• randint@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re the one that tells everyone you don’t agree with to go watch Fox News. Just in case you didn’t know, that is not a compelling argument at all.

      • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If they just want to hear they are right and the conservatives are correct then I think they ought to go engage with those nuts on that “news”. You lot obviously have fallen for that bullshit so may as well continue to waste your life watching it since it’s obviously true to you. You are just some conservative roll who can fuck right off

        • Comment105@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, cause commies don’t dream of a better future. They seize the means of production, put you to work, and then creatively fuck with you and forcibly shut your whiny ass up if you try to say something stupid.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How is this acceptable discourse? Do you even see yourself? Why are you even here?

              • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If people werent Ukraine defending Nazis then there might not be an issue. If you can’t handle someone having a different opinion then get off the internet

                • BigNote@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not what I said though, is it? I’m talking about you, your anger, and the fact that whatever your position may be, lashing out at people with such vitriol is counterproductive and shows you to be completely un-self-aware.

                  As they say, go touch grass. You are completely off your rocker.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Very interesting how all those “pretend socialists” only exist in the third world, and all the “real socialists” existin the west. Yet all the successful revolutions have been done in the third world by “pretend socialists”, and the so called “real socialists” in the west have accomplished nothing. Their biggest success of the “real socialists” in the west being capitalist welfare states or social democracies that rely on old school imperial relationships to fund their welfare in a select few areas.

    No Eurocentrism present to this line of thought here at all…

    What do you think of Nelson Mandela OP? He was a very good leader, right? You know that he considered Cuba an ally and supported their revolution as Cuba sent troops to fight against the apartheid government in the border wars, took inspiration from Mao and called the Chinese revolution a miracle, thanked the Soviets for giving unending support in the fight against apartheid while receiving the a Lenin Peace Prize? So is Nelson Mandela now a fascist according to your meme?

    • original_ish_name@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nelson Mandela was not a great man. At least not great enough to be so admired while F.W De Klerk had his funeral protested (F.W De Klerk helped end Apartheid).

      Nelson Mandela did no more besides be a figurehead and help make a constitution that no one (not even when he was in power) follows. The ANC is corrupt to this day

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m South African, I know who F.W de Klerk is. Don’t lie about what he did, there’s a reason he was unanimously booed while receiving his joint noble peace prize. He didn’t help end apartheid, he was forced into a position where it was the only viable option. Pure pragmatism. He was a member of the NP for many years, he willingly joined that organisation at the height of apartheid in 1972. If he was actually interested in ending fighting apartheid, he would have joined a liberation movement, not the apartheid party.

        de Klerk was an apartheid president that was so corrupt he ordered the incineration of evidence of his, and his parties, corruption and crimes against humanity to be carried out by industrial steel smelters. Not to mention what he did with all the “third force” shenanigans towards the end of apartheid that almost caused civil war. It’s been revealed that he knew all about it. Or all the racist things he said later in life that revealed his true character, such as refusing to call apartheid a crime against humanity. Yes, I also used to be a liberal that thought de Klerk was a good guy that helped end apartheid, that was until I actually decided to do some research into the matter. Nelson Mandela said it best when it comes to de Klerk:

        “Despite his seemingly progressive actions, Mr de Klerk was by no means the great emancipator…He did not make any of his reforms with the intention of putting himself out of power. He made them for precisely the opposite reason: to ensure power for the Afrikaner in a new dispensation.”

        Yes the ANC is now extremely corrupt, it was effectively couped by corporate interests in the late 90s and early 2000s. Remember the move from RPD to GEAR? Thabo Mbeki and Trevor Manuel? Ramaphosa running away to make money in McDonalds and mining instead of succeeding Mandela? Leaving the door open for Mbeki to become president, a self described Thacherite who instituted austerity measures, underfund Eskom and give South Africa it’s first bout of load shedding, and denied that HIV causes AIDS, killing hundreds of thousands in the process? This all paved the way for Zuma’s corruption and ineptitude, and for Ramaphosa to come back, even after his shameful involvement in Marikana. Yes the ANC is shamefully corrupt, incompetent and useless, and it’s interesting to look at exactly how it got to that position.

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree. Fascist countries like Denmark, Germany and Canada often get called “socialist” and they have been disastrous for the reputation of socialism.

    • Plibbert@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m confused, are you saying he’s using it wrong?

      Here’s a copy paste from Webster.

      often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

      Replace the word race with party and you’ve got an incomplete yes, but not necessarily inaccurate description of Stalins USSR.

      Seriously not trying to just be a troll or shill here, so if you feel I’m wrong please let me know how and why. I am legitimately, in good faith, curious about the perspectives of some communist here. It is an ideology I am somewhat interested in.

      • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can’t just swap words out and assume the framework is the same. It literally makes no sense. Changing one word can, and does, have a huge effect on overall meaning of a sentence.

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Replace the word race with party

        That’s a pretty significant difference, don’t you think? Exalting racism and exalting a political organization that opposes racism are diametrically opposed things, not equivalent.

        • Plibbert@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not saying it is a fair exchange, you are correct. But do keep in mind the wording in the definition is “often”. My suggestion of replacement was to emphasize that race is not a requirement to the definition, it’s just pointing out that it is usually the characteristic used to define who is the most loyal or desired type of citizen. From what I understand party loyalty could be definitely be applied there.

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There’s a reason that race is included though, and that reason is that fascism aims to strengthen and reinforce existing hierarchies. That generally includes race, gender, sexual orientation, class, disabilities, etc. Theoretically it’s conceivable that you could have a political project that includes all of that except for race, but in practice it’s extremely unlikely that a fascist project would exclude it, which is why it’s mentioned in the definition.

            Communists (esp. Marxist-Leninists) believe in using political power to reduce or remove these hierarchies, even if it requires the use of force. For instance, I think it’s good that slave owners in the US were forcibly suppressed and the people they enslaved were liberated. Does that “willingness to forcibly suppress the opposition” make me (and Lincoln) a fascist, even though my goals and values are completely opposite to those of fascists?

            If “the opposition” in your definition is taken to include groups that would also forcibly suppress their opposition given the opportunity, then it seems that Webster’s has unintentionally baked in assumptions from which the only conclusion is something like anarcho-pacifism, while labelling all states as inherently fascist. This is either a bad definition, or a bad interpretation of the definition.

            • Plibbert@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is a good point. It’s a really interesting application of the tolerance paradox. This is some good perspective I’m getting, glad I made this comment thread.

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Replace the word race with party and you’ve got an incomplete yes, but not necessarily inaccurate description of Stalins USSR.

        Replace the Sodium in Sodium Chloride with Hydrogen and OH GOD IT BURNS IT BURNS OW OW OW OW!

      • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A different response, which comes from a different angle to those pointing out that Marxism-Leninism is not fascist:

        The word ‘fascism’ is used so fast and loosely outside of a technical context that I wouldn’t say one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong. It depends on context. (Incidentally, same for ‘socialism’, even principled well-read communists can’t agree on a definition.)

        For example, if we’re talking about the actual Fascist ideology (think of Mussolini and associates) then I would even hesitate to include Nazism due to the very different roots: they’re both nationalist anti-liberal anti-democratic, anti-socialist ‘third way’ ideologies and they did ally in the war, sure, but to group them both as ‘fascism’ trivializes core differences in how they formed, why they successfully formed, how they appealed to their followers (fascism actually recruited many self-identifying socialists in Italy and its important to recognise why to prevent it), and why they were ultimately antisocial and unsuccessful in their goals.

        This isn’t just some academic masturbation nitpicking or anything: I believe that the ignorance of Classical Fascism by lumping it in with the far more obvious and baseless idiocy of Nazism makes it harder to recognize and counter, especially when neo-Nazis are such ridiculous cartoonish farces. Fascism stemmed from National Syndicalism and has core economic ideas like corporatism (from ‘corpus’) that could fool people, and sounds much less stupid that Hitler’s bizzare esoteric fantasies about Aryan racial supremacy: even Mussolini considered Hitler crazy.

        The point of me making this distinction is that the dictionary definition you gave isn’t even wrong in describing fascist ideologies, but, I don’t think that list of common traits should be mistaken for a definition. Those traits are the results, not the foundation of the ideology, and a neo-liberal state like the USA can easily match many of those traits despite being a very distinct ideology. Any you will absolutely see people saying ‘USA is fascist’ as a shorthand for nationalist, racist, imperialist, oppressive, blah blah blah, but it’s definitely not post-National-Syndicalist faux-socialist corporatist collectivism. We should obviously fight both but they are not the same and manifest differently.

      • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Personally I like the definition that the historian Robert O. Paxton uses. Now, he’s a liberal, but he does have good insight into fascism and he doesn’t fall into that trap of deciding that communists and fascists must be the same thing. His definition isn’t materialist, but it’s a good start.

        To paraphrase, his definition is “a suppression of the left among popular sentiment.” By left he means things like socialists, labor organizations, communists, etc. Fascism is a situation where a country has found its theater of democracy has failed and the capitalists need anything at all to keep themselves in power, even if it means cannibalizing another sector of capitalists. The fascists are the ideological contingent of this, who put forward a policy of class collaboration between working class and capitalist, instead of what socialists propose, which is working class dominance in the economy. Fascists exalt nationality or race because that extends through class sentiments. It brushes aside concerns like internal economic contradictions. I once had a comrade say something like “Fascism is capitalists hitting the emergency button until their hand starts bleeding.”

        Communists using a vanguard party is to defend their own interests against capitalists or outside invaders. The praise of the CPSU in Stalin’s era was precisely because it acted as a development and protection tool for the working class. It did its job and people were wary of any return to the previous Tsarist or liberal governments. Women began going to school, women were given the vote for the first time. Pogroms ceased. In less than one lifetime of the CPSU administrating the country, people went from poor farmers to living in apartments with plumbing, heating, and clean medical care. That’s why there was such praise of the party, because they actually did things people liked, and they didn’t want anything to threaten them.

        Also, what does it matter if there’s one party or two? The working class have a singular, uniting interest to overthrow capitalism. Why are multiple parties needed? Anything the working class needs to negotiate for can be handled within a socialist, democratic structure, not two or three competing structures against one another. Take a look at Cuba, which has one party, but doesn’t use their party to endorse candidates. Everyone’s officially an independent in the National Assembly.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If i remember his book correctly, at start he explicitly denies marxist definition of fascism, and then in course of the book his research lead straight to it being correct on at least two separate occasions, them makes full stop and end the topic when he realise what would he have to write next.

              I don’t know if thats merely ritually exorcising communism in order to have his book accepted by liberal academia (like in case of Geza Alfoldy for example) or he really is this intellectually dishonest, because he clearly did realised. Anyway it was funny as hell and the book isn’t even bad.

              • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Possibly because of the way he’s found his career. Paxton is very popular in France and was very instrumental in introducing liberal historiography into French WW2 history. For him to throw a bone to Marxists would be undermining how he earned a name for himself in the first place.

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah i see that in polish social sciences too, especially by older authors, it’s hard here to keep position in the academia without paying at least lip service to anticommunist witchhunt. Unfortunately even those people are already dead and the new ones are not even shy about being opportunists, most books publish nowadays are almost worthless since it’s either anticommunist propaganda, pophistory or bland compilations from older ones.

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uhhh the “National Socialist” Party was fascist, right? Entities posing as socialist CAN lie and actually be fascist, correct? Or is this western propaganda too?

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The original meme listed communist movements and people, which are what this edited meme is referring to. It’s possible for fascists to pretend to be socialists, but the things and people referenced were not that.

      • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uhhh the “National Socialist” Party was fascist, right? Entities posing as socialist CAN lie and actually be fascist, correct? Or is this western propaganda too?

        Wait 'til you learn that urinal cakes aren’t yummy baked treats

      • ThisMachineKillsFascists [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lmao how many people own the means of production in Scandinavia?

        It certainly isn’t a democracy, given that they’re a capitalist country where the oligarchy of wealthy companies get more say than the average person.

        Again, what do you think socialism is? What do you think fascism is for that matter?

      • Robaque@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The nordic model is a hybrid of social democracy (liberal, not socialist) and corporatism (definitely not socialist).

        All forms of socialism, from anarchism / libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to marxism-leninism, are fundamentally anti-capitalist. The sooner you get this the sooner you’ll stop making a fool of yourself.

        • Vuraniute@thelemmy.clubOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand that, but some people say “hey Scandinavia kinda socialist though” and you know what? Scandinavia is in general a decent place. Also, as another commenter said, Sweden got a 100/100 on the democracy index and there is a list of government owned enterprises in Sweden.

          Again: my only beef is with those who support Stalin and whatever the ccp is doing (putin supporters too) and I’m personally leaning probably more towards democratic socialism or ancom (not sure though)

          • Robaque@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you’re leaning towards ancom then why tf are you looking at government of any form through rose coloured glasses. Nordic governments being more ““democratic”” than Putin’s or Xi’s governments doesn’t make them “decent”. They’re still structured after capitalism, they’re just better at exporting their exploitation.

      • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’re the type of socialism (social democracy) that I approve of.

        Social democracy is not socialism, it is social-fascism, class collaboration leeching off the wealth of the global south like a settler vampire from the hill of the imperialism. Look at how social democratic settlers treat immigrants, or minorities/natives. You fundamentally do not understand what socialism is.

        And no offense, but you have no fucking idea what the the PRC is doing. You know nothing about their government structure, how policy is carried out, or the way the system functions at all. I guarantee you could not name the tiers of government, or even three government officials without looking it up. Your ignorance is shown right away by the fact that you say “CCP” (Chinese Communist Party) when the correct acronym is “CPC” (Communist Party of China). This is such a simple mistake that proves you have not read any media outside of the west regarding China.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As a point of unhelpful pedantry: I feel the need to point out that social democracy, while far preferable to liberal democracy, doesn’t actually qualify as socialism since it doesn’t guarantee workers control over the means of production.

        But also, that’s far less important than recognizing that Stalinism is fundamentally awful so you’re doing far better than anyone on Hexbear.

        Edit: to Hexbear people, don’t reply. I don’t care about your opinion about anything. If anyone posts a Tankie meme at me I’m reporting you for harassment.

        • Comment105@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Does the average Chinese or Russian worker control the means of production, or do they not?

            • Comment105@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It was a rhetorical question, of course they don’t.

              Hexbear’s preference for China and Russia have nothing to do with communism and everything to do with their alignment with and love for their dictators.

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    us-foreign-policy

    Westerners deciding who’s doing real socialism or not. Westerners expressing their most vile sentiment for foreign countries rather than their own imperialism. Westerners praising the words of their own imperialist intelligence agencies. Westerners unironically praising their own nations for civil liberties like the freedom of fascists to assemble, freedom of racists to express themselves, freedom of parents to own their children, and freedom of school districts to continue racial segregation. Westerners praising imperialist nations like Norway as socialist while using bold language like fascism to describe places under that same exact threat of imperialism, like Cuba and Vietnam.

    Westerners claiming foreign governments are merely pretending to be socialist, while claiming unorganized misinformed chauvinistic westerners are the true heirs to socialism, despite all they do is post online and complain about foreign nations.

    Westerners praising anarchist movements from 100 years ago despite having no common cause with those movements, no connection to the circumstances within them, and probably no actual admiration of them. Westerners praising a bastardized, sectarian, perverse form of anarchism rather than attempting unity with organizations in their areas. Westerners refusing to speak with actual anarchists in their area, who by and large don’t give a shit and just want to hand out food or help at shelters. If Buenaventura Durruti were alive today he’d be regarded with scorn by western chauvinists.

    Westerners continuing to bring up Trotsky of all people, who wasn’t relevant to world affairs for the last 15 years of his life and certainly not the past 80 years. Westerners not reading a single word of Trotsky’s work, westerners focusing entirely on Trotsky’s feud with Stalin, westerners not knowing that Trotsky was a literal military commander. Westerners calling themselves Trotskyists in 2023 for some reason. Westerners deciding they have a feud with Joseph Stalin, a man who died in 1953.

    Westerners attempting to praise their own socialist leadership, who happen to be a scattered group of imperialist-aligned social democrats, Twitch streamers, and actual antisemitic grifters such as in the case of Caleb Maupin.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Said no one. Except you. You either know what a Gish gallop is, or you don’t. A long comment is not necessarily a Gish gallop. In this case the charge is entirely accurate.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              As if it’s somehow impossible to make a long comment in support of a single argument? As if Gish galloping comments don’t actually exist? Do I follow your logic properly? What part about this do I not understand?

                • BigNote@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What argument? 20+ arguments were made. Which one am I meant to address?

                  If I focus on one you’ll jump on me for not addressing the 19 others, which is why it’s a bullshit tactic.

        • PatFusty@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I dont want to be a victim of hexbear road rage thanks. You guys just vomit out material in hopes that you can string it together to form a cogent argument. Then you come back smug as ever asking why i didnt respond to the 10k talking points as if I was a human encyclopedia.

          • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            How would I distinguish you, based only on your reply, from someone who took one look at two whole paragraphs and decided you weren’t going to read that but had to keep arguing no matter what and spewed out some sour grape nonsense?

              • raven [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                How should we frame our arguments in response to a meme that paints every single prominent socialist and socialist country as fascist without addressing each one?
                Really the burden of proof should be on the one making the claim, shouldn’t it?

                • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People confuse facism and authoritarianism all the time, and people respond to this as if they’ve never figured this out.

                  So instead of anything productive these threads churn out:

                  Omg communist countries are fascist!

                  actually no socialist!

                  lol oppression

                  Vs

                  hey why do so many socialist states end up being super authoritarian?

                  hey yeah thats a huge problem, but lets ignore it because west bad

          • BigNote@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, because engaging with hexbears is a waste of time. They are not here in good faith. Either that or they don’t know any better, which in practice amounts to the same thing.

              • BigNote@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a fair question and in all honesty the answer is no, because based on what I can easily see and understand of hexbears, they aren’t intellectually serious people and to the contrary are more akin to a kind of 4-chan trolling community than anything worth actual intellectual engagement.

                I could be wrong, but so far I have yet to see any evidence as such.

  • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    OP be like: “Yes, I’m a socialist. No, I’ve never read Marx nor Engels, I get my ideas from CNN. Why do you ask?”

  • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Cuba is a beacon of progress and humanity in the Americas. Fidel Castro was a hero. Also a pro at dodging the CIA’s kill squads.

    • Asuka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cuba did some good things - in education, in medicine - but if it’s such a wonderful country, why is everything there a decaying flashback to the 1950s where everything is falling apart?

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because the US has been embargoing it for 50 years to prevent it from getting everything it needs.

        The UN regularly votes on the US embargo of Cuba, and only the US and its lapdog Israel support it.

      • smiley [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        why is everything there a decaying flashback to the 1950s where everything is falling apart?

        It might be that the capitalist world power next door has had an embargo on them since the 1950s. And look at all they’ve accomplished despite that. Now imagine what they’d have accomplished had they been allowed to thrive.

      • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        American foreign policy since the cuban revolution has openly and intentionally been aimed at depriving Cubans of food in the hopes that the people would revolt. It’s being denied the ability to trade with other sovereign nations at the barrel of a gun.

      • CloutAtlas [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lmao, that’s a testament to communist Cuba’s success. No other form of government could withstand a US embargo for a year and not collapse. Cuba has withstood for DECADES and has surpassed the US in life expectancy. The buildings are kinda shabby, but homelessness, infant mortality, illiteracy are all LOWER than the US, the richest country in the history of the world.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        so you know how Cuba is a small island nation with a population less than some cities that traditionally relied on exports of raw materials like sugar and tobacco. Yeah well that’s why it isn’t as rich as major industrial economies

        If you compare Cuba with another Carribean nation for example Haiti Cuba is doing far better in literally every quality of life metric

    • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Neocolonialism in the streets, social welfare in the sheets. Social democracy is neither democratic nor social (except if we’re talking about socialising the rampant exploitation of the developing world, I guess?)