Somewhere that criticism of authoritarianism doesn’t get you banned

I got banned from politics @ .world for saying that the Uyghur genocide is made up and not even Radio Free Asia or Adrian Zenz have managed to make up any evidence for the past 3 years, while the instance is full of people denying the explicitly graphic genocide in Gaza. Please explain to me how .ml is more authoritarian than that

some of the worst the site has to offer in terms of pro-authoritarian bias

Pro authoritarian bias is when you’re against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and when you criticise the two-party system in the US. Cry me a river, lib

God, you’re so brainrotten by the narrative of “not voting for Harris is voting for Project 2025” that you can’t even get the words of the comment you’re responding to into your brain.

your proposal is

My proposal, as stated in the previous comment that you answered to: “enough numbers of progressives conditioning their vote to the end of genocide might make the dem administration sway towards ending the genocide”.

What part of that isn’t clear, or what part seems like calling for Project 2025?

By giving your unconditional vote to Harris, you’re not saying “I’m voting for the progressive candidate because of trans rights”. What you’re doing is saying “you can being the most republican-minded, Dick-Cheney-endorsed, conservative economically, and gaza-genocider candidate, as long as it’s minimally less harmful than Le Drumpf”. That’s how you enable the constant slide to the right in politics that you’ve seen for the psst decades. The idea isn’t solely “I’m too morally superior to vote for either wing of the American Corporate parties”, it’s also “enough numbers of progressives conditioning their vote to the end of genocide might make the dem administration sway towards ending the genocide.” And if not even that will make democrat leadership even question their commitment to the extermination of Palestinians, then the conclusion is simple: death to America.

If Harris wins, the republicans will nominate “evil candidate Mk.2”, and we’ll have you libs criticising people for protesting against Kamala’s support of the genocide, saying that “protests weaken democrats and we need them to win again in 2028 or else…”

You missed the part in between where they made a deal with the nazis

I didn’t miss that part because there was no “deal with Nazis”. Nothing as bad as the Munich Agreement signed the previous year by England, France and Germany among others, allowing Hitler to occupy the Sudetenland, a land with more than 3mn people in Czechoslovakia (to whom the Soviet Union offered assistance but Romania and Poland denied pass to Soviet troops, possibly influenced by the fact that Poland also did a grab of land of Czechoslovakia). The USSR spent the entire 30s trying to push for a military alliance with England, France and Poland to stop Nazism, but they all refused because a good liberal would rather have Nazis first exterminate communists. Stalin went as far as offering to station 1 million troops, together with aviation and artillery, in France, in case Stalin invaded, to which England and France refused. Feel free to study the so-called “collective security policy” pushed by the USSR in Europe against Nazism.

The Soviet Union had been in a civil war until 1921 (right after a devastating WW1/, and before that it was a preindustrial nation. It had a whopping 19 years to rebuild the country from scratch and to industrialise, compared to the 100+ years of German industrialization. They desperately needed every single year of industrialization they could get in order to gain some advantage against the industrially superior Nazis, as evidenced by the 25+ million casualties the USSR suffered against the Nazis despite material help from the US. Making an agreement to postpone the war after every country in Europe refuses to enter a military alliance against Nazis just because you’re a communist country, is just the logical action to defend your citizens.

Please stop pushing revisionist nazi propaganda. Without the USSR, the slavic population of Europe, including Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian, as well as many other ethnic groups, would have been genocided in vastly superior numbers than they were.

If by “joined WW2”, do you mean “got refused from any military alliances with England, France and Poland despite a decade of trying in an attempt to unify Europe against Hitler”? Or do you mean “getting invaded by the Nazis and losing 25+mn people in the process of eliminating Nazism from Europe”?

We’re not stupid animals, there are plenty of historical examples of societies allocating resources based on need rather than economic capability. We’re just living under the wrong system, and we need to evolve past that system towards something with actual democracy, where the people can decide democratically how the economy works and how the resources are allocated, where the workers aren’t under the orders of a dictatorial power structure 8 hours a day 5 days a week, but instead they collectively make the decisions and take the profits from the companies they own collectively.

Because they can pay 10 million to a consulting firm to develop a customer-profiling model that predicts their income based on the most recent purchases with a 10% margin of error.

Fully aware, that’s why I reject blaming the individuals as opposed to the system

He is not taking a Marxist position

Precisely that’s why it’s taken him 80 years longer than Marxists to reach that conclusion.

Not every criticism of Capitalism is an endorsement of Marxism

Which is why non-marxist anti-capitalist movements such as Salvador Allende’s socialism in Chile, or Mosaddegh’s Iran, inevitably fail within a few years due to the lack of understanding of class struggle and the history of capitalism.

You are assuming that a country cannot improve its growth because of past and its success it determined purely by past events

Nothing like that. I’m saying that industrialization is a gradual and long process, and by pure logic, some countries which started to industrialize 100+ years before others, had the advantage.

By the way, this “theory” completely falls apart when you look at Germany. Before they were one state, then divided and after communism fell, they re-united. After the berlin wall fell, eastern part was in a far worse condition.

Far-worse condition by which metric? Sure, it was less developed industrially and economically (see my point about not participating in colonialism, which you don’t seem to care about), but there was no unemployment and there was guaranteed housing for everyone. There were fewer, and worse quality, consumer goods, but is that how you determine the success of a system?

Regarding colonialism and unequal exchange, you don’t seem to understand how important an effect it has. Importing cheap raw materials and exporting high added-value manufactured goods, is the most profitable thing you can do, but it implies unequal exchange, which drains the resources and labour of poorer countries and exploits them. If you’re interested at all in the development of the economies of countries, you really should look into, and try to understand, the concept of unequal exchange. Otherwise, it’s like saying “wow Rome was so powerful in 200BC” while ignoring that like half the workforce were literal slaves.

By the nine divines… Why does it take libs 80 years extra to reach the conclusions that Marxists have already described in detail in the last century…

What you’re saying is at best debatable, and it’s definitely not consensus in academia. Feudalism is substantially and fundamentally different from capitalism. Serfs worked the land not based on free contracts for a wage selling their labour as a commodity, but rather legally bound to their lord’s land. Access to consumer goods wasn’t through purchase as commodities in a free market, but through self-production and barter/debt within small communities. Peasants worked the land with their own means of production and made their own tools with their own means of production, and generally people weren’t hired working other people’s means of production.

Class struggle has existed for millennia, but capitalism is just the current predominant system of class struggle because through industrial development it overpowers preexisting systems that weren’t capitalist.

That’s not necessarily true, many supposedly democratic regimes consistently pass unpopular policy and don’t pass popular policy. E.g. welfare state cuts to expenditure in education, healthcare and pensions in post-2008 EU, or the lack of progressive policy in USA healthcare.

It’s precisely this ignoring of the popular will that turns people to fascism

The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.

That’s not even remotely true. Natural monopolies exist because of how natural resources work, and oligopolies or undercutting of prices to destroy weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.

Replace “Israel” with “Russia” in your comment. Oh, wow, now suddenly neighboring nations have reasons to want them obliterated from the earth?

Enabling and funding a genocide in Gaza doesn’t sound too “defender of human rights” to me but sure

Pretty sure that if you can see Valencia and surroundings, you should be able to see Barcelona which is to its northeast, and that small central peak in the Iberian Peninsula looks to me to be close to Madrid, what is it then?

Madrid is gone, reduced to ashes? And so is Barcelona? Weird

By whom? How could China’s numbers be less reliable than India’s?