What about the hypothesis that in reality Trump wants to “decouple” from China to enhance is military capability in a war on China?

I mean, it is clear to me that the US has little chance to compete on economic/innovation merit, yet it still has a considerable chance militarily… for now. The psychopaths running the US probably know they can only hope to compete via violence, and in a few years even that opportunity will be lost.

I am afraid of WW3. I really hope the US is so blinded by its own neoliberal koolaid that they continue to bet China is about to collapse, as Gordon Chang has been predicting since 2001.

Hi. What’s “ERA”?

Please see the new and improved EDIT section of my original comment. I messed up in many ways. I hope I have not burned all bridges with you hexbearites.

I messed up in many ways. Please see the new and improved EDIT section of my original comment. I hope I have not burned all bridges with you hexbearites.

I messed up. Please see the new and improved EDIT section of my original comment. I hope I did not burn all bridges with you hexbearites.

Now with hindsight, you have a point – the part about me being new to the ideology and writing what I wrote. Please read the “EDIT” section part of the original comment. I admit I messed up in many ways.

To begin with, would you please read my edit at the end of the original comment? I admit I messed up.

Regarding shutting up, is it an exaggeration for effect? Like when some ML say on the Internet “Mao did nothing wrong”, when actually he was probably 70% good, 30% bad? Honest question.

Fascism is liberalism’s plan B, as confirmed by History and by liberal theory itself.

Historically, look at Latin America (I am Brazilian). All over Latin America, when people elected leftist (not even communist) governments within the institutions of liberal democracy, the elite (with US support) staged a coup and installed a military dictatorship, effectively saying: no, the people are not allowed to choose socialism. So we hereby abolish democracy.

And Jacobin covers the justification for this under liberal theory itself:

So, important liberal thinkers insisted as early as John Locke, you can’t tax the rich without their consent. If you do so, you give the victims of these policies a good reason to rebel and use violence against the usurpers. Liberal politics thus had a dictatorial option inscribed in it from the very beginning. And so it became a dogma to assume that the main task of politics is to protect property, and its principal sin to inveigh against it. But of course, that is a very narrow definition of what politics can or should do. And we suffer from that confinement to this day. In a typical Western democracy, you can do many things — as long as you refrain from infringing on private property. [1]

In short: liberal theory itself gives absolute priority to private property (over the means of production). If it conflicts with democracy, democracy is tossed out the window.

I always clarify “over the means of production” when attacking private property. There is this widespread confusion that communist thugs are going to invade your house and confiscate your bike. AFAIK, communists don’t do that.

Fun fact: in 1989 Brazilian elections, neoliberal Collor terrorized the people saying that Lula would confiscate everyone’s savings. With infamous support from Rede Globo (massive right-wing biased media corporation), Collor won, then quickly moved to confiscate everyone’s savings. Lula was elected in 2002, 2006 and 2022, and did nothing of the sort. Sadly, Lula is not communist, but social democrat.

1: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism

Context. If you look at the terrible Allied violence in WWII, without context, you easily conclude the Allies were the villains.

Also, of course, there is widespread capitalist propaganda.

Would you say that communists should not concentrate our energies attempting to prevent liberal democracy from turning into fascism? Like supporting social-democratic parties to keep fascists away. My understanding is that liberal “democracy” has some temporary advantages over fascism, but is not worth much energy.

Fascism is more acutely violent, but also temporary. Hitler initiated a war against much of the World, which he could not win. He was also incompetent. Out of insane hubris, he bypassed his generals and military strategists, because he was the chosen genius. Allegedly he didn’t have a real strategy to defeat the British Empire. He wanted to win the war by winning battle after battle. Thus he was defeated (largely by the Red Army), and “only” some 80 million lives were lost.

Liberal “democracy”, on the other hand, kills ten million people every few years, for centuries.

Fascism is brutal, crass, and visibly hateful. Liberal “democracy” is sophisticated, less acutely violent, and is falsely compassionate, but is also more competent at preserving itself and making victims.

Hi comrade! I am new here. Anyway, what you said is confirmed by History and by liberal theory itself.

Historically, look at Latin America (I am Brazilian). All over Latin America, when people elected leftist (not even communist) governments within the institutions of liberal democracy, the elite (with US support) staged a coup and installed a military dictatorship, effectively saying: no, the people are not allowed to choose socialism. They chose socialism, so we hereby abolish democracy.

And Jacobin covers the justification for this under liberal theory itself:

So, important liberal thinkers insisted as early as John Locke, you can’t tax the rich without their consent. If you do so, you give the victims of these policies a good reason to rebel and use violence against the usurpers. Liberal politics thus had a dictatorial option inscribed in it from the very beginning. And so it became a dogma to assume that the main task of politics is to protect property, and its principal sin to inveigh against it. But of course, that is a very narrow definition of what politics can or should do. And we suffer from that confinement to this day. In a typical Western democracy, you can do many things — as long as you refrain from infringing on private property. [1]

In short: liberal theory itself gives absolute priority to private property (over the means of production). If it conflicts with democracy, then democracy is tossed out the window. Fascism is liberalism’s plan B.

I always clarify “over the means of production” when attacking private property. There is this widespread confusion that communist thugs are going to invade your house and confiscate your bike. AFAIK, communists don’t do that.

Fun fact: in 1989 Brazilian elections, neoliberal Collor terrorized the people saying that Lula would confiscate everyone’s savings. With infamous support from Rede Globo (massive right-wing biased media corporation), Collor won, then quickly moved to confiscate everyone’s savings. Lula was elected in 2002, 2006 and 2022, and did nothing of the sort. Sadly, Lula is not communist, but social democrat.

1: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism

You are welcome. It seems Lemmy lacks a reaction feature, so I upvoted your reply, and wrote this.

Is this about my comment, or am I being egocentric? In case it is about my comment, I post here some clarifications I made there:

I messed up. I misunderstood Hexbear, wrote a confusing comment, unintentionally offended you, then reacted badly to your angry replies, many of which misrepresented what I wanted to say. Now with hindsight, I ask you to read this:

1. I did not mean to accuse hexbearites of being bad like New Atheists. I wanted to use the antisocial behavior of New Atheists (fruitless anti-religious intolerance) as an anti-example. In my experience, leftists discern between “theocrat” and “religious comrade". I felt this thread was an outlier. But then I worded my comment in an confusing way, appearing to conflate you with New Atheists.

2. The accusation of loving war crimes in the Middle East is for foaming lunatic New Atheists like Sam Harris, not Hexbearites.

3. I meant that anti-religious bashing is easily misrepresented by right wing propaganda. I explicitly said that the “atheist elites” narrative is disinformation. Cubans practice their religions in peace, just not theocracy.

4. I did not mean all “true” Christians are Catholics or whatever.

I am a newbie and autistic (actual diagnosis). I care a lot for detail and took offense with misrepresentations. And I am still getting up to speed with the LGBT movement.

Today I realized this analogy. When Rede Globo (massive right-wing media corporation) sheds tears for “democracy”, I wish them go pound sand. They supported the military dictatorship for decades, and still distort reality in favor of capitalism, NATO, and Israel. Becoming softer is not enough. I would forgive them if they actually switched sides.

So I can relate to trans people who look at the historical crimes of organized religion (such as the Catholic Church), and who suffer religious hate even today, saying they will only respect the Catholic Church if she actually switches sides. Malcom X said: stop sweet talking!

I made a further big change to the “Edit” section. Would you give it a read? I apologize for taking so much of your time, but I want to clarify things. I don’t want to burn all bridges with Hexbear.

deleted by creator

Hi. I thank you for your offer, but now I have actually manually mass subscribed to all interesting community on four of my desired instances. Lemmy.ml is too big so I stopped partway.

deleted by creator

Will you be so kind as to delete your comment? I said nothing similar to what you think you refuted. Someone who skims through my comment and sees your reply would be misinformed. Misinformation is the tool of the Right.

I quote what I actually wrote:

Most of the working class is religious, and in the West that religion is Christianity

You do not refute the claim that most of the working class is religious by saying that China and India workers aren’t Christians and that USSR Party members were atheists. Both of the latter facts are true, but do not refute what I actually said.

Commenting without reading the article is bad enough. But replying without reading what you are replying to?

[Edited for clarity and to reduce aggressiveness. I did mess up the original comment (and I apologize), so I should tolerate angry replies, even replies misrepresenting what I said.]

I meant to contrast the rhetoric of two different camps (leftists vs New Atheists), to highlight counterproductive rhetoric. I mentioned chearleading for war crimes to emphasize that New Atheists are right wing fanatics who lash out at religion possibly as a cover, so they do not appear to be right wing fanatics in their liberal social circle. And that when we do anything remotely similar to New Atheism, we should at least suspect it is wrong. You read it as conflating the gravity of lashing out at religion (part of what New Atheists do) and the gravity of cheerleading for massive war crimes, which is another part of New Atheism. I apologize for the confusion and offense.

I did not mean that attacking the Catholic Church is equal to attacking the entire Christian Faith. I meant that those who attack the whole Catholic Church (instead of just Catholic theocrats) have the same attitude of those who say “evangelicals are fanatical hypocrites” instead of attacking only evangelical theocrats. Anticatholicism is not equal, but often analogous, to general antichristianity.

And many Catholics say the Church is not supposed to make a “culture war”. The Church should do spiritual work, moral education, charity, and aid social movements such as landless workers. All that is compatible with secular values. The problem is when the Church indoctrinate the Faithful into enforcing anti-trans (or homophobic) politics, claiming that unisex bathrooms are a catastrophic threat to “Christian civilization”.

The thing is: arguing against theocracy has some chance of convincing moderate Catholics to disavow theocracy. But attacking the entire Catholic Church is much more likely to cause them to hate the left and associate Marxism with New Atheism hate.