I've been speaking with other more informed communists and they've told me that none actually exist. Is this true?
China, Laos, and Vietnam: now notoriously capitalists. Workers work 12+ hours with no protection in horrible factory conditions. Suicide rates are so high that suicide nets are installed. The air is so polluted millions die from lung cancer, especially factory workers w/out basic masks. Corporations dominate
North Korea: Undemocratically ruled by the Kim dynasty. Jong un indulges lavishly at the expense of his citizens, ordering millions in fine wine and trips from Denis Rodman. They might be the most socialist though, as Juche seems to otherwise be democratic.
Cuba: Sanctions have taken a massive toll, but even taking that into account the country still has its own problems. They have massive food shortages and inventory probs and aren't self sufficient after 60+ years. Why couldn't they've use machinery imported from the Soviet Union to develop their agriculture and fishery? The Soviets supported them heavily. They seem to be incredibly mismanaged or corrupt
I already wrote some out in my first reply to you. Do you have any thoughts on them?
Incorrect on both counts. What I did was say that the language and concept itself are laden with propaganda and selective or incomplete application, raising serious doubts about what it even means.
An interesting aspect to your responses here is that you're repeatedly reading things that I didn't say while not recognizing the things I did say. This is very relevant my attempt to head off simplistic acceptance of, say, "democracy". The point is that there are a lot of propaganda narratives and unjustified (implicit) assumptions that tend to get made and your inability to have a conversation with me is a good example of this. You're clearly trying to slot what I'm saying to you into your existing framework, a precious epistemology, even when it doesn't really make sense. This is another thought pattern you'll have to leave behind if you want to have correct opinions or even just be capable of talking to other humans about politics.
Having made no effort to understand my pretty simple and direct statements, you're deciding to blame me for your confusion, lol.
This situation is fairly simple: you think you're here to "own" your perceived enemies and are now reaching at straws because it's not going the way you hoped. Gotta find some way for me to be the bad guy, eh kid?
Okay, so regarding democracy, when you said you didn't vote to allow a genocide in Gaza, were you saying a vote should have been taken, thus making the United States a more democratic country?
If that's the case, then we agree that more democracy is good. If that's not the case, why did you bring it up?
I was giving an example to challenge common presumptions about what is democratic and what something with that labels can then be used to justify. The idea is to get you to think critically and ask your own questions about what the true meaning of that label is by how it gets applied. It's not about what is simply true democracy and what is not. It's what function the term and concept serves in our societies, particularly Western ones where it is used chauvinistically and is full of contradictions. Nothing can be more "authoritarian" (the other half of this concept's dichotomy) than inflicting mass death and disposession and there isn't even a fig leaf of requiring informed consent from the people of the state that's supporting the genocide you see happening right in front of you. At the same time, the label of "democracy" is used everywhere to justify these dehumanizing, racist actions. Have you ever heard, "only democracy in the Middle East"? Have you ever wondered what makes an apartheid settler ethnostate democratic? What does it really mean?
The goal is to get you to critically engage with the tropes and thought-controlling cliches at work here. Your questions are full of them. It's clear you've never really questioned hegemonic thinking and at the moment you're being combative towards the idea of applying a little critical thinking or, God forbid, answering my questions or statements.
That last question is the only thing you should've said in reply to my first comment. An attempt to understand rather than an attempt to eagerly dismiss what you have never investigated.
I have answered that question twice now, though.
I would love to see an example of your own critical thinking:
Would you have preferred a vote, instead of the United States government unilaterally deciding to support the ethnic genocide of Gazans by Israel?
I will wait for you to reply to the things I've said.
You simply can't answer, can you. Why so scared?
Me: writes paragraphs explaining my thoughts and answering your questions and ask a few questions, all of which you ignore.
You: write 1-2 sentences in response, usually just asking new questions rather than engage.
Sure buddy, I'm the scared one.
Would you have preferred a vote? Yes or no?
Brainless bluster just makes you look smart to stupid people.
How novel: ignore what I say, ask a question.
Would you have preferred a vote? Yes or no?
Nobody should trust your advice on critical thinking if you can't even reach a simple conclusion.
"Would you have liked to vote on whether to have a genocide?? It's a simple question, coward!"
How is Maoo's answer to this completely made-up, idealist scenario supposed to prove or communicate anything? You might as well ask him what his opinion on unicorns is, and if he refuses to engage with that question you'll once again have caught him being scared!
You're phrasing a stupid question to make some incorrect critique of his point. How the fuck is anyone supposed to pose that genocide should have been debated as a vote.
Voting under a socialist organized society would be inherently making far more sane decisions. The wider thing Maoo was trying to say was that larger decisions of government should be made with the direct approval of the people. A socialist government, something the US is far from. And are you stupid enough to think the US is a democracy?
Do you believe North Korea is a direct democracy?
who the hell said anyone gets a direct democracy?
Ever heard of a Council Republic?
I'll answer it.
You're missing the point. You are equating "democracy" as "good". Your question is not relevant to the point being made. They are asking, what is good? What is democracy? And you're responding with "you must agree democracy is good".