axont

Maybe it won't be your thing, but I really really like Haibane Renmei. It's more melancholy comfy, and some moments are a little intense, but it's overall very sweet and meaningful to me.

Invincible. It's pretty good, but really violent

I know this is just a forum and the libs are always confused by nuance, but exploitation does occur in socialist countries, just in a vastly different character and at a much smaller scale. Cuba for instance does have private land owners who employee workers, and China of course has various large corporations.

However these are symptoms of the positions the nations find themselves within. Socialist nations tend to find themselves in the middle of capitalist encirclement. Until the last capitalist is extinguished, class based exploitation will continue to exist.

I think perhaps you should read more of what Dr. King actually advocated for and said. He didn't endorse violence, but he didn't condemn it either. He typically didn't come from it from this moralizing angle either, most of his emphasis was his belief that violence was first and foremost a poor tactic, but at the same time he understood why violence happens. You've probably heard his 1967 statement "a riot is the language of the unheard."

When is violence permissable or moral then? Absolutely never? You have to imagine the types of situations people in the world face. I know a person from Gaza who was nearly finished with his university studies, now he lives in a tent with his mother and his little sister is dead. When I'm able to talk with him, he expresses almost nothing but violence and hatred against the Israeli state and the IDF.

Are you saying my friend Ali is in a bubble he should get out of? Or are you simply talking about your own experiences? Because even if so, you should at least feel some inclination of rage towards the people who did this to my friend.

If you just want to limit it to Haiti, Cuba, and the USSR, then yes each of those revolutions led to a vastly more humane society than the previous one. It also depends on who you're asking. Tsar Nicholas II certainly didn't see the Soviet Union as an improvement. Cuban plantation owners with dozens of slaves didn't see socialism as an improvement. There are winners and losers in history, the losing side usually isn't going to be pleased.

And who loses in a revolution? In a successful socialist revolution it's the capitalist class, colonizers, slavers, the previous bureaucracy, regional landlords. The USSR went from a backwater literal peasant kingdom to a space faring modern country within a single generation, despite a famine and despite the brutal loss of life in WW2. It's very easy to say the country that sends women to school to become nuclear engineers is not as brutally oppressive as the country with a monarch that forcefully sends women to become nuns. How do you determine oppression? Go look at things like literacy, child mortality, education, home ownership, access to clean water, and what kind of occupations women have. By those metrics, socialist revolutions typically and vastly reduce oppression.

I don't know why you think we're proposing a society without violence. We're proposing a society where the working class wields the violence against the capitalist class until the capitalist class ceases to exist. We don't like when violence happens to us and people in the same position as us. And if gaining more control over our own lives involves violence against the capitalist class, then that's what it takes.

I genuinely couldn't give a shit about a capitalist's supposed civil rights, and I take John Brown's advice for how to treat racists.

I make one "sort of" exception for Czechoslovakia. I regard it as the only time a country became socialist by voting on it, but they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government. The communists won a plurality in 1946 and had a coalition government. Fearing that they'd lose power, they began stacking the cops and courts with ideological communists. This fear turned out to be true after the liberal parties kept doing sneaky tactics to undermine the socialists. So in 1948 the communists had a coup to consolidate power and ally with the USSR.

And I know this wasn't "bloodless" or "civil" since this all happened in the shadow of WW2.

it's literally mentioned that Mark Mothersbaugh bought the ruby before carving it. It's supposed to be a joke about the type of person who'd buy such a thing, well look in the mirror. imagine trying to make a mockery of rich people and this is the avenue you do it with

I used to like Devo. I still like their 70s stuff but they've never been as subversive as they claim to be.

I really respect the area of Kerala and its commitment to their public. Very robust educational system, healthcare, and a focus on access to clean water. That's just from stuff I've seen and read though, I've never been to India, I'm American.

I hope the best for India's future, but it seems worrying from what I hear. I would hope for greater collaboration with China and an easing of tensions with Pakistan. India is a massively diverse place though, with multiple languages and even multiple writing scripts, so sometimes it's amazing it's a functional country at all.

Most of what I hear though is about India dominated by very right wing movements, but there's a strong history of Indian working class movements as well. I'll try to be optimistic about the future. Also as an American I am fully aware of my country's horrifying exploitation of the Indian people. The Union Carbide disaster is still the worst industrial accident in history and its impact should never be forgotten

i'm tankie and gay and covered in feces (some of which is my own)

A lot of that is probably steam decks