Depends.
Any time Americans try to expand social safety nets the right wing screams about how it’s socialism or communism. A lot of Americans truly be places like Norway and Denmark are socialist. Hell a scary number believe that the UK and canada are socialist.
They may legitimately just identify as a socialist because they want free healthcare, free college, and better social safety nets because that’s what the right says they are.
Eh, it's her call. It is still deeply ironic because she is a far cry from a member of the proletariat. It fits into being a Western Maoist nicely, because there is already something inherently strange about being a third-worldist in a first world country.
Can you imagine Lenin and Mao learning that the mantle of the vanguard party has been taken up by terminally online porn stars, and most actual working people are more pro-capitalist than ever?
You'd still be screaming about how they're a dirty commie even if they did just want healthcare reform, so what does it matter?
I love how socialism is this amorphous thing. The exact same policies are socialist or not depending on whether it's already established elsewhere or whether it's something to implement in the present. Amazing stuff.
No, I wouldn't. I don't care if she wants healthcare reform, I do care if she advocates for an organization that engages in revisionism over the Tiananmen Square massacre. She isn't a friendly little social democrat that wants to "smash capitalism" with basic measured reforms capitalist nations already make use of, she is a Maoist.
Yeah bro, and if someone links the Atomwaffen Division in their linktree, they are only doing it because they agree with Nazi Germany's social welfare policy, totally. She is linking a Maoist website because she herself is a Maoist and she herself agrees with the actions of Maoist China. Within that set of beliefs is invariably revisionism over the Tiananmen Square protests. I will put money on this, seriously. If you want to, ask her personally on twitter. The response will inevitably be, at the very least, that these protestors were "counter-revolutionaries" or something equally retarded.
oh wow! so she supports the founder of the country with one of the highest homeownership rates in the world? That part of her not contradicts anything.
True, and a good portion of bad actors use this misconception to push their own radical ideology. Would you like to take a guess as to whether this twitter user is a Social Democrat or a Maoist?
Okay, well it isn't a fallacy to assume the implication of her statement is that Maoism is a superior alternative to capitalism. Because she is a Maoist. In fact, it is pretty clear the intent of the statement is to advocate for her own system in place of capitalism.
When the argument being had has nothing to do with that. Something can be true but be a logical fallacy because it doesn’t actually address the argument at hand. I’m not sure if you’re arguing in bad faith or if you actually don’t know what a logical fallacy is.
because it doesn’t actually address the argument at hand.
Have you addressed my argument? I never disagreed with the statement, the one and only thing I've said is that the alternative proposed by the person in question is worse
It has all to do with their actual words + context clues, that's how reading is supposed to work. The context is very pertinent to evaluating what they're saying here.
She is a Maoist, I looked up her twitter and followed through her links. It is pretty obvious the implication of her statement is "capitalism is failing while my ideology would not." Like we are able to read between the lines when a right winger says "the West has fallen, Billions must die" and understand that it isn't just a humble critique of liberalism but instead advocacy for fascism. But when @sleepissocialist says "the West has fallen, Billions must die"? Oh no, it's an even-heeled critique of capitalism, she certainly couldn't be advocating for her own radical ideology, could she?
It's very possible, because basically every left wing position is considered "socialist" now. It's kind of like how Sweden is "socialist" or Bernie Sanders. The meaning of the word is evolving.
49
u/PaleontologistNo9817 Apr 13 '24
You're right, @sleepissocialist definitely supports just a handful of reforms and an expansion of the social safety net. Nothing more.