• Wildmimic@anarchist.nexusEnglish
      2·
      11 days ago

      He cares about congress losing the power to be the one who decides if the US go to war, furthering the erosion of separation of powers, and he wants congress to get off their asses and pass a resolution to to stop this illegal shit. I don’t know what y’all are reading, but it’s not what he wrote!

    • SevenSkalls [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      26·
      12 days ago

      I’m going to start asking libs this in real life. I think it usually comes down to cracking down on protestors or dissidents extra hard?

      But maybe I should probably do a run-through of NATOpedia first to anticipate their responses.

      • Moidialectica [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        12·
        12 days ago

        From my experience, they just see the label ‘authoritarian’, see that the economy isnt doing good, and hear some claim its because of the president, and immediately assume there is heavy repression and form their entire political ideology from this figment of their imagination, and will refuse to let it go because they benefit from it

    • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      13·
      12 days ago

      Straight from the lib’s mouth: https://lemmy.world/post/39814562/20886605

      Between 2013 and 2023, Venezuela dropped 42 places in the Press Freedom Index. According to estimations by the United Nations (UN) and Human Rights Watch, under Maduro’s administration, more than 20,000 people have been subject to extrajudicial killings and seven million Venezuelans have been forced to flee the country.

      If you don’t describe that as fascism, you are the problem.

      https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/venezuela#dc3816

      We know that so-called “freedom indices” are pure ideology, and that people fled the hardships imposed by sanctions.

      I can’t find anything on their methodology for counting those “extrajudicial killings”. I presume they’re just counting everyone killed by police, including those involved in CIA-backed riots. By comparison, 6,400 people were killed in one year in Brazil. Extrapolating that to the eleven year period used in the Venezuela count would make approx. 70,000 extrajudicial killings. The number for the USA would be about 14,000.

    • downvote_hunter@midwest.socialEnglish
      3·
      12 days ago

      So I had a similar question, what are the “news” outlets being told the reason behind this act? I know the actual answer is the oil reserves that Venezuela had is the reason.

      What I found being said was that he is working with terrorist organizations and gangs that supply drugs to the United States. At least that was the reason yesterday. May have changed by now

  • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    48·
    13 days ago

    Some people think that the bourgeoisie adopted “pacifism” and “democracy” not because it was compelled to do so, but voluntarily, of its own free choice, so to speak. And it is assumed that, having defeated the working class in decisive battles (Italy, Germany), the bourgeoisie felt that it was the victor and could now afford to adopt “democracy.” In other words, while the decisive battles were in progress, the bourgeoisie needed a fighting organisation, needed fascism; but now that the proletariat is defeated, the bourgeoisie no longer needs fascism and can afford to use “democracy” instead, as a better method of consolidating its victory. Hence, the conclusion is drawn that, the rule of the bourgeoisie has become consolidated, that the “era of pacifism” will be a prolonged one, and that the revolution in Europe has been pigeonholed.

    This assumption is absolutely wrong.

    Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.

    From Concerning the International Situation. J.V. Stalin, 1924

  • ConcreteHalloween [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    25·
    12 days ago

    Yah know you could have just condemned this as an act of foreign aggression and hawkishness so as not to alienate squishy libs but also not carry water for the rights justification of this.