Do you have anything but the most condescending and one-sided “solidarity” for a people who support their government?
Do you have anything but the most condescending and one-sided “solidarity” for a people who support their government?
Were the trade unionists the ones immolating unarmed soldiers and stringing up their corpses?
see Tienamin Square
I’m looking it up, and I don’t see any “Tienanmin Square”. Could it be “Tiananmen Square” that you’re thinking of? The one protesting government corruption? Where unarmed soldiers were burned alive? Where Christian sickos were trying to get students in the line of fire to create atrocity propaganda? Surely there must be some confusion here!
I can’t quite tell if this is a parody, the trade union bit makes it seem sincere, but the self-importance to think that lemmy is too left for China to allow is just amazing.
sometimes questionable moderation
That’s one way of putting it. Another way is “ramrodding the narratives of anglo chauvinists that are to the right of even the neoliberal historical consensus”.
“Post-Open Source”
Overly-teleological modernist framing has hopelessly fucked up tech discourse. Too much declaring things the future and hoping people will just believe you.
Remember idealist/materialist in a philosophical context is, in its most common use, a metaphysical distinction. Marx’s use of “idealism” is based on this but isn’t the same.
But an important element of Marxism is that it ascribes strategy based on a) class position and b) conflict-aversion. If you are a prole or you just want to play it safe, even as a member of the bourgeoisie, it tells you that socialism is the best way to accomplish that goal, but it’s by the same framework that it can give a capitalist insight on how to practice capitalism with still-more-brutal efficiency if that is what they want.
You’ll get there
Nah, undergrads read almost zero Marxist literature, almost 100% from Marx and just a tiny bit from Engels. The rest is memory-holed from history.
I think Marxism is functionally but not technically inherently communist on the grounds that it avoids discussion of moral values and things like that.
I encourage you to go over to c/askchapo on hexbear.net if you are curious.
It is not “the classical version of communism”, that would be the Utopian or anarchist ideas and projects that preceded it. Marxism is a class of ideology that has historically and still does have the greatest weight in geopolitical importance, starting with “classical Marxism”, a now-dead ideology, and its many successors, like you list.
Marxists don’t argue for a deonotological disallowing of markets, but believe that those who own the markets should not thereby own the rest of society. I’m sure even you would agree that it would be better is everyone had the comfortable position that you do – and indeed we should move in that direction, even though we cannot simply decide that everyone will be wealthy tomorrow – but we all must work with the conditions we find ourselves in, including to transform those conditions over time.
If you’d like to discuss the subject, there are many comms on a handful of instances where people would be happy to!
We might be running into a Nazi Bar, paradox of tolerance type issue here. If you treat him that way, there’s a fair chance that he’s just going to use the opportunity to propagandize to whoever will listen.
So if they come in swinging about how they “don’t deny” that black people are genetically less intelligent and say that their opposition is either propagandized or propagandists, that would tilt the scales for you?
So as long as they don’t ideologically agree with you it’s acceptable to be toxic towards them, because their “wrong ideology” makes them toxic?
Think about this in the context of, idk, race science or something. Let’s say you have someone who is openly a big fan of Charles Murray, owns a copy of The Bellcurve, gets the whole nine yards. Would you deny that such a person is necessarily toxic?
“insult” sure.
He effectively called a porcupine spikey.
Wonder how the porcupine got its spikes . . . Must be its authoritarian personality!
so inclusive wanting to bring down America
Paradox of tolerance, babyyy
I still can’t wrap my head around being so pro-trans rights (a fabulous thing), yet in the same breath simping for China.
Cuba supports both
Unfortunately for your ideology, most Chinese people support their government:
https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf
How do you reconcile this? Shall we trot out some paternalisms about “brainwashing” next?