![axont [she/her, comrade/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/2289d3c4-69f9-40ed-a21d-cf84b32ccd85.webp?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
[Vote] Should we defederate hexbear?
I've seen a Chinese history textbook for kids in high school and it's just generic history using a Marxist lens and framing the CPC as the current administrative body. They list accomplishments of the party, yeah, but that's because they have accomplishments they can point to.
It's a lot better than how my American school tried to get me to worship slave owners like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.
We don't ignore it when a socialist country takes security measures, we say they're an unfortunate reality of steps a country has to take in order to defend itself against external and internal aggression. Having your country go socialist earns you a lot of enemies and having a lot of enemies means you have to build up things like intelligence agencies, military apparatuses, and centralized agencies for combating sabotage and spying. These are things every country does, but western nations like to paint the security measures that socialist nations take as purely authoritarian, or needlessly tyrannical, or whatever other word gets thrown around. The nations yelling at socialist countries to change their domestic policies are usually the most imperialist and have the most to gain from socialist states being dismantled.
When your enemies are the global capitalists who operate global finance and industry, you should probably build up something to defend against it. Nukes tend to work as a deterrent, but they only go so far when you've also got an internal population that can present a security problem.
China's taken the smartest strategy of all honestly. They've intertwined their economy with the imperial powers to the point it's impossible to disentangle. The west can't take violent action against China, since that's where the industry is.
Also, so called authoritarian measures against our enemies are a good thing. It's good when fascists, racists, and imperialists lose civil liberties like the freedom to express themselves, organize, fund politicians, or operate businesses.
We got told to cool it with the emojis on other instances, because there's a Lemmy bug that makes our emojis look giant when we're not on Hexbear. A lot of us think it's funny though that our pig shit image takes up the whole screen. I want it to be larger.
Mussolini and Hitler thought their projects were incompatible with communism/socialism, it's why their first steps upon achieving power in their countries were to purge the left and ensure that left resistance couldn't be organized against them
I think something liberals trip on is that Hitler and Mussolini didn't just attempt to suppress leftists. They did that after gaining power. Before gaining power they did any number of weasel-like things to convince the average person that fascists were in fact better socialists than the socialists. They appealed hard to working class interests, especially the ones with national chauvinist tendencies. They appealed to racism and scorned international cooperation. It didn't help that the average person in this was often confused, coming out of the problems of post WW1 Europe, and mainly wanted a party that would put food on the table. The so called "beefsteak nazi" was a type of person who'd join the Nazis believing they'd put forward more genuine socialist policies. Beefsteak, red on the inside, brown on the outside. Then you had people like Ernst Röhm and Strasser, who identified publicly as socialist. Then once gaining power in 1934, they were killed.
Fascists don't really have beliefs so much as they're an emergency tool for capital to rid itself of its primary internal enemies.
He was a professor at Harvard most of his career, if that explains anything. He's also on record calling the January 6th capitol thing a fascist coup attempt.
I don't know what any debate words mean and I refuse to learn.
The people who hate America the most are probably Iraqis with dead children, or American indigenous people kept in poverty.
I know there are westerners who have a better conception of socialism and are more amenable to international working class efforts. I know a lot of them. I'm from Texas lol. I don't like it when westerners, like fellow Americans, look down their nose at other countries. Calling a nation fascist because it doesn't meet your western ideas of what socialist utopia is supposed to be? It's bizarre to me. It always seems racist.
Westerners have a strong tendency towards national chauvinism and it's rare to meet someone more internationally minded unless you go looking for them. You can probably agree with that.
Warning: 🚨 ⚠️ Hexbearian detected! Everyone, into the posting bunkers!
You might be interested in Cuba's representative system then. Politicians there aren't allowed to propose policy or platforms, instead they act purely as representatives from community interests. Cubans can initiate votes of non-confidence in their politicians as well, at any point to have them removed from office. They don't make great salaries either, and if they're party members they're required to pay regular dues. There aren't term limits. I remember there was some kind of referendum a while ago about Cuban term limits and they were declared undemocratic, plus they didn't make sense in regards to Cuba's long term economic plans.
Cuba has one of the most robust democracies in the world. Their constitution was rewritten in 2019 and it was a countrywide effort, starting at things like local union halls and referendums sent to people's homes.
we all love a nice pointy dick. i remember the good old days at the dick sharpening factory
It's hard to challenge my opinions because I'm cool as hell and I exude a pleasant aroma
Literally nowhere on earth has any substantial Trotskyites outside of maybe the UK and scattered parts of America. The closest thing to Trotskite revolutions were some contingents of the Spanish Civil War and one very odd Posadist group mentioned by Che during the Cuban Revolution. You're allowed to like Trotsky's writings, that's fine, but Trostkyism itself isn't anything of a serious movement.
Wait, this person who is bragging about going on a forum for praising NATO and war crimes is telling us we're not socialist enough?
What? I've lost the plot.
Personally I like the definition that the historian Robert O. Paxton uses. Now, he's a liberal, but he does have good insight into fascism and he doesn't fall into that trap of deciding that communists and fascists must be the same thing. His definition isn't materialist, but it's a good start.
To paraphrase, his definition is "a suppression of the left among popular sentiment." By left he means things like socialists, labor organizations, communists, etc. Fascism is a situation where a country has found its theater of democracy has failed and the capitalists need anything at all to keep themselves in power, even if it means cannibalizing another sector of capitalists. The fascists are the ideological contingent of this, who put forward a policy of class collaboration between working class and capitalist, instead of what socialists propose, which is working class dominance in the economy. Fascists exalt nationality or race because that extends through class sentiments. It brushes aside concerns like internal economic contradictions. I once had a comrade say something like "Fascism is capitalists hitting the emergency button until their hand starts bleeding."
Communists using a vanguard party is to defend their own interests against capitalists or outside invaders. The praise of the CPSU in Stalin's era was precisely because it acted as a development and protection tool for the working class. It did its job and people were wary of any return to the previous Tsarist or liberal governments. Women began going to school, women were given the vote for the first time. Pogroms ceased. In less than one lifetime of the CPSU administrating the country, people went from poor farmers to living in apartments with plumbing, heating, and clean medical care. That's why there was such praise of the party, because they actually did things people liked, and they didn't want anything to threaten them.
Also, what does it matter if there's one party or two? The working class have a singular, uniting interest to overthrow capitalism. Why are multiple parties needed? Anything the working class needs to negotiate for can be handled within a socialist, democratic structure, not two or three competing structures against one another. Take a look at Cuba, which has one party, but doesn't use their party to endorse candidates. Everyone's officially an independent in the National Assembly.
Westerners deciding who's doing real socialism or not. Westerners expressing their most vile sentiment for foreign countries rather than their own imperialism. Westerners praising the words of their own imperialist intelligence agencies. Westerners unironically praising their own nations for civil liberties like the freedom of fascists to assemble, freedom of racists to express themselves, freedom of parents to own their children, and freedom of school districts to continue racial segregation. Westerners praising imperialist nations like Norway as socialist while using bold language like fascism to describe places under that same exact threat of imperialism, like Cuba and Vietnam.
Westerners claiming foreign governments are merely pretending to be socialist, while claiming unorganized misinformed chauvinistic westerners are the true heirs to socialism, despite all they do is post online and complain about foreign nations.
Westerners praising anarchist movements from 100 years ago despite having no common cause with those movements, no connection to the circumstances within them, and probably no actual admiration of them. Westerners praising a bastardized, sectarian, perverse form of anarchism rather than attempting unity with organizations in their areas. Westerners refusing to speak with actual anarchists in their area, who by and large don't give a shit and just want to hand out food or help at shelters. If Buenaventura Durruti were alive today he'd be regarded with scorn by western chauvinists.
Westerners continuing to bring up Trotsky of all people, who wasn't relevant to world affairs for the last 15 years of his life and certainly not the past 80 years. Westerners not reading a single word of Trotsky's work, westerners focusing entirely on Trotsky's feud with Stalin, westerners not knowing that Trotsky was a literal military commander. Westerners calling themselves Trotskyists in 2023 for some reason. Westerners deciding they have a feud with Joseph Stalin, a man who died in 1953.
Westerners attempting to praise their own socialist leadership, who happen to be a scattered group of imperialist-aligned social democrats, Twitch streamers, and actual antisemitic grifters such as in the case of Caleb Maupin.
And you're given hiccups as a curse from a mage. If you retaliate by killing the guy then you're stuck with hiccups forever. I love this game.
BURGER TOO SMALL
A good rule of thumb is this: If you spend more than like 10 to 15 minutes writing a forum post, especially if you're trying to win an argument, try to ask yourself what you're doing with your time. Try to see if you can be doing something better for yourself.
You collected over 40 screenshots of people on a forum you don't like and made a huge post of multiple paragraphs with citations.
I want to say this in the most polite way possible. This isn't healthy at all. If you're not having a good time on a forum, just don't talk to people who you vehemently disagree with. Or just go outside. You shouldn't be obsessing over internet arguments for days or weeks.
You're just going to have live with the fact some people disagree with you and you're not able to change everyone's mind.
People who realize we have more problems than minor theoretical differences? Nakoichi is an actual organizer who works with indigenous people and that deserves respect if you're any kind of leftist