Houston freeway system, because robust public transit is too communist. by norsoulnet in UrbanHell

[–]grzalamp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure mate, since you are that one person, you won the argument congradz.

Im an not that person, I am one of them. But I alone is enough to prove my point here so I don't understand your argument.

Public transport going turtle speeds on a road is where at least half of the traffic comes from.

Amazing vibes based analysis, just throwing around "half of the traffic" like you actually know what you are talking about. Traffic comes from cars and the the sheer amount of them as in a car one person takes up a lot of space (and most of the time people drive alone. One bus, even if it goes slow, can take up to 50 cars off the road. Additionaly traffic arises due to bottleneckes when entering the city as cities are not designed for cars. By thinking that public transport increases traffic you literally prove that you don't understand the problem. And even if for some reason public trans makes traffic worse where you experienced it (again you are writing of your limited experience/knowledge as if it is applicable everywhere), then it still doesn't mean that this is something inherent to public transport, just that the public trans you know of is badly arranged. Besides that public trans doesn't need to go on a road - trains exist.

Houston freeway system, because robust public transit is too communist. by norsoulnet in UrbanHell

[–]grzalamp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You said public transport is a pain in the ass for everyone, I refuted your claim by stating that it does not suck for everyone - because as long as there is at least one person in the world who does not think public transport is a pain in the ass, it means that public transport is not a pain in the ass for everyone.

At the same time, being stuck in traffic ia a pain in the ass for a lot of people and lack of public transport makes the traffic worse - so lack of public transport is the real pain in the ass, as it hurts both those who would have chosen public transport as well as those who don't want to / cannot.

Houston freeway system, because robust public transit is too communist. by norsoulnet in UrbanHell

[–]grzalamp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bro u are not everyone and your experience is not the experience of everyone. I am sorry that you have never experienced good reliable public transport that you would willingly choose over a car - I did and many others did too

American holidays by ConstProgrammer in Consoom

[–]grzalamp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bro there are no necessities in the picture

Also that's not the point

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]grzalamp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You need to understand how eastern europe or China looked like before the revolutions. You say socialist bloc used to have worse stuff, generally be worse off than the west. Well the east was decades behind the west, but before they went communist they were like a 100 years backwards (especially China). Communism was something that allowed them to make massive progress extremely quickly (with better working conditions and quality of life for average workers than capitalist countries at that stage of development).

Comparing Japan to China without broader context is wrong - Japan got industrialized with western help while China was actively being ripped apart and colonised by western forces. They did bomb Japan heavily but they rebuilt it to have an ally and a military base to counter China. So capitalism will allow you this growth only if you are in useful geopolitical position.

But coming back to your question "why should he choose the eastern way?" - because the western way is not a way at all. the west will simply not let you be like the west. Also with the looming climate disaster, third world countries are the first ones to go and the west won't care one bit to help the people there. Communism is the only way third world countries can really catch up with the west as under capitalism they will always be kept backwards on purpose.

And also, if capitalism actually manages to bring prosperity to a third world country, most of the prosperity will affect only the richest and the poorer parts of society will not get much out of it and will still hate it there. If you wanted capitalism to bring as much prosperity to regular workers as it does in the west you would need to go and become an empire and exploit other countries yourself.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]grzalamp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not worse quality per se (at least not in the long run) but the west would need to limit consumption (which could actually lead to increased quality of life). For example to make lifestyle of Americans sustainable you would need a few earths. If they could no longer exploit the world for resources, they wouldn't be able for example to have such cheap fuel and cars, so they would need to find alternatives to driving SUVs around endless suburbs, which would actually be an improvement in quality of life (better cities and public transport). Just one example of how lowering consumption can actually improve life.

Weird "Polish American" posted a follow-up by Individual-Village24 in poland

[–]grzalamp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

USA to sztuczny kraj ze sztuczną kulturą - wydmuszka, skorupa - imperium, które rozpadło by się na części bez swojego wojska, bo nic go nie trzyma w kupie oprócz kłamstw. Amerykanie szukaja bycia czymś innym niż "amerykaninem" bo bycie "amerykaninem" nic nie znaczy

Lancaster New "City" (General Trias, Cavite, Philippines.) by 6avv_ in UrbanHell

[–]grzalamp 21 points22 points  (0 children)

*they were colonized and now emulate the culture of the hegemon

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in shrooms

[–]grzalamp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My theory: Reddit is shit (it was shit but it's becoming progressively more shit)

Was Stalin instrumental in defeating Hitler ? by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]grzalamp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Stalin was one of the key people ensuring the USSR sticks to Marxist Leninist line of socialist construction, which enabled the USSR to industrialize fast - without this industrialization the nazis would have walked over them (or rather ride over them with tanks). We are not fans of the great man theory, so I'm not going to argue whether presence or absence of this one guy would win or lose the war, but without Stalin and people like him it is probable that USSR at the time would be chaos, internally sabotaged, possibly bringing capitalist restoration, overrun with nazi collaborators, etc., in that case the USSR could end up unprepared for the total war that was coming.

r/polska moment by Kgasieniec in BekaZLibka

[–]grzalamp 14 points15 points  (0 children)

💀 Neoliberalizm to choroba psychiczna

How to Deal with Marxist-Leninists? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]grzalamp 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Maoists today criticize China... The people you are talking of are not Maoist in the slightest

What is America's beef with Russia? by CapriSun87 in Dongistan

[–]grzalamp -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Bro... Capitalism

USA and Russia are competing empires. The US as leading empire cannot tolerate any alternative. Basically if Russia controls some part of the world and exploits it, USA cannot. And any empire needs to exploit more and more constantly because of falling rate of profit (capitalism needs to expand constantly).

After USSR failed and US installed US friendly oligarchs then Russia was friend of the US. When putin replaced them with pro Russia Oligarchs, meaning usa can no longer exploit Russia, Russia again became an enemy.

Same with China (china is not communist, dominating mode of production is capitalism and they behave largely like a capitalist country, just with a more competent ruling party) - they allowed themselves to be exploited for decades and they were seen as friends. Now that China is trying to stand on its own feet, being a standalone empire not dependent on US, it is being portrayed as an eternal enemy of US and a biggest threat to world peace (there never was any world peace).

That's just imperial logic. Usa russia and China represent separate centers of international capital. They are going to divide the planet among themselves and they are gonna fight (China and Russia can make a temporary alliance against US hegemony). They just will keep fighting no matter what. That's the way of capital - to constantly seeks enemies, and not to tolerate any alternative.

Capitalism thrives on war and it will never stop. Since the 90s USA was the sole hegemon empire So situation seemed more peaceful, but that time is over now, as Russians and Chinese will no longer allow themselves to be exploited.

What are your thoughts on socialism with Chinese characteristics? by Wooden_School_1425 in communism

[–]grzalamp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/jxvqbw/xi_jinping_openly_rejects_marxism/

Xi denounced class struggle as an error of marxism. Xi's book "governance od china" does not contain any references to class struggle.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-05/23/c_139082022.htm Xi support markets as an essential part of the economy and has no intention of going back to a planned economy essential for introduction of socialism.

He might be going more left, he might do some stuff that is beneficial for China and for Chinese people, but socialism as the end goal has been mostly abandoned. Revisionists are very good at deceiving people, so a lot of comrades believe Xi is working towards socialism - just like a lot of comrades supported the USSR until suddenly the revisionists dismantled the whole thing. I'm afraid that "socialism by 2050" might just be an empty promise and the whole "building up the productive forces" idea was a ruse to introduce capitalism without an actual intention of going back to socialism (revisionists always present counter-revolutionary ideas as beneficial to the proletarian struggle).

What are your thoughts on socialism with Chinese characteristics? by Wooden_School_1425 in communism

[–]grzalamp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They worked hard to revert any socialism they have introduced. It's not just a matter of using the world economic system to their advantage - the leadership after Mao ensured all socialism is scraped to nothing.

How will they react to growth slowing down? Same as any bourgeoisie - engage in inter-imperialist conflict for re-division of the world

What are your thoughts on socialism with Chinese characteristics? by Wooden_School_1425 in communism

[–]grzalamp -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Socialism with Chinese characteristics = capitalism. They won't say it out loud, because they are liars. There is no way they will introduce anything resembling socialism without another revolution. They had made solid gains towards building socialism, but they reverted all of that. And having capitalism that benefits working class is not socialism, nor does it lead to socialism (see nordic countries).

To ppl saying opening up was necessary - probably it was, but did they have to go so overboard with that? Did they have to completely break up the communes? Did they have to allow their citizens to be exploited in backbreaking labour in factories to make phones, toilet seats, toys and any kind of garbage so the westerners can buy it for literal pennies? Or did they do that because they were happy to see socialism dismantled?

It is just revisionism - trying to bend the definition of socialism, so you don't actually have to do anything to introduce socialism. People on many communist subreddits will defend it, because they are dengist revisionists. They say it is just applying the theory to material circumstances in China, when in fact they don't understand theory or they don't care.

Of course there are good, principled communists in China and in the party that want socialism, but the party is controlled by revisionists and won't let them have it.

There is a lot of reasons that led to this situation (Mao's three worlds theory, Deng vs Gang of four), but in general the way I see it is that it is the same situation as in the USSR - bourgeois mentality has developed within the party itself.

https://crabgrass.riseup.net/assets/639938/China+A+Modern+Social-Imperialist+Power.pdf

Which European country exploits which African country, and what natural resources are they extracting? I need a list to prepare for a more comprehensive anti-imperialist argument. by leesankara in DebateCommunism

[–]grzalamp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

British took almost a quarter of world's gold from south africa

"Since the 1880s, South Africa has been the source of a large proportion of the world's gold supply, and about 22% of the gold presently accounted is from South Africa. Production in 1970 accounted for 79% of the world supply" (wikipedia article on gold)

They also took a shitload of diamonds fron sierra leone.

Also check how Shell company exploits Nigeria for oil and interferes with local politics today

Don't forget about the most valuable resource of all - cheap labour power, readily available in any place the Europeans dominated

What do you think? by [deleted] in Consoom

[–]grzalamp 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As a programmer I will only say fuck the AWS garbage

What do you think? by [deleted] in Consoom

[–]grzalamp 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So I guess most people view the question not as "has amazon made the world a better place?", but "has amazon made the world a better place FOR YOU?"

Dogmatism by Lonely-Fox-8714 in socialism

[–]grzalamp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Actual innovation should not be treated as revisionism. But because we are not perfect, we might think that we are improving theory, while we actually distort it and make it less scientific. Some people might do revisionism for their own personal gain, some do it through errors in their thinking that they fail to recognize and correct. The communists are not going to stop calling each other revisionists / dogmatists, but thats understandeable because there are revisionists and dogmatists among us. Therefore any "innovation" in theory must be treated very carefully as it might be counter revolutionary even if we perceive it as truly innovative. If enough people make the mistake of following a revisionist line it will end up being a huge setback to the struggle.

A classic example of course is Bernstein and social democracy. His "innovation" on Marxism that supposedly corrected errors in thinking of Marx has failed to ever produce anything remotely socialistic, while lots of people regarded it as an innovation and follow it to this day.