by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .16,35116,35216,35316,35416,35516,35616,357. . .20,51020,511»

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia wrote:Да это я, брат советский! Чехословакия пока, и пока красное знамя живет, я никогда не покину этот регион.
In English: Yes, it's me, Brother Soviet! Czechoslovakia is not dead yet, and as long as the red banner lives on, I will never abandon this region.

welcome back uwu : )

Che triumphant, Brightbayuniversity, and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Ubertas wrote:welcome back uwu : )

Gives him a smooch as part of the celebration of my return

Che triumphant, Ubertas, and Brightbayuniversity

Brightbayuniversity

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule wrote:In a world where we are surrounded by capitalists and imperialists, we must be strong, resilient, rely on ourselves and strive to strengthen the state of Proletarian Dictatorship if we want socialism to survive. We have to suppress the bourgeoisie and its culture or else they will try and capture the minds of the proletariat and endeavour to stage a comeback.

Also, is ‘ungood’ some sort of meme I’m missing out of- I think it’s gong straight over my head, lol!

I fail to see the link. Anyway, my original idea is that manipulation of the environment may indirectly cause changes to oneself.
While I do not agree with 'dictatorship' and highly question the pluripotency of bourgeois-suppression as the solution to problems from many categories, the importance construction of proletarian infrastructure in reducing the corrosive influence from capitalists is agreed.

"Ungood" "Plusgoood" and "Doubleplusungood" are creations of George Orwell from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Marxlandia wrote:But why should I support an imperialism, both from the china and the U.S. ? China is a nation, but in good time, the Anarchist Commune will replace the nation, and it will replace the greed of nations, for patriotism is human failure. It is Patriotism that Hitler came to power, and it is patriotism that continues to kill fine young people, and It is patriotism that needs to die, not these "Western Ideologues"because their is no such thing. Propaganda is propaganda, western or eastern, we must accept that and move on, comrade.

Opposing both is neither practical, possible, nor strategic. The west wields more power, even if one does consider china to be "imperialist" (which more often than not it isn't), the west is the chief enemy, and thus any means to counter them and their empire must be stopped. To free the world of US intervention and free people's movements of the threat of American infiltration or attack would allow revolutions to flourish all around the globe, just as it was in the late 20th century when the USSR was there to counter the US' power.

In this case, you cannot say "i am against both," because supporting the HK "pro democracy" protestors means assisting the faction the US wants to win. It doesn't matter if you hate the US too, you're still rooting for the faction that the US wants to win and thus helping them. In choosing the protestors, you've picked a side already whether you like it or not. So in reality, you're going against your own statement that "propaganda is propaganda" because you're believing the narrative that the West wants you to believe, that these "peaceful" protestors (who are actually very violent) are being oppressed etc..

Not to mention, if HK did become independent, it's highly unlikely that they'll become an anarchist commune or a socialist entity of any sort. It's more likely that the majority pro-free market and pro "democracy" factions (which really just want to further strengthen the structures that the British Empire forced China to keep in HK in exchange for leaving HK) will create a hyper-capitalist city-state similar to Singapore. Do you know why Britain forced China to create "one country, two systems" arrangement there? Because they knew that in preserving the existing colonial capitalist infrastructure, the west would continue to have a foothold in China, just as West Berlin was for NATO. Had they done the opposite, HK wouldn't have these problems, mainly bc the highly capitalistic business oligarchy in HK would have been largely dismantled and put under the control of the people's government and the economic planning agencies, either fully or partly.

Che triumphant and Greatunion of soviet socialist republics

Extradition bill is dead, so why are Hong Kong protests continuing?
By Alex Au | Jul 29, 2019

https://www.liberationnews.org/extradition-bill-is-dead-so-why-are-hong-kong-protests-continuing/

The separatist, anti-China character of the protests in Hong Kong have become increasingly clear as the movement continues. On July 28, a 2nd unlawful march once again led to violent clashes between protesters and police in multiple areas throughout the city. Earlier that day a Hong Kong independence flag was prominently flown. Although the extradition bill that sparked the protests has long been “declared dead,” marches, demonstrations, and street clashes polarize the city between “pro-democracy” forces and those who recognize that Hong Kong’s past, present, and future is inextricably connected to China.

The unrest is a product of deeper contradictions in Hong Kong society that have their origins in 150 years of British colonial rule. This period created deeply entrenched political trends that are hostile to the rest of China and oriented towards the West. These forces are primarily situated among the upper and middle classes, but have been able to draw large crowds beyond their natural base by taking advantage of other contradictions in society. In the past ten years, real estate prices have skyrocketed by 170 percent while worker wages have not kept apace. Seeing no economic future, some protesters blame their woes on Beijing rather than the Hong Kong real estate tycoons who are profiting off increased rent, land speculation, and tax-free profits under legal conditions stipulated by the Hong Kong handover agreement implemented when Chinese sovereignty over the city was formerly restored in 1997.

Lingering chauvinism from British rule

The anti-China sentiment driving anti-extradition protesters is a type of chauvinism that developed because of the different historical experience of Hong Kong compared with mainland China. British colonial rule lasted from 1841 to 1997 and interrupted over 2000 years of Hong Kong being part of China under successive dynasties. Hong Kong was a British crown colony that was selected to serve as a center of finance capital in East Asia, and the layer of society that benefited from this status developed a sharp hostility to mainland China.

The rise of China’s economy in recent decades has increasingly eclipsed the once dominant role of Hong Kong, which made up 27 percent of China’s GDP in 1993 compared with less than 3 percent in 2017. This change of relative importance leaves the wealthier sections of the population that have been most supportive of the protest movement nostalgic for the times of British rule long past rather than looking forward to the future prosperity they can create as a non-colonized part of China.

Still, many people in Hong Kong support their relationship to China under the “one country, two systems” arrangement that allows for extended local autonomy over decisions regarding economic and governmental policy while recognizing the fundamental unity of China. The current political order brings stability that many see as being the key to Hong Kong’s future. Labeled the “pro-Beijing” camp, over 300,000 attended a rally on July 20 to respect law and order, which they view as the foundation of Hong Kong’s prosperity.

This segment of society is often called the “silent majority” by pro-Beijing commentators. While their existence is almost completely concealed by the corporate media in the United States, there are many people who support policies like the now-shelved extradition bill. The impetus for the bill, which would have allowed the chief executive to extradite accused criminals to where the crime was committed on a case-by-case basis, came from a high-profile case when a man murdered a pregnant woman in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong.

Despite calls from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government to settle the extradition bill through existing channels, anti-extradition protesters continue to escalate their actions. Protesters’ deep distrust of the SAR government, seen as a puppet of Beijing, compel them to increasingly target the Chinese government itself as they explicitly call for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down.

Increasing unrest threatens economic stability, political unity

In response to an attack in a Hong Kong suburb on mostly anti-extradition protesters by alleged gang members, protesters vowed to march on the suburb, a few seeking revenge. This first illegal march on July 27, which authorities banned citing safety reasons, saw local villagers guarding their ancestral shrine as fully armed riot police kept the two groups separate. Street clashes ensued where protesters hurled bricks, corrosive liquid, and fire extinguishers at police in yet another scene of chaos once unfamiliar to Hong Kong.

Videos document the rising occurrence of protester violence. Dozens of protesters surrounded and attack a single police officer at a mall. In another case, a young protester punches an older man to the ground and kicks him in the head. There are many scenes of Mandarin-speaking or pro-Beijing people getting harassed, assaulted, or told to “go back home” by crowds of protesters, though the Western media portrays them as largely peaceful or victims.

These rising tensions come after a first flash of violence on June 12th that left 22 people hospitalized, 10 police injured, and 37 arrested. Weeks later, protesters broke into the main legislative building causing millions of dollars in property damage. On July 21st protesters defaced the Chinese national emblem with black paint at another legislative office. A protester even painted an anti-Chinese racial slur to insult the Hong Kong government, as if to emphasize the difference between “Hong Kongers” and Chinese people.

Who benefits from this increasing polarization? The U.S. government, with its trade war, “pivot to Asia” military strategy and myriad divide and conquer campaigns aiming to carve up China in its pursuit of global dominance is certainly one beneficiary.

The antagonistic, chauvinist character of the protests fosters disunity and ill-will between people from the Mainland and Hong Kong. The protests also hurt the Hong Kong economy. Retail sales are down double digits, flights to Hong Kong are down nearly 10 percent, and an estimated 350,000 fewer tourists will visit. The United States looks on gleefully as Hong Kong and China jointly suffer because they naturally have a shared fate.

Che triumphant and Greatunion of soviet socialist republics

Brightbayuniversity

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule wrote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/

-http://www.redspark.nu/en/imperialist-states/revolutionary-praxis-introducing-marxism-study-group/
-

http://chinastudygroup.net/2009/10/was-mao-really-a-monster/#fn-2997-1 
-

http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/research/health_improvement_under_mao_and_its_implications_for_contemporary_aging_in_china/

http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/research/://www.fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200201/0201a001.htm 


http://llco.org/archives/8455
-

http://thesaker.is/when-chinese-trash-saved-the-world-western-lies-about-the-cultural-revolution/

https://youtu.be/gHGRuKqvU7o

https://weeklybolshevik.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/what-makes-a-famine-is-ideology/

https://mronline.org/2018/04/17/maos-legacy-defended-and-famous-swim-decoded-for-clueless-academics/

https://youtu.be/9niSOKGcR_k (very good in depth analysis)

“The Battle for China’s Past” by Mobo Gao
(A very good resource, this guy was actually there during the revolution and the Great Leap Forward)
-Felix Greene

A Curtain of Ignorance (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965), p. 158.
-Judith Banister

http://thesaker.is/daring-to-go-beyond-western-propaganda-on-the-great-leap-forwards-famine/

China’s Changing Population (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), p. 304.

Thank you very much and apologies for being annoying.
By no means I am attempting to be condescending.
Citing sources includes an in-text citation for each source and indicate which source supports which claims.

I will refer 'stance' as a neutral term for positions with somewhat credible support.
I will refer 'bias' as unwillingness to reconsider an invested belief and the tendency to enter a combatant mode against alternatives to the belief.

The medical and health papers are legitimate and I do not doubt that there were significant leaps in Chinese Health during the Maoist era. I recognize that the CCP did have a net positive impact on healthcare.

However, some links are dead or the contents are removed.

Felix Greene, like everyone, has some bias. His work listed above is respected even by the capitalist press. He was accused of not reporting the negative aspects of his presentation of China. He neglected to report the few positive aspects of Kiang, who I recognize as a mostly dangerous, militaristic, oppressive, and dictatorial tyrant. His perspectives allegedly changed after meeting with Dalai Lama according to Wikipedia [fotnote 5 and 6].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Greene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Greene#cite_note-5
I do recognize strong bias in these sources.

Mobo Gao seems to be a credible source with multiple perspectives. His stance may be very different from that of Jason Unruhe.

One may find that Jason Unruhe entertaining, but his behavior is rather predictable.
Repeating and defending historical figures and modern organizations, he is not having a monologue instead of a dialogue.
He sees limited perspectives and I would strongly caution against taking his claims seriously.

Thank you again for your work.
I believe the materials above are presented in a respectful and constructive sense.
Please correct me if I am wrong:
The left (and any organizations / parties / groups / individuals) would benefit from heritage and reflection.
Please message me if you do not wish to be mentioned on the Regional Message Board.

Sincerely,
C.A.D.

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Ubertas wrote:Extradition bill is dead, so why are Hong Kong protests continuing?
By Alex Au | Jul 29, 2019

https://www.liberationnews.org/extradition-bill-is-dead-so-why-are-hong-kong-protests-continuing/

The separatist, anti-China character of the protests in Hong Kong have become increasingly clear as the movement continues. On July 28, a 2nd unlawful march once again led to violent clashes between protesters and police in multiple areas throughout the city. Earlier that day a Hong Kong independence flag was prominently flown. Although the extradition bill that sparked the protests has long been “declared dead,” marches, demonstrations, and street clashes polarize the city between “pro-democracy” forces and those who recognize that Hong Kong’s past, present, and future is inextricably connected to China.

The unrest is a product of deeper contradictions in Hong Kong society that have their origins in 150 years of British colonial rule. This period created deeply entrenched political trends that are hostile to the rest of China and oriented towards the West. These forces are primarily situated among the upper and middle classes, but have been able to draw large crowds beyond their natural base by taking advantage of other contradictions in society. In the past ten years, real estate prices have skyrocketed by 170 percent while worker wages have not kept apace. Seeing no economic future, some protesters blame their woes on Beijing rather than the Hong Kong real estate tycoons who are profiting off increased rent, land speculation, and tax-free profits under legal conditions stipulated by the Hong Kong handover agreement implemented when Chinese sovereignty over the city was formerly restored in 1997.

Lingering chauvinism from British rule

The anti-China sentiment driving anti-extradition protesters is a type of chauvinism that developed because of the different historical experience of Hong Kong compared with mainland China. British colonial rule lasted from 1841 to 1997 and interrupted over 2000 years of Hong Kong being part of China under successive dynasties. Hong Kong was a British crown colony that was selected to serve as a center of finance capital in East Asia, and the layer of society that benefited from this status developed a sharp hostility to mainland China.

The rise of China’s economy in recent decades has increasingly eclipsed the once dominant role of Hong Kong, which made up 27 percent of China’s GDP in 1993 compared with less than 3 percent in 2017. This change of relative importance leaves the wealthier sections of the population that have been most supportive of the protest movement nostalgic for the times of British rule long past rather than looking forward to the future prosperity they can create as a non-colonized part of China.

Still, many people in Hong Kong support their relationship to China under the “one country, two systems” arrangement that allows for extended local autonomy over decisions regarding economic and governmental policy while recognizing the fundamental unity of China. The current political order brings stability that many see as being the key to Hong Kong’s future. Labeled the “pro-Beijing” camp, over 300,000 attended a rally on July 20 to respect law and order, which they view as the foundation of Hong Kong’s prosperity.

This segment of society is often called the “silent majority” by pro-Beijing commentators. While their existence is almost completely concealed by the corporate media in the United States, there are many people who support policies like the now-shelved extradition bill. The impetus for the bill, which would have allowed the chief executive to extradite accused criminals to where the crime was committed on a case-by-case basis, came from a high-profile case when a man murdered a pregnant woman in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong.

Despite calls from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government to settle the extradition bill through existing channels, anti-extradition protesters continue to escalate their actions. Protesters’ deep distrust of the SAR government, seen as a puppet of Beijing, compel them to increasingly target the Chinese government itself as they explicitly call for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down.

Increasing unrest threatens economic stability, political unity

In response to an attack in a Hong Kong suburb on mostly anti-extradition protesters by alleged gang members, protesters vowed to march on the suburb, a few seeking revenge. This first illegal march on July 27, which authorities banned citing safety reasons, saw local villagers guarding their ancestral shrine as fully armed riot police kept the two groups separate. Street clashes ensued where protesters hurled bricks, corrosive liquid, and fire extinguishers at police in yet another scene of chaos once unfamiliar to Hong Kong.

Videos document the rising occurrence of protester violence. Dozens of protesters surrounded and attack a single police officer at a mall. In another case, a young protester punches an older man to the ground and kicks him in the head. There are many scenes of Mandarin-speaking or pro-Beijing people getting harassed, assaulted, or told to “go back home” by crowds of protesters, though the Western media portrays them as largely peaceful or victims.

These rising tensions come after a first flash of violence on June 12th that left 22 people hospitalized, 10 police injured, and 37 arrested. Weeks later, protesters broke into the main legislative building causing millions of dollars in property damage. On July 21st protesters defaced the Chinese national emblem with black paint at another legislative office. A protester even painted an anti-Chinese racial slur to insult the Hong Kong government, as if to emphasize the difference between “Hong Kongers” and Chinese people.

Who benefits from this increasing polarization? The U.S. government, with its trade war, “pivot to Asia” military strategy and myriad divide and conquer campaigns aiming to carve up China in its pursuit of global dominance is certainly one beneficiary.

The antagonistic, chauvinist character of the protests fosters disunity and ill-will between people from the Mainland and Hong Kong. The protests also hurt the Hong Kong economy. Retail sales are down double digits, flights to Hong Kong are down nearly 10 percent, and an estimated 350,000 fewer tourists will visit. The United States looks on gleefully as Hong Kong and China jointly suffer because they naturally have a shared fate.

The 300,000 number is somewhat questionable though, especially since the Hong Kong police, despite being arguably biased in favour of Carrie Lam, has cited only 103,000 participants in the July 20th loyalist march, and the numbers started sharply dropping from 310,000 according to the organizers, to only 90,000 in August.

In addition to that, in literally every election to the Legislative Council conducted after the 1997 transition from British colonialism, the Pro-Beijing camp has never managed to win more than 50% of the popular vote, which would indicate a clear majority, and even in 2016, the pan-democrats along with the "localists" won more than 55.02% of the popular vote, in spite of the fact that the DAB alliance of conservative parties has been dominant in the final seat allocation (Mostly because the business sector, which has a large representation and role in the Legco, is biased towards China due to economic interests), thus refuting claims of a "silent majority", because if such a majority did exist, it would be expressed as such in the elections, which it clearly didn't, as pan-democrats have consistently won a majority of the popular vote in every election conducted after 1997, and the only reason why they didn't get a majority of seats in return was due to the aforementioned gerrymandering and lack of proportional representation.

Brightbayuniversity

Kaltionis wrote: An example on this is pretty much Rojava/Kurdistan. We may agree here: It's a libertarian socialist movement or revolution. Well, when they for a long time had a very strict backing from the US, I've seen a lot of Marxist-Leninists immediately condemning Rojava as US imperialist puppet, so in conclusion, they supported Assad's Syria and Putin's Russia over an actual socialist movement. We know that both, Assad's Syria and Putin's Russia are inherently reactionary. Yet, I ask myself, with what excuse and with what kind of thinking did so many seemingly "socialists" immediately condemn a socialist movement, just because it was supported by the US? It's a "good vs evil", "anti-imperialist vs imperialist" "we vs them" "black vs white" thinking, which is inherently bad for the whole socialist movement in general.

I highly appreciate your nuanced perspective and reflection on the issue of dichotomous thinking.

Kaltionis wrote:I am strictly against China.

Me too.

Kaltionis wrote: It is in itself an imperialist nation. It does hold on to territories which are not theirs (Macau, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Uyghuristan, Mongolian territories and probably more) and is increasing its' influence all around the world, mainly on africa.

I certainly agree that China is imperialist and is attempting to neo-colonize Africa.
However, I believe I have an alternative perspective on ethnicity/nationality issues.
I see that the State as a more potent evil entity than the separatist groups and recognize the horrors committed by the Chinese state in attempts to cover the greatest extend of Ancient Chinese imperialist regimes.
I am no Han ethno-nationalist who pledge their loyalty to Xi and the CCP.
As I am not an expert on interethnic relations, I may not provide insightful comments on this.
Some Sinologists claim that China, at least Ancient China, was a civilization state, not a nation-state.
http://www.martinjacques.com/articles/civilization-state-versus-nation-state-2/
This may make the situation much more chaotic.
However, Xi is desperately attempting to create a (Han-dominated) Chinese Nation.
This may involve ethnic homogenization and designated ethnic marginalization of minorities.

Kaltionis wrote: I've seen both: MLs that do support Dengist China, and try to eradicate the Tiananmen massacre out of history, and MLs that are capable of seeing through the "communist party of china" and see the imperialist, capitalist tendency china has evolved to since the Fall of Mao. These MLs are condemning China for Deng, for Tiananmen Square Massacre and much more.
As mentioned, anarchists do have their own views and their own media. We do not go by western media. And we are well capable of not choosing a side, while still showing our support for people. We do show solidarity to our chinese comrades - That said, our actual comrades, not the traitors of the people that call themselves "People's Republic" or "Communist Party of China". We show our solidarity towards the people of Hong Kong, because we want them to be free, we want them to be free from either western influence and chinese influence, because we fear that Hong Kong would be integrated into China and has then no more say over its' own nation, which just shows, how much of an oppressive nation China truly is.

I cannot represent any ideology, but I commend the choice to not spend social/economic/political capital to side with any imperialist in Imperialist-infighting. I recall that although all belligerent imperialist powers are harmed in their infighting, the proletariat and people being imperialized sufer more.

Thank you for your insights,
C.A.D.

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule, Kaltionis, and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Shamian wrote:Presumably when the individual/species evolves/is modified to become sophont? This would by necessity have to cover both sophont individual organisms and any sophont meta-organism, group or gestalt intelligence occupying, comprising or interfacing with multiple physical bodies.

But why would the person I'm speaking to replace one not very well defined or agreed-upon concept, like species, and replace it with intelligence, a concept that is even less well defined and far more controversial within the relevant scientific fields?

But much more than that I would ask them what they think about the value of humans with certain disabilities, if human is nothing more than a synonym for intelligence, and if being human is the ultimate moral characteristic, then that means that people with certain disabilities are also less human and, in this persons logic, of less moral worth, and if this person genuinely believes this logic and carries it into action then they will view disabled humans as lesser and less deserving of moral consideration then anyone else, and I refuse to follow a logic that would mean that my autistic brother is less deserving of respect and love and consideration of their happiness and their suffering than anyone else

Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, Brightbayuniversity, and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Che triumphant wrote:But why would the person I'm speaking to replace one not very well defined or agreed-upon concept, like species, and replace it with intelligence, a concept that is even less well defined and far more controversial within the relevant scientific fields?

But much more than that I would ask them what they think about the value of humans with certain disabilities, if human is nothing more than a synonym for intelligence, and if being human is the ultimate moral characteristic, then that means that people with certain disabilities are also less human and, in this persons logic, of less moral worth, and if this person genuinely believes this logic and carries it into action then they will view disabled humans as lesser and less deserving of moral consideration then anyone else, and I refuse to follow a logic that would mean that my autistic brother is less deserving of respect and love and consideration of their happiness and their suffering than anyone else

Isn't that basically social darwinism? Believing that some people are less "human" than others solely because of their perceived lower intelligence or socially constructed handicaps and "malfunctions".

Che triumphant, Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, and Brightbayuniversity

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia wrote:Isn't that basically social darwinism? Believing that some people are less "human" than others solely because of their perceived lower intelligence or socially constructed handicaps and "malfunctions".

Exactly, intelligence as a concept has a long history of being used to justify oppression and really doesn't belong in any discussion about morality

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule, Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, Ubertas, and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Che triumphant wrote:Exactly, intelligence as a concept has a long history of being used to justify oppression and really doesn't belong in any discussion about morality

It was also used by the Nazi Party to justify Aktion T4 against those severely ill or those who were "mentally handicapped", such as paraplegics, terminal cancer patients, those suffering from autism, schizophrenia, depression, or any other psychiatric disorder, or anyone who exhibited queerness or "non-traditional sexual behavior", among other things.

Greatunion of soviet socialist republics

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia wrote:The 300,000 number is somewhat questionable though, especially since the Hong Kong police, despite being arguably biased in favour of Carrie Lam, has cited only 103,000 participants in the July 20th loyalist march, and the numbers started sharply dropping from 310,000 according to the organizers, to only 90,000 in August.

In addition to that, in literally every election to the Legislative Council conducted after the 1997 transition from British colonialism, the Pro-Beijing camp has never managed to win more than 50% of the popular vote, which would indicate a clear majority, and even in 2016, the pan-democrats along with the "localists" won more than 55.02% of the popular vote, in spite of the fact that the DAB alliance of conservative parties has been dominant in the final seat allocation (Mostly because the business sector, which has a large representation and role in the Legco, is biased towards China due to economic interests), thus refuting claims of a "silent majority", because if such a majority did exist, it would be expressed as such in the elections, which it clearly didn't, as pan-democrats have consistently won a majority of the popular vote in every election conducted after 1997, and the only reason why they didn't get a majority of seats in return was due to the aforementioned gerrymandering and lack of proportional representation.

source?

Brightbayuniversity

Brightbayuniversity

Shamian wrote:Presumably when the individual/species evolves/is modified to become sophont? This would by necessity have to cover both sophont individual organisms and any sophont meta-organism, group or gestalt intelligence occupying, comprising or interfacing with multiple physical bodies.

Che triumphant wrote:But why would the person I'm speaking to replace one not very well defined or agreed-upon concept, like species, and replace it with intelligence, a concept that is even less well defined and far more controversial within the relevant scientific fields?

But much more than that I would ask them what they think about the value of humans with certain disabilities, if human is nothing more than a synonym for intelligence, and if being human is the ultimate moral characteristic, then that means that people with certain disabilities are also less human and, in this persons logic, of less moral worth, and if this person genuinely believes this logic and carries it into action then they will view disabled humans as lesser and less deserving of moral consideration then anyone else, and I refuse to follow a logic that would mean that my autistic brother is less deserving of respect and love and consideration of their happiness and their suffering than anyone else

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia wrote:Isn't that basically social darwinism? Believing that some people are less "human" than others solely because of their perceived lower intelligence or socially constructed handicaps and "malfunctions".

I think that sophont should not be the only determining factor on the basis of rights.

"Sophont", per Burton's Legal Thesaurus, is defined as intelligence.
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. S.v. "Sophont." Retrieved August 13 2019 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sophont

Sentience and subjectiveness might be better determining factors.
"Sentience", per American Heritage Dictionary, is defined as
[quote] 1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness. 2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought. [/quote]American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. S.v. "sentience." Retrieved August 13 2019 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentience
I would add that the potential for empathy or the ability to emotionally connect with others, should be included in the definition of sentience.

I would define Subjectiveness as "will" in 'free will' if a definition clarifies my meaning.

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Ubertas wrote:source?

Sources for the police numbers and decreasing turnout in Pro-Beijing marches:
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/20/pictures-safeguard-hong-kong-thousands-rally-support-govt-oppose-violent-protesters/
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1472268-20190803.htm
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1473005-20190806.htm
Source for the election results in which the pro-democracy camp consistently won a majority of the popular vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-democracy_camp_(Hong_Kong)#Legislative_Council_elections

Brightbayuniversity

Happy Birthday Fidel Castro!

🇨🇺 🇨🇺 🇨🇺

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule, Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, Ubertas, The communist revolutionary party, and 1 otherCzechoslovakia and zakarpatia

Che triumphant wrote:Happy Birthday Fidel Castro!

🇨🇺 🇨🇺 🇨🇺

Long live the legacy of Comrade Fidel!!

Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

Che triumphant, Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, East ustya, The communist revolutionary party, and 1 otherCzechoslovakia and zakarpatia

The communist revolutionary party

Ubertas wrote:How do you reconcile Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism?

Ultimately, I believe that the Communist Party will unite the nation, and I wish that the unity can be continuous throughout the world. Only unity leads to communism.

Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, Ubertas, and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

The communist revolutionary party

Ubertas wrote:Long live the legacy of Comrade Fidel!!

Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

May he Rest In Peace.

The United Kindom under Socialist Rule, Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, Ubertas, East ustya, and 2 othersThin as stick, and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia

The communist revolutionary party wrote:Ultimately, I believe that the Communist Party will unite the nation, and I wish that the unity can be continuous throughout the world. Only unity leads to communism.

Right, but how can you be both and ML and a trot when both ideologies generally don’t agree?

Greatunion of soviet socialist republics

The communist revolutionary party

Ubertas wrote:Right, but how can you be both and ML and a trot when both ideologies generally don’t agree?

How so? All Trotskyism states is the Permanent Revolution, and Leninism just states (doesn’t only state, but you get the idea) the unification of a one-party system.

Brightbayuniversity wrote:I fail to see the link. Anyway, my original idea is that manipulation of the environment may indirectly cause changes to oneself.
While I do not agree with 'dictatorship' and highly question the pluripotency of bourgeois-suppression as the solution to problems from many categories, the importance construction of proletarian infrastructure in reducing the corrosive influence from capitalists is agreed.

"Ungood" "Plusgoood" and "Doubleplusungood" are creations of George Orwell from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Oh of course newspeak! I’m such an idiot!

Well if it’s a state comprised of the workers, it’s a proletarian dictatorship

Brightbayuniversity wrote:Thank you very much and apologies for being annoying.
By no means I am attempting to be condescending.
Citing sources includes an in-text citation for each source and indicate which source supports which claims.

I will refer 'stance' as a neutral term for positions with somewhat credible support.
I will refer 'bias' as unwillingness to reconsider an invested belief and the tendency to enter a combatant mode against alternatives to the belief.

The medical and health papers are legitimate and I do not doubt that there were significant leaps in Chinese Health during the Maoist era. I recognize that the CCP did have a net positive impact on healthcare.

However, some links are dead or the contents are removed.

Felix Greene, like everyone, has some bias. His work listed above is respected even by the capitalist press. He was accused of not reporting the negative aspects of his presentation of China. He neglected to report the few positive aspects of Kiang, who I recognize as a mostly dangerous, militaristic, oppressive, and dictatorial tyrant. His perspectives allegedly changed after meeting with Dalai Lama according to Wikipedia [fotnote 5 and 6].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Greene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Greene#cite_note-5
I do recognize strong bias in these sources.

Mobo Gao seems to be a credible source with multiple perspectives. His stance may be very different from that of Jason Unruhe.

One may find that Jason Unruhe entertaining, but his behavior is rather predictable.
Repeating and defending historical figures and modern organizations, he is not having a monologue instead of a dialogue.
He sees limited perspectives and I would strongly caution against taking his claims seriously.

Thank you again for your work.
I believe the materials above are presented in a respectful and constructive sense.
Please correct me if I am wrong:
The left (and any organizations / parties / groups / individuals) would benefit from heritage and reflection.
Please message me if you do not wish to be mentioned on the Regional Message Board.

Sincerely,
C.A.D.

Thank you, and sorry for not explaining which source is which, also thanks for letting me know so I can get rid of those dead links.

Kaltionis wrote:The left is divided, because "the left" is only a name for a very big wasteland of ideologies and thoughts.

"Why do you do this? Because by doing this, we give our enemies the means of our destruction! We need more united fronts, and more Unity coalitions."
Y'know, when I joined this region, I also advocated for left unity. But with time, I became more and more suspicious and focused. An united Front will probably only hold for a very short time, until it shatters apart into a mass of even angrier people.
Authoritarian Lefts and Libertarian Lefts can't really agree. One advocates for a state or a stronger state, the other advocates for a weak or no state at all. One side advocates for a party leadership (most times), the other one is highly suspicious about vanguard parties, and again others are highly suspicious about organisations and union as well.

"Why do you do this?"
It's easy: Anarchists for one, we have our own sources, we have our own sh*t. Our movement is for us more important than what the PSL in the US is doing, for example. And, we are by all means not willing to defend people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Un (and other family members), Deng, Khrushchev, Trotsky, Tito and other people that for us are sc*m and not socialists at all.
Marxist-Leninists are seemingly looking at protests, and whenever it's supported by the west, it's a very fast "US imperialism!!" stamp. People can fight for workers rights, whenever one of the western power supports it, it's seemingly immediately "US imperialism" and sanctioned, and everyone, who is in support of this, must be in support of imperialism as well.

An example on this is pretty much Rojava/Kurdistan. We may agree here: It's a libertarian socialist movement or revolution. Well, when they for a long time had a very strict backing from the US, I've seen a lot of Marxist-Leninists immediately condemning Rojava as US imperialist puppet, so in conclusion, they supported Assad's Syria and Putin's Russia over an actual socialist movement. We know that both, Assad's Syria and Putin's Russia are inherently reactionary. Yet, I ask myself, with what excuse and with what kind of thinking did so many seemingly "socialists" immediately condemn a socialist movement, just because it was supported by the US? It's a "good vs evil", "anti-imperialist vs imperialist" "we vs them" "black vs white" thinking, which is inherently bad for the whole socialist movement in general.

Few days ago, maybe even yesterday, can't remember exactly, we had a discussion on our discord server about the Hong Kong protests.

Now, before anyone talks about it: I am strictly against China. It is in itself an imperialist nation. It does hold on to territories which are not theirs (Macau, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Uyghuristan, Mongolian territories and probably more) and is increasing its' influence all around the world, mainly on africa. I've seen both: MLs that do support Dengist China, and try to eradicate the Tiananmen massacre out of history, and MLs that are capable of seeing through the "communist party of china" and see the imperialist, capitalist tendency china has evolved to since the Fall of Mao. These MLs are condemning China for Deng, for Tiananmen Square Massacre and much more.
As mentioned, anarchists do have their own views and their own media. We do not go by western media. And we are well capable of not choosing a side, while still showing our support for people. We do show solidarity to our chinese comrades - That said, our actual comrades, not the traitors of the people that call themselves "People's Republic" or "Communist Party of China". We show our solidarity towards the people of Hong Kong, because we want them to be free, we want them to be free from either western influence and chinese influence, because we fear that Hong Kong would be integrated into China and has then no more say over its' own nation, which just shows, how much of an oppressive nation China truly is.

Socialism..... “with C H I N E S E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S”

Kaltionis

Che triumphant wrote:Happy Birthday Fidel Castro!

🇨🇺 🇨🇺 🇨🇺

Ah, Castro was an absolutely fantastic revolutionary comrade. I think it’s fantastic that Castro really did stand firm in what he believed and refused China like economic reforms for decades. Fidel Castro never reconciled himself with Deng's reforms (he once called Deng a "caricature of Hitler"), and Castro's "revolutionary offensive" continued to draw its inspiration from Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Greatunion of soviet socialist republics, Ubertas, East ustya, and Marxlandia

«12. . .16,35116,35216,35316,35416,35516,35616,357. . .20,51020,511»

Advertisement