• Lmaydev@programming.dev
    ·
    1 year ago

    Through properly monitored and implemented referendums, yeah.

    By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.

    • Nakoichi [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And what gives you the right to determine what "properly monitored and implemented referendums" are?

      Also Russia is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie just the same as the US so that argument holds zero water here.

      I am genuinely curious what your metrics for what constitutes a legitimate referendum are.

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing to do with me. I'm a programmer lol

        Nothing to do with the US. I wouldn't support them invading a neighbor after a bogus vote they arranged. Whataboutism.

        Independent monitors to make sure the vote is fair.

        • Nakoichi [they/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Independent monitors to make sure the vote is fair

          And who are these independent monitors?

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

            --Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds

            This is more of a comment on radlibs and baby anarchists, but it strikes me as appropriate here. It's very easy to idealistically criticize everything that isn't the way it should be. At some point, though, you have to address reality.

            • Nakoichi [they/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh yeah I quote from that book all the time at the cash register lol

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                "When I pay for this Snickers I'm a glutton, but when I steal it I'm a thief! What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy saying that you judge me for eating a Snickers, so assiduously marketed by 7/11 that it affects cashiers across their entire national footprint."

    • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Through properly monitored and implemented referendums

      You say this shit like it isn't a euphemism.

      By a random dictatorship

      Democracy

      us-foreign-policy

      Dictatorship

      • Nakoichi [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Come now I am trying to ask questions in an attempt to get them to question the shit they have been immersed in from birth. As excellent a use of that emoji as that is I think we have a miniscule chance to maybe reach this person if we can get the gears turning.

    • Washburn [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called "rules based international order" serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they're not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.

      Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?

      • Nakoichi [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable?

        Craziest part is that a lot of people that follow that line of thinking have also at least recognized the immediacy of police and prison abolition in the context of places like the US but can't seem to take the next step in applying the same logic to places outside the imperial core.

    • duderium [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.

      Definitely not talking about the USA. You are also not aware of the fact that the USA is sending troops to Peru to back a government that is currently supported by 6% of its people. But I’m sure this has no relevance at all to the situation in Ukraine. Despite its many honest mistakes (centuries of ongoing slavery and genocide), the USA has been overall a force for good in the world!