@axont@hexbear.net

A terrible smelly person

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

What are some commonly known facts that are too bizarre for you to believe to be true?

For me it is the fact that our blood contains iron. I earlier used to believe the word stood for some ‘organic element’ since I couldn’t accept we had metal flowing through our supposed carbon-based bodies, till I realized that is where the taste and smell of blood comes from.

axont,

There are only 24 episodes of the initial run of The Jetsons and only 25 of Scooby Doo. They got aired as reruns for decades before more episodes were made. There are only 15 episodes of Mr. Bean.

axont,

Planescape: Torment made me slow down and realize a game can be an entire world onto itself and I shouldn’t skim over stuff I read.

The Outer Wilds is probably the most recent game that changed how I approach stuff. It’s so good. Nothing is given to you, you have to figure out everything on your own. It’s good for developing patience and curiosity.

For twitchy gameplay type stuff, I recommend Radiant Silvergun. Makes every other shmup feel like they’re in slow motion. That game is why I was able to beat any of the Touhou games.

axont,

I don’t think you could define this as strictly not racist, since “race” constitutes arbitrary characteristics decided upon largely by white hegemony. It’s how Africans became a singular black race despite being different cultures and language groups. It’s why Jews are sometimes white, sometimes not.

It’s absolutely why most Americans consider a native Spanish speaker a different race, no matter how white they are. We’re in a moment where being Muslim is a racial marker excluding a person from whiteness.

Here’s a trick I do. Go show an uniformed white American a picture of Bashar al-Assad. Every time I’ve done this, they’ll say he’s a white guy. Then tell them he’s the president of Syria and a Muslim. They instantly flip.

axont,

Do you think a requirement of being atheist means you have to embarrass kids or be racist? Do you think atheists have a moral obligation to do genuine persecution against people for wearing a robe?

Secularism in education doesn’t mean you have to strictly control what clothes kids wear. Just don’t have private religious schools, it’s as easy as that. That’s what socialist governments do when they have a secular state ideology, they ban religious schools, shelters, hospitals, etc and replace them with secular, public ones. They don’t ban religion outright because that’s absurd, it’s a waste of time, and it’s needless cruelty.

Why does it matter if some people are Muslim? Do atheists have a moral obligation to control what Muslims wear or believe? Why?

axont, (edited )

do you trust the state of France to do something that largely targets Muslims and there to be a positive outcome? Furthermore I should mention the abaya isn’t even religious, it’s just a dress worn by some people of northern African or middle eastern culture/ancestry. Nothing about Islam mandates wearing it and not all Muslims wear abayas.

listen, only about 50% of Cubans profess they’re part of a religion, compared to other places in the Caribbean like the Dominican Republic where the number is a much higher 97%. Cuba didn’t ban religion outright or wearing religious clothes, they banned religions from operating public services, charities, etc. The Cuban government gave people things that religions had previously given them, rather than taking away things like what kinds of clothes they could wear.

even if you’re an atheist and you believe in secularizing the entire world, changing beliefs, do you really think the way you do that is by first deciding what kids are allowed to wear to school? Do you think there are any positive ways to persecute a religious group, not even the leadership or whatever, but persecuting literal children and telling them which clothes to wear? If you’re some kind of atheist proselytizer then I’d expect you wanna go for methods that actually work.

I’m gonna quote an obscure guy named Marx you don’t seem to have read much of:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

if you wanna criticize religion, then criticize the thing that makes religion happen, namely human suffering. Don’t cause more suffering. Demand people’s real happiness.

axont,

An abaya isn’t religious, they’re just worn in places that are usually Muslim and often worn by Muslims. This is racist discrimination.

axont,

That depends, but it’s probably irrelevant in France. Some churches expect women to wear head coverings, like in the eastern Orthodox church. Mennonite women wear bonnets. Some very fundamentalist churches ban wearing mixed fabrics.

There are also mormons, who wear the “temple garment” underwear

Legendary PC developer says Denuvo is “a punishment to the consumer” (www.pcgamesn.com)

Quote from the article: “The inclusion of intrusive DRM softwares [sic] like Denuvo is a choice that yields an unfair punishment on the consumer,” Running With Scissors says. “Respect the consumer, make a game they want to play, and you will never feel the need to fight piracy. The gaming industry deserves a better future,...

axont,

I appreciate Postal 2 because the premise is kinda funny. It’s deliberately designed so you can beat it without doing any violence at all. You’re given tasks like get milk, pick up your paycheck, etc. And it involves standing in lines or people berating you. You’re stuck doing tedious annoying repetitive tasks, or you can get a flamethrower. I think standing in line to get Gary Coleman’s autograph takes 90 minutes if you do it normally.

Otherwise it’s very silly early 2000s edgy white guy dudebro humor

axont,

I like how every year he somehow gets worse. I didn’t think he could descend further from professor so annoying he refuses to call students by their preferred names. After the Zizek debate where he had no clue what he was talking about, he’s become like a Charles Dickens character. He’s like a crazy uncle kept in the attic because he’s lost his mind from laudanum.

axont,

My favorite part is where Zizek, in good faith, asked Peterson to name a few of the Marxist professors. (Peterson at this point of the debate had been saying academia had been seized by Marxist malefactors). Peterson couldn’t name any.

Zizek offered the name David Harvey, a highly influential British Marxist professor known for his commentary on Capital. Peterson had never heard of him.

StarTrek.website is back online and has restored full functionality!

Thank you for everyone’s patience while we were migrating hosts . I know I said “a few hours” and it turned out to be over a day. Clearly I need to work on my Scotty estimates. During transport the team found a backlog of extremely low effort memes caught in the pattern buffer and we had to go through the copies one by one...

axont,

Welcome back! Y’all are one of my favorite instances

axont,

The original cut of the 2007 ended with Will Smith’s character realizing he had been abducting and murdering conscious, aware creatures. The ending has the vampires doing a rescue mission, visibly terrified of Smith, and then he allows the one he abducted to rejoin her society.

Test audiences apparently didn’t like it or didn’t understand it

axont,

The two adaptations of Watchmen have both missed the point. The Zack Snyder movie treats the characters like gods rather than deeply flawed losers and weirdos.

The HBO series is better, and does get very close, but collapses from a meandering plot and glorifying cops

axont,

The worst aspect is Zack Snyder seems to think Rorschach is a cool dude with cool ideas. They made him talk normally in the movie, maybe that was so he could be more easily understood, but it didn’t feel right. He’s supposed to seem deranged. In the comic he talks in squiggly text boxes and in an odd kind of halting, broken English. He’s not bad at speaking English, he’s become so unstable and antisocial his social skills have atrophied. Jackie Earle Haley came across as too earnest or too confident. Like that scene with the therapist reading the ink blots, Rorschach in the comic comes across as pathetic. He’s done, doesn’t care, doesn’t want to live. He says he sees flowers and trees because he just wants to leave the therapy session. In the movie he comes across as like this snickering badass ready to cause trouble. He’s like “heh, you can’t handle my twisted mind, doc.” I hate it. Synder completely misread the scene.

At least the TV show had the guts to show Rorschach would eventually inspire a white supremacist movement

axont,

The show plays into several right wing fears, like widespread gun control (cops need permission over radio to unlock their guns), black people getting paid reparations, white people living in shantytowns (nixonville), cigarettes are illegal, religious people becoming a persecuted minority, stuff like that. The first few episodes play up an angle of “what if cops mainly profiled poor white people.” That’s because the premise is that there’s been an uninterrupted 30 year liberal hegemony under president Robert Redford, similar to how the 1980s Watchmen comic took place during an uninterrupted conservative domination with Nixon.

The glorifying cops part is because it dips into the idea there are some good cops who are struggling against an entrenched structure of bad cops. That’s the whole arc of the show, the main character Angela is a “good cop” who is routing out the “bad cops” in order to repair the structure. It’s the liberal nonsense idea that putting oppressed minorities into positions of power like wealth, the cops, politicians, etc will correct the structure, since the problem is presented as individuals within that structure rather than the thing itself. In the show’s attempts to subvert/criticize corporate liberal dystopia, it still presents the same conclusions.

Although another way of reading it is that it’s a criticism of how generic American liberals, even when granted full control over society, still manage to recreate the same conditions. That’s a better and more interesting reading honestly. But I’m stuck because I know that Damon Lindelof (the writer) is himself a generic rich Hollywood liberal type.

I actually like the show by the way. Jeremy Irons was good. The Trent Reznor soundtrack is beautiful too.

axont,

there’s a cool website called myspace where you can chill with friends

axont,

Hell I realized myself the other day that there were two leaders between Deng and Xi who I couldn’t name and know basically nothing about.

Oh well that’s easy, before Xi Jinping there was Hu Jintao, who was a kind of moderate technocratic kind of guy. Always about plans and numbers. And before Jintao there was a magic toad wizard who wore George Romero glasses and would yell at journalists when they asked him stupid shit FrogPog

axont,

i’m only mildly exaggerating

axont, (edited )

us-foreign-policy

Westerners deciding who’s doing real socialism or not. Westerners expressing their most vile sentiment for foreign countries rather than their own imperialism. Westerners praising the words of their own imperialist intelligence agencies. Westerners unironically praising their own nations for civil liberties like the freedom of fascists to assemble, freedom of racists to express themselves, freedom of parents to own their children, and freedom of school districts to continue racial segregation. Westerners praising imperialist nations like Norway as socialist while using bold language like fascism to describe places under that same exact threat of imperialism, like Cuba and Vietnam.

Westerners claiming foreign governments are merely pretending to be socialist, while claiming unorganized misinformed chauvinistic westerners are the true heirs to socialism, despite all they do is post online and complain about foreign nations.

Westerners praising anarchist movements from 100 years ago despite having no common cause with those movements, no connection to the circumstances within them, and probably no actual admiration of them. Westerners praising a bastardized, sectarian, perverse form of anarchism rather than attempting unity with organizations in their areas. Westerners refusing to speak with actual anarchists in their area, who by and large don’t give a shit and just want to hand out food or help at shelters. If Buenaventura Durruti were alive today he’d be regarded with scorn by western chauvinists.

Westerners continuing to bring up Trotsky of all people, who wasn’t relevant to world affairs for the last 15 years of his life and certainly not the past 80 years. Westerners not reading a single word of Trotsky’s work, westerners focusing entirely on Trotsky’s feud with Stalin, westerners not knowing that Trotsky was a literal military commander. Westerners calling themselves Trotskyists in 2023 for some reason. Westerners deciding they have a feud with Joseph Stalin, a man who died in 1953.

Westerners attempting to praise their own socialist leadership, who happen to be a scattered group of imperialist-aligned social democrats, Twitch streamers, and actual antisemitic grifters such as in the case of Caleb Maupin.

axont, (edited )

Personally I like the definition that the historian Robert O. Paxton uses. Now, he’s a liberal, but he does have good insight into fascism and he doesn’t fall into that trap of deciding that communists and fascists must be the same thing. His definition isn’t materialist, but it’s a good start.

To paraphrase, his definition is “a suppression of the left among popular sentiment.” By left he means things like socialists, labor organizations, communists, etc. Fascism is a situation where a country has found its theater of democracy has failed and the capitalists need anything at all to keep themselves in power, even if it means cannibalizing another sector of capitalists. The fascists are the ideological contingent of this, who put forward a policy of class collaboration between working class and capitalist, instead of what socialists propose, which is working class dominance in the economy. Fascists exalt nationality or race because that extends through class sentiments. It brushes aside concerns like internal economic contradictions. I once had a comrade say something like “Fascism is capitalists hitting the emergency button until their hand starts bleeding.”

Communists using a vanguard party is to defend their own interests against capitalists or outside invaders. The praise of the CPSU in Stalin’s era was precisely because it acted as a development and protection tool for the working class. It did its job and people were wary of any return to the previous Tsarist or liberal governments. Women began going to school, women were given the vote for the first time. Pogroms ceased. In less than one lifetime of the CPSU administrating the country, people went from poor farmers to living in apartments with plumbing, heating, and clean medical care. That’s why there was such praise of the party, because they actually did things people liked, and they didn’t want anything to threaten them.

Also, what does it matter if there’s one party or two? The working class have a singular, uniting interest to overthrow capitalism. Why are multiple parties needed? Anything the working class needs to negotiate for can be handled within a socialist, democratic structure, not two or three competing structures against one another. Take a look at Cuba, which has one party, but doesn’t use their party to endorse candidates. Everyone’s officially an independent in the National Assembly.

axont,

Wait, this person who is bragging about going on a forum for praising NATO and war crimes is telling us we’re not socialist enough?

What? I’ve lost the plot.

axont,

Literally nowhere on earth has any substantial Trotskyites outside of maybe the UK and scattered parts of America. The closest thing to Trotskite revolutions were some contingents of the Spanish Civil War and one very odd Posadist group mentioned by Che during the Cuban Revolution. You’re allowed to like Trotsky’s writings, that’s fine, but Trostkyism itself isn’t anything of a serious movement.

axont,

It’s hard to challenge my opinions because I’m cool as hell and I exude a pleasant aroma mondays

axont,

You might be interested in Cuba’s representative system then. Politicians there aren’t allowed to propose policy or platforms, instead they act purely as representatives from community interests. Cubans can initiate votes of non-confidence in their politicians as well, at any point to have them removed from office. They don’t make great salaries either, and if they’re party members they’re required to pay regular dues. There aren’t term limits. I remember there was some kind of referendum a while ago about Cuban term limits and they were declared undemocratic, plus they didn’t make sense in regards to Cuba’s long term economic plans.

Cuba has one of the most robust democracies in the world. Their constitution was rewritten in 2019 and it was a countrywide effort, starting at things like local union halls and referendums sent to people’s homes.

axont,

Warning: 🚨 ⚠️ Hexbearian detected! Everyone, into the posting bunkers! bunker

axont,

The people who hate America the most are probably Iraqis with dead children, or American indigenous people kept in poverty.

I know there are westerners who have a better conception of socialism and are more amenable to international working class efforts. I know a lot of them. I’m from Texas lol. I don’t like it when westerners, like fellow Americans, look down their nose at other countries. Calling a nation fascist because it doesn’t meet your western ideas of what socialist utopia is supposed to be? It’s bizarre to me. It always seems racist.

Westerners have a strong tendency towards national chauvinism and it’s rare to meet someone more internationally minded unless you go looking for them. You can probably agree with that.

axont,

I don’t know what any debate words mean and I refuse to learn.

axont, (edited )

He was a professor at Harvard most of his career, if that explains anything. He’s also on record calling the January 6th capitol thing a fascist coup attempt.

axont,

Mussolini and Hitler thought their projects were incompatible with communism/socialism, it’s why their first steps upon achieving power in their countries were to purge the left and ensure that left resistance couldn’t be organized against them

I think something liberals trip on is that Hitler and Mussolini didn’t just attempt to suppress leftists. They did that after gaining power. Before gaining power they did any number of weasel-like things to convince the average person that fascists were in fact better socialists than the socialists. They appealed hard to working class interests, especially the ones with national chauvinist tendencies. They appealed to racism and scorned international cooperation. It didn’t help that the average person in this was often confused, coming out of the problems of post WW1 Europe, and mainly wanted a party that would put food on the table. The so called “beefsteak nazi” was a type of person who’d join the Nazis believing they’d put forward more genuine socialist policies. Beefsteak, red on the inside, brown on the outside. Then you had people like Ernst Röhm and Strasser, who identified publicly as socialist. Then once gaining power in 1934, they were killed.

Fascists don’t really have beliefs so much as they’re an emergency tool for capital to rid itself of its primary internal enemies.

axont,

We got told to cool it with the emojis on other instances, because there’s a Lemmy bug that makes our emojis look giant when we’re not on Hexbear. A lot of us think it’s funny though that our pig shit image takes up the whole screen. I want it to be larger.

axont,

We don’t ignore it when a socialist country takes security measures, we say they’re an unfortunate reality of steps a country has to take in order to defend itself against external and internal aggression. Having your country go socialist earns you a lot of enemies and having a lot of enemies means you have to build up things like intelligence agencies, military apparatuses, and centralized agencies for combating sabotage and spying. These are things every country does, but western nations like to paint the security measures that socialist nations take as purely authoritarian, or needlessly tyrannical, or whatever other word gets thrown around. The nations yelling at socialist countries to change their domestic policies are usually the most imperialist and have the most to gain from socialist states being dismantled.

When your enemies are the global capitalists who operate global finance and industry, you should probably build up something to defend against it. Nukes tend to work as a deterrent, but they only go so far when you’ve also got an internal population that can present a security problem.

China’s taken the smartest strategy of all honestly. They’ve intertwined their economy with the imperial powers to the point it’s impossible to disentangle. The west can’t take violent action against China, since that’s where the industry is.

Also, so called authoritarian measures against our enemies are a good thing. It’s good when fascists, racists, and imperialists lose civil liberties like the freedom to express themselves, organize, fund politicians, or operate businesses.

axont,

Not sure how Cuban party dues work, but I do know there’s an application process and not everyone gets membership. Not sure how it works in regards to income level either

axont,

Yeah we’re still in a position where American fascism doesn’t even recognize itself in the mirror. It doesn’t realize it’s a movement that needs coherent aims. It’s still stuck in the American paradigm of politics as consumerism. A comrade the other day here said the explicit kind of American fascism is having a hard time getting off the ground because they refuse to adopt socialist rhetoric, like European fascist movements in the past.

axont, (edited )

Personally I don’t believe the term authoritarianism is a useful description of anything. It’s too vague. I’ve seen one definition that’s like “a system that rejects the involvement of certain groups or interests from the political process.” Well that would be all socialist nations by default, since socialist countries by definition have denied political representation for the capitalist class in some way.

A better question is: How is a socialist country supposed to defend itself? It may not be possible for a country to achieve what Marx called upper-phase communism. It may not be possible for money, states, and all property to be abolished. That’s a question for the future. But when a country tries to curtail the power of capitalists, even attempts to create what’s known as true communism, they find themselves on the receiving end of an entire world against them. Sanctions, invasions, sabotage, spying. The shape that a socialist country will take is the result of its conditions. We’re living in a world dominated by capital and socialist countries represent a resistance against capital. If socialist movements are threatened, they either defend themselves or collapse.

You’re right that countries are dancing to the imperialists, because the imperialists hold the most power right now. That’s why an anti-imperialist movement is important, why a multi-polar world is important. Once the threat of imperialism subsides or is defeated, then I’m going to guess socialist countries will begin to express their policies differently.

I don’t think I’m comfortable with a central power having the authority to decide that certain groups don’t have rights, that power is too often abused widely.

Is there any society that isn’t this? A central authority deciding how to distribute rights is a governing body.

Socialism is a movement about denying the right of property to capitalists. That’s the entire purpose of the movement, to elevate working class people to the point of dominating society and to restrain or abolish the capitalist class. Landlords and capitalists shouldn’t be able to exercise the same rights they have in a liberal capitalist nation. Fascists, racists, transphobes, imperialists, etc shouldn’t have any civil liberties and should be subject to arrest, reeducation, or worse.

axont,

Possibly because of the way he’s found his career. Paxton is very popular in France and was very instrumental in introducing liberal historiography into French WW2 history. For him to throw a bone to Marxists would be undermining how he earned a name for himself in the first place.

axont,

And you’re given hiccups as a curse from a mage. If you retaliate by killing the guy then you’re stuck with hiccups forever. I love this game.

axont,

Nothing about the way everything’s going is designed to let me feel like a person. Money’s a requirement to simply exist. Everything’s a race to get enough money to sustain myself. I’m simply a worker who generates profit so my parasite of a boss and the associated shareholders can hang out on yachts. My job is nonsense too that doesn’t help anyone. I’m estranged from my family for gender and lifestyle reasons, can’t make friends because I’m always exhausted from work, can’t go to therapy except sparingly because it’s too expensive.

No matter how much validity my humanity holds, none of it really matters if none of it can be expressed due to a combination of alienation and dead eyed pessimism about climate change.

And no, we all aren’t on the same journey together. The economic strata that sits above mine has nothing in common with me.

axont, (edited )

I don’t mean to be rude or anything, but it’s not like communists have never heard of capitalists who also do some kind of labor. There aren’t two classes, but rather, there are two very big classes that have contradictory interests and people will be filtered into one of those two. That’s where the fight of capitalism is. Notice how peasantry has almost ceased to exist and most monarchs are ceremonial. Mao Zedong identified 5 classes within Chinese society in 1926: landlords, proletariat, peasantry, urban petite-bourgeoise, and national bourgeoisie. And that’s actually what 4 of the stars on the Chinese flag symbolize, with the largest representing the CPC.

You sound like you’re what’s called petite bourgeois and you identify with the cause and ideology of the bourgeoisie because that’s either something you aspire to or it’s a structure you’re able to take advantage of. Marx identified a transitional faction of capitalists precisely within his essay The Class Struggles in France, 1848–1850, and there’s a brief mention within the Communist Manifesto.

Basically, Marx said the capitalist class has separate factions who are not all in concert with one another, since not all capitalists have intrinsically similar goals. Some capitalists have contradictory interests to others and want the other abolished. In comparison, the working class have no such contradictory interests, all workers benefit from the same concerns: higher wages, fewer hours, more control over their workplace.

I’d really recommend reading the Marxist theorist Althusser on this one too. To summarize, he was one of the theorists who proposed class systems are more of an action one takes and the subsequent ideological formations within it than necessarily a strict divide of class hierarchy.

axont,

Thank you. And well that’s all fine and good to hope and imagine, but I’ve been trying to actively change things for the past 20 years through socialist organizing. Goes well sometimes, goes poorly most of the time, gotta keep trying anyway .

axont,

I’d recommend ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus’ as Althusser’s foundational text. His essay ‘On the Materialist Dialectic’ is the one where he talks about what I brought up. It can be tricky to understand if you haven’t read much dialectic theory before Althusser, but he basically argues that there’s a plurality of economic classes and activities, each with some degree of autonomy, but all of them depend on one another to a degree that they shape the boundaries of the other.

I will point out that in very clear terms that Althusser’s own battle with mental illness shaped much of his philosophical work. He was very interested in structure and how various people were slotted into formations completely outside of themselves. He had a lifelong battle with schizophrenia that had him institutionalized at various points and in one very severe episode he accidentally killed his own wife.

He didn’t believe in free will, is what I mean.

Have you ever been sexually attracted to someone you found repulsive?

It happened to me recently at work. I don’t even find her physically attractive, and her personality is not what I’m into at all. But I was still somehow attracted to her - and she also was to me. She didn’t like me, and I certainly am not the kind of man she goes for. It’s like we had a strong connection in one area...

axont,

I don’t have a lot of experience with dating and I’m kind of a loner, so I’ve had a problem over the past decade of jumping at whoever expresses interest in me. It’s a bad habit. The last two people I dated ended up being deep transphobes, both laughed when I told them I’m non-binary. With the last one, we had already been on like 3 dates or so and had gotten a little intimate, so that really made me ashamed of myself.

The last person revealed themselves to be a Raëlian too, the UFO cult. A lot of other conspiracy theory junk bouncing around their brain too. They must have known all of this stuff would turn me away, because none of it came out until I had known them for two months and we’d already considered ourselves close. Advice for the future: Ask anyone you’re gonna date important questions about their view of the world before doing anything further, it’ll save time. Figure out their religion, politics, stance on trans/gay people, everything, because for me it was a little devastating. I thought I had finally found someone. Oh well.

axont,

at first I thought you said elders of Zeon and I imagined accidentally dating Char Aznable in disguise

but yeah I’m gonna have to start asking basic questions about the moon landing, validity of trans people, and even if humans evolved from earlier primates

axont,

You are however disregarding how a nation conducts itself internationally, instead focusing entirely on domestic policy. Should we not consider how a nation acts towards people outside of its own borders as this authoritarianism? If we include a country’s imperialism, you’ll find the overwhelmingly most violent, brutal and authoritarian nations are the USA, the EU, and the west in general.

axont,

Socialism isn’t an intellectual idea though. It’s not an idea we put on the world, it’s a real movement that abolishes the present state of things.

axont, (edited )

If invasions, sanctions, assassinations, and complete immiseration of other nations isn’t authoritarian then what is it? Why are we arbitrarily deciding there’s a distinction with how a country’s internal and external policies? These things inform one another. If a nation like America is doing far worse things than authoritarianism, except externally, why can’t we say that’s what it is?

Obviously killing people externally or internally is bad, but it’s more shocking in the same way that a parent murders their own child.

That makes no sense. Joseph Biden is not my dad and my shared nationality with him means nothing because he represents an economic class at war with my own. Was Hitler the father of German Jews? What the fuck are you talking about

axont,

Yeah they do fit the definition, because the distinction between external and international policy you’re making is arbitrary and meaningless. I’m a communist. My nation is the working class.

axont, (edited )

I’ll put it like this:

The external imperialism of western countries far outweighs the danger, threat, and damage to human life than even the most cartoonish and absurd claims about the alleged internal authoritarianism in countries like Cuba, China, and the DPRK. It’s such a massive disconnect and it’s also not even a dialectical comparison.

The external imperialism of western nations is precisely what generates the security apparatuses that are developed within modern socialist countries. Most of the time what you regard as gross and needless authoritarianism is in fact socialist states defending themselves from external aggression. Go listen to Parenti talking about the measures Nicaragua had to take in regards to capitalist encirclement.

And furthermore, the decision to not use the term authoritarian to describe western nations constantly confuses me. Is it because the term imperialism is more accurate? If you want my gut feeling on this: authoritarian, totalitarian, and related terms were all cooked up by liberal historians like Hannah Arendt to make the USSR sound like the same type of thing as Nazi Germany, which is frankly Holocaust trivialization.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines