dessalines

joined 6 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

How many books on this topic have you read? Are you aware of the conflicts between liberals and workers, prisoners, women, and colonized people for over 200 years? Do you know the history of the working class movement and its history of conflicts with liberals since the mid 1800s?

Any one of us can answer these questions. You clearly can't.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The internet is kinda crazy. Confidently wrong children who can do nothing more than copy and paste from wikipedia are trying to down talk to people with a lifetime of study of political theory.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.

We're against liberalism as a whole because it's the ideology that justifies capitalism. We're against social liberals because they're seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.


Canada's two main parties are both right-wing. They support capitalism, and the rule of capitalists over the economy and government. The canadian conservative party agrees with them in that.

Or look at Australia. Their two main parties are Labour vs the liberal party (both are pretty right wing, but in that country the liberals openly position themselves to the right of the other party).

Or take Japan. Their far right party is called the liberal democrats.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 children)

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.

We're against liberalism as a whole because it's the ideology that justifies capitalism. We're against social liberals because they're seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.


This is a very introductory overview to liberalism:

The most in-depth delving into it is Losurdo's Liberalism - A counter history, but you'd have to read many more foundational texts before that one.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 37 points 6 months ago (67 children)

Someone hearing for the first time that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are staunch liberals.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 22 points 6 months ago (11 children)

Getting people to read even short articles is impossible.

Just be honest with yourself any say that you're not looking to challenge your orientalist biases, that you just want things to confirm them.

The communists were the ones who defeated fascism in ww2, Mao being one of the most important leaders in that fight against japanese fascism. To equate Mao with nazis or the axis powers, who they shed so much blood to defeat, is sickening.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (14 children)

In short, no, that was cold war propaganda. These intro articles get into some of the details of the Mao era:

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Good introductory article on this for US cops if anyone's interested:

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I can't read that as it's paywalled. Anyway here's a lot of links about this topic, several from African leaders and diplomats on the difference between Chinese trade and development in Africa and actual imperialism as practiced by western countries:

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

I personally don't think there's much hope for the imperial core countries at least, but they're a minority of the world's population. The rest of the world doesn't want a leading country, they want trade on an equal basis, and a multi-polar world with international bodies that can resolve disputes impartially. Capitalism isn't even as sustainable as feudalism, and will likely have a much shorter lifespan. Enriching a few at the expense of the many isn't sustainable in the long-term, because the many will fight back and eventually win, as they have done and will continue to do.

Empires generally have a long, whiny decline into obsolescence... I think ancient Rome (after all the civil wars, imperial overextension, instability, famines, civil unrest) it eventually emptied out to ~1% of its peak population before it was conquered. If it isn't politically stable, doesn't inspire people, and no one's willing to fight for it, it can't last.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There's also an audiobook of inventing reality on torrents and youtube, if that's your thing.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Their tablet naming is at least a little more sane.

I don't know why companies don't just put the release year in the name. That'd be much simpler than having to keep track of device generations.

view more: ‹ prev next ›