Malidak

Read my comments. I am not defending the genocide. Just not a big fan of the removal of any states or people. Your rage is directed in the wrong direction.

Thank you for correcting me in such a condescending way. Not everyone is a native speaker, doesn't mean I don't speak English.

Look at the comment I am replying to. The literally said Israel must go. What is that implicating? Certainly not Israel needs to be rehabilitated, like Nazi Germany, which is what I am advocating for here.

Reading your second paragraph, we seem to agree.

It's the Comment I am replying to that seems to want Israel gone. How do you make that happen, without eradicating or displacing them (both of which is considered genocide)?

Thank God they didn't gain the upper hand.

I think "Israel" needs to be demilitarized and dezionified so that they cannot hurt anyone else. The people responsible for the genocide and crimes against the Palestinian people need to be tried in a court. Let an international alliance govern the affairs of a new state of Palestinians and Jews willing to live together in piece. Everyone else who wants to continue the violence can fuck Off.

I don't understand why I am being downvoted for this except that maybe some of these people screaming for peace here actually just want to reverse the killing.

A friend of mine has a farm and adopts the occasional "free-range" chicken (which just means there is some outside part accessible from the cage). They are so heavily bred that they kept falling over because their breasts were too large, so they wouldn't move much. This is always what I think about when I read free range. Basically a chicken too fat to move that can look outside an open window.

I think you missed the point.

Your first point is literally why I went vegetarian. I tried getting meat out of sources that I could ethically comply with but gave up after a while. If you live in a city it is practically impossible.

I say vegetarian, because I eat the occasional egg if I personally know the chickens and their living conditions.

China has the 2nd most billionaires in the world and they are tied to "state owned companies". And you try to tell me it's a socialist country. Billionaires should not exist in a socialist country. If the economic gains of labour land in the hands of a few billionaires, this makes them bourgeoisie. Even though they claim to be socialist. But you seem to be as blinded by their propaganda as you claim the western people to be of capitalist propaganda because you can't seem to grasp what's wrong with these so called socialist countries.

Funny how you just disregard the information without actually going into it at all.

Coming off as someone blindly following another form of oppression by a bourgeoise elite claiming to be proletarian.

I was hoping for some actual insights.

What are you trying to say with this graph? That distribution of wealth is better when it is distributed amongst less than 1% of the population of they call themselves proletarian? Or that it is somehow better if standard of living goes down for everyone just because the then nonexistent ressources are shared equally?

In a perfect world a whole cake is shared equally by all 8 people. But if you smash half the cake, give a quarter to one person and the remaining quarter to the remaining 7 it is not better than 2 ppl having half a cake and letting the other 6 have the other half. Maybe not the best example but I hope you get my point.

If not having equal but good standard of living, what is it we are strivong for?

I suggest this link as a good read. Because I think just strictly defending the existing socialist countries is actually hindering progress towards a both fair and high quality of life society.

https://queer-bolshevik.medium.com/the-aes-doctrine-wrong-then-wrong-now-a8666de371da

Have you ever visited any of the AES Countries? They have a few rich and powerful families running everything and sucking up to daddy china. I have visited Laos and Vietnam and talked to the working people. They are suffering, barely making ends meed and are fed up with the people in power taking everything for themselves and living in luxury. And if they talk too much about it they get "visitors". These people in power over there are not working class. There is also absolutely no basic healthcare. If you get sick you die. I am sorry but for me a socialist country does not have an elite living on luxury and it doesn't have people dying of poverty and lack of healthcare.

I agree with a lot you are saying. No state can stay stable without some form of control and censorship as soon as it starts threatening the stability of the system. Capitalism does this as well. And they have a very effective propaganda machine.

I feel like capitalist propaganda is so effective because it resonates so well with the basic human instincts and the part of humans that wants to be better than others and is greedy. The monkey brain is competitive and hierarchical. Socialism requires a level of empathy and intelligence a lot of people don't have. They not only reject it because of media but also because they wanna climb that social ladder. No fun, if it doesn't exist.

The leaders of most socialist countries though, seemed to not stop at the anti socialist critics. Even other socialist voices that they didn't agree with got silenced (Mao, Pol Port, Xi Jing Ping making all his ministers disappear).

Also please don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing against socialism. I am trying to find a form of socialist society that relies on as few authority and violence as possible. I always wondered why the socialist countries struggle so much with keeping their people in, while most refugees try to get into the capitalist societies.