come @ me lemmy liberals
You know I think the only ones that will are the six or seven chronic users who peaked at using tankie as a pejorative, and half of them fucked off to piefed to insulate themselves from further interaction.
Every time I see a piefed.social/world user I know they went there before lemmy.world was too leftist (read: abiding by international law) for them.
i’m grateful they left. lemmy feels much better already.
If you block piefed.social/.world you suddenly see less bigotry and defense for fascism. Lowers my blood pressure.
I like your attitude, but no one is right all the time. I bet you burnt a pizza once. RIP your pizza
“Tankie” is just the new “commie”. 🤷
there are very few liberals on .ml lol
Thankfully!
for now it’s okay; i just don’t want this place to turn into an echo chamber.
“Lemmy” in the subject meaning, presumably, the broader lemmy, not Lemmy.ml in particular.
Couldn’t even get the image right. Atlas bore not the earth, but the sky.
Have you never seen any depiction of Atlas?
I read the book
Any systems of government run by people in a time of resource limits, and when money is still in wide use, will inevitably become corrupt.
Once we can have anything we want, whenever we want, then maybe we’ll be free.
It’s better for the working classes to control the state, even if corruption exists and must be actively suppressed.
The reality is that “leadership” is NOT a working class. It has power and authority over the society it leads, and power corrupts. Democracy is the only hope for society right now because it is the only form of government that has regular replacement of leadership built in.
However, the corrupting influence of money, controlled by the mega rich, will never go away, no matter what system of government you choose.
I’ll say it again, take humans out of critical leadership positions and get rid of money.
This line of thinking is idealist and deeply unserious “baby leftism”.
“Just remove leadership” and “get rid of money” is not a political program. It’s a slogan. Every class society has leadership and structures of power. The real question is which class controls them, and through what institutions.
Leadership is not automatically a separate class. Under socialism, leadership is supposed to be subordinated to proletarian power through party discipline, mass supervision, and state control over capital. Corruption is a contradiction of the socialist transition period, not proof that the entire project is invalid. Treating it that way is infantile.
Look at the CPC. They openly recognize corruption as a systemic danger and run continuous anti-corruption campaigns that jail and execute billionaires, senior officials, and generals. Compare that to liberal “democracies,” where corruption is legalized via lobbying and campaign finance and a blind eye being turned when those already blurred lines are crossed.
Take Jack Ma. When he tried to push aggressive financialization that would have subordinated productive industry to speculative capital, he was disciplined and his empire was reined in. In the United States, the same behavior is rewarded, normalized, and expanded. Finance capital literally writes policy.
In socialism, capital is constrained by the state; in capitalism, the state is owned by capital.
Saying “democracy is the only hope” without asking democracy for which class is pure liberal abstraction. Bourgeois democracy just rotates which capitalist is managing the country. It does not challenge capital itself.
And “remove humans from leadership”? That’s tech-utopian nonsense. Machines don’t resolve class contradictions. Only organized masses do.
Yes, money corrupts. Yes, corruption exists. Marxists already understand this. The answer isn’t abolishing government by decree, it’s proletarian state power, continuous class struggle, mass line, and strict control over capital during the transition to communism.
Reducing all this to “power corrupts, therefore everything is invalid” is not serious. It’s just nihilist bullshit.
Removed by mod
Wow bot jacketing me instead of actually contending with anything I have to say. unfortunately not the first time.
Corruption is not caused by “power” in the abstract. It’s produced by class relations and ownership of production. Every class society has authority, the issue is which class controls it. That is until class society is abolished on a global scale, but that’s so far in the future acting like it’s the next step is infantile and ridiculous.
Saying “no system handles corruption better than another” is just blatantly false. Under the Communist Party of China, billionaires and senior officials are regularly investigated, removed, and jailed. In capitalist states, corruption is legalized and encouraged pointing this out isn’t exceptionalism I’m not sure you know what that word means. Is it exceptionalism to say that liberal democracy handles representation of the people better than feudalism? Obviously not that’s ridiculous.
I’ll give the same example again as you skipped over it to bot jacket me. Jack Ma was disciplined for pushing US-style financialization. In the United States, that same behavior is rewarded and institutionalized.
“Get rid of money” without explaining how you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, and defend society during transition is not a program, it’s a slogan. Repeating this again from earlier: money like the state only withers away after classes are abolished far in the future.
Corruption is a known contradiction of the socialist transition period. It does not delegitimize the socialist project it simply proves continuous class struggle and anti-corruption campaigns are necessary hence their implementation in socialist states under communist parties.
Where you complain about “hierarchy” you’re just doing vague “human-nature” metaphysics. This is idealism and is about as reliable as scripture for analysis.
Look I don’t want to be mean (even if I find you to be unduly arrogant and condescending and I really don’t appreciate the bot jacketing), however these comments reek of Euro-American left liberalism. All vibes no dialectical or historical materialism or really any serious analysis at all.
You effectively do the “human nature” bit which is idealist metaphysics bullshit and you really seem to lack any understanding of any leftist theory.
You really should consider studying scientific socialism and deconstructing your liberal foundations. Vibes are not analysis and that’s all you have for now. If you want I can recommend you some books/articles that can help you but I have a feeling you disagree with my framing of you.
I don’t pretend to know everything about Leftist theory, but it doesn’t seem complicated. Also, I’m from the UK, where things different enough from the US that it is worth mentioning.
I don’t care for any governmental system that exists now. They are all based on state control of individual freedoms. I am essentially an Anarchist, but with “protection from a distance” meaning something automated and trusted that protects people from harm and control by others, while allowing everyone to do as they please. I realise this is a futuristic fantasy but it is worth aiming for imho.
Before I critique communism further I want to make it clear that I know western democracies are corrupt, some extremely so, and that corruption is driven by the super rich. (Oil, tech, arms, other evil shit).
The nature of corruption is very different between western Democracy and communism. In the west it mostly goes public (and not much gets done about it apparently), but changes are made and things do generally improve in the long term. In china it is all done behind closed doors, and is about protecting bureaucracies. For me the "public vs “private” behaviour is the most important difference. When issues are public is there a chance for the public to have a voice, but when it’s all behind closed doors what chance do the public have?
Also, it is about individual freedoms to do and say what you like without fear of state interference, which communist states don’t have a good reputation for. I’m sure you can think of a few subjects you can’t discuss in China. Why is that? What subjects can’t you discuss in the UK?
Granted, right now western culture is going through a period of hyper conservatism with freedoms being oppressed, but this is a battle ground with voices from every corner speaking out, which is impossible in a communist state. How would this be dealt with in China? Either way, I am hopeful this too shall pass, and we’ll move away from the extremes of capitalism (once the current generation of old people die off)
Regarding my idealism around getting rid of money. T I know this is a problem we can’t solve today, but I don’t think it’s far away This is a side topic for another post I feel. I’ll write up my thoughts and post it.
“I don’t pretend to know everything about leftist theory,”
This goes so far beyond that. You don’t even know the basics. What you’re doing is building a house of cards out of vibes on top of an ingrained liberal foundation. There’s no material or really any serious analysis across any of your comments, just assumptions about “power,” “freedom,” and “human nature” that you’ve inherited from Western ideology and never seriously interrogated. You think it’s simple because you’ve taken a vibes first approach to it as opposed to doing any study which might challenge your comfort.
If you’re British, German, American it doesn’t matter you are situated in the imperial core reaping the rewards of imperialism. You received concessions from the bourgeoisie to keep you from seriously challenging the largest most advanced immiseration machine in human history. Hence I used the term Euro-American. I could also just say white/western “leftist” or shitlib or radlib or whatever other word for privileged member of the imperial core it doesn’t really change much . Your class interest is aligned with the imperialist empire and in direct opposition to the oppressed of the world. You should read Settlers and Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism
Then you try to lecture me(someone actually from and living in China) about how corruption is handled here, and you’re simply wrong. Anti-corruption trials are public. Everyone knows about them. Officials, executives, generals(people right up to the very top) are investigated, removed, and jailed under the Communist Party of China. In the West, corruption is largely legalized through lobbying, revolving doors, and finance. And even when the line is crossed, it’s usually overlooked as long as it doesn’t threaten the moneyed class.
You also claim things “generally improve in the long term” in the West. Improve for whom? Whatever social-democratic gains Europe and the US had were built on and sustained by imperialism and neocolonial extraction. Euro-American countries raped and looted the periphery for centuries to fund the “treats” you now point to as progress at home. Meanwhile, without plundering the Global South, China alone lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty through planned socialist development. While your comfort was subsidized by other people’s misery.
Your fixation on “individual freedoms” just confirms to me your liberal foundation that you refuse to reckon with. You’re poisoned by hyper-individualism. You talk about freedom as personal expression divorced from class power, ownership, housing, healthcare, or production. That’s just consumer ideology. You don’t seem to understand that collective material conditions matter more than abstract personal liberty. Reactionaries and bourgeoisie current should be repressed, they should not have the freedom to exploit others.
And on “free speech”: you seriously overestimate how free it is in the West. Read Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti. He explains in a way that should be easy for you as a beginner to understand how media ownership and elite filtering manufacture topics and angles long before anything reaches public debate. Look at what’s happening right now: protesters arrested and brutalised en masse across Europe and the US, specific to your location Palestine Action being designated a terrorist organization in the UK, and in Germany open criticism of Israel being criminalized. So spare me the fairy tale about open discourse. You’re allowed to talk, as long as it doesn’t threaten capital or the empire but don’t forget who’s holding the reigns it’s not the people.
Finally, coming back to your “no hierarchy + automation + abolish money soon” vision, it avoids every serious question: how do you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, defend society, and prevent capital from reasserting itself? You don’t answer any of that. You just gesture toward a futuristic fantasy. Marxists have already long addressed this: money and the state only wither away after global class abolition. Pretending we can skip the transition period is utopian fantasy. Try read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and Critique of the Gotha Programme
In the west it mostly goes public (and not much gets done about it apparently), but changes are made and things do generally improve in the long term. In china it is all done behind closed doors, and is about protecting bureaucracies. For me the "public vs “private” behaviour is the most important difference. When issues are public is there a chance for the public to have a voice, but when it’s all behind closed doors what chance do the public have?
Lol. Deeply unserious.
I don’t pretend to know everything about Leftist theory, but it doesn’t seem complicated.
Well at least you can admit that much. But that admission, while surprising to no one here, essentially invalidates the rest of your following comment, not to mention most of the others you’ve posted in this thread. You don’t have to know “everything” but you do have to know something about the topic you’re trying to speak on, which you’ve made clear you don’t. You don’t seem to know anything about leftist theory, and saying “it doesn’t seem complicated” reveals that is in fact the case. It’s like saying “I don’t know everything about biology, but it doesn’t seem complicated.” It’s just a vapid statement on its face.
There is a certain well known phrase that you should consider taking to heart: “No investigation - no right to speak.” In other words, if you haven’t bothered to take the initiative and time to learn about the topic you’re trying to expound on, don’t try to expound on it. All you will do is reveal your ignorance and make people who HAVE taken the time and done the work to educate themselves roll their eyes at you in frustration, which is exactly what has happened here. Go read some books (at the very least) and then come back. You call yourself an anarchist but you don’t even know what actual anarchist thinkers and theorists have accomplished, discovered, argued for, etc beyond slogans apparently. If you want to have even the tiniest hope of developing a credible, realistic, non-batshit political framework for yourself, let alone one you advocate that other people should adhere to, you are going to have to learn about the others that already exist, particularly those with centuries of hard work built upon by many individuals not just through their own education and intellectual rigor, but also through literal application in the real world. At the absolute very fucking bare minimum least you need to “lurk more.”
Everyone who disagrees with me is AI and other arguments for the massively propagandised
Not at all. I have to deal with a lot of AI generated slop, and the first half of your reply had a distinctly AI slop sound to it. That’s why I gave my reply then only mentioned the AI bit at the very end.
I have to deal with a lot of AI generated slop, and the first half of your reply had a distinctly AI slop sound to it.
You should probably stop having chatGPT write your responses for you, because I’m not the same user.
That’s why I gave my reply then only mentioned the AI bit at the very end.
It didn’t seem like it was written by AI at all. You’re just being willfully obstinate because someone disagrees with you and that must mean there’s something wrong with them. Next you’re gonna go crying about russian bots or some similar shit.
I’m calling big chunks of your response AI gen’d, which suggests a wish to win an argument rather than comprehend reality.
Someone is trying to educate you out of your wild idealism and you’re being an obstinate asshole
Wow, OK. so something wasn’t liked in my reply. Did I hit a nerve ?
Did I hit a nerve ?
Ah, “hit a nerve,” the age-old adage of the smuglord redditor child. No, you merely took a shit on the floor, and just because the adults in the room were disgusted by the stench, that doesn’t mean you were onto something.
I think you are referring to the AI comment at the end of my now deleted reply. Happy to repost minus that bit, though I stand by previous my assessment.
Administration is not a class in and of itself, either capitalists control the state or the working classes control the state. Power isn’t some supernatural corruptive force, either. Further, socialist countries are the only genuinely democratic countries, replacing leadership isn’t a sign of democracy, but instability and dissatisfaction with government. I don’t think you actually know what we communists are talking about, and you’re trapped in idealist and metaphysical thinking.
I’ll admit I am thinking in idealistic terms, but that is the point. I believe in punching through your targets, and not just settle for the “best of a job lot”. I hope for a society that can move beyond the types of government we’ve seen so far.
Power always corrupts. Some individuals are able to avoid this but organised groups never can. Maybe some groups are more altruistic in their goals, initially at least, but the longer they exist the more self preservationist they become. This is basic human behaviour.
I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing. If a society (communist or not) is not satisfied with the performance of its leaders they should be replaced. The power to replace leaders must be in the hands of the people, not as an exception but as routine. However, I don’t know of a communist government that allows this, unless I’ve misunderstood?
I don’t mean idealist as in having ideals, I mean it as you using supernatural causes for explanation. Power is not a supernatural corrupting force. Of course, everyone seeks to act in their own interest, but organization does not turn people evil.
I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing.
The ability to replace individual leaders is a good thing, and is a common factor in socialist countries. Having high turnover in leadership is a bad thing, as it means dissatisfaction and instability.
You are right, power is not a super natural force. However, the psychological impact of power is very real and well understood. The evidence of our own experiences should be enough to tell you this. Also, there are countless psychology experiments demonstrating the corrupting influence of power, which often boils down self-preservation through a continued hold on power. People will make up any old bullshit to justify why they should in power.
The degree of corruption varies between individuals and the level of responsibility they have, but once you bring people into groups it becomes unavoidable. Public transparency and oversight is about the only thing that can constrain it.
You’re treating it like a supernatural force, though, and further socialist countries do have public transparency and oversight, so you’re drawing a false comparison. People’s lived existence determines their thought, there isn’t an inherent aspect of having managerial duties that turns people evil or “corrupt.”
Also, there are countless psychology experiments demonstrating the corrupting influence of power
Bullshit there are, cite your sources or shut up
Power always corrupts.
Source: idk, people say it as a cliche a lot so it must be true!
Don’t be childish. You know full well that was not the intent or focus or my point. Focus on the human nature stuff and read about the psychology of control and self preservation of groups.
Human nature doesn’t exist outside of the context of its existence, the social life of humanity. Under different material conditions, “human nature” is wildly different. An appeal to a higher, supernatural “human nature” is therefore not a materialist explanation.
Hey its fine if you want to believe you’re right, we all think we are. Thats why we believe what we believe. But can you at least not call people libs for not wanting authoritarianism?
Behold the greatest advance in Liberal Theory since Harry Potter.
You mean wanting to run brutal authoritarian dictatorships in other countries to exploit their resources
ah yes socialism is when dictator and no iPhone
Authoritarianism is not a thing, and you can tell it’s not a thing by how nobody who uses it can define it in a way that doesn’t include every government on earth.
Authoritarianism is a system of institutionalized domination, and yes this includes pretty much every government on earth currently.
Pretty much, or every? Can you think of a government that doesn’t fit this description? Because we already have a word for a system of institutionalized domination, and that word is “government.”
The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.
They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.
Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don’t like as immoral.
They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
This is both the use of authority, and not dissimilar to what socialist countries often deemed “authoritarian” practice.
What makes them not different?
See my other reply
Is it not better for the working classes to institutionally dominate capitalists?
The comment I’m responding to is saying authoritarianism isn’t a thing. Whether or not the dictatorship of the proletariat the “right kind” of authoritarianism isn’t relevant to that conversation.
Their point is essentially that it just means “has a government,” but is treated like it’s a strict condemnation of some governments over others.
You say, while defending the DNC elsewhere
‘He shouts in the echo chamber’
lol
he mocks confidently because the western ruling class shares rhe same opinions he has
Removed by mod
Ah, my first customer, a .world lib classic LMBO
why is it always .world ? what’s happening there ?
.world is basically reddit. So they came here expecting clone of reddit but more convenient to use on their phones, but encountered numerous communists and the exposure to non-imperialist ideas made them incredibly uncomfortable. So they proceeded to do something they always do on reddit: snitching to the admins to deplatform communists. But it didn’t work because this is decentralised fediverse, not reddit. This made them extremely mad, so they defederated from two most prolific communist instances and random encounters on .ml make them pretty aggressive.
In short, .world is basically reddit.
I genuinely don’t mean to be a dick but it’s “exposure” not “exposition”
Indeed, thank you, no offense taken.
wait, that’s actually a really clever insult that i’ve never heard before!
it has no place here though. try twitter, maybe?
