• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re missing the point. Life expectancy doesn’t go up unless you’re better than what came before. The point is that even with his mistakes, the people before him were killing far far more.

    The issue is that you look at these things and never compare to what came before. You look at them in a vacuum. You have no concept of what development over time is, what process is involved with improving and developing a country. You isolate these events and strip them of their historical context for the purposes of misunderstanding them and miseducating others.

    • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Awoo, they are literally incapable of seeing that point.

      You’re completely right - an increase of life expectancy even in the face of that famine means that the human suffering would have been FAR WORSE without the communists, but it would NEVER have been discussed as a point against Capitalism.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I know that but you never know who’s here lurking, listening, and learning. We were at 500 average users per day a week ago and we’re at 650 right now, this federation stuff has caused many new people to find us and I am certain that a lot of them are in the learning phase.

    • GBU_28
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You defend authoritarian leaders of your favorite flavor, I say fuck em all.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You don’t say fuck em all though. You specifically focus upon communist leaders while ignoring that communists are responsible for undoing the horrible exploitation that liberal leaders were doing. You ignore the vast improvements communists consistently bring, and use their past mistakes to argue against communists wanting to bring further improvements to existing society.

        We on the other hand recognise that communists by and large brought improvement to the societies they succeeded in, and we understand that by and large communists would bring improvement to the societies of today. Will they be perfect? Fuck no. We’re not utopians. But it is incredibly easy to improve people’s lives by taking all the resources currently being exploited out of people and into the pockets of Musk and the rest of the bourgeoisie and instead putting it to use improving the lives of the people.

        You have built your identity around upholding the status quo rather than improving people’s lives, and that is why you spend the majority of your time focused on judging communists as bad in historical isolation devoid of context, rather than liberals being bad. You defend and uphold liberal exploitation.

      • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions […] that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.

        from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

        • GBU_28
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As in capitalists?

          Im not discussing economic styles, I’m discussing genocide, nation states, etc.

          But if you need the magic words to finish or whatever fuck Henry Ford he was a Nazi

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For someone that “hates authoritarians” you sure do carry a lot of water for genociders and slavers. China was better off with Mao than the British empire, and if you can’t admit that then you’re just a capitalist bigot that thinks it’s ok to exploit the third world.
        Admitting this doesn’t even mean Mao is good, just that you can objectively evaluate reality and the material conditions that led to the formation of the PRC.

        Demanding perfection of any aes project while defending the genocide of the us is sus as hell