Australian lawmakers have banned the performance of the Nazi salute in public and outlawed the display or sale of Nazi hate symbols such as the swastika in landmark legislation that went into effect in the country Monday. The new laws also make the act of glorifying OR praising acts of terrorism a criminal offense.
The crime of publicly performing the Nazi salute or displaying the Nazi swastika is punishable by up to 12 months in prison, according to the Reuters news agency.
Mark Dreyfus, Australia’s Attorney-General, said in a press release Monday that the laws — the first of their kind in the country — sent “a clear message: there is no place in Australia for acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist acts.”
“No one in Australia will be allowed to glorify or profit from acts and symbols that celebrate the Nazis and their evil ideology,” the press release said.
Glad to see someone mention the Profiting part.
I’ve always suspected a lot of this was due to grifters stoking these A-holes up to increase sales of the flags, shirts, hats, etc.
The Brandon thing was a big boon to the Maga grifters as it created more new things one needs to collect to show your true level of being a Patriot.
You could then change out your Trump flag curtains for the Brandon stuff. Some are brave enough to change them out for the Nazis stuff when the time is right too. It completes the set when combined with the Southern Surrender flags as your curtains or bath towel.
I suspect that is also why their memes are quite slow to cycle trough. A lot of prolific figures need to sell their stock of stupid tat before they can move on to new things.
The Brandon thing was a big boon to the Maga grifters
Here’s a good one: I like to by small-time silver bullion, and ebay is actually a decent place for that. The first time I saw gimmick silver coins and bars with Trump’s face on them, I was like wtf. And even to this day, there’s some seriously wtf stuff out there all geared towards the maga persuasion.
It would be pretty comical, if it weren’t so crazy how much he’s being idolized. He’s being elevated to the level of Reagan worship, even before he’s been planted in the ground. I’m calling it now: After Trump croaks, the GOP is gonna try and pass a law to create a permanent federal Trump holiday.
While it would be really nice to have January 6th off of work every year, I unfortunately can’t get behind the creation of this holiday.
Perhaps a compromise? We celebrate the day Trump lost the election. The right can celebrate it the way they celebrate the death and rebirth of Jesus, while the left can celebrate it more like Festivus.
I’m all for celebrating Trump’s death as a federal holiday. We can even call it Trump day. The traditional celebration should of course be a mass exodus to go piss on his grave. Make effigies of him to burn for the folks that can’t make the trip, and then piss on those to put them out.
Good. We should do the same in the US too.
Should do the same in every nation on earth, nazism cannot be allowed to flourish again. The cost of life is too high
And Canada should as well.
Technically it is illegal here in Canada.
I work in set Decoration in Canada and dealing with Nazi paraphernalia has a whole documentation process. There’s a handful of prop houses in the States that traffics in the stuff and the paperwork to import it has to be very carefully handled or else it gets seized at the border. Once the stuff is owned by the production company it must be kept under lock and key when it is not onset and removing it from the set or the lockup without proper signed off on authorization is a firing offence.
It’s depressing that we have to jump through so many hoops for a stupid symbol that should have been relegated to a laughing stock of losers in the past.
Sadly, we’ve got a whole new wave of young losers with plastic / lead brain rot that made them susceptible to this shit.
Just look at those two morons in the article…
The recent round of anti semitism incidents has nothing to do with nazis, though, I suspect the same in Australia, this is probably politicians bring politicians more than anything.
It’s not even antisemitism related.
My state did this already last year and it’s to combat the alt-right/white supremacists. Jewish people don’t really factor into it as much as their hate for Muslims/Black people.
Trying to tie into Oct 7th and antisemitism seems like a bit of propaganda.
Not really. Just look at the news.
It’s weird that I have to say this but this should also be done in Latin America.
Like, no, you’re not Aryan, you’re just pale. And you-- you’re not even pale, wtf? You’d be the first one in the gas chambers, Pedro Contreras!
This reminds me of that black white supremacist skit.
Then Chapelle got rich and decided to go full right wing
It seems like they all do. Or for some at least they always were but pretended to avoid being cancelled before having enough money to not care.
We need to shut down the stand up venues until we figure what the fuck is going on
God help you if you’re just generally not interested in watching the fuckin thing, every “free speech absolutist” within a three mile radius comes down on you for not supporting Dave over “just jokes!”
Bro calm your stiffy I just don’t care about the guy cause it’s, yknow, 2024.
Honestly, it’s worse, if you’re thinking of the Chappelle’s Show skit. At least the character Clayton Bigsby is also blind so he literally doesn’t know he’s actually white.
Because they believe in many of the same “traditional values” as nazis – they’re natural allies.
Of course those dipshits don’t realize the nazis only want their help now because they’re desperate for numbers. As soon as the nazis no longer need their help they’re getting their own Night of the Long Knives.
IDK if there’s a name for the logical fallacy but I always think it’s bonkers how people who throw in with hate as an ideology never think it’ll fall on them at some point, especially as a non-(white/cis/male/whatevs.)
There’s alot of anti trans gay people throwing in with the right because they are too - never once think after the trans are banned that they’d come next, not like that’s half the right’s thing or anything.
It is banned in Brazil though, but it’s hard to prosecute when the police itself has sympathizers in it that didn’t want to take in custody a dude with a nazi tattoo:
Hate speech is protected in America.
It very literally is not. If you’re referring to “free speech”, that’s a whole other thing.
Still, it is pretty patchwork and ambiguous. Almost got that flag-burning amendment though! Member that one? Before ‘gay marriage’ and ‘the war on Christmas’ we had ‘flag-burning’ as a very srs point of intellectual ‘discussion’.
Incorrect, the supreme court has many times over ruled “hate speech”, which doesn’t have a legal definition in the US, is protected under 1st amendment. Calling for violence is not.
I am free to say “I hate [insert protected class/person/group/etc]” without legal consequences.
Although I am technically free to say “Let’s cause harm to/attack [insert protected class/person/group/etc]”, legal consequences could follow since call to violence.
Agreed. Hence the issue with “hate speech” in quotes.
When Is Offensive Speech Unprotected?
Speech which is merely offensive is always protected by the First Amendment. However, some types of speech which are often conflated with “hate speech,” but which go beyond expressions of opinion can, in limited circumstances, be unprotected by the First Amendment.
(Tl;dr: incitement to violence and harassment are not protected speech)
I seem to recall that when southern states wanted to prosecute Martin Luther King, Jr for “hate speech” on the theory that his calls for equality amounted to anti-white racism, the way SCOTUS dealt with that was by punting on the question of what hate speech is or isn’t.
By taking the ‘hate speech’ stick away from states, the high court effectively ruled that Nazis had the right to rallies under the rubric of free speech. It was this optimistic dithering on the court’s part (surely, the way forward is free speech and everybody will use that in good faith right?) that is part of why the US’s stance on hate speech diverged from that of Europe and the commonwealth
Let’s change that then.
Where the first speech absolutists at?
No seriously, there are persuasive arguments for protecting speech that is utterly abhorrent… who remembers their John Stuart Mill well enough to chime in?
Where the first speech absolutists at?
They’re buying social media platforms and censoring speech they don’t like
They said free speech absolutists not posers
Now imagine Trump or someone like him is deciding what’s hate speech.
No. Fuck that.
The scary thing is, once we ban hate speech, who gets to decide what is hate speech? If it’s the current Supreme Court then hate speech will be discussing medical procedures with your doctor. So…
Idk, hate speech has been illegal in the UK for a long time. Race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation and religion are all protected under hate speech laws. The statues have been continuously updated since 1986 and we’ve still managed to not criminalise asking your doctor for an abortion.
I think I’d rather live with hate speech laws than without them, but if I lived in a country that couldn’t separate church from state, or in a dictatorship, I suspect my opinion would change.
Whilst I agree with the rest, I was under the impression that the Church Of England is deeply interwined with the state in the UK, down to there being bishops of it in the House Of Lords (not sure if they or not ended that last part some years ago).
Absolutelly, it’s not the Church telling the State what laws to do as in other countries, but it’s hardly separate from the state.
My understanding is the USA officially has separated church and state (as it’s written in the constitution) but in practice, the US is a fairly religious country. Politicians regularly talk about their religious beliefs, religious agendas affect state schools, and a large amount of population believe “pastors” over teachers.
The UK on the other hand is offically a Christian country but in reality it’s secular, or “multifath”. Politicians tend not to talk about their religious beliefs at all. Religious state schools are common and yet they tend to be more secular than American schools, and with the exception of a very few, schools here don’t deny science. People that do identify as Christian in the UK tend to be more progressive and tolerant than American fundamentalists/evangelicals/baptists.
As for there being COE bishops in the House of Lords, that’s correct. There’s 26 of them in fact. It’s an archaic, undemocratic hangover that really needs to be reformed. But despite their potential interference/sway, analysis of the way they vote on bills shows they tend not to rock the boat, voting in line with whatever political party is currently in power.
So despite America supposedly having separation of church and state and the UK not, it’s kinda the other way around in practice. Theres no excuse for bishops in the House of Lords though. I’m not convinced there should be a House of Lords at all.
Yeah, I’ve lived in the UK and although officially the Church Of England is a state religion, I didn’t saw any actual grand displays of faith or religion-inspired lawmaking.
I just found it interestingly somebody saying the UK has separation of Church and State when strictly speaking it’s almost the opposite, though de facto things are way closer to that than, say, in the US, much less countries which are openly all about one Religion such as Iran and Israel.
It’s a funny World.
In Canada restricted hate speech works like this :
It requires three parts.
-
It is publicly expressed (if it’s done in a private setting it isn’t chargeable)
-
It targets a person or group of people with a protected characteristic such as race, religion or sexual orientation (the protected grounds for discrimination are outlined in section 3 of the Human Rights Act)
-
It uses extreme language to express hatred towards that person or group of people because of their protected characteristic which means it counts when
-
Describing group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior
-
Suggesting group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization
-
Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members
-
Labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children
-
Blaming group members for problems like crime and disease
-
Calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction
Punishment wise it’s about on par with a disorderly conduct charge… So about the same as being drunk and yelling your head off in a public place or running nude through the streets. Police aren’t likely to arrest someone for it unless the hate speech is obvious or well documented it and someone actively complains.
-
Have you lived in the US since 2016? Sure as fuck feels pretty free.
It very literally is not. If you’re referring to “free speech”, that’s a whole other thing.
Yes it is. Hate speech is often used as the quintessential example of speech that is objectionable but still protected under the First Amendment.
About the only exception is incitement to an imminent lawless act. And the bar for that is very high. Like “Someone should round up all the $SLURs and string them up!” is probably not incitement in the US. Pretty much anything shy of “You guys, go string up that $SLUR over there, before he gets away!” is going to come short of incitement. You basically have to be directing people to do something illegal in short order.
Nope. It is. Using racial slurs and displaying a swastika and sieg heiling is very much protected by the 1st Amendment.
Almost got that flag-burning amendment though! Member that one?
What?
deleted by creator
Authoritarianism is never a good idea, even when used against authoritarians.
What implications does this have on media using the swastika? I know that for games like Wolfenstein the swastika is everywhere and while it doesn’t really retract from the experience by being absent, it would be really strange for that to suddenly not be OK, especially in the context of Wolfenstein where you’re tearing the Nazis a new one
German and Austrian versions of the new Wolfenstein games have swastikas and such removed/replaced.
I remember being pissed off the version sold on Steam to Switzerland was the censored version for no reason other than Switzerland is often stuffed with German and Austrian markets. When I blast sci-fi Nazis to bits, I prefer they look authentic.
Since the last Wolfenstein game was released, the law has been changed in Germany lifting the total ban on Swastikas in video games.
I don’t recall any more recent WWII games where I’ve seen a swastika though.
I recall that even after the ban was lifted, most companies preferred to continue self-censoring.
I find it even more irritating that it is banned in the German version of Bollywood movies. It looks different and more importantly has a different meaning.
That’s so silly. Not that censoring a game based entirely on brutalizing Nazis makes sense.
German laws allow swastikas in media under freedom of art and/or education. So depending on the context, it is legal in games. Foreign video game companies just don’t want to take any risk and have their game blocked because of nazi symbolism so they rather just remove it than hope the courts see their game for the form if art it may be.
The actual law bans using the swastika to “glorify or profit from Nazi idiology”.
Wolfenstein would not be impacted by the ban because at the core of the gameplay, the Nazis are the bad guys. It does not glorify the Nazis or celebrate them.
Sure Bathesda is profiting from the game, but they aren’t profiting from the glorification of Nazi idiology, they’re profiting from people’s desire to shoot zombie Nazis in the face.
It should becovered by freedom of art.
I can’t imagine any offensive way of publicly displaying or glorifying an instance of it in a game
Nah, it’s easy to imagine that. Multiplayer. The Nazi team wins. Swastikas everywhere. Pretty sure it’s why cod no longer has swastikas in multiplayer anymore (and if I’m remembering rightly, they kept it in the single player as they felt it wasn’t offensive as it is given with a hell of a lot of context that multiplayer rounds simply don’t have).
Does it require the public display be offensive, or just that it be a public display? If the latter, then playing Wolfenstein on your laptop anywhere but a private residence is punishable by up to a year in prison.
None
Good for Australia.
Surprised they weren’t banned.
Probably because it hadn’t been an issue until recently Strange times indeed
I wonder if those chants are actually anti-semitic or if they are just trying to trigger the people from Israel.
I feel if people are pro-Palestine, they are against discrimination and abuse of power, which would make it pretty strange if they actually want to do the same to jews.
The issue is that there are a lot of people who are already antisemitic and want to hijack the pro-Palestine movement to spread their own message or recruit new antisemites.
You’re so right! Chanting “Gas the Jews” is just a bit of trolling. No antisemitism to be found here!
I mean, I’m fine with that. That seems like something that should have been done a while ago.
It’s when they try and extend such things to saying any criticism of Israel is illegal, like what Germany is trying right now.
Germany is not doing that at all. Germans are just aware of their past and almost all will therefore be careful what they say and also point that out to other Germans. It is not forbidden to criticise Israel though and probably it never will be. Most Germans will just be the last to do it on their own individual initiative.
In Germany, debate rages over a state policy to support Israel, no matter what
As Gaza is bombarded by Israeli forces, a polemic is raging in Germany over a state policy that makes criticism of Israel blasphemous because it’s seen as antisemitic.
It’s not a crime to not support Israel, just taboo and against stated policy. Policy isn’t law though
I would not say it’s a taboo within the German population to speak out against the current Israeli government.
Nope. Why would it be taboo to criticise Benjamin von Papen and Itamar Ben-Hitler. The state is doing that, officially rebuking e.g. Ben-Gvir’s ethnic cleansing statements.
I think the timing would be a little problematic.
So for a while now Germany has had some laws that may have been overly strict in an abundance of caution over antisemitism. Then there’s a spike in antisemitism worldwide so Germany chooses to remove these law in this particular point in history? Why? Because people are so very angry at Israel right now they can’t think about anything rationally?
You’re not splitting hairs, you’re decoupling them.
Um well, better not read German news media then…
Where did you get that from?
In Germany, debate rages over a state policy to support Israel, no matter what
As Gaza is bombarded by Israeli forces, a polemic is raging in Germany over a state policy that makes criticism of Israel blasphemous because it’s seen as antisemitic.
It’s a poorly written article that confuses with its wrong translation of “Staatsraison” and omits the classification of Samidoun as a wing of PFLP, declared a terrorist organization by both the EU and the US. Supporting terrorist organizations is illegal. People getting canceled does not necessarily mean they did something illegal, and there hasn’t been a discussion about criminalizing criticism of Israel.
Criticizing Netanyahu’s actions is very popular in Germany. It’s just true that the German government does not do that enough.
Classic Germany. Goes from Nazist to Progressive so hard they end up on the other side of the spectrum back in Fascist territory.
How can that be a classic behaviour? For one, they haven’t done it, as illustrated by how hard they’ve cracked down on any facist behaviour since the cessation of WII. And wouldn’t they have had to have done it more than once for it to be a classic behaviour? They’ve literally been nazists once. They’d have to have been nazists more than once, and gone through the phases you’ve described for any normal person to call it a “classic”.
You know what is an example of a classic behaviour though? Internet “experts” who just trust what they’re given and don’t do any research about it. Like you’ve done. Want proof? Read the other reply to the comment you’ve replied to here. And if that’s not enough, explain to me why the German foreign minister hasn’t been jailed/charged/etc for these remarks. Never trust just one source.
Wow. You know absolutely nothing about current germany.
It’s a common “official” response from Western governments in light of justified criticism of the State of Israel’s policies on Palestinians. The idea is that Israel is perfect because it was founded by Holocaust survivors and they can do no wrong and anybody that questions that is a Nazi.
Excellent
… You mean it wasn’t already banned? lol
Immediately following the war and for a few decades after no one would have thought that Nazis were ok. Either your brother or neighbor or father fought them or died fighting them. By the time the 80s were coming around though the younger generations were forgetting or uncaring of what granddad or the old man in the barbershop did 40 years ago. Now it’s so far back that the youth have almost no connection to the heroes who fought against the nazis and so believe the disinformation spewed by modern Nazis.
Most people never needed an excuse to not sieg heil.
No? I’m pretty sure it’s legal in 99% of the world.
other hate symbols
such as? am I going to prison for owning a black flag?
The new laws also make the act of glorifying OR praising acts of terrorism a criminal offense.
I will not stop praising or glorifying climate protestors laying across lanes of traffic. you being a little bit late to your soul sucking 9 to 5 isn’t an act of terrorism.
The word Terrorist is already used as a truncheon against dissidents. Convicted Terrorist is about to become the 3rd gender in Australia.On the internet words like terrorist, fascist, and genocide seemingly has lost all meaning. It’s just an expression of dumb emotions.
But in a court of law these words do have defined meanings. The internet != real life.
And yeah a law in which the intent is to reduce antisemitism by banning symbols carried by antisemitic people may result in it being illegal for you to display your black flag in public if that same flag as carried by people who promote violence against Jews.
This might trigger some introspection in some people about why they’re in possession of symbols that are also carried by people that promote racist violence. Is there is significant difference between your black flag and a swastika in terms of how those symbols affect people?
The big problem with these laws is that the people legally defining these words are including non violent acts such as protesting.
if I say we should abolish the senate that’s not terrorism … unless you’re a senator.
and if you know anything about the black flag you know I don’t stop at the senate.
Can you point out any examples of this happening in Australia?
open any legislation, the first thing they do is define any words they use that diverge from common use.
C’mon, you’re making the claim here. If it’s as easy as opening any legislation then it shouldn’t be hard for you to provide an example.
While blocking roads isn’t terrorism, being late can have serious consequences for people. Not everyone has the ability to show up late with no consequences. Trivializing people getting fired, getting smaller raises, being late/ missing medical appointments,… is not going to help your cause.
What if everyone is too busy hating you to pollute?
They’ll pollute even more as they’re idling on the highway waiting to move instead of getting to their destination more efficiently.
Damn the protest might add an extra 0.0000000000001% to our annual pollution.
Alienate people to your cause and increase pollution. It doesn’t seem like an effective way to protect the climate.
“I was going to support not causing the extinction of our species but someone made me late to work one day, so I support climate change now due to spite”
Said nobody ever.
It’s more I don’t want to associate with this group they made me lose my job and then said suck it up its for the greater good.
it’s ok to hate as long as it’s the right people I guess.
meanwhile truck drivers blocking tunnels because they don’t know their clearance don’t go to jail.
You don’t see a difference between intentional and accidential acts?
Yeah, that second part is concerning.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“No one in Australia will be allowed to glorify or profit from acts and symbols that celebrate the Nazis and their evil ideology,” the press release said.
The landmark new laws were introduced as Australia tries to get to grips with a spike in antisemitism in the country as the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza rages.
Preliminary data released by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry showed a rise in antisemitic incidents in the wake of the bloody Oct. 7 terror attack on southern Israel by Hamas militants, which the Israeli government says left more than 1,400 people dead.
Israel launched an immediate war on Hamas in response, which health officials in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip say has killed nearly 23,000 people.
In October, unverified video went viral online showing a small group of people appearing to chant antisemitic slogans at a pro-Palestinian demonstration outside the Sydney Opera House.
A video posted on social media on Oct. 8 by the conservative Australian Jewish Association group purportedly showed protesters launching flares and chanting “Gas the Jews” and other antisemitic refrains.
The original article contains 367 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the reports of the chants as “horrific” and “appealing” at the time of the incident.
You mean “appalling”, right? Hope that was a typo.
No more WW2 video games with German swastikas?
deleted by creator
I’m sure there will be exceptions like in Germany:
Symbols known to fall under the law are: the swastika as a symbol of the Nazi Party, prohibited in all variants, including mirrored, inverted etc. (exceptions are only applied to swastikas used as religious symbols in Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain temples)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
Have you heard about the paradox of tolerance?
I think there’s a very clear difference between a Buddhist swastika and a Nazi one. Nazis aren’t hard to pick out. And this is not a bad precedent. Nazis shouldn’t be afforded the freedom to speak. Their ideology should not be tolerated in any way whatsoever by a fair society.
Their ideology does not spread by reason or debate. It spreads by reinforcement, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. Giving them a platform to speak merely enables them to recruit. There is no debating them, as they have no points of debate. You can’t tell a Nazi they are factually wrong. That makes no difference in their ideology. You will say, “You’re wrong about Jewish people,” and the Nazi will point to the audience and say, "See how far the conspiracy goes? Even this guy is a part of it, " and some people in the crowd will genuinely believe them. They don’t need to win over every person at once, just more and more and more of them over time. Allowing them to speak in public is effectively the same thing as promoting them. They should not be afforded the option.
There isn’t a clear difference, all the cope about 45 degree angles and such is neo-Nazi gaslighting. You can find numerous examples in propaganda and military markings of the Nazis using it damn near anyway they wanted. And Buddhists and Hindus for that matter. It’s not anywhere near an exclusively Buddhist symbol btw.
The difference is simply in who’s using it and why.
What I meant wasn’t that there is a visual difference, but that context makes it crystal clear which symbol it is. I don’t mean in architecture or something, I mean you see a Nazi waving a Nazi flag or wearing a Nazi arm band or something and you’re not going to have to take a second to consider whether he’s using it in a religious way or not.
For real. It’s not hard.
You dont hate nazis. You are arguing exactly as every Nazi here in germany argues against the same laws. The nazi swastika is not the same as the sun wheel and no one gets in trouble for displaying the sun wheel. It is not freedom to allow people to communicate the idea that mass murdering innocents is cool
Yes, Nazi swastika is tilted 45 degree. The issue now is whether people can recognise one without calling out religious symbol as nazi. I remember a post on reddit where op posted their new home where the previous owner have swastika tiles and want to get rid of it for the fear of getting associated with nazi, while the comment point it out it shouldn’t be the case.
deleted by creator
Do you know what set a bad precedent? The Holocaust. The Second World War.
Never again.
The moment they ban a swastika, it’s a slippery slope to… Absolutely nothing.
There’s lots of things banned.
Freeze peach isn’t world wide. Try it. Go to Thailand and insult the monarchy.
And even without the ban, some concepts/terms have a “fuck around and find out” around them. Try pointing a toy gun at a cop, does that infringe on your freedom?
This can only work if they change their neuliberal ideology and the myth of the free market regulating. They have to answer the issues of the inequalities. Otherwise, they banned symbols and profits. But, the ideology will still be present. And this one, you have to address social and systemic issues to fight it.
You guys I heard the Soviet Union killed millions of people. Should we ban their flag and symbols, too?
If there’s people wearing a hammer and sickle on their arms going around being violent shitheads, then yes.
And the USSR was a state capitalism regime. I personally prefer extrem capitalism to define it.
The human was seen as a machine and health care as the repair shop for them. Breaks were provided to let the machine “cool down”. And the capital was in the hand of a handful of people.
The ideology was here to control the minds.
Tell me you think real socialism has never been tried without telling me real socialism has never been tried.
It hasn’t, and even the Soviets would have agreed.
But real (anarcho)capitalism hasn’t either.
Oh wait, no, it has, and it became a dictatorial shithole every time lol
deleted by creator
Tell me you think capitalism is working just fine without telling me you think capitalism is working just fine.
deleted by creator
Of course it has been tried, it even has been successful! See e.g. Chiapas and Rojava.
What’s true is that Marxist-Leninist-Maoists have never tried socialism, which shouldn’t be too surprising given that they’re authoritarian which inevitably leads to state capitalism. Heck Socdems are more socialist than MLMs.
I like that acronym you made of authlefts.
Has it?
The USSR was definitionally about as socialist as the DPRK is democratic. I don’t know why you’d believe either of them - particularly when you seem so pessimistic about such “socialist” regimes.
Real modern capitalism hadn’t been tried until it had… nor had mercantile capitalism before that… or feudalism before that… Doing things that haven’t been done is a necessary part of progress - you do understand that, don’t you?
