People need to realize you can use alternatives
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2023
1182 points (98.8% liked)
Memes
45730 readers
1821 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who are they shilling for?
I recognize you, you're an old head around these parts, you were there during my battle with that one CHEF_KOCH fuckface, I like you.
That said, you've been here at least as long as I have, semantics regarding the word "shill" aside you know this place is (kinda was) a majority State Communist, or "Tankie," echo chamber, and they pushed it relentlessly. It's why you only ever saw me in c/linux, I don't like political evangelism to the degree it used to be found here. C'mon lol.
Is there any reason you don't say Marxist?
Because as I understand it Marxism is a stateless society, but most of the people here were supporting State Communism, so not Marxism.
I would strongly recommend researching . Marxism before declaring self-proclaimed Marxists to not be Marxists.
Now do "State Communism"
Do Marxists always simp for Stalin and Mao?
This seems like a non-sequitur. Anyway, since audiobooks are still too much, let me just give a basic summary:
Marxists are not anarchists or communalists. Marx saw the failure of the Paris Commune and of the Utopian socialists and sought to create a theoretical framework that could be used in conjunction with practical political programs to resolve class struggle over time, which he predicted would ultimately produce a stateless society. This transitional society, to contrast with Marx's name for liberal capitalism -- the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie -- is referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"State communism" is, uh, just made-up as far as I can tell. Marxists support the destruction of dictatorships of the bourgeoisie and their replacement with dictatorships of the proletariat. Generally they would like to see a stateless society one day, but they understand that a simple commune would get steamrolled the instant it became politically important enough, so they are principally concerned with making states democratic in a truer sense of the word than liberal democracy -- which is de facto controlled by the rich -- in order to end "capitalist encirclement" and make things like communes more viable.
Well you may want to tell the marxists themselves they aren't anarchists, because they tell me otherwise. And I guess that means Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all Marxists?
Whatever "Marxists" tell you that they are anarchists are fucking morons (or Maoists, which could legitimately be said to be a type of anarchism in a loose sense, but then there's still a 90% chance they are fucking morons). Actually read Marx or Engels or Lenin, I beg you, this isn't a "he said, she said" situation.
People quote this too often, but yours is a rare case where it is justified:
This is the conclusion of "On Authority" by Engels.
The position of anarchists is the immediate and total lateralization of society, or else whatever government structure they handwave away as being "not real authority". The position of Marxists, as I already explained at length and you ignored without so much as a comment on its content, is that the matter of achieving such a society requires the creation of a transitional state which must be protected, and socialism brought to the rest of the world to avoid capitalist encirclement.
"State Communism," again, is something some sniveling "anti-authoritarian" useful idiots made up. Marxists see a current necessity of the state but not an essential or an eternal one. To call their ideology "state communism" is absurd.
That said, in the struggle against western imperialism, anarchists are widely regarded by Marxists within liberal capitalist states as allies (and that view is mostly reciprocated). Perhaps this was your mistake, since I would never reject someone for being an anarchist so long as they weren't one of those "I disavow the US but believe everything the State Department says about its enemies" types like the internet is fucking filled with for some reason.
Do you see what you are doing here? By trotting out major historical figures in this ridiculous and presumptuous manner, you are essentially arguing with the weight of chauvinism and an endless litany of mostly-bullshit accusations. It would take a book to answer about any of these figures in a half-decent way.
The short answers in order:
Stalin: Yes, though he was human and had both errors of judgement and in some cases deep-seated personal chauvinism; Before you ask, Khrushchev was anti-marxist but still seemingly some kind of leftist that I frankly don't care enough to diagnose.
Pol Pot: Absolutely not, he was an ultra-leftist and one of the most catastrophic leaders for one's country in human history, even worse than Gonzalo;
Mao: Yes, though he was human and had both errors in judgement and -- especially as he aged -- an odd propensity for utopian error which caused serious problems.
But how does conversation advance from me saying this? I feel no shame in endorsing the person who lead the destruction of Nazi Germany, or the one who fought of the colonizers and genociders who subjugated the people of China. You, on the other hand, are unlikely to retain a single new thing about them because whatever I say is just going to be "taboo noise" to you. My guess is that it's just to reassure yourself that I have nothing worthwhile to say, but that feels a little disingenuous compared to contesting the matter directly.
Here's an essay I like. Maybe consider reading it. I don't 100% agree, but it has definitely changed the way I thought about things.
I think that's a bit reductionist as even 'tankies' have varying opinions on many issues. I used to hate dealing with them, and disagree with their apparent love for the old soviet bloc more times than not.
However, I have to say, pretty much EVERYTHING they say about the US government and their allies is 100% factual. That also applies to a lot of the stuff they say about current communist countries, most of what you're fed about them from western media is meant to incite rage and hate towards asian countries in order to keep your attention away from the atrocities committed by your own government.
No I still disagree with them and it is through arguing with them, not "western propaganda" unless that is what they themselves are following. Not that I agree with the US gov's atrocities either, but it is possible to disagree with more than one thing of course.
China and Russia. Thus censoring legitimate western media articles about China. There's also a lot of anti-NATO bullshit. Here's the Axios article they banned a user for posting.
Out of idle curiosity, do you self-identify as a leftist?
I generally align with the left most of the time, but I hate making one label the basis for your entire political opinion. I am very against censorship. My greatest pet issues have to do with censorship and democratic principles. In terms of American politics, I will never vote Republican. If I feel a Democrat has let me down in a big way, I would consider voting third party, but 99% of the time I would vote Democratic. Centrist Democrats piss me off more than leftist ones. My foreign policy stances are probably the least in line with the further left. I am generally pro-NATO with the understanding that NATO isn't perfect. I just worry way more about a world with China/Russia at the helm given their propensity for censoring opinions that oppose their majority parties.
I'm terminally-online enough that I am used to the paths of most arguments that have appeared on this website about politics, but -- and I say this to be transparent -- this one baffles me and I don't know how to respond to it. I've seen people say it but, well, it gets hard to explain within rule 1.
Maybe if we agree that "NATO is an extension of US foreign policy" we can sidestep the issue for now.
This one I am much more used to. Remembering that NATO is a military organization and not, you know, "who controls the internet," I'd like to just present you with a simple pair of questions:
How many of the past thirty years has the US been at war?
How many of the past thirty years has China been at war?
Beyond that, for all the fearmongering people do, China is remarkably less interested in unilaterally dictating relations than you might think, so explaining things in terms of "which country is the master of the unipolar world order" is not justified. Unipolarity has only been the state of things for a little over 30 years (and only obvious for a little over 40) and was unheard of before that. There is no reason to suppose that the future can only be unipolar, especially if the country that ushered in unipolarity and viciously guards it with world-historic levels of violence (the US) is no longer the strongest force.
China has shown every indication of seeking bilateral development and cooperation. An example in severe microcosm is the US banning China from the International Space Station and China responding by making its own space station which the US isn't banned from, nor most other countries (though I think it is still a finite list and not totally open, owing in part to being a new program). Stories like "debt traps" from China are grotesque projection, as China doesn't do things like forced restructuring or asset seizure, unlike the IMF.
I truly think this sort of "US is the least of the available evils" ideology has a hard time existing except in a subcultural bubble where it meets no challenge at all, because it is an astoundingly flimsy position.
I don't oppose China's right to exist as a power. I do disagree with the US doing things like banning China from the ISS. I also am not blind to the IMF scheme and what it has done to the non-western world and I oppose that. I am quite opposed to the way that Israel has been handled and there clearly needs to be some kind of compromise with Palestine. I'm not even going to try to touch that issue in terms of the way right way for it to be handled, but clearly the solution isn't what they currently have. I am pro-NATO in how they've handled the war in Ukraine. I am pro-NATO in the sense that it prevents attacks on its member nations, which Ukraine in my eyes has been very clear evidence of the need for.
Like I said before, I think checking all the boxes in one political ideology more often than not leads to some shitty, lazy stances, so maybe labeling myself as pro-NATO was a mistake. It's fair to say that the world doesn't need one superpower. In terms of China, more than anything I just wish they allowed for more debate and opposition within their political structure. Again, democracy and censorship are my pet issues. I worry for any world where the mechanisms that allow us to express ourselves and correct our flaws are stifled. The US hasn't been some gold standard for the right way to do it, but I don't see anyone better stepping up to the plate yet.
In terms of my original comment that triggered this conversation, at the end of the day I think it is wrong to ban anyone for posting opinions that a moderator disagrees with. That's political censorship and it's shitty. If lemmy.ml had clear rules about their political stances and what's allowed, then that would be different. But as it is, I think they're misrepresenting what their community is if they're going to censor such content. "Orientalism" in their context implies that any conversations about another country not from within that country should be taken down. Should non-US articles about the US also be removed? Is anyone not from China allowed to talk about China?
As for my original comment about "anti-NATO bullshit", I confess that was a personal opinion that probably didn't belong next to my more objective opposition to politcal censorship. I personally wouldn't join lemmy.ml for their political stances. I objectively would recommend people not join that instance because of their political censorship.
This is a bizarre position. If NATO didn't exist (e.g. if it was disbanded in '93), there would not be a war in Ukraine. If NATO allowed Russia to join back in the '90s, there would not be a war in Ukraine, but of course it didn't because the purpose of NATO is to make western aggression easier to accomplish. If NATO was transparent about Ukraine not joining, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If Ukraine had the leeway with its western masters to even attempt to follow one of the Minsk accords in good faith, the war might have been averted. If the west didn't sponsor a Nazi-spearheaded coup in Ukraine that flipped Ukraine's foreign policy, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If western powers attempted to stop the civil war in Ukraine by means other than extermination, rather than sponsoring Azov, there likely would not be a war in Ukraine.
At every interval, western powers and Azov did not seek to avert the war but simply to cause Russia the most damage, because that is America's interest in the war. If the west gave a shit about Ukrainians, they would be seeking to negotiate a peaceful end to both the invasion and the civil war that allowed the people of Donbas to self-determine their position. They have strongly opposed any such measure.
As I said before, NATO is an extension of US foreign policy with only minor complications from the "independent will" of its other members, such as that will exists. The foreign policy of the US is one of the most savage violence and precisely-leveraged deprivation. It is beyond the violence of organizations like ISIS, let alone Russia, let alone China (the answer to my earlier question was 30 years of war for the US and zero for China).
You want to talk about fucking censorship? And let's assume here that you mean censorship of people in general and not you in particular. Unless you are really interested in the proliferation of fascism or of for-profit cults and prosperity gospel asshats, there is substantially less censorship instigated by China than by the US. Even if your image of China -- in which neoliberals are put in prison -- was true, that would be substantially more lenient in its approach than efforts the US has lead around the world. Here's an easy example of them organizing and sponsoring the slaughter of dissidents, in case things like the Vietnam War ("domino theory!") don't count to you for some inscrutable reason.
Source: dude, just trust me
I'll explain this by analogy. Sometimes here you see galaxy-brained liberals (no, I haven't seen you say this) saying in the context of China's domestic situation "Well, you say that the media gives me a false perception of China, but what about the Chinese media giving Chinese people a false perception of their country?"
This is all well and good when one doesn't think about it for even a second, but if one does that it becomes apparent that one group lives in China and the other does not. It is much easier to lie to Americans about a place that they will never, ever go to, probably will never really talk to a person from there, and which communicates only in languages that are completely inscrutable to them, compared to lying to people who live there and amongst each other and only speak those languages. Americans are the most propagandized fucking people on the planet, and they still in huge proportion have contempt for their government and much of the country, because no amount of propaganda can simply "overwrite" your own experiences (brainwashing is fictional).
This is a board that is overwhelmingly in a US -- and more generally a "western" -- context. Spreading misinformation about the country they live in, or whose language they speak, is much less effective than for a distant country they have no connection to except in these media representations so even if an article is slanted, it frankly just doesn't matter (though spreading clear misinformation is bad in any case and should always be treated harshly).
So in brief, your line of interrogation here is based on a crass equivocation rather than a justified analysis.
Can't really say much more than I disagree with you on the fundamentals. I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise and I don't think you'll convince me. I don't think the US or NATO are some perfect entities, but I also think your blaming of NATO for the situation in Ukraine is disingenuous at best. If you really think Russia is operating in good faith and that Putin's motivation for his invasion of Ukraine out of nowhere is because he felt threatened by NATO then I have a bridge to sell you. I agree that the US has benefitted greatly from NATO and has worked hard politically to bring NATO to where it is, but to act as though NATO members are just puppets being pulled by the US's strings is to severely misunderstand their positions in the world. This is especially the case for the people of Ukraine. You seem quite ready to dismiss what their people want for their country and to act as though the US is behind it all. You can tow the Russian line about Azov or whatever "Nazi" propaganda they've served to justify Russia's actions, but it's all a twisting of reality to justify Putin invading another nation, just as you would so readily dump on the US for.
And you can criticize the west's coverage of China all you want. I'm glad to hear it. I disagree with you, but I happily welcome opposing viewpoints. The same goes for Russia. I disagree with you and I'll say it, but disagreement and censorship are two different things. And at the end of the day this entire conversation was triggered because I disagree with mods banning people for unclear rules they've arbitrarily decided on the spot. If you think "Orientalism" is a good reason to ban every western article about China without establishing a clear community rule about that, then that's the only real line between your views and mine that matters to me. If you think censoring viewpoints that aren't in line with yours in general is okay, then we're not going to get past that impasse.
I never claimed the US was good on censorship. That's the difference between your arguments and mine. I am perfectly willing to shit on how terrible the US has been. I only think China and Russia have been worse. I've had coworkers from both the USSR and China. I've heard their horror stories about being forced to live in Siberia or being unable to get information freely or speak out freely. But even so, I don't think the US should be the world's solo superpower. I agree that the US has been the epitome of greed in the past century and has positioned themselves financially and militarily in a way that benefits them first and foremost. I think a world where nations cooperate on an even playing field is a much better world. But I'm not so foolish as to delude myself into thinking that Russia or China aren't similarly motivated by power. At the end of the day, global politics is a poker game where everybody is cheating. I don't support any one country, but rather I support ideals. Countries will always fail you, but knowing where you stand on issues like censorship or democracy won't.