News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
That was a very weird article...
To the point I googled the source and apparently it's a 90 year old Maxist-Leninist newspaper. Which kind of explains the writing style and lack of sources.
They do have "left" lean, but it always feels off because those people also are super into authoritarianism. So it's less about presenting enough for someone to understand and form an opinion, and more like telling their readers an opinion along with a few facts that were found after the fact to be used to defend it.
To be clear; Trump's 1500% going to try and steal the election, but everyone already knows that. There is zero new information on the article and I'm pretty sure everyone that didn't vote for trump has came to the same conclusion...
Marxist/Leninists writing just always gives me something like the uncanny valley feeling. I don't care how it's dressed up, or if the person speaking/writing agrees with my existing opinion, I can't fucking stand them. I guess it's "the ick"
Better sources have been covering all of this for months already.
Can you link the better sources? After a skim for sources I found 7, is that not enough for you for a short article?
The ratio of sourced content to editorial rant is just too low. You have to really be committed to go through the article to figure out concretely what the hell they are taking about. Most of it is just reiterating how outrageous it is and how an alphabet soup of leftist organizations are either outages or should be outraged, and a vague list of the measures that are outrageous that is mostly focused on why it is outrageous rather than what the actual measures are. It eventually does concretely describe two things, the id requirement and the voting infrastructure audits, but that's a tiny fraction of the article.
The two big things it references:
Save act:
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/02/will-save-act-prevent-married-women-from-registering-to-vote/
And an EO from 3/25 (that they didn't provide the name of:
https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-news-updates-3-25-2025
They both do the same thing, and happened months ago...
But to be fair, I often overestimate how much a random person remembers. They're not wrong with their opinion on what all this means.
It's just the way they present it often feels too much like trump for the average person to listen.
Because of all the reasons I said in the last comment.
Good news, you'll never have to feel the ick of an equitable economy or being part of a society that prioritizes the wellbeing of its citizenry over GDP here in the west.
Phew amirite? Enjoy capitalist paradise! Participation is voluntary*
*voluntary participation subject to dying in the gutter of exposure and capital defense force brutality if poor citizen fails to volunteer for capitalist exploitation. The owner class reserves all rights to kill you anyway if you threaten quarterly earnings estimates such as drawing on Healthcare benefits you paid into when you need to use them.
Nah. I'm an actual communist
My policy positions make Vladimir Lenin look like Hillary Clinton.
My problem with Marxist-Leninists, is the authoritarianism, which is the worst part about trump too.
Does it make sense now?
I think authoritarianism is bad, and even if an authoritarian agrees with me on every aspect of policy, I'll never be on their side.
It's a difference at a fundamental level.
Quick edit:
As simple as possible, they topped out at what people need to survive, a giant population of people getting just enough to live and work, to support a ruling class of politicians who were essentially oligarchs.
I think everyone should have enough to be comfortable because without that life is still miserable for 99.99% of the population, it's switching out one ruling class for another.
That's not a win, it's not changing the game. It's shuffling the cards and playing the same game we know isn't good.
So you're an "actual communist" who never bothered to actually read anything Marx or Engels wrote.
Anything like anarcho-syndicalism?
Not even sure what that is, but anyone wanti g anarchism likely doesn't know what that means.
Like, if there's anarcho-luddittes out there who thinks we should completely destroy society and go back to living in the forest in tribes of ~150 people...
I wouldnt agree with them that it's the best path, but I wouldn't consider them hypocritical because at least they understand where anarchism would lead and are being honest about it
For everything else with "anarcho" tacked on the front, I feel it's safe to say I'd disagree with them without looking into what they're about.
I did go ahead and Google that before hitting reply, just to be safe since I honestly hadn't heard that term before.
And that's just putting trade unions in charge, which would end up the same as any other ruling class.
I'm saying there shouldn't be a ruling class at all.
Claims to be a communist, but has no clue about anarchists. Many of whom are actual communist/Marxist. Sure buddy, you're a super mega communist.
Anarcho-syndicalism advocates for a society without hierarchical structures, achieved through the power of worker-led trade unions BTW.
Oh yes that old capitalist Chestnut smearing the ludites. Very communist of you. Do you know who the Luddites were? How based they were? Do you understand how badly we actually need luddites right now?
You would really do yourself a service, not by reading dense tomes of theory. But by reading a few freaking basic paragraphs of description on a Wikipedia page.
Thank you for taking up this discussion. I am not able to make long posts at this time. I appreciate you.
No, it replaces what's currently at the top with a trade union...
Something where people vote for their leaders. It would be the same as we have now almost immediately.
Are you even in a union? Do you have any idea how they work or how often corrupt assholes get leadership positions for the sole purpose of personally enriching themselves?
Like, I know I just said that I'm aware I underestimate others but....
C'mon man, you legitimately don't understand how that would result in a system identical to any other party based political system?
You don't understand how fast they'd throw their origins out the window?
Even if it did it would literally be better than what we have now. But no that's incorrect. It's literally about doing away with what is considered the top. And replacing it with local answerable flat representation. Using the power of labor and the Unions to achieve that for Syndicalists. Or by other means for the other subset of anarchists, direct action etc.
SEIU, mother was with the teamsters and my father with the pipelines.
Yes, and? So are you advocating to abolish unions just like the capitalists? Not even the nutty Leninist do that. They just rig things to get their puppets in place. Corruption can happen anywhere, with anyone. Corruption isn't an inherent feature of unions.
You don't underestimate others. You far overestimate yourself. The whole point of anarchism. From the most extreme to the most milquetoast. Is literally doing away with those unanswerable hierarchy protected leaders. Flat, local, minimal governance of the consenting. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's got nothing to do with your other straw man of destroying society. Nothing at all. It's about not having a fascistic national federal government forcing their whims down your throat through a monopoly on violence. It's about some shit head governor who's never been to your town and doesn't give a shit about your town not being able to do the same to your town. It's about those who actually use the means of production having a say on them. It's about you and your neighbors deciding the rules you live by. And not someone that you have no say in at the state or federal level.
If you actually were a communist, you'd understand this. Especially if you were anti-authoritarian. Most anti-authoritarian communist realistically are going to tend to align anarcho communist. The sad thing is though. I think you are actually capable of understanding this. But contrary to the username you've chosen you actually just don't give a shit.
This is what I was talking about
Every fucking time, you people just start making shit up.
Someone could say "my favorite color is blue" and Marxists-Leninistvwould start screeching "So you want red to die and to eat their babies".
It's never a discussion, you never try to understand anything.
This is a game to you. And the only logic that goes into your thinking is "what do I claim the other person said so I look good".
I was literally asking questions about your reasons and stance. Hence the use of the squiggly little punctuation known as a question mark. But predictably, you have no answers. And worse, squealing like being questioned is some sort of personal attack.
So tell us "communist" if unions are that problematic. They aren't, but let's pretend. What is your incorruptible unit of representation? What is your strategy to reduce corruption? Surely you must have something. Surely you weren't participating in a traditional capitalist smear against historic institutions of the left.
Seriously, the way I've seen you personally gatekeep other people's political ideology. While being so ludicrously ill prepared with your own claimed ideology. It's hilarious. The way you claim to be a communist and then turned immediately around to attack communist as wanting to destroy Society. It's peak lack of self-awareness.
This person you’re discussing with is not having a discussion at all. They are literally making asinine insinuations about what you said and not engaging with the exact words that you wrote. They don’t ask genuine follow up questions to determine your intent. I’d say you should probably just agree to disagree and move on.
Everything you said about anarcho-whatever the fuck term is spot on and the downvotes really make me question people’s critical thinking ability.
It's what authortarins do...
You can't reason them out of their views, because reason wasn't involved in them getting their views in the first place.
Someone told them to hold a view, so they held it. Anyone questioning their leader is a "them" and what little surface civility it starts with, is really just there to draw in people for an argument. Like, dude went completely off the rails in 2-3 replies, and that would have happened no matter what I said.
Some people will always be like that, it's normal human variation.