this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
965 points (98.3% liked)
18385 readers
167 users here now
News and Discussions about Reddit
Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
Rule 1- No brigading.
**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **
YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.
Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.
**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
:::spoiler Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
.ml and hexbear are full of rancid dogshit, on the same level of mental illness as r/conservative.
hexbear? got a link to that?
Elegant bit of trolling. Hats off.
rare case where praise to the comment gets more upvotes than the original
Average .world conservative when exiting the echo chamber
I don’t know if it’s funnier or sad how many .world people seethe at people they’ve never even federated with
i moved to .world from .ml because of the annoying ass tankies. it's not what they were saying that annoyed me it was their attitude. they acted like 14 years olds that just discovered atheism and think everyone else on the Internet is Catholic.
but also, the intense defense is Russia and China was pretty dumb. i get hating America. that's fair and valid, but to do so while pretending that these other imperialistic super powers don't also suck is pure denialism.
I get down voted from the .ml crowd for informing them their support of Trump, either direct or inadvertent, isn't going to save Palestine its just going to get trans people killed and this gets me either blocked or banned. These people see an authoritarian and they can't help but get a boner.
I'm a socialist. But I'm an anti authoritarian first.
"I am a socialist, that's why my political activity consists on calling people who oppose genocide trump enablers"
If you oppose genocide then you'd do everything you could to prevent as much genocide as possible. Enabling Trump by not voting and encouraging others not to vote is going to get a lot of people killed. It's going to get people put in concentration camps, deported to counties they've never been to and will struggle to survive in, result in the erasure of trans people, get women killed in childbirth, get people killed on the job as workers safety rights diminish, get children killed as child labor laws disappear, expand the power Russia has over Ukraine (a country they have commited genocide on before), and still get Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank murdered. It honestly makes "you" almost as bad as the fascists in my opinion. Maybe everyone who didn't vote because of Palestine can go vacation in Gaza after Trump has built a few hotels there and see the real true work all those protest votes helped accomplish.
I'm not absolving dems for being involved in the genocide in Gaza. Their support for Zionism is obscene. But a lot more damage is going to be done now that the power is strengthening in the executive branch under trump and it's extremely privlidged to act like a protest vote was the morally superior option.
But I'm a socialist because I also think that the means of production should be owned by the workers.
You don't get the logic of "protest vote" then. Beyond being a simple "I'm too morally superior to vote for a genociding party" (which doesn't seem outrageous to me), it has a logic: I'm going to force the party that campaigns for my vote to change its policy on certain issues if it wants to earn my vote.
The fact is that the democrat campaign wasn't willing to give up genocide for those votes, which means either of two things:
a) These votes weren't enough to change the outcome of the election, so it's not the fault of the voters who conditioned their vote on an end of genocide that Trump got elected
b) These votes were enough to change the outcome of the election, but the democrat administration decided that maintaining the genocide was more important than winning the elections against Trump
Which choice do you believe best represents reality?
And seeing as you're a socialist, could you point me to any historical example of socialism you support?
The truth is the dems suck. They will do anything for a buck. They will support genocide for a buck. And they will lose an election they know they could win because the electorate will just swing right back to them in after they had another taste of republicans for 4 years if it means they keep getting that sweet sweet AIPAC money.
From a pragmatic standpoint, not voting isn't teaching the democratic establishment a damn thing. They're far more afraid of you voting for change within the party than they are afraid of you not voting and temporarily ceding power to the right. Then they get to leave in the obscene things the Republicans enacted that also make the dems money without it looking like they wanted it to happen.
The reality is that if more people voted consistently then the political machine would actually be beholden to the voters. Politics would actually shift left towards popular policy instead of just swing back and forth. But people don't vote. So they can just ignore what you want most of the time. And now we have the deal with whatever the fuck the authoritarians leading project 2025 can manage to fanangle. And if they get their way the american people will either accept things the way Russians and Hungarians have and the worlds largest army will be run by uninhibited authoritarian fascists, or the country will get very bloody.
But on the front of this single election and not voting. Its a literal trolley problem. Vote for 1 person to get run over or don't vote/flip the switch and watch 3 people get run over. Either way, blood is on your hands. It's on mine. But there's a little less. No decision is still a decision. Not voting for genocide enabled more death. I don't see how that can be morally superior when the practical outcome is worse.
You call yourself a socialist but you have a very, VERY tenuous understanding of the way to fight fascism and the way to achieve meaningful socialist progress. This tells me that you haven't actually done much at all in reading of socialist history, socialist attempts, and the struggle against fascism.
No, it wouldn't, because that's never been the case. The leftist policy approved in the 20th century in liberal democracies isn't a consequence of people voting consistently, it's a consequence of intense struggle of the workers through unionisation movements, and the compromise of the governments in the west in fear of a widespread socialist revolution in Western Europe (which also explains why such policy was much more tenuous in the US) following Eastern Europe during the decades of maximum growth in the Eastern Block.
Fascism has never been fought by liberal democracy and votes. Fascism has been defeated by communist movements and armed struggle. Fascism is an advanced stage of capitalism in which the bourgeoisie, in fear of losing their privileges, prop oppressive far right nationalists into the governments either democratically or through coups, as in the case of Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain and Italy, or Pinochet's dictatorship. Nazism in Europe was defeated through the tremendous struggle of the Soviet people who lost 25 million lives in the war against Nazism.
We won't vote our way out of fascism. We won't vote our way into leftist policy. The US tried with Bernie and it didn't work. Greece tried with Syriza and it didn't work. Spain tried with Podemos and it didn't work. The only weapon against fascism and in favour of socialism is mutual aid and organization.
You asked what kind of socialism I like. I really liked the elected leader of Sweden Olof Palme who enhanced socialism by strengthening unions with the long term goal of turning them into workers cooperatives. He was unfortunately assassinated before he could see that through. But this form of non authoritarian socialism is how I would like to see the rise of socialism.
I also agree that unions and class struggle work too. But part of that is being politically involved and voting. I'm not diminishing the work of unions, my whole point is emphasizing the power of voting. Not voting is literally throwing away the limited amount of political capital you have.
Organize. Unionize. Share theory. But also vote.
P.s. I'm not down voting you. I known that's silly to comment but I don't try to punish people having good faith arguments with me.
"The kind of socialism I like is the one that dies as soon as its leader is murdered" doesn't sound like a particularly strong kind of socialism to me.
The kind of socialism that's just state owned capitalism isn't even socialism at all if you ask me.
The kind of socialism you call state owned capitalism is the one that saved Europe from Nazism, the one that set the standards for free healthcare, working hours, worker rights, free education and pensions, the one that fought the staunchest against imperialism, and the one that allowed for its countries to stop being western colonies.
Things can do good and still be bad. America helped fight the Nazis (and also paved the way at certain points in a few things you list including free education for children) and they're still bad. Thing can be better than other systems and still be bad. Capitalism was better than feudalism. I still don't want it. Also its laughable to say it fought hardest against imperialism. I dare you to tell that to many of the countries it used to control, both directly and indirectly, through military power. I dare you to tell that to a Ukrainian friend. Russia/USSR was/is still an imperial power that's caused a lot of harm.
Also, even doing all that, it was still authoritarian state own capitalism at best in the end. That's what you're defending as the bastion of lefty success?
Enjoy your bad logic and your boot. We don't see eye to eye.
It's laughable if you haven't read a book in your life about actual Soviet policy, economic relations, and the meaning of the word "imperialism".
Your friend has the luxury of considering themselves Ukrainian thanks to the fucking Soviet Union. Ukraine had up until the formation of the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics in 1917 been a people without representation split between Poland and the Russian Empire. The first Bolshevik constitution gave all the nations and peoples of the Russian Empire full and unilateral right to secession and independence. Poland became independent this way and immediately invaded the newly established Ukrainian People's Republic (first time in history that Ukraine had a representation and an administration of itself, courtesy of the Bolsheviks). Lenin himself fought other socialists like Rosa Luxembourg in order to enable an independent Ukraine, as opposed to the homogenous "socialist national identity" that they proposed, this is a historical fact.
The Bolsheviks, during the Russian civil war, fought Poland and gave back Ukraine's territories to its people, and Ukraine was established as an independent republic within the USSR. In the following decades, and for the first time in its history, the citizens of Ukraine would gain access to education and the possibility of choosing an education in Ukrainian language, a majority of the published literature and newspapers were published in Ukrainian, and just 40-odd years after Ukraine's first ever autoctonous administration and representation, a Ukrainian would become the president of the Soviet Union.
The fact that over the past 30 years, a russophobic and anticommunist nationalist sentiment has been fostered in Ukraine, as has been in most of Eastern Europe since the advent of capitalism as a political tool against Russia, doesn't invalidate any of that, and the fact that Ukrainians generally feel that way doesn't automatically make it right, in the same sense that American exceptionalism is a general sentiment in the US and it's wrong. As an example, most Polish people view the crisis of the 80s (which gave rise to Solidarity) as a consequence of Soviet meddling in their economy. The reality of the consensus of serious economists who study this issue is that Poland went, against the advice of the Soviet Union (proving again that its "iron grip" in the eastern block wasn't such), went into debt with western banks and financial institutions and paid the consequences.
The fact that you even compare the two shows how little idea you have of what you're talking about. Modern capitalist Russia is a liberal democracy on a downwards spiral towards fascism, the Soviet Union was a worker's state and didn't exert imperialism. The trade terms of the USSR were generally beneficial to the countries that traded with it (see Cuba's crisis in the 90s after trade with the USSR stopped), USSR was a net exporter of raw materials and fossil fuels which it did at international prices even within the COMECON. If you have studied unequal exchange, this means that the Soviet Union was subsidising other states because of the imbalance in international prices of raw materials vs manufactured, high added-value goods. The USSR assisted immensely in anti-imperialist struggle: wars of Korea and Vietnam, Chinese revolution, Cuban revolution...
What you're doing here is proving that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you consider yourself a leftist but you've done no study of the material history of socialism and you parrot the talking points of the US State Department.
My friend Ukrainian friends should be grateful the the USSR? Barf. Clever you never mention to holodomor. But i bet that is very conveniently not genocide for you. Maybe you should tell African countries to be grateful for their imperialism next since it brought them boarders and some modernization while you're at it.
Look, you accuse me of not reading. But you seem high on only reading the propaganda you've gobbled up. You're so biased it's invalidated most of what you'd consider an argument. Though its hard to consider it much if an argument when in this very thread you've contradict yourself and offer up fallacies left and right.
I'm not comparing Russia to the USSR. I'm saying that authoritarian capitalism never ended there.
Enjoy your personal cult flavor of imperialism while doing mental gymnastics to call it something else. When a government forceful controls others, its imperialism. Just because you think they were good imperialists doesn't mean they weren't imperialists.
"Holodomor" is a newly coined term to categorize a famine as a genocide. A famine took place in the early 30s in the USSR as a consequence of failures during THE FIRST ATTEMPT IN HISTORY of collectivizing agriculture, which led to millions of deaths both inside and outside Ukraine. You guys never mention the deaths in Central Asia and in Russia proper, because it's not convenient to your narrative.
The reality is that while there was a famine in the USSR, and it disproportionately affected Ukraine, there is simply no evidence to talk of intent. The dekulakization process was a difficult period of Soviet history, but the famine took place between 1930 and 1933 and largely disappeared afterwards, with no other such event in Ukrainian history happening ever after during Soviet rule. There is no motive against Ukrainians (a worker's state killing workers isn't a smart thing), there is no evidence of motive, and there is no evidence of intentionality, calling the USSR famine of 1930 "Holodomor" is (a western manufacture)[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Holodomor&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3] of atrocity propaganda against communism, and to boost russophobia. The famine was a disaster and a failure of soviet policy, but calling it "genocide", or saying that it was targeted against Ukrainians, is simply insulting.
The Soviet Union, like it or not, saved Ukraine from the Russian Empire, and later from the Nazi invasion. The number of people who died in famines pales with the millions of lives that were saved from Nazi occupation and the ensuing extermination of the Slavic "untermenschen", had there been not a Soviet Union there would simply be no Ukraine to speak of right now.
That's because you haven't, your entire analysis is vibes-based, and the only references that you could possibly point towards in these topics are reddit/.world comments that you've read and assimilated because they're compatible with your US State Department propaganda anticommunist views.
When an actually-existing socialist state ensures a degree of homogeneity in policy and objectives in its area of influence, it's not called imperialism, it's called geopolitics, which are a sad truth of class war. But sure, keep praising leaders who achieved absolutely nothing because they were killed as soon as they were about to enact the slightest socialist policy. Go on, suck off Allende's cock (who resulted in Pinochet), the Spanish Second Republic (which resulted in Franco), and your dear Swedish loser whose movement and ideas were so grassroots that they died with him. Because to you anticommunist leftists, the only valid leftist movements are those that die prematurely and don't have to face real-world conditions. You compare theory with reality, and when the dire reality of class war doesn't adequate to your moralism, you reject it.
Non intentional genocides and sad truths are lame excuses for an authoritarian regime that took away the autonomy of other nations and caused disproportional death of those they were trying to control.
Sweden made rapid advances in social welfare and programs under Olof. Sorry he didn't subjugate enough people for you to feel like it was good socialism. Enjoy the boot but be careful because it doesn't just stomp on the people you think deserve it.
Imagine not knowing what genocide means.
The USSR saved tens of millions of lives. The life expectancy in imperial Russia was around 30, by the 50s it as 60, and they stopped Nazism which would have genocided as many Slavs as they possibly could.
Oh wow, a western leftist who doesn't understand unequal exchange, imperialism, and the yoke that Europe imposes on the global south, colour me surprised. Well, maybe I'm being too generous, and you just don't care about the lives of the Asians and the browns that die in the plantations and factories of the products your perfect social democracy consumes!
Imaging not understanding sarcasm. It's rich to say I don't care about people who die when you're the one cherry picking which genocides to support.
It's honestly disgusting that you go talking about "genocides" that you have absolutely done 0 research on, using numbers as a political tool and comparing unintended famine deaths to actual genocide such as Holocaust or Gaza.
Thanks for not answering to the rest of the comment though, you obviously can't argue against the USSR saving millions of lives and your lack of care for the oppressed in the global south
Its honestly disgusting how much you try to explain away disproportionate grain quotas so much that you mass starve the very people producing your food and are conveniently also trying to subjugate as unintentional. I'm sure you have lovely things to say about the Irish potato famine as not being genocide too. It's only genocide when checks notes the imperialists I don't like do it.
Genocide doesn't have to be sophisticated, systematic, and performed with guns to be effective. I didn't compare this situation to the holocaust for a reason.
Intent is a wishy washy excuse when the reality is targeted death of a specific subjugated people. It's how everyone tries to weasel out of being accused of genocide. Israel doesn't want to kill all of the Palestinians. Its not their intent. They just want the land and mass Palestinian death is just an unintended side effect. If I roll my eyes any harder I'll lose them to the back of my head.
but lets look to Raphael Lemkin who is the one credited with coming up with the term genocide:
The fact that you speak of Ukrainians as "people to subjugate" really tells of how little understanding you have of the topic. Comparing a historically colonial region like Ireland, to an area literally liberated and given a nationality, borders, education in their language and press in their language such as Ukraine, is absurd. You have no fucking idea what imperialism is, and it shows very severely. Go read a book lmao
Ukraine was literally saved from Nazism and from Russian/Polish imperialism by the USSR, but you're a fake socialist who's never read a fucking book, who glorifies useless leaders who never got to power and never had to face the realities of class war, and replicates US state department propaganda
OK genocide apologist.
Forcing a people to be part of your system against their wishes is subjugation. The Ukrainians wanted independence. They literally fought for it and lost. Excusing genocide because there was some bonus education is disgusting. Excusing imperialism because you like the perks makes you an imperialist.
Source: Ukrainian nationalist propaganda.
A part of the population in a small region of Ukraine wanted anarchism, and was promptly defeated by communists in the context of a civil war against fascism because anarchy doesn't work. Ukrainians should thank the soviets for the ensuing industrialisation that allowed the defeat of the Nazis, a sparse set of agricultural communes would have been exterminated by Nazis. Anarchists simply don't understand this, and refuse to understand the historical and material conditions that surround them in favour of idealism, which is why their projects don't live long enough to see widespread adoption anywhere.
The lack of prior attempts, the lack or motives, the lack of intent, the fact that it was a famine in a particular event of land collectivisation, and the fact that there was no continuation over time, prove it wasn't a genocide. I'm not excusing genocide because there wasn't, I'm criticising poor collectivisation policy which led to famine both inside and outside Ukraine.
Consolidating socialism in a region isn't imperialism, which you'd know, again, if you had read any socialist literature. But you'd rather go with your vibes-based Reddit leftism.
Arguing that either China or Russia suck comparably as much as the US as current things stand is crazy. Most criticism of China is made-up anticommunist propaganda, criticism of Russia is often coated in russophobic tropes originating in Nazism and highly chauvinistic in nature (yes, Russia is on a downwards spiral of concerning fascist trends in government, but so is the entire west, literal Sieg Heil in US president inauguration and fascist parties in Germany and Austria).
Westerners focusing their criticism on countries doing a fraction of the evil their own countries do is simple western exceptionalism and nationalism. Neither China nor Russia have anything in their recent history remotely comparable to the genocide in Gaza, the invasion of Iraq, the carpet bombing of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Korea, the history of coups and support of fascist regimes, and the history of colonialism of the west.
i never said they were as bad as America lol. why do you have to go so far out of your way to defend two of three largest and most antagonistic countries in the world. they all suck, splitting hairs about degrees of evil isn't worth the time.
don't be expansionist.
don't be imperialist.
don't hate people for how they were born.
don't antagonize ethnic minorities.
all three countries are failing at more than one of these right now. they all suck.
they really don't need the help either...
Saying that Russia is on a downward spiral towards fascism is defending it?
My point isn't that you should be defending Russia or China, my point is that there's a very disproportionate amount of criticism of Russia/China compared to the US in the west, especially flagrant if we compare how actually harmful each of these is.
Okay I get your point but please stop using "mental illness" as an insult.