Questioning a trans person’s motives to come out is transphobic

Blatant transphobia here. Caitlyn Jenner is a horrible person but transphobic attacks help nobody

Not a wrong question. Democrats have done so many good things that Americans keep worsening their living conditions every fucking year, just look at house pricing, the state of education and infrastructure and healthcare, or any fucking thing else. I don’t care about a list of policy names if it didn’t translate into meaningful material gains for people.

Republicans may be worse sure, but I’d rather not get slapped at all instead of having to choose whether the following 4 years it will be 10 or 11 times

The difference is that, before, decisions were made by individuals, and generally no matter how greedy, most people have at least a sense of compassion for other humans. Nowadays decisions aren’t made by people, there’s algorithms pushing for the infinite increase of stock value, and whoever doesn’t do that is eaten alive. That’s the problem: in capitalism, companies need to be vile and have absolutely no sense of morality, or they will be outcompeted.

And you, sir, are you ready to receive my limp penis?

Hey, fellow communist here and Hexbear enjoyer.

Communism isn’t really when all workers get the same regardless of the work done, the difference with social democracy is in who owns the factories and buildings and machines and computers that we work with, who decides how and what work is done, and who decides the prices and the salaries.

In social democracy, people maintain the right to own capital (i.e. to privately invest their money in a business expecting a return, and to hire others through this ownership of capital). In communism, workers collectively (whether directly through coops or indirectly through the state) collectively own the factories and buildings and computers that are used to actually produce goods and services).

This doesn’t just translate to formal ownership, but to actual decision making in the workplace and to salaries. In capitalism (social democracy is a type of capitalism), a company owner will only hire someone if they can profit from it, which means they’re getting a part of the worker’s production and appropriating it for themselves, which communists call by the word “exploitation”. In communism, since the capital is owned collectively, so are the fruits of labor. This doesn’t mean everyone earns the same, it’s not the case in theory nor in practice. If workers elect a manager to direct some things at the company, the manager may make more in the form of for example increased production bonuses, or if a worker exceeds the quota, they can also very bonuses, as well as salary increases with different positions and level of training, studies and experience. As an example, a university professor in the soviet union made maybe 3 times as much as an entry level job at a supermarket. If you care about salaries per profession, Albert Szymanski’s “human rights in the soviet union” does interesting analysis of the evolution of salaries by sector in th USSR over the 50s and 60s.

Regarding innovation I have to disagree. In my opinion, innovation is mainly led by the investment in innovation that you make and how you manage the investment. Most innovation in the world for example already comes from the public sector: universities, research institutes, military, space agencies… It’s just that when some publicly researched concept gets profitable after all the research, a company will pick it up, make some improvements through investment, patent it, and live the good life of the monopoly. Then again I’m a communist and that’s my view, but looking at things like the transistor, the internet, the space sector, medicine, biology, astrophysics, material science… Most of those are advancements and disciplines either completely or overwhelmingly public funded in their inception and still today. It’s just that we experience a bias in consuming technology ultimately researched by companies because we live in a system where almost all we consume is by definition made by companies. Research and innovation can happen, in my opinion arguably better, under communism than capitalism.

Regarding the basic material needs as you mentioned: healthcare, housing, nutrition, even energy for heating and cooking, mobility with public transit, fuck, the right to work! All of those should in my humble opinion be guaranteed for everyone. Again, I could point to historical examples like the Soviet Union: housing costed 3% of the average household income on average and homelessness was entirely abolished, healthcare and education were completely free to the highest level and of excellent quality, especially for the level of development; public transit never changed prices from the 40s to the 70s, basic foods were heavily subsidised and very affordable, entertainment and sports were widely available through unions, everyone had paid vacation, the retirement age was 60 for men and 55 for women… My point with this isn’t “all hail Stalin”. My point is, if a socialist system born from the violence of tsarism and World War 2 such as the soviet union achieved all of that by 1970, what the fuck are we doing?

I could go on to talk about the problems with social democracy and imperialism in the third world, but I think this is a long enough comment. Please let me know it you find it interesting or wanna discuss anything inside

Well you clearly see it doesn’t work. Saying "there’s someone worse* CLEARLY doesn’t mobilise people to vote repeatedly against fascism. Almost as if, hear me out, fascism has never historically been beaten through electoralism. What we need is to organize in leftist communities and organisations, create dual power structures, protest hard and support labor rights, and struggle against fascism through direct action instead of voting once every four years.

Keep blaming the people who warned you that the democrat strategy of lesser-evilism wouldn’t work.

Literally ALL the things you’ve mentioned could have been fixed by democrats, and 2/3 were actually electoral promises… I dont know how you expect people to keep voting for the lesser evil if the lesser evil is a deceptive and genocidal party

OK dude if you wanna stay in the western echo chamber just talk openly about it

I’m not denying anything, I’m asking to be careful with such accusations and with the references used

The Holocaust wasn’t well known and widely acknowledged in the Allies at the time of WW2 for some years, it’s a sad consequence of the information war between Nazis and the Allies. Soviet soldiers report being surprised and disgusted when liberating extermination and concentration camps from the Nazis.

I don’t trust anyone, surely everyone is lying. Both sides have a very strong interest on propagating opposite points of view. Framing Russia as the saviours of the Russian population in Crimea and Donetsk against Ukronazis is very beneficial to Russia, framing Russia as a war criminal country kidnapping children is very beneficial to NATO.

Remember Nayirah’s testimony? Remember the WMDs in Iraq?

because people should vote on excitement and engagement, not truth

What part of the genocide wasn’t true at the time of the elections?

reactionary populisms fueled by false promises

Like codifying Roe V Wade? Like closing Guantanamo?

If they have a shred of civil responsibility

Civil responsibility is voting for the party that pretends to care about Gazans while carrying out a genocide and funding Israel.

because people should vote on excitement and engagement, not truth

What part of the genocide wasn’t true at the time of the elections?

reactionary populisms fueled by false promises

Like codifying Roe V Wade? Like closing Guantanamo?

If they have a shred of civil responsibility

Civil responsibility is voting for the party that pretends to care about Gazans while carrying out a genocide and funding Israel.

OP mentions genocide

Response frames it as entertainment

My point is that there aren’t many sources to trust for now, not from one side and not from the other, because of the ongoing conflict and information war. You can’t trust the New York Times in the same way you probably wouldn’t trust Russia Today.

If you saw a collectively edited article related to the Ukrainian War, edited primarily by Russian men, using Russian sources (whether state or private), would you trust it? Would you trust a collectively edited article on Taiwan edited primarily by Chinese men using primarily Chinese sources (whether state or private)? If the answer is yes I’ll shut up, if the answer is no, then why do you do it with Wikipedia?

Is your writeup about that specific article? Because if not, it’s irrelevant.

You can just say you don’t care to read about the intrinsic biases in wikipedia in specific topics and that you’ll keep uncritically using it.

Also, there are Wikipedia editors from all over the world

Wikipedia ITSELF acknowledges that the vast majority of articles, especially those written in “western” languages, are edited primarily by western men. I’m not making shit up, Wikipedia literally talks about it in a meta-article about bias in wikipedia.

Seems like your real problem is they’re being big meanies to Russia which only has the best intentions for Ukrainians and would never commit any war crimes.

Russia is a capitalist regime on a downwards spiral to fascism, and it’s perfectly capable of committing war crimes, it’s currently ongoing in increasing oppression of its own women and LGTBQ. That doesn’t mean we should take Wikipedia’s word during war time for granted. Go through the sources of the article and tell me how many non-western or non-Ukrainian ones are used. I’ve seen an article from the Russian oppositional media “Meduza” but I unfortunately can’t read Russian so I can’t really tell what it says. Plenty of other reference from outright US/Ukraine propaganda outlets such as the “conflict observatory”, a US “NGO” receiving money from the NED; or such as Ukrainian media, which obviously have a stake in this topic.

Please, give my writeup a chance, and if you have anything to comment on it, feel free to let me know

Welp, here’s hoping that western Europe doesn’t end up going in the same direction. I’m western European myself and I’m fucking afraid of the fascist spiral we’re seeing here too.

Could you please do me the favour and read my writeup before responding like that? I addressed what you’re saying.

Wikipedia itself has an article on its own bias, and an article on which sources the wiki editors consider reliable. Feel free to read my writeup for extended info on that.

Just curious. Would you support a civil war in now openly fascist USA (see support of genocide and nazi salutes in presidential inauguration)? I don’t support civil war in either because that’s a horrifying outcome for the population of both.