frisbird

@frisbird@lemmy.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What’s the difference between communism and socialism?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah. You come across like a person who knows how to navigate the world effectively. Good luck to you!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What’s the difference between communism and socialism?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This is a lot of propagandistic bullshit. The USSR was the second-best fed country in the world according to the CIA. And they did it by lifting up the bottom and literally eliminating the nobility. Meanwhile the US was the first-best fed country in the world with a much worse poverty and homeless problem.

  The USSR also didn’t force people out of university to do physical labor or face a firing squad. The USSR landed a dozen of remote probes on Venus before anything even remotely resembling that was possible in the West. They had incredible academics and research in all fields and that outpaced the West in tons of ways. They absolutely had academics and strong education for people.

  The fact that you’re so wrong, and so obviously wrong, should not be a moment of anger and resistance but a moment to go read about things that contradict your current beliefs and an examination of not only how you came to believe those things but what it says about potentially other beliefs you have about communism and politics in general

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What’s the difference between communism and socialism?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Real talk. They are not different ideologies. At all.

  The reason the words are used interchangeably is because they are, in fact, interchangeable. Any distinction between the two terms is entirely context dependent and one should never assume that anyone you’re talking with shares the same distinction you have for the terms.

  We can understand why first linguistically.

  Social-ism is the ideology of “social” ownership of the material wealth of society. This is opposed to “private” ownership.

  Commun-ism is the ideology of “communal” ownership of the material wealth of society. This is also opposed to “private” ownership.

  What is the difference between “social” ownership and “communal” ownership? Nothing. There is no definitional difference between these two words at this level. This is the beginning of the source of your question

  We can then understand why they are used interchangeably from a historical perspective.

  When Marx and Engels were producing their critique of capitalism and their writings on the type of society of that would come after it, they described that future society as one in which the wealth of society was managed, effectively, as a commons. That means social/communal ownership. At this time, not they nor anyone else in the tradition was making a hard distinction between these terms and they were using them interchangeably.

  So they are used interchangeably today for linguistic and historical reasons.

  And then we have historical-linguistic reasons. Lenin saw these two terms being used interchangeably and he decided to give them separate definitions. But these definitions were Lenin’s definitions and no one else’s. Some people adopted them, some didn’t, and some adopted them and then later changed their mind. However, it is very important to note that he did not use the terms to distinguish between two different ideologies, he used them to distinguish between two different organizations of society. A communist party, according to Lenin, is a political party that seeks to build communism. There is no such thing a socialist party that means something different than a communist party. But a society is socialist first and then later it becomes communist, despite a continuity of the communist party. Lenin said a socialist society is a capitalist society that is becoming communist and a communist society is one that has achieved communism.

  But then the political backlash hit the EuroCentric world (which includes the US). The Nazis were vehemently opposed to communism, but the workers in Germany associated socialism with a movement for a better life. So the German elites made communism the enemy and a taboo, but then the National Socialist party formed. They said “socialism is when workers get what they want” and they promoted better lives for workers to get their support, but they also said “communists are the enemy”. So now we have socialism and communism being framed in a way that is ideologically distinct but in a completely disingenuous and manipulative way.

  This sort of perversion continued for a while all over the white world. Communism was “bad” but “unions are socialist” and red scares had to work with the ways in which the communist parties branded themselves as communist instead of socialist. The words kept twisting under the torture of social manipulation in order to obfuscate revolutionary politics.

  And now we live in a society where people think socialism and communism are legitimately distinct ideologies, and people believe socialism is fine but communism is just too far, and people believe that communism is a defined phenomenon (moneyless, stateless, classless) with distinct boundaries and a country is either communist or it’s not and that no country has ever been communist.

  You are right to ask this question, because you are living a very obfuscated context. But there is no simple answer to your question that is satisfactory. The simplest and most accurate answer is “there is no difference and you can use them interchangeably”. Going beyond that requires engaging with the history and the discourse and it takes a lot of time and effort.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is Hades hard to beat?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No. There are much much much harder games to beat. Hades is quite accessible compared to the other games in the market past and present. It gets easier with the meta progression, and then you find a combo that works for your play style and you stop acting randomly and focus. Once you’re in the mental stage where you get how things work together, and you understand what weapon really works for your play style, you’ll be able to beat it. Keep at it. It is worth it. It’s not insanity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do some racist, classist, homophobic ect people do "good" things sometimes?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Morality does not CAUSE anything. No one does things because they are “good”. People are “good” because of the things they do.

  Morality is a DESCRIPTION of something, not an EXPLANATION.

  People DO things. WE assign labels to the things they do and to the persons themselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Exclusive: AI Error Likely Led to Iran Girl's School Bombing⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not like before a.i. the US was held responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of children.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Class war is the future of American politics⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The reason they want to do it is because it is shortsighted. They want the appearance of resistance without any real material change to the system as it is

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨it's a long distance relationship⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The universe is a single entity though, isn’t it? It’s not a container.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨it's a long distance relationship⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Best theory I’ve heard on quantum entanglement is that it’s actually holographic. What we call two particles are actually aspects of a single entity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If if the subtext of america has always been government as 'Donald Trump' imposes, where did liberals go wrong?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, absolutely. Liberalism is a political philosophy and it is inherently contradictory. Liberals, therefore, as people have to cope with this contradiction and the evidence we have is that liberals cope with it by leaning heavily into one side of the contradiction and psychologically downplaying the other. Hence we get two camps.

  However, the naming scheme we have today is deliberately confusing. It obfuscates instead of clarifies.

  To say one set of liberals are liberals and the other set of liberals are conservatives is a corruption of language so severe that it reduces the language to utter nonsense.

  For example, the liberals who we call liberals have zero idea that private property is the seat power in liberalism, while simultaneously being anti-communist in large part because it abolishes private property. But if you tell a liberal that they have no idea what you’re talking about and instead talk about “democracy”.

  The liberals who we call conservatives are abundantly clear about the role of private property and they’re position on it. They openly state the private property is how liberty is achieved. But tell them that private property as a regime is a minoritarian dictatorship that flies in the face of the values of liberty and justice and they have no idea what you’re talking about and instead talk about the moral failings of the poor and how only the potential for liberty and justice matter and that we can’t use authoritarian government to ensure liberty and justice when it means limits on private property owners.

  Not a single one of these people believe in the return to aristocracy under a monarchy. They both understand that private property and markets are the foundations of their society and that these things are in opposition to the tyranny of kings and nobles.

  But they refuse to acknowledge that they have this common ground. That’s why Ds and Rs in Congress and in the Whitehouse have like 80% overlap in actual actions and yet the voters think the two parties are living in different universes. When GWB’s government identified a bunch of countries to invade, and then those invasions get carried out by GWB and by Obama and by DJT no one talks about the continuity. They are totally lost in their ability to analyze because they don’t see the 80% overlap, they only see the 20% difference and think “we are fundamentally different, you and I”.

  That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. Because liberalism is the only social form from which fascism has ever emerged. And communism is the only social form that has ever defeated and sought to fully destroy fascism. It was the USSR that marched all the way into and out of Berlin and purged every Nazi they could find during their administration of East Germany. It was the US and the Vatican that helped 10k Nazis escape justice and planted them all over the Americas. It was the US that insisted on putting Nazi officers in charge of NATO. It was West Germany under the administration of the Allies that allowed former Nazis to hold office mere weeks after the war.

  Liberals are confused, because Liberalism is contradictory and those contradictions are now overwhelming the social system.

  People cope with that by making up artificial categories and reusing the language to make it fit. It’s like a No True Scotsman fallacy. Socially liberal, economically liberal, classically liberal. It’s all an attempt to cope with the fact that Liberalism says “universal liberty” and at the same time “private property defended by all potential forms of violence, both from the government and from the owning class”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If if the subtext of america has always been government as 'Donald Trump' imposes, where did liberals go wrong?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s not a real thing. Liberalism is a political philosophy. It has a meaning. What Americans call liberals are just liberals. And what Americans call conservatives are also liberals.$

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If if the subtext of america has always been government as 'Donald Trump' imposes, where did liberals go wrong?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Liberalism is internally contradictory. Liberals didn’t so much “go wrong” as much as Liberalism successfully solved a contradiction (feudal society facing rapid economic growth) with another contradiction (universal human rights constrained by private property).

  Liberalism was doomed to this fate from the beginning. Honestly the failure of liberals is that they didn’t abandon liberalism and adopt communism sooner.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is anyone else having a hard time sympathizing with Americans?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Start claiming it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is anyone else having a hard time sympathizing with Americans?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  LOL.

  I always side with the oppressed. I am on the side of anyone who fights evil, but the US needs to be humbled. I bet the Russians caused this.

  Fucking gold, mate.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is anyone else having a hard time sympathizing with Americans?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh no, it was originally intended this way too. This is what James Madison was talking about when he said that the government ought to secure the interests of the opulent minority against the will of the majority.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is anyone else having a hard time sympathizing with Americans?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Only the last 20?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Instead of everyone leaving NATO, could everyone else just kick the US out?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  So then America isn’t a democracy because it persecuted Assange, Snowden, Manning, and many many others over its long history, right?

  Because it outlawed the communist party and persecuted every single person in every industry that was associated with the communists, black listing them and ending entire careers let alone lives, right?

  Oh wait, you blocked me. Nevermind

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Instead of everyone leaving NATO, could everyone else just kick the US out?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  LOL, how silly.

  Russia and China are democracies - they have systems of voting, candidates, politicians fall in and out of favor with the public, etc. In fact, China is innovating on how to get MORE participatory systems into their Republic that aren’t limited to gerrymandered popularity tests.

  But human rights? You’re joking, right? Guantanamo Bay. Extraordinary rendition. Abu Ghraib. Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Guam. School of the Americas. Iran-Contra. Overthrowing the Shah. Operation Paperclip. Operation Gladio. CIA black sites. Drone striking weddings. Drone striking funerals for people who died at those weddings. Zero Units. Napalm. Agent Orange. Land mines. Somalia. Libya. Iraq. Afghanistan. Kidnapping a head of state. Double tapping fishermen. Spying on all communications of their own citizens. The Five Eyes spying on each other’s citizens and trading the intel back to each other.

  You think respect for human rights is required for NATO membership? Do you know what NATO has even done?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is the difference between an American liberal and a liberal outside the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Wait until you find out who developed the transatlantic slave trade…

  It was the liberals.

  You are using the word liberal to mean “moral”.

  That’s not how it works.

  Liberal can’t be the opposite of monarchic, fascist, communist, authoritarian, and protectionist all at the same time.

  Protectionism is universal. Liberalism has nothing to say on it.

  Use of authority is liberal. Have these gentlemen ever seen a liberal revolution?

  You want liberal mean sugar and spice and all things nice. It doesn’t

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is the difference between an American liberal and a liberal outside the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Musk funded

  With profits gained from private property

  a illiberal president

  Who built his whole wealth on private property and is actively attacking Venezuela for the crime of nationalizing (deliberalizing) their natural resources.

  that uses the power of the government to terrorize people with draconian anti-immigration policies and pushes highly destructive import tariffs

  None of which are illiberal

  How much does Musk receive every year from government subsidies and government contracts?

  A lot. Because he owns the companies that receives them. Because the system is a liberal system of private ownership and everything else is illegitimate in their eyes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is the difference between an American liberal and a liberal outside the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  They don’t believe in hereditary monarchy, they don’t believe that private property should be abolished and that the crown should dole out land based on politics. They’re liberals who want a strong executive that can champion the private property foundations of liberalism against the democratic foundations of liberalism. Remember, liberalism didn’t start because people wanted the common peasants to control the county, it started because the merchants wanted their ill gotten wealth from their rapacious adventures to translate into political power and the crown was not willing to allow lowly merchants to usurp multiple generations of aristocratic family ties.

  Musk is a liberal, not because he loves democracy but because he justifies his actions on the basis of free speech, freedom to profit, private property claims, free movement of capital, and the rights the employer. None of these things are compatible with monarchy.

  Yes, there is actually a monarchist movement in the USA still, but it is very very small and very fringe and they hold that position in a way that seeks to take the current owning class, turn them into a formal aristocracy, and eliminate not merely democracy but also the liberal foundations of capitalism. It’s anachronistic and impossible, but there are some who think that way

  Most conservatives just want to go back to the liberalism of our forefathers that genocides and enslaved millions, when the poor and the women and the brown couldn’t vote because they weren’t considered fully human, and where conquest was a valid legal foundation for a state.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is the difference between an American liberal and a liberal outside the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s because the default, globally, is now liberal. Liberalism was the movement away from monarchism. Conservatism was the movement to preserve monarchism in the face of liberalism. American liberals are liberal. American conservatives are also liberal. The alternatives are monarchist/conservative (generally only exist in countries with royalty still), communist/socialist, and anarchist (which has both right and left flavors, and even liberal flavors)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is the difference between an American liberal and a liberal outside the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  American conservatives are liberals by definition, and liberals are right wing globally speaking

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Right here. It’s exactly where you are. You are inhabiting the greatest gift in the universe, if you can’t take care of it and love it for what it is, what makes you deserve something else?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do some Americans "feel ashamed" for being American even when it's not their fault?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  China has been eliminating poverty for quite some time. In fact, over the last 70 years, China accounts for 80% or more of the entire global poverty alleviation gains. The US has created more poverty in that same time.

  But also, the US has been racist, violent, colonialist, jingoistic, misogynistic, and white supremacist since it’s founding. You know those propaganda images DHS posts on Twitter? Those are from the US’s time of westward expansion. This isn’t new. What’s new is that we have given up on trying to hide it, which is something we did for for the last 70 years. But even in the 40s we had concretation camps, we had open racism in all of politics, we had the second largest Nazi group in the world.

  And after WW2? Operation Paperclip? Operation Gladio? The US openly staffed NATO with Nazi officers. The US openly advocated for Nazi politicians to lead West Germany. There were literal Nazis running West German after the war.

  And then of course the Korean War. The Vietnam War. The Irag wars. The Afghanistan war. The embargo against Cuba. The coup in Iran.

  This is what the US is. Nixon banner heroin explicitly to imprison black people. We have slave labor producing billions of dollars in value annually. And we punish our prison slaves who don’t work by giving them solitary. All of that is massive gross human rights violations, things we’ve pretended to invade other countries for.

  This is who we are. It’s not new.