DictatrshipOfTheseus

Yes. This. This is exactly what I was talking about in my other comment in this thread, posted before seeing this one. I was calling it scale instead of scope, but this is spot on.

People will pick and choose how things function at one scope and pretend it applies at others. A lot of people, even good well-meaning ones, will do this and fall into this trap, but particularly shitty people will do this as a way to justify their garbage beliefs or justify hurting and demeaning others. Exactly like OP image "you don't matter 'cause the Earth doesn't give a shit if you're here or not as one person. You're a loser for thinking you matter at all." FUCK that. You absolutely matter, just not necessarily at the scale/scope of an entire planet orbiting a star, that doesn't invalidate or make meaningless the just as real scale/scope at which you DO matter. Their application of how things function at scale is always used in whatever way is beneficial to them at the moment or to prove whatever flawed, even sadistic point they're trying to make. Capitalists, politicians, and of course the mass media under their control do this constantly and it infuriates me to no end.

It really is a matter of scale. Even at the scale of society as a whole, you as an individual don't "matter" in that your presence (or lack of it) isn't going to impact its course or functionality. It's literally why we have to organize in order to even have any hope of achieving our aims. We certainly don't "matter" on a global scale. However, what the person in the OP image said is entirely true. At the scale of our families and social group, and absolutely at the scale of our individual experience, each of us matters profoundly. At the scale of our individual experience, each of us is a universe unto ourselves.

It is infuriating to me when people refuse to understand that what is true at one scale may not be (and usually isn't) true at another scale, but that this does not invalidate how true things are at any other given scale. The fact that your impact on the galaxy as a whole is so small as to be effectively insignificant does not mean that your impact on the world you live in, literally your sphere of experience and influence, is insignificant, because the truth is that it is extremely significant at that scale.

Western culture and society is pathological in how it simultaneously acts as though the only reality is what exists at the scale of the individual when it comes to blame and "rEsPoNsIbiLitY" but will utterly diminish and demean the experience of any individual that doesn't spend their existence on this earth in service of the great evil god of capital. It's Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society, only individual men and women and families." Meanwhile every single one of those individual men and women (rather the ones who don't own or control capital) are treated as nothing more than a cog in a machine, a sliver of utility to be used as such then expended and replaced as such. It's a philosophy that cherry-picks only the convenient truths of how things work at various different given scales and applies them across the board as if they're true at all other scales, all of course to serve the interests of the ruling class. It is a source of many of the philosophical contradictions of capitalism and the diseased society that results from it.

https://htwins.net/scale2/

I've loved (and since missed) your weekly rankings. Fucking hilarious content. But I'm really happy to know that the reason they've been put on hiatus is because you're gonna be a papa. Not happy about the difficulty part of course, I hope that all gets worked out comrade. Anyway, congratulations! Health and happiness to you, your wife, and your soon to be introduced to this world son.

Compare China with the capitalist project? Ok, China is clearly winning in just about every conceivable way. Were you trying to make some sort of point?

1. Mostly it was about fooling you into thinking that, as a worker, you have even an iota of power within that company.

2. You: "The owners deserve all the value that results from owning the company and not the workers because the owners own the company, duh." Reread what you said and note the ridiculous circular logic.

3. The company would continue to function perfectly fine without the owner(s), yet would immediately cease to function or even exist without the workers. The only role the owner plays in the company (that the workers operate), is to siphon the value away from the workers who made it and unto themselves.

I'm not entirely sure what this means specifically, but it does sound cool.

As for leftist internet personalities, JT of Second Thought (youtube channel) and The Deprogram (podcast) fame will be doing an AMA on hexbear on the 28th, and I hope lemmygradians come participate. Lemmygrad should get Hakim to do an AMA after that, then we can have some sort of posting battle for who gets Yugopnik as a follow up.

I guess I'm trying to understand what makes this a liberal viewpoint or why do you classify it as such?

I guess I am just trying to understand the viewpoints of my communist fellow humans

I'm not the person you're responding to, but... A liberal viewpoint (in this context) is one that is idealist, not materialist. A liberal will point at a policy ostensibly drawn up to address some given issue, and whether that policy is effective or not, or even whether the policy is enforced, will claim that "something is being done" to address that issue. In a liberal framework, it is the policy itself that satisfies the condition that the issue has been addressed, not any actual action that makes a real material difference to solve or change the issue. Again, it's just idealism vs materialism. Liberalism is a philosophy based on the former, communism is (among other things) a philosophy based on the latter.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I think you missed the whole point of GarbageShoot asking you specifically about Allende.

just based on a small snippet of reading about them, I think in general [...]

I think this is the main problem here: a lack of knowledge about the historical context of "authoritarian" socialist projects, but nevertheless making generalized statements about them without even considering the material reasons why they were by necessity "authoritarian." Read up more about the history of Chile and consider what happened to Allende and the hope of a socialist Chile. Who came after Allende (and almost as important, who installed that successor)? Why do these events seem so familiar when learning about every other attempt, successful or not, to bring about a communist society? When you've done that, you will at the very least have a leg to stand on when criticizing so-called tankie authoritarianism.

I'd also suggest reading The Jakarta Method. Here's a somewhat relevant quote from it:

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

That group was annihilated.

I'm curious what aspects of that comment you thought were fantastical. Will you elaborate and be specific?

It is true that there are plenty of people who use reddit that are not racist (setting aside the idea that everyone who lives in a racist society, which we in the west do, has at least some internalized racism). Some people on reddit even actively fight against it, to their credit. That said, as a platform, both in terms of the people who run and administrate it, as well as the larger majority mass of users, definitely tends towards racism. This can be seen in all kinds of ways, from admins always siding with of racists over bipoc to the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of the "orcish hordes" that dominates in every popular subreddit (and the silencing of those who offer even the mildest criticism of it), to the understandable yet very telling rabid defense of the privilege so many of them insist they earned when it is nothing more than old fashioned white privilege. You seem to agree that reddit is bad for its corporatist bullshit and its laser focus on profit at the expense of people. We agree. But that alone is inherently systemically racist for sociological reasons that I'm assuming you're aware of, given some of your other comments. For all these reasons, it is hardly an overreaction or unfair to refer to reddit as "a racist website."

As for "authoritarian" communists, all I'll say here is that I hope you can learn to seriously, genuinely question a lot of what you have learned from what amounts to an ocean of propaganda deliberately spread for decades (even over a century) to demonize any successful socialist revolution. I'd encourage you to ask some of us "tankies" in good faith about some of that propaganda in other appropriate threads.

-thread.

Surprise surprise, libs arrogantly assuming they're the default and pearl-clutching about being "brigaded" because they got exposed to ideas that don't fit the narrative they've swallowed, exactly the way they always do. Vapid, self-centered actors through and through.