancement in Moderation?”
Seth TaylorThey should form an alliance with the Party for Elevating Democratic Objectives
Like the raised fist, that would be sucked up by the fascists in a split second.
Good point. That North American dictator has been working on it for a while
Besides the hamsickle and its unfortunate connotations, there’s the red flag and, if we count them in the same group, the various bits of symbolism anarchists use.
Nobody should be lectured on propaganda by North American and European social democrats who infest Lemmy and spread propaganda to a much higher degree across most instances and communities.
Calling out hypocrisy is not the same as supporting the alternative. Two things can be wrong at the same time.
To put it in simple terms: Russian Imperial propaganda is bad but American Imperial neoliberal propaganda isn’t any better just because they are at odds.
The whole “stones thrown from glass houses” thing.
Correct, you understood my point perfectly.
As an anti-imperialist, I get that kind of rebuttal A LOT. People cannot stand it when you bring light that all empires of the modern day got to their heights by being the most politically manipulative parasites this world has ever seen.
US, UK, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Russia, China, etc… any and all nations which exert extensive global influence through economic, military, or political power.
Are you just ignorant of how the global north has, for the last centuries, been exploiting the global south? Are you ignorant of neocolonial economic dynamics that Nordic countries exploit to fuel their capitalist social democracy? Are you just ignorant of the fact many African nations still have to pay colonial taxes to France? Just because they stopped officially attributing the label of “empire” to themselves doesn’t mean they stopped being Imperialist nations. They still all heavily benefit from their colonial past, the only thing that changed was the labels and structures to be less direct so they can claim the benefit of the doubt.
US, UK, France, and Spain all currently hold territory they stole from others. They also invented and continue neocolonialism both individually and collectively. I would add the Netherlands to this list of contemporary empires. Portugal still has 2 islands, so they should count as well.
Norway I don’t believe does. Happy to learn more about this if I am wrong though.
I don’t believe Sweden still has an imperial holdings either. Again, happy to learn more.
While the Nordic countries benefit from their relationship to the North Atlantic empire, I am not aware of their direct exploitation of other nations. Again, happy to learn more.
Russia currently has about 20 foreign military bases, so they could be argued to be an empire from some perspectives. I’m open to that. I don’t think it’s at all accurate to say that Russia got those holdings through the same behavior as the above empires.
What do you consider China’s imperial holdings? They have one foreign military base that was created through mutual negotiations with the government of Djibouti. They do not engage in the economic entrapment of neocolonialism. They haven’t dropped a single bomb in over 35 years.
Tibet is certainly a good opportunity to make the argument for China being imperialist. Here’s my take:
Tibet was independent until the early 1700s when its military failed to repel an invasion. At this point, Tibet was no longer independent but occupied.
But more importantly from China’s perspective, it was now a dangerously permeable border with and enemy. China’s decision under the Qing Dynasty was to liberate Tibet but to treat it as a protectorate as a matter of Chinese national security. During this time, Tibet was an autonomous region under the nation security aegis of China, though this afforded Chinese officials varying levels of influence over the internal affairs of the nation.
When the Qing Dynasty fell, the Tibetan military skirmished with Chinese forces, expelled them from Tibet, signed an agreement with China to remove them, and declared independence. And then promptly enslaved 95% of their people in a brutal theocratic feudal society. They were never recognized by the international community as a nation-state, but they did align themselves with the imperialist British.
Meanwhile back in China a movement to liberate peasants became the PLA and the CPC. Through the process of civil war, the PLA and CPC succeeded in securing the country against imperialists and imperialist collaborators.
This movement came under immediate threat from imperialists and the question of secure borders arose again. This time, Tibet was directly aligned with Britain, having signed treaties with them, while the British are actively occupying parts of China and repressing Chinese people and made no ambiguity about their desire to see China back under imperialist rule.
So the PLA invaded Tibet, freed the enslaved population, expelled the theocratic nobility, and restablished Tibet as an autonomous region, with its own Tibetan government, protection for its customs, religion, language, and relationships with the land.
Unlike other imperials colonies, including the entire Western hemisphere and even the island of Taiwan, the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing, where the country of China provides military protection and the Tibetan people are afforded significant autonomy as a Republic. In contrast with Taiwan and the entire Western hemisphere, the indigenous people of those lands have been subject to genocide, replacement. Their languages are dying their religions were outlawed their cultural practices or repressed and to this day none have recovered.
So is Tibet an imperial holding of China’s? I think that could be argued but it would appear to be a different type of imperialism than the other or prominent and widespread form that we generally know of as imperialism. Should we use the same word to describe two very different phenomena? That too can be debated.
the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing
The King dynasty, also known as the Qing Empire, a literal theocratic empire whose emperor had a mandate from heaven.
Btw, these excuses of being “just a protectorate”, “for their own good”, “to protect them” etc are very common excuses for imperialists to enforce their own will. Other common excuses are “historical reasons”, “ethnic reasons” or “national security”.
Conquest is conquest, subjugation is subjugation. If it’s ok for me, but not for thee, then you are a hypocrite.
Tibet is a Chinese imperial holding because they took away their right for self determination.
The Mongols literally invaded and occupied Tibet. It wasn’t merely a rhetorical excuse, it was a reality. When the Qing expelled the Mongols, they didn’t subjugate the Tibetans, they subjugated the Mongols. The Tibetans were clearly incapable of defending against a return of the Mongols, so the Qing garrisoned the region to fight the Mongols, not the Tibetans.
How do we know that the Qing did not subjugate the Tibetans. Because the Tibetans did not lose their language, their religion, their cultural practices, their economic way of life, or their ability to self-govern. Don’t project European subjugation where it does not exist. European subjugation meant child separation, genocide, mass displacement, destruction of ways of life, monoculture, outlawing language and religion on pain of torture and death, slavery, etc. That is subjugation. You will not find that in Tibet.
Until, that is, Tibet declares independence at the end of Qing Dynasty. That’s when 95% of the Tibetan population becomes subjugated by a brutal system of slavery, disenfranchisement, and totalitarian servitude. That’s subjugation. Modern China also has not subjugated Tibet, unless you mean by that the PLA subjugated the nobility of Tibet that enslaved and tortured their own people.
social democrats
They have a better claim to leftism & socialism than the illiberal leftists & left-wing authoritarians who manifest inherently unequal, oppressive concentrations of authority & political power.
who manifest inherently unequal, oppressive concentrations of authority & political power.
Capitalism! (Which socdems completely support)
That’s a weird spelling for authoritarianism.
Social democrats support mixed economies with social safety nets.
Economic indexes show liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including social democracies beat communist states (North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality in terms of wealth & income. North Korea comes close, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Both in principle & practice, non-authoritarian or liberal leftism beats left-wing authoritarianism. Left-wing authoritarianism is a bankrupt contradiction lacking legitimate claims to the central tenet of leftism of promoting equality. Such philosophies & governments don’t serve the people, they serve an exclusive, repressive regime of political party elites.
y0kai [he/him]Capitalism is authoritarianism.
Not even close: political systems (governance of people & their actions) aren’t economic system (goods & services), and authoritarianism is a political system.
Not even arguing about capitalism: left-wing authoritarianism is still everything I wrote regardless of capitalism. Those liberal democracies I mentioned still in principle limit authority of governments unlike those regimes whose shitty philosophies lack any such scruples: authoritarian philosophies authorize unlimited government power to repress universal rights & liberties. A non-exhaustive list of authorized abuses: the Soviets had their great purges; the Chinese communist party punishes generals for refusing to mass murder civilians, suppresses discussion of times they’ve sent tanks against civilians, persecutes the Uyghurs & Falun Gong, & represses the freedoms of its LGBT+ population to express themselves & form establishments on- & off-line to meet. These actions aren’t backslides from their philosophy.
When liberal democratic governments commit human rights abuses, their philosophy at least recognizes them as illegitimate backslides from that philosophy, and on recovery the people may freely try to hold their governments accountable as they freely condemn such injustices.
However, let’s appreciate the hypocrisy of your position. You’re posting your criticism of capitalism on a online system created in the free world, and you’re benefitting from the freedom to express yourself respected by your government, likely a liberal democracy with some form of mixed economy that includes capitalism. No government authority is shutting you down. We couldn’t safely claim the same if you criticized your government’s economic system from a state run by a left-wing authoritarian regime.
Even supposing capitalism is authoritarian in some way, it’s not the government. Left-wing authoritarianism purports to fight oppression by becoming (causing and perpetuating) oppression. Left-wing authoritarians replace their economic elites with political elites only unlike before, these elites can now run wild with unrestricted government authority to terrorize the masses: they claim that’s progress.
Rare footage from trial of Chinese general who defied Tiananmen crackdown order leaked online - Lemmy.World
Video shows Gen Xu Qinxian explaining why he refused to deploy troops to crush 1989 student-led demonstrations Rare footage of a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) general who defied orders to lead his troops into Tiananmen Square and crush the 1989 student protesters has been leaked online, offering a highly unusual glimpse into the upper echelons of the military at one of the most fraught moments in modern Chinese history. General Xu Qinxian’s refusal to take his troops from the PLA’s prestigious 38th Group Army, a unit based on the outskirts of Beijing, into the capital has been the stuff of Tiananmen lore for decades. The six-hour video recording of Gen Xu’s court martial hearing the next year sheds light on the rare act of defiance. In the video, Xu said he refused because he did not want to become “a sinner in history”.
Found the lib
found the fake leftist: doesn’t care about political inequality or unchecked oppression
unfreeradicalEconomics and politics are inseparable.
The great lie of liberalism is that a population may be free even while deprived.
At best, your argument rests on a shifting of the goalposts to construct a pretend purity.
Your source is an institution primarily funded by EU state apparatus, as shown on their on website. No shit they determined that some EU countries have less inequality than some socialist countries.
The problem in the methodology for comparing inequality in socialist countries vs capitalist countries comes from a few main factors:
More developed countries (as in higher GDP per capita) have less inequality than less developed countries. Communism has mostly spawned in post-colonial countries which have had only 70 years at best to develop and industrialize, compared to the 200 years of many western nations. A fairer comparison would be with countries of similar levels of development or similar starting points before socialism was implemented, for example comparing Cuba with Haiti or China with India.
Capitalist countries mainly provide access to goods and services through income/wealth, whereas socialist countries provide access to such things additionally through other methods. For example, if the economically poor (income + wealth) population in a socialist country are given housing for free or very cheap, universal access to healthcare and education, direct food aid either by state or community means, access to land for growing their food, good quality public transit systems, or access to sports and cultural facilities, this won’t appear as a form of income or wealth for the poorer percentiles.
The whole thing can be disproven by measuring actual outcomes at equal levels of development instead of measuring equality by means of income or wealth. Scientific studies measuring quality of life metrics instead of wealth or income have reached the conclusion that socialist countries provide better life outcomes at equal level of development compared to capitalist countries. If inequality truly was higher in socialist countries than in capitalist ones, we would expect worse life metrics, not better ones.
WildmimicEuropean Social Democrats spreading propaganda? I’ve seen a lot of europeans talking about how life in central / northern europe differs from what happens in other parts of the world, but i wouldn’t call that propaganda, just sharing experience. And it’s only that you read more of us because the .ml instances and hexbear are the most defederated sites outside of instances with illegal content.
A_norny_mousseI’m sure some commenters on the .ml crosspost will have pointed that out 😉
(Just took a look - of course people who say that Stalinism was bad will get downvoted, same same)
I’ve literally never seen someone from lemmy.ml unconditionally support Russia. Stop making things up.
Hiya Flying. It’s a joke with a grain of truth. Some vocal (and often well spoken) voices there see russia as a lesser evil than the US and its allies, but imho they go overboard and would rather see and forgive/justify/support russian aggression and its deadly consequences than seek peaceful paths to a more just world.
Also because Russia is now a semi-fascist far right state, as much as the US, if not worse. No idea how it happened that both self proclaimed communists and far right governments will fight and die for Putin.
Maybe the extremists are not those who support human rights, but those who support authoritarianism, from both sides of the spectrum.
You just might be right there. The road to hell and all that.
Otoh, we are living in a world where the rich and powerful have extraordinary influence over our lives through asymmetric application of power, technology and knowledge… we are just pawns/players in systems, and if a system fails us, we might not have any recourse. It’s one reason I value the ability to “vote with my feet” (thanks to international agreements and norms, plus my extraordinary good luck of having a strong passport, decent education and supportive family). If you are stuck in a shitty system, your options might be limited and your readiness to accept extremism and its risks will likely be higher.
Accepting of all sexualities, genders , and races with a dumb fuck hammer and sickle. What alternate reality do you live in where the USSR was accepting of these?
The symbolism is more a visual bait for people like you. I don’t think it means all lefties are stalinists. Many flags have stars and stripes, for example, the most meaningless crap anybody ever cared to put on a rag. So chill.
This is more taking the piss out of people who say anyone left of centre is “radical left”.
Axolotl