Read the comments in the chains that are beneath it. https://old.reddit.com/comments/13ylk42/comment/jmnp04a [https://old.reddit.com/comments/13ylk42/comment/jmnp04a] My participation will be low here for the time being, but this is something that affects all. Brace yourselves. Additional information that borderline fascistic instances like sopuli.xyz already exist (Finland NATO supporter), and lemmy.one (PrivacyGuides admin) is run by a US/Canada nationalist that defederated Lemmygrad day 1 and calls people here liberals.

repost from lemmygrad.ml

basically lemmy is seeing 1k + users and ALOT are libs, anyone willing to wade into the libereal infested word news posts:

https://lemmy.ml/c/worldnews

on China or Russia your work countering the western propraganda would be appretiated.

Do your part today!

:im-doing-my-part:

  • paavi [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Lib or not I would not condone anything based on compass. Also State Capitalism is bad even if it calls itself Communism and Russia is everything but Marxist. However I am willing to debate any neo-liberalist, centrist and right wing viewpoint.

      • paavi [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        PRC and other oppressive states that say they're ruled by a communist party but have a classist system where most of the benefits go to a political and/or financial elite, just like in any neoliberal state just with all the hints to any imahinary or real pluralism removed. In real communism there's no coersion. Debate.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          What's a non-oppressive state? One that currently exists, preferably.

          It's nauseating hearing people talk about the nature of "real communism", like undergrads in Guevara t-shirts who have nothing but religious language to describe it because they have never studied the subject beyond cultural osmosis. Quoting Engels:

          The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose replacing the state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word commune.

          There is no pretense by the PRC that they have reached the final stage of socialism, referred to there by Engels as Gemeinwesen and usually called today simply "communism". They have never held except that they are in a transitional state, as all socialist states are and must be so long as [neo]liberal capitalism is part of the world order. A little isolated commune can do little else but stay afloat itself. A massive commune can do little else but be steamrolled by its capitalist encirclers.

          • paavi [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I fail to see China going towards this state of no state. Maybe it's just me. All I want is a revolution all over Europe and especially in Russia.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              The development of the means of production to a sufficiently advanced state is one of the preconditions to communism, along with the destruction of the imperialist world order.

              If you think revolution in Russia is more immediately desirable than revolution in, say, France or Britain or Germany on any basis other than being somewhat less likely to be a fascist revolution, you're probably spending too much time on Reddit because those other countries are a much greater blight to the world. Do you think France controls all those African currencies and banks to just help the poor Africans with their fiscal management? Or that 150,000 German troops were sent to Afghanistan to build hospitals? Or that Britain is anything short of America's dog?

              • paavi [he/him]
                ·
                2 years ago

                Now, you are moving the goal posts and making assumptions without knowledge. I'll agree to disagree, especially on imperialism, but probably not in a way you'd think. You are also bringing up stuff I did not say nor imply. Thanks for making this a nice place to have a discussion.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I just realized you think "lib" here referred to "libertarian" as in polcomp. No, here it means "liberal" as in "neoliberal" (or sometimes specifically Dem-aligned neoliberal).

      • paavi [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Nope, i definitely understood that lib refers to liberal (US meaning, not what it means on the other side of the Atlantic ocean) or neoliberal (or neoliberalist). I may have been too vague or bad at expressing myself in a language that i am not a native speaker of.