• arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1144·
    4 days ago

    I mean, he’s right? A (questionably) socialist dictator is still a dictator. Maduro was given the ability to rule by decree like a decade ago, and, like Trump, basically has control over every major part of the government.

    Of course, as he says, that doesn’t justify arbitrarily killing people or the long-term embargo on Cuba that has economically crippled the country.

    • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
      3819·
      3 days ago

      You really just have to look at it through the oversimplified lens of the Marxist Linanist. If the West does it, it is bad. If anyone else does it, it is good. All the whining about reading theory, that is honestly as deep as it gets.

      Capitalism, when the party does it is good actually. Suppression, imprisonment, and slaughter of the proletariat? If you did it in the name of the party, it’s no vice.

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    7616·
    3 days ago

    Oh shit, a balanced, nuanced take on a complex issue. Quick, get the Americans out of of here, they won’t be able to handle this.

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.socialEnglish
    496·
    4 days ago

    You mean the democratic socialist, an inherently anti-authoritarian party, is calling out authoritarians?

    Is it going to be news when he condems Xixing Ping and Putin and Netanyahu, and the Iranian Shah, and Saudi Royal family, and well you get the picture.

    Fuck authority that doesn’t earn it.

        • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          82·
          3 days ago

          The monarchs of Iran ruled for over two and a half millennia, beginning as early as the 8th century BC and enduring until the 20th century AD. The earliest Iranian monarch is generally considered to have been either Deioces of the Median dynasty (c. 727–550 BC) or Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid dynasty (550–330 BC). The last Iranian monarch was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of the Pahlavi dynasty (1925–1979), who was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution. Since then, Iran has been governed by theocratic supreme leaders.[1]

          “Shah of Iran” redirects to that page.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Iran ↩︎

          • peoplebeproblems@midwest.socialEnglish
            55·
            3 days ago

            You know, sometimes it’s ok for you to be wrong. I know hexbear is a community where everything is literal, but in this case, an Iranian Monarch and Iranian Supreme Leader are just different titles for two different authoritarian Regimes.

            Just like Xi Jingping is the Authoritarian Ruler of China, like Mao was.

            • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              132·
              3 days ago

              This is just aggressive ignorance. It’s not a matter of opinion or dependent on ideology. It’s basic history and terminology.

              an Iranian Monarch and Iranian Supreme Leader are just different titles for two different authoritarian Regimes

              Precisely. They are different words which refer to different regimes (separated by a revolution). If you use them interchangeably you will confuse people.

              Show me literally anyone else who refers to the Ayatollah as the Shah. Do an image search for “Shah of Iran” and look at the results.

              Xi and Mao are/were leaders of the same regime (The PRC), so that comparison actually makes sense. What you’re doing is the equivalent of saying the emperor of China is the same as the president of the People’s Republic of China.

                • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  8·
                  3 days ago

                  Authoritarianism isn’t a very good measure of government, when a monopoly on violence is one of the defining characteristics of a state. The difference is often more perception than it is reality, and even then tyrants can be vastly different from each other. Abraham Lincoln had Northern dissenters killed, and suppressed peoples rights, yet he was still a peak president.

                  Richard Nixon is the Shah. Saddam Hussein is the Shah. Modern Spain had death squads killing political opponents in my lifetime. Where isn’t lead by the Shah?

                • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  122·
                  3 days ago

                  Genghis Khan and Hitler were both authoritarians that had people killed over dissent.

                  Therefore, Genghis Khan invaded Poland in 1939 and put European Jews in concentration camps. They are identical.

                  I’m not talking about moral equivalence! You used the wrong term for the current head of state of Iran. Just learn and move forward, and stop acting like an arrogant ass when corrected.

                  I’m sorry if I sounded smug when I called out your initial error.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    145·
    3 days ago

    For decades, many left-leaning writers and speakers in the United States have felt obliged to establish their credibility by indulging in anticommunist and anti-Soviet genuflection, seemingly unable to give a talk or write an article or book review on whatever political subject without injecting some anti-Red sideswipe. The intent was, and still is, to distance themselves from the Marxist-Leninist Left.

    Adam Hochschild, a liberal writer and publisher, warned those on the Left who might be lackadaisical about condemning existing communist societies that they “weaken their credibility” (Guardian, 5/23/84). In other words, to be credible opponents of the cold war, we first had to join in cold war condemnations of communist societies. Ronald Radosh urged that the peace movement purge itself of communists so that it not be accused of being communist (Guardian, 3/16/83). If I understand Radosh: To save ourselves from anticommunist witchhunts, we should ourselves become witchhunters.

    Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being “smeared” as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations.

    The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by “communist subversives” or “loyal American liberals.” All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent.

    Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, 1997.

      • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        81·
        3 days ago

        You can see it with how conservatives depict Obama, AOC, Biden, Hillary Clinton, or any number of liberals. They can be fervent anti-communists who literally kill or imprison actual communists, yet they’re depicted as if they’re Stalin reborn.

  • ol_capt_joe@piefed.eeEnglish
    171·
    4 days ago

    Hoping to read more of his thoughts on how to actually solve the problem, instead the authors were just using a Mamdani interview quote to plug their podcast: gonna do 45 episodes per year with whoever we can find to join the debate.

    Ugh, do I have to do everything myself? Honey, watch the kids, I’m gonna go build a strong middle class in the ‘global south’.

      • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
        42·
        2 days ago

        I agree, however you might want to have a talk with your server admins and much of the user base about that.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          52·
          2 days ago

          You misunderstand, it’s only imperialism when it comes from the imperial region of NATO. Otherwise it’s sparkling self defense.

          • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
            41·
            2 days ago

            I know, right? It’s so weird to see that sentiment coming from a server where support of imperialist nations is mandated. The Soviets conquered and annexed their neighbors multiple times over the 20th century. They didn’t go to Afghanistan for summer camp in the 80s either. Nor did the US help Afghanistan out of the goodness of their hearts. China is practically repeating a lot of the United States machinations from the mid 20th century as well with their belt and road initiative too.

            But, as we all know. Imperialism for a certain crowd is just a dogwhistle for “the west”

    • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
      65·
      3 days ago

      If they’re doing state department volunteer work they’re not left of anything, fucking duh

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        52·
        2 days ago

        Sometimes people just spout the same exact bullshit you’ve heard a thousand times before, and only get hold of new opinions every blue moon. Especially the far-right, which now tries to use disdain towards artists to covertly push censorship while pretending to care about “freedom of speech” (read: ability of saying slurs without any negative consequences).