Uyghurs and Ukraine are great filters for figuring out who's actually a fascist

Eh, more so when going against Russia and China. They peddle propaganda like a farmer flings manure on their field.

Imperial Japan rather famously fought against the United States and various Western European colonial powers. Had you lived back during the second world war era, would you have viewed them favorably?

those are rookie numbers, you gotta get those numbers up man

I arrived at that conclusion by analyzing what ownership means. Ownership means that you either control something, or the person who controls it is accountable to you. In a state with an authoritarian dictator, such as Stalin, the dictator controls the means of production, if not directly, then through his subordinates, who are accountable to him. Therefore, in the soviet union, the workers didn't control the means of production, Stalin did. Basically, the Soviet Union was the endstage of capitalism.

well yeah, because it was the soviet union that was communist.

Russia is actually Palestine's proxy. It was Hamas all along.

If you try to make them understand this logic they'll just call you a Zionist genocide lover, there's no getting through to them.

1. There are two choices in the United States 2024 election. No third party stands a ghost of a chance of winning. No, not even if the 30,000 people you can reach on Lemmy all vote for Timothy Greenparty.
2. A Trump victory in 2024 would not only be just as bad if not worse for the citizens of Gaza than Harris would, but also pose an existential threat to a large number of vulnerable Americans (trans people, immigrants, women seeking abortions).
3. Given the margins of victory in 2016 and 2020, Kamala might not win if leftists don't vote for her.
4. Snoozing fascism for four years is better than inviting it through the door now, and buys us time to build our defenses for when it comes back.

I'd like to focus my counterargument. Which of these statements do you disagree with?

https://lemmy.world/comment/11928938

Well, they managed to pull about a billion people out of poverty over the last 4 decades or so, which means that mainly they were following leftwing ideals.

(I come from a country which had actual Fascism until the 70s and what the Fascists did was the exact opposite of that: the vast majority of people were dirt poor and kept dirt poor whilst a tiny elite tightly interwined with the Fascist Government gorged themselves on the wealth of the country).

However, it's been some time since China did that lifting of the masses out of poverty, and they've been shifting to Capitalism whilst keeping the Authorianism from their implementation of leftwing policies (they called it Communism, but they never really reached such utopical state, so I'm wary of calling that Communism).

Are they even left of center nowadays? I don't know enough in detail how modern China operates to pass judgement on that - outside of China we mostly hear of what's done in domains that reflect the part of their ideology that falls on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis, not the stuff that falls on the Left-Right one.

I don't think they've yet moved all the way to Fascism, though, even if they've kept the Authoritarianism going.

I do think china is a capitalist hell hole that doesn't even have universal healthcare.

But social credit thing is not real afaik. I personally asked several chinese people and they all laugh at it.

They of course can and will prosecute "enemies of the state". But social credit is not the way they tend to do it.

Meanwhile the US literally have credit score or something like that, don't they?

The issue with bitching about "NATO expansionism" is that at the end of the day it's still an alliance that countries ask to be members of due to concerns about being invaded or attacked.

If there is one thing life as a geek in highschool taught me is that the ONLY effective way of stopping the violence when facing a bully is to hurt the bully back, even if you don't hurt them as much as they do you.

The bully strategy is: violence, followed by concessions from the other side to stop the violence, followed by a period of non-violence, then one of threats of violence to get concessions, then violence again if there are no concessions or the bully finds them insuficient or simply wants more than they demande and then it all repeats.

This is exactly the pattern of behaviour from Russia towards Ukraine, clearly visible since their invasion of Crimea and subsequent events.

The strategy for dealing with non-bullies was the one tried after the Crimean invasion and the result was a typical bully pattern of behaviour from Russia in response - keep the gains, rebuild military strength, make more and continued demands from Ukraine under thinly veiled threats of violence, eventually initiate more violence with a further invading of Ukraine - which is why any Thinking Pacifist has by now concluded that unfortunatelly a response of "concessions" to Russian agression will result in a temporary pause of Russian agression and even more Russian aggression at a later date, whilst a strategy of responding to Russian aggression with the most hurtfull possible response in all senses (including militarilly) to make it be a negative for Russia to act agressivelly will dissuade Russia from acting aggressivelly for a long, long time, possibly forever.

Unfortunately the most simplistic strategy of Pacifism, which is to find a way to balance the interests of both sides, doesn't work with actors who purposefully and repeatadly use violence and the threat of violence to extract gains, because their "concerns" are not genuine fixed issues that need addressing, they're goalposts which they move every time they're addressed because they're really a mechanism for extraction of gains from the other side.

Or if you point out that calling Russians “orks” is racist.

the Russians also called the Ukrainians nazis, so...

Their approach to government is fairly similar, though fascism seems to be a bit more strictly totalitarian on average. They also focused their violence towards different groups which makes a difference, although the murder of dissidents is a prominent element of both.

However, they have quite different economic policies with fascists being generally pro-capitalism and tankies being anti-capitalism, at least to a degree.

But I mean I get it, it’s a meme. This kind of nuance doesn’t fit in 10 words or whatever.

Fascists very much hearken to the idea of an eternal conflict and a single national leader, while authoritarian leftists, in theory, are seeking an actual end goal of a stable society without a strongman.

The idea of "class struggle" (being an eternal conflict) and proletarian dictatorship (afaik always with a single national leader) sounds pretty fascist based on this definition. Of course intentions matter, but I'd say end results matter a bit more.

If all wars were stopped, how would they be invaded?

Depends on the country. In Germany too many "leftists" simp for Israel.

Israel

How many parties are there in china?

It means China isn't governed by the ICJ, despite being a ratifier. ICJ has no power in PRC.

The UN thing is a perfect way of finding out how serious someone is.

Genocide apologists will say "The UN did not call it a genocide," or even stronger, "The UN determined it is not a genocide." The thing they leave out is that the UN did call the treatment of Uyghurs crimes against humanity.

Seems like a pretty big thing for them to leave out, huh?

The CCP bots and ops are getting weird.

The UN doesn't claim there's a genocide in Xinjiang. They've gotten flack from people who assume there must be a genocide and that the UN is lying.

It ultimately has nothing to do with "Westoid". It's all about the evidence. Mere claims of "having credible evidence" don't count for much if they can't produce it.

It's cool how you can just make up a claim of genocide, then anyone who questions it at all is automatically a genocide denier and therefore a fascist and therefore operating in bad faith, and therefore it's completely unnecessary to provide even a shred of evidence for anything. Very reasonable.

But that's about what I'd expect from someone who denies the Sugondese Genocide, you fascist.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with denying that something is happening when there's no evidence of it happening. You can use whatever social pressure or rhetorical tricks you want to paint me as a bad person, and downvote me all you want. At the end of the day, none of that matters because there's no evidence, so I'm right and you're wrong, simple as. If you think it's more virtuous to believe nonsense than to base your beliefs on what's actually true, you do you I guess, but I want none of that.

Maybe "move Taiwan" was part of his plan?

Israel is not a victim in the same way as the first two, but viewing them simply as perpetrator is a rather myopic view of the whole situation.

Honestly the word gets thrown around so much that it's lost its power, especially when it's not backed up by anything other than 'i know they're doing genocide because I already dislike the people I'm accusing!'

It's not something people seem serious about, you'd think if actual genocide was happening in China people would want to share the evidence and it'd be a big thing and stuff but it's apparently been over a decade of industrial scale murder and no one has anything substantial or tangible to prove it, just 'trust me bro, my sworn ideological enemies are super bad in secret!'

Don't you think? I mean off the top of your head name the three bits of evidence that actually convinced you china is committing genocide- you can even cheat and Google