askchapo

Why do Liberals and Anti-communists claim Communists and Socialists are "Authoritarian/Totalitarian" when they (libs and anticoms) openly advocate for Authoritarian/Totalitarian Capitalism/Neoliberalism?

I simply can't really understand why do Liberals and Anti-communists always keep saying that Socialism/Communism are "Authoritarian/Totalitarian" ideologies when they, Libs and Anticoms, can openly advocate for Authoritarian/Totalitarian Capitalism/Neoliberalism, whatever if it is advocating for the full privatization of everything and or if it is by having an Authoritarian Capitalist government with a facade democracy and with a quasi-legal appearance.

Like, I simply can't take how much Liberals always complain about "Socialism/Communism is one-party state" when clearly PRC has far more parties than in the USA and than most Westerner countries, as well as even DPRK has more parties on parliament than the USA itself. But still liberals will just go and say "yeah, the multi-party system on the West is not perfect, still it is better than the multi-party system from PRC and DPRK", and stuff like that.

Without mention they will legit say that "council/proletarian/socialist democracy is not democracy because it doesn't allow right-wing parties" but they will say "liberal democracy is democracy because ppl can vote periodically, even if it means they can only vote for liberal parties", and they will even dare to say "ppl should be allowed to have any kind of opinion on a proletarian democracy and freedom of speech should be absolute under a proletarian democracy and no law should violate the absolute freedom of speech" yet they will say "but you have freedom of speech under liberal democracy, as long as what you say don't go against the law" and they will still add "but the laws are made by the majority who voted for them on liberal democracy".

And some of them will even deny the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie because "everyone can be bourgeois" and or "but left-wing canditates are often elected" and just go full survivorship bias about that.

Without mention, you can even mention about the tyranny of the legislative power and of the judicial power and they will say "but it was the ppl who voted for the legislative and the judicial power just obey the legislative", and stuff like that. And some will even dare to say "but if it legal and constitutional, then it is not authoritarianism nor totalitarianism".

I could even mention about how much about spying and the Aiport Security Papers Please thing, but their answer is always like "yet it is not prison, if you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't fear anything" and or "but they must counter terrorism etc". And you mention about Western political dissidents and stuff and they will say "well, they were antidemocratic, even if they advocated for more democracy, since stuff like direct democracy and democratic socialism are utopian because ppl are just too ignorant, but ppl are very aware of who they are voting on liberal democracy".

And that is fun how they always say "Socialism and Communism = Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism" yet they will just ignore all examples of authoritarianism/totalitarianism under capitalism. And some will even go to "but that is not real democracy" mode, and some will even say "well, liberal democracy doesn't mean freedomocracy, because freedomocracy means that ppl can be free and stuff, and not oppressed nor repressed as it happens under most liberal democracies out that."

And about Colletivism, that is fun how much they claim to be against "Collectivism" and they will claim "Democracy is Collectivism" etc, yet they will go to defend Javier Milei and Ancap politicians until the very end and if you say "but every state is inherently collectivist" and or "but every law is inherently collectivist" or they will just go cognitive dissonance mode and or they will just say "but look, Javier Milei is not a Collectivist himself, he is an Individualist who is just playing with the cards with the Collectivist State and with the Collectivist Laws and the Collectivist Law Enforcement, and he will abolish both three ASAP." And stuff like that.

Sorry if it is quite long post. I just think I said everything about that.

Well?

Why do Liberals consider the Holodomor as a "Genocide" but not the 1990s Russian Federation famine; at the same time they consider the Uyghur Issues as a "Genocide" but not the European Minorities (Scots, Welsh, Irish, Bretton, Catalonians, Basques, Sami etc) as several genocides?

I don't think I need to elaborate any more here, except that I simply can't understand why the whole "genocide denial" thing always apply to Ukrainians and Uyghurs but never to 1990s Russians and or to Scots, Welsh, Irish, Bretton, Catalonians, Basques, Sami, Venetians, Occitanians, Galicians, Cornish and the like. And even about the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and of Africa and Oceania too. And also, if Liberals are too obsessed with Holodomor, why don't they talk about 1990s Russian Federation famine and about all the post-1990 famines all around the world on capitalist countries? Or even about historical capitalist famines like the Irish Potato Famine and all the famines on the British Raj? At this point liberals are even more genocide deniers than any tankie ever.

Personally, I'm half-Italian (half-Venetian) by blood, and there are literally very few content about the genocide / ethnic cleasing / cultural genocide Venetians have suffered over centuries under Austrian and Italian occupation... Brazilian Venetians have some things in common with pre-Italy Veneto than post-Italian Unification Veneto. Without mention it is also possible to talk about the genocide of Catalonians, Basques, Brettons, Occitanians, the Cornish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, the Sami, and so over Europe, without mention all of the genocides that happened on the Americas against Natives as well.

e.g. ask me about Hungary and I know who Orbán is but beyond that uhhhhhhhh

No can name two politicians no right to speak

Yesterday I was banned from Lemmy-world due arguing with Liberals and with religious intolerants (atheistic religious intolerants) there. I am very shocked on how much radlib and new atheist they are. They literally can't take any left-wing take and or any religious take without mass harassing you and mass brigading you until they just ban you.

Ngl, Lemmy-world is basically a Liberal 4chan, and that is wacky how they think that all leftists are pro-Trump and pro-Conservative and how much they can't take anyone being against US/EU/NATO on that place, I've seen straight up Zionists, straight up Ukrofascists, straight up New Atheists (Atheist Fundamentalists) and so on on that place. And you can't respond them without you getting banned...

Ngl, I can even say that lemmy-world is a proof of how much the Fediverse can go completely wrong... And now I got a negative view on Lemmy and on the Fediverse after the awful experience I had on Lemmy-world. It (Lemmy-world) is far worse than Reddit itself, because people can mass harass you and mass brigade you and if you say anything you're banned. And they will mass downvote you if you post anything pro-left-wing and or anything pro-religion...

.

Reading Giblin and Doctorow’s Chokepoint Capitalism and they used a term “freedom of contract” I hadn’t heard before, and which I realized that I have over-valued in my brain.

I’ve already broken through in a few spots, for instance employment contracts can obviously be exploitative and workers have little ability to negotiating the terms on their own.

Or bank loans, not because of the negotiation so much as the moral stigma attached to defaulting on loans. I can see that the bank took a risk, they can take the consequences too. Why add moral consequences to an action that already carries financial consequences?

I think this loans issue comes back to an association of business contracts with social promises, which I’ve spent some time breaking down.

The employment issue is another kettle of frogs. That comes back to consent and whether a person who is not entirely free can consent. I guess that’s the whole point of a revolution though. Any attempt to make contract law fairer to respect the fact that some parties are signing under duress will be thorny, because all people are under duress under capitalism.

There’s barely a question in there, but … thoughts?

Or really any other company that jerks you around for profit?

Real question.

Every single time I interact with my healthcare, they drag me through some maze of processes where they're just waiting for some minor clerical error so they can deny a claim. Then like, they'll "screw up" and deny a claim through multiple rounds of review, only to approve it 6 months later after sucking away weeks of my life fighting it.

The maze they set up has me going to places multiple times, and getting turned away because X doctor isn't in Y system because it's two separate systems that are not meant to go together, but they were the cheapest options so my insurance will only cover them.

I actually need a better way to cope with this because I'm putting off healthcare because I dread the fight. And whenever I'm fighting it, I'm just picturing myself trying to fight claims when I'm fighting cancer on chemo or something and I just don't know how I'd manage.

How do you all manage? (if you even have healthcare at all)

Browsing through comments on youtube videos about India right now is crazy. Full of Islamophobic, racist rhetoric almost indistinguishable from white nationalist ones (example CW: Islamophobia).

I get that BJP is responsible for appealing to hindu nationalist sentiment and making it worse, but what are the material reasons that caused a former br*tish colony to become like this?

At what point did the final straw finally break?

The existing assumption of facts I have going into this is that from a period between 1918 and 1922 an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 people were executed by the Bolsheviks. What isnt clear to me is was this just mopping up what was left of the Whites and couter-revolutionaries, or was any dissent against the Bolsheviks liable to put you in the line of fire? Was the high death count justified or not? Thoughts?

Just broke my wrist, and it takes me like 10x as long to type anything. I had been looking into written alternatives for a while, and this blew me over the edge. I like the Remarkable 2, but I don't think I can justify that much on a device that can only read and write documents without trying one out first. The other option people keep recommending to me is an ipad. I don't have one of those either, but I've used one with a paper screen so at least I know how that feels. My biggest problem with the ipad is the opposite of the Remarkable, there are too many apps and I have no idea which to use. So what apps do you use, if any, or do you use another thing entirely?

I read it as fart/fart noise

Someone Very Close to Me apparently reads it as blowing a puff of air or a kiss (even though there's 🌬️ and 😘), or going really fast, or sending something, and doesn't think Fart at all

this leads to frequent text messages that are meant to be very sweet or indicate haste but at first glance read to me as full of farts

It's Amazing 😂

What does 💨 mean to you?

Do you have a different interpretation of another emoji someone you know uses often?

I was wondering, since religions are fundamentally social structures built to set hierarchies and justify inequality, and all religious dogma and theology has failed to disprove the null hypothesis of atheism, does it hamper a comrade's integrity if she is conflicted in shedding off her circumstantial religion?

What do you guys think?

I believe I have it on my scalp and behind my ears. Flaky skin, red splotches, etc. so from what I gather there's no cure only treatment. What's worked for you if you have it?

I'm curious to creck some of the new stuff out but it all looks so not Star Trek

By New Trek I mean Discovery, Picard, Strange New World and Lower Decks

Wow that's a lot of series.

I like the optimism of Star Trek and apparently a lot of New Trek kind of abandons that?

When you're watching a movie or TV show or stage play, and one of the actors is someone you know in real life, is it hard to keep a suspension of disbelief and just enjoy that movie or TV episode or play? Or are you always thinking in the back of your mind of times when you've socialized with them?

It's so easy shitting on techbro VC nonsense that only separates us from our humanity to sell adspace. What actual problems do you want technology to solve?

I've lived in the city for my entire life. I hate the all the people ontop eachother, litter, noise, smells, dysfunction, snobbishness, traffic etc. I don't understand how seemingly most people want to move in the opposite direction. No, they are not hotbeds for muh crime wave and no, I am not paranoid or racist. The only time where the city is more or less livable is during summer break when half the population is being a plague somewhere else.

I can't wait to gtfo of here and live somewhere rural. Preferably somewhere so boring that it sees minimal tourism.

I'm a fairly tall good looking dude and I can't help but shake the feeling I have "pretty privilege"- as it we're.

Food for my morning thought I guess.

personally i choose chicago. I've heard great things about chinatown there.

I've seen some Hexbears recommend a book with "Palo Alto" in the title to get a better idea of how big tech got the way it is, but I can't remember the name or author.

What is up with the "Haha younger people are suffering" jokes they make? It's pretty fucked up.

These are your children, their suffering is your failure.

It's like the "every man for himself" attitude is so pervasive that people are even alienated from their own legacy.

It makes me appreciate our commie boomers, for sure.

While the word "eugenics" itself rightfully carries the connotation of scientific racism, I felt like saying "artificial genetic selection" might be too passive voice for the title, so try to drop any preconceived connotations of the word itself for the sake of argument.

Now on to the point. I have been diagnosed with a few psychiatric disorders in the past, and they affect my life quite adversely. Both my parents and some of my grandparents also have these conditions, which leads me to believe that the cause may be genetic (while I cant say this for certain, for the sake of argument assume it is), and for that reason I feel as though it would be immoral for me to have children or run the risk of them being adversely affected as well. Is this problematic? I wouldn't hold this belief if I thought it was, but am curious what you think.

Next level up from that would be to tell this to other people, such as a doctor recommending a patient with a severe generic disorder not to reproduce because of the high likelihood of passing on aforementioned disorder. Not enforcing this in any way, the patient is still free to do what they choose with this information. This I could see as problematic because a malicious doctor could selectively choose when to disclose or be overzealous in what qualifies as severe for fascist reasons, but with proper oversight this could maybe be minimized.

After that would be enforcement of the above, with legal consequences for those who violate a doctors order to refrain from reproducing, this is definitely too far in my book because of the potential for abuse as mentioned above, as well as also creating an incentive for people who believe themselves to have genetic disorders not to seek treatment

At the end of this chain of thought, would be eugenics as it is typically perceived, state enforcement of artificial selection by race. This is fascist, I can definitively say that this is well past the point of being reasonable.

In addition to that chain of thought, how does genetic engineering with things like CRISPR gene editing or IVF embryo selection fit in? People with inheritable genetic disorders could theoretically have children with no risk of it passing on (I dont think the technology has yet reached this level, but for the sake of argument assume it will), but then we run into the issue of what modifications are and are not ethical. I think it would be alright to use it to prevent severe disorders, but what if you could do more than that? What about preventing bad eyesight or choosing the biological sex of the child? The same line of thought of increased enforcement from before could also be applied to this, as while as the potential of it being abused for fascist reasons.

Been thinking about this stuff a bit because of my own circumstances and was wondering what your takes would be on this.