zionazi libs b like "its good actually"
28d 11h ago by lemmy.ml/u/jankforlife in memes@lemmy.ml from lemmy.ml
SlAvA UkrAnI!
From the latest Perceptions of Democracy index, from NIRA Data:
Ukrainians are among the most skeptical of the democratic processes in their country. Meanwhile, even a country as hotly contested as Venezuela, faith in elections is skyrocketing. And this is gathered by a western org run by a NATO official.
As always, I would like to point out that these kinds of surveys of public opinion are not really evidence of anything besides public opinion itself.
You cannot assert that a certain country has more or less of some quality simply because more people in that country said they think they do more frequently than people in a different country did.
For example if you asked Americans (particularly those in the south or rural areas) if they thought their country was more “free” than the rest of the world, you would probably get higher numbers than you would from most other regions of the world despite the fact that America is not that free relative to much of the world.
Trends in perception, as well as comparison, does tell a good story. In many ways it's a superior method of data gathering on democracy than the standard method of defining democracy as whatever the Nordics are doing, and then grading everyone based on how closely they follow that.
Direct comparison of perception of democracy by people who have lived in both countries would be much clearer evidence of differences in democracy itself.
However, the raw perception of democracy without any other reference to other democracies does not allow for comparison/measurement of democracy itself but rather indicates how happy individuals feel within their current democracy.
The data is a good story and it does encode information, but that information is more significantly influenced by culture, current events, and overall happiness of the populace than it is by “level of democracy”
Sure. When I mean comparison, I mean in trends. If a country scores lower in one year while another scores higher, and this trend repeats, it's a sign of improving and decaying conditions. Democracy isn't really something you can measure directly, which makes the entire subject pretty muddy.
that’s why I put quotes around “level of democracy.” If everyone in a country had to vote directly for any and all government action, that is kind of the purest democracy possible, but it would not be a very effective method of government especially for large countries.
In order to rank democracy in a meaningful way, one would need to decide on what the desired outcomes of a “good”democracy are and which outcomes are most important etc. which would make the scale subjective.
Even that would not be democratic, as it ignores the role of ownership of production and distribution. In a capitalist economy, such would still be subject to the same mechanisms preventing bourgeois democracy from following the will of the proletariat.
If you follow the comment chain you’ll see me and cowbee talk about how subjective the term “democracy” is.
However, we can illustrate my point using proof by counter example. It is entirely possible to imagine two countries with the same government structure (and hence “democracy”) but with different answers to this kind of survey.
Imagine two nearly identical countries each with corrupt governments having the exact same structure and culture etc. The only major difference between them is that in one of the countries, a recent scandal has occurred which was able to bring to light deep seated corruption and criminal activity of many public figures, whereas similar acts are being committed by the govt. of the other country, but none of it has been brought so fully to light yet.
The citizens of the former country are likely to rank their “democracy” lower than the citizens of the latter would rate their own, despite the fact both governments have equal amounts of corruption. Hence, surveys of popular opinion of democracy are not directly indicative of the “level of democracy” or level of corruption or fidelity etc. etc.. QED.
Exactly, its just anecdotal evidence on a bigger scale
What part of martial law do you not understand?
A country being invaded can be and will be overthrown if possible. In fact, it's been done many times in European imperialist history.
That's why the clause exists, even before democracy was normalized in Europe. Just find someone else in line for procession and install a puppet prince.
It's even been abused. Some speculate that Trump would trigger martial law to stay in office - or even Netenyahu himself clinging to power.
In the end you don't want a captured government. That's also historically been really bad.
Letting democracy exist is bad because then the government might change hands.
Gotcha.
Because then the government might be corrupted and perverted by the active aggressor with massive incentive to do so.
Or at least that's what the fascists will say if anyone votes against continuing the war
Well there's already a shitload of doubt over the referendums that happened after Russia invaded. The doubt is especially bolstered by the fact that polling data suggested sentiment favored moving away from Russia when they all of a sudden show up, hold a vote in regions they fully control, and win with a wildly impractical something like 95%. It's not even good lying. It's "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" lying.
"it wasn't close therefore it is fake"
Who was voting? What was the voting about?
"Oh they asked people who had their democratic government couped by a hostile foreign power and had nazis installed that proceeded to ethnically cleanse them and take away their rights whether they wanted to stay part of that country"
And they didn't want to?
"Yeah the only possible interpretation was they were brainwashed"
"it wasn't close therefore it is fake"
No, it was fake because polling data that was relatively recent to the election was in gross conflict with the results. Imagine you lived somewhere with a large expat American population. Imagine that polling specifically in the region full of American expats showed that the clear majority did NOT want to join the US and that the trend over time is for the sentiment to get STRONGER, not weaker. Now imagine the US invades, a referendum on secession and annexation by the US is held almost immediately, and the vote is exactly what the US wants, the people increasingly did NOT want, and they claimed the vote was 95% in their favor. You'd never buy that load of bullshit, but if Russia does it, and it's perceived to be against The West...
Who collected this polling data? Have a link/source? From everything I've seen the east was firmly pro yanukovych and Crimea specifically formally petitioned for Russian intervension after the 2014 coup. And while the Donbass didn't formally petition they literally went to war for the right to split away from Ukraine.
I'll try to dig it back up later, having a bit of trouble finding it again because modern search is shit and heavily favors tangential at best recent events even with clear requests.
As for the vote and in Crimea, as I've been saying, there's extremely reasonable doubt of authenticity given the vote was held after Russia seized the area. Russia held an election in which the result was what Russia wanted by margins in gross excess of what recent polling suggested the people actually wanted.
About Donbass, I don't really remember the specifics at this moment, but I recall getting into it with someone about that topic a few weeks ago. If you wanna look back in my comment history probably 2-4 weeks, I found sources for the poll, various issues with the Crimean referendum, and some stuff on Donbass I don't recall at the moment.
Oh so imagine the opposite of the situation we're talking about.
No.
Read history, bro - instead of suckling at the feet of Putin. Martial law does not exclude democracy, as democracy is more than national elections and representative democracy (not that you'd know anything about that) - but a change in government can actively sabotage defences and weaken a nation to be overrun by a foreign agressor 👏 while 👏 the 👏 nation 👏 is 👏 being 👏 invaded.
But tell me how Maripol being leveled is somehow good for renovation plans.
Go back to reddit
Why is this comment formatted like an AI wrote it?
Because AI are glorified statistical models that steal all of histories texts and tries to replicate language using median and average?
EDIT: alt accounts for consistent -2 down votes is such Reddit behavior.
You joined lemmy last year lol
I've been jumping platforms for years. Sopuli is Scandinavian, which is why I joined it. But nice "gotcha".
Back to Reddit with you.
Fucking dork
Oh boy the reddit imperialists are angry with this one
Yeah, people get irritable about misinformation on their front page, like when someone falsely claims Zelenskyy canceled elections.
Not false, you're losing
Zelenskyy isn't blocking elections, though. Ukrainian law/constitution forbids elections under martial law, and they're under martial law because they're still under invasion from Russia. If anyone is blocking Ukrainian elections, it's Putin because the only options he left them are to either resist and forego elections temporarily or submit and lose Ukrainian elections forever. In neither option does Ukraine get elections, and Zelenskyy isn't the one who created the situation by invading.
Even if that weren't 100% bullshit it wouldn't matter because the current regime was put there by a US backed coup anyway. Russia's response to our extremely obvious puppet state waging proxy war from right across their border is perfectly reasonable, if they overthrew Mexico and started sending people across the border to attack us we'd have fucking nuked them by now
Even if that weren't 100% bullshit
Wishing doesn't make it so. You're free to try to prove me wrong, but you won't like what you find when you search.
Russia's response to our extremely obvious puppet state waging proxy war from right across their border is perfectly reasonable, if they overthrew Mexico and started sending people across the border to attack us we'd have fucking nuked them by now
You'd think Russia would have made a bigger deal of that if there were any truth to it at all, but they don't even mention it. They like to make claims about Nazis, they like to cry about NATO expanding after some of their neighbors watched them abuse some of their other neighbors, they downplay whether they're really in a genuine war or just a "special military operation", but they never claim Ukraine attacked them first.
You’d think Russia would have made a bigger deal of that if there were any truth to it at all, but they don’t even mention it
They did and do, you're a fucking joke
All I can find when I try to look into it is an AI overview claiming it with no source, but search is shit these days and heavily favors new news, so maybe you're right and they have technically at some point made the claim.
But let's look at what Putin had to say when the "special military operation" began:
“The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime,” Putin said in a televised address. “To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.”
Now he makes a lot of claims there, but they're not the point right now, so let's try to not get distracted. Let's focus on the part where he claims they attacked first because this is surely where he'd make that claim, right at the start when first trying to justify their actions, right? Except it isn't there. Because it's horse shit, and not even Putin can say it with a straight face.
It took me like 30 fucking seconds to find multiple articles specifically about Putin addressing the US backed coup, get good
https://www.trtworld.com/article/a7585ea546c5
https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-us-ukraine-coup-organizing-russia-1602840
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/putin-obama-ukraine-facts/
Good job, now do you think you could find something about the point we're actually talking about, or are you just rounding up reading material for yourself and wanted to share? Because here's what we're talking about, in your words, with some emphasis from me:
if they overthrew Mexico and started sending people across the border to attack us we'd have fucking nuked them by now
I already knew you would brand that a coup, so let's set that aside for a moment and talk about the part where you said Ukraine attacks Russia. Because that is what I wanted evidence of.
Lol nope, I conclusively proved that you are both verifiably wrong and completely uninformed on the topic, fuck your point you already lost clown
Ah, yes, the chess playing pigeon strategy. Strut confidently, knock pieces around, shit on the board, declare victory.
Every article you shared is about the coup. I'm asking about the part where you said people were attacking Russia from Ukraine. A coup is an internal thing for a state, not an attack on a foreign state. Maybe that will help you find something relevant, you illiterate dipshit.
I'm seeing several paragraphs of bullshit and no source lol, try again
I'd say my pile is just as big as yours, but to be totally fair, you did come up with a pile of completely irrelevant shit, so. You've got that going for you, at least.
Ok but you're clearly a fucking moron so why would I care what you say?
Translation: you call me on my shit too directly, gonna disengage to save face.
Anything's possible when you make shit up kiddo
And before that he banned opposition parties
No, a bunch of parties were suspended because they have connections to the country that's bombing them, and it's only while they're under martial law. Martial law could end any day now if Russia just fucked off back home.
No, a bunch of parties were suspended
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.
That's a great thought-terminating cliche you have there. Careful with it, though. It's an antique.
Go back to reddit
Brushing me off is a thought terminating cliche
You said nothing for me to really refute, other than a round about way of saying you think in generally full of shit. I made an actual claim, you made a vague dodge that doesn't actually address it, I pointed that out.
I'm making fun of you. You got brushed off. You squeezed your pseudo intellectual brain and 'thought terminating cliche' oozed out this time instead of 'strawman'
"He didn't ban opposition parties, opposition parties were merely banned, by him!"
banned
Suspended. As in, a temporary measure. Because dealing with Russia would be treasonous when they're under active attack by Russia. Cry harder about people blocking Russian corruption. Someone here cares, too, I'm sure.
by him
Also not true. National Security and Defencr Council did it.
Any other blatant lies I can help clear up?
so much pro russian propaganda in the meme channel, crazy
Actually, the opposite.
Crazy to see many imperialist supporters trying to justify Western capitalist puppets/allies
Also pretty crazy to watch a bunch of anti-imperialists laud imperialism just because it happens to be against their perceived enemies, The West. Lies in favor of Putin and against Ukraine are fucking rampant in this community, and you would think they'd be opposed to a war of conquest, but so long as The West is hurt, they'll justify literally anything.
The imperialists' favorite scammery: Redefining imperialism.
Oh, please, if you think Russia isn't interested in conquering and expanding, I'd say I have a bridge to sell you, but you probably already got cleaned out.
Where is imperialism lauded?
Tho, the West which sides with Genocide and Nazis, while also being engaged in neo-colonialism, will obviously be getting more concern.
And considering NATO surrounding Russia and helping Ukraine kill civilian in areas like Donbass with Russian speaking people, restricting Russian language n all, some people do think that Russia was baited into acting.
Where is imperialism lauded?
Russia in Ukraine is a great example. The amount if very easily disproven Russian propaganda I see spread in here is insane, and it gets eaten up because it gives people a chance to rail against The West. And I'm not saying the railing is undeserved. I'm just saying that people lap up very obvious bullshit to get an opportunity to participate.
some people do think that Russia was baited into acting.
If you think Russia acted out of anything other than selfish interest, I have a bridge to sell you.
Which is the obvious 'Russian propaganda' shared here that you mention? Do list some.
If you think Russia acted out of anything other than selfish interest, I have a bridge to sell you.
I have no intent to buy one. If you ordered a bridge, you can keep it.
No one is saying that it is altruism in case of war.
But that Western imperialism's arm... NATO's escalation and posturing has contributed a lot to the issue.
I said it seems that Russia was baited by West's encirclement
Which is the obvious 'Russian propaganda' shared here that you mention? Do list some.
-
Zelenskyy canceled elections. He didn't, they're constitutionally forbidden under martial law, and he's bound to the constitution. If you want Ukrainians to have elections again, get Putin to fuck off. They either had to enact martial law and lose elections temporarily or be conquered and lose Ukrainian elections permanently.
-
Zelenskyy banned the opposition parties. He didn't, that was a national defense council. Specifically, parties with active ties to Russia, the country actively invading them, were temporarily suspended only while under martial law, so they'll be back once treasonous aid to the invader is off the table.
-
Russia invaded because they were being attacked by people coming over the border from Ukraine. This was a wild claim because I can't even find evidence that Russia claimed this, and when asked, they provided a bunch of articles about the 2014 "coup" that didn't mention the alleged attacks.
-
The vote to join Russia from... I think Crimea happened before the invasion. Might be mixing up events here, but I don't have time to dig more up right now. But it didn't. It didn't happen until Russia had already seized the region, which is relevant because we cannot trust Russia to run fair elections, especially for a vote like that.
This is just what I found by glancing through my recent comment history to find recent claims made in Lemmy.ml posts. These are ones I actually had to verify myself, and all of them were trivially easy to prove are incorrect. All of these claims are extremely easily verifiable lies in favor of Russian goals. I'm not saying the people I heard it from are intentionally spreading propaganda. At least some portion are undoubtedly just people who have fallen for sweet sounding lies about perceived enemies they already hate, basically falling for confirmation bias.
Maduro also did not cancel elections, right?
Zelenskyy banned the opposition parties. He didn't, that was a national defense council.
That is under Zelensky, right?
If so, then claims against Putin and Maduro also are wrong, as they also have council-equivalents, ministries of defense, agencies etc.
Regarding other claims, I did not see them here.
My understanding was that NATO expanded which baited Russia.
And there was growing Ukrainian supremacism with Russian speaking regions like Donbass being affected. Have read that their 2019 language law had exceptions for English and European Union's official languages, while Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish languages did not have any. So, Russian speaking regions of Ukraine having issue is understandable there.
The Nazi symbols on some Ukrainian soldiers too.
My understanding is that Western imperialist powers wants to isolate Russia, setup NATO bases around them and squeeze them, for not falling in line as a vassal. NATO was getting closer to Ukraine, arranged regime change in 2014 etc.
And finally everything culminated into the Russia taking bait.
I remember seeing a video on it.
Edit: Yep, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8
Maduro also did not cancel elections, right?
I am unfortunately not well informed on the current and recent state of Venezuela, so I'm not going to try to pretend I can form a well informed opinion on what he's done. I've heard some bad things recently, of course, but the timing makes it feel like justification for what was planned, so it's definitely a tinted view at best. All I can really say on Maduro is that it was most likely a bad idea for Trump to take him like that. I'm open to learning more, but I unfortunately can't keep up with everything.
That is under Zelensky, right?
If so, then claims against Putin and Maduro also are wrong, as they also have council-equivalents, ministries of defense, agencies etc.
Hmmm that's actually a fair question, but I'm not entirely sure they're equivalent. While the state as a whole certainly takes blame for actions of any of its agents, for individuals, it depends on what they have control over, and while the head of state's powers are generally extensive in any state, they are generally not complete. For an example from the jurisdiction I'm most familiar from, I wouldn't blame the US president for a law passed by Congress with a strong enough majority to override a veto because they effectively have no power there.
Speaking more directly on the individuals you mentioned, I'm going to pass on Maduro for the reasons I stated earlier. As for Putin, I think he takes a larger portion of blame than many other heads of state as he has accumulated a significantly larger portion of the state's power. He has managed, for example, to have the constitution amended so he can retain power well beyond the limits when he first came into power, and the fact that Russia isn't exactly known for election integrity suggests a wide capacity to corrupt even aspects of the government that should be well outside his control. He may get some blame for things genuinely out of his control, but his corruption does obscure the exact extent of his power.
As for Zelenskyy, this did warrant some more research into who in the government made the call and the hierarchies they operate under. I found this article, which goes into some of the details.
On March 18, 2022, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine decided to suspend, for the duration of martial law, the activities of certain political parties with ties to the Russian Federation. Zelenskyy signed a decree the next day. A week later, the Verkhovna Rada introduced a draft law to amend the existing legislation on political parties, specifically to add a restriction on “justification, recognition as legitimate, [or] denial of armed aggression against Ukraine,” as well as “glorification, justification of actions and/or inaction of persons who carried out or are carrying out armed aggression against Ukraine.” The law was unanimously adopted on May 3rd.
The activities of 11 political parties were affected, all with ties to Russia or in violation of the law. Five other parties were charged with the crime of “helping the occupier.” Per the legislation, lawsuits were filed by the Ministry of Justice in order to obtain judicial bans and forced dissolution. As of June 2023, “the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the claims of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to ban the activities of 18 political parties.” According to the Rule of Law Research Center, “after the execution of the court decision on the ban, the political party loses all its members and all its structural formations, that is, it completely ceases to exist as an association of citizens.”
Okay, so I had to look a bit deeper, and it seems the council serves under the president, but he's required to include certain people, mainly various ministers of assorted ministries. Looking deeper again, though, most if not all of those ministers do seem to be appointed by the president, even if they do need to be approved by a legislature. Plus, he signed the decree, even if at their suggestion and even if the legislature reinforced it with codified law later. Given that, I admit you are correct that he must share at least some of the blame for the suspension of those parties, and I was incorrect to try to absolve him of all blame.
That said, I don't disagree with the move. Not only are they under active attack, Russia has a known very recent history of attempting to interfere with and corrupt foreign parties and elections. Combined with their lack of election integrity at home, there is every reason to assume they would attempt to corrupt Ukrainian political parties and use them to amplify Russian propaganda and sway critical votes towards Russia's goals and away from the will of the people, and there is no reason at all to assume they wouldn't try. If Russia wants the political allies to be trusted in an emergency, maybe they should try not making allies through corruption and not being the reason their neighbors are having emergencies.
Regarding other claims, I did not see them here.
Well I exclusively pulled out of my own recent comment history, as in within the last month or so.
My understanding was that NATO expanded which baited Russia.
My understanding is that Ukraine is not in NATO and therefore does not deserve to have their sovereignty violated to satisfy Russia's desire for safety guarantees. It is also my understanding that many of those NATO expansions happened as a direct result of Russian interference with or aggression towards neighbors, e.g. Finland and Sweden joined as a direct response to the invasion of Ukraine, so if Russia wants their neighbors to stop joining alliances to bolster defense against them, maybe they should stop terrorizing neighbors and making them feel unsafe. Whining about NATO expansion is crybully behavior, whining that your future victims saw it coming and teamed up to prevent it.
And there was growing Ukrainian supremacism with Russian speaking regions like Donbass being affected. Have read that their 2019 language law had exceptions for English and European Union's official languages, while Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish languages did not have any. So, Russian speaking regions of Ukraine having issue is understandable there.
I'm unfamiliar with this topic and would be open to learning more if you have any good sources. From my understanding, Ukraine on the whole was moving away from Russia, so I could see that causing some tensions with the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians. I usually see far more extreme claims about what's being done to the eastern Ukrainians, but they can never seem to come up with evidence for the more extreme claims, and this feels grounded enough to be possible, so yeah, if you have sources, I'm open to being convinced.
The Nazi symbols on some Ukrainian soldiers too.
I've heard a lot of claims of Ukrainian Nazis, but I'm increasingly convinced it's a grossly exaggerated issue. Don't get me wrong, I've seen pictures around here of a couple small groups, but the grand total was like 50 people around some flags or wearing symbols, and whole 50 Nazis is certainly 50 too many, it's far from the systemic issue people try to claim. I've asked for evidence many times now, and at this point, I think I'm more likely to be verbally abused for asking for evidence than to receive even a really shitty piece of "evidence" that doesn't actually prove anything. The animosity towards an open willingness to consider fresh evidence makes it feel more like Russian propaganda than truth. That said, I'm still open to being proven wrong. Just don't expect me to assume the whole nation is swarming with them because of something like a picture of a dozen dudes around a flag.
My understanding is that Western imperialist powers wants to isolate Russia, setup NATO bases around them and squeeze them, for not falling in line as a vassal.
My understanding is that many of the more recent states to join NATO did because they saw how Russia treats their neighbors, like Sweden and Finland as mentioned above. It looks an awful lot like Russia bullied their neighbors and then got really upset about it when some of the other neighbors started banding together so they wouldn't be next. If Russia wants neighbors to stop joining NATO, they should probably stop making their neighbors feel like they'd be safer in NATO.
NATO was getting closer to Ukraine, arranged regime change in 2014 etc.
My understanding is that the general public was moving towards the EU while state officials moved towards Russia, resulting in regime change. I've seen poll data from shortly before the 2014 invasion of Crimea that showed there was even a trend in eastern Ukraine of moving away from Russia, which is part of why the referendum to join Russia was seen as so suspicious, not only were they trending away, but then 95.5% voted to join Russia? Combined with the fact that the referendum was held after Russia invaded and gained control of the region and Russia's lack of election integrity, a vote of 95.5% in Russia's favor when recent polling data showed they probably wouldn't even pull a majority just looks like a "fuck you, what are you going to do about it?" vote count.
I'll try to check out the video later, but I've already spent more time than I really had available researching and writing this up.
I'm not saying the US is good, that's classic whataboutism.
You made a classic ad hominem attack since you had no proper response to the meme.
I replied to see your reaction and it confirms it then.
I'm not sure you know what ad hominem means.
Attacking the person and not the point?
Should I have termed it as 'Poisoning the well' or something else?
What term would you have used?
While that is correct, it's not what the comment you replied to did. There's no criticisim to you as a person. It simply says that the argument reads as "whataboutism" so yup, your reply doesn't really make sense.
Are you isolating that comment alone, while ignoring the original comment? I was talking about that one. Not any towards me, but the original OP.
I mentioned that they did not have any response, other than trying to poison the well and implying stuff about the memes community, OP and other posters.
You replied to the wrong comment then ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ why would you reply to the second comment if you were referring to the first?
Because it was a continuation of the convo?
Didn't seem that way since neither the original comment nor their response is an "ad hominem" attack. But ok dude, you do you.
It may have seemed like that since you were not the commentor who I was replying to and did not follow the comment chain. And I did ask if it would be better to term it as 'poisoning the well'.
But ok dude, you do you.
Not the issue, no. Your reply just didn't make sense. No one, at any point, made an "ad hominem" attack/comment. Also, that term and "poisoning the well" have nothing to do with each other.
No issues. You didn't follow the comment chain.
Of all hills, this is the smallest one.
information manipulation is how russia and friends have been winning the global war against the US for the last twenty years. can't beat them with raw power, so beat them where you can. what is the biggest weakness right now in the US? a wildly gullible populace with very little critical thinking skills due to decades of struggling education. and it's working, overall.
This is just Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy for liberals.
eh, prettt sure most of that is the US punching itself in the face
agreed, it all sucks
Just for factual correctness (don't actually care about your opinion) - no Israeli election was cancelled. Bibi himself lost an election in 2020.
Ukraine being less democratic than Israel is not the gotcha its supporters expected
As I said, not going for any gacha. Also not versed enough on Ukraine politics to comment. Just saying that no Israeli election was cancelled (we're going to have one in a couple of months).
Decided a while ago I don't want to get into internet arguments, big waste of time which can be used for more significant things.
I didn't even meant to argue, just wanted to put it into perspective for lurkers. We could even go further and note that there is huge support for genocide in various forms and methods in Israel, but Zelensky got explicitly elected on his promises of deescalating and stopping the civil war.
Ukraine needs to have elections
The thing is their constitution states that during a time of war they can't.
Abraham Lincoln was given a choice to not hold elections during the American civil war but he understood the war is at the will of the people. Are we afraid the Ukrainian people will vote against the war?
You can't let a pesky volk get in the way of the endsieg
From NIRA data.
Great. Then have an election!
Again under martial law there cannot be elections, and I highly doubt ending martial law now would have a good outcome. 
Abraham Lincoln was given a choice
And Zelenskyy is not given a choice. Their constitution forbids it. Are you suggesting that Zelenskyy should seize more power beyond that granted by the constitution?
Oh no the troll farm discovered lemmy.
Communists have been on Lemmy since the beginning.
It is so funny when you paranoid white Americans insist that anything that isn't stroking the dick of your establishment must be a troll farm
True, but atleast the first comment is highlighting it.
LMBO yeah and they keep making zionazi liberal instances like lemmus.org
Zelenskyy didn't cancel elections, though. They're legally forbidden in Ukraine during martial law, which is only still in effect because Russia is still invading. If anyone canceled Ukrainian elections, it's Putin because the choice for Ukraine was either submit and lose elections permanently or resist and enact martial law, losing them temporarily.
Zelenskyy didn’t cancel elections, though. They’re legally forbidden
Yeah, not every nation wants to deal with securing elections in an active war zone, especially against an opponent heavily incentivized and willing to put their thumb on the scale however they can.
Yeah not every nation wants to do that. Some nations are fascist dictatorships.
Put that right next to 'two things can be true at once' in the library of trying to conjure thoughts from nothing but pure passive voice.
especially against an opponent heavily incentivized and willing to put their thumb on the scale however they can
Sorry you're not allowed to have a democracy because someone might try to convince you to vote against me.
Love me, I'm a liberal.
Sorry you’re not allowed to have a democracy because someone might try to convince you to vote against me.
I can't believe you're genuinely this unimaginative. Do you really think Russia would limit themselves to propaganda? Do you think Russia respects the democratic process enough to not interfere in an election where getting the right leader might mean submission, annexation, and victory? The same Russia that was the origin for multiple bomb threats on polling locations during the US 2024 election? The same Russia that's constantly fraught with internal accusations of election fraud? That Russia?
And that's why democracy is for another time.
I mean... If the election has a really high chance of not genuinely reflecting the will of the people because an outside force is guaranteed to attempt to interfere with the election... Yeah, it's kinda not the time because you're going to choose based on the will of the invader, not the will of the people.
If you cared about the will of the people you wouldn't have violently overthrown their government and installed a regime of literal nazis to murder and suppress the population you pretend to weep for.
But then again if you cared about the people of Ukraine AT ALL you wouldn't be okay with them living under a nazi regime LET ALONE happily giving those nazis absolute power to decide when and if they ever give up absolute power.
So like all right wingers, I have to wonder. Where are you on the evil/stupid continuum? Do you espouse your views because you are fully self aware as a devoted nazi partisan? Or are you tied for the dumbest person to have ever lived?
I've seen a lot of claims of Nazis in Ukraine, and to be totally fair, there have been pictures of disturbing large groups around symbols, but nobody ever seems able to muster any genuine evidence there's a systemic problem. Everything anyone has ever been able to show me has attempted to make big leaps to stretch scant evidence into more than it is. I'm open to being proven wrong, but the last several times I offered the chance, I got the same load of half assed bullshit. I've tried several times to give the claim a chance, but it increasingly sounds like a tiny grain of truth blown up into a mountain of Russian butthurt.
Oh so we should talk about this different thing now?
You're the one who made the claim the Ukrainians are living under a Nazi regime. I basically said I've seen evidence that there are Ukrainian Nazis in existence, but nobody can ever muster evidence that it's systemic or anything other than a few groups that, while disturbingly large, are nowhere near big enough to represent the majority. I've tried to invite proof several times, but I'm increasingly convinced it's bullshit.
I see so you've decided to take a violent tangent away from the conversation that made you uncomfortable and decided to impose this new conversation where you challenge me to convince you of something you adamantly refuse to be convinced of and brag about how your opaque standards of proof have never been met.
So you're just kinda a piece of shit huh
Tangent? Your post was about Ukrainian Nazis. Let's look back at it.
If you cared about the will of the people you wouldn't have violently overthrown their government and installed a regime of literal nazis to murder and suppress the population you pretend to weep for.
I apparently don't care about them because I'm not resisting this Nazi regime that nobody can prove is anywhere NEAR extensive enough to qualify as an actual regime.
But then again if you cared about the people of Ukraine AT ALL you wouldn't be okay with them living under a nazi regime LET ALONE happily giving those nazis absolute power to decide when and if they ever give up absolute power.
Again, I'm allegedly terrible for not caring about the alleged Nazis.
So like all right wingers, I have to wonder. Where are you on the evil/stupid continuum? Do you espouse your views because you are fully self aware as a devoted nazi partisan? Or are you tied for the dumbest person to have ever lived?
Basically a bunch of questioning if my tolerance of the Nazis is stupidity or evil.
So... You ranted about Ukrainian Nazis. That was the central focus of your post. I then claimed that while I have repeatedly tried to be open to the possibility, nobody can ever seem to muster evidence that it's anything more than a few relatively small groups, at least on a nation scale, being grossly exaggerated.
And then you act confused and treat me like I'm going off on a tangent to dodge some greater point, you absolute clown.
Yeah. You latched onto a single thing I said in the service of talking about the actual topic and you not only want to make the entire conversation about it, you also want to pretend no other conversation existed.
You're dishonest and pathetic.
My guy, your entire fucking post was about Ukrainian Nazis. So I responded and discussed Ukrainian Nazis. What the fuck do you want to talk about if it's not Ukrainian Nazis, and why didn't you just say that in the first place? If it's such a tangent, it's one you went down and I followed, but now it's my fault we're here somehow. And once again, there's still no evidence of the Nazis being widespread, so this just feels like trying to dodge the fact that someone actually called for evidence.
My guy, your entire fucking post was about Ukrainian Nazis.
Do you think it's been so long that I don't remember my own post? What audience are you lying to? How fucking shameless. You're just fucking stupid. To try and pull that kind of dishonesty. Honestly. Fucking stupid. On top of being a dishonest fucking low life. Christ you suck as a person. Go the fuck away please.
Completely independent of you being a nazi apologist (a nazi).
Do you think it's been so long that I don't remember my own post?
I dunno what your deal is, but yeah, you seem to be struggling to keep up with your own bullshit. Two out of three paragraphs were about Ukrainian Nazis, and the third was questioning how I could be cool with that.
Honestly, this just feels like a pathetic attempt to dodge the fact that I was willing to consider proof. It was all fine and dandy to talk about Ukrainian Nazis, but as soon as the topic of proving Ukrainian Nazis are a systemic problem came up, you can't fathom how we got onto this topic, and clearly I'm just distracting from the real topic somehow by expressing an interest in having your claims verified. You know god damn well it's a lie, so as soon as evidence comes up, you vehemently disengage from the topic and try to paint me as an idiot and a Nazi apologist. Where my Nazi apologia was just to say that I'd be totally open to looking at evidence they're a real problem if only someone could actually provide it.
Fucking hilarious you want to call me a Nazi apologist for having the audacity to question an imperialist aggressor's narrative. It's obvious your fragile little ego can't handle getting called out for the shit you spew, so you result to personal attacks like a child.
If you cared about the will of the people you wouldn’t have violently overthrown their government and installed a regime of literal nazis to murder and suppress the population you pretend to weep for.
But then again if you cared about the people of Ukraine AT ALL you wouldn’t be okay with them living under a nazi regime LET ALONE happily giving those nazis absolute power to decide when and if they ever give up absolute power.
So like all right wingers, I have to wonder. Where are you on the evil/stupid continuum? Do you espouse your views because you are fully self aware as a devoted nazi partisan? Or are you tied for the dumbest person to have ever lived?
Here's another chance to read my comment with the literacy of an adult. Try harder.
You could have just as easily latched onto my mentioning the ethnic cleansing. You could have just as easily latched onto the illegal western coup that stole democracy from Ukraine in the first place. You could have just as easily stayed on the original topic of conversation and responded to the actual fucking point about how the nazi government you love so much took away the mere trappings of democracy in that country. But no. You're too stupid for that. That would be too honest and in good faith for trash like you to engage in.
You latched onto the existence of the nazi regime because you have practiced being obstinate and intransigent on this subject. You made it absolutely clear that you wouldn't even engage in this tangent of yours in good faith by bragging about how no one could possibly convince you and refusing to allow a condition up front that would satisfy your requirements for proof. You're an intellectual coward.
And that's exactly how a nazi argues by the way.
You could have just as easily latched onto my mentioning the ethnic cleansing.
I mean, that's a key trait of the Nazis. I figured it kinda came together, but alright, I could have been a little more specific and brought it up sooner, but I was really hoping today would be the day someone can actually find the Nazi evidence. Besides, if Nazis are the ones doing the ethnic cleansing, it should be trivial to prove there are Nazis, right?
You could have just as easily latched onto the illegal western coup that stole democracy from Ukraine in the first place.
Tried to go down that road with people several times. Never seems to go anywhere. Everybody likes to call it a coup, but nobody can prove it's anything other than butthurt that Ukraine moved towards the West.
You could have just as easily stayed on the original topic of conversation and responded to the actual fucking point about how the nazi government you love so much took away the mere trappings of democracy in that country.
You mean how elections are suspended because they're under martial law? As far as I'm concerned, that's Russia's fault. Ukraine is already bound by their constitution, and it would be extremely difficult to change in the middle of war. Ukraine's choice was to either enact martial law and fight back, losing elections temporarily, or submit to Russia and lose Ukrainian elections permanently. If you want them to be able to vote, get pissed at Russia. They're free to fuck off back to their own land any time they'd like.
That would be too honest and in good faith for trash like you to engage in.
Oh fucking please, your arrogant ass is just trying to cover up the fact you can't prove a god damn thing. You're raging over there like a child that refuses to accept their bedtime because you got called on your slop, and since there's no real defense of it, you gotta go on the offensive on me directly.
You latched onto the existence of the nazi regime because you have practiced being obstinate and intransigent on this subject. You made it absolutely clear that you wouldn't even engage in this tangent of yours in good faith by bragging about how no one could possibly convince you and refusing to allow a condition up front that would satisfy your requirements for proof.
My guy, you know what evidence people have managed to bring me? A map of monuments in Europe, of which almost none were in Ukraine. A photo of one dude with a blurry patch next to Zelenskyy that they swear is Nazi symbolism if you squint hard enough. A photo of like two dozen dudes in military-ish gear around a flag that, while certainly concerning, is in no way indicative of a systemic problem. A couple more photos of even smaller groups. I'm not being unreasonable for not calling that definitive proof.
I'm not denying there are Nazis in Ukraine entirely, I'm sure there's at least some just as there are basically everywhere even if the exact flavor if Nazi varies slightly.
Hell, I didn't even set conditions on proof. I just said nobody can ever find anything that actually proves shit. They wanna show me some of the bullshit I mentioned early that proves nothing other than that Ukrainian Nazis aren't entirely extinct. Which, for the record, is a shame, they should be.
You're an intellectual coward. And that's exactly how a nazi argues by the way.
You wanna talk intellectual cowardice? Let's look at your personal attacks. Let's look at how you came unglued on me the instant I actually requested evidence of your assertion of Nazis in complete good faith, I was ready to learn something. Let's look at how, in spite of all that, in spite of all your rage over these alleged Nazis, you still won't even try to find a single shred of genuine evidence
And then, because I won't buy your story at the very first mention of it, because I won't take the flimsiest of evidence and run with it, I'm an intellectual coward and a Nazi? I'd say you're a fucking clown, but frankly, that'd be an insult to clowns. You're full of shit, I know it, you know it, but you just can't admit it, especially in public. Do yourself a favor and stop replying. You just embarrass yourself acting like a petulant child.
A petulant child gets told to return to the topic and spends multiple pages continuing to whine about how no one engages with your bad faith and declaring victory because your deeply buried post on a week old thread didn't get any replies
Do you not understand that you're stupid for this alone?
You mean how elections are suspended because they’re under martial law?
Oh okay. It's because the military rules the country. That's why it's okay to not have democracy anymore.
And in order to keep the country Ukrainian we need to prevent the people who live there from having any say in what "Ukraine" is.
Hell, I didn’t even set conditions on proof. I just said nobody can ever find anything that actually proves shit.
Are you so fucking stupid that you're bringing up your deliberate bad faith as a POSITIVE???
because your deeply buried post on a week old thread didn't get any replies
You're not very good at making assumptions since that's not it. I've only replied asking for evidence to active threads, and I've repeatedly gotten responses "attempting" to provide proof. It's just shit tier proof every single time.
Oh okay. It's because the military rules the country. That's why it's okay to not have democracy anymore.
The military would probably freely give back control if Russia would fuck off back to where they belong. Either way, how exactly do you propose they run the election so that the parts actively being contested by Russia get to vote AND guarantee that Russia, who isn't even known for election integrity at home, won't meddle in a foreign election that might get them a submissive leader elected? I'd love to see them have routine elections, and maybe I just haven't thought it all the way through, but I don't see how this turns into anything other than either A. An opportunity for Russia to stuff the ballot boxes and force victory by submissive leadership, or B. Disenfranchisement of eastern Ukrainians to protect ballot integrity. I don't like either option, and I'm guessing you're extra not fond of option B. Probably pretty keen to let Russia stuff those ballots, though.
And in order to keep the country Ukrainian we need to prevent the people who live there from having any say in what "Ukraine" is.
Almost. To keep it Ukrainian, they need to make sure the active invader with a bad reputation for election integrity doesn't get a chance to violate the integrity of their election. Since you care so much about their democratic rights, I would think you'd want to be extra sure there wasn't interference.
Are you so fucking stupid that you're bringing up your deliberate bad faith as a POSITIVE???
Okay, let me rephrase this on the off chance you're misunderstanding me. I'm not asking for a super high bar to be cleared. The bar is a tripping hazard in hell, and here you are still trying to limbo dance with the devil. All I want is some evidence that doesn't show me a tiny fraction and try to make me assume I can extrapolate it to a nation. You know, actual fucking evidence, not a pile of blurry photos with a grand total of 50 people in them, nor a map where none of the fucking points are in Ukraine. I want to see evidence that there are more than 50 Nazis in Ukraine. 50 may still be a lot of Nazis, but it's not enough to cause the systemic problems people in here like to claim. I am willing to entertain anything you may consider evidence so long as it actually shows a systemic issue. You can decide how to prove that however you want so long as you actually show a systemic issue, not just a handful of raging assholes with a camera and a flag. A few pictures of small groups of Nazis in Ukraine only proves that they are unfortunately not extinct, not that they are the widespread issue you claim they are.
Meanwhile, as I try repeatedly to engage in the topic in good faith, despite your claims to the contrary, you do nothing but belittle and insult me. Rather than turning me to your side, it only further convinces me not only that you are utterly without proof, but that you know the claims you are making cannot be backed by proof. You insult me not because it's genuinely deserved, but because you're desperately trying to steer the topic away from the fact that we both know you're 100% full of shit, at least on the topic of Ukrainian Nazis being the systemic, pervasive issue you claim.
but because you’re desperately trying to steer the topic away
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
In other words, you can't really refute a single word I said, so you're going to imply I'm lying and bounce. This is by far the most vitriol I've ever faced for openly being willing to consider fresh evidence and change my perspective, and you've made it quite clear you're not arguing in bad faith. I assume you make the accusation against me purely to muddy the waters and make it seems like a simple "no u!" when you're inevitably called for it.
I'm not implying you're lying. I'm saying that you have a shameless sneering indifference to good faith arguing to the point that you could accuse me of avoiding the topic for not engaging with your tangent. You argue like a nazi, which I have commented on repeatedly now, which only makes sense because you are a nazi who defends nazis.
for openly being willing to consider fresh evidence and change my perspective
See? You're completely aware of the absurdity of your replies. You're having fun being a snide piece of shit. Exactly how a fucking nazi argues.
Even in the context of the argument you, like an entitled fucking child, demand I engage with instead of the actual topic, you refuse to engage in good faith as I have REPEATEDLY asked you to front load what would qualify as evidence and you have refused. Every time you just point to a strawman and say "That wasn't enough" and continue on batching for eight paragraphs that no one's reading.
All of this has been put to you repeatedly. Yet you still argue in smirking bad faith. Piece of shit nazi. Follow your leader.
You're spending an awful lot of time and effort to talk shit about how I'm allegedly not engaging in good faith, but if these Nazis were rampant enough to be doing everything you're pinning on them, because recall that you said these things were being done by a Nazi regime, it should be pretty fucking trivial to muster literally anything to support your claims and shut me up. Just one piece of actual genuine evidence that there's a Nazi regime in Ukraine, and you'd shut the whole thing down. Instead, you'd rather invest all this time to belittle me and pretend I'm not openly presenting an opportunity to change my mind. The best evidence I've seen so far is maybe all of 50 dudes around flags in half a dozen photos at most. Given that asking for evidence of Nazis is more likely to see me verbally abused than to see me actually being shown that there are Nazis in Ukraine, I can only assume that some people are very interested in lying about Nazis in Ukraine. Otherwise, if there were genuinely a massive Nazi problem in Ukraine, surely its opponents would be more open to spreading word of the problem.
You’re spending an awful lot of time and effort to talk shit about how I’m allegedly not engaging in good faith, but if these Nazis were rampant enough to be doing everything you’re pinning on them, because recall that you said these things were being done by a Nazi regime, it should be pretty fucking trivial to muster literally anything to support your claims and shut me up.
This is one sentence. You are exhausting.
Let me put it more on your level, then.
You spend much time talk shit. Could spend half minute, find proof, shut me up good. If many Nazis doing Nazi things, should be easy.
Why would I reward a child for their bad behavior by giving them what they want?
I have given you countless opportunities and reminders of how and why you're being a piece of shit.
If you want to be treated better act better.
Go ahead and gargle my balls and never reply again. Someone actually showed up, delivered a bunch of sources, and I learned the problem was worse than I thought it was. Still nowhere near as bad as Russia and many in here want me to believe, but worse than I thought when I came in here. I'd say speaking with you was a complete and utter waste of my time, but since the other guy actually provided the info, I'll settle for telling you to shut the fuck up, gargle my balls, and please never defile my inbox with your inane replies again.
Russia is clearly after the Donbass, not all of Ukraine. Elections will persist even after the almost certain conclusion, that being full annexing of the 4 oblasts. This is the sensible outcome, considering western Ukraine coup'd the president supported by the Donbass region in a Banderite takeover:
Since the Banderite coup in 2014, Ukraine has been in a civil war where Kiev has been ethnically cleansing the Donbass region. The Minsk agreements were both tanked by Ukraine and the west, meaning diplomatic solutions to the Civil War were tried, and failed.
If Russia is clearly only after Donbass, why did they open by trying to seize the capital?
They didn't seriously try to take the capital, and even if by miracle they did, the purpose is to end the war then and there. Right now they are focusing on attrition, wearing Ukraine down slowly.
If it is so, why are they bombing and loosing personnel in Sumy or Kharkiv?
Do you think in war you only attack what you directly plan on taking?
- Even when you routinely bomb civilians?
- In your logic there's nothing that can disapprove your position. Good luck Mr. Gorsky.
Are you referring to Kiev shelling civilians in the Donbass region for 8 years, prompting Russia's entry into the war? Also, no clue why you're calling me Mr. Gorsky, are you accusing me of being Russian just because I think the people in Donetsk and Luhansk are human?
fuelled by the inflow of foreign fighters and weapons from the Russian Federation, accounts for the majority of violations of the right to life in Ukraine over the last two years
On April 12th 2014, a Russian citizen and FSB undercover officer Igor Strelkov led a group of Russian soldiers to take over Slov'yansk. Before that he was participating in annexation of Crimea which also leg to killings and torture of Ukrainian and Crimean tatar civilians and activists. He was later supported by regular Russian troops.
Since 2022 Russian aggression destroyed hundreds of cities and towns, including but not limited to Bakhmut, Mariupol, Avdiivka, Vuhledar, Soledar, Popasna. They forced mobilisation of local civilians which lead to death of est. 20-25 thousands of forcefully mobilized civilians. How about morning them and not a fantasy of a report you can't comprehend starting from the opening.
I'm aware that the UN report tries to blame Russia for Kiev killing civilians and separatists, but it's still nice to see them admit that Kiev was massacring civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk. The west coup'd the democratically elected president, and installed a Banderite government. It's no surprise that they'd be seceded from and that this gov would then try to force these same people they've ethnically repressed back into Ukraine.
No, I didn't. You seem awfully content to ignore that Kiev was caught killing thousands of civilians.
Ok, earlier you started that Russia is willing to take only Donbass. Is Zaporizhzha and Kherson a part of it?
Do you think in war you only attack what you directly plan on taking?
I've already answered, though. Russia is working on wearing down Ukraine's arms and forces in a war of attrition, spreading them thinner and thinner and advancing slowly and thoroughly.
Show me where you answered the specific question please. Is Kherson and Zaporizhzha part of Donbass?
I quite literally answered it in the same comment you're replying to:
Russia is working on wearing down Ukraine’s arms and forces in a war of attrition, spreading them thinner and thinner and advancing slowly and thoroughly.
War is not "take XYZ land and then you've got it," it's a battle between two powers. Even if your goal is to annex certain territory, in this case the four Oblasts that Russia has made clear it intends in taking, taking land outside of the four Oblasts weakens Ukraine's ability to launch counteroffensives and stage troops. It does not mean Russia will keep every bit of land they take. Further, it also gives Russia leverage in treaties.
This is incredibly simple and I'm astounded that you're making me repeat this in ever-simpler terms.
Jesus, that's some denialism. Yes or no is a simple answer yet you go at chatgp lengths to avoid it.
What? I answered you numerous times, directly, in ever-simpler terms. That's not "chatGPT length," it's a single paragraph of explanation.
I'll dumb it down for you. The question you are asked is a yes/no type of question.
The question is: Is Zaporizhzha and Kherson part of Donbass.
You have choice:
- Yes, Zaporizhzha and Kherson are Donbass.
- No, Zaporizhzha and Kherson are not Donbass
If you only can show where you gave one of those answers, I will concede. Not your strategic vision of how to wage a genocidal war, just a single question.
They are usually considered to be in the Donbass region, yes. Your question has no relevance beyond the context of Russia's strategy, don't play ignorant.
Leverage my man
And you think Russia would have just traded it back for Donbass? Lol. Lmao, even.
No I think they would and did use it to apply political pressure and relieve military pressure from other fronts by drawing enemy reserves. "Trade it for the Donbas" what are you nine?
My point is that Russia definitely wanted it, and they definitely wouldn't have come off of it if they conquered it. Pretending it was just a feint or that they didn't really want the capital is just whitewashing Russia's war of conquest.
This is you deciding what you want to be true in the face of all evidence to the contrary to preserve the very simplistic good guys/bad guys narrative you prefer.
lmao okay
Laundering your talking points as text on an image does not a meme make
That's literally what a political meme is
I was being kind to this low effort post
He didn't suspend elections. However he did rig them
Well, that's an insta-block.
lol if you think Venezuela is not a dictatorship.
Venezuela is more democratic than western countries. Why is it that westerners demonize revolutionaries for not following the political process, and demonize electoralists for following the political process anyways? Because both are threats to capital.
...maybe because many westerners are worried about losing their democracy? I mean, when democracies Fall, they usually don't make room for better democracies, historically speaking.
Westerners in general don't have democracy, capitalists have democracy in the west. That's why the implementation of socialism is necessary, bringing democracy to the working classes and kicking out the capitalists.
Just because the majority of the people in a country disagree with you doesn't mean it's not a democracy. In many western countries there are (still) free and fair elections. This is verifiable. But democracy lives off of active participation, and there are people (read: fascists) who see democracy as a threat and do everything they can to sow FUD in order to reduce election participation.
Elections are not indicative of democracy. The fact that capital is what determines which parties are viable, what candidates are allowed to run, and controls the entire economy means that elections in capitalism are more of a pressure valve than an actual way to get your voice across. Capitalism is incompatible with working class democracy.
How the hell are elections not indicative of democracy? I mean, just because you have elections doesn't mean you have a proper democracy (e.g. if there is only one party available), but how those elections are run says a lot. They're the core of any democracy. Democracy is, by definition, the people being ruled by the people. So you need some form of governance that is accountable to the people.
And capital is far from the only thing that determines if parties are viable. Yes, it plays too much of a role (especially in the US, but there are many western countries that aren't the US), but let's not pretend it's some mysterious being that decides everything. That ignores so many important factors.
Elections aren't democracy, as you said democracy is rule by the majority. Pluralism, the ability to choose between parties, isn't actually democracy either. A single party system can be more democratic if it's a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China (though China obviously has many, many elections). That also doesn't mean pluralism is inherently antidemocratic, countries like the DPRK have multiple political parties with seats (even if the majority are held by the WPK), just that the will of the majority be upheld.
In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society. The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them, or instead have strong grassroots support and work against the state (such as the Bolsheviks). Choosing between any number of capitalist parties doesn't mean workers are going to be represented. No western country represents the will of the majority.
A single party system can be more democratic if it's a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China
Oh really? How do you hold the people in power accountable, then, if they're part of the only party that is allowed to exist (which that party itself decided, what a coincidence!)?
In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society.
False, that is the result of capitalism when it goes unchecked, not the definition. And different countries have different levels of checks on capitalism.
The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them
Yeah, no, that's not the case. Otherwise explain to me how many western countries have leftist parties and even marxist-leninist parties. It's just not the will of the majority. Which leads me back to the point: your (or even my) satisfaction with the results don't measure how democratic a country is, despite the FUD spread by authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians to destabilize democracies by encouraging people to not participate.
Oh really? How do you hold the people in power accountable, then, if they’re part of the only party that is allowed to exist (which that party itself decided, what a coincidence!)?
Recall elections, consultative democracy, electing candidates, etc.
False, that is the result of capitalism when it goes unchecked, not the definition. And different countries have different levels of checks on capitalism.
Capitalism cannot be "checked." Capitalism inevitably tends towards centralization of the essential means of production and distribution into fewer and fewer hands, but even in the earliest stages capitalists were far outnumbered by workers.
Yeah, no, that’s not the case. Otherwise explain to me how many western countries have leftist parties and even marxist-leninist parties. It’s just not the will of the majority. Which leads me back to the point: your (or even my) satisfaction with the results don’t measure how democratic a country is, despite the FUD spread by authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians to destabilize democracies by encouraging people to not participate.
Very few leftist parties can get anything done in western countries because the media is largely controlled by capitalists, and the state itself serves capitalists. Taking PSL as an example, a great deal more people agree with their positions than the ~1% of the vote they receive, but they are either actually barred from running, or receive a tiny portion of the vote due to not wanting to spoil your vote, as well as a lack of positive publicity from media (or any publicity, for that matter).
And if PSL or any other socialist party ever becomes large enough to receive a substantial percentage of the vote, we'll see the mask of humanity fall from the face of capital. Not that that should stop us from organizing.
Yep, more naked repression will happen, but on the flip side size is also a strength. It protects people.
consultative democracy
Yes, but who enforces the consulting and the usage of the information gathered from consulting? Without accountability, that's just fantasy and/or simping for authoritarianism. Let's not forget, every authoritarian leader, party or Organisation has its supporters who will claim they're not authoritarian.
Capitalism inevitably tends towards centralization of the essential means of production and distribution into fewer and fewer hand
Except when it doesn't. There are plenty of examples where countries that have capitalism based economies moved significantly to the left. Look at Nordic countries, for instance.
Very few leftist parties can get anything done in western countries because the media is largely controlled by capitalists
What about all the public broadcasters? There are many countries where they're quite strong. And as to parties getting things done, what about:
- Minimum wages
- Welfare systems
- Massive improvements in workplace safety
- Universal healthcare
- Childcare
I could go on and on, but that's not the point. The point is that fascists are trying to weaken the electoral system because they know how effective it can be. Otherwise, they wouldn't give a fuck. And part of the way they do that is by downplaying its efficacy in order to wear it down and eventually get rid of it.
who enforces the consulting and the usage of the information gathered from consulting?
The electorate through their votes at the town/city and county levels, participation in unions and other groups like ethnic advocacy groups etc, and participation in the CPPCC, and protests directed over over real issues instead of broad colour revolution tier nonsense, to name a few avenues.
Look at Nordic countries, for instance.
May have moved left at home (if you ignore the rising austerity, racism and general shifting right they are experiencing alongside the rest of Europe) but they are more than happy to join in imperialism and neocolonialism abroad to finance what little compromises remain.
authoritarian
Could you please define this. As it stands authoritarian is the thought terminating cliche of choice for the unintelligent and uneducated to avoid having to investigate and reckon with the questions of substance such as class content of the state, state form, satisfaction of the people with the government etc.
Could you please define this. As it stands authoritarian is the thought terminating cliche of choice for the unintelligent and uneducated to avoid having to investigate and reckon with the questions of substance such as class content of the state, state form, satisfaction of the people with the government etc.
Normally I don't respond to low level comments like this, but the intellectual laziness here is mind boggling. Dictionaries exist for a reason.
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party, the military, or the concentration of power in a single person.
Authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people. The term authoritarianism is often used to denote any form of government that is not democratic, but studies have demonstrated that there is a great deal of variation in authoritarian rule.
Authoritarianism: The belief that people must obey completely and not be allowed freedom to act as they wish
Authoritarianism: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority [OR] of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
So which definition did you mean? Or did you have your own definition? Or is it possible that you now can see how it is such a broadly defined term as to be largely meaningless outside of thought terminating cliche? You incredibly smug shithead.
"No, I can't define it"
Yes, but who enforces the consulting and the usage of the information gathered from consulting? Without accountability, that’s just fantasy and/or simping for authoritarianism. Let’s not forget, every authoritarian leader, party or Organisation has its supporters who will claim they’re not authoritarian.
The people hold them accountable, through the mechanisms I described previously. "Authoritarianism" is not a thing, all states are tools of the ruling class to oppress the rest, they are necessarily uplifting one class and oppressing the rest. Socialist states have the working classes as the ruling class.
Except when it doesn’t. There are plenty of examples where countries that have capitalism based economies moved significantly to the left. Look at Nordic countries, for instance.
Nordic countries offer sizable concessions to their working classes because the Soviets were right next to them, and already offered better safety nets. These are concessions, to prevent revolution, and are funded through imperialism and neocolonialism. The working classes do not actually hold state power. These countries are still highly centralized, dominated by finance capital, and rely on the export of capital to the global south along with huge megacorps plundering the global south to persist as they are. To get rid of imperialism and keep safery nets requires socialism.
What about all the public broadcasters? There are many countries where they’re quite strong. And as to parties getting things done, what about:
Minimum wages Welfare systems Massive improvements in workplace safety Universal healthcare Childcare
The state serves private interests in capitalism, this is why nationalizing within a capitalist economy is not socialism, and privatization within a socialist economy is not necessarily a restoration or capitalism. Public broadcasters are not representatives of the working classes, and you're again giving examples of concessions given largely because of working class organization, not through the "democratic processes."
I could go on and on, but that’s not the point. The point is that fascists are trying to weaken the electoral system because they know how effective it can be. Otherwise, they wouldn’t give a fuck. And part of the way they do that is by downplaying its efficacy in order to wear it down and eventually get rid of it.
Fascism is a result of the decay in capitalism and imperialism, and is where neocolonial methods are turned inwards. That's what causes fascism to rise.
The people hold them accountable, through the mechanisms I described previously
So, free and fair elections. Well, now we're back to square one, and pretty much describing how Western democracies work.
Nordic countries offer sizable concessions to their working classes because the Soviets were right next to them, and already offered better safety nets.
Ah, yes, the soviet Union, definitely not imperialist. Sarcasm aside, they literally did not allow their population to leave. They killed people who dared to leave. That's not a sign of things going well, to mention just one.
The state serves private interests in capitalism
Just because you repeat it a hundred times doesn't make it true. The very mechanisms you described are used (with varying degrees of success depending on how well the democracy functions) to keep the state accountable to the people.
you're again giving examples of concessions given largely because of working class organization, not through the "democratic processes."
So then why are these mostly things that parties campaigned on, got voted into power for and then implemented?
Fascism is a result of the decay in capitalism and imperialism
That's a very, very broad interpretation that many historians would disagree with. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's the case. How do these capitalist structures decay into imperialism then?
So, free and fair elections. Well, now we’re back to square one, and pretty much describing how Western democracies work.
Nope. You're making a metaphysical error, focusing on similar structures while ignoring the entirely different context, the class character of the state. The mechanisms of elections exist within a definite social context, and in the case of capitalism, capitalists definitionally hold power over the media, production itself, and more to gain what they want. The state exists to serve the ruling class.
Ah, yes, the soviet Union, definitely not imperialist. Sarcasm aside, they literally did not allow their population to leave. They killed people who dared to leave. That’s not a sign of things going well, to mention just one.
The Soviet Union was not imperialist, correct.
The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.
Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.
Death rates spiked:
And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:
Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and this is why the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries. A lot of Eastern European countries were swarmed with western capital during the destruction of socialism, which is what temporarily caused the rise of the far-right in these countries, but in time their problems will no longer be able to be ignored.
Just because you repeat it a hundred times doesn’t make it true. The very mechanisms you described are used (with varying degrees of success depending on how well the democracy functions) to keep the state accountable to the people.
This isn't true, though. Concessions come from organized resistance, at the consent of the ruling class. Capitalists do not fear the state, the state serves them. What the people actually want is not what the state does, what happens is the state fulfills the will of the ruling classes and tosses the crumbs they deem necessary to keep the populace from outright revolting. This is why organization gains concessions, not the bourgeois democratic structure.
That’s a very, very broad interpretation that many historians would disagree with. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s the case. How do these capitalist structures decay into imperialism then?
I believe you mean fascism, not imperialism, so correct me if I'm answering the wrong question. The decay into fascism generally happens when the state begins nakedly applying colonial methods to the domestic population. In the US, for example, this involves mass incarceration of ethnic minorities, attacks on queer people, mass deportations, and the attack on left wing organizations. In Germany, it involved the brown shirts killing communists, and rounding up Jews, Slavs, queer people, disabled people, and mass murdering them.
Voting doesn't stop this. Hitler was handed power, and the US has been fascist no matter which party is in control. Capitalists deem it necessary due to drops in imperialist extraction, and a need to respond to crisis that stands to upset their rule. It's like a fever that kills off anything risking the system.
Capitalism is not some mysterious being, its a phenomenon and it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. If the workplace was democratized then you would not have capitalism.
That's literally exactly what that means you fucking moron
True.. thankfully the glorious US bombed those undemocratic dictator fishing ships and invaded their country to righteously kidnap their undemocratically un-elected president and his heinous wife while killing people.
Now it gets to be a true democracy! Where their country starts going through liberalization and worsening social nets as their future is sold off to private sectors. Truly no longer a dictatorship.
2 bads don't make 1 good.
The two bads you're lumping together are mass murder and "a disreputable source didn't like how you ran that election"
Actual harm versus theoretical harm at some point in the future to a non material concept
You're deranged
And that's not even getting into the fact that the non-harm you elevate was used as justification to commit the mass murders you diminish.
Psycho.
I was pointing out the logical fallace in claiming Venezuela is not a dictotarship just because US is a horrible country.
Oh okay so you were just ignoring how the outside world is the context for this conversation.
So you're just a fundamentally dishonest and unserious person. And you're actively defending the side the murders in the hundreds while attacking the side getting murdered.
The US has done a whole lot more than 1 fucking bad
I know. What's your point? I'm not claiming US is a utopia, or have done no harm, I'm not even doing any claim about US. My claim is Venezuela is a dictatorship, and I think arguing "It is not, because US bad" is not a valid refutation to my claim.
My claim is Venezuela is a dictatorship
Have any proof for that claim? Or honestly even a proper analysis of the Venezuelan system and in what ways you believe it doesn't serve the people/the people aren't in control?
Maduro is so incompetent he blundered and allowed mathematical evidence of the past elections being rigged. Here's an extensive analysis of that by Terrence Tao: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2024/08/02/what-are-the-odds-ii-the-venezuelan-presidential-election/
Usa rigs almost every election in the world. Collect some evidence about this too, or you're just an imperialist propagandist (and kidnapper-bootlicker).
My claim is about Venezuela, not US.
Exactly. You only attack the enemies of usa while leaving usa's billions of crimes unadressed, making you an imperialist propagandist & kidnapper-bootlicker.
Lol you still believe what the Epstein Burger Reich tells you about other countries, that's fucking embarassing
What does this post have to do with Venezuela
First panel of the meme is about Venezuela.
When did I claim it wasn't? Why do you all have an obsession of dimissing any criticism of Venezuela with a reference to US? I'm not even from there.