Formerly u/CanadaPlus101 on Reddit.
It sure looks a whole lot different from what Stalin was doing. If it’s secretly a different manifestation of the same underlying ideas, okay, maybe. But, there’s plenty of people who argue Dengism isn’t actually real Marxism, as well.
It’s just the most obvious word for what we’re talking about. And it’s hard to believe semantic hair-splitting could make anyone that uncomfortable.
it’s just reforms in the 80s and people argue over whether they were good or bad and how much.
I’d expect anyone familiar with Deng would know this. The trick is, it was a very significant departure from how things were before. You went straight from don’t be rich, and actually just being some kind of authority is questionable, to an era where the slogan was “to get rich is glorious”.
IIRC, there’s a school of homeopaths or chiropractors or something that still like Lamarck better. If we were talking about them, using Darwinist for the opposing majority party would make complete sense. And, if hypothetically, young earth creationists and Lamarkians were both more numerous, and both disagreed with Darwinists more than each other about what evolution is…
I don’t think socialist-who-likes-markets-and-billionares would be better. Or, to be more fair, socialist-who-likes-markets-and-billionares-in-the-unique-Chinese-context-and-character. Just saying socialists wouldn’t work, because that’s not who is meant, for the most part.
Okay, glad to hear this addressed from one of you.
According to China itself, Deng Xiaoping thought is a thing, no?
Well, the state part of state-capitalist is right out, now. Individual people own most things, and there’s weak/nonexistent regulation. When intervention happens, it’s kind of personal to whatever siloviki at whatever place in the pecking order. They can make sure you get away with stuff at one end, or voluntell extra “donations” to whatever account or puppet organisation at the other, and often do both.
(And, it’s run by the people who killed the USSR, so you shouldn’t like both)
Okay. Mao wouldn’t have been on here shitposting; he’d be organising IRL. Be more like Mao. OP might at least be able to plead disinterest in any actual results.
Some other readers are going to think this is bad, because I’m telling you to be a terrorist. That’s not it exactly; if you go into real life organising spaces out of earnest moral-ideological concern, you’re mostly going to learn. The people who immediately shoot something up, at random, were always looking to shoot something up, because it’s not actually a good political strategy.
It’s definitely more shitposting. Keep it up! /s
(That applies to both of you, but only one is comparing themselves to Mao)
Do they? It seems more like they’re looking for a noble-seeming outlet for a bunch of very harmful impulses. Like, if they were just worried about Palestine or inequality, there’s much less outrageous and much more effective ways to go about it. Instead, they shitpost.
And real Hitler isn’t even on the list!
I’d respond seriously, but you designed that comment not to be readable, so why bother.
Yeah, that one was a stretch. Liking Putin or Dugin, on the other hand, at least makes you adjacent.
Their left-wing identity does not prevent them from being ardent admirers of the fascist ideologue Alexander Dugin and Nazi sympathizer Martin Heidegger.
It’s because the socialist stuff is decoration, and none of the socialist tenets, say about equality or tolerance, actually matters to them. It’s a conspiracy group, a la flat Earth, just one that inverts geopolitics rather than physics.
They’re still here, and the anarchists are still here. It seems like every other serious actor on the left has been reabsorbed into Liberalism, with the end of the Cold War.
I guess, if he’s cool and right, why would you dislike being associated with him? Like, if we were talking animal biology, and someone called me a Darwinist, my main thought would be “oh no, and you’re not?”.
There’s a few things like that, where they’re weirdly bashful about their own ideas, despite being in an online space where a big part of the point is that they can openly believe whatever, and maybe the mods even agree with them.
Which is confusing as hell, because they unironically like Deng and think everything he said was great.
The main risk seems like it would be pranks. You can definitely buy other unpleasant odours for pranks, and if the point is to make people thing there’s an emergency, smoke would also work.
Hmm. I wonder if they all got it on the same trip, or at least in the same spot.
Several?
Are you in a naked backcountry hiking club, or something?
If you’re attracted to women, and still thinking of him as a woman, probably not. But also, it’s a homosexual relationship.
Labels don’t actually mean anything, though.
Yes, it really does. It makes me want to do things. If I wasn’t tracking that some percent of my natural lifespan is gone now, I might be inclined to just hang out and do whatever, like when I was a kid.
I actually still do want to leave some kind of legacy, although who knows how much of one is realistic. It just seems like a reasonable goal, when there actually are no defined goals. There’s a moral dimension to that, too; if the world is just ever so slightly better because of me, that’s good.
(Since I’m about to concede morality is not actually very strong, I should make a note that an individual person still can follow a moral system. You tend to pick a worldview that allows you to do what you want, though, and most people, who aren’t fixated on minutiae, will juggle a few)
Failing that, seizing the day, and learning or experiencing everything I can is important.
I don’t consider myself depressed but after seeing and reading what humans do to other humans I don’t trust the better angels of our nature can make the world a better place.
The interesting thing about history is that it demonstrates very starkly that humans have no firm morality, but it’s also ended (as in, so far) with a couple hundred years of actual progress. Clearly, we don’t have to actually be good, or at least naturally be good, for good outcomes to happen.
Don’t take that the wrong way, it still all could go terribly. But, it’s more complicated than just “we build what we are”.
Oh, it was in an interview with Laura Loomer. The original headline rule is there for a reason, but in this case “Zelensky shills to the US” would be the real one. (Even if that’s not exactly surprising)
Maybe some text in the body would have helped.
In China, where there’s money and lives on the line over any disagreements, that would probably be true.
If you’re an American holed up on Lemmy, it’s pretty easy to just say “I like this guy and not the other one”, and they do. Or at least, the vast majority of them, and internally.