#soviet revolution were bad btw | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

centrally-unplanned · 2 years

Note

in the ayn rand post you said something like, Mao was going on vibes, and thought proletarian spirit would get rid of locusts and produce steel. But what else could China have done about locusts? I mean not kill sparrows ofc but idk how that fits in to the point. They couldn't buy pesticides from the west, they were limited in how much they could get from the Soviet Union and then there was the Sino-Soviet split, they had few people with chemistry educations and shortages of required materials like steel made chemical engineering difficult. It's not like Mao just decided chemistry was bad and you should kill locusts with effort and teamwork instead, it's just a hard problem when you're cut off from the world and dont have much domestic industry

I see this sentiment as part of a wider debate around mainly authoritarian leftist regimes (but also others), the "contextualization" school of thought, and I am not gonna throw it all out - North Vietnam, for example, was absolutely stuck between a rock and a hard place and there were no peaceful answers to their dilemma. The world is filled with hard tradeoffs and no state built modernity without mistakes and bloodshed. The argument absolutely applies in some contexts!

None of those arguments apply to certified lunatic Mao Zedong. If you want to know what Mao Zedong should have done, I think I can summarize it:

China had a productive agricultural system for thousands of years, and in the 20th century, particularly in the "Nanjing Decade" of 1927-1937, they are already integrating a lot of more modern methods. Maybe China needed access to international trade markets to *grow*, but their agricultural system was a functioning status quo. Or at least it was, until you kill so many sparrows inducing massive locus waves that you have import hundreds of thousands of sparrows from the Soviet Union just to replace the dead birds you spent hundreds of thousands of labor-hours killing. That is not a problem China faced in the past! Don't do this very dumb thing!

And the same logic applies to fertilizers. Instead of doing the Really Dumb Thing, just do what China did when Mao *wasn't* micromanaging agri policy:

Domestic production's share of that consumption btw went from 10,000 to 10 million tons per year from 1949 to 1972; you will note that means 4/5ths of their fertilizer came from imports. That was doable because importing fertilizer was trivial, since only the US had a trade ban on China (in response to the Korean War that was still technically ongoing - at the same time, the US was trading with the USSR in spades) but China could trade with most every other country on the planet, Europe had no such embargos. And they did so - once the Communist Party of China forced Mao into semi-retirement after the Seven Thousand Cadres Conference in 1962 and took over the reigns again.

Mao was not backed into any recognizable corner by the context of the time; China had the ability to conduct open trade and pursue a variety of economic paths, and when Mao *wasn't* in power economically it did so very successfully. Mao just didn't believe in material growth, he believed in permanent revolution overcoming material constraints. He believed in magic, and he was wrong, and tens of millions died to prove it.

17 notes · View notes

evilelitest2 · 4 years

Note

Was the last Tsar of Russia (aka Nikolas II) really such a horrible ruler as Soviet propaganda had tried to portray him?

Maybe not quite as bad as Soviet Propaganda, but like..it was close. Niki was a bad ruler on basically every level and is living proof about why monarchy is terrible. He was sweat natured, shy, and very friendly, a good father, great husband, but utterly unsuited to any kind of political power what so ever, he would have been great as a stay at home husband or maybe a translator but as the ruler of an absolute monarchy...ugg. His only real skill was that he was great at languages.

Like, I can’t empathize this enough, Tsarists Russia was an awful regime, and it was well before Nicolas came to power. Massive corrupt, an unbelievable division between the wealthy and the poor, basically no human rights for the people, the slogan of the Empire was “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality”. Orthidoxy as in it was basically a theocracy, and all non Orthidox Christians were persecuted. Autocracy in that the state was a super absolute monarchy with all power lying in the hands of the Tsar until 1906. And Nationality because despite being a massively ethnically diverse country, the Russian empire enforced racist policies that prioritized ethnic Russians over everybody else. This was all true before Nicolas took power, but he continued all of the most right wing policies, and it was his secret police for example which wrote the Elders of Zion as a way to divert criticism away from his regime and instead to the Jews. Actually I really want to empathize this, Nicolas was an extreme antisemitic who seriously contemplated doing a Russian equivalent of the Holocaust at several points.

But beyond all that though Nicolas II is...just kind of an idiot. Like his father Alexander III was a brutal racist vicious tyrant who would kill you before you even thought of rebellion but he was you know...basically competent. Nikki was, what historians call it, a bit thick. LIke the impression you get with him beyond everything else is a complete clueless about almost everything going on around him, he always seemed to trust the wrong people, he appointed the wrong people, he disliked the right people, he never seemed to have a firm grasp on policy. The disastrous Russo Japanese War that directly triggered the 1905 Revolution, Nicolas basically goaded Japan into it..by mistake. And then fucked it up. This is a guy who couldn’t even get through his coronation ceremony without accidentally getting like 1300 people killed. He was weak willed, indecisive, and never really understood how to manage anything without fucking it up. This is not to even get into the disaster upon disaster that was his role in WWI.

He was also just a bad administrator, he was a micromanager of the highest degree but was so afraid of conflict he would never openly tell people if they were fired or if he disagreed with him, he didn’t know anything about the policies which he over saw, and he 100% bought the notion that because he was God’s divinely appointed representative on earth, all he had to do was secure God’s favor and he would win out in the end. Which like...not so much. The impression you get of this guy was somebody who is just oblivious to how much damage he does, or what is needed to actually run a state...in addition to being a racist conspiracy theorist. Just to make this clear, despite the fact that his own men wrote up Elders of Zion deliberately as a way to divert attention away from the regime, he still bought it...even though he knew it was fake.

The one thing he seemed aware of was that WWI was a bad idea, and he still fucked that up.

The Soviet Propaganda of the man tended to show him as a deliberate sadist who actively reveled in the pain of his subjects, and I don’t think that is true (though he was quite indifferent to the suffering of Jews), instead he was obliviously amicable dunce. For example, the Bloody Sunday massacre which kicked off the 1905 revolution, was imagined by the Soviets as a deliberate act by “Bloody Nicolas” when in fact it was the result of an administrative miscommunication and Nikki not doing his damn job. From all accounts he was a really nice person to talk to, easy going, friendly understanding and even kind, he was just also utterly incurious, stupid to the point of dangerous, and woefully incompetent at everything, who happened to be the most powerful man in Russia.

Its actually similar to Charles I, George III or Louis XVI, a tendency to attribute to malice which was mostly incompetence, though I think Nicolas was the worse of the lot (except maybe Charles I).

I don’t like the Soviet Union, but Tsarist Russia needed to end.

Good Question btw

#ask EvilElitest #Nicolas II #Russian History #Russian Revolution #Imperial Russia #Tsar #tsarist #Elders of Zion

36 notes · View notes

todaviia · 5 years

Text

A few thoughts about the AfD in the Brandenburg/Saxony election

It’s now official that younger people were more likely to vote for AfD, whereas they got the lowest numbers in the 60+ population. In Brandenburg they were second strongest party for the under-30s (though only by a very small margin - they got 22%, the Greens got 23%) in Saxony, they were the strongest for the under-30s. They were also by far the strongest in the age group of 30-44 in both states. People in that age group were a maximum of 14 years old when the Berlin Wall fell and never took part in any DDR election

So can we now stop pretending this is a liberal young ppl vs. conservative old ppl thing, that it’s bc of DDR voting socialization or that AfD voters are going to die off any time soon?

What we need to do instead is realize that this is not about DDR, this is very much about the reunification

There’s a reason why so many of the AfD election posters used slogans like “Vollende die Wende” and “Wende 2.0”

That’s because for many people (not all obviously, but definitely a wider population) the reunification was not about liberalism or democracy, it was about “liberating the oppressed German people from the evil foreign occupiers.” It was a German nationalistic process. That doesn’t make it shouldn’t have happened or that the Soviets didn’t do bad things, but I think it’s a bit intellectually dishonest to act like “Wir sind das Volk“ did not have exactly the meaning for a lot of people back then that it does now. This is not a surprising turn of events and we knew it was dangerous at least since Rostock Lichtenhagen.

German nationalism was used after the reunification (by West Germans too) because ethnicity was the biggest common factor of both states.

The structures the AfD is using now have been built since the nineties. They are already well established, well connected and well funded.

There are still significant differences between East and West. The post-reunification generation in East Germany did grow up mostly financially disenfranchised, but also alienated from the mainstream political process and most importantly, have been exposed to decades of Neonazi propaganda to the point where for most of them, AfD does look like the moderate party. Seriously. Neonazism is way more open and present in East Germany.

And there’s an incredible brain drain from East Germany that will fuck the region over.

So basically what can we do? First of all, we need to stop with this “well there’s no East and West Germany in the young generation anymore” bullshit. There is a real division and it’s getting wider, not smaller.

Second, we need to make it clear that the AfD is not moderate, they are not acceptable and at least in Brandenburg and Saxony, at this point their obvious goal is to present the NPD positions in CDU clothing.

Third, we need to actually address the Wende and stop the one-sided narrative of “some brave people said they wanted democracy, then the peaceful revolution happened, and then everyone was happy and everything was good.” It did have a dark, shady, corrupt, fascist underbelly that outside of East Germany basically nobody talks about.

And most importantly of all, the other parties need to come up with actual strategies for East Germany. The Climate movement is a good start because it mobilizes young voters. This doesn’t just go for East Germany btw, rural areas in the West are about to face the exact same problem.

#sorry for the long post but i had to write my thoughts down #discussion welcome obviously

3 notes · View notes

catbountry · 7 years

Text

Dear Tumblr Communists,

Hi. How you doing?

Classes going well? Enjoying that new iPhone mommy and daddy got you? No, no, I don’t begrudge you for having them. Just sit a moment.

Look. I think we can agree that capitalism is deeply flawed in its execution. Seeing giant corporations hemming and hawing over paying their employees at the bottom a decent living wage that keeps up with inflation, factories in China (Communist country, btw, but pretty much in name only at this point) with giant nets outside to keep workers from jumping off roofs to kill themselves for those iPhones you keep getting? It’s hard to stomach. Most human beings would feel bad about this, maybe even get angry. Corporations feel like mindless machines that just consume resources to maximize profit for their own benefit, and seem to give back fuck-all to lower-rung employees or the communities in which they take root. No ethical consumption under capitalism, you say. The most fervent anti-communists all seem to be right-wing dickbags who delight in fucking with you. You want a world where all people are truly equal, that wealth is redistributed among the people.

But what exactly does that mean?

I’m not really sure that you know. It just seems like a catchphrase. I mean, you realize that would include your wealth too, right? I think you like having all your stuff. Legendary musician Frank Zappa once said of communism, “Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.”

And if I’ve seen most of Tumblr, it’s that people on Tumblr love having stuff. They set up links to their Paypals on their pages, and link their Amazon wishlists, filled with man-child toys. Capitalism is all too happy to give you that stuff... just so long as you don’t think too hard about the cost. I’ve seen people on Tumblr, in earnest, try to use self-starting businesses and freelance workers as examples of working “outside” of capitalism.

I got bad news for you. That’s capitalism. Exchanging money between individuals for stuff is the framework for our economy. The government isn’t going to supply you with anime figures and ironic t-shirts. Ever try government cheese? You probably haven’t. Odds are you wouldn’t want your stuff coming from the government.

Personally, I wouldn’t call myself a socialist, as I’m not sure that would exactly describe my particular philosophy as far as the relationship between government and business, but I would prefer that the government actually curb the uglier behaviors of capitalism, because lord knows the corporations won’t do it out of the kindness of their heart. At the same time, I also don’t want to give complete and total control over the production of stuff to the government. I mean, “the people.” But it’s never really actually the people. It never is, with entire countries. The most successful examples of communism seem to only succeed on a teeny, tiny scale. Ask any Russian who lived through the soviet era on how communism worked out for them. The ones I’ve known weren’t exactly fans of it.

And if we’re being honest here, most of you guys are comfortably middle class. Under a communist regime, you think you’re going to be allowed to sit at home and play video games because you have anxiety? Fuck no, you’d be a leech. You got working arms and legs, get the fuck in the factory. Everybody contributes, remember? Oh, you think the wages you earn are too low, that you’re making pennies by the hour? Tough cookies. You make what everybody else makes. Maybe if you were more useful, you’d make more.

Trying to solve the ills of capitalism by abolishing and replacing it with communism is like demolishing your house because the pipes are leaking, or there’s bedbugs. Only rarely have I seen Tumblr singing the praises of unions, of government regulations to ensure we aren’t eating food poisoned with lead, of whistleblowers who bring to light practices some corporations would prefer you not know about. Nope, fuck that. Just burn the whole house to the ground, instead of working to fix those pipes or exterminate those bedbugs.

If there is one thing about capitalism that I do like, it’s that you can vote with your dollar. Don’t like the way a business runs itself? Don’t buy their products. Granted, we have a serious problem with monopolies, as many corporations are owned by even larger corporations that have their fingers in every pie. I want to see trustbusting come back. I want the rich to be taxed proportionately to their income, and leniency for taxes on the working and middle classes. Capitalism is competitive, and it’s difficult to be truly competitive when nearly all our stuff is made by about half-a-dozen giant corporations. They become bloated. Capitalism needs to be restrained, or else it will be like a goldfish that will just keep eating and eating until it dies.

Unfortunately, the government has been an enabler for capitalism’s decades-long bender. The 70′s weren’t great, but you could get paid enough to pay your rent. You could afford a college tuition. You had jobs that weren’t outsourced to China and India to cut costs, and those jobs had benefits. This is what the Baby Boomers had in their young adulthood. It’s why their perspective on the current job market seems laughably outdated. They had it good. And then they all fucked it up in the 80′s. Well, the richest ones did. You know, the ones that are probably your parents or grandparents if you’re reading this on your Mac right now.

And you’re not the only ones frustrated by this stagnation, communists. Trump got elected into office by many working-class voters under the promise that he’d “Make America Great Again.” But the things that made America great were ones that used to be the focus of the Democratic party: a livable wage, job benefits, having a safety net should you find yourself no longer able to work, being able to retire. You won’t find that shit under communism, because communism always becomes corrupted. The people who were the ones that helped usher in the revolution, who spoke of rights for the working man, usually end up fleeing the country, or assassinated. Fuck you, you don’t get a vote. But rest assured, Comrade, your leaders will truly represent you, the people... even if you never voted for them. It’s like they put one dude in charge who you can’t vote out, who makes all the rules, and you have to deal with it, tough shit... hmm, it’s almost like that one thing you hate so much, what’s it called?

Oh, right. Fascism. Shit.

I know a lot of you guys are young, think I’m some kind of limp noodle liberal who just doesn’t get it. Well, I admit, there’s a lot of shit I don’t know. But I do know this:

If an economic system has shown that it has failed, repeatedly, over a century, and you advocate for it?

You might want to reconsider your stance, because you look a lot like the fascists you claim you hate so much. Their governments kept failing, too.

So let’s fix the house that we’re living in before we start soaking the walls in kerosene, shall we?

#not fan fiction

96 notes · View notes

melmothblog · 7 years

Note

Do you think the Bolshoi will survive and keep it's...Bolshoi-ness (I don't know the word for it) under Vaziev? It honestly makes me nervous.

The Bolshoi’s survival and the Bolshoi’s ability to retain its unique style (the Bolshoi-ness) under Vaziev are really two separate questions.

The Bolshoi survived a revolution, two world wars, and the 1990s (veritable post-Soviet dark ages). It’s often referred to as a “state within a state” and is a fairly accurate reflection of Russia as a whole. And, much like Russia, it is as resilient as it is tumultuous. It will keep on trucking along.

I believe that it was Vladimir Vasilev who said that the Bolshoi’s greatest misfortune is that it’s doomed to succeed. No matter what happens or how bad things get, the theatre will always prosper because people will want to visit it purely for the sake of visiting a great historical and cultural landmark. This is a dangerous position to be in because it has the potential to breed complacency.

When it comes to Vaziev, I somehow always end up playing the devil’s advocate without intending to… Here’s the thing: in all of its long and illustrious history, the Bolshoi has hardly ever known peace, and no artistic director has ever left it unscarred. All of Vaziev’s predecessors received (various degrees of) criticism for their actions. Many were accused of undermining or destroying the Bolshoi style. Vaziev inherited a company, which has been ravaged by scandal and depleted of talent thanks to numerous resignations and dismissals. He’s keeping the company relatively stable and is investing in new talent (this is a very simplistic view btw; I’m just trying to paint the big picture here). He’s doing the best with what he’s got. The real problem is that what he’s got doesn’t amount to much.

I think that Russian ballet as a whole is very rapidly sliding downhill. Both VBA and BBA struggle to produce strong graduates. This has to do not so much with the quality of education but rather with the mindset of the incoming generation. The value system and the worldview have shifted in a major, practically tectonic way. Diana Vishneva recently gave an interview in which she slammed the living daylight out of the new generation of ballet students for being selfish, self-centred, lazy and internet-obsessed (this is why we need Tsiskaridze btw; he’s attempting to turn the tide and change these dangerous new attitudes). And these are the people who eventually end up in the big companies.

What I’m trying to say here (in a very round-about way) is that while you are definitely right to worry, Vaziev isn’t who / what you should be worried about.

d i s c l a i m e r

#qa #vaganova #bolshoi #diana vishneva #ballet

12 notes · View notes

anonymoustalks · 4 years

Text

idk if lenins polcy of bruning churches was good but you have to have soem kind of athiest government

(6-20-20) You both like politics.

You: hi

Stranger: hi

Stranger: ideology?

You: moderate left

You: you?

Stranger: far left

Stranger: uk

You: ahh kay

You: why do you like omegle?

Stranger: er dunno just fun to chat without consequences i guess

You: mhm that's fair

You: I like to hear about what other ppl think

Stranger: yh and argueing

You: haha I don't really argue that much

Stranger: some people arnt worth ur time

You: mhm maybe

You: where are you from?

Stranger: uk^^

You: I'm from the us

Stranger: noice

You: and I'm totally ignorant of british politics lol

Stranger: i know a little bit about america

You: how does your government work?

Stranger: cos its the centre of the world

You: sorry if this is a really dull question

Stranger: its fine ill asnwer w my limited understanding

You: I just ran into someone who was praising the monarchy

Stranger: pfft

Stranger: haha

Stranger: so basically above everyone we have a queen who approves certain stuff and has the ability to interjec tin products but msotly doesn then you have the unlected house of lords which is aristocrats recommended by other rich ppl and below that the ppl elected

Stranger: we have a prime minister so he doesnt have the same powers as president

Stranger: but hes more powerful than other pm's

You: mhm

You: the house of lords...

Stranger: yep

You: is the aristocracy still a big thing in the uk?

Stranger: its just like the senate in the usa except not elected and idk probaably

You: how does someone get recommended to the house of lords?

Stranger: be rich adn good at something or know someone whos rich

You: ahh I think it's weird that it's so closely tied to wealth

Stranger: not really the uk ruling class make it prtty obvious to us peasnts that its a ruling class fake democracy

Stranger: unlike the usa where everybody is supposed classless

You: right

You: I guess that's a fair statement

Stranger: but yeah fuck the queen

Stranger: how was the guy defedning monarchy?

You: oh he sounded kind of weird

You: like how god and the monarchy is essential for uk's stability and being

Stranger: pfft

You: he didn't really explain much

Stranger: both are irelevant nowadays

You: just pointed out that france and us are chaotic, according to him because there is no monarchy

Stranger: oh yeah thats totally

Stranger: why

You: yeah lol

Stranger: if only they had a monarchy then there owuld be no class and racial conflict

You: so how far left are you?

Stranger: very far

You: anarchist?

Stranger: nope left communist

Stranger: basically anti stalinist communist

You: what does your ideal government look like?

Stranger: well until you have a relatively stateless socialism you have a dictatorship of the proleterait

Stranger: and that has an armed population as the army and has direct democracy and a representive democracy who are payed wages simualr to that of a workmans

Stranger: in brief

You: mhm and membership has a criteria that you must be working class?

Stranger: membership of the democratic process yep

Stranger: a worker

You: mhm

Stranger: not necearily poor

You: what is the exact definition of working class btw?

Stranger: sombody who doesnt own and live off capitlist property

Stranger: or is a cpatilsit in other respects

Stranger: like an investor

Stranger: businessmen landlords and bankers

You: hmm I feel like it's hard for me to draw parallels

You: I know a pharmacist friend

You: who rents his place

You: for extra cash

Stranger: well when we have the revolution i doubt he'll be locked up or anything but youknow

Stranger: hes just a small landlord i guess

Stranger: supplemetning work income

You: so would people just discouraged from doing that kind of stuff?

Stranger: well hosuing will be nationalised as an early step

Stranger: so you wont have to

You: mhm

Stranger: making rent equal to bills

You: my parents also have investments

You: for like retirement

You: and just in general

Stranger: sure

You: was curious what would happen to those

Stranger: well i mean by investor sombody who is rich and does it for a job

You: ah kay

Stranger: the socialsit pension ting will be good anyhow

You: mhm

You: do you think that's it necessary for the world to follow this model? Or do you think that it can still work with just a communist state on it's own?

Stranger: nah for a lot of reasons you cant have it in one or a few states surrounded by cpaitlsit ones

Stranger: for one a DOTP surrounded by cpatilist states is forced to act like one to compete

Stranger: and therefore exploit other countries and its own labourers to the max

You: right, I was curious about that actually

Stranger: that was trotsky's argument

You: mhm

Stranger: he said u cant have 'socialsism in one country' because you have to first have international DOTP

You: dotp stands for?

Stranger: or you just become a state cpaitlist state like stalin

You: dictatorship of the prol.?

Stranger: dictatorship of the proletariat

Stranger: yep

You: mhm, that makes a lot of sense

Stranger: yep

Stranger: DOTP being when workers hold the state but not the economy

Stranger: the economy is still in private hands

You: right

You: I think I mix up all the varieties of socialism and communism

Stranger: yh DOTP isnt so much a variety but a transition

Stranger: from cpaitlism to socialism/com

You: mhm

You: I feel like I think about human nature cynically

Stranger: oh go on

You: as in, I'm skeptical of being satisfied with equality

You: *ppl being

Stranger: well tehy certainly arnt satified by inequality so how bad can it really get?

You: mhm true

Stranger: we dont mean absolute equality

Stranger: just equality of opporutunity to realise ur best self

You: idk if this is school bias or anything, but when we learn about communism, it's often framed that the party just ends up with all the wealth

You: or power

Stranger: theres a reason that idea of so called communism is taught rlly

Stranger: mainly cos of porpaganda but theres some truth

Stranger: under lenin the state was definitely a semi deictatorship of a few workers parties

Stranger: but with a democratic mechanism and worker councils to elect them

You: hm

You: *mhm

Stranger: with the intention of educating a largely illitarate peasant russia into a democratic socialsit society

Stranger: but after the vicotry of stalin after lenins death, whatever redistribution of power was dropped and centrlasing power in the party and in stalin was the priority

You: right

Stranger: so there is a history to it

You: I feel like I was thought that there was a component of ideological purity -- like, if you expressed greater loyalty to the party, you could get more stuff

You: like better food tickets or cars or stuff

You: *taught

Stranger: sure teh soviet union during and after stalin was definitely a class society

You: mhm, how do you avoid class from rearising?

Stranger: you dont centralise power in bureacracy

Stranger: and make it mroe acoutnable

Stranger: you arm the popualtion

Stranger: make durable directly democratic mechanisms

Stranger: accountability at all level

You: so you're saying like enshrining freedom of speech / freedom of arms in the system?

Stranger: im not a freedom of speech absolutist but sure

Stranger: its very important

You: wasn't China kinda of freedom of speech until tianmensquare, were they?

Stranger: ha no

Stranger: you got tortured if you spoke out

You: ah kay

Stranger: same as soviet union really

Stranger: mao wasnt masively different

You: I'm just thinking of the blm protests in the US

Stranger: yh

You: when ppl feel like change isn't happening

You: then they can get violent

Stranger: yep

You: was just curious how your government would handle that

Stranger: well the governmetn and the people are intrinsically merged

Stranger: but it depends like waht the situation would be

You: mhm I mean technically there's universal suffrage in the US but not everyone votes

Stranger: yep

Stranger: electoral college too

You: and I think minority parties can sometimes be the loudest and most opinionated

Stranger: yh

You: so even with a proletariat government I think there might still be disagreement

Stranger: yh

Stranger: for sure

Stranger: and debate

Stranger: whats ur point

You: mhm idk

Stranger: aight sitl idk the answers

You: yeah it's interesting

Stranger: what are u taught abotu socialism in schools

You: mhm, I guess just the things I said?

You: I think we studied east germany and the ussr

Stranger: ah k

Stranger: yep

You: what life was like

You: to live there

Stranger: sure and if you trying and feed everyone this is waht happens type shite

Stranger: you cant be nice with the economy

You: mhm I don't think my teachers tried to make extremely biased conclusions or anything

You: but the curriculum itself could be biased I think

Stranger: k yeah same

Stranger: yeah fr

Stranger: we dont learn at all about the british empire

You: yup

Stranger: like not once

Stranger: or really any british history beyond knights and castles

You: actually in world history class my teacher commented that I was beginning to sound "anti-american" lol

Stranger: haha good

Stranger: anti american what a word

Stranger: being anti imperialist and anti racist is being anti british too

You: lol

Stranger: tells u what they think about britishness

Stranger: its not culture but power

Stranger: which is a load of bs

You: mhm

Stranger: what did you say to teacher

You: idk I'm not very nationalist

You: I didn't say anything, I'm not really the kind of person to argue

Stranger: neither but i like uk just not enough to block refugees to preserve it

Stranger: like some wacko patriots are

You: mhm

Stranger: they act like the uks not been 15% non white since like 1940

You: mhm

You: what do you think of their opinion that a country should have a right to control their own culture/ethnicities?

Stranger: erm

Stranger: well thats tough

Stranger: i think the ideal of direct dmeocracy and a reactioanry population is contradictory

Stranger: and therefore maybe u need more centralised leadership there

You: I think I heard a scenario of belgium or something wanting to block the construction of mosques in like a historical district or something

You: to preserve their national culture/history

Stranger: yep idk

You: yeah idk either

Stranger: but like how would direct democrayc work in somalia

Stranger: or saudi arabia

Stranger: thats a tough question

Stranger: would men use it to repress women

You: mhm yup

You: or well, there are several states that have a democracy

Stranger: its like india was basically a dicatroship for its first 20 years

You: and they voted to impose state religion

You: state religious laws

You: that kind of thing

Stranger: basically cos it would be a bloodbath

Stranger: of relgion and caste

Stranger: so the governmetn had to go against the people to do whats the long term good

You: I think it's sometimes hard to have foresight about what the "long term good" is though

You: like everybody things they are doing things for long term good

You: *thinks

Stranger: well in indias caste removing caste racism and relgious bigotry was a big thing

Stranger: and many people died due to it

You: mhm

You: I think it's really hard for me to know what is "right"

Stranger: and i think general equality is a good thing impose against a population

Stranger: if they dont want it

Stranger: thats the only way change has ever come

You: mhm although I think indoctrination is always possible

Stranger: eh

You: I mean, this is kind of a hot take, but Western values are indoctrinated

Stranger: yeahthey are

You: similarly speaking you could indoctrinate capitalistic values or communist values

Stranger: some are right some are wrong

Stranger: not succesfully

You: and I think the ppl who grow up with whatever they are indoctrinated with are generally happy

You: and support the views they grow up with

Stranger: yeah true

You: although I think it's sad for whoever gets left out of the system

Stranger: like anti deisicimination laws are passed despite a population

Stranger: for a long term good

You: mhm

You: yeah idk governments are hard haha

Stranger: haha yes

Stranger: thats why were still talking about it

You: mhm

You: I don't really know what to think about ppl who support religious states

You: like indonesia has that problem

Stranger: theyre idiots

You: like they want their state to become religious

Stranger: ik snd prolly will

You: but if I imagine myself in their shoes

You: I think they just want to be closer to their religion

You: which is like a personal value

You: like I'm secular, so things like freedom and equality mean a lot to me

Stranger: truw

You: but I can also imagine a different world were idk god and faith matter a lot to me

You: we have pretty significant freedom of religion battles in the us

Stranger: same]

Stranger: if i didnt grow up in suhc an athiest school and get bullied for it id be hardcore jesus

You: oh your family is religious?

Stranger: yep

You: mhm I was reading about the us lgbt anti-discrimination ruling earlier

Stranger: yeah

You: the religious schools here are worried about being affected

You: like they don't want to hire gay teachers

Stranger: good

You: bc they're a religious school

Stranger: get w the program schools

Stranger: idk if lenins polcy of bruning churches was good but you have to have soem kind of athiest government

You: mhm I think anti-discrimination is good, but I feel like I can understand their resistance of feeling like they can't teach their religion the way they want

Stranger: sure yeah

You: idk most things I don't know what to think lol

Stranger: but think about if they dont get agy teachers

Stranger: anti discimination laws dont work

You: hm?

Stranger: cos u can jsut say u didnt disciminate and taht it

You: ohh no it still matters

You: like imagine you are a religious school

You: and a pastor applies and says they are a gay priest

You: and you don't want to hire them

You: they can sue bc discrimination

Stranger: maybe but its a relgious school why u even applying

You: mhm some ppl kind of want to change christianity I think

You: like there are pastors who are much more sympathetic to lgbt

Stranger: eh still

Stranger: lictus and that

Stranger: levictus

You: yeah idk

You: most of the churches in my area are pro-lgbt

Stranger: pretty sure my preist is closeted

You: aww

Stranger: hes very camp

You: camp ?

Stranger: and went to cambridge

Stranger: femenine

You: ahh

Stranger: yep

You: yeah religion is an odd place in politics for me

You: like it's often at the root of weird stuff

Stranger: oh yeah

Stranger: are u relgious

You: that runs counter to like modern science common sense

You: no

You: well, I'm like 20% spiritual I guess

You: but I'm not religious

Stranger: yep

Stranger: never got the difference

You: between spiritual and religious?

Stranger: yep

You: oh, for me, religious is like adhering to a religion, or denomination, or religious practice

You: spiritual is like vaguely believe in something

You: *belieiving

You: without doing anything about it

You have disconnected.

#omegle #politics #communism #uk #dictatorship of the proletariat #class warfare #education #indoctrination #religion #reigious freedom

0 notes