this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
242 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6851 readers
253 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Uh no thanks. It's hard to be sympathetic towards any official side of that war because they're all major assholes. Why do they only have socialists and islamists in those areas? Why hasn't liberalism and freedom taken root in the Near East?
Can't imagine why the Middle East doesn't trust liberals, it's a real goddamn mystery.
Injects oil directly into his veins
Ask iran and iraq what happend to their Democratically elected leaders. Oh yeah, the west are massive gaslighters and couped many Democraticlly elected leader over fears of "communism" aka new age colonialism style resource extraction. The militants aren't the cause their the symptom.
Yeah, Iran's last democratically elected leader was Mohammed Mosaddegh, who upheld the most watered down and benign version of social democracy you can think of. He publicly opposed communism and really should've been an ally or at least a friend of the west.
CIA was out of their fucking minds when they fucked that one up.
There's absolutely no reason iran isn't our friend and Saudi Arabia (where literal wahabism is from which is a plague to the west but a bigger plague to the Muslims around the world with rich degenerate sheiks come over to tell us "authentic islam") buttt mosaddegh nationalised oil, and to west, it never mattered about morals, human rights. It was about who could extract the most native resources and give to some white asshole nepo baby
Liberalism and its "freedom" hasn't taken root because:
Liberals fucked the whole region in the first place.
Shareholder profits are not going to inspire the masses to take up arms and fight.
Liberalism cannot provide a better future for anyone, so the people turn towards the groups who try to provide a change.
Extremely funny you say this in this situation since there is a group here fighting for freedom and democracy but they're stinky reds, so you'll hate them.
The other things you said can be accepted as opinions, but here I'll have to correct you: In this conflict, Bashar al-Assad is the socialist (Ba'athist), and the group "fighting for freedom and democracy", as you put it, is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. They are a far-right islamist religious fundamentalist terrorist organization.
So essentially nobody in Syria is fighting for any sensible definition of democracy or freedom.
I was talking about AANES, not the "socialist" Assad or the clearly religious authoritarian groups in the area.
I liked the image I saw a few days back. Conservatives will play to your base needs (food/water, shelter, family), while Liberals/Socialists expect selflessness and assume all your needs are already met, including self-fulfilment.
Especially in the poorer and war torn regions of the world, the former is magnitudes more appealing. If non-extremist groups want to have a chance, they need to cover the bases first.
That's a good elevator speech, can I borrow it? Christmas dinner with my mom's side of the family is coming up quick.
Of course, lemme look for the original.
E: can't find it anymore. It speaks about the top and bottom three layers of Maslow's pyramid and how liberals expect transcendence and selflessness, while conservatives falsely promise the bottom three layers and act like the rest don't matter.
the fuck is wrong with socialism here?
I can't speak for others, but I've seen nothing but death and hate under the banner of socialism: USSR, China, Venezuela, etc, the list goes on. What most non-crazy people seem to mean by "socialism" is liberalism with a strong social safety net and public services (e.g. Nordic countries, "Democratic socialists" like Bernie Sanders, etc), which is a separate thing altogether.
Exactly, and specifically for this thread this is not quite the same socialism what Bashar al-Assad has been going for.
Bernie Sanders is a proper anti-capitalist not just social democratic capitalist. See: https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/
@noncredibledefense
He really isn't anti-capitalist, he's against concentrations of wealth generally, but he's absolutely in favor of our capitalist system, he just thinks there should be more rules so workers fare better. He's not a socialist, much as the right wants to think, he's just in favor of a large welfare system and high taxes on the wealthy. He doesn't want to fundamentally change our economic system, he just wants to make it more fair for his definition of "fair."
I agree he is not a socialist in the 20th century sense, but he clearly says that workers should have ownership stake in companies, which is not a capitalist sentiment. He advocates for employee ownership of companies. I also am aware of who his economic advisors on these issues are and they are very much anti-capitalist
@noncredibledefense
It absolutely is though. Partnerships have been a thing since pretty much forever, and a lot of publicly traded companies and some private companies hand out company stock as part of compensation. Employees owning stock isn't socialism, it's capitalism, and the goal is for employees' interests to be more aligned with the company's so overall profitability is higher.
Sanders is approaching it from an employee outcomes perspective, but it's still very much from a capitalist mindset.
He's not advocating for companies to be run democratically like they would under socialism, he's advocating for more profit sharing without meaningfully changing ownership.
I agree that giving alienable voting shares to workers isn't anti-capitalist. It becomes anti-capitalist when the voting rights over management and corporate governance are inalienable meaning they are legally recognized as non-transferable even with consent.
Here is a talk by people involved with Bernie Sanders politically about how all companies should be democratically controlled by the workers: https://youtu.be/E8mq9va5_ZE
Sanders supports worker co-op conversions
@noncredibledefense
Sure, and many capitalists support socialist ownership structures within an otherwise capitalist system.
I'm pretty supportive of laissez faire capitalism (with caveats; I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian), and I also agree that worker co-ops are a great idea in many cases. The important thing, to me, with capitalism is that profit motive drive the decision making process in a competitive market. Sanders seems to largely agree, he just wants more of that profit to make its way to the workers.
Socialism (generally speaking, I know socialism is a big tent), seeks to eliminate both the profit motive and competitive markets, seeing both as waste. From what I know of Bernie Sanders, he's not on board with that view of socialism, he just wants the average person to be better off.
Remember: anti-capitalism ≠ socialism
Democratic worker co-ops are postcapitalist, but are also non-socialist because they are perfectly compatible with markets and private property. I'm suggesting that Sanders is authentically anti-capitalist, but he conflates his anti-capitalism with being socialist in a category error and thus buys into a false dichotomy.
All firms must be legally mandated to be worker coops on classical liberal inalienable rights theory grounds
@noncredibledefense
Worker co-ops are socialist, because the workers literally own the means of production. In fact, I argue they're about as pure as you can get with socialism, since there's no government getting in the way so it could theoretically exist in a stateless society.
Being compatible with capitalism does not preclude something from being socialist.
Worker co-ops don't necessarily involve the workers owning the means of production as worker cooperatives can lease means of production from third parties. Who owns the means of production doesn't determine which legal party is the firm. The firm is a contractual role determined by the direction of the hiring contracts.
A market economy where all firms are legally mandated to be worker co-ops is not capitalism
@noncredibledefense
Sure, but one where all firms happen to be worker co-ops is. The difference is how much the government gets involved.
A country where worker coops aren't legally mandated is illiberal because it violates workers' inalienable rights. It denies workers' private property rights over the positive and negative fruits of their labor.
The government is already involved in the legal structure of firms, so I don't see how a worker co-op mandate could be considered as more government involvement. It seems to me like different government involvement
@noncredibledefense
That's not true. Workers also have a right to exchange their labor for a paycheck. That's what employment is, you exchange your rights to the fruits of your labor for a steady paycheck. That way you don't have to worry if the fruits of your labor becomes less valuable, you only have to worry about the paycheck.
If workers truly want to own the entirety of the fruits of their labor, they can start their own business. That they don't want that level of risk is why we have a separation between owners and employees.
I don't think people are expressing sympathy.