this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)

Memes

51531 readers
1557 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JealousCactus@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Fidel Castro is morally superior to every US president.

[–] ProxyTheAwesome@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A very low bar that Fidel soars over without even getting close. Even Gaddafi and Assad are better than every US President lmao

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

No shot on that.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] u_die_for_elmer@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Tankies forget that Trotsky existed.

[–] WittyProfileName2@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

The fact that you think Trotsky would've been less authoritarian than Stalin betrays that you don't know shit about him yourself.

[–] mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

I'm glad you could enlighten us with a post that doesn't bother to explain anything.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] cynetri@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Even alternatehistoryhub, infamous youtuber known for his weird conservative takes, came to this conclusion

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

Even a stupid person known for their insane takes would agree with your conclusion?

Damn, that sounds like bullet proof reasoning. Sorry for doubting you.

[–] Vuraniute@thelemmy.club 0 points 2 years ago

Tankies forget that anything that isn't stalinism is also considered socialist

[–] Grimble@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Why would you defend a guy who ordered deaths alongside Lenin then immediately left and cozied up to 1920s American fascism to make books about "The Betrayed Revolution" because he didnt get his share?

Trotsky was a socialist. After his defection, he did next to nothing to advance socialism, only to passively denounce the closest thing the world had then to a Socialist Order. And he did this by going to their enemies, objectively the least socialist-tolerant bloc on Earth. Archetypal example of a self-centered "leftist" who folds inward and exclusively talks about their own life/'persecution' after one falling-out with the organized left. Look at Trotskyists nowadays and tell me they aren't walking parodies who talk like Broadway characters. It says a lot abt how off-kilter you have to be to throw yourself behind Trotsky's weirdo 'cause'

EDIT: To be clear, while I havent seen much of his work, I respect parts of his legacy. I'm sure there's a lot of insight in his writing - reading criticism from a seasoned former Bolshevik is interesting, and the perspective is useful for making sense of the wider movement. I also understand he was under a lot of personal pressure at the time he fled the USSR. Despite any merit Stalin showed in WW2 or the Union's massive industrialization effort, it must've seemed unfair to many party members that he was chosen to succeed Lenin (not sure of specifics on that event). I'd even say his assassination wasn't necessary, and the graphic details aren't something I take pride in. However, at the end of the day Trotsky's decision to defect was a net negative for socialism in the early 20th century. He should've tried to be a different kind of conscientious objector, not a voice of anti-Soviet dissent.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChestRockwell@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What's your opinion on Cuba OP?

[–] ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Cuba is an interesting one.

The problems with Cuba are political prisoners and their handling of AIDS. And a huge chunk of issues intertwined with the trade embargo.

As with all nations, it could be better, but it's far from the worst nation in the world.

[–] somename@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Better than the US that's for sure.

[–] ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Each year around a 100,000 Cubans are willing to risk their lives for a chance to live in the US.

The US is far from perfect, but people don't get on rafts hoping to make it to Cuba.

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Rich country good, poor country bad!"

Very astute political analysis there LIB

[–] ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

Notice how when confronted with facts the hexbear has no real argument but assumes being obnoxious is the same as making a coherent argument.

Cuban refugees carry a higher level of risk than other countries, and yet they still come. Ignoring facts doesn't make a country better. You wouldn't let a fact like that slide from the US. Hexbears lack intellectual honesty.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] asuka@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

I disagree.

[–] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

[–] mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago

Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle.

No, it's pretty simple. It's called "profit sharing" where workers get the lions share of profits. It's more realistic than alternatives in a country that thinks Joe Biden is a communist.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] joel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

*authoritarian, not fascist. There is a difference.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the tyranny of small differences. Let us tear each other apart over this trifling distinction.

Fact; fascism falls under the larger umbrella of authoritarianism.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

The problem is that people throw around "fascism" like my 70 year old mom uses the word "communism." She couldn't even define the actual meaning of communism let alone her use of the word.

In the common internet usage fascism just means "anything authoritarian and to the right of where I stand." It also has the issue of making people think that the problem is with left versus right politics when authoritarianism can and has existed everywhere in the political spectrum in history.

[–] Decompose@programming.dev -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You forgot "I wonder why fuel prices are sky rocketing even though we voted a president that promised to fight fossil fuels for climate bullshit"

Enjoy! I'll be here laughing.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›