Reddit tends to ban commies. It's like a mini red scare: with the left removed, the right thrives.
CarlMarks
joined 4 years ago
They'll go back to Reddit in a few weeks. Imagine thinking Redditors can pull off even a slacktivist version of a general strike. These are people whose entire lives revolve around fascile dopamine hits.
Looks like you shamed one of them successfully lol
That's okay when the left is Zhou Enlai.
A thought experiment: how do you think the US would react if China couped Mexico and supported a prolonged civil war near its border with Texas?
The reality and history is even starker in Ukraine, where fueling the civil war meant ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians by funding fascists and those adjascent to them. Also, it should be mentioned, significant fossil fuel resources were recently discovered in the area.
Consider how the US has responded to much less proximal and extreme situations and still gets rationalized as the leader of the democratic "free world".
A final thought: sure, Russia is imperialist, as in how Lenin approached the term, but the difference in degree compared to US-centered global capital makes it have a qualitatively different position. The driving factors here do not make this simply imperialist vs. imperialist. A better (simplistic) phrasing would be imperialist vs. regional capitalist that undermines a unipolar world order, with the latter in a much weaker and comparatively defensive position.
And as always, no war but the class war. The common people of Ukraine are the primary victims of this war and the people in peripheral countries forced into precarity by the sanctions are a close second.
I sometimes think about euphemisms for things that operate to negate their true nature and make them palatable for populaces that need their consentanufactured.
"Defense" used to describe all military expenditures and structures, particularly for the United States, which has spent nearly all of its "defense" efforts on aggression and territorial domination thousands of miles from its borders. It is conspicuous in how diligently it is used by certain groups, particularly large corporate media orgs, think tanks, and bourgeois politicians. There is, at minimum, an unconscious recognition that (the "good guys'") war must always be framed in the language of defense. For them to describe, for example, the wars on Iraq or Afghanistan as wars of aggresson, which they absolutely were even by liberal definitions, is almost unthinkable. No, the "bunker busters" used exclusively on foreign countries must be "defense".
"Heritage" to describe a white supremacist pining for chattel slavery in the South. Goes hand in hand with, "the peculiar institution" and "states' rights".
The (very deep, usually unconscious nowadays) allusions to vast "natural" spaces that were actually occupied by indigenous people for millennia. Indigenous people that faced a genocide by the same institutions that designate the spaces as official wilderness for its own members. Spinning a deep fiction around the meaning and history of these spaces.
A lot of language is like this. Whitewashed to avoid the horror of what they really mean.
Uncritical support for liberals deleting theit accounts at the first quiver of cognitive dissonance.
In communist Beehaw, the unelected strong men admins censor political content, keeping their people from knowing what true freedom looks like. I once talked to a Beehaw user and they told me that the people in Beehaw don't even know how to read news articles, they just believe whatever is written in the title of a post from their ruler-sanctioned media sources. The people of Beehaw yearn for freedom, if only we could break through their authoritarian governance and brainwashing.
There's the etymology of tankie and there's the actual ways it's used. The etymology is rolling tanks into Hungary in 1956, which caused a solit (among many) among UK communists (who came up with the term). The usage varies wildly because liberals don't understand politics very well and slap it on anything to the left of Obama.
Communista understand politics through a series of criticisms of capitalism and a framework by which to understand those within it, namely economic classes whose interests align/do not align depending on the material context. You might find that some of this appeals to you, as a material grounding is more common in Eastern traditions than Western. Also we are super duper correct, so we've got that going for us.
Re: flawed humans, there are of course a variety of people out there and we all make mistakes. However, it's also important to recognize tgatva lot that is attributed to "human nature" is actually fairly recent and is either a consequence of living under the capitalist system (which came into being over a period of about 1000 years) or is just a myth spread to justify the violences done by that system to the common person.
And re: perfection, you might like us there, too. We view the political economic system as an evolving thing that changes relative to material conditions. There is no perfext system, but there are valid struggles to replace the current one with systems that prioritize people over profit. For example, no communist would say that socialism is the solution to hunter-gatherers in Crete because hunter-gathering Crete isn't capitalist - the idea would have no meaning. We also know and expect that the fight doesn't stop even after a revolution, that there will still be struggles for a long time - but at least we could fight them together and with greater agency.