davel [he/him] @ davel @lemmy.ml

All text lovingly hand-crafted with 100% organic em dashes.

---

Read more

Posts

282

Comments

6,208

Joined

2 yr. ago

In the US the oligarchs have obtained control over the state and the democratic system.

The US was never democratic, and the oligarchs have always been in the driver’s seat. Previously:

The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

SOcIaliStS aRe ACtUAllY coNsErVatIVes In dIsGUise

PRC is capitalism with some controls.

The CPC’s controls on capitalism are enormous, and the bourgeoisie are largely excluded from the political sphere. Previously.

Cuba is a dictatorship of Castro family. […] DPRK is dictatorship.

China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam all have a form of Marxist-Leninist democratic centralism, as every communist country so far has, AFAIK. Cuba’s current president isn’t related to Castro.

Only as many token Democrats are allowed vote against this as will not block it. It’s political parlor trick known as the rotating villain (though in this case, rotating hero might be more apt). See also the parliamentarian.

To be honest, to someone who’s observed this conflict for a long time, your side is getting its ass kicked.

What is your “side”? Neither the GOP nor the DNC are on my side. They’re on their donors’ sides. On the side of Zionists, the military-industrial complex, and other corporations that benefit from US imperialism & Israeli settler-colonialism.

The DNC’s loss to this clown candidate was self-inflicted, twice: first as tragedy, then as farce.

• How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately "elevated" Donald Trump with its "pied piper" strategy
• Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders
• Democratic Party’s choice of Harris was undemocratic − and the latest evidence of party leaders distrusting party voters
• 📺 Why the Democratic Party CANNOT and WILL NOT be Reformed

  Democrats would rather lose to a Republican, to a conservative, to a fascist, to Trump, than address the material conditions of the American people.

Should Russia have allowed the US to continue to use its decades-long salami tactics project until it succeeded in balkanizing it or re-vassalizing it? The US wanted this war to happen, in the hopes of it causing Russia’s collapse.

The blueprint of regime change operations: How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent

Give it up. Third party candidates did not swing that presidential election, and Michigan’s 15 electoral votes did not decide the election, because Harris lost by 86 votes. Virtually no one has ever even heard of Sawant outside of Seattle, and anyway Harris won in that non-swing state.

Too many to count, but I’ll leave you with one of the least dangerous: woods porn.

That’s not a salient question as both Ukraine and Russia are oligarchies.

Ukraine has been infamously corrupt for decades. After the 2014 coup by US-backed oligarchs & Banderite fascists, the eastern & southern oblasts declared independence, and in the ensuing period up until the Russian invasion, those eastern & southern oblasts were attacked by Ukraine & US-backed fascist paramilitaries.

Previously.

Ukraine wasn’t an “ally” of the US then and it isn’t now. Ukraine was and is a pawn on the The Grand Chessboard.

When life gives you shmarmle, make shmarmalade.

Are the NYT, David Ignatius, and the other Biden administration functionaries Putin puppets now, too ?

Obviously. But it wouldn’t have happened at all without him.

Cool story, bro.

Are you also going to claim that DeepSeek isn’t censored?

You can download DeepSeek and run it yourself to get uncensored answers.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are not truth machines. They are garbage in, garbage out. The input to English-language models are largely English-language texts from Five Eyes countries, with all the disinformation and bias that that entails. So the DeepSeek company is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. They can either refuse to answer certain questions, in which case Western media will accuse them of censorship; or they can answer them, in which case (a) their model will perpetuate Cold War I & Cold War II falsehoods and (b) Western media will parade those false answers around in a victory lap. They chose the former for the cloud version of their app, and the latter for the local version.

If you don’t see any protests in a democracy, it’s not because everybody is happy.

Now you’re just vagueposting 🙄 Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:

During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.