you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (21 children)

    The problem with socialism is that people put it as: “You won’t need to do any work and still get money”.

    I've only heard anti socialists say that as a way of smearing socialism. This is the kind of shit you hear in a PragerU video or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    What's your proposed solution then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (17 children)

    I personally don't subscribe to the idea of leaders who can't justify their position. Maybe your problem is that you see socialism as a system to be implemented rather than a thing that you do? Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (15 children)

    Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.

    If you try to put it that way, that then again opens it for others to add/remove as they feel like.
    While I understand that socialism is not some hard program that can exactly apply to every scenario, there has to be some tenets of it that are defended well, to prevent a malicious actor from uprooting its base.

    There's is. It's really simple: "From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need." Anything else on top of that is philosophical.

    My personal solution is simply that I don't subscribe to any *-ism and don't group myself with anything even if it tends to provide similar solutions in the current scenario, simply because in some other one, the group's solution might end up greatly differing from what I would consider acceptable.

    This is a similar tact that I took when I was about 16-17, but I find that to be a very naive point of view. Regardless of whether or not you want to apply any label to yourself (which is perfectly valid) the material conditions of the system we live in will come down on you too. So you either end up in the "We are stronger together" camp, or you end up in the "Me and mine are what needs to be protected. Other people be damned" camp. And if you find yourself in the former, you most likely align with people who call themselves socialist, and if you find yourself in the latter, well then you're probably a bootlicker

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    Opportunism is a real problem in every system, but you can stop it if you're well organized. Ultimately I reject your framing because if we were all power hungry we'd be licking fascist boots, not talking to the powerless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    I feel like you've interacted with too many socialists online. That is not my irl experience at all. In fact, your last paragraph there does describe most irl socialists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (9 children)

    I think you're way too hung up on labels. Why do you give a shit what somebody else calls themselves? Maybe you've just been meeting socialists that know you have a weird anti"-ism" thing, so they just don't use that word and instead describe ideas to you (which is a fairly common tactic to take around somebody that is slightly unhinged). Nobody said everybody needs to be any kind of anything. There are lots of helpful people to socialist causes who don't consider themselves to be socialists. That's called critical support is is highly valued.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    "Its 2026 and in my third week here on North Sentinel Island, I've discovered that, despite a century of a world super power using the word 'socialist' in the name of their country, somehow these people have never heard the word, 'socialism'".

    That's how you sound.

    Once again, I don't give a shit what people call themselves, so if they are good guys, they are on the same side as me, because that's the side I've chosen? People claiming to be socialists but they're not actually socialists, then they're not socialists. That's not a bad guy/good guy thing, that's just how words work.

    Again, there are incredible people who have been vital to the socialist causes who would never call themselves socialist, and there are no problems with that.

    My problem is with you specifically. The label isn't my agenda beyond just trying to get you to stop caring about what someone.calls themselves and start caring about what they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    “Its 2026 and in my third week here on North Sentinel Island, I’ve discovered that, despite a century of a world super power using the word ‘socialist’ in the name of their country, somehow these people have never heard the word, ‘socialism’”.

    Well, some people just never learnt English

    trying to get you to stop caring about what someone.calls themselves and start caring about what they do.

    Guess what? I always ever really cared about what people do. And someone calling themselves something is part of what they do, for whatever reasons they do.
    I don't have a problem with this part. My problem is the direction you take after this conclusion. Words will always mean something to people and when someone calls themselves a part of some groups or when someone calls others a part of their group, politics takes over from that point. That affects the masses and masses have power.
    So even if I actively try to stay out of said "masses", doesn't mean it won't affect me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    That word only exists in English? That's weird, I wonder then how so many people from non-Engliah speaking countries learned about it then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Then, I don't know what to say to you. Having conversations with low information people with yield low information results. That is in no way relevant to what we're talking about. You might as well have said "Yeah, but lots of people I know have never even heard the word 'fission' before" while in a thread talking about nuclear science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Please go back and read the several different times I say exactly that in my previous comments. We don't disagree about that. We just seem to disagree that people who do use "-ism" labels can also be helpful people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    people who do use “-ism” labels can also be helpful people.

    I don't disagree about that either.

    What I am saying is that (now again having to reiterate what I said before) if you use a *-ism extensively without properly defining it, you end up giving power to a phenomenon you don't get to control. And someone with the ability to control it, can come in and use it for nefarious purposes, as stated in previous comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    "You won't need to do any work and still get money".

    Redditors mis-defining socialism as capitalism again.


    Unlike workers, Capitalists make their living, not by clocking in and being paid a certain fixed wage per hour, but through absentee ownership. Their wealth is earned while sleeping, playing golf, or visiting the mailbox to collect pieces of this wage theft, often in the form of stock dividends. A worker's wealth is dependent on the number of hours they can work; a Capitalist's wealth is based on how much absentee property they can accumulate, and as such can multiply infinitely. Some Capitalists earn an average worker's yearly salary in a single night's sleep.

    For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager. Yet, because they have a piece of paper that says they own it, they get a large cut of everything that was mined: the ultimate free lunch.

    A 1983 report by England national income and expenditures found that on average, 26 minutes of every hour worked (or 43% of labor value added) by English workers across a wide range of industries went to various exploiting or unproductive groups, with workers receiving only 57% of their pre-tax productive output as wages1. In other words, at least 40% of the work you do every day is stolen by Capitalists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager.

    And while they try validating their position with, "I take all the risks", they would also, transfer all the damage to the workers at the drop of a hat, then lobby the Government to undo their losses at the cost of everyone else giving power to the Government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (44 children)

    You really should read some theory and look at real socialist practice before you arrogantly state things that are just completely false.

    Edit: misread the comment thought the were making the quoted point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 7 points 8 months ago (33 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 5 points 8 months ago (29 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (27 children)

    I find it hard to believe that China is engaged in territorial expansion when it hasn't dropped a single bomb in 35 years

    Or do mean the border dispute with India? Because that's an artifact of the British drawing shitty borders and imposing them on subjugated people and those people have not established an effective framework for redressing the problem yet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Are you actually arguing that the PRC would govern territory materially worse than the Indian Union does today? That China’s central state has demonstrated lower developmental capacity, weaker redistribution, and poorer integration of peripheral regions than India? If that is your stance, then it requires empirical support, because the comparative data point in the opposite direction.

    Over the last four decades, China has eliminated extreme poverty at a national scale recognized even by multilateral institutions. It has built dense transport networks into frontier regions, universalized basic electrification, and industrialized at a speed unprecedented in modern history. Per capita infrastructure stock, manufacturing capacity, high-speed rail coverage, and energy generation all exceed India’s by large margins.

    India remains characterized by deep regional inequality, persistent rural poverty, underemployment, and infrastructure gaps especially in peripheral areas such as the Northeast. State capacity for large-scale mobilization and coordinated development is structurally weaker. Growth has been significant, but uneven, and heavily mediated through private capital rather than centralized planning mechanisms.

    If the question is resource distribution, China’s fiscal transfer system and central planning apparatus have demonstrated stronger equalization effects between coastal and inland regions than India’s center–state fiscal balance has achieved. If the question is infrastructure delivery, China’s record is quantitatively superior. If the question is poverty reduction, the scale difference is like that of an ant versus the sky.

    You can criticize aspects of governance in both systems. But to assert that China would be a “worse central government” in developmental terms is not supported by comparative political economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Ah you're a reactionary spouting tofu dreg and other nonsense. You should try look into things outside your nationalist bubble.

    Edit:

    “I am not at all calling China’s capabilities low in terms of creating a war machine.”

    China’s comparative advantage over the past forty years has been poverty eradication, infrastructure build-out, electrification, and industrial capacity. Reducing that to militarism is either ignorance or bad faith. Where's your high speed rail? Where are your clean streets? Why is your literacy so low? Why do you have so many shanty towns? Why do your tech expos have to pretend Chinese tech is Indian invented?

    “India is what sends the disaster relief resources…”

    India administers those territories. Of course it sends relief? Are you an idiot?

    “China considers blocking natural resources…”

    There is no evidence that China has cut off Brahmaputra flow to manufacture discontent. The projects are run-of-river. Seasonal fluctuations are monsoon-driven. You are asserting intent without evidence. That is speculation.

    “China took longer to admit air-quality problems…”

    China’s PM2.5 levels have declined substantially since 2013 after aggressive regulatory intervention. India today has multiple cities ranking among the most polluted globally by annual average concentration. If the metric is environmental turnaround after crisis recognition, China’s trend line is steeper. You are ignoring trajectory and focusing on narrative.

    “Actual quality of buildings…”

    “Tofu dreg” is a meme, not a dataset. China has built the largest high-speed rail network on earth, thousands of kilometers of expressways, and entire metropolitan regions within two decades. Failures exist, as in India, collapsed bridges, unsafe housing, infrastructure accidents. Anecdotes do not overturn macro-level engineering capacity.

    “Destruction of values… erosion of older values… normal people coming out of China…”

    I bet you love those caste values as you beat those dalits to keep them in line.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (22 children)

    Yeah a border dispute over a few hundred acres. Please don't use words like "territorial expansion" when discussing a few hundred acres along a contentious border that has historically been undefined and only in modern times have there been an attempt to make them fixed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    You do realize that the border is with Tibet, right? An autonomous region within China that has never been recognized as a state with firm boundaries in all of human history. The border is contentious because borders are contentious. As much as you might not like border disputes, there is nothing socialist or anti-socialist about having border disputes. Nepal doesn't want to make a big diplomatic stink over the situation. You want to psychologize them as fearful of China and therefore China isn't socialist?

    You're not making any sense. China is not engaged in imperial capitalist expansion simply because there's a few hundred acres being built on by the TAR along their own border in ways that violate the border. That's a resolvable tension and doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Oh hey, I got you mad enough to chase me around now, eh? Welcome! I like that your primary beef with me is that you think I can't read but then you post this particular link. Very well done! Do continue, please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not angry, Lu. I'm just disappointed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Lmao you should check the sources on natopedia before you post. Western tabloids and government spin off NGO's.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    The Nation, The Diplomat, Center for European Policy Analysis, The Week, Jamestown Foundation, The central Asian caucus analyst, The Japan times, The Guardian, transnational institute, The Washington post, the daily telegraph, Harvard international review, financial times, the times of India, the Carnegie endowment, Nikkei Asia, the economic times, lowly institute, New York Times, the wall Street journal, human rights watch, foreign policy, BBC, Tibetan review, Taipei times.

    I wonder if something ties all these sources together? Maybe an ideological alignment? People like you give anarchists a bad name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    there you go. for a No True Scotsman, that wasn't bad.

    I wonder if something ties all these sources together?

    nice of you to forget to mention those sources quoting communist party members.

    People like you give anarchists a bad name.

    you're staning a dictator from a platform whose admins support a transphobic dev. to be perfectly honest, I don't give a shit what you think about "people like me". and I wouldn't, even if tankies didn't view anarchists as expendable fodder and enemies of the state. the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    Pointing out imperial aligned sources aren't socialist and have a narrative is no true Scotsman? Are you sure you know what that phrase means? Might as well just link a Radio Free Asia article cut the natopedia middleman.

    You are disgusting calling me transphobic for simply using this site. Also what dictator am I stanning? I am simply calling out your lazy source that is clearly filled with American propaganda sources. If you take American propaganda outlets at face value you shouldn't call yourself an anarchist you're a lib. One who is severely detached from history and reality at that. I don't support the Devs? I have never donated and there are no ads? I don't know them personally. You seem like a shitty person and a petulant child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Pointing out imperial aligned sources aren’t socialist

    the source is a communist party. repeating a lie doesn't make it true. stop ignoring communists just because they don't agree with your emotional viewpoint.

    You are disgusting calling me transphobic for simply using this site.

    I don't believe I ever said that. if you feel that's what I said, then perhaps you're just expressing your subconscious feelings of guilt. no need to drag me into that. you should calm down and consider your actions. try to do better, people like you give communists a bad name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry

    Fuck you. Stop lying. Try be a better person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Fuck you. Stop lying.

    the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry

    allow me to quote myself clearly not calling your transphobic. you are stained by association with them, for sure. but you are trying to twist my words into something that they are not because you clearly are not feeling well.

    Try be a better person.

    I am a better person than you will ever be, simply for not defending authoritarian regimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 6 points 8 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Based on their edit it wasn't, they had misread the original comment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I think you replied to the wrong person

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)