Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SH
Posts
2
Comments
648
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • But with that logic, my friends have the right to go to Italy and Ireland, kick out native Italians and Irish and take their houses, because they're Italian-American or Irish-American. That's not how it works or how it should work. Its the same reason I wouldn't have supported the Liberia project of having African-Americans go back to Africa and kick out and oppress the natives just because they were mistreated in the US, if I was alive at the time. It led to centuries of indigenous oppression and civil wars, like Israel and Palestine nowadays. We shouldn't be looking to imitate that level of colonial superiority anywhere else.

  • It sounds like the opposite. Do you even know what Zionism is? It's calling for a place Jews from all over the world can go via. They bring in people from all over the world, lots of them have dual citizenships. Because Jewish people can trace genealogic origins there from thousands of years ago doesn't make some lady from Europe or New York the same as some local Palestinian kid at all. They then kick out the natives and give their homes to these settlers. They've been doing it since the 40's. People can look over the wall and see where they, their parents, or their grandparents used to live.

    I recommend looking up the history of Zionism, including the European Jews that forwarded it, like Theodore Herzl, and the different places they considered for it (Uganda,Argentina, Cyprus, etc) before settling on Palestine.

  • There's nowhere else for Hamas to set up. There's civilians in all of Gaza. It's an extremely densely populated region, even more so now that it's being cleared and destroyed. Second, Hamas was created in response to Israeli aggression that already existed. Surrendering would just bring them to the status quo that inspired the First Intifada, when Palestinians were still being attacked, killed, restricted, oppressed, and their land steadily taken for more than 20 years already. People don't respond well to that and to expect them to sit there and being slowly ethnically cleansed again is unrealistic. The correct take is to oppose Israel and it's settler colonialism.

  • You have to imagine other people have no idea about Marxism but what they've heard from US propaganda. When they hear you support China, Cuba, and Vietnam, they just hear you supporting dictator for life Xi Jinping and one party state Cuba and Vietnam. You guys need better answers than this.

    The other person's answer was pretty good, though.

  • There's hypothetically a bunch of different version of communism for everyone. The thing is, Marx described the problems with capitalism, and some vague sense of what socialism could be, some guidelines of what it should aim for, then kind of left the details up to each individual society to get there how they think is best based on their individual material conditions. He gave his own guesses, but didn't think he could predict that part fully, it would be up to the people of the future to figure it out and build on. A third world country, rural serf based near fuedal society, like Russia, would have completely different needs from some post-industrial country, like if Germany turned communist, for example. If the world's sole superpower, the US, turned communist, it would probably be a lot different than communist countries that had to transition under siege neighboring imperialism, like Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam.

    This is just to answer your last question. Don't think this really addresses your other questions, but just wanted to explain that part, as I've had it explained to me before. But I generally agree with you. There should still be some form of democracy but it might look different than what we are used to here in the US or liberal west.

  • I guess it's a combination of spamming plus one point of view. That still doesn't really strike me as bannable, as most people will post articles they agree with and hence want to share that way. As long as the posted articles are true, then the only issue I see is the spamming part, which is the only thing I agree could be an issue.