OurToothbrush

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

least slightly socially progressive neoliberals? It’s anyone’s guess really. NO. Of course the Dems, fucking obviously.

What are they actually socially progressive on though? They're still supporting ICE and police state expansion, still doing tough on immigration bullshit, still presiding over migrant concentration camps, still funding and arming Israeli genocide, still rattling the saber at China, still blockading Cuba, not doing anything to protect trans people from genocide, doing exterminationist shit to homeless people in blue cities in blue states,

I could go on but you get the point.

Putting a HRC sticker on doesn't mean you're a little bit socially progressive, it means you have a PR team.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Man, they wanted something better than the shit show that their life had become. They had many ideas about how they could reform their country. A new socialist constitution, a emancipated reunion with the West etc. All they knew was that it couldn’t go on with the current SED clique

They didn't get something better though. They got capitalism, worse living conditions, and a bourgeois democracy that didn't represent them either

How did the SED respond? Fucking off with the last money. They left their population with no help when they negotiated with Kohl. But hey, to you that’s just capitalist propaganda probably.

The SED literally lost influence and that let reunification happen. You're blaming an organization that was trying to prevent something disastrous from happening for the thing happening disastrously.

Now it’s the people’s fault that they got screwed by the capitalists pfffff

Pretty sure it was the fault of the power dynamics at play, as reunifiers had taken control of the government and led to a massive looting of the GDR. And as for the SED "fucking off with the money" you get that the big impoverishment of east germany was that all the nationalized industries were given to private individuals, mostly people in West Germany who used to own(or whos parents owned) the industries prior to nationalization, right?

Also, I ask again: how did the Stasi respond to the lgbt movement in the 80s? Because that shit runs entirely contrary to the propaganda you're trying to spew.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Sure you do, as long as you vote for the candidate that the state prefers.

That isn't how soviet style democracies work. For example, the municipal assemblies of Cuba have multiple candidates for each seat, which are not chosen by the party. Those councils then choose a national representative for their municipality, which is confirmed by a popular vote.

Again, look up “Wir gehen falten”.

Link to what you're referring to please, I didn't find anything interesting in the search.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

A US sponsored executive coup is not equivalent to collapsing due to its own problems.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I dont see it garnering outrage? It seems in line with what Kamala Harris said.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You get to vote in socialist democracies like China, Cuba, USSR, etc. You've been told you can't. Who told you this?

If you don't believe me, look up the process for how the Cuban 2019 constitution and 2022 family code were drafted. Socialist democracy is more advanced and democratic than liberal democracies.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (4 children)

You're claiming that capitalism is better on having elected women officials? First off, no. GDR and west Germany had similar rates of women in leadership, and women had political organization through the democratic women's front.

Second off the framing is bad: I care less about smashing the glass ceiling than I care about not being hatecrimed in a rampantly misogynistic culture. I care about having the economic independence to leave abusive relationships, and to date for love and pleasure and not financial security.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

I didn't call it communism, and neither did the ruling communist parties. Transitional socialism is the proper word.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Calling something state capitalist when capitalism heavily relies on the state by default shows you need to hit the books on how capitalism actually functions.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Calling something state capitalist when capitalism heavily relies on the state by default shows you need to hit the books on how capitalism actually functions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

HOW THE FUCK CAN I STOP IT?!?!?!?

If you actually want to stop fascism in the long term you'll need to join a socialist org. Liberals have historically acquiesced to fascism because of systemic forces inherent to capitalism.

If you'd like to know more, I'd recommend reading "The economy and class structure of german fascism"

 

Hello! I can feel a new hyperfixation coming on, does anyone have any recommendations for books about ww2 written by Marxists, preferably MLs?

 

Press Statement by Spokesman for DPRK Ministry of National Defence Pyongyang, December 2 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Ministry of National Defence of the DPRK released the following press statement "Any attack on space asset of the DPRK will be deemed declaration of war against it" on Saturday:

The brigandish nature of the U.S., which regards it as its main lever for realizing its hegemonic wild ambition to commit outrageous and unlawful military intervention against sovereign countries, has been brought to light more clearly, occasioned by the DPRK's reconnaissance satellite launch.

An official concerned of the U.S. Space Command recently spouted rubbish hinting at a military attack on the DPRK's reconnaissance satellite, saying that the U.S. can decrease the enemy country's outer space operation capabilities by employing diverse "reversible and irreversible methods".

American military affairs experts comment that the U.S. Space Force can physically destroy not only opponent's satellite and satellite earth station but also get rid of enemy state's space force through jamming and virus-using cyber attack.

The U.S. Space Force's deplorable hostility toward the DPRK's reconnaissance satellite can never be overlooked as it is just a challenge to the sovereignty of the DPRK, and more exactly, a declaration war against it.

Article 8 of the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", the main international outer space treaty, stipulates that any object launched into outer space definitely falls under the jurisdiction of the launcher state and the ownership of it never changes no matter it remains in outer space or returned to the earth.

This means that the reconnaissance satellite "Malligyong-1" is a part of the territory of the DPRK where its sovereignty is exercised.

Furthermore, reconnaissance satellite is not regarded as a space weapon by international law for its technical features aimed at observation.

If the reconnaissance satellite of the DPRK is regarded by the U.S. as a "military threat" that must be gotten rid of, countless spy satellites of the U.S. flying above the Korean peninsula region every day, exclusively tasked with monitoring the major strategic spots of the DPRK, should be deemed the primary targets to be destroyed by the armed forces of the DPRK.

By openly unveiling its aggression scheme to mount a military attack on a space asset of other sovereign country, a part of its properties and territory, the U.S. has proved itself its true colors as the chief culprit of evils seeking to realize its wild ambition for dominating the world by turning outer space, common wealth of humankind, into a theater of war.

It is the mission of the armed forces of the DPRK, specified by its constitution and other laws, to exercise their war deterrent to protect the state sovereignty and territorial integrity in case a lethal military attack is carried out against the country's strategic assets or it is judged that such attack is imminent.

In case the U.S. tries to violate the legitimate territory of a sovereign state by weaponizing the latest technologies illegally and unjustly, the DPRK will consider taking responsive action measures for self-defence to undermine or destroy the viability of the U.S. spy satellites by exercising its legitimate rights vested by international and domestic laws. -0- www.kcna.kp (Juche112.12.2.)

 
 

Some U.S. officials are frustrated at the pace of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, which has gained less than 100 square miles of territory.

 

Some U.S. officials are frustrated at the pace of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, which has gained less than 100 square miles of territory.

 
view more: next ›