He literally links to the document which you would’ve read before commenting if you actually cared about facts of the situation. What you’re very transparently trying to do here is throw shade so that people don’t bother looking at the facts. It’s quite telling that liberals care far more about who the source is rather than what the facts are. Explains a lot about the current state of western society. https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/r-v-staatsanwaltschaft-saarbrcken-cjeu-judgment.pdf
I did a little reading. What I found out is EU Article 2f(1) of Regulation 833/2014 prohibits operators from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating, or otherwise contributing to the broadcast of content from listed entities, including via internet platforms and distribution by any means. RT / Russia Today Germany is listed in Annex XV.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast. You may have an issue with this, I can certainly see why even if I think that no system of mass media is ever going to be healthy for society again, but what I don’t really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws. You throw the liberal slander at me but 1) I’m not even close to a liberal and 2) you are upset that the EU is banning the media outlet of one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)? I’m really very confused by what you think you stand for?
Communists are not upset at any use of authority, but the authority of capitalists against workers. Communists want the working classes to have state authority. The idea that communists just love authority is liberal cope used to distract from the argument that the working classes specifically should have state power.
If communists don’t love authority then why promote a political system centred around it. There are literally thousands of different flavours but you chose this one.
Any ideology that supports the existence of a state at any point is “authoritarian.” What matters most is which class controls that authority. When the working classes control the state, as communists wish to establish (and have), this creates more freedom and quality of life for the working classes. The state is a tool, not an ideal.
Because the state exists as long as classes exist, and classes will continue to exist until production and distribution is fully collectivized. This requires highly advanced productive forces and the full conquest of political power by the working classes, which is a far way off.
Sure? Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution characterized by fully collectivized means of production and distribution. It’s stateless, classless, and moneyless. Socialism is immediate and already exists, and thus is the next step.
Authority is a tool (for sociopaths). Both capitalism and communism end up at the same spot. A bunch of ego maniac sociopaths work their way in to the top positions and then start doing fucked up shit to further consolidate their power. We need a system that prevents that. A system that is dispersed enough that no individual or minority group can have so much power and influence to the point it can dictate the life outcomes for the majority (plural minorities). I’m just fundamentally uninterested in any other system and honestly I think people who continue to promote such a system lack the creativity to think outside the lines already drawn for them.
Capitalism and socialism end up at wildly different outcomes. Capitalism enriches the capitalist class off the backs of the global working classes, while socialist countries historically have managed to dramatically uplift the working classes. When you make historically false claims like this, equating capitalism and communism, and then blame others who correctly analyze these systems for “not having creativity,” you destroy your own position.
I’m not into absolutes and I actually don’t believe in silver bullet political philosophies. We need to take good ideas from all philosophies and combine them into something greater than the sum of it’s parts. I have stayed at Soviet era luxury resorts. These were for the top political class only. You cannot tell me that there was no hierarchy and power dynamics in the USSR. It’s simply not true.
First of all, the idea that combining various contradictory philosophies somehow creates something greater is remarkably flawed logic. Dialectical Materialism is not a “silver bullet political philosophy,” it’s a coherent and practical worldview that equips us with the tools needed to change the world in favor of the working classes.
As for the idea of a “political class,” this does not exist. Administrators in the USSR were members of the working classes, not a class in and of themselves. I never once said hierarchy and power dynamics did not exist, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. Intra-class hierarchies like teacher and principal exist, both are working class but their level of managerial capacity is different. Communism and socialism do not abolish hierarchy, but class.
A bunch of ego maniac sociopaths work their way in to the top positions and then start doing fucked up shit to further consolidate their power
Is that really how organisations work, or is the fucked up shit because organisations have to exist under capitalist regimes where fast growers take over and slow growers vanish into irrelevance, leading to a natural selection?
Is it the case that the very existence of positions causes trouble, or is it the benefits associated with them that lead to greed and competition?
A system that is dispersed enough that no individual or minority group can have so much power and influence to the point it can dictate the life outcomes for the majority
Is this not just a majoritarian direct democracy? I mean I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, but what is the relation to authority or dispersion here? Do you want some sort of absolute direct democracy where technical experts don’t have control over their respective fields? You need to be more clear.
I think people who continue to promote such a system lack the creativity to think outside the lines already drawn for them.
Or maybe it’s because they wish to build off prior experience rather than jump head first into the personal ideals of some guy? I mean why should we structure society in the way you want it? Why not in the way I want it?
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have all the answers. It’s much easier to see the flaws in something that it is to invent the solution. The main thing I am trying to promote here is to define what kind of world and society we want to live in. This is the first step. Then we can discuss how to achieve it. If we can’t agree on the first step then we cannot move to step #2. What I know for certain is I do not want to live in an authoritarian world. I just have no interest in some random person deciding how my life will pan out based on them pursuing their own special interests.
If you do not have the answers then stop being dogmatic about how society should be organized. How can you be qualified to have such strong opinions about authority and decentralisation without knowing what kind of organisation you prefer? As you are, who can you convince to follow your ideals?
Understand where your class interests lie and then move forward from that. Be open and learn even from the people you’re told to hate.
what I don’t really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws
This decentralized platform was built by the “authoritarian communists” you decry.
Lemmy was loosely inspired by the federated nature of the soviet union. The main devs are Marxist-Leninists, and developed a federated Reddit alternative based on those principles. Federation existed before Lemmy, but the devs specifically made Lemmy due to their communist principles.
You cannot just take values and proclaim them as belonging to your ideology. That’s ridiculous. I might as well then proclaim that kittens and puppies belong to communism.
It is an objective fact that communists have made great efforts to fight against the existing hegemonic order. Be they individual communists who have created many anti-capitalist communities, or mighty socialist states (USSR and PRC) who challenged the might of the imperialists and allowed many countries to have a chance at independent development.
You cannot simply gloss over it all and say that if a communist does something good that it was actually anarchism all along. That’s patently idealistic.
Friend, this has nothing to do with who you say you are or what labels you give yourself and everything to do with the architecture of the product. You are doing the same thing the post is complaining about, i.e. conflating the source with the truth.
Communism is famous for centralized control and planning. I don’t really see how you can argue that “it’s just a tool” when the whole premise of anarchism is resilience through decentralization.
Communism is famous for centralized control and planning
Both of those things are also just tools. You can mix and match centralisation and decentralization based on problem application. Imagine if engineers dogmatically stuck to building with steel on everything. That’s just absurd.
Also, “famous” as in the memes you get from western media? Because the governance structure of socialist states has been historically quite decentralized. Both the USSR and PRC (today) have very strong local governance structures.
In the PRC arguably their problems related to uneven development and overleveraged debt come from too much decentralization. Every province starts to pursue an independent development policy leading to redundant industries (as is the case with EV and high tech industries). The hukuo system also forces decentralization by trying to slow down the migration of labor from rural areas to urban one’s. Of course the decentralization in China has many benefits too. The common prosperity program could leverage the wide range of technical/party infrastructure and spread benefits to rural communities. So really decentralization is a tool that needs continously refinement.
I don’t really see how you can argue that “it’s just a tool”
Because it just straight up is. You can apply it. Not apply it. Modify it according to your problem statement. Not to mention “decentralisation” is actually a closely related set of tools.
the whole premise of anarchism is resilience through decentralization.
Isn’t the “whole premise” of anarchism actually having a stateless society?
one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)?
The propaganda blitz surrounding the Ukraine war puts that of the Iraq war to absolute shame. Look at how fucking deranged people STILL are about this.
Putin is a fascist . It has nothing to do with Ukraine. I thought this 20 years ago too because he is a textbook fascist i.e. there is no separation of private/corporate enterprise and the state, he’s an authoritarian nationalist who installed a single‑party state, he brutally suppresses dissent and is overtly militaristic. He might pine for Soviet times but in reality he is just in it for himself. Another pathetic ego maniac of which we have many all over the world these days.
It always takes you guys 0.05 seconds to start acting like a weird gross freak towards people who don’t share your insane nationalist worldview. Is it any wonder liberalism as an ideology is dying? You people are unlikeable creeps.
Oh okay so after a hypothetical conflict you believe that’s how things would settle therefore you get to say the current situation has the attributes of your forecasting.
I didn’t know there was a whole convoluted series of logical steps you were withholding from us.
It’s good that we don’t get bogged down with how things actually are. The function of politics is not affected there being multiple parties at all so it’s important to angrily shout down anyone who mentions them. The ultimate power holding single person government keeps them around for fun.
there is no separation of private/corporate enterprise and the state
This is nonsensical. There’s no such thing as an industrialized society with a clear separation between private enterprise and the state. The state is the backbone of any industrial economy and anyone who knows shit about leftism knows that all capitalist countries are bourgeois dictatorships.
he’s an authoritarian nationalist
This description applies to every head of state. There’s no such thing as a “non-authoritarian” nation-state. Furthermore, Russia has substationally stronger minority rights than the west (where the idea of giving minority rights will get you accused of being racist).
he brutally suppresses dissent and is overtly militaristic
Is this your first year paying attention to politics?
You’re missing the point. Putin is a bourgeois rat (as I like to call him) but supporting Russia is still harm reduction because Russia’s enemies are the imperialists. Literally everyone is better than the imperialists. The imperialists are the bottom of the barrel.
Putin? He’s just a typical liberal* in comparison.
Putin is also an imperialist. I don’t see it as harm reduction so much as harm prolongation. We need better ideas, we need to communicate them and we need to stand behind them. As soon as you devolve into lesser evil tribalism you’ve destroyed any chance of meaningful change.
Russia is not an imperialist country. Not only does it lack control over the world financial system, but it also is not extracting surplus value from the world.
Only a handful of countries even have the ability to enact imperialist surplus extract. It is American/European/Japanese firms which hold monopoly positions. It is America who gets to export its government debt in the form of US T-bonds that everyone is forced to buy. It is the US/EU which can create any protectionist trade policy they want while forcing structural adjustment programs onto the third world (aka forcing 3rd world countries to sell off public assets to US/EU capital in exchange for hard currency).
A country’s currency is the symbol and source of its imperial power. The countries with “hard currencies” are the imperialists who can dictate the economy of the world and leech off it. Meanwhile Russia’s currency becomes worthless in the global market by a simple sanction, and the imperialists steal 300 billion USD foreign reserves of Russia.
The idea of modern Russia being an imperialist power is just wrong and not supported by facts. Their class position is as imperialist as my class position is bourgeois*.
I’m not upset about anything here actually. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal west. Communists aren’t shy about the need for censorship because we recognize that some ideas are harmful. However, it is western liberals who preach free speech, but then do exactly the same thing as those they deride to be authoritarian whenever their own power structures feel threatened.
The fact that the court considers the source to be a problem rather than the content highlights that European society has turned into a cult where reality no longer matters, only narrative and ideology reign supreme.
That’s fair but if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source. I do agree with you take on liberal free speech. Same as the free market. It’s only free when it’s benefitting the political in-tribe.
Disinformation hasn’t been the problem with the particular source, it’s the fact that it is providing information that’s contrary to the narrative. The actual disinformation about the war has been coming from western source which keep telling us that Russian economy is about to collapse, that Russian army is pulling out chips from washing machines, that Russia is running out of missiles any day now, that Russia is isolated on the global stage, that Ukraine is doing great, that there are no fascists in Ukraine, and there is definitely no busification happening. The real issue here is that it’s western media that it’s western narrative that’s divergent from reality. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult to hide the fact that the war is going poorly, and its economic effect on Europe, so the EU is becoming very insecure.
This dualism you are promoting where there is a good side and a bad side, an honest actor and a dishonest actor etc is text book Hollywood propaganda. You’re so trapped in the western overton window you can’t even see it.
I think you might be talking about yourself here, cause nowhere did I say the west is the good guy here, nor have I suggested that there is a good side at all. What I actually said was that western media objectively puts out far more misinformation because the narrative it is promoting is at odds with reality. It’s not that Russian media is more honest, it’s just they don’t need to lie because Russia is winning the war.
You literally said they aren’t doing disinformation and then said the other side are. This is just whataboutsim. All sides are engaged in disinformation. What anyone else does has no bearing on what RT do. It’s exactly what I described.
I literally provided examples of constant disinformation we’ve had in the west over the past 4 years. Yes, all sides engage in pushing their own narrative, and that’s precisely why it’s so dangerous to limit access to information the way EU is doing. The argument that RT is exceptionally bad in this regard so that it specifically has to be blocked has no basis.
if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source
So if it can be shown objectively that a given Western source repeatedly spreads disinformation about a given socialist/anti-Western country, you would support a blanket ban from the government of that country using the same logic you’re giving for supporting the EU’s blanket ban, right?
You didn’t answer the question. Would you support a blanket ban of a news outlet by any government as long as a pattern of disinformation can be objectively shown? Like China or North Korea banning RFA, the news outlet with verifiably bullshit articles that even other Western outlets have debunked? Or is that privilege reserved for “the good guys” in your mind?
You commented this earlier:
what I don’t really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws
You say you don’t understand I think you already have an answer. Is it accurate for me to say that you think it’s because we support pretty much anything done by a communist government against the West, and oppose anything done by Western liberal government against communist countries? I.e. we’re solely looking at who did something when deciding whether to support it instead of the merits of the thing itself? If so, I’m throwing that accusation right back at you. I think you blindly support pretty much anything Western governments do as long as it’s against one of the West’s enemies and blindly oppose anything communist governments do against the West.
I think we should ban everyone or no one. Seeing as banning everyone will never happen we should ban no one. You’re just making up strawmen to attack me with. It’s a bit ridiculous and says a lot about you and nothing about me.
That’s why I asked if it’s accurate for me to say that. I assume your answer is no?
Why don’t you tell me why you think we oppose the EU’s authoritarianism but not communist authoritarianism then. Genuinely curious to know your real thoughts if my assumption was incorrect.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast
Not quite, I made a comment here detailing the judgement; TLDR the law bans commercial distribution of RT content, and the court found that large sums of gifts & donations turn private individuals into commercial operators, thus banning them from distributing RT content. You can still operate a website that distributes RT content, so long as there are no monetary incentives to do so.
He literally links to the document which you would’ve read before commenting if you actually cared about facts of the situation. What you’re very transparently trying to do here is throw shade so that people don’t bother looking at the facts. It’s quite telling that liberals care far more about who the source is rather than what the facts are. Explains a lot about the current state of western society. https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/r-v-staatsanwaltschaft-saarbrcken-cjeu-judgment.pdf
I did a little reading. What I found out is EU Article 2f(1) of Regulation 833/2014 prohibits operators from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating, or otherwise contributing to the broadcast of content from listed entities, including via internet platforms and distribution by any means. RT / Russia Today Germany is listed in Annex XV.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast. You may have an issue with this, I can certainly see why even if I think that no system of mass media is ever going to be healthy for society again, but what I don’t really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws. You throw the liberal slander at me but 1) I’m not even close to a liberal and 2) you are upset that the EU is banning the media outlet of one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)? I’m really very confused by what you think you stand for?
Communists are not upset at any use of authority, but the authority of capitalists against workers. Communists want the working classes to have state authority. The idea that communists just love authority is liberal cope used to distract from the argument that the working classes specifically should have state power.
If communists don’t love authority then why promote a political system centred around it. There are literally thousands of different flavours but you chose this one.
Any ideology that supports the existence of a state at any point is “authoritarian.” What matters most is which class controls that authority. When the working classes control the state, as communists wish to establish (and have), this creates more freedom and quality of life for the working classes. The state is a tool, not an ideal.
Why do we need a state?
Because the state exists as long as classes exist, and classes will continue to exist until production and distribution is fully collectivized. This requires highly advanced productive forces and the full conquest of political power by the working classes, which is a far way off.
That’s coherent and very possibly true but from where I am sitting Communism is just as far off as the end of the global order of statehoods.
Sure? Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution characterized by fully collectivized means of production and distribution. It’s stateless, classless, and moneyless. Socialism is immediate and already exists, and thus is the next step.
To resolve conflicts between the classes, the employers vs the employees
Authority is a tool not a dogma.
Authority is a tool (for sociopaths). Both capitalism and communism end up at the same spot. A bunch of ego maniac sociopaths work their way in to the top positions and then start doing fucked up shit to further consolidate their power. We need a system that prevents that. A system that is dispersed enough that no individual or minority group can have so much power and influence to the point it can dictate the life outcomes for the majority (plural minorities). I’m just fundamentally uninterested in any other system and honestly I think people who continue to promote such a system lack the creativity to think outside the lines already drawn for them.
Capitalism and socialism end up at wildly different outcomes. Capitalism enriches the capitalist class off the backs of the global working classes, while socialist countries historically have managed to dramatically uplift the working classes. When you make historically false claims like this, equating capitalism and communism, and then blame others who correctly analyze these systems for “not having creativity,” you destroy your own position.
I’m not into absolutes and I actually don’t believe in silver bullet political philosophies. We need to take good ideas from all philosophies and combine them into something greater than the sum of it’s parts. I have stayed at Soviet era luxury resorts. These were for the top political class only. You cannot tell me that there was no hierarchy and power dynamics in the USSR. It’s simply not true.
First of all, the idea that combining various contradictory philosophies somehow creates something greater is remarkably flawed logic. Dialectical Materialism is not a “silver bullet political philosophy,” it’s a coherent and practical worldview that equips us with the tools needed to change the world in favor of the working classes.
As for the idea of a “political class,” this does not exist. Administrators in the USSR were members of the working classes, not a class in and of themselves. I never once said hierarchy and power dynamics did not exist, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. Intra-class hierarchies like teacher and principal exist, both are working class but their level of managerial capacity is different. Communism and socialism do not abolish hierarchy, but class.
You’re projecting anarchist beliefs onto Marxism.
Is that really how organisations work, or is the fucked up shit because organisations have to exist under capitalist regimes where fast growers take over and slow growers vanish into irrelevance, leading to a natural selection?
Is it the case that the very existence of positions causes trouble, or is it the benefits associated with them that lead to greed and competition?
Is this not just a majoritarian direct democracy? I mean I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, but what is the relation to authority or dispersion here? Do you want some sort of absolute direct democracy where technical experts don’t have control over their respective fields? You need to be more clear.
Or maybe it’s because they wish to build off prior experience rather than jump head first into the personal ideals of some guy? I mean why should we structure society in the way you want it? Why not in the way I want it?
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have all the answers. It’s much easier to see the flaws in something that it is to invent the solution. The main thing I am trying to promote here is to define what kind of world and society we want to live in. This is the first step. Then we can discuss how to achieve it. If we can’t agree on the first step then we cannot move to step #2. What I know for certain is I do not want to live in an authoritarian world. I just have no interest in some random person deciding how my life will pan out based on them pursuing their own special interests.
If you do not have the answers then stop being dogmatic about how society should be organized. How can you be qualified to have such strong opinions about authority and decentralisation without knowing what kind of organisation you prefer? As you are, who can you convince to follow your ideals?
Understand where your class interests lie and then move forward from that. Be open and learn even from the people you’re told to hate.
This decentralized platform was built by the “authoritarian communists” you decry.
The philosophy of the platform is anarchistic not communist.
Lemmy was loosely inspired by the federated nature of the soviet union. The main devs are Marxist-Leninists, and developed a federated Reddit alternative based on those principles. Federation existed before Lemmy, but the devs specifically made Lemmy due to their communist principles.
You cannot just take values and proclaim them as belonging to your ideology. That’s ridiculous. I might as well then proclaim that kittens and puppies belong to communism.
It is an objective fact that communists have made great efforts to fight against the existing hegemonic order. Be they individual communists who have created many anti-capitalist communities, or mighty socialist states (USSR and PRC) who challenged the might of the imperialists and allowed many countries to have a chance at independent development.
You cannot simply gloss over it all and say that if a communist does something good that it was actually anarchism all along. That’s patently idealistic.
Friend, this has nothing to do with who you say you are or what labels you give yourself and everything to do with the architecture of the product. You are doing the same thing the post is complaining about, i.e. conflating the source with the truth.
Decentralization is not an “anarchist philosophy”. It is just a tool.
Communism is famous for centralized control and planning. I don’t really see how you can argue that “it’s just a tool” when the whole premise of anarchism is resilience through decentralization.
Both of those things are also just tools. You can mix and match centralisation and decentralization based on problem application. Imagine if engineers dogmatically stuck to building with steel on everything. That’s just absurd.
Also, “famous” as in the memes you get from western media? Because the governance structure of socialist states has been historically quite decentralized. Both the USSR and PRC (today) have very strong local governance structures.
In the PRC arguably their problems related to uneven development and overleveraged debt come from too much decentralization. Every province starts to pursue an independent development policy leading to redundant industries (as is the case with EV and high tech industries). The hukuo system also forces decentralization by trying to slow down the migration of labor from rural areas to urban one’s. Of course the decentralization in China has many benefits too. The common prosperity program could leverage the wide range of technical/party infrastructure and spread benefits to rural communities. So really decentralization is a tool that needs continously refinement.
Because it just straight up is. You can apply it. Not apply it. Modify it according to your problem statement. Not to mention “decentralisation” is actually a closely related set of tools.
Isn’t the “whole premise” of anarchism actually having a stateless society?
The propaganda blitz surrounding the Ukraine war puts that of the Iraq war to absolute shame. Look at how fucking deranged people STILL are about this.
Putin is a fascist . It has nothing to do with Ukraine. I thought this 20 years ago too because he is a textbook fascist i.e. there is no separation of private/corporate enterprise and the state, he’s an authoritarian nationalist who installed a single‑party state, he brutally suppresses dissent and is overtly militaristic. He might pine for Soviet times but in reality he is just in it for himself. Another pathetic ego maniac of which we have many all over the world these days.
Russia isn’t a single party state. Stop Just Saying Shit™
Of course… I totally forgot about all the other parties that have been in power since the fall of the USSR. My bad
I wish I could be as free as you and just change what words mean any time you get called out for lying with them
We all know the other parties are only allowed exist as long as they don’t threaten daddy Putin. Don’t be so gullible
It always takes you guys 0.05 seconds to start acting like a weird gross freak towards people who don’t share your insane nationalist worldview. Is it any wonder liberalism as an ideology is dying? You people are unlikeable creeps.
Oh okay so after a hypothetical conflict you believe that’s how things would settle therefore you get to say the current situation has the attributes of your forecasting.
I didn’t know there was a whole convoluted series of logical steps you were withholding from us.
It’s good that we don’t get bogged down with how things actually are. The function of politics is not affected there being multiple parties at all so it’s important to angrily shout down anyone who mentions them. The ultimate power holding single person government keeps them around for fun.
Is Japan a one- party state?
This is nonsensical. There’s no such thing as an industrialized society with a clear separation between private enterprise and the state. The state is the backbone of any industrial economy and anyone who knows shit about leftism knows that all capitalist countries are bourgeois dictatorships.
This description applies to every head of state. There’s no such thing as a “non-authoritarian” nation-state. Furthermore, Russia has substationally stronger minority rights than the west (where the idea of giving minority rights will get you accused of being racist).
Is this your first year paying attention to politics?
You’re not refuting any points I made though. Everything you and I have said is true.
You’re missing the point. Putin is a bourgeois rat (as I like to call him) but supporting Russia is still harm reduction because Russia’s enemies are the imperialists. Literally everyone is better than the imperialists. The imperialists are the bottom of the barrel.
Putin? He’s just a typical liberal* in comparison.
*liberal in the non-prejorative ideological sense
Putin is also an imperialist. I don’t see it as harm reduction so much as harm prolongation. We need better ideas, we need to communicate them and we need to stand behind them. As soon as you devolve into lesser evil tribalism you’ve destroyed any chance of meaningful change.
Russia is not an imperialist country. Not only does it lack control over the world financial system, but it also is not extracting surplus value from the world.
Only a handful of countries even have the ability to enact imperialist surplus extract. It is American/European/Japanese firms which hold monopoly positions. It is America who gets to export its government debt in the form of US T-bonds that everyone is forced to buy. It is the US/EU which can create any protectionist trade policy they want while forcing structural adjustment programs onto the third world (aka forcing 3rd world countries to sell off public assets to US/EU capital in exchange for hard currency).
A country’s currency is the symbol and source of its imperial power. The countries with “hard currencies” are the imperialists who can dictate the economy of the world and leech off it. Meanwhile Russia’s currency becomes worthless in the global market by a simple sanction, and the imperialists steal 300 billion USD foreign reserves of Russia.
The idea of modern Russia being an imperialist power is just wrong and not supported by facts. Their class position is as imperialist as my class position is bourgeois*.
*for the record I don’t own businesses or land.
I’m not upset about anything here actually. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal west. Communists aren’t shy about the need for censorship because we recognize that some ideas are harmful. However, it is western liberals who preach free speech, but then do exactly the same thing as those they deride to be authoritarian whenever their own power structures feel threatened.
The fact that the court considers the source to be a problem rather than the content highlights that European society has turned into a cult where reality no longer matters, only narrative and ideology reign supreme.
That’s fair but if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source. I do agree with you take on liberal free speech. Same as the free market. It’s only free when it’s benefitting the political in-tribe.
Disinformation hasn’t been the problem with the particular source, it’s the fact that it is providing information that’s contrary to the narrative. The actual disinformation about the war has been coming from western source which keep telling us that Russian economy is about to collapse, that Russian army is pulling out chips from washing machines, that Russia is running out of missiles any day now, that Russia is isolated on the global stage, that Ukraine is doing great, that there are no fascists in Ukraine, and there is definitely no busification happening. The real issue here is that it’s western media that it’s western narrative that’s divergent from reality. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult to hide the fact that the war is going poorly, and its economic effect on Europe, so the EU is becoming very insecure.
This dualism you are promoting where there is a good side and a bad side, an honest actor and a dishonest actor etc is text book Hollywood propaganda. You’re so trapped in the western overton window you can’t even see it.
I think you might be talking about yourself here, cause nowhere did I say the west is the good guy here, nor have I suggested that there is a good side at all. What I actually said was that western media objectively puts out far more misinformation because the narrative it is promoting is at odds with reality. It’s not that Russian media is more honest, it’s just they don’t need to lie because Russia is winning the war.
You literally said they aren’t doing disinformation and then said the other side are. This is just whataboutsim. All sides are engaged in disinformation. What anyone else does has no bearing on what RT do. It’s exactly what I described.
I literally provided examples of constant disinformation we’ve had in the west over the past 4 years. Yes, all sides engage in pushing their own narrative, and that’s precisely why it’s so dangerous to limit access to information the way EU is doing. The argument that RT is exceptionally bad in this regard so that it specifically has to be blocked has no basis.
So if it can be shown objectively that a given Western source repeatedly spreads disinformation about a given socialist/anti-Western country, you would support a blanket ban from the government of that country using the same logic you’re giving for supporting the EU’s blanket ban, right?
Riiiiight?
Exactly why I said there can be no healthy mass media environment. It’s bullshit from everyone from all angles all the way down.
You didn’t answer the question. Would you support a blanket ban of a news outlet by any government as long as a pattern of disinformation can be objectively shown? Like China or North Korea banning RFA, the news outlet with verifiably bullshit articles that even other Western outlets have debunked? Or is that privilege reserved for “the good guys” in your mind?
You commented this earlier:
You say you don’t understand I think you already have an answer. Is it accurate for me to say that you think it’s because we support pretty much anything done by a communist government against the West, and oppose anything done by Western liberal government against communist countries? I.e. we’re solely looking at who did something when deciding whether to support it instead of the merits of the thing itself? If so, I’m throwing that accusation right back at you. I think you blindly support pretty much anything Western governments do as long as it’s against one of the West’s enemies and blindly oppose anything communist governments do against the West.
I think we should ban everyone or no one. Seeing as banning everyone will never happen we should ban no one. You’re just making up strawmen to attack me with. It’s a bit ridiculous and says a lot about you and nothing about me.
That’s why I asked if it’s accurate for me to say that. I assume your answer is no?
Why don’t you tell me why you think we oppose the EU’s authoritarianism but not communist authoritarianism then. Genuinely curious to know your real thoughts if my assumption was incorrect.
Not quite, I made a comment here detailing the judgement; TLDR the law bans commercial distribution of RT content, and the court found that large sums of gifts & donations turn private individuals into commercial operators, thus banning them from distributing RT content. You can still operate a website that distributes RT content, so long as there are no monetary incentives to do so.
deleted by creator