They purged roughly 10% - 12% of the opposition by parliament seats, yeah - that means it is at least that much less democratic. I’m just stating facts here. This isn’t a strong defense of the democratic values of Ukraine, just a statement that they aren’t wholly undemocratic as suggested in the meme - it’s misleading.
I agree that the situation isn’t treated with nuance, typically, by westerners. But in this case, this is neither particularly nuanced nor naïve - it’s just a statement of fact that the parliament has voted repeatedly to extend martial law.
That doesn’t mean Ukraine is a super-democratic country. It only means that it is the case that the government, made up of elected representatives (and yes, Ukraine banned 11 political parties for alleged Russian ties - one of them with ~10% of parliamentary seats - so the representativeness of the legislature is certainly debatable) has voted to not allow presidential elections until the war is over.
Obviously it’d take a much longer explanation to capture all of the relevant geopolitical context, but this is a factually accurate statement about what is happening, yes?
Referendum was incorrect. It was just a vote by the legislature, so elected representatives. I had seen Referendum used in some source, but I forget where.
On 26 February 2025, after a previous failed vote on a similar resolution,[27] the Verkhovna Rada passed a resolution reaffirming that elections should not be held during martial law, and also pledged to hold a presidential election upon the conclusion of the Russo-Ukrainian War.[28] On 6 March 2025 opposition politicians Petro Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, after having confirmed that they had held discussions with United States representatives, confirmed that they still opposed elections held during wartime.[29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Ukrainian_presidential_election
To be fair, they’re (understandably) under martial law which has been extended in 90 day increments since 2022 with parliamentary approval. Elections aren’t to be held under martial law per Ukranian law, and there have been referenda votes held among the Rada to determine if elections should be held, which failed.
Edit: referendum would entail direct democracy. That isn’t what happened - it was just a vote by the legislature.
“Bowr-gee-oh-eye-zee”
deleted by creator
Pure pacifism relies on an idealized view of humanity’s capacity for change.
Something like “by allowing me and my family to maybe be killed, we are helping to create a more peaceful world that will change people like my killer into a peaceful person. Who knows, in the instant before they murder us, maybe they will have a change of heart”
I think there’s an extent to which showing others kindness can help to change others’ behavior, but it’s really taking it to a ridiculous extreme if you apply it to like… your family being massacred by a really bad person/people. By that point, they’re too far gone and you should really do what you need to do.
Yeah, not good faith afterall. Learn to read, I guess.
Assuming you’re good faith, I really just don’t think it’s that simple. There’s also no whataboutism. If you had read and engaged with the OP and my comment, you’d see OP was directly comparing these countries to the West, which notably does include the US. My comment does the same, because I am engaging with the OP.
I’d recommend looking into the history of fascism if you want to learn what makes a country fascist. There’s many different viewpoints, and some do define fascism in a way that would capture what you’re saying and exclude the US. I don’t think those are very good definitions - they usually say “fascism is when dictatorship”, basically.
Others use definitions that explicitly tie fascism to particular ideological views (specifically views held by fascist Italy and Germany) like anti-semitism or anti-communism. That’s probably too prescriptive and excludes basically any government that is not Italy or Germany in the 20s-40s.
You can see a good summary in the wikipedia article caleld “definitions of fascism”. You’ll see there are many definitions of varying quality and historical accuracy. The best definitions, in my opinion, focus on traits that capture the governmental structure of fascist states that make them different from non-fascist states. That includes economic and structural points.
I think we can use a tighter definition of fascism. Fascist governments have these traits:
privatization of public goods/services (that’s a hallmark of fascism, they literally invented privatization in Germany in the 30s, and maybe actually Italy in the 20s)
some sort of in-group supremacy dynamic (racial in the case of Germany & Italy)
extreme nationalism & militarism
suppression of democratic groups (e.g. trade unions)
a government characterized by state-directed autarky, with production organized into government-sponsored cartels. (This is why privitization is important: that’s what makes this possible)
So, does the USSR have some of these characteristics? Sure. Of course. Modern day China, too. And the US & Russia. But to be fascist, a government needs to do these things at once - it needs to have the economic and structural factors that distinguish fascism from other forms of government.
I think the trouble is that “freedom of speech”, “freedom of expression”, etc. can be and are weaponized by colonial/hegemonic forces.
But, that said, that’s why I am not 100% supportive of this view. Possibly naïvely on my end, I think those sorts of freedoms are important not only for individuals but also as a check on state power. That said, I see how manipulative the US state department can be - and for that matter how manipulative foreign govts have been to the US - especially in recent election cycles… so I think it is a double edged sword.
That’s part of the reason I am also not a full blown anarchist/libertarian socialist. I can see the value in centralized state power when it comes to defending the state and people
I think they don’t completely diverge. I am sympatetic to this viewpoint, I just don’t fully endorse it. I think as leftists we should be generous to other leftists and their ideas.
Some do feel that way. Others feel that he isn’t a strong departure from where we were already heading. I think accelerationism is bad and we should never put ourselves in a position where fascism wins. Fascism needs to always be playing defense until it is totally defeated. Especially when it supports american hegemony, genocide, global poverty, etc.
A note on my biases: I am a leftist. I am generally “anti-authoritarian”, but I have read some theory and listened to enough commentary to understand why folks are pro-authoritarian (and why Authoritarian is a label only applied to enemies of american hegemony). I am on .ml - which I don’t think matters, anyone’s account can be anywhere: fediverse, baby.
Lemmy.ml is a website hosted on a server. Why do its mods and some users hold those beliefs?
Many of those people are communists. Opposition to american hegemony is the main reason, or critically supporting other actually existing socialist states. They may think China isn’t perfect, but they’re attempting socialism and are standing up to the US and have the best shot at success. In the case of North Korea, they may think that attempt at socialism is genuine and much of the bad stuff they do is falsified or exaggerated for propaganda or just be giving critical support to a country that has been destroyed by the US via war and sanctions.
Or, in the case of Russia & Iran, they have stood in firm opposition to American hegemony, military bullying, etc. even though they are not Communist/Socialist. So, even though they do a lot of bad things and don’t have socialist values, they are a lesser evil than America. For Russia, them pushing back against NATO is seen as a direct war against the advance of global capital, even though Russia is capitalistic and fascistic (much like a weaker version of the US).
In all of these cases, when a person supports these governments, they are not really saying “Country good”. They are saying “I critically support Country in opposition to American hegemony and global Capital”. There’s a lot of memes and jokes, and some people just really support Russia and NK uncritically - humanity is a rich tapestry - but that’s the gist of it.
Understanding this POV requires an understanding of history (re: socialism & US interventionalism), critical theory (re: media), and an ability to be generous to edgelords online who are not always the best messengers of this (valid) viewpoint. It is socialist realpolitik, not idealpolitik - a view where current events can be interpreted in a way that their outcomes may foment the material conditions favorable to socialism.
Now a question for you: How can a democratic & socialist country exist in a world where American hegemony exists and America is hell-bent on maintaining the global capitalistic order?
Given the US’ massive power and history of destroying socialist movements with tremendous violence (military and economic), can a country maintain its status as a real democracy without the US:
covertly funding extremist groups to coup the democratic government (Iran),
committing direct election tampering to elect a pro-US party (Venezuela, unsuccessfully),
launching proxy wars to murder their people (Vietnam, North Korea),
destroying the country’s economy with sanctions and completely disconnecting them from global trade - causing mass starvation and poverty (North Korea, Cuba)
The answer is that without the aid of a country capable of standing up to the US, they do not. These countries that still have socialist goverments have to hold on to power in a world where US hegemony is a fact.
I was agreeing with you
The framing and double-standard is chauvinist and bad.
But there are reasons to be skeptical of suicide stats worldwide due to cultural ideas and norms around suicide. Like, look at the US. It was common practice for coroners to put accident as cause of death even if it was clearly suicide - and still is, to some degree. Only recently have statisticians began including certain other cases of “accidental” death as suicide (some single car crashes, gun “accidents”, ODs, etc).
And different countries have different methods for reporting out on suicide. It’s not founded to say countries are intentionally skewing suicide stats, but it would be constructive to be skeptical about how those figures were arrived at before believing memes without citations.
deleted by creator
~100mg - 300mg/day. That is 1 cup of coffee (espresso-based drink) to 3 max.
I try to limit myself to 1 now unless I am really tired or am having trouble focusing/thinking clearly. I was up to 2-3 every day, but it was messing with my anxiety more than I realized at first.
Nope! None of those situations should be motivated by profit imo. Basically, nothing that is necessary for life should be for profit, in my opinion, as long as the state can handle the administrative burden.
But like… if the people demand some random, superfluous thing and the state doesn’t have the will or resources to produce it, maybe that’s where markets come in.
All they have to do is effectively use the public funds alloted to do the things they’re tasked with doing. Not everything should generate profit.
For so many services, profit-seeking creates perverse incentives. Well… all services. But maybe it’s tolerable in some circumstances.
deleted by creator