231
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
231 points (98.3% liked)
World News
55854 readers
2337 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"He emphasized that such a scenario must not be allowed to happen."
Controlled opposition.
mrw
Sounds to me more like a nudge nudge, wink wink sentence to avoid 25 years of prison in Siberia.
MLs are always controlled opposition (and always have been), just look at how quickly they team up with capitalists to take out any real socialists.
...such as?
Spain, Korea, Ukraine, the Soviets.
Any attempt at putting the workers in charge instead of the state is met with violence.
It's not controlled in the sense that capitalist control them, it's just controlled in the sense that the state requires private property & structurally state-capitalism is closer to liberal-capitalism, so you get less pushback from the cops, bureaucrats, bosses & other assorted middle managers that still get to live off labor of the workers.
I figured you'd mention Spain, but I'm not sure what you're referring to in Korea. It was the Americans and South Koreans putting down workers uprisings there. As for Spain, the Anarchists weren't ever going to manage to beat the Nationalists.
What you're failing to understand is that in the context of imperialism, and the imperial boot, such decentralized anti-authoritarian revolutions are impossible. That's why none of them ever worked, while all the revolutions that succeeded had to take measures to ensure their survival. Look at Poland and Solidarnosc - an anti-authoritarian labour movement, ergo a good thing, right? Except the result wasn't liberation or socialism, but another loyal member of the imperial core, happy to help keep the boot of capital on the necks of the world proletariat.
If you guys ever manage to get off the ground and get a workers' federation going, I'll be the first to support you, and if you have to make a secret police to suppress the counterrevolutionaries, I'll keep my atodasos to a minimum. In the meanwhile, Marxism-Leninism is the only thing that's ever worked.
Man pick up a history book, you might learn something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Association_in_Manchuria
Lol, as if the betrayal by the USSR didn't decimate both the troops and their moral.
Lol, it was just switching one imperialist capitalist boot for another. You have to be real stupid to consider the USSRs treatment of Eastern Europe as anything but imperialism.
Or it's treatment of workers as anything but capitalism, just capitalism managed by the state.
🤣🤣🤣
Yeah China will be socialist any day now 🤣🤣🤣
Why isn't the USSR on any maps anymore?
How come Vietnam is liberalizing?
Some good points, but your inappropriate "lols" and hysterically laughing emojis are tiresome, especially considering the topic
The USSR's treatment of eastern Europe was characterized by a net outflow of resources from the USSR to the Warsaw Pact, and within the USSR from the RFSFR to the other SSRs. In fact, a large part of the dissolution of the USSR was that Russian nationalists didn't want to share that wealth. This was very, very different from capitalist imperialism in which wealth is extracted from the periphery.
Once again, I ask you what libertarian socialists have ever achieved. Have they ever acted as a geopolitical counterbalance to the US? Did they beat the nazis? Did they ever raise the literacy rates and raise the workers and peasants out of poverty? No, because they've only ever controlled a small region within one country during a civil war, and usually ended up losing. Come back to me with some concrete achievements, otherwise you're just a useful idiot for imperialism.
Litterally yes, not just in Spain, but also in Korea & Ukraine then the MLs betrayed them and gave the farms back to the owners, because authoritarian "socialism" only exists to replace capitalist oppression with state regulated capitalist oppression, because it's more paletable to the capitalist class, that's why they're happy to collaborate with them, to put down any sort of independent worker movement.
I would be interested in the example in Korea in particular, I had never heard of this.
There isn't a lot of readily available info on as it was crushed by 2 repressive regimes, and the CCP isn't exactly welcoming to historians interested in a freer society within their borders that "socialists" and the Japanese empire both worked to crush.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Association_in_Manchuria?wprov=sfla1
This is quite interesting, and since there's so little information available we can only speculate as to why the Korean Communists assassinated their leadership.
I'm afraid this does reinforce my point that Anarchist experiments tend to only arise locally in chaotic situations - in this case manchuria during the Chinese warlord era - and then get crushed. In wartime, Marxist-Leninist centralization and discipline tends to make for more resiliency, hence the Chinese and Korean communists surviving the war and going on to take power.
Do you think Korean communist took power?
Do you think they still have power (despite writing communism out of their constitution)?
I don't think the success of a Korean warlord that paid lip service to communism in order to get aid from the communist block, was much of a victory for the working class.
And while Mao was more genuine in his attempt to build a socialist socialist, I don't think modern day china with it's ban on unions is in any way more socialist than any other capitalist nation, especially not ones where workers enjoy secotral bargaining.
Neither Korea or China are perfect, but they both survived. Was Kim Il Sung a real ideological communist or just an opportunist? He's dead, so we can't ask him, but living standards in the North were higher than in the South under his rule, there was free healthcare. Private capital still seems to have little power in North Korea, and the power of capital is curtailed in China as well. Whether or not they can be called socialist is up for debate, but they're certainly closer to socialism than any Western democracies.
As far as democracy goes, we'll take China as an example. You wouldn't call them a democracy, but they're much more responsive to the needs and interests of the people than any western democracy. What's better, a single-party state that acts in the interests of the people, or a democratic state that completely ignores them?
How is a state where workers can't organize more socialist than one where workers can?
Lol, there is no public healthcare, no free childcare, you have to pay to go to high school, no unions, I don't see how you can claim they are more responsive to people's needs than states that y-know respond to people's needs?
In a socialist state like China before Dengism or the USSR, how would unions work? Under capitalism unions are fantastic, but if you have a socialist economy, an independent union is essentially bargaining with all of society. A union with a lot of leverage, such as dockworkers, could extract inordinate concessions from the rest of society, not the capitalists. They would become a resented labour aristocracy. Now, I don't think this holds in post-Deng China, but from my understanding there is a fair amount of labour organizing going on there. For instance, a few years ago an American business owner owed a bunch of back pay to his Chinese employees, and they suspected he was about to lay everyone off and close the factory without paying them, so they took his ass captive. They trapped him in his office and the police didn't raise a finger to free him. Fat chance in hell that you'd see that in any western country.
As for public healthcare, there is, it's just not completely free. The cost is very low, however, and the same goes for high shool. They just recently expanded affordable public childcare as well. Their recent anti-poverty program was also very successful.
To take a step back, I think you aren't correctly understanding why western countries have/had a social safety net and toleration of unions. A lot of it was due to the struggle of the domestic labour movement, yes, but a big part of it was also the threat of the Soviet Union - with a prominent alternative to capitalism, they had extra incentive to keep the domestic working class placated. In short, they bought us off by sharing some of the spoils of imperialism. However, with falling rates of profit and the continual drive to increase profit, they've been progressively dialing it back in successive rounds of austerity, while letting wages stagnate compared to the cost of living. These social programs are only going to degrade and be dismantled over time.
How is this distinguished from post-Deng China? On one hand, China does not have a global empire to extract profits from, so the steadily increasing standard of living for their working class is a result of their successful economic program rather than them paying off the working class with a share of the plunder. The increase has not been equal, with the standard of living in cities increasing more rapidly than in rural areas, and with the bourgeoisie getting richer faster than the proletariat, but it is nevertheless a general increase across all of society, while the western pseudo-democracies are seeing exponential enrichment for the ruling class combined with stagnation in the middle and worsening conditions for the working class.
The main reason, however, is that capital is not in control of China. Capital is allowed to exist, and has a seat at the table, but it is constrained by the state. If capitalists cross certain lines, if they get too corrupt, act against the national interest, or act egregiously against the interests of society, they are dealt with very harshly, up to and including execution. Jack Ma got too big for his britches and thought he could freely criticize the state banks and financial regulators, claiming that they were stifling innovation. The state made it quite clear who was in charge, and Ma disappeared from public life for about 6 months. China has billionaires, yes, but they keep them on a fairly tight leash, and they routinely execute them.
Once again, they aren't perfect and I have plenty of criticisms, but they're doing so much better than any western country, where capital is unconstrained, operates with impunity, and is stripping the copper wire from the walls to chase profits. It's basically incomparable. Chinese people, having seen concrete and rapid increases to their standard of living, are optimistic hopeful for the future, while we in the west see only doom and worsening conditions.
They would represent workers, you should look into actual communist theory if you don't understand the point of unions.
Yes, to think that's a bad thing is insane. Do you oppose public sector unions too? Fucking teachers are essentially bargaining with all of society do you think that's bad?
Also all unions are bargaining with society, the capitalists are extracting profit but they are also part of the market and some costs/conditions will be passed on to the rest of society.
Plus docks in most of the world are publicly owned! Do you oppose the ILWU refusing to unload Israeli ships because they are holding the rest of society hostage.
Also there was literally a model for this in the USSR before Lenin crushed them, the SOVIETS, there are a bunch of other models too.
Unions are even useful in cooperatives, maybe spend less time reading theory and more time helping workers organize and you'd realize how dumb it is to think that workers (who are a part of society) are evil and selfish.
I mean FFS you're LARPing as a communist, yet you think workers are too selfish and evil to run society, WTF is wrong with you?
Yeah illegal organizing done in secret like every other authoritarian regime, worse than in social democracies. Also from my understanding much of the organizing is done amongst immigrant communities who are treated worse and often have their passports held in conditions on par with UAE & Saudi Arabia.
Firstly, look into the French & Korean Labor movements. But secondly that doesn't mean shit, a king can allow pedants to kill a corrupt Lord/Sheriff that doesn't make him a socialist.
Ridiculous excuse, you are claiming China is more socialist than social democracies where workers get free access to healthcare & education, which are part of the means of social reproduction, how is it more socialist for workers to have less control over the means of production?
Lol, sorry you can't be serious, labor unions predate the USSR and while the USSR violently crushed labor organizing within it's borders, the Russian revolution was led by labor (who then stupidly stayed in the war and were replaced by the Bolsheviks)
Lol, economic extraction bad when US does it, good when China does it 🤦♂️
I'm sorry but defending China as socialist because the state is doing well at developmentaliam, is dumb, Indian is doing a lot of terrible developmentalism, that doesn't make it socialist.
You're describing a social democracy, except in a well run system you don't need executions to scare people into compliance.
By what metric?
Also capital isn't unconstrained in social democracies, it's funny that you stealman China as if workers hold any real power, but strawman social democracies where workers actually do.
Sorry but if you think you can have a socialist state without worker control of the means of production, you're delusional to the point of making something definitionally impossible and thinking you've made a point, it's like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian who just says "God has a plan" when confronted with kids with bone cancer.
Social democracy? What social democracy? First things first, there is no social democracy in the west, the last vestiges are in the process of being swept away. You can expect more austerity from here on. It's a moot point anyway, because almost all of the social democracies were (and are, to the extent that social democracy still exists) in the imperialist bloc and complicit in the exploitation and domination of the third world.
Once again, I didn't say that China was definitively socialist, I said that they were closer to it than the west. The question is whether the Dengist liberalization was an NEP-style strategic retreat with the aim of developing and eventually progressing to socialism, or if they're just developmentalist social democrats. Either way, they're better than any given western country (of which even the most social democratic are imperialist running dogs).
So, in terms of the scoreboard, marxism-leninism has achieved multiple socialist states that bettered the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and then either collapsed or liberalized into a kind of developmentalist quasi social democracy (which is nevertheless better than liberal democracy), and then you also have Cuba which still manages to hold on, barely, under overwhelming pressure, and has been forced to liberalize by circumstance. Not great, but it could be a lot worse, and there were some real triumphs.
Anarchism, or libertarian socialism, or what have you, has managed a few temporary statelets and has never been able to seriously oppose capitalist imperialism. The biggest difference is in mentality - the Anarchist aversion to authority and centralization means that they aren't capable of acting effectively in a wartime enviroment. You have to realize that any revolutionary movment that succeeds will be an immediate target for every reactionary power, and that survival will require authoritarian measures to be taken. It's a simple fact, in wartime you do not have the luxury of absolute freedom. Anyone who makes concrete gains for the working class will have to defend them.
As an aside, I think the real test will come once American hegemony has fully collapsed, which thankfully seems to be coming sooner than later. China's treatment of the rest of the world once they're the premier world power will be the best metric to judge them by.
anarchism and ML are opposing ideology. Why anarchist need support of ML states to survive?
ML state literally won biggest war of human history, built a country from ground up that rivaled and stalled most powerful countries in history, made humongous gains in human development like literacy, life expectancy, women rights, science, tech, literature, sports and much more for the while it existed.
Anarchist should do their own work (even tho I know anarchism is a moralist ideology not scientific so it wont work and wont change lives of people).
Lol, it's kind of sad that MLs, cling to the glory of developmentalism that came from overthrowing fuedal regimes (which pretty much any regime that overthrows fuedalism sees), instead of actually improving worker power in the decades during which the authoritarian regimes you simp for actually existed.
A war that would have been much quicker if the MLs hadn't killed all their best generals and failed to invade Finland 🤣 or if Stalin wasn't buddies with Hitler because it allowed the USSR to invade Poland.
And also a war that wouldn't have been won without enormous help from peaky liberals.
Yeah just pretend Russia wasn't a great power before the US even existed because it makes the USSR look better and you wonder why everyone always laughs at MLs ridiculously twisted version of history.
Anarchists did, only to be shot in the back by MLs, Spain, Korea, Ukraine, always the same, anarchists fight for freedom alongside so called "communists" only for the communists to turn on them before defeating the racists.
LMFAO how many times does the immortal science of MLism have to fail to progress beyond creating authoritarian shitholes, before you scientifically conclude that it's a failed approach?
"WhICH any regime that throws feudalism sees" Yeah except 90% of the global south
MLs = Marxist-Leninist?
Yup
Haha I'd never heard that take before. I'm curious about two things. 1) How do you define MLs? 2) What would real socialism entail? I'm guessing with those answers I should have a good idea what you're talking about.
Anyone who self-identifies as an ML, such as the part mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation
Workers being in control of the means of production, like actually not in some "the party represents the workers BS".
Hell yeah💪. I personally agree with how you define socialism. I'm a reddit refugee lol. They are all LMs and Stalinists over there.
TankieJerk was a fun sub at least.
their definition of socialism is just market socialism.
What do you mean?
they are describing yugoslavian model as socialism
MLs: brag about literacy rates, while being unable to read.