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.
Cowbee [he/they]
- 4 Posts
- 11.7K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: December 31st, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I think the texts written by socialists building socialism are valuable insights into the actual struggles run into when building socialism. I also believe labeling them “counter-revolutionaries” without demonstrating how and why this is the case is an entirely ineffective means of argument, I’ve already made it clear that I consider socialist states to be real, and I back up those claims with historical and theoretical evidence when needed. Simply saying “no” is not an argument, and telling me I’m removed from praxis and reality when I know this isn’t the case is naked Ad Hominem.
Do you earnestly think insult is any way to motivate someone to revisit theory they’ve already read? In absence of any recommendation on your part, I have very little reason to revisit what I’ve come to disagree with, beyond making sure that my understanding is still correct and seeing if there’s anything useful for me.
What “anarchist power level” do I need in order to have a conversation with you? How do you go about gaining comrades if this is how you treat those asking for recommendations?
I don’t blame you, just found it especially funny!
Sure, a lot has indeed happened. I don’t think it invalidates my question.
Vanguards do not proclaim themselves as such, they become them through popular support from the people. This is not mere tautology, a vanguard cannot succeed in its aims alone, it requires the rest of the proletariat to rally behind it and legitimize it. It cannot be self-legitimizing.
I’ve read a fair bit from there, I used to be an anarchist many years ago. Do you have anything specific that’s relevant to the discussion here?
What “obvious reasons?” The fact that socialist theory and history from socialists actually building socialism happens to back up their reasoning in most cases? There’s also critique and discussion of problems in existing socialism coming from AES countries as well. This is an utterly self-defeating argument that only validates those most removed from the actual practice of building socialism.
Again, to stress, your point is that we should inherently distrust those building socialism in real life, and only accept theory from those that are utterely disengaged from practice.
Further, there’s no critical examination of the merits of socialist theory and history produced by socialist countries on your part, the very fact that they are produced by the people actively building socialism is enough to discredit them in your views. Can you not see the logical trap? If you succeeded in building socialism and spoke about your experiences, successes, and failures, you would have to discredit yourself as fanfiction!
Should the merit of theory not be tested through practice?
I’ll acknowledge you now!
What makes you think support for China is entirely uncritical?
Not based, baseless. The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is a group of Chinese diaspora living in the west, and they compiled an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims. The majority of their sourcing is western, and they cite official Chinese government writing and white papers when relevant. Uyghur culture is preserved.
I also recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China’s response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail.These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does. Zenz’ work has been thoroughly discredited, yet is supported by western media for its utility in fearmongering. An example is lying about 8.7% of new IUDs as 80%, to back up claims of “forced sterilization,” from this chart:
Communists aren’t going to leave Lemmy, not sure why you expect them to.
I wish I had the comically large communism bag 😔
I really do believe that it’s the best way, and I believe that’s precisely why it seems to make people more upset. When reactionaries can’t effectively counter what you’re saying, and cannot dismiss you based on civility, they reach sharp contradictions between what they believe to be true and what they are seeing running against that. This causes stark reaction as the only way to cope.
Just what I’ve noticed.
Thanks so much, comrade!
I appreciate the kind words!
I was referring to this question:
Russia entering the war at the request of the DPR and LPR is an extension of that question, when faced with a regime intent on ethnically cleansing the Donbass region the people of the DPR and LPR extended a request for support.
As for saying vanguard parties deriving their support from the people, I already explained this is not circular. The monarchy was a small class that wielded the power of the feudal state to keep the peasantry in line, and were thus entitled to vast riches.
Vanguard parties are formed from within the working classes, succeed in revolution only through mass revolt, and once taking political power in the hands of the working classes have the same class interests as the rest of the proletariat, that being collectivization of production and distribution in the hands of the socialist state. Administrators are wage laborers, not owners of capital, and thus are not a unique owning class but instead a subsection of the proletariat.
It isn’t even true that people living in socialist countries perceive administration as a unique class. The majority of people who lived in Eastern European socialism regret its fall, the broad majority supported their government and played an active role in running society.