I find it hard to believe that your family could starve to death just from some mistakes but I might be in the “too positively biased against AES” stage of my radicalization journey
I find it hard to believe that your family could starve to death just from some mistakes but I might be in the “too positively biased against AES” stage of my radicalization journey
There’s no need for reactionary propaganda here.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169438
Ah, didn’t realize this was lemmygrad 😅
Just out of curiosity though, which part of my comment do you consider to be propaganda?
Btw, by my understanding a “reactionary” is a person who seeks to restore an earlier political state of society. Wouldn’t that make people who want to return to the “good old days” under Stalin the true reactionaries?
The last paragraph referencing the Holodomor, which is a hoax, and as is refuted in the breakdown I linked. I haven’t looked into the various wage systems the Soviet Union experimented with so I can’t speak to that.
To be a reactionary is to seek to conserve the current structures of power, ie. to defend capital, and in so doing to oppose revolutionary and even non-radical progressive liberal movements. It is not reactionary at all to look back on revolutionary movements in a positive light.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Reactionary
You’re obviously just agitating, but I’ll bite.
A reactionary is defined by the OED as “a person who is opposed to political or social change”.
The propaganda you posted was about the famine in 1933. Read the link you were given. It’s an overused talking point with a grain of truth. It’s propaganda because it specifically blames communism for a natural disaster. And people who typically bring it up completely gloss over what was happening in capitalist north America at the time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
I might also argue that it’s not so much “if you don’t meet the quota, you’re paid less”, but more of “if you meet the quota, you’re paid more”. But that’s a matter of personal bias. I work in a capitalist country, and both statements apply to me. I would be more charitable with the socialist state, and probably use your statement to describe my job, but that’s my personal bias.
I would disagree with Oxford here, because fascists are reactionaries and do want political and social change which is not yet acceptable in liberal society.
Unless Oxford says that liberalism is just a step away from fascism and there’s no sizeable differences between the two, in which case based comrade OED.
I much prefer ProleWiki’s definition that reactionaries seek to conserve the current structures of power.
OED defines fascism as “an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition”
It has this to say about liberalism: “having or relating to political and social beliefs that support individual freedom and rights, democracy and free enterprise (= businesses competing against each other with little government control)”
I do not feel that these are incompatible in any major way. Prolewiki does do a better job of pointing that out, but I still think the OED’s definition works as well.
Lol, in capitalism if you don’t meet your quota you just get fired.
True. But I survived the last round of layoffs after profit expectations were missed (we still made hand over fist money).