You’re just dripping with hypocrisy. You’re siloing off Stalin from his atrocities, and siloing the soviet union from other dictatorships, saying they’re good. But I’m not allowed to do the same with democracy? For shame, man.
And again, the hypocrisy: Kevin Rudd being in the files (despite Epstein contacting him and Rudd refusing further contact) apparently invalidates Australian democracy – Yet Chomsky being in the files is now exempt from being invalidated.
Though I can’t really be bothered arguing with a Stalinist, so I ask, do you prefer dictatorships over democracies? Simple yes or no.
I didn’t say that Chomsky was exempt from being invalidated, I just said that his theory about how propaganda works in a supposedly free press is by and large an accurate framework. Actually, I would argue that, although largely accurate, his theory is also in part chaff to cover up how deeply influenced by intelligence agencies the media is. Chomsky has always been very anti-conspiratorial, and the fact that he was also involved with a pedophile conspiracy should give one pause.
Anyway, you’re of course free to argue which “democratic” leader was whatever percent good or bad you like. You could argue that Churchill was 60% good because of WW2 but 40% bad because of the Bengal famine, something like that. My point is that bourgeois democracy is actually the dictatorship of capital, and however much they might buy us off (which is not very much, these days), they’re still operating an extractive/financial empire that enslaves most of the world, and their death toll is far higher than Stalin could have hoped to match in 100 lifetimes.
You’re just dripping with hypocrisy. You’re siloing off Stalin from his atrocities, and siloing the soviet union from other dictatorships, saying they’re good. But I’m not allowed to do the same with democracy? For shame, man.
And again, the hypocrisy: Kevin Rudd being in the files (despite Epstein contacting him and Rudd refusing further contact) apparently invalidates Australian democracy – Yet Chomsky being in the files is now exempt from being invalidated.
Though I can’t really be bothered arguing with a Stalinist, so I ask, do you prefer dictatorships over democracies? Simple yes or no.
I didn’t say that Chomsky was exempt from being invalidated, I just said that his theory about how propaganda works in a supposedly free press is by and large an accurate framework. Actually, I would argue that, although largely accurate, his theory is also in part chaff to cover up how deeply influenced by intelligence agencies the media is. Chomsky has always been very anti-conspiratorial, and the fact that he was also involved with a pedophile conspiracy should give one pause.
Anyway, you’re of course free to argue which “democratic” leader was whatever percent good or bad you like. You could argue that Churchill was 60% good because of WW2 but 40% bad because of the Bengal famine, something like that. My point is that bourgeois democracy is actually the dictatorship of capital, and however much they might buy us off (which is not very much, these days), they’re still operating an extractive/financial empire that enslaves most of the world, and their death toll is far higher than Stalin could have hoped to match in 100 lifetimes.
Though I can’t really be bothered arguing with a Stalinist, so I ask, do you prefer dictatorships over democracies? Simple yes or no
This is not how discussions work, my friend
you cannot have a discussion with an authoritarian since they don’t believe in discussions or common ground.
so I ask, do you prefer dictatorships over democracies? Simple yes or no
You cannot have a discussion with an “anti-authoritarian” because they are naive and deeply delusional about the world.
so I ask, do you think the brutal domination of the third world by the first world is justified by the fact that the rich countries are “democracies”?
do you prefer dictatorships over democracies? Simple yes or no
What democracies?
anything other than the us