@AnarchoBolshevik
@lemmygrad.mlAlthough the way that you are posing this enquiry sounds very inflammatory — suggesting that somebody is supporting fascism is a very serious accusation — I am going to assume good faith for now.
The first and most obvious problem is that you have a deeply misinformed perception of the DPRK. For a more reasonable and realistic view, see here. (You’ll also find more explanatory content through lurking that board.)
The next issue is that Wikipedia, being dominated by neoliberals, offers an oversimplified definition of fascism. Fascism was the means by which the bourgeoisie strengthened and protected capitalism from its own contradictions. Nobody appointed Kim with that goal in mind. You should take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, because while it can be useful for starting research, it is unsafe as an endpoint.
Despite its evidently restricted character, the [Soviet] elections in 1937 were perceived by many ordinary people as an opportunity to participate in framing a new constitutional order. The turnout reached 96.8 per cent of the electorate. Some ballots were spoilt. In one district 97 per cent of votes cast were valid, the remainder defaced in some way, or the candidate’s name erased. In Novosibirsk region the name ‘Trotsky’ was written in on one ballot, ‘I am voting for the heavenly Tsar’ on another, and ‘We are not voting’ on a third.⁹
(Source.)
While I do prefer the Russian Federation over Ukraine’s régime, I am reluctant to term this preference ‘support’, unless you think that dismissing various demonizations of the Russian Federation counts as such. Materially, I’ve never supported the Russian Federation with anything, but I do defend it against demonizations since demonizations are exactly what make lower‐class people think that it’s okay to continue wasting their tax dollars on a neoimperialist client state: the Ukrainian government.
As much as I loathe the Russian government, its invasion of Ukraine was not a naked power grab in the style of WWI, but the inevitable consequence of the Western bourgeoisie breaking its promise not to continue expanding eastward. The Western bourgeoisie has spelled out for decades its long‐term goal of balkanizing the Russian Federation, and many Ukrainian neofascists have done likewise. Such a partition would only benefit the Western upper classes at the lower classes’ expense.
For me, the goal is not so much to ‘support Russia’ per se as it is to weaken neoimperialism and hopefully convince others to stop giving up their resources to a neoimperialist client state when those resources could be better spent on services and products that we need here and now as lower‐class North Americans. I suppose that somebody could argue that I’m splitting hairs here since opposing neoimperialism effectively means supporting the Russian Federation, but I think that saying ‘I support Russia’ would be too vague and misleading to be helpful.
I never wanted to know what it would have looked like if Luke joined the Dark Side in Return of the Jedi, but now we have our answer.
Agreed. I know that the original poster isn’t siding with the Herzlians, but this is still in questionable taste.
The acceptance of gun violence in Imperial America reminds me of how mob violence became normalized in the Russian Federation. That sort of activity would have been inconceivable in the Soviet Union, but then the counterrevolutionaries laid waste to the Eastern Bloc and organized crime suddenly looked like reasonable means of survival.
I was too little to understand the controversy surrounding the Columbine High massacre, but I later did some research on it and it was almost astounding how everybody went apeshit finding somebody to blame, to the point where the capitalist media got in touch with Marilyn Manson and Doom nerds to confirm that they have no itch to either commit or endorse atrocities. Now? It’s hard to imagine the Columbine High massacre making anywhere near the same impact that it made decades ago.
It was meant to mock anticommunists who deny evidence that is right in front of them, but I guess that I should have dropped a clearer hint that I was kidding. Anyway, I feel kind of guilty about making this thread now. I’ll go eliminate it.
Guess how many people I’ve converted.
Hint: the number is identical to my annual salary.
Many adults cling to Christianity because it can function as a crude coping mechanism in an uncaring society: the appeal of a higher power caring for someone is easy to see, and religious institutions in general can be convenient sources of community, especially for somebody trapped in an antisocial culture like the United States of America. I am irreligious yet I feel more comfortable revisiting a Presbertyrian church than approaching my own neighbors.
Liberation theology is not a desperate attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. For some Abrahamists, it simply feels natural or logical to them. I am willing to agree that theology of any sort is unnecessary for emacipating oneself, but it is—at best—a waste of time trying to convince somebody to discard it since they are already on our side and their spiritual beliefs are harmless. If their beliefs remain a big deal to you, though, then you need to understand that they are symptomatic and that addressing them directly would be the wrong approach to take.
Yes, the Church has frequently been complicit in colonialism. Yes, aggressive proselytization is always wrong. Nevertheless, we also need to acknowledge that many lower‐class Christians have rebelled against their oppressors despite mainstream Church teachings, and that they are reluctant to let go of their beliefs since they are convenient sources of comfort, not necessarily because they are worried about retaliation. Religion is a double‐edged sword. The ruling class has used it as an instrument of oppression, but that does not mean that it has never backfired either.