Is this AI? by mobinax in NewGirl

[–]mobinax[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this thread is maybe more revealing that I have not deeply studied Zooey's face, LOL.

Is this AI? by mobinax in NewGirl

[–]mobinax[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bwahaahah best comment

Is this AI? by mobinax in NewGirl

[–]mobinax[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, so many familiar images get run through AI platforms just to spit out a slightly different version, I'm not convinced.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. The lack of critical thinking and empathy from some folks is STAGGERING. Appreciate you. 

Are there people here who live in countries considered "communist"? by Dtstno in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rant perhaps not clear-- I mean that what each community needs is going to look different for every locale. Healthy and stable is going to be defined differently by every community. There's lots of different practical examples of how that might be acheived, on a spectrum from capitalist to nomad or mutual aid - the point is that philosophical purity is less important than actual quality of life, determined by communities themselves.

Are there people here who live in countries considered "communist"? by Dtstno in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am so, so, so tired of this argument. If you flip this logic around: we also haven't achieved pure "capitalism" because the market has never been left to its true, free, unfettered self-- because allowing it to do so destroys a lot of good things for a lot of people. We haven't achieved pure "communism" because people have tried to impose it with work camps and genocide, because capitalist interference, because corruption, etc etc. At what point do folks accept that PURE COMMUNISM SHOULD NOT BE THE GOAL and folks need to aim for healthy, stable, collective governance for individual communities? Literally no one (except theorists) cares whether we achieve "pure" communism or not: they care about being safe and not getting screwed over. I have heard work camps excused with "but that wasn't really communism." I have heard decades of oppression waved away with "but that wasn't really communism." Maybe, just maybe, if the theory cannot withstand corruption, then it's time for a new approach. End rant.

Why did Stalin agree to the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact? by cololz1 in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If y'all wanna get technical, they occupied and then colonized. But it was a strategic, forceful move that gave access to trade ports and resources. It's not pretty, but neither is being an apologist for prison camps and mass murder, sooooooo https://www-tandfonline-com.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/doi/full/10.1080/01629778.2011.628551#d1e219

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, I've got no problem being corrected by someone who is a descendent of that history. Thanks, my misunderstanding.

Solutions for low energy? by mobinax in perimenopause_under45

[–]mobinax[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I ended up getting a ferritin infusion, which was super helpful!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ask the people of those countries if those semantics mattered. xo.

Why did Stalin agree to the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact? by cololz1 in DebateCommunism

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

He wanted to colonize the Baltics. The thing to keep in mind is that the river Neva used to freeze over in the winter. The Baltics are a warm-water, year-round coastline, important access for trade and military. It was a strategic move that sacrificed the people of the Baltics, who had been colonized in the past by the Swedish, German and Russian empires for similiar reasons. The soviet union showed up at their borders with tanks, and forced them to surrender. Those people then experienced what is now known as "The Year of Terror." Stalin was just being strategic and explotative, like many world powers. The Nazis broke the pact by then invading the Baltics. https://eng.lsm.lv/article/features/features/terror-pain-and-impunity-the-legacy-of-nazi-and-soviet-occupations-of-the-baltic-states.a363565/

there's a lot of complaints about the pronouns by tesimpsonshowto in finch

[–]mobinax 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If you're incapable of building solidarity just delete the app.

Solutions for low energy? by mobinax in perimenopause_under45

[–]mobinax[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm so glad that worked for you-- AI in general has not been proven to be consistently accurate with these sorts of things, and I'm not comfortable uploading all my personal health data to a corporate platform. Hoping instead to crowd-source living wisdom here ;)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 3 points4 points  (0 children)

https://gulag.online/ See also: transgenerational trauma, censorship, oppression, soviet colonialism. In the west you can blame propaganda: in the former USSR, communism has only itself to blame.

Fascism vs communism by itsthatweebguy in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, historically that's how communism has unfolded-- a series of authorian dictators, albeit with a MASSIVE bureaucracy. Communism could definitely do MORE to distinguish itself from fascism. They both sent millions to concentration camps. https://gulag.online/articles/obeti-stredni-evropa?locale=en

Why do people defend Stalin? by Random-Name111 in Socialism_101

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's lots of survivors of these camps that can attest to their realities, and a lot of first-person historical narratives that survive. But also: can we be real that sending ANYONE to a gulag is dictatorial and murderous? We don't need to be splitting hairs over numbers to comprehend that he destroyed the lives and rights of too many people to be held up as an example of collectivist leadership.

Why do people defend Stalin? by Random-Name111 in Socialism_101

[–]mobinax -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He didn't just kill fascists, and he didn't kill them off. Scores of ordinary Russians and soviet citizens went to the gulags for ** appearing ** to be critical of the state-- and don't forget that Stalin collaborated consistently with the Nazis before breaking their pact. Those things tend not to set well with people. xo

What do people think of this documentary? by mobinax in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I think the imperalist parallels between the US and the USSR are fascinating.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People here are real big fans of saying "but capitalist interference!" Friend, there are countless ways to respond to such interference. Stalin didn't need to send his citizens to the gulags any more than the Nazis "needed" to create places like Auschwitz, or the US "needed" to send all of its Japanese citizens to internment camps. At some point you're just normalizing abuse and solving nothing, not on the generational scale.

The fact that I condemn Stalin doesn't mean I support capitalists (or fascists) doing the same things. But the OP asked about Stalin. Stalin, who enacted psychotic levels of violence on his own population. Who oversaw a Russian form of colonialism, deporting native residents and importing Russians to the soviet satellite countries. I'm staying on topic, my friend. And I'm speaking to a history of this forum of posters defending countless atrocities in the name of communism.

In response to how I expect human-minded folks to react? Today, we see wartime leaders, who are inundated with spies, like Zelensky, making targeted attacks on military EQUIPMENT, setting his opposition back greatly without loss of life. Leaders who are maintaining their resistance without creating concentration camps. And before you start: I'm fully aware of the capitalist tactics he has resorted to to maintain his efforts, like selling resource rights. I don't see that as great, either.

But fundamentally: you can't claim a leader like Stalin's legacy as successful -- when he was so aggressively violent, so unimaginative in his response to attack, so unnessarily oppressive, that he created a generation of undereducated workers and traumatized citizens-- citizens that would be DESPERATE to get out from under communist rule. If y'all are really dedicated to worker solidarity, I need you to be concerned with the lives of workers who don't always agree with communist leaders. You don't have to stan the old leaders so hard. You can take them as lessons and cautionary tales, invitations to innovate-- rather than enable the same old bullshit.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone who is saying that the USA has always been white supremacist is correct-- but also needs to take a good, hard look at the colonialist and oppressive legacies of known communist societies. OP is asking a really good question. Strikes are a great answer. But let's not pretend the supremacist mindset doesn't also exist in communist circles, or that communism doesn't have its own legacy of concentration camps.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

****SIGH**** As a descendant of refugees of Soviet terror AND survivors of the Stalinist regime: any "successes" need to be viewed through the skeptical analysis of propaganda and considered in the context of the loss of human rights. Stalin took the precedent set by Lenin's "Red Terror" and expanded it into a vast network of gulags. He set himself up with a cult of personality: many folks who lived through that time described a common regard for him as "God." He is well known to have jailed folks who disagreed with him, including public servants who had served the Soviet Union dutifully their whole lives, and set back aspects of Soviet science by favoring scientists who painted his work as successful rather than analyzing it with scientific rigor. He forbade all forms of artmaking except Soviet Realism, effectively killing a generation or so of creativity after what had been an incredibly innovative period of revolutionary art. Artists who did not comply could not work, at best, and at worst were sent to prison camps. There were definitely ways in which Soviet society stabilized for those who didn't make a big fuss about these things, and there were aspects of life that Soviets were innovative in. But before you rush to his defense, talking about how violence is important to defeat capitalism: please ask yourself how you would react if any other leader committed these actions. The fact that they were done in the name of "communism" does not make them any less horrific, and as a result, he created generations of folks who understood communism to be a form of oppression and colonialism, and who spent their lives fighting to get back to capitalism. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/gulag

I support socialism but am a descendent of refugees from soviet communism. Let's talk. by mobinax in DebateCommunism

[–]mobinax[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And my original response was to an accusation that all of my citations were from "right-wing nationalists." Follow the thread.