I wonder what's greener. 1. Eating steak or 2. giving birth to a child, raising it to adulthood on a steak diet and then eating them.
I mean it doesn't really matter either way because it's really a moral issue, but there's no way anyone thinks it takes more resources to grow crops than it does to breed entire animals
You start by saying you want to be 'respectful'. You end up calling me 'absolutely delusional'. It seems you can't even be consistent in your own behavior. Do you think Einstein was delusional as well? (Source: Born-Einstein Letters)
Again, I recommend you read the book 'Killing Hope' by William Blum to properly contextualize the response of socialist states, including the ones you brought up that to be frank read like ChatGPT prompts, if you truly come here to talk in good faith.
Authority exists. It exists everywhere. That's what states are. What doesn't exist is this idea of a state that has more authority over its country than other states. Every state has a monopoly of power by definition. That's what allows a state to define its own laws and values.
There is suppression of dissent because this is the sole purpose of a state. What distinguishes so called 'authoritarian' countries is the extent of brute force required to suppress it. In capitalist nations, this presents itself as fascism. In socialist nations this presents itself as Leninism.
I might add you have to at least acknowledge there must be some reason the only socialist states to have ever existed for longer than a year have been exclusively authoritarian. They didn't outnumber anarchists, socdems or demsocs by any stretch. Leninism has been as succesful as it is because socialist states live in a capitalist world. A world that wants to eradicate communism root and stem with whatever magnitude of violence and cruelty necessary. Lenin and Stalin expressed this and reality has proven their thesis correct.
Now, you bring up examples, which you seem to be unaware are sourced primarily from CIA investigations. First, I would like to note that you call these actions disproportionate while admitting to being ignorant to the interference these countries faced. Second, I would note you trivialize the mass poverty in western states, disassociate it with its fascist sattelite states and ignore mass policing by the NSA on a GLOBAL scale. You also ignore the immensive devastation these states wrought upon their colonies, including recurring mass famines, only ever seeming to consider these deaths mass murder the moment managment falls into the hands of a collectivist meaning to eradicate it.
Of every single country you've mentioned, I would like to remind you the US and its allies have invaded extensively, used terrorism, had numerous assassination attempts and in China particularly used WMD.
Now I would like you to compare this response to the response of the west to the isolated 9/11 attack by Al Qaeda(an organization funded by the US to overthrow the socialist Afghan government), rendering entire cities level to the ground, murdering millions of men, women and children and letting whoever knows how many more to die of famine or drown at the European border.
Is it 'ethical' or 'utopian'? Absolutely not (and you evidently don't understand what communism is if you think it can be utopian while having a state at the same time).
But these measures undountedly are the grim reality of the way every state operates. It doesn't matter if it's socialist, capitalist, feudal or anything else. So the question isn't if you support purges or no purges. They are the current reality of every state. The question is whether you support a movement for the transition away from the state towards communism or the continuation of the state.
Socialist states aren't perfect, far from it. But mismanagement is not the same as malice that is pervasive in capitalist society.
The common thread of 'authoritarian' countries isn't communism or fascism. It's having significant opposition. Almost always from the US.
No Communist supports suppression of dissent. It's a countermeasure to foreign interference. It doesn't exist because tankes feel like authoritarian states work better but because the US has an extensive and well known track record of breaking international sovereignty laws and installing fascist regimes by force.
Communists didn't want to be slaughtered for wanting to abolish poverty. Therefore every real life communist is a tankie, either because they understood that class war is war or because they're buried under capitalist soil.
This suppression of opposition doesn't have ideological basis. It's an emergency measure in a time of war. Hence why even every CAPITALIST country opposed to US interests is 'authoritarian'.
the only kind of politics that are banned here are those which enable hate speech such as fascism
What's with all the backlash? They just announced they're banning anything promoting the US state (ergo CIA) or NATO. Sounds like a W to me.
Jokes aside and at the risk of sounding like an armchair intellectual, this is sort of a small scale experiment proving why liberals make peaceful progress impossible. Dating back to the colonial era, they love writing walls and walls of vague idealist text (especially the part about the psychology of internet users reads like a middle schooler padding out an essay) about the moral virtue of their actions to distract from the fact they are shamelessly plundering, murdering and exploiting others. In this relatively harmless case, exploiting the devs ideological conviction and choice to show vulnerability. Using their resources to take the platform for their own, despite quite ironically being in direct in violation of their own conceptions of intellectual property that are supposed to be so non-negotiable.
Maybe that's why liberals are such firm believers in private property to begin with. Not due to principle, but because they project their shameless opportunism on us all; they fear others will do to them what they have done and continue to do to their vulnerable targets of choice.
Yes, but that doesn't make them more authoritarian or oppressive because no matter what every state is using what it deems the most effective path to enforcing its will and if that means violence it will always resort to violence. It makes them bad communists.
It's not a matter of oppression or no oppression but a matter of oppressing the right people. If the USSR and PRC were perfect they would be a contradiction to their own purpose, no?
But the terminology 'authoritarian and oppressive' doesn't really make sense in leftist circles where all states are understood to be just that by definition. I mean, that's why people are socialists. Tankie is lib terminology referencing anything that undermines liberal democracy. It only makes sense when coming from anarchists.
Have a general resentment towards reddit > read about alternatives to reddit as a result of the API controversy > Lemmy gets brought up because it's private and decentralized > libs in comments: "Nooo it's full of communists!!!"(gee I wonder why) "Not hating CPC = basically fascism!! I don't care that I can make my own instances, 'supporting' communists who for some weird reason keep building good software is icky" > me: sounds based
I watched a YouTube video about the Titan accident and the comment section was full of people saying that not wanting to waste resources on billionaire DIY projects going wrong is rich people oppression lol