What did I say that’s whataboutism? You claimed that Cuba was authoritarian and the US is free, therefore it’s perfectly valid for me to compare the two against each other. It would only not be valid if you had placed them both in the same category.

Freedom House is literally funded by the US State department lmao. Nice objective and unbiased source you’ve got there!

The only “freedom” that Freedom House cares about is how free the bourgeoisie are to infiltrate the government and capture regulatory agencies. By that metric, Cuba is much less “free” than the US, sure.

Mhm. I wonder, which objective metrics led you to list the US as more free than Cuba?

Cuba’s family code is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world concerning LGBT rights and gender equality, meanwhile, there are parts of the US where you can get arrested for using the bathroom, or for merely failing to rat out trans kids to the cops. The US performs mass surveillance on all citizens and has the most sophisticated spy network in the world, it has used extrajudicial, indefinite detention without trial (in addition to having the highest incarceration rate in the world), along with torture (ironically, on illegally occupied Cuban soil). The US has kangaroo courts where children as young as six have to represent themselves in court with no right to an attorney, against threat of deportation. The police are equipped with military-grade equipment designed to fight insurgents, with the police budgets of individual cities exceeding that of the militaries of many countries: Cuba’s military spending is several times less than the police budget of Phoenix, AZ.

Does any of that factor into your analysis?

Non sequitor. Where did I say anything was black and white?

It’s not saying that both sides are bad? You sure about that one, chief?

What’s it saying about US imperialism? Good or bad?

What’s it saying about countries the US opposes? Good or bad?

Right, and what I’m saying is that by that very same logic, Trump supporting the Palestinian genocide doesn’t justify the democrats supporting the Palestinian genocide - they should not be considered immune to criticism either, and when people criticize them, they should not be assumed to be supporting the other side.

I couldn’t ask for clearer evidence than not accepting Saudi Arabia as authoritarian to demonstrate that “free vs authoritarian” are just propaganda terms and that how “free” a country allegedly is is really just a function of how aligned it is with the US.

In what universe is Saudi Arabia more free than Cuba?

Correct, whether it’s about countries or parties.

No u.

if you’re a global power, you’ve got a body count in the millions.

Very true. But is this an inherent trait of the world, or is there some path forward that would change or mitigate this fact?

Wait, are you saying “both sides bad?” “Both sides are the same?” Am I hearing this right?

Look, if either Xi Jinping or Donald Trump is going to emerge as leader of a global hegemon, then any and all criticism of Xi Jinping is the exact same as being a Trump supporter. When are we going to do something about all these secret Trump supporters pretending to be leftists?

At least, that’s what I’d say if I accepted the absurd logic of lesser evilism the liberals were constantly berating everyone with.

I don’t understand why people think in these terms, “If you approve of violence being done by your side, you must also approve of violence done against your side.” I’m not taking a principled stand in favor of violence for violence’s sake. I support that which hurts the enemy and oppose that which hurts friendlies.

Stealing from the rich? Good. Stealing from the poor? Bad. Killing exploiters? Good. Killing the exploited? Bad. There’s no contradiction here because my stance is based on self-interest and the interest of my class, not on any sort of categorical moral claim about some particular form of action.

It’s not their job to educate you.

The problem is that folks see these things implemented in the past and say “let’s just do that.” Why can’t we take the good parts and think beyond the rest?

Of course we should! Every instance of socialism should adapt to the specific material conditions. There’s not much reason to think that socialism in developed countries would look the same as socialism is pre-industrial societies.

It’s just that in order to know what worked and what didn’t, it’s necessary to treat those projects as serious, earnest attempts at socialism and to be willing to point out both the positive and negative aspects. And doing that will immediately get you branded as a tankie by .world. Because in practice, tankie doesn’t actually mean that you defend everything any socialist state ever did, it means that you defend anything a socialist state ever did. Thinking critically and trying to learn from the mistakes from the past makes you a tankie.

Dronies have a pathological need to distance themselves from every attempt at socialism (except the ones that failed, which can be upheld as perfect since they never had to implement their vision), which renders them unable to look at the past from an objective standpoint. They are more concerned with making sure everyone knows that they’re “one of the good ones” than they are about studying and learning from the past. Tankies, otoh, are willing to own up to the facts and acknowledge that past projects were genuine attempts, even when they ultimately failed as the USSR did. Of course it would not have failed if it didn’t have its flaws. But you will rarely see a dronie pushing this angle or interrogating the reasons for the failure, because learning from its mistakes is too close to treating it as as serious and legitimate project - far better (and easier!) to just write off the whole thing and push for shit that has only ever existed in your head and has never been tainted by contact with reality.

Every fucking time.

That’s fair. I only wanted to set the record straight.

The comments I mentioned were long before Huntington affected him in his later years. Like, I’m talking about his comments on events as they were happening, when he was fully cognizant, and singing and writing smack dab in the middle of his career. You can’t just put your own positions into his mouth and write off everything he ever said to the contrary to Huntington’s. It’s both demonstrably false and also not really cool for you to do, like, he’s entitled to having his own views regardless of losing his mind to illness later on.

Woody Guthrie was ditched by his deadbeat, KKK member dad at 14, and grew up into the Great Depression. Those circumstances don’t tend to produce moderate politics. Everything I’ve seen about him suggests he saw things in very black and white terms, with the communists (including the USSR and Stalin) being the only real alternative to the racism and poverty he saw under capitalism and fascism. You can say that wasn’t the right perspective but that was his perspective.

You are, of course, right about Korea, but I brought it up because at the time it was a pretty controversial and fringe view, that he was willing to standby even under threat of persecution.

This was before Stalinism and a lot of the bad connotations given to communism since - I doubt he would have embraced much of what have happened in the name of communism.

Well, Guthrie was actually alive at the same time as Stalin so we don’t actually have to speculate on that. In reality, Guthrie praised Stalin, even going so far as praising the Soviet invasion of Poland, and criticizing the US for providing supplies to Finland during the Winter War. It actually wasn’t that uncommon for left-wing people in the West to support Stalin at the time, though some, for example, Pete Seeger, later changed their views. Guthrie never did, even during the height of the Cold War, when McCarthyism meant he got blacklisted, he was still saying stuff like, he hoped the communists won in the Korean War, and he never apologized for or recanted his views on Stalin.

millions more people genocided

That’s quite a claim. If the US is set to genocide millions of people, then as people at risk of being victims of that, surely we should be treating the US government as the primary threat to our safety, correct?

How about China is, in fact, a dictatorship for starters

That could be true. But I wonder, in general, what is the process for determining whether a country is a dictatorship or not, from the outside? China claims to be a democracy and holds elections, like just about every other country under the sun. Of course, not every country with elections is actually a democracy, but if we’re talking “hard facts” I think we need to be able to point to specific, objective things.

The Communist in “Chinese Communist Party” is just there for show.

Isn’t the Chinese Communist Party the single largest self-identifying communist party in the world? Shouldn’t that factor in, like, at least a little bit into our standards for what defines a communist party? Regardless, this is kind of just your subjective opinion, isn’t it? Again, what specific, objective standards are you looking at to distinguish between “real” communism and “fake” communism?