Europe
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
The so-called socialist countries still have capitalist economies. And yes, you're right, that a truly socialist would indeed need to defend itself against its enemies, but under a capitalist system, the system itself inevitably trends towards fascism for the reasons I outlined in great detail in my comment.
Fascism is inherently a very fragile and unstable system -- that's why the fascist need for control and authoritarianism is so urgent, because the ideology is so unnatural. So, yes, fascism does indeed inevitably collapse, because it's fundamentally a suicide cult. but if that collapse leads back to capitalism with reforms, then it'll just cycle back towards fascism again.
If you're talking about China, yea. But what about the USSR and it's satellite states?
My remarks to these I stated in my initial reply.
Not only capitalists, to be honest. What started as a revolution in the name of the working class with the Bolsheviks soon 'degraded' into an authoritarian ruling system with a strong party elite and - again - exploited workers. As said: I've yet to find a society that is completely stable and has no driving forces pushing it towards tyranny of some form.
@Quittenbrot @bearboiblake
This is because of the nature of "Leadership": It is impossible to become a "Leader" of a major nation (/corp/institution) with any tangible power without having done strings of deals (i.e. compromises, i.e. selling out popular interests for private/personal ones, i.e. corruption).
The most successful "Leaders" are simply the most convincing liars.
I agree.
But wouldn't you agree that this fundamental dilemma of power inviting abuse has been proven by humanity to be irrespective of the label of the respective societal system?
@Quittenbrot
Yes, they are irrespective of labels or systems or ideologies. There is a small % of humanity that are self-righteous, self-interested, double-dealing control freaks. The worst amongst them will always end up competing for power. The rest of us are essentially credulous, malleable serfs.
I absolutely would agree with that, and that is why I advocate for anarchism, which is the one and only ideology which actually accounts for that fact.
There's no doubt that the USSR was extremely authoritarian, for sure. I'd say that was due to a variety of complex reasons, but foremost among them would be that there wasn't a social revolution, there was a military revolution which replaced the existing ruling class with a different ruling class, rather than actually eliminating the ruling class altogether. The levers of power were maintained, and abused for personal gain, until capitalism was restored - and now we have the capitalist Russian Federation. The abolition of capitalism isn't a magic bullet, and I'm not arguing that it is - but that does not change the fact that capitalism does inevitably lead towards fascism.
Well, I'd be glad to introduce you to anarchism. For what it's worth, too, I'd say that Cuba demonstrates a pretty good model of a socialist society, despite the constant US terrorist attacks and interventions/blockades -- quality of life, literacy rates, health care, etc. have all hugely improved, they have cures for lung cancer and Alzheimers in Cuba that we don't even have in the West. Again, it's not perfect, and there are no good states, but out of all of them, I'd say Cuba probably comes the closest.
Again, in my initial response I pointed out why I have problems with this 'inevitable' and think it is a dogmatic statement.
Also, I stumble across comparing the flawed capitalism that actually exists with an idealised theoretical utopia of socialism/anarchism. Especially, since the socialism that did actually exist, was not only also flawed but eventually failed. Let's be honest here. We cannot credibly say the flaws of the one system being actually applied are 'signs of its inherent true nature', while the other simply gets relabeled in a no-true-scotsman fashion. When a theoretical model collides with realities, the inherent flaws will emerge.
As did with the USSR. It was indeed a social revolution, nationalisation and expropriation of large landowners did take place. Only, transferring this then into the hands of the state under central planning made it necessary to create a huge state apparatus. Hence, also a new elite was created.
Let me change gears for a moment: Do you support capitalism? If so, why?
If by 'leading to water' you mean repeating a statement over and over again instead of addressing any critical comments on your argument, that's certainly the case.
But if you're just here to state and not to debate, then that's completely fine with me. Have a great day, too!