Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left

20,000 liberals and me, the one true leftist.

I am on hexbear because I like the memes. I consider myself a centrist, but I do agree with their general stance of a revolution that leads to the abolition of private property, there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the complete dedication to elevating our marginalized comrades. I just try not to get political there, and it's fine really.
- I'm a centrist; Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists both make good points
  
  Based
  posting
- You're such a centrist!
  
  For real. It’s nice to finally find a place that doesn’t make everything so political all the time.
  
  It would be a better world if these were the views of most centrists!
- Lmao this is great
- Honestly this might be the best bit to genuinely convince centrists
- Yeah I'm somewhere in the centre
- banger
Everyone left of me is red fascist and everyone right of me is normal fascist

liberal

LOL

Haha we were owned.

It's basically a mayor Pete fan club over there

- Every time his face gets posted, a grocer in Canada gets the sudden urge to raise the price of bread.
  
  Actually they're raising the price of meat now.
I mailed him my dog, but he says he hasn't received it and that's why I can't have it back

I hate those hexbear shit libs.

Hexbear also has a large number of Putin and CCP apologists. Authoritarian bootlicking isn't liberalism.

if supporting a project that lifts 800M out of extreme poverty is wrong, I don't wanna be right
- Pushing Native Americans onto reservations lifted a lot of European immigrants out of poverty.
  Burning fossil fuels lifted entire nations out of poverty.
  Campaigns against the barbarians lifted many Romans out of poverty.
  If you think this "lift" is some example of public good in action that hasn't come at the cost of exploitation, you're delusional.
  
  Chinese poverty elimination didn’t come on the backs of any of those things you goober. “Well have you considered that sometimes OTHER countries did bad things to reduce domestic poverty, and therefore China doing so is inherently bad actually !?” Grow the fuck up, this isn’t a real argument.
  
  China lifted 800 million people out of poverty by building healthcare, transport, housing, jobs, education and food security? Heh, but what about that time European settlers got richer by genociding Native Americans? Technically that was "poverty reduction" too, commie
  
  Pushing Native Americans onto reservations lifted a lot of European immigrants out of poverty.
  Yes that was a bad thing the us did. What does that have to do with china?
  
  Please watch this documentary co-produced by literally PBS on the poverty alleviation campaign. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as all a charade and propaganda, but I hope you approach it with an open mind. What the Chinese have been able to accomplish (through sheer hard work and determination) is nothing short of incredible and it honestly pisses me off you would compare that to the literal genocide of Native Americans.
  
  Typical whataboutism from a centrist liberal tankie!!
All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have "HUMAN RIGHTS" written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
- Anarchy in the streets, MLM in the sheets
- All governments are authoritiarian.
  This argument is essentially "words have no real meaning". Having authority does not make a government authoritarian. The term authoritarianism is defined. The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
  
  The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
  China has 8 other political parties in its congress
  
  also it's officially the CPC (Communist Party of China), not the CCP
  
  Mmmhmm, and how many of those tiny parties have any functional political power? When was the last time that a non-CCP member led the PRC?
  Oh right, never. These other parties are tokens. Period.
  
  maybe if more people voted for them they would be bigger parties
  does a party stop being a party because it's smaller than the dominant party? By that measure, Japan is authoritarian as they've been run by a single party (the LDP) for nearly 70 years!
  
  I mean, maybe? I'm not particularly educated on Japanese politics, but they are a constitutional monarchy.
  But as I noted above, being a single-party state is not the entire definition of authoritarianism, just one part of it. The Chinese political system is authoritarian.
  
  every government is authoritarian
  
  Bluntly, the definition of authoritarianism as any exercise of authority is far too broad to be useful, and is not consistent with actual academic discourse regarding political systems.
  Excerising authority does not make a government authoritarian. If the law says "thou shalt not commit murder", and the government enforces this law, would you label that as authoritarianism?
  
  The Chinese government has much higher approval ratings from its people (consent of the governed) than the U.S. and most any other western “democracy”. It uses less violence against its citizens (US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world plus high rates of police murder and brutality) as well as internationally (China hasn’t bombed or invaded anybody in like 40 years while the U.S. does so daily over the same time period). Objectively, for the word to have any meaning at all the US is far more authoritarian. It uses its authority more violently and malevolently. If you can’t admit this you aren’t engaging with reality, you’re just afraid of challenging the propaganda you’ve been indoctrinated with.
  
  What does the enforcement of this law entail? Police, prisons, arrests, all measures you could simply label authoritarian with no context, no matter how much we might agree on murder being bad, and laws against it being good.
  
  Then present a definition that isn't too broad to be useful, because so far you haven't.
  
  America. This is America. It's the same picture. America does the same thing but in a different fashion. Please at least admit America is authoritiarian. Why not? I'm a principled maoist, but this makes me want to burn down Walmarts
  
  I'm not playing whataboutism games right now.
  
  its not whataboutism, Im saying a lake is a pond a pond is a lake. I watched john oliver in high school, but really tho would you have supported the entente in ww1 cuz the axis were "authoritarian"??? I know history, I know this shit is bullshit. I'll talk to you all day about the shortcomings of the USSR, or the PRC, or the DPRK, whatever the fuck, they all have valid criticism, but fuck if america aint some kinda authoritarian state, then idk what
  
  Whataboutism is when you hold two governments to the same standard.
  If capitalist bootlickers didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.
  
  Whataboutism is when you ignore a criticism of one party and instead say that another party is worse in some way, in order to distract from the original discussion. Hexbear users apparently love this underhanded tactic.
  
  See that's the fundamental mistake you libs make. You project your childlike black and white worldview onto people with a broader understanding, like the christians who think that atheists hate god.
  
  These parties also haven't liftend millions of people out of poverty, that should help them get elected then
  
  How much influence do the 6 other parties hold in the us?
  Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes, or would you find some other way to downcut it? Why would a larger share be better? If it was equal would that then be the best? Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government? Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
  
  Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes
  Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
  Why would a larger share be better?
  Because that's how democracy works.
  Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government?
  Democracy is a function of broad representation in government, ideally complete representation, though this is difficult to achieve in practice.
  Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
  In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election.
  Under the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the CCP is guaranteed a leadership role, and the National People's Congress therefore does not serve as a forum of debate between government and opposition parties as is the case with Western parliaments.[9] At the same time, the Constitution makes the Party subordinate to laws passed by the National People's Congress, and the NPC has been the forum for debates and conflict resolution between different interest groups. The CCP maintains control over the NPC by controlling delegate selection, maintaining control over the legislative agenda, and controlling the constitutional amendment process.[9]
  ref
  The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
  
  Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
  Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn't inherently "more democratic". A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it's not a rule.
  Because that's how democracy works
  I'm pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I'm just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter(tm) counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you're admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
  In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election
  Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it's always nice to retread old ground. I'm gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
  The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
  Dawg you're quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it's also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you're going to say "Oh they lie, oh they repress!" Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn't the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn't the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn't the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn't the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
  
  The parties represent interests separate from and under the CPC, which is one of the largest political parties on earth and comprises of a tenth of the eligible population in China. The CPC is the party which represents the majority interests of the population, of which mas multiparty organization would merely atomize and undermine socialization.
  Also stop saying 'CCP'; you are illiterate lmao.
  
  you are illiterate lmao.
  Since this is demonstrably not the case, I have to assume that you don't know what the word means, which is somewhat ironic...
  
  He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
  
  What I need is discussion with people who are mature enough to not feel the need to use insults when making their arguments.
  Apparently there aren't many such people on hexbear.
  
  Youd probably get a lot further if you engaged in good faith, instead of being snide
  
  "The United States is also a one-party system, but in classic American extravagance, they have two of them"
  -Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
  
  The word authoritarian has no meaning. Any definition that covers the PRC also covers every other country. Unless of course the definition is "non-white people are in the government" but at that point the definition is just madk-off
Define 'Authoritarian'
- How about you do some reading yourself.
  
  I don't actually think. I just know I'm right. Then whenever I'm in an argument I can just link the [word we're arguing about] wikipedia article. Since I'm right and wikipedia has objective information the argument is over every time and I win.
  
  Did you have something useful to add to the conversation?
  
  The conversation was you linking a Wikipedia article, I was at least hoping you'd link like a book or something. Like we could have a discussion if you were trying to argue against authoritarianiam as defined by say Bakunin or some other anarchist thinker.
  Then I could respond with On Authority which argues that authority is a natural consequence of any organization and calling something authoritarian just means you're saying that it's a system that is able to successfully reproduce itself.
  You could also try to link "authoritarianism" to fascism, but again that is pointless because there's already a term for fascism, which is Fascism.
  
  You may as well talk to a wall. It would be about as useful although probably less frustrating.
  
  You man have more luck in talking to 'walls' or people in general if you were willing to engage in good faith discussion
  
  Something most hexbear users do not do.
  
  If you would reread the thread you'd notice it begins with the hexbear user making a simple request, which the user could not fulfill. Any further questions in the discussion were met with derision, which is when the bad-faith behaviour was reciprocrated by the hexbear user. Please do better and hold yourself to at least half the standard you expect of others
  
  Lmao they linked to Wikipedia! And the definition is so broad it covers literally every country!
  One of these days I hope you learn to be critical of the propaganda you've been enmeshed in
It's CPC you sound like a yokel
- And why exactly are you so emotionally attached to CPC vs CCP that you felt the need to throw in a epithet? CCP is the common abbreviation.
  
  Read the first fucking sentence of the link you just sent me
  
  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[3] officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),[4] is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
  
  Oh shit it's a motherfucking Wikipedia link oh noooooooo
  
  POTUS -> TUSP (The United States President)
  CIA -> CAI (Central Agency of Intelligence)
  FBI -> BFI (Bureau of Federal Investigation)
  It's fun to just change around acronyms for official governing bodies. I'm gonna go edit Wikipedia to include these as common abbreviations too
  
  why are you so emotionally attached to being wrong?
Liberalism is bad, hope that helps clarify
I thought this exact thing, but the more I learned about them, it turned out to really not be true. While there is a kind of meme culture there of asking Xi to nuke the town they're currently residing in, and pointing out all of the white supremacist symbols used by the Ukraine's army or whatever, there is a deeper context for it.
They don't necessarily support every move these people make and particularly in regards to Putin there is a lot of criticism towards his social stances.
They're more looking at this through the lens of what a nato conflict is causing in terms of a more multi-polar world and also Russia turning away from the neoliberalism that has dominated it since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Not saying you have to agree with it. I'm more of a centrist myself, but it's really not fair to say this as a blanket statement with no context.
Show me the apologia.
Edit: incredible how asking libs for any proof is like a magic spell to make them disappear
Authoritarian bootlicking isn't liberalism.
It's the core of liberalism.

Liberal? They’re as extreme as conservatives who call communism everything they don’t like (cause they call everything they don’t like “fascist”)

the leftism understander has logged on
(cause they call everything they don’t like “fascist”)
Maybe you don't understand what fascism is.
Or maybe you do, and you're a supporter of it.
I believe the comrade is making a joke about our politics. Not everything we don't like is fascism, some of it is liberalism. But of course, we all know what bleeds when a liberal gets scratched.
Haven't liberals been the ones calling us fascists ever since we federated?
This is essentially what I used to think as well, until I spent more time there. There's some stock phrases busted out, and some users probably leave it at that and don't engage beyond it. However, they genuinely have a deeper framework for an analysis of the world than what you're going to see from conservatives.
Basically as part of their extremely liberal ideology, they analyze things through a materialist lens, even the non-marxist liberals there, and through that there is a lot of seeking out of what material causes and contradictions have lead to where we are which can be really neat.
There is probably some disagreement over what is fascist, what's not, blah blah. But it's really not as simple as "what I don't like is fascism".
conservatives are liberals
Eh, it's a lot like reddit.
Two thirds of the rabid ones here are keyboard socialists. They type a good game, know all the stock phrases, but when it comes to actually doing shit, well, touching grass is scary.
They stay inside and rant and rave about how things SHOULD be while we are out there actually making the incremental changes to try to bring it about.
Then they post and pat themselves on the back for saying we're not doing enough.
It's very clear that this is every bit the senseless, thoughtless, reactionary, pathetic echo chamber that t_d was, just with red flags instead of red hats.
Thank you all for helping me to realize that so quickly.
- They stay inside and rant and rave about how things SHOULD be while we are out there actually making the incremental changes to try to bring it about.
  Incremental changes like allowing abortion bans, trans bans, the cost of living to skyrocket, drone striking workers around the world, doing nothing about the climate, allowing millions of avoidable covid deaths for the sake of the rich... Oh and presiding over the restoration of child labour? Those incremental changes? Anything I missed?
  You're useless. You are projecting enormously when you say we socialists only talk when literally everything is going backwards even when you're in power.
  What do you even do anyway? Are you organising? Or do you just vote every few years and act like that means you do something? We organise.
  
  What organization have you done?
  
  Me personally, I teach and make my students aware of the dictatorship of capital, imperialism, the profite motive.. Basically marxism-leninism 101 on a introductionary level.
  Other than that, I'm active in the teachers union and volunteer in the local chapter of the Marxist leninist party tog et local projects of the ground, like extending the public transport network, social housing, and most important of all, talking with people about their problems, the rise of fascism where I live and how to counter it, as well as the current neoliberal line of thought in both local and federale government.
  What have you done?
  
  Whataboutism!!
- while we are out there actually making the incremental changes to try to bring it about.
  lmao most of the activism by liberals here is voting every 2 - 4 years and posting, don't kid yourself. Just keep carrying water for an unrepentant segregationist and telling yourself that the incremental steps you are supporting are towards progress and not a third world war.
- You're not doing anything you're literally just actively promoting fascism. Congratulations, you beat the Republicans by becoming Republicans. So cool and very effective!
- while we are out there actually making the incremental changes
  Oh, like choosing between the fascist hog and the cryptofascist corpo hog?
- They stay inside and rant and rave about how things SHOULD be while we are out there actually making the incremental changes to try to bring it about.
  Phonebanking for Biden doesn't count as doing shit btw
  
  Exactly why I've been phone banking for Hilary since 2016. We will overcome. ✊
  
  Can't wait for her rematch against drumpf. It's her turn!
  
  Just like Rocky vs Ivan.
- Ait lemme know when that incremental change actually changes something
  
  Incremental change doesn't work, but if it did we don't have time for it with the climate as it is, but if we did I'd still rather change something quick so we can stop people from dying in poverty and starvation.