A seemingly simple wish
MeowZedong @ MeowZedong @lemmygrad.ml Posts 0Comments 492Joined 2 yr. ago
MeowZedong @ MeowZedong @lemmygrad.ml
Posts
0
Comments
492
Joined
2 yr. ago
Is it that people don't notice the source or that they prefer sources that are open about their biases? How is it any less useful to know that this source is generally pushing a pro-China story when we also know that the NYT, BBC, etc will push a pro-US and pro-NATO bias and then strut around pretending that they are somehow balanced and unbiased?
Talk about eating up propaganda...
A big part of seeing through the bias of an organization is reading around through other sources with different biases and then taking a critical look at all of them so you can get closer to what is actually going on and challenge your own biases. I find the users on Lemmy tend to actually read the sources that are provided whereas people are so bad about reading sources posted to Reddit that commenters not reading the source became a meme on Reddit.
This comment is just another example of the pretentious Redditor attitude that an exudes an air of, "Here, let me grace you all with my superior intellect as you are all a bunch of uncultured swine." Instead of blindly applying a negative judgement against the community, why don't you stop and think about why it may be this way? Better yet, ask others why they read outside of mainstream sources instead of assuming you know better.
No source is ever unbiased and to pretend otherwise and place sources that confirm your own bias on a pedestal is pure, uncritical drivel. Be critical of the Chinese media, but don't pretend that Western sources are any better. Every public communication you see from any organization is propaganda.
The government shutting down a strike only worked because the union capitulated. It worked because when the government said no, they listened.
The rail workers could have held a strike anyway, legal consequences be damned. The government would likely escalate in retaliation: strikers would be jailed and potentially forced back into that labor while incarcerated. Strikers could then give in to the government's demands or further escalate on their own end. This could take the form of sabotage, armed conflict, or other methods of dissent. This is the history of labor struggles and it has often been a bloody history.
At the end of the day, it becomes a matter of how desperate each group is. If the risk posed by the government retaliating is greater than your desperation to improve conditions, then workers are more likely to back down. This doesn't address the consciousness of the workers though. They hold the true source of power (labor) in this neverending struggle and have the most to gain by taking action to exert that power over those who wish to exploit them.
Part of the problem is that taking revolutionary action isn't easy and it's much more comfortable to capitulate anywhere along the road to changing these dynamics.
What is to be done? Educate yourself and those around you. Organize yourselves against your oppressors and prepare for the fight ahead. Take action and persevere by supporting one another in this struggle.
The only thing that authority respects is a greater authority. The ones in power maintain their authority because we allow them to maintain that authority. Nothing happens without the labor of the masses and when they act in solidarity, nothing has the power to stop them.
I feel like this trend was outlined in economic theories over 100 years ago.
That first image isn't a real clip from the movie, it's just a good fake. The origin of the "brave Mujahedeen fighters" line is from Ronald Reagan himself.
That said, you are right.
Maybe take a good look at that last paragraph you wrote and think about why you blame the conflicts in the middle east on a reductive basis of "they are savages" rather than looking at the actual historical context of what has caused instability in the region.
Seriously, this entire comment is just a racist write-off of the middle east that is completely devoid of any true consideration of history. Ignorance personified.
Yeah and I'm sure that's the end of the story. There's no additional context to this story. Times and the problems faces by the government on that side of the wall were incredibly simple and there definitely wasn't any collusion on the other side of the wall to try to drive people to leave.
The logical first step to brain drain is definitely to build a wall. those damn commies just didn't understand how to use logic!
Turns out it was tech transfers that these dumbasses were signing all along. Meaning they made a deal...they got to exploit China's labor force and China got legal access to their IP.
Signs away IP
"How dare they steal my IP!"
It's not a fascination, it's that these famines are used as cheap "gotcha" arguments against socialism without any regard to the context surrounding them.
Mistakes were absolutely made during both examples and people died because of those mistakes. At the same time, both serve as examples of how planned economies DO work once taken in a larger context. Yes, both societies had a famine and it was terrible. That's not the end of the story, though. If we are talking about these famines in regards to which is superior, socialism or capitalism, there are other questions to consider.
How many famines did each country have after these examples? How frequently had similar famines been occurring prior to the reorganization into a socialist system? Was this solely the result of mismanagement by the socialist governments or did the conditions created by the systems in place before the revolutions contribute to the famines? Did similar famines occur elsewhere in countries organized around capitalist systems near the same time? Why is there so much focus on the (unintentional) famines that occurred early in socialist countries when far less focus is put on (intentional) famines that occurred in capitalist/colonized countries? Are we giving socialism fair consideration in this discourse?
This rabbit hole goes plenty deeper. The frustration is not originating from the attack on societies that people are fascinated with, but that these are used as bad faith attacks that are taken out of context. They put socialism on a false pedestal and then kick the legs out from under them.
As for Cuba, I can't think of a better example of socialism being a viable system after all their people have had to suffer through. There hasn't been a single day since long before the Cuban revolution that the US has given the people of Cuba a fair chance to live a prosperous and peaceful life. Despite the relentless pressure to fail, they persevere and in many ways thrive.
Why did this CNN article not address the issues with falsified rape reports from Ukrainian officials? Seems like they didn't bother to do a proper job exploring the issue. This isn't to deny that sexual assault is occuring in the conflict, it is instead meant to counter the broad painting of racist tropes being spread about Russian "Orcs" raping everywhere they go.
Rape tends to go hand-in-hand with war no matter which country is the invader. Something you'll need to contend with at the personal level is that if you are war-mongering, you are indirectly supporting sexual assaults among the people involved in the conflict. Maybe you should reconsider your justifications of war.
And racists gonna say dumb shit.
Holy shit, this is comedy gold! I love how it's named "Hilary" as well.
I believe that was Stalin and his comically-large spoon.
FR though, read into these famines a bit closer. It sounds like your sources may have passed over some of the context surrounding these famines.
I'd never heard of the LR method before. I'm going to have to try this. Thanks for sharing!
I think another part of their concern with different isotopes was the source of the tests. The company responsible for testing is also the owner of the power plant. As shown so many times in the past, we can always fall back on our trust in parties with a conflict of capital interest.
Any concessions capitalists have given the working class in your country are likely due to their fear of a proletariat uprising in your own country because a socialist country was on your doorstep. Turns out when people see that other people are able to seize back the power in their country and don't have to lick boots they start to think, "huh, maybe we could do that here too."
This scared the shit out of those in power, so they gave social concessions. After the fall of nearby socialist states, you'll see those concessions slowly erode as capitalism begins eating its own ass again and they "need" more profits at the expense of your social welfare. If it hasn't happened yet, just wait until your country can no longer export the levels of exploitation they need for unlimited growth.
Go read a history book and think critically before posting such stupid shit online again. It was the capitalist countries who began shit with the communist countries and that continues to be true to this very day. Ask yourself, how many foreign communist military bases were there? Sure sounds like they were the aggressor compared to capitalists in this regard.
Yikes. Sounds like a personal problem. Maybe don't engage with "tankies" if you don't like them?
"I like capitalism with minor concessions (won by communists) that will continually be rolled back over time."
Fuck dude, add some god damn spice to your politics. Milk toast is better with chili powder. Maybe read some books and come up with your own opinion via critical thinking too.
You're just jealous because your spoon isn't as big as Stalin's was.
Everything is political. This is why human rights get attacked by politicians.