Liberal democratic countries do tend to have them, but no it isnt the be all and end all

Countries with inclusive institutions to begin with do seem to have gravitated toward becoming liberal democracies by extension however

Not sure about that, you could just as easily point to Botswana's neighbour to the east, Zim it's been a liberal democracy it's inception in 1980. I wouldn't call it an inclusive institution.
For your argument to work you'd also have to ignore majority of the world that also use liberal democracies but have nothing but squander. You're making a nothing claim here, most of the world have liberal democracies.

What a weird thread lmao

Move this s*** to misc

Some twitter dude is not "politics"

OPs whole shtick is just s*** talking "twitter Marxist leninists"

No s***

Discuss it, of course.

Considering that internet discourse can influence the world outside it, and people looking up to figures like parasocial mothers/fathers. A lot of people take Hakim's word at high regard, even people who may disagree with him.

Twitter discourse is more disattached than others, but there is some worry from my part that the reverberations of it does affect real life.

I mean Zimbabwe is a liberal democracy in the same way North Korea is a democratic peoples republic

I obviously mean liberal democracy in practice not just in name

Zimbabwe is a liberal practice in more than just, they have elections, a constitution, parliament and all that jazz. Hell, liberal democracy failed so astonishingly there that it led to the landgrabs of the late 90s and early 2000s.
You're not being honest with yourself if you pretend a place like Zimbabwe isn't a liberal democracy.

I have never seen anyone on this forum mention Hakim so I can't imagine this thread as an extension of your obsession with marxisr leninist lol

Especially because you yourself offered nothing in terms of discussion lol

It begs a larger question.

Why don't authoritarian-minded leftists simply practice what they preach in their theory?

The words of liberation from the bourgeoise.

Why is it all empty aesthetics, leading to similar oppression under capitalism just under a red flag?

How do you have the right to speak of liberation, when you try to excuse atrocities?

Him being a victim of western imperialism does not excuse this type of rhetoric, in fact, it makes him look like the Turk nationalists that screech whenever you bring up the Armenian genocide.

It's a military dictatorship with heavy vote rigging. Imagine saying different

Why is it all empty aesthetics, leading to similar oppression under capitalism just under a red flag?

this isnt true, socialism worked for millions of people, you're just regurgitating what you know -- you know nothing.

it's ok to not know anything, but dont act like you do. read blackshirts and reds by parenti, at least.

I'm not arguing against socialism, I'm arguing against authoritarianism.

Socialism is supposed to be freedom for the people, not to be bound by the same chains they were supposed to be freed from.

I can't argue against the Ottoman Empire stuff, I also love studying the Ottomans, even though I consider myself a socialist. I definitely don't support the empire and the power structure of the Ottoman Turks (and their actions), but it's one of the most interesting pieces of history in general, and an extraordinarily important part of Islamic history.

He tip-toes around the Uyghur genocide stuff far too much, to the point where it just reeks of denial. I can understand being wary of Western (especially American) propaganda, and there is good reason for that, but the gymnastics I see to defend the CCP is frankly strange. You can keep a critical eye on the situation without succumbing to the same arguments American imperialists used to "fight dirty terrorists" in the Middle East.

In terms of the Kurdish, that's a whole nother pot of trouble that I'm not about to type paragraphs about.

I like Hakim, he's a good content creator. But these guys are not infallible, and expecting to agree on every single issue is never going to happen.

He made a video on the leaks if yall care I havent watched yet

Parenti, the same guy that said the USSR had to make the secret police that disappeared people because they were paranoid of agitators, it's ok?

Don't get me wrong, I like some of Parenti's lectures on America/the West, he knows a lot about history, which I appreciate.

It's a disgrace to see "Marxists" d***ride massive failures, and do some type of horizontal worship of dead men, instead of looking on how to improve their thinking for the future, and the modern world.

Zanu PF didn't even the elections with an outright majority the last set of elections. People still vote for Zanu PF en masse. I interact with actual Zimbabweans, I know I'm talking about. And when I say Zimbabweans I mean people who actually grew up there.

No one praises Stalin unless they aren't thinking dialectically. Those people don't represent the whole of Marxism.

What we understand when we look materially at nations which succeeded in making a socialist state is that they were ML. That is why people are now ML. People learned from Mao and applied historical materialism, and marxism moved forward to MLM (marxist-leninist-maoism). There are several groups of people who are MLM, most notably in India and in the Phillipines

Idk why you're saying people don't improve their thinking. Marxism always gets stretched and improved. It just shows how little you actually know about Marxism, because you're strawmanning severely.

If you're seriously just talking about authoritarianism then IDK what to tell you. Go circlejerk over Catalonia for one hundred years because another anarchist state which seizes power "without being authoritarian" is never going to come.

Done. gonna go do some homework instead of argue on internet

Marxist-Leninist states were not socialist, they never transitioned from their state capitalism.

The biggest flaw in its ideology IMO is that it consolidates all central power to the state and it's leader, and you can do pretty much anything justified under it.

Lenin even wanted institutions with independent checks and balances later in life, but Stalin was like LOL F*** NO with his Politburo and consolidated power with a one-party vanguard state.

ML just creates a new bourgeoisie to oppress the people. Elitist vanguard bullshit.

we post about a lot of people who don't post on KTT2 in this section

Literal braindead posting

You literally have no clue what the f*** you're talking about