• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Getting banned because a .world mod lost an argument to you gang

    I’ve pretty much given up on trying to argue with them. I got ratio’d hard for saying that Biden pulling out of Afghanistan was good, actually. If they can’t even bring themselves to accept such a stance when it would benefit them because the news said it was bad, then I think it’s just completely impossible to find traction. They neither have any sort of skepticism towards the media nor any problem with any war ever. These people belong on r/neoliberal.

    • Łumało [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Are people like this just incapable of grasping nuance?

      Every fucking time XDDD

  • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    They need to touch serious fucking grass. Ratio’d the fuck out of them when they tried to take an Ultra-Maoist stance on why Socialism With Chinese Characteristics is Capitalist. deng-cowboy The best part was that it was on a Lemmy.World World News anti-PRC thread filled with racist Xi caricatures and other nonsense, once they realized I knew what I was talking about they gave me a warning not to troll other commenters in bad-faith again (lol). Even the libs seemed to side with me there, lmao deng-smile

    Legitimately think they are seriously struggling in their personal life, they’ve been malding in nearly every comment for the last bit. I kinda pity them.

    • roux [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      In my opinion, people easily fall into idealist critiques of Marxists if they don’t read Marx.

      All. The. Time. It’s why I mostly don’t even bother arguing with people who won’t even at least attempt to read Marx or any theory. LIke, don’t even throw dialectics in the mix. I just want these people to grasp the basics instead of running to cliches and fallacies.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I have been weening off of the debate-broing (even though I still do it i-love-not-thinking ) but I think clearly pointing out the court jesters for Imperialism, the “left” anticommunists that don’t understand the very beginnings of Marxism yet claim to be critiquing Socialist movements “from the left” is invaluable for leading other people to theory and radicalization.

        I have no belief that Flying Squid will become a Marxist after this, but maybe one or two libs were SWCC-pilled when they saw my dunk on a Lemmy.world post, and may reconsider their anti-PRC stance in the future. Just a small hope. denguin

          • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Same here! I almost think reading just a bit of Marx does more harm than good, because idealism and liberalism fills in the gaps if you don’t thoroughly purge them with an understanding of Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, rather than the usual path of understanding his critique of Capitalism and advocacy for collective ownership. A liberal and idealist analysis results in the weird ultra-Maoist liberal takes from people like Flying Squid, they don’t even like Mao so what did they want to happen? Magic Marxism to elevate the productive forces? People to legitimately stay poor under a system without private property, but little productive forces to begin with?

            People who think you must go through Capitalism to get to Communism are wrong, of course, but so is the idea that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat carefully managing and pruning a market economy is suddenly Capitalist because there’s Private Property.

            deng-drip

            • heggs_bayer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I almost think reading just a bit of Marx does more harm than good, because idealism and liberalism fills in the gaps if you don’t thoroughly purge them with an understanding of Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, rather than the usual path of understanding his critique of Capitalism and advocacy for collective ownership.

              You get this a lot with people reading only the Manifesto and dismissing Marxism as childish.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                Flashbacks to Jordan Peterson v Zizek

                Not that Zizek is a Marxist, he’s a Hegelian idealist and a court jester for Imperialism, but Peterson literally asserted that the Manifesto was the core document to Marxism, and not, you know, Capital peterson-pain zizek-preference marx-guns-blazing

              • roux [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                edit-2
                8 hours ago

                This is why when I suggest texts, I give a damn list lol. You can’t know it all by just reading the Manifesto. I also specify that my list is an intro. I haven’t read it all and don’t know it all but I have stuff I can suggest to get the ball rolling if they are willing to put in the effort.

    • comrade_rain [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      He does struggle with a lot of personal stuff. Health/disability issues. Medical cannabis to cope with chronic pain.

      Before he was a mod I used to chat with him quite a bit on my lemm.ee alt.

      pronouns

      I’ve seen a picture of him. Very masculine presenting, so I assume he uses he/him pronouns

      • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        10 hours ago

        That’s sad to hear. Hopefully the pain has a cure or treatment, but health issues are awful regardless.

        I think they need to take a step back, maybe purge their online presense for a bit and come back later, do a bit of a detox.

        As for pronouns, Flying Squid doesn’t list them so I don’t use he/him, that’s just my personal stance. I know people who go by they/them or none/use name online (my fiance being one of them) despite having a binary gender, so I’d like to respect that at least unless I find a statement otherwise.

        Thanks for the insight!

        • comrade_rain [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          10 hours ago

          No I feel you on the pronouns. If I hadn’t seen a picture I would use they them as well. And maybe I still should even having seen a picture.

          Hey I also really appreciated your analysis in that thread. I read the comment you linked.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            Thanks! I try my best, even though I’m not nearly as well read as I’d like to be, but I think I have enough of an understanding to do more good than bad in a room of liberals, haha. heart-sickle

    • riseuppikmin [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      That thread was genuinely hilarious and also a good reminder (to me) that liberals will refuse to engage with supporting sources (even from their own preferred media outlets) if it’s in contradiction with their vibes-analysis of something. The bad faith accusation against you after you effort-post replied multiple times in a non-combative and sourced way was pathetic even for that instance.

      Godspeed to you continuing to try to help the few salvageable world members.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Thanks! Yep, you nailed it. Liberalism cannot coexist with genuine analysis along the lines of Dialectical and Historical Materialism. You can notice that they took an ultra-Maoist stance, evidently making it seem like they supported the Cultural Revolution entirely and are anti-Dengist, but they also are generally liberal and anti-Maoist. They have no beliefs, they just want to purity test everyone.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I mean, Mao being a left-deviationist as he obviously was doesn’t make Deng not a right-deviationist, as one would hope to be similarly obvious. Deng talked a big game about the Chinese becoming rich but, by his own standards of a new bourgeoisie forming, capitalism was reinstated, and on top of it he caused a massive increase in extreme poverty for decades by breaking up collective ownership.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yes, this is also true, hence why the CPC is moving more towards the left, as they reverted too far to the right. You test, readjust, and test again, and readjust again. This is the path of dialectical materialist knowledge.

        Deng gave China what it needed at the time, which the Gang of Four did not. Undeniably, there is a bourgeois class, but the CPC appears to be retaining control, and metrics are improving. We can’t erase Deng’s achievements for miscalculating, just like we can’t erase Mao’s achievements for miscalculating.

        Overall, though, it’s important to recognize that this was in response to an absurd claim that China is “Communist in name only” and that the presence of a stock market and billionaires means the system is Capitalist. By that same logic, the US is Socialist, because it has a Post Office.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          It seems perverse to me to say that Deng “gave China what it needed” by depriving countless millions of people of their needs.

          I have no interest in the broader conversational context, mostly because I think it’s hopeless to try to talk about, at least for me.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            It seems perverse to me to say that Deng “gave China what it needed” by depriving countless millions of people of their needs.

            It seems bad-faith to interpret my comment as such. What would you have had the PRC do? Poverty has been dramatically decreased to outright eliminated in the PRC in no small part thanks to Deng’s strategy of inviting foreign Capital. The productive forces developed dramatically, pruned and managed by the CPC. It is not a reach to say that had the PRC continued with the Gang of Four’s line that “it is better to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism,” the PRC may not have been able to reach its current standards, metrics, and level of influence, or would have risked outright war with the West had the West not been so thoroughly captured industrially.

            I have no interest in the broader conversational context, mostly because I think it’s hopeless to try to talk about, at least for me.

            Then disengage, comrade. Don’t smear my comments with bad-faith interpretations. The CPC has openly stated numerous times that Dengism was Marxism-Leninism applied to the time of Deng, and has served its purpose, so that now Xi Jinping Thought can represent Marxism-Leninism applied to modern conditions. Deng served a vital role, and while he made miscalculations and errors, he did so in reaction to the miscalculations and errors of Mao and the Gang of Four. Just as we know that Mao and the Gang of Four served their purposes as well, and applied Marxism-Leninism to their conditions, liberating China and achieving mass equality and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and a doubling in life expectancy and an end to famine.

            No Marxist in history has been perfect, all have made errors in judgement, we must learn and appreciate what worked and analyze how they fit into the broader Socialist trend.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 minutes ago

              What would you have had the PRC do? Poverty has been dramatically decreased to outright eliminated in the PRC

              Extreme poverty has. Poverty is still widespread, and as I already indicated, a lot of the extreme poverty (not all of it) is a problem the Dengists made for themselves: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2023.2217087

              thanks to Deng’s strategy of inviting foreign Capital

              The man himself said that he will have failed and capitalism will have been re-instated in China if there emerges a new Chinese bourgeoisie. I think that I’ve seen this mentioned to you before.

              I’m curious about the actual viability of re-collectivized commodity production like Nanjie pioneered. I think Vietnam (which I would broadly regard as even more revisionist) has some interesting farming collective stuff and I’ve been meaning for the longest time to read about the Tae’en system in the DPRK.

              Don’t smear my comments with bad-faith interpretations. The CPC has openly stated numerous times that Dengism was Marxism-Leninism applied to the time of Deng, and has served its purpose, so that now Xi Jinping Thought can represent Marxism-Leninism applied to modern conditions.

              You know as well as I do that in common speech “Dengism” means SWCC, which was established in Deng’s time and which Xi, in his plodding speeches almost bereft of actual content, constantly reaffirms as the path Deng rightly put China on.

              Deng served a vital role, and while he made miscalculations and errors,

              What would you call his major errors?

              Just as we know that Mao and the Gang of Four served their purposes as well

              I’m quite interested to learn what you think of as being the purpose served by the Gang of Four, since most of them came later than what you mention as the accomplishments of Mao and them.

              But really, going point by point is probably worthless, and you have my endorsement to ignore everything I said (though check out that link), I guess what I’m most curious about is, concretely, what actually separates China from a capitalist system? Surely it’s not just proportion of SOEs, or fucking Bismark was a socialist. “The dictatorship of the proletariat” is going to be your answer, but I ask, “What separates China’s ‘DotP’ from a liberal democracy?” Surely, it’s not just their anti-corruption measures or then Deng really did destroy socialism and I guess Xi re-established it.

              I don’t know, it just looks to me like a state where the power is held by public businesses rather than private ones in order to keep its sovereignty. To be clear, I’d like to see it otherwise, I get no satisfaction from what I say and it was nice cheering for the emerging dominant power thinking that it was not merely historically progressive but actually represented major progress in world socialism, but ultimately I realized that it was mainly what I wanted to believe and soon came to see Deng as being just a massively more competent Khrushchev, who had the refinement in his approach to praise Mao while in practice being everything that Mao had warned China he was for many years.

  • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    13 hours ago

    That’s an article from 2014. You might have missed a couple of administrations.

    Hey, what was the name of the VP in that administration? Joe something, Bowden? Beetown? Whatever happened to him, he still in any kind of position of influence in DC?

  • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Get a load of that idiot patting themselves on the back like they’re a champion boxer with footwork that makes them untouchable by the likes of you or me

  • Egg_Egg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    You did fail to follow rule 5 of that community

    Rule 5: Keep it civil

    There’s no need to treat others with disrespect when you are having a discussion. In fact you make points better when treating others with respect, compassion and kindness.