- 174 Posts
- 690 Comments
401·7 days agoBadempanada’s video on the embargo
Tl;dw is that the embargo makes it so no company/ships trading with Cuba are allowed to trade with the US. And given the US’s control over the global financial systems and geographic proximity to Cuba, that essentially means almost any company sacrificing trade with the US to trade with Cuba would be committing financial suicide.
The US ruling class’s motives are that a thriving socialist country so close to the US might force them to make concessions to the working class (free healthcare, transport, etc.) to match Cuba, similar to what the Scandinavian countries had to do because of their proximity to the USSR.
The thumbnail image for instances that don’t show it
Very nice to see. Both countries benefit from not wasting resources on this so hopefully this lasts.
5·14 days agoThat’s why the “should be” I guess, though that’s not to say there aren’t idiots (right in this thread too) actually shilling for this.
If current open source licenses still have flaws like this, we’re gonna need new ones.
Yeah I’m sure the maintainers are in talks with Putin directly
Your first mistake was expecting libs to have a thought process
This sets such a bad precedent…
Yeah the kernel might end up being forked if this shit keeps going. Sanctions affecting open source software like this was not something I expected…
Free as in… obeys US foreign policy
1·15 days agoI use this extension and it lets me bypass pretty much every paywall including NYT’s
Just in time for the BRICS summit. Hopefully relations between the two can soften up soon.
14·25 days agoParenti quote
If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard.
By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative.
If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology.
If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom.
A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained.
What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Not communist obviously, since there’s still very much a state and class division. But socialist because the state primarily serves the workers, with the stated goal of striving towards communism.
Now whether it’ll stay that way or not, we’ll see. Deng’s reforms have given liberals too much power after all; there seems to be an active class war happening in the Chinese state.
They already did lmao
3·1 month agoIt’s not, but anglosphere media will keep trying to portray it so lol
16·1 month agoHell yeah I’m writing him in
Me when I have to cope with not having any cool emojis