tiredturtle @ tiredturtle @lemmy.ml

Posts

4

Comments

223

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wonder why Bezos' media channel, aligned with Trump, aligned with etc. is the only source on this..

Meanwhile the investigators in question deny this because of course they deny and we can't trust those either.

Lol the article even has community notes

The comments overwhelmingly express skepticism about the conclusion that undersea cable damage was caused by maritime accidents rather than Russian sabotage. Many commenters argue that it is implausible for ships to accidentally drag anchors for long distances without noticing, suggesting intentional actions instead. There is a strong sentiment that the article's headline misrepresents the content, with accusations of spreading misinformation and downplaying potential Russian involvement.

Marx and Engels developed communism as a scientific critique of capitalism, envisioning a classless, stateless society built on the abolition of exploitation and private property. Their revolutionary theory sought to empower the proletariat, not to impose authoritarianism.

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao departed from this vision. Lenin’s vanguard model centralized power, which under Stalin became a tool for repression. Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolutionary spirit by targeting workers, peasants, and even communists who resisted their distortions of Marxism. Their regimes prioritized the interests of the party-state over the emancipation of the working class.

Despite the harm these deviations caused to the global proletariat and the communist movement, revolutionary theory has advanced. Many contemporary movements reject the errors of authoritarianism, advocating for socialism rooted in democratic, collective power. The struggle for communism continues, undeterred by those who betrayed its principles.

Critique those regimes, which shouldn't be conflated with the original ideals of communism as a philosophy for human equality. The horrible ones were against communists.

Yeah who knows. As of now things look like a PR stunt

Maybe, although Trump’s initiation of the ban in 2020 and its culmination under a bipartisan effort makes it seem that this is not a party issue but a function of state power responding to perceived threats to its hegemony, maybe economic, cultural, or political. This underscores the Marxist understanding that capital ultimately unites in opposition to the interests of the working class.

Communist theory is grounded in the material reality of class struggle, not in abstract "LLM slop". The facts remain and is important to repeat: capitalism exploits workers everywhere. Let's focus on the real issues, not dismissive labels.

Or was it an out of place reference to a meme thread in my profile history where one joke was to ask chatgpt if one doesn't catch a joke

The dismissal is a classic deflection, avoiding the material reality of global capitalist contradictions. The working class faces the same forces of exploitation, and any attempt to obscure that fact only serves to reinforce bourgeois ideologies. It's crucial to avoid inadvertently reinforcing us-them language; you are a part of us, as I am. The truth remains: capitalism's structure perpetuates oppression everywhere, and the task is to unite workers globally in solidarity, not retreat into nationalist illusions.

Our dire situation is indeed global, and the crises of capitalism spare no nation, including China. While the Chinese state presents the veneer of rising material conditions, this trajectory is underpinned by the same contradictions inherent to capitalism everywhere: exploitation of labor, environmental degradation, and the alienation of workers. The notion that Chinese workers, amid rising inequality and workplace pressures, are immune to propaganda or the diversionary tactics of consumerism is illusory. What RedNote—or any platform of genuine cultural exchange—offers is the potential for workers to transcend these national divisions, expose the ideological frameworks that bind them, and unite against their common enemy: capital. To stifle the struggle of Chinese workers by reducing their experiences to caricatures or dismissing their agency as propaganda-induced is not only an act of sinophobia but a failure to recognize the universality of their plight. Whether in the imperial supepowers or somewhere in the periphery, the struggle is the same, and solidarity forged in shared understanding is the path forward. To reject this is to retreat into illusions of exceptionalism that only serve the ruling class.

Everyone else is an agent in this honeypot

Their systems are slightly different so a local Luigi copycat would target someone else than an insurance CEO

It's for collecting phone number, network cell data etc. It's basically the most sensitive permission and usually not needed for apps to request.

If an app only needs a phone number, it can ask it with user input instead.

Interesting indeed, both countries' governments don't want truths out

Saying there's a virus in his mind about everything being woke

The claim over whether Donald Trump is officially employed by Russia misses the structural and materialist analysis of imperialism and class interests. The global capitalist class, particularly those in positions of concentrated wealth and power, does not require formal employment to align their actions or interests.

Trump’s alignment with Putin's authoritarian model and policies beneficial to Russia could easily stem from overlapping class interests, ideological affinity, or even strategic manipulation (eg., blackmail or kompromat). These dynamics are more indicative of how imperialist powers operate than any need for formal employment. To focus on whether Trump receives a paycheck from Moscow is to obfuscate the larger systemic issues: the shared objectives of reactionary elites to consolidate power and suppress working-class movements.

Framing such alliances as conspiracies diverts attention from the deeper critique of capitalism and imperialism.

Some labor abuse can probably be arranged

The alliance between Putin and Trump is a classic example of imperialist collusion, driven by their shared goal to consolidate power and weaken global resistance to their agendas. This partnership, rooted in the contradictions of capitalism, has always been about advancing the interests of oligarchs, not the people.

Putin seeks to rewrite the international order to secure Russia’s dominance, while Trump’s rhetoric about "ending the war" serves as a smokescreen for reducing U.S. costs and influence-shifting. Both pursue imperialist objectives under the guise of diplomacy, ensuring the working class in Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. pays the price.

Marxist analysis reveals that such alliances inevitably crumble under their internal contradictions. This “summit” isn’t about peace but the division of spoils among ruling classes only perpetuating war and exploitation.

Lithuania's approach reveals a clear contradiction in the context of imperialism. Acknowledging China as undemocratic while seeking “normal” relations highlights the struggle of smaller nations under global capitalism to navigate between principle and necessity.

This reflects the subjugation of weaker states to imperialist powers. Pretending China’s authoritarianism and expansionism are irrelevant is not diplomacy but a concession to capitalist imperialism. History shows us that alliances with empires are inherently unstable and can collapse overnight.

Can Lithuania uphold revolutionary principles and expose China’s nature or succumb to normalization that strengthens global capitalist dominance?

Manmohan Singh's legacy as a "liberal" is emblematic of the contradictions inherent in the neoliberal project that has swept India since the 1990s. While Singh's decency as a public figure is often extolled, his economic policies marked a historic capitulation to capital's global imperatives, institutionalizing inequality under the guise of modernization. What is often overlooked in these tributes is that the term "neoliberalism" itself has been co-opted by capitalist forces to market a deeply conservative, hierarchical agenda as a liberating and progressive movement.

Far from embodying the values of emancipation, equality, and justice traditionally associated with liberalism, neoliberalism in India has entrenched wealth disparities and undermined democratic institutions. As the World Inequality Lab aptly notes, India's "Billionaire Raj" is more unequal than even the exploitative British colonial regime. The reforms championed by Singh, far from ushering in a golden era of liberalism, laid the groundwork for today's corporate-dominated, exclusionary politics and the rise of Hindu nationalism—a stark departure from the secular, egalitarian ideals of India's independence movement.

In this context, the last true liberals in India are not the architects of neoliberalism but the communists of Kerala, who continue to uphold a vision of society rooted in social justice, public welfare, and collective emancipation. Kerala's commitment to universal education, healthcare, and progressive labor rights starkly contrasts with the neoliberal commodification of these essential services. The state's communist-led governance offers an alternative that aligns with the original spirit of liberal values, emphasizing equity and human dignity over market supremacy.

Thus, to mourn Singh as India's "last liberal" is to misread the trajectory of India's political economy. It is not neoliberal technocrats but those resisting the capital-first order—whether through the Left's steadfast advocacy for workers' rights or Kerala's example of people-centric governance—who carry the torch.

Good point. The issue at hand must be understood within the broader framework of state power and ideological control. While it's true that the immediate justification for these arrests is rooted in anti-pornography laws, the enforcement of such laws is not ideologically neutral. Under a socialist analysis, we must examine who these laws serve and who they suppress. The targeting of erotic writers—particularly LGBTQ+ creators—fits into a pattern of reinforcing bourgeois morality and suppressing dissenting or marginalized voices.

Sexuality, as part of the superstructure, is inherently tied to the base. In a society where the state aligns itself with heteronormative and patriarchal values, laws purportedly aimed at "protecting morality" often become tools of repression against communities and expressions that deviate from the status quo. The absence of legal protections for LGBTQ+ people and the lack of recognition for same-sex marriage in China is a clear indication of the state’s alignment with reactionary values, even as it claims to uphold socialism.

Marxists should oppose the imprisonment of writers for exploring erotic themes because these laws serve to restrict the free development of human creativity and reinforce the control of the state over the personal lives of individuals. Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, critiques how oppressive social norms are used to maintain class society. Similarly, the suppression of erotic fiction is not about protecting the people but about consolidating ideological control over the masses, maintaining a culture of obedience and fear.

We must also critique the broader pattern of repression. Mass arrests, whether for writing fiction or other nonviolent expressions, represent the actions of a state more concerned with controlling its people than advancing their material conditions. A truly proletarian state would encourage the flourishing of diverse cultural expressions as part of the revolutionary process, not silence them under the pretext of "morality."

This crackdown is not an isolated incident but part of a larger reactionary turn in the governance of China. As communists, we must oppose these repressive measures and advocate for a society where the working class—not the state bureaucracy—has control over cultural and ideological production. Liberation includes the liberation of human expression from the chains of both commodification and state repression.